EJAM Comments on Proposed Permanent Rules Relating to Health Risk Limits for Groundwater

October 12, 2008

Prepared by Michael Neumann, Executive Director
Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota
2100 Plymouth Av N, Minneapolis, MN 55411
612-436-5402, mkneumann@comcast.net

These comments are submitted on behalf of Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota (EJAM), a membership based non-profit organization dedicated to reducing disparities that result from environmental injustice. EJAM strongly supports the efforts of the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to update the Health Risk Limits for Groundwater to conform to the Health Standards Statute of 2001 (Minn. Stat. 144.0751). Standards that include the unique vulnerabilities of children are essential to protecting the health of infants and children, especially those who obtain their drinking water from wells.

General comments:

EJAM has been involved with the HRLs development process for a number of years and has submitted written comments on earlier draft rules. However, we are grassroots group with limited staff resources and expertise on these issues, so it has been nearly impossible to track the progress of these rules over the last seven years. Indeed, we are not alone in this lack of resources and thus conclude this type of process does not allow for adequate and meaningful public input, especially on issues of environmental justice, which are very applicable here. There is ample evidence that contaminated sites disproportionately impact communities of color, low income communities and Indigenous Peoples, as evidenced by numerous examples right here in Minnesota. Dioxin contaminated soil on the Leech Lake reservation and arsenic contaminated soil in the Phillips neighborhood of South Minneapolis are but two examples. Since the HRLs determine levels of clean up at these sites, they are essential to protecting the health of these and other communities.

While the process has taken more than seven years, we are not pleased that that the number of chemicals included has been reduced from 230 chemicals in 2002 to the 21 in the current rules. Neither arsenic nor dioxin, two chemicals of concern for communities, are among those for which HRLs are proposed.

Methodology:

While we support MDH’s updated methodology for developing the HRLs as generally protective of public health, we suggest that MDH adopt a more protective standard for cancer risk. The proposed HRLs utilize an additional lifetime cancer risk of 1/100,000. Given the disproportionate impacts of cancer on low income communities, communities of color and Indigenous Peoples, due to greater community and worker exposures and the disparities in health care and other resources to cope with this disease, we suggest that the State of Minnesota regulate groundwater carcinogens using a 1/1 million cancer risk goal to better protect the health of Minnesota citizens.

Comments on specific HRLs:

We are concerned that nine of the 21 contaminants in the 2008 proposed rules are less protective than those proposed in earlier draft rules. Specifically, we do not support the following HRLs:

Acetochlor: The proposed HRL of 9.0 ppb should be reduced to 2.0 ppb, as in the addendum to the 2004 draft rules.

Alachlor: The proposed HRL of 5.0 ppb should be reduced to 0.7 ppb, as in the addendum to the 2004 draft rules.

Atrazine: EJAM recommends that the HRL for atrazine be reduced to 1 ppb, rather than the proposed 3 ppb to better protect public health.

Benzene: The proposed HRL of 2.0 ppb should be reduced to 1.0 ppb, as in the proposed 2008 draft rules.

Chloroform: The proposed HRL of 30.0 ppb should be reduced to 20.0 ppb, as in the proposed 2008 draft rules.

Cyanazine: EJAM does not support the proposed HRL for cyanazine because it does not account for the carcinogenic potential of this chemical.

Cis-1,2-dichloroethylene: The proposed HRL of 50.0 ppb should be reduced to 20.0 ppb, as in the 2004 draft rules.

Nitrates: EJAM does not support the proposed HRL for nitrates of 10,000 ug/L, as it is based on an antiquated public health standard. Consistent with the 2001 legislative mandate to consider the unique vulnerabilities of young children, an additional safety factor should be included in this HRL to protect infants from “blue baby syndrome.”

Pentachlorophenol: The proposed HRL of 1.0 ppb should be reduced to 0.5 ppb, as in the 2004 draft rules.

1,1,1-Trichloroethane: EJAM does not support the proposed 2008 HRL, as it is 45 times less protective than the USEPA MCL and 15 times less protective than the 1993-1994 HRL.

2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy) propionic acid: The proposed HRL of 50.0 ppb should be reduced to 20.0 ppb, as in the 2004 draft rules.

Vinyl chloride: The proposed HRL of 0.2 ppb should be reduced to 0.08 ppb, as in the 2004 draft rules.