Until joining IAPMO in 2023, I spent most of my career working for companies that made things ranging from automotive components to consumer goods. Before transitioning to the PVF field relatively early in my career, I also worked for an aerospace company for several years. Never was quality more top of mind as we manufactured parts for commercial aircraft, rockets and even space shuttles.
During that time, I was given the opportunity to attend the Crosby Quality Colleges in Chicago and Winter Park, Florida. The colleges were run by renowned quality expert Philip Crosby, who held prominent quality roles at such major companies as Martin Marietta and the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation before starting his own consulting firm in 1979. Crosby made the concept of quality, which had been largely taken over and made unbearably complex by statisticians, relatable and understandable for the masses. He gave us the masterfully simple three-word definition of quality: “conformance to requirements.” But his coup de grace was yet another simple idea; that we should strive for “zero defects” because defects are preventable and are everyone’s responsibility. This does not mean a high-quality process might not experience occasional defects, but rather that our goal should be to detect and eliminate them.
I remember Crosby posing these questions: “When a loved one is on a life support machine at a hospital, how many minutes a day do you expect the machine to fail? How often is it acceptable for your paycheck to be shorted? How many times do you draw a glass of water from a potable tap and expect the water to be contaminated?” Okay, you read this far to see how I would segue into water quality, and Crosby’s last question is it. You see, Crosby recognized that there are processes to which we are regularly exposed where zero defects is the counted-on norm. He stated that the United States is the best place on earth to have the expectation that water deemed potable is safe to drink and free from contaminants because when it comes to water quality, we anticipate zero defects. Is that still our expectation?
The Safe Drinking Water Act sets federal standards for drinking water quality, which are enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Water quality in the United States varies significantly depending on local environmental conditions. The EPA monitors water quality through various federal, state and local programs.
In a previous column, I reported the EPA’s recently adopted plan to limit PFAS in drinking water via the final National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for the six PFAS shown in the table below.
EPA PFAS LEVELS FOR DRINKING WATER
Recently, President Trump issued an executive order that paused the EPA rule limiting PFAS discharges in industrial wastewater. Unfortunately, this move has created uncertainty about the future of the PFAS regulation.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
After the EPA’s initial ruling on PFAS, NSF agreed to include the new rules in upcoming revisions of NSF 53, 58 and 61. When and if these NSF standards are published and certification agencies begin mandating dates of compliance, products certified to the 17 ASSE standards that reference one or more of the three NSF standards will also be held to the new EPA guidelines. These products include backflow preventers, push-fit fittings, temperature actuated flow reduction valves, mixing valves, water storage tanks and dispensers, and reverse osmosis and water treatment equipment, among others.
The decision to withdraw EPA’s PFAS rule has sparked concern from water industry leaders and environmental groups. PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment and human body, are linked to a multitude of health issues, including cancer, liver damage, reproductive and developmental diseases and immune disorders.
In a Jan. 28 press release, the Center for Environmental Health’s Chief Executive Officer Kizzy Charles-Guzman stated, “PFAS contamination is an urgent public health crisis, and people who live near PFAS manufacturing facilities and other industrial facilities that use and discharge PFAS have lived with the health consequences of this pollution for decades… (the) CEH remains committed to holding government agencies accountable to protect all Americans as we work toward a cleaner, healthier, safer world.”
I recently spoke with friend and Wilmington, North Carolina, Mayor Bill Saffo. He remains concerned about PFAS contamination in the coastal areas of the Cape Fear River, which supplies drinking water to more than one million people. Saffo said that his region of North Carolina has experienced some of the worst PFAS contamination in the country and that he will continue to advocate for strong protections that ensure water quality.
As unintended consequences of the EPA PFAS rollback become further understood, it is hoped that the current administration will reconsider reinstating the rule so that we can continue to expect zero defects when it comes to our water quality.
Cover image: Discarded water bottle floating in stream contaminated with firefighting foam. Image credit: Janashea | iStock Editorial / Getty Images Plus
