Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Quality Chloramine topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC hears residents and experts spar over monochloramine health concerns
Summary
Commissioners heard a technical briefing from PUC water-quality staff and the San Francisco Department of Public Health about the city's use of monochloramine and received extensive public comment alleging skin, respiratory and digestive harms; the commission agreed to send a Citizens Advisory Committee-backed letter to the U.S. EPA requesting broader study of disinfectants and alternatives.
Commissioners at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on Feb. 9 heard a staff report on the city—s use of monochloramine as a secondary disinfectant and extensive public testimony alleging health problems linked to the chemical.
Water-quality director Andrew deGrama told the commission monochloramine was approved by the U.S. EPA, Health Canada and the World Health Organization, has been used for decades by many utilities, reduces regulated disinfection byproducts and helps microbial control in distribution systems. June Weintraub, senior epidemiologist with the San Francisco Department of Public Health, said the department and other agencies have reviewed toxicology literature and, to date, have not found evidence of population-level disease attributable to monochloramine, while acknowledging individual sensitivities may occur and that some specific epidemiologic studies (for example, on skin or eye irritation) are limited.
Residents described personal and household health problems they attribute to monochloramine during the public comment period. Lorraine Parker (Palo Alto) and multiple other speakers told commissioners they developed rashes, respiratory symptoms or gastrointestinal distress after conversion to chloramination and said home mitigation strategies (bottled water, topical treatments, special laundering) were costly and disruptive. Citizens Concerned About Chloramine and allies urged the commission to press for comprehensive human-health studies and, if warranted, to remove monochloramine from the city—s distribution system.
Bruce Mackler, regional toxicologist for EPA Region 9, addressed commissioners from the audience and said EPA has not observed a public-health problem from monochloramine use in its regulatory work and toxicology reviews, and that existing drinking-water regulations are conservative. Commissioners and public-health staff agreed a definitive, large-scale epidemiologic study would be costly and logistically challenging, and not currently a high national research priority, but the panel recommended continued monitoring and more outreach to physicians and dialysis centers. Staff also noted household options (activated-carbon filters, bottled water, chemical neutralization for small volumes) and posted a detailed Q&A on sfwater.org.
After the testimony, commission staff proposed and commissioners agreed that the General Manager will transmit a letter to the U.S. EPA, consistent with a Citizens Advisory Committee resolution, requesting further scientific review of disinfectant technologies and alternatives and to summarize the commission—s concerns for federal consideration. Staff agreed to provide the commission a copy of the letter once drafted.
The commission did not vote to change treatment practice at this meeting; members directed staff to place a water-treatment workshop on a future agenda to examine disinfection options, monitoring and research needs.
