Must-read recap: The New Lede's top stories

"Polluter pays" debate heats up over PFAS clean-up plan; rise in air pollution fuels antibiotic resistance, study suggests; climate groups rally for stronger power plant emissions standards.

“Polluter pays” debate heats up over toxic PFAS chemical cleanup plan

As US regulators work to tackle the toxic threat posed by a class of widely used chemicals known as PFAS, debate is heating up over who could – and should – get hit with the cleanup costs.

Over the last several weeks, federal officials have received an onslaught of conflicting calls for action regarding a proposal to designate certain types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as “hazardous substances” under the nation’s so-called “Superfund” law. The designation would provide a pathway for the remediation of dangerously contaminated sites around the United States, including assigning liability for the hazardous waste cleanup.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is specifically proposing that PFOA and PFOS and seven other types of PFAS be designated for action under the Superfund law, known formally as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

The public comment period on the EPA’s proposal ended last Friday, drawing fevered pleas from individuals, industries and agencies across the country. 

It is the issue of potential liability for PFAS contamination under CERCLA that is sparking fierce debate, as an array of parties, including water providers, landfill operators and even farmers, say they worry they could be saddled with millions of dollars in costs to try to rid their operations of widespread PFAS contamination that they had no hand in creating. They want the EPA and members of Congress to carve out exemptions to protect them. (Read the rest of the story.)

Rise in air pollution fuels antibiotic resistance, study suggests

Air pollution could be helping drive a rise in drug-resistant infections, which pose a dangerous threat to global public health, according to a new study.

The paper, published Monday in Lancet Planetary Health, concludes that particulate air pollution (PM2.5), which comes from burning fossil fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation, may be one of the largest contributors to the spread of antibiotic resistance worldwide. The link between the two phenomena has strengthened over time, according to the research.

“The benefits of controlling air pollution could be two-fold: not only will it reduce the harmful effects of poor air quality, it could also play a major role in combating the rise and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria,” said Hong Chen, the paper’s lead author and a professor of environmental science at Zhejiang University in China, in a statement. (Read the rest of the story.)

Climate groups rally for stronger power plant emissions standards

Environmental advocates rallied at the steps of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters on Tuesday, applauding the agency’s efforts to cut climate-harming pollution from power plants but saying its proposed standards don’t go far enough.

The Climate Action Campaign and other groups say they have delivered over one million public comments to the EPA on its proposed rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from these facilities, which was introduced in May.

If finalized, the EPA’s new standards would reduce carbon pollution by 617 million metric tons and would benefit human health, avoiding 1,300 premature deaths and preventing over 300,000 asthma attacks, according to the agency.

The EPA rules would require plants to either install carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology capable of capturing 90% of carbon dioxide emissions or to combust a blend of hydrogen and natural gas. The agency’s emissions rule should be finalized by April 2024, said a spokesperson for the Climate Action Campaign, although plants may not be required to comply with emission limits until 2030 or so. (Read the rest of the story.)