Abstract
A detailed review of regulations restricting the use of lead in potable water systems is provided in several regions including the United States (U.S.), Canada, the European Union (E.U.) and Japan to assess the impact on the brass value chain. Covered topics include: chronology of regulations, governing bodies, compliance requirements, enforcement mechanisms and other aspects relevant to metal suppliers, original equipment manufacturers, designers, specifiers, end-users and recyclers of brass. The development and use of lead-free brass alloys and how these materials have impacted manufacturing and recycling processes is also addressed.
Introduction
Regulation restricting the use of lead is a significant agent of change that has impacted all segments of the brass value chain. Particularly in drinking water systems, legislation limiting the presence of lead in potable water has impacted the use of brass alloys and other materials containing lead in a variety of products and applications. On a global scale, the regulatory landscape varies regionally by approach, implementation and compliance requirements which has created confusion and impacted the efficiency of global trade.
In response to drinking water lead regulations, the brass industry developed and introduced a variety of lead-free alloys which are now used to manufacture drinking water components such as faucets, valves and fittings. While these lead-free materials meet performance and compliance requirements for drinking water applications, they also present new challenges in manufacturing and recycling. A detailed analysis of drinking water lead regulation in several regions is warranted to understand how the brass value chain is responding to new challenges and opportunities.
Drinking water lead regulations in the United States
U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act
The principal federal law that governs the use of leaded products in U.S. drinking water systems is the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) first enacted in 1974 by the U.S. Congress. 1 The intent of the law is to ensure the safety of drinking water delivered to the American public through over 160 000 public water systems. 2 Increased public attention on water quality and the shortcomings of state health departments culminated in the passage of the SDWA. 3
Pursuant to the SDWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was tasked with establishing ‘National Primary Drinking Water Regulations’ to set quality standards for potable water. 4 The standards targeted a range of contaminants suspected to cause adverse health effects. 5 Contaminants included on the EPA list, which has expanded over the years, are assigned mandatory and enforceable ‘Maximum Contaminant Levels’ which dictate the upper limit of what is allowed in drinking water. The presence of lead in drinking water received particular scrutiny given the known health risks associated with lead exposure to which children and developing foetuses are especially vulnerable. 6
In 1986, the SDWA was amended to include Section 1417 to address lead contamination in drinking water. 7 Specifically, the amendments prohibited the use of pipes, solder or flux that are not ‘lead-free’ in the installation and repair of public water systems and plumbing in facilities that delivers water for human consumption. The definition of lead-free at this time set compositional limits at not more than 0.20% lead by weight for solder and flux and not more than 8.0% lead by weight for pipes. 8 Further amendments were enacted in 1996 to expand the reach of the SDWA, requiring plumbing fittings and fixtures to be in compliance with voluntary lead leaching standards. Importantly, the amendments also prohibited the introduction into commerce of pipes, plumbing fittings and fixtures that did not meet lead-free requirements after August 6, 1998. 9
In 1997, a new standard, NSF Standard 61: Drinking Water System Components Health Effects, was introduced to satisfy the lead leachate testing requirements of the SDWA.10,11 The standard was developed by NSF International (formerly the National Sanitation Foundation) which is a global provider of public health and safety-based risk management standards and solutions. NSF 61 outlines test procedures used to measure the amount of lead and other contaminants that a device leaches into simulated drinking water. Under the standard, products are exposed to water at various pH levels over a prescribed time period and water samples are analyzed at the conclusion of the test to quantify the levels of leached contaminants. Detected levels must fall below specified thresholds in order for the product to pass the test and be certified to the standard. Initially, NSF 61 set the maximum allowable limit for lead at 15 µg l−1 which was later reduced to 5 µg l−1 on July 1, 2012. 11
Importantly, the SDWA's lead-free requirements were only applied to endpoint devices defined as any single device typically installed within the last one litre of the water distribution system of a building (e.g. tap, ice-maker, water cooler). Thus, the SDWA's leachate testing requirement did not apply to the materials used to manufacture plumbing fittings and fixtures. No direct restrictions were placed on copper alloy materials, provided that the fabricated product could pass the leachate test. With the standard in place, plumbing component manufacturers began to certify their products to NSF 61 to demonstrate compliance. A searchable database of certified products is actively maintained on the NSF International website. 12
Impact of state legislation
Starting in 2006, the landscape changed as several states began to drive the effort to further reduce lead in drinking water. Most notably, California passed Assembly Bill 1953, effective January 1, 2010, which redefined lead-free requirements within the state. 13 The new requirement limited the permissible lead content in drinking water components to not more than 0.20% lead by weight for solder and flux and not more than a weighted average of 0.25% for the wetted surfaces of pipes and pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures. Compliance with this new requirement is demonstrated by calculating lead content within the context of the wetted surface area of a plumbing component. As the requirement is for lead content within the component, and not on the surface of the component, treatments such as coatings or acid washes to reduce lead content on component surfaces cannot be used to satisfy the requirements of the California statute. 14
In response to the new lead-free requirement in California, a section was added to NSF 61 as an optional certification: Annex G: Weighted Average Lead Content Evaluation Procedure to a 0.25 per cent Lead Requirement. 15 Annex G adopted the statutory method established in the California law to calculate lead content for wetted surfaces and could be used to determine if a device met the new lead-free requirement in California. In 2010, the content of NSF 61 Annex G was relocated to a separate standard, NSF Standard 372: Drinking Water System Components – Lead Content. 16 Creating NSF 372 allowed products to certify as lead-free per the wetted surface definition without conducting NSF 61 leachate testing.
As an added measure, California passed Senate Bill 1334 in 2008 which introduced the requirement for product certification by an independent third party accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 17 A state testing programme to evaluate product compliance was also introduced by California Senate Bill 1395 and established in California Health and Safety Code section 11685.18,19 Following California's lead, other states passed similar lead-free laws including Vermont Act 193 (effective January 2010), Maryland House Bill 372 (effective January 2012) and Louisiana House Bill 471 (effective January 2013).20–22 As the states implemented new lead-free legislation, industry actively sought new federal legislation to avoid a patchwork of state regulations and multiple compliance pathways.
U.S. Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act
In an effort to harmonise lead regulations at a national level, the U.S. federal government passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (RLDWA) on January 4, 2011 which took effect on January 4, 2014. 23 The RLDWA adopted the recent California requirement of 0.25% maximum lead for wetted surfaces as a national requirement using the same methodology first outlined in Assembly Bill 1953 and later adopted in NSF 372. Considering that it was unlawful under the SDWA to sell plumbing products that did not meet lead-free requirements, this introduced a national requirement for products to comply with NSF 372. The RLDWA also eliminated the federal requirement to conduct lead leachate testing via NSF 61. Thus, it was left to each state to determine if compliance with lead leachate testing was required in addition to the new 0.25% lead maximum for wetted surfaces required at the federal level. 24
In practice, compliance with NSF 61 is essentially a de facto national requirement for drinking water components. In 2013, NSF International and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators surveyed U.S. state drinking water agencies about their use of and requirement for NSF 61 testing. The survey revealed that 48 out of 50 states have legislation, regulations or policies requiring drinking water system components to comply with, or be certified to NSF 61. 25 Certification to NSF 61 is also required by both the Uniform Plumbing Code and the International Plumbing Code (IPC).26,27 In California, certification to NSF 61 and NSF 372 must be granted by an independent, ANSI-accredited third party. Essentially, third-party certification is a national requirement as manufacturers typically prefer a single compliance path to cover both federal and state requirements. 28
From an enforcement perspective, the RLDWA defers responsibility to the states or state assigned parties. Enforcement actions at the state level are executed through state or local building and plumbing codes during the permitting process and through subsequent inspections. 29 Enforcement of the SDWA is facilitated through the model plumbing codes via an established network of inspectors and local plumbing officials. 28
Indeed, the RLDWA streamlined regulation, but it also introduced language that conflicts with the previously established state laws. Language in the state laws references products that are part of systems ‘intended’ to be used for human consumption. At the federal level, the RLDWA language references products that are part of systems ‘anticipated’ to be used for human consumption, putting the federal and state interpretations in conflict. Under the federal language, additional brass products could be subject to SDWA provisions.
Exemptions were also granted under the RLDWA for certain plumbing components used exclusively for non-potable water applications (e.g. industrial processing, irrigation, hydronics, etc.), and for the following products: toilets, bidets, fire hydrants, urinals, fill values, flushometer valves, tub fillers, shower valves, service saddles or water distribution main gate valves two inches in diameter or larger. 23 While the U.S. framework relies on a federalised regulatory programme for enforcing lead-free requirements in drinking water systems, a different approach was taken in Canada.
Drinking water lead regulations in Canada
Unlike the U.S., the health authorities and policymakers in Canada adopted a streamlined inspection and enforcement approach to regulate lead in drinking water which is reliant on plumbing and building inspectors. While the implementation strategy differs from the U.S., compliance requirements for plumbing components are similar with respect to leachate testing and compositional lead limits.
Lead-free requirements for plumbing components are legally enforceable in Canada once they have been incorporated into the appropriate codes and referenced standards administered by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). The primary standards affecting brass fittings are CSA B125.1 (plumbing supply fittings) and CSA B125.3 (plumbing fittings) which adopted the 0.25% lead maximum for wetted surfaces and NSF 372 certification requirement as of December 2013.30,31 Other relevant drinking water component standards have also been updated to include NSF 372 certification requirements, or will be updated in the coming years.
Canadian provinces are at varying stages of implementation and enforcement of lead-free requirements incorporated into CSA standards. Importantly, only bodies accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) are able to certify products to NSF 61 and NSF 372. 32 In some cases, ANSI-accredited certifiers accepted in the U.S. are not recognised by the SCC. Thus, suppliers selling drinking water components in both the U.S. and Canada must ensure that their certification bodies are recognised in both countries to avoid the need for multiple certification programmes.
Outside of CSA standards, Canada addresses lead contamination in drinking water through guidance documents established by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water and published by Health Canada. 33 Health Canada's drinking water quality guidelines list the non-enforceable ‘Maximum Acceptable Concentration’ of lead at 10 µg l−1, and provide additional technical guidance for consumers and drinking water distribution systems. 34
Summary of U.S. and Canadian compliance requirements
In the U.S. and Canada, drinking water lead regulations are applied to fabricated components. Raw materials such as copper alloys are not directly regulated. In most cases, manufacturers must certify drinking water components to two separate NSF standards through an approved third party. Certification to NSF 61 is required to demonstrate compliance with lead leachate testing. Certification to NSF 372 is required to demonstrate compliance with a 0.25% lead maximum for wetted surfaces. In the European Union (E.U.), a different approach was taken focusing on the hygienic suitability of the raw materials that are used to fabricate components in contact with drinking water.
Drinking water lead regulations in the European Union
E.U. Drinking Water Directive
In the E.U., drinking water quality is principally governed by the European Drinking Water Directive (DWD) published in 1998 which took effect in December 2003. 35 Similar to the U.S. SDWA, the intent of the DWD is to protect human health by establishing healthiness and purity requirements which must be met by drinking water systems within the E.U. member states.
The DWD set maximum acceptable limits, called parametric values, for many known contaminants including microorganisms, chemicals and metallic elements. The scientific justification for the parametric values was based on the World Health Organisation's guidelines for drinking water and recommendations from the European Commission's Scientific Advisory Committee.36,37 For lead, the directive set the initial limit at 25 µg l−1 with a scheduled reduction effective December 1, 2013 to 10 µg l−1 of which no more than 5 µg l−1 is permissible in water supplied to buildings. Establishing these enforceable quality standards for lead and other contaminants required little effort in comparison to the challenges associated with monitoring, enforcing and remediating water quality in complex distributions systems.
4MS common approach and hygienic list
Pursuant to the DWD, work began to establish a single European scheme for the hygienic assessment of materials in contact with drinking water known as the European Acceptance Scheme. 38 However, the scheme lost support from the European Commission in 2006 and the effort was subsequently taken up by a dedicated group of four member states (France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) known as the 4MS (Portugal later joined the 4MS in 2014). 39 Due to the vast amount of materials used in drinking water systems, each member of the 4MS was assigned responsibility for a subgroup of materials. Germany assumed responsibility for metallic materials, France for cementitious materials, the Netherlands for organics and the United Kingdom for other materials. For metals, the 4MS developed a ‘Common Approach’ that established a procedure for acceptance and a common composition list of metals that are suitable for contact with drinking water.40,41 Eventually, the intent is for the 4MS approach for metals to be accepted throughout the E.U., but the timeline for implementation in other member states is not clear.
To determine the suitability of metallic materials, the results of a long-term ‘rig-test’ outlined in European standard EN 15664 Parts 1 and 2 are evaluated and assessed in accordance with a separate standard, DIN 50930 Part 6, developed by the German standardisation body (Deutsches Institut für Normung).42–44 Part 1 of the EN standard describes test procedures which simulate the consumption behaviour of a four person household. Part 2 defines three different natural water qualities used in the test to represent the broad range of waters distributed in E.U. countries. The final step is to interpret the data produced by EN 15664 using the DIN standard as a basis for assessment. DIN 50930 Part 6 is the standard used to determine if leached levels of lead and other elements (e.g. Cu, As, Ni) meet the 4MS acceptance criteria adapted from the parametric values established in the DWD. For lead, the 4MS compliance level is 5 µg l−1 which is 50% lower than the maximum limit set by the DWD. From a compliance perspective, the German Federal Environmental Agency [Umweltbundesamt (UBA)] is responsible for ensuring that metals in contact with drinking water meet the legislative and regulatory requirements mutually accepted by the 4MS.
For brasses, approved alloys are referenced in the ‘4MS Common Composition List’ (also referred to as the ‘UBA List’, ‘Hygienic List’ or ‘Positive List’).
41
The Hygienic List for copper alloys is divided into categories (e.g. copper-zinc alloys, copper-zinc-lead alloys) which are further divided into three sections:
Alloy limits defining compositions of constituent elements and impurities Reference materials with well understood release rates Accepted alloys for use in drinking water applications
4MS product groups for metallic materials 40
Copper alloys approved for drinking water use in 4MS as of May 2016
The development and existence of the Hygienic List of copper alloys approved for drinking water contact is a testament to the determination and commitment of the brass, fittings and tap industries who proactively engaged with regulators. Some non-metallic materials are further behind in the 4MS process.
Drinking water lead regulations in Japan
The general standards for potable water quality in Japan are provided in Article 4 of the Waterworks Act that was enacted in 1957. 45 Water quality standard values for lead and other contaminants are outlined in Ministerial Ordinance No. 101 and enforced by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. 46 The water quality standards applied to delivery systems were last revised by Ministerial Ordinance No. 123 in 2012 which addresses solutions leaching from water supply devices. 47 To demonstrate compliance, plumbing components must pass a leaching performance test that is described in Japanese Industrial Standard JIS S 3200–7. 48 Although the methods and permissible limits for lead are different, this test is essentially analogous to the NSF Standard 61 leachate test required in the U.S. and Canada.
For potable water components, there are two main categories in the leaching performance test with different permissible limits for discharged lead. The first category covers endpoint devices such as faucets and fittings. In this category, components made specifically from copper alloys cannot discharge more than 7 µg l−1 of lead to pass the test. The second category pertains to feed-water instruments installed midway through piping which includes valves and joints. The maximum discharge limit for components in this category is 10 µg l−1 of lead. Component manufacturers demonstrate compliance with the Waterworks Act by certifying products to JIS S 3200–7. Certification is typically referenced in manufacturer declarations, product markings, packaging and literature.
Comparison of regional regulations and impact on the use of leaded brass
Comparing the above regions, a key difference is regulation of alloy materials vs. regulation of fabricated components. In the U.S. and Canada, fabricated products must meet a compositional lead limit and also pass leachate testing. For the European market, each copper alloy must conduct rigorous leachate testing and pass assessment criteria in order to be added to a list of approved materials. In Japan, fabricated products must pass a leaching performance test with different permissible limits for endpoint and in-line devices. Considering these variations, one can appreciate how the different regional requirements can reduce the efficiency of global trade. Different requirements have also created confusion throughout the brass value chain.
Overall, global regulation restricting the use of lead in potable water systems reduced the use of leaded brass alloys in drinking water components, but it did not prevent their use. Leaded brasses are still used in drinking water components depending on the alloy, product design and application. Nevertheless, regulatory pressure to reduce dependence on lead required the reduction of lead in copper alloys, and thus, the industry responded with lead-free alloys.
Lead-free copper alloys
The manufacturing and performance benefits imparted by lead in brass alloys are numerous and difficult to replace. As such, the development of lead-free alloys was both time consuming and expensive. In some lead-free alloys, lead was replaced by other elements such as bismuth, silicon or sulphur. Like lead, bismuth and sulphur are immiscible in brass and have lower melting temperatures which improves machinability, pressure tightness and other production and performance factors. Silicon combines with other elements to form a multiphase alloy or precipitates which help break up chips during machining. Another solution is binary alloys which do not replace lead with similar elements, but remove it entirely and compensate with additional copper or zinc content. A number of wrought and cast lead-free alloys are now commercially available and able to meet regulatory compliance and performance requirements for drinking water applications. As expected, the transition to lead-free alloys also required adjustments in manufacturing and recycling.
Compared to leaded brasses, lead-free alloys are typically harder to machine and generate higher tool wear. These factors, if not compensated for by adjusting tooling or machining parameters, can negatively impact productivity by increasing the time to produce each part. Automatic screw machine houses had to overcome this learning curve to work with lead-free alloys which behave differently than conventional leaded, ‘free-machining’ brasses. 49 Plumbers and installers also had to overcome a learning curve for joining fittings made from lead-free alloys which have different heat transfer properties. 50 And generally speaking, lead-free alloys are more expensive to produce which decreases competitiveness with alternative materials.
After making proper adjustments, many manufacturers and installers successfully transitioned to lead-free alloys for potable water systems. As such, lead-free alloys are now entering the recycling stream which has introduced new elements to the conventional brass scrap stream. The mixing of these different types of brass scrap is presenting new challenges which must be addressed.
Scrap stream contamination
The economy of the brass industry is largely dependent on the recycling of scrap. The majority of scrap consumed by brass rod mills takes the form of turnings produced from machining operations, commonly referred to as primary scrap. Other sources of scrap include brass components (e.g. plumbing fixtures and fittings) that have reached the end of their service lives. This type of scrap, called end-of-life, demolition or secondary scrap, is typically purchased, sorted and distributed by scrap dealers.
Depending on the scenario, lead, silicon, bismuth and other elements present in the scrap stream can act as deleterious impurities. The presence of elemental impurities, even at low concentrations, can cause problems during casting, hot extrusion, secondary cathode production, hot rolling and other production methods. 51 For example, the presence of bismuth impurities can cause embrittlement in copper alloys and weaken grain boundaries at high temperatures. 52 A phenomenon known as hot shortness can also occur when hot rolling sheet alloys with low concentrations of impurities which can cause expensive failures. 53 This is significant considering that some elemental impurities can irreversibly concentrate in the metal stream and are impossible to remove to acceptable levels with current pyrometallurgical or hydrometallurgical refining processes. 54 In most cases, the only viable solution to deal with impurities is dilution which increases production cost. Thus, strict segregation of brass scrap is essential to protect the viability and economic advantages of all brass products.
For obvious reasons, leaded brass scrap must be kept separate from scrap used to produce lead-free brasses which should not contain lead by definition. Even within lead-free scrap, strict segregation is needed to keep scrap containing certain elements such as silicon and bismuth separate. Segregation of primary scrap returns is easier to control as compared to secondary scrap, but still presents challenges. Sorting secondary scrap is difficult as leaded and lead-free brasses are virtually impossible to distinguish visually. Also, plumbing components that are now made from lead-free alloys have long service lives and will not be recycled for many years. Consequently, lead-free alloys have not yet entered the scrap stream on a significant scale.
Furthermore, as only low concentrations of impurities are needed to cause issues, verifying the purity of scrap batches is challenging. In most cases, it is not practical to analyze full containers of scrap with portable instrumentation such as X-ray fluorescence spectrometers. The issue is also global in nature as scrap is traded internationally. If a significant portion of the brass scrap stream becomes unusable due to the presence of impurities that cannot be removed, the value-proposition and sustainability of brass will be impacted.
Fortunately, scrap contamination can be mitigated through industry collaboration, outreach and support from the global recycling industry. A positive step was taken in 2016 when the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries published two new specifications to limit the presence of silicon and bismuth in leaded brass scrap. The two new scrap purchasing categories for leaded brass, ‘Nascent’ and ‘Niche’, set tolerance levels for bismuth and silicon at 0.01% each. 55 Global use of these new scrap purchasing categories will help avoid rejected batches and keep costs down for both suppliers and consumers of leaded brass scrap.
In order to effectively manage this emerging recycling issue, proper care must be deployed throughout the value chain to segregate scrap from various brass alloys. Given the complexity and scale of this challenge, both the brass and recycling industries must continue to address the issue and put proper framework in place before the secondary, end-of-life scrap from lead-free products begins to enter the metal stream en masse.
Impact on plumbing component manufacturers
While brass mills responded to drinking water lead regulation with lead-free alloys, the downstream supply chain was also forced to adapt. From the perspective of plumbing component manufacturers, drinking water lead regulations significantly impacted business. In the U.S. the passage of the RLDWA provided a three-year transition period to prepare for new federal restrictions on leaded products. However, even with time to transition, some existing inventories of discontinued or warranty-replacement leaded products were rendered obsolete when the Act took effect. Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) also needed to modify business practices at no small expense including: raw material procurement, manufacturing processes, certification procedures and product packaging, labelling and literature. 56
From a procurement standpoint, OEMs throughout the world had to start sourcing new lead-free alloys and scrutinise the sorting of scrap to avoid recycling issues. From a manufacturing perspective, OEMs had to overcome the learning curve to work with lead-free alloys and in some cases invest in new equipment or tooling. Product engineering departments also had to re-design products and develop new drawings. In the U.S. and Canada, third-party certification requirements created a costly and continuous compliance process that can involve yearly audits. To demonstrate compliance, many manufacturers developed new lead-free labels and markings for products, but consistency is lacking.
Product labels vary widely in North America as there is no formal guidance or requirements for lead-free labelling. As a result, there are many different markings used by OEMs to indicate either self-certification or ANSI-accredited third-party certification for compliance with federal and state laws and supporting standards including NSF 372, NSF 61, NSF 61 Annex G and California Assembly Bill 1953 (Fig. 1).
57
U.S. acceptable ANSI-accredited third-party certification bodies and marks
Typical vehicles for demonstrating compliance include: third-party certification listings (e.g. NSF database), product and/or packaging markings, specification sheets and manufacturer declarations (e.g. website entry or other documentation). 58 Multiple markings on both physical products and packaging can cause confusion among contractors, specifiers and consumers. On a global scale, there is confusion over whether products that are compliant in one region are also compliant in other regions. OEMs’ efforts to meet compliance requirements are also undermined by non-compliant imports and stricter enforcement is needed to ensure international compliance with regional regulations.
Collectively, all of these factors increased the cost to produce and use brass products for potable water systems. Despite these challenges, OEMs are adapting to lead-free requirements, and brass continues to be a preferred material for manufacturing drinking water components.
Impact on utilities and water distribution systems
Further downstream, the water distribution systems, which are large end-users of brass components, are also being impacted. The entities responsible for designing, building and maintaining complex water delivery systems have made significant changes to comply with regulations restricting the use of lead. Most notably, mandated water quality sampling, reporting and corrosion remediation programmes established by the U.S. SDWA and the E.U. DWD strained the resources of utilities and community water systems.
From the utility perspective, there are challenges with interpretation and necessary changes to procurement, capital and operating budgets and other business processes. 59 To assist plumbers and contractors, new design and construction specifications had to be developed. In the U.S., there is confusion over interpretation regarding the states’ ‘intended use’ vs. the federal government's ‘anticipated use’ language. In the E.U., confusion over which materials are acceptable for contact with drinking water may motivate some systems to specify alternative materials. For procurement, increases in capital budgets were needed to accommodate the increased cost of lead-free products. And importantly, increased operating budgets were required to enforce compliance, support field inspections and manage the recurring water quality testing, treatment and reporting burdens.
Conclusion
Restricting the use of lead in drinking water systems is a necessary and prudent public health initiative. In order to accomplish this task in the most efficient manner, it is imperative that regulation is developed and executed properly. This is difficult to achieve in a global market where the compliance requirements vary by region. A review of requirements in several regions has demonstrated how drinking water lead regulations have impacted nearly all segments of the brass value chain in different ways.
The lead-reduction mandate necessitated innovation and the development of lead-free alloys which are gaining traction worldwide. As the use of lead-free alloys expands, proper care must be deployed throughout the value chain to protect the viability of the recycling stream which is a vital industry resource.
Without question, drinking water lead regulation is a significant agent of change that will continue to affect producers and users of brass products. Fortunately, the dedicated efforts of industry have ensured that brass will continue be a preferred material in potable water systems around the world for generations to come. Nevertheless, outreach, collaboration and innovation will be needed to embrace new challenges and opportunities presented by drinking water lead regulations.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank his industry colleagues at the North American Copper Development Association, The U.S. Copper and Brass Fabricators Council, the European Copper Institute, the Deutsches Kupferinstitut and the Japanese Copper Development Association for their guidance and support in the preparation of this manuscript.