The Environment Protection Ministry recently released for public comment its draft framework relating to PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) compounds.
“Our 2022 petition to the High Court of Justice demands that the government take meaningful steps to catch up with the rest of the world on PFAS regulatory tools,” says Meirav Abadi, Adam Teva V’Din’s lead attorney in the case. She comments on the five main issues we have with the draft framework:
- Inadequate Scope and Timelines: The draft fails to fully address the threat posed by PFAS pollution. With over 280 industrial plants using these hazardous compounds in Israel, the response suggested is lenient, with long timelines and vague obligations.
- Lack of Binding Obligations: The government proposes giving businesses considerable flexibility, allowing companies up to a year to perform a techno-economic assessment of PFAS alternatives, and up to 18 months to submit emissions management plan. Considering the urgency of the problem, these terms are too generous.
- Burden on Regulatory Oversight: The Environment Ministry will take responsibility for overseeing PFAS permit conditions; in our opinion the workload for monitoring compliance across hundreds of businesses could overwhelm the system.
- Lengthy Implementation Periods: The government’s draft reveals that the timelines for reducing use of PFAS compounds are too long. Requiring businesses to stop using PFAS-containing foam in fire suppression training only after 18 months is unwarranted, especially given the PFAS’ heavy impact on the environment and human health.
- Stricter Regulations: Stringent regulations in line with adopted frameworks in other countries would ensure that industries are held accountable for their use of PFAS. The proposed regulations leave too much to the discretion of businesses using PFAS, with potentially devastating environmental consequences.
Attorney Abadi added: “The language regarding requirements is vague and consequently ambiguous. We must ensure clarity to help businesses adhere to these guidelines and avoid exacerbating harm. Similarly, sampling for PFAS contamination should be mandated at more frequent intervals.
“Our position is clear, and we will reiterate it at the next hearing of our petition,“ Abadi continued. “Stricter oversight, clear regulations, and urgent action are essential to mitigating the risks associated with PFAS pollution.”
