THE FEATURE · FOREVER CHEMICALS
Discontinuing use is one solution to PFAS. Nelson had another idea: breaking the bonds for good.
By
, Chief Marketing Officer
February 15, 2026
Feature · 12 min read
Governments are battling to ban a class of chemicals already in the water, the soil, and the life of nearly every person on the planet. A Canadian company had a different idea: winning the war at the molecular level.
On a grey morning in early February 2026, a British environment minister stood at a lectern in Westminster and called a class of industrial chemicals "one of the most pressing chemical challenges of our time." She was talking about PFAS, the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances better known as forever chemicals. By the end of the day, the UK had a national plan to find them, track them, and over the next decade align its rules with a European push to ban them outright.
The minister, Emma Hardy, was the latest in a lengthening line of public officials to use that kind of language. Across the Channel, French regulators have already prohibited PFAS in any product where an alternative exists. In Brussels, the European Commission is weighing a universal ban. In Washington, the Environmental Protection Agency in 2024 set the first enforceable national drinking-water limits for six members of the family. The chemicals have moved, in less than a decade, from a specialist concern to a front-page one.
Their reputation has earned the move. PFAS are valued by industry for the strength of the carbon-fluorine bond, which makes them slippery, water-repellent, and almost indestructible. That same indestructibility is why they accumulate in groundwater, in farm soil, and in human tissue. The World Health Organization's cancer agency now classifies PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. Studies have linked exposure to thyroid, testicular and kidney cancers, to immune suppression, and to harm in unborn children.
"Forever chemicals are one of the most pressing chemical challenges of our time."
The everyday surface area is vast. PFAS sit inside waterproof jackets and school uniforms, non-stick cookware and dental floss, food packaging and cosmetics, firefighting foam and the membranes used in hydrogen production. "PFAS are now ubiquitous in our everyday lives," the BBC noted in its report on the UK plan, citing university scientists who say the compounds leak into the environment from manufacturing, from laundering of treated fabrics, and from the sludge that water utilities spread on farmland.
"Detection has caught up with daily life faster than disposal has."
The Nelson difference
Nelson's mobile thermal fleet is built to close that gap on site, breaking contamination down where it was found instead of hauling or storing it. On PFAS that capability is at pilot and test-bed stage.
An investigation by CBC News mapped more than a thousand PFAS hotspots across Canada, among them airports, military bases, former landfills and firefighting training grounds, and found measurable concentrations in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, the drinking-water source for tens of millions. In North Bay, Ontario, one resident told the broadcaster she had stopped drinking from the tap and would not start again until the city finished cleaning up a contaminated site at the edge of Trout Lake. In New Mexico, the state attorney general has sued the United States Air Force over a plume drifting from Cannon Air Force Base.
In Europe, the cross-border Forever Pollution Project, led by Le Monde and seventeen partner newsrooms, identified roughly 23,000 contaminated sites and another 21,500 the continent at as much as €2 trillion. In Antwerp, Belgian authorities have already spent more than a billion euros on a single legacy plume around the 3M Zwijndrecht site. In Veneto, Italy, hundreds of thousands of people were exposed for years to contaminated drinking water traced back to one factory.
Europe alone faces a cleanup bill of as much as€2 trillion over the next two decades, from roughly 23,000 confirmed contaminated sites.
The Nelson difference
Trillion-euro estimates assume containment in perpetuity. Permanent on-site destruction changes the math, because a treated site is closed out rather than managed forever. That is what the PFAS pilot work is testing.
Most of the political response so far has focused on the future: banning new uses, tightening drinking-water limits, pushing industry toward substitutes. Few governments have a credible answer for the harder question, which is what to do about the decades of PFAS already in the ground.
The standard response, for now, is containment. Utilities pump and treat. They run contaminated water through granular activated carbon or ion-exchange resin. The PFAS bind to the sorbent. The sorbent fills up. In most cases it is then landfilled or sent to a high-temperature incinerator that, in several recent U.S. cases, has been shown to release the chemicals back into the air. The contamination is moved. It is not destroyed.
That gap is why a company born on the Canadian prairie has begun appearing in briefings to defence agencies and environment ministries on three continents. Nelson Environmental Remediation, based in Edmonton, Alberta, has spent more than thirty years building mobile, high-temperature systems that destroy contaminants on the site where they sit. The company is one of the few groups in the world being consulted on how to do the same for PFAS.
"We are going to be able to reach back into the historical record and actually pull apart and destroy legacy PFAS in the environment. That is an exciting prospect: to give a community a clean water table, reclaimed soils, and the end of the anxiety that comes with this issue."
THE INNOVATOR
Warren Nelson
Co-founder and chief executive of Nelson Environmental Remediation Remediation. He has spent three decades building the mobile thermal fleet now in use across five continents for the permanent destruction of contamination most operators only know how to bury.
Last year Nelson was selected by NATO's Science and Technology Organization to run trials inside a built-to-purpose facility the alliance calls the PFAS Treatment Technology Test Bed. The brief, according to NATO, is to demonstrate that a mobile system can take PFAS-impacted soil and water and break the molecules apart, on the site, without simply transferring the problem somewhere else.
The approach is thermal. At the high, sustained temperatures and long residence times the equipment is designed to hold, the carbon-fluorine bond gives way. The fluorine recombines into compounds that can be scrubbed and captured downstream. The PFAS molecule, as a PFAS molecule, ceases to exist.
The distinction between destruction and containment has become the centre of gravity of the global PFAS conversation. Water UK, the trade body for British water companies, said in response to the UK plan that the problem "will only get worse until chemical companies are forced to stop their manufacture and sale and clean up the mess they've already created."
The two terms are often used interchangeably in press coverage, and that is where most of the public confusion begins. The commercial hazardous-waste incinerators implicated in the air-emissions cases reported by Bloomberg Law were built for general organic waste. They typically operate in a range of roughly 800 to 1,000 °C, with variable residence times and without continuous PFAS-specific stack monitoring. Independent sampling has since shown that under those conditions the carbon-fluorine bond does not reliably cleave, and shorter-chain PFAS and other products of incomplete combustion can leave the stack.
Engineered high-temperature thermal destruction is a different regulatory and technical category. The U.S. EPA's 2024 Interim Guidance on the Destruction and Disposal of PFAS points to sustained temperatures above roughly 1,000 °C, engineered residence time in the oxidising zone, downstream acid-gas scrubbing to capture the liberated fluorine as hydrogen fluoride, and continuous emissions monitoring as the conditions under which mineralisation of the carbon-fluorine bond becomes defensible. That is the engineering envelope Nelson's mobile fleet was designed to hold, and the envelope NATO is measuring against at the test bed.
Parameter
Conventional hazardous-waste incineration
Engineered high-T thermal destruction
Operating temperature
~800–1,000 °C, designed for general organics
Sustained >1,000 °C in the oxidising zone, sized for C-F bond cleavage
Residence time
Variable; not engineered to PFAS-specific kinetics
Engineered residence time matched to PFAS destruction kinetics
Acid-gas / HF capture
Often absent or undersized for the fluorine load
Downstream scrubbing captures liberated fluorine as HF
Stack monitoring
No continuous PFAS-specific emissions monitoring
Continuous emissions monitoring (CEMS) on the destruction train
Documented PFAS / PIC stack release
Independent sampling has detected short-chain PFAS and products of incomplete combustion (Bloomberg Law)
Mineralisation to CO₂, H₂O, and scrubbed HF when the envelope is held
Regulatory anchor
Permitted under general hazardous-waste rules, not PFAS-specific
U.S. EPA 2024 Interim Guidance on PFAS Destruction & Disposal
The distinction matters because it determines whether a treatment pathway ends the contamination or simply relocates it into the airshed. The honest endpoint, scientists say, is a process that breaks the bond.
PFAS contamination is rarely concentrated in one tidy place. It sits under former fire-training grounds and decommissioned manufacturing plants, beneath airports and military bases, and under suburban neighbourhoods built on land filled in by earlier industries. Trucking that material across borders to a fixed incinerator is expensive, politically charged, and in several recent U.S. cases has been blocked by the courts after air-emissions evidence emerged.
Nelson's mobile fleet was designed from the start to travel. The equipment goes to the soil rather than the other way around. For a municipality with a contaminated well field, or a defence agency facing a fire-training plume on its perimeter, the difference between shipping the problem and destroying it on site is the difference between a thirty-year liability and a closed file.
"Detection is no longer the bottleneck. What to do with what is detected is."
In the language of the people who live with PFAS, the word that matters is permanent. Not contained. Not monitored. Not eventually landfilled in someone else's province. For a parent watching a child on a playground built over filled ground, or a farmer whose eggs are no longer safe to eat, the question is whether the chemicals are still in the picture at all.
Permanence has been Nelson's brief for three decades, across hydrocarbon spills, legacy industrial sites, and remote cleanups from Hawaii to American Samoa to the Canadian prairies. The work at the NATO test bed is the same brief, applied to what may be the most difficult class of contamination humans have ever invented. The results are now being measured under international supervision.
Whether the regulators move at the pace of the science, and whether utilities and defence agencies act on what the trials show, will determine how quickly the chemistry on the ground starts to change. The chemistry itself, for the first time, is no longer the obstacle.
IN THE GLOBAL PRESS
UK launches plan to tackle 'forever chemicals' amid growing concernsBBC News · United Kingdom
Mapping Canada's PFAS hotspotsCBC News · Canada
Rise in PFAS Incineration Puts Spotlight on Air Pollution RiskBloomberg Law · United States
QUICK ANSWERS
Full definitions and citations: PFAS, PFOA, PFOS.
CONTINUE READING
AnnouncementNATO Selects Nelson for Permanent Global Solution to PFAS Contamination
Technical BriefPFAS Remediation by Mobile High-Temperature Destruction
Performance StandardNelson's Thermal Remediation Methods: The Global BAT Gold Standard
Technology ComparisonPFAS Destruction Technologies Compared: Thermal, SCWO, Plasma, Electrochemical
DND & AFFF SitesPFAS at Canadian Military Bases: What the Cleanup Actually Requires
Global ReferenceEuropean BAT for Thermal Remediation: The Global Reference Standard
PFAS library
PFAS removal and destructionHow do you remove PFAS from soil, and does removal destroy it?
Read Next
Global•2025Nelson Tapped to Solve Massive Remediation Project in Vietnam
Recognition•2025Nelson Named Remediation Company of the Year, 2025
Tool guide•2026How to use The Hub for contamination research