US lawmakers push to exclude lucrative chemicals from legal definition of PFAS

US lawmakers and the military are pushing for a new definition of PFAS “toxic chemicals” that would include a subset of toxic compounds that are used more economically and are considered greenhouse gases. greenhouse energy.

Language included in the defense bill by the Senate Armed Services Committee asks the military to disclose whether it uses fluorinated gases, or F-gases, saying the committee is “interested in learning more about how [department of defense] may or may not be covered by the definition of “PFAS.

The report may be the first step toward including F-gases, and is part of a broader fight to free PFAS from potential regulation by changing the definition. The exemption would help shield F-gases, which are among the most profitable PFASs for industry, from regulatory review and potential regulation even though they are the most widely used. of PFAS.

The defense bill’s language also comes after the Environmental Protection Agency last year began considering which chemicals are PFAS on a case-by-case basis, a different approach than every administration in the US and around the world, and is focused on public health. advocates as an industry-friendly process.

The effort to redefine the chemical is “reprehensible”, said Erik Olson, senior adviser to the NRDC Working Group, which is holding the defense bill.

“It’s completely unscientific – they hope to include all elements of the PFAS class and even be considered PFAS and considered [regulation],” Olson added.

PFAS is a group of about 15,000 compounds commonly used to make products that are resistant to water, stains and grease. They have been linked to cancer, birth defects, weakened immune systems, high cholesterol, kidney disease and other serious health problems. PFAS are called “permanent chemicals” because they do not naturally degrade in the environment.

US law does not require PFAS to be regulated, but the chemical group is being closely monitored and some compounds are subject to stricter new laws or monitoring.

Industry is increasing its use of F-gases, which are used in refrigeration, ventilation, clean energy production and other types of industrial processes – about 60% of all PFAS produced as of 2019- 2022 was F-gas.

The industry claims that the chemicals are harmless and non-toxic replacements for the old greenhouse gases used in refrigeration, but those gases turn into TFA, a compound with a similar lifespan to the atmosphere and carbon dioxide. The chemicals are also thought to accumulate in the environment and human blood at much higher levels than other PFASs, and are more toxic than previously thought.

The armed services committee noted that the military was using chemicals for fire suppression systems and “other life-saving products” that may not be safe. some suitable for them. It did not respond to requests for comment.

It may be true that F-gas should be used for firefighting or other life-saving purposes, but exceptions for “essential use” can be carved out of the regulation, Olson said. Instead, industry and the military are trying to exempt the entire chemical sector from PFAS definition and oversight even though most PFAS uses aren’t important, Olson added.

“There may be an important use in the DoD and they may need to use the chemicals for now while we look for safer alternatives,” he said. “But we want to make sure that we don’t see large-scale policy thinking and action based on unscientific criteria.”

The defense bill passed by the House did not include the clause, and the Senate is debating its legislative version. The move comes as the military has tried to avoid accountability for its PFAS contamination elsewhere.

“The further they get out of PFAS problems the more concerned we become,” Olson said. “We will keep an eye on it.