4 ms·

Your confidence that underfunded local governments have the expertise to know which chemicals they should ignore and for what reasons is...well "optimistic" is

Your confidence that underfunded local governments have the expertise to know which chemicals they should ignore and for what reasons is...well "optimistic" is the nicest word I could find.

rayiner 6y ago
Except that’s not what’s happening. EPA has set a recommended perchlorate standard, at 15 micrograms per liter. In 2011, it studied thousands of public water systems to look at perchlorate levels: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/02/11/2011-2603/drinking-water-regulatory-determination-on-perchlorate https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/02/11/2011-26.... Just 0.62% of those systems had perchlorate levels above 15 micrograms per liter. 96% were under 4 micrograms per liter. The EPA isn’t leaving it to local governments whether to test or to decide what the levels should be. They’re concluding that, based on testing they already did, there is no need to require formal monitoring of perchlorate in every water system just because a tiny minority of systems have concerning levels of the chemical. And it’s handling those exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
- moron4hire 6y ago
  So what? So those places don't have to do anything. Having the standard doesn't cost them anything.
  - Scramblejams 6y ago
    That's unlikely to be true. Standards commonly beget all kinds of bureaucracy and effort downstream. Sensible-sounding regulations (e.g. "we should certify that our city's water systems comply with all relevant EPA standards!") conspire with "no-cost-you're-already-meeting-this" standards to increase the burden of documentation, verification, certification and so on. And maybe that's fine! But the supposition that the EPA setting a standard relevant to tens of thousands of municipal water districts will generate zero costs for those municipalities glosses over how the bureaucratic wheels turn.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    There is already a recommendation in place, it’s 15 micrograms per milliliter. This regulatory proceeding was about establishing a NPDWR, which triggers a whole host of new requirements. Once a NPDWR is created for a chemical, it flips the burden of proof. The EPA must set the MCLG at a “at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons would occur.” Note that the EPA has to prove a negative—and has to do so under a regulatory process where any decision will be subject to years of litigation. The EPA must then set an MCL that gets as close to the MCLG using “the best available control technology.” Even if this process doesn’t result in an MCL that’s unrealistically low, it triggers a whole nationwide testing regime.
- ianlevesque 6y ago
  When the same EPA is indefinitely suspending all enforcement of environmental laws, sorry “temporarily, with no set end date”, I find it hard to believe other decisions like this have the science at heart. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/489753-epa-suspends-enforcement-of-environmental-laws-amid-coronavirus https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/489753-epa-sus...
  - burfog 6y ago
    The EPA did not suspend all enforcement. Some things don't need to be checked. Some reporting can be postponed. You don't get to dump truckloads of barium perchlorate into the Hetch Hetchy reservoir.
    - ianlevesque 6y ago
      You jest but that’s legal too since late 2017 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-rsquo-s-epa-made-it-easier-for-coal-plants-to-pollute-waterways/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-rsquo-s-epa...
      - rayiner 6y ago
        I happen to think those rules were a good idea, but it’s worth pointing out that Obama waited until November of year 7 of an 8 year presidency to issue this rule, and it was in effect for less than 2 years. Contrary to your implication, it was not some major rollback in pollution controls.
    - specialist 6y ago
      My understanding of that thehill.com article is very different. We have the "honor system" (my words). where most entities are self monitoring and reporting, with regulatory oversight. Industry is seeking permission to gut their own monitoring and reporting staff. IANAL and don't have skin in this game. I did, however, volunteer at a treehugger org for a decade. The mission was to protect wetlands for fish, birds, flood control, pollution. I got hear plenty from the org's scientists and lawyers about the merits of self-policing.

Your confidence that underfunded local governments have the expertise to know which chemicals they should ignore and for what reasons is...well "optimistic" is the nicest word I could find.

rayiner 6y ago

Except that’s not what’s happening. EPA has set a recommended perchlorate standard, at 15 micrograms per liter. In 2011, it studied thousands of public water systems to look at perchlorate levels: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/02/11/2011-2603/drinking-water-regulatory-determination-on-perchlorate https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/02/11/2011-26.... Just 0.62% of those systems had perchlorate levels above 15 micrograms per liter. 96% were under 4 micrograms per liter. The EPA isn’t leaving it to local governments whether to test or to decide what the levels should be. They’re concluding that, based on testing they already did, there is no need to require formal monitoring of perchlorate in every water system just because a tiny minority of systems have concerning levels of the chemical. And it’s handling those exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

moron4hire 6y ago
So what? So those places don't have to do anything. Having the standard doesn't cost them anything.
- Scramblejams 6y ago
  That's unlikely to be true. Standards commonly beget all kinds of bureaucracy and effort downstream. Sensible-sounding regulations (e.g. "we should certify that our city's water systems comply with all relevant EPA standards!") conspire with "no-cost-you're-already-meeting-this" standards to increase the burden of documentation, verification, certification and so on. And maybe that's fine! But the supposition that the EPA setting a standard relevant to tens of thousands of municipal water districts will generate zero costs for those municipalities glosses over how the bureaucratic wheels turn.
- rayiner 6y ago
  There is already a recommendation in place, it’s 15 micrograms per milliliter. This regulatory proceeding was about establishing a NPDWR, which triggers a whole host of new requirements. Once a NPDWR is created for a chemical, it flips the burden of proof. The EPA must set the MCLG at a “at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons would occur.” Note that the EPA has to prove a negative—and has to do so under a regulatory process where any decision will be subject to years of litigation. The EPA must then set an MCL that gets as close to the MCLG using “the best available control technology.” Even if this process doesn’t result in an MCL that’s unrealistically low, it triggers a whole nationwide testing regime.
ianlevesque 6y ago
When the same EPA is indefinitely suspending all enforcement of environmental laws, sorry “temporarily, with no set end date”, I find it hard to believe other decisions like this have the science at heart. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/489753-epa-suspends-enforcement-of-environmental-laws-amid-coronavirus https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/489753-epa-sus...
- burfog 6y ago
  The EPA did not suspend all enforcement. Some things don't need to be checked. Some reporting can be postponed. You don't get to dump truckloads of barium perchlorate into the Hetch Hetchy reservoir.
  - ianlevesque 6y ago
    You jest but that’s legal too since late 2017 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-rsquo-s-epa-made-it-easier-for-coal-plants-to-pollute-waterways/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-rsquo-s-epa...
    - rayiner 6y ago
      I happen to think those rules were a good idea, but it’s worth pointing out that Obama waited until November of year 7 of an 8 year presidency to issue this rule, and it was in effect for less than 2 years. Contrary to your implication, it was not some major rollback in pollution controls.
  - specialist 6y ago
    My understanding of that thehill.com article is very different. We have the "honor system" (my words). where most entities are self monitoring and reporting, with regulatory oversight. Industry is seeking permission to gut their own monitoring and reporting staff. IANAL and don't have skin in this game. I did, however, volunteer at a treehugger org for a decade. The mission was to protect wetlands for fish, birds, flood control, pollution. I got hear plenty from the org's scientists and lawyers about the merits of self-policing.