Ju ly 2, 2012 State Water Resources Control Boar d

Public Comment
Recycled Water Policy
Deadline: 7/3/12 by 12 noon
7-3-12
July 2, 2012
Jeanine Tow nsend , Clerk to the Board
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street, 24th floor
Sacram ento, CA 95814
RE: Comment letter: Amendment to Recycled Water Policy
Send Via Em ail to: com m entletters@w aterboard s.ca.gov
Dear Chairm an H oppin and State Water Board Mem bers:
About our group….
RRWPC is a nonprofit public benefit organization incorporated in the State of
California since 1980. Our supporters includ e property and business ow ners,
resid ents, recreationists, and other concerned citizens in the lower river area
from H eald sburg to Jenner. They utilize the Russian River for recreation, fishing,
sw im m ing, artistic expression, spiritual w ell being, and exercise for them selves,
fam ily, friend s and pets. Many ow n property in the Russian River area for their
sum m er enjoym ent, but resid e and w ork in the greater Bay Area and beyond .
RRWPC’ s m ajor goal is to protect these beneficial uses from toxic d ischarges
that d eteriorate w ater quality and d eny or degrad e enjoym ent of the river and
harm the environm ent.
RRW PC’ s hist ory w it h and concerns about Recy cled W at er Policy ....
RRWPC subm itted lengthy com m ents to your Board on the Recycled Water
Policy on October 26, 2007, Septem ber 1, 2008, and Decem ber 22, 2008. In those
com m ent letters, w e ind icated significant concern about the ‘ incid ental runoff’
issue. Furtherm ore, we also subm itted extensive com m ents on the sam e issue to
the Regional Board for both their MS4 perm it review and revised p erm it review
processes, in ad d ition to their Basin Plan Am end m ent for low threat d ischarges.
We provid ed verbal testim ony at hearings as w ell, yet for the most part, our
concerns w ent unad d ressed .
At all tim es, our concerns w ere the sam e: w e consistently expressed trepid ations
about tertiary w astew ater runoff, especially into im paired w ater bod ies (in our
case the Laguna d e Santa Rosa and the Russian River). Furtherm ore, the runoff
w ould carry w ith it the herbicid es and pesticid es (end ocrine d isruptors) and
ad d ed soil am end m ents applied to land scape w hen creek flow s are low and
assim ilation of toxins poor.
The situation is com p licated by the tem porary authorization by your Board to
low er m inim u m flow s in the Russian River . The Sonom a County Water Agency
has applied for perm anent low ering of flow s in response to a Biological Opinion
that w as never vetted for environm ental im p acts. On the one hand ju stification
for expand ed irrigation w ith w astew ater is view ed partially as a w ay to save fish
suffering from too little flow , and on the other supposed ly im proving habitat by
low ering the flow s in the river to expand and d eepen a lagoon at the m outh.
This has all been d one w ith m inim al concern for the low er Russian River and its
w ater quality, its recreation and tourism , and its aquatic habitat and w ild life.
Ironically the North Coast Regional Board has w ritten a lengthy scoping letter
enum erating extensive concern about potential w ater quality im pacts resulting
from anticipated perm anent low flow s. If w ater quality is further exacerbated by
irrigation runoff, vacationers w ill be sw im m ing in a toxic stew . We im plore you
to not let this happen.
Ev en t he best irrigat ion sy st ems fail….
RRWPC filed tw o com plaints w ith the Regional Board in 2010 and 2012 about
irrigation runoff in Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa, includ ing m any pictures of the
m ultiple incid ents and locations. (Story and pictures of the Santa Rosa runoff can
be view ed at our w ebsite on hom e page at w w w .rrw pc.org) These w ere
repetitive events occurring over about three w eeks, and occurred in spite of the
fact that the City of Santa Rosa has prod uced a great d eal of inform ation to
irrigators about proper application of the w astew ater. Furtherm ore, they
claim ed to have spent a great d eal of tim e working w ith irrigators to teach them
the proper w ay to apply w astew ater. We believe that som e irrigators just w ant
to use the w ater and d on’ t w ant to be bothered w ith the regulations.
Regulatory enforcem ent m ust be a strong com ponent of this p olicy.
Incident al runoff and AB 2398….
2
The d efinition of “ incid ental runoff” in the Recycled Water Policy is, in our view ,
rather w eak. RRWPC recently provid ed extensive com m ents on AB 3298,
legislation crafted to im plem ent the Policy and assist in m eeting the State’ s goal
of irrigating 2.5 m illion acre feet a year of wastew ater by 2030. This Bill, w hich
cleared the Assem bly w ith flying colors but w ent now here in the Senate and is
now d ead for the year, d eclassified tertiary w astew ater as a w aste. (We are
concerned that the Bill w ill be back again next year in a sim ilar form .)
The legislation seriously d ow ngrad ed the m eaning of ‘ incid e ntal runoff’ in the
legislation. Our com m ents about AB 2398, contained in a letter to Senator
N oreen Evans states (p age 4: http:/ / w w w .rrw pc.org/ ?page_id =3368 ):
“ Sim ilarly, the follow ing statem ent is m ad e on page 32 u nd er (m): “ The
recycling of water, the supply, storage, or use of recycled water in accordance with the
requirements of this division shall not be considered a discharge of waste or sewage for
purposes of Section 13264 or 13271, or a nuisance, as defined in subdivision (m) of
Section 13050.” (Ou r read ing of these sections im p lies that becau se irrigated w ater is not
consid ered w aste, it d oesn ’ t fall u nd er the regu lations governing ru noff. So by sim p ly d eclaring
som ething is N OT a w aste, w ith no bu rd on of p roof to d em onstrate that fact, en orm ou s
environm ental harm can occu r by allow ing large am ou nts of ru n off.)
Put another w ay, it d efines sew age as (ad equately) treated w astewater, but then
states that this sew age/ treated w astew ater d oes not includ e recycled w ater. Put
another w ay, Section 13050 of the Water Cod e it states (n): “ Recycled W ater”
means water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use
or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore a considered a
valuable resource.”
The question remains, how can “ recycled w ater” be treated differently than
treated sew age (w astew ater) w hen the definition, based on treatment
methodology is the same for both? And, because the treated sew age is
designated as recycled w ater, w hich is a high use, therefore it is safe.”
In ad d ition, there are inconsistencies regard ing reporting lim it triggers, w hich
includ e the follow ing:
Report any runoff that occurs as soon as it is know n,
Report 1000 gallons or m ore of runoff,
OR report after 50,000 gallons have run off.
(RRWPC letter to Senator Evans p rovid es m ore d etailed inform ation on these triggers .) These
are problem s that should be cleared up in the Policy.
Recy cled W at er Policy Amendment s…
The principal su bject for d iscussion here is the propo sed am end m ents to this
3
policy. For the m ost part, these am end m ents are based on find ings by the
Scientific Panel established u nd er the Recycled Water Policy to m ake
recom m end ations on the m onitoring of Contam inants of Emerging Concern
(CEC’ s). They conclud ed that “ ….monitoring of individual CECs is not proposed
for recycled water used for landscape irrigation, although monitoring of some parameters
is proposed.” (p age 2 of State notice on this am end m ent )
The Panel’ s Report on CECs w as released on June 25, 2010. A hearing on its
find ings w as held on Decem ber 15, 2010. RRWPC looked at the report and sad ly
found it w ay beyond our expertise to com m ent on. Sim ilarly, w e d id not subm it
com m ents and / or attend the hearing either for the sam e reason. We had b een
follow ing articles on the risks of end ocrine d isruption for both hum ans and
w ild life, but d id not feel w e could ad d ress the highly technical find ings of the
Report.
Yet w e have follow ed the extensive com m ents of Lind a Sheehan of California
Coastkeeper Alliance and others on this issue. We have been extrem ely
im pressed w ith her characterization of the problem and are in total agreem ent
w ith her concerns. On January 10, 2011 she subm itted a letter to your Board on
the CEC Monitoring for Recycled Water. We especially share her concerns about
the general lack of add ressing im pacts to w ild life in these policies ( AB 2398 also
shared the sam e w eakness .) She expresses the follow ing im portant concerns:
Extrem ely lim ited set of monitoring proxies
Concern about d eference to CDPH
Public’ s relative ignorance about far reaching im pacts of these chem icals
Monitoring m ajor focus on hum an health im pacts
Ms. Sheehan calls for d evelopm ent of stand ard ized interim list of CECs to be
m onitored that includ es treatm ent p lant efforts to id entify appropriate CECs for
freshw ater eco-toxicological concerns. With this w e fully agree. In regard to the
m onitoring recom m end ed in the Stud y, she states on page 4 of her com m ents,
“ However, the final Panel recommendations are completely inappropriate in light of the
data and fail to meet the requirements or goals of the Recycled W ater Policy. For
example, the Panel did not expressly acknowledge the fact that discharge of recycled
water to receiving waters occurs on a daily basis, ……or that many northern California
streams that may receive recycled water effluent interact regularly and closely with
groundwater. A s such, the importance of including monitoring recommendations for
those CECs that potentially pose a risk to aquatic life and ecosystems is absolutely
critical. By failing to recommend a robust monitoring program even in the short-term in
light of this dearth of data, the Report will only delay the increased, safe use of recycled
water that California needs to ensure a sustainable water future.” She goes on to
4
recom m end specific ad d itional m onitoring which w e support.
New informat ion should be considered in t his process…..
RRWPC learned about AB 2398 on March 15 th , 2012. We quickly read the
proposed legislation and back up m aterials and su bm itted com m ents as to our
concerns about the far reaching im plications of the Bill. About this tim e, w e also
learned about a new scientific stud y that had recently been released that justifies
revisiting the basic assum ptions behind this Panel’ s Report. These incorrect
assum ptions form the basis not only for this Recycled Water Policy Am end m ent,
but for AB 2398 as w ell. We subm itted comm ents and a copy of the stud y to the
Assem bly Com m ittee on Water, Parks, and Wild life at their hearing in
Sacram ento on March 20, 2012.
The stud y is entitled Hormones and Endocrine-D isrupting Chemicals: Low D ose Effects and N onmonotonic D ose Responses, d eveloped and w ritten by
Laura N . Vand enberg, Theo Colborn, Tyrone B. H ayes, Jerrold J. H eind el, Dav id
R. Jacobs, Jr., Duk-H ee Lee, Toshi Shiod a, Ana M. Soto, Fred erick S. von Saal,
Wad e V. Welshones, R. Thom as Zoeller, and John Peterson Myers, to the
Assem bly com m ittee. We w ere later told that the Stud y could not be entered
into the record becau se of copy w rite requ irem ents. We have since received
authorization from Tasha McKenzie of The End ocrine Society to reprod uce this
d ocum ent. We attached the em ail granting perm ission to this com m ent letter. It
also contains the nam e and contact em ail of the person granting the perm ission
in case you w ant further d ocum entation on this.
The Scientific Panel failed to address the issue of low dose responses to
endocrine disrupting chemicals. While this stud y had been released in March of
this year, m any/ m ost of the authors listed above have been w orking on these
problem s for m any years. In particular, Theo Colborn ’ s and Tyrone H ayes’ s
w orks have been extensively pu blicized in the m ed ia for a very long tim e.
(RRWPC held an all d ay conference on the issue in May, 1995 w here Dr. Colborn
appeared and m ad e a presentation.)
The January/ February issue of Mother Jones (page 44) carried a lengthy article
entitled The Frog of W ar, about Dr. Tyrone H aye’ s w ork w ith frogs. H e
d iscovered that levels of atrazine in the parts per billion range (below w hat is
consid ered safe for hu m ans) caused significant alterations in their sexual m ake
up. In other w ord s, m ale frogs d eveloped ovaries, and fem ales d eveloped
aggressive,
d om inant
behavior.
(H ere’ s
link
to
article:
http:/ / m .m otherjones.com / environm ent/ 2011/ 11/ tyrone-hayes-atrazinesyngenta-feud -frog-end angered
We have m any articles on this topic, but realized that p rovid ing your Board w ith
a stack of papers w ould probably not serve the purpose w e hope to accom plish.
5
So w e approached the lead author of the Stud y, Dr. Laura Vand enburg and told
her about the N otice of the A mendment to the Recycled W ater Policy. She agreed to
w rite a letter about low d ose affects and inform ed m e that she has su bm itted it,
along w ith an article w ritten by herself entitled , “ Environmental Chemicals, Large
Effects from Low Doses” published in “ San Francisco M edicine” June 2012.
Dr. Vand enburg is an acad em ic scientist w ho has w orked on issues related to
end ocrine d isruption for the last nine years. She has pu blished m ore than 25
peer review ed stud ies and has served on expert scientific and risk assessm ent
panel in the US and Eu rope. The above m entioned stud y on low d ose effects had
her w orking w ith eleven of the top scientists in the field , w ho together had
published over 1000 stud ies on environm ental chem icals.
The group exam ined over 800 stud ies d uring a three year period and (page 2 of
Dr. Vand enburg’ s letter to the Board ) “ ….concluded t hat t here w as clear and
consist ent ev idence t hat a large number of EDCs hav e effect s at low
doses….These chemicals include herbicides, insect icides, fungicides, preserv at iv es,
indust rial chemicals, surfact ant s, plast iciz ers, pharmaceut icals, flame
ret ardant s, and ant i-bact erial agent s, among ot hers.” (em phasis ad d ed )
H er com m ents are pow erful. She ad d s, “ The concept of low dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses is not at t he fringe of science. The Endocrine Society, the
world’ s largest professional association of clinical and research endocrinologists, has
released two recent statements regarding EDCs, and has repeatedly reiterated the
conclusion that low doses of EDCs are harmful to humans and wildlfe. This conclusion
has widespread acceptance in the field of endocrinology due to the strength of the
published data.”
She also expressed these and other view s in an article entitled : “ O pinion: ‘ There
are no safe doses for endocrine disrupt ors” appearing in the 5/ 26/ 12 issue of
Environm ental H ealth N ew s.
http:/ / w w w .environm entalhealthnew s.org/ ehs/ new s/ 2012/ opinion -end ocrined isruptors-low -level-effects)
She states, “ Hundreds of studies have examined people from the general population and
found associations between low levels of hormone-altering compounds and infertility,
cardiovascular disease, obesity, abnormal bone health, cancer and other diseases.”
It appears as though the State is consid ering setting up a new Science Panel to
ad d ress these issues. We suggest that Dr. Vand enburg be invited to sit on the
Panel. In the event she cannot d o that, I w ould suggest that at le ast one, if not
m ore, of the eleven others w ho participated in the Low Dose Effects stud y be
invited instead .
In light of this inform ation, the issue of “ incid ental runoff” becom es far m ore
significant than w hat is consid ered in the Recycled Water Policy. N ot only is the
6
applied w astew ater liable to contain at least trace am ounts of these chem icals,
but the prolific use of w eed killers and other toxic applications to land scapes and
agricultural areas m ay be the d eath knell of m any species resulting from
allow ing runoff into w ater w ays.
Issue get t ing w idespread at t ent ion by media….
This issue is receiving m ore and m ore attention in the m ain stream m ed ia. Only
tod ay (July 1, 2012) in the Sund ay Press Dem ocrat on page B9, there is an article
entitled “ W hat is st ealing childhood y ears?” by David Sortino.
(http:/ / w w w .pressd em ocrat.com / article/ 20120630/ OPIN ION / 120629413/ 1307
/ opinion?tem plate=printart ) In it he refers to early onset of puberty in young
girls. H e specifically m entioned horm ones used in cattle beef as perhaps being
one of the culprits. H e also talks about m any other environm ental toxins w hich
“ …act as horm one-d isruptors.”
N ickolas D. Kristof, synd icated colum nist for the N ew York Tim es, w hose
articles also appear in our local Press Dem ocrat and probably m any other
California
new spapers,
w rote
“ How
Chemicals
Affect
Us”
http:/ / w w w .nytim es.com / 2012/ 05/ 03/ opinion/ kristof-how -chem icals-changeus.htm l that appeared in the N ew York Tim es on May 2, 2012. In that article he
talked about m ultisexual frogs exposed to Atrazine. H e m akes the po w erful
observation in his appeal for regulation of these toxins, “ Shouldn’ t our
government be as vigilant about threats in our grocery stores as in the mountains of
A fghanistan?”
N ick Kristof had w ritten another colum n in the June 28, 2009 issue of the N ew
York Tim es entitled “ It ’ s Time t o Learn From Frogs” ,
http:/ / w w w .nytim es.com / 2009/ 06/ 28/ opinion/ 28kristof.htm l?_r=1 w here he
also m entions the trans sexual nature of fish as w ell as fro gs w ho are exposed to
end ocrine d isrupting chem icals. H e also allu d es to sexual anom olies in 1% of
hum an m ale new borns having the birth d efect entitled hypospad ias, in w hich,
“ …the urethra exits the penis improperly, such as at the base rather than the tip.”
There is a clear, non-technical explanation of this by Dr. Theo Colborn in her
vid eo, “ The Male Predicament ” available at her w ebsite:
http:/ / w w w .end ocrined isruption.com / end ocrine.m ale.php
Dr. Vand enburg m entioned the ed itorial article by Lind a S. Birnbau m , d irector of
the N ational Institutes of H ealth, Departm ent of H ealth and H um an Services,
entitled Env ironment al Chemicals: Ev aluat ing Low -Dose Effect s.
http:/ / ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/ article/ fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Ad oi%
2F10.1289%2Fehp.1205179 This ed itorial w as d ated March 14, 2012. Dr.
Birnbaum is the author of over 700 peer review ed publications, book chapters,
7
abstracts, and reports. She states: “ Thus, human exposures to thousands of
environmental chemicals fall in the range of nonnegligible doses that are thought to be
safe from a risk assessment perspective. Y et the ever-increasing data from human
biomonitoring and epidemiological studies suggests otherwise: Low internal doses of
endocrine disruptors found in typical human populations have been linked to obesity,…
infertility,… neurobehavioral disorders,…..and immune dysfunction,…among others.”
Som e other recent articles includ e:
“ Low doses, big effect s: Scient ist s seek ‘ fundamant al changes’ in t est ing,
regulat ion of hormone-like chemicals” by Marla Cone, Ed itor in Chief,
Environm ental H ealth N ew s on March 15, 2012.
http:/ / end ocrined isruption.us2.listm anage.com / track/ click?u=10e84a56c4886d1bc606f4725&id=1d e66cf02d&e=28a090794e
She states (after sum m arizing m ost of the points m ad e in Dr. Vand enburg’ s
com m ent letter): “ The breast cancer drug tamoxifen “ provides an excellent example
for how high-dose testing cannot be used to predict the effects of low doses,” since breast
cancer grow th is stim ulated at low d oses and restrained at higher d oses.
Therefore, for those w hose breast cancers are horm one sensitive, the d rug is
often prescribed for breast cancer patients in high d oses.
“ Scient ist s W arn of Low -Dose Risks of Chemical Exposure”
http:/ / end ocrined isruption.us2.listm anage.com / track/ click?u=10e84a56c4886d1bc606f4725&id=d 3d c6fad 9f&e=28a090794e
is an report that appeared in YALE Environm ent 360 on March 19, 2012 and
w ritten by Elizabeth Grossm an. She is the au thor of Chasing M olecules: Poisonous
Products, Human Health, and the Promise of Green Chemistry, High Tech Trash:
Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health, and other books. Her w ork has
appeared in Scientific A merican, Salon, The W ashington Post, The N ation, M other
Jones, Grist, and other publications.
She states: “ Thomas Z oeller, a University of M assachusetts biologist and paper coauthor, said that regulatory testing of chemicals for endocrine-disrupting impacts lags
behind the growing evidence of the compounds’ health effects, particularly at levels to
which people are routinely exposed. “ There is a very large disconnect between
regulatory toxicology and the modern science of endocrinology that is defining these
issues,” said Z oeller.”
More inform ation on end ocrine
w w w .end ocrined isruption.org .
d isrupting
chem icals
can
be
found
at
There is one final article w e w ill m ention entitled “ Key O fficials Grapple W it h W ays To
8
Speed Endocrine Science in Decisions” w ritten by Pete Myers (lead scientist of th e 12
authors of the Stud y) and posted on May 18, 2012 in “ Inside EPA” .
(John) “ Kerry’ s comments suggest he fears a long road remains to finding enough political
support for restricting the use of chemicals that a growing number of scientists say mimic and
interfere with hormones, creating developmental problems in humans that do not often manifest
until later in life and whose potential effects often are missed by traditional toxicological
methods.”
And then: “ But N IEHS Director (see above) Linda Birnbaum, one of the panelists, told Kerry
that endocrine disruption data continue to accumulate and that the absence of perfect knowledge
shouldn’ t justify inaction.” She said , “ Science is never certain. It’ s constantly advancing
and constantly moving forward. If we try to wait until we have 100% certainty, we’ re never
going to do anything.”
Finally, in m y ow n com m ents to the Water Board on the Recycled Water Policy, w ritten
on Decem ber 22, 2008, I note num erous other stu d ies (pages 5-9) and articles current at
that tim e 3.5 years ago. I resubm it them here for their historical value.
I w ill close w ith a quote from Theo Colborn, the Rachel Carson of our tim e, w hich
appeared in Elizabeth Grossm an’ s article quoted above. In reference to the recent
stud y on low d ose effects of end ocrine d isrupting ch em icals, she said :
“ I hope t hat t his paper opens t he door t o t he realiz at ion t hat t he endocrine sy st em is
t he ov erarching cont rol sy st em of all ot her body sy st ems…..It cont rols how w e dev elop,
funct ion, and reproduce from t he moment w e are conceived---in ot her w ords, t he qualit y
of our liv es and our exist ence.”
Please take this information to heart and address these issues as you contemplate the
Amendment to the Recycled Water Policy.
Sincerely,
Brend a Ad elm an
RRWPC
9
RE: Comment letter: Amendment to Recycled Water Policy: References
Send Via Email to: comm entletters@w aterboard s.ca.gov on July 1, 2012
References (organized by ord er on page):
(References in red have links to d ocum ent in bod y of com m ents and in these references;
others are attached and sent by em ail.)
Page 2:
Ad elm an, Brend a, Letter to N oreen Evans regard ing AB 2398: Recycled Water Bill
(http:/ / w w w .rrw pc.org/ ?page_id=3368)
Page 3:
Sheehan, Lind a, et. al., Com m ent Letter: CEC Monitoring for Recycled Water, January 10,
2011.
Page 4:
Vand enberg, Laura, et.al. Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects
and N onmonotonic Dose Responses, End ocrine Review s, 2012. 33(3) p. 378-455
McKenzie, Tasha M., Email granting perm ission to use stud y, The End ocrine Society
Page 5:
Slater, Dashka, The Frogs of W ar, Mother Jones, January/ February 2012, pages 44-49, 67
http :/ / m .m otherjones.com / environm ent/ 2011/ 11/ tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngentafeud -frog-end angered
Vand enberg, Laura, Com m ent Letter to State Board : Am end m ent to Recycled Water
Policy
Vand enberg, Laura et.al., Environmental Chemicals: Large Effects from Low Doses, San
Francisco Med icine, June 2012
Vand enberg, Laura, Opinion: ‘There are no safe doses for endocrine disruptors’ ,
Environm ental H ealth N ew s, March 15, 2012
http:/ / w w w .environm entalhealthnew s.org/ ehs/ new s/ 2012/ opinion -end ocrined isruptors-low -level-effects)
Page 6:
Sortino, David , What is stealing child hood years? Press Dem ocrat, July 1, 2012
http:/ / w w w .pressd em ocrat.com / article/ 20120630/ OPIN ION / 120629413/ 1307/ opinio
n?tem plate=printart
Kristof, N ickolas D., How Chemicals A ffect Us, N ew York Tim es, May 2, 2012
http:/ / w w w .nytim es.com / 2012/ 05/ 03/ opinion/ kristof-how -chem icals-change-us.htm l
Kristof, N ickolas D., It’ s Time to Learn From Frogs, N ew York Tim es, June 28, 2009
http:/ / w w w .nytim es.com / 2009/ 06/ 28/ opinion/ 28kristof.htm l?_r=1
Colborn , Theo, The M ale Predicament (vid eo), The End ocrine Disruption Exchange
http:/ / w w w .end ocrined isruption.com / end ocrine.m ale.php
Page 7:
Birnbaum , Lind a S., Editorial: Environmental Chemicals: Evaluating Low-Dose Effects,
Environm ental H ealth Perspectives, 120:a143-a144
http:/ / w w w .environm entalhealthnew s.org/ ehs/ new s/ 2012/ opinion -end ocrined isruptors-low -level-effects)
Cone, Marla, “ Low doses, big effects: Scientists seek ‘fundamantal changes’ in testing,
regulation of hormone-like chemicals” , Environm ental H ealth N ew s on March 15, 2012.
http:/ / end ocrined isruption.us2.listm anage.com / track/ click?u=10e84a56c4886d1bc606f4725&id=1d e66cf02d&e=28a090794e
Grossm an, Elizabeth, “ Scientists W arn of Low-Dose Risks of Chemical Exposure” , YALE
Environm ent 360, March 19, 2012
http:/ / end ocrined isruption.us2.listm anage.com / track/ click?u=10e84a56c4886d1bc606f4725&id=d 3d c6fad 9f&e=28a090794e
Page 8:
Myers, Peter, Key Officials Grapple W ith W ays To Speed Endocrine Science in Decisions” ,
Insid e EPA
Ad elm an, Brend a, Com m ents to Water Board on Recycled Water Policy, Decem ber 22,
2008
8EB':ff":'il?#T:i:?
{-4
Deadtine:1110t11
by 12 noon
n&'"i2
CA't.: i":ifii'j lA
COASTI(aEPER
ALLIANCE
Heelihe Bav
January10,201I
CharlieHoppin,Chair and Board Members
StateWater ResourcesControl Board
1001I Street
Sacramento,
CA 95814
c/o JeanineTownsend,Clerk to the Board
Via EI ectr on ic Mai l: commentletters@waterboards.
ca.gov
Re:
JAN 1 0 2011
D
SWRCB
EXECUTIVE
CommentLetter: CEC Monitoring for RecycledV/ater
Dear Chair Hoppin andMembersof the Board:
The CaliforniaCoastkeeperAlliance (CCKA), which representsCalifornia's 12 Waterkeeper
organizations,and Heal the Bay are StakeholderAdvisors to the "Advisory Panel for CECs in Recycled
'Water,"
and were active membersof the drafting group for the StateWater ResourcesControl Board's
RecycledWaterPolicy (Policy). On behalfof CCKA andHeal the Bay, we welcomethe opportunityto
provide thesecommentson the StateWater Resor.rcesConhol Board's StaffReport, Constituentsof
EmergtngConcern (CECI Monitoringfor RecycledWater(November 8, 2010) (Staff Report). Many of
thesecommentsalso relate the Panel's Final Report,Monitoring Strategiesfor Chemicalsof Emerging
Concern(CEC| in Recycled W'ater:Recommendations
of a ScienceAdvisory Panel (June 25,z}rc)
(PanelReport). We also incorporateby referenceour letter submittedto the StateBoard on May 14,2010
on the previousdraft of the CEC Advisory Panel'sRecomrnendations,(Monitoring Strategiesfor
Chemicalsof Emerging Concern (CECI in RecycledWater: Recommendationsof a ScienceAdvisory
Panel (April 15, 2010)).
In brief, we disagreewith the proposed,exfremelylimited set of monitoring proxies,which will
fail to build the databaseof information neededto developsound CEC standardsthat protect water quality
and advancepublic acceptanceof the increaseduseof recycledwater. The Staff Report recommends
only four health-basedCECs and four different performance-based
indicator CECs. While the Panel
makesscientific argumentsin supportof this abbreviatedlist (as comparedwith the thousandsof CECs
potentially being discharged),it ignoresthe larger policy implications of a short-circuitedmonitoring
programin terms of retarding public good will toward the safeuse of recycledwater. The list should be
expanded,as we have arguedconsistenfly,to build scientificcredibility and to assuagepublic concerns.t
' For example,
at least one water disfict scientist raised questionsabout the selection of caffeine as a tracer since it
is comparativelyubiquitous. (Personalconversationwith OCWD Laboratory Dirrctor, Septenaber
27,z}rc) It was
noted that some of the anti-epilepsymedicatioirssuchas carbamazepineand primidone are pa*icularly stable
moleculesthat do not w:Ix and wane lfl<eother markers,and would likely be better selections. Id Gadolinium was
also mentionedas a potentially useful tracer for thesereasons.Id. Seea/so Guo, Y. C. and lftasner, S. W. (2009),
"Occurrence of Primidone, Carbamazepine,Caffeine, and Precursorsfor.l/Nitrosodimethylamine in Drinking
Water SourcesImpactedby Wastewater,"JAWM Journal of theAuerican Water ResourcesAssociqtion,45: 5F
67. doi: l0.l I ll/j.1752-1688.2008-00289.x,
abstractand full article availableac
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/dqii
10.1I I lfi.17i2-1688.2008.002S9.X/abstract.
In this study "[w]astewaterimpact
on drinking water sowceswas assessedusing severalapproaches,including analysisof three pharmaceuticalsand
by GDPH;we supportthe
The staff Reportdoesproposeto acceptthe list of cECs recommended
10.(aXl) statesthat "all usesof
additionof thesemonitoringpaftuneters.Recycledwater Policy Section
that the commentersat the
understanding
recycledwatermustmeetconditionssetby cbpu.' It is our
urged
questionswith regardto GDPH supportfor theseadditionalparameters,and
ilffi;.;ist,.ir.a
We
framework'
compo*frr be revisitedthroughthe Panel'srisk-based
that the CDpH-recommended
would
who
those
on
policy's deferenceto CppH placesthe burden
would arguethat the RecycledwaL
is
evidencethat suchweakening
weakenthe CDpH requirementsto pmvide clearand convincing
unsupportedbY scienceor noficV,
CECswill require
As RecycledWater policy section 1O.(a)(a)states,"[r]egulatingmost
how and at what level
as
to
altetminutions
specific
significantwork to developtest methodsandmore
that many membersof
experience
direct
our
been
It
has
cECs impact public healthor our environment."
aboutthe fact that their regulatory
the public care significantly about this issue. They are concerned
havebeentaking little meaningful
they
that
and
agenciesappearto be still unawareof rhe risks of cECs,
of coursesupportadditional
would
we
gaps.2
While
action to redresstheseinformational and regulatory
it recomrnends'we
parameters
monitoring
cDpH information on the reasoningfor tnJcnoi".r orin.
on this process
simply
health
public
that bettersafeguard
*o"rJoppose eliminatingrecommJndations
be tackled
must
CECs
of
impacts
poiential
issue. If California is to advancerecycledwater use,the
for failure to
CDPH
of
recommendations
assertively.This will not be accompiirn"aby brushinguiid" the
health,and
public
of
protective
may be more
follow the panel,slead,wherethe CDPH recommendations
in its
backward
state
the
moving
risk
of
more representativeof treatmentefficacy. Indeed,this runs the
now
in
monitoring
Investment
futureuse of recycledwater, which is critical to the state'swater supply
good
toward
will
public
and
will reap significant dividendsin both scientific understandingof cECs
recycled water usein the future.
with the Report's focus on
As we have statedppeatedly in the past,we also sfiongly disagree
This approachdirectly conbadicts
*onito*r! solely for the purposeof ass"ssinghumanhealth impacts.
Th: initial list of
assessmen6.3
the Recycledwater policy,s cleardirectionto includeecological
minimum, thosecECs for which ecocompoundsto be monitoredshouldbe expandedto include,at a
goal of increasingthe useof recycled
toxicity datais currentlyavailable. It alsocontradictsthe Policy's
by the Panel' making
water significantly beyondthe currentenvironmentalconditionsexamined
foundationalmonitoring all the more important
, Severelylimiting recommendedrnonitoring as proposedin the PanelReport will reduce,rather
water- It alsowill delay effectiveaction
than encourage,Californians,confidencein the usJof r.ry.l"d
to the goals of the RecycledWater
to prevent potential public health and ecologicalimpacts,contrary
personalcareproducts@PcPs)-primidone,carbamazepg'lT1'1*T::i:Ti:::'f:iJl1"*:,T*t:,shoruing
that
" Id. (errryhasisadded).
and Environment, "Endocrine Disrupting
Enelgy
on
e Subcomm-ittee
.
An 1n\
:-f^-^+:^-
information
(Hearing
Feb-25,2010),
HealthandtheEnvironment"
iltr*r-roHuman
d#[Jr"##ilil;v";*7
. Seea/soBergesonand
ct^
available at:
jg^^
2010),availableat:
@
l';;;;:;.,"ri|i.i"a
-I-^
E)^-^^-an
on
in Drinkingwatef'(lvlarchI'
tingctremicals
bffffifi.H'o
ilili,ffi'iiffi;l
-
L^1J^
Lo^*i-n-nn-onrlnnrinp-
the
criticized
merrben
"subcommittee
, ttr-e
Endocrine Disruptor ScreeningProgram!')'
wi*
F;n*
r;c. l0OX2) t"rnr p*"1 shallreviewthe scientificliteratureand,within one
sat.w.:'^TTi.To^^.,y:i:::ti,::-::Hi?:*1"^:l
,lli'{,!;'il;#;ffi;ffir-#;;#.;*",n. constitults.to
pubrictltr
ftl#;Ttlffiirffi#"ffffi;il;$;;'s,"s
rr?
r
6
- -
^l
--l
l-il\T)f
f
J^^-il{i*n
+lto
nrrr.r.cnf
cfafe
i
?*,:yyerf),(emPtasis
":!,h:
workto
significant
require
will
mostcECs
sec.td(axa)fRegulating
f;;;i;-*;r*I"ii"y,
ffi#:},"j;
, r 'r ^- -^l rar:fr^
:*-^^+
^..Llia
haql*l'r
n
orour
public
health
impact
cEcs
astolow *o utwhatlevel
-fi #r#;ffi;;rp*inia"**inations
ffii;
environment'').
^n^
- ---:tl
--
---:.^
-:-:Saan*
rtr^Jz
in
Policy' A monitoringprogram,particularlywhen usedas a shorter-termregulatory
screeningtool,
necessarilymust eff on the side of comprehensiveness.
The lack of datais no .*rur. to not includean
appropriateconstituentat this early stageof CEC monitoring programs. It
is the follow-up regulatory
effort, and associatedlonger-termmonitoringpro$am, thatilay 6, ror. circumscribed,y'called
for
basedon sufficientlycornprehensive
initial monitoringandanaiysis.
Given that our organizationsinvestedheavily in the developmentof the policy with
the goal of
increasingrecycledwater usecansistent with state and
federal watir qualiry laws,we urge that the Staff
Reportbe revisedto recomrnendan initiat screeningperiodof monitodng, over
threeyears,that includes
the full list of CECs in Tables8-l and 8.2 of the panetReport(PanelReport
at 64,66),andany additional
'
---^-
t"lT,Ti"T-tt frot.TableD-l . Monitoring
forthislistwiil furbenerensure
rheprotection
of
lllltlTi:
tfrl e.nvilonment,
as
envision.Juy
thePolicy.Also,it wil provide
thepubticwith
1"^1i:Yl:i]11-o
t,
rr
vlvvlrvl
surveyof the CEC monitoringsectionsof all of the NPDESpermitsin
the statewould be usefulin
interimlist of CECs.tobemonitoied.rheseinterimlistsshoutdberequired
l:l:9li1s^::l::gdiled
discharges,
astheeffortsto createa marinecEC monitoringprogramwill
3: *i:t:!:::Z:4marine
not
be completedfor at leasta year,a
vv
and
I vYsrrvl
o
Again, this is flafly inconsistentwith the Recycledwater
Policy.
Thesecommentsire discussedfirther below, alongwith additionalpoints.
The Recycled Wrter Poticy calts for Broad Consideration of Monitoring
- --E -Needs in the Contert of
Protecting Human Heatth and the Environment
The RecycledV/ater Policy establishedthe CEC Advisory Panelfor the purpose ..describing
of
the cwrent stateof scientific knowledgeregardingthe rjsks of emerging
constituentsto public health and
'!::::':::':::
::yo.h:'^:d.d.dl]*
rvvv','v'r'r
"recommend
actions
oelrvrrD
that
ur'lt the
urs state
Dl4Le or
of
.v
It4vetv
,avqbaft
I
Recycledwarerpolicy iurtle. calledon thepanel,sRepormo
california should
ualfiornta
shouldtake
take to
to improve
i
our understanding of emerging
constituents"because"[r]egulating most cECs will require. . . *or"
more specificdeterminationsas to how
and at what level CECs impact public healthor our environment." This
mandatewas directedat an
expertPanelbecause,as the Report notes,"[t]here needsto be additional
research. . . to determine
potential environmentaland public health impacts." (Emphasis
added.) This researchis fi.yt1rerneeded
to implementthe RecycledWater Policy's diiection to aginciesto'.minimize
the likelihood of CECs
impacting hwnon health and the environmentby meansof sourcecontrol
and/orpollution prevention
programs." (Emphasisadded.)
In the context of theseoverarchingmandatesto ensure'protectionof both
humanhealth and the
environment,the Recycled water policy directedthe panel u, follo*.,
(a) The panel report shall answerthe following questions:What
are the appropriateconstituents
to be monitoredin recycledwater, includinganalyticalmethodsand
methoddetectionlimits?
What is the known toxicological information for ihe aboveconstituents?
Would the above lists
changebasedon level oftreatrnent and use?If so, how? What are possible
indicatorsthat
o SCCWRP,
"Project Advisory Panel for CECs in Coastaland Marine Ecosystems,,,avaiiable
at:
aspx (given that according to the public schedole,ttte Panel ir *chedul"d
to complete a Final Report by mid-June,
widespread stateadoption of some or all of its recornmendations
will take monthi more, as the current process is
demonsfating).
representa suiteof CECs?What levelsof CECsshouldtrigger enhancedmonitoringof CECsin
recycledwater, groundwaterand/orsurfacewaters?
As notedabove,the Panelwas chargedwith answeringeachof thesequestionsfor both human healthand
environrnentalperspectives,
keepingin mind the overarchinggoal of increaseduseof recycledwater
consistentwith water quality laws. The dearthof monitoring datato dateand lack of consumer
confidencein recycledwater quality havebeenimpedimentsto moving forward on recycledwateruse
and developmentof the associatedCEC standards.
The processthat the Panelwent throughto look at the currentinformationon CECs- examining
existingmonitoringdata,analyticalmethodsandrisk (toxicity and exposure)in a systematicmanner- is
a logical approach. The PanelReport servesas a good referenceon the stateof CEC regulation,human
health(thoughnot environmental)risks,and effluentmonitoring- Further,the analysisthat was
completedto developthe final list of CECsmay proveto be of value for determiningwhich CECsshould
be looked at more carefully for regulationin the futtne.
However, the final Panelrecommendationsare completely inappropriatein light of the dataand
fail to meetthe requirementsor goalsof the RecycledWaterPolicy. Forexample,the paneldid not
expresslyacknowledgethe fact that dischargeof recycledwater to receiving watersoccurson a daily
basis,that many streamsin southernCalifornia are effluent-dominatedstreamswith 80-95% of dry
weatherflows coming from recycledwater discharges,or that many northernCalifornia streamsthat may
receiverecycledwater ef,fluentinteractregularly and closely with groundwater. As suc[ the importance
of including monitoring recommendationsfor thoseCECs that potintially posea risk to aquaticiif" *a
ecosystemsis absolutelycritical. By failing to recommenda robust monitoring program
in the
"u.n
short-termin light of this dearthof data,the Reportwill only delay the increat"d, suf. use
of recycled
water that California needsto ensurea sustainablewater future. The StateBoard should supplementthe
interim list of CECsto be monitoredby looking at availableeco-toxicitydata. Those.onstituentsthat are
toxic to aquaticlife shouldbe includedon an interim CEC monitoringlist. Theseadditionswill provide
water boardswith essentialnew information to betterunderstandthe potential aquatic life impacis of
CECs. For instance,pyrethroidsare notably absentfrom the Table I of the Staffneport, yeithey have
beenshownby SCCWRPto be a predominantcauseof toxicity in waterbodiessuchasgaitona ireek.
The Sbte Board Must Provide a Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy That Witl llelp Guide Future
Regulatory Efiorts That Protsct Both Human and Environmentel Ilealth
The RecycledWater Policy recognizedthe needfor further researchto determine"how and at
what level CECs impactpublic healthor our environment,"in order to guidefuture regulationof CECs.
The Recycled$/ater Policy in fact createdthe Panelwith this uncertaintyin mind. Given that the panel
reviewed existing information basedon ongoing,relatively limited use of recycled water, we strongly
disagreewith the recommendedmonitoring regime of only a small set of CECs, particularly given that
they wereselectedbasedon humanhealthconcerns,ratherthan consideringboti humanandicological
health concerns. Such an extremely limited monitoring regime will fail to satisff the researchneedsof
the regulatoryeffiortreferencedin the Policy, will fail to provide the public confidencein the use of
recycledwater neededto ensurea reliable water supply statewide,aod will fail to protect the health of the
environmentin the eventthat recycled water is usedin the surroundingenviron.ent more extensively
than examinedby the Panel.
As hasbeenrepeatedlyarticulatedby our organizationsand supportedin the scientific literature,
CECs ar€ a growing problem in aquaticenvironments,and will only increasein significanceif recycled
water is usedmore widely unlessappropriatesafeguardsare put in place. The Panelitself acknowledged
that 'oreusepracticesengageconventionaland advancedwater treahnentprocessesthat result in very
a!37);resurrs
thatcourd
have
markedry
varying
i*"::::T:i*::Yl::t*:;,rl1"l*"0?*
thatyou.ldgo unexamined
underthe
v qrJ
vrJ
:Tt:lT:i!
trr6r
monitoringframeworkrecommended
in rhe
i*pacts
esfuari
il,il ;;;.; ie*;i#il.iT; iiliffi:i
y::::i:,y".: *ut3,,
*:*r:::l':?:'..."1
9s,
trt urs
.f alt ttall (t
:?X1?:^"*":3ilt:Y::T:i
sciJnce
Advisory
i" l*"".y 2010thatwascharged
toaddress
!_anel
ertrrirn--onfol
| -
BOnfd
is^^^+-
far accpcc
fha
^c
f\71 11 -
G6^r'*oh+
^+^+^
H;;;;i
^r^-:
^.-z.r
r
trit*r"it
"r*
,
led
and to ans
zed for another
determine
rist
for
cCc;
gpc
d,#;
ffi;;;";j;;;
#^.yTll{i,.1"
i
ii;;#"#ffi;'fi
tf;j:ii"j:"T:
recvclerl
tvnter"
dionho--o-
+^ -:.,^--
r^r--^
;:'*:jJ:::T:1ffi::1,i::I'j*:'
*CEC
5 rrr
ff#t'oih'o".
L)t)o
PcIIluts
coasrat
waters*itr,ou,needed
sareguard.
At
a
minimurn,
"''a
-
t
Monitoring for Recycled Water package.,,
As noted above,the Recycledwater Policy established
the Panelto "recommendactionsthat the
. .tn_ore
$;;ii;;;ffi;;ffi:;;"#;;&;ffiffi"r
,Il:#::TgT::Lglg:wi,,require.
Celifnrnialc
rrr':'1o-
crra.r^i-^Lilir-
-^ -.
.
gt*Hi:J#i::Hi::i*L::T:'expedited
infnrnr,
oti^-
A -
i*i+l^l
-^.^^
^.- r.-
iod of
ffi;ffi,i';ffi#;;;
aeveropm.i,i"i,r'i'
rurPur tiult
cECs
t{J
una.,rtuoding
ortheimpacrs
or
;ilp6il;;.;;ilil;;#ffiffiff;:'il
water
This last point cannotbe-over-emphasized;
the many yearsof difficulty in increasingthe useof
recycledwater in the face of public concemabout
its overali saretymust be facedwith comprehensive
and transparentmonitoring programsthat lead to protective
standards.The example of recycled water
projectslike the LADWP East valley Projectbeing
mothballedbecauseof .toilet to tap,,concerns
illustratethe importanceof consumerconfidence.
without the baselinedatacreatedby a comprehensive
initial screeningperiod,the extremelylimited monitoring
frameworkbeingrecommendedby the panel
will fail to reassurea concemedpublic that the health
and environmentalimpacts widely reportedas
resulting from cECs are being sufficiently studied
and, as needed,regulated. More limited monitoring
may be institutedafter the initial screeningperiod,
u*"Jonit"liur"
of the initial monitoringand in
light ofthe state'srecycledwater useobjeitives
and environmentarandpublic healthprotectiongoals.
The PanelReport itself appearsto recognizethe
limitations of the recommendedmonitoring
framework' noting that "there are a number of activities
the state can undertaketo improve the quality of
future monitoring and-toxicologicalinformation that
feedsinto the processthat the panel has identified
for this inauguralcEC monitoring effort."
@anelReport at74.) The inauguralmonitoring effort, in fact,
should be a baseline,comprehensivemonitoring program,
not the circumscribedprogram in the staff
Report' to set up the foundation for later regutaio" as
needed.The panel Report further notesthat the
stateshould "[dJevelopa processto predicilikely
environmentalconcentrationsof cECs basedon
production' use' and environmentaliate, as
u **r,
for prioritiri"g .i.#;;"
;ich to focus method
developmentand toxicological investigation." (Panel
Report ut ri.i Again, this ca'not be done without
a
robust set of initial monitoring information.
5
F
at 64
uuL wv
\/.D\,br
compilationof
a comprehensive
ffiom
basedontheresearchdonetodateindevelopingthem.
4r\
-c--. -^t ^^t2^-
^lJi+i^-al
Lraall
that"the processfor selecti"t gd]1"_Tt^l:ltll-^o*to
Moreover,we opposethe staffReport,sinsistence
.il,
#ilffi;;;;;;;;;
rvrlrvLtt'vl
EY'lrLt4rrvrr 'r
\^ *D-
screenitq
exposure
withthe_Panel's
to buconsistent
iqp:1t11::
bea floor,:we
could
approach
Panel's
the
while
added).
3,emphasis
^r- ---:-^C
"-r""niil
,""1 ;;1"
hasnr
not madethe case:for eliminating the authority of
simply has
it as a ceiling. The Panel
do not view"?iiiuffiilJ,;€;;;
orenvironmental
(fromapublichealth
thatmoreprotective
ffi#;;ffiffi;;d;;;;r*ine
are met'
-
t
-rt^^-
and other
perspective)monitoring is necessaryto ensurethat beneficial uses
^--,i-^-*aa+,
^r^-l^-.l^
ara
standards
mat
the StateBoard could obtain the list
As an alternativeto the abovemonitoring recommendation,
developan interim list with
and
regions
of CECsthat are beingmonitoredby dischu.g.* in all the
moved forward that include
pJrmits
have
appropriatedetectionlirnitr. Throughoutthe itate, NPDES
the
instance Tapiawater Reclamation
monitoringrequirementsfor a nariJty of differentcECs. For
2,2010 includesa specialstudyfor cEC monitoringof 26
Facility NpDES permit adoptedon Septernber
CEC monitoring for all permits moving
constituents.The bottom line is that ialifornia needsmeaningful
and there is no
Regional Boardsrequire cEc monitoring while othersdo not'
forward. currently, sCIrne
list
monitoring
cEc
full
the
In addition,
consistencyon tr,e bnc lists or the minimum detectionlimia.
and
chemicals
new
of
scienceand number
itself shouldbe revisitedon a biennialbasisinitially, sincethe
move
can
list
of the monitoring
pharrnaceuticalscoming on the market are changingso rapidly' Review
as appropriateto a triennial basis.
monitoring of CECs for the first
with respectto timing, the staffReport recommendsquarterly
infrequent. Instead,we urge the state
year and bialnual monitoring fo. baselineoperations.This is too
somemay arguethat monthly monitoring
Board to recommendinitial monthly monit&ing. Although
goard must *t lor. sight of one of the main purposesof the screening
may be cost prohibitive, the state
posesnegligible humanand aquaticlife health
effort: to provide consumerconfidencethat recycledwai.r
any variability in plant performance
risks. A monthly monitoring programfor threeyea$ wouldcapture
baseof information to presentto the public'
and seasonalinfluent water quality and provide a more solid
an{ it needsto provide adequate
The stateneedsto build a robustiatabase on the issuequickly,
from various different levels of water
quality
discharged
information to the public on the efnuent water
job of removingmany cEcs to
good
a
may
g9
recyclingtreatnreni.some technologieslike naeino
be effectiYeat cEc removalas
hopefully
will
below detectionlevels,and othertreltment technologies
data to a skepticalpublic, and demonstrateits
welf . But the stateneedsto collect andpublicly presentthis
waters,in order to make the scientific and
understandingof the impactsof the disihargesto receiving
Again, effluent monitoring can be
policy casefor a larger strategyto increases€tewide water recyclingprocess'but this must be done
screening
reducedin the rongJ term uaila on the resultsof this initial
and receiving water impacts'
concentrations
consistentwith an initial, comprehensivereview of effluent
the public that the scienceis being
Adequatemonitoring during this initial period will reassure
about
decision
to rnakea moreinformed
i"f"r,nuiionnecessary
arurtopfi*ilt;,ffiilitffi"d,r;;"-tt"
- !:^--:- ^- .| -^-'1^*aa,
i$a*arrrndr
in a longetl:1" T?1'::lf. T1i:T?:":-:*T:*
andexclude
i to include
parameters
.allrsLvr
which
WIU$II
PaAl
to build
bottt in the effluent an'd:1,9:,t"::::g*::::f'
. i na
alrnr
r.
! '
^eg./
Llvvwrvyvs
Monitoring shouldbe required for all constitu.rrt"
to "predict likely environmental
the databasethat the cEC Advisory Panelrecognizedis needed
errvs]
IYMllU\AI'rr5
forprioritizing
fate,asameans
,ri. andenvironmentai
-e- -' --l
ffiffifr".,
"riui$*'J;;;;d*tion,
ffiHffiffi;;"*";;,fJ;;;;;*ent
vlr
f/Il\,ft.ll\/CllJ
vt
tu
^-l+.1
of note,theStafr
investigation."
andtoxicological
,
f
-a!--
---a-
rL^
-.----l--,^+^-
for receivingwatermonitoringoth::tT,.T,:^T:*::"*
Reportdoesnot providerecommendations
fateand
To
short-coming.
major
whichis a
recharge/reuse,
"nt*.
".T1pg:::t*,11-:::fH::i
rwy\rlL
\tvve
uve
t
O+^.
Finally' the stateBoardshould
ensurethatrecornmendations
monitoring'not thecurrent
aremadebasedon theneed
ava'auirity
for
methodr;; tftatresearch
rnovesforward'-ThestaffRrp"rrlird;;;;3;dvisory
";;t;;ar
oianaryticarmethods
p;J;*commendations
research'
includingthedeveloiltn'of
for additional
robusr*d ,.pro;r;ibr;;dyticat
recycledwater' However'
,,,"tr,oo,ro measure
ii tiuit* thatthese."r.rt t,,,:pi;;;;te
cECs in
Board' Thisresearch
fundedat thediscretion
is ',itirul-'
of
thestate
,", ;;,ri,car methoa,uu*a
thevarecurently-unavaitaiit ,Drr;;;;;;'ir?rrro
soreryon thefactrhat
ti'r urr*rJry'r;;l:r:,r.
,ltuJ'quo ortr,"i. unuuuirabirity.
Reguiring
ffi ff:H.H?#lffiTn:;ru* *;,'nn*:
timerram
erormerhod
deveropm
en
t isu,o*0".
surrogateparame'ursshould
Not Be used in Lieu
of c'c
rlronitoring
ThestaffReportpropose:
""'monitoringfor thepresence
operational
of serected
surrogate
parameters
cECsqnd/or monitoring
a1d
performance"
treatnentunit andoveralr
(Page+' emphasis 'onttiru"nt-,io
treatnentprocess
added).
"uatuute
I;;;;*!
*' il; i'*g"age thattt
thatcerraindisih
siateBoardis proposing
"
useofrecycledwater' undt'no
tit'u,'ti*".rlil"ia
suoogat,,ooni,*ing r.pL;.
c'c monitoring.
direcdon,;;ilrTi,H#"J#y#T:ffi
lHf;::rfrTf;
tr;"T"{;;*:x#i::nm:li*"
, r *
consistent with our organizf"."t:
supportfor the increased,
with stateand federal *ut*
safe use of recycredwater
ffi;iv controls,*i il*, oppose
consistent
broad-impt**"niution oru
Programbasedsolely ott *onit*irrg
recycred
for
warer
*;;;ety
crcums*iu.a
healthimpacts'andnot";;l;;ioi
or*otJ.".u;,*ilG,J,lp::,"-d sei of potentiaiproxies for human
program
orcpc Monitoring
for
*:?;iix.H:'J[lj:nT*T,[.,",#ffi1,*ith tr,"n".ri,i,a
watlriori.y
and
with
thesrate,s
we,,-ueiff
H.{?,ffi,*::ilT#'gJi.l#:iiTi::T*Tl,llf'fi::;,#i:""ff
*:t*J:.
contact
us.
, uvrurle.rrt.
Regards,
;
Sheehan,
Executive
Oireior
!i*:
Cal
i fomia Coastkeepoaili*JJ "
sru770-9764
lsheehan@caco4stkegper.
olg
feith Marryq SCWWRP
Mark Gordon,Director,CDPH
7t"r^L
Mark Gold, president
Heal the Bay
310-451-1500
[email protected]
Beginfonruarded
message:
From:PeteMyers<[email protected]>
Date:May23, 201211:09:10AM pDl
To: CHESciencelistserv<chescience@
lists.healthandenvironment,org>
Subject:[clrescience]from InsideE
Reply-To:PeteMyers<[email protected]>
Key officials Grapplewith Ways To Speed
EndocrineScienceIn Decisions
P o s t e dM
: ay 18,2012
As EPA continues to struggle to advance its Endocrine Disruptor
Screening program (EDSp), key
policymakers are grappling with ways to speed scientific research
showing the harmful endocrine
disrupting effects of chemicals and use the data in regulatory decisions.
At a May 8 discussionhosted by the H. John Heinz III Center,
an environmentalnonprofit in
washington, DC, sen. John Keny (D-MA), who is sponsoring
stalled legislation to create a new
endocrine researchprogram at the National Institute for Environmental
Health Sciences(NIEHS),
cautionedthat future regulation of chemicalscould face immense
backlashfrom industry if
regulatorsare unable to demonstrate a cause-and-effectlinkage
between endocrine disruptors and
the human health harms has been firmly established.
"l'm not sure that the cause-and-effectis as dispositiveas clearly
our intuition and instinct and sort
of common-sensetells us it is," Kerry askedpanelists.
"So where are we, and how f'astcan we get
to the point that there is a definitive cause-and-effectlinkage
to these diseasesand processto
refute what will be an onslaught by the 80,000 chemical producers'
expenditures to prevenr us
from doing anything?"
Kerry's comments suggesthe fears a long road remains to finding
enough political support for
restricting the use of chemicals that a growing number of scientirt,
,uy mimic and interfere with
hormones,creating developmental problems in humans that
do not often manifest until later in life
and whose potential effects often are missed by traditional
toxicological methods.
But NIEHS Director Linda Birnbaum, one of the panelists,
told Kerry that endocrine disruption
data continuesto accumulateand that the absenceof perfect
knowledge shouldn,tjustify inaction.
"Scienceis never certain. It's constantlyadvancingand constantly
moving forward. If we try to
wait until we have 100 percent certainty,we're never going
to do anything,,,Birnbaum told Kerry.
While Congress in 1996 authorized EPA to create its EDSP program
to assesspotential
endocrine risks, the program has been slow to get off the ground.
The agency has so far only
approved one list of 67 chemicals " all pesticides-- that
must undergo Tier I screening to
determine whether they pose risks. While the agency proposed
a second list in 2010, it is still
P a g eL o f 4
not final as officials are struggling to improve the program's managementand addressa host
of sciencepolicy questions.
Last month, officials issuedan action plan to correct managementand other deficienciesthat
the InspectorGeneral (IG) identified in a highly critical report issuedlast year, including
calls for the agencyto provide clear criteria for how it selectschemicalsfor screeningand
other issues.The agencyhas set a June 30 deadlinefor issuing the managementplan, and
Sept.30target for the prioritization tool, accordingto the April 10 action plan sent to the IG.
While the agencyis slowly strengtheningits program, scientistsand other advocatesare
steppingup their calls for policymakersto do more to assessand addressendocrinedisruptor
risks. A paper recently published in the journal EndocrineReviewsby a well-known group of
endocrinescientistscalled for a new regulatory testingregime becausecurrent regulatory
testing-- which doseslaboratory animals with high amounts of the substanceof interest and
then extrapolatesfrom those results to what is anticipatedto occur at lower levelsof
exposurefound in the environment -- doesnot accuratelyconsiderthe risks of endocrine
disruptingcompounds(EDCs).That is because
EDCshavenonmonotonic,
or U-shaped,doseresponse
curvesthatdo not follow the predictable
upwardslopeof mostchemicals'dose-response
curves.An agencyofficial said recentlythat risk assessors
are awareof the paperand are
reviewingit.
Kerry Legislation
Somepolicymakers,
like Kerry, havetriedto address
the issue.Kerry, for example,in July 2011
introduced
legislation,
S. 1361,Endocrine-Disrupting
ChemicalsExposureEliminationAct of
2011,that would create an entirely new endocrine-disruptorscreeningprogram stationedat
NIEHS and then subjectthosefound to harmpublichealthto a ban,accordingto the senator's
website.But somein industryare stronglyopposedto the Kerry legislation.One industrysource
saysthe senator's
approachis "outrageously
expensive
and startingfrom scratch."
"Thatdoesn'tmeanthatcan'tbe goodto do, but we shouldbe lookingat what'sin placealready
insteadof reinventingthe wheel,"the sourcesays.
Kerry acknorvledged
more scientificprogressmight be neededto convincesomeskepticsand
translateinto the neededpolitical support.But he saidin an interviewthat thereis little hopethat
the currentCongresswill takeup the matter."Butit's somethingwe can build supportfor. This is
how you beginto do that," Kerry saidof the paneldiscussion.
Lynn Goldman, who was the head of EPA's toxics office during the Clinton Administration
when Congressauthorized the program, echoedcalls for federal officials to step up their
effo,rts.SinceEDSP was created, "there's a lot that's happenedin the scienceoyer that time"
and the program as it currently standsfails to incorporatemany of the new discoveries,she
told the Heinz Center eventduring a question-and-answer
session.
Fifteenyears and severalmisseddeadlineslater for EDSP, questionsremainon whether
agencieshavethe ability to to bring the newersciencesinto the regulatoryenvironment,Goldman
said.
"I don'thavethe answerbeyondtrying to go backto Congress
or in otherwaysto try to actually
requirethatit be done,"Goldman,now deanof the GeorgeWashingtonUniversitySchoolof
PublicHealthand HealthServices,
saidin posingthe argumentto the panel.
Birnbaumtold Goldmanthat shebelievesfederalagencieshavestartedtaking newer science
methodspertainingendocrinedisruptioninto account.Shepointedto the federal government's
interagencyToxCast computationaltoxicologyprograms,for instance,which useshighthroughputscreening."I think they'rebeginningto figureout to learnhow to usenew
Page2 of 4
,"f'
information," Birnbaum said.
EPA's IG report responsedetails how the agency will use
its high-throughput
and computational
-or
toxicology program to define the universe of chemicals in
need
testing. ppa officials have
hinted in recent months that assays have been developed
to perform Tier I EDSp screening
through ToxCast, with one official in March saying it
would likely start happening ',sooner
rather than later."
while industry and environmentalists largely support ,tr"
o.u.topment of computational toxicology,
which will be faster and cheaper than traditional animal-based
tlsting, concern remains over
whether scientists and decision makers can take ToxCast's
outputs and tie them to particular
human endpoints.
Safer Alternatives
Meanwhile, John Peterson Myers , a Heinz Center board
member who moderated the May g
meeting, said that a group of independent and government
scientistsare slated in the coming
months to releasea new model that chemists can use
to identify EDCs before they go into
consumer products and to find possible safer alternatives.
Myers' who is CEo and chief scientistfor Environmental
Health Sciencesand has helped develop
the model, said it will avoid the regulatory and policy process
altogetherin an attempt to
accomplishsome of what EDSP has failed to achieve.
The new processisn,t meant to replace
EDSP, Myers said in a follow-up interview on May
10, adding thar the processthe team will
unveil seeksto spur economic innovation in the development;f
consumerproducts and other
applicationsinvolving potentially hazardouschemicals.
Stilr, he acknowledgedthe processmay
have the coincidentalbenefit of helping inform EDSP
on chemical assessmentmethods that he said
the program and others have failed to use -- though
EDSP differs in that it screensfor already
existing chemicals.
"They can look at what we've done and say that.does
or doesn't make sense and decide whether
what we've done helps them move forward faster,"
Myers said. -- puneet Koltipara (
[email protected]
This e-mail addressis being protectedfrom spambots.you
need
JavaScriptenabledto view it )
RRWPC
RussianRiaer WatershedProtection Committee
P. O. Box 501 Guerneville, CA 95446 Z0Zl\0gl0410
(phone & fax) [email protected]
December 22,2008
Via Electronic Mail : [email protected]
]eanine Townsend
Clerk to the Board, Executive Office
StateWater Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento,CA 95812-0100
Re: StateWater Recycling Policy
Dear Ms. Townsend:
About RRWPC...
I am writing on behalf of Russian River Watershed Protection Committee
(RRWPC), a California nonprofit corporation in existence since 1980. We
represen!ProPertY owners, tourists, recreationists,business people, and most
others who love the Russian River, 80 miles north of San Franciico. We have
about 15-00people on our mailing list, and have also experienced extensive
support from numerous otherswho love and cherishour river and its ecosystem.
RRWPChas tracked wastewater and water quality issuesin the lower Russian
River and its tributaries for all thoseyears. We have especiallyfocusedon Santa
Rosa'swastewater system and its impact on the Laguna de Santa Rosa and
RussianRiver since its huge illegal 800 million gallon spill of 1985. We have
watched the Laguna_de Santa_
Rota degrade exteirsivelybver that period, even
while the City greatly upgraded and improved their treahnent and discharge
systems
We recognize that the degradation is not solely caused by Santa Rosa's
wastewater,but most is caused
in conjunction with upsfueam
_by dis_charges
urban activities in (and runoff from) Santf Rosa, Rohnert Park, ur,d Cotati.
Thereare alsodairies and somenafural causescontributi.g to the problems.
9"uIF:.y:gs,-RRWPC played a significantrole in the listing of the Laguna on
the 303(d) list for its impairment by numerous pollutants iicluding dlssolved
oxygery nitrogery phosphorus, temperafure, sediments, and me..,r{r. We are
not scientistsor lawyers, but rather persistentcitizen advocateswho have won
Water Recycling Policy/SWRC B
tz/zt/o8
Page r
extensive acknowledgment for our work and have joined forces at one time or
another with most Sonoma County environmental groups concerned about
water issues.
SantaRosa'sinterestin RecycledWater Policy...
We have provided a significant amount of commentary to the Regional Board
and discussedour concernswith them about this issue. We know that the City of
SantaRosa has been putbing extensivepressureon the State to come up with a
BasinPIanAmendment that allows for "incidentalrunoff".
SantaRosahas been planning an urban recycledwater project for about six years
now and have stated numerous times that th"y won't offset potable water
supplieswithout the Basin Plan "incidental runoff" provision. The City has paid
over the last six years or so to help
StateLobbyist Craig Johns,about $1,000,000
them to accomplishthis goal. The proposedNorth CoastBasin Plan Amendmenf
which alters the Summer Discharge Prohibition by allowing "incidental runoff"
is now out for public review. We will be commentingextensivelyon that as well.
The City has written a detailed plan for managing wastewater irrigation. There
are many specificprotectionscontainedin it. But there are enormouslimitations
as well. For example, th"y will not instifute significant penalties for repeat
offendersor cut them off from the wastewatersupply. We have heard some city
rvaterusersbrag that thuy use 70,000gallons a month and th"y are willing to pay
the price. To our knowle dg", the City takestheir money.
\Vhen push comesto shove, the City has been upfront about admitting that th"y
know over-irrigation will occur, and th.y don't want to be subject to the
possibilily of citizen lawsuits becauseof it. This is an outright admission that
th"y can't control the problem and th"y want to function with impunity sinceno
one is going to file a lawsuit over a broken sprinkler head. In addition we are
exkemely skeptical that the promoted conkols will be carefully monitored and
that "accidents" will probably be a common occurrence. Regional Board staff
will not have the time to carefully monitor and the "fox will be guarding the
chickenhouse". (One City staffer admitted to me privately that the business
park acrossfrom SantaRosa'sUtility Building over-irrigatesall the time.)
We recommend that this reuse policy, should it move forward, require the
establishmentof an independent "water cop" monitoring program wherever
"incidental runoff" rs allowed and that severepenalties,including cut offs, be
establishedfor repeat offenders. This program can be self-supporting with
graduating penalties,separatefrom water charges,imposed on water wasters.
Most citizens didn't mind the program and even called in with "tips" about
people who were careless. We also recommend that generous set backs from
creeksand streamsof 200' be establishedto assuremost runoff incidents won't
make it to the surfacewater.
Lack of Adequate"incidental runoff' Definition....
One of our greatest concerns is the lack of adequate specificity in defining
"incidental runoff".
The refusal to state a specific amount in the definitiory or
the method of determi^itg that amount is very problematic. The North Coast
Board's proposed MS4 Permit suggests that 100 gallons is the point where a
minor spill becomes a significant one and comes under different guidelines.
WaterRecycling Policy/SWRCB
rz/zt/o8
Pagez
Nowhere is such an amount suggestedhere. In light of people's propensity to
including wastewatermanagersthemselves,we can't imagine how
carelessness,
this policy is going to work in the real world;
This policy also makes no attempt.to define the cumulative impacts of-multiple
r.rnoff incidents. Who will make the determination as to whether a spill is truly
incidental and what would prevent thoseresponsiblefrom miss-commul-xcatrng
the extentof the problem? i don't believethis program would work without an
independentprogram of watet " cops".
Alternatiaes to Policy,. ,,
RRWPChas major conceinsabout implementadonof the Water Recycling-Policy.
the very hard times the Stateis experiencinginregards to adequate
We recognLze
is an attempt to develop. a standardtzed
water srlpply and that this policy
-The
policy clearly c,on)/eysthe urgency ryith
concern.
that
uddt"m
approacntb
*hi.h the Stateviews this need and we iympatJize with those communities that
are facing the greatest shortfalls. Nevertheless, we believe that the
implemenlation of widespread reuse of wastewater,with what we believe are
inadequateprotectionsof alt beneficialuses,is a grave mistake.
We appreciate that Regional Boards have been given the authotity- to impose
moreitting"nt requirementson IocaI,site-specificprojects. Nevertheless,we are
concerned"thatthe worth Coast RegionalBoard lost ibout 50 staff people in the
last few yearsand their budget hasbeencut to the bone. We seriouslydoubt Fut
th.y can accomplish all the protectionsof beneficial uses that are Promised in
tix; Policy. We are also very concerned that this policy nurfures the idea,
through the renaming of wastewater as recycled water, thereby conveying the
impressionthat wastewateris entirely safe.
In 2007,Sonoma County water supplies were so low that the Sonoma County
Water Agency called for stringent conservationefforts. They were particularly
concerned about the irrigation issue and strongly pushed conventional
conservationgoals (i.e. water in early morning and late afternoorudo not waste
water with over-irrigation,repair leaks,etc.). Peoplebegannoticing who had the
supergreenlawns. There was a call to use drought resistantlandscaping.-Water
.ops turned people in. Enormous savings occurred. Tb" impefus of skict
.o^rerrration inoUa be promoted as an everyday value and not something that
only happensin an emergency.
Soon things went back to normal. On various occasionswe have even seen
irrigation puddles in front of the adminiskation building of the wastewater
trea-tunentplant and in front of their Utilities Offices. We have picfures_of
extensive over-irrigation in front of the North Coast Regional Board. We
discussedthis situition and others extensively in our letter to the Board on
September1.,2008. We resubmit that letter here for the record and would like it
respondedto as part of thesecomments.
Water Recycling Alternatiues, , ,
We believe that there are other options and alternatives that can and should be
more fully pursued before you allow "incidental runoff" and causewidespread
wastewaterirrigaf,on use to be pursued with great vigor. We wonder why the
Statedoesn't get a handle on agriculfural water use, including over-use? We
B
WaterRerycling Polic,v/SWRC
rz/zt/o8
Pryr3
water
the water
question *hy rural pro_perty o\vners dol'-t have tq Ray for the use of the
Why
resPonsibility?
their
be
partly
should
that
habilat
bf
and the restoration
the
stop
and
doesn't the State regulate all rvater use, including groundwater,
massive ilIegal appiopriations that are said to occur? While it may seem as
though the recycling of wastewater is a good idea when we know so little about
its eifects, how mrich wiser r,vould we be to use what we have much more
judiciously in the first Place?
In our earlier comments we described one alternative that, to our knowledge, no
one has ever proposed. Significant water savings can be realizedby flxing leaky
sewer pipes. nnWpC examined the flow_records of eight wgste-lvaterdischargers
in the-Russian River and discovered that there is a wide disparity between
summer and winter flows indicating a great deal of infiltration and inflow into
treahnent svstems. We studied the data between 1995 and 2007 of these
dischargers and discovered that an average of 1.5 billion gallons of rain water a
year leJks into Santa Rosa's wastewater system alone, forcing them to treat and
dispose of the wastewater at great monetary expe^-t", great energy usage, as well
as damage to the environment from known and unknown pollutants.
The smaller towns of Ukiah, Cloverdale, Healdsbutg, Windsor, Forestville, and
Russian River Area, lost about 7 billion gallons combined over the l2-year
That comes to about 584 million gallons of water lost by small
period.
io-trr.truties in our area every year. Combined with Santa Rosa, that accounts
for a loss of about 2 billion gallons a year of potable water in the area from Ukiah
to Guerneville, and represents 25% of the water rights increase sought for the last
ten years by the Sonoma County Water Agency. How much water -and energy
co.tid be saved Statewide if everyone maintained their sewage infrastrucfure,
which th"y should do anyway? Changing focus this way makes sense from the
perspective of water-savings, pollution-Prevention, and energy.
We also note that the Policy alludes to leaky water pipe repair. Some of our local
small communities lose as much as 15% a year. Has anyone done a sfudy of
potential savings that could be realized through an infrastrucfure repair
program? Instead of promoting the reuse of wastewater that may contain
numerous unregulated contaminants, it would be wiser to invest in maintenance
of existing hardware. That would also save a lot of energy and would be a far
more environmentally safe way to stretch our water supplies and avoid the
possibility of contamination of our rivers and streams.
Our deep concern about the extensive reuse of wastewater in an urban
environment evolves from the burgeoning amounts of information coming
forward that indicate widespread species' impairment and even extirpation
resulting from unregulated toxins, some of which are knowry but many that are
not. While there are upwards of 80,000chemicals available in the market place,
and grow in numbers every day, our regulatory process can't_keep up. OnIy 726
toxins are currently regulated in a meaningful way. We have no idea what
problems many of these unregulated substances create, at what amounts, or how
they bio-accumulate and interact with one another.
WaterRecycling Polic/SWRCB
tz/zt/o8
Pryr 4
RecentArticles €t studies on speciesLoss
€t EndocrineDisruption:
'
Aug ' 3, 2008: Three
,,There.
impo$ant scientists stated:
is growing
recognitionthat the diaersity
of life on earth,ina"nil thi'iarrety
of genes,
species
and ecosystems,,is
n,nirrepticeable
natuialheritagecrucialto humanzaellbeingand sustainable
deuelopmrht'.Thereis alsoclearscientificeaidence
thatute
areon theaergeof a maiorbiodiaersity_
crisis viriffi
,it';i;;r7i ,7 u*aiaersity
,uib,,ofpopirii,i,and'speii,i
o,,rikery
io
r,:,,:#:':#"!r',1;:,,
,ff,f,;,r,,g'
And further, ,'scientists
estimate
that 12-%of o]t-bir4p,23%
of mammals,24%
of contfe'.1:,117:
of amphibiansora i.ore
of
aII
palm
trbesare threatened
u:ith imminent ixtin'ction. climiti ,..thanharf
7toi, could.lead to the
w,
extinctionof betrtseen
further
157gand 377, of all'iyiiiti'uv the end
of the centrry.,,
FinaIIythty say, "ET)erywhere
TDeto,itt,'we
are'Iosingthefabric of ii7e,it,s a miior
crisis."
(G. Mace of uK Institute of Zoorogy,
Robert watson from the World Bank,
and peter
Ravenof the Missouri BotanicarGarJen
state,in the pubrication,"Nafure"),
.
'
How does this policy protect threatened
and endangered species in light
of unknown and r-rttr-"g.rlatedch"mi.uirl"
tn" wastewater?
Winter, 2008issue of ,,The Drift,, put
out by Californians for Alternative
,
to Toxics (page 4): /t seuen Atriits
o{ ugiig-fisticides to grou)
dettastated
food has
poipulationsworldw.iit ;/;;r Traditiinil
agricultural-helpers,
birds,
bees'f'08t, and bats, Although.tgiiiilremicals
hi,a.aebeen
implicated
as
a
root
coLtse
in their slide toutsrdsiblirior, ihe chemicals
'runojf
iontinue
-.u,rr"
to
be
pumped
into
tlrc enaironment." Incidentar
the unintended
consequenceof allowing lawn chemicals *;t
t";;
oif i^to ;;i"r;ays. what
\\/asconsidered in this
d.uri"g
th"
i.r-"rltio'
of the Foii.yz why
"irrigatior, 'o'
llgard
not prohibit wastewater
rand tnui- nu, been treated with
pesticides? Also how *oild chemicals
in ,"used wastewater and
chemicalapplicationson lawns i'tera.t
with one another?
Atgust 3' 2008: "Nation4 sy1.",.y
RevealsBiodiversity Crisis - scientific
Experts Believe we Are in MidJt
of Faste;t M;r Extinction in Earth,s
History": "The American Museum
of Nafurui uirtory and Louis Harris
and Associates,Inc.; in conjunction
*+
th;^op"r,ing of the Museum,s
a nationviide
survey
ti*ed
"?if:ffi;1ft-ii*l9ped
" seuen
o"t
bi1to,s11ts
belieaethat
il,"#t#iil ff
Highlights:
zaeare in the
massextinctionof liaing {,!-:: ord""
,midstof a
thot this dramtatic.Ioss
,things,
of spectes
posesa
maiorthreatto humanixistenZiii iiri
it*t century.,, ,,Thismas'sextinction
thefastestin Earth's 4.5 UittiinliiiT
is
i"utory andi unlike prior extinctions,
mainlytheresultof humanactiaiti and
is
,,scientists
iot of naturalphenomena.,,
rate biodiae'?ity loss as a more
serious-enaironmentalproblem
than the
depletion int ozone
"f
lryi:)- ^sio" -,o*'iig, or porution and
contamination,,
(emphasis
addJa)
Ajso,;;";; uii,,i;iltb",,,,o-iiiruction
the natural systemsittot purtfy 'ilriof
iorm,,
ai,ia
WaterRecycli
ng eol"y7sffi
B
rz/zt/oB
urqter.,, How might
P€.5
f
-./
f
/
t"
i'
.1{
/
I
i
Er,t
-
7
,
t
t
/
irrigated lands be affected by global warming? Would any chemical
changestake place that could impact affectedspecies?
December,2008: Chemtrust:"Effectsof Pollutantson theReproductiae
Health
of Male VertebrateWildlife: Males Under.-Threat"(plgg !), "Many wildlife
are nou)reportedto beaffected
species
by pollutants,and similaritiescanbeseen
in theeffectsrecorded.Thetargetsites,whicharethefocusof this rwiew, include
pathways. It is clear that structural intersexfeatures,
male deaelopmental
includingeffectson themalereproductiue
tract,resultfrom exposure
beforebirth,
On theotherhand,abnormalsecretion
of theeggyolkprecursorprotein,VTG, in
malefith, birds, and reptiles,can result fro* Iater adult-life explsure to
in females,and whenfound in
feminizingpollutants. WG is normallyproduced
malesin eleaatedconcentrations
it confirms the presencetf sex hormone
disruptingcontaminantsin the enaironment,
and indicatesfeminisationof the
male, Reduced
reproduction
hasalsobeenincluded,althoughit may resultfro*
impairment,
orfrom lackof aiabilityof theoffspring."
femaleor-malereproductiae
Would the Statebe willing to test for signs of feminization in areaswhere
wastewater is applied? Could the policy be suspendedin areastesting
positive for endocrinedisruption?
March, 2008:AP Study on drugs in water supplies: (APstoryby JeffDonn,
Martha Mendoza,and fustin Pritchard): " A aast array of pharmaceuticalsincluding antibiotics,anti-conaulsAnts,moodstabilizersand sex hormlnes-haae
beenfound in the drinking water suppliesof at least 41-million Americans,an
associatePress inaesligation shouts." During a five-month inquiry, AP
researchers found that drugs were detected in the water suppiie s- of 24
maj or mekopolitan areas.
In response to the question of how drugs get in the water, the article
states, "(it)..,is flushed down the toilet, The wastswateris treatedbeforeit is
discltargedinto reseruoirs,riaers, or lakes. Then, some of the wqter is'cleansed
again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most
treatmentsdo not remoaeall drug residue." It seems as though it would be
valuable to test any wastewater to be irrigated for endocrine disruptors
-State
and not allow any irrigation with waters testing positive. Would the
be willing to make that part of this policy?
fh" sfudy found that many water systems do not test for pharmaceuticals;
but only a few that tested had negative results. Pharmaceuticals were also
!9Y"d in ground water. " Some drugs, including utidely used cholesterol
fighters, t-ranquilizersand anti-epileptic medications, resist modern drinking
water and znastaaatertreatment processes,Plus, the EPA says there are no
seu)agetreatment systems specificallyengineeredto remoae pharmaceuticals."
At a conference last summer the director of environmental technotrogy for
Merck & Co. Inc., Mary Buzby stated, "There's no doubt about it,
pharmaceuticalsare being detectedin the enaironment and there is genuine
concernthat thesecompounds,in the small concentrationsthat they're it, could
be causing,impacts to human health or to aquatic organismsl" (This is
particularly meaningful coming from a drug company representative.)
WaterRecyclingPolic1ISWRCB
tz/zr/o8
Page 6
'
'
Feb. 17, 2008:LA Times: "9gdy finds human medicines altering marine
b121.98Y'.'
, by J(enneth R. Weiss: " Sunagetreatment plants in"Southern
California.are
and hormone-alte:ring
chemicals
fajling to remouehormones
from
waterthat getsflushedinto the coastaloceanwaters,accordinglo the resultsof a
study released
Saturday." "(Th9 Study) confirmsthefindiigs of smallerpitot
studiesftyry 2005 that discoaered
malefish iyt'the oceanwere"dea"eloping
fe'male
characteristics,
and broadened
the scopeof the earlierstudiesbv lookiig at an
array tf man-madecontaminants widespreadtests of seiwAter,"seafloor
-in
sedimentand hundredtof fi21 caughtoff LosAngeles,Orangeand San biego
counties. The results, outlined by a SouthernCatifornia toxicologistat" a
conference
in Boston,reaealthat a aeritabledrugstoreof pharmaceulicals
and
beautyproducts,
andplasticadditiaesare'endingup in theocean
flameretardants
and-aPpear
to beworking theirzl)ayup the marinefood chain.""And scientists
add, "Dilution is not the solutionfor someof ihesenqDer compounds,
said
Steuenlry, a toxicol2gist,..-"The big issueis whether endocrinbdirr.tptors
are ending uP in the sediments and being reintroduced into the #ater
column and whether thesepollutants are sifuated in the esfuary and ocean
aswell.
'
lgly 10, 2007: "Down the Drain: Sources of Hormone-Disrupting
Chemicalsin San Francisco B?y" EnvironmentalWorking Group , "gS% ulf
wastewater samples show widespread use of chemicalJ" " Adaancesin
technology
alloznan unprecedented
lookat chemicalcontaminants
in waterbodies
throughoutthe United States.In 2002,thefirst nationwid.e
study of man-made
chemicals
and hormones
in 139streamsreaealed
that B0%of streimi testedwere
contamin(ed.(Kolpin 2002) Seaeralof the chemicals
eximinedare knoamor
suspected
of.disrup.tingthe hormonesyste-ms
of animalsand people. Of these,
only.a smaLlfraction.haaebe.enregulatedat ill, much lesst'estid ioxicity,
for
p_ersistence
in the enaironment,
or olherharmfulcharacteristics,
turi ashormoie
disruption,. Someof the sameunregulated,utidely-used
, hormone-disrupting
chemicalshaaebeendetectedat traie leaelsin the San FranciscoBoy (Orft
2002),,
".Da1nage
to the reproductiae
healthof aulnerable
fish populationsmay resultin
detrimentalconsequences localfisheriesand aquati'cicosystems;
ii addition,
_to
thereis concernthat peoplecouldbecgTne
exposed.
to"hormo'ne-disrupting
furthe-r
chemicalt eating
(Houghton 2007)" "Analysis
lV
-contaminated-fish
U i'g
wasteutatey samples fo, 3 hormone-disrupting substances reaeals
w i despread contaminati on."
Dec. 1'6.2008:"Ocean ScientistsUrge New Administration and Congressfor
"Bailout" of OceanEcosysteqsand Economies", (from websiterO."i^".;C
Summary of main concernsby scientistsabout ocean conditions included
over-fishilQ climate change, nutrient and other
_pollution and ,yr,ergrrtic
effects. "Efforts reduceiutrient pollutionin the inited
Stateshaae"Urrn'iity
-to
modestlysuccessful,
not only because
of inadequate
controlson emissions
but at{o
because
degradede.cosystems
resistreioaery.
.'..Althoughscientistshaaeobseraed
p.rlgressin reducing toxic pollution, conlaminants
Vo* human actiaitiesare
distributedand persistoaerwide areasof the ocean,i1tm resultingin subtlebut
significanteffectsotLrnarineanimals,euen"
in remotepotir regions.,'"
Water Reqrcling Poliq/SWRCB
tz/zt/o8
P%r7
Dec. 7, 2008: The most shocking to humans and perhaps the most attention
getting; "It's Official: Men Really Are the Weaker Sex" by Geoffrey Lean
(based on CHEMTrust report by Gwynne Lyons: "EFFECTS OF
OF MALE
POLLUTANTS ON THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
VERTEBRATEWILDLIFE" The Independent (London, U.K.) The article
quotes the author as saying, " Malesof species
from eachof the main classesof
reptiles,birds and mammals)
animals(includingbonyfith, amphibians,
aertebrate
. ..
in theenaironment.
haaebeenfficted by chemicals
Feminizationof the malesof numerlus aertebratespeciesis nou) a widespread
haaesimilar sex hormonereceptors,
which haaebeen
occurrence.All uertebrates
obseruations
in onespecies
mayseraeto highlight
in eaolution.Therefore,
clnseru)ed
other
aertebrates,
including
humans....
of concern
pollutionissues
for
Fish, it saysare particularlyaffectedby pollutantsas they are immersedin them
wAter,taking them in not just in theirfood but
when they swim in contaminated
throughtheir gills and skin. Thty u)ereamongthefirst to showwidespread
genderbendingfficts. Half the malefish in British lowlandriaershaaebeenfound to be
deaelofingeggsin their testes.,'.,more
thanthreequartersof sattageworkshauebeen
also
to
be
discharging
demasculinising
man-madechemicals."(Note: Europe
found
is way ahead of the USA in testing for these emerging contaminants. In the
US,most sewagetreahnentplants really don't want to know.)
And more alarming...."Anda studyat Rotterdam's
ErasmusUniaersityshowed
that boyswhosemothershad beenexposedto PCBsgrew up znantingto play with
dollsand teasetsratherthanwith traditionallymaletoys."
. For thosewho trtink that tiny amountswon't causeharm....
Muy 22, 2007: "Estrogen threatens minnow manhood by Marin
Mittelstaedt,"Environmental Reporter" It states,"Explsingfish to tiny does
of theactiaeingredientin thepill (synthetic
estrogen),
amountslittle morethana
whiff of estrogen,startedturning malefish into females.lnsteadof sperm,they
started deaeloping eggs, Instead of looking like males, thsy becnme
indistinguishable
fro* females, Within n year tf exposure,the minnow
populationbegan
to crash,Within afeu)years,thefish, whichat onetimeteemed
in the lake,hadpracticallyaanished."The amount of estrogenused was the
sameamount found in sewageheahnentplants in Canada.
'
Tryll/, Nov. 21,2008: "SOS:California'sNative Fish Crisis, Preparedby
Cal Trout and basedon report by Dr. PeterB. Moyle, Dr. JoshuaA. Israel,
and Sabra E. Purdy. The introduction states:" As detailedin the pagesthat
follow, what's beensuspected
for yearswe norl knoznfor certain---California's
natiaessalmon,steellhead
and trout are in unprecedented
declineand teetering
towardsthe brink of extinction. Thecollisionof climatechangewith decades
of
watermismanagement
haaebroughtus to wheretueare today..,If presenttrends
continue,65% of our natiaesalmonidspecies
will beextinctzuithin50-100years,
with somespecies-suchas coho,chum,pink salmonand summersteelheadd-isappearing
muchsooner." We include the pages describing the stafus of
the three listed salmonid specieslisted for thb Russian River: California
CoastCoho Salmon and Chinook Salmonand Steelhead.
Water Recycling Policy/SWRCB
rz/zt/o8
Page 8
One of the solutions provided in this Policy to address the issue of emerging
contaminants is to establish an ADVISORY scientific panel. We have had too
many experiences with scientists who sell themselves to the establishment
willing to provide whatever conclusions the politicians want. If you let a true
scientist select the panel; someone who has been working in the field for a very
long time and has a spofless reputation (like Lou Guillette), perhaps then it
might be a partial and temporary solution. But actually things are degrading so
fast, we don't have enough time to wait for new regulations to cure this dire
problem. At the very least, we need to not make the problem worse, which this
policy is very likely to do. (Sorry to be so harsh, but thaf s my opinion based on
all the information I've received in the last several years. Time is running out!)
It would be far more valuable to focus on conservation and infrastrucfure repair.
Title 22 and Section7 Consultation(low flouts)...
In general, we are very concerned about the reliance on Tifle 22 for asserting that
water quality objectives will be met. There appears to be an underlying
assumption that "incidental runoff" will not end up in our rivers and streami
although no set back limits are required and few means of assurance are defined.
In facf it is totally unclear what amount of runoff is under consideration here.
Under most circumstances, we find Title 22 very limited for meetirg human
health needs and totally inadequate for addressing wildlife and aquatic life
concerns. It focuses mostly on acute diseasesand does little for the resi
There seems to be a logical disconnect between allowing "incidental runoff" and
g_uarantegilg that runoff won't eni up in surface wat-er. We totally support
Howard Wiltshire's comments in this regard. We fail to see how this policy is
"the
protective (other than through assertion) of all beneficial uses, when in-fact,
waterwlys in proximity to the areas of use are already extremely degraded and
are likely to become more so. This policy simply does not demonstrate how
those uses will be protected.
If it is assumed that there will be no wastewater discharge (recycled water IS
wastewater, not potable water), then it becomes irrelevanf to talk about stream
flow, but we believe that would be a grave omission. One important issue for the
Russian River is the Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act
between the National Marine Fisheries Service and Sononia Countv Water
-recently
Agency_ uttq Arqy Corps
9J Engineers. A Biological Opinion was
released and it calls for significant flow changes under Deciiion1670, which wiil
come before the State Board sometime in the next two years. The Opinion calls
for a Permanent lowering of summer Russian River flows of at least a^third at the
Hacienda Bridg" il the lower river (Other flow changes will be proposed as well,
but this is the one that has the greatest impact on downstream .rb"r)
The goal of NMFS is to Permanently close the mouth of the river in summer so as
to improve breeding habitat in the esfuary: We are concerned that the esfuary
may or has become a sink for all kinds of upstream pollution and will creat'e
unanticipated problems for not only fish, but also birds, marine mammals and
other species. (The recenfly released BO can be found at the Sonoma Countv
Water Aggt.y's website.) Already dissolved oxygen and nutrient problems harr"e
been noted on the esfuary bottom.
WaterRecyclingPolio 'S\\'RCB
rz/zt/oB
Pryg
So we wonder how possible cumulative "incidental runoff" incidents would fare
in streams that have minimal flows? If you add this to the prospect of global
warmin g, rt appears
-Many we can have a serious problem, even if the "accidents" are
of the sfudies noted above mentioned that with endocrine
small in scale.
disruptors, it doesn't take much to cause toxicity and the conventional wisdom
that the "dose makes the poison" does not apply here. Furthermore, as Howard
of transport and fate of most pollutants
states,"Little is known of the complexprocesses
in treatedwasteuJater."I would add that even less is known about what pollutants
are picked up by the runoff on its way to wherever it goes.
But wait, this is not all. The Sonoma County Water Agency recently (in the last
two weeks) released their 3000 page EIR for their long-range water supply
project (also available at their website). We have not had the time to examine it
yet, but we ask that whoever responds to these comments examine the
interrelationship between this new policy, the Biological Opinion, and the new
We are looking at numerous major policy andlor
Water Supply EIR.
management changes for the Russian River and NO ONE is looking at how th"y
all interact with one another.
Anti- degradation P olicy . . . .
of the Anti-Degradation
Howard Wiltshire clearly pointed out the weaknesses
portionsof this policy, which we stronglysupport. I recentlyreceiveda copyof
the Environmental Law Foundations over 40 pages of comments on the proposed
Revision of the State's Antidegradation Implementation Guidelines dated Dec.
17,2008, and written on behalf of 25 environmental and other groups. The
commentary challenges the decision process of Regional Boards on "best
professional judgment" in the absenceof standards. It questions the absenceof
objective standards on which to base decision-making. Such limitations have
serious implications for the basic assumptions in the proposed Recycled Water
Policy.
It also comments on the fact that "The Guidance Improperly Ignores Cumulative
Impacts", a concern we have already raised. Another section deals with, "The
Guidance Improperly Allows for a Sliding Water Quality Baseline". In fact, the
Laguna de Santa Rosa and its tributaries are one of the most impaired water
bodies in the North Coast and subject to all kinds of nutrient and other pollution,
partially a result of irrigation practices in the Rohnert Park area. There has been
no attempt to conkol runoff in that area, even while the invasive specie
Ludwegia is totally blocking the skeam channel. Attempts to remove- and
control the invasive were partially successfulfor a brief time. When the removal
project ran out of funds (after about $2 million was spent), the problem came
back full force and perhaps worse than what it had been before. (see picfures)
There is really-nothing in the proposed Policy that assures that things won't get
worse under-this policy. The Rntidegradation Policy is suppor"d"to impro've
clean water, not provide language that acfually allows for eiacerbation of the
problem. We also wonder how this Policy will interface with the new General
Permit, final version not yet released. The Regional Board is now looking at the
General Permif the MS4 Permit that includes non storm water discharg"r, and
the Basin Plan Amendment for "Low Threat" discharges that also includes
Water RecyclingPolic/SWRCB
rz/zt/o8
Pagero
,,incidentalrunoff". It is very unclearhow thesedocumentswill all relate to one
anotherand also the other documentsrecently releasedby sCWA.
Law
we have not had a great deal of time to rEdy the Environmental
Foundation,s comments on the Antidegradation Poiicy, but we 6oP9 $ut {oY
Recycled
will address all the issues raised there"in reference to the Proposed
all these
at
look
t9
Water policy. wu ask that more time be allowed for everyon".
documents synergistically, so we acfually move towards solving ouf _complex
for disaster. We are so
-are
water needs, inst?ad of setting fufure gbnerationsup
sitting in a cubicle
concerned that the people #riting {"t" policies
somewherecompletely out of touch with acfualnafural processes.
letters of
RRWpC strongly supports the comments of Linda Sheehan in her
Permit
General
(on
"statewide
March 27, 200V,bct.'t6, 2007, and.]une 26, 2008
and
from
for Landr.up" irrigation Usesof RecycledWater"). We also will qrrote
on
include here, the bec . 17, 2008lettei by the Environmental Law Foundation
Guidelines".
Implementation
the States revision of the "Anti-degradation
Finally, we are in complete agreementytm the comrnentsof all of the above and
also Howard Wiltshire for ?UgR and Jane Nielson for SWIG. A11 of these
contributions are brilliant and go far beyond our exPertise in identifying the
p;"t1"* of reusing wastewaterIro* a legal lt'rd.scientificperspective.We urge
yo.t. Board to thoroughly respond to all contributions'
RRWpCwill try to include all attachmentswith this letter. We will 4to send.yqt
a hara copy of'the letter and will include any attachmentswe could not include
electronicallv.
BrendaAdelman: Chair
RussianRiver watershed Protectioncommittee
CC: Cat Kuhlman: North CoastRegionalBoard
pS: I appreciatethat the Policy includes a separatesection on nutrient/ salt
about its adeqt?.y. I-have
policy. tn tt,rth, I shareHoward."Wiltshire'sconc-erns
i".t"'a"a the Final Report on the Ludwigia Control P_.ol-".!which includes
pictures taken after prbject completion. I have also included a pic$re of the
iegrowth this year taken_fromthe samelocation as the pictures in the Report. As
yo; can see,if s as though the projectdid not even occur.
Water Recycling Pol io/S\\'RC B
n/zlo8
Page u