Rubber firms brace for new PFAS regulations

Facing the impending storm of regulatory and legislative activity tied to PFAS chemicals, deciding where to look can be difficult.

This is particularly true for global companies that either produce fluoroelastomers or fluoropolymers, or use those materials to make products used in a wide variety of vital applications.

On one flank is the European Union, where the European Chemicals Agency is nearing the end of its six-month comment period on a sweeping restriction proposal that theoretically could ban all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

On another flank is the U.S. Environmental Agency, diligently marching through its PFAS Strategic Roadmap as it tries to put its stamp on how industries must deal with this large family of "forever chemicals," some of which have been found to have serious consequences for both humans and the environment.

Finally, some states are lurking in the background, with their leaders jumping to enact PFAS laws of their own, believing that the federal government has dragged its feet in the matter.

In aggregate, it is the kind of onslaught of activity that companies in all industries hate to see but, in reality, have to deal with on a daily basis.

When asked where things stand in the U.S. with regard to PFAS, it is not surprising that Freudenberg-NOK Sealing Technology's William Heslip said it depends if the discussion is about activity on a state-by-state basis, or activity as it relates to the federal government.

"Some states want to move very quickly and want to hit everything PFAS-related," said Heslip, the firm's regulatory compliance stewardship manager and a member of its task force on PFAS. "States like Maine have already implemented PFAS laws. Maine's reporting requirement, where they're trying to gather all the information on PFAS they can, would lead to—as the law is currently written—a full ban on PFAS, similar to the (European Union's proposal), by 2030."

Companies using FKMs and fluoropolymers to make components critical to numerous applications are working hard to avoid that situation.

And Freudenberg-NOK is among them. The firm argues that the PFAS chemicals used to make these goods have a long history of safe usage, and are the types of PFAS where there is no chance they will degrade and leach into the environment or harm humans.

Heslip did note that there are other states, though, that are more measured in their restrictions, focusing on such uses as the textile industry and nonstick coatings—PFAS uses that have been found to be problematic.

On the federal level, he said one of the ongoing activities is a rampup in the proposed reporting requirements for PFAS.

But Heslip said there has been a lot of pushback in this area because the EPA is asking for detailed information going back more than a decade—a problem since such record keeping was not mandatory at the time.

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

"It wasn't a requirement, so nobody kept track of that kind of data," he said. "Either the information isn't there, or it would take immense amounts of time and money to get it."

Heslip said the EPA originally intended to publish a final ruling related to that reporting in March, but it didn't happen. The date has been pushed back to September, and it remains to be seen if it will be pushed back again.

"The reason they have for this reporting requirement is they want to get as much information on PFAS and its use in the U.S. as possible, before they start restricting it," Heslip said. "They don't want to have a situation like in the EU, where they just come out with their decision first and then realize how much of an impact it's going to have. They want to gather all of the information first and make an informed regulatory restriction decision."

Conversely, he said, states like Maine might feel the federal government is moving too slow, so they will push their own regulations forward.

Phil Mahoney, director of engineering services for mechanical packing for sealing firm A.W. Chesterton, groups activity at the state level into three categories: reporting incoming PFAS; banning certain consumer applications in the short term; and looking to ban all PFAS in the long run.

And the longer the EPA takes to act, the more likely it is that the U.S. will see unmanageable mandates ahead.

"The EPA is getting a lot of pressure to go faster," said Mahoney, who also is chair of government affairs and the PFAS task force for the Fluid Sealing Association. "States say if you aren't going fast enough, then we'll do it at the state level, and what they're doing at the state level is creating chaos. But they feel like they're getting something done."

Having a wide range of divergent state regulations is far from ideal, according to Konrad Saur, Trelleborg Sealing Solutions vice president of innovation and technology and head of its global task force on PFAS.

He sees Maine putting out one measure, California deciding on another and Minnesota taking a completely different tack.

"I am definitely not advocating for a federal regulation, but certainly it would be better than 50 state-based regulations," Saur said. "... It puts us in limbo. It's also difficult for our customers.

"If they want to put a piece of equipment into Maine, they have other declaration requirements, which adds complexity to them, which is really not adding value. It makes the products certainly more costly."

The Washington-based American Chemistry Council is tasked with safeguarding the priorities of its more than 190 member companies, and that includes monitoring the entire array of PFAS-related activity.

And leadership of the association is witness to the fact that the Biden administration has been quite active in this area. The EPA has laid out its PFAS Strategic Roadmap and unveiled a new National PFAS Testing Strategy.

The administration also launched an Interagency Policy Committee on PFAS that is overseeing no fewer than 70 different activities being conducted by 10 federal agencies, according to the ACC.

It appears the EPA currently is focused on finalizing its maximum contaminant level (MCL) and proposals under the Super Fund program covering PFOA and PFOS, two chemicals that have been found to cause some of the most dangerous impacts among the thousands of chemicals under the PFAS umbrella.

For its part, the ACC is charged with getting the story out about how vital PFAS are in countless applications, including those made with fluoropolymers and FKMs. The PFAS chemicals are characterized by the strong bond between fluorine and carbon, generally viewed as the strongest bond in chemistry.

This bond, the ACC said, helps PFAS provide products with strength, durability, stability and resilience.

These properties are one reason PFAS is needed in such products as cell phones, tables and communications systems, semiconductors, medical devices and aircraft, not to mention the solar panels, turbines and batteries necessary for alternative energy development.

The ACC also said there is increased recognition by scientists and policymakers that all PFAS chemistries should not be grouped together for the purposes of regulation and risk assessment.

"Most experts also agreed that it is inappropriate to assume equal toxicity/potency across the diverse class of PFAS," the council told Rubber News in a statement. "In particular, many critical industries that rely on rubber products also incorporate fluoropolymer components in and around them within the same product, such as automobiles and medical devices.

"As a result, overly broad PFAS regulation has the potential to threaten many more manufacturers, within or outside the PFAS family, if bans or restrictions are enacted."

The ACC went on to outline what it views as further potential consequences to U.S. industry if such universal restrictions are placed on PFAS chemicals.

They hypothesize that such regulations on all PFAS "could cost American jobs, disrupt supply chain resiliency, and harm economic growth, in addition to hampering the ability of businesses and consumers to access the products they need."

PFAS products in use today, the council added, have had their safety confirmed by regulators, including the U.S. EPA, based on a body of scientific data. Further, fluoropolymers are large, stable, inert polymeric molecules with established safety profiles found by chemical regulatory experts to be labeled as "polymers of low concern" for potential risk to human health or the environment.

"Fluoropolymers are not water-soluble and as a result are not found in sources of drinking water," the ACC said. "Importantly, fluoropolymers are not the same as PFOA or PFOS, or other long-chain PFAS, nor can they transform to those substances in the environment."

And while the EPA's Strategic Roadmap and National Testing Strategy indicate the agency recognizes distinctions within the broad class of PFAS and is taking a more targeted approach, the ACC has concerns with how the roadmap may be implemented.

The fear is the EPA will move forward without engagement and coordination with other federal agencies, and also without the involvement of industry stakeholders.

"There is an opportunity for the U.S. to take a more focused approach to PFAS policy, but stakeholders and downstream users must actively engage in the process to make their voices heard," the ACC told Rubber News.

Like others in the industry, the association is concerned that certain U.S. states could use a broad grouping approach when developing policies and regulations.

"The result could be a national patchwork of state regulations that conflict with each other and perhaps with EPA's policies as well as international standards now and in the future," the ACC said. "The consequences could be skyrocketing prices, products no longer available in certain states, and business opportunities moving from one state to another, or overseas."

As PFAS proposals move forward in the U.S. and elsewhere, the ACC said it advises its members to stay informed, active and engaged, particularly with the broad restriction proposed in the EU, and in key state activities such as in Maine and Minnesota.

"It is critical that these regulatory bodies be informed and reminded of the important uses and safety of fluorotechnology chemistries," the association said. "Whether they have extensive business in the EU or not, U.S. companies need to be aware of the proposal being considered in Europe and engage to inform that process."

Members also should pay close attention, the ACC said, to any movement in the U.S. at the federal or state levels to consider proposals that would group all PFAS chemistries together for evaluation and regulation.

"Key downstream user engagement will be important to help inform and guide smart, science-based regulation of this important chemistry in the United States and abroad," the ACC said.

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.