Maine news, sports, weather | Kennebec Journal, Augusta, Maine

TOXIC TAPS

Private well? Experts urge testing for toxics

By Mechele Cooper mcooper@centralmaine.com
Staff Writer

AUGUSTA -- Nearly half of all Mainers get their drinking water from private wells -- the highest proportion in the country.

click image to enlarge

Charles Culbertson, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, poses in Litchfield with some equipment that he uses to test well water.

Staff photo by Joe Phelan

Related headlines

• Toxic Taps Part 1: High amounts of arsenic in local wells
• Toxic Taps Part 2: Study eyes arsenic-IQ link in local kids

Select images available for purchase in the
Maine Today Photo Store

But only 40 percent of Maine's private wells have been tested for arsenic, in part because neither federal, state nor county authorities require it.

Meanwhile, scientists mapping arsenic levels in Maine say the toxin is showing up in more locations than previously suspected, with levels in some wells exceeding the federal safety standard by 10 times -- or more.

All of that points out a singular fact: Mainers are uniquely vulnerable to toxins in their drinking water and must take action to protect their families.

Martha Nielsen, a U.S. Geological Survey scientist who co-authored a landmark 2010 study on arsenic in central Maine, said heat maps showing the locations of wells with high levels of arsenic can be used as a guide. But with so many differences in concentrations from well to well, she said, households need to be diligent and test their own wells.

"This study shows the difficulty of predicting arsenic concentrations at the local level and should signal to everyone with a private well that the only way to know about arsenic concentrations in their well is to have their water tested," Nielsen said.

Andy Smith, state toxicologist, said that while Maine has the highest proportion of its population on private well water, educational programs are working to raise awareness.

In 2004, only about 26 percent of Maine households reported knowing whether they had tested their wells for arsenic. That number increased to more than 40 percent in 2009 after the state amped up its efforts.

The Maine Center for Disease Control has distributed posters and brochures to town offices in municipalities with high proportions of residents on private wells. The posters offer information about the presence of wells with arsenic.

But while public agencies have the legal duty, infrastructure, investment, resources and tax revenue to protect users of public water, Maine has debated but failed to establish a dedicated well water program for private users, even though nearly one in two Mainers rely on wells for drinking water.

"It's viewed as an individual's responsibility," Smith said. "In the real world, how do we get more people to test?"

It's a hard sell.

Testing, testing

Mike Gelberg, owner of Air & Water Quality Inc. -- a Freeport-based company that installs filtration systems -- said his technicians encourage customers to test their water supplies on a regular basis.

"It takes two seconds," Gelberg said, "but they won't do it."

Sometimes that goes even for people who know they have high levels of toxins.

"They'll put in a system and get the test results back right away," Gelberg said. "They're not going to be instantly sick from this -- it's not an immediate disease that happens -- so most people will never test again.

"We see this all the time."

Testing is fairly easy and, at $25 per test, fairly inexpensive; but reading the results may be a little more difficult, Smith said.

A laboratory will report most results in measurement units such as mg/L, milligrams per liter; or ug/L, micrograms per liter.

When homeowners compare their results with the safe limits, they should make sure those letters match. If they don't, or if a homeowner has other questions, it's time to call the Maine Center for Disease Control at 866-292-3474.

The Department of Health and Human Services Maine Health and Environmental Testing Lab also provides water testing guides and test application forms at http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/etl/guide.htm.

And the Maine Drinking Water Program provides information about arsenic at http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/eng/water/Templates/PrivateWells/privatewells.htm.

"We have an outreach program to promote well water testing, and we answer calls via a toll-free line daily from individuals with wells containing elevated levels of arsenic or other contaminants," Smith said. "Maine Housing has some limited funding to assist with installing of water treatment systems for individuals of limited income through their FixMe program."

Smith said well water quality can change over time, so a good well test result doesn't mean the water you're drinking today will be safe tomorrow.

"Check with labs on cost of typical comprehensive water tests -- around $70, I think -- and arsenic-only tests, between $16 and $25," he said. "Most people collect the water sample themselves, and this is generally OK for arsenic."

Self-sampling kits are more difficult for radon, "because you need to avoid bubbles," Smith said.

When buying a house, he said, buyers should make sure a comprehensive water test is done, which covers many contaminants.

Even if the home has a treatment system, the drinking water should be tested, he said.

"If you are selling a house, you should make sure you have your test results available, and information on treatment systems available, including last maintenance," he said.

Whether a homeowner chooses to use the state laboratory or a private one, Andrews Tolman, assistant director of the Maine Drinking Water Program, said testing water is pretty simple.

"You call the lab and order the bottles for the tests you need," Tolman said. "We recommend a test that the state lab calls 'BA,' which includes arsenic and uranium, as well as other common water quality parameters. It costs $70 at (Maine Health and Environmental Testing Lab). Arsenic alone costs $20; if it's present, the homeowner will need to know what other elements are in the water to design a treatment system."

Tolman said the state maintains a list of certified laboratories with contact information at http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/eng/water/dwp_services/labcert/labcert.htm.

The testing process also is outlined at http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/eohp/wells/documents/WhatToTest.pdf.

"It's important to follow the instructions that come with the test kits," he said. "The homeowner wants to know what actually is in their water, not what might have been introduced by the sampling procedure."

Filtering the filters

There are two main types of arsenic removal systems.

One uses reverse osmosis. It's a membrane-based system that excludes arsenic based on its charge and molecular size.

The other is metal oxide medium that removes arsenic by binding it to a substance with a strong chemical affinity.

"There may be others out there that are used, for example an ion exchange, but we really do not track the technology side all that much," Smith said. "For most people -- because most people have arsenic levels below 50 ppb -- point-of-use system at the cost of $300 to $1,700 makes the most sense."

"Point-of-use" refers to under-the-sink systems that treat one tap; "point-of-entry" refers to systems that treat all the water entering a house.

Point-of-entry systems, which can run to $8,000, are recommended only when arsenic levels are very high -- for example, 100 parts per billion; though he cautioned, "We are still analyzing data to better define this cut point for recommending (point-of-entry) systems."

The presence of young children lowers the threshold for consideration of a point-of-entry system, Smith said.

Even with children present, however, the state recommends a point-of-entry removal system only if levels approach 100 parts per billion.

"Keep in mind that (point-of-entry) systems are treating a lot of water which you will never contact," he said. "They will cost a lot to purchase, a lot to maintain, and may be difficult to maintain.

"We have done a study where we recruited young children and parents in homes that have high arsenic to low arsenic, and we measured their urine levels of arsenic to estimate their residual exposure. Residual exposure did not appear to become significant until levels in raw water approached 100 (parts per billion). The big issue, by far, was whether homeowners said they used treated water for cooking or not.

"Bathing time was not (a) significant predictor of urine arsenic levels," he said, suggesting that skin absorption may not be much of a risk, though the science is still emerging.

"The last thing we want is for a family of limited means trying to buy a (point-of-entry) system if it does little to reduce their overall exposure to arsenic," he said.

After arsenic is discovered, the search begins for a company to install a mitigation system.

Unfortunately, the state does not require contractors to be licensed -- something Gelberg, the Freeport contractor, said needs to be changed.

Only radon-mitigation contractors currently are licensed in Maine, he said.

"There's a lot of these systems being put in that are not for the appropriate situation or practical for a particular application," Gelberg said. "Right now anyone can put in these systems. There's no law to prevent it.

"To do plumbing, you need to be a licensed plumber. To deal with arsenic, there's nothing."

There are other pitfalls to avoid.

This past May, a Portland couple sued the manufacturer of a treatment system and the franchisee that sold it to them after the company's salesman, who was convicted of mail fraud in 2010, doctored a laboratory report that would have alerted the couple to an unsafe level of uranium in their water.

Gelberg said his technicians also see a lot of systems installed improperly, and those that have never been tested.

Also, some systems may be ineffective in removing certain forms of arsenic found in wells.

There are two dominant forms of inorganic arsenic: arsenic-5 and arsenite-3. Some systems will remove arsenic-5, Gelberg said, but not touch arsenite-3.

He said a special test determines which type of arsenic a well has. It has to be done on site by someone who is knowledgeable.

Being responsible

Yan Zheng -- a Columbia University scientist and project leader for a study that found as many as 15,561 Kennebec County residents have wells with high levels of arsenic -- believes insurance companies could help motivate people to test their wells.

It's the insurance companies that end up paying for cancer treatment, which is very expensive, and other diseases caused by preventable toxins.

One way to do it, she said, is to reduce premiums for those who test their wells and install mitigation systems.

"If they know that they are exposed and are not taking action, and insurance companies chose to raise their premiums, that also would be a very good incentive," she said. "But I'm not aware of any insurance (company) doing that."

Katherine Pelletreau, of the Maine Association of Health Plans, rejected Zheng's approach.

"Should it be up to health insurers to pay for bike helmets? Should it be up to insurers to pay for cars that have higher safety ratings with better protection for passengers? Should it be up to insurers to stop kids from breathing in toxins that come from cheap mattresses?" Pelletreau said. "There's a myriad of things out there that really is not the role of insurance companies."

Smith said Maine real estate agents lobbied against a 2007 bill that would have required testing during a real estate transaction, but he said they've been helpful in getting the word out.

Linda Gifford, lobbyist and legal counsel for the Maine Realtors Association, said her members hand out a 25-page buyers' guide that talks about harmful contaminants in water. Arsenic also is mentioned in the standard purchase-and-sale form, she said.

After reading the information, buyers can decide whether they want to test for arsenic.

If arsenic is found in water, she said it then becomes a point of negotiation between buyer and seller about who covers the cost of a treatment system.

Gifford said her members are not opposed to making people aware of arsenic or any other contaminants. They just don't want it to be mandatory for home sellers.

"There's all kinds of factors that are safety issues (when buying a home)," Gifford said. "Is the roof OK? And then there's the septic system and water. Many homes in Maine are on wells, so you've got your lead, radon, uranium and chloroform in the water, along with nitrates and nitrites.

"We don't want buyers to just focus on one (contaminant)."

Chris Pinkham, president of the Maine Bankers Association, said banks do not require well water testing routinely for mortgages.

"It's a buyer-seller deal," he said. "I don't mean it from a 'don't care' point of view, but there are so many issues in real estate transactions, from inspections, wiring and plumbing, foundation and water.

"We rely on the potential buyer to do their due diligence. Our role is to provide the financing and closing of the transfer of the property."

But some mortgages -- for example, a Federal Housing Administration loan -- do require testing, under certain conditions.

FHA loans require water tests when mandated by the state or a local jurisdiction, if there is knowledge that well water may be contaminated, or when the water supply relies upon a water purification system because of presence of contaminants. It also requires testing if there is evidence of pipe corrosion, areas of intensive agriculture within a quarter-mile, coal mining or gas drilling operations within a quarter-mile; a dump, junkyard, landfill, factory, gas station, or dry cleaning operation within a quarter-mile; or an unusually objectionable taste, smell or appearance of well water.

If a property with high levels of arsenic in the water supply is lost to foreclosure and the lender takes possession, the bank may decide to pay for a mitigation system.

The bank would recover that cost upon the sale or auction of the property, Pinkham said.

Policy possibilities

U.S. Geological Survey scientist Charles Culbertson said given what is known about the effects on human health from exposure to toxic compounds -- particularly on infants, children and pregnant women -- lawmakers should step up and address the situation now.

A home inspection before a real estate transaction is one way to find out whether well water is polluted, he said.

But Kurt Tramposch, an environmental planner who has researched private well regulation since 2003, said larger policy changes are needed in Maine.

He said the state needs a law to require routine testing of private well water for arsenic, especially when a home is sold or rented.

The prevalence of arsenic in Maine, the potent carcinogenicity of arsenic and the low level of public awareness of the threat make it an urgent public health issue, he said.

Tramposch said Maine legislators should use New Jersey Private Well Testing Act, which is aimed at disclosing information about private drinking water wells, as a model.

Under the act, certain wells must be tested before a house can be sold, and landlords of certain properties must test wells and provide a written copy of the results to their tenants.

"They were the first to do a mandatory program, which basically covers any real estate transaction including up to four units of a rental property," Tramposch said. "It's a small statewide program with money they took from another program to bootstrap private well testing. There's only two people running it, as far as I know."

He said Rhode Island also is setting up a comprehensive private well program.

Tramposch also believes water utilities can play a role, since private well usage affects public water systems.

"The argument being made is, utilities need to know about private wells and the way to do it is through private well testing programs," he said.

He said states need a database to show the numbers are significant enough to demand a mandatory water testing program.

Maine has such a database.

"What happened in New Jersey is, after they got the program up and running and got a database going, they were getting water quality results from private wells," Tramposch said. "They were able to use that data to target additional testing requirements depending on the problems.

"The data was revealing. In different parts of the state, for example, they found highly radioactive wells."

Tramposch agreed testing should be primarily the responsibility of homeowners.

But he said the public still will bear the costs of toxic water, one way or the other.

"If there's a spill or landfill leak or arsenic situation, (states) have to go out and test at great expense," he said. "That money is being spent after the fact, rather than proactively, where it could be helping stem contamination issues in the future."

Mechele Cooper -- 621-5663

mcooper@centralmaine.com