You find a PDF on PFAS, see a series of results reading “<0.0015 µg/l”, and still cannot answer the simple question: does the water tested serve my building?
That is the difference between a public document and useful information. For a report to say anything about your tap, you need to be able to check four things: the supply zone; the sampling date and point; the method and quantification limit; and the explicit result for the PFAS indicator being monitored.
From 12 January 2026, EU Member States have applied harmonised monitoring of PFAS in drinking water. In Romania, Government Ordinance No. 7/2023 provided that, by 1 January 2026, the competent authorities and suppliers must ensure monitoring and compliance with the values for total PFAS and/or Sum of PFAS. But a monitoring obligation does not automatically mean that every resident can find the result for their address in a few minutes.
To complement the information above, see also No, 2 litres of water are not compulsory for everyone: what adequate hydration really means, an article that explores an aspect directly related to this subject.
Quick verdict: is the report useful to you?
- Sufficient document: it identifies the zone or point relevant to your address, the sample date, the method and quantification limit, as well as the result for the reported indicator.
- Incomplete document: you can see individual values, but cannot identify the zone, date, method or conclusion for the aggregate indicator.
- Zone cannot be identified: the document is genuine, but you cannot show that the sample came from the network serving your address. Ask the operator for clarification.
1. Start with the supply zone, not the city name
A city may have several sources, distribution zones and monitoring points. A result from another neighbourhood, or from a locality served by the same operator, does not therefore automatically apply to you.
Look on the supplier’s website for sections such as “water quality”, “analysis reports”, “laboratory”, “supply zones” or “map”. Different local models already exist: Apa Nova Bucharest allows searches by address, testing location and date, while APAVITAL links from its operating-area map to reports and analysis bulletins. These examples show that local access can be designed in a practical way; however, they do not demonstrate that every operator publishes PFAS data in the same format.
The documentary review for this article did not identify a single national public portal that can be searched by any address in Romania for PFAS results in tap water. The legal framework, the European Commission’s page on implementation of the rules, and public information mechanisms used by some operators were consulted. This conclusion is limited to that review: it is not a claim that no unidentified local or institutional database exists.
2. Read the report through four questions
| What to check | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Where was the sample taken? | The supply zone and sampling point show whether the sample can be linked to the network serving your address. |
| When was it taken? | An analysis is a snapshot of a sample on a specific date. It is not a permanent certificate for an entire city. |
| What method and quantification limit were used? | These details explain what a result such as “<0.0015 µg/l” means. The method limit is not the legal limit. |
| Which PFAS indicator is reported? | It must be clear whether the document refers to total PFAS, Sum of PFAS or individual compounds and, where applicable, what conclusion was reached for the relevant parameter. |
Government Ordinance No. 7/2023 sets two distinct parametric values in Annex No. 1, Table B: 0.5 µg/l for total PFAS and 0.1 µg/l for Sum of PFAS. They are not two labels for the same indicator. The act defines Sum of PFAS as the subset of substances listed in Annex No. 3, while total PFAS has a broader scope. The law allows monitoring of both parameters or only one of them, subject to monitoring requirements and risk assessment. This is precisely why readers should not assume for themselves which indicator was used.
3. “Below the quantification limit” does not mean “zero”
A result of “<0.0015 µg/l” means that the laboratory did not quantify the substance above the limit indicated by the method. It is not synonymous with the absolute absence of the substance, nor is it by itself an exceedance.
There are three distinct levels that should not be confused:
- analytical detection or quantification — what the laboratory method can establish;
- reported result — the figure or notation entered for the substance or indicator;
- compliance — the comparison of the relevant parameter with the applicable parametric value.
Fictional example, for reading purposes only: if a report states “Supply zone A”, a sample taken on 8 September 2026, a method and quantification limit of 0.0015 µg/l, and shows a numerical value or an explicit conclusion under “Sum of PFAS” in relation to the 0.1 µg/l threshold, the reader has the basic elements needed to understand the document. If it only lists individual compounds, without a result or explanation for the relevant sum, the document may be technically correct but remains harder for the public to interpret.
Cluj: a public report that raises the right question
A test report published by Compania de Apă Someș, issued on 15 June 2026 for a sample taken on 10 June 2026, shows exactly why the presentation of data matters. The document identifies the sampling point as ZAP 1, at the Pralina Cake Laboratory, 2 Calea Baciului, Cluj-Napoca. The analysis was carried out by the Cluj-Napoca Regional Public Health Centre at the request of Compania de Apă Someș, and the sample was taken by Cluj DSP, according to the report.
The report lists 20 PFAS compounds, each with a result below the 0.0015 µg/l quantification limit. In the “Sum of PFAS” row, the document displays the permitted value of 0.1 µg/l, but the fields for method, measured value and quantification limit are left blank.
This is not evidence of an exceedance. The report also states that the results apply only to the sample tested, so it cannot support conclusions about the entire network in Cluj-Napoca. But the public document does not explicitly state the aggregate result reported for Sum of PFAS or how the compliance conclusion was formulated for that sample.
It is not appropriate for readers to add up the compounds’ quantification limits themselves to produce their own “sum”. The list of included substances, the rule for handling results below the quantification limit and the methodology used must be confirmed by the laboratory or competent authority. Clearer public information would display the result for Sum of PFAS, the relevant method or reporting rule, and the conclusion for that sample.
Editorial note: this rewrite does not attribute to Compania de Apă Someș or Cluj DSP an explanation that was not provided to the editorial team. Before final publication, the editorial team must ask them in writing whether Sum of PFAS was calculated, which compounds were included, which rule was used for results below the quantification limit, and why the value does not appear in the public document.
If an exceedance appears, who does what
Government Ordinance No. 7/2023 clearly separates responsibilities. In cases of non-compliance, the supplier must investigate the cause and remedy the problem, while DSP assesses the public-health risk and helps determine the measures. When DSP finds a potential danger to health, the supplier, with DSP’s approval, must inform affected consumers about the risk, its cause, the non-compliant parameter and the measures taken, including any bans or restrictions. The information must be updated, including when safe supply resumes. These obligations are set out in Articles 14 and 17 of the ordinance.
The European Commission states that the harmonised rules applicable from 12 January 2026 require monitoring, reporting relevant results to the Commission — including exceedances, incidents and derogations — and health-protection measures when limits are exceeded. Institutional reporting should not, however, be confused with an instant public alert searchable by address.
If you see the term “derogation”
A derogation is not an excuse for ignoring an exceedance. Under Article 15 of Government Ordinance No. 7/2023, DSP may grant one only at the supplier’s request, for the shortest possible period of no more than three years, only if the permitted value does not pose a potential danger to health and there is no alternative drinking-water supply for the area concerned. Request the derogation document: the parameter; the affected area and population; the period; monitoring results; the control programme; and the remediation timetable.
What to request if you cannot find the answer
First, send the operator a precise request. Avoid the general question “does the water contain PFAS?”, which may prompt a general answer.
Please tell me the supply zone serving the address [address/locality] and provide the most recent available report for that zone concerning total PFAS and/or Sum of PFAS, in accordance with the applicable monitoring programme. Please include the sampling point and date, the analysis date, laboratory, method, quantification limit, reported indicator and compliance conclusion for the sample. Please also indicate any remedial measures, use restrictions or derogations applicable to the zone.
If there is an alert, a restriction or an incomplete response concerning public-health measures, ask the county DSP or Bucharest DSP for information on the affected area, the measures ordered and the applicable recommendations. DSP is a public institution: a request made under Law No. 544/2001 must generally be answered within 10 days, and the deadline may be extended to no more than 30 days if the institution notifies you in writing within the first 10 days.
In the event of an official restriction, do not try to replace the authorities’ instructions with your own interpretation of a PDF or a hastily commissioned analysis. Follow the operator’s and DSP’s communications for your area.
The useful verdict
A PFAS result does not become relevant to you simply because it is online or carries your city’s name. It becomes relevant when you can link it to your own supply zone and when the document clearly states where, when, using which method, and what the result was for the monitored indicator.
If any one of these four elements is missing, you do not yet have a verdict on the water from your tap. You have a legitimate question for the operator and, where appropriate, for DSP.
Frequently asked questions
What are the PFAS values for drinking water in Romania?
Annex No. 1, Table B of Government Ordinance No. 7/2023 sets 0.5 µg/l for total PFAS and 0.1 µg/l for Sum of PFAS. They are different indicators.
If all substances on the list are below the quantification limit, can I say myself that Sum of PFAS is below the limit?
That is not recommended. The list of substances included in the indicator, the methodological rules and the treatment of results below the quantification limit must be confirmed by the laboratory or competent authority. Request the aggregate result or the official conclusion for Sum of PFAS.
Does a result from my city automatically apply to my address?
No. Check the supply zone, sampling point and sample date. Cities and operators may have several sources, networks or distribution zones.
Who informs me if there is a health risk?
The water supplier informs affected consumers, with DSP’s approval, when DSP finds a potential danger to public health. DSP helps determine the measures and may order restrictions or bans, under the conditions set by law.
What if the operator does not tell me which zone serves my address?
Keep your request and ask DSP for information on public-health measures, any non-compliance and derogations for the specified area. For DSP, you can invoke Law No. 544/2001 on access to information of public interest.
Sources consulted
- Government Ordinance No. 7/2023 on the quality of water intended for human consumption — Legislative Portal
- New EU-wide protections against PFAS in drinking water come into effect — European Commission
- Law No. 544/2001 on free access to information of public interest — Legislative Portal
- Water analysis reports — Apa Nova Bucharest
- Water quality — APAVITAL
