EPA Urged to Reject PFAS for Datacenter Cooling

CLIFF NOTES

• Seventeen environmental groups asked the EPA to reject Opteon 2P50.
• Chemours wants the PFAS refrigerant approved for two-phase datacenter cooling.
• The coalition says the company understated possible health and climate risks.
• Chemours says the cooling system is closed-loop and releases are low.
• The EPA decision could shape future chemical use across the datacenter industry.

A coalition of 17 environmental organizations is calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reject Opteon 2P50, a new PFAS chemical proposed for datacenter cooling. The groups argue that manufacturer Chemours understated the chemical’s possible health and climate effects while seeking an expedited federal review.

What happened?

Chemours is seeking EPA approval to manufacture Opteon 2P50 for use in two-phase datacenter cooling systems.

In formal comments filed with the EPA, 17 environmental groups challenged the application. The coalition accused Chemours of relying on incomplete or unreliable scientific evidence to present the chemical as less dangerous than it may be.

Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law organization and a lead author of the comments, argued that approving the application in its current form would violate federal law.

The dispute reaches beyond one chemical. It raises questions about how the rapid construction of datacenters may affect public health, water resources, chemical regulation and the climate.

Why are datacenters using PFAS chemicals?

Datacenters produce large amounts of heat. Cooling equipment is necessary to keep servers and other electronic systems operating safely.

Some datacenters rely heavily on water-based cooling. These systems have faced opposition in communities concerned about water availability and the demands placed on local supplies.

Technology companies have promoted two-phase cooling as an alternative that can use much less water. Google and other developers have pointed to the technology as one possible answer to growing water concerns.

However, these systems often replace water with fluorinated gases, also known as F-gases. Some of these refrigerants fall within the broad class of PFAS compounds.

Two-phase systems circulate the coolant through copper tubing. Heat causes the liquid refrigerant to change into a gas. It then cools, condenses and returns to liquid form so the cycle can begin again.

Lenny Siegel, director of the nonprofit Chips Communities United, said the industry’s description of alternative cooling often leaves out the chemicals involved.

“The datacenter industry knows it is under fire for its enormous use of water so they cast themselves as the good guys by using alternative cooling, but they’re not telling [the public] that they’re using hazardous chemicals,” Siegel said. “Some are toxic, some are greenhouse gases and some are both.”

What is Opteon 2P50?

Opteon 2P50 is a fluorinated chemical developed by Chemours for use as a refrigerant coolant.

Public-interest groups contend that the compound may be more toxic and carry greater climate risks than Chemours disclosed in its EPA application.

The chemical is also the first datacenter-related compound submitted for expedited consideration under an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The order calls for faster federal reviews of chemicals intended to support datacenter development.

Environmental lawyers have questioned whether the executive order can legally alter the health and safety requirements imposed by federal chemical law.

What are PFAS “forever chemicals”?

PFAS are a class of approximately 16,000 chemical compounds.

They are commonly called “forever chemicals” because many do not naturally break down. They can remain in the environment and accumulate in people and animals.

PFAS exposure has been linked to serious health problems, including:

• Cancer.
• Liver disease.
• Kidney problems.
• High cholesterol.
• Birth defects.
• Reduced immune function.

The properties that make PFAS useful in industrial applications can also make contamination difficult to control. Once released, some compounds can move through air, soil and water for long periods.

Are two-phase cooling systems closed loops?

Chemours described two-phase cooling as a closed-loop system. The company said the environmental groups’ comments failed to recognize that the equipment does not intentionally release refrigerant through an emissions stack.

Chemours also maintained that only a small amount of gas escapes.

A closed-loop design, however, does not guarantee that no chemical will enter the environment. F-gases can escape through leaks known as fugitive emissions. The refrigerant must also be collected, managed or disposed of when equipment reaches the end of its useful life.

The environmental groups argue that leaks, maintenance activities, equipment failures and disposal could expose workers and nearby communities to the chemical.

What happens when F-gases enter the atmosphere?

The datacenter industry has argued that certain F-gases present a limited threat because they can transform in the atmosphere into trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA.

TFA is generally considered a PFAS compound in many parts of the world. The U.S. EPA does not currently classify it that way.

Recent scientific research cited in the article found that TFA may be more toxic than previously understood. The European Chemicals Agency classified TFA as hazardous, finding that it probably disrupts thyroid function, reduces sperm quality and damages the liver, among other possible effects.

The environmental groups argue that any assessment of Opteon 2P50 must consider both the original refrigerant and the substances it may produce after release.

Why are environmental groups challenging the EPA review?

Earthjustice said the EPA remains legally obligated to evaluate health risks, regardless of the executive order directing the agency to prioritize datacenter chemicals.

Adriana Antezana, a scientist with Earthjustice, warned that a faster review must not become an automatic approval.

“We’re worried that the EPA may interpret ‘priority review’ as ‘priority approval’, and we need to remind them that the executive order has no bearing on assessing health risk,” Antezana said.

The coalition’s comments identified several alleged weaknesses in the scientific information Chemours submitted.

The groups said the company relied in part on a laboratory rat strain that may be less sensitive to certain PFAS effects than humans. They also alleged that important toxicology information was missing, limited or insufficient to establish that the chemical would be safe.

These concerns matter because chemical approval decisions often establish the conditions under which workers, communities and manufacturers may be exposed for years.

Are the proposed worker exposure limits safe?

Chemours cited an occupational inhalation limit developed with assistance from Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, commonly known as TERA.

TERA is partially funded by industry. Environmental advocates have accused the organization of opposing chemical regulations and producing analyses favorable to manufacturers.

Earthjustice argued that the committee organized by TERA did not follow EPA best practices. The organization also alleged that the committee excluded important information from its assessment.

According to the environmental coalition, workers exposed at the limit recommended by the committee could still face unsafe levels of Opteon 2P50.

The comments therefore urged the EPA to conduct an independent evaluation instead of relying on the proposed occupational standard.

How could nearby communities be affected?

The environmental organizations also pointed to Chemours’ history of pollution around some of its manufacturing facilities.

They argued that U.S. drinking water is already widely contaminated with PFAS. Adding another persistent compound to broad industrial use could increase the burden on communities that already face significant exposure.

Under federal toxic chemical laws, the EPA must consider whether a new substance could create an unreasonable risk. The coalition said that analysis should include people who face higher exposure because of existing pollution, workplace conditions or proximity to industrial sites.

The risk may not remain limited to datacenters. If the EPA approves Opteon 2P50 for manufacturing, the decision could make future approvals for other industrial or consumer applications easier.

Antezana said potential use in products such as refrigerators remains hypothetical. Still, the original approval could open a regulatory path for wider adoption.

How has Chemours responded?

Chemours rejected the coalition’s characterization of the chemical.

In a statement, the company accused the organizations of making “sweeping generalizations” about PFAS. Chemours argued that individual PFAS compounds have different chemical properties and should not be treated as though they present identical risks.

The company also defended the federal review system.

The “EPA’s new chemicals review is a rigorous evaluation process,” the Chemours statement said.

Chemours did not respond to the Guardian’s separate request for additional comment.

Why does the EPA decision matter?

The EPA’s handling of Opteon 2P50 could establish an important precedent for the datacenter industry.

Approval could encourage developers to replace water-intensive cooling with chemical refrigerants. That change could reduce direct water consumption at some facilities while introducing different concerns involving leaks, worker exposure, atmospheric pollution, chemical disposal and long-term contamination.

The decision may also test the limits of presidential authority over chemical reviews.

Earthjustice could consider legal action if the EPA approves the chemical without completing the health and environmental analysis required by law.

“We don’t want the government just to approve the chemicals because a company is saying it will help this industry, because that could go for any chemical,” Antezana said.

The central question is not whether datacenters need better cooling. They do. The question is whether solving one environmental problem should be allowed to create another.

What does PFAS datacenter cooling mean for the public?

Communities considering new datacenter projects may need to examine more than electricity use and water demand.

Cooling technology can determine which resources a facility consumes and which pollutants it may release. A system that uses less water may still require persistent chemicals with potential health or climate effects.

Workers may face the most direct exposure during installation, operation, maintenance, leaks and disposal. Nearby communities could be affected if chemicals move into air, soil or water.

Regulators must therefore evaluate the entire life cycle of a coolant. That includes its manufacture, use, transformation products, accidental releases and disposal.

How do reverse osmosis and whole-home water treatment relate to PFAS?

The Opteon 2P50 dispute shows why chemical regulation and drinking-water protection cannot be separated.

Reverse osmosis systems are point-of-use filtration systems commonly installed to treat water used for drinking and cooking. Their performance depends on the specific PFAS compound, membrane, system design, maintenance schedule and water conditions.

Standard whole-home water conditioners are generally designed to address hardness minerals rather than PFAS. Homes concerned about PFAS need treatment equipment selected for the contaminants identified through reliable water testing.

No household system replaces the need to prevent industrial pollution. Treatment can help manage exposure at the property level, but controlling releases at their source remains the broader public-health safeguard.

EPA must decide!

The debate over PFAS datacenter cooling presents regulators with a hard choice disguised as an easy solution.

Two-phase cooling may reduce the amount of water some datacenters consume. Yet the environmental coalition argues that Opteon 2P50 could expose workers, communities and the climate to risks that Chemours has not adequately measured.

The EPA must now decide whether speed will govern the review or whether the chemical will face the full health and environmental scrutiny required under federal law.

Source: The Guardian