The Canadian federal national government takes this step in order to protect the health of the public. They have already issued plans to increase restrictions on the manufacture, use, sale and importation of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). There’s a lot of synthetic chemicals — sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals” — in pretty much every consumer product. You’d see them in waterproof outdoor clothing, cosmetics, stain resistant carpeting and more. The proposed new regulations would attempt to address the harmful substances’ presence. There is worry that this poses an unequal financial burden on smaller municipalities which can’t afford costly treatment technologies.
Rodney Bouchard, general manager of Union Water Supply, shared his concerns about the fiscal capacity of small and medium-sized municipalities. He announced that many do not have the required resources to afford and implement cutting-edge PFAS treatment technology. As he noted, “We need to know what we’re dealing with before we can adapt.” This sentiment is shared by state regulators, utilities, and industries alike as they navigate the unknowns of PFAS treatment.
Currently, only three specific PFAS are banned in Canada. These are perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs). The European Union has a zero tolerance for drinking water. It does so by allowing just 100 nanograms per liter for a total of 20 different PFAS. These disparities further emphasize the need for Canada to reinforce its regulatory framework as fears of water pollution grow.
Health Canada recently issued guidelines for PFAS in drinking water, these are not enforceable and have no legal limits set in any province or territory. Public health advocates maintain that the usual treatment technologies used for drinking water cannot adequately eliminate PFAS from this water supply. Sarah Dorner, an environmental engineer and professor at Polytechnique Montréal is one such specialist. “Conventional drinking water treatment is not effective for removing PFAS compounds,” she stated. Instead, Dorner pushes for pollution prevention to be the focus of PFAS strategy as the best approach to PFAS contamination.
Our last assessment revealed that Union Water Supply had PFAS levels well below the newly proposed maximums. Together, they clocked in at a whopping 13 ng/L. Most communities will not be as lucky. Mark-André Verner, a toxicologist from Quebec, shared a telling anecdote. He pointed out that the majority of Canadian communities are currently protected from elevated PFAS in their water. We can’t wait any longer, because immediate action is key. It needs to be tailored to address the very specific needs and situations of each community.
Kela Weber is among those leading the way to create creative new solutions to combat PFAS contamination. Her project, RADIANT, uses ultraviolet light as a safe and cost-effective method of destroying PFAS compounds. Most importantly, Weber’s approach has proven effective in lab tests by removing not just long-chain PFAS but short-chain PFAS too. She is hopeful about the prospects of her technology entering commercial development in the near future. “As soon as solutions get out there, things will move,” Weber stated.
Despite their clear advantages though, the economic impact of adopting such advanced treatment technologies cannot be ignored. PFAS filtration systems to remove PFAS have multiple costs associated with them. The price tag ranges from $50 to several hundred dollars each, depending on how advanced a level of filtration you require. The necessary upgrades to public water supplies can amount to millions of dollars, creating a barrier for smaller municipalities already facing tight budgets.
Bouchard voiced these worries, highlighting the crucial need of state financial support for municipalities looking to start down this path. “It’s one thing to make a regulation at a desk; it’s quite another thing to implement it and fund the upgrades,” he remarked. This further illuminates a larger problem in that regulations often do not equate to practical solutions absent the appropriate funding and resources.
While some experts warn about the ongoing production and release of PFAS into the environment, others suggest a more cautious approach. As environmental scientist Diamond pointed out, “While we’re taking time to respond, PFAS is being produced, developed, used and released — increasing the environmental burden.” This vicious cycle is a public health emergency, underscoring the need for action to prioritize and expedite cleanup of PFAS contamination.
Given these challenges, experts agree that source control is key. Dorner reiterated that without addressing pollution at the source, things are not going to improve dramatically. “Control at the source is really important,” she affirmed. This leaves proactive measures as the most effective and necessary tools in any real PFAS-reduction strategy.
The growing concern over PFAS contamination has prompted various stakeholders to advocate for a collaborative approach in addressing this public health issue. As Weber aptly noted, “Everyone’s in this risk mitigation mode. And perhaps I-don’t-want-to-know mode, in some cases.” This recognition makes clear the importance of clear and consistent dialogue and education with communities about their water quality and safety.
