Drinking water: primary standard for hexavalent chromium: exemption.
Impact
The bill represents a significant amendment to the California Safe Drinking Water Act, which imposes various duties on the State Water Resources Control Board for overseeing public water systems. By allowing public water systems that adhere to MCL standards to avoid violations while a compliance plan is being reviewed, SB 466 aims to provide necessary flexibility to municipalities in achieving regulatory compliance over potentially complex environmental health standards. It emphasizes a procedural safeguard that could benefit many public water suppliers.
Summary
Senate Bill 466, introduced by Senator Caballero, establishes provisions regarding the regulation of drinking water standards for hexavalent chromium in California. The bill adds Section 116341 to the Health and Safety Code and aims to exempt public water systems that are implementing a state board-approved compliance plan from being deemed in violation of the primary drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium. This applies as long as the public water system meets the total chromium maximum contaminant level (MCL) standards and is awaiting state board action on its compliance plan.
Sentiment
The sentiment around SB 466 has been largely collaborative among proponents who are concerned with public health regulations regarding chromium in drinking water. Supporters argue that this exemption facilitates responsible management of water systems while helping them navigate regulatory compliance challenges without immediate penalties. However, there may be apprehension from environmental advocates and others who worry that such measures might dilute rigorous compliance standards essential for public health.
Contention
Key points of contention revolve around the balance of regulatory flexibility versus strict enforcement of health standards. While the bill aims to alleviate pressure on public water systems striving to meet compliance, critics raise concerns that it may inadvertently lead to lax enforcement or prolonged exposure to hazardous contaminants for consumers. There could be public discourse about how effectively the state board will enforce oversight and whether these exemptions might create loopholes for non-compliance.
Requires producers of plastic packaging and certain other plastic products to reduce quantity of plastic sold; restricts additional substances under "Toxic Packaging Reduction Act."