Project

PFAS Federal Legislation in the 116th Congress

A close-up view of a silver water faucet with clear water streaming out of it.

Updat­ed Jan­u­ary 192021.

Per- and poly­flu­o­roalkyl sub­stances (PFAS) are bioac­cu­mu­la­tive and envi­ron­men­tal­ly per­sis­tent, have been wide­ly used in com­mer­cial appli­ca­tions since the 1950s and have been linked to a series of human health harms, includ­ing can­cer, kid­ney dis­ease and birth and devel­op­men­tal dis­or­ders. The chem­i­cals have been detect­ed in the drink­ing water of more than six mil­lion Amer­i­cans at a lev­el exceed­ing the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency’s (EPA) 2016 life­time drink­ing water health advi­sories lev­el of 70 parts per tril­lion (ppt) — a lev­el sev­en to ten times greater than the safe lev­el of expo­sure esti­mat­ed by the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion (CDC) in 2018.

The wide­spread pub­lic expo­sure to dan­ger­ous lev­els of PFAS chem­i­cals in drink­ing water and oth­er poten­tial path­ways has trig­gered sig­nif­i­cant con­cern in Con­gress. Con­gres­sion­al con­cern has not been allayed by the EPA’s release of a PFAS Action Plan” in Feb­ru­ary 2019 or sub­se­quent actions the agency has tak­en, includ­ing final inter­im rec­om­men­da­tions to address ground­wa­ter con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed with per­flu­o­rooc­tan­ic acid (PFOA) and per­flu­o­rooc­tane sul­fonate (PFOS) chem­i­cals and a sup­ple­men­tal notice of pro­posed rule­mak­ing to pro­mul­gate a sig­nif­i­cant new use rule for long-chain PFAS chem­i­cals under the Tox­ic Sub­stances Con­trol Act. 

Dur­ing the 116th Con­gress (20192021), Con­gress used the annu­al process­es around the Depart­ment of Defense’s autho­riza­tion bill (the Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act or NDAA”) and gov­ern­ment-wide appro­pri­a­tions bills to adopt PFAS-relat­ed pro­grams and pro­vi­sions. The 2019 and 2020 NDAA and appro­pri­a­tions process­es are dis­cussed below as are the many pieces of stand-alone PFAS leg­is­la­tion that were intro­duced in the 116th Con­gress. The stand-alone leg­is­la­tion encom­passed four leg­isla­tive focal areas four leg­isla­tive focal areas: (1) enhanced detec­tion and research; (2) new reg­u­la­to­ry man­dates; (3) cleanup assis­tance; and (4) expo­sure to PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion at or near mil­i­tary instal­la­tions. Infor­ma­tion on PFAS leg­is­la­tion in the cur­rent 117th Con­gress (20212023) can be found here.

2020 NDAA, WRDA and Appropriation Bills

Attor­neys Gen­er­al Action

In Octo­ber 2020, Michi­gan Attor­ney Gen­er­al Dana Nes­sel led a coali­tion of 20 attor­neys gen­er­al in send­ing a let­ter to Con­gress about the states’ PFAS-relat­ed pri­or­i­ties for the enact­ed-ver­sion of the fis­cal year 2021 NDAA. The let­ter request­ed that the con­fer­ence report include the pro­vi­sion in the House-passed fis­cal year 2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395) that would require DOD to meet or exceed the most strin­gent cleanup stan­dard for PFOS or PFOA con­t­a­m­i­na­tion between an enforce­able state stan­dard under the Com­pre­hen­sive Envi­ron­men­tal Response, Com­pen­sa­tion, and Lia­bil­i­ty Act (CER­CLA or the Super­fund statute), an enforce­able fed­er­al stan­dard under Super­fund or a health advi­so­ry under the Safe Drink­ing Water Act (SDWA) from DOD or Nation­al Guard activ­i­ties found in drink­ing water or in ground­wa­ter that is not cur­rent­ly used for drink­ing water. 

The attor­neys gen­er­al also request­ed that final ver­sion of the fis­cal year 2021 NDAA include oth­er pro­vi­sions in the House’s fis­cal year 2021 NDAA, such as addi­tion­al fund­ing and autho­riza­tion for PFAS cleanup, robust resources for ongo­ing and new stud­ies, and alter­na­tives to fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS. Addi­tion­al­ly, the let­ter asked that pro­vi­sions from the House bill to require DOD to offer PFAS blood test­ing for all inter­est­ed ser­vice mem­bers as part of their rou­tine phys­i­cals and lim­it­ing the PFAS-con­tain­ing prod­ucts the Defense Logis­tics Agency may pro­cure be includ­ed in the enact­ed-ver­sion of the fis­cal year 2021 NDAA

The let­ter also encour­aged Con­gress to act to reg­u­late PFAS chem­i­cals, includ­ing des­ig­nat­ing them as a haz­ardous sub­stance under the Super­fund statute.

The con­fer­ence report for the fis­cal year 2021 NDAA (below) unfor­tu­nate­ly did not include most of the pro­vi­sions that the attor­neys gen­er­al had pushed to be includ­ed in the final NDAA for the year. But the bill did include a pro­hi­bi­tion on DOD procur­ing items con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals, includ­ing cook­ware, car­pets and uphol­stery with stain-resis­tant coat­ing as request­ed by the attor­neys gen­er­al. The fis­cal year 2021 NDAA cleared the House and Sen­ate in Decem­ber 2020 and is head­ed to the President’s desk. 

Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act

On Decem­ber 4 2020, the House and Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee released the con­fer­ence report for the fis­cal year 2021 Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act (NDAA). On Decem­ber 8, 2020, the House passed the con­fer­ence report for the bill with a veto-proof mar­gin, and the Sen­ate did the same on Decem­ber 11, 2020. On Decem­ber 23, 2020, the Pres­i­dent vetoed the bill over issues unre­lat­ed to PFAS chem­i­cals. On Jan­u­ary 1, 2021, the Sen­ate, after the House had ear­li­er done the same, over­rode the veto and the fis­cal year 2021 NDAA became law. 

The NDAA annu­al­ly autho­rizes Depart­ment of Defense (DOD) pro­grams, and includes sev­er­al PFAS-relat­ed pro­vi­sions because sig­nif­i­cant PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion of water sup­plies has been iden­ti­fied at or around a num­ber of mil­i­tary instal­la­tions. The con­fer­ence report resolves the dif­fer­ences in the respec­tive ver­sions of the House- and Sen­ate-passed fis­cal year 2021 NDAAs. 

In gen­er­al, the final leg­is­la­tion includes low­er fund­ing lev­els for PFAS pro­grams than had been includ­ed in the House’s ver­sion of the fis­cal year 2021 NDAA that had passed in July 2020. The bill autho­rizes $1.4 bil­lion for envi­ron­men­tal reme­di­a­tion at DOD facil­i­ties. The leg­is­la­tion also autho­rizes $90 mil­lion for research that sup­ports the devel­op­ment of PFAS reme­di­a­tion and oth­er PFAS-relat­ed tech­nolo­gies, and the final pack­age includes $15 mil­lion for a CDC study of the health impli­ca­tions of PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion in drink­ing water. 

A cou­ple of PFAS-relat­ed pol­i­cy pro­pos­als in the House’s fis­cal year 2021 NDAA were not includ­ed in the con­fer­ence report. Stripped from the final bill was the pro­vi­sion in the House bill that would have required DOD to meet or exceed the most strin­gent fed­er­al or state cleanup stan­dard for PFOS or PFOA ground­wa­ter con­t­a­m­i­na­tion. Meet­ing a sim­i­lar fate was a pro­vi­sion that would have required DOD to pub­lish on a pub­lic web­site the results of drink­ing water and ground­wa­ter PFAS test­ing con­duct­ed on mil­i­tary instal­la­tions or for­mer defense sites and a require­ment that man­u­fac­tur­ers dis­close all dis­charges of over 100 pounds of PFAS chem­i­cals list­ed on the Tox­i­cs Release Inventory. 

As was the case with the pri­or year’s NDAA, Con­gress remains con­cerned about the use of fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals at DOD facil­i­ties, which must be phased out by Octo­ber 2024. Includ­ed in the fis­cal year 2021 NDAA is the require­ment that DOD sur­vey and report on fire­fight­ing agent tech­nolo­gies that will help facil­i­tate the phase­out and estab­lish­ment of a prize that can be award­ed by DOD for inno­v­a­tive research that results in a viable replace­ment agent for fire­fight­ing foam that does not con­tain PFAS. DOD will also be required to noti­fy all agri­cul­tur­al oper­a­tions with­in 10 square miles of a loca­tion where cov­ered PFAS has been detect­ed in ground­wa­ter that is sus­pect­ed to orig­i­nate from use of fire­fight­ing foam on a mil­i­tary installation. 

Last­ly, sim­i­lar to a pro­vi­sion in the House bill, the final pack­age pro­hibits DOD from procur­ing items con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals, includ­ing cook­ware, and car­pets and uphol­stery with stain-resis­tant coating.

WRDA

Con­gress reg­u­lar­ly enacts an updat­ed Water Resource Devel­op­ment Act to autho­rize U.S. Army Corps of Engi­neers water infra­struc­ture projects and activ­i­ties, often on a bien­ni­al cycle. With the last WRDA enact­ed in 2018, 2020 presents an oppor­tu­ni­ty for Con­gress to pass a WRDA with PFAS-spe­cif­ic provisions.

There had been some opti­mism that a WRDA with PFAS pro­vi­sions could be enact­ed in 2020 after the House passed its Water Resources Devel­op­ment Act of 2020 (WRDA) (H.R. 7575) on July 29, 2020 that includ­ed some PFAS-spe­cif­ic lan­guage. But on Decem­ber 8, 2020, the House passed a stripped down ver­sion of WRDA leg­is­la­tion (S. 1811) that did not include any PFAS pro­vi­sions, sig­nal­ing that Con­gress would not move WRDA with PFAS-spe­cif­ic pro­vi­sions in 2020. The House passed the stripped down WRDA bill in amend­ed form from an ear­li­er ver­sion of the bill that the Sen­ate had passed in July 2019, which means that the Sen­ate would have to pass S. 1811 once again in order for the leg­is­la­tion to become law. S. 1811 was includ­ed, with­out PFAS-relat­ed pro­vi­sions, in the fis­cal year 2021 gov­ern­ment spend­ing bill (below).

Appro­pri­a­tion Bills

On Decem­ber 21, 2020, both the House and Sen­ate passed the appro­pri­a­tions spend­ing pack­age for fis­cal year 2021, which includ­ed sev­er­al PFAS-relat­ed pro­vi­sions. The leg­is­la­tion was signed into law by Pres­i­dent Trump on Decem­ber 272020

The EPA por­tion of the bill includes fund­ing for many PFAS pro­grams. The bill pro­vides $20 mil­lion to states to address PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion through treat­ment, reme­di­a­tion and cleanup.
The agency is urged to expe­di­tious­ly reme­di­ate Super­fund sites con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed by these emerg­ing con­t­a­m­i­nants, includ­ing PFAS chem­i­cals, and to pro­vide tech­ni­cal assis­tance and sup­port to states dur­ing the cleanup process. 

The leg­is­la­tion includes a lit­tle over $44 mil­lion to the agency for pri­or­i­ty actions under the PFAS Action Plan, an increase of $17 mil­lion over the fis­cal year 2020 enact­ed lev­el. The leg­is­la­tion also urges the EPA to expe­di­tious­ly estab­lish a max­i­mum con­t­a­m­i­nant lev­el (MCL) for PFAS chem­i­cals under the Safe Drink­ing Water Act as called for in the PFAS Action Plan and requires the agency to brief the House and Sen­ate Appro­pri­a­tions Com­mit­tee with­in 60 days on its progress on estab­lish­ing the MCL

The final spend­ing pack­age con­tin­ues the $2 mil­lion in base fund­ing that was includ­ed in fis­cal year 2020 for the Agency for Tox­ic Sub­stances and Dis­ease Registry’s work on PFAS chem­i­cals and oth­er con­t­a­m­i­nants of emerg­ing con­cern and con­tains $2.7 mil­lion for the U.S. Geo­log­i­cal Sur­vey for research on PFAS trans­mis­sion in water­sheds and aquifers. 

The Mil­i­tary Construction/​Veterans Affairs com­po­nent of the final spend­ing pack­age includes $100 mil­lion more than as request­ed by the Trump administration’s fis­cal year 2021 bud­get pro­pos­al for cleanup at mil­i­tary instal­la­tions affect­ed by PFOS and PFOA con­t­a­m­i­na­tion. Fund­ing cleanup at mil­i­tary instal­la­tions at this lev­el near­ly split the dif­fer­ence in the House’s appro­pri­a­tions bill that would have pro­vid­ed $200 mil­lion more in fund­ing for PFOS and PFOA cleanup and the Sen­ate bill that would have only pro­vid­ed an addi­tion­al $7 mil­lion in cleanup funds. 

The DOD divi­sion of the final appro­pri­a­tions bill includes a num­ber of PFAS pro­vi­sions. The bill pro­vides DOD an increase of more than $45 mil­lion over the bud­get request from base oper­a­tions sup­port fund­ing for PFAS chem­i­cal reme­di­a­tion at DOD facil­i­ties. The bill also includes $51 mil­lion more than as request­ed in the Trump administration’s final pro­posed bud­get for tech­nol­o­gy research on the reme­di­a­tion, dis­pos­al, replace­ment, and cleanup of PFAS chem­i­cals. The DOD award for inno­va­tion research that results in a replace­ment agent for fire­fight­ing foam that does not con­tain PFAS chem­i­cals, which was estab­lished in the fis­cal year 2021 NDAA (above), received a plus up of $5 mil­lion. Last­ly, DOD is direct­ed with­in 180 days of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion to brief the House and Sen­ate Appro­pri­a­tions Com­mit­tees on the replace­ment fire­fight­ing agent research efforts. 

The spend­ing pack­age for the Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion includes a PFAS item. The leg­is­la­tion pro­vides the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol with $1 mil­lion for award­ing of grants to devel­op vol­un­tary train­ing cours­es for health pro­fes­sion­als to under­stand the poten­tial health impacts of PFAS exposure. 

The part of the bill with fund­ing for the Depart­ment of Agri­cul­ture also includes a num­ber of PFAS-relat­ed pro­vi­sions. First, as in the Senate’s ver­sion of their appro­pri­a­tions pack­age, the Depart­ment is direct­ed to use the Dairy Indem­ni­ty Pay­ment Pro­gram to pur­chase and remove PF AS con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed cows from the mar­ket. Sim­i­lar­ly, the Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion is direct­ed to deter­mine whether food pack­ag­ing with PFAS chem­i­cals con­tin­ues to meet the safe­ty stan­dards of a rea­son­able cer­tain­ty of no harm under intend­ed con­di­tions of use. 

2019 NDAA and Appropriation Bills

Attor­neys Gen­er­al Action

State attor­neys gen­er­al have request­ed, or filed suits to require, that the EPA and oth­er fed­er­al agen­cies and depart­ments take steps to cleanup PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion. In July 2019, New York Attor­ney Gen­er­al Leti­tia James led a coali­tion of 20 attor­neys gen­er­al in send­ing a let­ter to Con­gress dis­cussing states’ imme­di­ate leg­isla­tive needs to respond to PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion. It urged Con­gress to take leg­isla­tive steps sim­i­lar to many of the PFAS-relat­ed leg­isla­tive pro­vi­sions ref­er­enced below, which are cur­rent­ly before Con­gress through the appro­pri­a­tions process, DOD autho­riza­tion leg­is­la­tion or as stand-alone legislation.

The fol­low­ing month, August 2019, Penn­syl­va­nia Attor­ney Gen­er­al Joshua Shapiro sent a let­ter to con­gres­sion­al lead­ers to urge Con­gress to move quick­ly to enact leg­is­la­tion to address the crit­i­cal need to reg­u­late PFAS chem­i­cals. The let­ter request­ed that Con­gress sup­port sev­er­al pro­vi­sions in the Sen­ate and House ver­sions of the Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act, includ­ing research on the health and envi­ron­men­tal impacts of all PFAS chem­i­cals (Sen­ate); list­ing all PFAS chem­i­cals as a haz­ardous sub­stance under Super­fund (House); and list­ing PFAS as a tox­ic pol­lu­tant or haz­ardous sub­stance under the Clean Water Act (House).

Learn more about the let­ter here.

Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act

The Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act (NDAA), which annu­al­ly autho­rizes Depart­ment of Defense (DOD) pro­grams, includ­ed sev­er­al PFAS-relat­ed pro­vi­sions because sig­nif­i­cant PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion of water sup­plies has been iden­ti­fied at or around a num­ber of mil­i­tary instal­la­tions. The enact­ed ver­sion of the fis­cal year 2020 NDAA fell short of the ini­tial opti­mism that the NDAA would include pro­vi­sions to spark the clean-up of PFAS chem­i­cals across the coun­try under the Com­pre­hen­sive Envi­ron­men­tal Response, Com­pen­sa­tion, and Lia­bil­i­ty Act (CER­CLA or the Super­fund statute) and man­date that the EPA estab­lish drink­ing water stan­dards for PFAS chemicals. 

Nonethe­less, the leg­is­la­tion includ­ed a num­ber of notable PFAS-relat­ed pro­vi­sions. In par­tic­u­lar, the leg­is­la­tion (1) phas­es out the military’s use of fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals; (2) pro­vides PFAS blood test­ing to mil­i­tary fire­fight­ers; (3) address­es the con­t­a­m­i­na­tion of water sup­plies with PFAS from mil­i­tary activ­i­ties; (4) pro­motes coop­er­a­tion on and mon­i­tor­ing of PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion in water sup­plies; (5) requires the EPA to take action on PFAS chem­i­cals under the Tox­ic Sub­stances Con­trol Act (TSCA); and (6) pro­hibits the use of PFAS chem­i­cals in mil­i­tary food pack­ag­ing containers. 

Mil­i­tary fire­fight­ing foam. Under the bill, the mil­i­tary is pro­hib­it­ed from using fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals after Octo­ber 1, 2024 with an excep­tion for use on ships, in emer­gency respons­es and in lim­it­ed test­ing and train­ing circumstances. 

For lega­cy fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals, the leg­is­la­tion includ­ed a pro­vi­sion sim­i­lar to a mod­i­fied ver­sion of the PFAS Waste Incin­er­a­tion Ban Act (H.R. 2591). Specif­i­cal­ly, all incin­er­a­tion of fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals must be con­duct­ed at a tem­per­a­ture range ade­quate to break down PFAS chem­i­cals, while also ensur­ing the max­i­mum degree of reduc­tion in emis­sion of PFAS chem­i­cals; all incin­er­a­tion must be con­duct­ed in accor­dance with the Clean Air Act and at a facil­i­ty that has been per­mit­ted to receive waste reg­u­lat­ed under the Sol­id Waste Dis­pos­al Act. Any PFAS-con­tain­ing mate­ri­als des­ig­nat­ed for dis­pos­al must be stored in accor­dance with title 40, part 264 of the Code of Fed­er­al Regulations. 

Mil­i­tary blood test­ing. The Pro­tect­ing Mil­i­tary Fire­fight­ers from PFAS Act (H.R.1863, S. 858) was includ­ed in the text of the final bill. The fis­cal year 2020 NDAA requires DOD to include blood test­ing for PFAS chem­i­cals as part of rou­tine phys­i­cals for mil­i­tary firefighters. 

Water sup­plies. The Prompt and Fast Action to Stop Dam­ages Act (H.R. 1567, S. 675) was includ­ed in the leg­is­la­tion. DOD is autho­rized to tem­porar­i­ly sup­ply uncon­t­a­m­i­nat­ed water or treat­ed water to agri­cul­tur­al users whose irri­ga­tion water is con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed with PFAS chem­i­cals from mil­i­tary instal­la­tions. The Air Force is also autho­rized to acquire prop­er­ty with­in the vicin­i­ty of an Air Force base that has shown signs of [PFOA and PFOS] con­t­a­m­i­na­tion” due to activ­i­ties on the base. 

Coop­er­a­tion on and mon­i­tor­ing of PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion in water sup­plies. A pro­vi­sion sim­i­lar to the PFAS Account­abil­i­ty Act (H.R. 2626, S. 1372) was includ­ed in the fis­cal year 2020 NDAA. The DOD, upon the request of a gov­er­nor of a state, is required to work expe­di­tious­ly” on coop­er­a­tive agree­ments to address, test, mon­i­tor, remove, and reme­di­ate PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion in drink­ing and sur­face water or ground­wa­ter ema­nat­ing from DOD activ­i­ties. Coop­er­a­tive agree­ments must require the area sub­ject to such agree­ments meet or exceed the most strin­gent state or fed­er­al lim­its that apply to the release of PFAS chemicals.

A mod­i­fied ver­sion of the Senate’s sub­sti­tute amend­ment to the PFAS Release Dis­clo­sure Act (S. 1507), includ­ing the Safe Drink­ing Water Assis­tance Act (S. 1251) and the amendment’s pro­vi­sion that is some­what akin to the PFAS Mon­i­tor­ing Act (H.R. 2800), was includ­ed in the DOD autho­riza­tion bill. The fis­cal year 2020 NDAA would cre­ate an inter­a­gency task force to improve fed­er­al coor­di­na­tion on emerg­ing envi­ron­men­tal con­t­a­m­i­na­tion, devel­op a Nation­al Emerg­ing Con­t­a­m­i­nant Research Ini­tia­tive to fill in research gaps on emerg­ing con­t­a­m­i­nants, and cre­ate a state assis­tance pro­gram to pro­vide fed­er­al assis­tance to eli­gi­ble states for the test­ing and analy­sis of emerg­ing contaminants. 

DOD is also required to seek to enter into agree­ments with munic­i­pal­i­ties or munic­i­pal drink­ing water util­i­ties locat­ed near mil­i­tary instal­la­tions to share mon­i­tor­ing data relat­ed to PFAS chem­i­cals and oth­er emerg­ing con­t­a­m­i­nants of con­cern col­lect­ed at the mil­i­tary instal­la­tion. DOD must main­tain a pub­licly avail­able web­site that pro­vides a clear­ing­house for infor­ma­tion about the expo­sure of mem­bers of the mil­i­tary, their fam­i­lies and their com­mu­ni­ties to PFAS chem­i­cals, as well as infor­ma­tion on PFAS test­ing, clean-up and rec­om­mend­ed avail­able treat­ment methodologies.

EPA Action under the Tox­ic Sub­stances Con­trol Act. The mod­i­fied ver­sion of the sub­sti­tute amend­ment to the Senate’s PFAS Release Dis­clo­sure Act (S. 1507) requires the EPA to take final action on the agency’s Jan­u­ary 2015 pro­pos­al to amend a sig­nif­i­cant new use rule for long-chain PFAS chem­i­cals under TSCA. Addi­tion­al­ly, the EPA must pro­mul­gate a rule to require any man­u­fac­tur­er that has pro­duced PFAS chem­i­cals since 2011 to main­tain records and report on the pro­duc­tion of PFAS chem­i­cals under TSCA

Ban­ning PFAS use in food pack­ag­ing. Last­ly, the final bill banned the use of PFAS chem­i­cals in pack­ag­ing for mil­i­tary field food rations after Octo­ber 12021

The House passed the fis­cal year 2020 NDAA on Decem­ber 11, 2019 and the Sen­ate passed the leg­is­la­tion on Decem­ber 17, 2019. The pres­i­dent signed the bill into law on Decem­ber 202019

DOD is begin­ning to take steps to imple­ment the fis­cal year 2020 NDAA. In March 2020, DOD’s PFAS Task Force pub­lished a progress report on its plans to assess more than 600 mil­i­tary instal­la­tions where PFAS has either been found or released. 

Appro­pri­a­tion Bills

On Decem­ber 16, 2019, House and Sen­ate nego­tia­tors released the text of two spend­ing pack­ages for fis­cal year 2020, which were both signed into law on Decem­ber 20, 2019. The two pack­ages includ­ed: the domes­tic pri­or­i­ties appro­pri­a­tions bill and the nation­al secu­ri­ty appro­pri­a­tions bill; both of which includ­ed some PFAS-relat­ed spend­ing provisions. 

Fund­ing of EPA PFAS Reg­u­la­to­ry Activ­i­ties. The EPA fund­ing divi­sion of the domes­tic appro­pri­a­tions bill con­tained sev­er­al PFAS pro­vi­sions. The final pack­age includ­ed $3 mil­lion for the EPA to estab­lish Max­i­mum Con­t­a­m­i­nant Lev­els under the SDWA for PFAS chem­i­cals, and $5 mil­lion to des­ig­nate PFAS chem­i­cals as haz­ardous sub­stances by the EPA under the Super­fund statute. 

The final fund­ing mea­sure direct­ed the EPA to brief the House and Sen­ate Appro­pri­a­tions Com­mit­tees with­in 60 days of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion on the agency’s work under its PFAS Action Plan. The final appro­pri­a­tions bill also includ­ed $1 mil­lion for PFAS work in drink­ing water sys­tems; $7 mil­lion to address PFAS and oth­er con­t­a­m­i­nants of emerg­ing con­cern as states car­ry out Pub­lic Water Sys­tem Super­vi­sion Pro­grams; and $13 mil­lion for state-led cleanup and reme­di­a­tion efforts. 

Fund­ing for PFAS cleanup on mil­i­tary bases. The final mil­i­tary con­struc­tion fund­ing mea­sure pro­vid­ed $60 mil­lion above the Trump administration’s bud­get pro­pos­al for PFOS and PFOA cleanups. DOD will have to sub­mit a plan with­in 60 days of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion for spend­ing the addi­tion­al cleanup funds. The DOD fund­ing divi­sion of the nation­al secu­ri­ty appro­pri­a­tions bill includ­ed $100 mil­lion in fund­ing for reme­di­at­ing PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion near Air Force bases, which have often used fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals to snuff out fires. Addi­tion­al­ly, the bill includ­ed $10 mil­lion for the CDC to assess the health impacts of expo­sure to PFOS and PFOA

Stand-alone PFAS Legislation

The long list of pro­posed stand-along PFAS leg­is­la­tion divides into four key buckets.

First, sev­er­al bills attempt to bet­ter under­stand the scope of PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion and boost research efforts around this issue. Exam­ples include the PFAS Detec­tion Act; the Safe Drink­ing Water Assis­tance Act; and the PFAS Right-to-Know Act.

Sec­ond, a num­ber of bills would man­date that the EPA set stan­dards for PFAS chem­i­cals with­in a defined time peri­od and based on cur­rent reg­u­la­to­ry schemes. For exam­ple, the PFAS Action Act would require that the EPA clas­si­fy PFAS as a haz­ardous sub­stance” under Super­fund, trig­ger­ing cleanup respon­si­bil­i­ties under the Super­fund law. The Pro­tect­ing Drink­ing Water from PFAS Act would oblig­ate the EPA to set an enforce­able con­t­a­m­i­nant lev­el under the Safe Drink­ing Water Act (SDWA) with­in two years. The Tox­ic PFAS Con­trol Act would amend the Tox­ic Sub­stances Con­trol Act by pro­hibit­ing the man­u­fac­ture of any new sub­stance that is a PFAS chem­i­cal with­in six months after enact­ment of the bill.

Third, a hand­ful of oth­er bills, such as the PFAS User Fee Act, would make addi­tion­al funds avail­able to states and local gov­ern­ments to clean up or oth­er­wise address PFAS contamination.

Fourth, sev­er­al bills respond to PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion at over 700 mil­i­tary bases nation­wide. These bills include the Prompt and Fast Action to Stop Dam­ages Act that would require the devel­op­ment of a plan to clean up PFOS and PFOA con­t­a­m­i­na­tion for all irri­ga­tion water at or adja­cent to a mil­i­tary base. The Vet­er­ans Exposed to Tox­ic PFAS Act would require the Depart­ment of Vet­er­ans Affairs to pro­vide med­ical care to vet­er­ans and their fam­i­lies who expe­ri­ence dis­eases, ill­ness­es or con­di­tions asso­ci­at­ed with PFAS exposure. 

A screenshot of the map described in the caption

The latest update of an interactive map by EWG and the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, at Northeastern University, documents publicly known PFAS pollution in public water systems and military bases, airports, industrial plants and dumps, and firefighter training sites.

Sum­ma­ry of Key Bills

Below is a list of PFAS-relat­ed leg­is­la­tion that was intro­duced in the House or Sen­ate dur­ing the 116th Con­gress (20192021).

🔵Enhanced Detec­tion and Research
🔴Pro­posed Reg­u­la­to­ry Man­dates
⚪Cleanup Assis­tance
⚫Response to Mil­i­tary Use of PFAS

🔵 Enhanced Detec­tion and Research

🔵PFAS Detection Act

The PFAS Detec­tion Act (H.R. 1976, S. 950) would require the U.S. Geo­log­i­cal Sur­vey (USGS) to estab­lish a per­for­mance stan­dard for detect­ing PFAS chem­i­cals in the envi­ron­ment. USGS would also be required to use the per­for­mance stan­dard to car­ry out a nation­wide sam­pling plan to deter­mine the con­cen­tra­tion of PFAS chem­i­cals in estu­ar­ies, lakes, streams, springs, wells, wet­lands, rivers, aquifers, and soil.” USGS would first car­ry out the sam­pling at sources of drink­ing water near loca­tions with known or sus­pect­ed releas­es” of PFAS chem­i­cals and would con­sult with states to deter­mine areas that are a pri­or­i­ty for sam­pling. The leg­is­la­tion autho­rizes $5 mil­lion in appro­pri­a­tions to imple­ment the leg­is­la­tion in fis­cal year 2020 and $10 mil­lion for each fis­cal year from 2021 through 2024.

The bill, intro­duced in the House by Rep. Jack Bergman and Sen. Deb­bie Stabenow in the Sen­ate, has 22 bipar­ti­san House cospon­sors and six bipar­ti­san Sen­ate cospon­sors. The Sen­ate Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Works Com­mit­tee held a leg­isla­tive hear­ing on the PFAS Detec­tion Act on May 22, 2019 and the House Nat­ur­al Resources Sub­com­mit­tee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife held a leg­isla­tive hear­ing on the bill on June 132019.

The PFAS Detec­tion Act was includ­ed in the sub­sti­tute amend­ment to the PFAS Release Dis­clo­sure Act, which was approved by the Sen­ate Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Works Com­mit­tee on June 19, 2019. The bill was also includ­ed in the con­fer­ence report for the fis­cal year 2020 Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act.

🔵🔴 PFAS Right-to-Know Act

The PFAS Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 2577) would amend the Emer­gency Plan­ning and Com­mu­ni­ty Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to include PFAS chem­i­cals on the Tox­ic Release Inven­to­ry (TRI). Under EPCRA, facil­i­ties that man­u­fac­ture, process or use at least 1,000 pounds of PFAS chem­i­cals annu­al­ly would be required to report how much PFAS is released into the envi­ron­ment and/​or man­aged through recy­cling and treat­ment. The infor­ma­tion sub­mit­ted by facil­i­ties would be com­piled into the TRI, which sup­ports deci­sion-mak­ing by com­pa­nies, gov­ern­ments and non-gov­ern­men­tal organizations.

Rep. Anto­nio Del­ga­do intro­duced the PFAS Right-to-Know Act in the House. A com­pan­ion bill has not yet been intro­duced in the Sen­ate. On Novem­ber 20, 2019, a mod­i­fied ver­sion of H.R. 2577 was includ­ed as part of an amend­ment in the nature of a sub­sti­tute to the PFAS Action Act (H.R. 535) on the day it passed out of the House Ener­gy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee. The PFAS Action Act was incor­po­rat­ed in H.R. 535, which passed the House on Jan­u­ary 10, 2020. The mod­i­fied ver­sion of the PFAS Right-to-Know Act would require the EPA to imme­di­ate­ly include an enu­mer­at­ed list of PFAS chem­i­cals on the TRI and would estab­lish a process for adding oth­er PFAS chem­i­cals to the TRI with­in five years. The report­ing thresh­old would be low­ered to 100 pounds. 

🔵🔴 PFAS Release Disclosure Act

The Sen­ate Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Works Com­mit­tee approved a sub­sti­tute amend­ment to the PFAS Release Dis­clo­sure Act (S. 1507) on June 19, 2019. As in the orig­i­nal ver­sion of the PFAS Release Dis­clo­sure Act, the amend­ed ver­sion of the leg­is­la­tion would require the EPA to add PFOA and PFOS and any PFAS chem­i­cal sub­ject to an exist­ing Sig­nif­i­cant New Use Rule under the Tox­ic Sub­stances Con­trol Act to the Emer­gency Plan­ning and Com­mu­ni­ty Right-to-Know Act’s Tox­ic Release Inven­to­ry (TRI). Under the TRI, facil­i­ties that man­u­fac­ture, process or use at least 100 pounds annu­al­ly of PFAS chem­i­cals would be required to report how much PFAS is released into the envi­ron­ment and/​or man­aged through recy­cling and treatment.

The sub­sti­tute amend­ment includes a pro­vi­sion some­what sim­i­lar to the Sen­ate ver­sion of the Pro­tect Drink­ing Water from PFAS Act (S. 1473), which would require the EPA to pro­mul­gate a nation­al pri­ma­ry drink­ing water reg­u­la­tion for at least two PFAS chem­i­cals, PFOS and PFOA, with­in two years. The amend­ed ver­sion of the PFAS Release Dis­clo­sure Act also includes a pro­vi­sion some­what akin to the House’s PFAS Mon­i­tor­ing Act (H.R. 2800), amend­ing the Safe Drink­ing Water Act to require that pub­lic water sys­tems mon­i­tor PFAS chemicals.

The amend­ed leg­is­la­tion also includes the text of the PFAS Detec­tion Act (S. 950), which would require the U.S. Geo­log­i­cal Sur­vey to estab­lish a per­for­mance stan­dard for detect­ing PFAS chem­i­cals in the envi­ron­ment. The bill now also includes a pro­vi­sion near­ly iden­ti­cal to the Safe Drink­ing Water Assis­tance Act (S. 1251), which, among oth­er steps, would cre­ate an inter­a­gency task force to improve fed­er­al coor­di­na­tion on emerg­ing envi­ron­men­tal contamination.

In the title of the leg­is­la­tion labeled Mis­cel­la­neous,” the EPA would be required to pro­mul­gate a rule by 2023 that would require any man­u­fac­tur­er that has pro­duced PFAS chem­i­cals since 2006 to main­tain records and report on the pro­duc­tion of PFAS chem­i­cals under the Tox­ic Sub­stances Con­trol Act (TSCA). Addi­tion­al­ly, the EPA would be required to take final action on the agency’s Jan­u­ary 2015 pro­pos­al to amend a sig­nif­i­cant new use rule for long-chain PFAS chem­i­cals under TSCA

The PFAS Release Dis­clo­sure Act was intro­duced by Sen. Shelly Moore Capi­to with two orig­i­nal bipar­ti­san cospon­sors in the Sen­ate. There is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the House cur­rent­ly. The leg­is­la­tion was part of the Sen­ate Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Work Committee’s May 22, 2019 hear­ing on PFAS leg­is­la­tion. The amend­ed leg­is­la­tion was adopt­ed by the Sen­ate Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Work Com­mit­tee on June 19, 2019 and was includ­ed as a manager’s amend­ment to the Sen­ate-passed ver­sion of the fis­cal year 2020 Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act on June 27, 2019. A mod­i­fied ver­sion of the sub­sti­tute amend­ment with­out the text of the Pro­tect Drink­ing Water from PFAS Act (S. 1473) pro­vi­sion and chang­ing the date asso­ci­at­ed with the TSCA records rule was includ­ed in the con­fer­ence report for the fis­cal year 2020 Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act (NDAA).

🔵 Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act

The Safe Drink­ing Water Assis­tance Act (H.R. 5361, S.1251) would cre­ate an inter­a­gency task force to improve fed­er­al coor­di­na­tion on emerg­ing envi­ron­men­tal con­t­a­m­i­na­tion, devel­op a Nation­al Emerg­ing Con­t­a­m­i­nant Research Ini­tia­tive to fill in research gaps on emerg­ing con­t­a­m­i­nants, and cre­ate a state assis­tance pro­gram to pro­vide fed­er­al assis­tance to eli­gi­ble states for the test­ing and analy­sis of emerg­ing contaminants.

The Safe Drink­ing Water Assis­tance Act was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester and has one cospon­sor. The bill, intro­duced by Sen. Jeanne Sha­heen in the Sen­ate with two cospon­sors, has bipar­ti­san sup­port. The Sen­ate Com­mit­tee on Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Works held a leg­isla­tive hear­ing to con­sid­er the leg­is­la­tion as part of its PFAS-relat­ed hear­ing on May 222019.

The Safe Drink­ing Water Assis­tance Act was includ­ed in the sub­sti­tute amend­ment to the PFAS Release Dis­clo­sure Act, which was approved by the Sen­ate Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Works Com­mit­tee on June 19, 2019. A mod­i­fied ver­sion of the sub­sti­tute amend­ment with the Safe Drink­ing Water Assis­tance Act was also includ­ed in the con­fer­ence report for the fis­cal year 2020 Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act.

🔵🔴 PFAS Testing Act

The PFAS Test­ing Act (H.R. 2608) would require com­pre­hen­sive tox­i­c­i­ty test­ing of all PFAS chem­i­cals under the Tox­ic Sub­stances Con­trol Act. All man­u­fac­tur­ers and proces­sors of PFAS chem­i­cals would be required to report to the EPA all records of sig­nif­i­cant adverse reac­tions to health or the envi­ron­ment alleged to have been caused by PFAS chem­i­cals and all health and safe­ty stud­ies relat­ed to PFAS chem­i­cals that the man­u­fac­tur­ers and proces­sors are aware of. 

Rep. Sean Patrick Mal­oney intro­duced H.R. 2608. The bill cur­rent­ly has two cospon­sors. There is cur­rent­ly no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Sen­ate. A mod­i­fied ver­sion of H.R. 2608 was incor­po­rat­ed in H.R. 535, which passed the House on Jan­u­ary 10, 2020. The mod­i­fied ver­sion of the PFAS Test­ing Act would require the EPA to man­date by rule, rather than order, com­pre­hen­sive tox­i­c­i­ty test­ing of all PFAS chem­i­cals and pro­vide for the cre­ation of cat­e­gories of PFAS chem­i­cals based on haz­ard characteristics. 

🔵🔴 PFAS Monitoring Act

The PFAS Mon­i­tor­ing Act (H.R. 2800) would amend the Safe Drink­ing Water Act (SDWA) to require that EPA pro­mul­gate a reg­u­la­tion that requires with­in a year of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion that PFAS chem­i­cals be mon­i­tored in all pub­lic water sys­tems serv­ing at least 10,000 per­sons. The leg­is­la­tion also includes pro­grams and fund­ing to mon­i­tor pub­lic water sys­tems that serve pop­u­la­tions below 10,000 peo­ple. All PFAS mon­i­tor­ing car­ried out under the bill would be made pub­licly avail­able online by the EPA.

The leg­is­la­tion was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Elis­sa Slotkin and has five bipar­ti­san cospon­sors. Com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Sen­ate has not yet been intro­duced. A pro­vi­sion some­what akin to the PFAS Mon­i­tor­ing Act was includ­ed in the sub­sti­tute amend­ment to the PFAS Release Dis­clo­sure Act, which was approved by the Sen­ate Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Works Com­mit­tee on June 19, 2019. The sub­sti­tute amendment’s pro­vi­sion was also includ­ed in the con­fer­ence report for the fis­cal year 2020 Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act. 

🔵 Guaranteeing Equipment Safety for Firefighters Act

The Guar­an­tee­ing Equip­ment Safe­ty for Fire­fight­ers Act (H.R. 7560, S. 2525) would autho­rize the Nation­al Insti­tute of Stan­dards and Tech­nol­o­gy (NIST) to con­duct a com­pre­hen­sive study of per­son­al pro­tec­tive equip­ment worn by fire­fight­ers to deter­mine the preva­lence and con­cen­tra­tion of PFAS chem­i­cals. The leg­is­la­tion would also estab­lish a fed­er­al grant pro­gram under NIST to award grants to appli­cants that sub­mit research pro­pos­als to devel­op safe alter­na­tives to PFAS sub­stances in per­son­al pro­tec­tive equipment. 

The bill was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Jeanne Sha­heen. It has received bipar­ti­san sup­port from two cospon­sors. On Novem­ber 13, 2019, the Sen­ate Com­merce, Sci­ence and Trans­porta­tion Com­mit­tee vot­ed out of the Com­mit­tee, an amend­ment in the nature of the sub­sti­tute to the bill, which pushed back the post-enact­ment dead­line for com­plet­ing the study from 90 days to three years. On July 22, 2020, the bill was placed on the Sen­ate leg­isla­tive cal­en­dar and on August 12, 2020, the Sen­ate Com­mit­tee on Com­merce, Sci­ence, and Trans­porta­tion released a com­mit­tee report on the legislation. 

The House’s Guar­an­tee­ing Equip­ment Safe­ty for Fire­fight­ers Act includes a three year dead­line for com­plet­ing the study and, autho­rizes $2.5 mil­lion in each of fis­cal years 2021 and 2022 to under­take the study, while pro­vid­ing $5 mil­lion in each of fis­cal year 2023 through fis­cal year 2025 to car­ry out the legislation’s grant pro­gram. The bill was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Ed Perl­mut­ter and has one cospon­sor.

🔵 Federal PFAS Research Evaluation Act

The Fed­er­al PFAS Research Eval­u­a­tion Act (H.R. 7348) would require the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency (EPA) in con­sul­ta­tion with the Direc­tor of the Nation­al Sci­ence Foun­da­tion, the Sec­re­tary of Defense and the Direc­tor of the Nation­al Insti­tutes of Health to enter into an agree­ment with the Nation­al Acad­e­mies of Sci­ences, Engi­neer­ing and Med­i­cine to con­duct a study an sub­mit a report to bet­ter under­stand the research and devel­op­ment need­ed to advance the under­stand­ing of the extent and impli­ca­tions of envi­ron­men­tal con­t­a­m­i­na­tion by PFAS, how to man­age and treat such con­t­a­m­i­na­tion, and the devel­op­ment of safe alter­na­tives. The report will be sub­mit­ted to Con­gress and 180 days after sub­mis­sion of the report to Con­gress, the Direc­tor of the Office of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy Pol­i­cy will sub­mit to Con­gress an imple­men­ta­tion plan for fed­er­al PFAS research, devel­op­ment and demon­stra­tion activ­i­ties. The bill has been intro­duced in the House by Rep. Lizzie Fletch­er and has two cospon­sors; there is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Senate.

🔵 Physician Education on PFAS Health Impacts Act

The Physi­cian Edu­ca­tion on PFAS Health Impacts Act (S. 4313) would estab­lish an HHS grant pro­gram to inform physi­cians and oth­er med­ical prac­ti­tion­ers about the impact of PFAS chem­i­cals expo­sure on health out­comes and best prac­tices for patients who have been exposed to such chem­i­cals. The bill would autho­rize $500,000 in each of fis­cal years 2021 through 2025 to imple­ment the legislation. 

Each grant recip­i­ent would be required to report annu­al­ly to HHS on train­ing mate­ri­als devel­oped through use of funds award­ed under the grant, includ­ing any find­ings or rec­om­men­da­tions that the grantees have deter­mined should be includ­ed in physi­cian or med­ical prac­ti­tion­er train­ing. HHS would then have 90 days to dis­sem­i­nate to the pub­lic a sum­ma­ry of find­ings and rec­om­men­da­tions that are includ­ed in the pro­vid­ed material. 

The bill was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Jeanne Sha­heen and has one cospon­sor. There is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the House.

🔵🔴⚫ Protecting Firefighters from PFAS Act

The Pro­tect­ing Fire­fight­ers from PFAS Act (H.R. 7687) is com­posed of two pre­vi­ous­ly intro­duced pieces of leg­is­la­tion and is intend­ed to pro­vide assis­tance to fire­fight­ers exposed to PFAS chemicals. 

The bill includes a pro­vi­sion sim­i­lar to the Guar­an­tee­ing Equip­ment Safe­ty for Fire­fight­ers Act (H.R. 7560, S. 2525), which would autho­rize the Nation­al Insti­tute of Stan­dards and Tech­nol­o­gy (NIST) to con­duct a com­pre­hen­sive study of per­son­al pro­tec­tive equip­ment (PPE) worn by fire­fight­ers to deter­mine the preva­lence and con­cen­tra­tion of PFAS chem­i­cals and estab­lish a NIST grant pro­gram to fund research pro­pos­als for the devel­op­ment of safe alter­na­tives to PFAS chem­i­cals in PPE

The leg­is­la­tion also includes a pro­vi­sion sim­i­lar to the Vet­er­ans Exposed to Tox­ic PFAS Act (VET PFAS Act) (H.R. 2102, S. 1023). The Depart­ment of Vet­er­ans Affairs (VA) would be required to pro­vide med­ical care to civil­ian fire­fight­ers and vet­er­ans and their fam­i­lies who expe­ri­ence dis­eases, ill­ness­es or con­di­tions asso­ci­at­ed with expo­sure to PFOA and oth­er PFAS chem­i­cals. The VA would be required to pro­vide med­ical cov­er­age for ill­ness­es or con­di­tions relat­ed to PFAS expo­sure even if there is insuf­fi­cient med­ical evi­dence to con­nect the con­di­tion to mil­i­tary or civil­ian fire­fight­er ser­vice or res­i­dence at a mil­i­tary installation. 

The Pro­tect­ing Fire­fight­ers from PFAS Act was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Daniel Kildee and has two cospon­sors. Com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion has not been intro­duced in the Senate.

🔵 PFAS Interagency Research Coordination Strategy Act

The PFAS Inter­a­gency Research Coor­di­na­tion Strat­e­gy Act (PIRCS Act) (H.R. 7931) would estab­lish a fed­er­al inter­a­gency work­ing group, housed with­in the Office of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy Pol­i­cy, to coor­di­nate fed­er­al research and devel­op­ment need­ed to address PFAS chem­i­cals. The work­ing group would also be respon­si­ble for devel­op­ing a strate­gic plan for fed­er­al PFAS research and devel­op­ment, includ­ing iden­ti­fy­ing sci­en­tif­ic and tech­no­log­i­cal chal­lenges that must be addressed to under­stand and sig­nif­i­cant­ly reduce the envi­ron­men­tal and human health impacts of PFAS chem­i­cals and to iden­ti­fy cost-effec­tive, safer and envi­ron­men­tal­ly friend­ly PFAS alter­na­tives; PFAS removal meth­ods; and PFAS destruc­tion meth­ods. The inter­a­gency work­ing group would be required to con­sult with states and tribes and oth­er stake­hold­ers in devel­op­ing the strate­gic plan. 

The PIRCS Act was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Chris­sy Houla­han and has three cospon­sors. A com­pan­ion bill has not yet been intro­duced in the Senate. 

🔴 Pro­posed Reg­u­la­to­ry Mandates

🔴🔵⚪⚫ PFAS Action Act (House Version)

On Jan­u­ary 10, 2020, the House passed the PFAS Action Act (H.R. 535), which includes many impor­tant PFAS pro­vi­sions and pro­grams. Orig­i­nal­ly intro­duced by Rep. Deb­bie Din­gell in the House, the PFAS Action Act would require the EPA to des­ig­nate PFOA and PFOS chem­i­cals as haz­ardous sub­stances” under CER­CLA or the Super­fund law with­in one year of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion. With­in five years of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion, the agency would have to deter­mine whether to des­ig­nate all oth­er PFAS chem­i­cals as haz­ardous sub­stances and post on its web­site its deter­mi­na­tion with­in 60 days of its final decision. 

Super­fund impos­es lia­bil­i­ty on respon­si­ble par­ties for response costs incurred in the cleanup of sites con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed with haz­ardous sub­stances. Des­ig­nat­ing PFOA and PFOS and oth­er PFAS chem­i­cals as haz­ardous sub­stances” would like­ly trig­ger cleanups of con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed ground­wa­ter under the Super­fund law. Five years after the enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion, the EPA would be required sub­mit to the House Ener­gy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee and the Sen­ate Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Works Com­mit­tee a report review­ing the actions tak­en by the agency to cleanup PFOS and PFOA chem­i­cals des­ig­nat­ed as haz­ardous sub­stances under the Super­fund legislation. 

An amend­ed ver­sion of H.R. 2566 (the bill has no short title) was includ­ed in the PFAS Action Act. EPA would be required with­in a year of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion to revise the Safer Choice Stan­dard of the Safer Choice Pro­gram to include that any pot, pan, cook­ing uten­sil, car­pets, rugs, cloth­ing, uphol­stered fur­ni­ture, stain resis­tant, water resis­tant, or grease resis­tant coat­ing that are not sub­ject to sec­tion 409 of the Fed­er­al Food, Drug, and Cos­met­ic Act not con­tain any PFAS chem­i­cals in order to receive a Safer Choice label. The Safer Choice label assists con­sumers in iden­ti­fy­ing prod­ucts with safer chem­i­cal ingredients.

The bill also includes sev­er­al pro­vi­sions intend­ed to address the risks, par­tic­u­lar­ly health risks, of using fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals. First, an amend­ed ver­sion of H.R. 2638 (no title) was includ­ed in the PFAS Action Act. The PFAS Action Act would require the EPA to issue guid­ance for fire­fight­ers and oth­er first respon­ders to min­i­mize the use of foam and oth­er fire­fight­ing mate­ri­als con­tain­ing PFAS in order to min­i­mize health risks from PFAS expo­sure. Under this pro­vi­sion, the agency in con­sul­ta­tion with the U.S. Fire Admin­is­tra­tion must sub­mit a report to Con­gress, with rec­om­men­da­tions for con­gres­sion­al action, on the effec­tive­ness of the guid­ance issued by the agency to min­i­mize fire­fight­ers’ and oth­er first respon­ders’ health risks from PFAS expo­sure. Sec­ond, the EPA would be required in con­sul­ta­tion with the U.S. Fire Admin­is­tra­tion to report to Con­gress on the efforts of the agency and oth­er rel­e­vant fed­er­al depart­ments to iden­ti­fy viable alter­na­tives to the use of fire­fight­ing foam and relat­ed equip­ment con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals. Last­ly, the Fed­er­al Avi­a­tion Admin­is­tra­tion and local fire depart­ments are to be includ­ed in dis­cus­sions about the risks posed by using PFAS in foam for avi­a­tion hangers. 

The PFAS Action Act also includes an amend­ed ver­sion of the Pro­vid­ing Finan­cial Assis­tance for Safe Drink­ing Water Act (H.R. 2533), which would amend the Safe Drink­ing Water Act by autho­riz­ing until 2024 a $125 mil­lion annu­al grant pro­gram for com­mu­ni­ty water sys­tems affect­ed by the pres­ence of PFAS chem­i­cals. Com­mu­ni­ties includ­ed in this pro­gram would include com­mu­ni­ties affect­ed by con­t­a­m­i­na­tion by GenX, a type of PFAS chem­i­cal, and com­mu­ni­ties in which cli­mate change, pol­lu­tion, or envi­ron­men­tal destruc­tion have exac­er­bat­ed sys­temic racial, region­al, social, envi­ron­men­tal and eco­nom­ic injus­tices. The grants would help pay for cap­i­tal costs asso­ci­at­ed with the imple­men­ta­tion of eli­gi­ble treat­ment tech­nolo­gies, where cur­rent tech­nol­o­gy is not suf­fi­cient to remove all detectable amounts of PFAS chem­i­cals in the com­mu­ni­ty water system.

A pro­vi­sion sim­i­lar to the PRO­TECT Act (H.R. 2605) was also includ­ed in the House-passed ver­sion of the PFAS Action Act. The pro­vi­sion would require the EPA to issue a final rule with­in 180 days of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion to list PFOS and PFOA as haz­ardous air pol­lu­tants under the Clean Air Act and, with­in five years of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion, to deter­mine whether oth­er PFAS chem­i­cals should be list­ed as haz­ardous air pol­lu­tants under the Clean Air Act.

The fol­low­ing pieces of stand-alone PFAS leg­is­la­tion (dis­cussed in more detail below) were incor­po­rat­ed into the PFAS Action Act before it passed the House in Jan­u­ary 2020

The PFAS Action Act would also require the EPA to inves­ti­gate meth­ods and means to pre­vent con­t­a­m­i­na­tion of sur­face waters, includ­ing drink­ing water, by GenX. The EPA would also have to devel­op a risk com­mu­ni­ca­tion strat­e­gy to inform the pub­lic about the haz­ards or poten­tial haz­ards of PFAS chem­i­cals by dis­sem­i­nat­ing infor­ma­tion about the risks or poten­tial risks of such sub­stances in land, air, water and prod­ucts; and noti­fy­ing the pub­lic about expo­sure path­ways and mit­i­ga­tion mea­sures through out­reach and edu­ca­tion resources. Last­ly, U.S. ter­ri­to­ries would be eli­gi­ble to receive Safe Drink­ing Water Act fund­ing for the pur­pose of address­ing emerg­ing con­t­a­m­i­nants with a focus on PFAS chemicals. 

🔴🔵⚪⚫ PFAS Action Act (Senate Version)

The Sen­ate ver­sion of the PFAS Action Act (S. 638) would require the EPA to des­ig­nate PFAS chem­i­cals as haz­ardous sub­stances under the Com­pre­hen­sive Envi­ron­men­tal Response, Com­pen­sa­tion, and Lia­bil­i­ty Act (CER­CLA or Super­fund”) with­in one year of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion. Super­fund impos­es lia­bil­i­ty on respon­si­ble par­ties for response costs incurred in the cleanup of sites con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed with haz­ardous sub­stances. Des­ig­nat­ing the fam­i­ly of PFAS chem­i­cals as haz­ardous sub­stances” would like­ly trig­ger cleanups of con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed ground­wa­ter under the Super­fund law.

The leg­is­la­tion, intro­duced by Sen. Tom Carp­er in the Sen­ate, has 52 bipar­ti­san cospon­sors in the Sen­ate. The Sen­ate Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Works Com­mit­tee held a leg­isla­tive hear­ing on the leg­is­la­tion on May 222019.

🔴 Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act (House Version)

Sim­i­lar to the Sen­ate ver­sion of the iden­ti­cal­ly named bill, the House­’s Pro­tect Drink­ing Water from PFAS Act (H.R. 2377) would amend the Safe Drink­ing Water Act by requir­ing that the EPA pub­lish a max­i­mum con­t­a­m­i­nant lev­el goal (MCLG) and a nation­al pri­ma­ry drink­ing water reg­u­la­tion for PFAS chem­i­cals with­in two years of enact­ment of the bill.

The MCLG is a drink­ing water con­t­a­m­i­na­tion lev­el at which no known or antic­i­pat­ed adverse human health effects will occur and which allows an ade­quate mar­gin of safe­ty.” The nation­al pri­ma­ry drink­ing water reg­u­la­tion includes a max­i­mum con­t­a­m­i­nant lev­el, which spec­i­fies a max­i­mum con­t­a­m­i­nant lev­el in drink­ing water that is as close to the [MCLG] as is fea­si­ble” and is an enforce­able standard.

The bill was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Boyle Bren­dan and has 32 bipar­ti­san cospon­sors. A mod­i­fied ver­sion of H.R. 2377 was includ­ed in H.R. 535, which passed the House on Jan­u­ary 10, 2020. The mod­i­fied Pro­tect Drink­ing Water from PFAS Act would require the EPA to pro­mul­gate a nation­al pri­ma­ry drink­ing water reg­u­la­tion for PFOA and PFOS with­in two years of enact­ment of the bill and would estab­lish a sep­a­rate pro­ce­dure on a dif­fer­ent time­line for estab­lish­ing a nation­al pri­ma­ry drink­ing water reg­u­la­tion for oth­er PFAS chemicals. 

🔴 Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act (Senate Version)

Like the House leg­is­la­tion of the same name, the Sen­ate’s Pro­tect Drink­ing Water from PFAS Act (S. 1473) would require the EPA to set a max­i­mum con­t­a­m­i­nant lev­el (MCL) and a pri­ma­ry nation­al drink­ing water reg­u­la­tion for PFAS with­in two years of enact­ment of the bill. MCLs are health-based stan­dards the EPA sets for drink­ing water qual­i­ty under the Safe Drink­ing Water Act that place an enforce­able lim­it on the lev­el of a con­t­a­m­i­nant that is per­mit­ted in pub­lic drink­ing water sys­tems. This bill would group all PFAS chem­i­cals under one max­i­mum con­t­a­m­i­nant lev­el. Unlike H.R. 2377, the Sen­ate leg­is­la­tion instructs EPA to con­sid­er options for tai­lor­ing mon­i­tor­ing require­ments under the nation­al pri­ma­ry drink­ing water reg­u­la­tion for PFAS chem­i­cals for pub­lic water sys­tems that do not detect, or are reli­ably and con­sis­tent­ly below the MCL for, those chemicals.

S. 1473 was intro­duced by Sen. Kirsten Gilli­brand in the Sen­ate and enjoys bipar­ti­san sup­port from five cospon­sors. The Sen­ate Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Works Com­mit­tee held a leg­isla­tive hear­ing on the leg­is­la­tion on May 222019.

🔴🔵 PFAS Waste Incineration Ban Act

The PFAS Waste Incin­er­a­tion Ban Act (H.R. 2591) would amend the Sol­id Waste Dis­pos­al Act by requir­ing the EPA to pro­mul­gate reg­u­la­tions pro­hibit­ing the dis­pos­al by incin­er­a­tion of fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS with­in six months of enact­ment of the bill. The pro­hi­bi­tion would take effect no lat­er than nine months after enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion. Twelve months after enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion, the EPA would be required to pro­mul­gate reg­u­la­tions iden­ti­fy­ing addi­tion­al wastes con­tain­ing PFAS for which a pro­hi­bi­tion on incin­er­a­tion may be nec­es­sary” to pro­tect human health and the environment.

The leg­is­la­tion was intro­duced by Rep. Ro Khan­na in the House with eight cospon­sors. There cur­rent­ly is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Sen­ate. On Novem­ber 20, 2019, a mod­i­fied ver­sion of H.R. 2591 was includ­ed as part of an amend­ment in the nature of a sub­sti­tute to the PFAS Action Act (H.R. 535) on the day it passed out of the House Ener­gy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee. The mod­i­fied PFAS Waste Incin­er­a­tion Act would require the EPA, with­in six months of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion, to issue reg­u­la­tions requir­ing that mate­ri­als con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals or fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals are dis­posed of, such that incin­er­a­tion is con­duct­ed in a man­ner that elim­i­nates PFAS chem­i­cals and that min­i­mizes PFAS chem­i­cals emit­ted into the air.

A still slight­ly mod­i­fied ver­sion of the PFAS Waste Incin­er­a­tion Ban Act was includ­ed in the con­fer­ence report for the fis­cal year 2020 Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act.

🔴 Toxic PFAS Control Act

The Tox­ic PFAS Con­trol Act (H.R. 2600) would amend the Tox­ic Sub­stances Con­trol Act (TSCA) by pro­hibit­ing, with­in six months after the enact­ment of the bill, the man­u­fac­ture of any new sub­stance that is a PFAS chem­i­cal and pro­hibit­ing the man­u­fac­ture or pro­cess­ing of any PFAS chem­i­cal for a use that is a sig­nif­i­cant new use under TSCA. Two years after enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion, the man­u­fac­ture of any PFAS chem­i­cal for exist­ing uses would be pro­hib­it­ed and three years after enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion, the pro­cess­ing or dis­tri­b­u­tion in com­merce of any PFAS chem­i­cal would be ful­ly pro­hib­it­ed. Fur­ther, the EPA would be required to pro­mul­gate a rule that (i) pre­scribes the man­ner or method of dis­pos­al of any PFAS chem­i­cal by a man­u­fac­tur­er or proces­sor or by any oth­er per­son who uses or dis­pos­es any PFAS chem­i­cal; and (ii) requires each per­son sub­ject to the rule to noti­fy each state in which a required dis­pos­al would take place.

The Tox­ic PFAS Con­trol Act was intro­duced by Rep. Madeleine Dean in the House and the bill has six cospon­sors. A mod­i­fied ver­sion of H.R. 2600 was includ­ed in H.R. 535, which passed the House on Jan­u­ary 102020.

🔴 Prevent Release of Toxic Emissions, Contamination and Transfer Act

The Pre­vent Release of Tox­i­cs Emis­sions, Con­t­a­m­i­na­tion, and Trans­fer (PRO­TECT) Act (H.R. 2605) would require the EPA to issue a final rule adding as a class all PFAS chem­i­cals with at least one ful­ly flu­o­ri­nat­ed car­bon atom to the list of haz­ardous air pol­lu­tants under sec­tion 112(b) of the Clean Air Act. One year after the final rule is issued, the EPA would be required to revise the list under sec­tion 112©(1) of the Clean Air Act to include cat­e­gories and sub­cat­e­gories of major sources and area sources of PFAS chem­i­cals list­ed pur­suant to the final rule.

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to reg­u­late pol­lu­tants list­ed as haz­ardous air pol­lu­tants under sec­tion 112(b) by estab­lish­ing emis­sion reduc­tion stan­dards for each cat­e­go­ry or sub­cat­e­go­ry of major sources and area sources of list­ed pollutants.

The PRO­TECT Act was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Haley Stevens and has eight cospon­sors. A com­pan­ion bill has not yet been intro­duced in the Sen­ate. A mod­i­fied ver­sion of H.R. 2605 was includ­ed in H.R. 535, which passed the House on Jan­u­ary 102010.

The as-passed lan­guage require the EPA to issue a final rule with­in 180 days of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion to list PFOS and PFOA as haz­ardous air pol­lu­tants under the Clean Air Act. Addi­tion­al­ly, with­in five years of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion, the agency must deter­mine whether oth­er PFAS chem­i­cals should be list­ed as haz­ardous air pol­lu­tants under the Clean Air Act. 

🔴 Protecting Communities from New PFAS Act

The Pro­tect­ing Com­mu­ni­ties from New PFAS Act (H.R. 2596) would amend the Tox­ic Sub­stances Con­trol Act by instruct­ing the EPA to deter­mine that any PFAS chem­i­cal, for which a notice of intent to man­u­fac­ture or process has been sub­mit­ted to the EPA, presents an unrea­son­able risk of injury to health or the envi­ron­ment. The EPA would then be required to issue an order that pro­hibits the man­u­fac­ture, pro­cess­ing and dis­tri­b­u­tion in com­merce of such PFAS chemicals.

The leg­is­la­tion was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Anne Kuster and has one cospon­sor. A com­pan­ion bill has not yet been intro­duced in the Sen­ate. A mod­i­fied ver­sion of H.R. 2596 was includ­ed in H.R. 535, which passed by the House on Jan­u­ary 10, 2020. The amend­ed Tox­ic PFAS Con­trol Act would mod­i­fy TSCA by instruct­ing the EPA, for a peri­od of five years, to deter­mine that any PFAS chem­i­cal, for which a notice of intent to man­u­fac­ture or process has been sub­mit­ted to the EPA, presents an unrea­son­able risk of injury to health or the environment.

🔴 H.R. 2638

H.R. 2638 (the bill has no short title) would require the EPA to issue guid­ance for fire­fight­ers and oth­er first respon­ders to min­i­mize the use of foam and oth­er fire­fight­ing mate­ri­als con­tain­ing PFAS in order to min­i­mize their health risk from PFAS expo­sure. H.R. 2638 was intro­duced by Rep. Lizzie Fletch­er in the House. The bill cur­rent­ly has two cospon­sors and there is cur­rent­ly no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Senate. 

A mod­i­fied ver­sion of H.R. 2638 was includ­ed in H.R. 535, which was passed by the House on Jan­u­ary 10, 2010. As set forth in H.R. 535, the EPA, in con­sul­ta­tion with the U.S. Fire Admin­is­tra­tion, must sub­mit a report to Con­gress – with rec­om­men­da­tions for con­gres­sion­al action – on the effec­tive­ness of the guid­ance issued by the agency to min­i­mize fire­fight­ers’ and oth­er first respon­ders’ health risk from PFAS exposure. 

🔴 Keep Food Containers Safe from PFAS Act

The Keep Food Con­tain­ers Safe from PFAS Act (H.R. 2827) would require the Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion (FDA) to ban the use of PFAS chem­i­cals in food con­tain­ers and cook­ware. The FDA would be required to deem any PFAS chem­i­cals used as a food con­tact sub­stance” as unsafe” under the Fed­er­al Food, Drug, and Cos­met­ic Act by Jan­u­ary 1, 2022, which would allow the FDA to ban the use of prod­ucts con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals that come in con­tact with food. PFAS chem­i­cals are fre­quent­ly used to grease­proof, water­proof, and give non­stick prop­er­ties to food con­tain­ers and cookware.

The leg­is­la­tion was intro­duced by Rep. Deb­bie Din­gell in the House and has one cospon­sor. There is no cur­rent com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Senate.

🔴 H.R. 2566

H.R. 2566 (the bill has no short title) would require the EPA with­in a year of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion to revise the Safer Choice Stan­dard of the Safer Choice Pro­gram to include that any pot, pan or cook­ing uten­sil not con­tain any PFAS chem­i­cals in order to receive a Safer Choice label. The Safer Choice label assists con­sumers in iden­ti­fy­ing prod­ucts with safer chem­i­cal ingredients.

The bill was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Dar­ren Soto and has two cospon­sors; there is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Sen­ate. A mod­i­fied ver­sion of H.R. 2566 was includ­ed in H.R. 535, which was passed by the House on Jan­u­ary 10, 2010.

As set forth in H.R. 535, the Safer Choice label pro­gram includ­ed orig­i­nal lan­guage from H.R. 2566 and, in addi­tion, the pro­gram was extend­ed to include labels for car­pets, rugs, cloth­ing and uphol­stered fur­ni­ture that do not con­tain PFAS chem­i­cals, and to include labels for stain resis­tant, water resis­tant, or grease resis­tant coat­ing that are not sub­ject to sec­tion 409 of the Fed­er­al Food, Drug, and Cos­met­ic Act that do not con­tain PFAS chemicals. 

🔴 Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act

The Pro­tect­ing Fire­fight­ers from Adverse Sub­stances Act (S.2353) would require the Fed­er­al Emer­gency Man­age­ment Agency (FEMA) in con­sul­ta­tion with oth­er rel­e­vant agen­cies to devel­op and pub­lish guid­ance for fire­fight­ers and oth­er emer­gency response per­son­nel on train­ing, edu­ca­tion­al pro­grams, and best prac­tices to reduce expo­sure to PFAS chem­i­cals from fire­fight­ing foam and per­son­al pro­tec­tive equip­ment. FEMA would also be required to devel­op guid­ance on lim­it­ing or pre­vent­ing the release of PFAS chem­i­cal from fire­fight­ing foam into the envi­ron­ment and on alter­na­tive foams and per­son­al pro­tec­tive equip­ment that do not con­tain PFAS chem­i­cals. FEMA is also to review, and if appro­pri­ate, update the guid­ance three years after the release of the orig­i­nal guid­ance and every two years after.

The bill, which was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Gary Peters, has 18 bipar­ti­san cospon­sors. The leg­is­la­tion passed out of the Sen­ate Home­land Secu­ri­ty and Gov­ern­ment Affairs Com­mit­tee on Novem­ber 6, 2019. Com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion has not yet been intro­duced in the House.

🔴 Water Justice Act

The Water Jus­tice Act (H.R. 4033, S. 2466) is com­pre­hen­sive leg­is­la­tion intend­ed to ensure that the nation’s water sup­ply is safe, afford­able and sus­tain­able.” One of the pro­vi­sions in the bill would require the EPA to pro­mul­gate an inter­im nation­al pri­ma­ry drink­ing water reg­u­la­tion under the Safe Drink­ing Water Act (SDWA) for PFAS chem­i­cals for which the EPA has estab­lished a health advi­so­ry or tox­i­c­i­ty val­ue with­in two years of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion. The EPA would also be required to pro­mul­gate an inter­im pri­ma­ry drink­ing water reg­u­la­tion for PFAS chem­i­cals for which the agency has not estab­lished a health advi­so­ry or tox­i­c­i­ty val­ue with­in four years of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion. The inter­im reg­u­la­tion would place lim­its on PFAS chem­i­cal lev­els in drink­ing water that would be pro­tec­tive of the health of vul­ner­a­ble pop­u­la­tions, includ­ing preg­nant women, infants and chil­dren; and would be as strin­gent as feasible.

The bill was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Daniel Kildee and in the Sen­ate by Sen. Kamala Har­ris with one House cospon­sor.

🔴 Clean Water Standards for PFAS Act (House Version)

The House’s ver­sion of the Clean Water Stan­dards for PFAS Act (H.R. 3616) would have required the EPA to list PFAS chem­i­cals as tox­ic pol­lu­tants under the Clean Water Act. Addi­tion­al­ly, the agency would have to estab­lish water pol­lu­tion con­trol stan­dards for PFAS chem­i­cals and pro­mul­gate pre­treat­ment stan­dards for PFAS chem­i­cals under the Clean Water Act. The bill was intro­duced by Rep. Chris Pap­pas in the House and has three cospon­sors.

Rep. Pap­pas intro­duced a new ver­sion of the Clean Water Stan­dards for PFAS Act (H.R. 5539) in Jan­u­ary 2020, which was then fold­ed into H.R. 535 and passed by the House on Jan­u­ary 10, 2010. The pro­vi­sions would require the EPA, for each mea­sure­able PFAS chem­i­cal for which it decides to list as a tox­ic pol­lu­tant under the Clean Water Act, to ini­ti­ate a process for adding the chem­i­cal to the list. The agency would also be required to estab­lish efflu­ent lim­i­ta­tions and pre­treat­ment stan­dards for each mea­sur­able PFAS chem­i­cal, if the EPA has decid­ed to estab­lish such efflu­ent lim­i­ta­tions and pre­treat­ment stan­dards. The EPA would also have to pub­lish human health water qual­i­ty cri­te­ria stan­dards for mea­sur­able PFAS chem­i­cals that do not cur­rent­ly have cri­te­ria stan­dards. The leg­is­la­tion would estab­lish a $100 mil­lion grant pro­gram to pro­vide grants in amounts not to exceed $100,000 to own­ers and oper­a­tors of pub­licly owned sew­er treat­ment works to be used for the imple­men­ta­tion of pre­treat­ment stan­dards. H.R. 5539 has 14 House cospon­sors.

🔴 Clean Water Standards for PFAS Act (Senate Version)

The Sen­ate ver­sion of the Clean Water Stan­dards for PFAS Act (S. 2980) would require the EPA to estab­lish efflu­ent lim­i­ta­tions and pre­treat­ments stan­dards under the Clean Water Act for the dis­charge of mea­sur­able PFAS chem­i­cals from class­es and cat­e­gories of point sources. With­in four years of enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion, the EPA must pub­lish a final rule estab­lish­ing for PFOS and PFOA efflu­ent lim­i­ta­tions and pre­treat­ment stan­dards for each pri­or­i­ty indus­try cat­e­go­ry (organ­ic chem­i­cals, plas­tics and syn­thet­ic fibers; pulp, paper and paper­board; and tex­tile mills). 

The bill was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Kirsten Gilli­brand and has eight cospon­sors.

🔴 PFAS Transparency Act

The PFAS Trans­paren­cy Act (H.R. 5540) would make it unlaw­ful for an own­er or oper­a­tor of an indus­tri­al source to intro­duce PFAS chem­i­cals into a sew­er treat­ment sys­tem with­out noti­fy­ing the sew­er treat­ment own­er or oper­a­tor. The indus­tri­al source own­er or oper­a­tor would have to noti­fy the sewage treat­ment own­er or oper­a­tor of the iden­ti­ty and quan­ti­ty of the PFAS chem­i­cal; whether the PFAS chem­i­cal is sus­cep­ti­ble to treat­ment by sewage treat­ment; and whether the PFAS chem­i­cal would inter­fere with the oper­a­tion of the sewage system. 

The PFAS Trans­paren­cy Act was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Anto­nio Del­ga­do and has 10 cospon­sors; cur­rent­ly there is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Sen­ate. The text of the PFAS Trans­paren­cy Act was includ­ed in H.R. 535, which passed the House on Jan­u­ary 10, 2020.

🔴⚪ Prevent Future American Sickness Act

The Pre­vent Future Amer­i­can Sick­ness (PFAS) Act (S. 3227) would require the EPA to des­ig­nate PFAS com­pounds as haz­ardous sub­stances under the Com­pre­hen­sive Envi­ron­men­tal Response, Com­pen­sa­tion, and Lia­bil­i­ty Act (Super­fund) and pro­vide grants to house­holds and com­mu­ni­ties to safe­ly fil­ter PFAS con­t­a­m­i­nants from their drink­ing water and assist in the devel­op­ment of water infra­struc­ture. The bill would also pro­hib­it the use of PFAS in food pack­ag­ing and con­tain­ers and ban waste incin­er­a­tion of PFAS fire­fight­ing foam. 

The leg­is­la­tion was intro­duced by Sen. Bernard Sanders in the Sen­ate and has two cospon­sors. There is no cur­rent com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the House. 

🔴 Drinking Water Infrastructure Act

The Drink­ing Water Infra­struc­ture Act of 2020 (S. 3590) would reau­tho­rize Safe Drink­ing Water Act pro­grams geared towards sup­port­ing drink­ing water infra­struc­ture and pro­vid­ing the tech­ni­cal sup­port and resources need­ed par­tic­u­lar­ly by small, rur­al, and dis­ad­van­taged” com­mu­ni­ties. Fur­ther, the Drink­ing Water Infra­struc­ture Act would require the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency to pro­mul­gate nation­al pri­ma­ry drink­ing water reg­u­la­tions for PFOA and PFOS. The bill was intro­duced by Sen. John Bar­ras­so in the Sen­ate and has three bipar­ti­san cospon­sors. The bill passed out of the Sen­ate Com­mit­tee on the Envi­ron­ment and Pub­lic Works on May 11, 2020. A com­pan­ion bill has not been intro­duced in the House.

🔴 Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act

The Break Free from Plas­tic Pol­lu­tion Act (S. 3944, H.R. 5845) is com­pre­hen­sive leg­is­la­tion designed to phase out sin­gle-use plas­tic prod­ucts and take oth­er actions to reduce waste of plas­tic prod­ucts. The bill would define PFAS chem­i­cals as a tox­ic sub­stance. It also would encour­age pro­duc­ers of prod­ucts cov­ered under the leg­is­la­tion to con­sid­er elim­i­nat­ing the use of tox­ic sub­stances in their prod­ucts and would pro­hib­it the export of plas­tic prod­ucts that are con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed with tox­ic sub­stances, includ­ing PFAS chem­i­cals The bill was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Tom Udall and cur­rent­ly has no cospon­sors and was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Alan Lowen­thal and has 91 cospon­sors.

⚪ Cleanup Assistance

⚪ Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity, and Reliability Act

The Water Afford­abil­i­ty, Trans­paren­cy, Equi­ty, and Reli­a­bil­i­ty Act (H.R. 1417, S. 611) (WATER Act) would cre­ate or amend sev­er­al drink­ing water pro­grams. Among many dif­fer­ent pro­vi­sions, the bill would estab­lish a WATER trust fund in the U.S. Trea­sury and autho­rize near­ly $35 bil­lion in annu­al appro­pri­a­tions for the fund. 43.5 per­cent of appro­pri­at­ed funds would be ded­i­cat­ed to the Safe Drink­ing Water Act’s state revolv­ing loan fund pro­gram. The state revolv­ing loan fund pro­gram would then be allowed to pro­vide assis­tance to pub­licly owned, oper­at­ed and man­aged com­mu­ni­ty water sys­tems for the pur­pose of updat­ing a treat­ment plan or switch­ing [its] water sources” due to PFAS contamination.

The bill, intro­duced by Reps. Bren­da Lawrence and Ro Khan­na in the House and Sens. Bernard Sanders and Jeff Merkley in the Sen­ate, has 87 House cospon­sors and three Sen­ate cospon­sors.

⚪ PFAS User Free Act

The PFAS User Fee Act (H.R. 2570) would estab­lish a PFAS Treat­ment Trust Fund in the U.S. Trea­sury to make grants to pay for the oper­a­tion and main­te­nance costs asso­ci­at­ed with the removal of PFAS from com­mu­ni­ty water sys­tems and treat­ment works. The Trust Fund would be financed through an EPA-admin­is­tered fee on PFAS man­u­fac­tur­ers designed to raise at least $2 bil­lion per year and suf­fi­cient to cov­er at least 25 per­cent of the oper­a­tion and main­te­nance costs asso­ci­at­ed with PFAS removal at com­mu­ni­ty water sys­tems and treat­ment works. Grants to dis­ad­van­taged com­mu­ni­ties would be prioritized.

The PFAS User Fee Act was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Harley Rou­da and has five cospon­sors. A com­pan­ion bill has not yet been intro­duced in the Sen­ate. The PFAS User Fee Act was a sub­ject of the House Ener­gy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee leg­isla­tive hear­ing on May 152019.

⚪ Providing Financial Assistance for Safe Drinking Water Act

The Pro­vid­ing Finan­cial Assis­tance for Safe Drink­ing Water Act (H.R. 2533) would amend the Safe Drink­ing Water Act by estab­lish­ing a $500 mil­lion annu­al grant pro­gram for com­mu­ni­ty water sys­tems affect­ed by the pres­ence of PFAS chem­i­cals. The grants would help pay for cap­i­tal costs asso­ci­at­ed with the imple­men­ta­tion of eli­gi­ble treat­ment tech­nolo­gies, where cur­rent tech­nol­o­gy is not suf­fi­cient to remove all detectable amounts of PFAS chem­i­cals in the com­mu­ni­ty water system.

The bill was intro­duced by Rep. Frank Pal­lone, who is chair­man of the Ener­gy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee and has six cospon­sors. Cur­rent­ly, there is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Sen­ate. A mod­i­fied ver­sion of H.R. 2533 was includ­ed in H.R. 535 when it passed the House on Jan­u­ary 102020.

As set out in H.R. 535, annu­al grant fund­ing was set at $125 mil­lion until 2024. Addi­tion­al­ly, com­mu­ni­ties affect­ed by con­t­a­m­i­na­tion by GenX, a type of PFAS chem­i­cal, qual­i­fy for the annu­al grant pro­gram and pro­gram eli­gi­bil­i­ty was expand­ed to include com­mu­ni­ties in which cli­mate change, pol­lu­tion, or envi­ron­men­tal destruc­tion have exac­er­bat­ed sys­temic racial, region­al, social, envi­ron­men­tal and eco­nom­ic injustices. 

A near­ly iden­ti­cal ver­sion of the Pro­vid­ing Finan­cial Assis­tance for Safe Drink­ing Water Act was includ­ed in the Mov­ing For­ward Act (H.R. 2) when it passed the House on July 12020

⚪ Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America Act

The Lead­ing Infra­struc­ture for Tomorrow’s Amer­i­ca (LIFT Amer­i­ca) Act (H.R. 2741) is leg­is­la­tion that would autho­rize invest­ments in the country’s infra­struc­ture. The LIFT Amer­i­ca Act includes the text of the Pro­vid­ing Finan­cial Assis­tance for Safe Drink­ing Water Act, which would amend the Safe Drink­ing Water Act to estab­lish a $500 mil­lion annu­al grant pro­gram for com­mu­ni­ty water sys­tems affect­ed by the pres­ence of PFAS chemicals.

The LIFT Amer­i­ca Act was intro­duced in the House by House Ener­gy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee Chair­man Frank Pal­lone and has 44 cospon­sors. Cur­rent­ly, there is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Sen­ate. The House Ener­gy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee held a leg­isla­tive hear­ing on the LIFT Amer­i­ca Act on May 222019.

⚪ Green New Deal for Public Housing Act

The Green New Deal for Pub­lic Hous­ing Act (H.R. 5185, S. 2876) is a mul­ti-pro­vi­sion­al piece of leg­is­la­tion that focus­es on pub­lic hous­ing and relat­ed envi­ron­men­tal pro­grams. One of the pro­vi­sions of the bill includes the estab­lish­ment of a grant pro­gram for water qual­i­ty upgrades and the replace­ment of water pipes in pub­lic hous­ing, if a drink­ing water qual­i­ty test reveals com­bined con­cen­tra­tions of five enu­mer­at­ed PFAS chem­i­cals in pub­lic hous­ing that exceeds 20 parts per trillion.

The bill was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Bernard Sanders and has three cospon­sors. The leg­is­la­tion was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Alexan­dria Oca­sio-Cortez and has 26 cospon­sors.

⚪ Affordable Safe Drinking Water Act of 2019

The Afford­able Safe Drink­ing Water Act of 2019 (H.R. 5513, S. 3160) would pro­vide states with more tools to mit­i­gate water infra­struc­ture costs through the State Revolv­ing Funds (SRF) pro­gram under the Safe Drink­ing Water Act. States would be able to use SRF fund­ing to install lead and PFAS fil­ter­ing sys­tems and oth­er lead and PFAS reme­di­a­tion mea­sures across munic­i­pal and state facil­i­ties. The leg­is­la­tion would amend the Safe Drink­ing Water Act to allow SRFs to pro­vide fund­ing to reme­di­ate lead- or PFAS-con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed water at pub­lic schools, parks, fire sta­tions, police sta­tions, senior cen­ters, com­mu­ni­ty cen­ters, and any oth­er munic­i­pal buildings. 

The bill, intro­duced by Rep. Joe Kennedy in the House and Sen. Eliz­a­beth War­ren in the Sen­ate, has eight House cospon­sors and one Sen­ate cospon­sors.

⚪🔵 Moving Forward Act

The Mov­ing For­ward Act (H.R. 2) is an omnibus leg­isla­tive pack­age of $1.5 bil­lion in spend­ing on infra­struc­ture projects. Amongst many pro­vi­sions the bill includes two note­wor­thy PFAS-relat­ed provisions. 

First, the leg­is­la­tion includes a pro­vi­sion sim­i­lar to the Pro­vid­ing Finan­cial Assis­tance for Safe Drink­ing Water Act (H.R. 2533), which would amend the Safe Drink­ing Water Act by estab­lish­ing a $500 mil­lion annu­al grant pro­gram for com­mu­ni­ty water sys­tems affect­ed by the pres­ence of PFAS chem­i­cals. The grants would help pay for cap­i­tal costs asso­ci­at­ed with the imple­men­ta­tion of eli­gi­ble treat­ment tech­nolo­gies, where cur­rent tech­nol­o­gy is not suf­fi­cient to remove all detectable amounts of PFAS chem­i­cals in the com­mu­ni­ty water system. 

Sec­ond, the bill requires the Nation­al Ocean­ic and Atmos­pher­ic Admin­is­tra­tion to sub­mit a report to Con­gress on the impact of waters that con­tain PFAS chem­i­cals on fish that inhab­it the waters and are used for recre­ation or sub­sis­tence. The report must include infor­ma­tion on the con­cen­tra­tion of PFAS chem­i­cals in fish, the health risks posed to per­sons who fre­quent­ly con­sume fish that inhab­it waters that con­tain PFAS chem­i­cals, and the risks to nat­ur­al preda­tors of fish that inhab­it waters that con­tain PFAS chemicals. 

The Mov­ing For­ward Act was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Peter DeFazio and passed the full House on July 12020.

⚪ Providing Financial Assistance to States for Testing and Treatment Act

The Pro­vid­ing Finan­cial Assis­tance to States for Test­ing and Treat­ment Act (S. 3480) would help states reme­di­ate PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion. The leg­is­la­tion would amend the Safe Drink­ing Water Act to increase fund­ing to $1 bil­lion per year over the next 10 years for a grant pro­gram to clean up PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion. The bill would also amend the Clean Water Act to cre­ate a new grant pro­gram with over $1 bil­lion per year over the next 10 years to help reme­di­ate ground­wa­ter con­t­a­m­i­na­tion from PFOA and PFOS. The Act was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Jeanne Sha­heen and has 19 cospon­sors; there is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Senate. 

⚫ Response to Mil­i­tary Use of PFAS

⚫🔴 PFAS Accountability Act

The PFAS Account­abil­i­ty Act (H.R. 2626, S. 1372) would hold fed­er­al agen­cies account­able for address­ing PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion at mil­i­tary bases across the coun­try. A fed­er­al depart­ment, upon the request of a gov­er­nor of a state, would be required to work expe­di­tious­ly” on coop­er­a­tive agree­ments to address, test, mon­i­tor, remove, and reme­di­ate PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion in drink­ing and sur­face water or ground­wa­ter ema­nat­ing from cur­rent or past mil­i­tary installations.

A final­ized or amend­ed coop­er­a­tive agree­ment would require the area sub­ject to the coop­er­a­tive agree­ment to meet or exceed the most strin­gent of state or fed­er­al lim­its on the release of PFAS chem­i­cals. If a coop­er­a­tive agree­ment is not act­ed upon with­in one year of the governor’s request, the Pres­i­dent would be required to sub­mit a report explain­ing why a coop­er­a­tive agree­ment has not been final­ized or amend­ed and pro­vide a pro­ject­ed time­line for doing so to Congress.

The PFAS Account­abil­i­ty Act was intro­duced by Rep. Fred Upton, the for­mer Chair­man of the Ener­gy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee, and has four cospon­sors. The text of H.R. 2626 was includ­ed as part of H.R. 535, which passed the House on Jan­u­ary 102020.

A pro­vi­sion sim­i­lar to the PFAS Account­abil­i­ty Act was includ­ed in the con­fer­ence report for the fis­cal year 2020 Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act (NDAA). Under the fis­cal year 2020 NDAA, a final­ized or amend­ed coop­er­a­tive agree­ment would require the area sub­ject to the coop­er­a­tive agree­ment to meet or exceed the most strin­gent of state or fed­er­al lim­its on the release of PFAS chemicals.

In the Sen­ate, the PFAS Account­abil­i­ty Act was intro­duced by Sen. Deb­bie Stabenow and has 10 cospon­sors.

⚫🔴 Prompt and Fast Action to Stop Damages Act

The Prompt and Fast Action to Stop Dam­ages Act (H.R. 1567, S. 675) would autho­rize the Depart­ment of Defense (DOD) to tem­porar­i­ly sup­ply uncon­t­a­m­i­nat­ed water or treat­ed water to agri­cul­tur­al users whose irri­ga­tion water is con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed with PFAS chem­i­cals from mil­i­tary instal­la­tions. The Air Force would be autho­rized to acquire prop­er­ty with­in the vicin­i­ty of an Air Force base that has shown signs of [PFOA and PFOS] con­t­a­m­i­na­tion” due to activ­i­ties on the base. The Air Force would then be required to reme­di­ate the con­t­a­m­i­na­tion. No lat­er than 180 days after enact­ment of the bill, DOD would be required to sub­mit to Con­gress a cleanup plan for all water at, or adja­cent to, a mil­i­tary base that is con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed with PFOA or PFOS.

The bill was intro­duced by the entire New Mex­i­co con­gres­sion­al del­e­ga­tion in both the House and Sen­ate. The Prompt and Fast Action to Stop Dam­ages Act was includ­ed in the con­fer­ence report for the fis­cal year 2020 Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act.

⚫🔴 Protecting Military Firefighters from PFAS Act

The Pro­tect­ing Mil­i­tary Fire­fight­ers from PFAS Act (H.R.1863, S. 858) would require the Depart­ment of Defense (DOD) to include blood test­ing for PFAS chem­i­cals as part of rou­tine phys­i­cals for mil­i­tary fire­fight­ers. The bill was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Don­ald Nor­cross and has 22 bipar­ti­san cospon­sors. The leg­is­la­tion was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sens. Jeanne Sha­heen and Lisa Murkows­ki and has five bipar­ti­san cospon­sors in the Sen­ate. The bill was includ­ed in the con­fer­ence report for the fis­cal year 2020 Nation­al Defense Autho­riza­tion Act.

⚫🔴 Veterans Exposed to Toxic PFAS Act

The Vet­er­ans Exposed to Tox­ic PFAS Act (VET PFAS Act) (H.R. 2102, S. 1023) would require the Depart­ment of Vet­er­ans Affairs (VA) to pro­vide med­ical care to vet­er­ans and their fam­i­lies who expe­ri­ence dis­eases, ill­ness­es or con­di­tions asso­ci­at­ed with expo­sure to PFOA and oth­er PFAS chem­i­cals. The VA would be required to pro­vide med­ical cov­er­age for ill­ness­es or con­di­tions relat­ed to PFAS expo­sure even if there is insuf­fi­cient med­ical evi­dence to con­nect the con­di­tion to mil­i­tary ser­vice. The leg­is­la­tion would make PFAS-exposed vet­er­ans eli­gi­ble for VA dis­abil­i­ty pay­ments and med­ical services.

The bill was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Dan Kildee and has 22 House cospon­sors. The VET PFAS Act was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Deb­bie Stabenow and has two Sen­ate cospon­sors.

⚫🔵 PFAS Registry Act

The PFAS Reg­istry Act (H.R. 2195, S. 1105) would require the Depart­ment of Vet­er­an Affairs (VA) to estab­lish and main­tain a nation­al data­base for ser­vice mem­bers and vet­er­ans who may have been exposed to PFAS chem­i­cals. The VA would be required to peri­od­i­cal­ly noti­fy eli­gi­ble indi­vid­u­als of sig­nif­i­cant devel­op­ments in the study and treat­ment of [health] con­di­tions asso­ci­at­ed with expo­sure to PFAS.” Five years after enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion and every five years there­after, the VA — in con­sul­ta­tion with the Depart­ment of Defense and the EPA — would be required to sub­mit to Con­gress rec­om­men­da­tions for addi­tion­al chem­i­cals to add to the registry.

The bill was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Chris Pap­pas and in the Sen­ate by Sens. Jeanne Sha­heen and Mike Rounds, and has 26 bipar­ti­san cospon­sors in the House and four bipar­ti­san cospon­sors in the Senate.

⚫🔵 PFAS Quantum Evaluation Act

The PFAS Quan­tum Eval­u­a­tion Act (S. 1534) would direct the Depart­ment of Defense (DOD) to devel­op best prac­tices for deploy­ing advanced com­put­ers to address the risks asso­ci­at­ed with expo­sure to PFAS. The leg­is­la­tion was intro­duced by Sen. Gary Peters in the Sen­ate with Sen. Joni Ernst as an orig­i­nal cospon­sor. There is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the House yet.

⚫🔵🔴 Safe Water for Military Families Act

The Safe Water for Mil­i­tary Fam­i­lies Act (H.R. 3226) would require the Depart­ment of Defense (DOD) to ensure it only uses non-flu­o­ri­nat­ed fire­fight­ing foam by 2029. Fire­fight­ing foam often can be par­tial­ly com­posed of ful­ly flu­o­ri­nat­ed PFAS chem­i­cals. The bill would also require DOD to eval­u­ate and report to Con­gress on the best prac­tices in the cleanup of ground con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed by PFAS chem­i­cals; deter­mine the esti­mat­ed costs of the dif­fer­ent types of cleanup meth­ods; and esti­mate the length of time for var­i­ous types of cleanup methods.

The leg­is­la­tion was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Andy Kim and does not yet have any cospon­sors. Cur­rent­ly, there is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Senate.

⚫🔵 Protect Our Military Children Act

The Pro­tect Our Mil­i­tary Chil­dren Act (H.R. 4295) would require the Depart­ment of Defense to car­ry out test­ing of chil­dren that cur­rent­ly live or have lived on mil­i­tary bases in the last ten years for expo­sure to PFAS sub­stances. The leg­is­la­tion also directs the Depart­ment of Defense to car­ry out out­reach ser­vices to edu­cate mem­bers of the Armed Forces and their fam­i­lies about PFAS sub­stances, the avail­abil­i­ty of blood tests under the pilot pro­gram, and the ben­e­fits of such tests. 

The bill was intro­duced in the house by Rep. Andy Kim and has sev­en cospon­sors. A com­pan­ion bill has not yet been intro­duced in the Senate.

⚫🔵 PFAS Exposure Assessment and Documentation Act (Senate Version)

The PFAS Expo­sure Assess­ment and Doc­u­men­ta­tion Act (S. 3911) would cre­ate a task force ded­i­cat­ed to eval­u­at­ing the effects of PFAS result­ing from activ­i­ties of the DOD, and as such would address expo­sure to such sub­stances through peri­od­ic health assess­ments of mem­bers of the Armed Forces. The bill was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Jeanne Sha­heen and has one cospon­sor.

⚫🔵 PFAS Exposure Assessment and Documentation Act (House Version)

The PFAS Expo­sure Assess­ment and Doc­u­men­ta­tion Act (H.R. 8643) would eval­u­ate expo­sure to PFAS sub­stances in peri­od­ic health assess­ments of mem­bers of the Armed Forces. The bill would also direct the Depart­ment of Defense to con­duct blood test­ing of mem­bers poten­tial­ly exposed to PFAS and require coor­di­nat­ed doc­u­men­ta­tion of eval­u­a­tions regard­ing PFAS expo­sure. The bill was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Elis­sa Slotkin and has three cospon­sors.

⚫🔵 Identifying PFAS at Water Infrastructure Sites Act

The Iden­ti­fy­ing PFAS at Water Infra­struc­ture Site Act (H.R. 7243) would require that the Sec­re­tary of the Army, through the Chief of Engi­neers, devel­op an inven­to­ry of and research PFAS chem­i­cals. The bill was intro­duced by Rep. Anto­nio Del­ga­do in the House. Cur­rent­ly, H.R. 7243 has one cospon­sor and no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Senate.

⚫🔴 PFAS Free Military Purchasing Act

PFAS Free Mil­i­tary Pur­chas­ing Act (H.R. 7411, S. 4094) would pro­hib­it the Defense Logis­tics Agency from procur­ing any cov­ered item con­tain­ing a PFAS sub­stance. Cov­ered items include non-stick cook­ware or food ser­vice; food pack­ag­ing mate­ri­als; fur­ni­ture or floor wax­es; car­pet­ing, rugs or uphol­stered fur­ni­ture; per­son­al care items; den­tal floss and sun­screen. The PFAS Free Mil­i­tary Pur­chas­ing Act has been includ­ed in the House’s ver­sion of the fis­cal year 2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395). The bill has been intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Richard Blu­men­thal with one cospon­sor and intro­duced in the House by Rep. Elis­sa Slotkin with two cospon­sors.

⚫🔴 Military PFAS Testing Disclosure Act

The Mil­i­tary PFAS Test­ing Dis­clo­sure Act (H.R. 7392) would require the DOD to pub­licly dis­close the results of any test­ing for PFAS chem­i­cals con­duct­ed on mil­i­tary instal­la­tions or for­mer­ly used defense sites. This require­ment would extend to test­ing con­duct­ed by DOD and by non-DOD enti­ties under con­tract by or pur­suant to an agree­ment with DOD. A pro­vi­sion sim­i­lar to the Mil­i­tary PFAS Test­ing Dis­clo­sure Act has been includ­ed in the House’s ver­sion of the fis­cal year 2021 NDAA (H.R. 6395). The bill was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Elis­sa Slotkin and has three cospon­sors. There is no com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion in the Senate.

⚫🔵 PFAS Free Foam Research and Development Act

The PFAS Free Foam Research and Devel­op­ment Act (H.R. 7866) would require DOD act­ing through the Nation­al Insti­tute of Stan­dards and Tech­nol­o­gy (NIST) to award grants and car­ry out activ­i­ties to pro­mote and advance the research and devel­op­ment of addi­tion­al alter­na­tives to fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals. The grants and activ­i­ties would be required to advance the use of green and sus­tain­able chem­istry for alter­na­tives to fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chemicals. 

The PFAS Free Foam Research and Devel­op­ment Act was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Madeleine Dean and has four cospon­sors. No com­pan­ion leg­is­la­tion has been intro­duced in the Senate.