US lawmakers and the military are pushing for a new definition of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” that would exclude a subclass of toxic compounds increasingly used across the economy and considered to be potent greenhouse gases.
Language included in the defense bill by the Senate armed services committee asks the military to detail how it uses fluorinated gases, or F-gases, stating that the committee is “interested in learning more about how the [department of defense] may or may not be impacted by the definition” of PFAS.
The report is probably a first step in excluding F-gases, and is part of a broader fight to exempt PFAS from potential regulation by changing the definition. Exemption would help shield F-gases, which are among the most lucrative PFAS for industry, from regulatory scrutiny and potential oversight despite them being the most widely used PFAS subclass.
The defense bill language also comes after the Environmental Protection Agency last year began considering which chemicals are PFAS on a case-by-case basis, an approach that differs from almost every other regulatory agency in the US and worldwide, and is viewed by public health advocates as an industry-friendly move.
The attempts to redefine the chemicals are “cynical”, said Erik Olson, senior adviser to the NRDC Action Fund, which is lobbying on the defense bill.
“It’s completely unscientific – they’re just hoping to exclude whole chunks of the PFAS class from even being considered PFAS and consideration of [regulation],” Olson added.
PFAS 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. PFAS are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down in the environment.
US law does not require PFAS to be regulated, but the chemical class is coming under intense scrutiny and some compounds are being subjected to tough new regulations or monitoring.
The industry is scaling up its use of F-gases, which are used in refrigeration, air conditioning, clean energy production and a range of other industrial processes – about 60% of all PFAS manufactured from 2019-2022 were F-gases.
The industry claims the chemicals are safe and nontoxic replacements to older greenhouse gases used in refrigeration, but the gases turn into TFA, a compound that has a similar atmospheric life to carbon dioxide. The chemicals are also thought to be accumulating in the environment and human blood at much higher levels than any other PFAS, and are more toxic than previously thought.
The armed services committee noted that the military used the chemicals for fire suppression systems and other “lifesaving products” for which there may not be suitable alternatives. It did not respond to requests for comment.
It may be true that F-gases have to be used for fire suppression or other lifesaving systems, but exceptions for those “essential uses” can be carved out of regulation, Olson said. Instead, industry and the military is attempting to exempt the entire subclass of chemicals from the definition of PFAS and oversight despite the fact that most uses of PFAS are not essential, Olson added.
“There may be essential uses at DoD and they may need to use the chemicals in the meantime while we look for safer alternatives,” he said. “But we want to make sure we’re not seeing massive carve-outs from consideration of regulation and action based on unscientific criteria.”
The House-approved defense bill did not include the stipulation, and the Senate is still negotiating its version of the legislation. The action comes as the military has attempted to evade responsibility for its PFAS pollution elsewhere.
“The more that they wiggle out of PFAS problems the more worried we get,” Olson said. “We’ll keep an eye out.”
