As the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moves forward with regulatory actions related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the agency and the US Congress should focus on using all the tools at their disposal to ensure those responsible for releasing these chemicals into the environment are held solely responsible for the resulting contamination.

In August 2022, EPA proposed to designate two of the most common PFAS compounds—perfluorooctane sulfate and perfluorooctanoic acid—as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as Superfund). Once finalized, the designation will allow EPA to identify sites contaminated with these PFAS and hold any responsible parties financially liable for remediation.

When Congress passed CERCLA in 1980, the intent was to hold polluters accountable for cleaning up sites contaminated with harmful chemicals, but the statute does not differentiate between the manufacturers or users of these chemicals and “passive receivers” like water and wastewater systems that may come into contact with a hazardous substance like PFAS through no fault of their own. Liability under the law is “strict, joint, several, and retroactive,” meaning that any single party can be held responsible for the entire cost of cleanup, and actions predating a hazardous substance designation can lead to liability.

Though EPA has committed to targeting manufacturers and polluters for liability, the agency does not have the statutory authority to protect these passive receivers from legal action by entities outside of the federal government. This becomes a problem for water systems because of a provision in CERCLA that allows responsible parties to identify and recover costs from additional parties who may have contributed a hazardous substance to a Superfund site.

In the case of a drinking water system, the treatment process generally involves granular activated carbon filtration, a process that removes PFAS from the water but leaves behind a filter heavily concentrated with that PFAS. Because there is no scalable destruction method for PFAS, water systems must dispose of these filters, typically at a landfill. If that landfill later becomes a Superfund site, the water system that disposed of PFAS-laden treatment residuals could face liability for the contamination.

Manufacturers and polluters who spent decades releasing PFAS into the environment are poised to take advantage of CERCLA by pointing the finger at anyone who may have contributed PFAS to a Superfund site, even entities like water systems who simply removed the chemicals from the drinking water supply to protect public health. Therefore, if Congress does not act, water systems and their ratepayers could be forced to foot part of the bill for expensive remediation of Superfund sites contaminated with PFAS. Manufacturers and polluters should not be given the opportunity to pass these costs on to communities, many of which are already struggling with longstanding affordability challenges.

Communities in states with existing standards have already spent nearly $10 billion to remove PFAS from their drinking water. Once EPA finalizes federal drinking water standards for PFAS, expected in early 2024, thousands of communities across the country will need to invest an additional $38 billion to install the treatment technology necessary to remove PFAS from their drinking water. Ongoing costs related to operations and maintenance will add upwards of $650 million per year on top of capital costs.

AWWA has partnered with other water associations in asking Congress to provide a narrowly tailored exemption for water and wastewater systems from CERCLA liability related to PFAS contamination, recognizing that these systems do not manufacture, use, or benefit from PFAS. Water systems stand ready to comply with these new regulations, but EPA and Congress must ensure that those already bearing the brunt of PFAS contamination are not also required to pay twice over to remove the PFAS—first to purify their drinking water supply and then to clean up Superfund sites contaminated with PFAS.

随着美国环境保护署 (EPA) 推进与全氟烷基物质和多氟烷基物质 (PFAS) 相关的监管行动，该机构和美国国会应重点使用其掌握的所有工具，以确保那些负责将这些化学品释放到环境中的人环境对由此造成的污染负全部责任。

2022 年 8 月，EPA 提议根据《综合环境响应、补偿和责任法案》（CERCLA，也称为超级基金）将两种最常见的 PFAS 化合物（全氟辛烷硫酸盐和全氟辛酸）指定为有害物质。一旦最终确定，该指定将允许 EPA 识别受这些 PFAS 污染的场所，并追究任何责任方进行补救的经济责任。

当国会于 1980 年通过 CERCLA 时，其目的是让污染者负责清理受有害化学物质污染的场所，但该法规并没有区分这些化学品的制造商或用户以及可能出现的水和废水系统等“被动接收者”。非因自身过错而接触 PFAS 等有害物质。该法律规定的责任是“严格的、连带的、个别的和追溯性的”，这意味着任何一方都可以承担全部清理费用，并且在指定危险物质之前采取的行动可能会导致责任。

尽管美国环保局致力于追究制造商和污染者的责任，但该机构没有法定权力来保护这些被动接收者免受联邦政府以外实体的法律诉讼。这成为供水系统的一个问题，因为 CERCLA 中的一项规定允许责任方识别可能向超级基金场地提供有害物质的其他方并收回成本。

就饮用水系统而言，处理过程通常涉及颗粒活性炭过滤，该过程从水中去除 PFAS，但留下了富含 PFAS 的过滤器。由于 PFAS 没有可扩展的销毁方法，供水系统必须处置这些过滤器，通常是在垃圾填埋场。如果该垃圾填埋场后来成为超级基金场地，处理含有 PFAS 的处理残留物的供水系统可能会面临污染责任。

花费数十年时间向环境中释放 PFAS 的制造商和污染者准备利用 CERCLA，将矛头指向任何可能向超级基金网站贡献 PFAS 的人，甚至是像供水系统这样简单地从饮用水供应中去除化学物质的实体，保护公众健康。因此，如果国会不采取行动，供水系统及其纳税人可能被迫支付部分费用，用于对受 PFAS 污染的超级基金场地进行昂贵的修复。制造商和污染者不应有机会将这些成本转嫁给社区，其中许多社区已经在长期面临负担能力的挑战。

现有标准的各州社区已花费近 100 亿美元从饮用水中去除 PFAS。一旦 EPA 预计在 2024 年初最终确定 PFAS 的联邦饮用水标准，全国数千个社区将需要额外投资 380 亿美元来安装必要的处理技术，以去除饮用水中的 PFAS。除资本成本外，与运营和维护相关的持续成本每年将增加 6.5 亿美元以上。

AWWA 已与其他水协会合作，要求国会为水和废水系统提供一项专门针对与 PFAS 污染相关的 CERCLA 责任的豁免，并认识到这些系统不制造、使用 PFAS 或从 PFAS 中受益。供水系统已做好遵守这些新法规的准备，但 EPA 和国会必须确保那些已经首当其冲受到 PFAS 污染的国家也不需要支付两倍的费用来去除 PFAS——首先净化他们的饮用水供应，然后清洁超级基金场地受到 PFAS 污染。