Six times the recommended limit of PFAS were found in USF Tampa’s drinking water – WUSF

Report on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Contamination in Regional Water Supplies and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Challenge to SDG 6 – Clean Water and Sanitation

A recent investigation has revealed that concentrations of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), commonly known as “forever chemicals,” in several regional public water systems significantly exceed the advisory limits recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These findings present a direct challenge to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), which aims to ensure access to safe and affordable drinking water for all. The contamination levels, in some cases reaching nearly 20 times the recommended maximum, undermine public confidence in water safety and highlight critical gaps in water quality management.

Health Implications and the Impact on SDG 3 – Good Health and Well-being

The presence of these synthetic chemicals in drinking water poses a considerable threat to Sustainable Development Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being). PFAS are persistent in the environment and the human body, and while research is ongoing, potential health effects are a major concern.

• Source of Contamination: PFAS originate from industrial and consumer products, including firefighting foam, nonstick cookware, and food packaging, linking the issue to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
• Potential Health Risks: According to public health experts, there is growing concern over a range of adverse health outcomes. These include:
  1. Immune system effects, potentially reducing the efficacy of vaccinations.
  2. Developmental effects in children.
  3. Evidence from studies suggesting a link to nonalcoholic fatty liver damage.
• Scientific Uncertainty: The vast number of PFAS compounds, estimated to be between 12,000 and 15,000, complicates toxicological assessments and the establishment of definitive health guidelines.

Regulatory Framework and Institutional Response

The institutional and regulatory response to PFAS contamination is evolving, reflecting the complexities of managing emerging contaminants and its importance for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

EPA Regulatory Actions

The EPA is actively developing its approach to PFAS regulation. Recent actions include rescinding previous drinking water limits for four specific PFAS compounds while reconsidering new standards. The compliance deadline for two other major PFAS substances, PFOA and PFOS, has been delayed to 2031. The EPA’s stated goal is to significantly reduce PFAS levels in drinking water nationwide through new rules.

Local Institutional Monitoring

Local institutions, such as the University of South Florida (USF), are participating in federal monitoring programs. USF has stated its compliance with existing regulations and its proactive involvement in the EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 5 (UCMR 5) program. This program gathers data on 29 different PFAS compounds to inform future federal regulations, demonstrating a commitment to data-driven public health protection.

Technical and Financial Barriers to Remediation

Achieving the targets of SDG 6 is hampered by significant technical and financial challenges associated with PFAS removal.

• High-Cost Technology: Effective removal of PFAS from drinking water requires advanced and expensive technologies, such as activated carbon filters or permeable membranes similar to those used in desalination.
• Disposal Challenges: The captured PFAS chemicals must be destroyed, typically through incineration at extremely high temperatures, which adds another layer of complexity and cost to the remediation process.

Summary of Regional Water System Contamination Levels

The investigation identified multiple water systems where PFAS levels exceeded recommended limits, directly impacting the safety and sustainability of these communities, a key concern of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). The following is a summary of findings at various locations:

• Orangewood Water System, Holiday: A well measured PFOS at 19.5 times the limit on average, with the highest single measurement reaching 20.2 times the limit.
• Lake Panasoffkee Water Association, Lake Panasoffkee: On average, PFOS was measured at 11 times the limit, with a peak measurement of 13.3 times the limit.
• Tarpon Springs Water System, Tarpon Springs: PFOS levels were measured at an average of 9.2 times the limit.
• Port Richey Water Department, Port Richey: The average PFOS measurement was 4.6 times the limit, with a peak of 5.0 times the limit.
• Royal Waterworks Inc., New Port Richey: PFOS was measured at an average of 4.3 times the limit.
• Northeast, Winter Haven: The average PFOS measurement was 3.1 times the limit.
• Pasco County Regional Public Water System, Land O’ Lakes: PFOS was measured at an average of 1.9 times the limit across its system.
• David L. Tippin Water Treatment Facility, Tampa: The highest single measurement was 1.7 times the limit.
• Hillsborough County/Seaboard Utilities, Tampa: The highest single measurement was 1.8 times the limit.
• Lake Alfred: The highest single measurement was 1.7 times the limit.
• MacDill, Tampa: The highest single measurement was 1.4 times the limit.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article directly connects to this goal by discussing the potential health risks associated with “forever chemicals” (PFAS) in drinking water. It mentions concerns about “immune effects or developmental effects,” vaccinations being less effective, and evidence of “nonalcoholic fatty liver damage.” These concerns highlight the threat that water contamination poses to human health and well-being.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: This is the most central SDG in the article. The entire report focuses on the contamination of public water supplies with PFAS chemicals, with levels found to be “several times over the recommended limits.” This directly addresses the challenge of ensuring access to safe drinking water for all.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The article touches upon this goal by identifying the sources of PFAS, such as “firefighting foam, nonstick cooking utensils and some food packaging.” This points to the production and consumption patterns that lead to the release of these persistent chemicals into the environment and, subsequently, into water systems, highlighting the need for environmentally sound management of chemicals throughout their lifecycle.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. The article’s focus on PFAS contamination in drinking water and the associated potential health risks (immune effects, developmental effects, liver damage) directly relates to this target of reducing illnesses caused by water pollution.
• Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all. The study’s findings that municipal water systems in multiple locations (Tarpon Springs, Holiday, Tampa) have PFAS levels far exceeding recommended safety limits demonstrate a failure to provide safe drinking water, making this target highly relevant.
• Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials. The presence of synthetic, non-biodegradable PFAS chemicals in water supplies is a clear example of pollution by hazardous chemicals. The article discusses the difficulty and expense of removing these chemicals, underscoring the importance of preventing their release in the first place.
• Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment. The article mentions that the EPA is studying and regulating PFAS compounds. This regulatory action, including setting and revising limits, is a direct effort toward the sound management of these chemicals to protect public health and the environment from their release into drinking water.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for Targets 3.9 and 6.1: The article provides specific quantitative data that can be used as an indicator for water safety. The core of the report is the measurement of PFAS levels in public water supplies compared to recommended limits. For example, “Testing at a well in Tarpon Springs was nine times the limit. A well in Holiday measured 19 times the limit.” The detailed list at the end provides precise measurements for multiple locations (e.g., “Orangewood Water System… PFOS was measured 19.5 times over the limit”). These measurements serve as a direct indicator of the level of chemical contamination in drinking water, which is a key component of Indicator 6.1.1 (Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services).
• Indicator for Targets 6.3 and 12.4: The article implies an indicator related to policy and regulation. It mentions the EPA’s actions: setting, rescinding, and delaying compliance deadlines for drinking water limits on various PFAS compounds. The existence and enforcement of national drinking water standards for specific chemicals is a measurable indicator of progress. The mention of the “Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 5 program” is a specific example of a monitoring mechanism used to gather data to inform future regulations, serving as an indicator of governmental efforts to manage hazardous chemicals.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: wusf.org