Each week, it seems as if numerous articles and press releases are published recounting regulatory uncertainty, legislative action, community concerns and public outcry surrounding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Whether it is a chemical fire combated with PFAS-abundant foam, long-term health concerns for military and firefighting personnel, the reporting of impacted drinking water supplies, or the detection of contaminated food packaging — they’re everywhere, may affect millions of people, and are not likely to go away anytime soon.
While steps are being taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and legislative bodies, PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” as they are resistant to breakdown in the environment and are water soluble, resulting in their prevalence in our soil, groundwater, surface water and drinking water. The most abundant, studied, and regulated PFAS compounds of the estimated 4,700 estimated variants are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). PFAS have been linked to numerous healtheffects, with studies showing that PFAS chemicals may affect child development, fertility, liver health, hormone levels, cholesterol levels, and increase the risk of cancer.
On December 20, President Trump signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act into law which includes provisions for the Department of Defense to stop use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam by October 2024 (with exception of use on ships), required blood testing of military firefighters, and instituting a ban on the use of PFAS-containing packaging for field rations. The bill dropped a provision that would designate the chemicals as a hazardous substance under the federal Superfund law (CERCLA) and a provision that would require polluters to clean up PFAS-contamination. However, the legislation also adds PFAS to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), an effort that would force manufacturers to annually report their data, and municipalities to disclose if PFAS has been found in drinking water.
EPA为每万亿（PPT）的70份提供了PFOA和PFOS的健康促销，但若干州通过建立自己的监管标准而采取了铅。MINNESOA等各国限制了15个PFO的PPT，加利福尼亚州的PFOA和13个PFO的PPT限制了14个PPT。十三个州have sued manufacturers of PFAS for contaminated water and other resources. Lawsuits are expected to emerge in greater numbers across the states as PFAS have found their residence in American public discourse.
目前尚不清楚EPA是否将在初步预测的PFA年底为年底提供监管标准，但各国可能会继续为饮用水中的PFA规定，水平低于EPA的卫生咨询。PFA的化学性质和无处不在的性质可能为各国产生进一步的挑战，因为某些水基础设施和修复努力需要对抗这些化合物。However, adding PFAS to the TRI list (which PFAS chemicals are to be reported and in what capacity is currently unknown) can provide a framework for manufacturers to standardize data collection for the substances and subsequently, greater data to understand PFAS’ relationship to human health and the environment.
Contact Our Environmental Consultants
有关这些有争议的化学品，他们在监管景观中的未来的问题，现在可以采取哪些步骤来处理污染问题，请给我们一个电话或点击下面的链接填写我们的联系我们表格。