"What are EPA's drinking water regulations for chromium?
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to determine the level of contaminants in drinking water at which no adverse health effects are likely to occur. These non-enforceable health goals, based on possible health risks from exposure over a lifetime are called maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG).
The MCLG for total chromium is 0.1 mg/L or 100 parts per billion (ppb). EPA has set this level of protection based on the best available science at the time the rule was promulgated. EPA has set an enforceable regulation for total chromium, called a maximum contaminant level (MCL), at 0.1 mg/L or 100 ppb. MCLs are set as close to the health goals as possible, considering cost, benefits and the ability of public water systems to detect and remove contaminants using suitable treatment technologies. In this case, the MCL equals the MCLG, because analytical methods or treatment technology do not pose any limitation.
States may set more stringent drinking water MCLGs and MCLs for total chromium than EPA.
"Chromium-6 (hexavalent chromium) is currently regulated under the 50-micrograms per liter (µg/L) primary drinking water standard (maximum contaminant level, MCL} for total chromium. California's MCL for total chromium was established in 1977, when we adopted what was then a "National Interim Drinking Water Standard" for chromium. The total chromium MCL was established to address exposures to chromium-6, the more toxic form of chromium. Chromium-3 (trivalent chromium) is a required nutrient.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the same 50-µg/L standard tor total chromium, but in 1991 raised the federal MCL to 100 µg/L. California did not follow US EPA's change and stayed with its 50-µg/L standard."
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) today submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) its final proposed regulation establishing the first ever drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for hexavalent chromium (Cr VI). More than 18,000 comments were received by CDPH regarding the proposed regulation. The proposed final regulation documents include the Summary and Response to comments received.
The proposed final regulation will take effect after it has been reviewed and approved by OAL in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. This review can take up to 30 working days to complete. Once approved, the regulation is then filed with the Secretary of State and will become effective the first day of the following quarter.
“The drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium of 10 parts per billion will protect public health while taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility as required by law,” said Dr. Ron Chapman, CDPH director and state health officer.
If the regulation is approved as expected, implementation of the new drinking water standard for hexavalent chromium will begin July 1, 2014."
"PLEASE NOTE: This is the proposed final regulation. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has 30 working days to review and approve or disapprove the Department's proposed filing. CDPH anticipates that OAL will make this determination by May 30, 2014."
Chromium 6 levels are 14-16 μg/L, well above the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Public Health
Goal (PHG) of 0.02 μg/L. The Project water quality would not be
acceptable for pumping directly into the CRA without treatment. The
Final EIR must identify and analyze the environmental impacts of
constructing and operating the treatment facilities required to
introduce the Project water into the CRA.
4.9-55 The water quality analysis in part relies on faulty reasoning. The
Draft EIR assumes that “all of the water would be further treated at
the water purveyor’s treatment facilities,” however, deliveries are
made from the CRA to other groundwater basins without treatment
(e.g., Metropolitan delivers Colorado River water to Coachella
Valley Water District by releasing water for storage in groundwater
basins in the Coachella Valley).
btw Debbie, your comment regarding the delay signing new agency deals is incorrect. It is at the agencies option/discretion when they enter into an arrangement (see page 13 of 10-Q filed today), and the payment terms have been pre-defined.