Court upholds US rule designating PFAS chemicals as 'hazardous'

The industry groups that challenged the rule had argued that the EPA had failed to properly consider the rule’s “enormous costs” for businesses. They argued that the rule “warps EPA’s incentives” by encouraging it to undertake expensive cleanup efforts and passing the bill onto private companies.

The D.C. Circuit rejected those arguments, saying that passing costs onto polluters was the “core purposes” of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as the Superfund law.

“The designation shifts the burden to the very private parties that deposit hazardous substances at the site, rather than allowing those parties to spread these two forever chemicals and expect taxpayers to clean up after them,” U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett wrote for the panel.

Earthjustice, an advocacy group that intervened in the lawsuit to support the EPA’s rule, said Tuesday that the decision was a major win for communities contaminated by PFAS pollution.