Nfedifeswow ^wdfe. - Vermonters for a Clean Environment

Transcription

~ocument~
Ix. s
o ~gt e m
Subject
1
PTKOÃ prlÃ§llÃ§
Date/Time
.
. . -"..
-
34,715
-
.---
About message rta*
Nicole Shdo
-
M i -
-.
- DÃ‡HbMJitlw
but not s p i c a a l y about ehIop&rfffreShftakh effefits,
I know I sent comments on the original p r e - m d i g thing, but I am sure I copied you.
'I! gat you comments by the "deadline." My cable modem at home needs to be replaced, which may or
may not get done over theweekend, but I'll have some review done that can be sent from work next week.
-Nfedifeswow
^wdfe.-
To: Jonathan Pressman/Cl/USEPA/US@EPA, Audrey Lfiv}ne/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,Hiba
Emst/CI/USEPA/US@EPA,Mark Rodgers/CI/USEPA/US@EPA, Anthony
Deangelo/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sid Hunter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael
Narotsky/[email protected] WrighUGl/USEPA/US@EPA, Susan
RichardmnIATHA)SEPA/US@EPA,Rex Pegram/FtTP/USEPA/US@EPA,Jane
Sirnmons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,Glenn Rfce/CI/USâ‚¬PA/US@EP Michael
EloviWCI/USEPA/US@EPA,Damn LytlelCl/USEPA/[email protected] Mlntz/RTP/USEP#US@EPA, Bill
Russo/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
From: Nicole ShaoDCAJSEPNUS
Date: 0411012008 07:33AM
A, . t a:AngetaD PageCCAJSEPA;US@EPA, ~hrist~&er
~ & ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / G I / U S E Michael
PA/U~EPA,
SchocK/CI/USEPA/US@EPA,Maggie LaVay/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nick Ashbolt/CI/USEPA/US@EPA,
Roy Haught/CI/USEPA/US@EPA,Thomas Speth/CI/USEPA/US@EPA, Patricia
Ertc)tSon/CI/USEPA/US@EPA, Gene Stroup/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Hetes/RTP/USEP#US@EPA,
Valerie BJank/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, DanfelleTillman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lynn
Papa/CI/USEPA/US@EPA, MImI Dannel/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Sublet: Please Do Not Send Your Comments Directly to OW - Chloramine Draft Messages
ORD Workgroup,
As I dearly stated In my 418 e-mail to all of you, please DO NOT send your comments on the
Chtoramine Risk Communication Draft Messages directly to the Office of Water
Please send your
comments directly to me , as 1 am the onewho is preparing ORD 's consolidated comments on this
request. It Is important not to send your comments directly to the Office of Water, because ORD needs
to present the Program Office with one, consolidated position on these Chloramlne Risk Communication
Draft Messages, especially since the responses to these questions are going to be used to educate
members from the public.
.
Many ORD folks from our various laboratories and centers participated in the January workshop and
have a lot of expertise to give related to these questions. The reason we provide the Program Office with
a consolidated position is so that ORD can convey our comments In a dean, concise, single document,
that Is prioritized and easy to understand. When comments are sent individually, ORD loses it's
opportunity to remain a united front. It does not allow us to internally prioritize our comments prior to
submitting them to the Program Office and weakens or ability to affect change on the issues that matter
most to our office.
I am aware that some of you have aiready sent your comments directly to h e Office of Water. To those
of you who have not sent your comments already ,please send them d i r e to me . Any comments
that have already been sent to the Office of Water should be caveated as "individual" comments. These
comments DO NOT represent ORD's consolidated comments on the final Chloramine Draft messages.
Our office has discussed this issue with the Office of Water already. We appreciate your continued
cooperation and support as we come up with one,consolidated position for ORD.
OW Soreadsheet of Names
If you are receiving this e-mall, your name was listed on a spreadsheet our office recently received from
the Office of Water. This spreadsheet lists the names of those individuals who when registering for the
January Chloramlnes workshop either expressed interest in the various chloramine questions , or
indicated that they had expertise related to the questions. The Office of Water has Indicated that in the
past three weeks, they may have contacted those of you listed in the spreadsheet in order to comment on
earlier drafts of the messages. If you commented on earlier drafts of the messages ,please send me
an e-mail letting me know I need to know how many of you saw or participated In earlier drafts, so that
our office can continue to negotiate with the Office of Water an appropriate time frame for our
consolidatedreview of these final messages.
.
limeline
As I mentioned in my last e-mail, the Office of Water originallyasked for comments by Monday, April
14th. In response to our push bade on the time frame, the Officeof Water stated that we could submit our
consolidated comments no later than Friday, April 18ft.We stHI do not believethat this is sufficient time
for us to review and to provide ORD consolidated comments and are continuingto negotiate for an
extension.
To date, I have only heard back from one person regarding their availability to review the Chloramlne
Draft Messages. If you are Interested In reviewing this document ,please send me en e -mail as soon
as possible letting me know when you will be able to complete your review by This Is very Important
so that w6 can continue to effectively negotiate an extension for our review. I will keep you apprised of
any information I receive regarding an extension of our review time.
.
;
Additional Detail
The document we are d & k g Is the one I sent you on 4f8 attached below. It is entitled'
"MessagedMapBasic_Outltne_07apr08.doc.*
Thank you for your cooperation. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or
comments.
Nicole
Nicole Shao
US â‚¬P ORD-Office of Science Policy
1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW (8104R)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-6779
-Forwarded by Nicole ShaolDCAJSEPAAJS on 04/090005 09136 AM
-
Nicole
ShadDC/USE
PA/US
datrida Eri&odCI/USEPA/US (SEPA, Gene
StrofUp/RTP/USEPA/US
@EPA, Bob
Hetes/RTP/USEPA/US@%PA,Valerie
BIaak/DC/USEPA/US @EPA, Danielle
Tillnian/DC/USEPA/US@ P A
-
SubjeetReview Requested Chloramine Risk Communication
Draft Messages
Dear ORD Workgroup,
If you are receiving this message, you either registeredfor or attended the ChloranHne Risk
Communication Workshop that was held on January 30th at â‚¬ in DC. This workshop was held to
exchange information to help develop key messagesthe Agency can use to communicate on
chloramine-related issues. Based on the discussion at the January meeting, OWs contractor has
generated draft messages for 30 commonly recieived questions from the public regarding chloramlnes .
OW has requestedthat we review and provide comments on the draft messages. In the original request,
OW asked for comments by Monday, April 14th. 1 do not believe this is sufficient time for our review and
to provide ORD consolidated comments, so I am currently working with OW to get an extension.
As soon as possible ,please send me an e -mall letting me know If you ere Interested In reviewing the
.
attached draft m m e s ,and if so, when you Slink would be able to provide comments by I suggest
we try to provide our comments to OW by Tuesday, April 22nd,which is two weeks from today. If this
proposed date does not work well for you, please let me know.
.
The Office of Science Policy wll! send OW ORD '8 consolidated comments Many of you may have
already receivedthis review request directly from OW. I ask that you all send your comments back to
me and I win consolidateall of our comments . Please do not send your comments directly to OW
.
Additional Information
The 30 key questions and messages will be utilized by ERA to make Q&As and other forms of
comrnunicatlon needed on the topic of chforamines, DBPs, lead, and risk trade-offs. The goal of these
questions and messages is to have one Agency response prepared to address these chloramine-related
questions as they arise in the future.
As introduced at the workshop, the messages are presented in the message map format. This means
that there are three main key messages in response to each question, and supporting information for
these key messages listed below in an outline format. When reviewing the draft messages please keep
in mind the following question:
'Are the messages an appropriate EPA Agency response to the questions posed?"
Thanks,
Nicole
Nicole Shao
US ERA, ORD-Office of Science Policy
1200,Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (81O4R)
(202) 564-6779
- Forwarded by-NicoleShao/DClUSEPA/US on 04/08/2008 11:I 4 AM Rose
KyprianodD
C/DSEPA/US
Tobathija.aiBbiiia@epa-gov,[email protected],
Russo.Bill @epa.gov,[email protected],
Iaselica.bruce@epgov,[email protected],
[email protected],[email protected],
impelIiaeri.christopher@epa,gov,
[email protected]$ [email protected],
[email protected]@epa.gov,
briskin. [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], ellis.]erty@ep9,gov,
[email protected], de&[email protected],
[email protected],doaa&ue.lisa@epa,gov,
lfb9 @cdc.gov, lavay.inags?e@epwv,
[email protected], [email protected],
elovitz.mkhael@epa,gov,lowy.nti([email protected],
wuttz.moiiiica@epaigov,[email protected]
[email protected],barr-pamela@epa,gov,
[email protected],oshida.ptut @epa.gov,
pegramtrex@?epa,govilieberaaan,[email protected],
[email protected], haught.roy@epaigov,
[email protected], dchatdson.susan@epa,gov,
[email protected], grubbsttbomas@epa,gov,
dea~gelo.a~dwny
@epa.gov,[email protected],
bIank,[email protected],[email protected],
guilaraii,[email protected],bain.zeno @tepa.gov
cc
SubjectchloranUtierisk communication- draft messages
Dear Colleague,
You are receiving this message because you either registered or attended the Chloramine Risk
Communication Workshop on January 30 held at EPA in DC. This workshop was held to exchange
information to help develop key messages the Agency could use to communicate on chiommine -related
issues. We thank you for your participation and would like to share drafts of the messages that are a
result of the workshop. We would Bke to give everyone a chance to see the resultino draft and to
comment on the 30 messages at this draft stage so that these messages are as much an Agency product
as possible.
Particularly helpful will be feedback on the content of the key messages. I.e., are the messages an
appropriate EPA Agency response to the questions posed? As introduced to you at the workshop, the
mesages will be in a message map format. This means that there are three main key messages in
response to each question, and supporting informationfor these key messages is listed below in an
outline format. Our hope Is that these key questions and messages will be utilized by EPA to make
Q&As and other forms of communication needed on the topic of chloramines, DBPs, lead, and risk
trade-offs. Not all possible questions are included in this exercise, but we hope to have gotten 30 of the
more important ones.
We are asking for feedback by COB Monday, April 14. If you are unable to give feedback by this date but
wish to do so, please let me know, After your review, we will work comments in to the draft that will be
reviewed by a known risk communication expert. Please consider this draft document Internal.
Thank you,
Rose
[attachment "Message_Map_Basic_Outline_07apr08.doc" deleted by Ntcole Shao/DC/USEPA/US]
Rose Kyprianou
EPNOffice of WaterIGround Water and Drinking Water
Standards and Risk Manaaement
Division
Phone: (2021-564-6325
Fax: (2021-564-3767
2209~.Mail code: 4607M
[attachment "ATTLTQUKnremoved by Michael Schock/CI/USEPA/US]
[attachment "497 Expertise list-3.xlsmremoved by Michael Schock/CI/USEPA/US]
[attachment uMessageMapTopics-JanlOidocwreremoved by Michael SchocklCllUSEPA/US]
Michael Schock/U/USEPA/US
Damn Lytie/Cl/USEPAAJS@EPA
Jonathan Pressman/U/USEPA/US@EPA
Thomas Speth/CI/USEPA/US@EPA
I
I
I
Re: Input Requested for Chloramlnes Message
Maps Question 19
&4/2q08,0,2:56
-
pfi,
Nicole Shao
About message maps, but not specifically about chioratnine health effects.
-
Nicole;
I agree wfth Jonathan's suggestion that there is a lot more of significance of nitrification to current (and
possible future) regulations and "water quality". I'm sony OW does not like the term. Perhaps they would
like high school level research done, too,so that It can easily be understood? There are times when there
is a single appropriate technical term to use and 1 believe the substitutions can make the meaning
technically incorrect, as Jonathan points out.
- -
My only change from Jonathan's edit would be thatwe should not make his specific to lead release
issues. Nitrificationreactions in a biofilm can have oilier impacts on metal release, including both copper
and other currently-regulated (at entry points) metals, and from the ORD standpoint, it doesn't matter
where the metal comes from if it's there when the consumers him their taps on.
The current focusdERA rnonochloramine ~
dishfectantsa{feetwater chemistry wf'
â‚¬ s u ~ ~ o rresearch
ts
on chanoei
uUi'n
monocnioramine are used.
c is on
b dfs/nfectantbyproduct formation as wellas how
r
-*
md
viW
.
inic cor
, and
n ) that can occur when dislnfe&nts such as
.
--
.
Nicole Shao
+-
Jonathan, Thanks for your comments. I will seeÃ
12/24/2008 12:50:00 PM
Froma?
To;
-1
,.
tNicofe Shao/DC/USEPA/US
Cc:
-
Jonathan Pressman/CI/USEPA/US@EPA
Ddrtiik.Lyti@/tJ/WEPA/Ug@EPA, Michael Schock/Cf/USEP#USi@EPA, Thomas
'WJ s ~~~~/CUU~EPA/~>$@EPA
Date:
Subject:
!
.
r
.
.
1&24/2008 12:50 PM
Re: input Requested for Chloramines Message Maps Question 19
-
Jonathan,
7<,
..' .: P--
=::-
r"
s
,'
I.
Thanks for your comments. 1 will see what I can do. The people In OGWDW don't get back until next
week. I will bring up these things though when I send over my next round pf comments. =myv, Â ¥ _
-
.-l-.:~l.$-m
w -
Nkole
.WE^
-a
:m..
4 '
Nicole Shao
US EPA, ORB-Office of Science Policy
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (81043)
(202) 564-6779
- -
~onathanPressman
-
Nicole I just reviewed the attached message m...
6.1-
fi
Jonathan Pressman/Cl/USEPA/US
Nicole Shao/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Damn Lytie/CI/USEPA/US@EPA,Michael SchocWCl/USEPA/LIS@EPA, Thomas
Sti&jxt:
12/24/2008 12:10 PM
Re: Input Requested for Chlorarnines Message Maps Question 19 .
Â¥nn-:l
...
-.
8
,',, ..
7-
-
-
,
,I1
\
-*-I.
12/24/2008 12:10:10 PM
-
From:
Sp@h/CI/USEPA/US@EPA
-
4'
To:
Cc:
Date:
'
=
-
-.
'
. HE.'
-
'
.
- , ' J
.
I . .
.; :
Nicote
I just reviewed the attached message map 27,and have the same comments as,a little while ago on
Question 19. My primary comment is that these messages only refer to nitritehitrate. Nitrificationcauses
several other water quality issues that are not reflected in these message maps. The most Important of
which Is biologicalinstabin& and loss of chlorine residual . I would recommend that nitrification has to be
in revised map 27, and probablyany other maps that reference nitritehitrate as a result of chloramines.
Now,I ditfseie your email:of a few minutes ago that ypu have tried getting nitriftcatton in here and it has
been rejected. 1 guess 1 would suggest to try again, as we are currently mapping only partial infohation
in this message. If nitrification can get Intothe mainstream media, as it did in last years Corpus Christ;
incident, then surely It should be worth having in EPAs message.
,
,
I
'
The second comment I would like to make is in reference to the words "water chemistry", which is used
exclusively in these messages (at least 19 and 27). Now there is "water chemistrynand '"waterquality",
and these messages use "water chemistry" to mean both, but they are not necessarily the same thing.
Water quality can encompass water chemistry, but not necessarilythe other way around. For example,
Jonathan
Mike, I will put forth to OGWDW both of the SUQ...
N b l e Shao
,0.
Idon'tthinkthattk
the same for many iterations and we (ORD) may have
provided it to OW to use early on. I think the focus went to nitrate, because nitrates can be especially
harmful to infants (as mentioned in map 27)and also because of the effects from nitrification (and any
possible subsequent changes to water quality, also mentioned in map 27). I do however agree with you
that it Is appropriate to add the word "nitrite"to Question 19, Message 1, Bullet 2, I am also planning on
asking OGWDW to reference map 27 in the footnote to this bullet, as map 27 has much more detailed
information about the potential changes to water chemistry from monochloramlne use. OGWDW has
made reference to other messages as a source for additional information in other questions and I think It
would also be appropriate to do it here.
.,),:kt
a . p l ,
&L
nts sentee
I think the map you were probably thinkins about is map 27, where we did provide comments to include
nitrite and nitrate. I believe that the comments we provided dramatically improved the messages for this
map from earlier versions, making them more scientifically and technically accurate. I am including a
copy of the most recent version of map 27 1 have from 12/12/08. I am actually quite pleased with how this
map has turned out. The only comment t plan to provide again that 1 did not see incorporated is in
footnote 2, sentences 3 and 4. I had previously asked OGWDW to change the order of "nitratelnitrite"to
'nitrite/nItrateMsince pathway-wise 1 thought it would be more technically correct. They made the change
in several other places for this message, but not yet in the newer text.
Hopefully, you will be pleased with the revised map 27. OGWDW is not looking for major modifications
right now as they are trying to wrap up this activity. However, if you do identify any show stopper issues
with this map, then please by all means do let me know as soon as practicable.
[attachment "Message Map 27 12Dec08 Version .doc" deleted by Nicole Shao/DC/USEPA/US]
Thanks,
Nicole
Nicole Shao
US â‚¬P ORD-Office of Science Policy
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8104R)
(202)564-6779
Michael Schock
From:
To:
cc:
lit
Nicole; 1 was thinking about the OW proposed la...
Michael Schock/Ct/USEPA/US
Nicole Shao/DC/USEPMJS@EPA
Damn Lytte/CI/USEPA/US@EPA,Thomas SpethEUUSEPAAJS@EPA,Jonathan
Pressman/CI/USEPA/US@EPA
Date;
Subject:
12/23/2008 11:13 AM
Re: Input Requested for Chloramlnes Message Maps - Question 19
-
I-
~i&$h9_oFrom:
To:
Gc;
Date:
Sub-
-
1-nand Damn, Mike Schock suggested t...
-
12/22(200803;2&:11 PM
Nicole Shao/DCAJSEPA/US
Jonathan P ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ E P A / U S @
Barren
E PLytle/Cl/&EPA/US@EPA
A ,
Michael SchQCtt/CI/USEPA/US@EPA.
Patrids Erickson/CVUSEPA/USgiEPA
12/22/2008 0329 PM
Inout Reuuested for Chloramlnes Mesane Maos Question 19
-
Jonathan and Darren,
Mlke Schock suggested that I contact you to take a quick look at some sentences OGWDW is planning on
Including In Question 19 of the ~hloraminesMessage Maps, Question 19 is, "What is EPA's current focus
regarding chloramines research? What other ongoing research is EPA aware of?"
Mike was saying that he thought the two of you might have additional details you might possibly want to
see added regardingthe nitrification and ammonia removal by biological filtration research that you two
are working on. The bullets below (and Mike's proposed suggestions) are very broad in nature and thus
seem to at least generally encompass the research that is being conducted, so I don't think too many
changes ate necessary. However, if you have additional text you would like to see added to the bullets
below, please let me know.
Currently, Question 19, Message 1 reads:
The current focus of â‚¬ monochlorsm/ne research ison disinfectant byprodact formation as W a s how
r
dfs!nfectanfsaffect water chemistry.
EPA supports research on the unregulated disinfection byproductsformed in drinking water.
ERA supports research on lead release and nitrate formation that can occur when disinfectants such
as monochloramine are used.
Natural organic matter removal technologies, that can reduce byproduct formation, are a priority for
future EPA supported research.
1. More information on the EPA Drinking Water Research Program can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/ord/n pd/dwresearch-intro.htm .
Mike is suggesting the following changes to bullets 2 and 3.
EPA supports research on lead release, rtttrtte, and nitrate formation thatcan occur when disinfectants
such as monochloramine are used.
' ' Natural organic matter removal technologies, that can reduce byproduct formation, are
for future EPA supported research.
Are you okay with Mike's proposed changes? Do you have any additional comments on this message?
Are there any additional sentences you would tike to see added?
Thanks,
Nicole
Nicote Shao
US â‚¬P ORDOffice of Science Policy
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (8104R)
(202) 564-6779
I think Friday would work fine. There is not a deadline that I know of.
Nicole
Nicole S b o
US EPA, ORD-Office of Science Policy
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ( 8 W R )
(202) 564-6779
Audrey Levine
From:
To;
Date:
Subjea
Thanks Nicole-I'll give lt a thorough revlew. Cam..
Audrey LevirieIDClUSEPAkJS
Nimk ShaolDCNSEPMUS@EPA
W1&2OW 07:l I PM
Re: Revlew Requested ChioraminesMessage Maps Draft
-
Thanks Nicole--I'll give it a thorough review. Can you let me know If there is a deadline? I will plan to
haw it finished by Friday--but could try to do it sooner If needed,
-----Nicole Shao/DUlUSEPA/USwrote: ---To: Audrey LwindDWSEPNUS@EPA
I hew ken working really hard with OGVVDW for the past several months to make sure that the revised
dm&of the Chlommines Memge Maps indudes the comments that were provided by the ORD
workgmup. Most recent+y,W W D W and I worked m inmpomting the comments mdved from Regions
2,3,6,and 8. We are getting closer to a finai version now and OGWDW asked if I would share this dmfi
with you. I haw done my best to make sure that all of the ORD workgr~uplevdcomments were either
h y o r p o r ~ , addressed.
,~r
blqinly, I would like ta get your Input'mthe tw 1n.Question 1% This
questtm hmWhat is EPAPscurrent focus regarding chloratnhes research? What other ongohg research
is â‚¬ aware of?" Both OGWDW and I thought it was really Importantthat before thls docurnent is
finalized that you are okay with the text in Question 19.
When ym have a chance, please let me h o w if you have any comments on the text in Question 19, or if
you have any suggesfions on how the text might be improved. If you have comments on any of the other
questions,pleasesend those 10 me as well, It is most irnpomnt however that you focus on QueAon 19
though*
I ask that you please do not hare this draft document wlth anyone else. The OR0 workgroup has not yet
been given a chance to re-comment on this document. Since we last provided ORD workgroup-level
mmmem 519/081the dls~ssionshave been between OGWDW and myself. As I mentioned before,
dudng my discussionswith OGWDW the past few mnths, 1 have worked to ensure that all of the
previous ORD w o r k p u p l e ~comments have been either incorporated or addressed. Please do no!
hesitate ta contact me If you have any questions.
Thanks,
Nlmle
Nicole Shao
US â‚¬P URD-Ofilce ofScience Poky
I200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW (a104R)
(202) 5646779
-
please Review ~ e v ~ s e~essage
c~
MP corn men^
Reflecting Only Major Comments
01/13/2009 i i 4 i m
I
Processing
Audrey,
Attached below are the dmft consoiidated comments IVe prepared on the major comments we discussed
yesterday. Piease let me know by COB today, 1/13 If you are o h y with the suggested revisions (purple
text). The quesuons with cumments are: 2,18,19, and 27. I think I've covered the major show stoppers,
but let me know if you hlnk I have hftanything out. I @an to meet with OW tomorrow face-to-face b go
over the mmmb.
Question 2. Footnote 2
I went back and used OWIS previous text for this footnote and added text on nitrifidon and the release of
contaminants such as nitrite, nitrate, and iead into the water,
..'
I also added fie text, T m s e microbes while typically not harmful back In (slightly modified). This was
in retation to the comments I got from the other ORD redewers (NERL and NRMRL) that stated that they
wanted to make sure we didn't indicate in the text that "all biofilms are bad." The sclentlsts mted that for
the most part biofilms are innocuous, except in those mses where they harbor and release pathogens.
Are you okay witti the way I have-written hiws here? ~ ~ splease
e provide
,
me WMIany alternate
sug~estlonsyou might h a w for how we can address his concept.
I didn't include the text you had previously added on portions of the bioflh being released from the pipe
w a h is this okay, or must we convey his topic? The foatnote is almdy vety lengthy. I think h i s topic is
broadly covered under the concept of pipe cornsion and the release of wnlaminants into â‚¬ water.
Nicole Shao
US EPAtORD-OVIC~
of Science Pollcy
I 200 PennsylvaniaAvenue, NW (8104R)
(202) M - 6 7 7 9
1) What re chloramlne8?
Ch/ommhes am didnb&wtts used to tmat drinking warn.
Chloramines are most commonly formed when ammonia is added to chlorine to
treat drinkhg water.
The most typical p u p s e of chloramines is to protect water quality as it moves
through pipes.
Chloramlnes provide long lasting protec!ion as they do not break down quickly in
waiet pipes,
The difkmnt type8 of chioramhs are mmochlummim, dMloram~ne,=- - - - - - . .
trichlorami~
.
.
kw
When chloratnines are used to &i&
drinking mt&~monochloram~ne
is the
,,
-I
most common form.
Dichloramlne~~~c~l~~a~~l~e~
areJ?~&Ed -Y!X?!-Ww!! . .
drinking water but at much lower levels Man monmhbamlne.
- ~richloramines'are typically associated with disinfected water used in swimming
pools.
7T?aEnwimnmenM Protection Agmcy r w g u ~ 8
t b
~ safe if88 of ch~omminesin
drlnking water*
EPA requires water utMies to m e t strict h e a h shndwds when using
chiormines to treat water.
â‚¬ chloramines regulations are based on the average concentration of
chlomhes found in a water system over time.
A~~
Suppfing l n f m a h :
I. Trkhlommine h a d o n does nut usually w u t under normal drinking water treatment
conditions. However, if fie pH is lowred M o w 4.4 or the chlorine to ammonia-nitrogen
ratio h m m greater than 7.6:1, then trich!otamim can form. Tdchlortnaineformation cart
occur at a pH betwem 7 and 8 ifthe chlmmine to ammla-nitrogen rado is increas~dto
15:I . Source: OpiYmidng Chtommiw TrwmeM 2M Ediion, A m RF, 2004
2. The drinking water standad for chioramhes is 4 paits Wr millbn (ppm) measured as an
annual avarage. More infomatlonon water dlhy use of ~hloraminesis avaikble at
h ~ ~ ~ . e ~ a . a o v / ~ f e w t e r / d s i ~ and
~ t iin~the
n&
fW7-IS8
x ~ l Information
Collection Rule, a mtlond survey of l a p drinkliq wakr utilitiesfor the Sbga 2 Disinhc!ion
B y p r d m Rule (DBPR). Infomation on h e
2 DBPR is availa&leat
htt~dhww.
em.wlsafe w a t e r l d l s t n f ~ o d ~ a ~ .
More infomation on EPA's shnttard setting p m s s may be found at:
rase
3+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ formed
~ / asra result
n ofWthe u ?
breakdown of animal and plant material In the envhonmerd; Source:
Delibemiive d d i - do not cite or dish?buk
o
~
p
u
&
2) How long has monochloramine been used as a drinking water disinfectant?
How is monochloramine typically used? How many people/water utilities use
monochlommine?
Monoch/oraminehas been used as a drinking water disinfwtont for more than 90
years1
Monochloraminehas been shown to be an effective disinfectant based on
decades of use in the US., Canada, and Britain.
Monochloramineis usually used along with chlorine as part of the drinking water
treatment process.
8
Monochloramfne helps protect people from waterborne diseases?
DMWAd
lIm
'l
Monochiommine is most often used to maintain water quality in the pipes."
Monochloramineprovides long lasting protection of water quality.
Monochloramine Is effective as a disinfectant because it does not dissipate as
quickly as chlorine.
Monochloramine helps lower levels of potentially harmful regulated disinfection
~
h
e
e
~
(ypteftkynotlnnn&dcan
byproducts compared to chlorine.
More than one in five Americana use drinking water treat9d with
mmochloraminBt
Manochloratnine use has increased in recent years due partly to new drink&@
water Teguiationsdeveloped to limit certain disinfection byproducts.
New drinking water regulations limitthe conMnttatfon ofpOt@ftTtettyharmful'
citetntectka?!bybrfflEluefethat rftay occur EndM r t gwater,
a Several t
am @@. suoh ah Denverand Philadelphia have been using
moftochloramineas part of heir treatment process for decades.
-
~ofmteattiBSan(tlhÃ
1. For more informattonon the hbtory of d@nl@gwater dlstfrfeetion visit-
*hy&*sd
2.
mayiBproAiceartifofmalMntayar
Ã§btoflhn-hnhptoes MbrobesUw
.SMIT)bloNmsam typkaUy harmless.
Nowsvar, lhefntaotiealftalgrow In
&B pips and form a blofltm on BIB
lypewalnmyc
8
F
t
W
k
m
.*
Custom Oolor(R68(10&0,204)
Ddatedt increased
EtatetMJiornItifflcaBon reactions an
IhetBBtiMng[Bteasadwnlamlnarta
such as nMrite, rAato, and toad hto
firewater. Seeque3tton271or-
ktfonnarJmoncontanhanireteBÃ§
'tHOffifiM,and ntofflcatfon.
Ata^see
Pa~eh
.
- - - EPft's
. Stofilm
- .- - - White
. .
l!
I
n on new
"-
',
b'
-
..
drinking water regul&ons ~ ~ e ~ . a w ~ ~ t w / d s i n ~ i o d i n d '-pww
~ ~ .
-.
mqaÃ§îÃ§Ã§lÛffiter
*
BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT DRINKING WATER D~SINFECTION
3) Why is drinking water disinfected? What is the difference between primary and
secondary disinfection? How is monochloramine used in a treatment plant?
Drinking water Is disinfectedto protect public health.'
Prior to the widespread use of disinfectants, many people became ill or died
because of contaminated water.
Disinfection reduces or eliminates illnesses acquired through drinking water.
EPA and CDC believe the benefits of drinking water disinfection outweigh the
potential risks from disinfection byproducts.
Primary disinfection kills or Inactivates bacteria, viruses, and other potentially
harmful organisms In drlnking water?
a Disinfection prevents infectious diseases such as typhoid fever, hepatitis, and
8
1
cholera?
Some disinfectants are more effective than others at inactivating certain
potentially harmful organisms?
Disinfection processes vary from water utility to water utility based on their needs
and to meet â‚¬ treatment requirements.
Secondmy d i 8 i n ~ h ~ ~ r o v ! da!n-& 8
.- - - - - - - - - moves through pipes to consumers.
Secondary disinfection maintains water quality by killing potentially harmful
organisms that may get in water as it mows through pipes.
8
Monochloramlne is commonly used as a secondary disinfectant.
Monochloramlne may be more useful than chlorine in killing certain potentiallv
harmful organisms In pipes such as those that cause Legionnaire's disease.
Addftfonal Supporting Informalion;
1. Not all federally-regulated ground water utilities are required to disinfect their water. Regulatory
authorities work with utilities to decide if treatment is necessary.
2. See question 2 for addltlonai history on drinking'water disinfection.
3. Potentially harmful organisms include disease-causingbacteria,viruses, and.pmtozaa. Chlorination
and chloraminatton are not effective at inactivating
For information on alIemaHve
- Ctwtospondiiim.
.. .
disinfectantsand other oxidants vlaifc
4. For more informationon these infectiousdiseases visit the following webs'rtes:
W~wiMdd-Ww
u
h
b
m (fortyphoid fever): A
;
(for i-fqwfls);
html (forcholera).
B-AHutilitiesthatofsurfacewatera
99-otreatof v i o f viru Aan to ftofilter
their water. However, some 8urface water systems may obtain waivers for filtration if the water comes
from a protected source. Surface water systems must also have adetectable disinfectant residual in their
distrtoution system. Ground water systems are only requiredto disinfect as necessary and are not
required to have a detectable disinfectant residual. Ground water systems that are found to be influenced
by surfaca water (for example, wells located next to rivers) are required to foBow the treatment
requirements for surface water. In addition, States may have morestringenttreatment requirements and
may, for example, require all of their ground water systems to disinfect. For more informationon EPA
surface water treatment requirements visit:
a d for infmnalimm requimmenls forgwnd water
..
. ---
S y 8 t e m ~ ~
Deliberative draft - do not cite or distribute
3
4) What disinfectants are available for drinking water?
Most water utilities use chlorine as a primary disinfectant because of Its
effectiveness in kMng potentially harmful organisms.^
Chlorine is effective in lolling bacteria, viruses,and other potentially harmful
organisms in water.
One disadvantage of chlorine is it can react with natural organic matte? present
in water to form potentially harmful disinfection byproducts.
Water utilities sometimes use chlorine several times during treatment because
the initial dose loses its effectiveness over time.
1
Monochloramine Is commonly used as a secondary disinfeetan#to protect the
waferas ft trawIs from tfw treatmentplant to consumers.
-
. Meted:'
Monochloramlne is effective in killing bacteria, viruses, and other potentially
harmful organisms but takes much longer to act than chlorine.
One disadvantage of monochloramine is it can react with natural organic matter
present in water to form potentially harmful disinfection byproducts. *
Monochloramineis more chemically stable than chlorine, which makes it longer
lasting and an effective secondary disinfectant.
Water ~tilifias
may use ozone, UV light, or chlorine dioxide as primary
disinfectoinsin tho treatment plant. -
Ozone, UV light, and chlorine dioxide are effective in killing bacteria, viruses, and
other potentially harmful organisms in water at the treatment plant.
One disadvantageof ozone, UV light, and chlorine dioxide is they do not provide
1
protection as water travels through pipes.
Elther chlorine or monochloramine must still be
treatment process to protect the quality of
treatment plant to the customer.
I
Additional Supporting Information:
Sae question 3 for a discussion of primary and secondary disinfectants. See questions 5 and 6
for a specific discussion of chlorine and monochlaramlne as a primmy and secondary
disinfectant.
1. Potentially harmful organisms Include disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and protozoa.
we at inactivating Cryptosporidium.
Chlorination and chlorarninationare not e
2. Natural organic matter is a complex rn re of compoundsformed as a result of the
breakdown of animal and plant material in the environment.
..
Source:
a,ora/tefn~lates/ldtemDfates/tavout 633184.aat~t~bteQld=661579.
a?
.
-
.
.
--.-
Delib.erative draft - do not cite or distribute
-
-
.
-
-
-- - -
Deleted: 3. Sacofidmy dlalnfecfcn
bateofcnownaaudnfladrtifactant
5) How effective Is monochloramine vs. chlorine as a primary disinfectant?
Monochlommine can be an effactiveprimary disinfectant In limited situations.
Monochloramfnetakes much longer than chlorine to Ml! most potentially harmful
organisms.'
Monochloramlne can be used as a primary disinfectant but the amount of time
needed for treatment makes it impractical for most utilities.
But because it Is longer lastingthan chlorine, monochloramine is often used as a
secondary disinfectant.
Chlorine is a wry efleetive primary disinfectant.
Chlorine Is very effective at killing most potentially harmful organisms,'
Chlorine kills most potentially harmful organisms quickly.
Chlorine is the most frequently used primary disinfectant of drinking water.
A combination of disinfectants is often used tor primary diainfeetion.
Primary disinfection usually consists of multiple disinfection steps that may start
as the water enters the treatment plant.
When used as a primary disinfectant, monochloramine effectiveness is Increased
by combining it with other disinfectants.
The choice of which combination of disinfectants to use varies from water utili
to water utility based on their needs and to meet EPA treatment requirements.
2
AddMona/ Supporting Intonnation:
See question 3 for a discussion of primary and secondary dlsinfectants.
1. Potentially harmful organisms Include disease-causlng bacteria, viruses, and protozoa.
Chlorination and chloraminatton are not eflective at Inactivating CtyptospOndium.
2. All utilities that use surface water are required to treat or remove 95.59% of viruses and also
to (litertheir water. However, some surface water systems may obtain waivers for filtration if the
water comes from a protected source. Surface water systems must also have a detectable
disinfectant residual In their distribution system. Ground water systems are only required to
disinfect as necessary and are not required to have a detectable disinfectant residual. Ground
water systems that are found to be influenced by surface water (for example, walls located next
to rivers) are required to follow the treatment requirements for surface water. In addition, States
may have more stringent treatment requirements and may, for example, require all of thair
ground water systems to disinfect. For mope information visit:
WJW.-Mrn~I~rnenLha
and for infomaflon on requiments for
ground water systems vlsi 1:
.
1
1
3
.
.
'
6) How effective Is monochloramlne us. chlorine as a secondary disinfectant*?
Both chlorine and monochloramine am effectbe secondary dtofnfactants.
Both chlorine and monochlorarnine protect the quality of treated water as wate?
travels through pipes.
Both chlorine and monochlorarnine produce disinfection byproducts, some of
which are harmful to human health,
EPA and CDC believe the benefits of drinking water disinfection outweigh the
potential risks from disinfection byproducts.
+
<.
Monochloramine has several advantages over chlorine as a wcondary
dIs/nfectant.
Monochloramine is more chemically stable than chlorine.
Ã
Monochloramine produces fewer potentially harmful regulated disinfection
byproducts than ch~orine.~
Â
Monochloramine is longer lasting than chlorine offering continued disinfection,
and making it useful for killing certain harmfulorganisms found in pipes such as
those that cause Legionnaires' disease.
77*9 choice of which secondary disinfectantto use varies from water utility to
water utility based on their needs,
Ã
Regulatory agencies and water utilities work together in selecting primary and
secondary disinfectants.
Regulatory agencies and water utilities balance a wide range of factors in
deciding which disinfectant to use.
4
Either chlorine or monochloramine are used as secondary disinfectants by water
'
'
utilities.
1
1
Additional Supporting information:
1. See question 3 for a discussion of primary and secondary disinfectants.^Sea~~&sti~ns.
17 ,..- and 18 for advantages and disadvantages in monochloramlne use.
2. See question 2 for a more information about protectingfha quality of water as it travels
through pipes
3-EPA has enforceable regulationsto limit occurrence of disinfection byproducts In drinking
water for a group of four total trihalomethanes (TTHMs): (chloroform, bromodichtommethane
(BOW), (Sbromochloromethane(OBCM), and bromofonn), a group of five haloacetic adds
(HAM) (monochloroacetic acid (MCA), dichloroaoetic acid (DCA), trichtoroacetic acid (TCA),
monobromoaceticacid (MBA), and dibrornoacdc acid (DBA)), and the Individual byproducts
chlorite and bromate, The maximum contaminant levels for these disinfectionbyproducts are:
TTHMs (0.080 m@), H A M (0.060mg/L), chtorlte (1.0 mg/L), bromate (0.010 fng/L), See Stage
2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 FR 388, January 4,2006) for more information on
dlshf6dan bypmdmk and dlscussio~~
d unceilalnties,~ J h w w . e m ~ m t r l E P A -
W
A
T
E.W .
~
~
~
4. For more informationon Legionnaire's disease visit www.nlm.nih.oov/medline~lus.
5. Factors includethe type and condition of source water, how much water needs to be treated,
complexity of operation, etc. Guidance manuals are available at
llanee.html. Hard copies are available by
r/disinfection/
E FA'SW atet%%%%nter
(phone: 202466-1729).
!-2;
are also known as residual
WATER SYSTEMS, DISINFECTION BYPRODU&TS, AND THE USE OF
MONOCHLORAMINE .-.. *.
7 ) Why are disinfectionbyproducts a public health concern?
Drinking water research indicates that certain byproducts of water disinfection
haw tho potential to to harmful.'
a Some research indicates that certain byproducts of water disinfection are linked
to increases in cancer incidence, Including bladder cancer.
Some research indicates that certain byproductsof water disinfection can be
linked to liver, kidney, central nervous system problems, and reproductive
effects.
Some research indicates that certain byproductsof water disinfectioncan he
linked to anemia.
'
A8sas~rnentsof the risks of water disinfact!on cpn tie highly uncertain.
Scientists from many organizations conduct research on the effects of
a
disinfection byproducts.
In some cases research results are contradictory; some studies show links to
adverse health effects and others do not.
Regulatory documents describe the uncertainties in risk assessments of
disinfection byproducts.'
.* 5: '
.
77Ã Environmentoi Protection Agency considers risk and uncertainty in
establishing regulations for water disinfection.
Regulators weigh the public health benefits of disinfectionagainst the risks of the
potentially hannful disinfection byproducts.'
EPA sets limits for certain disinfection byproducts which
= are linked to health
effects such as bladder cancer.'
â‚¬ and other organizations continue to condud research on disinfection
byproducts.
Aelditional SupportfngInformation:
1. EPA has enforceable regulations to limit occurrence of disinfection byproducts in drinking
water for a group of four total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) (chloroform, bromodtohlofomethane
(BDCM), dlbromochloromettiane(OEM), and bromofonn), a grow of five haloacette adds
(HAM) (monochloroacetic add (MCA), dkhloroacstic acid (DCA), bichloroacettoacid (TCA),
monobromoacetic acid (MBA), and dlbromoacetic add (DM)),and the individual byproducts
chlorite and bromate. The maximum contaminant levelsfor these disinfection byproducts are.
TTHMs (0.080 m*), HAA5 (0.060 @I.),
chtOrtte (1-0 -1,
broroate (0.010 ma/L). Sea Stage
2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 FR 388,Januay 4,2006)tor more Information on
dislnfmtion byproducts and discussbn ol unceMntbs,
WATEFVÂ£OOeOflnuaiv/Daf-O#wQ3.D(rt
2. For more Informationon anemia and disinfection byproductsvisit
ov
~
m of how the regulated disinfdon byproducts
~
SBWB a6
Indicators of other disinfection byproducts.
~
,
. ,.
8) How does EPA regulate disinfection byproducts (DBPs)?
EPA uses the presence of regulated disinfection byproducts as indicators of the
presence of other disinfection byproducts.'
EPA sets limits for two individual and two groups of disinfection byproducts
( ~ 6 ~that
s )are~linked to health problems.
Disinfectants read with natural organic matte? to produce disinfection
byproducts, some of which are of health concern.
Recent EPA drinking water regulations require water utilities to reduce the
concentrations of particular disinfection byproducts.'
Watw utIift16s must test water regularly to make sure regulated disinfeet/on
byproducts are within EPA limits.
â‚¬ recently strengthened regulatory limits for certain disinfection byproduck2
Regardless of the disinfectant used, the types and concentrations of disinfection
byproducts will also vary from day-to-day and among utilities.
The concentration and type of disinfectant byproducts depends on many factors,
including source water type, water temperature, the levels of natural organic
matter In the water as well as the amount and type of disinfectant used.
rh
Â ¥
EPA conducts rosearch to batter understand disinfection byproducts in drinking
water.
-.
â‚¬ scientists coordinate their research on disinfection byproducts with
scientists from many organizations.
Scientific studies are focused on identifying disinfection byproducts that may
need to be reg~lated.~
ERA scientists and decision makers review regulations of disinfection byproducts
every six years to determine If they need to be revised.5
1. EPA has enforceable regulations to limit the occurrence of disinfection byproducts in drinking water tor
a group of four total trihalomethana (TTHMs) (chloroform, bromodichloromethane (BDCM),
dibromochhethme (DBCM),,and bmmdom), a group of five haloacetic acids (HAM)
(monochbroacetlcacid (MCA), dichloroacetic add (DCA), trichloroacetic acid (TCA), monobromoacetic
add (MBA), and dibromoacetlcacid (DBA)), and the individual byproducts chlorite and bmmate. The
maximum contaminant levels for these dlstnfection byproducts are: TTHMs (0.080 m@), HA& (0.060
mg/L), chlorite (1.0 mg/L), bmmate (0.010 mg/L), See Stafgte 2 Diarfection Byproduct6 Rule (71 FR 388,
January 4,2006) for more Infomalton on disinfectionbyproducts and discussion of epidemiological data
on chiorhated water expo8ure and cancer,
w.
l T H M s and HAAa typkally mxr at higher levels than other h w
disinfectant byproducts. The presence of TTHMs and HAA5 is representative of the occurrence of many
other chlorinated disinfectant byproducts;thus, a reduction in TTHMs and HAA5 gaflBrally indicates a
reduction of other types of disinfectant bypmducte.
2 TTietwogrouiffiirototdlrlhakMTielhMe~andhdoaceteai^^ThetwoincîdualOBPsafec^k)ê
and bromate.
3. Nature ~ f ~mia w
r is a cof~iplexmixture d cmpouiuls formed as a remit of the breakdown of
animal and plant material In the environment Source:
hftpJ/ww~.iwahq.org/tei~iplata&-teniptatsaflaput_63318~.a8p)(?ObjectJd=661579.
4. See the Contaminant Candidate List online at httDJ/Kww.e~a.aw/OGWDW/ccl/ccB.htrnl
for
contaminants EPA proposes to review.
5. EPA scientists consider new disinfection byproducts researeti as part of the six year review process,
For Information on W dx year revlew proce- Wt:p
.
-
Deliberative draft do not cite or distribute
9) How do the kinds and concentrations of disinfection byproducts formed by
monochloraminm compare to those formed by chlorine?
Water treated with chlorine and monochloramine contain different types and
concentrations of disinfection byproducts.
Compared to chlorine, water treated with monochloramine contains fewer
regulated disinfection byproducts that have been linked to human health
problems.
The formation of disinfection byproducts is influenced by source water type and
the type of disinfectant used.
Formation can vary daily with the amount of natural organic matter in the water,
temperature, rainfall, and distance from the treatment plant or other factors
influencing water quality.
Compared to chlorine, water matod with monochloramine contains lower
concentrations of regulated disinfection byprodue&'
Compared to chlorine, water treated with monochloramlne contains lower
concentrations of the two major types of regulateddisinfectionbyproducts.'
Compared to chlorine, water disinfected with monochloramine contains fewer
regulated disinfection byproducts linked to bladder cancer.
Regardless of the disinfectant used, the types and concentrations of disinfection
byproducts will vary from each utility and also from day-today.
Compared to chlorine, water treated with rnonochloramlnemay contain higher
concentrations of unregulated disinfection byproducts.
EPA scientists are currently studying the unregulated disinfection byproducts2
that form in water treated with monochtoramine.
Compared to chlorine, water treated with monochloramine may contain different
unregulateddisinfection byproducts than chlorinated water.
ERA and other organizations continue to conduct research on unregulated
disinfection by product^,^
1
Additional Supporting ~nfomsation:
1. TTHM and HAA5 are the regulated disinfection byproduct groups that form at lower
concentrations with monochlorarnine. See question 7 for more information about TTHM and
HM5. Sac w ~ l t9
m for mow I
~
r
n OW med'ch.
u
~
2. Examples of these unregulated disinfection byproducts include nitrosamines (including
nltrosodimethylamlne, NDMA), iodo-trihalomethanas,and iodo-aclds. See question 7 for
additional detail on disinfection byproducts. or
Deliberative draft - do not rite or distribute
10) Why a n water utilities switching to monochloramine?
New â‚¬ regulations reyuire wa@r utilities to reduce levels of regulated
dishfeetlon byproducts.
- rib
*
L',. .
Water utilities are req& â‚ comply with EPA's revised regulations.
Water utilities are assessing if they need to make changes to comply with revised
EPA regulations.
To meet the new regulations, a subset of utilities has decided to change their
secondary disinfectant from chlorine to monochloramine.
Water treatad with monochlorsm/necontains reduced levels of regulated
disinfection byproducts compared to water treated with ch/onne.'
Monochloramine produces lower concentrations of regulated disinfection
byproducts because it is less reactive than chlorine with natural organic matter.3
The formation of disinfection byproducts is influenced by source water type and
,
.
the type of disinfection used.
Formation can vary daily with the amount of natural organic material in the water,
temperature, rainfall, and distance from the treatment plant or other factors
influencing water quality.
1
1
Water utilities switching from chlorine to monochloramine report fewer consumer
concerns about water qua/&.
concerns about the taste of water?
concerns about odor*
Consumers may still notice a chlorine smell when utilities use monochlorarnine$
Adifisonal SupporSng Informatfotr
1. See Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 FR 366, January 4,2006) for more Information
on disinfection byproducts and discussion of epidemiological data on chlorinated water
expowre and cancer,
. . ov/ladmstr/EPA-WATER/200B/ilanuarv-M3.
odf
2. See question 11 for additional ways utilities could comply.
3. Natural organic matter ts a complex mixture of compounds formed as a result of the
breakdown of animal and plant material in the environment; Source:
At-t
B33184.asDx70biwtlcle861679
4. Ceria I n home drink)nowater treatment systems and tiltere can reduos ffl-dlmfnatechlorinq
29 for m
o m soaciftemtiotion about these devices. - - - - - - - - ,B^.Ãˆ.
m
-
.
II
'
l
11) Other than chlorine and monochloramine, what options could water utilities
consider to reduce the levels of disinfection byproducts?
Water utilities have several options for rodwing disinfeetlon byproducts other
than chlorine and monochloramh>
I
1
One option for reducin disinfection byproducts is to reduce the amount of time
water spends in pipes, - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - One option for reducing disinfection byproducts is to use ozone or ultraviolet (UV)
3
The options for reducing disinfection byproducts have disadvantages.
Better system management to reduce the amounf of time water spends in pipes
&r-imp")v@- filtration-pthgds-qay #I! ~. G, $ g p u g h J g j g y #!e&Med-
byproduct levels.
Ozone, UV and some improved filtration processes require a high level of
sophistication, expertise, and management skills to operate successfully.
One disadvantage of ozone and ultraviolet (UV)light is they require the
installation of new and expensive technology, making It impractical for many
utilities.
Utilities must still w e chlorine or monochloramlne to protect drinking water from
harmful organisms in pipes.
The major disinfection alternatives to chlorine and monochloramine can reduce
the formation of some disinfection byproducts but can increase the production of
others,
The major treatment alternatives for reducing disinfection byproducts do not by
themselves provide adequate protection for drinking water as it moves through
water pipes.
ider a full-range of alternative
ERA is encouraging water utl
technologies and operational
Addttiwal Supporting
/nformath
..
as a result d the breakdown of animal and plant material !n the environment. Source:
Deliberative draft -do not cite or distribute
12) Does EPA require water utilities to use monochtorarnlne? Who approves the
decision for a water utilhy to use monochloramlne?
Each water utility chooses #a most effect!^ approach for disinfecting water and
meeting regulatbns.'
Water utilities work with regulatory agencies in deciding the best
to meet
ERA regulations
Water utilities work with regulatory agencies in deciding the best way to reduce
or eliminate harmful disinfection byproducts.
Warier utilities work with regulatory agencies in deciding whether to use
monochloramine.
way
I,
â‚¬ does not require water utilities to use monochloramine.
EPA doe's require water utilities to comply with EPA drinking water regulations.
EPA's Regional Offices provide technical assistance to water utilities for
complying with EPA drinking water regulations.
ERA works with regulatory agencies regarding EPA drinking water regulations.
Water utilities typically receive approval from a state agencyt or other authority
for changes In disinfection processes.
@
Water utilities work with regulatory agencies to weigh the advantages and
disadvantages of using monochloramine or other disinfectants.
J
Water utilities typically notify customers of plans 10 use monochloramine.
Contact your water utility for information about disinfection practices used to treat -'
your water.
J
..,
* I -
-
1L
- ------------------G Y ~f l a
J w~@ ? -~d!&k-G
~
- -- - - - ~ ~, p i e are
s available by
httc.fflKHw.e~a
.aov/saf m & r / ~ f d o n / & a e ~ 6Hard
ordering publications through EPA's Water Resource Center (phone: 202-566-1729).
A
-
Deliberative drafl do not (ateor distribute
---
w
-
r
- .
1
.
-
13) What asdstance does EPA provide water utilities considering a switch from
chlorine to monochtoramlne?
â‚¬ provides regulatory guidance for water authoritiesconsidering a switch to
monochloramlne.
â‚¬ provides regulatory guidance primarily through state regulatory agencies,'
which in turn provide guidance to water utilities.
a Water utilities look primarily to state agencies for guidance since it is typically
these agencies that approve changes in water treatment processes.
a Water utilities provide detailed informationabout drinking water quality to
interested parties on request,
EPA provides training for state and local water authofitigs considering changes
in tfisinfactionp m c ~ ~ ~ .
ERA develops guidance documents to help state and local water authorities
better understand drinking water regulations.
â‚¬ works with state and local water authorities when they request additional
guidance regarding EPA drinking water regulations.
0
EPA manuals on water treatment and disinfection processes are available as
printed documents or through theinternet.
EPA representatives attend prof688ional mattlngs to explain regulations
regarding chlorine, monochloramine, and other disinfectants.
â‚¬ provides specialized training on new disinfection byproduct regulation.
EPA's Regional Offices provide technical assistance to water authorities seeking
specific guidance on the new disinfection byproduct regulations.
EPA has established a Drinking Water Academy for EPA staff, state regulators,
tribes, and others on implementing new drinking water regulation^.^
1. A primacy agency has the primary responsibilityfor administrating and enforcing regulations.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act; states, US. territories, and Indian tribes that meet certain
requirements (such as setting regulations that are at least as stringent as EPA's) may apply for.
and receive, primary enforcement authority
2. Guidance manuals are available af
htt~;//www.e~a,fl~v/safewater/dlsinfection/staae2/com~1
tance.nm1. HiiiciSpfeg afe available by
ordering publications through EPA's Water Resource Center (phone: 202-566-1729).
Nitrite/Nltrateand lead control when changing disinfectants are discussed In EPA's
simultaneous compliance manual which can be found at:
i uttaneousOther gutdance is wallable through the American Water Woks Assoclatlm
(httDJ/www.awwa.om) and the American Water Works Research Foundation
(httD://www.awwarf.oro). See question 27 for additional information on lead and nitritdnitrate.
3. Information on the Drinking Water Academy is available at
hm://www.eoa,aov/oawdw/dwa.html.
'
m,
CHLORAMINES-RELATED RESEARCH
14) How did EPA evaluate the safety of monochloramine for use as a drinking
water disinfectant?
.,,,\
h'..
I 1
,",.
EPA evaluated monochloramlneprimarily through an analysis of human
health and animal data.
Research reviewed in EPA's safety analysis is contained in EPA's "Drinking
Water Criteria Document for Chloramines'
The criteria document for monochloramine provides a complete summary of
health and other data considered in establishinga manochloramine standard.
EPA periodically updates the monochloramine "criteria document."
EPA's monuch/ommlne standard ie set at a level where no human health effects
are expectad to occur.
Data from animal and human studies provide information on the health effects of
monochloramine.
EPA reviews and considers new research results as they become available?
EPA's standard for monochloramine takes data gaps and uncertainty into
account by building safety factors into the regulatory standard.
4
EPA reviewed historical data in its evaluation of mmochloramine.
Monochloramlne has been in use as a drinking water disinfectant since the
1930's.'
Decades of use In the US, Canada, and Great Britain shows monochloramlne is
an effective secondary drinking water disinfectant.
Denver, Philadelphia, and other large cities have used rnonochtoramine as part
of their water treatment process for years.
L L
Additional Supporting Informa tion:
1. The Drinking Water Criteria Document for Chtoraminescan be found at
htto:/~
c h ~ ~ r a m i n . e.
/.Ddl~Publication
c h No.:
b ECAO-CIN~
D002.March. 1994.
2. he ~aximumResidual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG) for ctttoramines is 4 parts per
million (ppm).
3. S m the Contmlnant Candidate List online at ~ D ~ I ~ . ~ D ~ . u o v / Q for
G W M / ~ G ~
contaminants â‚¬ proposes to review. â‚¬ scientists review regulations of disinfectants and
disinfection byproducts every six years. For information on six year review visit:
Attp://epa.gov/safewater/revfew. html
4 Cleveland, OH, Sptlngfteld, IL, and Lansing, MI were among the first cittes to use
monochioramin8 In 1929 (seeChapter 1 of The Quest for Puie Water Vof H, A W A , 1981).
Deliberative draft- do not cite or distribute
15) Why does â‚¬ believe enough research has been conducted to approve the
use of monochloremine as a drinking water disinfectant?
â‚¬ U M S risk assessment methods to evaiuato the safety of drinking water
disinfectants.
â‚¬P Drinking Water Criteria Document for ~hloiwn~nes'
provides the detailed
risk assessment process followed in setting the standard for monochtoramine~
EPA's risk assessment process included a review of available research and
historical data.
EPA's risk assessment process focused on health outcomes scientists consider
most critical.
EPA8swulations account for uncertainties in the risk assessment by applying
uncarfahty factod
Risk assessments of monochloramine contain substantial uncertainties regarding
potentially harmful disinfection byproducts.
4
Federal taws require EPA to act to protect human health even when there is
Incomplete Information.
Regulators must weigh the public health benefits of disinfection against the risks
of the harmful disinfection byproducts.
Research and exper!ence Indicate monocrtloramineis safe at lewis used to treat
drinking water.
rn Research indicates monochtoramine produces lower levels of regulated
disinfection byproducts which may be harmful.
Monochloramine use may reduce the potential cancer risk from chlorinated
byproducts.
EPA continues to encourage research on the safety of monochloramine as a
drinking water disinfectant.
1. The Dfinldna
" Water C&&a Document for Chiownines can be found at
ECAO-CIN-D002, March,
1994.
2. The-chloramine
limit was set in the Stage
s avaifabla at
.
" 1 DB? Rule. This rule I
~Avww.e~a.aov/safewater/dlsinfectjon/Jndex.html.
In addition, â‚¬ has enforceable
reoulations to limit occurrence of disinfection bvoroducts in drinldna water for a amup
- . of four
total trihatomethanes (TTHMs) (chloroform, bkkdlchloromethane(BDCM),
dtbromochioromethane (DBCM), and bmmofom), a group of five haloacetic acids (HAA5)
(monochloroacetic acid (MCA), dtohloroacetic add (DCA), trfehlomacettoacid VCA),
monobromoacetic add (MBA), and dibromoacetfc add (DM)), and the individual byproducts
chlorite and bromate. The maximum contaminant levels forthese disinfection byproducts are:
TTHMs (0.080 mg/L), HAA5 (0.060 mg/L), chlortte (1.0 m&), bromate (0.010 mg/L). See Stage
2 DisinfectionByproducts Rule (71 FR 388,Januafy 4,2006) for more information on
disinfection byproducts and discussion of uncertainties,
16) Why does â‚¬ believe monochloramine la safe and appropriate to use?
Research and ~xper/ance
indicate monochloramine use at regulated levels is a
safe means for disinfecting drinking water.
Research indicates monochloramine produces lower levels of regulated
disinfection byproducts compared to chlorine.
Decades of use In the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain shows monochlorarnine is
a safe and effective secondary drinking water disinfectantt - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EPA continues researching the safety of monochloramine and other drinking
water disinfectants.
â‚¬ nsad accepted risk assessment methods to evaluate the safety of
monochloramfne.
â‚¬?A risk assessment process Included a review of available research and
historical data.
- - -f oetatodt -
EPA's Drinking Water Criteria Document for Chlorewntne81~[oy~d~sjhg_d%tg!~d- - ,
risk assessment process the Agency followed In setting the standard for
-
monochloramine~
EPA's risk assessment process focused on health outcomes scientists
considered most critical.
<
EPA's regulatory standard for chloraminesprovides a wide margin of safe&& - - offset uncertainties In risk as#e&sments.
. Rfsk assessments d rnonochloramine contain uncertainties regarding potentially
harmful disinfection byproducts.
Federal laws require ERA to take action to protect human health even when
there is incomplete Infomation.
ERA regulatory officials must weigh the public health benefits of disinfection
against the uncertain risks of the harmful disinfection byproducts.
Deliberative &aft - do not cite Or distribute
-.---
--@at~dt*__
,
.
-
17) What does EPA see as the advantages of using monochlorarnine?
U s h q monochloramine allows utilitk to meet new EPA drinking water
regulations.
Water utilities are required to comply with EPA's new drinking water regulations
to reduce disinfection byproduck.
Water utilities are assessing whether to switch to rnonochloramine use as a way
to meet new â‚¬ drinking water regulations,
To meet the new EPA regulations, a subset of utilities has decided to use
monochloramine as a secondary disinfectant.'
Water Meted with moimchlommine contains reduced W S
of regulated
disinfoetlon byproducts compared to mtor (Teafed with chlorine.
Monachtoramine produces lower concentrations of regulated disinfection
byproducts because it is less reactive than chlorine with natural organic matter?
The formation of disinfection byproducts Is influenced by source water type and
a
the type of disinfection used.
The formation of disinfection byproducts can vary daity with the amount of natural
organic matter in the water, temperature, rainfall, distance from the treatment
plant, and other factors,
1 Monochtoramine is a practical and effoctfmsecondarydisinfectantJhe ysg of.
- --
. +
monochlorarnine is often more affordable and requires less new equipment than
alternatives1,especially I f a water utility is already using chlortne.
Monochtoramine helps protect drinking water quality as it moves through pipes.
Several large cities such as Denver and Philadelphia have used monochloramine
successfully as part of their water treatment process for decades.
1. See question 11 for additional ways utilities coutd comply.
2, See Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (71 PR 388, January 4,2006) for more information
on disinfection byproducts and discussion of epidemiological data on chlorinated water
exposure and mar,~ m : l M . ~ m v M m W E P ~ J - D & M , ~ .
3. Natural organic matter is a complex mixture of compoundsformad as a result ofthe
18) What does EPA see as the disadvantages of using monochloramtne?
Water ~til/tIBSwill need to woric closely with local and state regulatory agencies
to determine if monochloramlne is appropriate for their ut/ifty.
The appropriateness of monochloramine use varies with water types and among
water utilities.'
The appropfiateness of monochlommine use varies with the amount of organic
matter in the source water, temperature, rainfall, distance from the treatment
plant, and other factors.
ERA guidance is available to help states and water utilities make informed
decisions as to whether moaa~i'amineuse is appropriate.
a
Gaps in research on how monochloramh?eaffects water need to be Riled.
There are few studies on how monochloramine affects human health.
4
There ate few studies on the disinfection byproducts that form when
monochloramine reacts with natural organic matter in water.
Compared to chlorine, water treated with monochlora~inemay contain higher
concentrations of unregulated disinfection byproducts.
Util/tlea will need to monitor water quailif forproblems that may arise related to
monochloramlne use.
a Utilities will need to monitor for lead and other regulated contaminants from metal
corrosion that may be caused by monochloramine use.
0
Water utilities that add substances to control for metal corrosion will need to
comply with all relevant regulations related to these substances.
Water utilities using monoGhloramine will need to monitor and control f o 1
~
an'tlulhi and nftritleatt indudti ftia reddind .nitrite __Initrate fOTmiiftdn.
1
We
m u w ~ d
Additional Suwrtfng information:
1. Use of monochloramlne with source watare with high bromide, high iodide or high total
organic matter may lead to bromo-, lodo-, and nitmamine disinfection byproduct formation
which are unregulated. EPA scientists are currently studying the unregulateddisinfection
byproducts that form in water treated witti monochloramine. See Question 7 tor additional
information about disinfection byproducts.
DÃ§tetad
a En accordance with ERA
ouManca
-r
~eted:changestiwter
such t
2,Ihe~d~i~sn-of-moncchlpram~ne
t^rnake.weW ~EP-CQ~M!V-&~&
ma~!wd!Q~W - - - ~5
corrosion and increased levels of lead or other contaminants In the water. However, utilities can
test water for m s i v e n e s s and make changes to the water treatment process to address this
problem. â‚¬ requires that systems monitor lead and copper levels In the distribution system
under the Lead and Copper Rule. Monitoring for other water quality issues are discussed in
guidance manuals. Guidance manuals are available at:
h
I
on/
Hard copias am availabla
-
.
h
.
~corn
1
r
n
e
L
on/
n
W
S
~
%
DWS
Us-
'
~
m
i
~
w,g&yg) and the Amerlmn Water Works Research Foundatlon
~
~
,
w
w m!w>!s+#-njtEt$
:
~
~
.
in be es~ecia~b_~a.mfLil
to infants;. - - .
additional health effect lnfontiafon can be founu
3. See quesliol
ntf"
"
-ma&cmm
.
.
EtaltBiLand
,'
- --------- , '
o
-2
n
-mmnt~e~t,i~
~ t a ~ owaterquwdtange
d:
monochtoiamk~.
w.cmma=ntbtofflms,andnHitffcaSon
........"~eÃ£-__----,__Ã£Ã‘Ã‘Ã‘Ã‘,.Ã£----.---+---~--,+-Ãˆ-Ã‘Ã‘Ã(Mated:q
1
18
-
Metad;!
t
dwww
1
Mated: s
(phone: 202-566-172Q)*EPNs
simultaneous compliance manual
. can be found at:
-
-
'todihfioh
~il~tad:~tttrittt-
4
4
.1\ a~ x c e
,
W
%
&
O
~:-
-
I
19) What Is EPA's current focus regarding chloramlnes research*?What other
ongoing research is EPA aware of?
*.-
. .
7'he cumnt focus of E P A @ ~ l q ~ i q g
ip
p ~ m i w m aWntd
,
d h f s un wnfw audiW, e n d , - m
formaw . - - - .. .- .
.
m@.@w
- rmfuct
-:
------+-----
. - ....
Determininu disinfectant effectiveness, includina evaluattna the effectiveness of
chloramines at controlllna potentiallyharmful organisms' underdifferent source
water and ireatmen! o~tionsis a hiah ~rioritvfor EPA,.- .. .
. .- - . .
Research is targeted at im~rwinaunderstandlno of the effects of disinfectants on
water quality, emeraha contaminants, and the disinfection byproducts that form
as a result of individual or combined disinfection ~ractices.
. ...
,
j
: kirinkina waler, biotilm activity. Includina nitrification and the resultha nitrite and
$itrate,formation that can occur when disinfectants such as m~nochloramineare
I ':
Results from past and ongoing research indicate monochlur8mim use at
mgulated levels is a safe mean8 for dis/nfee#ng drinking water.
e
Several large cities such as Denver and ~hjadel~hiahave
used monochioratnine
[a,dwlM
successfully as part of their water treatment pmbess for decades.
, Ddetfldt n
I
t
Research shows that monochloramine producesfewer potentially harmful
\
(tdetodi a t u f t i t w inttflBr
i~i~a~t~hnokigies.thato~n
regulated disinfection byproducts than chlorine.*- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ERA reviews and considers new research results as they become available.^-A %.'.', reducebyproductfonnafion,areft
itortty tofhitumEpAsupnoinid
' \4 ! LÃ‡-,
ti*, ', elated^ areas related to ~ht
use of '
Many organisationssupport research on the safety of monochlorarnine use.
' rntinochbremina as a drinking water
Academic institutions and water industry groups conduct research on
monochhaf~iineuse6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . CDC has investigated community concerns related to monochloramine
EPA will continue to work with other organizations on research related
use of monochtoramine.
'Â¥/
1
'
1'
-
l,
1. More information on the EPA Drinking Water Research Program can be found at
htta://m.BDa.oov/or(i/nod/d~r~sean;h-intro.
htm.
-
1
4;_Cornpared to chlorine, water treated with monochloramine may contain different unregulated
disinfection byproductsthan chlorinated water. There are few studies on health effects of
unregulated disinfection byproducts. For example, TTHMs and HAAs (see question 6 for more
Infomation) tplcally m u r at h b h r lwels than other k n m and unknown d i s i n f e 4 ~
. . . -I!
byproducts. The presence of TTHMs and H A M 1s represerrtativeof the occurrence of many
other chlorinated dlsinfecm bypmduyts;thus, a red"@on
Indicates a reduction of other types of disinfectant byprodu
ed withchloraminatton. NDMA, can be found at
{I
.
-
.
.
21
19
-
'
--
1
-
COMMON HEALTH QUESTIONS RELATED TO MONOCHLORAMINE
'I1 -
20) la it safe to drink and cook with chloraminated water?
15.-
Chloraminated water that meets â‚¬ regulatory standards is safe to use for
drinking and cooking.
EPKS ~rinkingwater Criteria Document for Chlofamlnesprovides the detailed
risk assessment process followed in setting the standard for monochloramlne.
Health authorities recognize that some people may have chemical sensitivities
and some people may have a chemical sensitivity to monochlo~amine.~
People who have health concerns about monochloramine use should consult
their physicians.
â‚¬ regulations limit chioramind use to levels wtwe no adverse health effects
are antidpated.'
a EPA's Drinking Water Criteria Document for Chiornines provides the detailed
risk assessment process followed in setting the standard for monoch~orarnlne,~
ERA'S risk assessment process included a review of available research and
historical data.
a EPA's risk assessment process focused on health outcomes scientists consider
most critical.
Special populations, such as people with weak immune systems, should check
with their physicians before consuming any type of drinking water.
Special populations with potentially weak immune systems include transplant
patients and people with AIDS.
People with weak immune s terns can be more susceptible than others to
harmful organisms In water.Y=
Ã
People who have weakened immune systems should consult with their
physicians regarding any type of drinking water they consume, including bottled
water.5
AddiSonal Suppoftlq Infomtion:
1. The "Drinking Water Crtteda Document for Chiormines"can be found at
. , ECAO-CIN-D002, March. 1094m
w
d smsilfvity. CDC invesilg&ed
reports of monochlomlneand health effects in Vermont but they were unable to draw any conclusions
from the Investigation.
3. The chloramines limit was set In tho Stage
- 1 DBP Rule. This rule is available at
~
J
/
w
.
~
In &dJtion,w
EPA has enforceme
~
.mgulahw to hmR
occurrence of disinfectionbyproducts in drinking water for a QFOUD of four total trihalomethanea fTTHM81
(chloroform, bmrnaikhtor~methane
(BDCM), dibromoctitommetfiana(DBCM). and bromofom):a group
of five hatoacetic adds (HAA5)(monochloroacstic wid (MCA), (iichkroacak add (DCA), trichtoroacetic
add (TCA), rnonobrumoaceticadd (MBA),and dibromoaceBc add (DM)), and the individualbyproducts
chlorite and bromate. The maximum contaminant levels for these (feinfectionbyproducts are. TTHMs
(0.080 mg/L), W 5 (0.060 mg/L), chlorite (1-0 mfl/L), bromate (0-010 ITO/L). See Stage 2 Disinfection
ByproductsRub (71 FR 380, January 4,2006) for more information on disinfectionbyproducts and
d'kussimoi uncertainttes, m - & p A W A
4. Wantially harmful organlm include dlm
-b
ie
a
rc
t
and chloramination are not affective at inactivating Cryptosporidiwn.
5. More information regarding drinking water for those with weak immune systems is available at:
h
P
.
21)
Can I shower in or use a humidifier with chloraminated water?
Chloraminated water that meets â‚¬ standards is safe to use for showerhg.
Showering with chlorarnlnated water poses little risk because monochlbramine
does not easily enter the air.
.
a ~richloramine',a chemical related to monochloramine and oftenfound in
swimming pools, enters the air more easily and has been linked to breathing
problems.
Trichloramine may form more easily in swimming pools because of higher levels
of chlorine as we! as ammonia from bodily fluids which are often found in
swimming pools.
1
ChiorarninatecS water that meets â‚¬ standards Is safe for use in humidifiers.
The use of chloramlnated water In humidifiers poses little risk because
monochloramine does not easily enter the air.
a â‚¬ i
s not aware of any studies that investigatethe use of disinfected water in
humidifiers.
It is important to follow manufacturer's instructions regarding proper maintenance
and operation of your humidifier.
â‚¬ considered a wide range of hou~6ho/duse# in establishing regulatoryiimita
for chioraminas in water.
ERA considered alt available research in establishing regulatory limits for
chtoramines in water?
EPA considered historical data in establishing regulatory limits for chloramines In
water.
EPA's regulatory standard for chloramirps provides a wide margin of safety4to
offset uncertainties in risk assessments,
Additional Supporting Intonnation:
1. Trichloramine formation does not usually occur under normal drinking water treatment
conditions. However, if the pH is lowered below 4.4 or the chlorine to ammonia-nitrogen ratio
becomes greater than 7.6:1, then trichloramine can form. Trichlormaine formation can occur at
a pH between 7 and 8 tf the chloramlne to ammonia-nltmgm ratio is increased to 151. Source:
Optimizing Chiommine Treatment, 2"'*Edition, AwwaHF, 2004.
2, Problems with tfichloramine have been most-often associated with indoor swimming pools
and are known to cause a strong chlorine-type odor. Tricliloramine can be controlled in indoor
swimming pools with proper pool maintenance and ventilation. For more information see:
Deliberative draft - do not (ate or distribute
kt
--
,.
22) Can chloraminated or chlorinated water be used for dialysis or in an
aquarium?
Chloraminated or chlorinated water may need additions)treatment if used for
specialized purposes.
Water utilities typically provide health care agencies and organizations with
information about their disinfection processes.
Water utilities typically provide consumers with information about disinfection
processes.
Water utilities consult with regulatory authorities about major changes in their
water treatment processes.
Chlorine and monochloramine must be removed prior to use in kidney dialysis
machines.'
Special precautions are needed when using chlorinated or chtoraminatedwater
in dialysis machines because the treated waiter comes into direct contact with
blood.
Dialysis patients should consult with their physicians if they have concerns about
chlorinated or chloraminated water.
Dialysis patients can safely drink chlorinated or chloraminated waterz
Chlorine and monochloramine must be neÂ£rfra/ize
or removed if used in
aquariums.
a
Chlorine and monochloraminecan be harmful to fish because it directly enters
their bloodstream through the gills.
Chlorine and monochloramine can also prevent the growth of beneficial bacteria
that are necessary for healthy fish tanksChlorinated and chloraminated water can be safely used in aquariums by using
products readily available from aquarium supply stores.
Additional Suppofting Information:
1. A 1988 FDA Safety Alert on chloramines and dialysis ts available at:
hfl~;//www.fda.aov/cdrhisaf
etviO21988-chloramine.Ddf.
2. Dialysis patientswith severely compromised immune systems should consult with their
physician before consuming any type of water.
23)Does monochloraimlnecause cancer?
â‚¬ believes water disinfected with monochloramine that meets regulatory
standards poses no known or anticipated adverse health effects, including
8
canow.
Most of the research on the cancer risk of monochtoramine comes from animal
studies using mice and rats.'
EPA believes available data support the use of monochioramine to protect public
health
EPA's regulatory standard for chloramines provides a wide margin of safetf to
offset uncertainties in risk assessments.
fSqnochio~mtneuse may reduce b@ddercmcqrrigcompare to chloflne use.
Several sGdies have shown lower rates of bladder cancer in
&systems that use monochloramine as a secondary disinfectant culnualuu lu
systems that use chlorine.'
Compared to chlorine, water treated with monochloramine may contain higher
concentrations of unreguiateofdisinfection byproducts but the cancer risk is
unknown?
EPA continues to support research on the safety of monochloramine.
-
Monocftloram/naurn produces lower levels ofregulated disinfection byproducts
which are linked to cancer.
Regulated disinfectionbyproducts are produced In tower amounts when
mochloramtne is used.
ftegulateddisinfection byproducts serve as indicators4of other types of
byproducts that may also be reduced as a result of using monochloramine,
Compared to chlorine, water treated with monochlorarnine may contain higher
concentrations of unmguhtecf disinfection byproducts?
A(hS/;'onalSuppwtfng Information:
1. Mom information on these studies can be found at EPA IRIS (Integrated Risk Information
b
in the Stage 2 DBPR (71 FR 388,
System) htto;//www.e
Jmuaty 4, m6)
or,
tp-rnfnB,
1
are applied to risk assessments to provide a wide margin of safety see:
http://apa.gov/rlsk/do8e-response.htni
3. EPA Is currently remamhlrtg ~mgukiteddisinfectantbyprodm that can form
mnochlomlne use. Compared lo chtorine, water treated with monochtoraminemay contain
different unregulated disinfection byproducts than chlorinatedwater. There are few studies on
health effects of unregulated disinfection byprod
a
1fil
n
m
m
AteoseeQuestionQand
TTHMs and HAAs (see question 6 for more lnformatfon)typically occur at higher levels than
other known and unknown disinfectant byproducts, The presence of TTHMs and HAM is
representativeof the occurrence of many other chlorinated disinfectant byproducts; thus, a
reduction In TTHMs and HAA5 generally indicates a reduction of other types of disinfectant
byproducts.
4.
-
--
A
I
24) Does monochloramine cause skin problems?
â‚¬ befiewet?water disinfected with monochloramine that meets regulatory
standards has no known or anticipated adverse health effects, including skin
problems.
Ã
Isolated cases of skin problems due to exposure to chloramines have been
reported.'
Monochloramine has not been shown to be a cause or contributor to reported
skin problems.
CDC's investigation2of reports of monochloramine-reiated skin problems
associated with drinking water use was unable to draw any conclusions about
monochloramine and health effects.
Trichlormine, a chemical related to monochloramine that often forms in
swimming pools, has been linked to skin problems.
a Trichloramine forms in swimming pools When chlorine reacts with ammonia from
bodily fuilds.
Skin problems traceable to disinfected water are typically related to swimming
pool useh3
Ã
ERA continues to study and review research on disinfectants used in swimming
pools.
People who believe their skins problems are related to monochloramfne should
consult with their doctors.
Sta'n problems are a common health issue, and it is often difficult to trace their
causes.
People who have skin problems should inform their doctors if they have been in a
swimming pool.
CDC1sinvestigation2of reports of monochlommine-related skin problems
monochtoramine and health effects.
Additional Supputting Information:
1. Reported skin problems, such as eczema, due to chlorarnlnes are primarily associated with
dermal antiseptic contact in occupational/hospital settings. The "DrinkingWater Criteria
Document for Chloramimsacan be found at
1
tffl~'
w/nc
aterhhloramln
, ECAO-CIN-D002, March,
I d%%=as
m%$zatlm
on i%tazEisaideMs.
See quwlion I for a
discussion of the different types of chloramines.
2. CDC and EPA conducted a preliminary investigation of reports of monochloramine-related
skin problems associated with drinkha water. The Investigation consisted of a questionnaire
@e information cplJecledcan
filled out by
..be used to help design rmre epiaerntoiogic sluaies. - .- - . ' CDC'strip report can be found at
Ih
#nWm
Chlomhes mmrt O l l f W R . ~ d f
3. Improper pod maintenance can often lead to trichloramine formation. Some examples
include: ~ . c d c , a w / n j W dndfd3lU7-0~
and
~./flffiaiSS~.awhmwR/PDF/^
Deliberative draft - do sot cite or distribute
@-
25) Do chloraminea cause breathing problems?
EPA believes water disinfeetad with monochloramine that meets regulatory
.
standards has no known or antidpated adverse health offsets,including
breathing problems.
Monochloramlnedoes not enter the air easily and therefore would be difficult to
inhale.
CDC's investlgatlon' of reports of monochloramine-related breathing problems
monochloramine and health effects.
a Breathing problems associated with trichloramine and indoor swimming pools
have been reported.
~richforamind,a chemical related to monochloramine and often found In
swimming pools, has been linked to breathing problems.
\.
- ,.
,.
Trichloramine forms in swimming pools when chlorine reacts with ammonia from
bodily fluids.
Breathing problems traceable to disinfected water are typically related to
swimming pool use!
ERA continues review research related to the use of disinfectants used in
swimming pools.
People who be/hve their bmathing problems are related to monochlora~n/ne
should consult with their doctors.
The causes of breathing problems are oftendifficult to determine.
People who have breathing problems should inform their doctors if they have
spent time in or around a swimming pool.
CDC's investigation1of reports of monochloramine-relatedbreathing problems
monochtofamlne and health effects.
1. CDC and EPA conducted a preliminary investigation of reports of monochloramine-related
respiratory problems associated with drinking wafer. The investigationconsisted of a
questionnaire filled out by complaintants. The informationcollected can be used to help design
future epidemlolo~icstudies.
CDC's trip report can be found at:;,,* , -,
.
- --*
.., .,
M
a
=
:
i:lZ:n5'
household chemicals (mixing ammonia and bleach cleaning products), Indoor swimming pool
air, or Industrial exposure. See question 1 for further information about different types of
chtoramines.
3. Trichtoramtneformation does not usuaily occur under normal drinking water treatment
conditions. However, if the pH te lowered below 4.4 or the chlorine to ammonia-nitrogen (afo
becomes greater than 7.6:1, then tiichtorainine can form. Trichlonnaineformation can occur at a
pH between 7 and 8 If the chloramlne to ammonia-nitrogen ratio is increased to I
@
. Source:
-.
OpftTrtdhg Chloramlne Treatment,2*"1 Edition, AwwaRF, 2004,
4. Improper pool maintenance can often lead to trichloramlne formation: Some examples
-
26) Does monochtoramiiw cause digestive problems?
â‚¬ beltovos water disinfeCtBff with monochloramine that meats regulatory
standards has no known or anticipated adverse health effects. Inchding digestive
problems.
EPA's regulatory standard for monochloramine is based primarily on risk
assessments focused on drinking water.
EPA's standard for monochloramine is set at alevel where no digestive problems
are expected to occur.
EPA's regulatory standard for monochtoramine provides a wide margin of safety
to offset uncertainties In risk asiessrnents.
An important charactetWic of monoch/oramineIs any amount ingested quickly
leaves the body.
Monochloramineis broken down by saliva.
Monochloramine is neutralized by stomach acid.
Monochtoramlne leaves the body through human waste,
People who believe their digestive problems are related to monochloramine
should consult with their doctors.
The causes of digestive problems are often difficult to determine.
People who have digestive problems should informtheir doctors about what they
have drunk or eaten and about any unusual exposures to chemicals.
COC's investigation' of reports of monochloramine-relateddigestive problems
monochtofamine and health effects.
1. CDC and EPA conducted a preliminary investigation of reports of monochioramlne-related
digestive problems associated with drinking water. The Investigationconsisted of a
questionnaire filled out by complaintants. The information collected can be used to help
design future e~idamiol& studies. CDC's trio nsoort can be found at:
Water utilities typically monitor for problems caused by changes in water
- - ..-.--
. .
.
from monochloramine usa.
The presence of natural organic matter' in water may change the water
Water utilities monitor for changes in water aualik at-~cbe
jreelmept fa@l&iesL
-.
s
the
water
moves
-- ~eleted;chunfalry
Water utilities typically monitor for changes in water
through pipes.
an-:---
- i q
Water utilities may need to adjust their treatment processes for probiems caused
by changes in waterWrn.m#nochioramineu e ?
. - - . - - . -. . <6 Water utilities may need to adjust their treatment processes to reduce levels of
lead or other regulated contaminants to meet EPA regulations.
~ e l a t e d : ~ h s m w -,..
.
$3
.
4. EPA guidance to utilities on addressing corrosion issues is available at:
Deliberative draft - do not rite or distribute
28)Can my doctor tell if my health problems are caused by monmhlorami~eor
any disinfectant in drinking water?
A ductor would have difficultymaking a direct link befween a health problem and
momchiomnine or any disinfectant in drinking water.
People are exposed to many chemi$als and other irritants in their daily lives and
their sensNvity to these agents vary.
EPA1sdrinking water regulations limit the use of chloramines to levels where no
adverse health effectsare anticipated.
EPA's regulatov standard for chloramines in drinkhg water provides a wide
margin of safety to offset uncertainties in risk assessments.
EPA beIieves drinking water disinfected with monoch/oraminethat meets
rwguli~tmystandards poses no -knownor antidpat& adverse health probiems.
tsolated cases of health problems thought to be related to drinking water have
been reported and were investigated by CDC,
4
Ti'ichloramine+a chemical ihai may be formed in swimming pools2, has been
linked to skin irritation and breathing problems.
CDC's investigation1of reports of tnonochloramine-related breathhg problems
related to drinking water was unable to draw any conclusions about
mmochlomine and health effects.
'
Conhct your doctor if you think you have a health problem related to drinking
water use.
It is impoflant for your doctor to know where and how you believe you were
exposed to chlo~mines(e.g., via drinking water or a swimming pool)?
Health problems are typically highly diverse in ohgin, making it difficult for doctors
to specify exad causes.
Your doctor should discuss health problems hehhe believes may be related to
chlmmines In drinking water with the local health depattmeni.
Addithnal Suppotting Information:
I . CDC and EPA ~onduf3eda preliminary lnvestlgaiion of reports of moncchloramine-related
health problems assodated with ddriMg water. The iwestigation consisted of a quesiionnaire
filled out by canplaintants, Tbe information collected can be used to help design fmre
qId%m[ologl~
studies.
CDCs trip report can be found 8:
,.
.m
h ~ l h ~ ~ m o ~ . a w / a n v i ~ r m
l .~o
m
utn
esnmwt
t ~ 0I 1608mdf.
2. Improper p a l rnahtmmcecart d e n lead to trichlmmine formation: Some examples
Include: w . ~ & . a o v / n k ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ 7 4 1 6 3 - 3and
0 6 2 . ~ #
&
.
-&.
3. See qu6Mon 1 for a discussion of the different types ol chloramin~s.
DeIibemtive draft - do not cite or distribute
29) How can I remove monochlmmine from my drinking water?
â‚¬ b
d that drinkhg
~
~ water disinfected WMImonmhhamine that mwts
mguiatoty standads ia ~ i tobuse and it does not n& to k movedL
a EPA ddnkhg water regulaibns Ihit mnochloramine use to levels wbere no
adverse health effects are anticipated.
Water utilities must test drinking water regularly to make sure it is within EPA
regulatory limits.
EPA's regulatory standard for rnonochloramine in ddnking water provides a wide
margin of safely to offset uncertainties in risk assessments.
Monochlmmine can be mom difficult to mmwe from dthking water than
f
chbrlm.
a
Boiling water does not remove rnonochloratnhe from drinking water.
Letting water sit a! room temperature does not remove mono~hloraminefrom
drinking water.
Reverse osmosls filters2 wlll not remove rnonochlorarnhw from drinkhg water.
Cummerdai products am amMble that indicata they m o w momchhramine
from drhkhg water.
Commerchi products that remove monochloramine from drinking water often
contain certifications describing their effectiveness?
rn Some home treatment systems and water filters2 will remove monoch~oramine,
EPA does not teat or ceflify home treatment systems or filters2thal remove
monochhmmhe from drinking water.
'
Additional Stipporthg infomation:
1. See que&n 14 for Infomation on how EPA evaluated safety of monwhtommine use as a
drinking.water dlshfectant.
2. More infomation on cdfied devices for removing monochloramine is avaiIaHe at
www.nsf.0~and M . ~ . o Q . To be certifii, devices must dmonstrata at least an MOA
chlommines reduclion over the entire service cyzk of the filter.
Seo question 22 for information mgarding remwing monmhlomtnine for aquahum use.
h l i M v e draft - do not cite or distribute

Nfedifeswow ^wdfe. - Vermonters for a Clean Environment

Transcription

Similar documents

2016 Water Quality Bro-WEB

SOLIKLOOR

solikleen - Baltiachemi

the facts on naaqs

developing the first Hydrogen Peroxide based hospital grade

Welactin Canine Feline Sales Brochure TOTAL FILE SIZE

Video Naso-Pharyngoscope

Cartridge Specications and Performance D ata *Based on

Get MORE joy in your life with o3mega+ joy

sustainable supplier guide