Cancer-Linked Contaminants Found In NYC Drinking Water: Study

NEW YORK CITY — More than 270 harmful contaminants linked to cancer, brain damage and pregnancy complications have been found in local drinking water systems across the nation, including New York City's, according to a new study released Wednesday.

Scientists with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group analyzed data from almost 50,000 local water utilities in the 50 states and said they found a troubling discrepancy between current legal contaminant limits and recent studies of what is safe to consume.

“Legal does not necessarily equal safe,” Sydney Evans, a science analyst at the environmental group, told Patch. “The federal government has not been able to, or is not willing to, set those new regulations to protect public health. We’re trying to fill the gap to let people know, based on the latest science, what the safe levels of contaminants in water are.”

New York City's water system, which served 8,958,659 people between 2012 and 2017, has 8 contaminants across its water supply, according to the environmental group's findings.

An independent study recently found New York City's water to be the cleanest in state and Erin Silk, a spokesperson from the New York Department of Health, disputed the validity of EWG's more conservative recommendations.

"Unlike maximum contaminant levels, EWG’s guidelines are not enforceable standards protective of public health as established through a scientific process that evaluates the health impacts of the contaminant and the technology and cost required for prevention, monitoring, and/or treatment," said Silk, adding, "New York State agencies are also undertaking what is arguably the nation’s most comprehensive investigation of potential sources of contamination by these chemicals."

The following contaminants were detected above the environmental group’s own recommended health guidelines in New York City:

Bromodichloromethane

• Potential Effect: cancer
• 76 times the rate of suggested EWG guideline
• Rate contaminant appears: 4.58 parts per billion
• EWG recommended rate: .06 parts per billion
• Legal limit: None.

Bromoform

• Potential Effect: cancer
• 5.7 times the rate of suggested EWG guideline
• Rate contaminant appears: 2.84 parts per billion
• EWG recommended rate: .5 parts per billion
• Legal limit: None.

Chloroform

• Potential Effect: cancer
• 76 times the rate of suggested EWG guideline
• Rate contaminant appears: 30.3 parts per billion
• EWG recommended rate: .4 parts per billion
• Legal limit: None.

Chromium (hexavalent)

• Potential Effect: cancer
• 2.1 times the rate of suggested EWG guideline
• Rate contaminant appears: .0413 parts per billion
• EWG recommended rate: .02 parts per billion
• Legal limit: None.

Dibromochloromethane

• Potential Effect: cancer
• 4.3 times the rate of suggested EWG guideline
• Rate contaminant appears: .430 parts per billion
• EWG recommended rate: .1 parts per billion
• Legal limit: None.

Dichloroacetic acid

• Potential Effect: cancer
• 21 times the rate of suggested EWG guideline
• Rate contaminant appears: 14.7 parts per billion
• EWG recommended rate: .7 parts per billion
• Legal limit: None.

Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)

• Potential Effect: cancer
• 253 times the rate of suggested EWG guideline
• Rate contaminant appears: 38 parts per billion
• EWG recommended rate: .15 parts per billion
• Legal limit: 80 parts per billion

Trichloroacetic acid

• Potential Effect: cancer
• 43 times the rate of suggested EWG guideline
• Rate contaminant appears: 21.4 parts per billion
• EWG recommended rate: .5 parts per billion
• Legal limit: None.

Read more on the Environmental Working Group’s data sources and methodology.

Maximum contaminant levels have been set by the Environmental Protection Agency since the Safe Water Drinking Act passed through Congress in 1974. EWA and EPA's recommendations diverge both on the recommended level of contaminants and the number of contaminants for which state agencies should be held accountable.

The EPA did not respond to numerous requests by Patch seeking comment on the findings of the study, which argues its regulatory system is "broken."

“The inexcusable failure of the federal government’s responsibility to protect public health means there are no legal limits for more than 160 unregulated contaminants in U.S. tap water,” Environmental Working Group researchers stated in its “State of American Drinking Water.”

A focal point of the organization’s concern is that Environmental Protection Agency has not added a new contaminant to its list of toxic chemicals list covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act in almost 20 years.

In the case of polyfluorinated substances, or PFAs, the environmental group estimated up to 110 million Americans could have the potentially cancer-causing, immune-system damaging contaminant in their drinking water. Yet the EPA requires drinking water utilities across the country to test for only six of 14 known substances in the category.

Independent experts share the group's concerns.

“With the science on what we call ‘emerging contaminants’ continuing to grow, it is clear that there are components of our tap water that can be improved,” Kristin Strock, professor of Environmental Science at Dickinson College, told Patch.

Strock, who is not affiliated with the environmental group, also emphasized the challenges in the process of federally regulating harmful contaminants, suggesting the current system is somewhat backward.

“The road to regulating harmful contaminants is difficult, as our current construct for ensuring clean water is based on ‘proving’ that something is harmful before it is regulated as opposed to assuming contaminants could be harmful and ‘proving’ them safe before allowing them to go into industrial production and, as a result, our environment,” she said. “The EPA has been working on identifying safe limits for a number of these emerging contaminants and continues to work on the problem.”

EWA recommends New Yorkers concerned about water contaminants invest in filtering technologies, such as carbon filters, that reduce many, but not all, contaminants.

But Olga Naidenko, vice president of science investigation at the group, argued the responsibility of purifying water should not fall on those who drink tap water, but rather those who contaminate it.

“Industries and companies that released PFAS into the environment and drinking water sources — should be responsible to covering such costs," Naidenko said. "It is unfair for homeowners to be saddled with costs for pollution they did not create.”

More detailed information on the organization’s funding and annual reports are available on its website.

Patch editors Gus Saltonstall and Dan Hampton contributed to this report.