Scientific evidence clearly demonstrates the negative effects that perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have on people, nature, and animals. Once in the environment, PFAS, which are either persistent themselves or degrade to other persistent PFAS, resist degradation, and can remain in the environment for decades or even centuries, hence the nickname ‘forever chemicals.’
Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden have drawn up a proposal to restrict PFAS in Europe (currently more than 10,000 substances) and proposals are being drawn up for the UK too.
PFAS have historically been used in applications in industrial processes, firefighting foams, food contact materials, metal plating and metal products, electronics and semiconductors, in the energy sector, lubrication, petroleum and mining, and medical devices among many other industries and uses. They are so ubiquitous because of a combination of properties including water, oil and dirt repellence, durability under extremes of pressure, temperature, radiation and chemicals, and electrical and thermal insulation.
These chemicals pose significant risks to human health and the environment due to their potential for bioaccumulation and long-range transport. Companies are being warned that they will need to seek alternatives to PFAS in the coming years.
Understanding how persistent chemicals are used in various industries and implementing safe disposal methods is crucial to mitigate their harmful effects.
The EU proposals set out two options. explains Richard Luit, policy advisor at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). The first, he says, would be: “A full ban on PFAS, which takes immediate effect after a transitional period of 18 months. This is standard and considered reasonable within REACH; it’s like selling out of stock. Option two is a ban with use-specific derogations which will be underpinned based on information from industry and other stakeholders. Option two will be based primarily on analysis of alternatives and the possibilities or impossibilities to transition within a certain timeframe and other socio-economic considerations. And we will have reasonable timeframes for switching to alternatives.”
After the end of a six-month consultation process in September 2023, a final decision is expected to come into force in 2025, and the restriction is expected to come into force in either 2026 or 2027.
Back in the UK, last year saw various UK environmental lawmakers and regulators (with devolved responsibilities) active in this area, but more focused on adapting to their new roles in an independent UK. Although the January 2018 25 year environment plan for England set a goal of “managing exposure to chemicals”, with further detail to be set out in a chemicals strategy, that strategy is still awaited.
However, according to Darren Abrahams, partner at law firm Steptoe & Johnson, the UK will have an opportunity to do things differently, given the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill 2022-23.
Abrahams added: “In 2023, the registration deadlines of UK REACH will be extended to 2026, 2028 and 2030 (depending on tonnage band and hazard classification). The far greater challenge (for registrants and regulators) will be addressing the huge data gaps arising from the UK’s exit from the EU without access to ECHA’s databases. Further work will also be undertaken on the potential for a ‘new model’ for REACH registrations, which imposes less of a cost and regulatory burden and is more target to the GB context.”
This pressure is already resulting in changes within the chemical sector that are likely to ripple through the supply chain; one example was 3M’s recent announcement that it will cease to manufacture and will discontinue PFAS across their product portfolio by the end of 2025 (see box).
NEW TOOL
Ricardo has developed what it claims is the world’s first tool to improve the assessment of chemical persistence in the environment. This software-based Persistence Assessment Tool is described as providing a structured methodology to systematically capture and store information on persistence, evaluate data quality, conduct a robust and transparent weight of evidence determination, and assess persistence in line with global regulatory frameworks.
“At Ricardo we have applied our unique knowledge of and expertise in chemical assessment, safety and global regulation to develop the Persistence Assessment Tool, which seeks to address several important gaps in current knowledge and approaches for persistence assessments,” said Chris Hughes, head of environmental chemistry and toxicology at Ricardo. He adds that he anticipates that a large number of persistence assessments will need to be completed under global regulatory frameworks in the coming years.
The safe disposal of persistent chemicals is crucial to prevent their release into the environment and minimise risks to human health and ecosystems. But according to Dr Clare Cavers, senior projects manager at environmental charity, Fidra, that is an area that often gets left out of the conversation. “People are more aware of having a circular economy these days and being considerate of end-of-life solutions. But there doesn’t seem to be a good method of waste disposal that’s been found yet.”
Dr Cavers points out several other methods of disposal currently being employed:
1. High-temperature incineration can effectively destroy PFAS. Incinerators equipped with emission control technologies ensure that the chemicals are broken down into non-hazardous substances. However, it is essential to select appropriate incineration facilities that meet strict environmental standards.
2. Chemical treatment can break PFAS down into less harmful compounds. Advanced oxidation processes, such as photocatalysis and ozonation, can be employed to degrade PFAS. However, these methods require careful optimisation to ensure complete degradation and minimise the formation of harmful by-products.
3. Disposal in secure, engineered landfills can be considered for certain persistent chemicals that cannot be effectively treated or incinerated. Proper design and management of the landfill are critical to prevent leaching of the chemicals into groundwater or surrounding ecosystems.
4. Preventing the generation of persistent chemicals at the source is the most effective approach. Industries should strive to adopt cleaner production processes, reduce the use of PFAS and explore safer alternatives whenever possible. This approach minimises the need for disposal and reduces environmental and health risks.
She adds that industries, policymakers and individuals must collaborate in adopting sustainable practices and investing in research and development of safer alternatives to persistent chemicals.
“We are working closely with Defra representatives and other NGOs on trying to gain a bit more traction and have a bit more influence on what some of these outcomes will be,” explains Dr Cavers. “We need industry, so we’d never call for all-out ban that would cause industry to not be able to function. The consequence of that would be losing jobs and losing trade.
“The human race is very resilient, we have found solutions to an awful lot of things, but sometimes a push is needed – like these restrictions – to push development and move forward,” she adds. “To get to a point where not using PFAS at all would be fantastic. How realistic that is I don’t really know. But I think we’d like to see it not being used in industry or in our economies at all, then you can look more closely at cleaning up legacy issues like waterways and landfills.”
BOX: HOW TO ACT
There are some simple steps that chemical organisations and downstream users can take now to prepare for the new regulatory requirements and future proof their portfolios, according to Ricardo’s NCEC (National Chemical Emergency Centre). These include:
1. Identify all PFAS in your portfolio and supply chain.
2. Consider the functionality of those PFAS in your products and, through supply chain communication, begin to seek alternative substances or product redesign options that would support the phase out of PFAS.
3. Explore innovative solutions and alternatives to the use of PFAS. Ask questions to your upstream suppliers to encourage innovation and a market for alternative chemistries.
4. Stay up to date with the developing regulatory landscape for PFAS and understand the implications for your substances and/or products.
5. Where appropriate, participate in consultations, such as ECHA’s upcoming consultation on the proposed universal restriction of PFAS in the EU.
6. Seek expert help to remain ahead of the market and retain your market access.
BOX; MATERIALS SUPPLIERS THAT ARE ALREADY MOVING AWAY FROM PFAS
According to Trelleborg, a manufacturer of seals and gaskets, the current transition from PFAS-based compounds to viable engineered alternatives and the development of new bio-based and regenerated materials to support demanding industry applications will reshape industry dramatically. Konrad Saur, vice president – innovation & technology, says: “The drive towards a more sustainable future demands new polymer solutions to meet industry’s needs. Change is happening quickly, including potential global legislation on PFAS materials.” The company recently hosted a webinar that highlighted alternative materials and applications (www.is.gd/imawiz).
Elsewhere, global chemicals giant 3M announced it will exit per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) manufacturing and work to discontinue the use of PFAS across its product portfolio by the end of 2025.
3M said that fluorochemistries are valuable for many properties – such as durability, water repellency, heat resistance. Some products, like semiconductors used in modern electronics, cannot be made without use of fluorochemistries.
3M also said that fluorochemistries, which include PFAS, are important materials that are used in everyday products. Fluorochemistries are safely used in many modern products for their important properties and can be safely manufactured. Some people have questions, however, about how they’re managed.
3M said that its decision is based on careful consideration and a thorough evaluation of the evolving external landscape, including multiple factors such as accelerating regulatory trends focused on reducing or eliminating the presence of PFAS in the environment and changing stakeholder expectations.
3M chairman and chief executive officer Mike Roman said: “While PFAS can be safely made and used, we also see an opportunity to lead in a rapidly evolving external regulatory and business landscape to make the greatest impact for those we serve.”
In detail, 3M will discontinue manufacturing all fluoropolymers, fluorinated fluids, and PFAS-based additive products by the end of 2025. 3M intends to fulfill current contractual obligations during the transition period.
3M reports that its current annual net sales of manufactured PFAS are approximately $1.3 billion with estimated EBITDA margins of approximately 16%. Over the course of the exit from PFAS manufacturing, 3M expects to incur total pre-tax charges of between $1.3-$2.3 billion.