Legislators Continue to Focus on Forever Chemicals

Nearly two years after the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for so-called forever chemicals, the synthetic compounds remain a focus for state legislators.

Formally known as per- and polyfluorinated substances or PFAS, the chemicals are used to make coatings and products that resist heat, stains, oil, grease and water, such as Teflon.

A growing body of research also indicates they may be dangerous to humans, potentially causing decreased fertility, developmental delays in children, and increased risk of certain cancers.

In 2023, at least 23 states enacted 50 bills concerning PFAS, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The following year, when the EPA under the Biden administration established the nation’s first-ever drinking water standard for the chemicals, state lawmakers in 36 states considered more than 200 bills mentioning PFAS, enacting more than 40 of them, according to NCSL.

Last year, when the EPA under President Trump announced that it intended to roll back parts of the brand-new PFAS standard, more than 300 bills related to PFAS were considered across 39 states, with 32 enacted, NCSL reported.

The wave continues this year. As of March 20, over 200 bills referring to PFAS had been introduced in 32 states, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system.

Six of those bills have already been enacted, one each in Indiana, Maine and Utah, and three in New Jersey. Several more are awaiting gubernatorial action in Virginia.

The activity underscores the findings of a recent NCSL report addressing state and federal action on PFAS.

“State legislative activity around PFAS has significantly increased with lawmakers considering everything from establishing maximum contaminant levels of PFAS to banning the sale of ski waxes containing PFAS,” it stated.

NCSL also explored state legislators’ concerns about PFAS in an interview with a bipartisan pair of lawmakers: Colorado Sen. Lisa Cutter (D)—assistant majority leader and member of the Health and Human Services Committee—and Kentucky Sen. Brandon Smith (R), chair of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee.

PFAS contamination “affects our land, our soil, our water, and therefore our human health,” Cutter said. “All of those reasons are compelling enough that we need to do something about it.”

Smith’s take was similar.

“Once you kind of look under the tent, you can see how big of a disaster this thing could be if it’s not handled correctly,” he said.

But he also suggested many state lawmakers may not really be aware of the problem.

“It’s not been on a lot of the radar for most members of the General Assembly,” he said. “And I’d say we’re not that different than most states, because we’re dealing with so many other things. But now that it’s shown up, I’m surprised there’s not more of a panic to it, about us trying to get something in place.”

Research Continues to Find Problems with PFAS but Questions Remain

Over the course of just 15 days in late February and early March, two new PFAS studies were released. One showed that babies are exposed to more PFAS before birth than previously known. The other tested vegetables grown on eight Long Island farms for PFAS.

Although the Long Island farm study found PFAS in the produce, the authors noted: “Significant gaps still remain as we begin to understand the widespread detection of PFAS contamination and the impacts to public health. Unlike Europe, the United States has not yet established any maximum level of PFAS exposure in food, leaving the public without clear safety thresholds for dietary exposure.”

Cutter, the Colorado senator, said she believed states should fund research into the health effects of PFAS “because there has not been satisfactory action at the federal level. And any time that we can prove the impacts of something through research and data, that’s going to be able to help us move forward.”

Smith, the Kentucky senator, on the other hand, acknowledged there are “so many things unknown.”

“While I feel like we know quite a bit at this moment,” he said, “tomorrow that could all change because there is so much about it that is contradictory.”

PFAS Legislation Under Consideration in Over Half of States

At least 32 states have considered bills dealing with per- and polyfluorinated substances, or PFAS, this year, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Four states have enacted such measures.

Lawmakers Urge State Action

The two lawmakers seemed to agree that action at the federal level was the best way forward on the issue.

“I think that the federal government has the structure and the funding and the research and the personnel that states would be limited with,” said Smith.

Cutter said that “ideally” PFAS “should be regulated and monitored by the EPA and all the things that we know would be effective. But in the meantime, I think it’s really important for states to take action.”

She also said state action could lead to change through a domino effect.

“Whenever states do something, then another state might do something,” she said. “We get model legislation from NCSL, for example. Or we talk to colleagues at conferences. So once one state starts to do something and other states start to follow along, it’s incumbent on those companies to begin changing the way they do business, if not for moral, ethical reasons, even for economic reasons.”

Smith advocated for a measured approach. He said the idea of going in and looking for PFAS scares industry because, as he sees it, “a lot of industry has been abused before with overregulation, so they’re going to be hesitant about us trying to do something good.”

He said: “We need to come up with something that’s reasonable and that you actually can respond to and do it in a way that actually gets the job done, actually cleans up the scale of what we want to. Set the bar where we can meet it, and don’t give industry something that makes us feel good, and we tell you we’re protecting our families and all that, but it’s a law that we know nobody can comply with.”

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.