Source:
Navigating the Complexities of Long Island’s Drinking Water Quality Concerns
Rudy Malcom
July 09, 2019
After reviewing federal data collected between 2013 and 2016, the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) found that Long Island had a notably higher number of detections of emerging contaminants in its drinking water compared to other regions in the state. In their May 28 report, titled “What’s In My Water?”, the organization highlighted Nassau County as having the greatest number of water systems where emerging contaminants were identified.
Emerging contaminants, as explained in the report, are unregulated chemicals identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as substances that may appear in water supplies and could pose potential health risks. The report notes that 19 different emerging contaminants were detected in Long Island’s water systems, with seven of them found at levels exceeding the EPA’s reference concentrations. These reference concentrations are non-enforced estimates intended to indicate the maximum acceptable levels of certain substances over a lifetime of exposure, based on health and risk assessments.
Although “reference concentrations are health-based,” as noted on an EPA web page, it is important to understand that “they do not represent regulatory values or action levels and should not be interpreted as an indication that the Agency intends to establish a future drinking water regulation.”
Emerging contaminants, which can result from industrial processes, may also be found in a variety of consumer products, including non-stick pans, baby shampoo, and waterproof raincoats. The NYPIRG report recommended that the New York State Department of Health (DOH) set Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for substances like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and 1,4-dioxane, which are currently unregulated in Long Island’s drinking water. The report emphasized that while the mere presence of emerging contaminants does not necessarily pose an immediate danger, it should prompt a science-based response from public officials to ensure public safety.
Anton Media Group spoke with several drinking water quality experts and public employees to better understand the report’s findings and the potential public health implications. The interviews highlighted a range of perspectives, including activists’ calls for action, concerns about government response, the balance between community safety and corporate interests, and the ongoing challenges related to environmental toxicity.
How dangerous are the contaminants named in the report?
PFOA and PFOS are two types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a group of synthetic chemicals often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their strong carbon-fluorine bonds, which can make them persistent in the environment and in living organisms.
As part of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR), PFOA was detected at 48 parts per trillion (ppt) in the Town of Hempstead Water District. While this level is higher than the 4 ppt recommended by advocacy organizations, it remains lower than the EPA’s reference concentration of 70 ppt for PFOA.
According to an EPA web page, reference concentrations are not “based on a level established as ‘significant’ or ‘harmful’” and do not “represent regulatory values or action levels.”
In June, the nation’s top toxicologist suggested that the safety threshold for PFOA in drinking water could be significantly lower, proposing a level of 0.1 ppt, which is 700 times lower than the EPA’s current reference concentration. Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), referred to recent research linking PFOA exposure to pancreatic cancer in rats.
Dr. Judith Schreiber, former chief scientist of environmental protection for the New York Attorney General’s Office, explained that toxicologists base risk assessments on the overall weight of evidence from numerous studies, which can sometimes be contradictory, before determining the highest acceptable level of a substance. After spending 20 years at the Department of Health developing risk assessment practices, Schreiber now provides independent scientific consulting through her company, Schreiber Scientific, LLC, since retiring from public service.
Compared to other chemicals, Schreiber noted that the potential health effects of PFOA and PFOS, including impacts on prenatal development, the immune system, thyroid function, and increased risks for certain cancers, are of particular concern at relatively low levels. Based on these concerns, she recommended Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS in the range of 4 to 10 ppt. The New York State Drinking Water Quality Council (DWQC), an independent entity advising the state on emerging contaminants, proposed an MCL of 10 ppt in December. This recommendation is currently under review by New York State Health Commissioner Howard Zucker.
Schreiber cautioned that removing such chemicals from drinking water at these low levels presents significant challenges, and that efforts to reduce chemical exposure could come with associated financial costs for taxpayers.
The Hicksville Water District (HWD) has announced plans to implement a pilot treatment system for 1,4-dioxane. According to a press release, the project will incur no additional cost to Hicksville residents due to a $3-million grant from the state. This pilot system is being set up in collaboration with the New York State Center for Clean Water Technology (CCWT) at Stony Brook University, following the discovery that the highest level of 1,4-dioxane detected in New York was 34 parts per billion (ppb) in the HWD—significantly higher than the EPA’s reference concentration of 0.35 ppb.
The EPA’s reference concentration of 0.35 ppb is not a health advisory level but is based on a risk estimate of one-in-a-million cancer risk. Under this classification, the EPA estimates that up to 97 people out of one million could develop cancer if exposed to this level of 1,4-dioxane continuously over 70 years. The EPA has classified 1,4-dioxane as a “probable human carcinogen” due to its potential chronic effects on the kidney and liver.
Dr. Arjun Venkatesan, associate director for Drinking Water Initiatives at the CCWT, emphasized the importance of both detection sensitivity and risk assessment. While Schreiber mentioned the need for low detection sensitivity to measure emerging contaminants, Venkatesan pointed out that understanding the risk posed by these contaminants at low levels is equally important.
“While detecting contaminants at low levels is important,” Venkatesan said, “it’s essential to also have a robust approach to assessing their potential risk to health.”
How do chemicals infiltrate our drinking water and bodies?
Due to their resistance to heat, oil, and water, PFAS chemicals became widely used in various industries during the mid-20th century. PFOA and PFOS, which are part of this chemical family, are no longer synthesized in the U.S. The EPA encouraged eight major chemical manufacturers to phase out the use of PFOA in 2006.
Similarly, Dr. Venkatesan noted that much of the contamination from 1,4-dioxane is linked to industrial practices from decades ago. The chemical’s stabilizing properties made it useful as an industrial solvent in manufacturing processes. In addition, 1,4-dioxane contamination can also arise from certain consumer products, such as shampoo, liquid dishwashing soap, and baby lotion.
Schreiber discussed how past industrial practices continue to affect our water quality today. PFOA and PFOS were extensively used in firefighting foam for many years, without public awareness of their potential environmental impact. She explained that runoff from firefighting foam, used in training at fire departments, military bases, and airports, could permeate groundwater and eventually reach rivers and streams, allowing these substances to spread over time.
“These chemicals are known as ‘forever chemicals,’” she said. “While not literally forever, they persist for a long time, and addressing their presence is challenging.”
Industries have replaced PFOA and PFOS in firefighting foam with other PFAS chemicals. Dr. Schreiber explained that, in theory, these replacement chemicals should be less persistent because they have shorter carbon chains and fewer fluorine atoms. However, these alternatives have not been studied to the same extent as PFOA and PFOS. Some of the few studies available suggest that these replacement chemicals may have similar potential health concerns.
“Our federal chemical regulatory system is not fully equipped to evaluate the toxicity and exposure risks of all existing chemicals,” said Dr. Alissa Cordner, codirector of the PFAS Project Lab at Northeastern University.
Liza Moran, who cowrote the NYPIRG report and is the organization’s environmental policy director, agreed with Cordner, adding that though PFOA and PFOS have been phased out, there are little to no regulations that prevent their continued use. She also suspects that many fire departments, military bases, and airports improperly dispose of old firefighting foam, letting PFOA and PFOS reach more drinking water supplies.
“We need to stop using chemicals and products and manufacturing processes until they’re proven safe for public health,” Moran said.
Dr. Laura Rabinow, who served as the New York State Senate Democratic Conference’s Environmental Conservation Policy Analyst in 2017, shared Moran’s concerns. She pointed out that of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently in use in the U.S., the majority have not been fully tested for their potential human health effects. Only around 90 have been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act since its establishment in 1974.
“That is a very small number,” she said. “We need to ensure that companies are required to demonstrate the safety of individual chemicals, rather than placing the burden on communities to address potential risks after the fact.”
Dr. Jaymie Meliker, an associate professor of Family, Population, and Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University, who studies exposure-disease relationships, explained that testing for human health effects often takes a significant amount of time. He suggested that this is part of a larger issue regarding how emerging contaminants, like PFAS and 1,4-dioxane, continue to affect the environment.
“This is the broader reality we face—not necessarily explicitly, but we’ve accepted it,” he said. “We prioritize convenience and technology, and in doing so, we often overlook the need for thorough testing of potential health risks. As long as that remains the case, emerging contaminants will continue to be a concern.”
PFOA and PFOS can also be present in various consumer products, including food packaging, stain repellents, and nonstick cooking pans.
“I might have them in my raincoat; it’s waterproof,” Rabinow noted. “Many people may also have them in their shoes if they are made with Gore-Tex.”
Schreiber explained that PFAS chemicals from fabrics, furniture, and shoes can end up in household dust, which children may inhale or ingest due to their hand-to-mouth behaviors and frequent contact with surfaces.
PFAS chemicals can also be transmitted from mother to fetus through the placenta. Additionally, because PFAS are both water- and fat-soluble, they can accumulate in body fat and the blood supply, which may lead to their presence in breast milk.
“The mother’s breast milk may contain levels of these chemicals due to her prior exposures throughout life,” Schreiber explained. “It’s a consequence of how these chemicals accumulate in the body.”
Schreiber also noted that because only a small amount of PFAS is excreted through urine or feces, breastfeeding is sometimes seen as a natural process that may help reduce the body’s overall chemical burden.
“I’ve worked extensively on the issue of chemicals in breast milk, and it’s a challenging realization for many women to learn about the presence of these substances in their bodies,” Schreiber said. “Mothers want to make the best choices for their babies.”
Schreiber also mentioned that PFAS chemicals can enter cow’s milk and meat through the use of sewage sludge as a soil conditioner, a process that can contribute to the presence of these substances in the food chain.
Cordner also highlighted the role of sewage sludge, which the EPA defines as “the solids separated during the treatment of municipal wastewater.” She emphasized how PFOA and PFOS have remained prevalent in the environment, despite concerns about their toxicity being raised as early as the 1960s.
“Why did it take so long for them to be phased out of production?” she asked. “The combination of profit motives in the industry and gaps in the regulatory system contributed to the delayed action.”