This story was originally published on Grist.Register to join Grist Weekly newsletter here.
The U.S. government says it is immune from 27 lawsuits filed by local and state governments, businesses and property owners over the military’s use of deadly PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” to pollute the country.Litigation is only a small part thousands of cases Plaintiffs across the country have filed lawsuits against entities that manufacture, sell and use a large number of products called aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). AFFF is a super-effective fire-fighting agent that has seeped into drinking water and soil across the United States over time. A journey of several decades.
Ministry of Justice a U.S. District Judge in South Carolina asked dismissed last month’s lawsuit, arguing the government cannot be held liable for PFAS contamination. Lawyers for the plaintiffs called the move “misleading” and said dismissing the lawsuit would prolong the ongoing environmental disaster the Pentagon helped create.
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, often known by the abbreviation PFAS (pronounced PEA’-Quick), invented by chemical giant DuPont in the 1940s. DuPont trademarked the chemical “Teflon,” and many Americans came to know and love it for its use in nonstick cookware in the latter half of the 20th century. Another industry giant, 3M, quickly surpassed DuPont to become the world’s largest manufacturer of PFAS, which is also used in many industrial applications such as cosmetics, food packaging, clothing, and plastics, lubricants, and coolants.
Unfortunately, PFAS can cause a host of health problems. PFAS linked to Testicles, kidneys and Thyroid cancer; Cardiovascular diseases; and Immunodeficiency.
The Department of Defense became involved in the development of PFAS in the 1960s. In response to multiple fatal fires on the decks of warships, the Naval Research Laboratory, the naval research arm, Cooperate with 3M A new firefighting foam that can extinguish high-temperature fires. The foam’s active ingredient is a fluorinated surfactant, also known as perfluorooctane sulfonate, or PFOS — one of thousands of chemicals that fall under the PFAS umbrella.Internal studies and memos indicate 3M realizes Shortly after the foam was patented, it emerged that its PFAS products could be harmful to animal testing subjects.
Since the 1970s, every Navy ship—and soon, nearly every U.S. military base, civilian airport, local fire training facility, and fire station—had AFFFs on site and used for training in the event of a fire. Year after year, the foam is dumped into the ocean and onto the bare ground at these sites, polluting the earth and migrating into nearby waterways. These chemicals do not break down naturally in the environment but are still present today.According to the Nonprofit Environmental Working Group, there are 710 military locations There is known or suspected PFAS contamination in the United States and its territories, including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The Department of Defense (DOD) is under increasing pressure state and congress Clean up these contaminated sites.but it has do this slowlyeven admitting to PFAS found in blood thousands of soldiers, posing a threat to human health.Instead, the Department of Defense Congress calls for phasing out AFFF in some of its systems, as recently as 2023, doubled down on the usefulness of these chemicals. “Loss of PFAS use due to overly broad regulation or severe market contraction would significantly impact national security and the Department of Defense’s ability to fulfill its mission,” defense officials wrote in a report Report proposed to Congress last year.
at the same time, People living near military bases – and soldier – Been sick all the time. The lawsuits, filed in U.S. District Court in South Carolina by farmers and several states, seek to make the government pay for water and property contamination the Department of Defense allegedly caused.
Experts told Grist that even if the lawsuits were allowed to proceed, they would be unlikely to succeed. That’s because they rely on the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, which allows individuals to sue the federal government for wrongdoing committed by people working on behalf of the United States if the federal government violates specific mandatory policies.
But there is a loophole in the Federal Tort Claims Act. One of the loopholes, known as the “discretionary” exemption, states that federal personnel making decisions using their own personal judgment should not be held liable for harm caused. The U.S. government argued that members of the military used their discretion when they began requiring the use of AFFF and did not violate “mandatory or specific” restrictions on the foam. “For decades, military policy has encouraged—not prohibited—the use of AFFF,” the Justice Department wrote in its motion to dismiss the case.
“Every decision has a certain amount of discretion,” said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, noting that the discretionary exemption can apply to almost any decision made by a federal employee. “But I don’t think anyone except the manufacturers of PFAS knew it was so harmful,” he said. 3M and DuPont did not respond to Grist’s requests for comment.
In its motion to dismiss, the government made another argument that experts told Grist was likely to succeed.Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, better known as the Superfund Act, the Pentagon has the authority Clean up your own contaminated sites. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not classified PFAS contamination as “hazardous contamination,” but the Department of Defense says it has spent billions of dollars investigating and controlling PFAS at some of its bases. Its attorneys said in the motion that because the military voluntarily exercised its cleanup authority under the Superfund Act, it should not be held liable for PFAS contamination.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs and defendants declined requests for comment, citing ongoing legal proceedings.
The U.S. government is the only defendant that may have immunity in PFAS lawsuits.Faced with the threat of high-profile trials, 3M, DuPont and other chemical companies have chosen to pay Historic Settlement Worth Billions of Dollars Water providers accuse the companies of intentionally contaminating public drinking water supplies with permanent chemicals. The judge presiding over a large number of AFFF lawsuits also has hundreds of other cases brought by non-water providers to hear. These include personal injury and property damage cases, as well as cases seeking to make PFAS manufacturers pay for medical monitoring of exposed people.
The scale of the lawsuits makes clear that communities across the U.S. desperately need funds to pay for PFAS cleanups— All fees of which is unclear, but may be as many as $400 billion. “We can’t even imagine how much this would cost,” Tobias said.
This article was originally published on Grist exist https://grist.org/health/pentagon-tries-to-dodge-pfas-lawsuits-over-a-product-it-helped-invent/. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling the stories of climate solutions and a just future.For more information, please visit Grist website