What new PFAS limits mean for Australia's water industry

As per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the environment continue to raise heightened global concerns over potential health risks, Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) are expected to release final guidance on PFAS for the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) this month, following public consultation.

PFAS are a group of over 4,700 chemicals often called “forever chemicals.” Due to their stability, they are used in products including firefighting foams, food packaging, cosmetics, medical devices, and industrial applications.

The health risk posed by PFAS is notably higher for communities near military bases, firefighting grounds or industrial sites with historical PFAS use. Exposure through consumer products and dietary lifestyle is the most common exposure pathway for communities not exposed to PFAS-contaminated waters.

What are the currently proposed ADWG changes?

The draft ADWG updates propose new thresholds for specific PFAS compounds in drinking water, lowering existing limits to minimise health risks. For example, the acceptable limit for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is set to decrease from 560 ng/L to 200 ng/L (nanograms per litre, a unit used to measure extremely small concentrations of substances in water). A new limit is introduced for perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), which are being regulated individually. These adjustments align Australia more closely with global standards, yet implementing them may require considerable technical upgrades and enhancements in monitoring. The proposed NHRMC drinking water guidelines are summarised in the table below:

Compound	Current ADWG Threshold	Proposed ADWG Threshold
PFOA	560 ng/L	200 ng/L
Sum of PFOS and PFHxS	70 ng/L	Individual thresholds proposed
PFOS	No individual ADWG threshold	4 ng/L
PFHxS	No individual ADWG threshold	30 ng/L
PFBS	No threshold	1,000 ng/L

Why change now?

With international momentum building around PFAS regulation, countries are divided between regulating PFAS individually or as a class. Like the U.S. and some European countries, Australia opts for individual regulation. At the same time, Canada and the European Union use a class-based approach, capping total PFAS concentration rather than setting individual thresholds. By updating the ADWG, Australia moves toward stricter global norms while balancing public health and environmental protection.

Regulatory challenges in a global context

The debate on PFAS regulation methods continues, with differing approaches across regions. For instance, the U.S. recently established some of the world’s strictest PFAS limits, setting both PFOS and PFOA at 4 ng/L with a long-term goal of zero. However, measuring at such low thresholds remains challenging due to detection limitations, a concern for many water utilities. Conversely, Australia’s approach, based on health-based guidelines, aims to consider long-term exposure without pushing limits beyond feasible detection.

Impact on drinking water quality management

The proposed ADWG updates will likely have multiple implications for water quality management, affecting utilities of all sizes. The ubiquity of PFAS – found in almost everything from rainfall and remote Himalayan ice to human blood – makes it difficult for drinking water managers to manage contamination they did not cause and for which they are not responsible. While responsible for providing safe water, utilities may face lengthy and complex processes to recover costs from the industries responsible for PFAS contamination. Meanwhile, they must still plan for and fund efforts to comply with the lower proposed PFAS drinking water thresholds.

Infrastructure upgrades: Water treatment plants may require augmentation to meet the new PFAS thresholds, imposing significant costs on utilities, which could be passed on to consumers.
Increased monitoring: More frequent PFAS monitoring would lead to higher operational costs for water utilities.
New compounds: Including PFBS in the guidelines presents uncertainties, as this compound has not been consistently monitored in Australian water supplies.
Future-proofing: Utilities may need to prepare adaptive management strategies for further regulatory changes, potentially expanding to cover more PFAS or an entire class.
Reputational risk: Exceeding the current or proposed PFAS limits could damage the reputation of water utilities, particularly in areas already impacted by contamination.

What are the challenges likely to be faced?

There are unique challenges related to monitoring and regulating PFAS in drinking water for large and small water utilities. Some of the potential challenges relate to external technical factors and internal capability factors and include the following:

Technical challenges:

Limited data: Most PFAS compounds have limited toxicity data, complicating efforts to regulate them individually. Laboratories can only reliably detect around 40 PFAS compounds to varying levels of accuracy and detection limits, contributing to significant uncertainty about the health impacts of others.
Limited treatment technologies: Only a few established technologies can effectively remove PFAS to meet the proposed ADWG thresholds. Several emerging technologies are available but require significant investment and require complexities to demonstrate their effectiveness. Cost-benefit analyses and multi-year timelines will be required to implement feasible treatment options.
Detection limitations: Due to their ubiquitous nature, PFAS are already very difficult to measure accurately. Thus, analytical methods will need to be improved so that detection limits are at least as low as the guideline limits while minimising the chance of false positives.

Capability challenges:

Technical capability challenges: Smaller drinking water management entities, especially in regional areas, may lack the technical capability to monitor and treat PFAS contamination.
Financial constraints: Smaller drinking water managers will likely face funding issues to address the expensive upgrades and monitoring programs required for PFAS compliance. Additionally, access to analytical laboratories equipped to undertake the necessary testing could prove to be a constraint.
Workforce limitations: Increasing PFAS monitoring and implementing adaptive management programs will strain an already stretched workforce, particularly for drinking water managers without the necessary expertise.

Addressing the path forward for water utilities

As Australia moves toward globally aligned PFAS regulations, water utilities must prepare for both the immediate challenges and future requirements that might emerge. Achieving compliance will require combining technology investment, workforce capacity-building, and potentially new funding models to support smaller operators. So, what does it take to chart a pathway forward?

Crafting a strategic roadmap: Utilities should develop a phased approach to infrastructure upgrades and operational adjustments. By conducting thorough risk assessments and identifying priority areas, utilities can allocate resources more effectively.
Investing in emerging technologies: Innovative solutions, such as advanced filtration systems, ion exchange resins, and activated carbon adsorption processes, offer promising avenues for PFAS removal. Pilot programs and collaborations with technology providers can help utilities identify the most viable solutions.
Leveraging funding opportunities: Smaller utilities must take crucial steps to overcome financial constraints, such as securing government grants, engaging in public-private partnerships, and exploring alternative funding models.
Enhancing workforce capacity: Building technical expertise through targeted training programs will empower teams to confidently manage complex PFAS monitoring and treatment requirements.
Establishing collaborative frameworks: Partnerships with research institutions, regulatory bodies, and industry stakeholders can drive innovation and share the burden of compliance, enabling knowledge sharing and resource pooling.

Australia’s water sector has an opportunity to set an example in responsible PFAS management, balancing regulatory compliance with sustainable and cost-effective practices. Water utilities can navigate the path towards safer drinking water with resilience and innovation by working with expert partners.

Author

Matthew Tendam is a Chartered Professional Engineer and Certified Environmental Practitioner specialised in soil, groundwater, surface water and sediment assessment and remediation. Matthew is an Aurecon Associate, Environment & Planning, with over two decades of industry experience across Australia, New Zealand, the US, Indonesia and Vietnam.

For more information, visit aurecongroup.com.