Republicans aim to exempt major polluters from Pfas cleanup costs | Republicans

Republicans are trying to exempt some major polluters from paying for Pfas’ “forever chemical” cleanup. If successful, it could mark a major setback in U.S. efforts to curb Pfas pollution.

The Republican-led House energy and commerce committee recently held a hearing invited representatives from the water treatment and landfill industries, among others, to make the case for why they should be exempt from rules that hold polluters financially responsible for cleaning up two types of hazardous Pfa.

Water treatment plants and landfills are major pollutants and represent critical points in nationwide Pfas water pollution reduction efforts. Utilities already have to eliminate hundreds of chemicals, so it’s unclear why they are so opposed to removing the two types of Pfa, said Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs for the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.

“The only real difference is that Pfas are more toxic…so the fact that water utilities and landfills are such crybabies about Pfas shows how little they care about public health,” Faber said.

PFAs are a class of at least 16,000 compounds frequently used to help products resist water, stains, and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and accumulate in the environment and have been linked to serious health problems such as cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders and birth defects.

Over industry objections, in April 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency under Joe Biden implemented the rules, designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the nation’s Superfund law.

The designation gives the EPA the option, though not necessarily, of requiring polluters to pay for cleanups, and the agency has already said it may not pursue enforcement against water utilities in many cases.

Still, reversing the rule has been at the top of the industry’s wish list since Trump’s election, but the EPA reaffirmed the rule in September. Public health groups opposed to the plan say the hearings represent a first step to attack the rule from a different angle.

The water utilities industry, which has often vehemently opposed new clean water rules in recent years, argues that it should not be responsible for contaminated water contamination or contaminated drinking water because it is not the source of the chemicals.

Industry is releasing almost uncontrolled amounts of Pfas into the nation’s sewer system and surface water, creating problems for utilities.

“When utilities are forced to spend limited resources on litigation or cleanup costs, taxpayer funds must be diverted from replacing aging infrastructure, complying with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements and performing other essential functions,” said Tracy Mehan, a lobbyist for the American Water Works Association, a trade group that represents many of the nation’s utilities.

But advocates say water utilities have a responsibility to provide clean water. Faber said exempting them from liability would remove a major incentive to take strong action to address Pfas in drinking water and wastewater.

Advocates say utilities and government agencies generally have the authority to order polluters to stop discharging Pfas into the sewer system, and the process is not difficult. Michigan regulators in 2018 developed a successful program Identifying companies that are the main sources of PFOA and PFOS discharges and requiring them to reduce the levels of chemicals they spit into sewers.

“Utilities have full control over the pipes and they don’t have to let the industry do it,” said Emily Donovan, co-founder of Clean Cape Fear, a citizens group founded in Wilmington, North Carolina, in response to widespread Pfas contamination in the region.

Advocates note that industrial polluters and drinking water facilities can use granular activated carbon filters, a common technology that is not difficult to implement, to remove PFOA and PFOS.

Donovan questioned why water utilities are sending lobbyists — paid for by utility customers — to lobby against clean water actions rather than pushing the government to provide more money to improve systems.

“They weren’t [at the hearing] “They’re advocating money – not once did they say, ‘Hey, we need more money,'” Donovan said. “Instead they said, ‘Don’t do this, it’s too expensive.'” He added that utilities should also push for a complete ban on Pfas to stop the problem from growing.

Similarly, landfill operators say they should not be responsible for pollution because they receive and manage garbage that already contains chemicals. PFOA and PFOS are concentrated in landfills and facilities leachate that contaminates ground and surface water.

Exempting landfills from liability would remove industry incentive to eliminate a significant source of Pfas pollution nationwide. Donovan said representatives from airports, the military and the real estate industry were also present at the hearing seeking exemptions.

“Where do we stand? Everybody’s going to be lining up for this,” Donovan said.