Taking on Mother Nature and More

Report
“The Wild, Wild West –
Taking on Mother Nature and More”
Jack Hawks
NARUC Committee on Water
July 15, 2014
Dallas, TX
Working together.
Achieving results.
California Update
• Hollywood and Maximum Contaminant
Levels (water quality regulatory standard)
• A New Hexavalent Chromium MCL,
Effective July 1st
• The Drought: Unrelenting Pressure
 How Water Utilities Are Responding
 New Emergency Drought Regulations
• 115 Regulated IOWCs
 9 Class A water utilities (>
10,000 connections)
 5 Class B water utilities (>2,000)
 24 Class C water utilities (> 500)
 77 Class D water utilities (< 500)
• 1.5 Million Customers
• $1.4 billion annual
revenues
• 6 Million Served
Hollywood and Water Contamination
• A Civil Action (1996 – John Travolta)
 Trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination of the
town's water supply (Woburn, MA)
 Financial settlement ($68 million) for town’s
residents
• Erin Brockovich (2000 – Julia Roberts)
 Hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) contamination in
Hinkley, CA
 PG&E financial settlement ($333 million) for
town’s residents
 Much agitation in California State Legislature
Hexavalent Chromium (Cr+6) - What a
Long Strange Trip It’s Been
What Is It?
• Chromium is a naturally occurring element in rocks,
animals, plants, soil; occurs predominantly as
 Trivalent chromium (Cr+3), essential to normal glucose,
protein, and fat metabolism and thus an essential dietary
element for humans
 Hexavalent chromium (Cr+6), used in making stainless
steel, textile dyes, wood preservation, and for anticorrosion, treatment of cooling tower water
• Human body reduces Cr+6 to Cr+3
• USEPA has classified Cr+6 as a human carcinogen
when inhaled because of results from animal studies
A Little History
• 1977 - MCL established by USEPA and adopted by
California at 50 parts per billion for Total Chromium
(includes both Cr+6 and Cr+3); 1 ppb = about 1 drop of
water in 250 chemical drums (3 seconds out of 100 yrs.)
• 1991 - USEPA raised federal MCL to 100 ppb
• 2000 – Julia Roberts wins Oscar for ‘Erin Brockovich’;
Prompts California legislature to force MCL development
• 2000 – City of Glendale begins treatment studies for Cr+6
• 2001 – California water utilities begin monitoring for Cr+6
under California UCMR
A Little More History
• March 2001 – CDHP requests that OEHHA prepare a
Public Health Goal for Cr+6
• May 2001 – National Toxicology Program (NTP)
announces intent to conduct a long-term animal study
to evaluate carcinogenicity of ingested Cr+6
• October 2001 – SB 351 is signed by the Governor,
requiring CDHP to adopt a Cr+6 MCL by 1/1/2004
• November 2001 – OEHHA announces intent to
develop a Cr+6 PHG
• 2004 – Water Research Foundation publishes three
Cr+6 reports
Still More History
• 2007 – NTP reports there to be sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in rodents
• August 2009 – OEHHA releases draft PHG at 60 ng/L (parts
per trillion; 1 ppt = 1 drop in 20 Olympic-sized pools)
• 2010 – USEPA announces in second Six-year Review of
existing standards, no revision to Total Chromium MCL
• September 2010 – External review draft of USEPA’s IRIS
Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium
• December 2010 – OEHHA releases revised draft PHG for Cr+6
at 20 ng/L (20 ppt)
Even More History
• December 2010 – Environmental Working
Group releases report: Chromium-6 is
Widespread in US Tap Water
 Tested tap water in 35 cities
 Range of positive tests: 30 ppt to 13 ppb
 Cites WaterRF 2004 occurrence study
• April 3, 2011 – EWG press release: “Utilities
Knew of Chrome-6 Contamination For
Years”
Final PHG in California
• July 2011 – OEHHA finalizes the
PHG for Cr+6 at 20 ppt
• CDPH can now finally start working
on developing an MCL required by
SB 351
• It is now seven and one-half years
since the SB 351 deadline
Water Research Foundation
Keeps Science Moving Forward
Project #
Project Title
(2011 – 2012)
4365
Feasibility of Microfiltration in the RCF Process for Hexavalent Chromium
Removal
4404
Trace Level Chromium-6 Occurrence and Analysis: Reviewing and
Testing the State of the Science
4414
Total and Hexavalent Chromium Occurrence Analysis
4418
Guidelines for Hexavalent Chromium Treatment Testing
4423
Assessment of Single-Pass Ion Exchange and Adsorptive Media for
Hexavalent Chromium Removal from Drinking Water
WITAF 320/
4432
National implications of Community-level Cost for a Theoretical Cr(VI)
SDWA Standard
4445
Development of a Uniform Approach to Prepare Drinking Water Hex
Chrome Compliance Plans
4449
Sources, Fate & Treatment of Hexavalent Chromium
Environmental Groups File Suit
• July 18, 2013 – NRDC, EWG file suit
in Superior Court to force CDPH to
propose and finalize a MCL for Cr+6
• Court rules in plaintiffs’ favor and
requires CDPH to propose an MCL by
August 31, 2013
History in the Making
• 8/23/2013: CDPH Proposes Cr+6 MCL at 10 ppb
• Water Industry Comments Due 10/13/2013
• AWWA CA-NV Section/CWA/ACWA
 Coordinate comments
 Hire two expert engineering firms to analyze the
CDPH supporting evidence and produce technical
documents
• Bottom Line: CDPH Vastly Underestimates
Incidence, Compliance Costs of Cr+6
History in the Making
• 20,000 comments received by CDPH
 About 250 were “significantly distinct”
 Remaining were form emails or post cards
• California Administrative Procedure Act allows up to one
year to finalize a regulation (i.e., 8/23/2014)
• December 17, 2013
• Court finds in favor of NRDC/EWG and orders CDPH to finalize
MCL by April 15, 2014
• If there are substantial changes to the rule, must finalize by June
15, 2014 and allow an additional 15-day comment period
History Made
•
•
•
•
CDPH refutes, dismisses most comments
Reiterates MCL of 10 ppb
New MCL went into effect on July 1, 2014
Where is USEPA on all this?
 Not enough evidence in second six-year review
(2010) to warrant a federal Cr+6 MCL, nor change
the total chromium MCL
 USEPA will await occurrence data on total chromium
and Cr+6 under UCMR 3 (thru 2015)
 Continued IRIS review of Cr+6
 No decision on Cr+6 anytime soon
Impact of New MCL
• For customers in affected service areas
 Statewide capital costs - $4.1 billion
 Annual O&M - $231 million
• Cal Water most affected of California IOUs
 25 wells affected at 10 ppb
 Capital costs up to $66 million, O&M up to $11
million/yr
• All affected water utilities, agencies,
municipalities, districts struggling with
compressed compliance time frame
Regulatory Response
• Memorandum Account Effective on July 1
 Cal Water can apply for cost recovery in future
 Not an automatic process
• Willows District Case History (2,610 customers)




Tested in 2011-12; CR+6 levels averaged 16 ppb
Total chromium averaged 24 ppb (vs. 50 ppb MCL)
Capital costs – up to $17.3 million; O&M $360,000/yr
Staggering treatment, selection of SBA, other cost
reductions, etc. will reduce bill impacts
 Cal Water estimates impact from $63/month to
$111/month
Drought Update
U.S. Drought Monitor
California – 7/8/14
• 100% of California in
drought for first time
in recorded history
• 78% likelihood of El
Nino prediction in fall
2014 … But …
• El Nino years do not
guarantee aboveaverage precipitation.
• A scary fire season
California Used to Extremes
Folsom Reservoir, July 20, 2011 97% Capacity
Folsom Reservoir, January 16, 2014 17% Capacity
2013 Redefined “Dry” in California
January 18, 2013
January 18, 2014
California Precipitation
• Variable & Extreme
Over Time & Location
• Most Occurs Nov.- March
California Statewide Precipitation
SOURCE: http://education.usgs.gov/california/resources.html#water
Snow Water Content
• 6/9/14 Statewide Average - 0%
• Means major reservoirs will not
be replenished
• Means reliance on groundwater
has increase to 65+% from 38%
• Means falling groundwater
levels, land subsidence, lower
GW storage capacity, water
quality degradation
North Sierra/Trinity 0%
0%
Central Sierra 0%
0%
0%
South Sierra 0%
CA Reservoir
Storage
July 8, 2014
Current Water Supplier Restrictions*
• Mandatory: 62 water suppliers
• Includes 6 rationing
• Voluntary: 154 water suppliers
• Drought impacts are strongly tied to
local and regional water supply
conditions
* As of July 7, 2014, compiled by DWR
The State’s Response
2014
• Governor proclaims
•
•
2013
• California Water Plan Update 2013 (draft)
• Governor establishes Drought Task Force
•
Drought Emergency
on Jan. 17
California Water
Action Plan released
Drought Legislation:
SB 103/104
Governor issues
Executive Order April
25 to re-double
drought efforts
Governor’s April 25 Proclamation
Highlights
• Facilitate water transfers and exchanges
• Urban water suppliers directed to address outdoor water use
• Californians directed to eliminate water waste
 Limit outdoor watering; irrigation, washing hard surfaces, car
washing; commercial establishments
• Homeowner association rules voided
• Assist with temporary interconnections between water
systems
• Protect threatened and endangered species
• CEQA / Water Code sections suspended to speed up actions,
including water transfers
CPUC’s Regulatory Response
• February 27, 2014 – CPUC adopted Res. W-4976
 Drought procedures for water conservation, rationing and
service connection moratoria
 Comply with Governor’s call for 20% voluntary conservation
• Tariff Rule No. 14.1
 Water Conservation and Rationing Plan
 Lists non-essential and unauthorized water uses
• Tariff Schedule 14.1
 Mandatory rationing
 Requires DWA approval
• All Class A and B utilities have Rule 14.1 in place
• CPUC monitoring vulnerable systems
Tariff Rule 14.1 Highlights
• Voluntary Conservation Plan
• Customers Notified by Bill Insert or Direct
Mailing
• Option to Request Activation of Staged
Mandatory Rationing (Schedule 14.1)
• Small Utilities (< 2,000 connections) Shall
Make Conservation Kits Available
• Section A of Rule: Non-Essential Uses
Non-Essential, Unauthorized Water Use
•
•
•
•
•
Anything more than “minimal” landscaping
“Excessive” water use (per utility notification)
Potable water in gutters, streets
Private car washing (except w/shut-off nozzle)
Washing buildings, driveways, patios, etc.,
w/potable water
• Use of potable water for lawns, gardens, etc.,
other than drip irrigation or hand watering on
specific schedules
• Use of potable water for construction purposes,
dust control, etc., if other sources available
Non-Essential, Unauthorized Water Use
• Use of potable water for street cleaning
• Operation of commercial car washes unless 50%
recycling per cycle
• Use of potable water for outside plants, lawn,
landscape, turf during certain hours
• Use of potable water for decorative fountains, unless
recycled water used
• Use of potable water for filling/refilling swimming pools
• Water service in restaurants, unless requested
• Use of potable water to flush hydrants, except when
required for public safety
Schedule 14.1 - Rationing
• Utility makes decision on whether more stringent
measures are required
• Must file w/CPUC to activate staged mandatory
rationing measures in Rule 14.1
• Filing conditioned on:
 Declaration of Mandatory Rationing – can be made by utility
or governing agency (e.g., State Water Board)
 Whether utility is unable to address voluntary conservation
levels set by itself, its supplier or governing agency
 Whether utility chooses to subsequently activate a different
stage
• Utility may not activate Schedule 14.1 unless
•
authorized by CPUC
Customer notification, public hearing required
Schedule 14.1: Enforcement
• Utility may charge a water use violation fine
if non-essential/unauthorized use is
observed (min. 3 Ccf/person/ month)
• After one written warning, utility can install
flow-restricting device
• All monies collected via fines or penalties
will be used to offset lost revenues
Recovery of Lost Revenues
• Utilities w/partial decoupling WRAMs
 Can file for memorandum (tracking) accounts to
track expenses, monies collected and lost revenues
– can letter request recovery of the net balance, but
… they must subtract amount equal to 20bp
reduction in current authorized ROE – even then,
recovery cannot exceed authorized ROR
• Utilities w/full decoupling WRAMs
 Can file for memo account that only tracks
expenses incurred and monies collected, since
WRAM already protects for lost revenues
New Emergency Regulations
• Issued by State Water Resources Control Board July 8;
approval on July 15th
• Mandatory conservation actions, monthly data collection of
water production, temporary water restrictions – prohibits:
 The direct application of water to any hard surface for washing.
 Watering of outdoor landscapes that cause runoff to adjacent
property, walkways, roadways, parking lots, etc.
 Using hose to wash automobiles, unless fitted with shut-off nozzle.
 Using potable water in a fountain or decorative water feature,
unless the water is recirculated.
• Violations punishable by fines of $500 per day; any
employee of a public agency may write and issue a ticket
to a violator – raises all sorts of “water police” questions
New Emergency Regulations
• State Board Chair Felicia Marcus has stated that
new regs don’t apply to CPUC-regulated water
utilities, but CPUC may well adopt them
• CWA’s July 14 comments note that Rule and
Schedule 14.1 constitute drought management
response
• Water IOUs will continue to work with the CPUC to
coordinate their existing drought response plans
and programs with the State Board’s new
regulations
Questions?
Thank You
Jack Hawks
California Water Association
[email protected]
415.561.9650

similar documents