Stater overtager PFAS-kemikalier for evigt med forbud, retssager

"For evigt kemikalier" er overalt. De tusindvis af kemikalier i gruppen kendt som perfluoralkyl- og polyfluoralkyl-stoffer eller PFAS findes i køkkengrej, emballage, kosmetik, tøj, tæpper, elektronik, brandslukningsskum og mange andre produkter.

Kemikalierne, som ikke nedbrydes naturligt, er så udbredte, at de findes i blodet hos 97 % af amerikanerne. Forskning viser, at nogle PFAS-forbindelser kan nedsætte fertiliteten, forårsage metaboliske forstyrrelser, skade immunsystemet og øge risikoen for kræft.

Mens stater afventer regler fra det føderale miljøbeskyttelsesagentur, har stigende bevidsthed i de senere år fået mere end to dusin stater til at tage initiativ til at beskytte deres indbyggeres sundhed, i mange tilfælde gennem topartisk lovgivning.

Nogle har forbudt brugen af ​​PFAS i visse forbrugerprodukter. Andre har udstedt stærkere vandkvalitetsstandarder eller bemyndiget statslige myndigheder til at fremskynde reglerne. Mange forfølger oprydnings- og saneringsindsatsen, hvor stater sagsøger forurenere for kompensation, der spænder fra snesevis af millioner til næsten en milliard dollars. Og efterhånden som flere agenturer og lovgivere bliver interesserede og begynder at teste for PFAS, siger eksperter, vil der komme flere ændringer.

"Interessen og handlingen er bare stigende," sagde Sarah Doll, national direktør for Safer States, en alliance af miljømæssige sundhedsgrupper med fokus på giftige kemikalier. "Flere statslige organer leder efter og finder PFAS i vand, slam og luft. Det spirer frem, og jeg forventer absolut, at det vil være over hele 2023 politiske sessioner."

Dolls gruppe har sporet 203 lovforslag foreslået i 31 stater relateret til PFAS-spørgsmål.

"Jeg har hørt fra lovgivere, at test har været en drivkraft for dem," sagde Mara Herman, miljøsundhedschef ved National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, et forum for statslige lovgivere. "Det findes så mange steder, at det ikke rigtig er et byproblem eller et landdistriktsproblem."

Alligevel er kludetæppet af love og retssager stadig ujævnt, og fortalere siger, at amerikanere har brug for føderal handling for at holde multinationale virksomheder ansvarlige for tidligere forurening, rense vandveje og systemer, der nu er inficeret, og indføre omfattende forbud mod at sætte PFAS i nye produkter.

"Stat for stat er bare fuldstændig latterligt," sagde Laurene Allen, medstifter af Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water, en New Hampshire-gruppe, der har presset staten til at handle på PFAS. "De fremskridt, du har, bør ikke bestemmes af dit postnummer."

EPA har foreslået en regel, der regulerer to almindelige PFAS-kemikalier under Superfund-loven, men agenturet har endnu ikke anmodet om offentlige kommentarer, hvilket er påkrævet, før reglen kan træde i kraft.

Fortalere for industrien lobbyer i mellemtiden på føderalt niveau og i statshuse og argumenterer for, at forsøg på at regulere PFAS bredt kan ende med at forbyde harmløse kemikalier, der er afgørende for vigtige produkter og industrier. PFAS-forbindelser blev længe set som et kemi-"mirakel" på grund af egenskaber, der gjorde dem nonstick, pletafvisende, vandtætte eller brandbestandige.

"Alle PFAS er ikke ens, og de bør ikke reguleres på samme måde," sagde American Chemistry Council i en erklæring sendt af Tom Flanagin, seniordirektør for produktkommunikation. "De mest problematiske stykker lovgivning omfatter uhensigtsmæssige og alt for brede definitioner af PFAS, der trækker mange potentielt utilsigtede stoffer og produkter ind."

Flanagins e-mail citerede en kategori af fluorpolymerer, der anvendes i vedvarende energi, sundhedspleje, elektronik og andre industrier som kritiske for mange produkter, mens de bærer en lav sikkerhedsrisiko.

PFAS-forbud

Lovgivere i flere stater peger på Maines vedtagelse i 2021 af en lov, der forbyder PFAS i alle nye produkter, som et skelsættende øjeblik.

Foranstaltningen, som træder i kraft i 2030, forbyder enhver bevidst tilføjet PFAS, men giver mulighed for undtagelser i produkter, der er afgørende for sundhed, sikkerhed eller samfundets funktion og endnu ikke har et PFAS-frit alternativ.

"Jeg var virkelig bekymret, da jeg lærte, at PFAS er i stort set alt," sagde statsrepræsentant Lori Gramlich, demokraten, der sponsorerede forbuddet. "Efterhånden som jeg blev mere opmærksom på, hvor omfattende dette problem var, tænkte jeg:'Vi er nødt til at gøre noget'."

Få, hvis nogen stater, har vedtaget et så omfattende PFAS-forbud som Maines, men mange har vedtaget love rettet mod PFAS i fødevareemballage, kosmetik, brandslukningsskum eller tekstiler. Colorado vedtog tidligere i år en lov, der dækker mange produkter, samtidig med at dens brug i olie- og gasproduktion afsluttes. State Rep. Mary Bradfield, en republikaner, der medsponsorerede lovforslaget, sagde, at hun blev flyttet til at fungere som tre vanddistrikter i hendes samfund, der kæmpede med PFAS-kontamination fra den nærliggende Peterson Air Force Base.

"PFAS-kemikalier dukker op i alarmerende mængder," sagde Bradfield. "In certain concentrations, it can be very detrimental to health. My bill targets those products where there is a viable substitution for PFAS."

Bradfield said other lawmakers wanted to pursue an economy-wide ban as broad as Maine's, but she felt the targeted approach—which includes carpets and rugs, food packaging and children's products—was more achievable.

In Hawaii, legislators passed a ban on PFAS in food packaging and firefighting foam earlier this year. State Rep. Nicole Lowen, a Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said it was backed by research that showed alternative products already exist on the market, adding that the "writing is on the wall" for other PFAS categories.

"We felt like that would be the politically easiest thing to move forward," she said. "From everything I've learned, unless there's some need that cannot be replaced by anything else we have, these need to be phased out from use, period."

Meanwhile, California passed laws this year to ban PFAS in cosmetics and textiles, while requiring companies to report data on other products containing PFAS.

Agency action

Some lawmakers have focused their efforts on empowering state regulators, rather than targeting specific products.

In Washington, legislators passed a law earlier this year that will allow the state Department of Ecology to issue PFAS regulations within three years, instead of the 2030 timeline under the previous regulatory structure. That agency, which will have the authority to issue bans on PFAS in certain products, is expected to act by 2025, giving Washington the fastest timeline in the nation for phasing out PFAS.

"It's the government's job to protect people," said state Rep. Liz Berry, a Democrat who sponsored the bill. "[The agency] has done a lot of the homework already. It's just a matter of pulling the trigger."

In some states, agency officials have led the response to PFAS contamination. In Michigan, for example, regulators crafted rules over the past several years for levels of some PFAS compounds in drinking water, groundwater and surface water. The state also brought together seven state agencies to form the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, known as MPART, which serves as a coordinating group for testing, cleanup and public education efforts. The state has conducted extensive testing to identify contaminated sites.

"The biggest threat to public health has been around water quality," said Abigail Hendershott, MPART's executive director. "If we've got a source [of contamination], we're going to find it in groundwater, so that's the easiest way to define and start those compliance actions."

Now that it has a better handle on testing and regulating water, the state may turn its attention to consumer products, she said.

Cleaning up

Banning products and setting regulations may help prevent future contamination. But states still have much work ahead to address the forever chemicals found in their water, soil and residents.

Earlier this year, Florida legislators passed a bill requiring the state's Department of Environmental Protection to establish rules by 2025 for target cleanup levels of PFAS if the EPA has not set a national standard by then. State Rep. Toby Overdorf, a Republican who co-sponsored the bill, said his community in Stuart, Florida, has had wells contaminated by PFAS. He noted the massive expense to clean up contaminated water systems.

"There will be state, federal and local funding that will need to come into play to address the problem," he said. "We are going to be educating municipalities and letting them know they need to develop a plan to get a hold of this so they can deliver clean drinking water."

New Hampshire set aside $25 million earlier this year to bolster a loan fund for PFAS remediation of public water systems and wastewater facilities. And lawmakers in Vermont gave residents the right to sue chemical companies for medical monitoring costs if they've been exposed to PFAS.

Meanwhile, 15 state attorneys general separately have sued companies alleged to be responsible for PFAS contamination, seeking damages for the harm caused by the pollution. Minnesota settled with 3M Company, which produced nonstick chemicals that polluted groundwater in the Twin Cities area, for $850 million in 2018. Delaware also reached a settlement, but the other lawsuits are still ongoing.

"It costs tens of millions of dollars to remediate PFAS from water and sewer facilities," said Jon Groveman, policy and water program director at the research and advocacy group Vermont Natural Resources Council. "It's either going to come from taxpayers or the citizens who pay water and sewer bills. AGs are saying, 'No, that's not fair.'"

Vermont recently passed a law creating a legal cause of action against manufacturers of hazardous materials who cause harm, without needing to prove negligence. Other states seeking to sue PFAS manufacturers may pursue similar legislation, Groveman said.

But some industry leaders think it's unfair to hold PFAS manufacturers accountable for every instance of contamination.

"It's not the person who manufactured it who caused the spill or leak, it's the person on whose property the leak occurred," said Scott Manley, executive vice president of Wisconsin Manufacturers &Commerce, a pro-business lobbying association.

The group opposes a lawsuit brought by Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul, both Democrats, seeking nearly $1 billion from 18 companies state leaders say failed to protect the public.

Manley noted that his group has supported efforts to create a grant funding program to help local governments deal with PFAS hotspots.

But in some states, leaders would rather see polluters than taxpayers pay for cleanup.

"These chemicals are very difficult to clean up, and it's very expensive," said Minnesota state Rep. Ami Wazlawik, a Democrat who sponsored a bill that banned PFAS in food packaging. "The taxpayers of Minnesota are not responsible for putting these chemicals there." + Udforsk yderligere

High levels of PFAS detected in school uniforms

2022 The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Distribueret af Tribune Content Agency, LLC.