Chairman Palmer Delivers Opening Statement at Environment Hearing on PFAS

Subcommittee Chairman Palmer’s opening statement as prepared for delivery:

“Welcome to today’s hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment. This year, we’ve revisited some of our country’s most important environmental laws and confronted emerging challenges in protecting our environment and promoted a regulatory climate that encourages innovation and economic growth.

“Among other things, we’ve identified shortcomings with the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act that delay newer, safer chemistries from reaching consumers; explored opportunities to revitalize brownfields sites for crucial infrastructure projects; evaluated the state of technologies to improve our recycling systems; and passed common-sense Clear Air Act reforms.

“Today, we are examining EPA’s decision last year to designate two PFAS chemistries—PFOA and PFOS—as hazardous substance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as “CERCLA” or the Superfund law. CERLCA was enacted in 1980 to facilitate the cleanup of the most contaminated sites around the country and to establish a scheme to hold liable for cleanup costs the parties responsible for that contamination. Superfund imposes strict, and joint and several liability on parties.

“In other words, a responsible party could be responsible for the entire cost to cleanup a contaminated site even if its contribution to the pollution was minimal. CERCLA includes exemptions as well as defenses to liability for certain parties such as “bona fide prospective purchasers” and “innocent landowners,” as they are referred to. However, in the context of the hazardous substance designations for PFOA and PFOS, there are concerns that the existing exemptions and defenses may not adequately protect a class of parties commonly known as “passive receivers” who did not manufacture or use PFOA or PFOS, but may have acquired, used, or disposed of material containing these chemicals. Today, we will examine the impacts of potential liability for PFAS contamination on these entities. Congress has clarified and expanded liability protections before, such as by passing the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act in 2002. We will consider how concerns about PFAS liability may deter a range of economic activities and whether changes to CERCLA, or other legislative action, are needed.

“Additionally, at our March hearing on reauthorization of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Brownfields Program, we discussed the tremendous potential of the estimated 450,000 brownfields sites in our country for housing important infrastructure such as power generation, semiconductor manufacturing facilities, and data centers.

“We hope to examine whether concerns about liability for PFAS hinder the redevelopment of these sites.

“To this end, we welcome Susan Bodine, who previously served as Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at EPA during the George W. Bush Administration and then as Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in the first Trump Administration, in addition to senior staff roles in both the House and the Senate.

“We are also joined by Lawrence Falbe, Chair of the International Council of Shopping Centers Environmental and Land Use Policy Committee. Mr. Falbe will share his experience on how potential PFAS contamination impacts real estate transactions for those seeking to reuse those sites.

“Next, Emily Donovan joins us a co-founder of Clean Cape Fear, a grassroots community advocacy organization focused on the presence and impact of certain PFAS in communities.
We also welcome Tracy Mehan, who represents the American Water Works Association and served as EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, also during the George W. Bush Administration. I thank all of our Members and witnesses for being here, and I look forward to today’s discussion.”