BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2056
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 2056 (Chesbro) - As Amended: March 27, 2012
As Proposed To Be Amended
SUBJECT : Drinking water safety.
SUMMARY : This bill exempts small public water systems (PWS)
from the three year limit on permits for point-of-entry (POE)
and point-of-use (POU) treatment in lieu of centralized water
treatment. Specifically, this bill :
1) Allows PWS of 20 or less residential connections to
use POU treatment beyond the 3 year maximum set by
Department of Public Health (DPH).
2) Allows these water systems to use census tract data
as median household income (MHI) information for the
demonstration of economic feasibility, as required in the
pre-application for POU treatment.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Delegates the authority of United States Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) to California to implement a
drinking water program. As a primacy state (having federally
delegated authority), California must enact laws and
regulations related to drinking water that conform to the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and must be no less
stringent than the federal regulations.
2)Establishes the Drinking Water Program within DPH to regulate
public drinking water systems.
3)Provides for the use of water treatment devices by a PWS,
including POU and POE, devices if the PWS meets the following
criteria:
a) The PWS has less than 200 service connections; and
b) The PWS has submitted pre-applications with DPH for
funding to correct the violations for which the POU
treatment is provided.
AB 2056
Page 2
4)Prohibits DPH from issuing or amending a permit to allow the
use of POU treatment unless DPH determines, after a public
hearing, that there is no substantial community opposition.
5)Limits the issuance of a permit for the use of POU treatment
to the lesser of three years or until funding for centralized
treatment is available.
6)Sets the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic in
drinking water, effective 2006, at 10 ?g/L.
FISCAL EFFECT : Not Known.
COMMENTS :
1)Need for the bill: Loch Haven Mutual Water District in the
Santa Rosa area has arsenic in its drinking water above the
level allowed by state law. The cost of centralized treatment
is estimated at $250,000 or more. Due to the very small size
of the PWS (19 connections), building, operating, and
maintaining a centralized treatment facility is not
economically feasible.
According to the US EPA, "Small System Variance Technologies"
must be identified in lieu of affordable compliance
technologies. US EPA and other agencies have studied and
shown that POU systems are a cost effective means of extending
access to clean and safe drinking water to more people.
Researchers have calculated the cost of such systems against
estimates for a central treatment plant, and found that POU
systems can be installed and maintained for less than half the
projected cost of centralized treatment. Current California
regulations limit POU treatment to 3 years. A PWS must apply
for Proposition 84 grant funding for centralized treatment,
but given the limited resources, may not receive funding
within the 3 year time limit.
To be approved for POU treatment permit, applicants are
required to apply for centralized treatment funding from DPH,
which includes demonstration that the cost of centralized
treatment is not economically feasible, based on current water
bills and MHI of the community. This demonstration includes,
according to the Loch Haven Mutual Water Company, "onerous
requirements for a complex economic analysis requiring each
AB 2056
Page 3
homeowner to disclose family income."
2)SDWA Allows POU Treatment: Federal requirements establish a
national basis for implementing a POU or POE treatment
strategy, as a less-costly alternative to centralized
treatment. To ensure the protection of public health, Section
1412(b) (4) (E) (ii) of the SDWA regulates the design,
management, and operation of POU and POE treatment units. The
SDWA provides that:
a) POU treatment may not be used as a treatment technique
for microbial contaminant or an indicator of microbial
contaminant.
b) POU and POE units must be owned, controlled, and
maintained by the PWS or by a contractor hired by the PWS
to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the devices
and compliance with MCLs. The PWS retains final
responsibility for the quality and quantity of the water
provided to the service community and must closely monitor
all contractors. Further, the PWS may not delegate its
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of
installed POU or POE devices to homeowners as part of a
compliance strategy.
c) POU and POE units must have mechanical warnings to
automatically notify customers of operational problems.
Each POU or POE treatment device installed as part of a
compliance strategy must be equipped with a warning device
(e.g., alarm, light, etc.) that will alert users when their
unit is no longer adequately treating their water.
Alternatively, units may be equipped with an automatic
shut-off mechanism to meet this requirement.
d) If the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has
issued product standards for a specific type of POU or POE
treatment unit, then only those units that have been
independently certified according to these standards may be
used as part of a compliance strategy.
3)DPH Emergency POU Regulations : In 2010-11, CPDH adopted
Interim POU and POE Regulations (CCR Title 22, Chapter 15,
Articles 2.5 and 2.7) that closely follow federal POU
regulations, with additional guidelines for economic
feasibility testing. This economic analysis requires that the
AB 2056
Page 4
community water system provide to DPH information
demonstrating the estimated cost of centralized treatment in
relation to the MHI of the community and average water bills.
4)Prior Legislation :
AB 1540 (Committee on Health), Chapter 298, Statutes of 2009.
This bill updated California drinking water laws to maintain
California's federally designated authority to implement a
drinking water program that conforms to the federal SDWA. The
SDWA allows a PWS to use POU devices for water treatments to
meet drinking water standards. AB 1540 allows POU and POE
devices under California law.
AB 2515 (V. Manuel Pérez) Chapter 601, Statutes of 2010. This
bill provided an expedited process for DPH to establish
criteria for use of POU water treatment devices and authorizes
DPH to award grants for POE and POU treatment systems,
provided that the water system serves a severely disadvantaged
community and that the grant meets other existing
requirements.
5)Related Current Legislation :
SB 962 (Anderson) would expand the authorization to use
POU/POE treatment systems, as specified above, from 200
service connections to public water systems with up to 2,500
service connections and would extend the effective date of the
emergency regulations from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2016.
This bill will be heard in the Senate Committee on
Environmental Quality on April 23rd, 2012.
AB 2539 (Nielsen) would require DPH to accept a water
treatment device certification issued by an agency of another
state, a certification body accredited by an accreditation
body that is a member of the International Accreditation Forum
or by the federal government. This bill was scheduled to be
heard in the Assembly Committee on Health on April 17th, 2012,
but was canceled at the author's request.
6)Committee Questions:
a) Is POU treatment a viable long-term solution? While POU
treatment was originally intended as a temporary solution
to water quality problems, US EPA has expanded variances to
AB 2056
Page 5
allow permanent utilization of POU treatment as an
affordable option for small systems. Although POU
treatment is accepted by US EPA as a cost-effective
treatment solution for small water systems, does it provide
the same protection to drinking water quality as
centralized treatment?
b) Why 20 Service Connections? Current law allows
emergency POU/POE treatment for systems of 200 connections
or less. If the US EPA has expanded variances to allow
small water systems to use POU treatment as a more
affordable, long-term solution, should California follow
suit? According to the February 2012 draft SDWRF priority
list, there are many other projects in "very small" water
districts for which centralized treatment is not
economically feasible. In contrast, will allowing
long-term POU treatment be a disincentive for later
consolidation or continued improvements to the system?
c) Is a "very small" water system capable of compliance?
In order to be obtain approval for POU/POE treatment, the
PWS must complete economic assessment of centralized
treatment, including (but not limited to) the cost of
equipment, design, construction, monitoring, operation,
maintenance, pilot treatment studies, development of a
treatment strategy, and compliance reporting. In addition
to water quality testing already being performed, POU
treatment would require an employee of the PWS to inspect
and maintain the systems. Will a PWS of 20 connections or
less have adequate resources or staff to comply with these
requirements?
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Loch Haven Mutual Water Company
Opposition
None on File
Analysis Prepared by : Dharia McGrew / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
AB 2056
Page 6
319-3965