Group Raises Concern Over NH Tap Water, Officials Say It's Safe

NASHUA, NH — 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 New Hampshire. 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"A lot of these legal limits are outdated and not necessarily the safe level, and the EWG really wants to fill that gap," Evans said.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."

Representatives from Aquarion, which delivers water to about 700,000 people through 76 water systems in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, said its water is safe. The company publishes an annual water quality report.

"The EWG report indicates that our water is in compliance with EPA's drinking water standards, but for several parameters is higher than other 'health guidelines', which are not EPA drinking water standards," said Peter Fazekas, director of communications for Aquarion. "Aquarion has confidence in EPA's drinking water quality standard setting process and again wants to assure you that our water is in compliance with all of EPA's drinking water standards."

The same is the case in Concord where Communications Coordinator Angelina Zulkic said water quality meet all federal and state guidelines even though the EWG survey had Concord with eight of 17 contaminants with levels above its suggested limits.

"EWG's detection of Bromodichloromethane, Chloroform, Dibromochloromethane, Dichloroacetic acid, and Trichloroacetic acid is based on their own determined guidelines and have no legal limits or federal/local regulations," Zulkic told Patch. "Nitrate, Radium, and total trihalomethanes are primary contaminants we are required to be within legal limits of, and you can see that Concord falls well below those limits. Concord’s water is well within all federal and state guidelines and our staff regularly tests the water to ensure we are providing the highest quality to the community."

Pennichuck Water Works, which serves 87,682 state residents — including the greater Nashua area — also exceeded the EWG standards in eight of 17 contaminants, although it did comply with all federal guidelines from April 2016 through at least March 2019.

A request to Nashua officials for reaction to the EWG study were referred to Pennichuck Water Works, which did not respond to Patch's request for comment.

The following contaminants were detected above the environmental group's own recommended health guidelines. EWG's health benchmark of .15 ppb for the four trihalomethanes as a group (Chloroform, bromoform, dibromochloromethane and bromodichloromethane) is based on a lifetime one-in-a-million cancer risk.

EWG's drinking water quality report for New Hampshire shows results of tests conducted by the water utilities in New Hampshire and provided to EWG by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

The following potentially cancer-causing contaminants were found above EWG guidelines:

Contaminant: # of Utilities People Served

Radium, combined (-226 & -228): 547 utilities serving 790,840 residents.

Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs): 265 utilities serving 780,936 residents.

Bromodichloromethane: 233 utilities serving 769,578 residents.

Dibromochloromethane: 220 utilities serving 725,093 residents.

Chloroform: 191 utilities serving 715,759 residents.

Dichloroacetic acid: 105 utilities serving 607,035 residents.

Chromium (hexavalent): 39 utilities serving 517,435 residents.

Trichloroacetic acid: 78 utilities serving 434,533 residents.

Nitrate: 232 utilities serving 434,243 residents.

Arsenic: 268 utilities serving 182,120 residents.

Contaminants found in New Hampshire above legal limits:

Contaminant # of Utilities People Served

Haloacetic acids (HAA5): 2 utilities serving 4,150 residents.

Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs): 2 utilities serving 2,610 residents.

Arsenic: 5 utilities serving 549 residents.

Radium, combined (-226 & -228): 2 utilities serving 375 residents.

Uranium: 2 utilities serving 160 residents.

Antimony: 1 utility serving 69 residents.

PFAs

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.

Visit the environmental group's web page 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.

Tony Schinella and Patch Staff contributed to this report.