Project

PFAS Federal Legislation in the 117th Congress

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

Updat­ed May 272021.

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. 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. More infor­ma­tion about PFAS pro­vi­sions includ­ed in NDAAs and appro­pri­a­tions bills in the 116th Con­gress and stand-alone PFAS-relat­ed leg­is­la­tion that was intro­duced in the 116th Con­gress can be found here.

Con­gress is like­ly to con­sid­er PFAS reg­u­la­to­ry author­i­ty leg­is­la­tion and use the annu­al NDAA and appro­pri­a­tions process­es to include fund­ing for PFAS-relat­ed pro­grams in the 117th Con­gress (20212023). This page will track PFAS-relat­ed pro­vi­sions in the NDAAs and appro­pri­a­tions bills in the 117th Con­gress and stand-alone PFAS leg­is­la­tion intro­duced in the 117th Con­gress in five leg­isla­tive focal areas: (1) enhanced detec­tion and research; (2) new reg­u­la­to­ry man­dates; (3) cleanup assis­tance; (4) expo­sure to PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion at or near mil­i­tary instal­la­tions; and (5) cre­ation of a tort action. 

2021 NDAA, WRDA and Appropriation Bills

Attor­neys Gen­er­al Action

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 list of pro­posed stand-along PFAS leg­is­la­tion divides into five key buck­ets. These buck­ets include: (1) enhanced detec­tion and research; (2) new reg­u­la­to­ry man­dates; (3) cleanup assis­tance; (4) expo­sure to PFAS con­t­a­m­i­na­tion at or near mil­i­tary instal­la­tions; and (5) cre­ation of a tort action. 

A screenshot of the map described in the caption, as of January 6, 2021.

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 cur­rent­ly pend­ing leg­is­la­tion in the 117th Con­gress (20212023).

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

🔵 Enhanced Detec­tion and Research

🔵 Environmental Justice Mapping and Data Collection Act

The Envi­ron­men­tal Jus­tice Map­ping and Data Col­lec­tion Act (H.R. 516, S. 101) would help iden­ti­fy and con­nect envi­ron­men­tal jus­tice com­mu­ni­ties with pol­i­cy out­comes. The leg­is­la­tion, among many pro­vi­sions, would estab­lish an Envi­ron­men­tal Jus­tice Map­ping Com­mit­tee, which would be tasked with estab­lish­ing an inter­ac­tive, trans­par­ent, inte­grat­ed, and fed­er­al gov­ern­ment-wide tool for assess­ing and map­ping envi­ron­men­tal jus­tice com­mu­ni­ties based on the cumu­la­tive impacts of all indi­ca­tors select­ed by the Com­mit­tee to be inte­grat­ed into the tool. The tool would be required to inte­grate mul­ti­ple data lay­ers of indi­ca­tors, includ­ing pol­lu­tion bur­dens, such as bur­dens cre­at­ed by PFAS chemicals. 

The leg­is­la­tion was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Edward Markey and has sev­en cospon­sors and was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Cori Bush and has 45 cospon­sors.

🔴 Pro­posed Reg­u­la­to­ry Mandates

🔴🔵⚪⚫ PFAS Action Act

The PFAS Action Act (H.R. 2467) is omnibus PFAS chem­i­cal leg­is­la­tion that was passed by the full House in the 116th Con­gress. The PFAS Action Act would require the EPA to des­ig­nate per­flu­o­rooc­tan­ic acid (PFOA) and per­flu­o­rooc­tane sul­fonate (PFOS) chem­i­cals, two of the most com­mon PFAS chem­i­cals, as haz­ardous sub­stances” under 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 to 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. 

The PFAS Action Act would also 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 leg­is­la­tion would also 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 under the Safe Drink­ing Water Act (SDWA). 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 max­i­mum con­t­a­m­i­nant lev­el goal as is fea­si­ble” and is an enforce­able stan­dard. The max­i­mum con­t­a­m­i­nant lev­el goal 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 PFAS Action Act would also require the EPA, for each mea­sur­able 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 $200 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.

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 a pro­vi­sion intend­ed to address the risks, par­tic­u­lar­ly health risks, of using fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals. 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. 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. 

The PFAS Action Act would amend the SDWA by autho­riz­ing until 2026 a $100 mil­lion plus 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.

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 SDWA fund­ing for the pur­pose of address­ing emerg­ing con­t­a­m­i­nants with a focus on PFAS chemicals. 

The PFAS Action Act would require the EPA to pro­mul­gate reg­u­la­tions requir­ing that when mate­ri­als con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals or fire­fight­ing foam con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals are dis­posed all incin­er­a­tion is con­duct­ed in a man­ner that elim­i­nates PFAS chem­i­cals while also min­i­miz­ing PFAS chem­i­cals emit­ted into the air to the extent fea­si­ble. Addi­tion­al­ly, all incin­er­a­tion must be con­duct­ed in accor­dance with the require­ments of the Clean Air Act and any mate­ri­als con­tain­ing PFAS chem­i­cals that are des­ig­nat­ed for dis­pos­al are stored in accor­dance with fed­er­al regulations. 

The leg­is­la­tion would also amend the Tox­ic Sub­stances Con­trol Act (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. The EPA would then be required to issue an order that pro­hibits the man­u­fac­ture, pro­cess­ing and dis­tri­b­u­tion in com­merce of such PFAS chem­i­cals. TSCA would also be amend­ed to require the EPA to man­date by rule com­pre­hen­sive tox­i­c­i­ty test­ing of all PFAS chem­i­cals and pro­vide for the cre­ation of cat­e­gories of PFAS chem­i­cals based on haz­ard characteristics. 

The leg­is­la­tion 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 Action Act was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Deb­bie Din­gell and has 27 bipar­ti­san cospon­sors.

🔴 Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act

The Pro­tect­ing Fire­fight­ers from Adverse Sub­stances Act (S. 231) 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 chem­i­cals 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 eight bipar­ti­san cospon­sors. On March 17, 2021, the bill was passed out of the Home­land Secu­ri­ty and Gov­ern­ment Affairs Committee.

⚪ Cleanup Assistance

⚪ Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity, and Reliability Act

The Water Afford­abil­i­ty, Trans­paren­cy, Equi­ty, and Reli­a­bil­i­ty Act (S. 916, H.R. 1352) (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. A cer­tain per­cent­age 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 a pub­licly owned, oper­at­ed, and man­aged com­mu­ni­ty water sys­tem for the pur­pose of updat­ing a treat­ment plant 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 in the Sen­ate, has 81 House cospon­sors and three Sen­ate cospon­sors.

⚪ Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation's (CLEAN) Future Act

The Cli­mate Lead­er­ship and Envi­ron­men­tal Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act (H.R. 1512) is omnibus cli­mate leg­is­la­tion. The CLEAN Future Act includes as a pro­vi­sion the Pro­vid­ing Finan­cial Assis­tance for Safe Drink­ing Water Act from the 116th Con­gress. This pro­vi­sion would amend the SDWA 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 CLEAN Future Act was intro­duced in the House by Rep. Frank Pal­lone and has 19 cospon­sors.

⚪ The Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act

The Break Free from Plas­tic Pol­lu­tion Act (S. 984) 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 pro­hib­it the export of plas­tic prod­ucts that are con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed with tox­ic sub­stances, includ­ing PFAS chemicals.

The bill was intro­duced in the Sen­ate by Sen. Jeff Merkley and has 12 cospon­sors.

⚫ Response to Mil­i­tary Use of PFAS

⚫ PFAS Registry Act

The PFAS Reg­istry Act (H.R. 2742, S. 1121) 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 Sen. Jeanne Sha­heen, and has four bipar­ti­san cospon­sors in the House and two bipar­ti­san cospon­sors in the Senate.

🔶 Cre­ation of Tort Action

🔶 The PFAS Accountability Act

The PFAS Account­abil­i­ty Act (H.R. 2751, S. 1334) would cre­ate a fed­er­al right of action — the abil­i­ty to bring a law­suit as an indi­vid­ual or as part of a class action — for indi­vid­u­als sig­nif­i­cant­ly exposed to PFAS chem­i­cals in order to encour­age PFAS research and pro­vide account­abil­i­ty for irre­spon­si­ble PFAS man­u­fac­tur­ing and irre­spon­si­ble use of PFAS in man­u­fac­tur­ing. The bill would amend the Tox­ic Sub­stances Con­trol Act by pro­vid­ing that an indi­vid­ual who is sig­nif­i­cant­ly exposed to PFAS or has rea­son­able grounds to sus­pect sig­nif­i­cant PFAS expo­sure may bring a claim, as an indi­vid­ual or on behalf of a class, in any fed­er­al dis­trict court for appro­pri­ate legal and equi­table relief against any PFAS man­u­fac­tur­er. The claim can be brought against any per­son engaged in any por­tion of a man­u­fac­tur­ing process that cre­at­ed the PFAS to which the indi­vid­ual was sig­nif­i­cant­ly exposed and fore­saw or rea­son­ably should have fore­seen that the cre­ation or use of PFAS would result in human expo­sure to PFAS. The court could award med­ical mon­i­tor­ing to an indi­vid­ual or class of indi­vid­u­als that bring a claim under this pro­vi­sion, if as a result of PFAS expo­sure the indi­vid­ual or class suf­fers an increased risk of devel­op­ing a dis­ease asso­ci­at­ed with PFAS expo­sure and as a result the indi­vid­ual or class has a rea­son­able basis for under­go­ing effec­tive peri­od­ic diag­nos­tic med­ical exam­i­na­tions of a nature or fre­quen­cy that is dif­fer­ent from or addi­tion­al to what would be pre­scribed in the absence of exposure. 

The PFAS Account­abil­i­ty Act would cre­ate a rebut­table pre­sump­tion that an indi­vid­ual or class of indi­vid­u­als have been sig­nif­i­cant­ly exposed to PFAS if the indi­vid­ual or class demon­strate that PFAS was released into one or more areas where the indi­vid­ual or rep­re­sen­ta­tive por­tion of class mem­bers would have been exposed for a cumu­la­tive peri­od of not less than one year. Alter­na­tive­ly, the rebut­table pre­sump­tion can be sat­is­fied by offer­ing test­ing results that demon­strate that PFAS or metabo­lites of PFAS have been or are cur­rent­ly detect­ed in the body or blood serum of the indi­vid­ual or the bod­ies of a rep­re­sen­ta­tive por­tion of class mem­bers that share suf­fi­cient com­mon expo­sure char­ac­ter­is­tics with the class. A defen­dant can rebut the pre­sump­tion of sig­nif­i­cant expo­sure for an indi­vid­ual or class mem­ber for which test results are not offered by offer­ing results for that indi­vid­ual or class mem­ber of test­ing that con­firms that the rel­e­vant PFAS or metabo­lites of PFAS like­ly were not present in the body of the indi­vid­ual or class mem­ber at the rel­e­vant time in a suf­fi­cient quan­ti­ty to qual­i­fy as sig­nif­i­cant exposure.

The leg­is­la­tion also includes a pro­vi­sion that states that the noth­ing in the bill pre­empts, alters, bars, or pre­cludes any state law claims or reme­dies, includ­ing any state law claims or reme­dies for an injury addressed by the bill or pro­vides an exclu­sive claim or remedy.

The PFAS Account­abil­i­ty Act was intro­duced by Sen. Kirsten Gilli­brand in the Sen­ate, where it cur­rent­ly has two cospon­sors, and Rep. Madeleine Dean in the House, where it has nine cospon­sors.