Opinion: Engagement in PFAS regulation process critical

The regulatory process for the PFAS family of chemicals is far from simple—for both the regulators and those who make and use the products.

One of the hurdles is that the so-called "forever chemicals" were used for decades, seemingly without issue. But then it was discovered that some of the more than 10,000 chemicals classified as PFAS weren't so inert. They were linked to a wide variety of health issues in humans and found to be pervasive in the air and water supplies virtually everywhere.

Now, in trying to catch up, the European Union is moving ahead with what most in the industry view as an overly broad measure—which, if enacted as it now is written, would call for the banning of all PFAS, both the good and the bad.

Likewise, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in trying to move forward methodically with its PFAS regulatory process, has asked for reporting of PFAS presence in products going back more than a decade. And therein lies one problem: Because the chemicals weren't viewed as a threat back then, such data is not available in many cases.

The fluoroelastomer and fluoropolymer industries feel they should receive preferential treatment in the process. They say their products have been proven safe and therefore should be put in a class separate from the PFAS "bad actors."

Regulators, though, see things differently.

They realize there are many classes of PFAS about which little is known. So they plan to take their time and do things right. It doesn't help that when looking to replace the PFOA and PFOS chemicals that are now known to pose threats to humans and the environment, that the GenX and PFBS chemicals brought into replace them are coming under fire as well.

Hey, Subscriber! Did you know you can access the latest edition of Rubber News online? Check out our latest and greatest digital editions here.

Not a subscriber? We can fix that! Get the latest news, data and insights you won’t find anywhere else here.

Also muddying the waters (no pun intended) in the U.S. is that while the U.S. EPA moves forward, a number of states are taking action as well. That leaves the likelihood of industry stakeholders having to deal with regulations that may clash in their intentions.

So what's your best plan going forward?

The good news is that it's not too late. While some associations such as the American Chemistry Council and Fluid Sealing Association have been keeping tabs of PFAS for some time, others finally are starting to join the party. The ACS Rubber Division, the Association of Rubber Products Manufacturers and a host of other groups are putting on educational programs—both virtual and in person—to help inform their members. Most plan to touch on regulatory and litigation and lay out where the process stands in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere.

It's also vital to be engaged. Take part in comment periods when the U.S. EPA and comparable agencies elsewhere seek mandatory input. Lobby, either individually or through an association, the legislators who will be making the final decisions.

But beware.

In these forums, opinions don't count. You need the science to back it up. Because if you can defend what you claim, the odds climb exponentially that you will get the regulators and politicians to take notice, listen and reflect your point of view as part of the final rules and regulations.

Rubber News wants to hear from its readers. If you want to express your opinion on a story or issue, email your letter to Editor Bruce Meyer at [email protected].

Please enter a valid email address.

Please enter your email address.

Please verify captcha.

Please select at least one newsletter to subscribe.

View the discussion thread.