The 1,4- Dioxane Consortium( left to right): Mike Papantonio, Wes Bowden, Ned McWilliams, Gary Douglas, Michael London, Rebecca Newman
if it was phased out decades ago, it doesn’ t matter. It’ s still moving its way through our environment, migrating through soil and groundwater.”
That persistence creates the same dilemma PFAS introduced to water providers: utilities can move contamination from one place to another through treatment, but they can’ t make it disappear. Unfortunately, the treatment systems now being installed across the country to address PFAS do not remove 1,4-dioxane. That leaves water providers right back at square one.
“ All these water providers are spending tremendous capital expenditures and decades of operation and maintenance,” McWilliams said.“ None of that technology, none of those monies spent, is going to be effective at treating this new chemical.”
Why This Is Not A New Project
From Wes Bowden’ s perspective, the dioxane litigation is not a departure. It is a continuation of the work this group has already done at the highest level in PFAS litigation.
He noted that the regulatory and discovery pathway mirrors PFAS almost step for step.
“ Very similar to PFAS ten years ago, regulators are beginning to focus on it,” Bowden said.“ There’ s no federal regulation yet, but there are certain states regulating now. That’ s exactly what happened with PFAS.”
According to Bowden, when firms hear“ PFAS ten years ago,” there’ s one thing they should really understand about where this litigation sits right now.
“ PFAS was a project many firms ignored,” he said.“ Environmental cases are often slower to start, and by the time they gain media attention, it can be too late for firms to catch up and play a meaningful role. Get involved now.”
Concentrated Responsibility, Familiar Strategy
As with PFAS, responsibility for 1,4-dioxane production is highly concentrated. That reality simplifies one of the most difficult aspects of environmental litigation.
“ With PFAS, it was largely 3M,” McWilliams said.“ With 1,4-dioxane, it’ s Dow. They made the overwhelming majority of every molecule that was ever made.”
That concentration, he explained, eliminates many of the causation disputes that typically bog down contamination cases.“ In these cases, there’ s usually a huge battle over whose chemical it is,” he said.“ With PFAS, it didn’ t really matter because we knew who made it. The same thing is true here.”
Chemical Synthetic solvent stabilizer used primarily in 1,1,1-trichloroethane( TCA)
Environmental Profile
• Highly persistent and mobile
• Leaches readily into groundwater
• Detected in ~ 22 % of U. S. public water systems
Health Classification
• EPA:“ Likely carcinogenic to humans”
• EPA drinking water health reference level: 0.35 ppb
Primary Defendants
• Dow Chemical Company( dominant U. S. producer)
• Additional defendants: Legacy Vulcan, Vibrantz
Regulatory Status
• 18 states regulate 1,4-dioxane in drinking water
• 2024 EPA TSCA Risk Evaluation: finds unreasonable risk to human health
Plaintiffs
• Public Water Systems seeking abatement and cost recovery
Core Liability Theory
• Failure to warn
• MSDS omissions
• Improper disposal guidance
• Undisclosed presence in stabilized TCA
Damages
• Advanced oxidation treatment systems
• Multi-million-dollar capital costs
• Decades of operation and maintenance
Litigation Status
• Active public water system cases in NJ state courts
• ~ 30 consolidated cases pending in EDNY
The Trial Lawyer 61