SFPUC Water Board Meeting, July 25, 2006
SFPUC Water Board Meeting, November 14, 2006
Excerpts from EPA IRIS Document on Chloramine
At the July 25, 2006 meeting, CCAC members pointed to the lack of studies on the health effects of chloramine. SFPUC resolved to investigate. To view a video of the meeting, click here.
At the November 14, 2006 meeting, the SFPUC was to report on their search for health studies, specifically the skin, respiratory, and digestive effects of chloramine. However, they never reported on such studies. Instead, they gave a general report on chloramine that failed to address the issue. Ms. June Weintraub of the San Francisco Department of Public Health cited the EPA cancer studies from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as proof that chloramine is safe (even though the EPA itself states that these studies are incomplete and inadequate for assessment.)
For a sampling of quotes from the IRIS document that Ms. Weintraub cites, click here. To view a video of the meeting, click here.
July 25, 2006
The SFPUC Board says it will investigate the existence of health studies on chloramine, other than those on trihalomethane formation. Commissioner Dennis Normandy said that the Board would like to work closely with CCAC to resolve the issue. The SFPUC Board was to meet back in about a month to present the findings.
November 14, 2006
At the November 14 meeting, Andrew DeGraca, Water Quality Bureau Manager for the SFPUC, and June Weintraub, epidemiologist for the San Francisco Public Health Department, presented a general report on chloramine and its use. There was no mention of any studies found on skin and respiratory effects of chloraminated water (the original purpose of their investigation.) Ms. Weintraub cited the EPA cancer studies from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as proof that chloramine is safe. (However, the EPA itself states that these studies are incomplete and inadequate for assessment.)
Following the presentation, 15 members of the public spoke for one minute each. Many were outraged that the SFPUC was unwilling to pursue the necessary health studies on the very symptoms they were experiencing.
For a sampling of quotes from the IRIS document that Ms. Weintraub cites, see the next section below. To view a video of the meeting, click here. Be sure to go to agenda item 8 on chloramine.
Integrated Risk Information System
Monochloramine (CASRN 10599-90-3)
|Oral RfD Assessment (I.A.)||on-line||03/01/1994*|
|Inhalation RfC Assessment (I.B.)||no data|
|Carcinogenicity Assessment (II.)||on-line||12/01/1993*|
_I.B. Reference Concentration for Chronic Inhalation Exposure (RfC)
Substance Name — Monochloramine
CASRN — 10599-90-3
Not available at this time.
_II.A. Evidence for Human Carcinogenicity
__II.A.1. Weight-of-Evidence Characterization
Classification — D; not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
Basis — Based on inadequate human data and equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity from animal bioassays.
__II.A.2. Human Carcinogenicity Data
Inadequate. There are no epidemiologic studies of monochloramine itself.
__II.A.3. Animal Carcinogenicity Data
_II.B. Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Oral Exposure
_II.C. Quantitative Estimate of Carcinogenic Risk from Inhalation Exposure