Common use of Susceptibility to Cleanup Clause in Contracts

Susceptibility to Cleanup. no The discharge was not susceptible to cleanup because the discharge quickly comingled with receiving waters. Per Gallon Factor for Discharge Violations 0.025 Deviation from Requirement: major This multiplier is from Tables 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Policy and is based on the sum of the above factors and a deviation from requirements of major. The Enforcement Policy definition for major deviation states as follows: “… rendering the prohibition ineffective in its essential functions.” The discharge violated a permit prohibition that, among other things, prohibits discharges unless the discharge is disinfected. The entire discharge was not disinfected (i.e., not chlorinated and dechlorinated). Thus, the prohibition was rendered ineffective for that day. Adjustment for $2/gal For this violation, a high volume adjustment applies because the discharge PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION High Volume Discharges volume for the violation was high in that it was over two million gallons, and the violation also occurred during wet weather. Consistent with the Enforcement Policy, a maximum per gallon liability of $2, rather than $10, is appropriate, and would not result in an inappropriately small penalty. Initial Liability $111,200 The initial liability is calculated as follows: Per Gallon Factor (above) multiplied by gallons discharged to surface water (minus 1,000 gallons) multiplied by the maximum per gallon liability (as adjusted above), plus Per Day Factor (above) multiplied by the maximum per day liability ($10,000) multiplied by the number of days of discharge. Initial Liability: (2,219,000 gal x $2/gal x 0.025 + $10,000/day x 1 day x 0.025) = $111,200 Adjustments for Discharger Conduct Culpability 1.0 For this violation, a higher culpability is appropriate because the failure to disinfect the wastewater was due to the Discharger’s Chief-on-Watch inappropriately ordering the operator to close the manual disinfection line. This operator had started manual gravity flow disinfection in accordance with Standard Operation Procedure for power outages, but then closed it as ordered. As for the power outage that instigated the need for manual dechlorination, a lower culpability is appropriate because the discharge occurred due to a fluke power outage. This outage occurred when the main breaker tripped and completely shut down power to the Southeast Plant. The trip in the main breaker was caused by a drop in the overall electrical load demand. The reason for the drop in electrical load demand is unknown. This occurred in an electrical system upgrade to install protective relays at the Discharger’s primary electrical substation as required by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) standards. The higher and lower culpabilities balance out to a neutral overall culpability for the violation. Cleanup and Cooperation 0.9 For this violation, a credit of ten percent decrease (i.e., 0.9) from neutral is appropriate because the Discharger thoroughly investigated and found the reason for the power outage and took action to minimize its chance of recurrence. It doubled the timing sequence (to 2 seconds, from 1 second) of the protective relays before tripping of the main breakers would occur. Increasing this timing sequence reduces the possibility of a future switch- based power outage. Furthermore, while backup power would not have prevented the operator error, the Discharger plans to install, or has installed, a backup generator for the disinfection system that would eliminate the need for manual operation during future power outages. These corrective measures are “above and beyond” what is expected from the Discharger considering that the primary cause of the unauthorized discharge was operator error. No additional credit is provided for the following measures because they are required by the Order: PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION • The Discharger was reasonably responsive to Regional Water Board staff requests for information after the discharge event as required by the Permit. • The Discharger took reasonable and necessary measures in response to the operator error cause of the undisinfected discharge. This includes emphasis on the correct disinfection procedures in trainings and posting a “Quick Response” placard at the dosing station. Though not a requirement of the Order, the Discharge also took disciplinary action against the Chief-on-Watch who failed to correctly follow established dechlorination procedures. The Chief-on-Watch is no longer employed by the Discharger. History of Violations 1.1 The Discharger has a history of violation. The Regional Water Board assessed an administrative civil liability in the amount of $626,000 against the Discharger for discharging approximately 475,000 gallons of raw sewage combined with stormwater from a manhole near the intersection of the Great Highway and Balboa Street, San Francisco, to Ocean Beach (Order R2-2007- 0001). Total Base Liability $110,100 Each applicable factor, relating to the Discharger’s conduct, is multiplied by the Initial Liability (above) for the violation to determine the Total Base Liability as follows: Total Base Liability: $111,200 x 1 x 0.9 x 1.1 = $110,088 (rounded to $110,100) Ability to Pay and Continue in Business No adjust- ment The Discharger has not demonstrated an inability to pay the proposed amount. The Discharger is responsible for and oversees the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) which operates the Southeast Plant. According to SFPUC’s Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget report, the total budget for the three SFPUC Enterprises, including Power, Water and Wastewater is $939.6 million. Economic Benefit None The Regional Water Board Prosecution Staff did not find a significant economic benefit associated with the violations. The alleged violations occurred due to power outages and human errors which have no direct association with economic benefit. Other Factors as Justice May Require None 0.0 No other factors considered. Maximum and Minimum Liabilities Maximum Liability $22.2 million Water Code section 13385 allows up to $10,000 for each day in which the violation occurs; and $10 for each gallon exceeding 1,000 gallons that is discharged and not cleaned up. The maximum liability is based on the PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION unauthorized wastewater discharge totaling 2.22 million gallons for a total of one violation day. Minimum Liability $0.0 The violation is not subject to mandatory minimum penalties per Water Code section 13385(h) and (i), and the Discharger did not benefit economically from the violation. Thus, zero minimum liability is determined for this violation. Final Liability $110,100 The final liability is the total base liability after adjusting for ability to pay, economic benefit, other factors, and maximum and minimum liabilities. EXHIBIT C Factors in Determining Administrative Civil Liability CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION UNAUTHORIZED WASTEWATER DISCHARGE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO The State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Enforcement Policy (Enforcement Policy) establishes a methodology for assessing administrative civil liability. Use of the methodology addresses the factors required by Water Code sections 13327 and 13385 subdivision (e). Each factor in the Enforcement Policy and its corresponding value for the violation is presented below. The Enforcement Policy should be used as a companion document in conjunction with this exhibit since the penalty methodology and definition of terms are not replicated herein. A copy of the Enforcement Policy can be found at: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxx/water_issues/programs/enforcement/docs/enf_policy_final111709.pdf Alleged Violation The City and County of San Francisco (Discharger) owns and operates the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant (Southeast Plant). This plant treats municipal and industrial wastewater and urban stormwater runoff collected from the Discharger’s east-side combined sewer system. Violation C – 200,000 Gallons Discharge of Chlorinated Treated Wastewater On July 19, 2014, during dry weather, the Discharger violated Effluent Limitation IV.A.1 for total residual chlorine of Order R2-2013-0029 by discharging approximately 200,000 gallons of secondary treated wastewater with chlorine residual to Lower San Francisco Bay from the Southeast Plant. Effluent Limitation IV.A.1 requires that during dry weather the Discharger shall comply with 0.0 mg/L total residual chlorine effluent limitation. The discharge consisted of 30,000 gallons of wastewater with residual chlorine levels of up to 0.41 mg/L followed by 170,000 gallons with residual chlorine levels off the Discharger’s chart scale above 5.0 mg/L (Wastewater Discharge Incidents 2014, SFPUC staff presentation, September 23, 2014). The cause of the discharge is operator error. Contrary to the Discharger’s standard practice, an operator failed to thoroughly remove all super-chlorinated wash water from an offline chlorine contact chamber before putting that chamber back into service (5-Day Written Report, July 24, 2014). PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION Harm or Potential Harm to Beneficial Uses for Discharge Violations 0 to 1 Harm or Potential for Harm: negligible to minor The first portion of the 200,000-gallon discharge posed negligible harm, and the latter portion posed minor harm. The Enforcement Policy definition for negligible harm is “no actual or potential harm to beneficial uses.” The definition for minor harm is “no observed impacts but potential impacts ” The beneficial uses potentially impacted by chlorinated wastewater would be aquatic biota habitat. The following are the evidence considered in concluding a negligible to minor harm to beneficial uses: • Discharger reported no observed impacts to beneficial uses during and immediately after discharge event. • The impacts were somewhat mitigated by the fact that the discharge was to D-001 Pier 80, which is 810 feet offshore, 43 feet deep and equipped with an 18-port diffuser modeled to achieve an acute 51:1 dilution. This means that the initial 30,000-gallon portion of the discharge (with chlorine level at up to 0.41 mg/l) was 0.008 mg/L after initial dilution; the latter 170,000-gallon portion (with chlorine level off the chart above 5 mg/L for up to 17 minutes) was 0.098 mg/L or greater after initial dilution. The U.S. EPA acute criterion for residual chlorine is 0.019 mg/L. Physical, Chemical, Biological, or Thermal Characteristics Degree of Toxicity 3 Degree of Toxicity: above moderate The 200,000 gallon discharge posed an above moderate risk to receptors because the discharge fits the Policy definition that “… the discharged material exceed[s] known risk factors ….” The discharge was only partially dechlorinated wastewater. The residual chlorine concentration in the discharge was above the upper limit of the monitoring instrument and pegged at 5 mg/L for up to 17 minutes. Chlorine exhibits toxicity to aquatic life even at low concentrations. The U.S. EPA Water Quality Criterion for chlorine to prevent acute (lethal) effects to aquatic life is 0.019 mg/L.

Susceptibility to Cleanup. no The discharge was not susceptible to cleanup because the discharge quickly comingled with receiving waters. Per Gallon Factor for Discharge Violations 0.025 Deviation from Requirement: major This multiplier is from Tables 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Policy and is based on the sum of the above factors and a deviation from requirements of major. The Enforcement Policy definition for major deviation states as follows: “… rendering the prohibition ineffective in its essential functions.” The discharge violated a permit prohibition that, among other things, prohibits discharges unless the discharge is disinfectedwithout any dechlorination. The entire discharge was not disinfected (i.e., not chlorinated and dechlorinated). Thus, PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION the prohibition was rendered ineffective for that dayduring the incident. Adjustment for High Volume Discharges $2/gal For this violation, a high volume adjustment applies because the discharge PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION High Volume Discharges volume for the violation was high in that it was at over two one million gallons, and the violation also it occurred during wet weather. Consistent with the Enforcement Policy, a maximum per gallon liability of $2, rather than $10, is appropriate, and would not result in an inappropriately small penalty. Initial Liability $111,200 80,200 The initial liability is calculated as follows: Per Gallon Factor (above) multiplied by gallons discharged to surface water (minus 1,000 gallons) multiplied by the maximum per gallon liability (as adjusted above), plus Per Day Factor (above) multiplied by the maximum per day liability ($10,000) multiplied by the number of days of discharge. Initial Liability: (2,219,000 1,599,000 gal x $2/gal x 0.025 + $10,000/day x 1 day x 0.025) = $111,200 80,200 Adjustments for Discharger Conduct Culpability 1.0 For this violation, a higher culpability is appropriate because the failure to disinfect dechlorinate the wastewater was due to the Discharger’s Chief-on-Watch inappropriately ordering the operator to close the manual disinfection line. This operator had started manual gravity flow disinfection in accordance with Standard Operation Procedure for power outages, but then closed it as ordered. As for the power outage that instigated the need for manual dechlorination, a lower culpability is appropriate because the discharge occurred due to a fluke power outage. This outage occurred when the main breaker tripped and completely shut down power to the Southeast Plant. The trip in the main breaker was caused by a drop in the overall electrical load demand. The reason for the drop in electrical load demand is unknown. This occurred in an electrical system upgrade to install protective relays at the Discharger’s primary electrical substation as required by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) standards. The higher and lower culpabilities balance out to a neutral overall culpability for the this violation. Cleanup and Cooperation 0.9 For this violation, a credit of ten percent decrease (i.e., 0.9) from neutral is appropriate because the Discharger thoroughly investigated and found the reason for the power outage and took action to minimize its chance of recurrence. It doubled the timing sequence (to 2 seconds, from 1 second) of the protective relays before tripping of the main breakers would occur. Increasing this timing sequence reduces the possibility of a future switch- based power outage. Furthermore, while backup power would not have prevented the operator error, the Discharger plans to install, or has installed, a backup generator for the disinfection system that would eliminate the need for manual operation during future power outages. These corrective measures are “above and beyond” what is expected from the Discharger considering that the primary cause of the unauthorized discharge was operator error. PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION No additional credit is provided for the following measures because they are required by the OrderR2-2013-0029: PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION •  The Discharger was reasonably responsive to Regional Water Board staff requests for information after the discharge event as required by the Permitevent. •  The Discharger took reasonable and necessary measures in response to the operator error cause of the undisinfected chlorinated discharge. This includes emphasis on the correct disinfection procedures in trainings and posting a “Quick Response” placard at the dosing station. Though not a requirement of the OrderR2-2013-0029, the Discharge also took disciplinary action against the Chief-on-Watch who failed to correctly follow established dechlorination procedures. The Chief-on-Watch is no longer employed by the Discharger. History of Violations 1.1 The Discharger has a history of violation. The Regional Water Board assessed an administrative civil liability in the amount of $626,000 against the Discharger for discharging approximately 475,000 gallons of raw sewage combined with stormwater from a manhole near the intersection of the Great Highway and Balboa Street, San Francisco, to Ocean Beach (Order R2-2007- 0001). Total Base Liability $110,100 79,400 Each applicable factor, relating to the Discharger’s conduct, is multiplied by the Initial Liability (above) for the each violation to determine the Total Base Liability as follows: Total Base Liability: $111,200 80,200 x 1 x 0.9 x 1.1 = $110,088 79,398 (rounded to $110,10079,400) Ability to Pay and Continue in Business No adjust- ment The Discharger has not demonstrated an inability to pay the proposed amount. The Discharger is responsible for and oversees the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) which operates the Southeast Plant). According to SFPUC’s Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget report, the total budget for the three SFPUC Enterprises, including Enterprises (Power, Water and Wastewater Wastewater) is $939.6 million. Economic Benefit None The Regional Water Board Prosecution Staff did not find a significant economic benefit associated with the violations. The alleged violations occurred due to power outages and human errors which have no direct association with economic benefit. Other Factors as Justice May Require None $0.0 No other factors considered. Maximum and Minimum Liabilities Maximum Liability $22.2 16 million Water Code section 13385 allows up to $10,000 for each day in which the violation occurs; and $10 for each gallon exceeding 1,000 gallons that is discharged and not cleaned up. The maximum liability is based on the PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION unauthorized wastewater discharge totaling 2.22 of 1.6 million gallons for a total of one violation day. PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION Minimum Liability $0.0 The violation is not subject to mandatory minimum penalties per Water Code section 13385(h) and (i), and the Discharger did not benefit economically from the violation. Thus, zero minimum liability is determined for this violation. Final Liability $110,100 79,400 The final liability is the total base liability after adjusting for ability to pay, economic benefit, other factors, and maximum and minimum liabilities. EXHIBIT C B Factors in Determining Administrative Civil Liability CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION UNAUTHORIZED WASTEWATER DISCHARGE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO The State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Enforcement Policy (Enforcement Policy) establishes a methodology for assessing administrative civil liability. Use of the methodology addresses the factors required by Water Code sections 13327 and 13385 subdivision (e). Each factor in the Enforcement Policy and its corresponding value for the each violation is presented below. The Enforcement Policy should be used as a companion document in conjunction with this exhibit since the penalty methodology and definition of terms are not replicated herein. A copy of the Enforcement Policy can be found at: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxx/water_issues/programs/enforcement/docs/enf_policy_final111709.pdf Alleged Violation The City and County of San Francisco (Discharger) owns and operates the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant (Southeast Plant). This plant treats municipal and industrial wastewater and urban stormwater runoff collected from the Discharger’s east-side combined sewer system. Violation C – 200,000 Gallons Discharge of Chlorinated Treated Wastewater On July 19, 2014, during dry weather, the Discharger violated Effluent Limitation IV.A.1 for total residual chlorine of Order R2-2013-0029 by discharging approximately 200,000 gallons of secondary treated wastewater with chlorine residual to Lower San Francisco Bay from the Southeast Plant. Effluent Limitation IV.A.1 requires that during dry weather the Discharger shall comply with 0.0 mg/L total residual chlorine effluent limitation. The discharge consisted of 30,000 gallons of wastewater with residual chlorine levels of up to 0.41 mg/L followed by 170,000 gallons with residual chlorine levels off the Discharger’s chart scale above 5.0 mg/L (Wastewater Discharge Incidents 2014, SFPUC staff presentation, September 23, 2014). The cause of the discharge is operator error. Contrary to the Discharger’s standard practice, an operator failed to thoroughly remove all super-chlorinated wash water from an offline chlorine contact chamber before putting that chamber back into service (5-Day Written Report, July 24, 2014). PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION Harm or Potential Harm to Beneficial Uses for Discharge Violations 0 to 1 Harm or Potential for Harm: negligible to minor The first portion of the 200,000-gallon discharge posed negligible harm, and the latter portion posed minor harm. The Enforcement Policy definition for negligible harm is “no actual or potential harm to beneficial uses.” The definition for minor harm is “no observed impacts but potential impacts ” The beneficial uses potentially impacted by chlorinated wastewater would be aquatic biota habitat. The following are the evidence considered in concluding a negligible to minor harm to beneficial uses: • Discharger reported no observed impacts to beneficial uses during and immediately after discharge event. • The impacts were somewhat mitigated by the fact that the discharge was to D-001 Pier 80, which is 810 feet offshore, 43 feet deep and equipped with an 18-port diffuser modeled to achieve an acute 51:1 dilution. This means that the initial 30,000-gallon portion of the discharge (with chlorine level at up to 0.41 mg/l) was 0.008 mg/L after initial dilution; the latter 170,000-gallon portion (with chlorine level off the chart above 5 mg/L for up to 17 minutes) was 0.098 mg/L or greater after initial dilution. The U.S. EPA acute criterion for residual chlorine is 0.019 mg/L. Physical, Chemical, Biological, or Thermal Characteristics Degree of Toxicity 3 Degree of Toxicity: above moderate The 200,000 gallon discharge posed an above moderate risk to receptors because the discharge fits the Policy definition that “… the discharged material exceed[s] known risk factors ….” The discharge was only partially dechlorinated wastewater. The residual chlorine concentration in the discharge was above the upper limit of the monitoring instrument and pegged at 5 mg/L for up to 17 minutes. Chlorine exhibits toxicity to aquatic life even at low concentrations. The U.S. EPA Water Quality Criterion for chlorine to prevent acute (lethal) effects to aquatic life is 0.019 mg/L.

Susceptibility to Cleanup. no The discharge was not susceptible to cleanup because the discharge quickly comingled with receiving waters. Per Gallon Factor for Discharge Violations 0.025 Deviation from Requirement: major This multiplier is from Tables 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Policy and is based on the sum of the above factors and a deviation from requirements of major. The Enforcement Policy definition for major deviation states as follows: “… rendering the prohibition ineffective in its essential functions.” The discharge violated a permit prohibition that, among other things, prohibits discharges unless the discharge is disinfectedwithout any dechlorination. The entire discharge was not disinfected (i.e., not chlorinated and dechlorinated). Thus, PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION the prohibition was rendered ineffective for that dayduring the incident. Adjustment for High Volume Discharges $2/gal For this violation, a high volume adjustment applies because the discharge PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION High Volume Discharges volume for the violation was high in that it was at over two one million gallons, and the violation also it occurred during wet weather. Consistent with the Enforcement Policy, a maximum per gallon liability of $2, rather than $10, is appropriate, and would not result in an inappropriately small penalty. Initial Liability $111,200 80,200 The initial liability is calculated as follows: Per Gallon Factor (above) multiplied by gallons discharged to surface water (minus 1,000 gallons) multiplied by the maximum per gallon liability (as adjusted above), plus Per Day Factor (above) multiplied by the maximum per day liability ($10,000) multiplied by the number of days of discharge. Initial Liability: (2,219,000 1,599,000 gal x $2/gal x 0.025 + $10,000/day x 1 day x 0.025) = $111,200 80,200 Adjustments for Discharger Conduct Culpability 1.0 For this violation, a higher culpability is appropriate because the failure to disinfect dechlorinate the wastewater was due to the Discharger’s Chief-on-Watch inappropriately ordering the operator to close the manual disinfection line. This operator had started manual gravity flow disinfection in accordance with Standard Operation Procedure for power outages, but then closed it as ordered. As for the power outage that instigated the need for manual dechlorination, a lower culpability is appropriate because the discharge occurred due to a fluke power outage. This outage occurred when the main breaker tripped and completely shut down power to the Southeast Plant. The trip in the main breaker was caused by a drop in the overall electrical load demand. The reason for the drop in electrical load demand is unknown. This occurred in an electrical system upgrade to install protective relays at the Discharger’s primary electrical substation as required by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) standards. The higher and lower culpabilities balance out to a neutral overall culpability for the this violation. Cleanup and Cooperation 0.9 For this violation, a credit of ten percent decrease (i.e., 0.9) from neutral is appropriate because the Discharger thoroughly investigated and found the reason for the power outage and took action to minimize its chance of recurrence. It doubled the timing sequence (to 2 seconds, from 1 second) of the protective relays before tripping of the main breakers would occur. Increasing this timing sequence reduces the possibility of a future switch- based power outage. Furthermore, while backup power would not have prevented the operator error, the Discharger plans to install, or has installed, a backup generator for the disinfection system that would eliminate the need for manual operation during future power outages. These corrective measures are “above and beyond” what is expected from the Discharger considering that the primary cause of the unauthorized discharge was operator error. PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION No additional credit is provided for the following measures because they are required by the OrderR2-2013-0029: PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION • The Discharger was reasonably responsive to Regional Water Board staff requests for information after the discharge event as required by the Permitevent. • The Discharger took reasonable and necessary measures in response to the operator error cause of the undisinfected chlorinated discharge. This includes emphasis on the correct disinfection procedures in trainings and posting a “Quick Response” placard at the dosing station. Though not a requirement of the OrderR2-2013-0029, the Discharge also took disciplinary action against the Chief-on-Watch who failed to correctly follow established dechlorination procedures. The Chief-on-Watch is no longer employed by the Discharger. History of Violations 1.1 The Discharger has a history of violation. The Regional Water Board assessed an administrative civil liability in the amount of $626,000 against the Discharger for discharging approximately 475,000 gallons of raw sewage combined with stormwater from a manhole near the intersection of the Great Highway and Balboa Street, San Francisco, to Ocean Beach (Order R2-2007- 0001). Total Base Liability $110,100 79,400 Each applicable factor, relating to the Discharger’s conduct, is multiplied by the Initial Liability (above) for the each violation to determine the Total Base Liability as follows: Total Base Liability: $111,200 80,200 x 1 x 0.9 x 1.1 = $110,088 79,398 (rounded to $110,10079,400) Ability to Pay and Continue in Business No adjust- ment The Discharger has not demonstrated an inability to pay the proposed amount. The Discharger is responsible for and oversees the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) which operates the Southeast Plant). According to SFPUC’s Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget report, the total budget for the three SFPUC Enterprises, including Enterprises (Power, Water and Wastewater Wastewater) is $939.6 million. Economic Benefit None The Regional Water Board Prosecution Staff did not find a significant economic benefit associated with the violations. The alleged violations occurred due to power outages and human errors which have no direct association with economic benefit. Other Factors as Justice May Require None $0.0 No other factors considered. Maximum and Minimum Liabilities Maximum Liability $22.2 16 million Water Code section 13385 allows up to $10,000 for each day in which the violation occurs; and $10 for each gallon exceeding 1,000 gallons that is discharged and not cleaned up. The maximum liability is based on the PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION unauthorized wastewater discharge totaling 2.22 of 1.6 million gallons for a total of one violation day. PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION Minimum Liability $0.0 The violation is not subject to mandatory minimum penalties per Water Code section 13385(h) and (i), and the Discharger did not benefit economically from the violation. Thus, zero minimum liability is determined for this violation. Final Liability $110,100 79,400 The final liability is the total base liability after adjusting for ability to pay, economic benefit, other factors, and maximum and minimum liabilities. EXHIBIT C B Factors in Determining Administrative Civil Liability CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION UNAUTHORIZED WASTEWATER DISCHARGE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO The State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Enforcement Policy (Enforcement Policy) establishes a methodology for assessing administrative civil liability. Use of the methodology addresses the factors required by Water Code sections 13327 and 13385 subdivision (e). Each factor in the Enforcement Policy and its corresponding value for the each violation is presented below. The Enforcement Policy should be used as a companion document in conjunction with this exhibit since the penalty methodology and definition of terms are not replicated herein. A copy of the Enforcement Policy can be found at: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxx/water_issues/programs/enforcement/docs/enf_policy_final111709.pdf Alleged Violation The City and County of San Francisco (Discharger) owns and operates the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant (Southeast Plant). This plant treats municipal and industrial wastewater and urban stormwater runoff collected from the Discharger’s east-side combined sewer system. Violation C – 200,000 Gallons Discharge of Chlorinated Treated Wastewater On July 19, 2014, during dry weather, the Discharger violated Effluent Limitation IV.A.1 for total residual chlorine of Order R2-2013-0029 by discharging approximately 200,000 gallons of secondary treated wastewater with chlorine residual to Lower San Francisco Bay from the Southeast Plant. Effluent Limitation IV.A.1 requires that during dry weather the Discharger shall comply with 0.0 mg/L total residual chlorine effluent limitation. The discharge consisted of 30,000 gallons of wastewater with residual chlorine levels of up to 0.41 mg/L followed by 170,000 gallons with residual chlorine levels off the Discharger’s chart scale above 5.0 mg/L (Wastewater Discharge Incidents 2014, SFPUC staff presentation, September 23, 2014). The cause of the discharge is operator error. Contrary to the Discharger’s standard practice, an operator failed to thoroughly remove all super-chlorinated wash water from an offline chlorine contact chamber before putting that chamber back into service (5-Day Written Report, July 24, 2014). PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION Harm or Potential Harm to Beneficial Uses for Discharge Violations 0 to 1 Harm or Potential for Harm: negligible to minor The first portion of the 200,000-gallon discharge posed negligible harm, and the latter portion posed minor harm. The Enforcement Policy definition for negligible harm is “no actual or potential harm to beneficial uses.” The definition for minor harm is “no observed impacts but potential impacts ” The beneficial uses potentially impacted by chlorinated wastewater would be aquatic biota habitat. The following are the evidence considered in concluding a negligible to minor harm to beneficial uses: • Discharger reported no observed impacts to beneficial uses during and immediately after discharge event. • The impacts were somewhat mitigated by the fact that the discharge was to D-001 Pier 80, which is 810 feet offshore, 43 feet deep and equipped with an 18-port diffuser modeled to achieve an acute 51:1 dilution. This means that the initial 30,000-gallon portion of the discharge (with chlorine level at up to 0.41 mg/l) was 0.008 mg/L after initial dilution; the latter 170,000-gallon portion (with chlorine level off the chart above 5 mg/L for up to 17 minutes) was 0.098 mg/L or greater after initial dilution. The U.S. EPA acute criterion for residual chlorine is 0.019 mg/L. Physical, Chemical, Biological, or Thermal Characteristics Degree of Toxicity 3 Degree of Toxicity: above moderate The 200,000 gallon discharge posed an above moderate risk to receptors because the discharge fits the Policy definition that “… the discharged material exceed[s] known risk factors ….” The discharge was only partially dechlorinated wastewater. The residual chlorine concentration in the discharge was above the upper limit of the monitoring instrument and pegged at 5 mg/L for up to 17 minutes. Chlorine exhibits toxicity to aquatic life even at low concentrations. The U.S. EPA Water Quality Criterion for chlorine to prevent acute (lethal) effects to aquatic life is 0.019 mg/L.

Susceptibility to Cleanup. no The discharge was not susceptible to cleanup because the discharge quickly comingled with receiving waters. Per Gallon Factor for Discharge Violations 0.025 Deviation from Requirement: major This multiplier is from Tables 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Policy and is based on the sum of the above factors and a deviation from requirements of major. The Enforcement Policy definition for major deviation states as follows: “… rendering the prohibition ineffective in its essential functions.” The discharge violated a permit prohibition that, among other things, prohibits discharges unless the discharge is disinfected. The entire discharge was not disinfected (i.e., not chlorinated and dechlorinated). Thus, the prohibition was rendered ineffective for that day. Adjustment for $2/gal For this violation, a high volume adjustment applies because the discharge PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION High Volume Discharges volume for the violation was high in that it was over two million gallons, and the violation also occurred during wet weather. Consistent with the Enforcement Policy, a maximum per gallon liability of $2, rather than $10, is appropriate, and would not result in an inappropriately small penalty. Initial Liability $111,200 The initial liability is calculated as follows: Per Gallon Factor (above) multiplied by gallons discharged to surface water (minus 1,000 gallons) multiplied by the maximum per gallon liability (as adjusted above), plus Per Day Factor (above) multiplied by the maximum per day liability ($10,000) multiplied by the number of days of discharge. Initial Liability: (2,219,000 gal x $2/gal x 0.025 + $10,000/day x 1 day x 0.025) = $111,200 Adjustments for Discharger Conduct Culpability 1.0 For this violation, a higher culpability is appropriate because the failure to disinfect the wastewater was due to the Discharger’s Chief-on-Watch inappropriately ordering the operator to close the manual disinfection line. This operator had started manual gravity flow disinfection in accordance with Standard Operation Procedure for power outages, but then closed it as ordered. As for the power outage that instigated the need for manual dechlorination, a lower culpability is appropriate because the discharge occurred due to a fluke power outage. This outage occurred when the main breaker tripped and completely shut down power to the Southeast Plant. The trip in the main breaker was caused by a drop in the overall electrical load demand. The reason for the drop in electrical load demand is unknown. This occurred in an electrical system upgrade to install protective relays at the Discharger’s primary electrical substation as required by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) standards. The higher and lower culpabilities balance out to a neutral overall culpability for the violation. Cleanup and Cooperation 0.9 For this violation, a credit of ten percent decrease (i.e., 0.9) from neutral is appropriate because the Discharger thoroughly investigated and found the reason for the power outage and took action to minimize its chance of recurrence. It doubled the timing sequence (to 2 seconds, from 1 second) of the protective relays before tripping of the main breakers would occur. Increasing this timing sequence reduces the possibility of a future switch- based power outage. Furthermore, while backup power would not have prevented the operator error, the Discharger plans to install, or has installed, a backup generator for the disinfection system that would eliminate the need for manual operation during future power outages. These corrective measures are “above and beyond” what is expected from the Discharger considering that the primary cause of the unauthorized discharge was operator error. No additional credit is provided for the following measures because they are required by the Order: PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION •  The Discharger was reasonably responsive to Regional Water Board staff requests for information after the discharge event as required by the Permit. •  The Discharger took reasonable and necessary measures in response to the operator error cause of the undisinfected discharge. This includes emphasis on the correct disinfection procedures in trainings and posting a “Quick Response” placard at the dosing station. Though not a requirement of the Order, the Discharge also took disciplinary action against the Chief-on-Watch who failed to correctly follow established dechlorination procedures. The Chief-on-Watch is no longer employed by the Discharger. History of Violations 1.1 The Discharger has a history of violation. The Regional Water Board assessed an administrative civil liability in the amount of $626,000 against the Discharger for discharging approximately 475,000 gallons of raw sewage combined with stormwater from a manhole near the intersection of the Great Highway and Balboa Street, San Francisco, to Ocean Beach (Order R2-2007- 0001). Total Base Liability $110,100 Each applicable factor, relating to the Discharger’s conduct, is multiplied by the Initial Liability (above) for the violation to determine the Total Base Liability as follows: Total Base Liability: $111,200 x 1 x 0.9 x 1.1 = $110,088 (rounded to $110,100) Ability to Pay and Continue in Business No adjust- ment The Discharger has not demonstrated an inability to pay the proposed amount. The Discharger is responsible for and oversees the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) which operates the Southeast Plant. According to SFPUC’s Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget report, the total budget for the three SFPUC Enterprises, including Power, Water and Wastewater is $939.6 million. Economic Benefit None The Regional Water Board Prosecution Staff did not find a significant economic benefit associated with the violations. The alleged violations occurred due to power outages and human errors which have no direct association with economic benefit. Other Factors as Justice May Require None 0.0 No other factors considered. Maximum and Minimum Liabilities Maximum Liability $22.2 million Water Code section 13385 allows up to $10,000 for each day in which the violation occurs; and $10 for each gallon exceeding 1,000 gallons that is discharged and not cleaned up. The maximum liability is based on the PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION unauthorized wastewater discharge totaling 2.22 million gallons for a total of one violation day. Minimum Liability $0.0 The violation is not subject to mandatory minimum penalties per Water Code section 13385(h) and (i), and the Discharger did not benefit economically from the violation. Thus, zero minimum liability is determined for this violation. Final Liability $110,100 The final liability is the total base liability after adjusting for ability to pay, economic benefit, other factors, and maximum and minimum liabilities. EXHIBIT C Factors in Determining Administrative Civil Liability CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION UNAUTHORIZED WASTEWATER DISCHARGE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO The State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Enforcement Policy (Enforcement Policy) establishes a methodology for assessing administrative civil liability. Use of the methodology addresses the factors required by Water Code sections 13327 and 13385 subdivision (e). Each factor in the Enforcement Policy and its corresponding value for the violation is presented below. The Enforcement Policy should be used as a companion document in conjunction with this exhibit since the penalty methodology and definition of terms are not replicated herein. A copy of the Enforcement Policy can be found at: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxx/water_issues/programs/enforcement/docs/enf_policy_final111709.pdf Alleged Violation The City and County of San Francisco (Discharger) owns and operates the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant (Southeast Plant). This plant treats municipal and industrial wastewater and urban stormwater runoff collected from the Discharger’s east-side combined sewer system. Violation C – 200,000 Gallons Discharge of Chlorinated Treated Wastewater On July 19, 2014, during dry weather, the Discharger violated Effluent Limitation IV.A.1 for total residual chlorine of Order R2-2013-0029 by discharging approximately 200,000 gallons of secondary treated wastewater with chlorine residual to Lower San Francisco Bay from the Southeast Plant. Effluent Limitation IV.A.1 requires that during dry weather the Discharger shall comply with 0.0 mg/L total residual chlorine effluent limitation. The discharge consisted of 30,000 gallons of wastewater with residual chlorine levels of up to 0.41 mg/L followed by 170,000 gallons with residual chlorine levels off the Discharger’s chart scale above 5.0 mg/L (Wastewater Discharge Incidents 2014, SFPUC staff presentation, September 23, 2014). The cause of the discharge is operator error. Contrary to the Discharger’s standard practice, an operator failed to thoroughly remove all super-chlorinated wash water from an offline chlorine contact chamber before putting that chamber back into service (5-Day Written Report, July 24, 2014). PENALTY FACTOR VALUE DISCUSSION Harm or Potential Harm to Beneficial Uses for Discharge Violations 0 to 1 Harm or Potential for Harm: negligible to minor The first portion of the 200,000-gallon discharge posed negligible harm, and the latter portion posed minor harm. The Enforcement Policy definition for negligible harm is “no actual or potential harm to beneficial uses.” The definition for minor harm is “no observed impacts but potential impacts ” The beneficial uses potentially impacted by chlorinated wastewater would be aquatic biota habitat. The following are the evidence considered in concluding a negligible to minor harm to beneficial uses: •  Discharger reported no observed impacts to beneficial uses during and immediately after discharge event. •  The impacts were somewhat mitigated by the fact that the discharge was to D-001 Pier 80, which is 810 feet offshore, 43 feet deep and equipped with an 18-port diffuser modeled to achieve an acute 51:1 dilution. This means that the initial 30,000-gallon portion of the discharge (with chlorine level at up to 0.41 mg/l) was 0.008 mg/L after initial dilution; the latter 170,000-gallon portion (with chlorine level off the chart above 5 mg/L for up to 17 minutes) was 0.098 mg/L or greater after initial dilution. The U.S. EPA acute criterion for residual chlorine is 0.019 mg/L. Physical, Chemical, Biological, or Thermal Characteristics Degree of Toxicity 3 Degree of Toxicity: above moderate The 200,000 gallon discharge posed an above moderate risk to receptors because the discharge fits the Policy definition that “… the discharged material exceed[s] known risk factors ….” The discharge was only partially dechlorinated wastewater. The residual chlorine concentration in the discharge was above the upper limit of the monitoring instrument and pegged at 5 mg/L for up to 17 minutes. Chlorine exhibits toxicity to aquatic life even at low concentrations. The U.S. EPA Water Quality Criterion for chlorine to prevent acute (lethal) effects to aquatic life is 0.019 mg/L.