Been there, done that: Australian lessons on PFAS for Canadian industry

The past few years have seen substantial changes in the regulation of Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) worldwide. Public awareness has grown, fueled by media coverage and social media, while governments worldwide are taking varied regulatory approaches. In Canada, our federal government reaffirmed its commitment to PFAS oversight on March 5, when they released their final State of PFAS report and a proposed risk management approach.

The new risk management approach is consistent with the government's 2021 announcement of their intent to investigate regulating PFAS as a class, although the 2025 proposal notably excludes fluoropolymers. Industrial organizations have expressed concern that a single-class approach for PFAS may oversimplify PFAS’s diverse chemical and toxicological profiles. As such, meaningful consultation with industry will be essential as the strategy is implemented.

A key 2025 proposal is to list PFAS (excluding fluoropolymers) under Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), designating them as “toxic” and enabling further regulatory action. We note the 2022 Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, which are not yet in force and would expand the list of regulated PFAS and eliminate many current exemptions, including for Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFFs) containing PFOA and long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids. Combined with the 2025 proposal, which would also prohibit use of any currently unregulated PFAS in firefighting foams, these changes could effectively phase out AFFF use in Canada.

To support this effort, the federal government has also taken recent action to collect more data about PFAS. Information gathering through a Notice with respect to certain PFAS was conducted to survey manufacturers, importers, and users of 312 different PFAS. The federal government also consulted on adding 131 PFAS to annual National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) reporting, with reporting for 2025 due by June 2026.

In parallel with these activities, federal agencies and the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) have issued environmental screening values since 2018 for PFAS in soil, water, and wildlife tissue. These values aim to protect human and ecological health and are expected to evolve as PFAS science advances.

Provincial and territorial responses to PFAS have varied. British Columbia, Alberta, and Nova Scotia have already adopted environmental screening values for individual PFAS, while Ontario has issued informal guidance to environmental risk assessors on how to approach PFAS in regulatory submissions. All jurisdictions prohibit discharges that may harm health or the environment, although exact wording and the concepts involved vary from province to province. We advise businesses to avoid PFAS discharges unless explicitly permitted or demonstrably safe with no adverse effects to health or the environment within the definitions of their local environmental protection statutes.

PFAS regulation in Canada is rapidly evolving. While this presents challenges for industry, it also reflects the pace of scientific discovery. The speed of regulation in this space mirrors the state of the science of PFAS and we appreciate regulators’ openness to consultation as they take steps to regulate these emerging contaminants in Canada.

A more comprehensive summary of the evolving PFAS regulations can be found here.

From Australia, we observe Canada’s regulatory developments with a sense of déjà vu. Australia’s PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP), first issued in 2018, was a collaborative guidance document endorsed by environmental agencies across Australia and New Zealand. It aimed to reduce human exposure to PFAS through risk-based site assessments, contamination mitigation, and tailored Conceptual Site Models (CSMs). Following its release, some regulators swiftly enforced new discharge limits and timelines for phasing out AFFFs.

Phasing out AFFF was particularly challenging for industries reliant on the superior fire suppression properties of PFAS-containing foams. In 2018, fluorine-free foams were not yet proven fully effective for use in large fires, and these new foams were also found to behave differently depending on the delivery systems. In some cases, organizations faced a very costly and largely unbudgeted overhaul of their fire suppression systems, sometimes with short timelines. Compliance extensions to regulatory timelines were essential in many cases but required an approved plan with target dates. Given the extremely low water guideline values prevailing for ecological protection and the solubility of PFAS, the avoidance of use of PFAS-containing foams became a high priority to minimize the proliferation of contamination remediation costs. Disposal costs associated with banned AFFF were predictably high due to expensive treatment methods for destruction, such as incineration. In light of this experience, we emphasize for Canadian industry that planning or provisioning for this eventuality could be advantageous to business preparedness and continuity.

1. Start today! Conduct an inventory of your possible PFAS products (and product history). Assess if you still really need them and dispose of what is not essential for your business or place them in a safe (bunded and enclosed) place ready for later disposal. For those PFAS products essential to your business, do not delay planning and budgeting for their retirement.
2. Risk ranking. Whether you have one site or multiple sites, rank the risks in the areas where PFAS has been stored or used for proximity to potential receptors (waterways, groundwater reserves for drinking water, protected wetlands, fisheries, etc.). If you know your environment, you can assess the potential risk that PFAS might pose on a site/area specific basis and potentially estimate a tolerable concentration protective of that environment.
3. Assess and inventory. Assess your site conditions and water quality to understand the migration of PFAS mass and identify where mitigation efforts will achieve the greatest reduction.
4. Seek advice. Engage expertise in PFAS risk management, including assessment and remediation, and provision for the cost to undertake measures that reduce the risk posed by PFAS impacts.
5. Document a plan. Make a plan and document it with realistic timeframes to address risks in a prioritized fashion. Demonstrated preparedness may avoid a scramble to achieve all of the above with a regulator setting the pace and the target. It also serves as evidence of progress and intention to address issues.

From our perspective in Australia, the advantage for Canada at present is that ecotoxicology knowledge and effective remediation technologies have advanced compared to where we were, ahead of the advent of regulatory enforcement. With many programs now completed or underway, Canadian industry can make informed, forward-looking decisions in managing PFAS.