Over the years, the public has become more aware of drinking water quality issues. Urban development has placed increased stress on water resources, which in turn has increased the need for cost-effective methods to treat drinking water. This is true regardless of whether the installation is at a single point of use (POU) or at the point of entry (POE) for treating all water used in the home.
Choosing the right treatment option for the water supply
In recent days, groundwater has been gaining attention. Increased hydraulic fracturing operations have caused controversy over potential methane gas contamination. Reports indicate that groundwater aquifers, especially in the drought-prone southwestern U.S., are being depleted more quickly than they can be recharged. Surveys, like the one recently released by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), reveal that contaminants such as arsenic are widespread in the nation’s water wells.
There are many forces driving water treatment and quality assurance practices: efficacy, reliability, health and safety, cost, practicability, aesthetics and government regulations from government agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Though effective, there are alternatives to the traditional testing methods prescribed for characterizing and monitoring water quality, saving time and money.
Using ORP to accurately measure disinfectant efficacy
In July 2011, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) issued its first annual report on plumbing products sampled and tested for lead concentrations in 2010. All drinking water faucets that were sampled and tested were reported to comply with the state’s new low-lead law.
California checks for compliance with its first round of product testing
As I write this, the U.S. is in the wake of two natural disasters: the earthquake that rocked the East Coast on Aug. 23 and Hurricane Irene, which spun its way from the Carolinas to Canada just a few days later.
In 1986, California voters approved an initiative to address growing concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals. That initiative became the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known Proposition (Prop) 65. The act requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list, which must be updated at least once a year, has grown to include approximately 800 chemicals since it was first published in 1987.
Aiming for Arsenic
Preemptive testing can prevent costly penalties in California
Many manufacturers or distributors of ball, butterfly, gate, check, control, globe, plug, relief, regulator, pinch or diaphragm valves have been or may be required by state or federal law to comply with low-lead requirements. If you have been required by the state to have your valves comply with low-lead regulations, there may be some confusion on where to start and how to proceed.
Following are suggestions that will help facilitate a quicker certification as well as help eliminate headaches in the long run with the certification.
Researching materials leads to a smoother compliance process
Private wells are largely unregulated, and the task of ensuring safety is usually left up to the homeowner. A handful of states have regulations requiring a water test on a private well when the property is sold or a new well is drilled. While not every state has regulations, there may be testing requirements at the county or township level for real estate transactions or certificates of occupancy.
Benefits of comprehensive water testing for homes with well water
A closer look at bottled water regulation and quality control