The Challenge of Getting PFAS Out of Drinking Water – Governing

Report on PFAS Contamination and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: The Challenge to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)

The widespread presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as “forever chemicals,” in public drinking water presents a significant obstacle to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 6, which aims to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. While effective treatment methods exist, their implementation is hindered by substantial financial and operational challenges, directly impacting the ability of water systems to provide safe drinking water as mandated by SDG Target 6.1.

Health and Environmental Impacts: A Threat to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

PFAS contamination poses a direct threat to SDG 3, particularly Target 3.9, which seeks to reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and pollution. The persistence of these chemicals in the environment and their accumulation in the human body create long-term public health risks.

• Known Health Risks: Certain PFAS are linked to severe health issues, including various cancers, liver damage, and reproductive problems like miscarriage.
• Pervasive Contamination: PFAS have been detected in water, air, soil, and the blood of humans and animals globally, indicating a systemic failure in managing hazardous chemicals as outlined in SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
• Evolving Chemical Landscape: The continuous development of new PFAS compounds, many of which cannot be easily measured, complicates efforts to assess and mitigate public health risks.

Regulatory Response and Compliance Challenges

In an effort to advance SDG 6, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established new regulations for PFAS in drinking water. However, meeting these standards presents considerable difficulties for local water providers.

Key Regulatory Actions and Deadlines:

1. National Drinking Water Standard: The EPA has determined there are no safe levels for two primary PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS, setting a contamination limit of four parts per trillion.
2. Compliance Deadline Extension: The deadline for water systems to comply with these new rules was extended from 2029 to 2031 to provide more time for implementation and avoid noncompliance penalties, allowing funds to be directed toward solutions.
3. Forthcoming Guidance: The EPA is expected to release updated guidance on four additional PFAS compounds, highlighting the ongoing regulatory effort to secure water safety.

Technological Feasibility vs. Economic Viability

The primary barrier to eliminating PFAS from drinking water is not a lack of technology but the prohibitive cost of its implementation and maintenance, which threatens the financial sustainability of water infrastructure, a key component of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Treatment and Cost Analysis:

• Effective Technologies: Current methods such as activated carbon filtration and ion exchange are proven to be effective at removing PFAS from water.
• High Implementation Costs: Installing these systems can cost millions of dollars, depending on the size and type of the water system.
• Steep Maintenance Costs: Filters require frequent and expensive replacement. For example, replacing filters can cost upwards of $50,000 and take weeks, during which time system operations are disrupted. Clogging from other materials like iron and manganese exacerbates this issue.
• Alternative Solutions: The most cost-effective option remains finding an uncontaminated water source, such as by drilling deeper wells or connecting to a different water system, though this is not always feasible.

The Critical Role of Funding and Partnerships (SDG 17)

Achieving universal access to PFAS-free water requires robust partnerships and financial support, as emphasized by SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). Small and under-resourced jurisdictions are particularly vulnerable and require external assistance.

Support Mechanisms and Funding Gaps:

• Federal Assistance: The EPA offers technical support through programs like PFAS OUTreach, providing tools, training, and guidance on navigating federal funding opportunities. This is crucial for small systems lacking dedicated expert staff.
• State-Level Initiatives: States can play a vital role. New Hampshire, for instance, offers a rebate program to help private well owners install treatment systems.
• Insufficient Funding: Despite federal investments like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, experts warn that available funds are inadequate to cover the long-term operational and maintenance costs of new treatment systems. This funding shortfall poses a long-term threat to the sustainability of clean water access.
• Financial Burden on Communities: Without sufficient external funding, public water systems may be forced to raise rates significantly, placing a heavy financial burden on residents and undermining the goal of affordable access to essential services.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article directly connects per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to severe health problems. It states that “Some kinds of PFAS have been linked to health issues like cancers, liver damage and miscarriage when they build up in the body over time.” Efforts to remove these chemicals from drinking water are fundamentally about protecting public health.
2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • This is the central theme of the article. The entire piece discusses the challenge of removing “forever chemicals” from public drinking water to ensure it is safe for consumption. It covers the technical and financial difficulties in achieving clean water, referencing the EPA’s new standards for PFAS levels.
3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • The article highlights the critical role of infrastructure in water treatment. It discusses the need for specific technologies like “activated carbon filtration and ion exchange” to remove PFAS. It also emphasizes the high cost and complexity of “implementing and maintaining a public water system with that kind of treatment setup,” which points to the need for resilient and sustainable infrastructure.
4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The financial burden of PFAS cleanup on communities is a key issue. The article notes that without a clear polluter, “public water systems have to find a way to fund the fixes,” which could lead to “big rate hikes on water bills.” This directly impacts the affordability of essential services and the sustainability of communities, especially “small jurisdictions with slim staffing.”
5. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The article explains that PFAS are “widespread in consumer and industrial products” and that new kinds are “frequently being created.” The problem of water contamination is a direct result of the production and use of these chemicals. The mention of some states having “banned their use in products like clothing, cookware and menstrual supplies” points towards efforts to achieve more responsible production and consumption patterns.

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

1. Under SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • 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 removing PFAS from drinking water is a direct action to prevent illnesses such as “cancers, liver damage and miscarriage” caused by these hazardous chemicals.
2. Under SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Target 6.1: “By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.” The article discusses the EPA’s establishment of safe levels for PFAS (“four parts per trillion”) but also highlights the challenge of affordability, noting that the price of installing and maintaining treatment systems is “steep” and could lead to “big rate hikes.”
   • Target 6.3: “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution… and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.” The entire article is about improving water quality by filtering out hazardous PFAS chemicals.
3. Under SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • Target 9.1: “Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure… with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.” The discussion revolves around the need to build or upgrade water treatment plants with advanced filtration systems to make them resilient to chemical contamination, while also addressing the significant financial challenges (“costs can rise into the millions of dollars”).
4. Under SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • 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 in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.” The article deals with the consequences of the widespread release of PFAS into the environment and the subsequent need to manage this contamination in water sources.

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

1. Indicator for Target 6.1 (Safe Water):
   • PFAS Contamination Levels: The article explicitly mentions the EPA’s regulatory standard: “limit contamination to four parts per trillion.” This provides a precise, measurable indicator for water safety. Progress can be measured by the proportion of public water systems meeting this standard.
2. Indicator for Target 6.1 (Affordable Water):
   • Cost of Treatment and Water Rates: The article implies cost-related indicators. It mentions the high cost of filter replacement (“$50,000”) and the potential for “big rate hikes on water bills.” Tracking the cost of water treatment and the average household water bill as a percentage of income would be indicators of affordability.
3. Indicator for Target 3.9 (Reduced Illness from Chemicals):
   • Population Served by Compliant Water Systems: An implied indicator is the number or percentage of the population served by water systems that comply with the EPA’s PFAS standards. A higher percentage would indicate reduced exposure and, consequently, a lower risk of related illnesses.
4. Indicator for Target 12.4 (Chemical Management):
   • Number of Regulated Chemicals: The article notes that the EPA has set rules for “two types of PFAS” and is expected to provide guidance for “four more kinds.” The number of PFAS chemicals subject to regulation is a direct indicator of progress in chemical management.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: governing.com