The persistent threat of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often branded as "forever chemicals," looms large over the United Kingdom and Europe, with cleanup costs potentially exceeding £1.6 trillion over the next two decades. The UK Environment Agency has identified up to 10,000 high-risk sites contaminated with PFAS, highlighting the gravity of this toxic legacy. Detection of PFAS in drinking water and surface waters across the UK raises alarm bells, as recent data from the Drinking Water Inspectorate reveals numerous instances of contamination surpassing safe levels.
PFAS, a family of over 10,000 human-made substances, have earned the moniker "forever chemicals" due to their persistence in the environment. These chemicals are not only widespread but also notoriously difficult to eliminate. Their presence in the UK's water systems is a growing concern, with 278 examples of untreated drinking water exceeding maximum guidance levels for PFAS. Additionally, an alarming 255,610 samples surpassed levels necessitating measures to reduce concentrations.
If emissions remain unchecked, the financial burden of managing this crisis will escalate dramatically. The UK faces an annual cleanup cost of £9.9 billion, while the bill for Europe could reach an astronomical £84 billion each year. Addressing existing legacy pollution in the UK alone will demand an estimated £428 million annually over the next 20 years.
The public appears ready to embrace increased regulation on industries using PFAS as a viable solution. This sentiment aligns with calls from the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) for enhanced public protections against these toxic substances. The RSC urges the government to enshrine such protections in the recent water special measures bill and advocates for the creation of a national inventory of PFAS. They also propose enforcing stricter limits on industrial discharges to curb future contamination.
“No one chooses the water that comes out of their tap. This bill is a crucial first step, and we also urge government and industry to build upon this change by creating a national inventory of PFAS and enforcing stricter limits on industrial discharges,” said Stephanie Metzger, the RSC’s chemistry policy adviser.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is actively exploring measures to mitigate PFAS risks, including potential restrictions on their use in firefighting foams.
“This government is committed to protecting the environment from the risks posed by chemicals,” stated a representative from DEFRA.
“We are rapidly reviewing the environmental improvement plan to deliver on our legally binding targets to save nature, which includes how to best manage the risks posed by PFAS,” added the DEFRA spokesperson.
Environmental advocates stress the importance of proactive measures to prevent further pollution. ChemTrust, an environmental charity, underscores the staggering cost of regulatory inaction.
“These figures show that the cost of regulatory inaction on PFAS pollution is staggering,” remarked a ChemTrust spokesperson.
From an engineering perspective, prevention is considered more economical than remediation.
“As we move forward, it will be more cost-effective to prevent PFAS from entering the environment through use restrictions and emissions reductions than to pay to treat PFAS in the environment,” explained Ali Ling of the St Thomas School of Engineering.
Current remediation efforts predominantly involve high-temperature incineration, a costly process that underscores the challenges of managing PFAS contamination.
“Current remediation of PFAS-contaminated samples is predominantly through high temperature incineration, which is very expensive,” noted Dave Megson, a PFAS expert at Manchester Metropolitan University.