The annual defense approval bill being discussed in Congress has provisions that ease restrictions on the usage of so-called “forever chemicals” within the Pentagon.
This has sparked some backlash, even among Republicans.
“Forever Chemicals” refers to a group of synthetic substances, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs), that have been linked to serious health issues like cancer. The military has used these chemicals in firefighting efforts for many years.
These compounds are also found in everyday items, from firefighter gear to non-stick cookware, fast food packaging, clothing, furniture, and even cosmetics.
As public awareness about the dangers of these substances has grown, earlier versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) aimed to limit military usage and mandated clean-up efforts.
However, this year’s iteration seems to be pulling back on some of those controls.
The House version of the bill includes a provision that outlines a phased approach to using these chemicals in military firefighting foam.
In the past, regulations required the military to discontinue the use of PFAS-laden foams by October 2024. But if this measure moves forward, the military might continue purchasing new foam containing these chemicals until 2026, raising concerns among supporters about a potential increase in usage.
“This language broadens the scope of what can be purchased and used,” said Jared Hayes, a senior policy analyst at the Environmental Working Group. He indicated that this change could extend the military’s permission to use this foam, possibly until 2028.
“This really worsens the pollution issue… It leads to more contamination, increased cleanup expenses, and ultimately affects defense communities and future service members,” Hayes remarked.
On the Senate side, the bill would lift a ban on military purchases of cookware, carpets, and rugs made with some of the most toxic PFAs.
It remains uncertain which provisions will make it into the final version, as both bills, if passed, will need to be reconciled before reaching the president.
In the House, there has been resistance from several moderate Republicans, including Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Jenkigugan (Va.), Microler (NY), and Nickla Rota (NY), who attempted to repeal the controversial provisions but were unsuccessful in getting the amendments approved in time for a Wednesday vote.
Fitzpatrick’s spokesman, Casey Lee Waldron, mentioned that the representatives are focused on advancing public health priorities through careful steps.
Meanwhile, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) has put forth amendments aimed at eliminating the provisions that would allow incineration and the procurement of toxic cookware.
“Exposure to PFAs can have serious, long-term health effects. Why don’t we seize every chance to protect service members and their families from these hazardous chemicals?” Shaheen stated, underscoring her push for a moratorium on PFA incineration until it can be done safely.
Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who chairs the Senate Preparation Bureau Subcommittee, pointed to a study that showed incineration facilities are over 99.9% effective at destroying these compounds.
“To ensure that science supports this as a safe disposal method, a suspension on incinerating PFAs was proposed. A comprehensive 2022 study has since demonstrated that these methods are 99.9999% effective,” a spokesperson for Sullivan noted.
While the Biden administration has signaled the need to remove the ban, there are concerns about leaving PFAS-contaminated soil at military bases.
Activist Diane Cotter, who previously supported Trump, expressed disappointment with the GOP’s stance on the “forever chemicals” issue. She remarked, “I’m weary of seeing lawmakers gloss over or modify this law, which affects firefighters directly,” referring to her husband, a cancer-free firefighter.
