PFAS WEEK RECAP: Defend Joins Advocates in Week-long Testimonies on PFAS Related Bills

The week of April 24th, Defend joined legislators, impacted citizens, scientists and health advocates as they testified on a number of PFAS related bills to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee and the Health and Human Services Committee.

As reported on by Portland Press Herald, concerned constituents faced pushback from business groups that want lawmakers to roll back key provisions of the state’s first-in-the-nation ban on products containing harmful forever chemicals. LD 1503 “An Act To Stop Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Pollution” is the first-in-the-nation bill that Defend Our Health championed for in 2021 that posed a significant step forward for the state of Maine and the fight against PFAS.

LD 1537, “An Act to Amend the Laws Relating to the Prevention of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Pollution and to Provide Additional Funding”, the only bill in which Defend testified in support of on Wednesday, is a bill to provide some technical fixes to the PFAS products ban that would improve the effectiveness and workability of the statute by: 

“Providing more expert resources, funding and direction to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to implement the law, improve the workability of the use-reporting provisions of the statute by extending the reporting deadline, and close loopholes created by the proposed rule by requiring reporting of all PFAS not just those that have assigned CAS Registry Numbers, and by requiring reporting of national annual sales volume of PFAS-containing products so as to inform priorities for source reduction based on documented widespread use.”

LD 1214, “An Act to Clarify the Laws to Combat Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Contamination”, one of the most troublesome of the PFAS bills presented this day, would radically weaken the definition of PFAS by excluding certain types of the ‘forever chemical.’ It would also eliminate the presumptive phase-out of non-essential PFAS by 2030. This is detrimental to all of the progress that Defend and impacted citizens have generated over the past few years.

LD 217, “An Act to Support Manufacturers Whose Products Contain Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances” proposed by Rep. Dick Campbell, will extend the deadline for disclosure to Jan 1, 2025. Our bill LD 1537 has disclosure language within it, but is much more reasonable than what is being proposed in LD 217.  In LD 1537, the bill seeks to improve the workability of the use-reporting provisions of the statute by extending the reporting deadline, exempting small manufacturers from reporting (but not from future phase-outs), and by clarifying that reporting can be accomplished by disclosing information obtained from suppliers (not just by testing of products).

LD 304 “An Act to Establish Statewide Standards for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances”, proposed by Rep. Benjamin Hymes, wants to require the Department to set standards for PFAS in farm products and to set up a testing schedule so farmers have an idea of how often they should test and when. While we empathize with the uncertainty that farmers are currently facing, setting standards and a timeline requires the Department to gather research and data to do that which takes time. They are currently in the process of doing all of this, but there isn’t an immediate fix to this issue and any measures to rush this process will negatively affect impacted citizens. 

The last of the opposed bills on Wednesday is LD 1273 “An Act to Exempt Some Businesses from Certain Laws Relating to Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Accordance with the Size of the Business”, proposed by Sen. Trey Stewart, which would provide a small business exemption under LD 1503. We opposed this bill because LD 1537 also has a small business exemption which is healthier and more robust.

On Friday, Defend joined impacted community members to testify in support of two bills, LD 1488 “An Act to Change the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program Requirements by Reducing Benefits Commensurate with a Recipient’s Salary, Reducing the Special Housing Allowance and Limiting Eligibility for 2-parent Families” and LD 1006 “An Act to Ensure Access to Safe Drinking Water from Household Wells in Rural Areas by Expanding Testing”, to the Health and Human Services Committee. LD 1488 would add PFAS substances to the already existing requirements for landlords and sellers around residential well water testing and disclosure of any contamination. LD 1006 would add PFAS to the Department of Health and Human Services’ testing recommendation for residential wells. It also requires a program to provide free PFAS testing in household well water of low-income residents. These two bills are essential to make sure that all Mainers can know whether their household water is safe for consumption or can take any action needed to remediate any PFAS contamination, including accessing existing state resources. 

In the weeks following these testimonies, there has been a key update. As reported by Maine Public and Bloomberg Law, On Wednesday May 10th, members of the Maine Legislature’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee voted unanimously to push back the reporting requirement in LD 217 for manufacturers with products that contain PFAS to January of 2025. 

Below are excerpts of testimony on all seven bills:  

LD 1537, “An Act to Amend the Laws Relating to the Prevention of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Pollution and to Provide Additional Funding”

Sarah Woodbury, Director of Advocacy, Defend Our Health: “Given the near indestructability of PFAS, the only way we are going to keep them out of our environment, out of our drinking water, and out of food is if we stop it at its source: that is, we eliminate use of this class of chemicals from food packaging, consumer products, and all other uses that are not currently unavoidable.‘ We cannot simply rely on efforts to perhaps protect ourselves by “shopping our way out of the problem,” that is trying to avoid it by identifying and only purchasing PFAS-free products for our own families. Even if l studiously avoid food packaged in PFAS wrappers, there is no guarantee I won’t be exposed in other ways, such as via drinking water contaminated from the disposal of other PFAS.”

Senator Henry Ingwersen, Maine State Legislature: “Right now, the safer chemicals program under the DEP is woefully understaffed. So, the next thing LD 1537 does is provide allocations for additional staff and resources to help make the implementation of the law go more smoothly.”

Lani Graham, Constituent, Freeport: “We cannot hesitate now just as we are making real progress. While testing water, food, fish, and animals is a reasonable way to protect human health, that does not address the real problem, which is on-going contamination. Stopping the spread of contaminated waste on Maine land is a start, but if these chemicals continue to enter our waste stream, the danger and pollution continues. We must stop the contamination at its source, which is what LD 1537 addresses, while at the same time recognizing that use elimination will not be easy or immediate.”

LD 1214, “An Act to Clarify the Laws to Combat Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Contamination”

Adam Nordell, Campaign Manager, Defend Our Health: “The alternate PFAS definition in LD 1214 would shield a vast array of problematic, high production PFAS from DEP’s regulatory process and enable chemical manufacturers to continue selling PFAS laden products in Maine. This bill would shield from regulation the PFAS ’GenX,’ which the EPA has identified as highly toxic‘ and is considering listing as a hazardous substance under the Superfund Law. LD 1214 would shield from regulation PFAS refrigerants, some of which are 10,000 times more potent greenhouse gasses than carbon dioxide.”

Adele Weaver, High School Constituent, North Yarmouth: “This year, I was part of the Greely Solve for Tomorrow STEM competition team where we were State Champions, working to address the nationwide PFAS crisis. We have worked with PFAS researchers at the University of Maine, Orono (Dr. Apul and Dr. Chardhoury), who are experts in this field and provided us with crucial information which led to a deeper understanding of the issue. Among other things, LD 1214 would change the definition of what is considered PFAS. This means manufacturers can create a new compound that is equally harmful, if not more, and it won’t be considered PFAS because it’s not couched under the same definition. It would further the problem of PFAS, and give more power to manufacturers and not the people.”

LD 217 “An Act to Support Manufacturers Whose Products Contain Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances”

Jacquelyn Elliott, Constituent, Waterboro: “PFAS pollution poses a significant public health and environmental threat to Maine and its citizens. Legislators, regulators, and other officials are scrambling to address the currently revealed ubiquitous contamination with this class of forever toxic chemicals of our waters. lands, wildlife, and people. Presently, there are no cost-effective, or to-scale methods for removal and remediation of PFAS contamination. We must approach this issue from a “turn off the tap” perspective.

Jason Constantine, Constituent, Rockland: “Again, we do appreciate the intent of this legislation and desire to protect the health and well-being of our residents and children, but that legislative effort must be directed at the manufacturers of PFAS, and not the end users. This can best be summed up through the following analogy: The existing legislation is aiming to solve this problem by constructing individual dams at each of the hundreds of tributaries of the river to stop the flow of PFAS into our state. In order to successfully resolve the problem, we need to shift that focus toward the source of those PFAS, and construct a single dam at the headwaters of the river.”

LD 304 “An Act to Establish Statewide Standards for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances”

Susane Miller, Constituent, Agusta: “This concept bill is broad and vague and there is no language to clarify what the bill is aiming to standardize. Is the intent of this bill to standardized testing procedures for the sampling of surface water, groundwater, soil, leachate, milk, other consumer crops, or something else altogether? Is it intended to apply to homeowners, farmers, or some other class of landholder in the State? In creating “acceptable” PFAS levels, is the bill intended to impact allowed levels in water (already in process at both the Federal and State levels), in soil, in milk or consumer crops, or something else? It is too early to scientifically determine uniform acceptable levels of PFAS in all types of media and it is also too soon to determine a uniform frequency of sampling that should be required for all media. These types of determinations are ongoing with strong involvement at both the federal and state levels.”

LD 1488, “An Act to Change the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program Requirements by Reducing Benefits Commensurate with a Recipient’s Salary, Reducing the Special Housing Allowance and Limiting Eligibility for 2-parent Families”

Nick Murray, Director of Policy, Maine Policy Institute: “This bill seeks to provide a solution to the phenomenon known as “the welfare cliff,” a situation in which someone on welfare loses the entirety of their benefits after working enough to earn a certain level of income.1 This naturally disincentivizes people on welfare programs to continue working and earning more. Instead, they may try to not work too much in order to avoid the “cliff” that results in lost benefits. LD 1448 would smooth out this transition by phasing down the level of one’s benefits over the following year starting at the third consecutive month of working, to 75% of the benefit level, through the ninth consecutive month of employment, and to 50% after that. As long as Maine continues to reject work requirements for these benefits in the first place, this bill provides a reasonable translation period for workers in the TANF bubble.”

Senator Eric Brakey: “When a work-capable person is offered a raise at work or a better job, we want them to take that step forward in life -—- not get stuck behind a welfare cliff, worrying about lost benefits. Who would take one step forward just to fall three steps backward? As noted, the stated goal of TANF is to help people become self-supporting. But that goal is frustrated when the program financially penalizes you for becoming self-supporting. That’s why this legislation seeks to reform TANF welfare cliffs into welfare slopes, with benefits tapering down over time when someone rises above income thresholds, rather than cutting out all at once.”

LD 1006, “An Act to Ensure Access to Safe Drinking Water from Household Wells in Rural Areas by Expanding Testing”

Adam Nordell, Campaign Manager, Defend Our Health: “My family spent seven years drinking water that was contaminated with PFAS about 400 times beyond Maine’s interim drinking water standard of 20 parts per trillion. This has resulted in high level personal exposure to the chemicals. After seven years drinking the water on my farm, my blood tested around 3,500 parts per billion for a sum of six PFAS -this is 175 times the National Academies’ elevated risk threshold. The chemicals take decades to leave the human body. In the past year at least 25 schools have identified unsafe drinking water, some of which have tested very high — 40 times over the drinking water standard. Those schools are unlikely to be adjacent to sludge-spread farms, which begs the question — how many other private drinking water wells remain unidentified and off of DEP’s radar?”