![]() “We would all much prefer to be at a better protective level.But the costs do impose a really high burden at the lower levels." Darrin Polhemus, State Water Resources Control Board This is nothing more than regulatory lip service.” “That makes it all the more disgraceful that the State Water Board is proposing a drinking water standard that will not protect the California public. “Water systems have had over twenty years to invest in appropriate treatment while communities have faced tragedy and the health cost burdens because of this chemical,” Brockovich, an activist who was instrumental in the 1996 Hinkley settlement, said in a statement today. But in 2017, a judge overturned it, ruling that state regulators had failed to consider whether the rule would be economically feasible. It’s happened before: In 2014, California set a short-lived standard of 10 parts per billion. The limit is likely to be tested in court. So, I wish there was a different scenario to paint.” “But the costs do impose a really high burden at the lower (standard) levels, and just couldn't strike that balance there. “I think we would all much prefer to be at a better protective level than one in 2,000 cancer cases,” said Darrin Polhemus, deputy director of the division of drinking water with the State Water Resources Control Board. The water board’s proposal would pose a much higher risk - one cancer among every 2,000 people over a lifetime, according to the state’s risk assessment. The amount was chosen because it poses a negligible, one-in-a-million lifetime cancer risk that is generally considered acceptable for environmental contaminants. In 2011, California scientists set a non-enforceable public health goal for hexavalent chromium that is much more stringent than today’s proposal - 0.02 parts per billion. Mice and rats are routinely given large doses to extrapolate the cancer risk to a larger human population that lives longer. In addition, California state scientists who analyzed the scientific literature reported increased stomach cancer risk among people who work with hexavalent chromium.Ĭhemical industry representatives have criticized the studies, saying the rodents were drinking levels much higher than people are exposed to. The proposed standard is "not terrible, but it's not acceptable.The most acceptable level is none." Max Costa, NYU School of Medicineīut in 2008, National Toxicology Program studies showed rats and mice that drank high doses of hexavalent chromium for two years developed oral and intestinal cancers. (Inhaling it has been a well-documented cause of lung cancer for workers for several decades.) Until recently, the science was mixed on whether hexavalent chromium causes cancer when ingested, rather than inhaled. ![]() An official drinking water standard is expected to be finalized in early 2024. Today’s proposal is a draft, released to solicit public comment before officially starting the regulatory process, which could begin by late summer. Under state law, the state must balance the health risk and the financial cost when setting drinking water standards. But it’s also 500 times greater than the amount California’s scientists deem a negligible cancer risk over a lifetime. It’s a minute amount, equivalent to about 10 drops of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. Under the water board’s proposal, 10 parts per billion would be the maximum allowable amount in drinking water. Costa was an expert witness for residents in the Erin Brockovich case. When it comes to hexavalent chromium in drinking water, he said, “The most acceptable level is none.” “It’s not terrible, but it’s not acceptable,” Max Costa, professor and chair of environmental medicine at NYU School of Medicine, said of California’s proposal. Water suppliers say the proposed standard will lead to substantially higher monthly rates for many residents, while public health experts and environmental advocates criticize it as not protective enough of people’s health. Residents of the low-income, mostly Latino city of Los Banos, for instance, are drinking water that contains three times more than the proposed standard would allow. The highest levels were reported in parts of Ventura, Los Angeles, Yolo, Merced and Riverside counties. ![]() Several hundred drinking water wells throughout the state exceed the State Water Resources Control Board’s proposed standard of 10 parts per billion. The highest levels are reported in parts of Ventura, Los Angeles, Yolo, Merced and Riverside counties. Once finalized, the standard would be a first in the nation to specifically target hexavalent chromium. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |