Meeting — Sept. 28, 2023

GSA Acquisition Policy Federal Advisory Committee (GAP FAC) Policy & Practice Subcommittee Meeting

September 28, 2023

The GAP FAC Policy & Practice Subcommittee convened for a public meeting at 3:00 PM on September 28, 2023, virtually via Zoom, with Luke Bassis, Chair and David Wagger Co-Chair, presiding.

In accordance with FACA, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App 2, the meeting was open to the public from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM EST. 

Meeting agenda

Committee members present

Luke Bassis, Chairperson Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Dr. David Wagger, Co-Chair Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries

Richard Beutel George Mason University

Nicole Darnall Arizona State University

Antonio Doss Small Business Administration

Mark Hayden State of New Mexico

Jennie Romer Environmental Protection Agency

Nigel Stephens U.S. Black Chambers of Commerce

Absent

Leslie Cordes, Mamie Mallory, Amlan Mukherjee, Steven Schooner, Stacy Smedley, Anish Tilak, Kimberly Wise-White

Guest speakers and presenters

Sarah Doll National Director, Safer States

GSA staff present

Boris Arratia Designated Federal Officer

Stephanie Hardison Deputy Designated Federal Officer

David Cochennic GAP FAC Support

Edris Lambert Closed Captioner

Amber Bahler ASL Interpreters

Rene Devito ASL Interpreters

Call to order

Boris Arratia, Designated Federal Officer, opened the public meeting by welcoming the group before reminding the public that there would be time for comments and statements at the end of the meeting. Boris mentioned that the next full committee meeting would be moved to December 5th and discussed the potential impact of a government shutdown on meetings. Should the shutdown happen, the committee couldn’t hold meetings. He then performed a roll call to confirm attendance and a quorum. After the quorum was met, he turned the meeting over to Chairperson Luke Bassis.

Introductory remarks

Chairperson Luke Bassis began the meeting by expressing concerns about an impending federal government shutdown. He commended the Subcommittee for participating in the September 21st full committee meeting to provide input on FAR Part 23 comments. He also mentioned his organization, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, recently released a comprehensive roadmap for achieving net zero emissions, which aligns with ongoing goals. Luke eagerly anticipates innovative ideas from the GAP FAC that could be incorporated into his daily work.

Additionally, Luke introduced Dr. David Wagger as the new Co-Chair of the Policy & Practice Subcommittee, who serves as the Chief Scientist & Director of Environmental Management at the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries. Both Luke and David expressed enthusiasm about working together in their new roles. Luke then introduced Sarah Doll, the National Director of Safer States, who would present to the Subcommittee on state actions regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in products.

Guest speaker

Safer States is an alliance of environmental health organizations and coalitions across the country working to build a healthier world by harnessing place-based power, safeguarding people on the planet from toxic chemicals, and ideally sparking innovative solutions to reach a sustainable future. As a background on PFAS, the chemicals are persistent and are used for their grease and waterproofing properties in many applications. They negatively impact human health and the environment, creating the urgency in states to act. Due to the presence of PFAS we have seen contaminations, leaks, and exposures that have detrimental effects.

The cost of cleaning up PFAS is creating an urgency. States and local jurisdictions are responsible for the hundreds of millions spent on clean-up. In turn, this is causing the states to feel the pressure. Multiple states are adopting drinking water standards, restricting biosolids spreading, and preventing incineration of PFAS-containing products.

Twenty-seven state attorneys general have taken action against the PFAS manufacturers and other key users. This has caused the states to look and see how to solve this crisis. Twenty-seven states have adopted PFAS policies that include upstream and downstream solutions. Because there have been conversations about which PFAS definition to use, 18 states have adopted into law the definition of PFAS as a class of fluorinated chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. That definition includes fluorinated gases.

State action to restrict the use of PFAS started with firefighters. They pushed for a phase-out of PFAS firefighting foam. Because of this, there are now 12 states that have phased it out, which was first implemented in July 2020. Eight states require disclosures of PFAS in firefighter turnout gear.

Several states have taken a broad lens and given their state authorities to phase-out PFAS in a wide range of products. Maine and Minnesota, will require disclosure of products containing intentionally added PFAS by January 2026, which will create a tremendous amount of information. Maine will require phase-out by 2030 and Minnesota by 2032 unless the product is critical to health, safety, or the functioning of society, and the use of PFAS in it is currently unavoidable. Washington State has authority under its Safe Products for Washington law, which requires it to identify safer alternatives.

There are multiple specific sector phase-outs concerning PFAS. Some areas of phase-out include food packaging, carpets, rugs, aftermarket treatments, cosmetics, and children’s products.

Multiple states refer fire departments to Green Screen-certified alternatives to PFAS firefighting foam. Green Screen is a certification that looks at the chemicals of concern and evaluates other chemicals to ensure that if it is certified, it is not only PFAS-free, but also free from other chemicals of concern. Massachusetts’s Operational Services Division, curated with the Responsible Purchasing Network guide, provides guidance on how to purchase PFAS-free products in statewide contracts

There are multiple certifications and guidance involving PFAS-free products that states are adhering to. The market is moving toward adopting solutions for PFAS-free products. Safer solutions exist, and federal purchasing can help with that market transformation, especially by reinforcing the need for transparency. This urgency will never go away. States will continue acting to have more PFAS-free products available.

Speaker question

Q: Antonio Doss - Are there products more toxic than other products in purchasing? Are there any product types most likely to be in our wheelhouse?

A: Sarah Doll - Certain sectors are more likely to use and have potential exposure to PFAS. Food packaging, textiles, and firefighting foam are at the top of the list of places you can move in. If you look at the direction states have moved toward, you see they are looking at children’s products and cleaning products. This momentum does exist in those places.

Q: Richard Beutel - You talk a lot about sector-specific certifications. Would a combination of the ecolabel approach plus broader adoption of certifications address the complexity of the challenges we have with banning PFAS-related products on a broader basis?

A: Sarah Doll - It would be great if there were a way to incorporate it into an ecolabel. Do it from a class base approach and consider how to incorporate the other things around avoiding regrettable substitution, similar to how EPA Safer Choice does. It sets up a framework to avoid PFAS and other harmful chemicals. If there’s a blending framework that allows for PFAS-free and a chemical hazards assessment, that would help avoid regrettable substitutions. Jennie Romer shared her appreciation of Sarah speaking on the EPA Safer Choice program to address PFAS and other chemicals. After receiving recommended eco-labels and standards, she worked with the Responsible Purchasing Network Team in Massachusetts to assemble the Massachusetts Guide. There are many challenges with eco-labels due to the current coverage and to prevent the encouragement of a PFAS-free only label. They have been looking at their existing recommendation labels to see how they address PFAS. She hopes to see more action in this area. The Safer Choice program posted comments a few months ago to expand into other categories. They are currently reviewing those comments.

Q: Jennie Romer - As we wait for more eco-labels and certifications to populate, are there good examples of contract language to insert in contracts to have the provider declare that the products provided do not have PFAS?

A: Sarah Doll - Michigan just released contract language on this.

Q: Nigel Stephens - Once these PFAS chemicals are out there, would this require remediation? Is there toxicity that lasts for some time? Are there companies that take on the task of removing them from the environment?

A: Sarah Doll - The issue with the PFAS chemistry is that it is a strong bond. As a result, PFAS are called the “forever chemicals”. Once they are out there, it is a problem. An emerging industry has been created around remediation to remove these chemicals.

Q: Luke Bassis - Do you have a theory about the class-based approach? If you’re tackling this issue, are we choosing something like personal care products or food packaging because of its high risk or low barrier?

A: Sarah Doll - The answer to that is complicated. The states are moving toward where PFAS is prevalent and working to reduce it.

Q: David Wagger - The definition of PFAS you offered is the most expansive out there. Does anyone have an issue with pinpointing if they have something that meets the PFAS definition since it might not always be obvious that it is PFAS?

A: Sarah Doll - The states using that definition are trying to capture the broad understanding of what it is and where it is. It’s better to have a broad definition rather than adding things that may be a potential concern.

Q: David Wagger - Have you seen this PFAS definition create confusion?

A: Sarah Doll - From what I have observed, the states aren’t running into pushback on the sectors they’ve chosen to regulate utilizing this definition.

Q: Stephanie Hardison - Has there been any discussion on whether there will be any labels or price increases? Will these providers be penalized if PFAS was intentionally added to products?

A: Sarah Doll - There are some places with disclosure labeling. For example, the firefighter turnout gear requires labeling whether it contains PFAS. There’s nothing in state laws about an exemption if your product is essential for health and safety. There may be a policy that comes forward with more transparent labeling. So far, the states have gone toward eliminating the use of PFAS.

Q: Nicole Darnall - Is there a broader conversation in general about how to signal to the marketplace whether something is PFAS-free versus contains PFAS?

A: Sarah Doll - Usually, the market is the lead on that piece because some companies see it as a market advantage. For example, you have the proliferation of BPA-free marketing. We will eventually see a proliferation of PFAS-free marketing.

Task group report-outs

Luke moved into hearing report outs from both task groups, beginning with the PFAS task group.

Richard Beutel ran through a report. The group discussed moving forward on a PFAS initiative. They have settled on the adoption of a procurement strategy that would seek to limit PFAS products using existing approaches such as the eco-label universe. The discussion was tied up around what ecolables mean and might look like. It was interesting to hear about other sector-specific certification procedures and whether or not they would have a role moving forward. The task group was provided a template to use for proposed comments that look readily adaptable. The next steps for the task group will be working on specific language to go into that moving forward.

Luke mentioned that the next steps would be to start drafting a recommendation around PFAS. He requested that if any other Subcommittee members are interested in helping write that recommendation, let him know. From there, he handed it over to David Wagger to give an overview of the toxicity task group.

David mentioned the group is trying to create a framework to address toxicity in products offered for procurement. They are working through several existing lists of substances that appear in various products to see if there’s a measured approach to take to reduce toxicity in procured products. They are trying not to be chemical-specific so as to not interfere with the PFAS task group.

Boris Arratia researched within GSA to see if he could find any research on toxicity. It would be an area of interest since there isn’t much on it within GSA. He’s looking for points of contact that could help the task force with that recommendation. Jennie Romer volunteered to be part of that conversation to see where the EPA could help. Jennie’s office is within the chemicals office of EPA that focuses specifically on environmentally preferable purchasing. She would be able to share her framework and materials.

Amlan Mukherjee is in charge of the tech tools task group, which is data-related. He has begun to put pen to paper while curating a recommendation. He will update the Subcommittee on the task force when he returns.

Nicole Darnall shared her experience with prior speakers at the Acquisition Workforce Subcommittee meeting earlier in the week. The group talked to two vendors that engaged with GSA and asked them how they brought their sustainable products to the environmental aisle. They discussed the pain points and what that looks like to begin thinking about how the acquisition workforce considers the information ahead of them and how the information is comprehensive based on what gets tagged versus what is out there. Both vendors discussed enormous opportunities for them with the prospect of embedding sustainability requirements into federal acquisition to gain greater access to the marketplace. They need help accessing some of these tools since the existing tools aren’t connecting. They see opportunities for integration, better data, and enhanced access to the federal marketplace. That conversation punctuated other discussions they had with other folks inside GSA with data. They hope that GSA can lead in creating data standards that would remedy problems within GSA and also across the vendor community to get sustainable products. The Acquisition Workforce Subcommittee hopes to take that recommendation and push it further to add texture and other important elements for GSA.

Luke provided an update on the state innovations task group. They have begun to reach out to states to gather more information. They have been doing a deep dive to see what could be considered a best practice recommended at the federal level. The group is still in discovery mode and is trying to target conversations with states that have implemented policies around sustainable procurement. Their goal is to find a few innovations that GSA will receive well. Nicole mentioned that the group might need to recalibrate to see if there’s a way to gather data before doing a deeper dive into potential next steps. If anyone has come across policies at the state or any other level, the group would like to hear from them for their task group.

Nigel brought up a conversation about supporting small businesses trying to meet these requirements that are being built into the state and federal procurement processes. Luke mentioned state allocated resources to cater to that contracting community. He believes it will benefit the group to hear more about that and put something in front of GSA.

Luke met with the Harvard Government Performance Lab to see if there was any synergy between some of the efforts in the Subcommittee, but it didn’t fit into a task group. Boris is looking to see if the Harvard Government Performance Lab would want to speak to the full GAP FAC during the Dec. 5th meeting.

Mark mentioned that the Sustainable Purchasing Leadership Council offered to speak to the Subcommittee during one of their meetings to show what they see from other states.

Public comments

John Reeder inquired if the recommendations would be in the form of a draft that public participants could see and provide comments on.

Luke will continue to discuss the recommendations in the public meetings where the public may comment. The group hopes to come to a final recommendation in December, which will also be open to public comment. He welcomed John to join their next Subcommittee meeting to provide feedback. Boris reminded the public that once the formal recommendations are out, the public can continue to make comments.

John mentioned a comment at the meeting about providing information for the government procurement officer to do the right thing. It will be a difficult strategy since there are so many of them. He would like the Subcommittee to consider that GSA could easily stop listing PFAS-containing products on the MAS general schedule. Many alternatives for these products are listed and would leave no room for error.

Troy Cribb commended the Subcommittee for their various work on the different task forces.

Boris reiterated that if the government shuts down, the full GAP FAC will be unable to meet.

Closing remarks

Boris reminded the Subcommittee that the next public meeting round is scheduled for the end of October. He appreciated everyone’s contribution to the meeting.

Adjournment

Boris Arratia adjourned the meeting at 5:00 PM EST.

Digitally signed by Luke Bassis 9/17/2024 
Luke Bassis 
Chairperson 
GAP FAC Policy & Practice Subcommittee

Digitally signed by Dr. David Wagger 9/17/2024 
Dr. David Wagger 
Co-Chairperson 
GAP FAC Policy & Practice Subcommittee