Forever Chemicals, Lasting Consequences: An Analysis of PFAS Impact on Corporate Responsibility

Written by Alyssa Thomas

As a firefighter battles a roaring fire, the real danger is not the flame – it’s the invisible cloud of forever chemicals contained in fire extinguisher foam that invades their bodies, causing irreparable, life changing damage. [1]

These “forever” chemicals are called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). 

The term PFAS is an umbrella term under which all manufactured chemicals with similar properties are classified. Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) are two chemicals used in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a fire suppressant commonly found in fire extinguishers produced by fourteen companies, notably 3M and DuPont. [2][3]

Dubbed forever chemicals due to their unique chemical structure allowing them to resist environmental degradation, PFAS persist and accumulate in people, drinking water, as well as animals. [2]

In a National Academies of Science report analyzing PFAS’s impact on human health, it was determined that there was sufficient evidence between PFAS and a weakened immune system, decreased fetal growth, and increased kidney cancer. There was a suggestive link in illnesses like ulcerative colitis and breast cancer. [1]

The dangers of PFAS are not a mere possibility — negative health outcomes are beginning to be observed in firefighters and related personnel who inhale these chemicals for their entire careers.

In addition to chronic illness, contaminated sites leak into the surrounding environment and pollute drinking water.[2]

The discovery of these consequences has resulted in a flurry of legal action, legislation, and cleanup efforts over the past four years. 

The case of The City of Stuart, FL v. 3M Co. et al. set the precedent for subsequent legal challengers. In the City of Stuart, the City alleged that the PFAS used in AFFF contaminated the City’s groundwater supply, subjecting residents to harm. [4] This AFFF fluid used in fire response was primarily manufactured by 3M.

The precedent set in this case, both from a corporate liability and personal injury perspective, was that claimants had a legal basis to sue AFFF manufacturers like 3M and DuPont. The City of Stuart case never actually went to trial due to the irrefutable link between PFAS and groundwater contamination. By 2023, the case settled in a global settlement and a final judgment of a 10.3 billion dollar payout over ten years was reached. [5]

This landmark settlement triggered a domino effect of new legal challenges that more or less culminated in strict liability being set against producers. This means that 3M, and other competitors, will be held responsible for the harm their products have on the environment as well as human health, even if the company was not aware of the risks associated with PFAS. 

Strict liability holds companies responsible even in cases of legal compliance and non-negligence. For example, companies like 3M could fully comply with all regulations governing AFFF during its legal use and have been unaware of potential harms, yet could still face financial liability claims from firefighters and other affected individuals.

This system of liability operates under the assumption that some activities, products, and/or services are inherently dangerous and consumers must be protected from them. [6]

While strict liability is on track to be (essentially) determined, the City of Philadelphia has alleged that 3M, DuPont, and other producers were aware of PFAS’s negative impacts on human health and “failed to warn customers, users, the public, and the City about those risks.” The lawsuit continues by alleging that the defendants failed to take reasonable, preventative measures to mitigate PFAS’s environmental impacts. [7] This case is currently being litigated and the City of Philadelphia is seeking reparation for pollution cleanup costs. 

The final decision of this case will have a ripple effect for similar lawsuits in which corporations will continue to be held liable for their toxic legacy.

In addition to environmental cases against producers, personal injury cases by firefighters and other personnel have started to be filed. As of November 2024, there are 7,150 pending personal injury and environmental reclamation cases filed – and counting. [5]

Furthermore, federal statute and local and state governance efforts are beginning to be implemented.

An example of this is the Environmental Protection Agency’s amendment to CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act), also known as the Superfund Act. The amendment to this act explicitly designates PFAS, both PFOA and PFOS, as hazardous substances. [8] This designation has significant implications for corporate responsibility. This essentially means that producers will be held retroactively accountable for contamination, even if areas were contaminated before the EPA designation. [8]

Retroactive liability ensures that AFFF producers and polluters, not taxpayers, are footing the bill for PFAS remediation.

In addition to the Superfund Act, the EPA has established the “first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard” and safe, ambient water standards regarding PFAS. [2]

The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), released in April 2024 by the EPA, establishes acceptable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of common PFAS in drinking water. This rule requires full monitoring of PFAS levels by 2027 and mandates treatment plans to lower PFAS levels in the case it exceeds the MCL by 2029. [2]

Legislation addressing PFAS regulation on a state level has been adopted in 30 states with others beginning to introduce bills surrounding corporate liability and safe standards. [9]
It is important to remember that these cases are unfolding in real-time, setting legal precedents through which the remaining thousands will follow. There is reason for hope — The City of Stuart v. 3M set forth a groundbreaking precedent that it is not only possible but inevitable that companies will be held liable for environmental degradation and health deterioration. While there is much more litigation to be passed, additional congressional sessions to be held, and many more votes to be cast, the legal response to PFAS contamination is gaining momentum and signaling a shift toward a more robust set of protections for the environment and public health.

Works Cited

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK582439/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK582439.pdf 
[2] https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas  
[3] https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/pfas/firefighting-foam/
[4] https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2:2018cv03487/247419/290/0.pdf?ts=1683388664 
[5] https://www.lawsuit-information-center.com/afff-lawsuit-news.html#:~:text=The%20City%20of%20Stuart%20case,in%20a%20global%20settlement%20deal.  
[6] https://www.sweeneylawfirm.com/content/strict-liability 
[7] https://www.phila.gov/2022-11-04-city-files-lawsuit-against-3m-dupont-other-chemical-companies-for-pfas/#:~:text=The%20lawsuit%20pleads%20five%20causes,its%20entirety%20is%20available%20online.&text=For%20more%20information:,Environmental%20Protection%20Fact%20Sheet%20(PDF) 
[8] https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview 
[9] https://www.saferstates.org/priorities/pfas/