Posts made in April 2023

In mid-December 2022, the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) released a Standardized Regulatory Impact Analysis (SRIA) for the future hexavalent chromium (CrVI) maximum contaminant level (MCL).

The SRIA presents an evaluation of the costs and benefits of a 10 µg/L MCL. Table 1, page 13, presents the anticipated compliance deadlines for different sized systems.

Beginning on page 32, DDW presents an evaluation of three alternate CrVI MCLs (12 µg/L, 8 µg/L, and 1 µg/L) and a discussion as to why DDW rejected those MCLs.

When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) under the previous administration, the Agency was sued in January 2021 by NRDC and several other groups and State Attorney Generals. In early December 2022, NRDC and Environmental Justice reported that EPA staff, in response to the lawsuit, told a federal Court that it intends to propose revisions to the LCRR (via the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) rule) by September 2023 and publish the final LCRI before October 2024 (the deadline for the lead service line inventory).

Here are links to the two posted articles:

NRDC:
https://www.nrdc.org/media/2022/221209-0

Earth Justice:
https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2022/epa-to-reconsider-stronger-rules-for-lead-in-drinking-water

Background:
On January 15, 2021 the final LCRR was published in the Federal Register. On January 20, 2021 the Biden Administration issued a Regulatory Freeze to allow Federal agencies an opportunity to review recent regulations, including the LCRR. EPA delayed the effective date of the LCR Revisions to December 16, 2021 and delayed the compliance deadline until October 16, 2024.

On December 16, 2021 EPA published a notice in the Federal Register that the LCRR will go into effect to support the development service line material inventories (of both the publicly owned and privately owned portions) by October 16, 2024. The December 16, 2021 Federal Register notice also indicated that EPA plans to develop a new proposed rulemaking (the LCRI) to strengthen key elements of the rule.

November 4, 2022 Federal Register, EPA announced that it will update the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) on November 30, 2022 on the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) regulation. The meeting will be a virtual meeting and will be held from 10:30 am to 5:00 pm (ET).

The agenda and information on registering for the meeting will be posted on EPA’s website at the following address (no information is currently available): https://www.epa.gov/ndwac

Background
The final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) was published in January 2021 and was scheduled to go into effect in March 2021. The LCRR included a number of changes and modifications to the LCR. Before the LCRR went into effect, however, the new Biden Administration pulled the LCRR back for additional review and delayed the effective date until December 16, 2021.

On Dec. 16, 2021, EPA published a Federal Register notice regarding the LCRR. That notice indicated the LCRR will go into effect so as to not delay the requirement for public water systems to develop a service line material inventory that includes both the publicly owned and privately owned portions of the service line by October 16, 2024. In the December 21, 2021 Federal Register EPA also indicated that they intend to modify many of the key elements of the LCRR in a separate rulemaking (“The agency concluded that there are significant opportunities to improve the LCRR”). EPA referred to this future rule as the LCRI.

November 2, 2022, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) released a second draft of the Cross-Connection Control Policy Handbook (CCCPH) for public review and comment. Comments are due by December 9, 2022.

Link to second draft of CCCPH:

Click to access cccph_draft_nov2022.pdf

On Monday, December 5, 2022 at 9:30, DDW will hold a public hearing on the second draft of the CCCPH. The public hearing will be available by remote video software only.

The public hearing can be viewed at the following location:
https://video.calepa.ca.gov/

Background
The current cross connection control and backflow prevention regulations were adopted in 1987 (California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 1 Chapter 5, Subchapter 1, Group 4, Article 1, Sections 7583 – 7604). In October 2017, AB 1671 was signed into law. AB 1671 added sections 116407 and 116555.5 and amended section 116810 of the Health and Safety Code. AB 1671 required the following:

• By January 1, 2020, the SWRCB was to adopt updated standards for backflow protection and cross connection control,
• SWRCB to hold two public hearings on proposed standards before adoption,
• The updated standards can be adopted through a “policy handbook” and do not need to follow Administrative Procedures Act requirements.

In February 2020, DDW staff held a public workshop to present their anticipated changes to cross connection control and backflow prevention regulations. The first draft of the CCCPH was published in February 2021 for review and comment, and the first of the two required public hearings was held in April 2021.

In July 2021 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the draft fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL5) for public review and comment. On October 28, 2022 EPA signed off on the final CCL5. EPA posted a pre-Federal Register publication copy of the final CCL5.

The “CCL 5 includes 66 chemicals, 3 chemical groups (cyanotoxins, disinfection byproducts (DBPs), and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and 12 microbial contaminants.”

The CCL5 list of chemicals begins on page 15 of the enclosed. The list of chemical groups begins on page 18, and the list of microbials is on page 19.

EPA CCL5 webpage:
https://www.epa.gov/ccl/contaminant-candidate-list-5-ccl-5

Background
Within 18 months of enactment of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, and then every five years thereafter, EPA is required to propose and finalize a CCL. Constituents are included on the CCL that “…are not subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulation, which are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and which may require regulation….” After publication of the CCL, EPA then goes through a review process (referred to as a Regulatory Determination) and makes an assessment as to whether a drinking water regulation should be promulgated for at least five of the constituents on the CCL.

November 1, 2022, the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) posted a copy of the new PFAS Monitoring Order. This Monitoring Order rescinds DDW’s two previous PFAS Monitoring Orders: (1) Order DW 2021-0001 and (2) Order DW 2020-0003.

This new PFAS monitoring order requires quarterly monitoring with the first sample collected before March 31, 2023. Also enclosed is the template cover letter to public water systems, and the two attachments to the Monitoring Order (Exhibit A is a list of sources that are to be monitored and Exhibit B is a list of detection levels for purposes of reporting results in Consumer Confidence Reports). Monitoring is to be conducted using EPA Method 533.

Bloomberg Law is reporting that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) case filed in April 2017 to ban the fluoridation of drinking water will proceed. Text copied from the Bloomberg Law website (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/drinking-water-case-proceeds-to-probe-fluoride-data-court-says) is presented below:

“A Federal court will allow a lawsuit to prohibit fluoride from drinking water to proceed to review new scientific evidence about the chemical’s potential to harm babies’ developing nervous systems.”

“Judge Edward M. Chen of the US District Court North District of California ruled on Friday that the case – filed in 2017 by Foot & Water Watch and other advocacy groups – can proceed to review a scientific study and two summary evaluations of multiple fluoride health effects studies. The case has been on hold since April 2021.”

“The science the court wants to review includes a May 2022 unpublished, draft version of a federal health agency’s assessment of fluoride’s neurodevelopment and other health effects. The court will obtain the National Toxicology Program’s draft health assessment via a protective order and not disseminate it “at this juncture,” Chen ruled.”

Background
A simplified highlight of some key dates in the case is presented below:
1. November 2016 – a petition was submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the addition of fluoride to drinking water under TSCA. The stated objective of the petition was to “protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic risks of fluoride by banning the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water.”
2. The petition was submitted by the following organizations: Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, and several individuals.
3. February 2017 – EPA denied the petition.
4. April 2017 – petitioners filed lawsuit against EPA.
5. EPA asked court to dismiss lawsuit.
6. December 2017 – court ruled against EPA and allows lawsuit to proceed.
7. EPA asks court to limit the scope of the lawsuit to only the information included in the original November 2016 petition.
8. The court denied EPA’s request to limit the scope of review.
9. Seven-day trial held in June 2020.
10. Since the June 2020 trial, there has been additional activity between the parties and the court, one key item was the judge’s decision to wait for two documents reviewing fluoride’s neurotoxic effects before making a ruling.

On October 28, 2021 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published for public comment a draft “Strategy to Reduce Lead Exposures and Disparities in US Communities.” Public comments were due by January 26, 2022.

The Strategy covers lead exposures through a number of different media. The main discussion on lead in drinking water begins in the middle of page 21 (lead in drinking water is mentioned in conjunction with other sources of exposure in several sections in the document).

In the drinking water discussion, EPA indicates their intent to publish the proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) by the “end of 2023” and “take final action” on the LCRI by October 2024. When EPA published the announcement regarding the final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) in December 2021, the Agency indicated that just about all of facets (with the exception of the requirement to prepare a lead service line inventory by October 16, 2024) of the LCRR are under review and could potentially be revised in the LCRI.

Link to EPA website where Strategy document is posted:
https://www.epa.gov/lead/final-strategy-reduce-lead-exposures-and-disparities-us-communities

On October 26th, from 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm (ET) EPA will host a one hour webinar “Identifying lead service lines in the community.”

Link to register:
https://usepa.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_vgF87b2xRf6GIUrxi5L3MQ

EPA’s description of the what will be covered: “Legacy lead service lines (LSLs) represent the greatest source of lead in drinking water. LSL identification is the first step to their removal, which is a national priority. This webinar will provide an overview of methods that have been used for LSL identification, including records screening, basic visual examination, water sampling, excavation and others. It will offer a qualitative comparison of method cost, duration, accuracy, disturbance and other impacts, as well as an example stepwise approach to identify unknown service line materials. Considering the pros/cons of each step and the variable needs/constraints of different drinking water utilities, this suggested stepwise approach can serve as a starting or refinement point for different stages of service line inventory efforts.”

In the October 19, 2022 Federal Register the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the availability of a draft “Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium.” The draft toxicology review is out for a 60-day public period for public comment and review (public comments are due by December 19, 2022). After the public review and comment period, EPA will present the draft toxicology review to the Science Advisory Board for their review. The draft IRIS document reviews information on inhalation and ingestion routes of exposure for both cancer and non-cancer health effects.

The draft toxicology review is a fairly large document, and several supplement documents posted by EPA are also large. The link below should take you directly to the EPA’s downloads section for the draft IRIS CrVI toxicology review:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=355226#tab-3

Text copied from the draft IRIS Executive Summary:
“For cancer via the oral route of exposure, Cr(VI) is likely to be carcinogenic to the human GI tract. Because a mutagenic mode-of-action (MOA) for Cr(VI) carcinogenicity is “sufficiently supported in (laboratory) animals” and “relevant to humans,” EPA used a linear low dose extrapolation…….The total lifetime [cancer] oral slope factor (OSF) for Cr(VI) is 0.5 (per mg/kg-d).”