veduta aerea belfiore

The entry for temibile in the Italian dictionary Vocabolario della Lingua Italiana Treccani reads: "that which is to be feared, that which can or should be feared." In everyday speech, it is an adjective we use somewhat lightly, leaning more towards the meaning of "can be feared," that is, it's not unreasonable to be afraid of it. However, when certain polluting substances are described as temibili, and the adjective is used in court, the meaning shifts more towards "should be feared". To be afraid of. The reference is to a group of chemical substances known by the acronym PFAS, which stands for "perfluorinated alkylated substances." The context is a trial currently underway in Vicenza because a company in the province has polluted with PFAS the groundwater and drinking water in a large area of Veneto.

 

A story spanning forty years

The company on trial is Miteni, which had its facility in Trissino, a strategically important water location. Beneath it lies one of the largest underground aquifers on the continent, from which at least three companies involved in potable water extraction sourced the water needed by over 350,000 residents spread across an area of more than 180 km², extending into the provinces of Verona and Padua.

Map of Southern Veneto with highlighted levels of health exposure to PFAS in water (image by Legambiente Vicenza)

 

The first signs of polluting discharges date back to 1977, when yellow water began coming out of taps in the area, alarming the local population. Miteni had been operating for only 12 years, initially under the name RiMAr (Ricerche Marzotto), then becoming Miteni after being acquired by Mitsubishi and EniChem. Miteni produced fluorinated compounds, specifically PFAS, synthetic substances that do not exist in nature but have found numerous applications over the decades due to their chemical properties: from non-stick cookware to waterproof clothing and shoes, as well as components in fire-resistant materials and packaging. Today, it is almost impossible to even know how many different substances belong to this family. The number is usually between 7,000 and 12,000, while new formulations continue to be developed, and some of the first produced (such as PFOA, PFOS, etc.) have already been banned for years. What makes them unique is their great stability, which is why PFAS have also been defined as “eternal pollutants”: once released into the environment, they remain unchanged for very long periods, and their removal is not simple. For these reasons, even older PFAS, despite being banned more than fifteen years ago, are still circulating.

In the Vicenza area and other regions affected by PFAS pollution, the population has shown health problems after years of drinking, using for cooking, and irrigating gardens and fields with water containing these substances. Scientific research has, to date, linked these substances to increased cholesterol levels, liver and thyroid alterations, interference with the immune and reproductive systems, certain types of cancer, as well as blood clotting disorders, menstrual cycle disruptions, and interference with testosterone production.

 

Recent years and the trial

The Miteni disaster fully erupted in 2013, following a study commissioned by the Ministry of the Environment and Protection of Land and Sea (MATTM) to the National Research Council (CNR) specifically for the affected Veneto region. The study was conducted by Stefano Polesello and Sara Valsecchi of the Institute for Water Research (IRSA). As Polesello said to Radar Magazine in 2023, the values measured in the first samples collected were so high that “we were convinced we had contaminated the samples or confused them with others.”

Beyond alarming the local population of Vicenza, the extremely high levels recorded and published by the Regional Agency for Environmental Protection of Veneto (ARPAV) also sparked a political clash between then Minister of Health Beatrice Lorenzin, in the broad coalition government led by Enrico Letta, and the President of the Veneto Region Luca Zaia, with accusations exchanged through the press. While the timeline and extent of the severe pollution were starting to be understood, in 2017, the region introduced the strictest limits in Europe for its territory. On May 29, 2018, the national government appointed an extraordinary commissioner for the PFAS emergency in Veneto. His name is Nicola Dell’Acqua, past extraordinary director of ARPAV and extraordinary commissioner in 2023  for the drought emergency, as we reported in an investigation on the health status of underground water basins.

At the same time, a judicial front was also opened, leading to a trial currently underway, where fifteen people connected to the Trissino chemical industry are charged with several offenses, including environmental disaster and intentional disaster. The hearings concluded at the end of last year, and the verdict is expected in the first part of 2025. Meanwhile, on November 9, 2018, Miteni S.p.A. of Trissino was declared bankrupt, and the following year the plant was purchased by an Indian company, which relocated it to the subcontinent, 80 kilometers south of Mumbai.

 

The costs of pollution: from the Forever Pollution to the Forever Lobbying Project

PFAS pollution in Veneto has already caused several damages, bringing the case to the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which conducted a site visit in 2022. However, Miteni is not the only case in Italy. For example, there is a similar situation in Spinetta Marengo, in the Alessandria region, where a Solvay plant is active. The most polluted areas at the continental level were identified in the first phase of an international investigation project mapping over 23,000 polluted sites across Europe, the Forever Pollution Project. The work was carried out by a team of journalists from 16 different news outlets, and it made available all the documentation and data on PFAS pollution by creating a dedicated website and publishing dozens of articles across various European media.

In the second phase, we joined the project contributing to shedding light on the costs of this pollution in different scenarios. The cross-border investigation, the Forever Lobbying Project, involved over 46 journalists, including the author, and 29 media partners across 16 countries. The work lasted over a year and  had several goals, as we will explain here and in a follow-up article.

One of the main efforts was to use a detailed methodology based on scientific criteria to try to calculate the environmental remediation cost in case all of Europe decided to remove PFAS from the environment. The final result is, of course, the product of several approximations. Nevertheless, the figure is immense, almost impossible to grasp, and sufficient to make very clear how this issue is different, in scale and economic impact as well as environmental and health consequences, from other cases of pollution. We are talking about 2 trillion euros over 20 years. And according to the experts who have worked continuously and intensively with the journalists on the project in recent months, this is certainly an estimate on the low end.

 

The cost of pollution in Veneto

Our team has detailed the cost of PFAS removal borne by the companies that supply drinking water to the citizens' homes. Although it is not yet possible to remove PFAS from the aquifers, water companies have still had to ensure the population's water needs through various strategies.

Calm and determined, Massimo Carmagnani, head of research and development at Acque Veronesi, the company distributing drinking water in the heart of the PFAS issue in Veneto, right in the middle of the red zone, shared data and explanations with us during a long online discussion.

Acque Veronesi and other local water providers have joined as a civil party in the trial against Miteni. In total, 314 civil parties have been admitted, starting with the Mamme no PFAS, who were among the first to raise the issue and protest for decisive action, as well as trade unions, various local and national institutions, including the Ministry of Environment, and civil society associations.

The data Massimo Carmagnani shared with us is not secret—on the contrary, it is public and filed with the court. And it is very clear: over 21 million euros were spent over 10 years, from 2013 to 2023, for the overall management of the Madonna di Lonigo water treatment plant by Acque Venete, with 13 million euros—over 60%—spent on PFAS removal.

The table Carmagnani shared shows fixed costs related to the plant operation, highlighting those that increased or were introduced specifically for managing the PFAS issue. These expenses are related to the electricity required to enhance filtration systems, personnel costs for the plant and filter removal, materials, and maintenance. While it is true that water must still be brought to wells for other treatments, and therefore the cost of "pumping the water" would be incurred regardless, activated carbon filters are entirely due to the PFAS problem. In total, 13 million euros, more than 1 million euros per year. This is only for treating drinking water, not for water purification or other treatments of groundwater or wastewater, for example. So, this is an expense solely due to the well treatment and filtration of the water that will be distributed. In the next article, we will revisit the technologies and their evolution, intensified precisely by the need to urgently address the issue. For now, we focus on the costs.

These are the cost items shown below in the chart, which helps us understand exactly what the operator has had to pay additionally compared to normal operations in order to bring PFAS levels in the distributed water "below the technical zero," meaning below the values set by regional laws introduced in 2016 by the Veneto Region after the PFAS case erupted to increase the safety level for the population, inspired by a much more conservative and stringent approach even compared to national standards.

 

 

"In practice," Carmagnani tells us, "each cubic meter of water (equivalent to 1,000 liters) costs 16 euro cents, of which 10 cents are costs for removing PFAS."

There are also a series of investments made over the years to strengthen the plant, filtration systems, and storage tanks, amounting to about 5.3 million euros since 2013. Another million euros were spent on upgrading the plant, such as replacing the pumps. Then, there are over 600,000 euros to extend the networks and serve users who previously had independent water supplies but can no longer use their wells, even for agricultural purposes. Finally, nearly 28 million euros have been spent on replacing the polluted sources with others.

ARPA estimates that this pollutant will persist for well over a century. "So it doesn't make sense to burn 1 million euros worth of coal every year for a century," explains Carmagnani, "So we're looking for areas with wells that have no PFAS, or at least are not contaminated to this level. We've started to work on revising the structural model of Veneto's aqueducts."

In total, over 34 million euros in investments have been made so far. Another 29 million euros are planned to complete the replacement of additional sources. This is a very significant amount, even for a wealthy region like Veneto. Some of the costs have been financed with regional funds, while others are part of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), especially for infrastructure investments and the search for new water sources.

The construction of new plants and the creation of new pipelines is expected to cost well over 135 million euros. A significant portion of this, about 80 million, will come from ministerial funds. Another 10 million euros come from the European Commission. But the remaining 40 million euros will be financed through tariffs. Similarly, a significant portion of operating costs will end up on bills. Therefore, it is paid by the people—those same people who have already suffered the damage of drinking contaminated water for years, and who, as soon as the problem was discovered, had to find temporary solutions at their own expense, such as purchasing bottled water, until the plant was able to bring the water back to safe levels.

What Massimo Carmagnani tells us is also confirmed by data from Acque del Chiampo, another water provider in the area that, along with Acque Veronesi, shares part of its water supply from the aquifer contaminated by Miteni. In this case, as with Acque Veronesi, the company has a very open communication approach, publishing data and information on its website and discussing them in various meetings with the local population. The data, highlighted in the table below, relate to the period 2013-2029, and therefore consider both the expenses already incurred and those projected in future budgets. The total amounts to almost 8 million euros just to manage the PFAS problem, including costs for filters, analyses, replacement interventions such as water dispensers, and necessary infrastructure works to improve safety.

 

 

Like Acque Venete, this water provider is also working on a more structural solution, investing almost 29 million euros in the period from 2013 to 2029 to strengthen its facilities, create new distribution connections, and therefore make use of alternative sources to the current ones. The data is highlighted in the table below. This is the only way to solve the problem, at least the one concerning water supply, as Massimo Carmagnani explained to us. The core issue remains unchanged, namely, permanent environmental pollution.

 

 

 

Costs at the European level: a fundamental exercise

There are damages for which it is impossible to estimate the costs: to health, to the environment, permanently compromising aquifers and land, and preventing the safe consumption of plants grown there and meat from animals fed with feed and water containing PFAS. Additionally, we are in a field where epidemiology has only recently started producing significant studies, and therefore it is possible, even likely, that we will continue to better understand how many and what types of damage these substances can cause to our health, and whether the current safety limits are truly acceptable or should be further reconsidered.

However, to get an accurate idea of the costs that can be calculated, it is still necessary to make precise choices, to apply political pressure at both local and international levels. Therefore, the Forever Lobbying Project, through close collaboration between journalists and scientists, has tried to calculate these costs, focusing only on some PFAS species—a small subset of the most well-known PFAS, which have been in the environment for longer and which, for this reason, can be isolated and destroyed with technologies developed in recent decades.

It is still an underestimation. Just as the amount of PFAS that is annually released into the environment in Europe alone is underestimated—75,000 tons, according to the Registry of Restriction Intentions Until Outcome by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Removing them all would cost 100,000 times more than the entire government budget of all EU countries combined. Shifting even part of this cost onto the polluters would lead to the immediate collapse of all industries related to PFAS.

Even focusing on only certain types of PFAS, the cost is still difficult to calculate. This calculation was made by a dedicated team within the Forever Lobbying Project, including engineer Ali Ling from Saint Thomas University in the United States, Hans Peter Arp from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Raphaelle Aubert from the French newspaper Le Monde, and Eurydice Bersi from Reporters United (Greece). The decision was made to produce two distinct scenarios.

 

European costs: the conservative scenario

In the first, more conservative scenario, the calculation was based only on the pollution associated with the environmental spread of the more traditional, long-chain PFAS molecules, such as PFHxS (six carbon atoms), PFOS, PFOA (eight carbon atoms), and PFNS (nine carbon atoms). It is important to specify that these substances have already been banned in Europe for years. This is therefore "historical pollution," and for this reason, the calculation was made only for the treatment of water and soil necessary to meet current European regulations. The "historical" pollution mainly affected water for human use and soils, often due to negligence or even violations of best environmental management practices.

The remediation should also address PFAS production facilities, industries using them, and major firefighting training sites such as airports and military locations. This scenario does not include secondary sources of contamination, such as landfills (whose leachate may contain PFAS) or wastewater treatment plants. Remediation is currently underway in some cases, often after long negotiations or even lawsuits. In Belgium, 3M, Europe's main PFAS manufacturer, agreed to pay more than 500 million euros to clean up its production site near Antwerp. Norway is cleaning up its major airports. The city of Rastatt in Germany launched a very expensive remediation project, funded by taxpayers, after compost produced at the municipal level, including paper sludge contaminated with PFAS, was used for over six years as a fertilizer.

In general, airports and military sites are all locations that need remediation, especially because of the use of firefighting foams and flame-retardant materials, which are a major source of PFAS in the environment. Other significant sources include packaging industries, particularly those producing food cartons and materials, which until at least 2010 contained PFAS in all their products. Today, only a portion of these companies use PFAS-free materials.

Considering the heavily contaminated sites already known, experts estimate the cost of remediation at 95 billion euros over 20 years, or 4.8 billion euros per year. These costs are estimated to remove what is already present in the environment. Therefore, even if the proposal for a total PFAS ban, which has been under discussion in the European Parliament since 2023 and will be covered in the next article, is approved, the cost to clean up what is already contaminated would still be staggering.

 

European costs: the emerging scenario

There is also an even more severe and costly scenario, which the Forever Lobbying Project calls the "emerging scenario." In this case, costs rise to 100 billion euros per year, for a total of 2,000 billion euros over the next 20 years. These figures, slightly under-estimated according to the experts involved, are due to the much more ubiquitous spread of various types of PFAS, which are smaller and more mobile, such as TFA (trifluoroacetic acid, a very small chain of two carbon atoms).

TFA, and other newer PFAS species, sometimes synthesized and proposed as alternatives to the "old" PFAS that have already been banned, have circulated widely in recent years, even among the crops we eat. For example, a recent study found very high concentrations of TFA in fruit juices from Spain, Norway, and other European countries. The problem is identifying the source of the contamination: it could come from pesticides containing PFAS, from the fluorinated gases of air conditioning and heat pump systems that degrade into TFA and fall with the rain, or from emissions from various industrial users far from the places where the pollution is measured.

In this case, the implementation of a total ban or not makes a huge difference. For example, in this scenario, sewage sludge would no longer be applied to agricultural soils as fertilizer. The choice of the Forever Lobbying Project was to assume the precautionary principle—that the first studies showing the harmful effects of TFA (such as those classifying it as toxic to reproduction) are confirmed by new evidence and that many more areas of contaminated soil are discovered and treated. If this happens, we would have to deal with the necessary removal of most TFA and other short-chain PFAS, not just from primary sources like drinking water but also from secondary sources, such as landfill leachate and wastewater treatment plant discharges. Even with these additions, the costs are still underestimated, as they do not include the remediation of PFAS-contaminated infrastructure, such as concrete buildings, nor the management of old, unlined landfills that need modifications to collect and manage leachate.

The key question, of course, is: who pays for all of this? If contamination sites from companies are involved in lawsuits and negotiations, there is hope that at least part of these costs can be recovered through the "polluter pays" principle. However, in the emerging scenario, it becomes impossible to pinpoint the exact source of the widespread pollution, and it is clear that, more than in the conservative scenario, the cost will ultimately fall solely on the shoulders—and in the pockets—of citizens. Tracing responsibility up the chain becomes nearly impossible.

Therefore, it is not only increasingly important to analyze the problem in a systemic way, as we will explain in the next article, considering available and experimental technologies within an evaluation of the entire production and accumulation chain of these substances in the environment and within our bodies. It is also essential to work on the regulatory level to consider both current and potential future damages—economic as well as environmental and health-related—by developing regulations that do not only address individual pollutants or focus solely on the status quo but that take a step further. That step would involve defining what level of risk is acceptable and what is not, where it makes sense, if it makes sense, to compromise between technological development and the compromise of human health and the surrounding environment, and where that compromise carries a cost too high to be reasonably sustainable or acceptable.

 

 


Credits

The cross-border investigation ‘Forever Lobbying Project’ was coordinated by Le Monde and involved 46 journalists and 29 media partners from 16 countries: RTBF (Belgium); Denik Referendum (Czech Republic); Investigative Reporting Denmark (Denmark); YLE (Finland); Le Monde and France Télévisions (France); MIT Technology Review Germany, NDR, WDR and Süddeutsche Zeitung, (Germany); Reporters United (Greece); L'Espresso, RADAR Magazine, Facta.eu, Il Bo Live and Lavialibera (Italy); Investico, De Groene Amsterdammer and Financieele Dagblad (the Netherlands); Klassekampen (Norway); Oštro (Slovenia); DATADISTA / elDiario.es (Spain); Sveriges Radio and Dagens ETC (Sweden); SRF (Switzerland); The Black Sea (Turkey); Watershed Investigations / The Guardian (UK), with a publishing partnership with Arena for Journalism in Europe, and in collaboration with lobby watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory.

The investigation is based on over 14,000 previously unpublished documents on “forever chemicals” PFAS. The work included filing 184 freedom of information requests, 66 of which were shared to the team by Corporate Europe Observatory.

The investigation expanded on the ‘expert-reviewed’ journalism experiment pioneered in 2023 with the Forever Pollution Project by forming an expert group of 18 international academics and lawyers. 

The project received financial support from the Pulitzer Center, the Broad Reach Foundation, Journalismfund Europe, and IJ4EU. Website: https://foreverpollution.eu.

Facta shares the creative commons philosophy. Our contents and products are licensed under the CC BY-NC 4.0.
crossmenuarrow-left