Report

Drinking Water Regulations: What Does The Future Hold?

NPDWRs must go through an extensive review n 2009, the U.S. EPA completed its mandatory process, which includes publishing through the six year review of the National Primary Drinking Federal Registry (in order to obtain appropriate Water Regulations (NPDWRs) as part of the public comment), final notice procedures, and rule Safe Drinking Water Act. In that effort, the EPA making processes. The time required to conduct this assessed 71 NPDWRs and determined that 67 were effort ensures that appropriate measures are taken to acceptable, while four required immediate revision. adhere to the mandate of maintaining overall public Additional to this effort, the EPA review committee safety and reducing risk. assessed 14 newly proposed NPDWRs, along with a Maintaining the selected NPDWR standards enlists review of existing National Secondary Drinking Water the utilization of effective treatment barriers to Regulations a set of guidelines for contaminants protect drinking water sources. This review and that may be selected for further enforcement at the determination process may enlist the assessment state level. of Best Available Treatment (BAT) technology, With the next formal six year review (Six Year development of rules or guidelines for state programs Review 3) slated for 2015, the drinking water to implement, and/or development of training treatment industry is keen to identify the current programs for localized operators NPDWRs that will become and treatment facility personnel. prevalent as the review period The ultimate goal is to maintain The ultimate goal is approaches. By addressing some a level of public disclosure of of the treatment requirements to maintain a level of key contaminants that may be imposed by any revised public disclosure of key present in local drinking water standards, municipalities and sources. treatment technology providers contaminants that may can gauge how capable their be present in localized current treatment systems are Six Year Review 3 of maintaining overall NPDWR drinking water sources. On The Horizon compliance. After completion of the first two cycles (2003 and 2009) of Background Into The NPDWR Review Process the six year review of NPDWRs, the upcoming Six Enforcement of NPDWR takes an appropriate amount Year Review (SY3) is due to begin in 2015, with of time to determine which contaminants are of a new set of proposed NPDWRs set to take effect potential human risk. With such a diverse list of in 2016. Similar to cycles achieved in the past, the contaminants that have the potential to enter the development of a Contaminated Candidate List public drinking water supply at any time, it becomes (CCL) is key to determining which contaminants are a difficult task to determine the inherent risk to the of major or immediate concern and which can be general public. Sources of contamination can be relegated to the National Secondary Drinking Water derived from either natural sources such as erosion Regulation (NSDWR), which includes contaminants or from contamination of freshwater sources by that cause cosmetic (e.g., skin irritations) or aesthetic industrial manufacturing or municipal wastewater effects (e.g., taste and odor). Although CCLs are treatment runoff. Reducing public risk and lowering assessed during this effort, the public outcry to reach the overall occurrence of the contaminant in public public health goals (more stringent than the NPDWR drinking water sources are key mandates specified established levels) is what makes this review process in the development and review process of NPDWRs. truly work.
wateronline.com
n

Water Online The Magazine

Report

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. Importance Of Contaminated Candidate List 3 And The Contaminants Under Review For CCL 4 The development of the CCL 3 list was derived from a larger list of more than 7,500 potential chemical and microbial contaminants. This list was narrowed to 600 potential contaminants, utilizing public health risks and potential occurrence in public drinking water supplies as selection criteria. From that preliminary

list, a list of 116 contaminants (104 chemicals and 12 microbiological) was derived from insights offered by industry experts and public review. Highlights of key chemical contaminants from the current CCL 3 list include various estrogen-based hormones from pharmaceutical manufacturing, groups of insecticides and fungicides widely used in agricultural applications, and manufacturing contaminants such as perchlorates, which are difficult to remove using standard treatment methods. From the list of microbiological contaminants, the key highlights are those viruses and bacteria that can cause varying degrees of gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses. Effectiveness of standard and advanced systems in the treatment for these types of microbiological contaminants ensures proper treatment levels are determined when developing long-term NPDWR requirements. The date to submit candidates for the CCL 4 list has passed (June 2012); however, this list, combined with data collected in the effective treatment of

Tel. +1 800 842 7424 [email protected] kemira oyj kemira group

ad_WaterOnline_0413.indd 1

wateronline.com

Water Online The Magazine

4/3/2013 1:57:56 PM

Report

the 116 contaminants in CCL 3, is of immediate concern to treatment technology original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and engineering firms alike. Market growth in the vast water and wastewater treatment industry in the U.S. is driven by regulatory changes. As NPDWRs are developed and enforced, OEMs and engineering firms must adhere to them by providing effective treatment technologies derived from previous designs, while working to enhance existing treatment processes and systems to reach more stringent regulatory levels in order to comply. N P D W R s sometimes have compliance concessions to allow municipalities, OEMs, and engineering firms to continue to develop effective treatment capabilities to eventually comply, resulting in an implementation and enforcement process that can actually take upwards of five or more years in many cases across the country. Even with the case of arsenic NPDWRs, which rolled out in 2010, the projected timeframe for enforcement was expected to be five years. This timeframe facilitates the continued development of effective treatment systems, while also buffering the time required to generate funding for capital investment to install or retrofit existing treatment infrastructure. Key Industry Trends Although the focus by the marketplace will be on the next regulation to evoke potential industry changes, the OEMs and engineering firms must not lose sight of the existing NPDWRs that are either becoming more stringent or require immediate investment to maintain compliance. For example, there is typically significant focus on event-related issues, such as the long-term impact of Hurricane Sandy on the eastern part of the U.S., which resulted in rising total coliform levels, requiring heavy remediation and clean up investment 10
wateronline.com
n

efforts in the region at an estimated $71.3 billion. In the long-term evolution of the drinking water treatment industry, aggregate industry insights suggest that ongoing concerns related to microorganisms, such as cryptosporidium to zero milligrams per square liter (mg/L2), are challenging due to their ability to resist even advanced treatment technologies. Also, issues with the proliferation of disinfection byproducts (such as the production of trihalomethanes, bromates, chlorites, and haloacetic acids) are an ongoing concern and are directly linked to the standard use of water disinfectant treatment chemicals. All of the disinfection byproduct contaminants listed are known carcinogens and are difficult to treat to regulated maximum contaminant levels (MCL). From the organic chemicals perspective, the ongoing treatment concerns related to landfill runoff, chemical leaching, and waste chemical discharges leading to the risk caused by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) is a major industry issue. PCBs are known to cause immune deficiencies and reproductive and nervous system issues, and are a known carcinogen even at trace levels (MCL 0.0005 mg/L2). The run off of nitrates and nitrites from agricultural fertilizer use and sewage/septic spillage can lead to serious illness at MCL levels (10 mg/L 2 for nitrates, 1 mg/L2 for nitrites), but can also cause serious imbalances in natural bodies of water. This results in issues such as eutrophication, which has led to excessive algae plant growth in areas such as Chesapeake Bay. Restoration of the region has cost millions of dollars, but has also resulted in a greater public awareness of issues related to organic contaminants. The underlying trend related to these ongoing concerns is that OEMs and engineering firms cannot lose sight of the potential market to address
Water Online The Magazine

Report

real-time issues in the municipal drinking water marketplace. Anticipation of upcoming regulatory changes, such as those linked to the SY3 in 2015, ensures adaptability to upcoming requirements, but also takes away the necessary focus to address the needs of the here and now. As public health goes, with trends toward zero mg/L 2 levels for many prevalent contaminants, advances to existing treatment technologies and processes are key to address these requirements. U.S. states willing to invoke public health goals above and beyond MCL requirements will create a strong market for leadingedge innovation, an aspect that will only benefit the national competitive landscape as well.

required to implement, effectively treat, and enforce the regulation will restrain long-term industry market growth in many cases. n
Eric Meliton is an Energy and Environment Industry Analyst for Frost & Sullivan, covering environmental technologies. His expertise includes industrial and municipal water/wastewater treatment technologies, regulatory affairs, and compliance. Meliton holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry and Environmental Science from the University of Western Ontario.

U.S. states willing to invoke public health goals above and beyond MCL requirements will create a strong market for leading-edge innovation.
Conclusion With the 2015 SY3 expected to identify challenging contaminants requiring immediate or longterm treatment capabilities in the future, the ongoing growth derived from regulatory changes will be sustained. The potential to capture existing treatment market share by achieving treatment levels that adhere to public health goals as opposed to MCLs is a key innovative initiative that many firms can incorporate to further their market presence. Although anticipation of the next industrychanging regulation is part of the allure of analyzing the regulatory trends of the drinking water industry, the amount of time
wateronline.com
n

Water Online The Magazine

11