Eric S. Peterson, William J. Raseman, Benjamin D. Stanford, Gretchen M. Bruce, Heather Klintworth, David Reckhow
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a regulatory revision of the Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (DBPR) with a goal of limiting nationwide exposure to DBPs of emerging health concern. The occurrence of four brominated haloacetic acids (HAAs), which are generally more toxic in in vitro assays than the five currently regulated HAAs and are candidates for future regulation, were surveyed in 4924 public water systems under EPA's fourth unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR4). Using UCMR4 data, this study evaluated the nationwide occurrence of nine HAA species and the potential for two regulatory scenarios (the mass sum of all nine HAA species, HAA9, or just the six brominated HAA species, HAA6Br) to control nationwide exposure to the most toxic HAAs. Neither HAA9 nor HAA6Br approaches were effective for identifying water systems that exhibit high HAA exposure, assessed as additive cytotoxicity, because they are more specific to the HAA species that form at high concentrations rather than the species that are most toxic. However, the effectiveness of HAA6Br is highly sensitive to the relative toxicity of one HAA compound, monobromoacetic acid, which has the highest in vitro toxicity among HAAs but also the lowest occurrence and about which little is known regarding in vivo health risks. In contrast to HAA9, systems with high HAA-associated additive toxicity tend to share similar treatment and disinfectant characteristics as systems with high HAA6Br concentrations. Systems with high source water bromide and total organic carbon were far more likely to use chloramines as a disinfectant residual compared to other systems, but were no more likely to adopt organic precursor removal technologies (biofiltration, granular activated carbon, and ion exchange) than other systems, on average.
{"title":"Evaluating regulatory scenarios to limit U.S. nationwide exposure to cytotoxic haloacetic acids","authors":"Eric S. Peterson, William J. Raseman, Benjamin D. Stanford, Gretchen M. Bruce, Heather Klintworth, David Reckhow","doi":"10.1002/aws2.1351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1351","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is cons<b>i</b>dering a regulatory revision of the Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (DBPR) with a goal of limiting nationwide exposure to DBPs of emerging health concern. The occurrence of four brominated haloacetic acids (HAAs), which are generally more toxic in in vitro assays than the five currently regulated HAAs and are candidates for future regulation, were surveyed in 4924 public water systems under EPA's fourth unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR4). Using UCMR4 data, this study evaluated the nationwide occurrence of nine HAA species and the potential for two regulatory scenarios (the mass sum of all nine HAA species, HAA9, or just the six brominated HAA species, HAA6Br) to control nationwide exposure to the most toxic HAAs. Neither HAA9 nor HAA6Br approaches were effective for identifying water systems that exhibit high HAA exposure, assessed as additive cytotoxicity, because they are more specific to the HAA species that form at high concentrations rather than the species that are most toxic. However, the effectiveness of HAA6Br is highly sensitive to the relative toxicity of one HAA compound, monobromoacetic acid, which has the highest in vitro toxicity among HAAs but also the lowest occurrence and about which little is known regarding in vivo health risks. In contrast to HAA9, systems with high HAA-associated additive toxicity tend to share similar treatment and disinfectant characteristics as systems with high HAA6Br concentrations. Systems with high source water bromide and total organic carbon were far more likely to use chloramines as a disinfectant residual compared to other systems, but were no more likely to adopt organic precursor removal technologies (biofiltration, granular activated carbon, and ion exchange) than other systems, on average.</p>","PeriodicalId":101301,"journal":{"name":"AWWA water science","volume":"5 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aws2.1351","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50131822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marc Edwards, Roger Arnold, Becki Rosenfeldt, Sheldon V. Masters, Jeffrey Parks, Min Tang
Galvanized iron pipe (GIP) was once widely installed in publicly and privately owned potable water systems. This antiquated plumbing material can cause water discoloration from iron release, head loss resulting from corrosion scale buildup, and occasional problems with lead (Pb) release to drinking water. In this work, a GIP management framework for utilities is formulated via a literature review and several case studies. The GIP management plan is intended to guide water systems with understanding and addressing GIP issues while considering consumer expectations, corrosion control challenges, variable performance, and associated cost–benefit analysis for corrective actions.
{"title":"Utility considerations in developing a galvanized iron water pipe management plan","authors":"Marc Edwards, Roger Arnold, Becki Rosenfeldt, Sheldon V. Masters, Jeffrey Parks, Min Tang","doi":"10.1002/aws2.1350","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1350","url":null,"abstract":"Galvanized iron pipe (GIP) was once widely installed in publicly and privately owned potable water systems. This antiquated plumbing material can cause water discoloration from iron release, head loss resulting from corrosion scale buildup, and occasional problems with lead (Pb) release to drinking water. In this work, a GIP management framework for utilities is formulated via a literature review and several case studies. The GIP management plan is intended to guide water systems with understanding and addressing GIP issues while considering consumer expectations, corrosion control challenges, variable performance, and associated cost–benefit analysis for corrective actions.","PeriodicalId":101301,"journal":{"name":"AWWA water science","volume":"5 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aws2.1350","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50141342","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}