Letters to the Editor July 18

Pound Ridge wastewater task force member responds to letters

To the Editor:

As a current member of the Pound Ridge Water Wastewater Task Force, a long-term resident and an environmental scientist, I would like to provide a factual response to two letters published in the July 11 Recorder with comments about PFAS and the water supply project for Scotts Corners.

Mr. Bernstein has previously raised the complaint that the approach taken does not follow the CERCLA  (federal Superfund) approach to contaminated sites. The fact that Scotts Corners is not a federal superfund site and CERCLA doesn’t apply seems irrelevant. This time Mr. Bernstein writes that a proper CERCLA alternatives analysis would have revealed that the septic systems would be overwhelmed by water from both the decommissioned drinking water wells and the water from the proposed water main because “all that water has to go somewhere.” “Somewhere” is apparently the existing septic systems. The Map and Plan report prepared by the town’s engineer, Laberge Group, did not consider that scenario in its alternatives analysis. Neither would anyone conducting an alternatives analysis under CERCLA because the scenario does not make sense.

When a drinking well is no longer in use, the groundwater it was pumping continues to flow through the water bearing layer in the subsurface as groundwater always does. Some of the wells in Scotts Corners are at least 100 feet deep. The septic fields are typically close to the surface. It is not clear how the deep groundwater will end up in the septic fields on its own.   

Ms. Kearns submitted a letter questioning the cost of the project. Ms. Kearns’ solution of $10,000 per treatment system for each building as a one-size-fits-all approach would be great. Unfortunately, health department requirements are based on use. Restaurants, apartment buildings, food related businesses all have different treatment requirements and as we have seen in Scotts Corners, some of those requirements are prohibitively expensive. Whenever cost is brought up as an argument in favor of individual treatment systems, the costs associated with long-term maintenance of the system, analytical costs, change of filtration media, and so forth are never considered. Treatment systems need to be maintained to work properly.

Ms. Kearns also refers to a May 9 letter, “Scotts Corners property owner says latest test of his water shows no PFAS.” If one reads past the headline, it is clear that the “no PFAS” statement refers to treated water. The test of the untreated water did detect PFOA.

The proposed public water supply, approved by the voters, will provide drinking water that meets all drinking water standards for everyone in Scotts Corners, businesses and residents alike, including operation, maintenance, and analytical costs required to keep it safe. 

Ellen Ivens Pound Ridge

‘Residents deserve honest answers’ on water infrastructure project

To the Editor:

I was appalled to learn that the Pound Ridge Town Board has pushed forward a water infrastructure project that may seriously threaten the septic systems in Scotts Corners as Norman Bernstein noted in his July 11 letter. Mr. Bernstein, an expert with experience at two EPA Superfund sites, made clear the risks involved in such an approach and flagged the project as problematic. Yet the board pressed ahead.

Even more troubling, as Ellen Kearns wrote in her letter the same day, there was a far less expensive and less risky alternative: filtration systems. In fact, a local water systems expert had offered to install effective PFAS remediation at roughly $10,000 per building — less than 5 percent of the $11 million cost of the board’s preferred plan. And the Westchester County Health Department confirmed in writing that these systems are recommended and permissible for use in commercial settings like Scotts Corners.

So why has this more sensible and affordable solution been ignored?

Residents deserve honest answers. At best, this looks like gross mismanagement. At worst, it suggests that political image-making has taken precedence over responsible governance and fiscal sanity.

Something is clearly wrong with the current town board’s approach — rushing forward on a massive infrastructure project while dismissing legitimate environmental and public health concerns, ignoring more cost-effective options, and offering taxpayers little in the way of transparency.

In my view, this election year should be a turning point. We need leadership that will put data, accountability, and common sense before political theater.

Pound Ridge deserves better. It’s time for change.

Debra Coughlin Pound Ridge