Apparently,USEPA is considering whether to regulate nitrosamines in drinking water provided by public water supplies. What is the world are nitrosamines?
Nitrosamines are a group of approximately 300 organic compounds, most of which have been found to be carcinogenic in a variety of experimental animals. They are found in certain foods, such as fried bacon, cured meets and beer, in tobacco products, in rubber products, in certain cosmetics; and in gastric juices of the human stomach. Mouth bacteria can turn nitrates found in certain vegetables into nitrites, which can form nitrosating agents. Foods containing amines can react with these agents to produce nitrosamines in the stomach.
In public water supplies, nitrosamines can be formed by disinfection of water using chloramines.
In the September, 2012 issue of Journal AWWA, J. Alan Roberson discusses USEPA's potential regulation of nitrosamines in drinking water ("Regulating Nitrosamines Now Will Be Controversial"), p. 10). He points out that controversy could arise because, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, USEPA must conclude that such regulation will result in a meaningful health risk reduction. For example, he points to research concluding that oral intake of nitrosamines from drinking water comprised only 0.2% compared with other outside sources and that generated in body fluids. Advanced treatment installed by a utility to comply with a standard for nitrosamines in drinking water, therefore, may not achieve any meaningful health risk reduction.
Moreover, the article points out, such advanced treatment may be like punching a pillow on one end, which then bulges out on the other end. Treatment for nitrosamines using chlorine or ozone could result in formation of more regulated disinfection byproducts requiring more control.
Logically, what all this seems to boil down to is the necessity for a thorough cost/benefit analysis of any potential regulation of nitrosamines in drinking water. Only in that way can unnecessary cost burdens ultimately imposed on users by higher rates can be avoided. Prudent water utilities will not only monitor this regulatory process, but also participate in it.
Fresh water is essential for life and commerce. However, its scarcity is resulting in increased regulation of water resources and their corollary, wastewater. This blog will discuss developments in such regulation. It will be my clepsydra measured by the flow of water law.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
GETTING THE LEAD OUT
Lead in drinking water has been a regulatory target for some time. Water public utilities rarely, if ever, furnish treated water containing lead. Rather, typically, lead enters drinking water from sources within a customer's property--such as from use of lead based solder for connecting copper pipes, use of faucets made from brass, and use of lead service lines from the distribution main in the street to the premises.
Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S.EPA has been dealing with lead issues since at least 1986, reducing the permitted lead content in plumbing materials. In addition, there has been a focus in possible reduction, in some circumstances, of the aggressiveness of water supplied by a utility.
In 2011, Congress enacted the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, which imposes a new, more strict definition of "lead-free" plumbing. Under the Act, "lead-free" means that solder and flux must not contain more than 0.2% lead, and the wetted surface of drinking water pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures cannot exceed a weighted average of 0.25% lead.
The Act states that no person may use any pipe, pipe or plumbing fitting, fixture, solder or flux that is not so "lead-free" in the installation or repair of any public water system or any plumbing in a house or non-residential facility which provides water for human consumption. The Act provides a formula for calculating the weighted average lead content of wetted surfaces. Exemptions from the lead-free requirement are provided for non-consumption uses, such as toilets, bidets, urinals, shower valves, outdoor watering fixtures, etc.
The Act becomes effective January 4, 2014. However, U.S.EPA likely will soon propose regulations to implement the Act. A proposed rule may be published in October, 2012, with a final rule by the end of 2013. It is possible that, in addition to banning items that do not comply with the lead-free requirement, the regulations may establish other requirements, such as specific product identification and compliance procedures.
As the Act can affect not only water utilities but also homeowners, plumbing contractors, manufacturers, vendors and the like, it may be prudent for interested parties to be aware of both the Act and the implementation regulations.
Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S.EPA has been dealing with lead issues since at least 1986, reducing the permitted lead content in plumbing materials. In addition, there has been a focus in possible reduction, in some circumstances, of the aggressiveness of water supplied by a utility.
In 2011, Congress enacted the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, which imposes a new, more strict definition of "lead-free" plumbing. Under the Act, "lead-free" means that solder and flux must not contain more than 0.2% lead, and the wetted surface of drinking water pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures cannot exceed a weighted average of 0.25% lead.
The Act states that no person may use any pipe, pipe or plumbing fitting, fixture, solder or flux that is not so "lead-free" in the installation or repair of any public water system or any plumbing in a house or non-residential facility which provides water for human consumption. The Act provides a formula for calculating the weighted average lead content of wetted surfaces. Exemptions from the lead-free requirement are provided for non-consumption uses, such as toilets, bidets, urinals, shower valves, outdoor watering fixtures, etc.
The Act becomes effective January 4, 2014. However, U.S.EPA likely will soon propose regulations to implement the Act. A proposed rule may be published in October, 2012, with a final rule by the end of 2013. It is possible that, in addition to banning items that do not comply with the lead-free requirement, the regulations may establish other requirements, such as specific product identification and compliance procedures.
As the Act can affect not only water utilities but also homeowners, plumbing contractors, manufacturers, vendors and the like, it may be prudent for interested parties to be aware of both the Act and the implementation regulations.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
DOES UTILITY JOB CREATION HELP THE ECONOMY?
The above title raises a curious question. Certainly, we all know that the national economy has been weak for several years and continues to struggle. We also know that millions are without employment, job creation has been disappointing and many people have given up seeking employment.
Politicians are preaching that the economy and job creation are primary issues facing the nation today. Many involved in the water and waste water public utility industry, including USEPA, sound the alarm that billions of dollars are needed to invest in replacement and upgrade of aging water and waste water utility infrastructure. In turn, making such investment in infrastructure , it is claimed, will create thousands of jobs and presumably benefit the economy.
So, for example, USEPA claims that for every $1 billion spent on such infrastructure, 40,000 jobs will be created. In its press releases announcing grants for various purposes, EPA frequently suggests how many jobs will be created by its generosity. Another group has claimed that the Water Protection and Investment Act of 2012 (discussed in my September 7, 2012 posting) will create at least 169,000 jobs over 10 years. On the other hand, another group has stated that without such infrastructure upgrades, the economy will lose nearly 700,000 jobs by 2020.
No doubt, new public utility sector jobs should benefit those who occupy the jobs. But, will the economy be benefitted? An interesting article in Harvard Magazine discusses that question (September-Ocotober, 2012). In "Can America Compete", the magazine interviews scholars who participated in the Harvard Business School's U.S. Competitiveness Project.
The Project's findings appear to be that the problem with the economy is a long-term erosion of U.S. competitiveness in a more and more challenging world economy. It concluded that, for the past ten years, almost all new jobs were created in local businesses, such as government, healthcare and retail, not in businesses that compete internationally. The project defined U.S. competitiveness as the ability of U.S. companies to succeed in the world markets, while at the same time raising the living standards of Americans.
As one participant stated, "the rhetoric these days is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. It's easy to understand why: if you lack a job, it is all about jobs. But if you set out simply to create jobs for their own sake, you wind up investing in areas not where you're productive, but where you can create a lot of jobs quickly. Yes, we absolutely want jobs. But we want competitive jobs that can last in a demanding global economy."
Another participant added: "the sectors where you can generate the most jobs quickly tend to be in things like healthcare and construction--inherently local activities. But any economy is an interesting combination of what we call 'traded businesses'--like manufacturing, sophisticated services, and tourism that are exposed to international competition--and local ones. For any large population there are a lot of local needs--food, housing, utilities--but ultimately the vitality of an economy is heavily determined by the traded part....You want local needs to be met efficiently, but the ultimate wealth that feeds the local economy derives heavily from the traded economy."
One other point: where does the money come from that EPA and other governmental agencies give away for localized job creation? Does it not come from more debt, which in turn fuels a struggling economy that dampens investment needed for long run productive growth in the traded economy?
Politicians are preaching that the economy and job creation are primary issues facing the nation today. Many involved in the water and waste water public utility industry, including USEPA, sound the alarm that billions of dollars are needed to invest in replacement and upgrade of aging water and waste water utility infrastructure. In turn, making such investment in infrastructure , it is claimed, will create thousands of jobs and presumably benefit the economy.
So, for example, USEPA claims that for every $1 billion spent on such infrastructure, 40,000 jobs will be created. In its press releases announcing grants for various purposes, EPA frequently suggests how many jobs will be created by its generosity. Another group has claimed that the Water Protection and Investment Act of 2012 (discussed in my September 7, 2012 posting) will create at least 169,000 jobs over 10 years. On the other hand, another group has stated that without such infrastructure upgrades, the economy will lose nearly 700,000 jobs by 2020.
No doubt, new public utility sector jobs should benefit those who occupy the jobs. But, will the economy be benefitted? An interesting article in Harvard Magazine discusses that question (September-Ocotober, 2012). In "Can America Compete", the magazine interviews scholars who participated in the Harvard Business School's U.S. Competitiveness Project.
The Project's findings appear to be that the problem with the economy is a long-term erosion of U.S. competitiveness in a more and more challenging world economy. It concluded that, for the past ten years, almost all new jobs were created in local businesses, such as government, healthcare and retail, not in businesses that compete internationally. The project defined U.S. competitiveness as the ability of U.S. companies to succeed in the world markets, while at the same time raising the living standards of Americans.
As one participant stated, "the rhetoric these days is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. It's easy to understand why: if you lack a job, it is all about jobs. But if you set out simply to create jobs for their own sake, you wind up investing in areas not where you're productive, but where you can create a lot of jobs quickly. Yes, we absolutely want jobs. But we want competitive jobs that can last in a demanding global economy."
Another participant added: "the sectors where you can generate the most jobs quickly tend to be in things like healthcare and construction--inherently local activities. But any economy is an interesting combination of what we call 'traded businesses'--like manufacturing, sophisticated services, and tourism that are exposed to international competition--and local ones. For any large population there are a lot of local needs--food, housing, utilities--but ultimately the vitality of an economy is heavily determined by the traded part....You want local needs to be met efficiently, but the ultimate wealth that feeds the local economy derives heavily from the traded economy."
One other point: where does the money come from that EPA and other governmental agencies give away for localized job creation? Does it not come from more debt, which in turn fuels a struggling economy that dampens investment needed for long run productive growth in the traded economy?
Friday, September 7, 2012
MORE TAXES FOR MORE GOVERNMENT WASTE WATER GRANTS?
In August, a bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives proposing "The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2012." The apparent purpose of this proposed legislation is to enable the federal government to give more grants and loans to local governments to meet more federal mandates to upgrade waste water disposal facilities. Interestingly, the sponsor indicates that too much of the costs to meet federal regulations are being borne by local governments and ratepayers, so "new sources of revenue" are needed to enable the federal government to fund local waste water infrastructure requirements.
The "new sources of revenue" proposed are federal taxes on the sale by manufacturers, producers and importers of containers of water-based beverages, water disposal products and pharmaceutical products. A water-based beverage is defined as a container of water or of any mixture that is at least 50% water. There are some exceptions, including for alcoholic beverages. Water disposal products are defined to include soaps, detergents, toiletries, toilet tissue, water softeners and cooking oils. While the tax purports to be on manufacturers, producers and importers, no doubt the tax burden would be passed on in the ultimate cost of the product to consumers.
Other features of the bill is a mandate that states develop "affordability" criteria to use in identifying municipalities that cannot afford to upgrade facilities to meet federal mandates. It also provides for establishment of "best industry practices" for publicly owned waste water systems and for cost of service studies.
Recently, some have proclaimed that all Americans belong to the government. Perhaps, this proposed legislation can be viewed as creating further dependency on government. The paradox may be that the need for"new sources of revenue" is being created at least in substantial part by increased governmental regulations. And, while it is said that in certain situations consumers may not be able to afford needed system upgrades, the source of federal funding under this legislation is more taxes likely to be borne by all consumers. So, what has happened to the rate making principle that costs to serve ratepayers should be assigned to and paid for by the ratepayers who benefit from that service? Is the assumption of "affordability" consistent with the principle that ratepayers should pay for their costs of service?
The "new sources of revenue" proposed are federal taxes on the sale by manufacturers, producers and importers of containers of water-based beverages, water disposal products and pharmaceutical products. A water-based beverage is defined as a container of water or of any mixture that is at least 50% water. There are some exceptions, including for alcoholic beverages. Water disposal products are defined to include soaps, detergents, toiletries, toilet tissue, water softeners and cooking oils. While the tax purports to be on manufacturers, producers and importers, no doubt the tax burden would be passed on in the ultimate cost of the product to consumers.
Other features of the bill is a mandate that states develop "affordability" criteria to use in identifying municipalities that cannot afford to upgrade facilities to meet federal mandates. It also provides for establishment of "best industry practices" for publicly owned waste water systems and for cost of service studies.
Recently, some have proclaimed that all Americans belong to the government. Perhaps, this proposed legislation can be viewed as creating further dependency on government. The paradox may be that the need for"new sources of revenue" is being created at least in substantial part by increased governmental regulations. And, while it is said that in certain situations consumers may not be able to afford needed system upgrades, the source of federal funding under this legislation is more taxes likely to be borne by all consumers. So, what has happened to the rate making principle that costs to serve ratepayers should be assigned to and paid for by the ratepayers who benefit from that service? Is the assumption of "affordability" consistent with the principle that ratepayers should pay for their costs of service?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)