2022
PFAS- harmful and present everywhere
PFAS: harmful and present everywhere
PFAS turns up everywhere: in drinking water, food and all kinds of consumer goods. The substances are difficult to purify out of the water and they are harmful even in small quantities. Five European countries are therefore arguing for a prohibition. RIWA-Meuse supports this initiative. André Bannink: "The unfortunate consequences are becoming ever clearer, so we must stop using them."
Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are man-made, repel water, oil, dirt and dust and are heat-resistant. Due to these useful properties they have been used for decades in many industrial processes and products. They are present in foodstuff packaging such as pizza boxes, and also in nonstick coatings of cooking utensils, extinguisher foam, mobile phones, raincoats, cosmetics, biocides, lubricants and solar panels.
Unfortunately, many PFAS prove to be harmful even at very low concentrations. According to the Dutch government, these substances may damage the immune system and cause cancer. Meanwhile, we are absorbing PFAS daily via our food, the products we use and also to a small extent via drinking water.
Drinking water companies call PFAS ‘a problematic substance group’ in the category 'Industrial substances and consumer products.' "They are persistent, i.e. non-degradable, and are therefore also referred to as 'forever chemicals'," explains senior policy advisor André Bannink of RIWA-Meuse. “They are also mobile, which means they dissolve well in water and are further toxic and so come into the new hazard class PMT.”
Theoretically, over six million different PFAS are possible, according to the definition of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Two substances whose production started shortly after the end of the Second World War have already been prohibited: PFOS and PFOA. These substances and also the PFAS substances that are used in the GenX process belong to the RIVM Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC): substances that are hazardous to humans and the environment and that must not be discharged. There are presently 95 PFAS substances in the RIVM list of Substances of Very High Concern.
All drinking water companies in the Netherlands that produce drinking water from surface water have until now applied the target values in the European River Memorandum (ERM). If the water meets these drinking water can be made from it with natural purification techniques. For PFAS, the ERM target value is 0.1 micrograms or 100 nanograms per litre. "There was never more PFAS in the surface water than this amount, so we never discussed it,” says Bannink. "Recently it became clear that this value could very well be much too high."
On 16 December 2020, the European Parliament adopted the revised European Drinking Water Directive. Standards are included here for PFAS for the first time: a maximum of 500 nanograms per litre for all PFAS or a maximum of 100 nanograms per litre each for 20 specific PFAS substances. The Directive is now implemented everywhere. No later than 12 January 2026, the drinking water in all Member States must meet these standards.
Bannink: "At the same time, a discussion is now underway about whether these standards are indeed strict enough because otherwise you do not meet the health and hygiene values of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)." In 2020, the EFSA in fact recommended going to a maximum of only 4.4 nanograms per litre, quite a difference from the 100 nanograms in the European Drinking Water Directive. RIVM recommends, based on the EFSA advice, a maximum of 4.4 ng/l in PFOA equivalents.
The standard of 4.4 nanograms per litre is exceeded everywhere in the Meuse, Bannink is aware. "It will be very difficult to meet the standard of 4.4 nanograms per litre. This means additional purification will be needed: either intensify the existing water purification or build new purification plants to deal with PFAS. And yet Water Framework Directive envisages the purification treatment effort diminishing for drinking water production. While due to the presence of PFAS, the purification effort will in fact increase. This is mutually contradictory."
Purifying PFAS substances out of the water is moreover anything but easy, emphasises Bannink:
”Membrane filtration, in which water is pressed through straws, can be used to remove PFAS. However, this requires a lot of energy and a residual flow contaminated with PFAS remains. In this way, the problem is actually shifted and not solved.”
RIWA is more in favour of the PFAS at the source approach and that the polluter-pays principle should be applied structurally. "To what extent can it be justified that, for the production of drinking water, hundreds of millions of euros to be invested to purify out waste products of third parties? Is it not smarter to stop the production of PFAS?"
How harmful PFAS are, is becoming clearer from scientific studies in recent years. Also it is becoming clear that PFAS are detected everywhere. For example, the German research Institute TZW (DVGW-Technologiezentrum Wasser) detected trifluoroacetic acid in precipitation, mountain lakes and beer. The members of RIWA-Meuse also frequently find this substance in the Meuse. This is also a PFAS according to the OECD definition, states Bannink, and it gets into the environment via air conditioners in vehicles and heat pumps.
It emerges from another study that a non-measurable PFAS that went through a waste water treatment plant emerged in a different PFAS form that can be measured. "At times more PFAS appear to emerge from the plant than went in," he says. "It is certainly very complex and there is still much to discover."
Five European countries are arguing due to these new insights for a European prohibition on the production, use, sale and import of PFAS. In early 2023, the European chemicals agency ECHA published the proposal from the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Germany. The European Commission is expected to make a decision in 2025. "It is indeed only five countries, but these are five influential countries," says Bannink. The members of RIWA-Meuse have already been arguing for a PFAS prohibition for some years.
Forever and everywhere chemicals
Even if a prohibition is imposed, PFAS will remain in the environment for a very long time. This is because the substances have been used on a large scale since the Second World War. Bannink: "They are not called ‘forever chemicals’ for nothing – they don't break down and so they are also ‘everywhere chemicals’. So it is time to stop producing these substances."
In some countries, for example the United States, the standards for PFAS in drinking water are much stricter than those in Europe, states Bannink. "Countries do indeed agree that these are substances very serious consequences. This is no longer disputed."
In Flanders, there have recently been a number of incidents concerning PFAS, and a lot of research is being done. For example, during work to extend the Antwerp ring road, soil contaminated with PFAS was found. This originated from the 3M factory situated nearby (known for Post-its) and just as DuPont/Chemours in Dordrecht is, a major PFAS producer.
Bannink reports: "The idea was to dump the contaminated soil in a pond near the town of Kinrooi. This pond turned out to be connected to the Meuse, from which drinking water is being produced. This attracted much political attention in Belgium, and the plan has now been scrapped. The Flanders government is occupied energetically on PFAS – hopefully this will inspire the other countries in the Meuse river basin, including the Netherlands."
Around half of the PFAS concentrations in the Meuse originate from the Netherlands, and the rest therefore from Belgium, France and Germany. This emerged from research by the knowledge institute for water management KWR, contracted by Vewin, the Association of Water Companies in the Netherlands, in which RIWA-Meuse also collaborated. Rijkswaterstaat Zuid-Nederland is currently investigating from which companies or activities precisely the PFAS in the Netherlands originate.
Rijkswaterstaat WVL on behalf of the Ministry of Infrastructrure and Water management investigated which sectors discharge large quantities of PFAS and is currently consulting these sectors how to reduce the discharge of PFAS. The fire services that use foam extinguishing agents containing PFAS is an example. Bannink: "For 80% of fires, PFAS-containing extinguishing foam proves to be unnecessary, so you can use a substitute agent. This avoids a large amount of PFAS emission."
The paper industry is another sector which WVL consulted. Bannink: "When the greaseproof wrappers around your hamburger or the pizza box that you deposit in the paper container are being recycled, this can result in PFAS ending up in toilet paper or in different kinds of packaging you find in the supermarket. It's therefore important that companies gain more knowledge about this."
RIWA-Meuse for example compared those sectors that possibly discharge PFAS with large companies on the Meuse that are subject to permits under the European IPPC Directive (the purpose of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive is to minimise pollution from industrial sources in the EU).
There are currently no PFAS standards or PFAS requirements in the majority of the discharge permits, because this was never really looked in to, adds Bannink. To his astonishment, PFAS producers are still not obliged to make known to whom they supply. “Some companies don’t even know that they are using PFAS – paper companies that recycle paper with PFAS for example. A factory in Helmond that dried Teflon powder was unaware of its misdemeanour. The PFAS only came to light thanks to investigation of waste water discharges."
Bannink observes that many companies are in the meantime assuming that PFAS substances are on the way out. "So they are busy developing alternatives." He himself in any event has recently replaced all his cooking utensils with PFAS-free ones.