City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Safe Water Advisory Group, 30 Aug 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 8.30.2022 Safe Water Advisory Group

Description

8.30.2022 Safe Water Advisory Group

A

Great welcome everybody. Welcome to our third day of the year.

A

For the safe water advisory group, um we have a pretty packed agenda, so we're going to try to.

A

Move through things pretty quickly, um I think it would help to just do a quick.

A

Round of introductions both in the room and in person, so you just know who's here.

A

uh My name's andrea miko, I'm a portsmouth resident and a co-chair of the swag with brian.

B

Hi, I'm city, councillor blaylock, um also vote for the president.

B

uh Bill mcgrillen uh assistant, fire, chief and city resident jonathan, natalia I'm, the.

C

Toxicologist of the new hampshire department of environmental services and I'm a guest today.

B

Director of public works and co-chair of the swag.

A

Virtually do we just have laurel right now, okay laurel, if you want to introduce yourself.

D

Sure hi everyone I'm laurel shader, I'm a senior scientist at silent spring institute.

D

Thanks so much thanks for keeping the zoom option an option, I'm glad that you're able to.

B

Join us great um and then yeah I know, is there any needing hybrid logistics.

A

For anyone online we know laurel's video's, not working, but if she needs to.

A

Ask a question: can she raise her hand brian or how do we um make sure she's part of the discussion.

A

A

That's right, so I think the first thing that we need to do is approve our minutes.

A

From our april meeting, which was april, 20th um 2022., I sent out the minutes to everyone.

A

Last week I believe or the week before, and so I think we just need a motion to.

A

Is everybody in favor of approving the minutes.

A

Yes, yes, yes, there are any objections to approving the minutes.

A

All right, and so next I will turn it over to brian to give us an update on the.

A

Water forum, uh the community water forum that we had in may here at the city hall, okay, great.

B

Oh, yes, our packed agenda. Sorry, um but we've got cues in the slide deck here to.

B

Keep us moving along and jonathan sent us his so incorporated in your section.

B

um So the drinking water form seems like such a long time ago, but uh may 3rd. We gathered and it's.

B

Like just about everybody here, with the exception of jonathan, were there it was a. It was a good.

B

Night, I think it went very well, um I think, moved long. We had a lot of slides that night too, and all.

B

The videos and staff did a great job. um We have stopped showing up on soon it's not showing up on.

B

Let's try this.

B

Yes, yes, thank you.

B

So um the uh the the whole forum itself is on the city youtube.

B

Channel under the stapler advisor group and then if you go to the think blue there's additional.

B

The detailed al's slideshow on the sources of supply, mason's water quality.

B

Presentation and stuff on zoom, but I thought um I would.

B

There we go um just the polling, went pretty good and I did a couple of select.

B

Answers and kind of revisit some of the poll info and it was uh kind of revealing.

B

Where people got their information and city's website, our water quality report.

B

Of course, my favorite um information was out mark mason and tim samar.

B

The chief operator tim, green or water, foreman and mason caceres, a water quality person.

B

So uh good insight there, um it was nice to see that for the most part.

B

People were more confident after attending, but we do have two that um we're not so I guess we gotta.

B

Keep working at it and we'll see what we can do in future years if we have more forums.

B

But just about everybody at least um one person thought it was somewhat useful, but.

B

Everybody intended thought it was worth the time so really appreciate that it's good and.

B

And um would you like to attend additional meetings on this.

B

You know again pretty positive response to that. 75, yes, and a few, maybe so.

B

I thought for the night, I'm really good. The format worked. It was as always just like tonight. Zoom.

B

Is convenient but adds a layer of stress in the technology, but the most part.

B

Very nice to have- and you know the the slido option of being able to pull people so quickly.

B

Is great, I think especially the word clouds. I think when you're in a group- and you want to like.

B

Brainstorm something that's kind of a real neat thing to do so, probably something that we'd want.

B

To expand on maybe bring it to a future meeting here. Maybe the next one. You know as far as topics.

B

And interactive, um you know, thoughts on what the what these meetings could have and topics.

B

And things like that, um so we'll switch to water supply, update I've got a couple slides.

B

Here then, I turn it over to al to dive into a bit more detail. We haven't get a lot of.

B

Questions about our supply and demand, um you're, probably in the news everybody around us- is in.

B

Restrictions, we have voluntary restrictions, um we are actually seeing some compliance with that.

B

So it's nice, a common message. I've spoken about this. Unfortunately, I have to speak about the.

B

Drought, more often than I want to, because this is the third one we've had in the last six years.

B

um But it's it's, you know and I'll show you more detail, but it's it's not as bad as 2016, which kind.

B

Of set the mark for the water system, but it still continues to be um dry we've. um You know we're.

B

Behind on precipitation, we've got some warmer days, we do need the rain, but hopefully nothing like.

B

Some places that suddenly get it and they get it in buckets. So um in addition to that, we've got two.

B

Big things that have really helped us out continue to we've been managing our system, such that um our.

B

Wells are in in really good shape at the moment, so we have those, but um we have mad very well.

B

Number five, which provides us a bit more buffer. It's been running here for a couple weeks now.

B

Al says, and actually given some of the other mad very well as a break that way, but the bigger.

B

News is the haven. Well, it's been online for a year now and um al did show um put this graph.

B

Together and what you can see here is for the entire uh period of time the summers so 2014 was.

B

When the haven well was shut down, so we had to supplement water to peas for those seven years.

B

um Well, going on eight because last year would have been the eighth year, but mid summer we were.

B

Able to to get the haven well on, but as you can see, a good chunk of water supplying peas.

B

Initially, those early years higher than others, because we were in the process of getting the.

B

Temporary the demonstration treatment on for harrison and smith and then, when that went on, we.

B

Were able to pump those a little bit more, um but that's the percentage of water into peas that came.

B

From the portsmouth system and that, as you can see so far this year, we've only it's more of a.

B

Use it just to you know, keep it active when you have an interconnection, you don't want to.

B

Let it just sit idle for a long period of time, so al go ahead and um yeah. You have one for an hour.

B

uh So this graph right here tank levels we put this together looking at how we watch.

B

The water levels every day, I don't know how this is it's a full week.

B

So every uh day the tanks drop and we watch this all real-time data and we fill the tanks every.

B

So this is part of keeping the water fresh from the tanks as part of small.

B

Operations- um but we can keep an eye on this just to make sure we're not dropping too fast.

B

A little bit slow so warmer days and our highest demands are usually mid-week, so you can see.

B

The tech builders drop pretty quickly um and we're able to turn things.

B

On and recover so we reached our normal levels uh by morning which all the time our talk.

B

We are still in the severe drought uh warning here, um southeastern most of southern new hampshire.

B

um Is considered severe drought by the state drug um monitoring monitor uh so we're still responding.

B

To this, um our water levels too, just like you were talking about how we have the uh haven well,.

B

This saved us about 70 million gallons over the past year. That's so much collaborating well, let's.

B

Basically save our wells in the portsmouth side, so our water levels, looking closer, are actually.

B

Higher than they have been summer for these past five years, our water waters have been shaven.

B

Precipitation you can see here, uh the red columns in that chart are 2022. The blue are.

B

The 24 year average, based on the data, set that we work with. As you see, it's been very dry since.

B

uh Last fall really november last year, getting below average levels each month.

B

In july we had slightly above but we're below again in august august. The latest, I believe, was.

B

2.15 inches and the normal for august is around 2.9, so even with the rain, that's expected.

B

Tonight, tomorrow it's not going to still be below normal.

B

As you see the normal 12-month rolling average, we can look over the water year over the rolling.

B

12 months period, where we're at right now we're down 3.16 inches, which is 7 below.

B

This is looking at uh our river flows, so we look at river flows. This is an indication of.

B

How much the reservoir is recharging? um We use the oyster river gauge, it's sort.

B

Of a corollary to our bellamy watershed, the oyster river is very close. Proximity.

B

So we can see the variations. uh The red line, squiggly line here- is the 2022 data.

B

The red blob that goes through the middle is sort of your mean, your normal river flows and.

B

As you see towards july, we dropped into the below normal, even lower than 10 percentile.

B

River flow it jumped up with some storms in uh early august. I believe that is early july.

B

That has come back down into that sort of lower than the 10 percentile.

B

And here's the reservoir and how it's responded so the chart on the left here you'll see the 2016.

B

Drought is the water level in the reservoir. um It dropped over four feet below the spillway. That.

B

Year 2020, it was approaching that before we got some heavy rains in october um and then in 2021.

B

You see the water dropping fairly quickly and we were preparing it for it to be drug.

B

Conditions last year, but then the rains of july started in north stockton. That gave us a lot of.

B

Load of water last year, our reservoirs had stayed above flowing over the spillway since then, until.

B

Around july 1st this year, when again, it's dropped off because of the lack of precipitation.

B

Has steady declines you see here in the water level of the reservoir the chart on the right.

B

Compares these lines it's kind of hard to see the colors here, the the lower one is 2016.. Obviously,.

B

That was when it dropped the lowest where the dark black line right. There is 2022 right now.

B

You see we're tracking, pretty close leads to the 20 20 drop at this point in time. One thing.

B

To notice here, it's not until really october early mid october that they start coming back.

B

Up again, this is the case close to 2020 as well as 2016.. That's when the leaves are falling off the.

B

Trees, the vegetation is not uptaking the water, quite so much um and any rain that we do get to.

B

Run off and get into the reservoir, so we've seen some rains have helped us recently just getting.

B

The ground saturated, so I I'm hopeful that in the future rains here that we see in september.

B

We'll start seeing some more runoff in our reservoir will stabilize and start to come down.

B

Okay, andrea, so just let me know when you want to.

A

And I think for this stuff, we'll hold questions until the end um for all the presentations other.

A

Than what dr speaks um but yeah, I wanted to update the swag on two different tab: sampling.

A

Projects that have occurred this first one we've talked about a few times. It's with the nrdc.

A

um Where they requested tax samples from over 19 communities across the nation, and we had, I.

A

Had sent in a sample in the summer of 2021 from a resident residential home in portsmouth, and it was.

A

Analyzed with eurofins, which is a commercial lab, and they had a new method that they were.

A

Just starting to roll out to test for 70, p bass um and so what they found in that sample.

A

uh Was seven different pfas at a total of 50.1 parts per trillion? um That was overall that.

A

Wasn't surprising, except for one compound, called pfpra at 35 parts per trillion, um and it was just.

A

One tax sample in time, so we were really curious about you, know like where is this coming from or.

A

You know: we've never seen this before how much might be in it and then, incidentally, if you want.

A

To go to the next library merrimack new hampshire also participated in this project and they had.

A

Also sent in a top sample and they also received a similar result of 42 parts per trillion and their.

A

Sample for pfpra, and so the merrimack community advocate myself, wrote a letter.

A

To the new hampshire des and u.s epa, asking for them to test some additional samples.

A

To try to confirm this result and see if we could also find it in source water. um It was, I know.

A

In speaking with brian, it was also a challenge. There's I don't know of any other labs other than.

A

Europeans that can test for this pfas, um so this is kind of a new technology and a new offering.

A

And it's um just something: that's not readily available and there's not a lot of information.

A

And so we updated you at the last meeting that the samples had been the repeat samples had been.

A

Collected in march, we received the eurofins data, so the portsmouth data is highlighted in yellow.

A

So um the initial sample from last summer showed 35 parts per trillion of pnpra.

A

And then the repeat, sample of europeans from march showed 2.1, which was honestly a big difference.

A

And then we recently just got back. The epa was also testing the same water from the sample.

A

Taken in march and they came back as non-detect, so um I don't really know like- I think it's left.

A

Us with more questions than answers: why are we getting three different levels uh for pfpra.

A

And then, similarly in green, that's the merrimack results, so you'll see initially again last summer.

A

They got 42 parts per trillion for pfpra uh when it was re-run through eurofins, a different sample.

A

Later on in march, it was 3.3 and then epa also found it as non-detect um there's no additional.

A

Testing opportunities to repeat these testing that I'm aware of, um I just think it's important.

A

To report back the information and that we did get three different levels between two different labs.

A

um Miramax saw similar results, and I know brian just forwarded me tonight, something I don't.

A

Know if you could kind of skimmed it, but I know new hampshire des wrote up a report about this.

B

Yeah um today, brandon kernan sported the epa's report on this. So it's something.

B

We'll be able to share, we should we could put it up on our website, but.

B

They they essentially, they talk about their methodology and the fact that um the challenge.

B

Of the short chain compounds- and I don't want to get into jonathan's um expertise area but though.

B

We don't have a lab person here, but they basically talk about all the qualifiers and the difficulty.

B

um Especially with short chain compounds, there are no standards, methods are all.

B

Essentially, variants of existing methods, so they the labs, have to come up with their own. That.

B

Have that that was part of it al and now you might jump in too.

B

um Al's even better versed at this than I am, but basically a lot of the labs we reached out to.

B

Said they don't test for it? Yet because there's not there are not those standards.

B

And there's a lot of interference, so you know I don't want to speak for your opinions, but.

B

You know they could have gotten an indication of something that gave them a number that was.

B

Basically, some interference of other compounds. I mean we're dealing in the trillions so um to.

B

Have a stray bit of something come in. That throws your data off as it's possible, but that's part of.

B

What the other labs had said too right yeah. Have you ever given me um anything from europeans.

B

A

And what I do so this is part of an unpublished report when I reached out to nrdc for an update.

A

They so I do know that they did find pfpra. I think almost all the 19 samples from the first round.

A

um They were still collecting. Nrdc was collecting more data. I don't know if that was repeat data or.

A

New communities and they were working on a report- the lead scientists who had been working on this.

A

Project had taken a family leave for six months, so that kind of put a pause in some of their.

A

Data analysis, but um we can keep you updated as more information comes out. I think that's a fair.

A

Point like your fins should probably respond as to why they've got two different levels. um I do know.

A

One thing that was interesting too: europeans is a national lab, so they have multiple locations and.

A

The first sample was sent to california and the second sample was sent to lancaster pennsylvania. I.

A

Have no idea, if that had anything to do with it. It wasn't the same, even though europe is like a chain.

A

um It wasn't the same actual so, but you would expect you wouldn't expect this. I guess in my.

A

Opinion um so, uh as you know, I don't know how much more information we're going to have to.

A

Report on this, but this was a project for communities across the nation and has more.

A

Information on phones but there's no opportunities for additional testing this time. So the next slide.

D

If I I'm sorry, I don't know if you guys can see, I had my hand raised. I was just going to ask if.

D

um You knew which type of instrument it was run on, there's sort of different types of masks back.

D

um And brian and all right there can be some interferences or you know when you're basing.

D

It on the mass of the chemical, there can be other chemicals that might have the same mass.

D

And I think, with some of the smaller compounds, they don't like break into smaller fragments like.

D

The bigger ones do so: pra is the three carbon chain, one and pfba I think, can also have this.

D

Problem where it can be a little, you have a little less confidence in the exact identity.

D

Of the compound, because you don't get that like fragmentation pattern, whereas the bigger compounds.

D

As it runs through you're, looking not just at the mass of the chemical but sort of like what it.

D

Breaks into, um but there are other types of mass back like high resolution mass spec instruments.

D

Where you kind of get more decimal points on the mass and it gives you more confidence, so I didn't.

D

Know if you had any information about the type of instrument and if there were different types of.

D

Instruments between the two, your fins labs, so um laurel. We can share this report with you because.

B

It does have more detail, but you know something at the moment: I'm not able to put my hands on.

B

The isotope, I believe they were using isotope dilution. uh Let's see.

B

Injected into so so, epa used a high resolution machine yeah, agilent, yeah, agilent, 1290 uplc.

B

Coupled to an agilent six, four, six, five, four six quadruple time of flight mass spectrophotometers.

B

Spectrometer sounds pretty impressive, but um I uh so I I think we can share this with you and then.

B

um That might provide a bit more insight, yeah and if it doesn't laurel, I think we could also.

A

I'm happy to reach out to europeans too yeah. um If there was different machines at either.

A

Side um and if that may have plagued you yeah, there was an email chain which I personally.

B

When the first results came back, I I said: can someone clarify why such a discrepancy and.

B

I didn't get that answer either, so um you know it's. It's.

B

A little frustrating um for sure, because I mean initially here we are, for I don't know.

B

How many months, four months thinking we had 35 parts of something and then.

B

When the earthings their second round came in, it was.

B

You know almost non-detect two parts and then the epa says non-detect and they.

B

They were non-detect across the board. They sampled 20 different sites. All of them were non-detected.

D

I'm curious and for the epa testing I see the loq is one to ten. Do you happen to know? Is that, like a.

D

Range for different compounds because it's not necessarily inconsistent like if the loq is 10.

D

Then that's not necessarily inconsistent with finding 2.1.

D

So I didn't know if you had any more information about.

D

That or not or if they had a sense of whether it was plausible with their analysis, there could be.

D

A couple parts per trillion and it was just like below what they could reliably measure um results.

B

From the epa lab indicated that concentrations and all samples were less than 10 nanograms.

B

Limit of quantitation set by epa and were likely less than one uh nanogram for late.

B

Leaders so, okay, this is in their report, so I can share that with you.

B

Okay, um the second project that we were part of was with the guardian, which is a media outlet.

A

That covers scientific topics and they had reached out to different communities across the country.

A

Looking to collect tap samples and they wanted to do two different tests- they wanted to do a.

A

Standard us epa method um and then and then also a total, organic fluorine or top method.

A

um And compare the results, I guess to just be clear in my non-scientific brain so.

A

You know the ep method looks for very targeted compounds that we know what they are and how.

A

Many and we can identify how much is in the sample total organic fluorine just looks at.

A

The total amount of fluorine in the sample, which fluorine is the building block of pfas.

A

So it doesn't tell you how many p faster in there. It just tells you how much.

A

Fluorine is in there, um so it's more used for, like a screening method, trying to get a sense.

A

Of how much pvas might be in something- and so the purpose of this was to try to get a sense of.

A

Are we missing a significant amount of pfas when we just use a standard epa method? That's what the.

A

Lead on this project was trying to get at, and so portsmouth was one of.

A

The communities that was of nine communities that was contacted, he collected tax samples.

A

And sent them in um they sent their standard epa method out to europeans and then the.

A

Talk method went out to the university of notre dame and a scientist there by.

A

The name of grant easley next slide, please, and so um the chart on the right is all the.

A

Results from all nine communities so um for portsmouth they found using the standard epa.

A

Method, they found uh 10 parts per trillion of pea bass and using the total, organic flooring method.

A

They found 164 parts per trillion um and, as you can see in the other communities too, they saw you.

A

Know somewhat similar results in the sense that the epa method had much less amount of pfas versus.

A

The top the total organic fluorine showed higher amounts of total organic fluorine again. That.

A

Doesn't tell us like how many pfas and what level of each of those p vests are like the.

A

Epa method, so it's important understand. There are two different tests, but um this top method.

A

Is a newer method, it's been peer reviewed um and it's again that the in speaking with dr.

A

Grant easley his goal is to have this be more of like a screening tool for communities and.

A

Water folks, to be able to run quick tests that these are quite affordable as well to try to.

A

Get a sense of how much total fluorine might be in there, so you can get a sense of what.

A

Other pvas might be in the water that you can't detect from a standard test, um and so next slide.

A

uh And dr graham peasley, I believe I included this when I updated everyone on the guardian article.

A

But he shared these two um papers with us. So one is the peer-reviewed paper on his particular.

A

Method, he actually uses a soda bottle cap kind of seen the picture and he has a filter in the.

A

Cap, you fill up the bottle, tip it over you, let the water drain out and then there's media within the.

A

Cap that captures the fluorine and then he runs it through his machine um and then the paper on the.

A

Right is you know, I'm asking dr graham easily well what if there's 164 parts per trillion of fluorine.

A

And the ports of water, what could that be, and he kind of pointed he pointed us to this.

A

This article, which talks about a study that was done in germany, where they looked at.

A

Tap samples- and they found a lot of ultra short chain pfas uh that you wouldn't normally pick up.

A

On an epa method- and so you know his his thought was that potentially we have ultra short chain.

A

Pfas in the tap water, um but we don't know that for sure, but that was what he pointed us to to.

A

Try to give us some more answers, so next slide. Please and you should have those papers if you.

A

Want to read them, so um we wanted to just open this up for a discussion on some future testing.

A

Opportunities so the as I mentioned, the nrdc project is not published, yet uh they are still.

A

I believe they've wrapped up sample collection and they are planning to publish a report at a.

A

Later date, they have not offered us any additional testing opportunities and I don't believe, there's.

A

Any additional opportunities through the des or epa, um but the guardian project has been completed.

A

um There was an article written about it, their results were published on all nine communities.

A

And dr grant peaslee from notre dame has offered to conduct additional total organic fluorine.

A

Analysis on additional tap samples from the city of portsmouth, he also would be willing to do it.

A

At the peas trade part as well, uh he said the soda bottle method is a very inexpensive method for him.

A

So it's not costly and it also is easier in the sense. When you take an epa test, you have to.

A

There's you have to pack it in ice. You have to ship it overnight in a cooler. It's very.

A

Complicated and expensive, where these um soda cap methods you just basically.

A

Put them in the bag, and it gives you a nail and regular envelope, regular mail.

A

So um it's not as cumbersome as an epa test, and so we just wanted to open it up for discussion about.

A

You know, should we consider additional top testing um again, we don't, as we saw with the nrdc.

A

Project hasn't given us a lot of answers, um but we just wanted to see what other people are thinking.

A

And if we want to take dr grant peaslee up on his offer to do more testing, um if there's any pros.

A

And cons to that, and then also if anyone has any questions about short chain pfas, I know we have.

A

Dr patel, here we have dr shader, who may be able to give us some comments too.

A

Open it up um is dr granteezy asking: is he doing this on his own yeah? He wouldn't charge.

A

Us my only worry would be that, like you, said the flooring um instead of your wiring belts, it's not.

B

You're going to be showing us what p-tests are in there right, that's just showing us this flooring.

B

Isn't actually conclusively leading us to a conclusion right, you know everybody's just.

A

Yeah, it's fair point. I know in prepping for this meeting I asked brian.

A

If anyone has called because the guardian article didn't publish- and it was a national article.

A

um Where the nrgc report hasn't been published yet, and it's data's not how people allow me to share.

A

Our data with this, you know on this forum, but um there will be a report at some point, but has he.

A

Received any calls or concerns from people after reading the guardian report and article right, okay,.

A

Yeah, I think you know it's important to put it in context like this is evolving.

A

Science, it's not giving us, you know concrete information.

A

Any other thoughts on I mean I certainly don't see any harm moving forward with this project studying.

B

It is evolving science. Perhaps we can't determine the data now that doesn't mean in.

B

The future we won't be able to make some sort of an interpretation or change our practices.

B

Or something to take action to try and remediate. What's going on right, the difficulty that al and I.

B

Have is, you know, fielding questions or including presenting data like this here in this forum,.

B

And us, as you know, regulated water supply is the the unknown. So I mean like all the way back to.

B

The beginning of p-pass with us, um you know, people didn't know what p-pass was way back.

B

When the haven well was contaminated, and now, of course, it's nationwide and in many more places.

B

um You know the methods and there's been, you know some feedback, including you know, the the pfpra.

B

um Comments, uh you know, I know the epa gets criticized and there's been a lot of.

B

um I will say well, the best way to say is finger pointing that the methods aren't out there and the.

B

Samples aren't out there and there's things in the water we don't know about, and why can't epa get.

B

Get better and quicker, and that and and I think the complexity of it really comes to life with.

B

The pfpra so total flooring we're out on the edge of that as well and maybe two years or five years.

B

From now there will be a method that is vetted and accepted and replicated. um You know because.

B

That's what death was tough for alumni, you get a number, what does it mean, and you know in reference.

B

I mean there were the 10 sites which were all known contaminated sites, but you know.

B

What's it like a reference point, like our number versus you know, louisville kentucky.

B

You know cincinnati iowa. You know, california, that you know that that's what you know to be the first.

B

All the time is it's tough because you don't have a reference. You don't.

B

Know how this compares and then, of course you know the.

B

The health data is lack even more lacking than any analytic analytical data.

B

I would just say that you know the lack of clarity on the data if that's put out publicly.

B

um It's it's basically misinformation, you know um because it doesn't. We don't know what it means.

A

I think context is important, absolutely and that's why I think too.

A

Thankfully, you haven't received any own recalls from people that say: oh my god. What does this need.

C

You know, and I think for folks that I've talked to as well. Even if we can't put this data into.

A

A ton of context someday we may be able to which is important, and I do think there are things we.

A

Could tell people even now like if someone is concerned about any of the people, water.

A

We know that there's filtration there's things that you can do at your house.

A

We've talked about that at the water forum. So even if you know we don't have a lot of.

A

Information to give people, I still think, there's resources and things we could tell people to do.

A

And the context is important, and I also just want to add that you know you're right. We are.

A

On the edge brand, we've always been a leader here. I think, and we've always done things that other.

A

Communities haven't done and it's important, we keep doing that and we keep contributing.

A

To the science and we keep progressing, I'm scared. I think it is important to be a leader.

B

But it will be careful of not becoming a research facility where it's costing our taxpayers.

B

To be a research facility, because I know that's not fair to you- know a grandmother.

B

Or your grandmother or a single mother, you know I mean, there's a that's, not a burden to put on.

B

Yeah and just be clear, both of these projects cost nothing um and other top sample projects.

A

That I know my group testing for peace has been part of we've either raised the funds or we.

A

Receive grants, I know in the project that we've done, we we have either provided the resources or.

A

These projects, in particular, were done at no cost. You know just one more comment.

B

I I'm glad like the guardian is doing you know this, but they are kind of.

B

It's a news outlet right: it's not it's kind of a biased. um You know, they're, not a science journal.

B

Or a nature journal if they were coming out with these studies, I would be all about it. I'd.

B

Be reading it up and down um you know, I mean if one news media is coming out with something I'm.

B

Going to read it, but I will read it with a grain of salt and just be aware that there might be.

B

Some biases or you know I mean that they're clearly trying to have a goal or message.

B

I know it doesn't cost, the sampling has cost us nothing, but time and effort, and it it's it's a.

B

Considerable amount of house time you know some of my time the coordination and then you know getting.

B

A result I mean they're out, we have to decide what we're going to do with this information and.

B

Without guidance, I mean it's even more so with the new health advisories that lead us to almost say.

B

You know at the moment you know you can filter, you can go to bottled water, but there's no way to know.

B

If it's, if there's a quadrillion of anything in there, so that that's I mean that's the point, I'm.

B

Making I mean and we're ahead of the curve, a lot of stuff we've got treatment that you know. First,.

B

In new hampshire, with resin filtration, we piloted we've got, you know, eight and a half years with a.

B

You know very good data set of known compounds and that so I mean.

B

We're good there, I I I would personally you know just.

B

You know, on behalf of water systems, say that you know when standards come out and when accepted.

B

Methods are there, that's that's when you know we're ready to go. I mean I'm on a national.

B

American waters group- and there there are people on calls that I'm on that have not sampled. Yet.

B

And I I'd say: what do you recommend brian and I say I'm gonna tell everybody you gotta at least.

B

Go sample well, we're not required to do it yet you know so they you know of all the compounds.

B

Of the lower limits and that so it's it's quite enlightening when you kind of get out of our.

B

Realm and see what's happening across the country. Is it true that bottled water is not tested? I.

B

For this total organic fluorine analysis, we add fluorite in the amount of already being equivalent.

B

To 700 000 parts per billion, when you run a total foreign analysis, somehow they have to separate the.

B

Organic from the nrb components, but if there's so much chloride in the water does that affect.

B

The total fluorine calculation I'm going to hand that to the world, because I imagine this meaning.

D

Sure yeah I'm happy to to chime in with what what I know about this and I think that's a.

D

Question that I've had also um so there is a well the um you write, the guardian.

D

Article is you know that was done for a news outlet. There is a peer-reviewed.

D

Method that dr peaslee's lab, developed kind of as a screening method for looking for organofluorine.

D

They do have this filter media that is very specific for organofluorine, so the idea is.

D

That the fluoride would not stick and they did a number of tests to kind of validate that.

D

But you're right with so much inorganic fluorine there, if just like a small percent of that remain.

D

That could kind of throw things off, and I know you know: every water system is different. Water.

D

Chemistry, so you know I would love to see more more testing. I mean I was had my hand raised.

D

Also because I did want to applaud the water supply for being at the cutting edge and for.

D

You know taking part in in testing. That's you know not required and kind of telling us new things.

D

I've worked with a number of water suppliers on the cape and some on cape cod, and you know.

D

Some have taken us up on offers to test for pharmaceuticals and other emerging contaminants.

D

um Back 10 years ago- and some didn't want to you know they didn't want to have to.

D

You know, spend the time or the effort to explain it or deal with people's questions so you're to be.

D

Applauded for for being at the cutting edge- and you know, teaching other water supplies.

D

How to approach this and how to communicate about it? So I think I think it's a learning.

D

Opportunity- and you know in terms of doing future testing with graham, if there's opportunities to.

D

Look for trends over time or you know, do some more quality control tests to just see. I don't.

D

Know if there's ways to test the water like before the fluoride is added, and after I mean.

D

I spent years working on the chemistry lab, so I could think of different variations of it. That.

D

Could kind of address this you know to see if, if there is any interference from the fluorine, so.

D

um So I'm always, you know, I understand the the constraints and the concerns about you.

D

Know, time and resources to answer questions and interpret the results, but I think it's great to be.

D

At the cutting edge- and it gives really an opportunity for the community to learn.

D

And I know right now: total organofluorine is not commonly tested in the us and there aren't any.

D

Regulations here, but europe is working to develop a total organofluorine method and standards.

D

um So I think that will spark some more kind of innovation on the technical side. So having.

D

This sort of like heads up to have a ballpark and yeah. We don't know yet exactly what the the exact.

D

Number is, but I think, having a sense of the levels and how it compares to other water supplies is.

D

Is helpful to have that um in advance to kind of prepare and look for trends over time, and maybe.

D

Work out some of the analytical chemistry questions that haven't been fully resolved.

A

And I think I think just the last thing I know a question that came up from um senator perkins.

A

Kolka, I'm not sure if she's on zoom, but um in response to the guardian article, she just asked.

A

About bioaccumulation and toxicity of short chain pfas versus long chain, and so I was.

A

Hoping dr patel or dr shader could just kind of briefly. You know work great. Dr peasy said that.

A

The 164 parts per trillion might be short chain or ultra short chain, p fast, like what would be.

A

Helpful for us to know is community if that is the case, yeah so with p-pass or the alkyl. So those are.

C

The long squiggly ones whenever we draw them out, we have our long chains and they were short chains.

C

The long term are the ones that, right now, we have regulations for at least four of them.

C

And these are typically the ones we look in human and animal studies, so small amounts getting the.

C

Body they hang out for a while the human body's really good at not letting go of these things.

C

But for some reason, the short chains, based on the way that we measure these people right now.

C

It doesn't seem that's the case. We don't hold on to the short chains as much as we do for.

C

Long chains, so, even though there's parts per trillion, you're, probably not building as much.

C

Up in your body, but again, that's still an area of evolving science, because the way that we.

C

Measure the bioaccumulation is by taking a blood sample, specifically a serum sample.

C

Get really picky about those words, so we don't really see short chains showing up in people's.

C

Serum, so by looking at that also looking at urine samples, we sort of infer that these are moving in.

C

And out of the body when we take animals and we dose them and we dissect them and do all.

C

Kinds of awful things we can't do people. We definitely see that same pattern, short.

C

So we see similar patterns there most of the time and that's one of the reasons where, when.

C

I talk later you'll see that you can't put out a recommendation for a health advisory for a.

C

Short chain compound: that's a thousand parts per trillion, that's much higher than the other health.

C

Advisories it's sort of based on this, but this is one things too that we have to keep track of with.

C

The sciences because there may be some case where some of these short chains are just accumulating a.

C

Different part of the body that we're measuring, but right now there doesn't seem a huge amount.

C

Of evidence, that's leading us towards that. So that's where this idea of short chains.

C

Aren't as bio-cumulative it's the reason, a lot of industries said: look we switched to short chains.

C

But the problem being that they'll just use larger amounts of those short chains to the same product.

C

So you know, if you go back to that slide, we've had the difference. If this is one of the things that.

C

In the realm of risk assessment, we're trying to understand come on technology work with us.

C

So right, if you're, looking at that gaps, like just reports that there's you're measuring.

C

10 total in the assay at 164. that gap of 154 that's right off the top of my head. You know the.

C

Question there is: is that short chains, or is that fluorinated pharmaceuticals.

C

Or is that some other chlorinated commercial product? That's not technically pfas, which you.

C

Know we only get the technical definition fast. We can have a little sweating on that. um So there's.

C

That question of what's in there is the shore chains, and that is one thing where short chains.

C

Are harder to measure and that's why the methods for analysis are lagging on short chains, but it's.

C

Also, the same reasons that a lot of toxicity tests and toxicity data is missing, because if we can't.

C

Measure it in the study, how do we relate it to health effect? So that's where we have these.

C

Gaps right now that we're trying to follow and keep an eye on, but again, that's why a lot.

C

More research has been focused on these longer chains because they are so much more cumulative.

C

Risk assessment effort at this time, but we know that the short chains are out.

C

There so laura, I don't know if you've got anything you want to add to that. uh No, I mean, I think you.

D

Covered a lot of points there, um I guess one yeah, that's a great point that you know the short genes.

D

Don't accumulate in blood to the same degree, um there was a study that looked at radio labeled.

D

um Four: six and eight um carbon chain versions of the carboxylate, so pfoa pf, hxa and pfba, which.

D

Don't require you to be able to measure the chemicals specifically, you can just look at the.

D

Where the radio-labeled fluorine ends up and they did see different patterns, where the.

D

Shorter chains accumulated in different organs than the longer chain ones, so.

D

um So we definitely have an incomplete picture right now and there's definitely some concern that.

D

The shorter chains are, you know, having an effect in a different part of the body and.

D

We're not necessarily measuring it accumulating in the same way, but it can still be harmful.

D

um And I do try to point out that there are chemicals that are of concern but don't accumulate.

D

In the body like bisphenol, a which you see on you know, labels bpa, free plastics, like that is cleared.

D

From our body and like on the order of hours or days, and so but it's still a concern because.

D

We are sort of continually exposed from a lot of different sources, so.

D

It's not just the human half-life, it's also, um you know the amount that we're exposed to and.

D

And how often so but yeah we made a lot of other good points too. Jonathan thanks.

B

Okay, maybe that's a good segue.

C

Okay, so um it's my turn, so I'm just gonna give an update. um I'm going to go, I'm not going to try.

C

To whirlwind my way through these slides, but I'm not going to just read slides the entire time so.

C

If people have questions or I'll do a q a at the end of my section right thanks, sorry to interrupt.

D

Jonathan but um you're in a different mode now with powerpoint, so it's like in notes mode, not the.

D

Before you had it, so it was just the like presenting the slide itself.

D

So too many options here, let me know, let's see.

B

How's that looking yeah better thanks all right. Thank you. So this will just cover five parts. I'm.

C

Gonna do a primer on regulatory jargon. I know everyone in the room is probably familiar with.

C

These, but just in case anyone goes through pulls up these slides online later reference.

C

We'll talk about the epa announcement, how that compares to capturing other state guidance.

C

uh Key things from epa risk messaging that are a little wonky when it comes to new hampshire.

C

And then some implications for next slide, so epa recently put out what are called interim.

C

Health advice rates and in regulatory world we get wrapped around the way. All the valid words.

C

So a health advisory is a guidance value about health risks. Epa is very explicit and saying.

C

This is not a regulatory value, we shouldn't be using it as that, but in new hampshire we often.

C

Actually adopt health advisories as regulatory guidance. Some other states do that. um This is.

C

Something that right now they put out a number we'll talk about that, and it's more meant. It's a.

C

Guidance tool so helping thinking about where are you at it's like we're talking about with organic.

C

Flooring where you got on the spectrum relative to that goal, and sometimes these are calculating the.

C

Way that they're called a lifetime health advisor they're supposed to cover you for 70 years out.

C

Of an average 70-year lifespan so they call it lifetime. You just have an l in front of the aha.

C

That's that these are different than maximum contaminants or mcls, which are enforceable. So this.

C

Is where we go out to the public water systems and we say: thou shalt meet summer, so in new hampshire.

C

You've adopted those for pfas, um usually these are developed by the epa. Although foreign.

C

It's been a couple of years, almost since they've made one for man-made contaminants.

C

But an mcl works like a health advisory that they try to identify. What is the health goal that we'd.

C

Like to be at but an mcl requires consideration of cost and benefit so cost and benefit can.

C

Have some different meanings if you want to bring in some folks from unh or some converse.

C

There may bring current to talk about how cost methods looked at them scales. If you happen to.

C

Do that I'm not an economist, I'm not going to dig into that today! So if you could hit advance.

C

And in new hampshire we have these really fun things called ambient groundwater quality.

C

Standards or agqs so for public water systems, those apply in certain ways, but really this is.

C

Something that the department state department of environmental services uses to investigate.

C

Groundwater contamination different states have different names for this. Sometimes it's called.

C

Their groundwater limits, so on so forth in new hampshire, our agqs almost always matches our.

C

Scales, so if it's your public water threshold that we'd be concerned about that's what we would start.

C

Investigating those groundwater contamination, that's how it works for the majority of our.

C

Groundwater standards and we try to match those numbers, usually because, when we're looking at like.

C

A waste site or contamination area we realized about 47 percent of fiance residents, aren't.

C

Private wells, so we want our public water numbers, the numbers that we're telling people on wells to.

C

Kind of be similar be really weird if we said on public water, this level is okay, but if you private.

C

Well, some other level is okay, so again, typically these match, um but it's a new hampshire, specific.

C

Value other states sometimes have it where the groundwater number is different than the mcl.

C

That's based on their own rules, so that's my regulatory side.

C

So epa recently made an announcement this summer, and that is they put out two interim.

C

Health advisories for pfoa, pfl, that is at point, zero, zero, four nanograms familiar with pfoa, point.

C

Zero two zero nanograms per liter per pflus that is much lower than seventy nanograms per liter.

C

So this is currently something that's undergoing. That's still finishing up.

C

The scientific review board process, but epa determined that, based on their initial analysis,.

C

They thought it was important to put out an advisory, basically give people. This number.

C

To understand this is the realm in which he pays again developing a health advisory.

C

The interim word there is because epa has been very clear in telling us they are going to.

C

Change this number this fall. This is a temporary number that they've put out. It will be something.

C

Different by default, they've also been very clear, so, regardless of what the sap process does.

C

It will still be below detection limits, because these current occult advisories.

C

Are below what we can currently detect? So it's something that if you have a detection.

C

J flag in your data, that's where we think something's kind of there.

C

You're, probably above these health advisories, so in addition to these interim health, advisories.

C

They did issue final health advisories for two compounds, pfbs short chain and that's at 2000..

C

And then gen x, which is not really a great name, apparently industry developed us. It's.

C

Supposed to be like the cute alternative name but they've, never watched, 90s, horror, movies,.

C

So it's a long chemical name, but the it's part of this process called gen x and it's.

C

10 nanograms per liter, so these are final health advisories. For these two compounds.

C

Now again, health advisories are non-enforceable, but it's now a tool and, as he has put it out, they.

C

Said public water systems should start looking to see? Do you detect anything cause if you detect.

C

Something you are probably above our advisory and should start considering what that means.

C

They are looking at some other pfas compounds, so they may be issuing more health, advisories.

C

Over the next year or two so we're trying to track that to see what they'll be doing.

C

But in addition to issuing these interim health advisories for the summer and likely issuing new.

C

Health advisories in the fall and when I say fall, that's epa fall. So that could be december.

C

um They're going to initiate the process of proposing maximum contaminant levels for pfoa.

C

Pfms and that's where they would be considering cost and benefit.

C

Technical feasibility can they actually measure it at the level that they're proposing.

C

Obviously a year-long rulemaking process, public comment: it will be lengthy, so likely.

C

Not be until 2023 until it's a very solid sense of where they're going, but.

C

A proposal will be coming out fall of 2022, which again might be december, so excellent.

C

So in new hampshire we currently have four mcls, so this is a recycled slide from past presentations.

C

That I've, given to the swag and in other places for more information about how he developed those.

C

Own skills, there's a link, I'm also taking this an opportunity to plug that des is going to change.

C

Its pfas website this coming month so for anyone that has gone to the pfest blog and said this is.

C

Terrible, we got you we're changing it, um it'll be a lot more fun and there's a lot more information.

C

On there, it's way easier to navigate so a lot more information up there about that.

C

But the key thing here is that new hampshire already has mcl's in place, which means public.

C

Water systems have now been testing for a while. They have several orders of data under their belt.

C

Unlike other states, as brian mentioned, haven't even begun. Looking for these and.

C

Haven't even done any testing for any one of these compounds, so in a lot of ways, the actions, the epa.

C

Recommended around these health advisories of tests and think about what that means.

C

You already tested thinking about what that means um with our mcls, which are also our groundwater.

C

Standards we are following what the epa is doing to see what information they put out.

C

What the health advisor will be and what their mcl proposal will be, because we do have a legislative.

C

Requirement every year to check and see what new information is out there and determine if there's.

C

Sufficient information to make a recommendation to the legislature to adjust the mcls now that being.

C

Said since we know interim advisories are interim and they're going to change it, probably going to.

C

Be very helpful to change the mcls this month go into the fall change them again. Epa changes in the.

C

Next, six months, but that's up to the department partnership, the legislature, to figure out how.

C

They'll be reacting to what the epa puts out, so it is something that we're following so next slide.

C

So this is a fun table that is probably out of date as a five minutes ago,.

C

But it's just to give a sense of if you look across some states that have been.

C

Developing numbers, it's sort of spread the new uk health advisories for pfoa and pfms. Are there.

C

Reddit they are lower. The epa is also looking at the short chain. Pfda hxa will likely have what.

C

We call reference doses. These are magic numbers. We developed basically drinking water guidance.

C

From those will likely be coming out in the next few months and they'll probably be issuing health.

C

Advice respond with those um but again there's already sort of mixed landscaping across the.

C

Country of different numbers, different thresholds and really sometimes what they mean where.

C

In some cases, it's guidance other cases, it's an mcl other cases. It's a groundwater number.

C

So we are looking at how this will be changing and also with the most recent announcement.

C

Looking at adding the list, this also may change how they're regulated next slide.

C

So one of the things we frequently get asked is: what is the major difference between.

C

Epa and new hampshire and some other states risk assessment. So there's a couple decimal places off.

C

From where several states are where epa is, and it really comes down to the selection of study.

C

Of things they study from the faroe islands, population study looking at changes in antibody.

C

Response following exposure to pfas and using this is how they derive their lower health advisory.

C

This is something that they're responding to some comments from the science advisory.

C

Report but there are some other health effects they looked at that are similar range that you.

C

Just remain clear that really they're not going to have a reference dose that is above.

C

Really close to the other state values that are out there.

C

So one of the things that's we're still waiting to understand, though, for mpa is okay. This is.

C

What they're doing for water you want to hit next slide? What does this mean for other media.

C

Because this reference does saying I keep saying over and over again is actually how states and the.

C

Plants regulate things not just water, soil fish, sometimes in food and other media and what's been.

C

Difficult is right now. Epa is telling us that their reference dose that they've developed.

C

Is only for drinking water, they would not use it for anything else and that's something. We're.

C

Depending which office epa we have conversations with. We get a different answer on that and that's.

C

One of the reasons several states are looking to understand: how is epa going to apply this.

C

Because we take that reference dose, which is expressed as an amount of chemicals.

C

And we start seeing the amount of that chemical, so in this case pfoa pfos that either an adult or.

C

An infant, a certain age range could be exposed to and we would start being concerned issues when we.

C

Start looking across other media we realize is the other medias could still swamp that exposure even.

B

If we fix water other media by meaning food and bill food um in the next few months, we will have.

C

A study come out that we new hampshire des did with the us geological survey, um surveying soils.

C

Across the state to understand the occurrence of pfas across our state and it it's everywhere so.

C

That's again something where we're trying to understand how this works then, because it's hard.

C

To have in one case where you're saying it's only this toxic in water, but somehow it's not toxic in.

C

So again, depending which epa program we've talked to we've gotten different communication.

C

Around this, that's why we're hoping that they'll provide guidance around us or finalize health.

C

Advisory and realize it's sort of going off from evaluating drinking water, which is the focus of.

C

This group, but for risk assessment, it all comes back to sort of these core numbers and that's.

C

One of the reasons where some states and the state agencies are sort of taking a slower reaction to.

C

These interim health advisories because we're being told in one sense they apply but another.

C

Sense, it doesn't if, if I may, on other compounds, it's my understanding, that's why some states have.

B

For different regulated contaminants, they have different numbers because that state itself.

B

You might be exposed, like new jersey, to get some contaminant in your food and all that.

B

So that they set the drinking water a little different than new hampshire or ohio or yeah.

C

And that's the thing of accounting for background sources and that's something where oftentimes some.

C

States have that data and they have a plethora of it and other states. Don't a good example.

C

Is fish consumption so right now our state whenever we try to understand people's risk.

C

From being fish in the state, we have to default to epa's information, which is.

C

National averages- sometimes it's regional, but it's not actually specific to new hampshire residents.

C

But over the last year we've been working with dartmouth college to actually develop.

C

New hampshire's specific numbers we're hoping to get that out soon. It does reflect that we have a.

C

Specifically higher fish consumption rate and that we need to start looking at that, but oftentimes.

C

States simply don't have that information, it's really boring information. So it's really.

C

Hard getting procedures to want to study because asking people how much their speed is not exciting.

C

um So next slide they don't want to delay us so around. Some of the risk communication points.

C

Ep does have a document out, there's a link to it on there. um It answers a lot of what.

C

They identify as being the commonly asked questions that they're expecting nationwide.

C

You know one of the first things is: if you have detectable levels, what does that mean.

C

New hampshire, public water systems are already testing, so a lot of that is.

C

Weighing out what that means, thinking about, if the health advisory is a goal, we should be at.

C

What would it take for us to get to that goal? How frequently do we have concedement.

C

One of the other points is that they recommend people.

C

Are concerned about levels that are found in the drinking water to contact their clinicians.

C

Something that our health and human services here and our department looked very clear. That.

C

A little frustrated the vpa, putting out that guidance, because most clinicians still have.

C

No idea what keypads are they're still being linked with they're trying to figure out. What's.

C

But we do know that national accounting is a science engineering. They did put out some recommendations to the cdc agency that deals with chemical exposures and.

C

They may be changing some of their guidance, so we're waiting to see what they do with.

C

That, because you know we're not staffed to come up with guidance for clinicians.

C

And to get a question from earlier bpa right now, if you have pfs above the interim health advisory.

C

They're not recommending bottled water because you can't really guarantee that.

C

Bottled water doesn't have keep asset price for australia in new hampshire. We are.

C

Currently, the only state where all you have to correct me if someone else has joined the.

C

Bandwagon but we're the only state right now that actually has a regulation on bottled water.

C

Again that I'm aware of where bottled water suppliers have to at least be part of students,.

C

That might actually get the rug pulled out from it, because the epa sets an mcl. That's.

C

Higher than ours, then, because bottled water is considered a food product.

C

Then it'll be defaulted to whatever fda says, whichever you're going to say what epa says.

C

We'll have to figure out what to do about that: one um health and human services food, but right now.

C

If it's a licensed bottled water supplier in the state, they are required to meet at least our own.

C

So, for a lot of those, you know that their license followed our company. They have probably been.

C

Testing we rolled out around seals, we actually went out and did grab sampling off shelves to test.

C

There's only one model water supply company that exceeded our ocls hit the news they went out.

C

Of existence pretty quickly afterwards, that wasn't great, but they were in massachusetts.

C

um So other than that you know they help advisors to apply to public water systems, but they've epa.

C

Is also not currently applying those to superfund sites, um it was a little interesting that.

C

The week before about two weeks before they announced these internal health, advisories.

C

Sort of swapped in numbers for what they use at superfund sites that are comparable to what.

C

The cdc had previously recommended those are orders of magnitude above the health advisories.

C

So those are always sites that are more complicated. I realize that you all have keys here.

C

Right across the way, as a superfund site, that's also a department of defense site. It does make it.

C

More complicated for the state we're trying to delineate are you following our agqs, our mcls epa.

C

Health advisories, these screening levels that they just got it makes that complicated. So next slide.

C

So for new hampshire, we do it on cls. We actually have mclgs mcl goals, which are.

C

Zero for all four compounds, so we like everyone to be there. We realize zero's not totally achievable.

C

But you like to get there: um epa is going to be proposing something. This fall. They're, probably.

C

Going to propose a enforceable mcl that it's unlikely to be identical to the health advisory.

C

That's going to be complicated for racism with the general public with folks that.

C

Are going to see, one number is ep will be very clear, not saying it's safe or not safe.

C

But oftentimes something ends up in the guardian it'll be asked: is it safe not safe and.

C

That epa is going to have a different proposed level based on cost technology.

C

As far as existing data goes for pfbs and gen x, we've had a couple detects of gen x in some places.

C

In new hampshire that I'll lead up with a certain commercial lab, let me send it back for analysis.

C

If you don't detect it anymore, so the really fun conversation you all were having earlier.

C

But also with pfps any places that we possibly even have triple digits of pfbs, showing up in.

C

Groundwater that site is already being addressed under our current mc notes.

C

And that's one of the things with shorter chain compounds that have these guidance values drinking.

C

Water numbers, whatever you want to call them a lot of these short chains, are just they're showing up.

C

At higher numbers already triggering action, some of the thresholds for the long chain compounds.

C

So that yeah, that's something we have a great pfest mapper. It's going to be updated to the.

C

Website we're so excited, um but it we realize, like you know, people are saying well, what's this other.

C

Compound doing here, in some cases, we're already catching some sites based on different substance.

C

We are also tracking installing up these other compounds, as well as, hopefully something that.

C

Maybe epa can recommend around a class-based regulatory tool, but again one thing: we're.

C

Trying to be careful of is for des we're, not the drinking water department. We are the department of.

C

Environmental services, so it's a class-based tool. Is it a tool that works in drinking water? Is it a.

C

Tool that works on soil is it a tool that works in these other medias and types of investigation.

C

Epa has alluded that they may be coming out with different recommendations for request.

C

Tools for different media, which is going to be messy in some sense, but it's probably going to.

C

Be a little bit more tailored, based on whether you're trying to address certain situations.

C

And then, finally, you know for household 1264 every november we'll be reporting related drinking water.

C

Standards this year, we also just got a new piece of legislation related to air toxics.

C

But for some reason they didn't make that same big change, so we get to write a report for november.

C

C

So while I have your attention and because we do pfas and more, um I just want to say.

C

That our program is here to help out with these questions, but also questions related to other.

C

Drinking water issues um we've recently had an explosion of staff because we've been getting.

C

External grants to support those positions, so we have more people they're all very excited to help.

C

But we are also reviewing our ambient groundwater quality standards for 105.

C

Other chemical contaminants that are not pests.

C

So these are contaminants that are found in surface water, they're found in groundwater.

C

Around waste sites, they're not around gas stations they're bound around you native state, probably.

C

We're looking at updating these and it is very likely that, in a lot of cases, the drinking water.

C

Programs are going to look at these as yeah, as I mentioned before. If it's our groundwater standard.

C

That we're using to protect private wells, they will probably be looking at. Where would we be.

C

Adopting this as a drinking water value or adjusting some of those.

C

um We also have it's an acronym within an accord, sorry about that, but it's called apple tree.

C

And it's a federally funded program from the cdc that is focused on federal and state release sites.

C

Where communities have concerned about exposures that they want to learn more.

C

So, for example, if you're wanting to learn more about coldly landfill- and you want to have a group.

C

Try to put together the right team to explain what's going on.

C

They're there to help out that, if you want to talk about another landfill, that's.

C

Your other public water source- and you want to understand, what's going on in that investigation,.

C

How great people pull together they're there to help that this team is there to do risk.

C

Assessment but they're also just to help out with risk communication and helping people understand.

C

What's going on at superfund sites or in our quirky little state sites that new hampshire.

C

We have a whole bunch of research collaborations and I would just say that for.

C

At the end of people want to talk about fish, shellfish and other weird stuff.

C

But we also do support a lot of the private oil testing initiatives. I realize this is.

C

Focused on public water systems, but if you're trying to tailor information.

C

For the communities out there, maybe private wells we're happy to help out with that. There's a lot.

C

Of state funded testing initiatives around the seacoast other places too right now that we're.

C

Supporting so, if there's a way that I'll get the word out or to reach out certain communities.

C

So the last slide is my contact information and I will open it up for questions.

A

I have a few, but if anybody else, let's just start, okay I'll start.

A

So, with the current it health advisories, which are obviously full load, detection, particular quadruple.

A

How many water systems in new hampshire right now would exceed that for a pfoa.

A

What are all of them? Not all of them. You have to get brandon current to get you that information. I.

A

Did not come prepared with that? Okay and then my question is more around new hampshire, so.

A

We know the health advisories are interim they're going to change. Then this mcl process is going to.

A

Start so once epa establishes an mcl: how does what is the process for new hampshire to adopt those.

A

Because I know when new hampshire set their own mcl, which was there, was no eta sale like.

C

There was a very big process with that. So does new hampshire automatically adopt epa's mcl? Will there.

A

Be hearings and you know like what will happen so because it's a federal on scale, there's a.

C

There's a rule-making process that would go into that and to get the full timeline that looks like.

C

Yeah, I would agree with the brand for that one, but if the federal mcl is lower than our mcls.

A

Well, I know when new hampshire said their mcl's industry stood in new hampshire for that and it.

A

It you know there was a paw, I don't know there was a pause in implementing it. There was a delay.

C

Yes, okay, so and then eventually it became on, but so could we expect if new hampshire has to.

A

Automatically epas and sales should they be lower? Should we expect lawsuits and people pushing back.

C

Over that would be on the epa, so epa would be happy too, and that's one of the big questions.

C

Of you know like when they make their proposal for their mcl on the ball, they will be opening up for.

C

Public comment, but it's pretty fully expected epa is going to be the challenge on this or even when.

C

They get through their public comment process, they would be the ones that would most likely be.

C

Challenged and that's that is epa's and that's so once they come out at the other end once again,.

A

B

And the information set on the short chain versus the long chain, uh it's very interesting.

B

More concerns blockchain. Obviously um there was another process I have to stumble upon just in.

B

My research online, the process of getting rid of pfas, have you ever played anything with that.

B

I've seen a couple of headlines about that. I'm not terribly familiar with that process.

C

I know our state is trying to figure out sort of a lot of destruction process with epas right.

C

Now, because we also have that firefighting phone program, we've stopped by the firefighter.

C

I'm not particularly under that destruction process. I know a lot of groups are trying to.

C

Study that um laurel, do you have any insight on that destruction process.

D

um I know there was a paper that came out. I think that was last week.

D

I was on vacation, so I haven't read it. I think I know it was um that one specifically.

D

Had a mixture that was like one part, water and, like eight part, solvent. So it's not something that.

D

By itself you would do directly on water, but I think the idea is you could like run. If you had.

D

Run water through a carbon filter or kind of pre-concentrated it that it could be a way to.

D

Break down the pfas, but suddenly an area active research.

D

Yeah a lot more about that at this point.

B

A question on so you mentioned, the reference dose for epa is based on the uh basically the response.

B

For ted knighted headline shot, I mean and when, when I read the news articles, it always says.

B

Cancer and I know they're, you know cancer is one of the the things that you know you could.

B

Be affected by drinking fast contaminated water, but is that a different level? So it's like that's.

B

What's difficult is like it's not across the board that you know at this level it's affecting the.

B

Immune response getting this vaccine so are there other like? I could just see a chart. It's like. Oh.

B

So in their report they do have a long table of different levels for different health outcomes.

C

So that's both for pfoa and pfms. So there's sort of this spread of different concentrations that.

C

Are suspected to cause certain health effects with pfos epa? This time is not looking at that one. As.

C

A perception as a part of this process, the epa is looking at changing the classification of pfo a's.

C

Status as a carcinogen which, if they do simply by how the rules of mcl's are written,.

C

The goal for pfoa will be zero, there's no math behind. If it's once it's in this category of.

B

Carcinogen, the goal shall be it's arsenic right same because the arsenic's goal is zero. Yeah.

C

And that's the thing where right now, our sixth goal is zero. If we wanted to get to one in a.

C

Million risk for arsenic, we would be at point zero, zero one, two ish somewhere around there.

C

Parts per billion for arsenic, the national mcl, is 10, because removing that much arsenic is.

C

Costly, it's not very feasible. It's huge burden, new hampshire. We recently cut 10 down to 5.

C

That's still not .00, whatever the number should be for one in a million at least, and it's still not.

C

Zero, so that again is going to be one thing in epa's mcl process they are going to have to.

C

Grapple through that and give that justification of whichever level they're setting.

C

You know what is the cost? What is the benefit? There's certain different ways that that can be.

C

Done that is very likely to be where he will be challenged in court, and that may be one of the.

C

Reasons where epa may get a proposal out this fall december, but it may actually end up being.

C

Delayed by several more years, just because it'll get challenged, so it's similar to land and ecm too.

A

Set a level from that, even though zero was really simple, we learned about that.

C

Yeah, so for a lot of these chemicals, especially things that are carcinogens, we set the goal for.

C

Zero because you don't want any percentage in your water, but it does ultimately come down.

C

To what's the cost, what's the feasibility, and it is that challenge too, of how much.

C

Are you getting from other sources, there's a step into drinking water you're, sending a.

C

Drinking water number, where you're asking how much you're getting from those other places.

C

And it's that tough spot where you're saying okay, you can remove this all from water. Somehow.

C

Are you still getting swamped from everything else and that's likely sort of one of the reasons.

C

That we're hoping that epa sort of is taking the step of classifying these as hazardous substances.

C

Because it's recognizing it's not just a water issue, it's consumer products, food items.

A

Just one last question: you mentioned that epa is going to list a couple other.

A

Contaminants other pfas yeah in the fall they're going to try to propose toxicity.

C

If we go back to the slides but still slide here,.

C

Okay yeah, so there we go so pfhx and pfba are in draft form, so they will likely be finalized for.

C

Those in the next few months, maybe early 2023, in which case they'd, be putting out a health advisory.

C

Or if they don't put out a health advisory, we would be evaluating data from across the.

C

State and other information and determine is it necessary for us to develop gqs here in the state.

C

Yeah, it's that sort of tricky thing where it's like. Well, if we, if the pfba number is a thousand.

C

And at most we detect five at the highest concentration anywhere. It becomes a question.

C

Of you're, just taking a regulatory rule for the sake of making regulatory rule, it's not going to.

C

Trigger any action somewhere, um pfda pfhxspfna epa is working on those we haven't seen a draft yet.

C

But ideally those be coming out, probably in the next year. Probably 2023 is draft.

C

But again, this is also it's still doing, that whackable approach of one chemical at a time.

C

And there's more of this interest up, the zph is going to set a policy and come up with a class.

C

Based approach, because that takes it out of a lot of people's hands in some ways, but this is also.

C

Where epa, and even some states that have done class-based approaches, they take that approach.

C

Of drinking water and they start applying it to other media, it gets really tricky to use that same.

C

Strategy, so several of them are sort of trying to figure out how to deal with that. We're hoping.

C

Epa can at least recommend some things again for our department, just sort of the state level. Now.

C

And that's the thing where we need to make sure if we're going to.

C

Have a class-based tool: if there's multiple tools, which ones do we apply, that work for us, but also.

C

You know like what happened in maine application of biosolvents from certain places.

C

Well, we actually have a rule in new hampshire if you can't apply it. If you can't apply it here so.

C

That's not our issue to deal with, but that's again one of the issues where.

C

When certain states start coming up with rules and starts [, __ ] with.

C

How things move across borders that also opens us up for like issues that are state policy that can.

C

Delay out these regulations, so it's trying to work carefully around those issues.

B

You're welcome to stick around here sure I don't know that song yeah no problem, um thanks for your.

D

Presentation that was really helpful. I was curious. I know when, when new hampshire developed the.

D

State mcl's, you and others did a really careful evaluation of the available scientific information.

D

That's out there and these epa health advisories are much lower. Could you talk a little bit about.

D

What the differences are, is it kind of the difference between an mcl and the practical.

D

Components of that versus a health advisory was there new health information they considered.

D

That wasn't available when you all did your evaluation like? Could you just talk about how they.

D

Kind of looked at mostly the same information and landed at a lower number yeah. So historically, with.

C

A lot of the states, including new hampshire, that have looked at setting some sort of health.

C

Value so call it a health advisory called an mcl call, an agqs health-based, guidance value.

C

um With a lot of these, there's been a really strong hesitancy of using.

C

Human studies, as the mathematical basis of setting these numbers, so there's pros and cons to it and.

C

Up until the epa's recent announcement, there was a lot of hesitancy of using these human.

C

Studies so a lot of the studies up till now, based on animal studies that were extrapolated.

C

Out to human relevant doses, and that's where you get back a couple more slides. But you don't.

C

Have to but going back some slides, there's a table that shows a range of doses for pfos.

C

From several states versus where vpa is now- and this is one thing- is that the big difference here.

C

Is epa has decided, it's changed its position and it's now using those human studies.

C

And that's one of the things that we're waiting to hear back from the science advisory board. Try to.

C

The science advisory board recommended that epa needs to clarify and better support that selection.

C

Because that's something where a lot of states are looking at the same, most of us have been.

C

Operating an assumption that these were not usable studies for that quantitative basis, qualitatively.

C

Yes, the studies point to pfas are not great for the immune system. They're doing wonky things.

C

We're concerned, but there's a lot of other concerns about those studies that.

C

Made a lot of risk, assessors toxicologists, hesitant to apply and that's a mathematical basis.

B

Still live here, it's definitely good, so uh I'll be quick. We've got about um 26 minutes, so uh our.

B

Response so, of course we we have been tracking all this ourselves. We immediately put some information.

B

Up on our city website about this interim health advisory. So if you go to the city's website for.

B

Water, as that, we currently point to what um the state has and look forward to pointing to.

B

The new website with better better info, but you can see back in june, the state came out.

B

With basically a lot of information that jonathan shared with us about the fact that you know here.

B

In new hampshire we have sampled, we do have mcls all that basic stuff. So so we are tracking it.

B

um The uh the other aspects of pfas here, of course, uh peas. We have treatment and uh you.

B

Know the good news there is: we've treated over uh 250, almost almost 300 million gallons of water at.

B

Through our filtration system, we still have non-detect, so we sample throughout the filters.

B

We also sample what goes into the system and we are still at non-detect of all the.

B

Regulated compounds we are starting to see um pfba, which is a short chain compound, so this.

B

Is what's expected and what our piloting said and what all the you know: data on.

B

Filtration is that eventually you're going to see the short chains come through.

B

First, it's somewhat of an indicator of where you are, as far as the life of the filter media.

B

And in that we are working uh towards uh you know, putting order in and changing uh some media out.

B

um This winter, um as far as the enforcement system goes, um we are these are the rolling new hampshire.

B

Averages so we're required to sample quarterly, and then we average those and, as you can see,.

B

um Badbury, just a one compound pfoa detected two parts um and then two wells that have some.

B

Pfoa but um well, four, essentially zero. That's the average non-detects and some detections.

B

But the three wells we have in town have have higher lot levels. So what are we doing?.

B

We're currently working with our consultant to explore options and what would it take to.

B

Treat those wells so that's something that we will bring before council eventually, as.

B

Part of our capital improvement program, um the collins and green and portsmouth wells are in.

B

The peas aquifer, so that's more of a discussion with the air force. The greenland wall is ours,.

B

But a quick little snapshot al tracks this, but this is the eight years of sampling. So.

B

Basically, when you look at this, these are the four regulated compounds in new hampshire.

B

And we use this graph to see. Are we seeing a trend and basically you can see different analytic.

B

Methods in years past, um you know the accuracy of what lab testing results are um is showing you a.

B

Bit more of a scatter shot of sampling, whereby um ever since about 2020 it's more of a consistent.

B

And but you can see levels that are going up and down so this is. This is really what.

B

What we've seen throughout the same is is true with the columns. Well, um you know samples and.

B

Results that are up and down, and also uh the greenman well itself too, so we tracked that.

B

And and certainly if we were to see a real um rising curve, that would be a bit more alarming.

B

On what to do with respect to response, but right now you know: we've been sampling, poorly and.

B

That's that's our data on that and we, uh you know we'll continue to do that. um Another thing.

B

That um I wanted to quickly. I know this sort of segue a bit of what uh jonathan said about.

B

This whole uh burden or load or uh the media that you're exposed to pfas.

B

Contaminants, because it's everywhere it's in our clothes, it's in um you know carpets it's in it's.

B

Basically, in the air, so I track these things. This security wine field is actually a water system.

B

That way, back when I presented in colorado on our case study of contamination here I was approached.

B

By the water operator of this system, because they had just gotten this detection, and lo and.

B

Behold they progressed, you know just a little bit behind us and all the same thing. You know sampling.

B

Filtering response: it was also an air base and then also they eventually had the health studies.

B

And the blood testing that we had so this report just came out, so I tracked some of this stuff.

B

Just because on interest, you know, what's up at the other sites um that are dealing with this and have.

B

You know health studies as well. They um had a 318 adults, 28 children's 180 household were in the the.

B

Study they had blood and urine samples and that data is on there and they also collected. So this.

B

Is what caught my eye? They collected tap water and dust samples so that sampling wasn't done.

B

For us, but we did have tap water samples here, but the dust samples was what caught my eye.

B

And then, basically, they sampled 18 of the properties in houses, so they basically went.

B

To the primary living space, the kitchen bedroom, where the participants spent most of their time.

B

They also compared that data. So anytime, you look at studying, there's always reference points of.

B

Are there other studies out there? They pointed to a study that was done in boston, a number.

B

Of years ago, dust levels were comparable, but when you look at the results, it's it's quite.

B

um You know the numbers are fairly and these are in parts per billion, so they.

B

Sampled for 30 different pfas compounds and pretty much had a detection of all of them.

B

um And some higher than others, uh p foss was was fairly high. Pfh xs had a maximum result of 260.

B

The averages, when you look at the mean were some not able to to calculate and others. um You know.

B

Mostly in the single digits, when it it came out, but uh you know, I think it touches on a whole.

B

New realm of of this overall exposure right, I know it's not to deflect what's in the water as far as.

B

Being a public water system and the fact that, yes, we do have it it's more that in our environment,.

B

You know where is this stuff coming from and where, if you find a part or two parts per trillion,.

B

Of a contaminant of pfes, it's like well, it's essentially, and I know we talked about it in.

B

Landfills but landfills over the years you know they accepted carpet all kinds of stuff.

B

Used you clothes furniture, furniture, you know, scott guard was was big and.

B

Guard is uh just full of pfas, so, um basically, just just throwing that out, there is is just you know,.

B

Other information, and- and this will be something to um you- know- continue to attract as well.

B

Do you want to continue discussion yeah? I just have a. I know we asked all of our questions. I.

A

Just have a couple questions brian for you about um you talked about. You guys are looking at or.

A

Thinking about treatment on portsmouth, collins and greenland wells would could there be treatment.

A

On the wells, or would you treat at madbury or how would something? What would that look like.

B

We treated the wells so the concept right now we're working with the consultants can't figure.

B

Out the best way to do this, but we're considering having portsmouth and collins wells combined to.

B

The single treatment facility, just because they are very close together, we're still.

B

Determining if that is feasible might be wise to get them together to be able to do that.

B

And there's some area the city on property near the collins, would be considering for that.

B

So they're, looking at that scenario, greenland would be its own.

B

Treatment system right adjacent to the existing building and where the portsmouth and collinswell.

A

Are in the peas, the southern well field uh related this needs to be considered. If this you know.

A

Progresses and it does need to be treated talking to the air force about reimbursing for that right.

A

Landfill now, what is the distance from that? Well, that would require a big study to be able to.

B

Determine where that water would become there's so many because in greenland there's no subsumer so.

B

It's all septic in that area, so it would require quite a study to determine where the people would.

B

Come from so okay, so for that well, in particular, treatment needed to go on it. That would be on the.

A

City there would be no with it would it even be looked at to see if it was linked to copeland.

A

Which I recognize is also overseas, something we could talk about consultants about.

B

See if they recommended anything for doing further investigations trying to determine.

B

Which direction it's coming from, or something most likely not most likely to be it's ours.

B

I mean to get it, we get a rough estimate of what two million potentially for that.

B

Would be a bit more because of the piping, the building.

B

At least double that probably triple, but at least for those two, we have a polluter that we could.

A

Talk to about paying for yeah well, the state will be has had some lawsuits. Currently there.

B

Is a lawsuit I understand in the state um suing the manufacturers yeah, so there may eventually be.

B

So mtbe um there was a settlement um for mtbe. Now is part of the drinking water, groundwater trust.

B

And we've been able to get some of that money. For um you know the protection of our lands and stuff.

B

Which is great so I mean there may eventually be be that you know currently right now. You know.

B

In the in the fact that we have detections but they're not above any limit, so the air.

B

Force, I'm not speeding on their behalf, but they would say well, you haven't exceeded anything yet.

B

You know they're still paying to do the sampling and all the exploration and um assessment there.

B

So certainly if we hit a trigger point- yes, we would say to them. You know pay for this yeah and.

A

And dr patel, are you aware of any um resources for communities or is there talk at des about.

A

Like whenever sales go in place, if they're much lower, we know a lot of water systems are going.

A

To be affected and probably going to have to implement treatment, it's going to be costly.

A

For a lot of municipalities, um are you aware of any funding or resources that the state might.

A

Be providing to communities that need like the agreement so right now, a lot of that money was.

C

A couple pots of money, but again they're all tied to the current mcls and for the.

C

Money, that's coming from the legislature. That's really looking at! Maybe a two-year.

C

Timeline where you have that money, and then it's probably going to get sent out because a lot of.

C

Communities are looking at fast issues, but they're also looking at banking, let's drop that number.

C

Around the same time, but we also dropped arsenic, so there's a lot of public water systems are.

C

Trying to grapple with multiple contaminants right now, um some of the federal money that's coming in.

A

I know there's been so many different ways again if you wanted to get a really good breakdown of.

C

State federal and other monies for pcas related issues, amy rousseau oversees a lot of that at.

C

The es, and in addition to that, there's also the private well program that we're doing rebates for.

C

Homeowners that they haven't exceeded us of our standards and they have a rebate program, help them.

C

With solid tournament on their house, so that's a pretty set program, but again it's I think.

A

The other sales go down to two. It goes from being about this. Many people right.

A

But glad that you guys okay.

B

So I didn't call her. I was gonna, be quick yeah. It can be really quick to this. Unfortunately,.

B

Hope and kim are not here tonight was on um she's planning to give us yeah, I'm still on come on good.

B

um So, just briefly letting copper sampling, I put this map together, real quickly to see just.

B

Show you this the spatial extent of all of our blended, copper sampling uh for the lemon cup or.

B

The comfortable rule you'll notice, all the sample locations are really in residential areas. There's.

B

A bunch of areas, a lafayette, a lot of businesses aren't included. So that's why you see the holes.

B

There we have about 130 overall sites in each year, we're adding more to that next slide.

B

um This is just updated that we finished our party. Annual sampling for portsmouth is a quarter three.

B

Sampling so july, to september we finished it in early june and july.

B

And similar to our previous results, we have a lot of non-detects 26 of the 30 sites. Example were.

B

Non-Detect, two of them are less than two parts per billion and two we're between two and five million.

B

Which is typical of what we see every year. Please look at this, so the the compliance for len, copper.

B

As I talked about in february, swag is really based on a system-wide evaluation. Looking at.

B

The 90th percentile of the lead concentration and that action level is 15 parts per million.

B

So you take your 30 samples, 27 of those should be below 15 um and we are averaging around.

B

One um quarter three: twenty twenty two, also one which is also the detection of.

B

So we'll be doing 60 next year and next year, so part of since we we've.

B

Added well five, but I'm not very part of a new well or a backup, well or replacement. Well,.

B

Triggers a resale, so what we're sampling is a full suite of samples which for us of course,.

B

We did 60 samples to do that twice a year, so next year start in january january and.

B

July, we'll be taking 60 samples in the 10th of july through december, we'll be taking.

B

Other six disciples: congratulations thanks for getting that! Well, online!.

B

We'll be adding a lot more new sites since we're going to try to target more galvanized services.

B

But this is a point that I do want to make about this hp. 21 hope I don't. I suspect.

B

You've been tuned into this as well, so um this was signed by the governor on.

B

July, 8th and what this does is reduces the allowable acceptable, lead limit for.

B

Schools and child care facilities from 15 to 5 parts per boat, so sam. So the new hampshire dds.

B

Had a requirement was for child care facilities and schools to.

B

Sample all of the areas in the schools of facilities where children could drink the water.

B

So that that was done, uh the case where numbers were less than 15 reactions were.

B

Necessary this now drops that time to five. So all the schools, the child care facilities, need to.

B

Reevaluate all this old data, anything that's above five. There needs to be an action point.

B

To remediate that uh and there's a 90-day period from when this was enacted to to do that, um this.

B

Is part of a longer-term testing, so three rounds of tests must be completed before june 30th 2024.

B

That moves us on to the next topic here of potential, for offering.

B

Lead sampling free to customers to the system I did get in touch with sarah jacobs. This was.

B

A grad student at unh two years ago, three years three years ago, maybe she was an.

B

um Her master's project was working with a community water supply, which is community really.

B

Offering free lab tests and uh part of the study was really to see what was the best way to get the.

B

Word out I'll try to summarize, I do have a report of hers that we could potentially share with.

B

Everybody looking at different ways to get get messages out through social media word of mouth.

B

uh Farmers markets just to let people know that it's you know sampling. This was being offered.

B

The most from the most I've got, the most samples was uh having kiosks out around the town where.

B

People could just pick up a bottle of bottle and drop them back up, and that apparently worked.

B

Fairly well for them some of the statistics, so they had 800 packets that they distributed town.

B

Farmers markets and such and they had 142 samples, actually returned from this. This program was.

B

Packed in was active for 26 days, so not a long period of time, but they.

B

Were able to get 142 samples they sampled them all at the unh lab. Was that just this? This was 2018.

B

I'm sorry in rochester um some interesting statistics that came out of it. So of all these 142.

B

Samples 67 of the participants were from public water supplies. 33 percent were on private laws.

B

68 of these were at result, lead results less than one part per billion, which is great.

B

And three percent had greater than 15 parts per trillion, above the actual, actually, all of.

B

Those that were above the fifteen parts, parts per billion work from private clubs. So it's.

B

A good combination of private and public uh sources and it's interesting that the.

B

Private wells, thirty percent of them were above five part per billion. Public supply is only 20.

B

Or less than one particular much lower uh above the public water system,.

B

Private model, which we anticipate as well as treated for pa control and such and we still.

B

Have similar plumbing this interesting study just makes us think of. I think this study.

B

Would be hard for us to limit care unless we had dedicated staff doing it, because there's a lot of.

B

Management data management going out checking kiosks.

B

We brainstormed other ways of offering free lead sampling like having a having a contract.

B

With the lab, basically and having people that are interested can reach out to us, and we just.

B

Give them the information so they'll pick up the bottle, fill it up, send it back. Basically, someone.

B

Else does all the legwork, um but we end up paying, for example, as long as the methodology is correct,.

A

Meeting where, therefore, we drew into new hampshire dhhs, presented on lead data and identified.

A

Portsmouth as an area where we have older housing stock and even though it's not in our water.

A

um You know, potentially there could be connection lines or old faucets that could be contributing to.

A

Lead or older homes or renovations are being done. Things like that so kind of looking. I know um in.

A

This, this will kind of help us, I think, segway to hope. um We've had some follow-up conversations.

A

Hope kim and I, with new hampshire dhhs, to try to figure out collectively as a city beverly made.

A

Some pretty clear recommendations as what could we do to help identify lead, elevated blood levels.

A

And what can we do to help? You know detect love in the community, so we can prevent exposures to kids.

A

um And so one thought came out was: could we offer a free, led uh testing program to people.

A

Who would want to who would be willing to submit a sample to see if it's in their water again not.

A

Coming from the source, but potentially that and so al is just reporting back to us on a.

A

Pilot project that had happened in rochester and what they found. It's very interesting.

A

Actually- and I I think, I'd like to know more about, like the costs um like you said, it'd.

A

Probably be easier to be the middle person, I guess, and wouldn't that be really costly.

A

And then how many it's interesting they put out 800 packages only 142 people- it's like you know.

A

How many people would actually participate if the portsmouth did offer the program.

A

Yeah: here's anybody else about that. The sampling we do is is the required statement. So this would.

B

Be you know, people that you know are just curious about their own, uh because there's.

B

Quite a criteria that now has gone through it in this other presentation, so this wouldn't.

B

Be like the regulatory stuff, but again you know somebody doesn't know they just moved into a house.

B

If there was a high protection, we want to be.

B

We'd want to be informed of all the results from all this data, but then, where does the.

B

Liability land for following up with these people really important. So this is part of our program.

B

The health department, or we could have to get involved interested in public service.

B

I think we can get back to the group with the cost and maybe put together a little pro forma.

B

It would work yeah because I think beverly needs some suggestions that I think are.

A

Relevant to the swag, and then I think others are more relevant, maybe to the schools and.

A

The city, um and so this is one that felt very relevant to the swag, and I wonder too, if it's.

A

You know obviously it'll be cost prohibitive, but even if it's we could offer 2.3 200.

A

200 people to sign up or something like that, um because she did cite that there are, I think.

A

It was 49 kids in portsmouth, with elevated blood levels, 39 or 49. I can't remember that, but it was.

A

A number that was concerning and when you think about the cost of special education and like long.

A

Consequences because of that you know, when we talk about cost benefit, we should try to do everything.

A

We can to identify where any lead exposures are in our community, so we can prevent that.

A

From happening in the first place and again it's not coming from the water source, but.

A

Just looking at the whole picture, and so with that, I think it'd be helpful to just turn. It.

A

Over to hope who is a swag member on the school board and she can update the group on some of the.

A

Efforts we've been doing kind of beyond the scope of the swag, but to try to bring more awareness.

A

And gather more information on this topic, so we can keep progressing along thanks thanks, andrea.

E

So I'm looking at the time I've got about a minute, so I'll I'll try to be quick. um We won't.

B

Bump you off okay! So um as andrea mentioned, this came about because of beverly drewen's.

E

Dhhs presentation in february and so from a school board perspective. Beverly has already.

E

Connected with um courtney over at the cte program and looking at lead certifications as a potential.

E

Program that could be adopted um through the cte, so I know they're starting those conversations, but.

E

um Drilling down, she put us in touch with gail geddens and I think gail's uh she's at dhhs and.

E

Heads up their lead health program and kim and andrea, and I had a very informative conversation.

E

With gail about various initiatives that have already been done in the seacoast.

E

Area um gail has ran several led trainings for families first, as well as portsmouth pediatrics.

E

Association and some other organizations in the seacoast area that the schools could potentially.

E

We already do partner with some of them, but could com uh reach out and expand that partnership.

E

But there's already some um training for lead testing. That's that's available! In.

E

Our area that could be taken advantage of, um I think it's important to mention.

E

That gil also educated us on the fact that um the dhhs has recently completed 18 month contract with.

E

Almost all of new hampshire's public health networks, the greater seacoast public health.

E

Network being one of them, and that is to provide funding for lead exposure, awareness and prevention.

E

Activity, so you know as we're talking about funding and such I think um we'll be able to come.

E

Back with more information around that, I think there there will be some some opportunities for.

E

Funding um one of the things that gail mentioned to us from the school board perspective is that.

E

Even if we could work this in as an opt-in program for lead testing to help bring about more data.

E

Because there's not a lot of state data on um where lead numbers are with students right now,.

E

In the younger ages, um nurses can basically count that as their ceu, so there's benefit. There's cost.

E

Analysis benefits for you, know the school to to look at building some of the senate as an opt-in.

E

Program, um one of the success stories they've had has been in claremont, where claremont not only.

E

Basically implemented an opt-in program, but they also passed a school board policy.

E

um For lead testing coming into the schools to help be able to collect more data on students.

E

Certainly helped their special ed programming and the cost around special, ed and ieps. With a lot of.

E

Lead poisoning not being known to have some of the same symptoms as a lot of the other diagnosis that.

E

Are being associated with iep, so um there are cost analysis benefits for the schools to get involved.

E

In saying that, I think we have some education to do. There's a lot of opportunity to educate.

E

The public around lead poisoning and to the points around the state's.

E

um The july 24th child care program that was mentioned earlier around the water safety.

E

Lead certification um that that's be that has been passed and will be required by july 24th.

E

Gail is getting back with me on whether that also includes lead testing in the soils and.

E

In the buildings- and um I don't know if you guys- anybody in the room has word on that, but I've got.

E

That question out to her um she said she believes that when it comes to the child care programs.

E

That that the buildings and the soil will be a part of that led, safe certification requirement.

E

But she said 100 on that so um and I also have a call into um kenny around. You know what we're.

E

Looking at at the schools for lead soil uh as well, um so our next steps really is recommendations. I.

E

Mean we came up kim myself and andrea had a good brainstorm with gail of trainings um educational.

E

Forums that can be done. She gave us a laundry list when you're thinking about educating the public.

E

That other counties and other cities have gotten involved besides school nurses, but rotary clubs.

E

Commissions, head start programs, housing authorities, although it's interesting to see that.

E

The small amount of data that they do have really wasn't around problems in the housing authorities.

E

Because there's so much regulations already there, it's really with private housing. That's really the.

E

The issue, so I think the more we can do around educating the public about the issues and um the.

E

Better, the better we would be as a city. um I will just say that the next step for andrea kim and I.

E

Is uh speaking with charlene lovett she's, the mayor of claremont charlene is also running for.

E

Legislation but she's willing to give up her time to kind of give us some of the success stories.

E

uh Within that community, in the sullivan county, as well as the lessons learned so talking about.

E

Coming back with numbers and cost benefits, I think we could get some good ideas um as examples of.

E

What things might cost from a lot of the work that they did um and, and then the I guess additionally,.

E

The one thing we wanted to bring up to swag is- and I have spoken to our new superintendent sacked.

E

Dr sex mclaughlin he's certainly willing to come to the table, but I think um it's imperative that.

E

He come to the table with other city officials around this this initiative. um It's not really.

E

Going to be beneficial to just have the school board come around the table. We really need to have.

E

You know key players from the school departments come in as well as community members as well as.

E

City officials coming around the table uh just to kind of level the setting on the issue of.

E

Lead exposure in the community and the impacts and costs, and them you know the more that we can have.

E

Common people, with common interests coming around the table, that would be players.

E

In this issue, um come to one training come to you know one presentation.

E

The bigger impact we're gonna have on the community to all play nice together.

E

um On the issue- and actually, I think, get things done so from the school board perspective, I've.

E

Already raised it on the school board, they're, certainly interested in having the presentation.

E

Brought forward to them they're, certainly interested in learning more about the information.

E

And looking at it from a policy perspective from an opt-in, not a necessarily requirement.

E

um And our superintendent is certainly willing to give his time to come around to the table.

E

Of other city officials, so brian and andrea, and you guys in the room, maybe you can put your heads.

E

Together and think about who who might need to be around for that early meeting and then um next.

E

Steps in the school department would basically be based on that meeting. Our superintendent then.

E

Going back and and kind of working things with the nurses and our um wellness coordinator um and cte.

E

Program and other players that could help move the needle. So did I miss anything andrea that you can.

E

Think of at this time, oh thank you very much. That was very comprehensive and thank you for.

A

Working on this issue and collaborating, I really appreciate it, so I I'm happy to update everyone or.

E

Send out an update once we have the conversation with charlene and kind of get an understanding.

E

Of more around the cost and the process that sullivan, county and claremont went through because.

E

They certainly have made more strides than anyone else. um Besides, maybe rochester, which gail gave.

E

Us some really good grounded contacts uh to speak with in rochester as well. So I think between the.

E

Two of them we can learn a lot um that will help us kind of expedite. Maybe our process.

A

Thank you very much sure.

A

Thank you guys for being with us. I know we're a little bit over time.

A

I think just the next slide- and I wonder brian, if we should just maybe.

A

Try to do this more of her email. um I think I was going to suggest.

B

Thank you guys, no problems. um The last thing we just want to have a discussion around like.

A

Game topics and goals- um and I think it'll punish you best, we'll send out an email.

A

Here's some of the things that were suggested or brainstormed in the past, but we're really looking.

A

For feedback from the swag on future topics um and so yeah, I don't think we need to dive deep on that.

A

Tonight people are probably fried anyways, so um does anyone have any final questions or closing.

A

Thoughts um and then, if not, we just have to open it up to public comment. If we haven't.

E

I would just say if anyone has any interest in being part of the calls with dhhs.

E

Or claremont just ping me and I'm happy to to make sure that you're part of that call.

A

Thanks so much all right, I think, and then do we have anyone from the public. No just swag members.

A

That's just swag.

B

Wonderful note taker all right, we're good, so next meeting is in november. um I think we have.

A

A few things to send out to you that pfpra report that just came out um and we'll put this up and.

B

We'll point to the new dds information website as well and then yeah look for an email.

A

With these suggested topics and then help give some feedback, so we can guide you today.

B

Right we'll see you in november. Thank you. Thank you thanks. So much thanks.