Republican politicians in the United States are mounting an effort to shield significant industrial polluters from the financial burden of cleaning up toxic "forever chemicals," a move critics warn could severely undermine national efforts to combat pervasive contamination.
The Push for Polluter Exemptions
In a recent hearing convened by the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee, industry representatives from the water treatment and landfill sectors were invited to argue why they should be exempt from new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules. These regulations, enacted in April 2024 under President Joe Biden, designate two common PFAS compounds—PFOA and PFOS—as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. This designation empowers the EPA to force polluters to pay for cleanup operations, though it is not an automatic mandate.
The water utility and landfill industries are pivotal in the nationwide fight against PFAS water pollution. However, they contend they should not be held liable, as they are not the original source of the chemicals. Tracy Mehan, a lobbyist for the American Water Works Association, argued that diverting funds to litigation or cleanup would strain resources needed for infrastructure upgrades and meeting other Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
Environmental and Health Advocates Sound the Alarm
Environmental groups have reacted with sharp criticism to the proposed exemptions. Scott Faber, vice-president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, accused the industries of having "little regard for public health." He pointed out that utilities already remove hundreds of chemicals and questioned their strong opposition to tackling PFAS, which are notably more toxic.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of over 16,000 synthetic compounds used for their water- and stain-resistant properties. Dubbed "forever chemicals" due to their persistence in the environment, they are linked to serious health issues including cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, and birth defects.
Emily Donovan, co-founder of the campaign group Clean Cape Fear, highlighted a contradiction in the utilities' stance. "They weren't [at the hearing] advocating for money – not once did they say, 'Hey, we could use more money,'" Donovan noted. "Instead they said, 'Don't do this, it's too expensive.'" She urged utilities to lobby for a total PFAS ban and for government funding to improve systems, rather than fighting accountability.
Consequences of Exempting Major Pollution Sources
Exempting these industries from liability, advocates warn, would remove a crucial incentive for them to take aggressive action. Water utilities and state agencies typically have the authority to order industrial polluters to stop discharging PFAS into sewer systems. A successful programme in Michigan, initiated in 2018, demonstrated that identifying major sources and mandating reductions is feasible.
Similarly, landfill operators argue they should not be liable as they merely handle waste already containing PFAS. However, these chemicals concentrate in landfill leachate, which then contaminates groundwater and surface water. Exempting landfills would eliminate the drive to address this major national pollution pathway.
The hearing also saw representatives from airports, the military, and the real estate industry seeking exemptions, prompting concerns of a domino effect. "Where do we stop? Everyone is going to start lining up for this," Donovan cautioned.
Despite industry pressure, the EPA reaffirmed the hazardous substance rule in September 2024. Public health groups view the congressional hearings as an initial attempt to chip away at the regulation from a new angle, following the failure to overturn it outright.
