The complexity of regulating PFAS is not limited to Europe
In our Collaboration Platform event from 18-19 April 2024 we journeyed across the globe to hear from stakeholders in the United Kingdom, USA, Canada, Japan, and China on best practices around regulating PFAS. Marleen Pauwels, Executive Director of Halogens, an industry sector of Cefic, started our journey in Europe where the main legislative file on the radar is the universal PFAS restriction. She was eager to “step outside of Europe and learn about PFAS practices around the world.”
Despite varying approaches across the globe, and being at various stages of regulating PFAS, one aspect is the same as in the EU: complexity.
PFAS span different regulations
Whether we look at the United Kingdom, China or Japan, PFAS such as PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS are regulated through the implementation of the Stockholm Convention, banning their manufacture, import and use. Professor Xuezhi Xiao of the Foreign Environmental Cooperation Center (FECO) explained that in addition, China is phasing out HCFCs and aims to complete the phase out of HCFCs for controlled use by 2040 to align with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Quite the task, given that in 2022, the total production of fluorocarbon chemicals was about 1.6 million tons, accounting for more than 70% of the global production according to Zhang Jianjun of China Association of Fluorine and Silicone Industry (CAFSI).
Regulatory initiatives that affect PFAS in the United Kingdom include UK REACH, the UK F-gas regulation and legislation around food contact materials. Edward Latter of UK’s Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs explained that they are in the process of defining a strategic approach on how to ensure alignment between these tools and stakeholders. They engage with stakeholders through the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum.
In the United States and Canada, PFAS regulation can occur under both chemical and environmental laws. In Canada, PFAS appears to be a test case for the transition from the old to the new Chemicals Management Plan under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In the US, the challenge is to follow PFAS at federal level, as well as the 50-state governments. In 2023 and 2024 more than 600 PFAS-related bills were in play in state legislatures.
PFAS are grouped differently across the globe
Several speakers agreed that not all PFAS are the same. According to W. Scott Thurlow, Legal Counsel and Director, Chemicals at the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada “They are not all harmful to human health or the environment and they do not all break down the same way”.
Jeff Dawson, Senior Science Advisor of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) explained that “The role of EPA is to evaluate a large number of PFAS, and these 15,415 substances are not alike. Since most of them have limited or no toxicity data it will be impossible to research them one at a time. Therefore, there is growing consensus to use grouping-based approaches to evaluate PFAS for a range of decision contexts.”
PFAS tend to be grouped together by structural similarity. According to Roger Pullin, Head of Chemicals Policy and Health at UK’s Chemical Industry Association (CIA), “Grouping by structural similarity is a starting point, but this must not be used alone since structurally similar substances can have different (eco)toxicological, physicochemical, and toxicokinetic properties. It is important that whichever grouping approach is used, this is informed by scientifically robust data and that the approach taken is consistent amongst all stakeholders as well as being transparent across different regulation.”
Jay West, Senior Director Chemical Products and Technology of the American Chemistry Council, referenced the categorization of PFAS in Buck et al (2011) into polymers and non-polymers, saying “Policies that seek to impose overly broad restrictions could have a major impact on the future availability of fluoropolymers”.
Climate goals and PFAS are intrinsically linked
Thurlow flagged that “PFAS are key components in the production of green hydrogen, electric vehicle batteries and solar panels – all which contribute to clean energy and emissions reduction.”
In this light, Masakazu Shimosawa, Policy Manager of the Japan Business Council in Europe (JBCE) confirmed FPP4EU views on the universal PFAS restriction, stating that “a balanced restriction is important”. He views the group restriction based on the precautionary principle against a backdrop of innovation and sustainability.
Concepts of ‘Currently Unavoidable Use’ or ‘Essential Use’ are hard to define
In the US, certain states apply the concept of ‘Currently Unavoidable Use’ (CUU). This means that a use is banned if not approved to be a CUU. In Maine’s ‘PFAS reporting and ban law of 2021’, CUU was defined as ‘essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society and for which alternatives are not reasonably available.’ They have also recently defined the meaning of ‘essential’, linking it to the PFAS being indispensable to the product’s performance and some detrimental consequences in case the PFAS-requiring product would in its turn no longer be available.
Jay West explained that fluoropolymers are indispensable in “Critical components of manufacturing and operating equipment used in semiconductor, aerospace, automotive, medical, and many other industries. Fluoropolymers are used for the toughest jobs, reducing equipment failures, contamination, and downtime. They have a highly desirable combination of properties that help many industries to meet regulatory and safety requirements and are key to meeting performance requirements in many codes and standards”. Shimosawa agreed that it is difficult to find substitutions that maintain equipment safety.
To conclude
Regulating PFAS is not a simple task. Speakers seemed to agree that clustering PFAS in smaller groups is part of the solution. Focus could then be placed on regulating those (most) harmful to environment and health, whilst allowing for exemptions on critical applications, relating to human health, safety and the green transition.
As long as industry, regulators and other stakeholders with a vested interest collaborate with one another, a solution to this complex file can be found.
