Comments on Analysis of Cumulative Water Quality
Impacts on the South Fork of Putah Creek
prepared by
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., Sacramento, California
for the University of California, Davis L. Vanderhoef Administration
dated October 1996

Comments Submitted by

G. Fred Lee, PhD, DEE
G. Fred Lee & Associates
27298 E. El Macero Drive
El Macero, CA 95618-1005
December 1996

Executive Summary

In response to a request submitted by the public in the winter of 1995, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) requested that the University of California, Davis (UCD) L. Vanderhoef administration fund the appointment of an expert panel which would conduct an independent, third-party, comprehensive review of the cumulative impacts of the University of California, Davis' wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff on the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek. The CVRWQCB accepted the public's request and requested that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration support a "Blue Ribbon Panel" to conduct a cumulative impact evaluation. The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration rejected the CVRWQCB's request. In the winter of 1995-1996, the public learned that the CVRWQCB chairman and the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration had worked out a behind-the-scenes deal to allow this administration to conduct its own cumulative impact studies where it would hire an EIR firm to conduct these studies. The public who called for the cumulative impact study was not aware that this deal had been developed until many months after it had been implemented. Further, in another behind-the-scenes deal between the chairman of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration, two of the Board chairman's friends were appointed as consultants to UCD to assist in the cumulative impact studies.

In October 1996, the final report for the cumulative impact study developed by the EIR firm working in close cooperation with the UCD administration and staff was appended to a draft environmental impact report that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and staff had prepared governing the proposed replacement and expansion of its campus wastewater treatment plant. Prior to that time, the impacted and interested public was not provided the opportunity to be an active participant in the cumulative impact study or even review the draft cumulative impact study report before it was finalized.

Upon learning of the behind-the-scenes deal developed between the CVRWQCB chairman and the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration, members of the public informed the CVRWQCB that the process that had been worked out for addressing their concerns was not reliable and could readily lead to an inappropriate assessment of the cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff on Putah Creek water quality. It was pointed out that EIR firms cannot produce credible, independent, full-disclosure discussion of issues without losing future business. Further, it was found that the two hand-picked consultants to UCD selected by the CVRWQCB chairman for the cumulative impact study, while internationally recognized as experts in some aspects of environmental engineering, are not experts in aquatic chemistry, aquatic toxicology and water quality issues that need to be addressed in a credible cumulative impact study.

A critical, in-depth review of the technical deficiencies of this draft EIR covering the existing impacts of its wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff as well as the potential impacts of its proposed new expanded wastewater facilities that would discharge the treated effluent to Putah Creek has been conducted by the author (Dr. G. Fred Lee). It has been found, as reported in his December 1996 comments, that this draft EIR falls far short of complying with CEQA requirements for full disclosure of the public health and environmental impacts for existing wastewater treatment plant discharges to Putah Creek as well as the potential public health and environmental impacts of the proposed discharge from the new, expanded facilities that UCD proposes to construct to manage its campus wastewaters.

While the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration claims in this draft EIR and in other documents that the existing wastewater treatment plant discharges have been in compliance with its current NPDES permit conditions, this claim is based on a highly convoluted, technically invalid interpretation of the permit conditions in which toxic chemicals can be discharged to Putah Creek in toxic amounts, provided that concentration of the chemical does not exceed a specific chemical discharge limit established in the NPDES permit. In making this interpretation, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration is ignoring the "additional limitations" set forth in the current permit which require that the effluent be non-toxic at the point of discharge in order to not be adverse to aquatic life in Putah Creek.

The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's self-serving draft EIR claims, without providing any documentation, that the cost of constructing a sewage transmission line(s) from the campus to the City of Davis sewerage system where it could be treated with the City of Davis wastewaters in the new treatment works being developed by the City and discharged to a wetlands area which is far less sensitive to effluent residual pollutant concentrations than Putah Creek would be far more expensive than providing treatment of its campus wastewaters and discharge to Putah Creek. The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's self-serving draft EIR significantly under-estimates the potential cost of treating its campus wastewaters to the degree necessary to fully comply with its current NPDES wastewater discharge permit, as well as the CVRWQCB's Basin Plan objectives.

A critical review of the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's October 1996 cumulative impact study which is an appendix in the draft EIR shows that the basic approach used by the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and the EIR firm as well as their consultants in conducting the cumulative impact study was fundamentally flawed. The so-called mass balance approach in which an overly-simplistic modeling approach was used to estimate the in-stream (Putah Creek) concentrations of a few regulated chemicals obviously cannot be used to reliably estimate the cumulative impacts of the regulated as well as unregulated chemicals in UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff on Putah Creek water quality. The authors of the EIR, the UCD administration and their consultants do not understand or at least, based on the cumulative impact report, did not demonstrate an understanding of the elementary principles of water quality assessment in conducting the cumulative impact study. The study results as presented did not adequately and reliably address,

From an overall perspective, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration has developed a self-serving document (the EIR firm's so-called cumulative impact study report) which fails to address the issues raised by the public in the winter of 1994-1995 on the cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff on the beneficial uses of Putah Creek water. Since it is now well-documented that UCD over the past five years has experienced repeated violations of its NPDES permit for its campus wastewaters discharged to Putah Creek, UCD should not be issued a renewal of its NPDES permit covering this discharge until a properly conducted, credible cumulative impact study has been developed. This study must be conducted by third-party, independent, competent experts who work with and report to the public in developing and conducting the study. The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and the CVRWQCB as well as any other interested party can provide input to the cumulative impact study's formulation, execution and completion, however, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration, the CVRWQCB and its staff, members of the public or others shall not be in a position to dictate to those conducting the cumulative impact study how the study should be conducted and reported.

This study should be funded as part of UCD's efforts to obtain a renewal of its current NPDES permit that must take place in 1997 covering the discharges of campus wastewaters to Putah Creek. It is likely that this study will take several years and will require significant additional data collection in order to provide a reliable database on the existing discharges and the current characteristics of Putah Creek water and groundwaters influenced by Putah Creek water. During the course of the cumulative impact study, UCD should be given year-by -year extensions of its current NPDES permit, provided that UCD actively and fully supports the cumulative impact study. Failure of the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and any future administrations to support the cumulative impact study should constitute grounds for revocation of its NPDES permit and the immediate termination of the privilege to discharge its wastewaters to Putah Creek.

Further, because of the highly significant technical errors and inadequate as well as distorted presentation of information, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration should immediately initiate the development of a new draft environmental impact report that properly addresses the potential water quality impacts of existing as well as proposed future discharges of its campus wastewaters to Putah Creek. This new draft EIR should be conducted under the supervision of an independent panel of experts, not necessarily those conducting the cumulative impact study, who will reliably assess the potential for future discharges of UCD's campus wastewaters on Putah Creek water quality and, most importantly, the cost of the treatment works that will be needed to treat the campus wastewaters to fully comply with UCD's current NPDES permit requirements,

"The discharge shall not cause the following conditions in Putah Creek: dissolved oxygen concentrations to fall below 5.0 mg/L; visible oil, grease, scum, foam, floating or suspended matter; concentrations of any materials that are deleterious to human, animal, aquatic, or plant life; aesthetically undesirable discoloration; fungus, slimes, or other objectionable growths; bottom deposits; an increase in turbidity by more than 10% over background levels, alteration of the normal ambient pH by more than 0.5 unit, or an increase [in] the normal ambient temperature by more than 5 degrees F." (CVRWQCB Order No. 92-040, adopted on February 28, 1992)

Basically, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration has again wasted public funds in conducting inappropriate studies and analyses of its wastewater discharge and stormwater runoff impacts on Putah Creek water quality. The funds paid to Jones & Stokes and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board- suggested consultants for UCD have not provided the public with the information needed to address issues of concern that led to their request that UCD fund an independent, third-party critical cumulative impact evaluation. Basically, as suspected, the L. Vanderhoef administration used the public's funds for this study to develop another self-serving, non-credible report which it fosters on the public as factual, but in fact, is nothing more than a thinly veiled propaganda of the type that the L. Vanderhoef administration routinely releases on its ability to reliably and adequately manage campus wastes. This situation points to the need for strong, highly competent oversight of UCD's waste management activities to protect the impacted public in the Davis region from the discharges that have and continue to occur at the University of California, Davis associated with liquid and solid waste management.

Introduction

In response to a suggestion made by the author, Dr. G. Fred Lee, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) requested in July 1995 that the University of California, Davis (UCD) L. Vanderhoef administration support an independent, third-party review of the analysis of the cumulative impacts of the wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff from the University of California, Davis on the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek. In July 1995, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration rejected the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's request to support a "Blue Ribbon Panel" who would conduct the cumulative impact study. In the winter of 1995-1996, the UCD administration indicated in a letter to the public regarding their concern about Putah Creek water quality that the University of California, Davis L. Vanderhoef administration and the chairman of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board had worked out an arrangement (a behind-the-scenes deal since this was not subject to public review) where the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration would hire an EIR firm (Jones & Stokes, Inc. of Sacramento, California) to conduct the cumulative impact analysis for UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff on Putah Creek water quality. Further, the administration announced that UCD had, at the suggestion of the chairman of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, appointed several individuals to act as consultants to the University on this cumulative impact evaluation. The potentially impacted public concerned about Putah Creek water quality was not informed of the situation at the time this arrangement was worked out. The public did not learn of this arrangement until several months later. This was clearly a behind-the-scenes deal that was worked out between the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the L. Vanderhoef administration which was designed to exclude the public from actively participating in the cumulative impact study the public had requested.

Upon being notified that the University administration and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board had worked out a behind-the-scenes deal to allow the University of California, Davis to conduct its own cumulative impact study without public participation or review, the author contacted the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and informed this Board that based on the author's discussions with potentially impacted public members and the author's experience in this type of situation, the behind-the-scenes deal worked out between the L. Vanderhoef administration and K. Longley, Chairman of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, was not acceptable to the public for a number of reasons, including:

the public was supposed to be and must be an active participant in the study;

the University of California, Davis has the opportunity through the contractual arrangements with Jones & Stokes to control the content of the cumulative impact analysis.

It is well-known in the professional community that EIR firms that properly report on impacts that are adverse to project developers, such as the University of California, Davis, will not gain additional support for future EIR work.

The hand-picked consultants by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board chairman do not have the necessary expertise to adequately and reliably evaluate the cumulative impacts of hazardous or otherwise deleterious chemicals on the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek water quality.

In order to make this evaluation, consultants must have high degrees of expertise in aquatic chemistry, aquatic toxicology and water quality. While the consultants that were selected without public knowledge or participation are experts in various aspects of environmental engineering, their areas of expertise are not aquatic chemistry, aquatic toxicology, water quality and subtle impacts of chemical constituents on water quality-beneficial uses of waters.

While the chairman of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (K. Longley) responded to the author's comments about the behind-the-scenes-deal by claiming that there was no behind-the-scenes-deal, it is clear that since the public was not involved in the arrangements worked out between the Board chairman and the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and did not even know this deal had been arranged until many months after the cumulative impact studies had been initiated in accord with this deal, there is substantial reason to believe there was a deliberate attempt by Board Chairman Longley and the University administration to exclude the public from being active participants in the cumulative impact studies.

The University of California, Davis included the Jones & Stokes "Analysis of Cumulative Water Quality Impacts on the South Fork of Putah Creek" report as Appendix D to its Draft Environmental Impact Report for its proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Replacement Project, dated October 1996. The Jones & Stokes report was not released to the public as a draft, but as a final report. Here again, the public was excluded from even commenting on the draft report, much less being an active participant in the cumulative impact review process. Presented below is a discussion of the significant deficiencies in the University of California, Davis L. Vanderhoef administration's self-serving Jones & Stokes so-called report, "Analysis of Cumulative Water Quality Impacts on the South Fork of Putah Creek."

Qualifications to Undertake this Review

Dr. G. Fred Lee is president of G. Fred Lee & Associates, an environmental consulting firm located in El Macero, California.

For 30 years, Dr. G. Fred Lee held university graduate level teaching and research positions at several major US universities, including a Distinguished Professorship of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. In 1989, Dr. G. Fred Lee assumed full-time consulting activities through G. Fred Lee & Associates.

Dr. G. Fred Lee holds a PhD degree from Harvard University in Environmental Engineering and Environmental Sciences and a Master of Science in Public Health degree from the University of North Carolina. He obtained a bachelors degree from San Jose State University.

Dr. G. Fred Lee has conducted over $5 million in research on various aspects of water quality and solid and hazardous waste management. He has published over 650 papers and reports on this work. He has served as an advisor to numerous governmental agencies and industries in the US and other countries on water quality and solid and hazardous waste management issues.

Dr. G. Fred Lee has extensive experience in developing approaches that work toward protection of water quality without significant unnecessary expenditures for chemical constituent control. He has been active in developing technically-valid, cost-effective approaches for the evaluation and management of chemical constituents in domestic and industrial wastewater discharges, contaminated sediments, and urban stormwater runoff since the 1960s.

Further information on Dr. Lee's experience and expertise in water quality evaluation and management is provided in this discussion.

Discussion of the Technical Deficiencies in the UCD Putah Creek
Water Quality Cumulative Impact Studies

Comments on Executive Summary

On page 1, in the Executive Summary, the first sentence of the first paragraph states,

"This analysis fulfills the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board request (July 1995) to analyze cumulative water quality impacts on the South Fork of Putah Creek and provides an adequate level of analysis in the EIR of the water quality issues associated with the proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant replacement project."

That statement is self-serving to the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and to Jones & Stokes and is unreliable. This report falls far short of being a technically valid discussion of cumulative impacts of UCD's multiple wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff on the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek. As discussed herein, the basic approach used by UCD and its contractor, Jones & Stokes, in conducting this so-called cumulative impact evaluation is fundamentally flawed and reflects a lack of understanding of basic water quality issues that must be adequately considered and properly incorporated into a credible cumulative impact study for Putah Creek. There has been no reliable analysis of cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff to Putah Creek as requested by the public in the winter of 1994-1995. Further, as discussed herein, the Jones & Stokes report does not adequately and reliably address the issues raised by the CVRWQCB in their July 1995 request to UCD to appoint an independent "Blue Ribbon Panel" to conduct a comprehensive cumulative impact study.

Page 1, first paragraph, states,

"For the purposes of this analysis, a cumulative impact is defined as two or more individual discharges which, when combined in the creek, result in concentrations in the creek that would exceed future water quality criteria beyond those found in individual discharges."

It is clear that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and those at Jones & Stokes who conducted and reported on the cumulative impact studies do not understand the elements of water quality sufficiently well to know that properly conducted cumulative impact studies cannot be done by simply examining in a so-called mass balance approach the concentrations of various constituents in the discharge that exceed water quality criteria/standards in the receiving waters. Those familiar with the basic elements of water quality evaluation and management know that water quality criteria of the type that are used today are not reliable for assessing cumulative impacts of complex mixtures of wastes and stormwater runoff-associated constituents.

The author of these comments, Dr. G. Fred Lee, is familiar with the development and proper use of water quality criteria and state standards based on these criteria. He has worked as a professional in conducting research and serving as an advisor to the US EPA, other governmental agencies, industry and others on the development and use of water quality criteria throughout most of his 36-year professional career. His work has included serving as an invited participant in a US EPA-organized symposium presented by the American Society of Testing Materials devoted to evaluating the reliability of laboratory-based studies in predicting water quality impacts under field conditions. This activity resulted in his publishing an invited paper entitled "Translation of Laboratory Results to Field Conditions: The Role of Aquatic Chemistry in Assessing Toxicity." This paper discusses some of the issues that have to be considered in translating laboratory-based water quality criteria and state standards into water quality impacts of chemical constituents on the designated beneficial uses of a waterbody.

He has also served as a US EPA-invited peer reviewer for the overall process used to develop what are now known as the 1986 "Gold Book" water quality criteria as well as a US EPA-invited reviewer for several other criterion documents, including ammonia and several heavy metals. Further, he was asked by the editors of Health and Ecological Risk Assessment to contribute an invited article, "Appropriate Use of Numeric Chemical Water Quality Criteria," to the first issue of this new journal. He has published extensively on the issues that need to be considered in conducting a credible review of cumulative impact evaluations for multiple discharges to a particular waterbody on the waterbody's water quality. A listing of some of his recent papers and reports is presented at his web site, http://members.aol.com/gfredlee/gfl.htm.

In order to properly evaluate cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff and wastewater discharges, it is important that proper measures of impact be analyzed and evaluated. For example, for potentially toxic chemicals the only way to reliably address the issue of cumulative impacts is through proper measurements of aquatic life toxicity in Putah Creek. It is fundamentally flawed to follow the approach of the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration - Jones & Stokes to rely only on the measured concentrations and the estimated concentrations of a few regulated chemical constituents in Putah Creek through the use of a mass balance model to estimate cumulative impacts. This situation is a result of the fact that there are approximately 75,000 chemicals in use in the US today. Only about 100 of these are regulated by water quality criteria. A research university, such as the University of California, Davis, routinely uses in experiments large numbers of unregulated chemicals for which there are no water quality criteria. These chemicals and their transformation products are discharged to the campus sanitary sewer system. Further, the use of some of these chemicals on campus can readily lead to their presence in stormwater runoff from the campus which enters Putah Creek. For example, last year it was revealed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board that UCD's misuse of pesticides on the Davis campus has resulted in significant groundwater pollution by hazardous chemicals. While no information is provided, certainly some of these same chemicals would have been present in stormwater runoff to Putah Creek. There are a significant number of pesticides and other hazardous chemicals that are not regulated by water quality criteria which are used on the UCD campus that could readily be present in the wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff that could be adverse to the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek.

Another reason why the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration - Jones & Stokes mass balance approach presented in the October 1996 so-called cumulative impact report is not reliable is exceedance of a water quality criterion does not necessarily mean that the chemical constituent for which the criterion has been established are in toxic, available forms. The author (Dr. G. Fred Lee) has published extensively on this topic where through his own research, as well as the research of others, he has demonstrated that chemical constituents exist in a aquatic systems in a variety of chemical forms, only some of which are toxic. For this reason, simply relying on exceedance of the mass balance-derived estimated Putah Creek concentration of a regulated constituent for which there is a criterion value can greatly over-estimate the cumulative impacts of that constituent.

Further, it is well-known that combinations of chemical constituents for both regulated and/or unregulated chemicals can lead to adverse impacts that are not predicted based on examining the concentrations of individual constituents as has been done by the UCD administration in its self-serving cumulative impact study.

An issue that must always be considered in any credible cumulative impact study that relies on water quality criteria as a basis for judging excessive concentrations of constituents is whether the current criterion values properly reflect the current state of knowledge on the hazards that the chemical represents to water quality. This is an especially important issue for the University of California, Davis' wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff because of the elevated concentrations of chromium present in the discharge/runoff waters relative to those that have been found to be toxic to aquatic life. It is now well-known that the chromium VI water quality criterion adopted by the US EPA is not protective of certain key forms of aquatic life because of aquatic life toxicity to these forms. Therefore, any cumulative impact study that relies on the exceedance of an outdated/inadequate chromium VI criterion value, such as has been done in the UCD cumulative impact study, is obviously in error.

Similar problems exist in this cumulative impact study for several other constituents in UCD's wastewater discharges, such as arsenic and residual chlorine. With respect to the latter constituent, the cumulative impact study has failed to adequately consider the fact that the residual chlorine campus wastewater discharge limit established by the CVRWQCB is about a factor of 10 higher than the water quality criterion.

Further, as discussed herein, there a number of other reasons why this overly-simplistic mass balance approach is not reliable for estimating cumulative impacts, including such factors as the accumulation of constituents discharged by UCD's wastewaters and present in the stormwater runoff that accumulates within Putah Creek sediments during reduced flow conditions that are scoured with the next elevated flow situation, suspending the constituents from the sediments into the water column and thereby potentially causing adverse impacts on the creek's beneficial uses.

In the middle of page 1 are the "six discharges" analyzed in the mass balance modeling that was done. A review of these shows that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration did not include stormwater runoff from its experimental facilities on campus. The failure to consider hazardous chemicals in stormwater runoff is another fundamental flaw with the approach that was used by the UCD administration in conducting this cumulative impact analysis. Stormwater runoff from the University of California, Davis can readily contain a wide variety of highly hazardous chemicals that are adverse to the beneficial uses of Putah Creek. For example, the situation exists in which several years ago the University administration in an effort to relieve flooding conditions on campus cut a stormwater drainage channel through the top of one of its landfills that received hazardous and radioactive wastes. As of yet, the leaching of constituents from the exposed wastes in the bottom of the channel has not been adequately or reliably evaluated by UCD or anyone else. Extensive discussion and documentation of this situation is provided in the reports developed by the author to the Davis South Campus Superfund Oversight Committee (DSCSOC). It is important to note that the remediation program managers (RPMs) for the UCD LEHR site, of which this UCD landfill has become part, have agreed that the University of California, Davis stormwater runoff that passes through the campus landfill No. 3 exposed wastes to Putah Creek has not been properly monitored, and UCD - DOE have been ordered by the regulatory agencies to develop credible monitoring programs for stormwater runoff. It should also be noted that stormwater runoff from the UCD campus has been found to contain chromium VI at concentrations which will be toxic to aquatic life in Putah Creek. To leave stormwater runoff out of the cumulative impact analysis is inappropriate and causes this report to be a non-credible assessment of the water quality impacts of UCD's campus waste management activities on the beneficial uses of Putah Creek.

On page 2, first paragraph under "Flow and Pollutant Concentration Values Selected for the Model Analysis," the statement is made that if under the new court order minimum flows of 5 cfs are maintained, then there would no conditions in the UCD campus region where there would be no flow through Putah Creek. One of the issues that has not been addressed is whether under extreme drought conditions there would, in fact, be water available for upstream sources that would ensure that a minimum of 5 cfs would be available. For minimum flow conditions, there has to be water available to maintain this flow. There could be situations where the flows cannot be maintained or would be decreased significantly below the court order so that the conditions of no-flow would exist in the UCD campus region. Under these conditions, as has occurred in the past, the only flow in Putah Creek would be flow added by UCD's wastewater discharges. Another key part of the flow issue is whether there has been reliable assessment of the groundwater recharge, etc. that occurs along Putah Creek which decreases the flow available for dilution of UCD's wastewater discharges.

On page 2, second paragraph under "Flow and Pollutant Concentration Values Selected for the Model Analysis," it states that only 18 pollutants of concern were selected for simulation in the model. This is 18 of the many thousands of chemicals that are used or could be present on the University of California, Davis campus that could enter Putah Creek water and adversely impact is beneficial uses. There is no reason to believe, nor is there any justification for the fact, that these 18 are representative of all conditions that could occur associated with both regulated and unregulated discharges to Putah Creek by UCD.

The statement is made in this same paragraph, "These water quality data were reviewed for trends and were used to calculate maximum and average pollutant concentrations." These data, however, are not presented in this report. There is no assurance that the water quality data review and analysis were adequate or correct. Information of this type has to be made available to the public for their independent review in order to determine whether the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and its consultants who have routinely made significant technical errors in analyzing water quality data associated with the University of California, Davis campus activities was done correctly in this so-called cumulative impact analysis. The author, Dr. G. Fred Lee, has documented numerous examples of unreliable reporting of data by the University of California, Davis and its consultants. This documentation is available in his reports to the DSCSOC, as well as to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. A credible review of these comments must include the reviewers conducting a detailed, documented analysis of any aspects of what Dr. Lee has provided to the DSCSOC and/or the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on UCD's staff's and consultants' reports. This should be available for public peer review where those conducting the review on behalf of the DSCSOC in an attempt to discredit Dr. Lee's comments are required to present their information on documentation in such a form and with appropriate references so that it can be reviewed independently by knowledgeable experts and advise the public on the reliability of the comments made by UCD and its consultants.

On the bottom of page 2 to the top of page 3, it is stated,

"In addition to discharge limitations in the applicable NPDES permits, water quality criteria from several regulatory sources were evaluated for their applicability in evaluating model results. Simulated maximum and average pollutant concentrations at each mixing point in the model were compared with acute and chronic water quality criteria, respectively, to determine whether the discharges would be below or exceed these criteria."

As discussed above, this approach is not reliable for assessing the cumulative water quality impacts of wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff from the UCD campus on the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek. It is apparent that those conducting this review do not understand the basic elements of water quality evaluation or were sufficiently constrained by the desire to gain future contracts with UCD and others as to unreliably report on these issues in this so-called cumulative impact analysis.

At the end of the first paragraph on page 3, it states,

"Potential sources of water quality criteria included:

the National Toxics Rule
EPA national ambient water quality criteria, and
federal and state drinking water standards."

The superficiality of this review where predicted concentrations are only compared to the above-listed criteria sources can be demonstrated by the fact that the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board has designated Putah Creek as a waterbody for which aquatic life is to be protected from toxicity. The CVRWQCB's Basin Plan requires that Putah Creek "waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life." The requirement of protecting Putah Creek from adverse impacts of toxics is in accord with protecting aquatic life from adverse cumulative impacts of wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff. It is not possible to reliably evaluate cumulative impacts without addressing whether the regulated and unregulated constituents in UCD's wastewater discharge and stormwater runoff comply with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan requirements of no toxicity to aquatic life in Putah Creek.

Putah Creek is used extensively, especially in the area of UCD's campus wastewater treatment plant discharge to the creek, for contact recreation. That first pool which can be essentially 100% UCD campus wastewaters is used for swimming and other recreational pursuits that involve contact with the water (UCD's wastewaters) which, at times, is essentially undiluted wastewater effluent. One of the issues of concern with respect to the cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges and campus stormwater runoff is the presence in this runoff and discharge of pathogenic organisms. While these kinds of organisms are present in normal domestic wastewaters, the concern about this situation is especially heightened by the fact that the University of California, Davis does experimental work with hazardous organisms which can be present in the wastewaters discharged and stormwater runoff from the campus. Further, stormwater runoff from upstream and other sources can be a source of these organisms. It is, therefore, important that the cumulative impacts of pathogenic organisms from various sources, including multiple sources on the UCD campus, be evaluated. The L. Vanderhoef administration - Jones & Stokes review is significantly deficient in failing to even mention, much less adequately address, the pathogenic organism issue. This issue is especially of high concern since it is now becoming widely recognized that normal disinfection practiced for domestic wastewaters is not adequate to remove many pathogens of the type present in the University of California, Davis wastewaters discharged to Putah Creek. Further, the finding that these organisms are causing disease in humans in contact with wastewaters through contact recreation has been extensively demonstrated in the past few years. Therefore, any credible cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff should, in fact, consider and properly evaluate the cumulative impacts of these discharges on the sanitary quality of Putah Creek waters.

One of the issues of particular concern that must be recognized in any credible cumulative impact evaluation is that water quality criteria/standards are often revised due to the development of new information. Recently, the author (Dr. G. Fred Lee) has encountered a situation related to University of California, Davis wastewater discharges where it has been found that the US EPA water quality criterion for chromium VI may not be protective of Putah Creek aquatic life. Over the objections of the public, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board approved a UCD wastewater discharge of total chromium at 50 g/L to Putah Creek. When the author became aware of this then-proposed discharge limit, the author provided the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board with information to show that that discharge limit would not necessarily be protective of Putah Creek aquatic life. He recommended that the Board adopt the US EPA water quality criterion for chromium VI of 10 g/L in May 1995. While the Board finally adopted this approach after first issuing an order for a year that allowed the discharge of chromium without any chronic criterion for chromium VI which was adopted in June 1995, the Board refused to adopt the recommended technically valid approach of limiting the total chromium discharge to Putah Creek to less than 10 g/L because of the significant potential for conversion of chromium III to chromium VI.

When the Board did not adopt a technically valid approach, the author filed a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board documenting the inappropriate and inadequate nature of the Board's order governing UCD's proposed wastewater discharges of chromium to Putah Creek. The Board chairman, upon review of this petition, decided to hold a technical hearing for the purpose of discussing issues of chromium discharge limits. It has become clear that the purpose of this technical hearing was to allow the University of California, Davis the opportunity to introduce into the record information that could be used to try to counter the substantial documentation the author provided on the inadequacies of the Board's Order No. 96-227 related to chromium and other waste constituent discharges to Putah Creek. The L. Vanderhoef administration submitted to the Board, but not to the public, and Mr. Crooks, former Executive Officer for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, did not provide the public with a copy of a UCD statement dated September 11, 1996 which was designed to try to discredit the author's previously submitted materials. However, upon critical review of the September 11, 1996 statement which was provided to the author through unofficial channels the day before the September 20, 1996 hearing, the author found that the University of California, Davis administration did a very poor job in presenting valid information on why chromium III could be discharged at up to 50 g/L to Putah Creek without potential for adverse impacts or a proper monitoring of Putah Creek to demonstrate that chromium III would not convert to the thermodynamically stable species of chromium VI in Putah Creek waters. They had two soil scientists from the University of California, Davis present information in a report or an oral testimony at the September 20, 1996 hearing which claimed that the conversion of chromium III to chromium VI was unlikely. Upon review of the information provided in their testimonies, the author found that this was a biased reporting of the literature where they ignored in the same articles or other articles by the same author(s) or other articles in the same year on the topic in one of the national journals which they cited other information where it showed there was substantial evidence that chromium III would convert to chromium VI in the presence of manganese in waters similar to those of Putah Creek.

Upon review of the literature pertinent to this matter, the author discovered that the US EPA had substantial evidence in 1984 to lower the chronic toxicity level for chromium VI from the then-proposed 12 g/L to less than 2 g/L. The Agency chose not to do so since it did not have a definitive lower limit on this toxicity. Subsequently, Environment Canada in 1995 published a review on chromium toxicity which shows that chromium VI is toxic to certain forms of zooplankton at less than 1 g/L. It is now clear that in order to protect Putah Creek waters from adverse impacts of chromium VI, the total chromium VI concentrations in Putah Creek should be less than 1 g/L. Also, it is necessary to ensure that any chromium III added to Putah Creek or present in Putah Creek at any location is not converted to chromium VI in excess of about 1 g/L to avoid aquatic life toxicity.

The chromium situation where following the approach of the L. Vanderhoef administration and Jones & Stokes of simply meeting the US EPA criterion would not be protective of the beneficial uses of Putah Creek. The proper way to address this issue is not through a mechanical comparison to the water quality criteria, but through aquatic life toxicity measurements. These issues are discussed in detail in the original petition as well as supplemental petitions submitted to the State Board (Lee, 1996a,b,c) on the technical deficiencies of Order No. 96-227.

The evaluations of chromium VI cumulative impacts conducted by UCD in its so-called cumulative impact study have failed to properly address what is well-known in the literature--that chromium VI in UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff has been found to occur at concentrations which could readily cause Putah Creek to be toxic to certain forms of aquatic life. These issues should have been discussed in any credible cumulative impact study for UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff impacts on Putah Creek water quality.

The situation with the chromium VI criterion not being protective also occurs for a number of other constituents such as the arsenic water quality standard for drinking water. It is well-known that the 50 g/L standard which was used by the UCD administration in its so-called cumulative impact assessment is not protective. The US EPA has already announced that it is going to reduce the concentrations of allowable arsenic to values that are likely considerably less than that now allowed and has suggested a projected ambient water quality criterion of 20, 2 or 0.2 g/L. Even though this issue is well-known in the water quality literature, the UCD administration - Jones & Stokes chose to ignore this situation in making the cumulative impact evaluation. A credible cumulative impact evaluation would have mentioned this situation.

The unreliability of water quality criteria and standards on judging impacts is discussed by Lee and Jones-Lee (1994). A credible cumulative impact study would have discussed these issues, pointing out the need for periodic re-evaluation of the cumulative impacts because of the potential for changes in the water quality standards that are considered adverse. It would have also pointed out the importance of taking measurements to evaluate whether potentially toxic regulated constituents as well as the unregulated constituents, such as heavy metals and organics, are adversely impacting Putah Creek through aquatic life toxicity and/or bioaccumulation. The latter is of concern with respect to human health and higher tropic level organism impacts.

On page 3, the first paragraph, under "Model Results," states

"The general conclusion from the model results is that Campus discharges, when combined with the minimum creek flow, dilute one another and that any potential for cumulative impacts is consequently less than the direct impacts of a particular discharge (i.e., end-of-pipe conditions). Thus, the cumulative impact of combining discharges would be lessened under the Court-Ordered Release - Dry Season condition because the simulated maximum concentrations of pollutants in the receiving water would be substantially decreased."

This analysis is superficial and fails to consider the cumulative impacts under low-flow conditions of the unregulated chemicals that occur combined with any accumulated chemicals that have accumulated in sediments and their release to the water column under low-flow conditions. This release would be stimulated by aquatic life movement activity that occurs in the creek, especially associated with low-flows where the movement of aquatic life would tend to stir the sediments to a greater extent than ordinarily occurs under higher flow conditions. As discussed by Lee (1970), aquatic organism movement can be an important factor in influencing the release of constituents from aquatic sediments to the overlying waters.

Page 4 presents an unreliable discussion of worst-case conditions where the focus of the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration is devoted to no-flow conditions, i.e., the discharges are not connected, where it is assumed for this overly simplistic mass balance modeling that the conditions in the receiving waters would be those of the discharge. That assumption is obviously in error. The pools into which the discharges from the various wastewater discharge points occur will have a residual accumulated contaminant load from upstream sources in the water and in the sediments. To consider that the adverse impacts under the conditions chosen by the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration is worst-case is naive, at best, and highly presents a highly unreliable assessment of potential impacts for the regulated chemicals, much less determination of the unregulated chemicals in the discharge that have accumulated in the various pools that would be formed under the no-flow conditions.

On page 4, first paragraph under "Campus Actions to Address Potential Water Quality Issues," the statement is made,

"The results of the analysis discussed above indicate that some of the pollutants historically contained in WWTP discharges that are currently not in the NPDES permit may exceed water quality criteria that could become new permit limits in the future. The WWTP is currently in compliance with its NPDES permit limits and has been aware of the potential sources of pollutants in this discharge (e.g., Campus facilities and the cooling towers)."

This is an inappropriate interpretation of the current permit discharge requirements. The current permit has in it a number of general permit conditions ("additional limitations") which require protection of beneficial uses of Putah Creek from impaired use, including aquatic life toxicity, etc. These are listed in the Executive Summary for this statement. A copy of key sections of this permit is appended to these comments. To assert, as the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and their consultant, Jones & Stokes, have done, that the permit does not require complying with the prohibition of discharging hazardous or deleterious constituents to Putah Creek because they are not specifically named in the permit, is preposterous and ignores the fundamental requirements of permits. The general provisions of the permit as outlined in the attached copy require that there be no discharge of toxic constituents to aquatic life and man in the discharge at the point of discharge, as well as in the receiving waters that could be impacted by the cumulative impacts of constituents in the UCD wastewater discharges as well as stormwater runoff from UCD and other areas. To make the untruthful statement that UCD is in compliance with its wastewater discharge limits as the L. Vanderhoef administration has routinely done where the analysis is based only on the listed, specifically delineated parameters of BOD, total suspended solids, settleable matter, total coliform organisms and chlorine residual is either a deliberate distortion of the truth or reflects a lack of knowledge of the issues governing compliance with NPDES permit conditions.

It can be readily demonstrated that the stated interpretation of current permit conditions is a blatant distortion of the permit requirements. The permit states as one of its conditions that "The discharge shall not cause the following conditions in Putah Creek:...any materials that are deleterious to human, animal, aquatic, or plant life..." Dioxin or a wide variety of other hazardous chemicals are not specifically delineated in the permit as a constituent for which there is a specific discharge limitation. Does this mean that the L. Vanderhoef administration has permission to discharge dioxin or thousands of other chemicals that could cause adverse impacts to the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek and comply with this permit? Can the L. Vanderhoef administration ignore the conditions set forth in the permit of protecting the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek and its aquatic life from toxicity? Why put these conditions in the permit if they can be ignored by recalcitrant polluters such as the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration? There is no question about the fact that the University of California, Davis L. Vanderhoef administration has been practicing inadequate waste treatment in violation of its NPDES permits.

It should be noted that dioxin could readily be a component of UCD's stormwater runoff through its past practices of burying wastes at its landfills and then cutting a large channel through its campus landfill No.3 exposing wastes and potentially burned materials to stormwater washout. To the extent that the burned materials are exposed, they can readily contain dioxins formed in the combustion process that would be carried into Putah Creek.

Another issue that should have been addressed in this cumulative impact evaluation was the potential impact of UCD's wastewater discharges on groundwater quality through the recharge of UCD's wastewaters to groundwaters by Putah Creek. Putah Creek is known to be a recharge stream in the vicinity of and downstream of UCD's wastewater discharges. The UCD-DOE LEHR national Superfund site investigations have shown that UCD's wastewater discharges of VOCs are polluting groundwaters with VOCs in violation of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan objectives. This is another of the cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and Jones & Stokes failed to address. The pollution of groundwaters by UCD's wastewater discharges are well-known through correspondence that the author provided to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration. Copies of this correspondence are available from DSCSOC and are present in the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration files such as the office of the Director of Environmental Health and Safety (Julie McNeal), the UCD Shields Library and the Yolo County Branch Library in Davis.

Regulatory action should be taken against the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration for repeatedly violating NPDES permit conditions covering the discharge of toxic and other constituents in its wastewater discharges to Putah Creek which are deleterious to Putah Creek water quality. Further, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration should be ordered to stop misinforming the public and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board that UCD has been in compliance with its campus wastewater NPDES permit conditions. In a letter dated November 14, 1996, J. McNeal, Director of UCD Environmental Health and Safety, stated, "Over the years, we have received assistance and advice that has allowed us to maintain compliance in a reasonable and cost effective manner." This letter was written by Ms. McNeal in an attempt to protect W. Crooks's job so he and other members of his staff could continue to ignore the conditions set forth in the permit in regulating UCD's wastewater discharges.

Ms. McNeal's statement about being in compliance is based on a highly inappropriate interpretation and implementation of permit conditions by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. As is documented in the draft EIR issued by the L. Vanderhoef administration in October 1996, since 1991 there have been repeated examples of toxic wastewater discharges to Putah Creek by UCD's campus wastewater treatment plant. These discharges certainly have caused adverse impacts to Putah Creek aquatic life in violation of the permit. The draft EIR states that the toxic discharges have been occurring since 1991. The fact that apparently the former executive officer and his staff have not taken enforcement action as they should have, arising from repeated discharges of toxic chemicals to Putah Creek, where the University of California, Davis and members of the administration were fined for failing to properly control toxicity should not be interpreted to mean that no violations of the permit conditions have occurred. The fact that Mr. Crooks and members of his staff have apparently looked the other way with respect to enforcing the NPDES permit conditions and Basin Plan requirements for the control of toxicity should not be interpreted as Ms. McNeal has done to mean that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration has been in "compliance" with its campus wastewater treatment plant discharge permit limitations. This kind of inappropriate regulatory action ultimately caused the public to contact Governor Wilson and Secretary Strock to request their assistance in getting the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board staff and the Board to implement the regulations that exist which require protection of the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek from UCD's wastewater discharges and solid waste management activity.

The Executive Summary "Conclusions" state, "No cumulative impacts are occurring as a result of University wastewater discharges." Because of the fundamentally flawed approach used in assessing cumulative impacts in this study, this conclusion is not necessarily valid. There can readily be cumulative impacts of toxic constituents that cause aquatic life toxicity and are toxic to aquatic life in Putah Creek. Further, the cumulative impacts of various UCD wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff could readily result in increased bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals over those that would be present if there were not multiple discharges and stormwater runoff from the UCD campus to Putah Creek. There is no question that there are impacts of the wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff from UCD activities on Putah Creek water quality. To assert, as the L. Vanderhoef administration has done in its self-serving cumulative impact study report, that there are no cumulative impacts of the multiple discharges and runoff, based on the evaluation conducted, is highly inappropriate. It appears that the UCD administration concluded before conducting the study that there would be no cumulative impacts found and then set out to prove that their pre-conceived conclusion would be supported by this report.

The second conclusion states,

"The University's pretreatment program has been and will continue to be implemented to mitigate potential impacts due to end-of-pipe exceedances of potentially applicable water quality criteria. The WWTP is currently in compliance with its discharge limitations; however, the effluent has historically contained some pollutants that would potentially exceed water quality criteria that may be added to future NPDES permits."

As discussed herein, that interpretation of the NPDES discharge requirements is totally inappropriate and reflects a lack of understanding of the current CVRWQCB NPDES waste discharge requirements. All of the waste discharge requirements set forth in the conditions governing the permit, including no adverse impacts on wildlife, aquatic life, human health, etc., are part of the permit and represent enforceable discharge limitations. It is highly naive and totally inappropriate to assume that only those few parameters for which the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board listed specific chemical parameters for which there is a discharge permit apply to the conditions governing the discharge. The University of California, Davis has, without question, been violating its wastewater treatment plant NPDES discharge permit for years and continues to do so on a routine basis. The draft EIR documents these violations for toxicity and other parameters. The University of California, Davis' pretreatment program is not adequate to prevent current and future violations of the NPDES permit requirements.

The conclusion also states, "Requirements of the University's existing NPDES permit for the WWTP have been effective in detecting and responding to potential water quality problems." That statement is false. The currents NPDES permit has not been implemented by the University of California, Davis to detect many of the problems associated with violations of permit conditions, such as in-stream aquatic life toxicity, the potential for excessive bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in aquatic life tissue, the pollution of groundwaters by wastewater-derived constituents in the treatment plant discharges, the causing of human health hazards associated with contact recreation in Putah Creek, etc.

Overall, the Executive Summary for this report is filled with propaganda, unreliable information and inappropriate interpretation of NPDES requirements and limitations. It does, however, document that the University of California, Davis has been in violation of its NPDES permit requirements and therefore, action should be taken by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to protect the public's interests from further pollution by the University of California, Davis' inadequate management of its wastewater discharges.

Technical Deficiencies in the Main Body of the Report

Beginning on page 6 is the main body text of the report which is supposed to contain the back-up to the statements made in the Executive Summary. As the result of providing detailed comments on the unreliability of many aspects of the Executive Summary, the author has provided comments that are directly applicable to the main body text, as well. Much of what is in the text is also present in the Executive Summary, and therefore, the comments provided on the deficiencies of the presentation of this material in the Executive Summary are applicable to the main body of the report, as well.

On the first page of the main body a presentation is made of the so-called conditions surrounding the development of the cumulative impact review. This discussion leaves out the fact that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration formally rejected a Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board request for an independent, third-party, technically valid, comprehensive review of the cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges on Putah Creek water quality. The author's discussion presented herein is an accurate record of what actually happened in this situation.

Page 6, second paragraph, indicates that Dr. Joe Middlebrooks and Dr. Ken Kerri have provided comments, and their comments have been incorporated into this analysis. As the author (Dr. G. Fred Lee) pointed out when he first learned who the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Chairman suggested as individuals to serve as consultants to UCD on this matter, he knows both of these individuals. They are both highly knowledgeable in aspects of environmental engineering. Neither, however, is an expert on subtle impacts of chemical constituents and pathogenic organisms on the beneficial use of water. They are basically unqualified to carry out the requirements set forth in properly evaluating the cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff to Putah Creek as requested by the public. While it is unknown whether Dr. Kerri and Dr. Middlebrooks were provided with a full set of the various reports and other information pertinent to water quality issues that have been raised by the public with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board over the past two years, it is possible that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration in working with Dr. Kerri and Dr. Middlebrooks have again practiced highly managed information transfer where they were not provided with a complete set of the information that is readily available in UCD files which they should have reviewed as part of serving as reliable consultants in this cumulative impact study.

It was found last August in connection with UCD's attempts to try to discredit the author's detailed discussions on the technical deficiencies of Order No. 96-227 that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration did not provide their consultants that they asked to comment on the author's comments that were submitted to the CVRWQCB with a complete set of the information that serves as back-up to the author's comments. By providing them with only a brief summary of some of the materials that existed, the UCD administration practiced controlled information transfer, and therefore, quite likely misled those reviewing the author's comments into believing that there was not a substantial technical base of information that is readily available that supports the technical issues the author has raised about the technical deficiencies with the approaches being used to regulate UCD wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff.

While UCD in their September 11, 1996 letter listed a number of individuals, including Dr. Middlebrooks and Dr. Kerri, as expert advisors in a review of the issues the author has raised, upon questioning the UCD staff at the September 20, 1996 hearing, where the author asked if all of the so-called experts that UCD listed in its September 11, 1996 letter had read and were in full support of the contents of this letter, the answer was "no." It was clear that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration was playing a game of name-dropping of experts who had not been full, active participants and, most importantly, critically reviewed and supported the positions put forth by the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration in its submissions to the CVRWQCB.

It is claimed in the third paragraph on page 6 that this cumulative impact analysis was completed in draft form in December 1995. Why does it now carry a date of October 1996 and why was it not made available to the public for review in draft form in December 1995 when it was first released?

The statement made in paragraph 4 on page 6, "No comments were received on the proposed mass balance model approach;" does not accurately reflect the situation that occurred. The author (Dr. G. Fred Lee) has provided detailed comments on what should be covered in analyzing the cumulative impacts for UCD's wastewater discharges. Prior to December 1995 the author had provided the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration with detailed discussions of the unreliability of attempting to assess water quality impacts based only on comparisons to existing water quality criteria. The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and Jones & Stokes chose to ignore the author's comments on this issue in the process of preparing this so-called cumulative impact assessment. Further, as documented herein, the draft EIR and this cumulative impact analysis fall far short of providing the information requested by the author in his comments on the proposed scope of the EIR. As discussed herein, the mass balance approach used by the University of California, Davis L. Vanderhoef administration and Jones & Stokes is obviously technically invalid for addressing real water quality issues associated with UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff to Putah Creek.

Page 6, third paragraph, states, "This analysis fulfills the RWQCB request and provides an adequate level of analysis in the EIR of the water quality issues associated with the proposed project." Whoever wrote and reviewed this statement did not go back and review Mr. W. Crooks's letter to J. McNeal of July 31, 1995 covering the scope of work for the panel of water quality experts. In the third paragraph of this Scope of Work-Panel of Water Quality Experts it states, "The Panel's mission is to determine the adequacy of current and proposed treatment and disposal practices for meeting water quality criteria for the protection of public health and aquatic resources."

Under the Scope of Work Objectives on page 2, it states,

"The panel will then determine the adequacy of UCD's current and proposed treatment and disposal practices for meeting EPA and State of California Criteria for the protection of public health and aquatic resources and assess if there are cumulative impacts associated with these discharges. The Panel is also to identify data gaps that exist, if any, in accordance with EPA and State of California monitoring requirements."

Page 4 of the Scope of Work Objectives states,

"The Panel should also assess the efficacy of current waste discharge requirements and corrective action programs in light of the Regional Board's authority under the Porter Cologne Act, the necessity of ground water cleanup, and the characteristics of Putah Creek."

There is no doubt that this so-called cumulative assessment prepared by the University of California, Davis L. Vanderhoef administration and Jones & Stokes falls far short of meeting the original proposed Scope of Work Objectives by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The above quoted statement that this report "...fulfills the RWQCB request..." is an obvious, deliberate, self-serving distortion of the facts when a comparison is made between the content of this so-called cumulative impact analysis report and the CVRWQCB's request for a cumulative impact analysis.

Page 7 lists the discharges analyzed. As discussed in the comments on the technical deficiencies of the Executive Summary, the discharges analyzed are deficient compared to the discharges that should have been analyzed in that those doing the analysis failed to consider stormwater runoff adverse impacts. These are part of an NPDES permit for the University campus and therefore should have been included.

Beginning on page 8 is the "Conceptual Design of the Mass Balance Model." The author has provided detailed comments on the fundamentally flawed approach set forth in the Conceptual Design of the Mass Balance Model as it was presented in the Executive Summary. Those comments are directly applicable to this discussion, as well. Basically, the mass balance approach is fundamentally flawed and is an inappropriate approach for assessing cumulative impacts. This deficiency is known to those who understand the basic elements of water quality and how to judge cumulative impacts of multiple discharges and stormwater runoff on the beneficial uses of receiving waters.

Page 12, first paragraph, states that pathogens were not evaluated in this model. Why not? Pathogens are important constituents of concern to the public with respect to cumulative impacts on Putah Creek. They should have been evaluated. Further, to only focus cumulative impact evaluations on a few Priority Pollutants is highly deficient compared to that needed to determine what the real cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges are on the beneficial uses of Putah Creek. As discussed, there are an estimated 75,000 chemicals in use in the US today. The University of California, Davis routinely uses large numbers of chemicals that are not regulated as Priority Pollutants. A credible cumulative impact study must include a discussion of the impact of unregulated chemicals as well as the few regulated chemicals that were considered in this superficial study.

Page 13, first paragraph, discusses some of the data manipulations that have been carried out. Unless the actual data are made available as an appendix to this report, it is not possible to judge whether these data manipulations were carried out properly. As discussed above, there are numerous examples where UCD staff and their consultants have made significant errors in data presentation, manipulation and reporting. There is no reason to believe that this situation has not also occurred in this report. A credible environmental impact report would have included the complete presentation of the data used as the basis for developing conclusions.

Page 13, fourth paragraph, states that data for two months, November and December 1995, were used for evaluating the upstream Putah Creek background data. Anyone with an elementary understanding of water quality issues knows that it is not possible to develop reliable upstream background chemical constituent concentration data based on only two months of sampling. What is even worse, apparently only three samples were taken during the two-month period. This is another of the highly superficial monitoring programs conducted by the University of California, Davis under the L. Vanderhoef administration leadership that shows that there is an urgent need for UCD to obtain appropriate leadership by individuals who understand water quality issues if UCD is going to continue to manage its own wastes.

Whoever prepared Table 6 does not understand the elements of proper presentation of significant figures with respect to analytical results. The data are presented with far more significant figures than can be justified based on the analytical and other sampling procedures used in obtaining the data.

Examination of Table 6 shows that the arsenic concentrations found in the wastewater treatment plant discharge which are above the background levels are concentrations that would likely be in excess of the US EPA's proposed new water quality criterion. Therefore, to the extent that the six samples taken at the wastewater treatment plant for arsenic are representative, UCD will likely be polluting Putah Creek with excessive arsenic which is of concern because arsenic is a known carcinogen.

With respect to the chromium data presented in Table 6, there are obvious significant problems with the chromium analysis as total chromium is less than hexavalent chromium. This makes the chromium data highly suspect and generally must be considered invalid. It is also clear that the University of California, Davis used inadequate analytical procedures for hexavalent chromium since it could not detect the concentrations of hexavalent chromium in the waters below the US EPA water quality criterion for chromium VI. Analytical procedures are readily available that will measure chromium VI at lower concentrations. These should have been used.

The hexavalent chromium discharges from the Aquatic Center are excessive and should be assumed to be in violation of the NPDES permit for this facility's discharges because of the potential for toxicity to aquatic life.

With respect to mercury analysis of the wastewater treatment plant discharges, footnote c states, "water quality samples at the WWTP have had no detectable levels of mercury during the June 19-21 and July 8-10, 1996 sampling periods, but the detection limit is above the average water quality criterion." This means that an alternative approach has to be used to determine whether excessive mercury is being discharged. This approach should involve the measurement of mercury in fish tissue in receiving waters since this is the focal point of concern.

Table 6 shows that a number of the chlorinated and bromonated VOCs discharged from the wastewater treatment plant are present in the discharge at concentrations that represent potential threats to groundwater recharge that occurs in Putah Creek water. As discussed elsewhere in these comments, the LEHR site studies for groundwater recharge have demonstrated that there is a high probability that Putah Creek groundwater recharge is polluting groundwaters near Putah Creek with VOCs in violation of its UCD discharge permit.

Overall, an inadequate data set is available to properly evaluate whether the constituents considered in UCD's wastewater discharges individually were adversely impacting the beneficial uses of Putah Creek, much less to address the cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff.

The bottom of page 13 and the top of page 14, present information on the sources of water quality criteria used. It also states, "The numerical criteria used in this analysis for each pollutant were selected from these regulations in consultation with Mr. Richard McHenry, a Water Resources Engineer for the RWQCB,..." As is documented in correspondence that the author provided to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Mr. McHenry does not have adequate understanding of water quality issues to be advising anyone on this topic. Mr. McHenry testified before the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in June 1995 that chromium toxicity in UCD's discharges could be prevented through only using an acute toxicity criterion. He asserted that this would be more protective than incorporating acute and chronic toxicity, as the author (Dr. G. Fred Lee) had recommended to the Board. It is also clear that Mr. McHenry and other members of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board staff who are involved in this matter have such limited understanding of water quality criteria that, based on their comments, they do not know that bioaccumulation issues cannot be addressed by aquatic toxicity measurements. Those with an elementary knowledge of the topic, know that bioaccumulation-based water quality criteria are usually far lower than toxicity-based criteria for the same chemical for those chemicals that are of concern because of bioaccumulation.

Table 7 is reported to present the water quality criteria that were used by the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and Jones & Stokes in this so-called cumulative impact analysis. It should be noted that what are called water quality criteria are in some cases maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. With respect to arsenic, mention should have been made in a credible discussion of potential arsenic impacts that the US EPA is in the process of decreasing the arsenic MCL to levels below those that are being discharged at times by the University of California, Davis wastewater treatment plant.

A number of the parameters listed in Table 7 required the consideration of the hardness of the water in order to estimate the criterion value. There is no evidence presented that proper consideration was given to the development of hardness-adjusted criterion values. This is especially important in light of the limited background data that exist.

At the bottom of Table 7 is a highly significant error as part of the myth that the University of California, Davis L. Vanderhoef administration has been perpetrating on the public that the various components of trihalomethanes as applied to drinking water analysis, such as chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, etc. have drinking water MCLs of 100 g/L. To list the total trihalomethane MCL of 100 g/L as being applicable to UCD's wastewater discharges to Putah Creek as it relates to groundwater recharge, etc. represents either a complete lack of understanding of how the total trihalomethane discharge limit was developed and how it should be used or is a continued deliberate distortion of information on the part of the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration in which it is trying to perpetuate the myth that the total trihalomethane MCL is an appropriate regulatory tool for wastewater discharges and groundwater pollution. Over the past year and a half, detailed discussions of this issue have been provided by DSCSOC to the L. Vanderhoef administration. The regulatory agency personnel have concluded that DSCSOC's assessment that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration has been providing the public unreliable information on acceptable levels of trihalomethane components in groundwaters polluted by UCD's waste management activities and ordered UCD to stop providing unreliable information on this topic; yet the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration in an October 1996 document (draft EIR) and final cumulative impact study report continues to present highly unreliable, distorted information on this issue. Detailed discussions of this issue have been provided by the author (Dr. G. Fred Lee) in his comments on the draft EIR for the proposed campus wastewater treatment plant development and expansion.

Page 14, first full paragraph, states, "Numerical concentration values for these regulations were obtained from A Compilation of Water Quality Goals by the RWQCB (July 1995), and A Compilation of Federal and State Drinking Water Standards by the California Department of Water Resources (July 1995)." If the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and Jones & Stokes had critically reviewed the information in the CVRWQCB's A Compilation of Water Quality Goals, they would have found that the use of 100 g/L as a drinking water standard for individual trihalomethane components is in error. The CVRWQCB's A Compilation of Water Quality Goals specifically states that 100 g/L should not be used to judge excessive concentrations of THM components in polluted groundwaters.

The proper value for determining whether there is excessive chloroform in the UCD wastewater discharges that can be recharged to groundwater through Putah Creek recharge is non-detect. In the fall of 1995, Mr. William Crooks defined non-detect for chloroform as 0.5 g/L. UCD's wastewater discharges and Putah Creek content as the result of these discharges for chloroform are well in excess of this value. Further, groundwaters along Putah Creek which apparently have been polluted by Putah Creek recharge of VOCs derived from UCD campus wastewater treatment plant discharges have concentrations of chloroform above the CVRWQCB's groundwater clean-up objective of 0.5 g/L. Therefore, UCD's wastewater discharges from its current treatment works has been in violation of the Basin Plan objectives for protecting groundwaters from pollution by the current wastewater treatment plant discharges.

The issue of VOC discharges and their impacts on receiving water beneficial uses has been evaluated incorrectly by the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and Jones & Stokes in this so-called cumulative impact analysis. As mentioned above, these issues have been discussed in detail in materials provided to the L. Vanderhoef administration in the fall of 1995 as well as in the summer of 1996. The L. Vanderhoef administration and Jones & Stokes, whom the author presumes had the opportunity to review the information that DSCSOC provided to UCD, have chosen to ignore these comments. This is another of the fundamental errors that have been made in this cumulative impact analysis that causes it to be a non-credible review of issues of concern to the public.

Table 7 fails to mention the toxicity limitations imposed by the Basin Plan and the NPDES permit on UCD's wastewater discharges. This is another of the fundamental errors that were made in this cumulative impact analysis. These discharge requirements are explicitly set forth in the permit and in the Basin Plan. Failing to meet these requirements is a violation of the NPDES permit since, as documented in the EIR, there have been routine discharges of toxic wastewaters to Putah Creek. UCD has been in violation of its wastewater discharge permit on a routine basis for many years and apparently continues to be in violation of these requirements.

Figure 2 in the UCD administration's - Jones & Stokes' report is a summary of the mass balance equations used for each of the points of input. It is unfortunate that the University of California, Davis and Jones & Stokes turned this matter over to a modeler rather than someone who understands the elements of water quality. This is a prime example of how individuals not familiar with aquatic chemistry, aquatic toxicology and water quality issues can waste substantial amounts of public funds in conducting inappropriate studies. If Jones & Stokes was ordered by the University of California, Davis to conduct the studies in this way, they should have refused to do so since they are obviously inappropriate to address the issues raised by the public and by the CVRWQCB in the "Blue Ribbon Panel" review.

Page 16, third paragraph, states " ...water quality under proposed project conditions would likely be better than under existing conditions." However, the author (Dr. G. Fred Lee) believes that an independent, knowledgeable panel of experts would come to the conclusion that the new treatment plant would also cause violations of the existing NPDES permit conditions and therefore, if constructed as proposed, would shortly after beginning to operate have to be significantly expanded to remove the various constituents present in the wastewater discharges that are causing violations of the NPDES permit and Basin Plan objectives. The basic issue that has to be addressed is that the University of California, Davis is expanding its wastewater production. Putah Creek, even though it may have some small amount of additional flow during low-flow periods, still has limited capacity to accept conventionally treated wastewaters. Unless the University of California, Davis begins to initiate truly advanced waste treatment which would involve a variety of much more expensive treatment processes than an oxidation ditch, crude filtration and UV disinfection as proposed by the UCD administration for the new treatment works, there is little possibility that UCD can operate and maintain a campus wastewater treatment plant that will protect the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek.

One of the areas of concern that has come to light is that UCD only plans to treat the wastewaters for sufficient disinfection to comply with DHS reclamation requirements. It is well-known, however, that DHS reclamation requirements for domestic wastewaters are not necessarily adequate to protect public health and the environment. DHS is one of the few regulatory agencies in the country that allows basically secondarily-treated wastewaters where residual pathogenic organisms are not adequately removed by wastewater disinfection and are not adequately monitored by the coliform monitoring program to be used for irrigation and other purposes where the public comes in contact with the pathogens in the wastewaters. The DHS reclamation requirements for full body contact which is the situation for Putah Creek, where individuals will be swimming in the effluent are far stricter than can be achieved by the proposed new treatment plant disinfection approach. In order for UCD to discharge its campus and laboratory-based wastewaters to Putah Creek, the wastewaters are going to have to be treated by far more extensive treatment to remove the residual pathogens than will be accomplished by the current proposed treatment plan. This will be far more expensive than the treatment that is currently planned.

One of the basic problems is that the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, thus far, has not been providing reliable guidance to the University of California, Davis on the degree of treatment needed to protect Putah Creek beneficial uses. By failing to properly address the toxicity issue, where UCD is required in accord with regulations to implement highly effective toxicity control, it is being led to believe that it can dismiss toxicity as being insignificant as it tries to do in its draft EIR. This is more of the look-the-other-way policy that eventually got William Crooks terminated from his position as executive officer of the CVRWQCB. The public at several locations in the Central Valley finally had enough of the inadequate implementation of regulations and contacted Governor Wilson to bring about the termination of the inadequate implementation of CVRWQCB regulations.

It is time for the University of California, Davis L. Vanderhoef administration to face up to the fact that if it wishes to discharge wastewaters to Putah Creek, it is going to have to pay the true cost of trying to discharge minimally treated wastewaters to a waterbody that has little or no ability to dilute the residual waste components.

The "Summary of Individual Flow Conditions" discussions on pages 16, 17 and 18, while appearing credible, are superficial in addressing the overall impact conditions of concern to the public. The discussion on carbon tetrachloride admits that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration has had violations of this chemical's discharge to Putah Creek. While the claim is made that this is being addressed by the campus pretreatment program, because of the already demonstrated ineffectiveness of this program in controlling toxicity, the CVRWQCB should give UCD no more than one year to control carbon tetrachloride in its wastewater discharges so there are no violations of the discharge standard. If further violations occur beyond this deadline, then UCD must immediately implement an advanced waste treatment to stop the discharge of carbon tetrachloride in violation of the standard to Putah Creek.

The tributyltin situation discussed in the third paragraph on page 17 indicates that UCD has recently (summer 1996) been discharging tributyltin at concentrations well above the water quality criterion. Since tributyltin is highly toxic to aquatic life, this is another chemical where the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration should be given a one-year period to control the discharge of excessive amounts of tributyltin to Putah Creek. If control is not achieved within one year, or if further violations occur after that time, then advanced waste treatment needs to be initiated to control the tributyltin discharges to Putah Creek.

The last paragraph on the bottom of page 17 mentions "The concentrations of copper, lead. and zinc are higher under this flow condition than under Court-Ordered Release - Dry Season conditions because their concentrations in storm water discharged from the Arboretum Waterway are relatively high." As discussed in another section of these comments, the Arboretum Waterway discharges to Putah Creek are of concern because of the historic University administration practices of discharging its cooling tower blowdown (air conditioning wastewaters) to the Waterway. It has been known since the 1960s that cooling tower blowdown typically contains a wide variety of highly toxic chemicals that must be treated before discharge to the environment. Past UCD administrations and the CVRWQCB staff have chosen to ignore the literature on this topic and/or to deliberately look the other way with respect to protecting the environment from UCD's inappropriate waste management practices. If the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration cannot control the pollution of Putah Creek from its Waterway discharges, then UCD will have to either clean up the Waterway to remove the residual constituents present in the water and sediments that are polluting Putah Creek or treat the waters discharged from the Waterway before discharge to Putah Creek. The CVRWQCB should immediately put UCD on notice that it will no longer be allowed to pollute Putah Creek by Waterway discharges.

Page 19, under "Campus Actions to Address Potential Water Quality Issues," again provides highly distorted information on its compliance with NPDES permit conditions and how UCD will solve its current waste management problems. In the first paragraph it states, "The WWTP is currently in compliance with its NPDES permit limits." That statement is false. It represents a highly inappropriate interpretation of discharge limits. The discharge limits include all of the requirements set forth in the permit, including the control of toxicity. Further, this section claims that the pretreatment program will control pollutants of concern. As part of the renewal of its NPDES permit for campus wastewater treatment plant discharges to Putah Creek, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration should be given one year, i.e. until December 31, 1997, to control toxics and toxicity in its wastewater effluents associated with its various waste management activities discharged to Putah Creek. During this time, UCD should be required to conduct an intensive monthly monitoring program of its wastewater discharges to Putah Creek to properly characterize the chemical characteristics and toxicity in these discharges at the point where they enter Putah Creek. If continued testing shows toxicity, then additional treatment works must be immediately installed to get UCD into full regulatory compliance with its current NPDES permit, including all "Limitations" and "Provisions." If further violations of toxic discharge requirements occur beyond January 1, 1998, then the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration must immediately implement a program to terminate the wastewater discharges to Putah Creek.

The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration should stop receiving the favored treatment it is receiving of being able to discharge toxics and toxicity to Putah Creek without being fined, or the administration not being incarcerated for repeated violations of the NPDES permit conditions. Administrative officers of companies and other institutions who allow repeated violations of their NPDES permits because of inappropriate waste management policies and practices face the possibility of spending time in jail. The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration must also face this possibility as the result of its recalcitrant polluter approach toward protecting Putah Creek's designated beneficial uses. Putah Creek can no longer be allowed to be the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's private sewer. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in accord with current regulatory requirements must immediately start to vigorously enforce the current regulations in order to protect the public's interests.

Page 20 presents the discussion of "Comparison of Model Results with LEHR Putah Creek Downstream Data." Under "Rationale for Comparison of Simulated and Measured Water Quality," the first bulleted item states, "The PCD site is far enough downstream of the WWTP discharge that it could also be influenced by storm water runoff from discharge sources not included in the model." This stormwater runoff referred to is from UCD property. This section documents that the model is fundamentally flawed since it did not include stormwater runoff issues. UCD cannot have it both ways. In the case of the LEHR site, they are claiming there is no influence of stormwater runoff on Putah Creek water quality; in the case of the wastewater treatment plant discharges, they are now claiming that stormwater runoff could be the cause of excessive concentrations of constituents in Putah Creek. Overall, the comparison as presented is extremely weak and provides little verification of the reliability of the modeling effort. Further, as discussed herein, the overall results do not address the issues of concern to the public, namely the impacts of wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff on the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek. Fundamentally, there is an inadequate database upon which to make a comparison of this type.

One of the issues of concern is the historical contamination of the Arboretum Waterway by UCD's discharge of pollutants to this waterway. As discussed on page E-6, the University practiced discharge of cooling tower blowdown to this waterway which contained arsenic, chromium VI, copper, lead, selenium and zinc, as well as tributyltin. The fact that this went on until 1996 reflects the recalcitrant polluter attitude of the University of California, Davis and the lack of regulatory attention by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board staff. The potential impacts of cooling tower blowdown on water quality were well identified in the 1960s. The author had a graduate student do his Master's thesis on this topic. These results were published in a national professional journal (Stratton and Lee, 1975). For the University of California, Davis and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to wait to effectively control the University of California, Davis' cooling tower blowdown until 1996 clearly demonstrates the inability of the University of California, Davis to effectively manage the campus wastes and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to enforce the existing regulations. The regulations governing discharge of toxics have been in effect for many years. They have been inadequately implemented by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board staff in regulating UCD.

From the information presented in this report, it appears that it may be necessary for the University of California, Davis to dredge the Arboretum Waterway to remove the contaminants that according to this evaluation are polluting Putah Creek each time there is a major rainfall runoff event. The dredged sediment could likely be hazardous waste that would have to be disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill or by other hazardous waste management approaches. It is appears now that the Arboretum Waterway is another of the hazardous chemical hot spots on the UCD campus that has arisen from inappropriate waste management practices by the current and past UCD administrations. This is an issue that the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board needs to immediately address in order to stop further pollution of Putah Creek by UCD's discharges from its cooling towers which are interimly stored in the Arboretum Waterway.

Appendix E. Requirements and Status of the UCD Davis Pretreatment Program

Appendix E to the draft EIR presents a discussion of the requirements and status of the UCD pretreatment program. While not part of the Jones and Stokes cumulative impact analysis project report (Appendix C), the discussions of the significant deficiencies in the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's current and proposed approach for controlling toxics and toxicity in its campus wastewater discharges to Putah Creek is included in these comments on the deficiencies in the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's efforts to adequately and reliably evaluate and manage the cumulative impacts of its wastewater discharges to Putah Creek.

Pages E-1 through E-20 present a discussion of the characteristics of the University of California, Davis pretreatment program. Throughout the discussions in this document as well as in the draft EIR, the emphasis is placed on the adequacy and reliability of this pretreatment program to control water pollution of Putah Creek. As discussed in other sections of these comments, it is naive to assume that effective pretreatment programs can be developed for university laboratories. The author (Dr. G. Fred Lee) having taught in several universities over 30 years, is highly familiar with practices that occur and the significant constraints that exist on university researchers to try to accomplish research under significant budget constraints. There will be few university researchers who will aggressively use the limited funds that are received for research to control the discharge of constituents to the sanitary sewer system where the projects are charged for the cost of control.

The bottom-line issue on the effectiveness of the pretreatment program is whether UCD can control aquatic life toxicity, excessive bioaccumulation and the sanitary quality of Putah Creek so there is no excessive bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in Putah Creek aquatic life, no aquatic life toxicity in the Creek, and the sanitary quality is such that people can ingest the water immediately downstream of the point of discharge under low-flow conditions without fear of acquiring disease.

One of the fundamental flaws with the pretreatment program is that it is not addressing the control of toxicity. By focusing on chemical constituents, it fails to address the basic problem that UCD has with respect to its current wastewater discharges, namely toxicity in its effluent due to unknown causes. UCD should immediately initiate local limits for toxicity from various University campus dischargers which could, if properly implemented, result in no toxicity in the wastewater discharged to the sewerage system at the point of discharge. The implementation of this program, however, would require a massive, highly effective monitoring program far more comprehensive and reliable than anything that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration has conducted thus far. Without the adoption of this approach, there is no possibility of UCD achieving a toxic-free effluent.

The University of California, Davis admits in its draft EIR that it is unable to determine the cause of the toxicity that occurs in its campus wastewater effluent discharged to Putah Creek. Therefore, it is unlikely that the local limits for specific chemicals that are being developed are properly addressing the cause of the toxicity. While a pretreatment program and local limit approach is needed, it is unlikely that it will be effective in controlling toxicity problems in UCD's wastewater discharges to Putah Creek. The local limit control approach can be effective for the control of constituents where there are a limited number of locations where discharges of toxic chemicals to a municipal sewerage system can occur. At a large university with many different research laboratories that are utilizing a wide variety of unregulated chemicals, the local limit control approach will almost certainly fail to prevent discharge of toxic effluents from UCD's existing and proposed treatment works. It is virtually certain that UCD will have to provide a significant amount of additional advanced wastewater treatment beyond that planned in its new proposed treatment works in order to effectively control toxicity in its effluent.

The statement is made on page E-9, mid-page, under "Initial Responses and Responses to Repeated Exceedances of Local Limits," "Education and periodic monitoring will be used as the first steps to ensure that facilities meet local limits." Such a statement is unrealistic and does not reflect the real situation that exists in university laboratories and other facilities where a wide variety of hazardous and deleterious chemicals are used.

Table E-2 is an example of an inappropriate presentation of data where both mg/L and g/L are presented. There is a factor of 1,000 between the two units. There is no need to present both numbers. This reflects a lack of understanding of basic water quality issues by those who developed the table. Further, this table contains errors in the proposed local limits for some chemicals such as the THMs where apparently the 100 g/L THM limit was used in developing the local limit. What should have been used for THM components is non-detect in the effluent. The information presented on manganese is inappropriate. Manganese has an MCL that should have been included. Further, manganese is an important constituent in that it catalyzes the conversion of chromium III to chromium VI.

In Table E-3, the symbol "XNS" is used which indicates that the pollutant is present "...but no adopted state or federal water quality standards or limits or known inhibition thresholds currently exist for evaluating pollutant concentrations." That statement is unreliable for mercury. Mercury is of concern because it bioaccumulates in fish. If proper measurements of mercury in fish tissue in Putah Creek show that there is no excessive mercury, then there is no problem. If it is found, then through forensic analysis it is necessary to determine whether the mercury is coming from UCD's wastewater discharges. This can be fairly readily accomplished. The same approach should be used for a number of other constituents, such as the chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, PCBs and dioxins. While these constituents may not be measurable in the effluent, they can readily be present in the effluent and cause receiving water impacts. It appears that UCD does not have personnel that have sufficient knowledge of water quality issues to be able to address the potential problems, such as mercury, in a meaningful way.

While not discussed in the draft EIR or in the cumulative impact study report, an important issue pertinent to regulating UCD's wastewater discharges from its campus wastewater treatment plant that needs to be addressed is how UCD and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board staff have evaluated the ability of the campus wastewater treatment plant to receive additional hydraulic and toxicant loading. This situation arose from the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's attempts to develop a cheaper-than-real-cost approach for managing its campus Landfill No. 4 ("west" landfill) leachate-polluted groundwaters as part of a CVRWQCB-ordered groundwater remediation program. The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration and CVRWQCB staff in the spring of 1995 developed a proposed approach for managing the leachate-polluted groundwaters by pumping the groundwaters to the surface, air-stripping the VOCs from the groundwaters and then discharging the air-stripped groundwaters to Putah Creek. The public found, as part of reviewing this proposed approach, that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration had not properly characterized or evaluated the potential impacts of pumping the VOC-stripped polluted groundwater to Putah Creek.

Further, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration, with the CVRWQCB's staff's approval, proposed to allow the discharge of a number of chemical constituents in the VOC-stripped polluted groundwater to Putah Creek at concentrations that could readily be adverse to the Creek's beneficial uses. In addition, it was found that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration with the support of the CVRWQCB staff had developed a highly deficient wastewater and Putah Creek monitoring program to detect the adverse impacts of the residual constituents in the leachate-polluted groundwater that were proposed to be discharged to Putah Creek. All of these deficiencies were brought to the attention of the CVRWQCB members prior to a June 23, 1995 hearing on these issues. The CVRWQCB, without adequate review of the issues raised by the public, approved this discharge for a one-year period.

Prior to initiating the discharge, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration "discovered" that the VOC-stripped leachate-polluted groundwater would likely contain excessive chromium compared to the highly lax NPDES permit conditions established by the CVRWQCB at their June 23, 1995 hearing. Another of the CVRWQCB deals was developed without public review where the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration was allowed to conduct a "quickie" study which was purported to demonstrate that the "west" landfill leachate-polluted groundwaters could be discharged to the campus wastewater treatment plant without adversely impacting the treatment plant's performance. However, a critical review shows that this evaluation was technically invalid. It ignored the fact that UCD's wastewater discharges from its campus treatment plant were already in violation of the NPDES permit requirements governing the control of toxicity in the effluent discharged to Putah Creek.

The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration proposed and was allowed to only consider whether the increased flow from adding the leachate-polluted groundwaters to the treatment plant in-flow would disrupt suspended solids and BOD removal by the plant. No evaluation was made of the basic issue that should have been addressed as to whether the increased flow as well as the increased chromium and other toxicants, both regulated and unregulated, would cause increased toxicity in the wastewater effluent discharged to Putah Creek. As discussed in comments that the author (Dr. G. Fred Lee) provided to the CVRWQCB upon learning of this situation, this BOD - suspended solids mentality for evaluating the efficacy of treatment works, while appropriate for the 1960s, is totally inappropriate today. While the author (Dr. G. Fred Lee) has requested that the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board correct this error, thus far this Board has not taken action on this topic. This is more of the look-the-other-way approach that has prevailed for years by the CVRWQCB and its staff in regulating UCD's waste management activities.

Similar issues are now being discussed with respect to clean-up of the UCD - DOE LEHR national Superfund site-polluted groundwaters, where one of the alternatives for managing the polluted groundwaters is to pump these groundwaters to the surface, provide some as yet unspecified treatment to them and discharge them, either directly to Putah Creek or to the campus sewerage system. This approach would cause an increased hydraulic and toxicant load to the existing campus wastewater treatment plant and any future treatment plant that is constructed to replace the current treatment plant. It is important that no more behind-the-scenes deals be allowed where the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration is able to work out a deal with the regulatory agencies which allows it to discharge inadequately treated LEHR site-polluted groundwaters directly to Putah Creek or to the campus sewerage system which then enters Putah Creek along with the other inadequately treated wastewaters being discharged by the current treatment works.

The 1960s mentality of evaluating the efficacy of treatment works where only BOD and suspended solids removal are considered should no longer be allowed. All potential impacts of the LEHR site-polluted groundwaters on the ability of the treatment works to comply with its current NPDES permit requirements must be properly evaluated as part of any management approach that is adopted for managing the UCD - DOE LEHR national Superfund site-polluted groundwaters. This will require a comprehensive pre-discharge evaluation/characterization of the LEHR site-polluted groundwaters as well as the current discharge characteristics of the existing wastewater treatment plant.

The situation that developed in the fall of 1995 where the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration was able without public and regulatory agency approval to get DOE to stop monitoring the wastewater discharges from its campus wastewater treatment plant to Putah Creek for excessive concentrations of ammonia because the previous monitoring had shown that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration was violating its current NPDES discharge limits cannot be allowed to occur in the future. Rather than try to cover up permit violations, as the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration has been doing, a much more comprehensive, reliable monitoring program of the existing treatment plant discharges will have to be conducted prior to discharge of any LEHR site-polluted groundwaters to the campus sewerage system in order to be able to reliably determine, once discharge occurs, whether the discharge causes an increase in the violations of UCD's current NPDES permit limitations. It is the author's understanding that DSCSOC will work vigorously to require that the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration, the DOE-Oakland office, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Cal EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control, the California Department of Health Services and the US EPA Region IX properly protect Putah Creek water quality from any proposed remediation approach for managing the pollution of the LEHR site and its associated polluted groundwaters.

Overall Assessment

Fundamentally, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration through its consultant, Jones & Stokes, and the CVRWQCB-suggested technical advisors, has produced a non-credible, inaccurate, unreliable assessment of the cumulative impacts of UCD's wastewater discharges and stormwater runoff on the beneficial uses of Putah Creek. The Jones & Stokes so-called cumulative impact report of October 1996 is a self-serving document designed to support the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's preconceived position of no cumulative impact which fails to utilize the basic principles of water quality evaluation to reliably consider and evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of chemical constituents and pathogenic organisms within UCD's wastewater discharges. This cumulative impact report is another example of the significant waste of public funds in which the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration participates in an attempt to cover up the mismanagement of past and current waste management activities at the University of California, Davis campus.

This cumulative impact report provides strong support for the Governor, the state legislature, the University of California Regents and the public to demand that UCD stop trying to manage its own wastes and turn the management over to local entities that can potentially more reliably manage these wastes, or at least place their adverse impacts on a less sensitive environment than Putah Creek in the Davis region. The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration continues to claim that it is far more economical for UCD to continue to manage its own wastes than to convey these wastes to other entities, such as the City of Davis and Yolo County, for management. However, as has been demonstrated, the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's economic analysis is fundamentally flawed since it does not consider the true cost of such management. For its solid waste management, it does not consider the costs of the eventual pollution of groundwaters by UCD's proposed fifth campus landfill, that even its own dump tender correctly states will eventually pollute groundwaters. This pollution, in turn, will, if addressed as it is currently being done by the University of California, Davis, lead to further pollution of Putah Creek as part of the groundwater remediation program. This issue has been discussed in detail in a petition filed by the author (Dr. G. Fred Lee) (Lee, 1996a,b,c) to the State Water Resources Control Board on the significant deficiencies in the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. 96-228 as well as Order No. 96-227.

With respect to wastewater discharges, the true cost of these discharges which the L. Vanderhoef administration ignores in its economic analysis are the costs of the diminished beneficial uses of Putah Creek which deprive the people of the Davis region and others of the opportunity to enjoy these resources to the extent that is provided by current regulations.

This unreliable reporting on cumulative impacts by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. is an example of why EIR firms should not and cannot be relied on to provide third-party, independent analysis of issues of concern to the public. EIR firms must comply with project developers' wishes, even if it means presenting distorted discussions of issues, in order to gain future support for EIR work with various project developers. An EIR firm that adequately and reliably discusses issues, such as the cumulative impacts of chemicals on public health and the environment, will soon find that they are without work.

Recommended Action

The UCD L. Vanderhoef administration has produced an inadequate, unreliable and biased review of cumulative impacts of UCD's waste management activities on Putah Creek water quality. Since the author was the one who suggested that a third-party, independent, technically competent assessment of cumulative impacts of UCD's waste management activities on Putah Creek water quality be conducted, he wishes to suggest that either UCD be required to immediately stop all waste discharges to Putah Creek and stop its on-campus management of solid wastes or UCD fund a true third-party, independent, technically competent review of cumulative impacts of its past and current waste discharges. Those appointed to conduct this review should be supported by the University of California, Davis as part of the cost of waste management activities associated with obtaining further permits, including the renewal of its current wastewater treatment plant waste discharge permit that is scheduled to take place in 1997.

The individuals conducting the cumulative impact study should be highly knowledgeable in aquatic chemistry, aquatic toxicology and water quality. They must work with and report directly to the impacted public as well as the regulatory agencies and the University of California, Davis. All interested parties in Putah Creek water quality issues should be provided with the opportunity to provide information pertinent to assessing the cumulative impacts of UCD's waste management activities and stormwater runoff on Putah Creek water quality.

The first step of the cumulative impact analysis process would be to evaluate the adequacy of the current database. Where deficient, studies should be recommended that should be conducted to develop the data needed to begin to reliably assess cumulative impacts of UCD's waste management activities and stormwater runoff to Putah Creek on the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek. The advisory panel of independent experts should oversee selection of a consultant who would report to them and the impacted public as well as the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the University of California, Davis on the course of these studies. The consultant would prepare a report on the studies which after review by all parties would be finalized and serve as a basis for properly assessing cumulative impacts of UCD's waste management activities and stormwater runoff.

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board must immediately stop its biased handling of UCD's failure to comply with its waste discharge requirements set forth in the NPDES permit and start to work with UCD and the public in adequately and reliably addressing these issues. The public is entitled to this type of representation by this Board and its staff in protecting the designated beneficial uses of Putah Creek from the UCD L. Vanderhoef administration's past and current mismanagement of its campus wastes.

References

Lee, G.F., "Factors Affecting the Transfer of Materials Between Water and Sediments," University of Wisconsin Eutrophication Information Program, Literature Review No. 1, 50 pp (1970).

Lee, G.F., "Petition to the State Water Resources Control Board to Review the Waste Discharge Requirements, Order 96-227, Issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on August 9, 1996 to the University of California at Davis for the UCD Campus Landfill Ground Water Cleanup System," G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, 23 pp, September 9 (1996a)

Lee, G.F., "Supplement/Addendum to Petition of Order No. 96-227 Issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on August 9,1 996 to the University of California at Davis for the UCD Campus Landfill Ground Water Cleanup System to Address the New Information Provided by the University of California at Davis and the CVRWQCB Staff at the CVRWQCB September 20, 1996 Hearing Devoted to Chromium Technical Issues," G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA, 19 pp, October 18 (1996b)

Lee, G.F., "Technical Deficiencies in the CVRWQCB Order No. 96-227 Discharge of the UCD "West" Landfill Leachate-Polluted Groundwaters to Putah Creek Presented to CVRWQCB September 20, 1996 Hearing," Presentation to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board by G. Fred Lee, G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA (1996c)

Lee, G.F. and Jones, R.A., "Translation of Laboratory Results to Field Conditions: The Role of Aquatic Chemistry in Assessing Toxicity," In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: 6th Symposium, ASTM STP 802, ASTM, Philadelphia, pp 328-349 (1983).

Lee, G.F. and Jones-Lee, A., "Does Meeting Cleanup Standards Mean Protection of Public Health and the Environment?," In: Superfund XV Conference Proceedings, Hazardous Materials Control Resources Institute, Rockville, MD, pp. 531-540 (1994).

Stratton, C.L. and Lee, G.F., "Cooling Towers and Water Quality," Journ. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 47:1901-1912 (1975).

Appendix

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. 92-040 governing the Campus Wastewater Treatment Plant issued February 28, 1992.

Table 3-3. Summary of Major Effluent Limitations Contained in the Current NPDES Permit from the University of California, Davis draft Environmental Impact Report dated October 1996.

Return to Document List

View Related Document List

Return to DSCSOC Home Page