Socastee water plant must address contamination from forever chemicals, suit says
A planned water treatment facility in Socastee will have to grapple with filtering out dangerous “forever chemicals” that traditional treatment processes don’t remove, according to a recent lawsuit filing.
Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority filed the lawsuit against three industrial companies with facilities in South Carolina — one that hasn’t operated since 2004— for allegedly discharging wastewater with PFAS chemicals into rivers and creeks that flow into the confluence of the Waccamaw River and Intracoastal Waterway, where the authority is building its new plant.
PFAS, often referred to as forever chemicals, are a class of toxic compounds that are of increasing concern nationally, as more is learned about their health effects, The State has reported. Exposure to forever chemicals has been linked to certain types of cancer, immune system deficiencies, thyroid problems and other ailments. Once the chemicals get into people’s blood, it can take years to expel the toxins. There are thousands of different types of forever chemicals, many of which are toxic.
Used in a variety of household products, ranging from non-stick frying pans to food wrappers and water-resistant clothing, PFAS compounds do not break down quickly in the environment, thus the name forever chemicals.
Designing new facilities around PFAS contamination
The Grand Strand Water and Sewer Authority is designing a new treatment plant on land it owns adjacent Bay Road and a pump station nearby off Chamberlin Road, according to its suit.
The defendants in the case are Burlington Industries, Inc., which operated a textile mill in Society Hill, S.C., until dissolution in 2004; Fiber Industries, LLC, better known as Darling Fibers, which operates a textile manufacturing facility in Darlington, S.C.; and Sunoco Products Company, which operates an industrial complex in Hartsville, S.C.
The authority is expecting to incur additional costs because it is having to design its new facilities around the PFAS contamination directly caused by these companies, the suit states.
They’re asking a judge to award them compensatory to cover those additional costs and punish the defendants, in addition to requiring those companies “abate the nuisance they have caused, created, and maintained.”
