1. Richard A. Snyder Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation January, 2010 rsnyder@uwf.edu http://uwf.edu/cedb/ The Environmental Working Group, Drinking Water Quality, and ECUA.

2. How / Why EWG Does It “Our research brings to light unsettling facts that you have a right to know. It shames and shakes up polluters and their lobbyists. It rattles politicians and shapes policy. It persuades bureaucracies to rethink science and strengthen regulation.” From the EWG website, February 2010

5. Although MTBE is currently unregulated, ECUA tests for it, and has recently taken a well out of service due to its presence.

6. “ Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals. ” “ Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards. ” http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#1

7. EWG calculated the final rankings as follows: “We scaled the values calculated for each parameter from 0 to 100 across all utilities assessed. We assigned weights to these scaled values to account for each parameter’s relative importance in the ranking system. The highest relative average pollutant level was assigned a weight of 0.5; the total number of contaminants found was assigned a weight of 0.3; and the percentage of chemicals found of those tested for was assigned a weight of 0.2. We calculated final ranks by summing the individual weighted ranks for the three parameters listed above and then ranking the sums.” http://www.ewg.org/tap-water/methodology

8. ECUA sampled more and did not have any above regulatory limits, while the national average is 0.5 per utility. How then is ECUA the worst?

9. The Environmental Working Group, Drinking Water Quality, and ECUA Methodology is flawed Conclusions are invalid EWG Report Gets an “F” Richard A. Snyder, PhD. Professor and Director “EWG Report is Bogus” –Carl J. Mohrherr, PhD., Research Associate A Report By

10. Environmental Working Group’s report raised concern over an issue (increasing the number of regulated contaminants) already being addressed by US EPA, at the expense of public confidence in the system. EPA has a review process in place for unregulated chemicals but is not effectively dealing with pharmaceuticals and synergistic effects of chemicals. Conclusion