Rachel Frazin
A bipartisan pair of senators is working on what they see as a compromise to address a persistent pollution problem.
Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) are looking to tackle a class of chemicals called PFAS that are known to linger in the environment and have been linked to health issues including cancer, weakened immune systems and high cholesterol.
However, a draft bill they released faces pushback from green groups — who say it may actually make the problem worse.
Some Republicans are also trying to exempt various industries from liability for the substances, and negotiations on this issue are ongoing.
Nevertheless, the duo says that Congress needs to do something to address the chemicals, which have been found to be pervasive in U.S. waterways andin the blood of 97 percent of Americans.
“This fall, Congress has an opportunity to address an issue that impacts the health and safety of many of our constituents,” Capito wrote in a September op-ed. “We shouldn’t hesitate to deliver solutions that clean up and reduce risks posed by PFAS in a scientific, bipartisan, and responsible manner.”
Earlier this year, Carper and Capito released the draft bill, which looks to set a definition for the sprawling class of chemicals, allowing states to assist individual well owners dealing with contamination, and sets a hard deadline for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finalize an in-progress rule that would set drinking water standards for a few specific PFAS.
It also puts $500 million toward research for technology that can prevent, detect or destroy the substances.
A Senate Republican aide told The Hill that Capito’s priorities include defining the problem, as there’s some debate as to which chemicals should be addressed under the PFAS umbrella, codifying the timeline for regulations and investing in technology to destroy the substances.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Carper said he’s pushing for the legislation to address “gaps” related to the chemicals.
“We’ve heard from stakeholders about gaps in research, gaps in the ability for EPA to address the chemicals because they don’t have enough information,” the spokesperson said.
But, sources in the environmental movement tell The Hill that they’re skeptical of the effort, arguing that the legislation doesn’t do much to address the problem and that the bill could worsen the situation overall.
A key concern for environmentalists is not the provisions of the current draft bill, but discussions related to pollution cleanup and liability.
While the current public draft does not contain provisions that deal with this issue, it is the subject of ongoing talks.
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), for instance, hascalled for liability exemptions for certain industries, having introduced legislation in the past that would protect airports, water systems and the agriculture industry from legal ramifications of pollution.
A spokesperson for Lummis said that the senator “has participated in ongoing efforts to craft bipartisan legislation to address current issues with liabilities as it relates to PFAS pollution and looks forward to continue working with Senators Shelley Moore Capito and Tom Carper to get commonsense reforms across the finish line.”
Capito, in her op-ed, also called for protecting “passive receivers” like water utilities from liability.
“These entities and others …, could be targeted with frivolous lawsuits just for providing the vital services that underpin our modern society,” she wrote.
But environmental advocacy organizations argued against exemptions.
“Wastewater treatment plants are not ‘passive receivers,’ as they willingly accept PFAS waste and are paid to do so,” said a letter to Carper and Capito from the Southern Environmental Law Center and Earthjustice.
“An exemption for these facilities is unnecessary, would trigger never-ending requests for carveouts with not only PFAS polluters, but other chemical industries, and would undermine the longstanding ‘polluter pays’ principle while encouraging facilities to act carelessly when handling these toxic chemical,” they wrote.
Environmental groups also took issue with the definition the bill gives for PFAS, saying that it excludes too many of the substances — of which there are thousands — and could set a dangerous precedent for future rules.
“The bill’s definition of PFAS is too narrow and promotes industry interests over public health,” said a letter from the Environmental Working Group.
“The proposed legislation would limit EPA’s actions only to those PFAS that meet the restricted definition, undercutting the intent of the bill itself, harming ongoing efforts to address PFAS through other existing laws, ignoring science-based decision making, and ultimately leaving communities exposed to toxic pollution,” they continued.
Asked about the definition in the draft bill, Renée Sharp, a strategic advisor with Safer States, an alliance of environmental health organizations, told The Hill: “That is possibly the worst definition I have ever seen for PFAS.”
She said that it would exclude “a ton of PFAS,” including a common type of PFAS called PTFE, which is sold commercially under the name Teflon.
However, aides to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle defended the definition. A Republican aide argued that it applies to chemicals of the greatest concern. Aides also argued that the definition could apply only to this bill, rather than curbing other efforts to address PFAS.
The definition also got some support from industry, with Brandon Farris, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, saying it is “pretty close to right.”
“When you’re trying to get your head around something as ubiquitous as PFAS … you need some places to start,” said Farris, whose group represents various types of manufacturers including both companies that make the chemicals and those that use them in making other products.
On the whole, Farris said if the PFAS bill were to move forward in its current form, his organization would be “inclined to support” the legislation because of the definition it provides.
If lawmakers can reach an agreement that satisfies 60 senators — the threshold necessary to avoid a filibuster — it’s not totally clear whether the package would be taken up by the House.
Asked if the package is something the lower chamber would take up, House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said she’d have to look at it.
A spokesperson for Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), who leads the Energy and Commerce’s environment subcommittee, did not respond to a question from The Hill about whether the GOP intends to take up the legislation.
Carper is also retiring in 2025, when his term is up. If the legislation is not completed by then, it’s not clear how significant a setback his absence could be for its passage.
Courtesy: thehill
