Laserfiche WebLink
ctry ofxe�8.A. - Page 6 <br /> 2013 Public Health Goal lleport <br /> PHG/MCLG vs. MCL <br /> PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental <br /> Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and are based solely on public health risk <br /> considerations. MCLs are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or the <br /> California Department of Public Health (CDPH) as the level which is required to be met in <br /> water systems. Violations of an MCL can result in a fine, abatement order, or closure of <br /> facilities. When the USEPA or the CDPH adopts an MCL, they take into account such factors <br /> as (1) analytical methodologies; (2) effectiveness of available treatment technologies; and <br /> (3) benefits and costs. PHGs and MCLGs are not enforceable and are not required to be met <br /> by any public water system. <br /> Water Quality Data Reviewed for this Report <br /> Water quality data collected by the City of Redwood City during 2010, 2011, and 2012 for <br /> the purpose of determining compliance with drinking water standards were reviewed in <br /> order to prepare this PHG report. This data was all summarized in our 2010, 2011, and 2012 <br /> Annual Water Quality Reports (also known as Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs)) that <br /> were distributed to all of our customers though direct mail. <br /> Guidelines Followed for Preparation of this Report <br /> The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) formed a workgroup which prepared <br /> guidelines for water utilities to use in preparing these required reports. The ACWA <br /> guidelines were used in the preparation of this report. <br /> Best Available Treatment Technology and Cost Estimates <br /> Both USEPA and CDPH adopt Best Available Technologies (BATs), which are the best known <br /> methods of reducing contaminant levels below the MCL. While a BAT may identify a <br /> process that can reduce the presence of a contaminant, the cost of implementation can be <br /> a major factor in deciding whether or not to adopt the process. For a system that is in <br /> compliance with MCL levels, cost considerations must be a factor. Striving to keep <br /> contaminants below PHG/MCLG levels must be evaluated with costs in mind. <br /> Costs were 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 /> 2 <br />