Contractors face significant liabilities at workplaces, given the recent decision of the Trump administration to retain the designations of dangerous superfund substances for two substances per and polyphluoroalchylquil, so -called “chemicals forever”, according to the general associated contractors of America.
In September, United States Environmental Protection Administrator Lee Zeldin said that the designation of PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic) and the PFOs (Perfluoroochochochicalphonic) as “dangerous” substances under the nation’s superfund law would remain in its place. However, EPA plans to start the regulatory process to establish a uniform frame to designate dangerous substances.
“When it comes to PFOA and PFOS contamination, pollutants are responsible while providing certainty for passive receptors that did not make or generate these chemicals is still a continuous challenge,” Zeldin said in a statement. “The EPA intends to do what we can base on our existing authority, but we will need a new legal language of Congress to fully address our concerns with the responsibility of the passive recipient.”
The non -profit and non -profit environmental work group describes PFA as highly toxic fluorinated chemicals that accumulate in humans and do not break down in the environment. Even the small doses of PFA have been related to cancer, the damage of the reproductive and immune system, as well as other diseases, according to the group.
The EPA’s decision – which follows its end of April 2024 of the rule listed by PFO and PFOA under the designation of superfund -, as an uncertainty about the risks of the PFAS, which involves an increase in construction costs and the disruptions of the infrastructure projects, Leah Pilconis, told the General Advancement Agg, in Enr. The rule represents important risks for contractors because they can be responsible for the cleaning of various places of contaminated sites, regardless of their actual contribution to pollution.
“Although the construction industry does not make PFAS, it may already be present at project sites,” says Pilconis. “For some projects, the potential risks of pollution do not recommend bidders, reducing the set of qualified contractors and increasing the general costs of the project.”
He said that these costs include an increase in removal rates, because some dumps now reject waste, which forces contractors to travel longer waste to especially designated dangerous waste landfills. They also include higher consultation, tests and insurance costs, because the research on the site, tests and the recruitment of qualified environmental experts are expensive and the insurance coverage is limited.
The EPA has issued a policy of major pollutant execution discretion, Pilconis said, but contractors are not protected from the lawsuits of other potentially responsible parties. Contractors are left to “ legal limbo ”, as there are no clear federal rules or orientations on the levels of soil PFA or groundwater that can trigger the management or removal requirements, according to it, adds that there are no acceptable fund concentration levels to determine safe elimination options.
“We have had members with great elimination costs associated with this, who did not plan,” said Melinda Tomaino, Principal Director of the AGC Environment and Sustainability, at Enr. “They have been far from the projects because the owners were not ahead and did not want to explore the potential of this type of pollution and clean it,” he said.
Last year, AGC, along with the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Waste and Recycling Association, filed a lawsuit to the DC Circuit Appeal on PFOA and EPA PFOs’ designations under Superfund Law. The litigation, which was disagreed while the administration reviewed its regulatory policy is now being proceeded.
The coalition calls on the court to lead to the EPA’s PFAS designation rule “because it was adopted illegally and without regard to the impacts of the real world on industries such as construction,” said Pilconis.
Guide to contractors
To help contractors better understand the risks associated with PFAs in construction sites, AGC issued an orientation document earlier this week.
The 13 pages General Contractors: Questions and Considerations Related to PFA The guide begins with a statement of responsibility that is not designed to provide legal advice, but aims to raise questions and considerations for contractors during the pre -construction and execution of the project in “a quick evolving policy area”. The guide focuses on PFOA and PFO, addressing various areas such as pre-Bid planning, contract negotiations, project execution and disposition.
“The politics and rules of the Federal Government on PFA are in litigation, the subject of future decision -making and the subject of a legal writing project of the Executive Branch with the United States Congress,” AGC says in the document. State actors, he adds, are also implementing different and developing policies.
“We have been listening to more concerns about our members in this regard and now that the rule has been final for a year, we wanted to ensure that we incorporated some of our members’ experiences with this and some of the implications they have seen in the projects,” said Tomaino.
AGC created a PFAS working group earlier this year to discuss members’ concerns and the best way to help them understand the risks. The document is the result of these discussions, he added that it was not released shortly after the administration indicated the desire to preserve the rule of Biden’s time.
“Hopefully, what the questions and considerations will ask is that contractors think about what they need to have in their contracts, what they need to have in their offers, what they can do to protect -,” said Tomaino. Hope is that “they simply do not walk to a kind of” Pfas Minefield “and [will] You know what they do. “
