Chemical industry lobby opposing strong Connecticut action on PFAS pollution

Read the full article by Gregory B. Hladky (Hartford Courant)

“Growing concern about potentially toxic PFAS pollution in Connecticut has brought demands from environmentalists that a new state task force push for tough controls and restrictions over these controversial ‘forever’ chemicals.

But strong opposition from the chemical industry helped kill a PFAS-control bill in the 2019 General Assembly. Supporters of that failed measure say they expect the American Chemistry Council to work to block any similar legislation in 2020. The council is the primary public relations and lobbying arm of the chemical industry.

‘The chemical industry was really the main one lobbying against it,’ Anne Hulick, head of the Connecticut chapter of Clean Water Action, said of the bill to restrict use of PFAS in firefighting foam and consumer products that died this year.

Hulick said she expects more of the same if the state task force now working on PFAS-related issues recommends strong state action similar to what’s been done in states like New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts…

State records show the American Chemistry Council spent more than $66,000 this year on lobbying the Connecticut General Assembly. Those lobbyists included well-connected firms like Hughes & Cronin and Murtha Cullina.

The American Chemistry Council also will be represented on three different subcommittees set up by the state task force to work on recommendations for dealing with PFAS pollution. The prevention subcommittee membership, for example, will include Jean Cronin, a longtime Connecticut lobbyist working for the chemistry council who has no apparent expertise in pollution prevention or toxic chemicals.

The industry’s continuing opposition to tough state controls over PFAS comes as no surprise to Connecticut environmentalists. But they believe recent events, including a June 8 spill of tens of thousands of gallons of PFAS firefighting foam into the Farmington River, have brought the PFAS issue to widespread public attention and are likely to provide momentum for state action in 2020…

The massive Bradley Airport spill occurred barely a week after legislators at the Capitol finished work for this year without even taking a vote on PFAS legislation.

The bill that died at the end of the session was a far weaker version of legislation that was originally proposed. The initial legislation called for state action to come up with alternatives to PFAS firefighting foam and consumer packaging and proposed banning those chemicals for those types of products in 2021.

The watered-down version that unanimously passed the legislature’s Public Health Committee and later died without a vote by the House or Senate would have simply asked that PFAS firefighting foam not be used during fire training exercises. The bill also called for state officials to evaluate alternative non-PFAS firefighting foams, a plan that would have cost an estimated $66,000…

Pollution from PFAS, which stands for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl compounds, has become a national issue with the discovery of hundreds of drinking water sites across the U.S. that are contaminated with these man-made chemicals. Potentially dangerous levels of the compounds have been found in wells in Greenwich and Willimantic, and the state is planning statewide testing.

Nicknamed ‘forever chemicals’ because of how long they last in the environment and the human body, PFAS has been linked to high cholesterol, reproductive problems, several types of cancer, developmental issues in children, as well as kidney and liver disease…

Much of the documented drinking water pollution has resulted from use or spills of PFAS firefighting foam at military bases and airports around the nation. But PFAS chemicals are also used in many industrial processes and consumer products that include food packaging like pizza boxes and microwave popcorn bags, stain-resistant carpeting, rain gear and non-stick cookware…

Hulick said her group has asked the state task force to ‘establish health protective drinking water standards,’ to order removal of PFAS chemicals from firefighting foams, set a state timeline for banning PFAS from consumer products and institute more rigorous state testing of water sources for these chemicals.

The American Chemistry Council disagrees with virtually all those goals. In an email response to questions on this issue, council officials said they oppose any outright ban on very effective PFAS firefighting foam. They also insisted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already cleared various PFAS chemicals for consumer products…

Several states have already set much tougher standards for various PFAS chemicals in drinking water than those recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘We do not believe that the data support the standards proposed or recommended by some states to set levels below the EPA’s advisories for [PFAS chemicals],’ according to the council’s email…

Hulick and Brown suspect that subtle opposition from the chemical industry had something to do with the bill’s eventual demise in Connecticut. ‘It’s been a very dark, quiet kind of lobbying behind the scenes,’ Brown said of the chemical industry’s efforts on the PFAS legislation.

The $66,000 the chemistry council has spent on lobbying in Connecticut so far in 2019 is a paltry sum when compared to the organization’s federal lobbyist expenses. According to the transparency group OpenSecrets.org, the council has spent $3.37 million on federal lobbying in 2019; in 2018 the group’s lobbying expenses totaled $9.28 million…”