Johan Strandberg in North Carolina.
"The PFAS issue has different dimensions in the US"
PFAS concentrations in water and air are much higher in the United States than in Sweden. The incentives for taking action also differ, with litigation and liability claims being more common in the United States. IVL researcher Johan Strandberg travelled to the United States to talk about PFAS in flue gases, but was especially struck by the political uncertainty that now surrounds environmental research.
In a research project in which the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency comprise the reference group, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute is working with three energy and waste companies to test new methods for measuring the environmentally hazardous substance PFAS in flue gases.
The differences between Sweden and the US don't just relate to levels in the environment or technical methods for managing PFAS, they also concern the perception of responsibility, the incentives for taking action and how quickly political decisions can affect the conditions for research.
Johan Strandberg, who is leading the project, attended the conference The Science of PFAS last week. Below he shares his impressions:
"When I travelled to the United States to present our research results on PFAS in flue gases, I was prepared to encounter differences between our countries. Still, I was surprised by what I encountered at the conference. The differences between Sweden and the US don't just relate to levels in the environment or technical methods for managing PFAS, they also concern the perception of responsibility, the incentives for taking action and how quickly political decisions can affect the conditions for research.
The EPA asked me to present our research results at the conference, which made me really happy; it's an honour. In the United States, two of the three methods we have used have been implemented at several waste incineration facilities. The results from there have not been published, and probably won't be. So, because this was the first time the audience was able to see the results of PFAS measurements in flue gases, there was a great deal of interest.
During the conference, it became clear that the PFAS issue has much greater dimensions in the US than we have seen in Sweden. For instance, results from measurements of precipitation in the Rocky Mountains were presented. There, the concentrations of PFAS exceeded 25 ng/l, which is roughly four times the future limit for drinking water in Sweden. At one site, PFAS that could not be traced to any discharge was detected in groundwater. It turned out to be atmospheric deposition, where precipitation, particles, etc. that falls to the ground is so contaminated that it contaminates the groundwater. This example came from a state where fluoropolymers are manufactured, and the source was a facility there.
It was also clear that the incentives in the United States differ from Sweden. Through lawsuits filed by companies against the state, or by interest groups against companies, the courts have an important role to play in how environmental legislation is applied. One effect of this is that the application can be retroactive and that companies have to pay damages retroactively. One company I spoke to at the conference, which manufactures treatment plants, told me that clients who don't have PFAS contamination can install water treatment so that no one can claim after the fact that there was contamination. This has created a market for companies that manufacture treatment or destruction technologies.
Confidence in the ability of drinking water producers to manage PFAS was also low. During one presentation, the speaker asked how many people in the audience had installed their own systems to purify drinking water at home. About a quarter of the participants raised their hands.
So there are big differences between Sweden and the United States, both in terms of the scale of the problem and how it has been addressed. But there are important lessons to be learnt. Sweden should be able to capitalize on the wide range of treatment technologies and the innovative PFAS treatment and destruction industry that has emerged in the US.
But the discussions in the coffee breaks were not limited to PFAS. There was a great deal of concern and many questions about the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and how it might act in relation to the EPA. The EPA is the US equivalent of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and is both a regulatory body and a research institute. Now that DOGE has its sights set on the EPA, the situation is uncertain. I was told that a decision on the future of the EPA will be made in mid-April. People said that it faces budget cuts of up to 60 per cent, but it is unclear whether the regulatory or the research part will take the biggest hit. One person I spoke to didn't think the EPA would exist in two years. Similar situations face other organizations.
Many people I spoke to still seemed to find the situation surreal. How could politics shift like this? Regardless of who voted for the new administration, there is a risk that the measures will only bring short-term economic benefits.
Studies on the health effects of lead in drinking water show that it's the socially vulnerable groups in society who are affected. It would be reasonable to assume that the same applies to PFAS, where people who can't install their own PFAS filters are the ones who will suffer the most.
It became clear to me that it is difficult to form collaborations in a United States so strongly influenced by political uncertainty. We at IVL cannot influence decisions there, but we can definitely contribute by supporting and collaborating with the experts and researchers whose knowledge is now at risk of being limited. And we can help find ways to improve outreach and bring positive change."
If you have any questions, contact:
Johan Strandberg, johan.strandberg@ivl.se, tel: +46 (0)10-7886598