BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 962
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 962
AUTHOR: Anderson
AMENDED: As Introduced
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 16, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Rachel Wagoner
SUBJECT : PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS: POINT-OF-USE TREATMENT
SUMMARY :
Existing law ,
1) Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), requires
the federal Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set
standards for drinking water quality and oversee the
states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those
standards. California has authority over drinking water,
delegated by US EPA.
2) Establishes the Drinking Water Program within the
Department of Public Health (DPH) to regulate public
drinking water systems.
3) Authorizes point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE)
devices for water treatment to meet drinking water
standards as specified by state and federal law.
4) Requires regulations adopted under the SDWA to include
requirements governing the POE and POU treatment by public
water systems in lieu of centralized treatment where it can
be demonstrated that centralized treatment is not
immediately economically feasible and is limited to: a)
less than 200 service connections, b) use allowed under the
SDWA's implementing regulations, and c) water systems that
have submitted pre-applications with the Department of
Public Health (DPH) for funding to correct the violations
for which the POU/POE treatment is provided.
This bill expands the authorization to use POU/POE treatment
SB 962
Page 2
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.
COMMENTS
1) Purpose of the Bill . According to the author, SB 962 is a
compassionate and environmentally-conscious measure to
maximize delivery of safe drinking water to more people.
The author asserts that access to clean drinking water is a
neglected priority in California, so to confront that
reality, Assemblymember V. Manuel Perez authored Assembly
Bill 2515 Chapter 601, Statutes of 2010 to allow
development of appropriate emergency regulations by the
Department of Public Health. The author states that while
those emergency regulations - governing the permitted use
of point-of-entry and point-of-use treatment by public
water systems - have been adopted, the effect is yet to be
fully felt. The author believes that the regulations have
been found to effectively exclude some communities who
should qualify for some help but through no fault of their
own are unfairly excluded. According to the author,
unfortunately, for them -small communities whose need
exceeds 200 service connections -- this basic thirst of
clean drinking water still remains.
The author states that access to safe drinking water in
California's small, unincorporated communities is vital.
This legislation will allow approved point-of-entry or
point-of-use water treatment devices to be employed in
communities of up to 2,500 connections when a centralized
treatment plant is not economically feasible.
The author asserts that the viability of POU/POE systems is
proven. The author provides, for example, in 2005, NSF
International conducted a thorough study on a centrally
managed point-of-use strategy implemented in the community
of Grimes, California. In that town, nearly all the
residents agreed to the installation of POU systems in
their homes. It was found that a final barrier system cost
less than half the projected cost for central treatment.
SB 962
Page 3
Homeowners, who faced elevated levels of arsenic, placed
appropriate systems in their residences. Through rigorous
analysis, researchers were able to calculate the cost of
such systems against estimates for a central treatment
plant. Central treatment would have cost more than $24 per
month, according to the NSF International Report.
Depending on the level of monitoring and sampling followed,
however, the POU system was estimated at between $11.46 and
$18 per month. The systems were successful and cost
effective, and extended to more people access to clean and
safe drinking water.
2) Drinking water contamination in California . According to
DPH, 98% of the population of California served by
community water systems receives drinking water that meets
all primary drinking water standards. However, for the
nearly of a million Californians without clean water,
contaminants such as nitrates, hexavalent chromium and
arsenic threaten public drinking water safety. The most
impacted populations are located in disadvantaged
communities and are served by small water systems that have
difficulty finding the sufficient resources for maintenance
and operation or to undertake repairs and upgrades. DPH
currently utilizes funds from the Safe Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund and Propositions 50 and 84 bond funds to
assist in drinking water system upgrades. While these
funds have provided and continue to provide significant
assistance in the improvement of water systems, there is a
greater need than funding available. The US EPA as well as
DPH are working to explore how to reach critical drinking
water standards while also acknowledging the need for
affordability of conveyance, especially in these small
communities.
In acknowledgement of the strain that small water systems
face when trying to upgrade systems to meet necessary water
quality improvements, AB 2515 (V. M. Perez) Chapter 601,
Statutes of 2010, was enacted as a stop gap to provide a
temporary measure while a permanent, safer and more
effective centralized treatment could be devised for these
small disadvantaged communities.
3) Point of Use/ Point of Entry Treatment . A POU treatment
SB 962
Page 4
device is any unit installed on a single water faucet or
bubbler that changes the water quality. POE treatment
device is any unit installed that changes the water quality
of all potable water entering a building. POE and POU
treatment devices such as carbon filters are sometimes
installed to enhance the aesthetic quality (taste and odor)
of potable water supplied by a local water system. In
other cases, POE and POU treatment devices are installed to
meet drinking water standards in place of centralized
treatment.
4) Limitations of POU/POE treatment . While POU/POE treatment
has advanced in recent years it does not provide equivalent
treatment to centralized treatment.
a) Multiple contaminants . POU/POE treatment
technologies can provide sufficient treatment for one
specific contaminant. However, they are not designed to
treat the complex myriad contaminants that may be in
drinking water. So while it may address the primary
contaminant of concern, other contaminants may not be
sufficiently removed. Additionally, contaminants in
water affect the water quality individually and
cumulatively. POU/POE treatment systems are not
designed to address the cumulative impacts to water
quality.
b) Adjustment for quality . Water quality levels are not
static. Centralized treatment systems are regularly
monitored and the treatment is adjusted as changes in
the water quality and levels of the range of
contaminants change. POU/POE treatment systems cannot
be adjusted as the water quality changes, so their
efficacy may vary.
c) POU does not treat all water . Because POU treatment
systems attach to the faucet, their treatment is limited
to water that comes through that faucet. Showers,
washing machines and other faucets, such as those in
bathrooms, will not be treated. POU treatment devices
are not appropriate in households where the treated
contaminant presents health risks when inhaled, such as
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or hexavalent
SB 962
Page 5
chromium, that may be released into the air and inhaled,
especially in warm water like a shower because in those
households only the drinking water would be treated.
With many contaminants that could pose an additional
risk, especially in homes with children, these systems
are meant as a very temporary stopgap measure until
centralized water treatment can be provided.
d) Lack of Accountability and monitoring . Centralized
treatment facilities are regularly inspected and
monitored to ensure sufficient maintenance by either DPH
or the county environmental health jurisdictions. There
is no built in inspection, monitoring or maintenance
when water systems use POU/POE treatment. Ensuring
proper working order to POU/POE systems is crucial. If
filters are not changed when needed, some systems can
build up contaminants in the system and release them
into the water in high concentrations.
Who is expected to make sure that the systems are always
working properly? Is it practical to expect that for
water systems of 2,500 service connections that all
systems are going to be regularly monitored and
repaired?
5) Questions regarding the bill .
a) Why now ? Is there a demonstrated need to expand the
POU/POE treatment allowance? AB 2515 passed in 2010.
The emergency regulations implementing that bill took
effect September 2011. According to DPH, several small
communities have shown interest in utilizing these
provisions, but have not to date.
Is it appropriate to expand this authorization, knowing
that there are water quality risks, when there has not
been successful implementation on a smaller scale and
there has not been an opportunity to evaluate the use of
this treatment technology on that smaller scale?
b) Why 2,500 service connections ? DPH uses an estimate
of 3.3 people per household service connection. This
means that this expansion would apply to communities of
SB 962
Page 6
a population of up to 8,250. Cities with this
population include, for example, Huron and Fowler in
Fresno County, and Atherton, Sausalito, Live Oak,
Loomis, Thousand Palms, Fairfax or Ladera Heights. In
enacting AB 2515, the Legislature and Governor
contemplated a need to help small communities reach
clean drinking water standards that do not have the
resources or staff to meet maintenance requirements
while they work with DPH to find a permanent solution.
Is it appropriate to expand this authorization to much
larger water systems?
c) Why does this bill extend the effective date of the
emergency regulations ? AB 2515 authorized DPH to adopt
emergency regulations so that small water systems could
begin to utilize these provisions quickly. However, the
emergency regulation process does not adhere to the APA
process and does not require public comment and
participation. The emergency regulations were enacted
in September 2011 and stay in effect until 2014. In the
next several years DPH should be working with
stakeholders to make amendments to the emergency
regulations and use the APA process to develop
regulations.
What is the justification for extending these emergency
regulations until 2016, which only delays the
stakeholder process?
d) Who is responsible for maintenance, upkeep and
repair ? For POU/POE systems to work as designed they
must be properly maintained and filters must be promptly
replaced. Who is inspecting all of these 2,500 POU/POE
systems and maintaining and replacing the filters? Who
is going to be responsible for the maintenance and
replacement of 2,500 filters?
e) Who is paying for the systems, the installation,
maintenance, replacement filters and inspections ?
Oversight of water systems is done by DPH or the county
environmental health jurisdictions. This bill does not
contemplate who would conduct and pay for these
SB 962
Page 7
inspections and maintenance or who would pay for the
systems and replacement filters.
f) How are contaminated filters disposed ? POU/POE
systems collect and concentrate the contaminants that
they treat.
How will these filters with concentrations of arsenic or
hexavalent chromium be disposed? Is it appropriate to
be throwing several thousands of these filters full of
contaminants in the trash every few months?
g) Is this the best solution ? If a water system is
going to pay for 2,500 POU/POE treatment systems and the
on-going maintenance on a temporary basis, shouldn't
those funds instead be directed to invest in the
permanent centralized solution?
Improving California's drinking water quality is crucially
important. As solutions for meeting drinking water
standards to protect public health are contemplated, it is
important to ensure that solutions that compromise
standards are not used. Expanded use of POU/POE treatment
devices essentially creates two classes for drinking water
in California -- those that get centralized treatment that
is monitored and accountable for meeting drinking water
standards and those that get a lower standard of quality
and accountability.
6) What are the fees paying for ? Water systems are often not
government agencies, but rather privately owned for-profit
companies collecting a fee for service. Water systems
deliver drinking water that is required to meet all
drinking water standards and collect a fee for that
service. What are these systems doing with fee revenues
while delivering water that is undrinkable and unusable and
does not meet state and federal water quality standards?
Perhaps rather than downgrading treatment standards, water
systems should be evaluated that are failing to meet their
obligation, and resources directed to on-going maintenance,
repair upgrades, and capital outlay.
7) The University of California at Davis (UC Davis) Nitrate
SB 962
Page 8
Study . Recently UC Davis released a report on the
extensive nitrate contamination in the Tulare Lake Basin
and Salinas Valley groundwater that highlights the extent
of the contamination, the primary sources, public health
and financial costs of cleaning up and treating groundwater
for drinking water amounting to billions of dollars of
damage. Should efforts be focused on preventing and
remediating ground and surface water contamination so that
the state is not faced with difficult decisions about
weakening water treatment standards in order for water
systems to afford to provide some level of treated drinking
water? Does authorizing measures like POU/POE create a
disincentive for taking the needed steps to address
contaminated water?
SOURCE : Pacific Water Quality Association
SUPPORT : Association of California Water Agencies
Boncor Water Systems
California Groundwater Association
Culligan Water Conditioning
Desert Rayne Water Conditioning
Desert Water Agency
Environmental Agua, Inc.
Living Water Fountains, Inc.
Pace Supply
Pacific Water Quality Association
Performance Water Products, Inc.
Quality Home Services, 3 employees
TST Water
Rayne of the High Desert
Rayne Water Conditioning, 5 employees
ResinTech
Regional Council of Rural Counties
UV Pure Technologies, Inc.
Water Quality Association
Water Techniques, 8 employees
OPPOSITION : California Association of Environmental Health
Administrators
Clean Water Action
SB 962
Page 9