Found in everything from cleaning products to Teflon frying pans, Gore-Tex jackets, food packaging, dental flosses and cosmetics, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission recently developed a list of patents where PFAS is used in consumer products. There were over 28,000 products on the list.
PFAS compounds are strong, stable, and long-lived but don’t easily break down. Linked to several worrying environmental and health effects, they are highly mobile and move quickly through the environment where they can bioaccumulate and bio-magnify.
Every day we’re likely to be experiencing some level of exposure to these forever chemicals. If we continue to use them in consumer products, then further damage to the environment will occur and they will continue to build up in our food chain. Addressing the impacts needs more national scrutiny, says Carole.
“Unlike other countries such as Australia, US and Europe, we have little available data on the presence of PFAS compounds in our environment. Without that data, it’s difficult to understand the impact these chemicals have on New Zealand’s ecosystems and whether restrictions on PFAS use in consumer products or further treatment of discharges from places like landfills, wastewater treatment plants and airports are called for?”
Our risk is a known unknown
In other parts of the world, assessments of the environmental impact of PFAS have been done - including in entire catchments in Europe, Australia, and USA. But in New Zealand, apart from targeted site investigations and some work on groundwater concentrations published by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) earlier this year, there’s been no baseline reporting.
“Because of the mobility of this group of contaminants, our harbours often end up as the sink for PFAS discharges from various sources within the catchment. Wastewater treatment plants, airports, defence facilities, bulk fuel storage facilities, industrial plants and landfills within the catchments of our harbours will all be contributing PFAS load. Our major harbours are also fisheries and provide important ecological and cultural habitats; yet we know little about the impact of PFAS concentrations in these locations,” says Carole.
Rapidly evolving science
The international science on the impacts of PFAS is evolving at such a pace that the New Zealand and Australian EPA’s PFAS Environmental Management Plan is on Version 3 since being developed in 2018.
“We’ve only really started discovering more about the implications of this contaminant and ways to manage it in the last decade. Our traditional approach to soil remediation, excavation and disposal at contained landfill facilities may not be the best solution for this type of contamination. This is forcing developers to rethink how they can manage contamination in-situ with minimal disturbance,” says Carole.
There are some promising moves afoot. Internationally, New Zealand is party to the Stockholm Convention, which classes PFAS’ as persistent organic pollutants, and the spotlight is now being put on methods of treating land which has been contaminated on-site. Kiwi scientists are developing treatment approaches to destroy PFAS in contaminated soils and there are several soil additives that can lock in the PFAS compounds preventing mobilisation to groundwater or surface water. Elsewhere, WSP Global has been investigating and developing new remediation techniques.
Baseline measurements recommended
Will the management and disposal of PFAS get any better under the requirements of the new Natural and Built Environments Act? Technically, it should, says Carole, with the Act having a stronger focus on environmental outcomes and the polluter pays principle. But to do that, we need a better handle on where (and at what levels) PFAS exists in the environment.
“If we don’t understand baseline concentrations, how can we decide what is a suitable outcome; and how can we put the right controls in place and monitor their effectiveness with confidence?
“We don't know if controls being suggested in the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan are effective because we don’t have that baseline data in New Zealand. They could be too permissive, or not stringent enough; we just don’t know.”
Forewarned is forearmed
Carole says a complicating factor with PFAS-contaminated sites is the highly mobile nature of the substance. It’s not unusual for its impact to extend a great distance from the original source.
“You could be mobilising the contaminant when you’re constructing on site. It can build to problematic concentrations very quickly with any soil disturbance. Extremely high concentrations can find their way into stormwater systems and into the receiving environment - oceans, lakes, and rivers, etc.
“If there’s any risk of PFAS contaminants on your site – for example, in old industrial areas - the best opportunity of managing it in an environmentally sensitive way, and of minimising costs and development risks, is to know what you're dealing with before you start construction.”
Public awareness and discussion on the PFAS issues also needs to improve, she says.
“We know this contaminant is an emerging concern for the environment, will build up over time and can enter the food chain. While recent studies provide confidence that our food chain is safe, other research confirms that PFAS is already present in New Zealand’s urban waters. The question of how it got there remains unclear, but it’s important that we consider the controls required to minimise any future build-up of these chemicals in our environment and ultimately our food chain.
“One solution may be considering which consumer and industrial products contain PFAS and explore alternatives that have less harmful properties. And that needs to happen with urgency.”
