Document 7RqjgXb6o3m3xbQw58NQgdeOa

Message From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Jones, Enesta [/0=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=65B8E6C6E5CA4A7A9AE85D98A4C8EEDB-EJONES02] 6/13/2018 1:23:38 PM ! Ex." 6 i I_______________________________________________________ j Press [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b293283291dc44eOb5dlc36be9281d8a-Press] Re: Inquiry into EPA's assessment of Arsenic Health Risks On background: Please filter for Active Systems in the query. It's also helpful to review the data in Excel rather than SDW IS, by downloading the report. For any specific questions on each system, we recommend contacting the state. Also, if it's helpful, for summary data, you may want to use the following link: http s :/ / obipubficl 1.epa.gov/analytics/saw.dllPPortalPages. Use the drop down arrows to select " CA" then click on arsenic (Note it takes a while to load). This report is derived from SDW IS but includes predetermined parameters (below) and is from the last full quarter in 2017. I f you want the 2018 data, you can use the parameters below in SDW IS to create your own custom report. SU BM ISSIO N Y EA R Q U A R TER is equal to 2017Q3 and P R IM A C Y _A G EN C Y _C O D E is equal to CA and R U L E _C O D E is not equal to / is not in 500 and IS_I IEA LTI I_B A SE D _IN D is not null and N P M _C A N D ID A TE is equal to / is in Y and RI JI E _ C O D E _ N AMR is equal to / is in A rsenic As mentioned in our previous response: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires E P A to review each national primary drinking water regulation at least once ever}- six years and revise them, if appropriate. As part o f the "SixYear Review," E P A evaluates any newly available data, information and technologies to determine if any regulatory revisions are needed. Revisions must maintain or strengthen public health protection. For more: https: / / www.epa.gov/dwsixyearreview. EPA did not identify the NPD W R for arsenic as a candidate for revision. E P A is currently developing an updated IRIS assessment o f inorganic arsenic. Information, including materials, milestones, and relevant public documents for this assessment may be accessed Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00013907-00001 on the IRIS arsenic webpage here. As new materials and public documents become available these will be posted on the IRIS arsenic webpage. The completion o f this assessment will provide critical information to support the determination o f a revision to the arsenic NPDW R. We do not have anything to add to this response. From: Sarah Craigj Ex. 6 j Date: June 12, 2018 at"7:16:15'PM E D T ............... To: "Jones, Enesta" < 1ones.Enesta@ epa.gov> Cc: Press < Press@epa.gov> Subject: Re: Inquiry into EPA's assessm ent of Arsenic Health Risks Thank you for your organized and detailed notes, Enesta. Much appreciated. I have a few follow up questions. --I'm having trouble using the EPA's SDW IS Federal Reports Search to get the final number o f how many community water systems are out o f compliance. Can you walk me through what search criteria I need to enter in order to get the total number o f community water systems that are currently out o f compliance with the EPA's order in the United States? Flow would I find this just for California? When I ran the search (I selected violations, then all regions, then arsenic, then max contaminant level average, then pws type as community water system) but I ended up with 15,778 community water system violations (and a lot o f these water systems were listed many times and some o f them were deemed to be in compliance already.) According to this EPA document in 2002 - it says that o f the 74,000 systems subject to this new MCE, E P A estimates that 3,000 CWSs and 1,100 N TNCW Ss (non community water system) will need to install treatment for compliance, so I'm assuming that the numbers should be less than that today. --Why did the E P A not identify the NPD W R for arsenic as a candidate for revision, if the risks o f getting cancer were found to be 17 times higher? --Also - when will the current assessment o f arsenic be finished? --Lastly, who would be the best person to speak to at the EPA about this, particularly the current risk assessment for arsenic, for my story? Thanks again for your help, Best Sarah On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Jones, Enesta < Jones.Enesta@ epa.gov> wrote: Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00013907-00002 Sarah, On background: Ql. What is the scale of the problem o f having arsenic in drinking water systems in the US? Do you know how many and the locations of community water systems that are out of compliance? What state in the US is the worse off in terms of arsenic levels in drinking water? What area/town in the US is the worse off in terms of arsenic levels in drinking water? A l. For E P A 's data that includes information on arsenic, visit: http s :/ / www.epa.gov/groundwater-and-drinking-water/ safe-drinking-water-information-system-sdwis-federal-reporting Q2. When did the EPA pass legislation the regulates the amount o f arsenic in drinking water at 50 ppb? What was the legislation called? --When did the EPA change this to 10 ppb? Why did they decide to change this? --What happened after the EPA passed this law? How did they order states to come into compliance? A2. In 1942, the U.S. Public Health Sendee first established an arsenic drinking water standard for interstate water carriers at 0.05 mg arsenic per liter (50 ppb). The Safe Drinking Water Act passed by Congress in 1974 amended the Public Health Service Act and specified that E P A set drinking water standards. On December 24, 1975, EPA issued a National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation for arsenic o f 50 ppb. Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996, and included requirements for E P A to issue a revised drinking water standard for Arsenic. In 2001, E P A adopted a lower standard for o f 10 ppb for arsenic in drinking water. This protects consumers from the effects o f long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic. PWSs had to comply with the lower standard by January 23, 2006. Q3. I'm aware that in 2010 the EPA conducted an assessm ent to revise the health risks of drinking water with arsenic in it. Could you send me the 2010 assessm ent from the EPA? I can't locate it online but this report mentions it. What is the revised risk of getting cancer from drinking water with arsenic in it at levels o f lOppb? (The report I linked says it's 1 in 136, more than 17 times higher than current assumptions.) How did you determine this revised risk? A3. The archived 2010 draft assessment (cancer) can be found on the arsenic webpage here: h ttp s://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris drafts/ recordisplay.cfm?deid=219111 In our 2010 draft assessment, the lifetime incidence risk is 7.3E-03, which is the same as the 1 in 136 figure that is in the Environmental Integrity Project report. The lifetime incidence risk at 1Oppb in drinking water is based on female cancer mortality data (bladder and lung cancers) from studies conducted in Taiwan. The methodology for determining cancer risk in the 2010 draft assessment is described in section 5.3.7, and the results are presented in section 5.3.8. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00013907-00003 Q4. Is the EPA doing anything about these revised risk s? Are they working to lower the legal limit? If so, how? If not, why not? H as the EPA directed this assessm ent to each state? If so, what is California doing about it? How does the process of revising the level work? A4. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires E P A to review each national primary drinking water regulation at least once every six years and revise them, if appropriate. As part o f the "Six-Year Review," E P A evaluates any newly available data, information and technologies to determine if any regulatory revisions are needed. Revisions must maintain or strengthen public health protection. For more information: https: / / www.epa.gov/dwsixyearreview E P A did not identify the NPD W R for arsenic as a candidate for revision. E P A is currently developing an updated IRIS assessment o f inorganic arsenic. Information, including materials, milestones, and relevant public documents for this assessment may be accessed on the IRIS arsenic webpage here. As new materials and public documents become available these will be posted on the IRIS arsenic webpage. Q5. H a s there been any documented cases o f communities exposed to arsenic over a long period of time and having clusters of cancer? A5. Please reach out to the Department o f Health and Human Services. Q6. When did Congress approved $1.5 billion to California over a decade to upgrade its water systems through a program called the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund? When did they approve this fund for the rest of the US? And how much were these funds? A6. For information on E P A 's Drinking Water SRF as well as the allocations provided to each state: http s:/ / www.epa.gov/ drinkmgwatersrf What personal sized water filtration systems are on the market and work to remove arsenic from water? There are a number o f point o f entry (whole home) and point o f use treatment devices available on the market to remove arsenic from water. Water chemistry is important to know when deciding which option is best. Does water with arsenic in it taste sweet? N o, certainly not at levels naturally in water. On Jun 6, 2018, at 6:53 PM, Sarah Craig j __________ Be 6__________ jwrote: Thank you Enesta! This background is helpful. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00013907-00004 I looked through those websites you sent and they don't mention the 2010 EPA assessment. Could you explain what happened in 2010 - and do you have this assessment you could send me? I think the best way to answer my remaining questions is to speak to an expert at the EPA. Who would be best to speak with and could you help me arrange this? And in the meantime, would you be able to help answer my remaining questions I spelled out? Thanks again for your help, it's much appreciated. Best Sarah On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Jones, Enesta < Jones. Fmesta@epa.gov> wrote: Sarah, On backgrou n d : The Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) is the maximum level o f a contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health o f persons would occur, and which allows an adequate margin o f safety. M CLG s are not enforceable. For known cancer-causing contaminants the M CLG is set at zero because any chemical exposure could present a cancer risk. In the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to propose a new arsenic regulation. Prior to 2001, the M CL for arsenic was 50 u g /L (or 50 ppb). In January 2001, E P A revised the M CL to 10 jug/L (10 ppb). E P A believes that the current M CL maximizes health risk reduction at a cost justified by the benefits. For more information: http s :/ / www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/chemical-contaminantrules E P A is currently developing an updated IRIS assessment o f inorganic arsenic. Information, including materials, milestones, and relevant public documents for this assessment can be accessed on the IRIS arsenic webpage here. As new materials and public documents become available these will be posted on the IRIS arsenic webpage. On Jun 5, 2018, at 10:56 PM, Sarah Craig <j 0 j> wrote: L________________________________________________ I Dear Press at the ERA, Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00013907-00005 My name is Sarah Craig and I'm a journalist based in Oakland, CA. I'm working on a radio documentary about arsenic in the drinking water o f Alpaugh and Allensworth in Tulare County- in California's Central Valley. The story will air on KALW Public Radio in San Francisco, CA. I have a few questions for the EPA about how they set health risks for arsenic and how they revised these risks back in 2010. I'm also interested in learning about what the EPA is doing about the revised 2010 risks and if they are working to lower the legal limit. Could you connect me with the best person to speak with about this? My number Ex. 6 Thank you! Best Sarah Craig Ex. 6 : ' \\A,w:sTaTaHcrargmiedia.com Ex. 6 "iEfSVsrahcfigm Ex. 6 www. saraKcraigmedia. com Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 13 ED 002061 00013907-00006