Industry’s petition argues that the EPA overstepped its authority by imposing retroactive liability on manufacturers, retailers, and local governments with its chemicals rule. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has set a July 29 deadline for arguments to determine whether a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s classification of two PFAS substances as “hazardous” should proceed. The case aims to halt the EPA’s expanding regulatory oversight on PFAS, which could lead to costly uncertainties for various industries. The petition questions the EPA’s interpretation of CERCLA in designating PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances and challenges the agency’s broad regulatory approach under its PFAS Strategic Roadmap. The petition also raises concerns about the economic impact of the EPA’s rule and calls for a closer examination of the agency’s decision-making process. Chamber of Commerce, Associated General Contractors of America, and National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) are challenging a lawsuit filed on June 10, arguing that they are passive receivers who do not create or control PFAS-containing items and should therefore be exempt from liability.
The organizations are concerned that vague language in the rule could lead to landfills rejecting PFAS-containing materials, resulting in costly sorting and processing expenses and the risk of PFAS-related legal action.
The EPA’s enforcement discretion policy indicates that entities such as farmers, municipal landfills, water utilities, municipal airports, and local fire departments may not be pursued for response actions or costs under CERCLA if equitable factors do not support it.
The Associated General Contractors of America, representing thousands of contractors, construction service providers, and suppliers, stated that the rule imposes financial and legal burdens and could lead to expensive litigation and stricter waste disposal practices.
The Chamber of Commerce expressed concerns about the EPA’s use of a novel CERCLA hazardous substance designation, which they believe exposes contractors to significant risks and liabilities.
Community and environmental groups, represented by Earthjustice attorneys, filed a motion on July 10 to intervene on behalf of the EPA, arguing that the hazardous substance designation is crucial for accelerating cleanups in communities affected by PFAS contamination.
House Republicans have raised questions about potential future designations of PFAS under CERCLA, emphasizing the need for clarity on the Biden administration’s regulatory approach to these chemical compounds.
The letter to EPA Director Michael Regan from House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Subcommittee Chair Rep. Buddy Carter seeks clarification on the EPA’s plans for classifying additional PFAS beyond PFOA and PFOS, as well as the agency’s rule-making agenda.
Overall, the article discusses the ongoing legal challenges and regulatory concerns surrounding PFAS contamination and cleanup efforts, highlighting the diverse perspectives and interests involved in addressing this environmental issue. Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
