The PFAS liability landscape.

The liability regime

In 2024 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act). Published May 8, 2024, effective July 8, 2024. That pulls PFAS into the Superfund liability framework, which is the sharpest tool in the field. EPA ↗

CERCLA liability is what makes cheap disposal a long tail exposure:

• Strict. No fault defense. If a party sent some of the hazardous substance found at a site, it is liable.
• Retroactive. Parties can be held liable for acts that predate CERCLA's 1980 enactment. Disposal that was lawful when done is still reachable.
• Joint and several. Any one potentially responsible party can be held liable for the entire cleanup.
• Arranger and generator liability (Section 107(a)). A party that arranged for PFAS waste to go to a landfill or site can be liable for the cleanup years later.

The reportable quantity is one pound of PFOA or PFOS in any 24 hours, reported to the National Response Center. EPA's April 2024 enforcement discretion policy says it will focus on manufacturers and major industrial parties and does not intend to pursue passive receivers such as water utilities, municipal airports, farmers, and fire departments. Note the limit: that is a revocable policy, not a statutory exemption, and it does not bar private party contribution suits. EPA policy ↗

The AFFF multidistrict litigation

The largest front is In re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2873, before Judge Richard M. Gergel in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (master docket 2:18-mn-2873). Consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in December 2018, it gathers thousands of cases alleging that AFFF contaminated groundwater near military bases, airports, and industrial sites. U.S. District Court ↗

Major public water system settlements:

• 3M agreed to roughly $10.5 to $12.5 billion to public water systems, paid over about 13 years (court approval 2024).
• DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva agreed to approximately $1.185 billion to public water systems.

Those resolved drinking water claims. Personal injury claims remain in active litigation, and state attorneys general have brought their own actions (for example, Minnesota's $850 million settlement with 3M). Settlement administrator ↗

A regulatory framework in flux

The statutes in play: the Safe Drinking Water Act (the 2024 Maximum Contaminant Levels), CERCLA, the Toxic Substances Control Act (the PFAS reporting rule), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (Toxics Release Inventory), and the Clean Water Act (discharge permits). See the full laws and regulations page. EPA ↗

The live risk for advising clients is that the ground is moving. In May 2026 the EPA proposed to keep the PFOA and PFOS limits but extend compliance to 2031, and to rescind the limits for PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and the Hazard Index. As of mid 2026 those are proposed, not final, and all six 2024 standards remain in effect. The AFFF settlements and the CERCLA designation are not affected by the drinking water proposal. EPA proposed rule ↗

Maritime and international

At sea, discharging firefighting foam is barred by the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the London Convention and Protocol on dumping, and removed foam must go to shore based reception facilities under the International Maritime Organization's 2026 rules. Enforcement runs through the flag state and Port State Control. See the laws of the sea. Internationally, the polluter pays principle (OECD, 1972) and the EU Environmental Liability Directive (2004/35/EC) mirror the CERCLA logic. EU ELD ↗

Documentation decides who pays

The practical thread through all of it: the burden is on the holder to prove lawful disposal. Without a certificate of destruction or an unbroken chain of custody, a party cannot show that foam or waste was destroyed rather than released, and undocumented material can be treated as a release, with the liability that follows. For counsel structuring a takeback, a remediation, or a defense, the documentation is the evidence. That is the function of an independent chain of custody record.