Comments on: Discussion Topic 2, Revisions in EPA drinking and groundwater protection standards

By: bcourter

bcourter — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:38:22 +0000

We appreciate your thoughtful input !! As part of our review we will be examining known and potential impacts to humans, biota, and the environment from uranium and thorium extraction facilities. This will include the different pathways of exposure for radionuclides and metals, including air, water, and the food chain. As we mentioned in responding to a previous post, we will be reviewing the concentration limits for uranium and other hazardous substances in water and appreciate receiving your view on this matter.

By: bcourter

bcourter — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:07:20 +0000

Thank you for your very useful suggestion. We will take note of this as we continue our review.

By: bcourter

bcourter — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:05:37 +0000

Thank you for your input! The text on this discussion has been revised to reflect the correction on numerical units.

By: bcourter

bcourter — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:04:37 +0000

Thank you for your input ! The text on this discussion has been revised to reflect the correction on numerical units.

By: JM Block

JM Block — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:21:35 +0000

Where substance can accumulate within organisms (both plant and animal), there should be greater stringency in regulations. Such stringency should apply regardless of whether the organism is human (or if plant, used by humans). As water allows various chemicals to move through the food chain and through every level of the natural environment, toxic materials must be rigidly controlled. Historically, we have been quite cavalier in allowing heavy metals and radioactive substances to enter the natural environment and, hence, the air we breath, water we drink and food we consume. This has increased genetic mutations, cancers, reproductive disorders, and neural developmental disorders in children. The chemical and mining industries will do everything they can to denude regulations. EPA must take a very strong stand on getting toxics out of the environment. Dilution is not the solution to pollution in a finite world. Setting the MCL for uranium at the WHO max of 0.015 mg/litre would be a good start. Similar levels of reduction need to be for all chemicals and radioactive materials, eventually completely phasing out ANY emissions.
Zero emissions in the the environment is both possible and preferable.

By: Olga Kolotushkina

Olga Kolotushkina — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:16:12 +0000

I believe that the EPA should revise the existing groundwater standards for uranium. The EPA should consider recent studies on health impacts of uranium, especially on the reproductive system and fetus development. The EPA should also take into consideration that the currently effective MCL of 0.30-0.44mg/litre significantly exceeds the the World Health Organization’s recommended maximum of 0.015 mg/litre. The difference in these values appears to be so significant that it certainly deserves the EPA’s attention.

By: dave allard

dave allard — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:25:03 +0000

Check your values for uranium MCL, 40CFR141 limit is 30 micrograms per liter. Your 0.3 mg/L would be 300 ug/L.

By: Laura Cummins

Laura Cummins — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:06:58 +0000

The current 40 CFR 192 uranium (234 + 238) standard of 30 pCi/L is actually equivalent to 0.044 mg/L (not 0.44), assuming secular equilibrium (which is not always a good assumption).