Provisions in the House and Senate annual Defense authorization bills have recently been making headlines for their efforts to reduce restrictions on the Pentagon’s use of “forever chemicals.” These bills, which are typically passed each year to authorize funding and set policies for the Department of Defense, have included language that aims to address the issue of “forever chemicals” or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). While there is general bipartisan support for these provisions, one particular clause in the House bill is causing some pushback, even among Republicans.

Let’s start with a brief overview of what “forever chemicals” are and why they have become a concern for the Department of Defense. PFAS are a group of human-made chemicals that have been used in a variety of consumer products such as non-stick cookware, stain-resistant carpets, and waterproof clothing. However, they have also been widely used in firefighting foam, which is heavily relied upon by the military for training exercises and emergency responses.

The reason why these chemicals have earned the nickname “forever chemicals” is because they have been found to persist in the environment, the human body, and even in certain animals for years without breaking down. This is due to their strong chemical bonds, which make them resistant to degradation. PFAS have also been linked to a range of health issues including liver damage, thyroid disease, and cancer. So, it’s no surprise that there has been a growing concern about their use and potential harm.

This brings us back to the provisions in the House and Senate annual Defense authorization bills. Both versions of the bill seek to phase out the use of PFAS in military firefighting foam by 2024, as well as restricting its use in other non-emergency situations. They also require the Department of Defense to establish a research program to study the health effects of PFAS exposure on military personnel and their families. These are all positive steps towards addressing the issue of “forever chemicals” within the military.

However, the main point of contention lies within the House bill, specifically with a provision that would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set a national drinking water standard for PFAS within two years. This has garnered some opposition from Republicans who argue that it is too costly and could cause delays in addressing the issue. Some also believe that the EPA should be given more time to conduct its own research and make a determination on the safety of PFAS.

While it’s important to consider the potential challenges and costs associated with setting a national drinking water standard for PFAS, it’s also crucial to prioritize the health and safety of military personnel and their families. The Department of Defense has already identified over 600 military sites with water contamination due to PFAS, and it’s estimated that there could be more. These “forever chemicals” have the potential to impact not only the health of service members, but also the surrounding communities.

Moreover, setting a national standard would provide consistent guidelines for dealing with PFAS contamination across the country and hold polluters accountable. It would also assist in streamlining efforts to clean up contaminated sites and provide support to affected communities. Ignoring the issue or waiting for the EPA to conduct more research is simply not an option when the health and well-being of our military personnel and their families are at stake.

In addition to the pushback from Republicans on the national drinking water standard provision, there have also been concerns raised about the potential impact on small businesses that manufacture PFAS-containing products. However, the House bill includes a provision that would provide funding to businesses for research and development of alternative products that do not contain PFAS. This not only supports innovation but also helps to address the issue in a proactive and sustainable manner.

Overall, the provisions in the House and Senate annual Defense authorization bills are taking important steps towards addressing the issue of “forever chemicals” and their use in the military. While it’s understandable that there may be differing opinions on certain aspects of the bills, it’s essential that the health and safety of our service members and their families remain a top priority. The use of PFAS has been a long-standing issue within the military, and it’s time for concrete action to be taken. Let’s hope that the final version of the bill will prioritize the well-being of those who serve our country.