WEBVTT - PFAS Could Make a Comeback Under Trump EPA 0:00:13.760 --> 0:00:17.720 Welcome to the Roots and Birds podcast hosted by Bloomberg Intelligence, 0:00:17.800 --> 0:00:20.560 the investment research arm of Bloomberg out PEAT. In this 0:00:20.640 --> 0:00:23.520 podcast series, we talk about the intersection of business policy 0:00:23.560 --> 0:00:23.880 and law. 0:00:24.200 --> 0:00:25.240 My name is Holly Frome. 0:00:25.360 --> 0:00:29.040 I'm an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence covering consumer and industrial litigation. 0:00:29.560 --> 0:00:33.360 Today's podcast we'll focus on regulatory and other issues related 0:00:33.360 --> 0:00:37.360 to pfast chemicals, what are also called forever chemicals. I'm 0:00:37.360 --> 0:00:40.159 delighted to be joined today by doctor Betsy Sutherland, who 0:00:40.240 --> 0:00:43.760 received a PhD in environmental science and engineering from Virginia 0:00:43.800 --> 0:00:46.879 Tech and worked as senior scientist and manager of the 0:00:46.920 --> 0:00:49.760 Water and super Fund program at the US EPI for 0:00:49.800 --> 0:00:53.240 thirty three years before retiring in twenty seventeen. She's authored 0:00:53.280 --> 0:00:56.680 several papers related to pfasts and has testified before Congress 0:00:56.720 --> 0:00:59.920 on multiple occasions. Doctor Sutherland, can you tell us a 0:01:00.040 --> 0:01:02.080 little bit about your background and what you did while 0:01:02.120 --> 0:01:03.000 you worked at the EPA. 0:01:03.720 --> 0:01:07.840 Yes. After working for state and local government environmental programs, 0:01:08.120 --> 0:01:11.320 I joined EPA in nineteen eighty four. I was a 0:01:11.440 --> 0:01:16.200 scientist and manager in EPA's national Water and Superfund programs 0:01:16.520 --> 0:01:21.040 for thirty three years, retiring in August twenty seventeen as 0:01:21.160 --> 0:01:24.720 Director of the Office of Science and Technology. For my 0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:29.480 career accomplishments at EPA, I received the Presidential Distinguished Rank 0:01:29.520 --> 0:01:34.800 Award and was inducted into Virginia Tech's Academy of Distinguished 0:01:34.840 --> 0:01:40.000 Alumni for the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. After retiring, 0:01:40.160 --> 0:01:44.959 I joined the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit organization of 0:01:45.080 --> 0:01:50.280 former EPA career staff and political appointees who volunteered to 0:01:50.320 --> 0:01:55.080 build the capacity of environmental agencies and communities to address 0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:59.920 urgent health and environmental crises. At EPN, I led an 0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:04.160 effort by multiple environmental groups to develop a p FOS 0:02:04.200 --> 0:02:08.680 action Plan for the Biden EPA that influence the twenty 0:02:08.760 --> 0:02:11.399 twenty one p FIST Strategic Roadmap. 0:02:11.760 --> 0:02:14.560 Can you expound on what you did for the Superfund program? 0:02:15.080 --> 0:02:17.640 Yes. In the Superfund Program, I was there for over 0:02:17.720 --> 0:02:21.800 ten years. I was responsible for overseeing the cleanup at 0:02:21.919 --> 0:02:26.639 sites around the country, providing technical guidance on cleanup levels 0:02:26.680 --> 0:02:30.640 for contaminants, and adding new sites to the national list 0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:31.880 of Superfund Sites. 0:02:32.240 --> 0:02:34.519 Interesting, and so you mentioned you worked to develop the 0:02:34.560 --> 0:02:37.760 PPAs action Plan for the biden EPA that influenced the 0:02:37.800 --> 0:02:40.920 twenty twenty one strategic growmap. Can you explain a little 0:02:40.960 --> 0:02:43.120 more what work you did on a PPAs action plan. 0:02:43.720 --> 0:02:48.200 Sure, the EPA under Trump had developed a PFOS action 0:02:48.360 --> 0:02:52.880 plan that lack key actions to prevent, control, and remediate 0:02:52.960 --> 0:02:57.600 p FOS contamination. So I invited other environmental groups to 0:02:57.720 --> 0:03:01.280 join me in developing a new PFIs action plan that 0:03:01.440 --> 0:03:05.919 included those key actions. We sent our recommended PFAS action 0:03:06.080 --> 0:03:09.760 plan to the Biden EPA in April twenty twenty one, 0:03:10.040 --> 0:03:13.239 and we were gratified to see that the PFIST Strategic 0:03:13.360 --> 0:03:18.680 Roadmap EPA released in October of twenty twenty one, incorporated 0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:20.320 many of our recommendations. 0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:24.160 Listen background here. We've been hearing a lot about PFAS chemicals. 0:03:24.200 --> 0:03:27.200 We keep hearing it's all kinds of products and its problem. 0:03:27.639 --> 0:03:29.800 Can you tell us what they are, where they've shown up, 0:03:29.840 --> 0:03:31.160 and why they are a problem. 0:03:31.680 --> 0:03:36.400 Per and polyfloro alkyl substances are a group of thousands 0:03:36.400 --> 0:03:40.160 of manufactured chemicals that have been used since the nineteen 0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:45.920 forties and many different consumer, commercial, and industrial products. Because 0:03:45.960 --> 0:03:50.280 of their widespread use and persistence in the environment, PFIs 0:03:50.320 --> 0:03:53.040 are found in the blood of people and animals. All 0:03:53.080 --> 0:03:57.080 over the world and are present in water, air, fish, 0:03:57.240 --> 0:04:02.040 and soil at locations across the US, US and the globe. 0:04:02.080 --> 0:04:05.560 Only a fraction of the thousands of PFOS chemicals have 0:04:05.640 --> 0:04:08.960 been studied, but those that have been studied have shown 0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:14.240 the potential to cause development effects in children, decrease fertility, 0:04:15.160 --> 0:04:21.640 increased risk of certain cancers, immune systems suppression, and increase 0:04:21.800 --> 0:04:26.800 thyroid and liver diseases. Both EPA and the Agency for 0:04:26.920 --> 0:04:33.120 Toxic Substances and Disease Registry continually search the world's literature 0:04:33.480 --> 0:04:37.240 for PFOST studies in hopes of finding enough data to 0:04:37.320 --> 0:04:41.279 determine the safe level of the twenty nine PPOs we 0:04:41.360 --> 0:04:46.320 can measure in drinking water. EPA's Drinking Water Rule documents 0:04:46.400 --> 0:04:49.960 the key studies on the six p foss being regulated 0:04:50.480 --> 0:04:54.680 and explains that the most sensitive effects were selected for 0:04:54.800 --> 0:05:00.680 the MCL for PFOA, the most sensitive effect within kidney 0:05:00.960 --> 0:05:09.120 and testicular cancer, PFOS liver cancer, gen X liver toxicity, 0:05:10.120 --> 0:05:18.280 p f h XS developmental toxicity, pf BS thyroid toxicity, 0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:22.000 and pfn A developmental toxicity. 0:05:23.560 --> 0:05:27.560 Interesting and those appearing about them and some of the 0:05:27.680 --> 0:05:31.080 lawsuits that we're following we've heard about those chemicals as well. 0:05:31.640 --> 0:05:35.280 So Biden's EPA passed a rule in April setting maximum 0:05:35.279 --> 0:05:38.400 contaminant levels for ppass and drinking water. And that rule 0:05:38.440 --> 0:05:41.799 says pfo A and pfos canx four parts per trillion, 0:05:42.320 --> 0:05:45.400 sets a hazard index for four other types of PPAs. 0:05:45.839 --> 0:05:48.920 Can you explain what the NCL the maximum contaminant level 0:05:48.960 --> 0:05:51.200 does and what a hazardous indexed. 0:05:51.360 --> 0:05:52.880 A hazard index means. 0:05:54.440 --> 0:05:58.840 When a contaminant occurs frequently in public water systems at 0:05:58.880 --> 0:06:02.400 a level of healthcare concern. The Safe Drinking Water Act 0:06:02.520 --> 0:06:09.520 requires EPA to establish a non enforceable maximum contaminant level goal, 0:06:09.880 --> 0:06:17.040 or an MCLG, and an enforceable maximum contaminant level or mcl. 0:06:17.880 --> 0:06:21.760 The MCLG is the level that poses no known adverse 0:06:21.839 --> 0:06:26.360 health effects. The mcl must be set as close as 0:06:26.440 --> 0:06:32.760 feasible to the MCLG, taking into consideration the limits of detection, 0:06:33.640 --> 0:06:41.840 treatment technology, effectiveness, costs, and benefits. Because PFOA and pfos 0:06:42.160 --> 0:06:48.920 are classified as likely carcinogens, EPA set their mclgs at 0:06:49.080 --> 0:06:53.919 zero and the MCLs at four parts per trillion, which 0:06:53.960 --> 0:06:59.040 is the lowest reliable detection limit using EPA's Drinking Water 0:06:59.160 --> 0:07:05.039 Analytical mail For three other p FOS chemicals, EPA set 0:07:05.080 --> 0:07:09.320 the MCL at ten parts per trillion, the exact same 0:07:09.440 --> 0:07:14.800 level as the MCLG. Because these three p foss and 0:07:14.920 --> 0:07:19.680 an additional PFOS often occur together and are expected to 0:07:19.720 --> 0:07:25.960 have additive toxic effects, EPA also regulated them using a 0:07:26.040 --> 0:07:31.520 hazard index MCL of one. The hazard index of one 0:07:31.880 --> 0:07:35.840 ensures that even if each of the four co occurring 0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:41.040 p fos is below the level of concern, their combined 0:07:41.160 --> 0:07:44.760 toxicity will not exceed the level of concern. 0:07:45.640 --> 0:07:46.080 Got it? 0:07:46.200 --> 0:07:50.440 So you said that some of these are likely carcinogens? 0:07:50.720 --> 0:07:52.160 Who has made that determination? 0:07:53.720 --> 0:07:58.280 EPA made that determination based on a review of one 0:07:58.280 --> 0:08:05.120 thousand animal and human studies of PFOA and PFOS. EPA's 0:08:05.240 --> 0:08:09.920 guidelines for carcinogenic risk assessment use a weight of evidence 0:08:10.080 --> 0:08:14.120 criteria to classify a substance in one of five ways. 0:08:14.520 --> 0:08:18.400 The highest classification requiring the most data is to be 0:08:18.480 --> 0:08:23.400 a known carcentergen asbestos as an example of that. The 0:08:23.440 --> 0:08:27.800 next highest data requirement is for classification as a likely 0:08:27.920 --> 0:08:35.240 carcinogen PFOA and PFOS. Those data met that requirement. 0:08:36.520 --> 0:08:39.559 So you had said that with regard to the four 0:08:39.880 --> 0:08:44.000 p fasts that are on this hazard indets, they are 0:08:44.160 --> 0:08:45.720 likely to occur together. 0:08:45.960 --> 0:08:48.360 Do you know why those are likely to occur together? 0:08:49.520 --> 0:08:52.800 Well, all we do know is that monitoring data from 0:08:52.840 --> 0:08:57.360 EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring program and from all the state 0:08:57.480 --> 0:09:01.840 monitoring programs show that these can mcals often co occur 0:09:02.320 --> 0:09:06.880 in public drinking water systems in many locations. We expect 0:09:06.920 --> 0:09:10.800 this is because they're all used in so many consumer, commercial, 0:09:10.880 --> 0:09:14.920 and industrial products that they're often released into the environment 0:09:15.080 --> 0:09:18.800 and then show up together in our drinking water supplies. 0:09:19.280 --> 0:09:20.000 Got it? So? 0:09:20.080 --> 0:09:24.880 The Biden administration also passed a rule in April last 0:09:24.960 --> 0:09:29.360 year designating the foss hazardous under superfund laws. Can you 0:09:29.400 --> 0:09:31.880 tell us what that means and what power does that 0:09:31.960 --> 0:09:33.319 designation give thee get? 0:09:33.480 --> 0:09:37.000 The Superfund law gives EPA the authority to clean up 0:09:37.160 --> 0:09:43.559 pollutants or contaminants that are not designated as hazardous substances, 0:09:44.080 --> 0:09:49.160 but that authority is much more circumscribed than for hazardous substances. 0:09:49.920 --> 0:09:54.600 If a substance is not designated as hazardous, EPA cannot 0:09:54.679 --> 0:09:59.120 require polluters that release this substance to notify the public 0:09:59.240 --> 0:10:03.679 when a release occurs, EPA cannot clean up the substance 0:10:04.120 --> 0:10:07.960 unless the agency can demonstrate that it poses an eminent 0:10:08.480 --> 0:10:14.160 and substantial danger. EPA cannot compel the polluters to conduct 0:10:14.600 --> 0:10:18.240 or pay for the cleanup, and cannot recover costs from 0:10:18.240 --> 0:10:22.679 the polluters for actions EPA takes to investigate and clean 0:10:22.760 --> 0:10:27.440 up non hazardous substances. As a result, the designation of 0:10:27.559 --> 0:10:34.600 PFOA and PFOSS hazardous enables EPA to expedite cleanups, clean 0:10:34.679 --> 0:10:38.400 up many more sites, and ensure the polluters pay for 0:10:38.480 --> 0:10:40.240 the investigations and cleanup. 0:10:40.840 --> 0:10:44.120 So it's a really important, powerful tool. But there are 0:10:44.200 --> 0:10:47.240 legal challenges now winding their way through the courts. They're 0:10:47.320 --> 0:10:51.120 challenging both the maximum contaminant level and the super fund designation, 0:10:51.320 --> 0:10:55.160 and both challenges argue that EPA's rules aren't justified by the. 0:10:55.120 --> 0:10:55.920 Costs of the rule. 0:10:56.400 --> 0:10:59.400 And you said, you thought you had said previously in 0:10:59.440 --> 0:11:02.480 publication that you think Trump's APay may not defend those 0:11:02.520 --> 0:11:05.840 rules in court. Can you explain why you think that is. 0:11:07.679 --> 0:11:11.160 In the recent Senate hearing on the fiftieth anniversity of 0:11:11.200 --> 0:11:15.520 the Safe Drinking Water Act, Senator Shelley Moore Capito declared 0:11:15.559 --> 0:11:19.000 that as the incoming chair of the Senate Environment and 0:11:19.080 --> 0:11:22.640 Public Works Committee, she will work with the Trump administration 0:11:22.880 --> 0:11:28.200 to redo the Biden administration's PFAS Drinking Water Rule and 0:11:28.240 --> 0:11:33.440 the PFAS Hazards Substance Designation rule. Congress cannot get rid 0:11:33.480 --> 0:11:37.000 of these rules through the Congressional Review Act because they 0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:41.200 were finalized too early in twenty twenty four. I expect 0:11:41.240 --> 0:11:44.959 that she will ask the new EPA administrator to roll 0:11:45.000 --> 0:11:48.000 back these two rules, and that he will agree to 0:11:48.040 --> 0:11:52.000 do so. If the Trump EPA decides to redo them, 0:11:52.320 --> 0:11:55.480 they will stop defending these rules in court and take 0:11:55.520 --> 0:11:57.400 a voluntary Remand. 0:11:57.440 --> 0:11:59.720 Yeah, so we'll be watching for that. It'll be interesting 0:11:59.800 --> 0:12:04.760 to see what happens. Befo're following these lawsuits now. So 0:12:05.520 --> 0:12:08.480 there are some major stakeholders opposing the rules. Can you 0:12:08.520 --> 0:12:12.760 can you tell us who those stakeholders are? And one 0:12:12.760 --> 0:12:15.720 of the challenges that have been raised in the briefing 0:12:17.840 --> 0:12:21.040 in the petition where they oppose a rule is that 0:12:21.120 --> 0:12:23.800 the cost of regulating these p fastest part of the 0:12:23.800 --> 0:12:27.960 hazard indets is four point nine million dollars annually, whereas 0:12:27.960 --> 0:12:31.480 the benefit is only six seven hundred and sixty thousand. 0:12:33.000 --> 0:12:34.760 Do you agree with that contention. 0:12:36.280 --> 0:12:39.679 Well, let's first talk about the stakeholders. The two water 0:12:39.880 --> 0:12:44.640 utility trade groups, two industry trade groups, and the Comores 0:12:44.760 --> 0:12:48.600 Company have challenged the p Fast Drinking Water standards and 0:12:48.720 --> 0:12:53.840 my opinion, and it's my opinion, their benefit estimate for 0:12:53.960 --> 0:12:59.959 treating the four hazard index chemicals grossly underestimates the real benefits. 0:13:00.840 --> 0:13:05.199 These four PFIs chemicals were chosen for regulation because they 0:13:05.240 --> 0:13:09.439 have known safe levels and thus can serve as surrogates 0:13:09.760 --> 0:13:14.000 for the sixteen pfos chemicals that have been detected in 0:13:14.040 --> 0:13:19.960 public water supplies but lack all toxicity information. The treatment 0:13:20.080 --> 0:13:24.040 required to remove these four pifis will have the benefit 0:13:24.160 --> 0:13:28.480 of reducing all the PFIs present and the drinking water supply. 0:13:29.520 --> 0:13:32.760 EPA explained in the Drinking Water Rule that they could 0:13:32.880 --> 0:13:37.360 not monetize the benefits of treatment reducing all the co 0:13:37.559 --> 0:13:43.560 occurring PIFAs along with the regulated PIFAs. EPA also explained 0:13:43.760 --> 0:13:47.239 that they could only monetize a fraction of the benefits 0:13:47.520 --> 0:13:51.920 that result from treating the regulated pipis because they lacked 0:13:51.960 --> 0:13:57.319 a methodology to monetize Number one reductions in the ability 0:13:57.320 --> 0:14:02.080 of the immune system to fight disease, number two reductions 0:14:02.120 --> 0:14:07.680 and decrease fertility, and number three decreases in thyroid and 0:14:07.880 --> 0:14:11.400 liver disease, which are the very basis of the gen 0:14:11.679 --> 0:14:15.520 X and PFBS safe levels, which are two of the 0:14:15.559 --> 0:14:18.920 four chemicals that they're claiming they do have benefits for. 0:14:19.520 --> 0:14:22.560 So again, there are seven hundred and sixty thousand dollars 0:14:22.640 --> 0:14:27.480 couldn't possibly include the real basis of reducing thibroid and 0:14:27.600 --> 0:14:33.280 liver disease, which are the need for GenX and PFBS MCLs. 0:14:33.880 --> 0:14:37.400 The challengers did not account for the benefits of reducing 0:14:37.480 --> 0:14:42.920 thibroying liver diseases or the benefits of reducing co occurring pfots. 0:14:44.280 --> 0:14:50.120 Under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Program EPA requires all large 0:14:50.280 --> 0:14:53.840 and mid sized public water systems in the entire country 0:14:54.320 --> 0:14:59.080 to monitor twenty nine p FOSS between twenty twenty three 0:14:59.320 --> 0:15:03.320 and twenty twenty five. Final results will not be available 0:15:03.440 --> 0:15:07.440 until twenty twenty six, but EPA has posted all the 0:15:07.560 --> 0:15:12.520 data collected so far. The current data, representing only about 0:15:12.560 --> 0:15:16.520 half of the total, results show that systems with detectable 0:15:16.560 --> 0:15:22.640 pfas have between two and thirteen different pfas. This indicates 0:15:22.640 --> 0:15:26.840 there will be major health benefits from reducing co occurring 0:15:27.120 --> 0:15:30.840 but unregulated p fas, and again the litigants did not 0:15:31.000 --> 0:15:33.000 take any of that into consideration. 0:15:33.760 --> 0:15:37.560 Interesting, so you had said that there are sixteen, So 0:15:37.720 --> 0:15:42.080 these four pfas are asserted for sixteen p fas temicals 0:15:42.200 --> 0:15:46.520 that are detected in water but lackxic toxicity information. 0:15:46.560 --> 0:15:50.440 Can you explain why they lack toxicity information? 0:15:52.040 --> 0:15:56.640 This is a problem really worldwide with the widespread contamination 0:15:57.360 --> 0:16:00.880 throughout the globe on p fos, all of us are 0:16:00.920 --> 0:16:05.720 trying desperately to study as many of the fifteen thousand 0:16:05.960 --> 0:16:10.040 pfus that are in circulation in the world right now. 0:16:10.400 --> 0:16:14.360 So it turns out that EPA in the Biden administration 0:16:14.960 --> 0:16:18.640 spent the entire four years just coming up with an 0:16:18.720 --> 0:16:23.440 excellent analytical method for drinking water that only includes twenty 0:16:23.520 --> 0:16:28.480 nine pi fus, and we do not even have toxicity 0:16:28.560 --> 0:16:32.320 studies on all twenty nine of those PIFAs. It's really 0:16:32.360 --> 0:16:37.840 been up to EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances, Disease Registry, 0:16:38.240 --> 0:16:42.400 and university professors around the world to try to study 0:16:42.440 --> 0:16:45.640 these chemicals and find out what their safe levels are. 0:16:46.120 --> 0:16:53.280 Industry has played no help in the agency efforts nationwide 0:16:53.320 --> 0:16:56.600 and worldwide to try to find out how toxic these 0:16:56.680 --> 0:16:59.520 chemicals are that they have released into the environment. 0:17:00.040 --> 0:17:02.480 The EPA is not going to defend these rules. Do 0:17:02.520 --> 0:17:04.000 you think that the EPA is. 0:17:03.920 --> 0:17:08.560 Going to propose a replacement standard for the MCL and 0:17:08.600 --> 0:17:11.000 what time frame would we be looking at in terms 0:17:11.080 --> 0:17:14.280 of implementation if they decided to go ahead and revise 0:17:14.320 --> 0:17:15.320 those standards. 0:17:15.760 --> 0:17:18.399 So I expect the Trump EPA will do the p 0:17:18.560 --> 0:17:22.199 Fast Drinking Water Rule with much higher MCLs for the 0:17:22.280 --> 0:17:28.080 five p fos and possibly eliminate the hazard index MCL altogether. 0:17:28.800 --> 0:17:32.320 EPA will need at least three years to propose a 0:17:32.359 --> 0:17:36.199 new rule, take public comment, and finalize the rule in 0:17:36.240 --> 0:17:40.520 twenty twenty seven. The final rule could require utilities to 0:17:40.560 --> 0:17:43.880 come into compliance in three years, which is the traditional 0:17:43.960 --> 0:17:47.400 compliance period, or they could give them five years, which 0:17:47.440 --> 0:17:50.760 is what the current p FAS Drinking Water rule does. 0:17:51.600 --> 0:17:55.160 Either way, depending on how high the MCLs are set 0:17:55.600 --> 0:17:59.920 and how long the compliance period is given, very few 0:18:00.080 --> 0:18:03.520 water systems would have to treat for pfos and they 0:18:03.560 --> 0:18:06.760 wouldn't even have to do that until twenty thirty or 0:18:06.800 --> 0:18:11.320 twenty thirty two. That would mean millions of people will 0:18:11.359 --> 0:18:15.520 continue to drink these chemicals, increasing the risk of cancer, 0:18:16.119 --> 0:18:22.160 reduce fertility, impaired child development, and suppressed ability to fight disease. 0:18:23.160 --> 0:18:24.440 That's very stuff. 0:18:24.800 --> 0:18:27.879 Do you think that Trump EPA would revise the super 0:18:27.920 --> 0:18:29.040 Fund Designation rule? 0:18:29.680 --> 0:18:32.600 And if so, how so? 0:18:32.920 --> 0:18:36.760 Again? I expect the Trump EPA will redo the pfas 0:18:36.840 --> 0:18:42.119 has a substance designation rule to exempt from liability municipal 0:18:42.160 --> 0:18:49.160 wastewater treatment plants, drinking water treatment plants, landfills, airports, and farmers. 0:18:49.880 --> 0:18:53.480 Republicans on both the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 0:18:53.480 --> 0:18:58.520 and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have unsuccessfully tried 0:18:58.560 --> 0:19:03.160 to pass laws provide these exemptions. EPA can go ahead 0:19:03.200 --> 0:19:06.440 and do those exemptions for Congress, but they will need 0:19:06.480 --> 0:19:10.240 at least three years to propose the new rule, take 0:19:10.280 --> 0:19:14.040 public comment, and finalize the rule in twenty twenty seven. 0:19:14.560 --> 0:19:18.439 I expect EPA will retain the requirement for immediate compliance 0:19:18.480 --> 0:19:22.320 that was in the original rule. In twenty twenty four, 0:19:22.720 --> 0:19:27.840 the Biden EPA issued the first ever chemical specific Enforcement 0:19:27.960 --> 0:19:33.240 Discretion memo for pifos that stated the agency would not 0:19:33.840 --> 0:19:39.840 pursue these five entities for Superfund liability EPA argued to 0:19:40.000 --> 0:19:45.160 Congress that this enforcement discretion commitment would better protect those 0:19:45.320 --> 0:19:50.960 entities from liability, and exemptions would have the following disadvantages. 0:19:51.480 --> 0:19:55.120 Number One, it will set the dangerous precedent for other 0:19:55.200 --> 0:19:59.560 hazardous substances and for other entities to get exemptions from 0:19:59.560 --> 0:20:05.280 superf liability in the future. Number two, exemptions will not 0:20:05.520 --> 0:20:09.800 shield these groups from citizen suits or torque claims, which 0:20:09.840 --> 0:20:13.040 are far more likely than super fun actions to begin with. 0:20:13.840 --> 0:20:18.160 And number three, exemptions will decrease the incentive for these 0:20:18.320 --> 0:20:21.080 entities to reduce their p FoST contamination. 0:20:21.400 --> 0:20:23.760 The EPA was proposing as role. 0:20:23.800 --> 0:20:27.120 I remember when the waste companies were asking for inxemption 0:20:28.040 --> 0:20:30.080 and the water companies were asking for inception, and so 0:20:30.160 --> 0:20:32.560 it's like an interesting policy argument because they're saying, well, 0:20:32.600 --> 0:20:35.400 we didn't we didn't create the problem, so we should 0:20:35.400 --> 0:20:37.440 be exempted from these very expensive rules. 0:20:38.119 --> 0:20:41.800 The Trump EPA revises the rule to exempt the five 0:20:41.960 --> 0:20:46.320 entities that Congress has identified. Polluters not covered by the 0:20:46.400 --> 0:20:51.040 exemptions will still have to pay for remediation. The exempted 0:20:51.880 --> 0:20:55.359 entities will not have to pay for cleanup, but EPA's 0:20:55.520 --> 0:21:01.280 enforcement discretion memo already committed to shielding them from paying. Hopefully, 0:21:01.560 --> 0:21:05.399 the exempted entities will decide to voluntarily reduce their p 0:21:05.600 --> 0:21:10.280 FOS contamination in order to protect their communities from exposure 0:21:10.320 --> 0:21:14.640 to these toxic chemicals. States can decide to use their 0:21:14.720 --> 0:21:19.960 existing authority to establish technology based PFOS permit limits for 0:21:20.040 --> 0:21:25.280 treatment plants and landfills, and municipal wastewater treatment plants can 0:21:25.320 --> 0:21:30.240 require industries and landfills that discharge into their sewer systems 0:21:30.600 --> 0:21:35.719 to pre treat for PIFOS. Frankly, it's very disappointing that 0:21:35.760 --> 0:21:40.520 these readily available actions to reduce p FOS contamination have 0:21:40.720 --> 0:21:43.040 not already been taken by most states. 0:21:45.160 --> 0:21:48.879 So if the Trump administration does go ahead and do 0:21:48.920 --> 0:21:52.720 these things, do you think that disincentivizes defendants from settling 0:21:52.760 --> 0:21:54.600 other pre fast contamination claims. 0:21:56.560 --> 0:21:59.800 I really don't think so. I don't think weakening those 0:22:00.040 --> 0:22:03.800 rules will have an effect on PFOS litigation or settlements 0:22:04.320 --> 0:22:08.960 under the Trump administration. I unfortunately expect that all of 0:22:09.040 --> 0:22:13.920 EPA's efforts to prevent, control, and remediate p FOS will 0:22:13.960 --> 0:22:18.479 be slowed and weakened as EPA steps back. However, I 0:22:18.560 --> 0:22:22.040 expect the states will take the lead on regulating pifos. 0:22:22.600 --> 0:22:25.840 A number of states have already established their own drinking 0:22:25.880 --> 0:22:30.320 water standards for a variety of PFOS chemicals, and several 0:22:30.359 --> 0:22:35.240 have banned or restricted pfas in certain products. Maine has 0:22:35.320 --> 0:22:39.320 banned land application of sewage sludge because of PIFAs, and 0:22:39.480 --> 0:22:44.520 Michigan has required all p FOS dischargers to municipal wastewater 0:22:44.600 --> 0:22:48.840 treatment plants to pre treat their waste. The Safer State's 0:22:48.880 --> 0:22:53.280 website tracks the large number of PFOS regulations and laws 0:22:53.760 --> 0:22:58.280 currently in place in the states, throughout the country and 0:22:58.640 --> 0:23:00.440 under consideration loss. 0:23:00.320 --> 0:23:04.080 The country interesting, so we'll be definitely, will definitely be 0:23:04.160 --> 0:23:06.720 watching for those lawsuits to see what happens in court. 0:23:06.760 --> 0:23:10.240 With the lawsuits challenging the rules, the super fun designation, 0:23:10.280 --> 0:23:14.159 the n CLS, it'll be interesting to see what the 0:23:14.160 --> 0:23:17.679 Trump administration does. Thank you so much, doctor Sutherland for 0:23:17.760 --> 0:23:20.960 joining us today, and we'll look forward 0:23:21.000 --> 0:23:31.159 To speaking to you in the future.