
Daniel T. McKillop
Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
Date: April 12, 2024

Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.com
On April 10, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the first federal regulation limiting the amount of certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, found in drinking water. The final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) establishes drinking water standards for six PFAS, with compliance phased in over the next several years.
As discussed in greater detail in prior articles, PFAS are a large category of organic chemicals that have been used since the 1940s to repel oil and water and resist heat. While they are a key component in certain products, such as nonstick cookware, stain-resistant clothing, and firefighting foam, there is significant evidence that exposure to certain PFAS over an extended period can cause cancer and other illnesses. Studies have also shown that PFAS exposure during critical life stages, such as pregnancy or early childhood, can lead to adverse health impacts.
While many U.S. manufacturers have stopped using PFAS in favor of safer alternatives, prior discharges have resulted in very high levels of PFAS in many public and private water systems. According to EWG, more than 320 military sites across the U.S. have PFAS contamination, and more than 200 million Americans may be drinking contaminated water.
Over the past several years, the Biden Administration has taken several steps to address PFAS contamination, including the creation of a PFAS Strategic Roadmap. As part of this initiative, the EPA has established methods to better measure PFAS; added seven PFAS to the list of chemicals covered by the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); enacted a final rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to require manufacturers of PFAS and PFAS-containing articles to report information to EPA on PFAS uses, production volumes, disposal, exposures, and hazards; named PFAS as a National Enforcement and Compliance Initiative for 2024-2027; and proposed designating certain PFAS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Establishing PFAS water drinking standards was a central goal of the EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA has the authority to set enforceable National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for drinking water contaminants and require monitoring of public water systems.
The new National Primary Drinking Water Regulation establishes legally enforceable levels, known as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), for five individual PFAS in drinking water – PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA – and for PFAS mixtures containing at least two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS, the new rule uses a Hazard Index MCL to account for the combined and co-occurring levels of these PFAS in drinking water (a PFAS mixture Hazard Index greater than 1 indicates an exceedance of the health-protective level). Below is a summary:
Additionally, the NPDWR requires public water systems to determine whether PFAS is in their drinking water and take actions such as notifying consumers and reducing the levels of PFAS, as needed. Below is a summary of the key requirements:
The EPA is holding three informational webinars for communities, water systems, and other drinking water professionals about the final PFAS NPDWR. These webinars are scheduled on April 16, April 23, and April 30, 2024. You can find information here.
The federal government is also providing funding to assist public water utility companies in complying with the new drinking water standards. A total of $1 billion will be available to states and territories to implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems. That money is part of a $9 billion investment authorized under the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to assist communities impacted by PFAS contamination.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!