MASSACHUSETTS IS NOT “in the vanguard” when it comes to addressing toxic “forever chemicals,” according to the Senate sponsor of a bill meant to help municipalities and water systems clean up related contamination.
It’s the second time House Speaker Pro Tempore Kate Hogan and Senate Assistant Majority Whip Julian Cyr have filed legislation (S 1504, H 2450) that would phase out the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of chemicals that do not break down fully in the environment and are linked to harmful health issues like thyroid disease, liver damage, some cancers and immune system suppression.
The bills gained favorable reports last session from the Joint Committee on Public Health and Health Care Financing, but died in House Ways and Means Committee last session.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that more than 99% of people in the U.S. have detectable levels of PFAS in their blood, according to Laurel Schaider, a senior scientist at Newton-based Silent Spring Institute who spoke at a State House briefing on Thursday.
PFAS are often used in nonstick, stain-resistant, waterproof and grease-resistant products. Well owners and users, farmers and firefighters from across Massachusetts have testified before the Legislature in recent years and gathered at the State House Thursday to discuss the illnesses and other issues that have resulted from water and soil contaminated with PFAS and firefighting gear designed with PFAS in it.
“I think there’s two hurdles here. One is that we’re talking about complex policy related to environmental science, and the more that we learn about PFAS, the more we understand its ubiquity,” Cyr told the News Service. “As you build a statutory and then a regulatory scheme around it, this isn’t easy policymaking.”
“We continue to see that the manufacturers of products that contain PFAS have opposed these efforts in numerous states. Massachusetts is not immune from some of that opposition,” Cyr continued. In part that’s why the bill targets specifically how people are most exposed to PFAS, not how it’s present in industrial applications, Cyr said.
The Legislature in 2024 passed a few measures, according to Hogan, including those phasing out PFAS in firefighter protective gear and increasing funds to MassDEP to provide support for PFAS testing.
Other lawmakers have filed varying forms of legislation this session aiming to address different PFAS-related issues. A delegation of Massachusetts lawmakers visited Maine in August in an attempt to better understand how the state tackled contamination caused by PFAS specifically related to sewage sludge on farms.
“Massachusetts, we like to be in the vanguard of public health, of environmental health and safety. We are no longer in the vanguard. I think there are 13 or 14 other states that have passed some form of legislation related to PFAS. So we’re losing ground a bit,” Cyr said.
Alaska, New Jersey and New Hampshire also recently passed laws specifically addressing PFAS used in firefighting equipment. States including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont have passed varying laws phasing out the use of PFAS.
The Massachusetts bill would establish a remediation fund to assist entities attempting to clean up PFAS from their water supply, as well as direct the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to include PFAS monitoring requirements. It’s based on recommendations from the PFAS Interagency Task Force, which Hogan and Cyr chaired and that came out with a report in 2022.
“We’re trying to keep our bill current,” Hogan said, naming biosolids and ambient air as additional PFAS-related issues she anticipates ahead. “What we’ve set forth will really be foundational to moving forward and to dealing with all of the aspects of PFAS that are going to keep making their way into the general public and our conversations about PFAS.”