A company in South Jersey has been using secret chemicals to replace other substances subject to strict health restrictions, but state officials said in a new lawsuit that these new substances may be equally toxic to air, soil and drinking water.

The U.S. Department of Environmental Protection and the State Attorney General’s Office sued Solvay Specialty Polymers of Gloucester County on Tuesday, saying the company has been discharging old and new PFAS chemicals, also known as “permanent chemicals.” Over the years, the chemical manufacturer has discharged emissions from the West Depford plant into the environment, but has not taken enough measures to clean them up.

Deputy Commissioner Catherine McCabe said in a statement: “Solvay cannot be allowed to continue to release toxic PFAS chemicals into the environment while keeping the public ignorant of the risks of their practices.” Taking responsibility for health and the scientific impact caused by the environment in West Deptford and surrounding areas left the department with no choice but to continue with today’s application.”

Solvay and its competitors are facing increasing regulation of PFAS (per fluorine and polyfluoroalkyl substances), such as PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid) and PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), and are therefore turning to unregulated alternatives Product. But according to a lawsuit filed in the Gloucester County Superior Court, these new chemicals appear to be equally dangerous to the environment and human health.

These agencies stated in a 111-page indictment that these new chemicals “have similar risks to public health and the environment as those posed by PFNA and PFOA.” It seeks a court order to force Solvay to fully investigate and clean up its pollution, protect drinking water, restore natural resources, and disclose the impact of its pollution on public health and the environment.

The complaint alleges that Solvay told DEP in April last year that the company has been discharging alternative chemicals into the environment for “more than 20 years” and continues to this day. It shows that these alternatives have been used with PFNA and PFOA until the company phased out old chemicals in 2010.

Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, is an activist who has long advocated stricter health restrictions on PFAS chemicals. She said that until she saw the complaint, she didn’t know that the company had been using alternative chemicals for so long.

“The secret… shocking”
She said: “For many years, Solvay has released the truth about things that people come into contact with the environment. This is shocking.” “Solvay used this without anyone, even DEP.” It’s a crime to replace this kind of compound. I didn’t know it until recently. I don’t know the toxicity of this chemical and its characteristics, such as its persistence in the environment and human body. This is a crime.”

Prior to this, DEP issued an “instruction” against Solvay and four other chemical companies in March last year, requiring them to remove widespread PFAS pollution. DEP stated in the new lawsuit that Solvay did not meet all the requirements of the directive.

Solvay and its competitors did not publicly identify these new chemicals because they are proprietary information.

The company said that since it has cooperated with Japan, the monitoring and cleaning of PFNA public water wells near the nuclear power plant near Paulsboro have been temporarily closed. In 2013, officials discovered that the chemical level was 11 times higher than that of New Jersey and has set limits for safe human consumption.

In 2018, New Jersey became the first state to set public health restrictions on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, and since then two other chemicals in this category-PFOS and PFOS Alkane sulfonic acid-set strict limits.

Solvay said that DEP is fully aware of this “rigorous” investigation and “fully complies with all laws and regulations.”

Considering the cooperation with DEP, Solvay said he was “surprised and disappointed” by the lawsuit. The company said in a statement: “We intend to actively defend ourselves against NJDEP’s inaccurate, overly broad and baseless allegations.”