Chromium 6 Consultant Urged

Los Angeles County should hire a consultant to determine whether chromium 6 treatment facilities are needed for county well water, the Department of Public Works said in a draft report released Tuesday.

But the county report did not call for closing wells, noting the water meets current state and federal standards and that state officials are now reviewing what the safe levels of chromium 6 should be.

“We are going through and identifying all our options in this report,” said public works spokesman Ken Pellman. “We don’t want to act rashly.”

Limiting or discontinuing use of county wells in northern Los Angeles County and replacing the water source with imported supplies could increase water rates an average of 30%, and in some areas up to 100%, the report said.

The reason is due, in part, to the need to develop new storage basins and expand distribution systems, which could cost $400 million, according to the report.

Treatment of the water to completely remove chromium 6 is also a costly option, the report said, adding that one option, an ion exchange plant, could cost the county $95 million to build and $4 million a year to operate.

The report, scheduled to be presented to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, was requested by the board last fall after tests showed 32 of 44 wells in the north county had tested positive for chromium 6, with concentrations reaching as high as 17.6 parts per billion.

Although that level falls within current state standards, the concentrations are up to 90 times the level of chromium 6 recommended by a state agency for optimum safety.

All of the wells are operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and supply drinking water to Palmdale, Lancaster, Littlerock and other communities.

In a statement, Supervisor Mike D. Antonovich said the report underscores the need for state lawmakers to pass legislation that would add chromium 6 to substances regulated by the state Department of Health Services. He also reiterated his view that the legal limit of chromium and chromium 6 should be tightened.

Currently, no standards exist for chromium 6. Instead, the state limits total chromium to 50 ppb as a means of cutting levels of chromium 6, which is a chemical byproduct of the metal.

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.

Addressing the need for tougher standards, the county report said the state Department of Health Services and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had asked the state environmental health hazard assessment agency to reconsider its public health goal of 2.5 ppb for total chromium.

But representatives of both the EPA and Department of Health Services said their agencies had made no such requests.

Also, environmental health hazard assessment agency spokesman Alan Hirsch said officials there “have not received any request from DHS or U.S. EPA to reexamine the public health goal.”

*

Although the EPA has taken no official action, its spokesman, Randy Wittorp, said federal officials believe the state’s public health goal is too stringent.

“We have publicly expressed concern about the public health goal,” he said.

Lea Brooks, a state Department of Health Services spokeswoman, said the state needs more information before determining whether the public health goal should be revised.

Hirsch said his agency is now considering whether to ask the state Scientific Review Panel, which reviews all state EPA work, to review its public health goal for chromium.