Likely Future Regulatory Implications in Arizona:

Chromium VI and Carcinogenic VOCs

Chad Seidel, Ph.D., P.E. Manager of Water Technology

Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Overview

• Chromium VI – What did we

know back then? – Current

Regulatory Status

• USEPA • California DPH

– What do we know now?

• Carcinogenic VOCs – Current USEPA

Direction – Ongoing

Occurrence Analysis

2

3

Remember Erin Brockovich?

4

What did we know back then?

• Drinking water regulations – Total Chromium

• USEPA MCL = 100 ug/L • California MCL = 50 ug/L

– Hexavalent Chromium • No USEPA or state MCLs for Cr(VI)

5

Chromium Regulatory Status: Recent Timeline

Sept. 30, 2010 USEPA IRIS Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium (External Review Draft)

Dec. 2010 EWG Report “Chromium-6 – the Erin Brockovich Chemical – Is Widespread in U.S. Tap Water: Tests find cancer-causing chemical in 89 percent of cities sampled”

Dec. 31, 2010 California OEHHA offered a revised draft PHG at 0.02 ug/L

Jan. 11, 2011 USEPA recommended sampling

Jul. 27, 2011 California OEHHA posted final PHG at 0.02 ug/L

6

Chromium Regulatory Status: MCL Development Efforts

• USEPA – 100 ug/L Total Cr MCL – According to

Administrator, “likely” to regulate Cr(VI)

– Regulatory process would take up to two years

• Completion of human health assessment study

• Ensuing public comment period

– Senators Boxer and Feinstein introduced Senate bill 79 which would require EPA to promulgate a hexavalent chromium standard within one year of legislation

• Won’t pass, but adds pressure

• California DPH – 50 ug/L Total Cr MCL – DPH has statutory

mandate to develop Cr(VI)-specific MCL

– 3-4 years for MCL development and rulemaking

– Seeking additional information to support process

• Analytical methods • Occurrence • Treatment performance

and cost

7

2014

UCMR3 Proposal (3/2011)

CCL3 Final (10/2009)

2012 2013 2015 2016 Reg Det 3 Final

(<7/2013)1

Proposed Rule(s) (<7/2015)1

2017

Final Rule(s) (<1/2017)1

Reg Det 3 Proposal (<7/2012)

Carcinogenic VOCs Proposal

(2012?) Carcinogenic VOCs Final

(2015?)

Six-Year 2 (3/2010)

Six-Year 3 (3/2016)

Six-Year 3 Proposal (<3/2014)

Round 2 LT2ESWTR Monitoring (4/2015 – 5/2021)

UCMR3 Monitoring (1/2013 – 12/2015)

LT-LCR Proposal (Spring 2012)

LT-LCR Final (Spring 2014)

RTCR Final (Summer, 2012)

RTCR Effective (Summer, 2015)

ClO4- Proposal

(2/2013) ClO4

- Final (2/2015)

Note: As yet unassigned (fluoride, acrylamide, epichlorohydrin, total chromium / Cr(VI))

Key Proposal – no fill Final – filled Uncertain – cross hatched Unique color for related regulatory actions

CCL4 Final (<10/2014)

CCL4 Proposal (<10/2013)

Current USEPA Regulatory Activities Courtesy of Steve Via, AWWA

8

USEPA Chromium Regulatory Timeline Courtesy of Steve Via, AWWA

2014 2012 2013 2015 2016

Reg Det 3 Final (<7/2013)1

Proposed Rule(s) (<7/2015)1

2017

Reg Det 3 Proposal (<7/2012)

Six-Year 3 Notice

(3/2016)

UCMR3 Monitoring (1/2013 – 12/2015)

Final Rule(s) (<1/2017)1

Federal – SDWA Timeline (EPA has options for approaching a rulemaking)

California MCL Timeline

PHG Final (7/2011)

? ?

IRIS Review Final (<12/2011)

current schedule

<4 yr rule-

making process

Administrator’s Discretion

< 4 year rule-making process (time to propose and finalize rule)

NOTE : SDWA provides 3 years to come into compliance with a new standard and if approved by state 2 additional years for capital improvements.

9

California DPH Regulatory Status

• Phase I: Pre-MCL activities – Information gathering for analytical

methods, occurrence, treatment, costs

• Phase II: Draft regulatory package development – Cost:benefit analysis, draft reg text

• Phase III: Formal Regulatory Adoption Process – Agency reviews, public comment, signature

Adapted from Dave Mazzera, Ph.D., California DPH

10

California DPH Regulatory Status

• 18-24 months to develop MCL and initiate formal rulemaking process – gather & evaluate data; perform analyses

– draft regulations with stakeholder input

• 12-24 months to complete formal rulemaking – Internal & external review

– OAL review and public comment period(s)

– Response to comments, final OAL review & adoption

• Overall timeline estimate: 3-4 years to complete hexavalent chromium MCL

Adapted from Dave Mazzera, Ph.D., California DPH

11

California DPH Regulatory Status

• Arsenic MCL Case History – Arsenic PHG = 4 ng/L (ppt); Final in April 2004 – Final arsenic MCL set at 10 μg/L (prior MCL

50 μg/L) • USEPA MCL in effect January 2006 • CA MCL in effect November 2008

• Why is the MCL greater than the PHG? – Technical feasibility:

• DLR at 2 ppb (lower boundary of MCL evaluation) • Federal MCL at 10 μg/L (set upper boundary)

– Cost benefit analysis: 10 vs. 2 μg/L • Minor incremental benefit

Adapted from Dave Mazzera, Ph.D., California DPH

12

What do we know now?

• Health Impacts: – Future 1: Cr(VI) is a credible carcinogenic risk

at low environmentally derived oral exposures • Information to support a Cr(VI) MCL (or revised

Total Cr MCL) • Analytical method • Occurrence • Treatment

– Future 2: Most recent risk assessments are flawed and Cr(VI) is not a credible carcinogenic risk at oral exposures at ng/L concentrations

13

What do we know now?

• Occurrence: – Chromium occurs in drinking water

sources across the U.S. – Percent of utilities with detectable

chromium increases as method detection limits are lowered

– Speciation trends by source water • Surface water predominantly Cr(III) • Groundwater predominantly Cr(VI)

14

Data Source WaterRF #2759 USEPA CDPH

Database NCBOS 6YR2 UCMR Geographic Coverage

41 States 46 States and 2

Tribes California

Period of Record

2003 1998 - 2005 1995 - 2011

Source Water Sampled

Raw Drinking Water SW and

GW

Drinking Water SW and GW

Raw and Treated Drinking Water SW and GW

Total Chromium Data?

Yes Yes Yes

Hexavalent Chromium Data?

Yes No Yes

WaterRF 4414 Chromium Occurrence: Datasets Considered

15

Comparison of Datasets for Total Cr: 75%ile Results by Entry Point

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 5 10 15 20

Perc

entil

e

Total Chromium (µg/L)

6YR2 (n=64,423)NCBOS (n=342)6YR2 Bayesian (50th)CDPH Raw (n=13,691)CDPH Treated (n=575)

16

USEPA 6YR2 Total Cr: 75%ile by EP

> 10 µg/L

5 - 10 µg/L

17

National Compliance Estimates: Percent of Systems with 75%ile > MCL

MCL (µg/L)

All Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems All <10K 10K-

50K >50K All <10K 10K-

50K >50K

6YR2 n 33,047 29,214 27,770 1,205 239 3,833 2,436 921 476

1 20.0 20.5 20.2 25.7 25.5 15.8 16.2 12.9 19.1 3 12.2 12.9 12.7 17.8 16.7 6.8 6.8 5.3 9.5 5 8.7 9.4 9.1 13.5 14.6 4.1 3.9 2.7 7.6 10 4.7 5.1 5.0 7.2 8.4 1.8 1.3 1.5 5.0 20 1.3 1.4 1.3 2.3 2.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.9

NCBOS 1 41.5 37.7 33.3 53.1 25.9 49.1 37.5 46.2 52.8 3 17.8 18.4 13.6 29.6 11.1 16.7 12.5 15.4 18.1 5 9.4 11.4 10.6 17.3 6.2 5.3 0.0 7.7 5.6

10 1.8 1.8 3.0 2.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.8

18

USEPA 6YR2 Total Cr: 75%ile by EP

Total Chromium> 10 ug/L

5 to 10 ug/L

> 10 µg/L

5 - 10 µg/L

19

Arizona Compliance Estimates: Percent of Systems with 75%ile > MCL

MCL (µg/L)

All Systems

Groundwater Systems Surface Water Systems All <10K 10K-

50K >50K All <10K 10K-

50K >50K

6YR2

n 638 608 581 21 6 30 21 1 8 1 97.8 97.9 97.8 100.0 100.0 96.7 95.2 100.0 100.0 3 78.4 79.8 79.0 95.2 100.0 50.0 33.3 100.0 87.5 5 67.4 68.9 67.8 90.5 100.0 36.7 19.0 100.0 75.0 10 43.6 44.6 43.7 57.1 83.3 23.3 4.8 0.0 75.0 20 15.8 16.1 15.7 23.8 33.3 10.0 0.0 0.0 37.5

20

What do we know now? Treatment Performance

Technology MCL (ug/L) 20 10 5 1 0.5

Strong-base Anion Exchange Weak-base Anion Exchange Reduction Coagulation Filtration Reverse Osmosis Other: Chemical Reductive Media Biological Treatment

21

Carcinogenic VOCs: Current USEPA Direction

Source: EPA Materials USEPA Stakeholder Meeting September 21, 2010

22

Carcinogenic VOCs: Current USEPA Direction

• What’s the latest? – “We expect to initiate regulatory efforts to begin

addressing carcinogenic VOCs by the end of March 2011. Typically, it takes about 2 to 2.5 years to develop a proposed rule and about 2 years to promulgate a final rule.” USEPA Basic Questions and Answers for the Drinking Water Strategy Contaminant Groups Effort

– cVOC Rule proposal in Fall 2013…

23

Carcinogenic VOCs: Current USEPA Direction

• What’s the latest? – Lower individual MCLs for both TCE and PCE

• Analytical method improvements • Could be in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 ug/L • Risk reduction based on cancer cases avoided

– Group MCL • Simple summation of VOCs in group, perhaps 2 ug/L • Must determine what is in or out • Demonstrating risk reduction more difficult

24

Carcinogenic VOCs: Current USEPA Direction

• What’s the latest? – Likely candidates

• 1,2,3-trichloropropane • 1,3-butadiene • 1,1-dichloroethane

– Not likely candidates • aniline • nitrobenzene • urethane • oxirane, methyl- • benzyl chloride

-- Possible substitutes • 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane • 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane • DBCP • EDB

Ongoing Occurrence Analysis Objectives

• USEPA 6YR2 – 1,2-dichloroethane – 1,2-dichloropropane – Benzene – Carbon Tetrachloride – Dichloromethane – Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) – Trichloroethylene (TCE) – Vinyl chloride

• California DPH – 1,2-dichloroethane – 1,2-dichloropropane – Benzene – Carbon Tetrachloride – Dichloromethane – Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) – Trichloroethylene (TCE) – Vinyl chloride – Nitrobenzene – 1,1-Dichloroethane – 1,2,3-Trichloropropane

25

• Discern occurrence and co-occurrence of carcinogenic VOCs

• First cut analysis using readily available data

26

USEPA 6YR2

• Counted detections for individual VOCs • Counted detections with co-occuring TCE

detections

• Total unique sample records: 335,018 • Unique samples with detections: 52938 (15.8%)

Chem. NameChem.

IDRecord Count

Detect Count % Detect

TCE Co-Occur

% TCE Co-Occur

1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride) 2980 375,636 2,091 0.56% 162 7.75%1,2-Dichloropropane 2983 374,409 922 0.25% 59 6.40%Benzene 2990 374,503 1,639 0.44% 101 6.16%Carbon Tetrachloride 2982 385,864 4,706 1.22% 86 1.83%Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 2964 372,009 3,281 0.88% 91 2.77%Tetrachloroethylene 2987 410,042 34,812 8.49% 1404 4.03%Trichloroethylene 2984 403,609 29,557 7.32% NA NAVinyl chloride 2976 373,161 550 0.15% 120 21.82%

27

EPA Six Year Review 2: Occurrence < 5 ug/L

90%

91%

92%

93%

94%

95%

96%

97%

98%

99%

100%

0 1 2 3 4 5

VOC Concentration (ug/L)

Cum

ulat

ive

Prob

abili

ty (%

)

Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)

Vinyl chloride

1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride)

Carbon Tetrachloride

1,2-Dichloropropane

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene

Benzene

28

EPA Six Year Review 2: TCE and PCE Co-Occurrence < 5 ug/L

TCE and PCE Detectable Co-Occurrence

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

TCE (ug/L)

PCE

(ug/

L)GWSW

USEPA 6YR2: Utility Impacts

Regulatory Constraint Number of CWS (n)

Percent of CWS (%)

All CWSs 33,443 100% Current MCLs 298 0.9% Current MCLs + TCE and PCE < 1 ug/L

747 2.2%

Current MCLs + TCE and PCE < 0.5 ug/L

1,065 3.2%

Sum8 < 2 ug/L 1,229 3.4% Sum8 < 1 ug/L 1,771 5.3%

29

Queried data for maximum concentrations of individual VOCs by CWS

Conclusions

• Both Cr(VI) and cVOCs have implications for Arizona

• Regulatory development at USEPA and California DPH on different tracks

• Upcoming opportunities to provide input into processes

• In the meantime, keep focus on continued public health protection!

30

31

Questions?

Chad Seidel, Ph.D., P.E. chad.seidel@jacobs.com Office: 303.820.4846 Mobile: 303.887.1853