Drinking Water Regulations:  What Does The Future Hold?

A new list of contaminants and round of long-term mandates are under consideration by the U.S. EPA, prompting close attention from drinking water utilities.

In 2009, the U.S. EPA completed its mandatory six year review of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In that effort, the EPA assessed 71 NPDWRs and determined that 67 were acceptable, while four required immediate revision. Additional to this effort, the EPA review committee assessed 14 newly proposed NPDWRs, along with a review of existing National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations — a set of guidelines for contaminants that may be selected for further enforcement at the state level.

With the next formal six year review (Six Year Review 3) slated for 2015, the drinking water treatment industry is keen to identify the current NPDWRs that will become prevalent as the review period approaches. By addressing some of the treatment requirements imposed by any revised standards, municipalities and treatment technology providers can gauge how capable their current treatment systems are of maintaining overall NPDWR compliance.

Background Into The NPDWR Review Process

Enforcement of NPDWR takes an appropriate amount of time to determine which contaminants are of potential human risk. With such a diverse list of contaminants that have the potential to enter the public drinking water supply at any time, it becomes a difficult task to determine the inherent risk to the general public. Sources of contamination can be derived from either natural sources such as erosion or from contamination of freshwater sources by industrial manufacturing or municipal wastewater treatment runoff. Reducing public risk and lowering the overall occurrence of the contaminant in public drinking water sources are key mandates specified in the development and review process of NPDWRs.

NPDWRs must go through an extensive review process, which includes publishing through the Federal Registry (in order to obtain appropriate public comment), final notice procedures, and rule making processes. The time required to conduct this effort ensures that appropriate measures are taken to adhere to the mandate of maintaining overall public safety and reducing risk.

Maintaining the selected NPDWR standards enlists the utilization of effective treatment barriers to protect drinking water sources. This review and determination process may enlist the assessment of Best Available Treatment (BAT) technology, development of rules or guidelines for state programs to implement, and/or development of training programs for localized operators and treatment facility personnel. The ultimate goal is to maintain a level of public disclosure of key contaminants that may be present in local drinking water sources.

Six Year Review 3 On The Horizon

After completion of the first two cycles (2003 and 2009) of the six year review of NPDWRs, the upcoming Six Year Review (SY3) is due to begin in 2015, with a new set of proposed NPDWRs set to take effect in 2016. Similar to cycles achieved in the past, the development of a Contaminated Candidate List (CCL) is key to determining which contaminants are of major or immediate concern and which can be relegated to the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation (NSDWR), which includes contaminants that cause cosmetic (e.g., skin irritations) or aesthetic effects (e.g., taste and odor). Although CCLs are assessed during this effort, the public outcry to reach public health goals (more stringent than the NPDWR established levels) is what makes this review process truly work

The ultimate goal is to maintain a level of public disclosure of key contaminants that may be present in localized drinking water sources.

Not only does the mandated SY3 (according to the Safe Drinking Water Act) ensure that a review of all NPDWRs is completed every six years, but it also allows for enhancements to existing regulations, while identifying those of immediate concern to be monitored under the Unregulated Continuous Monitoring Program (UCMP), or to have guidelines developed for a NSDWR. With public health concerns always in hand, combined with the issues related to regional freshwater restrictions and shortages, compliance at the state and local levels is at the forefront

Read more at:  http://proddownloads.vertmarkets.com.s3.amazonaws.com/download/3440b717/3440b717-b072-4361-a59f-a1c0005e4778/original/8_cleanwater_0513_frostsullivan.pdf