Inside EPA reports that the Maine Department of Environmental Protection is having a hard time implementing a 2021 Maine law that would, between now and the end of 2029, ban the sale of any new products with “intentionally added” PFAS. A similar law is being considered by the Massachusetts Legislature (https://insights.mintz.com/post/102i9jt/as-epa-continues-to-move-toward-identifying-pfas-as-hazardous-substances-we-cont).

On the surface, such laws seem to make a lot of sense. After all, if the forever chemicals known collectively as PFAS are as dangerous as EPA and many States say they are, why would we still be using them and, inevitably, putting them in our air, water and land?   The answer to this question has four parts: (1) our Federal and State Governments went from having no concern over PFAS to grave concern in just a few years; (2) in the meantime PFAS are in hundreds if not thousands of items, many of which we use every day; (3) Congress is nowhere near ready to pass legislation imposing a coast to coast PFAS ban; and (4) manufacturers of PFAS-containing items aren't going to quickly make PFAS-free versions of things that now contain PFAS just because the State of Maine (or even the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) tells them to.   Yes, the tens of thousands of cases in the courts that plaintiffs' lawyers are telling you about every time you turn on the TV or radio will have an effect over time, but not immediately.

So, nearly two years after Maine's PFAS ban hit the books, Maine DEP has already granted hundreds of exemptions. Now the Maine Legislature is considering additional legislation to change the 2021 law to set "acceptable" levels of PFAS in products and perhaps change the definition of PFAS subject to the law.

Of course, whether a particular product is exempt from the law, or it contains what the Legislature determines to be an "acceptable" PFAS level, doesn't matter to the environment when the PFAS get there.   And what would be an "acceptable" level anyway when EPA and many States have already concluded that parts per quadrillion of the forever chemicals are concerning when they get into the environment?   Remember, a part per quadrillion is equivalent to one one-thousandth of a drop of water in a swimming pool.

This brings me back to a thought I've had before.   Might the better course for now is to focus on treating our drinking water, which alone will cost billions of dollars, but otherwise let PFAS be, at least until we decide whether or not we want to continue to use them and what, if any, other real risks they present in the environment?     

The Maine legislature’s Joint Standing Committee on Environment and Natural Resources will be considering two “concept draft” bills that would establish statewide standards for testing and setting “acceptable” levels of PFAS in products and would develop and implement a program to support manufacturers of PFAS-containing products during the phaseout. The committee also will take up three separate bills that have already been introduced. The first, LD1214, would amend the 2021 statute by redefining PFAS as a group of “synthetic” chemicals that contain at least two sequential fully fluorinated carbon atoms, excluding polymers, gases and volatile liquids -- a revision that would likely be supported by the chemical makers.

https://insideepa.com/pfas-news/maine-dep-poised-revise-pfas-ban-following-legislative-action