Over the last decade, advancements in analytical testing technologies have revealed new categories of previously undetectable substances now dubbed as CECs—Constituents of Emerging Concern. This ever broadening group of chemicals and microorganisms pose unprecedented technical, legal, and financial challenges; but arguably, the biggest hurdle is the lack of available information about the persistence, prevalence, or toxicity of many substances referred to as CECs. In an effort to fill those data gaps, Senator Portantino introduced Senate Bill Number 230 (SB 230) to California’s State legislature this year. The bill, which seems to enjoy wide support from water agencies, would mark the first state-wide effort to address CECs as a category.
While information has grown over the past few years, most research has focused on high-profile chemicals or chemical families. This is partially because CECs are such an immense and diverse category; any new or newly detected and unregulated substance found in California’s waters is considered a CEC. This broad definition encompasses thousands of substances from personal care products to industrial chemicals, and many lack robust toxicological information. Although experts can directly or indirectly test for some CECs in concentrations as low as parts per trillion, they are often working with numbers that currently lack context. Without knowing exactly which chemicals have been detected or the toxicity thresholds for those chemicals, scientists cannot know if their detection poses a public health risk. Further complicating matters, is the lack of a “catch-all” method or black box for testing every known and unknown CEC in the water. Instead, labs rely on public agencies including the state to release information on priority CECs, and to recommend or support use of standard methodologies for testing. When research and method development are lacking, federal agencies and the state cannot publish those guidelines.
Given the difficulties associated with CEC testing, some experts in the water industry feel that California needs a dedicated CEC program to streamline research processes and fill important data gaps. “The thing right now [is that] we’re dealing with chemicals as they come up,” said Alfred “Al” Javier, the Director of Environmental and Regulatory Compliance at Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). “We know that there are chemicals out there of concern. Well, let’s group them and make sure we have a pathway. Let’s make sure that we have a program that’s looking at [CECs], as well as [a] scientific advisory panel. These are processes that we can actually put in place to educate not only the public, but also legislation.”
Currently, California relies on federal CEC monitoring processes, particularly the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, or UCMR, to flag potential drinking water contaminants. The State Water Board (SWB) can then issue non-regulatory Notification and Response Levels as a precautionary measure for contaminants that have not yet undergone or completed the regulatory process. According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, although the SWB and other state agencies have the statutory authority to implement a state CEC program, California has lacked the dedicated staff and funding to do so.
Under the newly proposed legislation, Senate Bill 230, the SWB would have the expertise and resources necessary to coordinate a state-wide CEC investigation. Chiefly, the bill would create a SWB directed CEC Program, establish a permanent CEC Science Advisory Panel, provide a dedicated funding source, and facilitate public participation. The Panel would consist of five expert members responsible for reviewing, researching, and publishing data on CECs. These experts would work with other state agencies to create risk assessments, develop standardized testing methods, and coordinate with existing CEC-related programs. The Panel would have access to a CEC Action Fund for research, grants, and administrative costs. Importantly, the Action Fund would also provide a funding source for smaller water systems that may not have the resources to complete new CEC monitoring and testing. The bill also includes provisions concerning public participation; SB 230 mandates that the state holds periodic stakeholder meetings and public workshops to solicit information, data, and feedback. In the interest of transparency, the bill also requires the state to maintain a website that would make the research, reports, and data gathered by the CEC Program publicly available.
For the regulated community, guaranteed public participation opportunities and state transparency are significant benefits of the bill. “The website [promised in SB 230] and the accessibility to the data that this scientific advisory body is both putting forth and utilizing in their determinations is really important for the water community,” said EMWD’s Senior Legislative Program Manager, Danielle Coats. “That level of transparency and assurances really go[es] a long way towards creating mutual assurances on both sides.”
But SB 230 is not without flaws. In an analysis of the bill provided by the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, the committee notes that “for a comprehensive program approach to CECs [...] it could be useful to broaden the scope of the bill beyond just drinking water to address environmental and public health impacts more generally.” Beyond questions about the intended scope of the CEC program, the bill lacks a reliable appropriations source for the proposed CEC Action Fund. The program would cost an estimated 1 million dollars annually to fund the Advisory Panel and 450-650,000 dollars annually to administer the mandated program. Additional money would be required to fund research, grants, and CEC financial assistance. The Senate Committee on Appropriations noted that the cost of the CEC program would likely be borne by the Safe Drinking Water Account. This could, in turn, increase fees for drinking water permit holders and limit the Water Board’s ability to generate funds for other drinking water-related expenses.
In part because of these funding concerns, the bill was referred back to the Senate Committee on Appropriations in March. Although the bill is still active, it may be another year before it can be revisited. “It is [Eastern Municipal Water District’s] understanding that the sponsors intend to revisit the bill in 2022,” Coats explained, “and Eastern stands ready to support them if they do.”
Regardless of the ultimate fate of SB 230, CECs will continue to be an important topic in the water industry. As a leading state in the US for environmental issues, California’s response to CECs could provide a scientific and legislative foundation for other states and the federal government. “For both the water agency as well as the legislature, [CECs are] an important priority,” said Javier. “We want to make sure we are protecting the public as well as the environment. It is a hot topic and it should be one of the forefronts to look at because it is a concern. It’s the unknown.”
As a leading lab for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances testing, Babcock Laboratories boasts years of experience and expertise with emerging contaminants. We utilize the latest state and federal testing methods to provide our clients with quick and accurate analytical data. For more information about emerging contaminants, contact Babcock Labs.