Questions Before ConcreteData centres in England and Wales
Cymraeg · Read in your language

Home › The issues › Chemicals and the local environment

The issues · Chemicals and the local environment

Chemicals, noise and what is left behind

Some of the chemicals that protect and cool data centres are PFAS, the 'forever chemicals' that do not break down. Add round-the-clock noise, waste heat and a building that will one day be pulled down, and the local environment question is wider than it looks.

Why it matters

Once PFAS gets into soil or water it can stay for decades, and cleaning it up is very hard and very expensive. That is why prevention matters more than cure.

Data centres also run all night, so noise and low-frequency hum matter in a way they do not for most industrial buildings.

Key points

  • Nine of the world's ten biggest PFAS makers plan to increase production, several citing AI data centres.[1]
  • The gases used to put out fires in server halls are themselves PFAS under the international definition now used by regulators.[2]
  • In England and Wales, the PFAS limit for drinking water is guidance, not law.[3]
  • A US court approved about $2.5 billion in PFAS settlements in 2026. That case was about chemical factories, not data centres, but it shows what is at stake.[4]
  • We have found no UK or Welsh guidance on safely removing these chemicals when a data centre closes.

Questions you can ask

Drafted in full so you can copy, adapt and send them. See the questions tracker for all of them, with a downloadable version.

Ask: Natural Resources Wales, and the Welsh Government minister responsible for the environment

“What assessment has been made of the use of PFAS ('forever chemicals') in the fire-suppression and cooling systems of data centres operating or proposed in Wales, including the quantities used, the risk of release, and any guidance on safe decommissioning; and does that assessment have regard to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015?”

Follow-up: Not yet asked, so far as we know. A request to Natural Resources Wales via WhatDoTheyKnow would test whether any unpublished assessment exists.

Ask: the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

“In light of ChemSec's September 2026 survey finding that nine of the world's ten largest PFAS manufacturers plan to increase production to meet demand from artificial intelligence data centres, what assessment has the Department made of whether the evidence base underpinning the PFAS Plan accounted for this trend; and does it intend to revisit the Plan's timetable in light of it?”

Follow-up: Not yet asked, so far as we know. A freedom of information request to Defra via WhatDoTheyKnow, seeking any internal assessment of AI-driven PFAS demand, would be a further route.

What you can do

  • Find the application on your council's planning website, and check what the documents say on this issue, or whether they are silent. See Start here.
  • Send the questions on this page in writing and keep copies.
  • If information is missing, ask for it through WhatDoTheyKnow.
  • Ask your town or community council to raise the issue in its response.
  • List your group in the campaigns directory so others can find you.

Read this issue in depth

Sources

  1. Damien Gayle, "'Tidal wave' of Pfas being launched to satisfy AI industry, campaigners warn", the Guardian (14 September 2026), reporting a survey by the Swedish chemicals watchdog ChemSec of the world's ten biggest PFAS manufacturers, which found that nine plan to increase production, several citing demand from AI data-centre cooling and semiconductor manufacture specifically; only Archroma and BASF (by 2028) were reported as moving away from PFAS. This appraisal has not independently located ChemSec's own underlying report or survey methodology, and relies here on the Guardian's reporting of it. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/sep/14/pfas-firms-tidal-wave-forever-chemicals-ai-industry-demand-datacentres
  2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 'Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances' (2021), setting out the broad structural definition of PFAS now generally used in UK and EU regulatory practice. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/reconciling-terminology-of-the-universe-of-per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances_e458e796-en.html
  3. Chemistry World, 'Water regulator applies stricter PFAS limits to drinking water in England and Wales' (2024), reporting the Drinking Water Inspectorate's guidance, expected to take effect from January 2025, introducing a cumulative limit of 100 nanograms per litre across 48 individual PFAS substances for England and Wales - guidance rather than a statutory duty, in contrast to Scotland's statutory limit for 20 named PFAS substances since January 2023. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/water-regulator-applies-stricter-pfas-limits-to-drinking-water-in-england-and-wales/4020476.article
  4. New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, 'Federal Court Approves Historic PFAS Settlements Valued at Approximately $2.5 Billion' (press release, 8 August 2026); see also the joint New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection news release of the same date, and reporting in the Philadelphia Inquirer, 'Federal court approves settlements that will pay New Jersey $2.5 billion for PFAS contamination' (8 August 2026), from which the breakdown of payments between DuPont-related entities and 3M given in the text is drawn. https://www.njoag.gov/federal-court-approves-historic-pfas-settlements-valued-at-approximately-2-5-billion/