ADDING A DOSE OF OBJECTIVITY TO THE DEBATE ON WATER SAFETY

(April 2008, Dan McCarthy for General News Media)

WIDENING THE DEBATE

The recent series of well-researched Associated Press articles on pharmaceuticals in U.S. drinking water is raising awareness among the general public of an issue that has long concerned leaders in the global water industry: controlling contaminants that have an impact on water quality.

Sparking media interest in water quality issues is one way to get the public involved in the debate, and that’s a step in the right direction. Gaining public interest and trust in our water and wastewater infrastructure is essential in the overall management of that infrastructure. Well-informed consumers who understand the complexity of the issues being presented can make better decisions about supporting the increased investment necessary to improve infrastructure globally, not just in the United States.

The water industry must work with the media to help the public become better informed and to bring these issues front and center, while being careful not to over-simplify them.

TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION

To understand the debate fully and to decide on appropriate actions, consumers must look beyond the basic suggestions being offered, which have included: “Don’t use your toilet as a trash can for pharmaceuticals” or “Don’t drink tap water.” Here are nine additional “don’ts” and one “do” that people should bear in mind as they follow this important topic:

• Don’t believe all the hype
  We must move beyond emotions and focus on the facts. In most cases cited, drinking water meets all current regulations; and water utilities are committed to and successful in providing safe water to consumers. There is little evidence so far to support the hypothesis that environmental endocrine disrupter compounds (EDCs) at levels encountered by the general population have produced adverse endocrine effects in humans. Continued improvements in analytical technologies have allowed detection of progressively smaller concentrations of some contaminants in water and have made us more aware that the risk exists, but we still have more to learn. Additional studies on human health impacts are necessary before water utilities and water utility regulators can fully assess the risks and address treatment options.
• Don’t ignore the body of research already underway
  The information recently shared through the media is a welcome part of an ever-increasing body of scientific understanding of water’s role in our world. Global water industry service companies, like Black & Veatch, have teamed with AWWA Research Foundation (AwwaRF), Water Environment Federation (WEF), universities, utilities, the EPA and other entities to advance understanding of the most effective water and wastewater treatment technologies to protect our communities and environment. A number of studies have shown that existing water treatment processes already exhibit varying degrees of effectiveness in the removal of many EDCs and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). Questions remain, however, about the effects of unintended chronic exposure to sub-therapeutic doses of pharmaceuticals by consuming water. Further, while the concentrations of individual pharmaceuticals have not been a problem, additional research is needed to determine if the combined effects of various pharmaceuticals could cause problems.
• Don’t just blame the water
  Water isn’t the only exposure route for humans to come into contact with contaminants. Daily we inhale airborne chemicals and absorb contaminants through our skin from PPCPs, for example. And estrogenic content in water is minute compared with what is in food, such as soy sauce or tea, both of which contain phytoestrogens. As some health experts suggest, we must also be as concerned about the food we eat as we are about the pills we take.
• Don’t limit the debate to just pharmaceuticals
  Cryptosporidiosis outbreaks still pose a threat to drinking water as residents of Galway, Ireland, will confirm. Chemicals like arsenic from industrial waste streams can also slip into the water supply of a community. Rather than focus on pharmaceuticals, EDCs and PPCPs, we need to broaden the discussion to include chemicals, fertilizers, bacteria and other contaminants that have an impact on our water quality.
• Don’t focus only on human health
  While research on the potential human health impact of EDCs is in its infancy, there is stronger evidence that they have a detrimental effect on the natural environment and fragile ecosystems. Above-average levels of estrogenic compounds have been found immediately downstream of wastewater treatment plant outflows, which cause significant feminization of male aquatic species when estrogenic compounds are high. More research is required to understand whether the findings are applicable to humans in that fish actually live in the water whereas we just drink it.
• Don’t think of this as a U.S.-only issue
  Since the late 1990s, the presence of EDCs and PPCPs in drinking water has been a concern globally. In countries where there are no regulations for these compounds, testing is uneven; but elsewhere water is rigorously tested to determine whether it meets drinking water standards. Singapore, for instance, uses a three-step purification process with micro-filtration, reverse osmosis and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection to produce purified water that exceeds the World Health Organization’s drinking water quality guidelines and meets international standards from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). More and more water companies in Europe are looking to advanced water treatment as a safeguard. Recent work in the Netherlands, which is highly industrialized and densely populated, has shown that most pharmaceuticals were removed from drinking water through an advanced oxidation process so that the levels in the finished water are not high enough to cause problems.
• Don’t underestimate the time necessary to do this research
  Significant investment in research over a long period of time will be required before these issues are resolved. Complete EDC removal from treatment plant effluent is currently impossible, so the goal of the research and further development of technology is to find ways to reduce compounds to levels with no adverse environmental or health effects. One approach would be to develop efficient, economic methods for treating entire treatment plant discharge with a biological process that could significantly decrease the concentration of contaminants.
• Don’t underestimate the cost necessary to deal with these issues
  University and federal government funding will be required to address these issues more specifically. But how much is the public willing to pay to reduce trace levels of EDCs in their water? And is an acceptable trace level of zero actually 0.0 or 0.000000 or 0.0000000000? One part per trillion is approximately equivalent to a drop of water in a pool the size of 6 football fields or 4 soccer pitches. So how good is good enough? Based on recent research by Black & Veatch, upgrading a 10mgd wastewater plant with costly oxidation or filtering processes can add more than $275 million to the price tag. It is clearly more difficult and expensive to remove contaminants than to prevent contamination in the first place.
• Don’t take the easy road
  It won’t be easy to unite diverse groups with diverse interests and ensure that they produce thorough research and analysis and then make objective, effective recommendations. The fact is that only a limited number of laboratories are capable of conducting trace analyses of contaminants, and analytical methods have not yet been developed for all of the EDCs and PPCPs that may occur in source water or drinking water. We must encourage further development and application of targeted analytical methods. Because analytical costs and difficulty increase substantially with decreasing detection limit requirements, we should look for the least expensive and simplest method that can quantify concentrations below known toxic thresholds for human and aquatic life. Source water protection measures should then be legislated to reduce the release of contaminants to the environment once they are identified. Again, it won’t be easy; but standing on the sidelines is not an option – we have to engage in solutions.
• Do ask the right questions
  To determine the effectiveness, feasibility and cost of these solutions, the water industry needs to address the following key questions as soon as possible:
  • Which compounds are of concern and need to be regulated?
  • Is there a feasible way to test for those compounds?
  • For water utilities, what is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for that compound? The MCLG is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health and is essential in setting regulations for maximum allowable levels in drinking water.
  • What treatment options are effective in reducing the compounds?

A DOSE OF OBJECTIVITY

Today the mission of the water industry is as compelling as ever – to protect the public’s health – and the water industry is constantly monitoring emerging knowledge on contaminants and treatment technologies. We have been building on that body of knowledge and finding solutions to meet ever more stringent water quality standards.

So let’s add a dose of objectivity to the debate. We know the good news is that drinking water today is far safer than it was 30 years ago, and 30 years ago it was far safer than 100 years ago. Yet water utilities – and global water industry service companies such as Black & Veatch – are not resting on their laurels and are taking appropriate measures to ensure safe, high-quality water for future generations.

(About the Author: Dan McCarthy is President and CEO of Black & Veatch’s global water business, with headquarters in Kansas City, Mo.)

Return to headlines