BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2056
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2056 (Chesbro)
As Amended April 26, 2012
Majority vote
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 9-0APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowksi, Miller, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, |
| |Campos, Chesbro, Davis, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, |
| |Donnelly, Feuer, Bonnie | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| |Lowenthal, Morrell | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, |
| | | |Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
| | | |Solorio, Wagner |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 fewer residential connections to use POU
treatment beyond the three 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)Provides for the use of water treatment devices by a public
water system (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
2)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.
3)Sets the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic in
drinking water, effective 2006, at 10 micrograms per liter.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill would have minor, absorbable costs to the
Department of Public Health (DPH), which regulates drinking
water quality and public water systems.
COMMENTS :
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 Environmental Protection Agency (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. A
PWS must apply for Proposition 84 grant funding for
centralized treatment, but given the limited resources, may
not receive funding within the current three 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 median household income (MHI) of the community.
This demonstration includes, according to the Loch Haven
Mutual Water Company, "onerous requirements for a complex
economic analysis requiring each homeowner to disclose family
income."
AB 2056
Page 3
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 the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates the design, management,
and operation of POU and POE treatment units. The SDWA
provides that:
1) 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. 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.
2) 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.
DPH Emergency POU Regulations : In 2010-11, DPH adopted
Interim POU and POE Regulations that closely follow federal
POU regulations, with additional guidelines for economic
feasibility testing. This economic analysis requires that the
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.
Analysis Prepared by : Dharia McGrew / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965
FN: 0003783