A Surprising Alliance: Trump-Era EPA to Uphold Biden's Landmark 'Forever Chemical' Cleanup Rule

In a surprising and significant development, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the legal representation of the Justice Department, is poised to defend a landmark Biden administration rule that aims to hold polluters accountable for the cleanup of hazardous "forever chemicals." This defense is being mounted by the very agency whose prior leadership under the Trump administration is now tasked with upholding a regulation critical to public health and environmental protection.

The rule in question designates two of the most notorious per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – PFOA and PFOS – as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), more commonly known as the Superfund law.

This designation is a pivotal step, granting the EPA the authority to compel polluters to fund or conduct the cleanup of sites contaminated with these pervasive chemicals, or to recover the costs if the agency performs the cleanup itself.

PFAS, often dubbed "forever chemicals" due to their extraordinary persistence in the environment and human body, are linked to a grim litany of health issues, including various cancers, immune system dysfunction, liver damage, and developmental delays in children.

These chemicals have become ubiquitous, found in everything from non-stick cookware and water-repellent fabrics to firefighting foams and industrial discharges, leading to widespread contamination of drinking water, soil, and air across the nation.

The Biden administration's move to list PFOA and PFOS under Superfund was lauded by environmental advocates as a crucial advancement in addressing a mounting public health crisis.

However, the rule has not gone unchallenged. A coalition of chemical industry trade groups and manufacturers have filed a lawsuit, arguing that the EPA overstepped its authority and that the rule itself is "arbitrary and capricious." Their challenge asserts that the agency should have engaged in a more extensive regulatory process before making such a far-reaching designation.

Despite the legal pressure from powerful industry players, the Justice Department, acting on behalf of the EPA, is steadfastly defending the rule.

This commitment underscores a broader governmental resolve to tackle PFAS contamination head-on. By enabling the EPA to use the robust mechanisms of the Superfund law, the rule aims to accelerate cleanup efforts, foster responsible disposal practices, and ensure that the financial burden of remediation falls squarely on those responsible for the pollution, rather than taxpayers.

The Superfund program is designed to clean up the nation's most contaminated sites.

By adding PFOA and PFOS to its list of hazardous substances, the EPA can now leverage its enforcement powers to identify parties responsible for PFAS contamination and require them to perform cleanups or reimburse the agency for cleanups it conducts. This mechanism is vital given the estimated tens of thousands of sites nationwide that are believed to be contaminated with PFAS.

This ongoing legal battle highlights the complex interplay between environmental regulation, public health imperatives, and industrial interests.

The defense of this rule by the very agency that operated under a different political agenda signals a degree of continuity in the fundamental mission of environmental protection. Ultimately, the outcome of this case will have profound implications for the future of environmental cleanup, corporate accountability, and the health of communities grappling with the legacy of "forever chemical" pollution across the United States.