D618 Task 1 Environmental Contaminant Analysis Example

Forever Chemicals at the Tap: How Firefighting Foam Reached a Composite City's Wells, What the Evidence Shows, Who Regulates PFAS and What the Community Can Do

Student Name

Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University

D618: Environmental Health, Task 1

Course Instructor

Month Day, Year

Forever Chemicals at the Tap: How Firefighting Foam Reached a Composite City's Wells, What the Evidence Shows, Who Regulates PFAS and What the Community Can Do

The Contaminant and How Human Activity Released It

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, are thousands of synthetic chemicals used since the 1950s in nonstick cookware, stain- and water-resistant fabrics, food packaging and firefighting foam. Their carbon-fluorine bonds make them extremely stable, which is why they are useful and why they persist in water, soil and human bodies for years. They are now widespread: a national study of tap water from 716 locations estimated that at least one PFAS could be detected in about 45% of U.S. drinking water samples, with similar profiles in private wells and public supplies (Smalling et al., 2023).

Riverton is a composite city of about 85,000 people whose water comes from eight municipal wells. For decades, firefighters at the nearby regional airport trained with foam containing PFAS, which soaked into the ground and moved with groundwater toward the city's wellfield. Testing in 2024 found perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) at 11 parts per trillion and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) at 9 parts per trillion in two of the wells. The contamination is a direct result of human activity: the manufacture of persistent chemicals, their use in large volumes on bare ground and the siting of drinking water wells downgradient from where they were used.

What the Health Evidence Shows

Evidence on health effects is substantial but uneven, and a graduate analysis should say which effects are well established. A National Academies committee reviewed the research and found sufficient evidence of an association between PFAS exposure and decreased antibody response to vaccines, abnormal blood lipids, decreased infant and fetal growth, and increased risk of kidney cancer, with more limited evidence for other outcomes; it recommended that clinicians offer blood testing to patients likely to have elevated exposure and adjust follow-up by the level found (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022). Most studies are observational, and exposure usually involves mixtures, so the size of risk at the low concentrations found in Riverton is uncertain. Uncertainty is not a reason for inaction, but it should shape how the city communicates: honestly, without either alarm or reassurance that the evidence cannot support.

Some residents face more exposure or more risk than others. Infants fed formula made with tap water drink more water for their body weight, pregnant people pass PFAS to the fetus, and households with private wells near the airport are outside the city system and untested.

The Role of Government

Federal. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency sets enforceable limits for contaminants in public water systems. In 2024, it finalized the first national PFAS drinking water standards, including limits of 4.0 parts per trillion for PFOA and for PFOS, with deadlines for initial monitoring and later compliance (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2024). In 2025, the agency announced plans to keep the PFOA and PFOS limits while extending the compliance deadline and reconsidering limits for some other PFAS, which shows that the regulatory picture can shift after a rule is final. Federal environmental cleanup law also allows regulators to require responsible parties to pay for cleanup, and federal infrastructure funding has set aside money for emerging contaminants such as PFAS.

State. The state environmental agency enforces the federal rule for public water systems, may set its own stricter limits and oversees cleanup at the airport. The state health department advises residents and clinicians.

Local. Riverton's water utility must monitor, treat or replace contaminated sources and notify customers. The county health department communicates health information, advises private well owners and coordinates blood testing guidance with local clinicians. The airport authority, as a likely responsible party, can be required to contribute to cleanup.

What the Community Can Do

Riverton's utility has three main options to meet the standard.

The recommended path combines speed and durability: close the two wells and buy replacement water through a new connection within a year, while designing carbon treatment so the wells can return to service. Costs can be offset by federal emerging contaminant funds, contributions from the airport authority and national settlements that major PFAS manufacturers reached with public water systems. Because rate increases fall hardest on low-income households, the council should pair any increase with a rate assistance program.

Residents can act as well. Until treatment is complete, the county health department should offer certified point-of-use filters to households with infants fed formula and pregnant residents, test private wells near the airport free of charge, and help clinicians follow national guidance on blood testing. Public meetings should explain what is known and unknown and publish all test results online.

Evaluating Success

The city should decide in advance how it will know whether its response worked. The primary measure is simple: PFOA and PFOS concentrations below the federal limits at every entry point to the distribution system, tested quarterly and published. Secondary measures include the number of private wells tested near the airport and the share with results above the federal limits that received a filter or connection to city water, the number of eligible households that received point-of-use filters, and the timeliness of customer notifications. Over the longer term, a voluntary blood testing program for residents who drank water from the affected wells, offered in line with national clinical guidance, would show whether exposure levels fall after treatment begins. Reporting these measures to the city council and the public every six months would keep the response accountable and build the trust that honest communication requires.

Conclusion

PFAS contamination in Riverton is a case study in how human activity creates lasting environmental hazards and how responsibility is spread across governments, utilities and polluters. The evidence of harm is strong for some outcomes and uncertain for others, but it is sufficient to act. A combination of fast replacement water, durable treatment, targeted protection for the most vulnerable residents and honest communication can protect health while the regulatory picture continues to evolve.

References

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Guidance on PFAS exposure, testing, and clinical follow-up. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26156

Smalling, K. L., Romanok, K. M., Bradley, P. M., Morriss, M. C., Gray, J. L., Kanagy, L. K., Gordon, S. E., Williams, B. M., Breitmeyer, S. E., Jones, D. K., DeCicco, L. A., Eagles-Smith, C. A., & Wagner, T. (2023). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in United States tapwater: Comparison of underserved private-well and public-supply exposures and associated health implications. Environment International, 178, 108033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.108033

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). PFAS national primary drinking water regulation. Federal Register, 89(82), 32532-32757.