OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway. 14th Floor. Albany. New York 12233-1010 P: {513} 402-8545 F: (518] 402-3541 ny gov May 14, 2020 Via Email Dear Dr. David Bond and Ms. Judith Enck: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has a proven track record of working cooperatively with citizen scientists and communities to design and implement scienti?cally sound studies and address a range of environmental quality issues, with the goal of protecting public health and the environment. We welcome independent data and demonstrate a spirit of cooperation and good faith to address chronic issues, such as our work with area residents to successfully close the former Tonawanda Coke facility and the groundbreaking, community-driven Albany South End Community Air Quality Study, which we co-designed to address potential air emission sources. New York continues to be a leader in responding to contamination from per? and poly?uoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including being the ?rst state to declare PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, spending tens of millions of dollars on state superfund remediation projects, and working with the State Department of Health to set the most protective drinking water standard in the nation. Similarly, New York has banned aqueous film-fonning foam that contains PFOA and PFOS, and has made it a priority to properly dispose of remaining stockpiles of We have also secured a stand down of any incineration of at Noriite until the matter can be fully studied and understood. In taking regulatory action, it is critical that we rely on sound science to guide us in developing collaborative solutions that protect our communities. In the pursuit of sound science, DEC takes this opportunity to provide our analysis of the study you released via press release and Zoom on April 27, 2020, regarding soil and surface water samples collected near the Noriite facility in Cohoes, NY (the study). Your study purports to have discovered a connection between allegedly ineffective burning of at Noriite and ?elevated levels? of PFAS compounds ?raining down? upon the community. However, we find your conclusions and the data on which they are based to be deeply ?awed and incomplete. in fact, your conclusions are undercut by research conducted by other academic institutions, including the University of Vermont and your own 2018-2019 study of PFOA background levels in New York.1 1 Schroeder, Bond Foley, "Report of PFAS Soil Sampling on NY-DEC Lands by the College "Understanding PFOA Project?, UndatedJransmitted to DEC Au 14, 20 9 Department of sun Environmental Conservation While it-is prudenttoshare sampling date with the public, it. is-critical to sCientifi'c-and professional integrity to present data in proper context, acknowiedg?e limitations. ensure drawing supportable conclUsions-i anddiscuss study design and results with key .professionals'in the scientific and regulatory commonity'prioirjto re_ieas.e. Rather than adhere to :these basic principles?, you rushed to judgement, drewerroneous conclusions. and irresponsibly released yeur-Idata to the public. At a time When it is important for the public to have con?dence? In cicar science"- -based decision making, it? rs unfortunate that you made such a faulty public pronouncement. Doing so has the potential to needlessly alarm community residents and local leaders We_pres'ent here a brief. expert review of your findings and .cohclt'Isions. Please note. that'wewould have been happy to discuss the study with you prior to "its release" and encourage you to schedule a call with DEG .should'you decide to share additibnal data in. the future. as The study did not find a pattern suggestive-of AFF'Farelated'contamination. There? is Currently no analytical information.avaiiabletor'the patterns of PFAS expected in soil contaminated from the high temperature incineration of DEC would expect the pattern to be Similar to What has been observed at contaminated sites: if there was partial incineration of this ptoduct. The study results fail to make.- that connection. anddo not. resembie contamination patterns- found at sites, which DEG eXperience inves?ga?ng. The two most-common contaminants-foundat sites, and PFHXA. were not detected in any?o?f the soil samples taken near No?tlite. In a . study of 1-49 groundwater sampies-at and weretduhd in 95- and Bepercent of Samples, respectively._ln New York State, has been found to be the most common, and present, in'the highest concentrations at sites, but not in the .Cohoes samples. Your-statements-to the press. and etected of?cials linking. low levets ef'con'tam?in'ation in the 'soil pattern compounds matching that of are not substantiated by the limitedjsampling study?. a The study found no evidence of PFAS being hIgher than regional background In the Cohdes community. The. 2019 University of Vermont (-UVM) study Background In Vermont Shallow Soils "2 which sampled surficiai soils primarily from state parks state forests and public schools indicates average soil concentrations were 0.52 and '1 .1 ppb, respectively. Those ?ndings are consistent with the average of yourstud-y?s three Cohoes? soil samplesat 0.52 for PFOA and 0.9 for PFOS, suggesting 2'Zouet. al., Background in Vermont Shaltow Soils?i, February 3, 2.019. that there is no Connection to, nor credib'ie impaCt from,_ partial thermal destruction of from Norlite?s earlier incinerationprocesses. Thus, you failed to place these results in contextabout what is known about the-regional background concentrations.of'i'these chemicals. in soil. is The study actually supports the notion that the Observed levels are attributable to background contamination, consistent-with your 20184 9. study of PFQS contamination. To characterize the significance of- your Oohoes sampling, DEC experts reviewed several studies, including your study from 2018: 10 of samples taken from DECsowned' lands in remote areas? of New york State. 3 in that 2018- 201 9 study, for example one. sampie from a hiking trail' In the eastern Adirondacks yielded PFOS levei?s of 4 higherthan the 1 2 detected in the 2020 sample at the Cohoes housing complex Three other samples cellected In 2018 2019 from Undistur?bed forest. soils In the Northern Catskills? contained 0.05 pf'pb. Your 20-18?2019 report characterizes thesefi'ndings-as ?generally consistent with northeastern North American ?background" 'soil levels compiled in. scienti?c literature.? During the reiease of your 2020 data? you claimed that the PFNA reading of 0.39 in C'dhdes?a ieyel so low that the laboratory had-to estimate. its valuesince it could not reliably quantity ite?i's aboue expected background levels, yet your three samples from the 201842019 Northern Catskills study found concentrations of PFNA ranging from 36 to 0, 42 and another from the Eastern Adirondacks at 0 45 ppb. :1 You incorrectly presented these results as: ?showing ?widespread? detection. Your claim that the ?widespread? detection of PFBA is-an indicator of partial destrLIction of the previously treated at Norlite is not substantiated by your resuits. Octet-the three-soil and five water-samples collected- around- Noilitet; one?soil and one?water sampie contained PFBA. was-not-found in" the soil sample taken near 'lCl'lETl?ii'El' (sample 48) and Wastound in the- houSing area (sample 18). at a'barel'y detectable-level'of 1.5 ppb. Once again, the level found in the housing area sample was so low; 1.5 ppb, that the-laboratory estimated its iratde without reliably quantifying it. if PFBA we're'the- dominant byproduct of the partial incineration foam and if-there'were widespread PFBA contamination in the area from the partial destruction of. it would have been observed consistently in all {Echoes- area soil and water samples with concentrations well above the limit of iaborator?y quantification, Also in your May 1 correspondenceto DEC4 yen noted that PFBA was not included in background soil study. That-is incorrect?. The detection. limits for PFBA in the'iUVM study we're-high in Comparison to aimoSt-ali 3 Schroeder ct. al.,.2019 Basil Seggos, May 1,2020 the other tested PFAS compounds and was why the frequency of detections for PFBA was zero. If the method detection limit and reporting limit were lower in UVM's study, it may have been detected more frequently. a The study did not establish downwind PFAS impacts and likely confused the predominant wind directions. The study noted that levels of PFOA, and are higher in the sample collected near the river than in the sample collected in the housing area. An equal number of results are higher in the riverbank sample and are higher in the housing sampie. Of these, PFOS levels are nearly identical (1.0 versus 1.2 ppb). Sample site 2 appears to be a soil sample collected in the Mohawk and Hudson River floodplain, which is known to be impacted by PFAS wastewater and industrial discharges and may explain why you detected PFOS above the limit of quantification. Not acknowledging nor fully exploring this potential factor in your study?s assessment is a significant ?aw. in addition, your study wrongly identified sampling site 1 as an upwind site, but given that winds predominately flow from the south to the north along the Hudson River Valley, this site should be considered a downwind site.5~E DEC meteorologists? working knowledge of the local wind patterns and evaluation of annual meteorological data from Albany Airport and the Port of Albany indicate that you have mischaracterized the upwind designation in your press release and you have not provided any analysis of local meteorology to support the upwindldownwind designations of your sampling sites. To be clear, your "upwind? water sample is actually a downwind sample and it registered at non-detectable levels. If incinerated at the facility was not effectively destroyed by the high kiln combustion temperatures, DEC's air dispersion experts would expect this area to have higher soil and water PFAS concentrations. . The study utilized highly questionable quality control measures for sample collection. New York State has high standards for samples collected for public health analysis7, and for good reason. Accuracy is key. Unfortunately, there are signi?cant issues with the quality control and sample handling procedures for your study that further undermine its credibility. The Cohoes samples were collected on March 7, 2020, but were not delivered to the laboratory until nearly a week later, on March 13, 2020. These samples were also merged with 5 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Albany South End Community Air Quality Study: October 2019. On?Line: 5 2014-2018: Data Access. National Climatic Data Center, Integrated Surface Data, accessed 4 May 2020, 7 NYSDEC, "Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis of January 2020 unspeci?ed samples containing much higher levels of contamination (up to 2100 PFOA) not reported as connected to this study or the Cohoes community when delivered to the iaboratory. These highly contaminated samples were collected the day before the Cohoes samples and provide the potential for cross- contamination of sampling devices, coolers, ?eld notebooks, clothing and other sampling equipment. In addition, a sample assumed to be a trip blank was collected on March 11, 2020, four days after the Cohoes samples were taken, and which may not be representative of conditions during the main sampling event. More significantly, it does not appear that an equipment blank was prepared to help indicate whether equipment decontamination was thorough and whether the potential for cross contamination exists. Together, the lack of timely delivery to the laboratory, consolidation of sampling containers over the course of a week, and the lack of equipment bianks raises concerns about the quality of the data. Incineration of is not currently occurring in New York State because DEC has determined that more research is needed to better understand its potential impacts. DEC is collaborating with partners, including US. EPA emission measurement experts and the State Department of Health, to explore the options available to study and analyze the safe disposal of Until these options are identified and evaluated and we are certain incineration is a safe disposal method, DEC has directed this facility to conduct no incineration of DEC will continue to work closely with the Cohoes community and other partners to address environmental and public health concerns. We are always prepared to work with credible partners on the community, local, state, federal, and academic levels to educate the public and collaborate in good faith, but we will not work with individuals who disregard principles of scienti?c and professional integrity. DEC will remain rigorously focused on science and the community's best interests and will continue our commitment to our nation-leading efforts to address PFAS contamination across New York State. Sincerely, Martin Brand Jared Snyder Deputy Commissioner Deputy Commissioner Remediation 8: Materials Management Climate, Air 8t Energy