Is arsenic common in well water in upstate NY? (New York: 2015, sex offender)

[ncus]

Currently in New England and looking to move. Upstate NY is on the list. Where I am not has very hight arsenic in the water and it's honestly one of my reasons for moving.

Getting a little depressed as I'm checking a bunch of town's water quality reports and most have measurable levels of arsenic (and lead).

Is it also common to find arsenic or other heavy metals in well water around Albany? (within an hour radius of Albany)

Water quality is very important to me and I really need there to be no arsenic or lead, so trying to see if I basically need an RO system or something anywhere I go.

Thanks!

[ckhthankgod]

What water sources did you look into? I will say, while not in the Albany area, Skaneateles Lake in the Syracuse area is recognized as a clean water source for a good portion of the area.

[ncus]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

What water sources did you look into? I will say, while not in the Albany area, Skaneateles Lake in the Syracuse area is recognized as a clean water source for a good portion of the area.

Thanks. Yeah, I've been looking mostly in small towns around Albany.
Nearly every public water report I've looked at has had at least small levels of arsenic and lead.

Just curious if this translates to well water as well as I would most likely buy something with a well.

Just trying to prepare myself if I need a whole house filter or something I guess.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by ncus

Thanks. Yeah, I've been looking mostly in small towns around Albany.
Nearly every public water report I've looked at has had at least small levels of arsenic and lead.

Just curious if this translates to well water as well as I would most likely buy something with a well.

Just trying to prepare myself if I need a whole house filter or something I guess.

Though a bit old, this information may help: https://msph.shinyapps.io/pww_tracker/

[ncus]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

Though a bit old, this information may help: https://msph.shinyapps.io/pww_tracker/

That is helpful! Thanks so much.
Wish there was an updated resource like this

[ckhthankgod]

Here is an interesting/related article I came across for people in parts of the state to consider. This may also be a piece related to infrastructure and industrialization/regulations as well.

PFAS ‘forever’ chemicals found in hundreds of New York water systems at unsafe levels: https://auburnpub.com/news/state-and...9530b4d89c1102

From the article: “Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include details from a recent Drinking Water Quality Council meeting in which it was revealed that New York officials told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that nearly 550 public water systems in the state contain PFAS.

The drinking-water systems that serve at least 3.2 million New Yorkers rely on water from rivers, lakes and streams that - before it’s treated - contains unsafe levels of the so-called “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, state and federal data show.

Those chemicals have been linked to health problems including increased risk of kidney and testicular cancers, liver disease and reproductive damage.

But only some of the hundreds of affected drinking water systems across New York that contain PFAS at levels that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now says are too high actually are required to treat their water for PFAS or take other steps to reduce the chemicals before residents turn on their taps. That leaves an untold number of New Yorkers subjected - sometimes unknowingly - to elevated PFAS levels in their tap water.

Tony Schillo, a resident at Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park in Onondaga County, has heard a common refrain from neighbors ever since he moved in: “Don’t drink the water.”

Schillo recently received a notice from the park that the water flowing from their taps has contained PFAS at a higher level than New York allows since at least 2021, but no treatment has happened yet. The park owner said she is looking into multiple options.

“It’s like living in a third-world country,” Schillo said. “I can’t go outside and fill up a pool with water or the sprinkler for my kid to play with. Even the simple plight of taking a bath gives me anxiety for my kid not to try to drink that water.”

As a result, his family of four is dependent on bottled water for drinking and cooking. The empty jugs pile up in the shed. Buying water that way gets “crazy expensive,” Schillo said. When money’s tight, he skips buying the jugs and boils his tap water before using it.

“These are unacceptable conditions,” Schillo said.

PFAS - otherwise known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances - are man-made chemicals that have been used for years to manufacture heat-, water- and stain-resistant products – from nonstick pans and rain jackets to carpet, cosmetics, tampons, toilet paper and more. Contamination is so widespread that federal health officials estimate most Americans’ blood contains PFAS.

The EPA, which proposed the first-ever federal restrictions on PFAS chemicals in drinking water earlier this year, found that those chemicals are unsafe at even lower levels than utilities can reliably test for.

Hoosick Falls, a small village outside Albany, made national headlines in 2015 when the U.S. EPA told residents not to drink the water because of PFAS contamination. The community installed treatment technology to clean up the chemicals. Hoosick Falls became a watershed event for alerting the public to the issues of PFAS in drinking water.

But the contamination hasn’t only affected a few isolated communities. PFAS contamination in drinking water systems affects communities across New York, in larger water systems that serve hundreds of thousands of people and in small mobile home parks, schools and synagogues.

“This is a public health crisis at this point,” said Yvonne Taylor, founder of Seneca Lake Guardian, an advocacy group based in the Finger Lakes area that focuses on New York environmental issues. “Many people in the public don’t even know about this emerging contamination or the health implications of drinking water that has high levels of it. It’s kind of like Hoosick Falls, all over again, everywhere.”

An analysis of statewide drinking water system data and the state's PFAS regulations by the Lee Enterprises Public Service Journalism Team found the following:

In 2021 alone, nearly 300 public water systems serving 3.2 million people across about 35 counties reported to the State Department of Health in 2021 that the source water they use tested positive for at least one PFAS compound at a level that the U.S. EPA now says is too high.

The state told the EPA in late May that nearly 550 public water systems in New York contain at least one PFAS chemical at a level higher than their proposed restriction.
The worst PFAS contamination in drinking water sources in 2021 was found at mobile home parks in Oswego County, the Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh water districts in Rensselaer County, Hopewell Hamlet and Greenfield water districts in Dutchess County, and a Jewish school and synagogue in Westchester County. The water used to serve all of those places at some point in 2021 tested positive for at least 100 parts per trillion for PFAS – or 25 times the level that the EPA has proposed is adequate to protect public health.

The true extent of the contamination across the state is difficult to ascertain due to disparities in the state’s data. Some water utilities, such as the Buffalo Water Board, reported to residents that their finished tap water contained lower PFAS levels than what was initially reported by the state, because of what they said was a data error. And the state does not keep track of what each of the thousands of water utilities individually report to their customers about their PFAS levels.

Some New Yorkers are getting out-of-date information that downplays the health impacts of PFAS chemicals. The state’s current guidance dictates that for water systems with PFAS detections up to 70 parts per trillion, residents are to receive a notice that their water “does not pose a significant short-term health risk” and that the water "continues to be acceptable for all uses.” That means even people whose water systems exceeded the state’s maximum levels for PFAS contaminants are still being told their water is safe to drink, even though the EPA released information about a year ago that says PFAS is unsafe at a much lower exposure level.

About a dozen water systems with elevated PFAS levels have deferral agreements with the state health department, allowing them to pursue treatment on a schedule agreed to by the state. Those agreements allow them to “avoid being issued a formal violation while they are working on reducing” PFAS levels.

Clean-water advocates say the reality – where some New Yorkers drink water free from PFAS contamination but others aren’t as lucky – is a failure of government officials to adequately manage the state’s growing PFAS problem, even as the state has taken numerous steps in recent years to try to deal with the issue.

“How can you protect public health by allowing any of these in our drinking water?” said Loreen Hackett, a Hoosick Falls resident with documented elevated PFAS levels who has fought breast cancer and other health issues. She and other Hoosick Falls residents are involved in a long-range state health study monitoring the PFAS levels in their blood.

“If we’ve banned them in apparel, carpets and food packaging, why are we allowed to drink any of them?”

New York is one of 22 states that have enacted or proposed maximum levels for PFAS in drinking water, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“New York State is committed to having the safest drinking water possible,” said Department of Health spokeswoman Erin Clary, who says the state’s existing standards have allowed it to “take action to reduce these levels to limit exposure and prevent health risks.”

And water utility operators say most of the state’s water systems are moving as fast as they can controlling PFAS in light of the fast-evolving science, while trying to keep up with increased regulations and compliance costs.

“You know, there may be some isolated instances where more prompt action might be warranted, based upon extreme circumstances,” said Marty Aman, executive director of the Wayne County Water and Sewer Authority. “But I mean … I don't see a lot of foot dragging going on.”

But some are pushing New York state officials – including the State Department of Health, Gov. Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers – to further tighten their PFAS rules to protect more New Yorkers’ drinking water from the chemicals. They say the state needs to keep up with states like Maine and Minnesota that have banned all but essential uses of the chemicals.

“When we’re talking about standards, it can seem so abstract, but it has such a concrete impact on people’s lives,” said Rob Hayes, director of clean water at the advocacy group Environmental Advocates NY. “These standards determine whose water gets cleaned up and whose doesn’t.”

Why some PFAS contamination in drinking water is cleaned up — and some isn’t
The reason why some New Yorkers’ water is treated for PFAS and some isn’t has to do with the gap between state and federal standards.

New York’s rules for how much of the chemicals can be in drinking water before treatment and notification is required are looser than what the U.S. EPA now recommends to be adequately protective. The EPA responded to new research showing even low exposure to the chemicals can cause health problems.

The EPA proposed earlier this year that drinking water across the U.S. should only contain the two main PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, up to 4 parts per trillion. But New York allows the chemicals to remain in people’s water without treatment or notification until they reach 10 parts per trillion.

“I totally support the new EPA standards - I think they’re long overdue,” said David Carpenter, a public health physician and professor at the University at Albany. “But I understand the state’s reluctance to implement them because they’re going to be expensive. It’s always this issue of cost versus protecting human health.”

The EPA proposal has not yet gone into effect and is likely to face extensive pushback and even litigation from opponents like the chemical industry, which has said it supports some drinking water standards but is concerned about compliance costs. If it does go into effect, the EPA estimates it could cost up to $1.2 billion to implement nationwide to install treatment technology in nearly 150,000 water systems. The state believes that cost estimate is too low.

In the meantime, advocates are concerned about those living in the gap. PFAS contamination in those drinking water systems does not reach New York's existing standards for mandatory treatment, but exceeds the EPA's.

“Residents should know if their water utility is exceeding the EPA’s drinking water standards,” Hayes said. “Without knowing if they’re going to exceed the EPA levels, residents will never think to hold their water utility accountable and get them proactively solving the problem.

“We aren’t advocating for everyone in the population to switch to bottled water. But there might be vulnerable members of a population - pregnant women, people with infants, the immunocompromised - that are most especially at risk of even short-term PFAS exposure,” he said.

Some larger, more-resourced drinking water systems - like the Monroe County Water Authority, which serves nearly 500,000 people - have taken proactive steps to remove PFAS from customers’ tap water after it’s detected in the source water or a well.

Ken Naugle, production engineer for the Monroe County Water Authority, said his utility has installed technology already to limit things like harmful algal blooms. That it also treats PFAS chemicals is a bonus.

“We were just fortunate we had (it) already built into our filtration process,” Naugle said. “Other water utilities may not be or are not as fortunate and will have to be forced into considering (treatment) as part of their compliance strategy.”

But many smaller systems can’t afford to do much about the problem until contamination reaches a critical level.

“Even if they might pose a threat to public health, you might be more likely to get treatment proactively if you’re in a large system than if you’re in a rural system that is struggling to keep the lights on every single day,” Hayes said.”

[ckhthankgod]

^More…”More than 250 water systems in New York have at some point tested positive for PFOA or PFOS above 10 parts per trillion, according to the Health Department.

In all those cases, testing results breached the state’s maximum level of 10 parts per trillion for the chemicals. That requires the water systems to both notify residents and their local health department and do something to fix the problem, such as treating the water or removing a contaminated source from use.

Peggy Kurtz, leader of the Rockland Water Coalition, said “approving the (EPA proposal) makes all the difference to us in Rockland County between continuing to drink water that is contaminated with PFAS or not.”

Veolia Water just outside New York City in Rockland County had levels of both PFOA and PFOS that met or exceeded the state maximum contaminant level in 2021. However, the water system has a deferral through August of 2023 and it noted that "Veolia is taking the steps necessary to meet New York State's requirements regarding PFAS and PFOA” on its 2021 water quality report. The company said it is "well-positioned and well-equipped to implement additional treatment that may be required" if the EPA rule goes into effect.

Other systems have run into compliance issues. Schillo’s mobile home park tested positive for a PFAS chemical named PFOS, or Perfluorooctane Sulfonate, at a level of 13 parts per trillion in 2021 - above the state’s maximum contaminant level.

Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park, which provides water for 200 people, received a violation from the State Department of Health in 2021 for violating the maximum contaminant level for PFOS for the entire year. State data notes that “corrective action (was) taken,” but the problem still persists.

The notice received recently by residents also states that the park is “working on a strict timetable to reduce levels” of PFOS with the Onondaga County Health Department.

Kim Berry, the mobile home park owner, said she has more pressing problems to deal with, like trying to evict a sex offender. She said PFAS wasn’t as dangerous as other contaminants that could be found in water, downplaying the effects as “Oh my Gosh, your big toe turns red in 10 years.”

“I’m dealing with serious stuff,” Berry said. “This isn't going to kill anybody today or tomorrow.”

She also said people have “other chemicals sitting in their body right now that they’re consuming off their plate, or their nonstick pan or convenient wrapping they get at Walmart.”

“You know, you can’t live a horrible lifestyle and expect everything else to be perfect,” Berry said.

Berry called on the state or local health department to help her fix the problem. In the meantime, she said she would be happy to get residents a Brita pitcher to clean their water.

“They haven’t given me any advice,” Berry said. “If it was such a big deal … why isn't the county then saying, ‘This is how you solve this.’ They’re the ones who are saying this is a bad thing.”

The Onondaga Health Department, however, said through a spokesperson that they have “worked with the owner/operator of Rolling Hills extensively” and have urged her to connect the park to the nearby city of Elbridge’s water supply.

Clary, the state health department spokesperson, said “all public water suppliers that exceed any regulatory standard are required to take corrective action such as providing treatment or connecting to another source of water” or risk being subject to fines or other penalties.

What is PFAS found in?
PFAS contamination comes from “air, water or soil contaminated from fire-fighting foam, industrial sources, food, and PFAS-containing consumer products,” according to the New York state health department. It’s been detected in water supplies near where PFAS chemicals were “manufactured, used, or disposed of.”

“They’re around us everywhere,” Hayes said. “PFAS leech out in groundwater. Landfills are a big source. Any place using firefighting foam, like airports, military bases, firehouses or training facilities.”

Though PFAS chemicals are now understood to be harmful, our exposure is widespread. About 200 million Americans are exposed to PFAS in their drinking water, according to a study by Environmental Working Group scientists.

“Initially it was for Scotchgard and Teflon,” Carpenter said. “But it’s much more than that now. It’s just everywhere. Everybody is exposed.”

In Hoosick Falls, the contamination came from several sources, including Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, which used PFOA in its manufacturing operations, and Honeywell International, which through its predecessor company Allied Signal Corp. operated sites in Hoosick Falls.

In 2015, the EPA advised Hoosick Falls residents not to drink their water or use it for cooking. Several areas have since been declared Superfund sites.

A $65 million settlement between homeowners and companies 3M, Saint-Gobain and Honeywell International, which used the chemical, was approved last year. The state Department of Environmental Conservation recently announced a $45 million settlement to install a new drinking water system in Hoosick Falls.

The village’s source water was still one of the most contaminated in the state as of the 2021 data. The maximum level of PFOA detected in the source water was 650 parts per trillion, or 162 times higher than the new EPA proposal.

Health impacts of PFAS on humans
Meanwhile, more evidence shows that the chemicals are unhealthy even at low levels of exposure. The Biden administration says the EPA’s proposed drinking water regulations “will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses” nationwide.

In June of 2022, the EPA released new health advisories for PFAS chemicals, stating “some negative health effects may occur with concentrations of PFOA or PFAS in the water that are near zero.”

Robert Laumbach, associate professor of occupational environmental health and justice at Rutgers University, who is a principal investigator on a PFAS study for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said there’s a reason they’re known as “forever chemicals." They “get stored in the body and in the blood and build up over time,” he said.

Leonardo Trasande, a New York University pediatrician and public health researcher who studies environmental risks for children, said “these chemicals miswire our hormone systems and give us a predisposition to disease and disability.”

“The effects of PFAS are profound,” Trasande said. “They make babies become born with lower birth weights. It’s associated with a number of concerns, including breast cancer but also thyroid (problems). We need to reduce exposure to protect the public.”

Should the state do more to limit PFAS?
When the new EPA proposal was released, the state Department of Health stressed that “residents can continue to drink their water unless told otherwise by their public water system, or the local or state health department” while the proposal is under review.

Since then, it has raised concerns with the proposal, from the “significant” workload increase it would create, to concerns about testing laboratory capacity and increased costs. In comments submitted to the EPA in late May but unveiled to the public this week, the department said it is “concerned that the EPA has underestimated the cost of this proposal,” which it estimated to be $1.6 billion just in New York.

State officials said this week at a Drinking Water Quality Council meeting that they are trying to reconcile the EPA’s approach to PFAS regulation with their own approach, which includes trying to regulate about two dozen lesser-known PFAS.

“If we don’t take our time and make a very deliberative decision, we have the potential for unsuccessful implementation,” said Scott Alderman, assistant director of the state’s Bureau of Water Supply Protection.

In lieu of proactively adopting the EPA’s proposal, state officials proposed this week to instead notify residents whose water systems tested positive at 4 parts per trillion for PFOS or PFOA. That wouldn’t require water systems to fix the problem at that level, but it would at least be “cluing the public in on what’s in their water,” said Gary Gensburg, director of the DOH’s Center for Environmental Health.

But clean-water advocates like Hayes say the state is “ceding the national leadership” on PFAS regulation if it doesn’t adopt the EPA proposal. If the rule is mired in litigation, it could take years to go into effect.

“We can't constantly be falling behind what the chemical industry is putting in our water,” Hayes said. “We need the DOH to step up and move faster than the EPA to get these stronger drinking water standards enacted as soon as possible.”

At the very least, Hayes said people shouldn't be getting conflicting information from various levels of government.

The notice Schillo received at the mobile home park, for example, said on one page that the chemical that had been detected in their water system “caused a range of health effects,” from liver issues to impaired fetal growth and cancer. On another page, it said the water was "acceptable for all uses." '

But Clary, the health department spokesperson, said in most cases "an exceedance of an MCL also does not mean that water is unsafe for use while the public water system takes actions to reduce the levels."

The state also has defended its PFAS regulations as “among the most protective in the country." Dozens of states have no restrictions on the books.

It has also already banned PFAS in some products like carpeting and clothing. Gov. Hochul last year signed legislation that allows water authorities to sue drinking water polluters for claims after previously set statutes of limitations.

But Hackett, the Hoosick Falls resident, is pushing for a total ban on PFAS in New York in all nonessential uses and a crack down on drinking water.

“Why mess around anymore with this?” Hackett said. “We get to live every day seeing the health effects right here in our community, in my own family, in myself, in people I know. We’re living the nightmare; we see the health effects.”