Republican politicians in the United States are mounting an effort to shield major industrial polluters from the financial burden of cleaning up toxic "forever chemicals," a move environmental groups warn could severely undermine national pollution control efforts.
Industry Lobbyists Plead Their Case
The Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee recently convened a hearing where representatives from the water treatment and landfill industries 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 prevalent 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.
Scott Faber, vice-president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, criticised the industries' stance. He pointed out that utilities already filter hundreds of chemicals from water, making their opposition to removing two particularly toxic PFAS compounds puzzling. "The only real difference is PFAS are more toxic … so the fact that water utilities and landfills are being such crybabies about PFAS says something about how little regard for public health they have," Faber stated.
The Stakes of the 'Forever Chemical' Problem
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of over 16,000 synthetic compounds used for their water, stain, and heat-resistant properties. Dubbed "forever chemicals" due to their persistence in the environment and the human body, they are linked to serious health issues including cancer, kidney and liver disease, immune disorders, and birth defects.
Water treatment plants and landfills are critical points in the national fight against PFAS contamination. However, industry lobbyists contend they should not be held liable. Tracy Mehan, a lobbyist for the American Water Works Association, argued that making utilities pay would divert ratepayer funds from essential infrastructure upgrades and other Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
Advocates strongly dispute this. They note that utilities have a fundamental duty to provide clean water and possess the authority to stop industrial polluters from discharging PFAS into sewer systems. Emily Donovan, co-founder of the campaign group Clean Cape Fear, highlighted a successful programme in Michigan, where regulators identified major sources of PFOA and PFOS discharges and compelled them to reduce their chemical output.
A Wider Push for Exemptions and Its Consequences
The hearing also featured representatives from airports, the military, and the real estate industry seeking similar liability exemptions. Landfill operators argue they should not be responsible as they merely manage waste already containing the chemicals, despite the fact PFAS concentrate in landfill leachate, which then pollutes groundwater.
Public health groups view these hearings as an initial step to dismantle the EPA rule by creating broad exemptions. They warn that removing financial liability eliminates a major incentive for these industries to proactively address PFAS pollution. Donovan expressed frustration that utility lobbyists, funded by customers, were not advocating for more government financial support but instead lobbying against the regulation altogether. "They weren't advocating for money... Instead they said, 'Don't do this, it's too expensive,'" she remarked.
Critics emphasise that proven technologies like granular activated carbon filters can effectively remove PFOA and PFOS. The broader concern, they say, is the precedent being set. "Where do we stop? Everyone is going to start lining up for this," Donovan cautioned, suggesting the push for exemptions could unravel the regulatory framework designed to hold polluters accountable for one of the most pervasive chemical threats of our time.
