The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - November 6, 2019 G-03AGENDA ITEM G-3 Crrv on Lour Councn CovTMUNIcATIoN TM AGENDA TITLE: MEETING DATE: PREPARED BY: Public Hearing to Receive Comments on and Consider Accepting City of Lodi's Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals November 6,2019 Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION Public hearing 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 public health goals (PHGs) and with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) maximum contaminant levelgoals (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 AnnualWater Quality Report, which the City mails to each customer by July 1't of each year. The draft report has 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 and the USEPA. No additional actions are required or recommended. FISCAL IMPACT Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. Charles E. Swimley, Jr Public Works Director Prepared by Travis Kahrs, Water Plant Superintendent - Public Works CES/T]ftw Attachment APPROVED: R:\GROUP\ADMIN\Council\2019\1 I 06201 9\PH PH\CC Public Hearing PHG 2019.doc Manager 10t14t19 STAFF REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS 2016-2018 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 Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) .......................................................................................... 4 Tetrachloroethylene .............................................................................................................. 5 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane ..………………………………………………………………….6 Uranium ................................................................................................................................ 7 Gross Alpha Particle Activity .............................................................................................. 8 Combined Radium ............................................................................................................... 9 Total Coliform (Informational Purposes Only) .................................................................. 10 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION ........................................................... 11 List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 13 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 2016 and 2018 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 City of Lodi’s drinking water comes from groundwater and surface water sources. Approximately, 50 percent of the water supplied to our customers originates from 23 active wells owned and operated by the City. The remaining 50 percent is treated surface water REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS Page 2 of 14 produced through the Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF). Water is diverted from the Mokelumne River (purchased from Woodbridge Irrigation District). WATER QUALITY DATA CONSIDERED All of the water quality data collected by our water system between 2016 and 2018 for purposes of determining compliance with drinking water standards was considered. This data was summarized in our 2016, 2017, and 2018 Annual Water Quality Reports which were mailed to all customers before July 1st of the following year. These reports were also made available on the City’s website. 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 average production from 2016-2018. Water production for each source can vary dramatically from year to year so the treatment cost associated with these estimates will 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, Dibromochloropropane (DBCP), Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane (1,2,3,- TCP), Uranium, Combined Radium, and Gross Alpha Particle Activity. 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 (μg) quantities of As (inorganic and organic) largely from food (25 to 50 μg 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. REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS Page 4 of 14 Arsenic levels in all City sources of supply are well below the regulatory standard. 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 2016-2018 show that As was detected in 26 City wells below the MCL (2.1 to 10.0 ppb). As of the end of 2018, four of the City wells are in standby operation mode, and one is classified as inactive. 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 $4.33 to $7.33 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 $6.1 million to $10.3 million per year. That would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer ranging from $230.41 to $390.05 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 14 of Lodi’s 26 City wells used in 2016-2018. Levels of DBCP in the 14 wells range from 10 to 210 ppt. There has been no detection for DBCP in the surface water supply. The running annual average levels of DBCP were well below the MCLs, so they do not constitute a violation of drinking water regulations. Currently, seven City Wells are equipped with GAC to treat DBCP at levels above the MCL. One of the City wells was off-line from 2016-2018, therefore, it is not included in the following treatment discussion. REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS Page 5 of 14 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 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 fourteen 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 approximately $1.60 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. The annualized capital and O&M costs would be approximately $689,531 per year. That would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer of $26.13 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 REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS Page 6 of 14 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 quality data for City sources from 2016-2018 shows that PCE has been detected in one City well over the PHG. Levels of PCE in the City wells range from 1.1 to 2.2 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 If GAC were selected as the BAT to further reduce PCE in the well to levels below the DLR, the cost is approximately $1.60 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. The annualized capital and O&M costs would be approximately $3,500 per year, though initial construction would be substantial and is estimated to cost approximately $650,000. That would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer of approximately $24.63 at the onset, and $.13 per year thereafter. The issue with this specific site is that there is not a large enough footprint for GAC treatment installation, thus we would either have to acquire more land or destroy the well. 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 became a regulated chemical in 2018, with a California Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 ppt. The DLR for 1,2,3,-TCP is 5 ppt. 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 7 of 14 Because the DLR for 1,2,3,-TCP is 5 ppt, 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 0.7 ppt PHG and the 5 ppt DLR is unknown and not considered in this report. Water quality data for City sources from 2016-2018 shows that 1,2,3,-TCP has been detected in nine City wells over the PHG and at/above the DLR. Of these nine wells, five are equipped with GAC for removal of 1,2,3,-TCP. 3 wells did not supply water to the city because they were either inactive or in standby mode. Levels of 1,2,3,-TCP detected in the City wells range from 5 to 54 ppt. There has been no detection for 1,2,3,-TCP 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, five of the nine 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 is approximately $1.60 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. The annualized capital and O&M costs would be approximately $368,000 per year. That would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer of approximately $13.95 per year. The initial cost to install treatment at a given location is roughly $800,000. 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 REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS Page 8 of 14 “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. 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 2016-2018 shows that U has been detected in ten City wells. Levels of U reported for the City wells range from ND to 27.7 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 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 $4.33 to $7.33 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. If RO treatment were considered for the 10 wells discussed above, the annualized capital and O&M costs could range from approximately $3.2 million to $5.4 million per year. That would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer ranging from $120.92 to $204.69 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 REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS Page 9 of 14 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 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 2016-2018 shows that GA has been detected 13 City wells above the DLR. Levels of GA in the City wells range from ND to 20.3 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 $4.33 to $7.33 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. If RO treatment were considered for the 13 wells discussed above, the annualized capital and O&M costs could range from approximately $6.9 million to $11.7 million per year. That would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer ranging from $261.53 to $442.72 per year. Combined Radium Radium (Ra) is one of several naturally-occurring radioactive metals that emits alpha (as well as gamma and beta) radiation. Combined Ra is the sum of two different isotopes, Ra226 and Ra228. Ra is formed by the radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in the environment. All isotopes of Ra are radioactive with Ra226 and Ra228 being the most common. Radioactive decay of Ra produces radon gas. Ra occurs at trace levels in most rocks, soil, water, plants and animals. Trace levels can also be found in the air. Elevated levels of naturally-occurring Ra in the environment are associated with specific types of igneous rocks and deposition of their weathered components. Anthropogenic sources are typically associated with uranium mining and improper handling or disposal radioactive waste. Ra has been used historically in medical treatments, medical devices and for illumination of aircraft gauges. REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS Page 10 of 14 The MCL for (combined) Ra (Ra226 and Ra228) is 5 pCi/L. At specific concentrations, the toxicological effects of each isotope differ. Therefore, the PHGs for Ra226 (at 0.05 pCi/L) and Ra228 (at 0.019 pCi/L) differ as well. OEHHA’s March 2006, “Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water; Radium-226 and -228” summarizes the health effects observed from studies involving drinking water with high levels of Ra. Non-carcinogenic effects include: mutagenic effects, benign bone growths, growth retardation in children, tooth breakage, kidney and liver disease and cataracts. Bone sarcomas and head sarcomas are the two main types of cancer associated with exposure to high levels of Ra. The health effects language in Appendix 64465-C of Title 22, California Code of Regulations states that: “Some people who drink water containing radium 226 or 228 in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer.” As shown in the table above, the numerical health (cancer) risks for drinking water with Ra226 and Ra228 at the MCL is 1 in 10,000 and 3 in 10,000, respectively. The numerical health (cancer) risk for drinking water with Ra226 and Ra228 at their respective PHGs is 1 in 1,000,000. The levels of Ra in District sources of supply are below the regulatory standard. Because the DLR for Ra is 1 pCi/L, the City is limited to reporting the presence of Ra only down to that level. As such, any Ra that may be present in sources at levels between the 0.05 pCi/L and 0.019 pCi/L PHGs for Ra226 and Ra228 and the 1 pCi/L DLR is unknown and not considered in this report. Water quality data for City sources from 2016-2018 shows that Ra has been detected in two wells. No reportable Ra was detected in surface water sources during that period. Levels of Ra in the wells range from .113 to .386 pCi/L. The approved BATs for treating Ra include the following treatment techniques: 1. Ion Exchange 2. Reverse Osmosis 3. Lime Softening The most effective method to reduce Ra is to install RO treatment at select groundwater wells where results exceed the PHGs for Ra226 and Ra228, and are detectable at levels above the DLR. Cost estimates for RO range from $4.33 to $7.33 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. If RO treatment were considered for the four wells discussed above, the annualized capital and O&M costs could range from approximately $647,000 to $1.1 million per year. That would result in an assumed increased cost for each customer ranging from $24.52 to $41.52 per year. 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 2016-18, the City collected 3,140 from our distribution system for coliform analysis. Of these samples, two were positive for coliform bacteria and the City has achieved our MCLG. As a percentage, this represents .06% of samples. REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS Page 11 of 14 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 2016-2018. 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 • Maintaining positive pressure in the distribution system. To provide any additional treatment to reach the MCLG level for total coliform may not be effective and is not proposed in this report. Therefore, no estimate of cost 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 REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS Page 12 of 14 benefits of many of these further hypothetical reductions are not at all clear and may not be quantifiable. At this time, however, staff does recommend proceeding with GAC installation at Wells No. 27 and 28 to treat for 1,2,3,-TCP. These sites have 1,2,3,-TCP detection above the MCL, and unlike Well 13, have enough land to accommodate the installation of treatment. The GAC treatment at these sites can be designed specifically with the treatment of 1,2,3,- TCP in mind, e.g. GAC vessels in series. 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: Travis Kahrs, Water Plant Superintendent 2001 West Turner Road, Lodi CA 95242 or call (209) 333-6800 x2690. REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS Page 13 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 USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Attachment 1 This table includes: For comparison: California's maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) Detection limits for purposes of reporting (DLRs) Regulated Contaminant MCL DLR PHG Date of PHG MCL MCLG Aluminum 1 0.05 0.6 2001 ---- Antimony 0.006 0.006 0.001 2016 0.006 0,006 Arsenic 0.010 0.002 0.000004 2004 0.010 zero Asbestos (MFL = million fibers per liter; for fibers >10 microns long)7 MFL 0.2 MFL 7 MFL 2003 7 MFL 7 MFL Barium 1 0.1 2 2003 2 2 Beryllium 0.004 0.001 0.001 2003 0.004 0.004 Cadmium 0.005 0.001 0.00004 2006 0.005 0.005 Chromium, Total - OEHHA withdrew the 0.0025-mg/L PHG 0.05 0.01 withdrawn Nov. 2001 1999 0.1 0.1 Chromium, Hexavalent - 0.01-mg/L MCL & 0.001-mg/L DLR repealed September 2017 ----0.00002 2011 ---- Cyanide 0.15 0.1 0.15 1997 0.2 0.2 Fluoride 2 0.1 1 1997 4.0 4.0 Mercury (inorganic) 0.002 0.001 0.0012 1999 (rev2005)*0.002 0.002 Nickel 0.1 0.01 0.012 2001 ---- Nitrate (as nitrogen, N) 10 as N 0.4 45 as NO3 (=10 as N)2018 10 10 Nitrite (as N) 1 as N 0.4 1 as N 2018 1 1 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N)10 as N --10 as N 2018 ---- Perchlorate 0.006 0.004 0.001 2015 ---- Selenium 0.05 0.005 0.03 2010 0.05 0.05 Thallium 0.002 0.001 0.0001 1999 (rev2004)0.002 0.0005 Copper 1.3 0.05 0.3 2008 1.3 1.3 Lead 0.015 0.005 0.0002 2009 0.015 zero Gross alpha particle activity - OEHHA concluded in 2003 that a PHG was not practical 15 3 none n/a 15 zero Radionuclides with MCLs in 22 CCR §64441 and §64443 —Radioactivity [units are picocuries per liter (pCi/L), unless otherwise stated; n/a = not applicable] Federal MCLs and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) (US EPA) MCLs, DLRs, and PHGs for Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants (Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L), unless otherwise noted.) Last Update: December 26, 2018 Also, the PHG for NDMA (which is not yet regulated) is included at the bottom of this table. Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64431 —Inorganic Chemicals Public health goals (PHGs) from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 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 Gross beta particle activity - OEHHA concluded in 2003 that a PHG was not practical 4 mrem/yr 4 none n/a 4 mrem/yr zero Radium-226 --1 0.05 2006 Radium-228 --1 0.019 2006 Radium-226 + Radium-228 5 ------5 zero Strontium-90 8 2 0.35 2006 ---- Tritium 20,000 1,000 400 2006 ---- Uranium 20 1 0.43 2001 30 µg/L zero Benzene 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 2001 0.005 zero Carbon tetrachloride 0.0005 0.0005 0.0001 2000 0.005 zero 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 0.0005 0.6 1997 (rev2009)0.6 0.6 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-DCB) 0.005 0.0005 0.006 1997 0.075 0.075 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)0.005 zero 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE)0.006 0.0005 0.01 1999 0.007 0.007 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006 0.0005 0.013 2018 0.07 0.07 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01 0.0005 0.05 2018 0.1 0.1 Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)0.005 0.0005 0.004 2000 0.005 zero 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 0.0005 0.0005 1999 0.005 zero 1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 1999 (rev2006)---- Ethylbenzene 0.3 0.0005 0.3 1997 0.7 0.7 Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) 0.013 0.003 0.013 1999 ---- Monochlorobenzene 0.07 0.0005 0.07 2014 0.1 0.1 Styrene 0.1 0.0005 0.0005 2010 0.1 0.1 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001 0.0005 0.0001 2003 0.1 0.1 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 0.005 0.0005 0.00006 2001 0.005 zero Toluene 0.15 0.0005 0.15 1999 1 1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.005 0.0005 0.005 1999 0.07 0.07 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA)0.2 0.0005 1 2006 0.2 0.2 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA)0.005 0.0005 0.0003 2006 0.005 0.003 Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.005 0.0005 0.0017 2009 0.005 zero 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 0.002 zero Xylenes 1.75 0.0005 1.8 1997 10 10 Alachlor 0.002 0.001 0.004 1997 0.002 zero Atrazine 0.001 0.0005 0.00015 1999 0.003 0.003 Bentazon 0.018 0.002 0.2 1999 (rev2009)---- Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0002 0.0001 0.000007 2010 0.0002 zero Carbofuran 0.018 0.005 0.0007 2016 0.04 0.04 Chlordane 0.0001 0.0001 0.00003 1997 (rev2006)0.002 zero Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64444 —Organic Chemicals (a) Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) (b) Non-Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals (SOCs) Dalapon 0.2 0.01 0.79 1997 (rev2009)0.2 0.2 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)0.0002 0.00001 0.0000017 1999 0.0002 zero 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)0.07 0.01 0.02 2009 0.07 0.07 Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate 0.4 0.005 0.2 2003 0.4 0.4 Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) 0.004 0.003 0.012 1997 0.006 zero Dinoseb 0.007 0.002 0.014 1997 (rev2010)0.007 0.007 Diquat 0.02 0.004 0.006 2016 0.02 0.02 Endothal 0.1 0.045 0.094 2014 0.1 0.1 Endrin 0.002 0.0001 0.0003 2016 0.002 0.002 Ethylene dibromide (EDB)0.00005 0.00002 0.00001 2003 0.00005 zero Glyphosate 0.7 0.025 0.9 2007 0.7 0.7 Heptachlor 0.00001 0.00001 0.000008 1999 0.0004 zero Heptachlor epoxide 0.00001 0.00001 0.000006 1999 0.0002 zero Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 0.0005 0.00003 2003 0.001 zero Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 0.001 0.002 2014 0.05 0.05 Lindane 0.0002 0.0002 0.000032 1999 (rev2005)0.0002 0.0002 Methoxychlor 0.03 0.01 0.00009 2010 0.04 0.04 Molinate 0.02 0.002 0.001 2008 ---- Oxamyl 0.05 0.02 0.026 2009 0.2 0.2 Pentachlorophenol 0.001 0.0002 0.0003 2009 0.001 zero Picloram 0.5 0.001 0.166 2016 0.5 0.5 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)0.0005 0.0005 0.00009 2007 0.0005 zero Simazine 0.004 0.001 0.004 2001 0.004 0.004 Thiobencarb 0.07 0.001 0.042 2016 ---- Toxaphene 0.003 0.001 0.00003 2003 0.003 zero 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 0.000005 0.000005 0.0000007 2009 ---- 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) 3x10-8 5x10-9 5x10-11 2010 3x10-8 zero 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)0.05 0.001 0.003 2014 0.05 0.05 Total Trihalomethanes 0.080 ------0.080 -- Bromodichloromethane --0.0010 0.00006 2018 draft --zero Bromoform --0.0010 0.0005 2018 draft --zero Chloroform --0.0010 0.0004 2018 draft --0.07 Dibromochloromethane --0.0010 0.0001 2018 draft --0.06 Haloacetic Acids (five) (HAA5)0.060 ------0.060 -- Monochloroacetic Acid --0.0020 ------0.07 Dichloroacetic Adic --0.0010 ------zero Trichloroacetic Acid --0.0010 ------0.02 Monobromoacetic Acid --0.0010 -------- Dibromoacetic Acid --0.0010 -------- Bromate 0.010 0.0050**0.0001 2009 0.01 zero Chlorite 1.0 0.020 0.05 2009 1 0.8 N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)----0.000003 2006 ---- Chemicals with MCLs in 22 CCR §64533 —Disinfection Byproducts *OEHHA's review of this chemical during the year indicated (rev20XX) resulted in no change in the PHG. Chemicals with PHGs established in response to DDW requests. These are not currently regulated drinking water contaminants. **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. Attachment 2 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 2018* ($/1,000 gallons treated) 1 Ion Exchange Coachella Valley WD, for GW, to reduce Arsenic concentrations. 2011 costs.2.19 2 Ion Exchange City of Riverside Public Utilities, for GW, for Perchlorate treatment. 1.06 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.0.80 4 Granular Activated Carbon City of Riverside Public Utilities, GW sources, for TCE, DBCP (VOC, SOC) treatment. 0.53 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.0.38 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. 1.62 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.0.86 8 Packed Tower Aeration City of Monrovia, treatment to reduce TCE, PCE concentrations. 2011-12 costs.0.47 9 Ozonation+ Chemical addition SCVWD, STWTP treatment plant includes chemical addition + ozone generation costs to reduce THM/HAAs concentrations. 2009-2012 costs.0.10 Table 1 Reference: 2012 ACWA PHG Survey Page 2 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 2018* ($/1,000 gallons treated) 10 Ozonation+ Chemical addition SCVWD, PWTP treatment plant includes chemical addition + ozone generation costs to reduce THM/HAAs concentrations, 2009-2012 costs.0.21 11 Coagulation/Filtra tion Soquel WD, treatment to reduce manganese concentrations in GW. 2011 costs.0.80 12 Coagulation/Filtra tion Optimization San Diego WA, costs to reduce THM/Bromate, Turbidity concentrations, raw SW a blend of State Water Project water and Colorado River water, treated at Twin Oaks Valley WTP.0.91 13 Blending (Well)Rancho California WD, GW blending well, 1150 gpm, to reduce fluoride concentrations.0.76 14 Blending (Wells)Rancho California WD, GW blending wells, to reduce arsenic concentrations, 2012 costs.0.62 15 Blending Rancho California WD, using MWD water to blend with GW to reduce arsenic concentrations. 2012 costs.0.74 16 Corrosion Inhibition Atascadero Mutual WC, corrosion inhibitor addition to control aggressive water. 2011 costs.0.09 *Costs were adjusted from date of original estimates to present, where appropriate, using the Engineering News Record (ENR) annual average building costs of 2018 and 2012. The adjustment factor was derived from the ratio of 2018 Index/2012 Index, or 1.188. For the indexed 2015 costs, please refer to the ACWA PHG Guidance published in March 2016. Page 1 of 2 No.Treatment Technology Source of Information Estimated 2012 Unit Cost Indexed to 2018* ($/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. 1.74 - 10.97 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. 1.79 - 7.47 3 IX Golden State Water Co., IX w/disposable resin, 1 MGD, Perchlorate removal, built in 2010. 0.55 4 IX Golden State Water Co., IX w/disposable resin, 1000 gpm, perchlorate removal (Proposed; O&M estimated). 1.19 5 IX Golden State Water Co., IX with brine regeneration, 500 gpm for Selenium removal, built in 2007. 7.81 6 GFO/Adsorption Golden State Water Co., Granular Ferric Oxide Resin, Arsenic removal, 600 gpm, 2 facilities, built in 2006. 2.04 - 2.18 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. 2.67 8 IX Reference: Inland Empire Utilities Agency : Chino Basin Desalter. IX cost to reduce 150 ppm Nitrate (as NO3); approx. 2.6 mgd. 1.49 Table 2 Reference: Other Agencies COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS) Page 2 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. 0.45 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. 0.62 - 0.88 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. 0.41 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. $17 million funded through state and federal grants with the remainder funded by WVWD and the City of Rialto. 1.84 - 1.94 *Costs were adjusted from date of original estimates to present, where appropriate, using the Engineering News Record (ENR) annual average building costs of 2018 and 2012. The adjustment factor was derived from the ratio of 2018 Index/2012 Index, or 1.188. For the indexed 2015 costs, please refer to the ACWA PHG Guidance published in March 2016. Page 1 of 3 Table 3 Reference: Updated 2012 ACWA Cost of Treatment Table COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS) No.Treatment Technology Source of Information Estimated 2012 Unit Cost Indexed to 2018* ($/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 0.63 - 1.19 2 Granular Activated Carbon Reference: Carollo Engineers, estimate for VOC treatment (PCE), 95% removal of PCE, Oct. 1994,1900 gpm design capacity 0.29 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 1.38 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 0.54 - 0.78 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 2.47 6 Granular Activated Carbon Reference: Southern California Water Co. - actual data for permanent GAC to remove VOCs (TCE), 2.16 mgd plant capacity, 1998 1.60 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 1.85 - 3.55 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 4.38 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 2.70 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 2.92 Page 2 of 3 COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS) No.Treatment Technology Source of Information Estimated 2012 Unit Cost Indexed to 2018* ($/1,000 gallons treated) 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 2.26 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 7.33 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 4.33 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 3.24 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 2.01 16 Reverse Osmosis Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd central treatment facility with RO to remove nitrate, 1990 2.02 - 3.55 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 1.16 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 0.62 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 0.31 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 0.32 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 0.50 - 0.82 Page 3 of 3 COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES (INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS) No.Treatment Technology Source of Information Estimated 2012 Unit Cost Indexed to 2018* ($/1,000 gallons treated) 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 0.61 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 0.14 - 0.29 24 Ion Exchange Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd central treatment facility - ion exchange to remove nitrate, 1990 0.67 - 0.88 *Costs were adjusted from date of original estimates to present, where appropriate, using the Engineering News Record (ENR) annual average building costs of 2018 and 2012. The adjustment factor was derived from the ratio of 2018 Index/2012 Index, or 1.188. For the indexed 2015 costs, please refer to the ACWA PHG Guidance published in March 2016. Attachment 3 DRAFT – FOR REVIEW ONLY OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT Public Health Goals Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports February 2019 Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 1 Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports Prepared by Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency February 2019 Under the Calderon-Sher Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (the Act), public water systems with more than 10,000 service connections are required to prepare a report every three years for contaminants that exceed their respective Public Health Goals (PHGs).1 This document contains health risk information on regulated drinking water contaminants to assist public water systems in preparing these reports. A PHG is the concentration of a contaminant in drinking water that poses no significant health risk if consumed for a lifetime. PHGs are developed and published by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) using current risk assessment principles, practices and methods.2 The water system’s report is required to identify the health risk category (e.g., carcinogenicity or neurotoxicity) associated with exposure to each regulated contaminant in drinking water and to include a brief, plainly worded description of these risks. The report is also required to disclose the numerical public health risk, if available, associated with the California Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and with the PHG for each contaminant. This health risk information document is prepared by OEHHA every three years to assist the water systems in providing the required information in their reports. 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 1 Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b) 2 Health and Safety Code Section 116365 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 2 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. 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 no more than a one-in-one-million excess cancer risk (1×10-6) 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 website (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 2019 3 Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk 3 at the PHG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Alachlor carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.004 NA 5,6 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 (4×10-6) 1×10-6 (one per million) 0.01 2.5×10-3 (2.5 per thousand) Asbestos carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 7 MFL7 (fibers >10 microns in length) 1×10-6 7 MFL (fibers >10 microns in length) 1×10-6 (one per million) Atrazine carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00015 1×10-6 0.001 7×10-6 (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_Regtext011912.pdf). 2 mg/L = milligrams per liter of water or parts per million (ppm) 3 Cancer Risk = Upper bound estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk may be lower or zero. 1×10-6 means one excess cancer case per million people exposed. 4 MCL = maximum contaminant level. 5 NA = not applicable. Cancer risk cannot be calculated. 6 The PHG for alachlor is based on a threshold model of carcinogenesis and is set at a level that is believed to be without any significant cancer risk to individuals exposed to the chemical over a lifetime. 7 MFL = million fibers per liter of water. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 4 Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk 3 at the PHG California MCL 4 (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 effects8) 0.2 NA 0.018 NA Benzene carcinogenicity (causes leukemia) 0.00015 1×10-6 0.001 7×10-6 (seven per million) Benzo[a]pyrene carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000007 (7×10-6) 1×10-6 0.0002 3×10-5 (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 1×10-6 0.01 1×10-4 (one per ten thousand) Cadmium nephrotoxicity (harms the kidney) 0.00004 NA 0.005 NA Carbofuran reproductive toxicity (harms the testis) 0.0007 NA 0.018 NA 8 Body weight effects are an indicator of general toxicity in animal studies. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 5 Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk 3 at the PHG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Carbon tetrachloride carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0001 1×10-6 0.0005 5×10-6 (five per million) Chlordane carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00003 1×10-6 0.0001 3×10-6 (three per million) Chlorite hematotoxicity (causes anemia) neurotoxicity (causes neurobehavioral effects) 0.05 NA 1 NA Chromium, hexavalent carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00002 1×10-6 none NA Copper digestive system toxicity (causes nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) 0.3 NA 1.3 (AL 9) 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 Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (DEHA) developmental toxicity (disrupts development) 0.2 NA 0.4 NA Diethylhexyl- phthalate (DEHP) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.012 1×10-6 0.004 3×10-7 (three per ten million) 9 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 2019 6 Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk 3 at the PHG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL 1,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane (DBCP) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0000017 (1.7x10-6) 1×10-6 0.0002 1×10-4 (one per ten thousand) 1,2-Dichloro- benzene (o-DCB) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.6 NA 0.6 NA 1,4-Dichloro- benzene (p-DCB) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.006 1×10-6 0.005 8×10-7 (eight per ten million) 1,1-Dichloro- ethane (1,1-DCA) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.003 1×10-6 0.005 2×10-6 (two per million) 1,2-Dichloro- ethane (1,2-DCA) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0004 1×10-6 0.0005 1×10-6 (one per million) 1,1-Dichloro- ethylene (1,1-DCE) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.01 NA 0.006 NA 1,2-Dichloro- ethylene, cis nephrotoxicity (harms the kidney) 0.013 NA 0.006 NA 1,2-Dichloro- ethylene, trans immunotoxicity (harms the immune system) 0.05 NA 0.01 NA Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.004 1×10-6 0.005 1×10-6 (one per million) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 7 Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk 3 at the PHG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL 2,4-Dichloro- phenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) hepatotoxicity and nephrotoxicity (harms the liver and kidney) 0.02 NA 0.07 NA 1,2-Dichloro- propane (propylene dichloride) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0005 1×10-6 0.005 1×10-5 (one per hundred thousand) 1,3-Dichloro- propene (Telone II) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0002 1×10-6 0.0005 2×10-6 (two per million) Dinoseb reproductive toxicity (harms the uterus and testis) 0.014 NA 0.007 NA Diquat ocular toxicity (harms the eye) developmental toxicity (causes malformation) 0.006 NA 0.02 NA Endothall digestive system toxicity (harms the stomach or intestine) 0.094 NA 0.1 NA Endrin neurotoxicity (causes convulsions) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.0003 NA 0.002 NA Ethylbenzene (phenylethane) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.3 NA 0.3 NA Ethylene dibromide (1,2- Dibromoethane) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00001 1×10-6 0.00005 5×10-6 (five per million) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 8 Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk 3 at the PHG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Fluoride musculoskeletal toxicity (causes tooth mottling) 1 NA 2 NA Glyphosate nephrotoxicity (harms the kidney) 0.9 NA 0.7 NA Heptachlor carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000008 (8×10-6) 1×10-6 0.00001 1×10-6 (one per million) Heptachlor epoxide carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000006 (6×10-6) 1×10-6 0.00001 2×10-6 (two per million) Hexachloroben- zene carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00003 1×10-6 0.001 3×10-5 (three per hundred thousand) Hexachloro- cyclopentadiene (HCCPD) digestive system toxicity (causes stomach lesions) 0.002 NA 0.05 NA Lead developmental neurotoxicity (causes neurobehavioral effects in children) cardiovascular toxicity (causes high blood pressure) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0002 <1×10-6 (PHG is not based on this effect) 0.015 (AL8) 2×10-6 (two per million) Lindane (γ-BHC) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000032 1×10-6 0.0002 6×10-6 (six per million) Mercury (inorganic) nephrotoxicity (harms the kidney) 0.0012 NA 0.002 NA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 9 Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk 3 at the PHG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Methoxychlor endocrine toxicity (causes hormone effects) 0.00009 NA 0.03 NA Methyl tertiary- butyl ether (MTBE) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.013 1×10-6 0.013 1×10-6 (one per million) Molinate carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.001 1×10-6 0.02 2×10-5 (two per hundred thousand) Monochloro- benzene (chlorobenzene) nephrotoxicity (harms the kidney) 0.07 NA 0.07 NA 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) 3 as nitrite NA 1 as nitrogen (=3 as nitrite) NA Nitrate and Nitrite hematotoxicity (causes methemoglobinemia) 10 as nitrogen 10 NA 10 as nitrogen NA 10 The joint nitrate/nitrite PHG of 10 mg/L (10 ppm, expressed as nitrogen) does not replace the individual values, and the maximum contribution from nitrite should not exceed 1 mg/L nitrite-nitrogen. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 10 Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk 3 at the PHG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL N-nitroso- dimethyl-amine (NDMA) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.000003 (3×10-6) 1×10-6 none NA Oxamyl general toxicity (causes body weight effects) 0.026 NA 0.05 NA Pentachloro- phenol (PCP) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0003 1×10-6 0.001 3×10-6 (three per million) Perchlorate endocrine toxicity (affects the thyroid) developmental toxicity (causes neurodevelop- mental deficits) 0.001 NA 0.006 NA Picloram hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.166 NA 0.5 NA Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00009 1×10-6 0.0005 6×10-6 (six per million) Radium-226 carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.05 pCi/L 1×10-6 5 pCi/L (combined Ra226+228) 1×10-4 (one per ten thousand) Radium-228 carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.019 pCi/L 1×10-6 5 pCi/L (combined Ra226+228) 3×10-4 (three per ten thousand) Selenium integumentary toxicity (causes hair loss and nail damage) 0.03 NA 0.05 NA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 11 Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk 3 at the PHG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL 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 1×10-6 8 pCi/L 2×10-5 (two per hundred thousand) Styrene (vinylbenzene) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0005 1×10-6 0.1 2×10-4 (two per ten thousand) 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloro- ethane carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0001 1×10-6 0.001 1×10-5 (one per hundred thousand) 2,3,7,8-Tetra- chlorodibenzo-p- dioxin (TCDD, or dioxin) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 5×10-11 1×10-6 3×10-8 6×10-4 (six per ten thousand) Tetrachloro- ethylene (perchloro- ethylene, or PCE) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00006 1×10-6 0.005 8×10-5 (eight per hundred thousand) Thallium integumentary toxicity (causes hair loss) 0.0001 NA 0.002 NA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 12 Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk 3 at the PHG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Thiobencarb general toxicity (causes body weight effects) hematotoxicity (affects red blood cells) 0.042 NA 0.07 NA Toluene (methylbenzene) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) endocrine toxicity (harms the thymus) 0.15 NA 0.15 NA Toxaphene carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00003 1×10-6 0.003 1×10-4 (one per ten thousand) 1,2,4-Trichloro- benzene endocrine toxicity (harms adrenal glands) 0.005 NA 0.005 NA 1,1,1-Trichloro- ethane neurotoxicity (harms the nervous system), reproductive toxicity (causes fewer offspring) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) hematotoxicity (causes blood effects) 1 NA 0.2 NA 1,1,2-Trichloro- ethane carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0003 1x10-6 0.005 2×10-5 (two per hundred thousand) Trichloro- ethylene (TCE) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0017 1×10-6 0.005 3×10-6 (three per million) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 13 Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals with California Public Health Goals (PHGs) Chemical Health Risk Category1 California PHG (mg/L)2 Cancer Risk 3 at the PHG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk at the California MCL Trichlorofluoro- methane (Freon 11) accelerated mortality (increase in early death) 1.3 NA 0.15 NA 1,2,3-Trichloro- propane (1,2,3-TCP) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.0000007 (7×10-7) 1x10-6 0.000005 (5×10-6) 7×10-6 (seven per million) 1,1,2-Trichloro- 1,2,2-trifluoro- ethane (Freon 113) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 4 NA 1.2 NA 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 1×10-6 20 pCi/L 5×10-5 (five per hundred thousand) Vinyl chloride carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0.00005 1×10-6 0.0005 1×10-5 (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 2019 14 Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals without California Public Health Goals Chemical Health Risk Category1 US EPA MCLG 2 (mg/L) Cancer Risk 3 @ MCLG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk @ California MCL Disinfection byproducts (DBPs) Chloramines acute toxicity (causes irritation) digestive system toxicity (harms the stomach) hematotoxicity (causes anemia) 4 5,6 NA 7 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 (HAA5) Monochloroacetic acid (MCA) general toxicity (causes body and organ weight changes8) 0.07 NA none NA Dichloroacetic acid (DCA) carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0 0 none NA 1 Health risk category based on the US EPA MCLG document or California MCL document unless otherwise specified. 2 MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal established by US EPA. 3 Cancer Risk = Upper estimate of excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure. Actual cancer risk may be lower or zero. 1×10-6 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. 7 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 2019 15 Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals without California Public Health Goals Chemical Health Risk Category1 US EPA MCLG 2 (mg/L) Cancer Risk 3 @ MCLG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk @ California MCL Trichloroacetic acid (TCA) hepatotoxicity (harms the liver) 0.02 NA none NA Monobromoacetic acid (MBA) NA none NA none NA Dibromoacetic acid (DBA) NA none NA none NA Total haloacetic acids (sum of MCA, DCA, TCA, MBA, and DBA) general toxicity, hepatotoxicity and carcinogenicity (causes body and organ weight changes, harms the liver and 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 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Water Toxicology Section February 2019 16 Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals without California Public Health Goals Chemical Health Risk Category1 US EPA MCLG 2 (mg/L) Cancer Risk 3 @ MCLG California MCL 4 (mg/L) Cancer Risk @ California MCL 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 Radionuclides Gross alpha particles 9 carcinogenicity (causes cancer) 0 (210Po included) 0 15 pCi/L 10 (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://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/reports/grossab.html. 10 pCi/L = picocuries per liter of water. PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF LODI REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS Agenda Item G-3 November 6, 2019 The City of Lodi Public Works Background •California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b) requires 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. •The report is intended to provide information to the public, in addition to the Annual Water Quality Report, mailed to each customer by July 1 each year. Report Guidelines •Prepared per ACWA guidelines; and •Numerical public health risk associated with the Maximum Contaminant Level, and the PHG and MCLG; and •Category or type of risk to health that could be associated with each contaminant level; and •Best Available Treatment Technology that could be used to reduce the contaminant level; and •Estimate of the cost to install that treatment, if appropriate and feasible. Water Sources and Data Considered •Groundwater sources (28 wells) account for 50 percent of the water supplied to our customers. •Treated Surface Water from the Mokelumne River accounts for the remaining 50 percent. •All of the water quality data collected between 2016 and 2018 is considered for this report. Constituents Over PHG Constituents MCL or AL PHG or MCLG Lodi Concentrations Arsenic 10 ppb 0.004 ppb ND – 10.0 ppb DBCP 200 ppt 1.7 ppt ND – 190 ppt PCE 5 ppb 0.06 ppb ND – 2.2 ppb 1,2,3,-TCP 5 ppt .7 ppt ND – 7 ppt Uranium 20 pCi/L 0.43 pCi/L ND – 27.7 pCi/L Gross Alpha 15 pCi/L None ND – 20.3 pCi/L Radium 226 - 0.05 pCi/L ND-0.113 pCi/L Radium 228 - 0.019 pCi/L ND-0.386 pCi/L Radium 226+ Radium 228 5 pCi/L - ND- 0.499 pCi/L Current Treatment •Full system chlorination, a proactive measure to prevent bacteriological events. •Seven wells currently have Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) treatment for Volitile Organic Compounds like Dibromochloropropane (DBCP), tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane (1,2,3,-TCP). •PCE/TCE Cleanup, Groundwater and Soil Vapor Extraction utilized to treat and contain localized contamination from impacting drinking water. •Surface Water Treatment Facility utilizes membrane filtration (microbial pathogens), chlorination and corrosion control (protection of the water system). Compliance •Current treatment meets or exceeds all State and Federal 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 State and Federal standards, additional costly treatment processes would be required. •Staff is recommending no further action at this time. QUESTIONS??? Pleøse immediøtely conJirm receipt o this ax 333-6702 CITY OF LODI P. O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNTA 95241-T9IO ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON AND CONSIDER ACCEPTING CITY OF LODI'S REPORT ON WATER QUAL¡TY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2019 SUBJECT: LEGAL AD TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (I} please SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO LNS AGCT. #O5lOO52 DATED:THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2019 ORDERED BY JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO CITY CLERK S CLERK JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO, CITY CLERK City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 KAYLEE CLAYTON ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK M. ct Verify Appearance of this Legal in the Newspaper - Copy to File Emailed to the Sentinel'at classified:l@lodinews.com atJlgf4¡¡gm"¡ on tdÊ\\1 (date) À þases) 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 Thursday, October 3,2O19, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, 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 and marked as 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 October 3,2019, at Lodi, California. ORDERED BY: JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO CITY CLERK M KAYLEE CLAYTON ADMINISTRATIVE CLERKPUTY CI CLERK N:\Administration\ClERK\Public Hearings\AFFADAVITS\DECPOSTPW2.doc CITY OF LODI Carnegie Forum 305 \ilest Pine Street, Lodi NOTICE OF PUBL¡C HEARING November 6, 2019 7:00 p.m. Date: Time: For information regarding this notice please contact: Jennifer M. Ferraiolo City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333-6702 EXþ{ÏffiËî A NOTICE OF PU BLIC HEARING NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, November 6, 201g, 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 Gity of Lodi's Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals. lnformation 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, gS240, at äny time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. lf 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 thiJnotiðe 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: J to City Dated: October 2,2019 as to form agdich City Attorney AVISO: Para oþtener ayuda interpretativa con esta noticia, por favor llame a la oficina de la Secretaria Municipal, a las (209) 333-6702. N:\Administration\CLERI(\Public He€rings\NOTICES\NotPW_Wât6rOuslity.dos CLERI(\PUBHEAR\NOTICES\NotPW_W9terQuality.doa 9/30/19