Inside PFAS Policy: Industry Calls for Federal Action on State PFAS Patchwork
Inside PFAS Policy spotlighted industry concerns over the patchwork of state PFAS laws, emphasizing the need for a unified federal framework to avoid overlapping bans, reporting mandates, and compliance burdens. The concerns were raised in response to a Request for Information (RFI) from the Justice Department (DOJ) seeking feedback on “state laws significantly and adversely affecting the national economy or interstate commerce along with suggested solutions that could address such effects.”
In comments submitted to the DOJ, the Sustainable PFAS Action Network (SPAN) underscored that, “modern economic realities require one uniform, federal chemical regulatory system in the United States.” SPAN emphasized that an effective, centralized approach would provide regulatory certainty, protect innovation, and allow states to focus on critical priorities such as site cleanup and remediation.
As states continue to advance differing PFAS bans and reporting mandates, the need for a unified federal system has never been more urgent. This moment demands strong federal leadership to establish a uniform, risk-based policy model for EPA and the states to follow, thereby preventing overly broad and inconsistent laws.
Read more from Inside PFAS Policy’s coverage of industry responses to DOJ’s request:
Inside PFAS Policy: Industry Groups Up Pressure On Agencies To Preempt State PFAS Rules
“…The Sustainable PFAS Action Network (SPAN), which represents PFAS producers and downstream users, has previously urged the Trump EPA to preempt state PFAS regulations through TSCA, which preempts state law when EPA finds, after conducting a lengthy evaluation, that an existing chemical is safe or the agency takes final action to address ‘unreasonable risks’ it may have found in an evaluation…
…SPAN also submitted a comment in response to DOJ’s request, reiterating how state regulations ‘often overlap with current federal requirements and make it challenging for responsible users of certain PFAS to reasonably comply with this patchwork of state laws.’ SPAN, in its Sept. 15 comments, does not explicitly renew its call for preemption under TSCA, but it does say that a ‘Congressional mandate that federal requirements preempt state laws would contribute greatly to the certainty industry needs to research and implement substitute compounds.’
‘Such a federal program would allow state and local governments to focus on higher priority issues for their departments, such as identifying and remediating contaminated sites,’ SPAN says, adding that the ‘U.S. economy needs a strong, predictable, centralized system to address safety and risk issues from PFAS uses nationwide.’”
Inside PFAS Policy: Industry Stresses Need For Unified Federal Approach To PFAS Regulations
“…The role of the federal government is to ensure that a product that enters interstate commerce is regulated for safety in a uniform fashion,’ the Sustainable PFAS Action Network (SPAN), which represents per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) users and producers, says in a Sept. 15 comment letter. ‘In recent years, state-level PFAS policy has begun to produce conflicts in an age where markets are regional, national, and global. Modern economic realities require one uniform, federal chemical regulatory system in the United States.’
‘The challenge this presents for industry is significant. The U.S. economy needs a strong, predictable, centralized system to address safety and risk issues from PFAS uses nationwide,’ SPAN adds in Sept.15 comments.
To address such concerns, SPAN and other groups are urging EPA and FDA to take steps to preempt such states laws….
…‘Companies often design and test products on multi-year cycles, requiring a clear sense of what chemistries will remain available and where,’ SPAN says. When state-specific bans are enacted with accelerated compliance timelines, and without risk-based analysis or clear regulatory guidance, they can disrupt and fracture the national marketplace.’
And furthermore, such uncertainty can even impact the development of PFAS alternatives.
‘Companies investing in next-generation fluorinated chemistries may see those efforts rendered obsolete by evolving state restrictions affecting where and how they can conduct their R&D, test market materials and products, and manufacture and eventually market new and innovative technologies,’ SPAN says. ‘Faced with such unpredictability, many national enterprises that manufacture, acquire, and even use materials that might contain only small quantities of PFAS now hesitate to commit resources to developing alternatives that may later be subject to restrictions themselves.’
‘The result is a chilling effect on innovation: instead of accelerating the transition away from PFAS, state-level bans risk stalling it by creating a regulatory environment too uncertain for effective product planning and research investment.’”
