landfills

June 9, 2024

Worries in wine country: Napa Valley wrestles with chemical contamination controversy

By Shannon Kelleher

Famous for its lush vineyards and cherished local wineries, Napa Valley is where people go to escape their problems.

“When you first get there, it’s really pretty,” said Geoff Ellsworth, former mayor of St. Helena, a small Napa Valley community nestled 50 miles northeast of San Francisco. “It mesmerizes people.”

What the more than 3 million annual tourists don’t see, however, is that California’s iconic wine country has a problem of its own – one that has spurred multiple ongoing government investigations and created deep divisions among residents and business owners, with some fearing the region’s reputation and way of life may be in peril.

At the heart of the fear is the decades-old Clover Flat Landfill (CFL), perched on the northern edge of the valley atop the edge of a rugged mountain range. Two streams run adjacent to the landfill as tributaries to the Napa River.

A growing body of evidence, including regulatory inspection reports and emails between regulators and CFL owners, suggests the landfill and a related garbage collection, recycling and composting business known as Upper Valley Disposal Services (UVDS) have routinely polluted those local waterways that drain into the Napa River with an assortment of dangerous toxins.

The river irrigates the valley’s beloved vineyards and is used recreationally for kayaking by over 10,000 people annually. The prospect that the water and wine flowing from the region may be at risk for contamination with hazardous chemicals and heavy metals has driven a wedge between those speaking out about the concerns and others who want the issue kept out of the spotlight, according to Ellsworth.

“The Napa Valley is amongst the most high-value agricultural land in the country,” said Ellsworth, a former employee of Clover Flat. “If there’s a contamination issue, the economic ripples are significant.”

March 21, 2024

Warnings of a “wave of lawsuits” as PFAS exemption debated

By Shannon Kelleher

Representatives of US water and waste systems told US lawmakers this week that hundreds of such operations across the nation could face unintended and overwhelming liabilities unless they are exempted from a proposal that would designate two types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous substances.

The rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets up “multiple avenues to drag innocent parties into extremely costly and complex litigation,” Michael Witt, a lawyer speaking on behalf of a coalition of water groups, told members of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in a hearing Wednesday.

Witt was one of multiple witnesses to address the committee on the hotly contested issue of how the government should address widespread PFAS environmental contamination. The EPA said in 2022 that it was preparing to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) because they present “a substantial danger to human health or welfare and the environment.”

Such a designation allows the government to order responsible parties to clean up the environmental contamination and bear the costs of mitigation. The “polluter pays’ model is a core principle of CERCLA.

The debate now underway is about whether to provide an exemption from liability for “passive receivers” of PFAS – entities that don’t make or use PFAS but wind up with the chemicals in their water, land and waste. The EPA has said it won’t assign liability to passive receivers, but Witt and others speaking at the hearing said there is still concern that such entities could become embroiled in lawsuits over chemicals they never used or produced.

August 11, 2023

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

By Carey Gillam
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 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.