# Contaminant Information Sheets (CISs) for the Draft Fourth Preliminary Contaminant Candidate List (PCCL 4) Nominated Contaminants

# Office o f Water (4607M)

EPA 815-R-1 5 -0 03 January 201 5

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets (CISs) for the Draft PCCL 4**  **Nominated Contaminants** EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page i of i v



# Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Summary of the Chemicals Classification Process from the PCCL to CCL ...... 3 3.0 CCL 4 Chemicals CISs Explanation ........................................................................ 5 4.0 Summary of the Microbes Classification Process from the PCCL to CCL and CISs Explanation ....................................................................................................... 9 5.0 References ................................................................................................................ 10 Appe ndix 1. Chemical Contaminant Information Sheets A1 -1 Appendix 2. Microbial Contaminant Information Sheets A2 -1

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets (CISs) for the Draft PCCL 4**  **Nominated Contaminants** EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page ii o f i v

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets (CISs) for the Draft PCCL 4**  **Nominated Contaminants** EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page ii i of i v 

# Abbreviations and Acronyms
CAS RN Chemical Abstract Service s Registry N umber CCL Contaminant Candidate List CCL 3 EPA’s Third Contaminant Candidate List CCL 4 EPA’s Fourth Contaminant Candidate List CIS Contaminant Information Sheet DWELDrinking Water Equivalent Level EEC Estimated Environmental Concentration EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency HA Health Advisory FR Federal Register HRL Health Reference Level IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer IRIS Integrated Risk Information System L List L? List? LD 50 

# Lethal dose 50; an estimate of a single dose that is expected to cause the death of 50 percent of the exposed animals; it is derived from experimental data. lbs Pounds LOAEL Lowest O bserved Adverse E ffect L evel MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal MMWRMorbidity and Mortality Weekly Report NL Not List NL? Not List? NOAEL No Observed Adve rse E ffect L evel NTP National Toxicology Program OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (California) OPP Office of Pesticide Programs PCCL Preliminary

- CCL PCCL 4 EPA’s Fourth Preliminary

- CCL PWS Public W ater S ystem RfD Reference Dose SRS Substance Registry System/Substance Registry Services SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act WBDO Waterborne Disease Outbreak WHO World Health Organization

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets (CISs) for the Draft PCCL 4**  **Nominated Contaminants** EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page iv o f i v

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant I**  **nformation**

**S heet**  **s (**  **CISs) f**  **or t**  **he Draft**  **PCCL 4** 

**Nominated**

**C ontaminants**  EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page 1 o f 11 

# 1.0 Introduction

Sec tion 1412(b)(1) of the S afe Drinking Water Act (S DWA ), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to publish the Contaminant Candidate List ( CCL ) every five years. The SDWA specifies that the list must include contaminants that are not subject to any proposed or promulgated National Primary Drinking Water Regulations ( NPDWRs ), are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems ( PWSs ) and may require regulation under the SDWA. EPA uses this list of unregulated contaminants to help the agency identify priority contaminants for regulatory decision making and to prioritize research and data collection efforts. SDWA also requires the agency to con sult with the scientific community, including the Science Advisory Board , and provide notice and opportunity for public comment prior to the publication of the Final CCL. In addition, SDWA directs the agency to consider the health effects and occurrence in formation for unregulated contaminants to identify those contaminants that present the greatest public health concern related to exposure from drinking water.
EPA published the third CCL (CCL 3), which listed 116 contaminants on October 8, 2009 (74 FR 51850 (USEPA, 2009a )). In developing the CCL 3, EPA implemented a multi -step process to select contaminants for the final CCL 3, which included the following key steps: (1) T he identification of a broad universe of potential drinking water contaminants (CCL 3 Universe); (2) Screening the CCL 3 Universe to a Preliminary CCL (PCCL) using screening criteria based on the potential to occur in PWSs and the potential for public health concern; (3) Evaluation of the PCCL contaminants based on a more detailed review of the occurrence and health effects data using a scoring and classification system to identify a final list of 116 CCL 3 contaminants; and (4) Incorporating public input and expert review in the CCL 3 process.
Ste ps 1, 2 and 3 in the process are described in detail in the CCL 3 support documents:

• FinalCCL 3 Chemicals: Identifying the Univ erse (USEPA, 2009b);
• Final CCL 3 Chemicals: Screening to a PCCL(USEPA, 2009c);
• Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Chemicals: Classification of the PCCL to th e CCL (USEPA, 2009d);

• Final CCL 3 Microbes: Identifying the Universe (USEPA, 2009e);
• Final CCL 3 Microbes: Screening to the PCCL(USEPA, 2009f); and
• Final CCL 3 Microbes: PCCL to CCL Process (USEPA, 2009g).
Thes e documents can be found on the EPA web sit e at: http://www2.epa.gov/ccl/contaminant

candidate

- list -3- ccl -3 or at http://www.regulations.gov (docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OW -2007-1189).
Afte r a Final CCL is published, SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(B)(ii) as amended in 1996, requires EPA at five year intervals to make determinations of whether to regulate or not to regulate no fewer than five contaminants from the CCL in a process called regulat ory determinations

. This is

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant I**  **nformation**

**S heets**  **( CISs)**  **f or**  **t he**  **Draft PCCL** **4**

**Nominated**

**C ontaminants**  EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page 2 of 11 

# a separate process from the listing of contaminants on the CCL. The 1996 SDWA Amendments specify three criteria to determine whether a contaminant may require regulation:

• the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;
• the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in PWSs with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and

• in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contamin ant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by PWSs.
If EP A determines that these three statutory criteria are met and makes a final determination to regulate a contaminant, the agency has 24 months to publish a prop osed Maximum Contaminant Level Goal 1 

# (MCLG) and NPDWR 2 

# . After the proposal, the agency has 18 months to publish and promulgate a final MCLG and NPDWR (SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(E)) 3



# . On February 11, 2011, as a s eparate a ction, the a gency i ssued a pos itive regulatory d etermination for pe rchlorate , a c hemical l isted in CCL 1, CCL 2 and CCL 3 ( 76 FR 776 2 (USEPA, 2011)). Recently, EPA has published preliminary regulatory determinations for five unregulated contaminants on the CCL 3 (79 FR 62716 (USEPA, 2014a)). The five contaminants include: dimethoate; 1,3- dinitrobenzene; s trontium; t erbufos a nd terbufos s ulfone

. The a gency i s m aking preliminary de terminations t o regulate one contaminant ( strontium) a nd to not r egulate f our contaminants ( dimethoate; 1,3- dinitrobenzene; t erbufos; a nd terbufos s ulfone). Therefore, the agency i s r emoving p erchlorate a nd these f ive c ontaminants f

rom the D raft F ourth CCL ( CCL 4) , pending the result of the final r egulatory d eterminations f or C CL 3.
EPA c onducted an abbreviated evaluation and selection process for the CCL4. This abbreviated CCL 4 process includes a three pronged approach: (1) carrying forward CCL 3 contaminants (minus those with regulatory determinations), (2) seeking and evaluating nominations from the public for additional contaminants to consider and (3) evaluating any new data for those contaminants with previous negative regulatory determinations from CCL 1 or CCL 2 for potential inclusion on the CCL 4. As part of the process to develop the CCL 4, EPA published a Federal Register notice (77 FR 27057 (USEPA, 2012 )) requesting that the public submit nominations for chemical and microbial contaminants to be considered for inclusion on the CCL 4. EPA also requested supporting information that ha s been made available since the development of the CCL 3 or existing information that was not considered in the development of the CCL 3, which shows that the nominated contaminant may have an adverse health effect on people and occurs or is likely to

1 

# The MCLG is the "maximum level of a contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons would occur, and which allows an adequ ate margin of safety. Maximum contaminant level goals are non

- enforceable health goals." (40 C.F.R. 141.2; 42 U.S.C. 300g

- 1) 2 

# An NPDWR is a legally enforceable standard that applies to public water systems. An NPDWR sets a legal limit (called a maximum co ntaminant level or MCL) or specifies a certain treatment technique (TT) for public water systems for a specific contaminant or group of contaminants. The MCL is the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water and is set as close to the MCLG as feasible using the best available treatment technology and analytical methods and taking cost into consideration. 3 

# The statute authorizes a nine month extension of this promulgation date



# .

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant I**  **nformation**

**S heets**  **( CISs)**  **f or**  **t he**  **Draft PCCL** **4**

**Nominated**

**C ontaminants**  EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page 3 of 11 

# occur i n public w ater s ystems. EPA r eviewed the nominations a nd supporting i nformation provided by nom inators t o determine i f a ny n ew d ata w ere pr ovided that ha d not be en previously evaluatedf

or C CL3. The agency al so col lecteda dditional da ta for the nominat ed contaminants, when it w as a vailable, from both CCL 3 data s ources that ha d been updated a ndf rom ne w d ata sources that

w ere not av ailable at

the time of

C CL 3. A com plete list

of r eferences p rovidedb y nominators can be found in the support document Summary of Nominations for the Fourth CCL (USEPA, 201 5a )

. A mo re detailedd escription o f the CCLd ata sources collectedb y E PA m ay be found in the support document Data Sources for the CCL 4 (USEPA, 201 5b )

. EPA ev aluated the n o minated c ontaminants u tilizing the best av ailab le healthef

fects and o ccurrence dat a and the same process for screening and scoring contaminants that was used for CCL 3

. A s ummary o f the pr ocess a nd data us ed to scree n the c ontaminants nom inated for C CL 4 from the CCL 4 Universe to the PCCL 4 is included in the Screening Document for the Draft PCCL 4 Nominated Contaminants (USEPA, 201 5c ). This document su mmarizes the proce ss used to select contaminants f

rom the P CCL forth e C C L

. This document also presents the Contaminant Information S heets (C ISs) for the nominate d contaminants qua lified for i nclusion on the P CCL 4. The purpose of the CISs is to summarize the data usedto e valuate the nominated contaminants and to select contaminants for the Draft CCL 4.
For C CL 3, EPA publ ished CISs f or the 561 chemicals ( USEPA, 2009h) a nd the 29 microbial contaminants ( USEPA, 2009g) on the P CCL 3 (these doc uments i nclude the C ISs f or the 116 contaminants on the Final CCL 3 as well). In addition, Appendix E of the Protocol for the Regulatory Determinations 3 Including Appendices A-F (USEPA, 2014 b ) includes a summary of updated health and occurrence data used to evaluate 35 CCL 3 contaminants in the regulatory determinations pr ocess
. This doc ument pr esents 20 chemical C ISs f or the nominated chemicals listed on the P CCL 4 (including CISs fo r the sev en nom inated c hemicals that made the D raft CCL 4) a nd four m icrobial C ISs f or the nom inated m icrobes that are l isted on the P CCL 4 (including CISs for

the t wo nominated microbes t hat m ade the D raft C CL 4).


# 2.0 Summary of the Chemicals Classification Process from the PCCL to CCL

This s ection briefly summarize s the process developed under CCL 3 to evaluate contaminants from the PCCL to assess if they should move forward to the CCL. EPA used this same process to evaluate the nominated contaminants for listing on the Draft CCL 4. A detailed explanation of this step in the process is provided in the Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Chemicals: Classification of the PCCL to CCL(USEPA, 2009d) and its appendices.
To ide ntify chemicals from the PCCL to include on the CCL, EPA used classification models and a scoring systemas tools. The classification models were used to process complex data in a consistent and reproducible manner. An overarching premise in using classification models to prioritize contaminants is that different contaminants can be compared on the basis of similar attributes. The attributes are properties used to categorize contaminants for their potential to occur in drinking water and for their potential to cause adverse health effects. Four attributes were selected including two attributes describing health effects (Potency and Severity) and two

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant I**  **nformation**

**S heets**  **( CISs)**  **f or**  **t he**  **Draft PCCL** **4**

**Nominated**

**C ontaminants**  EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page 4 o f 11 

# attributes describing occurrence (Prevalence and Magnitude); these are discussed in more detail in Section 3.0 of this document. Scoring protocols were developed for each of the four attributes and these scores were used as input for the classification models. The scores for each attribute increase with increasing potential to cause adverse health effects or potential to occur in drinking water (e.g., a score of 10 indicates greater concern for adverse health effects or greater potential to occur in drinking water, whereas a score of 1 indicates lesser concern). If a chemical had more than one data element available for scoring, EPA used a hierarchy to establish which data element should be used in scoring the potency attribute , the prevalence attribute and the magnitude attribute . For the potency and severity attributes, if data were available for both the cancer and noncancer endpoints, the higher of the c ancer or noncancer potency scores was selected to score the potency and the critical effect associated with the data used to score the potency was used to score the severity. The attribute scoring protocols and data hierarchies are discussed in more detail in the Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Chemicals: Classification of the PCCL to CCL(USEPA, 2009d) (see Appendix A for the Attribute Scoring Protocols).
The cl assification models were calibrated using a training data set so that they mimicked an expe rt panel’s decisions to list or not list a contaminant on the CCL. The training data set consisted of 202 sets of attribute scores for contaminants and the consensus category ( list/not list decisions) made by a team of EPA subject matter experts based on evaluating the data and the attribute scores for those contaminants. The classification model s developed a relationship between the contaminant attribute scores (input variables) and the classification of the contaminants into list and not list categories (output). The list and not list decisions were placed into four primary categories: List (L), List? (L?), Not List ? (NL ? ) or Not List (NL). The L? and NL? categories were developed because the expert panel recognized that clear decisions on listing contami nants could be made easily for some contaminants, but there was some uncertainty associated with the decision for other contaminants. The L? category signifies that the decision is leaning towards listing with some uncertainty, and NL? signifies that the d ecision is leading towards not listing, but with some uncertainty. EPA used three classification models and each model produced a prediction for each PCCL contaminant. EPA used an additive process to combine the results of all three models. If all three mo dels were in 100% agreement on the categorical prediction, one of the four primary categorical predictions (L, L?, NL ? or NL) was assigned to that contaminant. If all three models did not agree, then the contaminant was assigned to a category in between th e four primary categorical predictions. None of the models categorized a contaminant more than one category higher or lower than the other models (i.e., no contaminants were categorized by an “L” by one model and by an “NL?” by another model ). The re are three “in between” categories includ ing : L?

- L, NL?

- L? or NL

- NL?

. An example of a contaminant that would be placed in an “in between” category is if one model placed the contaminant into the “L” category and the other two models placed it into the “L?” catego ry, then it would be placed in the “L?- L” category. As p art of the last stage in the CCL 3 classification process , the model output was reviewed by internal EPA experts and based upon issues identified by the reviewers, several post-model refinements were added by EPA to the CCL 3 process. One important refinement that was added to the process was that for contaminants with water data, EPA calculated the ratio between the health reference level (HRL) and the 90 th 

# percentile concentration level in water. I f a 90 th 

# percentile (of detections) concentration level was not available, the agency used the maximum or

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant I**  **nformation**

**S heets**  **( CISs)**  **f or**  **t he**  **Draft PCCL 4** 

**Nominat**

**ed C**  **ontaminants** EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page 5 o f 11 

# next highest percentile reported value. This HRL to concentration ratio was calculated for all contaminants with water data and serves as a benchmark that suggests a greater concern i f the ratio is low (concentration close to the HRL) and a lesser concern when the ratio is high (concentration well below the HRL)

. If the ratio was less than 10 , the contaminant was typically selected for listing on the CCL 3. If the ratio was greater than 10 , the contaminant was typically not listed on th e CCL and remained on the PCCL. For contaminants that had limited finished water data, but more robust ambient water monitoring data, the ambient water concentration was used to develop the ratio. If no measured water data were available EPA used modeled water data for pesticides (Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) developed by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)) , when available, to calculate the HRL to c oncentration ratios.
For c ontaminants with no water data (either measured or modeled) HRLto concentration r atios could not be calculated . For these contaminants (e.g., contaminants that only had release data for occurrence) , if the three -model categorical p rediction was L, L?

- L or L?, the contaminant was typicallylisted on the CCL.
Anothe r important post-model refinement included in the CCL 3 process considered the nature of the best available data

. Some chemicals on the PCCL were represented by only an LD 50 

# value for health effects data and/or only production volume data for occurrence . T hese data are not typically sufficient for a contaminant to be included on the CCL. In such cases, the chemical was not included on the CCL and remained on the PCCL

.


# 3.0 CCL 4 Chemical CISs Explanation

Thi s section presents a walk -through of the CISs with a brief explanatory discussion of the data elements on the CIS and how they are used in the CCL process. The CIS for each contaminant is a concise, two

- page profile wit h the first page including the attribute scores, three model categorical predictions, HRL/concentration ratios, use information, status of the contaminant in the CCL process and health effects data. The second page includes occurrence data. (The derivation and use of these data are explained in detail in Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Chemicals : Classification of the PCCL to CCL( USEPA , 2009d) .) For the chemical CISs for the nominated contaminants that made the PCCL 4 , please see Appendix A.
Gener al and Summary Information
The t op section of the first page of each chemical CIS contains seven sets of information that includes contaminant identifi ers , use and how the chemical was scored and ranked in the CC L process. From left to right, the upper rows include: 1) Cont aminant I dentification – the contaminant name, a unique CCL- specific identification number referred to as a Substance Key (many of which were obtained from EPA’s Substance Registry System , now known as Substance Registry Services (SRS); others were assigned during the CCL process if a contaminant was not listed in SRS), and the contaminant’s Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number (CASRN).

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant I**  **nformation**

**S heets**  **( CISs)**  **f or**  **t he**  **Draft PCCL** **4**

**Nominated**

**C ontaminants**  EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page 6 o f 11 

# 2) Attribute Scores – assigned scores for each of the four CCL attributes (which are derived from the hea lth effects and occurrence data presented on the CISs) , which are defined as follows:

a. Potency – Potency reflects the lowest dose of a chemical that causes an adverse health effect. Potency for chemicals is reflected in several standard toxicological parameters, including the Reference Dose (RfD) or its equivalent ; cancer potency , expressed as the concentration in water equivalent to a 10 - 4 

# cancer risk ; No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL ); or Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL). b. Severity – Severity is the adverse health effect associated with the dose that is used as the measure of Potency and is calibrated based on the health

- related significance of the adverse effect (e.g., dermatitis versus cancer)

. c. Prevalence – Prevalence is a measure of how widespread the contaminant’s occurrence is in the environment (specifically in the United States ). The data used to score the prevalence attribute may include the percent of public water systems or monitoring sites with detections of the contaminants, the number of States where pesticides are applied or where releases to the environment are reported or chemical production data in pounds per year (lbs/year)

. d. Magnitude – Magnitude relates to the quantity of a contaminant that may be found in the environment. This may be measured through the use of the median value concentration of detections in drinking water or ambient water or the total pounds of a chemical released to the environment. In cases where Magnitude data are not available, persistence and m obility data (i.e., chemical property/environmental f ate p arameters) were used as surrogates for water occurrence or release data (see USEPA, 2009d for discussion). 3) Health Reference Level (HRL) – Separate HRLs are calculated for non- cancer and carcinogenic effects. The HRLs are expressed as a concentration of a contaminant in drinking water (expressed in micrograms per liter , μg/L). I f potency is scored on cancer data, that data is used to calculate the cancer HRL. If the potency attribute is scored on non- cancer data, the highest ranking cancer data element is used to calculate the cancer HRL. For cancer, an HRL can be derived either from a slope factor or from a 10 - 4 

# cancer risk. For carcinogens , the HRL is the one- in -a- million (10 -6 

# ) cancer risk exp ressed as a drinking water concentration (in μg/L). If potency is scored on non- cancer data, that data is used to calculate the non

- cancer HRL. If the p otency attribute is scored on cancer data, then the non- cancer HRL is calculated using the highest ranking non- cancer data element. For non- cancer effects theHRL can be derived from an RfD (or its equivalent), a LOAEL, or a NOAEL. For noncarcinogens , the HRL is obtained by multiplying the RfD times 70 kg (default body weight) , dividing by a w ater intake of 2 L/day and multiplying by a 20% relative source contribution. If a NOAEL or a LOAEL was used for the HRL calculation the equation is the same as with an RfD, but default uncertainty factors are applied to the N OAE L o r LOAEL to develop an Rf D- like value (1,000 for a NOAEL and 3,000 for a LOAEL).

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant I**  **nformation**

**S heets**  **( CISs)**  **f or**  **t he**  **Draft PCCL** **4**

**Nominated**

**C ontaminants**  EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page 7 o f 11 

# 4) HRL/Concentration Ratios – The HRL/ concentration ratios are presented using the 90 th 

# percen tile concentration occurrence value, if available, or the next highest percentile value or the maximum concentration of detect ions. Both the non- cancer HRL / concentration ratio and the cancer HRL/concentration ratio were calculated (if applicable). The data used to develop the ratio is noted on the CIS. Moving down the CIS to t he next set of three data ele ments; from left to right are p resented: 5) Use – Use information for the contaminant. 6) Three
- Model Categorical Prediction – As noted in Section 2.0 above, three calibrated classification models were used to generate Categori cal Prediction s based on the contam inant’s attribute scores. The re are four primary Categorical Predictions: L, L?, NL? and NL. One of these four primary Categorical Predictions was assigned to a contaminant if all three models were in agreement on the categorical prediction . If the three models were not in agreement, the contaminant was assigned to a category in between the four primary categories

. There are three “in

- between” categories including: L?

- L, NL?

- L? or NL

- NL?. 7) Status – Presents the status of the contaminant with respect to having been listed on CCL 3 and its status within the CCL 4 process (i.e., was it included in the CCL 4 Universe, PCCL 4 or Draft CCL 4)

.
Hea lth Effects Data
The r emainder of the first page of the CISs presents the available health effects data for each contaminant. Non- cancer data elements are presented first followed by cancer data elements. Both the non- cancer and cancer data elements are generally presente d in order according to the data hierarchy developed for scoring the potency attribute (with the highest ranking data elements used for scoring generally being presented closer to the top of the page and the lower ranking elements closer to the bottom of the page). The non- cancer data are presented before the cancer data . The column headings summar ize the data element, the data source acronym, the numerical value (or qualitative, for cancer classification) , units and the year associated with the data element

. Typically the year is the date of publication of the data, although given the variability of the data sources ’ formatting it may represent a toxicological study date or the date when the data source website was last updated. If available, the critical effect is noted and a notes field is filled in if toxicological study data or other pertinent information for a particular data element is available.
For non- can cer data elements the highest data element in the hierarchy for scoring Potency is the RfD , NOAEL or LOAEL fr om various sources, with EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs and Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS ) values taking precedence over values from other agencies or the best available NOAEL or LOAELfrom a published study.
Bel ow the non- cancer values are the cancer values , if applicable . As with the non- cancer values, they are presented in hierarchical fashion. For cancer the 10 - 4 

# cancer risk , typically from EPA’s Health Advisory Tables (HAs) or IRIS , is the highest

- ranking cancer data elementfollowed by the slope factor . The 10 - 4 

# cancer risk or the slope factor is used for Potency scoring, where

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant I**  **nformation**

**S heets**  **( CISs)**  **f or**  **t he**  **Draft PCCL** **4**

**Nominated**

**C ont**  **aminants** EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page 8 o f 11 

# applicable. In addition, qualitative cancer data, including cancer classifications from EPA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and/or California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA ) are presented , although not quantitative, such values were incorporated into the PCCL screening process. The r ow for the data element used for scoring the Potency and Severity attributes is shaded grey on the CIS.
At the bottom right of the health effects data section of the CIS are other supporting qualitative and quantitative data. These data represent the l is ting of contaminants as carcinogens and/or reproductive toxins or values that are protective of public health via the ingestion of drink ing water (e.g., EPA Drinking Water Exposure Levels (DWELs ), EPA HAs, World Health Organization (WHO) Guideline Values, and Health Canada Guideline Values).
Occur rence Data
The second page of the CISs is focused on occurrence data. The occurrence data are generally presented in order of the hierarchy established for scoring Prevalence and Magnitude (i.e., f inished water data are at the top of the page, followed by ambient water data, supplemental water data (often studies from individual States or the primary literature), and application/release data, with production data and environmental f ate p arameters at the bottom of the page). Finished water occurrence data is the highest ranking data element in the hierarchy used to score the prevalence and magnitude attributes since it represents the best estimation of the potential for human exposure.
The row for the occurrence data element used for scoring Prevalence and Magnitude is shaded grey on the CIS.
The co lumn headers for the water occurrence data include the data source ; the number of total public water systems (PWS)/sites/samples ; the number of positive results ( referred to as “detects ” ), an indication as to whether the preceding values correspond to the number of PWSs , sampling sites or samples ; the percent of detects, and where available ; the minimum, maximum, median, 90 th 

# percentile, 99 th 

# percentile of detects ; units ; sampling year(s) and a notes field.
Fol lowing the water data are data that are used to es timate potential occurrence in water in the absence of water data

. These include application rate data for pesticides in lbs/yea r, environmental release data to surface water and total envi ronmental releases in lbs/y ear. Following the application/release data are production data ranges for the most recent ye ar for which data were available at the time of CCL 4 data collection

. The f inal section of the CISs includes available environmental f ate parameters with persistence metrics of half-life and a degradation code that is either based on structural modeling or the halflife. The remaining properties relate to environmental mobility

.

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant I**  **nformation**

**S heets**  **( CISs)**  **f or**  **t he**  **Draft PCCL** **4**

**Nominated**

**C ontaminants**  EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page 9 o f 11 

# 4.0 Summary of the Microbes Classification Process from the P CCL to CCL and CISs Explanation

This section briefly describes the process developed under CCL 3 to select microbial contaminants from the PCCL for the CCL 3 and explains the elements included in the microbial CISs. The same process developed for CCL 3 was used to evaluate the nominated contaminants for the Draft CCL 4. A detailed description of the process developed to select microbial contaminants for the CCL 3 is provided in Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Microbes: PCCL to CCL Process (USEPA, 20 09g ).
M icro bes are evaluated for their occurrence in water and their ability to cause adverse health effects in humans. Pathogens on the PCCL were scored for placement on the CCL using a scoring system to assign a numerical value to each pathogen and rank the pathogens based upon their occurrence, health effects and waterborne disease outbreaks (WBDO)

. Those microbes receiving high scores we re considered for placement on the CCL.
Each m icrobe was scored using three scoring protocols, one protocol each fo r WBDO, occurrence in water and health effects. The highe stof the individual WBDO score or occurrence score is added to the normalized health effects score to produce a composite pathogen score. Although the composite score is not shown on the CISs, the s coring summary table at the top left corner of each CIS shows the values used to calculate the composite score. The formula for calculating the final score is: highest score between the WBDO and occurrence score + [(general population health effects score + highest sensitive population health effects score) x 5/14].
EPA developed three scoring protocols for CCL 3 to define a hierarchy of the relevance that each of these types of data (e.g. occurrence in water, WBDO and health effects) provide in ev aluatin g microbes for the CCL. WBDOs are scored on a five- level hierarchy ranging from never caused a WBDO (score of 1) to two or more documented WDBOs in the U.S. (score of 5). O ccurrence is scored on a three

- level hierarchy ranging from not detected in the U.S. (score of 1) to detected in drinking water in the U.S. (score of 3). Combining WBDO information and occurrence information allowedEPA to consider: 1) pathogens that are tracked by public health surveillance programs ( i.e. , CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ) and 2) pathogens that are not yet trackedby public health surveillance programs but for which occurrence information is available ( e.g. , emerging pathogens)

. The h ealth effects scoring protocol evaluates the extent of illness produced in humans from drinking water. These scores reflect the most common clinical presentation and are based on data from recent clinical microbiology manuals. The severity of disease manifestations produced by a pathogen is evaluated across a range of potential e ndpoints. The seven

- level hierarchy developed for this protocol begins with mild, self- limiting illness (score of 1) and progresses to death (score of 7). For more information on the microbes scoring process, please see Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Microbes: PCCL to CCL Process (USEPA, 2009g ).
The s coring tables developed for CCL 3 were updated for each nominated contaminant. Since no new relevant data/information was found by EPA, nor provided by the nominators, the data supporting the respective s cores for CCL 3 remain the same. The references in the scoring tables

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant I**  **nformation**

**S heets**  **( CISs)**  **f or**  **t he**  **Draft PCCL** **4**

**Nominated**

**C ontaminants**  EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page 10 of 11 

# were updated to reflect references that became available after EPA published the final CCL3

. The table presents the final scores for each of the data types under consideration and a brief description of the data used to assign those scores with their respective references . For the microbial CISs, please see Appendix B.
Elem ents of each scoring table include: 1) Scor ing Summary – shows the scores used to calculate the final composite score for each microbial contaminant which include: highest score between the WBDO and occurrence , h ealth effects score for the general population and h ighest health effects score of the sensitive subpopulations. 2) Data T able – shows the categories for each potential score, the scoring data, if applicable, and reference(s) used to support a particular score. The highest ranking score for each of the three scoring categories is bolded. The WBDOs scoring results is presented fir st, followed by the occurrence results and the health effects. 3) Referen ces – presents the full references for the data presented in the table.


# 5.0 Reference s
USE PA. 2009a. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3–Final. Federal Register . Vol. 74, No. 194, p. 51850, October 8, 2009.
USE PA. 2009b . Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Chemicals: Identifying the Universe. EPA 815-R-09-006. August 2009.
USE PA. 2009c. Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Chemicals: Screening to a PCCL. EPA 815- R-09-007. August 2009.
USE PA. 2009d . Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Chemicals: Classification of PCCL to the CCL. EPA 815-R-09-008. August 2009.
USE PA. 2009e. Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Microbes: Identifying the Universe. EPA 815-R-09-004. August 2009.
USEP A. 2009f. Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Microbes: Screening to the PCCL. EPA 815-R-09-0005. August 2009.
USE PA. 2009g. Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Microbes: PCCL to CCL Process. EPA 815–R–09–009. August 2009.
USEP A. 2009h. Contaminant Informatio n Sheets for the PCCL Chemicals Considered for CCL 3. EPA 815-R-09-014. August 2009.

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets (CISs) for the** EPA 815 -R-15- 00 3 **Draft PCCL 4 Nominated Contaminants**  

# USEPA. 2012. Request for Nominations of Drinking Water Contaminants for the Fourth Contaminant Candidate List. Federal Register . Vol. 77, No. 89. p. 27057, May 8, 2012 USEPA. 2014a. Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determination for Contaminants on the Third Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List. Federal Register . Vol. 79, No. 202, p. 62716, October 20, 2014.
USEPA. 2014b. Protocol for the Regulatory Determinations 3 Including Appendices A-F . EPA 815-R-14-005. April, 2014.
USEPA. 2015a. Summary of Nominations for the Fourth Contaminant Candidate L ist . EPA 815- R-15-001. January, 2015.
USEPA. 2015b. Data Sources for the CCL 4. EPA 815-R-15-004. January , 2015.
USEPA. 2015c. Screening Document for the Draft PCCL 4 Nominated Contaminants. EPA 815- R-15-002. January, 2015.

P age 11 of 11

# EPA- OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets (CISs) for the Draft Preliminary PCCL 4 Nominated Contaminants**  EPA 815 -R- 15-003

Page A1 -1 

# Appendix 1: Chemical Contaminant Information Sheets

The following 40 pages contain tables with he alth effects and occurrence information for the 20 chemical contaminants nominated by the public that were included on PCCL 4 or CCL 4. Due to the technical limitations of this document Appendix , for further assistance with reasonable accommodation please contact Meredith Russell at Russell.m eredith@epa.gov or 202-564-0814.EPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

7 8 4 3 319846 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 6535 Substance Key: alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction L? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/NAWQA 90%: 949 CAR HRL/NAWQA 90%: 0.102 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: 0.006 ug/L Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 56 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: Yes PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: Yes Source Use HSDB Component of benzene hexachloride (BHC) former insecticide

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA IRIS mg/L 1986 0.0006 Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 2005 2.7 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 1986 6.3 Slope factor taken from IRIS. Cancer Classification2 EPA IRIS 1986 B2 Cancer Classification2 IARC 2B Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? EPA; RAIS; OEHHA; IARC Yes

Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level 0.008 mg/kg-d 9/2003 Hepatic Basis NOAEL 0.8 mg/kg-d; UF = 100. ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 1.2 mg/kg-d 1991 Biochemical - Enzyme inhibition, induction, or change in blood or tissue levels - hepatic microsomal mixed oxidase (dealkylation, hydroxylation, etc.), Biochemical - Enzyme inhibition, induction, or change in blood or tissue levels - catalases, Biochemical - Enzyme inhibition, induction, or change in blood or tissue levels - other oxidoreductases 30-day study in rat; TOLED5 Toxicology Letters. (Elsevier Science Pub. B.V., POB 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands) V.1- 1977- Volume(issue)/page/year 56,137,1991 RTECS

Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 NTPEPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 7,119 21 0.30% 0.0004 0.21 0.011 0.059 0.21 ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application lbs/yr States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water lbs/yr States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total lbs/yr States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production No Reports lbs/yr 2002 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life 1.2 years Degradation Code DST DST = Degrades sometimes/recalcitrant; hydrolysis only, pH = 7 (HSDB) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 641-1,995 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 3.8 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 6.7E-06 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 2 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 7 % Supplemental Water Data Toccalino et al., 2010 512 1 0.2% 0.0327 0.0327 0.0327 0.0327 ug/L Ground water; Source Water; Toccalino et al., 2010, Quality of source water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2010-5024, p. 206 0.0327 1993-2007 Samples

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 2,785 448 16.09% 0 0.617 0 0.0656 ug/L 0.0038 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Manganese

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

4 1 10 9 7439965 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 18823 Substance Key: Manganese Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction NL? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/NIRS 90%: 2.4 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 300 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: Yes PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Manufacturing of steel alloys, in dry-cell batteries, electrical coils, ceramics,

matches, glass, dyes, fertilizers, welding rods, as oxidizing agents, and as animal food additives.

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA IRIS 1988 D Cancer Classification2 IARC Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L 1.6 Guideline Value (GV) WHODWQ mg/L 2011 0.4 Health Advisory (HA) EPA HA mg/L The 3-fold modifying factor for bioavailability from drinking water was applied when calculating HA rather than in determining the RfD 0.3 Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) 0.047 mg/kg-d 1995 Reflects a modifying factor of 3 to adjust from increased bioavailability when in drinking water IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) 0.14 mg/kg-d 2004 The 3-fold modifying factor for bioavailability from drinking water was applied when calculating HA rather than in determining the RfD EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d RAIS HE Reference Dose (RfD) 0.16 mg/kg-d 2001 11 mg/day = Upper Limit, amount of manganese intypical Western diet for adults (NOAEL) 15 mg/kgday LOAEL increased serum manganese and manganese dependant lymphocyte SOD activity – Concern for neurotoxicity Not adjusted for the increased bioavailability from drinking water IOM

Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) mg/kg-d RTECS Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 10 mg/kg-d 2009 Neurodevelopmental effects in mice (Moreno et al, 2009a). Significant increase in Nitric Oxide Synthase 2 expression in brain of animals exposed as juveniles and adults (Moreno et al, 2009b). Moreno et al, 2009a. Aged-Dependent Susceptibility to Manganese-Induced Neurological Dysfunction. Toxicological Sciences 112(2): 394-404. Moreno et al, 2009b. Developmental Exposure to Manganese Increases Adult Susceptibility to Inflammatory Activation of of Glia and Neuronal Protein Nitration. Toxicological Sciences. 112: 405-415. Supplemental

Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 7 mg/kg-d 2010 Impaired spontaneous motor activity in rats Kern et al, 2010. Preweaning Manganese Exposure Causes Hyperactivity, Disinhibition, and Spatial Learning and Memory Deficits Associated with Altered Dopamine Receptor and Transporter Levels. Synapse. 64: 363-378. Supplemental

Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 NTPEPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Manganese

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 8,002 6,447 80.57% 0.051 70,000 19 180 1,300 ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application lbs/yr States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water 84,545 lbs/yr 31 States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total 15,872,968 lbs/yr 48 States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production
500M - < 1B lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life days Degradation Code persistent As elemental Mn Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water mg/L Modeled Percent in Water % Supplemental Water Data Toccalino et al., 2010 808 543 67.2% 0.053 1,923 8.99 732 ug/L Ground water; Source Water; Toccalino et al., 2010, Quality of source water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2010-5024, p. 206 186 1993-2007 Samples

California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 4,969 2,229 44.9% 0.001 35,000 70 1,455 ug/L 380 1995-2007 PWS Illinois Drinking Water Monitoring Data 1,223 685 56% 1 2,700 31 378 ug/L 190 1998-2005 PWS North Carolina Drinking Water Monitoring Data 2,382 1,265 53.1% 0.7 239,000 28 779 ug/L 175 1998-2005 PWS Ohio Drinking Water Monitoring Data 775 641 82.7% 0.113 216,000 33 1964 ug/L 246 1998-2005 PWS Region 9 Tribes Drinking Water Monitoring Data 154 63 40.9% 0.85 320,000 80 239,860 ug/L 592 1998-2005 PWS Texas Drinking Water Monitoring Data 6,713 3,898 58.1% 1 25,910 10 290 ug/L 70 1998-2005 PWS Wisconsin Drinking Water Monitoring Data 1,946 1,571 80.7% 0.006 400,000 28 7,000 ug/L 358 1980-2012 PWS USGS/California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program 1,158 917 79.2% 0.1 37,000 2 2,386 ug/L 220 2004-2011 Sites STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 47,550 42,222 88.79% 0 18,604,000 51 7,490 ug/L 393 Updated 2013 Sites Massachusetts Nominations Data 4,976 28,000 7 ug/L Ground Water; Mixed Public and Private Water Supplies; Received from Massachusetts for the CCL 4 nominations; Ayotte, J. D., J. M. Gronberg, et al. (2011). Trace Elements and Radon in Groundwater Across the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5059: 115. (Source water for public supply wells from the Ayotte et al., 2011 overlaps with Toccalino et al., 2010.) 360 Samples

Minnesota Nominations Data 1,630 1,589 97.48% 0.1 3,000 110 ug/L Ground Water; Mixed Public and Private Water Supplies; Received from Minnesota for the CCL 4 nominations 500 Samples Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) 989 672 67.95% 1 1,341 11.96 126 673 ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

CL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

4 8 5 8 1634044 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 11918 Substance Key: Methyl tert-butyl ether Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction L? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/UCMR 90%: 58.3 CAR HRL/UCMR 90%: 0.539 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: 19.4 ug/L Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 2,100 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: Yes Source Use HSDB Octane booster in gasoline; manufacture of isobutene; extraction solvent

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 2005 0.0018 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA Cancer Classification2 IARC 1999 3 Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? OEHHA Yes
Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level 0.3 mg/kg-d 8/1996 Hepatic: Decreased blood urea nitrogen levels. Minimal Risk Level - Intermediate Exposure Duration. Basis LOAEL = 100 mg/kg-d; UF = 300 ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) 0.01 mg/kg-d 1991 Basis NOAEL 100 mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 300 mg/kg-d 1990 Kidney, Ureter, Bladder - changes in bladder weight, Blood - changes in serum composition (e.g. TP, bilirubin, cholesterol), Nutritional and Gross Metabolic - changes in calcium 90-day study in rat; JACTDZ Journal of the American College of Toxicology. (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., 165 Third Ave., New York, NY 10128) V.1-12, 1982-1993. Discontinued. Volume(issue)/page/year 9(5),525,1990 RTECS

Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 NTP C Methyl tert-butyl ether

Yes

1EPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Methyl tert-butyl ether

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 4,328 424 9.80% 0.01 23,000 0.3 7.85 1,800 ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application lbs/yr States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water 800 lbs/yr 6 States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total 1,471,221 lbs/yr 35 States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production
≥ 1B lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life 15 days Degradation Code BS BS = Biodegrades slow (PBT) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 6 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 0.94 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 5.87E-04 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 51,000 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 42 % Supplemental Water Data Toccalino et al., 2010 832 115 13.8% 0.031 12.03 0.173 7.76 ug/L Ground water; Source Water; Toccalino et al., 2010, Quality of source water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2010-5024, p. 206 1.07 1993-2007 Samples

California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 4,419 150 3.4% 0.15 610 5.96 214 ug/L 33 1995-2007 PWS Florida Drinking Water Monitoring Data 31 7 22.6% 0.09 67.18 0.755 51.2 ug/L 4.56 2004-2007 PWS Illinois Drinking Water Monitoring Data 1,161 26 2.2% 0.5 16 1.3 16 ug/L 7 1998-2005 PWS Ohio Drinking Water Monitoring Data 1,306 6 0.5% 0.5 9.51 1.21 8.55 ug/L 5.36 1998-2005 PWS Region 9 Tribes Drinking Water Monitoring Data 219 1 0.5% 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 ug/L 9.8 1998-2005 PWS Texas Drinking Water Monitoring Data 5,660 41 0.7% 0.5 48 2.8 25.6 ug/L 10.2 1998-2005 PWS Wisconsin Drinking Water Monitoring Data 1,142 38 3.3% 0.104 64.9 2.2 45.9 ug/L 16.6 1980-2012 PWS USGS/California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program 1,855 101 5.4% 0.03 28.3 0.12 2.17 ug/L 0.554 2004-2011 Sites STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 1,210 154 12.73% 0.046 13,000 1.5 1,600 ug/L 14.5 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) 3,871 19 0.49% 5 49 9.2 34.6 48.75 ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Microcystin-LR

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

9 3 10 4 101043372 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 76859 Substance Key: Microcystin-LR Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction L? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/AWWARF Typical Range MAX: 0.21 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 0.021 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: Yes PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: Yes Source Use Use Naturally-occurring cyanobacterial toxin

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA Cancer Classification2 IARC Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER Reference Dose (RfD)-like value 0.000003 mg/kg-d 2006 Liver effects Draft RfD; Basis NOAEL 3 ug/kg-d. Ueno, Y., Y. Makita, S. Nagata et al., 1999. No chronic oral toxicity of a low-dose of microcystin-LR, a cyanobacterial hepatoxin, in female Balb/C mice. Environ. Toxicol. 14(1):45- 55. Primary Literature No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) mg/kg-d RTECS Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 NTPEPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Microcystin-LR

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application lbs/yr States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water lbs/yr States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total lbs/yr States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life length of time Degradation Code Degradation Code Not Available Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water mg/L Modeled Percent in Water % Supplemental Water Data STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 30 30 100% 0 4.26 0.25 3.32 ug/L 1.22 Updated 2013 Sites US and Canadian drinking water (bloom area, source, finished water) 677 542 80% 0.002 1,200 ug/L Maximum and minimum of detects (AWWARF, Carmichael). Includes possible outliers. Sites US and Canadian drinking water (bloom area, source, finished water) 677 542 80% 0.1 ug/L Maximum of typical range of detects (AWWARF, Carmichael). Excludes possible outliers. Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Nonylphenol

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

5 7 10 6 25154523 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 28410 Substance Key: Nonylphenol Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction L? - L HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/Kolpin Max: 2.6 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 105 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: Yes PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB In the preparation of lubricating oil additives, resins, plasticizers, surface

active agents; antioxidants for plastics and rubber

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA Cancer Classification2 IARC Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) 60 mg/kg-d CTD JPN No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) 15 mg/kg-d 2004 Reproductive effects World Health Organization (WHO) Supplemental Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 2 mg/kg-d 2001 Endocrine - androgenic, Reproductive - Paternal Effects - testes, epididymis, sperm duct REPTED Reproductive Toxicology. (Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford, NY 10523) V.1- 1987- Volume(issue)/page/year 15,293,2001 RTECS Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) 580 mg/kg Details of toxic effects not reported other than lethal dose value NTIS National Technical Information Service. (Springfield, VA 22161) Formerly U.S. Clearinghouse for Scientific & Technical Information. Volume(issue)/page/year OTS0573098 RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 NTPEPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Nonylphenol

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application lbs/yr States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water lbs/yr States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total lbs/yr States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production
< 500K lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life days Degradation Code BST BST = biodegrades sometimes/recalcitrant; aerobic only Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 31,000 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 5.71 At 20 degrees Celsius dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 1.1E-06 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 6.35 At 25 degrees Celsius mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 18 % Supplemental Water Data Kolpin et al., 2002 85 43 50.6% 40 0.8 ug/L National Surface Water Reconnaissance; Kolpin, et al., 2002. Env. Sci. & Technol., 36(6), pp. 1202-1211. 1999-2000 Sites STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 15 5 33.33% 3.26 5.17 3.74 5.11 ug/L 4.52 Updated 2013 Sites Snyder, 2008 20 17% 0.104 0.084 ug/L Finished Drinking Water Monitoring; Snyder, Shane A. 2008. Ozone: Science and Engineering. 30(1): 65-69. Samples Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

6 3 10 6 335671 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 6614 Substance Key: Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction L? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/MN MW MAX: 1.22 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 1.1 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: Yes PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: Yes Source Use HSDB Production of fluoropolymers (e.g., Teflon) and fluoroelastomers; in firefighting applications, cosmetics, greases and lubricants, paints, polishes and adhesives

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA Cancer Classification2 IARC Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Health Advisory (HA) EPA HA ug/L January 2008; Provisional Health Advisory: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/drinkin g/pha-PFOA_PFOS.pdf 0.4 Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) mg/kg-d RTECS Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 0.46 mg/kg-d 2006 Increased maternal liver weight at term BMDL10, Lau, 2006. Tox. Sci., 90, 2, pp. 510-518. EPA Provisional HA: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/drinking/pha-PFOA_PFOS.pdf Supplemental Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 NTPEPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application lbs/yr States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water lbs/yr States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total lbs/yr States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production
< 500K lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life length of time Degradation Code BST BST = Biodegrades sometimes/recalcitrant (PBT); BST is the highest category available to be awarded to a recalcitrant contaminant Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 631 ± 7.9 Zareitalabad, et al., 2013 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 0.091 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 10 % Supplemental Water Data STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 318 232 72.96% 0.000988 48,500 0.144 1,304 ug/L 47.7 Updated 2013 Sites Minnesota (MN) Department of Health (DOH) – Aggregate of MN Wells 85 7 8.2% 0.9 ug/L Targeted Sampling 2004-2005 - H. Goeden and J. Kelly. Perfluorochemicals in Minnesota, MN DOH, 2/27/06. Sites Minnesota (MN) Department of Health (DOH) – Select MN Municipal Wells 37 6 16.2% 0.9 ug/L Targeted Sampling 2004-2005 - H. Goeden and J. Kelly. Perfluorochemicals in Minnesota, MN DOH, 2/27/06. Sites Minnesota (MN) Department of Health (DOH) – Select MN Non-Community Wells 22 0 0% ug/L Targeted Sampling 2004-2005 - H. Goeden and J. Kelly. Perfluorochemicals in Minnesota, MN DOH, 2/27/06. Sites Minnesota (MN) Department of Health (DOH) – Select MN Private Wells 26 1 3.9% 0.67 ug/L Targeted Sampling 2004-2005 - H. Goeden and J. Kelly. Perfluorochemicals in Minnesota, MN DOH, 2/27/06. Sites Little Hocking, OH Municipal Wells (FW) 1.5 7.2 ug/L Emmett, et al., 2006. J. Occ. Env. Med. Little Hocking, OH; data from 2002-2005; no data on # PWSs/sites sampled N/A
NJDEP 23 18 78.3% <0.004 0.039 ug/L Targeted study "Determination of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Aqueous Samples, Final Report." Jan 2007, NJDEP, Division of Water Supply. Sites

Cape Fear Drainage Basin 80 82.3% 0.287 0.0126 ug/L Nakayama et al. 2007. Perfluorinated Compounds in the Cape Fear Drainage Basin in N.C. Env. Sci. & Tech., 41, 5271–5276. 2006 Sites Upper Mississippi Drainage Basin 175 168 97.1% 0.125 0.00207 ug/L Nakayama et al. 2010. Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Env. Sci. & Tech., 44, pp. 4103–4109. 2008 Sites

Tennessee River, Alabama 40 18 45% 0.14 0.598 0.379 ug/L Targeted sampling - 35 river miles downstream of PFC manufacturing facility. Hansen et al. 2002. Quantitative Characterization of Trace Levels of PFOS and PFOA in the Tennessee River. Env. Sci. & Tech., 36, pp. 1681-1685 Sites

U.S. PWS Study 6 <0.005 0.12 ug/L Quinones, O. and S.A. Snyder. 2009. Occurrence of perfluoroalkyl carboxylates and sulfonates in drinking water utilities and related waters from the United States. Env. Sci. & Tech., 43, pp. 9089-9095. Sites

Lake Erie and Lake Ontario 16 16 100% 0.015 0.07 0.04 ug/L Boulanger et al. 2004. Detection of Perfluorooctane Surfactants in Great Lakes Water. Env. Sci. & Tech., 38, pp. 4064-4070. 2003 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Permethrin

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

4 8 10 7 52645531 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 35815 Substance Key: Permethrin Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction L? - L HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/SWC EEC: 1,944 CAR HRL/SWC EEC: 4.05 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: 3.65 ug/L Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 1,750 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: Yes PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: Yes Source Use HSDB Insecticide

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) EPA OPP (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 2009 0.0096 Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 2009 Likely Cancer Classification2 IARC 1991 3 Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? EPA; IARC Yes
Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) 0.25 mg/kg-d 2009 Neurotox/Clinical signs (i.e., aggression, abnormal and/or decreased movement) and increased body temperature. Q1* 0.0096 (mg/kg-d)-1. See CAR Basis NOAEL = 25 mg/kg-d, UF = 100 (rat study) EPA OPP

Reference Dose (RfD) 0.05 mg/kg-d 1986 Increased liver weight Basis = NOEL 5 mg/kg-d; UF = 100. IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) 0.05 mg/kg-d 1986 RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level 0.2 mg/kg-d 2003 Neurol. Minimal Risk Level - Intermediate Exposure Duration ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) 0.05 mg/kg-d 1999 JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) mg/kg-d RTECS Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 NTPEPA-OGWDW

CCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Permethrin

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application 1,066,056 lbs/yr 48 States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water 0 lbs/yr 0 States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total 2,116 lbs/yr 5 States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life length of time Degradation Code BF/BST BF = Biodegrades fast; BST = Biodegrades sometimes/recalcitrant Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 178,000 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 6.5 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 1.87E-06 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 0.006 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 6 % Supplemental Water Data California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 35 0 0% ug/L 1995-2007 PWS USGS/California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program 1,828 0 0% ug/L 2004-2011 Sites STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 722 1 0.14% 0.348 0.348 0.348 0.348 ug/L 0.348 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPP SW Chronic = 0.9 ug/L; GW Chronic = 0 ug/LEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Azinphos-methyl

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

6 3 8 3 86500 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 3200 Substance Key: Azinphos-methyl Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction NL? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/NAWQA 90%: 69.5 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 10.5 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Insecticide

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 2006 Not likely Cancer Classification2 IARC Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? UMD Yes Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) CADW mg/L Canadian Drinking Water Maximum Acceptable Concentration 0.2 Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) 0.0015 mg/kg-d 2006 Red blood cell cholinesterase inhibition; increased incidence of diarrhea Basis NOAEL = 0.149 mg/kg-d; UF = 100 (dog study) EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) 0.005 mg/kg-d 1991 JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 0.91 mg/kg-d 1997 Brain and Coverings - other degenerative changes, Blood - other changes, Biochemical - Enzyme inhibition, induction, or change in blood or tissue levels - true cholinesterase FAATDF Fundamental and Applied Toxicology. (Academic Press, Inc., 1 E. First St., Duluth, MN 55802) V.1-40, 1981-97. For publisher information, see TOSCF2 Volume(issue)/page/year 35,101,1997; 13-wk rat study RTECS

Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 Equivocal Negative Negative Negative NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Azinphos-methyl

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 7,103 145 2.04% 0.002 3.37 0.027 0.151 0.932 ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application 2,091,014 lbs/yr 42 States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water lbs/yr States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total lbs/yr States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life 27.9 days Degradation Code DS DS = Degrades slow (HSDB) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 487-4,644 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 2.75 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 2.4E-08 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 20.9 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 27 % Supplemental Water Data California Department of Health Services 12 0 0% ug/L Drinking water monitoring PWS Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 11 2 18.2% 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 ug/L Finished 0.017 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 5 0 0% ug/L Raw 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 323 8 2.5% 0.144 ug/L Ambient Water; Method 2001 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 228 5 2.2% 0.114 ug/L Finished Water; Method 2001 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Toccalino et al., 2010 894 0 0% ug/L Ground water; Source Water; Toccalino et al., 2010, Quality of source water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2010-5024, p. 206 1993-2007 Samples

California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 5 0 0% ug/L 1995-2007 PWS USGS/California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program 1,828 0 0% ug/L 2004-2011 Sites STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 831 24 2.9% 0 0.864 0.048 0.649 ug/L 0.196 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Bentazon

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

5 6 9 4 25057890 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 28242 Substance Key: Bentazon Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction L? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/NAWQA 90%: 276 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 210 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Former herbicide

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA IRIS 1998 E Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 1994 E Cancer Classification2 IARC Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Guideline Value (GV) WHODWQ ug/L World Health Organization Drinking Water Guideline Value 300 Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) 0.03 mg/kg-d 1994 Hematological changes suggestive of anemia, decreased weight gain, intestinal inflammation, and congestion of the small intestine and spleen (dog study) UF = 100; Basis NOAEL = 3.2 mg/kg-day EPA OPP

Reference Dose (RfD) 0.03 mg/kg-d 1998 Blood loss into the gastrointestinal tract; Coagulation defect in male & female dogs. Circulatory system. Allen et al., 1989. Dog study; UF = 100, Basis NOAEL 3.2 mg/kg-d IRIS

Reference Dose (RfD) 0.03 mg/kg-d 1999 EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) 0.03 mg/kg-d 1989 blood loss in gastrointestinall tract; coagulation defect UF = 100; dog study RAIS HE
Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) 0.1 mg/kg-d 1998 JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) mg/kg-d RTECS Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Bentazon

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 4,540 197 4.34% 0.002 11.46 0.1 0.76 4.79 ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application 7,749,130 lbs/yr 45 States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water lbs/yr States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total lbs/yr States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life 6.7-50 days Degradation Code BS BS = Biodegrades slow (HSDB) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 37.5 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 2.34 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 2.18E-09 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 500 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 36 % Supplemental Water Data California Department of Health Services 5,583 2 0.04% 0.23 6.2 3.11 ug/L Drinking water monitoring 5.58 PWS Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 13 7 53.8% 0.0003 0.031 0.0016 0.016 ug/L Finished 0.00712 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 7 5 71.4% 0.0003 0.194 0.0017 0.061 ug/L Raw 0.012 2003-2009 Sites Toccalino et al., 2010 589 16 2.7% 0.0046 0.491 0.00995 0.434 ug/L Ground water; Source Water; Toccalino et al., 2010, Quality of source water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2010-5024, p. 206 0.0711 1993-2007 Samples

California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 1,807 6 0.3% 0.023 6.2 2.9 6.1 ug/L 5.24 1995-2007 PWS Illinois Drinking Water Monitoring Data 1 0 0% ug/L 1998-2005 PWS STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 694 75 10.81% 0 16 0.191 12.4 ug/L 2.13 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPP Notes Date Conc. Units 95th Percentile (Detects) 75th Percentile (Detects Median Conc. (Detects) Maximum Conc. (Detects) Minimum Conc. (Detects) Percent with Detects PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Number of Detects Number

Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 225 21 9.3% 0.019 0.019 ug/L Finished Water; Method 9060 (HPLC/MS) 1999 Samples
Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 312 80 25.6% 0.344 0.021 ug/L Ambient Water; Method 9060 (HPLC/MS) 1999 SamplesEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Bisphenol A

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

4 3 10 5 80057 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 2918 Substance Key: Bisphenol A Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction NL? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/NREC NA SW MED: 1,750 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 350 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Production of polycarbonate and epoxy resins. Formerly used as

fungicide.

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA Cancer Classification2 IARC Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? UMD Yes Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) 0.05 mg/kg-d 1988 Reduced body weight Basis = LOAEL 50 mg/kg-d; UF = 1,000 IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) 0.05 mg/kg-d 1988 RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) 0.0006 mg/kg-d 2011 Increase in adjusted terminal end bud (TEB) numbers in the offspring of mice for LOAEL related to NOAEL LOAEL = 0.003 mg/kg-d. Ayyanan, A., Laribi, O., Schuepbach-Mallepell, S. et al. 2011. Perinatal exposure to bisphenol A increases adult mammary gland progesterone response and cell number. Mol. Endicronol. 25(11): 1915-1923. Supplemental

Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 2.5 mg/kg-d 26-week oral study in rat. GISAAA Gigiena i Sanitariya. For English translation, see HYSAAV. (V/O Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga, 113095 Moscow, USSR) V.1- 1936 - Volume(issue)/page/year 33(7), 25, 1968. RTECS Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 Equivocal Equivocal Negative Equivocal NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Bisphenol A

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) 85 35 41.20% 0.14 ug/L Surface water; National Reconnaissance 1999-2004 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) 21.07% 0.2 ug/L Surface water; National Aggregate. Size of dataset not reported. 1999-2004 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) 10.78% 0.2 ug/L Ground water; National Aggregate. Size of dataset not reported. 1999-2004 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application lbs/yr States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water 6,240 lbs/yr 5 States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total 3,296,213 lbs/yr 27 States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production
≥ 1B lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life length of time Degradation Code BFA-BST BFA = Biodegrades fast with acclimation; BST = Biodegrades sometimes/recalcitrant Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 75,200 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 3.32 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 9.2E-12 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 120 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 8 % Supplemental Water Data Kolpin et al., 2002 85 41.2% 12 0.14 ug/L National Surface Water Reconnaissance; Kolpin, et al., 2002. Env. Sci. & Technol., 36(6), pp. 1202-1211. 1999-2000 Sites Focazio et al., 2008 73 7 9.6% 1.9 ug/L NREC II Raw Drinking Water; Focazio, et al., 2008. Sci.Tot. Env., 402(2-3), pp. 201-216. 2001 Sites Hopple et al., 2009 43 2.3% 2.5 ug/L Ground water; Phase 2; Source water; Hopple et al., 2009, Anthropogenic organic compounds in source water of selected community water systems that use groundwater, 2002–05: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2009–5200, p.74 2002-2005 Samples

Hopple et al., 2009 47 0% ug/L Ground water; Phase 2; Finished water; Hopple et al., 2009 2002-2005 Samples Hopple et al., 2009 212 0.9% 6.4 ug/L Ground water; Phase 1; Source water; Hopple et al., 2009 2002-2005 Samples Kingsbury et al., 2008 145 0% ug/L Surface water; Phase 1; Source water; Kingsbury et al., 2008 2002-2005 Samples Kingsbury et al., 2008 87 9.2% 0.44 ug/L Surface water; Phase 2; Finished water; Kingsbury et al., 2008 2002-2005 Samples Kingsbury et al., 2008 87 4.7% 0.67 ug/L Surface water; Phase 2; Source water; Kingsbury et al., 2008, Anthropogenic organic compounds in source water of nine community water systems that withdraw from streams, 2002–05: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2008–5208, p. 66 2002-2005 Samples

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 33 1 3.03% 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 ug/L 0.28 Updated 2013 Sites Stackelberg, et al., 2007 12 17% 0.22 ug/L New Jersey Finished Drinking Water; Stackelberg, et al., 2007. Sci. Tot. Environ., 377(2-3), pp. 255-272. Samples Stackelberg, et al., 2007 12 67% 0.36 ug/L New Jersey Surface Water; Stackelberg, et al., 2007. Sci. Tot. Environ., 377(2-3), pp. 255-272. Samples Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Butyl benzyl phthalate

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

4 3 8 8 85687 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 3168 Substance Key: Butyl benzyl phthalate Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction NL? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/TX 90%: 63.1 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 1,400 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Chemical intermediate; plasticizer

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) EPA PPRTV (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 2002 0.0019 Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA IRIS 1988 C Cancer Classification2 IARC 1999 3 Vol. 73, 1999 Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Drinking Water Equivalent Level 7 Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) 0.2 mg/kg-d 1993 Significantly increased liver-to-body weight and liver to-brain weight ratios NTP, 1985. Basis NOAEL = 159 mg/kg-d; UF = 1,000 (rat study) IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) 0.2 mg/kg-d 1989 EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) 0.2 mg/kg-d 1989 Significantly increased liver-to-body weight & liverto-brain weight ratios NTP, 1985; Basis NOAEL/LEL, rat, liver, brain, UF=1000 RAIS HE
Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) 1.3 mg/kg-d 1998 Hammond et al. 1987; Basis BMD 132 mg/kd/day, UF = 100, rat ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 100 mg/kg-d 2000 Gastrointestinal - changes in structure or function of salivary glands, Kidney, Ureter, Bladder - changes in kidney weight; endocrine - other changes oral study in rat; REPTED Reproductive Toxicology. (Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford, NY 10523) V.1- 1987- Volume(issue)/page/year 14,513,2000 RTECS

Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 Some Evidence Not Tested Not Tested

Equivocal Evidence NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Butyl benzyl phthalate

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application lbs/yr States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water lbs/yr States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total lbs/yr States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production
50M - < 100M lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life length of time Degradation Code BF BF = Biodegrades fast (BIODEG) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 9,359 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 4.73 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 1.26E-06 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 2.69 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 22 % Supplemental Water Data California Department of Health Services 851 24 2.8% 0.004 124 0.2 ug/L Drinking water monitoring 59 PWS California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 264 16 6.1% 0.003 8.5 0.074 8.4 ug/L 4.3 1995-2007 PWS Florida Drinking Water Monitoring Data 5 0 0% ug/L 2004-2007 PWS Illinois Drinking Water Monitoring Data 2 0 0% ug/L 1998-2005 PWS Texas Drinking Water Monitoring Data 2,108 4 0.2% 3.97 26.4 8.99 26 ug/L 22.2 1998-2005 PWS STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 1,221 248 20.31% 0 629.5 0.043 27.2 ug/L 0.97 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Carbaryl

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

5 5 1 5 63252 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 2448 Substance Key: Carbaryl Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction NL? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/UCM R2 90%: 70 CAR HRL/UCM R2 90%: 40 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: 40 ug/L Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 70 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Insecticide; veterinary medication

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) EPA OPP (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 2002, updated 2008 0.000875 Incidence of hemangiosarcomas in mice; 2002 and 2007 Carbaryl Occupational Risk Assessment in August 2008 Amended

RED Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 2007 Likely Likely to be carcinogenic in humans; 2003 and 2007 Carbaryl Occupational Risk Assessment in August 2008 Amended RED Cancer Classification2 IARC 1987 3 Vol. 12, Suppl. 7, 1987 Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? EPA; IARC Yes
Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? UMD Teratogen Yes Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L 2006; Drinking Water Equivalent Level 0.4 Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) CADW mg/L Canadian Drinking Water Maximum Acceptable Concentration 0.09 Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) 0.01 mg/kg-d 2007 0.01 mg/kg-day is the acute RfD based on brain cholinesterase inhibition PND 11. Q1* 0.000875 (mg/kg-d)^-1 - Likely; see CAR Basis NOAEL = 1 mg/kg-d, UF = 100 (rat study) EPA OPP

Reference Dose (RfD) 0.1 mg/kg-d 1985 Kidney; liver Carpenter et al., 1961; Basis NOAEL 9.6 mg/kg/day, rat, UF=100, kidney & liver IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) 0.01 mg/kg-d 2006 EPA HA Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) 0.008 mg/kg-d 2001 JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 0.23 mg/kg-d 1975 Immunological Including Allergic - decrease in humoral immune response oral study in rabbit; TXAPA9 Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. (Academic Press, Inc., 1 E. First St., Duluth, MN 55802) V.1- 1959- Volume(issue)/page/year 32,587,1975 RTECS Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Carbaryl

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 7,142 697 9.76% 0.0005 33.5 0.0167 0.138 1.2 ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) 85 14 16.50% 0.04 ug/L Surface water; National Reconnaissance 1999-2004 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) 5.05% 0.17 ug/L Surface water; National Aggregate. Size of dataset not reported. 1999-2004 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) 0.12% 0.9 ug/L Ground water; National Aggregate. Size of dataset not reported. 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application 4,857,542 lbs/yr 48 States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water 12 lbs/yr 3 States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total 1,653 lbs/yr 7 States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life 38 days Degradation Code BSA BSA = Biodegrades slow with acclimation Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 242 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 2.36 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 4.36E-09 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 110 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 13 % Supplemental Water Data California Department of Health Services 4,671 1 0.02% 3.5 3.5 3.5 ug/L Drinking water monitoring 3.5 PWS Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 7 5 71.4% 0.0078 0.33 0.02 0.31 ug/L Raw 0.092 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 13 5 38.5% 0.005 0.3 0.02 0.29 ug/L Finished 0.16 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 323 7 2.2% 0.047 ug/L Ambient Water; Method 2001 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 312 2 0.6% 0.063 ug/L Ambient Water; Method 9060 (HPLC/MS) 1999 Samples Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 228 2 0.9% 0.041 ug/L Finished Water; Method 2001 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 225 0 0% ug/L Finished Water; Method 9060 (HPLC/MS) 1999 Samples Toccalino et al., 2010 898 6 0.7% 0.00277 0.0196 0.00736 0.0191 ug/L Ground water; Source Water; Toccalino et al., 2010, Quality of source water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2010-5024, p. 206 0.0146 1993-2007 Samples

California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 1,488 2 0.1% 3.5 24 13.8 23.8 ug/L 22 1995-2007 PWS Florida Drinking Water Monitoring Data 8 0 0% ug/L 2004-2007 PWS Illinois Drinking Water Monitoring Data 22 0 0% ug/L 1998-2005 PWS North Carolina Drinking Water Monitoring Data 2,477 2 0.1% 22 36 29 35.9 ug/L 34.6 1998-2005 PWS Ohio Drinking Water Monitoring Data 43 0 0% ug/L 1998-2005 PWS Region 9 Tribes Drinking Water Monitoring Data 232 0 0% ug/L 1998-2005 PWS South Dakota Drinking Water Monitoring Data 256 0 0% ug/L 1990-2007 PWS Wisconsin Drinking Water Monitoring Data 1,447 1 0.1% 1 1 1 1 ug/L 1 1980-2012 PWS USGS/California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program 1,831 1 0.05% 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 ug/L 0.007 2004-2011 Sites STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 1,213 21 1.73% 0 50 0 38.3 ug/L 5.5 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 12,679 13 0.10% 0.18 3 0.18 1 3 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Chlorothalonil

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

5 6 4 4 1897456 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 12375 Substance Key: Chlorothalonil Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction NL? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/NAWQA 90%: 342 CAR HRL/NAWQA 90%: 11.2 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: 4.6 ug/L Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 140 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Fungicide; bacteriocide

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA HA mg/L 1988 0.15 Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L 1999 0.46 Corresponds with OPP slope factor. Slope Factor (Oral) EPA OPP (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 1999 0.00766 Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 2005 0.0031 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 0.011 Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 1999 Likely Cancer Classification2 EPA 1988 B2 Cancer Classification2 IARC 1999 2B Vol. 73, 1999; note: OEHHA lists IARCs cancer class as 3. Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? CACART; IARC; EPA; OEHHA; RAIS Yes

Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? CACART Yes Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L 0.5 Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) 0.02 mg/kg-d 1999 Increased kidney weights & hyperplasia of the proximal convoluted tubules in the kidneys, ulcers & forestomach hyperplasia. Q1* 0.00766 (mg/kgday)^-1. Group B2. See CAR Basis NOAEL = 2 mg/kg-d; UF = 100 EPA OPP

Reference Dose (RfD) 0.015 mg/kg-d 1987 Renal tubular epithelial vacuolation Basis NOEL = 1.5 mg/kg/day, UF = 100, kidney, dog, oral (Diamond Shamrock Chemical, 1970a) IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) 0.015 mg/kg-d 1988 EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) 0.015 mg/kg-d 1987 Tubular epithelial vacuolation Diamond Shamrock Chemical, 1970, Basis NOEL/LEL, MF = 1, kidney, dog, UF = 100 RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) 0.03 mg/kg-d 1994 JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) 1.5 mg/kg-d Supplemental Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 75 mg/kg-d 1990 Kidney, Ureter, Bladder - changes in tubules (including acute renal failure, acute tubular necrosis), Kidney, Ureter, Bladder - changes in bladder weight 90-day oral study in rat; TOLED5 Toxicology Letters. (Elsevier Science Pub. B.V., POB 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands) V.1- 1977- Volume(issue)/page/year 53,155,1990 RTECS

Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 Positive Negative Negative Positive NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Chlorothalonil

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 4,547 15 0.33% 0.007 0.71 0.05 0.41 0.71 ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application 11,916,713 lbs/yr 48 States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water 146 lbs/yr 1 States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total 91,363 lbs/yr 7 States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life length of time Degradation Code BF BF = Biodegrades fast (BIODEG) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 2,392 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 3.05 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 2E-06 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 0.6 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 7 % Supplemental Water Data California Department of Health Services 4,099 0 0% ug/L Drinking water monitoring PWS Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 6 0 0% ug/L Raw 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 6 0 0% ug/L Finished 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 225 0 0% ug/L Finished Water; Method 9060 (HPLC/MS) 1999 Samples Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 312 0 0% ug/L Ambient Water; Method 9060 (HPLC/MS) 1999 Samples Toccalino et al., 2010 507 0 0% ug/L Ground water; Source Water; Toccalino et al., 2010, Quality of source water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2010-5024, p. 206 1993-2007 Samples

California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 1,296 0 0% ug/L 1995-2007 PWS STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 694 12 1.73% 0 56 0 47.1 ug/L 1.93 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Dichlorvos

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

6 3 1 1 62737 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 2444 Substance Key: Dichlorvos Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction NL HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) No data for calculating HRL ratio Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: 0.1 ug/L Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 3.5 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Insecticide; veterinary medicine

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA IRIS mg/L 1988 0.01 Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 2005 0.41 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 0.29 Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 2006 Suggestive Cancer Classification2 EPA 1989 B2 GI, pancreas, leukemia; NTP, 1986 Cancer Classification2 IARC 1991 2B Vol. 53 Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? EPA; RAISHE; OEHHA; IARC; CACART Yes

Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? UMD Teratogen list Yes Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) 0.0005 mg/kg-d 2006 Plasma and RBC cholinesterase inhibition (dog study) UF = 100; Basis NOAEL = 0.05 mg/kg-day EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) 0.0005 mg/kg-d 1993 Cholinesterase inhibition AMVAC Chemical Corporation, 1990, NOAEL, dog, UF=100; Basis NOAEL = 0.05 mg/kg-d IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) 0.0005 mg/kg-d 1990 Plasma and RBC ChE inhibition; blood AMVAC Chemical Corporation, 1990, NOAEL/LOAEL, dog, UF=100 RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level 0.0005 mg/kg-d 1997 Neurol. UF = 100 ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) 0.004 mg/kg-d 1993 JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 0.625 mg/kg-d 1974 Brain and Coverings - other degenerative changes, Kidney, Ureter, Bladder - urine volume increased, Biochemical - Enzyme inhibition, induction, or change in blood or tissue levels - true cholinesterase 90-day dog study; NYZZA3 Nippon Yakuzaishikai Zasshi. Journal of the Japan Pharmaceutical Association. (Nippon Yakuznishikai, 2-12-15 Shibuya, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150, Japan) V.1- 1949- Volume(issue)/page/year 26,739,1974 RTECS

Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 Some Evidence Some Evidence Clear Evidence Equivocal Evidence NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Dichlorvos

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) 0.00% ug/L Surface water; National Aggregate. Size of dataset not reported. 1999-2004 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) 0.00% ug/L Ground water; National Aggregate. Size of dataset not reported. 1999-2004 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application lbs/yr States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water 0 lbs/yr 0 States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total 265 lbs/yr 2 States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production No Reports lbs/yr 2002 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life <1-3.5 days Degradation Code DF DF = Degrades fast (HSDB) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 40.2 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 1.47 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 5.75E-07 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 8,000 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 27 % Supplemental Water Data California Department of Health Services 107 0 0% ug/L Drinking water monitoring PWS Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 317 0 0% ug/L Ambient Water; Method 9002 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 221 0 0% ug/L Finished Water; Method 9002 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Hopple et al., 2009 221 0% ug/L Ground water; Phase 1; Source water; Hopple et al., 2009 2002-2005 Samples Hopple et al., 2009 49 0% ug/L Ground water; Phase 2; Finished water; Hopple et al., 2009 2002-2005 Samples Hopple et al., 2009 49 0% ug/L Ground water; Phase 2; Source water; Hopple et al., 2009, Anthropogenic organic compounds in source water of selected community water systems that use groundwater, 2002–05: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2009–5200, p.74 2002-2005 Samples

California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 68 0 0% ug/L 1995-2007 PWS USGS/California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program 1,828 1 0.05% 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 ug/L 0.01 2004-2011 Sites STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 321 7 2.18% 0.07 0.218 0.178 0.216 ug/L 0.199 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Dicofol

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

6 3 10 6 115322 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 5106 Substance Key: Dicofol Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction L? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/SW Chronic EEC: 5.6 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 2.8 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Insecticide

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 1998 C Cancer Classification2 IARC 1987 3 Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) 0.0004 mg/kg-d 1998 Inhibition of adrenal corticotropic hormone 3X FQPA (dog study) became an uncertainty factor (E-mail from OPP; NOAEL - 0.12 mg/kg-day) UF = 300; Basis NOAEL = 0.12 mg/kg-day EPA OPP

Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) 0.002 mg/kg-d 1992 JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 22.5 mg/kg-d 2001 Related to Chronic Data - death one year dog study; HBPTO Handbook of pesticide toxicology. Robert Krieger ed, Academic press, 2001 Volume(issue)/page/year 2,1342,2001 RTECS Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 Negative Positive Negative Negative NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Dicofol

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application 786,805 lbs/yr 36 States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water 0 lbs/yr 0 States 2004 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total 33 lbs/yr 2 States 2004

Amount Range Units Date Production lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life 180 days Degradation Code BST BST = Biodegrades sometimes/recalcitrant (PBT) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 10,500 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 5.02 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 2.42E-07 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 0.8 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 4 % Supplemental Water Data California Department of Health Services 21 0 0% ug/L Drinking water monitoring PWS California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 17 0 0% ug/L 1995-2007 PWS STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 35 0 0% ug/L Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPP SW Chronic = 0.5 ug/L; GW Chronic = 0.069 ug/LEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Endosulfan

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

5 6 10 7 115297 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 5104 Substance Key: Endosulfan Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction L? - L HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/SW Chronic EEC: 28 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 42 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Insecticide

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA IRIS 1994 IN Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 2007 E Cancer Classification2 IARC Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? UMD teratogen list Yes Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) 0.006 mg/kg-d 2007 Reduced body weight gain, enlarged kidneys, increased incidences of marked progressive glomerulonephrosis; blood vessel aneurysms in males. Basis NOAEL = 0.6 mg/kg-d; UF = 100 (rat study) EPA OPP

Reference Dose (RfD) 0.006 mg/kg-d 1994 Reduced body weight gain in males and females, increased incidence of marked progressive glomerulonephrosis and blood vessel aneurysms in males. Hoechst, 1989a, Basis NOAEL = 0.7 mg/kg-d (female) and 0.6mg/kg-d (male); UF=100 (rat study) IRIS

Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Minimal Risk Level 0.002 mg/kg-d 2000 hepatic; liver Hoechst, 1989c, Basis NOAEL = 0.18 mg/kg-d, dog, UF=100 ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) 0.006 mg/kg-d 1998 JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) mg/kg-d RTECS Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 Inadequate Study Inadequate Study Negative Negative NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Endosulfan

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application 1,601,195 lbs/yr 44 States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water lbs/yr States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total lbs/yr States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life 180 days Degradation Code BST BST = Biodegrades sometimes/recalcitrant (PBT) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 22,000 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 3.83 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 6.51E-05 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 0.45 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 4 % Supplemental Water Data STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 665 105 15.79% 0.1 0.01 ug/L 0.01 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPP SW Chronic = 1.5 ug/L; GW Chronic = 0.012 ug/LEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Fluometuron

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

5 3 9 5 2164172 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 12839 Substance Key: Fluometuron Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction NL? HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/NAWQA AW 90%: 19.25 CAR HRL/NAWQA AW 90%: 0.97 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: 1.94 ug/L Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 38.5 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Herbicide

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) EPA OPP (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 0.018 Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 2005 C Cancer Classification2 IARC 1987 3 Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? EPA Yes
Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L 0.5 Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) 0.0055 mg/kg-d Decreased body weight gain and discoloration in the spleen. Basis NOAEL = 0.55 mg/kg-day; UF = 100 EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) 0.013 mg/kg-d 1987 No adverse effects. NCI, 1980, NOAEL 12.5 mg/kg-d, rat, UF=1000 IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) 0.01 mg/kg-d 1987 EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) 0.013 mg/kg-d 1987 RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 100 mg/kg-d Endocrine - changes in spleen weight, Blood - changes in spleen, Nutritional and Gross Metabolic - weight loss or decreased weight gain 90-day oral study in rat; NTIS National Technical Information Service. (Springfield, VA 22161) Formerly U.S. Clearinghouse for Scientific & Technical Information. Volume(issue)/page/year PB80-217904 RTECS

Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 Negative Equivocal Negative Negative NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Fluometuron

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 4,600 130 2.83% 0.003 37.77 0.22 2 8.34 ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application 5,313,290 lbs/yr 15 States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water 0 lbs/yr 0 States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total 0 lbs/yr 0 States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life length of time Degradation Code BST BST = Biodegrades sometimes/recalcitrant (BIODEG) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 363 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 2.42 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 1.8E-09 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 110 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 12 % Supplemental Water Data Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 11 2 18.2% 0.002 0.042 0.007 0.033 ug/L Finished 0.007 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 5 2 40% 0.002 0.028 0.007 0.019 ug/L Raw 0.007 2003-2009 Sites Toccalino et al., 2010 590 6 1% 0.0044 1.22 0.0139 1.17 ug/L Ground water; Source Water; Toccalino et al., 2010, Quality of source water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2010-5024, p. 206 0.699 1993-2007 Samples

California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 27 0 0% ug/L 1995-2007 PWS STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 505 8 1.58% 0 0 0 0 ug/L 0 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPP Notes Date Conc. Units 95th Percentile (Detects) 75th Percentile (Detects Median Conc. (Detects) Maximum Conc. (Detects) Minimum Conc. (Detects) Percent with Detects PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Number of Detects Number

Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 225 19 8.4% 0.1 0.062 ug/L Finished Water; Method 9060 (HPLC/MS) 1999 Samples
Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 312 24 7.7% 0.264 0.145 ug/L Ambient Water; Method 9060 (HPLC/MS) 1999 SamplesEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Linuron

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

5 3 1 1 330552 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 6584 Substance Key: Linuron Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction NL HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/NAWQA 90%: 215 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 56 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Herbicide

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA IRIS 1989 C Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 1995 C Cancer Classification2 IARC Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? CACART Developmental Yes Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) 0.008 mg/kg-d 1995 Decreased RBC count, hematocrit & hemoglobin levels Basis NOAEL = 0.77 mg/kg-day; UF = 100. du Pont, 1962. EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) 0.002 mg/kg-d 1986 Abnormal blood pigment du Pont, 1962; Basis LEL 0.625 mg/kg-d, dog, UF=300. NOEL not established. IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) 0.002 mg/kg-d Abnormal blood pigment du Pont, 1962; Basis LEL 0.625 mg/kg-d, dog, UF=300. NOEL not established. RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 4.93 mg/kg-d 1975 Blood - changes in serum composition (e.g. TP, bilirubin, cholesterol), Biochemical - Enzyme inhibition, induction, or change in blood or tissue levels - other Enzymes 31-week oral study in rat; GISAAA Gigiena i Sanitariya. For English translation, see HYSAAV. (V/O Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga, 113095 Moscow, USSR) V.1- 1936- Volume(issue)/page/year 40(7),46,1975 RTECS

Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Linuron

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 7,142 105 1.47% 0.0005 1.4 0.03 0.26 0.74 ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application 516,133 lbs/yr 35 States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water 0 lbs/yr 0 States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total 1 lbs/yr 1 States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production No Reports lbs/yr 2002 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life 60 days Degradation Code BST BST = Biodegrades sometimes/recalcitrant (PBT) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 350 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 3.2 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 6.26E-09 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 75 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 11 % Supplemental Water Data California Department of Health Services 142 0 0% ug/L Drinking water monitoring PWS Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 13 2 15.4% 0.0075 0.315 0.161 0.312 ug/L Finished 0.284 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 7 1 14.3% 0.0042 0.019 0.011 0.019 ug/L Raw 0.017 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 323 1 0.3% 0.035 ug/L Ambient Water; Method 2001 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 312 0 0% ug/L Ambient Water; Method 9060 (HPLC/MS) 1999 Samples Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 228 0 0% ug/L Finished Water; Method 2001 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 225 0 0% ug/L Finished Water; Method 9060 (HPLC/MS) 1999 Samples Toccalino et al., 2010 512 1 0.2% 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 ug/L Ground water; Source Water; Toccalino et al., 2010, Quality of source water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2010-5024, p. 206 0.0123 1993-2007 Samples

California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 42 0 0% ug/L 1995-2007 PWS Illinois Drinking Water Monitoring Data 1 0 0% ug/L 1998-2005 PWS USGS/California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program 753 0 0% ug/L 2004-2011 Sites STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 592 15 2.53% 0 3.5 0 3.3 ug/L 1.3 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) 293 0 0% ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Malathion

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

4 3 9 3 121755 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 5402 Substance Key: Malathion Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction NL HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/NAWQA 90%: 5,698 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 490 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Insecticide; veterinary medicine

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 2006 Suggestive Cancer Classification2 IARC 3 Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? UMD teratogen Yes Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Drinking Water Equivalent Level 0.8 Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) CADW mg/L Canadian Drinking Water Maximum Acceptable Concentration 0.19 Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) 0.07 mg/kg-d 2006 RBC cholinesterase inhibition in pups Basis BMDL = 7.1 mg/kg-d; UF = 100 (rat study) EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) 0.02 mg/kg-d 1987 Red blood cell cholinesterase inhibition Moeller and Rider, 1962, basis NOEL 0.23 mg/kg-d, human, UF=10 IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) 0.02 mg/kg-d 1992 EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) 0.02 mg/kg-d 1987 RDB ChE depression Moeller and Rider, 1962, basis NOEL/LEL, human, UF=10 RAIS HE Minimal Risk Level 0.02 mg/kg-d 2003 cholinesterase inhibition Daly, 1996, basis NOAEL 2 mg/kg-d, rat, UF=100 ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) 0.3 mg/kg-d 1997 JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 0.34 mg/kg-d 2001 Blood - changes in serum composition (e.g. TP, bilirubin, cholesterol), Biochemical - Enzyme inhibition, induction, or change in blood or tissue levels - true cholinesterase 56-day oral study in human; HBPTO Handbook of pesticide toxicology. Robert Krieger ed, Academic press, 2001 Volume(issue)/page/year 1,59,2001 RTECS

Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 Negative Not Tested Not Tested Negative NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Malathion

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) 7,117 344 4.83% 0.0015 9.58 0.0137 0.0863 0.394 ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application 5,809,943 lbs/yr 42 States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water 5 lbs/yr 1 States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total 13,250 lbs/yr 7 States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life 11 days Degradation Code DF DF = Degrades fast (HSDB) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 30.5 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 2.36 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 4.89E-09 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 143 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 25 % Supplemental Water Data California Department of Health Services 271 0 0% ug/L Drinking water monitoring PWS Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 7 0 0% ug/L Raw 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 13 2 15.4% 0.01 0.331 0.171 0.328 ug/L Finished 0.299 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 323 6 1.9% 0.106 ug/L Ambient Water; Method 2001 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 228 0 0% ug/L Finished Water; Method 2001 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Toccalino et al., 2010 898 0 0% ug/L Ground water; Source Water; Toccalino et al., 2010, Quality of source water from public-supply wells in the United States, 1993–2007: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2010-5024, p. 206 1993-2007 Samples

California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 58 0 0% ug/L 1995-2007 PWS USGS/California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program 1,828 0 0% ug/L 2004-2011 Sites STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 1,491 178 11.94% 0 3.43 0.048 1.2 ug/L 0.186 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Phosmet

HEALTH EFFECTS DATA Potency Severity Prevalence Magnitude Attribute Scores

6 3 1 1 732116 Contaminant ID (CASRN): 9544 Substance Key: Phosmet Contaminant:

3-Model Categorical Prediction NL HRL/Concentration Ratio(s) NC HRL/GWC EEC: 105 Health Reference Level (HRL)1 cancer: N/A Health Reference Level (HRL)1: 42 ug/L

Status Draft CCL 4: No PCCL 4: Yes CCL 4 Universe: Yes CCL 3: No Source Use HSDB Insecticide

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. 1 For the CCL process HRLs were calculated by converting the RfD or other dose to ug/L, assuming 2 L/day of water consumed by a 70 Kg adult, and a Relative Source Contribution of 20%. For carcinogens, the concentration at the 10^-6 cancer risk was used. 2 Cancer classifications were only used for screening. For potency scoring quantitative cancer risk data were used. Cancer Data Source Units Date Value Notes Lifetime Cancer Risk (10^-4) EPA mg/L Slope Factor (Oral) OEHHA (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Slope Factor (Oral) RAIS HE (mg/kg-d) ˉ 1 Cancer Classification2 EPA OPP 2010 Suggestive Cancer Classification2 IARC Other Supporting Data Source Units Notes Value
Is contaminant on list of carcinogens? Is the contaminant on a list of reproductive toxins? Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) EPA HA mg/L Non-Cancer Data Value Units Date Critical Effect Notes Source Reference Dose (RfD) 0.006 mg/kg-d 2010 RBC cholinesterase inhibition (rat study) Basis BMDL = 0.6 mg/kg-day. RfD is for general population. EPA OPP Reference Dose (RfD) 0.02 mg/kg-d 1986 Red. Body weight; liver cell vacuolization; ChE inhibition Stauffer Chemical 1967; Basis NOEL 2 mg/kg-d, male rat, UF=100 IRIS Reference Dose (RfD) mg/kg-d EPA HA Reference Dose (RfD) 0.02 mg/kg-d 1986 Reduced body wt; liver cell vacuolization; Cholinerase inhibition Stauffer Chemical 1967; Basis NOEL/LEL, male rat, UF=101 RAIS HE
Minimal Risk Level mg/kg-d ATSDR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) 0.01 mg/kg-d 1998 JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) mg/kg-d CEDI ADI Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) mg/kg-d ITER No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) mg/kg-d CTD JPN Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) mg/kg-d RTECS Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg HSDB Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) mg/kg CTD JPN Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) 26 mg/kg 1969 Behavioral - somnolence (general depressed activity), Behavioral - muscle contraction or spasticity, Lungs, Thorax, or Respiration - dyspnea HYSAAV Hygiene and Sanitation (USSR). English translation of GISAAA. (Springfield, VA) 1964-71. Discontinued. Volume(issue)/page/year 34(1-3),192,1969 RTECS

Male Rat Male Mouse Female Mouse Female Rat Source Cancer Classification2 NTPEPA-OGWDW

PCCL 4 Contaminant Information Sheet Phosmet

OCCURRENCE DATA

Note: Highlighted data indicate value was used in attribute scoring. Blank fields indicate there were no data available. Ambient Water Data National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) ug/L 1992-2001 Sites National Reconnaissance of Emerging Contaminants (NREC) ug/L 1999-2004 Sites

Application/Release Data Amount Released Units Number of States Units Date
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) – Application 1,333,468 lbs/yr 40 States 1997 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Surface Water lbs/yr States 2010 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) – Total lbs/yr States 2010

Amount Range Units Date Production lbs/yr 2006 Chemical Update System/Inventory Update Reporting (CUS/IUR) Environmental Fate Parameters Value Notes Units Half Life 38 days Degradation Code BSA BSA = Biodegrades slow with acclimation (PBT) Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 42.9 L/kg Log Octanol-water Partitioning Coefficient (Kow) 2.78 dimensionless Distribution Coefficient (Kd) L/kg Henry's Law Coefficient 8.39E-09 atm-m3/mol Solubility in Water 24.4 mg/L Modeled Percent in Water 41 % Supplemental Water Data California Department of Health Services 11 0 0% ug/L Drinking water monitoring PWS Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 13 0 0% ug/L Finished 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Data Program (PDP) 6 0 0% ug/L Raw 2003-2009 Sites Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 317 0 0% ug/L Ambient Water; Method 9002 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Pesticide Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) 221 0 0% ug/L Finished Water; Method 9002 (GC/MS) 1999 Samples Hopple et al., 2009 34 0% ug/L Ground water; Phase 2; Source water; Hopple et al., 2009, Anthropogenic organic compounds in source water of selected community water systems that use groundwater, 2002–05: USGS Sci. Investigations Report 2009–5200, p.74 2002-2005 Samples

Hopple et al., 2009 211 0% ug/L Ground water; Phase 1; Source water; Hopple et al., 2009 2002-2005 Samples Hopple et al., 2009 34 0% ug/L Ground water; Phase 2; Finished water; Hopple et al., 2009 2002-2005 Samples California Drinking Water Monitoring Data 2 0 0% ug/L 1995-2007 PWS STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) 700 20 2.86% 0 0.222 0 0.217 ug/L 0.198 Updated 2013 Sites Number of PWSs/Sites/ Samples Number of

Detects Percent with Detects Minimum

Conc. (Detects) Maximum

Conc. (Detects) Median

Conc. (Detects) 90th

Percentile (Detects) 99th

Percentile (Detects) Conc.

Units Notes

Date PWSs/ Sites/ Samples Finished Water Data Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) ug/L 2001-2003 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 1 ug/L 1988-1992 PWS Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCM) Round 2 ug/L 1993-1997 PWS National Inorganics and Radionuclide Survey (NIRS) ug/L 1984-1986 PWS

Other Supporting Data Source Date Value Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) OPP SW Chronic = N/A; GW Chronic = 0.4 ug/L

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets for Microbes** 



# Appendix 2: Microbial Contaminant Information Sheets

Page A2 - 1

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes** 

# Adenovirus Scoring Data Scoring Summary 1 ,2 blank 

# Occurrence 3 Health Effects blank 

# General population 6 Sensitive subpopulation(s) [CD, C] 4 1 

# Bolded Text indicates the highest score for that particular protocol. For the health effects protocol two scores were selected: the general population [G] and the highest score for a sensitive subpopulation. These 2 scores were added and normalized by multiplying by 5/14 for a final health effects score. The higher score between the WBDO and Occurrence protocols was used for total pathogen score calculation. Health Effects protocol: G – General, C - Child, E

- Elderly, P - Pregnant Women, CD -Chronic Disease


# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Data Reference 3

blank blank 

# Waterborne Disease Outbreaks blank



# 5 Has caused multiple (2 or more) documented WBDOs in the U.S. as reported by CDC surveillance between 1990 and 2008 No CDC, 1991

– CDC, 2011

4 Has caused at least one documented WBDOs in the U.S. as reported by CDC surveillance between 1990 and 2008 No CDC, 1991

– CDC, 2011

3 Has caused documented WBDOs at any time in the U.S.? No blank



# 2 Has caused WBDOs in countries other than the U.S.? Yes Europe Kukkula et al., 1997

1 Has never caused WBDOs in any country, but has been epidemiologically associated with water related disease? N/A blank

blank blank 

# Occurrence blank



# 3 Detected in drinking water in the U.S.? Yes PCR in connection with an outbreak. O’Reilly et al., 2007 Fong et al., 2007

Page A2 - 2

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**



# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Data Reference 3



# 2 Detected in source water in the U.S.? Yes 38% of surface water samples collected as part of the Information Collection Rule contained Adenovirus 40/41. USEPA, 2007

1 Not detected in the U.S.? N/A blank
blank blank 

# Health Effects blank



# 7 Does the organism cause significant mortality (> 1/1,000 cases)? blank blank



# 6 [G] Does the organism cause pneumonia, meningitis, hepatitis, encephalitis, endocarditis, cancer, or other severe manifestations of illness necessitating long term hospitalization (> week)? [G] A frequent cause of pneumonia among (unvaccinated) military recruits. Two deaths in previously
- healthy adults. ARD is still a significant problem in military. Less common manifestations include fatal neonatal disease, meningoencephalitis and myocar ditis. Gray et al., 2001

Ro binson in Murray, 2010

5 Does the illness result in long term or permanent dysfunction or disability, i.e. sequelae? None reported blank



# 4 [C, CD] Does the illness require short term hospitalization (< week)? [CD] Children with chronic disease required respiratory ventilation. [C] Young adults may contract acute respiratory disease. CDC, 1983

CD C, 1998

3 Does the illness require physician intervention? Physician office visits are indicated for ocular infections. Robinson in Murray, 2010

Page A2 - 3

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**



# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Data Reference 3



# 2 [E, P] Is the illness self

- limiting within 72 hours (without requiring medical intervention)? [E, P] Approximately 50% of cases are asymptomatic, symptomatic cases usually present as upper respiratory infections similar to the common cold. Robinson in Murray, 2010

1 Does the illness result in mild symptoms with minimal or no impact on daily acti vities? blank blank

1 

# Bolded Text indicates the highest score for that particular protocol. For the health effects protocol two scores were selected: the general population [G] and the highest score for a sensitive subpopulation. These 2 scores were adde d and normalized by multiplying by 5/14 for a final health effects score. The higher score between the WBDO and Occurrence protocols was used for total pathogen score calculation. Health Effects protocol: G – General, C - Child, E

- Elderly, P - Pregnant Wo men, CD

- Chronic Disease. 2 

# See Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Microbes: PCCL to CCL Process . EPA 815 -R- 09

- 009. Final. August 2009 for a detailed description on how to calculate the total pathogen score. 3 

# EPA based the WBDO scores on the CDC MMWR reports from 1991 – 200 8 and then collected occurrence citations if there were no CDC WBDOs.



# Ref erences CDC, 1983. Adenovirus type 7 outbreak in a pediatric chronic- care facility – Pennsylvania. 1972. MMWR, 1983:32;258-60. CDC, 1998. Civilian Outbreak of Adenovirus Acute Respiratory Disease – South Dakota, 1997. MMWR 1998: 47(27);567-570. CDC, 1991. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1989—1990. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 40(SS-3) ; 1 -21. CDC, 1993. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1991—1992. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 42(SS- 5); 1 -22.
CD C, 1996. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1993—1994. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 45(SS- 1); 1 -33. CDC, 1998. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1995—1996. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 47(SS- 5); 1 -33. CDC, 2000. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1997—1998. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 49(SS- 4); 1 -35. Page A2 - 4

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**



# CDC, 2002. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United Stat es, 1999—2000. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 51(SS- 8); 1 -36. CDC, 2004. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 2001—2002. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 53(SS08); 23-45. CDC, 2006. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 2003—2004. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 55(SS12); 31-58.
CD C. 2008. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water and Water not Intended for Drinking — United States, 2005-2006. MMWR 57 (SS- 9); 1

- 72 (Table 4, p. 45; Table 5 p. 46).
CD C. 2011. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water - United States, 2007-2008. MMWR 60 (SS-12); 1-80 (Table 4, p. 45; Table 5 p. 46). Fong, T., L. Mansfield, D. Wilson, D. Schwab, S Molloy and J Rose. 2007. Massive Microbiological Groundwater Contamination Associated with a Waterborne Outbreak in Lake Erie, South Bass Island, OH. Environmental Health Perspectives. Gray, G C, P R Goswami, M D Malasig, A W Hawksworth, D H Trump, M A Ryan and D P Schnurr. 2001. Adult Adenovirus Infections: Loss of Orphaned Vaccines Precipitates Military Respiratory Disease Epidemics. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 31: 663

- 70. Kukkula, M., Arstila P., Klossner M.L., Maunula L., Bonsdorff C.H., and P. Jaatinen. 1997. Waterborne outbreak of viral gastroenteritis . Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Disease, 29(4): 415-8. O'Reilly, C.E., A.B. Bowen, E.P. Nytzia, J.P. Sarisky, C.A. Shepherd, M.D. Miller, B.C. Hubbard, M. Herring, S.D. Buchanan, C.C. Fitzgerald, V. Hill, M.J. Arrowood, L.X. Xiao, R.M. Hoekstra, E.D. Mintz, M.F. Lynch, and the Outbreak Working Group. 2007. A Waterborne Outbreak of Gastroenteritis with Multiple Etiolo gies among Resort Island Visitors and Residents: Ohio, 2004. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 44:506-512. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v44n4/40825/40825.text.html - fn1#fn1 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v44n4/40825/40825.text.html - fn2#fn2 Robinson, C. and M. Echavarria. 2010. Adenoviruses. In Murray, P. R., E. J. Baron, J. H. Jorgensen, M.L. Landry, and M. A. Pfaller (ed.) The Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 10th. edition, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. Vol. 2: p. 1600. USEPA. 2007. Adenovirus Health and Criteria Document (Draft).

Page A2 - 5

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes** 

# Naegleria fowleri Scoring Data Scoring Summary 1 ,2 blank 

# Waterborne Disease Outbreak 4 Health Effects blank 

# General population 7 Sensitive subpopulation(s) [C, P, E, CD] 7 1 

# Bolded Text indicates the highest score for that particular protocol. For the health effects protocol two scores were selected: the general population [G] and the highest score for a sensitive subpopulation. These 2 scores were added and normalized by multiplyin g by 5/14 for a final health effects score. The higher score between the WBDO and Occurrence protocols was used for total pathogen score calculation. Health Effects protocol: G – General, C - Child, E

- Elderly, P - Pregnant Women, CD -Chronic Disease



# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Data Reference 3

blank blank 

# Waterborne Disease Outbreaks blank



# 5 Has caused multiple (2 or more) documented WBDOs in the U.S. as reported by CDC surveillance between 1990 and 200 8 ? No CDC, 1991

– CDC, 2011

4 Has caused at least one documented WBDOs in the U.S. as reported by CDC surveillance between 1990 and 2008 ? Yes 1 Community CDC, 2004

3 Has caused documented WBDOs at any time in the U.S.? N/A blank



# 2 Has caused WBDOs in countries other than the U.S.? N/A blank



# 1 Has never caused WBDOs in any country, but has been epidemiologically associated with water related disease? N/A blank



# Page A2 - 6

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**



# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Data Reference 3

blank blank 

# Occurrence blank



# 3 Detected in drinking water in the U.S.? Yes Arizona storage - Sampled pre
- treatment multiple
- well study in Arizona. Gerba et al., 2007
Marci ano -Cabral et al., 2003

2 Detected in source water in the U.S.? Yes Schuster and Visvesvara, 2004
1 Not detected in the U.S.? N/A blank
blank blank 

# Health Effects blank



# 7 [G, C, P,

E, CD] Does the organism cause significant mortality (> 1/1,000 cases)? [All populations] Recovery from primary amoebic meningoencephalitis is rare. Heymann, 2005

6 Does the organism cause pneumonia, meningitis, hepatitis, encephalitis, endocarditis, cancer, or other severe manifestations of illness necessitating long term hospitalization (> week)? Acute fulminating disease. Only a few patients have survived. Visvesvara in Murray, 2010

5 Does the illness result in long term or permanen t dysfunction or disability, i.e. sequelae? No blank



# 4 Does the illness require short term hospitalization (< week)? All cases are hospitalized for diagnosis and treatment. Visvesvara in Murray, 2010

3 Does the illness require physician intervention? blank blank



# 2 Is the illness self

- limiting within 72 hours (without requiring medical intervention)? blank blank



# Page A2 - 7

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**



# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Data Reference 3



# 1 Does the illness result in mild symptoms with minimal or no impact on daily activities? blank blank

1 

# Bolded Text indicates the highest score for that particular protocol. For the health effects protocol two scores were selected: the general population [G] and the highest score for a sensitive subpopulation. These 2 scores were added and normalized by multiplying by 5/14 for a final health effects score. The higher score between the WBDO and Occurrence protocols was used for total pathogen score calculation. Health Effects protocol: G – General, C - Child, E

- Elderly, P - Pregnant Women, CD

- Chronic Disease. 2 

# See Final Contaminant Candidat e List 3 Microbes: PCCL to CCL Process . EPA 815 -R- 09

- 009. Final. August 2009 for a detailed description on how to calculate the total pathogen score. 3 

# EPA based the WBDO scores on the CDC MMWR reports from 1991 – 2008 and then collected occurrence citations if there were no CDC WBDOs. 

# Referen ces CDC, 1991. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1989—1990. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 40(SS- 3); 1 -21.
CDC , 1993. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1991—1992. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 42(SS- 5); 1 -22.
CDC , 1996. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1993—1994. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 45(SS- 1); 1 -33.
CDC , 1998. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1995—1996. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 47(SS- 5); 1 -33.
CDC , 2000. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1997—1998. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 49(SS- 4); 1 -35.
CDC , 2002. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1999—2000. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 51(SS- 8); 1 -36.
CDC , 2004. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 2001—2002. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 53(SS08); 23-45.
CDC , 2006. Surveillance for Waterborne

- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 2003—2004. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 55(SS12); 31-58.
CDC . 2008. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Waterand Water not Intended for Drinking — United States, 2005-2006. MMWR 57 (SS- 9); 1

- 72 (Table 4, p. 45; Table 5 p. 46). Page A2 - 8

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**



# CD C. 2011. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water - United States, 2007-2008. MMWR 60 (SS-12); 1-80 (Table 4, p. 45; Table 5 p. 46).
Ge rba, C., B. Blair, P. Sarkar, and K. Bright. 2007. Occurrence and Control of Naegleria fowleri in Well Water and Chlorine Resistance. Proceedings, Water Quality Technology Conference, American Water Works Associ ation, November 5-8, 2007. Heymann, D. (ed.). 2005. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual, 18 th 

# ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. pp. 417-419. Marciano

- Cabral, F., R. MacLean, A. Mensah, and L. LaPat -Polasko. 2003. Identification of Naegleria fowleri in domestic water source by nested PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69 (10): 5864-5869.Schuster, F.L. and G.S. Visvesvara. 2004. Free-living amoebae as opportunistic and nonopportunistic pathogens of humans and animals. Int. J. Parasitol. 34: 1001-1027. Visvesvara, G. 2007. Pathogenic and Opportunistic Free-Living Amebae. In Murray, P. R., E. J. Baron, J. H. Jorgensen, M. A. Pfaller, and R. H Yolken (ed.) The Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 10th edition, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC Vol. 2; pp. 3129.

Page A2 - 9

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes** 

# Toxoplasma gondii Scoring Data Scoring Summary 1 ,2 blank 

# Waterborne Disease Outbreak 2 Health Effects blank 

# General population 2 Sensitive subpopulation(s) [P] 7 1 

# Bolded Text indicates the highest score for that particular protocol. For the health effects protocol two scores were selected: the general population [G] and the highest score for a sensitive subpopulation. These 2 scores were added and normalized by multiplying by 5/14 for a final health effects score. The higher score between the WBDO and Occurrence protocols was used for total pathogen score calculation. Health Effects protocol: G – General, C - Child, E

- Elderly, P - Pregnant Women, CD -Chronic Disease



# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Da ta Reference 3

blank blank 

# Waterborne Disease Outbreaks blank



# 5 Has caused multiple (2 or more) documented WBDOs in the U.S. as reported by CDC surveillance between 1990 and 200 8 ? No CDC, 1991

– CDC, 2011

4 Has caused at least one documented WBDOs in the U.S. as reported by CDC surveillance between 1990 and 2008 ? No CDC, 1991

– CDC, 2011

3 Has caused documented WBDOs at any time in the U.S.? No blank



# 2 Has caused WBDOs in countries other than the U.S.? Yes Canada and Brazil. Bowie et al., 1997 de Moura, 2006

1 Has never caused WBDOs in any country, but has been epidemiologically associated with water related disease? N/A blank



# Page A2 - 10

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**



# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Da ta Reference 3

blank blank 

# Occurrence blank



# 3 Detected in drinking water in the U.S.? No blank



# 2 Detected in source water in the U.S.? No blank



# 1 Not detected in the U.S.? Yes Groundwater in Poland and Canada. Sroka et al., 2006 Isaac-Renton et al., 1998 blank blank 

# Health Effects blank



# 7 [P] Does the organism cause significant mortality (> 1/1,000 cases)? [P] Congenital infection of neonates severe. Infection during early pregnancy may lead to fetal infection with death of the fetus or other severe manifestations. Later in pregnancy, maternal infection results in mild or subclinical fetal d isease. Wilson in Murray, 2010 Heymann , 2005

6 Does the organism cause pneumonia, meningitis, hepatitis, encephalitis, endocarditis, cancer, or other severe manifestations of illness necessitating long term hospitalization (> week)? Immunocomprom ised hosts may experience CNS, pneumonitis, and myocarditis. Wilson in Murray, 2010

5 Does the illness result in long term or permanent dysfunction or disability, i.e. sequelae? blank blank



# Page A2 - 11

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**



# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Da ta Reference 3



# 4 Does the illness require short term hospitalization (< week)? blank blank



# 3 Does the illness require physician intervention? Treatment is indicated only for pregnant women, infants and immunocompromised hosts. Wilson in Murray, 2010

2 [G, C, E, CD] Is the illness self
limiting within 72 hours (without requiring medical intervention)? [G, C, E, CD] Infection is generally asymptomatic; however 10 – 20% of patients with acute infection may develop cervical lymphadenopathy and/or flu
- like symptoms. Wilson in Murray, 2010

1 Does the illness result in mild symptoms with minimal or no impact on daily activities? blank blank

1 

# Bolded Text indicates the highest score for that particular protocol. For the health effects protocol two scores were selected: the general population [G] and the highest score for a sensitive subpopulation. These 2 scores were added and normalized by multiplying by 5/14 for a final health effects score. The higher score between the WBDO and Occurrence protocols was used for total pathogen score calculation. Health Effects protocol: G – General , C - Child, E

- Elderly, P - Pregnant Women, CD

- Chronic Disease. 2 

# See Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Microbes: PCCL to CCL Process . EPA 815 -R- 09

- 009. Final. August 2009 for a detailed description on how to calculate the total pathogen score. 3 

# EPA based the WBDO scores on the CDC MMWR reports from 1991 – 2008 and then collected occurrence citations if there were no CDC WBDOs.



# References B owie, W. R., S. A. King, D. H. Werker, J. L. Isaac-Renton, A. Bell, S. B. Eng, and S. A. Marion. 1997. Outbreak of toxoplasmosis associated with municipal drinking water. Lancet 350: 173-177. CDC, 1991. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1989—1990. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 40(SS- 3); 1 -21. CDC, 1993. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- Page A2 - 12

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**


# United States, 1991—1992. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 42(SS- 5); 1 -22. CDC, 1996. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1993—1994. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 45(SS- 1); 1 -33. CDC, 1998. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1995—1996. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 47(SS- 5); 1 -33. CDC, 2000. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1997—1998. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 49(SS- 4); 1 -35. CDC, 2002. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1999—2000. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 51(SS- 8); 1 -36. CDC, 2004. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 2001—2002. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 53(SS08); 23-45. CDC, 2006. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 2003—2004. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 55(SS12); 31-58. CDC. 2008. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water and Water not Intended for Drinking — United States, 2005-2006. MMWR 57 (SS- 9); 1

- 72 (Table 4, p. 45; Table 5 p. 46).
CD C. 2011. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water - United States, 2007-2008. MMWR 60 (SS-12); 1-80 (Table 4, p. 45; Table 5 p. 46).
He ymann, D. (ed.). 2005. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual, 18 th 

# ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. Isaac -Renton, J, W.R. Bowie, A. King, G.S. Irwin, C.S. Ong, C.P. Fung, M.O. Shokeir and J.P. Dubey. 1998. Detection of Toxoplasma gondii Oocysts in Drinking Water. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64(6): 2278-2280. de Moura L., L.M. Bahia-Oliveira, M.Y. Wada, J.L. Jones, S.H. Tuboi, E.H. Carmo, W.M. Ramalho, N.J. Camargo, R. Trevisan, R.M. Graca, A.J. da Silva, I. Moura, J.P. Dubey, and D.O. Garrett. 2006. Waterborne toxoplasmosis, Brazil, from field to gene. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 12(2): 326 -9. Sroka J., A. Wojcik-Fatla, J. Dutkiewicz. 2006. Occurrence of Toxoplasma Gondii in Water from Wells Locatedon Farms. Ann Agric Environm Med. 13: 169-175. Jones, J., J. McAuley and K. Singh. 2010. Toxoplasma. In Murray, P. R., E. J. Baron, J. H. Jorgensen, M.L. Landry, and M. A. Pfaller (ed.) The Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 10th. edition, American Society for Microbio logy, Washington, DC. Vol. 2: p. 2127. Page A2 - 13

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**



# Vibrio cholerae Scoring Data Scoring Summary 1 ,2 blank 

# Waterborne Disease Outbreak 4 Health Effects blank 

# General population 3 Sensitive subpopulation(s) [C, E, P, CD] 3

1 

# Bolded Text indicates the highest score for that particular protocol. For the health effects protocol two scores were selected: the general population [G] and the highest score for a sensitive subpopulation. These 2 scores were added and normalized by multiplying by 5/14 for a final health effects score. The higher score between the WBDO and Occurrence protocols was used for total pathogen score calculation. Health Effects protocol: G – General, C - Child, E

- Elderly, P - Pregnant Women, CD -Chronic Disease



# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Data Reference 3

blank blank 

# Waterborne Disease Outbreaks blank



# 5 Has caused multiple (2 or more) documented WBDOs in the U.S. as reported by CDC surveillance between 1990 and 200 8 ? No CDC, 1991

– CDC, 2011

4 Has caused at least one documented WBDOs in the U.S. as reported by CDC surveillance between 1990 and 2008 ? 1 Community CDC, 1996

3 Has caused documented WBDOs at any time in the U.S.? N/A blank



# 2 Has caused WBDOs in countries other than the U.S.? N/A blank



# 1 Has never caused WBDOs in any country, but has been epidemiologically associated with water related disease? N/A blank

blank blank 

# Occurrence blank



# 3 Detected in drinking water in the U.S.? Yes (outbreak data) CDC, 1996

Page A2 - 14

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**



# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Data Reference 3 

# 2 Detected in source water in the U.S.? Yes Rhodes et al., 1986 Kaper et al., 1982 1 Not detected in the U.S.? N/A blank
blank blank 

# Health Effects blank



# 7 Does the organism cause significant mortality (> 1/1,000 cases)? V. cholerae Non

- O1: third most commonly isolated in U.S. - Septicemia case fatality rate from 24-65 %. Abbott in Murray, 2010

6 Does the organism cause pneumonia, meningitis, hepatitis, encephalitis, endocarditis, cancer, or other severe manifestations of illness necessitating long term hospitalization (> week)? V. cholerae O1: Extremely rare cases causes severe extraintestinal infection. If untreated, V. cholerae O1 infection causes severe dehydration which leads to hypovolemic shock, acidosis, circulatory collapse, and death. Unlike O1 strains, non- O1 isolates are commonly associated with extrainstestinal infections such as septicemia. Abbott in Murray, 2010

5 Does the illness result in long term or permanent dysfunction or disability, i.e. sequelae? blank bl ank



# Page A2 - 15

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**



# Score 2 

# Data Element Scoring Data Reference 3



# 4 Does the illness require short term hospitalization (< week)? In severely dehydrated cases (cholera gravis), death may occur within afew hours, and the casefatality rate may exceed 50%. With proper and timely rehydration, this can be less than 1%. Heymann, 2005

3 [G, C, P, E, CD] Does the illness require physician intervention? [All populations] In most cases infection is asymptomatic or causes self
- limiting diarrhea. Treatment consists of fluid replacement by oral rehydration therapy and/or intravenous fluids. Abbott in Murray, 2010

2 Is the illness self

- limiting within 72 hours (without requiring medical intervention)? blank blank



# 1 Does the illness result in mild symptoms with minimal or no impact on daily activities? blank blank

1 

# Bolded Text indicates the highest score for that particular protocol. For the health effects protocol two scores were selected: the general population [G] and the highest score for a s ensitive subpopulation. These 2 scores were added and normalized by multiplying by 5/14 for a final health effects score. The higher score between the WBDO and Occurrence protocols was used for total pathogen score calculation. Health Effects protocol: G – General, C - Child, E

- Elderly, P - Pregnant Women, CD

- Chronic Disease. 2 

# See Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Microbes: PCCL to CCL Process . EPA 815 -R- 09

- 009. Final. August 2009 for a detailed description on how to calculate the total pathogen score. 3 

# EPA based the WBDO scores on the CDC MMWR reports from 1991 – 2008 and then collected occurrence citations if there were no CDC WBDOs. 

# Ref erences Abbott, S. L., J. M. Janda, and J. J. Farmer. 2010. Vibrio and Related Organisms. In Murray, P. R., E. J. Baron, J. H. Jorgensen, M. A. Pfaller, and R. H Yolken (ed.) The Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 8th. edition, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. Vol. 1: pp. 666.
CD C, 1991. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbre aks Associated with Drinking Water

--- Page A2 - 16

# EPA OGWDW **Contaminant Information Sheets** EPA 815-R-15-003 **for Microbes**


# United States, 1989—1990. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 40(SS- 3); 1 -21.
CD C, 1993. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1991—1992. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 42(SS- 5); 1 -22.
CD C, 1996. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1993—1994. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 45(SS- 1); 1 -33.
CD C, 1998. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1995—1996. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 47(SS- 5); 1 -33.
CD C, 2000. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1997—1998. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 49(SS- 4); 1 -35.
CDC , 2002. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 1999—2000. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 51(SS- 8); 1 -36.
CD C, 2004. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 2001—2002. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 53(SS08); 23-45.
CD C, 2006. Surveillance for Waterborne- Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water

--- United States, 2003—2004. MMWR Surveillance Summaries , 55(SS12); 31-58.
CD C. 2008. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water and Water not Intended for Drinking — United States, 2005-2006. MMWR 57 (SS- 9); 1

- 72 (Table 4, p. 45; Table 5 p. 46).
CD C. 2011. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water - United States, 2007-2008. MMWR 60 (SS-12); 1-80 (Table 4, p. 45; Table 5 p. 46).

He ymann, D. (ed.). 2005. Control of Communicable Diseases Manual, 18 th 

# ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC. pp. 113-127. Kape r, J. B., H. B. Bradford, N. C. Roberts, and S. Falkow. 1982. Molecular epidemiology of Vibrio cholerae in the U.S. Gulf Coast. J. Clin. Microbiol. 16(1): 129-134.
Rhode s, J.B., H.L. Smith Jr., and J.E. Ogg. 1986. Isolation of Non- O1 Vibrio cholerae Serovars from Surface Waters in Western Colorado. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 51(6): 1216-1219.

Page A2 - 17