EPA's New Definition of PFAS Could Omit Thousands of 'Forever Chemicals' 30
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) office responsible for protecting the public from toxic substances has changed how it defines PFAS for a second time since 2021, a move critics say they fear will exclude thousands of "forever chemicals" from regulation and largely benefit industry. From a report: Instead of using a clear definition of what constitutes a PFAS, the agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics plans to take a "case-by-case" approach that allows it to be more flexible in determining which chemicals should be subjected to regulations. Among other uses for the compounds, the EPA appears to be excluding some chemicals in pharmaceuticals and pesticides that are generally defined as PFAS, current and former EPA officials say, and the shift comes amid fierce industry opposition to proposed limits on the chemicals.
The approach puts the toxics office at odds with other EPA divisions, other federal agencies, the European Union, Canada and most of the scientific world. The definition is likely to generate confusion in the chemical industry and within the agency, current and former EPA officials say. [...] PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of about 15,000 compounds most frequently used to make products water-, stain- and grease-resistant. They have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally break down in the environment. In a statement to the Guardian, the EPA said its latest definition was more "expansive" than the previous.
The approach puts the toxics office at odds with other EPA divisions, other federal agencies, the European Union, Canada and most of the scientific world. The definition is likely to generate confusion in the chemical industry and within the agency, current and former EPA officials say. [...] PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of about 15,000 compounds most frequently used to make products water-, stain- and grease-resistant. They have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally break down in the environment. In a statement to the Guardian, the EPA said its latest definition was more "expansive" than the previous.
Almost impossible to eliminate from process (Score:3)
As much as something needs to be done urgently, I think it will take a long time to phase out all PFAS. It will get done eventually but they really are everywhere. It is quite an undertaking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Almost impossible to eliminate from process (Score:4, Insightful)
"Products made with Viton high-performance fluoroelastomers last longer and retain their flexibility, strength, and shape in the most extreme environments."
"Garlock gaskets are offered in a wide range of materials and configurations, including GYLON® Restructured PTFE, "
I used lots of both in multiple jobs over the decades, plus Teflon, PVDF, and more I can't think of right now.
They are used because they work in aggressive media. If you don't want nasty chemicals leaking out of every connection, these are the materials you use.
So they are not going away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Almost impossible to eliminate from process (Score:4, Insightful)
>So they are not going away.
And I'm grudgingly okay with that. In those situations where they are actually needed.
It's the million other places the things get used because they're a cheap way to do X that I seriously object to.
And in my ideal world? Safe disposal would be required by law, with the costs to do so baked in to the purchase price.
Re:Almost impossible to eliminate from process (Score:4, Informative)
Halar, that was the other one I couldn't remember,
Halar® ECTFE is a partially fluorinated semi-crystalline polymer offering a unique combination of properties for highly demanding industries.
Harrington has one of the better chemical resistance guides,
This is an example from the lead in page.
1. Methylene chloride: in the table PVDF, Halar, or PTFE are the only materials suitable.
2. Deleted due to irrelevance.
3. For nitric acid, 40% at ambient temperature: the tables recommend either CPVC or polypropylene at 73F. In most cases, CPVC will be the economical choice. Note that PVDF is rated for higher temperature use.
So again, they are way too useful. The last place I worked that used a lot of them made silicon for solar panels. Those chemicals are impolite to say the least. If you want to keep those chemicals inside the process piping, then you need fluorinated hydrocarbons.
Re: (Score:2)
If PFAS were used only to keep chemicals inside pipes we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reality is we use them in literally countless different products and cases and many of them are substitutable or eliminable.
Re: (Score:1)
It does not matter what the actually situation is with you does it. Its the same broken record BS every time.
Its the EPA changing definitions that is losing the rules here, they could you know NOT do that! While far from impossible its much more difficult to run afowl of things like the administrative procedures act through inaction.
The courts have nothing to do with anything here. Its just the EPA being the expensive ineffective bureaucracy that it naturally is.
Re: (Score:2)
The courts might have been acting in a partisan way, but the laws weren't clear enough. The simple solution is to make sure we pass through more up-to-date legislation to expand the EPA charter. Much like relying on Roe v. Wade for a half century instead of passing better legislation.
The truth is, though, the intent of any of the government agencies charters is to allow autonomy with legislative oversight. Of course, the so-called "deep state" are subject matter experts who are more qualified to be makin
It's all unconstitutional (Score:2, Flamebait)
The USA continues to operate a constitution some 200 plus years old. As such it was designed for a very different world. By ignoring problematic chunks that would render it unworkable, the decrepit roadster is still rolling - but only because those who benefit are willing to allow it to do so. Now many of those who've lost out are getting uppity - and voting for those who also are willing to pull down the temple. This is unlikely to end well.
Re: (Score:2)
The world is not that different. It always looks that way in hindsight but people of the time made the same arguments that people are making now. And Thomas Jefferson argued that a Constitution should expire after 19 years and be renewed or rewritten every generation for much the same reason as your argument.
But that's not the choice we made. Instead there is a framework for amending it when needed. And those needs are very rare.
Scale of government far more massive (Score:2)
The changed world is the way that government has become responsible for far more regulation and provision of services; even education! The constitution makes no realistic allowance for enabling these roles - the 10th amendment refuses the federal government the possibility of doing them, but in practice it does. Remember it took a specific amendment to legitimise federal income tax.
That's a cop out the courts are using (Score:2)
At a nation level you can't spell out each and every possible detail. It's just too much. That's why we have courts. If we could spell out every detail we could fire all those judges.
"using a clear definition of PFAS" (Score:1)
Anyone that demands the EPA come up with a "definition of what constitutes a PFAS" instantly admits they know nothing about PFAS.
What's missing (Score:3)
What's missing from the article is any hint of whether the EPA's new definition is better or more useful than the other definitions, or worse or less useful. The Guardian seems to be long on scare articles and innuendo, but short on real information.
From the article, the EPA's 2021 “working definition” defined PFAS as “at least two adjacent carbon atoms, where one carbon is fully fluorinated and the other is at least partially fluorinated”. Apparently the new definition "expanded the
Protecting consumer health? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cannot have that. May impact profits! That would be socialist!
Hollow Names. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Environmental Protection Agency.
The Federal Reserve.
The Bill of Rights.
How many names have to be completely hollowed out before citizens actually want to do something about a growing obvious problem?
We're beyond Trust, so just Verify. Long past due for such agencies to be forced to review their charter in order to prove why they assume they're still on course. This "Protection" agency, appears to not actually be protecting jack shit other than corporate profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Russian propaganda has entered the chat. Go fuck yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
The fuck are you ignorantly on about? Let me guess, you don't eat fucking french fries either.
Grow up and realize most of the shit you believe in, wasn't invented by some American redneck.
Same as lead (Score:2, Flamebait)
Apparently, so it will be with PFAS.
Re: (Score:1)
Some municipal airports still sell only leaded aviation fuel (for prop planes).
Prop plane owners don't want to pay for the under-$1000 upgrades to their engines to allow the use of unleaded gas. The aviation lobby is strong.
Re: (Score:3)
Incorrect! The EPA has made an official finding of endangerment and demanded leaded fuels be eliminated by 2030, the FAA has been formally working on making that happen for more than 10 years as part of the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) [faa.gov] which is part of the FAA annual funding bill. But even with the EPA direction and the FAA support its still a rather large problem. Neither technology or individual airplane operators are the biggest hurdle(s) here, you also have to solve certification (the FAA pa
/o\ (Score:1)
Profit > *
and 'healthy customers' is a subset of *
What's unclear? Corp$-lobbyists-reps-regulators (Score:2)
Gerald Ford passed TSCA, grandfathering in 10k's of chemicals without any proof of safety at all. A complete sellout to industry by throwing away the precautionary principle.
People should move to Texas where refineries blow up or places like Kentucky where they build golf courses out of even though it causes cancer and contains heavy metals that leech into groundwater. Oh, and they mix it into concrete now too so your buildings and parking structures get to be toxic waste Superfund sites too. [agc.org]