At least three bills to bolster PFAS remediation efforts headed to full Legislature
Two legislative committees advanced bills this week that would continue the state's pioneering efforts to address the spread of and contamination by so-called forever chemicals.
The legislation will now go before the Maine House of Representatives and Senate to be voted on for passage.
The proposals build on the Legislature's work in the last five years to address the impact of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, which has been linked to serious long-term health problems including cancer. These efforts include a phased-in ban on most goods and products with intentionally added PFAS.
Awareness of the toxic chemicals has increased as the state has worked to remediate agricultural land contaminated by the state-sanctioned spreading of PFAS-laden sludge. The high level of exposure among the firefighting community has also recently become more apparent, particularly after 1,600 gallons of firefighting foam concentrate containing PFAS spilled in Brunswick last summer.
The Legislature's Environment and Natural Resources Committee held a work session Wednesday to discuss a suite of proposals from Rep. Dan Anekeles (D-Brunswick) about the prevalence of Aqueous Film Forming Foam, also known as AFFF, across the state.
Two of the three bills received unanimous support from the committee members who were present, with two members absent for the votes.
The committee backed LD 400, which calls for a statewide inventory of AFFF, with some changes to ensure it would be publicly accessible on the Office of the Maine State Fire Marshal website.
Brunswick lawmaker introduces bills to address PFAS-laden firefighting foam
The state does not currently know how much AFFF remains in storage throughout the state, or where it is held, but during the public hearing on the bill, Maine Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Melanie Loyzim said there is an estimated 50,000 gallons of foam remaining in the state; however, that is based on limited data the department attempted to gather a handful of years ago.
Because State Fire Marshal Shawn Esler said he would like to start as soon as possible, the start date for the inventory was moved up to begin on or before Nov. 1, 2025. However, the bill does not have an emergency preamble so it wouldn't officially take effect until 90 days after the Legislature adjourns.
Though he supports the intent of the bill, Esler testified against the legislation during the public hearing. But he told the committee Wednesday that his concerns were rooted in the timelines for conducting the inventory and starting the takeback program outlined in LD 222, which would help local fire departments that don't have the budgets to properly dispose of the foam.
The committee also moved up dates for the inventory to be completed to Nov. 1, 2026 for public entities and one year after that for private entities. The inventory would need to be submitted to the Legislature by Jan. 1, 2028.
Those changes will help with concerns over the logistics of conducting an inventory as well as developing and implementing a foam take-back program by July 2027, which also passed the committee by unanimous vote.
Ankeles' package of PFAS bills also included a ban on AFFF from all properties owned, leased or managed by the Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, a quasi-governmental agency that manages the former naval base where the Brunswick spill occurred. The bill proposes the ban start on Jan. 1, 2026.
However, the committee tabled LD 407 until next week.
On his third day in the job, the new MRRA Executive Director Daniel Stevenson told the committee he would need more time to raise the money needed to remove the foam concentrate still on site. Though MRRA would also like to see it removed, Stevenson worries the agency couldn't raise the necessary funds to meet the deadline outlined in the bill.
Since MRRA is quasi-governmental, lawmakers questioned whether the state would be responsible for the funding to remove the existing foam, which the committee analyst is planning to look into ahead of the next meeting.
The Legislature's Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee also voted to advance a bill from Sen. Henry Ingwersen (D-York) to enshrine in statute Maine's existing response program for PFAS contamination on farmland, which has been touted as a national leader.
The PFAS Response program currently has seven full-time staff members who provide technical and financial assistance to more than 80 farms with varying levels of contamination. There is also a three-person PFAS Fund team that provides financial support, research and access to health services. The legislation revises the fund to make it more efficient and effective.
As part of a state buyback program to give farmers an option to move off contaminated land, the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry recently purchased more than 100 acres in Palermo for $333,000 using relief fund dollars, the Portland Press Herald reported.
Most committee members voted in favor of LD 130, but Rep. Caldwell Jackson (R-Oxford) opposed the bill out of fear it would put Maine farmers at a disadvantage over those in other states who may not be subject to the PFAS product limits that are outlined in the legislation.
Legislative committees also held public hearings for other PFAS-related proposals.
The Health Coverage, Insurance and Financial Services Committee heard from Sen. Stacy Brenner (D-Cumberland) about her proposal to require health insurance carriers to cover blood tests for PFAS when they are deemed medically necessary.
And Rep. Reagan Paul (R-Winterport) introduced a bill to the Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee seeking to require an operator of a solar or wind energy development to test for PFAS contamination at the development site.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
NSC Applauds Senate Appropriations Committee Passage of Bill Keeping OSHA, NIOSH Funding Steady
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, the National Safety Council issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee's passage of legislation that keeps funding steady for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which passed out of committee by a vote of 26-3, maintains FY2026 funding for OSHA at the FY2025 level and slightly increases FY2026 funding for NIOSH over the FY2025 level. The bill now moves to the full Senate. "The National Safety Council applauds the Senate Appropriations Committee on its decisive vote to keep funding steady for OSHA and NIOSH," said Lorraine Martin, CEO of NSC. "We urge the House and full Senate to approve these funding levels, which are necessary to keep America safe at work." The committee's report language accompanying the bill shines a spotlight on several safety issues, including opioid use in the workplace and heat-related injuries. In expressing concern over the prevalence of opioid use in the workplace, the committee cited NSC data showing that while 75% of employers reported seeing opioid use impact their workplace, only 17% reported being well-prepared to address it. The committee encourages the Secretary of Labor to issue guidance to employers on providing opioid overdose reversal medication and training in the workplace. Learn more about workplace unintentional overdose deaths here: Uncertainty over NIOSH's budget in particular has swirled for months, with an 80% budget cut proposed in June by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In the report, the committee recognized the vital role NIOSH plays in protecting American workers as "the only Federal agency responsible for conducting research and making recommendations for the prevention of work-related illness and injury" and directed the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "to ensure work continues in NIOSH research centers nationwide." About the National Safety CouncilThe National Safety Council is America's leading nonprofit safety advocate – and has been for over 110 years. As a mission-based organization, we work to eliminate the leading causes of preventable death and injury, focusing our efforts on the workplace and roadways. We create a culture of safety to not only keep people safer at work, but also beyond the workplace so they can live their fullest lives. Connect with NSC:Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube Instagram ©2025 National Safety Council View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE National Safety Council
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
Senate appropriators defend the NIH
WASHINGTON WATCH Senate appropriators came out hard in support of the National Institutes of Health on Thursday, giving the agency a $400 million funding boost for the 2026 fiscal year. How so: The Senate Appropriations Committee upped the agency's budget to $48.7 billion in the 2026 funding bill that cleared the panel with a 26-3 vote Thursday. If the bill becomes law, it would increase cancer research by $150 million; Alzheimer's research by $100 million and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, research by $25 million. The NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Office of Research on Women's Health would each get a $30 million boost. Research on maternal mortality, diabetes and rare diseases would also see an increase, among others. Why it matters: The funding boost is a rebuke from both Republicans and Democrats to the Trump administration's demand to decrease the NIH funding in the next fiscal year by as much as 40 percent, or $18 billion. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the legislation 'prioritizes funding to help make Americans healthier and supports life-saving medical research.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the panel, said the budget increase was a message to 'the scientists wondering if there will even be an NIH by the end of this administration. This committee's resounding message is: 'Yes, Congress has your back.'' Murray urged scientists to continue their research in the U.S. despite the efforts of other countries to lure them away. The appropriators also adopted an amendment Thursday that would limit the Trump administration's control over NIH research funding. An amendment in the bill's manager's package limits the administration's plan to shift funding for most NIH grants from a multiyear schedule to an upfront single-year payment. The amendment states that no funds appropriated in the fiscal 2026 spending bill can be used to increase the proportion of grants fully funded in the first year of the award, compared with fiscal 2024. The NIH can only increase that proportion of forward-funded grants if the agency ensures it isn't cutting grants to do so. What's next: The bill is cleared for floor action. But congressional leaders haven't started bipartisan negotiations toward overall government funding totals, increasing the odds that lawmakers will again resort to a stopgap funding patch before the next fiscal year starts on Oct. 1. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. Peacock feathers have reflective structures that can amplify light into a laser beam, Science reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. MORNING MONEY: CAPITAL RISK — POLITICO's flagship financial newsletter has a new Friday edition built for the economic era we're living in: one shaped by political volatility, disruption and a wave of policy decisions with sector-wide consequences. Each week, Morning Money: Capital Risk brings sharp reporting and analysis on how political risk is moving markets and how investors are adapting. Want to know how health care regulation, tariffs, or court rulings could ripple through the economy? Start here. WORLD VIEW A draft United Nations plan to make the world healthier no longer includes several targets cracking down on sugary drinks, trans fats and tobacco to prevent and control noncommunicable diseases globally. Struck down: A target of 80 percent of countries taxing sugary drinks at levels recommended by the World Health Organization by 2030, POLITICO's Rory O'Neill reports. That goal was a pillar of the initial draft, which will take the form of a nonbinding political declaration world leaders are expected to endorse at a Sept. 25 meeting in New York, on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly. The latest version has also dropped commitments to eliminate trans fats and aims instead to reduce them to the 'lowest level possible.' It also requires front-of-pack labels with nutritional information. A requirement for health warnings on tobacco packaging to be graphic and accompanied by elements that make it unattractive to consumers is also gone. The new draft has softer language on tobacco advertising, requiring countries to restrict it instead of eliminate it. 'Make no mistake, the Declaration in its current form is a backslide,' said Alison Cox, director of policy and advocacy at the NCD Alliance, in a statement. The alliance is a Switzerland-based civil society group working to promote chronic disease prevention. Why it matters: World leaders aim to reduce premature mortality from noncommunicable diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes by 2030 through prevention and treatment and to improve mental health and well-being globally. Noncommunicable diseases killed 18 million people under age 70 in 2021, according to the WHO. Most deaths were in low- and middle-income countries. The aims align with the U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again agenda, but it's unclear how much the U.S. is involved in drafting the final text. HHS did not respond to a request for comment. What's next: Negotiators are meeting this week in New York to discuss the text.
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Senate Committee Endorses NIH Budget Increase, Goes Against Trump's 40% Cut
You know that whole checks and balances thing laid out by the U.S. Constitution? It's where Congress is not supposed to automatically agree with what the Executive Branch of the U.S. government wants to do. Well, on Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee essentially checked what U.S. President Donald Trump has been trying to do to the National Institutes of Health and showed that it doesn't quite agree. In its budget for the U.S. government's 2026 fiscal year, the Trump Administration had proposed a rather massive $18 billion cut to he NIH, which would amount to a 40% chop in funding from fiscal year 2025 levels. But the Senate Committee ended up voting for kind of the opposite: a bill and budget that would give the NIH a $400 million budget increase. The Senate Budget Would Include Modest Increases For The NIH This budget increase would include a $30 million bump in funding to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a $50 million bump to the National Cancer Institute, bringing the total funding to these two institutes up to $6.59 billion, and $7.37 billion, respectively. There's also an $12 million increase in funding for the longstanding BRAIN Initiative, which has supported different researchers across the country to study and better understand, you guessed, the brain. That's after this heady initiative had suffered cuts for the past two years. All in all, the currently proposed Senate budget would leave the NIH's total budget for FY 2026 at $48.7 billion. The Senate Budget Includes All 27 NIH Institutes And Centers Not only that. The preliminary budget that emerged from the Senate committee kept all current 27 NIH institutes and centers essentially intact. That's notable because it goes against the Trump Administration's plan to go bye-bye-bye to many of these centers and institutes and effectively shrink the NIH. For example, soon after he took office, Trump issued an Executive Order that has led to the termination of numerous federal grants that mention diversity, equity or inclusion in some way. Many of these grants were originally issued by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. But the Senate Committee kept the NIMHD budget for FY 2026 essentially the same as it was this past year. The Senate Budget Does Not Include The AHA Plan From RFK, Jr. And there weren't any AHA moments in the Senate budget, so to speak. AHA is the acronym for the Administration for a Healthy America, the name of the agency that U.S. Department of Health and Human Secretary Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been wanting to create. Kennedy has sought to eliminate many existing health programs across different government agencies and then roll them into the new AHA. But the Senate bill made no mention of this plan and basically ignored it. I am reaching out to contacts at HHS and NIH for their reactions. The Senate Budget Maintain NIH Funding Rates For Indirect Costs Finally, the Senate committee essentially said, 'Oh, no you don't' to the Trump Administration's plans to cap funding for indirect cost payments at a 15% rate. Such a rate would be well below what they've been for most universities, academic medical centers and other research organizations, as I've detailed previously in Forbes. That's prompted lawsuits against the Trump Administration that led to a federal judge blocking the proposed indirect cost funding change and the Trump Administration appealing the ruling. The Senate Committee Vote For The NIH Bill Was A Bipartisan 26-3 And the vote wasn't a party all the time situation either. The committee voted 26-3 for all of the above, which meant that the vote wasn't simply split across party lines as so many Congressional votes seem to go these days. No, this looked like bipartisan opposition to what the Trump Administration wants to do to the NIH. Prominent Republican supporters of the bill included Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). Could this be a 'Back to the Future' situation where the NIH has support from both major political parties? Perhaps. Historically, at least until recent years, the NIH has enjoyed bipartisan support, probably because most people are in favor of the whole find-and-fund-new-ways-to-prevent-and-treat-disease thing that the NIH has been doing. Of course, the budget wrangling is far from done. The Senate still has to go through the rest of the appropriations process, which undoubtedly will include more wheeling and dealing and maybe at least a few social media posts from who knows who. Then there's the other side of Congress, the House of Representatives, that has to go through the whole appropriations thing as well. Plus, the White House and its Office of Management and Budget have continued to take steps that appear to bypass Congress's authority to oversee the budget for the NIH. For example, last week, the NIH had implemented what would be a major shift in how it issues grant funding to external researchers. The longstanding policy was that if you were awarded say a five-year grant, the funding for each year would come from that year's NIH budget. Going forward, the NIH wants to change it so that the entire five years of funding would be issued from the NIH budget year corresponding to the first year of the grant. This would severely limit and drop the number of awards that the NIH could issue in a given year. And earlier this week, the OMB tried to put a pause on the NIH issuing any new grants, as I described in Forbes. But when blowback ensued, the White House put a pause on this pause, reversed course and allowed the NIH to issue funding to external researchers again. The concern is that such shifts in policies and pauses as well as grant terminations may be ways to slash the NIH budget without the approval of Congress. Nevertheless, after several months of the Trump Administration cutting and terminating NIH grants, contracts, personnel and influence seemingly with impunity, this marks the first big, concrete pushback from Congress. It is a reminder that it's Congress and not the White House or the rest Executive Branch that ultimately decides who gets what money. Congress was bestowed that power by that thing called the U.S. Constitution. This separation of powers was done to prevent any single branch or person from becoming too powerful and basically take over the country.
