Bill on Chromium 6 Standard to Be Proposed

Frustrated by what she called the slow response of state health officials to a suspected carcinogen, state Sen. Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento) said she will introduce legislation today calling for a separate standard to limit chromium 6 in California’s drinking water.

SB 351, co-sponsored by State Sens. Martha Escutia (D-Whittier) and Jack Scott (D-Altadena), instructs the state Department of Health Services to come up with a recommended standard for chromium 6 in water by July 1, 2003, and to adopt a maximum-contaminant level beginning Jan. 1, 2004.

Ortiz said the action was prompted by the fact that chromium 6 has been singled out as a health hazard by academics and at least one state agency, yet has not been targeted by a specific drinking water standard.

“The question that we are asking is whether or not chromium 6 ingested through drinking water is a significant health risk,” Ortiz said Wednesday. “This is the beginning of asking that question.”

The state, which does not have limits for chromium 6, currently allows a maximum of 50 parts per billion of chromium in drinking water. That standard assumes that chromium 6 makes up about 7.2% of any chromium sample--a percentage that statewide testing has revealed is too low.

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has called for a goal of 2.5 ppb for total chromium, which officials say would reduce chromium 6 concentrations to 0.2 ppb. But final say for either a chromium or chromium 6 standard is up to the state Department of Health Services.

The department’s drinking water chief, David Spath, said he had not seen the legislation and could not comment on it. However, he said, his agency has discussed the possibility of regulating chromium 6 in light of initial testing that showed it makes up a far higher percentage of total chromium than previously believed.

“We said that we were going to look at occurrence data and that we would then make a decision whether we want to regulate total chromium or regulate chromium 6 independently,” Spath said.

But Ortiz said enough evidence exists to show that the agency should be more concerned about the problem and should begin laying the groundwork for a separate chromium 6 standard now.