New EPA regulations intended to address “global warming” will have no measurable impact. This has been known for several years, and now the EPA Administrator in effect admits it. All cost, and no benefit, simply so the rich can get richer while the poor suffer.
Every water and wastewater system in the US will be adversely affected by EPA climate-related rules because of higher energy costs, which in turn must be passed on to customers. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires best available science when setting drinking water regulations. Further, the benefits must justify the costs. (In this case, there apparently are little or no quantifiable benefits for regular Americans who will have to pay a high cost so others can get richer.)
The Clean Air Act has no direct requirement for regulations to be based on best available science but it should. The practical result is that EPA can (and has) issued a scientific “snow job” on its new climate rules. Apparently, the Agency feels no obligation whatsoever to address the real science. It is long over due for EPA to be held to a higher science standard.
h/t: Climate Depot
We must always keep in mind that in general USEPA is not an science-driven organization. It is by design a mandate-driven political agency independent and separate from other agencies. It has an agenda and receives deference from the courts on its judgments in matters of scientific disagreement. (Unless they clearly have made a mistake, which I believe is true in many of its judgments on “climate change” science and regulation.) Though unstated, like many other agencies in Washington and as a practical matter their highest priority is to survive politically, beat back those who disagree, and retain if not increase its budget and appropriations.
I’ve known many a fine professional at USEPA over the years. I do believe there is an important role for regulatory agencies under the laws of the US. But the vitriol expressed by the agency leaders on climate simply poisons the well (and the agency). Something is seriously out of whack when it comes to climate and regulatory policy.
“Ms. McCarthy’s presentation consisted of not only the typical derision of skeptics of man-made climate change and the distortion of climate reality, but included a rather delusional self-assessment.” – ICECAP
“There are many experienced atmospheric science practitioners like myself who have a different perspective, represent no corporate interests and are not connected with fossil fuel industries (except to enjoy the comfortable benefits afforded by modern energy sources). In my deliberations with numerous environmental professionals, so many have expressed some doubt (most much doubt) that humans are largely responsible for long-term global climate change.” – Anthony Sadar
Complete articles quoted above are here.
Outcomes such as those “predicted” by Mr. Pachauri are already occurring and have many causal factors. Regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses will have no effect on stopping these outcomes from occurring.
“Mr. Pachauri predicted there would be shortage of food and drinking water, rise in poverty and a possibility of displacement of people.” click here
||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
||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
|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
|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
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 4607M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW,
Washington, DC 20460
There is little benefit to reducing perchlorate in drinking water compared to the cost. The push for regulation is a political effort, not sound national regulatory policy.
Lutter R. An upper-bound assessment of the benefits of reducing perchlorate in drinking water. Risk analysis 2014 Oct;34(10):1944-56. doi: 10.1111/risa.12261. Epub 2014 Sep 5.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to issue new federal regulations to limit drinking water concentrations of perchlorate, which occurs naturally and results from the combustion of rocket fuel. This article presents an upper-bound estimate of the potential benefits of alternative maximum contaminant levels for perchlorate in drinking water. The results suggest that the economic benefits of reducing perchlorate concentrations in drinking water are likely to be low, i.e., under $2.9 million per year nationally, for several reasons. First, the prevalence of detectable perchlorate in public drinking water systems is low. Second, the population especially sensitive to effects of perchlorate, pregnant women who are moderately iodide deficient, represents a minority of all pregnant women. Third, and perhaps most importantly, reducing exposure to perchlorate in drinking water is a relatively ineffective way of increasing iodide uptake, a crucial step linking perchlorate to health effects of concern.
Click here for full paper (fee).
Peter Grevatt, director of EPA’s Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water, has indicated that USEPA is delaying key drinking water decisions until officials can resolve scientific questions. This includes its pending health goal for perchlorate and a determination whether to regulate hexavalent chromium (Cr6).
The proposed maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for perchlorate will be delayed until the final recommendations of its Science Advisory Board (SAB) can be evaluated. The SAB is scheduled to review their latest draft of its perchlorate panel’s report on March 29. Grevatt says that the agency’s number one priority on perchlorate is to get the science right, but time will tell whether this is a smoke screen or a sincere intention.
USEPA is still developing the science on Cr6, and is trying to ensure that any drinking water regulations does not get out in front of the science.
The drinking water office has also had difficulty updating its Lead and Copper Rule because of policy and economic concerns, not scientific issues.
Lastly, the agency is attempting to resolve scientific issues related to its plan to regulate up to 16 carcinogenic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as a group.
Posted in EPA
A citizen’s group Clean Water Portland has proposed language to ban addition of “any chemical or other substance to the City’s drinking water that is a by-product of any industrial or manufacturing process, or that could cause the City’s drinking water to exceed the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goals.”
The wording is a little cumbersome, but sufficient to address the addition of fluoride or other substances. Federal law prohibits USEPA from requiring addition of substances like fluoride.
Addition of fluoride is about state and local politics, and generally democrat politics, since they are the party of big government and government control.
Click here for more on this story….