Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 01-21-88 . Centra ~ontra Costa Sanitar) Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 2 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF January 21, 1988 NO. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 2 AUTHORIZATION FOR P.A. 88-4 (ALAMO) TO BE INCLUDED IN A FUTURE FORMAL ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT DATE January 12, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION ACCEPT ANNEXATION FOR PROCESSING SUBJECT Dennis Hall, Associate Engineer Owner Address Parcel No. & Acreage INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Engineering Department/ Construction Division SUBMITTED BY Parcel No. Area Remarks Lead Agency 88-4 Alamo (7705 ) Blackburn-Timme Assoc. 1600 S. Main St.,Ste. 290 Walnut Creek CA 94596 198-190-003 (17.1 Ac.) Proposed Subdivision 6965, having 14 single family residences. A "Negative Declaration" has been prepared by Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County RECOMMENDATION: Authorize P.A. 88-4 to be included in a future formal annexation. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION 13021' .9.'85 DH JSM RAB fl/)/ w fIjj5 INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ITATE Z6 00 AC ,.......... .................... ',:::':,::: \.. JONES 60.03 AC 0' ~ BARNES 7. '= 0 ~ C .., Z'46 AC t. 13 23 2~ COROUROl' 202,20At t>.,......" ...c.. .," ~. ~~ o;t J) .0 PROPOSED ANNEXATION AA.88-4 " CORDUROY "" ~ 11.01 At --';7:- :- . Central ~ontra Costa Sanitary ..Ii strict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF January 21, 1988 NO. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 3 SUBJECT DATE January 12, 1988 REPORT OF SEffiEMENT FOR A SEWER OVERFLOW DAMAGE QAIM TYPE OF ACTION REPORT OF QAIM SEffiEMENT SU~c1{D~.Y Campbell Administrative Operations Manager INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Administrative/Risk Management ISSUE: This is to report a claim settlement of $6,500 for a sewer overflow. BACKGROUtl>: District pol icy is that the Risk Management Committee can authorize claim settlements of $5,000 or less, and the General Manager-Chief Engineer can authorize settlements which do not exceed $10,000. Settlements of over $5,000 are to be reported to the Board on the consent agenda. There was a District sewer in Via Baja, Lafayette, which became obstructed on April 8, 1987, due to an unknown contractor's air plug becoming lodged in the line. As a resul t, an overflow occurred into the Arnol d and Nancy Mi dwood home at 1055 Via Baja which caused damage to floors, carpets, baseboards, walls, utilities, and items of personal property. The Midwood's presented a claim to the District on May 16, 1987, for a total of $93,158 in general and special damages. The Dis- trict's claims adjuster, George Hills Company, reviewed the damage and began negotiations with the Midwood's attorney. These extended over a period of seven months, resulting in the Midwoods agreeing to accept $6,500 from the District in final and complete settlement of their claim. The Risk Management Committee reviewed the case and agreed to this amount for settlement. The General Manager- Chief Engineer has approved it, payment has been made, and a release obtained from Mr. & Mrs. Midwood. RECOMMENDATION: This is an informational item; no action is required by the Board of Directors. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION INITIATING DEPT./DIV. ~L JEC PM 1302A-9/85 . Centra. ':ontra Costa Sanitary Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 1 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETING OF January 21, 1988 NO. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 4 SUBJECT AUTHORIZE DANIEL LOPEZ, MAINTENANCE CREW LEADER, TO ATTEND A CWPCA SUPERVISOR TRAINING PROGRAM ON FEBRUARY 5-6, 1988 DATE January 13, 1988 TYPE OF ACTION AUTHORIZE ATTENDANCE SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. John Larson, Manager Collection System Operations Department ISSUE: Board authorization is required for training and conference expenditures over $500 that are not approved as a part of the annual O&M budget. B~GROUND: The CWPCA Super Group is sponsoring a two-day supervisory training sessi on in Pal m Spri ngs on February 5 and 6 to deal with probl ems that are common to supervisors in the wastewater field. The areas to be covered are management, worker illiteracy, leadership styles, communications, substance abuse, goal setting, job stress, and self image. Daniel Lopez, Maintenance Crew Leader, has been selected as the CSOD safe worker of the year for 1987 because of his excellent safety record and his significant contributions to the District safety program. Mr. Lopez, in recognition of his award, was budgeted to attend the CWPCA State Conference in Sacramento; however, the program at the Super Group supervisory training session is more directly related to Mr. Lopez's daily activities. The total cost of the two day program is $700, approximately $50 more than was budgeted for the Sacramento conference. There are adequate funds in the Technical Training, Conferences, and Meetings budget to cover this expense. RECOtIENDATION: Authorize Daniel Lopez, Maintenance Crew Leader, to attend the CWPCA supervisor training program on February 5-6, 1988. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION - Gz=NG. ROGER J. DOLAN . Centra. ~ontra Costa Sanitary .Jistrict BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAGE 1 OF 4 POSITION PAPER BOARD MEETI~~~tiary 21, 1988 NO. SUBJECT VI. BUDGET AND FINANCE 1 DATi' J an ua ry 13, 1988 RECEIVE THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY TYPE OF ACTION RECEIVE INVESTMENT POLICY SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT./DIV. Walter Funasaki, Finance Officer Administrative/Finance & Accounting ISSUE: Assembly Bill No. 1073, which was enacted in 1984, amended the Government Code to require the treasurer or chief fiscal officer of a local agency to "annually render to the 1 egi sl ative body of the 1 oca 1 agency a statement of investment policy." BACKGROUND: The California legislature amended Government Code Section 53646 to require that: a. the treasurer or chief fiscal officer annually render to the legislative body of the local agency a statement of investment policy. b.' the treasurer or chief fiscal officer render a monthly report to the chief executive officer and legislative body of the local agency showing the type of investment, institution, date of maturity, amount of deposit, current market value for all securities with a maturity of more than 12 months, rate of interest, and such data as may be required by the local agency. c. Section 53646 shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1991, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted before January 1, 1991, deletes or extends that date. An investment report is submitted with the District's monthly financial statements to the General Manager-Chief Engineer and the Board of Directors which complies with all requirements of amended Section 53646. The Contra Costa County Treasurer's Office adheres to the District's investment policy in investing District funds. The District's present investment policy is submitted for review and comment by the Board of Directors. Recommended changes are shown by lining-through deletions, and bold-facing and underl ining additions. The principal change recommended is the addition under "Permissible Investments" of obligations of quasi-governmental agencies such as the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and Federal National Mortgage Association which are insured by federal government agencies. Investments in these obligations have been made by the District and considered as falling under the first permissible investment listed, which are "obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pl edged." Wh 11 e insured, these quasi-governmental obl igations fall short of having the pledge of the full faith and credit of the United States; therefore, it is appropriate to specifically designate them as permissible investments. RECOMMENDATION: Receive the annual rendering of the Di strict's investment pol icy in compliance with Government Code Section 53646 and modify, as appropriate. INITIATING DEPT./DIV. REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION ~d~~" 1302A-9/85 WF <CCSD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District NO. POLICY & PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE J..I:H..y--l-7r~ January 19m SUBJECT SECTION INVESTMENT POLICY ESTABLISHED BY, The Board of Directors REFERRING TO: The investment policy of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District is embodied in the following eleven sections: I. Statement of Objectives The temporary investment portfol io of the District shall be designed to attain a market-average rate of return, taking into account the District's investment risk constraint and prudent investment principles. II. Permissible Investments Within the constraints prescribed by the Government Code of the State of California for permissible investments, the District's investment portfolio will only be invested in the following instruments: o United States Treasury Bills and Notes, and obligations of government agencies for which the full faith and credit of the United States ~ ~ pledged. o Obligations of the Federal Home Loan Bank <FHLB>, Federal National Mortgage Association <FM4A>, Government National Mortgage Association <GNMA> and Small Business Administration <SBA> . o Bankers Acceptances, drawn on and accepted bank, which are el igible for purchase Reserve System. by a commercial by the Federal o Collateralized Certificates of Deposit issued by a Federal or State chartered bank or a Federal or State chartered savings and loan association. o Commercial Paper of prime qual ity 1 imited to corporati.ons with assets over $500,000,000. o Repurchase ~reements for a period less than 30 days. o Local Agency Investment Fund of the State of California. SSS/Position Paper II/Invest Polic I SHEET 1 OF 3 <C<SD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District POLICY & PROCEDURE SUBJECT INVESTMENT POLICY III. Banks and Dealers The District will use the services of the Treasurer's Office of the County of Contra Costa which will transact the District's investment decisions in compliance with the requirements described in this investment policy. The County Treasurer's Office will execute the District's investments through such brokers, dealers, and financial institutions as are approved by the County Treasurer, and through the State Treasurer's Office for investments in the Local Agency Investment Fund. IV. Maturities The maximum maturity for investments of the District is one year. Prior approval of the Board of Directors must be obtained to acquire investments with maturities beyond one year. However, investments in the Local Agency Investment Fund would not be subject to the one year maximum maturity. V. Diversification To minimize the risk of loss through default, the total amount invested in a single issuer will not be greater than 15% of the District's investment portfol io val ue, except that the 15% 1 imitation will not apply to United States Treasury Bills and Notes and investments in the Local Agency Investment Fund. VI. Ri sk Credit and market risks will be minimized through adherence to the list of permissible investments, a limit on maximum maturities and the limitation on the total investment in a single issuer. VII. Delegation and Authority The Di strict Fi nance Officer w 111 be responsibl e for investment transactions which should be made in accordance with this investment policy and within the internal controls described in ~ f9ll9~iR9 ~ction ~. VIII. Prudence Prudent judgment must be exercised by the District Finance Officer responsible for investment transactions undertaken in accordance with this investment policy. I SHEET 2 OF 3 <C<SD Central Contra Costa Sanitary District POLICY & PROCEDURE SUBJECT INVESTMENT POLICY IX. Controls The District Finance Officer will establ ish subsidiary accounting records of each investment w hi ch will enab 1 e the determ i nat i on of income ea rned monthly and through maturity, and the balancing of the principal amounts to a control account in the general ledger. Internal control procedures will require the countersignature of the Deputy General Manager for all transactions which are initiated by the Finance Officer. The dollar limit of the Deputy General Manager will be $5 million. Investment transactions which exceed $5 mill ion will requi re the additional approval of the General Manager-Chief Engineer. Such internal controls are to be reviewed by the District's independent auditors annually. X. Reporting The District Finance Officer will annually render a statement of investment pol icy to the Board of Directors. The Finance Officer will submit a monthly report to the District's General Manager-Chief Engineer and Board of Di rectors showing the type of investment, issuer, dates of issue and maturity, amount of deposit, current market value of all securities with a maturity of more than 12 months, and rate of interest. XI. Performance Evaluation A performance eval uati on will be compl eted by the Di strict's independent auditors every four years, commencing with the 1984-1985 fiscal year, to determine whether the investment objective of achieving a market-average rate of return is being real ized. In determining the market-average rate of return, the average return of three month U.S. Treasury bills will be used. I SHEET 3 OF 3 1987 CAPITAL PROJECTS aJA...ETED T ota 1 Proj ect Titl e Proj ect N umbe r Cost 3622 Treatment Plant Drainage I $ 58,000 3694 Furnace Control Room 749,000 4092 Bates Avenue Sewer 274,000 4144 La Casa Via - LID 56 210,000 4168 WS 35 South Sewers 1,029,000 4209 Karp Slide Repair 200,000 'fl. BUDGET AND FINANCE 2 Contract Management Staff 4224 San Ramon Valley Interceptor 7,984,000* 4257 Soldier Piles 58,000** 20013 Concord Revenue Meters 700,000** 20027 Materials Control Building 1,170,000** 20042 Wet Weather Improvements 1,535,000** 20047 Springbrook Remodel 244,000 20052 Treatment Plant Drainage 2 180,000** 20055 Cathodic Protection 2 520,000** TOTAL $14,911,000 * Project expenditures to date **Estimated cost. Project is in closeout phase Ron Klimczak Tom Trice Munawar Husai n Ken Clark Jay McCoy Jerry Winter Jim Coe Tom Tri ce Jay McCoy Don Cast Jim Coe Tom Trfce Henry Thom Mark Lowery Bob Collins Doug Neufeld 8111 Whitten Jim Coe Tom Trice Jim Coe Tom Trice Munawar Husain Ken Clark Munawar Husain Ken Clark Munawar Husai n Ken Clark Munawar Husain Ken Clark Munawar Husai n Ken Cl ark VII CORRESPONDENCE 1 ,ge 1 of 2 City of Martinez 525 HENRIETTA STREET. MARTINEZ CALIFORNIA 94553 . (415) 372- January 8, 1988 Ms. Gail Uilkem , Chairwoman and LAFCO mmission Members Local Age Formation Commission County ministration Bldg. 651 ne Street Ma inez, CA 94553 IUI~4lJ9~?~ fD) IJAn 12 1988 ct:lC!D , ~.M"''''6 ~v <.,~- "! , Ir." t'\H':'l'1"e.!~~:.'" Dear Chairwoman Uilkema and LAFCO Commissioners: We are writing to formally request reconsideration of your decision of December 16, 1987, concerning Hidden Pond/Saddlehorn Annexation No. 97-A to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. We feel that the Commission erred in its denial of our request for annexation of this project to the City of Martinez as a condition of annexation to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. We are very concerned about comments made by LAFCO members and your Executive Officer relative to the City of Martinez' intent to "kill" the project. Our examination of LAFCO duties and responsibilities does not include any findings related to a specific project such as zoning, land use, etc. Thus, comments beyond appropriate boundaries may have inappropriately influenced the LAFCO decision. Commissioner Tom Torlakson accurately expressed a concern that, as approved, Hidden Pond would be an isolated County Service Area. The City of Martinez has expresed very clearly its ability to provide essential municipal services to the Hidden Pond Project. LAFCO's December 16, 1987, decision not to amend the Sphere of Influence boundaries between the cities of Martinez and Pleasant Hill clearly reflected the wishes of both cities. We were very distressed to learn that subsequent to LAFCO's vote on the Sphere of Influence issue, your Chair unilaterally expressed your opinion that the project belongs in the City of Pleasant Hill. On numerous occasions, the City of Martinez has presented testimony relative to the issue of "community of interest" as it relates to Hidden Pond and the City of Martinez. The project is within the boundaries of the Martinez Unified School District. The project is within a short distance of a park constructed at a cost of approximately a half million dollars to Martinez residents. Major neighborhood shopping facilities are located within one mile of the proposed project. ~ ~ VI CORRESPONDENCE 1 rage 1 of 2 City of Martinez 525 HENRIETTA STREET. MARTINEZ CALIFORNIA 94553 . (415) 372- January 8, 1988 Ms. Gail Uilkem , Chairwoman and LAFCO mmission Members Local Age Formation Commission County ministration Bldg. 651 ne Street Ma inez, CA 94553 1.~a''Jl~ fQ) IJAH 1 Z 1988 ~, ~'t'-+--e.~" r';:' -: ,..r. !,,1"1~f."~'1' Dear Chairwoman Uilkema and LAFCO Commissioners: We are writing to formally request reconsideration of your decision of December 16, 1987, concerning Hidden Pond/Saddlehorn Annexation No. 97-A to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. We feel that the Commission erred in its denial of our request for annexation of this project to the City of Martinez as a condition of annexation to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. We are very concerned about comments made by LAFCO members and your Executive Officer relative to the City of Martinez' intent to "kill" the project. Our examination of LAFCO duties and responsibilities does not include any findings related to a specific project such as zoning, land use, etc. Thus, comments beyond appropriate boundaries may have inappropriately influenced the LAFCO decision. Commissioner Tom Torlakson accurately expressed a concern that, as approved, Hidden Pond would be an isolated County Service Area. The City of Martinez has expresed very clearly its ability to provide essential municipal services to the Hidden Pond Project. LAFCO's December 16, 1987, decision not to amend the Sphere of Influence boundaries between the cities of Martinez and Pleasant Hill clearly reflected the wishes of both cities. We were very distressed to learn that subsequent to LAFCO's vote on the Sphere of Influence issue, your Chair unilaterally expressed your opinion that the project belongs in the City of Pleasant Hill. On numerous occasions, the City of Martinez has presented testimony relative to the issue of "community of interest" as it relates to Hidden Pond and the City of Martinez. The project is within the boundaries of the Martinez Unified School District. The project is within a short distance of a park constructed at a- cost of approximately a half million dollars to Martinez residents. Major neighborhood shopping facilities are located within one mile of the proposed project. ~ .~ VII. CORRESPONDENCE 1 Page 2 of 2 Ms. Gail Uilkema, Chairwoman and LAFCO Commissioners -2- January 8, 1988 Your Executive Officer and some Commissioners continue to espouse the southerly orientation of the proposed project as a basis for amending the Sphere of Influence. This narrow view is not consistent without examination of traffic volumes and points of access to and egress from the project. Traffic counts on Reliez Valley Road clearly indicate that access to the area does not rely solely on a southerly exposure of the proposed project. In summary, we respectfully request that LAFCO reconsider its decision of December 16, 1987, related to the Hidden Pond Project. It would be very unfortunate if this decision were allowed to stand as a future model for the orderly provision of government services. ;P44~ Michael M. Menesini, Mayor Bill Po I k, ~~ Kathy ~ Coundlembet MMM:JG:hn cc: LAFCO Executive Director CCCSD Board of Directors~ CCC Board of Supervisors ~> ,.,; .. ~ .. ' Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 5019 Imhoff Place, Mardnez, COliJornla 94553 (.IS} 689-3890 January 12, 1988 IfOGER J. DOLAN Gena-," Mon"Jfl' Chief ElWln....r JAMES 1. HAZARD Counoe1 for Ihe Dlslr1cl (.'51 UIJ-'OO JOYCE E. Ilk IIULLAN S<<relo'Y of 11I10 D1sIr1CI Mr. W. Don Maughan, Chainman State Water Resources Control P. O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95801 Board Dear Mr. Maughan: PROPOSITION 65 As a public agency responsible for protecting the environment and the public health, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) shares your sincere concern for the need to control toxic substances from entering drinking water. We believe that the will of the public as embodied in Proposition 65 must be addressed and that Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POlW's) should not discharge potentially harmful substances in harmful concentrations. However, we wish to express our deep and growing concern over the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) stated intent to directly apply chemical concentration limits developed by the Health and Wel fare Agency (H&wA) to POlW's. It is CCCSD's understanding that the SWRCB intends to apply the H&WA "Level of No Significant Risk" standards to POlW's NPDES permits once they are developed with the objective of equitably and effectively responding to the public's concern for the control of carcinogens and reproductive toxins in drinking water. CCCSD has carefully studied the progress of the tmpl ementation of Proposition 65 by the H&wA over the past several months and has concl uded that the pl anned actions of the H&WA and the SWRCB will not achieve the goals of equity and effectiveness. Instead, we are convinced that the result will be an unworkable situation which will not fulfill the objectives of Proposition 65 or the SWRCB. In this letter, we will outline our major areas of concern. The Simrlistic AP~ication of Proposition 65 imits to lW's Will Not Work As you know, Proposition 65 is brief, rather vague, and excludes both POTW's and drinking water purveyors. The H&WA is finding it necessary to promulgate voluminous "Interpretative Guidelines" to implement Proposition 65. These "Interpretative Guidelines" include numerous -1- interpretations, definitions, exemptions, and extensions to the language in Proposition 65 which are needed to make it workable. The "Interpretative Guidelines" are being prepared based upon the asstJl\ption that Proposition 65 does not apply to POlW's. As a result, a complex collage of exemptions and definitions is being developed based upon the needs and real ities of the situation faced by business, but not by POlW's. The "level of No Significant Risk" standards being developed by H&WA only have meaning within the context of the "Interpretative Guidelines." It is inappropriate to simply excerpt the chemical concentration limits developed by H&WA and apply them to POlW NPDES permits. Just as the application of Proposition 65 to business requires a complex and comprehensive set of implementing regulations, so will the application of Proposition 65 to POlW's. The POlW's in California face a number of unique situations which are not being taken into account in the development of the H&WA "Interpretative Guidelines." An example of this is the exemption currently being considered by the H&WA for "Discharge of Water Containing a Listed Chemical at Time of Receipt" (H&WA Interpretative Guideline 401). Interpretative Guideline 401 provides an exemption for the situation where a business receives a carcinogen or reproductive toxin from its public water supply system. This is a logical exemption for a situation unforeseen by the framers of Proposition 65. POlW's share a similar but more difficult plight as business in this context. POlW's receive wastewater which could potentially be contaminated with carcinogens or reproductive toxins from numerous sources which are either vi rtually impossible for POlW's to individually control or which are exempt or potentially exempt from Proposition 65. These sources are drinking water, household products, and businesses which discharge to POlW's. A brief description of these three sources follows: o Drinking water: Chlorinated drinking water from public water systems which utilize surface water typically contains chloroform at levels which substantially exceed commonly applied standards for cancer risk (such as 1 cancer death per 1 million exposed population). This chloroform enters POTW's, is partly removed in the wastewater treatment process, and (according to preliminary data) is typically brought back roughly to the influent level by effluent chlorination. other potentially carcinogenic substances can be present in low concentrations in the drinking water supply since it is exempt from Proposition 65. These substances will also present a problem for POlW's which must comply with "level of No Significant Risk" standards. o Households: Domestic household waste and metals which have leached from domestic water piping are potential sources of carcinogens and reproductive toxins which are not entirely removed in conventional sewage treatment processes. There are several constituents of household waste; for example, lead, solvents, cleaning chemicals, paints, and pesticides, which could cause or contribute to a violation of "level of No Significant Risk" concentration limits set by the SWR~. Trace levels of these substances will doubtless be found in POlW effluents. POlW's individually have little control over the availability or disposal of household chemicals or the building standards for home water piping. -2- o Businesses which discharge to POTW's: A reading of the October 1987 Draft Handbook for the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act leads one to conclude that the H&WA intends to exempt from Proposition 65 industries which discharge into POTW's. Since it is the intent of the SWRCB to apply Proposition 65 to POlW's, this leaves POTW's in the situation where a business is exempt from Proposition 65, but the POTW receiving wastewater from that business is not. POTW's will need to implement pretreatment programs with broadly expanded scopes from the present programs to effectively control the discharge of carcinogens and reproductive toxins from businesses into sewers. The addition of dozens of chemicals for control via pretreatment will substantially increase the technical and administrative compl exity of the programs. State support for pretreatment programs will have to be substantially increased and a way will have to be found to help small POTW's that will not be able to handle these more complex programs. The three situations described above are only a few of the inconsistent and unworkable circumstances that would result from the simplistic application of Proposition 65 to POTW's. COCSD hopes that these examples provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the need for a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to the application of Proposition 65 chemical concentration limits to POTW's. It is Imprudent to Adopt a Discretionary Regulation Before it is Known Whether Compliance is Feasible or Even Possible Until "level of No Significant Risk" standards are developed for a representative list of chemicals and until a decision is made whether to apply these standards at the effl uent pipe or (by using an appropriate dilution factor) at the drinking water intake, there will be no basis for determining the full impact of Proposition 65 on POTW's. It is important to know the identities and concentration limits of listed chemicals for the following reasons: o To determine if analytical methods are available and approved to measure the 11 sted chem i ca 1 s at the concentrati on 1 evel s found in sewage and in wastewater treatment plant effluent. o To determine the source of the chemical so that the practicality of source control can be assessed. o To determine if practical treatment technologies exist to meet the proposed "Safe Use Number" limits. o To determine the cost and overall economic impact of source control/treatment to meet the concentration limits. -3- Since the decision to apply Proposition 6S limits to POTW's is discretionary and, since the impact of this appl ication most probably will be profound, it would seem that the prudent course of action would be to proceed del iberately with adequate information to assess the impacts of regul atory decisions. Promul gating regul ations which later turn out to be unenforceable or unworkable will cause the publiC to lose confidence in the SWRCB and POlW's. The SimDlistic ADDlication of ProDosition 6S Chemical Concentration Limits to POlW's Will Not Be Fair and EQuitable There are a number of consequences of the application of Proposition 6S concentration limits to POTW's which could result in unfair and inequitable situations which OOCSD doubts are intended by the SWRCB: o Urban storm sewers and non-point source discharges are probably a much more significant source of carcinogens and reproductive toxins than business or POlW discharges. To use your discretionary authority to apply Proposition 65 to POTW's but not to storm sewer discharges would be inconsistent and inequitable. It could be that the SWRCB decided not to apply Proposition 65 chemical concentration limits to urban storm sewers and non-point source discharges because of a feeling that it would not be practical to control discharges of carcinogens and reproductive toxins from these sources. If this is the case, then it would be appropriate to learn whether it is practical to control POlW discharges of low concentrations of carcinogens and reproductive toxins as well. o In voting for Proposition 65, the clear intent of the public was for business to bear the cost of compliance. The application of Proposition 65 to POlW's will shift a major cost burden directly to ratepayers of POTW's which discharge to potential sources of drinking water. This is not what the public voted for and should be carefully examined from the point of view of public acceptability. o The H&wA is currently promulgating exemptions and definitions of Proposition 65 which will benefit business. With the approach now being followed by the SWRCB for implementing Proposition 65, it is not clear whether these exemptions will or can be applied to POlW's. o The potentially huge cost of removing minuscular amounts of suspected carcinogens and reproductive toxins from wastewater raises serious issues of reasonabl eness and practicability. For exampl e, the risk of cancer from chloroform is far greater than the risk of other known carcinogens in drinking water. Chloroform is primarily formed by the drinking water treatment process, although chloroform can be found in wastewater treatment plant effluent. It would seem more practical to spend public monies on removing chloroform from drinking water rather than removing it from wastewater treatment plant effluent. -4- Recommendations OCCSD has the following recommendations to the SWROB for dealing with the application of health-based limits of carcinogens and reproductive toxins in POTW effluents and non-point discharges: o Do not add Proposition 65 chemical concentration limits to the NPDES permits of POTW's at this time. o Do not apply Proposition 65 chemical concentration limits to non-point source discharges at this time. o Develop within the SWROB staff a group specifically committed to the development and implementation of carcinogen and reproductive toxin chemical concentration limits for POTW's and non-point discharges. We recognize that there are limited resources available for the support of this group. However, we are convinced that un1 ess the SWROB takes on the job of developing a comprehensive and well thought out program, the result will be the misdirected expenditure of far greater monies by POTW's than will be needed by the SWRCB to support the group. o Prepare a plan to develop chemical concentration limits for carcinogens and reproductive toxins specifically tailored for POlW's and non-point source discharges based upon the application of good scientific and regulatory practice. Integrate this activity with the development of water quality standards for drinking water which optimize the effective use of limited public funds. o Implement this plan using your Porter-Co10gne and Clean Water Act authority. The efforts should be begun as soon as possible in order to gain the confidence of the public, but shoul d be allotted the time necessary to be performed in a professional and well considered manner. I hope that our comments have been useful. We look forward to working with you to solve this most important problem. ruly Yirp~ Roger. 01a1" Gene al Manager-Chief Engineer RAB:RJD:bl bcc: Steve Hayashi John Hassenplug Bob Miele Jim Kelly Steve McDonald Chuck Batts -5- NAME GREET! NG <Mr. W. Don Maughan~ Chairman State Water Resources Control Board P. O. Box 100 Sacramento~ CA 95801> <Mr. Maughan> <Ms. Darlene E. Ruiz, Vice Chair State Water Resources Control Board P. O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95801> <Ms. Ruiz> <Mr. Edwin H. Finster, Member State Water Resources Control Board P. O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95801> <Mr. Finster> <Mr. Danny Walsh~ Member State Water Resources Control Board P. O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95801> <Mr. Walsh> <Mr. Eliseo M. Samaniego~ Member State Water Resources Control Board P. O. Box 100 Sacramento~ CA 95801> <Mr. Samaniego>