The NDWAC boat sails again! California will likely go with the
flow when it comes to arsenic regulation. MNMs are now in the
mainstream... figuratively speaking at least. EPA extracts some liquidity out of RPPs in Arizona TCE-removal plant failure case. Down the
drain is not the place for meds. Mayor looks to recycled water
to keep Los Angeles afloat.
DWSRF: EPA
provides 2007 report (PDF file, 6.42 MB) which
shows over $14 billion provided over 10 years and 2008
allotments based on the most recent needs survey in 2003
State Updates
California
proposes arsenic MCL of 0.010 ppm Commentary: The California DPH has, at least for the time being, quieted the murmurs
that the California MCL could be more stringent than EPA's. The comment period begins on May 23, so the proposed rule may not
be posted on this site until after that date. (Or try the
backup site).
GAC treatment is a viable treatment barrier
against emerging contaminants such as pharmaceutically-active compounds
and endocrine disruptors and is highly effective for removing volatile
and synthetic organic chemicals from ground and surface waters. In
addition, GAC treatment removes taste and odor causing compounds such
as 2-methylisoborneol (MIB) and geosmin and can thus improve (and protect)
the aesthetic qualities of a water supply.
Malcolm Pirnie's GAC solutions
provide the highest level of performance at the lowest cost. Our experience
can help you deal with the issues of implementing a GAC process in
a new or existing facility, including:
Incorporating the GAC facility within
the hydraulic profile
Designing the facility to accommodate
GAC loading and unloading
Commentary: While the cost to fluoridate Rutland's water went up by a
significant percentage ($8,000 to $14,000 per year), the total
cost is shown to be very small compared to the health
benefit. The editorial argues that if such a small amount is
to be subjected to a public vote, why not every line item in the
budget, most of them significantly larger and many also
controversial?
