PFAS treatment could cost £210m, says Jersey Water

Image caption, Jersey Water says a new water treatment plant to reduce PFAS could cost £210m

Measures to limit the level of "forever chemicals" in Jersey's water could cost more than £200m and take years to implement, Jersey Water says.

A final report by the independent PFAS Scientific Advisory Panel said the company had followed UK standards, but recommended stricter measures .

PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they take a long time to break down, have previously been linked to serious health conditions, including kidney and testicular cancer .

Jersey Water stressed local water was "safe to drink" but agreed the island needed a framework to manage PFAS. Environment Minister Senator Mary Le Hegarat said ministers were working to "fully understand" the report and its findings.

The panel recommended a limit of PFAS in drinking water to be four nanograms per litre.

It said the current UK guidance of 10 nanograms per litre used by Jersey Water was impractical and there should be a specific and local definition.

Le Hegarat said ministers were working to "fully understand the panel's findings, the work already undertaken and the matters requiring further consideration".

She said that would inform a "considered and evidence-based government response".

The head of the Environment Scrutiny Panel, Deputy Hilary Jeune, said the government needed to tell the public how it would balance the risk to islanders and the cost of solutions.

She thought the water was safe, but that it could be made safer and the minister needed to tell people how that would be done.

Image caption, Firefighting foam containing PFAS was used at the airport in the 1990s

In the early 1990s, firefighting foam containing PFAS used on the airport fire training ground leaked into the neighbouring area and private borehole water supplies .

Last year, it emerged a larger area was affected by the chemicals than previously thought.

Campaigners such as Water Awareness Jersey wanted to see more action more quickly, and were concerned the cost could fall on taxpayers who were not responsible for the problems.