In a congressional hearing held earlier this month, executives from American conglomerates DuPont, Chemours, and 3M told congress that they are not and should not be held responsible for the country's per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, pollution.
Chemours-a DuPont spinoff company-insists that they are not responsible for the widespread pollution, stating in a recently filed lawsuit that they were not aware of such an inheritance of responsibility and simply cannot afford it. The president of Chemours, Paul Kirsch, says DuPont should assume any financial obligations required for cleanup.
DuPont on the other hand, is looking at Chemours to also accept liability for the pollution. Daryl Roberts, DuPont's chief operations and engineering officer, said that Chemours has more than enough money to foot the bill.
3M, the former manufacturer of the PFAs for DuPont and Chemours, removed the two substances from the market roughly 20 years ago. Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS, are the chemicals found to be contaminating drinking water all across the US.
3M, however, is taking a different approach. Instead of debating financial responsibilities, Denise R. Rutherford, 3M senior vice president of corporate affairs, says that the chemicals in question are not related to any health risks facing the population. "The data simply don't show any cause and effect relationships at historical levels of these materials in the environment," she said.
On the contrary, the US Environmental Protection Agency says that the chemicals can cause reproductive, developmental, liver, kidney, and immunological effects in laboratory animals, and have been reported to lead to tumors in animal studies. Epidemiologists discovered heightened levels of cholesterol in people exposed to the chemicals. And toxicologists believe that the chemicals can cause a reduction in the body's immune system response.
While these multi-billion dollar corporations bicker in congress, hundreds of US water supplies are thoroughly contaminated with PFAs. Several states have already imposed regulations on PFOS, PFOA, and PFAs. The EPA is looking to make the regulations nationwide.
Members of the House of Representatives' Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Environment are overseeing the hearings and are desperately trying decide who is to be held liable for the pollution. The back-and-forth of the companies has caused a considerable amount of frustration for the committee members.
"This is ridiculous," Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI) said. "We have companies that have benefited and made millions and billions of dollars by selling these products into commerce who now want to point the finger at somebody else."
He then expressed his frustration towards 3M, "You want to get credit for the decision to no longer produce these dangerous chemicals voluntarily but in the same breath want us to believe that there's no science that says that these chemicals are dangerous at all," Kildee said to Rutherford.
Executives from both DuPont and 3M attempted to explain that PFOS and PFOA are no longer on the market because they are biopersistent, or have the tendency to remain in biological bodies of mass. The accused had very little to say in regards to the toxic nature of the compounds.
