The formulation of NSF 61–Annex G
In September 2007, EBMUD proactively responded to the issues with a proposal to the NSF Standard 60/61 Joint Committee. The proposal included a new Annex be created for NSF 61establishing a standardized evaluation method for product certification purposes.
Later that year, the NSF 60/61 Joint Committee positively responded to the proposal, and regulators from California asked the NSF 61 technical committee to integrate the state’s low-lead requirements into the standard.
The committee had an established group to work on continued refinement of NSF 61, in terms of lead. This task group was expanded to include representatives from the California Department of Public Health, EBMUD, and other interested parties such as, testing organizations, manufacturers, associations, EPA, and Health Canada.
The then-current draft was set up as an addition to the standard. The opening sections of the draft revision added references to Section 3. The addition of Annex G covers the specific aspects of calculating the weighted wetted surface area of a product. Concerns over what products are covered and excluded as sources of water for drinking and cooking are therefore the same as those listed in each of the product related sections in the main body of NSF 61. For instance, in Section 9, kitchen and lavatory faucets are included, but tub/shower valves, toilet tanks fill valves, and other items are excluded.
In 2008, NSF 61 Annex G came into being as a referenceable section of NSF 61.
DTSC testing and emergence of NSF 372
In late 2008, the task group worked with the state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control and the various testing labs to develop ways to determine and test the Annex G requirements. DTSC was the assigned surveillance and enforcement body in California.
DTSC released its testing protocol to assist industries who had to test their products for compliance with the California requirements before the January 1, 2010 deadline.2 Now manufacturers had a standard, test protocol, and the tools and interpretations to share with the supply chain, the regulators, and the testing labs.
The Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating (CIPH) took an active part in the development of the test protocol as a third-party. The organization collected data from testing bodies, benchmarked the procedures, lab testing, and interpreting the results to find any challenges. All this was done to ensure the government, certification labs, and industry were working with the same methodology and ending up with the same interpretation of the data.
Once a testing protocol and standard was completed, the critical issue of having to deal with the California legislation was managed. The industry was ready for the January 2010 deadline. The NSF lead task group now had to wrestle with some of the technical, legal, and logistical impacts of what it had done to comply with California’s laws.
A major issue was the bulk of NSF 61 was a technical standard based on chemistry, while the Annex G protocols were a calculation. This conflict affected manufacturers when they were able to meet one section of NSF 61, yet fail the Annex G criteria, and vice versa.
The solution was to take the Annex G requirements out of the NSF 61 standard and place it into its own separate standard. Then, the Annex acts as a pointer to the new standard. Through late 2009 and into 2010, the taskforce worked on developing what would become NSF 372, Drinking Water System Components–Lead Content.
In November 2010, the NSF Drinking Water Additives Joint Committee approved the release of NSF 372. This new standard allows products to be evaluated to low-lead criteria without having to be fully NSF 61-certified. NSF 61’s Annex G now refers users to the new standard.
Currently in Canada, certified plumbing products are already required to conform to NSF 61 for material safety. The new NSF 372 standard is a method that could be used to demonstrate compliance to a 0.25 per cent weighted average lead requirement.
NSF 372 was not directly integrated into the code and it is now being integrated into the plumbing standards. Later this year, the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes will evaluate the updated Canadian plumbing standards for inclusion of the NSF standard.
Other states
As the events in California unfolded, Louisiana, New York, and Maryland considered passing similar low-lead laws. Plumbing Manufacturers International (PMI), CIPH, and other associations, lobbied firmly for other states to harmonize their technical requirements and allow for reasonable implementation dates to allow manufacturers and the supply chain to adjust to new requirements and clear inventory in a responsible manner.
What the associations recognized at the time was the increasing trend of independent legislative actions from interested states wanting to create legislation similar to that of California, but each with differing language and requirements. Allowing this trend to progress would create a disaster for the U.S. plumbing industry, and confusion in Canada, so a national solution was required.
PMI successfully advocated lowering the national standard for lead in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
On December 17, 2010, U.S. Congress passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. The legislation was presented for President Obama’s signature and approval later that month.
The new law provided a 36-month implementation period from approval, after which manufacturers and importers were required to comply with the new standard. It uniformly reduces the lead standard for pipes, pipe fittings, and plumbing fittings from as much as eight per cent to 0.25 per cent across the United States, which is consistent with the current (as of 2010) state laws in California, Vermont, and Maryland. CIPH, along with PMI and allies, worked tirelessly over the last few years with jurisdictions such as California, and other states, to advocate changes to the U.S. lead standards, develop technical standards, and educate key decision-makers on lead policy development.
At the end of 2010, the industry, on a national scale, had a referenced NSF standard, a method of how to achieve it, a federal regulation to apply, and a 36-month timeline.
In early 2013, manufacturers are abiding by U.S. laws and managing respective applicable products for low-lead requirements, in time for the deadline. EPA has not at this time indicated how they will be rolling out regulation to support the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. As 2014 approaches, this will crystalize into a clearer approach and guidance by the government. As the supporting regulation forms, guidance on relevant product requirements will be developed and enforced.
