In June 2024, the US EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) — commonly known as Superfund. This designation marks a fundamental shift in PFAS liability, transforming contamination cleanup from a voluntary or state-directed process into a federally enforceable remediation obligation with broad liability implications.
What the CERCLA Designation Means in Practice
Under CERCLA, hazardous substance designation triggers several key legal mechanisms. Releases of designated substances above reportable quantities must be reported to the National Response Center. EPA and state authorities gain enforcement power to compel responsible parties to investigate and clean up contaminated sites, or to recover cleanup costs from liable parties after the fact. The designation applies retroactively — parties that discharged PFOA or PFOS years or decades ago can still be held liable for current contamination.
The potentially responsible party (PRP) framework under CERCLA casts a wide net, encompassing manufacturers, processors, distributors, users, and disposers of PFAS-containing products. This includes AFFF manufacturers, chemical producers, industrial users, airports, military contractors, and even municipalities that accepted PFAS-contaminated waste. Litigation over cost allocation among PRPs is expected to be extensive and long-running.
Implications for Water Utilities and the Treatment Market
Water utilities that have detected PFOA or PFOS in source water face a complex dual obligation: comply with the new MCLs under the Safe Drinking Water Act and, in some cases, pursue cost recovery from upstream PRPs under CERCLA. Several utilities have already filed or threatened CERCLA cost recovery claims against AFFF manufacturers, with early settlements reaching hundreds of millions of dollars.
For the water treatment technology market, the CERCLA designation accelerates the sense of urgency among industrial dischargers and contaminated site owners who previously faced no federal compliance deadline. Facilities that have been deferring PFAS remediation investment are now subject to EPA enforcement timelines, driving demand for both groundwater treatment systems and source water protection infrastructure.
Technology developers offering in-situ groundwater treatment — including permeable reactive barriers, in-well treatment systems, and soil mixing with sorbents — will find expanded demand at CERCLA sites. Above-ground pump-and-treat systems with advanced PFAS removal remain the most common remedial approach, but destruction-based technologies are increasingly sought by PRPs seeking to avoid long-term liability from waste residuals.