A new analysis examines the financial costs “forever chemicals” have on New York.
“PFAS” chemicals in everyday items pose numerous health risks, and the report says health-care costs for New Yorkers are up to $4.4 billion annually. But it doesn’t account for all the health impacts of PFAS. The report estimates it could cost water utility systems $32 million to $54 million to comply with federal drinking water standards.
Dr. Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy and environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said those costs might be passed on to consumers.
“At a time where we’re all struggling with increased cost of living, this could actually increase our utility rates – again,” she said, “at the same time, while we continue to produce, use, and release PFAS into the environment.”
New York has spent more than $463 million remediating “forever chemicals” statewide, with another $1 billion estimated for future projects.
While there was support to clean up PFAS under former President Joe Biden, things have changed under President Donald Trump. The Environmental Protection Agency is rolling back regulations on some of these chemicals and cutting research grants to further study their impacts.
Several bills in the New York State Legislature were aimed at ending the use of PFAS in everyday products and remediating PFAS pollution. But they failed, through a combination of opposition from chemical and product manufacturers as well as a lack of political will in the Assembly.
Kate Donovan, the NRDC’s northeast regional director for environmental health, said this is a life-cycle issue that must be addressed.
“We have problems upstream where it’s manufactured and used in industry – so it’s coming out of facilities as I mentioned,” she said. “We have a problem where it’s finding its way into drinking water, whether that be from consumer or personal-care products being dumped down drains.”
She added that PFAS are also finding their way onto farms through sewage sludge used as fertilizer. Some of the bills would have banned “forever chemicals” in cosmetics and cookware, while another would have required testing industrial discharge for these chemicals.