Message
From: Sent: To: CC: Subject:
Sarah Craig!
x.
]
6/12/2018 1:16:5 PV
Jones, Enesta [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=65b8e6c6e5ca4a7a9ae85d98a4c8eedb-EJones02]
Press [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=b293283291dc44eOb5dlc36be9281d8a-Press]
Re: Inquiry into EPA's assessment 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 SDWIS Federal Reports Search to get the final number of how many community water systems are out of compliance. Can you walk me through what search criteria I need to enter in order to get the total number of community water systems that are currently out of compliance with the EPA's order in the United States? How 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 of these water systems were listed many times and some of them were deemed to be in compliance already.) According to this EPA document in 2002 - it says that of the 74,000 systems subject to this new MCE, EPA estimates that 3,000 CWSs and 1,100 NTNCWSs (non community water system) will need to install treatment for compliance, so I'm assuming that the numbers should be less than that today.
--W hy did the EPA not identify the NPDWR for arsenic as a candidate for revision, if the risks of getting cancer were found to be 17 times
higher?
--Also - when will the current assessment of 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, Jim 8, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Jones, Enesta <Jones.Enesta@epa.gov> wrote: Sarah,
On background:
Q l. W h at is the scale of the problem of 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?
AT For EPA's data that includes information on arsenic, visit: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-anddrinking-water/safe-drinking-water-information-svstem-sdwis-federal-reporting
Q2. When did the EPA pass legislation the regulates the amount of 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?
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 13
ED 002061 00014397-00001
A2. In 1942, the U S. Public Health Service first established an arsenic drinking water standard for interstate water carriers at 0.05 mg arsenic per liter (50 ppb). The Safe Drinking W ater Act passed by Congress in 1974 amended the Public Health Service Act and specified that EPA set drinking water standards. On December 24, 1975, EPA issued a National Interim Primary Drinking W ater Regulation for arsenic of 50 ppb. Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996, and included requirements for EPA to issue a revised drinking water standard for Arsenic. In 2001, EPA adopted a lower standard for of 10 ppb for arsenic in drinking water. This protects consumers from the effects of 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 assessment 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 of 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: https://efpub.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 lOppb 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.
Q4. Is the EPA doing anything about these revised risks? Are they working to lower the legal limit? If so, how? If not, why not? Has the EPA directed this assessment 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 EPA to review each national primary drinking water regulation at least once every six years and revise them, if appropriate. As part of the "Six-Year Review," EPA 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
EPA did not identify the NPDWR for arsenic as a candidate for revision.
EPA is currently developing an updated IRIS assessment of 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. Has there been any documented cases of communities exposed to arsenic over a long period of time and having clusters of cancer?
A5. Please reach out to the Department of 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 W ater 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 EPA 's Drinking Water SRF as well as the allocations provided to each state: https://www.epa.gov/drinkingwatersrf
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 13
ED 002061 00014397-00002
W hat personal sized water filtration systems are on the market and work to remove arsenic from water?
There are a number of point of entry (whole home) and point of use treatment devices available on the market to remove arsenic from water. W ater chemistry is important to know when deciding which option is best.
Does water with arsenic in it taste sweet?
No, certainly not at levels naturally in water.
On Jun 6, 2018, at 6:53 PM, Sarah Craij
Ex. 6
h wrote:
i______________________________________________________________________ i
Thank you Enesta! This background is helpful.
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.Enesta@epa.gov> wrote: Sarah,
On background: The Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (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 adequate margin of safety. MCLGs are not enforceable. For known cancer-causing contaminants the MCLG 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 MCE for arsenic was 50 pg/L (or 50 ppb). In January 2001, EPA revised the MCE to 10 pg/L (10 ppb). EPA believes that the current MCL maximizes health risk reduction at a cost justified by the benefits. For more information: https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/chemical-contaminant-rules
EPA is currently developing an updated IRIS assessment of 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 Crai
Dear Press at the EPA,
Ex. 6
wrote:
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 13
ED 002061 00014397-00003
My the
ndarminekiisnSgarwahaCterarigoafnAdlIp'maua gjohurnaanlisdt
bAalsleednsinwOoakrltahndi,nCTAu, lI'amrewoCrkiongunontyainradCioadloifcourmneiant'asryCaebonuttraarlsVenaiclleiny.
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 trheevsiseedris2k0s1b0arciskkisna2n0d10if. thI'meyaalsreo winoterkreinsgtetdo ilnowleearrnthinegleagbaolultimwith.at the EPA is doing about the
Could you connect me with the best person to speak with about this? My number is! Ex. 6 ! L______________________________ i
TSBhaearsanthk
you! Craig
Ex. 6____ i
www. sarahcrai gmedi a. com
www. sarahcrai gmedia. com
! Ex. 6 !
www .Tamficrai gmedia. com
Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA
Tier 13
ED 002061 00014397-00004