# Possib le Contaminants for Inclusion on UCMR 3 – Information CompendiumOffice of Water (4607 M ) EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010 http://water.epa.gov/drink/EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

i 

## Contents
Introduction

................................................................................................ ........................................................ 1 17

- β -Estradiol

................................................................................................ ..................................................... 5 17

- α
- Ethynylestradiol (Ethinyl estradiol)

....................................................................................................... 9 16

- α -Hydroxyestradiol (Estriol)

..................................................................................................................... 13 Equilin

................................................................................................ ............................................................... 15 Estrone

................................................................................................ .............................................................. 17 Testosterone

................................................................................................ ..................................................... 21 4-Androstene- 3,17 -dione

................................................................................................ ................................ 23 1,2,3 -Trichloropropane

................................................................................................ ................................... 25 1,3 -Butadiene

................................................................................................ .................................................... 29 Chloromethane (Methyl chloride)

................................................................................................................. 31 1,1 -Dichloroethane

................................................................................................ .......................................... 35 n-Propylbenzene

................................................................................................ .............................................. 39 Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)

................................................................................................................. 43
sec -Butylbenzene

................................................................................................ .............................................. 49 Chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC- 22)

............................................................................................................. 53 Bromochloromethane (Halon 1011)

............................................................................................................. 55 1,4 -Dioxane

................................................................................................ ....................................................... 59 Vanadium

................................................................................................ .......................................................... 61 Molybdenum

................................................................................................ ..................................................... 63 Cobalt

................................................................................................ ................................................................ . 65 Strontium

................................................................................................ .......................................................... 69 Chlorate

................................................................................................ ............................................................. 73 Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS)

.......................................................................................................... 75 Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)

................................................................................................................... 79 Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA)

.................................................................................................................. 83 Perfluorohexanesulfonic Acid (PFHxS)

....................................................................................................... 87 P erfluoroheptanoic Acid (PFHpA)

............................................................................................................... 91 Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid (PFBS)

.......................................................................................................... 93 Appendix A – Persistence and Mobility

....................................................................................................... 95 Appendix B – Initial List of Chemical Contaminants

................................................................................ 97EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

ii [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

1 of 99 

## Introduction The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (section 1445) require the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations for the monitoring of unregulated contaminants. T he 1996 SDWA amendments specify that EPA develop a new list of not more than 30 contaminants every 5 years for public water system (PWS) monitoring. The general structure of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring ( UCMR ) p rogram was established during the first 5

- year cycle of UCMR (UCMR 1 : 2001

– 2005 ), and divided the contaminants among three separate monitoring program components , related in part to the availability, cost, and efficacy of analytical methods. The second cycle of UCMR ( UCMR 2 : 2007

– 201 1 ) is currently being implemented

. In establishing its proposed list of contaminants for the third UCMR cycle ( UCMR 3) , EPA used a stepwise prioritization process similar to the process used for UCMR 1 and 2 . As a first step, the Agency reviewed the recently promulgated CCL 3 and the “pre

- CCL” contaminants considered in the development of CCL 3. Under the CCL 3 pro cess, the Agency considered the best available data and information on health effects and occurrence to evaluate 7,500 unregulated contaminants. The final CCL 3 is comprised of 104 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbiological contaminants that were selected through a data

- driven process that considered adverse health effects (potency and severity) and occurrence (prevalence and magnitude). The list includes pesticides, biological toxins, disinfection byproducts, chemicals used in commerce, and waterb orne pathogens ( 74 FR 51850, October 8, 2009 [ USEPA, 2009 ] ). EPA used CCL 3, along with additional sources of information about other emerging contaminants of concern, to establish an initial list of almost 150 potential UCMR 3 contaminants. Appendix B, “ Initial List of Contaminants Considered for UCMR 3”, pr esents the initial list of contaminants that EPA considered , and includes indicators for which contaminants were listed as part of CCL 3 or other CCL / UCMR lists. The last column of the Appendix B table indicates the reason each contaminant was eliminated , if applicable

. The proposed contaminant list for UCMR 3 was pared down as follows: (1) contaminants with no currently available methods, or methods that would not be ready in time for UCMR 3 monitoring , were eliminated and (2) those contaminants included in UCMR 1 or UCMR 2 monitoring were eliminated from inclusion. This narrowed list of fewer than 35 analytes was further considered by an EPA and State working group, and prioritized using health effects data and other critical endpoints, to arrive at a proposed list of 28 chemical analytes ( listed in Exhibit 1 , below)

. In addition, 2 microbial analytes are proposed for inclusion in UCMR 3. These are addressed in more detail in the proposed rule preamble

. This document contains information sheets for the 28 chemical contaminants proposed for UCMR 3. These were compiled by EPA for consideration and comparison of critical endpoints

. The primary source of this information is CCL 3. In addition, preliminary o ccurrence data are included that were collected as part of EPA’s second Six

- Year Review of N ational P rimary D rinking W ater R egulation s (75 FR 15500, March 29, 2010 [ USEPA, 2010 ] ). Where newer or additional information was available , and for those contamina nts that were not part of CCL 3, references are provided separately. Information for e ach of the chemicals generally includes five sections:

**•** Background & Use

-- includes, where available: analyte use, chemical class, and synonym information.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

2 of 99 **•** Health Effects -- includes , where available: Reference Dose (RfD), Minimal Risk Level (MRL), No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL), slope factor, Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), and cancer class data. Non

cancer d ata are generally presen ted and grouped first in this section; cancer data second. Also presented are n on- cancer and cancer Health Reference Level s (HRL s), which are derived based on key health endpoints.
**•** Production & Release

-- includes, where available: Nation al Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) Pesticide Use Database, United States Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide Use Maps, Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR), Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), estimated usage published in the O ffice of Pesticide Programs Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( OPP RED ), and High Production Volume (HPV) data.
**•** Occurrence in Water -- includes, where available: raw and finished drinking water and ambient water data.
**•** Persistence & Mobility

-- includes , where available: water solubility, organic carbon partitioning coefficient (K oc

), octanol- water partitioning coefficient (logK ow ), Henry’s law constant (K H

), Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) (PBT Profiler), and estimated biodegradation half- life data (see Appendix A for further explanation of the mobility scales developed and used by the CCL 3 workgroup).

Exhibit 1: 28 Proposed UCMR 3 Chemical Analytes 7 Hormones : 17

- β

- estradiol estrone 17

- α - ethynylestradiol (ethinyl estradiol) testosterone 16

- α - hydroxy estradiol ( estriol ) 4- androstene

- 3,17

- dione equilin 9 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC s ): 1,2,3

- trichloropropane bromomethane (methyl bromide) 1,3

- butadiene s ec - butylbenzene
c hloromethane (methyl chloride) c hlorodifluoromethane (HCFC

- 22) 1,1

- dichloroethane b romochloromethane (halon 1011)
n- propylbenzene Synthetic Organic Compound:

1,4

- dioxane 4 Metal s: vanadium cobalt molybdenum strontium Oxyhalide An ion : chlorateEPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

3 of 99 Exhibit 1: 28 Proposed UCMR 3 Chemical Analytes 6 Perfluorinated Chemicals: perfluorooctane sulfonic (PFOS) perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)

R eferences USEPA. 2009. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3

– Final. Federal Register . Vol. 74, No. 194, p. 51850, October 8, 2009. USEPA. 2010. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Announcement of the Results of EPA’s Review of Existing Drinking Water Standards and Request for Public Comment and/or Information on Related Issues; Notice. Federal Register . Vol. 75, No. 59, p. 15500, March 29, 2010.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

4 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

5 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet 17
- β
- Estradiol CASRN: 50

- 28 -2
Background & Use

**•** 17

- β -Estradiol is an estrogenic hormone and is used in pharmaceuticals.
**•** Names & Synonyms: 17

- β

- Estradiol; Estradiol; Oestradiol; E2

. **•** 17

- β -Estradiol is one of 104 currently unregulated chemicals on CCL 3.
**•** Res earch has indicated that oxidative treatment of aqueous solutions of 17- β -estradiol with sodium hypochlorite results in a reduction in the estrogenic activity of the solution after two to three hours (Hu, et al., 2003).
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : 39 ( mg/kg/day) -1 ( California Office of Environmenta l Health and Hazard Assessment [

OEHHA ] Oral Slope Factor ).
**•** ADI : 0.00005 mg/kg/day, associated with estrogenic hormonal response ( Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives [ JECF A] Acceptable Daily Intake [ADI] ).
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– 1 – the agent is carcinogenic to humans ( International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Cancer Class ).

– Listed ( State of Californ ia List of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer ).

– Listed ( University of Maryland’s Partial List of Teratogens ).
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL :

– 0.35 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the JECFA ADI of 0.00005 mg/kg/day.

– 0.009 μg/L for cancer effe cts in drinking water based on the OEHHA oral slope factor of 39 ( mg/kg/day) -1 ( set at 10 - 5 risk level ).
Production & Release

**•** No data for production and release.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

6 of 99 Occurrence in Water

**•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999

– Present): data sub mission to STORET is voluntary ; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: no ground water data were reported.

– Surface Water: detects in 1 4 ( 7.45 %) of 188 samples; detects were from 14 ( 10

. 77 %) of the 1 3 0 sites; detects w ere from 2 states; detects ranged from 0

– 2,21 0 μg/L.

**•** Colorado Surface Water (2000) : not detected in 8 samples; wastewater effluent samples were excluded (Barber, et al., 2003).
**•** Louisiana Raw and Finished Waters (2001) : not detected in 4 samples (Boyd, et al., 2003)

. **•** Chesapeake Bay Tributaries (2004) : detects in 6 (100%) of 6 Chesapeake Bay water samples at concentrations ranging from 0.0023

– 0.0032 μg/L ; detects in 3 (100%) of 3 pond samples at concentrations ranging from 0.0017

– 0.0076 μg/L ; detects in 6 (100%) of 6 river samples at concentrations ranging from 0. 0019

– 0.006 μg/L (Dorabawila and Gupta, 2005)

. **•** Missouri Surface Water (2004

– 2005): reported detections ranged from 0.0016

– 0.0198 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00576 μg/L ; note that the number of detects in 25 samples was not reported (Filali

- Meknassi, et al., 2007).
**•** California Surface Water (1999) : detected at 3 (100%) of the 3 sites at concentrations ranging from 0.00005

– 0.0008 μ g/L and a median concentration of 0.00008 μ g/L (Hua ng and Sedlak, 2001).
**•** National Surface Water Reconnaissance (1999

– 2000): detects in 7 (10%) of 70 samples using one method at a median concentration of 0.009 μg/L and a maximum concentration of 0.093 μg/L; detects in 9 (10.6%) of 85 samples using another method at a median concentration of 0.16 μg/L and a maximum concentration of 0.2 μg/L (Kolpin, et al., 2002).

**•** California, Rivers, Irrigation Canals, and Tile Drains (2003

– 2005) : detects in 1 (9%) of 11 river samples at a concentration of 0.0006 μg/L; d etects in 1 (7%) of 15 irrigation canal samples at a concentration of 0.0007 μg/L; not detected in 6 tile drain samples (Kolodziej, et al., 2004).
**•** New York City Surface Water (2003

– 2004) : not detected in 368 samples (Palmer, et al., 2008).
**•** California, Ru noff from Agricultural Fields Irrigated with Treated Wastewater (1999

– 2000) : number of detects not reported; concentration of detects in runoff samples 0.003 μg/L; concentration of detects in stream samples <0.47 μg/L (Pedersen, et al., 2005).

**•** Michigan and Nevada Surface Water (1997) : detected at 4 (60%) of the 6 Lake Mead sites at concentrations ranging from 0.188

– 2.67 μg/L; detected at 4 (80%) of the 5 Trenton Channel sites (point source locations excluded) at concentrations ranging from 0.435

– 1.29 μg/L; detected at 1 (33%) of the 3 Michigan surface water sites (effluent locations excluded) at a concentration of 0.711 μg/L (Snyder, et al., 1999).

**•** American Water Works Association National Study : not detected in either finished drinking water or raw d rinking water samples from 20 drinking water utilities (Snyder, et al., 2007).
**•** U.S. Raw and Finished Water : not detected in either finished drinking water or raw drinking water samples from 20 drinking water utilities (Snyder, 2008).
**•** National Occurrence of EDCs in Water : detects in 1 (5%) raw water sample taken from 19 sites at a concentration of 0.017 μg/L; detects in 2 (11%) source water (surface and ground water) samples taken from 18 sites at a maximum concentration of 0.002 μg/L and a medianEPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

7 of 99 concentrat ion of 0.0014 μg/L; not detected in 18 finished water or 15 distribution site s (Snyder, et al., 2008).
**•** Nebraska, Water Bodies Receiving Cattle Feedlot Effluent (2000) : detected at 1 (100%) of 1 sites at 0.000084 μg/L using immunometric method (EIA); the re tention pond (site 1) data was excluded (Soto, et al., 2004).
**•** Massachusetts, Groundwater Affected by Residential Septic System on Cape Cod (2003

– 2004): at 9 down gradient locations detects in 10 (71%) of 14 samples at concentrations ranging from 0.0002

– 0.045 μg/L (Swartz, et al., 2006).

**•** Nevada Surface Water: not detected in 9 Las Vegas Wash or Lake Mead samples (Vanderford, et al., 2003). Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 3.6 mg/L, indicates 17

- β

- estradiol is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : Not available.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 4.01, indicates 17

- β

- estradiol is not very mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Consta nt (K H

) : 3.64E

- 11 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates 17

- β

- estradiol is very mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 11 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 38 days, indicates 17

- β

- estradiol is moderately persistent in the environment.
References Barber, L.B., E.T. Furlong, S.H. Keefe, G.K. Brown, and J.D. Cahill. 2003. Chapter 5

– Natural and Contaminant Organic Compounds in the Boulder Creek Watershed, Colorado During High

- Flow and Low

- Flow Conditions, 2000

. Boyd, G.R., H. Reemtsma, D.A. Grimm, and S. Mitra. 2003. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in surface and treated waters of Louisiana, USA and Ontario, Canada. Science of the Total Environment . 311: 135

- 149. Dorabawila, N. and G. Gupta. 2005. En docrine disrupter

- estradiol

- in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Journal of Hazardous Materials . A120: 67

- 71. Filali

- Meknassi, Y., M. Auriol, C.D. Adams, and R.Y. Surampalli. 2007. Quantification of steroid sex hormones using solid

- phase extraction followed by l iquid chromatography

- mass spectrometry. Water Environment Research . 79(6): 687

- 695. Hu, J., S. Cheng, T. Aizawa, Y. Terao, and S. Kunikane. 2003. Products of aqueous chlorination of 17β

- estradiol and their estrogenic activities. Environmental Science and Technology

. 37(24):5665

- 5670. Huang, C.H. and D.L. Sedlak. 2001. Analysis of estrogen ic hormones in municipal wastewater effluent and surface water using enzyme

- linked immunosorbent assay and gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry . 20(1): 133

- 139.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

8 of 99 Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thu rman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999

- 2001: A national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology . 36: 1202

- 1211. Kolodziej, E.P., T. Harte r, and D.L. Sedlak. 2004. Dairy wastewater, aquaculture, and spawning fish as sources of steroid hormones in the aquatic environment. Environmental Science and Technology . 38: 6377

- 6384. Lee, Y. B.I. Escher, and U.V. Gunten. 2008. Efficient removal of estr ogenic activity during oxidative treatment of waters containing steroid estrogens. Environmental Science and Technology . 42(17): 6333

- 6339. Palmer, P.M., L.R. Wilson, P. O’Keefe, R. Sheridan, T. King, and C.Y. Chen

. 2008. Sources of pharmaceutical pollutio n in the New York city watershed. Science of the Total Environment . 394(1): 90

- 102. Pedersen, J.A., M. Soliman, and I.H. Suffet. 2005. Human pharmaceuticals, hormones, and personal care product ingredients in runoff from agricultural fields irrigated with treated wastewater. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry . 53: 1625

- 1632. Snyder, S.A., T.L. Keith, D.A. Verbrugge, E.M. Snyder, T.S. Gross, K. Kannan, and K.P. Giesy. 1999. Analytical methods for detection of selected estrogenic compounds in aqueous mixtures. Environmental Science and Technology . 33: 2814

- 2820. Snyder, S.A., E.C. Wert, H. Lei, P. Westerhoff, and Y. Yoon. 2007. Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment Processes . AWWA Research Foundation. Snyder, S.A. 2008. Oc currence, treatment, and toxicological relevance of EDCs and pharmaceuticals in water. Ozone: Science and Engineering . 30(1): 65

- 69. Snyder, S.A., R.A. Trenholm, E.M. Snyder, G.M. Bruce, R.C. Pleus, and J.D.C. Hemming. 2008. Toxicological Relevance of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water . AWWA. Soto, A.M., J.M. Calabro, N.V. Prechtl, A.Y. Yau, E.F. Orlando, A. Daxenberger, A.S. Kolok, L.J. Guillette, B. le Bizec, I.G. Lange, and C. Sonnenschein. 2004. Androgenic and estrogenic activity in water bodies receiving cattle feedlot effluent in eastern Nebraska, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives . 112(3): 346

- 352. Swartz, C.H., S. Reddy, M.J. Benotti, H. Yin, L.B. Barber, B.J. Brownawell, and R.A. Rudel. 2006. Steroid estrogens, nonylphenol ethoxylate met abolites, and other wastewater contaminants in groundwater affected by a residential septic system on Cape Cod, MA. Environmental Science and Technology . 40: 4894

- 4902. Vanderford, B.J., R.A. Pearson, D.J. Rexing, and S.A. Snyder. 2003. Analysis of endocri ne disruptors, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products in water using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry . 75: 6265

- 6274.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

9 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet 17
- α - Ethynylestradiol (Ethinyl e stradiol) CASRN: 57

- 63 -6

B ackground & Use

**•** 17

- α -Ethynylestradiol is an estrogenic hormone and is used in veterinary and human pharmaceuticals.
**•** Names & Synonyms: 17

- α
- Ethynylestradiol; Ethinyl estradiol ; EE2; Ethinyl E2 ; Es tra

- 1,3,5(10)

- triene

- 3,17β

- diol, 17α

- ethynyl -. **•** 17

- α
- Ethynylestradiol is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
**•** Research has indicated that oxidative treatment of aqueous solutions of 17

- α
- Ethynylestradiol with chlorine, bromine, ozone, hydroxyl radical, chlorine dioxide, or ferrate ion results in a rapid reduction in the estrogenic activity of the solution (Lee, et al., 2008).
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : 0.04 mg/kg/day , associated with hematological effects ( S upplemental N OAEL ).
**•** LOAEL : 0.015 mg/kg/day , associated with increased serum levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and γ -glutamy ltransferase (GGT) ( S upplemental LOAEL ).
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– Listed ( State of California Li st of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer ).

– Listed ( University of Maryland’s Partial List of Teratogens ).
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 0.035 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the Supplemental LOAEL of 0.015 mg/kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** No data for production and release.
Occurrence in Water

**•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999 – Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: no ground water da ta were reported.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

10 of 99 – Surface Water: detects in 3 ( 100.00 %) of 3 samples; detects were from all 3 ( 100.00%) of the sites that reported data ; detects were from 1 state; detects were all equal to 0.01 μg/L.

**•** Colorado Surface Water (2000) : not detected in 8 samples; wastewater effluent samples were excluded (Barber, et al., 2003).
**•** Missouri Surface Water (2004 – 2005): reported detections ranged from 0.0013 – 0.0116 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00265 μg/L ; note that the number of detects in 25 samples was n ot reported (Filali

- Meknassi, et al., 2007).
**•** California Surface Water (1999) : detected at 1 (33%) of the 3 sites at a concentration of 0.07 μ g/L (Huang and Sedlak, 2001).
**•** National Surface Water Reconnaissance (1999 – 2000): detects in 4 (5.7%) of 70 sampl es at a median concentration of 0. 094 μg/L and a maximum concentration of 0.273 μg/L (Kolpin, et al., 2002).

**•** New York City Surface Water (2003 – 2004) : not detected in 240 samples (Palmer, et al., 2008).
**•** Michigan and Nevada Surface Water (1997) : detected at 3 (50%) of the 6 Lake Mead sites at concentrations ranging from 0.253 – 0.52 ± 0.117 μg/L; detected at 1 (20%) of the 5 Trenton Channel sampling events (point source locations excluded) at a concentration of 0.359 μg/L; detected at 0 (0%) of the 3 Michi gan surface water sites (effluent locations excluded) (Snyder, et al., 1999).
**•** American Water Works Association National Study : not detected in either finished drinking water or raw drinking water samples from 20 drinking water utilities (Snyder, et al., 20 07).
**•** U.S. Raw and Finished Water : not detected in either finished drinking water or raw drinking water samples from 20 drinking water utilities (Snyder, 2008).
**•** National Occurrence of EDCs in Water : detects in 1 (5%) raw water sample taken from 19 sites at a concentration of 0.0014 μg/L; not detected at 18 surface water (source and ground water), 18 finished water or 15 distribution s ite s (Snyder, et al., 2008).
**•** Nebraska, Water Bodies Receiving Cattle Feedlot Effluent (2000) : detected at 1 (100%) of 1 sites at a concentration of 0.000026 μg/L using GC/MS and 0.000035 μg/L using immunometric method (EIA); the retention pond data were excluded (Soto, et al., 2004).
**•** Nevada Surface Water: not detected in 9 Las Vegas Wash or Lake Mead samples (Vanderford, et al., 2003)

. Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 11.3 mg/L, indicates 17

- α
- ethynylestradiol is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : Not available.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 3.67, indicates 17

- α
- ethynylestradiol is moderately mobile in water.
**•** H enry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 7.94E

- 12 atm -m 3 /mol, indicates 17

- α
- ethynylestradiol is very mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 9 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half -L ife: 60 days, indicates 17

- α
- ethynylestra diol is persistent in the environment.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

11 of 99 References Barber, L.B., E.T. Furlong, S.H. Keefe, G.K. Brown, and J.D. Cahill. 2003. Chapter 5

– Natural and Contaminant Organic Compounds in the Boulder Creek Watershed, Colorado During High

- Flow and Low

- Flow Condi tions, 2000

. Filali

- Meknassi, Y., M. Auriol, C.D. Adams, and R.Y. Surampalli. 2007. Quantification of steroid sex hormones using solid

- phase extraction followed by liquid chromatography

- mass spectrometry. Water Environment Research . 79(6): 687

- 695. Hu, J., S. Cheng, T. Aizawa, Y. Terao, and S. Kunikane. 2003. Products of aqueous chlorination of 17β

- estradiol and their estrogenic activities. Environmental Science and Technology

. 37(24):5665

- 5670. Huang, C.H. and D.L. Sedlak. 2001. Analysis of estrogenic horm ones in municipal wastewater effluent and surface water using enzyme

- linked immunosorbent assay and gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry . 20(1): 133

- 139. Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S .D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999

- 2001: A national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology . 36: 1202

- 1211. Lee, Y. B.I. Escher, and U.V. Gu nten. 2008. Efficient removal of estrogenic activity during oxidative treatment of waters containing steroid estrogens. Environmental Science and Technology . 42(17): 6333

- 6339. Palmer, P.M., L.R. Wilson, P. O’Keefe, R. Sheridan, T. King, and C.Y. Chen

. 200 8. Sources of pharmaceutical pollution in the New York city watershed. Science of the Total Environment . 394(1): 90

- 102. Snyder, S.A., T.L. Keith, D.A. Verbrugge, E.M. Snyder, T.S. Gross, K. Kannan, and K.P. Giesy. 1999. Analytical methods for detection of selected estrogenic compounds in aqueous mixtures. Environmental Science and Technology . 33: 2814

- 2820. Snyder, S.A., E.C. Wert, H. Lei, P. Westerhoff, and Y. Yoon. 2007. Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment Processes . AWWA Research Foundation. Snyder, S.A. 2008. Occurrence, treatment, and toxicological relevance of EDCs and pharmaceuticals in water. Ozone: Science and Engineering . 30(1): 65

- 69. Snyder, S.A., R.A. Trenholm, E.M. Snyder, G.M. Bruce, R.C. Pleus, and J.D.C. Hemm ing. 2008. Toxicological Relevance of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water . AWWA. Soto, A.M., J.M. Calabro, N.V. Prechtl, A.Y. Yau, E.F. Orlando, A. Daxenberger, A.S. Kolok, L.J. Guillette, B. le Bizec, I.G. Lange, and C. Sonnenschein. 2004. Androgen ic and estrogenic activity in water bodies receiving cattle feedlot effluent in eastern Nebraska, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives . 112(3): 346

- 352. Vanderford, B.J., R.A. Pearson, D.J. Rexing, and S.A. Snyder. 2003. Analysis of endocrine disruptors, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products in water using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry . 75: 6265

- 6274.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

12 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

13 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet 16- α - Hydroxyes tr adiol (Estriol ) CASRN: 50

- 27 -1

B ackground & Use

**•** 16- α -Hydroxyestradiol is an estrogenic hormone and is used in veterinary pharmaceuticals.
**•** Names & Synonyms: 16- α -Hydroxyestradiol; Estriol; E3; Estratriol; Oestriol; 16

- α -Hydroxy- 17

- β -estradiol.
**•** 16- α -Hydroxyestradiol is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : 0.00005 mg/kg/day, associated with estrogenic hormonal response in post- me nopausal women. ADI for 17- β

- estradiol (E2); E2 has structural similarities to 16

- α -hydroxyestradiol , so used as a toxicological surrogate ( Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives [JECFA] Acceptable Daily Intake [ ADI ]

).
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Listed ( University of Maryland’s Partial List of Teratogens ).
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 0.35 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the JECFA ADI of 0.00005 mg/kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** No data for production and release.
Occurrence in Water

**•** Colorado Surface Water (2000) : detect s in 1 (12.5%) of 8 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0031 μg/L; wastewater effluent samples were excluded (Barber, et al., 2003).

**•** Missouri Surface Water (2004 – 2005): reported detections ranged from 0 .0007 – 0.0048 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00124 μg/L; note that the number of detects in 25 samples was not reported (Filali

- Meknassi, et al., 2007).
**•** California Ground and Surface Waters (2003 – 2004) : not detected in surface or ground water sa mples (Kolodziej, et al., 2004).EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

14 of 99 **•** National Surface Water Reconnaissance (1999

– 2000): detects in 15 (21.4%) of 70 sample s at a median concentration of 0.019 μg/L and a maximum concentration of 0.051 μg/L (Kolpin, et al., 2002).
**•** American Water Works Associ ation National Study : not detected in either finished drinking water or raw drinking water samples from 20 drinking water utilities (Snyder, et al., 2007). Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 441 mg/L, indicates 16

- α
- hydroxyestradiol is moderately m obile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : Not available.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 2.45, indicates 16

- α
- hydroxyestradiol is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 1.33E

- 12 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates 1 6

- α
- hydroxyestradiol is very mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 17 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 38 days, indicates 16

- α
- hydroxyestradiol is moderately persistent in the environment.
Refere nces Barber, L.B., E.T. Furlong, S.H. Keefe, G.K. Brown, and J.D. Cahill. 2003. Chapter 5

– Natural and Contaminant Organic Compounds in the Boulder Creek Watershed, Colorado During High

- Flow and Low

- Flow Conditions, 2000

. Filali

- Meknassi, Y., M. Auriol, C.D. Adams, and R.Y. Surampalli. 2007. Quantification of steroid sex hormones using solid

- phase extraction followed by liquid chromatography

- mass spectrometry. Water Environment Research . 79(6): 687

- 695. Kolodziej, E.P., T. Harter, and D.L. Sedlak. 2004. D airy wastewater, aquaculture, and spawning fish as sources of steroid hormones in the aquatic environment. Environmental Science and Technology . 38(23): 6377

- 6384. Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxt on. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999

– 2000: A national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology . 36(6): 1202

- 1211. Snyder, A.S., E.C. Wert, H. Lei, P. Westerhoff, and Y. Yoon. 200 7. Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment Processes . American Water Works Association.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

15 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Equilin CASRN: 474

- 86 -2

B ackground & Use

**•** Equilin is an estrogenic hormone and is used in phar maceuticals.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Equilin; 7-Dehydroestrone; Dihydroequilenin.
**•** Equilin is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : 0.00005 mg/kg/day, associated with estrogenic hormonal response in post-menopausal women. ADI for 17- β

- estradiol (E2); E2 has structural similarities to equilin, so used as a toxicological surrogate. ( Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives [JECFA] A cceptable Daily Intake [ ADI] ).
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 0.35 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the JECFA ADI of 0.00005 mg/kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** No data for production and release.
Occurrence in Water

**•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999 – Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: no ground water data were reported.

– Surface Water: d etects in 3 ( 7.32 %) of 41 samples; detects were from 3 ( 13.04%) of the 23 sites; detects were from 1 state; detects were all equal to 0.01 μg/L.

**•** Colorado Surface Water (2000) : not detected in 8 samples; wastewater effluent samples excluded (Barber, et al., 2003).
**•** National Surface Water Reconnaissance (1999 – 2000): detects in 1 (1.4%) of 70 samples at a concentration of 0.147 μg/L (Kolpin, et al., 2002).EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

16 of 99 Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 1.41 mg/L, indicates equilin is moderately mobile in water.

**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : Not available.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 3.35, indicates equilin is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : Not available

. **•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 13 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 38 days, indicates equilin is moderately persistent in the environment.
References Barber, L.B., E.T. Furlong, S.H. Keefe, G.K. Brown, and J.D. Cahill. 2003. Chapter 5

– Natural and Con taminant Organic Compounds in the Boulder Creek Watershed, Colorado During High

- Flow and Low

- Flow Conditions, 2000

. Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other o rganic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999

- 2001: A national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology . 36: 1202

- 1211.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

17 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Estrone CASRN: 53

- 16 -7

B ackground & Use

**•** Estrone is an estrogenic hormone and is used in veterinary and human pharmaceuticals.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Estrone; Estrol; Esterone; E1.
**•** Estrone is one of 104 chemicals on the CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : 0.00005 mg/kg/day, associated with estrogenic hormonal response in po st -menopausal women. ADI for 17- β

- estradiol (E2); E2 has structural similarities to estrone, so used as a toxicological surrogate ( Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives [JECFA] Acceptable Daily Intake [ ADI] ).
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– List ed ( State of California List of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer ).

– Listed ( University of Maryland’s Partial List of Teratogens ).
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 0.35 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the JECFA ADI of 0.00005 mg/kg/day.
Prod uction & Release

**•** No data for production and release. Occurrence in Water

**•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999 – Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: no ground water data were reported.

– Surface Water: detects in 3 ( 7.32 %) of 41 samples; detects were from 3 ( 13.04%) of the 23 sites; detects were from 1 state; detects were all equal to 0.01 μg/L.

**•** Colorado Surface Water (2000) : not detected in 8 samples; wastewater effluent samples were excluded (Barber, et al., 2003).EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

18 of 99 **•** Southeastern Louisiana, Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain Surface Water (2000): detected at 7 (100%) of the 7 sites (4 samples were collected at each site) at a median concentration ra nge of <0.01

– 0.02 μg/L (Boyd and Grimm, 2001).

**•** Louisiana Raw and Finished Waters (2001) : not detected in 4 samples (Boyd, et al., 2003)

. **•** Missouri Surface Water (2004

– 2005): reported detections ranged from 0.0006

– 0.0155 μg/L with a median concentratio n of 0.00127 μg/L ; note that the number of detects in 25 samples was not reported (Filali

- Meknassi, et al., 2007).
**•** National Surface Water Reconnaissance (1999

– 2000): detects in 5 (7.1%) of 70 samples at a median concentration of 0.027 μg/L and a maximum concentration of 0.112 μg/L (Kolpin, et al., 2002).

**•** California, Rivers, Irrigation Canals, and Tile Drains (2003

– 2005) : detects in 5 (45%) of 11 river samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0009 μg/L; detects in 7 (47%) of 15 irrigation canal samples at a maximum concentration of 0.017 μg/L; not detected in 6 tile drain samples (Kolodziej, et al., 2004).
**•** New York City Surface Water (2003

– 2004) : detects in 1 (0.3%) of 368 samples at a concentration of 0.056 μg/L (Palmer, et al., 2008).

**•** California, Run off from Agricultural Fields Irrigated with Treated Wastewater (1999

– 2000) : number of detects not reported; concentration of detects in runoff samples 0.052 μg/L; concentration of detects in stream samples <0.2 μg/L (Pedersen, et al., 2005).

**•** American Wa ter Works Association National Study : detects in 2 (10%) of 20 drinking water utilities finished and raw drinking waters samples; finished drinking water concentrations ranged from 0.0011

– 0.0023 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.0017 μg/L; raw drinki ng water concentrations ranged from 0.001

– 0.0014 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.0012 μg/L (Snyder, et al., 2007).
**•** U

. S

. Raw and Finished Water : detects in 74% of raw water samples from 20 drinking water utilities at a maximum concentration of 0.002 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0004 μg/L; not detected in finished water samples from 20 drinking water utilities (Snyder, 2008).
**•** National Occurrence of EDCs in Water : detects in 15 (79%) raw water samples taken from 19 sites at a maximum concentrat ion of 0.00094 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00033 μg/L; detects in 11 (61%) source water (surface and ground water) samples taken from 18 sites at a maximum concentration of 0.0062 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0012 μg/L ; not detected at 18 finished water or 15 distribution sites (Snyder, et al., 2008).
**•** Nebraska, Water Bodies Receiving Cattle Feedlot Effluent (1999, 2000) : detected at 5 (100%) of the 5 sites in 1999 at concentrations ranging from <0.00021

– 0.0016 μg/L using immunometric meth od (EIA) and 0.000246

– 0.002164 μg/L using GC/MS; detected at 1 (100%) of 1 sites in 2000 at 0.0009 μg/L using EIA and 0.002434 μg/L using GC/MS; the retention pond (site 1) data were excluded (Soto, et al., 2004).
**•** Massachusetts, Groundwater Affected by R esidential Septic System on Cape Cod (2003

– 2004): at 9 down gradient locations detects in 10 (71%) of 14 samples at concentrations ranging from 0.0004

– 0.12 μg/L (Swartz, et al., 2006). Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 30 mg/L, indicates estro ne is moderately mobile in water.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

19 of 99 **•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : Not available.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 3.13, indicates estrone is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 3.80E

- 10 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicat es estrone is very mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 13 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 38 days, indicates estrone is moderately persistent in the environment. References Barber, L.B., E.T. Furlong, S.H. Keefe, G.K. Brown, and J.D. Cahill. 2003. Chapter 5

– Natural and Contaminant Organic Compounds in the Boulder Creek Watershed, Colorado During High

- Flow and Low

- Flow Conditions, 2000

. Boyd, G.R. and D.A. Grimm. 2001. Occurrence of pharmaceut ical contaminants and screening of treatment alternatives for southeastern Louisiana. Annals New York Academy of Science. 80

- 89. Boyd, G.R., H. Reemtsma, D.A. Grimm, and S. Mitra. 2003. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in surface and trea ted waters of Louisiana, USA and Ontario, Canada. Science of the Total Environment . 311: 135

- 149. Filali

- Meknassi, Y., M. Auriol, C.D. Adams, and R.Y. Surampalli. 2007. Quantification of steroid sex hormones using solid

- phase extraction followed by liquid chromatography

- mass spectrometry. Water Environment Research . 79(6): 687

- 695. Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999

– 2000: A national reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology . 36(6): 1202

- 1211. Kolodziej, E.P., T. Harter, and D.L. Sedlak. 2004. Dairy wastewater, aquaculture, and spawning fish as sources of steroid hormones in the aquatic envi ronment. Environmental Science and Technology . 38: 6377

- 6384. Palmer, P.M., L.R. Wilson, P. O'Keefe, R. Sheridan, T. King, and C

- Y. Chen. 2008. Sources of pharmaceutical pollution in the New York City watershed. Science of the Total Environment . 394: 90

- 10 2. Pedersen, J.A., M. Soliman, and I.H. Suffet. 2005. Human pharmaceuticals, hormones, and personal care product ingredients in runoff from agricultural fields irrigated with treated wastewater. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry . 53: 1625

- 1632. Sn yder, S.A., E.C. Wert, H. Lei, P. Westerhoff, and Y. Yoon. 2007. Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment Processes . AWWA Research Foundation. Snyder, S.A. 2008. Occurrence, treatment, and toxicological relevance of EDCs and phar maceuticals in water. Ozone: Science and Engineering . 30: 65

- 69. Snyder, S.A., R.A. Trenholm, E.M. Snyder, G.M. Bruce, R.C. Pleus, and J.D.C. Hemming. 2008. Toxicological Relevance of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water . AWWA. Soto, A.M., J.M. Calab ro, N.V. Prechtl, A.Y. Yau, E.F. Orlando, A. Daxenberger, A.S. Kolok, L.J. Guillette, B. le Bizec, I.G. Lange, and C. Sonnenschein. 2004. Androgenic and estrogenic activity in water bodies receiving cattle feedlot effluent in eastern Nebraska, USA. Environ mental Health Perspectives . 112(3): 346

- 352.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

20 of 99 Swartz, C.H., S. Reddy, M.J. Benotti, H. Yin, L.B. Barber, B.J. Brownawell, and R.A. Rudel. 2006. Steroid estrogens, nonylphenol ethoxylate metabolites, and other wastewater contaminants in groundwater affected by a residential septic system on Cape Cod, MA. Environmental Science and Technology . 40: 4894

- 4902.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

21 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Testosterone

CASRN: 58

- 22 -0

Ba ckground & Use

**•** Testosterone is a n androgenic steroid, and is used in pharmaceuti cals

. **•** Names & Synonyms: Testosterone; Teslen; Testandrone; Testobase; Testoderm; Testosteron; Testrone; Testryl

. Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : 0.002 mg /kg/day ( Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives [JECFA] Acceptable Daily Intake [ ADI] ).
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 14 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the JECFA ADI of 0.002 mg/kg /day.
Production & Release

**•** No data for production and release

. Occurrence in Water

**•** National Surface Water Reconnaissance (1999 – 2000): detects in 2 ( 2.8 %) of 70 samples at a median concentration of 0. 116 μg/L and a maximum concentration of 0. 214 μg/L ( Kolpin, et al., 2002).
**•** California, Rivers, Irrigation Canals, and Tile Drains (2003 – 2005) : detects in 2 (18%) of 11 river samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0006 μg/L; detects in 4 (27%) of 15 irrigation canal samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0019 μg/L; detects in 2 (33%) of 6 tile drain samples at a maximum concentration of <0.0003 μg/L (Kolodziej, et al., 2004).
**•** City of Ann Arbor Municipal Water Use Cycle (2004): n ot detected in surface/source water, drinking water, wastewater influent, or wastewater effluent samples (Skadsen, et al., 2004).
**•** American Water Works Association National Study : not detected in either finished drinking water or raw drinking water samples from 20 drinking water utilities (Snyder, et al., 2007).EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

22 of 99 Persistence & Mo bility

**•** Water Solubility : 23.4 mg/L, indicates testosterone is moderately mobile in water

. **•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : Not available.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 3.32, indicates testosterone is moderately mobile in w ater.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 3.5E

- 09 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates testosterone is very mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 14 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 38 days, indicates testosterone is mo derately persistent in the environment.
References Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton. 2002. Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999

- 2001: A na tional reconnaissance. Environmental Science and Technology . 36: 1202

- 1211. Kolodziej, E.P., T. Harter, and D.L. Sedlak. 2004. Dairy wastewater, aquaculture, and spawning fish as sources of steroid hormones in the aquatic environment. Environmental Science and Technology . 38: 6377

- 6384. Skadsen, J.M., B.L. Rice, and D.J. Meyering. 2004. The Occurrence and Fate of Pharmaceuticals, Personal Care Products and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in a Municipal Water Use Cycle: A Case Study in the City of Ann Arbor

. November 2004

. Snyder, S.A., E.C. Wert, H. Lei, P. Westerhoff, and Y. Yoon. 2007. Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment Processes . AWWA Research Foundation.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

23 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet 4- Androstene
- 3,17
- dione C ASRN: 63

- 05 -8

B ackground & Use

**•** 4-Androstene- 3,17 -dione is a steroid hormone and is used as an anabolic steroid and a dietary supplement.
**•** Names & Synonyms: 4 -Androstene- 3,17 -dione; Androstenedione; 3,17-Dioxoandrost-4- ene; Andro.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : 0.002 mg/kg/day . ADI for testosterone; testosterone has structural similarities to 4

- androstene- 3,17 -dione, so used as a toxicological surrogate ( Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives [JECFA] Acceptable Daily Intake [ ADI] ).
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– Listed ( University of Maryland’s Partial List of Teratogens ).
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 14 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking wate r based on the JECFA ADI of 0.002 mg/kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** No data for production and release

. Occurrence in Water

**•** American Water Works Association National Study : not detected in 20 drinking water utilities finished drinking water samples; detec ts in 1 (5%) of 20 drinking water utilities raw drinking water samples at a concentration of 0.0019 μg/L (Snyder, et al., 2007).

**•** California Surface Waters (2005 – 2006): detects in 16 (18%) of 89 grazing rangeland surface water samples at a maximum concentration of 0.044 μg/L; not detected in 32 dairy farm surface water samples (Kolodziej and Sedlak, 2007).
**•** California, Rivers, Irrigation Canals, and Tile Drains (2003 – 2005) : not detected in 11 river samples, 15 irrigation canal samples, and 6 tile drain samples (Kolodziej, et al., 2004).
**•** Florida Fenholloway River (2001): detected at a concentration of 0.127 μg/L (Debska, et al., 2004).EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

24 of 99 Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 57.2 mg/L, indicates 4

- androstene

- 3,17

- dione is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Org anic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 760 L/kg, indicates 4

- androstene

- 3,17

- dione is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 2.75, indicates 4

- androstene

- 3,17

- dione is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Cons tant (K H

) : 3.70E

- 08 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates 4

- androstene

- 3,17

- dione is very mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 16 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 60 days, indicates 4

- androstene

- 3,17

- dione is pe rsistent in the environment. References Debska, J., A. Kot

- Wasik, and K. Namiesnik. 2004. Fate and analysis of pharmaceutical residues in the aquatic environment. Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry . 34: 51

- 67. Kolodziej, E.P. and D.L. Sedlak. 2007. Rangeland grazing as a source of steroid hormones to surface waters. Environmental Science and Technology . 41: 3514

- 3520. Kolodziej, E.P., T. Harter, and D.L. Sedlak. 2004. Dairy wastewater, aquaculture, and spawning fish as sources of steroid hormones in the aquatic environment. Environmental Science and Technology . 38: 6377

- 6384. Snyder, S.A., E.C. Wert, H. Lei, P. Westerhoff, and Y. Yoon. 2007. Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment Processes . AWWA Research Foundation.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

25 of 99 

## Poss ible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet 1,2,3- Trichloropropane CASRN: 96

- 18

- 4

B ackground & Use

**•** 1,2,3 -Trichloropropane is a halogenated alkane and is used as an ingredient in paint, varnish remover, solvents, and degreasing agents.
**•** Names & Synonyms: 1,2,3 -Trichloropropane; Propane, 1,2,3- trichloro -; Trichlorohydrin.
**•** 1,2,3 -Trichloropropane is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD :

– 0.006 mg/kg/day, based on a NOAEL of 8 mg/kg/day and an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 1,000, and associated with alte rations in clinical chemistry and reduction in Red Blood Cell ( RBC ) mass in rats ( Inte grated Risk Information System [ IRIS ]

).

– 0.004 mg/kg/day, based on a BMDL (ADL) of 1.1 mg/kg/day , and associated with increased absolute liver weight in male rats.
**•** MRL : 0.06 mg/kg/day with an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 100, and associated with hepatic effects ( Agency for Toxic S ubstances and Disease Registry [ ATS DR] Interim MRL ).
**•** NOAEL : 5.71 mg/kg/day ( Supplemental NOEL ).
**•** LOAEL : 22.9 mg/kg/day, based on a 17- week oral study in rats, and associated with effects on the kidneys, ureters, and bladder, such as changes in bladder weight; effects on the blood, such as changes in serum composition (e.g., TP, bilirubin, cholesterol); biochemical changes, such as enzyme inhibition and induction; and changes in blood or tissue levels (other esterases) ( Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [ RTECS ] Lowest Oral Chronic LOAEL ).
**•** Slope Factor :

– 7 ( mg/kg/day) -1 ( Risk Assessment Information System [ RAIS ] Oral Slope Factor ).

– 30 ( mg/k g/day) -1 ( IRIS Oral Slope Factor ).
**•** ADI : Not Available

. **•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : L isted ( State of California List of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer ).
**•** DWEL : 0.2 mg/L.

**•** HRL :

– 42 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the IRIS RfD of 0.00 6 mg/kg/day.

– 28 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the IRIS RfD of 0.004 mg/kg/day.

– 0.05 μg/L for cancer effects in drinking water based on the RAIS oral slope factor of 7 (mg/kg/day) -1 ( set at the 10 -5 risk level ).EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

26 of 99 – 0.01 μg/L for cancer effects in drinking water based on the IRIS oral slope factor of 30 ( mg/kg/day ) - 1 ( set at the 10 - 5 risk level ). Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): production was approximately >10

– 50 million pounds in 1998 and >1

– 10 million pounds in 2002.
**•** Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 2002: facilities reported 4,255 pounds were released into surface water in 1 state, and a total of 98,003 pounds were released into the environment across 2 states.
**•** TRI 2004: facilities reported 282 pounds were released into surface water in 1 state, and a total of 9,053 pounds were released into the environment across 2 states.
**•** TRI 2006: facilities reported 416 pounds were released into surface water in 1 state, and a total of 2,025 pounds were released into the environment across 3 states.
**•** High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program: is included in the program which performs baseline testing on chemicals that are made or imported into the U.S. in amounts equal to or greater than one million p ounds per year. Occurrence in Water

**•** Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Data: analytical results for samples collected by p ublic w ater s ystems (PWSs) from 1988

– 1997 for (then) unregulated contaminants; datasets are stored in EPA’s National Contamin ant Occurrence Database (NCOD).

– Round 1 (1988

– 1992): occurred at 44 (0.25%) of the 17,392 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 112 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.92 μg/L.

– Round 2 (1993

– 1997): occurred at 19 (0.08%) of the 24,088 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 3,000 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.5 μg/L.

**•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999

– Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: dete cts in 3 8 ( 2.68 %) of 1, 420 samples; detects were from 35 ( 5.25 %) of the 667 sites; detects were from 1 state; detects ranged from 0 .9

– 10 μg/L.

– Surface Water: detects in 2 3 4 (37.38%) of 6 26 samples; detects were from 16 (12.31%) of the 1 3 0 sites; detects were from 2 states; detects ranged from 0.0 08

– 0 .5 μg/L.

– Ohio Public Water Supply: no t detect ed in 1, 277 drinking water samples from 1 8 6 sites that reported data

. **•** National Water

- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program (1992

– 2001): detects in 54 (0.91%) of 5, 941 samples and at 43 (1.0%) of the 4,309 sites at a maximum concentration of 2.92 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.4 μg/L.

**•** NAWQA Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) National Synthesis Random and Focused VOC Surveys: random survey designed to be nationall y representative of community water systems (CWSs) source water and focused survey designed to provide insight into temporal variability and anthropogenic factors associated with VOC occurrence . (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous wit h respect to samples vs. site s.)EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

27 of 99 – Random Survey (1999

– 2000): samples taken from the source waters of 954 CWSs; detect s in 1 (0.1%) of the samples (0.17% of ground water samples and 0% of surface water samples) at a concentration of 0.31 μg/L (Grady, 2003)

.

– Focused Survey ( 1999

– 2001 ): 451 samples taken from source waters serving 134 CWSs; detected at 3.8% of the CWSs sampled (3.8% of ground water sites and 3.7% of surface water sites) at concentrations ranging from 0.03

– 0.09 μg/L (Delzer and Ivahnenko, 2003)

. **•** NAWQA VOC National Synthesis Compilation of Historical VOC Monitoring Data (1985

– 1995): samples taken from 2 64 urban wells and 1, 729 rural wells; 0.38 % detection frequency in urban areas and 0. 58 % detection frequency in rural areas at concentrati ons rang ing from 0.2

– 1

. 1 μg/L

. In urban wells, the single detection was at a concentration of 0.2 μg/L and in rural wells , the median concentration was 0.5 μg/L (Squillace, et al., 1999). (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with res pect to samples vs. site s.)
**•** NAWQA VOCs in Ground Water and Drinking Water Supply Wells (1985

– 2001): national assessment comprised of approximately 100 different aquifer studies; roughly 3,500 water samples collected from various types of wells:

– Aquifers : detects in 17 (0.61%) of 2,765 samples at a median concentration of 0.5 μg/L.

– Shallow ground water in urban areas: detects in 1 (0.1%) of 847 samples.

– Shallow ground water in agricultural areas: detects in 7 (1.0%) of 723 samples.

– Domestic wells: detect s in 9 (0.43%) of 2,092 samples at a median concentration of 0.38 μg/L.

– Public wells: detects in 8 (0.80%) of 997 samples at a median concentration of 0.70 μg/L.

– Domestic and public wells: detects in 17 (0.6%) of 3,089 samples.
**•** Six

- Year Data (1998

– 2005) : contaminant occurrence data voluntarily submitted by states to EPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second Six

Year Review:

– California: detects in 4,977 (4.40%) of 113,128 drinking water samples; detects were f rom 157 (3.99%) of the 3,939 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.001

– 74 μg/L.

– Illinois: detects in 4 (36.36%) of 11 drinking water samples; detects were from 4 (66.67%) of the 6 CWSs that reported data ; detects were all equal to 250 μg/L.

– Nor th Carolina: detects in 18 (0.09%) of 19,840 drinking water samples; detects were from 5 (0.20%) of the 2,493 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.57

– 0.8 μg/L.

– Ohio: detects in 1 (0. 0 1%) of 9,283 drinking water samples at a concentration of 0.5 μg/L; 2,532 PWSs reported data

.

– Region 9 Tribes: detects in 3 (0.27%) of 1,113 drinking water samples; detects were from 2 (0.72%) of the 279 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 1.8

– 3.7 μg/L

.

– South Dakota: detects in 1 (0. 0 9%) of 1,110 drinkin g water samples at a concentration of 0.67 μg/L; 281 PWSs reported data

.

– Texas: detects in 7 (0.02%) of 36,285 drinking water samples; detects were from 5 (0.09%) of the 5,660 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 13

– 37 μg/L

. **•** Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2004

– 2007): detects in 1 (0.06%) of 1,766 drinking water samples at a concentration of 1.9 μg/L ; 27 PWSs sampled.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

28 of 99 **•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (1983

– 1999): detects in 11 (0.08%) of 13,228 drinking water samples; detects were from 11 (0.60%) of the 1,826 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0.1

– 3.21 μg/L

. **•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ( 2000

– 200 9): detects in 1 (0.0 2 %) of 6, 4 62 drinking water samples at a concentration of 3.9 μg/L; 1,123 PWSs reported data.
**•** Community Water System Survey (CWSS) (2006): 1 system serving >500,000 people reported monitoring data for 1,2,3

- trichloropropane at 4 00 μg/L.

**•** New Jersey Special Study Data (1999

– 2004): New Jersey Synthetic Organic Compound (SOC) Waiver P rogram detected 1,2,3

- trichloropropane in excess of health

- based drinking water guidance values at 30 (1%) of the 2,640 private wells, and at 11 of the approximately 260 CWSs. Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 1 ,750 mg/L, indicates 1,2,3

- trichlorop ropane is very mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 77

– 95 L/kg, indicates 1,2,3

- trichloropropane is very mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 2.27, indicates 1,2,3

- trichloropropane is moderately mo bile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 3.43E

- 04 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates 1,2,3

- trichloropropane is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 25% ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 38 days, in dicates 1,2,3

- trichloropropane is moderately persistent in the environment.
References Delzer, G.C. and T. Ivahnenko. 2003. Occurrence and Temporal Variability of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Select Sources of Dr inking Water: Results of the Focused Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4084, 65 p. Grady, S.J. 2003. A National Survey of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking

- Water Sources: Results of the Random Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4079, 85 p. Squillace, P.J., M.J. Moran, W.W. Lapham, C.V. Price, R.M. Clawges, and J.S. Zogorski. 1999. Volatile Organic Compounds in Untreated Ambient Groundwater of th e United States, 1985

- 1995. Environmental Science and Technology . 33(23): 4176

- 4187.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

29 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet 1,3
- Butadiene

CASRN: 106

- 99 -0

B ackground & Use

**•** 1,3

- Butadiene is an alkene and is used as a chemical in rubber manufacturing and occurs as a gas

. **•** Names & Synonyms: 1,3 -Butadiene; Buta

- 1,3 -diene ; Vinylethylene.
**•** 1,3 -Butadiene is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor :

– 3.4 ( mg /kg/day) -1 ( California Office of Environmenta l Health and Hazard Assessment [OEHHA ] Oral Slope Factor ).
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– B2 – probable human carcinogen (sufficient evidence from animal studies and inadequate/no epidemiolo gic studies) ( EPA Cancer Class ).

– 2A – the agent is probably carcinogenic to humans ( International Agency for Research on Cancer [ IARC ] Cancer Class ).

– Listed ( State of California List of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer ).

– Listed ( University of Maryland’s Partial List of Teratogens ).
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 0.103 μg/L for cancer effects in drinking water based on the oral slope factor of 3.4 (mg/kg/day) -1 ( set at 10 -5 risk level ). Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): production was >1 billion pounds in 1998 and in 2002.
**•** Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 2002: facilities reported 2,084 pounds were released into surface water across 8 states, and a total of 1,996,836 pounds were released into the environment across 36 stat es.
**•** TRI 2004: facilities reported 493 pounds were released into surface water across 8 states, and a total of 2,064,390 pounds were released into the environment across 35 states.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

30 of 99 **•** TRI 2006: facilities reported 113 pounds were released into surface water ac ross 7 states, and a total of 2,470,896 pounds were released into the environment across 35 states. Occurrence in Water

**•** No data for occurrence in water. Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 735 mg/L, indicates 1,3 -butadiene is moderately mobile in w ater.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 288 L/kg, indicates 1,3

- butadiene is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 1.99, indicates 1,3 -butadiene is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 7.40E

- 02 atm -m 3 /mol, indicates 1,3 -butadiene is not mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 89 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half -L ife: 7– 28 days, indicates 1,3 -butadiene is not persistent in the environmen t.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

31 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) CASRN: 74

- 87 -3

B ackground

**•** Chloromethane is a halogenated alkane and is used as a foaming agent, in the production of other substances, and is a by-product that can form when chlorine is used to disinfect drinking water . **•** Names & Synonyms: Chloromethane; Methyl chloride; Monochloromethane; Methane, chloro-.
**•** Chloromethane is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : 0.004 mg/kg/day, associated with mild neurological effects in humans occupationally exposed to chloromethane ( EPA Health Advisory [ HA ] RfD ).
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : 0.013 ( mg/kg/day) -1 ( Risk Assessment Information System [ RAIS ] Oral Slope Factor ).
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– D – not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (

EPA Cancer Class ).

– 3 – the agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans ( International Agency for Research on Cancer [ IARC ] Cancer Class ).

– L isted ( State of California List of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer ).

– Listed ( University of Maryland’s Partial List of Teratogens ).
**•** DWEL : 0. 1 mg/L

. **•** HRL :

– 28 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the HA RfD of 0.004 mg/kg/day.

– 26.9 μg/L for cancer effects in drinking water based on the RAIS oral slope factor of 0.013 (mg/kg/day) -1 ( set at the 10 -5 risk level ). Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): production was >1 billion pounds in 1998 and in 2002.
**•** T oxics Release Inventory (TRI) 2002: facilities reported 1,662 pounds were released into surface water across 12 states, and a total of 1,786,609 pounds were released into the environment across 25 states.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

32 of 99 **•** TRI 2004: facilities reported 1,539 pounds were rel eased into surface water across 10 states, and a total of 1,761,270 pounds were released into the environment across 26 states.
**•** TRI 2006: facilities reported 10,541 pounds were released into surface water across 8 states, and a total of 1,848,384 pounds we re released into the environment across 24 states.
**•** High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program : is included in the program which performs baseline testing on chemicals that are made or imported into the U.S. in amounts equal to or greater than one milli on pounds per year.
Occurrence in Water

**•** Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Data: analytical results for samples collected by p ublic w ater s ystems (PWSs) from 1988

– 1997 for (then) unregulated contaminants; datasets are stored in EPA’s National Cont aminant Occurrence Database (NCOD).

– Round 1 (1988

– 1992) : occurred at 248 (1.22%) of the 20,246 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 550 μg/L and a median concentration of 1.9 μg/L.

– Round 2 (1993

– 1997): occurred at 528 (2.25%) of the 23,478 PWSs, at a m aximum concentration of 312 μg/L and a median concentration of 1.4 μg/L.

**•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999

– Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: detects in 1 42 ( 4. 00 %) of 3,549 samples; detects were from 107 ( 6. 86 %) of the 1,560 sites; detects were from 2 states; detects ranged from 0 .067

– 10 ,000 μg/L.

– Surface Water: detects in 458 ( 24.12 %) of 1,899 samples; detects were from 102 ( 34.23% ) of the 2 98 sites; detects were from 5 states; detec ts ranged from 0

– 4.29 μg/L.

– Ohio Public Water Supply: detects in 4 ( 0.31 %) of 1 , 276 samples; detects were from 4 ( 2.15 %) of the 18 6 sites; detects were from 1 (100%) state; detects ranged from 0.6

– 1 μg/L.

**•** Nati onal Water

- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program (1992

– 2001): detects in 562 (10.1%) of 5,538 samples and at 356 (8.99%) of the 3,959 sites at a maximum concentration of 21 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.04 μg/L.

**•** NAWQA Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) National Synthesis Random and Focused VOC Surveys: random survey designed to be nationally representative of community water systems (CWSs) source water and focused survey designed to provide insight into temporal variability and anthropogenic factors ass ociated with VOC occurrence. (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. site s.)

– Random Survey (1999

– 2000): samples taken from the source waters of 954 CWSs; detect s in 3 (0.31%) of the samples (0.52% of ground w ater samples and 0% of surface water samples) at concentrations ranging from 0.20

– 0.69 μg/L (Grady, 2003).

– Focused Survey ( 1999

– 2001 ): 451 samples taken from source waters serving 134 CWSs; detected at 0.7% of the CWSs sampled (1.3% of ground water si tes and 0% of surface water sites) at concentrations ranging from 0.11

– 2.63 μg/L. Below the reporting level of 0.2 μg/L , detected at 3.0% of the CWSs sampled (3.8% of ground water sites and 1.8% of surface water sites) (Delzer and Ivahnenko, 2003)

. **•** NAWQ A VOC National Synthesis Compilation of Historical VOC Monitoring Data (1985

– 1995): samples taken from 189 urban wells and 993 rural wells; 1.06% detection frequency in urbanEPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

33 of 99 areas and 0.40% detection frequency in rural areas at concentrations ranging fr om 0.2

– 21 μg/L

. In urban wells , the median concentration was 0.4 μg/L and in rural wells , the median concentration was 0.35 μg/L (Squillace, et al., 1999). (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. site s.)
**•** NAWQ A VOCs in Ground Water and Drinking Water Supply Wells (1985

– 2001): national assessment comprised of approximately 100 different aquifer studies; roughly 3,500 water samples collected from various types of wells:

– Aquifers: detects in 34 (1.1%) of 2,988 samples at a median concentration of 0.035 μg/L.

– Shallow ground water in urban areas: detects in 7 (0.9%) of 804 samples.

– Shallow ground water in agricultural areas: detects in 1 (0.2%) of 575 samples.

– Domestic wells: detects in 20 (0.97%) of 2,059 sample s at a median concentration of 0.030 μg/L.

– Public wells: detects in 4 (0.38%) of 1,045 samples at a median concentration of 0.070 μg/L.

– Domestic and public wells: detects in 24 (0.8%) of 3,104 samples.
**•** Six

- Year Data (1998

– 2005): contaminant occurrence d ata voluntarily submitted by states to EPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second Six

Year Review:

– California: detects in 616 (0.55%) of 112,636 drinking water samples; detects were from 142 (3.51%) of the 4,046 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.25

– 46 μg/L.

– Illinois: detects in 99 ( 6.37 %) of 1, 5 54 drinking water samples; detects were from 51 (6.9 0 %) of the 7 39 CWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 25.7 μg/L.

– North Carolina: detects in 33 5 (1.69%) of 19, 85 3 drinking water samples; detects were from 22 2 (8. 9 0 %) of the 2,493 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 24 μg/L.

– Ohio: detects in 128 (1.38%) of the 9,294 drinking water samples; detects were from 87 (3.43%) of the 2,533 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 25 μg/L.

– Region 9 Tribes : detects in 19 ( 1.64 %) of the 1,1 6 0 drinking water samples; detects were from 12 ( 4.20 %) of the 28 6 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0.6

– 6.1 μg/L.

– South Dakota: dete cts in 4 (0.36%) of the 1,110 drinking water samples; detects were from 4 (1.42%) of the 281 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 1

– 72 μg/L.

– Texas : detects in 1,187 ( 3.26 %) of the 36,372 drinking water samples; detects were from 760 (1 3 .4 3 %) of t he 5,660 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0.5

– 135 μg/L.

**•** Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2004

– 2007): detects in 16 (0.90%) of the 1,768 drinking water samples ; detects were from 3 (11.54%) of the 26 PWSs that reported data; d etects ranged from 0.16

– 72 μg/L.

**•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ( 1983

– 1999 ): detects in 330 ( 2.51 %) of the 1 3 , 155 drinking water samples ; detects were from 226 (1 2.53 %) of the 1,804 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0. 07

– 3 2 .6 μg /L.

**•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (200 0

– 200 9 ): detects in 1 19 ( 1.79 %) of the 6,630 drinking water samples ; detects were from 78 ( 6.66 %) of the 1,172 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0.1 1

– 8 μg/L.

**•** AwwaRF

- EPA Study of DBPs: detects at 1 (8%) of the 12 finished water sites sampled (Krasner, et al., 2006).EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

34 of 99 Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 5,320 mg/L, indicates chloromethane is very mobile in water.

**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 14.3 L/kg, indicates chlorome thane is very mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 0.91, indicates chloromethane is very mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 0.00882 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates chloromethane is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 43 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 15 days, indicates chloromethane is moderately persistent in the environment.
References Delzer, G.C. and T. Ivahnenko. 2003. Occurrence and Temporal Varia bility of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Select Sources of Drinking Water: Results of the Focused Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4084, 65 p. Grady, S.J. 2003. A National Surve y of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking

- Water Sources: Results of the Random Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4079, 85 p. Krasner, S.W., H.S. Weinberg, S.D. Richardson, S.J. Pasto r, R. Chinn, M.J. Sclimenti, G.D. Onstad, and A.D. Thruston, Jr. 2006. Occurrence of a new generation of disinfection byproducts. Environmental Science and Technology . 40(23): 7175

- 7185. Squillace, P.J., M.J. Moran, W.W. Lapham, C.V. Price, R.M. Clawges, a nd J.S. Zogorski. 1999. Volatile Organic Compounds in Untreated Ambient Groundwater of the United States, 1985

- 1995. Environmental Science and Technology . 33(23): 4176

- 4187.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

35 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet 1,1
- Dichloroethane CASRN: 75

- 34 -3

Ba ckground

**•** 1,1 -Dichloroethane is a halogenated alkane and is used as a solvent.
**•** Names & Synonyms: 1,1

- Dichloroethane; Ethane, 1,1 -dichloro- ; Ethylidene chloride

. **•** 1,1 -Dichloroethane is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : 0.2 mg/kg/day , based on a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 714 mg/kg/day and an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 3,000, and associated with decreased body weight gain ( Risk Assessment Informatio n System [RAIS] ).
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not availa ble.
**•** Slope Factor : 0.0057 ( mg/kg/day) -1 ( California Office of Environmenta l Health and Hazard Assessment [

OEHHA ] Oral Slope Factor ).
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– C – possible human carcinogen ( EPA Cancer Class ).

– Listed ( University o f Maryland’s Partial List of Teratogens ).
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL :

– 1,400 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the RAIS RfD of 0.2 mg/kg/day.

– 61.4 μg/L for cancer effects in drinking water based on the oral slope factor of 0.0057 ( mg/kg/ day) -1 ( set at the 10 -5 risk level ).
**•** CDC’s 95th Percentile Concentration: L ess than the detection limit for 1,367 serum samples tested from 2003 – 2004 ( Calafat, et al., 2007 ). Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): production was approximately >1 – 10 million pounds in 1998 and >500 thousand – 1 million pounds in 2002.
**•** Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 2002: facilities reported 95 pounds were released into surface water across 3 states, and a total of 103,801 pounds were released into the environment across 3 states.
**•** TRI 2004: facilities reported 63 pounds were released into surface water across 3 states, and a total of 17,368 pounds were released into the environment across 5 states.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

36 of 99 **•** TRI 2006: facilities reported 196 pou nds were released into surface water across 2 states, and a total of 11,303 pounds were released into the environment across 5 states.
**•** High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program: is included in the program which performs baseline testing on chemicals t hat are made or imported into the U.S. in amounts equal to or greater than one million pounds per year.
Occurrence in Water

**•** Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Data : analytical results for samples collected by p ublic w ater s ystems (PWSs) from 1988

– 1997 for (then) unregulated contaminants; datasets are stored in EPA’s National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD).

– Round 1 (1988

– 1992): occurred at 233 (1.14%) of the 20,483 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 500 μg/L and a median concentration of 1.2 μg/L.

– Round 2 (1993

– 1997): occurred at 184 (0.74%) of the 24,808 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 159 μg/L and a median concentration of 1 μg/L.

**•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999

– Present): data submission to STORET is voluntar y; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary.

– Ground Water: detects in 889 (22.21%) of 4,002 samples; detects were from 263 (15.56%) of the 1,690 sites; detects were from 5 states; detects ranged from 0.1

– 3,600 μg/L.

– Surface Water: d etects in 615 (40.54%) of 1,517 samples; detects were from 86 (26.54%) of the 324 sites; detects were from 4 states; detec ts ranged from 0

– 1 μg/L.

– Ohio Public Water Supply: detects in 5 ( 0.39 %) of 1 , 274 samples; detects were from 3 ( 1.61 %) of the 18 6 sit es; detects were from 1 (100%) state; detects ranged from 0.55

– 2.02 μg/L.

**•** National Water

- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program (1992

– 2001): detects in 221 (3.64%) of 6,072 samples and at 135 (3.10%) of the 4,350 sites at a maximum concentration of 39 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.05 μg/L.

**•** NAWQA Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) National Synthesis Random and Focused VOC Surveys: random survey designed to be nationally representative of community water systems (CWSs) source water and focused survey desi gned to provide insight into temporal variability and anthropogenic factors associated with VOC occurrence. (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. site s.)

– Random Survey (1999

– 2000): samples taken from the so urce waters of 954 CWSs; detect s in 11 ( 1.2 %) of the samples ( 1.9 % of ground water samples and 0% of surface water samples) at concentrations rang ing from 0.2 1

– 10 μg/L (Grady, 2003).

– Focused Survey ( 1999

– 2001 ): 451 samples taken from source waters ser ving 134 CWSs; detected at 5.3 % of the CWSs sampled ( 9.2 % of ground water sites and 0% of surface water sites) at concentrations ranging from 0. 04

– 3.85 μg/L. Below the reporting level of 0.2 μg/L , detected at 15.9 % of the CWSs sampled ( 26.3 % of ground water sites and 1.8% of surface water sites) (Delzer and Ivahnenko, 2003)

. **•** NAWQA VOC National Synthesis Compilation of Historical VOC Monitoring Data (1985

– 1995): samples taken from 405 urban wells and 2,539 rural wells; 6.42 % detection frequency in urban areas and 0. 71 % detection frequency in rural areas at concentrations ranging from 0.2

– 39 μg/L

. In urban wells , the median concentration was 1.65 μg/L and in rural wells , the medianEPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

37 of 99 concentration was 2.3 μg/L (Squillace, et al., 1999). (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. sites .)
**•** NAWQA VOCs in Ground Water and Drinking Water Supply Wells (1985 – 2001): national assessment comprised of approximat ely 100 different aquifer studies; roughly 3,500 water samples collected from various types of wells:

– Aquifers: detects in 30 (0.86%) of 3,496 samples at a median concentration of 0.085 μg/L.

– Shallow ground water in urban areas: detects in 20 (2.4%) of 84 7 samples.

– Shallow ground water in agricultural areas: detects in 1 (0.1%) of 723 samples.

– Domestic wells: detects in 7 (0.29%) of 2,400 samples at a median concentration of 0.073 μg/L.

– Public wells: detects in 22 (2.0%) of 1,096 samples at a median concentration of 0.22 μg/L.

– Domestic and public wells: detects in 29 (0.8%) of 3,496 samples.
**•** Six- Year Data (1998 – 2005): contaminant occurrence data voluntarily submitted by states toEPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second SixYear Review:

– California: detects in 1,423 (1.16%) of 123,019 drinking water samples; detects were from 35 (0.86%) of the 4,080 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0.5 – 20.4 μg/L.

– Illinois: not detected in 6 drinking water sample s from 2 CWSs that reported data.

– North Carolina: detects in 115 (0.58%) of 19,837 drinking water samples; detects were from 24 (0.96%) of the 2,493 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5 – 8.8 μg/L.

– Ohio: detects in 57 (0.61%) of 9,350 drinking water samples; detects were from 19 (0.75%) of the 2,537 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0.5 – 5.32 μg/L.

– Region 9 Tribes: not detected in 1,1 84 drinking water samples from 286 PWSs that reported data

.

– South Dakota: not detected in 1,110 drink ing water samples from 281 PWSs that reported data

.

– Texas: detects in 1 2 (0. 03 %) of 36 , 287 drinking water samples; detects were from 5 (0. 09 %) of the 5,660 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 1.2 – 4.6 μg/L.

**•** Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2004 – 2007): detects in 47 (2. 66 %) of the 1,766 drinking water samples; detects were from 4 ( 14.81 %) of the 27 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0. 06 – 1 6.7 μg/L.

**•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (

1983 – 1999 ): detects in 228 ( 1.51 %) of the 15, 053 drinking water samples ; detects were from 40 (2.07 %) of the 1,930 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0. 061 – 15 μg/L.

**•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (200 0 – 200 9 ): detects in 93 ( 1.44 %) of the 6, 472 drinking water samples; detects were from 9 ( 0.80 %) of the 1,124 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0.1 07 – 37 μg/L.

**•** Community Water System Survey (CWSS) (2006): 1 system serving >500,000 people reported monitoring data for 1,1-dichloroethane; system reported results of one sample only in which no 1,1 -dichloroethane was detected.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

38 of 99 Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 5,040 mg/L, indicates 1,1

- dichloroethane is very mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 35.04 L/kg, indicates 1,1

- d ichloroethane is very mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 1.79, indicates 1,1

- dichloroethane is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 5.62E

- 03 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates 1,1

- dichloroethane is not very mobile in w ater.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 46 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 38 days, indicates 1,1

- dichloroethane is moderately persistent in the environment.
References Calafat A.M., L.Y. Wong, Z. Kuklenyik, J.A. Reidy, and L.L. Needham. 2007. Polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the U.S. population: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003

– 2004 and comparisons to NHANES 1999

– 2000. Environmental Health Perspectives

. 115(11): 1578

- 1 583. Delzer, G.C. and T. Ivahnenko. 2003. Occurrence and Temporal Variability of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Select Sources of Drinking Water: Results of the Focused Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4084, 65 p. Grady, S.J. 2003. A National Survey of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking

- Water Sources: Results of the Random Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

Resources Investigations Report 0 2

- 4079, 85 p. Squillace, P.J., M.J. Moran, W.W. Lapham, C.V. Price, R.M. Clawges, and J.S. Zogorski. 1999. Volatile Organic Compounds in Untreated Ambient Groundwater of the United States, 1985

- 1995. Environmental Science and Technology . 33(23): 4176

- 4187.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

39 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet n- Propylbenzene CASRN: 103

- 65 -1

B ackground & Use

**•** n-Propylbenzene is an alkylated aromatic compound used in the manufacture of methylstyrene, in textile dyeing, as a printing solvent, and is a constituent of asphalt and naptha.
**•** Names & Synonyms: n -Propylbenzene; Benzene, propyl- ; 1-Phenylpropane; Propylbenzene.
**•** n-Propylbenzene is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : 2.5 mg/kg/day , b ased on a 24- week study in rats, and associated with effects on the blood , such as changes in the spleen ( Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [ RTECS ] Lowest Oral Chronic LOAEL ).
**•** RTECS Lowest Oral Lethal Dose (LD 50 ) : 6,040 mg/kg, based on a stu dy in rats, associated with behavioral effects, such as somnolence (general depressed activity).
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 5.83 μg/L for non- cancer effects in d rinking water based on the RTECS LOAEL of 2.5 mg/kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): production was approximately >10,000 – 500,000 pounds in 1998 and in 2002. Occurrence in Water

**•** Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Data: analytical results for samples collected by public w ater s ystems (PWSs) from 1988 – 1997 for (then) unregulated contaminants; datasets are stored in EPA’s National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD).

– Round 1 (1988 – 1992): occur red at 42 (0.33%) of the 12,724 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 34 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.7 μg/L.

– Round 2 (1993 – 1997): occurred at 54 (0.24%) of the 22,970 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 21 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.6 μ g/L.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

40 of 99 **•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999

– Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: detects in 67 (5.14 %) of 1,303 samples; detects were from 46 (7.78 %) of the 591 sites; detects were from 3 states; detects ranged from 0 .5

– 39 0 μg/L.

– Surface Water: detects in 266 ( 43.54 %) of 611 samples; detects were from 17 ( 13.60% ) of the 125 sites; detects were from 3 states; detec ts ranged from 0.001

– 1.7 μg/L.

– Ohio Public Water Supply: detect in 1 ( 0.08 %) of 1 , 277 samples; detect was from 1 ( 0.54 %) of the 18 6 sites; detect wa s from 1 (100%) state; detect ed concentration equaled 0.5 μg/L.

**•** National Water

- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program (1992

– 2001): detects in 90 (1.51%) of 5,941 samples and at 53 (1.23%) of the 4,309 sites at a maximum concentration of 47 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.024 μg/L.

**•** NAWQA Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) National Synthesis Random and Focused VOC Surveys: random survey designed t o be nationally representative of community water systems (CWSs) source water and focused survey designed to provide insight into temporal variability and anthropogenic factors associated with VOC occurrence. (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. site s.)

– Random Survey (1999

– 2000): samples taken from the source waters of 954 CWSs; detect s in 1 (0.10%) of the samples (0% of ground water samples and 0 .27 % of surface water samples) at a concentration of 0.21 μg/ L (Grady, 2003).

– Focused Survey ( 1999

– 2001 ): 451 samples taken from source waters serving 134 CWSs; detected at 0.8% of the CWSs sampled (1.3% of ground water sites and 0% of surface water sites) . B elow the reporting level of 0.2 μg/L , detected at 3.0 % of the CWSs sampled ( 1 .3% of ground water sites and 5.4 % of surface water sites) . C oncentrations rang ed from 0.05

– 0.47 μg/L (Delzer and Ivahnenko, 2003)

. **•** NAWQA VOC National Synthesis Compilation of Historical VOC Monitoring Data (1985

– 1995): samples t aken from 241 urban wells and 1,462 rural wells; 2.07% detection frequency in urban areas and 0.21% detection frequency in rura l areas at concentrations rang ing from 0.6

– 47 μg/L

. In urban wells , the median concentration was 4.5 μg/L and in rural wells , t he median concentration was 1.9 μg/L (Squillace, et al., 1999). (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. site s.)
**•** NAWQA VOCs in Ground Water and Drinking Water Supply Wells (1985

– 2001): national assessment comp rised of approximately 100 different aquifer studies; roughly 3,500 water samples collected from various types of wells:

– Aquifers: detects in 1 (0.041%) of 2,461 samples at a concentration of 0.048 μg/L.

– Shallow ground water in urban areas: detects in 8 ( 0.9%) of 847 samples.

– Shallow ground water in agricultural areas: detects in 1 (0.1%) of 721 samples.

– Domestic wells: detects in 1 (0.052%) of 1,932 samples at a concentration of 0.061 μg/L.

– Public wells: not detected in 950 samples.

– Domestic and public wells: detects in 1 (<0.1%) of 2,882 samples.
**•** Six

- Year Data (1998

– 2005): contaminant occurrence data voluntarily submitted by states to EPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second Six

Year Review:EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

41 of 99 – California: de tects in 12 (0.01%) of 115,072 drinking water samples; detects were from 9 (0.22%) of the 4,033 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.52

– 4.5 μg/L.

– North Carolina: detects in 14 (0.07%) of 19,831 drinking water samples; detects were from 11 (0.44 %) of the 2,493 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 3.8 μg/L.

– Ohio: detects in 4 (0.04%) of 9,288 drinking water samples; detects were from 4 (0.16%) of the 2,533 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.56

– 1.8 μg/L.

– Texas : detects in 6 (0.0 2 %) of 36 ,28 4 drinking wa ter samples; detects were from 5 (0.09%) of the 5 ,660 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 1.1

– 6.8 μg/L.

**•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ( 1983

– 1999 ): detects in 1 (0.0 4 %) of 2,580 drinking water samp les at a concentration of 1.9 μg/L; 1,062 PWSs sampled.
**•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (200 0

– 200 9 ): detects in 1 (0.0 3 %) of 3,303 drinking water samples at a concentration of 1. 1 μg/L ; 7 41 PWSs sampled. Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubilit y : 52.2 mg/L, indicates n

- propylbenzene is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 955 L/kg, indicates n

- propylbenzene is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 3.69, indicates n

- pro pylbenzene is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 0.0105 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates n

- propylbenzene is not very mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 2 2 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L i

fe: 15 days, indicates n

- propylbenzene is moderately persistent in the environment.
References Delzer, G.C. and T. Ivahnenko. 2003. Occurrence and Temporal Variability of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Select Sourc es of Drinking Water: Results of the Focused Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4084, 65 p. Grady, S.J. 2003. A National Survey of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking

- Water Sources: Results of the Random Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4079, 85 p. Squillace, P.J., M.J. Moran, W.W. Lapham, C.V. Price, R.M. Clawges, and J.S. Zogorski. 1999. Volatile Organic Compounds in Untreated Ambient Groundwat er of the United States, 1985

- 1995. Environmental Science and Technology . 33(23): 4176

- 4187.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

42 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

43 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Bromomethane (Methyl bromide) CASRN: 74

- 83 -9

B ackground & Use

**•** Bro momethane is a halogenated alkane and occurs as a gas. It is used as a fumigant on soil before planting, on crops after harvest, on vehicles and buildings, and for other specialized purposes.
**•** Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) released a Tolerance Reassess ment Progress and Risk Management Decision (RED) for bromomethane (under the name methyl bromide), and a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for commodity uses, in August of 2006. A RED for soil fumigant uses was released in July 2008 and amended in May 2009

. **•** Bromomethane is an ozone-destroying chemical regulated under the Montreal Protocol. Methyl bromide use in the U.S. was phased out in 2005, except for specific critical use exemptions and quarantine and preshipment exemptions . The most recent (200 8) list of critical use exemptions includes a variety of applications to fruits and vegetables, nursery seedlings and ornamentals, plus several food processing and storage applications (72 FR 74118).
**•** Names & Synonyms: Bromomethane; Methyl bromide; Monobromomethane; Methogas; Bromo- gas . **•** Bromomethane is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD :

– 0.0014 mg/kg/day , based on a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 1.4 mg/kg/day and an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 1,000, and associated with epith elial hyperplasia in the forestomach ( Inte grated Risk Information System [ IRIS ]

).

– 0.001 mg/kg/day ( EPA Health Advisory [HA] ).
**•** MRL : 0.003 mg/kg/day ( Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Regist ry [ATS DR] Interim MRL ).
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : 29.9 mg/ kg/day , based on a 2- year oral study in rats, and associated with changes in kidney, ureter, and bladder, and other changers in urine composition, changes in hair, and weigh t loss or decreased weight gain ( Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [ RTECS ] Oral Chr onic LOAEL ).
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : 1 mg/kg/day ( Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues [ JMPR ] Maximum ADI ).EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

44 of 99 **•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– D

– not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity ( EPA Cancer Class ).

– 3

– the agent i s not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans ( International Agency for Research o n Cancer [ IARC ] Cancer Class ).

– Listed ( State of California List of Chemicals Known to Cause Reproductive Effects ).
**•** DWEL : 0.05 mg/L.

**•** HRL : 9.8 μg/L for non

- cancer ef fects in drinking water based on the IRIS RfD of 0.0014 mg/kg/day

. Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): production was approximately >10

– 50 million pounds in 1998 and >1

– 10 million pounds in 2002.
**•** OPP RED Estim ated Usage: approximately 12 million pounds active ingredient (a.i.) applied in 2007; as of January 2008, approximately 14 million pounds of pre

- 2005 stocks remained (after phase

- out per the Montreal Protocol).
**•** EPA Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage Repor t: 28

– 33 million pounds a.i. used in the U.S. in 1999 and 20

– 25 million pounds a.i. used in the U.S. in 2001.
**•** National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) Pesticide Use Database: approximately 33 million pounds a.i. used across 29 states in 1997.
**•** United States Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide Use Maps: approximately 17.7 million pounds a.i. used in the U.S. in 2002.
**•** Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 2002: facilities reported 112 pounds were released into surface water across 4 states, and a total of 539,555 pounds were released into the environment across 20 states.
**•** TRI 2004: facilities reported 200 pounds were released into surface water across 3 states, and a total of 552,208 pounds were released into the environment across 17 states.
**•** TRI 2 006: facilities reported 361 pounds were released into surface water across 2 states, and a total of 408,252 pounds were released into the environment across 16 states.
**•** High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program: is included in the program which perfor ms baseline testing on chemicals that are made or imported into the U.S. in amounts equal to or greater than one million pounds per year. Occurrence in Water

**•** Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Data: analytical results for samples collected by p ublic w ater s ystems (PWSs) from 1988

– 1997 for (then) unregulated contaminants; datasets are stored in EPA’s National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD).

– Round 1 (1988

– 1992): occurred at 155 (0.77%) of the 20,198 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 43 μg /L and a median concentration of 1 μg/L.

– Round 2 (1993

– 1997): occurred at 175 (0.75%) of the 23,328 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 38.1 μg/L and a median concentration of 1.6 μg/L.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

45 of 99 **•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999

– Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: detects in 8 1 ( 2.32 %) of 3 , 486 samples; detects were from 70 ( 4.27 %) of the 1,640 sites; detects were from 2 state s ; detects ranged from 0 .2

– 5 0 μg/L.

– Surface Water: detects in 51 4 (27.11%) of 1,896 samples; detects were from 84 (17.04%) of the 493 sites; detects were from 2 states; detects ranged from 0

– 2 μg/L.

– Ohio Public Water Supply: no t detect ed in 1, 274 drinking water samples from 1 8 6 s ites that reported data

. **•** National Water

- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program (1992

– 2001): detects in 3 (0.05%) of 5,952 samples and at 3 (0.069%) of the 4,317 sites at a maximum concentration of 0.5 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.1 μg/L.

**•** NAWQA Volat ile Organic Compound (VOC) National Synthesis Random and Focused VOC Surveys: random survey designed to be nationally representative of community water systems (CWSs) source water and focused survey designed to provide insight into temporal variability and anthropogenic factors associated with VOC occurrence. (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. site s.)

– Random Survey (1999

– 2000): samples taken from the source waters of 954 CWSs; detect s in 2 (0. 2 1%) of the samples (0 .17 % of ground water samples and 0 .2 8 % of surface water samples) at a concentration of 6.4 μg/L for ground water and 0.22 μg/L for surface water (Grady, 2003).

– Focused Survey ( 1999

– 2001 ): 451 samples taken from source waters serving 134 CWSs

. Below the reporting level of 0.2 μg/L , detected at 3.0% of the CWSs sampled ( 3.8 % of ground water sites and 1.8 % of surface water sites) at concentrations rang ing from 0.09

– 0.11 μg/L (Delzer and Ivahnenko, 2003)

.
**•** NAWQA VOC National Synthesis Compilation of Historical VOC Monitoring Data (1985

– 1995): samples taken from 335 urban wells and 1, 186 rural wells; 0 % detection frequency in urban areas and 0. 05 % detection frequency in rural areas at a concentration of 0.05 μg/L (Squillace, et al., 1999). (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. site s.)

**•** NAWQA VOCs in Ground Water and Drinking Water Supply Wells (1985

– 2001): national assessment comprised of approximately 100 different aquifer studies; roughly 3,500 wa ter samples collected from various types of wells:

– Aquifers: detects in 1 (0.032%) of 3,119 samples at a concentration of 0.50 μg/L.

– Shallow ground water in urban areas: not detected in 847 samples.

– Shallow ground water in agricultural areas: not detecte d in 723 samples.

– Domestic wells: not detected in 2,156 samples.

– Public wells: detects in 1 (0.093%) of 1,078 samples at a concentration of 6.4 μg/L.

– Domestic and public wells: detects in 1 (<0.1%) of 3,234 samples.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

46 of 99 **•** Six

- Year Data (1998

– 2005): contaminan t occurrence data voluntarily submitted by states to EPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second Six

Year Review:

– California: detects in 72 (0.06%) of 112,570 drinking water samples; detects were from 51 (1.26%) o f the 4,041 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.2

– 24 μg/L.

– Illinois: no t detect ed in 6 drinking water samples from 2 CWSs that reported data

.

– North Carolina: detects in 23 (0.12%) of 19,855 drinking water samples; detects were from 22 (0.88%) of the 2,493 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 23 μg/L.

– Ohio: detects in 52 (0.56%) of 9,269 drinking water samples; detects were from 41 (1.62%) of the 2,531 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 24 μg/L.

– Region 9 Tribes : det ects in 1 (0.09 %) of 1, 163 drinking water samples at a concentration of 0. 5 μg/L; 2 86 PWSs reported data

.

– South Dakota: no t detect ed in 1,110 drinking water samples from 281 PWSs that reported data

.

– Texas : detects in 179 (0. 49 %) of 36 , 325 drinking wa ter sa mples; detects were from 1 1 6 ( 2.05 %) of the 5,660 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5 1

– 65.54 μg/L.

**•** Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2004

– 2007): detects in 1 (0.06%) of 1,767 drinking water samples at a concentration of 0.3 μ g/L; 27 PWSs sampled.

**•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ( 1983

– 1999 ): detects in 3 2 (0. 21 %) of 15 , 018 drinking water samples; detects were from 29 (1.50%) of the 1 , 929 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0. 06

– 3.5 μg/L.

**•** Wisconsin Departm ent of Natural Resources (200 0

– 200 9 ): detects in 7 (0. 11 %) of 6,467 drinking water samples; detects were from 6 ( 0.53 %) of the 1,123 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0. 19

– 1.6 μg/L. Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 15,200 mg/L, ind icates bromomethane is very mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 9

– 22 L/kg, indicates bromomethane is very mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 1.19, indicates bromomethane is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 0.00734 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates bromomethane is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 42 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 20

– 26.7 days, indicates bromo methane is moderately persistent in the environment.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

47 of 99 References Delzer, G.C. and T. Ivahnenko. 2003. Occurrence and Temporal Variability of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Select Sources of Drinking Water: Results o f the Focused Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4084, 65 p. Grady, S.J. 2003. A National Survey of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking

- Water Sources: Results of the Random Survey . U .S. Geological Survey Water

Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4079, 85 p. Squillace, P.J., M.J. Moran, W.W. Lapham, C.V. Price, R.M. Clawges, and J.S. Zogorski. 1999. Volatile Organic Compounds in Untreated Ambient Groundwater of the United States, 1985

- 1 995. Environmental Science and Technology . 33(23): 4176

- 4187.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

48 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

49 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet sec - Butylbenzene CASRN: 135

- 98 -8
Background & Use

**•** sec
- Butylbenzene is an alkylated aromatic com pound. It is used as a solvent for coating compositions, in organic synthesis, and as a plasticizer and in surface active agents.
**•** Names & Synonyms: sec -Butylbenzene; (1 -Methylpropyl)benzene; 2-Phenylbutane.
**•** sec -Butylbenzene is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3

. Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : 4.42 mg/kg/day, based on a 24- week study in rats, associated with behavioral changes, such as alteration of classic conditioning ( Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [ RTECS ] Lowest Oral Chronic LOAEL ).
**•** Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) Lowest Oral Lethal Dose (LD 50 ) : 2,240 mg/kg.

**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 10.3 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water, based on the RTECS LOAEL of 4.42 mg/kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** No data for production and release.
Occurrence in Water

**•** Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Data : analytical results for samples collect ed by public w ater s ystems (PWSs) from 1988 – 1997 for (then) unregulated contaminants; datasets are stored in EPA’s National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD):

– Round 1 (1988 – 1992): occurred at 28 (0.23%) of the 12,343 PWSs, at a maximum concentrati on of 19.8 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.7 μg/L.

– Round 2 (1993 – 1997): occurred at 34 (0.15%) of the 22,974 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 22 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.57 μg/L.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

50 of 99 **•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999

– Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: detects in 53 (4.17 %) of 1,270 samples; detects were from 44 (7.65 %) of the 575 sites; detects were from 3 states; detects range d from 0 .4

– 6.1 μg/L.

– Surface Water: detects in 297 ( 47.90 %) of 620 samples; detects were from 17 ( 13.93% ) of the 122 sites; detects were from 3 states; detec ts ranged from 0.001

– 0.7 μg/L.

– Ohio Public Water Supply: detect in 1 ( 0.08 %) of 1 , 277 samples; detect was from 1 ( 0.54 %) of the 18 6 sites; detect wa s from 1 (100%) state; detect ed concentration equaled 0.5 μg/L.

**•** National Water

- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program (1992

– 2001) : detect s in 42 (0.71%) of 5,941 samples and at 25 (0.58%) of the 4,309 site s at a maximum concentration of 11 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.39 μg/L.

**•** NAWQA Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) National Synthesis Random and Focused VOC Surveys: random survey designed to be nationally representative of c ommunity w ater s ystem (CWS) source water and focused survey designed to provide insight into temporal variability and anthropogenic factors associated with VOC occurrence. (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. site s.)

– Random Survey (19 99

– 2000): samples taken from the source waters of 954 CWSs; not detected at the reporting level of 0.2 μ g/L (Grady, 2003).

– Focused Survey ( 1999

– 2001 ): 451 samples taken from source waters serving 134 CWSs; detected at 1.5% of the CWSs sampled (2.6% of ground water sites and 0% of surface water sites) at concentrations ranging from 0.05

– 0.07 μg/L (Delzer and Ivahnenko, 2003)

. **•** NAWQA VOC National Synthesis Compilation of Historical VOC Monitoring Data (1985

– 1995): samples taken from 209 urban wells an d 1,396 rural wells; 1.91% detection frequency in urban areas and 0.14% detection frequency in rural areas at concentrations ranging from 0.2

– 11 μg/L

. In urban wells , the median concentration was 1.65 μg/L and in rural wells , the median concentration was 2.3 μg/L (Squillace, et al., 1999) (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. sites .)
**•** Six

- Year Data (1998

– 2005): supplemental contaminant occurrence data voluntarily submitted by states to EPA in support of nat ional contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second Six

- Year Review:

– California: detects in 9 (0.01%) of 114,109 drinking water samples; detects were from 8 (0.20%) of the 4,006 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 8.3 μg/L.

– Nor th Carolina: detects in 10 (0.05%) of 19,843 drinking water samples; detects were from 8 (0.32%) of the 2,493 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 9.5 μg/L.

– Ohio: detects in 4 (0.04%) of 9,288 drinking water samples; detects were from 3 (0.12 %) of the 2,533 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 2.1 μg/L.

– South Dakota: no t detect ed in 1,110 drinking water samples from 281 PWSs that reported data

.

– Texas : no t detect ed in 36,284 drinking water samples from 5,660 PWSs that reported dat a . **•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ( 1983

– 1999 ): detects in 1 (0.04 %) of 2,569 drinking water samples at a concentration of 1.3 μg/L; 1,056 PWSs sampled.

**•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (200 0

– 200 9 ): no t detect ed in 3,409 drinking wat er samples from 743 PWSs that reported data

.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

51 of 99 Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 17.6 mg/L, indicates sec

- butylbenzene is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 7,200 L/kg, indicates sec

- butylbenzene is not very m obile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 4.57, indicates sec

- butylbenzene is not very mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 0.0176 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates sec

- butylbenzene is not very mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Wate r/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 1 5% ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 15 days, indicates sec

- butylbenzene is moderately persistent in the environment.
References Delzer, G.C. and T. Ivahnenko. 2003. Occurrence and Temporal Variability of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Select Sources of Drinking Water: Results of the Focused Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4084, 65 p. Grady, S.J. 2003. A National Survey of Me thyl tert

- Butyl Ether and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking

- Water Sources: Results of the Random Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4079, 85 p. Squillace, P.J., M.J. Moran, W.W. Lapham, C.V. Price, R.M. Clawg es, and J.S. Zogorski. 1999. Volatile Organic Compounds in Untreated Ambient Groundwater of the United States, 1985

- 1995. Environmental Science and Technology . 33(23): 4176

- 4187.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

52 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

53 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyt e Information Sheet Chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC
- 22) CASRN: 75

- 45 -6

B ackground

**•** Chlorodifluoromethane is a chlorofluorocarbon and occurs as a gas. It is used as a refrigerant, as a low-temperature solvent, and in fluorocarbon resins, especially tetrafluor oethylene polymers.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Chlorodifluoromethane; HCFC

- 22; Difluorochloromethane; Monochlorodifluoromethane; Fluorocarbon 22; Freon 22

. **•** Chlorodifluoromethane is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not availab le.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : 13.5 mg/kg/day, based on a 26- week study in rats, and associated with degenerative effects on the brain and coverings; changes in the blood cell count (unspecified); and nutritional and gross metabolic effects, such as weight loss or decreased weight gain ( Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substa nces [RTECS] Oral Chronic LOAEL ).
**•** Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) Lowest Oral Lethal Dose (LD 50 ) : 2,240 mg/kg.

**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/ or Teratogen Class :

– 3 – the agent is not classifiable as t o its carcinogenicity to humans ( International Agency for Research on Cancer [ IARC ] Cancer Class ).
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 31.5 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the RTECS LO AEL of 13.5 mg/kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): production was approximately >100 – 500 million pounds in 1998 and in 2002.
**•** Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 2002: facilities reported that 2,632 pounds we re released into surface water across 2 states, and a total of 9,229,794 pounds were released into the environment across 37 states.
**•** TRI 2004: facilities reported that 2,972 pounds were released into surface water in 1 state, and a total of 7,105,599 poun ds were released into the environment across 35 states.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

54 of 99 **•** TRI 2006: facilities reported that 2,798 pounds were released into surface water across 2 states, and a total of 7,017,573 pounds were released into the environment across 35 states. Occurrence in Wa ter

**•** No data for occurrence in water. Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 2,770 mg/L, indicates chlorodifluoromethane is very mobile in water.

**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 35.04 L/kg, indicates chlorodifluoromethane is very mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 1.08, indicates chlorodifluoromethane is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 0.0406 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates chlorodifluoromethane is not very mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water i n a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 43 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 15 days, indicates chlorodifluoromethane is moderately persistent in the environment.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

55 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Bromochloromethane (Halon 10 11) CASRN: 74

- 97 -5

B ackground & Use

**•** Bromochloromethane is used as a fire -extinguishing fluid, an explosive suppressant , and as a solvent in the manufacturing of pesticides.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Bromochloromethane; Halon 1011; Chlorobromomethane ; Methylene chlorobromide

. **•** Bromochloromethane is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : 0.01 mg/kg/day , associated with increased liver

- to -body weight ratio and cloudy swelling and vacuolization of hepatocytes ( EPA Health Advisory [HA ]

).
**•** MRL : Not availab le.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– D – not classifia ble as to human carcinogenicity ( EPA Cancer Class ).
**•** DWEL : 0.5 mg/L.

**•** HRL : 70 μg/L for non- cancer effects in dri nking water based on the EPA HA RfD of 0.01 mg/kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): production was approximately >1 – 10 million pounds in 1998 and in 2002. Occurrence in Water

**•** Unregulated Contaminant Moni toring (UCM) Data: analytical results for samples collected by public w ater s ystems (PWSs) from 1988 – 1997 for (then) unregulated contaminants; datasets are stored in EPA’s National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD).

– Round 1 (1988 – 1992): occurred a t 65 (0.5%) of the 12,881 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 210 μg/L and a median concentration of 1 μg/L.

– Round 2 (1993 – 1997): occurred at 106 (0.46%) of the 22,974 PWSs, at a maximum concentration of 33.4 μg/L and a median concentration of 1 μg/L.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

56 of 99 **•** EP A’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999

– Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: detects in 53 (3.30%) of 1,606 samples; detects were from 40 (6.28%) of the 637 sites; detects were from 2 states; detects ranged from 0.5

– 250 μg/L.

– Surface Water: detects in 276 (41.82%) of 660 samples; detects were from 69 (37.70%) of the 183 sites; detects were from 2 states; detects ranged from 0.005

– 8 μg/L.

– Ohio Public Wa ter Supply: not detected in 1,277 drinking water samples from 186 sites that reported data.
**•** National Water

- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program (1992

– 2001): detects in 14 (0.24%) of 5,869 samples and at 7 (0.165%) of the 4,238 sites at a maximum concentrat ion of 0.45 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.2 μg/L.

**•** NAWQA Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) National Synthesis Random and Focused VOC Surveys: random survey designed to be nationally representative of c ommunity w ater s ystems (CWSs) source water and foc used survey designed to provide insight into temporal variability and anthropogenic factors associated with VOC occurrence. (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. sites .)

– Random Survey (1999

– 2000): samples t aken from the source waters of 953 CWSs; no t detected at the reporting level of 0.2 μg/L (Grady, 2003).

– Focused Survey ( 1999

– 2001 ): 451 samples taken from source waters serving 134 CWSs; detected at 3.7% of the CWSs sampled (5.1% of ground water sites a nd 1.8% of surface water sites) at concentrations ranging from 0.04

– 0.08 μg/L (Delzer and Ivahnenko, 2003)

. **•** NAWQA VOC National Synthesis Compilation of Historical VOC Monitoring Data (1985

– 1995): samples taken from 180 urban wells and 1,241 rural wells ; 1.1 1 % detection frequency in urban areas and 0% detection frequency in rural areas; all detects in urban areas were at concentrations of 0.2 μg/L (Squillace, et al., 1999) (Note: language in the referenced literature is ambiguous with respect to samples vs. sites .)
**•** Six

- Year Data (1998

– 2005): contaminant occurrence data voluntarily submitted by states to EPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second Six

Year Review:

– California: detects in 40 (0.03%) of 117,632 dr inking water samples; detect s were from 19 (0.47%) of the 4,035 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 17 μg/L.

– North Carolina: detects in 31 (0.16%) of 19,842 drinking water samples; detect s were from 29 (1.16%) of the 2,493 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 48.46 μg/L.

– Ohio: detects in 23 (0.25%) of 9,291 drinking water samples; detect s were from 21 (0.83%) of the 2,533 PWSs that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 12 μg/L.

– South Dakota: detects in 1 (0.09%) of 1,110 drin king water samples at a concentration of 0.68 μg/L ; 281 PWSs reported data

.

– Texas : detects in 5 (0. 01 %) of 36 ,2 84 drinking water samples; detect s were from 5 (0. 09 %) of the 5,660 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0.5 6

– 2 .3 μg/L.

**•** Wisconsin Depar tment of Natural Resources ( 1983

– 1999 ): detects in 2 (0. 08 %) of 2,468 drinking water samples; detect s were from 2 (0. 20 %) of the 1,009 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0. 71

– 4. 2 μg/L.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

57 of 99 **•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (200 0

– 200 9 ): detects in 1 (0.03 %) of 3,420 drinking water samples at a concentration of 0.73 μg/L; 747 PWSs sampled.

**•** AwwaRF

- EPA Study of DBPs: not detected at any finished water sites sampled (Krasner, et al., 2006). Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 16,700 mg /L, indicates bromochloromethane is very mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 24 L/kg, indicates bromochloromethane is very mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 1.41, indicates bromochloromethane is m oderately mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 0.00146 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates bromochloromethane is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 40 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: 15 d ays, indicates bromochloromethane is moderately persistent in the environment.
References Delzer, G.C. and T. Ivahnenko. 2003. Occurrence and Temporal Variability of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether (MTBE) and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Select Sources of Drinking Water: Results of the Focused Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

- Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4084, 65 p. Grady, S.J. 2003. A National Survey of Methyl tert

- Butyl Ether and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking

- Water Sources: Result s of the Random Survey . U.S. Geological Survey Water

Resources Investigations Report 02

- 4079, 85 p. Krasner, S.W., H.S. Weinberg, S.D. Richardson, S.J. Pastor, R. Chinn, M.J. Sclimenti, G.D. Onstad, and A.D. Thruston, Jr. 2006. Occurrence of a new generati on of disinfection byproducts. Environmental Science and Technology . 40(23): 7175

- 7185. Squillace, P.J., M.J. Moran, W.W. Lapham, C.V. Price, R.M. Clawges, and J.S. Zogorski. 1999. Volatile organic compounds in untreated ambient groundwater of the United S tates, 1985

- 1995. Environmental Science and Technology . 33(23): 4176

- 4187.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

58 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

59 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet 1,4
- Dioxane CASRN: 123

- 91 -1

B ackground & Use

**•** 1,4

- Dioxane is a cyclic aliphatic eth er and is commonly used as a solvent or solvent stabilizer in the manufacture and processing of paper, cotton, textile products, automotive coolant, cosmetics, and shampoos.
**•** Names & Synonyms: 1,4 -Dioxane; p- Dioxane; 1,4 -Diethylene dioxide; di(Ethylene oxi de).
**•** 1,4 -Dioxane is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : 0.03 mg/kg/day , based on a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 9.6 mg/kg/day in rats and an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 300, and associated with liver and kidney toxicity (

Inte grated Risk Information System [ IRIS ], Draft Toxicological Review Released for External Review and public comment May 7, 2009; 74 FR 21361 ).
**•** MRL :

– 0.1 mg/kg/day ( Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] ).

– 0.6 mg/kg/day ( ATSDR Interim MRL ).
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor :

– 0.011 ( mg/kg/day) -1 ( IRIS Oral Slope Factor ).

– 0.19 ( mg/kg/day) -1 ( IRIS Draft Updated Oral Slope Factor , Draft Toxicological Review Released for External Review and P ublic C omment May 7, 2009; 74 FR 21361)

.

– 0.027 ( mg/kg/day) -1 ( California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment [ OEHHA ] Oral Slope Factor ).
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– B2 – probable human carcinogen (sufficient evidence from animal studies and inadeq uate/no epidemiologic studies) ( EPA Cancer Class ).

– 2A – the agent is probably carcinogenic to humans ( International Agency for Research on Cancer [ IARC ] Cancer Class ).

– Listed ( State of California List of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer ).

– Listed ( University of Maryland’s Partial List of Teratogens ).
**•** EPA 10 -4 Lifetime Cancer Risk: 0.3 mg/L.

**•** DWEL : Not available.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

60 of 99 **•** HRL :

– 700 μg/L for non

- cancer effects in drinking water based on the ATSDR MRL of 0.1 mg/kg/day

.

– 210 μg/L for non

- cancer effects in drinking water b ased on the draft IRIS RfD of 0.03 mg/kg/day

.

– 30 μg/L for cancer effects in drinking water based on the EPA 10

- 4 lifetime cancer risk of 0.3 mg/L ( set at the 10 - 5 risk level ).

– 1.84 μg/L for cancer effects in drinking water based on the draft IRIS oral slope factor of 0.19 mg/L ( set at the 10 - 5 risk level ). Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): production was approximately >1

– 10 million pounds in 1998 and in 2002.
**•** Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 2002: facilities report ed 75,119 pounds released into surface water across 9 states, and a total of 1,146,641 pounds released into the environment across 22 states.
**•** TRI 2004: facilities reported 89,521 pounds were released into surface water across 7 states, and a total of 821,0 67 pounds were released into the environment across 22 states.
**•** TRI 2006: facilities reported 49,035 pounds were released into surface water across 8 states, and a total of 316,133 pounds were released into the environment across 19 states. Occurrence in W ater

**•** Six

- Year Data (1998

– 2005): contaminant occurrence data voluntarily submitted by states to EPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second Six

Year Review

– California: detects in 505 (11.9%) of 4,245 drinking wat er samples; detects were from 24 (11.0%) of the 218 p ublic w ater s ystems (PWSs) that reported data ; detects ranged from 0.001

– 46.2 μg/L.

**•** Community Water System Survey (CWSS) (2006): 1 system serving >500,000 people reported monitoring data; detect s in 17 (68%) of 25 samples ; detects ranged from 0.5

– 2.2 μg/L. Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 1,000,000 mg/L, indicates 1,4

- dioxane is very mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 1 L/kg, indicates 1,4

- dioxane is very mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : - 0.27, indicates 1,4

- dioxane is very mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 4.80E

- 06 atm

- m 3 /mol, indicates 1,4

- dioxane is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Se diment System (W%) : 47 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: Not available.
**•** Modeled or Measured Degradation Rates: suggest that 1,4

- dioxane is moderately persistent in the environment.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

61 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Vanadium C ASRN: 7440

- 62

- 2

B ackground & Use

**•** Vanadium is an elemental metal. It is commonly used as vanadium pentoxide which is a chemical intermediate and a catalyst.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Vanadium.
**•** Vanadium is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : 0.00 7 mg/kg/day ( Risk Assessment Information System [ RAIS ]

).
**•** MRL : 0.003 mg/kg/day with an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 100, and is associated with altered renal function indicated by increased plasma urea and mild histological changes ( Agency for Toxic S ubstances and Disease Registry [ ATS DR] Interim MRL ).
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : 960 mg/kg/day, based on a study in domestic mammals ( Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [ RTECS ]

).
**•** RfD

- Like Tolerable Upper Intake Level: 0.026 mg/kg/day , associated wit h kidney lesions and increases in plasma urea and uric acid.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 21 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the ATSDR Interi m Minimal Risk Level of 0.003 mg/kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 2002: facilities reported 2,666 pounds were released into surface water across 6 states, and a total of 2,417,562 pounds were released into the environment across 24 states.
**•** TRI 2004: facilities reported 1,170 pounds were released into surface water across 6 states, and a total of 1,600,795 pounds were released into the environment across 23 states.
**•** TRI 2006: facilities reported 16,889 pounds were released into sur face water across 5 states, and a total of 2,591,471 pounds were released into the environment across 21 states.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

62 of 99 Occurrence in Water

**•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999 – Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of nati onal coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: detects in 557 (19.29 %) of 2,888 samples; detects were from 285 (42.73 %) of the 667 sites; detects were from 10 states; detects ranged from 0 .087 – 86,000 μg/L.

– Surface Water: detects in 23,586 (5 4.46 %) of 43,307 samples; detects were from 4,362 ( 43.59% ) of the 10,006 sites; detects were from 33 states; detec ts ranged from 0 – 52,800 μg/L.

– Ohio Public Water Supply: not detected in 1 drinking water sample from 1 site that reported data

. **•** National Ino rganics and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) (1984 – 1986): detected at 146 (14.76%) of the 989 public water systems (PWSs) at a maximum concentration of 70 μg/L and a median concentration of 7 μg/L.

**•** Six- Year Data (1998 – 2005): contaminant occurrence data volu ntarily submitted by states toEPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second SixYear Review:

– California: detects in 16,688 (64.7%) of 25,784 drinking water samples; detects were from 1,824 (67.6%) of the 2,698 PWS s that reported data; detects ranged from 0.002 – 210 μg/L.

– Illinois: not detected in 19 drinking water samples from 17 community water systems (CWSs) that reported data.

– Ohio: not detected in 71 drinking water samples from 23 PWSs that reported data.
Per sistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 8,000 mg/L, indicates vanadium pentoxide is highly mobile in the environment.

**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : Not available.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : Not available.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : Not available.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : Not available.
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half -L ife: Not available.
**•** Modeled or Measured Degradation Rates: suggest vanadium is highly persistent in the environment.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

63 of 99 

## P ossible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Molybdenum

CASRN: 7439

- 98

- 7

B ackground & Use

**•** Molybdenum is an element found in ores and present in plants, animals, and bacteria. Its commonly used form, molybdenum trioxide, is used as a chemical reagent.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Molybdenum.
**•** Molybdenum is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : 0.005 mg/kg/day, based on a Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) of 0.14 mg/kg/day and an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 30, and associated with increased uric acid levels. ( Inte grated Risk Information System [ IRIS ]

).
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : 0.5 mg/kg/day, based on a 19- week study in rabbits, and associated with effects on the liver, kidneys, ureter, and the bladder, and effects on nutritional and gross metabolic conditions, such as weight loss or decreased weight gain ( Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [ RTECS ]

).
**•** Institute of Medicine (IOM) Tolerable Upper Intake Level: 0.03 mg/kg/day , associated with effects on reproduction and fetal development (decreased gestational weight gain, prolonged estrus cycle, and failure to breed), renal failure, diuresis, and proteinuria.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– D – not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity ( EPA Cancer Class ).

– Listed ( University of Maryland’s Partial List of Teratogens ).
**•** DWEL : 0.2 mg/L

. **•** HRL : 35 μg/L for non-cancer effects in drinking water based on the IRIS RfD of 0.005 mg/kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update S ystem/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): no reports for 1998 or 2002; however, production was approximately >1 million - 10 million pounds in 1986.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

64 of 99 Occurrence in Water

**•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999

– Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: detects in 388 ( 24.89 %) of 1,559 samples; detects were from 17 0 ( 34

. 69 %) of the 49 0 sites; detects were from 9 state s ; detects ranged from 0

– 4,000 μg/L.

– Surface Water: detects in 18,231 ( 45.71 %) of 39,884 samples; detects were from 3,854 ( 37

. 37 %) of the 10,313 sites; detects were from 28 state s ; detects ranged from 0

– 75,000 μg/L.

**•** National Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) (1984

– 1986): detected at 77 ( 7.79%) of the 989 public water systems (PWSs) at a maximum concentration of 181 μg/L and a median concentration of 10 μg/L.

**•** National Water

- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program (1992

– 2001): detects in 2,927 (52%) of 5,628 samples and at 1,879 (57%) of the 3,297 sites at a maximum concentration of 4,732.80 μg/L and a median concentration of 3 μg/L.

**•** Six

- Year Data (1998

– 2005): contaminant occurrence data voluntarily submitted by states to EPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conduct ed for the second Six

Year Review:

– California: detects in 1,132 (49.50%) of 2,287 drinking water samples; detects were from 107 (66.46%) of the 161 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0.005

– 83 μg/L.

– Illinois: detects in 2 52 (13. 19 %) of 1,9 11 d rinking water samples; detects were from 1 49 (17. 23 %) of the 86 5 community water systems (CWSs) that reported data; detects ranged from 2.5

– 110 μg/L.

– Ohio: detects in 34 (44.74%) of 76 drinking water samples; detects were from 13 (50.0%) of the 26 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 1

– 64 μg/L.

**•** Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (200 0

– 200 9 ): no t detect ed in 2 drinking water samples from 1 PWS that reported data

. Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 1,066 mg/L, indicates molybden um trioxide is highly mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : Not available.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : Not available.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : Not available.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment S ystem (W%) : Not available.
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: Not available.
**•** Modeled or Measured Degradation Rates: suggest molybdenum is highly persistent in the environment.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

65 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Cobalt CASRN: 7440

- 48 -4

B ackgroun d & Use

**•** Cobalt is an element found in the earth’s crust, and at low concentrations in seawater and in some surface and ground water. Cobalto us chloride was formerly used in medicines and as a germicide, and is naturally occurring.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Cobalt.
**•** Cobalt is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : 0.0 2 mg/kg/day (Risk Assessment Information System [ RAIS ]

).
**•** MRL : 0.01 mg/kg/day with an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 100, and associated with blood increased hemoglobin, polycythemia, and respir atory -effects on lung function ( Agency for Toxic S ubstances and Disease Registry [ ATS DR] Interim MRL ).
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** International Toxicity Estimates for Risk (ITER) Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI): 0.0014 mg/kg/day , based on a L owest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) of 0.04 mg/kg/day and an UF of 30, and associated with heart effects.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class :

– 2B – the agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans ( Internatio nal Agency for Research on Cancer [ IARC ] Cancer Class ).

– Listed ( State of California List of Chemicals Known to Cause Cancer ).
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 70 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the ATSDR Interim Minimal Risk Level of 0.01 mg/kg/day.

**•** CDC’s 95th Percentile Concentration: 1.32 μg/L for 2,465 urine samples tested from 1999 – 2000; 1.28 μg/L for 2,690 urine samples tested from 2001 – 2002; and 1.16 μg/L for 2,558 urine samples tested from 2003 – 2004 ( Calafat, et al., 2007 )

. Pr oduction & Release

**•** Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): no reports for 1998 or 2002; however, production was approximately >10,000 - 500,000 pounds in 1986 and in 1990.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

66 of 99 **•** Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 2002: facilities reported 2,784 pound s were released into surface water across 19 states, and a total of 748,062 pounds were released into the environment across 38 states.
**•** TRI 2004: facilities reported 1,227 pounds were released into surface water across 17 states, and a total of 776,762 pou nds were released into the environment across 38 states.
**•** TRI 2006: facilities reported 760 pounds were released into surface water across 18 states, and a total of 943,396 pounds were released into the environment across 37 states. Occurrence in Water

**•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999 – Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: detects in 467 ( 19.12 %) of 2,442 samples; detects were from 197 (28.14%) of th e 700 sites; detects were from 9 state s ; detects ranged from 0 – 21 ,1 00 μg/L.

– Surface Water: detects in 13,254 ( 24.00 %) of 55,217 samples; detects were from 4,855 ( 40

. 88 %) of the 11,877 sites; detects were from 30 state s ; detects ranged from 0 – 2 45,800 μg /L.

**•** National Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) (1984 – 1986): detected at 3 (0.30%) of the 989 of public water systems (PWSs) at a maximum concentration of 11 μg/L and a median concentration of 10 μg/L.

**•** National Water

- Quality Assessment (NAWQA) P rogram (1992 – 2001): detects in 1,170 (20.78%) of 5,630 samples and at 782 (23.7%) of the 3,297 sites at a maximum concentration of 684 μg/L, and a median concentration of 0.22 μg/L.

**•** Six- Year Data (1998 – 2005): contaminant occurrence data voluntarily su bmitted by states toEPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second SixYear Review:

– California: detects in 74 (3.27%) of 2,266 drinking water samples; detects were from 10 (14.93%) of the 67 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 0.01 – 10 μg/L.

– Illinois: detects in 1 (3.85%) of 26 drinking water samples at a concentration of 11 μg/L; 22 community water systems (CWSs) reported data.

– Ohio: detects in 3 (4.11%) of 73 drinking water samples; detects were from 3 (12.0%) of the 25 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 3.36 – 10 μg/L. Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 1,160,000 mg/L, indicates cobalt o us chloride is very mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : Not available.
**•** Oc tanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : Not available.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : Not available.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : Not available.
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half -L ife: Not available.
**•** Modeled or Measured Degradation Rates: suggest cobalt is persistent in the environment.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

67 of 99 References Calafat A.M., L.Y. Wong, Z. Kuklenyik, J.A. Reidy, and L.L. Needham. 2007. Polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the U.S. population: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003

– 2004 and comparisons to NHANES 1999

– 2000. Environmental Health Perspectives

. 115(11): 1578

- 1583.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

68 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

69 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Strontium CASRN: 7440

- 24 -6

B ackground & Use

**•** Strontium is an element. Historically, the commercial use of strontium has been in the faceplate glass of cathode-ray tube televisions, to block x- ray emissions.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Strontium.
**•** Strontium is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : 0.6 mg/kg/day , based on a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 190 mg/kg/day in rats and an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 300, and associated with rachitic bone ( Inte grated Risk Information System [ IRIS ]

).
**•** MRL : 2 mg/kg/day with an UF of 30, and is associated with musculoskeletal effects ( Agency for Toxic S ubstances and Disease Registry [ ATS DR] Interim MRL ).
**•** NOAEL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : D – not classifia ble as to human carcinogenicity ( EPA Cancer Class ).
**•** DWEL : 20 mg/L.

**•** HRL : 4,200 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the IRIS RfD of 0.6 mg/kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** No data for production and release. Occurrence in Water

**•** EPA ’s Storage and Retrieval ( STORET ) Database (1999 – Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: detects in 1,778 (94.98%) of 1,872 samples; detects were from 707 (96.19%) of the 735 s ites; detects were from 14 states; detects ranged from 0 – 19,000 μg/L.

– Surface Water: detects in 24,059 (93.77%) of 25,657 samples; detects were from 7,999 (98.15%) of the 8,150 sites; detects were from 27 states; detects ranged from 0.01 – 19,034,000 μg/ L.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

70 of 99 – Ohio Public Water Supply: detects in 3,070 (99.42%) of 3,088 samples; detects were from 187 (100%) of the 187 sites; detects were from 1 (100%) state; detects ranged from 52 – 66,200 μg/L.

**•** NAWQA U.S. Domestic Wells (1991 – 2004): detects in 485 (99.4%) of 488 well samples from aquifer studies; detects in 82 (100%) of 82 samples from agricultural land

- use studies (DeSimone, 2009).
**•** Contaminants in Ground Water of the Glacial Aquifer System in the Northern U.S. (1991 – 2003): detects in 551 (99.8%) of 552 s amples analyzed; detects ranged from 1.47 – 9, 120 μg/L (Groschen, et al., 2008).
**•** National Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) (1984 – 1986): detected at 980 (99.09%) of the 989 public w ater s ystems (PWSs) at a maximum concentration of 43.55 mg/L an d a median concentration of 0.18 mg/L.

**•** Six- Year Data ( 1998 – 2005 ): contaminant occurrence data voluntarily submitted by states toEPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second SixYear Review

– Illinois: detects in 21 (100%) of 21 drinking water samples; detects were from 19 (100%) of the 19 c ommunity w ater s ystems (CWSs) that reported data ; detects ranged from 71 – 4,600 μg/L.

– Ohio: detects in 75 (97.40%) of 77 drinking water samples; detects were from 30 (93.75%) of the 32 PWSs that reported data; detects ranged from 4 – 40,889 μg/L.

– Region 9 Tribes: not detected in 1 drinking water sample from 1 PWS that reported data.
**•** Community Water System Survey (CWSS) (2006): detected at 1 (1%) of the 94 systems serving more tha n 500,000 people, with a concentration of 330 μg/L.

**•** Environmental Working Group (EWG) National Drinking Water Database (2004 – 2009): detected at 366 PWS s in 5 states (Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, New York, and Minnesota) (EWG, 2009.)

. Persistence & Mobilit y
**•** Water Solubility : 11 mg/L, indicates strontium carbonate is moderately mobile in water.

**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : Not available.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : Not available.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : Not availab le.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : Not available.
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half -L ife: Not available.
References DeSimone, L.A. (2009). Quality of water from domestic wells in principal aquifers of the United States, 1991

- 2004 . U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008

- 5227, 139 p. Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5227/ . Retrieved July 28, 2009

. EWG. 2009. National Drinking Water Database. Available on the Internet at: http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/home

.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

71 of 99 Groschen, G.E., T.L. Arnold, W.S. Morrow, and K.L. Warner. 2008. Occurrence and dis tribution of iron, manganese, and selected trace elements in ground water in the glacial aquifer system of the Northern United States. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009

– 5006, 89 p. Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5006/ . Accessed January 21, 2010.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

72 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

73 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Chlorate CASRN: 14866

- 68 -3 Several data points in this information sheet relate to sodium chlorate, as noted. Background & Use

**•** Chlorate is an agricultural defoliant or desiccant and is used in the production of chlorine dioxide.
**•** Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) released a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for inorganic chlorates in July of 2006.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Chlorate.
**•** Chlorate is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : 0.03 mg/kg/day, associated with thyroid hypertrophy and mineralization ( OPP ).
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NOEL : 5 mg/kg/day for sodium chlorate, associated with bone marrow hyperplasia, thyroid follicular hypertrophy, and mineralization ( National Toxicology Program [ NTP ] Supplemental NOEL

. **•** LOAEL : 1.4 mg/kg/day for sodium chlorate, based on a 1- year study in rats ( Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances [ RTECS ] Oral Chronic LOAEL ).
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 210 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the OPP RfD of 0.03 mg/ kg/day.
Production & Release

**•** OPP RED Estimated Usage: approximately 2.8 million pounds active ingredient (a.i.) of sodium chlorate used annually in the U.S. (no data range provided).
**•** National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) Pesticide Use D atabase : approximately 7 million pounds a.i. of sodium chlorate used across 16 states in 1997.
**•** United States Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide Use Maps: approximately 4.8 million pounds a.i. used in the U.S. in 2002.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

74 of 99 Occurrence in Water

**•** Six

- Year Data (19 98

– 2005): contaminant occurrence data voluntarily submitted by states to EPA in support of national contaminant occurrence assessments conducted for the second Six

Year Review:

– California: detects in 945 (78 .4 %) of 1,205 drinking water samples; detects were from 24 (53 .3 %) of the 45 public water systems (PWSs) that reported data; detects ranged from 0.01

– 747 μg/L.

**•** Disinfection By

- Product Information Collection Rule (DBP

- ICR) (1997

– 1998): detects in 1,490 (86.7%) of 1,719 samples at a maximum concentr ation of 2,234 μg/L and a median concentration of 120 μg/L.

**•** Community Water System Survey (CWSS) (2006): detect s in 2 (50%) of 4 samples, at concentrations of 34 and 51 μg/L.

**•** Fourteen U.S. Drinking Water Utilities: detects in 2 (14%) of 14 source water sa mples, at concentrations of 20 and 22 μg/L; detects in 14 (100%) of 14 samples disinfected with hypochlorite solution at concentrations ranging from 11

– 6 6 0 μg/L ; detect s in 14 (100%) of 14 hypochlorite solutions, at concentrations ranging from 0.18

– 42 g/L ; second set of analyses performed on the same solutions approximately four months later

- detect s in 14 (100%) of 14 solutions, at concentrations ranging from 0.19

– 50 g/L (Bolyard, et al., 1992).
**•** Forty

- Two U.S. Drinking Water Utilities (follow

- up stu dy to Bolyard, et al., 1992) : detects in 2 (13%) of 15 source water samples, at concentrations of 19 and 23 μg/L in utilities that use hypochlorite solution disinfection ; detects in 16 (100%) of 16 drinking water samples at concentrations ranging from 11

– 660 μg/L in utilities that use hypochlorite solution disinfection; detects in 2 (12.5%) of 16 source water samples at concentrations of 17 and 81 μ g/L in utilities that use gaseous chlorine disinfection; detects in 3 (11%) of 28 drinking water samples at concentrations ranging from 17

– 43 μg/L in utilities that use gaseous chlorine disinfection (Bolyard, et al., 1993). Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 1,000,000 mg/L for sodium chlorate, indicates sodium chlorate is very mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : Not available.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : Not available.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : Not available.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : Not available.
**•** Estimated Biodegrad ation Half

- L ife: Not available.
References Bolyard, M., P

. S

. Fair, and D. P. Hautman . 1992. Occurrence of c hlorate in h ypochlorite s olutions u sed for d rinking w ater d isinfection

. Environmental Science and Technology. 26(8): 1663

- 1665. Bolyard, M. , P.S. Fai r , and D.P. Hautman. 1993. Sources of chlorate ion in U.S. drinking water. J ournal of Am erican Water Works Assoc iation

. 85(9): 81

- 88.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

75 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Perfluorooctanes ulfonic Acid (PFOS) CASRN: 1763

- 23 -1

B ackground & Use

**•** Perfluo rooctanesulfonic acid ( PFOS ) is used as a surfactant or emulsifier in fire fighting foam, circuit board etching acids, alkaline cleaners, and floor polish, and as a pesticide active ingredient for insect bait traps. The sole U.S. manufacturer of PFOS phased out production of the chemical in 2002. However, PFOS is still generated incidentally.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid; PFOS; Perfluorooctane sulfonate; Heptadecafluorooctane-1-sulphonic acid; Perfluorooctylsulfonic acid.
**•** PFOS is one of 10 4 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NO A EL :

– 0.03 mg/kg/day associated with decreased body weights, increased liver weights, lowered serum total cholesterol, lowered triiodothyronine (T3) concentration, and lowered estradiol levels ( EPA Provisional Health Advisory [HA] ).

– 0.1 mg/kg/day, based on a 2 generation reproductive study in rats, and associated with reduced F2 body weight ( EPA Federal Register ).
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) Lowest Oral Lethal Dose (LD 50 ): 251 mg/kg.

**•** EPA Provisional HA: 0.2 μg/L.

**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** EPA Provisional HA: 0.2 μg/L.

**•** HRL : 0.2 μg/L for non- cancer effects in d rinking water based on the provisional HA NOAEL of 0.03 mg/kg/day.

**•** CDCs 95th Percentile Concentration : 54.6 μg/L for 2,094 serum samples tested from 2003 – 2004; detects in 99.9% of samples ( Calafat, et al., 2007 ).EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

76 of 99 Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update Sys tem/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): production was approximately >10,000

– 500,000 pounds in 2002. Occurrence in Water

**•** New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Supply (2007): detected at 13 (57%) of the 23 sites sampled at c oncentrations ranging from 0.0042

– 0.019 μg/L.

**•** Minnesota Wells: detected at 6 (16.2%) of the 37 municipal wells sampled at a maximum concentration of 1.4 μg/L; not detected at the 26 private wells sampled; not detected at the 22 non
- community wells sampl ed (Goeden and Kelly, 2006).
**•** Minnesota’s Ambient Environment (2006

– 2008) (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2008):

– Rural Ambient Shallow Ground Water (October 2007): not detected in 22 samples.

– Urban Ambient Shallow Ground Water (2006

– 2007): detec ts in 10 (34%) of 29 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.037 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0105 μg/L.

– Mississippi and Minnesota River and Tributaries Water Samples (April 2008): detects in 3 (9%) of 34 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.058 2 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00523 μg/L (includes estimated values).

– Mississippi and Minnesota River Water Samples (August 2008): detects in 8 (23%) of 35 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.17 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0124 μg/L.

– Surface Water Samples (2006): detects in 6 (38%) of 16 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.115 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0709 μg/L.

– Brainerd Area Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (2007): detects in 2 (25%) of 8 samples at concentratio ns of 0.0936 and 0.102 μg/L.

– Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (June 2008): detects in 9 (41%) of 22 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.00695 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00598 μg/L.

– City Road Drainage Ditch Surface Water Samples (2008): detects in 3 (100%) of 3 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.140 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.132 μg/L.

– Rice Lake Surface Water Samples (2008): detects in 3 (100%) of 3 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.122 μg/L and a median concentratio n of 0.110 μg/L. Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 370 mg/L (potassium salt of PFOS), indicates PFOS is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 100,000 L/kg, indicates PFOS is not very mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Wa ter Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 0.94, indicates PFOS is very mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : Not available.
**•** Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 1% ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half

- L ife: Not availabl e.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

77 of 99 **•** Modeled or Measured Degradation Rates: suggest that PFOS is persistent in the environment.
References Calafat A.M., L.Y. Wong, Z. Kuklenyik, J.A. Reidy, and L.L. Needham. 2007. Polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the U.S. population: Data from the National He alth and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003

– 2004 and comparisons to NHANES 1999

– 2000. Environmental Health Perspectives

. 115(11): 1578

- 1583. Goeden, H. and J. Kelly. 2006. Targeted Sampling 2004

– 2005 . Perfluorochemicals in Minnesota, MN DOH, 2/27 /06. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2008. PFCs in Minnesota’s Ambient Environment. 2008 Progress Report.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

78 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

79 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) CASRN: 335

- 67 -1

B ackground & Use

**•** Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is a perfluorinated aliphatic carboxylic acid, commonly used for its emulsifier and surfactants properties in or as fluoropolymers (such as Teflon), fire-fighting foams, cleaners, cosmetics, greases and lubri cants, paints, polishes, adhesives, and photographic films.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Perfluorooctanoic acid; PFOA; Octanoic acid, pentadecafluoro -. **•** PFOA is one of 104 chemicals on CCL 3.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NO A EL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : 0.46 mg/kg/day, associated with body weight reduction, and increased liver, kidney, and brain weight relative to body weight ( Lau, et al., 2006 ).
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 1.1 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the LOAEL of 0.46 mg/kg/day.

**•** CDC’s 95th Percentile Concentration : 9 .8 μg/L for 2,094 serum samples tested from 2003 – 2004; detects in 99. 7 % of samples ( Calafat, et al., 2007 ). Production & Release

**•** Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Rule (CUS/IUR): production was approximately >10,000 – 500,000 pounds in 1998 and in 2002. Occurrence in Water

**•** EPA’s Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database (1999 – Present): data submission to STORET is voluntary; the extent of national coverage and data completeness may vary

.

– Ground Water: detects in 334 (47.71 %) of 700 samples; detects were from 84 (87.50 %) of the 96 sites; detects were from 1 state; detects ranged from 0 .025 – 48,500 μg/L.

– Surface Water: detects in 289 ( 49.57 %) of 583 samples; detects were from 51 ( 63.75% ) of the 80 sites; detects were from 1 state; detec ts ranged from 0.025 – 794 μg/L.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

80 of 99 **•** New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Supply (2007): dete cted at 18 (78%) of the 23 sites sampled at concentrations ranging from 0.004 5 – 0.039 μg/L.

**•** Minnesota Wells: detected at 6 (16.2%) of the 37 municipal wells sampled; detected at 1 (3.8%) of the 26 private wells sampled; not detected at the 22 non -communi ty wells sampled ; a maximum concentration of 0.9 μg/L (Goeden and Kelly, 2006).

**•** Testing of the Municipal Water System of Little Hocking, OH (2002 – 2005): concentrations in the water distribution system ranged from 1.5 – 7.2 μg/L, with a mean value of 3.5 5 μg/L ; private wells in the area exhibited concentrations that ranged from <0.01 – 14 μg/L (Emmett, et al., 2006).
**•** Minnesota’s Ambient Environment (2006 – 2008) (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2008):

– Rural Ambient Shallow Ground Water (October 2007): not detected in 22 samples.

– Urban Ambient Shallow Ground Water (2006 – 2007): detects in 4 (12%) of 29 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0275 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00871 μg/L.

– Mississippi and Minnesota River and Tributaries Water Sa mples (April 2008): detects in 4 (12%) of 34 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0364 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.003275 μg/L (includes estimated values).

– Mississippi and Minnesota River Water Samples (August 2008): detects in 15 (43%) of 35 s amples at a maximum concentration of 0.0196 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00719 μg/L.

– Surface Water Samples (2006): detects in 11 (69%) of 16 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0325 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0181 μg/L.

– Brainerd Area Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (2007): detects in 2 (25%) of 8 samples at concentrations of 0.00499 and 0.00567 μg/L.

– Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (June 2008): detects in 20 (91%) of 22 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.011 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00468 μg/L.

– City Road Drainage Ditch Surface Water Samples (2008): detects in 3 (100%) of 3 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.059 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0565 μg/L.

– Rice Lake Surface Water Samples (2008): d etects in 3 (100%) of 3 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.042 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0388 μg/L. Persistence & Mobility

**•** Water Solubility : 9,500 mg/L, indicates PFOA is very mobile in water.

**•** Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) : 27,000 L/kg, indicates PFOA is not very mobile in water.
**•** Octanol

- Water Partitioning Coefficient (logK ow

) : 2.68, indicates PFOA is moderately mobile in water.
**•** Henry’s Law Constant (K H

) : 0.091 atm -m 3 /mol, indicates PFOA is not very mobile in water.

**•** Perc ent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) : 1 % ( PBT Profiler ).
**•** Estimated Biodegradation Half -L ife: 180 days, indicates PFOA is persistent in the environment.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

81 of 99 References Calafat A.M., L.Y. Wong, Z. Kuklenyik, J.A. Reidy, and L.L. Needham. 2007. Polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the U.S. population: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003

– 2004 and comparisons to NHANES 1999

– 2000. Environmental Health Perspectives

. 115(11): 1578

- 1583. Emmett, E.A., F.S. Shofer, H. Z hang, D. Freeman, C. Desai, and L.M. Shaw. 2006. Community exposure to perfluorooctanoate: Relationships between serum concentrations and exposure sources. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 48: 759

- 770. Goeden, H. and J. Kelly. 2006. Targ eted Sampling 2004

- 2005. Perfluorochemicals in Minnesota, MN DOH, 2/27/06. Lau, C., J.R. Thibodeaux, R.G. Hanson, M.G. Narotsky, J.M. Rogers, A.B. Lindstrom, and M.J. Strynar. 2006. Effects of perfluorooctanoic acid exposure during pregnancy in the mouse. Toxicological Sciences. 90(2): 510

- 518. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2008. PFCs in Minnesota’s Ambient Environment. 2008 Progress Report. NJDEP. 2007. Determination of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Aqueous Samples, Final Report. Jan 2007, NJDEP, Division of Water Supply.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

82 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

83 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA) CASRN: 375

- 95 -1

B ackground & Use

**•** Perfluorononanoic acid is a manmade chemical and is used in produ cts to make them stain, grease, heat, and water resistant.
**•** Names & Synonyms: Perfluorononanoic acid; PFNA; Perfluoro -n-nonanoic acid.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NO A EL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL :

– 54 mg/kg/day , associated with death of all 10 mice before day 14 ( Kennedy , 1987 ).

– 0 .5 mg/kg/day , based on a 21 day mouse dietary study, associated with hepatic effects ( Kennedy , 1987 ).
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 3.5 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the LOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg/day.

**•** CDC’s 95th Percentile Concentration : 3.2 μg/L for 2,094 serum samples tested from 2003 – 2004; detects in 98.8 % of samples ( Calafat, et al., 2007 ). Prod uction & Release

**•** No data for production and release. Occurrence in Water

**•** U.S. Drinking Water Utilities (2007): Seven U.S. drinking water utilities with increasing impacts of treated wastewater; planned indirect potable reuse facilities (2) were excluded ( Quiñones and Snyder, 2009):

– Utility 1: not detected in raw or finished samples.

– Utility 2: detects in 4 (67%) of 6 raw samples at an average concentration of 0.0013 μg/L and detects in 5 (83%) of 6 finished samples at an average concentration of 0.0013 μg/L

.

– Utility 3: not detected in raw samples and detects in 1 (3%) of 33 finished samples at a concentration of 0.0010 μg/L

.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

84 of 99 – Utility 4: not detected in raw or finished samples.

– Utility 5: detects in 5 (100%) of 5 raw samples at an average concentration of 0.010 μg/L and detects in 7 (100%) of 7 finished samples at an average concentration of 0.0097 μg/L

. **•** Minnesota’s Ambient Environment (2006

– 2008) (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2008):

– Rural Ambient Shallow Ground Water (October 2007): not detected in 2 2 samples.

– Urban Ambient Shallow Ground Water (2006

– 2007): detects in 1 (3%) of 29 samples at a concentration of 0.00121 μg/L (a concentration less than the Reporting Level of 0.0025 μg/L).

– Mississippi and Minnesota River and Tributaries Water Samp les (April 2008): detects in 1 (3%) of 34 samples at a concentration of 0.00318 μg/L (estimated value).

– Mississippi and Minnesota River Water Samples (August 2008): detects in 9 (26%) of 35 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.00719 μg/L and a median co ncentration of 0.00392 μg/L.

– Surface Water Samples (2006): detects in 1 (6%) of 16 samples at a concentration of 0.00132 μg/L.

– Brainerd Area Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (2007): detects in 2 (2 5 %) of 8 samples at concentrations of 0.00258 and 0. 00307 μg/L

.

– Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (June 2008): not detected in 22 samples

.

– City Road Drainage Ditch Surface Water Samples (2008): detects in 1 (33%) of 3 samples at a concentration of 0.00306 μg/L.

– Rice Lake Surface Water Samples (2008): not detected in 3 samples

. **•** Albany, New York Rain, Snow, Surface Runoff, and Lake Samples (2006

– 2007): concentrations from 11 lake water samples ranged from not detected

– 0.00351 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00163 μg/L; concentrations from 11 ra in water samples ranged from less than the limit of quantitation (LOQ)

– 0.00348 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00104 μg/L; concentrations from 21 snow samples ranged from <LOQ

– 0.00494 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00055 μg/L; concentratio ns from 14 surface runoff samples ranged from <LOQ

– 0.00590 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00071 μg/L (Kim and Kannan, 2007).
**•** Cape Fear Drainage Basin in North Carolina (2006): 100 water samples were collected from 80 different sites; detected abo ve the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) (0.001 μg/L) in 74.7% of the samples; a maximum concentration of 0.194 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0057 μg/L (Nakayama, et al., 2007). Persistence & Mobility

**•** No data for persistence and mobility.
References Cal afat A.M., L.Y. Wong, Z. Kuklenyik, J.A. Reidy, and L.L. Needham. 2007. Polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the U.S. population: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003

– 2004 and comparisons to NHANES 1999

– 2000. Environmental H ealth Perspectives

. 115(11):1578

- 1583.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

85 of 99 Kennedy, G.L. 1987. Increase in mouse liver weight following feeding of ammonium perfluorooctanoate and related fluorochemicals. Toxicology Letters . 39(2

- 3): 295

- 300. Kim, S

- K. and K. Kannan. 2007. Perfluorinated acid s in air, rain, snow, surface runoff, and lakes: Relative importance of pathways to contamination of urban lakes. Environmental Science and Technology . 41: 8328

- 8334. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2008. PFCs in Minnesota’s Ambient Environment. 2008 Progress Report. Nakayama, S., M.J. Strynar, L. Helfant, P. Egeghy, X. Ye, and A.B. Lindstrom. 2007. Perfluorinated compounds in the Cape Fear Drainage Basin in North Carolina. Environmental Science and Technology . 41(15): 5271

- 5276. Quiñones, O. and S.A. Snyder. 2009. Occurrence of perfluoroalkyl carboxylates and sulfonates in drinking water utilities and related waters from the United States. Environmental Science and Technology . 43: 9089

- 9095.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

86 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

87 of 99 

## Poss ible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Perfluorohexanes ulfonic Acid (PFHxS) CASRN: 355

- 46 -4

B ackground & Use

**•** Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid is a manmade chemical and is used in products to make them stain, grease, heat, and water resistant.
**•** Na mes & Synonyms: Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid; PFHxS ; Perfluorohexane sulfonate; Perfluorohexane-1-sulphonic acid.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NO A EL : 10 mg/kg/day, based on a 42 – 56 day Sprague

- Dawley rat study, associated with immuno/lymph oret, neurological, reproductive, and developmental effects ( Hoberman and York , 2003 ).
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 70 μg/L for non- cancer eff ects in drinking water based on the NOAEL of 10 mg/kg/day.

**•** CDC’s 95th Percentile Concentration : 8.3 μg/L for 2,094 serum samples tested from 2003 – 2004; detects in 98.3 % of samples ( Calafat, et al., 2007 ). Production & Release

**•** No data for production and release. Occurrence in Water

**•** U.S. Drinking Water Utilities (2007): Seven U.S. drinking water utilities with increasing impacts of treated wastewater; planned indirect potable reuse facilities (2) were excluded (Quiñones and Snyder, 2009):

– Utility 1: not detected in raw or finished samples.

– Utility 2: detects in 5 (83%) of 6 raw samples at an average concentration of 0.0021 μg/L and detects in 6 (100%) of 6 finished samples at an average concentration of 0.0022 μg/L

.

– Utility 3: not detected in raw or fin ished samples.

– Utility 4: detects in 2 (33%) of 6 raw samples at an average concentration of 0.0025 μg/L and detects in 3 (43%) of 7 finished samples at an average concentration of 0.0014 μg/L

.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

88 of 99 – Utility 5: detects in 5 (100%) of 5 raw samples at an averag e concentration of 0.012 μg/L and detects in 7 (100%) of 7 finished samples at an average concentration of 0.012 μg/L

. **•** Minnesota’s Ambient Environment (2006

– 2008) (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2008):

– Rural Ambient Shallow Ground Water (October 20 07): not detected in 2 2 samples.

– Urban Ambient Shallow Ground Water (2006

– 2007): detects in 11 (38%) of 29 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0778 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00746 μg/L (includes concentrations less than the Reporting Leve l of 0.0025 μg/L).

– Mississippi and Minnesota River and Tributaries Water Samples (April 2008): detects in 1 (3%) of 34 samples at a concentration of 0.168 μg/L (estimated value).

– Mississippi and Minnesota River Water Samples (August 2008): detects in 2 (6% ) of 35 samples at concentrations of 0.00936 and 0.00987 μg/L.

– Surface Water Samples (2006): detects in 3 (19%) of 16 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0271 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0265 μg/L.

– Brainerd Area Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (2007): not detected in 8 samples.

– Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (June 2008): detects in 5 (23%) of 22 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0066 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00555 μg/L.

– City Road Drainage Ditch Surface Water S amples (2008): detects in 3 (100%) of 3 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.384 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.363 μg/L.

– Rice Lake Surface Water Samples (2008): detects in 3 (100%) of 3 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.255 μg/L and a media n concentration of 0.253 μg/L.

**•** Albany, New York Rain, Snow, Surface Runoff, and Lake Samples (2006

– 2007): concentrations from 11 lake water samples ranged from less than the limit of quantitation (LOQ)

– 0.00405 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.0005 3 μg/L; concentrations from 11 rain water samples ranged from not detected

– 0.00036 μg/L with a median concentration of <LOQ; concentrations from 21 snow samples ranged from not detected

– 0.00035 μg/L with a median concentration of <LOQ; concentrations f rom 14 surface runoff samples ranged from not detected

– 0.0135 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00035 μg/L (Kim and Kannan, 2007).
**•** Cape Fear Drainage Basin in North Carolina (2006): 100 water samples were collected from 80 different sites; detected above the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) (0.001 μg/L) in 73.4% of the samples; a maximum concentration of 0.0351 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00566 μg/L (Nakayama, et al., 2007). Persistence & Mobility

**•** No data for persistence and mobility.
Reference s Calafat A.M., L.Y. Wong, Z. Kuklenyik, J.A. Reidy, and L.L. Needham. 2007. Polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the U.S. population: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003

– 2004 and comparisons to NHANES 1999

– 2000. Environmen tal Health Perspectives

. 115(11): 1578

- 1583. Hoberman, A.M. and R.G. York. 2003. Oral (Gavage) Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity Study of T

- 7706 with the Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test . Argus Research.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

89 of 99 Kim, S

- K. and K. Kannan. 2007. Perfl uorinated acids in air, rain, snow, surface runoff, and lakes: Relative importance of pathways to contamination of urban lakes. Environmental Science and Technology . 41: 8328

- 8334. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2008. PFCs in Minnesota’s Ambient Envi ronment. 2008 Progress Report. Nakayama, S., M.J. Strynar, L. Helfant, P. Egeghy, X. Ye, and A.B. Lindstrom. 2007. Perfluorinated compounds in the Cape Fear Drainage Basin in North Carolina. Environmental Science and Technology . 41(15): 5271

- 5276. Quiñone s, O. and S.A. Snyder. 2009. Occurrence of perfluoroalkyl carboxylates and sulfonates in drinking water utilities and related waters from the United States. Environmental Science and Technology . 43: 9089

- 9095.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

90 of 99 [ this page intentionally left blank]EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

91 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Perfluoroheptanoic Acid (PFHpA) CASRN: 375

- 85 -9

B ackground & Use

**•** Perfluoroheptanoic acid is a manmade chemical and is used in products to make them stain, grease, heat, and water resistant.
**•** Names & Syn onyms: Perfluoroheptanoic acid; PFHpA; Perfluoro -n-heptanoic acid; Tridecafluoroheptanoic acid.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : Not available.
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NO A EL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : Not available.
**•** CDC’s 95th Percentile Concentration : 0.400 μg/L for 2,094 serum samples tested from 2003 – 2004; detects in 6.2 % of samples ( Calafat, et al., 2007 ); no drinking water and/or toxic ological data are currently available. Production & Release

**•** No data for production and release. Occurrence in Water

**•** Minnesota’s Ambient Environment (2006 – 2008) (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2008):

– Rural Ambient Shallow Ground Water (October 2007): not detected in 22 samples.

– Urban Ambient Shallow Ground Water (2006 – 2007): detects in 13 (45%) of 29 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0151 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0037 μg/L (includes concentrations less than the Reporting Level of 0.0025 μg/L).

– Mississippi and Minnesota River and Tributaries Water Samples (April 2008): detects in 1 (3%) of 34 samples at a concentration of 0.0162 μg/L (estimated value).

– Mississippi and Minnesota River Water Samples (August 2008): detects in 8 (23%) of 35 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.00442 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00384 μg/L (concentrations include estimated values).EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

92 of 99 – Surface Water Samples (2006): detects in 7 (44%) of 16 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.00476 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00357 μg/L.

– Brainerd Area Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (2007): not detected in 8 samples.

– Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (June 2008): detects in 4 (18%) of 22 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.00358 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.003515 μg/L.

– City Road Drainage Ditch Surface Water Samples (2008): detects in 3 (100%) of 3 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0197 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0 19 μg/L.

– Rice Lake Surface Water Samples (2008) : detects in 3 (100%) of 3 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0179 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0152 μg/L.

**•** Albany, New York Rain, Snow, Surface Runoff, and Lake Samples (2006

– 2007): concentrations from 11 lake water samples ranged from 0.001 15

– 0.0127 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00409 μg/L; concentrations from 11 rain water samples ranged from less than the limit of quantitation (LOQ)

– 0.00232 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00056 μg/L; concentrations from 21 snow samples ra nged from <LOQ

– 0.00161 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00039 μg/L; concentrations from 14 surface runoff samples ranged from <LOQ

– 0.00644 μg/L with a median concentration of 0.00113 μg/L (Kim and Kannan, 2007).
**•** Cape Fear Drainage Basin in North Carolina (2006): 100 water samples were collected from 80 different sites; detected above the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) (0.001 μg/L) in 55.7% of the samples; a maximum concentration of 0.329 μg/L and a median concentratio n of 0.0148 μg/L (Nakayama, et al., 2007). Persistence & Mobility

**•** No data for persistence and mobility.
References Calafat A.M., L.Y. Wong, Z. Kuklenyik, J.A. Reidy, and L.L. Needham. 2007. Polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the U.S. population: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003

– 2004 and comparisons to NHANES 1999

– 2000. Environmental Health Perspectives

. 115(11): 1578

- 1583. Kim, S

- K. and K. Kannan. 2007. Perfluorinated acids in air, rain, snow, surface runoff, and lake s: Relative importance of pathways to contamination of urban lakes. Environmental Science and Technology . 41: 8328

- 8334. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2008. PFCs in Minnesota’s Ambient Environment. 2008 Progress Report. Nakayama, S., M.J. Strynar, L. Helfant, P. Egeghy, X. Ye, and A.B. Lindstrom. 2007. Perfluorinated compounds in the Cape Fear Drainage Basin in North Carolina. Environmental Science and Technology . 41(15): 5271

- 5276.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

93 of 99 

## Possible UCMR 3 Analyte Information Sheet Perfluorobutanes ulfonic Acid (PFBS) CASRN: 375

- 73 -5

B ackground & Use

**•** Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid is a manmade chemical and is used in products to make them stain, grease, heat, and water resistant.
**•** Na mes & Synonyms: Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid; PFBxS; 1-Perfluorobutanesulfon ic acid; Nonafluorobutanesulfonic acid.
Health Effects

**•** RfD : 0.0014 mg/kg/day , based on a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 60 mg/kg/day and an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 300, and associated with decreased hemoglobin and hematocrit and histologi cal changes in kidney ( Minnesota Department of Health, 2009 ).
**•** MRL : Not available.
**•** NO A EL : Not available.
**•** LOAEL : Not available.
**•** Slope Factor : Not available.
**•** ADI : Not available.
**•** Cancer and/or Teratogen Class : Not available.
**•** DWEL : Not available.
**•** HRL : 9.8 μg/L for non- cancer effects in drinking water based on the RfD of 0.0014 mg/kg/day.

**•** CDC’s 95th Percentile Concentration : L ess than the limit of detection for 2,094 serum samples tested from 2003 – 2004 ( Calafat, et al., 2007 ). Production & Release

**•** No data fo r production and release. Occurrence in Water

**•** Cape Fear Drainage Basin in North Carolina (2006): 100 water samples were collected from 80 different sites; detected above the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) (0.001 μg/L) in 39.2% of the samples ; a maximum conc entration of 0.00941 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00246 μg/L (Nakayama, et al., 2007).
**•** Minnesota’s Ambient Environment (2006 – 2008) (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2008):

– Rural Ambient Shallow Ground Water (October 2007): not detected in the 22 samples.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815

- B

- 10

- 002 December 2010

94 of 99 – Urban Ambient Shallow Ground Water (2006

– 2007): detects in 5 (17%) of 29 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0399 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.00705 μg/L (includes concentrations less than the Reporting Level of 0.0025 μg/L).

– Mi ssissippi and Minnesota River and Tributaries Water Samples (April 2008): detects in 1 (3%) of 34 samples at a concentration of 0.0162 μg/L (estimated value).

– Mississippi and Minnesota River Water Samples (August 2008): detects in 5 (14%) of 35 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0878 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0136 μg/L.

– Surface Water Samples (2006): detects in 3 (19%) of 16 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0671 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0552 μg/L.

– Brainerd Area Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (2007): detects in 2 (2 5 %) of 8 samples at concentrations of 0.0202 and 0.026 μg/L

.

– Mississippi River Surface Water Samples (June 2008): not detected in the 22 samples

.

– City Road Drainage Ditch Surface Water Samples (2008): dete cts in 3 (100%) of 3 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0484 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0429 μg/L.

– Rice Lake Surface Water Samples (2008): detects in 3 (100%) of 3 samples at a maximum concentration of 0.0286 μg/L and a median concentration of 0.0275 μg/L. Persistence & Mobility

**•** No data for persistence and mobility.
References Calafat A.M., L.Y. Wong, Z. Kuklenyik, J.A. Reidy, and L.L. Needham. 2007. Polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the U.S. population: Data from the National Health and Nutriti on Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003

– 2004 and comparisons to NHANES 1999

– 2000. Environmental Health Perspectives

. 115(11): 1578

- 1583. Minnesota Department of Health. 2009. Summary Sheet PFBS . Health Based Guidelines for Groundwater. Web publication date Sep tember 25, 2009. Available on the Internet at: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/guidance/gw/pfbs.pdf

. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2008. PFCs in Minnesota’s A mbient Environment. 2008 Progress Report. Nakayama, S., M.J. Strynar, L. Helfant, P. Egeghy, X. Ye, and A.B. Lindstrom. 2007. Perfluorinated compounds in the Cape Fear Drainage Basin in North Carolina. Environmental Science and Technology . 41(15): 5271

- 52 76.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

95 of 99 

## Appendix A – Persistence and Mobility
Persistence and m obility are defined by chemical properties that measure or estimate environmental fate characteristics of a contaminant and affect their likelihood to occur in the water environment. There are a number of data elements that measure the fate of a chemical in the environment. The physical and c hemical parameters that are most relevant to the ir fate in drinking water are summarized in Table 1. The data elements listed in the table are arranged in hierarchical order, with the most desirable at the top. The scales used to categorize persistence and mobility were recommended by the National Drinking Water Advisory Committee (NDWAC) CCL 3 workgroup. The approach was developed by implementing parts of the recommendations of the National Research Council (NRC) to EPA and in testing protocols with the N DWAC’ s CCL 3 workgroup. The persistence and mobility data are arrayed into low -medium- high categories as suggested by NRC. The categories are given values of 1 (not very mobile), 2 (moderately mobile), or 3 (very mobile) based on the ranking of the measurement from low to high. Since the persistence and mobility data are being used as a measure of magnitude, a low ranking (1) for a parameter is one that will min imize the concentration in water and a high ranking (3) is one that w ill maximize the concentration.

Table 1. Magnitude Scales for Environmental Fate Data 1

Magnitude Hierarchy 5 Mobility Scale Value Units 1 (Low) 2 (Medium) 3 (High) Organic Carb on Partitioning Coefficient (K oc ) mL/g >1,000 100

- 1,000 <100 Octanol

- Water Par titioning Coefficient (log K ow

) D imensionless >4 1-4 <1 Henry's Law Coefficient (K H ) atm -m 3 /mol >10 -3 10 -7

- 10 -3 <10 -7 Water Solubility mg/L <1 1- 1,000 >1,000 Percent in Water in a Water/Air/Soil/Sediment System (W%) (PBT Profiler) D imensionless ≤ 25 >25

- 50 > 50

Persistence Scale Value Units 1 (Low) 2 (Medium) 3 (High) Half Life (t 1/2 ) Time days, days

weeks weeks, weeks

months months, recalcitrant Measured Degradat ion Rate 2 Time days, days

weeks (BF,

BFA) 3 weeks, weeks

months (BS, BSA) months, recalcitrant (BST) Modeled Degradation Rate (PBT Profiler) Time days, days

weeks weeks, weeks

months months, recalcitrant 1 Table 1 was modified from Exhibit A.8 in Final Co ntaminant Candidate List 3 Chemicals: Classification of the PCCL to CCL (EPA 815

– R– 09

– 008 , August, 2009). 2 When two results are found for a measured degradation rate, the data are "averaged" and then a value is determined. 3 BF = Biodegrades Fast, BFA = Biodegrades Fast with Acclimation, BS = Biodegrades Slow, BSA = Biodegrades Slow with Acclimation , BST = Biodegrades Sometimes.EPA

- OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815 -B- 10

- 002 December 2010

96 of 99 [t his page intentionally left blank]EPA-OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815-B-10-002 December 2010

97 of 99 CAS # Contaminant CCL1 1 CCL2 2 CCL3 3 UCMR1 4 UCMR2 5 UCMR3 Reason for Exclusion from UCMR3 8 630-20-6 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane X A 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane X X X X 96-18-4 1,2,3-Trichloropropane X X 122-66-7 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine X X SS 6 C 106-99-0 1,3-Butadiene X X 99-65-0 1,3-Dinitrobenzene X AM 7 D 123-91-1 1,4-Dioxane X X 50-27-1 16-α-Hydroxyestradiol (Estriol) X X 57-91-0 17-α-Estradiol X B 57-63-6 17-α-Ethynylestradiol (Ethinyl estradiol) X X 50-28-2 17-β-Estradiol X X 71-36-3 1-Butanol X B 88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol X X SS C 120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol X X SS C 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol X X SS C 109-86-4 2-Methoxyethanol X B 95-48-7 2-Methyl-phenol (o-Cresol) X X SS C 107-18-6 2-Propen-1-ol X B 16655-82-6 3-Hydroxycarbofuran X A

101-77-9 4,4'-Methylenedianiline X B 63-05-8 4-Androstene-3,17-dione X 521-18-6 5-α-Dihydrotestosterone E 30560-19-1 Acephate X E 75-07-0 Acetaldehyde X A 60-35-5 Acetamide X B 34256-82-1 Acetochlor X X X AM SS C, D 187022-11-3 Acetochlor ethanesulfonic acid (ESA) X SS D 194992-44-4 Acetochlor oxanilic acid (OA) X SS D 107-02-8 Acrolein X B 142363-53-9 Alachlor ethanesulfonic acid (ESA) X X X SS D 171262-17-2 Alachlor oxanilic acid (OA) X SS D 319-84-6 alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane X F 64285-06-9 Anatoxin-a X E 62-53-3 Aniline X B 741-58-2 Bensulide X B 100-44-7 Benzyl chloride X B 80-05-7 Bisphenol A (4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol) E 74-97-5 Bromochloromethane (Halon 1011) X X 74-83-9 Bromomethane (Methyl bromide) X X X X 25013-16-5 Butylated hydroxyanisole X B

133-06-2 Captan X E 298-46-4 Carbamazepine E 14866-68-3 Chlorate X X 75-45-6 Chlorodifluoromethane (Freon 22) (HCFC-22) X X 74-87-3 Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) X X 110429-62-4 Clethodim X E

7440-48-4 Cobalt X X

80-15-9 Cumene hydroperoxide X B 143545-90-8 Cylindrospermopsin X E 17040-19-6 Demeton-S-methyl sulfone E

333-41-5 Diazinon X X SS C 141-66-2 Dicrotophos X E 55290-64-7 Dimethipin X E 60-51-5 Dimethoate X AM D 298-04-4 Disulfoton X X X SS C 330-54-1 Diuron X X X SS C 517-09-9 Equilenin X B 474-86-2 Equilin X X 114-07-8 Erythromycin X B 53-16-7 Estrone X X 563-12-2 Ethion E 13194-48-4 Ethoprop X F

107-21-1 Ethylene glycol X B Appendix B – Initial List of Chemical ContaminantsEPA-OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815-B-10-002 December 2010

98 of 99 CAS # Contaminant CCL1 1 CCL2 2 CCL3 3 UCMR1 4 UCMR2 5 UCMR3 Reason for Exclusion from UCMR3 8 Appendix B – Initial List of Chemical Contaminants

75-21-8 Ethylene oxide X B 96-45-7 Ethylene thiourea X E 22224-92-6 Fenamiphos X F 31972-44-8 Fenamiphos sulfone E 31972-43-7 Fenamiphos sulfoxide E 54910-89-3 Fluoxetine E

944-22-9 Fonofos X X SS C 50-00-0 Formaldehyde X A 7440-56-4 Germanium X B

110-54-3 Hexane X B 302-01-2 Hydrazine X B 330-55-2 Linuron X X SS C 72-33-3 Mestranol X B 10265-92-6 Methamidophos X E 67-56-1 Methanol X B 16752-77-5 Methomyl E 1634-04-4 Methyl tert-butyl ether X X X AM C 51218-45-2 Metolachlor X X X SS D 171118-09-5 Metolachlor ethanesulfonic acid (ESA) X SS D 152019-73-3 Metolachlor oxanilic acid (OA) X SS D 101043-37-2 Microcystin-LR X E

2212-67-1 Molinate X X X AM C 7439-98-7 Molybdenum X X N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido-acetic acid (NEtFOSAA) E 98-95-3 Nitrobenzene X X X SS & AM C 1836-75-5 Nitrofen F

55-63-0 Nitroglycerin X B N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamido-acetic acid (NMeFOSAA) E 872-50-4 N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone X B 55-18-5 N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) X SS D 62-75-9 N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) X SS D 621-64-7 N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine (NDPA) X SS D 86-30-6 N-nitrosodiphenylamine X B 930-55-2 N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR) X SS D 68-22-4 Norethindrone X B 103-65-1 n-Propylbenzene X X 95-53-4 o-Toluidine X E 75-56-9 Oxirane, methyl- X B 301-12-2 Oxydemeton-methyl X E 42874-03-3 Oxyfluorfen X E 14797-73-0 Perchlorate X X X AM C

375-73-5 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) X 335-76-2 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) E 307-55-1 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) E 375-85-9 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) X 355-46-4 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) X 307-24-4 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) E 375-95-1 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) X 1763-23-1 perfluorooctanesulfonic (PFOS) X X 335-67-1 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) X X 376-06-7 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA) E 72629-94-8 Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) E 2058-94-8 Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) E 52645-53-1 Permethrin X F 41198-08-7 Profenofos X E 57-83-0 Progesterone E 1610-18-0 Prometon X X SS C

91-22-5 Quinoline X E 121-82-4 RDX (Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine) X X X AM D 135-98-8 sec-Butylbenzene X X 7440-24-6 Strontium X X 107534-96-3 Tebuconazole X E 112410-23-8 Tebufenozide X B 13494-80-9 Tellurium X BEPA-OGWDW UCMR 3 Information Compendium EPA 815-B-10-002 December 2010

99 of 99 CAS # Contaminant CCL1 1 CCL2 2 CCL3 3 UCMR1 4 UCMR2 5 UCMR3 Reason for Exclusion from UCMR3 8 Appendix B – Initial List of Chemical Contaminants

13071-79-9 Terbufos X X X SS C 56070-16-7 Terbufos sulfone X AM D 58-22-0 Testosterone X 59669-26-0 Thiodicarb X E 23564-05-8 Thiophanate-methyl X E 26471-62-5 Toluene diisocyanate X B 78-48-8 Tribufos X E 121-44-8 Triethylamine X B 76-87-9 Triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH) X B 51-79-6 Urethane X B 7440-62-2 Vanadium X X X X 50471-44-8 Vinclozolin X F

137-30-4 Ziram X B

1 USEPA. 1998. Announcement of the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List; Notice: March 2, 1998. Volume 63, Number 140: 10273-10287.

8 A = Lower priority than 30 UCMR 3 contaminants B = No method ready in time for rule C = Listed on UCMR 1 D = Listed on UCMR 2 E = Further evaluation of HRL to MRL ratio required F = Alternative method in development 2 USEPA. 2005. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 2; Final Notice. Federal Register: February 24, 2005. Volume 70, Number 36: 9071-9077. 3 USEPA. 2009. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3--Final. Federal Register: October 8, 2009. Volume 74, Number 194: 51850-51862. 4 USEPA. 1999. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for Public Water Systems; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 64, No. 180, p. 50556, September 17, 1999. 5 USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for Public Water Systems Revisions. Federal Register. Vol. 72, No. 2, p. 367, January 4, 2007. 6 SS = Screening Survey (List 2); includes contaminants measured using specialized analytical method technologies not commonly used by drinking water laboratories. 7 AM = Assessment Monitoring (List 1); includes contaminants measured with common analytical method technologies used by drinking water laboratories.