The PFAS & Plastics Legal Review is BakerHostetler’s weekly newsletter providing updates to industry stakeholders on all issues relating to emerging contaminants, chemicals issues, and supply chain readiness. BakerHostetler’s team is here to provide your business with guidance on long-term business strategies, investments, compliance, partnerships, and litigation risk analysis. When necessary, our cross-team of litigation and enforcement attorneys are ready to interface with regulators or take a case through to trial. We are here to assist you. If you require any additional information on the below updates, don’t hesitate to reach out.
PFAS
EPA Not Currently Looking to Preempt State PFAS Laws
On Monday, April 27, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin met with the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment to discuss EPA's proposed budget. When Administrator Zeldin was asked whether he anticipated that EPA would start preempting state protections on PFAS. Administrator Zeldin responded that he wasn't "seeing that as a threat right now." The Administrator went on to explain that there is a desire to implement the PFOA and PFOS MCLs. He also encouraged members of Congress to continue look at addressing passive receive status as it relates to PFAS, "to make sure that we have [a] polluter pays model."
US Trade Representative Identifies PFAS as Potential International Trade Barrier
In its 2026 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barrier, the United States Trade Representative identified increased restrictions on PFAS in Canada and the EU as potential barriers to international trade. In a section on the "Risk Management Approach for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances," the report notes that "U.S. industry has raised concerns about Canada's treatment of PFAS as a class, given the different hazard profiles of these substances, and the lack of reference to prior chemical assessments in the State of PFAS Report." Similarly, in the section dedicated to the EU's handling of PFAS, the report explained that the "United States is concerned that the EU proposal is not science-based as it does not adequately consider the different hazard and associated risk profile of the various PFAS chemicals that would be subject to the proposed restriction. It also does not consider the implications of the ban for several critical uses, such as in the production of some renewable energy products, as well as other manufactured goods, such as semiconductors, heat pumps, air conditioning, medical devices, and propellants . . ."
EPA Releases Interim Guidance on Destruction and Disposal of PFAS
On April 20th, EPA updated its interim guidance on the destruction and disposal of PFAS. EPA identifies three specific technologies with "a lower potential for environmental release of PFAS compared to other technologies." This includes underground injection through permitted Class I non-hazardous industrial or hazardous waste injection wells, permitted RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste landfills, and permitted hazardous waste combustors, such as commercial incinerators, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns and granular activated carbon reactivation units with thermal oxidizers.
Producer Responsibility & Recycling
Florida AG Launches Antitrust Investigation Into "Problematic Materials" Lists
On April 21st, the Attorney General of Florida issued Civil Investigative Demands to multiple corporations and environmental groups as part of an antitrust investigation into environmental groups pressuring companies to make changes to product lines due to contaminant concerns, resulting in higher prices for consumers. The targeted groups must produce documentation related to "problematic materials" lists and records of the steps corporations have taken to eliminate those "problematic materials" from its product lines. The demand sent to the U.S. Plastics Pact can be viewed below.
Oregon Releases EPR Status List; Identifies Companies Failing to Comply
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has released its producer status list, identifying more than 200 companies that have failed to register with or pay fees for its packaging EPR program. Maximum penalties under the rule can reach $25,000 per day, per violation. While a U.S. District Court has granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the program, it only applies to members of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
