In yet another example of the present Administration's lack of concern over ensuring public health, EPA late last month secretly relaxed its “action levels” for when agency officials should consider initiating emergency response actions for when drinking water is contaminated by a host of industrial chemicals, pesticides and other toxics.
The agency on Sept. 17 made available on its internal web server a new tool aimed at assisting EPA regional officials in determining at what level of contamination an emergency response is necessary.
Agency officials told trade press reporters that they do not intend to release the new removal action level (RAL) calculator to the public despite its past practice of doing so with other, similar tools and guidances used by its Superfund personnel.
Remember, RALs are the ACTION LEVEL -- the trigger for EPA taking emergency action to protect public health by shutting down the contaminated water supply. Relaxing the RAL means increasing the amount of contamination the public is going to drink from now on.
EPA headquarters introduced the new calculator to regional Superfund and emergency response managers as a “user’s guide” explaining how the calculator works and a chart listing new “default” RALs for more than 100 chemicals. The document provides new RALs for drinking water contamination and first-time levels for contamination of air and soil.
Comparison of RALs for 128 chemicals that appear on both the 1998 chart and the 2008 chart, show the new RALs that pertain to sites with contaminated drinking water are, on average, nearly five times less stringent, although not all the changes are that dramatic.
For some of the drinking water RALs that EPA has relaxed -- such as those pertaining to ethyl ether, a flammable solvent, and flourene, a combustible polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) used to make dyes, plastics and pesticides -- the contamination threshold at which an agency official should consider initiating an emergency response action is now more than double what it was under the old guidance.
The old RAL for fluorene, for example, was 1,400 micrograms per liter (ug/L), while the new RAL is 3,460 ug/L -- about two and a half times less stringent. The same is true for ethyl ether, which previously had a RAL of 7,000 ug/L, but in the new calculator has a default water RAL of 17,300 ug/L.
Some of the changes are more extreme. Ethylene glycol, used in automotive antifreeze and plastics, now has a default RAL of 173,000 ug/L, which is nearly 29 times less stringent that its old RAL of 6,000 ug/L. Dinitrotoluene (2,4-), used in the making of explosives, dyes and plastics, now has a RAL of 173 ug/L -- nearly 35 times less stringent than its old RAL of 5 ug/L. And chloral hydrate, which has been used as a sedative drug, now has RAL of 8,640 ug/L, which is 144 times less stringent than its previous RAL of 60 ug/L.
Less stringent standards mean you get to drink more of this stuff -- another example of how conservatives govern.
Originally posted by ScriabinHow do these standards compare to Canada and European countries?
In yet another example of the present Administration's lack of concern over ensuring public health, EPA late last month secretly relaxed its “action levels” for when agency officials should consider initiating emergency response actions for when drinking water is contaminated by a host of industrial chemicals, pesticides and other toxics.
The agency on S ...[text shortened]... ndards mean you get to drink more of this stuff -- another example of how conservatives govern.
Are these numbers for municipal treatment systems or for well-water derived from a ground source?
Originally posted by uzlessnot sure about foreign standards and you could look them up as well as I could.
How do these standards compare to Canada and European countries?
Are these numbers for municipal treatment systems or for well-water derived from a ground source?
these numbers pertain to publicly owned water systems, not groundwater wells.
just pick any old chemical among those listed and do this:
let's pick, say, Dinitrotoluene. Then I'll go to the part of the public health service down in the Centers for Disease Control to get the profile on the compound to see what is known about its health risks.
see http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts109.html
From this page, you can see how to look up anything the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has data for.
The ATSDR fact sheets answer the most frequently asked health questions about chemicals -- in this case the link sends you to the fact sheet on 2,4- & 2,6-dinitrotoluene.
The ATSDR Information Center is at 1-888-422-8737. The ATSDR consider this information is important because this substance may harm you.
Note that, in general, the effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depend on the dose, the duration, how you are exposed, personal traits and habits, and whether other chemicals are present.
As to this chemical, the ATSDR fact sheet summarizes:
2,4- and 2,6-Dinitrotoluene are used in a number of industries. Exposure to high levels may affect the nervous system and the blood. Both are known to cause cancer in laboratory animals. These substances have been found in at least 69 (2,4-DNT) and 53 (2,6-DNT) of the 1,467 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
NPL sites are hazardous waste sites under the Superfund law -- this chemical is associated with explosives and therefore is often found on land formerly and still used by the military.
People would be exposed to potentially dangerous levels of DNT by:
# Drinking contaminated water or eating contaminated food.
# Breathing air near a hazardous waste site that contains buried ammunition wastes.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that 2,4- and 2,6-DNT are possible human carcinogens.
Children could be exposed to 2,4- and 2,6-DNT if they live near a manufacturing plant or a waste site that contains these compounds. Children are at risk of exposure if DNT has leached into a community's drinking water supply from a nearby hazardous waste site, since they drink more fluids in proportion to their body weight than adults. Children playing in DNT-contaminated surface water might be more exposed than adults, because of their larger skin area in proportion to their body weight. These are common factors regarding many hazardous chemicals.
EPA requires that spills or accidental releases of more than 1,000 pounds of DNT be reported to the EPA.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires that total DNT (all forms) in workplace air should not exceed 1.5 mg per cubic meter (1.5 mg/m3) for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends a workplace limit of 1.5 mg/m3. This is the average concentration for a 10-hour day over a 40-hour workweek.
see: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp109.html for the technical data on DNT
Now, pick any other chemical and follow the steps above and see what you find.
I know -- it is complex, not simple. But someone has to pay attention to this and I've chosen to do it.
see http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/index-eng.php Canada includes DNT among those "Substances Which Are Lowest Potential For Exposure And High Hazard." The Canadian reference number is 121-14-2 and they call it Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro- in English and in French they call it 2,4-Dinitrotoluène
see also Municipal Wastewater Effluent Characterization and Loadings
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
http://www.ec.gc.ca/eu-ww/default.asp?lang=En&n=4F4513C8-1
Originally posted by ScriabinWhere I come from, the standard for Fluorene is 0.2 parts per billion. (0.2 ug/l)
In yet another example of the present Administration's lack of concern over ensuring public health, EPA late last month secretly relaxed its “action levels” for when agency officials should consider initiating emergency response actions for when drinking water is contaminated by a host of industrial chemicals, pesticides and other toxics.
The agency on S ...[text shortened]... ndards mean you get to drink more of this stuff -- another example of how conservatives govern.
You get all the chemical parameters here for water.
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/3303e.htm
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/4449e01.pdf