Now that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rolled out reporting requirements for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) use, manufacturers are working to get visibility into PFAS in their parts and supply chains. The presence of PFAS in a part, manufacturing process, or piece of equipment used in manufacturing represents a significant disruption risk. Some chemical suppliers, like 3M, are phasing out PFAS manufacturing due to accelerating legal liability risks and heightened consumer scrutiny. That means businesses relying on PFAS, or parts containing PFAS, will likely face supply chain disruptions such as shortages, increased prices and even early product obsolescence.
So, once a manufacturer has identified PFAS in their product and supply chain, what are the next steps? Manufacturers should engage suppliers for PFAS strategy intel, and map out risks beyond reporting requirements.
Engage suppliers on disruption risks
To gain visibility into PFAS use, manufacturers will need to survey their suppliers about PFAS in purchased parts. However, identification is just the first step. Further supplier engagement on long-term PFAS planning is necessary.
If PFAS has been identified in a part, businesses should follow up with questions about the supplier’s plans regarding any product redesigns, retirement, or PFAS phase-outs. Manufacturers need to know if their suppliers intend to offer a PFAS-free part or retire the part far enough in advance to mitigate future disruption. Questions about a supplier’s PFAS strategy should be included in PFAS surveys as early as possible to provide enough time to plan around disruptions.
For example, if a supplier will no longer provide a certain type of gasket or O-ring made with PFAS, the manufacturer will need time to source from a different supplier or find alternate compatible replacement parts. If this occurs with “critical parts” for a finished product, engineering teams may need time to recertify products. If the PFAS is considered critical to a process or maintenance parts, the manufacturer may need to make a capital expense and purchase new equipment.
Map your market access risks
Finding PFAS in their supply chain doesn’t necessarily mean businesses can’t sell products — but it can in some cases.
While PFAS are not federally restricted in products under TSCA, there are numerous U.S. state-level laws that ban PFAS in product categories including apparel, cleaning products, cookware, packaging and firefighting foam. Maine and Minnesota are two examples leading the pack, but other states are following suit.
Manufacturers need to carefully monitor the state-level requirements of the markets they serve and understand exactly which categories their products fall under. A manufacturer may be able to sell the same product in one state, but not another. Registration and fee payment may be required in one jurisdiction, but not another.
To help protect their market access, businesses should dedicate staff to actively review and monitor PFAS-related regulations, not just in the U.S. at the local, state and federal levels, but across all markets served. Manufacturers should also centralize PFAS identification declarations and map them against all relevant restrictions or other reporting requirements to gain visibility into their total market access risks and other requirements. Specific PFAS are already restricted in many other countries. If businesses do not have the in-house capacity to actively monitor regulations, partnering with a solution provider with this expertise can help.
Meeting basic requirements versus risks management
PFAS reporting under TSCA has highlighted the stark difference between check-box compliance management and proactive supply chain sustainability management.
Manufacturers that only collect bare-bones data under the EPA’s PFAS definition are leaving vital information on the table and creating more work for themselves in the future, when they need more robust PFAS data for U.S. state or EU regulations. What’s more, focusing a PFAS program strictly on reporting requirements rather than risk identification exposes manufacturers to disruptions that could otherwise be mitigated. PFAS risks are unlike any chemical restrictions in the past, with greater risks for product obsolescence and litigation.
Businesses that have taken the first steps to identify PFAS in their supply chains are off to a good start, but they still have more to do. The next step is to map out their risks beyond TSCA PFAS reporting and start engaging suppliers for data to fuel long-term risk planning. Manufacturers that haven’t started supply chain due diligence around PFAS need to start now before their part delivery and pricing is at risk.
Learn more about Assent’s solution for identifying PFAS risks in supply chains here.
About the author: Cally Edgren, Senior Director of Sustainability at Assent
Cally is a proven compliance program leader with experience developing, communicating and executing company goals and strategies. She is a subject matter expert on product materials compliance and responsible sourcing as well as market access certifications and has a background in program and process development to support regulatory compliance requirements. Cally possesses 30 years of experience in developing and managing global compliance programs at Rockwell Automation and Kohler Co. She supports Assent’s strategic direction and guides clients through product compliance topics and issues, including PFAS.