Why the UK’s new PFAS report is a massive wake-up call for fire safety

UK PFAS report sets out tougher path for regulation, remediation and fire sector controls

The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has called for a faster and more precautionary UK response to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, warning that the country is already carrying a growing legacy of contamination while harmful emissions continue.

In its report, Addressing the risks from Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), published on 23 April 2026, the Committee says the Government’s first PFAS Plan is a useful starting point but does not go far enough on restriction, enforcement, clean-up and disposal.

PFAS are used across a wide range of products and processes because they resist heat, water and oil.

The Committee says that same persistence is what makes them a long-term problem.

Once released, they remain in the environment, accumulate in soil, rivers, wildlife and the human body, and are now present in almost everyone’s blood.

The report links PFAS exposure with increased risks including certain cancers, immune suppression, fertility problems and developmental harms.

For fire and safety professionals, the report matters for three immediate reasons.

It reinforces pressure to remove PFAS from firefighting foams and non-essential products, it raises questions about which uses can still qualify as essential, and it highlights a disposal and destruction gap for PFAS-containing waste that already affects portable extinguishers, firefighting appliances and contaminated materials.

Why the Committee says the UK must move faster

A central criticism in the report is that UK REACH is moving too slowly.

The Committee says the domestic chemicals regime has fallen behind the EU and cannot respond quickly enough to emerging evidence on PFAS.

Ministers have said the UK will look to decisions made in trusted jurisdictions such as the EU, yet the Government’s own target for enabling that alignment under UK REACH is December 2028.

The Committee says that is too late and recommends reforming UK REACH by March 2027, with assessment times cut to half the current statutory maximums.

The report also says the UK’s current approach still relies too heavily on reviewing substances one by one.

In practice, that means continued use can carry on while assessment drags on.

The Committee argues that this delays control measures and increases future clean-up costs because PFAS continue to build up in the environment.

It therefore recommends a shift towards group-based regulation, so structurally similar PFAS cannot simply replace those already restricted.

That point is important operationally.

The Committee warns against “regrettable substitutions”, where one problematic PFAS is replaced with another that later proves similarly persistent or harmful.

For manufacturers, buyers and safety managers, that means future compliance will increasingly depend on understanding product chemistry rather than relying on broad marketing claims or partial reformulation.

The proposed essential-use test

The report supports an essential-use approach to PFAS.

Under that model, the first controls would fall on non-essential uses, meaning uses that are not necessary for health, safety or the functioning of society.

The Committee recommends that the Government adopt this framework and begin bringing forward restrictions on PFAS in non-essential consumer products from 2027, with examples including food packaging, cookware and school uniforms.

The report does, however, accept that some uses remain harder to replace.

Evidence to the inquiry pointed to continuing dependence on PFAS in areas such as medical devices, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, defence applications and certain forms of occupational protective clothing.

One witness told the Committee that PFAS remain critical to personal protective equipment used by fire safety personnel responding to incidents at chemical plants.

The Committee’s position is that clearly defined exemptions may still be needed for essential uses, though these should be time-limited where substitutes are being developed.

For the fire sector, that creates a split picture.

PFAS in foams and some low-value consumer applications faces stronger pressure for removal.

PFAS in specific forms of protective equipment may continue for longer where a genuine performance requirement still exists and no feasible substitute is available.

The likely direction of travel is tighter justification, clearer documentation and less tolerance for routine or convenience-based use.

What the report says about firefighting foams

The Committee confirms that the UK is already consulting on restricting PFAS in firefighting foams.

It also records evidence from the Health and Safety Executive that any UK restrictions in this area will come after the EU, potentially by one or two years depending on how quickly legislation progresses.

The report notes that the EU adopted restrictions on PFAS in firefighting foams in October 2025, with a threshold of 1 mg/L for the sum of all PFAS from 23 October 2030.

That delay matters because the report links slow UK action with wider regulatory divergence.

Businesses operating across Great Britain, Northern Ireland and EU markets may face different obligations for the same products at the same time.

The Committee also warns that slower UK controls increase the risk of PFAS-containing goods that can no longer be sold into the EU ending up on the UK market instead.

The disposal side is just as significant.

Evidence from Britannia Fire told the Committee that more than 10,000 tonnes of PFAS waste from portable firefighting appliances is already waiting to be disposed of before any fresh ban takes effect.

The same evidence said disposal costs have risen sharply, from £0.52 per litre to £2.80 per litre, or £16.80 per extinguisher.

For fire protection firms, service providers and building owners, that points to a practical problem that is already here rather than one triggered only by future legislation.

Exposure, public health and why the report goes beyond drinking water

The Committee says PFAS exposure is not confined to one pathway.

It lists ingestion through drinking water and food, inhalation through air and dust, and absorption through skin contact.

Diet is identified as the main route for most people outside occupational exposure.

On drinking water, the report welcomes updated Drinking Water Inspectorate guidance published in March 2025, which requires water companies in England and Wales to monitor a wider range of PFAS.

That guidance sets a standard of 100 nanograms per litre for the sum of 48 specified PFAS, and the Committee backs plans to turn that guidance into statutory limits.

The Committee says regulation remains fragmented beyond drinking water.

It calls for statutory limits on PFAS in food and agricultural pathways, plus interim PFAS limits and standardised labelling for PFAS-containing consumer products while they remain on the market.

It also wants the Government to publish, within 12 months, a delivery plan for epidemiological studies, biomonitoring and enhanced health screening for groups with known or suspected elevated exposure.

That includes occupational groups as well as affected communities.

For the fire and safety sector, that could mean greater scrutiny of occupational exposure histories, stronger interest in health surveillance for workers handling foams or contaminated equipment, and more pressure to document where PFAS-containing materials are still used.

The report does not create those systems itself, though it clearly points the Government towards them.

The clean-up problem and the cost of delay

The report is clear that prevention alone will not solve the issue because large-scale contamination already exists.

It cites Environment Agency estimates that remediation costs for between 2,900 and 10,200 high-risk sites in England could be between £31 billion and £121 billion.

It also points to wider European analysis suggesting that continuing present levels of PFAS pollution until 2050 would impose very large economic costs, while acting earlier at source would reduce that burden.

The Committee says the current system has not applied the polluter pays principle strongly enough.

It recommends that the Government consult by March 2027 on a national PFAS Remediation Fund.

That consultation should examine an emissions levy on PFAS on the UK REACH candidate list, ways to extend polluter liability to imported products, and increased government funding for local authority remediation where no responsible party can be identified.

The report also says monitoring cannot work without enforcement capacity.

It argues that the Environment Agency needs clearer standards, more staff, more skills and more laboratory support if it is to identify hotspots, require remediation and restrict emissions in practice.

Waste, destruction and what this means in practice

One of the strongest operational sections of the report covers disposal and destruction.

The Committee says a lack of supply chain transparency leaves councils, waste operators and regulators unable to identify which products contain PFAS or how they should be handled safely at end of life.

It recommends consultation within six months on mandatory disclosures requiring manufacturers and importers to report the presence and purpose of PFAS in products placed on the UK market.

It also says the Government must set out a timeline for diverting PFAS waste away from landfill and towards safer treatment or destruction technologies.

That is because PFAS have been detected in landfill leachate and landfill gas, meaning disposal can simply shift contamination from one place to another.

On destruction, the Committee says current UK capacity is limited and depends heavily on high-temperature incineration.

The Minister told the inquiry there are only two hazardous waste incinerators permitted to accept PFAS and that current capacity is judged sufficient.

The report records concern from industry that waste volumes are rising and that poor combustion conditions can break PFAS into smaller chains and disperse them into the atmosphere.

The Committee therefore calls for investment in scalable remediation and destruction technologies, including non-incineration methods, and for formally approved remediation guidance so businesses, local authorities and regulators know what methods are accepted.

What fire and safety professionals should watch next

The report does not itself ban products or create new duties, though it sets out a strong parliamentary case for faster action.

For the fire and safety sector, the immediate pressure points are clear.

PFAS in firefighting foams remains a live regulatory issue and the UK is already behind the EU timetable.

PFAS waste from extinguishers and related equipment is building up, disposal costs are rising and available destruction routes remain narrow.

Some specialist protective uses may continue under an essential-use model, though those exemptions are likely to face closer technical scrutiny and time limits.

The wider message from the Committee is that PFAS should no longer be treated as a niche chemicals issue.

In the report’s view, it is now a regulatory, occupational health, waste management and public protection issue.

That puts it directly in scope for fire engineers, fire protection companies, risk managers, foam suppliers, maintenance firms, waste contractors and building safety teams who still buy, store, use or dispose of PFAS-containing materials.