Manufacturing group lobbies R.I. legislators to narrow definition of ‘forever chemicals’

Firefighting foam, used at airports and military bases, has been identified as a source of toxic PFAS chemicals. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fire Administration)

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, have risen from relative obscurity to household name recognition in recent years.

But a stealth opposition campaign mounted by an industry group of companies that make products containing the “forever chemicals” has driven end-of-session legislative debate deep into the weeds of molecular chemistry.

At issue: whether a proposed phaseout of PFAS-containing consumer products sold in Rhode Island should apply to all 14,000 toxic chemicals that contain at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom — the criteria used by 23 states, the U.S. Department of Defense and a broad group of scientists. Or, should the banned list only cover a smaller subsector within this chemical class with “two sequentially fully fluorinated carbon atoms, excluding polymers, case and volatile liquids, but including side chain fluorinated polymers,” as suggested by Kevin Fay, executive director for Sustainable PFAS Action Network, in a March 20 letter to state lawmakers.

Since then, legislative leaders and industry groups have worked to find common ground on the proposed PFAS product legislation — sans any changes to the PFAS descriptor. 

Lawmakers agreed to delay the start date on banned sale of artificial turf and outdoor wet weather gear from 2027 to 2029. They also scrapped a separate section that would have required manufacturers to register and publicly share which chemicals are in their products, based on feedback from local companies including Raytheon Corp. and FUJIFILM Electronic Materials.

“Rather than put in a whole bunch of exemptions for this industry and that industry, it was easier to remove that section,” Jed Thorp, Rhode Island director for Clean Water Action, said in an interview on Wednesday. “The most important piece was the ban on products that people come into high contact with.”

The amended legislation, sponsored in the House by Rep. Terri Cortvriend, a Portsmouth Democrat, sailed through the chamber under a unanimous vote Monday. Companion legislation sponsored by Sen. Meghan Kallman, a Pawtucket Democrat, is slated for a floor vote Thursday.  

But the battle to ban toxic chemicals from everyday consumer goods wages on, with the network Fay leads and its local lobbyist, Bill Walsh of Government Strategies, making an eleventh-hour push for the industry-preferred alternative definition.

Walsh and Fay did not immediately return inquiries for comment Wednesday.

However, several lawmakers, including Cortvriend and Kallman, confirmed that Walsh was in their ear, and the ears of top leadership, in the final days of session.

“They are definitely trying,” Cortvriend said.

Kallman, who caught wind of the opposition campaign, blasted the organization for skirting the legislative committee process, which would have allowed for more thorough and transparent vetting.

“There’s a bad faith movement afoot,” Kallman said in an interview Wednesday. “Substantive amendments are supposed to go through committee.”

Especially because of the highly technical and scientific distinctions between how the industry network wants to define PFAS — which to the layperson’s eye and ear seem credible — and the definition in the existing bill.

“There is a scope for a lot of misunderstanding,” Kallman said.

Indeed, Fay’s letter refers to 2023 rules released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) narrowing the definition of the toxic chemicals from the “one fully fluorinated carbon atom” description. Fay fails to mention that this is one of several PFAS definitions put forth by the EPA, not intended for applications to human health, Thorp said.

“There’s no such thing as a safe PFAS chemical, or at least, a proven safe PFAS chemical,” Thorp said. “If you don’t have a broad enough definition in the law, what can happen is you end up playing this chemistry whack-a-mole game.” 

Hardly a game that state lawmakers are ready, or qualified, to take on.

Kallman and Sen. Alana DiMario, a Narragansett Democrat and chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Agriculture, each said they were uninterested in amending the bill on the Senate floor.

Jed Thorp, Rhode Island state director for Clean Water Action, testifies before the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources at the State House on Wednesday, June 5, 2024. (Nancy Lavin/Rhode Island Current)

The majority of other states with bans on PFAS-containing consumer products use the broader definition for toxic chemicals. 

“We have more of an opportunity to shift markets and manufacturing standards in one direction when we’re moving in lockstep with other states,” DiMario said.

Thorp remained on edge that the Sustainable PFAS Action Network, and its $7,000 monthly investment in a State House lobbying presence, might sway Senate leadership.

“I am going to be nervous until I see what happens,” he said. 

Senate President Dominick Ruggerio offered an emailed response Wednesday, though he did not specifically address controversy over the definition of PFAS.

“As the public health risks associated with ‘forever chemicals’ have become increasingly clear, the Senate has worked diligently with the advocates and interested parties to address this issue,” Ruggerio said. “This bill will put our state on the leading edge of action to address PFAS and bring us more closely in line with the rest of New England. Through the committee process, the bill has been updated to address concerns and has received support from a broad range of stakeholders.”

Gov. Dan McKee remained noncommittal.

“The governor will review the bill, or any potential changes to the bill, in the event that it passes and makes its way to his desk,” Olivia DaRocha, a spokesperson for McKee’s office, said in an email Wednesday.

If signed into law, the legislation would ban sale of PFAS-containing consumer products — including carpets and rugs, cookware, cosmetics, fabric treatments, juvenile products, menstrual products, ski wax and textiles — starting in 2027. Firefighting foam would be banned beginning in 2025. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management would oversee operations, exemptions and enforcement. 

The post Manufacturing group lobbies R.I. legislators to narrow definition of ‘forever chemicals’ appeared first on Rhode Island Current.