Another EPA crock: Fire hydrant illogic
Leave it to the regulation-happy Environmental Protection Agency to cry “Fire!” over an alleged public-health risk from hydrants when manufacturers and water authorities insist there's neither flame nor smoke in the EPA's claim.
Effective Jan. 4, the EPA mandates that new fireplugs must meet stricter standards for lead content — which means that cities must either dump or retrofit their hydrant inventories with parts that don't yet exist, ultimately costing local governments millions of dollars, Bloomberg reports. Last month the EPA ruled that fire hydrants are included in the 2011 Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act since they can be used in emergency situations to provide drinking water.
The American Water Works Association, representing utilities that serve 80 percent of the country, says the cost implications are enormous with no discernible health benefits. Hydrants supply drinking water only occasionally, such as when water mains break, says the association's Tom Curtis.
Hydrants now on streets are grandfathered. But consider the dilemma facing metropolitan areas that must keep a backstock of fireplugs available for replacement. Philadelphia, for one, has 119 fire hydrants warehoused at a cost of $2,000 each. Nationwide, the cost of compliance could be a financial catastrophe.
The EPA says it's meeting with “stakeholders” to hear their concerns. Here's hoping the EPA will lend an open ear rather than apply its customary blind eye, which is what enables useless, costly diktats.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- The Thursday wrap
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- A carbon tax? Cap it
- A ‘warming’ wake-up call: Models aren’t foolproof
- The Kane chronicles: Meaningless moves
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- An NLRB ambush