The challenges surrounding how to regulate/address the class of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is immense. These chemicals have been widely used for decades around the globe for a reason – they are effective. Their use in a myriad of consumer and industrial products combined with the current human health and environmental concerns, at infinitesimal amounts, complicates matters.
Below we cover a couple of recent developments with respect to PFAS – the move to ban their use and site reopeners.
The Move to Ban All PFAS
There are some groups and government agencies that would like to see a ban on all PFAS substances (there are thousands of PFAS). For example, as reported in Chemical and Engineering News, “The European Commission (EC) is proposing that all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) be banned because it says they are persistent, can be toxic, and can bioaccumulate in organisms—including people. The ban would include all fluoropolymers, a major subset of PFAS.”
PFAS Ban would be Hugely Consequential
As we reported in our October 18, 2023, blog the approach of banning all PFAS in Europe would have unintended consequences. Specifically, the ban on all PFAS chemicals would have “very serious consequences” for the whole clean hydrogen and sustainability industry. A recent joint statement from 15 industrial trade associations in Europe, including Hydrogen Europe, stated the grouping approach to regulating PFAS makes assumptions and false equivalencies about the hazards and risks of using fluoropolymers and perfluoropolyethers.
Further, as reported in Reuters, “European drugmakers warned that a proposed complete ban on substances known as PFAS or ‘forever chemicals’ would render medicine production in the region impossible.”
US Department of Defense Concerns
In the United States, officials within the Department of Defense (DoD) recently informed Congress that the elimination of PFAS would undermine military readiness. The Pentagon has defended the use of the substances for military technology and electronics, as well as in weapons and textiles, claiming that such restrictions would affect national security.
The DoD reported, “DoD is reliant on the critically important chemical and physical properties of PFAS to provide required performance for the technologies and consumable items and articles which enable military readiness and sustainment…Losing access to PFAS due to overly broad regulations or severe market contractions would greatly impact national security and DoD’s ability to fulfill its mission.”
Considering the significant variability of the thousands of PFAS, the task to understand the human health and environmental risk associated with the each PFAS compound is no small undertaking. However, an outright ban of all PFAS and all fluoropolymers may have negative effects that outweigh a more systematic phasing out that allows replacement chemistry to be developed.
Superfund and Other Site Reopeners
With respect to regulation of PFAS in the environment, there are many concerns. A blog by Jeffrey Porter at Mintz Law provides some insight on the path the federal government is considering with respect to reopening remediated sites.
“Yesterday, I spoke with Sarah Mattalian, an Inside EPA reporter writing a story about the suggestion by an EPA official that EPA might require additional PFAS investigations and clean up at properties that had already been remediated owing to the presence of other chemicals in soil and groundwater.”
As pointed out in the blog, this should not come as a surprise as the EPA has been hyper-focused on PFAS for sometime. From the blog: “Since EPA announced its PFAS Road Map two years ago, EPA has been crystal clear that it has concluded that the presence in the environment of the forever and everywhere chemicals known collectively as PFAS is an ‘urgent public health and environmental issue.’”
The science of PFAS is still developing as evidenced by the wide range of PFOA Advisory Levels around the globe. PFAS Comparison Credit to Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA).
Again from the blog, “And it should also come as no surprise that EPA isn’t waiting for its CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act) listing of some number of PFAS to take stock of those already remediated Superfund Sites needing a relook for the possible presence of PFAS in the environment at these miniscule concentrations.”
See the blog, “This is NOT a drill! EPA is going to require billions of dollars of PFAS remediation in many places, including at already ‘closed’ Brownfield sites.”
The designation of certain PFAS chemicals as CERCLA hazardous substances and reopening sites that have been remediated prior to PFAS being a concern, poses incalculable liability. Will we see a new spate of 104 (e) CERCLA letters as Superfund sites are reopened? With the prevalence of PFAS in thousands of products, the list of potentially responsible parties would be enormous.
Regulations Getting Ahead of Science
Of course, the technical elephant in the room is that we (in the US) have not established maximum contaminant levels for PFAS (though proposed at 4 parts per trillion for two PFAS). Further, there is a wide disparity (140,000-fold difference) across the globe in establishing “safe levels.” See image for comparison on Perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA.
To understand the potential risks associated with PFAS, it will require more “scientific legwork.” As outlined above, there are also potentially significant risks associated with sweeping PFAS bans.
For more information on PFAS, see our PFAS Resource Page.
If you need assistance with a PFAS issue or other environmental issue, contact us at info@dragun.com or 248-932-0228.
Dragun Corporation does not use artificial intelligence in drafting our blogs or any other material.
Alan Hahn drafted this blog. Alan has an undergraduate degree in Environmental Studies and completed a graduate program in Environmental Management. He has worked in environmental management for 45 years. He has written hundreds of blogs and articles. His published work includes Michigan Lawyers Weekly, Detroiter, Michigan Forward, GreenStone Partners, Manure Manager Magazine, Progressive Dairy, and HazMat Magazine.
Jeffrey Bolin, M.S., reviewed the blog. Jeff is a partner and senior scientist at Dragun Corporation. He is a published author, frequent speaker, and expert witness. His expertise in environmental due diligence, PFAS, vapor intrusion, and site assessments has led to projects in the US, Canada, and overseas. See Jeff’s Bio.
Follow Dragun Corporation on LinkedIn, X (Twitter), or Facebook.
Sign up for our monthly environmental newsletter.
Principled Foundation | Thoughtful Advice | Smart Solutions
Celebrating our 35th Year 1988-2023