Blog

AG Kaul Asks EPA to Strengthen PFAS Regulations

Posted on by Hamilton

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul on April 20 joined 17 other state attorneys general in comments asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strengthen its proposed regulations on importation of PFAS products.

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of thousands of man-made chemicals found in many everyday products, including nonstick pans, cleaning products, paints, and firefighting foam. The most extensively studied PFAS compounds are “long-chain” PFOA and PFOS, which have been phased out of domestic manufacturing over the past decade. Competing studies debate whether or not these chemicals have negative health effects and, if they do, at what level they are harmful.

 EPA is proposing to require importers of products that contain long-chain PFAS as part of surface coating to notify EPA before importation. EPA would then evaluate the conditions of use associated with the intended significant new use of the product before manufacturing and processing could begin.

In their comments, the attorneys general ask EPA to strengthen these regulations on imported PFAS-containing products by

  1. Including the entire family of long-chain PFAS in the regulations, not just the individual PFAS chemicals specified in the proposed rule.
  2. Expanding the regulations to products that contain PFAS anywhere within them, not just within surface coating.
  3. Applying the rule to all processing of PFAS-containing products, not just imports.
  4. Removing exemptions for de minimis amounts of PFAS.

Joining AG Kaul in the comments were the attorneys general of New York, Pennsylvania, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington.

More on proposed PFAS regulation in Wisconsin.

AG Kaul also recently joined a group of state attorneys general asking EPA to rescind its policy of limiting civil enforcement in environmental actions during the COVID-19 crisis.

Assembly Passes COVID-19 Liability Protections

Posted on by Hamilton

On April 14, the Wisconsin Assembly met in its first ever virtual session to pass legislation on COVID-19. The bill included liability protections for health care workers and a limited liability provision for manufacturers. The Senate is expected to pass the bill, also in virtual session, on Wednesday. With the Assembly passing the bill on a bipartisan basis, it is expected that Gov. Tony Evers will sign the bill into law.

The Assembly’s virtual session featured many members participating remotely via Skype, while the remaining legislators, including leadership, were present in the chamber and practicing social distancing.

As passed by the Assembly, the bill, SB 932/AB 1038, includes provisions to: 

  1. Exempt manufacturers, distributors and sellers of emergency medical supplies and equipment that donate or sell their product to be exempt from civil liability. Entities would be exempt from civil liability only if the product were sold or donated at a price that does not exceed the cost of production.
  2. Create liability protections for health care professionals acting to address the COVID-19 during the public health emergency. To be immune from liability, actions must be in good faith or be consistent with state or federal guidance related to the public health emergency.

WCJC worked with the Legislature on including protections for healthcare providers and their employees. However, WCJC opposed the unnecessary limitations on the civil liability limitations for manufacturers of PPE and COVID-19 treatment equipment. WCJC also encouraged the Legislature to enact civil liability protections for employers keeping their workers and workplaces safe and for persons rendering aid. Those provisions were not included in the final legislation. (WCJC memo on liability protections in Wisconsin COVID-19 legislation.)

Democrats offered several amendments to the bill, including one that would remove the provision providing immunity for health care providers acting in good faith in response to the public health emergency. That amendment was tabled on a party line vote with no discussion.

After voting on amendments, the bill passed 97-2, with Reps. Jonathan Brostoff (D-Milwaukee) and Marisabel Cabrera (D-Milwaukee) the only no votes.

Karofsky Wins State Supreme Court Election

Posted on by Hamilton

April 7 Election Results

 One week after election day, Wisconsin spring election results were finally released on April 13. On the ballot on April 7 was the Democratic primary for president, a state Supreme Court seat, and many local races. Turnout was the highest for a spring election since 2016, when there were primaries for both Democrat and Republican presidential nominees.

Wisconsin Supreme Court: Liberal Dane County Circuit Court Judge Jill Karofsky beat incumbent conservative Justice Daniel Kelly in the race for Wisconsin Supreme Court with about 55 percent of the vote. When she is inaugurated to the bench in August, Karofsky’s addition will move the court from a 5-2 to a 4-3 conservative majority. The next Supreme Court election will not be until Chief Justice Roggensack is up for reelection in 2023.

Democratic primary: Vice President Joe Biden won the Democratic primary for president in Wisconsin. His opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders dropped out on April 8, the day after the Wisconsin election, making Wisconsin the last contested primary of the 2020 primary race. Biden had around 63 percent of the Wisconsin vote, and Sanders had about 32 percent. Biden gained the endorsement of both Sanders and President Barack Obama following his win in Wisconsin.

Constitutional amendment: Voters approved a constitutional amendment on victims’ rights. Known as Marsy’s Law, the constitutional amendment passed the Legislature for the second time in 2019 and now, with voter approval, becomes law. About 75 percent of voters voted in favor of the constitutional amendment.

 

Election Litigation

Wisconsin’s spring election on April 7 gained national attention as several lawsuits sought to make changes to in person and absentee voting in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Although the lawsuits were resolved the day before the election, it is expected that there will be more post-election litigation. Already, before election results were released, on April 13 a group of Milwaukee-area residents filed a class action lawsuit against the Legislature and the Wisconsin Elections Commission seeking a partial revote for the April 7 election and election changes for Wisconsin’s remaining elections in 2020. (Plaintiffs’ press release)

After Court Rulings, In-Person Voting Proceeds in Supreme Court Election

Posted on by Hamilton

After rulings from the Supreme Court of the United States and the Wisconsin Supreme Court the night before election day upheld the April 7 date and absentee voting requirements, Wisconsin’s election for state Supreme Court proceeded with few changes. In-person voting was held, and absentee voter requirements were largely the same (though at record high numbers). Wisconsin’s spring elections included the race between incumbent state Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly and Judge Jill Karofsky, as well as the Democratic primary for president and many local offices. Results will not be released until April 13, the deadline for clerks to receive absentee ballots.

 

Background

As COVID-19 began spreading throughout the state, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers had initially maintained – and legislative leadership agreed – that the April 7 election in Wisconsin should not be moved. Instead, the Governor and other state and local officials encouraged voters to request absentee ballots. The Governor’s Office was also working with the Wisconsin Elections Commission and local election officials on obtaining sanitizing supplies to keep polling sites clean, obtaining more absentee ballots, recruiting poll workers, and addressing other issues related to the unusual circumstances of these elections.

As the election date came closer, local governments began putting pressure on the Evers administration to make changes to keep poll workers and voters safe. On March 22, a large group of local officials sent Gov. Evers and legislative leadership a letter asking for options to make holding elections easier on municipalities and voters in the midst of COVID-19.

On March 27, Gov. Evers called on the Legislature via Twitter to send absentee ballots to all Wisconsin voters. Legislative leadership said this would not be logistically feasible in time for the April 7 election. (Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald statement. Assembly GOP statement.)

On April 3, Gov. Evers called for a special session of the legislature to make changes for the April 7 election, including: making the election mail-in only, sending ballots to all registered voters who have not yet requested one, and extending the time for ballots to be received to May 26. The Legislature gaveled in and out of the session without taking up any legislation.

 

State Lawsuit on Changing the Election Date

Despite stating multiple times that he could not and did not want to move the election date, on April 6, the night before the election, Gov. Evers issued Executive Order #74, moving the spring election date to June 9, 2020 and calling the Legislature into special session to address the election date. Under the order, voters could continue to request absentee ballots until then and ballots already submitted would be counted. Local elected office terms would be extended until the results of the June date were finalized.

Legislative leaders immediately filed an emergency petition for original action and motion for temporary injunction with the Wisconsin Supreme Court to block the Governor from moving the election (memo in support of the filings). Later the same day, the Supreme Court approved the Legislature’s motion, reinstating in person voting for April 7.

The 4-2 decision (split between the conservative and liberal justices) said the Governor does not have the constitutional or statutory authority to suspend the elections statutes. According to the court, the Governor’s emergency powers in Wis. Stat. § 323.12(4)(b) give him the power to suspend administrative rules, not statutes, in the name of public safety. The Legislature would have to give the Governor explicit authority to change statutes in the event of an emergency.

A dissent from Justices Walsh Bradley and Dallet argued that Wisconsin statutes do provide the Governor and the Department of Health Services the authority to implement emergency measures, including moving elections, during a public health emergency (see Wis. Stat. § § 252.02 and 323.12(4)(b). The dissent said the court should have upheld the executive order for the safety of Wisconsin voters.

Justice Daniel Kelly, who is on the April 7 ballot, did not participate.

 

Federal Lawsuit on Election Date & Absentee Voting Requirements

Also the night before the election, a major case in federal court regarding Wisconsin’s April election was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Three cases seeking changes to absentee voting for the April 7 election had been consolidated by a federal judge. 

  1. The Democratic National Committee sought to move the mail-in registration deadline and waive voter ID requirements during the pandemic. (A federal judge had already extended the deadline to request a mail-in ballot to April 2.)
  2. The League of Women Voters sought to waive the witness signature requirement on absentee ballots during the pandemic.
  3. Another lawsuitfiled by Souls to the Polls, Voces de la Frontera and Black Leaders Organizing for Communities argued that minority voters will be disenfranchised if the Wisconsin Elections Commission does not move the April 7 election date.

The state Department of Justice, representing Gov. Evers, had submitted a brief asking that the court again extend the deadline for requesting an absentee ballot and relax witness signature requirements, among other recommendations, while still keeping in person voting on April 7.

On April 2 the judge ruled there would be no change to the election date, but absentee ballots could be received until April 13. Ballots postmarked after April 7 could still be counted, contrary to current law. The judge’s amended order noted that election results could not be made public until April 13. The judge declined to waive voter ID requirements.

The district court judge also waived the requirement for absentee voters to have their ballot signed by a witness, but this provision was overturned by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Republicans ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The night before the election, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the district judge’s ruling. The decision says absentee ballots must be postmarked by April 7 and received by April 13. Ballots delivered in person must be delivered on April 7.

 

Other Lawsuits

The City of Green Bay filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Gov. Evers, and Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm, seeking to move the election date and switch to mail-in voting only. A federal judge dismissed the case on March 27.

The Republican Party of Wisconsin asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to intervene in Milwaukee and Dane counties, where clerks have said voters may note their status as “indefinitely confined” to avoid voter ID requirements. A Supreme Court order barred election officials from giving such advice.

 

Election Day

With the lawsuits resolved, Wisconsin’s election day proceeded largely as planned. Gov. Evers deployed the National Guard to help where there are shortages of poll workers, and many local clerks took creative safety precautions to protect poll workers and voters.

On the ballot for Supreme Court was incumbent conservative Justice Daniel Kelly and liberal Dane County Circuit Court Judge Jill Karofsky. Read more about the candidates. Results will be available April 13.

 

 

 

States, Federal Government Seek to Curb Coronavirus Lawsuits

Posted on by Hamilton

As COVID-19 strains the health care system and economy, lawsuits related to the coronavirus are already beginning. Some states and the federal government are taking action to limit liability for businesses and health care workers acting in good faith to help address the pandemic. WCJC is working with Wisconsin legislators to do the same. President of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) Harold Kim has stated that “limiting litigation abuse is essential to ensuring the stability and economic recovery from COVID-19.”

Already, lawsuits related to COVID-19 have been filed across the country. Legal Newsline recently reported on plaintiff attorneys looking to cash in on the pandemic. Litigation targets range from false advertising claims to medical malpractice lawsuits to securities lawsuits.

  • A lawsuit has been filed against the maker of Purell hand sanitizer, alleging the claim that Purell sanitizer kills 99.9 percent of germs is misleading. Similar false advertising claims have been filed against drug manufacturers, and manufacturers of protective equipment could also be at risk.
  • USA Today recently reported on lawsuits against cruise lines, colleges, and insurers.
  • Employees, including some government employees and workers at essential businesses, are suing their employers arguing they were exposed to coronavirus.
  • Businesses are seeing price gouging complaints from private parties and state attorneys general.
  • Health care providers are suing their hospitals and clinics for failing to provide personal protective equipment. Patients are in turn suing their health care providers for medical malpractice.
  • At least two securities lawsuits have already been filed by shareholders about stocks decreasing in value due to COVID-19.
  • Legal Newsline has reported that grocery stores and pharmacies could be the next target of litigation.
  • Consumers are filing lawsuits when they are unable to obtain refunds for services no longer offered due to the pandemic, such as gym memberships, tuition payments, and events.
  • Thousands of banks have stated hesitations about participating in the federal government’s small business loan programs due to concerns about taking on legal responsibility for preventing fraudulent claims.
  • The National Law Journal predicts False Claims Act litigation will likely follow the passage of the federal CARES Act stimulus package. (WCJC successfully advocated for the repeal of Wisconsin’s False Claims Act in 2015 and successfully helped remove provisions in Gov. Evers’ 2019-21 state budget that would have revived false claims lawsuits.)

ILR President Kim said this early litigation is just “the tip of the iceberg.”

States including New York, Kentucky and Michigan have already taken bipartisan action to protect health care workers fighting COVID-19 on the frontlines from frivolous lawsuits. Protecting providers from liability will allow those treating COVID-19 patients to act quickly and effectively without fear of facing expensive lawsuits when they are acting in good faith. Liability protections will give providers flexibility to treat more patients and treat them in innovative ways during this crisis.

WCJC is looking at enacting similar provisions in Wisconsin, as well as working with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce on provisions to protect manufacturers of personal protective equipment and employers who are working to keep their essential employees safe.

Some liability reforms to protect businesses during COVID-19 have already passed at the federal level. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) included liability protection for N95 face mask manufacturers. After passage of the bill 3M said it will almost double production of the masks to make 2 billion this year.

Wisconsin Courts Respond to COVID-19

Posted on by Hamilton

As Wisconsin government and the public struggle with the COVID-19 pandemic, Wisconsin courts remain operational but with reduced calendaring.

  • Subject to certain exceptions, all proceedings in Wisconsin courts are to be conducted via remote audio-video technology if practicable. (Supreme Court order)
  • Wisconsin Supreme Court March 18, March 30, and April 1 oral arguments cancelled. (More on oral arguments)
  • State courts administrative offices closed until at least April 3. (March 17 press release)
  • Some appellate filing deadlines extended and other filing procedures amended.  (Supreme Court order, extended order)
  • Nonemergency motions to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court are discouraged through April 3. (Supreme Court order)
  • Many individual circuit courts have issued emergency orders related to COVID-19. (See COVID-19 tab at https://www.wicourts.gov/.)
  • The Supreme Court has also temporarily increased the number of credits from on-demand programs that lawyers may use to satisfy CLE requirements.
  • Civil and criminal jury trials are suspended until May 22.
  • The Supreme Court has postponed bar admissions ceremonies through May and instituted temporary procedures for admission to the bar.
  • The Supreme Court has established a temporary rule for the remote administration of oaths at depositions via remote audio-visual equipment.
  • The Supreme Court will hold a public hearing on May 1 (with written comments open until April 24) and its interim rule to temporarily suspend statutory deadlines for civil jury trials due to the pandemic.

 

 

Wisconsin DOJ Actions on COVID-19

Posted on by Hamilton

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul has taken several actions to address the crisis. Below is a timeline of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) response:

 March 31, 2020. DOJ, representing Gov. Evers, submitted a brief asking a federal court extend the deadline for requesting an absentee ballot and relax witness signature requirements, among other recommendations, while still keeping in person voting on April 7. Read about the outcome of the case and more election lawsuits here.

AG Kaul also warned Wisconsinites to be alert to COVID-19 marketing scams.

 March 27, 2020. AG Kaul and the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions warned consumers about charity scams related to COVID-19.

 March 26, 2020. AG Kaul joined 27 attorneys general in a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy Devos, seeking emergency measures to protect student loan borrowers during the COVID-19 economic downturn.

Another multistate coalition sent a letter to President Donald Trump, requesting the federal government end the ban on scientists working with fetal tissue. The coalition argued that rescinding the ban would help accelerate COVID-19 vaccine development.

 March 24, 2020. AG Kaul led a multistate coalition in sending a letter to President Donald Trump, asking the President to utilize the Defense Production Act to prioritize production of personal protective equipment and other critical items to fight the pandemic. DOJ also issued guidance about consumer rights under Wisconsin’s price gouging statutes.

 March 16, 2020. AG Kaul warned Wisconsin residents of COVID-19 scams and price gouging. DOJ also issued an advisory on Wisconsin’s open meeting laws in light of COVID-19.

 

For more information on COVID-19 in Wisconsin, please visit https://www.hamilton-consulting.com/covid-19-in-wisconsin/.

 

Read about other multistate actions by AG Josh Kaul.

 

Other Multistate Actions by AG Kaul

Posted on by Hamilton

In addition to actions related to COVID-19, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul has recently joined several multistate actions on various topics.

  • Federal border wall funding. AG Kaul, with seven other states, filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s diversion of funds from the National Guard and other sources to the construction of a border wall. The filing argues the diversion violates the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
  • T-Mobile/Sprint merger. AG Kaul, on behalf of a 12-state coalition, announced an agreement with T-Mobile to end the states’ litigation fighting the T-Mobile/Sprint merger.
  • Opioid manufacturer settlement. AG Kaul announced a $1.6 billion global settlement with generic opioid manufacturer Mallinckrodt. The funds will go to a national trust that covers opioid addiction treatment and related efforts.
  • Investigation of JUUL. AG Kaul joined 39 states in investigating e-cigarette manufacturer JUUL’s marketing and sales practices.
  • EPA lead in drinking water standards. The comments from 10 states, including Wisconsin, oppose some provisions in EPA’s proposed revised standards for lead in drinking water. Provisions opposed include a reduction in the lead service line replacement rate.
  • EPA Chemical Disaster Rule. The filing from AG Kaul and 15 attorneys general seeks judicial review of the EPA’s rule rolling back of elements in the Chemical Disaster Rule.

PFAS Update: Current Status of Legislation, Rulemaking Continues

Posted on by Hamilton

When the state Assembly’s legislative session wrapped up in February, WCJC closely monitored legislation to address PFAS in Wisconsin. With the Legislature’s attention on COVID-19 for now, PFAS bills have moved out of focus but could be revived when the state Senate reconvenes to take up the remaining bills from the regular legislative session. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is continuing to work on rulemaking to set standards for PFAS in surface water, groundwater, and drinking water. 

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals found in many everyday products, including nonstick pans, cleaning products, paints, and firefighting foam. The most extensively studied PFAS compounds are PFOA and PFOS, which have been phased out of domestic manufacturing over the past decade. Competing studies debate whether or not these chemicals have negative health effects and, if they do, at what level they are harmful.

  

Wisconsin Legislation

In the last Assembly regular floor period of the 2019-20 legislative session in February, the Assembly passed PFAS provisions as an amendment tacked on to SB 559 (an unrelated bill). The Assembly passed on a party-line vote language that:

  • Directs the University of Wisconsin System to perform a study and report to the Legislature on PFAS effects in the human body, drinking water and groundwater.
  • Directs DNR to test private wells and municipal water systems for PFOA and PFOS in places around the state that have detected PFAS, investigate PFAS in those areas, and provide clean drinking water to residents affected.
  • Directs DNR to recoup payments for testing, investigation, and clean water from responsible parties who have used firefighting foam containing PFAS.
  • Directs DNR to set lab certification standards.

The legislation now must be approved by the Senate, which was scheduled to meet in March but has postponed its final regular session date due to COVID-19.

The Assembly did not take up alternative legislation (AB 843 & AB 842) that would have given DNR extremely broad authority to establish and enforce various PFAS standards. A coalition of industry groups opposed those bills.

Other legislation on PFAS introduced this session included:

AB 323/SB 310 would prohibit the use of firefighting foams that contain intentionally added PFAS in training, unless the testing facility has appropriate containment and treatment measures. – Signed into law on Feb. 5 as Act 101

SB 774 & SB 775/AB 922 & AB 921, authored by Sen. Rob Cowles (R-Green Bay) and Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay), would allow DNR to regulate PFAS and provide funding for residents and municipalities in targeted “PFAS management zones” that have water testing above 70 ppt. This bill would not set statewide standards for PFAS chemicals. – Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Energy held a public hearing on the bill on Feb. 7 but did not vote on the bill. With the Assembly adjourned for the regular session, the bill is likely dead.

SB 717/AB 792 provides $250,000 for the Department of Trade, Agriculture & Consumer Protection (DATCP) to administer, with DNR, a voluntary program to collect and store or dispose of firefighting foam containing PFAS. This bill was introduced by the Speaker’s Task Force on Water Quality. – Passed the Assembly unanimously on Feb. 18. Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Energy voted unanimously to recommend passage on Feb. 5, but it is unclear if the Senate will take up the bill in its final floor session.

SB 302/AB 321, also known as the “CLEAR Act,” would circumvent current rulemaking processes and give DNR broad, unprecedented authority to regulate PFAS chemicals. – No action.

AB 952 would require DNR to determine whether a safer alternative exists for PFAS in food packaging. If DNR determines there is a safer alternative, no person can manufacture, sell or distribute food packaging containing PFAS. – No action.

 

DNR Rulemaking

The DNR Board voted on Jan. 22 to approve three scope statements under which DNR can regulate PFAS chemicals. (Read about the scope statements here.) Industry groups including WCJC had asked DNR to narrow the scope statements to regulate just PFOA and PFOS chemicals, but the Board-approved scope statements will still give DNR the ability to promulgate regulations on any chemicals in the broad “PFAS” class. Approval of the scope statements allows DNR to move forward with the rulemaking process.

DNR held its first Stakeholder Group meeting on all three proposed rules on Feb. 6. At the meeting, DNR gave an overview of the three scope statements and took public comments. At the next stakeholder meeting, held remotely via Zoom on March 23, DNR gave an update on the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) process for setting standards for PFAS and DNR’s own timeline for setting state standards. DNR estimates that the formal comment period on the rules will take place in 2021 and rules will be finalized in 2022. DNR, along with the state Department of Health Services, also discussed their rationale for recommending a 20 ppt enforcement standard and 2 ppt preventive action limit for PFOA and PFOS combined. The recommended limits would be some of the lowest in the world.

DNR will continue to hold stakeholder meetings for each rule (surface water, groundwater, and drinking water) while drafting economic impact analyses. Under Wisconsin’s rulemaking statutes, DNR cannot continue rulemaking on a proposed rule with an economic impact analysis over $10 million without legislative approval. When economic impacts and rule text are finalized, DNR must hold a public hearing before sending the rules to the governor and legislature for approval.

WCJC is monitoring the rulemaking process to ensure the standards set are not overly burdensome as to cause unnecessary compliance costs and liability for Wisconsin businesses.

 

WisPAC State Agency Task Force

In accordance with Executive Order 40, issued by Gov. Tony Evers in August 2019, Wisconsin state agencies have convened the Wisconsin PFAS Action Council (WisPAC). The executive order directs the council to develop an action plan to address PFAS, due to the governor and legislature by July 1.

WisPAC has also convened two sub-advisory groups:

  1. Local Government group headed by
    -Lawrie Kobza, who represents Municipal Environmental Group (MEG) – Water Division.
    -Paul Kent, who represents MEG – Wastewater Division.
    -John Dickerson, Department of Revenue Division Administrator for State & Local Finance
  2. Citizens group, which includes industry and stakeholder groups, headed by
    -Lynn Morgan, who represents Waste Management
    -Ned Witte, an attorney from Milwaukee who has worked with DNR in their Brownfield Study Group and represents municipalities in environmental cleanup cases
    -A representative from the Department of Health Services

The sub-advisory groups have met twice so far to take recommendations from the public on what actions they will recommend for the WisPAC action plan. Ideas for the action plan will ultimately be categorized into four areas:

  1. Preventing future discharges
  2. Minimizing current exposure
  3. Addressing legacy exposure
  4. Education

Ideas discussed in the sub-groups so far have included PFAS bans, labeling requirements for products containing PFAS, risk communication and education to the public, developing best practices for water utilities, identifying responsible parties, and providing funding for cleanup by initiating investigations and settlements with industry using PFAS products.

The full WisPAC committee of state agency representatives met in January and February, where the leaders of the sub-advisory groups briefed WisPAC on ideas they heard in their listening sessions. Agency members of WisPAC then listed their own ideas for recommendations to potentially be included in the Action Plan due in July, such as finding funding mechanisms, increasing available testing and data, educating municipal water utilities and the public, prioritizing contamination areas of concern, incentivizing private businesses to clean up PFAS sites, setting strict PFAS standards, and evaluating a potential ban on PFAS products.

The remaining March and April meetings of the local government and citizens sub-advisory groups and the full WisPAC have been postponed due to COVID-19. It is not clear yet how the public health emergency will affect WisPAC’s July 1 deadline to get the action plan to the governor.

 

EPA Action

EPA announced at the end of February it will regulate PFAS. The decision to regulate is the beginning of a multiple-year period for EPA to determine and finalize a maximum contaminant level for PFAS in drinking water. EPA proposed regulatory determinations for both PFOA and PFOS.

EPA also recently issued a proposed rule that would exclude manufacturers of PFAS from providing proof of financial responsibility under the federal Superfund cleanup law.

Earlier this year, EPA added 160 PFAS chemicals to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI is a list of chemicals that EPA requires industry to gather data and report on. The new PFAS chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS, have been added to the list effective Jan. 1. The list was added to the TRI following the enactment of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in December.

While rulemaking is ongoing, EPA has issued a nonenforceable health advisory standard of 70 parts per trillion.

 

Read more about PFAS regulation in Wisconsin.

 

Gov. Evers Signs Bill to Create Certificates of Qualification for Employment for Ex-Offenders

Posted on by Hamilton

Gov. Tony Evers has signed into law legislation (Act 123) that creates a Council on Offender Employment to issue certificates of qualification for employment (CQEs) to ex-offenders. The bill seeks to reduce recidivism by helping ex-offenders re-enter the workforce.

Under the legislation (AB 30), the certificates issued by the Council would qualify ex-offenders for certain types of employment or licensing for which they would otherwise be ineligible based upon specific penalties associated with their criminal record. For example, a CQE would allow an ex-offender to get an occupational license for which he or she would, but for the CQE, be ineligible.

The bill additionally provides some immunity from liability for employers who hire employees with CQEs. Wisconsin Civil Justice Council and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce worked closely with the bill’s authors, Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) and Rep. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), on the immunity provision to ensure that employers are protected from frivolous lawsuits when they hire ex-offenders possessing a CQE.

Gov. Evers signed the bill on March 3, after it passed unanimously in the Assembly and Senate in February.