The Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee is pursuing exemptions that would shield some major polluters — including water utilities and landfills — from liability for cleaning up PFOA and PFOS, two hazardous PFAS compounds. The EPA designated both chemicals as hazardous under Superfund in April 2024, enabling potential cost-recovery actions. Industry argues utilities and landfill operators should not pay for contamination they did not produce; public-health advocates warn exemptions would remove incentives to cut PFAS discharges and hinder cleanup efforts.
Republicans Seek To Shield Major Polluters From PFAS Cleanup Costs — Critics Warn Of Setback
A Pfas treatment plant in Villa Park, California.Photograph: Leonard Ortiz/Orange County Register via Getty Images
Republican lawmakers are pursuing exemptions that could relieve certain large polluters — including water utilities, landfills, airports, the military and real estate interests — from being held financially responsible for cleaning up two hazardous PFAS compounds.
The Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee recently held a hearing that invited representatives from water treatment, landfill and other industries to argue why they should be excluded from rules tied to PFOA and PFOS cleanup liability. Proponents say the industries are not the original sources of the contaminants; critics say the exemptions would undercut efforts to curb ubiquitous "forever chemicals."
What the EPA did: In April 2024 the Environmental Protection Agency designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, giving the agency authority to require polluters to pay for cleanups. That designation does not automatically trigger enforcement in every case, and the EPA has indicated it may refrain from pursuing some water utilities. The agency reaffirmed the designation in September 2024.
Industry argument: Utility trade groups and landfill operators argue that water systems and waste managers should not be held liable for contamination they did not create. Tracy Mehan of the American Water Works Association warned that forcing utilities to divert ratepayer-funded resources to litigation or remediation could reduce spending on aging infrastructure and compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act obligations.
Advocates' response: Public health groups and local advocates counter that exempting utilities and landfills would remove crucial incentives to stop PFAS discharges upstream. Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group noted that utilities already manage removal of many contaminants and suggested resistance to addressing two PFAS compounds reflects misplaced priorities.
Local examples show alternatives to blanket exemptions. In 2018, Michigan regulators developed a program to identify companies responsible for major PFOA and PFOS discharges and required them to reduce levels entering sewer systems. Advocates say utilities and state agencies have tools to order upstream polluters to stop discharging PFAS into municipal systems.
Practical fixes exist: Both industrial dischargers and drinking-water systems can deploy established treatment methods — such as granular activated carbon filters — to remove PFOA and PFOS. Environmental advocates argue that liability rules create incentives for industry to adopt such measures and for policymakers to pursue broader limits or bans on PFAS use.
"Utilities have complete control over the pipes and they don't have to allow industry to do this," said Emily Donovan, co‑founder of Clean Cape Fear, a citizens' group formed in Wilmington, N.C., after widespread PFAS contamination.
Critics also warn of a slippery slope: if exemptions become widespread, many sectors could seek relief from cleanup responsibilities, diluting the Superfund’s power to hold polluters accountable and slowing nationwide efforts to reduce PFAS contamination.
Bottom line: The committee hearings mark an effort to chip away at the EPA rule by carving out exemptions rather than reversing the hazardous-substance designation outright. Public health advocates say that approach would represent a major policy setback in addressing long-lived PFAS pollution.
