My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2019-11-25 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
AgdaPkt 2019-11-25 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2020 9:24:15 AM
Creation date
11/21/2019 4:36:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
11/25/2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
377
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
7.B.- Page 9of15 <br />City of Redwood City <br />2019 Public Health Goal Report <br />less than the DLR should be considered zero. This approach is consistent with DDW practice <br />for treating non-detected results as zero. <br />Water Quality Data Reviewed for this Report <br />Water quality data collected by the City of Redwood City during 2016, 2017, and 2018 for <br />the purpose of determining compliance with drinking water standards were reviewed in <br />order to prepare this PHG report. This data was summarized in our 2016, 2017, and 2018 <br />Annual Water Quality Reports (also known as Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs)) which <br />were distributed to all of our customers through direct mail, and are available on the City <br />website. <br />Best Available Treatment Technology and Cost Estimates <br />Both the USEPA and DDW adopt Best Available Technologies (BATs) for the purpose of <br />reducing contaminant levels below the MCL. While a BAT may identify a process that can <br />reduce the presence of a contaminant, the cost of implementation can be a major factor in <br />deciding whether or not to adopt the process. For a system that is in compliance with MCL <br />levels, cost considerations must be a factor. Striving to keep contaminants below <br />PHG/MCLG levels must be evaluated with costs in mind. <br />Costs are estimated for the implementation of BATs for each constituent exceeding a PHG <br />or MCLG. The PHGs and MCLGs are set much lower than the MCL, and it is not always <br />possible or feasible to determine what treatment is needed to further reduce a constituent <br />to, or below, the PHG or MCLG. In some cases, such as when the MCLG or PHG is set at <br />zero, there may not be commercially available technology to reach that level. The issue is <br />further complicated because it is often not possible to verify by analytical means that the <br />contaminant has been totally eliminated. In some cases, installing a treatment technology <br />to try and further reduce very low levels of one constituent may, in turn, have adverse <br />effects on other aspects of water quality. This report presents the required cost estimates <br />to implement the BATs to reduce a contaminant to a level at or below the PHG/MCLG. <br />II. CONSTITUENTS DETECTED THAT EXCEED PHG OR MCLG <br />In reviewing water quality monitoring data collected during 2016, 2017, and 2018, City of <br />Redwood City staff have concluded that a PHG report is required that addresses the <br />contaminant lead. The following section presents a discussion of lead which was detected <br />in customer's homes at levels above the PHG. <br />LEAD <br />The PHG for lead is 0.2 parts per billion (ppb). Lead enters drinking water primarily through <br />leaching of lead -containing materials in household piping. The corrosion of household <br />plumbing systems such as those containing lead-based solder used to join copper pipe, <br />brass and chrome -plated brass faucets, lead pipe connections from homes to the water <br />3 <br />322 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.