Tag Archives: USEPA

Prioritizing unregulated disinfection byproducts for risk mitigation, Canadian Perspective

Mian HR, Hu G, Hewage K, Rodriguez MJ, Sadiq R. Prioritization of unregulated disinfection by-products in drinking water distribution systems for human health risk mitigation: A critical review. Water Res. 2018 Sep 29;147:112-131. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.09.054

Water disinfection involves the use of different types of disinfectants, which are oxidizing agents that react with natural organic matter (NOM) to form disinfection by-products (DBPs). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established threshold limits on some DBPs, which are known as regulated DBPs (R-DBPs). The human health risks associated with R-DBPs in drinking water distribution systems (DWDSs) and application of stricter regulations have led water utilities to switch from conventional disinfectant (i.e., chlorination) to alternative disinfectants. However, the use of alternative disinfectants causes formation of a new suit of DBPs known as unregulated DBPs (UR-DBPs), which in many cases can be more toxic. There is a growing concern of UR-DBPs formation in drinking water. This review prioritizes some commonly occurring UR-DBP groups and species in DWDSs based on their concentration level, reported frequency, and toxicity using an indexing method. There are nine UR-DBPs group and 36 species that have been identified based on recent published peer-reviewed articles. Haloacetonitriles (HANs) and haloacetaldehydes (HALs) are identified as important UR-DBP groups. Dichloroacetonitrile (DCAN) and trichloroacetaldehye (TCAL) are identified as critical UR-DBPs species. The outcomes of this review can help water regulators to identify the most critical UR-DBPs species in the context of drinking water safety and provide them with useful information to develop guidelines or threshold limits for UR-DBPs. The outcomes can also help water utilities in selecting water treatment processes for the mitigation of human health risk posed by UR-DBPs through drinking water.

Mr. Scott Pruitt brought USEPA back into the real world

The administrator of an Independent Agency of the US Government is particularly vulnerable to political attack regardless of party. Whatever any Administrator of USEPA does, someone in Washington will not like it, and will mount an attack. Independent Agencies are not tied to any Cabinet-level agency, and so they lack the budget, power and prestige to withstand such an unrelenting political attack for very long.

“Scott Pruitt did an outstanding job inside of the EPA. We’ve gotten rid of record breaking regulations and it’s been really,” Trump said, adding there was “no final straw. I think Scott saw that he was, he was, uh– look, Scott is a terrific guy. And he came to me and he said I have such great confidence in the administration. I don’t want to be a distraction. And I think Scott felt that he was a distraction.” click here

Environmental activist groups repeat history; refusal to meet with EPA Administrator disingenuous

Government agency representatives meeting with advocacy groups of all political sides is a normal practice within the US federal regulatory system. Ex parte communications for information exchange are certainly allowed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and can be productive for both parties if done in the right manner. Concern about “transparency” is a red herring because any and all conversations of such meetings must be documented and placed in the corresponding regulatory docket. 

It is disingenuous if an advocacy group from one political side, when invited refuses to meet with EPA officials, and then later complains that groups opposing their position are meeting with the EPA officials.

These same environmental advocacy groups used similar tactics in the 1980s and 1990s where these groups filed lawsuits to drive much of EPA regulatory activity through court orders.

“An environmental group declined an offer to meet with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt in 2017 over concerns the meeting would not be “transparent,” E&E News reports.” click here

Proposed Rule Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science is long overdue

“This document proposes a regulation intended to strengthen the transparency of EPA regulatory science. The proposed regulation provides that when EPA develops regulations, including regulations for which the public is likely to bear the cost of compliance, with regard to those scientific studies that are pivotal to the action being taken, EPA should ensure that the data underlying those are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation. In this notice, EPA solicits comment on this proposal and how it can best be promulgated and implemented in light of existing law and prior Federal policies that already require increasing public access to data and influential scientific information used to inform federal regulation.” click here

EPA science transparency rule a positive step

“Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule on Tuesday to prevent the agency from relying on scientific studies that don’t publish the underlying data.” click here

Welcome to Washington, DC Mr. Scott Pruitt

It looks like an attempt is being made to railroad EPA administrator Scott Pruitt out of Washington. But this is business as usual in Washington, DC so get used to it. There is no need or justification whatsoever for Mr. Pruitt to leave his post but his political enemies will jump on every little opportunity to scream as loud as they can to push him out.

“Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) backed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt in a tweet on Thursday, calling Pruitt “likely the bravest and most conservative member of Trump’s cabinet.” ” click here

EPA rules should be based on best available, open peer-reviewed science without prejudice; Not on secret studies done behind closed doors.

“The New York Times is spittin’ mad at Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt. In just the past week, the paper has attacked Pruitt four times – from the front-page to the editorial page — following his announcement that the agency would not longer be permitted to rely on so-called “secret science” as a basis for taking regulatory action. And at no point in this onslaught has the Times allowed the truth to intervene.” click here