Introduction

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have recently been a primary focus of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and state and local agencies. PFAS are not a single chemical, rather a family of chemicals, with up to 15,000 individual PFAS listed in the USEPA’s CompTox Chemicals Dashboard. PFAS have been identified by the USEPA as a chemical of concern due to their environmental persistence and the ability to bioaccumulate in humans. Decades of usage in various industries throughout the United States and the chemicals water-solubility have led to widespread background contamination not only in industrial areas, but the environment as a whole. As the federal government and states have become aware of the impact of PFAS on human health, this chemical family has been subject to new regulation and determinations that impact industrial facilities in the United States, for example, listing of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the establishment of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFAS in drinking water. The impacts of this rulemaking and decisions to industrial facilities have increased since the discovery of the effects of PFAS. This article will summarize six lawsuits that have recently been finalized or are in progress in the United States.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc. v. Wisconsin Natural Resources Board

The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard the case Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc. versus Wisconsin Natural Resources Board (WMC v. WDNR) regarding the enforcement of the Wisconsin “Spills Law” for PFAS contamination. The Wisconsin Spills Law is codified under Wisconsin Statutes (Wis. Stats.) Chapter 292 – Remedial Action, with further administrative requirements codified under Wisconsin Administrative Code (WAC) NR 706 – Hazardous Substance Discharge Notification and Source Confirmation Requirements. The Spills Law requires notification to the WDNR for a spill, defined as, but not limited to “spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping,” places the responsibility for cleanup of the spill to the person who discharged or caused the discharge of the hazardous chemical, and allows the WDNR to enforce cleanup of any hazardous substances, defined as “any substance or combination of substances including any waste of a solid, semisolid, liquid or gaseous form which may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness or which may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment because of its quantity, concentration or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics. This term includes, but is not limited to, substances which are toxic, corrosive, flammable, irritants, strong sensitizers or explosives as determined by the department.”

The case brought to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in WMC v. WDNR argued that the WDNR did not have the authority to enforce cleanup under the Spills Law as the WDNR had not promulgated rules identifying each substance, with quantity and concentration, that qualified as a hazardous substance covered by Wis. Stats. 292. WMC represented a dry cleaner located in Wisconsin that identified contamination of the site with volatile organic compounds (VOC) during the due diligence process for sale of the facility. The facility voluntarily reported the contamination to the WDNR and applied to the Wisconsin Voluntary Party Liability Exemption (VPLE) program as allowed under the Spills Law in Wis. Stats. 292.15. The VPLE is a program specifically for contaminated properties that allows entities to voluntarily conduct environmental investigations and cleanup of properties while limiting the entities’ liability on historical contamination of the property. The VPLE program specifically excludes hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDFs), licensed hazardous waste treatment facilities, approved solid waste facilities, facilities on the Superfund National Priorities List, or waste sites that require active remedial operations or treatment. Further, the VPLE contains exemptions from liability, classified as general, natural attenuation, contaminated sediment, property affected by off-site discharge, and partial cleanup. Two days after the facility requested the broad liability extension for the contamination at the site, the DNR published the “Interim Decision on Voluntary Party Liability Exemption (VPLE) Program and Emerging Contaminants,” which stated that PFAS contamination would not be allowed the broad liability exemption to “protect public health and safety” as well serving “as good stewards of state taxpayer dollars.” It was the WDNR’s opinion that if PFAS were discovered at a facility after it had received a broad liability exemption, then the costs of cleanup at the facility would fall onto the shoulders of the Wisconsin taxpayer, not the property owner. As part of the VPLE process, the WDNR supplied the subject facility documentation that PFAS and other emerging contaminants met the definition of a “hazardous substance” as defined in Wis. Stats. 292.01(5), allowing the WDNR to grant partial liability exemption for contamination of PFAS or other emerging contaminants.

The subject facility in WMC v. WDNR notified the WDNR of contamination as required in Wis. Stats. 292, and applied to the VPLE program. The subject facility submitted the VPLE application to the WDNR two days prior to the WDNR issuance of the aforementioned “Interim Decision on Voluntary Party Liability Exemption (VPLE) Program and Emerging Contaminants,” and was accepted into the VPLE program ten days after the application for VPLE entrance was submitted. The subject facility immediately proceeded to begin investigating for contamination and to determine the scope of remediation. Approximately eighteen months after acceptance into the VPLE program, the subject facility submitted results of groundwater monitoring of wells on the property, indicating that PFOA and PFOS contamination was present. The results showed that three of four wells exceeded the PFOA standards as issued by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS), with PFOS exceeding at all four wells. In response to the monitoring results, the WDNR conditionally approved the supplemental site investigation work plan as submitted by the subject facility, while requesting more information in future reports regarding PFAS exceedances. At this time, the subject facility withdrew from the VPLE program and filed the initial lawsuit against the WDNR. The circuit court judge sided with the subject facility, stating that the “DNR’s policy of regulating emerging contaminants, including PFAS, as hazardous substances, is an invalid, unpromulgated rule:” that “the DNR’s enforcement of a standard or threshold for emerging contaminants, including PFAS is an invalid, unpromulgated rule;” and that the “DNR’s interim decision regarding the VPLE program was an invalid, unpromulgated rule.” The WDNR was denied appeal and subsequently petitioned the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Ultimately, the Wisconsin Supreme Court completely sided with the WDNR in the case, making some key points in the final opinion:

• “Hazardous substance” as defined in Wis. Stats 292.01(5) is a broad definition that could define any number of substances, but the substance has to “unanimously and unambiguously” satisfy one of the rules fact-specific criteria. Thus, the DNR does not need to promulgate rulemaking to deem a substance hazardous.
• The communications provided to the facility by the WDNR were not unpromulgated rules, based on the definition of a rule under Wis. Stats. 227.01(13), rather were guidance documents on the promulgated rule, which have no effect of law.
• The WDNR’s partial exemption under the VPLE Program was valid, as the program is voluntary, and “no voluntary part in the VPLE program has a legal right to a certificate of completion or any exemption from liability.” Further, the WDNR was allowed to make a partial liability exemption based on Wis. Stats 292.15(2)(am).
• The WDNR’s request for the facility to report individual and combined exceedances of PFAS in sampling data was valid and did not imply any unpromulgated standards for PFAS enforced on the facility.
• The language in Wis. Stats 292.01(5) used to define a hazardous substance is “plain and unambiguous,” and the WDNR does not have to promulgate rules listing all substances and concentrations at which they are hazardous.
• The Spills Law allows the WDNR “broad but explicit authority” to determine what substances meet the definition of a hazardous substance, as well as ensuring that remediation is completed to restore the environment and minimize harmful effects.

This case should be considered important to the pulp, paper, and tissue industry in Wisconsin as it reinforces the WDNR interpretation of the existing Spills Law to allow the WDNR to determine what does and does not meet the definition of a hazardous substance. With the inclusion of PFAS as a hazardous substance, and the ability to determine if any emerging contaminants are hazardous, this case has allowed the precedent for the WDNR to exclude or only partially exempt facilities with PFAS contamination from the VPLE program. Any exclusion or partial exemption removes legal protection from future liability caused by the contamination at the site.

Michigan – Paper Mill Sludge Composting

In 2022, a lawsuit was filed against a paper mill in Michigan by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), regarding sludge that was generated at the mill and sent to a composting facility for beneficial reuse. In the filed complaint against the mill, EGLE stated that the mill “fraudulently self-declared its paper sludge as inert” and sent 145,000 cubic yards of PFAS contaminated sludge to the composting facility between 1998 and 2020. In 2019, EGLE tested surface water and compost samples at the composting site; all samples were above the 2018 published water quality standards of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFAS in Michigan for both PFOS and PFOA, with a high reading of 53,000 ppt for PFOA. Further testing of groundwater at the site showed high readings for PFAS, the highest result being 170,000 ppt for PFOA. EGLE requested that the paper mill be held liable for remediation of the composting site, as well as the monetary costs of “any past or future monitoring, identification, response activities, and remediation efforts” that had or will be incurred by the State of Michigan due to the PFAS contamination. EGLE expanded on the belief that the paper mill fraudulently declared the sludge as inert, as EGLE believes that at some time during the transport of the sludge material to the composting facility, the paper mill determined that PFAS were present yet continued to send the material to the site. This declared fraudulent declaration was integral to the EGLE case against the facility.

In June of 2025, EGLE and the paper mill reached a settlement for the case, with a consent decree that required the mill to remove all PFAS contaminated sludge from the composting facility, investigate the potential for PFAS contaminated sediments at the composting facility, and provide funding to EGLE to conduct any additional required response activities at the composting facility. The consent decree stated that the mill was required to dispose 75,000 cubic yards of PFAS-contaminated waste, which would likely be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. The total cost of this disposal is unknown, but a general landfill gate or tipping fee for sludges and contaminated soils is in the $25-$30 per cubic yard range, so an estimated cost for landfilling this material would be $2,000,000 in landfill fees alone, not including the cost of handling and transportation. Further, the paper mill is required to cover the State of Michigan’s attorney fees and litigation costs, totaling $850,000, as well as an additional $300,000 to EGLE for any future costs that the state may incur in the process of remediation, for a total of $1,150,000 in fees.

Many mills have utilized paper mill sludges and by-products in a number of ways for decades, whether it be sale to third parties for incorporation into future products, incineration on-site for energy recovery, beneficial re-use as landfill cover, fill material, and land applied biosolids. Based on mill operations, these activities can increase the risk of contamination both on- and off-site for not only PFAS, but other known and potentially unknown hazardous chemicals. It is imperative for mills to determine the makeup of these by-products to understand the potential for contamination and future remediation, and to inform state agencies when any potential hazardous chemicals are identified. This voluntary notification can be the difference between millions of dollars in fees, fines, and remediation costs, and working with state agencies to voluntarily determine hazards and paths to remediation.

Ongoing Legal Cases

In November 2024, Michigan’s EGLE filed a civil lawsuit against a pulp and paper mill regarding PFAS contamination of groundwater wells and unauthorized wastewater discharges. The mill previously manufactured clay-coated recycled paperboard and changed ownership in 2019. Around the time of sale, groundwater sampling at the site identified PFAS contamination in groundwater wells, which EGLE followed up with a site assessment by the Water Resources Division. As part of the site assessment, EGLE took samples of surface water discharge to analyze for PFAS, with three of the eleven samples exceeding the Water Quality Standards for PFOS. The site assessment also identified non-compliant wastewater and stormwater discharges at the site, which are currently unrelated to the PFAS issue, and are the majority of the factual allegations in the current case. PFAS are not addressed in the current lawsuit, so it is unclear if the facility will face additional litigation regarding PFAS remediation in the state.

Numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against paper mills, notably in Maine, Wisconsin, and Connecticut, alleging PFAS contamination. Each case is discussed herein.

The Maine case alleges that multiple facilities in the area have utilized PFAS compounds in the papermaking process, and that the mills negligently disposed of PFAS-containing wastes in local landfills, and utilized biosolids containing PFAS on local agricultural fields, causing PFAS contamination of groundwater wells in the area. The suit alleges that groundwater testing shows PFAS (as PFOS and PFOA) in excess of 12,000 ppt. Allegations in the suit are levied against five separate area mills, and requests these facilities cover medical monitoring, compensation for property damage, and cessation of “ultrahazardous” PFAS activities. No updates have been provided in this case, and it is unclear how this case will proceed.

The Wisconsin class action suit lists four defendants, the previous and current owner of the mill, and two chemical companies, alleging PFAS contamination of the local area due to biosolids land application on farmland. The case alleges that the application of the biosolids has caused local groundwater contamination with PFAS, with testing showing 1,500-3,000 ppt of PFAS, exceeding the WI drinking water standard of 70 ppt. The case alleges that both the chemical companies and the mill knew that PFAS contamination was dangerous but chose to land apply despite this knowledge. On June 5, 2025, Judge William H. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied defense motions for dismissal of the case by the defendants, the trial is scheduled to proceed in March 2027.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against a Connecticut paper mill which resembles the Maine and Wisconsin lawsuits, in that a community alleges that the mill utilized PFAS at the facility and it has caused local contamination. This case differs from the Maine and Wisconsin cases in that it alleges that the primary contamination method was via deposition from stack emissions at the facility. The case alleges that the plaintiff’s residences are in the predominant downwind direction from the facility, and are elevated relative to the local area, thus other methods of deposition are unlikely. Tested PFAS concentrations in groundwater area relatively low, only exceeding the Connecticut drinking water standard of 10 ppt by 0.4-5.0 ppt. The complaint for this case was filed on February 28, 2024, with a Memorandum of Decision regarding a Motion for a Protective order filed by the District Court in Connecticut on August 7, 2025. The Motion filed by the defendant requested a stay of discovery pending resolution of the Motion to Dismiss (filed by the defendant on August 6, 2025), and to clarify that the discovery process had been bifurcated by the plaintiff, leading to discovery being limited to issues relative to class certification. The defendants Motion to Dismiss stated that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence that the facility was responsible for the contamination, however, this Motion has not been acted upon as of publication of this article.

These ongoing cases should be of interest to pulp, paper, and tissue mills, as they will help determine how each state views the responsibility for contamination at mills, as well as what level of evidence is required to determine where contamination originates for these facilities. Any potential settlements could incentivize other class actions to come forward with similar cases at other locations. Please contact Harrison Rae in Trinity’s Wisconsin office or your local Trinity office if you have any questions regarding PFAS support.