sr-021081-5mIS
i ~
Santa Monica, California January 19, 198Tj~~ ~ 7 998"1
To: C4ayor and City Council FE0 i ;; 81
From: City Staff
Subject: Appropriation of Additional Funds for Water Quality Analysis
Introduction
This report describes the need for additional Water Quality Analysis and requests
City Council appropriate an additional $131,000 from the Water Fund for such
purposes.
Background
Since the discovery of a possible carcinogen, Trichlorethelene (TCE) in the City's
water supply, the California Department of Health has required and the City Council
has augmented a monitoring and analysis program for this contaminant. Such tests
have depleted the funds budgeted in the account for outside laboratory analysis.
The quick depletion of this account is due to:
1. Unanticipated requirements for TCE analysis during the previous budget
period.
2. The frequency of tests required by the State and City Council.
3. The use of the duplicate-duplicate sample procedure due to the inconsistencies
inherent in the TCE test procedure.
A basic summary of the costs of annual organic analysis as now programmed is as
follows:
~~?~ i/7 ?/'~';
(O ~°
3A~V 2 7 131
To: Mayor and City Council - 2 - January 19, 1981
TCE 52 weeks @$560/wk $29,120
Trihalomethanes 60/year @$254. ea. 14,700
Organics 8/year @$900 ea. 7,200
TOTAL cost of Organic Testing/Year $50,020
Staff has studied the problem and believes that the present frequency of organic
sampling and analysis will continue indefinitely and probably will escualte as
new regulations and requirements are promulgated by National, State, and local
authorities. Analysis of the costs involved indicates a more cost effective approach
could be obtained by purchasing a Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) so
the City could do its own analysis rather than using a commercial laboratory.
Acquisition of this equipment will result in the City having a capability of doing
all major analysis required in the City for potable water, sewage, and storm waters.
The only testing we could not perform would be for asbestos, radiation, and some
viral assays, all requiring very large volumes of sample water.
The expanded capability proposed in this report has many direct advantages; among
them are:
1. The time between sampling and analysis would be reduced which is most
important for testing for organic volatiles (TCE as an example), as
the volatiles tend to dissipate with sample storage time. Lead time from
sampling to receipt of results using commercial laboratories can be weeks.
If we do the testing, lead time can be but a few hours.
To: Mayor and City Council - 3 - January 19, 1981
2. The "at hand" capability to determine what chemicals or contaminants are
involved in an accidental or intentional spilling or dumping of materials
into the streets, storm drain or sewer systems.
3. Accuracy of testing and analysis can be more closely assured, and
questionable results can 6e quickly re-checked. Questionable analysis
results returned from a commercial laboratory are nearly impossible to
re-check or verify as the sample deteriorated with the passage of time.
It should be emphasized that many of the organic volatile tests required are
extremely sensitive, and testing at these minute levels are on the lower rim of
technological possibility. Variations in test results. received from commercial
laboratories can be significant due to false"readings of similar materials present and
other interfering factors. Tt becomes most important to have assurance of the accuracy
of test results so the informed decisions can be made on subsequent actions. As an
example, if one well were taken our of service because of questionable analysis results
which could not be verified, the cost to the City of purchasing replacement water in
one year would equate to the cost of obtaining the GC/MS equipment as recommended
herein.
Federal and State Health authorities indicate the allowable concentrations of pollutants,
known and as not yet established or detected, will be reduced as more becomes known
about their effects on humans. As water purveyors we can expect additional requirements
for testing, both as to type and frequency, although no time frame has been projected
by those authorities. As the work load increases, we will certainly be faced with the
need for additional technical staff and an expansion of the laboratory building to
more efficiently utilize the equipment.
To: Mayor and City Council - 4 -
January 19, 1981
Currently, a GC/MS with all required options, installation and support equipment would
cost $95,000. A maintenance agreement with the manufacturer would add $4,000 per year.
Summarization of the costs expected to 6e incurred:
Commercial laboratory's analysis costs for nine
.months (lead time to acquire and install GC/MS) ---------------------------- $32,000
GC/MS ---------------------------- 95,000
Maintenance contract ---------------------------- 4,000
$131,000
Alternatively, an equivalent amount of funds will 6e required for commercial laboratory
testing in less than three years.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council appropriate $137,000 from the Water Fund for
commercial laboratory analysis, purchase of a Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer,
and for the first year's service contract.
Prepared by: Stan Scholl
Ed Lash