Numerous EPA initiatives to regulate PFAS may be significantly delayed if House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) plan for a six-month continuing resolution (CR) comes to fruition and lawmakers are unable to approve new funding for fiscal year 2025 until the end of March, according to a former EPA official.
“It’s going to slow every single thing that EPA has underway on [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)],” Betsy Southerland, a former EPA water and Superfund official, told Inside PFAS Policy, adding that the delays will worsen if Congress does not pass appropriations bills for all agencies by early next year and spending cuts under the Fiscal Responsibility Act set in.
Among other things, the Fiscal Responsibility Act included a provision that automatically cuts funding 1 percent from currently enacted levels if Congress fails to pass all of the full-year funding bills before the end of the calendar year. The cuts technically apply Jan. 1, but the sequestration order does not take effect until May, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Johnson Sept. 11 delayed a vote on his controversial CR, which is paired with provisions requiring voters to show proof of citizenship, after it became clear the legislation lacked the votes to pass the House, but he indicated he may still try to bring the bill to the floor.
“No vote today because we’re in the consensus building business here in Congress. With small majorities, that’s what you do,” Johnson told reporters outside the House chamber, according to the Associated Press. “We’re having thoughtful conversations, family conversations within the Republican conference and I believe we’ll get there.”
EPA highlighted PFAS as a major priority for the agency in its FY25 budget request, and Senate appropriators have largely backed the agency’s PFAS agenda, while House lawmakers have questioned some recent PFAS rules.
Southerland noted that EPA has already announced that it would extend by eight months the deadline for manufacturers to report their PFAS uses under a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule due to previous budget cuts that delayed the agency’s ability to develop the necessary reporting system. That could be delayed even longer by a potential CR, she said.
“TSCA has been really notoriously, way underfunded, ever since Congress added all these new responsibilities in 2016,” Southerland said, referencing the overhaul of TSCA that mandated safety reviews for chemicals already in commerce and required a safety finding for new chemicals before they could enter market, among other required actions.
While EPA may be able to meet the extended deadline for PFAS reporting under the TSCA rule under a CR, “if that Fiscal Responsibility [Act] kicks in and they get much more severe cuts, I just don't know what's going to happen to their ability to get this really valuable information,” she said.
State Action
Southerland emphasized that data gathered under the TSCA reporting requirement is useful not only to EPA but to state regulators too, who rely on federal guidance and information to shape their own PFAS policies.
A growing number of states have enacted bans on categories of products with intentionally added PFAS.
States are able to act “much faster, of course, than EPA is able to ban or restrict PFAS-containing articles, but they need the information on what articles have PFAS in them, and that’s what this is meant to do,” said Southerland.
Southerland also expressed concern that EPA’s risk assessments of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) -- the two most studied PFAS -- in biosolids would be delayed by budget uncertainty, which is critical at a time when 48 states still allow the land application of biosolids.
Most recently, Tennessee state officials said they were awaiting results from EPA’s biosolids assessments before considering any PFAS limits in their state’s soon-to-be-renewed general biosolids permit, claiming they need more information on the impacts of PFAS in biosolids -- and underscoring the importance of federal guidance.
“As long as this biosolids risk assessment gets dragged out [and] the slower it is because of budget cuts, the slower it’s going to be for anybody to make a decision once and for all that we need to regulate and limit PFAS in biosolids, or prevent them from being applied on land,” said Southerland, adding that an EPA study on PFAS entering and exiting publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), including in biosolids, may also be impacted.
The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), which represents POTWs, has urged EPA at a minimum to first complete the pending risk assessment of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids before gathering data through the study referred to as the POTW Influent Study. NACWA argues the biosolids portion of the study is outside the scope of the agency’s effluent limitations guidelines (ELG) program.
Generally, Southerland said the budget uncertainty reemphasized the importance of states taking the lead on PFAS mitigation initiatives, given they are not “trapped by the federal rulemaking process” as EPA is.
The former EPA official said that although she does not expect the proposed ELG for the organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers category, currently pending with the White House Office of Management and Budget, will be impacted, she does worry that the PFAS ELGs for metal finishings industries and landfills may be delayed.
The spring 2024 Unified Agenda of regulatory actions set a first-time target of May 2026 to propose an ELG for the metal finishing sector, but the agency has not set a target date for proposing a landfill ELG.
Additionally, Southerland said a potential CR could impact the proposed rule that would update requirements for several existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit applications to address PFAS monitoring and reporting.
EPA said in the spring Unified Agenda that it plans to propose the NDPES rule in June 2025 and finalize it by December 2026.
Senate Appropriators
The budget uncertainty comes after Senate appropriators showed their support for EPA’s PFAS agenda in a July 25 report alongside their recently approved FY25 Interior-Environment appropriations bill, praising the agency’s April drinking water and Superfund rules while calling for further research on the impacts of PFAS discharges.
The Senate report allocated approximately $24 million toward addressing PFAS contamination, which included $8 million for managing PFAS impacts in agricultural settings and communities, showing support for “new Federal research that will help farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.”
The House FY25 Interior-Environment bill, which faces a veto threat from President Joe Biden, proposed $9 million for the same purpose.
Also, the Senate Defense Appropriations Committee boosted funding for the Defense Department’s PFAS cleanup activities beyond the Biden administration’s request for FY25, just as the department faces billions of dollars in potential cleanup obligations at hundreds of bases where it used PFAS-containing firefighting foam.
The bill included a boost of $129.6 million for the cleanup of drinking water contaminated by PFAS, and related activities above the administration’s FY25 budget request, funding PFAS cleanup and related work at a total of $983 million, the bill summary says.
Furthermore, Senate appropriators in the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act allocated money toward National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to “conduct fish tissue sampling and monitoring of PFAS to evaluate the impacts on aquatic health,” according to a press release from the office of Michigan Sen. Gary Peters (D). -- Pavithra Rajesh (prajesh@iwpnews.com)
