This quarterly newsletter provides updates on litigation, regulatory, legislative, and other notable developments involving chemicals of concern to business. We presently focus on certain emerging contaminants, including perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), hexavalent chromium, trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP), and 1,4-dioxane. We hope you find this publication informative, and we welcome your feedback on chemicals of interest to your organization.
Giovanni v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy (E.D. Pa., 3d Cir.)
In July 2017, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a lawsuit brought by residents of a neighborhood near the US Navy's Willow Grove facility that has been impacted by PFC contamination.1 The plaintiffs sought to require the Navy to pay the costs of medical monitoring and to prepare a health study of residents in the area around the Willow Grove facility.2 They brought their action under the Pennsylvania Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, which creates strict liability for the release and threatened release of contaminants and hazardous substances.3 The Department of the Navy moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the district court was barred from hearing the case by Section 113(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLA Section 113(h) provides that, "[n]o Federal court shall have jurisdiction . . . to review any challenges to removal or remedial action selected under [CERCLA].4 The plaintiffs argued that their request for medical monitoring did not constitute a challenge to a removal or remedial action under CERCLA Section 113. The district court disagreed, finding that allowing the plaintiffs to seek medical monitoring costs from the Department of the Navy would be contrary to the purpose of CERCLA Section 113(h) because it would necessarily require the court to make a finding about responsibility for the contamination at the site and would constitute judicial interference with EPA's remediation of the site. The district court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that CERCLA Section 113(h) only divested the federal courts of jurisdiction and that their action could therefore be heard in state court.
In this decision, the district court declined to follow the Ninth Circuit's decision in Durfey v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., which the plaintiffs relied on in arguing that actions seeking costs for medical monitoring do not constitute a challenge to a CERCLA removal or remedial action under CERCLA Section 113.5 The plaintiffs have appealed the district court's decision to the Third Circuit. If the Third Circuit adopts the reasoning of the district court in this matter, it would set up a circuit split on the effect of CERCLA Section 113(h) on jurisdiction over medical monitoring claims. This potential circuit split is likely to be of particular interest to the Department of Defense, which is preparing to spend up to $2 billion investigating PFC contamination at about 400 military facilities.6
Roanoke River Basin Ass'n v. Duke Energy Progress LLC (I & II) (M.D.N.C.)
The Roanoke River Basin Association filed suit against Duke Energy Progress (Duke Energy) in May 2017 alleging violations of the Clean Water Act arising out of Duke Energy's alleged failure to properly maintain its coal ash site at the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant (Roxboro Plant).7 The Roanoke River Basin Association alleged that Duke Energy's failure to maintain its coal ash pits in accordance with the requirements of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit has caused coal ash wastes to seep into the groundwater. In August 2017, the Roanoke River Basin Association filed a separate lawsuit against Duke Energy alleging that Duke Energy's closure plan for the coal ash lagoons at the Roxboro Plant violate the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Coal Combustion Residuals Rule (CCR Rule).8 The complaint claims that, pursuant to the Roxboro Plant closure plan, coal ash will remain in the lagoons in violation of the CCR Rule and will therefore continue to allow pollutants like hexavalent chromium to enter the groundwater. The Roanoke River Basin Association also alleges that Duke Energy's current plan, with respect to the coal ash lagoons at the Roxboro Plant, will leave a coal ash basin and partial impoundment in a 100-year floodplain, an alleged violation of RCRA. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment that Duke Energy is violating the CCR Rule and RCRA, and an injunction requiring Duke Energy to file a closure plan that complies with the requirements of the CCR Rule and RCRA.
Michigan Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Ford Motor Co. (E.D. Mich.)
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) entered into a consent decree with Ford Motor Company which requires Ford to take response actions to "abate any imminent and substantial danger to human health and the environment" presented by the presence of contaminants including TCE and 1,4 dioxane at Ford's transmission plant in Livonia, Michigan.7 MDEQ alleged that the contamination entered the soil and groundwater at the Livonia plant between the 1950s and the 1980s, and that Ford discovered the contamination during renovations of the facility in 2014.8 Ford has been conducting groundwater sampling near the Livonia plant since at least February 2016,9 and began conducting soil vapor monitoring around mid-2017.10 Under the MDEQ consent decree, Ford is required to perform a remedial investigation at the Livonia plant and undertake any remedial actions deemed necessary following the remedial investigation. The company must also reimburse MDEQ for costs that MDEQ has incurred in responding to contamination at the site. The entry of this consent decree, however, has received pushback from some residents, and has led to the filing of a private suit against Ford, discussed in further detail below.11
Tenniswood v. Ford Motor Co. (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne County)
More than 100 residents of neighborhoods near the Livonia Transmission Plant filed suit against Ford on August 9, 2017, alleging contamination of their properties arising out of Ford's activities at the Livonia Transmission Plant.12 The plaintiffs allege that the contamination has interfered with the use and enjoyment of their properties, as well as "substantially diminished" the value of their properties. The complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, private nuisance, public nuisance, and trespass. In addition, plaintiffs allege that Ford's trespass onto their properties caused, "despoiling and/or injuring [of] trees, plants, grasses and/or other foliage," in violation of Michigan state law Section 600.2919.13 The plaintiffs seek treble damages from Ford under Section 600.2919.
Challenges to TSCA Rules
Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and numerous other organizations (collectively, Petitioners) have filed lawsuits in three circuits challenging two of the "framework rules" issued by EPA pursuant to the June 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Earthjustice and numerous other organizations14 filed lawsuits challenging the TSCA Risk Prioritization and Risk Evaluation rules in the Ninth Circuit, while the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Cape Fear River Watch and the Natural Resources Defense Council have filed similar lawsuits in the Fourth Circuit, and the Environmental Defense Fund has filed similar lawsuits in the Second Circuit.15
The Petitioners are challenging the TSCA Risk Prioritization and Risk Evaluation rules, both finalized in July 2017, as "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law . . ." in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Risk Prioritization Rule establishes the process by which EPA will designate chemical substances as high priority or low priority for risk evaluations.16 The Risk Evaluation Rule establishes the process by which EPA will evaluate the risks of chemical substances.17 Both rules went into effect on September 18, 2017. A judicial challenge to these rulemakings is somewhat surprising given that, in the notice and comment phase, these rulemakings attracted relatively little public attention when compared to other TSCA rulemakings, such as those proposing to regulate the use of TCE.18 However, EPA has yet to finalize a rule regulating the use of a particular chemical substance like TCE under the new TSCA Section 6(a), so environmental organizations may be using this challenge to the Risk Evaluation and Prioritization Rules to test judicial willingness to review EPA rulemakings promulgated under the amended TSCA.
On August 31, EPA moved to consolidate these actions. On September 1, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the actions challenging the TSCA Risk Prioritization Rule in the Ninth Circuit, and consolidated the actions challenging the TSCA Risk Evaluation Rule in the Fourth Circuit.19 Subsequently, industry stakeholders—including the American Chemistry Council, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, and the American Petroleum Institute—filed a motion to intervene in the consolidated actions.20 The motions to intervene are currently pending in front of the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.
Additionally, on September 1, 2017, the Environmental Defense Fund filed a petition with the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit requesting review of a third TSCA framework rule: the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements (TSCA Inventory Rule).21 The final TSCA Inventory Rule was published on August 11, 2017. This rule requires manufacturers, importers and processors of chemical substances to (i) report retroactively any substance which has been active in US commerce between June 21, 2006 and June 21, 2016, and (ii) file a report with EPA going forward if they plan to manufacture, import or process a chemical substance that has been placed on the "inactive" portion of the TSCA inventory.22 Similar to the TSCA Risk Evaluation and Risk Prioritization Rules, the TSCA Inventory Rule attracted relatively little public attention during the public comment period. However, as with the lawsuits challenging the framework rules, this lawsuit suggests that environmental organizations will be aggressively challenging EPA actions under the new TSCA, even if there is not significant public pressure to do so.
FEDERAL REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE ACTION
EPA's Regulatory Agenda Sheds Light on Plans for TSCA Rules
On August 24, 2017, EPA published its first semiannual regulatory agenda under the Trump Administration (Spring 2017 Regulatory Agenda).23 EPA generally issues its regulatory agenda on a biannual basis: once in the spring and once in the fall.24 The Regulatory Agenda offers a high-level look at the status of EPA regulations and EPA priorities for the upcoming months, and provides insights on timelines for actions on specific rulemaking initiatives.
The Spring 2017 Regulatory Agenda offers clues about EPA's plans with respect to the TSCA Section 6(a) rules for N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and methylene chloride, which were issued in the final days of the Obama Administration. The agenda indicates that EPA intends to move forward with issuing a supplemental proposed rulemaking for the regulation of the use of NMP and methylene chloride in furniture refinishing.25 In its proposed Section 6(a) rule for the use of NMP and methylene chloride in paint and coating removal, EPA indicated that it planned to issue a supplemental proposed rule addressing furniture refinishing, and then ultimately issue a final rule covering the use of NMP and methylene chloride in both paint and coating removal, and furniture refinishing.26 EPA's semiannual regulatory agenda suggests that EPA plans to keep to the planned outlined in the proposed rule, meaning a final rule on NMP and methylene chloride is not likely to be issued soon.
The Spring 2017 Regulatory Agenda also addresses the status of EPA's TSCA Section 6(a) rulemakings for TCE, which were issued near the end of the Obama Administration. The agenda describes EPA's proposed rule to regulate the use of TCE in spot cleaning and aerosol spray as a "long-term action," meaning that EPA does not intend to issue the final rule for at least twelve months.27 The other proposed Section 6(a) rule for TCE—regulating the use of TCE in vapor degreasing—has not been designated as a "long-term action," although EPA has not yet indicated when it will publish the final rule.28
EPA's semiannual regulatory agenda also offers some clues about the status of the agency's outstanding TSCA framework rule: the TSCA Fees Rule (Fees Rule). The agency's "First Year Implementation Plan" for the June 2016 Lautenberg Amendments to TSCA indicated that EPA planned to issue a proposed Fees Rule in December 2016, and finalize the rule in June 2017—along the same schedule as the TSCA Risk Evaluation and Risk Prioritization Rules.29 While EPA timely proposed and finalized the TSCA Risk Evaluation and Risk Prioritization Rules, the agency has made no public progress on the Fees Rule. EPA's semiannual regulatory agenda, however, suggests a new timeline for this rule. The regulatory agenda indicates that EPA plans to issue a proposed Fees Rule in August 2017 and finalize the Fees Rule by June 2018.30 However, as of the beginning of September 2017, EPA had not published a proposed Fees Rule, suggesting that the timeline for the publication of this rule could continue to slip.
Senators Request Funds for Cleanup of PFCs at Military Facilities
Seven Democratic Senators have requested that Senate Appropriations Committee designate Department of Defense funds to investigate the impact of PFCs at about 400 military facilities across the country.31 Specifically, in an August 31, 2017 letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senators Michael Bennet (CO), Patty Murray (WA), Maria Cantwell (WA), Bob Casey (PA), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Maggie Hassan (NH) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) asked that the Fiscal Year 2018 budget for the Department of Defense (DoD) include funding for a study on the health effects of PFC contamination in drinking water, groundwater, and other potential exposure pathways. The Senators also encouraged the Committee to include language in the Fiscal Year 2018 appropriations bill for the DoD requiring preparation of a "robust" budget for the investigation and remediation of PFCs at military facilities. The DoD has estimated that it may require up to $2 billion to address PFC contamination. Each of the Senators supporting this request comes from a state impacted by PFC contamination on military facilities. This contamination is believed to be the result of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), which was used as a fire fighting agent at these facilities.
STATE REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE ACTION
California Starts Over on Maximum Contaminant Level for Hexavalent Chromium
In May 2017, the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County, found that the State Water Resources Control Board did not adequately consider the economic consequences of its 10 parts per billion (ppb) maximum contaminant level (MCL) for hexavalent chromium, and ordered the board to withdraw the MCL.32 On August 1, 2017, the board expressed disagreement with the Superior Court's decision, but announced that it would not appeal the decision.33 The board also withdrew the MCL and indicated that it would begin developing a new MCL for hexavalent chromium. Until the new MCL is finalized, California's 50 ppb MCL for "total chromium," including both hexavalent chromium and trivalent chromium, will be the standard for public water systems.34
As a result of the Superior Court decision, the board will also cease enforcement of compliance plans entered into by public water systems for hexavalent chromium. However, some water districts have indicated that they plan to continue their efforts to meet the withdrawn 10 ppb MCL. For example, the Phelan Pinon Hills Community Services District plans to move forward with the compliance plan that it adopted last year after detecting hexavalent chromium levels of 10-16 ppb because it believes that the board is likely to reissue an MCL of 10 ppb for hexavalent chromium after the board completes a study of the economic consequences of this MCL.35
California Establishes MCL for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP)
The State Water Resources Control Board adopted an MCL for TCP of 5 parts per trillion (ppt) on July 18, 2017.36 The effective date for the regulations is October 1, 2017. TCP has been classified as a likely carcinogen by EPA, but EPA has not set an MCL for TCP at the federal level.37 The board proposed the MCL in February 2017 and accepted public comments. Notably, in the board's draft response to public comments, also published on July 18, 2017, the board indicated that some water districts have successfully recovered the costs of water treatment systems for TCP from potentially responsible parties: "Although adoption of the proposed regulations may provide clarity and assist public water systems in their litigation or negotiations with responsible parties over reimbursement for treatment costs, that is not the intent of the State Water Board's actions in adopting the regulations."38 Regardless of the board's intention in adopting this MCL, the board's statement and the focus of numerous public comments on recovering funds from potentially responsible parties foreshadows further litigation involving TCP as a result of this regulation.California Expands Authority of Local Air Quality Officials
On August 7, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation that will allow local air quality officials to expedite their response to air pollution that poses a danger to public health. The legislation, which will take effect on January 1, 2018, allows local air quality officials to require a facility to immediately cease operations if air pollution from the facility endangers public health.39 Under current law, when an air quality board detects harmful air pollution, it is required to give notice to the facility emitting the pollution and provide an opportunity for a hearing before issuing an order of abatement and requiring the facility to cease operations if it cannot reduce pollution.40 This legislation comes following a number of incidents in California when high levels of hexavalent chromium were emitted from facilities in Paramount, California and Newport Beach, California, among others.
New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is considering establishing MCLs for TCP and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) in New Jersey drinking water. The NJDEP initially discussed possible MCLs for TCP and PFNA in March 2017,41 and on August 7, 2017, NJDEP published proposed amendment to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act rules to establish these MCLs.42 As with TCP, there is no federal drinking water standard for PFNA. The proposed MCL for PFNA comes after PFNA was detected in New Jersey drinking water at levels between 0.024 µg/l and 0.056 µg/l. NJDEP is proposing an MCL of 0.013 µg/l for PFNA. The proposed MCL for TCP also comes after TCP was detected in New Jersey drinking water at levels between 0.03 µg/l and 0.051 µg/l. NJDEP is proposing an MCL of 0.03 µg/l for TCP.
On September 18, 2017, NJDEP adopted revised soil remediation standards for 19 contaminants.43 The standards for eleven contaminants have been revised upward (relaxed). Soil standards for Thallium were deleted while standards for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane were updated but unchanged. Standards for three contaminants (1,1-biphenyl; cyanide; and nitrobenzene) have been lowered by more than an order of magnitude which triggers a pre-existing obligation to review the effectiveness of any existing or planned remedial action.44 These changes were made to reflect revision by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the Integrated Risk Information System from which New Jersey soil standards are derived.45
In late June, two members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly introduced a bill that would provide the governor of Pennsylvania with additional powers to address contamination from PFCs in the state.46 If the bill becomes law, it will give the governor of Pennsylvania the authority to designate areas with PFCs in groundwater or surface water at levels greater than 15 ppt as "special drinking water resource-impacted communit[ies]."47 This designation would allow the governor to prioritize the use of state resources to respond to the contamination, akin to the state's response to a natural disaster. This bill was introduced in response to the discovery of PFC contamination at a number of current or former military facilities in Pennsylvania, including the Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster and the Horsham Air Guard Station.
The Minnesota Department of Health issued updated health guidance values for PFOA and PFOS in late May 2017.48 The stated intention of the guidance values is to protect vulnerable populations, specifically pregnant women, nursing women and infants, which the Department of Health does not feel are sufficiently protected by the current EPA health guidance value of 70 ppt. The Minnesota Department of Health established health guidance values of 35 ppt and 27 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, respectively. The Minnesota Pollution Control Authority has indicated that parties remediating PFC-contaminated sites in Minnesota will be required to meet the Minnesota Department of Health guidance values.49
1. Giovanni v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy, CIVIL ACTION No. 16-4873, 2017 WL 2880749 (E.D. Pa. July 6, 2017).
2. Giovanni v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy, Case No. 2:16-cv-04873-TJS (E.D. Pa. September 16, 2016).
3. 35 P.S. § 6020.702.
4. 42 U.S.C. § 9613(h).
5. 59 F.3d 131 (9th Cir. 1995).
6. Letter from Senators Michael Bennet, Patty Murray, Bob Casey, Maria Cantwell, Jeanne Shaheen, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Maggie Hassan to Senators Thad Cochran and Patrick Leahy, Senate Appropriations Committee (Aug. 31, 2017).
7. Michigan Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:17-12372-GAD-RSW (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2017).
8. Complaint, Michigan Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:17-12372-GAD-RSW (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2017).
9. Letter from Robert A. Groden, Livonia Transmission Plant, to Residents, February 3, 2016.
10. Letter from Robert A. Groden, Livonia Transmission Plant, to Residents, July 14, 2017.
11. Tenniswood v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 17-011941-NZ (Cir. Ct. Mich. Aug. 9, 2017)
13. MCL 600.2919 provides that, "any person who... injures any trees on another's land... without permission of the owner of the lands . . . is liable to the owner of the land or the public corporation for three times the amount of actual damages."
14. Earthjustice is joined in its lawsuits by Alaska Community Action on Toxics; Environmental Health Strategy Center; Environmental Working Group; Learning Disabilities Association of America; Sierra Club; Union of Concerned Scientists; United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Union; AFL-CIO/CLC; We Act for Environmental Justice; Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization; and Vermont Public Interest Research Group.
15. Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA, No. 17-72259 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2017); Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA, No. 17-72260 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2017); Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Env'ts v. EPA, Case No. 17-1926 (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2017); Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Env'ts v. EPA, Case No. 17-1927 (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2017); Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, Case No. 17-2464 (2d Cir. Aug. 11, 2017); Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, Case No. 17-2403 (2d Cir. Aug. 11, 2017)
16. Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, 82 Fed. Reg. 33,753 (July 20, 2017).
17. Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act, 82 Fed. Reg. 33,725 (July 20, 2017).
18. A total of fewer than 150 public comments were submitted in response to EPA's proposed Risk Prioritization Rules and Risk Evaluation rules, whereas EPA received more than 67,000 public comments in response to its proposed rulemaking to regulate the use of TCE in vapor degreasing.
19. In re EPA, Final Rule: Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, Case MCP No. 148 (J.P.M.L. Sept. 1, 2017).; In re EPA, Final Rule: Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act, Case MCP No. 149 (J.P.M.L. Sept. 1, 2017).
20. The American Chemistry Council, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, and American Petroleum Institute were joined in their motion to intervene by American Coatings Association, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Forest and Paper Association, Battery Council International, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, EPS Industry Alliance, IPC International, Inc., doing business as IPC – Association Connecting Electronics Industries, National Association of Chemical Distributors, National Mining Association, Polyurethane Manufacturers Association, Silver Nanotechnology Working Group, Styrene Information and Research Center, and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group. Mot. to Intervene, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA, Case No. 17-72260 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2017), ECF No. 11; Mot. to Intervene, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Env'ts v. EPA, Case No. 17-1926 (4th Cir. Sept. 13, 2017), ECF No. 24.
21. Env'tl. Def. Fund v. EPA, Case No. 17-1201 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 1, 2017).
23. Spring 2017 Regulatory Agenda, 82 Fed. Reg. 40,348 (Aug. 24, 2017).
24. See, e.g., Spring 2016 Regulatory Agenda , 81 Fed. Reg. 37,373 (June 9, 2016); Fall 2016 Regulatory Agenda, 81 Fed. Reg. 94,810 (Dec. 23, 2016).
25. Spring 2017 Regulatory Agenda, 82 Fed. Reg. 40,348, 40,353 (Aug. 24, 2017).
26. Methylene Chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone; Regulation of Certain Uses Under TSCA Section 6(a), 82 Fed. Reg. 7,464, 7,465 (Jan. 19, 2017).
27. EPA Regulatory Agenda, Spring 2017.
28. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, View Rule: Trichloroethylene (TCE); Rulemaking Under TSCA Section 6(a); Vapor Degreasing.
29. EPA, The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act: First Year Implementation Plan (June 29, 2016).
30. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, View Rule: Service Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
31. Letter from Senators Michael Bennet, Patty Murray, Bob Casey, Maria Cantwell, Jeanne Shaheen, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Maggie Hassan to Senators Thad Cochran and Patrick Leahy, Senate Appropriations Committee (Aug. 31, 2017).
32. California Mfrs. & Tech. Ass'n v. State Water Res. Control Bd., No. 34-2014-80001850 (Super. Ct. Sacramento County) (May 5, 2017); for more information about this case, please see the June 2017 edition of The Chemical Compound, or Peggy Otum and Jonathan Koenig's June 2, 2017 Advisory.
33. Press Release, California Water Board's, State Water Board Approves Removal of Drinking Water Standard for Hexavalent Chromium (Aug. 1, 2017).
34. Press Release, California Water Boards, Chromium-6 Drinking Water MCL (updated July 25, 2017)
35. Matthew Cabe, Chromium-6 Standard Removed by State Water Resources Control Board, Victorville Daily Press (Aug. 31, 2017).
36. Press Release, California Water Boards, 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (updated July 25, 2017).
37. EPA, Technical Fact Sheet—1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) (January 2014).
38. California Water Board, DRAFT—Initial Response to Comments for Proposed 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Regulations (July 7, 2017).
39. Nonvehicular Air Pollution: Order for Abatement, A.B. 1132 (2017).
40. Press Release, Assembly Member Cristina Garcia, Bill to Halt CA Polluters Signed by Governor (Aug. 7, 2017).
41. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, NJ Rule Update: Safe Drinking Water Act N.J.A.C. 7:10 & Private Well Testing Act N.J.A.C. 7:9E (March 27, 2017).
42. 49 N.J.R. 2361(a) (Aug. 7, 2017).
43. 49 N.J.R. 3160(a) (September 18, 2017)
44. See generally NJSA 58:10B-12j and 13e and NJAC 7:26C-7.8(b)3.
45. N.J.A.C. 7:26D-6.2
46. PA House Bill 1640 (June 28, 2017)
47. Press Release, Office of Representative Bernie O'Neill, O'Neill, Watson Introduce Bill to Help Protect PA Residents from Contaminated Water Supplies.
48. Minnesota Department of Health, MDH Response to EPA Health Advisory for PFOS and PFOA (June 2017)
49. Press Release, Minnesota Department of Health, MDH Issues New Guidance on Chemicals in Some Private Wells, City Water in East Metro, Bemidji (May 23, 2017).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.