PFAS0114

Written evidence from the National Association of Waste Disposal Officers

Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

This response is from the National Association of Waste Disposal Officers (NAWDO) which is the primary network for senior waste managers at local authorities with statutory responsibility for waste disposal. Our membership represents 80% of all UK local authorities with waste disposal duties and includes London Boroughs, Joint Waste Disposal Authorities, Waste Partnerships, Metropolitan, Unitary and County Councils from all UK regions (with the exception of Scotland). NAWDO’s members manage around three quarters of the nation’s municipally managed waste.

NAWDO is grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into PFAS as there is growing concern amongst members of risks to the environment and human health from PFAS, and how best to manage them (as well as the consequences of doing so for Local Authorities) as more evidence of their presence and impacts are made available. Our purpose for responding is to offer insights into the end-of-life management of products and materials known to contain PFAS once they are ‘discarded’ as waste, particularly those typically found in household waste managed by Local Authority waste services.

Our understanding of PFAS chemicals is they are a group of synthetic chemicals in excess of 10,000+ varieties with the similarity of having a strong carbon-fluoride bond found within them. This bond is one of the strongest in organic chemistry and provides products and materials with desirable properties such as water-repellent and stain resistant and are present in a significant range (200+) of household products. This bond is also the primary cause for concern of PFAS by causing them to persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in humans and animals.

PFAS in end-of-life products present serious challenges for the waste industry; essentially,

      There are no universal methods for detecting PFAS in waste streams, which is important to know in terms of understanding the safest and appropriate route for their disposal or destruction

      There is limited regulation of PFAS in recycled content, which can lead to a ‘toxic recycling loop’ whereby layers of PFAS build up in products, and

      The safe disposal or destruction is complex and costly

The main relevant regulations that apply to waste containing PFAS are:

1. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) Regulations: The UK has strict regulations on certain PFAS, such as PFOS and PFOA, under the POP Regulations. These regulations prohibit the manufacture, sale, and use of designated chemicals listed as POPs and sets low content limit thresholds for these chemicals in waste, which if exceeded, requires waste to be destroyed or irreversibly transformed by incineration.
2. Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations: Sets out the requirements for classification, storage, transport and disposal of waste identified as hazardous (according to risks posed to the environment and human health). Hazardous waste must be consigned and sent to licensed facilities separately and treated to destroy hazardous components of the waste.

Of the 10,000+ PFAS compounds considered as part of the PFAS group of chemicals, only 3 types of PFAS are regulated as waste. These PFAS chemicals are:

• Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – listed as a POP under the Stockholm Convention in May 2019
• Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) – listed as a POP under the Convention in 2009
• Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), its salts and related compounds – listed as a POP under the Convention in August 2023

The regulations of only a limited number of PFAS types is primarily due to the availability of scientific data on their health effects. These compounds have been extensively studied over time, allowing regulatory bodies to establish enforceable standards. The remaining PFAS compounds have not been as thoroughly researched, making it challenging to develop specific regulations and standards.

When waste containing any one or more of the three PFAS listed above exceeds a specified low content threshold, this waste becomes hazardous (under the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulations) and may come into scope under the POPs Regulations. When this occurs, there is a legal requirement to segregate and destroy the waste. This is a costly process which prevents waste being reused or recycled and hinders circular economy opportunities. More information on barriers to the circular economy caused by chemicals and proposed solutions to address these barriers is provided by Fidra[1].

When a product containing PFAS is discarded as waste, there are three main routes the product may follow to reach its end-of-life depending on regulations criteria and waste management services and systems available in the area:

1. Recycling

A product containing PFAS may be sent for recycling where it is broken down and used as raw material to create another product. Due to PFAS extreme chemical stability, they often survive thermal and mechanical recycling processes, resulting in contamination of recycled materials (such as plastic) which are then used to make new products, where it is possible that further PFAS may be applied. The potential for PFAS to be contained in recycled content of products is illustrated in a case study on PFAS content of UK supermarket and takeaway food packaging (Fidra, 2020[2]).

2. Incineration

When a product or material containing PFAS comes into scope under regulation (either as a POP and/ or as hazardous waste), legislation requires this waste to be destroyed or irreversibly transformed under high temperature (1,000oC+) incineration at specialised hazardous waste / high temperature incinerators (HTIs). These facilities in the UK are carefully managed to achieve complete combustion (to ensure PFAS are destroyed) and adhere to strict emissions controls under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations (2016).

A recent study by Veolia[3] demonstrates high temperature incineration is effective at destroying PFAS, even in high concentrations. However, there are only 4 HTIs in the UK (compared with 57 municipal waste incinerators which operate within a temperature range of 850oC – 1,000oC) so there is very limited capacity in the UK to deal with this waste. Where capacity is accessible, Local Authorities who must send waste to these facilities typically pay in excess of £1,000 per tonne.

Waste that may contain PFAS outside scope of the relevant regulations can be disposed of via incineration at lower temperatures. A recent DEFRA-funded study on the POPs destruction efficiency in UK Energy from Waste plants was inconclusive on the destruction efficiency of PFAS-containing materials via this form of waste disposal[4].

3. Landfill

It is illegal to landfill hazardous waste and / or waste containing POPs above the low POP content limit – which includes waste containing one or more of the 3 PFAS chemicals listed as POPs.

Waste containing other PFAS at low concentrations that are classified as non-hazardous can be disposed of in landfill (although according to the waste hierarchy, this would be the least desirable option for disposal). Landfills are engineered to prevent chemicals such as PFAS entering groundwater and contaminating surrounding environments.

Landfill leachate treatment plants are located at landfills to capture the runoff from the landfill and uses biological and chemical treatments to remove pollutants from the leachate before discharging the liquid into surface waters in accordance with the environmental permit for the site.

The science on what happens to PFAS at landfill leachate plants is still developing and the frequency of PFAS monitoring in water sources by a variety of responsible parties is irregular and dependent on the risk level. A Defra-funded two-year monitoring study on landfill leachate[5] demonstrated that biological treatment is successful at complete removal or significantly reducing some PFAS, while there was little or no removal of others.

The disposal of waste containing POPs or other types of harmful chemicals is an expensive business. When these chemicals are present in household waste, this expense is sustained by Local Authorities. The example of the need to segregate and destroy waste upholstered domestic seating (WUDS) under the POPs regulations which came into effect in January 2023 continues to have a significant economic impact on Local Authorities; the total annual cost has not been quantified but is estimated to be in hundreds of millions of pounds to Local Authorities, with no indication of financial support from Government or producers of these chemicals or furniture items that profited from their sale.

NAWDO’s call for action on the use of (harmful) chemicals are:

1. To eliminate / prevent the use of harmful chemicals through better and more sustainable design and eliminating the non-essential use of hazardous chemicals, such as PFAs.
2. Where elimination / prevention is not reasonable, reduce amounts of harmful chemicals used so that the quantity used is driven by the purpose they are intended for and to regularly review limits to ensure quantities applied remain relevant over time.
3. Introduce extended producer responsibility to products applied with (harmful) chemicals, such as furniture and textiles, to apply ‘polluter pays’ principles to the end-of-life management of products and materials and support the move towards a circular economy.
4. Improved data and evidence on the impacts of chemicals present on the market, including details on replacement chemicals to provide greater certainty about their impacts on human health and the environment and help avoid the issue of regrettable substitution.
5. Greater transparency and traceability of all chemicals in products from first application through to end-of-life to enable all stages of the supply chain to make informed decisions relating to chemicals.
6. Increased cross-sector collaboration between industries and along supply chains to ensure chemical policy aligns with circular economy objectives.

Answers to EAC Inquiry questions

Understanding the threats and benefits from using Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)   

1. What benefits do PFAS provide and how widely are they used?

PFAS have been identified in a number of household products including:

• Non-stick cookware, including frying pans and greaseproof paper
• Food packaging, including popcorn bags and pizza boxes
• Waterproof outdoor wear, including coats and tents
• Carpets, curtains, rugs and upholstery
• Cosmetics and personal care products, including some types of make-up, menstrual products and sunscreen
• Cleaning products, such as stain removers

Local Authorities have a legal duty to dispose of waste that residents discard either at the kerbside or deposited at Household Waste Recycling Centres. There are very limited levers for local authorities to mange this material and therefore they are left with the operational and financial burden of managing them in line with regulations. Products containing PFAS have been used for a long time with them being present in most, if not all households, and therefore local authorities are left with the issue of dealing with the legacy of their use.  The lifespan of products vary from a relatively short period of time to many years resulting in this being an issue that has a potentially long timeframe. There are also a number of occasions when these items are disposed of by residents after many years as when clearing relatives properties etc… and therefore they have to remain ready to manage them for an extended period of time.

2. To what extent are UK health and environmental regulators equipped to detect, monitor and understand the risks posed by PFAS?

Detection of PFAS in waste materials is predominantly based on methods requiring specialised equipment and expertise, mostly found in dedicated competent laboratories. NAWDO’s understanding is there are no established techniques that are affordable and timely for detecting, identifying or monitoring PFAS that can be applied to detect PFAS in the field at waste sites.

3. How developed is the UK’s research base on the science of PFAS and the technology required to monitor their current and future impact? 

NAWDO recognises the increasing efforts across the UK by government, regulatory bodies, academia and industry to accelerate the national response to PFAS. However, it believes the UK remains significantly behind America and Europe in effectively addressing the PFAS challenge. A chemical strategy for England / the UK is long anticipated from Government to help set out the direction of policy needed to help stimulate activities in research and growth in technology to address the issue of PFAS.

4. How sophisticated is current knowledge of how and where PFAS enter the supply chain? 

Current understanding of how PFAS enter the supply chain is still emerging, with particularly limited knowledge about their presence at the end-of-life stage. Most existing data focuses on the few PFAS chemicals regulated under POPs legislation. Additionally, there is very little information on PFAS entering the supply chain through recycled materials content.

5. What is the current understanding of how PFAS are made and then used in terms of product ranges, and geographical and socioeconomic distribution? 

N/A

6. To what extent are the Environment Agency, and other relevant UK bodies and research institutions, resourced to understand the current threat posed by PFAS and to monitor their impact going forward? 

NAWDO does not have any evidence regarding the capacity of the Environment Agency but is aware that is already stretched and anecdotally we do not feel that they are sufficiently resourced.

The current status of measures to address PFAS 

7. What are the current technologies and solutions to treat PFAS pollution, how cost effective and efficient are they and do they create additional risks?

Please note reference to landfill disposal in our introductory text ( see link to Manchester study)

8. How well equipped is the UK’s research and development base to improve existing approaches to dealing with PFAS? 

N/A

Is the current regulatory regime for PFAS fit for purpose?

9. Is the current regulatory regime for the use and disposal of PFAS, including UK registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (UK REACH), adequate? If not, how can it be improved?

NAWDO proposes that the existing regulatory regime governing the use and disposal of PFAS is not functioning at its optimal effectiveness. Despite the presence of regulatory controls—such as those under the Stockholm Convention and UK REACH—implementation gaps exist, particularly in the tracking and treatment of PFAS-containing waste. This makes it harder for the waste industry to guarantee safe management of PFAS waste and protect the environment and human health.

A critical barrier to effective PFAS management is the lack of transparency and traceability regarding chemical content across product lifecycles. Manufacturers and downstream users often lack full visibility of the chemicals present in their materials, due in part to fragmented supply chains and insufficient data-sharing mechanisms. Tools such as digital product passports and a centralised chemical data system would facilitate end-to-end traceability of chemical constituents, enabling supply chain stages to access real-time information on PFAS presence, regulatory status, and disposal requirements. Improvements to transparency and traceability on chemical content of products will enhance knowledge transfer, ensure compliance with existing and emerging regulatory requirements and support growth of a circular economy.

10. Is a precautionary approach to PFAS desirable or is an approach that uses regulation to assess their benefits and risks more appropriate?

Given PFAS are grouped together due to their common carbon – fluoride bond, and that it is this bond that is the root cause of both the chemical utility and the environmental and health risks associated with them, a precautionary approach is preferable.

One of the potential risks associated with using regulation to assess their benefits and risks is that some long-term problems associated with certain chemicals are not discovered until years or decades after they are introduced. This is because:

• Pre-market testing often focuses on short-term toxicity and acute effects, and doesn’t consider long-term or low-dose exposure
• Many chemicals are approved in use with little data on chronic health and environmental impacts
• Chemicals can often react differently in the environment compared to lab testing, and some impacts only emerge when they react with other chemicals present in the environment
• Hard to prove cause-and-effect between chemicals and diseases that take years to develop
• Chemicals are often assumed safe until proven harmful, rather than the other way round
• There lacks sufficient resources and authority to demand more comprehensive testing, and new chemicals are being developed constantly

A precautionary approach with PFAS, such as a group ban on their production and use, will help prevent the issue of regrettable substitution from occurring. This is when an identified hazardous or persistent chemical is replaced with another that turns out to be as problematic – or even worse – than its predecessor. Regrettable substitution is a barrier to growth of the circular economy because it creates a legacy conveyor belt of problematic chemicals which the waste industry has responsibility to deal with, resulting in products or materials continuously requiring destruction or irreversible transformation, rather than enabling those products or materials to be reused or recycled.

11. Is there any regulatory divergence across the UK in terms of PFAS? If so, what are the implications, and is there a need for a more joined-up approach?

Following the work carried out on developing government guidance on managing WUDS potentially containing POPs, a new group was formed called the Chemicals in Waste Forward Group which includes representatives from across the waste industry, Local Authorities, Government and Regulatory bodies. This group was established to influence and inform how waste (particularly those waste types managed by Local Authorities and their waste contractors) should be managed, now and in the future, in accordance with legislation based on improved knowledge and understanding of chemicals found in waste.

Learnings from the WUDS experience demonstrated the need for a more collaborative approach in tackling waste containing harmful chemicals and any potential for regulatory divergence should be picked up within this group.

12. How do other jurisdictions around the world, including the EU and US, regulate PFAS use and disposal, and what lessons, if any, can the UK learn? 

N/A

What lessons can the UK learn from other countries on how they monitor and treat PFAS?  

13. What lessons can the UK learn from other countries in terms of resourcing and supporting the detection, monitoring and treatment of PFAS pollution?

More scientific evidence and know-how coupled with resources can make greater headway in tackling the issue of PFAS.

14. How does the UK compare to other countries in terms of funding research and new technologies to improve outcomes? 

NAWDO is not aware of funding opportunities in research and new technologies to improve outcomes in PFAS found in waste but is aware that emerging methods and technologies exist, such as mechanochemical destruction techniques[6], in the ability to treat waste materials to breakdown or destroy these chemicals and produce by-products that are of value. However, these technologies are only demonstration projects or small-scale and will remain so unless investment is made in demonstrating proof of concept and scaling up such technologies to support the volume of waste likely to generated as a result of cleaning up PFAS contamination across the UK.

May 2025

7