Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Point Of Use Point Of Entry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presents point‑of‑use and point‑of‑entry report; pilots to target education, certification and workforce
Summary
The State Water Board discussed a report and three active pilot efforts aimed at expanding use of point‑of‑use (POU) and point‑of‑entry (POE) treatment for homes, schools and small public water systems. Staff said POU/POE can be a pragmatic tool for small systems where centralized treatment is infeasible but emphasized the need for certif
State Water Resources Control Board staff briefed the SAFER advisory group on a recent report and pilot projects intended to make point‑of‑use (POU) and point‑of‑entry (POE) treatments safer and more scalable for communities where full centralized treatment is not feasible.
Chad Fisher, supervising water resources control engineer in the Division of Drinking Water, reviewed the technical differences: a point‑of‑use device typically treats a single tap (often a kitchen sink) and supplies only that outlet with treated water, while a point‑of‑entry system treats all water entering a home. “A point of use device… is usually located underneath the kitchen sink,” Fisher said; POE systems are larger units that treat all household water.
Fisher said the board’s POU/POE white paper groups recommendations into six areas: equity, education and outreach, social (workforce) development, technical standards and certification, financing, and legal/regulatory clarifications. Staff recommended that feasibility studies for decentralized options include equity assessments because a single treated tap is not equivalent to having all household water safe.
Three pilot tracks are underway: - Educational materials and outreach: develop plain‑language, bilingual materials targeted to households, operators and agencies; pilot testing of materials is under way with a technical assistance partner. - Certification/performance: set or update test standards with certifying bodies and support manufacturers to obtain device certification for priority contaminants (staff listed nitrates, uranium, hexavalent chromium, 1,2,3‑TCP and some PFAS substances). The board is aiming to increase the number of certified devices for high‑need contaminants but said manufacturer interest depends on market size and certification costs. - Workforce development: create a curriculum and operator cohort to recruit and train local technicians to install, maintain and sample POU/POE devices, with an emphasis on local hiring and trust building.
Board members and advisory participants raised specific technical and equity questions: some contaminants (for example 1,2,3‑TCP) pose inhalation risks during showering and therefore typically require POE treatment; workforce and funding structures must be designed so devices are maintained and monitored over time; and clear replacement and monitoring schedules should be set before widespread deployment.
Staff noted the existing statewide footprint of POU/POE in public water systems is small — roughly 25–50 systems statewide — and that many of those installations serve systems with fewer than 500 connections. The pilots are intended to address three recurring barriers: lack of consumer‑facing education materials, lack of certified devices for some contaminants, and limited local capacity for operations and long‑term maintenance.
Next steps: board staff plan to complete pilot deliverables (materials, certification standards and a workforce curriculum), test them on the ground and present lessons learned and recommended policy changes to the advisory group for incorporation in the fund expenditure plan.
