BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1953
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2005-2006 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1953
AUTHOR: Chan
AMENDED: June 14, 2006
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: June 19, 2006
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Bruce Jennings
SUBJECT : LEAD PLUMBING
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1)Establishes the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
in the Department of Health Services to compile information,
identify target areas, and implement a program of medical
treatment and environmental abatement to reduce childhood
lead exposure.
2)Prohibits the manufacture, sale, or exchange of toys
exceeding a certain lead content.
3)Implements a lead poisoning prevention and protection
program for California schools to survey and ascertain risk
factors that predict lead contamination in public schools.
4)Defines "lead free" to mean not more than 8 percent with
reference to pipes and pipe fittings. With reference to
plumbing fittings and fixtures, "lead free" means not more
than 4 percent by dry weight after August 6, 2002, unless
the Department of Health Services has adopted a standard,
based on health effects, for the leaching of lead.
This bill :
1) Revises the meaning of "lead free" from 8 percent lead for
pipes or pipe fittings, and 4 percent lead for plumbing
fittings and fixtures to .25 percent lead content within
each component that comes into contact with the wetted
surfaces of pipes and pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and
AB 1953
Page 2
fixtures effective January 1, 2010.
2) Prohibits a person from using specified materials that are
not lead free in the installation or repair of any public
water system or any plumbing in a facility providing water
for human consumption, except when necessary for the repair
of leaded joints of cast iron pipes.
3) Prohibits a person from introducing into commerce, for use
in California, any specified material intended to convey or
dispense water for human consumption that is not lead free.
4) Exempts plumbing fixtures and related devices that are used
in manufacturing, industrial processing, for irrigation
purposes, and any other uses where the water is not
intended for human consumption.
5) Prohibits a person engaged in the business of selling
plumbing supplies, except manufacturers, from selling
solder or flux that is not lead free, unless accompanied by
a prominent label stating that it is illegal to use the
solder or flux in the installation or repair of any
plumbing providing water for human consumption.
6) Defines "lead free" as materials containing not more than
0.2 percent lead when used with respect to solder and flux
and not more than a weighted average of 0.25 percent when
used with respect to the wetted surfaces of pipes and pipe
fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures, providing a
specified definition and formula for determining "weighted
average."
7) Delays the implementation of this act until January 1,
2010.
8) Provides declaratory language regarding state mandates and
the procedure for local agencies to receive reimbursement.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . Water agencies with excellent compliance
records typically have very low levels of lead in the water
supplied in the water mains. However, as water moves from
AB 1953
Page 3
the water main through the meter and valves and into the
household plumbing, lead can be leached from brass
components and the result is a significant percentage of
Californians receive drinking water with lead levels
greater than the state's public health goal of 2 parts per
billion (ppb). Compliance reporting for large US utilities
indicates that an estimated 10 percent of California's
population, and possibly an even greater number, is
currently above the state-established public health goal of
2 ppb. Notwithstanding the existence of a regulatory
framework to address lead in drinking water, testing
continues to demonstrate that leaching of lead at high
levels still occurs - even with new materials meeting all
specifications and regulatory requirements. Proponents
contend that the gradual phase-out of the use of
lead-containing products within the drinking water system
will help to alleviate this ongoing public health risk and
that lead-free alternatives will reduce in price as the
market expands and manufacturers develop new products as a
consequence of the phase-in of lead-free materials.
2) Lead: Unsafe at any level & Prevention . Lead is a
neurotoxin that is damaging to children; even at very low
levels, lead can result in reduced IQ, learning
disabilities, attention deficit disorder, behavioral
problems, stunted growth, impaired hearing and kidney
damage. In adults lead causes high blood pressure,
fertility problems, and nerve disorders.
The "acceptable" level of lead exposure has been repeatedly
adjusted downward in recent decades. Despite the
significant reductions that have occurred with reducing
lead in gasoline, dishes, food products, and elsewhere,
especially those sources that are linked with dietary
exposures continue to be of special concern. It is
estimated that 14 percent to 20 percent of total childhood
lead exposure is from drinking water.
Especially as a result of the exquisitely sensitive nature of
infants and children to toxicants such as lead, exposures
to even low concentrations of lead in drinking water can
result in substantial and permanent damages to the young,
including impaired cognitive abilities. It is for these
AB 1953
Page 4
reasons that the US Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention has more recently moved from a position of
"acceptable" lead exposures to a policy in which its
scientists explain that there is no safe threshold for
blood lead levels in young children.
3) Background: Getting the lead out . The 1991 United States
(U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency Lead and Copper Rule
(LCR) established the most protective lead standard for
first draw drinking water in the world. LCR has four main
functions: a) require water suppliers to optimize their
treatment system to control corrosion in customers'
plumbing; b) determine tap water levels of lead and copper
for customers who have lead service lines or lead-based
solder in their plumbing system; c) rule out the source
water as a source of significant lead levels; and, d) if
action levels are exceeded, require the suppliers to
educate their customers about lead and suggest actions they
can take to reduce their exposure to lead through public
notices and public education programs. If a water system,
after installing and optimizing corrosion control
treatment, continues to fail to meet the lead action level,
it must begin replacing the lead service lines under its
ownership.
4) Questionable Standards . Numerous pipes and plumbing
fixtures are labeled "NSF/ANSI Standard 61", a lead
performance standard set by the National Sanitation
Foundation (NSF), a non-profit organization. The standard
is not based on the percentage of lead in a product;
rather, it is intended to reflect the amount of lead
introduced by the product into water when water passes
through it.
As useful as NSF Standard 61 has been for reducing lead in
pipes, it does not appear to accurately reflect the problem
resulting from increasingly corrosive of water in
California resulting from intensive treatment processes.
Increased corrosion means that more lead will leach from a
pipe than would otherwise be the case. Moreover, it is not
clear that the NSF testing adequately accounts for what
happens to pipes over time as they wear out. Many
manufacturers are using technologies to coat the inside of
AB 1953
Page 5
pipes and fixtures to keep the lead from coming into
contact with the water while still using it for the pipe or
fixture. As the internal coating wears off, there is a
risk of lead leaching into the water.
5) Availability of Products Meeting the Requirements of AB
1953? According to the author's office, there are a
variety of domestically available products that would meet
or exceed the requirements of this bill, including products
that contain less than .01 percent lead. Taracorp, a
domestic manufacturer of solder and flux, manufactures
these products in lead-free versions, sold as Taramet
Sterling. In addition, several U.S. manufactures of
fixtures are close to reaching the requirements of this
bill, though they would have to retool to meet the .25
standard. There are also reportedly European manufacturers
who make fixtures that would meet the requirements of this
bill.
6) Opponents' Concerns. The opponents' arguments are largely
contained in the following points:
No provision exists for testing or certifying
according to a standard;
No method is in place for effectively restricting
transshipping of nonconforming products into the state;
The bill ignores issues with respect to machining,
metal finishing, and durability of products utilizing the
prescribed alloys:
The enactment of AB 1953 would force manufacturers who
wish to comply with the letter and spirit of the bill to
nationally standardize all products to the California
requirements.
The more general source of opposition, however, focuses on
the financial impacts of AB 1953. The Copper Development
Association, for example, states, "?AB 1953 proposes an
unprecedented, artificially low standard that would
prohibit virtually all faucets, valves, and backflow
preventers currently on the market. Although low-lead
AB 1953
Page 6
brass casting alloys have been introduced in very limited
plumbing applications?they are not widely utilized in most
plumbing products."
1) Feasibility of Meeting AB 1953 Standards? A central
argument surrounding this bill, especially for opponents,
concerns the feasibility of changing materials to a lower
lead content. It is difficult to identify a neutral source
that can authoritatively answer this question. While
various opponents to change naturally state that the
methodology, costs, and practicality of substitutes is not
achievable, at least one letter in the file suggests
otherwise.
According to a May 31st letter submitted by the California
Metals Coalition, an industry self-described as comprised
of nearly 10,000 businesses, the Coalition states, "a lower
lead standard for metal products that is directly linked to
human consumption of water at the tap is achievable."
Indeed, the group which represents California's
metalworking facilities which melt, stamp, forge, form,
bend, coat, and cast millions of metal products indicated
that its primary concerns were focused on three issues:
establishing a realistic timetable for implementing the
measure would be January 2010; narrowing the bill's
language to specifically target water for human
consumption; and, establishing a proper enforcement so that
a new standard truly protects public health.
There are, no doubt, uncertainties that may not be fully
resolved with the passage of AB 1953. The delayed
implementation, however, provides more than three years to
address such issues, including, if necessary, the passage
of subsequent legislation to modify these provisions.
2) Public Costs From Lead Exposures . To be sure, the public's
exposures to lead come from a variety of sources; however
reducing lead from some of the principal sources appears to
be very significant for households confronting such
contaminants. The Environmental Working Group (EWG)
published a study in April, 2000 stating that California's
failure to protect children from lead poisoning costs the
state hundreds of millions of dollars annually in special
AB 1953
Page 7
education, medical care and lost earnings for children who
suffer learning impairment or other conditions as a result
of lead poisoning. Based on calculations by national
experts, EWG estimates that by reducing the statewide
average level of lead in children's blood by just 10
percent of the CDC's risk level, California could save more
than $800 million a year.
SOURCE : East Bay Municipal Utility District
SUPPORT : American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Communities Against Toxics
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Special Districts Association
Californians Against Waste
California League of Conservation Voters
City and County of San Francisco
Clean Water Action
City and County of San Francisco
Contra Costa Water District
Defenders of Wildlife
Environment California
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Natural Resources Defense Council
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San
Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Planning and Conservation League
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION : Alsons Corporation
American Standard Inc.
Black & Decker (Price Pfister)
California State Pipe Trades Council
California Professional Association of
Specialty Contractors
California Home Builders
California Retailers Association
Chicago Faucets
AB 1953
Page 8
Copper Development Association
Haws Corporation
Integra Marketing
Moen Incorporated
NSF International
Non-Ferrous Founders' Society
Pacific Water Quality Association
Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors - National
Assoc.
Plumbing Manufacturers Institute
Sloan Valve Company
Water Quality Association