From the Board of Trustees: This past Spring, Pastor Roy and the Trustees were contacted by a member of the congregation about their concern with the drinking water quality at our church and the surrounding Centerport Community. Their specific concern was with Radon which was detected in Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) water sources and in samples that the family collected from the tap water in the church, the parsonage and some Centerport homes. The Trustees did not take this concern lightly and decided to contact SCWA to have our church water tested for Radon. The concentration of Radon in this sample was very similar to the concentrations provided for our area in SCWA's annual water quality report. Still seeking to find out what these levels meant the Trustees decided to reach out to Dr. William (Doc) Spencer who is the County Legislator for Centerport. Doc Spencer responded right away and arranged a meeting with himself, the board of trustees, Pastor Roy, representatives from SCWA, representatives from the Suffolk County Dept. of Health (who were unable to attend) and the concerned member. During this meeting we learned that the EPA does not have a maximum contaminant level (mcl) for Radon but has a recommended level that greatly exceeds the concentrations detected in all of the samples collected, including those collected by the concerned member. The Suffolk County Dept. of Health responded to our concern with a letter which we have included below. Based on this letter and the results of the sample collected by SCWA, the Trustees are satisfied with this information and feel comfortable with the quality of the water on church property. If you have any questions, please contact Bob LaFroscia, President of the Trustees Board.

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK

STEVEN BELLONE

SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 3500 Sunrise Highway, Ste. 124, PO Box 9006, Great River, NY 11739-9006

(631) 854-0000 Fax (631) 854-0108

JAMES L. TOMARKEN, MD, MPH, MBA, MSW Commissioner

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

July 10, 2015

The Honorable William Spencer

Suffolk County Legislator, 18th District

15 Park Circle, Suite 209

Centerport, NY 11721

Dear Legislator Spencer:

On June 22, 2015, you forwarded an email sent to you from a constituent who expressed concern about

radon in drinking. They were specifically concerned about test results from the Suffolk County Water

Authority (SCWA), reported in the 2015 Annual Water Quality Report. I have asked my staff to put

together some background information on radon to help address the concerns of your constituents.

Background

Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas produced from the breakdown of radium which may be

present in certain soil and rock geological formations. Because of its natural occurrence in soil and rock

formations, radon can be found in indoor air of homes and groundwater leading to potential exposure.

Based on the geology of Long Island, there is a lower potential for radon exposure from indoor air where

we live compared to other areas of the state. This is illustrated below on the map of New York State

taken from a New York State Department of Health fact sheet. Areas identified as “high radon risk areas”

are in pink (shaded counties).

http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/soil_gas/svi_guidance/docs/radon_faqs.pdf

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 3500 Sunrise Highway, Ste. 124, PO Box 9006, Great River, NY 11739-9006

(631) 854-0000 Fax (631) 854-0108

Studies conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) reveal that radon is a

natural constituent of most groundwaters. Based on historical monitoring and research, it has been

determined that the radon levels detected in Suffolk County water resources were generally below the

natural background level found in other areas of the country and state (see attached reports prepared by

New York State Health Department (NYSDOH) and Suffolk County Department of Health Services

(SCDHS). In fact, studies conducted in New York State (see attached) indicate that Suffolk County

drinking water has some of the lowest concentrations of radon as compared to other counties in the State.

We would like to point out that bottled water is not necessarily free of radon. Water bottled from natural

springs or wells in bedrock formations can contain natural radiological elements. Studies report

concentrations of radon, as well as other radionuclides, in bottled water.

Health Risk from Radon Exposure

Exposure to radon can occur either from radon in indoor air or from radon in drinking water. The greatest

concern is inhalation exposure to radon due to the risk of developing lung cancer. In fact, the US EPA

estimates that exposure to radon in indoor air is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United

States. People who smoke tobacco are at even greater risk from exposure to radon. Though most of the

radon in indoor air comes from the ground underneath homes, some radon (approximately 1-2 percent)

may originate from the normal household use of drinking water such as showering, or running the

dishwasher and laundry machine. Ingestion of radon in drinking water can pose a risk of internal organ

cancer. However the risk from ingestion is much smaller than the risk of developing lung cancer from

radon released to air from tap water.

Radon in Drinking Water Regulation

At present, there is no enforceable drinking water standard for radon. Because most exposure, and the

highest risk of cancer is from the inhalation of radon, the US EPA has proposed a tiered approach to

regulating radon in drinking water. Under the proposed regulation, states would have the flexibility to

focus on the greatest source of exposure and risk. In states that develop a US EPA-approved, enhanced

radon indoor air program (called Multimedia Mitigation Program), community water suppliers would be

required to provide water with radon levels no higher than 4,000 pCi/L. For states that choose not to

develop the enhanced indoor air programs, community water supply systems in that state would be

required to provide drinking water with a radon concentration of no greater than 300 pCi/L under the

currently proposed regulation.

Monitoring Drinking Water in Suffolk County for Radon

Currently the SCDHS does not monitor groundwater for radon, but we have the ability to implement the

analysis in the future if the need arises. Although not a substitute for analyzing radon, our staff in the

Office of Water Resources routinely collects samples for gross alpha, gross beta and tritium analyses.

Gross alpha analysis of water is used as a screening tool to identify dissolved alpha-emitting

radionuclides. One of those nuclides, radium-226, is a parent of radon and may indicate the presence of

radon. The Office of Water Resources collects samples for gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium from

community water supply wells every 3 years, except that select wells closest to the Brookhaven National

Laboratory are sampled more frequently as a precaution.

Based upon the latest information available, the wellfields serving the area where the subject church is

located include the SCWA’s Meade Drive and Flower Hill Road well fields. The SCDHS last sampled

the

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 3500 Sunrise Highway, Ste. 124, PO Box 9006, Great River, NY 11739-9006

(631) 854-0000 Fax (631) 854-0108

supply wells at these facilities for Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, and Tritium analyses in November of 2014

and in December of 2012 and our records show that the results meet drinking water standards and are all

essentially below detection levels.

Suffolk County’s largest public water system, the SCWA, voluntarily collects samples in their distribution

system for radon. Results are provided to the public in their Annual Water Quality Report. The radon

concentration noted in the 2015 SCWA Annual Water Quality Report (166.5 pCi/L), as well as the

additional sample analyzed by the SCWA (287 pCi/L), as reported in the letter from your constituent, are

both below the lowest proposed drinking water standard.

With respect to the constituent’s radon sample analyzed by ETR laboratories that reported 1054 pCi/L, the

SCDHS cannot make any conclusions regarding the result. The accuracy of the sample cannot be verified

since ETR’s report did not include the analytical methodologies, the sample uncertainty, the minimum

detection limit associated with the sample, or information regarding the sample collection procedure. In

addition, based upon our research, ETR Laboratories is not currently a New York State ELAP certified

laboratory. ELAP is New York State’s Environmental Laboratory Approval Program.

Addressing Health Risk Concerns from Radon Exposure

As mentioned previously, radon in indoor air poses the greatest risk. For this reason, the US EPA and the

US Surgeon General recommend that residents test the indoor air of their homes for radon. Even though

Suffolk County is not in a “high radon risk area”, certainly anyone concerned about exposure to radon

should follow this recommendation to test indoor air. To obtain more information about radon indoor air

testing residents can contact the NYSDOH, Center for Environmental Health at (518) 402-7556 or go to

the following link:

https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/radiological/radon/testkit.htm

In regard to radon in drinking water, the US EPA has evaluated health risks associated with various levels

of radon in drinking water. The primary risk is associated with inhalation of radon released into the

indoor air from normal household usage of water, though there is a smaller potential risk associated with

ingestion, as mentioned previously. Based on the US EPA estimates, the level of radon detected by the

SCWA in the sample taken from the church (287 pci/L) would not be expected to pose an unreasonable

risk.

Additional Resources

Several sources of information for radon, exposure and the proposed drinking water regulation are

provided below for your convenience. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/radon/upload/Radon-Proposed-Consumer-Fact-Sheet.pdf

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/radon/basicinformation.cfm

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/radon/regulations.cfm

http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/investigations/soil_gas/svi_guidance/docs/radon_faqs.pdf

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 3500 Sunrise Highway, Ste. 124, PO Box 9006, Great River, NY 11739-9006

(631) 854-0000 Fax (631) 854-0108

Please let me know if you have any questions, or would like to discuss this issue further.

Sincerely,

James L. Tomarken, MD, MPH, MBA, MSW

Commissioner

Enclosures (2)

cc: Christina Capobianco, CPA, Deputy Commissioner, SCDHS

Walter Dawydiak, PE, JD, Director, Division of Environmental Quality, CSDHS

Douglas Feldman, PE, Chief, Office of Water Resources, SCDHS

Amy Juchatz, MPH, Environmental Toxicologist, SCDHS

Suffolk County Executive Steven Bellone commented on your post. [Notes added on 2/5/15 by Dr. Carmine F. Vasile] 1. Suffolk County Executive Steven Bellone wrote: As with all emerging contaminants, SCDHS is concerned with potential radionuclide contamination, and remains proactive in investigating potential sources. In fact, the SCDHS has the only certified radiological laboratory on Long Island. To date, the SCDHS has not confirmed any significant concentrations of radionuclides in public water supply wells in Suffolk County. [False] 2. With respect to your specific questions, radon levels are naturally low on Long Island compared with background levels in other areas of the country, tritium levels have been well under drinking water standards, and there have been no confirmed significant detections of lead-210 (which is a naturally occurring radionuclide for which there is currently no drinking water standard). [False: See NOTE A] 3. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Water Resources currently tests all community water supply wells for radionuclides every 3 years, except that Suffolk County Water Authority wells closest to Brookhaven National Laboratory are sampled every year as a precaution. In addition, there is also a monitoring well network upgradient of the Suffolk County Water Authority Wells that are frequently sampled by Suffolk County Department of Health Services staff, Suffolk County Water Authority and Brookhaven National Laboratory. This sampling exceeds the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. [Misleading, the SCDHS doesn’t test for Radon] 4. The NYSDOH, the USEPA, and the SCDHS have previously reviewed the Suffolk County Water Authority’s Annual Water Quality Report supplements that included detections of Lead-210. However, these detections were determined to be likely false positives, and subsequent resampling by SCWA in 2013 did not identify any detections. The standard error, also known as uncertainty, for nearly all of the historical detections were close to or more than the actual measurements reported by Suffolk County Water Authority’s contract laboratory. The Suffolk County Water Authority has investigated the high uncertainties and they were informed by their contract laboratory that the results were an anomaly of the analysis. [False, Table 19 below shows a 14-test average was 77.1; 64 times the 4 mrem/yr MCL in the NYS Sanitary Code] 5. Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas produced from the breakdown of radium which may be present in certain soil and rock geological formations. Studies conducted by the USEPA reveal that radon is a natural constituent of most groundwaters. Based on historical monitoring and research, it has been determined that the radon levels detected in Suffolk County water resources were below the natural background level found in other areas of the country. At present, there is no enforceable drinking water standard for radon; however, please note that our staff in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Office of Water Resources routinely collect samples for gross alpha, gross beta and tritium analyses. The gross alpha analysis would identify the presence of radon’s parent compound, Radium-226, which is an alpha emitter and regulated under the USEPA Radionuclide Rule; gross alpha results in public water supplies in Suffolk have never approached drinking water standards. [False] 6. Finally, in response to your inquiry on the BNL sewage treatment plant, the NYSDEC has determined that the relocation of the outfall to groundwater will have beneficial effects on the Peconic River. Our evaluation of the proposed discharge, using best available modeling and assessment tools, shows that the outfall will not be near the contributing areas to any public supply wells, and the discharge is not expected to impact public water supplies. [False, the NYSDEC never tests groundwater for radionuclides produced by Radon-222, for example.]

January 29 at 2:44pm · Like Carmine VasileSuffolk County Executive Steven Bellone January 27 at 9:55am ·

Comment Re: "Bellone eyes added sewers to fight pollution" by Emily Dooley, Newsday online (January 23, 2014) Dear Mr. Bellone: Did you see the following comment? If so, please address this issue because nitrogen doesn't cause cancer.

NEWSDAY COMMENT “If Supervisor Bellone read water quality & supplemental well reports @ scwa.com, which show huge amounts of Radon in wells near BNL, he would know the "number one threat to public health and safety in Suffolk County” is not "nitrogen pollution of ground and surface waters” -- it's pollution from some of the 39 isotopes of Radon; the 2nd leading cause of lung cancer. One of its isotopes, Radon-222; produces the most carcinogenic of all water contaminants, Lead-210, which is found in SCWA wells, as is Tritium (H-3). Lead-210's cancer risk is about 20,000 times higher than Tritium's, yet the SC Health Department tests our groundwater only for Gross Alpha, Gross Beta & Tritium. To make matters worse, the DEC recently gave tentative approval to DOE's application to divert radioactive discharge from BNL's sewage treatment plant from the fast-moving Peconic river to slow-moving ground water in the Pine Barrens. Because NYS allows water companies to blend contaminated water sources if it's cheaper than treating, once radionuclides from this new source reaches SCWA wells it will be pumped (untreated) back to the surface to re-pollute ground water, lakes & streams. Why is Bellone allowing this?”

NOTE A: Exhibit A, Table 19 & Fig. 19 below from www.gfxtechnology.com/Radon.html show Bellone lied when he wrote: “…and there have been no confirmed significant detections of lead-210 (which is a naturally occurring radionuclide for which there is currently no drinking water standard).” Table 19: LAMBERT AVE -- 2 wells: S-71881, S-71882 in Mastic in 2001; Dist Area 20 in 2002 serving: Mastic, Mastic Beach, Moriches, North Shirley, Ridge, Shoreham, South Manor, South Ridge, Westhampton Beach.

Fig. 19: Fraudulent Table from 2003 AWQR shows 232 pCi/L Alpha activity from Radon, but only 4.0 pCi/L Alpha activity from Radon progeny.

Component Low Value High Value Avg. Value Number of Tests Gross Alpha Activity pci/l ND 1.5 ND 14 Gross Beta Activity pci/l ND 2.0 ND 14 Cesium-137 pci/l ND ND ND 14 Lead-210 pci/l ND 1080.0 77.1 14 Radon ND ND ND 5

NOTE: More obvious examples of violations of the Radionuclides Rule & Monitoring Requirements suborned by County Executive Bellone who wrote on his Facebook page “there have been no confirmed significant detections of lead-210”; falsely alleging the 1080 pCi/L entry in Fig. 19 is merely an “anomaly of the analysis” made by the SCWA’s laboratory; not the County’s.

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT I

From: pollykreisman@gmail.com Subject: lambert Ave Well Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 14:48:51 -0400 To: gfx-ch@msn.com Lambert/old neck explanation---from SCDH. (pls do not share, just hoping for your analysis...) Where else did we see Lead 210? Polly Suffolk County Department of Health Services, the New York State Department of Health and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have previously reviewed the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) Lead-210 data from the samples you identified below. The Suffolk County Water Authority voluntarily submits samples to a contract laboratory for radionuclide speciation on a routine basis. Lead-210 is infrequently detected in the results of this testing. The standard error (uncertainty) for nearly all of the detections, which was not provided in the SCWA Annual Water Quality Reports, were close to or more than the actual measurements reported by the contract laboratory. Suffolk County Water Authority has investigated the high uncertainties and they were informed by their laboratory that they are an anomaly of the analysis software program. Sometimes, for a sample that has little if anything in it, the software program mathematically overcompensates for the uncertainty when it has difficulty fitting a peak for an analyte that isn't there. The contract laboratory said that this often occurs for Lead-210 in water. Resamples and standard deviations for the cases you mention in your e-mail are presented below. Please note that Suffolk County Department of Health Services also regularly collects gross alpha, gross beta and tritium samples at the regulated community public water supply wells, including SCWA wells, and submits these samples to the Suffolk County Public and Environmental Health Laboratory for analysis. We have not identified any radionuclide detections that would exceed drinking water standards in Suffolk County’s regulated public supply wells. Please also note that under 40CFR 141.66(d) only man-made beta particle and photon radioactivity from man-made radionuclides is regulated in drinking water. Lead 210 is natural beta-emitter, not man-made, and therefore there is no federally enforceable maximum contaminant level. Sample Location Sample Date Lead-210 Result from SCWA’s Contract

Laboratory with Standard Deviation (pCi/L)

Old Neck Road Well Field March 21, 2000 <750 (not detected) Old Neck Road Well Field May 22, 2000 <750 (not detected) Old Neck Road Well Field August 20, 2000 1,240 (+/- 1,120) Old Neck Road Well Field November 20, 2000 <750 (not detected) Sample Location Sample Date Lead-210 Result from SCWA’s Contract

Laboratory with Standard Deviation (pCi/L)

Lambert Avenue Well Field January 10, 2011 847 (+/- 920) Lambert Avenue Well Field March 6, 2011 <750 (not detected) Lambert Avenue Well Field May 10, 2011 <750 (not detected) Lambert Avenue Well Field July 11, 2011 <750 (not detected) Lambert Avenue Well Field September 11, 2011 <750 (not detected) Lambert Avenue Well Field November 7, 2011 <750 (not detected) Lambert Avenue Well Field February 9, 2012 <750 (not detected) Lambert Avenue Well Field May 7, 2012 <750 (not detected) Lambert Avenue Well Field August 8, 2012 <750 (not detected) Lambert Avenue Well Field November 14, 2012 <750 (not detected)

CC: Douglas.Feldman@suffolkcountyny.gov; Walter.Dawydiak@suffolkcountyny.gov; Kathy.Negri@suffolkcountyny.gov From: pollykreisman@gmail.com Subject: Re: Hello-Polly from News12 Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 11:27:57 -0400 To: jason.hime@suffolkcountyny.gov Good Morning, I hope everyone had a great weekend. Here's where I'm confused: If you look at SCWA testing data for radioactivity, you see very high concentrations of lead 210, for example, at Old Neck Road, Center Moriches in 2000.

Why would there be no follow up testing for lead 210 in 2001(other factors were tested)? I also see high levels for lead 210 at a well at Lambert Ave in Mastic Beach in 2012. These are just a few examples. Would this not be cause for concern? Sincerely Polly Kreisman On Oct 3, 2013, at 2:25 PM, "Hime, Jason" <jason.hime@suffolkcountyny.gov> wrote: Dear Ms. Kreisman, Section 5-1.75(b) of the New York State Sanitary Code authorizes the Health Department to collect and analyze samples from any public water system at any time. The New York State Sanitary Code is available on-line at:http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/regulations/#5143 Further, Section 760-404.A.2 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code indicates that the SC Health Commissioner may collect samples to ensure water quality is maintained. The Suffolk County Sanitary Code is available on-line at:http://www.suffolkcountyny.gov/Departments/HealthServices/DocumentsForms.aspx#dltop Click on Sanitary Code and then on the file Suffolk County Sanitary Code.pdf Jason R. Hime, P.E. Supervisor, Bureau of Drinking Water Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Water Resources 360 Yaphank Avenue, Suite 1C Yaphank, NY 11980 main(631) 852-5810 fax (631) 852-5787 From: Dawydiak, Walter Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 2:07 PM To: 'Polly Kreisman' Cc: Feldman, Douglas; Hime, Jason Subject: RE: Hello-Polly from News12 Hi, Polly, I am late for a meeting, but am asking Doug Feldman (Chief of Water) or Jason Hime (Supervisor, Drinking Water) to provide the citations for SCDHS mandate/authority for monitoring. Thanks! -Walt From: Polly Kreisman [mailto:pollykreisman@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 2:02 PM To: Dawydiak, Walter Subject: Re: Hello-Polly from News12 Is that Sanitary Code easy for u to access a link to ? is it here: http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/water/drinking/ ? PK On Oct 3, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Dawydiak, Walter wrote: Hi, Polly, Yes, but that report would only include the SCWA self-monitoring data for radionuclides, like gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium. Suffolk Health does its own independent sampling, as called for in the NYS Sanitary Code. We don’t have a stand-alone annual report yet; it’s on our Comp Plan to-do list. -Walt

From: Polly Kreisman [mailto:pollykreisman@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 1:25 PM To: Dawydiak, Walter Subject: Re: Hello-Polly from News12 Gotcha. I found this: Suffolk County Water Authority 2012 report : http://65.36.213.246/2012supp.html I understand of course that you're Health, not Water, but is this what you refer to? Polly On Oct 3, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Dawydiak, Walter wrote: Hi, Polly,

My pleasure – it was a great series you ran. We actually do conduct radionuclide monitoring routinely. It’s my understanding that our Suffolk Health Lab is the only lab on L.I. certified to do this work; water suppliers send their rad samples to labs off L.I. Suffolk County has not picked up many radiological problems (with localized exceptions such as Brookhaven National Lab, and marginal elevations near compost sites). Our sandy aquifer is naturally very low in rad emissions, unlike areas upstate with a lot of rock (natural sources) near the surface. Hope this helps. Let us know if you need more info. -Walt

From: Polly Kreisman [mailto:pollykreisman@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:09 AM To: Dawydiak, Walter Subject: Hello-Polly from News12 Dear Walter: Thanks again for your help with our water series. I have a question about radionuclides and drinking water- i believe you said that Suffolk County does not test for radionuclides. Is that correct? Sincerely, Polly Polly Kreisman reporteratlarge.com theloopny.com

EXHIBIT II

Begin forwarded message: From: "Giardina, Paul" <Giardina.Paul@epa.gov> Ms. Kreisman, With all due respect I don’t think you understand. A gross alpha measurement IS a radon in water test along with Ra-226 and Ra-228. [No it’s not, Ra-224 is the alpha-emitting daughter of its beta-emitting parent Ra-228 and EPA set 15 pCi/L as the maximum contaminant level for gross alpha radiation in public drinking water supplies minus uranium and radon radiation,] All three decay by emitting alpha particles. [No; Ra-228 decays by emitting beta particles; no alpha or gamma.] It isn’t specific for Rn because the radionuclides of concern are the radium ones! Radium is a solid and behaves like calcium so if it is ingested it tends to be a bone seeker where the alpha radiation is particularly effective at increasing the risk of such cancers as bone, and bone marrow. Such was the demise of Madame Curie. Radon is a gas and therefore will evaporate. [Typo; Radon boils -79.33°F? 10,000 pCi/l of Rn-222 in water is equal to the health risk of 1 pCi/l of Rn-222 in air.] What are the risks for Ra-219/220 in secular equilibrium with Ra-223/224/228 in an un-vented shower room? Also, tap water from the SCWA’s Barton Ave. well field feeding my house in Patchogue, Long Island, NY -- where the CDC says “radon at 329 pCi/L is not considered a high value from a national background perspective” – 1 pCi/L of Rn-222 in air would emitted in 3 minutes with a 10 liter/min shower in an un-vented bathroom.] So the whole point is that the most effective way to prevent radon exposure is to test where it can do the most harm which is in the air, and not in the water. Radon-222 itself is not particularly serious when inhaled but what is serious are the radon daughter products that the radon decays into. These are not gases but solids, particularly the Polonium, Bismuth and Lead isotopes which plate out in the lungs and which are particularly effective at increasing risk of such cancers in the lungs. This is why underground miners have shown higher rates of lung cancer. See the decay products listed immediately below. The bottom line here is that radon in air causes lung cancer. Radon in water does not cause lung cancer unless it gets into the air. The effectiveness of radon in water vs. air is on a ratio of 10,000 to 1 so radon in water isn’t a serious contributor! On Long Island where uranium, and radium and radon in the ground is low, radon in water borders on being inconsequential. 222Rn belongs to the radium and uranium-238 decay chain, and has a half-life of 3.8235 days. Its four first products (excluding marginal decay schemes) are very short-lived, meaning that the corresponding disintegrations are indicative of the initial radon distribution. Its decay goes through the following sequence:[25] • 222Rn, 3.8 days, alpha decaying to... • 218Po, 3.10 minutes, alpha decaying to... • 214Pb, 26.8 minutes, beta decaying to... • 214Bi, 19.9 minutes, beta decaying to... • 214Po, 0.1643 ms, alpha decaying to... • 210Pb, which has a much longer half-life of 22.3 years, beta decaying to... • 210Bi, 5.013 days, beta decaying to... • 210Po, 138.376 days, alpha decaying to... • 206Pb, stable. [Additions by CFV 2/2/14: The following dozen radionuclides have been regulated by the Radionuclides Rule since 1976: Ra-219, Ra-224, Ra-226, Rn-220 [not Rn-219/222], Bi-211, Bi-212, Bi-214, Po-210, Po-212, Po-214, Po-215, Po-216, Po-218, Th-232, U-235 & U-238. Chief Gardina omitted the following decay chains for the Uranium-235 & Thorium-232 series:

1. 219Rn, 4.0 seconds, alpha decaying to... 2. 215Po, 1.8 milliseconds, alpha decaying to...

3. 211Pb, 36 minutes, beta decaying to... 4. 211Bi, 2.1 minutes, alpha decaying to... 5. 207Tl, 4.8 minutes, beta decaying to... 6. 207Pb, stable. 7. 220Rn, 56 seconds, alpha decaying to... 8. 216Po, 0.150 iseconds, alpha decaying to... 9. 212Pb, 11 hours, beta decaying to... 10. 212Bi, 61 minutes, (64%) beta & (36%) alpha decaying to... 11. 212Po & 208Tl, 310 nanoseconds & 3.1 minutes, alpha & beta decaying to... 12. 208Pb, stable.]

From this you should be able to see that Radon-222 ONLY comes from Radium-226. Radium 226 ONLY comes from Uranium-238. Uranium-238 is a naturally occurring radionuclide ubiquitous on Earth. Fortunately, Long Island soils tend to have much lower levels of Uranium and hence Radium and hence Radon than most other places on the planet. Radium 226 is the dangerous radionuclide when it comes to ingestion. Radon-222 daughter products are the dangerous radionuclides when it comes to inhalation [remember Radon is an inert gas until it decays]. I hope this once and for all puts to be the issue of which radionuclides pose the most risk to the body and where. Now as far as measuring radon in water, why would you want to? You want to measure it in air. But if you wanted to measure it in water you could do a gross alpha measurement. Most gross alpha measurements are done to eliminate the radon so it is not measured and so you can measure all of the alpha emitters that would be a problem with ingestion [e.g., Radium 226 and Radium-228] and not the ones that would evaporate. However, if there was some reason to measure radon in water then you could adjust the gross alpha measurement to allow the radon gas to build back up after you allow for evaporation and you can make the measurement that way. Now to get back to what I promised in my previous email and our conversation concerning minimum detectable activities (MDAs) achievable at our National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) for the EPA radionuclide analyses in water as we discussed are. Tritium: 120 pCi/L (Method – NAREL H-02) Ra-226: 0.5 pCi/L (Method – NAREL RA226-Eichrom) Ra-228: 1 pCi/L (Method – NAREL RA-05) Gross Alpha: 4.4 pCi/L (Method – NAREL GR-01) Note: depends on dissolved solids in sample. Gross Beta: 3.5 pCi/L (Method – NAREL GR-01) Note: depends on dissolved solids in sample. [Chief Gardina omitted Lead-210: Method 909.0, “Determination of Lead-210 in Drinking Water, which has a sensitivity of approximately 0.7 pCi/L using liquid scintillation counting & 0.2 pCi/L using a low background beta counter] Note there is no EPA method used at our NAREL for radon in water and I hope you can see why from above. I would add that these MDAs are probably as low as you will find. As an example the Tritium method uses a counting time of 100 minutes. Many commercial labs use a count time of 10 minutes because they are production laboratories and have to do many samples whereas our lab is not such a lab. Also note that some of the methods we use may differ from those required in the regs simply because we can take more time and effort to do a more difficult analysis. NAREL also does not do SDWA compliance analysis. So when you talk with New York State be sure you compare apples with apples and not with oranges. From here I am going to turn you over to NYS DOH for them to tell you how they handle their SDWA program. I gave you the contact in their Public Affairs Office in my previous email. Also, and as we mentioned during our phone call with you, all requests for EPA info go through our Public Affairs Division, in this case Mr. Martin. I have responded to you directly herein because my previous email did not contain everything you asked about. While I hope I have covered your questions…and not ad nauseum….please route any further requests through John Martin. Thank you Paul Paul A. Giardina, Chief Radiation & Indoor Air Branch Clean Air & Sustainability Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 2 290 Broadway - 25th Floor New York, NY 10007-1866 212-637-4010 212-637-4942 [fax] From: Polly [mailto:areporteratlarge@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:31 PM To: Giardina, Paul Subject: Re: Radon References how then does one determine level of Radon in drinking water? On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Giardina, Paul wrote: You don’t test for radon in water you test for gross alpha. Radon is an inert gas. If it is in water it will come off as a gas and the air pathway is the danger….NOT the water pathway.

Paul A. Giardina, Chief Radiation & Indoor Air Branch Clean Air & Sustainability Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 2 290 Broadway - 25th Floor New York, NY 10007-1866 212-637-4010 212-637-4942 [fax]

From: Polly [mailto:areporteratlarge@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 5:20 PM To: Giardina, Paul Subject: Re: Radon References Im sorry but i just dont see consumer information on government testing of radon in drinking water via Gross Alpha On Nov 20, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Giardina, Paul wrote: http://www.radon.com/radon/radon_EPA-pubs.html Paul A. Giardina, Chief Radiation & Indoor Air Branch Clean Air & Sustainability Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 2 290 Broadway - 25th Floor New York, NY 10007-1866 212-637-4010 212-637-4942 [fax]

From: Polly Kreisman [mailto:areporteratlarge@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 3:07 PM To: Giardina, Paul Cc: Martin, JohnJ; Stephen M. Gavitt; jpo05@health.state.ny.us Subject: Re: Compliance sampling requirements/schedule for radionuclides in drinking water Thank you very much, Paul, for your responsiveness. I appreciate the information you gave us yesterday and today. When testing is done in water for Gross Alpha, is it therefore also testing for Radon, or not? Polly Polly Kreisman reporteratlarge.com theloopny.com

Exhibit A-1

UNITED STATeS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTeCTION AGENCYREGION 2

290 BROADWAYNEW YORK, NY 10007·18ll6 I thank you for your Interest In safe drinking water. Ifyou have further questions, please do not hesitate

to ca" me at (212) 637-3680, or Michael Lowv, of my staff, at (212) 637-3830.

SEP 30 ;mp

Carmine F. Vasile60 Herbert Circle

Patchogue, NY 11772

Dear Dr. Vasile:

This is in response to your Freedom of Information (FOI) Act Request AX·13·000-9030 received Al.lgust19, 2013, by United States Environmental Headquarters (EPA), regarding radiological drinking water

issues at Plum Island and the Suffolk County Water Authority's Lambert Ave well system, The FOIrequest was referred to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2, as we have geographic

jurisdiction for the areas indicated In your request.

Regarding Plum Island, from the drinking water perspective, there Is one pUblic water supply serving theIDeation, (Plum Island Animal Disease lab) aFjd it is classified as a non-transient non-eommunity watersystem (NTNC). As per the Radionuclldes Rule, this system is not required to perform radiological

sampling, and therefore there would typically be no radiological results available. EPA Region 2 has

learned that even though Plum Island system is not reqUired 'to monitor for radlonuclldes, the SuffolkCounty Health Department has performed some sampling for all 14 wells for this system within the past5 years. In terms of radionuclides, sample results for gross alpha, beta and tritium are all Within the

applicable drinking water standards.

For the Lambert Avenue well field, Suffolk County has indicated that radiological sampling occurred In2008 with analytical results showing no detections for gross alpha and radium 22g. As per theRadlonuclides Rule, the next round of sampling is 2017. This Information also holds for the Lambert Avewell field located in Mastic, long Island.

For additional information, you may wish to contact the New York State Health Department, at the

following contact point:

Roger Sokol, Chief

Bureau of Public Water ,Supply ProtectionNew York State Department of Health.

Corning Tower

Empire Slate PlazaAlbany, NY 12237

518.402.7650

I"tame' Address (URl). ht1p:/_,ope.goyRaqlc::'-dlR.fCJOI8bt8 • Printed with VegetlbMi 011 SaMet Inks on Recwded P_per (Minimum SO% Poet:e:onsurner content)

~f/pAnitaM.Thomp~~Orinkil\ll Water Municipal Infrastructure Branch

cc: RogerSokof, NVSDOH

Sue KellyExecutive Deputy Commissioner

Nirav R. Shah, MD., M.P.H.Commissioner

============================::::jr ~~~~~~fK l=====================================HEALTH

December 23,2011

Dr. Carmen F. Vasile60 Herbert CirclePathogue, NY 117722

Dear Dr. Vasile:

This is in response to your November 16, 2011 letter to New York State Department ofHealth Commissioner Nirav Shah, M.D., M.P.H. regarding the blending of source water by theSuffolk County Water Authority (SCWA).

Your note, affixed to the letter, indicated that blending source water to achievecompliance with the Radionuclide Rule Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) was an illegalpractice. Please be advised that both federal and NY State drinking water regulations do notprohibit the practice of source blending to achieve drinking water MeL compliance. In fact,guidance developed by EPA suggests that water systems first explore non-treatment options,such as blending, to achieve compliance with the Radionuclide Rule. This option can be a costeffective and environmentally sound alternative that provides public health protection.

More detailed information about options to address low level of radionuclides in waterother than treatment can be accessed at:http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/radionuclides.cfm?action=Rad Non Treatment

Thank you for your inquiry and your interest in the delivery of safe drinking water.

Sincerely,

Roger C. Sokol, Ph.D.DirectorBureau of Water Supply Protection

Cc: Mr. ChineryMr. JacksonMr. Devine/Ms. Stamm - MAROMr. Dawydiak - Suffolk CHD

HEALTH.NY.GOVfacebook.com/NYSDOH

twitter.com/HealthNYGov

/1

Agency for Toxic Substancesand Disease Registry

Atlanta, GA 30333

Dr. Cannine F. Vasile60 Herbert CirclePatchoque, New York 11772

Dear Dr. Vasile:

APR 2 J 2009bUREAU Uf ENViRONMENTAL

EXPOSURE INVESTIGATION

April 2, 2009

I am responding for Dr. Howard Frumkin, Director of the National Center for EnvironmentalHealth!Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR) regarding severalissues of concern to you..We have been in contact with our partners at the New York StateDepartment of Health (NYSDOH) and with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS) regarding the following issues disclissed in your correspondence to Dr. Frumkin, asfollows:

1) Blending of water from different sources when at least one of the sources hascontamination.

The national safe drinking water act authorizes the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) to oversee the drinking water program. In many states, including New York, theUS Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has delegated primacy for implementation of theprograms to the state, and New York State uses the model ofdelegating implementation of theregulations to the County or other local health unit. Suffolk County New York has an activeDepartment of Health Services and as such has primary responsibility for enforcing drinking waterprograms in the county. The Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) is the water supplier in thepart of Suffolk County SUbject to this enquiry and is subject to oversight regulation by the SCDHSand, therefore, by the NYS DOH and US EPA.

Water suppliers use several approaches to provide water that meets the standards described inSubpart 5-1 of the State Sanitary Code under NYCRR Title 10. These approaches include usingthe highest quality of source water available, water treatment, and source blending. If a source iscontaminated, the supplier should explore whether new sources can be located at a reasonable cost.Use of a contaminated source should be kept to a minimum and treatment of the contaminatedwater is preferred over blending. Although blending may be allowed, the water supplier must beactively pursuing permanent corrective measures to provide unblended drinking water. If a watersupply source is considered vulnerable or is contaminated, monitoring requirements are increased.According to the NYSDOH, the water provided by the SCWA meets these requirements.

ZJ Exposure to I11gn KaalOloglcal LevelS reponeo In ~UllOIK ,--oumy "nuer 11.UIUoruy(sewA) Annual Water Quality Reports.

The Annual Water Quality report from Suffolk County Water authority incorrectly reportedfindings from a US EPA Method 200.8 analysis as being Strontium 89. The analysis is notspecific for Strontium 89, but is for total Strontium. In support of this is the fact that the grossbeta measurements did not show an increase as one would expect if the findings were indeedStrontium 89. The report oflead-21O at 1,240 pico Curies per Liter (pCi/L) is also very suspect.The result reported is 1,240 plus or minus 1,120 pCi/L. The standard deviation with thismeasurement is huge and we believe reflective that there is a measurement problem, not acontamination problem. Finally, there is the reporting of329 pCilL ofradon in a sample. TheSCDHS, as documented in a report they produced with the NYSDOH in 1988, identified theaverage level of radon as 340 pCiIL. Moreover, the levels found in SCWA water are consistentwith natural background levels in other parts of the country. Although radon at 329 pCi/L is notconsidered a high value from a national background perspective, there currently is no Federal orNew York State Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for radon in drinking water forcomparison. The big issue with radon in drinking water is the possibility of volatilization of radonand resulting indoor air contamination. Ifpersons are concerned, we recommend that they havetheir indoor air tested; this has become a common test and routine during home transactions inNew York State.

We understand from the SCDHS that the SCWA periodically samples certain public water supplywells, at least annually, for various radiological analytes, including the wells that serve your areafor the isotopes ofconcern to YQU. We further understand that none ofthe recent results haveshown any radiological contaminants above state and federal standards or guidelines. We willcontinue to work with the NYSDOH and the SCDHS to monitor future results.

3) Alleged Illegal Dumping of Radioactive Waste at Long Island Landfills.

As you know, ATSDR, and our partners at the NYSDOH, do not have jurisdiction on these typesof investigations. We understand from our partners at the NYSDOH, that the New York StateDepartment ofConservation (NYS DEC), who does have jurisdiction, is evaluating the allegationsof illegal disposal ofradiological materials. We will monitor the progress of this evaluation and ifinformation becomes available that will assist us in reevaluating the exposures at sites or releaseswhere ATSDR has conducted public health assessment activities, then we will reevaluate ourhealth determinations.

Other issues ofconcern to you related to the Brookhaven Landfill (i.e., private well contaminationand exposures at the Hamlet Organic Farm) are being processed by my office as a formal petitionand you should expect to receive a letter from me within the next several weeks with our decision.

If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Gregory Ulirsch, ATSDR, at (770) 488-3731.

Sincerely,

n~('~1;;;)William tibulas Jr., Ph.D.CAPT, US Public Health ServicesDirectorDivision of Health Assessment and Consultation,