### United States Environmental Protection Agency



# Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Water RegulationsOffice of Water (4607M) EPA 815-B-09-007 October 2009 www.epa.gov/safewaterEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

i 

## Table of Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................ES-1 1 Introduction................................................................................................................. .........1-1 2 Measuring Treatment Effectiveness for C ontaminants Regulated through MCLs.............. 2-1 3 Treatment Reviews for Contamin ants Regulated Through MCLs ......................................3-1 3.1 2,4-D ...................................................................................................................... ......3-1 3.2 Endothall.................................................................................................................. ....3-3 3.3 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene......................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 Oxamyl..................................................................................................................... ....3-3 3.5 Toluene .................................................................................................................... ....3-4 3.6 Xylenes .................................................................................................................... ....3-5 3.7 Benzene.................................................................................................................... ....3-5 3.8 Chlordane.................................................................................................................. ...3-6 3.9 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)....................................................................... 3-6 3.10 1,2-Dichloropropane ....................................................................................................3-7 3.11 Heptachlor................................................................................................................ ....3-7 3.12 Heptachlor Epoxide ..................................................................................................... 3-8 3.13 Hexachlorobenzene...................................................................................................... 3-8 3.14 Toxaphene................................................................................................................. ...3-8 3.15 1,1,2-Trichloroethane................................................................................................... 3- 9 3.16 Vinyl Chloride ............................................................................................................ . 3-9 3.17 Carbon Tetrachloride ................................................................................................... 3-9 3.18 1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride)................................................................. 3-10 3.19 Dichloromethane........................................................................................................ 3-1 0 3.20 Tetrachloroethylene ...................................................................................................3-11 3.21 Trichloroethylene....................................................................................................... 3- 12 4 Review of Treatment Techniques fo r Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin............................. 4-1 4.1 Improvements in Manufacturing.................................................................................. 4-2 4.2 Regulations and Guidelines in Other Countries........................................................... 4-2 5 References................................................................................................................... .........5-1 Appendix: Monomer Data from NSF International.................................................................... A-1EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

ii 

## Table of Exhibits

Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Treatment Feasib ility Review for Contaminants Regulated through MCLs............................................................................................................................ES-3 Exhibit 1-1. Contaminants Included in this Treatment Technology Feasibility Review............. 1-2 Exhibit 3-1. Summary of Treatme nt Feasibility Review for C ontaminants Regulated through MCLs ........................................................................................................................... ................3-2 Exhibit 4-1. Summary of NSF In ternational Product Testing Results for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin ........................................................................................................................... 4-2 Exhibit 4-2. Comparison of Acrylamide and Ep ichlorohydrin Drinking Water Guidelines .......4-3EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

iii 

## Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANSI American National Standards Institute
atm m 3 /m 3 atmospheres-cubic meter (of water) per cubic meter (of air) BAT Best Available Technology DBCP 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane EPA Environmental Protection Agency EQL Estimated Quantitation Level ETV EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification Program GAC Granular Activated Carbon lbs/1,000 gal pounds of carbon used per 1,000 gallons of water treated MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/L milligrams per liter NPDWRs National Primary Dr inking Water Regulations PAC Powdered Activated Carbon POU Point-of-use POU-GAC Point-of-use Granular Activated Carbon PQL Practical Quantitation Level PTA Packed Tower Aeration SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SOCs Synthetic Organic Compounds TCE Trichloroethylene TT Treatment Technique VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds WHO World Health Organization
μ g/L micrograms per literEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

ES- 1 

## Executive Summary The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) has completed its second Six-Year Review (Six-Year Review 2) of national primary dri nking water regulations (NPDWRs). The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Ame ndments require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) to peri odically review existing Na tional Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). Section 1412(b)(9) of SDWA reads:

...[t]he Administrator shall, not less than every 6 years, review and revise, as appropriate, each primary drinking water regulation promulgated under this title. Any revision of a national primary drinki ng water regulation sh all be promulgated in accordance with this section, except that each revision shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons.

The primary goal of the Six-Year Review proces s is to identify NPDWRs for possible regulatory revision. Although the statute does not define when a revision is “appropriate,” as a general benchmark, EPA considered a possible revision to be “appropriate” if, at a minimum, it presents a meaningful opportunity to:

• improve the level of public health protection, and/or

• achieve cost savings while maintaining or im proving the level of public health protection.

For Six-Year Review 2, EPA implemented the prot ocol that it developed for the first Six-Year Review (USEPA, 2003), including minor revisions developed duri ng the current review process (USEPA, 2009d). EPA obtained and evaluated new information that could affect a NPDWR, including information on health effects (USEPA , 2009f), analytical feasibility (USEPA, 2009b), and occurrence (USEPA, 2009a and 2009e).

This technical support document provides the Ag ency’s findings for its review of treatment feasibility information. EPA id entified potential to revise NPDWRs for 23 contaminants. Consequently, EPA reviewed the best availabl e technologies (BATs) a nd treatment techniques (TTs) specified in NPDWRs, and any emerging t echnologies, to determine whether treatment performance would pose a limitation to such revisi ons. This document describes these treatment feasibility reviews.

EPA reviewed the BATs and technologies to m eet TTs to determine the potential to achieve concentrations based on estimat ed quantitation levels (EQLs) or new health effects information. USEPA (2009c) provides a description of th e EQLs and USEPA (2009f) identifies the new health-based thresholds. EPA used these thres holds to evaluate potential for meaningful opportunity to improve public health protection. The result of the treatment review is a determination of whether treatment would pose a limitation to revising an NPDWR.

EPA measured technology effectiveness for contaminants for which the enforceable standard is a maximum contaminant level (MCL) based on the following factors:

• Removal efficiency, which is measured as th e percentage of the influent concentration removed through treatmentEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

ES- 2 • Qualitative conclusions about treatability fr om previous EPA rulemakings and other scientific and engineering sources

• Other, technology-specific measures.

Aeration and carbon adsorption ar e common contaminant removal technologies. In instances when BATs and/or small system compliance t echnologies include aerati on technologies, EPA used Henry’s Law constants as indicators of likely treatment effectiveness. Aeration technologies, which include packed tower aera tion (PTA), multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, shallow tray aeration, spray aeration, and mechanical aer ation, remove contaminants by passing air through the water to be treated. Aerati on processes transfer, or “strip,” volatile contaminants from the water into the air. He nry’s Law constants, which can vary across contaminants, provide measures of the ease with which this stripping occurs.

In instances when BATs and/or small system compliance technologies in clude carbon adsorption technologies, EPA used bed life and carbon usag e rates as indicators of likely treatment effectiveness. Carbon adsorption technologies, which include gra nular activated carbon (GAC), powdered activated carbon (PAC), and point-o f-use granular activated carbon (POU-GAC), remove contaminants through adsorption onto a ca rbon media. The length of time for which the carbon retains its capacity to absorb target contaminants provides a measure of treatment feasibility and effectiveness.

EPA did not identify limitations of BAT, sma ll system compliance technologies, or emerging technologies to achieve the EQL or health-based thresholds for most of the contaminants regulated through MCLs. Exhibit ES-1 summarizes these results. For oxamyl, however, data on removal efficiency and a lack of demonstrated treatment effectiveness at low concentrations suggest potential for limitation at concentrations as low as the health-based threshold. Similarly, for 1,2-dichloropropane, treatment to the estimat ed quantitation level may not be feasible.

EPA established a TT in lieu of an MCL for acr ylamide and epichlorohydrin because of the absence of standardized anal ytical methods for measurement in water. The TT limits the allowable monomer level in products used for wa ter treatment and the dos age of polymers that contain them. EPA established the residual monom er level for each contaminant at the lowest level manufacturers could feasibly achieve at the time of regulation. A system can use third-party or manufacturer’s certification in lieu of testing for the residual monomer level.

NSF International (NSF), a third party organizati on, tests and certifies water treatment chemicals that meet NSF/ANSI Standard 60, Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects , which sets out requirements for treatment chemical s based on human health protection (NSF, 1999a). The requirements for acrylamide- and epichloroh ydrin-based polymers in Standard 60 are based on EPA’s TT standards. Thus, N SF 60 certification of a polymer ic coagulant aid containing acrylamide or epichlorohydrin indi cates that users are in complia nce with EPA’s regulation when a product is used as specified (i.e., for the in tended purpose and up to the maximum usage level indicated by NSF). EPA obtained NSF data in dicating that manufactur ers now produce polymers with substantially lowe r residual monomer content than the TTs require. This new information, viewed in conjunction with regulations and gui delines in other countri es, suggests there is potential to revise the TTs to refl ect a lower feasible monomer contentEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

ES- 3 Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Treatment F easibility Review for Contaminants Regulated through MCLs

Contaminant Current MCL (mg/L) Threshold Evaluated

(mg/L) BAT Treatment Limitation Potential 2,4-D 0.07 0.04 GAC 1 No Endothall 0.1 0.05 GAC 1 No Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 0.04 GAC and PTA 2 No Oxamyl 0.2 0.002 GAC 1,3 Uncertain Toluene 1.0 0.6 GAC and PTA 4 No Xylenes 10.0 1.0 GAC and PTA 4 No Benzene 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 3,4 No Chlordane 0.002 0.001 GAC 1 No

DBCP 0.0002 0.0001 GAC and PTA 5 No 1,2-dichloropropane 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 4 Uncertain Heptachlor 0.0004 0.0001 GAC 1 No Heptachlor epoxide 0.0002 0.0001 GAC 1 No Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 0.0001 GAC 1 No Toxaphene 0.003 0.001 GAC 1 No 1,1,2-trichloroethane 0.005 0.003 GAC and PTA 4 No Vinyl chloride 0.002 0.0005 PTA 4 No Carbon tetrachloride 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 4 No

1,2-dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride) 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 4 No

Dichloromethane 0.005 0.0005 PTA 4 No Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 4 No

Trichloroethylene 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 6 No 1. Small system compliance technologies are: GAC, PAC, and POU-GAC. 2. Small system compliance technologies are: GAC, POU-GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, and shallow tray aeration. 3. Although not currently listed as BAT, promising emerging technologies include: RO, RO followed by GAC, and advanced oxidation (ultraviolet light combined with ozone) followed by GAC. 4. Small system compliance technologies are: GAC, PTA, di ffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, and shallow tray aeration. 5. Small system compliance technologies are: GAC, PAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, and shallow tray aeration. 6. Small system compliance technologies are: GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubbl e aeration, tray aeration, shallow tray aeration, spray aeration, and mechanical aeration. BAT = best available technologies DBCP = 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane GAC = granular activated carbon MCL = maximum contaminant level Mg/L = milligrams per liter PAC = powdered activated carbon POU = point-of-use PTA = packed tower aeration RO = reverse osmosisEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

1-1 

## 1 Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) has completed its second Six-Year Review (Six-Year Review 2) of national primary dri nking water regulations (NPDWRs). The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Ame ndments require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) to peri odically review existing Na tional Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). Section 1412(b)(9) of SDWA reads:

...[t]he Administrator shall, not less than every 6 years, review and revise, as appropriate, each primary drinking water regulation promulgated under this title. Any revision of a national primary drinki ng water regulation sh all be promulgated in accordance with this section, except that each revision shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons.

The primary goal of the Six-Year Review proces s is to identify NPDWRs for possible regulatory revision. Although the statute does not define when a revision is “appropriate,” as a general benchmark, EPA considered a possible revision to be “appropriate” if, at a minimum, it presents a meaningful opportunity to:

• improve the level of public health protection, and/or

• achieve cost savings while maintaining or im proving the level of public health protection.

For Six-Year Review 2, EPA implemented the prot ocol that it developed for the first Six-Year Review (USEPA, 2003), including minor revisions developed duri ng the current review process (USEPA, 2009d). EPA obtained and evaluated new information that could affect a NPDWR, including information on health effects (USEPA , 2009f), analytical feasibility (USEPA, 2009b), and occurrence (USEPA, 2009a and 2009e).

This technical support document provides the Ag ency’s findings for its review of treatment feasibility information. EPA id entified potential to revise NPDWRs for 23 contaminants. Consequently, EPA reviewed the best availabl e technologies (BATs) a nd treatment techniques (TTs) specified in NPDWRs, and any emerging t echnologies, to determine whether treatment performance would pose a limitation to such revisi ons. This document describes these treatment feasibility reviews.

EPA reviewed treatment feasibility for contamin ants regulated through MCLs for which there is potential to revise the MCL due to:

• New health effects assessments suggesting pote ntial for a lower MCLG and potential to set the MCL equal to a lower MCLG is not limite d by practical quantitation levels (PQLs)

• Analytical methods review findings i ndicating the potential for lower PQLs

• A health effects assessment is ongoing, but th e MCLG is less than the MCL and there is potential to lower the PQL, wh ich originally limited the MCLEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

1-2 EPA also reviewed the treatment feasibility for two contaminants that are regulated through TTs and are not the subjects of r ecent or ongoing regulatory action. Exhibit 1-1 identifies the contaminants included in the review.
Exhibit 1-1. Contaminants Included in this Treatment Technology Feasibility Review Contaminants regulated through MCLs and potential to revise the MCL New health effects assessment indicates potential MCLG decrease, PQL does not currently limit the MCL or there is potential to decrease PQL 1 2,4-D 2 Endothall 3 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 4 Oxamyl 5 Toluene 6 Xylenes

New health effects assessment, MCLG = 0, MCL = PQL and there is potential to decrease PQL 7 Benzene No new health effects assessment, MCL = PQ L and there is poten tial to decrease PQL 8 Chlordane 9 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 10 1,2-Dichloropropane 11 Heptachlor 12 Heptachlor epoxide 13 Hexachlorobenzene 14 Toxaphene 15 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 16 Vinyl chloride Ongoing health effects assessment, MCL > MCLG and there is potential to decrease PQL 17 Carbon tetrachloride 18 1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride) 19 Dichloromethane 20 Tetrachloroethylene 21 Trichloroethylene Contaminants regulated through TTs and potential to revise the TT 22 Acrylamide 23 Epichlorohydrin

This document primarily discusses best available technologies (BATs) specified by EPA to meet MCLs and technologies to meet TT-type NPDW Rs. It provides supplemental information on small systems compliance technologies and othe r related treatment information. EPA relies on available scientific and engineeri ng data to support this process. The purpose of this report is to document EPA’s evaluation of the potential for BATs to remove contaminants to achieve concentrations comparable to the estimated qua ntitation level (EQL) or health-based threshold for each contaminant. USEPA (2009c) provides a description of how EPA developed the EQLs or health-based thresholds. EPA used these th resholds to evaluate potential occurrence and exposure effects in addition to treatment feasibility. The end result of each of the followingEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

1-3 contaminant-specific reviews is a determination of whether treatment would pose a limitation to revising an NPDWR.

Section 2 provides background information on the methods the Agency used to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment technologies for c ontaminants regulated through MCLs. Section 3 presents the treatment review s for individual contaminants regulated through MCLs. Finally, section 4 provides a review of the potential to revise TTs for two contaminants (acrylamide and epichlorohydrin) regulated through this method.EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

2-1 

## 2 Measuring Treatment Effectiveness for Contaminants Regulated through MCLs

As discussed above, the treatment analysis in th is document uses treatment benchmarks for the contaminants that are based on either an EQL or a health-based threshold, which were developed for the Six-Year Review 2 occurrence analys is (USEPA, 2009c). EPA evaluated technology effectiveness against this benchm ark based on the following factors:

• Removal efficiency, which is measured as th e percentage of the influent concentration removed through treatment

• Qualitative conclusions about treatability fr om previous EPA rulemakings and other scientific and engineering sources

• Other, technology-specific measures, discussed in more detail below.

Aeration and carbon adsorption are the most common technologies used for the removal of the contaminants with MCLs in this document. The following discussion describes technologyspecific measures that EPA used in evaluating treatment effectiveness for these technologies.

In instances when BATs and/or small syst em compliance technologi es include aeration technologies, EPA uses the Henry’s Law cons tant as an indicato r of likely treatment effectiveness. Aeration technologies, which incl ude packed tower aera tion (PTA), multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, sha llow tray aeration, spray aera tion, and mechanical aeration, remove contaminants by passing air through the wate r to be treated. This process transfers, or “strips,” volatile contaminants from the water in to the air. The Henry’s Law constant provides a measure of the ease with which this stripping oc curs. The units for the Henry’s Law constant in this document are atmospheres-cubic meter (o f water) per cubic meter (of air) (atm m 3 /m 3 ); a higher Henry’s Law constant i ndicates greater strippability, a nd easier contaminant removal by aeration.

In instances when BATs and/or small system compliance technologies in clude carbon adsorption technologies, EPA uses bed life and carbon usag e rates as indicators of likely treatment effectiveness. The use of these i ndicators is a refinement of the method EPA previously used to assess treatment technology feasibility during First Six-Year Review. Carbon adsorption technologies, which include granular activ ated carbon (GAC), powdered activated carbon (PAC), and point-of-use granular activated carbon (POU-GAC), remove contaminants through adsorption onto a carbon media. In GAC and POU-GAC, water to be treated passes through a fixed bed of the media; in PAC, the media is mixe d into the water to be treated. In either case, the media has a specific capacity for adsorbi ng a given contaminant. In GAC and POU-GAC, once this capacity is exhausted, the media must be removed and regenerated or replaced with fresh media. In PAC, this capacity influen ces the quantity, or “dose,” of powdered carbon required to remove the contaminant. In either case, the length of time for which the carbon retains its capacity to absorb target contaminan ts provides a measure of treatment feasibility and effectiveness. For example, a GAC medium will be more useful for a contaminant that it can continue to remove for several months than for a contaminant that exhausts its capacity quickly. With GAC treatment, this length of time is typical ly called “bed life,” and can be measured inEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

2-2 months, or in the volume of water treated, ca lled “bed volumes.” A nother measure of carbon capacity is carbon usage rate, with units of pounds of carbon us ed per 1,000 gallons of water treated (lbs/1,000 gal). A lower carbon usage rate re flects a greater capacity for the contaminant, and more efficient treatment.EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-1 

## 3 Treatment Reviews for Contaminants Regulated Through MCLs

The results of EPA’s review of h ealth effects or analytical feas ibility indicated the potential to revise the NPDWRs for each of the contaminants in this section. Consequently, EPA reviewed treatment feasibility for each to determine whethe r treatment feasibility would limit the potential to revise. Each treatment re view includes the following:

• The current MCL for the contaminant and the EQL or health-based threshold developed during Six-Year Review 2

• Identification of current BATs and small system compliance technologies

• Where appropriate, identific ation of new or emerging treatment technologies

• Available information on the treatment eff ectiveness of these technologies for the contaminant

• Discussion of whether treatment is known to be a limiting concern under the current NPDWR

• A conclusion regarding whether treatment would be expected to be a limiting concern should the Agency revise the NPDWR.

Based on the treatment reviews, EPA did not identify limitations of BAT, small system compliance technologies, or emerging technolog ies to achieve the EQL or health-based thresholds for most of the contaminants regu lated through MCLs. However, for oxamyl, data on removal efficiency and a lack of demonstrated treatment effectiveness at low concentrations suggest potential for limitation at concentrations as low as the health-based threshold. Similarly, for 1,2-dichloropropane, treatment to the estimat ed quantitation level may not be feasible. Exhibit 3-1 summarizes these results.


### 3.1 2,4-D The current MCL for 2,4-D is 0.07 mg/L and th e current BAT is GAC (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologi es include: GAC, PAC, and POU-GAC (USEPA, 1998). The health-based threshold used for the Six-Year Review 2 is 0.04 mg/L (USEPA, 2009f).

According to the World Health Organization (W HO), the achievable GAC removal efficiency for 2,4-D is more than 80%, to concentrati ons lower than 0.0001 mg /L (WHO, 2006). Carbon usage rates for 2,4-D (0.1224 lbs/1,000 gal) are re latively low compared with other organic contaminants, indicating good treatment feasibility (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern for the current MCL for 2,4-D. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatment technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the health-based threshold of 0.04 mg/L.EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-2 Exhibit 3-1. Summary of Treatment F easibility Review for Contaminants Regulated through MCLs

Contaminant Current MCL (mg/L) Threshold Evaluated

(mg/L) BAT Treatment Limitation Potential 2,4-D 0.07 0.04 GAC 1 No Endothall 0.1 0.05 GAC 1 No Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 0.04 GAC and PTA 2 No Oxamyl 0.2 0.002 GAC 1,3 Uncertain Toluene 1.0 0.6 GAC and PTA 4 No Xylenes 10.0 1.0 GAC and PTA 4 No Benzene 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 3,4 No Chlordane 0.002 0.001 GAC 1 No

DBCP 0.0002 0.0001 GAC and PTA 5 No 1,2-dichloropropane 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 4 Uncertain Heptachlor 0.0004 0.0001 GAC 1 No Heptachlor epoxide 0.0002 0.0001 GAC 1 No Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 0.0001 GAC 1 No Toxaphene 0.003 0.001 GAC 1 No 1,1,2-trichloroethane 0.005 0.003 GAC and PTA 4 No Vinyl chloride 0.002 0.0005 PTA 4 No Carbon tetrachloride 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 4 No

1,2-dichloroethane (ethylene dichloride) 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 4 No

Dichloromethane 0.005 0.0005 PTA 4 No Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 4 No

Trichloroethylene 0.005 0.0005 GAC and PTA 6 No 1. Small system compliance technologies are: GAC, PAC, and POU-GAC. 2. Small system compliance technologies are: GAC, POU-GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, and shallow tray aeration. 3. Although not currently listed as BAT, promising emerging technologies include: RO, RO followed by GAC, and advanced oxidation (ultraviolet light combined with ozone) followed by GAC. 4. Small system compliance technologies are: GAC, PTA, di ffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, and shallow tray aeration. 5. Small system compliance technologies are: GAC, PAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, and shallow tray aeration. 6. Small system compliance technologies are: GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubbl e aeration, tray aeration, shallow tray aeration, spray aeration, and mechanical aeration. BAT = best available technologies DBCP = 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane GAC = granular activated carbon MCL = maximum contaminant level Mg/L = milligrams per liter PAC = powdered activated carbon POU = point-of-use PTA = packed tower aeration RO = reverse osmosisEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-3 

### 3.2 Endothall The current MCL for endothall is 0.1 mg/L and the current BAT is GAC (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologi es include: GAC, PAC, and POU-GAC (USEPA, 1998). The health-based threshold used for the Six-Year Review 2 is 0.05 mg/L (USEPA, 2009f).

In proposing GAC as the BAT for endothall, EPA concluded that GAC is effective in removing synthetic organic compounds (SOCs) including endothall (55 FR 30370, July 25, 1990), based on model predictions that took in to account endothal l’s chemical/physical characteristics. Subsequent treatability studies in support of the final EPA ru lemaking demonstrated that GAC was as effective as predicted by the model (57 FR 31776, July 17, 1992).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting con cern for the current MCL for endothall. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatmen t technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the health-based threshold of 0.05 mg/L.


### 3.3 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene The current MCL for hexachlorocyclopentadiene is 0.05 mg/L and the current BATs are GAC and PTA (40 CFR 141.61). Small system complia nce technologies include: GAC, POU-GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aerati on, tray aeration, and shallow tray aeration (USEPA, 1998). The health-based threshold us ed for the Six-Year Review 2 is 0.04 mg/L (USEPA, 2009f).

EPA has categorized hexachlorocyclopentadie ne among the more volatile SOCs (55 FR 30370, July 25, 1990). For the volatile SOCs, properl y designed PTA facilitie s can achieve removal efficiencies of 90% to more than 99% (55 FR 30370, July 25, 1990). For hexachlorocyclopentadiene, Henry’s Law constants reported in several so urces are high, ranging from 0.6701 to 1.105 atm m 3 /m 3 , indicating good treatment feas ibility (Sander, 1999). EPA has concluded that GAC also is effective in re moving SOCs including hexachlorocyclopentadiene (55 FR 30370, July 25, 1990).

Treatment is not known to be a limiti ng concern for the current MCL for hexachlorocyclopentadiene. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatment technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the health-based threshold of 0.04 mg/L.


### 3.4 Oxamyl The current MCL for oxamyl is 0.2 mg/L and the current BAT is GAC (40 CFR 141.61). The health-based threshold used for the Six-Year Review 2 is 0.002 mg/L (USEPA, 2009f). Small system compliance technologi es include: GAC, PAC, and POU-GAC (USEPA, 1998). In addition, EPA’s Environmental Technology Verifi cation (ETV) Program recently verified the performance of several POU devices for removal of chemical contaminants including oxamyl. The emerging technologies tested in the ETV ve rifications included reverse osmosis, reverse osmosis followed by GAC, and advanced oxidation (ultraviolet light combined with ozone) followed by GAC (NSF, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2006, 2007a).EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-4 GAC removal efficiency for oxamyl ranges from 85% to 95%, depending on design parameters (USEPA, 1990). The ETV test of a POU device using advanced oxidation followed by GAC verified that the GAC filter component of the device removed greater than 98% of oxamyl from an influent concentration of 1.1 mg/L (NSF, 2005c).

The ETV tests of POU devices using reverse osmosis verified that the reverse osmosis components of these devices removed 99% or more of oxamyl from influent concentrations of 0.98 to 1.1 mg/L. Because of the high removals us ing the reverse osmosis components alone, the verifications did not test the GAC components of those devices that included the technology for oxamyl removal (NSF, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007a).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concer n for the current MCL for oxamyl. Given the above data on removal efficiency (85% to 98% for GAC and 99% for reverse osmosis) and a lack of demonstrated treatment effectivene ss at low concentrations, however, treatment technology could pose a limitation at concentrations as low as the health-based threshold of 0.002 mg/L.



### 3.5 Toluene The current MCL for toluene is 1 mg/L and the current BATs are GAC and PTA (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologies include: GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multistage bubble aeration, tray aerati on, and shallow tray aeration (U SEPA, 1998). The health-based threshold used for the Six-Year Re view 2 is 0.6 mg/L (USEPA, 2009f).

According to the WHO, the achievable air strippi ng removal efficiency for toluene is more than 80%, to concentrations lower than 0.001 mg/L (WHO, 2006). For PTA, fi eld studies performed in three States demonstrated a removal efficien cy of greater than 96% for toluene and other contaminants, with initial concentrations of up to 0.6 mg/L (Ram et al., 1990 as cited in USEPA, 1998). Performance studies employing diffused aerati on to treat toluene and other contaminants have demonstrated 50% to 90% removal effici encies (USEPA, 1985 as cited in USEPA, 1998). For toluene, Henry’s Law constants reported in several sources are relatively high, ranging from 0.126 to 0.314 atm m 3 /m 3 , indicating good treatment feasibility (Sander, 1999; Cummins and Westrick, 1987). EPA has categorized toluene as a contaminant with good strippability (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).

According to the WHO, the achievable GAC removal efficiency for toluene is more than 80%, to concentrations lower than 0.001 mg/L (WHO, 2006). Carbon usage ra tes for toluene (0.3050 lbs/1,000 gal) are higher than for other organi c contaminants (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991). Although EPA found that GAC may be more than tw ice as expensive as PTA for large systems on a dollar per household per year basis, if off- gas control of PTA is necessary, then costs between PTA and GAC are more competitive (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern fo r the current MCL for toluene. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatment technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the health-based threshold of 0.6 mg/L.EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-5 

### 3.6 Xylenes The current MCL for total xylenes is 10 mg/L and the current BATs are GAC and PTA (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologies include: GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multistage bubble aeration, tray aerati on, and shallow tray aeration (U SEPA, 1998). The health-based threshold used for the Six-Year Review 2 is 1 mg/L (USEPA, 2009f).

According to the WHO, the achievable air strippi ng removal efficiency for xylenes is more than 80%, to concentrations lower than 0.005 mg/L (WHO, 2006). Performance studies for diffused aeration used to treat xylenes and other contam inants have demonstrated 50% to 90% removal efficiencies (USEPA, 1985 as cited in USEPA, 1998). For xy lenes, Henry’s Law constants reported in several sources are relativ ely high, ranging from 0.0973 to 0.341 atm m 3 /m 3

, indicating good treatment feasibility (Sander, 1999; Cummins and Westrick, 1987). EPA has categorized xylenes as a contaminant with good strippability (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).

According to the WHO, the achievable GAC remova l efficiency for xylenes is more than 80%, to concentrations lower than 0.005 mg/L (WHO, 2006). One case study, cited in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Adsorption Design Guide, shows GAC removal efficiencies for xylenes of greater than 99% at influent c oncentrations of 0.2 to 0.5 mg/L (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001). Carbon usage rates for xylenes (0.2148 to 0.3718 lbs/1,000 gal) are higher than for other organic contaminants (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991). Although EPA found that GAC may be more than twice as expensive as PTA for large systems on a dollar per household per year basis, if off-gas control of PTA is necessary, then costs between PTA and GAC are more competitive (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern for the current MCL for xylenes. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatment technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the health-based threshold of 1 mg/L.



### 3.7 Benzene The current MCL for benzene is 0.005 mg/L a nd the current BATs are GAC and PTA (40 CFR 141.61). The EQL used for the Six-Year Revi ew 2 is 0.0005 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c). Small system compliance technologies include: GAC , PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, and shallow tray ae ration (USEPA, 1998). In addition, EPA’s ETV Program recently verified the performance of several POU devices for removal of chemical contaminants including benzene. The emerging technologies tested in the ETV verifications included reverse osmosis, reverse osmosi s followed by GAC, and advanced oxidation (ultraviolet light combined with oz one) followed by GAC (NSF, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2006, 2007a).

EPA pilot studies using PTA at more than 30 si tes showed greater than 99% volatile organic compound (VOC) removals to be achievable. Ba sed on these and other studies, EPA concluded that PTA systems designed using reasonable engi neering practices could achieve 99% removal of nine VOCs, including benzene, under all antic ipated circumstances. Removal could be as high as 99.9% under optimum conditions (50 FR 46902, November 13, 1985). For benzene, Henry’s Law constants in several sources are re latively high, rangi ng from 0.0584 to 0.341 atm m 3 /m 3

,EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-6 indicating good treatment feasibility (Sander, 1999; Crittenden, 1988; Cummins and Westrick, 1987).

EPA has concluded that GAC can achieve a hi gh level of removal of most VOCs. Although carbon usage rates are significantly higher for benzene than other VOCs, EPA concluded that removal is still feasible using GAC (50 FR 46902, November 13, 1985). One case study cited in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Adsorption Design Guide shows a GAC removal efficiency for benzene of greater than 99% at an influent concentration of 0.4 mg/L (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001). The ETV test of a POU device using advanced oxidation followed by GAC verified that the GAC filter component of the de vice removed greater than 99% of benzene, from an influent concentration of 0.44 mg/L (NSF, 2005c).

The ETV tests of POU devices using reverse osmosis verified that the reverse osmosis components of these devices removed 85% to gr eater than 99% of benzene, from influent concentrations of 0.68 to 1.1 mg/L. Because of the high removals using the reverse osmosis components alone, the verifications did not test the GAC components of those devices that included the technology for benzen e removal (NSF, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007a).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern fo r the current MCL for benzene. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatment technology w ould not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.0005 mg/L.



### 3.8 Chlordane The current MCL for chlordane is 0.002 mg/L and the current BAT is GAC (40 CFR 141.61). The EQL used for the Six-Year Review 2 is 0.001 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c). Small system compliance technologies include: GAC , PAC, and POU-GAC (USEPA, 1998).

According to the WHO, the achie vable air stripping removal efficiency for chlordane is more than 80%, to concentrations lower than 0.0001 mg/L (WHO, 2006). Carbon usage rates for chlordane (0.0379 lbs/1,000 gal) ar e lower than for other organi c contaminants, indicating good treatment feasibility (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concer n for the current MCL for chlordane. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatmen t technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.001 mg/L.


### 3.9 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) The current MCL for DBCP is 0.0002 mg/L and the current BATs are GAC and PTA (40 CFR 141.61). The EQL used for the Six-Year Revi ew 2 is 0.0001 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c). Small system compliance technologies include: GAC, PA C, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, and shallo w tray aeration (USEPA, 1998).

The Henry’s Law constant (0.00486 atm m 3 /m 3 ) for DBCP is at least an order of magnitude lower than for other contaminants such as benzene (Cummins and Westrick, 1987). EPA has categorized DBCP as a contaminant with diffi cult strippability (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-7 Carbon usage rates for DBCP are significantl y lower (0.0448 lbs/1,000 ga l) than for other organic contaminants, indicati ng good treatment feasibility (5 6 FR 3526, January 30, 1991). The City of Redlands, California, operates a GAC treatment plant to remove DBCP and trichloroethylene (TCE) from groundwater. Th e carbon adsorbers typically operate for 18 months between reactivations (GWRTAC, 2001). Thus, while both aeration and carbon adsorption are BATs, adsorption may, in some cases, be the preferred treatment.

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern for the current MCL for DBCP. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatment technology w ould not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.0001 mg/L.


### 3.10 1,2-Dichloropropane The current MCL for 1,2-dichloropropane is 0.00 5 mg/L and the current BATs are GAC and PTA (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologies include: GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aera tion, tray aeration, and shallo w tray aeration (USEPA, 1998). The EQL used for the Six-Year Revi ew 2 is 0.0005 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).

Performance studies for diffused aeration us ed to treat 1,2-dichloropropane and other contaminants have demonstrated 50% to 90% removal efficiencies (USEPA, 1985 as cited in USEPA, 1998). For 1,2-dichloropropane, Henry’s La w constants reported in several sources are moderately high, ranging from 0.0481 to 0.136 atm m 3 /m 3 , indicating good treatment feasibility (Sander, 1999; Cummins and Westrick, 1987). EP A has categorized 1,2-dichloropropane as a contaminant with average strippa bility (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).

According to the WHO, the achie vable GAC removal efficiency for 1,2-dichloropropane is more than 80%, to concentrations lower than 0.001 mg/L (WHO, 2006). Carbon usage rates for 1,2- dichloropropane (0.2857 lbs/1,000 gal) are somewhat higher than for other organic contaminants (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991). Although EPA found that GAC may be more than twice as expensive as PTA for large system s on a dollar per household per year basis, if off-gas control of PTA is necessary, then costs between PTA and GAC are more competitive (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concer n for the current MCL for 1,2-dichloropropane. However, given the above data (removal effi ciency 50% to 90% for aeration, with only moderately high Henry’s Law consta nts; removal efficiency more than 80%, to concentrations lower than 0.001 mg/L, for GAC), treatment tech nology could pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.0005 mg/L.


### 3.11 Heptachlor The current MCL for heptachlor is 0.0004 mg/L and the current BAT is GAC (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologies in clude: GAC, PAC, and POU-GAC (USEPA, 1998). The EQL used for the Six-Year Revi ew 2 is 0.0001 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).

Carbon usage rates for heptachlor are significant ly lower (0.0556 lbs/1,000 gal) than for other organic contaminants, indicati ng good treatment feasibility (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-8 Treatment is not known to be a limiting concer n for the current MCL for heptachlor. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatmen t technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.0001 mg/L.


### 3.12 Heptachlor Epoxide The current MCL for heptachlor epoxide is 0.00 02 mg/L and the current BAT is GAC (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologies include: GAC, PAC, and POU-GAC (USEPA, 1998). The EQL used for the Six-Year Re view 2 is 0.0001 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).

Carbon usage rates for heptachlor epoxide are si gnificantly lower (0.0271 lbs/1,000 gal) than for other organic contaminants, indicating good tr eatment feasibility (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991). EPA has categorized heptachl or epoxide as a strongly adso rbed organic contaminant (54 FR 22062, May 22, 1989).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concer n for the current MCL for heptachlor epoxide. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatment technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.0001 mg/L.



### 3.13 Hexachlorobenzene

The current MCL for hexachlorobenzene is 0.00 1 mg/L and the current BAT is GAC (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologies include: GAC, PAC, and POU-GAC (USEPA, 1998). The EQL used for the Six-Year Re view 2 is 0.0001 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).

EPA has categorized hexachlorobenzene among m oderately adsorbed contaminants, exhibiting an intermediate carbon usage rate (55 FR 30370, July 25, 1990). The agency concluded that GAC is effective in removing SOCs includi ng hexachlorobenzene (55 FR 30370, July 25, 1990).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern for the current MCL for hexachlorobenzene. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatment technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the health-bas ed threshold of 0.0001 mg/L.


### 3.14 Toxaphene The current MCL for toxaphene is 0.003 mg/L and the current BAT is GAC (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologies in clude: GAC, PAC, and POU-GAC (USEPA, 1998). The EQL used for the Six-Year Revi ew 2 is 0.001 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).

Carbon usage rates for toxaphene are significantly lo wer (0.0432 lbs/1,000 gal) than for other organic contaminants, indicat ing good treatment feasibility (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern for the current MCL for toxaphene. The Agency's current assessment is that treatmen t technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.001 mg/L.EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-9 

### 3.15 1,1,2-Trichloroethane The current MCL for 1,1,2-trichloroethane is 0.005 mg/L and the current BATs are GAC and PTA (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologies include: GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aera tion, tray aeration, and shallo w tray aeration (USEPA, 1998). The health-based threshold used for the Six-Year Review 2 is the curr ent MCLG of 0.003 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).

EPA indicates that 1,1,2-trichloroethane may be among the less volatile organic chemicals (55 FR 30370, July 25, 1990). Still, for 1,1,2-trichloroe thane, Henry’s Law constants reported in several sources are moderately high, ranging from 0.0314 to 0.0487 atm m 3 /m 3 , indicating good treatment feasibility (Sander, 1999).

For carbon adsorption, EPA has categorized 1,1,2- trichloroethane among moderately adsorbed contaminants, exhibiting an intermediate car bon usage rate (55 FR 30370, July 25, 1990).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern for the current MCL for 1,1,2-trichloroethane. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatment technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the health-bas ed threshold of 0.003 mg/L. 

### 3.16 Vinyl Chloride The current MCL for vinyl chloride is 0.002 mg /L and the current BAT is PTA (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologies include : GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, and shallow tray aeration (USEPA, 1998). The EQL used for the Six-Year Review 2 is 0.0005 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).

EPA pilot studies at more than 30 sites showed that PTA can achieve greater than 99% VOC removals. Because vinyl chloride is more eas ily removed by aeration than other VOCs, EPA concluded that PTA systems designed using r easonable engineering practices could achieve 99.9% removal of vinyl chloride under most circumstances (50 FR 46902, November 13, 1985). Case studies using spray aeration demonstrated greater than 99% removal for vinyl chloride and other contaminants, with initia l concentrations of 100 to 200 mg/L (USEPA, 1985 as cited in USEPA, 1998). For vinyl chloride , Henry’s Law constants reported in several sources are very high, ranging from 0.889 to 265 atm m 3 /m 3 , indicating very good treatment feasibility (Sander, 1999; Crittenden, 1988; Cummins and Westrick, 1987; Rausch ert Industries, undated).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern for the current MCL for vinyl chloride. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatmen t technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.0005 mg/L.



### 3.17 Carbon Tetrachloride

The current MCL for carbon tetrachloride is 0.00 5 mg/L and the current BATs are GAC and PTA (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologies include: GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aera tion, tray aeration, and shallo w tray aeration (USEPA, 1998). The EQL used for the Six-Year Revi ew 2 is 0.0005 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-10 EPA pilot studies at more than 30 sites showed that PTA can achieve greater than 99% VOC removals. Based on these and other studies, EP A concluded that PTA systems designed using reasonable engineering practices could achieve 99% removal of nine VOCs, including carbon tetrachloride, under all anticipat ed circumstances. Removal could be as high as 99.9% under optimum conditions (50 FR 46902, November 13, 1985). For carbon tetrachloride, Henry’s Law constants reported in several source s are high, ranging from 0.204 to 1.36 atm m 3 /m 3 , indicating good treatment feasibility (Sa nder, 1999; Crittenden, 1988; Cummins and Westrick, 1987; Rauschert Industries, undated).

EPA indicates that GAC can achieve high leve l of removal (up to 99.9%) of VOCs, including carbon tetrachloride, under all anticipated conditions (50 FR 46902, November 13, 1985). Case studies cited in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Adsorption Design Guide show GAC removal efficiencies for carbon tetrachloride of great er than 99.9%, at influe nt concentrations of 1.0 to 135 mg/L (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern for the current MCL fo r carbon tetrachloride. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatment technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.0005 mg/L.


### 3.18 1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride) The current MCL for 1,2-dichloroethane is 0.005 mg/L and the current BATs are GAC and PTA (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technol ogies include: GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, and sh allow tray aeration (USEPA, 1998). The EQL used for the Six-Year Review 2 is 0.0005 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).

EPA pilot studies using PTA at more than 30 site s showed greater than 99% VOC removals to be achievable. Based on these and other studies, EP A concluded that PTA systems designed using reasonable engineering practices could achieve 99% removal of nine VOCs, including 1,2- dichloroethane, under all anticip ated circumstances. Removal could be as high as 99.9% under optimum conditions (50 FR 46902, November 13, 1985). For 1,2-dichloroethane, Henry’s Law constants reported in several sources are moderately high, ranging from 0.023 to 0.0639 atm

m 3 /m 3 , indicating good treatment feasibility (San der, 1999; Crittenden, 1988; Cummins and Westrick, 1987).

EPA has concluded that GAC can achieve a hi gh level of removal of most VOCs. Although carbon usage rates are significantly higher for 1,2-dichloroethane than other VOCs, EPA concluded that removal is still feasible using GAC ( 50 FR 46902, November 13, 1985).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern for the current MCL for 1,2-dichloroethane. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatmen t technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.0005 mg/L.



### 3.19 Dichloromethane

The current MCL for dichloromethane is 0.005 mg/L and the current BAT is PTA (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technologies include: GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-11 stage bubble aeration, tray aerati on, and shallow tray aeration (USEPA, 1998). The EQL used for the Six-Year Review 2 is 0.0005 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).

EPA has categorized dichloromethan e among the more volatile SOCs (55 FR 30370, July 25, 1990). For the volatile SOCs, properly designed PT A facilities can achieve removal efficiencies of 90% to 99% or more (55 FR 30370, July 25, 1990). For dichloromethane, Henry’s Law constants reported in several sources are moderately high, ranging from 0.0341 to 0.132 atm

m 3 /m 3 , indicating good treatment feasibility (Sande r, 1999). For GAC, EPA has concluded that the technology is capable of removing SOCs, but is a more costly technique than PTA for dichloromethane (55 FR 30370, July 25, 1990).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern for the current MCL for dichloromethane. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatmen t technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.0005 mg/L.


### 3.20 Tetrachloroethylene The current MCL for tetrachloroethylene is 0.005 mg/L and the current BATs are GAC and PTA (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technol ogies include: GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, and sh allow tray aeration (USEPA, 1998). The EQL used for the Six-Year Review 2 is 0.0005 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).

EPA pilot studies at more than 30 sites showed that PTA can achieve greater than 99% VOC removals. Based on these and other studies, EP A concluded that PTA systems designed using reasonable engineering practices could achie ve 99% removal of nine VOCs, including tetrachloroethylene, under all an ticipated circumstances. Removal could be as high as 99.9% under optimum conditions (50 FR 46902, Novemb er 13, 1985). According to the WHO, the achievable air stripping removal efficiency fo r tetrachloroethylene is more than 80%, to concentrations lower than 0.001 mg/L (WHO, 2006) . Field studies of PTA performed in three States demonstrated a removal efficiency of gr eater than 96% for tetrach loroethylene and other contaminants, with initial concentrations of up to 0.6 mg/L (Ram et al., 1990 as cited in USEPA, 1998). Performance studies employing multiple tray aeration to treat te trachloroethylene and other contaminants have demonstrated 50% to 90% removal efficiencies (USEPA, 1985 as cited in USEPA, 1998). For tetrachloroe thylene, Henry’s Law constants reported in several sources are high, ranging from 0.214 to 1.20 atm m 3 /m 3 , indicating good treatmen t feasibility (Sander, 1999; Cummins and Westrick, 198 7; Rauschert Industries, unda ted). EPA has categorized tetrachloroethylene as a cont aminant with good strippability (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).

According to the WHO, the achievable GAC remova l efficiency for tetrachloroethlyene is more than 80%, to concentrations lower than 0.005 mg/L (WHO, 2006). Case studi es cited in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Adsorption Design Guide show GAC removal efficiencies for tetrachloroethylene of greater th an 99.9%, at influent concentr ations of 4.5 to 170 mg/L (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001). EPA has conc luded that GAC can achieve a high level of removal (up to 99.9%) of VOCs, including tetrachl oroethlyene, under all anticipated conditions (50 FR 46902, November 13, 1985). Carbon usage rates for tetrachloroethylene (0.1144 lbs/1,000 gal) are relatively low compared w ith other organic contaminants, indicating good treatment feasibility (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

3-12 Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern for the current MCL for tetrachloroethylene. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatment technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.0005 mg/L.


### 3.21 Trichloroethylene The current MCL for trichloroethylene is 0.005 mg/L and the current BATs are GAC and PTA (40 CFR 141.61). Small system compliance technol ogies include: GAC, PTA, diffused aeration, multi-stage bubble aeration, tray aeration, shallow tray aeration, spray aeration, and mechanical aeration (USEPA, 1998). The EQL used for the Six-Year Review 2 is 0.0005 mg/L (USEPA, 2009c).

EPA pilot studies at more than 30 sites showed that PTA can achieve greater than 99% VOC removals. Based on these and other studies, EP A concluded that PTA systems designed using reasonable engineering practices could achie ve 99% removal of nine VOCs, including trichloroethylene, under all anticipated circumstances. Removal could be as high as 99.9% under optimum conditions (50 FR 46902, November 13, 1985). Field studies of PTA performed in three States demonstrated a removal efficiency of greater than 96% fo r trichloroethylene and other contaminants, with initial concentrations of up to 0.6 mg/L (Ram et al., 1990 as cited in USEPA, 1998). Performance studies employing multip le tray aeration to treat trichloroethylene and other contaminants have demonstrated 50% to 90% removal efficiencies (USEPA, 1985 as cited in USEPA, 1998). Other case studies using spray aeration demonstrat ed greater than 99% removal for trichloroethylene and other contamin ants, with initial concentrations of 100 to 200 mg/L (USEPA, 1985 as cited in USEPA, 1998). Fo r trichloroethylene, Henry’s Law constants reported in several sources are relativ ely high, ranging from 0.116 to 0.552 atm m 3 /m 3 , indicating good treatment feasibility (Sa nder, 1999; Crittenden, 1988; Cummins and Westrick, 1987; Rauschert Industries, undated).

Case studies cited in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Adsorption Design Guide show GAC removal efficiencies for trichloroe thylene of greater than 99.9%, at influent concentrations of 3 to 50 mg/L (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 200 1). EPA has concluded th at GAC can achieve a high level of removal (up to 99.9%) of VOCs, including trichloroethylene, under all anticipated conditions (50 FR 46902, November 13, 1985). The C ity of Redlands, California, operates a GAC treatment plant to remove trichloroeth ylene and DBCP from groundwater. The carbon adsorbers typically operate for 18 months between reactivations (GWRTAC, 2001).

Treatment is not known to be a limiting concern fo r the current MCL for trichloroethylene. The Agency’s current assessment is that treatmen t technology would not pose a feasibility limitation at the EQL of 0.0005 mg/L.EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

4-1 

## 4 Review of Treatment Techniques for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin

Acrylamide and epichlorohydrin are introduced in drinking water primarily as impurities in polymers and copolymers used for water treatment and in contact surfaces used in storage and distribution systems. EPA proposed drinking water regulations for acrylamide and epichlorohydrin in 1989 (54 FR 22062, May 22, 1989) and promulgated final drinking water regulations in 1991 (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991). As both these contaminants are classified as probable human carcinogens (B2), EPA establis hed the MCLGs for both at zero. EPA has regulated these contaminants using a treatment technique requirement in lieu of a MCL because of the absence of standardized analytical met hods for their measurement in water. The NPDWR limits the allowable monomer level in products used for water treatment and the dosage of polymers that contain them. EPA selected th is option because met hods are available for measurement of residual monomer in polymer produc ts and these levels are routinely measured by manufacturers. These levels are:

• Acrylamide: 0.05% residual acrylamide in polymers/copolymers and maximum dosage of 1 ppm (or equivalent)

• Epichlorohydrin: 0.01% residua l epichlorohydrin in polymers/copolymers and maximum dosage of 20 ppm (or equivalent).

The residual monomer level for each contaminan t was considered to be the lowest level manufacturers could feasibly achieve at the time EPA pr omulgated the regulation (54 FR 22062, May 22, 1989). A system can use third-party or manuf acturer’s certification in lieu of testing for the residual monomer level.

NSF International (NSF), a third party organizati on, tests and certifies water treatment chemicals that meet NSF/ANSI Standard 60, Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects , which sets out requirements for treatment chemical s based on human health protection (NSF, 1999a). The requirements for acrylamide- and epichloroh ydrin-based polymers in Standard 60 are based on EPA’s treatment technique requ irements. Thus, NSF 60 certifica tion of a polymeric coagulant aid containing acrylamide or epic hlorohydrin indicates that users are in compliance with EPA’s regulation when a product is used as specified (i.e., for the intended purpose and up to the maximum usage level indicated by NSF).

EPA obtained data during Six-Y ear Review 2 indicating that potential improvements in the technology or manufacturing now allow production of the polymer with lower resi dual monomer content. This new information viewed in conjun ction with regulations and guidelines in other countries suggests there is poten tial for EPA to revise its TT re quirement to reflect a lower feasible monomer content.EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

4-2 

### 4.1 Improvements in Manufacturing In 2007, NSF provided EPA with results of N SF analyses between January 2005 and June 2007 of acrylamide monomer in polyacrylamides and free epichlorohydrin in polyamines. 1 NSF performed the analyses for approval of thes e products against NSF/ANSI Standard 60. Exhibit 4-1 provides a summary of the results. The Appendi x contains the data NSF provided to EPA.

Residual levels in the products tested and certif ied are well below the residual levels in the current TTs. The mean concentration among acrylamid e tests is about one-fi fth the residual level in the current TT, and the 90th pe rcentile result is one-half the residual level in the current TT. All analyses for residual epichlor ohydrin were non-detects, with a detection limit equal to onefifth the residual level in the current TT.
Exhibit 4-1. Summary of NSF Internationa l Product Testing Results for Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin Summary of Results (mg/kg)

Contaminant Number of Analyses and Detections 1 Detection Limit (mg/kg) Maximum 90 th Percentile Mean 2 Median 2 Minimum Current TT (mg/kg) 3 Acrylamide 4 66 [45] 10 420 250 98 60 10 500 Epichlorohydrin 5 84 [0] 20 NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA = not applicable – all results are below the detection limit. 1. Total number of analyses appears first. The number of results above the detection limit appears second, in brackets. 2. Includes nondetected values for acrylamide, assumed to be 10 mg/kg. 3. TT residual monomer content converted from percent to mg/kg; 1 mg/kg = 1/10 6 = 0.000001 = 0.0001%. 4. Method: Per Skelly and Husser (1978). 5. Method: Per section B.4.3.1 in NSF 60-2005.



### 4.2 Regulations and Guidelines in Other Countries Regulations in other areas of the world are ge nerally more stringent than the current EPA NPDWR for acrylamide and epichl orohydrin in drinking water. Exhibit 4-2 provides a comparison of recommendations an d guidelines used elsewhere to EPA’s current regulations.

Canada has no national regulations regarding acrylamide or epichlorohydrin. However, many provinces require NSF 60 certification for additiv es used in drinking water treatment (Lemieux, 2007). The residual monomer and dosage requirem ents for NSF 60 certification are based on those in EPA’s current NPDWR.

1 NSF did not provide any confidential business information such as which manufacturers were included in the analyses. NSF only provided vectors of testing results.EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

4-3 Exhibit 4-2. Comparison of Acrylamide and Epichlorohydrin Drinking Water Guidelines Country/Region Regulation or Guidel ine Acrylamide Epichlorohydrin Residual Monomer 0.05% 0.01% Maximum Dosage 1 mg/L 20 mg/L US EPA Expected Concentration in Water 1 0.5 μ g/L 2 μ g/L Canada NSF 60 certification required in many provinces; see text below Residual Monomer 0.02% 0.002%
Maximum Dosage 0.25 mg/L (average) 0.5 mg/L (maximum) 2.5 mg/L (average) 5 mg/L (maximum) United Kingdom 2
Expected Concentration in Water 1 0.05 μ g/L (average) 0.1 μ g/L (maximum) 0.05 μ g/L (average) 0.1 μ g/L (maximum) European Union 3 Concentration in Water 0.1 μ g/L 0.1 μ g/L WHO 4 Concentration in Water 0.5 μ g/L 0.4 μ g/L Australia 5 Concentration in Water 0.2 μ g/L 0.5 μ g/L 1. The expected monomer concentration in water is the product of the maximum dosage and the residual monomer level, using the worst-case assu mption that all residual monomer remains in fi nished water. 2. DWI (2007) and Ashworth (2007). The UK limits both the average and the maximum polymer dose. 3. OJEC (1998). The concentration is “the residual monomer concentration in the water as calculated according to specifications of the maximum release from the corresponding polymer in contact with the water.” 4. WHO (2006). The World Health Organization’s recommendation for epichlorohydrin is a provisional guideline value because there is evidence of a hazard, but the avail able information on health effects is limited (WHO, 2004). 5. NHMRC (2004). The guideline value for epichlorohydrin is below the limit of determination; improved analytical procedures are required for this compound.EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

5-1 

## 5 References

Ashworth, J. 2007. Personal communicati on from John Ashworth, UK Drinking Water Inspectorate, to Jitendra Saxena, U.S. EPA. 10 May.

Crittenden, J. et al. 1988. “Using GAC to Re move VOCs from Air Stripper Off-Gas.” J.AWWA
, 80(5). (As cited in Clark, R. and J. Adams. EPA's Drinking Water and Groundwater Remediation Cost Evaluation: Air Stripping . Lewis Publishers.)

Cummins, M. and J. Westrick. 1987. “Feasibility of Air Stripping for Controlling Moderately Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals.” Pres ented at 1987 AWWA Conference. Reprinted in Best Available Technology Peer Review Conferen ce: Final Report . U.S. EPA.

Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), United Kingdom. 2007. List of Approved Products . July. http://www.dwi.gov.uk/31/pdf/soslist06.pdf

. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC). 2001. Technology Status Report: Perchlorate Treatment Technologies, First Edition . Pittsburgh, PA. May.

Lemieux, F. 2007. Personal commun ication from F. Lemieux, Hea lth Canada, to Rajiv Khera, U.S. EPA. 16 October.

National Health and Medicine Resear ch Council (NHMRC), Australia. 2004. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/public ations/synopses/eh19syn.htm

. NSF International (NSF). 1999a. NSF Drinking Water Additives Program: The Second Decade

. http://www.nsf.org/business/news room/waterworks99-1/index.html

. NSF International (NSF). 1999b. Summary Report: NSF International Extraction Results (1991 to 1998), ANSI/NSF Standard 61: Drinking Water System Component s – Health Effects. Report prepared for Health Canada. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ew h-semt/water-eau/drinkpotab/mater/nsf_components_e.html

. NSF International (NSF). 2000. Review of C ontaminant Occurrences in Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals: A Summary Report of NSF International Results (1991 to 1999), ANSI/NSF Standard 60: Dr inking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects. Report prepared for Health Canada. 31 March. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drinkpotab/mater/nsf_chemicals-chimiques_e.html

. NSF International (NSF). 2005a. Environmenta l Technology Verificati on Report: Removal of Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water, EcoWater Systems Incorporated ERO-R450E Drinking Water Treatment System. Prepared by NSF International under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency. NSF 05/14b/EP ADWCTR. September.

NSF International (NSF). 2005b. Environmental Technology Verification Report: Removal of Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water, Ki netico Incorporated Pall/Kinetico PurefectaTMEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

5-2 Drinking Water Treatment System. Prepared by NSF International under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency. NSF 05/13b/EP ADWCTR. September.

NSF International (NSF). 2005c. Environmenta l Technology Verificati on Report: Removal of Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water, Wa tts Premier Incorporated WP-4V Drinking Water Treatment System. Prepared by NSF International under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NSF 05/12c/EPADWCTR. November.

NSF International (NSF). 2006. Environmental Technology Verification Report: Removal of Chemical and Microbial Contaminan ts in Drinking Water, Watts Premier, Inc. M-2400 Point-ofEntry Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Treatment System. Prepared by NSF International under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NSF 06/23/EPADWCTR. September.

NSF International (NSF). 2007a. Environmenta l Technology Verificati on Report: Removal of Synthetic Organic Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water, RASco, Inc. Advanced Simultaneous Oxidation Process (ASOPTM). Prep ared by NSF Internati onal under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency. NSF 06/25/EP ADWCTR. September.

NSF International (NSF). 2007b. NSF Product and Service Listings: NSF/ANSI Standard 60: Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects . List of search results with Chemical Name equal to Polyacrylamide. Search performed 25 October. http://www.nsf.org/Certified/PwsChemicals/ Listings.asp?CompanyName=&TradeName=&Che micalName=Polyacrylamide&ProductF unction=&PlantState=&PlantCountry =.
NSF International (NSF). 2007c. NSF Product and Service Listings: NSF/ANSI Standard 60: Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects . List of search results with Chemical Name equal to Polyamines. Search performed 25 October. http://www.nsf.org/Certified/PwsChemicals/Li stings.asp?ChemicalName=Polyamines&Product Function=&PlantState=&PlantCountry=

.
NSF and Association of State Drinki ng Water Administrators (ASDWA). 2006. Survey of ASDWA Members: Use of NSF Standards and ETV Reports . March. http://www.nsf.org/business/wate r_distribution/pdf/ASDWA_Survey_2006.pdf

. Official Journal of the European Communitie s (OJEC). 1998. Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption.

Purkiss, D. 2007. Personal communication from D. Purkiss, N SF International, to Jitendra Saxena, U.S. EPA. 7 November.

Ram, N.M., R.F. Christ man, and K.P. Cantor. 1990. Significance and Treatment of Volatile Organic Compounds in Water Supplies . Lewis Publishers. (As cited in USEPA, 1998.)

Rauschert Industries, Inc. Undated. Removal of Volatile Organic Compounds from Water

. Brochure APP-02.EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

5-3 Sander, R. 1999. Compilation of Henry's Law Cons tants for Inorganic and Organic Species of Potential Importance in Envir onmental Chemistry (Version 3). http://www.mpchmainz.mpg.de/~sander/res/henry.html

Skelly, Norman E., and Edward R. Husser. 197 8. “Determination of Acrylamide Monomer in Polyacrylamide and in Environmental Sample s by High Performance Liquid Chromatography.” Analytical Chemistry , 50: 1959-1962. First page online at http://pubs3.acs.org/acs/journals /toc.page?incoden=ancham&indecade=3&involume=50&inissue =14

. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Adsorption Design Guide . Design Guide No. 1110-1-2. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corp s of Engineers. Washington, DC. 1 March. http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/design-guides/dg1110-1-2/entire.pdf

USEPA. 2009a. Analysis of Occurrence Data fr om the Second Six-Year Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Wate r Regulations. EPA 815-B-09-006.

USEPA. 2009b. Analytical Feasib ility Support Document for the Second Six-Year Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA 815-B-09-003.

USEPA. 2009c. Development of Estimated Quantit ation Levels for the Second Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinking Wa ter Regulations. EPA 815-B-09-005.

USEPA. 2009d. EPA Protocol for the Second Re view of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Upda ted). EPA 815-B-09-002.

USEPA. 2009e. Occurrence Analysis for Potent ial Source Waters for the Second Six-Year Review of National Primary Drinki ng Water Regulations. EPA 815-B-09-004.

USEPA. 2009f. Six-Year Review 2 – Health Effects Assessment – Summary Report. EPA 822- R-09-006.

USEPA. 2009g. Consideration of Other Regulatory Revisions in Support of the Second Six-Year Review of the National Primary Dri nking Water Regulations. EPA 815-B-09-008.

USEPA. 2007. Simultaneous Compliance Guidan ce Manual For The Long Term 2 And Stage 2 DBP Rules. Office of Wate r. EPA 815-R-07-017. March.

USEPA. 2003. EPA Protocol for Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA 815-R-03-002. June.

USEPA. 1999. Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced Precipitative Softening Guidance Manual. Office of Water. EPA 815-R-99-012. May.

USEPA. 1998. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non-Microbial Contaminants Regulated before 1996. Office of Wa ter. EPA 815-R-98-002. September.EPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

5-4 USEPA. 1990. Technologies and Costs for th e Removal of Phase V Synthetic Organic Chemicals from Potable Water Supplies. Office of Drinking Water. September.

USEPA. 1985. Technologies and Costs for the Re moval of Volatile Organic Chemicals from Potable Water Supplies. (A s cited in USEPA, 1998.)

World Health Organization (WHO). 2004. Epichlorohydrin in Drinking-water

. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/94.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality: Incorporating First Addendum, Vol. 1, Recommendations . 3rd Edition. World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.who.int/water_sanitatio n_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/index.htmlEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

A-1 

## Appendix: Monomer Data from NSF International In 2007, NSF International (NSF) pr ovided EPA with the results of NSF analyses of acrylamide monomer in polyacrylamides and free epichlor ohydrin in polyamines certified to NSF/ANSI Standard 60. The analyses were performed be tween January 2005 and June 2007. The data that NSF provided is reproduced here.

NSF determined the residual acry lamide content in 66 samples of commercial polyacrylamides, using the method described by Skelly and Husse r (1978) with a detec tion limit of 10 mg acrylamide per kg polymer. NSF provided only a vect or of test results; it did not provide manufacturer or product names or any other competition-sensitive information. Exhibit A-1 provides a frequency distribution for the data that NSF provided to EPA.

Exhibit A-1. NSF International Data on Acrylamide Monomer in Polyacrylamide Measurement (mg/kg) Number of Samples ND 1 21 10 2 20 1 30 2 40 6 60 2 70 3 80 2 90 2 100 3 110 1 120 1 140 3 150 2 170 2 180 2 210 2 220 2 280 1 320 2 340 1 360 1 410 1 420 1 ND = nondetect. 1. Detection limit was 10 mg/kg.

NSF provided EPA with measurements of the am ount of residual epichl orohydrin in 84 samples of commercial polyamines, usi ng the method described in sec tion B.4.3.1 of NSF 60-2005 with a detection limit of 20 mg epichlorohydrin per kg polymer. NSF provided onl y a vector of testEPA-OGWDW Water Treatment Technology Feasibility Support EPA 815-B-09-007 Document for Chemical Contaminants for the Second Six-Year October 2009 Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

A- 2 results, with no manufacturer or product names or other competi tion-sensitive information. None of the 84 measurements found epichlorohydrin in a concentration greater th an the detection limit.