TESTS should be carried out in agricultural fields to assess the level of PFAS before any biosolids or slurry are applied, an independent panel advising the Government has recommended.
The same group – made up of experts in both public health and PFAS, which refers to a group of manmade chemicals linked to cancer, high cholesterol and low immunity – also proposes that the Government should provide more information on water filtration systems to the 3,500 or so households in Jersey that use private boreholes.
However, who carries out the field testing and who pays for it – the landowner, land-user or taxpayer – is yet to be the decided, with the panel saying that that is for the Government to decide.
The recommendations from the three-member ‘PFAS Scientific Advisory Panel’ form part of its latest report on Jersey’s response to contamination by the chemical family, which was added to many products, such as floor tiles and outdoor clothing, because of its ability to repel heat, oil and water.
In Jersey, it has caused a particular area of contamination in the west because it was an ingredient of firefighting foam sprayed for many years at the Airport.
However, PFAS is found everywhere, including in trace amounts in mains drinking water, although this is within current permitted limits.
In its latest report, its fourth, the panel have focused their efforts on the environ
Their report was released in tandem with a set of test results compiled by the Government, which showed that levels of PFAS in Jersey-produced food, including Royals and maincrop potatoes, eggs, milk, meat and seafood, as well as soil, were – overall – low and well within EU standards.
Commenting on the soil results, independent panel chair Dr Steve Hajioff said that the PFAS levels “were much better than we thought they would be, which is great”.
He added that biosolids – which are the treated byproduct of the Bellozanne Sewage Treatment Works that is spread on fields as fertilizer – should not be applied if it was going to tip the field over the panel’s recommended PFAS limit.
It would also depend on what was going to be planted in that field, he continued. If it was destined be used for egg-producing chickens, for example, the risk of PFAS passing from soil to humans was higher than if it were an apple orchard.
Other recommendations include that “agricultural land and sensitive land such as water abstraction areas should not be considered to be PFAS-affected unless they contain a sum of four PFAS (PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFNA) that exceeds four micrograms per kilogram dry weight.”
Most fields in Jersey are already below this level – except some within the ‘plume area’ of known contamination near the Airport.
Since the Government stopped pumping groundwater from boreholes at the Airport fire training ground into the foul sewer network, the amount of these four types of PFAS has fallen from around 50 micrograms per kilogram to 14.1.
The panel has also recommended that “for a borehole or well that supplies a single household, public authorities should make available information on different potential treatment options that the owner may wish to consider. That information should include the relative strengths and weaknesses and the necessary maintenance.”
And: “If a household is considering in-home water treatment for PFAS, generally speaking, multistage processes are more effective and efficient than single stage filter jugs (although more expensive). It is important to adhere to the maintenance and replacement schedules of any given product.”
The Government now has five weeks to respond to the panel’s recommendations. Its final draft report will be presented in March. The public can also comment on the panel’s report by emailing PFASpanel@gov.je before 21 January.
