PFAS Contamination: Taxpayer Costs, Superfund Law, and Redevelopment Concerns

The High Cost of PFAS Removal

• 💧 Removing PFAS chemicals from water systems incurs significant capital investment and ongoing operational costs.
• 💰 Fairfax Water, for example, faces $400 million for capital investment and an 18% increase in ongoing O&M costs to reduce PFAS levels from five to four parts per trillion.
• 📈 Analysis suggests the costs of PFAS treatment could be triple the EPA's estimates, with smaller systems being disproportionately impacted.

Benefit-Cost Analysis of PFAS Standards

• ⚖️ A benefit-cost analysis indicates that a standard of four parts per trillion for PFAS may not meet a positive benefit-cost ratio.
• 📊 A standard around 10 parts per trillion is considered more aligned with benefit-cost considerations, with international standards showing a wide variety.
• ❓ The question of an "intelligible principle" for setting standards is raised, with benefit-cost being a key factor.

Superfund Law and PFAS Designation

• ⚠️ The designation of two specific PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under Superfund law has significant implications.
• 💰 While EPA can use its own funding to address PFAS as pollutants, the hazardous substance designation allows EPA to sue polluters and enables third-party lawsuits.
• 🏭 This designation could lead to increased litigation and potentially pass costs onto taxpayers or consumers.

Redevelopment and Liability Concerns

• 🏗️ Property developers are concerned about liability under Superfund law for PFAS contamination on sites they did not cause.
• 🛡️ A "passive receiver exception" is proposed to address entities that did not pollute but merely own property with PFAS contamination.
• 🌐 Current Superfund defenses, like the enforcement discretion policy and Bonafide Prospective Purchaser defense, are deemed insufficient due to limitations on EPA-only applicability and third-party liability, hindering brownfield redevelopment.