Docstoc

Ch 12 CECs 010312

Document Sample
Ch 12 CECs 010312 Powered By Docstoc
					 1            CHAPTER 12 CONSTITUENTS OF EMERGING CONCERN
 2
 3
 4   Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) can be broadly defined as any chemicals not
 5   commonly monitored but have the potential to cause adverse ecological or human health
 6   impacts. Due to rapid advances in analytical technology, the ability to detect infinitesimally
 7   small chemical concentrations has caused an “emergence” of chemicals previously undetectable
 8   such as caffeine, antibiotics, detergents, perfumes, disinfectants, insecticides, pain killers,
 9   steroids, other personal care products, drugs, and natural and synthetic hormones. Chemicals
10   known as endocrine disruptors are thought to be adversely affecting the reproductive systems of
11   fish that inhabit waters that also serve as drinking water sources. This chapter provides a brief
12   overview of the issues associated with these emerging constituents in regards to occurrence, fate
13   and transport, health effects, removal by wastewater and drinking water treatment processes, and
14   regulations.
15
16   Classes of Emerging Constituents

17   Pharmaceuticals or pharmaceutically active chemicals (PhACs) and personal care products
18   (PCPs) are often grouped together and called pharmaceuticals and personal care products
19   (PPCPs). PPCPs include a diverse group of thousands of chemicals that are ingested by humans
20   and animals or applied to the bodies of humans and animals. This wide-ranging class includes
21   prescription and non-prescription drugs (for both humans and animals), soaps, fragrances, insect
22   repellant and sunscreen, among others. These chemicals enter sewer systems when they are
23   excreted or washed off the body. Unused medications are also disposed of by flushing them
24   down the toilet or pouring them down the drain. Incomplete removal in wastewater treatment
25   plants results in numerous PPCPs being discharged to surface waters at very low (µg/L to ng/L)
26   concentrations. They can also enter surface waters from land application of organic materials and
27   by runoff contaminated by animal excrement.
28
29   In addition to PPCPs, other classes of emerging constituents include polybrominated diphenyl
30   ethers (PBDEs), pyrethroids, and PFCs. Recently, several other types of high volume use
31   chemicals have gained the attention of researchers and regulators which include current-use
32   flame retardants, antimicrobials, nanomaterials, cyclosiloxanes, and quaternary ammonium
33   compounds (QACs).
34
35   PFCs are chemicals used in non-stick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, and food packaging. The
36   use of PFCs has been restricted over the past decade because of concerns with their potential
37   toxicity to humans and wildlife, but they are frequently detected in the environment worldwide.
38   Triclosan and triclocarban are antimicrobials found in many consumer products such as soaps,
39   toothpaste, and other personal care products. Concerns over these compounds include their
40   potential for endocrine disruption in wildlife, antibiotic resistance, and potential toxicity to algal
41   and microbial communities. Nanomaterials such as nanosilver, titanium dioxide, and carbon
42   nanotubes are used in commercial applications and are currently being studied to investigate
43   their environmental fate and potential toxicity. Cyclosiloxanes are persistent contaminants used
44   in a wide variety of personal care products, silicones, and in commercial applications as carriers,
45   lubricants, and solvents. Information on cyclosiloxanes such as Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane

     Draft Report                                     12-1                                    January 2012
     California State Water Project                                                             Chapter 12
     2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                Constituents of Emerging Concern

46   (D5) is limited due to the difficulty in measuring in environmental matrices. QACs are cationic
47   surfactants widely used in industrial applications and consumer products such as fabric softeners
48   and detergents.
49
50   Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are chemicals that interfere with the normal functioning
51   of hormones in the bodies of humans and animals. It is debatable which compounds should be
52   considered as EDCs, as compounds not currently considered EDCs may be determined to have
53   endocrine disruptive effects after further screening. Modes of action of EDCs include mimicking
54   natural hormones, interfering with hormone function, and degrading hormones. Some PPCPs
55   such as phthalates, used in hair spray, fingernail polish, and cosmetics, and hormones contained
56   in oral contraceptives are EDCs but not all EDCs are PPCPs. For example, industrial waste
57   products such as dioxins (TCDD) and furans, industrial chemicals such as perchlorate, PCBs and
58   organometals (e.g. tributyltin, an anti-fouling agent in boat paint), organochlorine pesticides and
59   their degradation products, and flame retardants such as PDBEs are all endocrine disruptors. In
60   addition, potential EDCs are contained in natural products such as soybeans and alfalfa. EDCs
61   enter surface waters from a variety of sources including industrial and municipal wastewater
62   discharges and runoff from urban and agricultural areas.
63
64   Pyrethroids are primarily used as an insectide. The usage of pyrethroids dramatically increased in
65   the early 2000s after the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and
66   manufacturers withdrew diazinon and chloropyrifos products for residential use because of
67   health risks to users and their families (Aquatic Science Center, 2011). Pyrethroids have
68   endocrine disrupting properties and notably, bifenthrin stands out among the group for its
69   elevated concentration and frequency of detection in urban runoff, which originates from
70   pesticide use around homes and commercial establishments.
71
72   Nitrosamines are a class of organic CECs that are of particular concern to drinking water
73   agencies due to its carcinogenic nature. Nitrosamines can be formed as a byproduct of the
74   disinfection of some natural waters with chloramines. It is anticipated that certain nitrosamines
75   such as N-nitrosodimehtlyamine (NDMA), or a broader class of nitrosamines, may likely be the
76   next disinfection byproduct(s) regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77   (USEPA).
78
79   Occurrence in the Environment

80   EDCs and PPCPs were first recognized as potential contaminants when they were linked to
81   adverse impacts on aquatic organisms. Aquatic organisms, particularly freshwater and
82   anadromous fish, live in streams and lakes used as sources of drinking water so effects on fish
83   can be a first sign of the presence of these compounds in drinking water sources.
84
85   Effects on Aquatic Organisms

86
87   Aquatic organisms are sensitive to low levels of exposure and are particularly vulnerable when
88   exposure occurs during developmentally sensitive times such as before birth and during juvenile
89   stages of growth. There are a number of studies that have shown developmental and reproductive
90   effects on fish exposed to wastewater effluent, shellfish exposed to organotins, and alligators and

     Draft Report                                   12-2                                     January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                            Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                               Constituents of Emerging Concern

 91   frogs exposed to pesticides. Exposure to estrogenic hormones can result in more females than
 92   males in a given fish population, the presence of both male and female reproductive organs
 93   within an individual organism, and reduced reproductive success. USGS has reported finding
 94   intersex or feminized male fish in many locations throughout the country. A nationwide USGS
 95   study that analyzed the concentrations of two hormones (17β-estradiol and 11-ketotestosterone)
 96   in the blood plasma of carp from 25 sites showed that fish from New Don Pedro Reservoir on the
 97   Tuolumne River had the highest concentrations (Goodbred et al, 1997). Fish collected from the
 98   San Joaquin River at two locations had lower concentrations of the two hormones.
 99
100   A study of Chinook salmon collected from 13 locations in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
101   watersheds indicated that up to 38 percent of the male fish exhibited complete sex reversal. The
102   highest percent was found in the Mokelumne River, which is generally considered to be a high
103   quality source of drinking water. The feminization of male salmon is potentially attributed to
104   steroid hormones in wastewater effluent, agricultural wastes, and fish hatchery discharges;
105   detergent metabolites used as carriers in pesticide formulations; and pyrethroid pesticides and
106   their metabolites (Sedlak, 2006).
107
108   Under the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, the Central Valley Regional Water
109   Quality Control Board applied an estrogenic endocrine disrupting chemical (EEDC) screening
110   procedure with juvenile rainbow trout to surface freshwaters collected in the Central Valley and
111   northeastern California (Vlaming, 2006). The indicator used for this assessment was a juvenile
112   rainbow trout liver vitellogenin (Vtg) gene expression assay. Vtg is the liver-synthesized egg
113   yolk protein precursor and is usually silent or not expressed in male fish. The appearance of Vtg
114   in the plasma of adult male or juvenile fish is widely accepted as evidence of exposure to
115   estrogenic chemicals. Results showed that out of 113 samples, only six samples induced
116   marginal, but statistically significant estrogenic activity in the screening procedure. EEDC
117   concentrations in these six samples were low (at or near procedure threshold).
118
119   Since 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Contaminants Division have
120   periodically deployed water sampling devices to assess potential contaminant effects on special
121   status species in the Delta. In 2005, sampling frequency was increased to monthly, and extracts
122   collected from the sampling devices were injected into juvenile striped bass. Analytical results
123   showed numerous pesticides present at low levels in water. The laboratory tests demonstrated
124   that low level mixtures of contaminants in Delta water can set off responses that signal endocrine
125   disruption in fish (Aquatic Science Center, 2011). The results indicate a need for more
126   comprehensive assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals in the Delta. Another study
127   conducted by Johnson et al 2010 was to: 1) determine the presence of vitellogenin in the
128   Sacramento splittail, a native fish of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River estuary and 2) to
129   determine the presence of trace levels of organic contaminants by using passive sampling
130   devices. Results showed that two male splittails out of 12 had extremely elevated vitellogenin.
131   Legacy organochlorines (DDT, DDE, dieldrin) were found at all sites during all seasons;
132   dieldrin, chlordane, and DDE were detected at 58.4 µg/L, 23.8 µg/L, and 61.2 µg/L, respectively.
133   Organophosphate pesticides chlorpyrifos and dioxathion were detected; chlorpyrifos was
134   detected at 154 µg/L in the False River site, a bend off the Sacramento River. Pyrethroids were
135   also detected; bifenthrin, cypermethrin and fenpropathrin were detected at much lower levels
136   than the organochlorines and organophosphates. Triazine herbicides such as atrazine, atroton,


      Draft Report                                   12-3                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                             Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                Constituents of Emerging Concern

137   prometon and simetryn were also observed. PCBs were detected at levels ranging from 32.3
138   µg/L to 73.4 µg/L.
139
140   Another study conducted by a university research team from UC Riverside and UC Berkeley
141   found further evidence regarding low level mixtures of contaminants in Delta water and signs of
142   endocrine disruption in fish (Lavado, 2009). This study evaluated the occurrence and sources of
143   compounds capable of feminizing fish in agriculturally impacted waterways in the Central
144   Valley. Out of 16 locations, estrogenic activity was repeatedly observed at six locations, with the
145   Sacramento River Delta location showing the highest estradiol equivalents. However, the
146   concentrations of compounds most frequently associated with feminization of fish (steroid
147   hormones, alkylphenol polyethoxylates, and alkylphenols) were well below the threshold values
148   for feminization of sensitive species, such as rainbow trout. The inconsistency between the water
149   sample and bioassay results was attributed to the possibility that other compounds could be
150   responsible for feminization of Delta fish species. Specifically, this study concluded that in
151   waters impacted by agricultural activities, estrogenic activity may result from the presence of
152   pesticide mixtures and/or their degradates as well as phytoestrogens, adjuvants, and other
153   compounds with multiple endocrine targets and modes of action. Subsequent work has shown
154   that there was a relationship between feminizing activity in fish and a mixture of alkylphenols
155   and alkyphenols ethoxylates (widely used as surfactants) and the pyrethoid bifenthrin.
156
157   Another recent study investigated the contribution of cattle-grazing rangelands to steroids in
158   surface waters (Kolodziej and Sedlak, 2007). Between April 2005 and March 2006, 30 sites were
159   sampled in Stanislaus, Marin, and Sonoma counties in central California. All of the steroid
160   analytes were detected in one or more of the 88 water samples. Estrone was detected more
161   frequently than the other steroids, with detectable concentrations in 78 percent of the samples at
162   concentrations as high as 38 ng/L. The estrogen 17α-estradiol was present in 31 percent of the
163   samples at concentrations up to 25 ng/L, while 17β-estradiol was present in 18 percent of the
164   samples at concentrations up to 1.7 ng/L. In approximately 10 to 20 percent of the samples,
165   steroid concentrations exceeded predicted no-effect concentrations (PNECs) for the feminization
166   of fish, indicating that allowing cattle direct access to surface waters may impact the health of
167   aquatic organisms in receiving waters.
168
169   In summary, studies conducted to date in the Bay-Delta system have pointed to adverse effects to
170   aquatic organisms from the presence of PPCPs, however more study is needed.
171
172   Occurrence in Surface Waters

173   PPCPs and EDCs have been detected in very small amounts in surface waters in the United
174   States and Europe. One of the first comprehensive studies conducted in the United States was
175   conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) from 1999 to 2000. USGS sampled
176   139 streams in 30 states and found low levels of pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, and other organic
177   wastes (Barnes et al, 2002). Samples were collected from sites downstream of urban and
178   agricultural activities and analyzed for 95 chemicals. In 80 percent of the samples analyzed, one
179   or more chemicals were detected, typically at ng/L concentrations. Steroids, non-prescription
180   drugs (acetaminophen and ibuprofen), and insect repellants were the chemical groups most
181   frequently detected.
182

      Draft Report                                   12-4                                     January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                            Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                               Constituents of Emerging Concern

183   Two subsequent USGS studies were conducted and results were published in 2008. The first
184   study evaluated 100 target chemicals (pharmaceuticals and organic wastewater compounds) in
185   25 groundwater and 49 surface waters sources (Focazio et al, 2008). Sites were chosen in areas
186   that were known or suspected to have at least some human and or animal wastewater sources in
187   upstream or upgradient areas. Sixty-three of the 100 targeted chemicals were detected in at least
188   one sample (Focazio et al, 2008). The five most frequently detected chemicals in surface water
189   were cholesterol, metolachlor, cotinine, β-sitosterol, and 1,7-dimethylxanthine. The second
190   USGS study reported on 63 different organic wastewater compounds in groundwater.
191
192   Synder et al 2008 also analyzed source waters, finished waters, and distribution system water
193   supplies for 62 EDCs and PPCPs for 18 drinking water utilities across the United States
194   (AWWARF 2008a). The suite of 62 chemicals included 20 pharmaceuticals, 26 potential EDCs,
195   five steroid hormones, and 11 phytoestrogens. Forty-one of the 62 targeted chemicals were
196   detected in at least one sample. Overall, pharmaceuticals were the most frequently detected in
197   raw waters. The five most frequently detected chemicals in raw waters were sulfamethoxazole,
198   carbamazepine, atrazine, phenytoin, and meprobamate. Both steroid hormones and
199   phytoestrogens had low frequency of detection in raw water.
200
201   Although the nationwide studies provide a baseline of knowledge for the occurrence of PPCPs, it
202   is important to note that occurrence patterns of PPCPs in wastewater effluent is region specific,
203   and dependent on per-capita water consumption (AWWARF 2008b). In addition, the occurrence
204   of PPCPs in surface waters highly depends on the degree of wastewater impact upon the source
205   water. Therefore, it is important to derive occurrence information based on studies which have
206   occurred in the watersheds draining to the State Water Project.
207
208   National Water Research Institute Study

209   In 2010, the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) completed a source, fate, and transport
210   study of endocrine disruptors, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products which contained
211   eleven sampling sites associated with the State Water Project (Guo et al, 2010). Sample
212   collection was conducted quarterly from April 2008 to April 2009. Table 12-1 shows the
213   sampling locations and significance of the location. The treated effluents from the Sacramento
214   and Stockton WWTPs were not made available for sampling by the respective sanitation
215   districts. However, samples were collected upstream and downstream of both WWTPs.
216




      Draft Report                                  12-5                                     January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                         Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                            Constituents of Emerging Concern

217           Table 12-1. Sampling Locations Associated with the SWP, 2010 NWRI Study
218
                     Sampling Location                          Significance of the Location
      Natomas East Main drainage canal (NEMDC)       Urban Drainage
      American River at E.A. Fairbairn DWTP          Upstream of Sacramento WWTP
      Sacramento River at W. Sacramento DWTP         Upstream of Sacramento WWTP
      Sacramento River at Hood                       Downstream of Sacramento WWTP
      San Joaquin River at Mossdale Landing          Upstream of Stockton WWTP
      San Joaquin River at Holt Road                 Downstream of Stockton WWTP
      H.O. Banks Delta Pumping Plant                 Entry into State Water Project
      O’Neill Forebay (O’Neill Forebay Outlet)       Integration point of the Delta output
      Check 41                                       Entry point into Southern California; impact by
                                                     agricultural runoff from the Central Valley
      East Branch SWP at Devil Canyon                Representing a terminal reservoir
      West Branch SWP at Foothill PCS                Representing a terminal reservoir
219
220   A total of 43 samples were collected during four sample events. Detectable amounts of PPCPs
221   and organic wastewater compounds (OWCs) were found at all locations, except for the American
222   River at the Fairbairn WTP in April 2008, which had no detectable levels of any PPCPs or
223   OWCs. Of the 49 PPCPs and OWCs analyzed, 21 analytes were detected at or above the
224   minimum reporting level, whereas the other 28 were not detected at any locations with the
225   existing MRLs. The occurrence of PPCPs is shown in Table 12-2, from the most to least
226   frequently detected.
227




      Draft Report                                12-6                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                               Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                  Constituents of Emerging Concern

228            Table 12-2. PPCPs and OWCs Detected in the State Water Project Watershed,
229                                      NRWI 2010 Study
230
                                                                                            Location
                                        Detection                                             where
                                                    Minimum         Median    Maximum
          Analyte             Use       Frequency                                           Maximum
                                                     (ng/L)         (ng/L)     (ng/L)
                                          (n=40)                                               was
                                                                                             detected
      Carbamazepine       Anti-         88%         <1          3             26            Holt Road
                          Convulsant
      Diuron              Herbicide     88%         <5          81            873           O’Neill
                                                                                            Forebay
      Sulfamethoxazole Antibiotic       88%         <1          11            71            Holt Road
      Caffeine                          83%         <5          8             67            Holt Road
      Primidone        Anti-            70%         <2          4             21            Holt Road
                       Convulsant
      TCEP                              70%         <5          7             34            Holt Road
      Gemfibrozil      Anti-            53%         <5          5             162           Hood
                       Cholesterol
      Dilantin         Anti-            50%         <5          4             33            Holt
                       Convulsant
      Simazine         Herbicide        38%         <20         <20           408           Devil
                                                                                            Canyon
      Atrazine            Herbicide     25%         <1          <1            2             Devil
                                                                                            Canyon
      O,p-DDD             Medicine      20%         <20         <20           82            Banks
      Methoxychlor        Insecticide   18%         <20         <20           66            O’Neill
      DEET                Insect        13%         <20         <20           35            Holt
                          Repellant
      Methylparaben       Anti-         10%         <20         <20           744           Check 41
                          fungal
                          agent
      Acetaminophen       Medicine      5%          <1          <1            28            Banks
      Linuron             Pesticide     5%          <5          <5            5             Banks
      Bisphenol A         Plastics      3%          <30         <30           140           Check 41
      Desisopropyl-       Herbicide     3%          <20         <20           25
      atrazine
      Ibuprofen           Analgesic     3%          <10         <10           47            Holt
      Octylphenol         Rubber,       3%          <20         <20           68
                          Pesticide,
                          Paints
      Propylparaben       Cosmetic      3%          <20         <20           83            Check 41
231
232   Overall, the median occurrence of targeted PPCPs was less than 30 ng/L, except for diuron (81
233   ng/L). Diuron is used extensively in California as a pre-emergent herbicide. Table 3-E2 also
234   shows the location of where the maximum concentrations were detected. It is interesting to note
235   that many of the maximums for the most frequently detected compounds were located at the San
236   Joaquin River at Holt Road, just downstream of the Stockton WWTP.
237

      Draft Report                                       12-7                                   January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                           Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                              Constituents of Emerging Concern

238   Seasonal variations of PPCPs in wastewater effluent could not be determined, as the Sacramento
239   and Stockton WWTPs were not available for sampling. The seasonal variations of selected
240   PPCPs downstream of the Sacramento WWTP and the Stockton WTTP were evaluated as shown
241   in Figures 12-1 and 12-2. At both locations, caffeine was highest in winter (January 2009),
242   possibly reflecting less biodegradation at the WWTPs or less biodegradation in the rivers during
243   this season. In addition, there might also be less photolysis in the winter. Concentrations of
244   PPCPs downstream of the Stockton WWTP were highest in January 2009. As stated in the
245   NRWI study, since WWTP discharge rates do not vary that much from season to season, the
246   flow in the San Joaquin River may have been lower than normal in January 2009.
247
248   Figure 12-1. Concentrations of five representative PCCPs in the Sacramento River at Hood
249                (downstream of Sacramento WWTP), April 2008-January 2009*




250
251   *Adapted from Guo et al 2010 NWRI Study
252




      Draft Report                                  12-8                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                          Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                             Constituents of Emerging Concern

253   Figure 12-2. Concentrations of five representative PCCPs in the San Joaquin River at Holt
254              Road (downstream of Stockton WWTP), April 2008-January 2009*




255
256   *Adapted from Guo et al 2010 NWRI Study
257
258   The NWRI study also provides an upstream to downstream comparison for selected PPCPs along
259   the State Water Project, beginning with sites just downstream of the Sacramento WWTP (Hood)
260   and downstream of the Stockton WWTP (Holt). Certain PPCPs (carbamazepine, primidone,
261   gemfibrozil, and sulfamethoxazole) are highly attenuated as shown in Figures 12-3 through 12-
262   5. Since carbamazepine and primidone have been shown to be highly recalcitrant (Loffler et al.,
263   2005;Krasner et al., 2006), the attenuation of carbamazepine and primidone can be attributed to
264   dilution with non-wastewater-impacted water, such as groundwater pumpins. Sulfamethoxazole
265   has been shown to undergo biodegradation and sorption to sediments or soils (Boxall, 2008;
266   Radke et al., 2009) and gemfibrozil has been shown to be attenuated by photolysis and
267   biodegradation (Fono et al., 2006). Therefore, the attenuation of gemfibrozil and
268   sulfamethoxazole were most likely due to a combination of dilution and natural degradation.
269   However, detectable levels of some PPCPs were found at terminal reservoirs in Southern
270   California.
271




      Draft Report                                 12-9                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                          Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                             Constituents of Emerging Concern

272              Figure 12-3. Occurrence of Carbamazepine in the State Water Project *




273
274   *Adapted from Guo et al 2010 NWRI Study
275
276                  Figure 12-4. Occurrence of Gemfibrozil in the State Water Project*




277
278   *Adapted from Guo et al 2010 NWRI Study
279
280

      Draft Report                                 12-10                                   January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                         Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                            Constituents of Emerging Concern

281             Figure 12-5. Occurrence of Sulfamethoxazole in the State Water Project*
282




283
284   *Adapted from Guo et al 2010 NWRI Study
285
286   The general conclusion from the Guo et al 2010 NWRI study is that there is no evidence of
287   human health risk from low levels of the commonly detected EDCs and PPCPs in drinking water
288   or drinking water supplies. However, more toxicological studies are needed.
289
290   University of California, Davis Aquatic Ecosystems Analysis Laboratory

291   A pilot study was conducted by the University of California Davis Aquatic Ecosystems Analysis
292   Laboratory to evaluate the presence of PPCPs in the Sacramento River (Schaefer et al, 2009).
293   This work was conducted for the State Water Resources Control Board. Four locations along the
294   Sacramento River were monitored using passive sampling devices: Freeport Marina
295   (approximately 100 meters upstream of the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment plant
296   effluent discharge), West Bank (approximately 525 meters downstream of the effluent
297   discharge), Cliff’s Marina (approximately 1,180 meters downstream of the effluent discharge),
298   and a private dock approximately 1,900 meters downstream of the effluent discharge).
299   Deployment of sampling devices occurred on May 28, 2009 and was removed on June 29, 2009.
300   Table 12-3 shows a summary of all detectable compounds during the study, as well as a
301   comparison to concentrations found at Hood during the NWRI Study. It should be noted that
302   none of the analytes were detected at the Freeport Marina site, which is upstream of the
303   Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment effluent discharge.
304



      Draft Report                                12-11                                   January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                          Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                             Constituents of Emerging Concern

305       Table 12-3. Detectable Results from 2009 PPCP Study of Sacramento River, Aquatic
306                           Ecosystems Analysis Laboratory, UC Davis
307
                         Method                                                                Hood
                                          Freeport      West     Cliff’s       Private
                        Detection                                                            (NRWI
           Analyte                        Marina        Bank     Marina         Dock
                           Limit                                                              Study)
                                           (µg/L)      (µg/L)    (µg/L)        (µg/L)
                          (µg/L)                                                              (µg/L)
      Caffeine         0.020             ND          7.5        ND          ND             ND - 51
      Trimethoprim     0.002             ND          2.00       28.3        26.3           NS
      Sulfamethoxazole 0.005             ND          5.92       13.0        13.0           28-43
      Gemfibrozil      0.002             ND          19.3       ND          214            83 - 162
      Ibuprofen        0.02              ND          ND         182         ND             ND
      Carbamazepine    0.005             ND          ND         45.6        43.2           3 - 11
      Fluoxetine       0.005             ND          17.6       20.8        20.8           NS
      Xylene           0.1               ND          1140       ND          100            NS
      (polycyclic
      musk)
      Nonylphenol      0.5               ND          ND         160         68.5           NS
      Nonylphenol      0.5               ND          ND         800         730            NS
      Ethoxylates
308   NS – Not sampled
309
310   California Department of Water Resources/Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
311   (MWDSC) Joint Study

312
313   MWDSC and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) completed a two-year study
314   in April 2010 of the sources and occurrence of NDMA, other nitrosamines, and their precursors
315   in the Delta (DiGiorgio et al, 2010). Major conclusions from this study include:
316
317          To date, the only instantaneous nitrosamines detected in sampling locations of the
318           Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was NDMA. It was detected once at the Mossdale
319           sampling location at 4.2 ng/L, and also at the Vernalis sampling location at 2.5 ng/L.
320           Photodegradation and/or dilution may be one explanation for nondetection.
321          N-nitrosodimethylamine formation potential concentrations were generally two to four
322           times higher downstream of the wastewater treatment plants. .
323          Primidone concentrations were generally three times higher downstream of the
324           Sacramento WWTP compared to upstream, and three times higher downstream of the
325           Stockton WWTP compared to upstream. These findings are generally similar to the
326           NRWI study above.
327          Diuron does not appear to be a major source of NDMA precursors.
328          Dissolved organic carbon (DOC), trihalomethane formation potential (THMFP), and
329           haloacetic acid formation potential (HAAFP) are not good predictors of NDMA
330           formation potential.
331
332   The second phase of this study began in early 2011 and will focus sampling efforts on the
333   Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and the City of Stockton Regional

      Draft Report                                   12-12                                 January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                            Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                               Constituents of Emerging Concern

334   Wastewater Control Facility. Unlike the previous study, this new study will collect samples by
335   boat to better quantify nitrosamines, their precursors and WWTP tracers (i.e., selected PPCPs) in
336   discharge effluent as well as continue to quantify WWTP impacts in the Sacramento and San
337   Joaquin Rivers. The City of Stockton has agreed to sampling of their treated effluent
338   immediately prior to discharge, but no agreement has been made with the Sacramento Regional
339   Wastewater Treatment Plant. Cryptosporidium and Giardia will also be assessed in the treated
340   effluent. The study will conclude at the end of 2012.
341
342   Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

343   Under the Central Valley Water Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, a special
344   study was conducted to assess the potential for aquatic life impairment in the Sacramento-San
345   Joaquin River Delta due to the occurrence and toxicity of pyrethroid pesticides in the water
346   column. The current use of pyrethroids in California is 50 percent greater than what it was just
347   five years ago (CDPR, 2007). Samples were collected for the eight commonly used pyrethroid
348   pesticides: bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, deltamethrin,
349   fenpropathrin, and permethrin. Water toxicity testing was done with a native crustacean,
350   Hyalella azteca. Major conclusions from this study include:
351
352          For several of the pyrethroids, threshold for water toxicity was as low as 2 parts per
353           trillion.
354          Virtually all urban runoff contained pyrethroids, typically at about four times the
355           concentration that would paralyze Hyalella.
356          Bifenthrin and cyfluthrin are the pyrethroids of greatest toxicological concern in urban
357           runoff.
358          Pyrethroids were present in 66 percent of the final effluent samples from wastewater
359           treatment plants. They were found most often, and in highest concentration at the
360           Sacramento WWTP, followed by the Vacaville WWTP, and then the Stockton WWTP.
361           The typical wastewater treatment plant effluent contains pyrethroids at about 1 to 1.5
362           times the concentrations that would paralyze Hyalella.
363          Pyrethroids were present in 30 percent of agricultural discharges.
364          Pyrethroids (most often bifenthrin) were found in the Sacramento River as it passed
365           through the City of Sacramento. Concentrations peaked near the threshold of causing
366           toxicity.
367
368   United States Geological Survey

369   After the national reconnaissance study was conducted by USGS from 1999 to 2000, there have
370   been no USGS CEC follow-up studies for surface water within the Central Valley. The national
371   reconnaissance study conducted by USGS from 1999 to 2000 included six sites within or
372   tributary to the Delta: the Sacramento River at Freeport; the San Joaquin River near Vernalis;
373   Mud Slough and Orestimba Creek, west-side tributaries to the San Joaquin River that are
374   dominated by agricultural drainage; Turlock Irrigation District (TID) Lateral 5, a canal that
375   receives agricultural drainage and municipal wastewater effluent and drains to the San Joaquin
376   River; and French Camp Slough, a tributary to the San Joaquin River that is dominated by urban



      Draft Report                                  12-13                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                           Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                              Constituents of Emerging Concern

377   runoff. The key findings for this study were summarized in the previous watershed sanitary
378   survey. The key findings for the Central Valley sites are:
379
380          Steroid and Hormone Compounds – Samples were collected from the Sacramento River
381           at Freeport and TID Lateral 5 and analyzed for seven steroid and hormone compounds.
382           Cholesterol was detected at 0.383 µg/L in the Sacramento River and at 1.11 µg/L in TID
383           Lateral 5. Coprostanol was found at 0.624 µg/L in TID Lateral 5.
384
385          Pharmaceuticals – The samples were analyzed for ten pharmaceuticals. None of the
386           pharmaceuticals was detected in the Sacramento River at Freeport, Mud Slough, and
387           French Camp Slough. Acetaminophen was estimated to be 0.004 µg/L in Orestimba
388           Creek and the San Joaquin River at Vernalis. Five pharmaceuticals were detected in TID
389           Lateral 5; acetaminophen at 0.39 µg/L, caffeine at 0.68 µg/L, diltiazem at 0.017 µg/L,
390           1,7-Dimethylxanthine at 0.21 µg/L and codeine was estimated at 0.019 µg/L.
391
392          Antibiotics – The USGS study reported that the antibiotic data were not yet analyzed for
393           the sites in the Central Valley. The data are not available through the USGS National
394           Water Information System (NWIS) database.
395
396          Selected Organic Wastewater Contaminants – The samples were analyzed for eight
397           organics that the USGS has identified as being present in wastewater. TID Lateral 5 was
398           estimated to contain 0.01 µg/L of 1,4-dichlorobenzene and 0.04 µg/L of 2,6-di-tert-p-
399           benzoquinone. None of the organics was detected at the other five sites.
400
401   These data indicate that TID Lateral 5, which receives municipal wastewater from the City of
402   Turlock contained a number of compounds associated with human wastewater at low
403   concentrations. Although the Freeport site on the Sacramento River is downstream of the
404   Sacramento urban area, it is upstream of the discharge from the Sacramento Regional
405   Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP). Due to tidal influence in the Sacramento River, the
406   Freeport site can be influenced by the discharge from the treatment plant but these data do not
407   adequately characterize the quality of water downstream from the discharge.
408
409   USGS also sampled for 63 organic wastewater compounds at the intake to West Sacramento’s
410   Bryte Bend WTP on the Sacramento River just upstream from the confluence with the American
411   River. This location is upstream of the urban Sacramento area and downstream of a number of
412   large agricultural drains. Eleven samples were collected between October 2004 and June 2005.
413   Nine pesticides were detected and nine organics were verified but not quantified in the samples,
414   including caffeine, cholesterol, and the insect repellant, DEET. The Bryte Bend site does not
415   adequately characterize the quality of water entering the Delta because the largest wastewater
416   discharger in the watershed (SRWTP) is downstream of this site.
417
418




      Draft Report                                 12-14                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                            Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                               Constituents of Emerging Concern

419   Occurrence in Drinking Water

420
421   In general, the occurrence of PPCPs is more frequent and at higher median concentrations in
422   source waters than in finished drinking water. The occurrence of these contaminants in finished
423   drinking waters depends on their occurrence in source waters, the drinking water treatment
424   processes, and the analytical detection limit. Some pharmaceuticals and their metabolites have
425   been reported to occur at very low concentrations in some finished drinking water samples in the
426   U.S. A recent, comprehensive study of source, raw and finished waters for EDCs and
427   pharmaceuticals was conducted for the AWWARF study “Toxicological Relevance of EDCs and
428   Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water”. In this study, finished drinking water samples were
429   collected from 18 water utilities across the United States. The five most frequently detected
430   PPCPs were atrazine, meprobamate, phenytoin, atenolol, and carbamazepine, with median
431   concentrations less than 10 ng/L, with the exception of atrazine at median 49 ng/L (Benotti et
432   al., 2009 and Synder et al, 2008). Atrazine exhibited the highest frequency of occurrence (83%),
433   followed by meprobamate (78%), phenytoin (56%), atenolol (44%), carbamazepine (44%), and
434   gemfibrozil (39%).
435
436   Fate and Transport

437   As presented in the 2008 AWWARF Study (AWWARF 2008b), concentrations of PPCPs in
438   surface waters can be potentially reduced due to phase partitioning and abiotic and biotic
439   transformation processes. Trace organic wastewater compounds, such as fragrances galaxolide
440   and tonalide, have high octanol-water partition coefficients and can absorb onto river-bed
441   sediments (Rimkus 1999). However, most pharmaceuticals have low sorption potential and
442   volatility, thus sorption and volatilization removal mechanisms are negligible. Abiotic
443   transformation processes include hydrolysis and photolysis. Photolysis can occur either by direct
444   absorption of light or indirectly by photosensitizers, such as nitrate and humic acids. Several
445   pharmaceuticals such as diclofenac, triclosan, sulfamethoxazole and propranolol have been
446   found to be amenable to photolytic decay in surface waters (AWWARF, 2008b).
447   Biotransformation mechanisms become more important for hydraulic travel times on the order of
448   weeks. Ibuprofen, gemfibrozil, caffeine, and naproxen have been shown to be transformed via
449   biotransformation processes.
450
451   As discussed earlier, the Guo et al 2010 NWRI Study presents fate and transport information on
452   three selected PPCPs through the State Water Project.
453
454   Analytical Methods

455   One of the major challenges in evaluating CECs in water is that there are no national or
456   international standardized methods. Currently the Water Research Foundation is sponsoring a
457   project entitled “Evaluation of Analytical Methods for EDCs and PPCPs via Interlaboratory
458   Comparison #4167”. This project will evaluate current methodology commonly used for the
459   analysis of EDCs and PPCPs by multiple laboratories in various water matrices.
460
461   The goal of the project is to provide guidelines to drinking water utilities on optimizing data
462   quality for EDCs and PPCPs. The study will determine which factors are most important in

      Draft Report                                  12-15                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                              Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                 Constituents of Emerging Concern

463   determining the performance of a method at environmentally relevant (ng/L) concentrations. To
464   accomplish this goal, a literature review and single-blind, multi-round interlaboratory studies
465   will be carried out. Using statistical analysis and expert review of results from the interlaboratory
466   studies, major factors that have the most important role in determining the performance of a
467   method will be identified. After testing and evaluating various sample collection related
468   parameters such as bottle type and preservation and quenching agents, the optimized method(s)
469   will be implemented in several laboratories and further tested in a variety of matrices to ensure
470   widespread applicability of the technique(s). This project will provide reliable data on the
471   capabilities of both analytical methods and laboratories for measuring EDCs/PPCPs in typical
472   drinking water related matrices. More importantly, the product of this research will provide the
473   foundation for the establishment of standardized protocols for a representative target list of
474   EDCs/PPCPs with supportable reporting levels. The final report should be completed by the end
475   of 2011.
476
477   Health Effects

478   The initial concerns when EDCs and PPCPs were first reported in surface waters were focused
479   on increased bacterial resistance to antibiotics and interference with growth and reproduction of
480   aquatic organisms. More recently, concerns for human health due to exposure in drinking water
481   have been expressed. Cause-effect relationships between low-level environmental exposures to
482   specific EDCs and human health have not been established. Although no known health effects
483   have been linked to exposure to drinking water with EDCs and PPCPs at trace levels, drinking
484   water providers are concerned about potential effects and their consumers’ perception of the
485   safety of drinking water. Human and animal studies of the effects of continual, long-term
486   exposure to environmentally relevant doses are lacking for most known or potential EDCs, but
487   results of some animal studies indicate that certain EDCs can produce effects at low doses. There
488   is sufficient evidence to conclude that adverse endocrine-mediated effects have occurred in some
489   wildlife species. However, to date there is little evidence that levels of EDCs found in source
490   waters have produced adverse endocrine effects in humans (Snyder et al, 2005). Studies
491   examining EDC-induced effects in humans have yielded inconsistent and inconclusive results,
492   highlighting the need for more rigorous studies.
493
494   An AWWARF study titled “Toxicological Relevance of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking
495   Water” evaluated health effects by comparing levels of 16 pharmaceuticals, ten EDCs and three
496   steroid hormones in drinking water to calculated health risk thresholds such as acceptable daily
497   intakes (ADIs) and drinking water equivalent levels (DWELs) (AWWARF, 2008a). Water
498   samples were collected from 20 geographically diverse sites within the United States. ADIs are
499   defined as the amount of a chemical to which a person can be exposed on a daily basis over an
500   extended period of time (usually a lifetime) without suffering deleterious effect. ADIs were
501   calculated using methods consistent with USEPA approaches for determining levels of exposure
502   to environmental contaminants that are not likely to be associated with adverse health effects. A
503   cautious, conservative approach was taken in developing the ADI values. ADIs can be converted
504   to DWELs by multiplying the ADI by an assumed body weight and dividing by an average daily
505   drinking water ingestion rate. Estradiol equivalents (EEq) were also used as another approach to
506   evaluate health effects.
507


      Draft Report                                   12-16                                     January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                              Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                 Constituents of Emerging Concern

508   The AWWARF report showed that none of the EDCs and PPCPs detected in their drinking water
509   samples exceeded the ADIs and DWELs, therefore none occurred at concentrations predicted to
510   be of relevance to human health. Additionally, EEqs in the drinking water were either not
511   detected or extremely low, much lower than some common food and beverage items like
512   vegetable juice, coffee and soy milk. The evaluation indicates that although some
513   pharmaceuticals and EDCs were detected in U.S. drinking waters, there is no evidence of human
514   health risk from consumption of these waters. Furthermore, the exposure through water is
515   expected to be small compared to medications, food and beverages, occupational exposures, and
516   residential activities.
517
518   Similarly, the AWWARF study titled “State of Knowledge of Endocrine Disruptors and
519   Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water” evaluated health effects by comparing maximum levels of
520   pharmaceuticals in source and raw waters, to the lowest therapeutic dosage (i.e. the lowest
521   recommended dosage level indicated on the package labeling, assumed to be the lowest exposure
522   level at which the chemical produces the desired pharmacologic effect). The therapeutic dose
523   was translated into a water concentration, assuming that a person drinks two liters of water at this
524   concentration every day. To provide an additional margin of safety, the lowest therapeutic dose
525   was divided by 1,000. For each pharmaceutical, the highest detected concentration in source or
526   raw water was well below the concentration based on the lowest therapeutic dose divided by
527   1,000. Furthermore, the maximum detected concentrations in drinking water were a factor of 5 to
528   12,000 lower than the therapeutic dose divided by 1,000.
529
530   Removal in Wastewater Treatment Plants

531   Although PPCPs and EDCs can potentially originate from numerous sources and enter the
532   environment by many routes, numerous studies have reported the occurrence of CECs in effluent
533   from municipal wastewater treatment plants. EDCs and PCPPs are biologically active
534   compounds. These compounds and their metabolites are not completely removed by current
535   wastewater treatment technologies and are often found in treated effluents. As discussed in
536   Chapter 4, approximately 350 mgd of treated wastewater is discharged to surface waters in the
537   Sacramento, San Joaquin and Delta watersheds. There have been a number of studies to address
538   removal of CECs using conventional wastewater treatment processes, with some of the larger
539   studies as cited below. It is difficult to draw absolute conclusions regarding removal as there are
540   numerous CECs, and removal studies tend to focus on a small group of constituents.
541
542   Conventional wastewater treatment facilities are not specifically designed to remove EDCs, and
543   the degree with which they are removed varies from nearly complete to very little during primary
544   and secondary treatment. Overall, biological treatment (namely activated sludge) is the most
545   effective treatment process for CEC removal when conventional wastewater processes are
546   employed.
547
548   AWWARF Study # 2617 Occurrence Survey of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds

549   This study focused on PhACs likely to be present in wastewater at 18 wastewater treatment
550   plants (AWWARF, 2006). The key findings from that study are:
551


      Draft Report                                   12-17                                     January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                             Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                Constituents of Emerging Concern

552          PhACs are detectable in the effluent of conventional wastewater treatment plants.
553           Diclofenac, gemfibrozil, metoprolol, naproxen, sulfamethoxazole, and trimethoprim were
554           detected in almost all of the wastewater effluent samples. The median concentrations of
555           the PhACs in effluent ranged from less than 10 to 1,400 ng/L.
556
557          Reverse osmosis treatment plants remove most PhACs however metoproiol and
558           propranolol were detected in the effluent from one reverse osmosis plant.
559
560   Some preliminary work by researchers at U.C. Berkeley indicates that hormones such as
561   estradiol are not transformed or removed by secondary treatment and that more advanced
562   treatment is required before significant removals are observed. Others have reported similar
563   results on a range of pharmaceutical compounds (Sakaji, 2004).
564
565   Water Environmental Research Foundation (WERF) Study 01-HHE-20T Removal of
566   Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in Water Reclamation Processes

567   A WERF study conducted by Drewes et al 2006 assessed conventional water reclamation trains
568   and advanced treatment processes to determine their ability to reduce concentrations of
569   endocrine disrupting compounds and activity. Studies were conducted at seven full-scale water
570   reclamation facilities located in California, Arizona, Florida, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The target
571   compounds included several steroid hormones (testosterone, 17β-estradiol, 17α-ethinylestradiol,
572   estrone, estriol) and phenolic compounds (bisphenol A, 4-t-octylphenol, nonylphenol). In
573   addition to chemical measurements, estrogenic activity was evaluated. Removal efficiencies after
574   secondary treatment for total estrogenic activity, 17β-estradiol, estriol, and bisphenol A were at
575   90 percent or greater, while estrone, 4-nonylphenol, 4-t-octylphenol, and 17α-ethinylestradiol
576   had lower removals of 48, 61, 80, and 71 percent respectively. This study also concluded that
577   estrogenic activity in the influent correlated strongly with BOD loading, as well as BOD
578   removal. Other findings included:
579
580          High removal of EDCs and activity was achieved at solid retention times (SRT)
581           exceeding two days.
582          Additional removal of steroid hormones was achieved during chlorination, but only
583           partial oxidation occurred for phenolic compounds.
584          UV using low pressure, high intensity radiation had no effect on EDCs.
585          Small amounts of activated carbon (10 mg/L) were required to remove steroid hormones
586           to below detection limits and significantly reduce phenolic compounds.
587          Microfiltration followed by reverse osmosis was proven to remove EDCs and biological
588           activity to no detection levels.
589
590   WERF Study 03-CTS-22UR Fate of Pharmaceuticals and PCP Through Municipal
591   Wastewater Treatment Processes

592   A study conducted by Stephenson et al 2007 evaluated the passage of personal care products
593   through full-scale wastewater facilities located in the Southwestern United States. The focus of
594   the study was to evaluate the impact of SRT on personal care product removal through secondary
595   treatment, as well as media filtration. As shown in Table 12-4, the study concluded that for the

      Draft Report                                   12-18                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                           Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                              Constituents of Emerging Concern

596   target list of 20 personal care product compounds, half of the compounds were well removed
597   (greater than 80 percent) at SRTs equal to or less than 5 days. DEET required a longer SRT of
598   greater than 13 days and TCEP, musk ketone, and galaxolide required greater than 25 days.
599   Media filtration offered little additional removal of these compounds.
600
601   Table 12-4. Percent Removals for Personal Care Products and Minimum Solids Retention
602   Times Needed to Consistently Achieve Over 80 Percent Removal
603
                                                                                SRT80 (Minimum
                                                                                 Solids Retention
                                     Median Percent                              Time Required to
             Removal Bin                                      Compound
                                       Removal                                 Consistently Achieve
                                                                                 Removal greater
                                                                                 than 80%), days
                                  Greater   than    80 Methyl-3-               0-5
         Excellent Removal        Percent Removal      phenylpropionate
                                                       Caffeine                5
                                                       Ibuprofen               5
                                                       Oxybenzone              5
                                                       Chloroxylenol           5
                                                       Methylparaben           0-5
                                                       Benzyl Salicylate       5
                                                       3-Phenylpropionate      0-5
                                                       Butylbenzyl Phthalate   5
                                                       Octylmethoxycinnamate   5
                                                       Benzophenone            13
         Moderate Removal         Greater   than    50 Octylphenol             5-28
                                  Percent Removal but Ethyl-3-                 >5
                                  less than 80 Percent phenylproprionate
                                  Removal              Triclosan               10
         Poor Removal             Less than 50 Percent TCEP                    >25
                                  Removal              Triphenylphosphate      >5
                                                       BHA                     >8
                                                       DEET                    >13
                                                       Musk Ketone             >25
                                                       Galaxolide              >25
604   Source: WERF 2007
605
606   In 2003, the USGS and Metcalf and Eddy devised a multi-disciplinary collaborative research
607   program to investigate concentrations of 63 trace contaminants at four wastewater treatment
608   plants in New York. Samples were collected after the primary, secondary, tertiary and
609   disinfection stages at each plant. A comparison of removal percentages among plants indicated
610   that in general, the plants operating with activated sludge processes (plants A, B, C) were
611   consistently capable of effecting greater emerging contaminant removal than the plant operating
612   with the trickling filter process (plant D). Table 12-5 shows results for seven of the 63
613   compounds, as these compounds are among the most frequently detected. The wastewater
614   treatment plants examined were effective in removing significant amounts of emerging
615   constituents using conventional wastewater treatment processes. Similar to the Stephenson study,
616   biological treatment was the most important process for the reduction of the studied compounds,

      Draft Report                                    12-19                                 January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                                            Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                               Constituents of Emerging Concern

617   as compared to the filtration or disinfection processes. The median removals observed through
618   the filtration and disinfection processes were less than ten percent at all plants, except for plant
619   D.
620
621   Table 12-5. Median Influent and Effluent Concentration (µg/l) of Selected Emerging
622   Contaminants and percent removals (from influent to effluent)
623
        Analyte
                      Plant    Plant    %     Plant    Plant      %     Plant    Plant    %     Plant    Plant    %
                      A inf.   A eff.   rem   B inf.   B eff.     rem   C inf.   C eff.   rem   D inf.   D eff.   rem
                      3.7      2.1      44    1.0      0.48       53    3.3      1.8      41    2.3      1.8      21
        AHTN
        Caffeine      130      0.075    >99   51       0.056      >99   70       0.11     >99   41       20       39
        Cholesterol   11       ND       100   17       ND         100   21       0.88     96    9.0      1.7      66
        DEET          0.94     ND       100   0.56     ND         100   2.1      ND       98    1.6      1.3      24
        Para-         13       ND       100   4.3      1.1        75    59       0.93     98    18       18       8.1
        nonylpheno
        l
        Triclosan     2.6      0.13     94    2.8      0.13       94    2.4      0.12     94    1.8      1.0      36
        TBEP          14       0.15     99    3.1      ND         100   140      ND       100   12       11       15
624
625   % rem. = percent removal
626
627   Source: Esposito et al. 2006
628
629   AWWA Research Foundation Study #3012 Comparing Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis
630   for Treating Recycled Water

631   Today, the industry standard for subsurface injection of treated wastewater for groundwater
632   recharge or for surface water augmentation projects is to have an integrated membrane system
633   such as microfiltration pretreatment followed by reverse osmosis. In this study, nanofiltration
634   and ultra-low pressure RO (ULPRO) membranes were compared to conventional RO membranes
635   with respect to removing TOC, total nitrogen, and both regulated and unregulated trace organic
636   compounds. The findings of this study reveal that ULPRO membranes can “consistently meet
637   potable water quality requirements for treating source water of impaired quality with respect to
638   TOC, total nitrogen, and both regulated and unregulated trace organic compounds.” ULPRO
639   membranes potentially offer lower operating expenses than conventional RO. Certain low
640   fouling loose NF membranes were tested, and although they demonstrated effluent rejection of
641   TOC and a high selectivity for a wide range of trace organics, they resulted in lowered permeate
642   water quality for ammonia and nitrate.
643
644   Removal in Water Treatment Plants

645   There has been a number of research projects conducted to evaluate specific water treatment
646   processes in removing pharmaceuticals, and both regulated and unregulated trace organic
647   compounds. Relevant information from four research projects is discussed below. The projects
648   studied removal by potassium permanganate and potassium ferrate salts, ozonation, conventional
649   water treatment processes (coagulation, sedimentation), chlorine, chloramines, UV, activated
650   carbon, and membranes.
651


      Draft Report                                              12-20                                          January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                            Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                               Constituents of Emerging Concern

652   AWWA Research Foundation Study #2758 Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in
653   Drinking in Drinking and Reuse Treatment Processes

654   This study evaluated various physical, chemical, and biological drinking water treatment plant
655   processes on the removal/transformation efficiencies of EDCs and PPCPs in natural waters
656   (AWWARF, 2007). The key findings from this study are:
657
658          Conventional Processes - Coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation are ineffective for
659           removing the majority of EDCs and PPCPs that were evaluated.
660
661          Disinfectants - Free chlorine disinfection can remove many target compounds depending
662           on the structure of the contaminant. Chloramines are less effective than free chlorine at
663           removing EDCs and PPCPs. Ozone is more effective than chlorine, and is able to
664           significantly remove the majority of target analytes. Ozone is likely the most cost
665           effective measure for removing the majority of EDCs and PPCPs for water treatment. UV
666           irradiation at typical disinfection doses is ineffective for removing most EDCs and PCPs;
667           however, high energy UV at oxidative doses can be effective, and the combination of UV
668           and hydrogen peroxide can achieve removal rates similar to ozone. As adapted from the
669           NWRI study, Table 3-E6 summarizes the findings from the various disinfection
670           processes.
671
672          Activated Carbon – Activated carbon is highly effective, although exhausted activated
673           carbon is ineffective.
674
675          Magnetic Ion Exchange – Magnetic ion exchange processes are ineffective.
676
677          Membranes – Reverse osmosis and nanofiltration are highly effective while ultrafiltration
678           and microfiltration are largely ineffective.
679
680




      Draft Report                                  12-21                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                            Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                               Constituents of Emerging Concern

681       Table 12-6. PPCP Removal/Transformation Efficiencies in Selected Drinking Water
682                                  Treatment Processes #




683
684
685   Little is known about the occurrence and potential toxicity of degradation products of EDCs and
686   PCPPs that might result from treatment processes such as oxidation that alter chemical structures
687   rather than removing chemicals from water. UV and ozone are possible treatment schemes but
688   they create numerous oxidation products, thereby increasing the number of chemicals present
689   (Daughton, 2006b).
690




      Draft Report                                  12-22                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                            Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                               Constituents of Emerging Concern

691   AWWA Research Foundation Study #3033 State of Knowledge of Endocrine Disruptors and
692   Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water

693   As this project was developed to provide the water industry with a current status of science
694   available on EDCs and PPCPs, much of the information presented in AWWARF project #2758
695   is repeated in this report. Therefore, only additional findings on water treatment will be
696   presented.
697
698          Chlorine dioxide is generally a stronger oxidant than free chlorine.
699          Chlorine and chlorine dioxide react primarily with electron functional groups like amines
700           and phenols. Ozone also attacks carbon-carbon double bonds and activate benzene rings.
701          Advanced oxidation processes such as UV/hydrogen peroxide, ozone/hydrogen peroxide,
702           and UV/ozone are very effective in oxidizing EDCs and PPCPs, however they provide
703           only a small increase in removal efficiency compared to ozone.
704          High-pressure membranes such as NF or RO can remove a wide range of EDCs and
705           PPCPs. However, low-molecular weight organics, such as N-nitrosamines or certain
706           pharmaceuticals (acetaminophen, phenacetine) can be problematic.
707
708   Water Research Foundation Study #4066 Oxidation of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds
709   During Water Treatment

710
711   One of the major objectives of this study was to identify pharmaceutically active compounds that
712   are susceptible to rapid oxidation by permanganate and ferrate salts. Results from the initial
713   bench-scale experiments indicated that permanganate and ferrate are selective oxidants that can
714   be expected to oxidize only a fraction of pharmaceutically active compounds present in source
715   waters. Of the eighteen compounds studied, only ten showed high or moderate activity with
716   permanganate, and only eight showed high or moderate activity with ferrate. It is important to
717   note that carbamazepine, one of the compounds with the highest (88%) detection frequency in
718   the 2010 NWRI study, and resistant to oxidation by chlorine, is rapidly oxidized by
719   permanganate and ferrate.
720
721   Water Research Foundation Study #3071 PPCPs and EDCs – Occurrence in the Detroit River
722   and Their Removal by Ozonation

723   The efficiency of ozonation in removing PPCPs and EDCs at the bench and pilot-scale was
724   studied, and the effects of operating parameters including ozone dose, contact time, pH and
725   temperature on process efficiency were investigated. In general, ozone dose, contact time and
726   DOC loading were the governing factors in contaminant removal, while temperature and pH
727   played secondary roles. The experiments which had the lowest removal rates had low ozone dose
728   (0.8 mg/L) and high DOC loading (4.5 mg/L).
729
730   Results indicated that under optimized water quality and operating conditions, close to complete
731   transformation of 12 (bisphenol A, carbamazepine, erythromycin, gemfibrozil, indomethacin,
732   lincomycin, naproxen, sulfachloropyradizine, sulfamethazin, sulfamethoxazol, tetracycline,
733   tylosin) of the 16 target substances is possible. Ibuprofen and clofibric acid were found to be
734   most difficult to transform, as removal was limited to an average of 50 percent. Bezafibrate

      Draft Report                                  12-23                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                             Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                Constituents of Emerging Concern

735   removal increased from 50 percent to 90 percent when ozone dose increased from 0.3 to 1.5
736   mg/L. Experiments with monensin were not conclusive.
737
738   Regulations

739   The chemicals that are regulated in source waters and in treated drinking water by USEPA and
740   the State of California represent a minor subset of chemicals that are potentially present due to
741   natural occurrence and human actions. Regulatory programs are only just beginning to address
742   these emerging constituents.
743
744   Drinking Water Regulations

745   The concentrations of most PPCPs and EDCs are not regulated in drinking waters in the U.S.
746   From USEPA’s perspective, CECs remain something to be watched rather than actively pursued
747   for regulation (Water Education Foundation, 2011). Some chemicals (e.g. several pesticides,
748   PCBs) that are regulated in drinking water are not currently regulated based on their potential
749   endocrine disrupting effects. One exception is perchlorate. Please refer to the Regulatory
750   Environment Section for regulatory information regarding perchlorate.
751
752   MCLs are generally developed following detection of constituents in drinking water sources at
753   levels that are thought to potentially have an impact on human health. The development of MCLs
754   also requires identification of best available technologies for contaminant removal and the ability
755   to monitor and detect the constituents at levels of concern. The analytical methods for many
756   EDCs and PCPPs are still being developed and most commercial laboratories are not capable of
757   measuring these constituents at the levels found in source waters and treated drinking water.
758
759   Based on the large number of potential endocrine disruptors, new regulations could shift towards
760   regulating compounds as a class based on a common mechanism for toxicity (e.g. endocrine
761   disruption) or similar chemical structure rather than by individual compound. Regulating
762   compounds by class will be an effective technique for regulating due to the growing number of
763   CECs being identified (Water Education Foundation, 2011). Another possible regulatory
764   approach could require a specific treatment technology (e.g. granular activated carbon) for an
765   array of chemicals, instead of setting standards for a class of chemicals or a proliferation of
766   specific MCLs (AWWARF, 2005).
767
768   Wastewater Effluent Limitations

769   The concentrations of most PPCPs and EDCs are not regulated in wastewater discharge permits.
770   As with drinking water standards, a few chemicals that have been found or suspected to be
771   EDCs, are regulated based on other effects such as acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic
772   organisms. Currently wastewater is primarily regulated on a chemical by chemical basis. It is not
773   possible to test all chemicals and possible combinations of chemicals that may occur in
774   wastewater effluent. As a result, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
775   permits include a requirement for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing to determine the
776   aggregate toxicity of an effluent in the aquatic environment. WET testing exposes laboratory
777   populations of aquatic organisms (fish, invertebrates, and algae) to diluted and undiluted effluent
778   samples to determine environmental toxicity of that sample. Acute and chronic tests focus on

      Draft Report                                   12-24                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                             Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                Constituents of Emerging Concern

779   how well an organism survives, grows, and reproduces. However, current toxicity tests do not
780   screen for endocrine disrupting effects. Daughton (2006a) advocates that a more accurate
781   assessment of risks is needed; measuring and assigning toxicity based on the total amount of
782   chemicals in wastewater that share the same mode of action or way of working.
783
784   Groundwater Recharge Regulations

785   CDPH has addressed monitoring for pharmaceuticals and EDCs in the August 2008 Draft
786   Groundwater Recharge Reuse Regulations. The draft regulations specify monitoring for
787   regulated contaminants, contaminants with drinking water notification levels, and priority
788   pollutants, but they do not recommend monitoring specific CECs. CDPH mentions chromium 6,
789   diazinon, and nitrosamines for monitoring. However, the draft regulations state that groundwater
790   water recharge reuse projects should develop their own CEC monitoring program and conduct
791   ongoing monitoring to address public concerns. Depending on the results of analyses and the
792   consistency of the monitoring, subsequent monitoring may be reduced (i.e. twice a year for two
793   or three years). As stated in the draft regulation, a monitoring program could include analysis for
794   representatives of these categories of contaminants:
795
796          Hormones – representing both male and female hormones, or surrogates to represent
797           both.
798          Industrial EDCs - bisphenol A, nonylphenol and nonylphenol polyethoxylates,
799           octylphenol, octylphenol polyethoxylates, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or
800           surrogates that could represent one or more industrial EDCs.
801          Pharmaceuticals - acetaminophen, amoxicillin, azithromycin, carbamazepine,
802           ciprofloxacin, dilantin, gemfibrozil, ibuprofen, lipitor, meprobamate, sulfamethoxazole,
803           trimethoprin, and salicylic acid or surrogates.
804          Personal care products – triclosan and DEET, or surrogates.
805          Other chemicals – caffeine, iodinated contrast media, fire retardants.
806
807   Senate Bill 918, signed by the Governor and filed on Sept 30, 2010 states that CDPH must adopt
808   uniform water recycling criteria for groundwater recharge by December 31, 2013 and must adopt
809   uniform water recycling criteria for surface water augmentation by December 31, 2016. CDPH is
810   targeting to release another revised draft for criteria governing groundwater recharge by the end
811   of 2011. In addition, CDPH must investigate the feasibility of developing uniform water
812   recycling criteria for direct potable re-use and provide a report by December 31, 2016.
813
814   The State Water Resources Control Board convened a CEC Science Advisory Panel to develop
815   guidance for the establishment of monitoring programs to assess potential CEC threats from
816   water recycling activities. The final report was completed in June 2010 which was followed by a
817   Staff Report. The Staff Report provides recommendations for monitoring CECs in municipal
818   recycled water used for groundwater recharge/reuse and landscape irrigation. The Staff Report
819   also presents recommendations for additional research on CEC monitoring. A public hearing was
820   held on December 15, 2010 to accept comments on the Staff Report. The State Water Resources
821   Control Board is currently considering comments received on the Staff Report.




      Draft Report                                   12-25                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                            Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                               Constituents of Emerging Concern

822   According to State Water Resources Control Board staff, an amendment will be written for the
823   existing Recycled Water Policy developed in 2009. This amendment will address what
824   constituents should be monitored for groundwater recharge/reuse projects. The amendment
825   would then be peer-reviewed, and then open for public comment before final adoption, likely
826   sometime in 2012.

827   The CEC Science Advisory Panel identified four indicator compounds based on their
828   toxicological relevance for groundwater recharge projects: NDMA, 17beta-estadiol, caffeine,
829   and triclosan. Four additional CECs were identified as viable performance indicators (N,N-
830   Diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET), gemfibrozil, iopromide, and sucralose), along with certain
831   surrogate parameters. Surrogates for groundwater recharge projects by surface spreading are
832   ammonia, nitrate, DOC, and UVA. Surrogates for groundwater recharge by injection are
833   conductivity and DOC, and surrogates for landscape irrigation are turbidity, chlorine residual,
834   and total coliform. CDPH recommended monitoring for certain additional CECs (bisphenyl A,
835   boron, carbamazepine, chlorate, chromium 6, diazinon, 1,4-dioxane, naphthalene, N-
836   nitrosodiethyamine (NDEA), N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine (NDPA), N-nitrosodiphenylamine, N-
837   nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR), 1,2,3-Trichloropropane, Tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphate, and
838   vanadium) which have been incorporated into the final Staff Report.

839   Numerous State Water Project contractors and their member agencies submitted comments on
840   the Staff Report including Alameda County Water District, Zone 7 Water Agency, Coachella
841   Valley Water District, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, Metropolitan Water District of
842   Southern California, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and the San Diego County
843   Water Authority. The main comments submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board
844   were: 1) to not add the 13 additional constituents for baseline CEC monitoring for groundwater
845   recharge spreading projects, as specified in a comment letter from the CDPH, as the letter
846   provided no scientific or technical basis, 2) the Regional Boards should not have the authority to
847   select and add CECs to be monitored to individual permits, even if the CECs identified by the
848   Panel are included as a minimum, and 3) the State Water Board should adopt the Panel’s
849   recommendation to conduct a one-year study of a particular class of CECs for which the Panel
850   felt it had insufficient occurrence information (Table 8.4 in Panel Report). A few of the letters
851   also recommended a clearer distinction for the monitoring requirements for irrigation projects
852   from those applied to groundwater recharge. No additional monitoring of CECs is necessary for
853   irrigation project beyond the monitoring specified in Title 22. The Los Angeles Regional Water
854   Quality Control Board commented that although the Panel chose to focus its recommendations
855   on toxicological relevance of CECs to human health, they believe that this focus was too narrow,
856   given that in the Los Angeles Region, most dischargers that recycle treated wastewater also
857   discharge directly to surface waters where resident aquatic life is exposed to nearly 100 percent
858   effluent. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board believes it is imperative to
859   consider toxicological impacts on ecological receptors in developing a monitoring strategy for
860   CECs.

861   The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board is currently developing salt and nutrient
862   management plans for groundwater basins within its region. Suggested elements of a salt/nutrient
863   management plan include a placeholder for CECs. Requirements for monitoring CECs will be



      Draft Report                                  12-26                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                               Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                  Constituents of Emerging Concern

864   based on adoption of policy currently being developed by the State Water Resources Control
865   Board.
866
867   Environmental Risk Assessments

868   The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires environmental risk assessments for new
869   pharmaceuticals with predicted environmental concentrations greater than 1 µg/L (Snyder et al,
870   2005). Daughton (2006b) points out that the conventional toxicological procedures used in these
871   risk assessments may not screen for the types of subtle effects that could occur from exposure to
872   the low-levels found in surface waters.
873
874   Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

875   This is a monitoring program through the USEPA Office of Science that was finalized in April
876   2009. This program only applies to pesticide manufacturers, importers, and potentially users. The
877   USEPA developed criteria for screening endocrine disrupters to identify priority chemicals.
878   USEPA will implement the workplan by using assays in a two-tiered screening and testing
879   process (Endocrine Disrupters Screening Program):
880
881            Through Tier 1 screening, USEPA hopes to identify chemicals that have the potential
882           to interact with the endocrine system.
883            Through Tier 2 testing, USEPA will determine the endocrine-related effects caused
884           by each chemical and obtain information about effects at various doses.
885
886   USEPA will use this two-tiered approach to gather information needed to identify endocrine-
887   active substances and take appropriate action. The initial list of 67 chemicals considered for Tier
888   1 screening is primarily pesticides – both active ingredients and inerts. In December 2007,
889   USEPA issued draft procedures for the initial screening. For active ingredients, test orders will
890   be sent to technical registrants and for inert ingredients, test orders will be sent to manufacturers,
891   importers, and potentially users of chemicals on the list. Some of these constituents are already
892   regulated in drinking water and some are on the Contaminant Candidate List 3.
893
894   A second list of chemicals for Tier 1 screening was published in November 2010. The list of 134
895   chemicals includes a large number of pesticides, two perfluorocarbon compounds (PFCs), and
896   three pharmaceuticals (erythromycin, nitroglycerin, and quinoline). This list also contains other
897   chemicals, such as those used for industrial manufacturing processes, plasticizers, or in the
898   production of pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs).
899
900   Mandatory Control Programs

901   There are three main types of programs that collect home-generated pharmaceuticals in
902   California: continuous collection programs, events, or mail-back programs. The primary
903   locations for continuous collection programs are pharmacies, law enforcement sites, and
904   household hazardous waste collection sites. Mail-back collection programs are defined as
905   programs that transport drug waste through the U.S. Postal Service to an appropriate disposal
906   location. The three mail-back programs all began in the Bay Area in 2009: the City of San


      Draft Report                                    12-27                                     January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                             Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                Constituents of Emerging Concern

907   Francisco, Teleosis (non-profit), and Santa Cruz County. CalRecycle has a directory that lists
908   facilities in California that collect pharmaceuticals for disposal.
909   http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/HomeHazWaste/HealthCare/Collection/Default.aspx
910
911   Based on information available to CalRecycle, collection programs in California currently collect
912   approximately 200,000 pounds of home-generated pharmaceutical waste per year. However,
913   several sources suggest that a very large amount is sold and that a significant percentage
914   becomes waste. The Associated Press estimated that Americans generate at least 250 million
915   pounds of pharmaceuticals and contaminated packaging in medical facilities each year. Relative
916   to California population, that would be approximately 30 million pounds in California hospitals
917   alone (CalRecycle, 2010).

918   The disposal of pharmaceutical waste is governed by provisions of SB 966 (Simitian, Chapter
919   542, Statutes of 2007). It requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and
920   Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop, in consultation with appropriate government agencies,
921   criteria and procedures for model programs for the collection and proper disposal of
922   pharmaceutical waste. Provisions of SB 966 remain in effect until January 1, 2013. The goal is to
923   provide local jurisdictions in California with the tools to implement collection programs as well
924   as work with manufacturers, retailers, pharmacies, hospitals, and other health-related constituents
925   for the proper disposition of medication and sharps in a single location.

926   As directed by SB 966, CalRecycle formed a working group that consisted of representatives
927   from the Pharmacy Board, State Water Resources Control Board, California Department of
928   Public Health (CDPH), and the Department of Toxic Substances Control. CalRecycle staff
929   convened the working group and conducted four workshops during 2008 to facilitate comments
930   and suggestions from stakeholders representing local government, pharmaceutical companies,
931   medical and hazardous waste haulers, for-profit and non-profit health care providers, and other
932   interested parties. As a result of this collaboration, criteria and procedures are available for
933   facilities willing to become model programs for the collection and proper disposal of
934   pharmaceutical waste.

935   SB 1305 revised a section of the State of California Medical Waste Management Act to make it a
936   violation of state law for home-generated sharps waste to be placed in solid waste collection
937   containers, including recycling and green waste containers. SB 1305 also require sharps waste to
938   be transported in an approved sharps containers and managed by a specified facility (i.e.,
939   household hazardous waste facility, medical waste generator facility, or a facility managed as
940   part of a mail back program). SB 1305 was approved by Gov. Schwarzenegger on July 12, 2006
941   and took effect on September 1, 2008.
942
943   Voluntary Control Programs

944   The United States Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Agency, in conjunction with state
945   and local law enforcement throughout the United States, conducted the first ever National
946   Prescription Take Back Day on September 25, 2010. Due to the overwhelming success of the
947   first event, the Second National Prescription Take Back Day was held on April 30, 2011.



      Draft Report                                   12-28                                    January 2012
      California State Water Project                                                              Chapter 12
      2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                 Constituents of Emerging Concern

948   Some communities have taken a proactive approach and started to educate their customers on
949   proper disposal practices for unused pharmaceuticals. One example is the “No Drugs Down the
950   Drain” Program sponsored by the City of Los Angeles, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
951   County, County of Los Angeles, Orange County Sanitation District, and the Cities of Riverside
952   of San Diego. The No Drugs Down the Drain program is a public outreach program to provide
953   California residents living in specific regions with available, safe and proper disposal choices.
954   These agencies have a web page that discusses how to dispose of drugs depending on your
955   geographical location Generally, the two recommended options are 1) take to a household
956   hazardous waste collection center and 2) put in a sturdy and sealed container and then in the
957   trash. In limited cases, unused or expired pharmaceuticals can be returned to pharmacies for
958   "take-back" programs. Chemotherapy pharmaceuticals need to be returned to the clinic that
959   dispensed them.

960   In addition, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in conjunction with the Los Angeles
961   County Department of Public Health and Public Works have developed a “Safe Drug Drop-Off
962   Program”. The program provides an opportunity for residents to safely and anonymously
963   surrender any unused or expired prescriptions, over the counter medications, needles or other
964   controlled substances. Controlled substances cannot be taken to a household hazardous waste
965   collection center.

966   Websites for the cities of Sacramento and Stockton and the counties of Sacramento and San
967   Joaquin were searched for information on disposal of PPCPs. The City of Sacramento and
968   Sacramento County provide information on disposal of household hazardous waste (which
969   includes sharps), electronic wastes, paints, and universal wastes (e.g. batteries, fluorescent light
970   bulbs), but no information could be located on disposal of medications. The City of Stockton and
971   San Joaquin County lists prescription medicines as an example of household hazardous waste,
972   and also lists one location where home generated sharps (needles) and medications can be
973   disposed of.
974
975   The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District has a “Don’t Flush Your Meds” website
976   where locations are given for disposal of both prescription and over the counter medications, as
977   well as controlled substances.
978




      Draft Report                                   12-29                                     January 2012
       California State Water Project                                                            Chapter 12
       2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                               Constituents of Emerging Concern

 979                                           REFERENCES
 980
 981
 982   Aquatic Science Center, 2011. The Pulse of the Delta: Monitoring and Managing Water Quality
 983   in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Re-thinking Water Quality Monitoring. Contribution 630.
 984   Aquatic Science Center, Oakland, CA.
 985
 986   AwwaRF. 2005. AwwaRF Featured Topic: EDCs, PhACs, and PCPs. Accessed by internet at:
 987   www.awwarf.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/topicSnapshot.aspx?topic=EDCS.
 988
 989   AwwaRF. 2006. Project Abstract and Executive Summary Occurrence Survey of
 990   Pharmaceutically Active Compounds #2617.
 991
 992   AwwaRF. 2007. Removal of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment
 993   Processes. #2758.
 994
 995   AwwaRF. 2008a. Toxicological Relevance of Endocrine Disruptors and Pharmaceuticals in
 996   Drinking Water. #3085.
 997
 998   AwwaRF. 2008b. State of Knowledge of Endocrine Disruptors and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking
 999   Water. #3033.
1000
1001   AwwaRF. 2008c. Comparing Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis for Treating Recycled Water.
1002   #3012.
1003
1004   Barnes, K.K, D.W. Kolpin, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, E.T. Furlong, S.D. Zaugg, and L.B.
1005   Barber. 2002. Water-Quality Data for Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic
1006   Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000.U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
1007   02-94.
1008
1009   Benotti, M. J., Trenholm, R. A., Vanderford, B.J., Holady, J.C., Stanford, B.D., and Synder, S.A.
1010   2009. Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in U.S. Drinking Water.
1011   Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 597-603.
1012
1013   Boxall, A.B.A. Fate and Transport of Veterinary Medicines in the Soil Environment. In Fate of
1014   Pharmaceuticals in the Environment and in Water Treatment Systems. Aga, D.S., Ed. CRC
1015   Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2008;123-137.
1016
1017   CalRecycle. 2010. Evaluation of Home-Generated Pharmaceutical Programs in California.
1018   Background Paper for July 20, 2010 Workshop.
1019
1020   Daughton, C.G. 2006a. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment:
1021   Overarching Issues and Overview.Accessed by internet at:
1022   www.EPA.gov/esd/chemistry/pharma/book-summary.htm.
1023



       Draft Report                                  12-30                                    January 2012
       California State Water Project                                                             Chapter 12
       2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                                Constituents of Emerging Concern

1024   Daughton, C.G. 2006b. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment.
1025   Accessed by internet at: www.EPA.gov/nerlesd1/chemistry/pharma/faq.htm.
1026   DiGiorgio, C.L., Krasner, S.W., Guo, Y.C., Dale, M.S., Sclimenti, M.J., and MWQI Field Unit.
1027   2010. Investigation into the Sources of Nitrosamines and Their Precursors in the Sacramento-
1028   San Joaquin Delta, California.
1029
1030   Esposito, K.M., P.J. Phillips, B.M. Stinson, R. Tsuchihashi, J. Anderson. 2005. “The Implication
1031   of Emerging Contaminants in the Future of Water Reuse.” WateReuse 2005 Symposium
1032   Proceedings.
1033
1034   Focazio, M.J., Kolpin, D.W., Barnes, K.K., Furlong, E.T., Meyer, M.T., Zaugg, S.D., Barber,
1035   L.B., Thurman, M.E. 2008. A national reconnaissance for pharmaceuticals and other organic
1036   wastewater contaminants in the United States- II) Untreated drinking water sources, Science of
1037   the Total Environment, 402, 201-216.
1038
1039   Fono, L.J., Kolodziej, E.P., Sedlak, D.L. 2006. Attenuation of Wastewater-Derived
1040   Contaminants in an Effluent-Dominated River. Environmental Science and Technology. 40,
1041   7257-7262.
1042
1043   Goodbred, S.L, R.J Gilliom, T.S. Gross, N.P. Denslow, W.L Bryant, and T.R. Schoeb. 1997.
1044   Reconnaissance of 17B-Estradiol, 11-Ketotestosterone, Vitellogenin, and Gonad Histopathology
1045   in Common Carp of United States Streams: Potential for Contaminant-Introduced Endocrine
1046   Disruption. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-627.
1047
1048   Guo, Y. C.; Krasner, S. W.; Fitzsimmons, S.; Woodside, G.; Yamachika, N. 2010. Source, Fate
1049   and Transport of Endocrine Disruptors, Pharmaceuticals, and Personal Care Products in
1050   Drinking Water Sources in California. National Water Research Institute, 2010.
1051   http://www.nwri-usa.org/CECs.htm
1052
1053   Johnson, C.S., Kroll, K., Denslow, N., and K. Aceituno. “Evaluation of Contaminants and
1054   Endocrine Disruption in Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary”, poster at 2010 Bay Delta
1055   Conference.
1056
1057   Kolodziej, E.P. and Sedlak, D.L. 2007. Rangeland Grazing as a Source of Steroid Hormones to
1058   Surface Waters. Environ. Sci. Tech. 41(10):3514-3520.
1059
1060   Krasner, S.W., Pastor, S.J., Garcia, E.A. 2006. Measurement of the Pharmaceutical Primidone
1061   as a Conservative Tracer of Wastewater Influences in Drinking Water Supplies. Proc. 2006
1062   American Water Works Association Water Quality Technology Conference, Denver, CO, 2006.
1063
1064   Lavado, R., Loyo-Rosales, J.E., Floyd, E., Kolodziej, E.P., Snyder, S.A., Sedlak, D.L. and D.
1065   Schlenk. Site-Specific Profiles of Estrogenic Activity in Agricultural Areas of California’s Inland
1066   Waters. Environ. Sci. Tech. 43:9110-9116.
1067




       Draft Report                                   12-31                                    January 2012
       California State Water Project                                                            Chapter 12
       2011 Watershed Sanitary Survey Update                               Constituents of Emerging Concern

1068   Loffler, D., Rombke, J., Meller, M., and Ternes, T.A. 2005. Environmental Fate of
1069   Pharmaceuticals in Water/Sediment Systems. Environmental Science and Technology, 39, 5209-
1070   5218.
1071
1072   Radke, M., Lauwigi, C., Heinkele, G., Murdter, T.E., and Letzel, M. 2009. Fate of the Antibiotic
1073   Sulfamethoxazole and Its Two Major Human Metabolites in a Water Sediment Test.
1074   Environmental Science and Technology, 43, 3135-3141.
1075
1076   Rimkus, G.G. 1999. Polycyclic Musk Fragrances in the Aquatic Environment. Toxicology
1077   Letters 111 (1-2): 37-56.
1078
1079   Sakaji, R.H, S. Book, R. Hultquist, and R. Haberman. 2004. Xenobiotics: What Are They and
1080   Why Are We So Concerned About Them? Jour. AWWA 96:5:58.
1081
1082   Schaefer, M. and M.L. Johnson. 2009. Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the
1083   Sacramento River. Final Report: Activities from May-June 2008. Prepared for the State Water
1084   Resources Control Board. October 2009.
1085
1086   Sedlak, D.L. 2006. Identifying the Causes of Feminization of Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento
1087   and San JoaquinRiver System. Accessed by internet at: www.ce.berkeley.edu/~sedlak.
1088
1089   Snyder, E.C, R.C. Pleus, and S.A. Snyder. 2005. Pharmaceuticals and EDCS in the US Water
1090   Industry-An Update. Jour. AWWA 97:11:32.
1091
1092   Vlaming, V., A. Biales, D. Riordan, D. Markiewicz, R. Holmes, P. Otis, C. Leutenegger, R.
1093   Zander, and J. Lazorchak. 2006. Screening California Surface Waters for Estrogenic Endocrine
1094   Disrupting Chemicals (EEDC) with a Juvenile Rainbow Trout Liver Vitellogenin mRNA
1095   Procedure.
1096
1097   Water Education Foundation. Pervasive and Persistent: Constituents of Emerging Concern.
1098   Western Water, January/February 2011.
1099
1100   Water Research Foundation Study. 2010. Oxidation of Pharmaceutically Active Compounds
1101   During Water Treatment. #4066.
1102
1103   Water Research Foundation Study. 2009. PPCPs and EDCs – Occurrence in the Detroit River
1104   and Their Removal by Ozonation. #3071.
1105
1106   WERF. 2006. Removal of Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in Water Reclamation Processes.
1107
1108   WERF. 2007. Fate of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products Through Municipal
1109   Wastewater Treatment Processes
1110




       Draft Report                                  12-32                                    January 2012

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:2/26/2012
language:
pages:32