# STAKEHOLDER MEETING REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE

UNREGULATED CONTAMINANT MONITORING

REGULATION

April 7, 2010

Crystal City Marriott

8:30-9:00 Stakeholder Sign-in

9:00-9:15 Introduction – L ogistics and Agenda

9:15-9:30 Welcome

9:30-10:00 Overview of the UCMR Program

10:00-10:30 UCMR 2 Status

10:30-10:45 BREAK

10:45-11:15 Proposed Changes Betwee n UCMR 2 and UCMR 3

11:15-11:45 Sampling Design Considerations for UCMR 3

11:45-12:00 Discussion

12:00-1:15 LUNCH

1:15-2:45 UCMR 3 Candidate Se lections and Rationale

2:45-3:00 BREAK

3:00-3:30 Approval of Laboratories Supporting UCMR 3

3:30-4:15 Establishment of Reporting Limits for UCMR 3

4:15-5:00 Discussion1Overview of the UnregulatedContaminant MonitoringProgramDavid J. MunchUSEPA, OGWDW, SRMDTechnical Support CenterCincinnati, Ohio2Overview•Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring(UCM) program•Regulatory justification for UCMR–Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)–Contaminant Candidate List (CCL)•Unregulated Contaminant MonitoringRegulation (UCMR)–UCMR cycles–UCMR implementation3Safe Drinking Water Act•Passed in 1974, amended in 1986 and 1996•Authorized EPA to set enforceable healthstandards for contaminants in drinking water,National Primary Drinking Water Standards(NPDWS)•Outlined a “sound science” approach toNPDWS development that requiredconsideration of:–Occurrence Data–Health Effects Data–Cost Benefit Analysis4Unregulated Contaminant MonitoringRegulation•UCM Rounds 1 (1988-1992, 62contaminants) & 2 (1993-1997, 48contaminants)–State drinking water programs managed theUCM program–PWSs serving > 500 people were requiredto monitor5Safe Drinking Water Act•1996 SDWA amendments changed theprocess of developing and reviewingNPDWS–Contaminant Candidate List–Unregulated Contaminant MonitoringRegulation–Regulatory Determination–Six-Year Review6General Flow of Regulatory ProcessDraft CCLFinal CCLFinal Rule(NPDWR)Six Year Review ofExisting NPDWRsNo further action if makedecision not to regulate (maydevelop health advisory).PreliminaryRegulatoryDeterminationsFinal RegulatoryDeterminationsProposed Rule(NPDWR)Draft UCMRFinal UCMRUCMR MonitoringResultsAteachstage,needincreasedspecificityandconfidenceinthetypeofsupportingdataused(e.g.healthandoccurrence).7Contaminant Candidate List•SDWA requires EPA to list unregulatedcontaminants which may require a nationaldrinking water regulation in the future•Every five years CCL defines unregulatedcontaminants for which EPA needs–Occurrence data–Analytical methods–Potential health effects–Evaluation of treatment techniques8Contaminant Candidate List•EPA considered approximately 7,500 potentialchemical and microbial contaminants•Screening process based on a contaminant’s potentialto occur in public water systems (PWSs) and thepotential for public health concerns•Further detailed evaluations, public input, and expertjudgment and review are the final contaminantselection tools•Final CCL 3 published September 2009–104 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbiologicalcontaminants9Unregulated Contaminant MonitoringRegulation•1996 Safe Drinking Water ActAmendments–Redesigned the UCM program and includedthese requirements:•Monitor no more than 30 contaminants per 5-year cycle•Monitor only a representative sample of PWSsserving 10,000 or fewer people•Store analytical results in the NationalContaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD)•Direct implementation – EPA managed programin partnership with States10Unregulated Contaminant MonitoringRegulation•Collects occurrence data for suspecteddrinking water contaminants that do nothave health-based standards set underSDWA•Develops a list of contaminants, largelybased on the CCL, every five years•Samples collected from “finished” water11Unregulated Contaminant MonitoringRegulation•UCMR groups contaminants into threetiers based on their priority and analyticalmethodologies–Assessment Monitoring (List 1)•Employs commonly used analytical techniques–Screening Survey (List 2)•Uses more recently developed analyticaltechniques–Pre-Screen Testing (List 3)•Utilizes new or specialized techniques12Unregulated Contaminant MonitoringRegulation•Occurrence information is used in futureregulatory decision-making–Evaluates and prioritizes contaminants onthe CCL–Supports the Administrator’s determinationof whether (or not) to regulate acontaminant under the drinking waterprogram13First Cycle of UCMR•UCMR 1 (2001-2005, 26 contaminants)–Published in Federal Register (FR) onSeptember 17, 1999–Required all large PWSs and a nationallyrepresentative sample of small PWSsserving10,000 people to monitor forcontaminants on List 1–Required a random selection of 300 largeand small PWSs to monitor forcontaminants on List 214Second Cycle of UCMR•UCMR 2 (2007-2011, 25 contaminants)–Current cycle – monitoring ends inDecember 2010, data review will occur in2011–More PWSs included under List 2 ScreeningSurvey than for UCMR 1 to provide morerepresentative results–Define monitoring schedules to assistRegional compliance efforts15UCMR Implementation•OGWDW, SRMD, Technical Support Center(Cincinnati)–Review and track PWS applicability and monitoringprogress–Coordinate Laboratory Approval Program–Provide technical support for Regions, States,PWSs and laboratories–Coordinate outreach using the Internet, newsletter(The UCMR Update), notices and reminders–Assist and support Regional compliance efforts16UCMR Implementation•OGWDW, SRMD, Technical Support Center(Cincinnati)–Small PWS support•Maintain lab and implementation contracts to supportUCMR•Support sample kit distribution•Responsible for data review and reporting•Prepare data for the NCOD–Large PWS support•Extract data from the Safe Drinking Water Accession andReview System (SDWARS) for evaluation and reporting toNCOD•Support SDWARS reporting system and users17Extended UCMR Implementation Team•OGWDW, DWPD, Infrastructure Branch–Responsible for SDWARS in the Central DataExchange•EPA Regional Offices–Coordinate State partnership agreements–Assist States and PWSs with UCMR requirements,compliance and enforcement•Partnering States–Support various levels of monitoring coordination18QuestionsThank you1Status of the Second Cycle of theUnregulated ContaminantMonitoring Regulation (UCMR 2)Brenda D. ParrisUSEPA, OGWDW, SRMDTechnical Support CenterCincinnati, Ohio2Timeframe of UCMR 2•August 22, 2005 – Proposal published•January 4, 2007 – Final rule published•2007 – Early implementation•2008-2010 – Sampling period•2011 – Data analysis3UCMR 2 Applicability•Applicability date (June 30, 2005) is directly related tothe population served by a public water system (PWS)•Total PWSs = 4,626PWS Population ServedList 1List 210,000 or fewer800 randomlyselected480 randomlyselected10,001-100,000All PWSs2,946320 randomlyselectedMore than 100,000All PWSs400All PWSs400* Assessment Monitoring (List 1)* Screening Survey (List 2)4UCMR 2 Monitoring•PWSs must monitor during a consecutive 12-month period between 2008-2010•Number of times a PWS samples is directlyrelated to the sample point source–Surface water and ground water under the directinfluence of surface water – must monitor quarterlyduring their 12-month schedule (sample threemonths apart)–Ground water – must monitor twice a year duringtheir 12-month schedule (sample five to sevenmonths apart)•EPA established a monitoring schedule for allPWSs–PWSs were provided the opportunity to alter theirpre-determined EPA schedule5UCMR 2 Monitoring•Locations where a PWS collects samples isdirectly related to the contaminant lists–List 1– collects samples at their entry point to thedistribution system (EPTDS)•EPTDS – location where finished water enters thedistribution system–List 2– collects samples at their EPTDS and attheir distribution maximum residence time(DSMRT) for the nitrosamines•DSMRT – location allows fora sampling of the “oldest”water in the distribution system6UCMR 2 List 1 ContaminantsContaminant NameMethodsTwo Priority Compounds (One Insecticide and One Degradate)DimethoateEPA 527Terbufos sulfoneFive Flame Retardants2,2',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenyl ether (BDE-47)2,2',4,4',5-pentabromodiphenyl ether (BDE-99)2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromobiphenyl (HBB)2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexabromodiphenyl ether (BDE-153)2,2',4,4',6-pentabromodiphenyl ether (BDE-100)Three Explosives1,3-dinitrobenzeneEPA 5292,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT)Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX)7UCMR 2 List 2 ContaminantsContaminant NameMethodsThree Parent AcetanilidesAcetochlorAlachlorMetolachlorEPA 525.2Six Acetanilide DegradatesAcetochlor ethane sulfonic acid (ESA)Alachlor ESAEPA 535Acetochlor oxanilic acid (OA)Alachlor OAMetolachlor ESAMetolachlor OASix NitrosaminesN-nitroso-diethylamine (NDEA)N-nitroso-dimethylamine(NDMA)EPA 521N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine (NDBA)N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine(NDPA)N-nitroso-methylethylamine (NMEA)N-nitroso-pyrrolidine (NPYR)8UCMR 2 Reporting•Small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewerpeople are not responsible for the costsassociated with analysis–EPA coordinates sample analysis withcontracted laboratories•Laboratories e-mail the data to EPA–EPA examines the quality control resultsand generates reports9UCMR 2 Reporting•Large PWSs serving more than 10,000people are responsible for the costsassociated with analysis–PWS coordinates sample analysis with anapproved laboratory, and that lab sends thedata to the Safe Drinking Water Accessionand Review System (SDWARS 2)–PWS reviews and can act upon data inSDWARS 210Status of Small PWS Monitoring•Monitoring and reporting through December31, 2009–1,055 small PWSs sampled•575 List 1•480 List 2–6,897 sample kits issued, including referee kits andrecollections•2,773 kits for List 1•4,124 kits for List 2–2,535 monitoring reports issued•A total of 52,756 small PWS results reported–List 2 sampling mostly complete by the end of 200911Status of Large PWS Monitoring•Monitoring and reporting through December31, 2009 (approximate percentages)–2,649 large PWSs monitored and reported data•2,649 List 1•593 List 2–99% of large PWSs scheduled to start monitoringby 6/09 have reported data–310,477 large PWS results have been posted toSDWARS•191,556 List 1•118,921 List 212UCMR 2 Occurrence Data•Updated quarterly and posted in the NationalContaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD)–www.epa.gov/safewater/databases/ncod/index.html–Zipped file contains a summary document (PDF)and occurrence data (.txt)•Data will continue to be added and may becorrected upon further review–Use caution when interpreting the data before thedataset is complete13UCMR 2 Results To-Date•OGWDW has posted PWS results (submittedthrough January 2010) to the web (NCOD);updates to occur ~quarterly•13 of 25 contaminants have not been detected•Detections above method reporting limits:–5 of 6 nitrosamines (predominantly NDMA)–6 of 11 insecticides/pesticides/degradates–1 of 3 explosives14Transitioning from UCMR 2 to UCMR 3•UCMR 2 monitoring activities are scheduled toend in December 2010•UCMR 2 data will be analyzed in 2011•EPA anticipates proposing UCMR 3 in 201115QuestionsThank You1Potential Changes BetweenUCMR 2 and UCMR 3Daniel P. HautmanUSEPA, OGWDW, SRMDTechnical Support CenterCincinnati, Ohio2Overview•Improvements•Applicability•Data approval•Monitoring plans•Schedules•Conclusions/Questions3Improvements•EPA learns new and better ways toimplement UCMR–Minor changes are customary betweencycles•Lessons learned between UCMR 1 and UCMR 2–Define monitoring schedules–Simplify partnership agreements with the States•Lessons learned between UCMR 2 and UCMR 34Applicability Improvements•Base applicability on retail population–UCMR 2: Applicability based on total population directlyserved plus those served byany consecutive public watersystem (PWS) receiving all or part of its “finished” water–UCMR 3 potential change:Create a list of applicable PWSsbased solely on retail population according to the SafeDrinking Water Information System (SDWIS-Fed)–Reasons for change:•Resolve implementation complexities•Refine PWS selection•Improve exposure analysis•Obtain a more accurate representation of drinking water atconsecutive systems5Applicability Improvements•Eliminate issues regarding purchasedwater–UCMR 2: PWSs that purchase 100% of their waterwere not subject to UCMR–UCMR 3 potential change:PWSs that purchase100% of their water will be subject to UCMR, andall purchased sources will be considered uniqueentry points that will require monitoring–Reason for change:•Define more accurate samplepoint locations since someStates do not include theirsuppliers’ entry points in theinventory•Improve exposure analysis•Obtain a more accurate representation of drinking water atconsecutive systems6Data Approval Improvements•Require PWSs to explain rejected datain the Safe Drinking Water Accessionand Review System (SDWARS)–UCMR 2: PWSs are allowed to reject data inSDWARS but were not required to enter a reasonfor rejecting it–UCMR 3 potential change:When data arerejected in SDWARS, PWSs must add a commentexplaining why data were not approved–Reasons for change:•Data could be rejected by accident or without valid cause7Monitoring Plan Improvements•Refine the approach to Ground WaterRepresentative Monitoring Plans (GWRMP)–UCMR 2: GWRMPs proposed based on geographiclocation, contamination susceptibility andsimilarities of groundwater quality with no backupsampling point required–UCMR 3 potential change:The proposed wellmust be the highest annual volume producing andmost consistently active in the representative array.Should the representative well go offline, analternative location must be approved by EPA–Reasons for change:•Well selected may be seasonal or low usage•Well may become permanently down prior to monitoring8Schedule Improvements•Clarify terms for scheduleadjustments–UCMR 2: Schedules should be adjusted to matchmonitoring plans but often PWSs do not requestsuch changes–UCMR 3 potential change:In SDWARS, specifythat schedules must be adjusted based on thesample point’s availability•Seasonal location•Routine or emergency maintenance–Reason for change:•EPA’s defined schedule may not match that of a PWSwhere a location may be temporarily down or is seasonal9Schedule Improvements•Clarify the difference between PWSand sample point schedules–UCMR 2: Selecting different schedules for differentsample points was an implied option–UCMR 3 potential change:In the SDWARSdirections, identify available scheduling options•Remind PWSs that theirsample points could havedifferent schedules–Reasons for change:•PWS could more effectively distribute resources over athree-year budget10QuestionsThank you1UCMR 3Sampling Design ConsiderationsGeorge HallbergPrincipalThe Cadmus Group, Inc.Watertown, Massachusetts2Overview•Regulatory background for theUnregulated Contaminant MonitoringRegulation (UCMR) sampling design•UCMR 3 sampling design considerations•Approach to tiered monitoring–Assessment Monitoring (List 1)–Screening Survey (List 2)–Pre-Screen Testing (List 3)•Implementation considerations3UCMR Background•UCMR program designed for Safe Drinking WaterAct (SDWA) specifications•Under §1445(a)(2)(A) of SDWA, as amended in1996, EPA required to:–“vary the frequency and schedule for monitoring ...basedon the number of persons served by the system, thesource of supply, and the contaminants likely to be found;”–ensure “that only a representative sample of systemsserving 10,000 persons or fewer are required to monitor;”and–“pay the reasonable cost of such testing and laboratoryanalysis...” for small systems4PWS Types•Community water system–Public Water System (PWS) that supplies water tothe same population year-round•Non-transient non-community water system–PWS that supplies water to at least 25 of the samepeople at least six months per year, but not yearround•Schools•Transient non-community water system–PWS that provides water where people do notremain for long periods of time•Gas stations and campgrounds•Typically not applicable to UCMR, may consider for List 35PWS Sizes•Small PWSs serve 10,000 or less–Very small: 25-500 people–Small: 501-3,300–Medium: 3,301-10,000•Large PWSs serve 10,001 to 100,000people•Very large PWSs serve over 100,001people6UCMR 3Sampling Design Considerations•Based on sampling and statisticaldesign used in UCMR 1 and 2–Reviewed with stakeholders–Peer reviewed–Two rounds of public comment7UCMR 3Sampling Design ConsiderationsData Quality Objectives•Unbiased national exposure estimates; smallmargin of error•Account for differential occurrence•Stratify across system size and source watertype to account for differences in vulnerabilityand management capacity•Multiple sample events over multiple years toaddress temporal variability•Allocation across states proportional topopulation served; at least two per state8UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring(List 1): Statistical Approach•May maintain same statistical design forAssessment Monitoring used in UCMR 1 and 2–Nationally representative sample of 800 small systems–Census of large water systems–Consider including systems that purchase 100% of theirwater•Small system statistical sample combined withlarge system census data provides a powerful toolfor assessing contaminant occurrence9Sample Allocation for Small Systems inAssessment Monitoring (List 1)SizeCategoryGroundWaterSystemsSurfaceWaterSystemsTotal500 and under1045109501 to 3,300259483073,301 to 10,000255129384Total61818280010UCMR 3 Screening Survey (List 2):Statistical Approach•Designed to ensure the data can be usedto support regulatory determinations andrule development (if warranted)•Account for possible laboratory capacityissues related to use of recently developedor technically complex methods11UCMR 3 Screening Survey (List 2):Statistical Approach•Considering similar approach as UCMR 2:–National sample of 800 systems, allocatedacross systems serving 100,000 or fewer:•Small system (serving 10,000 orfewer) sample would notoverlap with Assessment Monitoring•Sample again allocated acrossstrata of system size andsource water type•UCMR 3 proposing to include systems that purchase 100%of water–Census of all systems serving 100,001 and over(~400 systems)•Adds further confidence in the sampling results by including acensus of the largest systems•Total number of systems ~1,20012UCMR Pre-Screen Testing(List 3)•Envisioned for use with methods thatwere in the early stages of development,and/or very specialized (such as thosefor viruses or DNA/microchips)•Might be conducted by limited number ofPWSs identified as vulnerable (by EPAand/or State agencies)•No Pre-Screen Testing was scheduledunder UCMR 1 and 213UCMR 3 Implementation Considerations•Same sampling frequency forAssessment Monitoring (AM) andScreening Survey (SS) used in UCMR 2–Surface water systems (includinggroundwater under the direct influence ofsurface water) would sample four timesduring their year of monitoring–Ground water systems would sample twotimes during their year of monitoring14UCMR 3 Implementation Considerations•Same monitoring schedule for AM andSS used in UCMR 2–Months assigned to ensure coverage of temporalvulnerability and variability–System monitoring spread across 3-year period toprovide temporal coverage and to accommodatelab capacity•Year and months of monitoring assigned to small systems•Large systems can re-define their year and month(s) ofmonitoring with EPA coordination15UCMR 3 Implementation Considerations•Sampling locations for AM and SSchemicals–All chemicals would be sampled at the entrypoints to the distribution systems (EPTDSs)–Metals proposed would also be sampled atthe maximum residence time (MR) locationin the distribution systems16QuestionsThank You1UCMR 3 Potential MethodsDavid J. MunchUSEPA, OGWDW, SRMDTechnical Support CenterCincinnati, Ohio2PharmaceuticalsEPA Method 539 (LC/MS/MS),forthcomingDetermination of Hormones inDrinking Water Using LiquidChromatography Tandem Mass SpectrometryLocation: EPTDS•17-α-Ethynylestradiol•17-β-Estradiol•Equilin•Estriol•Estrone•Testosterone•4-Androstene-3,17-dione3Single Contaminant MethodEPA Method 522 (GC/MS), 2008Determination of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid PhaseExtraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry withSelective Ion Monitoring, Version 1.0Location: EPTDS•1,4-Dioxane4Volatile Organic CompoundsEPA Method 524.3 (GC/MS), 2009Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by CapillaryColumn Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,Version. 1.0Location: EPTDS•1,1-Dichloroethane•1,2,3-Trichloropropane•1,3-Butadiene•Bromochloromethane•Chlorodifluoromethane•Chloromethane•Methyl bromide•n-Propylbenzene•sec-Butylbenzene5MetalsEPA Method 200.8 (ICP/MS), 1994Determination of Trace Elements inWaters by Inductively CoupledPlasma - Mass Spectrometry, Version 5.4Location: EPTDS, MR•Cobalt•Molybdenum•Strontium•Vanadium6Single Contaminant MethodEPA Method 300.1 (IC), 1997Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by IonChromatography, Revision 1.0Location: EPTDS•Chlorate–Gaseous chlorine–Potassium hypochlorite–Sodium hypochlorite7Perfluorinated ChemicalsEPA Method 537 (LC/MS/MS), 2009Determination of Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids in Drinking Waterby Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem MassSpectrometry, Version 1.1Location: EPTDS•Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)•Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)•Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)•Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)•Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)•Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)8MicrobialsLocation: EPTDS•Enterovirus–qPCR and cell culture•Norovirus–qPCR•Indicators–Total coliform–E. coli–Enterococci9QuestionsThank You1UCMR 3 Potential Contaminantsand Rationale - ChemicalsJohn MartinAssociateThe Cadmus Group, Inc.Watertown, Massachusetts2Contaminant PrioritizationStepwise prioritization process:•Initial list of ~140 contaminants based on the ContaminantCandidate List (CCL 3), as well as other emergingcontaminants of concern•CCL 3 published in Fall 2009:–EPA considered best available health effects and occurrenceinformation to evaluate thousandsof unregulated contaminants–Multi-step process to select104 chemicals/chemical groups and12 microbiological contaminants•Initial list pared down:–Methods availability–Generally eliminated from inclusion if in previous UnregulatedContaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) monitoring•Preliminary list further considered by EPA Federal/Region/State working group, and prioritized using healtheffects data3Health Effects Data and SourcesData•Reference Dose (RfD)•Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)•Minimal Risk Level (MRL)•Tolerable Upper Intake Level•No Observed Adverse Effect Level(NOAEL)•Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level(LOAEL)•Lowest Oral Lethal Dose (LD50)•Health Advisory (HA)•Drinking Water Equivalent Level(DWEL)•Health Reference Level (HRL)•EPA 10-4Lifetime Cancer Risk•Slope Factor•EPA Cancer Class•95thPercentile Concentration (humanexposure – urine, blood, serum)Sources•EPA–Office of Pesticide Programs(OPP)–Integrated Risk InformationSystem (IRIS)•Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR)•California Office of EnvironmentalHealth and Hazard Assessment(OEHHA)•Risk Assessment Information System(RAIS)•Registry of Toxic Effects of ChemicalSubstances (RTECS)•Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee onFood Additives (JECFA)•Center for Disease Control (CDC)•Institute of Medicine (IOM)4Occurrence in Water Data Sources•Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Data(1988 – 1997)•Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)•National Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS)Data (1984 – 1986)•Disinfection By-Product Information Collection Rule(DBP-ICR) Data (1997 – 1998)•Community Water System Survey (CWSS) Data (2006)•State Data:–New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection–Minnesota Pollution Control Agency•Small-scale occurrence studies5Potential EPA MethodsAssessment Monitoring (List 1)Screening Survey (List2)Method 539 (LC/MS/MS)Location: EPTDSMethod 537 (LC/MS/MS)Location: EPTDSMethod 522 (GC/MS)Location: EPTDSMethod 524.3 (GC/MS)Location: EPTDSMethod 200.8 (ICP/MS)Location: EPTDS, MRMethod 300.1 (IC)Location: EPTDSGC - Gas ChromatographyMS - Mass SpectrometryICP - Inductive Coupled PlasmaIC - Ion ChromatographyLC - Liquid ChromatographyEPTDS - Entry Point tothe DistributionSystemMR - Maximum Residence6PharmaceuticalsEPA Method 539,forthcomingDetermination of Hormones inDrinking Water Using LiquidChromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry•17-α-Ethynylestradiol•17-β-Estradiol•Equilin•Estriol•Estrone•Testosterone•4-Androstene-3,17-dione717-α-EthynylestradiolCASRN: 57-63-6Health Effects•LOAEL: 0.015 mg/kg-day–Increased serum levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT),aspartate aminotransferase (AST), andγ–glutamultransferase (GGT)•NOAEL: 0.04 mg/kg-day–Hematological effects•HRL: 0.035 μg/L817-α-EthynylestradiolCASRN: 57-63-6Occurrence in WaterNo. ofSites /SamplesNo. of Sites /Samples withDetections (and %)Value of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumKolpin, et al., 2002, NationalSurface WaterReconnaissance704 (5.7%)0.0940.273Snyder, et al., 2007, Finishedand Raw Drinking Water20ND----Snyder, 2008, Finished andRaw Drinking Water20ND----Snyder, et al., 2008, RawWater191 (5.3%)0.0014Snyder, et al., 2008, SurfaceWater18ND----Snyder, et al., 2008, FinishedWater33ND----Oxidative wastewater treatment additives (e.g.,chlorine) may degrade 17-α-ethynylestradiol, reducingestrogenic activity(Lee, et al., 2008)917-β-EstradiolCASRN: 50-28-2Health Effects•JECFA ADI: 0.00005 mg/kg-day–Estrogenic hormonal response•HRL: 0.35 μg/L•California OEHHA Oral Slope Factor: 39 (mg/kgday)-1•Cancer HRL (set at 10-5risk level): 0.009 μg/L1017-β-EstradiolCASRN: 50-28-2Occurrence in WaterNo. ofSites /SamplesNo. of Sites /Samples withDetections (and %)Value of Detections(μg/L)MedianMaximumKolpin, et al., 2002,National SurfaceWater Reconnaissance – Method 1707 (10%)0.0090.093Kolpin, et al., 2002,National SurfaceWater Reconnaissance – Method 2859 (10.6%)0.160.2Snyder, et al.,2007, Finished andRaw Drinking Water20ND----Snyder, 2008, Finished and RawDrinking Water20ND----Snyder, et al., 2008, Raw Water191 (5.3%)0.017Snyder, et al., 2008, Surface Water182 (11%)0.00140.002Snyder, et al., 2008, Finished Water33ND----Oxidative wastewater treatment additives (e.g.,chlorine) may degrade 17-β-estradiol, reducingestrogenic activity (Hu, et al., 2003)11EquilinCASRN: 474-86-2Health Effects•JECFA ADI: 0.00005 mg/kg-day–Estrogenic hormonal response in post-menopausalwomen–ADI for 17-β-estradiol (E2); E2 has structural similaritiesto equilin, so used as a toxicological surrogate•HRL: 0.35 μg/L12EquilinCASRN: 474-86-2Occurrence in WaterNo. of SamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections (μg/L)Kolpin, et al., 2002, NationalSurface Water Reconnaissance701 (1.4%)0.14713EstriolCASRN: 50-27-1Health Effects•JECFA ADI: 0.00005 mg/kg-day–Estrogenic hormonal response in post-menopausalwomen–ADI for 17-β-estradiol (E2); E2 has structuralsimilarities to estriol, so used as a toxicologicalsurrogate•HRL: 0.35 μg/L14EstriolCASRN: 50-27-1Occurrence in WaterNo. of Sites/ SamplesNo. of Sites /Samples withDetections (and %)Value of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumKolpin, et al., 2002, NationalSurface WaterReconnaissance7015 (21.4%)0.0190.051Snyder, et al., 2007, Raw andFinished Drinking Water20ND----15EstroneCASRN: 53-16-7Health Effects•JECFA ADI: 0.00005 mg/kg-day–Estrogenic hormonal responsein post-menopausal women–ADI for 17-β-estradiol (E2); E2 has structural similarities toequilenin, so used as a toxicological surrogate•HRL: 0.35 μg/L16EstroneCASRN: 53-16-7Occurrence in WaterNo. ofSites /SamplesNo. of Sites /Samples withDetections (and %)Value of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumKolpin, et al., 2002, NationalSurface Water Reconnaissance705 (7.1%)0.0270.112Snyder, et al., 2007, Raw andFinished Drinking Water202 (10%)0.0017(finished)0.0012 (raw)0.0023(finished)0.0014 (raw)Snyder, et al.,2008 Source Water1811 (61%)0.00120.0062Snyder, et al., 2008 Raw Water1915 (79%)0.000330.00094Snyder, 2008, Raw Drinking Water2074%0.00040.002Swartz, et al., 2006, Ambient Water1410 (71%)--0.1217TestosteroneCASRN: 58-22-0Health Effects•JECFA ADI: 0.002 mg/kg-day•HRL: 14 μg/L18TestosteroneCASRN: 58-22-0Occurrence in WaterNo. ofSites /SamplesNo. of Sites /Samples withDetections (and %)Value of Detections(μg/L)MedianMaximumKolpin, et al., 2002,National SurfaceWater Reconnaissance702 (2.8%)0.1160.214Kolodziej, et al., 2004, SurfaceWater--18%--0.00018Skadsen, et al.,2004, FinishedDrinking Water--ND----Snyder, et al., 2007, Raw andFinished Drinking Water--ND----194-Androstene-3,17-dioneCASRN: 63-05-8Health Effects•JECFA ADI: 0.002 mg/kg-day–ADI for testosterone; testosterone has structuralsimilarities to 4-androstene-3,17-dione, so used as atoxicological surrogate•HRL: 14 μg/L204-Androstene-3,17-dioneCASRN: 63-05-8Occurrence in WaterNo. ofSites /SamplesNo. of Sites /Samples withDetections (and %)Value of Detections(μg/L)MedianMaximumSnyder, et al., 2007, Raw DrinkingWater201 (5%)--0.0019Snyder, et al., 2007, FinishedDrinking Water20ND----Kolodziej and Sedlak, 2007California Surface Water8916 (18%)--0.044Kolodziej, et al., 2004 CaliforniaRiver, IrrigationCanal, and TileDrain11 River15 CanalND----Debska, et al.,2004 Florida River------0.12721Single Contaminant MethodEPA Method 522, 2008Determination of 1,4-Dioxane in Drinking Water by Solid PhaseExtraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry withSelective Ion Monitoring, Version 1.0•1,4-Dioxane221,4-DioxaneCASRN: 123-91-1Health Effects•ATSDR MRL: 0.1 mg/kg-day•HRL: 700 μg/L•EPA Cancer Class: B2•EPA 10-4Lifetime Cancer Risk: 0.3 mg/L•IRIS Oral Slope Factor: 0.011 (mg/kg-day)-1•Cancer HRL (set at 10-5risk level): 30 μg/L•Draft Toxicological Review for 1,4-Dioxane (May 2009)•Draft IRIS RfD: 0.03 mg/kg-day–NOAEL: 9.6 mg/kg-day–Liver and kidney toxicity in rats•HRL: 210 μg/L•Draft Oral Slope Factor: 0.19 (mg/kg-day)-1•Cancer HRL (set at 10-5risk level): 1.84 μg/L231,4-DioxaneCASRN: 123-91-1Occurrence in WaterSix-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California4,245505 (11.9%)21824 (11.0%)0.001 – 46.224Volatile Organic CompoundsEPA Method 524.3, 2009Measurement of PurgeableOrganic Compounds in Water by CapillaryColumn Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,Version. 1.0•1,1-Dichloroethane•1,2,3-Trichloropropane•1,3-Butadiene•Bromochloromethane•Chlorodifluoromethane•Chloromethane•Methyl bromide•n-Propylbenzene•sec-Butylbenzene251,1-DichloroethaneCASRN: 75-34-3Health Effects•RAIS RfD: 0.2 mg/kg-day–NOAEL: 714 mg/kg-day–Decreased body weight gain•HRL: 1,400 μg/L•EPA Cancer Class: C•California OEHHA Oral Slope Factor: 0.0057(mg/kg-day)-1•Cancer HRL (set at 10-5risk level): 61.4 μg/L•CDC’s 95thPercentile Conc.: <detection limit in1,367 blood samples (2003-2004)261,1-DichloroethaneCASRN: 75-34-3Occurrence in WaterUnregulated Contaminant Monitoring (1988 – 1997)Total No. ofSystemsNo. of SystemDetectionsPercent ofDetectionsValue of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumRound 120,4832331.14%1.2500Round 224,8081840.74%1159Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California123,0191,423 (1.16%)4,08035 (0.86%)0.5 – 20.4Illinois6ND2ND--North Carolina19,837115 (0.58%)2,49324 (0.96%)0.5 – 8.8Ohio9,35057 (0.61%)2,53719 (0.75%)0.5 – 5.32South Dakota1,110ND281ND--271,2,3-TrichloropropaneCASRN: 96-18-4Health Effects•IRIS RfD: 0.006 mg/kg-day–NOAEL: 8 mg/kg-day–Alterations in clinical chemistry and reduction in RBC mass in rats•DWEL: 0.2 mg/L•HRL: 42 μg/L•RAIS Oral Slope Factor: 7 (mg/kg-day)-1•Cancer HRL (set at 10-5risk level): 0.05 μg/L•IRIS RfD: 0.004 mg/kg-day–BMDL (ADL): 1.1 mg/kg-day–Increased absolute liver weight in male rats•HRL: 28 μg/L•IRIS Oral Slope Factor: 30 (mg/kg-day)-1•Cancer HRL (set at 10-5risk level): 0.01 μg/L281,2,3-TrichloropropaneCASRN: 96-18-4Occurrence in WaterUnregulated Contaminant Monitoring (1988 – 1997)Total No. ofSystemsNo. of SystemDetectionsPercent ofDetectionsValue of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumRound 117,392440.25%0.92112Round 224,088190.08%0.53,000Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California113,1284,977 (4.40%)3,939157 (3.99%)0.001 – 74Illinois114 (36.36%)64 (66.67%)all at 250North Carolina19,84018 (0.09%)2,4935 (0.20%)0.57 – 0.8Ohio9,2831 (0.01%)2,5321 (0.04%)0.5South Dakota1,1101 (0.09%)2811 (0.36%)0.67291,3-ButadieneCASRN: 106-99-0Health Effects•EPA Cancer Class: B2•California OEHHA Oral Slope Factor: 3.4 (mg/kgday)-1•Cancer HRL (set at 10-5risk level): 0.103 μg/LOccurrence in Water•No data for 1,3-butadiene occurrence in water30BromochloromethaneCASRN: 74-97-5Health Effects•EPA HA RfD: 0.01 mg/kg-day–Increased liver-to-body weight ratio and cloudy swellingand vacuolization of hepatocytes•DWEL: 0.5 mg/L•HRL: 70 μg/L•EPA Cancer Class: D31BromochloromethaneCASRN: 74-97-5Occurrence in WaterUnregulated Contaminant Monitoring (1988 – 1997)Total No. ofSystemsNo. of SystemDetectionsPercent ofDetectionsValue of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumRound 112,881650.5%1210Round 222,9741060.46%133.4Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California117,63240 (0.03%)4,03519 (0.47%)0.5 – 17North Carolina19,84231 (0.16%)2,49329 (1.16%)0.5 – 48.46Ohio9,29123 (0.25%)2,53321 (0.83%)0.5 – 12South Dakota1,1101 (0.09%)2811 (0.36%)0.6832ChlorodifluoromethaneCASRN: 75-45-6Health Effects•RTECS Oral Chronic LOAEL: 13.5 mg/kg-day–Degenerative effects on brain and coverings; changes inblood cell count (unspecified); and nutritional and grossmetabolic effects, such as weight loss or decreased weightgain•HRL: 31.5 μg/LOccurrence in Water•No data for occurrence of chlorodifluoromethane inwater33ChloromethaneCASRN: 74-87-3Health Effects•EPA HA RfD: 0.004 mg/kg-day–Mild neurological effects in humans occupationallyexposed to chloromethane•HRL: 28 μg/L•RAIS Oral Slope Factor: 0.013 (mg/kg-day)-1•DWEL: 0.1 mg/L•EPA Cancer Class: D•Cancer HRL (set at 10-5risk level): 26.9 μg/L34ChloromethaneCASRN: 74-87-3Occurrence in WaterUnregulated Contaminant Monitoring (1988 – 1997)Total No. ofSystemsNo. of SystemDetectionsPercent ofDetectionsValue of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumRound 120,2462481.22%1.9550Round 223,4785282.25%1.4312Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California112,636616 (0.55%)4,046142 (3.51%)0.025 – 46Illinois1,754100 (5.70%)74051 (6.89%)0.5 – 25.7North Carolina19,854336 (1.69%)2,493223 (8.95%)0.5 – 5,600Ohio9,294128 (1.38%)2,53387 (3.43%)0.5 – 25South Dakota1,1104 (0.36%)2814 (1.42%)1 – 7235Methyl BromideCASRN: 74-83-9Health Effects•IRIS RfD: 0.0014 mg/kg-day–NOAEL: 1.4 mg/kg-day–Epithelial hyperplasia in the forestomach•DWEL: 0.05 mg/L•HRL: 9.8 μg/L•EPA Cancer Class: D36Methyl BromideCASRN: 74-83-9Occurrence in WaterUnregulated Contaminant Monitoring (1988 – 1997)Total No. ofSystemsNo. of SystemDetectionsPercent ofDetectionsValue of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumRound 120,1981550.77%143Round 223,3281750.75%1.638.1Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California112,57072 (0.06%)4,04151 (1.26%)0.2 – 24Illinois6ND2ND--North Carolina19,85523 (0.12%)2,49322 (0.88%)0.5 – 23Ohio9,26952 (0.56%)2,53141 (1.62%)0.5 – 24South Dakota1,110ND281ND--37n-PropylbenzeneCASRN: 103-65-1Health Effects•RTECS LOAEL: 2.5 mg/kg-day–Effects on the blood, such as changes in the spleen•RTECS LD50: 6,040 mg/kg–Behavioral effects, such as somnolence (generaldepressed activity)•HRL: 5.83 μg/L38n-PropylbenzeneCASRN: 103-65-1Occurrence in WaterUnregulated Contaminant Monitoring (1988 – 1997)Total No. ofSystemsNo. of SystemDetectionsPercent ofDetectionsValue of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumRound 112,724420.33%0.734Round 222,970540.24%0.621Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California115,07212 (0.01%)4,0339 (0.22%)0.52 – 4.5North Carolina19,83114 (0.07%)2,49311 (0.44%)0.5 – 3.8Ohio9,2884 (0.04%)2,5334 (0.16%)0.56 – 1.839sec-ButylbenzeneCASRN: 135-98-8Health Effects•RTECS LOAEL: 4.42 mg/kg-day–Associated with behavioral changes, such asalteration of classic conditioning•HSDB LD50: 2,240 mg/kg•HRL: 10.3 μg/L40sec-ButylbenzeneCASRN: 135-98-8Occurrence in WaterUnregulated Contaminant Monitoring (1988 – 1997)Total No. ofSystemsNo. of SystemDetectionsPercent ofDetectionsValue of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumRound 112,343280.23%0.719.8Round 222,974340.15%0.5722Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California114,1099 (0.01%)4,0068 (0.20%)0.5 – 8.3North Carolina19,84310 (0.05%)2,4938 (0.32%)0.5 – 9.5Ohio9,2884 (0.04%)2,5333 (0.12%)0.5 – 2.1South Carolina1,110ND281ND--41MetalsEPA Method 200.8, 1994Determination of Trace Elements inWaters by Inductively CoupledPlasma -Mass Spectrometry, Version 5.4•Cobalt•Molybdenum•Strontium•Vanadium42CobaltCASRN: 7440-48-4Health Effects•ATSDR Interim MRL: 0.01 mg/kg-day–Blood increased hemoglobin, polycythemia, andrespiratory-effects on lung function•RAIS RfD: 0.02 mg/kg-day•HRL: 70 μg/L•CDC’s 95th Percentile Conc.:–1.32 μg/L for 2,465 urine samples (1999 – 2000)–1.28 μg/L for 2,690 urine samples (2001 – 2002)–1.16 μg/L for 2,558 urine samples (2003 – 2004)43CobaltCASRN: 7440-48-4Occurrence in WaterNational Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) (1984 – 1986)Total No. ofSystemsNo. of SystemDetectionsPercent ofDetectionsValue of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximum98930.30%9.710.6Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California2,26674 (3.27%)6710 (14.93%)0.01 – 10Illinois261 (3.85%)221 (4.55%)11Ohio733 (4.11%)253 (12.0%)3.36 – 1044MolybdenumCASRN: 7439-98-7Health Effects•IRIS RfD: 0.005 mg/kg-day–LOAEL: 0.14 mg/kg-day–Increased uric acid levels•Institute of Medicine (IOM) TolerableUpper Intake Level: 0.03 mg/kg-day•HRL: 35 μg/L•DWEL: 0.2 mg/L•EPA Cancer Class: D45MolybdenumCASRN: 7439-98-7Occurrence in WaterNational Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) (1984 – 1986)Total No. ofSystemsNo. of SystemDetectionsPercent ofDetectionsValue of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximum989777.79%10181Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California2,2871,132 (49.50%)161107 (66.46%)0.005 – 83Illinois1,922263 (13.68%)867153 (17.65%)0.001 – 110Ohio7634 (44.74%)2613 (50.0%)0.001 – 6446StrontiumCASRN: 7440-24-6Health Effects•IRIS RfD: 0.6 mg/kg-day–NOAEL: 190 mg/kg-day–Rachitic bone•HRL: 4,200 μg/L•DWEL: 20 mg/L•EPA Cancer Class: D47StrontiumCASRN: 7440-24-6Occurrence in WaterNational Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) (1984 – 1986)Total No. ofSystemsNo. of SystemDetectionsPercent ofDetectionsValue of Detections (mg/L)MedianMaximum98998099.09%0.1843.55Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)Illinois2121 (100%)1919 (100%)71 – 4,600Ohio7775 (97.40%)3230 (93.75%)4 – 40,88948VanadiumCASRN: 7440-62-2Health Effects•ATSDR Interim MRL: 0.003 mg/kg-day–Altered renal function indicated by increased plasmaurea and mild histological changes•RAIS RfD: 0.007 mg/kg-day•HRL: 21 μg/L49VanadiumCASRN: 7440-62-2Occurrence in WaterNational Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) (1984 – 1986)Total No. ofSystemsNo. of SystemDetectionsPercent ofDetectionsValue of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximum98914614.76%7.370.4Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California25,78416,688 (64.7%)2,6981,824 (67.6%)0.002 – 210Illinois19ND17ND--Ohio71ND23ND--50Single Contaminant MethodEPA Method 300.1, 1997Determination of Inorganic Anions in Drinking Water by IonChromatography, Revision 1.0•Chlorate–Gaseous chlorine–Potassium hypochlorite–Sodium hypochlorite51ChlorateCASRN: 14866-68-3Health Effects•OPP RfD: 0.03 mg/kg-day–Thyroid hypertrophy and mineralization•HRL: 210 μg/L52ChlorateCASRN: 14866-68-3Six-Year Review Data (1998 – 2005)StateNo. ofSamplesNo. of Sampleswith Detections(and %)No. of SitesNo. of Siteswith Detections(and %)Value ofDetections(μg/L)California1,205945 (78%)4524 (53%)0.01 – 747Occurrence in WaterDisinfection By-Product Information Collection Rule (DBP-ICR) (1997 – 1998)No. of SamplesNo. of Samples withDetections (and %)Value of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximum1,7191,490 (86.7%)1202,23453ChlorateCASRN: 14866-68-3Occurrence in Water (cont.)Sample TypeSourceNo. ofSamplesNo. of Samples withDetections (and %)Value ofDetections (μg/L)Source Water SamplesBolyard, et al., 1992142 (14%)20 and 22Samples Disinfected with HypochloriteSolutionBolyard, et al., 19921414 (100%)11 - 650Hypochlorite Solution SamplesBolyard, et al., 19921414 (100%)0.18 – 42 g/LHypochlorite SolutionSamples (4 monthslater)Bolyard, et al., 19921414 (100%)0.19 – 50 g/LSource Water from Utilities that useHypochlorite Solution DisinfectionBolyard, et al., 1993152 (13%)19 and 23Drinking Water from Utilities that useHypochlorite Solution DisinfectionBolyard, et al., 19931616 (100%)11 – 660Source Water from Utilities that useGaseous Chlorine DisinfectionBolyard, et al., 1993162 (12.5%)17 and 81Drinking Water from Utilities that useGaseous Chlorine DisinfectionBolyard, et al., 1993283 (11%)17 – 4354Perfluorinated ChemicalsEPA Method 537, 2009Determination of Selected PerfluorinatedAlkyl Acids in Drinking Waterby Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem MassSpectrometry, Version 1.1•Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)•Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)•Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)•Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)•Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)•Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)55Perfluorooctanesulfonate(PFOS)CASRN: 1763-23-1Health Effects•EPA Provisional HA: 0.2 μg/L–NOAEL: 0.03 mg/kg-day–Decreased body weights, increased liver weights, loweredserum total cholesterol, lowered triiodothyronine (T3)concentration, and lowered estradiol levels•FR NOAEL: 0.1 mg/kg-day–Reduced F2 body weight•HSDB LD50: 251 mg/kg•HRL: 0.2 μg/L•CDC’s 95th Percentile Conc.: 54.6 μg/L for 2,094serum samples (2003 – 2004); detects in 99.9% ofsamples56Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)CASRN: 1763-23-1Occurrence in WaterNo. of Sites/SamplesNo. of Sites/Samples withDetections (and %)Value ofDetections (μg/L)New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection (2007)2313 (57%)0.0042 – 0.019Goeden and Kelly, 2006,Minnesota Municipal Wells376 (16.2%)1.4 (max)Goeden and Kelly, 2006,Minnesota Private Wells26ND--Goeden and Kelly, 2006,Minnesota Non-Community Wells22ND--57Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)CASRN: 335-67-1Health Effects•EPA Provisional HA: 0.4 μg/L–LOAEL: 0.46 mg/kg-day–Increased maternal liver weight at term•HRL: 1.1 μg/L•CDC’s 95th Percentile Conc.: 9.8 μg/L for 2,094serum samples (2003 – 2004); detects in 99.7% ofsamples58Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)CASRN: 335-67-1Occurrence in WaterNo. of Sites/SamplesNo. of Sites/Samples withDetections (and %)Value ofDetections (μg/L)New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection (2007)2318 (78%)0.0045 – 0.039Goeden and Kelly, 2006,Minnesota Municipal Wells376 (16.2%)0.9 (max)Goeden and Kelly, 2006,Minnesota Private Wells261 (3.8%)Goeden and Kelly, 2006,Minnesota Non-Community Wells22ND--Emmett, et al., 2006, OhioMunicipal Distribution System(2002 – 2005)----1.5 – 7.23.55 (mean)Emmett, et al., 2006, Ohio PrivateWells (2002 – 2005)----<0.01 – 1459Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)CASRN: 355-46-4Health Effects•NOAEL: 10 mg/kg-day–Immuno/lumphoret, neurological, reproductive, anddevelopmental effects•HRL: 70 μg/L•CDC’s 95th Percentile Conc.: 8.30 μg/L for 2,094serum samples (2003 – 2004); detects in 98.3% ofsamples60Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)CASRN: 355-46-4Occurrence in WaterAlbany, New York Rain, Snow, Surface Runoff, and Lake Samples (2006 – 2007)(Kim and Kannan, 2007)Sample SourceNo. of SamplesValue of Detections (μg/L)RangeMedianLake water11<LOQ – 0.004050.00053Rain water11ND – 0.00036< LOQSnow21ND – 0.00035< LOQSurface runoff14ND – 0.01350.0003561Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)CASRN: 355-46-4Occurrence in Water (cont.)Minnesota’s Ambient Environment (2006 – 2008)Sample SourceNo. ofSamplesNo. of Samples withDetections (and %)Value of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumRural shallow ground water22ND----Urban shallow ground water2911 (38%)0.007460.0778Mississippi & Minnesota riversand tributaries341 (3%)0.168Mississippi & Minnesota rivers352 (6%)0.00936 and 0.00987Surface water163 (19%)0.02650.0271Brainerd area Mississippi river8ND----Mississippi river225 (23%)0.005550.0066City Road drainage ditch surfacewater33 (100%)0.3630.384Rice Lake33 (100%)0.2530.25562Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)CASRN: 375-85-9Health Effects•CDC’s 95th Percentile Conc.: 0.400 μg/L for 2,094 serumsamples (2003 – 2004); detects in 6.2% of samplesOccurrence in WaterAlbany, New York Rain, Snow, SurfaceRunoff, and Lake Samples (2006 – 2007)(Kim and Kannan, 2007)Sample SourceNo. of SamplesValue of Detections (μg/L)RangeMedianLake water110.00115 – 0.01270.00409Rain water11<LOQ – 0.002320.00056Snow21<LOQ – 0.001610.00039Surface runoff14<LOQ – 0.006440.0011363Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)CASRN: 375-85-9Occurrence in Water (cont.)Minnesota’s Ambient Environment (2006 – 2008)Sample SourceNo. ofSamplesNo. of Samples withDetections (and %)Value of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumRural shallow ground water22ND----Urban shallow ground water2913 (45%)0.00370.0151Mississippi & Minnesota riversand tributaries341 (3%)0.0162Mississippi & Minnesota rivers358 (23%)0.003840.00442Surface water167 (44%)0.003570.00476Brainerd area Mississippi river8ND----Mississippi river224 (18%)0.0035150.00358City Road drainage ditch surfacewater33 (100%)0.0190.0197Rice Lake33 (100%)0.01520.017964Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)CASRN: 375-95-1Health Effects•LOAEL: 54 mg/kg-day–Death of all 10 mice before day 14•LOAEL: 0.5 mg/kg-day–Hepatic effects•HRL: 3.5 μg/L•CDC’s 95th Percentile Conc.: 3.20 μg/L for 2,094serum samples (2003 – 2004); detects in 98.8% ofsamples65Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)CASRN: 375-95-1Occurrence in WaterAlbany, New York Rain, Snow, SurfaceRunoff, and Lake Samples (2006 – 2007)(Kim and Kannan, 2007)Sample SourceNo. of SamplesValue of Detections (μg/L)RangeMedianLake water11ND – 0.003510.00163Rain water11<LOQ – 0.003480.00104Snow21<LOQ – 0.004940.00055Surface runoff14<LOQ – 0.005900.0007166Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)CASRN: 375-95-1Occurrence in Water (cont.)Minnesota’s Ambient Environment (2006 – 2008)Sample SourceNo. ofSamplesNo. of Samples withDetections (and %)Value of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumRural shallow ground water22ND----Urban shallow ground water291 (3%)0.00121Mississippi & Minnesota riversand tributaries341 (3%)0.00318Mississippi & Minnesota rivers359 (26%)0.003920.00719Surface water161 (6%)0.00132Brainerd area Mississippi river82 (25%)0.00258 and 0.00307Mississippi river22ND----City Road drainage ditch surfacewater31 (33%)0.00306Rice Lake3ND----67Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)CASRN: 375-73-5Health Effects•Minnesota Department of Public Health RfD: 0.0014 mg/kg-day–NOAEL: 60 mg/kg-day–Decreased hemoglobin and hematocrit andhistological changes in kidney,and a co-effect of increased liver weight with increased incidence ofhepatocellular hypertrophy•HRL: 9.8 μg/L•CDC’s 95thPercentile Conc.: <limit of detection in 2,094 blood samples(2003 – 2004)Occurrence in WaterNorth Carolina Cape Fear DrainageBasin (2006) (Nakayama, et al., 2007)No. of SitesNo. of Samples% of Samples Detected> LOQ (0.001 μg/L)Value of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximum8010039.2%0.002460.0094168Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)CASRN: 375-73-5Occurrence in Water (cont.)Minnesota’s Ambient Environment (2006 – 2008)Sample SourceNo. ofSamplesNo. of Samples withDetections (and %)Value of Detections (μg/L)MedianMaximumRural shallow ground water22ND----Urban shallow ground water295 (17%)0.007050.0399Mississippi & Minnesota riversand tributaries341 (3%)0.0162Mississippi & Minnesota rivers355 (14%)0.01360.0878Surface water163 (19%)0.05520.0671Brainerd area Mississippi river82 (25%)0.0202 and 0.026Mississippi river22ND----City Road drainage ditch surfacewater33 (100%)0.04290.0484Rice Lake33 (100%)0.02750.028669QuestionsThank You1UCMR 3 PotentialContaminants and Rationale -MicrobesSandhya ParshionikarUSEPA, OGWDW, SRMDTechnical Support CenterCincinnati, Ohio2Overview•Microbial contaminants beingconsidered for the third cycle of theUnregulated Contaminant MonitoringRegulation (UCMR 3)•Rationale for consideration•Sampling approach•Laboratory analyses•Methods3Potential UCMR 3 MicrobialContaminants•Two Contaminant Candidate List 3(CCL 3) microbial contaminants–Enterovirus–Norovirus4Rationale•Both microbes are CCL 3 contaminants•Limited occurrence information inundisinfected systems located insensitive aquifers5Rationale – cont’d•Recent Borchardt study showed:–Statistically significant correlation betweenviral quantitative polymerase chain reaction(qPCR) and self reported AGI (acutegastrointestinal illness)•qPCR may be used as an indicator of relativevulnerability and potential disease incidence–Significant viral occurrence in public watersystems (PWSs) with low total coliform (TC)occurrence or noE. coli(EC) occurrence6Potential Sampling Approach•List 3 sampling–Selection of small systems (serving less than1,000)–800 undisinfected ground water systems,potentially those located in karst or fracturedbedrocks–Possibly sampling at entry point todistribution system–Single sample event–EPA covers sampling costs–Contractors would perform sampling7Potential Laboratory Analysis•Enterovirus•Norovirus•Indicators–Total coliform–E. coli–Enterococci–Bacteriophage–Aerobic Spores8Potential Methods•Enterovirus and Norovirus–qPCR protocol similar to that used by MarkBorchardt•Enterovirus–Cell culture by ICR method with 1MDS filterreplaced by nanoceram filter•New filter is 10-fold less expensive•Recovery equivalent to 1MDS9QuestionsThank you1Approval of LaboratoriesSupporting UCMR 3Daniel P. HautmanUSEPA, OGWDW, SRMDTechnical Support CenterCincinnati, Ohio2Overview•Third cycle of the UnregulatedContaminant Monitoring Regulation(UCMR 3)•Tentative steps under the UCMR 3Laboratory Approval Program•Maintaining approval•Conclusions/Questions3Approach for UCMR 3•UCMR 3 still in planning stages andoptions are being considered•UCMR 2 laboratory approval willcertainly be used as a guide4General Expectations•Laboratory Approval Program will be similar tothe process used in UCMR 2•Water systems would need to use EPAUCMR-approved laboratories for analysis•Labs would need to meet the requiredequipment, laboratory performance and datareporting criteria to become approved•Labs would still need to be approved even ifalready certified by state, primacy entity oraccredited through the National EnvironmentalAccreditation Conference (NELAC) for aparticular method5General Procedure•Laboratory approval process used inUCMR 2 and envisioned for UCMR 3–Step 1:Request to participate and register–Step 2:Application–Step 3:EPA review of application–Step 4:Proficiency Testing–Step 5:EPA approval6Step 1•Request to participate and register–Submit a written participation request toEPA Lab Approval Coordinator–EPA provides registration material–Submit complete registration material within90 days of publication in Federal Register–EPA provides a custom application packagebased on registration information7Step 2•Application Package–Separate application for each method–Lab would receive a copy of the LaboratoryApproval Manual–Package would be submitted within 210days after publication in the FederalRegister–A postcard notifying lab would be sent uponreceipt of application by EPA8Step 2 continued•Completed application package anticipated toinclude:–Precision, accuracy and minimum reporting level(MRL) studies with documentation–Documentation of certification or accreditation ofdrinking water compliance analyses/selectedmethods as requested–Personnel and quality assurance information–Description of analytical equipment and samplehandling procedures9Step 3•Review of Application Package–EPA would review the package and couldrequest more information–Postcard notifying lab would be sent uponsuccessful completion of the applicationpackage–Once the application has been accepted,the lab could participate in thecorresponding PT studies10Step 4•Proficiency Testing–EPA would provide PT samples–Analyze PT sample(s) for each method–Labs may have three opportunities toanalyze PT samples–Only one successful analysis of PT samplesper method would be required11Step 5•EPA Approval–Once all steps are completed, EPA wouldgrant formal written approval (based onmethod)12After Approval•Maintaining approval–Adhere to quality assurance/quality control(QA/QC) measures in both the methods andthe rule language–Post occurrence data and required QC datavia the Safe Drinking Water Accession andReview System (SDWARS) withinprescribed timeframe–Participate and pass on-site and/or paperaudits13QuestionsThank You1Establishment of ReportingLimits for UCMR 3John MartinAssociateThe Cadmus Group, Inc.Watertown, Massachusetts2Overview•History of the lowest concentration minimum reportinglevel (LCMRL) and minimum reporting level (MRL)–Definitions–Applications•New developments in the LCMRL/MRL procedures–Former Procedure (UCMR 2)–Procedure Anticipated for (UCMR 3)•Implications for laboratories in UCMR 3–Daily Check at or Below MRL–LCMRL Calculator3Definitions-LCMRL•LCMRL -lowest spiking concentration atwhich 50-150% recovery expected 99%of the time by a single analyst–Estimate of the lowest concentration atwhich measurements of specified qualitycan repeatedly be made of that analyte–Simultaneous application of precision andaccuracy4Definitions- MRL•MRL -estimate of an LCMRL that, with95% confidence, achievable by acapable analyst/laboratory at least 75%of the time–Assuming good instrumentation andexperienced analysts, 95% confidence,achievable by 75% of laboratoriesnationwide5Definitions- MRL•Intended to achieve quality across thenation’s laboratories while preservingnational laboratory system capacity•Selection of the 95% confidence and75% frequency mirrors data qualityobjectives (DQOs) established forpractical quantitation limit (PQL)6Applications•MRL used in UCMR 1–General reporting level–Typically reflects lowest instrumentcalibration standard•LCMRL and Associated StatisticallyDefined MRL–UCMR 2•Revised LCMRL and MRL–UCMR 37Former LCMRL Procedure•Process seven+ replicates at four+concentrations through entire method•Graph measured vs. true concentration•Regress data using Ordinary Least Squares(OLS)•99% prediction interval•DQO lines from origin–150% recovery–50% recoveryWinslow,et al., 2006.Environ. Sci. Technol. 40(1), 281-288.8Former LCMRL ProcedurePerchlorate in DI WaterSpiked Concentration (ug/L)0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

Measured Concentration (ug/L)0.10.20.30.40.50.6Perpendicular to the X AxisLCMRL = 0.15 ug/LLCMRL by Ordinary Least Squares= regression line= +50%= 99% prediction interval9Former MRL Procedure•Generate LCMRLsfrom multiplelaboratories•Three or more laboratories•Mean of LCMRLs+ 3 SD•Two laboratories•|LCMRL1 –LCMRL2| + 3 SD10Why EPA Revised LCMRL Procedure•Helps correctly identify the lowestconcentration within the DQO bounds–Addresses bias in calibration and analyte recovery–Addresses potential skew in measurements –cannot assume a normal distribution–Addresses change in variance over theconcentration range•Procedures underwent second peer review(2008)11Revised LCMRL Procedure•Process four+ replicates at seven+concentrations through entire method•Graph measured vs. true concentration•Regress data using Weighted LeastSquares•Probability distribution for spike recovery–Function of spiking concentration12Revised LCMRL Procedure13Revised LCMRL Procedure14Revised LCMRL Calculator•Downloadable tool–Input method information–Upload spike concentrations and measured values–Will be available on EPA’s website•LCMRL determination used in methoddevelopment•Laboratories not required to determineLCMRLsfor UCMR 3•Ability to quantitateat MRL required15Revised MRL Procedure•Raw data from LCMRL study used inBayesian Bootstrap procedure–Results weighted to generate large numberof simulated values for LCMRL–Values combined to estimate overalldistribution•MRL computed as 95% upperconfidence limit for 75th percentile16MRL Verification Procedure•MRL verification procedure–Easier than LCMRL determination–Replaces yearly minimum detection limit(MDL) study with single-day procedure•Part of the Initial Demonstration of Capability(IDC) for each analytical method•Daily check sample required–For each analyte demonstrate±50%recovery at or below MRL (one spike)–Re-run those that do not pass or recalibrate17MRL Verification Procedure•At least seven replicate samples are fortified at orbelow MRL and processed through entire methodprocedure•Calculate a prediction interval of results (PIR)–t = the two-sided Student's t value with n-1 or dfdegrees of freedomand confidence level (1-α);–s = the sample standard deviation ofn replicate samples fortified ator below the MRLDixon, W.J. and F.J. Massey, Jr., 1983. “Introduction to Statistical Analysis.”McGraw-Hill Book Company,Fourth Edition, p. 92.Prediction Interval   Mean s tndf( , /)1 211



# 18MRL Verification Procedure•DQOs–Confidence level for two-tailed Student’s t value = 99%–Allowable data quality interval = 50 to 150% of MRL–Outliers cannot be discarded•For specified confidence (99%) and number ofreplicates (7), the factoris constant (= 3.963)•PIR = Mean of LCMRL results ±3.963(s)tndf( , /)1 211 



# 19MRL Verification ProcedureMRL verification example: estriol, EPA Method 539•Seven replicates, true fortified conc. = 1.1 ng/L•Mean of results = 0.899 ng/L•Standard deviation, s = 0.076 ng/L•PIR = 0.899 ng/L ±3.963 * 0.076 ng/L•PIR = 0.899 ng/L ±0.3012 ng/L–Lower PIR % Rec= 0.5978 ng/L/1.1 ng/L * 100 = 54.3% > 50%Pass–Upper PIR % Rec= 1.200 ng/L/1.1 ng/L * 100 = 109 % < 150%Pass20Summary•Two procedures–LCMRL: single-laboratory quantitation leveldetermined during method development–MRL Verification: initial demonstration ofcapacity (IDC) and daily check at or belowpre-defined MRL•Both LCMRL and MRL procedures takeinto account simultaneous application ofprecision and accuracy21Acknowledgments•Peer review of the updated procedure in 2008:–William Foreman, United States Geological Survey–MalihaNash, USEPA–John Nocerino, USEPA, National Exposure ResearchLaboratory, Las Vegas–Anita Singh, USEPA–Lynn Vanatta, Air Liquide–X. Jin Yang, Ph.D., Environmental Forensic andAnalytical Science Department of Environment andClimate Change, Australia22QuestionsThank You