Industry Moves to Preempt Regulation on PFAS Pollution from Semiconductors
The Chips and Science Act has sparked a significant production boom in the semiconductor industry, but experts warn that it could result in massive amounts of toxic waste. In response, producers of PFAS chemicals and semiconductors—key components in most electronics—have formed a consortium that promotes industry-friendly science to counter potential regulations, as seen in documents obtained by the Guardian.
This group, known as the PFAS Consortium, emerged during a surge in domestic semiconductor production fueled by the Chips and Science Act, which has led to $825 billion in investments aimed at strengthening the industry. However, unchecked growth could generate enormous levels of toxic waste, raising concerns among environmental experts. The semiconductor industry is a major polluter, releasing unregulated and unmonitored toxic PFAS, or "forever chemicals," some of which also transform into potent greenhouse gases.
"Few people are paying attention to the toxic waste from this rapidly expanding industry," said Lenny Siegel, a member of Chips Communities United, a group working with industry and administration officials to implement environmental safeguards. "Every time you perform a Google search or engage in online activities, you're utilizing chips that were produced in a way that released PFAS into the environment irreversibly."
Data from a 2022 test at a U.S. production plant revealed as much as 78,000 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFAS in wastewater samples—far exceeding the EPA's legal limit of 4 ppt for several common compounds. Public health advocates are increasingly raising alarms and advocating for simple measures to curb PFAS waste from semiconductor manufacturing while urging the industry to seek safer alternatives. However, manufacturers are pushing back.
The consortium's white papers, circulated among policymakers, argue against regulation. In one document titled "Impact of a Potential PFAS Restriction," the consortium acknowledges its PFAS pollution but emphasizes the lack of regulations and opposes proposals for monitoring or restricting waste. The paper claims that finding safer alternatives is "impossible in some instances" and that doing so would require "stepping back decades in technological advancement."
The document highlights industry efforts to reduce waste voluntarily, stating that the industry will continue to cut pollution "if exemptions [to regulation] are granted." This stance has caught lawmakers' attention: a bipartisan amendment in the defense bill, which is likely to be approved, would exempt new semiconductor manufacturing projects from environmental reviews. Federal records show that the Semiconductor Industry Association, which organized the PFAS Consortium, lobbied for this legislation.
Laurie Beu, executive director of the Semiconductor Industry Association, defended the consortium in a statement, describing it as "a purely technical effort comprised of industry experts around the world, dedicated to collecting the data needed to formulate an industry approach to PFAS based on science."
The Chips Act appears to conflict with the Biden administration's 2021 comprehensive plan to curb PFAS pollution, and Siegel noted that policymakers are largely overlooking the public health consequences. However, a group of U.S. senators, including Ed Markey of Massachusetts, recently urged the Commerce Department to impose stricter regulations on chip producers.
"The public invested over $50 billion in this industry, and they should reasonably expect that they won't be exposed to toxic chemicals or breathe polluted air in return," Markey said.
PFAS are a class of about 15,000 chemicals often used to make products resistant to water, stains, and heat. Dubbed "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally break down, PFAS have been linked to cancer, liver problems, thyroid issues, birth defects, kidney disease, decreased immunity, and other serious health concerns.
The production of semiconductors is highly complex, requiring PFAS in as many as 1,000 steps at the nanometric level, including photolithography and plasma processing, according to industry documents. Manufacturing plants are notorious for contaminating nearby drinking water and air with a range of dangerous toxins, including TCE, arsenic, and chloroform. Silicon Valley, in large part due to the semiconductor industry's toxic legacy, holds the record for the most Superfund sites in the nation. When public pressure forced tech companies to relocate their operations abroad, workers in those countries suffered the consequences.
"It's not just PFAS—this is a very dirty business," said Arlene Blum, head of the Green Science Policy Institute, a public health advocacy group.
Nevertheless, the defense bill amendment, authored by Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, would eliminate environmental reviews of semiconductor production projects, which require companies to disclose the types and quantities of pollution from their proposed facilities. Environmental groups use these reviews to push the Commerce Department to mandate monitoring and treatment of PFAS wastewater, which is not currently required by law.
"It seems like a really bad idea to exempt these plants from regulation," Blum added.
The semiconductor manufacturing process releases PFAS into the water and air. The industry uses fluorinated gases, or PFAS gases, in various processes, but the toxicological risks of these gases are largely unknown. However, their climate impact is clear—once released into the atmosphere, fluorinated gases can convert into TFA, a greenhouse gas with a lifespan of over 1,000 years. Researchers have become increasingly concerned about the rising levels of TFA in the air, water, human blood, and other parts of the environment.
While the industry captures some fluorinated gases, they cannot be completely destroyed. Sometimes, manufacturers attempt to incinerate or thermally destroy these chemicals, but this process often fails to fully eliminate the compounds and can create hazardous byproducts.
"It's a challenging problem because they are using so many different kinds of PFAS," said Ariana Spentzos, a science and policy associate with the Green Science Policy Institute. "Industry claims that incineration works, but it often just releases different types of PFAS."
Like other industries, chip manufacturers have transitioned from using PFOA and PFOS—two of the most toxic PFAS compounds—to smaller replacement chemicals. The PFAS Consortium cites this switch in its white papers as evidence of its environmental responsibility, but studies increasingly show that replacement PFAS chemicals are also harmful. PFBS, a common replacement compound found in industry wastewater, is comparatively less toxic but still more harmful than most other regulated substances, according to Siegel.
Some chip manufacturers ship captured PFAS to hazardous waste facilities. However, deep-well injection facilities are prone to leaks, and other shipments end up at incinerators that release the chemicals into the surrounding environment. This is why public health advocates are pushing for alternatives to PFAS rather than focusing solely on waste management, Siegel said.
"They plan to ship PFAS to a permitted treatment facility, but in the absence of more data, this likely means they'll send it to a community of color to be incinerated, which could create toxic byproducts," he added.
Chipmakers Lobby Congress to Block Regulations
Chipmakers involved in the PFAS Consortium are largely members of the Semiconductor Industry Association, a trade group that advocates for the industry's interests in legislative and regulatory matters. Documents show that chipmaker TSMC, a Taiwanese multinational, pays about $160,000 annually for membership in the trade group and an additional $50,000 to participate in the consortium. Federal election records reveal that the Semiconductor Industry Association, armed with its PFAS Consortium research highlighting the industry's case against PFAS regulation, spent approximately $1.5 million lobbying Congress and the Biden administration last year.
The consortium is on track to surpass that amount this year, including lobbying for the defense bill that would eliminate environmental reviews.
"The consortium lobbies aggressively against these measures," Siegel said. Although the industry is working to find alternatives, "they are focused on figuring out what they can do without disrupting their production," he added.
In a statement, the consortium's Beu said it cannot comment on individual members' lobbying efforts.
"We remain committed to providing the tools needed to support industry commitments to track and reduce PFAS, identify alternatives, and develop further abatement technologies," she said.
The consortium also claims in its white papers that removing PFAS from some parts of the production process could take years or even decades, and in some cases, may be impossible.
This may be true, "but they don't get to wash their hands of the issues" and should intensify research and development into alternatives, said Spentzos. She pointed to a successful 2022 collaboration between the University of Massachusetts and high-tech materials manufacturer Transene to develop a quick and effective alternative to PFAS in the semiconductor etching process.
"They really do need to innovate and create safer alternatives for PFAS," Spentzos said, "and this example shows that it can be done much faster than expected."