| August 27, 2008 – Volume
9, No. 35 |
|
|
 |
|
|
This week's NEWS
How
many bacteriological samples are needed... to be enough? Dustup
in Florida over implementation of backflow prevention device requirements
shows once again: Cross-connection control can be messy! New health-effects
questions raised about arsenic in drinking water. International
effort to evaluate bioassay methods for some potential endocrine disruptors shows
progress. It's summertime; do you know where your cyanobacteria are? Political
water in Denver is refreshing!
Quick Links Navigation:
|
|
Federal
Updates
State Updates
Microbiological
- Boil
water advisory issued for Wareham, MA (South
Coast Today, August 23); emergency
chlorination of the system will continue for awhile as post-mortem
review is set (South Coast Today, August 26);
and BWA
likely to be lifted soon after three consecutive days of negative
samples (South
Coast Today, August 26)
Commentary: It was just
a year ago... that Wareham suffered through eight days of a BWA after
E. coli findings. A city official says there is something about
this time of year that leads to these events?
- Multiple
Massachusetts boil water advisories put spotlight on frequency
of sampling (Avon Messenger, August 26)
Commentary: This
local news story misses the real reason for wide variation
in frequency and number of coliform samples in different water
systems. It's all about size... and cost! The larger
the system (as measured by the population served), the more
samples required by the federal and state bacteriological regulations.
This makes sense, since more people are at risk and larger
systems are more complex and spread out. There is a bit of
irony, however, since larger systems are also, in general,
attended by qualified operators a much greater portion of the
time and usually employ more sophisticated automatic equipment
to continuously monitor water quality and treatment processes.
The sampling frequency will surely be reviewed as part of the
current USEPA TCRDS rule process. (Editor's
Note: Before all of the small water systems and their
competent operators light up the switchboard, note that we
said: "In
general," not "in all cases.")
Arsenic
Cross-Connection
Control
- Florida
system's requirements for backflow
devices spurs backlash (Tampa
Tribune, August 25)
Commentary:
Cross-connection control is an extremely important aspect of protecting
drinking water quality and the health of consumers,
but it is not simple and it's not easy. The difficulties are illustrated
by the fact that the USEPA has never (yet) attempted to regulate
cross-connections. The
states have been left on their own to cover this waterfront... taking
the plumbing codes a step further. One of the most difficult issues
is deciding whether to require meter protection, and what
level of protection to require, when there is an unapproved, alternative
source of water on the premises for irrigation use... and when there
is no direct connection between the systems (...or at least there
isn't supposed to be!).
Disinfection
Byproducts
Endocrine
Disruptors
Political
Waters
Perchlorate
Lead in the Environment
Cyanobacteria
(Blue-green algae)
Fluoridation
Invasive
Species
Infrastructure
Desalination
General Information
International
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Relevant
Links:
Copyright © 2000-2008 safedrinkingwater.com NEWS |
|
|
|
|