PFAS and Emerging Contaminants

Latest from PFAS and Emerging Contaminants - Page 3

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted EPA’s motion to lift the stay in the litigation challenging the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for six PFAS chemicals (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA commonly known as GenX, and PFBS).  On August 1, the parties submitted a joint request to the Court seeking the following: 1)

Updating our recent post, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has now clarified its recent statement, following significant public comment, that it would exercise its statutory authority to extend the compliance deadline for its proposed reporting rules for products containing intentionally added PFAS.  The MPCA announced on July 23, 2025, that the reporting deadline

DuPont/Chemours Trial. On June 30, 2025, the next bench trial phase or “mini-trial” commenced in NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION, ET AL., VS. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, ET AL., Docket No. 19-cv-14766 (RMB/JBC) before the Honorable Renée Marie Bumb of the Federal District of New Jersey (Camden).  However, this mini-trial on

            After evaluating public comments on its proposed PFAS-in-products reporting rules (see our previous posts here and here), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has agreed to exercise its authority under section 116.943 of the Minnesota Statutes (Amara’s Law) and extend the deadline for manufacturers (including importers) to comply with the statute’s reporting requirements

On June 30, 2025 the next bench trial phase or “mini-trial” commences in NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION, ET AL., VS. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, ET AL., Docket No. 19-cv-14766 (RMB/JBC) before the Honorable Renée Marie Bumb of the Federal District of New Jersey (Camden).  This trial relates to alleged PFAS

Minnesota’s Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) held a public hearing on May 22, 2025 concerning its proposed rules that would implement PFAS-in-products reporting requirements and associated fees on entities covered by Amara’s Law (which we have previously discussed here and here).  The Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, which presided over the May hearing, has announced