Drinking water: primary standard for hexavalent chromium: exemption.
Impact
The legislative intent behind SB 466 is to provide flexibility for public water systems facing regulatory compliance challenges associated with hexavalent chromium, a contaminant linked to various health issues. By allowing these systems to operate under an approved compliance plan without the fear of being penalized for temporary violations of hexavalent chromium standards, the bill aims to promote public health while ensuring that these systems can manage their contamination issues more effectively. This could enhance water quality management across California's public water systems.
Summary
Senate Bill No. 466, introduced by Senator Caballero, addresses the regulation of drinking water concerning hexavalent chromium. The bill adds Section 116341 to the Health and Safety Code, providing a new exemption for public water systems that meet the total chromium maximum contaminant level (MCL) set by California. Specifically, the bill states that such systems cannot be considered in violation of the primary drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium while they are implementing an approved compliance plan and during the state board's consideration of this plan.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB 466 appears largely supportive, particularly among stakeholders in the public water sector who believe it will allow them to adhere to water quality standards without facing immediate penalties. However, concerns may arise regarding the adequacy of the exemptions provided, as some environmental advocates worry that such allowances could potentially dilute the stringency of public health protections against harmful contaminants like hexavalent chromium.
Contention
Noteworthy points of contention include the ability of the State Water Resources Control Board to retain enforcement authority despite the bill's exemptions. While SB 466 enables public water systems to circumvent immediate penalties for exceedances, it does not preclude the board or the Attorney General from enforcing necessary regulations. This balances the needs of public systems with ongoing vigilance regarding compliance and public health, though it still raises questions about the effectiveness of oversight given the exemptions.