SLR convenes industry PFAS roundtable

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are increasingly under scrutiny in the UK as regulators respond to growing evidence of their persistence and potential environmental and health impacts. Often described as ‘forever chemicals’, PFAS do not readily degrade, resulting in them being widely detected in environmental media (soils, surface- and groundwaters, sediments and even biota) so they can also be regarded as ‘everywhere chemicals’. It’s also worth stating that whilst the PFAS debate is currently gaining traction, there are similar emerging issues relating to other persistent organic pollutants (POPs), such as brominated flame retardants (BFRs), short- and medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs and MCCPs), polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs), and microplastics.

There is general agreement that a strategic and proactive approach to the management of PFAS, and other POPs, is needed rather than the UK’s current more reactive stance. For developers, this shift has practical consequences. Sites with industrial histories, firefighting activities, waste management uses, or manufacturing processes may now attract greater regulatory scrutiny under the town planning and environmental permitting regimes. PFAS in soils can also require complex risk environmental risk assessments and remediation strategies, restrict soil reuse options, and introduce long-term liability concerns if not identified early.

SLR recently hosted a roundtable debate to convene a cross section of the affected industries to discuss and share their insights, concerns, and proposed solutions on the challenges posed by PFAS. We were joined by representatives from trade associations, water and waste industries to discuss a range of questions including:

• Do the benefits of PFAS to society outweigh their costs?
• Whilst the health impacts of several individual PFAS are well established, should all PFAS chemicals be tarred with the same brush?
• PFAS have been unnoticed and unregulated for decades, is it too late to effectively regulate them now?
• What would be required to remove the PFAS legacy from the UK? Is this feasible?
• How can key players come together to balance competing needs?
• What lessons can the UK learn from PFAS management in Europe / America / Australia?

Summary

The group showed strong alignment that PFAS is a complex, systemic issue requiring coordinated, pragmatic action rather than blunt or knee-jerk regulation. There was a shared sense that while the risks are real and urgent, solutions do exist - particularly through a combination of technology, smarter regulation, and better industry collaboration. However, there is concern about the feasibility of delivering truly ‘joined-up’ approaches, given historical fragmentation and competing pressures around cost, public perception, and economic impact.

Participants emphasised the need to balance ambition with realism and practicality. There was caution against both extremes: overly strict measures that could disrupt industries or public acceptance, and overly slow responses that allow the problem to worsen. The conversation reflected optimism that progress is achievable, but only if supported by clear government direction, transitional pathways, and a more transparent understanding of where PFAS originates and how it moves through systems. Overall, the tone was constructive and solution-focused, with growing consensus around a phased, evidence-led approach.

Key solution themes

• Improve system-wide coordination
  • Take a joined-up approach across regulators, industry, and water/waste sectors
  • Address PFAS across its full lifecycle: production, use, waste, and legacy contamination
• Adopt pragmatic, differentiated regulation
  • Avoid ‘one-size-fits-all’ rules; regulate PFAS types and uses based on risk and context
  • Set realistic, enforceable limits that can tighten over time
• Focus immediately on source control (‘turning off the tap’)
  • Restrict or eliminate non-essential uses of PFAS, especially in consumer products
  • Shift to an ‘essential use only’ model as a baseline
• Phased introduction of regulation with built-in transition periods
  • Clearly indicate the long-term direction by rapidly setting interim PFAS criteria for soils, waters and wastes etc. based on today’s science
  • Allow industries time to adapt with a clear understanding that thresholds will be updated regularly
  • Align regulatory tightening with technological maturity and economic implications
• Invest in and apply technology strategically
  • Use a combination of treatment technologies rather than relying on one solution
  • Prioritise concentrating PFAS before applying high-cost destruction methods to improve efficiency
• Increase transparency and public awareness
  • Introduce supply chain disclosure of PFAS in products
  • Help drive behavioural and market change through informed consumers and brand differentiation

SLR provides end-to-end support to governments, communities and infrastructure clients helping them navigate the planning, environmental and engineering aspects of complex projects. Our multidisciplinary team combines technical expertise with strategic insight to deliver tailored solutions that meet sustainability objectives and drive long-term value. We are a recognised leader in climate-resilient infrastructure and help clients identify and act on their most material ESG issues, offering the delivery support needed to turn strategy into action.