Updates from USGS Joe Ayotte, USGS New England Water Science Center U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Recent arsenic-related work By the numbers: 232 wells spatial random selection 70% kitchen; 30% spigot or pres. Tank 17% had As>10 (50,000 people) 5% had Mn>300 3% had U>30 3% had Pb>30 (9,000 people) 92% drink and use their water 34% had some form of treatment 44 (19%) = softener, 25 (11%) = sediment, 4 (2%) = arsenic-specific 0 uranium- or lead-specific

Alternative water supplies - proposed TO BASEMENT 134 20 to 25 FEET 118 15 to 20 102 126 130 132 116 137 105 128 120 123 124 122 110 108 106 138 112 114 104 142 Patent Pending, U.S. Patent Application 14/488,097

Where are we now? Arsenic testing is increasing in response to efforts like those of the Consortium. Not clear whether citizens are treating water supplies, maintaining treatment, and testing treated water. There remain impediments to testing, treating, maintaining, and re-testing water. New wells still installed in formations that yield high-arsenic wells.

Cornwall, UK Ander, E. L.; Watts, M. J.; Smedley, P. L.; Hamilton, E. M.; Close, R.; Crabbe, H.; Fletcher, T.; Rimell, A.; Studden, M.; Leonardi, G., Variability in the chemistry of private drinking water supplies and the impact of domestic treatment systems on water quality. 2016; Environ Geochem Health; p 1-20 Even where the tap waters are considered to be treated, they may still fail one or more drinking water quality standards. Residents willing to accept drinking water with high metal concentrations. Need to reinforce the guidance to private water supply users even in areas where treated mains water is widely available.

Maine, USA Smith, A. E.; Lincoln, R. A.; Paulu, C.; Simones, T. L.; Caldwell, K. L.; Jones, R. L.; Backer, L. C., Assessing arsenic exposure in households using bottled water or point-of-use treatment systems to mitigate well water contamination. Sci Total Environ 2016, 544, 701-10. Mitigation not fully effective: still relation between urinary arsenic and well water arsenic. Treating would result in up to 32% reduction for children and up to 59% reduction for adults. Results demonstrate the importance of complying with a point-of-use or bottled water

2015 STOTEN special issue on arsenic Chappells, H.; Campbell, N.; Drage, J.; Fernandez, C. V.; Parker, L.; Dummer, T. J., Understanding the translation of scientific knowledge about arsenic risk exposure among private well water users in Nova Scotia. Sci Total Environ 2015, 505, 1259-73. Flanagan, S. V.; Marvinney, R. G.; Zheng, Y., Influences on domestic well water testing behavior in a Central Maine area with frequent groundwater arsenic occurrence. Science of The Total Environment 2015, 505 (0), 1274-1281. Flanagan, S. V.; Marvinney, R. G.; Johnston, R. A.; Yang, Q.; Zheng, Y., Dissemination of well water arsenic results to homeowners in Central Maine: influences on mitigation behavior and continued risks for exposure. Sci Total Environ 2015, 505, 1282-90 Spayd, S. E.; Robson, M. G.; Buckley, B. T., Whole-house arsenic water treatment provided more effective arsenic exposure reduction than point-of-use water treatment at New Jersey homes with arsenic in well water. Sci Total Environ 2015, 505, 1361-9. Cost, optimism bias, non-specific warnings, not understanding risk, lack of mitigation guidance, difficulty comparing treatment companies & options, lack of post testing

Is exposure being reduced? MAINE: The fact that participants reported use of any untreated water challenges the prevailing assumption that private well owners with elevated arsenic in well water will be consistently compliant with using POU systems or bottled water. CORNWALL: There is considerable literature developing on the inhibitions that exist to installing and maintaining treatment systems, even in areas with a greater proportion of high As concentrations than found in this study.