Loss of Many Wells Feared in Pollution Fight

As worries spread about the health effects of chromium 6 in area ground water, the San Gabriel Valley will be hard hit if stricter regulations are enacted for the suspected carcinogen, water officials say.

Unlike most of Los Angeles County, the densely populated area relies heavily on an aquifer. And chromium--which usually includes its oxidized form chromium 6--has been found in a majority of wells, according to water officials.

Adoption of a new standard could shut down at least 100 out of about 180 operating wells, said Randy Schoellerman, project manager for the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. Water providers would be forced to import water, raising their costs by millions of dollars, which would be passed on to consumers.

Portions of the water table around Baldwin Park have already been shut down because of a separate threat--a toxic component of rocket fuel discovered in the area three years ago.

Now, as officeholders and state health officials discuss the idea of lowering the maximum level of chromium in drinking water by a factor of 20, water producers in the San Gabriel Valley could be facing another crisis.

On Thursday in South El Monte, Assemblyman Thomas Calderon (D-Montebello) held a hearing on the persistent pollution problem in the valley, including a panel on chromium.

Two presenters--the chief of the state’s drinking water program and the head of the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster--downplayed reports that California’s current allowable level of total chromium does not protect the public. And both said health concerns must be weighed against the cost of cleanup.

“One cancer case to every $5 million to $10 million applied to treatment is a good level for recommendation,” said David Spath, the drinking water chief at Department of Health Services. But “$200 million for one cancer case isn’t good cost-benefit balance.”

Carol Williams, executive director of the watermaster, which regulates aquifer usage among local purveyors, said she does not believe enough research has been done to justify tightening the standards so stringently.

“There’s not a lot of information indicating that it causes cancer in drinking water,” she said.

The tone of the meeting was in sharp contrast to a hearing in Burbank on Tuesday, where scientists urged state officials to move forward in tightening chromium standards and removing it from the drinking water supply. There, a UCLA toxicology professor, John Froines, said studies have shown that chromium 6 is a carcinogen when inhaled and is thus probably a carcinogen in the drinking water.

He said state health authorities should not delay in adopting the public health goal as the legal standard, which would lower the amount of allowable total chromium from 50 parts per billion to 2.5 ppb.

Waiting for new, comprehensive studies could take years.

Other scientists disagree with Froines’ premise, including toxicologists at the federal Environmental Protection Agency. “There are a number of studies that show, at least through water, it is not a carcinogen,” said Bruce Macler, drinking water toxicologist for the EPA’s Region 9.

Macler said the 32-year-old study upon which the public health goal was based is flawed and inconclusive.

In the San Gabriel Valley, many water officials complain that Hollywood is now driving public policy. They are referring to the movie, “Erin Brockovich,” which made chromium 6 a growing concern.

“There really is no known health risk for sure,” said Grace Burgess, executive director of the area’s water quality authority. “To be declaring a level that low, without all the facts in front of you, is a scary thing when you’re talking about a water supply for so many people.”

The aquifer in the region, stretching from Monterey Park to San Dimas, the San Gabriel Mountains to Whittier, serves 1.4 million people.

Currently, the total levels of chromium range from non-detected to 30 ppb in wells fed by the aquifer. While the metal appears naturally in soil, it is also a residue of industry, used in chrome plating and paint making.

The state does not yet require testing for chromium 6, but agencies have begun to do so in light of the current controversy, prompted by a Times story in August.