Imperial College London

Civil and Environmental Engineering

Advanced Water Treatment

Drinking Water
Quality Standards

Dr Steven Lambert
Senior Catchment & Water Quality Scientist
www.waterplc.com
 Lecture Content
Drinking water contaminants

Derivation of water quality standards

Microbiological
Chemical

Drinking water quality regulation

Role of the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI)

Evolving approach to drinking water risks

Drinking Water Safety Plans

2
Drinking Water Contaminants

3
 Drinking Water Contaminants
Types of drinking water contaminant..
Microbiological Aesthetic
Chemical Physical
Radiological

Man-made Natural

Where do contaminants arise..?

Raw water Distribution system
Treatment Consumers tap / plumbing

Water-derived contaminants affect whole populations

4
 Microbiological Contaminants
Infectious diseases caused by pathogenic bacteria, viruses
and parasites are the most common and widespread health
risk associated with drinking-water.. WHO (2011)

Microbiological contaminants:
Pathogens transmitted by a faecal-oral route
i.e. via water
Protozoa (Cryptosporidium, Giardia..)
Viruses (Hepatitis, Poliomyelitis, Norwalk..)
Bacteria (Cholera, Shigella, Tuberculosis..)

Infection generally non-life threatening

Vomiting, diarrhoea, stomach cramps, headache DEATHS DISPENSARY
OPEN TO THE POOR, GRATIS, BY PERMISSION OF THE PARISH
Some pathogens cause: Fun Magazine, 1866

Jaundice; Liver damage; Death

5
 Microbiological Health Risks
Risk of illness related to :
Pathogen concentration
Infective dose
Volume of water ingested
Immune status of host / virulence of pathogen

Risk assumptions :
Infection = Illness
Small infective dose = Acute adverse health effects
No tolerable pathogen concentration

6
 Microbiological Risks
Microbiological quality of raw waters
Raw waters vary in microbiological quality
No source can be regarded free from risk

Assessment of microbiological risks

Pathogens present varying risks
Differing persistence, virulence, infectivity...
Varying resistance to treatment
Not possible to monitor for every pathogen
Complex, dynamic microbiological populations
A DROP OF LONDON WATER
Analytical techniques very slow Punch, 1850

Monitoring techniques not always available

Indicator organisms
Organisms indicative of faecal (pathogen) contamination
7
 Indicator Organisms
Ideal indicator organisms
Reliable detection - easy identification
rapidly screened simple methods
Associated only with faecal contamination
Present only when pathogens present
...absent when not !
Large numbers relative to small pathogen
numbers
Similar (or greater) resistance to disinfection Neat! Which ones are the bad guys?

Must not :
Persist in the environment for long periods
Reproduce or grow outside host / in the environment
Need not be pathogenic
8
 Indicator Organisms
Primary microbiological indicator organisms
Coliforms (total, faecal)
Escherichia coli (faecal coliform)
Enterococci (gram-positive lactic-acid bacteria)

Secondary microbiological indicator organisms

Clostridium perfringens (gram-positive bacterium)
Heterotrophic plate counts
Streptococcus bovis (Enterococci spp.)

Other indicator organisms

Shigella spp
Salmonella typhi
Klebsiella
9
 Microbiological Standards
EU Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) requirements
Escherichia coli = 0 cfu/100ml (consumers tap)
Enterococci = 0 cfu/100ml (consumers tap)

National requirements (England & Wales)

Escherichia coli = 0 cfu/100ml (WTW & SRs)
Coliforms (total) = 0 cfu/100ml (WTW & SRs*)
*95% compliance of SR water samples
National (Indicator) parameters
Coliforms (total) = 0 cfu/100ml (consumers tap)
Colony counts 22C = No unusual change (consumers tap)
Colony counts 37C = No unusual change (WTW / SRs)
Clostridium perf. = 0 cfu/100ml (supply point)

Microbiological water quality of utmost importance

Should never be compromised
10
 Disinfection
Disinfection is the primary critical control
..a process to remove or render harmless to human health every
pathogenic micro-organism and parasite that otherwise would be present

WHO (chorine) disinfection criteria

Ct = 15 mg.min/l (0.5 mg Cl2 after 30 mins), pH <8.0, Turbidity <1NTU
Disinfectant residual in supply
Surrogate indicator of system integrity
Should not be used to compensate for inadequate disinfection

Disinfection Health Risks

Slight increased cancer risk
Bladder, colon and rectal cancers
Slight increase in mutagenicity
DBP formation should be minimised - Regulation 26(1A)(a)
11
 Toxicity
Intrinsic quality of substances to produce
an adverse effect
Classical Toxicity
Organ specific
Neurological / Behavioural
Metabolic / Pharmacokinetic
Immunological
Reproductive
Teratogenic / Embryotoxic / Fetotoxic
Carcinogenicity
Oncogenic / Mutagenic

Effects may be:

Reversible Irreversible Single - Multiple
Immediate - Delayed Brief - Prolonged
Acute - Chronic
12
 Chemical Risks
Chemical risks depend upon :
Dose
ie. concentration / exposure
Chemical form & reactions
Route of exposure
Frequency & duration of exposure
Species, sex & age of host
Metabolism (tolerance / sensitivity) of host
Physiological stress & lifestyle of host
Synergistic - antagonistic effects

Method used to assess the Risk

13
 Assessment of Chemical Risks
Toxicological assessment methods
Epidemiology
Community / occupational observations
Environmental complications
Strong cause - effect associations obscured
Considerable uncertainties
New chemicals / exposures ?
Accidents / Case studies
In Vitro Assessments
Structure Activity Chemical Relationships
Laboratory Animal Assessments
Single substance testing
Species differences
High doses / short duration tests
Extrapolation of high to low dose responses 14
 Dose vs Response
Dose Response Relationship
Adverse effects generally decrease with decreasing dose
Threshold Level where Lowest / No Effect observed

Effect
(Response)
Threshold
NOEL
LOEL

Dose 15
 Tolerable Daily Intake
Safety factors account for experimental uncertainty

Solid line = experimental curve

A = experimental NOEL

B = extrapolated threshold dose before

adverse effects

NOEL C = Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI)

D = possible threshold dose before

adverse effects

E = Non-threshold end point

16
 Safety Factors
Safety factor of 100 typically used
Factor of 10 = animal to human
Factor of 10 = intra-population variations

Safety factors of 10, 100 or 1000 may be used (USEPA)

Factor of 10
Good chronic human exposure data identifying a NOEL; Supported by
animal data; No indication of carcinogenicity
Factor of 100
Good chronic toxicity data identifying a NOEL for one or more animal
species, or good chronic toxicity data identifying
a LOEL in humans; No indication of carcinogenicity
Factor of 1000
Limited or incomplete chronic toxicity data, or data identifying a LOEL
but not NOEL in animals; No indication of carcinogenicity
17
 Exposure Assessment
Maximum Tolerable Concentration (MTC) :

TDI - Inhalation - Food - Skin Absorption

Water MTC* = (mg/d) (mg/d) (mg/d) (mg/d)
(mg/l)
2 (litres/d)

Average daily per capita* water consumption = 2 litres

ie. water consumption = 0.102 x (body weight)2/3

If no data = Water MTC taken to be 20% of total exposure

MTC are not drinking water standards

...but can influence their derivation

* Based upon a 70kg adult

18
 Derivation of Standards
Standards derived on basis of :
Potential adverse health effect (ie. Risk)
Concentration in drinking waters (& frequency of detection)
Professional judgement

Other considerations...
NOEL derivation and applied margin of safety
Analytical limits of detection
Natural background level / Exposure from other sources
Reasonable risk level
Technological or economically feasible level
Health benefits achieved versus the costs of achievement
Political / professional intervention
19
 Pesticides
Drinking water standards for Pesticides
WHO & USEPA set toxicologically-derived concentrations
EU political standard set at 1980 Limit of Detection = 0.1g/l

USEPA MCL UK Advisory

Contaminant WHO GV or TT limit 1989 EU
g/l g/l g/l g/l
Atrazine 100 3 2 0.1
Carbofuran 7 40 0.1
Chlordane 0.2 2 0.1 0.1
Chlortoluron 30 80 0.1
2,4-D 30 70 1000 0.1
Glyphosate - 700 1000 0.1
Isoproturon 9 4 0.1
Mecoprop 10 10 0.1
Methoxychlor 20 40 30 0.1
Simazine 2 4 10 0.1
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 9 50 0.1
20
 Drinking Water Standards
World Health Organisation Guidelines (2011)

USEPA
Safe Drinking Water Act (Amendments) 1996

Europe
European Council Directive 98/83/EC

England & Wales

Water Industry Act 1991
Water Act 2003

Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016

Private Water Supply Regulations 2016

Similar legal frameworks in Scotland & Northern Ireland

21
 Drinking Water Standards
EU Directive requirements (Chemical Parameters)
Parameter PCV Unit Parameter PCV Unit
Acrylamide 0.10 g/l Lead 10 g/l
Antimony 5.0 g/l Mercury 1.0 g/l
Arsenic 10 g/l Nickel 20 g/l
Benzene 1.0 g/l Nitrate 50 mg/l
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.010 g/l 0.50 mg/l
Nitrite {
Boron 1.0 mg/l 0.10* mg/l
Bromate 10 g/l Pesticides 0.10# g/l
Cadmium 5.0 g/l Pesticides (Total) 0.50 g/l
Chromium 50 g/l PAH 0.10 g/l
Copper 2.0 mg/l Selenium 10 g/l
Cyanide 50 g/l Tetrachloroethene
} 10 g/l
1,2 dichloroethane 3.0 g/l & Trichloroethene
Epichlorohydrin 0.10 g/l Trihalomethanes 100 g/l
Fluoride 1.5 mg/l Vinyl chloride 0.50 g/l
All at Consumers taps except (*) at Treatment works
# PCV for Aldrin, Dieldrin, Heptachlor, Heptachlor Epoxide = 0.030g/l

Microbiological parameter requirements given on Slide 10

22
 Drinking Water Standards
National requirements (England & Wales)
Parameter PCV Unit Parameter PCV Unit
Aluminium 200 g/l Sodium 200 mg/l
Colour 20 mg/l Pt/Co Taste NAC
Iron 200 g/l Tetrachloromethane 3 g/l
Manganese 50 g/l Turbidity 4 NTU
Odour NAC
All at Consumers taps
NAC = No Abnormal Change

National Indicator parameters (England & Wales)

Parameter PCV Unit Parameter PCV Unit
C S
Ammonium 0.5 mg/l Radioactivity TID 0.10 mSv/y
S S
Chloride 250 mg/l Total Organic Carbon NAC mg/l
S S
Conductivity 2500 S/cm Tritium 100 Bq/l
C T
Hydrogen ion 6.5 9.5 pH Turbidity 1 NTU
S
Sulphate 250 mg/l
C = Consumers tap; S = Supply Point; T = WTW
NAC = No Abnormal Change

23
 Water Quality Compliance
3,853,350 regulatory analyses reported to DWI (England & Wales)
14 billion litres water supplied
99.96% compliance = 1,541 water quality exceedances
2.0
Failing Samples (%)

1.5
England &
Wales

1.0 Scotland

Northern
0.5 Ireland

0.0

24
Regulatory Framework (E&W)

Secretary of State European Law

National Law

Water Industry

Local / Health
Authorities
Competition
Commission

25
 Drinking Water Inspectorate
Independent Drinking Water Quality
Regulator for England & Wales
Established in 1990 by primary
legislation
41 staff (31 warranted inspectors)
Chief Inspector
Deputy Chief Inspectors (2)
Principle Inspectors (7)
Inspectors (21)

Based in Westminster, London

Part of the Water Directorate of DEFRA

26
 DWI - Enforcement
Compliance Assessments

Enforcement activities
Where water does not meet a drinking
water standard
Company can apply for an Undertaking
DWI can serve a Notice requiring steps
to be taken

Identification of risk of supplying water potentially harmful to health

DWI can serve a Notice requiring steps to be taken

In all cases :
Results in a legally-binding Improvement Programme
Input from local health professionals

27
 Water Quality Events
Risk-based assessment of water quality events

Most common events

discolouration (mains bursts)
microbiological contamination
disinfection / treatment failures
source contamination
loss of supply / pressure

28
 DWI - Prosecution
DWI may prosecute a Company for the offences of:
Supplying water unfit for human consumption
Failing to adequately treat water prior to supply
Contravention of a Notice prohibiting a supply of water
Use of products or processes not Regulation 31 approved
Impeding the activities of an Inspector

Prosecution is considered if :
Evidence of an offence
Evidence that a Company does not have a defence of due diligence
It is considered in the Public interest

29
 Consumer Complaints
363 Consumer contacts received by DWI from across E&W
307 enquiries
56 consumer complaints
Most complaints re: discoloured water (white, brown, etc..)
Other
13%

Hardness
2%
Illness
6%
Discolouration
Particulates 44%
6%

Taste/Odour :
Chlorine
11%

Taste/Odour :
Other
18% 30
 Issue: Regulation vs Risk
Management of water quality risks through regulation
Some risks are relatively easily regulated
..others arent !
Also...
Regulation can be perceived negatively & overly bureaucratic
Risks need constant monitoring and policing (and financing !)
Appropriate legal enforcement powers required
Interpretation of law not always consistent (or as intended)

In addition...
Risks need to be pro-actively managed
End of pipe analyses retrospective and reactive

31
 The majority of farmers do
not believe agriculture
Issue : Sustainability makes a significant
contribution to
water pollution
Problem with traditional treatment approach.. EA (2011) Catchment
Sensitive Farming

Increasingly diverse trace contaminants

Urban, agricultural, industrial, transport
Monitoring difficult / not always possible
Retrospective, reactive, end of pipe..
Continuous or Intermittent (unexpected, unknown..)
Engineering approach increasingly unsustainable
Treatment increasingly difficult, complex, expensive..
Cost-benefit increasingly indefensible
Polluter is not paying
Risk mitigation - rather than management and prevention
Better to prevent contamination occurring rather than
treating and removing afterwards..
..and measures to prevent water contamination during
distribution & at consumers tap also often required
32
 Drinking Water Safety Plans
Systematic approach to the provision of safe drinking water
Considers all risks from Catchment to Consumer
Emphasis on water supply management (not retrospective testing)
Consistent with other risk management practices
Multi-barrier approach
HACCP (as used in the food industry)

Catchment Treatment Distribution Consumer

(Catchment (Water utility) (Water utility) (Stakeholders)

stakeholders)

33
 Risk Assessment
Consequence (or Severity))

Hazard Insignificant
Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
Compliance Aesthetic Regulatory Public health
Negligible
impact impact impact impact

Biological, chemical or physical

Score 1
Score 2 Score 3 Score 4 Score 5

agent with potential to cause harm Almost certain

Once a day 5 10 15 20 25
..or potential to render a water Score 5

supply unacceptable Likely

4 8 12 16 20
Capacity of any part of a supply
Once a week
Score 4

Likelihood (or Probability)

system to lead to a failure of a
Possible
water quality standard Once a month
Score 3
3 6 9 12 15

Risk Unlikely
Once a year
Score 2
2 4 6 8 10

Likelihood x Consequence
Rare
Once per 5 yrs 1 2 3 4 5
Score 1

34
 Thank You

Dr Steven Lambert
Catchment and Water Quality Scientist
stevenl@waterplc.com
http://www.waterplc.com/
35