As federal and state regulations continue to broaden their definition of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), Venable professionals warned that overly expansive rules could have unintended consequences for businesses, critical infrastructure, and national security. In a recent webinar, partners Kathleen Hardway, Derek Smith, and Joo Cha Webb and associate Julie Michalski deconstructed how PFAS are defined and why this matters for regulatory compliance and technological innovation.
What Are PFAS? Understanding the Broad and Evolving Regulatory Definitions
The goal of the webinar, said Hardway, was to examine “how state and federal lawmakers have come to define these substances, explain why the definitions are overly broad, and then discuss why, if left unfettered, broad class-based regulations and bans on PFAS will impact your business, the economy, and our society as a whole.”
Instead of regulating the specific PFAS that are “the subject of our increased scrutiny…many state and federal laws are simply treating all fluorinated carbon chemistries the same,” said Derek Smith. “‘Ban one, ban them all’ seems to be the mantra.” He said regulators have defined PFAS so broadly that “depending on who you ask,” there are 10,000 to 15,000 substances “that can now be classified as a ‘PFAS.’” He warned that the current PFAS definitions are founded on generalizations and concluded, “We need to stop painting with a broad brush when it comes to PFAS.”
The Hidden Impact of PFAS Regulations on Technology, Defense, and Healthcare
Webb introduced the chemical distinctions that set fluoropolymers apart from nonpolymeric PFAS. She said PFAS fall into two categories: nonpolymers and polymers. Fluoropolymers, which fall under the polymers category, Webb said, are widely used in several industries today and are “a really critical part of our daily lives, whether we know it or not.” She emphasized that studies have shown that fluoropolymers are insoluble and biocompatible and “pose low hazards to human health and the environment,” but acknowledged that the life cycle concerns center around production and disposal. “The argument is that this classification does not consider the full life cycle of fluoropolymers.”
Michalski detailed how broad PFAS definitions could severely impact industries ranging from semiconductors and defense to medicine. “Without fluoropolymers, we currently cannot manufacture the compact, high-performance electronics that define the digital era,” she said. Fluoropolymers are critical to semiconductor fabrication, where they endure harsh chemicals and heat without degrading. “The Department of Defense estimates that replacing PFAS in semiconductor fabrication could easily become a 25-year endeavor.”
Why “One-Size-Fits-All” PFAS Bans Could Harm Business Innovation and Infrastructure
Michalski added that fluoropolymers are equally indispensable in medical applications, such as vascular grafts, catheters, and imaging devices. “Fluoropolymers are already quietly supporting medical needs…but these devices would all be under the umbrella of a broad-based definition of PFAS.” She warned that the “removal of PFAS without reliable substitutes would compromise critical systems and delay or disable the readiness of weapons platforms.”
Calling for more nuance, Smith said, “Let’s discuss what each specific fluorochemistry is rather than how all fluorochemistries are defined.”
To learn more about upcoming webinars or watch past recordings from our monthly series, Navigating PFAS: Legal Perspectives, click here. Learn more about Venable’s services and capabilities at our PFAS and Emerging Contaminants page.