Document e7de5DKn1Yavp2n8pBy2kD7Lm

SAFER STATES AND SIGNATORY COMMENTS ON ECHA PFAS RESTRICTION PROPOSAL Safer States is submitting the following comments in strong support of the proposed restriction of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on behalf of the following 19 organizations based in the United States (US): Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Environmental Health, Clean and Healthy, Clean Cape Fear, Clean Water Action, Consumer Reports, Defend Our Health, Earthjustice, Ecology Center, Great Lakes Regional Center of the National Wildlife Federation, Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water, North Carolina Conservation Network, Oregon Environmental Council, Responsible Purchasing Network, Safer States, Vermont Conservation Voters, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Women's Voices for the Earth. Safer States is a national alliance of US environmental health organizations and coalitions dedicated to building a healthier world by protecting communities and our planet from harmful chemicals and plastic pollution. Introduction PFAS pollution is now a global crisis. Toxic and persistent PFAS "forever" chemicals are present in the blood, breastmillk, organs, and tissues of humans worldwide.1 PFAS are widespread drinking water pollutants and are also contaminating rivers, lakes, air, soil, and wildlife.2 Concentrations of PFAS in rainwater now exceed proposed US drinking water 1 Judy S. LaKind, Josh Naiman, Marc-Andre Verner, Laura Lvque, Suzanne Fenton, Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in breast milk and infant formula: A global issue, Environmental Research, Volume 219,2023,115042,ISSN 0013-9351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115042.; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2020, June 24). PFAS chemicals overview | ATSDR. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/overview.html; Linn Salto Mamsen, Richelle D. Bjrvang, Daniel Mucs, Marie-Therese Vinnars, Nikos Papadogiannakis, Christian H. Lindh, Claus Yding Andersen, Pauliina Damdimopoulou, Concentrations of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in human embryonic and fetal organs from first, second, and third trimester pregnancies, Environment International, Volume 124, 2019, Pages 482-492, ISSN 0160-4120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.01.010. 2 Environmental Working Group. (n.d.). Wildlife warning: More than 330 species contaminated with "forever chemicals" | Environmental Working Group. www.ewg.org. https://www.ewg.org/newsinsights/news/2023/02/wildlife-warning-more-330-species-contaminated-forever-chemicals; Kurwadkar, S., Dane, J., Kanel, S. R., Nadagouda, M. N., Cawdrey, R. W., Ambade, B., Struckhoff, G. C., & Wilkin, R. (2022). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in water and wastewater: A critical review of their global occurrence and distribution. Science of the Total Environment, 809, 151003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151003; Maya E. MoralesMcDevitt, Jitka Becanova, Arlene Blum, Thomas A. Bruton, Simon Vojta, Melissa Woodward, and Rainer Lohmann. The Air That We Breathe: Neutral and Volatile PFAS in Indoor Air. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2021 8 (10), 897-902. DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00481. standards, leading scientists to declare that the planetary boundaries for PFAS chemicals have been exceeded.3 In the US, several states have been forced to issue advisories warning against eating local fish, turkey and deer because the concentrations of PFAS are too high to be consumed safely.4 So many farmers in the state of Maine have lost their livelihoods due to pervasive PFAS soil contamination that millions of government dollars have been set aside to help provide relief.5 More than 200 million Americans are estimated to be drinking PFAS contaminated drinking water, and the US federal government recently pledged $5 billion over five years to begin to address the widespread PFAS pollution problem.6 It is all too clear that the PFAS crisis is extremely expensive, both in terms of financial costs and the toll on human health and livelihoods. The European Union has an opportunity to be a global leader in phasing out all uses of these substances that are toxic, mobile and persistent. Safer States and the undersigned organizations urge the European Union to adopt a comprehensive PFAS restriction with very limited derogations for only those uses where the use is critical for human health or safety the functioning of society and alternatives are currently unavailable. Comments and information pertaining to the proposed scope and restriction options: The entire class of PFAS should be phased out, using persistence as the underlying basis for the restriction. Chemical regulation has a long history of regrettable substitution. If one harmful chemical is restricted, industry selects a similar chemical from the same class to be used 3 Cousins, I. T., Johansson, J. H., Salter, M. E., Sha, B., & Scheringer, M. (2022). Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 4 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife. PFAS Do Not Eat Advisory in Portions of Fairfield and Skowhegan. (n.d.). www.maine.gov. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.maine.gov/ifw/huntingtrapping/hunting/laws-rules/pfas-related-consumption-advisory.html; NCDHHS. NCDHHS Recommends Limiting Fish Consumption from the Middle and Lower Cape Fear River Due to Contamination With "Forever Chemicals" | NCDHHS. www.ncdhhs.gov. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.ncdhhs.gov/news/pressreleases/2023/07/13/ncdhhs-recommends-limiting-fish-consumption-middle-and-lower-cape-fear-river-duecontamination; MPART. PFAS in Fish. www.michigan.gov. https://www.michigan.gov/pfasresponse/fishandwildlife/fish; Maine DHHS. (2023, April 27). Maine CDC Issues Additional Advisories on Eating Freshwater Fish Due to PFAS Contamination | Department of Health and Human Services. Maine DHHS. https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/news/maine-cdc-issues-additional-advisories-eatingfreshwater-fish-due-pfas-contamination-thu-04272023-1200 5 Plan for Administration of the Fund to Address PFAS Contamination. (2023). Maine Department of Agriculture Conservation and Forestry. https://www.maine.gov/dacf/about/commissioners/pfasfund/docs/draft-all-plan-adminof-pfasfund-final.pdf 6 Andrews, D. Q., & Naidenko, O. V. (2020). Population-Wide Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances from Drinking Water in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 7(12). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00713; US EPA. (2023). Biden-Harris Administration Announces $2 Billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding to States and Territories to Address Emerging Contaminants like PFAS in Drinking Water. www.epa.gov. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-announces-2-billionbipartisan-infrastructure-law-funding in its place - with regulators only recognizing when it is too late that this substitute compound is also problematic.7 This cycle has already been demonstrated with PFAS: When highly toxic and persistent PFOA and PFOS were phased out as processing aids in fluoropolymer production, new toxic and persistent chemicals known as Gen-X were used in their place.8 When the industry could no longer deny that long-chain PFAS were harmful, they moved to short-chain PFAS and falsely claimed that they were safe.9 Decades of industry regrettable substitution combined with a regulatory approach focused on restricting one chemical at a time has led to global PFAS contamination. The proposal to regulate the entire class of PFAS chemicals is the scientifically grounded path forward that will avoid the cycle of regrettable substitution and focusing on the fundamental characteristic of the chemicals' persistence is the correct approach. As a recent scientific paper noted: "if a chemical is highly persistent, its continuous release will lead to continuously increasing contamination" that will take "decades, centuries or even longer to reverse" and lead to "increasing probabilities of the occurrence of known and unknown effects."10 Both the scientific and the business communities are embracing the class based approach to PFAS. The Global PFAS Science Panel, for example, has been outspoken on the need to ban all uses of all PFAS chemicals.11 Many global companies including Lacoste, Fjlraven, Levi Strauss, Starbucks, and McDonalds have taken action to phase out the entire class of PFAS from their products.12 Recently, almost all of the major global third party textile certifiers including OEKO-TEX, Bluesign, ZDHC and GOTS have updated their standards to phase out the use of the entire class of PFAS chemicals.13 There should be no exemptions for PFAS subgroups allowed under the restriction, 7 Maertens, A., Golden, E., & Hartung, T. (2021). Avoiding Regrettable Substitutions: Green Toxicology for Sustainable Chemistry. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 9(23), 7749-7758. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c09435 8 Brandsma, S.H., Koekkoek, J.C.,van Velzen, M.J.M., and de Boer, J. (2019). The PFOA substitute GenX detected in the environment near a fluoropolymer manufacturing plant in the Netherlands. Chemosphere. 220, 493-500. DOI: 0.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.135. 9 Environmental Working Group. (2019). Study: Newer PFAS Chemicals "May Pose More Risks" Than Those They Replaced | Environmental Working Group. www.ewg.org. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/studynewer-pfas-chemicals-may-pose-more-risks-those-they-replaced 10 Cousins, I. T., Ng, C. A., Wang, Z., & Scheringer, M. (2019). Why is high persistence alone a major cause of concern? Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 21(5), 781-792. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8em00515j 11 Global PFAS Science Panel. Towards a Global Phase-out of PFAS Project. Global PFAS Science Panel. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.pfassciencepanel.org/global-phase-out 12 New PFAS Scorecard for Popular Apparel Brands: Levi Strauss Earns an 'A+', Outdoor Brands Fail. (2022). www.nrdc.org; Natural Resources Defense Council. https://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/new-pfas-scorecardpopular-apparel-brands-levi-strauss-earns-outdoor-brands-fail; Bienkowski, B. (2022). Starbucks will eliminate all PFAS in its packaging. EHN. https://www.ehn.org/starbucks-pfas-2657072518.html; ChemSec. PFAS Movement. Retrieved September 13, 2023 from www.chemsec.org/pfas. 13 Glover, S. (2022, April 29). Bluesign, ZDHC, Oeko-Tex to phase out PFAS. Ecotextile News. https://www.ecotextile.com/2022042929293/dyes-chemicals-news/bluesign-zdhc-oeko-tex-to-phase-out-pfas.html; GOTS Version 7.0 released: Major leap forward for the sustainable all-inclusive solution for organic fibre processing. Global Organic Textiles Standard. Global-Standard.org. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://global-standard.org/news/gots-annual-pr-2023 including fluoropolymers and F-gases. It is critical that no subgroups of PFAS, such as fluoropolymers or F-gases, are exempted from the proposed restriction. Such exemptions would undermine the effectiveness of the PFAS phase out and would lead to continued impacts on human and environmental health for decades or generations to come. The chemical industry has claimed that fluoropolymers and F-gases are important to enable the "clean energy" transition, yet no energy technology can be considered "clean" if it relies on highly toxic persistent chemicals that contaminate the planet. Alternatives already exist for many use cases for fluoropolymers and F-gases, and adequate transition times can be provided where there are not currently available alternatives. As an example of how innovation can drive the development of safer product designs, a University of Michigan review of the use of PFAS in solar panels found that "PFAS is not customarily used in solar panels because safer, effective alternatives have already been developed and commercialized."14 Similarly, the industry has lobbied for the exemption of F-gases such as HFOs and HFCs in PFAS regulations. Yet these chemicals can transform into ultra-short-chain PFAS known as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), which are toxic to both humans and aquatic life, and a highly problematic drinking water contaminant.15 HFCs are also highly potent greenhouse gasses that are now listed for international phaseout under the 2016 amendments to the Montreal Protocol.16 Furthermore, a key feedstock to make some HFOs is carbon tetrachloride, a major, greenhouse gas and ozone depleting chemical which is also a carcinogen.17 For all of these reasons, we strongly advise you not to exempt F-gases. There are many clear science and policy based reasons why fluoropolymer PFAS 14 Annick Anctil. (October 2020). Facts about solar panels: PFAS Contamination. "Clean Energy in Michigan" Series, Number 12. https://graham.umich.edu/media/pubs/Facts-about-solar-panels--PFAS-contamination-47485.pdf 15 Neuwald, Hbner, D., Wiegand, H. L., Valkov, V., Borchers, U., Ndler, K., Scheurer, M., Hale, S. E., Arp, H. P. H., & Zahn, D. (2022). Ultra-Short-Chain PFASs in the Sources of German Drinking Water: Prevalent, Overlooked, Difficult to Remove, and Unregulated. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(10), 6380-6390. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07949; Behringer, D., Heydel, F., Gschrey, B., Osterheld, S., Schwarz, W., Warncke, K., Henne, S., Reimann Empa, S., Blepp, M., Jr, W., Liu, R., Ludig, S., & Gartiser, S. (2021). Final report Persistent degradation products of halogenated refrigerants and blowing agents in the environment: type, environmental concentrations, and fate with particular regard to new halogenated substitutes with low global warming potential. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de sites/default/files/medien/5750/publikationen/2021-0506_texte_73-2021_persistent_degradation_products.pdf 16 US EPA. (2015, July 15). Recent International Developments under the Montreal Protocol | US EPA. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/recent-international-developments-under-montreal-protocol 17 American Chemistry Council. (n.d.). Carbon Tetrachloride: Critical Building Block. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.americanchemistry.com/content/download/12954/file/Carbon%20Tetrachloride%20Critical%20Buildin g%20Block.pdf; National Toxicology Program. 15th Report on Carcinogens [Internet]. Research Triangle Park (NC): National Toxicology Program; 2021 Dec 21. Carbon Tetrachloride: CAS No. 56-23-5. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK590921/; Solving the mystery of Carbon Tetrachloride (CCl4) | SPARC. (n.d.). Www.sparc-Climate.org; SPARC. Retrieved September 7, 2023, from https://www.sparcclimate.org/activities/previous-activities/carbon-tetrachloride/ compounds must be included in the restriction proposal and phased out. First it is important to note that restrictions on fluoropolymers already exist in the US: fourteen US, states including huge economies such as California and New York that have banned PFAS in one or more product categories do not exempt fluoropolymers. This includes bans on PFAS in apparel, rugs, cleaning products, cookware, dental floss, fabric treatments, firefighting foam, food packaging, hydraulic fracturing fluid, juvenile products, menstrual products, personal care products, pesticides, ski wax, and textiles. This is also the case in the 2 states that have effectively banned PFAS in all products: Maine and Minnesota. Second, fluoropolymer production and use creates toxic PFAS pollution. PFAS polymers are made using other harmful PFAS chemicals, which are subsequently released into the environment when waste byproducts enter air and waterways.18 In fact, when scientists studied the fate of a commonly used group of toxic PFAS, they estimated 80% of those chemicals made since the 1950's have been released to the environment from PFAS polymer "manufacture and use."19 Certain fluoropolymers release toxic PFAS chemicals during their use, posing acute and chronic risk to human and ecological health.20 Workers in plants making or using fluoropolymers also may be exposed to serious hazards.21 Third, fluoropolymers can cause illness and injury. Respiratory illnesses associated with normal consumer uses of fluoropolymer-containing products such as waterproofing agents and sealants remains an ongoing problem that has "occurred for many years in many different countries."22 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported cases of "severe acute respiratory illness" linked to the use of a fluoropolymerbased shoe spray which was later recalled by the manufacturer.23 The Plastics Industry Association has noted in their own materials that fluoropolymer exposure can cause the 18 Lohmann R, Cousins IT, DeWitt JC, Glge J, Goldenman G, Herzke D, Lindstrom AB, Miller MF, Ng CA, Patton S, Scheringer M, Trier X, Wang Z. (2020). Are Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS? Environ Sci Technol. Oct 20;54(20):12820-12828. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03244 19 Prevedouros K, Cousins IT, Buck RC, Korzeniowski SH. (2006). Sources, fate and transport of perfluorocarboxylates. Environ Sci Technol. Jan 1;40(1):32-44. doi:10.1021/es0512475. PMID: 16433330. 20 Lohmann R, Cousins IT, DeWitt JC, Glge J, Goldenman G, Herzke D, Lindstrom AB, Miller MF, Ng CA, Patton S, Scheringer M, Trier X, Wang Z. (2020). Are Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS? Environ Sci Technol. Oct 20;54(20):12820-12828. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03244; Schellenberger S, Jnsson C, Mellin P, Levenstam OA, Liagkouridis I, Ribbenstedt A, Hanning AC, Schultes L, Plassmann MM, Persson C, Cousins IT, Benskin JP. (2019). Release of Side-Chain Fluorinated Polymer Containing Microplastic Fibers from Functional Textiles During Washing and First Estimates of Perfluoroalkyl Acid Emissions. Environ Sci Technol. Dec 17;53(24):14329-14338. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04165. 21 Ecology Center. (2020). What's Cooking? Non-stick Pan Study: Worker Rights, Health and Safety in Pan Production. https://www.ecocenter.org/healthy-stuff/pages/worker-rights-health-and-safety-pan-production 22 Hays HL, Spiller H. (2014). Fluoropolymer-associated illness. Clin Toxicol (Phila). Sep-Oct;52(8):848-55. doi: 10.3109/15563650.2014.946610. PMID: 25200453 23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1993). Severe Acute Respiratory Illness Linked to Use of Shoe Sprays -- Colorado, November 1993. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00022198.html flu-like condition known as "polymer fume fever."24 It has also been known for decades that fumes from Teflon pans can kill birds.25 Clearly exposures during fluoropolymer production and use have caused illness and injury, making a clear case that these are harmful materials. Fourth, fluoropolymer production emits "climate super-pollutants" such as HCFC-22 and HFC-23, which are 5,280 and 10,800 times respectively more potent at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, on a twenty year timescale.26 The emissions of these two compounds from just a single PFAS polymer manufacturing plant are the equivalent of the annual carbon dioxide pollution from 750,000 passenger cars.27 HCFC-22 also destroys the health-protective stratospheric ozone layer.28 Fifth, disposal of PFAS polymers poses serious threats. Landfilling of fluoropolymers can lead to contamination of nearby soil and groundwater and can contribute to releases of microplastics and, in some cases, other PFAS chemicals.29 Deep well injection of manufacturing waste relocates the threat and creates the possibility of spills and leaching into drinking water.30 Incineration of fluoropolymers creates toxic emissions that can harm frontline communities and spread far beyond their source. Most municipal incinerators are not designed to handle highly corrosive materials formed when fluoropolymers break down.31 These same serious disposal issues are also present for the PFAS chemicals used to make the polymers. 24 Plastics Industry Association. (2018). Guide to Safe Handling of Fluoropolymer Resins. https://www.turi.org/content/download/12048/189380/file/Guide%20to%20the%20Safe%20Handling%20of%20Flu oropolymer%20Resins%20v5%2020190130-1.pdf 25 Stove Fumes Killing Caged Birds. (1986, March 9). Chicago Tribune. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ctxpm-1995-03-26-9503260114-story.html 26 Myhre G, Shindell D, Bron FM, Collins W, Fuglestvedt J, et al. (2013)/ Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/ 27 McKenna P, Bruggers J. (March 9, 2021). A Single Chemical Plant in Louisville Emits a Super-Pollutant That Does More Climate Damage Than Every Car in the City. Inside Climate News. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09032021/a-single-chemical-plant-in-louisville-emits-a-super-pollutant-that does-more-climate-damage-than-every-car-in-the-city/ 28 Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Ozone-Depleting Substances. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layerprotection/ozone-depleting-substances 29 Silva A, Prataab JC, Duarteb A, Soares A, Barcelo D, Rocha-Santos T. (2021). Microplastics in landfill leachates: The need for reconnaissance studies and remediation technologies. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Vol 3: 100072. ISSN 2666-0164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2020.100072; Moore, Ryan. (March 20, 2021). PFAS-Impacted Groundwater an Emerging Issue for Landfills: Solving the Challenge with a New Approach. Waste Advantage. https://wasteadvantagemag.com/pfas-impacted groundwater-an-emerging-issue-forlandfills-solving-the-challenge-with-a-new-approach/ 30 Lohmann R, Cousins IT, DeWitt JC, Glge J, Goldenman G, Herzke D, Lindstrom AB, Miller MF, Ng CA, Patton S, Scheringer M, Trier X, Wang Z. (2020). Are Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS? Environ Sci Technol. Oct 20;54(20):12820-12828. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03244 31 Lohmann R, Cousins IT, DeWitt JC, Glge J, Goldenman G, Herzke D, Lindstrom AB, Miller MF, Ng CA, Patton S, Scheringer M, Trier X, Wang Z. (2020). Are Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS? Environ Sci Technol. Oct 20;54(20):12820-12828. doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c03244 Fifth, the PFAS crisis began with polymers - let's not repeat history PFAS pollution first came to light from DuPont's manufacture of the fluoropolymer Teflon which led to massive contamination still causing harm today.32 We should learn from this disastrous history and take action to protect public health and the environment from these persistent toxic chemicals. The PFAS restriction should continue to rely on the OECD's PFAS definition, and not narrow the set of PFAS covered by the proposal. As US-based organizations, we strongly urge the EU to continue to rely on the OECD PFAS definition in restriction regulations and dismiss any requests to move to a significantly narrower and weaker definition. How the class of PFAS compounds is defined has serious implications for regulation, litigation, monitoring, research, and impacted communities. If policies rely on narrow definitions of the PFAS class, fewer of these toxic compounds will be restricted or cleaned up, resulting in continued harm to people and the environment. Notably, almost all of the US states that have laws or policies restricting PFAS uses rely on a slightly broader definition that is very similar to the OECD definition, defining PFAS as organic chemicals containing ``at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom." At least 18 states including Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington define PFAS in this fashion, with no carve outs for any subclasses of PFAS.33 An EU PFAS restriction that relies on the OECD would therefore provide consistency in the global marketplace. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in contrast, has used several different definitions for PFAS at different times and in different circumstances. Under one flawed PFAS definition, the agency excluded polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), the second most highly produced fluoropolymer (after PTFE), at least two PFAS chemicals found in the blood of residents living near a PFAS manufacturing plant, as well as other high production volume PFAS. This "working definition" was widely criticized by scientists, impacted communities, advocates and former federal agency officials.34 Most recently, in August 2023, the US EPA has announced that it would not have any single formal definition for PFAS, but would instead take a "case-by-case" approach for 32 DiStefano, J. (2015, Aug 13). DuPont's toxic Teflon problem (Updated): Scientists knew the danger; managers kept it quiet. Philadelphia Inquirer. https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/inq phillydeals/321772182.html; House Committee on Oversight and Reform. (Oct 21, 2020). Chairman Rouda Seeks Information on Continued Detection of Cancer Causing PFAS Chemicals at DuPont and Chemours Facilities. https://oversight.house.gov/news/pressreleases/chairman-rouda-seeks-information-on-continued-detection-of cancer-causing-pfas 33 Additional U.S. States Ban PFAS-Containing Products. (n.d.). UL Solutions. Retrieved September 7, 2023. https://www.ul.com/news/additional-us-states-ban-pfas-containing-products 34 PEER. (2022, April 28). EPA Sued Over Failure to Explain Its Narrow PFAS Definition. PEER.org. https://peer.org/epa-sued-over-failure-to-explain-its-narrow-pfas-definition; Perkins, T. (2022, April 5). Scientists sound alarm at US regulator's new "forever chemicals" definition. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/05/ epa-pfas-definition-scientists-forever-chemicals what the agency considers a PFAS.35 Former EPA scientist and head of the US National Toxicology Program Dr. Linda Birnbaum had this response: "This is not a new definition - it is a lack of definition, and it makes no sense... It is just going to lead to terrible confusion."36 In short, the United States federal government is inconsistent and unclear when it comes to the question of what set of chemicals should be considered to be PFAS and the EU should consider its comments on this matter with that perspective. Comments and information pertaining to the socio economic analysis: The costs of PFAS monitoring and clean up are staggering, as demonstrated by money already spent by US local, state and federal governments. Safer States has compiled a database detailing many of the direct government costs associated with PFAS contamination to date. The data was collected through a non-comprehensive review of state government budgets, federal government reports and media articles and should be considered a significant underestimate of the true costs of PFAS contamination. The figures include both actual and estimated costs provided by local, state and federal governments, and are generally one-time costs (rarely including ongoing and maintenance costs). We have provided a summary of the data below in the hopes that it can assist EU regulators with the socio economic analysis of the proposed PFAS restriction. Further details about the data can be provided upon request. Given that the proposed EU PFAS restriction does not address firefighting foam, costs clearly associated with this contamination source have been excluded where possible. With the data sources we relied on, it is difficult to provide incremental costs (i.e. those related to implementing the proposed restriction as compared with not implementing it), but the data do provide a demonstration of the staggering financial liability the EU is facing if PFAS chemicals continue to be used. US State Government PFAS expenditures by cost category (in US$) Drinking water treatment / new water supply PFAS testing / monitoring Cleanup of PFAS contaminated landfills General PFAS cleanup $ 617,487,853 $ 56,311,000 $ 24,584,228 $ 538,112,363 35 Perkins, T. (2023, August 18). EPA's new definition of PFAS could omit thousands of "forever chemicals." The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/18/epa-new-definition-pfas-forever-chemicals 36 Perkins, T. (2023b, August 18). EPA's new definition of PFAS could omit thousands of "forever chemicals." The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/18/epa-new-definition-pfas-forever-chemicals US State Government PFAS expenditures by contamination source category (in US$) PFAS chemical manufacturing Product manufacturing Landfill contamination Unclear / multiple contamination sources $ 94,600,000 $ 1,450,000 $ 24,584,228 $ 1,115,861,216 It should also be noted that in addition to the costs detailed above, the US federal government has allocated $5 billion USD over five years to begin to address contamination from PFAS and other emerging contaminants.37 Given the exponentially escalating costs to communities to manage the pollution, to date 27 State Attorney's general have initiated action to secure resources from chemical manufacturers and key users to help pay for clean water.38 These costs are likely just the tip of the iceberg, especially since healthcare costs associated with PFAS impacts are difficult to quantify yet known to be sizeable.39 Comments and information pertaining to the transitional period: Transitional periods should be as short as possible, and no time unlimited derogations should be allowed. While there may be use cases where no viable PFAS alternative currently exist, strong government action is a key lever for spurring innovation. The EU should be aggressive in setting short phase out deadlines for PFAS uses and trust in the power of human ingenuity when given a clear task and the right incentives. It is also critical that the two proposed time unlimited derogations for plant protection products and biocidal products be amended to include a clear phase out deadline. Such time unlimited derogations will not provide industry the needed incentive to identify safer alternatives for these PFAS uses and these toxic and persistent chemicals will continue to be used for an indefinite period of time, causing untold human and environmental harm. 37 US EPA. (2023a, February 13). Biden-Harris Administration Announces $2 Billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding to States and Territories to Address Emerging Contaminants like PFAS in Drinking Water. www.epa.gov. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-announces-2-billion-bipartisaninfrastructure-law-funding 38 Safer States. (2023, August 24). More than half of US State Attorneys General have taken action against PFAS manufacturers and key users. https://www.saferstates.org/news/more-than-half-of-us-state-attorneys-general-havetaken-action-against-pfas-manufacturers-and-key-users/ 39 Goldenman, Gretta, Meena Fernandes, Michael Holland, Tugce Tugran, Amanda Nordin, Cindy Schoumacher, and Alicia McNeill. "The Cost of Inaction: A Socioeconomic Analysis of Environmental and Health Impacts Linked to Exposure to PFAS." Secretary of the Nordic Council of Ministers, March 19, 2017. https://www.norden.org/en/publication/cost-inaction-0; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Guidance on PFAS Exposure, Testing, and Clinical Follow-Up. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press., 2022. https://doi.org/10.17226/26156  Transitional periods should not extend longer than the phase out deadlines present in US state laws. As noted earlier in these comments, fourteen US states have already passed laws or enacted policies that ban the entire class of PFAS chemicals in a wide variety of product categories. As the EU considers what kind of transitional periods are needed for different PFAS uses, they need not extend beyond the phase out deadlines already adopted in one or more US states. A detailed spreadsheet of state PFAS bans has been submitted with these comments as an attachment and is also summarized below. While different US states laws incorporate different timelines, the earliest phase out dates for these product categories are as follows: Apparel: December 2025 Carpets and rugs: January 2023 Cleaning products January 2025 Cookware: January 2025 Dental floss: January 2025 Fabric treatments: January 2023 Food packaging: January 2022 Hydraulic fracturing fluid: January 2024 Juvenile products: January 2023 Menstrual products: January 2025 Personal care products: January 2025 Pesticides: January 2030 Ski wax: January 2023 Textiles: July 2023 for indoor textile furnishings and upholstery; January 2025 for other textile products In addition, it is important to note that two US states have also passed laws that ban PFAS in all products, other than where PFAS use is currently unavoidable. The phase out deadlines for all PFAS uses in these states are: Maine (January 2030) and Minnesota (January 2032). Conclusion: The class of PFAS chemicals is collectively so persistent and toxic that they require urgent and comprehensive action to prevent further human health and environmental harm that will last for generations to come. We urge the EU to phase out the entire class of PFAS using persistence as the underlying basis for the restriction. There should be no exemptions for PFAS subgroups allowed under the restriction, including fluoropolymers and F-gases. The PFAS restriction should continue to rely on the OECD's PFAS definition, and not narrow the set of PFAS covered by the proposal. Transitional periods should be as short as possible, and no time unlimited derogations should be allowed. Strong government action is a key lever for spurring innovation and this is what is needed to end all uses of toxic PFAS chemicals. Signatories: Safer States Alaska Community Action on Toxics Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments Center for Environmental Health Clean and Healthy Clean Cape Fear Clean Water Action Consumer Reports Defend Our Health Earthjustice Ecology Center Great Lakes Regional Center, National Wildlife Federation Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water North Carolina Conservation Network Oregon Environmental Council Responsible Purchasing Network Vermont Conservation Voters Vermont Natural Resources Council Women's Voices for the Earth