April 15, 2024
TheHonorableRobinCarnahan Administrator
U.S.GeneralServicesAdministration 1800 F Street, NW
Washington,DC 20405
Re: Coalition comments on the recommendations set forth in a February 1, 2024, GeneralServicesAdministration(“GSA”)AcquisitionPolicyFederalAdvisory Committee(“GAPFAC”)reportandletterregardingper-and polyfluoroalkyl (“PFAS”) substances.
DearAdministrator Carnahan:
The undersigned organizations write to express significant concern about certain recommendations set forth in a February 1, 2024, General Services Administration (“GSA”) AcquisitionPolicyFederalAdvisoryCommittee(“GAPFAC”)reportandletterregardingper- and polyfluoroalkyl (“PFAS”) substances. While perhaps well-intentioned, the GAP FAC’s report ignores sound science and the enormous societal value of many PFAS-containing products. Before taking any further steps, we urge GSA to engage with our coalition of companies,tradeassociations,andotherstakeholdersasthisgroupcanprovidethemostup-to- date data and information regarding the importance of these chemistries to the value chains of sectors across the economy.
What is omitted from the recommendations is important context that PFAS includes thousandsofchemistriespossessingdifferentandoftenuniquecombinationsofproperties,such as repelling water and retarding heat, which cannot be found in any other chemistry.Such properties make them durable, efficient, versatile, reliable, and ultimately irreplaceable across critical sectors of the U.S. economy where they are safely and responsibly manufactured and used. Among the sectors most reliant on PFAS, which the report does not recognize, are automotive, semiconductors, data centers, defense equipment and systems, renewable energy technologies, transportation, and health care.
Unfortunately, the recommendations also do not attempt to define the term “PFAS,” making them of limited value to GSA. The GAP FAC admits that there is no agreed-upon definition of the term. “The definition of PFAS is variable across the federal government. GSA should decide which definition to use in consultation with other federal agencies to ensure consistency across the federal government respecting procurement.” (GAP FAC Recommendations at n. 6.) As the GAP FAC suggests, GSA and other federal agencies must define “PFAS” before making any decisions about restricting their use or procurement. Without a solid definition and tailored approach, accepting the recommendations would be nearly as uselessasrestrictingtheprocurementof“chemicals”or“gases”—extremelybroadcategoriesof chemistries.
The failure to adopt a science-based approach undermines the GAP FAC’s own discussionandrecommendations.Forexample,callingforthe“phasingoutofPFASproduction, limiting demand and uses for it, and protecting people currently and potentially exposed” discounts the fact that some PFAS, such as fluoropolymers, have not been shown to pose any risk to human health or the environment and are an essential component of many products and technologies, including life-saving medical devices. GSA must reject such an overbroad approach and instead pursue a careful policy that recognizes the importance of many PFAS, while working toward the shared goal of reducing risks of PFAS that may present risk to health or the environment.
In our comments last summer to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee related to its draft PFAS legislation, we suggested the Committee followthefoundations of the Delaware and West Virginialaws to ensure a clear and consistent definition of PFAS. This letterincludedtheneedtoexcludefromthePFAS definitionfluoropolymersandf-gases,which arecritical in meeting our obligations to transition to low global warming potential alternatives to hydrofluorocarbons. We strongly believe there should be one federal definition for PFAS, guiding all federal decision-making.
Moreover,initsrecently released report of critical uses of PFAS, theU.S.Departmentof Defense has recognized the value of PFAS to provide performance necessary in accomplishing its nationalsecurity mission.We sent anopenlettertopolicymakerspointingoutthatthereport importantly highlights the complexities and challenges of replacing PFAS in numerous applications.
TheGAP FAC’srecommendationsfailtorecognizeroleofPFASinenablingtheenergy transitionandcouldprevent importantcontributionsto achievingournation’sambitiousclimate goals. Applications, for example, such as electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell technologies, bothofwhichloweroverallGHGemissions,arenotpossiblewithoutPFAS-basedtechnologies.
Finally,wemaintainthatanyprohibitionsorrestrictionsonthefederalgovernment’s procurement of PFAS-containing products must come from the U.S. Congress, which has legislated in this area in the past. GSA’sauthority to prohibit or restrict the procurement of goods across such a broad swath of the U.S. economy is questionable.
Weask thatyouacceptouroffertoengagewithyouonthemanysocietallyvaluableand criticalusesofPFAS.ChuckChaitovitz,vicepresident,environmentalaffairsandsustainability with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce can be reached at cchaitovitz@uschamber.comwith questions.
Sincerely,
Aerospace Industries Association
AllianceforAutomotiveInnovation
Alliance for Chemical Distribution
FuelCell&HydrogenEnergyAssociation
Fluid Sealing Association
NationalCouncilofTextileOrganizations
Printing UNITED Alliance
TRSA-TheLinen,UniformandFacilityServices Association
U.S.Chamberof Commerce
