Collaborating across industry and government to discuss progress on PFAS challenges

Leaders from federal and private industries across North America recently gathered to discuss PFAS-related risk management issues and exchange strategies and solutions. The room consisted of 50 environmental professionals who maintain primary oversight of their respective portfolios and ongoing risk leadership experience navigating PFAS challenges. The workshop titled PFAS Readiness Leadership Exchange on Solutions (Exchange) was co-hosted by GHD and Battelle to provide an opportunity for industry leaders to benchmark and discuss potential solutions to their PFAS challenges. The discussions provided interesting insights into the current state of PFAS impacts, decision-making, regulatory understanding, and technology adoption.

Industry sector representation was well rounded with approximately 20% oil & gas, 5% chemical/petrochemical, 5% transportation, 20% waste services, 20% manufacturing, 5% digital, and 25% represent other services.

Following the US election, which took place just a day before the exchange began, attendees were asked about the potential impacts on PFAS regulations due to the upcoming change in administration. The responses revealed a strong interest and curiosity in understanding current PFAS guidance and best practices, while also recognizing the evolving nature of these regulations. 

Despite the room being predominantly filled with individuals concerned about PFAS, the level of concern regarding PFAS liabilities was notably high.

The Exchange featured a variety of presentations and roundtable discussions, covering topics such as PFAS risk assessments, emergency response actions related to PFAS, lessons learned from decades of PFAS investigation and remediation in Australia, full-scale supercritical water oxidation (SWCO) treatment, PFAS and environmental due diligence, and PFAS Signature®. 

During the keynote presentation, Dr. Michael Dourson, President and Director of Science for the Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA™), gave an insightful presentation with a compelling argument to collaborate internationally on PFAS risk assessments to establish action levels that are grounded in solid science. This presentation and discussion carried into a roundtable with Dr. Dourson, Dr. Bill Schew (GHD), and Dr. Jon Petali (Battelle).  Many attendees have complex PFAS environmental projects within their purview; therefore, PFAS Risk Assessments were a topic of keen interest. The panel discussed the lack of clarity and varying target levels associated with PFAS toxicity as ongoing challenges.

Lori Coolidge (GHD) presented with Dalayna Tillman (American Airlines) on the implication of PFAS designation to CERCLA and environmental due diligence. The key takeaways from the presentation were that the inclusion of additional hazardous substances to EPA’s “list of lists”, in this case two PFAS compounds, does not change the way that Phase I Environmental Site Assessments are performed under the applicable ASTM Standard. Further, as with compounds such as benzo(a)pyrene, the ubiquitous nature of PFAS in the environment due to diffuse anthropogenic pollution does not constitute a release under CERCLA. Further considerations related to minimizing risk during due diligence were discussed including when to sample and what to compare the data to in the absence of regulatory standards, ensuring that there is a complete understanding of the Site Conceptual Model prior to sampling or additional investigation, and using risk-transfer clauses in contracts, and additional insurance and endorsements. 

In a panel on PFAS Myths, Jennifer Son facilitated a discussion on some of PFAS’ greatest misconceptions. Denice Nelson (Johnson Controls), Zhiyong Xia (GHD) and David Trueba (Revive) discussed that regulatory expectations are still unclear. While everyone has reviewed the proposed guidance, the consensus is that there are still no clear expectations of how to apply it to each unique area of work. 

The panel weighed in on their expectations that effective PFAS treatment can be anticipated near term. They discussed that while regulatory expectations are still unclear, the consensus is that effective treatment solutions need to be scalable to address the contamination challenges. The panelists emphasized the importance of ongoing research and development in PFAS treatment technologies, highlighting that advancements in treatment technologies are crucial for understanding and improving PFAS control measures. They also noted that collaboration between industry and regulators is essential to develop and implement these scalable solutions effectively. 

During the final panel of the day, The Future of PFAS, Shalene Thomas (Battelle), Dylan Galt (GHD), Catriona Smith (GHD), and Dan Longbrake (Battelle) discussed PFAS management and mitigation. Much of the discussion centered on how operational, regulatory/litigation and technology shifts will impact future actions in the PFAS arena. Supply chain disruptions, potential regulatory changes, and lack of technological advancements in response to disposal were identified as bottlenecks to action.  

While the room consisted of several PFAS leaders across North America, the conversation is much broader than those in attendance. We are continuing the dialogue on PFAS challenges and solutions in the upcoming months in a webinar series. Speakers from different industries and backgrounds will collaborate to share their knowledge all with the mission to continue to advance practical solutions to tackling the challenge that lies ahead.