Re: [Fwd: CCC Statement] on DBPs

[ttweed@wildrockies.org (Tony Tweedale)]

SDWA MCLG's are relatively meaningless, as EPA gets to decide what the
actual standard (the MCL) to be met will be (tho when EPA sets them at zero
or close to, it creates room for them to continue ratcheting them down).
The proposed rule for DBP (disinfection byproducts) hasn't been published
yet and the media coverage I saw was very eneralized, so I don't know what
enforceable MCL EPA is proposing for THM (trihalomethanes, incl.
chloroform).  EPA's been punting this hot potato for !YEARS!.  Its last
proposal, years ago, was for 80 ppb, down from the present100 ppb.  The
media coverage said there'd be a reduction of 25%, so maybe the new
proposal is 75 ppb.  80 to 75ppb --bfd, pathetic.  Meanwhile, the evidence
has been accumulating more than ever that THMs are causing bladder, rectal
and other cancers, as mutagens, in people exposed to chlorine disinfected
drinking water.  It's really strong evidence as its being verified by
studies from the Scandinavian countries that keep track of what water
supply people drink from--heavily Cl-ated or not--as they move throught
their lives.  Anyway, the DBPs area has been one of EPA's worst,
classic,100% politicized, totally-cowed-by-industry /
sh*tting-on-its-public-health-mission.   Clinton's announcement was fluff.
I bet he didn't mention that some microbes like giardia are not killed by
any chlorine disinfectant (but are by ozone).  The upgrade in standards for
fitration of surface water (that most needing disnifection) will lower the
need for disinfection, and the filtration+ozone option is already quite
popular.  So we'll see how useful the filtration requirements are.  Ozone
is a much stronger oxidant than any of the chlorine options, but the big
slam against it is that it provides no residual disinfection as water moves
through the system, as Cl does.  Thus, the additional filtration
requirements could really help O3's competetiveness (at a minimum, O3 can
vastly reduce the amnt of Cl needded to just the little "required" for
residual disinfection capability).

Archie, thanks for those TAPPI J. Contents posts, they're great!
---

>Thought this might be of interest.
>
>Archie
>
>Content-Type: message/rfc822
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Received: from majordomo.bivwood.com [208.207.65.170] by in6.ibm.net id
>912731934.85726-1 ; Fri, 04 Dec 1998 00:38:54 +0000
>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
>        by majordomo.bivwood.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA08038
>        for c3_newsflash-list; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:32:57 -0500
>X-Authentication-Warning: majordomo.bivwood.com: majordomo set sender to
>owner-c3_newsflash@majordomo.bivwood.com using -f
>Received: from apollo.bivwood.com (www.politemps.com [208.207.65.220])
>        by majordomo.bivwood.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA08035
>        for <c3_newsflash@majordomo.bivwood.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:32:55
>-0500
>Received: from sauron.bivwood.com by apollo.bivwood.com (8.8.8/bivwood.com)
>        id SAA04364; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 18:28:57 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from c3.org ([208.207.65.10])
>        by sauron.bivwood.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA12377
>        for <c3_newsflash@c3.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 1998 18:29:42 -0500
>Message-ID: <36671F43.A2B82CA7@c3.org>
>Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 18:31:15 -0500
>From: Chlorine Chemistry Council <info@c3.org>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; I)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: c3_newsflash@c3.org
>Subject: CCC Statement
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Sender: owner-c3_newsflash@majordomo.bivwood.com
>Precedence: bulk
>
>Statement of the Chlorine Chemistry Council (http://c3.org)
>EPA Ruling on Chloroform MCLG Defies Safe Drinking Water Act
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>December 03, 1998
>Contacts:
>Janet F. Flynn, (703) 741-5827
>Keith Christman, (703) 741-5935
>
>The Chlorine Chemistry Council (CCC) generally supports the
>Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts and Interim Enhanced Surface
>Water Treatment Rules released today by the Environmental Protection
>Agency. These new rules will prevent increases in waterborne diseases
>from high-risk bacteria and viruses while reducing disinfection
>byproduct (DBP) levels.
>
>However, CCC is deeply disturbed by the Agency's failure to follow the
>Safe Drinking Water Act's requirement to use the "best available
>peer-reviewed science" in setting Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
>(MCLG). In particular, by setting an MCLG of zero for chloroform, the
>Agency has ignored the scientific weight of evidence and the last twenty
>years of peer-reviewed research. Last March EPA proposed an MCLG of 300
>parts per billion based on peer-reviewed science. EPA's subsequent
>retreat from the requirement of the Safe Drinking Water Act and sound
>science misdirects attention and resources away from emerging waterborne
>disease and other disinfection byproducts with higher risks.
>
>CCC strongly supports the use of the "best available peer-reviewed
>science" as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act and the use of this
>science in setting a chloroform MCLG.
>
>For more information on chlorine chemistry, visit the CCC web site
>(http://c3.org).