One of the most recent developments within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and a matter of significant interest to legal professionals, involves the careful choice of language by the EPA’s Assistant Administrator, Uhlmann. Specifically, Uhlmann employed the word “if” in the context of the potential designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances. This tenderly phrased “if” has left several professionals questioning what the metrics or prerequisites for this designation might entail.
Clarification on this matter is becoming increasingly urgent, particularly with the EPA’s announcement of an Enforcement and Compliance Initiative on PFAS. Notably, Inside PFAS Policy’s Suzanne Yohannan was also intrigued by this issue, implying that many are keenly observing if the EPA’s PFAS compliance initiative would apply should the substances PFOA and PFOS be officially deemed hazardous.
PFAs, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, encapsulate a family of man-made chemicals which includes PFOA and PFOS. Meanwhile, PFOA and PFOS are identified as enduring elements in the environment, demonstrating resistance to typical environmental degradation processes. As such, these substances are often found in water systems and have been linked to adverse health effects, intensifying the need for their potential status as hazardous substances to be critically evaluated and clarified by the EPA.
Despite being at the forefront of environmental regulatory changes, the situation highlights the necessity for precise language and clear regulations. As it stands, the potential ramifications of the EPA’s eventual decision, and its potential to impact compliance initiatives, are worthy of close examination by legal professionals.
For more details on the unfolding situation, legal professionals are encouraged to review the full story on JDSUPRA as well as the basic information about PFAs provided by the EPA.