BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Bob Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 385 Hearing Date: 4/15/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hueso |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/7/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |Yes |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Rachel Machi Wagoner |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Primary drinking water standards: hexavalent
chromium: compliance plan
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal law: under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) of 1974,
1. Regulates the nation's public drinking water supply.
2. Requires the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA) to set national health-based standards for
drinking water.
3. Authorizes states to apply to US EPA for primacy to
implement SDWA within their jurisdictions, if they can show
that they will adopt standards at least as stringent as US
EPA's and ensure compliance. California is a primacy
state.
Existing state law: under the California Safe Drinking Water Act
of 1996:
1. Requires the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) to perform risk assessments and adopt
public health goals (PHGs) for contaminants in drinking
water based exclusively on public health considerations.
2. Requires the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB), Division of Drinking Water (Division), formerly
within the Department of Public Health (DPH) to establish,
SB 385 (Hueso) Page 2
of ?
regulate and enforce primary drinking water standards
(State Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs).
Whereas PHGs are to be based solely on scientific and public
health considerations, drinking water standards adopted by the
Division are to consider economic factors and technical
feasibility. Each primary drinking water standard MCL adopted
by the Division shall be set at a level that is as close as
feasible to the corresponding PHG, with emphasis on the
protection of public health. Each primary drinking standard
adopted by the Division is required to be set at a level that is
as close as feasible to the corresponding PHG, with emphasis on
the protection of public health. MCLs established by the
Division must be at least as stringent as the federal MCL, if
one exists.
3. Authorizes the Division to issue citations for the
failure to comply with a requirement of the California Safe
Drinking Water Act or any regulation, standard, permit or
order issued thereunder. That citation often contains a
specific directive for required corrective action.
4. Requires the State Department of Health Services
(succeeded by the California Department or DPH and then
SWRCB) to adopt a primary drinking water standard for
hexavalent chromium by January 1, 2004.
This bill:
1. Authorizes, until January 1, 2020, SWRCB, at the request of a
public water system that prepares and submits a compliance
plan to SWRCB, to grant a period of time to achieve
compliance with the MCL for hexavalent chromium by approving
the compliance plan, as prescribed.
2. Requires a public water system to provide specified notice
regarding the compliance plan to its customers and the public
water system to send written status reports to SWRCB.
3. Provides that a public water system is not deemed in
violation of the MCL for hexavalent chromium while
implementing an approved compliance plan or while SWRCB
SB 385 (Hueso) Page 3
of ?
action on its proposed and submitted compliance plan is
pending.
4. Authorizes SWRCB to direct revisions to a compliance plan if
SWRCB makes certain determinations and would prohibit a
public water system from being granted a period of time to
achieve compliance under certain circumstances, including if
the public water system does not submit a revised compliance
plan or the revised compliance plan is disapproved.
5. Authorizes SWRCB to implement, interpret, or make specific
these provisions by means of criteria, published on its
Internet Web site.
Background
Chromium is a natural element that occurs in two basic forms:
chromium-3 and chromium-6. Chromium-3 is an essential nutrient
with a daily amount of 50-200 micrograms/day for adults. While
at very high doses it may have acute health effects, there is no
evidence that it is carcinogenic. Chromium-6, on the other
hand, is a known carcinogen.
Hexavalent chromium, also called chromium 6, came to the
public's attention with the 2000 release of the movie Erin
Brockovich, which told the story of the hexavalent chromium
contamination of the drinking water in Hinkley, California.
Hexavalent chromium is a heavy metal used in producing pigments,
leather tanning, electroplating, metal processing, wood
preservation, and in alloys such as stainless steel. It was
also used to inhibit corrosion in cooling towers -- the use that
contaminated Hinkleys water by the Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
Drinking water sources can become contaminated by leaks and
discharges from industrial facilities and hazardous waste sites.
Since that time hexavalent chromium has been detected in 2,475
California drinking water sources. These sources are spread
throughout 51 out of 58 counties.
SB 385 (Hueso) Page 4
of ?
In order to protect public health, and because the federal
government had not adopted an MCL for hexavalent chromium, the
California Legislature passed SB 351 (Ortiz) Chapter 602,
Statutes of 2001, requiring the development of a state drinking
water standard for hexavalent chromium by January 2004.
Where does hexavalent chromium come from?
Hexavalent chromium can be naturally occurring. In addition to
natural sources, hexavalent chromium enters drinking water
sources through discharges of dye and paint pigments, wood
preservatives, chrome plating wastes, and leaching from
hazardous waste sites. Communities near chromium waste disposal
sites or chromium manufacturing and processing plants are at
particular risk of exposure. Probably the most impacted people
are workers exposed on the job.
What are the health effects of hexavalent chromium?
Hexavalent chromium is a carcinogen and a reproductive toxicant
for both males and females. As a result, it was added to
California's Proposition 65 list of toxic substances in December
2008. Exposure to hexavalent chromium occurs through breathing,
ingestion, and contact with the skin. Although most of the
known health impacts are related to inhalation, there is now
strong data linking ingestion of hexavalent chromium, such as
through drinking water, to severe health effects. In addition
to cancer and reproductive harm, short and long-term exposures
can lead to eye and respiratory irritation, asthma attacks,
nasal ulcers, dermal burns, anemia, acute gastroenteritis,
vertigo, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, convulsions, ulcers, and
damage or failure of the liver and kidneys.
Hexavalent Chromium PHG.
In 2013, OEHHA published a PHG for hexavalent chromium of 0.02
parts per billion (ppb) or micrograms per liter (g/L) in
drinking water. OEHHA reviewed the available data on the
toxicity of hexavalent chromium and has identified the PHG level
as protective against all identified toxic effects from both
oral and inhalation exposure to hexavalent chromium that may be
present in drinking water.
SB 385 (Hueso) Page 5
of ?
Hexavalent Chromium MCL.
As part of the rulemaking process, in August 2013 DPH proposed
an MCL for chromium-6 of 0.010 milligram per liter (equivalent
to 10 g/L). The public comment period closed in October 2013.
DPH reviewed the comments submitted by interested parties and
responded to them in the final statement of reasons, which is
part of the final hexavalent MCL regulations package.
On April 15, 2014, DPH submitted the hexavalent chromium MCL
regulations package to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
for its review for compliance with the Administrative Procedure
Act. On May 28, OAL approved the regulations, which were
effective on July 1, 2014.
Enforcement of an MCL.
National drinking water standards are legally enforceable by the
regulatory agencies. Both US EPA and states can take
enforcement actions against water systems not meeting safety
standards. US EPA and states may issue administrative orders,
take legal actions and issue fines.
In the case of the MCL for hexavalent chromium, because it is a
California specific MCL, SWRCB would have enforcement
responsibility. Should a water system be found out of
compliance with the MCL, SWRCB would likely take enforcement
action that would include an administrative order with specific
direction to the water system on actions needed to come into
compliance.
Comments
Purpose of Bill.
According to the author, "this bill will ensure that all
Californians have access to much safer drinking water. SB
385 recognizes the steps that must be taken and creates a
path of transparency for water systems to be in compliance.
High levels of Chromium-6 in our water are unacceptable and I
SB 385 (Hueso) Page 6
of ?
will push for the water systems to work towards achieving
their goals in a timely manner."
The author states, "California's first in the nation drinking
water standard for Chromium-6 took effect on July 1, 2014.
Some water systems have been working for years to identify
and test cost effective treatment technologies for
chromium-6. Many affected water systems will be deemed in
violation of the new standard in 2015 even though it is not
feasible to install appropriate treatment systems to comply
with the standard within the time provided. For systems that
do need to install treatment, land may need to be acquired,
water rates may need to be raised, and financing may need to
be secured before construction facilities can even begin."
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 351 (Ortiz) Chapter 602, Statutes of 2001, required the State
Department of Health Services to adopt a primary drinking water
standard for hexavalent chromium by January 1, 2004. Requires a
report on the progress of developing the standard to the
Legislature by January 1, 2003.
Double Referral to Senate Judiciary Committee.
If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality
Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to
re-refer the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SOURCE: Association of California Water Agencies
SUPPORT:
American Water Works Association
Central Water Agency
City of Cathedral City
City of Indio
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Watsonville
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Water Association
Coachella Valley Water District
Consumer Attorneys of California
Desert Valleys Builders Association
Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District
SB 385 (Hueso) Page 7
of ?
Mission Springs Water District
Rio Linda-Elverta Water District
Sacramento Suburban Water District
San Diego County Water Authority
Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District
Soquel Creek Water District
OPPOSITION:
None on file.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
According to the sponsors, "Public water systems are committed
to meeting the standard, which is the first of its kind in the
nation, but the timeline provided for compliance does not
recognize the complex steps water systems must take to achieve
the standard. The steps involved - from designing appropriate
treatment systems to securing financing to building and testing
new treatment facilities - can take up to five years or more and
cost millions of dollars.
"To address this challenge, ACWA is sponsoring SB 385 by Sen.
Ben Hueso (D-San Diego). The bill would authorize the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to grant a time-limited
compliance period to public water systems that meet strict
conditions and demonstrate they are taking needed steps to
comply with the standard by the earliest feasible date.
"For some public water systems, construction of extensive new
treatment facilities is needed to comply with the chromium-6
MCL. The regulation establishing the standard required public
water systems to begin monitoring for chromium-6 by Jan. 1,
2015, just six months after the regulation went into effect.
Many affected water systems will be deemed in violation of the
new standard in 2015 even though it was not feasible to install
appropriate treatment systems to comply with the MCL within the
time period provided. In some cases, land may need to be
acquired, water rates may need to be raised, and financing may
need to be secured before construction of facilities can even
SB 385 (Hueso) Page 8
of ?
begin.
"SB 385 would provide a time-limited process for a water system
to work toward compliance without being deemed in violation as
long as strict safeguards are met."
-- END --