HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-13 EO&WR Committee PacketOTAY WATER DISTRICT ENGINEERING, OPERATIONS & WATER RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING
and
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Board Room
WEDNESDAY
July 24, 2013
7:00 A.M.
This is a District Committee meeting. This meeting is being posted as a special meeting
in order to comply with the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54954.2) in the event that a quorum of the Board is present. Items will be deliberated, however, no formal board actions
will be taken at this meeting. The committee makes recommendations to the full board for its consideration and formal action.
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JU-
RISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
DISCUSSION ITEMS
3. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH LAY-
FIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS CORPORATION FOR A CREDIT IN THE
AMOUNT OF <$39,618.43> FOR THE 624-1 RESERVOIR FLOATING COVER RE-
PLACEMENT PROJECT (MARTIN) [5 minutes]
4. AWARD A PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT FOR AS-NEEDED PLAN REVIEW, IN-
SPECTION, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO AEGIS ENGINEERING
MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR DEVELOPER POTABLE AND RECYCLED WATER PRO-
JECTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $350,000 FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) FISCAL YEARS (FYs 2014 AND 2015) (MARTIN) [5 minutes]
5. APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL COATING INSPECTION SERVICES CONTRACT
WITH HARPER & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-
EXCEED $75,160 FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR (AUGUST 2013 THROUGH JULY 2014) (CAMERON) [5 minutes]
6. APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH GOAL REPORT (PHG)
TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION IN REDUCING THE LEVELS OF THE SEVEN
2
CONSTITUENTS LISTED IN THE REPORT TO LEVELS AT OR BELOW THE PHG’s (STALKER) [5 minutes]
7. SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE (WATTON) [10 minutes]
8. ADJOURNMENT
BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDING:
David Gonzalez, Chair
Jose Lopez
All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be delib-erated and may be subject to action by the Board.
The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the Dis-
trict’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the
open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District Secretary by contacting
her at (619) 670-2280.
If you have any disability that would require accommodation in order to enable you to partici-pate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at 670-2280 at least 24 hours prior to
the meeting.
Certification of Posting
I certify that on July 19, 2013 I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the regular
meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being at least 24
hours in advance of the meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code Section
§54954.2).
Executed at Spring Valley, California on July 19, 2013.
/s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Dan Martin
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: P2477-
001103
DIV. NO. 1
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Approve Change Order No. 3 to the Contract with Layfield
Environmental Systems Corporation for the 624-1 Reservoir
Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
approve Change Order No. 3 to the existing contract with Layfield
Environmental Systems Corporation (Layfield) for a credit in the
amount of <$39,618.43> for the Floating Cover Replacement at the 624-
1 Reservoir Project (see Exhibit A for Project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to approve
Change Order No. 3 (see Exhibit B) to the existing contract with
Layfield for a credit in an amount of <$39,618.43> for the Floating
Cover Replacement at the 624-1 Reservoir Project.
ANALYSIS:
At the October 9, 2012 Board Meeting, the Board awarded a
construction contract in an amount not-to-exceed of $497,050 to
Layfield to replace the 624-1 Reservoir floating cover and protect,
clean, and inspect the existing liner for this 12.0 MG reservoir.
AGENDA ITEM 3
2
Since the award of the construction contract, two contract change
orders have been approved. The Board approved contract change order
No. 1 in the amount of $183,026.00 to replace the existing liner
which was found to be unsuitable for reuse during construction.
Change Order No. 2 was a no cost change and was approved to reconcile
time associated with the liner replacement.
Change Order No. 3 (Exhibit B) which serves as a close-out Change
Order for the contract, consists of credit items including
reconciling unused allowances associated with Allowance Bid Item 7
“Repair Existing Liner” and Item 8 “Replace rather than reuse BID
ITEM #2 components” and a credit for the re-use of existing vent
screens determined suitable for re-use. Additionally, Change Order
No. 3 provides for a reimbursement of lost water costs associated
with a leaking underwater fitting until the Contractor corrected the
problem with a diver. A complete breakdown of these credit and
reimbursement items is included in Exhibit B.
Change Order No. 3 also adds 3 calendar days due to the weather
impacts on the Project’s progress. In summary, Change Order No. 3
results in a credit in the amount of <$39,618.43> and adds 3 days
time for a total contract amount of $640,457.57 with a contract
duration of 211 calendar days.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The Fiscal Year 2014 budget for CIP P2477 is $1,000,000. Total
expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and forecast, including
this contract change order, are $906,967. See Attachment B for
budget detail.
Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager
anticipates that these budgets will be sufficient to support the
Project.
Finance has determined that 100% of the funding is available from the
Replacement Fund for CIP P2477.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide
high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay
Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner”
and the General Manager’s Vision, “A District that is at the
forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable
rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.”
3
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
DM/RP:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP P2477 Reservoir Cover Replacement\Staff Reports\CO #3\BD 8-7-13, Staff Report, 624-1 Res Floating Cvr Repl CO #3.docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Budget Detail
Exhibit A – Location Map
Exhibit B – Change Order No. 3
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2477-001103
Approve Change Order No. 3 to the Contract with Layfield
Environmental Systems Corporation for the 624-1 Reservoir
Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on July 24, 2013.
The Committee supported Staff’s recommendation.
NOTE:
The "Committee Action" is written in anticipation of the Committee
moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent
to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any
discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
ATTACHMENT B – Budget Detail
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2477-001103
Approve Change Order No. 3 to the Contract with Layfield
Environmental Systems Corporation for the 624-1 Reservoir
Project
Date Updated: 6/28/2013
Budget
1,000,000
Planning
Regulatory Agency Fees 50 50 - 50 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Service Contracts 4,000 4,000 - 4,000 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO
Standard Salaries 18,083 18,083 - 18,083
Total Planning 22,133 22,133 - 22,133
Design 001102
Consultant Contracts 70,620 70,620 - 70,620 ATKINS
1,810 1,810 - 1,810 ALTA LAND SURVEYING INC
Service Contracts 84 84 - 84 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
1,823 1,547 276 1,823 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC
1,062 1,062 - 1,062 LAYFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
Standard Salaries 45,175 45,175 - 45,175
Total Design 120,574 120,298 276 120,574
Construction
Consultant Contracts 26,400 6,450 19,950 26,400 ALYSON CONSULTING
195 195 - 195 ATKINS
Professional Legal Fees 1,883 1,883 - 1,883 STUTZ ARTIANO SHINOFF
Service Contracts 2,000 2,000 - 2,000 DIVE/CORR INC
696,180 645,010 51,170 696,180 LAYFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
(39,618) (39,618) (39,618) Change Order No. 3
Standard Salaries 77,221 67,221 10,000 77,221
0 - - - - 0
0 - - - - 0
Total Construction 764,261 722,759 41,502 764,260
Grand Total 906,967 865,189 41,778 906,967
Vendor/Comments
Otay Water District
p2477-Res - 624-1 Reservoir Cover Replacement
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment &
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Dan Martin
Engineering Manager
PROJECT NO./
SUBPROJECT: P1438-
010000
DIV. NO. ALL
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award of As-Needed Plan Review, Inspection, and Project
Management Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water
Projects Contract for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
award a professional As-Needed Plan Review, Inspection, and Project
Management Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects
contract to Aegis Engineering Management, Inc. (AegisEM) and
authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with AegisEM in
an amount not-to-exceed $350,000, for a period of two (2) fiscal
years (FY 2014, FY 2015).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a
professional As-Needed Plan Review, Inspection, and Project
Management Services for Developer Potable and Recycled Water Projects
agreement with AegisEM in an amount not-to-exceed $350,000, for a
period of two (2) fiscal years (FY 2014, FY 2015).
AGENDA ITEM 4
2
ANALYSIS:
The District will require the services of a consulting firm in
support of developer projects to provide professional services for
Plan Review, Inspection, and Project Management for Developer Potable
and Recycled Water Projects. The Consultant assists the Public
Services Division of the Engineering Department in processing and
performing plan check review, approvals, inspection, and project
close-out for both developer and retrofit projects. The inspection
services require the Consultant to be a Cross-Connection Control
Specialist certified through the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) or American Backflow Prevention Association (ABPA). Proof of
certification was required at the time of proposal. The inspection
services shall coordinate coverage testing as well as cross-
connection tests, as mandated by the California Department of Public
Health. It is anticipated that the Consultant will review and
inspect approximately fifty (50) projects or more. Over the same
period, staff estimates the cost to perform this responsibility will
not exceed $350,000.
On February 6, 2013, the District initially solicited for Plan Review
Inspection and Project Management Services for Developer Potable and
Recycled Water Projects by placing an advertisement on the District’s
website and several other publications, including the San Diego Daily
Transcript. Eleven (11) firms submitted a letter of interest and a
statement of qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for Plan
Review, Inspection, and Project Management Services for Developer
Potable and Recycled Water Projects was sent to the eleven (11) firms
resulting in four (4) proposals received by March 13, 2013 from the
following firms:
AEGIS Engineering Management
Krazan & Associates
Brady
Atkins
The seven (7) firms that chose not to propose are Valley Cooper &
Associates, Jacobs, PSOMAS, J.C. Heden & Associates, Nuera
Contracting and Consulting, The “G” Crew, and Alyson Consulting. Of
the four (4) proposals received, only one (1) was found to be
responsive with respect to the District’s requirement for AWWA or
ABPA cross-connection control specialist certification. The
remaining seven (7) declined to propose due to various reasons
including expressing difficulty with finding inspectors with AWWA or
ABPA certified cross-connection control specialist certifications.
3
As a result, staff decided to strengthen the procurement outreach and
re-advertize.
On April 8, 2013, the District re-solicited Plan Review Inspection
and Project Management Services for Developer Potable and Recycled
Water Projects by placing an advertisement on the District’s website
and several other publications, including the East County Gazette and
San Diego Daily Transcript. Staff also reached out to firms to
notify them of the contracting opportunity. Additionally, the
advertisement included notification of the AWWA or ABPA certified
cross-connection control specialist certification requirement. Six
(6) firms submitted a letter of interest and a statement of
qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for Plan Review,
Inspection, and Project Management Services for Developer Potable and
Recycled Water Projects was sent to six (6) firms resulting in three
(3) proposals received by May 13, 2013 from the following firms:
AEGIS Engineering Management
Brady
Atkins
The three (3) firms that chose not to participate were Wallace and
Associates Consulting, Alyson Consulting, and PSOMAS.
In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, Staff evaluated and
scored all written proposals and interviewed the three (3) firms on
June 17 and June 18, 2013. AegisEM received the highest score for
their services based on their experience, understanding of the scope
of work, proposed method to accomplish the work, and their composite
hourly rate. AegisEM was the most qualified with the best overall
rating or ranking. A summary of the complete evaluation is shown in
Attachment B.
AegisEM submitted the Company Background Questionnaire, as required
by the RFP, and staff did not find any significant issues. Staff
checked their references and performed an internet search on the
company. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not find
any outstanding issues with the internet search.
AegisEM’s project manager and inspector listed in the proposal are
AWWA or ABPA certified cross-connection control specialists and have
vast plan checking, inspection, and retrofitting experience.
Staff estimated that an average of $7,000 will be needed per project
to perform the plan check review and inspections. The District
recuperates these funds by billing directly to the developer.
4
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
Plan check and inspection services are an on-going effort provided by
the District to developers. This particular expense is completely
funded by developer deposits and does not affect the District’s
operating budget.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide
high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay
Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner”
and the General Manager’s Vision, “A District that is at the
forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable
rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.”
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
DM/RP:jf
P:\Public-s\STAFF REPORTS\2013\BD 08-07-13\As-Needed Plan_Inspect_PM for Recycled\BD 08-07-13, Staff
Report, Award Contract for Plan Check Inspection (Recy-Pot-Retro).doc
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P1438-010000
Award of As-Needed Plan Review, Inspection, and Project
Management Services for Developer Potable and Recycled
Water Projects Contract for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee (Committee)
reviewed this item at a meeting held on July 24, 2013. The Committee
supported Staff’s recommendation.
NOTE:
The "Committee Action" is written in anticipation of the Committee moving
the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent to the
Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any discussion
or changes as directed from the Committee prior to presentation to the
full Board.
Qualifications of
Team
Responsiveness, Project Understanding
Technical and Management Approach
INDIVIDUAL SUBTOTAL -
WRITTEN
AVERAGE SUBTOTAL -
WRITTEN
Proposed Rates*Consultant's Commitment to DBE
AVERAGE TOTAL
WRITTEN
Additional Creativity
and Insight
Strength of Project
Manager
Presentation, Communication Skills
Quality of Response to Questions
INDIVIDUAL
TOTAL - ORAL
AVERAGE TOTAL
ORAL
30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 15 15 10 10 50 50 150 Poor/Good/ Excellent
BOB KENNEDY 27 22 27 76 14 14 9 9 46
JEFF MARCHIORO 28 23 28 79 14 14 9 9 46
ROGER HOLLY 28 24 28 80 15 14 9 9 47
JOSE MARTINEZ 27 23 28 78 14 13 9 8 44
BRANDON DIPIETRO 27 24 26 77 15 14 9 9 47
BOB KENNEDY 25 20 24 69 12 12 7 7 38
JEFF MARCHIORO 25 19 25 69 11 11 8 6 36
ROGER HOLLY 22 21 22 65 11 11 7 7 36
JOSE MARTINEZ 23 21 23 67 11 13 7 5 36
BRANDON DIPIETRO 25 22 22 69 12 14 7 7 40
BOB KENNEDY 26 21 26 73 13 13 8 8 42JEFF MARCHIORO 27 22 25 74 11 12 9 7 39ROGER HOLLY 24 23 23 70 12 12 7 8 39JOSE MARTINEZ 25 23 25 73 13 12 9 7 41BRANDON DIPIETRO 26 22 23 71 13 14 8 8 43
*The fees were evaluated by comparing rates for seven positions. The sum of these seven rates are noted on the table to the left.
Consultant Proposed Rates Position Score Note: The Review Panel does not see or consider rates when scoring other categories. Rates are scored by the PM, who is not on the Review Panel.
Aegis $700 lowest 15
Brady $800 8
Atkins $900 highest 1
72 1 Y
93 46 139
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
RATES SCORING CHART
ATTACHMENT B
AS-NEEDED PLAN REVIEW, INSPECTION, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
CONSULTING SERVICES
WRITTEN ORAL
Atkins
37 113
TOTAL SCORE REFERENCES
MAXIMUM POINTS
Aegis 78 15 Y
Brady 68 8 Y
Excellent
73 41 114
76
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Kevin Cameron
Assistant Civil Engineer II
Bob Kennedy
Engineering Manager
PROJECT: P2493-001103
P2535-001103
DIV. NOs.: 2,4
APPROVED BY:
Rod Posada, Chief, Engineering
German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Award a Professional Services Agreement with Harper &
Associates Engineering, Inc. for Coating Inspection Services
on the 624-2 and 458-2 Reservoir Coating Project
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors (Board)
award a professional Coating Inspection Services contract to Harper &
Associates Engineering, Inc. (Harper) and to authorize the General
Manager to execute an agreement with Harper in an amount not-to-
exceed $75,160 for a period of one (1) year (August 2013 through July
2014)(see Exhibits A-1 & A-2 for Project locations).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for the General Manager to enter into a
professional services agreement with Harper in an amount not-to-
exceed $75,160 for a period of one (1) year (August 2013 through July
2014) for coating inspection services on the 624-2 Reservoir
Interior/Exterior Coating (CIP 2493) and the 458-2 Reservoir Interior
Coating (CIP P2535) Projects.
AGENDA ITEM 5
2
ANALYSIS:
In June 2013, the District’s corrosion consultant, V&A Consulting
Engineers, completed a Corrosion Control Program (CCP) that addressed
the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of corrosion protection
systems for the District’s steel reservoirs and buried metallic
piping. The CCP included a reservoir maintenance schedule that
showed the 624-2 Reservoir is due to be recoated on both the interior
and exterior surfaces, and the 458-2 Reservoir is due to be recoated
on the interior only. The exterior coating of the 458-2 was replaced
in 2004.
The coating replacement on steel reservoirs requires specialty
inspection to ensure the application is applied according to the
manufacturer’s specifications and complies with state health
regulations. In the past, the District has used the as-needed
corrosion engineer to perform coating inspection, and many of the
corrosion engineers have to sub-contract the work of coating
inspection. By contracting directly with the coating inspector, the
District is expected to get the best value for each dollar spent.
The District solicited coating inspection services by placing an
advertisement on the Otay Water District’s website on May 13, 2013
with various other publications including the San Diego Daily
Transcript. Eight (8) firms submitted a letter of interest and a
statement of qualifications. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for
Coating Inspection Services was sent to the eight (8) firms resulting
in four (4) proposals received by June 18, 2013 from the following
firms:
• Bay Area Coating Consultants, Inc.
• Corrpro Companies, Inc.
• CSI Services
• Harper & Associates Engineering, Inc.
The four (4) firms that chose not to propose were HDR, MCS Inspection
Group, Shawn Pablo, and Tank Industry Consultants.
In accordance with the District’s Policy 21, staff evaluated and
scored all written proposals. Harper received the highest score for
their services based on their experience, understanding of the scope
of work, proposed method to accomplish the work, and their hourly
rate. Harper was the most qualified consultant with the best overall
rating or ranking score. A summary of the complete evaluation is
shown in Exhibit B.
3
Harper submitted the Company Background Questionnaire as required by
the RFP and staff did not find any outstanding issues. In addition,
staff checked their references and performed an internet search on
the company. Staff found the references to be excellent and did not
find any outstanding issues with the internet search. Staff has
worked with Harper on numerous occasions over the last twenty years,
and they have performed at a high level.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
The total budget for CIP P2493, as approved in the FY 2014 budget, is
$1,950,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and
forecast, are $1,883,726.
The total budget for CIP P2535, as approved in the FY 2014 budget, is
$425,000. Total expenditures, plus outstanding commitments and
forecast, are $401,434.
Based on a review of the financial budget, the Project Manager
anticipates that both budgets are sufficient to support the Project.
See Attachment B-1 for the budget detail for CIP P2493 and Attachment
B-2 for the budget detail for CIP P2535.
Finance has determined that 100% of the funding is available from the
Replacement Fund for both CIP P2493 and CIP P2535.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This Project supports the District’s Mission statement, “To provide
high value water and wastewater services to the customers of the Otay
Water District in a professional, effective, and efficient manner”
and the General Manager’s Vision, “A District that is at the
forefront in innovations to provide water services at affordable
rates, with a reputation for outstanding customer service.”
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
KC/BK:jf
P:\WORKING\CIP P2493 & P2535 624-2 & 458-2 Reservoir Coating\Staff Reports\BD 08-07-13, Staff Report,
Coating Inspection Services for 624-2 & 458-2 Reservoirs (KC-BK).docx
Attachments: Attachment A – Committee Action
Attachment B-1 – Budget Detail for CIP P2493
Attachment B-2 – Budget Detail for CIP P2535
Exhibit A-1 – Location Map for CIP P2493
Exhibit A-2 – Location Map for CIP P2535
Exhibit B – Summary of Proposal Rankings
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2493-001103
P2535-001103
Award a Professional Services Agreement with Harper &
Associates Engineering, Inc. for Coating Inspection
Services on the 624-2 and 458-2 Reservoir Coating Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
(Committee) reviewed this item at a meeting held on July 24, 2013.
The Committee supported Staff's recommendation.
NOTE:
The “Committee Action” is written in anticipation of the Committee
moving the item forward for Board approval. This report will be sent
to the Board as a Committee approved item, or modified to reflect any
discussion or changes as directed from the Committee prior to
presentation to the full Board.
ATTACHMENT B-1 – Budget Detail
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2493-001103
P2535-001103
Award a Professional Services Agreement with Harper &
Associates Engineering, Inc. for Coating Inspection
Services on the 624-2 and 458-2 Reservoir Coating Project
ATTACHMENT B-2 – Budget Detail
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
P2493-001103
P2535-001103
Award a Professional Services Agreement with Harper &
Associates Engineering, Inc. for Coating Inspection
Services on the 624-2 and 458-2 Reservoir Coating Project
Gotham St
Lakeshore Dr
Lakeridge Cir
Lehigh Ave
B
ro
o
k
sto
n
e
R
d
Crosscreek Rd
Lafayette Pl
M a r q u e t t e R d
Woodspring Dr
Creekwood Way
Kent St
Du k e S t
Clearbrook Dr
Wildbrook Pl Mead
owb
r
ook LnColdbrook Ct
Willowbrook Ct
130
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTSDIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
P:\WORKING\CIP P2493 & P2535 624-2 & 458-2 Reservoir Coating\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\624-2 Location.mxd
OTAY WATER DISTRICT624-2 Reservoir Interior/ExteriorCoating and Upgrades
EXHIBIT A-1 CIP P2493
624-2 Tank8.0 MG Steel Reservoir
O l y m p i c P k w y
Morro Point Dr
Point Barrow Dr
Point la Jolla Dr
W
e
s
t
P
o
i
n
t
D
r
P
o
i
n
t
D
e
f
i
a
n
c
e
C
t
Laguna Point Ct
Malibu Point Ct
Diablo Point Ct
San Pedro Point Ct
O l y m p i c P k w y
066065
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT SITE
NTSDIV 5
DIV 1
DIV 2
DIV 4
DIV 3
P:\WORKING\CIP P2493 & P2535 624-2 & 458-2 Reservoir Coating\Graphics\Exhibits-Figures\458-2 Location.mxd
OTAY WATER DISTRICT458-2 Reservoir Interior Coating and Upgrades
EXHIBIT A-2 CIP P2535
458-2 Tank1.75 MG Steel Reservoir
P:\WORKING\CIP P2493 & P2535 624-2 & 458-2 Reservoir Coating\Agreements-Contracts-RFPs\Coating Inspection\Selection Process\Summary of Proposal Rankings.xls
Qualifications of
Team
Responsiveness
and Project
Understanding
Technical and
Management
Approach
INDIVIDUAL
SUBTOTAL -
WRITTEN
AVERAGE
SUBTOTAL -
WRITTEN
Proposed Rates*
Consultant's
Commitment to
DBE
TOTAL
SCORE
30 25 30 85 85 15 Y/N 100 Poor/Good/
Excellent
Dan Martin 26 23 28 77
Bob Kennedy 26 23 28 77
Brandon DiPietro 28 23 26 77
Jeff Marchioro 29 20 23 72
Kevin Schmidt 24 22 25 71
Dan Martin 24 22 24 70
Bob Kennedy 24 22 25 71
Brandon DiPietro 25 22 24 71
Jeff Marchioro 26 18 23 67
Kevin Schmidt 22 20 23 65
Dan Martin 25 22 25 72
Bob Kennedy 21 20 21 62
Brandon DiPietro 25 22 25 72
Jeff Marchioro 24 22 26 72
Kevin Schmidt 24 21 21 66
Dan Martin 27 23 29 79
Bob Kennedy 26 23 28 77
Brandon DiPietro 27 23 25 75
Jeff Marchioro 27 23 27 77
Kevin Schmidt 24 23 26 73
Consultant Rate Position Score
Bay Area Consultants $105.70 highest 1
Corrpro $100.00 4
CSI Services $86.50 12
Harper & Associates $82.00 lowest 15
*The fees were evaluated by comparing hourly rates for NACE Level III Coating
Inspector position. The sum of these rates are noted in the above table.
Note: Review Panel does not see or consider rates when scoring other categories.
Rates are scored by the PM, who is not on Review Panel.
EXHIBIT B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS
Coating Inspection Services For the 624-2 & 458-2 Reservoir Coating (P2493 & P2535)
RATES SCORING CHART
WRITTEN
Y
MAXIMUM POINTS
Bay Area Coating
Consultants 76
CSI Services 69 12
Y
75
Harper & Associates
81
76 15 91
REFERENCES
1
Y
Y
Corrpro 69 4 73
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING: Regular Board
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2013
SUBMITTED BY:
Gary Stalker
Water Systems Manager
PROJECT: DIV. NO. All
APPROVED BY: Pedro Porras, Chief, Water Operations
German Alvarez, Asst. General Manager
Mark Watton, General Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of Public Health Goal Report Recommendations
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District) Board of Directors
(Board) approve the recommendations in the Public Health Goal
(PHG)Report to take no further action in reducing the levels of
the seven constituents listed in the report to levels at or
below the PHGs.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment “A”.
PURPOSE:
To present the PHG Report to the Board and to obtain approval
for the recommendation that no action be taken to reduce the
levels of the seven constituents listed in the report to the PHG
or below. The Board meeting will also meet the requirement to
have a public hearing to accept and respond to public comment.
ANALYSIS:
California Health and Safety Code §116470 specifies that larger
(>10,000 service connections) water utilities prepare a special
report by July 1, 2013 if their water quality measurements have
exceeded any Public Health Goals (PHGs). 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
AGENDA ITEM 6
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) adopted by 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.
Staff completed this special report before July 1, 2013 (see
Attachment B) and staff’s recommendation is that no action be
taken for the District to install RO treatment or request
suppliers to install RO treatment for the following reasons:
• Water served by the District during this three year period
met all CDPH and USEPA drinking water standards set to
protect public health. CDPH considers water that meets all
standards as safe to drink.
• To further reduce the levels of the constituents identified
in this report that are already significantly below the
health-based MCLs established to provide “safe drinking
water”, costly treatment processes would be required,
translating to an average monthly cost increase of $26.10 -
$50.18 per District customer.
• The effectiveness of the treatment processes to provide any
significant reductions in constituent levels to the PHGs is
difficult, if not impossible to determine since the
analytical DLR is much higher than the PHG in most cases.
• The health protection benefits of these further
hypothetical reductions are not at all clear and may not be
quantifiable.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
PHGs 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 Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are
considered in setting the PHGs. These factors include
analytical detection capability, available treatment technology,
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.
If a constituent was detected in the District’s distribution
system or in the treated water the District purchases from other
agencies, between 2010 and 2012, at a level exceeding an
applicable PHG or MCLG, the PHG report provides the information
required by the regulation. Included is the numerical public
health risk associated with the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
and the PHG or MCLG, the category or type of risk to health that
could be associated with each constituent, 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.
The purpose of the report is to provide customers with
information on health-related contaminants detected in the water
supply, even when detected below the enforceable MCLs, so
customers are aware of whatever risks might be posed by the
presence of these contaminants. MCLs are set at very
conservative levels that provide very low to negligible risk and
are considered the regulatory definition of what is “safe”.
PHGs and MCLGs are set at the theoretical level where there is
no health risk. MCLGs are set at zero for many contaminants,
such as total coliforms, E. coli, and carcinogens, even though
it is understood that zero is an unattainable goal and cannot be
measured analytically. Most PHGs and MCLGs are set far below
the required Detection Levels for Reporting (DLR) which is the
minimum level that CDPH has determined can be accurately
reported.
Below is a table summarizing the seven constituents detected
above the PHG or MCLG in calendar years 2010, 2011, and/or 2012.
More detail for each is provided in the attached PHG Report.
Constituent Units MCL PHG/MCLG DLR Levels Detected
Coliforms % Positive 5.0 0 NA 0 – 1.4
Arsenic ppb 10 0.004 2 ND - 3.6
Gross Alpha pCi/L 15 0 3 ND - 9.2
Gross Beta pCi/L 50 0 4 ND – 8.8
Uranium pCi/L 20 0.43 1 ND – 4.1
Bromate ppb 10 0.1 5.0 ND – 6.5
Copper ppm 1.3 0.3 0.05 0.32 – 0.33
MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level
PHG = Public Health Goal
MCLG = Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
DLR = Detection Limits for Reporting
Levels Detected = Levels detected either in the Otay
distribution system (coliforms and copper only) or in water
supplied to the District for 2010 through 2012.
NA = Not Applicable
ND = Not Detected at or above the DLR
This table shows that the PHG or MCLG for five out of seven of
the constituents is much lower than the DLR. This means that
even if additional treatment is performed to reduce the levels
of these constituents, the effectiveness of the treatment to
reduce the levels to the PHG or MCLG cannot be accurately
determined by analytical methods.
The regulation also requires a cost estimate of using the Best
Available Technology (BAT) for reducing the level of the
constituents to below the PHGs. For coliforms, the BAT is to
meet disinfection requirements, which is already done, so no
further action is required. For copper, which can leach into
the water from plumbing fixtures or copper lines, the BAT is
optimized corrosion control, which is also already done, so no
further treatment is required.
The BAT for the other five constituents is reverse osmosis (RO).
According to the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)
Cost Estimates for Treatment Technology BAT, it would cost
approximately $1.56 - $2.99 per 1000 gallons to further remove
these constituents using RO treatment. The District’s average
annual demand for the three year period was 9,964 million
gallons per year. Therefore, RO treatment installed and
operated by the District or the District’s water suppliers to
meet the District’s water demands would cost from $15 to $30
million per year, which translates to an average monthly cost
increase of $26.10 - $50.18 per District customer (using the
July 2012 meter count of 49,493 meters). These estimates
include all costs including capital, land, construction,
engineering, planning, environmental, contingency and O&M costs
for the life of the facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT: Joe Beachem, Chief Financial Officer
None
STRATEGIC GOAL:
To meet the District’s Mission of providing high value water and
wastewater services to the customers of the Otay Water District,
in a professional, effective and efficient manner.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment “A”, Committee Action
Attachment “B”, Otay Water District Public Health Goals Report
on Water Quality
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT: Approval of Public Health Goal Report Recommendations
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering, Operations, and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on July 24, 2013 and the
following comments were made:
Following the discussion, the Committee supported staffs’
recommendation and presentation to the full board as a consent
item.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
Public Health Goals
Report on Water Quality
June 2013
2
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS REPORT ON WATER QUALITY
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................... 3
History: ..................................................................................................................................3
What Are Public Health Goals (PHGs)? ....................................................................................3
Reporting Requirements: .......................................................................................................3
Water Quality Data Considered: .............................................................................................4
Best Available Treatment Technology and Cost Estimates: ......................................................4
SECTION 2: CONSTITUENTS DETECTED THAT EXCEED A PHG ................. 5
Arsenic:................................................................................................................... 5
Bromate: ................................................................................................................. 6
Coliform Bacteria: ..................................................................................................................6
Copper: ................................................................................................................... 7
Radiological: Gross Alpha & Uranium: ....................................................................................8
Radiological: Gross Beta: .......................................................................................................9
SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION ......................... 9
3
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Background
California Health and Safety Code Health and Safety Code §116470 specifies that
larger (>10,000 service connections) water utilities prepare a special report by July
1, 2013 if their water quality measurements have exceeded any Public Health Goals
(PHGs). 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) adopted by 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.
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.
If a constituent was detected in the Otay Water District’s (District’s) distribution
system or in the treated water the District purchases from other agencies, between
2010 and 2012 at a level exceeding an applicable PHG or MCLG, this report provides
the information required by the law. Included is the numerical public health risk
associated with the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and the PHG or MCLG, the
category or type of risk to health that could be associated with each constituent, 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.
What Are Public Health Goals
PHGs are set by California 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, available treatment
technology, 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.
Reporting Requirements
The purpose of this report is to inform consumers of District’s drinking water PHGs
that were exceeded during 2010, 2011 and 2012, pursuant to California Health and
Safety Code Section 116470(b). In addition, this report provides information about
the cost of achieving a water quality level that does not exceed the PHGs. For
4
general information about the quality of the water delivered by the District, please
refer to the Consumer Confidence Report, also known as the Annual Water Quality
Report. An online version of these annual reports can be found at
www.otaywater.gov.
Included in this report is information regarding the public health risk associated
with the MCL and the PHG, such as the possible type of health risk associated with
each constituent, the best available treatment technology that may reduce the
constituent level, and an estimate of the cost to install such treatment.
Water Quality Data Considered
All of the water quality data collected by our water system between 2010 and 2012
for purposes of determining compliance with drinking water standards was
considered. This data was summarized in our 2010, 2011, and 2012 Consumer
Confidence Reports which are mailed to all of our customers annually in June.
For each regulated contaminant, DHS establishes Detection Limits for the purposes
of Reporting (DLR). DLRs are the minimum levels at which any analytical result
must be reported to California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Results
indicated below the DLRs cannot be quantified with any certainty. In some cases,
PHGs are set below the DLRs. Any contaminant reported below the DLR will be
considered zero for the purpose of this report, which is accepted by the California
Department of Public Health.
Best Available Treatment Technology and Cost Estimates
Both the USEPA and CDPH adopt what are known as Best Available Technologies
(BATs), which are the best methods of reducing contaminant levels to the MCL.
Costs can be estimated for such technologies. However, since many PHGs and
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.
SECTION 2: CONSTITUENTS DETECTED THAT EXCEED A PHG
The following is a discussion of constituents that were detected in the Districts
distribution system, or one or more of our drinking water treated water sources at
levels above the PHG, or MCLG (if no PHG has been established).
5
Arsenic
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in the earth's crust and is very widely
distributed in the environment. All humans are exposed to microgram quantities of
arsenic (inorganic and organic) largely from food (25 to 50 μg/day) and to a lesser
degree from drinking water and air. In certain geographical areas, natural mineral
deposits may contain large quantities of arsenic and this may result in higher levels
of arsenic in water. Waste chemical disposal sites may also be a source of arsenic
contamination of water supplies. The main commercial use of arsenic in the U.S. is in
pesticides, mostly herbicides and in wood preservatives. Misapplication or
accidental spills of these materials could result in contamination of nearby water
supplies. Arsenic does not have a tendency to accumulate in the body at low
environmental exposure levels.
Studies in humans have shown considerable individual variability in arsenic toxicity.
The levels of arsenic that most people ingest in food and water (up to 50 μg/day)
have not usually been considered to be of health concern for non-cancer effects.
The MCL for arsenic is 10 parts per billion (ppb), the PHG and MCLG for arsenic is
0.0004 ppb. The DLR, which is the lowest level that CDPH has determined can be
measured with certainty, is 2 ppb. Arsenic levels in water that the District purchases
from other agencies from 2010 – 2013 ranged from <2 ppb – 3.6 ppb. The health
risk associated with arsenic, and the reason that a drinking water standard was
adopted for it, is that people who drink water containing Arsenic above the MCL
throughout their lifetime could experience an increased risk of getting cancer. The
PHG of 0.0004 ppb is based on a level that will result in not more than 1 excess
cancer in 1 million people who drink 2 liters daily of this water for 70 years. The
actual cancer risk may be lower or zero. Because the DLR for arsenic (2 ppb) is
greater than the PHG (0.0004 ppb), it would be difficult to assess the effectiveness of
RO treatment on reaching the PHG level.
The best available technology (BAT) cited in literature to remove arsenic is reverse
osmosis. All costs including capital, land, construction, engineering, planning,
environmental, contingency and O&M costs are included but only general
assumptions can be made for these items. According to the Association of California
Water Agencies (ACWA) Cost Estimates for Treatment Technology BAT, it would
cost approximately $1.56‐$2.99 per 1000 gallons to treat bromate using RO
treatment. The District’s average annual demand for the three year period was
9,964 million gallons per year. Therefore, RO treatment installed and operated by
the District’s water suppliers to meet the District’s water demands would cost from
$15 to $30 million per year, which translates to an average monthly cost increase of
$26.10 - $50.18 per District customer.
6
Bromate
Bromate in water is formed when water containing naturally occurring bromide is
disinfected with ozone. Bromate also has a long history of use as a food additive [at
levels up to 75 parts per million (ppm) in flour], where it is largely converted to
bromide in the baking process.
The MCL for bromate is 10 ppb, the PHG is 0.1 ppb and the MCLG is zero based on a
running annual average (RAA). The DLR is 5 ppb. The RAA of bromate levels in
water that the District purchases from other agencies from 2010 – 2013 ranged
from <5 ppb to 6.5 ppb.
The CDHS and USEPA have determined that bromate is a health concern at certain
levels of exposure. The category of health risk associated with bromate, and the
reason that a drinking water standard was adopted for it, is that some people who
drink water containing bromate in excess of the MCL over many years may have an
increased risk of getting cancer. The numerical health risk for the MCLG of zero
mg/L is zero. CDHS and USEPA set the drinking water standard for bromate at 10
mg/L to reduce the risk of cancer or other adverse health effects.
One of the most effective Best Available Treatment (BAT) technologies for bromate
reduction is reverse osmosis (RO). RO treatment reduces the natural occurring
bromide in source water, therefore reducing bromate formation when ozone is
applied. Because the DLR for bromate (5 ppb) is greater than the PHG (0.1ppb), it
would be difficult to assess the effectiveness of RO treatment on reaching the PHG
level. According to the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) Cost
Estimates for Treatment Technology BAT, it would cost approximately $1.56‐$2.99
per 1000 gallons to treat bromate using RO treatment. The District’s average annual
demands for the three year period were 9,964 million gallons per year. Therefore,
RO treatment installed and operated by the District’s water suppliers to meet the
District’s water demands would cost from $15 to $30 million per year, which
translates to an average monthly cost increase of $26.10 - $50.18 per District
customer.
Coliform Bacteria
During 2010, 2011, and 2012, the District collected between 132 and 165 samples
each month for total coliform analysis. On rare occasions, a sample was found to be
positive for coliform bacteria but follow-up check samples were negative. These
were not a violation of state standards. A maximum of 0.6% of these samples were
positive in any month. Normally the total coliform was zero and it is likely that the
positive samples were due to debris entering the sample at the sample station. E.
Coli was not detected in any samples.
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
7
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 indicator organisms 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 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.
Important measures that we have implemented include: an effective cross-
connection control program; maintenance of a disinfectant residual throughout our
system; an effective monitoring and surveillance program; maintaining positive
pressure in our distribution system; implementation of a rigorous pipeline
disinfection procedure for in-line repair and construction; training in proper
sampling techniques to prevent false positives; and replacement of system piping to
reduce pipe failures. Our system has already taken all of the steps described by
California Department of Public Health as “best available technology” for coliform
bacteria in Section 64447, Title 22, CCR.
Copper
There is no MCL for copper. Instead the 90th percentile value of all samples from
household taps in the distribution system cannot exceed an Action Level of 1.3 part
per million (ppm). The PHG for copper is 0.30 ppm and the DLR is 0.05 ppm. The
category of health risk for copper is gastrointestinal irritation. Numerical health risk
data on copper has not yet been provided by OEHHA, the State agency responsible
for providing that information.
Based on extensive sampling of our distribution system in 2011, our 90th percentile
value for copper was 0.32 ppm. Our water system is in full compliance with the
Federal and State copper regulation and we are deemed by CDHS to have “optimized
corrosion control” for our system. In general, optimizing corrosion control is
considered to be the best available technology to deal with corrosion issues and
with any copper findings.
Since the water distributed by the District meets the “optimized corrosion control”
requirements, it is not prudent to initiate additional corrosion control treatment as
it involves the addition of other chemicals and there could be additional water
quality issues raised. Therefore, no estimate of cost has been included.
8
Radiological: Gross Alpha & Uranium
Gross alpha particle activity detections are typically due to uranium. 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 national average uranium concentration in surface,
ground and domestic water are 1, 3, and 2 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L), respectively.
The requirement for radiological monitoring, including uranium, is four consecutive
quarters every four years. The California MCL for uranium is 20 pCi/L. Uranium
levels in water that the District purchases from other agencies from 2010 – 2013
ranged from <1 pCi/L – 3.6 pCi/L.
The Public Health Goal for uranium is 0.43 pCi/L and the DLR is 1 pCI/L. The
numerical health risk for uranium based on the California PHG is 1 x 10-6. This
means one excess cancer case per million population. The health risk category for
uranium is carcinogenicity; chronic toxicity (cancer, human data; kidney toxicity).
Carcinogenic risk means capable of producing cancer. Chronic toxicity risk means
there may be adverse effects that usually develop gradually from low levels of
chemical exposure and that persist for a long time.
The best available technology (BAT) cited in literature to remove gross alpha
particle activity and uranium is reverse osmosis. All costs including capital, land,
construction, engineering, planning, environmental, contingency and O&M costs are
included but only general assumptions can be made for these items. According to
the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) Cost Estimates for Treatment
Technology BAT, it would cost approximately $1.56‐$2.99 per 1000 gallons to treat
Alpha and Uranium using RO treatment. The District’s average annual demands for
the three year period were 9,964 million gallons per year. Therefore, RO treatment
installed and operated by the District’s water suppliers to meet the District’s water
demands would cost from $15 to $30 million per year, which translates to an
average monthly cost increase of $26.10 - $50.18 per District customer.
Gross Beta
Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as photons
and beta radiation. The MCL is 50 pCi/L and the DLR is 4 pCi/L. There is no PHG for
gross beta particle activity and the MCLG is zero pCi/L.
Uranium levels in water that the District purchases from other agencies from 2010 –
2013 ranged from <1 pCi/L – 3.6 pCi/L. The CDPH and USEPA, which set drinking
water standards, have determined that gross beta particle activity is a health
concern at certain levels of exposure. This radiological constituent is a naturally
occurring contaminant in some groundwater and surface water supplies. The
category of health risk associated with gross beta particle activity, and the reason
that a drinking water standard was adopted for it, is that some people who drink
9
water containing beta and photon emitters in excess of the MCL over many years
may have an increased risk of getting cancer. The numerical health risk for the
MCLG of zero pCi/L is zero. CDHS and USEPA set the drinking water standard for
gross beta particle activity at 50 pCi/L to reduce the risk of cancer or other adverse
health effects.
The Best Available Technologies (BATs) identified to treat gross beta particle
activity are ion exchange and reverse osmosis (RO). The most effective method to
consistently remove beta and photon emitters to the MCLG is to install RO
treatment. All costs including capital, land, construction, engineering, planning,
environmental, contingency and O&M costs are included but only general
assumptions can be made for these items. According to the Association of California
Water Agencies (ACWA) Cost Estimates for Treatment Technology BAT, it would
cost approximately $1.56‐$2.99 per 1000 gallons to treat Gross Beta using RO
treatment. The District’s average annual demands for the three year period were
9,964 million gallons per year. Therefore, RO treatment installed and operated by
the District’s water suppliers to meet the District’s water demands would cost from
$15 to $30 million per year, which translates to an average monthly cost increase of
$26.10 - $50.18 per District customer.
SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION
All water served by the District met all State of California, Department of Public
Health and USEPA drinking water standards set to protect public health during this
three year period. CDPH considers water that meets all standards as safe to drink.
To further reduce the levels of the constituents identified in this report that are
already significantly below the health-based Maximum Contaminant Levels
established to provide “safe drinking water”, additional costly treatment processes
would be required, translating to an average monthly cost increase of $26.10 -
$50.18 per District customer.
The effectiveness of the treatment processes to provide any significant reductions in
constituent levels to the PHGs is difficult, if not impossible to determine since the
analytical DLR is much higher than the PHG in most cases. The health protection
benefits of these further hypothetical reductions are not at all clear and may not be
quantifiable. Therefore, no further action is recommended.