PFAS: The Coming Storm


Getty Images
As described in the May/June 2023 issue of Water
Canada, the Government of Canada has expressed
an intent to address PFAS as a class rather than as
individual substances. On May 20, 2023, the Government published a Draft State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) report for a 60-day public comment.
The report, among others, proposes to conclude that
PFAS as a class are harmful to human health and
the environment. A Risk Management Scope for
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) was also
published that same day. It was anticipated that the
publication of notice under section 71 of CEPA to
collect additional information about PFAS would
occur in the fall of 2023, but this appears to still be
pending as of publication.
Bill S-5, Strengthening Environmental Protection
for Healthier Canada Act, received Royal Assent June
13, 2023. Bill S-5 amended CEPA by enshrining the
right to a healthy environment, requiring the Minister of Environment to maintain a “Watch List.” Some
PFAS noted under the New Substances Notification
Regulations (Chemicals and Polymers) have already
been subject to prohibitions. But government regulation is often slow and inadequate to the task, and
such may be the case with PFAS.
As often happens, when governments drag their
feet, court decisions can force action. While there
have not been many relevant decisions in Canada
to date, looking south of the border can often be
illustrative of what is coming north. One notable
settlement involved 3M and 300 different water
providers, relating to a class action lawsuit over PFAS
in firefighting foam. 3M settled for US$10.3 billion.
Another suit involving Chemours Company FC
resulted in the certification of two classes of plain-
WAT E R C A N A D A . N E T
tiffs – public utilities and more than 100,000 North
Carolina residents whose groundwater was affected.
Now that Canada has a mature class action regime, it
is just a matter of time before a significant settlement
or decision makes the news here.
Though lawsuits may result in changed thinking
about further use of these substances, this still does
not answer the question: what can be done to reduce
concentrations of PFAS in drinking water and in the
general environment? The answers, unfortunately,
appear very expensive. There are several methods
that have been developed to reduce levels of PFAS
in drinking water, although none fully eliminate
the chemicals. Furthermore, the cost of implementing and maintaining any of the methods requires
significant capital. For example, Orange County,
California, estimates the infrastructure required to
lower the levels of PFAS in their drinking water
to recommended levels, not fully eliminating the
chemicals, will cost upwards of US$1 billion. In the
words of chemist Rae Eaton of the Hazardous Waste
and Toxics Reduction Program at the Washington
State Department of Ecology, “We’re using chemicals
that can last for hundreds of years, sometimes for
products that get used for 45 minutes, and then they
go in the trash or they go in your compost.”
With governments still dealing with the debt
build-up through the pandemic, it is daunting to face
the prospect of significant new and ongoing costs
for critical resources. Clearly, our priorities need to
include safe drinking water, and to eliminate, minimize, and make safer the application of these useful
but dangerous chemicals. With increasing negative
health effects, the PFAS storm is something we are
going to need to weather together.
PFAS are a complex group
of synthetic chemicals
that have been used in
consumer products and
firefighting foam since
the 1950s. Due to their
chemical bonds, they don't
degrade in the environment
and have serious
negative health effects
on humans and wildlife.
WATER C AN ADA • M ARCH/APRIL 2024
11
Paperturn flipbook