|
|
Check here for the latest AWWA, Legislative and EPA and PA
DEP Regulatory information:
Just In:
July 21, 2008
AWWA's Presidential Challenge...Membership growth!
Click here for more
information
_________________________
July 14, 2008
AWWA Webcast on Proper Pump Maintenance
1pm EDT on August 6, 2008
Click here for more information
_________________________
July 11, 2008
DEP UPDATE
|
Pennsylvania’s Citizens, Communities
to Benefit from Cleaner Water, Improved Infrastructure
as Governor Rendell Signs S.B. 2, S.B. 1341
MECHANICSBURG (July 9) – With Pennsylvania facing nearly
$20 billion in unmet needs for its water and wastewater
facilities, as well as inadequate flood control measures
and unsafe, high-hazard dams, Governor Edward G. Rendell
signed into law a historic investment in the state’s
infrastructure that will provide up to $1.2 billion in
new investments to ensure safe, clean water and safer
communities.
“A sustainable infrastructure that is capable of
protecting its citizens and providing quality,
dependable services is paramount to the public’s health
and well-being,” said Governor Rendell in signing Senate
Bills 2 and 1341 at the Mechanicsburg Wastewater
Treatment Plant in Cumberland County. “Our
water-related infrastructure—our drinking water and
wastewater plants, our dams and our flood protection
projects—are aging and deteriorating after decades of
neglect and underinvestment. These bills provide new
investments not just for capital improvements, which are
increasingly expensive, but, as in the case of
wastewater facilities, to support other nonstructural
options that are oftentimes more cost-effective.”
S.B. 2 will provide $800 million over the next 10 years
for critical water, sewer, flood control projects and
repairs to unsafe, high hazard dams in areas outside of
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The debt service on the
bond will be repaid using uncommitted game revenues
distributed by the Commonwealth Financing Authority.
S.B. 1341 will place a referendum on the November ballot
asking voters to approve an additional $400 million for
improvements in public drinking water and wastewater
systems, including innovative, cost-effective strategies
such as nutrient trading. If approved, the funding will
be used for grants and loans to be administered by the
Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority
(PENNVEST).
Under both bills, the 183 publicly-owned water systems
in Pennsylvania that are facing federal mandates to
reduce the amount of nutrient pollution in the
Susquehanna and Potomac river basins and downstream in
the Chesapeake Bay will be eligible for additional
support. The grants and loans may be directed towards
plant upgrades, but other more cost-effective options
such as nutrient credit trading, water conservation and
water reuse may also be eligible.
“Communities like Mechanicsburg are facing
ever-increasing costs to provide a clean, reliable
source of drinking water and effective wastewater
treatment for is residents and businesses,” said the
Governor. “Rather than only considering capital upgrades
to these facilities, which can leave ratepayers with
substantially higher rates, we want to ensure other
cost-effective options such as regionalization and
nutrient trading are considered.
The Governor pointed to examples like Mount Joy Borough,
Lancaster County, which used nutrient credit trading to
lower its nutrient reduction costs 35 percent, and
Fairview Township, York County, which did likewise and
saved its taxpayers 75 percent as opposed to a capital
upgrade.
The Department of Environmental Protection will work
with the Commonwealth Financing Authority and PENNVEST
in evaluating projects to ensure applicants are pursuing
measures that result in the lowest cost to
Pennsylvania’s citizens and communities.
In Pennsylvania, there are 900 community drinking water
facilities and 1,100 community wastewater operations
that are owned by a municipality or municipal authority
that would qualify for funding under S.B. 2. Grants
will range from $500,000 up to $20 million.
According to a recent federal Clean Water Needs Survey,
Pennsylvania is facing nearly $11 billion in unmet
drinking water infrastructure needs and at least $7.2
billion in unmet wastewater infrastructure needs.
As part of his efforts to address Pennsylvania’s aging
water-related infrastructure, Governor Rendell
established the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Task
Force through executive order. The task force is
responsible for calculating an estimate of total water
infrastructure needs facing the commonwealth and
identifying innovative technical, operational and
financing strategies to meet the state’s needs. The
group of legislative, business, municipal and public
interest leaders will issue a report by Oct. 1 that
provides recommendations and financing options to
support water-related services in the Governor's fiscal
year 2009-10 budget proposal.
S.B. 2 also provides at least $100 million for flood
control projects. Applicants would be responsible for
providing easements and rights-of-way, relocating
buildings and utilities, altering or rebuilding
inadequate bridges in association with the flood
protection project when necessary, and operating and
maintaining the project.
“As Pennsylvania is one of the nation’s most flood-prone
state, we must take steps to ensure our communities are
safeguarded against the threat that a flood control
project or dam will fail and wash out homes and
businesses,” said Governor Rendell. “While the costs of
these projects can be daunting, if our infrastructure is
allowed to deteriorate, so too, will Pennsylvania’s
business climate and quality of life.”
S.B. 2 also provides $35 million to address state and
municipally owned unsafe, high hazard dams in need of
repair. Applicants are responsible for funding of at
least 25 percent of the amount authorized by the
Commonwealth Financing Authority for a project.
DEP will review the applications and makes
recommendations to the authority, which ultimately
decides which grants are awarded. Criteria for funding
include the level of hazard posed by the dam and whether
the proposed project is the most cost-effective way to
address the hazard.
Grants from S.B. 1341, if approved, would range from $10
million to $50 million, depending on the type of project
and the size of the system.
“While these measures are a step in the right direction,
they will by no means close the almost $20 billion gap
in funding for Pennsylvania’s water infrastructure
needs,” said Governor Rendell. “We need continued
funding as well as an in-depth examination of at
non-structural alternatives such as best management
practices and right-sizing.”
For more information on the fiscal year 2008-09 budget,
visit www.pa.gov. |
|
_____________________________
June 30, 2008
Governor Rendell Announces Budget Agreement; No Furloughs
HARRISBURG
–
Early Monday morning, Governor Edward G. Rendell announced that he and
legislative leaders have reached a budget agreement. Because of the
agreement, the Governor said state employees will not be furloughed on
Tuesday.
“Because of the tremendous
cooperative effort with the leaders of all four caucuses, I’m proud to
announce an agreement that will make significant investments for the
people of Pennsylvania,” the Governor said.
“This is a good budget in a
tough year,” the Governor said. “It will help to create thousands of
jobs that can’t be outsourced and it will invest in innovative programs
that will help us break free from our dependence on foreign sources of
oil.”
The Governor said his
education budget continues the progress Pennsylvania has made over the
past five years, with historical investments in education funding.
The Governor said the
budget agreement also includes:
-
$650 million for an Energy
Independence Strategy that will help Pennsylvania consumers and
companies lower their energy costs and expand renewable energy
sources;
-
$350 million to repair more than 400
of the state’s worst bridges, plus $15 million for airports and
rail;
-
$1.2 billion for water and sewer
infrastructure improvements; and
-
$800 million in redevelopment capital
assistance.
The Governor said the
budget agreement does not increase taxes, is $545 million less than the
$28.3 billion spending plan he introduced in February, and is only 3.8
percent more than the 2007-08 budget.
Regarding the $545 million
that was cut from the budget during negotiations, the Governor said the
budget forced some tough decisions. Some areas of the budget will
receive less funding than anticipated. However, compared to other states
that are in worse financial condition, the reductions will be
comparatively minor.
“While I have not yet
signed the budget, the agreement sets the stage for final approval once
the General Assembly votes on the spending plan. As such, state
employees will awaken later this morning to news that they will continue
working this week, and every day, as they always have.”
Source: Governor’s
Press Office, 6/30/08
May 23, 2008:
Public
Notification (PN) from EPA's Website
Compliance Help
You will need Adobe Reader to view
some of the files on this page. See
EPA's PDF page to learn more.
This page provides resources for
drinking water system owners and operators to assist them in complying with
requirements of the Public Notification (PN) rule. Primacy agencies (the
entities that regulated drinking water systems) can also find information to
assist in PN compliance.
For Water System Owners and
Operators
-
 PNiWriter
EPA developed the
PNiWriter to allow water operators or other designated
personnel to enter data to generate a public notice that meets federal
requirements. The program takes users through the 10 required elements
of a public notice and allows users to insert and edit EPA’s recommended
text. PNiWriter is a web based applications that requires internet
access to use.
-
Revised Public Notification Handbook PDF (154
pp, 1,653 K)
816-R-07-003, March 2007
This guide was developed for community water systems and
non-transient non-community water systems. It provides instructions and
includes templates that can be used for various types of public notices.
-
Public Notification Handbook for Transient Non-community Water Systems
PDF (77 pp, 955 K)
816-R-07-004, March 2007
This guide was developed for transient non-community water systems.
It provides instructions and includes templates that can be used for
various types of public notices.
-
Microsoft Word files of PN templates
These templates can be used and customized by drinking water systems to
ensure they meet PN content requirements.
-
Washington State Department of Health
The Washington State Department of Health has
developed more than 2 dozen translations for informational statements to
use on notifications.
-
Quick Reference Guide PDF (4 pp, 23 K)
-
Fact Sheet: Final Drinking Water Public Notification Regulations
EPA 816-F-00-020, May 2000
Top of page
Communication Tips
Top of page
For Primacy Agencies
-
State Implementation Guidance
816-R-01-010 / October 2001]
This guidance document and its appendices contain information that will
aid States in implementing the rule and applying for interim primacy.
-
Primacy Revision Crosswalk
Top of page
Training Materials
_____________________
May 21, 2008
Pennsylvania's Sustainable Water Infrastructure Public
Meetings
Click here for more
information
_____________________
May 5, 2008
Drinking Water Week
Click here
for more information
The Value of
Water Infrastructure
Water System
Security
___________________
May 2, 2008
AWWA Washington Report
Click
here for more information
___________________
Pennsylvania's Sustainable
Water Infrastructure Task Force
DEP's Water Infrastructure Link
Executive Order
2008-2
Task Force Members
___________________
April 15, 2008
Latest AWWA Memo on Pharmaceuticals
Click here
for more information
___________________
April 8, 2008
Cyber Security Project introduced at AWWA Water Security
Congress
Click here
for more information
___________________
March 26, 2008
Article from: The
Philadelphia Inquirer
Editorial: Drug Disposal
A prescription for cleaner water
OK . . . take a deep breath, have a drink of
water, and look at this clearly.
> For more than a decade, studies have shown
that pharmaceutical drugs and their by-products are finding their way into
the water supply, affecting the drinking water of millions of Americans.
> A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey study found
that 80 percent of the streams tested had measurable amounts of drugs,
steroids and reproductive hormones. Recent studies of Philadelphia-area
supplies showed 56 pharmaceuticals or their by-products in treated drinking
water; 63 such compounds were discovered in city watersheds.
> This is mostly a legacy of being rich enough
to afford good health care. The sources for our local water have
concentrations of these compounds, but the good news is that water-treatment
facilities have good ways to filter out most of them.
> It's not clear yet how trace pharmas in
water affect the human body. The amounts are extremely tiny - but they are
powerful, they're there long-term, and who wants them? It's not cause for
panic or paranoia - it's cause for more study.
> What science
does know is that trace pharmas
in water have a profound effect on plant and animal populations around the
world. No doubt about that one.
> How do the drugs get there? One way we can't
do much about: They move through the human body and out again into the water
supply.
> What we
can change is the heedless way we dispose of the drugs. We throw
them in the trash - or, worse, flush them right into the water supply.
> So what should we do with untaken drugs?
> Follow the advice of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy:
> (a) Trash with care - mix them with coffee
grounds or cat litter (to discourage garbage drug thieves), seal them in a
plastic bag, and then put them in the trash. Dumps and landfills often have
linings that can prevent properly sealed drugs from leaching into
groundwater.
> (b) Use drug take-back programs, run by some
hospitals and pharmacies (check with your local) and a few drug companies.
> In the Pennsylvania legislature, House Bill
2073, now in committee (but it's been there since November - giddyup!), is a
good start. It requires drug retailers to have take-back programs, and to
inform consumers of disposal options for unused drugs.
> A lot else could happen:
> Towns have special days and ways for picking
up trees, electronic components, batteries, etc. Why not do the same for
unused drugs? Models exist in Oregon, Wisconsin and California.
> Drug companies should continue trying to
design drugs so that their post-metabolic remains are not water-soluble.
> Everyone is entitled to water he or she can
trust - and by and large, we have it. You are what you drink - but you
shouldn't be what other folks throw away.
___________________
March 17, 2008
Great news for
Pennsylvania!!!
AWWA 2008 Larson Aquatic
Research Support (LARS) Scholarship-Masters
Ms. Caroline Newcombe,
student from the Pennsylvania Section is the recipient of
the 2008 LARS Scholarship for masters candidates. Ms.
Newcombe is a student at Penn State University. The $5,000
scholarship will be presented on June 10, 2008 at the AWWA
ACE in Atlanta, Georgia...Congratulations Caroline!!!
___________________
March 17, 2008
Contact: David
Sternberg (215) 814-5548,
sternberg.david@epa.gov
EPA Settlement with
Upper Southampton
Includes
Pharmaceutical Education to Protect Drinking Water Sources
PHILADELPHIA
(March 17, 2008) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a
proposed settlement with Upper Southampton Sewer Authority in Southampton,
Bucks County, Pa., for violations of the Clean Water Act.
As part of the settlement, the authority will
conduct an awareness campaign to encourage proper collection and disposal of
unused pharmaceuticals in order to help protect drinking water sources. The
campaign will include preparing and distributing materials to institutional
customers such as local hospitals, retirement communities, and schools about
the proper disposal of prescription drugs.
"This settlement is extremely timely given
recent information about pharmaceuticals in drinking water. While there is
no evidence that trace-amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking water causes a
health threat, we all need to do what we can to make sure our water remains
healthy to drink,” said Donald S. Welsh, EPA Regional Administrator for the
mid-Atlantic region.
The settlement resolves unpermitted sanitary
sewer discharges to Mill Creek from 2002 through 2006. The estimated cost of
the pharmaceutical project is $10,800. Under the settlement, the authority
will also pay a $16,200 penalty.
The proposed settlement will undergo a 40-day
comment period before becoming final.
For more information about pharmaceuticals in
drinking water go to:
http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/
___________________
March 14, 2008
Drinking
water in state is safe, official says
Pharmaceuticals found elsewhere are at tiny levels, companies note
Patriot News: Friday, March 14, 2008
BY CHRIS
A. COUROGEN
Of The Patriot-News
Don't worry. Go ahead.
Drink the water.
That's what state and local
water officials are saying in reaction to reports that pharmaceuticals have
been found in drinking water around the nation.
"Pennsylvania's drinking
water is safe and will continue to be safe," said Neil Weaver, spokesman for
the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Local water companies don't
test for pharmaceuticals in their water, but they point to the small amounts
detected elsewhere as evidence there is no need for concern.
"The research we have
looked at found concentrations that were 20,000 to as much as 70,000 times
lower than an acceptable daily intake," United Water spokesman Bob Manbeck
said. "We believe if EPA [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] were
concerned about the trace amounts found in certain waters, they would make
testing mandatory."
The levels are so low that
only recently has technology advanced to the point of allowing them to be
detected. United, which serves 45,000 customers in the midstate, does not
own equipment capable of detecting traces that small, Manbeck said.
"It's parts per trillion,"
Weaver said. "It's like a grain of sand in an Olympic-sized swimming pool."
"Sure, these compounds have
been detected around the country at low levels. It is our understanding they
do not pose a health impact," Manbeck said. "Researchers are more certain
about the impacts on fish and wildlife."
But low levels of chemicals
concern some experts.
Pharmaceuticals in
waterways have been shown to feminize male fish. Studies have also shown the
drugs affect sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life --
such as earth worms in the wild and zooplankton in labs.
"It brings a question to
people's minds that if the fish were affected ... might there be a potential
problem for humans?" EPA research biologist Vickie Wilson said. "It could be
that the fish are just exquisitely sensitive because of their physiology or
something. We haven't gotten far enough along."
The equipment Pennsylvania
American Water uses to test for more than 100 contaminants mandated by the
EPA and DEP could be used to test for trace amounts of drugs, spokesman
Terry Maenza said. But the company, which has 30,000 customers locally,
won't check for pharmaceuticals in its water until those agencies require
it, he said.
"We are capable of doing
it. We have the technology," Maenza said. "What the EPA requires us to do,
we are testing for."
The chairman of the Public
Utility Commission, Wendell F. Holland, said yesterday it is seeking to
determine what action to take and could begin an investigation.
The city-owned Harrisburg
Water System, which serves about 77,000 people in the city, Penbrook and
Susquehanna and Lower Paxton Twps., also doesn't test for pharmaceuticals.
City spokesman Matt Coulter
said the city's water supply is at a low risk for pharmaceutical
contamination because there are no wastewater treatment facilities upstream
of its six-billion-gallon reservoir north of the city.
There are homes with
private septic systems within the 13,500-acre watershed that drains into the
city's reservoir.
"Septic systems are
essentially small treatment plants that are essentially unmanaged and
therefore tend to fail," said researcher Anthony Aufdenkampe of the Stroud
Water Research Center in Avondale. Aufdenkampe has found caffeine
contamination in water samples from New York City's upstate watershed.
Local bottlers of spring
water also don't test for pharmaceuticals.
"I don't think there is a
problem," said Jim Okum, general manager of Sweet Arrow Springs, which
bottles water from a spring in Pine Grove.
Okum said in light of the
recent reports, he plans to consult with the outside lab Sweet Arrow uses
for testing and might have it test for pharmaceuticals, even if regulators
do not require it.
"If customers request it,
we would probably have it done," Okum said.
Scott Hoover, general
manager of Roaring Springs, said his company isn't concerned because its
groundwater source is not influenced by surface water. Roaring Springs tests
its water every day.
"We would know it the day
it happened if we had surface water contamination," Hoover said.
But groundwater is not
immune to pharmaceutical contamination. A 2006 study by the U.S. Geological
Survey of streams and wells in Cumberland, Lebanon and Lancaster counties
found while the problem is worse downstream from municipal wastewater
plants, drugs are being found in other water, too.
J. Kent Crawford of the
USGS office in New Cumberland, who managed the study, said researchers found
pharmaceutical contamination everywhere they looked.
___________________
March 10, 2008
AWWA News Release regarding Pharmaceuticals in Drinking
Water
Click here for
more information
Public Affairs Advisory
___________________
February 28, 2008
Governor Rendell Signs Executive Order
Establishing Sustainable Water Infrastructure Task Force
Governor Edward G.Rendell has established a high-level task force through
executive order that will evaluate what is needed to ensure Pennsylvania
maintains a sustainable water and wastewater infrastructure in light of
continued cuts from the federal government in recent years.
"Our water and wastewater infrastructure is aging," said Governor
Rendell. "Pennsylvania is facing nearly $20 billion in unmet water-related
infrastructure needs, and that doesn't even take into account ongoing
capital costs and expenses associated with operations and maintenance
responsibilities. We need to begin developing a comprehensive plan now that
supports a sustainable network of systems to protect public health, and
ensure citizens and businesses don't lose out on the quality and dependable
services they have come to expect."
A federal Clean Water Needs Survey found that Pennsylvania is facing
nearly $11 billion in unmet drinking water infrastructure needs and at least
$7.2 billion in unmet wastewater infrastructure needs.
The Governor today signed Executive Order 2008-02, establishing the
Sustainable Water Infrastructure Task Force, which is to analyze issues
related to cost-effective and sustainable investment in the state's water
and sewer infrastructure.
The task force is to consider new funding options and non-structural
alternatives to capital upgrades, such as nutrient credit trading, water
re-use and conservation. It is responsible for developing a report by Oct. 1
that provides recommendations and financing options to support water-related
services in the Governor's fiscal year 2009-10 budget proposal.
Members of the task force are to include representatives of the
administration, General Assembly, academia, the state's Office of Consumer
Advocate, as well as local government and municipal associations.
"Shrinking support from the federal government means the financial burden
associated with the needed work is increasingly falling on states and local
municipalities," said the Governor. "The commonwealth alone has suffered a
50 percent cut in the federal funds we had received previously to support
water infrastructure. Without that needed support, our economy, environment
and quality of life will suffer."
The Governor pointed to continued cuts in the federal Clean Water State
Revolving Fund--one of the state's most important tools for funding water
infrastructure improvements. Pennsylvania's share of the state revolving
fund program has been cut by approximately half in the past three years,
down $30 million to $27 million, while President Bush's upcoming fiscal year
budget proposal calls for another $330 million in cuts to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency--largely aimed at wastewater projects.
The president requested only $555 million for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund in FY 2009, which would be the lowest level of funding for
the program in its history if enacted.
"While I've called on Congress to restore these valuable funds, we must
take steps to ensure we have reliable systems in place that deliver
dependable services," said Governor Rendell. "The high-level task force I'm
establishing through this executive order will focus on finding solutions to
Pennsylvania's drinking water and wastewater system needs, either through
new funding sources or cost-effective, non-structural alternatives.
"Pennsylvania needs a comprehensive strategy to ensure the long-term
sustainability of its water infrastructure. Without one, our ability to
tackle the serious environmental and economic infrastructure challenges
facing our communities will be jeopardized."
To view a copy of the executive order, visit
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watermgmt/lib/watermgmt/executiveorder2008-2.pdf
.
Source: DEP Press Release, 2/28/08
___________________
February 19, 2008
AWWA: Facts and Filters...Helping Consumers Make Smart
Choices About Home Treatment Devices
Making Smart Choices
About Home Treatment Devices
Activated Carbon Filters
Reverse Osmosis
Water Softeners
___________________
February 13, 2008
AWWA Alert on Chlorine Security Issues
Click here for
more information
___________________
February 11, 2008
Bill to force fluoridation spurs debate
|
By
Bob
Stiles
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County
won't be adding fluoride to its drinking water unless a bill in
the state Legislature becomes law.
The measure would require all public water
suppliers with 500 or more customers -- such as the Westmoreland
authority -- to add fluoride. It is the first time in nearly 20
years that a bill attempts to make water fluoridation mandatory
in Pennsylvania. That has drawn objections from some groups,
including township supervisors who say the decision should be up
to them.
"Our position is a very simple one: We do
whatever the state requires us to do, and currently the state
does not require public-water suppliers to add fluoride to
water," said Chris Kerr, authority manager. "If they require us
... we'll do it immediately."
The bill, under review in the state House
Appropriations Committee, is being pushed by the
Pennsylvania Dental Association as a safe way to reduce
tooth decay. Other groups question the safety of adding the
compound to water. Still, Dr. Jon Johnston, president of the
state dental association and a Punxsutawney dentist, said
studies show that fluoride added to water in proper amounts
helps to prevent tooth decay for all ages. "All the studies
that have been done -- scientifically controlled ones --
show it's safe at levels of 0.7 to 1 part per million,"
Johnston said. He explained fluoride prevents cavities by
making tooth enamel harder and more resistant to acids that
cause decay. Johnston said the average cost to fluoridate
water ranges from 50 cents to $3 per person per year.
Most medical and dental organizations support
the addition of fluoride to drinking water. They include the
American Dental Association, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the American Medical Association and the World
Health Organization. Officials at the state Department of
Environmental Protection believe that fluoride added to water in
proper levels is safe, said spokeswoman Helen Humphreys. The
agency oversees public water suppliers.
The House bill sponsored by Rep. Stephen Barrar,
a Delaware County Republican, notes that the CDC calls water
fluoridation "one of the 10 most significant public health
achievements of the 20th century." But others, including
environmental groups and believers in holistic health, reject
fluoride's use. They question its effects on the body and say
water fluoridation is unnecessary because the compound can be
obtained through toothpaste and other means. They contend much
of the fluoridated water is wasted because it is used for
purposes other than drinking, such as watering lawns or washing
cars.
"It's not safe," said Mike Ewall, of ActionPA, a
group opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water. "It's not
effective. It's costly, and it's not ethical."
The Westmoreland authority serves about 400,000
people, most in central Westmoreland County or eastern Allegheny
County, and others in Fayette and Indiana counties, Kerr said.
Others supplying water to the area include the Pennsylvania
American Water Co., with nearly 330,000 customers, most in
Allegheny and Washington counties. About 287,000 of American's
customers here receive fluoridated water, said company spokesman
Terry Maenza.
The Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority
supplies fluoridated water to about 250,000 customers.
John Hood, executive director of the
Pennsylvania Rural Water Association, and Elam Herr, assistant
executive director of the Pennsylvania Association of Township
Supervisors, said their memberships don't oppose the use of
fluoride in water.
But they do oppose being forced to add it, they
said. "We think it should be a local choice," said Hood, whose
group represents nearly 1,000 water suppliers, large and small.
Herr's group has objected to mandatory fluoridation for more
than two decades.
"(Most supervisors) were all saying, If we want
fluoride in our water supply ... then that's for us to make the
decision," Herr said. "The state shouldn't mandate."
They believe adding fluoride will cost too much
and could lead to more liability concerns, he said. "And this is
something that is not necessarily needed," Herr said. Johnston
said the choice can't be left to water suppliers. It has to be
forced by law. "There's not enough incentive for them to do it,"
Herr said.
Paul Zielinski, a quality and environmental
management specialist with the Pennsylvania American Water Co.,
said his company either adds dry or liquid fluoride to its
system at 1 part per million. A pump that carefully measures
amounts is used, he said.
The level of fluoride is tested regularly,
Zielinski said.
"That's checked at least daily for every day
we're in operation," he said.
Maenza said the cost to set up a fluoridation
system for a medium-size facility serving 1,300 to 4,000
customers is about $17 per household. That cost reflects various
equipment needed to add the substance, the chemical and labor.
Costs in subsequent years go down, Maenza said.
Kerr said his Westmoreland authority receives
about a dozen letters a year on fluoride when legislation is
pending.
"We have probably as many proponents for
fluoride as we do not wanting fluoride," Kerr said.
Fluoride
• Fluoride, a compound of the chemical element
fluorine, was first used purposely to prevent tooth decay in
Grand Rapids, Mich., in 1945. Fluoridation of drinking water has
been common in the United States for more than 50 years.
• Armstrong County's Ford City was the first
community in Pennsylvania to adopt water fluoridation in 1951.
Pittsburgh became the second the next year.
• Of the 50 largest cities in the United States,
43 have community water fluoridation.
• About half of the state's residents drink
fluoridated water.
• In Allegheny County about 94 percent of
residents who are customers of public suppliers have fluoride in
their drinking water. The number drops to about 67 percent in
Indiana County, to about 31,000 of 46,409 public-water
consumers. In Fayette County, it's 30 percent of public-water
customers, or nearly 77,000 people. About 20 percent of
Westmoreland County's 245,598 public-water customers, or nearly
47,800 people, have fluoridated water.
Sources: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention 2001 report; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, 2008 figures.
Bob Stiles can be reached at
bstiles@tribweb.com or
724-836-6622.
|
_________________
February 6, 2008
AWWA Press Release regarding new "Security Funding
Opportunities"
Click here
for more information
_________________
February 5, 2008
"Facts and Filters": AWWA's new public education program on
home water filters was sent to utilities today
Click here for more
information
__________________
February 4, 2008
AWWA Alert: Newly revised Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
requiring community water systems to include an
informational statement about lead in drinking water in
their Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR)
Click here for more
information
__________________
January 30, 2008
AWWA Water Utility Safety Survey
Sent to 1,460 utilities yesterday
Deadline is March 31, 2008
Click here for more
information
__________________
January 18, 2008
Subject: AWWA Government Affairs Alert
* Calls, e-mails needed to House
Homeland Security Committee
Please see the attached alert. Here is a summary:
To: AWWA Executive Committee
Water Utility Council
Section Government Affairs Contacts
From: AWWA Government Affairs Office
Date: January 18, 2008
Re: Urgent: Chemical Security Legislation to Include
Water
The Committee on Homeland Security is developing a bill to
modify and
make permanent the Department of Homeland Security's
Chemical Facility
Anti-Terrorism (CFATS) program, and is poised to include
water and
wastewater utilities in that program for the first time.
AWWA is
writing the committee to express our concerns with the bill
and ask for
a continued exclusion from the program. You may wish to
contact your
member of Congress immediately to do the same thing. Time
is of the
essence, as the House Subcommittee on Transportation
Security and
Infrastructure Protection (Chaired by Rep. Sheila Jackson
Lee, D-Tex.)
plans to mark up a draft bill as early as the middle of next
week.
Attached to this memo is a letter to members of the Homeland
Security
Committee, which you may modify for your own use. Also
attached is a
list of members of that Committee. If your member of
Congress does not
sit on the Homeland Security Committee, please contact him
or her anyway
and ask that he or she contact Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss)
or Rep.
Peter King (R-NY), Chair and Ranking Member of the full
committee,
respectively, to urge the exclusion of water and wastewater
utilities
from the chemical security program.
The key points to make are that 1) we are already covered by
numerous
federal, state, and local requirements relating to chemical
security and
chemical safety, so this program is duplicative and
unnecessary; 2)
adding the water sector to this program raises utility bills
without a
commensurate benefit to your customers; and 3) the bill as
written does
not fit the water sector in several important respects (such
as giving
the DHS the authority to order treatment changes, to order
the cessation
of service, and to levy very large fines and penalties that
are
inappropriate for an instrumentality of local government).
Calls and e-mails are needed; land mail will not get there
in time.
The best bet is to use the "contact form" found on your
Member's
website. To find that, go to www.house.gov and use the
"Find Your
Representative" search device in the upper left-hand corner
of the
page. Contact information for members of the House Homeland
Security
Committee is attached.
As always, please call Tom Curtis or Tommy Holmes in the
AWWA
Government Affairs Office (202-628-8303) if you have
questions or
comments.
Tommy Holmes
Legislative Programs Manager
American Water Works Assn.
1300 Eye St. NW
Suite 701W
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 326-6128 (direct)
(202) 628-8303
cell (703) 915-2769
tholmes@awwa.org
Click here for
form letter and more information
__________________
December 21, 2007
Comments - Safe
Drinking Water; Public Notification Revisions, EQB Proposed
Regulation #7-407 (#2637)
A copy of
the comments in PDF format is attached. In addition, the
Commission’s comments will soon be available on the web at
www.irrc.state.pa.us.
Comments
________________
December 20, 2007
The AWWA attached advisory and appendices were sent out to
utilities on
December 20th in anticipation of an AP story about
pharmaceuticals/personal care products in drinking water.
Memo
What You Need to Know
Talking Points
________________
Public Notification
Rulemaking
Very important information for water utilities!!!
The Public Notice Revision package is in the PA Bulletin as of 9/22/2007
Comment period ended 11/21/2007
Here's a link to the proposed PN Revisions that were
published in the Pa Bulletin on 9/22/07. Please advise any interested
parties that the comment period ends 11/21/07.
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol37/37-38/37_38_prm.pdf
In addition, templates for most Tier 1 and 2 public notification
situations are on the department's website at
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/cwp/view.asp?a=1251&q=510149
Public Comments
Written comments.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments,
suggestions or objections regarding the proposed
rulemaking to the Environmental Quality Board, P. O. Box
8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477 (express mail: Rachel
Carson State Office Building, 16th Floor, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301). Comments submitted
by facsimile will not be accepted. Comments, suggestions
or objections must be received by the Board by November
21, 2007. Interested persons may also submit a summary
of their comments to the Board. The summary may not
exceed one page in length and must also be received by
November 21, 2007. The one-page summary will be
provided to each member of the Board in the agenda
packet distributed prior to the meeting at which the
final regulation will be considered.
Electronic comments. Comments may
be submitted electronically to the Board at
RegComments@state.pa.us and must also be received by the Board by
November 21, 2007. A subject heading of the proposal and a return
name and address must be included in each transmission.
A copy of the rulemaking can be found at:
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol37/37-38/1754.html .
Source:
PA Bulletin, 9/22/07
____________________
October 23, 2007
Very important information for PA water suppliers
PADEP's Position on Possible
Fluoride Shortages
Pennsylvania American Water
Company (PAWC) recently notified the Division of Operations Monitoring
and Training, as well as all DEP regional offices about a potential
fluoride shortage. PAWC's supplier notified the water company that they
will be severely limiting deliveries of Fluorosilicic Acid over the next
few months. The supplier stated that causes for the market balance are
as follows:
-
The U.S.
has noted unusually hot and dry conditions during the spring and
summer causing increased demand.
-
Producers
are close to anticipated volumes; however production has been
inconsistent and less than last year at this point.
-
Production
issues during the last half of 2006 depleted inventories,
resulting in current order patterns that suggest users are
attempting to replenish their inventories to the two-three month
levels that they normally attempt to maintain.
-
Some
phosphate plants are closed or have been idle during the last 14
months due to industry consolidation, reducing the Fluorosilicic
Acid supply at the source. Producers are evaluating additional
capacity at their existing plants.
The Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) has added a page to their web site specifically addressing the
temporary shortage of Fluoride. The Web site is:
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/shortages_faq.htm
This presents a potential problem
for water suppliers that have a permit to fluoridate and must meet
permit conditions stipulating optimum fluoride levels that must be
maintained in their distribution systems – generally 0.7 – 1.2 mg/L.
The question arose as to whether water systems that fluoridate should
cut back their levels to sub-optimum levels to conserve chemical, or
continue to fluoridate at permit-required levels and hope that they will
be able to replenish their inventories before they run out.
PA DEP’s position is that these
water suppliers should continue to fluoridate at the required permit
levels for two reasons:
-
If water
suppliers reduce the level, they could be voluntarily and
perhaps unnecessarily putting themselves in violation of a
permit condition, and the possibility exists that they might not
run out of fluoride anyway.
-
Based on
available literature, including a CDC table that displays
recommended levels based on average daily maximum air
temperature, the intended beneficial effect of fluoride at
sub-optimal levels (below 0.7 mg/l) is lost, so it might just be
a waste of fluoride.
If a water supplier runs out of
Fluorosilicic Acid, and they are unable to meet permit-required limits
due to extenuating circumstances beyond their control, the regions are
advised to use prudent enforcement discretion. Systems should not
incur a permit violation for failure to maintain fluoride levels if they
are unable to replenish their inventories due to the inability of
suppliers to fill orders within supplier-requested lead times.
Cessation of fluoridation is considered a water treatment process
interruption, so water suppliers that fluoridate are required to notify
DEP within one (1) hour and provide advance notice to their customers
regarding any pause and subsequent resumption of fluoridation.
_______________________
October 19, 2007
AWWA Utility Alert regarding Chemical Security Survey sent
to water utilities 10/19/2007
Click here for more information
_______________________
October 10, 2007
Revisions and Clarification to the Lead and Copper Rule
AWWA memo
Statement
Talking Points
_______________________
October 4, 2007
Check out the National WARN Network Website
Click here
_______________________
AS I SEE IT SUSAN K. PICKFORD
Consider alternatives to chloramine in
water
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Citizens in the Pennsylvania American Water Co.
service area have chal lenged the company's decision to use
chloramine instead of chlorine to disinfect our drinking water. The
Environmental Protection Agency has required water systems to reduce
chlorine byproduct levels caused when organic materials mix with
chlorine. EPA suspects that these byproducts cause bladder cancer.
One of several methods available to PAWC to meet EPA standards is
chloramine, a mix of chlorine and ammonia and one of the least
expensive and easiest methods available.
However, when researching chloramine, PAWC customers
found EPA studies stating that chloramine produces byproducts far
more toxic than those of chlorine which EPA seeks to reduce (www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/13413.php).
According to studies conducted and/or funded by EPA,
iodoacetic acid, one of the many byproducts of chloramines, is among
the most toxic byproducts yet discovered. According to EPA's own
studies, byproducts of chloramine are genotoxic and cytotoxic, which
means they are capable of mutating groups of genes and cells,
causing cancer and/or birth defects. Many other byproducts of
chloramine have not as yet been identified (www.epa.gov/athens/research/process/drinkingwater.html).
Chloramine is also highly corrosive, leaching lead
from copper, lead and brass pipes, according to rubber
manufacturers. In areas using chloramine, high levels of lead were
measured in the water. Ingestion of lead by children causes
developmental and learning problems (http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/apr/science/rr_chloramines.html).
Manufacturers of rubber and elastomer plumbing
fittings report the life expectancy of rubber fittings has fallen
severely with the change over to chloramine
(http://www.ashtabularubber.com/ARC%20Images/Chloramine%20Resistance.pdf).
Scientists at Hach Homeland Security Technologies, a
company producing terrorism detection equipment for water treatment
facilities, warn against the use of chloramines in water systems in
service areas that include military bases
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070302082749.htm).
Scientific studies note that when heated, chloramine
creates trichloramine vapor, a strong respiratory irritant. Recent
studies have been done on indoor swimming pools showing respiratory
effects in lifeguards and regular swimmers from inhaling
trichloramine. Chloramine exists in swimming pools when chlorinated
water mixes with ammonia from skin cells.
Inhalation studies were last completed by EPA in
1994. Hundreds of people in areas of California, Vermont, Oklahoma
and other states where the change to chloramines has already taken
place are reporting respiratory difficulties associated with the
water
("http://swimming.about.com/od/allergyandasthma/a/cl_pool_problem.htm).
Permits to build a new facility intended for a
chloramine system were granted to PAWC prior to the discovery of
these adverse effects of chloramines and its byproducts. EPA's last
risk assessment study of chloramines was done in 1998, before the
studies in 2004-2007 were completed showing the likely public health
hazard this compound can produce. There is much we don't know about
chloramines. We do know that in 2007, EPA's own scientists and
studies warn against chloramine as a disinfectant alternative.
EPA claims chloramine is safe at levels approved for
water supplies. However, those levels concern only residual
compound, not byproducts formed from interaction with organic
material. Studies warning against use of chloramine do not state a
"safe" level for these byproducts.
PAWC claims no reports of adverse health effects
associated with chloramine in usage areas. However, in areas where
customers have connected their chloraminated water supply to
respiratory difficulties, hundreds of people have made reports to
their doctors, water companies and legislatures.
Options are available to meet EPA standards without
highly toxic byproducts or lead leaching. PAWC delayed introduction
of chloramines, not to research these issues, but to educate the
customers to the safety of chloramine. It is incumbent upon PAWC to
consider alternatives less harmful to the environment and human
health.
David Ozonoff, chair emeritus of the Department of
Environmental Health at the Boston University School of Public
Health, aptly stated, "At the same time that a water supply is an
efficient means to deliver a health-giving substance, it is also an
efficient means to distribute harmful ones." He points out that
after having relied on chlorine as a water disinfectant for many
years, we have only now discovered its negatives.
Scientists know now that chloramines byproducts are
more harmful than chlorine's. Will we have to be exposed to them for
years before EPA acts on this knowledge?
SUSAN K. PICKFORD writes from Camp Hill.
_______________________
__________________
August 13, 2007
The attached AWWA public affairs advisory was
distributed on Friday
afternoon in regards to a statement calling for an end to
water
fluoridation. Included was also an issue backgrounder and an
AWWA press
release from last year on an NRC Fluoride Report.
Click for more information
Click for more information
Click for
more information
__________________
August 10, 2007
DEP Answers
Questions About Chloramines and Drinking Water in Pennsylvania
The Department of
Environmental Protection understands that having access to clean
and safe drinking water is an important component to preserving
the quality of life for Pennsylvania’s citizens. DEP employs a
number of different approaches and technologies to ensure that
residents who depend on public drinking water supplies have such
access.
In an effort to help
people understand more about the use of chloramines in public
drinking water systems, the following list of questions and
answers provide more information about this common disinfectant.
Why do public water
suppliers add disinfectants to my drinking water supply?
Disinfecting tap
water is critical to protect the public from disease-causing
microorganisms. Drinking water is disinfected to kill bacteria,
viruses and other organisms that can cause serious illnesses and
death. Disinfection of drinking water has improved public health
by lowering the rates of infectious diseases (for example,
typhoid, hepatitis and cholera) spread through untreated water.
Common disinfectants include chlorine and chloramines.
What is chloramine?
Chloramine is a
disinfectant used to treat drinking water. It is formed by
mixing chlorine with ammonia. Although it is a weaker
disinfectant than chlorine, it is more stable which extends its
disinfectant benefits throughout a water utility's distribution
system (a system of pipes water is delivered to homes through).
Some water systems use chloramine as a secondary disinfectant to
maintain a disinfectant residual throughout the distribution
system so that drinking water remains safe as it travels from
the treatment facility to the customer. Chloramine has been used
by water systems for almost 90 years, and its use is closely
regulated.
What are the
advantages of using chloramine?
Since chloramine is
not as reactive as chlorine, its use can reduce the formation of
cancer-causing disinfection byproducts, such as the
trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids. Because a chloramine
residual is more stable and longer lasting than free chlorine,
it provides better protection against bacterial regrowth in
distribution systems. Chloramine, like chlorine, is effective in
controlling biofilm, a coating in the pipe caused by bacteria.
Controlling biofilm also tends to reduce coliform bacteria
concentrations and biofilm-induced corrosion of pipes. Because
chloramine does not tend to react with organic compounds, many
systems will experience fewer taste and odor complaints when
using chloramine. Chloramine technology is relatively easy to
install and operate. It also is among the less expensive
disinfectant alternatives to chlorine.
What are the
disadvantages of using chloramine?
Chloramine levels
are more complicated to regulate than chlorine levels. Failure
to properly control and monitor the treatment process can cause
undesirable chemical reactions such as increased corrosion of
pipes or nitrification in the distribution system. Corrosion can
cause leaching of lead and copper from pipes and solder.
Nitrification can cause a loss of disinfectant residual. Proper
operation and management of the treatment sytem and disinfectant
levels prevents these potential drawbacks to the use of
chloramines. In addition, chloramine will deteriorate natural
rubber products like toilet tank "flapper valves" faster than
chlorine. Alternative synthetic products are available in
plumbing and hardware stores if rubber deterioration becomes a
problem.
How many people use
drinking water that has been treated with chloramine?
|
