HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-28; Municipal Water District; 737; APPROVE CMWD REPORT WATER QUALITYCARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - AGENDA BILL
AB# 737
MTG- 6/28/11
DEPT. UTIL
APPROVE CMWD REPORT ON WATER QUALITY
RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
DEPT. DIRECTOR VJ^^7
CITY ATTORNEY fVb<^
CITY MANAGER ( p
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Hold a Public Hearing to receive comments on the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Report on
Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 1423 approving the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Report on
Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) is required to prepare a tri-annual report comparing
the District's drinking water quality and source water quality with Public Health Goals (PHGs) adopted
by California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and with maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) adopted by the USEPA. PHGs and MCLGs are not enforceable
standards and no action to meet them is mandated.
CMWD's drinking water is supplied from the Metropolitan Water District's (MWD) Skinner Treatment
Plant and from the San Diego County Water Authority's (SDCWA) Twin Oaks Valley Treatment Plant
via the SDCWA aqueduct system. California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b) mandates
that a Public Health Goal Report be prepared and a public hearing be held to review the report every
three years by public water system providers with more than 10,000 service connections. The
purpose of the legislative requirement is to give water system customers access to information on
levels of components, including those that are below the mandatory thresholds. The attached report is
intended to provide information to the public in addition to the required Annual Water Quality Report
mailed to each customer in June.
The CMWD's water system complies with all health-based drinking water standards and maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) required by the California Department of Health Services and the USEPA.
The Department of Health Services will not require the District to take any action to reduce or
eliminate any exceedance of a Public Health Goal.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The Planning Director has determined that the action for which approval is proposed does not
constitute a project as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines and is therefore not
subject to CEQA.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Steve Plyler 760-438-2722 Steven.plvler@carlsbadca.gov
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY
BOARD ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED
WITHDRAWN
AMENDED
D
D
D
D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D
RETURNED TO STAFF D
OTHER-SEE MINUTES D
Page Two
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 1423 approving the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Report on
Water Quality Relative to Public Health Goals.
2. Copy of the "Carlsbad Municipal Water District Report on Water Quality Relative to Public Health
Goals."
3. References 1 & 2
EXHIBIT 1
1
RESOLUTION NO. 1423
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
3 CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD) TO
APPROVE CMWD REPORT ON WATER QUALITY RELATIVE
4 TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
5
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) is required to prepare a report
6
comparing the District's drinking water quality and source water quality with Public Health Goals
7
(PHGs) adopted by California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and
8
with maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) adopted by the USEPA. PHGs and MCLGs are
9
not enforceable standards and no action to meet them is mandated; and
10
WHEREAS, CMWD's drinking water is supplied from the Metropolitan Water District's
(MWD) Skinner Treatment Plant and the San Diego County Water Authority's (SDCWA) Twin
Oaks Valley Treatment Plant via the SDCWA aqueduct system; and
I w
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b) mandates that a Public14
Health Goal Report be prepared and a public hearing to review the report be held every three
I O
years by public water system providers with more than 10,000 service connections.16
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on this day to receive public comment regarding
._ the Report.1o
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Boardi y
of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:20
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
21
2. That the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Report on Water Quality Relative to
22
Public Health Goals is hereby approved.
23
24 "'
25
26
27
28
1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Special Meeting of the Board of
2 Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District of the City of Carlsbad on the 28th
3 day of June 2011, by the following vote to wit:
4
5 AYES: Board Members Hall, Kulchin, Blackburn, Douglas
6
NOES: None.
7
ABSENT: Board Member Packard.8
9
10
MAffHALLTPresident
12"
13 ATTEST:
14
15
16 ^LO^RAINE M. WOOD, Secretary
(SEAL)
17"
18
19 ~ 5 •••$•"^ tbtii-V • CD —?jr\ — «fl:o *:ii;-
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
2010 TRIANNUAL
(2007 - 2009)
REPORT ON WATER QUALITY
RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS
California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b)
Background:
The California Health and Safety Code specifies that water utilities with more than 10,000 service
connections prepare a special report by July 1, 2010 if their water quality measurements have
exceeded any Public Health Goals (PHGs) in the previous three years from 2007 - 2009.
PHGs are non-enforceable goals established by the Cal-EPA's 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 goals (MCLGs).
MCLGs are non-enforceable goals adopted by USEPA. Only constituents which have a California
primary drinking water standard (health based maximum contaminant level [MCL]) and for which
either a PHG or MCLG has been set are to be addressed.
There are a few constituents that are routinely detected in water systems at levels usually well
below the drinking water standards for which no PHG nor MCLG has yet been adopted by OEHHA
or USEPA including Total Trihalomethanes. These will be addressed in a future required report
after a PHG has been adopted.
If a constituent was detected in the District's water supply between 2007 and 2009 at a level
exceeding an applicable PHG or MCLG, this report provides the information required. Included is
the numerical public health risk associated with the MCL and the PHG or MCLG(i), the category or
type of health risk(i), the best treatment technology available that could be used to reduce the
constituent level^), and an estimate of the cost to install that treatment^) if it is appropriate and
feasible are included.
The drinking water quality of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) meets all
State of California, Department of Public Health and USEPA drinking water health-based
maximum contaminant level (MCL) regulatory standards set to protect public health.
What Are PHGs?
PHGs are set by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (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 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 not enforceable and are the federal equivalent to PHGs.
Water Quality Data Considered:
All of the water quality data collected between 2007 and 2009 for purposes of determining
compliance with drinking water standards was considered. This data was summarized in the 2007,
2008, and 2009 Annual Water Quality Reports mailed to all CMWD customers each year.
Prior to 2008, 100% of CMWD's drinking water was treated at the Metropolitan Water District
(MWD) Lake Skinner water treatment plant in Southern Riverside. In 2008 the San Diego County
Water Authority (SDCWA) began treating and delivering drinking water from the Twin Oaks
Valley water treatment plant in San Marcos. Where applicable, data from both treatment plants are
included in this report as well as CMWD system data for coliform bacteria sampling.
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. No guidance was available from state regulatory agencies.
Best Available Treatment Technology and Cost Estimates:
Both the USEPA and CDPH adopt what are known as BAT's or Best Available Technologies
which are the best known methods of reducing contaminant levels to the MCL. Costs can be
estimated for such technologies. However, since many PHGs and all MCLGs are set much lower
than the MCL, it is not always possible, nor feasible to determine what treatment is needed to
further reduce a constituent downward to or near the PHG or MCLG, many of which are set at zero.
Estimating the costs to reduce a constituent to zero is difficult, if not impossible because it is not
possible to verify by analytical means that the level has been lowered to zero. In some cases,
installing treatment to try and further reduce very low levels of one constituent may have adverse
effects on other aspects of water quality.
Constituents Detected That Exceed a PHG or a MCLG:
The following is a discussion of constituents that were detected at a level above the associated
PHG, or if there is no PHG, above the MCLG. The levels for theses constituents were well below
their respective MCLs (regulatory standards), so this does not constitute a violation of drinking
water regulations and is for advisory purposes only. These results are typical of water agencies who
receive their water from the same MWD and SDCWA water treatment plants.
Radiologicals: Gross Alpha, Gross Beta, Uranium and Combined Radium:
The level of radionuclide constituents detected in CMWD's source water supplied by MWD and
SDCWA for 2007 - 2009 are listed below.
SOURCE: MWD
CONSTITUENT
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Uranium
UNITS
pCi/L
pCi/L
PCi/L
MCL
15
50
20
PHG
(MCLG)
(0)
(0)
0.43
Range
Average
Range
Average
Range
Average
2007
ND-5.5
ND
ND
ND
1.5-3.2
2.3
2008
3.3-4.3
3.6
ND-8.8
ND
2.3-2.7
2.5
2009
See 2008
See 2008
See 2008
pCi/L = picoCuries per Liter of water (approximately parts per billion)
2007 Reported results were taken from four quarters of monitoring from August 2005 to April 2006
ND = None Detected
SOURCE: SDCWA
CONSTITUENT
Gross Alpha
Combined Radium
Uranium
UNITS
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
MCL
15
5
20
PHG
(MCLG)
(0)
(0)
0.43
Range
Average
Range
Average
Range
Average
2007
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2008
ND
ND
ND-1.2
ND
1 -Sample
1.9
2009
ND - 9.2
3.8
ND
ND
2.5-4.1
3.3
Radiological constituents come from decay and erosion of natural deposits of certain minerals that
are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation, photons and beta
radiation. Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element that is ubiquitous in the earth's
crust. Uranium is found in ground and surface waters due to its natural occurrence in geological
formations. The uranium intake from water is about equal to the total from other dietary
components. An additional source of radiological contamination is from mine tailings in Moab
Utah. These radiological constituents are categorized as carcinogens. (j)
The best available technology (BAT) to lower the level of radiologicals is reverse osmosis (RO).
The cost of implementing RO treatment would start at approximately $500 per acre foot and would
increase substantially based on actual conditions and requirements. (2) To implement RO treatment
at $500 per acre foot would increase the cost of water to each customer by approximately 50%.
As previously stated, it is unclear whether treatment to lower a constituent below the PHG or
MCLG would be feasible, as BAT's are designated for treatment to achieve compliance with the
corresponding MCL only, and not the PHG or MCLG.
Coliform Bacteria:
During 2007, 2008, and 2009, CMWD collected between 120 and 165 samples each month for
coliform bacteria analysis. In August 2007 and May 2008 one sample was found to be positive for
coliform bacteria. Follow up actions were taken and confirmation samples were all negative. A
maximum of 0.8% of these samples were positive in any month.
The MCL for coliform 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
a surrogate indicator of the potential presence of pathogens, it is not possible to state a specific
numerical health risk. While USEPA 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 an indicator organism that are ubiquitous in nature and are not generally
considered harmful. They are used 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 additional
sampling conducted. 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.
Other equally important measures that CMWD has implemented include: an effective cross-
connection control program, maintenance of a disinfectant residual throughout the system, an
effective monitoring program and maintaining positive pressures in the distribution system.
CMWD currently uses all of the steps described by CDPH as "best available technology" for
coliform bacteria in Section 64447, Title 22, CCR.
Recommendations:
The drinking water quality of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District meets all State of California,
Department of Public Health and USEPA drinking water standards set to protect public health.
To further reduce the levels of the constituents identified in this report that are already significantly
below the health-based MCLs established, 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 health protection benefits of these further hypothetical reductions are not at all clear and may
not be quantifiable. Therefore, no action is proposed.
REFERENCES:
No. 1 Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports (OEHHA)
No.2 Cost Estimates for Treatment Technologies (ACWA)
Reference No.1
Health Risk Information for
Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports
April 2010
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 (2)[b]). The numerical
health risk is to be presented with the category of health risk, along with a plainly
worded description of these terms. PHGs are published by the Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) as concentrations of contaminants in drinking
water that OEHHA, using current risk assessment principles, practices and methods,
considers to pose no significant health risk if consumed for a lifetime (Health and Safety
Code Section 116365). This report is prepared by OEHHA to assist the water utilities in
meeting their requirements.
Numerical health risks. The tables that follow summarize health risks for chemical
contaminants in drinking water that have PHGs and state and/or federal regulatory
standards. The regulatory standards are maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). As
defined in statute, PHGs for noncarcinogenic 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.
The Act requires that for chemical contaminants with California MCLs that do not yet
have PHGs, water utilities will 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 United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) assumes there is no absolutely safe level
of exposure to them. 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-a-million excess cancer
risk (1 xKT6) level for a lifetime of exposure. Chemicals with MCLGs but no PHGs are
presented in Table 2. The cancer risks shown are based on the U.S. EPA's
evaluations.
Please note that draft PHGs for dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), hexavalent chromium, selenium,
styrene and the trihalomethanes (THMs) have been posted for review and comment on
the OEHHA web site at http://wwwoehha.ca qpv/water/phq/index. html. These may be
of interest to water agencies as an indication of the proposed direction of the OEHHA
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Page 1
Water Toxicology Section
April 2010
10
Reference No.1 (Continued)
risk assessments, but are not required to be cited in communications with the public
because they are not yet final.
Health risk categories. The following information can be used for presenting the
health risk categories in "exceedance reports." The health risks shown in the tables are
based on long-term exposures to low levels of contaminants as would occur with
drinking water (unless otherwise stated), rather than high doses from a single or short-
term exposure. The potential health effects are the most sensitive adverse effects that
occur when chemical exposure reaches a sufficient level and duration to produce
toxicity. Health goals that protect against these risks also protect against health risks
that would occur from short-term exposures. For most health risk categories, the
specific health outcome or the organ or system that is affected is also given. The health
effects are given in nontechnical terms when possible, and the categories are described
below.
Acute toxicity- adverse health effects that develop after a short-term exposure to a
chemical (minutes to days).
Subchronic toxicity - adverse health effects that develop after repeated or longer-term
exposures to a chemical (days to months).
Carcinogenic - capable of producing cancer.
Chronic toxicity - adverse effects that usually develop gradually from low levels of
chemical exposure over a long period of time (months to years).
Developmental toxicity - adverse effects on the developing organism that may result
from exposure prior to conception (either parent), during prenatal development,
or postnatally to the time of sexual maturation. Adverse developmental effects
may be detected at any point in the life span of the organism. The major
manifestations include: (1) death of the developing organism, (2) structural
abnormality (birth defects), (3) altered growth, and (4) functional deficiency.
Neurotoxic - capable of adversely affecting or destroying parts of the nervous system or
interfering with nerve signal transmission. Effects may be reversible (for
example, effects on chemicals that carry nerve signals across gaps between
nerve cells) or irreversible (for example, destruction of nerve cells).
Reproductive effects - the occurrence of adverse effects on the reproductive system of
females or males that may result from exposure to environmental agents. The
toxicity may cause changes to the female or male reproductive organs, the
regulating endocrine system, or pregnancy outcomes. Examples of such toxicity
may include adverse effects on onset of puberty, egg production and transport,
menstrual cycle normality, sexual behavior such as sexual urge, lowered fertility,
sperm production, length of pregnancy, and milk production.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Page 2
Water Toxicology Section
April 2010
II
Reference No.1 (Continued)
The tables further note whether the health risk category is based on human or animal
data. Data on health effects of toxic substances are usually obtained from studies on
laboratory animals.
For more information on health risks: The adverse health effects for each chemical
with a PHG are summarized in each PHG technical support document. These
documents are available on the OEHHA Web site (http://www.oehha.ca.gov). Also,
U.S. EPA has consumer and technical fact sheets on most of the chemicals having
MCLs. For copies of the fact sheets, call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-
4791, or explore the U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water's home page
at http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/hfacts.htm!.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Page 3
Water Toxicology Section
April 2010
Reference No.1 (Continued)
Table 1: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
with California Public Health Goals (PHGs)
Chemical
Radium-226
Radium-228
Uranium
Health Risk
Category1
(more specific
information in
parentheses)
cancer
cancer
cancer
California
PHG
(mg/L)2
0.05 pCi/L
0.019pCi/L
0.43 pCi/L
Cancer
Risk3
@PHG
1x10'6
1x10'6
1x10'6
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
5 pCi/L
5 pCi/L
(combined
Ra226*228)
20 pCi/L
Cancer
Risk@
California
MCL
IxlO"4
(one per ten
thousand)
SxlO"4
(three per ten
thousand)
5x10'5
(five per
hundred
thousand)
1 Health risk category based on experimental animal testing data evaluated in 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 = theoretical 70-year lifetime excess cancer risk at the statistical confidence limit.
Actual cancer risk may be lower or zero. Cancer risk is stated in terms of excess cancer cases
per million (or fewer) population, e.g., 1xlO'6 means one excess cancer case per million people;
5x10"5 means five excess cancer cases per 10.0,000 people.4 California MCL = maximum contaminant level established by California.5 Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal, or MRDLG
6 MCLs for gross alpha and beta are screening standards for a group of radionuclides. A corresponding
PHG was considered inappropriate because risks vary for the individual radionuclides covered by the
screening level; see OEHHA memoranda discussing the cancer risks at these MCLs at
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/index.html.7 pCi/L = picocuries per liter of water.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
April 2010
Reference No.1 (Continued)
Table 2: Health Risk Categories and Cancer Risk Values for Chemicals
without California Public Health Goals
Chemical
Health Risk Category1
(more specific
information in
parentheses)
U.S. EPA
MCLG2
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk3
@
MCLG
California
MCL4
(mg/L)
Cancer
Risk@
California
MCL
Radionuclides
Gross alpha
particles6
Beta particles
and photon
emitters6
cancer
cancer
0 (210Po
included)
0 <210Pb
included)
0
0
15pCi/L7
(includes226Ra but
not radon
and
uranium)
50 pCi/L
(judged
equiv. to 4
mrem/yr)
up to 1x1 fJ3
(one per
thousand for210Po, the
most potent
alpha emitter)
up to 2x1 O"3
(two per
thousand for210Pb, the
most potent
beta-emitter)
1 Health risk category based on experimental animal testing data evaluated in 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 = theoretical 70-year lifetime excess cancer risk at the statistical confidence limit.
Actual cancer risk may be lower or zero. Cancer risk is stated in terms of excess cancer cases
per million (or fewer) population, e.g., 1 x10"6 means one excess cancer case per million people;
5x10's means five excess cancer cases per 100,000 people.
4 California MCL = maximum contaminant level established by California.
3 Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal, or MRDLG
6 MCLs for gross alpha and beta are screening standards for a group of radionuclides. A corresponding
PHG was considered inappropriate because risks vary for the individual radionuclides covered by the
screening level; see OEHHA memoranda discussing the cancer risks at these MCLs at
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/index.html.
7 pCi/L = picocuries per liter of water.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
Water Toxicology Section
April 2010
Reference No.2
COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Treatment
Technology
Granular
Activated Carbon
Granular
Activated Carbon
Granular
Activated Carbon
Granular
Activated Carbon
Granular
Activated Carbon
Granular
Activated Carbon
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse Osmosis
Packed Tower
Aeration
Packed Tower
Aeration
Packed Tower
Aeration
Source of Information
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 0/DBP and bromate regulation, 1998
Reference: Carollo Engineers, estimate for VOC treatment (PCE), 95% removal of
PCE, Oct. 1994,1900 gpm design capacity
Reference: Caroho 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
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd central treatment
facility for VOC and SOC removal by GAC, 1990
Reference: Southern California Water Co. - actual data for "rented" GAC to remove
VOCs (1,1-DCE), 1.5 mgd capacity facility, 1998
Reference: Southern California Water Co. - actual data for permanent GAC to
remove VOCs (TCE), 2.16 mgd plant capacity, 1998
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
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
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
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, nigh brine
inecost, May 1991
Reference: Boyle Engineering, RO cost to reduce 1000 ppm TDS in bracken
groundwater in So. Calif., 10.0 mgd plant operated at 100% of design flow, high brine
line cost. May 1991
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study. City of Scottsdale, AZ - CH2M Hill, for a 1 .0 mgd
plant operated at 40% of design capacity, Oct. 1991
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study. City of Scottsdale, AZ - CH2M Hill, for a 1 .0 mgd
plant operated at 100% of design capacity, Oct. 1991
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale, AZ - CH2M Hill, for a 10.0
mgd plant operated at 40% of design capacity. Oct. 1991
Reference: Arsenic Removal Study, City of Scottsdale, AZ - CH2M Hill, for a 10.0
mgd plant operated at 100% of design capacity, Oct. 1991
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd centra! treatment
'acility with RO to remove nitrate, 1990
Reference: Analysis of Costs for Radon Removal... (AWWARF publication),
Kennedy/Jenks, for a 1 .4 mgd facility operating at 40% of design capacity, Oct. 1 991
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
Reference: Caroilo 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, 1 900 gpm design
capacity, Oct. 1994
Estimated 2010*
Unit Cost
($/1, 000 gallons
treated)
0.48 - 0.92
0.22
1.07
0.41 -0.61
1.91
1.24
1.43-2.75
3.38
2.08
2.26
1.74
5.66
3.35
2.51
1.55
1.56-2.75
0.90
0.48
0.23
Page 1 of 2
Reference No.2 (Continued)
COST ESTIMATES FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
(INCLUDES ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS)
No.
20
21
22
23
24
Treatment
Technology
Packed Tower
Aeration
Packed Tower
Aeration
Advanced
Oxidation
Processes
Ozonation
Ion Exchange
Source of Information
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
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd central treatment
facility - packed tower aeration for VOC and radon removal. 1 990
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
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
Reference: CH2M Hill study on San Gabriel Basin, for 135 mgd central treatment
facility - ion exchange to remove nitrate, 1 990
Estimated 2010*
Unit Cost
(S/1,000 gallons
treated)
0.25
0.39 - 0.63
0.47
0.11 -0.22
052-0.68
Note:
*Costs were adjusted from date of original estimates to present using the Bureau of Labor Statistics - CPI Inflation
Calculator.
Page 2 of 2
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer
of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-
Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of
Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the
County of San Diego, that the notice of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpariel), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Proof of Publication of
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARINGCARLSBAD MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
The Carlsbad Municipal Water Dis-trict, a subsidiary of the City of Carls-
bad, will hold a public hearing on
Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carls-'
bad, California, to receive comments
on and approve the Carlsbad Munic-ipal Water District (CMWD) Report
on Water Quality Relative to PublicHealth Goals (PHGs). The required
PHG report is intended to provide in-formation to the public in addition to
the required Annual Water Quality
Report mailed to each customer in
June.
Interested parties are invited to at-
tend this meeting and present their
views and comments to the CMWDboard of directors.
Copies of the report are available forpublic inspection at the City Clerk's
office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive.
Written and telephone inquiries may
be directed to Steve Plyler of the Util-
ities Department, 5950 El Camino
Real, Carlsbad 92008; 760-438-2722.
Publish: June 17, 2011 net 2292995
June 17th,2011
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Escondido, California
On this 17th, day of June, 2011
ne Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Report on District’sWaterQualityWater QualityRelative to Public Health GoalsStevePlylerSteve PlylerJune 28, 2011
PublicHearingPublic Hearing•Summarize the 2010 tri‐annual (2007 –2009) ()Public Health Goal (PHG) Report•Receive report and respond to public comment•ApprovetheDistrict’s2010PHGReportApprove the District s 2010 PHG Report
Intent of Required PHG ReportProvideinformationtothepublicinadditionProvide information to the public in addition to the Annual Water Quality Report mailed to eachcustomerinJuneeach customer in June
RegulationsVs.Goals
RegulationsRegulationsMiCt i tLl(MCL)•Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)–Federal and State mandates–Maximum level allowed in drinking water–Regulatorydefinitionofwhatis“safe”Regulatory definition of what is safe
Goals–NotRequirementsGoals Not Requirements•MaximumContaminantLevelGoal(MCLG)Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)–Federal Goal•Public Health Goal (PHG)–State Goal
CMWDWaterCMWD WaterMeets all Federal & StateRlti&MdtRegulations & Mandates“MCLs”
ComponentsThatExceededaPHGComponents That Exceeded a PHG or MCLG (nonenforceable goals)•RadionuclidesRadionuclides•ColiformBacteria•Coliform Bacteria
RadionuclidesSOURCEWATERSMWD&SDCWASOURCE WATERS ‐MWD & SDCWACOMPONENT MCL*PHG(MCLG)HIGHEST READING200720082009(MCLG)200720082009Gross Alpha 15 (0) 5.5 4.3 9.2GBt50(0)ND88NDGross Beta50(0)ND8.8NDUranium 20 0.43 3.2 2.7 4.1CbidCombined Radium5 (0) ND 1.2 ND*Units: picoCuriesper Liter of water (pCi/L) approximately parts per billionpp(p / )pp yppND = None detected
Coliform Bacteriaf•MCL is 5% positive samples per monthNPHG•No PHG•MCLG set at zero•120 to 165 samples each month•One positive sample 8/07, 5/08•Maximum of 0.8% positive in any month%py
ClbdMiilWDi iCarlsbad Municipal Water Districtmeets all standards set to protect ppublic health
In conclusion•Questions from the Board•Public comment•ApprovetheDistrict’s2010PHGReport•Approve the District s 2010 PHG Report