Rural Water - Quarter 1, 2009 - (Page 49)

Regulatory Update BY ED THOMAS, NRWA EPA eyes long term changes for the lead and copper rule The EPA rolled out potential topics for changing the lead and copper rule beyond the short term revisions that were published in 2007. The Agency identified several areas of potential changes to the existing rule, which included: • Re-evaluating the sampling and monitoring requirements, such as selecting the monitoring sites, timing of samples and a review of the sampling requirements to make them more effective and consistent. • Short-term exposure consequences from lead service line replacement. • Reviewing analytical methods and sample collection criteria for not only dissolved lead but also the particulate lead material. • Taking a look at new corrosion control strategies and including them in the rule requirements. • Providing more transparent explanations to the public about certain actions that utilities must take to educate the public, such as the definition of an action level and what it means when action levels are exceeded (an area identified by Rural Water as needing significant attention). The Agency did not commit to a timeframe or any indication as to whether they believed it is more appropriate to go through the rule making process or simply issue updated guidance documents. We will continue to participate and provide feedback to the Agency regarding any long term changes to the rule. fers and the potential changes to water chemistry such as corrosivity. Others in the industry are avid supporters of the process to prevent greenhouse gases from being released to the atmosphere while also being used a mechanism to recover oil. The EPA is not expected to make a fi nal determination until 2011. FTC extends deadline on red flag rule compliance The Federal Trade Commission has agreed to extend the deadline for compliance with the new “Red Flag Rule” to May 1, 2009. The Commission cited much confusion as the reason for extending the compliance deadline, ““GivCarbon dioxide underground sequestration en the confusion and uncertainty within There is much ongoing discussion by major industries under the FTC’s juthe water industry regarding a proposed risdiction about the applicability of the rule issued by EPA late last year on deep rule and the fact that there is no longer underground sequestration of carbon disufficient time for members of those inoxide. Some in the industry believe that dustries to develop their programs and there are an abundance of unknown meet the November 1 compliance date, outcomes that may result from the practhe Commission believes that immediate tice. These include the impacts on aquienforcement of the rule on November 1 would be neither equitable for the covered entities nor beneficial There is much ongoing discussion by the water industry to the public. Delaying regarding a proposed rule issued by EPA late last year on Commission enforcement of the rule as to the entideep underground sequestration of carbon dioxide. Some in ties under its jurisdiction the industry believe that there are an abundance of unknown by six months, until May 1, 2009, will allow these outcomes that may result from the practice. entities to take the appropriate care and consideration in developing and First Quarter 2009 • 49

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Rural Water - Quarter 1, 2009

Rural Water - Quarter 1, 2009
From the President
Question & Answer: Water Conservation in the Home
Avoiding the Humpty Dumpty Approach to Data Backup
From the CEO
What the Future Holds
Asset Management for Small Communities
Understanding Your Surface Water Source: The Rivers
Hydraulic Models
Expeditionary Water Packaging System Graces Delta
The Rural Water Rally in April
Training in Hawaii
Regulatory Update
Rural Water Releases Report on Water Infrastructure Projects and Economic Stimulus Legislation
Throwing My Loop
Index to Advertisers

Rural Water - Quarter 1, 2009