AT some point, the government’s efforts to reduce the amount of a manmade chemical called PFAS which is linked to cancer and found everywhere in Jersey was always going to hit the hard, cold face of economics.
This collective name for a group of compounds have been dubbed ‘forever chemicals’ because of their tightly bound structure which is slow to break down in the environment and living things, including the human body.
Addressing concerns by residents, particularly those living in a ‘hotspot’ of contamination close to the Airport, the government set up an independent panel of experts in 2023 to advise it on the best course of action to take.
Although the panel’s work is not done, it has already recommended that there should be a legal limit for PFAS in drinking water, and that limit should be four nanograms of the sum total of four of the most common types, and it should be introduced in five years.
However, now – in a similar vein to the Island’s ambition to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 – the economic and practical reality of achieving that target is up for debate.
In short, how much are we willing to pay to rid the Island of a chemical in our water and bodies that may have a detrimental impact on our health?
Environment Minister Steve Luce has said, to paraphrase, “my job is to put forward the recommendations of the experts, and it is up to States Assembly to decide to adopt them”.
Islanders who argue that PFAS contributes to serious and potentially incurable illnesses believe that public health must come first.
Jersey Water, who provides drinking water that already meets all international standards, says the proposed limit is premature because it still needs to work out which technology is best and how much it will cost.
That is the debate to be had.
Setting out Jersey Water’s position, its chief executive officer, Helier Smith, told the JEP: “We fully support the proposed legislation for PFAS and we have been advocating for it actively since 2019, so we are delighted that the government taking PFAS seriously. We do have full support for cost effective and science-based regulation.
“Our response to the proposition as it stands is we feel that it is premature. It does not consider the cost of the technology that we need to implement and the impact on customer bills.
“It has been lodged before the scientific evidence is available and the scientific panel have not concluded their work.”
This week, to reinforce its point, the utility wrote to a Scrutiny panel looking into this, arguing that adopting the ‘four in five years’ proposal as it stood would require a new treatment works costing up to £210m, which could increase water bills by as much 110%, making drinking water in Jersey among the most expensive in the world.
Mr Smith said: “It is really important that when States Members are voting on this proposition, they have a full picture and a full understanding of the implications of setting this important water quality standard, and the impact of that on government funding, but also on customer bills.
“Everyone is safe at the moment and the scientific panel has confirmed that water quality in Jersey presents no cause for concern. This proposed limit is purely precautionary to future proof the water quality in the medium and long term.
“Whatever solution we choose, it needs to be affordable and deliverable, and if our customers can’t afford to pay for it, then that needs to be known up front.”
Mr Smith said that key pieces of work needed to be completed before firm decisions were taken. This included pilot trials which are taking place over the next 12 to 18 months to test different treatment technologies.
One of those, he added, called ‘liquid powdered activated carbon’ was a much cheaper option but it was currently ruled out because it was not expected to reach the 4 ng/l limit and would be dependent on an ongoing ability to discharge its waste onto land, which is due to end.
“If the time were there to wait and see what that treatment solution could actually achieve, we might find it’s perfectly acceptable from a health-based perspective, but also very affordable for the island to implement. But there currently isn’t the time to consider that,” he said.
Mr Smith said that a full picture of the cost implications was important as was the four-years-and-nine-months implementation timeframe.
He said: “We believe that a minimum of seven years is appropriate, given this will potentially involve buying a new location, developing a funding strategy, agreeing that with government, getting planning consent, construction, procurement and commissioning, which on its own takes 12 months.
“The maths dictate that we can’t possibly deliver it in five years if a new treatment facility is required. All of the work to date is based on early-stage data, and there simply hasn’t been the time allowed to develop a fuller, more robust picture.”
Mr Smith stressed that Jersey Water were as keen as anyone to have the PFAS matter resolved: for several years, it has been unable to access boreholes in St Ouen’s Bay and the Pont Marquet valley, which are important sources of water.
He said: “Without them, we are facing even more water shortages than we would otherwise be facing, so it is really important we get them back in service as quickly as possible.
“If they can be treated at source and they deliver low PFAS resources, then that reduces the burden at the main treatment works and potentially reduces the cost and complexity of island wide treatment. But at the moment, we just don’t know.”
As the regulation is currently written – with the legal requirement to reach 4 ng/l within five years – Jersey Water say that the only viable solution is a new treatment works, which would cost between £140m to £210m – which substantially outstrips the size of its balance sheet, so government funding would be necessary.
Mr Smith said: “We’ve ruled out a number of the cheaper options on the grounds of complexity, logistics and water quality impacts, as the regulation is drafted, the only viable solution we currently have on the table is a new PFAS-only treatment facility on a new site.”
This would use ‘granular activated carbon’ and ‘ion exchange’ technologies, as recommended by the PFAS panel, and would require a significant reconfiguration of the existing network.
“A full understanding of the cost implications of PFAS and the impact on customer bills is essential so we can do all we reasonably can to keep them as low as possible.
“How you achieve that is through a collaborative, joint working arrangement with the regulator, so that we can get all of the information relevant to this PFAS decision on the table so it can be considered in the round and a balanced decision taken with all of the information being understood.”
The politician putting the ‘4 in 5’ proposal forward is Environment Minister Steve Luce.
Explaining his rationale to Scrutiny last week, he said: “We have known for six months that the recommendation would be 4 ng/l of PFAS to be reached within five years. That has been informed by a huge amount of data that the Scientific Panel has collected, including meeting with global experts.
“Some of them have said it should be three years instead of five, however the constraints of the two existing treatment works in Jersey made five years an achievable timeframe.”
The minister added that 4 ng/l had been chosen because of the rate at which PFAS accumulates in the body and was always going to be the maximum level.
He added: “I did consider going to consultation on the ‘4 in 5’ proposal but it seemed clear to me that everybody who is involved in water had been consulted heavily over a long period of time, and have been aware of these limits for over six months.
“Given that I made a commitment that I wanted to do something about PFAS within my two-year period [as Environment Minister], I took the decision to lodge the proposition, and we will see what happens.”
Asked about potential costs, he said: “Cost is something that Jersey Water will have to consider. My position as Environment Minister is to try to do the best I can to reduce the levels of PFAS in our water. I think I have given them, through the panel, a very reasonable amount of time to get ready.”
Quizzed about the five-year timeframe, Deputy Luce said that derogations [approved exemptions from the legal limit] had been used in the past for nitrates and he had told Jersey Water that if they were working hard enough at solutions, that a derogation by a future minister would always be a possibility to allow them extra time if they needed it.
“It is incumbent on me as Environment Minister to put forward those regulations, and if other parts of the government or States Assembly want to challenge that, that is what the debating chamber is for.”
Referencing Jersey Water’s warning that bills could more than double under the current proposals, Deputy Luce said: “I am part of a government which is committed to not doing anything which is going to make the cost of living is any worse than it currently is, and I certainly don’t want to see bills going up.
“The [bill increase] numbers have not been explained to me in depth, and I think the big triple-digit numbers [up to £210m] allude to the potential for a brand new treatment works, most likely in a greenfield site, and take over from Handois and Augres.
“My feeling is – and this comes from the PFAS panel – this is not necessarily required. I know the current treatment sites are challenging but I cannot see why they cannot be used.
“If we can utilise the two existing sites, and bolt on additional technology and process to cope with the PFAS issue, that is a much more cheaper alternative than the one circulated by Jersey Water.”
Asked about Jersey Water’s claim that the proposal was premature and would cost hundreds of millions of pounds to implement, Deputy Luce said: “I am not sure it is for me to respond to Jersey Water’s concerns: if we are going to have a debate about the pros and cons, it is for someone else to bring forward the cost implications. Let us have the argument set out on floor of States Assembly.
“If someone wants to challenge the findings of the PFAS panel, who have thought long and hard about this, that is fine. They have not plucked the ‘4 in 5’ numbers out of thin air.”
The debate is due to be held in the final States sitting of the political term, which is due to start on 24 March.
- “By supporting a science-based limit, we affirm that public health must come before institutional convenience” – Letters: p14
