Tag Archives: regulation

Flint, Michigan TTHMs within Regulatory Limits

Allen JM, Cuthbertson AA, Liberatore HK, Kimura SY, Mantha A, Edwards MA, Richardson SD. Showering in Flint, MI: Is there a DBP problem? J Environ Sci (China). 2017 Aug;58:271-284. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2017.06.009.

Lead contamination in the City of Flint, MI has been well documented over the past two years, with lead levels above the EPA Action Level until summer 2016. This resulted from an ill-fated decision to switch from Detroit water (Lake Huron) with corrosion control, to Flint River water without corrosion control. Although lead levels are now closer to normal, reports of skin rashes have sparked questions surrounding tap water in some Flint homes. This study investigated the presence of contaminants, including disinfection by-products (DBPs), in the hot tap water used for showering in the homes of residents in Flint. Extensive quantitative analysis of 61 regulated and priority unregulated DBPs was conducted in Flint hot and cold tap water, along with the analysis of 50 volatile organic compounds and a nontarget comprehensive, broadscreen analysis, to identify a possible source for the reported skin rashes. For comparison, chlorinated hot and cold waters from three other cities were also sampled, including Detroit, which also uses Lake Huron as its source water. Results showed that hot water samples generally contained elevated levels of regulated and priority unregulated DBPs compared to cold water samples, but trihalomethanes were still within regulatory limits. Overall, hot shower water from Flint was similar to waters sampled from the three other cities and did not have unusually high levels of DBPs or other organic chemicals that could be responsible for the skin rashes observed by residents. It is possible that an inorganic chemical or microbial contaminant may be responsible.

USEPA Seeking Input on Regulations that may be Appropriate for Repeal – Submit on or Before May 15, 2017

In accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” EPA is seeking input on regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification. Click here to submit.

Obama Administration Climate Regulations Do Not Meet “Best Available Science” Threshold

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

USEPA, Obama Administration Adopt a “Warfare” Model of Climate Science?

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.

Mr. Pachauri Issues a Non-Statement; “Predictions” are Already Occurring;

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

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

Benefits of Reducing Perchlorate in Drinking Water: Low, if Any

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).