Water Quality InformationWritten By Actual Experts

*Updated May 19, 2020 to include current data*

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

For Hydroviv’s assessment of Providence, Rhode Island’s drinking water, we collected water quality test data from Providence Water and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced the city’s water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Providence drinking water.

Lead In Providence’s Drinking Water

Providence, Rhode Island has been in exceedance of the federal lead Action Level since 2005. The water quality report released in 2020 found that lead levels in Providence are currently 18 parts per billion, and 38/295 samples tested exceeded the EPA Action level of 15 ppb.  Lead enters tap water through old lead service pipes and lead-containing plumbing. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Disease Control, and American Academy of Pediatrics all recognize that there is no safe level of lead for children. The data provided by the city may not be representative of the actual scope of the lead problem in Providence, RI because only 295 homes were tested for lead. Hydroviv strongly encourages Providence residents to take advantage of the city’s free lead testing program. Under this program, residents can pick up a free kit to test for lead in their drinking water at the Providence Water customer service location. For more information call 401-521-6303.

Disinfection Byproducts In Providence's Water

Providence Water also has elevated levels of Disinfection Byproducts or DBPs. EPA regulates two categories of DBPs: Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and Haloacetic Acids-5 (HAA5). The average concentration of TTHMs was 71.8 parts per billion which is just under EPA's standard of 80 parts per billion for drinking water. DBPs are a category of emerging contaminants which means they have been detected in drinking water but the risk to human health is unknown. DBPs are formed when when chlorine based disinfectants are routinely added to the water supply to kill bacteria. Regulatory agencies have very little knowledge about the adverse health effects of DBPs and their toxicity. EPA has stated that they have been linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer, as well as kidney, liver, and central nervous system problems. Some disinfection byproducts have almost no toxicity, but others have been associated with cancer, reproductive problems, and developmental issues in laboratory animals. 200 million people in the United States use chlorinated tap water as their primary drinking source, so we take understanding their full health effects very seriously, even if federal agencies fail to regulate all categories.

Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) In Providence Drinking Water

PFAS are a category of emerging contaminants that have been detected in a growing number of water supplies across the United States. PFAS have been associated with an increased risk of cancer, an increased risk of miscarriages, and other adverse health effects. PFAS have been detected in water supplies throughout the state of Rhode Island. Because they are not regulated, cities like Providence are not required to test, monitor, or remove them from drinking water.Not all water filters are able to remove PFAS from tap water.

Where Does Providence Source Its Drinking Water?

Providence sources its drinking water from the Scituate Reservoir, which is located 15 miles east of the city. The Scituate Reservoir has tributaries that flow in and out of several other reservoirs including the Regulating, Barden, Ponaganset, Westconnaug, and Moswansicut reservoirs. The Providence Water system has approximately 1,040 miles of transmission and distribution mains.

It’s important to note that only a handful of contaminants are required to be included in annual Consumer Confidence Reports, and that there are hundreds of potentially harmful unregulated contaminants that aren’t accounted for. If you’re interested in learning more about water filters that have been optimized for Providence’s tap water quality, feel free to visit www.hydroviv.com to talk to a Water Nerd on our live chat feature or send us an email at hello@hydroviv.com.

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

As emerging contaminants like GenX, PFOA, and PFOS have been popping up in news headlines all over the country, there has been some confusion as to how these unregulated contaminants are addressed at the federal level. While it may seem like the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule is in place to protect people from any and all emerging contaminants, it is not a hard and fast rule designed to expedite regulation -- rather, it is a lengthy process that unfortunately has not resulted in many real-world changes. This article discusses aspects of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule that may surprise you, and explains how drinking water contaminants become regulated in the United States.

What Is The Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule?

The Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) was created as a part of the 1996 Amendments of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). SDWA regulates all public drinking water systems throughout the United States. It establishes National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for 90 contaminants, which are known as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). UCMR is the process that EPA uses to regulate contaminants. However, it has ultimately failed to create meaningful changes in water quality regulation.

How Are Drinking Water Contaminants Regulated In The United States?

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA typically follows a specific process when determining whether to regulate certain contaminants. Every 5 years, EPA publishes a list of 30 contaminants under the UCMR called the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). Contaminants on this list are not regulated by National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, but are most likely present in public drinking water systems. These contaminants are placed on the list because they pose the greatest public health risk through ingestion of drinking water. EPA’s job is to whittle down the list of 30 to a handful of priority contaminants. Of that group of priority contaminants, EPA must make a regulatory determination for at least 5. EPA can choose to regulate all, some, or none of these contaminants.

What Is The Criteria For UCMR Regulatory Determination?

1. EPA must determine that the contaminant does/does not cause adverse health effects in humans.
2. EPA must determine if the contaminant will be present in public drinking water systems at an unsafe concentration.
3. EPA Administrator must determine if regulating the contaminant will reduce adverse health effects in humans.

Does A Contaminant Have To Be On The CCL To Become Regulated?

No. EPA is not limited to regulating contaminants that are on the current CCL. EPA can consider other contaminants if they present a serious public health concern in drinking water.

Does the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Set Drinking Water Standards?

No. UCMR/CCL contaminants are not subject to regulation. As a part of the UCMR program, EPA establishes Minimum Reporting Levels (MRLs) for each contaminant. National Water Quality Laboratory defines MRLs as ”the smallest measured concentration of a substance that can be reliably measured by using a given analytical method.” MRLs are not to be confused with Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), which are enforceable regulatory thresholds for drinking water contamination.

How Are Contaminants Added To The Contaminant Candidate List?

In order for a contaminant to be considered for the EPA UCMR, it must be registered in the United States and have an analytical reference standard. The National Drinking Water Advisory Council and National Academy of Sciences are instrumental in determining which contaminants should be added to the list. After UCMR 2, EPA allowed for public participation in the CCL decision making process. Additionally, a contaminant can be added to multiple CCLs. For example, Perchlorate was on CCL 1, CCL 2, and CCL 3 before it was regulated.

Common Contaminants Considered Under The Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule

The Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) was published in May of 2012, and it included two chemicals that you might be familiar with. Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) were both on Contaminant Candidate List 3. Both of these contaminants fall under a broad category of contaminants called PFAS, which are found in heat resistant and non-stick products such as Scotchguard, Teflon, and fire fighting foam. Unfortunately, neither PFOS or PFOA made it to the Regulatory Determination Assessment Phase, and both were removed from regulatory consideration.

What Is The Contaminant Candidate List?

The Fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) is the current batch of contaminants that’s under consideration for a regulatory determination. It was published in December of 2016, and includes nine cyanotoxins, two metals, nine pesticides, three disinfection byproducts, three alcohols, and three semivolatile organic chemicals.

Our Take:

While the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments provided regulatory due diligence, they also created an unbearably extensive review process. Industrial manufacturing companies are unrestricted when it comes to developing new products, and chemicals pushed to the market are essentially “safe” until proven otherwise. This sort of regulatory approach comes at a serious cost to human health. Chromium 6 is the best example of the flawed regulatory framework for drinking water. The 2000 blockbuster movie “Erin Brockovich” discussed the dangerous toxicity of Chromium 6 and it still isn’t regulated, nor does it appear on the most recent Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 4). The most important takeaway from the EPA UCMR is that once a new CCL is published, the contaminants on the old list don’t just go away. Millions of Americans are forced to deal with adverse health effects because “scientific uncertainty” didn’t allow for regulation. This regulatory framework can't keep up with the thousands of new contaminants that are currently present in the environment.

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

One of the most frequently asked questions that our Water Nerds get asked is, “is my water safe?” Unfortunately, the answer to this isn’t all that cut and dry. We wanted to make a quick video explaining what “safe” really means.

What Does "Safe" Drinking Water Actually Mean?

“Safe” is a regulatory definition that means your drinking water is in compliance with standards set by the decades-old Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). There are only 90 contaminants regulated under this act, and thousands of others that are not. Unless mandated by the state, municipalities don't account for any unregulated contaminants. According to EPA, if the levels for each regulated pollutant meet EPA’s standard, then the drinking water is in compliance and therefore "safe". This doesn't take into account the presence of unregulated contaminants such as chromium 6 or 1,4-dioxane. On April 10, 2024, the US EPA has announced drinking water standards to limit exposure to 6 types of PFAS chemicals.

Can States Regulate Drinking Water?

States can create their own standards for regulated and unregulated contaminants, California being the best example. Most states typically don’t prioritize setting drinking water standards, or can’t afford to do so. Also, setting more stringent safe drinking water standards means that municipalities are responsible for complying with new allowable limits. This often means purchasing detection equipment as well as expensive filtration technology. More often than not, fitting these huge expenses into a local budget is impossible, and states take that into consideration when setting new standards. 

Defining Legal Jargon

It’s important to understand the difference between enforceable and non-enforceable regulatory terms. Non-enforceable terms include; Lifetime Health Advisory Levels, Public Health Goals, Minimum Risk Levels, and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals. All of these are non-enforceable terms, and therefore municipal water treatment facilities do not need to comply with them. The only enforceable safe drinking water standards are Maximum Contaminant Levels and Action Levels. 

Why are Enforceable and Non-Enforceable Standards Different?

Often, EPA is aware that their enforcement standards are set higher than what toxicologists consider to be safe. To address this, EPA creates Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) which refer to “the maximum level of a contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health would occur...” The MCLGs are non-enforceable levels, and enforcement is only to MCLs (Maximum Contaminant Levels). 

In 2001, EPA set an enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 parts per billion for Arsenic in drinking water. That same year, EPA adopted an MCLG of 0 parts per billion. This was EPA’s way of acknowledging that there really is no safe level of Arsenic in drinking water. EPA is unable to adopt a lower threshold because municipal water systems across the country would be out of compliance. EPA has to balance the cost imposed onto water municipalities, with the benefits associated with human health.

This same principle goes for contaminants with health advisories. EPA previously set a lifetime health advisory of 70 parts per trillion for PFOA. Soon after, the Center for Disease Control recommended reducing the advisory level to 20 parts per trillion for the same contaminant. Finally, there are several health and regulatory agencies that understand that federal limits are set way over a safe threshold. At Hydroviv, we look at toxicological data instead of regulatory data when determining if your water is safe. We prefer to make recommendations about what doctors and pediatricians say is safe.

In Summary

That was a lot of information so here’s a recap! When municipalities label water as “safe,” they’re only referring to the handful of regulated contaminants. There’s a lot of regulatory jargon that might make it hard to understand the difference between the recommended monitoring level and the enforceable monitoring level. And finally, what regulations say and what toxicologists say is very different in terms of “safe” levels. At Hydroviv, we look at toxicological data instead of regulatory data. We prefer to make recommendations about what doctors and pediatricians say is safe.

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd   

This week, Hydroviv is highlighting the six new National Priorities List (NPL) sites under the EPA Superfund program. Superfund sites are home to high levels of hazardous soil and groundwater contamination from years of improper disposal techniques. If you’d like to learn more about the ins and out of Superfund, check out our recap HERE. The Superfund site that we’re addressing in this article is located in San Antonio, Texas.  

San Antonio, Texas is home to another newly designated EPA Superfund site. EPA detected high levels of cyanide, lead, cadmium, copper, selenium, zinc, chromium, and chromium 6. The source of contamination is from the River City Metal Finishing facility, which was in operation from 1994 to 2002. Throughout operation and post closure, runoff and pollution from this facility entered into the Edwards Aquifer which provides domestic, industrial and agricultural water for a majority of San Antonio. Concentrations of chromium 6 exceeded federal maximum contaminant levels in shallow groundwater wells in the Edwards Aquifer. There are several adverse health effects associated with chromium 6 exposure. Aside from being a known human carcinogen, ingestion of chromium 6 can cause respiratory irritation, pulmonary congestion and edema, and damages to the kidney, liver, and skin. There are currently 20 public water supplies with a 4 mile radius of the San Antonio Superfund site.

If you live near an EPA Superfund site and are concerned about your water, drop us an email at hello@hydroviv.com or visit hydroviv.com and use our live chat feature. Hydroviv is staffed with scientists and policy experts that can help you make sense of your water and find an effective filter, even if it isn’t one we sell. Be sure to follow along this week as we discuss all of the newly designated Superfund sites!

Ernesto Esquivel-Amores  |  Water Nerd

This week, Hydroviv is highlighting the six new National Priorities List (NPL) sites under the EPA Superfund program. Superfund sites are home to high levels of hazardous soil and groundwater contamination from years of improper disposal techniques. If you’d like to learn more about the ins and out of Superfund, check out our recap HERE. The next Superfund site that we’ll be discussing is located in Cheraw, South Carolina.

Cheraw, South Carolina is home to another newly designated national Superfund site. This small town is home to roughly 6,000 people. EPA detected high levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, or PCBs in the sediment in residential neighborhoods and in nearby water streams. The source of this contamination is linked to a nearby textile mill. The water in Cheraw became contaminated because the facility created a drainage ditch was used to dispose of wastewater. Contaminated water from the drainage ditch infiltrated into groundwater, and was also transported onto residential lawns through stormwater runoff. Runoff also transported chemicals into surrounding wetlands and into the Grand Pee Dee River, the Wilson Branch Stream, and the Huckleberry Branch Stream. As a result, the state has issued a fish consumption advisory for all fish caught in the Grand Pee Dee River due to the high levels of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). PCB is a carcinogen and can adversely affect pregnant women, children, and other sensitive populations. For more information about PCBs please check out our site at hydroviv.com. If you live near a national Superfund site and are concerned about your water, drop us an email at hello@hydroviv.com or visit hydroviv.com and use our live chat feature. Hydroviv is staffed with scientists and policy experts that can help you make sense of your water and find an effective filter, even if it isn’t one we sell.

If you live near a Superfund site and are concerned about your water, drop us an email at hello@hydroviv.com or visit hydroviv.com and use our live chat feature. Hydroviv is staffed with scientists and policy experts that can help you make sense of your water and find an effective filter, even if it isn’t one we sell. Be sure to follow along this week as we discuss all of the newly designated Superfund sites!