In reference to your article on the front page of the Feb. 11-13 edition regarding McDermitt water rates, I noticed a few errors.
The reporter states: "The drinking water requirement sets allowable arsenic levels at 10 parts per million." This is not true. The actual federal and state standard is not for allowable contaminant levels, it is based upon maximum contaminant levels (MCL), which is set by the EPA.
That standard is 10 parts per billion, with a "B", or 0.010 parts per million.
There also seems to be some confusion about the severity or risk involved with arsenic contamination.
Either the reporter was misquoting GID member Gary Wilson when referring to "only 10.5 or 11 ppm" or the GID is vastly understating the seriousness of the contaminant at that level.
Even if the sources of the quotes and the reporter simply confused ppm (parts per million) with ppb (parts per billion), sampling amounts at those levels should be a great cause for concern. Any sample that returns an amount above 0 ppb should be a concerning.
Zero parts per billion is the EPA's maximum contaminant level goal or MCLG. Any amount above that number is not allowable, it is contaminated. Once you reach 10 parts per billion, the water source should either be shut down or modified to correct the problem.
The proposed solution for the contamination problem was to drill a new well and mix the two groundwater sources to dilute the concentration. While this may be the most cost-effective solution, it is definitely not the best health and safety option.
Arsenic stays in the body and whether your body receives 10 ppb or 5 ppb, it's still accumulating the element and, depending upon individual tolerance, the effects can range from mild to severe.
Chuck Schlarb
Winnemucca
[[In-content Ad]]
