Cancer-Linked Contaminants In Anne Arundel Drinking Water: Report

ANNAOPOLIS, MD — Most Americans don’t think twice about drinking a glass of water. A report released Wednesday, though, found more than 270 harmful contaminants in local drinking water across the nation, including in Anne Arundel County. The substances are linked to cancer, damage to the brain and nervous system, hormonal disruption, problems in pregnancy and other serious health conditions.

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group, collaborating with outside scientists, aggregated and analyzed data from almost 50,000 local water utilities in all 50 states.

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

The organization found a troubling discrepancy between the current legal limits for contaminants and the most recent authoritative studies of what is safe to consume.

“Legal does not necessarily equal safe,” Sydney Evans, a science analyst at the environmental group, told Patch.

“A lot of these legal limits are outdated and not necessarily the safe level, and the EWG really wants to fill that gap,” Evans said. “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.”

In Anne Arundel County, the group found several contaminants across the water supply between 2012 and 2017. Residents who receive water from Anne Arundel County Public Works have their water pulled from underground wells in the Patapsco, Patuxent and Aquia aquifers.

According to the county's latest water quality report, the water then passes through aerators to add oxygen and remove dissolved gases. Chlorine and lime are added to adjust the pH and disinfect the water. Several additional processes remove solid particles like iron. Filtration then removes suspended matter and fluoride is added. There are zones where the water then is distributed: Glen Burnie zone, Pasadena zone, Broadneck zone, Crofton/Odenton zone.

City of Annapolis water comes from eight wells fed by three aquifers: the Magothy, Upper Patapsco and Lower Patapsco. The City of Annapolis water treatment plant produces and delivers more than 1.5 billion gallons of water each year to residents and businesses.

Mary L Doyle, chief of media relations for the U.S. Army at Fort Meade, said that the base receives its water from a private well fed by an aquifer through American Water. The U.S. Naval Academy pumps drinking water from the Patapsco Aquifer and treats its own water independent of the City of Annapolis water treatment system.

The Arundel Patriot reported last year that a March 2018 report released by the United States Department of Defense showed test results of military sites in Anne Arundel County and other national and international locations to have man-made chemical contaminants in drinking water supplies that are believed to cause cancer, birth defects and other diseases. The two contaminants are perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

In the study, which was presented as a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee, four wells were tested in areas surrounding Fort Meade in 2017. While the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory (LHA) level for PFOS/PFOA is 70 parts per trillion (ppt) in water, the wells tested had between 300 and 87,000 parts per trillion PFOS/PFOA.

The following contaminants were detected above the environmental group’s own recommended health guidelines in Anne Arundel County water:

Bromodichloromethane

• Cancer risk
• 14 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 0.810 ppb(Rate this contaminant appears in the City of Annapolis utility)
• 0.06 ppb (EWG Health Guideline #)
• No legal limit

Chloroform

• Cancer risk
• 2.8 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 1.13 ppb(Rate this contaminant appears in the City of Annapolis utility)
• 0.4 ppb (EWG Health Guideline #)
• No legal limit

Dibromochloromethane

• Cancer risk
• 5.9 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 0.590 ppb (Rate this contaminant appears in the City of Annapolis utility)
• 0.1 ppb (EWG Health Guideline)
• No legal limit

Total Trihalomethanes

• Cancer risk
• 30 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 4.55 ppb(Rate this contaminant appears in the City of Annapolis utility)
• 0.15(EWG Health Guideline #)
• 80 ppb (Legal limit)

Bromodichloromethane

• Cancer risk
• 32 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 1.92 ppb (Rate this contaminant appears in the U.S. Naval Academy water supply)
• 0.06 ppb (EWG Health Guideline #)
• No legal limit

Chloroform

• Cancer risk
• 7 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 2.81 ppb (Rate this contaminant appears in the U.S. Naval Academy water supply)
• 0.4 ppb (EWG Health Guideline #)
• No legal limit

Chromium

• Cancer risk
• 6.3 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 0.125 ppb (Rate this contaminant appears in the U.S. Naval Academy water supply)
• 0.02 ppb (EWG Health Guideline #)
• No legal limit

Dibromochloromethane

• Cancer risk
• 13 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 1.28 ppb (Rate this contaminant appears in the U.S. Naval Academy water supply)
• 0.1 ppb (EWG Health Guideline #)
• No legal limit

Total Trihalomethanes

• Cancer risk
• 19 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 2.82 ppb (Rate this contaminant appears in the Crofton-Odenton zone)
• 0.15 ppb (EWG Health Guideline #)
• 80 ppb (Legal limit)

Chromium

• Cancer risk
• 3.9 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 0.0778 ppb (Rate this contaminant appears in the Broad Creek zone)
• 0.0778 ppb (EWG Health Guideline #)
• No legal limit

Total Trihalomethanes

• Cancer risk
• 43 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 6.38 ppb (Rate this contaminant appears in the Broad Creek zone)
• 0.15 ppb (EWG Health Guideline #)
• 80 ppb (Legal limit)

Radium

• Cancer risk
• 40 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 2 pCi/L (Rate this contaminant appears in Ft. Meade's water supply)
• 0.05 pCi/L(EWG Health Guideline #)
• 5 pCi/L (Legal limit)

Total Trihalomethanes

• Cancer
• 37 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 5.61 ppb (Rate this contaminant appears in Ft. Meade's water supply)
• 0.15 ppb (EWG Health Guideline #)
• 80 (Legal limit)

Radium

• Cancer
• 23 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 1.16 pCi/L (Rate this contaminant appears in the Glen Burnie-Broadneck zone)
• 0.05 pCi/L(EWG Health Guideline #)
• 5 pCi/L (Legal limit)

Total Trihalomethanes

• Cancer
• 4.8 (Times the rate of suggested EWG guideline)
• 0.720 ppb (Rate this contaminant appears in the Glen Burnie-Broadneck zone)
• 0.15 ppb (EWG Health Guideline #)
• 80 ppb (Legal limit)

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.

A variety of other contaminants often found in the water of millions of Americans can profoundly impact health. They include lead, which has been linked to brain damage in small children; arsenic, which can cause cancer; and copper, which can be harmful to infants.

The EPA did not respond to numerous requests by Patch seeking comment on the findings of the study.

According to the environmental group, many of the 270-plus contaminants detected through water sampling are at levels deemed legal under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, yet are above levels that recent studies have found to pose possible health risks.

Visit the environmental group’s web page for Anne Arundel County to see the recommended ways to combat the specific substances in your drinking water and the risks that they pose.

The environmental group has a clear opinion on the federal government’s handling of water safety.

“The regulatory system meant to ensure the safety of America’s drinking water 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 the Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to add a single new contaminant to the toxic chemicals list covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act in almost 20 years.

Independent experts agree.

“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.”

The Environmental Working Group also noted that the every-day person is frustratingly helpless to the chemicals going into their water supply, and the subsequent costs associated with different water filtering techniques.

Olga Naidenko, vice president of science investigation at the group, further explained, “Industries and companies that released PFAS into the environment and drinking water sources — should be responsible to covering such costs, as it is unfair for homeowners to be saddled with costs for pollution they did not create.”

The water group does offer information, though, on filtering technologies that you can use to dramatically reduce water contamination. Filtering technology will help. Carbon filters, for example, will reduce many, but not all, contaminants.

How to Check Contaminants In Your Water:

The environmental group’s public database catalogues contaminants in every water system in the country — the first such database of its kind. First, select the state where you live, and you’ll see state-level data. For more local information, enter your ZIP code.

After you enter your ZIP code, you’ll be directed to a page showing the name of your water utility system. Select “View Utility” to see which contaminants were identified in your area.

What You Can Do

For those with concerns, the environmental group provides a guide to buying water filters. If you find your local water supply has a particularly high level of a dangerous chemical, you can search for a filter that best blocks the specific substance.

While water filters are important, the group also acknowledges they are more of a Band-Aid solution than an actual fix.

“We really want to iterate that’s a first-line, temporary measure,” Evans told Patch. “It’s what you can do today to protect yourself, but really we want long-term permanent change, and that’s going to happen at the community level.”

Subsequently, the environmental group has created a set of seven questions to ask your elected officials about tap water.

The organization strongly believes that everyone can help in the battle to improve tap water safety.

“We absolutely believe in the power of personal advocacy — for individuals to reach out to their local elected officials of all levels. The power of people can come into play,” Naidenko said.

Where The Environmental Working Group Gets Its Funding:

The majority of the group’s funding comes from private charitable foundations, here’s a partial list of the organization’s largest backers.

• 11th Hour Project
• Civil Society Institute
• Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Foundation
• William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
• The McKnight Foundation
• Popplestone Foundation
• Park Foundation
• The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
• Barbra Streisand Foundation
• Turner Foundation
• Wallace Genetic Foundation
• The Walton Foundation
• Winslow Foundation

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