For the first time, the U.S. may force polluters to clean up these permanent chemicals

“Bringing these chemicals within the scope of our Superfund authorization will allow EPA to address more contaminated sites, take action earlier and speed up cleanups while ensuring polluters pay,” EPA Administrator Ronald Reagan said in a statement The cost of cleaning up pollution that threatens community health.

The action taken by the EPA on Friday applies to two widely used PFAS chemicals: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). The designation will allow regulators to investigate and enforce cleanups of leaks and spills of chemicals linked to a range of health problems, including cardiovascular problems, low birth weight and certain cancers, the agency said.

The move is the latest in a broader series of policies aimed at addressing the prevalence of man-made chemicals across the country. Last week, the EPA finalized the first U.S. drinking water standards for PFAS, the first update since 1996. Condition.

The PFAS Superfund list and drinking water standards are a one-two punch to address PFAS, and they are two of the most important public health measures taken by the Biden administration, said Erik Olson, senior director of strategy. Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental organization.

Olson added that the list would help force polluters to pay for their pollution themselves, rather than those most affected by it.

The rule could benefit hundreds of people Families and communities across the country, such as those along the Cape Fear River in North Carolina, have been grappling with PFAS contamination for years. The Donovan family is one of them.

Three years after moving to Leland, North Carolina, David Donovan began losing his vision. Doctors discovered a brain tumor in his skull and performed emergency surgery to remove it.

His wife, Emily Donovan, co-founder of a grassroots advocacy group called Clean Cape Fear, wonders if tap water is to blame. For more than 30 years, a chemical plant outside Fayetteville has discharged PFAS chemicals into the Cape Fear River, contaminating the drinking water of about 500,000 people.

She worries that her 14-year-old twin sons and daughters have been drinking tap water since they were little, and her pediatrician encourages them to drink tap water instead of sugary juices and soft drinks. Although David has regained his sight and the children appear healthy, recent tests have shown that all family members have elevated levels of PFAS in their blood.

“Our pediatrician told us the best thing we could do for our kids was teach them to love water, and that’s what we did,” Donovan said through tears. We think we’re doing the right thing.

The rule issued Friday is part of the Biden administration’s multifaceted crackdown on PFAS, which many advocates say should have happened decades ago. As early as the 1960s, research conducted by manufacturing giants 3M and DuPont suggested that PFAS could pose health risks to laboratory animals and humans.

Today, the federal government is just beginning to address these risks that have become all too common. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that nearly every American has detectable levels of PFAS in their blood, and nearly half the nation’s tap water contains one or more PFAS.

PFAS are used in the manufacture of a variety of everyday products, including nonstick pans, waterproof clothing, artificial turf, food packaging and firefighting foam. They are often called permanent chemicals because they do not break down in the environment.

For decades, manufacturers have favored PFAS for their durability. Since the carbon-fluorine bond is one of the strongest bonds, these chemicals are resistant to water, grease, and heat. They prevent food from sticking to packaging or cooking utensils and prevent stains from forming on clothing or carpets.

Yet this resilience has proven dangerous. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a subsidiary of the World Health Organization, lists PFOA as a carcinogen and PFOS as a possible carcinogen.

In theory, the Superfund listing of PFOA and PFOS would make it easier for the government to force polluters to clean up contaminated sites. In practice, however, it could also spark fierce legal battles over who should pay for the damage caused by these chemicals.

In 2006, major manufacturers reached an agreement with the EPA to phase out production of PFOA and PFOS in the United States. But persistent chemicals continue to contaminate America’s public drinking water systems, resulting in numerous lawsuits and billions of dollars in settlements.

Robert F. Powelson, president of the National Water Utility Association, said in a report that companies that produce and use these chemicals and allow them to invade our lakes, streams and aquifers earn dozens of dollars as a result. Billions or even trillions of dollars in profits. But it’s the water and wastewater systems that are on the front lines of cleaning up pollution, leaving water users paying tens of billions of dollars to remove toxins from their water.

In 2022, Minnesota-based 3M committed to halting all PFAS production by the end of 2025.

Analysts at Capstone wrote in a recent note to clients that the latest EPA rules could result in an increase in liabilities of $2.9 billion at 3M and $4.8 billion in liabilities at the three DuPont entities.

Gianna Kinsman, vice president of Capstones’ energy team, said it could take at least five to 10 years to determine liability for each cleanup, especially if there is litigation. You can even see this taking decades.

3M spokesman Sean Lynch said in a statement that the company is committed to complying with relevant laws and regulations and we will continue to work hard to solve the remaining PFAS issues. He added that 3M is on track to achieve its goal of ceasing all PFAS production by the end of 2025.

A DuPont spokesman declined to comment.

American Chemistry Council spokesman Tom Flanagin said the trade group strongly opposes the EPA’s decision to list PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Decide.

Flanakin said in an emailed statement that CERCLA is an expensive, ineffective and unfeasible way to remediate these chemicals. He added that the law stipulates that is fraught with unintended consequences and can lead to widespread, unnecessary delays in cleanup efforts. Through existing regulatory processes, there are more efficient and timely ways to resolve potential on-site remediation issues.

In addition to businesses, the federal government and ultimately taxpayers may also face significant liabilities. For more than half a century, the Department of Defense has used firefighting foam containing PFAS to quickly extinguish fires at military bases across the country and prevent them from reigniting.

Communities near these military bases are now among the most polluted areas in the country. It’s unclear whether the federal government will bear the full cost of cleaning up the sites or whether the Pentagon will seek to recoup some of the costs from chemical manufacturers, said Professor Rainer Lohmann, director of the Superfund Research Center at the University of Rhode Island.

I think that’s the biggest unknown Lohmann said.

Pentagon spokesman Robert L. Ditchey II said in an email that the final rulemaking will not change the Department of Defense’s ongoing PFAS investigations and cleanup operations. As of December, the Pentagon has identified 715 military installations that require PFAS contamination assessments, and 574 facilities are moving to the next step in the Superfund cleanup process after initial assessments, he said.

Dickey referred questions about recovering cleanup costs to the Justice Department. In court documents, Justice Department lawyers argued that the Pentagon is immune from 27 pollution lawsuits filed by local and state governments, businesses and property owners.

The demographics of communities affected by PFAS contamination vary by state. But a recent analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that PFAS contamination is more prevalent in disadvantaged communities in California, potentially affecting as many as 8.9 million people in those communities.

Kelly Moser, senior attorney and director of the Southern Environmental Law Center’s water program, said it’s critical for the EPA to use the Superfund law to address this issue because it is the foundational law for managing the most polluted sites in the country.

She said some of the most contaminated sites currently contain PFAS.

But perhaps just as important, Moser said, the new rules could serve as a deterrent to continued pollution, even though it could take years for the government to assess contaminated areas and assign responsibility.

While Superfund sites won’t appear overnight, the threat of them will. This, she said, is an incentive for industries to start acting responsibly. Through these rules, the EPA has made clear that these chemicals are extremely harmful to human health and that people must be protected from them.