Letter was sent to the State Water Board on April 27, 2023
On behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA), the American Water Works Association California-Nevada Section (CA-NV AWWA), and the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the annual ELAP update to the SWRCB. ACWA represents more than 460 public water agencies that collectively deliver approximately 90 percent of the water in California for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses. CMUA represents over 50 public water agencies that deliver drinking water to 75% of Californians. CA-NV AWWA is a scientific and educational professional society with about 4,700 members and 470 water utilities in California, collectively providing most of the state’s safe drinking water. CASA represents more than 130 local public agencies engaged in the collection, treatment, and recycling of wastewater and biosolids to protect public health and the environment. Collectively, our members comprise the vast majority of the accredited municipal labs in California, and they are increasingly concerned with the resource demand upon laboratory personnel to perform the administrative documentation which the new regulations impose without a concomitant improvement or increase to the delivery of lab services.
During the SWRCB’s 2023-24 ELAP fees workshop on March 10, 2023 and in e-mails afterward, SWRCB staff confirmed there had been a decrease of accredited state labs from 626 to 475, or nearly 25%. Given the significant change in lab population before the regulations are fully in effect, we request a listing of these labs, plus more information and analysis about the types which are not maintaining accreditation. We also want to learn about any prospective trends that SWRCB staff have identified in the provision of environmental laboratory services, including staffing restraints, capacity challenges, or delays, as well as the potential effects of new regulatory requirements for sampling PFAS, microplastics, or contaminants measured in picograms.
Further, insofar as these trends will impact ELAP fees going forward, we are concerned about how this sharp decrease in fee payers will result in increases to the remaining labs in subsequent years, i.e. a 25% decrease in the number of labs would result in a 33% increase in fees to remaining labs to fund the ELAP program to the same level. We are very concerned about this trend, and we think it would be beneficial to provide an analysis of impacts if there are further decreases using different ranges for the number of labs that possibly would drop accreditation in the coming years due to similar factors that influenced the current labs that did not maintain their accreditation.
Additionally, last year, before your 2022 report to the SWRCB on the first full year of the new regulations being in effect, we submitted the attached letter and requested for responses to be charted addressing specific topics and other information related to the implementation and transition to the new regulations. We did not receive a formal response, but again, the year-over-year tracking information in which we are interested in is listed below, and respectfully, we urge the inclusion of this information in the presentation this year and in subsequent ones:
1. The current number of ELAP staff, and their roles,
2. The number of new FOAs (fields of accreditation) added by ELAP,
3. The number of on-site assessments (OSAs) conducted by ELAP staff, and the number of assessors ELAP has available to perform OSAs,
4. The number of OSAs conducted by third-party assessors (TPAs),
5. The number of enforcement actions since the regulations were adopted,
6. The number of mentor activities for labs, and information about their transition support,
7. The number of newly accredited labs (both through TNI reciprocity and ELAP certification),
8. The number of labs that have dropped accreditation,
9. The number of labs that narrowed the scope of their accreditation by dropping tests or FOAs.
Finally, it is our understanding that most of the prior backlog for OSAs has been cleared. We want to congratulate and recognize this achievement. During the update on May 2, 2023, we would appreciate formal information about the current progress, including how many remain in the backlog, whether experiences with TPAs have been positive, and to hear and learn from SWRCB staff about their experiences performing OSAs.
We appreciate your consideration of our requests for information and the inclusion of these elements in your May 2023 update. We understand you may not be able to cover all of this in your presentation, but we still seek direct responses to our questions via correspondence or other means.
Thank you,
Sue Mosburg, CA-NV AWWA Executive Director
Nicholas Blair, ACWA, State Relations Advocate II
Andrea Abergel, CMUA, Manager of Water Policy
Jared Voskuhl, CASA, Manager of Regulatory Affairs
My Profile
