San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Quality Division 1657 Rollins Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Prepared by: Date: 6/20/2013 Water Quality Engineering

(This page is left intentionally blank)

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ACWA BAT CDPH DBP DLR HTWTP MCL MCLG MGD OEHHA OWQP pci/l PHG ppb ppm ppt RO SFDPH SFPUC SFWS SVWTP USEPA WIC Association of California Water Agencies Best Available Technology California Department of Public Health Disinfection Byproduct Detection Limit for the Purposes of Reporting Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Maximum Contaminant Level Maximum Contaminant Level Goal Million Gallons per Day Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Optimal Water Quality Parameter picocuries per liter Public Health Goal parts per billion parts per million parts per trillion Reverse Osmosis San Francisco Department of Public Health San Francisco Public Utilities Commission San Francisco Water System Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant United States Environmental Protection Agency Women, Infants, and Children Program iii

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report Table of Contents I. Background... 1 II. Elements of PHG Report... 1 A. Target Drinking Water Contaminant Levels... 2 B. Health Risks... 4 C. BATs and Cost Estimates... 5 D. SFPUC Data and Analysis... 5 III. PHG Evaluation... 7 A. Aluminum... 7 1. SFPUC Water Sample Results... 7 2. Health Risk Category and Values... 8 3. BATs and Treatment Cost... 8 4. SFPUC Program... 8 B. Arsenic... 8 1. SFPUC Water Sample Results... 8 2. Health Risk Category and Values... 8 3. BATs and Treatment Cost... 9 4. SFPUC Programs... 10 C. Total Coliform Bacteria... 10 1. SFPUC Water Sample Results... 10 2. Health Risk Category and Values... 10 3. BATs and Treatment Cost... 10 4. SFPUC Programs... 11 D. Lead... 11 1. SFPUC Water Sample Results... 12 2. Health Risk Category and Values... 12 3. BATs and Treatment Cost... 13 4. SFPUC Programs... 13 E. Radium-226 and Radium-228... 14 1. SFPUC Water Sample Results... 14 2. Health Risk Category and Values... 15 3. BATs and Treatment Cost... 15 4. SFPUC Programs... 16 IV. Recommendations for Further Actions... 16 iv

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report List of Table Table 1: SFPUC Data vs. MCLs, DLRs and PHGs/MCLGs for Detected Contaminants... 6 List of Figures Figure 1: SFPUC Targets vs. PHGs and MCLs... 2 Figure 2: Comparison of PHG Level with DLR... 3 Figure 3: Potential Contributors to Lead in Tap Water from Household Plumbing... 11 Figure 4: Identified Environmental Sources of Lead in SF Properties... 12 List of Attachments Attachment A: Excerpt from California Health and Safety Code Section 116470(b)-(f) Attachment B: Memo on PHG Monitoring: Consideration of Contaminants with DLRs Greater than PHGs Attachment C: PHGs/MCLGs and SFPUC Analytical Results Attachment D: SFPUC Water Quality Reports 2012, 2011, 2010 Attachment E: BAT and Cost Estimate for Arsenic Removal Attachment F: Letter in Support of HR 5289: Get the Lead Out v

(This page is left intentionally blank)

I. Background San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report Public Health Goals (PHGs) are non-enforceable, health-based goals established by the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL), especially the primary, are enforceable drinking water standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and/or California Department of Public Health (CDPH) at conservative levels as close to their PHGs as are technically and economically feasible. The California Health and Safety Code 116470(b) (Attachment A) requires public water systems serving more than 10,000 service connections to prepare a brief, written report every three years if a regulated (i.e. with a MCL) drinking water contaminant exceeds the corresponding PHG. If a PHG does not exist, the law requires the use of the federal equivalent Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for evaluation. MCLGs are nonenforceable, health-based goals adopted by the USEPA. The purpose of the report is to give water system customers access to the information on contaminant levels even if the drinking water standards are met. It also provides the associated information on the health risks, potential treatment technologies, and cost estimates to reduce the levels of contaminants to the PHG levels. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) prepared its last PHG report for the San Francisco Water System (SFWS) in 2010. In February 2013, the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) released a set of suggested guidelines for use by public water systems in preparing the PHG report. These guidelines have been considered in preparing this report. II. Elements of PHG Report The law requires that contaminants with a California MCL and a PHG (or MCLG) are to be addressed in the PHG report. In particular, the information below should be included: PHG or MCLG, and MCL values. Category or type of risk to health that could be associated with the contaminant. Numerical health risk associated with the MCL and PHG or MCLG. Best available technology (BAT), if any, that could be used to reduce the contaminant level. Estimate of the cost to implement the BAT, if appropriate and feasible. These items are discussed in further details in the following sections. 1

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report A. Target Drinking Water Contaminant Levels 1. PHG Established by the OEHHA, a PHG represents the level of a contaminant in the drinking water that would pose no significant risk to public health if consumed for a lifetime. For carcinogens, the PHG is set at a level below which the health risk is not significant (i.e., statistically, less than 1 in 1,000,000) to individuals consuming the water on a daily basis over a 70-year lifetime exposure. For non-carcinogens, the PHG is set at a concentration at which no known or anticipated adverse health effects will occur, with an adequate margin of safety. A PHG is based solely on public health risks using current risk assessment principles and methods, without considerations of practical risk-management factors used by the USEPA or CDPH in setting drinking water standards. PHGs are non-enforceable goals that are not required to be met by any public water system. 2. MCL The CDPH is responsible for adopting State drinking water standards including primary MCLs for health protection and secondary MCLs for addressing aesthetic concerns. The primary MCLs, which are used for comparison and discussion in this report, take into account not only chemicals health risks but also factors such as their detectability, treatability, and costs of treatment. Along with the MCL, a regulated contaminant also has a detection limit for purposes of reporting (DLR). As Health & Safety Code 116365(a) requires the CDPH to establish a contaminant's MCL close to its PHG with technical and economic considerations, it places primary emphasis on the protection of public health against all but very low to negligible risk. In other words, MCLs are the regulatory definition of what is safe ; therefore, adopted MCLs are the criteria for regulatory compliance, not MCLGs or PHGs. To ensure that high quality drinking water is reliably provided to the customers, the SFPUC sets its own operational water quality targets at levels more stringent than the MCLs. Figure 1 below illustrates the relationship between the SFPUC s water quality targets, PHG levels, and MCLs. Contaminant Concentration in Drinking Water MCLs SFPUC Water Quality Targets PHGs and/or MCLGs Majority of tested contaminants Operational buffer to prevent MCL violation Figure 1 SFPUC Targets vs. PHGs and MCLs 2

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report 3. DLR The DLR is established at a level by the CDPH such that it is confident about a value or quantification being reported and can be met by most laboratories It is not laboratory specific and cannot be changed by laboratories. It also does not depend on the analytical method used; thus the availability of a new or improved analytical method does not automatically result in DLR revision 1. However, advancements in measuring techniques and instruments have helped many laboratories use detection limits lower than the DLRs for many contaminants in the drinking water. DLRs are used by the CDPH to determine compliance with drinking water standards (e.g. primary MCLs). When a contaminant is found in a confirmed, compliance sample at a level above its DLR, it is considered detected. A detected contaminant with its DLR below PHG or MCLG (green dotted line in Figure 2) makes the determination of PHG or MCLG exceedance certain. Many water systems conduct operational monitoring in addition to compliance monitoring. Sometimes in-house laboratories may use lower detection limits than the DLRs in their measurements. If such a reporting limit is below the PHG, the determination of PHG exceedance is relatively straightforward (same as for the DLR mentioned above). On the contrary, when either the DLR or the laboratory reporting limit is above the PHG (yellow area in Figure 2), this will make it infeasible to know whether or not a contaminant concentration exceeds the health goal, if a contaminant is reported as non-detected. As such, the ACWA guidance states that a contaminant reported as less than the DLR should be considered zero. Similarly, the SFPUC will consider a contaminant reported at a level less than the laboratory reporting limit as zero. This approach is consistent with the CDPH practice and USEPA s recommendation in treating non-detected results as zero. PHG > DLR DLR PHG < DLR Figure 2 Comparison of PHG Level with DLR 1 Research related to the DLR and its revision process are presented in a memorandum and included in Attachment B. 3

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report B. Health Risks In the process of adopting a PHG for a contaminant, the OEHHA evaluates best available toxicological data in the scientific literature and performs assessment of health risks under several identified categories. These health risk categories include: Acute toxicity adverse health effects that develop after a short-term exposure to a chemical (minutes to days). Subchronic toxicity adverse health effects that develop after repeated or longerterm exposures to a chemical (days to months). Genetic toxicity adverse effects related to gene mutation including the damage of DNA and/or chromosomes of cells. Carcinogenic adverse effects capable of producing cancer. Chronic toxicity adverse effects that usually develop gradually from low levels of chemical exposure over a long period of time (months to years). Development toxicity adverse effects on the developing organism that may result from exposure prior to conception (either parent), during prenatal development, or postnatally to the time of sexual maturation. Adverse developmental effects may be detected at any point in the life span of the organism. The major manifestations include: (1) death of the developing organism, (2) structural abnormality (birth defects), (3) altered growth, and (4) functional deficiency. Immunotoxicity adverse effects on the function of the immune system. Neurotoxic capable of adversely affecting or destroying parts of the nervous system or interfering with nerve signal transmission. Effects may be reversible (for example, effects on chemicals that carry nerve signals across gaps between nerve cells) or irreversible (for example, destruction of nerve cells). Reproductive effects adverse effects on the reproductive system of females or males that may result from exposure to environmental agents. The toxicity may cause changes to the female or male reproductive organs, the regulating endocrine system, or pregnancy outcomes. Examples of such toxicity include adverse effects on onset of puberty, egg production and transport, menstrual cycle normality, sexual behavior such as sexual urge, lowered fertility, sperm production, length of pregnancy, and milk production. The OEHHA also calculates the numerical risks associated with the contaminant s noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects, if any, on human health. The PHG is then developed as a public health-protective concentration based on the most sensitive health effects. 4

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report C. BATs and Cost Estimates For drinking water, both the USEPA and CDPH have specified BATs that were determined to be the best available methods for reducing contaminant levels to the applicable MCLs. Costs can be readily estimated for such technologies. However, since most PHGs and MCLGs are set much lower than the corresponding MCLs and some MCLGs are even set at zero, it is not always possible to determine what treatment and its costs are needed to further reduce a contaminant down to the PHG or MCLG level. Estimating the costs to reduce a contaminant to zero is difficult, if not impossible, because it is not technically feasible to verify by existing analytical methods that the level has truly been lowered to zero. Cost estimates for treatment technologies provided in the PHG report are not based on detailed engineering specifications, as many other cost aspects related to factors such as environmental compliance, etc. are not included. Furthermore, installing treatment to reduce already low levels of one contaminant may have unexpected adverse effects on other aspects of water quality. Detailed assessment of water quality impacts caused by the identified treatment technologies must be conducted as part of any future treatment feasibility study. D. SFPUC Data and Analysis In preparation of this report, all compliance and operational monitoring data collected in 2010 through 2012 for SFWS were reviewed. Attachment C (Tables C-1, C-1a and C-2) of this report summarizes the SFWS water quality data in conjunction with their corresponding DLRs, MCLs, PHGs and MCLGs. The levels of contaminants in treated water delivered to all SFWS customers were summarized in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Annual Water Quality Reports (a.k.a. Consumer Confidence Reports) as contained in Attachment D. It should be noted that there are a few constituents (such as disinfection byproducts or DBPs) that are routinely detected in the water system at levels below the drinking water standards but neither PHGs nor MCLGs have been adopted. These contaminants will be addressed in a future report if a PHG or MCLG is adopted. 1. Detected Contaminants Between 2010 and 2012, the SFPUC detected the following constituents in its water samples at levels above the applicable PHGs and/or MCLGs: Aluminum exceeding the PHG in raw water operational monitoring samples only; it was detected in treated water but below the PHG. Arsenic exceeding the PHG in raw water operational monitoring samples only; it was non-detected in treated water. Lead exceeding the PHG in customer tap water samples only; it was non-detected in raw and treated water. Total coliform (a bacteriological indicator) exceeding the MCLG in treated water samples in 2012 only; it was non-detected (i.e. absence) in 2010 and 2011. 5

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report Radium-228 exceeding the PHG in a raw water compliance sample and a treated water sample in 2011. Radium-226 exceeding the PHG in a treated water sample in 2011. The fluoride levels in treated water samples were above its PHG; however, the CDPH issued a letter on December 10, 1998 stating that fluoride added to water for dental health benefits should not be considered a detected contaminant. The MCL and PHG are applicable for PHG evaluation only to natural levels of fluoride in the water system. Since the natural fluoride levels in the SFWS supply are below the PHG, no discussion of fluoride in this report is necessary. Table 1 below highlights the detected contaminants in SFPUC water samples collected in 2010 through 2012 that are discussed in this report. Table 1. SFPUC Data vs. MCLs, DLRs and PHGs/MCLGs for Detected Contaminants Contaminant Unit MCL DLR PHG (MCLG) Raw Water Treated Water Aluminum ppb 1,000 50 600 ND - 3,531* ND - 90 Arsenic ppb 10 2 0.004 ND - 3.52 ND Lead ppb 15 5 0.2 ND ND Radium 226 pci/l -- 1 0.05 ND ND - 1.2 Radium 228 pci/l -- 1 0.019 ND - 1.12 ND - 1.39 Combined Radium 226 and 228 pci/l 5 1 -- -- -- Total Coliform P/A 5.0% -- (Zero) -- 2.7% ppb = parts per billion ND = Non-detected *Operational Monitoring Sample P/A = Present/Absent 2. Non-detected Contaminants Between 2010 and 2012, the SFPUC did not detect the following 27 contaminants, which have their PHGs below the corresponding DLRs. Although the contaminants might be present at any levels below the DLRs, they were not quantifiable and reportable. In the absence of probable sources in the SFWS and in accord with the ACWA guidance, these contaminants were considered to have no PHG exceedance during the reporting period. 6

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Cadmium Molinate 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Carbofuran Polychlorinated Biphenyls Dibromochloropropane Carbon Tetrachloride Tetrachloroethylene 1,2-Dichloroethane Chlordane Thallium 1,3-dichloropropene Ethylene Dibromide Toxaphene 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) Heptachlor Uranium Atrazine Heptachlor Epoxide Vinyl Chloride Benzene Hexachlorobenzene Gross Alpha Particles Benzo(a)pyrene Lindane Methoxychlor In addition, the SFPUC also monitored other regulated contaminants that have PHGs and/or MCLGs above the corresponding DLRs. For the reporting period, these contaminants were not detected above their DLRs and, therefore, no PHG exceedance occurred. III. PHG Evaluation Over the last three years, San Francisco s drinking water has met all MCLs and applicable action levels (in the case of copper and lead) adopted by the USEPA and CDPH. However, the nature and/or levels of five contaminants aluminum, arsenic, total coliform, lead and radium merit discussion in this report. The following sections discuss SFPUC water sample results with respect to the applicable health goals, associated health risks, and identified BATs together with preliminary cost estimates, and proposed actions to be taken by the SFPUC in addressing these contaminants. Attachment E contains information on health risk categories and numerical cancer risk values at PHGs and MCLGs for the contaminants discussed in this report. A. Aluminum The PHG of aluminum is 600 ppb. There are two drinking water standards for aluminum: the health-based primary MCL at 1,000 ppb and aesthetic-driven secondary MCL at 200 ppb. The DLR specified by the CDPH for compliance monitoring is 50 ppb. Aluminum is the third most abundant element of the earth s crust constituting 8.3 percent. It is widely used in industry for a variety purposes, and there are multiple sources of aluminum products for human exposure through ingestion and adsorption. 1. SFPUC Water Sample Results Aluminum is detected in the SFPUC s treated water and source supply. The results of compliance and operational monitoring conducted in the period between 2010 and 2012 showed a range results from non-detect to 3,531 ppb of aluminum in the local San Antonio and Calaveras reservoir waters. Five out of 122 raw water samples from the two reservoirs had aluminum levels greater than the PHG. Water from these reservoirs is supplied to the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant (SVWTP) for treatment prior to delivery for consumption. Despite the elevated levels of aluminum in the source water and the addition of alum (an aluminum compound that is generally used for water treatment by utilities across the nation) at the SVWTP, the treated water has no aluminum above the PHG level and is always below the primary MCL. 7

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report 2. Health Risk Category and Values The OEHHA characterizes aluminum as neurotoxic and immunotoxic in humans exposed parenterally, via the oral route in those suffering renal disease, and potentially in neonates receiving formulas with excess aluminum. The USEPA has not characterized aluminum as carcinogen. According to OEHHA, the health risk category of aluminum is chronic toxicity, and has no numerical risk values. 3. BATs and Treatment Cost The CDPH specifies that the BAT for aluminum is optimization of treatment and reduction of aluminum added. The SFPUC has already implemented measures to optimize its treatment through the use of enhanced coagulation and filtration process at the SVWTP. Aluminum added during the treatment process is also optimized, and the concentration in the treated water is below the PHG. Since the specified BAT is in place, it is not necessary to estimate the cost. 4. SFPUC Programs The SFPUC will continue the existing programs to optimize its water treatment at the SVWTP, implement watershed protection measures to reduce contaminant sources (e.g. soil erosion), and monitor aluminum in the two reservoirs. B. Arsenic The OEHHA established a very low PHG of 0.004 ppb for arsenic, which is significantly below the DLR of 2 ppb and the MCL of 10 ppb. The abundance of arsenic in the Earth s crust is about five grams per ton, with most existing in combined forms. The occurrence of arsenic in water is generally associated with soil erosion, seasonal run-off within the local watersheds, and/or treatment chemical impurities. 1. SFPUC Water Sample Results Between 2010 and 2012, arsenic was not detected in any treated water samples. It was, however, detected in some raw water operational monitoring samples collected from San Antonio and Calaveras reservoirs at levels (2.4 ppb - 3.5 ppb) below the MCL but above the PHG. These occasional detections of arsenic in the local raw water sources are similar to previous findings 2, and are not considered representative of delivered water to the SFWS. 2. Health Risk Category and Values Arsenic is classified as a carcinogen, or a chemical capable of producing cancer. It is also known to have other non-cancer adverse health and developmental effects including, but not limited to, hypertension, neurotoxicity, respiratory disease, and skin disease. According to the OEHHA, daily consumption of water at the PHG of 0.004 ppb for 70-year 2 Arsenic was detected in previous special studies related to runoff. Low levels of arsenic at 1-3 ppb were found in the treated water from SVWTP and HTWTP during the period of 1994-1996. In another study during the period of 2005-2006, arsenic was occasionally detected at low levels between 2-7 ppb in the Hetch Hetchy water supply collected from Alameda East Portal. 8

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report translates into an increased lifetime cancer risk of one per million. Water consumed at the MCL of 10 ppb translates into a lifetime cancer risk of one per four hundred. 3. BATs and Treatment Cost Discussion 3 on the applicable arsenic BAT and associated costs presented in the SFPUC s 2010 PHG Report can be modified as below for the SVWTP. Theoretically, only reverse osmosis (RO) treatment is potentially capable of reducing arsenic to the very low PHG level. The annualized cost (including amortized capital expenditure and operations and maintenance) of a 3-stage RO treatment system to produce 160 MGD of treated water at the SVWTP can vary between $345 million and $742 million. Furthermore, there could be other significant additional costs that include, but are not limited to: Construction, operation, and evaluation of a pilot plant to determine the feasibility and design parameters of the selected treatment technology. Any pretreatment system of arsenic for prior to the RO treatment. Disposal facilities including treatment, if any, for the brine waste from the RO process. Because of very low treated water arsenic level, a brine production rate of more than 40% up to 124 MGD is anticipated. Acquisition, development, and treatment of additional water sources to replace the water lost as the brine waste. Land acquisition, permitting, environmental mitigations, O & M, and reporting costs associated with items above. It should be noted that the efficacy of this BAT is only proven at the MCL level. Since the PHG for arsenic is 2,500 times lower than the MCL, even RO cannot be guaranteed to be effective at this level and at such a large scale. Furthermore, the analytical technology currently prevalent in the industry is not capable of detecting arsenic at the PHG level. In other words, the success of a new RO facility to reduce arsenic to the PHG level would be impossible to measure. In fact, it is impractical to implement treatment to reduce the low levels of arsenic in the SFWS based on the following considerations: No detectable arsenic in the treated water. High treatment cost. Inability to verify treatment performance at PHG level. 3 A conceptual plan and discussion for a RO system to be installed at HTWTP, as discussed in the 2010 PHG Report, is shown in Attachment E of this report. 9

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report 4. SFPUC Programs The SFPUC has implemented a watershed management/protection program and a treatment chemical quality control program to identify and reduce potential contamination sources to the SFWS. These efforts, together with a proactive water quality monitoring program, are significantly more efficient mechanisms for reducing contaminants, including arsenic, than constructing an expensive treatment facility with no guarantee of meeting the performance goal. C. Total Coliform Bacteria The total coliform MCL for the SFWS is that no more than 5.0 percent of all coliform samples collected from the distribution system in any given month can be positive. The OEHHA has not set a PHG for coliform but the USEPA has established a MCLG of zero. Coliform bacteria are naturally present in the environment and are not generally considered harmful. A drinking water standard established for coliform is due to its ease of monitoring and analysis. Total coliform is used as a proxy measure of bacterial contamination, as high levels of coliform have been correlated with high levels of disease-causing bacteria in drinking water systems. If positive samples are detected, it may indicate a potential problem in the distribution system that needs investigation and follow-up sampling. However, it is not unusual for a system to have an occasional coliform-positive result. In fact, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assure that a system will never get a positive sample. 1. SFPUC Water Sample Results There were no total coliform positives in the water samples collected from the SFWS during 2010 and 2011. In 2012, the highest monthly percentage of total coliform positives was 2.7%, with the annual average being 0.4%. No E. Coli was detected in any of the coliformpositive samples. Most of the time, the investigations following coliform-positive results did not identify any conclusive findings of contamination sources. 2. Health Risk Category and Values As coliform is only an indicator organism for pathogens in the drinking water, it is not possible to determine its numerical health risk. While MCLGs are normally set at a level where no known or anticipated adverse effects on persons would occur, the USEPA has indicated that it is not possible to do so with coliform since the actual pathogens are not being measured. 3. BATs and Treatment Cost The CDPH has specified the BATs for total coliform bacteria, of which one method for reducing coliform-positive incidence is to maintain effective disinfectant residual in the water distribution system. Increasing chlorine residual levels in the treated water, however, may increase the levels of DBPs that may have adverse health consequences. In order to maintain effective disinfectant levels in the treated water without increasing the levels of DBPs, the SFPUC converted from free chlorine to chloramine as the residual disinfectant in 2004. The cost of chloramine conversion was approximately $47 million. Additionally, a state-of-the-art ultraviolet (UV) treatment facility worth $111 million was completed at Tesla as part of the SFPUC s Water Supply Improvement Program in 2011. 10

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report Although the UV treatment facility is designed for inactivating Cryptosporidium, a protozoan parasite typically associated with animal feces, it also contributes to the inactivation of viruses and bacteria to some extent. 4. SFPUC Programs In conjunction with its watershed controls at the Hetch Hetchy and local water sources, the SFPUC has instituted a water main flushing/disinfection program, a reservoir cleaning program and a cross-connection control program. Additionally, disinfectant residuals are regularly monitored and positive pressures are maintained throughout the distribution system. These measures help reduce the introduction of coliform bacteria into the City s water source and distribution system. D. Lead The PHG for lead is 0.2 ppb which is below the DLR of 5 ppb. The CDPH adopted an Action Level of 15 ppb for lead in 1995, and requires the lead concentration in 90 percent of the water samples collected at customer taps not to exceed the Action Level. Lead enters drinking water primarily through leaching of lead-containing materials in household plumbing (Figure 3). The corrosion of household plumbing systems containing lead-based solder used to join copper pipes, brass and/or chrome-plated brass faucets, lead pipe connections from homes to the water main, brass/bronze water meters, brass/bronze curb valves, and brass/bronze corporation valves can all contribute to lead in the drinking water. Curb Stop Brass Meter Brass Faucet Service Line Brass Fitting Lead Solder Figure 3 Potential Contributors to Lead in Tap Water from Household Plumbing In addition to the drinking water, there are other sources of lead in the environment. For example, lead-based paint was widely used in home painting prior to 1977. The San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH) visits homes of all children with elevated blood lead levels to investigate the environmental causes. These visits include inspections for the presence of lead in the home environment. Data supplied by the SFDPH indicated that, between January 2009 and April 2013, 951 properties were inspected and lead analyses 11

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report were carried out to investigate elevated blood lead levels in children. Figure 4 shows that lead paint is the major contributor to lead hazards in San Francisco homes, whereas lead in water continues to be an insignificant role, as in the past years. Note: Dust includes dust wipe analyses from interior and exterior locations and includes sources such as floors, window sills, and stairs. Figure 4 Environmental Sources of Lead Found During Home Visits by SFDPH 1/2009 4/2013 1. SFPUC Water Sample Results Lead was not detected in the water supplied by the SFWS. Between 2010 and 2012, the SFWS conducted its triennial tap water lead and copper monitoring in 2012 according to the schedule approved by the CDPH. Although the monitoring results showed that the SFWS continues to meet the Action Level for lead, 42 of 60 compliance water samples collected at customer taps had lead levels above the PHG. As discussed before, the probable lead source in these tap samples may be attributed to the plumbing components at these residences. The reason that some residences have higher lead levels in their tap water than others could be due to differences in plumbing materials present in the home. 2. Health Risk Category and Values Lead has multiple toxic effects on human body. The OEHHA revised the PHG for lead in drinking water from 2 ppb to 0.2 ppb on April 24, 2009, based on new studies relating to 12

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report the most sensitive health risks. These are non-carcinogenic, chronic health effects including neurobehavioral effects (decreased intelligence) in children and hypertension in adults. Lead also has the potential to cause kidney disease and cancer; however, the carcinogenic risks are considered smaller than the risks for chronic toxicity. The public health goal of 0.2 ppb was determined from a maximum daily lead intake through water ingestion of 2.86 µg/day, which corresponds to a level of concern for neurobehavioral effects (in children) designated as a decrease of one Intelligence Quotient point. 3. BATs and Treatment Cost The CDPH considers optimizing corrosion controls as the BAT to deal with lead in drinking water. In an evaluation report 4 dated August 4, 2006, the SFPUC concluded that ph adjustment in the San Francisco Regional Water System, which supplies water to the SFWS, is the optimal corrosion control treatment. The report, which was then approved by the CDPH, recommends a minimum ph of 8.2 (i.e. the optimal water quality parameter, or OWQP) be maintained throughout the transmission and distribution system. Because the SFWS continues to meet the Action Level for lead and operate the water system with ph greater than 8.2, the CDPH considers that the City has achieved optimized corrosion control. Therefore, additional corrosion control treatment is not needed. 4. SFPUC Programs In conjunction with existing monitoring and ph adjustment efforts, the SFPUC has implemented the following actions with the intent to continuously reduce lead exposures from drinking water to City residents. a) Legislative Action In 2010, the SFPUC supported HR 5289 (Eshoo/Miller) Get the Lead Out legislation (Attachment F). Its lead-free provisions were subsequently folded into S.3874, which was signed into law by the President on January 4, 2011. This federal lead-free requirement, similar to California AB 1953, will be effective on January 1, 2014. b) Public Outreach and Education The SFPUC is proactive in educating customers about information related to lead, its health effects, and drinking water exposure. This information can be found on the SFPUC web page http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=356. This web page also provides links to other sources for additional information on lead and drinking water. As part of its public education efforts, the SFPUC always advises in its Consumer Confidence Report that customers who have concerns about their plumbing should flush the tap for 30 seconds to two minutes whenever the tap has not been used for several hours. The SFPUC also offers low-cost (only $25) lead test to all City customers, 4 Trussell Technologies, Inc., MWH Americas, 2006, Final Report to CDPH: Review of SFPUC Corrosion Control Strategy for Lead and Copper Rule Compliance under System-wide Chloramination and Fluoridation. 13

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report and will continue to waive this fee for residents who are enrolled in the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. In partnership with the SFDPH s Childhood Lead Prevention Program, the SFPUC provides laboratory services and water sampling assistance to help investigate the lead sources for cases of high blood lead levels in children residing in the City. c) Lead Meter Replacement During the 1980s, the SFPUC removed a total of 6,474 lead service lines from the SFWS. In 1983, the use of leaded water main joints in the distribution system was discontinued. In December 2000, the Commission approved a lead-free water meter replacement program, with the target of replacing all meters over a period of 20 years. In 2008, the SFPUC began the deployment of an Automated Water Meter Program to replace all existing manual reading meters throughout the City. The goal of the $50 million program is to replace and/or retrofit all 178,000 meters of sizes from 5/8 through 10 with new, automatic reading, lead-free meters that comply with AB 1953 requirements. The meter replacement/retrofit program is about 80% complete and anticipated to be completed by the end of 2013. d) Pilot Curb Stops Evaluation A pilot test program was developed for the SFWS in 2003 to evaluate the serviceability of some lead-free curb stops. The pilot-test results indicate that the mechanical performance and serviceability of these lead-free curb stops are acceptable. As a result, curb stops in the SFWS will be replaced, as needed in the future, with units that comply with AB 1953 lead-free requirements. E. Radium-226 and Radium-228 Radium is a naturally-occurring radionuclide. The major source of radium particles in drinking water is erosion of natural deposits. Radium can be present in several forms, called isotopes. The most common isotopes are radium-226 and radium-228. The PHG values for radium-226 and radium-228 in drinking water are 0.05 pci/l and 0.019 pci/l, respectively. Both PHG values are below the DLR of 1 pci/l. Although there are no MCLs for each of these radionuclides, the CDPH did adopt a MCL of 5 pci/l for the combined radium-226 and radium-228. 1. SFPUC Water Sample Results The SFPUC monitored radioactive contaminants in all water sources in 2007, 2004 and earlier, and did not detect any of them. However, the following detections were recorded in 2011: Radium-226 was detected at 1.2 pci/l in the treated water sample from the HTWTP. Radium-228 was detected at 1.12 pci/l in the raw water sample from the San Antonio Reservoir. 14

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report Radium-228 was detected at 1.39 pci/l in the treated SVWTP and Hetch Hetchy blend (Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2) water sample at the Baden Valve Lot. While exceeding the individual PHGs, the levels of radium-226 and radium-228 when combined were below the MCL of 5 pci/l. In other words, drinking water supplied by the SFWS was in compliance with the radium MCL. In the preparation of this report, staff contacted other local water agencies and found that a few of them also detected radioactive contaminants of other types in 2011 and 2012. Despite these detections, there were no trends and man-made sources identified. 2. Health Risk Category and Values Radium-226 and radium-228 are classified as carcinogens. Since radium is present at low levels in the natural environment, people who drink water containing radium-226 and radium-228 in excess of the MCL over 70 years may have an increased cancer risk. Longterm exposure to radium exceeding the PHGs may increase the risk of developing such diseases as lymphoma, bone cancer, and diseases that affect the formation of blood, such as leukemia and aplastic anemia. OEHHA states that consumption of water with radium at the PHG(s) at a rate of 2 liter/day over a 70-year period translates into an increased lifetime cancer risk of one per million. 3. BATs and Treatment Cost Ion-exchange, RO, and lime softening are identified by the CDPH as the BATs to reduce radium to the MCL. Since these treatment methods are not intended for the low PHG level, their performance and removal effectiveness cannot be guaranteed. Among these technologies, RO treatment appears to be potentially capable of reducing radium to the PHG level. Since radium was detected in the HTWTP treated water, the 3-stage RO treatment system that was discussed in the 2010 PHG report for arsenic removal at the same plant might be used to remove radium as well. The annualized cost estimate (including amortized capital expenditure and operations and maintenance) varies from $278 million to $598 million. For the SVWTP, the same RO facility discussed in Section III.B.3 for arsenic removal might also be used for radium removal if constructed. The wide ranges of the cost estimates are due to the different unit cost factors cited in the ACWA guidelines for different system scales and conditions. There may be significant additional costs related to radium treatment only. These include, but are not limited to: Installation and operation of a waste treatment and disposal system to manage the brine waste stream flow up to 112 MGD from the RO system at HTWTP. Other costs as indicated in the Arsenic Section III. B.3, BATs and Treatment Cost. The above cost estimates do not consider the challenges to the complicated disposal methods related to the co-removal of radium and arsenic that may be considered mixed, hazardous waste. 15

San Francisco Water System 2013 Public Health Goals Report 4. SFPUC Programs Considering that (i) radium was only detected in 2011 sampling and at very low levels, (ii) the high costs of treatment and disposal, and (iii) the inability to verify treatment performance, it is impractical to implement treatment to further reduce the low levels of radium in the SFWS at this time. Alternatively, continuation of the existing watershed management/protection programs for the Hetch Hetchy and local water sources, as well as monitoring and blending of waters would be more effective than providing treatment in using the limited resources to protect public health from exposure to these contaminants. IV. Recommendations for Further Actions In accordance with the OEHHA literature 5, a PHG is not a boundary line between a safe and dangerous level of a contaminant. Drinking water will be considered acceptable for public consumption even if it contains contaminants at levels exceeding the PHG, provided the MCLs are met. There are limited, if any, benefits to reduce the naturally-occurring contaminants including aluminum, arsenic, and radium to their PHG levels, as long as their levels are well below the corresponding MCLs in the drinking water. In the absence of identifiable anthropogenic sources in the Hetch Hetchy and local watersheds, the resources that would be required to implement additional arsenic and radium removals can be more effectively spent on maintaining high levels of water system operations, surveillance, and monitoring programs to achieve the greatest possible protection of public health. Since the SFPUC is already practicing the BATs for total coliform, there are no additional treatments necessary to meet the MCLG. In fact, the goal may not be practically met at all times. As the major lead source is from the plumbing fixtures at customers premises, the most effective actions to be taken by the SFPUC to help reduce exposure to lead in drinking water are to maintain optimized corrosion control treatment and continue existing lead abatement and public outreach efforts. In summary, the SFPUC will continue monitoring of the contaminants discussed in this report in a proactive manner to ensure that the primary MCLs and Action Levels are continuously met. 5 Guide to Public Health Goal (PHGs) for Chemicals in Drinking Water by OEHHA. 16

Attachment A Excerpt from California Health and Safety Code, Section 116470(b)-(f)

Attachment A: Excerpt from California Health and Safety Code: Section 116470(b) (f), Consumer Confidence Report (b) On or before July 1, 1998, and every three years thereafter, public water systems serving more than 10,000 service connections that detect one or more contaminants in drinking water that exceed the applicable public health goal, shall prepare a brief written report in plain language that does all of the following: (1) Identifies each contaminant detected in drinking water that exceeds the applicable public health goal. (2) Discloses the numerical public health risk, determined by the office, associated with the maximum contaminant level for each contaminant identified in paragraph (1) and the numerical public health risk determined by the office associated with the public health goal for that contaminant. (3) Identifies the category of risk to public health, including, but not limited to, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and acute toxicity, associated with exposure to the contaminant in drinking water, and includes a brief plainly worded description of these terms. (4) Describes the best available technology, if any is then available on a commercial basis, to remove the contaminant or reduce the concentration of the contaminant. The public water system may, solely at its own discretion, briefly describe actions that have been taken on its own, or by other entities, to prevent the introduction of the contaminant into drinking water supplies. (5) Estimates the aggregate cost and the cost per customer of utilizing the technology described in paragraph (4), if any, to reduce the concentration of that contaminant in drinking water to a level at or below the public health goal. (6) Briefly describes what action, if any, the local water purveyor intends to take to reduce the concentration of the contaminant in public drinking water supplies and the basis for that decision. (c) Public water systems required to prepare a report pursuant to subdivision (b) shall hold a public hearing for the purpose of accepting and responding to public

comment on the report. Public water systems may hold the public hearing as part of any regularly scheduled meeting. (d) The department shall not require a public water system to take any action to reduce or eliminate any exceedance of a public health goal. (e) Enforcement of this section does not require the department to amend a public water system's operating permit. (f) Pending adoption of a public health goal by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 116365, and in lieu thereof, public water systems shall use the national maximum contaminant level goal adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the corresponding contaminant for purposes of complying with the notice and hearing requirements of this section.

Attachment B Memo on PHG Monitoring: Consideration of Contaminants with DLRs greater than PHGs

SOLLER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS & INSIGHT FOR DECISION MAKING To: Stefani Harrison (MWH) From: Jeff Soller Cc: Date: April 19, 2010 Re: PHG Monitoring: Consideration of contaminants with DLRs greater than PHGs The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a brief overview of issues relevant to Public Health Goal reporting for contaminants which have Detection Limits for Purposes of Reporting (DLRs) greater than the corresponding Public Health Goals (PHGs). Background Public Health Goals: The California Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (Health and Safety Code, Section 116365) requires the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to adopt PHGs for contaminants in drinking water based exclusively on public health considerations. PHGs are developed for chemical contaminants based on the best available toxicological data in the scientific literature and are set for contaminants with a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), and for those contaminants for which the California Department of Public Health (DPH) will be adopting MCLs 1. Whereas PHGs are to be based solely on scientific and public health considerations without regard to economic cost considerations or technical feasibility, drinking water standards adopted by DPH consider economic factors and technical feasibility. Each primary drinking water standard adopted by DPH is set at a level that is as close as feasible to the corresponding PHG, placing emphasis on the protection of public health. PHGs are not regulatory in nature and represent non-mandatory goals. PHGs for cancer-causing substances are set at a level of 10-6, or up to one excess case of cancer per million people per 70-year lifetime exposure (this level is also known as a "de minimis" cancer risk). Public health and environmental regulatory agencies generally set risks within the 10-4 to 10-6 cancer risk range, and through precedent this range is generally considered acceptable or tolerable. For chemicals considered to be non-carcinogens, PHGs are set at a level equivalent to the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) divided by an uncertainty factor (UF) that reflects limitation in available scientific information related to the evaluation of effects. For some contaminants, the UF may include an extra 10-fold factor to account for a possibility of cancer-this might occur for example, if the chemical is known to be carcinogenic when inhaled, but hasn't be found to be carcinogenic when ingested. 1 http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/pages/mclsandphgs.aspx 510.847.0474 3022 King St jsoller@sollerenvironmental.com Berkeley, CA 94703 www.sollerenvironmental.com

Method Detection Limit (MDL) 2 The MDL is the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be detected in a sample that does not cause matrix interferences (typically determined using spiked reagent water). In this context, detected means that a sample that contains the analyte detected at the MDL can be distinguished from a blank with 99% certainty. The MDL is a laboratory-specific number, dependent on the instrumentation used by a particular laboratory and the skill of the operator. This number may change with time. Reporting Limit (RL) The RL, as defined by DPH s Sanitation and Radiation Laboratories Branch, is the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be detected in a sample and its concentration can be reported with a reasonable degree of accuracy and precision. A criterion of ± 20% accuracy and 20% relative standard deviation for replicate determinations is often used to define reasonable. The acceptable ranges depend on the analytical methodology used. For samples that do not pose a particular matrix problem, the RL is typically three to five times higher than the MDL. Similar to the MDL, the RL is a laboratory-specific number, which may change with time. When a sample has to be diluted before analysis, either because of matrix problems or to get the instrument response within the linear dynamic range, the RL is raised by a factor corresponding to the dilution factor. Detection Limit for Purposes of Reporting (DLR) The DLR is a parameter that is set by regulation for each reportable analyte. It is not laboratory specific and it is independent of the analytical method used (in cases where several methods are approved). The DLR cannot be changed by the laboratory. DPH expects that a laboratory can achieve a Reporting Limit (RL, see above) that is lower than or equal to the DLR set by the State. Basis for the first designation of a DLR For a particular contaminant in drinking water, the DLR is established along with an MCL via regulation (http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/drinkingwaterlabs/detectionlimitsdefinition.pdf). A DLR is usually established at a level that is approximately five times higher than the MDL. These levels are set such that DPH is confident about the value being reported. The DLR is intentionally set at a value that can be met by most commercial labs, not only the one(s) with the most sensitive equipment or methods. Revision of a DLR The most common basis for a revision of a DLR is a change in the MCL for a particular contaminant. Moreover, a revision would only occur if the existing DLR is thought to be inadequate. A DLR is typically not reviewed or revised without an associated change in the contaminant's MCL. However, a change in the MCL for a particular contaminant would not necessarily result in a revised DLR. For example, in 2003 the atrazine MCL was changed and was accompanied by a slight reduction in the DLR. However, the 2008 change in the arsenic MCL was not accompanied by a change in the DLR. DLRs are typically not reviewed or revised solely based on the availability of new or improved analytical methods. 2 http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/drinkingwaterlabs/detectionlimitsdefinition.pdf 2 SOLLER ENVIRONMENTAL T:\ENGINEERING\1_regs_phgs & reports\2013 phg working files\current version\attachment b - dlrs phg issues memo by jeff soller 4-19-10.doc

Upcoming revisions to DLRs for specific constituents Currently, there is not any explicit effort to revise the DLRs for any specific contaminants. Moreover, there does not seem to be an overarching public health concern about the DLRs for any of the contaminants that have DLRs > PHGs. Laboratories are always seeking to improve detection limits. This is particularly the case for new contaminants, such as the emerging contaminants that are currently the subject of much ongoing research (endocrine disrupting compounds, pharmaceutically active compounds, etc.). These improvements might result in methods that can detect lower concentrations of contaminants, but as indicated above, new or improved methods and the resulting new MDLs would not necessarily lead to lower DLRs. For unregulated contaminants, these improvements would be part of the scientific processes associated with developing a better understanding of the new contaminants. For regulated contaminants, a lower DLR might accompany a change in an MCL, if needed. Process of changing a DLR Regulated (or soon to be regulated) contaminants are the only ones with formal DLRs. To revise a DLR, a change would be required in the DPH s regulations. This would occur via the Administrative Procedure Act and thus, would not require new legislation. However, this course of action would be extremely unlikely for a particular DLR without a concurrent change in an MCL, and then would occur only if the existing DLR is thought to be inadequate. Alternatives for proactive action In cases where a particular contaminant s DLR is greater than the associated PHG, monitoring results could result in one of three distinct outcomes (depending in part on the RL employed for the analyses): 1) Detectable results above the DLR these types of results indicate that the PHG is not being met, 2) Detectable results below the DLR these types of results could lead to ambiguous reporting and interpretation with respect to whether or not the PHG was exceeded and 3) Results which are all below detectable limits these types of results yield ambiguous interpretation with respect to whether or not the PHG was exceeded. Currently, there does not seem to be an overarching public health concern from the State health agency about monitoring results of the second or third type. Nevertheless, should a water Agency desire to be proactive with respect to these types of results, there are several viable alternatives. o For any contaminant of concern, conduct laboratory analyses using analytical methods that have an MDL less than the DLR (provided that such methods are available) and report those results. Representative potential drawbacks to this approach are increased monitoring costs, limited availability of laboratories to conduct the analyses, and increased uncertainty in the reported results. 3 SOLLER ENVIRONMENTAL T:\ENGINEERING\1_regs_phgs & reports\2013 phg working files\current version\attachment b - dlrs phg issues memo by jeff soller 4-19-10.doc

o Limit the scope of the potential contaminants of concern by evaluating which contaminants (with DLRs > PHGs) could reasonably be present in the water source (For example, banned agricultural pesticides are less likely to be present in an urban environment, and industrial chemicals are less likely in areas where that industry is not present), and use existing source control information or additional source control efforts to provide context about the potential presence of these contaminants. 4 SOLLER ENVIRONMENTAL T:\ENGINEERING\1_regs_phgs & reports\2013 phg working files\current version\attachment b - dlrs phg issues memo by jeff soller 4-19-10.doc

Attachment C PHGs/MCLGs and SFPUC Analytical Results Table C-1: List of Contaminants with PHGs and SFPUC 2010-2012 Analytical Results Table C-1a: List of Contaminants with PHGs (but with no MCLs) and SFPUC 2010-2012 Analytical Results Table C-2: List of Contaminants with MCLGs (but with no PHGs) and SFPUC 2010-2012 Analytical Results

Table C-1: List of Contaminants with PHGs and SFPUC 2010-2012 Analytical Results Unit OEHHA DLR MCL Raw/Treated/ SFPUC Test Results (ppb) Contaminant with PHG PHG (1) Waiver? (2) 2010 2011 2012 1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) ppm 1 0.0005 0.2 T ND ND ND 2 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ppt 100 500 1000 T ND ND ND 3 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane (Freon 113) ppm 4 0.01 1.2 T ND ND ND 4 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA) ppt 300 500 5000 T ND ND ND 5 1,1-Dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) ppb 3 0.5 5 T ND ND ND 6 1,1-Dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) ppb 10 0.5 6 T ND ND ND 7 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ppb 5 0.5 5 T ND ND ND 8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) ppt 1.7 10 200 W -- ND -- 9 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ppb 600 0.5 600 T ND ND ND 10 1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) ppt 400 500 500 T ND ND ND 11 1,2-Dichloropropane ppt 500 500 5000 T ND ND ND 12 1,3-Dichloropropene ppt 200 500 500 T ND ND ND 13 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-dcb) ppb 6 0.5 5 T ND ND ND 14 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) ppb 25 1 50 W ND ND -- 15 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) ppb 20 10 70 W ND ND -- 16 Alachlor ppb 4 1 2 W ND ND -- 17 Aluminum ppb 600 50 1000 R/T 940 / ND 3531 / 53 768 / 90 18 Antimony ppb 20 6 6 ND ND ND 19 Arsenic ppt 4 2000 10000 T (3) ND ND ND 20 Asbestos fibers/l 7 x 10 6 0.2 X 10 6 7 x 10 6 R / T -- ND -- 21 Atrazine ppt 150 500 1000 W ND ND -- 22 Barium ppm 2 0.1 1 T ND ND ND 23 Bentazon ppb 200 2 18 W ND ND -- 24 Benzene ppt 150 500 1000 T ND ND ND 25 Benzo(a)pyrene ppt 7 100 200 W ND ND -- 26 Beryllium ppb 1 1 4 T ND ND ND 27 Bromate ppt 100 5000 10000 T ND ND ND 28 Cadmium ppt 40 1000 5000 T ND ND ND 29 Carbofuran ppb 1.7 5 18 W -- ND -- 30 Carbon tetrachloride ppt 100 500 500 T ND ND ND 31 Chlordane ppt 30 100 100 W -- ND -- 32 Chlorite ppb 50 20 1000 T ND ND ND 33 cis-1,2-dichloroethylene ppb 100 0.5 6 T ND ND ND 34 Copper ppb 300 50 1300 (AL) (5) T ND ND ND 35 Cyanide ppb 150 100 150 R -- ND -- 36 Dalapon ppb 790 10 200 W ND ND -- 37 Di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate ppb 200 5 400 W ND ND -- 38 Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) ppb 12 3 4 W ND ND -- 39 Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) ppb 4 0.5 5 T ND ND ND 40 Dinoseb ppb 14 2 7 W ND ND -- 41 Diquat ppb 15 4 20 W -- ND -- 42 Endothal ppb 580 45 100 W -- ND -- 43 Endrin ppb 1.8 0.1 2 W -- ND -- 44 Ethylbenzene ppb 300 0.5 300 T ND ND ND 45 Ethylene dibromide (EDB) ppt 10 20 50 W -- ND -- 46 Fluoride (4) ppm 1 0.1 2 T 1 1 1 47 Glyphosate ppb 900 25 700 W ND ND -- 48 Heptachlor ppt 8 10 10 W -- ND -- 49 Heptachlor epoxide ppt 6 10 10 W -- ND -- 50 Hexachlorobenzene ppt 30 500 1000 W ND ND -- 51 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ppb 50 1 50 W ND ND -- 52 Lead ppb 0.2 5 15 (AL) (5) T ND - - ND 53 Lindane ppt 32 200 200 W -- ND -- 54 Mercury (inorganic) ppb 1.2 1 2 T ND ND ND 55 Methoxychlor ppb 0.09 10 30 W -- ND -- 56 Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) ppb 13 3 13 T ND ND ND 57 Molinate ppb 1 2 20 W ND ND -- 58 Monochlorobenzene ppb 200 0.5 70 T ND ND ND 59 Nickel ppb 12 10 100 T ND ND ND 60 Nitrate (as NO3) ppm 45 2 45 T ND ND ND 61 Nitrite (as N) ppm 1 0.4 1 T ND ND ND 62 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) ppm 10 -- 10 T ND ND ND

Table C-1: List of Contaminants with PHGs and SFPUC 2010-2012 Analytical Results Unit OEHHA DLR MCL Raw/Treated/ SFPUC Test Results (ppb) Contaminant with PHG PHG (1) Waiver? (2) 2010 2011 2012 63 Oxamyl ppb 26 20 50 W -- ND -- 64 Pentachlorophenol ppt 300 200 1000 W ND ND -- 65 Perchlorate ppb 6 4 6 T ND ND ND 66 Picloram ppb 500 1 500 W ND ND -- 67 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) ppt 90 500 500 W -- ND -- 68 Selenium ppb 30 5 50 T ND ND ND 69 Simazine ppb 4 1 4 W ND ND -- 70 Strontium-90 pci/l 0.35 2 8 Not tested (6) -- -- -- 71 Styrene ppb 0.5 0.5 100 T ND ND ND 72 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) ppt 60 500 5000 T ND ND ND 73 Thallium ppt 100 1000 2000 T ND ND ND 74 Thiobencarb ppb 70 1 70 W ND ND -- 75 Toluene ppb 150 0.5 150 T ND ND ND 76 Toxaphene ppt 30 1000 3000 W -- ND -- 77 trans-1,2-dichloroethylene ppb 60 0.5 10 T ND ND ND 78 Trichloroethylene (TCE) ppb 1.7 0.5 5 T ND ND ND 79 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) ppb 700 5 150 T ND ND ND 80 Tritium pci/l 400 1000 20000 Not tested (6) -- -- -- 81 Uranium pci/l 0.43 1 20 R -- ND -- 82 Vinyl chloride ppt 50 500 500 T ND ND ND 83 Xylenes ppm 1.8 0.0005 1.75 T ND ND ND Recently Adopted PHGs (not reflected in previous PHG report of 2010) 84 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) ppt 0.00005 0.005 0.03 W -- ND -- Table C-1a: List of Contaminants with PHGs (but with no MCLs) and SFPUC 2010-2012 Analytical Results Unit OEHHA DLR MCL Raw/Treated/ SFPUC Test Results (ppb) Contaminant with PHG PHG (1) Waiver? (2) 2010 2011 2012 1 1,2,3-Trichloropropane ppb 0.0007 -- -- T -- -- -- 2 Chromium, Hexavalent ppb 0.02 1 -- T -- -- -- 3 N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) ppb 0.003 -- -- T -- -- -- 4 Radium-226 pci/l 0.05 1 -- R / T -- ND / 1.2 -- 5 Radium-228 pci/l 0.019 1 -- R / T -- 1.12 / 1.39 -- Notes: (1) OEHHA PHGs as of Feb 2013. Data source: OEHHA's website http://www.oehha.ca.gov. (2) Monitoring for compounds listed as "W" has been waived by the CDPH based on their continual absence during past monitoring. These compounds are on a 9-year monitoring cycle and were measured in 2011. Treated water data was used where available. (3) All regulatory arsenic measurements were below the DLR of 2 ppb. However, arsenic was detected in two operational samples in San Antonio and Calaveras reservoirs. (4) The results indicated for fluoride are the annual averages of daily samples from the transmission system. The CDPH prescribed an optimum fluoride level of 1 ppm for the SFPUC treated water. (5) AL= Action Levels (AL)as defined in Title 22, Section 64671.0.5. (6) Monitoring for beta particles and photon radiation is only required for systems that are determined to be vulnerable to contamination by nuclear facilities. Based on previous source water assessments, the SFPUC's Hetch Hetchy and local water sources are not vulnerable to nuclear contamination. On 4/22/2008, the CDPH approved that the SFPUC is not required to monitor for these radionuclide contaminants in its water sources. ND = not detected at levels above the DLR.

Table C-2: List of Contaminants with MCLGs (but with no PHGs) and SFPUC 2010-2012 Analytical Results Unit U.S. EPA (1) DLR MCL Raw/Treated/ SFPUC Test Results (ppb) Contaminant with MCLG MCLG (2) Waiver? 2010 2011 2012 1 Acrylamide (3) ppb zero -- TT Not tested -- -- -- 2 Gross Alpha Particles (4) pci/l zero 3 15 R -- ND -- 3 Gross Beta Particles (4) mrem/yr zero 4 4 R -- ND -- 4 Epichlorohydrin (3) ppb zero -- TT Not tested -- -- -- 5 Cryptosporidium (6) ppb zero -- TT -- Note 6 Note 6 Note 6 6 Giardia Lambia (6) ppb zero -- TT -- Note 6 Note 6 Note 6 7 Legionella (6) ppb zero -- TT -- Note 6 Note 6 Note 6 8 Viruses (enteric) (6) ppb zero -- TT -- Note 6 Note 6 Note 6 9 Total Coliform, % monthly positive (max month) (5) % zero -- 5.0 T 0 0 2.7% 10 Chromium, Total ppb 100 10 50 T ND ND ND Notes: (1) U.S. EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal established by the U.S. EPA Compound is regulated by requiring use of a treatment technique to limit its use by drinking water systems. SFPUC does not add this compound to the water system. No analytical detection methods are available, so monitoring is not required according to the US EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Drinking Water and Health pages, Technical Factsheets on acrylamide and epichlorohydrin. Monitoring for beta particles and photon radiation is only required for systems that are determined to be vulnerable to contamination by nuclear facilities. Based on previous source water assessments, the SFPUC's Hetch Hetchy and local water sources are not vulnerable to nuclear contamination. On 4/22/2008, the CDPH approved that the SFPUC is not required to monitor for these radionuclide contaminants in its water sources. However, SFPUC voluntarily tested the gross alpha and beta particles in 2011, the start of the 9-year monitoring cycle of 2011-2019. According to the ACWA guidance, results shall be rounded to the same precision as the PHG/MCLG. Since the MCLG for total coliform is 0%, results less than 0.5% are rounded down to 0%, and are not treated as contaminants of concern. TT = The MCL is a treatment technique, no monitoring is required. SFPUC meets the requirements of the Surface Water Treatment Rule, and thus the MCLG is considered to be met. ND = not detected at levels above the DLR. TT = The MCL is a treatment technique, no monitoring is required. SFPUC meets the requirements of the Surface Water Treatment Rule, and thus the MCLG is considered to be met.

Attachment D SFPUC Water Quality Reports 2012, 2011, 2010

report contains important information about your drinking water. Translate it, or speak eone who understands it Este informe contiene informacion muy importante sobre su agua potable. Traduzcalo o hable con alguien que lo entienda bien. halaga ang impormasyong ito. Mangyaring ipasalin Ce rapport contient des information importantes conci traduire, ou parlez avec quelqu' un qui peut le compreni San Francisco Water Power Sewer Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission P.O. Box 7369 San Francisco, CA 94120-7369,(i_i_>ii] jl) iiii! outj Ci!_ _>!«-«^jjc {fyz-i Jiju^ i j*" 3lOT OTMCT COaepjKHT BJ*I! VIO Hlldx>pMamiK> 0 BaiilCH DMTKBOH BOJfcl. IIcpcllCAHTC ITO 11,111 Heteh Hetchy Tap Water. It's Delicious. Y^eJ n»n«j,i "n aiiun jrnn >3n nun h-jtn IJIIM laoa inm'o ou ~OT IK n*it.i n* o;nn SF Water Power Sewer ^^@sfwater Chi tie't nay th$t quan trong. Xin nhd ngifdi djch cho quy vj. Dieser Bericht enthalt wichtige Information uber Ihr Trinkwasser. Bine ubersetzen Sie sprechen Sie mit jemandem, der ihn versteht Questo rapporto contiene informazioni inportanti che riguardano la vostra aqua potabile. Traducetelo, o parlate con una persona qualificata in grado di spiegarvelo. iff f^ht lujccrjdf f i ^>trr wig! tcptft *ra?r srg3k afrjsf i o smiir ga.tn-\c\, sled *h^! AfssfAjAia. HKaxotoavaijwpaTcapo'UOTC^Ti (movscaa; jdt po< )op i c; 71a to JTOOTUO vepo aaq. npaicaidu) va xo n TO«)pao" Te T) va TO a^oaaao T px KCUIOIOV rou TO KaTato 3cavr] OUIOA.T)TGX;. Vea nuestro 2012 Informe Anual de Calidad del Agua en sfwater.org/qualitymatters fi5f!2012^7kg$g rtsfwater.org/qualitymatters For a printed copy, call (415) 551-4749 Quality Matters. Annual Water Quality Report 2012 This state-mandated annual report contains important information on the quality of your drinking water. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water quality policies are decided at Commission hearings, held the second and fourth Tuesdays ot each month at 1:30 pm at San Francisco City Hall, Room 400. Every day, we deliver high-quality, efficient drinking,._ water from the Heteh Hetchy Regional Water System jf^^-rac*,! to 2.6 million people and businesses in San Francisco, j '." - Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties. 1 fjjj^ For more information about this report, contact Michele Liapes at 415-554-3211 or email M!iapes@ sfwater.org. We generate clean, reliable hydroelectricity that powers 100% of San Francisco's vital services. including police and fire stations, streetlights. MUNI, SF General Hospital, and more. J H9H : ' W * m m ^

City of San Francisco - Water Quality Data for Year 2012 The table below lists all 2012 w detected drinking water contaminants and the information about their typical sources. Contaminants below detection limits for reporting are not shown, in accord with regulatory guidance. We received from the CDPH a monitoring waiver for some contaminants such that their monitoring frequencies are less than annual. DETECTED CONTAMINANTS UNIT MCL PHG OR (MCLG) RANGE OR LEVEL FOUND AVERAGE OR [MAX] MAJOR SOURCES IN DRINKING WATER TURBIDITY Unfiltered Heteh Hetchy Water NTU 5 N/A 0.2-0.5 1,1 [2.8]» Soil runoff Filtered Water from Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant (SVWTP) Filtered Water from Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP) DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS AND PRECURSOR NTU 1 131 min 95% of samples s0.3 NTU 131 NTU 1 (3) min 95% of samples <0.3 NTU B l N/A N/A 100% N/A N/A 100% [0.26] Soil runoff Soil runoff [0.17] Soil runoff Soil runoff Total Trihalomethanes ppb 80 N/A 29-53 [41]!" Byproduct of drinking water disinfection Haloacetic Acids ppb 60 N/A 21-51 [40] i Byproduct of drinking water disinfection Total Organic Carbon 151 Ppm TT N/A 2.3-3.7 2.7 Various natural and man-made sources MICROBIOLOGICAL Total Coliform - NoP <5.0% of monthly samples (0) [2.7%] Naturally present in the environment Giardia lamblia cyst/l TT (0) <0.01-0.06 <0.01 Naturally present in the environment INORGANICS Fluoride (source water) 161 ppm 2.0 1 ND-0.8 0.3 171 Erosion of natural deposits; water additive to promote strong teeth Chloramine (as chlorine) ppm MRDL = 4.0 MRDLG = 4 0.5-3.3 [2.2] I* Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment CONSTITUENTS WITH SECONDARY STANDARDS UNIT SMCL PHG RANGE AVERAGE TYPICAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINANT Aluminum 191 ppb 200 600 ND-90 ND Erosion of natural deposits; some water treatment residue Chloride ppm 500 N/A 2-20 12.3 Runoff / leaching from natural deposits Color unit 15 N/A <5-7 <5 Naturally occurring organic materials Specific Conductance us/cm 1600 N/A 31-344 202 Substances that form ions when in water Sulfate ppm 500 N/A 0.9-40 20 Runoff / leaching from natural deposits Total Dissolved Solids ppm 1000 N/A <20-195 108 Runoff / leaching from natural deposits Turbidity NTU 5 N/A 0.1-0.2 0.1 Soil runoff LEAD AND COPPER UNIT AL PHG RANGE 90TH PERCENTILE MAJOR SOURCES IN DRINKING WATER Copper ppb 1300 300 6-144 60 Internal corrosion of household water plumbing Lead ppb 15 0.2 <1-20.8 11 Internal corrosion of household water plumbing OTHER WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS UNIT ORL RANGE AVERAGE KEY: </ = less than/less than or equal to Alkalinity (as CaC0 3) ppm N/A 10-111 61 AL = Action Level Bromide ppb N/A <10-24 <10 Max = Maximum Calcium (as Ca) ppm N/A 3-28 15 systems systems Min = Minimum N/A = Not Available l Chlorate ", ppb (800) NL 53-399 221 ND = Non-Detect Hardness (as CaC0 3) ppm N/A 8-114 62 NL= Notification Level NoP = Number of Coliform-Positive Sample Magnesium ppm N/A 0.2-10.8 6.1 NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit ph Silica ppm N/A N/A 6.7-9.7 3.2-5.3 8.5 4.1 ORL = Other Regulatory Level ppb = part per billion ppm = part per million Sodium ppm N/A 3-25 15.7 ps/cm = microsiemens / centimeter FOOTNOTES: (1) Turbidity is measured every four hours. These are monthly average tumidity values. (2) The highest turbidity of the unfiltered water in 2012 was 2.9 NTU but the water was not served to customers. The brief turbidity spike indicated in the table was not observed upstream in San Joaquin Pipelines. (3) There is no turbidity MCL for filtered water. The limits are based on the TT requirements for filtration systems in the State drinking water regulations. (4) This is the highest locational running annual average value. (5) Total organic carbon is a precursor for disinfection byproduct formation. The TT requirement applies to the filtered water from the SVWTP only. (6) We add fluoride to an optimum level of 1.0 ppm to help prevent dental caries in consumers. The CDPH specifies the fluoride levels in the treated water to be maintained within a range of 0.8 ppm -1.5 ppm. In 2012, the range and average of the fluoride levels were 0.4 ppm - 1.3 ppm and 1.0 ppm, respectively. (7) The fluoride levels in the Heteh Hetchy and SVWTP raw water were ND and 0.2 ppm, respectively. The HTWTP raw water had elevated fluoride levels of 0.6 ppm - 0.8 ppm attributed to the transfer of fluoridated Heteh Hetchy & SVWTP treated water into the Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir, which supplies water via the San Andreas Reservoir to the HTWTP for treatment. (8) This is the highest quarterly running annual average value. (9) Aluminum also has a primary MCL of 1000 ppb. (10) The most recent Lead and Copper Rule monitoring was in August 2012. Five of the 60 site samples collected at consumer taps had lead concentrations above the AL. (11) The detected chlorate in the treated water is a degradation byproduct of sodium hypochlorite, the primary disinfectant we use for water disinfection. Note: The different water sources blended at different ratios throughout the year have resulted in varying water oualitv. Additional water oualirv data mav be nhtaineri hv rallinn nnr Water nnalitv nivisinn toll-free nnmher at (8771737-8797

Contaminants and Regulations More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the USEPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline 800-426-4791. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife. Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, that can be naturally occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. Pesticides and herbicides that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses. Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, agricultural application, and septic systems. Radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally occurring or be the result of oil and gas production, and mining activities. Reducing Lead from Plumbing Fixtures Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. There are no known lead service lines in our water distribution system. We are responsible for providing high-quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. Lead levels at your home may be higher than at other homes as a result of materials used in your home's plumbing. If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially foi pregnant women and young children. Infants and young children are typically more vulnerable to lead in drinking water than the general population. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking oi cooking. If you are concerned about lead levels in your home's water, you may wish to have your water tested. Additional information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from thi USEPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline 800-426-4791, or at www.epa.gov/ safewater/lead. In addition to efforts to protect water sources from lead contamination, we are taking actions to minimize customer exposure to lead in water by: Completing replacement of brass meters with lead-free automated water meters by the end of 2013. Offering, in parthership with the San Francisco Department of Public Health, free lead test vouchers for clients enrolled in the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. Offering low-cost water tests for lead ($25 per tap). To request a test, call 877-737-8297. Special Health Needs Emerging Contaminant Monitoring Unregulated microorganisms and synthetic or naturally-occurring chemicals that are not commonly monitored by water utilities are termed contaminants ot emerging concern (CEC). More than 100,000 chemicals are registered in the US, and new chemicals are registered and new microorganisms are identified everyday. Some of these contaminants can be detected at extremely low levels in the environment by ever-improving laboratory methods. The health significance of these trace contaminants is typically unknown. We are proactively addressing CEC through participation in national research projects and conducting independent monitoring of our source waters. To learn more, visit sfwater.org/cec The following is standard language required by the USEPA for inclusion in all US water agency annual water quality reports. Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons, such as those with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly people, and infant: can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. USEPA/Centers for Disease Control guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the USEPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline 800-426-4791 oratwww.epa.gov/safewater. Key Water Quality Terms Following are definitions of key terms referring to standards and goals of water quality noted on the adjacent data table. Public Health Goal (PHG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the USEPA. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs or MCLGs as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs (SMCLs) are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL): The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants. Primary Drinking Water Standard (PDWS): MCLs and MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements. Regulatory Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow. Help us keep our water delicious. Dial 311 to report water quality issues. Treatment Technique (TT): A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. Turbidity: A water clarity indicator that measures cloudiness of the water, and is also used to indicate the effectiveness of the filtration system. High turbidity can hinder the effectiveness of disinfectants. Cryptosporidium is a parasitic microbe found in most surface water. We regularly test for this waterborne pathogen, and found it at very low levels in source water and treated water in 2012. However, current test methods approved by the USEPA do not distinguish between dead organisms and those capable of causing disease. Ingestion of Cryptosporidium may produce symptoms of nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches. Cryptosporidium must be ingested to cause disease, and it may be spread through means other than drinking water.

Our D r i n k i n g W a t e r Sources a n d T r e a t m e n t PACIFIC OCEAN The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, oceans, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. Lake Lloyd Reservoir / / Lake Eleanor Reservoir Cherry Power ner Tunnel/ T ^> Hoton Powerhouse TUOLUMNE RIVER O'Shaughnessy Dam Heteh Hetchy Reservoir Kirkwood Powerhouse ' ^Priest ^J Reservoir Moccasin Powerhouse and Reservoir New Don Pedro Reservoir STANISLAUS NATIONAL FOREST 1 1 L NATIONAL PARK \ For our system, the major water source originates from spring snowmelt flowing down the Tuolumne River to storage in Heteh Hetchy Reservoir. Our pristine Sierra water source meets all federal and state criteria for watershed protection. We also maintain stringent disinfection treatment practices, extensive bacteriological-quality monitoring, and high operational standards. As a result, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) have granted that no filtration is required for the Heteh Hetchy water source. In other words, the source is so clean and protected that we are not required to filter water from Heteh Hetchy Reservoir. Heteh Hetchy water is supplemented with surface water from two local watersheds. Rainfall and runoff from the Alameda Watershed within the greater 128,424-acre Southern Alameda Creek Watershed and spanning more than 35,000 acres in Alameda and Santa Clara counties are collected in the Calaveras and San Antonio reservoirs for filtration and disinfection at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant. Rainfall and runoff from the 23,000-acre Peninsula Watershed in San Mateo County are stored in the Crystal Springs, San Andreas, and Pilarcitos reservoirs, and are filtered and disinfected at the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant. In 2012, the Heteh Hetchy Watershed provided the majority of our total water supply, with the remainder contributed by the two local watersheds. Heteh Hetchy Regional Water System Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Protecting Our Watersheds Our annual Heteh Hetchy Watershed Sanitary Survey evaluates the sanitary conditions, water quality, potential contamination sources, and the results of watershed management activities with partner agencies (such as the National Park Service and US Forest Service). We also conduct sanitary surveys every five years to detect and track sanitary concerns for the Bay Area watersheds and the approved standby water sources in Early Intake Watershed, which includes Cherry Lake and Lake Eleanor. The latest 5-year surveys were completed in 2011 for the period of 2006-2010. These surveys identified wildlife, stock, and human activities as potential contamination sources. The reports are available for review at the CDPH San Francisco District office, 510-620-3474. W a t e r Quality Our Water Quality Division (WQD) regularly collects and tests water samples from reservoirs and designated sampling points throughout the system to ensure the water delivered to you meets or exceeds federal and state drinking water standards. In 2012, WQD staff conducted more than 108,500 drinking water tests in the transmission and distribution systems. This is in addition to the extensive treatment process control monitoring performed by our certified operators and online instruments. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Such substances are called contaminants. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the USEPA and CDPH prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. CDPH regulations also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health, -

This reportcontains important information about your drinking water. Translate it, or speak with someone who understands it. Este informe contiene informacion muy importante sobre su agua potable. Traduzcalo o hable con alguien que lo entienda bien. Mahalaga ang impormasyong ito. Mangyaring ipasalin tto. ls~ rj l\^l- r! IjwLelbljJx«;l)W^l. l^l^^litwt^^i J (^it lwj«u^)ij»ljj Ce rapport contient des information importantes concernant votre eau potable. Veuillez traduire, ou parlez avec quelqu' un qui peut le comprendre. San Francisco Water i - Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission RO. Box 7369 San Francisco, CA 94120-7369 PRESRTSTD U.S. POSTAGE PAID SAN FRANCISCO, CA PERMIT NO. 6678.(t-ij^i ji) <i-ii li ob^j ^J^njj i-a'^-a O LAJIHA ^ic- (^jjaj jjji&ll IjA" flahmbm panopt coacpxon- uxaiyia HmpOfmaUMio o uweft ntomsoft Bone. nepamahre ero MIW npokohcy/ibtmpymtecb c TeM, KTO ero nohhmaer. l^m rt'tnyn 'n aa"? limn trr'n >3n mn n"rm inik ianiu inern DJJ ~QT IK m m TIN o,nn At *n, mmmmwi mima&immmmmmmo Chi tid't nay th t quan trong. Xin nhd ngudi dich cho quy vj. Dieser Bericht enthalt wichtige Informationen uber Ihr Trinkwasser. Bitte, ubersetzen Sie sie, oder sprechen Sie mit jemandem, der sie versteht Questo rapporto contiene informazioni inportanti che riguardano la vostra aqua potabile. Traducetelo, o parlate con una persona qualificata in grado di spiegarvelo. ibnan?«tjitfis^byasiflujmfjiftij, ui«ij fn7llljn^bfn^lj^tf8tnjjljftflafi5fn^ll ^vll^b Jfi TfTtf*=HITrTccfOpf f 3JCTT 3TT3> fartft It :W allelic" <*H *)f I o H-Hfe- D H 11-3*H &!^?J1- Af 5 r^a fi., H wxtotiev ocvoubopa Ttapowiaijn. (xroroooat-c, 7cXT po<t>op8i <; 71a jkxnuo vepo aac,. Ilparaidu) va TO pxxcutipaaete T va to aljoaaaoere ne KCQTOIOV JIOU TO mtaxapcavrj aitoaritcoc Para ver una version en espanol, visite nuestro sitio web en sfwaler.org/quality me, tmtmnmmm: sfwater.org/quality Printed on Recycled Paper San Francisco Water Power Sewer Services of the San F*aoc;sco PuWic Utilities Commission

Our Drinking Water Sources 'The source is so clean and protected that we are not required to filter water from the Heteh Hetchy Reservoir." The sources of drinking water (both tap and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, oceans, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. For our system, the major water source originates from spring snowmelt flowing down the Tuolumne River to the Heteh Hetchy Reservoir, where it is stored. This pristine Sierra water source meets all federal and state criteria for watershed protection. We also maintain stringent disinfection treatment practices, extensive bacteriologicalquality monitoring, and high operational standards. As a result, the CDPH and USEPA have granted the Heteh Hetchy water source a filtration exemption. In other words, the source is so clean and protected that we are not required to filter water from the Heteh Hetchy Reservoir. Heteh Hetchy water is supplemented with surface water from two local watersheds. Rainfall and runoff from the Alameda Watershed - within the greater 128,424-acre Southern Alameda Creek Watershed and spanning more than 35,000 acres in Alameda and Santa Clara counties - are collected in the Calaveras and San Antonio reservoirs and treated at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant. Rainfall and runoff from the 23,000-acre Peninsula Watershed in San Mateo County are stored in Crystal Springs, San Andreas, and Pilarcitos reservoirs and treated at the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant. In 2011, the Heteh Hetchy Watershed provided approximately 85% of our total water supply, with the remainder contributed by the two local watersheds. Help us plan for the future! Take our water supply survey, scan the QR code or visit sf water, org/localsupply Heteh Hetchy I, I Regional Water System Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Early Intake Priest. Drversion Dam Reaervoh- Moccaaln Powerhouse and Reservoir l/l/e safeguard the pristine quality of our watersheds. Bay Division Pipelines Not. 3 & 4 Protecting Our Watersheds We actively protect the water resources entrusted to our care. Our annual Heteh Hetchy Watershed survey evaluates the sanitary conditions, water quality, potential contamination sources, and the results of watershed management activities conducted with partner agencies, such as the National Park Service and US Forest Service. We work cooperatively with these partner agencies and provide almost $5 million annually to the National Park Service to support water quality and watershed protection efforts around our watersheds. We also conduct sanitary surveys every five years to detect and track sanitary concerns for the Bay Area watersheds and the approved standby water sources in Early Intake Watershed, which includes Cherry Lake and Lake Eleanor. The latest 5-year survey was completed in 2011 for the period of 2006-2010. These surveys identified wildlife, stock, and human activities as potential contamination sources. They are available for review at the CDPH San Francisco District office, 510-620-3474

Every day, we deliver high-quality, efficient drinking water from the Heteh Hetchy Regional Water System to 2.6 million people and businesses in San Francisco, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties. We generate clean, reliable hydroelectricity that powers 100% of San Francisco's vital services, including police and fire stations, streetlights, MUNI, SF General Hospital, and more. Focusing on the Future Diversifying Our Water Supply - Developing New Water Sources With 2.6 million customers relying on our water system, we are focused on the need to conserve our existing drinking water supply while developing alternative water supplies to serve our needs. In San Francisco, we are diversifying our local water supply by implementing groundwater and recycled water projects. We are also asking you, our customers, to support these efforts by conserving water and investing in rainwater harvesting or graywater systems at your home or business. Groundwater, otherwise known as well water, and recycled water, highly treated water reclaimed from our sewers, offer critical additions to our water portfolio. By using these sources for irrigation and other approved uses, we can ensure a reliable water supply for the future. Your thoughts and input on our efforts are important. Please help us by taking our online survey at sfwater.org/localsupply. (Smartphone and tablet users can scan the QR code for direct survey access.) Our combined efforts today will allow us to reliably serve you and the coming generations. QR SURVEY CODE San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ANSON MORAN President ART TORRES Vice President ANN MOLLER CAEN Commissioner FRANCESCA VIETOR Commissioner VINCE COURTNEY Commissioner ED HARRINGTON General Manager Water quality policies are decided at Commission hearings, held the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 1:30 pm at San Francisco City Hall, Room 400. For more information about this report, contact Communications at 415-554-3289 or email info@sfwater.org. San Francisco Water Power Sewer Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission sfwater.org

Water Quality Contaminants and Regulations Our Water Quality Division regularly collects and tests water samples from reservoirs and designated sampling points throughout the system to ensure that the water delivered to you meets or exceeds federal and state drinking water standards. In 2011, Water Quality staff conducted more than 119,600 drinking water tests in the transmission and distribution systems. This monitoring effort is in addition to the extensive treatment process control monitoring performed by our certified and knowledgeable treatment plant staff and online instruments. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Such substances are called contaminants. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. CDPH regulations also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the USEPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline 800-426-4791. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife. Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, that can be naturally occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. Pesticides and herbicides that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses. Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, that are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, agricultural application, and septic systems. Radioactive contaminants, that can be naturally occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. Water quality technician Adam Daniels tests a source water sample. Special Health Needs All water utilities are required to use the following special health message in their annual water quality reports. Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immunocompromised persons, such as those with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly people, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. USEPA/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline 800-426-4791 or at www.epa.gov/safewater. Help us keep our water delicious, Dial 311 to report water quality issues. m m wo

City of San Francisco - Water Quality Data for Year 2011 The table below lists all 2011 detected drinking water contaminants and the information about their typical sources. Contaminants below detection limits are not shown, in accord with California Department of Public Health (CDPH) guidance. The CDPH allows us to monitor for some contaminants less than once per year because their concentrations do not change frequently. We received from the CDPH a monitoring waiver for some contaminants that were absent in the water. Key water quality terms are defined in the panel to the right. DETECTED CONTAMINANTS UNIT MCL PHG OR (MCLG) RANGE OR LEVEL FOUND AVERAGE OR [MAX] MAJOR SOURCES IN DRINKING WATER TURBIDITY For Unfiltered Heteh Hetchy Water NTU 5 N/A 0.2-0.7 1,1 [2.1]» Soil runoff For Filtered Water from Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant (SVWTP) NTU 1 131 min 95% of samples <0.3 NTU 131 N/A N/A 99.9% -100% [0.36] Soil runoff Soil runoff For Filtered Water from Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP) NTU 1 (3) min 95% of samples <0.3 NTU 131 N/A N/A 100% [0.18] Soil runoff Soil runoff DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS AND PRECURSOR Total Trihalomethanes ppb 80 N/A 31-63 [42] Byproduct of drinking water cblorination Haloacetic Acids ppb 60 N/A 17-48 [34] 1,1 Byproduct of drinking water chlorination Total Organic Carbon lsl ppm TT N/A 2.6-2.9 2.7 Various natural and man-made sources MICROBIOLOGICAL Total Coliform - NoP <5.0% of monthly samples H H H H H K (0) [0.3%] Naturally present in the environment Giardia lamblia cyst/l TT (0) ND-0.07 [0.07] Naturally present in the environment INORGANIC CHEMICALS Fluoride (source water) lsl ppm 2.0 1 ND-0.8 0.3 1,1 Erosion of natural deposits Chloramine (as chlorine) ppm MRDL = 4.0 MRDLG =4 0.06-3.1 [2.0] 141 Drinking water disinfectant added for treatment RADIONUCLIDES Radium-226 pci/l N/A 0.05 ND -1.2 <1 Erosion of natural deposits CONSTITUENTS WITH SECONDARY STANDARDS UNIT SMCL PHG RANGE AVERAGE TYPICAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINANT Aluminum l!l ppb 200 600 ND-53 <50 Erosion of natural deposits Chloride ppm 500 N/A 3-20 11 Runoff / leaching from natural deposits Color unit 15 N/A <5-9 <5 Naturally occurring organic materials Specific Conductance ps/cm 1600 N/A 39-289 181 Substances that form ions when in water Sulfate ppm 500 N/A 1.3-36 18 Runoff / leaching from natural deposits Total Dissolved Solids ppm 1000 N/A 83-194 132 Runoff / leaching from natural deposits Turbidity NTU 5 N/A 0.06-0.35 0.16 Soil runoff LEAD AND COPPER 8 1 UNIT AL PHG RANGE 90TH PERCENTILE MAJOR SOURCES IN DRINKING WATER Copper ppb 1300 300 12-152 66 Corrosion of household plumbing systems Lead ppb 15 0.2 <1-16.6 6.9 Corrosion of household plumbing systems OTHER WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS UNIT ORL RANGE AVERAGE KEY: Alkalinity (as CaCO,) Calcium (as Ca) Chlorate 1,01 Hardness (as CaC0 3) Magnesium ph ppm ppm PPb ppm ppm N/A N/A (800) NL N/A N/A N/A 10-84 3-24 36-488 10-98 ND-8.2 6.7-9.7 49 13 89 57 4.9 8.6 </ = less than/less than or equal to AL = Action Level Max = Maximum Min = Minimum N/A = Not Available ND = Non-detect NL = Notification Level NoP = Number of Coliform-Positive Sample NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit Sodium ppm N/A 3-20 13.5 ORL = Other Regulatory Level ppb = part per billion ppm = part per million ps/cm = microsiemens / centimeter FOOTNOTES: (1) Turbidity is measured every four hours. These are monthly average turbidity values. (2) This is the highest turbidity of the unfiltered water served to customers in 2011. The turbidity spike was the result of flow rate change, and it was not observed downstream at Alameda East. (3) There is no turbidity MCL for filtered water. The limits are based on the TT requirements in the State drinking water regulations. (4) This is the highest quarterly running annual average value. (5) Total organic carbon is a precursor for disinfection byproduct formation. The TT requirement applies to the filtered water from the SVWTP only. These are compliance data for SVWTP raw water. (6) We add fluoride to the naturally occurring level to help prevent dental caries in consumers. The CDPH requires our fluoride levels in the treated water to be maintained within a range of 0.8 ppm -1.5 ppm. In 2011, therangeand average of our fluoride levels were 0.6 ppm -1.3 ppm and 1.0 ppm, respectively. (7) The naturally occurring fluoride levels in the Heteh Hetchy and SVWTP raw water were ND and 0.12 ppm, respectively. The HTWTP raw water had elevated fluoride levels of 0.6 ppm - 0.8 ppm due to the continued supply of the fluoridated Heteh Hetchy & SVWTP treated water into the Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir, which supplies water via the San Andreas Reservoir to the HTWTP for treatment. (8) Aluminum also has a primary MCL of 1000 ppb. (9) The most recent Lead and Copper Rule monitoring was in Augst 2009. One of 59 water samples collected at consumer taps had lead concentration above the Action Level. (10) The detected chlorate in treated water is a degradation byproduct of sodium hypochlorite, the primary disinfectant we use for water disinfection. Note: The blend of different water sources has been variable and has resulted in varying water quality parameters due to system improvements and operational constraints. Additional water quality data may be obtained by calling the SFPUC Water Quality Division toll free number at 877-737-8297.

Key Water Quality Terms Following are definitions of key terms noted on the adjacent water quality data table. These terms refer to standards and goals for water quality described below. Public Health Goal (PHG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the USEPA. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs or MCLGs as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs (SMCLs) are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL): The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants. Primary Drinking Water Standard (PDWS): MCLs and MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements. Regulatory Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow. Treatment Technique (TT): A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. Turbidity: A water clarity indicator that is also used to indicate the effectiveness of the filtration plants. High turbidity can hinder the effectiveness of disinfectants. Cryptosporidium is a parasitic microbe found in most surface water. We regularly test for this waterborne pathogen, and found it at very low levels in source water and treated water in 2011. However, current test methods approved by the USEPA do not distinguish between dead organisms and those capable of causing disease. Ingestion of Cryptosporidium may produce symptoms of nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches. Cryptosporidium must be ingested to cause disease, and it may be spread through means other than drinking water. Reducing Lead from Plumbing Fixtures If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. We are responsible for providing high-quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. There are no known lead service lines in your water distribution system. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline 800-426-4791, or at www.epa.gov/safewater/iead. In addition to efforts to protect water sources from lead contamination, we are taking the following actions to minimize customer exposure to lead in water by: Replacing brass meters with lead-free automated water meters. Partnering with the San Francisco Department of Public Health to offer free lead tests for clients enrolled in the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. Eligible clients should call the WIC program and request a voucher for a free lead test of their tap water. Offering customers low-cost water testing for lead ($25 per tap). Call 877-737-8297 for a water test today. $4.6 Billion Water System Upgrade Adds Advanced Disinfection Technology In 2011, our Tesla Ultraviolet Treatment Facility was brought online to provide advanced disinfection targeting biological pathogens ranging from bacteria and viruses to protozoa, such as the Cryptosporidium parasite. Our state-of-the-art facility uses cost effective, chemical-free ultraviolet light to kill biological organisms efficiently without slowing the flow of our gravity-fed water supply. With a capacity of 315 million gallons per day, the facility is the largest UV drinking water treatment plant in California, and the third largest in the nation. This facility is one of more than 80 projects in the $4.6 billion Heteh Hetchy Water System Improvement Program - a voterapproved infrastructure program to repair, replace and seismically upgrade our regional water system.

This report contains important information about your drinking water. Translate it, or speak with someone who understands it Este informe contiene informacion muy importante sobre su agua potable. Traduzcalo o hable con alguien que lo entienda bien. Mahalaga ang impormasyong ito. Mangyaring ipasalin ito. j..rtvlju^ IjiUWal^lijiljij^S^l.o^l^^UiTwT^^vlj^^wUfcl^uiv^ib'CH 1 Ce rapport contient des information importantes concernant votre eau potable. Veuillez traduire, ou parlez avec quelqu' un qui peut le comprendre..((-jjjili ji) alt*j (5k*-" ^ Laji«-» (jpic JJjSjil 1 j*" San Francisco Water P o w e r S e w e r Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission RO. Box 7369 San Francisco. CA 94120-7369 Postmaster: Please deliver by July 1 PRESRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID SAN FRANCISCO. CA PERMIT NO. 6673 AaHHbiM panopr COflBpjKMT BUCHyio HHCpopMaqHK} o oaujcii nutbeboh BOfie. HepeBeflHTe ero MJIH npokohcyflbtmpyhtbcb c Ten, KTO era nohmmaet. t'pbj n"nwn 'n aa"? iimn ut-n "son run n"nn inin lanu inwo ou i:lt in n"itn n* Drnn Chi tie't nay th$t quan trqng. Xin nho" ngifo'i dich cho quy vj. Dieser Bericht enthalt wichtige Informationen liber Ihr Trinkwasser. Bitte, ubersetzen Sie sie, oder sprechen Sie mit jemandem, der sie versteht. Questo rapporto contiene informazioni inportanti che riguardano la vostra aqua potabile. Traducetelo, o parlate con una persona qualificata in grado di spiegarvelo. tbnm^n11uiis^oyfir?ifiaiinfj JtTu-unHu fr"nuiln^ofrj nj>nori)jijfmtifl)!fi-5i)ffliii?ti ]i4 W TT5RT JTiTSTOpf % I HfqT <FV$ fsptft ft : W ST^^TST 3 ^ I o e.n-jfe D H Sfl&M^.eels a 3 2! 5 A r ss r^ A «a. Para ver una version en espanol, visite nuestro sitio web en www.sfwater.org/quality. Hraroiltevava^paTHxpcAXT^ rdripckbopsis; 71a TO JTOCUTO vepo OOK;. npaicai&fl) va TO LujiaifipaaeTe T) va to aijoaaaaete pc KOTCOIOV TTOD TO rataxapoavri OTOXITKOC mrnxxtrnm, mmmmwrnm-. www.sfwater.org/quality 5 FSC Papor from responsible sources FSC* C015782 In this issue: Water Quality Contaminants and Regulations San Francisco's Heteh Hetchy Tap Water: A Drink You Can Depend On Water Quality Data for 2010 New Drinking Water Filling Stations for San Francisco Our Drinking Water Sources This state-mandated annual report contains important information on the quality of your drinking water. San Francisco Water Sewer The major source of our water supply originates from spring snowmelt. Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission BBS

Our Drinking Water Sources We safeguard the pristine quality of our local watersheds. Protecting Our Watersheds We actively protect the natural water resources entrusted to our care. Our annual Heteh Hetchy Watershed survey evaluates the sanitary conditions, water quality, potential contamination sources, and the results of watershed management activities with partner agencies (such as the National Park Service and US Forest Service). We also conduct sanitary surveys every five years to detect and track sanitary concerns for the Bay Area watersheds and the approved standby water sources in Early Intake Watershed, which includes Cherry Lake and Lake Eleanor. The surveys identified wildlife, stock, and human activities as potential contamination sources. They are available for review at the CDPH San Francisco District office, 510-620-3474. The sources of drinking water (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, oceans, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. For our system, the major water source originates from spring snowmelt flowing down the Tuolumne River to the Heteh Hetchy Reservoir, where it is stored. This pristine Sierra water source meets all federal and state criteria for watershed protection. We also maintain stringent disinfection treatment practices, extensive bacteriological-quality monitoring, and high operational standards. As a result, the CDPH and USEPA have granted the Heteh Hetchy water source a filtration exemption. In other words, the source is so clean and protected that we are not required to filter water from the Heteh Hetchy Reservoir. The Heteh Hetchy water is supplemented with surface water from two local watersheds. Rainfall and runoff from the Alameda Watershed - within the greater 128,424-acre Southern Alameda Creek Watershed and spanning more than 35,000 acres in Alameda and Santa Clara counties - are collected in the Calaveras and San Antonio reservoirs and treated at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant. Rainfall and runoff from the 23,000-acre Peninsula Watershed in San Mateo County are stored in Crystal Springs, San Andreas, and Pilarcitos reservoirs and treated at the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant. In 2010, the Heteh Hetchy Watershed provided the majority of our total water supply, with the remainder contributed by the two local watersheds.

Key Water Quality Terms Following are definitions of key terms noted on the adjacent water quality data table. These terms refer to the standards and goals for water quality described below. Public Health Goal (PHG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. PHGs are set by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs are set by the USEPA. Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. Primary MCLs are set as close to the PHGs or MCLGs as is economically and technologically feasible. Secondary MCLs (SMCLs) are set to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL): The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants. Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a drinking water disinfectant below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants. Primary Drinking Water Standard (PDWS): MCLs and MRDLs for contaminants that affect health along with their monitoring and reporting requirements, and water treatment requirements. Treatment Technique (TT): A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. Turbidity: A water clarity indicator that is also used to indicate the effectiveness of the filtration plants. High turbidity can hinder the effectiveness of disinfectants. Regulatory Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirements that a water system must follow. Cryptosporidium is a parasitic microbe found in most surface water. We regularly test for this waterborne pathogen, and found it at very low levels in source water and treated water in 2010. However, current test methods approved by the USEPA do not distinguish between dead organisms and those capable of causing disease. Ingestion of Cryptosporidium may produce symptoms of nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches. Cryptosporidium must be ingested to cause disease, and it may be spread through means other than drinking water. Reducing Lead from Plumbing Fixtures if present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. We are responsible for providing high-quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in your household or building plumbing components. There are no known lead service lines in the San Francisco water distribution system. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline 800-426-4791, or at www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. In addition to efforts to protect water sources from lead contamination, we have taken the following actions to minimize customer exposure to lead in water by: Replacing brass meters with lead-free meters. Partnering with the San Francisco Department of Public Health to offer free lead tests for clients enrolled in the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. Eligible clients should call the WIC program and request a voucher for a free lead test of their tap water. Offering customers low-cost water testing for lead ($25 per tap). Call 877-737-8297. Offering lead-free kitchen faucets to San Francisco customers at a discounted price of $10 each ($110 wholesale value). For more information, please visit http://faucet.sfwater.org. San Francisco Drinking Water on Tap at New Water-Bottle Refill Stations Fifteen new and innovative water-bottle refill stations are now available in public places throughout San Francisco, from the Marina Green to Golden Gate Park and the airport. The sleek blue installations shoot water straight down into an empty container, giving runners, cyclists, pedestrians and other residents or visitors free access to San Francisco's high-quality tap water. The stations enable people to reuse their own containers rather than buying bottled water and discarding the empty plastic containers into the landfill, where they leak toxic additives into the soil. The manufacture and shipping of bottled water products also release pollutants into the atmosphere.

City of San Francisco Water Quality Data for Year 2010 The table below lists all 2010 detected drinking water contaminants and the information about their typical sources. Contaminants below detection limits are not shown, in accord with CDPH guidance. The CDPH allows us to monitor for some contaminants less than once per year because their concentrations do not change frequently. We also received from the CDPH a monitoring waiver for some contaminants that were absent in the water. DETECTED CONTAMINANTS TURBIDITY PHG RANGE OR AVERAGE OR (MCLG) LEVEL FOUND OR [MAX] MAJOR SOURCES IN DRINKING WATER For Unfiltered Heteh Hetchy Water NTU N/A 0.2-0.6 1,1 [4.9] l!l Soil runoff For Filtered Water from Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant (SVWTP) NTU 1 131 min 95% of samples so.3 NTU 131 N/A N/A 98% -100% [0.54] Soil runoff Soil runoff For Filtered Water from Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (HTWTP) NTU ] 13) min 95% of samples s0.3 NTU 131 N/A N/A 100% [0.19] Soil runoff Soil runoff DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS AND PRECURSOR Total Trihalomethanes ppb 80 N/A 23-52 [39] <*> Byproduct of drinking water chlorination Haloacetic Acids ppb 60 N/A 15-39 [28] w Byproduct of drinking water chlorination Total Organic Carbon 151 ppm TT N/A 2.4-3.2 2.7 Various natural and man-made sources MICROBIOLOGICAL Total Coliform ' NoP <5.0% of monthly samples (0) [0] Naturally present in the environment Giardia lamblia cystfl TT (0) ND - 0.06 [0.06] Naturally present in the environment INORGANIC CHEMICALS H i Fluoride (source water) 161 ppm 2.0 liiplilii ND-0.9 0.3 m Erosion of natural deposits Chloramine (as chlorine) ppm MRDL = 4.0 MRDLG = 4 0.12-3.1 [1.9] 141 Drinking water disinfectant added fortreatment CONSTITUENTS WITH SECONDARY STANDARDS UNIT SMCL PHG RANGE AVERAGE TYPICAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINANT Chloride m u m 500 N/A 3-16 9.5 Runoff / leaching from natural deposits Color unit 15 N/A <5-6 <5 Naturally occurring organic materials Specific Conductance ps/cm 1600 N/A 33-316 179 Substances that form ions when in water Sulfate ppm 500 N/A 1.6-38.7 18.2 Runoff / leaching from natural deposits Total Dissolved Solids ppm 1000 N/A 27-174 95 Runoff / leaching from natural deposits Turbidity NTU N/A 0.07-0.33 0.16 Soil runoff LEAD AND COPPER UNIT AL PHG RANGE 90TH PERCENTILE MAJOR SOURCES IN DRINKING WATER Copper ppb 1300 300 12-152 66 Corrosion of household plumbing systems Lead ppb 15 0.2 <1-16.6 6.9 Corrosion of household plumbing systems OTHER WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1 UNIT ORL RANGE AVERAGE KEY: Alkalinity (as CaC0 3) ppm N/A 8-98 49 </<= less than/less than or equal to Bromide ppb N/A <10-17 <10 AL = Action Level Max = Maximum Calcium (as Ca) ppm N/A 2-26 12 Min = Minimum Chlorate 151 Hardness (as CaC0 3) ppb ppm (800) NL N/A 92-357 8-104 150 53 N/A = Not Available ND = Non-detect NL= Notification Level Magnesium ph ppm N/A N/A 0.3-9 8.2-8.7 4.6 8.5 NoP = Number of Coliform-Positive Sample NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit ORL = Other Regulatory Level Potassium Silica ppm ppm N/A N/A 0.34-1.2 4.1-7.6 0.6 5.7 ppb = part per billion ppm = part per million ps/cm = microsiemens / centimeter Sodium ppm N/A 3-22 13 NOTES: (1) Turbidity is measured every four hours. These are monthly average turbidity values. (2) This is the highest turbidity of the unfiltered water served to customers in 2010. The switch of San Joaquin Pipelines and rate change caused elevated turbidities as a result of sediment resuspension in the pipelines. The turbidity spike was not observed further downstream at Alameda East. (3) There is no MCL for turbidity. The limits are based on the TT requirements in the State drinking water regulations. (4) This is the highest quarterly running annual average value. (5) Total organic carbon is a precursor for disinfection byproduct formation. The TT requirement appliesto the filtered water from the SVWTP only. (6) We add fluoride to the naturally occurring level to help prevent dental caries in consumers. The CDPH requires our fluoride levels in the treated water to be maintained within a range of 0.8 ppm -1.5 ppm. In 2010, the range and average of our fluoride levels were 0.6 ppm -1.5 ppm and 1.0 ppm, respectively. (7) The naturally occurring fluoride levels in the Heteh Hetchy and SVWTP raw water were ND and 0.15 ppm, respectively. The HTWTP raw water had elevated fluoride levels of 0.7 ppm - 0.9 ppm due to the continued supply of the fluoridated Heteh Hetchy & SWifiP treated water into the Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir, which supplies water via the San Andreas Reservoir to the HTWTP for treatment. (8) The most recent Lead and Copper Rule monitoring was in August 2009. One of the 59 water samples collected at consumer taps had lead concentration above the Action Level. (9) There was no chlorate detected in the raw water sources except the Crystal Springs and San Andreas reservoirs, where the detected chlorate was 81 ppb and 57 ppb, respectively. The chlorate levels in both reservoirs are due to the transfer of the disinfected Heteh Hetchy water and SVWTP effluent into the Crystal Springs Reservoir. The detected chlorate in treated water is a degradation byproduct of sodium hypochlorite, the primary disinfectant we use for water disinfection. Note: The blend of different water sources has been variable and has resulted in varying water quality due to system improvements and operational constraints. Additional water quality data may be obtained by calling the Water Quality Division toll free number at 877-737-8297.

Water Quality: Contaminants and Regulations r Our Water Quality Division regularly collects and tests water samples from reservoirs and designated sampling points throughout the system to ensure that the water delivered to you meets or exceeds federal and state drinking water standards. In 2010, Water Quality staff conducted more than 108,080 drinking water tests in the transmission and distribution systems. This monitoring effort is in addition to the extensive treatment process control monitoring performed by our certified and knowledgeable treatment plant staff and online instruments. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. CDPH regulations also establish limits for contaminants in bottled water that provide the same protection for public health. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the USEPA's Safe Drinking Water Hotline 800-426-4791. industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming. Pesticides and herbicides that may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater runoff, and residential uses. Organic chemical contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, that are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff, agricultural application, and septic systems. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Such substances are called contaminants. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria, that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife. Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, that can be naturally occurring or result from urban stormwater runoff, Radioactive contaminants, that can be naturally occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities. Health Needs Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Immuno-compromised persons, such as those with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly people, and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers. USEPA/Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines on appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants are available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline 800-426-4791 or at www.epa.gov/safewater.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission FRANCESCA VIETOR President ANSON MORAN Vice President ANN MOLLER CAEN Commissioner ART TORRES Commissioner VINCE COURTNEY Commissioner ED HARRINGTON General Manager Water quality policies are decided at Commission hearings, held the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 1:30 pm at San Francisco City Hall, Room 400. For more information visit www.sfwater.org. For more information about the contents of this report, contact Michele Liapes, 415-554-3211, mliapes@sfwater.org, or visit us online at www.sfwater.org/quality. Call 311 to report water, power or sewer issues. San Francisco Water Power Sewer Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Dear Customer We are proud to bring you some of the highest-quality drinking water in the country pristine Sierra snowmelt from the Heteh Hetchy Reservoir plus waters from protected local watersheds. In 2010, as in years past, our water met or exceeded federal and state standards for drinking water. This annual Water Quality Report, which the State of California mandates that we send to every customer, contains important information about your drinking water. This summer we made our great Heteh Hetchy tap water even better by completing California's largest ultraviolet disinfection facility. This project is part of our ongoing $4.6 billion seismic and reliability upgrade to the Heteh Hetchy Regional Water System that supplies water to 2.5 million people in the Bay Area. I'm proud to report that this program, launched in 2005, is currently under budget and on schedule to meet our 2015 completion date. All our work ensures that you, our customers, can count on pristine Heteh Hetchy water to start the day, award-winning sewer service to protect the bay, and clean, renewable power to keep the city lights running. We look forward to reliably serving you in the years to come. Thank you for your continued support. Ed Harrington General Want to learn more about drinking water regulations? Visit the CDPH website www.cdph.ca.gov or the USEPA website www.epa.gov.

Attachment E BAT and Cost Estimate for Arsenic Removal

Attachment E. BAT and Treatment Cost for Arsenic Removal The USEPA has identified seven BATs in the final Arsenic Rule. All of these BATs are for arsenic (V). Pre-oxidation may be required to convert arsenic (III) to arsenic (V). These BATs to achieve levels below the MCL and the maximum percent of arsenic removal that can be reasonably obtained from these technologies are summarized in the following table. Contaminant Treatment Technology (1) Removal Maximum Percent Arsenic (3) Best Available Technologies for Arsenic Removal Estimated Residual Concentration in SFPUC Water after Treatment (ppb) (2) Ion Exchange 95 0.13 Activated Alumina 95 0.13 Reverse Osmosis >95 <0.13 Enhanced Lime Softening 90 0.26 Enhanced Coagulation/Filtration 95 0.13 Oxidation/Filtration 80 0.52 Electrodialysis Reversal 85 0.39 (1) (2) (3) Suitable treatment technologies and percent removals provided by U.S. EPA. Assumes maximum concentration found in SFPUC water from 2007-2009. This concentration is 2.6 ppb for arsenic. Arsenic treatment technologies are only effective for the negatively-charged As(V) form rather than the neutral As(III) form. Therefore, pretreatment may be required such as pre-oxidation to convert As(III) to As(V). Since arsenic detected in the special studies is already below the MCL, the use of reverse osmosis (RO) would be required to attempt to reduce the concentration to the much lower PHG level. Even so, such a reduction might require multiple passes through RO membranes, which vastly increases the footprint and cost of an RO facility and produces a large quantity of waste brine (concentrate) flow that represents a loss of water and a new waste stream to process. ACWA provides unit cost (dollars per 1000 gallons treated) estimates, but these values are based on studies which reduced arsenic to the MCL and not the PHG which is significantly lower. A spreadsheet model was developed to determine the required size of an RO system theoretically capable of removing arsenic at a concentration of 2.6 ppb (the highest concentration found in the HTWTP special studies between 2007 and 2009) to a concentration below the PHG. Since arsenic was found only in the effluent from the HTWTP during the reporting period, only this source of water supply to the SFWS would be considered for arsenic removal treatment in this report. The model assumed a design flow based on the maximum HTWTP capacity of 160 million gallons per day (mgd), despite the fact that the demand is typically much less. 1

Detailed water quality-specific removal rates from Toray, an RO membrane manufacturer, were used to determine a salt removal of 95.8% under typical conditions through RO membranes. This removal rate was confirmed by a study documenting a field trial (T. Geucke et al., Desalination, February 2009). With this removal rate, the water would need to be re-filtered through additional sets of membranes, or passes, to further lower the arsenic concentration. Assuming the same removal rate and an 80% recovery rate through each pass, it was determined that a 3- pass RO system with blending of 2 nd and 3 rd pass permeates is required to achieve arsenic concentrations below the PHG. See Figure E.1 for the conceptual model of such a system. Since RO systems are nominally sized based on the production flowrate, the water flow from each pass of the RO system can be summed to determine the equivalent size needed to remove enough arsenic to meet the PHG. Each pass is effectively a separate RO system. Therefore, for the system shown in Figure E.1, the equivalent size would be the sum of 218.1 mgd (first pass production), 174.5 mgd (second pass production), and 57.8 mgd (partial third pass production), or a total of 450.4 mgd. Using the unit costs provided by ACWA, annualized capital and operation and maintenance costs can vary between $189 million and $410 million for the RO system producing 160 MGD at the HTWTP. Since the SFPUC supplies two-thirds of its produced water to retail agencies, only one-third of the costs are assumed to be distributed among San Francisco customers. This equals to an annualized total cost of $63 million to $136 million. Current water rates (as of July 1, 2009) in the city of San Francisco are as high as $3.48 per 100 cubic feet of water. Assuming the cost of an RO system was covered entirely by an increase in customer water rates, the SFWS s rates would increase by a minimum of 35% to 75% depending on the actual cost of RO treatment. It should also be noted that there are other indirect costs related to the arsenic treatment not yet included in the above cost estimate. One of these significant costs could be for the installation of a pre-oxidation (chemical addition) system to convert the arsenic (III), which is not readily removed in RO system, to arsenic (V). Other costs could be related to the concentrated brine waste that is produced as a byproduct of the RO process. Approximately 41% of the influent to the arsenic treatment process will be lost as brine waste, requiring additional water sources to maintain the existing production capacity at the HTWTP. Either of these could add considerable costs to the implementation of the RO treatment system. Furthermore, the large production of brine waste from the RO treatment process would result in considerable technical challenges and substantial cost increases (such as for environmental mitigation, permitting, and solid waste disposal) beyond those described above. 2

Figure E.1. Conceptual Model of Reverse Osmosis for HTWTP Water RECOVERED: 160.1 mgd; 0.003 ppb As 272.6 mgd PASS 1 80% = 218.1 mgd 2.6 ppb As 0.11 ppb As 80% = 174.5 mgd 58.6% = 102.3 mgd 0.0046 ppb As PASS 2 PASS 3 80% = 57.8 mgd 0.00019 ppb As 20% = 54.5 mgd 20% = 43.6 mgd 41.4% = 72.2 20% = 14.4 mgd BRINE WASTE: 112.5 mgd NOTES: Arsenic removal through each pass of RO membranes is assumed to be 95.8% from feed to permeate. This is based on scientific literature and water quality-specific removal rate provided by Toray. Each pass of the RO membranes would be configured as a minimum of 2 stages to achieve the assumed flow recovery values. Facility sized to match current HTWTP capacity and highest recorded arsenic level during the reporting period. 3

Attachment F Letter in Support of HR 5289: Get the Lead Out

fpo SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMIVIISSION 1155 Market St., 11th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel. (415) 554-3155 Fax (415) 554-3161 TTY (415) 554.3488 WATER WASTEWATER POWER GAVIN NEWSOM MAYOR F.X. CROWLEY PRESIDENT FRANCESCA VIETOR VICE PRESIDENT ANN MOLLER CAEN COMMISSIONER JULIET ELLIS COMMISSIONER ANSON B. MORAN COMMISSIONER ED HARRINGTON GENERAL MANAGER May 21, 2010 House Energy and Environment Subcommittee Congress Member Edward J. Markey, Chair 2108 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 RE: Support for HR 5289, the Safe Drinking Water Act to Reduce Lead in Water Dear Chair Markey: The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) would like to take this opportunity to express support for HR 5289 (Eshoo), the Safe Drinking Water Act to reduce lead in water. Reducing human exposure to lead is an important public health goal. H.R. 5289 would essentially eliminate the use of lead in drinking water fixtures and plumbing. Exposure to high levels of lead in drinking water can result in developmental concerns for infants and children. Even low concentrations of lead in drinking water can result in delays in physical and mental development, along with deficits in attention span and learning abilities for children. For adults, lead exposure can result in kidney problems as well as high blood pressure. Tremendous advances have been made in the past 30 years to eliminate lead from gasoline, paints, and other consumer products. Unfortunately, lead continues to be an allowable component of drinking water plumbing fixtures and faucets under federal law. The US EPA estimates that drinking water plumbing fixtures may contribute as much as 20% of human lead exposure. Numerous medical studies continue to demonstrate that there is no safe level of lead in the human body. In 2006 California adopted a landmark lead-free law (Assemblymember Chan's AB 1953), supported by the SFPUC, which effectively eliminates the use of lead in all drinking water plumbing and fixtures sold in California. Since then, at least two other states, Vermont and Maryland, have enacted similar requirements, and legislative efforts are pending in a number of other states as well. To protect public health, ensure nationwide consistency, and reduce confusion for consumers, we believe it is important that H.R. 5289 be enacted without delay. We respectfully request that you support H.R. 5289 and that you reject industry amendments that would reduce the effectiveness of H.R. 5289 by creating loopholes. Thank you for your leadership. Sincerely, Ed Harrinc General -Manager, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission