The challenge of ‘forever chemicals’ will require bold action at speed and scale

It is taking literally decades for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess and develop regulatory controls for such serious and well-documented health risks as ethylene oxide, methylene chloride, vinyl chloride and a host of other individual chemicals or mixtures. Now EPA is in the early stages of evaluating what to do for the most complex public health policy challenge it has faced in its entire 54-year history — how to clean up an estimated 10,000-15,000 varieties of molecules known as polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl chemicals, or PFAS.

Like so many marvels of chemistry developed in the post-World War II era, PFAS exhibited a wide array of commercial uses in nonstick cookware, food packaging, foams used in firefighting, furniture anti-stain protection and other applications. And like so many other chemical products, consumers and regulatory agencies belatedly became aware that exposure to PFAS was associated with such health effects as kidney and testicular cancer, decreased fertility, hypertension in pregnant women and lower birth weights. A related historical pattern was that PFAS producers, such as 3M and DuPont, had early knowledge of these hazards as far back as the 1960s based on scientific studies they conducted, but did not disclose them until decades later following citizen complaints of health impacts, activist and whistleblower activities, and data discovery through legal processes.

What makes PFAS risks even more distinguishable from other chemicals is their resistance to breaking down in the environment, hence their name “forever chemicals.” This durability represented one of the strongest selling points for their ubiquitous commercial applications. PFAS have been detected as far away as Antarctic snow, in sewage sludge used as fertilizer, and are believed to be present in the bloodstream of every American. 

How, then, is EPA approaching this Mount Everest of public health challenges? On Oct. 18, 2021, it published a PFAS Strategic Roadmap to establish internal coordination mechanisms, consider PFAS’ lifecycle properties, examine how to prevent PFAS from entering the environment, conduct scientific research and assess risks, identify disadvantaged communities and conduct stakeholder engagement.  

Related webcast

Carbon Credit Confidence: Mastering Impact, Quality and Price in Procurement

Join Dr. Carla Woydt at CEEZER, and industry experts from Cultivo and JPMorganChase to learn how to navigate delivery and pricing risks in the voluntary carbon markets.

September 17, 2024

Register

More specifically, EPA proposed two new regulatory initiatives in April. The first listed two forms of PFAS — perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) — under the Superfund statute to force cleanups of leaks and spills that would enable EPA to collect billions of dollars in liabilities from chemical producers. The second action was the agency’s publication of the first drinking water standard for PFAS that is designed to reduce exposure for 100 million Americans. However, the standard would only apply to six forever chemicals.

While these actions are a start, they would not even get close to establishing a base camp for climbing the PFAS Mount Everest. Rather, a reconceptualization of the entire system of production, commercial applications, governance and accountability — one that extends far beyond the regulatory boundaries of EPA — is necessary to resolve the environmental health challenges presented by PFAS. Such a reconceptualization, at a minimum, would consist of the following five elements: 

1. Convening PFAS producers, other federal and state agencies, leading researchers and major affected stakeholders to develop national goals to reduce PFAS exposures:

EPA should lead this process, which would include:

• individual company commitments to phase out, where technically feasible, existing PFAS inventories and future production plans (3M has committed to phasing out the manufacture of PFAS chemicals by the end of 2025.)
• environmentally rigorous cleanups of contaminated sites, medical and other forms of remediation of impacted communities
• metrics for measuring performance and progress

The results of this process should be incorporated into legally binding requirements updated every three years. Supporting this process should be four additional initiatives that are on parallel, yet interdependent tracks.

2. Engaging the supply chain and downstream customers to develop PFAS substitutes: The PFAS chain of commerce includes a vast number of enterprises that provide raw materials, process chemistry, manufacturing, product distribution and other services that support the use of PFAS. These companies possess deep knowledge of PFAS’ commercial function and environmental fate and represent a vital asset in developing technically feasible short-and-longer-term alternatives. By making this a business-driven process with key customers, supply chain firms can optimize important commercial relationships in the service of public health benefits.

3. Practicing aggressive transparency to incentivize the commercialization of healthier materials: Our current dilemma is that we as consumers simply do not know the PFAS composition of many products currently available in the marketplace ranging from clothing and computers to cosmetics and food packaging. Major producers of materials and products should disclose their PFAS ingredients in a public database to empower purchasing managers of major institutions and consumers to choose PFAS-free products.

4. Aligning research initiatives: Individual PFAS producers, government agencies and university scientists are all currently researching PFAS properties and alternatives. Frequently, this work — for reasons of business confidentiality or bureaucratic culture — proceeds in isolation from each other. Going forward, those funding or conducting PFAS-related research should practice more aggressive collaboration to share hypotheses, methodologies, preliminary results and, where possible, conduct joint research activities. This will make better use of existing resources, accelerate innovation opportunities, and enhance the credibility of reported results.

5. Leveraging litigation outcomes: Major PFAS out-of-court settlements have already been finalized with companies such as 3M, Corteva and DuPont that have totaled tens of billions of dollars. Dozens of state attorneys general and other litigants have filed thousands of additional cases, with the expectation that even more settlements will be reached. The purpose of such litigation is to establish legal liability for health and environmental damages caused by PFAS exposures and to compensate those victimized by such damages. An additional opportunity arises to leverage these lawsuits into providing targeted resources for research into PFAS alternatives, improving methods to assess PFAS risks and other worthy societal outcomes. Legal precedent for this approach exists through the settlement reached between federal and state agencies and Volkswagen. The agencies claimed in their suit that Volkswagen tampered with air pollution software controls to mask the release of regulated emissions. In a 2016 settlement, Volkswagen agreed to pay $14.7 billion in damages, of which $4.7 billion was specifically dedicated to mitigate pollution and invest in zero-emission vehicles. 

The fundamental challenge of reducing health and environmental risks from PFAS is one of speed and scale. Following traditional EPA rulemaking processes will simply not get the job done to ameliorate these risks over the next decade. A newer, systems-driven approach is required to address the full range of scientific, commercial and public policy issues at stake. An additional advantage of this alternative approach is that it can help manage the significant uncertainties about EPA’s legal authority in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Chevron Deference case. Diversifying decision-making responsibilities across government, business and stakeholder organizations further legitimizes civil society’s authority to create positive environmental health and commercial outcomes beyond the unpredictable funnel of currently popular legal theories that may or may not be a guide for the future.