Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as “forever chemicals,” are raising significant concerns due to their widespread presence in everyday items like non-stick cookware, certain clothing and textiles, and personal care products. Research suggests that exposure to these chemicals can have detrimental effects on human health, including developmental delays in children, reduced fertility in women, and weakened immune system functions. The persistence of PFAS in the environment, resisting natural degradation processes, adds another layer of complexity to this issue.
In a move to address this growing problem, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially designated two of the most prevalent PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in April 2024. CERCLA, widely known as Superfund law, is designed to tackle hazardous materials, substances, and pollutants by facilitating the cleanup of contaminated sites and holding responsible parties accountable.
To assist local leaders in navigating this new regulatory landscape, this comprehensive guide examines the implications of the CERCLA designation on municipal utilities and services. It specifically focuses on current and emerging strategies for managing PFAS disposal through wastewater treatment and landfill operations.
Understanding PFAS Disposal and Destruction Options
Addressing PFAS contamination involves a range of interventions, from disposal and destruction methods to advanced filtration technologies. This guide explores various disposal and destruction options for managing PFAS-containing waste from municipal wastewater treatment facilities and landfills, including:
- Underground Injection: Deep well injection is a disposal method where liquid waste is injected into porous rock formations deep beneath the earth’s surface.
- Thermal Treatment (Pyrolysis): This involves heating waste materials in an oxygen-free environment to decompose organic matter and destroy PFAS.
- Land Application: Utilizing treated wastewater or biosolids as fertilizer on agricultural land, with careful monitoring to prevent PFAS from entering the food chain.
While these methods offer advantages like lower lifecycle costs and a smaller footprint, they also pose challenges such as potential environmental impacts, increased complexity, and higher maintenance demands.
Steps for Local Leaders to Take
Local leaders should prioritize understanding the extent of PFAS exposure within their communities. This begins with testing and identifying the primary sources of contamination, such as industrial discharges, stormwater runoff, and facilities that utilize or manufacture PFAS-containing products.
Water utilities and landfill managers should also conduct PFAS testing in effluent discharges, landfill leachate, gas, and biosolids, as these serve as key pathways for environmental migration. The selection of appropriate treatment and disposal options depends on factors such as PFAS concentrations, inflow volume, and existing infrastructure. Therefore, consulting with experts is essential for municipalities to develop tailored solutions.
While addressing PFAS contamination can be costly for municipal water utilities and landfills, financial assistance is available through federal and state programs. These include the EPA’s Emerging Contaminants Grant Program and the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, which aim to support cities, towns, and villages in their PFAS mitigation efforts. The EPA’s Water Technical Assistance program also connects communities with experts who can help assess and implement solutions for addressing PFAS contamination.
Real-World Examples: PFAS Management in Action
The efforts to address PFAS contamination involve diverse strategies across various sectors. These initiatives underscore the growing urgency and complexity of managing PFAS contamination and highlight the need for comprehensive approaches, including legal frameworks, technological innovation, and regulatory enforcement. Collaboration across regional jurisdictions, industries, and levels of government will be critical to scaling solutions, minimizing litigation risks, and ensuring public and environmental health.
Michigan’s Regulation of Biosolids Land Application
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy has implemented an interim strategy to regulate PFAS in biosolids, particularly those originating from industrial sources. Facilities that apply biosolids are now required to conduct annual testing and adhere to strict limits on PFOS and PFOA concentrations to prevent environmental contamination.
Lebanon, New Hampshire’s Waste-to-Energy Project
Lebanon is piloting a Solid Waste-to-Energy project using pyrolysis to convert municipal waste into syngas and biochar. The process includes high-temperature reactors and gas scrubbers to remove PFAS, ensuring safe energy production. The facility aims to serve 10+ municipalities and reduce landfill use by over 90 percent. This innovative approach highlights the potential for sustainable waste management solutions that address PFAS contamination.
Fort Worth, Texas’s Industrial Discharge Ordinance
Fort Worth’s new ordinance requires industrial dischargers to reduce PFAS levels to 25 nanograms per liter within one year of detection. Best Management Practices include pollution prevention, spill response plans, and PFAS substitutions in operations.
The Importance of Congressional Action
The National League of Cities (NLC) is advocating for liability protection for municipal drinking water, wastewater, stormwater utilities, landfills, solid waste facilities, airports, and fire departments, which face CERCLA liability despite not causing or contributing to PFAS contamination. Local governments are “passive receivers” of PFAS-containing materials that enter water supplies, wastewater treatment systems, stormwater runoff, biosolids, and solid waste streams through normal operations. As owners and operators of these systems, they risk being held responsible for contamination they did not cause under CERCLA’s strict, retroactive, joint, and several liability framework. Furthermore, CERCLA actions can be initiated by any entity, not just the EPA, further increasing legal exposure. Without liability protections, municipalities could face extensive litigation and financial burdens, shifting costs onto communities and taxpayers instead of polluters. Legislative safeguards are necessary to uphold the “polluter pays” principle and prevent unfair penalties on local governments managing essential public services.
Tell your Congressional delegation that municipal liability protection language must be included in any PFAS legislation this Congress.
Lessons from Past Litigation
The 2005 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection lawsuit against several corporations for decades of pollution in the Passaic River serves as a cautionary tale. Crossclaims and counterclaims ensued, with Maxus and others filing against around 300 public and private parties (including municipalities) for shared liability. The litigation extended until 2021 and resulted in settlements amounting to hundreds of millions, emphasizing the challenges municipalities may face under the PFAS CERCLA designation, including third-party claims and prolonged legal expenses.
Further Resources
NLC has published a series of resources to support local leaders in navigating and complying with EPA’s PFAS regulations on CERCLA and drinking water standards:
- What the Hazardous Substance Designation of PFAS Chemicals Means for Local Governments
- 6 Things for Local Leaders to Know About EPA’s New PFAS Drinking Water Regulations
- How Cities Can Prepare Now to Meet New PFAS Drinking Water Regulations
- New Resource for Local Leaders to Evaluate PFAS Testing and Treatment Technologies
Call to Action
Take action by urging your Congressional delegation to include municipal liability protection language in any PFAS legislation considered this Congress.
