Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Sparks

Forever Chemical Enforcement Just Got Even Stronger

In addition to regulating PFAS presence in water, the EPA will now target pollution at the source.

Drinking water and the periodic table.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Last week, I reported on the Environmental Protection Agency’s monumental new restrictions on “forever chemicals” in Americans’ drinking water. At the time, I stressed that the issue doesn’t end with the water that flows out of our kitchen and bathroom taps — the government also has a responsibility to hold polluters accountable at the source.

On Friday, the EPA did just that, designating perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, a.k.a. PFOA and PFOS, as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, more commonly known as the Superfund law.

PFOA and PFOS are two of the most commonly used chemicals in a larger class known as PFAS, which have been linked to serious human health issues including cancer and decreased fertility. Nevertheless, we live in a world of PFAS; the chemicals are used in everything from the waterproofing of your rain jacket to the plastic containers that hold your takeout food. When I spoke with John Rumpler, the clean water director at Environment America, last week, he emphasized that a Superfund designation was one of the most important remaining steps the government could take to combat PFAS pollution and the resulting health impacts on Americans.

“You might have a site where they clean up the arsenic, and they clean up the chromium, and they clean up name-your-other-kinds-of-toxic-stuff — and then they leave the PFAS because nobody is requiring them to clean it up,” he told me.

PFAS are persistent not only because of their chemical composition, but because they’re extremely good at their jobs — whether it’s making a children’s jacket stain-resistant or putting out a gasoline fire. They are also extremely expensive and difficult to clean up once they end up in a river, stream, or the ocean — and almost inevitably, they will.

Under the new regulations, polluters will have to report any releases of PFOA or PFOS that meet or exceed one pound within a 24-hour period. This allows the EPA to use “one of its strongest enforcement tools to compel polluters to pay for or conduct investigations and cleanup, rather than taxpayers,” the administration wrote in its announcement. The development is significant not only because it will curb PFAS pollution, but because it will also eliminate one of the major pathways for these chemicals — which linger indefinitely in the environment — to end up in almost all of our bodies.

When we spoke before the announcement, Rumpler warned me that “all kinds of special interests are looking for exemptions from the liability” of the hazardous substance designation then-proposed by the EPA, so that will be another “battle to be fought.” Sure enough, the National Association of Manufacturers has already pushed back on the EPA’s rules, writing in a statement that the Superfund designation could mean “lengthy and costly litigation” for the manufacturing sector, municipal water districts, commercial airports, and others who use the chemicals. “Not only is this unfair but perhaps more important, it will not speed cleanups: It will do the opposite,” the interest group added.

Environmental groups are also sharpening their swords. In a measured statement, Emily Scarr, the director of U.S. PIRG Education Fund’s Stop Toxic PFAS campaign, applauded the EPA for its Friday announcement but added that advocates can’t stop pushing for “phasing out [PFAS] use, stopping their discharge, and holding the chemical industry accountable for the harms they have caused to our health and environment.”

Of course, there are also all the PFAS that already exist in the environment — decades worth of “forevers” that have seeped into the groundwater or hang unassumingly in our closets. But as Ken Cook, the president and co-founder of Environmental Working Group, said in a statement Friday, the EPA’s move is a “first step to bring justice to those who have been harmed.” Hopefully, now the rest of the steps will follow.

Yellow
Jeva Lange profile image

Jeva Lange

Jeva is a founding staff writer at Heatmap. Her writing has also appeared in The Week, where she formerly served as executive editor and culture critic, as well as in The New York Daily News, Vice, and Gothamist, among others. Jeva lives in New York City.

Sparks

Why the Vineyard Wind Blade Broke

Plus answers to other pressing questions about the offshore wind project.

A broken wind turbine.
Illustration by Simon Abranowicz

The blade that snapped off an offshore turbine at the Vineyard Wind project in Massachusetts on July 13 broke due to a manufacturing defect, according to GE Vernova, the turbine maker and installer.

During GE’s second quarter earnings call on Wednesday, CEO Scott Strazik and Vice President of Investor Relations Michael Lapides said there was no indication of a design flaw in the blade. Rather, the company has identified a “material deviation” at one of its factories in Gaspé, Canada.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
Sparks

Trump’s Suspicious Pivot on EVs

Elon Musk pledged a huge campaign donation. Also, Trump is suddenly cool with electric vehicles.

Trump’s Suspicious Pivot on EVs

Update, July 24:Elon Musk told Jordan Peterson in an interview Monday evening that “I am not donating $45 million a month to Trump,” adding that he does not belong to the former president’s “cult of personality.” Musk acknowledged, however, that helped create America PAC to promote “meritocracy and individual freedom,” and that it would support Trump while also not being “hyperpartisan.”

When former President Donald Trump addressed a crowd of non-union autoworkers in Clinton Township, Michigan, last fall, he came with a dire warning: “You’re going to lose your beautiful way of life.” President Biden’s electric vehicle transition, Trump claimed, would be “a transition to hell.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Sparks

Wind Is More Powerful Than J. D. Vance Seems to Think

Just one turbine can charge hundreds of cell phones.

J.D. Vance.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It’s a good thing most of us aren’t accountable for every single silly thing we’ve ever said, but most of us are not vice presidential running mates, either. Back in 2022, when J.D. Vance was still just a “New York Times bestselling author” and not yet a “junior senator from Ohio,” much less “second-in-line to a former president who will turn 80 in office if he’s reelected,” he made a climate oopsie that — now that it’s recirculating — deserves to be addressed.

If Democrats “care so much about climate change,” Vance argued during an Ohio Republican senator candidate forum during that year, “and they think climate change is caused by carbon emissions, then why is their solution to scream about it at the top of their lungs, send a bunch of our jobs to China, and then manufacture these ridiculous ugly windmills all over Ohio farms that don’t produce enough electricity to run a cell phone?”

Keep reading...Show less
Blue