New York State Drinking Water

Data: PFOA and PFOS

Lloyd R Wilson, Ph.D.

Director, Bureau of Water Supply Protection, Center for Environmental Health, NYSDOH

2

New York State Drinking Water Data:3 Major Sources of Sampling Conducted

• Follow-up Sampling Around Known and Potential Sources

▪ Public Water Supply

▪ Private Wells

• Source Water Assessment Sampling Program

• U.S. EPA Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3

(UCMR 3)

3

Source 3 U.S. EPA UCMR3 Results in NYS

January 2017

PFOA + PFOS Levels Number of PWS Sampled

NYS Occurrence

Non-detect (PFOA < 20 ppt)(PFOS < 40 ppt)

162 95%

Less than 70 ppt(Range: 22 – 48 ppt)

4 2.4%

Greater than 70 ppt 4 2.4%

Total: 170

January 2013 -2015

4

UCMR 3 Data: NYS versus National Occurrence

January 2017

2013 -2015

PFOA + PFOS Levels NYSOccurrence

National Occurrence (Excluding NYS)

Non-detect (PFOA < 20 ppt)(PFOS < 40 ppt)

95% 96%

Less than 70 ppt 2.4% 2%

Greater than 70 ppt 2.4% 2%

5

UCMR 3 National Data: Further Examination by Eurofins Eaton Analytical

National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD)Eurofins Eaton Analytical (EEA)

Eaton, A. (2017). A Further Examination of A Subset Of UCMR 3 PFAS Data Demonstrates Wider Occurrence [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from http://greensciencepolicy.org

6

Drinking Water Data: NYS Summary by Source

PFOA + PFOS Levels Follow-Up Sampling:

PWS Occurrence

Source Water Sampling:

PWS Occurrence

Overall NYS Occurrence Data

Non-detect (< 2 ppt)

45% 58% 50% (129)

2 to < 20 ppt 35% 36% 35% (91)

20 to < 70 ppt 12% 5% 9% (24)

Greater than 70 ppt(EPA Health Advisory Level)

8% 1% 5% (13)

January 2018

7

129

71

20

105 4 2 3

13Nu

mb

er

of

Pu

blic

Wat

er

Syst

em

s

Combined PFOA and PFOS Levels (ppt)

Distribution of Combined PFOA and PFOS Levels in Public Water Systems

January 2018

U.S. EPA HAL

8

NYS Drinking Water Data: Totals

• 90% of the PWSs had concentrations below 30 ppt

• 85% of PWSs had concentrations below 20 ppt

• ~80% of PWSs had concentrations below 10 ppt

9

NYS Drinking Water Data:Data Limitations

• Majority of the NYS PWS occurrence data was targeted

sampling

• Although the sample size is large, it is a small percentage of

the PWSs throughout NYS

• UCMR 3 focused on PWSs serving large populations

• Differing reporting limits prevented a larger comprehensive

database (UCMR 3 vs. DOH)

10

NYS Drinking Water Occurrence Data:Conclusions

• NYS detections were comparable to national occurrence under

UCMR 3

• The lower the reporting limit the more detections (UCMR 3 vs.

DOH).

• Most results were non-detect, but more than half had detectable

levels.

• The number (% too) of systems with detectable levels sharply drops

between 10 ppt and 30 ppt.

11

Harmful Algae Blooms (HABs)

• State Summits

• Action Plans

• ELAP Certification

12

The Toledo 2014 do not drink order

• 5 NY Lake Erie supplies sampled

• No evidence of local blooms

• No microcystin detected

13

History HABs & Water Supply in NYS• 1999: Dog deaths and private intake concerns, no toxins detected at beach

• 2001: HAB clogs water supply filter plant, no toxins found (Middletown)

• 2004: DEC run study of nutrient criteria for drinking water supplies false positive HAB

toxin tests for PWSs

• 2005: DOH and DEC Interagency HAB Workgroup is formed

• 2009: CDC HAB grant starts- FOLA & CSLAP play key roles

• 2010: LHU training IDs HABs as the cause of a 2009 filtration breach and BWO (later

syndromic analysis did not show an illness signal)

• 2011: HABs in a private water supply are cleared as cause of illness

• 2012: Two water supplies are systematically sampled under CDC grant

• 2013-15: Coordination with DEC and PWS HAB sampling continued as response protocol

is developed (e.g. Lake Erie sampling due to Toledo, other bloom reports)

• Toledo do not drink order & no blooms or toxins found in NYS’s Lake Erie PWSs

• 2015: EPA releases non-regulatory health advisories & HAB sampling expanded

• 2016: Draft HAB drinking water response protocol to be released to LHUs & systematic

PWS evaluations and expanded sampling planned

• 2017: Extensive statewide PWS HAB sampling and outreach, private water factsheet

14

15

DOH Does Not Support the use of a Private Intake to Serve Potable Water for an individual Home (see our web-page)

• Treatment is best left to PWS professionals

– Treatment is needed to address pathogens, bacteria and viruses

– Treatment requires a properly designed and maintained system

– Monitoring should be done routinely

• Private wells are the next best option

• General guidance provided on options that can and cannot REDUCE

toxins collected at private intakes and shore-wells

• Household water should not be used for drinking regardless of treatment,

and users should watch for changes in appearance and pressure

16

2017 DOH Microcystin Results• Sampling was based on:

• DOH criteria

• HAB histories

• Recreational illness

reports

• Near real-time DEC

HAB monitoring results

• Close consultation with

local health

departments and PWS

operators

• 22 public water supplies

were sampled

• 594 samples were

analyzed

16

Waterbody# PWSs

SampledTotal # of

Samples Taken% of Pre-treatment samples w/ Microcystin Detections

# of Finished Drinking Water Samples Above EPA's Health

Advisory Level (0.3 µg/L)

Brown's Pond 2 12 100 % NA

Campfield Reservoir 1 14 50 % 0

Canandaigua Lake 3 8 0 % 0

Cayuga Lake 2 8 0 % 0

Chautauqua Lake *# 2 52 74 % 0

Honeoye Lake 1 2 0 % 0

Lake Ontario # 1 8 100 % 0

Mariaville Lake 1 2 0 % 0

Owasco Lake # 3 150 26 % 0

Seneca Lake # 2 17 0 % 0

Silver Lake 1 2 100 % 0

Skaneateles Lake* 3 321 73 % 0

*Partially treated samples were taken and considered in pre-treatment sample percentagesDATA AS OF 11/22/17.# Treated drinking water sample(s) showed indications of microcystin below the EPA reporting limit of 0.3 ug/L.

17

Summary HABS

• NY has been very proactive (PWS monitoring and HAB action plans) and uses a very

conservative interpretation of EPA Health Advisory

• ELAP Certification was very important

• Constant communication with Local and DEC

• We have sampled this year to cover UCMR 4 systems and on-going surveillance-still on-

going

9/28/2018 17

New York State Drinking Water

Data: Review of 1,4-Dioxane

19

New York State Drinking Water Data:2 Major Sources of Sampling Conducted

• UCMR 3

• Suffolk County Water Authority Sampling

20

Sources 1 Drinking Water Data: NYS UCMR 3

• EPA’s Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule

(UCMR 3)

• 136 large public water systems (PWSs) (>10,000 people)

• 32 representative sample of small PWSs (<10,000 people)

• Samples taken at the entry point to the distribution system

(treated drinking water)

21

Source 1 UCMR 3 NYS Results

1,4 Dioxane Levels(max detect)

Number of PWS Sampled

NYS Occurrence

Non-detect (< 0.07 ppb) 119 70.8%

0.07 to < 0.35 ppb 18 10.7%

0.35 to < 1.0 ppb 11 6.5%

1.0 to < 3.5 ppb 10 6.0%

Greater than 3.5 ppb 10 6.0%

Total: 168

22

UCMR 3 NYS Results : Spatial Distribution

INSERT MAP HERE

New York State

Nassau & Suffolk

County Only

Nation (Not

including NYS)

Total # Samples

1594 933 35216

# Detects (≥0.07 µg/L)

516 477 3681

% Detects (≥0.07 µg/L)

32.37% 51.13% 10.45%

2013-2015

23

UCMR 3: NYS versus National Occurrence

New York StateNassau & Suffolk

County OnlyNation

(Not including NYS)

# of PWS with Detections

49 34 1028

% of PWS with Detections

29.17% 91.89% 21.66%

Range of Detects (µg/L)

0.07 – 34 0.07 - 34 0.07 - 22.93

24

Source 2 Drinking Water Data: Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) Sampling

1,4-dioxane Target Level

Number of SCWA Wells Requiring

Treatment

0.07 ppb 40%

0.35 ppb 94

1.0 ppb 28

3.5 ppb 5

*As presented by Suffolk County Water Authority at the October 2, 2017 Drinking Water Quality Council Meeting

25

NYS Drinking Water Occurrence Data:Conclusions

• Majority of PWS in NYS were non-detect (< 0.07 ppb); not true

for Long Island

• Likely because of both geology and past industrial use

• Higher frequency of detections than perfluorinated chemicals