HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - November 15, 2016 B-14 PH/SMCITY OF LODI
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA ITEM
8-14
TM
AGENDA TITLE: Reset Public Hearing to December 21, 2016, to Receive Comments on and
Consider Accepting City of Lodi's Report on Water Quality Relative to Public
Health Goals
MEETING DATE: November 15, 2016
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Reset Public Hearing to December 21, 2016, to receive comments
on and consider accepting City of Lodi's report on water quality
relative to public health goals.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Public Health Goals Report is prepared by Public Works staff
comparing Lodi's drinking water with California Environmental
Protection Agency's (Cal EPA) public health goals (PHGs) and with
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs).
PHGs and MCLGs are not enforceable standards and no action to meet them is required.
California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 116470, mandates a Public Health Goals Report be
prepared every three years. The report is intended to provide water quality information to the public in
addition to the Annual Water Quality Report, which the City mails to each customer by July of each year.
On Saturday, October 22, 2016, a public notice appeared in the Lodi News Sentinel informing any
interested party of the Draft Public Health Goals Report's availability. The draft report has also been
made available on the City's website. The law requires a public hearing be held (which can be part of a
regularly scheduled public meeting) for the purpose of accepting and responding to public comment on
the draft report.
The City's water system complies with all of the health -based drinking water standards and maximum
contaminant levels as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water
(formally California Department of Public Health, 2014) and the US EPA. No additional actions are
required or recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable.
CAS25) A�%
Charles E. Swimley, Jr.
Public Works Director
Prepared by Andrew Richle, Water Plant Superintendent — Public Works
CES/AR/jr
Attachment
APPROVED:
Stephen Schwabau
y Manager
R:\GROUP\WWW\SWTF\REPORTS\PHG REPORTS\2016 PHG Report\CC PH PHG 2016.doc 11/3/16
STA
REL
FF REPORT ON WATER QUALITY
TIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
014
2013-2015
City of Lodi
Public Works Department
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Table of Contents
BACKGROUND 1
PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS 1
CITY OF LODI WATER SOURCES 1
WATER QUALITY DATA CONSIDERED 2
GUIDELINES FOLLOWED 2
BEST AVAILABLE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY AND COST ESTIMATES 2
CONTAMINANTS DETECTED THAT EXCEED A PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL OR MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT
LEVEL GOAL 3
Arsenic 3
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 4
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) 5
Tetrachloroethylene 6
1,2,3-Trichloropropane 7
Hexavalent Chromium 8
Uranium 9
Gross Alpha Particle Activity 10
Copper 11
Total Coliform (Informational Purposes Only) 12
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION 13
List of Abbreviations 14
Attachments
ATTACHMENT 1: MCLS, DLRS, AND PHGS FOR REGULATED DRINKING WATER CONTAMINANTS
ATTACHMENT 2: COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
ATTACHMENT 3: HEALTH RISK INFORMATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL EXCEEDANCE REPORTS
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 1 of 14
BACKGROUND
Provisions of the California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b) require that larger
(>10,000 service connections) water utilities prepare a special report every three years if their
water quality measurements have exceeded any Public Health Goals (PHGs). PHGs are
non -enforceable goals established by the California Environmental Protection Agency's (Cal -
EPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The law also requires
that where OEHHA has not adopted a PHG for a constituent, the water suppliers are to use
the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) adopted by United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA). Only constituents which have a California primary drinking water
standard and for which either a PHG or MCLG has been set are to be addressed.
This report provides the following information as specified in the California Health and Safety
Code Section 116470(b) for any contaminant detected in the City's water supply between
2013 and 2015 at a level exceeding a PHG or MCLG.
• Numerical public health risk associated with the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL),
and the PHG and MCLG;
• Category or type of risk to health that could be associated with each contaminant
level;
• Best Available Treatment Technology (BAT) that could be used to reduce the
contaminant level; and
• Estimate of the cost to install that treatment.
PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
PHGs are set by the OEHHA, which is part of Cal -EPA, and are based solely on public health
risk considerations. None of the practical risk -management factors that are considered by
the USEPA or the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water
(DDW), formally the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), in setting drinking water
standards (MCLs) are considered in setting the PHGs. These factors include analytical
detection capability, treatment technology available, benefits and costs. The PHGs are not
enforceable and are not required to be met by any public water system. MCLGs are the
federal equivalent to PHGs. Attachment 1 lists the regulated contaminates for which PHGs
and MCLGs have been set.
CITY OF LODI WATER SOURCES
The majority of the City of Lodi's drinking water consists of groundwater sources (Twenty-
eight wells). Approximately, 64 percent of the water supplied to our customers originates from
wells owned by the City. The remaining 36 percent is treated surface water produced through
the Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF). Water is diverted from the Mokelumne River
(purchased from Woodbridge Irrigation District).
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 2 of 14
WATER QUALITY DATA CONSIDERED
All of the water quality data collected by our water system between 2013 and 2015 for
purposes of determining compliance with drinking water standards was considered. This
data was summarized in our 2013, 2014, and 2015 Annual Water Quality Reports which were
mailed to all customers before July 1st each year.
GUIDELINES FOLLOWED
The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) formed a workgroup which prepared
guidelines for water utilities to use in preparing these required reports. The ACWA guidelines
were used in the preparation of our report.
BEST AVAILABLE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY AND COST ESTIMATES
Treatment cost estimates for constituents listed are derived from the "Cost Estimates for
Treatment Technologies" (included as Attachment 2) that were included as part of the ACWA
guidance. Where provided, treatment costs are calculated using the information in
Attachment 2 and each source's production from 2015. Water production for each source can
vary dramatically from year to year so the treatment cost associated with these estimates
could also vary significantly. The estimates for specific treatment technologies do not include
other factors such as permitting and waste disposal. Furthermore, before any treatment
system is approved by DDW, the City is required to conduct a California Environmental
Quality Act (also known as CEQA) review to assess potential environmental impacts that may
be related to the project. The results of that assessment could add significant costs to
mitigate potential concerns, or could preclude using a specific treatment technology
altogether. Waste disposal costs associated with various treatment technologies vary widely.
Some waste disposal costs are known and can be estimated as part of the routine operations
and maintenance of the system. Others requiring direct discharge to the sanitary sewer or
hauling of potentially hazardous waste would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 3 of 14
CONTAMINANTS DETECTED THAT EXCEED A PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL OR
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL GOAL
The following is a discussion of constituents that were detected in one or more of our drinking
water sources at levels above the PHG, or if no PHG, above the MCLG: Arsenic,
Trichloroethylene (TCE), Dibromochloropropane (DBCP), Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (1,2,3 -TCP), Hexavalent Chromium, Uranium, Gross Alpha Particle Activity
and Copper. This report only provides information on contaminants that were found in the
City's drinking water system to have exceeded an established PHG or MCLG. The City of
Lodi consistently delivers safe water at the lowest possible cost to our customers. The levels
of these contaminants were below the MCLs, so they do not constitute a violation of drinking
water regulations or indicate the water is unsafe to drink. These results could be considered
typical for a Northern California water agency. The health risk information for regulated
contaminants with PHGs is discussed in this report and also provided in Attachment 3.
Arsenic
Arsenic (As) is a naturally occurring element in the earth's crust and is very widely distributed
in the environment. In general, humans are exposed to microgram (pg) quantities of As
(inorganic and organic) largely from food (25 to 50 pg per day) and to a lesser degree from
drinking water and air. Arsenic is used in industry as a component in wood preservatives,
pesticides, paints, dyes, and semi -conductors. In most areas, erosion of rocks and minerals is
considered to be the primary source of As in groundwater. Environmental contamination may
result from anthropogenic sources such as: urban runoff, treated wood, pesticides, fly ash
from power plants, smelting and mining wastes.
The MCL for As is 10 parts per billion (ppb) with a corresponding PHG of 0.004 ppb.
OEHHA's April 2004, fact sheet: "Public Health Goal for Arsenic" summarizes the non -
carcinogenic and carcinogenic health effects observed from studies involving drinking water
with high levels of As. Studies cited have associated chronic intake of As in drinking water
with the following non -carcinogenic health effects including: heart attack, stroke, diabetes
mellitus, and hypertension. Other effects also include decreased production of erythrocytes
and leukocytes, abnormal cardiac function, blood vessel damage, liver and/or kidney
damage, and impaired nerve function in hands and feet (paresthesia). Characteristic skin
abnormalities are also seen appearing as dark or light spots on the skin and small "corns" on
the palms, soles, and trunk. Some of the corns may ultimately progress to skin cancer.
Carcinogenic health effects involve an increased risk of cancer at internal sites, especially
lung, urinary bladder, kidney, and liver. The health effects language in Appendix 64465-D of
Title 22, California Code of Regulations states: "Some people who drink water containing
arsenic in excess of the MCL over many years may experience skin damage or circulatory
system problems, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer." The numerical health
(cancer) risk for drinking water with As at the MCL is 2.5 in 1,000. The numerical health
(cancer) risk for drinking water with As at the PHG is 1 in 1,000,000.
Arsenic levels in all City sources of supply are well below the regulatory standard.
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 4 of 14
Because the Detectable Level Required (DLR) for As is 2 ppb, the City is limited in its ability
to report the presence of As only down to that level. As such, any As that may be present in
sources at levels between the 0.004 ppb PHG and the 2 ppb DLR is unknown and not
considered in this report. Water quality data for City sources from 2013-2015 show that As
was detected in 26 City wells below the MCL (2.1 to 8.9 ppb). Two of the City wells are off-
line and scheduled for rehabilitation; therefore, they are not included in the following
treatment discussion. There has been no detection for As in the surface water supply.
The Best Available Technology (BAT) for arsenic removal is dependent on the water
chemistry of the source to be treated. While research into new methods of removing arsenic
continues, the current recommendations include:
• Activated Alumina
• Coagulation / Filtration
• Electrodialysis
• Ion Exchange
• Lime Softening
• Oxidation Filtration
• Reverse Osmosis
Since As levels in City's wells showing the presence of As are already below the MCL,
reverse osmosis (RO) would likely be required to effectively decrease the amount of As
present. The cost estimates for RO is $3.92 to $6.65 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. If RO
treatment were considered for the 26 wells discussed above, the annualized capital and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs could range from approximately $8.9 million to
$15.1 million per year. That would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer
ranging from $337.81 to $573.07 per year.
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a volatile organic compound that has been extensively used as a
metal degreaser, a solvent in adhesives, textile manufacturing, paint stripping, and dry
cleaning, etc. During industrial use, TCE's high vapor pressure allows a significant quantity of
it to volatilize into the atmosphere. As a result of its widespread use and inadequate handling
and disposal practices, TCE has become a common environmental contaminant. TCE has
the most frequently exceeded drinking water MCL for a regulated organic compound in
California.
The MCL for TCE is 5 ppb with a corresponding PHG of 1.7 ppb. In general, the following
health effects discussion does not pertain to the low levels of TCE typically found in drinking
water. OEHHA's July 2009 technical support report, "Public Health Goals for Chemicals in
Drinking Water; Trichloroethylene" summarizes the health effects observed from studies
involving human exposure to high levels of TCE. Because of TCE's widespread use and
environmental contamination, the health effects on humans have been widely studied. Non -
carcinogenic effects include: immediate symptomatic responses (headache, vomiting, loss of
consciousness, etc.), cardiotoxicity, renal damage, hepatotoxicity, and many others. TCE is
also associated with the following types of cancers: kidney, liver, cervix, lymphatic system.
The health effects language in Appendix 64465-E of Title 22, California Code of Regulations
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 5 of 14
states: "Some people who use water containing trichloroethylene in excess of the MCL over
many years may experience liver problems and may have an increased risk of getting
cancer." The numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking water with TCE at the MCL is 3 in
1,000,000. The numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking water with TCE at the PHG is 1 in
1,000,000.
TCE levels in all City sources of supply are below the regulatory standard. Because the DLR
for TCE is 0.5 ppb and the PHG is 1.7 ppb, the City is able to report concentrations of TCE
below the PHG. Water quality data for City sources from 2013-2015 shows that TCE has
been detected in two City wells. Levels of TCE in the three wells range from 0.5 to 2.0 ppb.
There has been no detection for TCE in the surface water supply.
The approved BATs for treating TCE include the following treatment techniques:
1. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)
2. Packed Tower Aeration
One of the three wells above the PHG for TCE is already equipped with GAC. To treat TCE
below the PHG a more frequent GAC change -out would be required and the cost impact
would be difficult to determine. If GAC were selected as the BAT to further reduce TCE in the
additional two city wells (discussed above) to levels below the DLR, the cost would be
estimated at $1.46 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. The annualized capital and O&M costs
could range from approximately $178,000 per year. That would result in an assumed
increased cost for each customer at $6.77 per year.
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)
DBCP is a dense yellow organic liquid used as a nematocide (pesticide), but currently
banned, that has remained in soils due to runoff or leaching from previous use on vegetables,
soybeans, cotton, vineyards, and tree fruit.
The MCL or drinking water standard for DBCP is 200 parts per trillion (ppt). The PHG for
DBCP is 1.7 ppt. The City detected DBCP at levels not exceeding the MCL in the discharges
from 13 of Lodi's 26 City wells used in 2013-2015. Levels of DBCP in the 13 wells range
from 10 to 200 ppt. There has been no detection for DBCP in the surface water supply. The
levels of DBCP were well below the MCLs, so they do not constitute a violation of drinking
water regulations. In June 2014, City Well No. 6R was placed in service following the addition
of Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) vessels for treatment. This treatment was funded by
Lodi's settlement agreement with DBCP manufacturers. Currently seven City Wells are
equipped with GAC to treat DBCP at levels above the MCL. Two of the City wells are off-line
and scheduled for rehabilitation; therefore, they are not included in the following treatment
discussion.
The BATs for DBCP to lower the level below the MCL is GAC. To attempt to maintain the
DBCP levels to below the DLR (10 ppt), GAC Treatment Systems with longer empty bed
contact times and more frequent carbon change -outs would likely be required. The health
effects language in Appendix 64465-E of Title 22, California Code of Regulations states:
"Some people who use water containing DBCP in excess of the MCL over many years may
experience reproductive difficulties and may have an increased risk of getting cancer." The
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 6 of 14
numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking water with DBCP at the MCL is 1 in 10,000. The
numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking water with DBCP at the PHG is 1 in 1,000,000.
The approved BATs for treating DBCP include the following treatment techniques:
1. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)
2. Packed Tower Aeration
As mentioned above, seven of the thirteen wells above the PHG for DBCP are already
equipped with GAC. To treat DBCP below the PHG a more frequent GAC change -out would
be required and the cost impact would be difficult to determine. If GAC were selected as the
BAT to further reduce DBCP in the additional six City wells (discussed above) to levels below
the DLR of 10 ppt, the cost would be estimated at $ 0.48 per 1,000 gallons of water treated.
The annualized capital and O&M costs would be approximately $180,000 per year. That
would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer of $10.60 per year. (Note: this
increase cost may not be reimbursable under the terms of Lodi's settlement agreement with
DBCP manufacturers.)
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene (PCE), is primarily used as a chemical
intermediate for the production of chlorofluorocarbons and as a solvent used in cleaning
operations (metal cleaning, vapor degreasing, and dry cleaning). PCE has also been used in
electric transformers as an insulating fluid and cooling gas. In addition, numerous household
products contain some level of PCE. The high volatility of PCE results in a high potential for
release into the environment during use. As a result of its widespread use and inadequate
handling and disposal practices, PCE has become a common environmental contaminant.
The MCL for PCE is 5 ppb with a corresponding PHG of 0.06 ppb. OEHHA's August 2001,
"Public Health Goal for Tetrachloroethylene in Drinking Water" summarizes the health effects
observed from studies involving human exposure to high levels of PCE. Non -carcinogenic
health effects include: kidney disease, developmental and reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity
and genetic mutations. Also, the same immediate symptomatic responses associated with
exposure to high levels of PCE may occur. Carcinogenic health effects include: kidney, liver,
cervix, and lymphatic system cancers. Due to the low levels typically involved, exposures to
PCE in drinking water are not expected to result in any acute health effects. Exposure from
drinking water can be in the form of household airborne exposures from showering, flushing
of toilets, and other contact with water. PCE is readily absorbed through the lungs and
gastrointestinal tract, and to a lesser extent it can be absorbed through the skin. The health
effects language in Appendix 64465-E of Title 22, California Code of Regulations states:
"Some people who use water containing tetrachloroethylene in excess of the MCL over many
years may experience liver problems, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer." The
numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking water with PCE at the MCL is 8 in 100,000. The
numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking water with PCE at the PHG is 1 in 1,000,000.
PCE levels in all City sources of supply are well below the regulatory standard. Because the
DLR for PCE is 0.5 ppb, the City is limited in its ability to report the presence of PCE only
down to that level. As such, any PCE that may be present in sources at levels between the
0.06 ppb PHG and the 0.5 ppb DLR is unknown and not considered in this report. Water
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 7 of 14
quality data for City sources from 2013-2015 shows that PCE has been detected in three City
wells over the PHG. Levels of PCE in the City wells range from 0.5 to 2.1 ppb. There has
been no detection for PCE in the surface water supply.
The approved BATs for treating PCE include the following treatment techniques:
1. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)
2. Packed Tower Aeration
One of the three wells above the PHG for PCE is already equipped with GAC. To treat PCE
below the PHG a more frequent GAC change -out would be required and the cost impact
would be difficult to determine. If GAC were selected as the BAT to further reduce PCE in the
additional two city wells (discussed above) to levels below the DLR, the cost could range from
$ 0.26 to $1.46 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. The annualized capital and O&M costs
could range from approximately $21,000 to $119,000 per year. That would result in an
assumed increased cost for each customer ranging from $0.80 to $4.50 per year.
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3 -TCP) is a manmade chlorinated hydrocarbon that is typically
found at industrial or hazardous waste sites and has been used as a cleaning and degreasing
solvent. 1,2,3 -TCP is also associated with pesticide products formulated with
dichloropropanes in the manufacturing of soil fumigants (nematicide) D -D, (no longer
available in the United States) which does not attach to soil particles and may move into
groundwater aquifers.
The PHG for 1,2,3 -TCP is 0.0007 micrograms per liter (ppb or parts per billion). 1,2,3 -TCP is
an unregulated chemical currently without a California or Federal Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) for 1,2,3 -TCP. The California Notification Level for 1,2,3 -TCP is set at 0.005 ppb,
the detection limit for the purposes of reporting Detectable Level Required (DLR).
Notification levels are health -based advisory levels established by OEHHA for chemicals in
drinking water that lack MCLs. OEHHA advises "If a chemical concentration is greater than its
notification level in drinking water that is provided to consumers, OEHHA recommends that
the utility inform its customers and consumers about the presence of the chemical, and about
health concerns associated with exposure to it". 1,2,3 -TCP was sampled in 2013 as part of
the Unregulated Containments Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR3). UCMR3 is a monitoring program
administered by the USEPA. This monitoring provides a basis for future regulatory actions to
protect public health. The City detected 1,2,3 -TCP at levels exceeding the PHG in the source
water from eight City wells. Of these eight wells, only six wells were detected above the DLR
of 0.005 ppb.
Currently, there is no MCL for 1,2,3 -TCP. The category for health risk associated with 1,2,3 -
TCP, and the reason that a drinking water standard (PHG) was adopted for it, is the people
who drink water containing 1,2,3 -TCP throughout their lifetime could theoretically experience
an increased risk of getting cancer. The numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking water with
1,2,3 -TCP at the MCL is not available since no MCL has been established. The numerical
health (cancer) risk for drinking water with 1,2,3 -TCP at the PHG is 1 in 1,000,000.
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 8 of 14
Because the DLR for 1,2,3 -TCP is 0.005 ppb, the City is limited in its ability to report the
presence of 1,2,3 -TCP only down to that level. As such, any 1,2,3 -TCP that may be present
in sources at levels between the 0.0007 ppb PHG and the 0.005 ppb DLR is unknown and
not considered in this report. Water quality data for City sources from 2013-2015 shows that
1,2,3 -TCP has been detected in six City wells over the PHG and above the DLR. Of these six
wells, four are equipped with GAC for removal of DBCP. Levels of 1,2,3-TCE detected in the
City wells range from 0.005 to 0.030 ppb. There has been no detection for 1,2,3-TCE in the
surface water supply.
The approved BATs for treating 1,2,3 -TCP include the following treatment techniques:
1. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)
2. Packed Tower Aeration
As mentioned above, four of the six wells above the PHG for 1,2,3 -TCP are already equipped
with GAC. To treat 1,2,3 -TCP below the PHG a more frequent GAC change -out would be
required and the cost impact would be difficult to determine. If GAC were selected as the BAT
to further reduce 1,2,3 -TCP in the additional two city wells (discussed above) to levels below
the DLR, the cost could range from $ 0.26 to $1.46 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. The
annualized capital and O&M costs could range from approximately $26,000 to $148,000 per
year. That would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer ranging from $1.10
to $5.62 per year. Cost may need to be reassessed following adoption of California MCL.
Hexavalent Chromium
Chromium (Cr) is a naturally -occurring element that is found in rocks, soils, plants and
animals. Cr has a variety of industrial uses that include: steel making, metal plating, corrosion
inhibitors, paints and wood preservatives. The most common forms of Cr in the environment
are trivalent (Cr+3) and hexavalent (Cr+6). Cr+3 is an essential nutrient for humans and is
the more common form found in surface waters. In areas where igneous rocks are present,
the major source of Cr+6 in groundwater is from the oxidation of naturally -occurring Cr. Cr+6
can also result in groundwater from the oxidation of Cr+3 during the disinfection process.
Anthropogenic sources of Cr+6 in groundwater typically result from leakage, poor storage
and improper disposal practices.
The MCL for Cr+6 is 10 ppb with a corresponding PHG of 0.02 ppb. OEHHA's July 2011,
Fact Sheet: "Final Public Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium" summarizes the health
effects observed from studies involving drinking water with high levels of Cr+6. They include
significant numbers of gastrointestinal tumors in rats and mice as well as increased rates of
stomach cancer in humans. There is also evidence that Cr+6 can damage DNA. Exposure to
airborne Cr+6 is 1,000 times more potent than exposure from drinking water. The health
effects language in Appendix 64465-D of Title 22, California Code of Regulations states:
"Some people who drink water containing Cr+6 in excess of the MCL over many years may
have an increased risk of getting cancer." The numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking
water with Cr+6 at the MCL is 5 in 10,000. The numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking
water with Cr+6 at the PHG is 1 in 1,000,000.
Cr+6 levels in all City sources of supply are below the regulatory standard of 10 ppb.
Because the DLR for Cr+6 is 1 ppb, the City is limited to reporting the presence of Cr+6 only
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 9 of 14
down to that level. As such, any Cr+6 that may be present in sources at levels between the
0.02 ppb PHG and the 1 ppb DLR is unknown and not considered in this report. Water quality
data for City sources from 2013-2015 shows that Cr+6 has been detected in 25 City wells
above the PHG. Levels of Cr+6 in wells range from 1.0 to 8.3 ppb. Two wells are off-line and
scheduled for rehabilitation; therefore, they are not included in the following treatment
discussion. There has been no detection for Cr+6 in the surface water supply.
The approved BAT for treating Cr+6 includes the following treatment techniques:
1. Coagulation/Filtration
2. Ion Exchange
3. Reverse Osmosis
Ion Exchange (IX), specifically, Weak Base Anion Exchange Resin could be used to further
reduce Cr+6 in City wells to levels below the DLR and closer to the PHG. Cost estimates for
IX range from $1.62 to $6.78 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. If IX treatment were
considered for the 25 wells discussed above, the annualized capital and O&M costs could
range from approximately $3.6 million to $15.2 million per year. That would result in an
assumed increased cost for each customer ranging from $138.12 to $578.05 per year.
Uranium
Uranium (U) is one of several naturally -occurring radioactive metals that emit alpha (and
beta) radiation. U has three primary naturally -occurring isotopes (U234, U235 and U238). All
three isotopes of U are radioactive with U238 (approximately 99%) being the most common.
Radioactive decay of U produces Radium (Ra), which in turn decays to radon gas. U occurs
at trace levels in most rocks, soil, water, plants and animals. U is weakly radioactive and
therefore, contributes to low levels of radioactivity in the environment. Elevated levels of U
found in the environment are typically associated with U mining and the techniques used to
remove it. Concentrations of U may also occur in the environment as a result of improper
handling or disposal practices. U is enriched before it is used for power generation in nuclear
reactors or for use in weapons. Before the radioactive properties of U were known, it was
used as a yellow coloring for pottery and glassware.
The MCL for U is 20 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) with a corresponding PHG of 0.43 pCi/L.
Unlike Ra, the individual isotopes of U do not have their own specific PHG. OEHHA's August
2001 technical support report, "Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water;
Uranium" summarizes the health effects observed from studies involving human exposure to
high levels of U. Non -carcinogenic effects include kidney and liver disease. Lung cancer is
the main type of cancer associated with exposure to high levels of U. USEPA has classified U
as a "Class A" carcinogen, even though there is no direct evidence that it is carcinogenic in
humans. The health effects discussed above appear to be associated with the emission of
ionizing radiation from radioactive daughter products. The health effects language in
Appendix 64465-C of Title 22, California Code of Regulations states: "Some people who drink
water containing uranium in excess of the MCL over many years may have kidney problems
or an increased risk of getting cancer." The numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking water
with U at the MCL is 5 in 100,000. The numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking water with U
at the PHG is 1 in 1,000,000.
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 10 of 14
The levels of U in City sources of supply are below the regulatory standard. Because the DLR
for U is 1 pCi/L, the City is limited in its ability to report the presence of U only down to that
level. As such, any U that may be present in sources at levels between the 0.43 pCi/L PHG
and the 1 pCi/L DLR is unknown and not considered in this report. Water quality data for City
sources from 2013-2015 shows that U has been detected in 18 City wells. Levels of U
reported for the City wells range from 1.0 to 10.2 pCi/L. There has been no detection for U in
the surface water supply.
The approved BATs for treating U include the following treatment techniques:
1. Ion Exchange
2. Reverse Osmosis
3. Lime Softening
4. Coagulation/Filtration
The most effective method to reduce U and the other radionuclides discussed previously is to
install RO treatment at select groundwater wells where results exceed the PHG and are
detectable at levels above the DLR. Cost estimates for RO range from $3.92 to $6.65 per
1,000 gallons of water treated. If RO treatment were considered for the 18 wells discussed
above, the annualized capital and O&M costs could range from approximately $5.3 million to
$9.0 million per year. That would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer
ranging from $201.26 to $341.42 per year.
Gross Alpha Particle Activity
Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation.
Gross alpha particle activity (GA) is a measurement of the overall alpha radiation emitted
when certain elements such as uranium and radium undergo radioactive decay. Alpha
radiation exists in the air, soil and water. Naturally -occurring alpha radiation in groundwater
results mainly from the dissolution of minerals as the water seeps into the ground, and as
water moves through aquifers. Detectable levels of GA above the DLR are used to determine
when additional radionuclide speciation (monitoring) is required.
The MCL for GA is 15 pCi/L. Because GA is associated with a group of radioactive elements
rather than an individual contaminant, OEHHA determined it is not practical to establish a
PHG for it. GA is known to cause cancer; therefore, USEPA established the MCLG at zero
pCi/L. The actual cancer risk from radionuclides emitting alpha radiation in drinking water
depends on the particular radionuclide present and the average consumption over a lifetime.
Alpha radiation loses energy rapidly and doesn't pass through the skin; therefore, it is not a
health hazard outside of the body. Typical exposure routes for alpha radiation include: eating,
drinking, and inhaling alpha -emitting particles. General, non -carcinogenic health effects
associated with ingesting elevated levels of alpha radiation include kidney damage, damage
to cells and DNA and damage to other vital organs. Specific cancers that may result from
exposure to elevated levels of alpha radiation include: bone cancer and cancer of particular
organs, each of which are associated with specific alpha -radiation emitters. The health effects
language in Appendix 64465-C of Title 22, California Code of Regulations states: "Certain
minerals are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation. Some
people who drink water containing alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over many years may
have an increased risk of getting cancer." The numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 11 of 14
water with the most radiotoxic alpha particle emitter at the MCL is: 1 in 1,000. The numerical
health (cancer) risk for drinking water with GA at the MCLG is zero.
GA levels in City sources of supply are below the regulatory standard. Because the DLR for
GA is 3 pCi/L; the City is limited to reporting the presence of GA only down to that level. As
such, any GA that may be present in sources at levels between the zero pCi/L MCLG and the
3 pCi/L DLR is unknown and not considered in this report. Water quality data for City sources
from 2013-2015 shows that GA has been detected eight City wells above the DLR. Levels of
GA in the City wells range from 3.68 to 11.80 pCi/L. There has been no detection for GA in
the surface water supply.
The BAT identified to treat GA is RO. The most effective method to reduce GA is to install RO
treatment at select groundwater wells where results exceed the MCLG, and are detectable at
levels above the DLR. Cost estimates for RO range from $3.92 to $6.65 per 1,000 gallons of
water treated. If RO treatment were considered for the eight wells discussed above, the
annualized capital and O&M costs could range from approximately $2.5 million to $4.3 million
per year. That would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer ranging from
$96.27 to $163.32 per year.
Copper
Copper is an essential nutrient, but it is toxic if ingested at high levels. Children under 10
years of age appear to be particularly susceptible to copper toxicity. Copper may enter the
water from natural sources or may enter tap water in the distribution system of the individual
households.
Instead of adopting an MCL for Cu, USEPA and DDW have adopted an Action Level (AL) set
at the 90th percentile value of all samples from household taps in the distribution system.
That level is set at 1300 ppb for Cu. The corresponding PHG is 300 ppb. OEHHA's August
2008 technical support report, "Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water; Copper"
summarizes the health effects observed from studies involving human exposure to elevated
levels of copper. Non -carcinogenic health effects include: gastrointestinal distress (GI), GI
bleeding and liver and kidney failure. Cu is not considered a carcinogen. The health effects
language for Cu in Appendix 64465-D of Title 22, California Code of Regulations states:
"Copper is an essential nutrient, but some people who drink water containing copper in
excess of the action level over a relatively short period of time may experience
gastrointestinal distress. Some people who drink water containing copper in excess of the
action level over many years may suffer liver or kidney damage. People with Wilson's
Disease should consult their personal doctor." As noted above, the numerical (non -cancer)
health risks for drinking water with Cu at the AL and PHG have not yet been provided by
OEHHA.
In 2013, 2014, and 2015, the City conducted Cu sampling as part of the triennial lead and
copper monitoring. The results showed that in the system overall, the 90th percentile result
was 400 ppb for Cu. This was well below the AL; however, the level for Cu exceeds the 300
ppb PHG.
The City's water system is in full compliance with both the Federal and State Lead and
Copper Rules. Based on sampling in between 2013-2015, it was determined, according to
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 12 of 14
USEPA and state regulatory requirements, that the City meets the AL for Cu. Therefore, the
City is deemed by DDW to have optimized corrosion control for its system.
In general, optimizing corrosion control is considered to be the BAT to deal with corrosion
issues that may be present in a water system.
Since the City is meeting the "optimized corrosion control" requirements, it may not be
prudent to initiate additional corrosion control treatment as it involves the addition of other
chemicals, which could likely cause other water quality issues. Therefore, no estimate of cost
has been included.
Total Coliform (Informational Purposes Only)
Total coliform bacteria are tested at sampling sites throughout the City's water distribution
system to comply with the Total Coliform Rule (TCR). In 2013-15, the City collected between
80 and 100 samples per month from our distribution system for coliform analysis. Of these
samples, zero were positive for coliform bacteria and the City has achieved our MCLG.
For large systems the MCL for coliform under the TCR is 5% positive samples of all samples
per month and the MCLG is zero. The reason for the coliform drinking water standard is to
minimize the possibility of the water containing pathogens which are organisms that cause
waterborne disease. Because coliform is only an indicator of the potential presence of
pathogens, it is not possible to state a specific numerical health risk. While U.S. EPA normally
sets MCLGs "at a level where no known or anticipated adverse effects on persons would
occur" they indicate that they cannot do so with coliforms.
Coliform bacteria are organisms that are found just about everywhere in nature and are not
generally considered harmful. They are used as an indicator because of the ease in
monitoring and analysis. If a positive sample is found, it indicates a potential problem that
needs to be investigated and follow up sampling done. It is not at all unusual for a system to
have an occasional positive sample. It is difficult, if not impossible; to assure that a system
will never get a positive sample. A further test that is performed on all positive total coliform
results is for Fecal Coliform or Escherichia coli (E. Coli). There were no positive Fecal
Coliform or E. Coli results in 2013-15.
The City adds chlorine to all our sources to assure that the water served is microbiologically
safe. The chlorine residual levels are carefully controlled to provide the best health protection
without causing the water to have undesirable taste and odor or increasing the disinfection
byproduct level. This careful balance of treatment processes is essential to continue
supplying our customers with safe drinking water.
Other equally important measures that the City has implemented include:
• An effective water quality monitoring program;
• A flushing program in which water pipelines known to have little use are flushed to
remove water age and bring in fresh water with an adequate chlorine residual;
• An effective cross -connection control program that prevents the accidental entry of
potentially contaminated water into the drinking water system; and
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 13 of 14
• Maintaining positive pressure in the distribution system.
Since the City has reached the PHG of zero positive total coliform samples, no cost estimate
has been included for this constituent.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION
The drinking water quality of the City of Lodi Public Water System meets all State of
California, Department of Health Services and USEPA drinking water standards set to protect
public health. To further reduce the levels of the constituent's identified in this report that are
already below the Maximum Contaminant Levels established by the State and Federal
government, additional costly treatment processes would be required.
The effectiveness of the treatment processes to provide any significant reductions in
constituent levels at these already low values is uncertain. The theoretical health protection
benefits of these further hypothetical reductions are not at all clear and may not be
quantifiable. Therefore, staff is not recommending further action at this time. However, the
point of this process is to provide you with information on water quality in Lodi and cost
estimates to make certain improvements.
More Information
This report was completed by City of Lodi Public Works Department staff. Any questions
relating to this report should be directed to:
Lance Roberts, Utilities Manager
1331 South Ham Lane, Lodi CA 95242 or call (209) 333-6800 x2443.
Staff responsible for the content of this report is listed below:
Andrew Richle, Water Plant Superintendent
2001 West Turner Road, Lodi CA 95242 or call (209) 333-6800 x2690.
Brian Longpre, Laboratory Supervisor
12751 N. Thornton Road, Lodi CA 95242 or call (209) 333-6800 x6759
Kathryn Garcia, P.E., Compliance Engineer
2001 West Turner Road, Lodi CA 95242 or call (209) 333-6800 x2091
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
Page 14 of 14
Appendix A
List of Abbreviations
1,2,3 -TCP 1,2,3-Trichloropane
ACWA Association of California Water Agencies
AL Action Level
As Arsenic
BAT Best Available Technology
Cal -EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
Cr Chromium
DBCP Dibromochloropropane
DDW State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (formerly known as
the California Department of Public Health, Drinking Water Program)
DLR Detection Limit for the Purposes of Reporting
E. Coli Escherichia coli
GAC Granular Activated Charcoal
GA Gross Alpha particle activity
GI Gastrointestinal
IX Ion Exchange
µg Microgram
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
ppb parts per billion, or equivalent to micrograms per liter
PCE Tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene
pCi/L picoCuries per liter
PHG Public Health Goal
Ra Radium
RO Reverse Osmosis
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWTF Surface Water Treatment Facility
TCE Trichloroethylene
U Uranium
UCMR3 Unregulated Containments Monitoring Rule 3
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
MCLs, DLRs, and PHGs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants
(Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L), unless otherwise noted.)
Last Update: July 22, 2016
This table includes:
California's maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
Detection limits for purposes of reporting (DLRs)
Public health goals (PHGs) from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA)
(which are not yet regulated) are included
Also, PHGs for NDMA and 1,2,3-Trichloropropane
at the bottom of this table.
MCL
DLR
PHG
Date of
PHG
Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64431 —Inorganic Chemicals
Aluminum
1
0.05
0.6
2001
Antimony
0.006
0.006
0.02
1997
Antimony
--
--
0.0007
2009 draft
Arsenic
0.010
0.002
0.000004
2004
Asbestos (MFL = million fibers per liter; for
fibers >10 microns long)
7 MFL
0.2 MFL
7 MFL
2003
Barium
1
0.1
2
2003
Beryllium
0.004
0.001
0.001
2003
Cadmium
0.005
0.001
0.00004
2006
Chromium, Total - OEHHA withdrew the
0.0025-mg/L PHG
0.05
0.01
withdrawn
Nov. 2001
1999
Chromium, Hexavalent
0.010
0.001
0.00002
2011
Cyanide
0.15
0.1
0.15
1997
Fluoride
2
0.1
1
1997
Mercury (inorganic)
0.002
0.001
0.0012
1999
(rev2005)*
Nickel
0.1
0.01
0.012
2001
Nitrate (as NO3)
45
2
45
1997
Nitrite (as N)
1 as N
0.4
1 as N
1997
Nitrate + Nitrite
10 as N
--
10 as N
1997
Perchlorate
0.006
0.004
0.006
2004
Perchlorate
--
--
0.001
2012 draft
Selenium
0.05
0.005
0.03
2010
Thallium
0.002
0.001
0.0001
1999
(rev2004)
Copper and Lead 22 CCR §64672.3
Values referred to as MCLs for lead and copper are not actually MCLs; instead, they are
called "Action Levels" under the lead and copper rule
Copper
1.3
0.05
0.3
2008
Lead
0.015
0.005
0.0002
2009
Radionuclides with MCLs in 22 CCR §64441 and §64443 -Radioactivity
[units are picocuries per liter (pCi/L), unless otherwise stated; n/a = not applicable]
Gross alpha particle activity - OEHHA
concluded in 2003 that a PHG was not
practical
15
3
none
n/a
Gross beta particle activity - OEHHA
concluded in 2003 that a PHG was not
practical
4 mrem/yr
4
none
n/a
Radium-226
--
1
0.05
2006
Radium-228
--
1
0.019
2006
Radium-226 + Radium-228
5
--
--
--
Strontium-90
8
2
0.35
2006
Tritium
20,000
1,000
400
2006
Uranium
20
1
0.43
2001
Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64444-Organic Chemicals
(a) Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
Benzene
0.001
0.0005
0.00015
2001
Carbon tetrachloride
0.0005
0.0005
0.0001
2000
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
0.6
0.0005
0.6
1997
(rev2009)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB)
0.005
0.0005
0.006
1997
1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA)
0.005
0.0005
0.003
2003
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA)
0.0005
0.0005
0.0004
1999
(rev2005)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE)
0.006
0.0005
0.01
1999
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
0.006
0.0005
0.1
2006
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
0.01
0.0005
0.06
2006
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)
0.005
0.0005
0.004
2000
1,2-Dichloropropane
0.005
0.0005
0.0005
1999
1,3-Dichloropropene
0.0005
0.0005
0.0002
1999
(rev2006)
Ethylbenzene
0.3
0.0005
0.3
1997
Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
0.013
0.003
0.013
1999
Monochlorobenzene
0.07
0.0005
0.07
2014
Styrene
0.1
0.0005
0.0005
2010
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
0.001
0.0005
0.0001
2003
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
0.005
0.0005
0.00006
2001
Toluene
0.15
0.0005
0.15
1999
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
0.005
0.0005
0.005
1999
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA)
0.2
0.0005
1
2006
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA)
0.005
0.0005
0.0003
2006
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
0.005
0.0005
0.0017
2009
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11)
0.15
0.005
1.3
2014
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Freon
113)
1.2
0.01
4
1997
(rev2011)
Vinyl chloride
0.0005
0.0005
0.00005
2000
Xylenes
1.75
0.0005
1.8
1997
(b) Non -Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs)
Alachlor
0.002
0.001
0.004
1997
Atrazine
0.001
0.0005
0.00015
1999
Bentazon
0.018
0.002
0.2
1999
(rev2009)
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.0002
0.0001
0.000007
2010
Carbofuran
0.018
0.005
0.0017
2000
Chlordane
0.0001
0.0001
0.00003
1997
(rev2006)
Dalapon
0.2
0.01
0.79
1997
(rev2009)
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
0.0002
0.00001
0.0000017
1999
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)
0.07
0.01
0.02
2009
Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate
0.4
0.005
0.2
2003
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)
0.004
0.003
0.012
1997
Dinoseb
0.007
0.002
0.014
1997
(rev2010)
Diquat
0.02
0.004
0.015
2000
Endrin
0.002
0.0001
0.0018
1999
(rev2008)
Endothal
0.1
0.045
0.094
2014
Ethylene dibromide (EDB)
0.00005
0.00002
0.00001
2003
Glyphosate
0.7
0.025
0.9
2007
Heptachlor
0.00001
0.00001
0.000008
1999
Heptachlor epoxide
0.00001
0.00001
0.000006
1999
Hexachlorobenzene
0.001
0.0005
0.00003
2003
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
0.05
0.001
0.002
2014
Lindane
0.0002
0.0002
0.000032
1999
(rev2005)
Methoxychlor
0.03
0.01
0.00009
2010
Molinate
0.02
0.002
0.001
2008
Oxamyl
0.05
0.02
0.026
2009
Pentachlorophenol
0.001
0.0002
0.0003
2009
Picloram
0.5
0.001
0.5
1997
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
0.0005
0.0005
0.00009
2007
Simazine
0.004
0.001
0.004
2001
2,4,5 -TP (Silvex)
0.05
0.001
0.003
2014
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin)
3x10-8
5x10-9
5x10-"
2010
Thiobencarb
0.07
0.001
0.07
2000
Toxaphene
0.003
0.001
0.00003
2003
Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64533 —Disinfection Byproducts
Total Trihalomethanes 0.080
--
0.0008
2010 draft
Bromodichloromethane
--
0.0010
--
--
Bromoform
--
0.0010
--
--
Chloroform
--
0.0010
--
--
Dibromochloromethane
--
0.0010
--
--
Haloacetic Acids (five) (HAAS)
0.060
--
--
--
Monochloroacetic Acid
--
0.0020
--
--
Dichloroacetic Adic
--
0.0010
--
--
Trichloroacetic Acid
--
0.0010
--
--
Monobromoacetic Acid
--
0.0010
--
--
Dibromoacetic Acid
--
0.0010
--
--
Bromate
0.010
0.0050**
0.0001
2009
Chlorite
1.0
0.020
0.05
2009
Chemicals with PHGs established in response to CDPH requests. These are not
currently regulated drinking water contaminants.
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)
--
--
0.000003
2006
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
--
--
0.0000007
2009
*OEHHA's review of this chemical during the year indicated (rev20XX resulted in no change
in the PHG.
**The DLR for Bromate is 0.0010 mg/L for analysis performed using EPA Method 317.0
Revision 2.0, 321.8, or 326.0.
Table 1
Reference: 2012 ACWA PHG Survey
COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No.
Treatment
Technology
Source of Information
Estimated Unit Cost
2012 ACWA Survey
Indexed to 2015*
($/1,000 gallons
treated)
1
Ion Exchange
Coachella Valley WD, for GW, to reduce Arsenic concentrations.
2011 costs.
1.99
2
Ion Exchange
City of Riverside Public Utilities, for GW, for Perchlorate treatment.
0.96
3
Ion Exchange
Carollo Engineers, anonymous utility, 2012 costs for treating GW
source for Nitrates. Design souce water concentration: 88 mg/L NO3.
Design finished water concentration: 45 mg/L NO3. Does not include
concentrate disposal or land cost.
0.72
4
Granular
Activated Carbon
City of Riverside Public Utilities, GW sources, for TCE, DBCP (VOC,
SOC) treatment.
0.48
5
Granular
Activated Carbon
Carollo Engineers, anonymous utility, 2012 costs for treating SW
source for TTHMs. Design souce water concentration: 0.135 mg/L.
Design finished water concentration: 0.07 mg/L. Does not include
concentrate disposal or land cost.
0.34
6
Granular
Activated Carbon,
Liquid Phase
LADWP, Liquid Phase GAC treatment at Tujunga Well field. Costs
for treating 2 wells. Treament for 1,1 DCE (VOC). 2011-2012 costs.
1.47
7
Reverse Osmosis
Carollo Engineers, anonymous utility, 2012 costs for treating GW
source for Nitrates. Design souce water concentration: 88 mg/L NO3.
Design finished water concentration: 45 mg/L NO3. Does not include
concentrate disposal or land cost.
0.78
8
Packed Tower
Aeration
City of Monrovia, treatment to reduce TCE, PCE concentrations.
2011-12 costs.
0.42
9
Ozonation+
Chemical addition
SCVWD, STWTP treatment plant includes chemical addition + ozone
generation costs to reduce THM/HAAs concentrations. 2009-2012
costs.
0.09
Page 1 of 2
COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No.
Treatment
Technology
Source of Information
Estimated Unit Cost
2012 ACWA Survey
Indexed to 2015*
($/1,000 gallons
treated)
10
Ozonation+
Chemical addition
SCVWD, PWTP treatment plant includes chemical addition + ozone
generation costs to reduce THM/HAAs concentrations, 2009-2012
costs.
0.19
11
Coagulation/Filtra
tion
Soquel WD, treatment to reduce manganese concentrations in GW.
2011 costs.
0.73
12
Coagulation/Filtra
tion Optimization
San Diego WA, costs to reduce THM/Bromate, Turbidity
concentrations, raw SW a blend of State Water Project water and
Colorado River water, treated at Twin Oaks Valley WTP.
0.83
13
Blending (Well)
Rancho California WD, GW blending well, 1150 gpm, to reduce
fluoride concentrations.
0.69
14
Blending (Wells)
Rancho California WD, GW blending wells, to reduce arsenic
concentrations, 2012 costs.
0.56
15
Blending
Rancho California WD, using MWD water to blend with GW to
reduce arsenic concentrations. 2012 costs.
0.67
16
Corrosion
Inhibition
Atascadero Mutual WC, corrosion inhibitor addition to control
aggressive water. 2011 costs.
0.09
*Costs were adjusted from date of original estimates to present, where appropriate, using the Engineering News Record (ENR)
annual average building costs of 2015 and 2012. The adjustment factor was derived from the ratio of 2015 Index/2012 Index.
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Table 2
Reference: Other Agencies
COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No.
Treatment
Technology
Source of Information
Estimated Unit Cost
2012 Other References
Indexed to 2015*
($/1,000 gallons treated)
1
Reduction -
Coagulation-
Filtration
Reference: February 28, 2013, Final Report Chromium
Removal Research, City of Glendale, CA. 100-2000
gpm. Reduce Hexavalent Chromium to 1 ppb.
1.58 - 9.95
2
IX - Weak Base
Anion Resin
Reference: February 28, 2013, Final Report Chromium
Removal Research, City of Glendale, CA. 100-2000
gpm. Reduce Hexavalent Chromium to 1 ppb.
1.62 - 6.78
3
IX
Golden State Water Co., IX w/disposable resin, 1
MGD, Perchlorate removal, built in 2010.
0.50
4
IX
Golden State Water Co., IX w/disposable resin, 1000
gpm, perchlorate removal (Proposed; O&M estimated).
1.08
5
IX
Golden State Water Co., IX with brine regeneration,
500 gpm for Selenium removal, built in 2007.
7.08
6
GFO/Adsorption
Golden State Water Co., Granular Ferric Oxide Resin,
Arsenic removal, 600 gpm, 2 facilities, built in 2006.
1.85 -1.98
7
RO
Reference: Inland Empire Utilities Agency : Chino
Basin Desalter. RO cost to reduce 800 ppm TDS, 150
ppm Nitrate (as NO3); approx. 7 mgd.
2.43
8
IX
Reference: Inland Empire Utilities Agency : Chino
Basin Desalter. IX cost to reduce 150 ppm Nitrate (as
NO3); approx. 2.6 mgd.
1.35
Page 1 of 2
9
Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Inland Empire Utilities Agency : Chino
Basin Desalter. PTA-VOC air stripping, typical treated
flow of approx. 1.6 mgd.
0.41
10
IX
Reference: West Valley WD Report, for Water
Recycling Funding Program, for 2.88 mgd treatment
facility. IX to remove Perchlorate, Perchlorate levels 6-
10 ppb. 2008 costs.
0.56 - 0.80
11
Coagulation
Filtration
Reference: West Valley WD, includes capital, O&M
costs for 2.88 mgd treatment facility- Layne
Christensen packaged coagulation Arsenic removal
system. 2009-2012 costs.
0.37
12
FBR
Reference: West Valley WD/Envirogen design data for
the O&M + actual capitol costs, 2.88 mgd fluidized bed
reactor (FBR) treatment system, Perchlorate and
Nitrate removal, followed by multimedia filtration &
chlorination, 2012. NOTE: The capitol cost for the
treatment facility for the first 2,000 gpm is $23 million
annualized over 20 years with ability to expand to 4,000
gpm with minimal costs in the future. $17 million
funded through state and federal grants with the
remainder funded by WVWD and the City of Rialto.
1.67 - 1.76
*Costs were adjusted from date of original estimates to present, where appropriate, using the Engineering News Record (ENR)
annual average building costs of 2015 and 2012. The adjustment factor was derived from the ratio of 2015 Index/2012 Index.
Page 2 of 2
Table 3
Reference: Updated 2012 ACWA Cost of Treatment Table
COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No.
Treatment
Technology
Source of Information
Estimated 2012 Unit
Cost Indexed to
2015* ($/1,000
gallons treated)
1
Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: Malcolm Pirnie estimate for California Urban Water
Agencies, large surface water treatment plants treating water from
the State Water Project to meet Stage 2 D/DBP and bromate
regulation, 1998
0.57-1.08
2
Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: Carollo Engineers, estimate for VOC treatment (PCE),
95% removal of PCE, Oct. 1994,1900 gpm design capacity
0.26
3
Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: Carollo Engineers, est. for a large No. Calif. surf. water
treatment plant ( 90 mgd capacity) treating water from the State
Water Project, to reduce THM precursors, ENR construction cost
index = 6262 (San Francisco area) - 1992
1.25
4
Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd
central treatment facility for VOC and SOC removal by GAC, 1990
0.49-0.71
5
Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: Southern California Water Co. - actual data for
"rented" GAC to remove VOCs (1,1-DCE), 1.5 mgd capacity
facility. 1998
2.24
6
Granular Activated
Carbon
Reference: Southern California Water Co. - actual data for
permanent GAC to remove VOCs (TCE), 2.16 mgd plant capacity,
1998
1.46
7
Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Malcolm Pirnie estimate for California Urban Water
Agencies, large surface water treatment plants treating water from
the State Water Project to meet Stage 2 D/DBP and bromate
regulation, 1998
1.68-3.22
8
Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000 ppm TDS
in brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 1.0 mgd plant operated at
40% of design flow, high brine line cost, May 1991
3.98
9
Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000 ppm TDS
in brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 1.0 mgd plant operated at
100% of design flow, high brine line cost, May 1991
2.45
10
Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000 ppm TDS
in brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 10.0 mgd plant operated at
40% of design flow, high brine line cost, May 1991
2.65
11
Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000 ppm TDS
in brackish groundwater in So. Calif., 10.0 mgd plant operated at
100% of design flow, high brine line cost, May 1991
2.05
12
Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale, AZ - CH2M
Hill, for a 1.0 mgd plant operated at 40% of design capacity, Oct.
1991
6.65
Page 1 of 2
COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No.
Treatment
Technology
Source of Information
Estimated 2012 Unit
Cost Indexed to
2015* ($/1,000
gallons treated)
13
Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale, AZ - CH2M
Hill, for a 1.0 mgd plant operated at 100% of design capacity, Oct.
1991
3.92
14
Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale, AZ - CH2M
Hill, for a 10.0 mgd plant operated at 40% of design capacity, Oct.
1991
2.94
15
Reverse Osmosis
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale, AZ - CH2M
Hill, for a 10.0 mgd plant operated at 100% of design capacity, Oct.
1991
1.82
16
Reverse Osmosis
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd
central treatment facility with RO to remove nitrate, 1990
1.83-3.22
17
Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Analysis of Costs for Radon Removal... (AWWARF
publication), Kennedy/Jenks, for a 1.4 mgd facility operating at 40%
of design capacity, Oct. 1991
1.06
18
Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Analysis of Costs for Radon Removal... (AWWARF
publication), Kennedy/Jenks, for a 14.0 mgd facility operating at
40% of design capacity, Oct. 1991
0.56
19
Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Carollo Engineers, estimate for VOC treatment (PCE)
by packed tower aeration, without off -gas treatment, O&M costs
based on operation during 329 days/year at 10% downtime, 16
hr/day air stripping operation, 1900 gpm design capacity, Oct. 1994
0.28
20
Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: Carollo Engineers, for PCE treatment by Ecolo-Flo
Enviro-Tower air stripping, without off -gas treatment, O&M costs
based on operation during 329 days/year at 10% downtime, 16
hr/day air stripping operation, 1900 gpm design capacity, Oct. 1994
0.29
21
Packed Tower
Aeration
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd
central treatment facility - packed tower aeration for VOC and
radon removal, 1990
0.45-0.74
22
Advanced
Oxidation
Processes
Reference: Carollo Engineers, estimate for VOC treatment (PCE)
by UV Light, Ozone, Hydrogen Peroxide, O&M costs based on
operation during 329 days/year at 10% downtime, 24 hr/day AOP
operation, 1900 gpm capacity, Oct. 1994
0.55
23
Ozonation
Reference: Malcolm Pirnie estimate for CUWA, large surface
water treatment plants using ozone to treat water from the State
Water Project to meet Stage 2 D/DBP and bromate regulation,
Cryptosporidium inactivation requirements,1998
0.13-0.26
24
Ion Exchange
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd
central treatment facility - ion exchange to remove nitrate, 1990
0.61-0.80
*Costs were adjusted from date of original estimates to present, where appropriate, using the Engineering News Record (ENR)
annual average building costs of 2015 and 2012. The adjustment factor was derived from the ratio of 2015 Index/2012 Index.
Page 2 of 2
Health Risk Information for
Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports
Prepared by
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
California Environmental Protection Agency
February 2016
Under the Calderon -Sher Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (the Act), water utilities are
required to prepare a report every three years for contaminants that exceed public
health goals (PHGs) (Health and Safety Code Section 116470 (b)(2)). The numerical
health risk for a contaminant is to be presented with the category of health risk, along
with a plainly worded description of these terms. The cancer health risk is to be
calculated at the PHG and at the California maximum contaminant level (MCL). This
report is prepared by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)
to assist the water utilities in meeting their requirements.
PHGs are concentrations of contaminants in drinking water that pose no significant
health risk if consumed for a lifetime. PHGs are developed and published by OEHHA
(Health and Safety Code Section 116365) using current risk assessment principles,
practices and methods.
Numerical health risks. Table 1 presents health risk categories and cancer risk values
for chemical contaminants in drinking water that have PHGs.
The Act requires that OEHHA publish PHGs based on health risk assessments using
the most current scientific methods. As defined in statute, PHGs for non -carcinogenic
chemicals in drinking water are set at a concentration "at which no known or anticipated
adverse health effects will occur, with an adequate margin of safety." For carcinogens,
PHGs are set at a concentration that "does not pose any significant risk to health."
PHGs provide one basis for revising MCLs, along with cost and technological feasibility.
OEHHA has been publishing PHGs since 1997 and the entire list published to date is
shown in Table 1.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 1
Table 2 presents health risk information for contaminants that do not have PHGs but
have state or federal regulatory standards. The Act requires that, for chemical
contaminants with California MCLs that do not yet have PHGs, water utilities use the
federal maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for the purpose of complying with the
requirement of public notification. MCLGs, like PHGs, are strictly health based and
include a margin of safety. One difference, however, is that the MCLGs for carcinogens
are set at zero because the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) assumes
there is no absolutely safe level of exposure to such chemicals. PHGs, on the other
hand, are set at a level considered to pose no significant risk of cancer; this is usually a
no more than one -in -one -million excess cancer risk (1x10"6) level for a lifetime of
exposure. In Table 2, the cancer risks shown are based on the US EPA's evaluations.
For more information on health risks: The adverse health effects for each chemical
with a PHG are summarized in a PHG technical support document. These documents
are available on the OEHHA Web site (http://www.oehha.ca.gov). Also, technical fact
sheets on most of the chemicals having federal MCLs can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/your-drinking-water/table-regulated-drinking-water-contaminants.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 2
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Health Risk Category'
California
PHG
(mg/L)2at
Cancer
Risk3
the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Alachlor
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.004
NA5
0.002
NA
Aluminum
neurotoxicity and
immunotoxicity
(harms the nervous and
immune systems)
0.6
NA
1
NA
Antimony
digestive system toxicity
(causes vomiting)
0.02
NA
0.006
NA
Arsenic
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.000004
(4x10"6)
1x10-6
(one per
million)
0.01
2.5x10-3
(2.5 per
thousand)
Asbestos
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
7 MFL6
(fibers
>10
microns in
length)
1x10-6
7 MFL
(fibers
>10
microns in
length)
1x10-6
(one per
million)
Atrazine
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.00015
1x10-6
0.001
7x10-6
(seven per
million)
1 Based on the OEHHA PHG technical support document unless otherwise specified. The categories are
the hazard traits defined by OEHHA for California's Toxics Information Clearinghouse (online at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/green/pdf/GC Regtext01 1 912.pdf).
2 mg/L = milligrams per liter of water or parts per million (ppm)
3 Cancer Risk = Upper estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk may be
lower or zero. 1x10-6 means one excess cancer case per million people exposed.
4 MCL = maximum contaminant level.
5 NA = not applicable. Risk cannot be calculated. The PHG is set at a level that is believed to be without
any significant public health risk to individuals exposed to the chemical over a lifetime.
6 MFL = million fibers per liter of water.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 3
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Health Risk Category'
California
PHG
(mg/L)2at
Cancer
Risk3
the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Barium
cardiovascular toxicity
(causes high blood
pressure)
2
NA
1
NA
Bentazon
hepatotoxicity and
digestive system toxicity
(harms the liver,
intestine, and causes
body weight effects')
0.2
NA
0.018
NA
Benzene
carcinogenicity
(causes leukemia)
0.00015
1x10-6
0.001
7x10-6
(seven per
million)
Benzo[alpyrene
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.000007
(7x 10-6)
1x 10-6
0.0002
3x 10-5
(three per
hundred
thousand)
Beryllium
digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach or
intestine)
0.001
NA
0.004
NA
Bromate
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0001
1x10-6
0.01
1x10-4
(one per
ten
thousand)
Cadmium
nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)
0.00004
NA
0.005
NA
Carbofuran
reproductive toxicity
(harms the testis)
0.0017
NA
0.018
NA
Body weight effects are an indicator of general toxicity in animal studies.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 4
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Health Risk Category'
California
PHG
(mg/L)2at
Cancer
Risk3
the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Carbon
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0001
1x10-6
0.0005
5x10-6
(five per
million)
tetrachloride
Chlordane
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.00003
1x10-6
0.0001
3x10-6
(three per
million)
Chlorite
hematotoxicity
(causes anemia)
neurotoxicity
(causes neurobehavioral
effects)
0.05
NA
1
NA
Chromium,
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.00002
1x10-6
0.01
5x10-4
(five per
ten
thousand)
hexavalent
Copper
digestive system toxicity
(causes nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea)
0.3
NA
1.3 (AL8)
NA
Cyanide
neurotoxicity
(damages nerves)
endocrine toxicity
(affects the thyroid)
0.15
NA
0.15
NA
Dalapon
nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)
0.79
NA
0.2
NA
8 AL = action level. The action levels for copper and lead refer to a concentration measured at the tap. Much
of the copper and lead in drinking water is derived from household plumbing (The Lead and Copper Rule,
Title 22, California Code of Regulations [CCR] section 64672.3).
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 5
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Health Risk Category1
California
PHG 2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
1,2-Dibromo-3-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0000017
(1.7x10-6)
1x10-6
0.0002
1x10-4
(one per
ten
thousand)
chloropropane
(DBCP)
1,2-Dichloro-
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
0.6
NA
0.6
NA
benzene (o-
DCB)
1,4-Dichloro-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.006
1x10-6
0.005
8x10-7
(eight per
ten million)
benzene (p-
DCB)
1,1-Dichloro-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.003
1x10-6
0.005
2x10-6
(two per
million)
ethane (1,1-
DCA)
1,2-Dichloro-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0004
1x10-6
0.0005
1x10-6
(one per
million)
ethane (1,2-
DCA)
1,1-Dichloro-
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
0.01
NA
0.006
NA
ethylene
(1,1-DCE)
1,2-Dichloro-
nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)
0.1
NA
0.006
NA
ethylene, cis
1,2-Dichloro-
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
0.06
NA
0.01
NA
ethylene, trans
Dichloromethane
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.004
1x10-6
0.005
1x10"6
(one per
million)
(methylene
chloride)
2,4-Dichloro-
hepatotoxicity and
nephrotoxicity
(harms the liver and
kidney)
0.02
NA
0.07
NA
phenoxyacetic
acid (2,4-D)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 6
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Health Risk Category1
California
PHG 2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
1,2-Dichloro-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0005
1x10-6
0.005
1x10-5
(one per
hundred
thousand)
propane
(propylene
dichloride)
1,3-Dichloro-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0002
1x10-6
0.0005
2x10-6
(two per
million)
propene
(Telone II®)
Di(2-ethylhexyl)
developmental toxicity
(disrupts development)
0.2
NA
0.4
NA
adipate (DEHA)
Diethylhexyl-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.012
1x10-6
0.004
3x10-7
(three per
ten million)
phthalate
(DEHP)
Dinoseb
reproductive toxicity
(harms the uterus and
testis)
0.014
NA
0.007
NA
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
5x10-11
1x10-6
3x 10-8
6x10-4
(six per ten
thousand)
TCDD)
Diquat
ocular toxicity
(harms the eye)
developmental toxicity
(causes malformation)
0.015
NA
0.02
NA
Endothall
digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach or
intestine)
0.094
NA
0.1
NA
Endrin
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
neurotoxicity
(causes convulsions)
0.0018
NA
0.002
NA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 7
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Health Risk Category'
California
PHG
(mg/L)2at
Cancer
Risk3
the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Ethylbenzene
hepatotoxicity
0.3
NA
0.3
NA
(phenylethane)
(harms the liver)
Ethylene
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.00001
1x10-6
0.00005
5x10-6
(five per
million)
dibromide
Fluoride
musculoskeletal toxicity
1
NA
2
NA
(causes tooth mottling)
Glyphosate
nephrotoxicity
0.9
NA
0.7
NA
(harms the kidney)
Heptachlor
carcinogenicity
0.000008
1x10"6
0.00001
1x10-6
(causes cancer)
(8x10-6)
(one per
million)
Heptachlor
carcinogenicity
0.000006
1x10-6
0.00001
2x10-6
epoxide
(causes cancer)
(6x10-6)
(two per
million)
Hexachloroben-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.00003
1x10-6
0.001
3x10-5
(three per
hundred
thousand)
zene
Hexachloro-
digestive system toxicity
(causes stomach
lesions)
0.002
NA
0.05
NA
cyclopentadiene
(HCCPD)
Lead
developmental
0.0002
<1x10-6
0.015
2x10-6
neurotoxicity
(causes neurobehavioral
effects in children)
cardiovascular toxicity
(PHG is
not based
on this
effect)
(AL8)
(two per
million)
(causes high blood
pressure)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 8
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Health Risk Category'
California
PHG
(mg/L)2at
Cancer
Risk3
the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Lindane
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.000032
1x10-6
0.0002
6x10-6
(six per
million)
(y -BHC)
Mercury
nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)
0.0012
NA
0.002
NA
(inorganic)
Methoxychlor
endocrine toxicity
(causes hormone
effects)
0.00009
NA
0.03
NA
Methyl tertiary-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.013
1x10-6
0.013
1x10-6
(one per
million)
butyl ether
(MTBE)
Molinate
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.001
1x10-6
0.02
2x10-5
(two per
hundred
thousand)
Monochloro-
nephrotoxicity
(harms the kidney)
0.07
NA
0.07
NA
benzene
(chlorobenzene)
Nickel
developmental toxicity
(causes increased
neonatal deaths)
0.012
NA
0.1
NA
Nitrate
hematotoxicity
(causes
methemoglobinemia)
45 as
nitrate
NA
10 as
nitrogen
(=45 as
nitrate)
NA
Nitrite
hematotoxicity
(causes
methemoglobinemia)
1 as
nitrogen
NA
1 as
nitrogen
NA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 9
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Health Risk Category'
California
PHG
(mg/L)2at
Cancer
Risk3
the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Nitrate and
hematotoxicity
(causes
methemoglobinemia)
10 as
nitrogen
NA
10 as
nitrogen
NA
Nitrite
N -nitroso-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.000003
(3x 10-6)
1x10-6
none
NA
dimethyl -amine
(NDMA)
Oxamyl
general toxicity
(causes body weight
effects)
0.026
NA
0.05
NA
Pentachloro-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0003
1x10-6
0.001
3x10-6
(three per
million)
phenol (PCP)
Perchlorate
endocrine toxicity
(affects the thyroid)
developmental toxicity
(causes neurodevelop-
mental deficits)
0.001
NA
0.006
NA
Picloram
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
0.5
NA
0.5
NA
Polychlorinated
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.00009
1x10-6
0.0005
6x10-6
(six per
million)
biphenyls
(PCBs)
Radium -226
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.05 pCi/L
1x10-6
5 pCi/L
(combined
Ra226+228)
1x10"4
(one per
ten
thousand)
Radium -228
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.019 pCi/L
1x10-6
5 pCi/L
(combined
Ra226+228)
3x10-4
(three per
ten
thousand)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 10
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Health Risk Category1
California
PHG 2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
at the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Selenium
integumentary toxicity
(causes hair loss and
nail damage)
0.03
NA
0.05
NA
Silvex (2,4,5 -TP)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
0.003
NA
0.05
NA
Simazine
general toxicity
(causes body weight
effects)
0.004
NA
0.004
NA
Strontium -90
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.35 pCi/L
1x10-6
8 pCi/L
2x10-5
(two per
hundred
thousand)
Styrene
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0005
1x10-6
0.1
2x10-4
(two per
ten
thousand)
(vinylbenzene)
1,1,2,2-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0001
1x10-6
0.001
1x10-5
(one per
hundred
thousand)
Tetrachloro-
ethane
Tetrachloro-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.00006
1x10-6
0.005
8x10-5
(eight per
hundred
thousand)
ethylene
(perchloro-
ethylene, or
PCE)
Thallium
integumentary toxicity
(causes hair loss)
0.0001
NA
0.002
NA
Thiobencarb
general toxicity
(causes body weight
effects)
hematotoxicity
(affects red blood cells)
0.07
NA
0.07
NA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 11
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Health Risk Category'
California
PHG
(mg/L)2at
Cancer
Risk3
the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
Toluene
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
endocrine toxicity
(harms the thymus)
0.15
NA
0.15
NA
(methylbenzene)
Toxaphene
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.00003
1x10-6
0.003
1X10-4
(one per
ten
thousand)
1,2,4-Trichloro-
endocrine toxicity
(harms adrenal glands)
0.005
NA
0.005
NA
benzene
1,1,1-Trichloro-
neurotoxicity
(harms the nervous
system),
reproductive toxicity
(causes fewer offspring)
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
hematotoxicity
(causes blood effects)
1
NA
0.2
NA
ethane
1,1,2-Trichloro-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0003
1x10-6
0.005
2x10-5
(two per
hundred
thousand)
ethane
Trichloro-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0017
1x10-6
0.005
3x10-6
(three per
million)
ethylene (TCE)
Trichlorofluoro-
accelerated mortality
(increase in early death)
1.3
NA
0.15
NA
methane
(Freon 11)
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 12
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Health Risk Category'
California
PHG
(mg/L)2at
Cancer
Risk3
the
PHG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk at the
California
MCL
1,2,3-Trichloro-
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.0000007
(7x10-7)
1x10-6
none
NA
propane
(1,2,3 -TCP)
1,1,2-Trichloro-
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
4
NA
1.2
NA
1,2,2-trifluoro-
ethane
(Freon 113)
Tritium
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
400 pCi/L
1x10-6
20,000
pCi/L
5x10-5
(five per
hundred
thousand)
Uranium
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.43 pCi/L
1x10-6
20 pCi/L
5x10-5
(five per
hundred
thousand)
Vinyl chloride
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0.00005
1x10-6
0.0005
1x10-5
(one per
hundred
thousand)
Xylene
neurotoxicity
(affects the senses,
mood, and motor
control)
1.8 (single
isomer or
sum of
isomers)
NA
1.75 (single
isomer or
sum of
isomers)
NA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 13
Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
without California Public Health Goals
Chemical
Health Risk Category
U.S. EPA
MCLG2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
@
MCLG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk @
California
MCL
Disinfection byproducts (DBPS)
Chloramines
acute toxicity
(causes irritation)
digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach)
hematotoxicity
(causes anemia)
45'6
NA7
none
NA
Chlorine
acute toxicity
(causes irritation)
digestive system toxicity
(harms the stomach)
45'6
NA
none
NA
Chlorine dioxide
hematotoxicity
(causes anemia)
neurotoxicity
(harms the nervous
system)
0.85'6
NA
none
NA
Disinfection byproducts: haloacetic acids (HAAS)
Chloroacetic acid
general toxicity
(causes body and organ
weight changes8)
0.07
NA
none
NA
1 Health risk category based on the U.S. EPA MCLG document or California MCL document
unless otherwise specified.
2 MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal established by U.S. EPA.
3 Cancer Risk = Upper estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk
may be lower or zero. 1x10-6 means one excess cancer case per million people exposed.
4 California MCL = maximum contaminant level established by California.
5 Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal, or MRDLG.
6 The federal Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL), or highest level of disinfectant
allowed in drinking water, is the same value for this chemical.
NA = not available.
8 Body weight effects are an indicator of general toxicity in animal studies.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 14
Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
without California Public Health Goals
Chemical
Health Risk category
U.S. EPA
MCLG2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
@
MCLG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk @
California
MCL
Dichloroacetic
acid
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0
0
none
NA
Trichloroacetic
acid
hepatotoxicity
(harms the liver)
0.02
0
none
NA
Bromoacetic acid
NA
none
NA
none
NA
Dibromoacetic
acid
NA
none
NA
none
NA
Total haloacetic
acids
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
none
NA
0.06
NA
Disinfection byproducts: trihalomethanes (THMs)
Bromodichloro-
methane (BDCM)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0
0
none
NA
Bromoform
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0
0
none
NA
Chloroform
hepatotoxicity and
nephrotoxicity
(harms the liver and
kidney)
0.07
NA
none
NA
Dibromo-
chloromethane
(DBCM)
hepatotoxicity,
nephrotoxicity, and
neurotoxicity
(harms the liver, kidney,
and nervous system)
0.06
NA
none
NA
Total
trihalomethanes
(sum of BDCM,
bromoform,
chloroform and
DBCM)
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer),
hepatotoxicity,
nephrotoxicity, and
neurotoxicity
(harms the liver, kidney,
and nervous system)
none
NA
0.08
NA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 15
Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
without California Public Health Goals
Chemical
Health Risk category
U.S. EPA
MCLG2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
@
MCLG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk @
California
MCL
Radionuclides
Gross alpha
particles
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0 (210Po
included)
0
15 pCi/L10
(includes
226Ra but
not radon
and
uranium)
up to 1x10"3
(for 210Po,
the most
potent
alpha
emitter
Beta particles and
photon emitters9
carcinogenicity
(causes cancer)
0 (210Pb
included)
0
50 pCi/L
(judged
equiv. to 4
mrem/yr)
up to 2x10-3
(for 210Pb,
the most
potent
beta -
emitter)
9 MCLs for gross alpha and beta particles are screening standards for a group of radionuclides.
Corresponding PHGs were not developed for gross alpha and beta particles. See the OEHHA
memoranda discussing the cancer risks at these MCLs at
http://oehha.studio-weeren.com/media/downloads/water/chemicals/phg/grossalphahealth.pdf. 10
pC• i/L = picocuries per liter of water.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
February 2016
Page 16
Please immediately confirm receipt
of this fax by calling 333-6702
CITY OF LODI
P. O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
ADVERTISING INSTRJJCTIONS
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON AND CONSIDER
ACCEPTING CITY OF LODI'S REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE
TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2016
LEGAL AD
TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (1) please
SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO:
LNS ACCT. #0510052
JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO, CITY CLERK
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
DATED: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2016
ORDERED BY: JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO
CITY CLERK
wew
PAMELA M. FARRIS
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
ELIZABETH BURGOS
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
Verify Appearance of this Legal in the Newspaper - Copy to File
Emailed to the Sentinel at dianer@lodinews.com at q '36 (time) on l i (date) (pages)
LNS Phoned to confirm receipt of all pages at (time)
PMF (initials)
forms\advins.doc
DECLARATION OF POSTING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON AND CONSIDER
ACCEPTING CITY OF LODI'S REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO
PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County,
California, a copy of a Notice of Public Hearing to receive comments on and consider
accepting City of Lodi's Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals
(attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A") was posted at the following locations:
Lodi City Clerk's Office
Lodi City Hall Lobby
Lodi Carnegie Forum
WorkNet Office
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on November 16, 2016, at Lodi, California.
ORDERED BY:
JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO
CITY CLERK
f •
PAMELA FARRIS ELIZABETH BURGOS
DEPUTY CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK
N:\Administration\CLERK\Public Hearings \AFFADAVITS \DECPO ST1 .DOC
CITY OF LODI
Carnegie Forum
305 West Pine Street, Lodi
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date: December 21, 2016
Time: 7:00 p.m.
For information regarding this notice please contact:
Jennifer M. Ferraiolo
City Clerk
Telephone: (209) 333-6702
pri 1! '.
a A 1
NI
is b v
h
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, December 21, 2016, at the hour of
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will
conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider
the following matter:
a) Receive comments on and consider accepting City of Lodi's Report on
Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Public Works Department,
221 West Pine Street, Lodi, (209) 333-6706. All interested persons are invited to
present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with
the City Clerk, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, 2nd Floor, Lodi, 95240, at any time prior
to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing.
If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to
the close of the public hearing.
By Order of the Lodi City Council:
J4 ni er AFerrdioli
rty Clerk
Dated: November 15, 2016
Approued..as to form:
:Janice D. Magdich
City Attorney
AVISO: Para obtener ayuda interpretative con esta noticia, por favor Ilame a la oficina de la
Secretaria Municipal, a las (209) 333-6702.
N:\Administration\CLERK\Public Hearings\NOTICES \NotPW_WaterQuality.doc
CLERK\PUBHEAR\NOTICES \NotPW WaterQuality.doc 11110/16