PFAS testing in boreholes

Request 716229275

1.

How many people on mains water have applied to and had their water tested by Jersey Water in each of the last five years?

2.

In how many cases were these tests for PFAS?

3.

Is there a cost for this service and, if so, what is it and has that increased in each of the last five years?

4.​

How many boreholes are currently in use in Jersey?

5.

How many of these boreholes have been tested in each of the last five years and how many have had levels of PFAS contamination?

Response

1 and 2.

The information requested is not held by the Government of Jersey, therefore, Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies, however, it may be held by Jersey Water so you might wish to send your request in writing to:

Jersey Water, St Helier, Jersey, JE1 1JW

3.

Jersey Water charge £315.00 for the PFAS test in 2025.

The cost for this service prior to 2025 is not held by the Government of Jersey, therefore, Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies, however, it may be held by Jersey Water so you might wish to send your request in writing to:

Jersey Water, St Helier, Jersey, JE1 1JW

4.

There are a total of 3,328 boreholes in use.

5.

The Government of Jersey has conducted extensive PFAS testing across various water mediums, including groundwater, surface water. Information is already publicly available in reports which can be found in the link below:

www.gov.je/PFAS​

In addition, these targeted tests and wider Island wide sampling are to be used as part of a broader effort to inform the Scientific PFAS Panel's report on the environmental impact of PFAS.

It would not be appropriate to release these and previous test results in isolation, as they require context and comparisons with other jurisdictions, which will be provided in a forthcoming final report, which is scheduled to be made public for consultation in late 2025 and will provide a contextual assessment of PFAS in the environment in Jersey and publish the test results used. Releasing individual results prematurely, without comprehensive interpretation alongside other data, is not believed to be in the public interest, consequently, this work is considered policy under development and Article 35 applies, therefore, exempt from immediate disclosure.

Article 35 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

Articles applied

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a) it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b) it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority.

Public Interest test

In applying this article, the following considerations were taken into account.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

• Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, providing confirmation that the necessary discussions and testing have taken place.

• Disclosure to the public fulfils an educative role about the early stages in policy development and illustrates how the department engages with parties for this purpose.

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information

• In order to best develop policy and provide advice to Ministers, officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place – discussion of how documentation is presented and provided is considered as integral to policy development as iterations of documents are demonstrative of the policy development process.

• The need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy.

• The release of the information without comprehensive interpretation alongside other data could impact the general public with misinterpretation and generate misinformed debate. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately.

• Premature disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback. This would hamper and harm the policy–making process not only in relation to this subject area but in respect of future policy development across wider departmental business.

Considering all considerations above, while transparency is important, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against potential harm caused by distress or misinformation.

It should also be noted that once a policy is formulated and published, the public interest in withholding information relating to its formulation is diminished, however, the use of the exemption can be supported if it preserves sufficient freedom during the policy formulation phase to explore options without that process being hampered by some expectation of future publication.

The SPA has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing significant concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information.​​

Internal Review Request

I ask that the decision to apply Article 35 be reconsidered, and that the following information be released:

• The number of boreholes tested for PFAS in each of the last five years

• The number of tests in each year that showed PFAS contamination

If redactions are necessary to protect individual privacy or sensitive infrastructure, these can be applied in accordance with the law. However, this should not justify withholding all requested data

Internal Review Response

This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. As part of their review, they will be expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law.  

The Internal Review Panel was asked to review the original response and confirm the following:  

Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?  

If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable.   

Further questions if above is a yes:   

i. Was the right information searched for and reviewed? 

ii. Was the information supplied appropriately?

iii. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied?

Following discussion, it was agreed by the Panel that the decision was upheld.