‘Forever chemicals’ could be the next big scandal

Water suppliers fear the public storm around PFAS could match that seen for CSOs. Lucinda Dann explores the industry’s key concerns around this emerging contaminant.

For water companies still dealing with the fallout from the storm around combined sewer overflows (CSOs), forever chemicals represent an unwelcome dark cloud on the horizon – a cloud that is not yet defined in terms of size, cost or implication.

So-called forever chemicals are a large group of synthetic chemicals which have been used in everyday consumer goods such as non-stick products, stain-resistant carpets and clothing, and firefighting foam around the world since the 1950s.

These chemicals, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are virtually indestructible and have created a legacy of contamination in the environment. Although the issue first emerged in the United States more than a decade ago, much work still needs to be done to understand the risks PFAS pose to both humans and the environment, and how to eradicate them.

Only one thing is certain: while PFAS is not one of the key issues water companies are dealing with in AMP8, this will change. PFAS received only a brief acknowledgement in business plans submitted by water companies for the period 2025-30, mainly stating that trace levels would be monitored and more learning gained.

But some plans reveal that PFAS are already a concern, with alternative investment pathways set out and costs expected to skyrocket. The biggest overriding issue is the unknown – water companies do not yet know where regulation is likely to go, what public opinion will be and who will be left picking up the bill.

The requirement by the drinking water inspector for water companies to construct an AMP8 PFAS strategy has been a significant driver of conversations on the topic. Utility Week was able to capture the industry’s top concerns at a PFAS workshop at our recent Drinking Water Conference.

Public opinion

Water companies are keenly aware that while scientists and regulators can set safe limits for PFAS in drinking water based on science, ultimately the direction of travel on PFAS will be set by society and its tolerance or intolerance of PFAS.

For instance, Yorkshire Water’s core pathway assumes that future action on PFAS would be in the form of legislative restrictions on certain chemicals, but also notes that if societal intolerance was to significantly increase in the future, then ultimately water companies could be prevented from applying sewerage sludge to agricultural land.

Already the industry is concerned about appearing behind the curve on the issue compared with the US and Europe, as both already have, or have made, firm plans to introduce regulation governing the levels of the chemicals allowed in drinking water.

As well as having no immediate plans to introduce regulation, the guideline levels allowed in the UK are much higher, with the industry already starting to be questioned on its proactivity by broadsheets, including the practice of blending water to dilute levels to below the acceptable limit.

As one attendee pointed out: “We can do everything we can to get below the limit but are we able to even say that to customers if they expect lower levels?”

Water companies are concerned that the media could seize on PFAS as a stick with which to beat the industry with and recognise the need to get ahead and work together as an industry to inform society of the current known risks.

One attendee of the session said: “PFAS is gaining a global audience, and it’s getting bigger. We need to better equip the public with knowledge. The media can run rings around the concentrations and risk factors, but our guidance and risk factors are fine. Despite this our public perception can still take a hit, and we need to work on that as an industry. We need to educate consumers and the public.”

One important piece of context the industry is keen to communicate is the relative insignificance of water as a source of PFAS exposure, as according to the US Environmental Protection Agency only 20% comes from drinking water, with the majority of exposure attributed to food.

But while there are key messages that could be communicated now, the industry will be hampered by the lack of toxicological study that has so far been carried out on PFAS.

Dr Peter Jarvis, professor of water science and technology at Cranfield University and chair of the workshop, agrees with Yorkshire Water that ultimately toxicology will bow down to societal pressure.

“Getting the message out there early would be helpful. The industry needs to get on the front foot on identifying it as a potential problem, but also that it is something we are working on, and the fact that there is a lot of information missing that would be required to do a full risk assessment.

“It’s quite a complex message as there are 200 plus compounds that are PFAS. We know quite a lot about two of them, and we know that they are toxic but there are a whole range that we don’t have any information on.”

To continue reading this article, click here to access the Digital Weekly edition where it was first published.