Daily Archives: December 22, 2014

USEPA to Regulate Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection

EPA/WATER RIN: 2040-AF37 Publication ID: Fall 2014
Title: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Finished Water Storage Facility Inspection Requirements Addendum to the Revised Total Coliform Rule
Abstract: EPA is planning to propose an addendum to the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) to strengthen public health protection by including finished water storage facility inspection (SFI) requirements. In the preamble to the July 2010 proposed RTCR (75 FR 40926), EPA requested comment on the value and cost of storage facility inspection and cleaning. EPA received comments regarding unsanitary conditions and contamination that can be found in finished water storage facilities that are not routinely inspected and cleaned, including breaches and accumulation of sediment, animals, insects, and other contaminants. The Agency is developing an SFI proposal in order to allow interested parties to again comment and provide any additional relevant information. EPA is planning to propose and request comment on requirements for public water systems to periodically inspect the interior and exterior of their finished water storage facilities at least and to correct any sanitary defects found. Any potential requirements would apply to all public water systems that have one or more finished water storage facilities. Like the 2013 final RTCR, the proposed storage tank inspection requirements would maintain or improve public health protection by reducing cases of illnesses, and possibly deaths, due to exposure to waterborne pathogens.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 142 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.)
Legal Authority: 42 USC 300f et seq
Legal Deadline:

Action Source Description Date
None
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 06/00/2015
Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0878. Split from RIN 2040-AD94.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal
Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No
Included in the Regulatory Plan: No
RIN Information URL:http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/tcr/regulation_revisions.cfm
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No
Related RINs: Related to 2040-AD75
Agency Contact:
Sean Conley
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4607M,
Washington, DC 20460
Phone:202 564-1781
Fax:202 564-3767
Email: conley.sean@epa.gov

Julie Javier
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
Mail Code 4607M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW,
Washington, DC 20460
Phone:202 564-2335
Email: javier.julie@epa.gov

Clear Definition of “Climate Change” Needed for Productive Discussions to Occur

Equivocation on the word “Climate Change” has contributed greatly to the angst and disputes over “climate change” and “anthropogenic global warming”. Reaching a consensus before the science has been considered is certainly the opposite of the way good policy discussion should proceed. To some readers the call for clear definitions might sound obfiscatory but indeed it is very important. Meaningful progress cannot be made unless it is clear what exactly is being discussed.

“From the start, Richard Lindzen, former professor of meteorology at MIT, said about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis: The consensus was reached before the research had even begun. The IPCC virtually ignored evidence that showed the hypothesis wrong, including failed predictions. Instead of revisiting their science, they moved the goal posts from global warming to climate change and recently climate disruption. Mainstream media have aided and abetted them with misleading and often completely scientifically incorrect stories. These are usually a reflection of their political bias.” Click here for a good review by Dr. Tim Ball.

A Life-Cycle Approach to Urban Water Scarcity Pricing

O Sahin, RA Stewart, MG Porter. Water security through scarcity pricing and reverse osmosis: a system dynamics approach.  In Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, Journal of Cleaner Production 2015-02-01 88:160-171

Water supply and demand planning is often conducted independently of social and economic strategies. There are presently no comprehensive life-cycle approaches to modelling urban water balances that incorporate economic feedbacks, such as tariff adjustment, which can in turn create a financing capacity for investment responses to low reservoir levels. This paper addresses this gap, and presents a system dynamics model that augments the usual water utility representation of the physical linkages of water grids, by adding inter-connected feedback loops in tariff structures, demand levels and financing capacity. The model, applied in the south-east Queensland region in Australia, enables simulation of alternatives and analysis of stocks and flows around a grid or portfolio of bulk supplies including an increasing proportion of rain-independent desalination plants. Such rain-independent water production plants complement the rain-dependent sources in the region and can potentially offer indefinite water security at a price. The study also shows how an alternative temporary drought pricing regime not only defers costly bulk supply infrastructure but actually generates greater price stability than traditional pricing approaches. The model has implications for water supply planners seeking to pro-actively plan, justify and finance portfolios of rain-dependent and rain-independent bulk water supply infrastructure. Interestingly, the modelling showed that a temporary drought pricing regime not only lowers the frequency and severity of water insecurity events but also reduces the long-run marginal cost of water supply for the region when compared to traditional reactive planning approaches that focus on restrictions to affect demand in scarcity periods.

Arsenic and Fluoride are Removed by Aluminum Hydroxide

R Liu, L Zhu, L Zana, L Huachuna, H Liu, J Qu.Simultaneous removal of arsenic and fluoride by freshly-prepared aluminum hydroxideIn Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 2015-02-05 466:147-153

The coexistence of arsenic (As) and fluoride (F) in some underground waters creates challenges in the simultaneous removal of these two toxic elements. This study investigates the effect of fluoride at different molar ratios of fluoride to arsenic (As) (RF:As) on the removal of arsenic [i.e., arsenite (As(III), arsenate (As(V)] by freshly-prepared aluminum hydroxide (AlOxHy), and that of arsenic at different molar ratios of arsenic to fluoride (RAs:F) on fluoride removal. In single pollutant solutions, the removal of neutral As(III) is independent on pH at RAs(III):Al≤0.70:1 and is much lower than that of As(V). The optimum As(V) removal is at weak acidic pH of 5 and 6 whereas that of fluoride is at pH 7 and 8. Fluoride at RF:As(V)>35:1 significantly impairs the removal of As(V) with more significant inhibition at elevated pH. The negatively-charged As(V) inhibits fluoride removal to a larger extent than the neutral As(III) does. The adverse effect of fluoride on As(V) removal is mainly attributed to the lowered ζ-potential, which is controlled by the combined effects of pH and RF:As(V). In relative terms, the removal of fluoride is highly pH dependent, although RAs(V):F does show some effects. The oxidation of As(III) to As(V) and the adjustment of pH to weak acidic range is well preferred to achieve the simultaneous removal of As and F by AlOxHy adsorption.

Paper is here (fee).