EPA… costing us more money for no realistic reason…

[Arbo]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/cities-raise-alarms-over-epa-s-surprise-hydrant-lead-rule.html



Philadelphia has 119 fire hydrants that cost about $2,000 each waiting in a warehouse to be installed, yet they sit high and dry because federal regulators say their fittings might taint drinking water with lead.
The City of Brotherly Love and communities across the U.S. face the specter of hundreds of millions of dollars in useless hydrants after a surprise ruling last month by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that requires fireplugs put in after Jan. 4 meet stricter standards for lead content, said Tom Curtis of the American Water Works Association in Denver. That means cities must scrap or retrofit inventory or buy hydrants and parts that some vendors aren’t even making yet.
Manufacturers and Curtis’s group, which represents utilities that serve about 80 percent of Americans, are urging the agency to reconsider or at least allow more time to comply. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., one of the largest hydrant makers, is seeing some customers delay or cancel orders.
“This delivers a huge cost and probably no health protection,” said Curtis, the water group’s deputy executive director. “It needs to be rethought.”

[fj1200]

I presume that they have evidence of all the lead poisoning from previously installed "leaded" fire hydrants???

[Arbo]

I presume that they have evidence of all the lead poisoning from previously installed "leaded" fire hydrants???

Evicence? Proof? You require these things? Man you are such a right winger…

[logroller]

Many fire hydrants are dry-- meaning the valve is way below the hydrant itself-- so im not sure how much of the potable water supply is actually tainted.

[gabosaurus]

Homeland Security costs us more money for no realistic reason. It is bogus bureaucracy.

[fj1200]

Evicence? Proof? You require these things? Man you are such a right winger…

Crazy me thinking that they need to follow the law that requires a cost-benefit analysis. But maybe they did that. Or maybe not...


...
The rule resulted from a law enacted in January 2011, the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. The measure changed the amount of the metal allowed in plumbing components that contact water supplies from 8 percent to a weighted average of 0.25 percent, according to the EPA.
...
Still, cities and manufacturers don’t see hydrants posing a health risk, Curtis said. They also believed they were exempt from the EPA rule until the agency’s Water Office on Oct. 22 issued a 14-page unsigned response to questions about the 2011 law and whether it applies to fireplugs.The 55-word ruling, contained in the fifth item of the response, said for the first time that hydrants are included because they “can be, and are, used in emergency situations to provide drinking water.”
There are eight principal U.S. hydrant makers, according to the Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fittings Industry in Vienna, Virginia. The plugs are typically made from cast iron with the cap visible above ground attached by a pipe to the underground water main. Components inside regulate flow, and brass parts and nozzle where a hose attaches can contain lead.
...

It seems the perfect storm of legislatively going overboard.

[fj1200]

Homeland Security costs us more money for no realistic reason. It is bogus bureaucracy.

So are many boards of education. Useless bureaucracy in many cases.

[fj1200]

Seven States Sue EPA to Restrict Wood-Burning Stoves (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/11/07/seven-states-sue-epa-restrict-wood-burning-stoves)


Collusion to Circumvent Proper ProcedureJohn Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D., a policy advisor for The Heartland Institute and the American Council on Science and Health, said the lawsuit is standard practice for a federal regulatory agency like EPA.
“One party sues another, but they both want the same result, so it ends up in a collusive lawsuit that is more akin to professional wrestling than an actual case. Everyone knows the outcome in advance, and both parties act out their roles so the verdict can be used to tighten up regulations,” Dunn explained.
“I call this the Br’er Rabbit gambit,” said Dunn. “What’s going on here is the EPA says: Please don’t sue me; then the seven states sue and the EPA is forced to act.”
Dunn emphasized EPA realizes it can impose stricter restrictions through sue-and-settle actions than by attempting to impose stricter regulations through formal administrative action. The latter requires formal scientific findings, the opportunity for public comment, and potential legal challenges over the procedures and cited science. Sue-and-settle agreements allow for more far-reaching EPA restrictions without all the fuss and muss.
H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, said there is no need for this case.
“I just don’t see it,” said Burnett. “Unless they can show it’s being caused by cross-state pollution, these states need to deal with the issue locally without the help of the federal government.”

Another example.