Welcome, everybody, to the latest meeting of the Environmental Audit Committee, our final hearing in our inquiry on addressing the risks from perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAS chemicals. In today’s first panel we are joined by representatives of the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. Starting with yourself, Dr Daniels, can I invite you to introduce yourself and your role within the organisation and particularly its relevance to the subject of PFAS?

Thank you, Chair. I am Dr Richard Daniels. I am director of the chemicals regulation division, which is part of the Health and Safety Executive. I have been involved with UK REACH for just over the last five years. I took up the position when the UK left the EU, so standing up the agency. In law, HSE is the agency for UK REACH. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I am Liz Parkes from the Environment Agency. I am a deputy director there and I lead our work on chemicals, climate change and market regulation. I took over the chemicals work just under two years ago, but I have been a long-standing regulator with the Environment Agency since we were formed in 1996.

Good afternoon, everyone. I am Matt Womersley. I manage the Environment Agency’s chemical regulatory development team. We have responsibility for the regulation of persistent organic pollutants and mercury, and we co-ordinate the Environment Agency’s work on PFAS.

Okay, great. Some of our questions will be to Dr Daniels. I think the questions for the Environment Agency we will probably direct towards yourself, Ms Parkes. If you think Mr Womersley would be better to answer them, we will leave you to decide that. I will start with you. How do you ensure that your evidence gathering and scientific analyses are shared and aligned with other regulators and advisory bodies in this space?

It is really important that we build on the very best evidence globally, across Europe and across the UK. There are many fora through which we share our evidence and build on that of others. For instance, there is the NORMAN network that accesses research from 70 organisations’ analytical work. We work in close partnership with sectors such as the water sector through the chemical investigations programme, and we try to make all our information as publicly available as we can. You will appreciate this is a very complex area, and we think there is more we can collectively do to help share understanding across the UK and enable every public body and every company to take the action it needs to take.

Dr Daniels, how do you think the evidence gathering and scientific analysis that your organisation does is shared with other organisations and other regulatory bodies? Is there room for improvement in that cross-departmental work?

We do work closely with other regulatory bodies, certainly with the Environment Agency, which is part of the REACH network. We work closely with people like the Office for Product Safety and Standards and the Food Standards Agency. We attend a number of Government Committees, such as the Committee on Toxicity and so on, so we are fully joined up across Government. The information that we have, and when we are taking forward work in REACH, we do put that out into the public domain. We currently have a public consultation that is due to end in two weeks’ time on firefighting foam, which we may go into, where all our analysis and information is put into the public domain, including all the conclusions of previous work on REACH. In that regard, we try to share what we have. The information and conclusions that we have we do put into the public domain. That is a requirement of REACH and we are very open in doing that.

Okay, great. From your perspective, do you think that your organisation has the capacity to deliver on the responsibilities that have been set out in the new PFAS plan? Is there anything within that that would cause you concern in terms of your current capacity?

In terms of the PFAS plan, no. We have been heavily involved with that, with colleagues from DEFRA, who clearly have the policy lead and the strategic responsibility. Every year we develop a work programme that is agreed across it, and that is always based on the resources that we have. The area in the PFAS plan for HSE, the firefighting foam one, is the priority. That was the priority agreed in 2023. We are taking forward and aiming to complete a recommendation to DEFRA by the end of this work year. The other three actions specifically for HSE are now what next, moving on to the other areas where we will be engaging with DEFRA and others to identify the best way to take that forward, and which things to target next. At this moment we have no concerns over our ability to deliver that.

Ms Parkes, there have been observations that over a considerable number of years the overall resources in the Environment Agency have reduced. This Government, and the previous one, are very focused on water regulation and that aspect. To what extent do you feel that the Environment Agency is properly equipped to enact the things that might be envisaged as a result of the PFAS plan? Are there any knowledge or resource gaps within the organisation that exist if we are going to take more stringent regulatory action on PFAS?

Perhaps I can first just explain how we are funded at the moment to do this work and then come to the new PFAS plan. DEFRA has been funding us for a number of years, and we have about £10 million specifically targeted at our work on chemicals in the round. PFAS is a part of that. Probably about a quarter of that effort goes on to PFAS, but we do need to focus on other chemicals as well. That enables me to have access to an amazing team of about 100 professionals across our organisation who have expertise on science, on monitoring, on different media, on different sectors and on regulatory regimes. That funding enables us to deliver quite a wide range of programmes focused on chemicals. Over the years we have been advancing our knowledge and understanding, and the monitoring. We are at that point now where we are evolving our approach to focus more on what we can do as a consequence of the regulation. That funding covers the programme of work we do currently. Obviously, the PFAS plan that has just been published sets out some additional actions. It is probably fair to say about half of the actions in the plan will fall to the agency and probably half of those again we are already getting on with. However, there is undoubtedly new action in there, as you might expect. What we are going to need to do is to unpack with Government what that looks like. It is not just about funding; it is about capacity and priorities. We need to take a balanced view in the Environment Agency about all the work we need to do to protect the environment and public health and make sure that we can spend the money we have got from Government wisely to deliver that. Longer term, it is challenging because this is grant in aid funding, and I think you will all appreciate that regulatory work needs to be put on a sustainable charging footing so that the polluter is paying and we can spend public money as sensibly as we can. That would be my planned overall direction of travel.

This is a question for Richard Daniels. The Government have made a commitment to take regulatory decisions that are made by other trusted jurisdictions as the starting point for action under UK REACH. How will the Health and Safety Executive provide expert support to the Government in that endeavour?

The first thing is that I think it has been recognised in the commitment that currently we cannot do that because of the way that the law is framed. Therefore, we will support DEFRA with those changes to actually help us do that in practice—for example, just for HSE to directly say that we will do what, for example, the EU as our nearest and closest partner in terms of regulation does. However, that does not mean that we are not aware of what the EU is doing. It does put a lot of information in the public domain through the European Chemicals Agency that we look at. We look at it closely because having been part of that network six or more years ago, and I have people working for me who were part of that network, it is respected and trusted. The people there do good science in terms of having that technical basis. It helps to have that starting point to see what is being done and perhaps some of the challenges that the EU has faced. Once we get to the point of saying we perhaps do not need to do everything that the current REACH legislation requires of us, we can look at how that accelerates the process. It is very much about that front-end technical analysis, which we might be able to speed up using what the EU, for example, as a trusted jurisdiction has done, and then look at what that means in practice for the UK. There may be some bits that are different for us in the UK that are not part of the EU norm.

You are suggesting a pick and mix—take the best bits and take them forward?

The thing is, why would we as a regulator ignore what other people have done where it is based on good science and evidence? That does not make sense. The reason why we are in the position is when we left the EU, if you like, the legislation was frozen and some changes were required. We set up the agency under UK REACH. Other bits under my responsibility are the chemicals regulatory systems. We have been on that path of having an independent approach. We have not been able to engage at a technical level with the EU, but I would very much hope going forward that we can take the best of both worlds—as it were, be as close as we can where it makes sense—but obviously advise Government if we need to tweak or change where there may be issues.

On that EU point, I will hand over to my colleague Martin Rhodes.

In terms of greater clarity, you are saying that at the moment the European Chemicals Agency puts information into the public domain, which is useful, and you look at that. How do you see yourselves actually using that information going forward? Are you saying it will develop from just looking at it to actually using it?

In terms of our current way of working, because in a number of areas the EU are ahead, they put out a technical assessment or a risk assessment, in terms of the analysis, and my colleagues and experts in HSE look at that as a basis for trying to shape how we should approach it, and what the EU have identified as some of the hazards and so on. Some of that, and the requirements of REACH, require us to do our own analysis, so some of that may happen from scratch, and some of it may use the things in the public domain. Looking at it, we say, “Yes, that is relevant; that is appropriate.” We do not need to, if you like, second-guess that. We use it as the basis. That is the way it is built in. The current requirement of the legislation is that we have to form our own view and our own opinion. There are various tests for REACH. If you are heading for a restriction, what are the alternatives? Are they viable, for example? What is the socioeconomic impact of applying these things in practice, for example, in the UK environment? That can be very different from at an EU level. There may be some areas that have been looked at in the EU that are not as relevant for the UK because the substances or the particular uses are not that big in the UK, but they are for the EU. It is an informed use of that information because it is publicly available. What we do not have access to at the moment is, as the EU are working through these things, the early information—the evidence and the discussions at an expert level that we used to have. We are always, if you like, behind and using public information, not as part of the mechanism as it is developing and emerging. I don’t know if that helps.

It does. The situation, if I understand what you are saying, is that you have that information once it is in the public domain, but you are not part of that earlier process of seeking the evidence. We do not have that ability.

Yes.

In terms of the development and the work here in the UK and how it might diverge and how you might advise us to do things differently, I think in your last answer there you were beginning to talk about that possibility. On what basis would you advise the Government that the UK should diverge from the European approach?

It is interesting when you talk about divergence because—if you will allow me, Chair—I think there can be divergence in timing, which is where we may well end up at the same place, but the length of time it will take to get there may be different between ourselves and the EU. At the moment for UK REACH, the EU is largely ahead of the UK, but for other areas that I am responsible for—for example, in pesticides—we are ahead of the EU in some areas. There is a thing where we will end up at the same place; it is a matter of time. The second thing is divergence on where we may end up advising or recommending a different decision. That could be because we recognise and agree that there is a problem to be solved but REACH may not be the solution for that. There may be other legislation that we have at our disposal in the UK that can control the risk adequately. That is not disagreeing with the outcome; it is about the means to achieve it. We do not disagree ultimately with what the EU says. I suspect that in the vast proportion of cases, it will not be the case that we would take a fundamentally different view from the EU, certainly in the technical space. It will be that subtlety of what it means in practice in terms of alternatives, perhaps transition periods, and scope. We did take a different approach on the analysis in our earlier bits of REACH on how to group, for example, PFAS as a way of prioritising. In terms of that thinking and methodological approach, we were diverging from the EU for a particular reason, but having done that—for example, with firefighting foam—we are aligned with the EU on the definition for PFAS. Just in that quartered divergence, it depends what lens you are looking at it through. Is it going to be the outcomes and protections that we are seeking? I don’t think we would disagree that what the EU is trying to do is what the UK is trying to do. It is over what timescale and how best to get there. As I say, in the vast proportion of cases, I suspect we will be close to, if not the same, as the EU. That is certainly where we are with the firefighting foam restriction. Our proposals in terms of what to do and how to do it are no different at this point in time. It is merely the implementation date of when that is likely to come into effect.

Just so that I am clear on that, where you see divergence it is largely likely to be around the timing and the process of that implementation rather than a divergence from the end point to where you want to get to.

If you look at it in REACH terms, agreed, but if you look at it in terms of PFAS, I think it is a very different approach there. There is the generic single restriction for PFAS that currently the EU is working on, with five member states and the European Chemicals Agency spending many years saying, “We want to restrict everything,” and then actually identifying in the process that it is quite difficult to do that—so there are essential uses, and 50 things already where it may not apply or that have indefinite transition periods. Whereas, at the moment, our thinking is to start by tackling the things that are the priorities and build up to things and then restrict. There is a slightly different philosophical approach there. Either you aim to ban everything and then find perhaps you cannot in some areas, or you build up a bit more slowly or gradually in a prioritised way, knowing that you can take action.

I have one final question. You see that as being a different approach as opposed to a different end point that you want to get to. One is saying, “We should ban everything and some things will have to have exemptions because they are going to take longer.” The other is we start by looking at them all individually and we build up to get to the end point where we ban them all eventually.

I think that it is about how you group them in terms of looking at the stages. Ultimately, I think better control and better prevention of exposure through regulatory means and REACH is an end destination. Obviously, history will always judge whether you have ended up at exactly the same place. It is almost that approach of how to get there.

I have been going through all the action points in the plan and the question that arises in my mind is: why are you prioritising measuring harm over preventing harm? Virtually every action point is about, if I go to the very start, having to “continue to monitor and report annually”, “Make the Environment Agency’s…multicriteria Geographic Information System…prioritisation map accessible” or “Commission research to better understand”. Action 1.7 is, “Undertake further research” and action 2.2 is, “Consider our approach towards further”—it all seems to be about monitoring, yet we have a huge body of evidence available to us from the EU. Instead of saying, “Let’s look at this on a class basis,” we are struggling to deal with one, which is the PFAS in firefighting foam.

With respect, the plan is DEFRA’s plan of which HSE is part. It provides technical advice—

Yes, but you said you broadly agreed with the plan earlier in responding to the Chair. You said you had been involved in every part of the implementation of the plan and you agreed with it. What are the elements of the plan, then, that you disagree with?

No, sorry, if I can qualify what I said or intended to say, the bits in terms of our involvement are in relation to those specific actions assigned to HSE. The plan has many other actions for other regulators or other agencies that have the leads in those areas. When I have supported the plan, that is in the context of HSE’s input to those things that fall within our remit.

Is that part of the problem then, that what we are dealing with is people looking at this from their own perspective—you as one regulator and DEFRA as another regulator? You can all be saying, “My patch is all right,” but nobody is joining this up to get something done to protect the public.

Can I come in at this point? It is a very good point you are raising about the balance between advancing understanding and knowledge and actually taking action. I would say that we are certainly taking that holistic look with DEFRA at chemicals in the round and at this PFAS group in particular. There are particular restrictions and a better evidence base around certain types of PFAS, so PFOA and PFOS, where the health evidence is much more advanced. They have been around longer and therefore there are standards. There are restrictions around those certain types of PFAS. For other types of PFAS—and there are many and this is an evolving picture, which is part of the complexity—it is important that we have a better understanding about what is out there in the environment, and it is important that we have a better understanding about how that is behaving in the environment. Perhaps if I can just take a moment to describe the approach we are taking in the Environment Agency, it is not just to enhance our understanding but what the action is that we take as a result. First, our approach to understanding is to take what is called a non-targeted screening approach to try to detect what is out there in the environment. That sounds quite straightforward. It is actually considered to be quite a state of the art, advanced—

Sorry, I appreciate you are trying to explain this in context, but when you say find out what is out there, my understanding is that there are not just a few hundred but tens of thousands of individual ones. If you adopt a specific approach one by one you will never do it. That would also ignore that there is a cumulative effect that then resides in the soil or the water of the different ones all coming together.

Absolutely. If I may just continue to describe the approach we are taking, it is building an evidence base that is understanding what is out there at a broad level and then understanding where it is present. That all then informs our very targeted monitoring. We take very targeted monitoring samples across thousands of locations. We then put that together with our understanding about the sources of PFAS, the different sectors, the intensity, and where we think the risks are greatest. We use that information to target the action. We can explain in a little more detail some of the sectors that have been causing concern and why we have been focusing a lot of our regulatory effort on particular sites, so things like the firefighting foam and concerns about certain sectors like metal plating, textiles, paper and pulp, and the waste sector. We are using all this intelligence to focus where our efforts and interventions are, because it is important that we do not focus on one PFAS group to the exclusion of another. Does that help to explain the way in which we are targeting our action?

I think it raises a fundamental problem for me, which is that you are looking at where the problem exists rather than looking at how to stop the problem starting.

I think, with respect, we have to do both. Ultimately, we need upstream action such as REACH and other restrictions under either the Montreal protocol or the Stockholm convention. We need global action to take products and substances off the market. That is really important because once it is out there in the environment it is very challenging to tackle.

This year the EU is doing that, isn’t it, on a class-based approach, but we are not?

If I could just come in on that, we are approaching it on a grouping; we are not doing it substance by substance. The reason for the approach to firefighting foam is that is the most prolific entry point: 48 tonnes a year go through the firefighting foam. In terms of that upstream prevention part for which HSE and REACH can input, it is tackling that. That is what we are currently consulting on with a view to there being restrictions that then come into place. It is the combination of stopping things in the future, taking the targeting action to do those things that are biggest, and then working with the Environment Agency to see what else is there because, of course, there are legacy issues. That is where we do work together and that is where the system has to work together, both on stopping things coming in but also dealing with what is already in the environment system.

Dr Daniels, you are in the hot seat for a bit longer, because I have three questions for you. You will get a bit of a breather after that. Thank you very much for your patience. HSE is consulting at the moment on restricting PFAS in firefighting foam, as has already been mentioned. What level of evidence triggered that consultation and made it feel like that was an imperative and now is the time?

For firefighting foam?

For firefighting foam specifically, yes.

We were asked by DEFRA when we moved out of the EU and into the situation of setting up REACH where we should put effort. It commissioned some work on restrictions where the EU had already taken action, so lead in ammunition—relatively recently we have done work on restrictions there in the proposals—and tattooing and permanent make-up. Those are two pieces of work that we were asked to do specifically as the priority and we completed. Those have been accepted by DEFRA, which is taking those forward. Not to digress, but two restrictions are work in progress. Alongside that, the issue of PFAS clearly was in the domain. The way to approach that was we were asked to do what is termed a regulatory management option analysis, which says, “Look at PFAS because it is so big, because it is one of those very complex, wicked problems to approach, and work out how to get from A to B.” As a result of that regulatory management option analysis, where we work with the Environment Agency and other regulators and get the best information, it was identified the first place to start, the critical place to start, was with firefighting foam. There was a recommendation that we need to work across the various Government Departments and agencies and work collectively in this, and DEFRA can no doubt talk to that. Clearly, the PFAS plan is a manifestation of that happening in practice and doing that. Then we identified other areas where, having done firefighting foam, we would next move to. That was an issue that had been emerging clearly when we were part of the EU. Having now set ourselves up as the agency not just for PFAS but for other harmful and hazardous chemicals or substances, we were dealing with those where there was a health or environmental impact, then starting to make inroads into PFAS. That was the journey to get us where we are. In terms of the evidence, it was the analysis that we needed to do. Clearly, we had some information we could draw on from the EU, but we needed to look at that ourselves. That risk assessment, which meets the requirements of the legislation, is asking what is the problem, how big, are there alternatives, what are the impacts. They are all the things that we have been doing our work on and are in that public consultation now that ends in two weeks’ time. We will then be taking any comments that we have received to develop the formal recommendation. We have already started consulting on transitional periods and so on, but before we get to a final end point we have to know whether, if the firefighting foam that contains PFAS were to be restricted, there are alternatives. There are in some areas. Are they viable and how long would sectors need to move to a PFAS-free firefighting foam environment? Our current proposals range from taking some actions six months from when the law would come into effect, as a transitional period, to up to 10 years. The longer time would be for some of the very high hazard chemical plants, for example, where the efficacy of alternatives needs to be demonstrated and proven. We have that pathway and we are delivering the plan to the timescale that we are able to deliver.

As an aside, it seems from our visit to a firefighting foam manufacturer that there are viable alternatives and they are mostly now working on clearing up the legacy toxicity on their site.

Certainly, for many of the small scale uses of the foam, yes, there are alternatives and some are being used worldwide. The challenge is how you move from one tried and tested foam that works and get that across the sector with the confidence that it is going to work, particularly at that major hazard end. In our proposals for general uses of firefighting foam, the transitional period of 18 months is what we are currently thinking of. This is a relatively short cut-over period but clearly having to make sure that the country is still equipped and firefighters, brigades and rescue services have the right tools to use when they are needed.

That brings me on to my second question about whether that decision on restricting PFAS in firefighting foam is likely to be implemented in line with the EU restriction coming into effect.

In terms of timing, we will be after the EU. Depending on how fast the legislation comes in, it may be one or two years behind. It depends on where we are. REACH does set out in law fixed periods, for example, for public consultation and so on, so we do have to go through a process. We are aiming to get our final recommendation to DEFRA by the end of this calendar year. That is what we are aiming for.

This is my final question, which you have already touched on. You mentioned that once you have dealt with the firefighting foam as being the highest priority, you will then be looking at other consumer products. Will you be looking at a similar level of evidence needed for that as for firefighting foam?

In terms of the evidence, the starting point is REACH and its requirements. That is, that there is a risk that is not adequately controlled. How helpful is that? It says “a risk” and whether it is adequately controlled, but then it does break down a little bit further. That threshold is what we are going to have to make a decision on. Clearly, where the EU has reached a technical bit for certain things, we could say yes, because of the knowledge of areas of PFAS—and this is where you do take a grouping approach of how you divide the PFAS cake up—and know where to concentrate the efforts. If there are then alternatives that are suitable and adequate to perform that function, or that function is not needed and a restriction is the way to do it, and that is practical and can be enforced, then we could move as quickly as the law would allow us to move to get to the conclusion that these things now should be restricted—or at least a proposal. We know already that there are some areas—again, this is the conversation that we have to have with DEFRA with building out the consultation—and some PFAS where there are no alternatives, but they are in use and critical in some areas of health, net zero and so on. That is where the EU is getting into problems, saying there are no alternatives or, if there are, they may be worse than the one we have already. That is the fine art of trying to work our way through what is at the moment quite a large, wicked problem to navigate our way through.

I have a quick supplementary question to that. Clearly, 100 years ago we did not have PFAS, so we used to manage to conduct civilised life without PFAS. What things do you have in mind when you say that there may be some things where there is no acceptable substitute?

I can write after the event, but in terms of some uses, because technology has moved on and how it functions, the PFAS now is not easily changed. If you take, for example, waterproofing of clothing, then yes, we will have alternatives. Those areas may be much more readily amenable to replacement. In some of the more specialised or technical areas, it may not be as easy, so you would almost require technology to play catch-up to say what the alternatives are that may not exist at the moment but could become viable. There are other areas where REACH may not be the best way to tackle these. Other regulations that we have—for example, biocidal control or pesticides and so on—can regulated in different ways. The EU is talking about sectors and those essential uses where there is no answer at the moment and saying, yes, it will ban them but at the moment it will have an indefinite transition period. If you work through the consequences of that, you need to carry on doing what you are doing until such time as there is something better. That is the level of detail we are going to have to get into to say there are clearly areas where we can take action and recommend that to Government, but there are other areas that are going to be a bit trickier. What we need to do is make progress where we can.

Let me start by explaining the approach, and I will then pass to Matt on the detail of that. You are right that we use a combination; it is not one or the other. The non-targeted screening is to work out what might be present in the environment; the targeted is getting to what levels and where. We can then move to a much more targeted, quantitative monitoring as opposed to screening. It is that monitoring that we need to understand at what levels and where, and what are the sources that we think we need to target. That is a general description of the approach. Perhaps Matt can give a couple of examples of that.

The Environment Agency is building up its expertise on what we call the fully quantitative analysis. This is where we are looking for a very specific PFAS and we want to know exactly how much is in the environment. This is used to inform our regulation as well, so we need to understand what individual PFAS are, particularly the ones where there is science and evidence showing that they are more harmful. We are looking at those to try to identify the sources and manage those through our regulation. The other thing is that if you zoom right out and look at total PFAS load, we have done a comparison of that. So we know the whole volume of PFAS in that stretch of river and then we compared that with the individual PFAS we are looking at, and we think we are capturing about 80% of the load. That is quantity of PFAS; it is not an individual PFAS. That additional 20% will be your thousands that are not being detected. The other critical point here is how these PFAS behave in the environment. We know that they are incredibly persistent, but many PFAS will break down, some within days, some within months, into what we call arrowhead substances. These are the ones that we are looking for. They will break down but to form other PFAS, so we are focused on monitoring those. It is a combination using tools that can support each other and develop our science. We are doing more work in the coming year on total load of PFAS as well.

I will start off on that. It is important to have standards so we know what we are aiming for. At the moment, there is only one statutory environmental quality standard on water and one for biota for PFOS. That is a challenge, not just for monitoring but in terms of those that want to develop, say, clean-up technology. You need to know what you are aiming for. That is a gap. What we are doing, and in fact we published some research last week, is setting out thresholds for PFAS based on health limits. Although we are still working out how best to apply these, we thought it important to share this emerging evidence and the approach we are taking, again so that we can give industry an indication of where they need to head, as well as how we can apply this in practice through our permits. We are sharing the evolving science and continuing to have that discussion about what is the best way to use that to set limits. It is a real challenge when those standards do not exist. Although I have referenced the one environment quality standard around water, there are no international limits for air or soil. It is very challenging to regulate in that space. Did you want to add any colour on that, Matt?

I could not be absolutely certain about the question as well, because within the analysis and monitoring we use the word “standard” to refer to thresholds, as Liz has talked about, but also in terms of laboratory standard. If we want to know how much of PFAS X is in the environment, and we want to be very specific on the actual quantities, we need to have a standard that is the pure substance of that PFAS X to be able to compare that with. This is why it takes time to develop the laboratory techniques that we now sample for 67 individual PFAS. You need to have that information. That is the other standard. I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion there in terms of standards used for thresholds.

This is a question to Ms Parkes. The PFAS plan commits to new guidance for legacy PFAS. What approaches to PFAS remediation does the EA consider to be effective? How is cost factored into assessing what methods are viable, presuming they are all expensive?

Remediating land is very tricky because, as I said, there are no standards for PFAS in soil or air, and it is challenging in water as well. There are a number of mechanisms that exist for guiding the clean-up of land, and traditionally we have the part 2A contaminated land sector that has been in place for quite a long time. Increasingly, land clean-up is being tackled through the planning process. What is important there is something like 90% of contaminated land is now addressed through the planning process. It is important that it is cleaned up to the standard of the new use of the land rather than what it was being used for at the time; that is what the part 2A process will apply to. The threshold evidence that we put out last week is part of the work that we are doing to try to guide how you set standards, not just to monitor but so that the clean-up industries know what they are aiming at. It is particularly tricky to do and there are no technologies at the moment that will necessarily achieve the required standard. I am told and, in fact, you have taken evidence from parties who have said, that these are evolving all the time. Matt, do you want to add a bit of colour about what is happening in practice out there?

The remediation that might be necessary for some historic contamination would usually be done case by case. In some cases, contamination is not going anywhere—there is no route of exposure—so the safest thing might be to leave it there to make sure you do not open those exposure pathways. In terms of remediation, there are technologies that are developing. When we have spoken to the companies that are trying to push that technology on to the market, what they need is some certainty around the future. They will innovate; the science is emerging and the technology is following. We are very interested to continue to work with stakeholders like that to improve what we can do with treating PFAS.

Do we need a reinstated contaminated land fund in order to support the cost of PFAS remediation?

The contaminated land regime is an effective mechanism, and it starts by working with who the various parties could be that are the polluter and then working out what is needed to achieve the level of clean-up. There has also been some very good work done by CL:AIRE, the body that sets the guidance for the sector, to try to come up with something that is practical so the sector knows what it is aiming at. You are rightly saying that how that is paid for continues to be a challenge. We know that there is now a new fund out there for pathfinder projects that allows people to innovate and see what is possible for different sites. A lot of this is quite cutting edge and we are going to need to keep working and supporting local authorities, as we do, on sites to help with the site by site decisions, until some of those standards and principles that are needed emerge.

In terms of removed PFAS, are we going to be able to destroy all removed PFAS given the limited capacity of high-temperature incineration in the UK?

Again, this is a challenge because with the various treatment techniques, whether you are looking at waste, sludge or soil, ultimately the residues have to go somewhere and you then have a much more contaminated set of residues. At the moment, you are right, it is the high-temperature incineration that exists. We have varied the permits of the high-temperature incinerators to make sure that they are operating at a sufficiently high temperature, 1,100°, to destroy the PFAS in there. On the back of the plan, now that the plan is published and sets out the direction of travel, this gives the various sectors something to look at and see where the evolving markets might be. At the moment, it is the high-temperature incineration, the long-term storage and those kind of options. Setting those standards will allow the sector to evolve and develop the technology.

Ms Parkes, you talked about the plan there, and you talked about costs. The Environment Agency has estimated the cost to clean up the PFAS problem sites and said that just to clean up those problem sites alone could cost between £31 billion and £121 billion. Yet the plan makes no mention at all of cost. Presumably, these are things that will ultimately devolve on to the taxpayer.

I can only comment on the funding to us as a regulator, but funding and the polluter pays principle is a big challenge.

The art of litotes is not yet dead.

Yes, indeed. The principle is right that those who derive the benefit should pay the cost. It is very challenging when products are being put on the market that look legitimate and then evidence subsequently proves that there is a challenge.

Why does the action plan say nothing about this? It is supposed to be an action plan.

I can only comment on the actions in the plan that fall to the Environment Agency. I cannot make decisions about public funding; I am sorry.

First, to Ms Parkes, I have a couple of questions around permitting. Could you outline the Environment Agency’s current approach to PFAS discharge limits in environmental permits?

We are taking the monitoring data that I talked about earlier and we are putting that with the various work that we have been doing to understand where the biggest problem sectors are. We have already mentioned that, in addition to the airport sector, we are also focusing on textiles, paper and pulp, metal finishing and waste as examples of where we think the greatest risks are. We are working with those operators. Many, when they understand what may be happening, will take action on their own initiative. A number of years ago we started the process of modifying permits to require operators to undertake monitoring to understand what is happening at that site. You will appreciate this is a time-consuming process, a bespoke process, to understand what the sources and pathways are at the site and what types of PFAS there are, as well as working with those operators and, where we need to, taking action to modify the permits. It is challenging, as I say. In the absence of statutory standards, we do not have what would be called best available technique limits that you would normally expect associated with these sectors. These substances will have been used and released lawfully, and we are now working site by site to take the action that is needed. That does take time. It does impose a burden on the operator to do their own monitoring as well. I would like to be able to speed that process up, but there are finite limits on things like lab capacity around the whole of the country, not just for the Environment Agency. Some of this is very tricky. It takes time. It takes resources. What we want to do is to target those where we can have most impact, not trying to do everything, everywhere but coming back to the use of the monitoring and screening to work out where we can be most impactful. We also want to share all the approaches. We have a risk screening approach—a very effective risk screening tool that the plan refers to—and we want to be able to make that available to other regulators and public bodies so that we can all be sharing that intelligence and making sure that we do not have the problem moved around between different environmental compartments. It is focusing on where we can have most impact. I should just say that some of the challenges also arise in relation to things like closed landfills, and we are looking at a cross-sector of open and closed landfills. It is a sector that I have known for many years. Understanding what is emerging and where is it emerging—not only is it present in the waste, but it will be present in the leachate, and it is also going to be present in the landfill gas. We are working very collaboratively with the sectors to get a better understanding of that and to work out what is the best way, as Matt has already said. Is it about containment, control or removal? You cannot just tanker that leachate off site and expect the problem to go away. You then need to make sure that your downstream works has the ability to deal with it. This is where the Environment Agency can take that holistic view, looking across different sectors and media, and focus on where we can have most impact.

That is a very helpful and comprehensive answer, but coming back to resources, that is a key question here. It sounds like you are having to use what capacity you have quite sparingly at the moment, given the size of the sectors involved. What support does the Environment Agency need to enforce limits on PFAS emissions into the environment? Is there a big gap in your ability to do what your ambitions would be compared with the resources that you have?

What we do is take a thoughtful approach and that is underpinned by very sophisticated monitoring, analysis and regulatory experience. I referred earlier to the multidisciplinary team that I have that works across our organisation with other partner regulators. At the moment, as I say, we are very reliant on grant in aid to do this work, and it is important that we can make that as targeted as possible. It does not all fall to us. We are the regulator and, as I said earlier, where we can we will be requiring operators to do their own monitoring. We also work incredibly closely with the water industry, for instance. The chemical investigations programme has been going on since 2010. It is all about how we better understand this as it moves through the environment. The water industry has been looking at PFOA and PFOS for well over a decade now, with a lot of focus on sludge and what the better treatment options are. There are lots of examples where sectors are taking responsibility for understanding the challenges. On your question specifically about enforcement, the principle of environmental regulation is that we should be able to recover all our costs. It is important that this is part of the overall regulatory costs. We still have some way to go to make sure that this can be sustainable in the longer term and it is incredibly challenging to set standards in the absence of statutory standards. The threshold work that we published last week is quite cutting edge and we are hoping that will prompt a dialogue about the best way to apply this.

I have a final question on self-monitoring. The EA relies on self-monitoring in a range of different areas, water being one. Are you confident in that as a regime for monitoring or you do think that the EA should monitor more things and issues directly?

We undertake a vast range of monitoring. What is important to me is what we do with that information, and that is deriving information from all sources, not just what we produce ourselves. We are undertaking a transformation of our overall monitoring programme. We need to make sure that what we do is as effective as possible, that we do draw on and make the best use of all the science and evidence that is out there, and that we make best use of the advancing technologies so that we do not keep looking for things if we know that they are there—what is that going to tell us? It is important that we understand trends, for instance, in seasonal changes. We are trying all the time to better refine what we do to look for the things that we do not yet understand, as opposed to just gathering more information. With the publication of the plan, it is—I would not describe it as a tipping point, but we now have that direction of travel set out by Government with the three strands in there of, first, improving understanding; second, tackling the pathways; and third, reducing exposure. For me, it is now about how we use this information to drive action because that is what everyone needs to see to protect our communities and the environment.

Dr Daniels, Ms Parkes and Mr Womersley, thank you very much indeed for your evidence today and for all that you have done in preparation for this event. We will bring this first panel to a close now.