Banning City Council
February 25, 2025

1749
Activity ID Activity Name Planned
Duration
Start Finish Total Float
P1D.1160 Initial Baseline Cost Model - Draft 20 04-Mar-25 31-Mar-25 72P1D.1170 Initial Baseline Cost Model - Draft - City Rev 10 01-Apr-25 14-Apr-25 72 30% Cost Estimate / Cost Update #1 30 28-Apr-25 09-Jun-25 63 P1D.1180 30% Cost Estimate - Draft 20 28-Apr-25 23-May-25 63P1D.1190 30% Cost Estimate - Draft - City Rev 10 27-May-25 09-Jun-25 63 GMP / 60% Cost Estimate 60 09-Jul-25 01-Oct-25 43
P1D.1280 Phase 2 GMP / 60% Cost Estimate - Draft 20 09-Jul-25 05-Aug-25 43P1D.1290 Phase 2 GMP / 60% Cost Estimate - Draft - City Review 20 06-Aug-25 03-Sep-25 43P1D.1310 Negotiate GMP 20 04-Sep-25 01-Oct-25 43P1D.1320 Phase 2 GMP - Final 10 18-Sep-25 01-Oct-25 43 Phase 2 CPM Schedules 140 28-Apr-25 13-Nov-25 142
Initial Phase 2 Schedule - 30% 30 28-Apr-25 09-Jun-25 63 P1D.1200 P2 Schedule - 30% Draft 20 28-Apr-25 23-May-25 63P1D.1210 P2 Schedule - 30% Draft - City Review 10 27-May-25 09-Jun-25 63 Draft Baseline Phase 2 Schedule 50 09-Jul-25 17-Sep-25 53 P1D.1340 P2 Schedule - GMP/60% Draft 20 09-Jul-25 05-Aug-25 43P1D.1350 P2 Schedule - GMP/60% Draft - City Review 10 06-Aug-25 19-Aug-25 53P1D.1360 P2 Schedule - GMP/60% Update 20 20-Aug-25 17-Sep-25 53 Final Baseline Phase 2 Schedule 30 02-Oct-25 13-Nov-25 142 P1D.1260 P2 Schedule - Final Draft 20 02-Oct-25 29-Oct-25 142P1D.1270 P2 Schedule - Final Draft - City Review 10 30-Oct-25 13-Nov-25 142 Task 2.2: GMP Development 60 09-Jul-25 01-Oct-25 43
Phase 2 GMP / Proposal Documents 60 09-Jul-25 01-Oct-25 43 P1D.1850 Draft Start-up, Commission, & Training Plan - Draft 40 09-Jul-25 03-Sep-25 53P1D.1860 Risk Register - Update 40 09-Jul-25 03-Sep-25 53P1D.1870 Phase 2 Org Chart 20 09-Jul-25 05-Aug-25 53P1D.1300 Phase 2 Amendment - Draft 20 06-Aug-25 03-Sep-25 53P1D.1840 Quality Management Plan - Draft 20 06-Aug-25 03-Sep-25 53P1D.1330 Phase 2 Amendment - Final 10 18-Sep-25 01-Oct-25 43 Task 3.0: Meeting & Reports 701 02-Jan-25 14-Oct-27 52
Task 3.1: Kick-off Meeting/Workshop 1 02-Jan-25 02-Jan-25 46 P1D.1370 Kick-off Meeting 1 02-Jan-25 02-Jan-25 46
Task 3.2: Progress Meetings & Reports 700 02-Jan-25 14-Oct-27 52 Progress Meetings 700 02-Jan-25 14-Oct-27 52
P1D.1460 Bi-Weekly Progress Meetings 700 02-Jan-25 14-Oct-27 52 Technical Collaborations / Workshops 230 16-Jan-25 15-Dec-25 127 P1D.1380 WS - MBR & Disinfection Workshop 1 16-Jan-25 16-Jan-25 66P1D.1390 WS - Site Layout Workshop 1 14-Feb-25 14-Feb-25 46P1D.1400 WS - Permitting Collaboration 1 24-Feb-25 24-Feb-25 72P1D.1410 WS - VE Workshop 1 03-Mar-25 03-Mar-25 72P1D.1420 WS - 30% Design Review 1 12-May-25 12-May-25 61P1D.1430 WS - 60% Design Workshop 1 23-Jul-25 23-Jul-25 93P1D.1440 WS - GMP Workshop 1 06-Aug-25 06-Aug-25 83P1D.1450 WS - 90% Design Workshop 1 14-Nov-25 14-Nov-25 146P1D.1880 WS - Final Design Workshop 1 15-Dec-25 15-Dec-25 127 D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 2025 2026 2027
Initial Baseline Cost Model - Draft
Initial Baseline Cost Model - Draft - City Rev
30% Cost Estimate - Draft
30% Cost Estimate - Draft - City Rev
Phase 2 GMP / 60% Cost Estimate - Draft
Phase 2 GMP / 60% Cost Estimate - Draft - City Review
Negotiate GMPPhase 2 GMP - Final
P2 Schedule - 30% Draft
P2 Schedule - 30% Draft - City Review
P2 Schedule - GMP/60% Draft
P2 Schedule - GMP/60% Draft - City Review
P2 Schedule - GMP/60% Update
P2 Schedule - Final Draft
P2 Schedule - Final Draft - City Review
Draft Start-up, Commission, & Training Plan - DraftRisk Register - Update Phase 2 Org Chart
Phase 2 Amendment - DraftQuality Management Plan - Draft Phase 2 Amendment - Final
Kick-off Meeting
Bi-Weekly Progress
WS - MBR & Disinfection Workshop
WS - Site Layout Workshop
WS - Permitting Collaboration
WS - VE Workshop
WS - 30% Design Review
WS - 60% Design Workshop
WS - GMP Workshop
WS - 90% Design Workshop
WS - Final Design Workshop
City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Project APPENDIX A - Proposed Phase 1 Design & Phase 2 Construction Schedule 09-Oct-24 Actual Level of EffortActual Work
Remaining WorkCritical Remaining Work
Milestone TASK filter: All Activities

1750
Activity ID Activity Name Planned
Duration
Start Finish Total Float
Task 3.3: Project Status Reports & Monthly Invoicing 700 02-Jan-25 14-Oct-27 52 P1D.1470 Monthly PSRs & Invoicing 700 02-Jan-25 14-Oct-27 52 Task 3.4: Risk Management Workshop 21 28-Apr-25 27-May-25 56 P1D.1890 Risk Register - Draft 20 28-Apr-25 23-May-25 56P1D.1480 WS - Risk Management Workshop 1 27-May-25 27-May-25 56 Task 3.5: Constructability Review Workshops 36 03-Jun-25 23-Jul-25 92 P1D.1490 WS - Constructability Workshop #1 1 03-Jun-25 03-Jun-25 56P1D.1500 WS - Constructability Workshop #2 1 23-Jul-25 23-Jul-25 92 Task 3.6: SCADA Development & Scoping Workshops 120 18-Feb-25 06-Aug-25 161 P1D.1510 WS - SCADA Workshop #1 1 18-Feb-25 18-Feb-25 46P1D.1520 WS - SCADA Workshop #2 1 24-Mar-25 24-Mar-25 67P1D.1530 WS - SCADA Workshop #3 1 18-Jun-25 18-Jun-25 56P1D.1540 WS - SCADA Workshop #4 1 06-Aug-25 06-Aug-25 161 Task 4.0: Preliminary Investigations & Support 360 02-Jan-25 08-Jun-26 322 Task 4.1: Potholing & Cultural Monitoring 35 16-Jan-25 10-Mar-25 78 P1D.1550 Potholing 5 16-Jan-25 24-Jan-25 78P1D.1560 Potholing Report 30 24-Jan-25 10-Mar-25 78 Task 4.2: Topographic Survey (Aerial, Title Report, Boundary Summary) 40 16-Jan-25 17-Mar-25 73 P1D.1570 Survey 20 16-Jan-25 14-Feb-25 73P1D.1580 Survey Report 20 14-Feb-25 17-Mar-25 73 Task 4.3: Environmental Support (IS-MND) 30 02-Jan-25 14-Feb-25 48 P1D.1590 Environmental Support 30 02-Jan-25 14-Feb-25 48 Task 4.4: Geotechnical Investigation 65 16-Jan-25 18-Apr-25 48 P1D.1600 Geotechnical Report - Draft 30 16-Jan-25 03-Mar-25 53P1D.1610 Geotechnical Report -Draft-City Rev 10 03-Mar-25 17-Mar-25 53P1D.1620 Geotechnical Report - Final 20 24-Mar-25 18-Apr-25 48 Task 4.5: Permitting Support 280 28-Apr-25 08-Jun-26 322 City of Banning 80 09-Jul-25 29-Oct-25 157
P1D.1750 County Traffic Control Permit 40 09-Jul-25 03-Sep-25 83P1D.1760 Community Development 30 09-Jul-25 19-Aug-25 152P1D.1770 Building Permit 60 06-Aug-25 29-Oct-25 157P1D.1780 Public Works Coordination 20 06-Aug-25 03-Sep-25 142P1D.1790 Encroachment Permit Coordination 20 06-Aug-25 03-Sep-25 83 County of Riverside 150 09-Jul-25 12-Feb-26 397
P1D.1630 Health Dept. - Solid Waste Facility Reqs 20 09-Jul-25 05-Aug-25 162P1D.1640 Flood Control & Water Conservation District 40 09-Jul-25 03-Sep-25 142P1D.1650 Transport. & Land Management Agency & Planning 30 06-Aug-25 17-Sep-25 132P1D.1660 Fire Dept. - Hazardous Material Business Plan 40 16-Dec-25 12-Feb-26 397 CA State Waterboard R7: Colorado River 90 24-Jun-25 29-Oct-25 152 Stormwater 50 24-Jun-25 03-Sep-25 142
P1D.1670 Industrial User Waste Discharge Permits 50 24-Jun-25 03-Sep-25 142P1D.1680 Construction General Permit 40 09-Jul-25 03-Sep-25 83P1D.1690 SWPPP Plan Development 40 09-Jul-25 03-Sep-25 83P1D.1700 SWPPP Updates assoc. w/Industrial Activities 30 23-Jul-25 03-Sep-25 142 Recycled Water 60 06-Aug-25 29-Oct-25 152
P1D.1710 Title 22 Eng. Report for Prod., Dist. & Use of Rec. Water 60 06-Aug-25 29-Oct-25 152 D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 2025 2026 2027
Monthly PSRs & Invo
Risk Register - Draft
WS - Risk Management Workshop
WS - Constructability Workshop #1
WS - Constructability Workshop #2
WS - SCADA Workshop #1
WS - SCADA Workshop #2
WS - SCADA Workshop #3
WS - SCADA Workshop #4
Potholing
Potholing Report
Survey
Survey Report
Environmental Support
Geotechnical Report - Draft
Geotechnical Report -Draft-City Rev
Geotechnical Report - Final
County Traffic Control Permit
Community Development
Building Permit
Public Works CoordinationEncroachment Permit Coordination Health Dept. - Solid Waste Facility Reqs
Flood Control & Water Conservation District
Transport. & Land Management Agency & Planning
Fire Dept. - Hazardous Material Business Plan
Industrial User Waste Discharge PermitsConstruction General PermitSWPPP Plan DevelopmentSWPPP Updates assoc. w/Industrial Activities Title 22 Eng. Report for Prod., Dist. & Use of Rec. Water City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Project APPENDIX A - Proposed Phase 1 Design & Phase 2 Construction Schedule 09-Oct-24 Actual Level of EffortActual Work
Remaining WorkCritical Remaining Work
Milestone TASK filter: All Activities

1751
Activity ID Activity Name Planned
Duration
Start Finish Total Float
P1D.1720 Title 27 Eng. Report for Brine Evap Ponds (if req'd) 60 06-Aug-25 29-Oct-25 152 South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) 280 28-Apr-25 08-Jun-26 322 P1D.1730 Authority to Construct Permit 120 28-Apr-25 15-Oct-25 53P1D.1740 Permit to Operate (After Construction) 120 16-Dec-25 08-Jun-26 322 Energy Tax Credits / Incentives 20 24-Feb-25 21-Mar-25 48 P1D.1800 Energy Tax Credits / Incentives Support 20 24-Feb-25 21-Mar-25 48 CONSTRUCTION 519 02-Oct-25 26-Oct-27 43
Construction Phase 2A - Early Work 395 02-Oct-25 30-Apr-27 68 Early Procurement 139 02-Oct-25 23-Apr-26 308
Early Administative Tasks 138 02-Oct-25 22-Apr-26 309
C2A.1000 Procure Early Works Subcontractors & Suppliers 60 02-Oct-25 30-Dec-25 44C2A.1010 Coordinate w/ Banning Elect Utility / SCPPA) 120 30-Oct-25 22-Apr-26 315 Prepare Early Submittals & Submit 119 30-Oct-25 23-Apr-26 187 C2A.1030 P/S General Piping & Valves 20 30-Oct-25 26-Nov-25 114C2A.1040 P/S Concrete Mix Design 20 30-Oct-25 26-Nov-25 50C2A.1020 P/S Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Aeration Basin / UV SOG 10 30-Oct-25 13-Nov-25 48C2A.1050 P/S Electrical Materials - General 10 30-Oct-25 12-Nov-25 45C2A.1060 P/S Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Balance 40 14-Nov-25 14-Jan-26 191C2A.1070 P/S Pre-Eng. Metal Buildings & Canopies (PEMBs) 60 30-Dec-25 26-Mar-26 190C2A.1080 P/S Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Equipment 80 30-Dec-25 23-Apr-26 105C2A.1100 P/S Fine Screens & Washer Compactors 60 30-Dec-25 26-Mar-26 205C2A.1110 P/S Fine & Course Bubble Diffuser Systems 80 30-Dec-25 23-Apr-26 70C2A.1120 P/S MBR Air Scour Systems 80 30-Dec-25 23-Apr-26 190C2A.1130 P/S Electrical Gear & Equip (VFDs, MCCs, PLCs, etc.) 60 30-Dec-25 26-Mar-26 45C2A.1170 P/S UV System 80 30-Dec-25 23-Apr-26 161C2A.1180 P/S Aeration Blowers 80 30-Dec-25 23-Apr-26 70 Early Submittal Review & Approval 130 13-Nov-25 21-May-26 186 C2A.1470 R/A Electrical Materials - General 10 13-Nov-25 26-Nov-25 45C2A.1440 R/A Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Aeration Basin / UV SOG 10 14-Nov-25 01-Dec-25 48C2A.1450 R/A General Piping & Valves 10 01-Dec-25 12-Dec-25 114C2A.1460 R/A Concrete Mix Design 10 01-Dec-25 12-Dec-25 50C2A.1480 R/A Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Balance 10 15-Jan-26 29-Jan-26 191C2A.1490 R/A Fine Screens & Washer Compactors 20 26-Mar-26 23-Apr-26 205C2A.1500 R/A Pre-Eng. Metal Buildings & Canopies (PEMBs) 20 26-Mar-26 23-Apr-26 190C2A.1510 R/A Electrical Gear & Equip (VFDs, MCCs, PLCs, etc.) 20 26-Mar-26 23-Apr-26 45C2A.1560 R/A Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Equipment 20 23-Apr-26 21-May-26 105C2A.1580 R/A Fine & Course Bubble Diffuser Systems 20 23-Apr-26 21-May-26 70C2A.1590 R/A MBR Air Scour Systems 20 23-Apr-26 21-May-26 190C2A.1600 R/A UV System 20 23-Apr-26 21-May-26 161C2A.1610 R/A Aeration Blowers 20 23-Apr-26 21-May-26 70 Early Fabrication & Delivery Release 361 01-Dec-25 30-Apr-27 70 C2A.1220 F/D Electrical Materials - General 10 01-Dec-25 12-Dec-25 45C2A.1200 F/D Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Aeration Basin / UV SOG 10 01-Dec-25 15-Dec-25 49C2A.1210 F/D General Piping & Valves 60 15-Dec-25 11-Mar-26 114 D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 2025 2026 2027
Title 27 Eng. Report for Brine Evap Ponds (if req'd)
Authority to Construct Permit
Permit to Operate (After Construction)
Energy Tax Credits / Incentives Support
Procure Early Works Subcontractors & Suppliers
Coordinate w/ Banning Elect Utility / SCPPA)
P/S General Piping & ValvesP/S Concrete Mix Design
P/S Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Aeration Basin / UV SOGP/S Electrical Materials - General P/S Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Balance
P/S Pre-Eng. Metal Buildings & Canopies (PEMBs)
P/S Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Equipment
P/S Fine Screens & Washer Compactors
P/S Fine & Course Bubble Diffuser SystemsP/S MBR Air Scour Systems P/S Electrical Gear & Equip (VFDs, MCCs, PLCs, etc.)
P/S UV SystemP/S Aeration Blowers
R/A Electrical Materials - General
R/A Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Aeration Basin / UV SOG R/A General Piping & ValvesR/A Concrete Mix Design
R/A Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Balance
R/A Fine Screens & Washer CompactorsR/A Pre-Eng. Metal Buildings & Canopies (PEMBs)R/A Electrical Gear & Equip (VFDs, MCCs, PLCs, etc.) R/A Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) EquipmentR/A Fine & Course Bubble Diffuser SystemsR/A MBR Air Scour SystemsR/A UV SystemR/A Aeration Blowers F/D Electrical Materials - General
F/D Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Aeration Basin / UV SOG F/D General Piping & Valves
City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Project APPENDIX A - Proposed Phase 1 Design & Phase 2 Construction Schedule 09-Oct-24 Actual Level of EffortActual Work
Remaining WorkCritical Remaining Work
Milestone TASK filter: All Activities

1752
Activity ID Activity Name Planned
Duration
Start Finish Total Float
C2A.1230 F/D Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Balance 20 29-Jan-26 27-Feb-26 191C2A.1250 F/D Electrical Gear & Equip (VFDs, MCCs, PLCs, etc.) 260 23-Apr-26 30-Apr-27 45C2A.1260 F/D Fine Screens & Washer Compactors 120 23-Apr-26 13-Oct-26 205C2A.1270 F/D Pre-Eng. Metal Buildings & Canopies (PEMBs) 60 23-Apr-26 20-Jul-26 190C2A.1300 F/D Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Equipment 200 21-May-26 05-Mar-27 105C2A.1320 F/D UV Sytem 120 21-May-26 10-Nov-26 161C2A.1330 F/D MBR Air Scour Systems 120 21-May-26 10-Nov-26 190C2A.1340 F/D Fine & Course Bubble Diffuser Systems 200 21-May-26 05-Mar-27 70C2A.1350 F/D Aeration Blowers 240 21-May-26 30-Apr-27 70 Mobilization 6 30-Oct-25 06-Nov-25 43
C2A.1370 Mobilization 5 30-Oct-25 05-Nov-25 44C2A.1380 Set-up Traffic Control 1 30-Oct-25 30-Oct-25 43C2A.1400 Install Temp Facilities (Trailers, Toilets, Parking, etc.) 5 30-Oct-25 06-Nov-25 44C2A.1390 Install SWPPP BMPs 3 30-Oct-25 04-Nov-25 44 Early Civil Site Work 30 06-Nov-25 22-Dec-25 163
C2A.1410 Clear & Grub @ Site 5 06-Nov-25 13-Nov-25 44C2A.1420 Mass EXC @ Aeration Basins (elev 2109') 15 13-Nov-25 08-Dec-25 44C2A.1430 Mass EXC @ UV Basin (elev 2120') 10 08-Dec-25 22-Dec-25 163 Early Aeration Basins / Reactors 1-3 Work 160 08-Dec-25 27-Jul-26 44 C2A.1620 Cut & Grade - Aeration Basins 1-3 5 08-Dec-25 15-Dec-25 44C2A.1630 Install BG Utility Piping 5 15-Dec-25 22-Dec-25 44C2A.1640 ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit 15 15-Dec-25 07-Jan-26 44C2A.1650 F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Deck - Aeration Basin 1-3 150 22-Dec-25 27-Jul-26 44 Construction Phase 2B 464 23-Dec-25 26-Oct-27 43
Procurement 239 23-Dec-25 04-Dec-26 193
Administrative Tasks 40 23-Dec-25 20-Feb-26 149
C2B.2350 Design - Issue For Construction Docs 10 23-Dec-25 07-Jan-26 122C2B.2360 Procure Misc Subcontractors & Suppliers 40 23-Dec-25 20-Feb-26 149 Prepare Submittals & Submit 60 20-Feb-26 15-May-26 235
C2A.1140 P/S Digester Heat Exchangers 60 20-Feb-26 15-May-26 208C2A.1150 P/S MBR Chemical Feed Systems - Citric Acid/Hypo 60 20-Feb-26 15-May-26 169C2A.1190 P/S Rotary Drum Thickener (RDT) Equipment 60 20-Feb-26 15-May-26 239C2B.2280 P/S RAS Pumps 60 20-Feb-26 15-May-26 209C2B.2290 P/S Permeate Backwash Pumps 60 20-Feb-26 15-May-26 186C2B.2300 P/S Permeate Tanks (Bolted Steel) 40 20-Feb-26 17-Apr-26 249C2B.2310 P/S Plant Water Pumps 60 20-Feb-26 15-May-26 155C2B.2320 P/S Polymer Feed Pumps 60 20-Feb-26 15-May-26 179C2B.2330 P/S Chemical Feed Tanks 40 20-Feb-26 17-Apr-26 259C2B.2340 P/S WAS Pumps 60 20-Feb-26 15-May-26 179C2A.1160 P/S Grit / Cyclone Unit 60 23-Feb-26 15-May-26 149C2A.1670 P/S Digester Hot Water Boiler 40 23-Feb-26 17-Apr-26 223C2A.1700 P/S Primary Clarifier Equipment 60 23-Feb-26 15-May-26 194C2A.1730 P/S Grit Pumps 60 23-Feb-26 15-May-26 209 Review & Approve Submittals 40 17-Apr-26 15-Jun-26 225
C2B.2230 R/A Permeate Tanks 10 17-Apr-26 01-May-26 249
D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 2025 2026 2027
F/D Concrete Reinforcing (Rebar) - Balance
F/D Electrical Gear & Equip (VFDs, MCCs, P
F/D Fine Screens & Washer Compactors
F/D Pre-Eng. Metal Buildings & Canopies (PEMBs)
F/D Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Equipment
F/D UV SytemF/D MBR Air Scour Systems
F/D Fine & Course Bubble Diffuser Systems
F/D Aeration Blowers
Mobilization
Set-up Traffic Control
Install Temp Facilities (Trailers, Toilets, Parking, etc.) Install SWPPP BMPs
Clear & Grub @ Site
Mass EXC @ Aeration Basins (elev 2109')
Mass EXC @ UV Basin (elev 2120')
Cut & Grade - Aeration Basins 1-3
Install BG Utility Piping
ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit
F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Deck - Aeration Basin 1-3
Design - Issue For Construction Docs
Procure Misc Subcontractors & Suppliers
P/S Digester Heat ExchangersP/S MBR Chemical Feed Systems - Citric Acid/HypoP/S Rotary Drum Thickener (RDT) EquipmentP/S RAS PumpsP/S Permeate Backwash Pumps P/S Permeate Tanks (Bolted Steel)
P/S Plant Water PumpsP/S Polymer Feed Pumps
P/S Chemical Feed Tanks
P/S WAS PumpsP/S Grit / Cyclone Unit
P/S Digester Hot Water Boiler
P/S Primary Clarifier EquipmentP/S Grit Pumps
R/A Permeate Tanks
City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Project APPENDIX A - Proposed Phase 1 Design & Phase 2 Construction Schedule 09-Oct-24 Actual Level of EffortActual Work
Remaining WorkCritical Remaining Work
Milestone TASK filter: All Activities

1753
Activity ID Activity Name Planned
Duration
Start Finish Total Float
C2B.2260 R/A Chemical Feed Tanks 10 17-Apr-26 01-May-26 259C2A.1680 R/A Digester Hot Water Boiler 10 20-Apr-26 01-May-26 223C2A.1520 R/A Digester Heat Exchangers 10 15-May-26 01-Jun-26 208C2A.1530 R/A MBR Chemical Feed Systems - Citric Acid/Hypo 20 15-May-26 15-Jun-26 169C2A.1550 R/A Rotary Drum Thickener Equipment 10 15-May-26 01-Jun-26 239C2B.2210 R/A RAS Pumps 10 15-May-26 01-Jun-26 209C2B.2220 R/A Permeate Backwash Pumps 10 15-May-26 01-Jun-26 186C2B.2240 R/A Plant Water Pumps 10 15-May-26 01-Jun-26 155C2B.2250 R/A Polymer Feed Pumps 10 15-May-26 01-Jun-26 179C2B.2270 R/A WAS Pumps 10 15-May-26 01-Jun-26 179C2A.1290 R/A Grit / Cyclone Unit 10 18-May-26 01-Jun-26 149C2A.1710 R/A Primary Clarifier Equipment 10 18-May-26 01-Jun-26 194C2A.1740 R/A Grit Pumps 10 18-May-26 01-Jun-26 209 Fabrication & Delivery 149 01-May-26 04-Dec-26 193
C2B.2180 F/D Chemical Feed Tanks 60 01-May-26 28-Jul-26 259C2B.2200 F/D Permeate Tanks 60 01-May-26 28-Jul-26 249C2A.1690 F/D Digester Hot Water Boiler 60 04-May-26 28-Jul-26 223C2A.1240 F/D Digester Heat Exchangers 60 01-Jun-26 25-Aug-26 208C2A.1360 F/D Rotary Drum Thickener Equipment 60 01-Jun-26 25-Aug-26 239C2B.2140 F/D Permeate Backwash Pumps 120 01-Jun-26 18-Nov-26 186C2B.2150 F/D RAS Pumps 120 01-Jun-26 18-Nov-26 209C2B.2160 F/D Plant Water Pumps 120 01-Jun-26 18-Nov-26 155C2B.2170 F/D Polymer Feed Pumps 120 01-Jun-26 18-Nov-26 179C2B.2190 F/D WAS Pumps 120 01-Jun-26 18-Nov-26 179C2A.1660 F/D Grit / Cyclone Unit 120 02-Jun-26 19-Nov-26 149C2A.1720 F/D Primary Clarifier Equipment 80 02-Jun-26 23-Sep-26 194C2A.1750 F/D Grit Pumps 60 02-Jun-26 25-Aug-26 209C2A.1280 F/D MBR Chemical Feed Systems - Citric Acid/Hypo 120 15-Jun-26 04-Dec-26 169 Civil Site Work 421 07-Jan-26 30-Aug-27 88
Misc Site Work 251 08-Sep-26 30-Aug-27 88
C2B.2370 Mass BF @ Aeration Basins (elev 2118-2120') 5 08-Sep-26 15-Sep-26 44C2B.2380 DEMO - Exst DSL btwn Digesters 2 & 3 3 07-Oct-26 12-Oct-26 315C2B.2390 Mass BF @ UV Basin (elev 2125') 5 05-Jan-27 11-Jan-27 114C2B.2400 Mass BF @ Fine Screen Structure (elev 2125') 5 24-Feb-27 03-Mar-27 54C2B.2410 Mass BF @ Membrane Tanks (elev 2125') 5 24-Mar-27 31-Mar-27 44C2B.2420 F/R/P Misc Site Concrete @ MBR Facilities 15 20-Jul-27 09-Aug-27 88C2B.2440 Patch AC Pave @ Existing Plant 5 10-Aug-27 16-Aug-27 88C2B.2430 Install New AC Paving @ MBR Facilities 10 17-Aug-27 30-Aug-27 88 Below Grade Pipe Installation 305 12-Mar-26 20-May-27 160 C2B.2450 D/L/B RES & PW 10 12-Mar-26 25-Mar-26 343C2B.2490 D/L/B DSL Piping for Digesters 10 02-Jul-26 17-Jul-26 292C2B.2500 D/L/B TSL from TSL Pmps to DIG 2 3 17-Jul-26 22-Jul-26 292C2B.2510 PLANT SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in - DIG 2 to TSL 1 22-Jul-26 23-Jul-26 292C2B.2520 SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in DSL Digesters 1-3 1 22-Jul-26 23-Jul-26 292 D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 2025 2026 2027
R/A Chemical Feed TanksR/A Digester Hot Water Boiler
R/A Digester Heat Exchangers
R/A MBR Chemical Feed Systems - Citric Acid/Hypo
R/A Rotary Drum Thickener EquipmentR/A RAS PumpsR/A Permeate Backwash PumpsR/A Plant Water PumpsR/A Polymer Feed PumpsR/A WAS PumpsR/A Grit / Cyclone UnitR/A Primary Clarifier EquipmentR/A Grit Pumps F/D Chemical Feed TanksF/D Permeate TanksF/D Digester Hot Water Boiler F/D Digester Heat ExchangersF/D Rotary Drum Thickener Equipment F/D Permeate Backwash PumpsF/D RAS PumpsF/D Plant Water PumpsF/D Polymer Feed PumpsF/D WAS PumpsF/D Grit / Cyclone Unit F/D Primary Clarifier Equipment
F/D Grit Pumps
F/D MBR Chemical Feed Systems - Citric Acid/Hypo
Mass BF @ Aeration Basins (elev 2118-2120')
DEMO - Exst DSL btwn Digesters 2 & 3
Mass BF @ UV Basin (elev 2125')
Mass BF @ Fine Screen Structure (elev 2125')
Mass BF @ Membrane Tanks (elev 2125')
F/R/P Misc Site Concrete @ M
Patch AC Pave @ Existing Pl
Install New AC Paving @ M

D/L/B RES & PW
D/L/B DSL Piping for Digesters
D/L/B TSL from TSL Pmps to DIG 2
PLANT SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in - DIG 2 to TSLSHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in DSL Digesters 1-3 City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Project APPENDIX A - Proposed Phase 1 Design & Phase 2 Construction Schedule 09-Oct-24 Actual Level of EffortActual Work
Remaining WorkCritical Remaining Work
Milestone TASK filter: All Activities

1754
Activity ID Activity Name Planned
Duration
Start Finish Total Float
C2B.2530 D/L/B TSL from RDT to TSL Pmps 2 04-Dec-26 08-Dec-26 181C2B.2540 PLANT SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in - RDT-D to TSL Pmps 1 08-Dec-26 09-Dec-26 196C2B.2550 D/L/B RDT-D to INF Splitter Box 15 08-Dec-26 30-Dec-26 181C2B.2560 PLANT SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in RDT-D to INF Split Box 1 30-Dec-26 31-Dec-26 181C2B.2570 D/L/B PERM/MBR EFF Piping from Tanks to UV 10 12-Jan-27 25-Jan-27 153C2B.2580 D/L/B Emergency Bypass - UV to Perc Ponds 15 26-Jan-27 15-Feb-27 153C2B.2590 SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in EMERG. BYPASS to PERC 1 16-Feb-27 16-Feb-27 153C2B.2460 D/L/B PE Piping - EQ Pmp Sta to Fine Screen 15 03-Mar-27 24-Mar-27 104C2B.2600 D/L/B Air Piping from Blower to AB's 20 03-Mar-27 31-Mar-27 117C2B.2610 D/L/B Air Piping from Blower to MBR Tanks 15 03-Mar-27 24-Mar-27 122C2B.2470 SHUTDOWN (TEMP) & Tie-in PE to EQ Pmp Sta 1 24-Mar-27 25-Mar-27 104C2B.2480 PLANT SHUTDOWN (TEMP) & Tie-in PE to TRIK Filter INF 1 25-Mar-27 26-Mar-27 104C2B.2620 D/L/B New Stormdrain & Catch Basins 15 31-Mar-27 21-Apr-27 151C2B.2630 D/L/B PERM Piping from Pumps to Tanks 10 31-Mar-27 14-Apr-27 81C2B.2640 D/L/B RAS Piping 10 14-Apr-27 28-Apr-27 81C2B.2650 Tie-in Storm Drain @ Existing Plant 1 21-Apr-27 22-Apr-27 180C2B.2660 D/L/B WAS Piping from Pmps to Digesters 15 28-Apr-27 19-May-27 81C2B.2670 PLANT SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in - RSL/WAS at DIG 3 1 19-May-27 20-May-27 81 Site Electrical 361 07-Jan-26 07-Jun-27 69
C2B.2680 D/L/B Elec Ductbank @ Existing Plant 20 07-Jan-26 04-Feb-26 409C2B.2690 PLANT SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in New Elec @ Exst Plant 1 04-Feb-26 05-Feb-26 409C2B.2700 D/L/B New Elec Ductbank @ MBR Facilities 60 12-Jan-27 05-Apr-27 114C2B.2710 ELEC - D/L/B Ductbank - New Power Feed (if needed) 20 12-Jan-27 08-Feb-27 133C2B.2720 ELEC - Install Additional 12kV Power Feed (if needed) 20 07-May-27 04-Jun-27 69C2B.2730 PLANT SHUTDOWN - Connect New Addtl Power Feed 1 04-Jun-27 07-Jun-27 69 Aeration Basins / Reactors 1-3 276 14-May-26 14-Jun-27 69 C2B.1390 Install/Relocate Deck Shoring 50 14-May-26 27-Jul-26 64C2B.1400 Concrete Cure - Deck Aeration Basins 15 27-Jul-26 17-Aug-26 44C2B.1410 Remove Deck Shoring 5 17-Aug-26 24-Aug-26 44C2B.1420 Water Test Structure - Aeration Basins 10 24-Aug-26 08-Sep-26 44C2B.1430 Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment 60 05-Mar-27 28-May-27 70C2B.1440 ELEC - Install EI&C 40 02-Apr-27 28-May-27 70C2B.1450 Painting & Coating 5 28-May-27 04-Jun-27 70C2B.1460 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Aeration Basins 5 07-Jun-27 14-Jun-27 69 Membrane Facilities 215 15-Sep-26 26-Jul-27 48
Membrane Tanks 214 15-Sep-26 15-Jul-27 46
C2B.1740 Cut & Grade - Membrane Tanks 3 15-Sep-26 18-Sep-26 44C2B.1750 Install BG Utility Piping 5 18-Sep-26 25-Sep-26 44C2B.1760 ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit 10 18-Sep-26 02-Oct-26 44C2B.1770 F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Decks - Membrane Tanks 100 25-Sep-26 17-Feb-27 44C2B.1780 Concrete Cure - Membrane Tanks 15 17-Feb-27 10-Mar-27 44C2B.1790 Water Test Structure - Membrane Tanks 10 10-Mar-27 24-Mar-27 44C2B.1800 Install PEMB Canopy - Membrane / Permeate Pumps 15 06-May-27 27-May-27 46C2B.1810 Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment 20 27-May-27 24-Jun-27 46 D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 2025 2026 2027
D/L/B TSL from RDT to TSL Pmps
PLANT SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in - RDT-D to TSL Pmps
D/L/B RDT-D to INF Splitter Box
PLANT SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in RDT-D to INF Split Box
D/L/B PERM/MBR EFF Piping from Tanks to UV
D/L/B Emergency Bypass - UV to Perc Ponds
SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in EMERG. BYPASS to PE
D/L/B PE Piping - EQ Pmp Sta to Fine Screen
D/L/B Air Piping from Blower to AB's
D/L/B Air Piping from Blower to MBR Tanks
SHUTDOWN (TEMP) & Tie-in PE to EQ Pmp Sta
PLANT SHUTDOWN (TEMP) & Tie-in PE to TRIK
D/L/B New Stormdrain & Catch Basins
D/L/B PERM Piping from Pumps to Tanks
D/L/B RAS Piping
Tie-in Storm Drain @ Existing Plant
D/L/B WAS Piping from Pmps to Digesters
PLANT SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in - RS
D/L/B Elec Ductbank @ Existing PlantPLANT SHUTDOWN (Temp) & Tie-in New Elec @ Exst Plant D/L/B New Elec Ductbank @ MBR Facilities
ELEC - D/L/B Ductbank - New Power Feed (if needed)
ELEC - Install Additional 12kV Power Fe
PLANT SHUTDOWN - Connect New Ad
Install/Relocate Deck Shoring
Concrete Cure - Deck Aeration Basins
Remove Deck Shoring
Water Test Structure - Aeration Basins
Install Piping & Mechanical EquipmentELEC - Install EI&C Painting & Coating
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Aeratio
Cut & Grade - Membrane Tanks
Install BG Utility Piping
ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit
F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Decks - Membrane Tanks
Concrete Cure - Membrane Tanks
Water Test Structure - Membrane Tanks
Install PEMB Canopy - Membrane / Perm
Install Piping & Mechanical Equipmen
City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Project APPENDIX A - Proposed Phase 1 Design & Phase 2 Construction Schedule 09-Oct-24 Actual Level of EffortActual Work
Remaining WorkCritical Remaining Work
Milestone TASK filter: All Activities

1755
Activity ID Activity Name Planned
Duration
Start Finish Total Float
C2B.1820 ELEC - Install EI&C 20 10-Jun-27 08-Jul-27 46C2B.1830 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Membrane Tanks 5 08-Jul-27 15-Jul-27 46 Permeate Pumps 54 31-Mar-27 15-Jun-27 68
C2B.1840 Cut & Grade - Permeate Pumps 1 31-Mar-27 01-Apr-27 46C2B.1850 Install BG Utility Piping 5 01-Apr-27 08-Apr-27 46C2B.1860 ELEC - BG / In-slab Conduit 10 01-Apr-27 15-Apr-27 46C2B.1870 F/R/P SOG - Permeate Pumps 5 15-Apr-27 22-Apr-27 46C2B.1880 Concrete Cure - Permeate Pmp SOG 10 22-Apr-27 06-May-27 46C2B.1890 Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment 10 06-May-27 20-May-27 68C2B.1900 ELEC - Install EI&C 5 25-May-27 01-Jun-27 68C2B.1920 Painting & Coating 5 01-Jun-27 08-Jun-27 68C2B.1910 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Permeate Pumps 5 08-Jun-27 15-Jun-27 68 Permeate Tanks 81 31-Mar-27 26-Jul-27 48
C2B.1930 Cut & Grade - Permeate Storage Tanks 3 31-Mar-27 05-Apr-27 44C2B.1940 Install BG Utility Piping 2 05-Apr-27 07-Apr-27 44C2B.1950 ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit 3 07-Apr-27 12-Apr-27 44C2B.1960 F/R/P - SOG - Permeate Tank #1 5 12-Apr-27 19-Apr-27 44C2B.1970 Concrete Cure - Permeate Tank #1 20 19-Apr-27 17-May-27 44C2B.1980 F/R/P - SOG - Permeate Tank #2 5 19-Apr-27 26-Apr-27 49C2B.1990 Concrete Cure - Permeate Tank #2 20 26-Apr-27 24-May-27 49C2B.2000 Install Bolted Steel Tank - Permeate Tank #1 10 17-May-27 31-May-27 44C2B.2010 Water Test Tank - Permeate Tank #1 10 31-May-27 14-Jun-27 49C2B.2020 Install Bolted Steel Tank - Permeate Tank #2 10 31-May-27 14-Jun-27 44C2B.2030 Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment - Permeate Tank #1 5 14-Jun-27 21-Jun-27 49C2B.2040 Water Test Tank - Permeate Tank #2 10 14-Jun-27 28-Jun-27 44C2B.2050 ELEC - Install EI&C - Permeate Tank #1 5 21-Jun-27 28-Jun-27 49C2B.2060 Install Piping & Mechanical - Permeate Tank #2 5 28-Jun-27 05-Jul-27 44C2B.2090 Painting & Coating - Permeate Tank #1 10 28-Jun-27 12-Jul-27 49C2B.2070 ELEC - Install EI&C - Permeate Tank #2 5 05-Jul-27 12-Jul-27 44C2B.2080 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Permeate Tank #1 5 12-Jul-27 19-Jul-27 44C2B.2100 Painting & Coating - Permeate Tank #2 10 12-Jul-27 26-Jul-27 49C2B.2870 Mechancial Start-up & Testing - Permeate Tank #2 5 20-Jul-27 26-Jul-27 48 MBR Chemical Facilities 0 0
UV Dinsinfection Facility 334 20-Feb-26 11-Jun-27 70
C2B.2740 Cut & Grade - UV 5 20-Feb-26 27-Feb-26 122C2B.2750 Install BG Utility Piping 15 12-Mar-26 01-Apr-26 114C2B.2760 ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Piping 15 19-Mar-26 08-Apr-26 114C2B.2770 F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Deckss - UV 160 02-Apr-26 16-Nov-26 114C2B.2780 Install/Relocate Deck Shoring 20 20-Oct-26 16-Nov-26 114C2B.2790 Concrete Cure - SOG, Walls, Decks - UV 20 17-Nov-26 16-Dec-26 114C2B.2800 Remove Deck Shoring 2 17-Dec-26 18-Dec-26 114C2B.2810 Water Test Structure - UV 10 21-Dec-26 04-Jan-27 114C2B.2820 Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment 30 05-Jan-27 15-Feb-27 125C2B.2830 ELEC - Install EI&C 40 19-Jan-27 15-Mar-27 125 D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 2025 2026 2027
ELEC - Install EI&C
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Me
Cut & Grade - Permeate Pumps
Install BG Utility Piping
ELEC - BG / In-slab Conduit
F/R/P SOG - Permeate Pumps
Concrete Cure - Permeate Pmp SOG
Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment
ELEC - Install EI&C
Painting & Coating
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Perme
Cut & Grade - Permeate Storage Tanks
Install BG Utility Piping
ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit
F/R/P - SOG - Permeate Tank #1
Concrete Cure - Permeate Tank #1
F/R/P - SOG - Permeate Tank #2
Concrete Cure - Permeate Tank #2
Install Bolted Steel Tank - Permeate Tank
Water Test Tank - Permeate Tank #1Install Bolted Steel Tank - Permeate Ta Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment
Water Test Tank - Permeate Tank #2ELEC - Install EI&C - Permeate Tank Install Piping & Mechanical - Permea
Painting & Coating - Permeate TanELEC - Install EI&C - Permeate Ta Mechanical Start-up & Testing - P
Painting & Coating - Permeate TaMechancial Start-up & Testing - P Cut & Grade - UV
Install BG Utility Piping
ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Piping
F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Deckss - UVInstall/Relocate Deck Shoring Concrete Cure - SOG, Walls, Decks - UV
Remove Deck Shoring
Water Test Structure - UV
Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment
ELEC - Install EI&C
City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Project APPENDIX A - Proposed Phase 1 Design & Phase 2 Construction Schedule 09-Oct-24 Actual Level of EffortActual Work
Remaining WorkCritical Remaining Work
Milestone TASK filter: All Activities

1756
Activity ID Activity Name Planned
Duration
Start Finish Total Float
C2B.2840 Painting & Coating 5 16-Mar-27 22-Mar-27 125C2B.2850 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - UV 4 07-Jun-27 11-Jun-27 70 Process Bldg (Blower, Elec, Lab/Officel) 354 27-Feb-26 16-Jul-27 45 C2B.1580 Cut & Grade - Process Bldg 3 27-Feb-26 04-Mar-26 236C2B.1590 Install BG Utility Piping 10 12-Mar-26 25-Mar-26 231C2B.1600 ELEC - Install BG / In-Slab Conduit 15 19-Mar-26 08-Apr-26 231C2B.1610 F/R/P - SOG - Process Bldg 15 02-Apr-26 22-Apr-26 231C2B.1620 Concrete Cure - Process Bldg SOG 20 23-Apr-26 20-May-26 231C2B.1630 F/R/P Equipment Pads - RO/Blowers/Elec Gear 10 30-Apr-26 13-May-26 236C2B.1640 Concrete Cure - Equipment Pads 20 14-May-26 11-Jun-26 236C2B.1650 Install PEMB - Process Bldg 20 20-Jul-26 17-Aug-26 190C2B.1660 Install Building Trades - Various 60 17-Aug-26 10-Nov-26 190C2B.1670 ELEC - Building Rough-in 20 15-Sep-26 13-Oct-26 215C2B.1680 ELEC - Building Finish Electrical 20 10-Nov-26 10-Dec-26 195C2B.1690 Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment - (Blowers, etc.) 20 30-Apr-27 28-May-27 70C2B.1700 ELEC - Set Electrical Gear - Elec Rm 5 30-Apr-27 07-May-27 45C2B.1710 ELEC - Install EI&C (Blowers, etc.) 40 07-May-27 02-Jul-27 45C2B.1720 Painting & Coating - Piping 5 02-Jul-27 09-Jul-27 45C2B.1730 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Blowers 5 09-Jul-27 16-Jul-27 45 Chemical Storage Areas 280 12-Jun-26 15-Jul-27 46
C2B.1480 Cut & Grade - Chem Tanks 3 12-Jun-26 16-Jun-26 238C2B.1490 Install BG Utility Piping 5 17-Jun-26 23-Jun-26 238C2B.1500 ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit 10 24-Jun-26 08-Jul-26 238C2B.1510 F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Decks - Chem Tanks 10 01-Jul-26 15-Jul-26 238C2B.1520 Concrete Cure - SOG Chem Tanks 20 16-Jul-26 12-Aug-26 238C2B.1530 Install PEMB Canopy - Chem Tanks 10 13-Aug-26 26-Aug-26 238C2B.1540 Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment 20 04-Dec-26 04-Jan-27 169C2B.1550 ELEC - Install EI&C 20 18-Dec-26 18-Jan-27 169C2B.1560 D/L/B Chem Piping 10 31-Mar-27 14-Apr-27 107C2B.1570 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Chem Tanks 5 08-Jul-27 15-Jul-27 46 Fine Screen Facility / RAS Mixing 206 15-Sep-26 05-Jul-27 54 Fine Screen Facility 206 15-Sep-26 05-Jul-27 54
C2B.1170 Cut & Grade - Fine Screen 3 15-Sep-26 18-Sep-26 54C2B.1180 Install BG Utility Piping 5 18-Sep-26 25-Sep-26 54C2B.1190 ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit 10 25-Sep-26 09-Oct-26 54C2B.1200 F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Deck - Fine Screen Structure 60 09-Oct-26 06-Jan-27 54C2B.1210 Install Deck Shoring 5 22-Dec-26 30-Dec-26 79C2B.1220 Concrete Cure - Deck Fine Screen Structure 20 06-Jan-27 03-Feb-27 54C2B.1230 Remove Deck Shoring 5 03-Feb-27 10-Feb-27 54C2B.1240 Water Test Structure 10 10-Feb-27 24-Feb-27 54C2B.1250 Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment 20 03-Mar-27 31-Mar-27 107C2B.1260 D/L/B PE from EQ Basin Pmp Sta 10 03-Mar-27 17-Mar-27 126C2B.1270 Shutdown - Tie-in PE from EQ Pmp Sta PE to Fine Screens 1 17-Mar-27 18-Mar-27 126C2B.1280 ELEC - Install EI&C 10 31-Mar-27 14-Apr-27 107 D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 2025 2026 2027
Painting & Coating
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - UV
Cut & Grade - Process Bldg
Install BG Utility Piping
ELEC - Install BG / In-Slab Conduit
F/R/P - SOG - Process Bldg
Concrete Cure - Process Bldg SOG
F/R/P Equipment Pads - RO/Blowers/Elec Gear
Concrete Cure - Equipment Pads
Install PEMB - Process Bldg
Install Building Trades - Various
ELEC - Building Rough-in
ELEC - Building Finish Electrical
Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment - (B
ELEC - Set Electrical Gear - Elec Rm
ELEC - Install EI&C (Blowers, etc.)
Painting & Coating - Piping
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Blo
Cut & Grade - Chem Tanks
Install BG Utility Piping
ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit
F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Decks - Chem Tanks
Concrete Cure - SOG Chem Tanks
Install PEMB Canopy - Chem Tanks
Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment
ELEC - Install EI&C
D/L/B Chem Piping
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Ch
Cut & Grade - Fine Screen
Install BG Utility Piping
ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit
F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Deck - Fine Screen Structure
Install Deck Shoring
Concrete Cure - Deck Fine Screen Structure
Remove Deck Shoring
Water Test Structure
Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment
D/L/B PE from EQ Basin Pmp Sta
Shutdown - Tie-in PE from EQ Pmp Sta PE to Fine
ELEC - Install EI&C
City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Project APPENDIX A - Proposed Phase 1 Design & Phase 2 Construction Schedule 09-Oct-24 Actual Level of EffortActual Work
Remaining WorkCritical Remaining Work
Milestone TASK filter: All Activities

1757
Activity ID Activity Name Planned
Duration
Start Finish Total Float
C2B.1290 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Fine Screens Struct 5 28-Jun-27 05-Jul-27 54 RAS / Flow Mix Structure 88 03-Mar-27 05-Jul-27 54
C2B.1300 Cut & Grade - RAS 1 03-Mar-27 04-Mar-27 54C2B.1310 Install BG Utility Piping 2 04-Mar-27 08-Mar-27 54C2B.1320 ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit 2 08-Mar-27 10-Mar-27 54C2B.1330 F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Deck - RAS 40 10-Mar-27 05-May-27 54C2B.1340 Concrete Cure - RAS 20 05-May-27 02-Jun-27 54C2B.1350 Water Test Structure 10 02-Jun-27 16-Jun-27 54C2B.1360 Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment 5 16-Jun-27 23-Jun-27 54C2B.1370 ELEC - Install EI&C 3 23-Jun-27 28-Jun-27 54C2B.1380 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - RAS 5 28-Jun-27 05-Jul-27 54 Modifcations with Existing Plant Facilities 389 07-Jan-26 15-Jul-27 46 Rotary Drum Thickeners (RDTs) 338 20-Mar-26 15-Jul-27 46 C2B.1080 Cut & Grade - RDTs 2 20-Mar-26 24-Mar-26 245C2B.1090 Install BG Utility Piping 2 24-Mar-26 26-Mar-26 245C2B.1100 ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit 2 26-Mar-26 30-Mar-26 245C2B.1110 F/R/P - SOG - RDTs 10 02-Apr-26 16-Apr-26 245C2B.1120 Concrete Cure - RDTs 20 16-Apr-26 14-May-26 245C2B.1130 Install PEMB Canopy - RDTs 10 14-May-26 29-May-26 300C2B.1140 Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment 10 18-Nov-26 04-Dec-26 179C2B.1150 ELEC - Install EI&C 10 18-Dec-26 04-Jan-27 179C2B.1160 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - RDTs 5 08-Jul-27 15-Jul-27 46 Digester 110 04-May-26 07-Oct-26 244
C2B.10009 Shutdown (TEMP ) Digester 1 04-May-26 04-May-26 253C2B.10119 Digester Coating Replacement 30 04-May-26* 15-Jun-26 253C2B.1000 Cut & Grade - Heat Ex 2 14-May-26 18-May-26 245C2B.1010 Install BG Utility Piping 2 18-May-26 20-May-26 245C2B.1020 ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit 2 20-May-26 22-May-26 245C2B.1030 F/R/P - SOG - Heat Ex 5 28-May-26 04-Jun-26 245C2B.1040 Concrete Cure - SOG Heat Ex 20 04-Jun-26 02-Jul-26 245C2B.1050 Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment 5 25-Aug-26 01-Sep-26 208C2B.1060 ELEC - Install EI&C 5 23-Sep-26 30-Sep-26 244C2B.1070 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Digester 5 30-Sep-26 07-Oct-26 244 Grit Facilities 282 07-Jan-26 16-Feb-27 153
C2B.10089 Install Bypass / Temp Facilities (Temp) - if necessary 2 07-Jan-26 09-Jan-26 329C2B.10129 Shutdown (TEMP ) Grit Pumps & Grit Chamber/OF storage 1 07-Jan-26 08-Jan-26 329C2B.10019 Demo Existing Equipment & Piping 5 08-Jan-26 15-Jan-26 329C2B.10099 Modify Utility Piping 5 15-Jan-26 22-Jan-26 329C2B.10029 ELEC - Modify Exist Conduit 5 22-Jan-26 29-Jan-26 329C2B.10039 F/R/P - Modify / Install New Conc SOG/Pads 10 29-Jan-26 12-Feb-26 329C2B.10049 Concrete Cure - Grit, etc. 20 12-Feb-26 13-Mar-26 329C2B.10059 Modify Piping & Install New Mechanical Equipment 10 19-Nov-26 07-Dec-26 153C2B.10069 ELEC - Install EI&C 5 21-Dec-26 29-Dec-26 153C2B.10109 Painting & Coating 20 29-Dec-26 26-Jan-27 153 D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 2025 2026 2027
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Fine
Cut & Grade - RAS
Install BG Utility Piping
ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit
F/R/P - SOG, Walls, Deck - RAS
Concrete Cure - RAS
Water Test Structure
Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment
ELEC - Install EI&C
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - RAS
Cut & Grade - RDTs
Install BG Utility Piping
ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit
F/R/P - SOG - RDTs
Concrete Cure - RDTs
Install PEMB Canopy - RDTs
Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment
ELEC - Install EI&C
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - RD
Shutdown (TEMP ) Digester
Digester Coating Replacement
Cut & Grade - Heat Ex
Install BG Utility Piping
ELEC - Install BG / In-slab Conduit
F/R/P - SOG - Heat Ex
Concrete Cure - SOG Heat Ex
Install Piping & Mechanical Equipment
ELEC - Install EI&C
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Digester
Install Bypass / Temp Facilities (Temp) - if necessary
Shutdown (TEMP ) Grit Pumps & Grit Chamber/OF storage
Demo Existing Equipment & Piping
Modify Utility Piping
ELEC - Modify Exist Conduit
F/R/P - Modify / Install New Conc SOG/Pads
Concrete Cure - Grit, etc.

Modify Piping & Install New Mechanical Equipment
ELEC - Install EI&C
Painting & Coating
City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Project APPENDIX A - Proposed Phase 1 Design & Phase 2 Construction Schedule 09-Oct-24 Actual Level of EffortActual Work
Remaining WorkCritical Remaining Work
Milestone TASK filter: All Activities

1758
Activity ID Activity Name Planned
Duration
Start Finish Total Float
C2B.10079 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Misc 15 26-Jan-27 16-Feb-27 153 East Primary Clarifier 70 01-Sep-26 11-Dec-26 199
C2B.10149 Shutdown (TEMP ) - East Primary Clarifier 1 01-Sep-26 02-Sep-26 208C2B.10159 Demo Existing Equipment 5 02-Sep-26 10-Sep-26 208C2B.10209 Modify Piping & Install New Mechanical Equipment 20 23-Sep-26 21-Oct-26 199C2B.10219 ELEC - Install EI&C 10 21-Oct-26 04-Nov-26 199C2B.10229 Painting & Coating 20 04-Nov-26 04-Dec-26 199C2B.10239 Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Misc 5 04-Dec-26 11-Dec-26 199 Commissioning 70 20-Jul-27 26-Oct-27 43
C2B.1470 Functional Testing (30 cal Days) 20 20-Jul-27 16-Aug-27 43C2B.2880 Wastewater Start-up (30 cal Days) 20 17-Aug-27 14-Sep-27 43C2B.9999 Plant Commissiong & Acceptance 30 cal Days) 20 15-Sep-27 12-Oct-27 43C2B.2860 Acceptance Testing Report 10 13-Oct-27 26-Oct-27 43 Project Close-out 49 17-Aug-27 25-Oct-27 44
C2B.2120 Submit As-builts 10 17-Aug-27 30-Aug-27 83C2B.2110 Punchlist 40 30-Aug-27 25-Oct-27 48C2B.2130 Demobilization 10 12-Oct-27 25-Oct-27 44 D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 2025 2026 2027
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Misc
Shutdown (TEMP ) - East Primary Clarifier
Demo Existing Equipment
Modify Piping & Install New Mechanical Equipment
ELEC - Install EI&C
Painting & Coating
Mechanical Start-up & Testing - Misc
Functional Testing (30 cal Day
Wastewater Start-up (30
Plant Commissiong &
Acceptance Testing
Submit As-builts
PunchlistDemobilization
City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Project APPENDIX A - Proposed Phase 1 Design & Phase 2 Construction Schedule 09-Oct-24 Actual Level of EffortActual Work
Remaining WorkCritical Remaining Work
Milestone TASK filter: All Activities

1759
B

APPENDIX
Resumes
1760
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 1 City of Banning Appendix B | Resumes/Bios and Staff Availability Firm
W. M. Lyles. Co
Education/Academic Qualifications
BBS, Construction Management
California State University Fresno,
2001
Professional Registrations
Contractor’s License – Class A
General Engineering – State of
Hawaii
Community Involvement
ACE Mentoring Program of Central
California
Tenure with AECOM: 22
Total Years in Industry: 22
Why Joe?
9 Extensive background in
advanced water purification
systems and recycled water
projects, such as the ECAWP
9 Advanced understanding of
various delivery methods,
including PDB and DBB
9 Deep technical expertise,
particularly in SCADA
upgrades, biological
treatment, tertiary filtration,
and disinfection processes
Joe Lawrence
Project Manager
Owner/Client References
j East County Advanced Water Purification (ECAWP) Packages 1 and 3, Progressive Design-Build, Santee, CA
Client: ECAWP/Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Alfred Pedroza, PE
AWP Engineer (Owner’s Project Manager)
T: 619.540.9313 | E: [email protected]
Role: Pre-Construction and cost controls/budgeting.

To reduce the East County Water District’s reliance on water from outside sources, the East County Advanced Purification Project (ECAWP) will treat East County’s wastewater locally for potable reuse. Joe managed preconstruction, cost control and budgeting for Package 1, which involves design and construction of a water recycling facility, advanced water purification facility, visitor center, product water pump station, solids handling facility, and system integration across Packages 1-4 of the ECAWP. k Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility, Progressive Design-Build Modifications, Stockton, CA
Client: City of Stockton
Art O’Brien
T: 209.937.8787 | E: [email protected]
Role: Construction Manager.

Joe was the primary lead for this progressive design-build project that involved the construction of new influent pumping, screening, and grit removal systems; new secondary biological treatment systems; new tertiary filtration and disinfection systems; and new solids handling facilities to replace an existing oxidation pond and overland flow treatment system. Major process equipment included large vertical turbine solids handling pumps, perforated fine screens, conical tray grit removal systems, primary and secondary clarifier mechanisms, aeration blowers and diffusers, submersible mixers, tertiary disc filters, UV disinfection system, sludge centrifuge, and associated electrical, control, and SCADA upgrades.

Joe is a Senior Vice President at W. M. Lyles and Collaborative Delivery Manager with over 22 years of experience in managing and delivering large-scale water and wastewater treatment projects. He has a proven track record in pre-construction planning, cost controls, and project execution. He has extensive experience with progressive design-build and design-bid-build delivery methods, overseeing advanced water purification, wastewater treatment plant expansions, and SCADA upgrades. Joe is committed to delivering high-quality infrastructure while leading teams and managing complex project requirements. 1761
Joe Lawrence
Project Manager
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 2 City of Banning Appendix B | Resumes/Bios and Staff Availability Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade & Expansion,
Design Bid Build, Linda County Water District,
Marysville CA. Executive Sponsor for construction
of a new 5 MGD wastewater treatment plant on a 27
acre site adjacent to an existing treatment plant. New
facilities include a headworks, two primary clarifiers, four activated sludge basins, two secondary clarifiers, filter pump station, six effluent filters, sludge thickening system, sludge drying beds, sludge lagoons, site grading, and associated piping, electrical, and instrumentation
systems. Upgrades to the existing plant include the
demolition of existing facilities and modifications to the existing effluent pump station.

WWTP Tertiary Filtration, UV Disinfection and
Biosolids Improvements, City of Galt, CA. Project
Manager for expansion of 3 MGD wastewater treatment
system to 6 MGD, including tertiary filtration and
ultraviolet disinfection capabilities, biosolids dewatering facility, biosolids storage and transfer facilities, operations and electrical building, pump stations, backup power
generation, and additional infrastructure. Expedited
delivery: 12 month contract time. American Public
Works Association (APWA) Project of the Year 2010.
5 MGD WWTP Expansion and Upgrade, Design Bid
Build, City of Reedley, CA. Project Manager/Estimator
for expansion and upgrade to 5 MGD, including influent
pump station, headworks, anoxic basin recycle pump
station, oxidation ditch, RAS pump station, sludge
storage facility, effluent pump station, and secondary
clarifiers. Construction also included structural concrete, equipment delivery and installation, underground utilities, above-ground piping, and total project administration.

Copper River Wastewater Reclamation, DesignBuild, Copper River Development Co. Project Manager/ Estimator for 0.75 MGD wastewater reclamation facility, including SBR structure, chlorine contact structure,
effluent distribution structure and pump station, metal buildings, administration/laboratory building, associated equipment, and process piping.

Fresno County Juvenile Justice Facility Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Fresno County, CA. Project Engineer/
Estimator for 0.12 MGD wastewater treatment plant to
service the new Fresno County Juvenile Facility, including new concrete structures, lined storage ponds, yard piping (26’ deep), associated equipment, and process piping.
l Davis - WWTP Secondary and Tertiary
Improvements, Design-Build, Davis, CA
Client: City of Davis
Michael Lindquist
T: 530.747.8287 | E: [email protected]
Role: Role: Construction Manager.

Design-Build construction of new secondary biological
treatment systems, new tertiary filtration and disinfection systems, and new solids handling facilities to replace an existing oxidation pond and overland flow treatment
system. The secondary treatment processes consist of
four new extended aeration basins and four new 85’
diameter secondary clarifiers. Tertiary filtration and
disinfection facilities consist of four new 6 MGD disc filters, two new chlorine contact tanks, and a new sodium
hypochlorite and sodium bisulfite storage and pumping
facility. Sludge handling facilities consist of two new rotary drum thickeners, two new screw presses, chemical storage facilities, and a 48,000 SF sludge storage facility.

Also included were a new cogeneration plant, a new
emergency power generator, and numerous other
electrical, control, and SCADA upgrades.

Additional Experience
Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Upgrades,
Progressive Design-Build, Santa Cruz, CA. PreConstruction Manager. The WTP was built in 1960s and had not been significantly upgraded since the 1980s. The City recognized that in order to secure their water future, significant upgrades to the WTP had to be undertaken.

Joe is the vital link between the design, project owner, and construction teams, ensuring that the project is
well-planned, cost-effective, and set up for successful execution once construction begins. The project scope
includes: high-rate clarification through the use of
space-efficient plate settlers, ozone system, granular
activated carbon (GAC), reclaimed water clarifiers,
provisions for future UV disinfection, and new chemical feed systems; new administration and maintenance
buildings, and new ozone building; upgraded operations
building and upgraded filter gallery building; electrical upgrades; demolition of some existing buildings and
site improvements including landscaping and vehicular
access improvements. Construction is anticipated
to begin in late 2024, and substantial completion is
expected by Spring 2028.
1762
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 3 City of Banning Appendix B | Resumes/Bios and Staff Availability Firm
AECOM
Education/Academic Qualifications
PhD, Environmental Engineering,
Stanford University, 2001
MS, Environmental Engineering,
Stanford University, 1995
BS, Mechanical Engineering,
University of Chile, 1990
Professional Registrations
Professional Engineer, Civil, CA
#68471
Tenure with AECOM: 8
Total Years in Industry: 25
Why Gabriel?
9 Will lead our multi-discipline
design team through lessons
learned from collaboration on
recent and current designbuild projects with AECOM/
Lyles JV – East County AWP,
Davis, Stockton, Rialto plus
many other design-build utility
projects in California
9 Extensive experience
managing the design of MBR
and RO facilities
Gabriel Perigault, PHD, PE
Engineering Manager
Owner/Client References
j Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Progressive Design-Build Modifications, Stockton, CA
Client: City of Stockton
Art O’Brien, Project Manager
T: 916-790-0218 | E: [email protected]
Role: As Design Manager, led the design of multiple improvements to treat 40 mgd (average dry weather flow, 105 mgd peak) and meet more stringent nitrogen limits, reduce effluent salinity, and improve overall energy efficiency and operational reliability using a progressive designbuild delivery approach.

Design is complete and construction is due to be complete in 2024.

Improvements include: new influent pumping station and headworks; replacing the existing biotowers, facultative ponds and wetlands with new activated sludge secondary treatment process with nitrogen removal; replacing the existing nitrifying biotowers, DAF thickeners, gravity filters, and chlorine contact canal with new tertiary disk filters and UV disinfection; providing new dewatering facilities using centrifuge technology; new buildings for administration, engineering, laboratory, safety, operations and maintenance functions; and optimizing overall plant hydraulics to reduce the multiple pumping steps (currently 7) across the plant to only two pumping steps and rely on gravity flow for most conveyance through the treatment train.
k East County Advanced Water Purification (ECAWP) Packages 1 and 3 Progressive Design-Build, Santee, CA
Client: ECAWP/Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Alfred Pedroza, PE
AWP Engineer (Owner’s Project Manager)
T: 619.540.9313 | E: [email protected]
Role: As Design Manager for Package 3 and Engineering Advisor for Package 1, Gabe has been involved throughout the project.

Gabriel brings experience on more than 25 water/wastewater treatment plants, including process selection, piloting, detailed design, construction, start-up and commissioning, and performance validation and optimization. He will lead the design, working closely with our Project Manager Joe Lawrence and Process Technical Lead Alex Franchi and specialty design disciplines similar to our other PDB projects in California. Gabriel has a project first and client centric mindset. He is an organized, responsive and committed multi-discipline design manager with extensive experience overseeing complex water and wastewater projects.

He is an excellent communicator and is fluent in all the major disciplines with special focus on process mechanical and instrumentation.
1763
Gabriel Perigault, PHD, PE
Engineering Manager
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 4 City of Banning Appendix B | Resumes/Bios and Staff Availability Additional Experience
Wastewater Treatment Plant Progressive DesignBuild Improvements, City of Rialto, CA. Design Manager. Led the production of the Basis of Design
Report, including 50 percent design drawings, and GMP
for expanded headworks and secondary treatment
facilities, new disk filters and UV system, as well as
several retrofits to the existing thickening and solids handling facilities to provide treatment capacity for 12 mgd average annual flow. This was the first phase of the progressive design-build delivery approach selected to
procure this project. Cost $26M. (2020)
Wastewater Treatment Plant Secondary and Tertiary
Improvement Design-Build, City of Davis, CA.

Served as the Engineer-of-Record for the performance
acceptance report, which included the following process:
modified Ludzack-Ettinger Nitrogen Removal Process,
tertiary filtration with disk filters, chlorine disinfection, WAS thickening with rotatory drum thickeners, sludge
dewatering with screw presses, and miscellaneous
pumping, storage and conveyance facilities within the
existing WWTP. Cost: $72M. (2018)
Montevina Water Treatment Plant Progressive
Design-Build, Los Gatos, San Jose Water Company,
CA. As Design Lead, coordinated design activities at
project’s design center and served as process and
mechanical designer for solids handling facilities. Project included upgrading 43-year-old plant to convert the
existing 30 mgd direct filtration process to a 30 mgd
membrane filtration process. This plant is the primary
supplier of drinking water for the Town of Los Gatos and surrounding west Silicon Valley communities. Specific
duties for this progressive design-build project included coordination of design duties for the overall design
effort and detail design of thickening and dewatering
facilities and associated ancillary facilities (miscellaneous pumping and polymer storage and feed systems).

Thickening and dewatering included two gravity
thickeners and two screw presses, respectively. Cost:
$58M (2015)
Sun City Tehama Water Reclamation Facility – Pulte
Homes, Tehama, CA. Prepared a facility plan, a Title 22 engineering report, and regulatory compliance studies
and reports to secure Waste Discharge Requirements
to permit effluent disposal for agricultural irrigation for a new community in Tehama County. Conducted 30
percent design for a package MBR treatment plant
and chlorine disinfection system as well as aerated solids stabilization pond. $300,000 (2006)
The AECOM/Lyles JV is providing PDB services for the
heart of the program, which includes the design and
construction of a water reclamation facility and an
advanced water purification facility (Package 1), and
conveyance infrastructure (Package 3).
• Package 1 involves the design and construction of a
16-mgd WRF, 13.5-mgd wastewater and advanced
water purification facility, visitor center, product water pump station, and solids handling facility. Gabe is
working closely with the treatment systems design
team in a technical advisory role.
• Package 3 includes the rehabilitation and upgrading
of the Influent Pump Station and the East Mission Gorge Pump Station (new pumps, odor control systems, ferric
feed system, several metering and flow control vaults,
backup power), new WRF force main (14,000 ft open
cut, 3,500 ft horizontal directional drilling), and new residuals bypass system (pumping station and
conveyance system). Gabe served as the overall design
manager as well as the AECOM project manager for
the entire package.
l Santa Cruz WTP Progressive Design-Build, Santa
Cruz CA
Client: City of Santa Cruz
Matt Zeman, Engineering Associate
T: 629.540.9313 | E: [email protected]
Role: Design Manager.

The AECOM/Lyles JV is providing PDB services for $100M+ upgrade to the Graham Hill WTP. The WTP was built in
1960s and had not been significantly upgraded since
the 1980s. The City recognized that in order to secure
their water future, significant upgrades to the WTP had to be undertaken. Joe is the vital link between the design, project owner, and construction teams, ensuring that
the project is well-planned, cost-effective, and set up for successful execution once construction begins. The
project scope includes: high-rate clarification through the use of space-efficient plate settlers, ozone system, granular activated carbon (GAC), reclaimed water
clarifiers, provisions for future UV disinfection, and new chemical feed systems; new administration and
maintenance buildings, and new ozone building;
upgraded operations building and upgraded filter
gallery building; electrical upgrades; demolition of some existing buildings and site improvements including
landscaping and vehicular access improvements.
1764
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 5 City of Banning Appendix B | Resumes/Bios and Staff Availability Firm
AECOM
Education/Academic Qualifications
PhD, Environmental Engineering,
Johns Hopkins University, 2000
MS, Environmental Engineering,
Johns Hopkins University, 1995
BS, Civil/Chemical Engineering,
University of Maryland - College
Park, 1992
Professional Registrations
Professional Engineer, Civil, CA
#75225
Tenure with AECOM: 6
Total Years in Industry: 30
Why Alex?
9 MBR and RO design
9 Led successful designs of Title
22 projects across California
9 Lead designer for large
(>$150M) progressive designbuild projects
9 Wastewater, drinking water
and water reuse facilities
process design
Alessandro (Alex) Franchi, PHD, PE
Process Technical Lead
Owner/Client References
j Silicon Valley Clean Water, RESCU Front of Plant Progressive Design-Build Project, Redwood, CA
Client: Silicon Valley Clean Water
Teresa Herrera, P.E. – Manager
T: 650.591.7121 | E: [email protected]
Role: As Design Lead, Alex completed design to construction package level.

Progressive design-build project involving the design and construction of a new 80-mgd front of the plant facilities, including deep-lift pump station (90 feet), new headworks with screenings, grit removal, solids loadout, chemicals storage, electrical room, and connection pipeline to existing plant. k East County Advanced Water Purification Program (ECAWP) Package 1 Progressive Design-Build, Santee, CA
Client: ECAWP JPA/Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Seval Sen, PE - AWP Engineering Manager
T: 619.258.4631 | E: [email protected]
Role: Lead Process Engineer for 11.5 advanced treatment facility including MF, RO and UV/AOP.

This progressive design-build project is one of the first in the country for the augmentation of a surface water supply with treated wastewater for potable reuse. Components of Package 1 include: a 16-mgd Water Recycling Facility, an 11.5-mgd Advanced Water Purification Facility including MF, RO and UV/AOP, a solids handling facility, a product water pump station and a new visitor’s center.
l PFAS treatment System at Well OPA-1
Client: Orange County Water District
Ryan Bouley, Principal Engineer
(714) 378-8207 Email: [email protected]
Role: Project Manager and Lead Process Engineer for OPA-1 PFAS removal system.

Alex’s technical experience encompasses conventional and advanced processes in wastewater, water reuse and potable treatment including oxidation, chemical and ultraviolet disinfection (UV), membrane technologies, advanced oxidation, activated sludge, membrane biological reactors, media filtration, coagulation, headworks, and pump stations. Alex will lead the process design team in preparing deliverables and recommending technology solutions.

His most recent MBR design was for the Inland Empire Utilities Agency Regional Plant 5, where he developed the layout, preliminary design, and final design of the fine screens facilities. Alex was intimately involved with the design of two additional MBR in Southern California. Alex is currently providing services for the East County Advanced Water Purification (PDB project which includes a 4-stage bardenpho, MF, RO, and UV/AOP. 1765
Alessandro (Alex) Franchi, PHD, PE
Process Technical Lead
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 6 City of Banning Appendix B | Resumes/Bios and Staff Availability plant, including headworks upgrades, the addition of
a new 8-mgd MBR treatment train, new UV system,
equalization basin for secondary effluent, off-spec
water management, and upgrades of solids processing
facility. The plant effluent is discharged into Lake Elsinore and must meet strict standards for low phosphorous
and California Title 22 reclaimed water for recreational uses. The project included a new aeration basin and
membrane bioreactor for the expansion. Worked
extensively with EVWMD staff to evaluate and select
blower and diffuser equipment to meet the needs and
preferences of the staff. Cost $8.7M (2019)
South Coast Water Reclamation, Barbados Water
Authority, Barbados. The Barbados Water Authority
(BWA) evaluated the feasibility of upgrading its South
Coast Sewage Treatment Plant to a tertiary/advanced
treatment plant capable of producing water suitable
for groundwater recharge in a potable aquifer and/or
a non-potable aquifer, or suitable for edible food crop irrigation. The goals of the Project include: augmenting existing groundwater water supplies, mitigating climate change effects, addressing seawater intrusion and sea
level rise, diversifying potable water sources, enhancing water supply resiliency, and reducing the impact of
treated effluent on marine life and the environment. Alex led the conceptual design of a 1.6 MGD advanced water
treatment facility including disk filters, UV disinfection, ultrafiltration (UF), reverse osmosis (RO), stabilization of pH and alkalinity control, and final disinfection. Cost $140,000 (2022)
Airport Satellite Water Reclamation Plant Feasibility
Study, City of Fresno, CA. Advanced treatment process
lead for a feasibility study for a 5-mgd water reclamation facility that included MBR, RO, UV, and AOP and industrial source treatment. Water from this facility will be used for groundwater injection to recharge a depleted aquifer and public or agricultural irrigation. The intake points from the sewer system, located near a winery, discharge 800,000
gallons per day to 2.7-mgd of partially treated wastewater to the sewer system. The feasibility study evaluated the possibility of converting partially treated discharge into high-quality recycled water using membrane bioreactor
treatment, followed by UV light disinfection; and using the recycled water for irrigation of the airport golf
course, groundwater recharge, and industrial uses. Alex conducted a senior review of the membrane bioreactor
system and the advanced treatment facility. Cost $0.5M
(2019)
Preliminary design, final design services, bid phase, and engineering during construction services for a PFAS
treatment system at Well OPA-1. The treatment system
includes lead/lag ion exchange treatment system
capable of treating a flow rate of approximately 3 mgd, including appurtenant facilities. The design incorporates provisions to accommodate intermittent operations of
the well. The ion exchange vessels are located in a
depressed structural concrete pit to minimize the visual impact of the vessels on the adjacent residential
community.

Additional Experience
Regional Wastewater Control Facility Progressive
Design- Build Modifications, City of Stockton
Municipal Utilities, Stockton, CA. Senior reviewer
of UV facilities and leading the design of multiple
improvements to treat 40-mgd (average dry weather
flow, 105-mgd peak hour flow) and meet more stringent
nitrogen limits, reduce effluent salinity, and improve
overall energy efficiency and operational reliability
using a progressive design- build delivery approach.

Improvements include: new influent pumping station and
headworks; new activated sludge secondary treatment
for biological nutrient removal, including aeration system (nitrification/denitrification); new tertiary disk filters and UV disinfection; new dewatering facilities with centrifuges; new buildings for administration, engineering, laboratory, safety, operations and maintenance; new lime system;
and optimizing overall plant hydraulics. $194M (2024)
RP5 and RP1 Upgrades, Advanced Treatment, UV/
Chlorine Disinfection, and Cost Estimates, Inland
Empire Utility Agency, Chino, CA. Task lead for a multiphase project involved the design and economic analysis for expansion and upgrades at four water recycling
facilities ranging between 10 and 60 mgd. Tasks included general site planning, design, and economic analysis of wastewater treatment processes to produce California
Title 22 water. The RP-5 upgrade included the preliminary design of a 45-mgd UV facility. The groundwater injection component of the project included the predesign of a
3-mgd facility with MBR, microfiltration, reverse osmosis (RO), UV, AOP, and stabilization. Cost $11M (2019)
Regional Water Reclamation Facility Expansion and
Upgrade, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District,
Lake Elsinore, CA. UV disinfection and hydraulics
task Lead for the rehabilitation and expansion from
16- up to 26-mgd of an existing wastewater treatment
1766
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 7 City of Banning Appendix B | Resumes/Bios and Staff Availability Firm
W. M. Lyles Co.

Education/Academic Qualifications
BS, Civil Engineering,
San Diego State University, 2008
Tenure with Lyles: 7
Total Years in Industry: 15
Why Marcos?
9 Worked with AECOM staff on
design-build projects including
East County Advanced Water
Purification $260M joint
venture project
9 Worked with AECOM staff on
design-build projects including
Rialto $25M WWTP
improvements project
including site upgrades and
piping
9 San Diego County experience
includes pipeline project
consisting of upgrading of
27,000 feet of existing 72- and
75-inch pipe
9 Extensive underground utility
and pump station experience
Marcos Reyes
Construction Manager
Owner/Client References
j East County Advanced Water Purification Program (ECAWP) Package 1 Progressive Design-Build, Santee, CA
Client: ECAWP/Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Kyle Swanson
T: 619.528.4766 | E: [email protected]
Role: Marcos is the Sr. Construction Manger for the East County Advanced Purification Project (ECAWP)
This progressive design-build project is one of the first in the country for the augmentation of a surface water supply with treated wastewater for potable reuse. Components of Package 1 include: a 16-mgd Water Recycling Facility, an 11.5-mgd Advanced Water Purification Facility including MF, RO and UV/AOP, a solids handling facility, a product water pump station and a new visitor’s center.
k Inland Empire Utilities Agency – Regional WRP No. 5 Liquids Expansion to 22.5 MGD, DDB, Chino, CA
Client: Inland Empire Utilities Agency
Jason Marseilles
T: 909.993.1600 | E: [email protected]
Role: As Construction Manager, Marcos worked on the construction of the upgrade and expansion of the Agency’s existing RP-5 plant from a conventional activated sludge wastewater treatment plant to a 22.5 MGD water recycling treatment plant, and with the capability of being further expanded to 30 MGD in the future. The major items of work to be performed include the liquids treatment processes, solids treatment processes, common facilities, and off-site facilities. Construction Cost $329M.

Marcos is a dynamic professional with a strong foundation in engineering principles, he has progressively advanced within the wastewater treatment plant construction industry, starting as a Superintendent in 2009 and transitioning through roles as Project Engineer/ Assistant Project Manager before assuming his current position as Project Manager.

Through his career journey, he has demonstrated adeptness in project management, engineering, and leadership, consistently delivering successful outcomes on various projects. His background includes experience working alongside AECOM on the ECAWP Advanced Water Purification Project and Rialto WWTP Improvements project. He brings a combination of technical expertise and managerial skills to drive projects to completion efficiently and effectively.
1767
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 8 City of Banning Appendix B | Resumes/Bios and Staff Availability Marcos Reyes
Construction Manager
Nob Hill Improvements Project for SDCWA, DBB,
San Diego, CA. Project Engineer. Construction of
approximately 900ft of two sections of existing pipelines with one pipeline at a lower elevation. The new pipelines were constructed by tunneling and excavation. This
allowed the water authority the ability to operate and
maintain its pipelines and structures, eliminating the
likelihood of future uncontrolled release of water in the area. The project added a new access road to Nob Hill,
and as a result, SDCWA vehicles will no longer need to
use the private roads for access to SDCWA facilities. Cost $10M. (2017)
Pipeline 3 Desal Relining San Marcos to Twin Oaks
Project for SDCWA, DBB, San Diego, CA. Project
Engineer. The Pipeline 3 Desalination Relining project
included upgrading 27,000 feet of existing 72- and
75-inch diameter pipe with new welded steel liners;
fabricating and installing 494 feet of 69-inch outside
diameter welded steel pipe at seven access portals;
fabricating and installing 448 feet of 67 ¾-inch outside diameter welded steel pipe at eight access portals;
and replacing 47 feet of 72-inch steel pipe with new 67 ¾-inch outside diameter welded steel pipe. As a result
of this project, this accommodated pressurized flows
from the new Carlsbad 50MG Seawater Desalination RO
Treatment Plant. Cost $25M. (2015)
I-405 Sepulveda Pass Widening, DB, Los Angeles,
CA. Superintendent. This $721 million design-build project involved constructing one 10-mile high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane northbound on Interstate 405 from Interstate 10 to U.S.-101. The project realigned existing on and
off ramps, reconstruct or modify 23 bridge and ramp
structures, build approximately 18 miles of retaining walls, and perform road improvements on the adjacent city
streets. Cost $721M. (2014)
l Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements, Design-Build, Rialto, CA
Client: City of Rialto
Thomas Crowley, Utilities Manager
T: 909.421.7210 | E: [email protected]
Role: As the Construction Manger, Macros worked on the
$25M Design-Build expansion project, is a Joint Venture between W. M. Lyles Co. and AECOM.

Construction activities include the expansion to an
existing conventional WWTP, increasing the treatment
capacity from 7.3 MGD current average to 11.7 MGD future average. Work also includes headwork’s expansion with
new bar screens, washer compacter, one primary
clarifiers, equalization basin improvements, one
secondary clarifier, cloth disc tertiary filters, chlorine contact basin, RAS Pump Station, electrical buildings and associated site electrical upgrades, instrumentation,
piping, paving, and fencing. Construction Cost $25M.

Additional Experience
Headworks and Primary Clarifier Upgrade, DBB, City
of Palm Springs, CA. Project Manager. Construction
of a new headworks facility, including new barscreens
equipment, washer compacter, grit classifiers, two 100’ diameter primary clarifiers, two scum pump stations,
one sludge degritting facility, a prefabricated electrical building and an odor control system. The new upgrades
to the existing wastewater treatment plant will increase the treatment capacity from 10.9 MGD to 21.8 MGD. Cost
$20M. (2018)
Western Riverside County Regional WW Authority
14 MGD Plant Expansion, DBB, Riverside, CA. Project
Engineer. Construction of a 6.0 MGD expansion to an
existing conventional WWTP that increases the treatment capacity up to 14.0 MGD. Construction activities
include headwork’s expansion with new bar screens,
washer compacter, grit classifier, two primary clarifiers, equalization basin, bioreactor, bio filter, secondary
clarifier, cloth disc tertiary filters, chlorine contact basin, recycle water pump station, masonry digester building,
solar drying beds and odor control system, five electrical buildings and associated site electrical, instrumentation, piping, paving, and fencing. Upgrades to the existing
plant include new centrifuges, fixed steel digester covers, odor control facilities, masonry thickener building and chemical building upgrades. Cost $26M. (2016)
What Marcos’ Clients Say
“Marcos Reyes served as the on-site construction
managerfor the $25M Rialto Progressive Design
Build WWTP with AECOM. His project first
mentality, coupled with extensive construction
knowledge, expertise and experience provided
the project with numerous well reasoned, cost
effective and workable solutions to overcome the
interface challenges on a retrofit project. Timely
and cost effective solutions to tie-ins, resolving
conflicts with existing utilities, and working out
design issues associated with an upgrade while
maintaining continuous operation of the existing
plant were invaluable.”
Bill Hanley, PE, Veolia North America
1768
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 9 City of Banning Appendix B | Resumes/Bios and Staff Availability Firm
W. M. Lyles Co.

Education/Academic Qualifications
MS, Construction Management,
Arizona State University, 2006
BS, Civil Engineering, University of
California Davis, 2004
Professional Registrations
Engineer-in-Training, CA #117946
Tenure with Lyles: 16
Total Years in Industry: 20
Why Vince?
9 Current and previous
experience working on
AECOM/Lyles JV design-build
projects including Stockton
Regional Wastewater Control
Facility Modifications
9 Experienced in innovative
preconstruction to save time
and money
9 Proven Value Engineering
results
9 Preconstruction and
construction phase oversight
for multiple water and
wastewater treatment facilities
throughout California
Vince Guillama
Preconstruction Services Manager
Owner/Client References
j East County Advanced Water Purification Program (ECAWP) Package 1 Progressive Design-Build, Santee, CA
Client: ECAWP/Padre Dam Municipal Water District
Kyle Swanson
T: 619.528.4766 | E: [email protected]
Role: Vince was the Pre-construction Manger providing first-hand constructability through the design process.

This progressive design-build project is one of the first in the country for the augmentation of a surface water supply with treated wastewater for potable reuse. Components of Package 1 include: a 16-mgd Water Recycling Facility, an 11.5-mgd Advanced Water Purification Facility including MF, RO and UV/AOP, a solids handling facility, a product water pump station and a new visitor’s center.
k Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Modifications, Progressive Design-Build, Stockton, CA
Client: City of Stockton
Deedee Antypas, Deputy Director of Wastewater Operations T: 209.937.7425 | E: [email protected]
Role: As the Pre-Construction Manager, Vince led the development of the GMP, capitalizing on his background in construction to provide firsthand constructability consulting throughout the design process.

Progressive design-build of new influent pumping, screening, and grit removal systems; new secondary biological treatment systems; tertiary filtration and disinfection systems; and solids handling facilities to replace an existing oxidation pond and overland flow treatment system. Includes installation of major process equipment such as vertical turbine pumps, perforated fine screens, conical tray grit removal systems, circular and rectangular primary and secondary clarifier mechanisms, aeration blowers and diffusers, submersible mixers, tertiary disc filters, UV disinfection system, sludge centrifuge, and associated electrical, control, and SCADA upgrades. Construction Cost $209M.

Vince brings more than 20 years of experience in the water / wastewater industry. During this time, he has overseen and provided preconstruction services for numerous design-build projects, including the $200M Stockton RWCF project, a joint venture with AECOM. His focus on communication and collaboration encourages innovation to create cost savings and gain schedule. Vince brings a unique perspective having managed design-build projects from pre-construction through completion.
1769
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 10 City of Banning Appendix B | Resumes/Bios and Staff Availability rotary drum thickeners, two new screw presses, chemical storage facilities, and a 48,000 square foot sludge
storage facility. Also included are a new cogeneration
plant, a new emergency power generator, and numerous
other electrical, control, and SCADA upgrades. Project
Cost: $71M. (2018)
Orange County Sanitation District – P1-101 Sludge
Dewatering and Odor Control Project, Orange
County, CA. Project Manager - Mechanical. Construction
of a new 32,000 SF thickening and dewatering
structure on CIDH piles, including equipment, odor
control, mechanical, fire, plumbing, electrical and
instrumentation and control systems. Addition of two
new concrete pipe tunnels along with a 1200 LF precast
screen wall and fabricated above grade pipe rack,
modifications to existing tunnel piping, rehabilitation of exiting silos and Truck Load Out Facility, as well as new underground piping, paving, demolition, and all other
site improvements required to replace the existing sludge handling systems. Construction Cost: $127M. (2019)
Regional Water Reclamation Plant Upgrade, City of
Moreno Valley, CA. Upgrade of existing 15.8 MGD water
reclamation plant to 18.5 MGD, including yard structures, headworks, influent pump station, grit basins, power
and blower buildings, chemical scrubber odor control
facility, secondary effluent pump station, tertiary effluent/ utility water pump station, tertiary effluent meter vault, acid-phase digester and fare, methane-phase digester,
digested sludge storage tanks, low pressure digester gas holder, 15 kW generator, boiler facility, electrical buildings, and related appurtenances. Construction Cost: $29.7M.
(2012)
Water Treatment Facility Improvements, City of El
Centro, CA. Expansion of existing 10.5 MGD facility to 21 MGD, including clarifier units, gravity filters, waste washwater recovery basin, raw water structure, operations and chemical buildings, dividing berm and connecting
piping of two 25 MG earthen storage reservoirs, clearwell and backwash recovery pump stations, and site
improvements including site piping, grading, paving,
electrical instrumentation, and controls. Construction
Cost: $26.6M. (2009)
l Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Upgrades,
Progressive Design-Build, Santa Cruz, CA
Client: City of Santa Cruz
Matt Zeman, Project Manager
T: 858.610.7478 | [email protected]
Role: In the role of Pre-Construction Manager, Vince is leading the development of the GMP, capitalizing on
his background in construction to provide first hand
constructability constulting throughout the design
process.

The WTP was built in 1960s and had not been
significantly upgraded since the 1980s. The City
recognized that in order to secure their water
future, significant upgrades to the WTP had to
be undertaken. Vince is leading the AECOM/Lyles
construction team, worked closely with the client
and its advisor through many iterations of layouts
and process trains to arrive at the right solution
for the City. Over 20 workshops were held on a
wide range of topics that cover unit processes and
constructability, among many others. The project
scope includes: high-rate clarification through the use of space-efficient plate settlers, ozone system, granular activated carbon (GAC), reclaimed water clarifiers,
provisions for future UV disinfection, and new chemical feed systems; new administration and maintenance
buildings, and new ozone building; upgraded
operations building and upgraded filter gallery
building; electrical upgrades; demolition of some
existing buildings and site improvements including
landscaping and vehicular access improvements.

Construction is anticipated to begin in late 2024, and
substantial completion is expected by Spring 2028.

Additional Experience
WWTP Secondary and Tertiary Improvements
Design-Build, City of Davis, CA. Estimator/Project
Manager. Design-build construction of new secondary
biological treatment systems, new tertiary filtration and disinfection systems, and new solids handling facilities to replace an existing oxidation pond and overland flow treatment system. The secondary treatment processes
consist of four new extended aeration basins and four
new 85’ diameter secondary clarifiers. Tertiary filtration and disinfection facilities consist of four new 6 MGD disc filters, two new chlorine contact tanks, and new a sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulfite storage and pumping
facility. Sludge handling facilities consist of two new Vince Guillama
Preconstruction Services Manager
1770
Staffing Availability for Banning
1771
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 12 City of Banning Appendix B | Resumes/Bios and Staff Availability Staff/Role Availabity Responsibilities Benefit to Banning Joe Lawrence
Design-Build Project Manager
Phase 1 - 75%
Phase 2 - 100%
Single point of responsibility Successful track record in DB project management, including multiple projects with AECOM (ECAWP,
Stockton, Santa Cruz)
Gabriel Perigault, PhD, PE
Design Manager
Phase 1 - 60%
Phase 2 - 30%
Manage design
development
Led the design of 25 water and wastewater treatment
plants; proven track record delivering successful DB
projects with Lyles (ECAWP, Santa Cruz)
Marcos Reyes
Construction Manager
Phase 1 - 25%
Phase 2 - 100%
Onsite construction
management
Lives within 25 miles of the project; proven track record delivering successful DBs with AECOM (Rialto, ECAWP)
Vince Guillama
Preconstruction Manager
Phase 1 - 100%
Phase 2 - 20%
Manage early works
packages, ensures budget
adherence during design
Lessons-learned managing early works packages;
proven track record delivering successful DB projects
with AECOM (Stockton, ECAWP, Davis, Santa Cruz)
Alex Franchi, PhD, PE
Treatment Process Lead
Phase 1 - 60%
Phase 2 - 25%
Treatment technology
selection/design
Led successful designs of Title 22 projects across
California; Proven track record delivering successful DB projects with Lyles (ECAWP)
Rosaida Harris
QA/QCLead
Phase 1 - 40%
Phase 2 - 40%
QA/QC management and
discipline coordination
Extensive experience in QC for both design and
construction on DB projects
Anthony Pilato
Superintendent
Phase 1 - 5%
Phase 2 - 100%
Manage onsite activities
during construction
Seasoned superintendent with extensive experience
coordinating multiple trades and managing largescale projects, such as the $57M City of Beaumont Matt Cain
Estimator/Cost Controls
Phase 1 - 80%
Phase 2 - 15%
Budget control and
management
Design-to-budget experience from Beaumont and
Rialto projects, backed by a successful track record
with AECOM on the Rialto and ECAWP projects
Ryan Priestman
Lead Scheduler
Phase 1 - 40%
Phase 2 - 40%
Project Scheduling Proven ability to work with AECOM to solve scheduling hurdles on the ECAWP DB project
Vijay Kumar
Commissioning Lead
Phase 1 - 20%
Phase 2 - 60%
Startup and commissioning
plans and coordination
Proven ability to work with AECOM on commissioning
and startup activities
Tyler Payne, SMS, CHST, CIT,
STS, CUSP - Safety Director
Phase 1 - 15%
Phase 2 -80%
Safety Management Proven ability to provide Safety Management on successful local DB projects with AECOM (ECAWP)
T.J. Catalano, PE
Structural
Phase 1 - 50%
Phase 2 - 20%
Structural engineering lead Brings experience upgrading WWTPs all aspects of structural engineering design and construction
services on DBP projects such as ECAWP.

Steven Fitzwilliam, PE
Geotechnical/Civil
Phase 1 - 50%
Phase 2 - 20%
Geotechnical and Site/Civil
Engineering
28 years of geotechnical experience, including designbuild treatment plant projects Barbara Bartholomae
Permitting Lead
Phase 1 - 50%
Phase 2 - 30%
Permit Management Proven track record delivering permitting services on successful DB projects with Lyles (ECAWP, Santa Cruz)
William Goryl, RA
Architectural
Phase 1 - 50%
Phase 2 - 20%
Architectural design 30 years of architectural experience, including Designbuild WWTPs such as Davis, CA and Rialto,A Yasser Rizk, PE
Electrical/I&C
Phase 1 - 50%
Phase 2 - 20%
Electrical and SCADA/I&C
Design
Extensive DB experience, highly skilled in electrical
design, coordination of HVAC, mechanical process,
and control systems for innovative, effective design
Karen Bettencourt, PE
Mechanical
Phase 1 - 50%
Phase 2 - 20%
Mechanical Process Design 20+ years of treatment plant mechnical process engineering, including the Stockton WWTP DB
Executive Management Board
Grant Gourley
Executive Management Board
Phase 1 - 10%
Phase 2 - 10%
Executive Oversight Decades of lessons-learned providing executive oversight on DB projects throughout CA and with
AECOM (ECAWP, Stockton, Santa Cruz, Davis
Brian Daly, PE
Executive Management Board
Phase 1 - 10%
Phase 2 - 10%
Executive Oversight National DB Leader with 30 years of DB experience, serves on all AECOM/Lyles JV Management Boards
Staffing Availability
Prior to selection of specific staff for our team, we examined the existing and projected workload of each person and confirmed their availability for this assignment. We have determined they have no obligations, either current or projected, that would prevent them from performing with excellence to meet the requirements and schedule for this project. 1772
Single Point of Contact for the AECOM/Lyles JV:

Joe Lawrence
Design-Build Project Manager
26501 Madison Avenue
Murrieta, CA 92562
916.375.1833
[email protected]
1773
Exhibit F
Permits and Approvals

1774
Exhibit F – Permits and Approvals
Agency Permit or Type of Approval Permittee
Approval
Holder
Supporting
Parties
Fee Payment
Responsibility
Anticipated Timing of Permit Submittal
California State Waterboard
Region 7: Colorado River
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
Construction General Permit
DesignBuilderDesign- Builder City Design-Builder (To be included in Phase 2 GMP)
Phase 2: Notice to Proceed (NTP)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
Construction General Permit
DesignBuilderDesign- Builder City Design-Builder (To be included in Phase 2 GMP)
Phase 2: Notice to Proceed (NTP)
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Updates - Proposed changes to the facility that may
affect the existing National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (for
DesignBuilderDesign- Builder City Design-Builder (To be included in Phase 2 GMP)
Phase 2: Notice to Proceed (NTP)
Salinity and Nitrogen Technical Memorandum DesignBuilderDesign- Builder City No Fee Payment Required Phase 1 Title 22 Engineering Report for the Production,
Distribution, and Use of Recycled Water
DesignBuilderDesign- Builder City No Fee Payment Required Phase 1 Title27 Engineering Report for Brine Evaporation
Ponds
DesignBuilderDesign- Builder City No Fee Payment Required Phase 1 Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge
Requirements
City City Design-Builder City Phase 1 (After 60% Design) Community Development Encroachment Permits (Community Develop City City Design- Builder Design-Builder (To be included in Phase 2 GMP)
Permit submission preparation Phase 1: Before 100
Percent Design Submittal
Submission and fee payment Phase 2
Building Department Building Permit (including ADA Requirements, Architectural, Electrical, Site, Fire Department and
Public Works
reviews)
DesignBuilderDesign- Builder City Design-Builder (To be included in Phase 2 GMP)
Permit submission preparation Phase 1: Before 100
Percent Design Submittal
Submission and fee payment Phase 2
Community Development Traffic Control Permits DesignBuilderDesign- Builder City Design-Builder (To be included in Phase 2 GMP)
Permit submission preparation Phase 1: Before 100
Percent Design Submittal
Submission and fee payment Phase 2
Authority to Construct DesignBuilderDesignBuilderCity Design-Builder (To be included in Phase 2 GMP)
Phase 2: NTP
Permit to Operate DesignBuilderDesignBuilderCity Design-Builder (To be included in Phase 2 GMP)
Phase 2: NTP
Department of Environmental
Health Solid Waste Facility Requirements
DesignBuilderDesignBuilderCity Design-Builder (To be
included in Phase 2 GMP)
Phase 2: NTP
Fire Department – Hazardous
Materials Division Hazardous Material Business Plan
DesignBuilderDesignBuilderCity Design-Builder (To be
included in Phase 2 GMP)
Phase 2: NTP
County of Riverside
Air District
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
City of Banning
Federal / State Agencies
1775
Exhibit H
Insurance Terms

1776
Insurance Terms

1. General Liability - Commercial General Liability (CGL) - Insurance Services Office (ISO) Commercial General Liability Coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, personal and advertising injury with limit of at least twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) per occurrence or the full per occurrence limits of the policies available, whichever is greater. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (coverage as broad as the ISO CG 25 03, or ISO CG 25 04 endorsement provided to City of Banning or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability - Insurance Services Office (ISO) Business Auto Coverage (Form CA 00 01), covering Symbol 1 (any auto) with limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for bodily injury and property damage each accident.

3. Workers' Compensation Insurance - The Contractor shall provide workers’ compensation coverage as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. Waiver of Subrogation (also known as Transfer of Rights of Recovery Against Others to Us): The Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation to obtain endorsement necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Banning, its directors, officers, employees, and authorized volunteers, for losses paid under the terms of this coverage which arise from work performed by the Named Insured for the City of Banning; this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City of Banning has received a waiver of subrogation from the insurer.

4. Builder’s Risk - (Course of Construction) if necessary- insurance utilizing an “All Risk” (Special Perils) coverage form with limits equal to the completed value of the project and no coinsurance penalty provision.

5. Professional Liability - with limits no less than $5,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $5,000,000 policy aggregate.

6. Professional Liability Claims Made Policies – include the following provisions. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

7. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work.

8. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of ten (10) years after completion of contract work.

9. Contractors’ Pollution Liability and/or Asbestos Liability and/or Errors and Omissions (if project involves environmental hazards) - with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 policy aggregate. If the Contractor maintains broader coverage and or/higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City of Banning requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the Contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City of Banning.
1777
Exhibit K
Form of Performance Bond

1778
Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2020
11303-0001\2443165v1.doc
Bond No. __________

PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that:

WHEREAS the City of Banning (“City”), has awarded to

(“Principal”)

(Name and address of Contractor)
a contract (the “Contract”) for the Work described as follows:

(Project name)
WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of the Contract to furnish a Bond for the faithful performance of the Contract.

NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and

,

(Name and address of Surety)
(“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City in the penal sum of

Dollars ($ ), this amount being not less than the
total Contract Price, in lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if the hereby bounded Principal, his, her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the covenants, conditions and provisions in the Contract and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on the Principal’s part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. Surety hereby waives any statute of limitations as it applies to an action on this Bond.

The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or of the Work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations under this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Contract or to the Work or to the specifications. Surety hereby waives the provisions of California 1779
Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2020
11303-0001\2443165v1.doc
Civil Code Sections 2845 and 2849. The City is the principal beneficiary of this Bond and has all rights of a party hereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original hereof, have been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body.

Dated:
“Principal”
By:

Its
By:

Its
(Seal)

“Surety”
By:

Its
By:

Its
(Seal)
Note: This Bond must be executed in duplicate and dated, all signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. DATE OF BOND MUST NOT BE BEFORE DATE OF CONTRACT. Surety companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department’s most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located.
1780
Exhibit L
Form of Payment Bond

1781
Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2020
11303-0001\2443165v1.doc
Bond No. __________

PAYMENT BOND
(LABOR AND MATERIALS)
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that:

WHEREAS the City of Banning (“City”), State of California, has awarded to

(“Principal”)

(Name and address of Contractor)
a contract (the “Contract”) for the Work described as follows:

(Project name)
WHEREAS, under the terms of the Contract, the Principal is required before entering upon the performance of the Work, to file a good and sufficient payment Bond with the City to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and

(Name and address of Surety)
(“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, material suppliers, and other persons employed in the performance of the Contract and referred to in Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code in the penal sum of

Dollars ($ ), for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to this Work or labor, that the Surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this Bond, will pay, in addition to the face amount thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing this obligation, to be awarded and fixed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered.

It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this Bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies, and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 3 (commencing with Section 9000) of Part 6 of Division 4 of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this Bond.

Upon expiration of the time within which the California Labor Commissioner may serve a civil wage and penalty assessment against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1741, and upon expiration of the time within which a joint labor management committee may commence an action against the principal, any of its subcontractors, or both the principal and its subcontractors pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.2, if the condition of this Bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. 1782
Richards, Watson & Gershon - 2020
11303-0001\2443165v1.doc
The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the Contract or the Specifications accompanying the same shall in any manner affect its obligations on this Bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension, alteration, or addition.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original hereof, have been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body.

Dated:
“Principal”
By:

Its
By:

Its
(Seal)

“Surety”
By:

Its
By:

Its
(Seal)
Note: This Bond must be executed in duplicate and dated, all signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. DATE OF BOND MUST NOT BE BEFORE DATE OF CONTRACT. Surety companies executing Bonds must appear on the Treasury Department’s most current list (Circular 570 as amended) and be authorized to transact business in the State where the project is located.
1783
Exhibit M
Wage Determination Schedules
1784
"General Decision Number: CA20240025 12/06/2024
Superseded General Decision Number: CA20230025
State: California
Construction Types: Building, Heavy (Heavy and Dredging) and Highway
County: Riverside County in California.

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS; DREDGING PROJECTS (does not include hopper dredge work); HEAVY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (does not include water well drilling); HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Note: Contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act are generally required to pay at least the applicable minimum wage rate required under Executive Order 14026 or Executive Order 13658.

Please note that these Executive Orders apply to covered contracts entered into by the federal government that are subject to the Davis-Bacon Act itself, but do not apply to contracts subject only to the Davis-Bacon Related Acts, including those set forth at 29 CFR 5.1(a)(1).
______________________________________________________________ |If the contract is entered |. Executive Order 14026 |
|into on or after January 30, | generally applies to the | |2022, or the contract is | contract. |
|renewed or extended (e.g., an |. The contractor must pay | |option is exercised) on or | all covered workers at |
|after January 30, 2022: | least $17.20 per hour (or |
| | the applicable wage rate |
| | listed on this wage |
| | determination, if it is |
| | higher) for all hours |
| | spent performing on the |
| | contract in 2024. |
|______________________________|_____________________________| |If the contract was awarded on|. Executive Order 13658 | |or between January 1, 2015 and| generally applies to the | |January 29, 2022, and the | contract. |
|contract is not renewed or |. The contractor must pay all| |extended on or after January | covered workers at least | |30, 2022: | $12.90 per hour (or the |
| | applicable wage rate listed|
| | on this wage determination,|
| | if it is higher) for all |
| | hours spent performing on |
| | that contract in 2024. |
1785
|______________________________|_____________________________| The applicable Executive Order minimum wage rate will be adjusted annually. If this contract is covered by one of the Executive Orders and a classification considered necessary for performance of work on the contract does not appear on this wage determination, the contractor must still submit a
conformance request.

Additional information on contractor requirements and worker protections under the Executive Orders is available at
http://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts.

Modification Number Publication Date
0 01/05/2024
1 01/12/2024
2 01/19/2024
3 02/23/2024
4 03/08/2024
5 05/24/2024
6 06/28/2024
7 07/05/2024
8 07/12/2024
9 08/09/2024
10 08/16/2024
11 08/23/2024
12 09/06/2024
13 09/13/2024
14 09/20/2024
15 10/18/2024
16 11/08/2024
17 11/29/2024
18 12/06/2024
ASBE0005-002 09/01/2023
Rates Fringes
Asbestos Workers/Insulator
(Includes the application of
all insulating materials,
protective coverings,
coatings, and finishes to all
types of mechanical systems).....$ 49.58 25.27
Fire Stop Technician
(Application of Firestopping
Materials for wall openings
and penetrations in walls,
floors, ceilings and curtain
1786
walls)...........................$ 36.97 20.36
---------------------------------------------------------------- ASBE0005-004 07/04/2022
Rates Fringes
Asbestos Removal
worker/hazardous material
handler (Includes
preparation, wetting,
stripping, removal,
scrapping, vacuuming, bagging
and disposing of all
insulation materials from
mechanical systems, whether
they contain asbestos or not)....$ 23.52 13.37
---------------------------------------------------------------- BOIL0092-003 01/01/2024
Rates Fringes
BOILERMAKER......................$ 51.98 42.11
---------------------------------------------------------------- * BRCA0004-011 05/01/2024
Rates Fringes
BRICKLAYER; MARBLE SETTER........$ 45.53 20.29
*The wage scale for prevailing wage projects performed in Blythe, China lake, Death Valley, Fort Irwin, Twenty-Nine Palms, Needles and 1-15 corridor (Barstow to the Nevada State Line) will be Three Dollars ($3.00) above the
standard San Bernardino/Riverside County hourly wage rate ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRCA0018-004 06/01/2023
Rates Fringes
MARBLE FINISHER..................$ 40.21 15.23
TILE FINISHER....................$ 34.78 13.64
TILE LAYER.......................$ 48.29 19.18
---------------------------------------------------------------- BRCA0018-010 09/01/2023
Rates Fringes
TERRAZZO FINISHER................$ 39.95 14.65
TERRAZZO WORKER/SETTER...........$ 47.85 15.14
1787
---------------------------------------------------------------- * CARP0213-001 01/01/2024
Rates Fringes

CARPENTER
(1) Carpenter, Cabinet
Installer, Insulation
Installer, Hardwood Floor
Worker and acoustical
installer...................$ 48.86 22.88
(2) Millwright..............$ 49.36 22.88
(3) Piledrivermen/Derrick
Bargeman, Bridge or Dock
Carpenter, Heavy Framer,
Rock Bargeman or Scowman,
Rockslinger, Shingler
(Commercial)................$ 48.99 22.88
(4) Pneumatic Nailer,
Power Stapler...............$ 51.85 16.28
(5) Sawfiler...............$ 51.69 16.28
(6) Scaffold Builder.......$ 40.77 22.38
(7) Table Power Saw
Operator....................$ 51.70 16.28
FOOTNOTE: Work of forming in the construction of open cut sewers or storm drains, on operations in which horizontal lagging is used in conjunction with steel H-Beams driven or placed in pre- drilled holes, for that portion of a lagged trench against which concrete is poured, namely, as a
substitute for back forms (which work is performed by
piledrivers): $0.13 per hour additional.
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP0213-002 07/01/2021
Rates Fringes
Diver
(1) Wet.....................$ 834.40 16.28
(2) Standby.................$ 445.84 16.28
(3) Tender..................$ 437.84 16.28
(4) Assistant Tender........$ 413.84 16.28
Amounts in ""Rates' column are per day
---------------------------------------------------------------- * CARP0213-004 01/01/2024
Rates Fringes
1788
Drywall
DRYWALL INSTALLER/LATHER....$ 48.86 22.88
STOCKER/SCRAPPER............$ 20.80 9.97
---------------------------------------------------------------- CARP0721-001 07/01/2021
Rates Fringes
Modular Furniture Installer......$ 21.85 7.15
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC0440-001 01/01/2024
Rates Fringes

ELECTRICIAN
INSIDE ELECTRICIAN..........$ 53.76 3%+27.50

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEMS
Electrician................$ 36.99 3%+23.18
Technician.................$ 27.75 3%+23.18
ZONE PAY: Zone A: Free travel zone for all contractors
performing work in Zone A.

Zone B:Any work performed in Zone (B) shall add $12.00 per hour to the current wage scale. Zone (B) shall be the area from the eastern perimeter of Zone (A) to a line which runs north and south begininng at Little Morongo Canyon (San Bernardino/Riverside County Line), Southeast along the
Coachella Tunnels, Colorado River Aqueduct and Mecca
Tunnels to Pinkham Wash then South to Box Canyon Road, then southwest along Box Canyon Road to Highway 195 west onto 195 south to Highway 86 to Riverside/Imperial County Line. ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEC1245-001 06/01/2024
Rates Fringes

LINE CONSTRUCTION
(1) Lineman; Cable splicer..$ 70.16 24.46
(2) Equipment specialist
(operates crawler
tractors, commercial motor
vehicles, backhoes,
trenchers, cranes (50 tons
and below), overhead &
underground distribution
line equipment).............$ 53.30 22.01
(3) Groundman...............$ 40.76 21.51
(4) Powderman...............$ 51.87 18.79
1789
HOLIDAYS: New Year's Day, M.L. King Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day and day after Thanksgiving, Christmas Day
---------------------------------------------------------------- ELEV0018-001 01/01/2024
Rates Fringes
ELEVATOR MECHANIC................$ 66.63 37.885+a+b
FOOTNOTE:
a. PAID VACATION: Employer contributes 8% of regular hourly rate as vacation pay credit for employees with more than 5 years of service, and 6% for 6 months to 5 years of service. b. PAID HOLIDAYS: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, Friday after Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day.
---------------------------------------------------------------- ENGI0012-004 08/01/2024
Rates Fringes
OPERATOR: Power Equipment
(DREDGING)
(1) Leverman................$ 64.10 38.75
(2) Dredge dozer............$ 58.13 38.75
(3) Deckmate................$ 58.02 38.75
(4) Winch operator (stern
winch on dredge)............$ 57.47 38.75
(5) Fireman-Oiler,
Deckhand, Bargeman,
Leveehand...................$ 56.93 38.75
(6) Barge Mate..............$ 57.54 38.75
---------------------------------------------------------------- ENGI0012-024 07/01/2023
Rates Fringes
OPERATOR: Power Equipment
(All Other Work)
GROUP 1....................$ 53.90 32.80
GROUP 2....................$ 54.68 32.80
GROUP 3....................$ 54.97 32.80
GROUP 4....................$ 56.46 32.80
GROUP 6....................$ 56.68 32.80
GROUP 8....................$ 56.79 32.80
1790
GROUP 10....................$ 56.91 32.80
GROUP 12....................$ 57.08 32.80
GROUP 13....................$ 57.18 32.80
GROUP 14....................$ 57.21 32.80
GROUP 15....................$ 57.29 32.80
GROUP 16....................$ 57.41 32.80
GROUP 17....................$ 57.58 32.80
GROUP 18....................$ 57.68 32.80
GROUP 19....................$ 57.79 32.80
GROUP 20....................$ 57.91 32.80
GROUP 21....................$ 58.08 32.80
GROUP 22....................$ 58.18 32.80
GROUP 23....................$ 58.29 32.80
GROUP 24....................$ 58.41 32.80
GROUP 25....................$ 58.58 32.80
OPERATOR: Power Equipment
(Cranes, Piledriving &
Hoisting)
GROUP 1....................$ 55.25 32.80
GROUP 2....................$ 56.03 32.80
GROUP 3....................$ 56.32 32.80
GROUP 4....................$ 56.46 32.80
GROUP 5....................$ 56.68 32.80
GROUP 6....................$ 56.79 32.80
GROUP 7....................$ 56.91 32.80
GROUP 8....................$ 57.08 32.80
GROUP 9....................$ 57.25 32.80
GROUP 10....................$ 58.25 32.80
GROUP 11....................$ 59.25 32.80
GROUP 12....................$ 60.25 32.80
GROUP 13....................$ 61.25 32.80
OPERATOR: Power Equipment
(Tunnel Work)
GROUP 1....................$ 55.75 32.80
GROUP 2....................$ 56.53 32.80
GROUP 3....................$ 56.82 32.80
GROUP 4....................$ 56.96 32.80
GROUP 5....................$ 57.18 32.80
GROUP 6....................$ 57.29 32.80
GROUP 7....................$ 57.41 32.80
PREMIUM PAY:
$10.00 per hour shall be paid on all Power Equipment Operator work on the followng Military Bases: China Lake Naval
Reserve, Vandenberg AFB, Point Arguello, Seely Naval Base, Fort Irwin, Nebo Annex Marine Base, Marine Corp Logistics Base Yermo, Edwards AFB, 29 Palms Marine Base and Camp
Pendleton
Workers required to suit up and work in a hazardous material 1791
environment: $2.00 per hour additional. Combination mixer and compressor operator on gunite work shall be classified as a concrete mobile mixer operator.

SEE ZONE DEFINITIONS AFTER CLASSIFICATIONS

POWER EQUIPMENT OPERATORS CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Bargeman; Brakeman; Compressor operator; Ditch Witch, with seat or similar type equipment; Elevator
operator-inside; Engineer Oiler; Forklift operator
(includes loed, lull or similar types under 5 tons;
Generator operator; Generator, pump or compressor plant operator; Pump operator; Signalman; Switchman
GROUP 2: Asphalt-rubber plant operator (nurse tank
operator);Coil Tubing Rig Operator, Concrete mixer
operator-skip type; Conveyor operator; Fireman; Forklift operator (includes loed, lull or similar types over 5 tons; Hydrostatic pump operator; oiler crusher (asphalt or
concrete plant); Petromat laydown machine; PJU side dum jack; Screening and conveyor machine operator (or similar types); Skiploader (wheel type up to 3/4 yd. without
attachment); Tar pot fireman; Temporary heating plant
operator; Trenching machine oiler
GROUP 3: Asphalt-rubber blend operator; Bobcat or similar type (Skid steer); Equipment greaser (rack); Ford Ferguson (with dragtype attachments); Helicopter radioman (ground); Stationary pipe wrapping and cleaning machine operator
GROUP 4: Asphalt plant fireman; Backhoe operator (mini-max or similar type); Boring machine operator; Boxman or mixerman (asphalt or concrete); Chip spreading machine operator; Concrete cleaning decontamination machine operator;
Concrete Pump Operator (small portable);Direct Push
Operator (Geoprobe or similar types) Drilling machine
operator, small auger types (Texoma super economatic or similar types - Hughes 100 or 200 or similar types -
drilling depth of 30' maximum); Equipment greaser (grease truck); Guard rail post driver operator; Highline cableway signalman; Hydra-hammer-aero stomper; Micro Tunneling
(above ground tunnel); Power concrete curing machine
operator; Power concrete saw operator; Power-driven jumbo form setter operator; Power sweeper operator; Rock Wheel Saw/Trencher; Roller operator (compacting); Screed operator (asphalt or concrete); Trenching machine operator (up to 6 ft.); Vacuum or much truck
1792
GROUP 6: Articulating material hauler; Asphalt plant
engineer; Batch plant operator; Bit sharpener; Concrete joint machine operator (canal and similar type); Concrete planer operator; Dandy digger; Deck engine operator;
Derrickman (oilfield type); Drilling machine operator,
bucket or auger types (Calweld 100 bucket or similar types - Watson 1000 auger or similar types - Texoma 330, 500 or 600 auger or similar types - drilling depth of 45'
maximum); Drilling machine operator; Hydrographic seeder machine operator (straw, pulp or seed), Jackson track
maintainer, or similar type; Kalamazoo Switch tamper, or similar type; Machine tool operator; Maginnis internal full slab vibrator, Mechanical berm, curb or gutter(concrete or asphalt); Mechanical finisher operator (concrete,
Clary-Johnson-Bidwell or similar); Micro tunnel system
(below ground); Pavement breaker operator (truck mounted); Road oil mixing machine operator; Roller operator (asphalt or finish), rubber-tired earth moving equipment (single engine, up to and including 25 yds. struck); Self-propelled tar pipelining machine operator; Skiploader operator
(crawler and wheel type, over 3/4 yd. and up to and
including 1-1/2 yds.); Slip form pump operator (power
driven hydraulic lifting device for concrete forms);
Tractor operator-bulldozer, tamper-scraper (single engine, up to 100 h.p. flywheel and similar types, up to and
including D-5 and similar types); Tugger hoist operator (1 drum); Ultra high pressure waterjet cutting tool system operator; Vacuum blasting machine operator
GROUP 8: Asphalt or concrete spreading operator (tamping or finishing); Asphalt paving machine operator (Barber Greene or similar type); Asphalt-rubber distribution operator; Backhoe operator (up to and including 3/4 yd.), small ford, Case or similar types; Cable Bundling Machine Operator
(excluding handheld); Cable Trenching Machine Operator
(Spider Plow or similar types) Cast-in-place pipe laying machine operator; Combination mixer and compressor operator (gunite work); Compactor operator (self-propelled);
Concrete mixer operator (paving); Crushing plant operator; Drill Doctor; Drilling machine operator, Bucket or auger types (Calweld 150 bucket or similar types - Watson 1500, 2000 2500 auger or similar types - Texoma 700, 800 auger or similar types - drilling depth of 60' maximum); Elevating grader operator; Grade checker; Gradall operator; Grouting machine operator; Heavy-duty repairman; Heavy equipment robotics operator; Kalamazoo balliste regulator or similar type; Kolman belt loader and similar type; Le Tourneau blob compactor or similar type; Loader operator (Athey, Euclid, Sierra and similar types); Mobark Chipper or similar; Ozzie padder or similar types; P.C. slot saw; Pneumatic concrete 1793
placing machine operator (Hackley-Presswell or similar
type); Pumpcrete gun operator; RCM Cementing Unit Operator, Rail/Switch Grinder Operator (Harsco or similar types)
Rock Drill or similar types; Rotary drill operator
(excluding caisson type); Rubber-tired earth-moving
equipment operator (single engine, caterpillar, Euclid, Athey Wagon and similar types with any and all attachments over 25 yds. up to and including 50 cu. yds. struck);
Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator (multiple
engine up to and including 25 yds. struck); Rubber-tired scraper operator (self-loading paddle wheel type-John
Deere, 1040 and similar single unit); Self- propelled curb and gutter machine operator; Shuttle buggy; Skiploader
operator (crawler and wheel type over 1-1/2 yds. up to and including 6-1/2 yds.); Soil remediation plant operator; Surface heaters and planer operator; Tractor compressor drill combination operator; Tractor operator (any type
larger than D-5 - 100 flywheel h.p. and over, or
similar-bulldozer, tamper, scraper and push tractor single engine); Tractor operator (boom attachments), Traveling pipe wrapping, cleaning and bendng machine operator;
Trenching machine operator (over 6 ft. depth capacity,
manufacturer's rating); trenching Machine with Road Miner attachment (over 6 ft depth capacity): Ultra high pressure waterjet cutting tool system mechanic; Water pull
(compaction) operator
GROUP 10: Drilling machine operator, Bucket or auger types (Calweld 200 B bucket or similar types-Watson 3000 or 5000 auger or similar types-Texoma 900 auger or similar
types-drilling depth of 105' maximum); Dual drum mixer, dynamic compactor LDC350 (or similar types); Monorail
locomotive operator (diesel, gas or electric); Motor
patrol-blade operator (single engine); Multiple engine
tractor operator (Euclid and similar type-except Quad 9 cat.); Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator (single engine, over 50 yds. struck); Pneumatic pipe ramming tool and similar types; Prestressed wrapping machine operator; Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator (single
engine, over 50 yds. struck); Rubber tired earth moving equipment operator (multiple engine, Euclid, caterpillar and similar over 25 yds. and up to 50 yds. struck), Tower crane repairman; Tractor loader operator (crawler and wheel type over 6-1/2 yds.); Woods mixer operator (and similar Pugmill equipment)
GROUP 12: Auto grader operator; Automatic slip form operator; Drilling machine operator, bucket or auger types (Calweld, auger 200 CA or similar types - Watson, auger 6000 or
similar types - Hughes Super Duty, auger 200 or similar 1794
types - drilling depth of 175' maximum); Hoe ram or similar with compressor; Mass excavator operator less tha 750 cu. yards; Mechanical finishing machine operator; Mobile form traveler operator; Motor patrol operator (multi-engine); Pipe mobile machine operator; Rubber-tired earth- moving equipment operator (multiple engine, Euclid, Caterpillar and similar type, over 50 cu. yds. struck); Rubber-tired self- loading scraper operator (paddle-wheel-auger type self-loading - two (2) or more units)
GROUP 13: Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator
operating equipment with push-pull system (single engine, up to and including 25 yds. struck)
GROUP 14: Canal liner operator; Canal trimmer operator; Remote- control earth-moving equipment operator (operating a second piece of equipment: $1.00 per hour additional); Wheel excavator operator (over 750 cu. yds.)
GROUP 15: Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating equipment with push-pull system (single engine, Caterpillar, Euclid, Athey Wagon and similar types with any and all attachments over 25 yds. and up to and including 50 yds. struck); Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating equipment with push-pull system (multiple
engine-up to and including 25 yds. struck)
GROUP 16: Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating equipment with push-pull system (single engine, over 50 yds. struck); Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating equipment with push-pull system
(multiple engine, Euclid, Caterpillar and similar, over 25 yds. and up to 50 yds. struck)
GROUP 17: Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating equipment with push-pull system (multiple engine, Euclid, Caterpillar and similar, over 50 cu. yds. struck); Tandem tractor operator (operating crawler type tractors in tandem - Quad 9 and similar type)
GROUP 18: Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating in tandem (scrapers, belly dumps and similar
types in any combination, excluding compaction units -
single engine, up to and including 25 yds. struck)
GROUP 19: Rotex concrete belt operator (or similar types); Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating in tandem (scrapers, belly dumps and similar types in any
combination, excluding compaction units - single engine, Caterpillar, Euclid, Athey Wagon and similar types with any 1795
and all attachments over 25 yds.and up to and including 50 cu. yds. struck); Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment
operator, operating in tandem (scrapers, belly dumps and similar types in any combination, excluding compaction
units - multiple engine, up to and including 25 yds. struck) GROUP 20: Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating in tandem (scrapers, belly dumps and similar
types in any combination, excluding compaction units -
single engine, over 50 yds. struck); Rubber-tired
earth-moving equipment operator, operating in tandem
(scrapers, belly dumps, and similar types in any
combination, excluding compaction units - multiple engine, Euclid, Caterpillar and similar, over 25 yds. and up to 50 yds. struck)
GROUP 21: Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating in tandem (scrapers, belly dumps and similar
types in any combination, excluding compaction units -
multiple engine, Euclid, Caterpillar and similar type, over 50 cu. yds. struck)
GROUP 22: Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating equipment with the tandem push-pull system
(single engine, up to and including 25 yds. struck)
GROUP 23: Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating equipment with the tandem push-pull system
(single engine, Caterpillar, Euclid, Athey Wagon and
similar types with any and all attachments over 25 yds. and up to and including 50 yds. struck); Rubber-tired
earth-moving equipment operator, operating with the tandem push-pull system (multiple engine, up to and including 25 yds. struck)
GROUP 24: Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating equipment with the tandem push-pull system
(single engine, over 50 yds. struck); Rubber-tired
earth-moving equipment operator, operating equipment with the tandem push-pull system (multiple engine, Euclid,
Caterpillar and similar, over 25 yds. and up to 50 yds. struck)
GROUP 25: Concrete pump operator-truck mounted; Rubber-tired earth-moving equipment operator, operating equipment with the tandem push-pull system (multiple engine, Euclid,
Caterpillar and similar type, over 50 cu. yds. struck); Spyder Excavator Operator, with all attachments

CRANES, PILEDRIVING AND HOISTING EQUIPMENT CLASSIFICATIONS 1796
GROUP 1: Engineer oiler; Fork lift operator (includes loed, lull or similar types)
GROUP 2: Truck crane oiler
GROUP 3: A-frame or winch truck operator; Ross carrier
operator (jobsite)
GROUP 4: Bridge-type unloader and turntable operator;
Helicopter hoist operator
GROUP 5: Hydraulic boom truck; Stinger crane (Austin-Western or similar type); Tugger hoist operator (1 drum)
GROUP 6: Bridge crane operator; Cretor crane operator; Hoist operator (Chicago boom and similar type); Lift mobile
operator; Lift slab machine operator (Vagtborg and similar types); Material hoist and/or manlift operator; Polar
gantry crane operator; Self Climbing scaffold (or similar type); Shovel, backhoe, dragline, clamshell operator (over 3/4 yd. and up to 5 cu. yds. mrc); Tugger hoist operator GROUP 7: Pedestal crane operator; Shovel, backhoe, dragline, clamshell operator (over 5 cu. yds. mrc); Tower crane
repair; Tugger hoist operator (3 drum)
GROUP 8: Crane operator (up to and including 25 ton
capacity); Crawler transporter operator; Derrick barge
operator (up to and including 25 ton capacity); Hoist
operator, stiff legs, Guy derrick or similar type (up to and including 25 ton capacity); Shovel, backhoe, dragline, clamshell operator (over 7 cu. yds., M.R.C.)
GROUP 9: Crane operator (over 25 tons and up to and including 50 tons mrc); Derrick barge operator (over 25 tons up to and including 50 tons mrc); Highline cableway operator; Hoist operator, stiff legs, Guy derrick or similar type (over 25 tons up to and including 50 tons mrc); K-crane operator; Polar crane operator; Self erecting tower crane operator maximum lifting capacity ten tons
GROUP 10: Crane operator (over 50 tons and up to and
including 100 tons mrc); Derrick barge operator (over 50 tons up to and including 100 tons mrc); Hoist operator, stiff legs, Guy derrick or similar type (over 50 tons up to and including 100 tons mrc), Mobile tower crane operator (over 50 tons, up to and including 100 tons M.R.C.);
GROUP 11: Crane operator (over 100 tons and up to and
1797
including 200 tons mrc); Derrick barge operator (over 100 tons up to and including 200 tons mrc); Hoist operator, stiff legs, Guy derrick or similar type (over 100 tons up to and including 200 tons mrc); Mobile tower crane operator (over 100 tons up to and including 200 tons mrc) ; Tower crane operator and tower gantry
GROUP 12: Crane operator (over 200 tons up to and including 300 tons mrc); Derrick barge operator (over 200 tons up to and including 300 tons mrc); Hoist operator, stiff legs, Guy derrick or similar type (over 200 tons, up to and
including 300 tons mrc); Mobile tower crane operator (over 200 tons, up to and including 300 tons mrc)
GROUP 13: Crane operator (over 300 tons); Derrick barge operator (over 300 tons); Helicopter pilot; Hoist operator, stiff legs, Guy derrick or similar type (over 300 tons); Mobile tower crane operator (over 300 tons)

TUNNEL CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Skiploader (wheel type up to 3/4 yd. without
attachment)
GROUP 2: Power-driven jumbo form setter operator
GROUP 3: Dinkey locomotive or motorperson (up to and
including 10 tons)
GROUP 4: Bit sharpener; Equipment greaser (grease truck); Slip form pump operator (power-driven hydraulic lifting device for concrete forms); Tugger hoist operator (1 drum); Tunnel locomotive operator (over 10 and up to and including 30 tons)
GROUP 5: Backhoe operator (up to and including 3/4 yd.); Small Ford, Case or similar; Drill doctor; Grouting machine operator; Heading shield operator; Heavy-duty repairperson; Loader operator (Athey, Euclid, Sierra and similar types); Mucking machine operator (1/4 yd., rubber-tired, rail or track type); Pneumatic concrete placing machine operator (Hackley-Presswell or similar type); Pneumatic heading
shield (tunnel); Pumpcrete gun operator; Tractor compressor drill combination operator; Tugger hoist operator (2 drum); Tunnel locomotive operator (over 30 tons)
GROUP 6: Heavy Duty Repairman
GROUP 7: Tunnel mole boring machine operator
1798

ENGINEERS ZONES
$1.00 additional per hour for all of IMPERIAL County and the portions of KERN, RIVERSIDE & SAN BERNARDINO Counties as defined below:

That area within the following Boundary: Begin in San
Bernardino County, approximately 3 miles NE of the intersection of I-15 and the California State line at that point which is the NW corner of Section 1, T17N,m R14E, San Bernardino Meridian. Continue W in a straight line to that point which is the SW corner of the northwest quarter of Section 6, T27S, R42E, Mt. Diablo Meridian. Continue North to the intersection with the Inyo County Boundary at that point which is the NE corner of the western half of the northern quarter of Section 6, T25S, R42E, MDM. Continue W along the Inyo and San
Bernardino County boundary until the intersection with Kern County, as that point which is the SE corner of Section 34, T24S, R40E, MDM. Continue W along the Inyo and Kern County boundary until the intersection with Tulare County, at that point which is the SW corner of the SE quarter of Section 32, T24S, R37E, MDM. Continue W along the Kern and Tulare County boundary, until that point which is the NW corner of T25S, R32E, MDM. Continue S following R32E lines to the NW corner of T31S, R32E, MDM. Continue W to the NW corner of T31S, R31E, MDM. Continue S to the SW corner of T32S, R31E, MDM. Continue W to SW corner of SE quarter of Section 34, T32S, R30E, MDM.

Continue S to SW corner of T11N, R17W, SBM. Continue E along south boundary of T11N, SBM to SW corner of T11N, R7W, SBM.

Continue S to SW corner of T9N, R7W, SBM. Continue E along south boundary of T9N, SBM to SW corner of T9N, R1E, SBM.

Continue S along west boundary of R1E, SMB to Riverside County line at the SW corner of T1S, R1E, SBM. Continue E along south boundary of T1s, SBM (Riverside County Line) to SW corner of T1S, R10E, SBM. Continue S along west boundary of R10E, SBM to Imperial County line at the SW corner of T8S, R10E, SBM.

Continue W along Imperial and Riverside county line to NW corner of T9S, R9E, SBM. Continue S along the boundary between Imperial and San Diego Counties, along the west edge of R9E, SBM to the south boundary of Imperial County/California state line. Follow the California state line west to Arizona state line, then north to Nevada state line, then continuing NW back to start at the point which is the NW corner of Section 1, T17N, R14E, SBM
$1.00 additional per hour for portions of SAN LUIS OBISPO, KERN, SANTA BARBARA & VENTURA as defined below:

That area within the following Boundary: Begin approximately 5 miles north of the community of Cholame, on the Monterey County 1799
and San Luis Obispo County boundary at the NW corner of T25S, R16E, Mt. Diablo Meridian. Continue south along the west side of R16E to the SW corner of T30S, R16E, MDM. Continue E to SW corner of T30S, R17E, MDM. Continue S to SW corner of T31S, R17E, MDM. Continue E to SW corner of T31S, R18E, MDM.

Continue S along West side of R18E, MDM as it crosses into San Bernardino Meridian numbering area and becomes R30W. Follow the west side of R30W, SBM to the SW corner of T9N, R30W, SBM.

Continue E along the south edge of T9N, SBM to the Santa Barbara County and Ventura County boundary at that point whch is the SW corner of Section 34.T9N, R24W, SBM, continue S along the Ventura County line to that point which is the SW corner of the SE quarter of Section 32, T7N, R24W, SBM. Continue E along the south edge of T7N, SBM to the SE corner to T7N, R21W, SBM. Continue N along East side of R21W, SBM to Ventura County and Kern County boundary at the NE corner of T8N, R21W.

Continue W along the Ventura County and Kern County boundary to the SE corner of T9N, R21W. Continue North along the East edge of R21W, SBM to the NE corner of T12N, R21W, SBM. Continue West along the north edge of T12N, SBM to the SE corner of T32S, R21E, MDM. [T12N SBM is a think strip between T11N SBM and T32S MDM]. Continue North along the East side of R21E, MDM to the Kings County and Kern County border at the NE corner of T25S, R21E, MDM, continue West along the Kings County and Kern County Boundary until the intersection of San Luis Obispo County. Continue west along the Kings County and San Luis Obispo County boundary until the intersection with Monterey County. Continue West along the Monterey County and San Luis Obispo County boundary to the beginning point at the NW corner of T25S, R16E, MDM.
$2.00 additional per hour for INYO and MONO Counties and the Northern portion of SAN BERNARDINO County as defined below:

That area within the following Boundary: Begin at the
intersection of the northern boundary of Mono County and the California state line at the point which is the center of Section 17, T10N, R22E, Mt. Diablo Meridian. Continue S then SE along the entire western boundary of Mono County, until it reaches Inyo County at the point which is the NE corner of the Western half of the NW quarter of Section 2, T8S, R29E, MDM.

Continue SSE along the entire western boundary of Inyo County, until the intersection with Kern County at the point which is the SW corner of the SE 1/4 of Section 32, T24S, R37E, MDM.

Continue E along the Inyo and Kern County boundary until the intersection with San Bernardino County at that point which is the SE corner of section 34, T24S, R40E, MDM. Continue E along the Inyo and San Bernardino County boundary until the point which is the NE corner of the Western half of the NW quarter of 1800
Section 6, T25S, R42E, MDM. Continue S to that point which is the SW corner of the NW quarter of Section 6, T27S, R42E, MDM.

Continue E in a straight line to the California and Nevada state border at the point which is the NW corner of Section 1, T17N, R14E, San Bernardino Meridian. Then continue NW along the state line to the starting point, which is the center of Section 18, T10N, R22E, MDM.

REMAINING AREA NOT DEFINED ABOVE RECIEVES BASE RATE
---------------------------------------------------------------- IRON0433-006 01/01/2024
Rates Fringes

IRONWORKER
Fence Erector...............$ 42.53 26.26
Ornamental, Reinforcing
and Structural..............$ 47.45 34.90
PREMIUM PAY:
$9.00 additional per hour at the following locations:

China Lake Naval Test Station, Chocolate Mountains Naval Reserve-Niland,
Edwards AFB, Fort Irwin Military Station, Fort Irwin Training Center-Goldstone, San Clemente Island, San Nicholas Island, Susanville Federal Prison, 29 Palms - Marine Corps, U.S. Marine Base - Barstow, U.S. Naval Air Facility - Sealey, Vandenberg AFB Army Defense Language Institute - Monterey, Fallon Air Base, Naval Post Graduate School - Monterey, Yermo Marine Corps Logistics Center
Port Hueneme, Port Mugu, U.S. Coast Guard Station - Two Rock ---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0300-005 07/01/2024
Rates Fringes
Asbestos Removal Laborer.........$ 43.88 25.13
SCOPE OF WORK: Includes site mobilization, initial site cleanup, site preparation, removal of asbestos-containing material and toxic waste, encapsulation, enclosure and
disposal of asbestos- containing materials and toxic waste by hand or with equipment or machinery; scaffolding,
fabrication of temporary wooden barriers and assembly of 1801
decontamination stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO0345-001 07/01/2022
Rates Fringes

LABORER (GUNITE)
GROUP 1.....................$ 48.50 21.37
GROUP 2.....................$ 47.55 21.37
GROUP 3.....................$ 44.01 21.37
FOOTNOTE: GUNITE PREMIUM PAY: Workers working from a
Bosn'n's Chair or suspended from a rope or cable shall
receive 40 cents per hour above the foregoing applicable classification rates. Workers doing gunite and/or
shotcrete work in a tunnel shall receive 35 cents per hour above the foregoing applicable classification rates, paid on a portal-to-portal basis. Any work performed on, in or above any smoke stack, silo, storage elevator or similar type of structure, when such structure is in excess of
75'-0"" above base level and which work must be performed in whole or in part more than 75'-0"" above base level, that work performed above the 75'-0"" level shall be compensated for at 35 cents per hour above the applicable
classification wage rate.

GUNITE LABORER CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Rodmen, Nozzlemen
GROUP 2: Gunmen
GROUP 3: Reboundmen
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO1184-001 07/01/2022
Rates Fringes
Laborers: (HORIZONTAL

DIRECTIONAL DRILLING)
(1) Drilling Crew Laborer...$ 40.69 18.25
(2) Vehicle Operator/Hauler.$ 40.86 18.25
(3) Horizontal Directional
Drill Operator..............$ 42.71 18.25
(4) Electronic Tracking
Locator.....................$ 44.71 18.25
Laborers: (STRIPING/SLURRY
SEAL)
1802
GROUP 1.....................$ 41.90 21.32
GROUP 2.....................$ 43.20 21.32
GROUP 3.....................$ 45.21 21.32
GROUP 4.....................$ 46.95 21.32

LABORERS - STRIPING CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Protective coating, pavement sealing, including repair and filling of cracks by any method on any surface in parking lots, game courts and playgrounds; carstops; operation of all related machinery and equipment; equipment repair technician
GROUP 2: Traffic surface abrasive blaster; pot tender - removal of all traffic lines and markings by any method (sandblasting, waterblasting, grinding, etc.) and
preparation of surface for coatings. Traffic control
person: controlling and directing traffic through both
conventional and moving lane closures; operation of all related machinery and equipment
GROUP 3: Traffic delineating device applicator: Layout and application of pavement markers, delineating signs, rumble and traffic bars, adhesives, guide markers, other traffic delineating devices including traffic control. This
category includes all traffic related surface preparation (sandblasting, waterblasting, grinding) as part of the
application process. Traffic protective delineating system installer: removes, relocates, installs, permanently
affixed roadside and parking delineation barricades,
fencing, cable anchor, guard rail, reference signs,
monument markers; operation of all related machinery and equipment; power broom sweeper
GROUP 4: Striper: layout and application of traffic stripes and markings; hot thermo plastic; tape traffic stripes and markings, including traffic control; operation of all
related machinery and equipment
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO1184-002 07/01/2022
Rates Fringes

LABORER (TUNNEL)
GROUP 1.....................$ 45.68 23.30
GROUP 2.....................$ 46.00 23.30
GROUP 3.....................$ 46.46 23.30
GROUP 4.....................$ 47.15 23.30

LABORER
1803
GROUP 1.....................$ 36.39 21.04
GROUP 2.....................$ 36.94 21.04
GROUP 3.....................$ 37.49 21.04
GROUP 4.....................$ 39.04 21.04
GROUP 5.....................$ 39.39 21.04

LABORER CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Cleaning and handling of panel forms; Concrete screeding for rough strike-off; Concrete, water curing; Demolition laborer, the cleaning of brick if performed by a worker performing any other phase of demolition work, and the cleaning of lumber; Fire watcher, limber, brush loader, piler and debris handler; Flag person; Gas, oil and/or
water pipeline laborer; Laborer, asphalt-rubber material loader; Laborer, general or construction; Laborer, general clean-up; Laborer, landscaping; Laborer, jetting; Laborer, temporary water and air lines; Material hose operator
(walls, slabs, floors and decks); Plugging, filling of shee bolt holes; Dry packing of concrete; Railroad maintenance, repair track person and road beds; Streetcar and railroad construction track laborers; Rigging and signaling; Scaler; Slip form raiser; Tar and mortar; Tool crib or tool house laborer; Traffic control by any method; Window cleaner; Wire mesh pulling - all concrete pouring operations
GROUP 2: Asphalt shoveler; Cement dumper (on 1 yd. or larger mixer and handling bulk cement); Cesspool digger and
installer; Chucktender; Chute handler, pouring concrete, the handling of the chute from readymix trucks, such as walls, slabs, decks, floors, foundation, footings, curbs, gutters and sidewalks; Concrete curer, impervious membrane and form oiler; Cutting torch operator (demolition); Fine grader, highways and street paving, airport, runways and similar type heavy construction; Gas, oil and/or water
pipeline wrapper - pot tender and form person; Guinea
chaser; Headerboard person - asphalt; Laborer, packing rod steel and pans; Membrane vapor barrier installer; Power broom sweeper (small); Riprap stonepaver, placing stone or wet sacked concrete; Roto scraper and tiller; Sandblaster (pot tender); Septic tank digger and installer(lead); Tank scaler and cleaner; Tree climber, faller, chain saw
operator, Pittsburgh chipper and similar type brush
shredder; Underground laborer, including caisson bellower GROUP 3: Buggymobile person; Concrete cutting torch; Concrete pile cutter; Driller, jackhammer, 2-1/2 ft. drill steel or longer; Dri-pak-it machine; Gas, oil and/or water pipeline wrapper, 6-in. pipe and over, by any method, inside and out; High scaler (including drilling of same); Hydro seeder 1804
and similar type; Impact wrench multi-plate; Kettle person, pot person and workers applying asphalt, lay-kold,
creosote, lime caustic and similar type materials
(""applying"" means applying, dipping, brushing or handling of such materials for pipe wrapping and waterproofing); Operator of pneumatic, gas, electric tools, vibrating
machine, pavement breaker, air blasting, come-alongs, and similar mechanical tools not separately classified herein; Pipelayer's backup person, coating, grouting, making of joints, sealing, caulking, diapering and including rubber gasket joints, pointing and any and all other services; Rock slinger; Rotary scarifier or multiple head concrete chipping scarifier; Steel headerboard and guideline setter; Tamper, Barko, Wacker and similar type; Trenching machine, hand-propelled
GROUP 4: Asphalt raker, lute person, ironer, asphalt dump person, and asphalt spreader boxes (all types); Concrete core cutter (walls, floors or ceilings), grinder or sander; Concrete saw person, cutting walls or flat work, scoring old or new concrete; Cribber, shorer, lagging, sheeting and trench bracing, hand-guided lagging hammer; Head rock
slinger; Laborer, asphalt- rubber distributor boot person; Laser beam in connection with laborers' work; Oversize
concrete vibrator operator, 70 lbs. and over; Pipelayer performing all services in the laying and installation of pipe from the point of receiving pipe in the ditch until completion of operation, including any and all forms of tubular material, whether pipe, metallic or non-metallic, conduit and any other stationary type of tubular device used for the conveying of any substance or element, whether water, sewage, solid gas, air, or other product whatsoever and without regard to the nature of material from which the tubular material is fabricated; No-joint pipe and stripping of same; Prefabricated manhole installer; Sandblaster
(nozzle person), water blasting, Porta Shot-Blast
GROUP 5: Blaster powder, all work of loading holes, placing and blasting of all powder and explosives of whatever type, regardless of method used for such loading and placing; Driller: All power drills, excluding jackhammer, whether core, diamond, wagon, track, multiple unit, and any and all other types of mechanical drills without regard to the form of motive power; Toxic waste removal

TUNNEL LABORER CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Batch plant laborer; Changehouse person; Dump
person; Dump person (outside); Swamper (brake person and switch person on tunnel work); Tunnel materials handling 1805
person; Nipper; Pot tender, using mastic or other materials (for example, but not by way of limitation, shotcrete, etc.) GROUP 2: Chucktender, cabletender; Loading and unloading agitator cars; Vibrator person, jack hammer, pneumatic
tools (except driller); Bull gang mucker, track person; Concrete crew, including rodder and spreader
GROUP 3: Blaster, driller, powder person; Chemical grout jet person; Cherry picker person; Grout gun person; Grout mixer person; Grout pump person; Jackleg miner; Jumbo person; Kemper and other pneumatic concrete placer operator; Miner, tunnel (hand or machine); Nozzle person; Operating of
troweling and/or grouting machines; Powder person (primer house); Primer person; Sandblaster; Shotcrete person; Steel form raiser and setter; Timber person, retimber person, wood or steel; Tunnel Concrete finisher
GROUP 4: Diamond driller; Sandblaster; Shaft and raise work ---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO1184-004 07/01/2022
Rates Fringes
Brick Tender.....................$ 37.32 21.45
---------------------------------------------------------------- LABO1414-001 08/03/2022
Rates Fringes

LABORER
PLASTER CLEAN-UP LABORER....$ 38.92 23.32
PLASTER TENDER..............$ 41.47 23.32
Work on a swing stage scaffold: $1.00 per hour additional. ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN0036-001 07/01/2023
Rates Fringes
Painters: (Including Lead
Abatement)
(1) Repaint (excludes San
Diego County)...............$ 29.59 17.12
(2) All Other Work..........$ 38.52 18.64
REPAINT of any previously painted structure. Exceptions:
work involving the aerospace industry, breweries,
commercial recreational facilities, hotels which operate 1806
commercial establishments as part of hotel service, and sports facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN0036-008 09/01/2024
Rates Fringes
DRYWALL FINISHER/TAPER...........$ 49.33 26.82
---------------------------------------------------------------- PAIN0036-015 06/01/2024
Rates Fringes
GLAZIER..........................$ 58.00 26.25
FOOTNOTE: Additional $1.25 per hour for work in a condor, from the third (3rd) floor and up Additional $1.25 per
hour for work on the outside of the building from a swing stage or any suspended contrivance, from the ground up
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLAS0200-009 08/03/2022
Rates Fringes
PLASTERER........................$ 47.37 19.64
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLAS0500-002 07/01/2023
Rates Fringes
CEMENT MASON/CONCRETE FINISHER...$ 44.00 27.11
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLUM0016-001 09/01/2024
Rates Fringes

PLUMBER/PIPEFITTER
Work ONLY on new additions
and remodeling of bars,
restaurant, stores and
commercial buildings not
to exceed 5,000 sq. ft. of
floor space.................$ 57.67 25.63
Work ONLY on strip malls,
light commercial, tenant
improvement and remodel
work........................$ 44.24 23.96
All other work except work
1807
on new additions and
remodeling of bars,
restaurant, stores and
commercial buildings not
to exceed 5,000 sq. ft. of
floor space and work on
strip malls, light
commercial, tenant
improvement and remodel
work........................$ 59.48 26.61
---------------------------------------------------------------- PLUM0345-001 09/01/2023
Rates Fringes

PLUMBER
Landscape/Irrigation Fitter.$ 40.20 25.90
Sewer & Storm Drain Work....$ 44.29 23.28
---------------------------------------------------------------- ROOF0036-002 08/01/2024
Rates Fringes
ROOFER...........................$ 49.43 20.58
FOOTNOTE: Pitch premium: Work on which employees are exposed to pitch fumes or required to handle pitch, pitch base or pitch impregnated products, or any material containing coal tar pitch, the entire roofing crew shall receive $1.75 per hour ""pitch premium"" pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------- SFCA0669-002 01/01/2024
Rates Fringes
SPRINKLER FITTER.................$ 45.31 27.91
---------------------------------------------------------------- SHEE0105-003 07/01/2024
LOS ANGELES (South of a straight line drawn between Gorman and Big Pines)and Catalina Island, INYO, KERN (Northeast part, East of Hwy 395), MONO ORANGE, RIVERSIDE, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES Rates Fringes

SHEET METAL WORKER
(1) Commercial - New
Construction and Remodel
1808
work........................$ 59.40 30.34
(2) Industrial work
including air pollution
control systems, noise
abatement, hand rails,
guard rails, excluding
aritechtural sheet metal
work, excluding A-C,
heating, ventilating
systems for human comfort...$ 56.95 30.04
---------------------------------------------------------------- TEAM0011-002 07/01/2024
Rates Fringes

TRUCK DRIVER
GROUP 1....................$ 39.59 34.34
GROUP 2....................$ 39.74 34.34
GROUP 3....................$ 39.87 34.34
GROUP 4....................$ 40.06 34.34
GROUP 5....................$ 40.09 34.34
GROUP 6....................$ 40.12 34.34
GROUP 7....................$ 40.37 34.34
GROUP 8....................$ 40.62 34.34
GROUP 9....................$ 40.82 34.34
GROUP 10....................$ 41.12 34.34
GROUP 11....................$ 41.62 34.34
GROUP 12....................$ 42.05 34.34
WORK ON ALL MILITARY BASES:

PREMIUM PAY: $3.00 per hour additional.
[29 palms Marine Base, Camp Roberts, China Lake, Edwards AFB, El Centro Naval Facility, Fort Irwin, Marine Corps
Logistics Base at Nebo & Yermo, Mountain Warfare Training Center, Bridgeport, Point Arguello, Point Conception,
Vandenberg AFB]

TRUCK DRIVERS CLASSIFICATIONS
GROUP 1: Truck driver
GROUP 2: Driver of vehicle or combination of vehicles - 2 axles; Traffic control pilot car excluding moving heavy equipment permit load; Truck mounted broom
GROUP 3: Driver of vehicle or combination of vehicles - 3 axles; Boot person; Cement mason distribution truck; Fuel truck driver; Water truck - 2 axle; Dump truck, less than 1809
16 yds. water level; Erosion control driver
GROUP 4: Driver of transit mix truck, under 3 yds.; Dumpcrete truck, less than 6-1/2 yds. water level
GROUP 5: Water truck, 3 or more axles; Truck greaser and tire person ($0.50 additional for tire person); Pipeline and utility working truck driver, including winch truck and plastic fusion, limited to pipeline and utility work;
Slurry truck driver
GROUP 6: Transit mix truck, 3 yds. or more; Dumpcrete truck, 6-1/2 yds. water level and over; Vehicle or combination of vehicles - 4 or more axles; Oil spreader truck; Dump truck, 16 yds. to 25 yds. water level
GROUP 7: A Frame, Swedish crane or similar; Forklift driver; Ross carrier driver
GROUP 8: Dump truck, 25 yds. to 49 yds. water level; Truck repair person; Water pull - single engine; Welder
GROUP 9: Truck repair person/welder; Low bed driver, 9 axles or over
GROUP 10: Dump truck - 50 yds. or more water level; Water pull - single engine with attachment
GROUP 11: Water pull - twin engine; Water pull - twin engine with attachments; Winch truck driver - $1.25 additional when operating winch or similar special attachments
GROUP 12: Boom Truck 17K and above
---------------------------------------------------------------- WELDERS - Receive rate prescribed for craft performing
operation to which welding is incidental.
================================================================ Note: Executive Order (EO) 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors applies to all contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act for which the contract is awarded (and any solicitation was issued) on or after January 1, 2017. If this contract is covered by the EO, the contractor must provide employees with 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work, up to 56 hours of paid sick leave each year.

Employees must be permitted to use paid sick leave for their own illness, injury or other health-related needs, including 1810
preventive care; to assist a family member (or person who is like family to the employee) who is ill, injured, or has other health-related needs, including preventive care; or for reasons resulting from, or to assist a family member (or person who is like family to the employee) who is a victim of, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Additional information on contractor requirements and worker protections under the EO is available at
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/government-contracts.

Unlisted classifications needed for work not included within the scope of the classifications listed may be added after award only as provided in the labor standards contract clauses (29CFR 5.5 (a) (1) (iii)).
---------------------------------------------------------------- The body of each wage determination lists the classification and wage rates that have been found to be prevailing for the cited type(s) of construction in the area covered by the wage determination. The classifications are listed in alphabetical order of ""identifiers"" that indicate whether the particular rate is a union rate (current union negotiated rate for local), a survey rate (weighted average rate) or a union average rate (weighted union average rate).

Union Rate Identifiers
A four letter classification abbreviation identifier enclosed in dotted lines beginning with characters other than ""SU"" or ""UAVG"" denotes that the union classification and rate were prevailing for that classification in the survey. Example:

PLUM0198-005 07/01/2014. PLUM is an abbreviation identifier of the union which prevailed in the survey for this
classification, which in this example would be Plumbers. 0198 indicates the local union number or district council number where applicable, i.e., Plumbers Local 0198. The next number, 005 in the example, is an internal number used in processing the wage determination. 07/01/2014 is the effective date of the most current negotiated rate, which in this example is July 1, 2014.

Union prevailing wage rates are updated to reflect all rate changes in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing this classification and rate.

Survey Rate Identifiers
1811
Classifications listed under the ""SU"" identifier indicate that no one rate prevailed for this classification in the survey and the published rate is derived by computing a weighted average rate based on all the rates reported in the survey for that classification. As this weighted average rate includes all rates reported in the survey, it may include both union and non-union rates. Example: SULA2012-007 5/13/2014. SU indicates the rates are survey rates based on a weighted average
calculation of rates and are not majority rates. LA indicates the State of Louisiana. 2012 is the year of survey on which these classifications and rates are based. The next number, 007 in the example, is an internal number used in producing the wage determination. 5/13/2014 indicates the survey completion date for the classifications and rates under that identifier.

Survey wage rates are not updated and remain in effect until a new survey is conducted.

Union Average Rate Identifiers
Classification(s) listed under the UAVG identifier indicate that no single majority rate prevailed for those
classifications; however, 100% of the data reported for the classifications was union data. EXAMPLE: UAVG-OH-0010
08/29/2014. UAVG indicates that the rate is a weighted union average rate. OH indicates the state. The next number, 0010 in the example, is an internal number used in producing the wage determination. 08/29/2014 indicates the survey completion date for the classifications and rates under that identifier.

A UAVG rate will be updated once a year, usually in January of each year, to reflect a weighted average of the current negotiated/CBA rate of the union locals from which the rate is based.

State Adopted Rate Identifiers
Classifications listed under the ""SA"" identifier indicate that the prevailing wage rate set by a state (or local) government was adopted under 29 C.F.R 1.3(g)-(h). Example: SAME2023-007 01/03/2024. SA reflects that the rates are state adopted. ME refers to the State of Maine. 2023 is the year during which the state completed the survey on which the listed classifications and rates are based. The next number, 007 in the example, is an internal number used in producing the wage determination. 01/03/2024 reflects the date on which the classifications and rates under the ?SA? identifier took effect under state law in the state from which the rates were adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------- 1812

WAGE DETERMINATION APPEALS PROCESS

1.) Has there been an initial decision in the matter? This can be:
* an existing published wage determination
* a survey underlying a wage determination
* a Wage and Hour Division letter setting forth a position on a wage determination matter
* a conformance (additional classification and rate) ruling On survey related matters, initial contact, including requests for summaries of surveys, should be with the Wage and Hour National Office because National Office has responsibility for the Davis-Bacon survey program. If the response from this initial contact is not satisfactory, then the process described in 2.) and 3.) should be followed.

With regard to any other matter not yet ripe for the formal process described here, initial contact should be with the Branch of Construction Wage Determinations. Write to:

Branch of Construction Wage Determinations
Wage and Hour Division
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

2.) If the answer to the question in 1.) is yes, then an interested party (those affected by the action) can request review and reconsideration from the Wage and Hour Administrator (See 29 CFR Part 1.8 and 29 CFR Part 7). Write to:

Wage and Hour Administrator
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210
The request should be accompanied by a full statement of the interested party's position and by any information (wage payment data, project description, area practice material, etc.) that the requestor considers relevant to the issue.

3.) If the decision of the Administrator is not favorable, an interested party may appeal directly to the Administrative Review Board (formerly the Wage Appeals Board). Write to:

Administrative Review Board
U.S. Department of Labor
1813
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

4.) All decisions by the Administrative Review Board are final. ================================================================ END OF GENERAL DECISION"
1814
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-50

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE 2020 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 797 ( Water Code Section 10610 et seq.), known as the Urban Water Management Planning Act, during the 1983- 1984 Regular Session, and as amended subsequently, which mandates that every supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, prepare an Urban Water Management Plan ( UWMP), the primary objective of which is to plan for the conservation and efficient use of water; and
WHEREAS, the City of Banning ( City) is an urban supplier of water providing water; and
WHEREAS, the UWMP shall be periodically reviewed at least once every five years, and that the City shall make any amendments or changes to its plan which are indicated by the review; and
WHEREAS, the UWMP must be adopted after public review and hearing, and filed with the California Department of Water Resources within thirty days of adoption; and WHEREAS, the City has therefore, prepared and circulated for public review a draft UWMP, and a properly noticed public hearing regarding said UWMP was held by the City Council on June 8, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City Council shall have filed said UWMP with the California Department of Water Resources within 30 days of adoption.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. The City of Banning is in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act.

SECTION 2. The 2020 UWMP is hereby adopted and ordered filed with the City Clerk.

SECTION 3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage and adoption thereof.

SECTION 4. The Public Works Director is hereby authorized and directed to file the 2020 UWMP with the California Department of Water Resources within 30 days after adoption of this resolution.

Resolution 2021- 50

1815
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of June 2021.

ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, De
City of Banning

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT:

Kevin G. Ennis, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
Resolution 2021- 50

Colleen Wallace, Mayor
City of Banning
1816
CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Deputy City Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2021-50, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8th day of June 2021 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Council Members Hamlin, Happe, Pingree, Sanchez, and Mayor Wallace NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Resolution 2021- 50

Caroline Patton, De
City of Banning
1817
RESOLUTION 2022-14 UA

A RESOLUTION OF THE UTILITY AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO N2W

ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE OWNER ADVISOR SERVICES AND PRELIMINARY

ENGINEERING FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $ 1,576,430
WHEREAS, the City of Banning owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant WWTP) also knows as the Water Reclamation Facility which includes a current treatment process consisting of preliminary, primary, secondary, disinfection and sludge disposal; and
WHEREAS, the WWTP has a design treatment capacity of 3.6 million gallons per day (MGD) and typical average daily discharges ranging from 2.0 MGD to 2.1 MGD into 10 unlined evaporation/percolation ponds; and
WHEREAS, the City has recognized a need to construct major improvements to the WWTP in order to comply with California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region ( RWQCB) Board Order R?-2016-0015; to increase treatment capacity to support increasing demands; and to enhance the City's water supply portfolio by developing a recycled water supply; and WHEREAS, due to staff resources the City desires to hire an Owner Advisor to manage the WWTP improvement project as it progresses through the various phases (i.e. planning, environmental, design and construction); and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2022 the City released a request for qualifications ( RFQ) and received one submittal from N2W Engineering. Based on the qualifications of N2W Engineering and the results of an interview conducted by City staff, it has been determined that N2W Engineering has the qualifications and experience to successfully complete the scope of services as the City's Owner Advisor on the WWTP improvement project; and WHEREAS, the Professional Services Agreement with N2W Engineering to provide Owner Advisor services for the WWTP Improvement project is in an amount of not-to-exceed" $ 1,576,430; and
WHEREAS, appropriations in the amount of $460,000 from Fund 680 (Wastewater Operations) and $ 756,430 from Fund 681 ( Wastewater Capital Facility) are required to fund the Professional Services Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Banning Utility Authority of the City of Banning as follows:

Resolution 2022- 14 UA

1818
SECTION 1. Resolution 2022- 14 UA is hereby adopted awarding a Professional Services Agreement to N2W Engineering to provide Owner Advisor services for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement project in the " not- to- exceed" amount of $1 ,576, 430.

SECTION 2. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Professional Services Agreement with N2W Engineering of Irvine, CA and to make all necessary budget adjustments, appropriations and transfers related to the Professional Serv ices Agreement.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December 20 .~ ATTEST:

Caroline Patton, secretry
Banning Utility Authority

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL CONTENT:

Serita R. Young, Authority Counsel
Richards, Watson & Gershon
Resolution 2022- 14 UA

1819
CERTIFICATION:

I, Caroline Patton, Secretary of the Banning Utility Authority , do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2022-14 UA, was duly adopted by the Utility Authority of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of December 2022 by the following vote , to wit:

AYES: Gonzales , Minjares, Sanchez , and Wallace.

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Resolution 2022-14 UA

Caroline Patton , Sec ary
Banning Utility Authority
I
1820

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION
ORDER R7-2016-0015

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR

CITY OF BANNING, OWNER

SUEZ WATER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, OPERATOR

BANNING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

BANNING-RIVERSIDE COUNTY
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region (Colorado River Basin Water Board), finds that:

1. The City of Banning (Owner), 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220, and Suez Water Environmental Services, Inc., a Delaware-based business entity (Operator), (collectively or individually referred to as Discharger) submitted an application to update the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for the Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP or Facility). The WWTP is located at 2242 East Charles Street, Banning, California 92220, as shown in Attachment A (Vicinity Map), made part of this Board Order by this reference. Suez Water Environmental Services, Inc. maintains an office at the Facility.

2. The City of Banning owns a wastewater collection, treatment and disposal system which provides sewerage service to the city. The WWTP has a design treatment capacity of 3.6 million gallons-per-day (MGD) and currently discharges approximately 2.07 MGD into 10 unlined evaporation/percolation ponds (ponds).

The Facility is located in Section 14, Township 3 South, Range 1 East, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian. The Facility’s Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 532 180 038/532 180 036; and its latitude and longitude coordinates are

33.915194/33.912134 and 116.852411/116.84164, respectively. The Facility is assigned California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) number CW208668; Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number 7A330100015, and GeoTracker Global ID number WDR100027202.

3. The wastewater treatment plant currently receives industrial wastewater from several businesses within the City of Banning. The Discharger’s Industrial Waste Program issues Industrial User Discharge Permits to verify that these businesses meet the City of Banning’s local ordinance discharge limits, which were determined to ensure that the wastewater treatment plant is protected and can meet effluent standards.

4. The discharge is currently regulated by Board Order (WDRs) 01-022, adopted on May 9, 2001.
1821
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 2 5. Board Order 01-022, required the Discharger to construct a groundwater monitoring system in the vicinity of the unlined ponds. The Board Order also required effluent monitoring for Sulfate, Chloride, Fluoride, Aluminum, and Iron until the groundwater monitoring system was installed and groundwater monitoring was initiated. Board Order 01-022, Monitoring and Reporting Program, states that “As soon as Ground Water monitoring commences, these constituents will not be required in Effluent monitoring.” The groundwater monitoring system was completed in August 2007, and effluent monitoring for Sulfate, Chloride, Fluoride, Aluminum, and Iron were discontinued at that time. These constituents have been removed from the monitoring and reporting program for this Board Order as well as the effluent limitations for Chloride, Aluminum, and Iron.

6. The WDRs are being updated to implement the most current laws and regulations applicable to the discharge.

Wastewater Treatment Facility and Discharge

7. The WWTP consists of preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, solids handling, and disinfection (currently not in use), and the disposal ponds. Untreated wastewater flows to the preliminary treatment system, which consists of a mechanical bar screen, compactor, grit removal system, classifier and cyclone separator. Wastewater from the preliminary treatment system flows to two primary clarifiers and is then pumped to two trickling filters. The effluent from the trickling filters flows to the two secondary clarifiers and then to the chlorine contact chamber, which is currently used as a holding tank for the final effluent water sampling and discharge to the percolation ponds. The disinfection units have not been in use since April 2000.

8. Primary sludge from the two primary clarifiers is pumped to the anaerobic digester for further treatment. Secondary sludge from the secondary clarifiers is pumped to the gravity thickener for thickening and then pumped to three anaerobic digesters for further treatment. Sludge wasting from the digester is pumped to the sludge drying beds. The Discharger produces Class B biosolids, and a private contractor hauls the biosolids offsite to a permitted facility for disposal.

9. The Discharger’s Self-Monitoring Reports (SMRs) from January 2011 through December 2015 characterize the WWTP effluent as follows:

Constituent Units Average Maximum Minimum
Flow MGD 2.071 2.238 1.897
20o C BOD5
1 mg/L2 23 27 19
1 5-day biochemical oxygen demand at 20 degrees Celsius. 1822
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 3 Constituent Units Average Maximum Minimum
TSS3 mg/L 21 28 16
pH s.u.4 7.3 7.6 7.1
TDS5 mg/L 426 464 380
Nitrate as N mg/L 22 32 12
Total Nitrogen mg/L 29 49 14
Hydrogeologic Conditions

10. Precipitation in the Banning area averages about 12 inches per year. Annual evapotranspiration rate is approximately 56 inches.

11. A drainage course identified as Smith Creek Flood Control Channel is located along the south side of WWTP.

12. There are no domestic wells within 500 feet of the on-site evaporation/percolation ponds.

13. The evaporation/percolation ponds overlay an aquifer of high quality groundwater.

The Discharger’s SMRs show that the depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the WWTF ranges from about 330 feet (MW1) to 630 feet below ground surface (bgs) (MW3).

14. Water supply to the community is from groundwater production wells located in the San Gorgonio Hydrologic Unit, Banning Hydrologic Subunit. TDS in the water supply averages about 204 mg/L, based on data reported in the City of Banning’s SMRs from January 2011 through December 2015.

15. Regional groundwater flow in the area is generally from the west to the east.

16. The Discharger uses a network of three groundwater monitoring wells, one upgradient and two downgradient, to monitor the impact of wastewater discharge to groundwater in the area of the ponds. The locations of the groundwater monitoring 2 Miligrams per Liter
3 Total Suspended Solids
4 Standard pH units
5 Total Dissolved Solids
1823
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 4 wells identified as R-1 (MW1), MP-1 (MW2) and C-6 (MW3) are shown in Attachment C (Monitoring Well Locations), made part of this Board Order by reference. The Discharger’s monitoring reports from January 2011 through December 2015 show the following average water quality data for the groundwater monitoring wells:

Column header
omitted in original Units MW1 (downgradient)
MW2
(downgradient)
MW3
(upgradient)
Depth to Groundwater
feet
below
ground
surface
361 410 629
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 332 252 219
Total Nitrogen mg/L 4 2 1.1
Nitrate as N mg/L 2 2 1.5
Iron mg/L 34 ND ND
Sulfate mg/L 32 18 15
Chloride mg/L 42 35 13
Aluminum mg/L 20 ND ND
Fluoride mg/L 0.4 0.4 0.6

17. The Discharger reports that the soil in the vicinity of the WWTP, from ground surface to 300 bgs, is sand and gravelly sand containing small rocks and boulders. From a depth of 300 to 600 feet bgs, the soil is mostly sand and gravel with spots of brown clay and layers of fine sand and clay.

Basin Plan, Beneficial Uses, and Regulatory Considerations

18. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region of California (Basin Plan), which was adopted on November 17, 1993 and amended on November 13, 2012, designates the beneficial uses of ground and surface waters in this Region, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve water quality objectives, including narrative objectives for ground water quality, in Chapter 3, section IV, Ground Water Objectives.
1824
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 5 19. The discharge is within the San Gorgonio Hydrologic Unit, Banning Subunit. The beneficial uses of groundwater in the San Gorgonio Hydrologic Unit include:
a. Municipal Supply (MUN),
b. Industrial Supply (IND), and
c. Agricultural Supply (AGR).

20. This Order implements numeric and narrative water quality objectives for ground and surface waters established by the Basin Plan. The numeric objectives for groundwater designated for municipal and domestic supply are the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in sections 64431, 64444, and 64678 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), and the bacteriological limits specified in section 64426.1 of Title 22, CCR.

21. It is the policy of the State of California that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. This order promotes that policy by requiring discharges to meet maximum contaminant levels designed to protect human health and ensure that water is safe for domestic use.

22. Section 13267 of the California Water Code (CWC) authorizes the Colorado River Basin Water Board to require technical and monitoring reports. The Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) establishes monitoring and reporting requirements to implement federal and state requirements.

23. This Order establishes WDRs pursuant to Division 7, Chapter 4, Article 4, of the CWC for discharges that are not subject to regulation under Clean Water Act (CWA) section 402 (33 U.S.C. section 1342).

24. Pursuant to CWC section 13263(g), the discharge of waste is a privilege, not a right, and adoption of this Order does not create a vested right to continue the discharge.

25. The discharge authorized by this Board Order, and treatment and storage facilities associated with discharges of treated municipal wastewater, except for discharges of residual sludge and solid waste, are exempt from the requirements of the Consolidated Regulations for Treatment, Storage, Processing, or Disposal of Solid Waste, as set forth in Title 27, CCR, Division 2, Subdivision 1. This exemption is based on section 20090(a) of Title 27, which states in relevant part that discharges of domestic sewage or treated effluent are exempt provided that such discharges are regulated by WDRs, or for which WDRs have been waived, and which are consistent with applicable water quality objectives, and treatment or storage facilities associated with municipal WWTP's, provided that residual sludges or solid waste from WWTP’s shall be discharged only in accordance with the applicable Title 27 provisions. All of these Title 27 exemption conditions have been met with these WDRs.
1825
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 6 Groundwater Degradation

26. State Water Board Resolution 68-16, “Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Waters of the State”(Resolution 68-16) states:
“Whenever the existing quality of water is better than the quality established in policies as of the date on which such policies become effective, such existing high quality will be maintained until it has been demonstrated to the State that any change will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies.” Resolution 68-16 further states:
“Any activity which produces or may produce a waste or increased volume or concentration of waste and which discharges or proposes to discharge to existing high quality waters will be required to meet waste discharge requirements which will result in the best practicable treatment or control [BPTC] of the discharge necessary to assure that (a) a pollution or nuisance will not occur and (b) the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State will be maintained.”

27. Some degradation of groundwater from the discharge to the ponds is consistent with Resolution 68-16, provided that the degradation:
a. Is confined to a reasonable area;
b. Is minimized by means of full implementation, regular maintenance, and optimal operation of BPTC measures;
c. Is limited to waste constituents typically encountered in domestic wastewater; and
d. Does not result in the loss of any beneficial use as prescribed in the applicable basin plan, or violation of any water quality objective.

28. The discharge of wastewater from the WWTP, as permitted herein, reflects BPTC.

The controls assure the discharge does not create a condition of pollution or nuisance, and that the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State will be maintained, which is consistent with the anti-degradation provisions of Resolution 68-16. The WWTP incorporates:
a. Technology for secondary treated domestic wastewater; b. Solids handling facilities;
c. An operation and maintenance manual;
1826
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 7 d. A City ordinance that is comprised of a comprehensive set of rules and regulations governing the design, construction, maintenance and use of public and private sewer facilities within City jurisdictional limits; e. Staffing to assure proper operation and maintenance; f. A network of groundwater monitoring wells; and
g. A standby emergency power generator of sufficient size to operate the treatment plant and ancillary equipment during periods of loss of commercial power.

Accordingly, the discharge as authorized is consistent with the anti-degradation provisions of Resolution 68-16 and the applicable water quality objectives.

Constituents of Concern

29. Constituents of concern in domestic wastewater effluent that present the greatest risk to groundwater quality are nitrogen, coliforms (pathogen-indicator organisms), and TDS. The WWTP provides substantial removal of soluble organic matter, solids, and some nitrogen treatment.

30. Title 22, CCR section 64431, Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for Nitrate plus Nitrite as Nitrogen is 10 mg/L. To account for the fate of transport for the various components of Total Nitrogen, as a conservative value it is assumed that all nitrogen present converts to nitrate/nitrite. The City of Banning’s SMRs report an average of 29 mg/L for Total Nitrogen between January 2011 and December 2015.

Because the concentration of total nitrogen in the effluent is elevated, it is probable that nitrates may reach groundwater in concentrations that exceed the MCL prescribed in Title 22, CCR, section 64431. This Board Order will require that the Discharger conduct a nitrogen removal analysis and provide its findings in a technical report that provides a workplan and time schedule for the installation and implementation of nitrogen removal alternatives.

31. While secondary treatment reduces fecal coliform densities by 90 to 99%, the remaining organisms in effluent are still 105to 106 MPN/100 ml (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Design Manual, Municipal Wastewater Disinfection; October 1986). Given the depth to groundwater, it is not likely that pathogen-indicator bacteria will reach groundwater at densities exceeding those prescribed in Title 22, CCR. Thus, it is not anticipated that groundwater will be degraded by pathogen-indicator bacteria. Furthermore, any degradation by pathogens that might occur will be limited to the area in the vicinity of the ponds and degradation by pathogens should not be significant.

32. The typical incremental addition of dissolved salts from domestic water usage is 150 to 380 mg/L. Domestic water supply to the City of Banning showed an 1827
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 8 average of about 200 mg/L during the period of January 2011 to December 2015.

From January 2011 to December 2015 treated wastewater discharged by the City of Banning had an average TDS concentration of approximately 420 mg/L. Thus, the average TDS increase over the domestic water supply for this facility during the same time period was about 220 mg/L. Treated wastewater discharged by the WWTP has a TDS limit of a maximum of 400 mg/L above the domestic source water as regulated by Board Order 01-022. The Colorado River Water Board is responsible for implementing the State Water Resources Control Board’s Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP). To that end, the TDS effluent limit in this Board Order will be reduced to 300 mg/L above the domestic water supply. A regulatory limit of 300 mg/L above the domestic source water reasonably protects present and anticipated beneficial uses of groundwater in the area; therefore, it is not likely that groundwater will exhibit significant degradation by TDS.

Stormwater

33. Federal regulations for storm water discharges were promulgated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency on November 16, 1990, (40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 124) to implement the Clean Water Act’s storm water program set forth in Clean Water Act section 402(p) (33 U.S.C. section 1342(p).). In relevant part, the regulations require specific categories of facilities that discharge storm water associated with industrial activity to “waters of the United States” to obtain NPDES permits and to require control of such pollutant discharges using Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) to prevent and reduce pollutants and any more stringent controls necessary to meet water quality standards. Facilities used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal or domestic sewage, including land dedicated to the disposal of sewage sludge that are within the confines of the facility with a design flow of one million gallons a day or more, or required to have an approved pretreatment program under 40 CFR Part 403, are considered to be engaging in “industrial activity” for purposes of the Clean Water Act’s storm water program. The facility has a design treatment capacity of 3.6 MGD, and is thus subject to the federal regulations for discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activity.

CEQA and Public Participation

34. In accordance with section 15301, Chapter 3, Title 14, CCR, the issuance of these WDRs, which govern the operation of an existing facility involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.).

35. The Colorado River Basin Water Board has notified the Discharger and all known interested agencies and persons of its intent to draft WDRs for this discharge, and 1828
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 9 has provided them with an opportunity for a public meeting and an opportunity to submit comments.

36. The Colorado River Basin Water Board, in a public meeting, heard and considered all comments pertaining to this discharge.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Board Order 01-022 is rescinded upon the effective date of this Order, except for enforcement purposes, and, in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code, and regulations adopted thereunder, the Discharger shall comply with the following:

A. Effluent Limitations

1. Effluent discharged into the ponds for disposal shall not exceed the following effluent limits:

Constituent Units
30-Day
Arithmetic
Mean
7-Day Arithmetic
Mean Maximum
20o C BOD5 mg/L 30 45 -----
Total Suspended
Solids mg/L 30 45 -----

2. The 30-day average daily dry weather discharge from the WWTP shall not exceed 3.6 MGD.

3. Effluent from the WWTP into the ponds shall not have a pH below 6.0 or above 9.0.

4. The increase in concentration of TDS in the wastewater discharged to the ponds over that contained in the water supply to the community shall not exceed 300 mg/L.

5. The ponds shall be maintained so they will continuously operate in aerobic conditions. The dissolved oxygen content in the upper zone (one foot) of the ponds shall not be less than 1.0 mg/L at all times.

B. Discharge Prohibitions

1. Discharge of waste classified as “hazardous”, as defined in Title 23, CCR, section 2521(a), or “designated”, as defined in California Water Code section 13173, is prohibited.
1829
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 10 2. Discharge of treated wastewater at a location other than the designated disposal areas is prohibited.

3. The discharge of any wastewater from the Facility to any surface waters or surface drainage courses is prohibited.

4. Discharge of waste to land not owned or authorized for such use by the Discharger is prohibited.

5. Surfacing or ponding of wastewater outside of the designated disposal locations is prohibited.

6. Bypass, overflow, discharge, or spill of untreated or partially treated waste is prohibited.

C. Discharge Specifications

1. The treatment or disposal of wastes from the WWTP shall not cause pollution or nuisance as defined in sections 13050(I) and 13050(m) of Division 7 of the California Water Code, respectively.

2. A minimum freeboard depth of two feet shall be maintained at all times in each pond.

3. All treatment, storage, and disposal areas shall be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to prevent inundation or washout due to floods with a 100-year return frequency.

4. Ponds shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate allowable wastewater flow, design seasonal precipitation, ancillary inflow, and infiltration during the non-irrigation season. Design seasonal precipitation shall be based on total annual precipitation using a return period of 100 years, distributed monthly in accordance with historical rainfall patterns.

5. The ponds shall be managed to prevent breeding of mosquitoes. In particular:
a. An erosion control program should assure that small coves and irregularities are not created around the perimeter of the water surface.
b. Weeds shall be minimized through control of water depth, harvesting, or herbicides.
c. Dead algae, vegetation, and debris shall not accumulate on the water surface.
1830
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 11 6. Public contact with wastewater shall be precluded through such means as fences, signs, and other acceptable alternatives.

7. Objectionable odors originating at this facility shall not be perceivable beyond the limits of the wastewater treatment and disposal area.

8. The ponds shall be maintained and operated so as to maximize infiltration and minimize the increase of salinity in the groundwater.

9. The Discharger shall not accept wastewater in excess of the treatment capacity of the Facility.

D. Specifications

1. Discharge from the WWTP shall not cause groundwater to:
a. Contain constituents in excess of California MCLs, as set forth in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, section 64426.1 for bacteriological constituents; section 64431 for inorganic chemicals; section 64444 for organic chemicals; and section 64678 for determination of exceedances of lead and copper action levels. b. Contain taste or odor-producing substances in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses as a result of human activity.

E. Pretreatment

1. In the event that the facility has an average dry weather flow or treatment capacity of 5 MGD or more and Industrial Users [40 CFR 403.3(h)] are discharging pollutants which could Pass Through [40 CFR 403.3(n)] or Interfere [40 CFR 403.3(i)] with the operation of the wastewater treatment facility or are otherwise subject to National Pretreatment Standards [40 CFR 403.3(j)], (ii) California Code of Regulations, Title 23, section 2233 requires the facility to have and enforce an adequate pretreatment program, or (iii) the Colorado River Basin Water Board or its Executive Officer determines that other circumstances warrant, then:
a. The Discharger shall notify the Colorado River Basin Water Board within 30 days after there are discharges that trigger the pretreatment requirements.
b. The Discharger shall submit a revised Report of Waste Discharge and the pretreatment program for the Board review and approval as soon as possible but not later than one year of the notice of pretreatment requirements.
1831
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 12 c. The Discharger shall enforce the federal categorical pretreatment standards on all Categorical Industrial Users (CIUs).
d. The Discharger shall notify the CIU of its discharge effluent limits.

The limits must be as stringent as the pretreatment standards contained in the applicable federal category (40 CFR Part 400-699).

The Discharger may develop more stringent, technically based local limit if it can show cause.
e. The Discharger shall notify the RWQCB if the CIU violates its discharge effluent limits.

2. The Colorado River Basin Water Board retains the right to take legal action against an industrial user and/or the Discharger where a user fails to meet the approved applicable pretreatment standards.

F. Special Provisions

1. Within 12 months of the adoption of this Order, the Discharger shall submit to the Colorado River Basin Water Board office a technical report that includes a copy of the Maintenance and Operations Manual for the WWTP.

2. Within 18 months of the adoption date of this Board Order, the Discharger shall submit for approval by the Colorado River Basin Water Board's Executive Officer, a technical report that is a work plan and time schedule to conduct a study that addresses the practicability of a 10 mg/L total nitrogen effluent limitation and the impact the discharge has on the beneficial uses of the receiving groundwater. The time schedule for the study shall not be longer than four (4) years. A California Professional Engineer (PE), Registered Geologist (RG), Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG), or a Certified Hydro Geologist (CHG) must sign and stamp the technical report.

The report shall, at a minimum, include the following:
a. Evaluation by the Discharger must include information on the following factors relating to the discharge:
i. Description of the municipal entity and facilities.
ii. Description of the quantity and nitrogen concentration of domestic water sources contributing to discharge.
iii. Description of significant nitrogen sources of the municipal wastewater collection system, and identification of entities responsible for each source, if available.
iv. Description of the wastewater discharge, receiving waters, quantity, and nitrogen load.
1832
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 13 v. Alternative plans for minimizing nitrogen contribution from the municipal sources. Alternative plans should include:
(A) Description of nitrogen sources and alternative means of control; and
(B) Cost of alternative plans in dollars per ton, of nitrogen removed from discharge.
vi. Description and analyses of potential conventional nitrogen removal treatment technologies for implementation at the WWTP. Analyses shall include cost of implementation in
dollars per ton, of nitrogen removed from discharge.
vii. Such other information pertinent to the study as the permitting authority may deem necessary.
b. In determining what permit conditions shall be required, the permit issuing authority shall consider the following criteria including, but not limited to:
i. The practicability of achieving a 10 mg/L total nitrogen effluent limit.
ii. Where a 10 mg/L effluent limit is not determined to be practicable, the Discharger shall provide the following:
(A) The impact of the proposed nitrogen input of each
alternative on the beneficial uses of the groundwater
in terms of tons per year and concentration;
(B) Costs per ton of nitrogen removed from discharge of each alternative plan;
(C) Capability of minimizing nitrogen discharge;
(D) A proposed value for the practical incremental
increase; and
(E) A justification for the proposed practical incremental increased value.
c. By June 30, 2020, the Discharger shall submit a final technical report that includes the Discharger’s recommendations and conclusions, including a tentative work plan and time schedule for facility plant improvements required to accomplish nitrogen removal and comply with the effluent water quality limit. The report shall be 1833
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 14 certified with the signature and stamp of a California licensed professional PE, PG, CEG, or a CHG.

3. Within 24 months of the adoption of this Order, the Discharger shall submit to the Colorado River Basin Water Board a technical report that includes a copy of the City of Banning ordinance that provides a comprehensive set of rules and regulations governing the design, construction, maintenance and use of public and private sewer facilities within the city’s jurisdictional limits.

4. Within 24 months of the adoption of this Order, the Discharger shall submit a technical report that contains:
a. Documents demonstrating the City of Banning’s authority to issue permits for individual and community onsite septic systems; b. The City of Banning’s affirmative statement with regard to submitting a Local Agency Management Program plan in
accordance with the State Water Board’s Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems; and,
c. Identification of all areas within the jurisdiction of the City of Banning’s sewer authority that are currently on existing onsite septic systems, and those undeveloped areas planned for septic systems.

G. Standard Provisions

1. The Discharger shall comply with all of the conditions of this Board Order.

Noncompliance is a violation of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (CWC, section 13000 et seq.), and is grounds for enforcement action.

2. The Discharger shall comply with the Electronic Submittal of Information (ESI) requirements by submitting all correspondence and reports required under Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) R7-2016-0015, and future revisions thereto, including groundwater monitoring data and discharge location data (latitude and longitude), correspondence, and pdf monitoring reports to the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ database. Documents that are 2.0 MB or larger should be broken down into smaller electronic files, labelled properly and uploaded into GeoTracker.

3. All technical reports required in conjunction with this Order are required pursuant to Section 13267 of the CWC, and shall include a statement by the Discharger, or an authorized representative of the Discharger, certifying 1834
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 15 under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the report is true, complete, and accurate.

4. In accordance with California Business and Professions Code Sections 6735, 7835, and 7835.1, engineering and geologic evaluations and judgments shall be performed by or under the direction of California registered professionals (i.e., civil engineer, engineering geologist, geologist, etc.) competent and proficient in the fields pertinent to the required activities. All technical reports specified herein that contain work plans, that describe the conduct of investigations and studies, or that contain technical conclusions and recommendations concerning engineering and geology shall be prepared by or under the direction of appropriately qualified professionals, even if not explicitly stated. Each technical report submitted by the Discharger shall contain a statement of qualifications of the responsible licensed professionals as well as the professional’s signature and/or stamp of the seal. Additionally, to the extent that preparation of a required technical report involves field activities, field activities shall be conducted under the direct supervision of one or more of these professionals.

5. The Discharger shall not cause degradation of any water supply in accordance with State Water Board Resolution 68-16.

6. Standby power generating facilities shall be available to operate the plant during a commercial power failure.

7. Adequate measures shall be taken to assure that flood or surface drainage waters do not erode or otherwise render portions of the discharge facilities inoperable.

8. The WWTP shall be supervised and operated by persons possessing certification of appropriate grade pursuant to section 3680, Chapter 26, Division 3, Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

9. The Discharger shall at all times properly operate and maintain all systems and components of collection, treatment and control, installed or used by the Discharger to achieve compliance with this Board Order. Proper operation and maintenance includes effective performance, adequate process controls, and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities/systems when necessary to achieve compliance with this Board Order. All systems in service or reserved shall be inspected and maintained on a regular basis. Records of inspections and maintenance shall be retained, and made available to the Colorado River Basin Water Board’s Executive Officer on request.
1835
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 16 10. The Discharger shall ensure that all site-operating personnel are familiar with the content of this Board Order, and shall maintain a copy of this Board Order at the site.

11. The Discharger shall allow the Colorado River Basin Water Board, or an authorized representative, upon presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
a. Enter the premises regulated by this Order, or the place where records are kept under the conditions of this Board Order; b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, records kept under the conditions of this Board Order;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this Order; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring compliance with this Order or as otherwise authorized by the Water Code, any substances or parameters at this location.

12. Disposal of oil and grease, biosolids, screenings, and other solids collected from liquid wastes shall be pursuant to Title 27, and the review and approval of the Colorado River Basin Water Board Executive Officer.

13. Any proposed change in use or disposal of biosolids requires the approval of the Colorado River Basin Water Board Executive Officer, and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator, who must be notified at least 90 days in advance of the change.

14. Sludge use and disposal shall comply with Federal and State laws and regulations, including permitting requirements, and technical standards in 40 CFR Part 503. If the State and Colorado River Basin Water Boards are delegated the authority to implement 40 CFR Part 503 regulations, this Order may be revised to incorporate appropriate time schedules and technical standards. The Discharger shall comply with the standards and time schedules in 40 CFR part 503, whether or not part of this Order.

15. The Discharger shall provide a plan as to the method, treatment, handling and disposal of sludge that is consistent with all State and Federal laws and regulations and obtain prior written approval from the Colorado River Basin Water Board specifying location and method of disposal, before disposing of treated or untreated sludge, or similar solid waste.

16. The Discharger shall maintain a permanent log of all solids hauled away from the treatment facility for use/disposal elsewhere and shall provide a 1836
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 17 summary of the volume, type (screenings, grit, raw sludge, digested sludge), use (agricultural, composting, etc.), and the destination in accordance with the MRP of this Board Order. Sludge that is stockpiled at the treatment facility shall be sampled and analyzed for those constituents listed in the sludge monitoring section of the MRP of this Board Order and as required by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 503. The results of the analyses shall be submitted to the Colorado River Basin Water Board as part of the MRP.

17. The Discharger shall provide a report to the Colorado River Basin Water Board when it determines that the plant’s average dry-weather flow rate for any month exceeds 80 percent of the design capacity. The report should indicate what steps, if any, the Discharger intends to take to provide for the expected wastewater treatment capacity necessary when the plant reaches design capacity.

18. Prior to implementing a modification that results in a material change in the quality or quantity of wastewater treated or discharged, or a material change in the location of discharge, the Discharger shall report all pertinent information in writing to the Colorado River Basin Water Board, and obtain revised requirements.

19. Prior to a change in ownership or management of WWTP, the Discharger shall transmit a copy of this Board Order to the succeeding owner/operator, and forward a copy of the transmittal letter to the Colorado River Basin Water Board.

20. The Discharger shall provide adequate notice to the Colorado River Basin Water Board Executive Officer of the following:
a. The introduction of pollutants into any treatment facility described in the Findings of this Board Order from an indirect Discharger which would be subject to section 301 or 306 of the Clean Water Act, if the pollutants were discharged directly;
b. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants introduced into any treatment facility described in the Findings of this Board Order, by an existing or new source; and
c. Any planned physical alteration or addition to the facilities described in this Board Order, or change planned in the Discharger's sludge use or disposal practice, where such alterations, additions, or changes may justify the application of Board Order conditions that are different from or absent in the existing Board Order, including notification of additional disposal 1837
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 18 sites not reported during the Board Order application process, or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan.

21. The Discharger shall report orally, any noncompliance that may endanger human health or the environment. The noncompliance shall be reported immediately to the Colorado River Basin Water Board’s Executive Officer at (760) 346-7491, and the California Office of Emergency Services at (800) 852-7550 as soon as:
a. The Discharger has knowledge of the discharge;
b. Notification is possible, and
c. Notification will not substantially impede cleanup or other emergency measures.

During non-business hours, the Discharger shall leave a message on the Colorado River Basin Water Board’s office voice recorder at the above listed number. Incident information shall be provided orally as soon as possible and within 24 hours from the time the Discharger becomes aware of the incident. A written report shall also be provided within five (5) business days of the time the Discharger becomes aware of the incident.

The written report shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause, the period of noncompliance, the anticipated time to achieve full compliance, and the steps taken or planned, to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. The Discharger shall report all intentional or unintentional spills in excess of one thousand (1,000) gallons occurring within the WWTP or collection system to the Colorado River Basin Water Board office in accordance with the above time limits.

22. The Discharger shall report all instances of noncompliance. Reports of noncompliance shall be submitted with the Discharger's next scheduled SMRs or earlier if requested by the Colorado River Basin Water Board’s Executive Officer, or if required by an applicable standard for sludge use and disposal.

23. By-pass (i.e., the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of the treatment facilities, except diversions designed to meet variable effluent limits) is prohibited. The Colorado River Basin Water Board may take enforcement action against the Discharger for by-pass unless:
a. By-pass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage. Severe property damage means
substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities that causes them to be inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources reasonably expected to occur in 1838
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 19 the absence of a by-pass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production; and
There were no feasible alternatives to by-pass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities or retention of untreated waste. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment was not installed to prevent by-pass occurring during equipment downtime, or preventive maintenance.
b. By-pass is:
i. Required for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation; and
ii. Neither effluent nor receiving water limitations are exceeded; and
iii. The Discharger notifies the Colorado River Basin Water Board ten (10) days in advance.

24. In the event of an unanticipated by-pass, the Discharger shall immediately report the incident to the Colorado River Basin Water Board. During nonbusiness hours, the Discharger shall leave a message on the Colorado River Basin Water Board office voice recorder. A written report shall be provided within five business days the Discharger is aware of the incident.

The written report shall include a description of the by-pass, any noncompliance, the cause, period of noncompliance, anticipated time to achieve full compliance, and steps taken or planned, to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance.

25. Federal regulations for storm water discharges require specific categories of facilities which discharge storm water associated with industrial activity (storm water) to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and to implement Best Conventional Pollutant Technology (BCPT) and Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) to reduce or eliminate industrial storm water pollution.

26. All storm water discharges from this facility must comply with the lawful requirements of municipalities, counties, drainage districts, and other local agencies, regarding discharges of storm water to storm water drain systems or other courses under their jurisdiction.

27. Storm water discharges from the facility shall not cause or threaten to cause pollution or contamination.
1839
City of Banning and Suez Water Environmental Company Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Waste Discharge Requirements 20 28. Storm water discharges from the facility shall not contain hazardous substances equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity listed in 40 CFR Part 117 and/or 40 CFR Part 302.

29. The Discharger is the responsible party for the waste discharge requirements and the monitoring and reporting program for the facility. The Discharger shall comply with all conditions of these waste discharge requirements. Violations may result in enforcement actions, including Colorado River Basin Water Board Orders or court orders, requiring corrective action or imposing civil monetary liability, or in modification or revocation of these waste discharge requirements by the Colorado River Basin Water Board.

30. This Board Order does not authorize violation of any federal, state, or local laws or regulations.

31. This Board Order does not convey property rights of any sort, or exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize injury to private property or invasion of personal rights, or infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations.

32. This Board Order may be modified, rescinded, or reissued, for cause. The filing of a request by the Discharger for a Board Order modification, rescission or reissuance, or notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any Board Order condition. Causes for modification include a change in land application plans, or sludge use or disposal practices, and adoption of new regulations by the State or Colorado River Basin Water Board (including revisions to the Basin Plan), or Federal government.

I, Jose L. Angel, Executive Officer, do hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region, on June 30, 2016.
_____________Original Signed by________
JOSE L. ANGEL, P.E.

Executive Officer
1840

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION
ATTACHMENT A- VICINITY MAP Board Order r7-2016-0015

CITY OF BANNING, OWNER
SUEZ WATER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., OPERATOR

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Banning – Riverside County
Section 14, T3S, R1E, SBB&M
City of Banning WWTP
1841

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION
ATTACHMENT B- PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM Board Order R7-2016-0015

CITY OF BANNING, OWNER
SUEZ WATER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., OPERATOR

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Banning – Riverside County
1842

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION
ATTACHMENT C- MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS Board Order R7-2016-0015

CITY OF BANNING, OWNER
SUEZ WATER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., OPERATOR

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Banning – Riverside County
1843
1 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM R7-2016-0015
FOR

CITY OF BANNING, OWNER

SUEZ WATER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, OPERATOR

BANNING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BANNING-RIVERSIDE County:

LOCATION OF DISCHARGE:

Section 14, T3S, R1E, SBB&M
A. Monitoring

1. This Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) describes requirements for monitoring a wastewater system and groundwater quality (when needed).

This MRP is issued pursuant to California Water Code (CWC) section 13267. The Discharger shall not implement any changes to this MRP unless and until a revised MRP is issued by the Executive Officer.

2. Water Code section 13267 states, in part:
“In conducting an investigation specified in subdivision (a), the Colorado River Basin Water Board may require that any person who has discharged, discharges, or is suspected of having discharged or discharging, or who proposes to discharge waste within its region, or any citizen or domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state who has discharged, discharges, or is suspected of having discharged or discharging, or who proposes to discharge, waste outside of its region that could affect the quality of waters within its region shall furnish, under penalty of perjury, technical or monitoring program reports which the Colorado River Basin Water Board requires. The burden, including costs, of these reports shall bear a reasonable relationship to the need for the report and the benefits to be obtained from the reports. In requiring those reports, the Colorado River Basin Water Board shall provide the person with a written explanation with regard to the need for the reports, and shall identify the evidence that supports requiring that person to provide the reports.”

3. Water Code section 13268 states, in part:
“(a) (1) Any person failing or refusing to furnish technical or monitoring program reports as required by subdivision (b) of section 13267, or failing or refusing to furnish a statement of compliance as required by subdivision (b) of section 13399.2, or falsifying any information provided therein, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be liable civilly in accordance with subdivision (b). (b) (1) Civil liability may be administratively imposed by a Colorado River Basin Water Board in accordance with Article 2.5 (commencing with section 1844
City of Banning; Suez Water Environmental Services Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 13323) of Chapter 5 for a violation of subdivision (a) in an amount which shall not exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day in which the violation occurs.”

4. The Discharger owns and operates the wastewater system that is subject to Board Order R7-2016-0015. The reports are necessary to ensure that the Discharger complies with the Order. Pursuant to Water Code section 13267, the Discharger shall implement the MRP and shall submit the monitoring reports described herein.

5. All samples shall be representative of the volume and nature of the discharge or matrix of material sampled. The time, date, and location of each grab sample shall be recorded on the sample chain of custody form. If composite samples are collected, the basis for sampling (time or flow weighted) shall be approved by Colorado River Basin Water Board staff.

6. Field test instruments (such as those used to test pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity) may be used provided that:
a. The user is trained in proper use and maintenance of the instruments;
b. The instruments are field calibrated prior to monitoring events at the frequency recommended by the manufacturer;
c. Instruments are serviced and/or calibrated by the manufacturer at the recommended frequency; and
d. Field calibration reports are submitted as described in the “Reporting” section of this MRP.

7. The collection, preservation and holding times of all samples shall be in accordance with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) approved procedures. Unless otherwise approved by the Colorado River Basin Water Board’s Executive Officer, all analyses shall be conducted by a laboratory certified by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water. All analyses shall be conducted in accordance with the latest edition of the “Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants” (40 CFR Part 136), promulgated by the USEPA.

8. All monitoring instruments and devices used by the Discharger to fulfill the prescribed monitoring program shall be properly maintained and calibrated as necessary to ensure their continued accuracy. In the event that continuous monitoring equipment is out of service for period greater than 24-hours, the Discharger shall obtain representative grab samples each day the equipment is out of service. The Discharger shall correct the cause(s) of failure of the continuous monitoring equipment as soon as practicable. 1845
City of Banning; Suez Water Environmental Services Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 The Discharger shall report the period(s) during which the equipment was out of service and if the problem has not been corrected, shall identify the steps which the Discharger is taking or proposes to take to bring the equipment back into service and the schedule for these actions.

9. The Discharger shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this Board Order, and records of all data used to complete the application for this Board Order, for a period of at least five (5) years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Colorado River Basin Water Board’s Executive Officer at any time. Records of monitoring information shall include:
a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurement(s); b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurement(s); c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or method used; and
f. The results of such analyses.

10. Samples shall be collected at the location specified in the WDRs. If no location is specified, sampling shall be conducted at the most representative sampling point available.

11. Given the monitoring frequency prescribed by MRP R7-2016-0015, if only one sample is available for a given reporting period, compliance with monthly average, or weekly average Discharge Specifications, will be determined from that sample.

12. If the facility is not in operation, or there is no discharge during a required reporting period, the Discharger shall forward a letter to the Colorado River Basin Water Board indicating that there has been no activity during the required reporting period.

Influent Monitoring

13. Influent to the WWTP shall be monitored according to the following schedule:
1846
City of Banning; Suez Water Environmental Services Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 Constituent Units Type of
Sample
Monitoring
Frequency
Reporting
Frequency
20oC BOD5
1 mg/L2 24-Hr.

Composite 2x/Month Monthly
Total Suspended
Solids mg/L 24-Hr. Composite 2x/Month Monthly
Nitrate as N mg/L 24-Hr.

Composite Quarterly Quarterly
Nitrite as N mg/L 24-Hr.

Composite Quarterly Quarterly
Total Nitrogen mg/L 24-Hr.

Composite Quarterly Quarterly
WWTP Effluent Monitoring

14. Effluent from the WWTP into the Evaporation/Percolation Ponds shall be monitored according to the following schedule:

Constituent Units Type of
Sample
Monitoring
Frequency
Reporting
Frequency
Flow; Total Plant
Effluent into Ponds MGD3 Flow Meter Reading Daily Monthly 20oC BOD5 mg/L 24 Hr.

Composite Weekly Monthly
Total Suspended
Solids mg/L 24 Hr.Composite Weekly Monthly
Nitrate as N mg/L 24 Hr.

Composite 2x/Month Monthly
Nitrite as N mg/L 24 Hr.

Composite 2x/Month Monthly
1 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand at 20 degrees Celsius. 2milligrams per Liter
3 Million Gallons per Day
1847
City of Banning; Suez Water Environmental Services Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 Constituent Units Type of
Sample
Monitoring
Frequency
Reporting
Frequency
Total Nitrogen mg/L 24 Hr.

Composite 2x/Month Monthly
Total Dissolved
Solids mg/L Grab Monthly Monthly
VOCs4 μg/L5 24 Hr.

Composite Annually Annually
Pond Monitoring

15. The ponds shall be monitored according to the following schedule:

Constituent Units Type of
Sample
Sampling
Frequency
Reporting
Frequency
Dissolved
Oxygen6 mg/L Composite Weekly Monthly
pH s.u. 7 Grab Weekly Monthly
Freeboard Ft Measurement Weekly Monthly
The ponds shall be observed for vegetation growth, erosion and irregularities to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes. Observations shall be reported with the monthly SMR.

Domestic Water Supply

16. The domestic water supply shall be monitored according to the following schedule:
4 Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds is to be accomplished using the USEPA test methods 601 and 602 or 624
5 micrograms per liter
6 Dissolved Oxygen shall be monitored at the upper one foot layer of the evaporation/percolation ponds. 7 standard pH units
1848
City of Banning; Suez Water Environmental Services Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 Constituent Units Type of
Sample
Monitoring
Frequency
Reporting
Frequency
Total Dissolved
Solids mg/L Composite Monthly Monthly
Groundwater Monitoring

17. Groundwater shall be sampled in the uppermost 20 feet of the shallow aquifer from the monitoring wells according to the following schedule:

Constituent Units Type of
Sample
Monitoring
Frequency
Reporting
Frequency
Depth to
Groundwater ft (bgs)8 measurement Quarterly Quarterly
Total Dissolved
Solids mg/L Grab Quarterly Quarterly
Total Nitrogen mg/L Grab Quarterly Quarterly
Nitrate as N mg/L Grab Quarterly Quarterly
Nitrite as N mg/L Grab Quarterly Quarterly
Sulfate mg/L Grab Quarterly Quarterly
Chloride mg/L Grab Quarterly Quarterly
Fecal Coliform MPN/100mL Grab Quarterly Quarterly
VOCs mg/L Grab Annually Annually
Sludge Monitoring

18. Prior to disposal, sludge that is generated at the WWTP shall be sampled and analyzed for the following:
8 feet below ground surface.
1849
City of Banning; Suez Water Environmental Services Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 Constituent Units Type of
Sample
Monitoring
Frequency
Reporting
Frequency
Arsenic mg/kg9 Composite Annually Annually
Cadmium mg/kg Composite Annually Annually
Chromium mg/kg Composite Annually Annually
Copper mg/kg Composite Annually Annually
Lead mg/kg Composite Annually Annually
Mercury mg/kg Composite Annually Annually
Molybdenum mg/kg Composite Annually Annually
Nickel mg/kg Composite Annually Annually
Selenium mg/kg Composite Annually Annually
Zinc mg/kg Composite Annually Annually
Fecal Coliform MPN/gram10 Composite Prior to
Disposal Annually
B. Reporting

1. The Discharger shall inspect and document any operation/maintenance problems by inspecting each unit process. In addition, calibration of flow meters and equipment shall be performed in a timely manner and documented. Operation and Maintenance reports shall be submitted to the Colorado River Basin Water Board Office annually.

2. The annual Operation and Maintenance report shall include the following:
a. Documentation showing the calibration of flow meters and equipment as performed in a timely manner annually;
b. Modifications and updates to the Operation and Maintenance Manual;
9 milligrams per kilogram
10 Most Probable Number per gram.
1850
City of Banning; Suez Water Environmental Services Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 c. Operator certification status update including number of staff and grade certification.
d. Modifications and updates to the City’s waste water ordinance or rules and regulations.

3. The Discharger shall report annually on the quantity, location and method of disposal of all sludge and similar solid materials being produced at the WWTP. If no sludge is disposed of during the year being reported, the Discharger shall state “No Sludge Removed” in the annual monitoring report.

4. The Discharger shall provide the Colorado River Basin Water Board with an annual report describing the pretreatment program activities over the previous twelve-month period. The report shall be transmitted to the Colorado River Basin Water Board office no later than January 31 of each year and include:
a. A summary of actions taken by the Discharger which ensures industrial-user compliance;
b. An updated list of industrial users (by SIC categories) which were issued permits, and/or enforcement orders, and a status of compliance for each user; and
c. The name and address of each user that received a revised discharge limit.

5. SMRs shall be certified under penalty of perjury to be true and correct, and shall contain the required information at the frequency designated in this MRP.

6. Each Report must contain an affirmation in writing that states:
“All analyses were conducted at a laboratory certified for such analyses by and in accordance with current USEPA procedures or as specified in this Monitoring and Reporting Program.”

7. Each report shall contain the following completed declaration:
“I certify under the penalty of law that this document, including all attachments and supplemental information, was prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, and that based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for 1851
City of Banning; Suez Water Environmental Services Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 submitting false information, including the possibility of a fine and imprisonment.

Executed on the _______day of _______ at ____________________ ____________________(Signature)
_____________________(Title)”

8. The SMRs, and other information requested by the Colorado River Basin Water Board, shall be signed by a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.

9. A duly authorized representative of the Discharger may sign the documents if:
a. The authorization is made in writing by the person described above; b. The authorization specified an individual or person having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated disposal system; and
c. The written authorization is submitted to the Colorado River Basin Water Board’s Executive Officer.

10. The Discharger shall attach a cover letter to the SMRs. The information contained in the cover letter shall clearly identify violations of the WDRs; discuss corrective actions taken or planned and the proposed time schedule of corrective actions. Identified violations should include a description of the requirement that was violated and a description of the violation.

11. Daily, weekly, and monthly monitoring shall be included in the monthly monitoring report. Monthly monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Colorado River Basin Water Board by the 15th day of the following month.

Quarterly monitoring reports shall be submitted by January 15th, April 15th, July 15th and October 15th. Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted by January 31st of the following year.

12. The Discharger shall comply with the Electronic Submittal of Information (ESI) requirements by submitting all correspondence and reports required under Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) R7-2016-0015, and future revisions thereto, including groundwater monitoring data and discharge location data (latitude and longitude), correspondence, and pdf monitoring reports to the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database.

Documents that are 2.0 MB or larger should be broken down into smaller electronic files, labelled properly and uploaded into GeoTracker. 1852
City of Banning; Suez Water Environmental Services Board Order R7-2016-0015 Wastewater Treatment Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 Ordered by: ______Original signed by__________
JOSE L. ANGEL, P.E.

Executive Officer
_______ June 30, 2016__________
Date
1853

CITY OF BANNING NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
REPORT ON THE PRACTICABILITY OF 10 mg/L TOTAL

NITROGEN EFFLUENT LIMITATION
JUNE 2020
1854
Table of Contents

1. Introduction _____________________________________________________________ 1

2. Background______________________________________________________________ 2

2.1. Plant Overview _____________________________________________________________ 2

2.2. Previous Efforts_____________________________________________________________ 3

2.3. Regional Water Quality Control Board Order _____________________________________ 4

2.4. Title 22 Requirements________________________________________________________ 5

3. Wastewater Characterization _______________________________________________ 7

3.1. Sources of Nitrogen _________________________________________________________ 7

4. Preliminary Screening of Options ___________________________________________ 10

4.1. Biological Treatment________________________________________________________ 10

4.1.1. Trickling Filter ____________________________________________________________________ 11

4.1.2. Denitrification Filter _______________________________________________________________ 12

4.1.3. Oxidation Ditch ___________________________________________________________________ 13

4.1.4. Conventional Activated Sludge ______________________________________________________ 14

4.1.5. Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge (IFAS)___________________________________________ 15

4.1.6. Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) __________________________________________________ 16

4.1.7. Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) ________________________________________________________ 17

4.1.8. Sidestream Treatment _____________________________________________________________ 18

4.1.9. Biologically Active Filter ____________________________________________________________ 19

4.1.10. Natural Treatment Systems_______________________________________________________ 20

4.1.11. Passive Aeration Rock Filters______________________________________________________ 21

4.1.12. Treatment Process Selection Criteria _______________________________________________ 22

4.1.13. Options Eliminated _____________________________________________________________ 24

4.2. Tertiary Filters_____________________________________________________________ 24

4.2.1. Cloth Media Disk Filters ____________________________________________________________ 25

4.2.2. Pressurized Sand Filters ____________________________________________________________ 26

4.2.3. Gravity Sand Filters________________________________________________________________ 26

4.2.4. Treatment Process Selection Criteria__________________________________________________ 27

4.2.5. Options Eliminated ________________________________________________________________ 28

4.3. Disinfection _______________________________________________________________ 28

4.3.1. Sodium Hypochlorite ______________________________________________________________ 28

4.3.2. Chlorine Gas _____________________________________________________________________ 29

4.3.3. UV _____________________________________________________________________________ 30

4.3.4. Treatment Process Selection Criteria__________________________________________________ 31

4.3.5. Options Eliminated ________________________________________________________________ 32

5. Alternatives Analysis _____________________________________________________ 33

5.1. Design Criteria_____________________________________________________________ 33

5.2. BioWin Modeling __________________________________________________________ 33 1855

5.3. Visual Hydraulics 4.2________________________________________________________ 34

5.4. Cost Assumptions __________________________________________________________ 34

6. Wastewater Plant Upgrades _______________________________________________ 36

6.1. Equalization Basin__________________________________________________________ 36

6.2. Primary Clarifier ___________________________________________________________ 38

6.3. Tertiary Filter______________________________________________________________ 39

6.4. Chlorine Contact Tank_______________________________________________________ 41

6.5. Sludge Treatment __________________________________________________________ 43

6.6. Lab and Control Building_____________________________________________________ 45

7. Wastewater Treatment Alternatives_________________________________________ 46

7.1. Alternative 1 Increase Trickling Filter Recirculation Rate ___________________________ 46

7.2. Alternative 2 Conventional Activated Sludge ____________________________________ 50

7.3. Alternative 3 Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge______________________________ 54

7.4. Alternative 4 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor ______________________________________ 58

7.5. Alternative 5 Membrane Bioreactor ___________________________________________ 62

8. Comparison of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives ____________________________ 69

9. Summary of Analysis _____________________________________________________ 72

10. Implementation Plan ___________________________________________________ 74 1856

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. PROCESS SCHEMATIC FOR EXISTING WWTP ..............................................................................................................3 FIGURE 2. TRICKLING FILTERS AT THE CITY WWTP..................................................................................................................11 FIGURE 3. (A)DOWNFLOW AND (B)UPFLOW DENITRIFICATION FILTER (COURTESY OF ITT LEOPARD AND DYNASAND ...........................13 FIGURE 4. OXIDATION DITCH (COURTESY OF VEOLIA) ..............................................................................................................14 FIGURE 5. CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE FLOW DIAGRAM.................................................................................................15 FIGURE 6. IFAS (COURTESY OF BRENTWOOD)........................................................................................................................16 FIGURE 7. MBBR SYSTEM COMPONENTS (COURTESY OF VEOLIA) ..............................................................................................17 FIGURE 8. MBR FACILITY (COURTESY OF KY OCP) .................................................................................................................18 FIGURE 9. SIDESTREAM ANAMMOX TREATMENT SYSTEMS (COURTESY OF VEOLIA AND OVIVO).........................................................19 FIGURE 10. BAF LAYOUT (COURTESY OF LEOPARD).................................................................................................................20 FIGURE 11. SCHEMATIC OF A NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM .....................................................................................................21 FIGURE 12. THE FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE OF PASSIVE AERATION ROCK FILTER (COURTESY OF TRIPLE-T).........................................22 FIGURE 13. DISK FILTER (COURTESY OF AQUA-AEROBICS)........................................................................................................25 FIGURE 14. PRESSURIZED SAND FILTERS (COURTESY OF EPD USA INC.) ......................................................................................26 FIGURE 15. GRAVITY SAND FILTERS (COURTESY OF KHAN WATER TREATMENT CO., LTD.)...............................................................27 FIGURE 16. SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE SYSTEM (COURTESY OF BERGEN COUNTY)............................................................................29 FIGURE 17. CHLORINE GAS (COURTESY OF JCS INDUSTRIES)......................................................................................................30 FIGURE 18. UV SYSTEM (COURTESY OF FLOW-TECHNICS, INC.).................................................................................................31 FIGURE 19. BIOWIN MODELING..........................................................................................................................................34 FIGURE 20. DAILY FLOW FLUCTUATION FOR EXISTING (2.0 MGD) AND FUTURE (3.6 MGD) FLOW CONDITIONS.................................37 FIGURE 21. MECHANICAL SLUDGE THICKENER (COURTESY OF HUBER).........................................................................................44 FIGURE 22. ALTERNATIVE 1 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM .............................................................................................................48 FIGURE 23. ALTERNATIVE 1 SITE LAYOUT...............................................................................................................................49 FIGURE 24. ALTERNATIVE 2 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM .............................................................................................................52 FIGURE 25. ALTERNATIVE 2 SITE LAYOUT...............................................................................................................................53 FIGURE 26. ALTERNATIVE 3 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM .............................................................................................................56 FIGURE 27. ALTERNATIVE 3 SITE LAYOUT...............................................................................................................................57 FIGURE 28. ALTERNATIVE 4 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM .............................................................................................................60 FIGURE 29. ALTERNATIVE 4 SITE LAYOUT...............................................................................................................................61 FIGURE 30. ALTERNATIVE 5 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM .............................................................................................................66 FIGURE 31. ALTERNATIVE 5 SITE LAYOUT...............................................................................................................................67 FIGURE 32. PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE UTILIZING THE TRADITIONAL DESIGN-BID-BUILD METHOD ..............................75 1857

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. COST COMPARISON OF PREVIOUS MBR STUDIES TO TREAT 1.5 MGD..............................................................................4 TABLE 2. WWTP EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS PER BOARD ORDER R7-2016-0015..............................................................................5 TABLE 3. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS...............................................................................................................................7 TABLE 4. ESTIMATED WASTEWATER FLOW FROM CITY POPULATION..............................................................................................8 TABLE 5. ESTIMATED WASTEWATER FLOWS FOR SAN GORGONIO MEMORIAL HOSPITAL...................................................................9 TABLE 6. ESTIMATED WASTEWATER FLOW FOR LARRY D. SMITH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.................................................................9 TABLE 7. ESTIMATED NITROGEN CONTRIBUTION FROM WASTEWATER SOURCES ..............................................................................9 TABLE 8. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PROCESS OPTIONS ..............................................................................................................10 TABLE 9. PROCESS SELECTION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OPTIONS ..........................................23 TABLE 10. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OPTIONS WEIGHTED SCORES ...............................................................................................23 TABLE 11. BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OPTION ELIMINATION REASONING........................................................................................24 TABLE 12. PROCESS SELECTION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR TERTIARY FILTER ...............................................................27 TABLE 13. TERTIARY FILTER OPTIONS WEIGHTED SCORES ..........................................................................................................28 TABLE 14. TERTIARY FILTER OPTIONS ELIMINATION REASONING .................................................................................................28 TABLE 15. PROCESS SELECTION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR THE DISINFECTION SYSTEM..................................................32 TABLE 16. DISINFECTION OPTIONS WEIGHTED SCORES .............................................................................................................32 TABLE 17. DISINFECTION OPTION ELIMINATION REASONING......................................................................................................32 TABLE 18. COST ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS ..................................................................35 TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR EQ BASIN.............................................................................................38 TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR EXISTING AND NEW PRIMARY CLARIFIERS.....................................................39 TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR TERTIARY FILTER COMPONENTS .................................................................40 TABLE 22. LIST OF CAAFT FOR FILTRATION SYSTEMS...............................................................................................................41 TABLE 23. SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR CHLORINE CONTACT TANKS ......................................................................42 TABLE 24. EXISTING ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS DIMENSIONS AND CAPACITY......................................................................................43 TABLE 25. SUMMARY OF ANAEROBIC DIGESTER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................44 TABLE 26. SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 .....................................................................................47 TABLE 27. SECONDARY EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 ......................................................................................47 TABLE 28. CAPITAL, O&M, AND LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE 1.........................................................................50 TABLE 29. SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 .....................................................................................51 TABLE 30. SECONDARY EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 ......................................................................................51 TABLE 31. CAPITAL, O&M, AND LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE 2.........................................................................54 TABLE 32. SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 .....................................................................................55 TABLE 33. SECONDARY EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 ......................................................................................55 TABLE 34. CAPITAL, O&M, AND LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE 3.........................................................................58 TABLE 35. SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALTERNATIVE 4 .....................................................................................59 TABLE 36. SECONDARY EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY FOR ALTERNATIVE 4 ......................................................................................59 TABLE 37. CAPITAL, O&M, AND LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE 4.........................................................................62 TABLE 38. MBR EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER SPECIFICATION COMPARISON..........................................................................................63 TABLE 39. SUMMARY OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALTERNATIVE 5 .....................................................................................65 TABLE 40. SECONDARY EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY FOR ALTERNATIVE 5 ......................................................................................65 TABLE 41. CAPITAL, O&M, AND LIFE CYCLE COST SUMMARY FOR ALTERNATIVE 5.........................................................................68 TABLE 42. COST COMPARISON SUMMARY FOR THE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................69 TABLE 43. SECONDARY EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY COMPARISON FOR THE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES...............................................70 TABLE 44. UNIT OPERATION COST COMPARISON FOR THE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................70 TABLE 45. COMPARISON OF TOTAL COST PER TON OF NITROGEN REMOVED..................................................................................71 1858

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Anammox Anaerobic Ammonium Oxidation Bacteria
AOB Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria
BAF Biologically Active Filtration
BOD5 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand at 20o C
CAAFT Conditionally Accepted Alternative Filtration Technologies CAS Conventional Activated Sludge
CIP Chemical Clean in Place
City City of Banning
Cl2 Chlorine Gas
CSI Construction Specifications Institute
CT Contact Time
DB Design-Build
DBB Design-Bid-Build
DF Denitrification Filter
DMWTP Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EQ Equalization
F/M Food and Microorganism Ratio
gpd Gallons per Day
HDPE High-density Polyethylene
HRT Hydraulic Retention Time
IFAS Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge
KPI Key Performance Indicators
MBBR Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor
MBR Membrane Bioreactor
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
1859
mg-min/L Milligram Minutes per Liter
MGD Million Gallons per Day
mL Milliliters
MLE Modified Ludzack-Ettinger
MLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
MLVSS Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids
MPN Most Probable Number
N/DN Nitrification/denitrification
NaOCl Sodium Hypochlorite
NH3-N Ammonia Nitrogen
NOx Nitrite and Nitrate
NT Natural Treatment Systems
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OD Oxidation Ditch
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PARF Passive Aeration Rock Filters
RAS Return Activated Sludge
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SGMH San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital
SRT Solid Retention Time
ST Sidestream Treatment
SWD Side Wall Depth
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TF Trickling Filter
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TN Total Nitrogen
1860
TSS Total Suspended Solids
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV Ultraviolet
WAS Waste Activated Sludge
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WRF Water Reclamation Facility
WSEL Water Surface Elevation
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
1861

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Engineering Team: This report was prepared and edited by the following engineering staff:

Joon Min, PhD, Principal in Charge, Montrose
James Wang, PE, Senior Design Manager, Montrose
Chi-Chung Tang, PhD, PE, Technical Advisor and QA/QC Officer, Montrose Young Eum, PhD, Senior Process Engineer, Montrose
Kyle Nelson, PE, Project Engineer, Montrose
Dustin Stickney, PE, Project Engineer, Montrose
Agata Bugala, Staff Engineer, Montrose
City Staff: The engineering team was assisted by the following City of Banning and Suez Environmental staff. Their assistance is greatly appreciated:

Art Vela, PE, Director of Public Works, City of Banning Luis Cardenas, PE, Senior Engineer, City of Banning
Perry Gerdes, Public Utilities Superintendent, City of Banning Lorenzo Amis, Chief Plant Operator, Suez Environmental/United Water John Holub, Plant Operator, Suez Environmental/United Water 1862

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 1 1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to evaluate wastewater treatment alternatives for nitrogen removal and the production of recycled water for the City of Banning (City) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Wastewater treatment stages considered for this evaluation included biological, tertiary, and disinfection. Several process options were assessed within each treatment stage to develop a list of wastewater treatment alternatives for further evaluation. The treatment alternatives are evaluated based on estimated construction and operating costs, operational issues, site constraints, and the ability to comply with current and future regulatory requirements. Additionally, this evaluation considered existing treatment process operations, and the ability to upgrade or reuse facilities for future use. The viable wastewater treatment alternatives developed from the evaluation are listed below:

Alternative 1 - Increase Trickling Filter Recirculation Rate Alternative 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge
Alternative 3 - Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge
Alternative 4 - Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor
Alternative 5 - Membrane Bioreactor
1863

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 2 2. BACKGROUND
Groundwater is one of the main drinking water sources for the City. One of the serious problems that affect the quality of the region’s groundwater is nutrients leaching through from the soil.

Nitrogen easily percolates into the groundwater via rainwater recharge, irrigation water carrying excess fertilizers, and untreated sewage or septic leaching. Nitrate and nitrite nitrogen at levels above the drinking water standards have the potential to cause serious human health effects, particularly for infants below the age of six months. Additionally, ammonia nitrogen in the wastewater can form harmful disinfection byproducts when chlorine is used for disinfection. To protect the quality of the City’s water supply, it is critical that the nitrogen in the City’s wastewater be properly managed.

2.1. Plant Overview
The City owns and operates a WWTP located at 2242 East Charles Street, Banning, California 92220. The WWTP has a design treatment capacity of 3.6 million gallons per day (MGD) and currently discharges approximately 2.07 MGD into 10 unlined evaporation/percolation ponds.

The treated effluent then percolates into the groundwater of the San Gorgonio Hydraulic Unit.

Groundwater from this basin is used for municipal, industrial, and agricultural applications.

The WWTP consists of preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, solids handling, disinfection (currently not in use), and evaporation/percolation ponds. The preliminary treatment system consists of a mechanical bar screen, compactor, grit removal system, and cyclone separator. Effluent from the preliminary treatment system is gravity fed to two primary clarifiers. Primary effluent is pumped to two trickling filters, each rated for 1.8 MGD. The trickling filter effluent is sent to two secondary clarifiers. Secondary effluent flows through a chlorine contact chamber and is then discharged to the evaporation/percolation ponds. Primary and secondary sludge is processed via two primary anaerobic digesters. A second-stage digester is currently used as a sludge holding tank before dewatered sludge is sent to the sludge drying beds.

Sludge is allowed to dewater and then is hauled offsite for final disposal. A gravity thickener was used to thicken secondary sludge but is currently not in service. An overall process schematic of the existing WWTP is shown in Figure 1.
1864

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 3 Figure 1. Process schematic for existing WWTP

2.2. Previous Efforts
In 2007, the City contracted Parsons to evaluate treatment technologies for a 1.5 MGD water reclamation facility (WRF) for the production of recycled water. Treatment alternatives investigated included oxidation ditch (OD), conventional activated sludge (CAS), and membrane bioreactor (MBR). The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the best option to comply with future Title 22 requirements for the beneficial reuse of recycled water. Parsons determined an MBR system was the best treatment option and completed a 90% design package of the WRF.

However, the final design and construction of the WRF were terminated due to other pressing City needs and the desire to prepare for future population growth in the area.

In 2013, ZW3, Inc. performed a condition assessment evaluation of the unit operations, equipment, structural, and electrical components of the WWTP. The assessment estimated the 1865

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 4 remaining lifetime of the existing unit treatment processes before preforming any major upgrades. It was determined that while several components of the WWTP are nearly 50 years old, process and structural components are performing adequately and are expected to remain operational for several more decades. Additionally, the facility and treatment system produce effluent that complied with permit limits.

In 2015, Carollo Engineers assessed the viability of producing recycled water by expanding the existing WWTP or constructing a satellite plant at or near the Rancho San Gorgonio Development.

Carollo considered treatment alternatives, including upgrading the facility to a 3.6 MGD tertiary filter treatment system and constructing a 1.5 MGD MBR facility and a 1 MGD satellite treatment facility. The estimated capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs only considered the planning stage, and did not include nitrogen removal by the treatment processes.

Since both the 2007 Parson and 2015 Carollo studies evaluated the use of an MBR treatment system, the City would like to update the cost estimates based on new design considerations and improvements to the MBR technology. A comparison of the capital, annual O&M, and life cycle costs from the Parson and Carollo reports is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Cost comparison of previous MBR studies to treat 1.5 MGD 2007 Parson Study 2015 Carollo Study
Cost Type Hollow Fiber
MBR
Flat Sheet

MBR MBR
Construction Cost $14,628,000 $14,395,000 $9,200,000
Annual O&M Costs
Power $250,000 $230,000 -
Chemical $59,000 $59,000 -
Maintenance and Replacement $165,000 $145,000 -
Total O&M Cost $474,000 $434,000 $760,000
Life Cycle Cost $21,678,0001 $20,837,0001 $28,614,0001
1 Life Cycle cost was calculated based on a 3% interest rate and 20 years of the return period.

2.3. Regional Water Quality Control Board Order
On June 30, 2016, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Board Order R7- 2016-0015, which describes the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and other terms and conditions of operation for the WWTP. The Board Order requires the WWTP to remove constituents that present the greatest risk to groundwater quality such as nitrogen, coliforms, and total dissolved solid (TDS). According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Nitrate as Nitrogen is 10 mg/L. Per the Board 1866

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 5 Order, it is assumed all nitrogen available converts to nitrate/nitrite so Total Nitrogen (TN) is used as the measurement of concern. The wastewater effluent limitations per the Board Order are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. WWTP effluent limitations per Board Order R7-2016-0015 Parameter 30-Day Average 7-Day Average
20°C BOD5 30 mg/L 45 mg/L
TSS 30 mg/L 45 mg/L
pH 6.0 - 9.0
30-Day Daily Dry
Weather Discharge < 3.6 MGD
DO Upper Zone of the Ponds > 1.0 mg/L
TDS Not to Exceed 300 mg/L of the Water Supply
TN* 10 mg-N/L
*City does not need to comply with this limit at this time Currently, the average TN concentration in the WWTP’s effluent is 29 mg-N/L, well above the future TN limit of 10 mg-N/L specified in Board Order R7-2016-0015. As a result, the Board Order requires the City to conduct a nitrogen removal analysis and summarize the findings in a technical report that includes a tentative work plan and time schedule for the installation and implementation of nitrogen removal treatment alternatives. The final technical report is required to be submitted to the Regional Control Board by June 30, 2020.

2.4. Title 22 Requirements
Water recycling has been proven to be effective and successful in creating a new and reliable water supply without compromising public health. Non-potable reuse is a widely accepted practice and is used to accommodate the needs of the growing water supply demand. Although the initial investment for the construction of water recycling systems can be significant, water recycling and reuse is a sustainable, cost-effective approach for long term applications.

The City is interested in utilizing WWTP effluent for beneficial non-potable reuse applications such as agriculture, landscape, public parks, and golf course irrigation. However, the WWTP effluent, based on the Self-Monitoring Report data from 2011 – 2015, does not comply with California’s water recycling criteria outlined in Title 22, Code of Regulations. To comply with Title 22 requirements, the effluent must meet the following requirements:
• Average daily turbidity less than 2 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU); approximately 3 – 5 mg/L TSS.
1867

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 6 • Effluent cannot exceed 5 NTU more than 5% of the time. • Effluent cannot exceed 10 NTU at any time.
• Coagulant must be added if the influent to the filter exceeds 5 NTU for more than 15 minutes, or 10 NTU at any time.
• The disinfection process must provide a chlorine residual that provides 450 milligramminutes per liter (mg-min/L) under minimal modal contact time (CT) of 90 minutes. o This corresponds to a residual of 5 mg/L or less, or any process that achieves 5-log virus removal.
• Total coliform cannot exceed the average most probable number (MPN) of 2.2 per 100 milliliters (mL).
• No more than one sample per month can exceed an MPN of 23 per 100 mL.

The WWTP currently discharges 29 mg/L TN and 21 mg/L TSS. In order to use recycled water, the City will be required to improve the removal efficiency of the existing WWTP to comply with the TN, turbidity, and disinfection requirements. The project will ensure the proposed treatment system comply with Title 22 requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water, while optimizing the treatment process to minimize capital and operating expenses, environmental impacts, and community impacts.
1868

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 7 3. WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
The wastewater characteristics, including biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), TDS, pH, and temperature, are based on the Annual Operations Monitoring Reports from January 2015 – September 2018 and are summarized in Table 3. Raw wastewater quality data for TN, total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) were measured separately in March 2019. These wastewater characteristics were used in sizing the treatment units during the evaluation of nitrogen removal alternatives and the estimation of sludge productions.

Table 3. Wastewater characteristics
Parameter Unit Raw
Wastewater
Primary Effluent Plant
Effluent %
Removal Concentration
BOD5
1 mg/L 320 30 224 24
TSS1 mg/L 288 50 144 20
TDS1 mg/L 420 - 420 437
pH1- 7.5 - 7.5 7.5
Temperature1°F 76 - 76 70
TN2 mg/L 45 6 42.3 29
TKN2 mg/L 45 6 42.3 19
NH3-N
2 mg/L 38 0 38 8.4
1 Data per 2015 – 2018 Annual Operations Reports.
2 Data per March 2019. It is currently not regularly measured.

3.1. Sources of Nitrogen
The sources of wastewater discharged to collection systems are typically from residential areas, commercial, institutional, recreational, and industrial facilities. Nitrogen in the wastewater entering the WWTP is primarily domestic in nature, and from a few industrial facilities within the City. Although WWTPs cannot completely remove all nutrients or other constituents from the influent wastewater, their final concentration can be decreased by reducing pollution that comes from these sources. To estimate the nitrogen load contributed from domestic and industrial sources, the total flow must be estimated for each source.

For residential areas, the wastewater flow rate is primarily a function of the population.

According to the California Department of Finance report released in May 2019, the City of Banning has a population of 31,044 people. Using the Metcalf and Eddy Wastewater Treatment 1869

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 8 and Reuse Guidance Book, standard demand factors are used to estimate the average wastewater flow rate contributed from residential sources. The estimated average wastewater flow rate, expressed in gallons per day (gpd), from the City assuming most of the homes in the City are older homes is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Estimated wastewater flow from City population Residential Wastewater Flow
Description Quantity Units Flow/Unit Base Flow (gpd)
Population 31,044 people 50 1,552,200
Miscellaneous 15% - - 232,900
Subtotal 1,785,100
Industrial discharge is monitored at various locations and submitted to the City in accordance with local and federal requirements. Currently, industrial discharge requirements do not have wastewater nitrogen limitations. Presently, the City regulates industrial discharge from two businesses within City limits.
• San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital (SGMH) – Located on the westside of Banning. The hospital complies with the Non-Significant Industrial User Discharge Permit. SGMH has two clinics: behavioral health services, as well as an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation clinic located within the hospital, and is licensed for a total of 79 inpatient beds. • Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility – Located in South Banning is classified as a Class I Non-Categorical Significant Industrial User. The Facility’s Riverside County staff report issued on June 2011, states that the Correctional Facility has more than 1,500 beds and also contains a laundry facility.

Wastewater flow rates from each facility are determined based on the industrial discharge type and the design daily flow rates. Table 5 and Table 6 are the estimated wastewater baseflow for SGMH and the correctional facility, respectively. The quantity of each facilities’ flow-generating components is estimated according to facility size, type, and typical wastewater flowrates for various industrial activities. Allen Industrial Facility was excluded from the calculations due to the non-significant discharge volume.
1870

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 9 Table 5. Estimated wastewater flows for San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital
Description Quantity Units Flow/Unit Base Flow (gpd)
Hospital, medical 61 Bed 300 18,300
31 Employee 10 400
Hospital, mental 18 Bed 150 2,700
9 Employee 10 100
Miscellaneous 15% - - 3,300
Subtotal 24,800
Table 6. Estimated wastewater flow for Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility Correctional Facility
Description Quantity Units Flow/Unit Base Flow
(gpd)
Correctional facility 1,500 Inmate 120 180,000
100 Employee 10 1,000
Miscellaneous 15% - - 27,200
Subtotal 208,200
The estimated nitrogen mass contribution from domestic wastewater is typically found by multiplying the average wastewater flow rate by a factor of 13 – 14.3 grams of nitrogen per capita per day. The estimated nitrogen load contributed from domestic and industrial sources, and the nitrogen load calculated from the current average flow rate and nitrogen water quality data is shown in Table 7. The difference between the estimated versus actual data can be contributed to flow/load variance, natural losses, and dilution in the collection system.

Table 7. Estimated nitrogen contribution from wastewater sources Parameter Residential SGMH Correctional
Facility
Total
Estimated
Current
Data
Wastewater Flow (gpd) 1,785,100 24,800 208,200 2,018,100 2,070,000 TN Load (lb/day) 934 3.31 48 986 777
TN Concentration (mg/L) 63 16 28 59 45
1871

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 10 4. PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF OPTIONS
In this technical memorandum, a systematic naming convention is used to label the process/unit operation categories that make up the different liquid treatment systems. The use of “Alternatives” represents the complete wastewater treatment system and is comprised of a combination of “Stages” that maintain individual “Options”. The wastewater treatment system was divided into the following three stages for evaluation:
• Biological
• Tertiary Filters
• Disinfection
A preliminary list of viable treatment options that comply with Title 22 requirements was developed for this evaluation. General information and illustrations for each option are given below. Internal brainstorm sessions were conducted to analyze the feasibility of various options, and to develop treatment alternatives for preliminary design.

4.1. Biological Treatment
Biological systems refer to the secondary treatment stage of wastewater unit processes. The focus of this evaluation was to determine the performance of each treatment option on the removal of BOD5, TN, and TSS. The eleven biological treatment options are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Biological treatment process options
Biological Treatment Option Abbreviation
Trickling Filter TF
Denitrification Filter DF
Oxidation Ditch OD
Conventional Activated Sludge CAS
Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge IFAS
Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor MBBR
Membrane Bioreactor MBR
Sidestream Treatment ST
Biologically Active Filtration BAF
Natural Treatment Systems NT
Passive Aeration Rock Filters PARF
1872

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 11 4.1.1. Trickling Filter
Trickling Filters are currently utilized by the City at the WWTP. TF, shown in Figure 2, is an aerobic attached growth process used for secondary treatment. It consists of a tank filled with different types of media such as crushed stone, rocks, or plastic materials ranging in size from 2 – 4 inches.

Wastewater is distributed by a rotary distributor arm over the top area of a vessel containing non-submerged packing material. As the wastewater trickles through the bed, microbial growth on the media forms a biofilm. The organic material in the wastewater is degraded by microorganisms attached to the biofilm. Some of the ammonia nitrogen in the wastewater is oxidized by nitrifying bacteria to nitrate or nitrite nitrogen. An essential element of the trickling filter design and operation is the recirculation of effluent to the filter media for process optimization and increased treatment performance.

There are four basic trickling filter types: low-rate, intermediate-rate, high-rate, and roughing filters. Low-rate filters are loaded at less than 40 kg BOD5 per day. The residual solids are usually well digested, producing a higher quality secondary effluent. Intermediate-rate filters are loaded up to 64 kg BOD5 per day. This system requires wastewater recirculation to ensure sufficient effluent quality. High-rate filters have a maximum organic load, ranging from 64 – 160 kg BOD5 per day. In this system, a secondary filtration stage is required to achieve effluent standards.

Roughing filters are typically loaded from 160 – 480 kg BOD5 per day. Overall, low-rate and highrate trickling filters achieve the highest organic removal rates.

Figure 2. Trickling filters at the City WWTP
1873

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 12 Advantages Disadvantages
• Simplicity in biological operation
• Low energy requirements
• Low maintenance requirements
• Low sludge production
• Appropriate for small and medium sized
communities
• No problems of sludge bulking in
secondary clarifiers
• Improved sludge thickening abilities
• Durable process elements
• Low loading rate requirements depending on
media
• Diffusion limitations and possibility of mass
transfer
• Higher BOD5 and solid concentrations in the
effluent
• Issues with biofilm maintenance due to
excess sloughing
• Odor problems
• Low efficiency at cold temperatures

4.1.2. Denitrification Filter
Denitrification filtration, shown in Figure 3, is a commonly employed method to reduce the TN and suspended solids via attached growth processes. The attached biofilm converts nitrite and nitrate (NOx) to nitrogen gas with the addition of a carbon source, such as glycerol or methanol, to stimulate the denitrification process. There are two main configurations of denitrification filters: downflow and upflow packed-bed reactors. Downflow denitrification filters operate in a conventional filtration mode. Wastewater flows through a downflow filter over weirs along the length of the filter bed on both sides. During this process, nitrate is converted to nitrogen gas under anoxic and anaerobic conditions by autotrophic bacteria that are attached to the filter media. Backwashing is required at regular intervals. In upflow denitrification filters, influent flows upward through the filter media and is slowly drawn into an airlift pipe in the center of the filter.

Compressed air is added to the filter to draw media up and scour the biofilm off. Continuous backwash or reject is required. Typical medias used for denitrification filters include mono-media granular sand, gravel, or silica. An external carbon sourced is typically dosed in the denitrification filter influent.
1874

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 13 Figure 3. (a)Downflow and (b)Upflow Denitrification Filter (courtesy of ITT Leopard and Dynasand
Advantages Disadvantages
• Effective total nitrogen, solids,
phosphorus, and BOD5 removal
• Operational flexibility
• Small footprint
• High chemical addition costs
• Additional pump station
• Upflow denitrification filters have high
energy costs due to continuous
backwashing

4.1.3. Oxidation Ditch
Oxidation Ditches, shown in Figure 4, is a type of modified activated sludge process that utilizes long solid retention times (SRT) to accomplish organic and nitrogen removal. Oxidation ditches are configured in a single or multi-ring, oval, or horseshoe-shaped basin. Aerators are equipped to provide circulation, oxygen transfer, and aeration in the basin. Wastewater flows continuously in one direction to create a mixed system.

Screened influent enters the oxidation ditch, is aerated and mixed with the return activated sludge, and effluent is settled in a secondary clarifier. The system can operate in an extended or conventional aeration mode. Tertiary filters may be required when discharge requirements are more stringent. This process is suitable for use in small and medium communities with large land areas. The oxidation ditch is typically designed to achieve both BOD5 and nitrogen removal via nitrification/denitrification (N/DN). Primary settling is not required. 1875

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 14 Figure 4. Oxidation Ditch (courtesy of Veolia)
Advantages Disadvantages
• Highly reliable and operational
simplicity
• Low maintenance costs
• Well-stabilized sludge
• Capable of treating shock/toxic loads
without affecting effluent quality due
to long SRT time and complete mixing
• Adaptable for N/DN
• Larger footprint requirements compared
to other activated sludge treatment
options
• Higher effluent suspended solids
• Unable to treat sustained highly toxic
waste streams
• Requires more energy consumption than
conventional treatment

4.1.4. Conventional Activated Sludge
The conventional activated sludge process, shown in Figure 5, is a biological wastewater treatment system where various microorganisms growing as suspended flocs, called mixed liquor, degrade organic matter in the wastewater. The mixed liquor settles in the secondary clarifiers, effluent is discharged for further treatment, and the microorganisms are recirculated back to the bioreactor as return activated sludge (RAS). Oxygen is provided by blowers and diffusers to facilitate the growth of microorganisms. Excess sludge is wasted so that the system can be operated at a target solids retention time.

The conventional activated sludge process can be modified for biological nitrogen removal. This is accomplished by dividing the bioreactor into the aerobic zone and anoxic zone (where no oxygen is provided). Ammonia in the wastewater is oxidized to nitrite and nitrate in the aerobic zone, whereas nitrate and nitrite are denitrified to nitrogen gas in the anoxic zone. In the modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) configuration, the anoxic zone is placed upstream of the aerobic zone. Nitrate and nitrite are recirculated back to from the end of the aerobic zone to the anoxic zone for denitrification. Other configurations, such as the step-feed activated sludge process, have also been used successfully for nitrogen removal.
1876

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 15 Figure 5. Conventional activated sludge flow diagram Advantages Disadvantages
• Plenty of operating experience
• Uniform mixing in aeration tanks
• High oxygen transfer efficiency
• Solid and liquid stream separation
• High quality effluent
• High operational cost
• Sludge disposal requirement
• Diffusers require regular cleaning

4.1.5. Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge (IFAS)
An Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) system, shown in Figure 6, contains fixed media that promote biofilm growth within conventional activated sludge systems. It operates in the same manner as the conventional activated sludge system. The primary difference between IFAS and conventional activated sludge is that IFAS systems allow for a greater density of bacteria populations to grow on the surface area of the media. The greater amount of biomass increases the treatment capacity of a basin. The fixed media’s surface areas usually range from 50 – 300 m2/m3. IFAS achieves an increase in process reliability under conditions of variable mixed liquor, solids retention, and organic loading rates. IFAS systems require secondary clarifiers and sludge recycle, as in the conventional activated sludge process. However, because the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) levels are lower in the bioreactor than those in the conventional activated sludge process, the size of the secondary clarifiers can be reduced.

While a conventional activated sludge process is typically designed and operated at SRTs ranging from 12 to 18 days to achieve nitrification with water temperatures between 10 and 15 °C, an IFAS system achieves nitrification typically with SRTs of 4 – 5 days, even with the temperature at approximately 10 °C.
1877

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 16 Figure 6. IFAS (courtesy of Brentwood)
Advantages Disadvantages
• Increased capacity of the activated sludge
without increasing tank volume
• Increased process stability
• Reduced clarifier loading
• Low construction costs
• High oxygen demand requirements
• Accumulation of debris in IFAS cells
• Foaming issues
• Cost of the media

4.1.6. Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)
The moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) process, shown in Figure 7, is a biological treatment process that was developed by combining the conventional activated sludge system and suspended biofilm carrier media. This process incorporates polyethylene or other material media that provides surface area for the growth of heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria biofilm in uniformly mixed tanks. The MBBR contains media with the surface area of ranging from 400 – 600 m2/m3. A final clarifier is used to remove suspended solids and to produce a clarified effluent.

Settled sludge can be returned to the bioreactor if necessary.

MBBRs may be used for aerobic, anoxic, or anaerobic processes. The system can handle high organic loads and high substrate concentrations. Nitrification rates are influenced by the organic load, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, ammonium nitrogen concentration, temperature, pH, and alkalinity in the reactor.
1878

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 17 Figure 7. MBBR system components (courtesy of Veolia) Advantages Disadvantages
• Backwash is not necessary
• A high specific biofilm surface area
• Continuous operation of the reactor without
clogging
• Ability to increase the plant capacity without
expansion of existing reactor volume
• Easy to operate
• Stable operation at low temperature
• Long life expectancy of biofilm media
carriers
• Media can wash out over time;
regular cleaning of effluent screens
• Longer start up time requirement
• Bacterial activity has to be
monitored periodically
• Cost of the media

4.1.7. Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs), shown in Figure 8, consist of a biological reactor with suspended biomass and solids separation by microfiltration or ultrafiltration membranes with the nominal pore size ranging from 0.07 – 2.0 μm and 0.008 – 0.2 μm, respectively. MBRs can be operated at higher MLSS concentrations (8,000 – 12,000 mg/L), as a result, the reactor size is reduced. Solids liquid separation is accomplished with membranes instead of clarifiers. There are two fundamental arrangements of MBRs: (1) integrated systems that have membranes immersed in an activated sludge reactor and (2) separate systems that have a membrane module placed outside the reactor. Immersed MBRs typically use hollow fiber membranes that operate at lower pressures, accommodate various types of biosolids, concentrate biosolids without settling concerns, and have lower life-cycle costs. Separate systems are typically pressure driven and the membranes are in a stand-alone tank. Properly configured, the MBR process removes nitrogen similar to the activated sludge process.
1879

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 18 Figure 8. MBR Facility (courtesy of KY OCP)
Advantages Disadvantages
• Higher MLSS concentrations
therefore a small footprint
• Less sludge production due to
longer SRT design
• High effluent quality
• No secondary sedimentation is
needed
• High capital costs (membranes)
• High energy costs compared to the
conventional process due to membrane
scouring
• Limited time on membrane life
• High cost membrane replacement

4.1.8. Sidestream Treatment
Most WWTPs return sludge dewatered liquid (filtrate of centrate) generated from the sludge treatment processes to the headwork of the plant. This sidestream can contain elevated levels of ammonia nitrogen if sludge is anaerobically digested. The ammonia mass loading of the sidestream can account for 15 to 25 percent of the total nitrogen load that has to be treated by the biological process. In recent years, advances have been made to effectively remove nitrogen from the sludge dewatering sidestream using the ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and the anaerobic ammonia oxidizing (Anammox) bacteria. In this process, some of the ammonia nitrogen is partially oxidized to nitrite nitrogen by the AOB, the Anammox bacteria then use the nitrite nitrogen as electron acceptor and the remaining ammonia nitrogen as electron donor to form nitrogen gas. No carbon source is necessary for the process. Because Anammox bacteria grow slowly, there is no significant sludge produced from the process that needs to be managed.

Additionally, oxygen required is significantly lower than the conventional nitrification process.

There are three major technology providers for the process: Kruger/Veolia (ANITA™Mox), Ovivo (AnammoPAQ™), and World Water Works (DEMON®). These systems operate in either batch or continuous flow configurations, with anammox bacteria attaching to a surface or floating freely 1880

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 19 as granules. The process operates similarly to the MBBR and IFAS processes. An example of the anammox treatment system is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Sidestream anammox treatment systems (courtesy of Veolia and Ovivo) Advantages Disadvantages
• No external carbon addition
• Reduced energy for aeration
• Less sludge production
• Lower alkalinity demands
• Cost effective compared to conventional
biological nutrient removal systems
• Slow growth of Anammox bacteria
• Sensitive to nitrite, oxygen, and
ammonia concentration and other
environmental conditions
(temperature, pH)
• Tight process controls
• High cost of anammox bacteria

4.1.9. Biologically Active Filter
Biologically Active Filter (BAF) systems, shown in Figure 10, remove contaminants by three main mechanisms: biodegradation, adsorption, and filtration. They can combine ammonia, carbonaceous matter, and solids removals in a single unit. Microorganisms attach to the filter media creating a biofilm that consumes organic matter and nitrifies ammonia nitrogen. BAFs utilized for denitrification are fed a form of carbon (i.e. acetic acid, methanol) and use nitrate as an electron acceptor in place of oxygen.

In a BAF, influent flows either upwards or downwards through tanks that are filled with media.

Granular activated carbon is often used as the media to promote biofilm growth. The size of the granular media affects the efficiency of wastewater treatment in terms of solids and nutrient removal. For example, medias with large diameters (6 mm) reduce available space for biofilm growth, while small diameter medias facilitate higher filtration efficiency, but require more 1881

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 20 frequent backwashing. BAF units are typically used as a polishing step after conventional treatment and are utilized to remove micropollutants and suspended solids. Clarifiers are not required in the BAF system.

Figure 10. BAF layout (courtesy of Leopard)
Advantages Disadvantages
• Fully automated operation
• Capable of handling varied flow and
temperature fluctuations
• Cost effective due to the elimination
of secondary clarifiers
• Ability to control odor
• Better contaminant removal than
conventional filtration
• Reduction of residual solid
production
• Optimization for media type is required
• Higher costs due to automated valves and
on-line instrumentation
• Higher operational costs due to external
carbon source for denitrification

4.1.10. Natural Treatment Systems
Natural treatment systems such as constructed wetlands, shown in Figure 11, promote the breakdown of contaminants via natural processes such as photodegradation, biological and chemical transformation, and physical removal mechanisms. Plant species, media types, and optimal operating parameters (water depth, hydraulic load, and retention time) are all crucial influencing factors to the removal performance of constructed wetlands. The removal mechanisms for nitrogenous compounds in constructed wetlands are sedimentation, adsorption, 1882

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 21 volatilization, microbial uptake and transformation, and plant uptake. Nitrate will either be absorbed by plants and microbes and converted to biomass through assimilation, or it will undergo denitrification in the anaerobic zone at the bottom of the wetland. The highest rate of nitrogen removal is observed during the growing season where up to 3.3 g-N/m2-yr have been estimated for uptake by emergent wetland plants. Other case studies have shown up to 70% TN removal.

Figure 11. Schematic of a natural treatment system
The City can retrofit unused percolation/evaporation ponds for constructed wetlands. The bulk of the capital costs needed would be to perform earthwork and grading in order to create wetland cells, purchase of wetland vegetation, and install flow control structures. Effluent can be discharged via the remaining percolation ponds or connected to distribution lines for water reuse. Additionally, wetlands are less expensive to operate and maintain since mechanical equipment, energy, and skilled operator requirements are reduced compared to conventional treatment systems.

Advantages Disadvantages
• Ease of construction
• Low O&M costs
• Habitat for wildlife
• Reliable treatment under fluctuating
loading rates
• Requires preliminary treatment
• Large footprint area
• Long retention time
• Pests and vector control

4.1.11. Passive Aeration Rock Filters
Passive aeration rock filters, shown in Figure 12, is a relatively new method using passive aeration attached growth for biological degradation. Wastewater is filled and drained through subsurface flow basins to achieve passive aeration. The system is comprised of two flow basins with gravel 1883

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 22 media that alternate between fill and drain cycles. This process allows for uniform mixing and has the ability to treat high nitrogen loads to tertiary effluent quality levels. The unique pumping configuration in the basin can allow for simultaneous N/DN. Prescreening and primary settling are recommended to prevent clogging and odor issues in the basins.

Figure 12. The flow control structure of passive aeration rock filter (courtesy of Triple-T) Advantages Disadvantages
• High degree of nitrogen removal
• Low energy consumption
• Low O&M costs
• Low sludge production
• Relatively new technology
• Large footprint area
• Smaller flow installations

4.1.12. Treatment Process Selection Criteria
Capital and O&M costs, regulatory compliance, and treatment performance are the main design parameters to evaluate potential treatment options. However, there are several other factors that may affect the City’s decision in selecting a treatment process, such as permitting, construction schedule, process robustness, footprint, ease of operation, monitoring requirements, and consumables. All of these factors are considered in evaluating which treatment process will yield most benefit for the City.

Process evaluation and selection have been performed by using a paired comparison analysis to weigh the relative importance of each selection criterion. During this analysis, one criterion is judged to be more important than, of equal importance to, or less important than one other criterion. Comparing only two criteria at a time simplifies the evaluation and minimizes ambiguity in the weighting process. For example, if criterion A (applications) is compared with criterion B (startup time), and B is more important than A, B is then listed in the weighting table.

A mathematical formula was used to convert the paired comparison selections to a relative weight factor for each criterion, rather than randomly assigning values. Table 9 illustrates the 1884

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 23 comparison analysis and the relative weights of twelve criteria that our team developed for the biological treatment options.

Table 9. Process selection criteria and weighting factors for biological treatment options Each option was assigned an absolute score of 1 to 5 per criterion. These scores were multiplied by the relative weight of a given criterion and then summed for each process. Scores and weighting factors were determined by the project team and City staff. Table 10 presents the relative weights of the criteria along with the individual and total scores for the options based on a 1 – 5 scale.

Table 10. Biological treatment options weighted scores
Weighted Scores
Selection Criteria TF DF OD CAS IFAS MBBR MBR ST BAF NT PARF Demonstrated in
Previous Applications 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.12 Start Up Time 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.05 Constructability 0.45 0.36 0.18 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.27 0.18 0.18 Operational Complexity 0.61 0.36 0.61 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.12 0.48 0.48 0.48 Treatment Complexity 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 Regulatory Compliance 0.5 0.67 0.5 0.67 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.5 0.5 0.33 Process Robustness 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.09 Capital Cost 0.76 0.45 0.45 0.76 0.45 0.45 0.3 0.3 0.61 0.45 0.3 O&M Cost 0.32 0.32 0.42 0.42 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.53 0.32 0.53 0.42 Environmental Impacts 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.05 Effluent Water Quality 0.41 0.41 0.27 0.41 0.55 0.55 0.68 0.55 0.41 0.41 0.27 Footprint 0.38 0.38 0.15 0.3 0.23 0.3 0.38 0.38 0.3 0.08 0.08 Total Weighted Score 4.00 3.44 3.08 4.18 4.02 4.09 4.21 3.56 3.30 3.17 2.42

A B C D E F G H I J K L
A Demonstrated in Previous Applications A C D A F A H I A K L 6% B Start Up Time C D B F G H I J K L 2%
C Constructability D C F C H I C K C 9%
D Operational Complexity D F D H D D K D 12%
E Treatment Complexity F G H I E K L 2%
F Regulatory Compliance F F F F F F 17%
G Process Robustness H I G K L 5%
H Capital Cost H H H H 15%
I O&M Cost I K I 11%
J Environmental Impacts K L 2%
K Effluent Water Quality K 14%
L Footprint 8%
Criteria Weight
Priority
1885

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 24 4.1.13. Options Eliminated
Based on the results of the paired comparison analysis, the following six options were eliminated from further analysis: Denitrification Filter (DF), Oxidation Ditch (OD), Sidestream Treatment (ST), Biologically Active Filtration (BAF), Natural Treatment Systems (NT), and Passive Aeration Rock Filters (PARF). Brief reasons for the elimination of these options are provided in Table 11.

Table 11. Biological treatment option elimination reasoning Eliminated Option Reason for Elimination
Denitrification Filter
 Capital cost is higher than MBBR or IFAS systems
while not providing much better effluent water
quality. Requires additional carbon source for
nitrogen removal which increases O&M costs.

Oxidation Ditch  Operates similar to conventional activated sludge systems, but does not provide significant treatment
improvements or cost savings.

Sidestream Treatment
 Sidestream treatment may not achieve nitrogen
discharge limits; therefore, improving the
mainstream system is needed. Sidestream treatment
is optimal for larger municipal facilities where space
is limited and O&M costs are prohibitive.

Biologically Active Filter  It requires upstream treatment units to prevent clogging. Typically used as a polishing step or for
smaller wastewater systems.

Natural Treatment Systems
 To comply with the effluent TN goal of 10 mg/L, the
system must be at least 90 acres. The City does not
have enough land space to accommodate this large
footprint.

Passive Aeration Rock Filters
 The typical largest installation is around 1.5 MGD.

Very few installations in the United States. It does
not provide significant improvement in effluent
water quality compared to conventional treatment
systems.

4.2. Tertiary Filters
Tertiary treatment options are used as a polishing step for wastewater to remove suspended, colloidal, and dissolved constituents. Advanced filtration is required when wastewater is discharged into receiving water bodies with stringent suspended solids effluent requirements or 1886

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 25 reuse applications. The most common processes for tertiary filters are cloth media disk filters, pressurized sand filters, and gravity sand filters.

4.2.1. Cloth Media Disk Filters
Cloth media disk filters, as shown in Figure 13, utilize nylon, acrylic, and polyester pile fabric as the media to reduce TSS concentrations to below 5 mg/L. Additionally, disk filters have been used for membrane pretreatment and phosphorus removal. They are typically made of a series of disks mounted horizontally or vertically. Disk filters are completely submerged in tanks, and flow direction is dependent upon the method of solids removal. Disk filter footprints are very small compared to gravity sand filters; typically, 2 – 12 filters can be placed in one basin.

When disk filters are in operation, water enters the feed tank and flows through the filter cloth and a central collection tube. The filtered effluent is collected in a central tube and is discharged to the effluent channel. The solids accumulate on the medium, resulting in an increase of headloss. After reaching a predetermined head loss level, disks are backwashed and the filter is put back into operation.

Figure 13. Disk Filter (courtesy of Aqua-Aerobics)
Advantages Disadvantages
• Simple operation
• High quality effluent
• Minimal head loss
• Fully automated operation
• Low backwash waste generation
• Low energy costs
• Filters have a limited life span
• Filters can be designed to operate at
slightly higher loading rates than sand/dual
media filters.
• Fouling problem may occur due to chemical
pretreatment processes used upstream
such as polymer addition
1887

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 26 4.2.2. Pressurized Sand Filters
Pressurized Sand Filters, shown in Figure 14, are an effective system to remove TSS and reduce turbidity in wastewater. Pressurized sand filters are deployed in vertical or horizontal pressurized steel tanks, and consist of multiple layers of sand, gravel, or anthracite in a variety of sizes and specific gravities. These systems have been proven to produce effluent water quality below 0.5 NTU. The amount of pressurized sand filters in series is dependent upon the flow of the system.

When pressurized sand filters are placed in operation, water flows through the filter bed where polymer is added to enhance removal mechanisms. Constituents in the wastewater are retained in and around the sand grains. Due to the accumulation of solids on the sand, head-loss increases and flow is reduced once an excess in pressure drop occurs across the filter. Pressurized sand filters are required to be backwashed or air scoured to prevent clogging and to maintain treatment performance.

Figure 14. Pressurized sand filters (courtesy of EPD USA Inc.) Advantages Disadvantages
• High efficiency in turbidity and TSS removal
• Easy in O&M
• Higher energy requirement than gravity filters
• Clogging issues due to fine sand
• High backwash volumes

4.2.3. Gravity Sand Filters
Gravity Sand Filters, as shown in Figure 15, are an effective filtration method to remove pathogens and meet stringent effluent discharge permit requirements. Gravity sand filters are driven entirely under gravity force without any outside energy supply. The water level above the media forces the water through the sand filter media. The rate at which water passes through the gravity filters depends on the hydraulic loading rate and the medium used. Based on the loading rate, the gravity filters can be classified as slow sand filters, rapid sand filters, or high rate sand filters. Frequent backwashing is required at regular intervals. 1888

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 27 Figure 15. Gravity sand filters (courtesy of Khan Water Treatment Co., Ltd.) Advantages Disadvantages
• High efficiency in turbidity and TSS
removal
• Short cleaning time
• High capital and operational costs
• Frequent cleaning (every 24 – 72 hours)
• Clogging and odor problems

4.2.4. Treatment Process Selection Criteria
The same methodology as discussed in Section 4.1.12 was utilized to compare the three tertiary filtration options. Table 12 illustrates the comparison analysis and the relative weights of five criteria that the project team and City staff developed for the tertiary filters. Table 13 presents the relative weights of the criteria along with the individual and total scores for the options based on a 1 – 3 scale.

Table 12. Process selection criteria and weighting factors for tertiary filter Criteria Priority
A B C D E Weight
A Backwash Quantity B A A E 20%
B Capital Cost C B E 20%
C O&M Cost C C 30%
D Operational Complexity D 10%
E Space Requirements 20%
1889

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 28 Table 13. Tertiary filter options weighted scores
Weighted Scores
Selection Criteria Cloth Media
Disk Filter
Pressurized
Sand Filter
Gravity
Sand Filter
Safety 0.6 0.6 0.2
Capital Cost 0.4 0.4 0.4
O&M Cost 0.9 0.6 0.6
Operational Complexity 0.2 0.2 0.2
Effluent Water Quality 0.6 0.4 0.2
Total Weighted Score 2.7 2.2 1.6

4.2.5. Options Eliminated
Based on the results of the paired comparison analysis, the pressurized sand filter and gravity sand filter were eliminated from further analysis. Brief reasons for the elimination of these options are provided in Table 14.

Table 14. Tertiary filter options elimination reasoning Eliminated Method Reason for Elimination
Pressurized Sand Filters  The system requires high backwash volumes.

Gravity Sand Filters
 The system requires a lower recovery than cloth
media filter due to higher backwashing. a large
footprint and additional pretreatment due to
clogging affected by water impurities. Additionally, it has high capital and operational costs due to
frequent backwashing.

4.3. Disinfection
Disinfection is the process of inactivating pathogens in water and wastewater. Title 22 specifies the required level of disinfection prior to reuse applications. Based on the existing configuration of the WWTP and proven disinfection technology for wastewater applications, the use of Sodium Hypochlorite, Chlorine Gas, and Ultraviolet were considered.

4.3.1. Sodium Hypochlorite
Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) is the most commonly used source of chlorine for the disinfection of municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent. NaOCl is available in liquid form with concentrations of 12.5% to 15% of available chlorine. The solution can be degraded when 1890

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 29 exposed to sunlight and heat. Therefore, the sodium hypochlorite solution has to be stored in a corrosive resistant tank in a cool, dark place, as shown in Figure 16.

The required chlorine dose depends on water characteristics, contact time, and discharge requirements. Water temperature, alkalinity, and nitrogen content also affect chlorine disinfection efficacy. Ammonia reacts with chlorine to form chloramines which are less effective disinfectant than free chlorine. Any nitrite nitrogen as well as other reduced chemicals in the water will be oxidized by chlorine. Chlorine may also react with organic matter in the water to produce harmful disinfection by-products. The unit cost of sodium hypochlorite solution is about 30% higher than the unit cost of gaseous chlorine.

Figure 16. Sodium Hypochlorite System (courtesy of Bergen County) Advantages Disadvantages
• Provides residual protection in the
effluent
• Effective disinfectant
• Low capital costs than UV and gaseous
chlorine
• Safer to handle than gaseous chlorine
• Not effective against
Cryptosporidium
• Highly corrosive
• Produces disinfection byproducts
• Limited shelf life

4.3.2. Chlorine Gas
Chlorine gas (Cl2), as shown in Figure 17, utilizes a similar disinfection mechanism as NaOCl. It is injected into wastewater through chlorinators to reduce the pressure so that gas becomes liquid.

Only qualified personnel, under the supervision of certified personnel and in accordance with the 1891

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 30 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulatory requirements, are allowed to handle chlorine gas at wastewater treatment plants due to safety concerns. Safety concerns include chlorine gas leaks that could have been caused during the shipment process, storage on site, and/or changing of the gas cylinders. Therefore, many wastewater plants have switched from chlorine gas to sodium/calcium hypochlorite sources for chlorine disinfection.

Figure 17. Chlorine gas (courtesy of JCS Industries)
Advantages Disadvantages
• Effective against most pathogens
• Provides residual protection in the
effluent
• Low operating and capital costs
• Disinfection byproduct formation
• Increased safety risk and special training
required for operators
• Not effective against Cryptosporidium
• Additional regulatory requirements

4.3.3. UV
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, shown in Figure 18, utilizes UV electromagnetic energy to damage microbial DNA and RNA, thereby retarding microbial reproduction. The optimum UV wavelengths are from 250 to 270 nm. The main components of a UV system include UV lamps, quartz sleeves that house the lamps, the supporting structure, and the power supply. UV systems are classified according to the lamp types and whether the flow occurs in an open or closed channel.

UV capital costs depend on the capacity of the plant, wastewater characteristics, and the manufacturer. The total capital and operating costs for UV disinfection are much higher than chlorination. However, in cases where both chlorination and dichlorination are required and fire codes are met, UV becomes cost competitive. Additionally, no harmful disinfection byproducts are formed during operation.
1892

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 31 Figure 18. UV System (courtesy of Flow-Technics, Inc.) Advantages Disadvantages
• More effective disinfectant than
chlorine for protozoa
• No byproducts formation
• No residual effect harmful to human or
aquatic life
• Eliminates the need to generate,
handle, transport, or store hazardous
chemicals
• Shorter contact times
• High energy requirements
• Low dosages may not effectively
inactivate bacteria and viruses
• Turbidity and TSS can render UV
ineffective
• Fouling of tubes
• No measurable residual in the effluent to
indicate the efficacy of disinfection
• UV lamps have limited life and need to
be replaced regularly
• No residual; reactivation of
microorganisms has been reported

4.3.4. Treatment Process Selection Criteria
The same methodology discussed in Section 4.1.12 was utilized to compare the three disinfection options. Table 15 illustrates the comparison analysis and the relative weights of five criteria that the project team and City staff developed for the disinfection systems. Table 16 presents the relative weights of the criteria along with the individual and total scores for the options based on a 1 – 3 scale.
1893

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 32 Table 15. Process selection criteria and weighting factors for the disinfection system Criteria Priority Weight

A B C D E
A Safety A A A A 40%
B Capital Cost C B E 10%
C O&M Cost C C 30%
D Operational Complexity D 10%
E Effluent Water Quality 10%
Table 16. Disinfection options weighted scores
Weighted Scores
Selection Criteria NaOCl Cl2 UV
Safety 1.2 0.4 1.2
Capital Cost 0.2 0.3 0.1
O&M Cost 0.9 0.9 0.3
Operational Complexity 0.3 0.3 0.2
Effluent Water Quality 0.2 0.2 0.3
Total Weighted Score 2.8 2.1 2.1

4.3.5. Options Eliminated
Based on the results of the paired comparison analysis, chlorine gas and UV disinfection were eliminated from further analysis. Brief reasons for the elimination of these options are provided in Table 17.

Table 17. Disinfection option elimination reasoning
Eliminated Method Reason for Elimination
Chlorine Gas
 Chlorine gas is a serious safety concern. Operations of a gaseous chlorine disinfection system are complicated and require meeting stringent federal and state safety
requirements.

Ultraviolet Disinfection
 UV has higher capital costs and significantly higher O&M costs due to high power consumption compared to
sodium hypochlorite; UV lamps need to be replaced
regularly
1894

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 33 5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
After the initial screening of secondary, tertiary, and disinfection options, five wastewater treatment alternatives were developed for process design and sizing of tanks and equipment.

Capital and O&M costs were estimated and compared. Analyses of each alternative included defining the design criteria, biological process modeling, plant hydraulics calculations, and cost estimation. The subsections below provide a more detailed description of the analytical procedures.

5.1. Design Criteria
The wastewater treatment alternatives were evaluated by developing preliminary design criteria.

The components and site layouts associated with each alternative were defined by size and quantity while applying the design criteria listed in Section 6 and Section 7. The size and quantity of the components associated with the wastewater treatment alternative were then used to develop capital and O&M costs. When appropriate, assumptions for design criteria were made for sizing the treatment systems.

5.2. BioWin Modeling
The BioWin 5.3 software (EnviroSim Associates Ltd.) for wastewater treatment plant simulation was utilized to estimate key performance indicators (KPI) including effluent water quality, DO, MLSS, SRT, and hydraulic retention time (HRT) for selected biological process configurations. The processes were designed to achieve a 10 mg/L TN effluent, and further optimized to achieve 8 mg/L TN to offer a safety factor for operation.

The model was configured and calibrated with plant physical data, operation data, influent loading data, influent wastewater characteristics, and kinetic and stoichiometric model parameters. Once the model was calibrated for each process, constraint parameters related to operation and water quality are addressed through trial and error method based on the general approach. KPIs based on secondary effluent water quality and operation conditions in the bioreactors have been established to analyze and provide comparisons between each alternative. An example of the BioWin process modeling is shown in Figure 19. 1895

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 34 Figure 19. BioWin modeling

5.3. Visual Hydraulics 4.2
Visual Hydraulics is a software primarily used for modeling the hydraulic characteristics of water and wastewater treatment plants. The software is capable of analyzing hydraulic profiles for the entire treatment plant, and follows the traditional method for analyzing water surface profiles.

A downstream control point (chlorine contact chamber discharge point) was selected for each alternative, and the hydraulics of each treatment alternative was checked. The use of Visual Hydraulics 4.2 determined if new and existing pumps and pipelines would be suitable for each proposed treatment alternative.

5.4. Cost Assumptions
A list of assumptions used for capital and O&M cost estimates for each wastewater treatment alternative is provided in Table 18. Capital costs were developed using the 17 division of constructions as defined by the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI)’s MasterFormat. Life cycle costs prepared for this report assumed an annual interest rate of 2.5 percent. Any cost assumptions that deviate from this table are identified in the wastewater treatment alternative subsections.
1896

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 35 Table 18. Cost assumptions for the development of capital and O&M costs Cost Item Value
Capital Costs
Equipment Installation 25% of equipment cost
Pipe Installation 300% of pipe material cost
Diffuser Installation $125/diffuser
Electrical 20% of Div 1 -15
Instrumentation 10% of Div 1 - 16
Contingency 15% of Construction Subtotal
Mobilization and Insurance 5% of Construction Subtotal with Contingency
General Conditions 9% of Construction Subtotal with
Contingency, and Mobilization and Insurance
Contractor Profit
15% of Construction Subtotal with
Contingency, Mobilization and Insurance,
and General Conditions
Concrete $1,200/CY
Annual O&M Costs
Electrical $0.10/kWh
Labor, Maintenance, and Spare Parts 2% of equipment cost

12.5% Sodium Hypochlorite $2.12/gallon
Polymer $0.94/gallon
Citric Acid $7.50/gallon
Sodium Bisulfite $2.42/gallon
Sodium Hydroxide $0.95/gallon

1897

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 36 6. WASTEWATER PLANT UPGRADES
Upgrades to the WWTP to appropriately handle the future 3.6 MGD average flow and to comply with Board Order and Title 22 requirements are discussed in this section. The costs for these components to comply with Title 22 requirements are included in the capital, O&M, and life cycle costs discussed in Sections 7 and 8.

The existing plant unit processes were reused as much as possible based on the condition assessment evaluation. Reuse of the existing trickling filter tanks for the biological treatment options was evaluated to save on capital construction costs. However, based on WWTP site investigations from October 30, 2018 and April 16, 2019, and recommendations per the condition assessment evaluation, the structure of the trickling filters is not recommended for retrofit without major repairs.

6.1. Equalization Basin
Currently, the City has no method to regulate variations in flow. Additionally, many of the existing treatment processes downstream of the headworks are not designed to handle 3.6 MGD. The existing treatment components have the following treatment capacity: Primary West Clarifier (1.6 MGD), Primary East Clarifier (2.0 MGD), West Tricking Filter (1.8 MGD), East Trickling Filter (1.8 MGD), Secondary-clarifier West (1.8 MGD), Secondary-clarifier East (1.8 MGD), and Anaerobic Digester (2.3 MGD).

The construction of an equalization (EQ) basin is recommended to regulate flow and organic and nitrogen loading to ensure the biological treatment processes are not under- or over-sized. It is important to equalize the nitrogen loading to optimize the removal performance of the biological systems. Other benefits of the EQ basin include lower capital and O&M costs for systems requiring to be designed for peak flow conditions, and the ability to store wastewater in case of emergency or treatment process downtime.

The City records daily flow fluctuations using a flow meter located upstream of the unused chlorine contact tank. Daily flow is recorded continuously on flow record disks. Data from January 2017 – September 2018 were analyzed to determine hourly flow fluctuations. The average flow recorded over this time period was approximately 2.0 MGD. Presently, it is unknown if the daily flow variation will change with an increase in average flow. Therefore, it is assumed the daily flow variation will remain the same. The flow fluctuations at 3.6 MGD is scaled up from the 2.0 MGD flow rate. Figure 20 shows the existing (blue) and projected future (red) diurnal flow patterns. 1898

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 37 Figure 20. Daily flow fluctuation for existing (2.0 MGD) and future (3.6 MGD) flow conditions The City operates nine evaporation/percolation ponds and one stormwater detention pond. The existing stormwater pond is recommended to be converted into a new EQ basin based on the size of the pond and the topography of the site. Based on the existing utility layout of the WWTP, the primary clarifier effluent will be directed to the new EQ basin. A liner such as concrete or high-density polyethylene (HDPE) is required to prevent percolation of untreated wastewater into the groundwater aquifer. The EQ basin will be able to hold approximately 3,500,000 gallons.

A new pump station will need to be constructed to return flow to WWTP during low flow periods.

The design criteria for the new EQ basin and pump station are shown in Table 19. 1899

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 38 Table 19. Summary of design characteristics for EQ basin Parameter Unit Value
EQ Basin
Top Length ft 360
Top Width ft 151
Bottom Length ft 282
Bottom Width ft 73
Side Slopes - 3:1
Height ft 13
Volume gal 3,500,000
Type of Liner - Concrete
Thickness inches 8
EQ Basin Pump Station
Number of Pumps - 2+1
Flow/pump MGD 1.8
Pump Power HP 25

6.2. Primary Clarifier
The two existing primary clarifiers can accommodate an average flow of up to 3.6 MGD. Although this meets our requirement for the new wastewater treatment plant, the existing layout does not allow for peak daily flow or redundancy. Based on the layout of existing utilities and wastewater pipeline, it would be more cost effective and easier to build a third primary clarifier to handle the daily peak flowrate. The third primary clarifier will be 50 feet in diameter and sized for 2 MGD flow. The total capacity of the primary clarifiers including the proposed clarifier will be 5.6 MGD, sufficient to handle daily peak flow and wet weather flow. The primary clarifier effluent will be directed to the EQ basin using the existing piping. Design criteria and sizing of the existing and new primary clarifiers are summarized in Table 20. 1900

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 39 Table 20. Summary of design characteristics for existing and new primary clarifiers Parameter Unit Primary Clarifier 1
(West)
Primary Clarifier 2
(East)
Primary Clarifier 3
(New)
Design Flow Rate MGD 1.6 2 2
Clarifier Diameter ft 45 50 50
Clarifier Surface
Area ft2 1,600 1,965 1.965
Sidewall Depth ft 6.5 7 7
Volume Capacity ft3 10,330 13,750 13,750
Hydraulic Retention
Time hr 1.2(1) 1.2(1) 1.2(1)
Hydraulic Surface
Loading Rate gpm/ft2 0.7(1) 0.7(1) 0.7(1)
Note: Referred to the report of "City of Banning Water Reclamation Plant Overview" (1) WEF and ASCE, Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants (DMWTP), 1998

6.3. Tertiary Filter
A tertiary filter is required to meet the Title 22 turbidity requirements for recycled water. Based on the results of the preliminary screening of options, cloth media disk filters were used for sizing, layout, and costs. The disk filter tank is recommended to be installed at grade between the secondary clarifiers and chlorine contact tank. The system will tie into the existing secondary effluent pipeline and will be gravity fed to the disinfection system. A secondary effluent pump station is required upstream of the disk filters to accommodate the head loss associated with the filters and maintain gravity flow to the chlorine contact tank. Design criteria for the tertiary filters and secondary effluent pump station are shown in Table 21. 1901

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 40 Table 21. Summary of design characteristics for tertiary filter components Parameter Unit Value
Cloth Media Filters
Number of Disks - 6
Filter Area ft2 432
Flow MGD 3.73
Tank Length ft 15.5
Tank Width ft 8
Tank Height ft 10.5
Maximum Head loss inch 12
Secondary Effluent Pump Station
Number of Pumps - 2+1
Flow/pump MGD 1.8
Pump Power HP 15
The State Water Resources Control Board has developed a list of Conditionally Accepted Alternative Filtration Technologies (CAAFT) that are suitable for Title 22 applications. These technologies have been recognized via thorough testing and continuous monitoring for Title 22 compliance. A current list of CAAFT as of the September 2014 “Alternative Treatment Technology Report for Recycled Water” is provided in Table 22. An alternative analysis of these equipment suppliers should be conducted to determine the cost-effective solution without sacrificing performance.
1902

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 41 Table 22. List of CAAFT for filtration systems
Cloth Filters Non-Granular Media
Filters
Other Filters and NonPolymeric Membrane Filters
1) Alfa Laval Ashbrook SimonHartley – Iso-Disc
2) Aqua-Aerobic System - MMK2-
13 acrylic pile fabric
3) Aqua-Aerobic System – NF-102
needle felt fabric
4) Aqua-Aerobic System - PA-13
nylon pile fabric
5) Aqua-Aerobic System - PES-13
woven polyester fabric
6) Aqua-Aerobic System – PES-14
woven polyester fabric
7) Entex Technologies – FlowTex
Disc Filter
8) Five Star Cloth – Cloth 1AYellow Jersey Knit Fabric 9) Five Star Cloth – Cloth 2AYellow Jersey Knit Fabric 10) I. Kruger - Hydrotech
11) Nordic Water - Nordic Water
Disc Filter
12) Sanitaire a Xylem Brand –
Drumfilter
13) Siemens Water Technologies –
Forty X
1) Amiad - AMF
Wastewater Filter
2) Nova Water
Technologies - Nova
Ultrascreen Filter®
3) Schreiber - Fuzzy
Filter
4) Schreiber –
Compressible Media
Filter
1) Metawater – Ceramic
Membrane

6.4. Chlorine Contact Tank
According to Title 22 regulations, systems that wish to use wastewater effluent for irrigation purposes must meet disinfection requirements. Title 22 requires 90 minutes of modal contact time at peak daily flowrate and CT of 450 mg-min/L at all times if chlorine is used for disinfection.

An existing chlorine contact chamber is located onsite, but the use of a disinfectant was discontinued. The existing tank is sized for 2.4 MGD and 60 minutes of contact time. Due to the recommendation of the construction of an EQ basin, flows will stay constant at approximately

3.6 MGD throughout the day. Compliance with Title 22 disinfection requirements will require the 1903

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 42 construction of a second, identical chlorine contact tank, which will achieve 90 minutes contact time at 3.6 MGD. Additionally, a cover or canopy over the contact tanks is recommended to prevent photo and thermal degradation of free chlorine.

Based on the results of the preliminary screening of options, free chlorine in the form of 12.5% sodium hypochlorite will be used for disinfection. There are two methods for sodium hypochlorite disinfection: bulk delivery and onsite generation. Bulk delivery is the cheapest capital cost option and is considered for the purposes of this evaluation. Onsite generation can be explored during detailed design and the system can be installed in the existing decommissioned chlorine gas storage room adjacent to the chlorine contact tank. The bulk delivery option will require two double walled sodium hypochlorite storage tanks installed to the east of the decommissioned chlorine storage building. Double walled storage tanks are the preferred tank option since secondary containment is already built into the tank. A concrete secondary containment area can also be installed to provide additional safety and containment of leaks from piping or fittings. The tanks are sized to handle approximately two weeks of sodium hypochlorite usage. Title 22 requires 5 mg/L of combined chlorine residual. The total chlorine dose will vary between wastewater treatment alternatives, but a maximum of two 1,500-gallon sodium hypochlorite storage tanks is required. Design criteria for the chlorine contact tanks and sodium hypochlorite storage tanks are shown in Table 23.

Table 23. Summary of design characteristics for chlorine contact tanks Parameter Unit Value
Flow MGD 3.6
Contact Time minutes 90
Number of Tanks - 2
Tank Length ft 60
Tank Width ft 20
Tank Height ft 12
Tank Volume gal 110,000
CT mg-min/L 450
Disinfectant - Sodium Hypochlorite
Free Chlorine % 12.5
Required Residual mg/L 5
Number of Storage Tanks - 2
Total Storage Tank Volume gal 3,000
1904

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 43 6.5. Sludge Treatment
Sludge generated at the WWTP is anaerobically digested. The existing digestion system includes two primary digesters and one secondary digester. All three digesters are 35’ in diameter, the primary digesters have a side wall depth (SWD) of 26’ and water surface elevation (WSEL) of 24’ and the secondary digester SWD of 21’ and WSEL of 19’. Currently, only the primary digesters are mixed, heated, and used for digestion, while the secondary digester is unmixed and unheated and is only used for sludge holding and some thickening. Assuming 20 days SRT and 4% solids concentration, the existing primary digesters can accommodate sludge generated from a wastewater flow of 2.3 MGD under the current trickling filter treatment system. A summary of the dimensions of the existing three digesters is shown in Table 24. A gravity sludge thickener is onsite, but is not operated based on past operating experience. Treated sludge is gravity fed to the facility’s drying beds where it remains until approximately 85% of the moisture is removed.

Dried sludge is then hauled off for beneficial reuse as a fertilizer and soil amendment.

Table 24. Existing anaerobic digesters dimensions and capacity Parameter Unit East Primary West Primary Secondary
Diameter ft 35 35 35
SWD ft 26 26 21
WSEL ft 24 24 19
Total Volume ft3 23,091 23,091 18,280
gal 172,718 172,718 136,735
Design SRT days 20 20 20
Design Sludge Flow Capacity gal/day 8,636 8,636 6,837
To accommodate the increased average daily flow, the existing digesters will need to be reconfigured and potentially new digesters will need to be constructed. The existing secondary digester can be converted to a primary digester by adding recirculation pumps and heating elements to the system. This will provide a total capacity of 482,000-gallons and 24,000 gpd of wasted sludge if the three existing digesters are operated in parallel.

Additionally, it is recommended a new mechanical sludge thickener to be installed to improve the total solids content in the digester influent thus reducing the size requirements of the new digesters. A mechanical thickener such as a rotary screw thickener, shown in Figure 21, can receive sludge at approximately 0.4% solids and thicken it to 4 – 6% solids content. Mechanical thickeners are compact, can be totally enclosed, and require minimal operator attendance. For the purposes of this evaluation, a new mechanical thickener system will be installed adjacent to 1905

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 44 the existing gravity thickener. Piping for the thickened sludge will tie into the existing and new digesters.

Figure 21. Mechanical sludge thickener (courtesy of Huber) The size of the new digesters will differ for each wastewater treatment alternative based on the projected amounts of primary sludge and waste activated sludge (WAS). The design of the new digesters used an assumed SRT of 20 days and 26’ tank SWD. By converting the existing secondary digester to a primary digester, only the trickling filter and MBBR treatment alternative will require a new digester to be constructed to accommodate the increased flow capacity. A summary of the sludge design parameters of all the treatment alternatives is provided in Table 25. Costs for sludge treatment for each treatment alternative is based on the new mechanical thickener, anaerobic digesters, and associated sludge piping and pumps from the secondary clarifiers.

Table 25. Summary of anaerobic digester design requirements Parameter Unit TF CAS IFAS MBBR MBR
WAS MGD 0.40 0.11 0.10 0.23 0.06
Solids Content % 0.32% 0.85% 0.91% 0.45% 2.02%
Thickener Target % 4% 4% 4% 4% 6%
Thickened Sludge Flow MGD 0.0316 0.0233 0.0227 0.0256 0.0202 Existing Digesters Flow Capacity MGD 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 Additional Flow Capacity Required MGD 0.0075 None None 0.0015 None Design SRT days 20 - - 20 -
1906

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 45 Parameter Unit TF CAS IFAS MBBR MBR
New Digester Volume
gal 150,411 - - 29,460 -
ft3 20,108 - - 3,939 -
Selected WSEL Height ft 24 - - 18 -
Calculated Diameter ft 32.66 - - 16.69 -
Tank Diameter ft 33 - - 17 -
Tank Height (SWD) ft 26 - - 20 -

6.6. Lab and Control Building
After analyzing the condition and location of the current lab and control building, it was determined that the existing lab building needs to either be upgraded or demolished and built new. A new lab and control building would be constructed adjacent to the proposed aeration tanks. This update would provide a new state of the art equipment to help ensure successful and smooth system operations.

A new control room and lab will increase treatment plant reliability and safety. The building will supply adequate office, storage, and laboratory space. The control room workstation will be centralized to support plant supervision, functionality, and efficiency via supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA). Further, operators’ needs, such as easy access to the process, internal and external communication, and alarm response, will all be considered in designing the workstation layout. The workstation computers will be connected to servers, allowing for trending and archiving, memory backup, and signal processing. 1907

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 46 7. WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
After the initial screening of secondary, tertiary filters, and disinfection treatment options, five biological treatment options were selected for further evaluation to treat an average daily flow of 3.6 MGD. To comply with the Board Order and Title 22 requirements, the biological processes were combined with all of the components discussed in Section 6 unless otherwise noted. BioWin modeling results for each alternative were completed to compare effluent water quality and to determine necessary unit processes. Detailed capital, O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs were developed for each alternative for comparison. Viable treatment alternatives included:

Alternative 1 - Increase Trickling Filter Recirculation Rate Alternative 2 - Conventional Activated Sludge
Alternative 3 - Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge
Alternative 4 - Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor
Alternative 5 - Membrane Bioreactor

7.1. Alternative 1 Increase Trickling Filter Recirculation Rate The existing operation of the trickling filters does not allow for sufficient N/DN to occur. Each trickling filter is operated at a recirculation ratio of 100% under the current conditions (or 1.0 MGD recirculation rate per trickling filter). In order to reduce the TN concentration in the effluent, nitrate has to be denitrified after ammonia is nitrified to nitrate. In trickling filters, denitrification occurs during anoxic conditions which happen at the top of the filter. The BOD5 and ammonia nitrogen in the influent consume oxygen and create anoxic conditions for denitrification. Aerobic conditions occur downward through the trickling filter, which allows for nitrification. By increasing the recirculation rate, higher denitrification rates can occur thus lowering the effluent TN.

In order to comply with the Board Order requirements, the trickling filter recirculation ratio must be increased to at least 350% (or 12.6 MGD) for the future design flow conditions. The existing diameter of the trickling filter influent pipe is 20”, which can just barely accommodate the proposed recirculation rate, but not flow beyond this level. A summary of the design characteristics for Alternative 1 is shown in Table 26. 1908

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 47 Table 26. Summary of design characteristics for Alternative 1 Parameter Unit Value
Design Flow Rate MGD 3.6
Design Flow per TF MGD 1.8
Design Temperature °F 70
Filter Diameter ft 110
Filter Surface Area ft2 9,500
Media Depth ft 8
Media Volume ft3 76,000
Empty Bed Contact Time hr 7.6
Maximum Flow Rate MGD West 6.48 / East 8.352
Nitrate Return Flow % 350
Hydraulic Surface Loading Rate gpm/ft2 0.59
BOD5 Surface Loading Rate lb/1000 ft2/day 353
Volumetric BOD5 Loading Rate lb/1000 ft3/day 48.1
New Recirculation Pumps - 2
Pump Power HP 50
Based on BioWin modeling results, the expected secondary effluent for the constituents of concern is provided in Table 27. The operation of the trickling filter will comply with BOD5 and TN effluent goals, but a tertiary filter will be required to comply with Title 22 turbidity requirements. Additionally, based on the capacity of the existing infrastructure, there is minimal process flexibility to maintain effluent TN treatment goals. A proposed process flow diagram and site layout to comply with the Board Order and Title 22 requirements are shown in Figure 22 and Figure 23, respectively.

Table 27. Secondary effluent water quality for Alternative 1 Parameter Secondary Effluent Water Quality
BOD5 24.74 mg/L
TSS 6.31 mg/L
TN 9.92 mg-N/L
1909
1910
1911

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 50 A summary of the capital, annual O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs for Alternative 1 is shown in Table 28. Annual O&M costs include pump power consumption, chemicals (NaOCl and polymers), and labor and maintenance of equipment.

Table 28. Capital, O&M, and life cycle cost summary for Alternative 1 Cost Component Cost
Capital
EQ Basin $2,008,000
Primary Clarifier $1,701,000
Tertiary Filter $1,814,000
Chlorination Tank $1,097,000
Sludge Treatment $1,400,000
Lab and Control Building $978,000
TF Modifications $1,396,000
Total Capital Cost $10,394,000
Annual O&M
Power $155,000
Chemical $213,000
Maintenance and Spare Parts $25,000
Total O&M Cost $393,000
20-Year Life Cycle Cost
$20,623,000

7.2. Alternative 2 Conventional Activated Sludge
Conventional activated sludge is one of the most common biological nutrient removal systems in the United States. New bioreactors with anoxic and aerobic zones will need to be constructed for this system. The City owns the property immediately to the west of the WWTP where the proposed CAS system could be located. The existing trickling filters will be decommissioned, while the existing primary clarifiers and primary effluent pump station will remain in operation. The existing secondary clarifiers will not be suitable for the increased flow as the underflow drain is only 6” in diameter. The new RAS line needs to be at least 12” in diameter to handle the increased RAS flows. New rectangular clarifiers will need to be constructed north of the bioreactors to handle half (1.8 MGD) of the average daily flow. An external carbon source is not necessary for this option. A summary of the design characteristics for Alternative 2 is shown in Table 29.

Modeled secondary effluent water quality is provided in Table 30. A tertiary filter is required to 1912

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 51 comply with Title 22 turbidity requirements. The proposed process flow diagram and site layout for Alternative 2 are shown in Figure 24 and Figure 25, respectively.

Table 29. Summary of design characteristics for Alternative 2 Parameter Unit Value
Design Flow Rate MGD 3.6
Number of Tanks - 4 (3 operating and 1 standby)
Flow per Tank MGD 1.2
Design MLSS mg/L 4,000
MLVSS:MLSS % 70
Design System SRT day 10
HRT
Anoxic hr 3
Aerobic hr 6.5
Total hr 9.5
Tank Width
Anoxic ft 27
Aerobic ft 27
Tank Length
Anoxic ft 47
Aerobic ft 86
Tank Water Depth Anoxic ft 18
Aerobic ft 18
Tank Volume
Anoxic gal 171,000
Aerobic gal 312,000
Total gal 483,000
Freeboard ft 2
Volumetric BOD Loading Rate lb/1000 ft3/day 38.5
Volumetric TN Loading Rate lb/1000 ft3/day 6.6
F/M Ratio day-1 0.23
Return Activated Sludge Ratio % 100
Internal Recycle Ratio % 320
Table 30. Secondary effluent water quality for Alternative 2 Parameter Secondary Effluent Water Quality
BOD5 4.78 mg/L
TSS 10.96 mg/L
TN 7.49 mg-N/L
1913
1914
1915

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 54 A summary of the capital, annual O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs for Alternative 2 is shown in Table 31. Annual O&M costs are based on power, chemical (NaOCl and polymer), and labor and maintenance.

Table 31. Capital, O&M, and life cycle cost summary for Alternative 2 Cost Component Cost
Capital
EQ Basin $2,008,000
Primary Clarifier $1,701,000
Tertiary Filter $1,814,000
Chlorination Tank $1,097,000
Sludge Treatment -
Lab and Control Building $978,000
Activated Sludge System $22,501,000
Total Capital Cost $30,099,000
Annual O&M
Power $302,000
Chemical $182,000
Maintenance and Spare Parts $48,000
Total O&M Cost $532,000
20-Year Life Cycle Cost
$43,941,000

7.3. Alternative 3 Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge The IFAS system is nearly identical to Alternative 2, except the media is placed in the aerobic tank to allow for biofilm growth. The increased density of heterotrophs allows for increased treatment capacity in the same sized tank as the conventional activated sludge tank. Additionally, Alternative 3 has the same issue with the existing secondary clarifier RAS line, so new rectangular clarifiers will need to be constructed to the north of the secondary treatment tank. A summary of the design characteristics for Alternative 3 is shown in Table 32. Modeled secondary effluent water quality is provided in Table 33. A tertiary filter is required to comply with Title 22 turbidity requirements The proposed process flow diagram and site layout for Alternative 3 are shown in Figure 26 and Figure 27, respectively.
1916

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 55 Table 32. Summary of design characteristics for Alternative 3 Parameter Unit Value
Design Flow Rate MGD 3.6
Number of Tanks - 4 (3 operating and 1 standby)
Flow per Tank MGD 1.2
Design MLSS mg/L 3,000
MLVSS:MLSS % 70
Design System SRT day 10
HRT
Anoxic hr 3.5
Aerobic hr 5.5
Total hr 9
Tank Width
Anoxic ft 26
Aerobic ft 26
Tank Length
Anoxic ft 46
Aerobic ft 85
Tank Water Depth Anoxic ft 18
Aerobic ft 18
Tank Volume
Anoxic gal 161,000
Aerobic gal 298,000
Total gal 459,000
Freeboard ft 2
Volumetric BOD Loading Rate lb/1000 ft3/day 40.8
Volumetric TN Loading Rate lb/1000 ft3/day 7
BOD F/Mv Ratio day-1 0.18
Activated Sludge Return Ratio % 60
Internal Recycle Ratio % 320
Media Volume % 30
Table 33. Secondary effluent water quality for Alternative 3 Parameter Secondary Effluent Water Quality
BOD5 4.58 mg/L
TSS 10.43 mg/L
TN 7.40 mg-N/L
1917
1918
1919

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 58 A summary of the capital, annual O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs for Alternative 3 is shown in Table 34. Annual O&M costs are based on power, chemical (NaOCl and polymer), and labor and maintenance.

Table 34. Capital, O&M, and life cycle cost summary for Alternative 3 Cost Component Cost
Capital
EQ Basin $2,008,000
Primary Clarifier $1,701,000
Tertiary Filter $1,814,000
Chlorination Tank $1,097,000
Sludge Treatment -
Lab and Control Building $978,000
IFAS $25,735,000
Total Capital Cost $33,333,000
Annual O&M
Power $309,000
Chemical $181,000
Maintenance and Spare Parts $141,000
Total O&M Cost $631,000
20-Year Life Cycle Cost
$49,704,000

7.4. Alternative 4 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor
The MBBR system is similar to the IFAS option, but the process configuration is slightly different.

Plastic biocarriers are suspended in the aerobic and anoxic tanks to allow for microorganism growth. The primary effluent enters a common influent channel where flow is evenly distributed into the four tanks. The first tank is aerobic where heterotrophs are predominant and organic removal primarily occurs. The next tank is also aerobic but the conditions are enhanced for the growth of nitrifiers for ammonia removal. From here, wastewater enters the anoxic tank where denitrification occurs. With this process configuration, an external carbon source such as methanol or glycerol is added to promote denitrification. Alternatively, the City can reverse this process by having an anoxic tank upstream of the aeration tanks and utilize an internal recycle to maintain the carbon requirements for denitrification. This would decrease chemical costs, but increase power cost due to additional pumping requirements. A final, small polishing reaeration step is included to re-add oxygen back into the wastewater for the purpose of downstream 1920

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 59 processes that require oxygen in the system. The secondary effluent is conveyed to the existing secondary clarifiers where a small portion of the sludge is returned to the reaeration tanks. The reactors will be equipped with media retention screens to keep the media elements from leaving the MBBR basins. A summary of the design characteristics for Alternative 4 is shown in Table 35.

Modeled secondary effluent water quality is provided in Table 36. A tertiary filter is required to comply with Title 22 turbidity requirements. The proposed process flow diagram and site layout for Alternative 4 are shown in Figure 28 and Figure 29, respectively.

Table 35. Summary of design characteristics for Alternative 4 Parameter Unit BOD
Removal Nitrification Denitrification Reaeration
Media Volume ft3 11,886 12,713 2,966 -
Media Filling Fraction % 42.4 45.4 20 -
Number of Trains - 4 4 4 4
Tank Width ft 25.75 25.75 25.75 25.75
Tank Length ft 17 17 9 6
Tank Water Depth ft 16 16 16 16
Total Volume gal 209,560 209,560 110,943 73,962
Total HRT hr 1.40 1.40 0.74 0.49
External Carbon
Requirements kg/d - - 1,450 -
RAS Recycle Rate gpm - - - 250
Table 36. Secondary effluent water quality for Alternative 4 Parameter Secondary Effluent Water Quality
BOD5 4.34 mg/L
TSS 6.64 mg/L
TN 8.00 mg-N/L
1921
1922
1923

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 62 A summary of the capital, annual O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs for Alternative 4 is shown in Table 37. Annual O&M costs are based on power, chemical (NaOCl, methanol, and polymer), and labor and maintenance.

Table 37. Capital, O&M, and life cycle cost summary for Alternative 4 Cost Component Cost
Capital
EQ Basin $2,008,000
Primary Clarifier $1,701,000
Tertiary Filter $1,814,000
Chlorination Tank $1,097,000
Sludge Treatment $1,203,000
Lab and Control Building $978,000
MBBR $14,516,000
Total Capital Cost $23,317,000
Annual O&M
Power $310,000
Chemical $353,000
Maintenance and Spare Parts $74,000
Total O&M Cost $737,000
20-Year Life Cycle Cost
$42,395,000

7.5. Alternative 5 Membrane Bioreactor
The MBR system combines conventional biological nutrient removal with the use of membranes for the separation of solids and treated effluent. The MBR process train is similar to Alternative 2 except that membranes replace the secondary clarifiers and tertiary filters. The design MLSS of the MBR system is much higher than Alternatives 2 – 4, which allows for greater treatment capacity per unit volume of the aeration basin. The EQ basin is an important upstream unit to create a steady flow, providing a relatively steady flux for membrane operation. One design note is that the high recycle from the membrane aeration zone impacts the denitrification ability and the carbon demand. Consequently, a tank will be provided to allow the DO to decrease by endogenous respiration before the recycle stream is returned to the anoxic zone.

Membrane fouling is controlled by several methods of cleaning which includes the chemical clean in place (CIP) system, relaxation, and air scouring. Chemical CIP cleaning is also referred to as 1924

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 63 maintenance cleaning used to address irreversible fouling. This type of cleaning usually occurs at least 10 times a year and is completely automated; however, it can also be manually operated as needed. The membrane units are cleaned in place quickly by injecting a dilute solution of bleach into the permeate line which remains in the membranes for 1 to 3 hours and then the normal operation is resumed. During the cleaning of one basin, the other basins are left online and operated at a slightly higher flux rate as required to meet plant demand. Although this type of cleaning is efficient, the addition of chemicals will degrade any membrane material over time.

Therefore, replacement of the membranes will be required.

There are two types of membranes available for wastewater applications: hollow fiber and flat sheet. Hollow fiber membranes are constructed of a microporous structure and are densely packed into tubes to create the membrane module. These tightly packed modules allow for high membrane surface areas and high outside pressure tolerance. Typically, flow is applied to the outside of the membranes and permeate is removed via the inner tube of the module. However, some manufacturers offer the opposite (in-out) flow pattern. The typical vacuum pressure applied to the hollow fiber membranes is around 10 pounds per square inch (psi). Flat sheet membranes are constructed of a paper like backing material with a membrane cast on the surface of the paper. These plates are submerged into the membrane tank, and permeate pass through the membrane from the outside in. The membranes allow the biofilm to attach and are continuously aerated to prevent solids buildup. A comparison of the predominant MBR equipment suppliers is provided in Table 38.

Table 38. MBR equipment supplier specification comparison Parameter
Evoqua
Memcor
Suez
ZeeWeed
Ovivo
Microdyn
Anaergia
Fibracast
Schwing
Econity
Type
Hollow
Fiber
Hollow
Fiber Flat Sheet Hollow Fiber
Hollow
Fiber
Pore Size 0.04 µm 0.04 µm 0.04 µm 0.04 µm 0.1 µm
Membrane
Surface Area of
Smallest
Replaceable Unit
405 ft2 370 ft2 43 ft2 400 ft2 226 ft2
1925

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 64 Parameter
Evoqua
Memcor
Suez
ZeeWeed
Ovivo
Microdyn
Anaergia
Fibracast
Schwing
Econity
Membrane Area
per Plan Area 400 ft2
/ft2 320 ft2/ft2 200 ft2/ft2 685 ft2/ft2 166 ft2/ft2
Flow per Plan
Area
6,000
gpd/ft2
4,800
gpd/ft2
3,000
gpd/ft2
10,300
gpd/ft2
3,000
gpd/ft2
Membrane
Material PVDF PVDF
Polyether
Sulfone PVDF PVDF
Average Flux 15 gfd 15 gfd 15 gfd 15 gfd 20 gfd
Vacuum < 7.3 psi < 11.9 psi < 3.0 psi < 10 psi < 11.7 psi A summary of the design characteristics for Alternative 5 is shown in Table 39. Modeled secondary effluent water quality is provided in Table 40. The proposed process flow diagram and site layout for Alternative 5 are shown in Figure 30 and Figure 31, respectively. 1926

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 65 Table 39. Summary of design characteristics for Alternative 5 Parameter Unit Value
Design Flow Rate MGD 3.6
Number of Tanks - 4 (3 operating and 1 standby)
Flow per Tank MGD 1.2
Design MLSS mg/L 7,000
MLVSS:MLSS % 70
Design System SRT day 20
HRT
Anoxic hr 3.5
Aerobic hr 5
Total hr 8.5
Tank Width
Anoxic ft 26
Aerobic ft 26
Tank Length
Anoxic ft 44
Aerobic ft 82
Tank Water Depth Anoxic ft 18
Aerobic ft 18
Tank Volume
Anoxic gal 154,000
Aerobic gal 287,000
Total gal 441,000
Freeboard ft 2
Volumetric BOD Loading Rate lb/1000 ft3/day 42.6
Volumetric TN Loading Rate lb/1000 ft3/day 7.4
BOD F/M Ratio day-1 0.15
Internal Recycle % 400
Specific Design Flux gallons/ft2-d 10.5
Recovery Rate % 92
Table 40. Secondary effluent water quality for Alternative 5 Parameter Secondary Effluent Water Quality
BOD5 0.86 mg/L
TSS 0.00 mg/L
TN 7.74 mg-N/L
1927
1928
1929

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 68 A summary of the capital, annual O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs for Alternative 5 is shown in Table 41. Annual O&M costs are based on power, chemical, and labor and maintenance. Chemical costsinclude NaOCl, polymer, citric acid, sodium bisulfite, and sodium hydroxide. Costs are based on the hollow fiber membrane type.

Table 41. Capital, O&M, and life cycle cost summary for Alternative 5 Cost Component Cost
Capital
EQ Basin $2,008,000
Primary Clarifier $1,701,000
Chlorination Tank $1,097,000
Sludge Treatment -
Lab and Control Building $978,000
MBR $28,415,000
Total Capital Cost $34,199,000
Annual O&M
Power $527,000
Chemical $221,000
Maintenance and Spare Parts $138,000
Total O&M Cost $878,000
20-Year Life Cycle Cost
$67,206,000
1930

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 69 8. COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
A comprehensive summary of the capital, annual O&M, and 20-year life cycle costs for the wastewater treatment alternatives developed for the City of Banning is shown in Table 42. The 20-year life cycle cost shows that Alternative 1 is the least expensive alternative. This alternative is essentially the baseline scenario to comply with Board Order and Title 22 requirements at 3.6 MGD, and utilizes the existing treatment process as much as possible. However, this alternative provides the least flexibility regarding expected effluent water quality, particularly for BOD5 and TN. If future discharge permit limits become more stringent, or other constituents, such as phosphorus, become regulated, upgrades to Alternative 1 would be challenging and costly.

Table 42. Cost comparison summary for the treatment alternatives Treatment Alternative Capital Annual O&M 20-Year Life Cycle Alternative 1 Trickling Filter $10,394,000 $393,000 $20,623,000 Alternative 2 Activated Sludge $30,099,000 $532,000 $43,941,000 Alternative 3 IFAS $33,333,000 $631,000 $49,704,000
Alternative 4 MBBR $23,317,000 $737,000 $42,395,000
Alternative 5 MBR $34,199,000 $878,000 $67,206,000
The cost comparison summary identifies three groupings of the treatment alternatives.

Alternative 1 is significantly the cheapest all-around option and is in its own grouping. Life cycle costs for alternatives 2 – 4 are within $7,000,000 of one another and utilize the same treatment process with slightly varied components that alter the overall process operation. As expected, Alternative 5 is the most expensive alternative since the MBR system produces the highest effluent water quality. Out of the second grouping, Alternative 4 provides the lowest capital and life cycle cost option due to the reduction in required tank size as compared to conventional activated sludge. The capital cost for Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 are relatively close to one another, but the annual O&M costs dictate which alternatives become more costly over a 20-year life cycle. In order to compare these groupings, a summary of the expected secondary effluent water quality is provided in Table 43. The concentrations presented do not reflect tertiary filter effluent to show the comparison between biological treatment systems. 1931

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 70 Table 43. Secondary effluent water quality comparison for the treatment alternatives Parameter
Secondary Treatment Effluent Concentration (mg/L)
Alternative 1
Trickling Filter
Alternative 2
Activated Sludge
Alternative 3
IFAS
Alternative 4
MBBR
Alternative 5
MBR
BOD5 24.74 4.78 4.58 4.34 0.86
TSS 6.31 10.96 10.43 6.64 0
TN 9.92 7.49 7.40 8.00 7.74
All of the Alternatives comply with the Board Order requirements with respect to nitrogen.

Alternatives 2 – 5 produce better water quality than Alternative 1, can meet possible more stringent discharge limits, and have better flexibility to stay in compliance if treatment efficiency degrades. Alternatives 2 – 4 produce very similar water quality in regards to BOD5 and TN, but Alternative 4 has the lowest expected effluent TSS which will enhance the performance of tertiary filters. Alternative 5 produces the best all-around effluent water quality, and an additional tertiary filter is not required to comply with Title 22 requirements unlike Alternatives 1 – 4.

A breakdown of the required WWTP upgrades for each alternative is provided in Table 44. The EQ basin, primary clarifier, chlorination tank, and lab and control building costs are the same among the treatment alternatives. The tertiary filter cost is the same for Alternatives 1 – 4, and no tertiary filter is required for Alternative 5. The cost of the sludge treatment upgrades varies among all treatment alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 do not require any additional anaerobic digesters while Alternatives 1 and 4 will require a new anaerobic digester as discussed in Section

6.5. Although Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 do not show any costs associated with sludge treatment, modifications to existing digester operation will need to be made and a new sludge thickener will be required.

Table 44. Unit operation cost comparison for the treatment alternatives Unit Alternative 1
Trickling Filter
Alternative 2
Activated Sludge
Alternative 3
IFAS
Alternative 4
MBBR
Alternative 5
MBR
EQ Basin $2,008,000 $2,008,000 $2,008,000 $2,008,000 $2,008,000 Primary
Clarifier $1,701,000 $1,701,000 $1,701,000 $1,701,000 $1,701,000 Tertiary Filter $1,814,000 $1,814,000 $1,814,000 $1,814,000 - Chlorination
Tank $1,097,000 $1,097,000 $1,097,000 $1,097,000 $1,097,000 Sludge
Treatment $1,400,000 - - $1,203,000 -
1932

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 71 Unit Alternative 1
Trickling Filter
Alternative 2
Activated Sludge
Alternative 3
IFAS
Alternative 4
MBBR
Alternative 5
MBR
Lab Building $978,000 $978,000 $978,000 $978,000 $978,000 TF
Modifications $1,396,000 - - - -
Activated
Sludge - $22,501,000 - - -
IFAS - - $25,735,000 - -
MBBR - - - $14,516,000 -
MBR - - - - $28,415,000
Total $10,394,000 $30,099,000 $33,333,000 $23,317,000 $34,199,000 All of the proposed treatment alternatives are designed to meet the Board Order proposed limit of 10 mg/L TN. However, the total construction costs per tons of nitrogen removed varies between each option, and will give the City data to determine what is the most cost-effective alternative for nitrogen removal. Table 45 shows the comparison of total project construction cost and total cost of the biological system only per ton of nitrogen removed per year. Since the infrastructure of Alternative 1 is already in place, the $/tons/year is significantly less than Alternatives 2 – 5. However, based on the total cost per ton of nitrogen removal, Alternative 4 offers the best value to comply with the Board Order and to produce recycled water.

Table 45. Comparison of total cost per ton of nitrogen removed Alternative Mass TN Removed Total Cost per
Nitrogen Removed
Biological Process Cost per
Nitrogen Removed
tons/year $/tons/yr $/tons/yr
Alternative 1
Trickling Filter 192 $54,118 $7,268
Alternative 2
Activated Sludge 205 $146,562 $109,565
Alternative 3
IFAS 206 $161,921 $125,012
Alternative 4
MBBR 203 $115,103 $71,657
Alternative 5
MBR 204 $167,643 $139,290
1933

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 72 9. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
On February 12, 2019, City and Montrose staff presented the preliminary results of the nitrogen removal evaluation to the City Council. A summary of the key points drawn from the nitrogen removal alternatives analysis, City staff input, and City Council input is provided below. • Any decision to implement the selected treatment alternative must take into consideration not only costs, but also the following:

1. When will the City actually see an average flow of 3.6 MGD? Based on the 2018 City Integrated Master Plan, the average daily flow is forecasted to be 2.80 MGD in 2025 and 4.29 MGD by 2040. Based on these projections, 3.6 MGD would not happen until 2032.

2. When will the Regional Water Quality Control Board require the City WWTP to comply with the total nitrogen limit?

3. When does the City plan to start using recycled water for irrigation or recharge purposes? The Beaumont Basin has a 330 mg/L TDS and 5 mg/L nitrate limit in the groundwater. To achieve the 330 mg/L TDS limit, WWTP effluent may require treatment by reverse osmosis.

4. Would the City ever consider direct potable reuse for water supply augmentation?

5. Do we expect to observe more stringent water quality requirements in the future? Alternatively, will the Regional Board consider raising the TN limits if there are no adverse impacts to groundwater quality?

6. How will the beneficial reuse of recycled water affect the underlying groundwater in the basin? What levels of water quality are required to remain in compliance with the non-degradation standards of the region?
• The WWTP will require the following upgrades to treat an average daily flow of 3.6 MGD:

1. Installation of a new equalization basin to handle daily flow fluctuations.

2. Construct one new primary clarifier to provide redundancy.

3. Increase sludge treatment capacity by installing a new mechanical thickener and new anaerobic digesters.

4. The existing lab building is old and needs upgrades, and the control building will become obsolete once the WWTP SCADA system is upgraded. A new lab and control building are included in the cost evaluation.
• The cost evaluation suggests that Alternative 1 (increase trickling filter recirculation rate) is the cheapest option available to comply with Board Order and Title 22 requirements.

However, this option has the least flexibility meeting discharge limits, and the existing trickling filter components are old and will require structure upgrades within 20 years.

Therefore, this alternative is not recommended for future implementation. 1934

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 73 • Alternatives 2 – 4 are similar in cost and operation. Among them,

1. Alternative 3 (IFAS) is the costliest alternative without providing significant advantages in the effluent water quality or operational simplicity, so it should be eliminated from consideration.

2. Alternative 2 (CAS) are ubiquitous throughout the United States, are reliable to meet discharge limits, easy to operate, and have the ability to be upgraded with IFAS or MBBR in the future if required. However, these systems require a larger footprint as compared to Alternative 4 to meet effluent requirements.

3. Alternative 4 (MBBR) produces the best secondary effluent water quality out of these three alternatives and is the lowest capital and life cycle cost option.

Alternative 4 is slightly more complex to operate, requires an external carbon input, and the number of municipal installations in the United States is significantly less than Alternative 2. However, due to the significantly lower capital cost of the MBBR system and the resiliency and reliability to meet discharge limits, Alternative 4 is recommended to be considered for future implementation. • Alternative 5 (MBR) is the most expensive alternative, but it produces the best water quality. With advances in technology, the MBR system can be operated fairly autonomously and does not require much operator input. Alternative 5 sets the City up for any changes to discharge or reuse requirements in the future, and can produce recycled water without the use of tertiary filters. Additionally, if the City requires TDS removal, a reverse osmosis treatment train can be implemented post MBR. Alternative 5 offers the City the most flexibility regarding end uses, but comes at a significantly higher cost than the other treatment alternatives. The City is familiar with the design of MBRs based on the 90% design of an MBR facility in 2007.
1935

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 74 10. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
There are several matters the City needs to consider when selecting the most suitable option, such as nitrogen compliance, production of recycled water, fees associated with development in the City, population growth, future regulatory requirements, and the ability to increase water and sewer rates to customers to pay for the WWTP upgrades. Several progress meetings have been held with the City during which the design team and the City discussed the wastewater treatment alternatives evaluated in this Nitrogen Removal Feasibility Study. Based on the outcome of these discussions and the proposed regulatory requirements, Alternative 4, Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor is recommended for implementation at the City WWTP.

Alternative 4 not only successfully achieves Board Order nitrogen limits, but also is the most reasonably priced, reliable treatment alternative. This option will result in immediate Board Order and Title 22 compliance while offering a low-cost solution relative to other alternatives.

Furthermore, this approach accounts for more stringent discharge limits in the future since more media can be added to the aerobic and anoxic tanks to increase treatment capacity, and the process can be modified to meet specified discharge limits. If the City determines immediate Board Order compliance is required and production of recycled water can be delayed, the construction of the cloth media filters and the chlorination tank upgrades could be deferred.

While this phased approach option can save the City several million dollars in upfront capital costs, in the long run the overall project cost would be significantly higher.

Although there are few MBBR municipal installations in California, there are plenty of installations in the northern parts of the United States and in Canada where cold weather significantly affects organic and nitrogen removal performance of wastewater treatment systems. Municipal MBBR installations are starting to increase in the southern parts of the United States where organic discharge limits are tightened, and nutrient effluent requirements are implemented. Additionally, MBBR systems are widely used in the industrial wastewater treatment sector as these systems have the ability to accommodate high-strength wastewater loads in small footprints.

Alternatively, if more stringent regulations are expected and/or future indirect potable reuse is desired, Alternative 5, MBR, should be considered. As mentioned, MBR isthe most advanced and reliable technology available, producing the best water quality for future reuse or groundwater recharge. If TDS removal is required in the future, the WWTP can be readily upgraded as pretreatment for reverse osmosis membranes. Since the City is considered a disadvantaged community, it may be difficult for it to receive funding for this alternative. It should also be noted that Alternative 5 is the costliest, and grants from the State of California will likely be required for its implementation.
1936

NITROGEN REMOVAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
______________________________________________________________________________ 75 Once the project is ready to commence, several implementation options are available. If the City uses a traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) method, it is estimated that the final design will be completed in ten months, permitting nine months, and construction and start-up be completed within sixteen months. By using the DBB method the estimated overall project schedule would be approximately 3 years including time to prepare and award the engineering design and construction contracts. Upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant would begin after the Regional Board reviews this feasibility study, and the proposed nitrogen and TDS limits are finalized. A preliminary implementation schedule utilizing the DBB method is provided in Figure

32. Alternative delivery methods, such as a Design-Build (DB) approach, can reduce the overall project timeline by one year, saving project costs by 10 – 20%. Overall, the DB method would minimize project costs by reducing the design and construction timeline, equipment costs by giving buying power to the contractor, and the number of change orders. Further, by using a DB method the involvement of a third party is not required for construction management.

Figure 32. Preliminary implementation schedule utilizing the traditional Design-Bid-Build method
Name Duration
(months)
Engineering Design RFP and Selection 4
Engineering Design 10
Permitting 9
Issue Design Documents for Bids and Selection 3
Construction 12
Start-Up and Commissioning 4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
1937
LC-10100 January 14, 2025

1.3.11 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Banning
Attn: Mr. Art Vela
Director of Public Works
99 E. Ramsey St.

Banning, CA 92220
Subject: Notice of Funding Opportunity No. R23AS00464 – WaterSMART: Title XVI Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects – Your Application Titled, “Critical Wastewater Treatment Recycled Water Upgrades”
Dear Mr. Art Vela:

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is pleased to inform you that your application, submitted by the second application due date of September 30, 2024, for the WaterSMART: Title XVI WIIN Act Water Reclamation and Reuse Projects Funding Opportunity was among those receiving the highest ratings and is now being considered for award with funding available under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), P.L. 117-58. Reclamation anticipates awarding Federal funds in the amount of $16,194,576 for your project.

In working with you to develop your financial assistance agreement, Reclamation will closely review the activities outlined in your proposal to ensure that activities eligible for funding are identified and that the proposed costs are allowable under financial assistance regulations and the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). If some costs or activities are determined to be ineligible or unallowable, Reclamation will work with you to refine the scope of work and budget for the project. In addition, Reclamation must have sufficient evidence prior to award that non-Federal cost share will be available.

The final funding amount may be adjusted if necessary. Please note that a small portion of this amount may be set aside for Reclamation to ensure the project’s Federal regulatory and statutory compliance, and to otherwise oversee the implementation of the project.

All new financial assistance awards for infrastructure projects must meet Buy America requirements.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementing guidance states that the Buy America provisions apply to projects carried out through Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funding and annual appropriations. See OMB Memorandum M-22-11 for further details. Section 41101 of the BIL requires that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractor in the performance of construction, alteration, or repair work on a project assisted in whole or in part by funding made available under the BIL shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar projects in 1938
2 the locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with Subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of Title 40, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon Act).

All projects being considered for award of funding are required to comply with all Federal environmental and cultural resource requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Grounddisturbing activities of any type, including fieldwork, monitoring or other activities may not occur until Reclamation has determined that all environmental and cultural resource compliance is complete.

In addition, funding for construction activities will not be released until Reclamation makes a determination of financial capability for the project.

The Reclamation regional or area office that will be responsible for awarding and administering your agreement will contact you in the coming months to finalize your award. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding the process or your agreement, please contact Viranousack (Alex) Soubannarath, Lower Colorado Basin Regional Title XVI Coordinator, at (951) 695-5310 or [email protected].

Thank you for your interest and participation in the WaterSMART: Water Recycling and Desalination Programs. The success of the Title XVI Program depends on collaboration with partners to improve the reliability of water supplies.

Sincerely,

/s/ Diana Blake
Grants Officer
1939
Prepared by:

AECOM/W. M. LYLES CO.,
A Joint Venture
Submitted:

October 11, 2024
Attention: Barbara Mason

PROPOSAL
Design and Construction of the
City of Banning Wastewater
Treatment Plant and Recycled
Water Project
1940
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | TOC Part I: Transmittal Letter, Team Administrative, and Financial Capacity (also uploaded separately in OpenGov)....i Part II: Project Team, Experience, and Approach .................................................................................................. 1 Part III: Technical Approach........................................................................................................................................14 Part IV: Construction & Start-Up Process................................................................................................................29 Part V: Phase 1 Cost Proposal (under separate submittal) Part VI: Required Forms (uploaded into OpenGov)
Appendix A: Preliminary Drawings and Schedule
Appendix B: Resumes
Please note that forms, insurance letters, surety letters and any other required documents have been uploaded separately to your OpenGov procurement site per the RFP instructions.

Table of Contents
1941
AECOM/Lyles i
October 11, 2024
Barbara Mason, Purchasing Manager
City of Banning - Purchasing Division
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Proposal for Progressive Design-Build Services for the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project - RFP-24-074
We are excited by the opportunity to become a trusted partner of the City in developing the most cost-effective solution for your wastewater treatment plant upgrades that will minimize impacts to your rate payers while at the same time, provide a long-term solution to support community growth. Our team has worked hard to find design-to-budget ideas for your project and we are confident that the solutions we present in our proposal can save the City$10M+ compared to the original concept. Highlights of our proposal include:
• Experts skilled in progressive design-build and MBR systems. AECOM/Lyles have worked together on numerous progressive design-build treatment plant upgrade projects totaling over $1B, as well as many MBR systems.

These past experiences allow us to work together seamlessly to deliver your project and hone in on the biggest cost items, optimizing the budget for the City.
• Experience with San Gorgonio Pass and desert communities. From our wealth of experience delivering similar projects in surrounding communities (including Beaumont), we have a strong appreciation for pragmatic solutions that work for you.
• A proven progressive design-build management approach. We know how to streamline the crucial Phase 1 activities so that collaboration is fostered while still making timely decisions to maintain the overall project schedule.

We are committed to a transparent Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) presentation and converting this project from Phase 1 to Phase 2.
• Design to Budget Ideas that offer real savings. We have left no stone unturned in looking at ways to save the City money while still achieving your project goals. From optimizing basin sizing, to finding a creative way to forego the reverse osmosis (RO) system, we offer the City ways to lessen the impact to your rate payers, while maintaining the resiliency to accommodate local population growth and future permit expectations. • A dedication to a quality project. Our design to budget ideas do not come at a cost of quality or impacting the City’s options in the future. We are committed to using proven vendors and quality suppliers and our design provides for easy future expansion with low capital expenditure. • Our corporate commitment to make this a success for the City. We are committing the team provided herein for the duration of the project. We have learned that team continuity throughout the duration is critical to the overall project success and delivering the lowest total project cost.

Transmittal Letter, Team Administrative, I and Financial Capability PART
1942
AECOM/Lyles ii
Single Point of Contact for AECOM/Lyles – Project Manager Joe Lawrence is the single point of contact for the team, ensuring clear communication and streamlined project management.

Joe Lawrence
Design-Build Project Manager
26501 Madison Avenue
Murrieta, CA 92562
T: 916.644.9487 | E: [email protected]
We appreciate the City using an industry standard template as the basis for the sample agreement, and we are confident that we can negotiate a contract with the City for this project. We also confirm that we have read and understood all elements of the RFP. Furthermore, in our cost proposal, we have provided a detailed scope of work of our services.

Bonding and Sureties – The AECOM/Lyles team confirms we will meet the bonding requirements outlined in the Request for Proposal (RFP). We have included in our proposal a Surety Letter of Intent and the Proposal Bid Bond as required in RFP section IV.E.

Financial Capacity – Both AECOM and Lyles confirm there are no changes in our firms’ financial capacities and bonding capabilities. The financial statements included in our SOQ are the most current and there are no changes in our standings.

CEQA, Funding, and PLA Compliance – The AECOM/Lyles JV confirms we have reviewed the CEQA, Funding, and PLA Compliance requirements, signed and included the form in our proposal uploads in your procurement system, and agree to comply with the terms and conditions.

Per the instructions in the Request for Proposal, our Part V Phase 1 Cost Proposal has been submitted as a separate file.

Part VI Required Forms have been completed and uploaded into the OpenGov procurement system.

We have assembled a truly collaborative and integrated team. We look forward to sharing more details on our proposal during the interview. AECOM/Lyles appreciates the time and commitment the City has invested in this procurement process and appreciate you meeting with our team during our proposal development. Our goal as the City’s of Banning’s trusted partner is to implement a “no surprises” and “design to budget” commitment throughout the project. This can only happen through effective, open and transparent communication and we look forward to working side-by side with the City in delivering this project. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,
AECOM/Lyles Joint Venture
Joseph B. Lawrence - Project Manager Brian Daly, PE
SVP, Alternative Delivery Manager SVP, Director North America Water Design-Build Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory
W. M. Lyles Co. AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

O: 916.375.1833 | M: 559.647.6650 O: 978.905.2527 | M: 781.799.1791 [email protected] [email protected]
City of Banning October 11, 2024
Proposal for Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Upgrades - RFP-24-074 Page 2 1943
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 1 City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach Key Project Personnel
As presented in our SOQ, the AECOM/Lyles key personnel
have delivered together on design-build treatment
projects in California with significant upgrade and
maintenance of plant operations considerations,
bringing demonstrated efficiency and collaboration to
the City. Our management team—along with Treatment
Process Design Lead Alex Franchi, Preconstruction
Manager Vince Guillama, Construction Superintendent
Anthony Pilato, Commissioning Lead Vijay Kumar, and
other team members—remain fully committed to meeting
all of the project objectives detailed in the City’s RFP.

Team Enhancement
We are presenting one key team member enhancement
in Joe Lawrence as our Design-Build Project Manager.

Joe has a distinguished career in the water/wastewater
industry, with 22 years of experience managing designbuild projects for public and private water and wastewater treatment facilities. Throughout his career, Joe has been involved in all aspects of project delivery including project management, preconstruction services, cost control and budgeting, construction
implementation, and start-up and commissioning on
numerous alternative delivery projects, including designbuild and progressive design-build projects. Many of these projects involved collaboration with the same
AECOM/Lyles JV team we are proposing for this project.

While we have NO CHANGE to the rest of our team or
any of the key staff presented in our SOQ, our team
will be further enhanced during contracting efforts with disadvantaged subconsultants from our Good Faith
Outreach efforts. We pledge to meet any goals required
by the City and/or different funding sources and grants.

On the next page is an update to our organizational
chart (Figure II-1) highlighting the enhancements to our team. We have also included a brief biography for our
project manager Joe Lawrence that summarizes his
qualifications. We would be happy to provide resumes for all of our team members at the City’s request. All other components of our team and SOQ remain unchanged.

Project Team, Experience, and Approach
The AECOM/Lyles Team presented in our SOQ is 100% committed to the success of the City’s WWTP and Recycled Water Upgrade project—from day one to day done.

II
PART
I am fully committed to
collaborating with the City for
the next several years to continue
the implementation and construction
of Banning’s WWTP project, ensuring a safe
and sustainable wastewater and recycled
water system for decades to come.
– Joe Lawrence
Design-Build Project Manager
I pledge to open lines of
communication with all
stakeholders, including
operations staff, to keep construction
moving on the project and deliver
first-class facilities of the highest quality, on
budget and schedule – with no surprises. – Marcos Reyes Construction Manager
I'm looking forward to this
exciting partnership with the
City of Banning where we
explore cost-effective solutions,
keeping the rate payers in mind at every
step as we design to budget for this
important project.
– Gabriel Perigault
Design Manager
9 Extensive resources that are fully committed to this
project
9 Simultaneous and direct access to design and
construction resources at all times through our
integrated joint venture
9 A team that has successfully worked together to
deliver other projects in the region
9 Proven ability to partner with owners through their
first progressive design-build and get to Phase 2
without exercising the “off-ramp”
9 Collaborative design process: price, constructability, operability are considered holistically
9 Innovative concepts to minimize total project cost
such as right-sizing tankage
9 Staff continuity through all project phases
9 Maintain ongoing plant operations with detailed
construction sequencing
9 Comprehensive start-up and commissioning plan
to ensure operations staff is trained to operated the
new facility
Benefits of the AECOM/Lyles Team
1944
City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 2 Figure 2-1: Organization Chart
Our combined organization promotes the
continuity of staff throughout all project
phases. Please note staff will be made
available to fulfill their responsibilities on the
project. We presented in our SOQ the AECOM/
Lyles team members’ availability for your
project—our team is committed to the City
and their availability is shown again in
Appendix B along with our key team
member resumes.

Philip Portillo, SMS 2
Safety Director
Brian Daly, PE 1
Grant Gourley 2
Executive
Management Board
Joe Lawrence 2
Design-Build Project Manager

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
Marcos Reyes 2
Construction
Preconstruction
Manager
Vince Guillama 2
Construction
Superintendent
Anthony Pilato 2
Estimator/Cost Controls
Matt Cain 2
Scheduling Lead
Ryan Priestman 2
Commissioning Lead
Vijay Kumar 2
Treatment Process Lead
Alex Franchi, PhD, PE 1
Geotechnical/Civil
Steven Fitzwilliam, PE 1
Permitting Lead
Barbara Bartholomae 1
Structural
T.J. Catalano, PE 1
Architectural
William Goryl, RA 1
Electrical/I&C
Yasser Rizk, PE 1
Mechanical
Karen Bettencourt, PE
Design

INTEGRATED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TEAM

DESIGN MANAGER
Gabriel Perigault, PhD, PE 1
Legend/Firm Affiliation: 1 AECOM 2 W. M. Lyles Co.

Key Personnel, Resume Provided in Appendix B
Rosaida Harris 1
QA/QC Lead
Joe Lawrence
Design-Build Project Manager
Joe is a Senior Vice President at W. M. Lyles and Collaborative Delivery Manager with over 22 years of experience in managing and delivering largescale water and wastewater treatment projects. He has a proven track record in pre-construction planning, project management, pre-construction services, cost control and budgeting, construction implementation, and start-up and commissioning on numerous design-build and progressive design-build projects.

Joe is committed to delivering high-quality infrastructure while leading teams and managing complex project requirements.
9 Involved in every design-build
project completed by AECOM WML
in the last 15 years
9 Brings expertise in collaboration and
working with the team to design to
budget for project success
9 Met multiple times with the City of
Banning and understands the
solutions to upgrading the existing
wastewater treatment plant
9 Advanced understanding of various
delivery methods, including designbuild and progressive design-build 9 Deep technical expertise, particularly
in SCADA upgrades, biological
treatment, tertiary filtration, and
disinfection processes
Highly experienced progressive design-build project manager working on WWTP upgrades similar to the City of Banning Joe brings 20+ years of experience in managing wastewater treatment plant upgrades with a primary focus on collaborative delivery. He brings detailed preconstruction phase and estimating experience combined with years of heavy civil construction and start-up and commissioning for water/ wastewater infrastructure. He understands each step of the project lifecycle and how to lead a high-functioning team. Joe has been working closely with AECOM for the past 15 years on design-build projects such as:
• East County Advanced Water Purification (ECAWP) Packages 1 and 3 Progressive Design-Build
• City of Stockton Regional Wastewater Control Facility Progressive DesignBuild Upgrades • City of Davis Wastewater Treatment Plant Secondary and Tertiary Improvements, Design-Build
• City of Santa Cruz Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant Upgrades Progressive Design-Build
Why Joe?
At AECOM/Lyles, we are dedicated to fostering diversity and inclusion through active engagement with Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs). Our comprehensive outreach strategy, including advertised public events, ensures economic growth and equal opportunity. We host public outreach events to share information on collaborative projects, maximizing participation from both local and competitive environments. For example, at Hi-Desert Water District, our open house with local unions, businesses, subcontractors, and the public resulted in multiple bids and met all SRF grant requirements. For this project, we placed legal notice ads announcing the DBE opportunity in the Banning Record Gazette and performed searches on four websites (CA.GOV, DOT.CA, SBA, and CalTrans), resulting in solicitation of 1,223 DBEs. From that outreach effort, 21 DBEs have expressed interest in bidding.

Updates to SOQ
AECOM/Lyles project personnel are available to start work immediately and are committed to the City of Banning for the duration of your project Enhancing our Team... “W.M. Lyles Co., led by the exceptional project management of Mr. Joe Lawrence, delivered outstanding quality and expertise on the Galt WWTP Tertiary Filtration, UV Disinfection and Biosolids Improvements Project. Joe’s leadership ensured timely completion within the 206-day timeline and minimal change orders. We’re eager to collaborate with Joe and the W. M. Lyles Co. team again on future projects.” - James Boarer, P.E., Construction Manager, PSOMAS Good Faith
Efforts
1945
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 3 City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach Team Experience
The AECOM/Lyles team has NO CHANGE to our project
experience. The information presented in our Statement
of Qualifications (SOQ) demonstrates a long history of
working on design-build projects together as well as
unmatched local experience working on similar projects
for similar clients in Southern California. Table II-1 below summarizes the client reference projects previously
presented. Additional recent successful projects
include the CR&R Riverside County Environmental
Center in Perris, the Victor Valley Waste to Energy
project in Victorville, Morongo WWTP in Cabazon,
Beaumont, Hi-Desert, Yucaipa, Palm Springs and Lytle Creek WWTPs, all of which showcase our team’s deep-rooted understanding of the local area.

Table 2-1. Summary of Project Experience presented in our Statement of Qualifications Project Name/Location Scope of Services Relevance
Self
Performance
Level
Similar
Performance
Criteria
East County Advanced Water
Purification Progressive DesignBuild, Santee, CA AECOM/Lyles JV Progressive Design-Build
for WWTP and AWT
Reuse, RO, New Plant,
PDB, T22 compliance 78% 
S1 WWTP Improvements
Progressive Design-Build
Rialto, CA AECOM/Lyles JV
Progressive Design-Build
of WWTP improvements
Design to Budget,
significant cost
savings realized
75% 
Regional WPCF Upgrades
Progressive Design-Build
Stockton, CA AECOM/Lyles JV
Progressive Design-Build
of WWTP improvements
Design to Budget,
adjusted GMP to meet
Client’s goals
78% 
WWTP Salt Mitigation Upgrade
Project
Beaumont, CA W. M. Lyles
Construction of
treatment plant
upgrades including MBR
Neighboring
community facing
similar challenges
78% 
HDWD Wastewater Reclamation
Facility Progressive Design-Build
Yucca Valley, CA W. M. Lyles
Progressive Design-Build
of treatment plant
including MBR and UV
Design to Budget, $2M
in cost VE cost savings 75% 
This comprehensive project for the City of Imperial, completed in 2021 by Lyles, involved significant upgrades to the existing WWTP:
• Upgrades to the existing influent pump station and the construction of several new facilities
• New facilities included a grit structure, aeration basins, MBR facility, and dewatering facility
• Designed to efficiently process an average daily flow of 2.4 million gallons of wastewater
• Initial stages involved demolition of an existing aeration basin, setting up a shoring and dewatering system, and excavating 15,000 cubic yards of earthwork
• The team then installed approximately 5,500 lineal feet of below-grade piping and constructed the aeration basins, membrane bioreactor basins, and the slab for the dewatering facility building • The final stages involved the completion of the membrane bioreactor facility and installation of the abovegrade process mechanical piping and equipment Imperial Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
BEST for

BANNING
Our team has prioritized this project over
other opportunities in the marketplace. We
have been tracking this project for 3+ years
because the City is the type of client we want
to work for—a pragmatic desert community
looking to make every dollar count.

Additional Project Experience
1946
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 4 City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach Management of the Project Team
The AECOM/Lyles team has no other companies as part
of our core team at this time. We have advertised this
project for 30 days in the Press Empire and, if selected, we intend to add small business firms, such as surveyors,
drillers and geotechnical firms, during Phase One to meet City goals and grant/funding source requirements.

As presented in our SOQ and reaffirmed in the previous
subsection, the AECOM/Lyles key personnel have
delivered together on design-build treatment projects in California. The team has successfully employed
designing-to-budget on other projects and will work in
close collaboration with City staff and its advisory team to implement this proven approach.

How Key Staff will Interact in a
Collaborative Manner
The AECOM/Lyles team will be led by Design-Build
Project Manager Joe Lawrence. Joe will bring his 22+
years of experience with water/wastewater treatment
plant construction in California. Joe will have overall accountability and day to day contact with the City and your advisors through the entire project.

Design Manager Gabriel Perigault will lead the overall
design of the project. He will work closely with the
preconstruction and construction teams and your staff to deliver a design that meets your budget. He will lead the technical workshops that are associate with our
collaborative approach. Gabriel has managed the
design for numerous water and wastewater facilities,
including the recent Davis, Rialto and Stockton WWTP
design-build projects delivered with Lyles. With 30+ years of experience and a leader in innovative treatment
technologies including MBR systems, he will guide the
team and provide the City with a project that provides
reliable performance while optimizing capital and
operational expenses.

Approach
Key staff have delivered together on progressive design-build wastewater projects and projects in the San Gorgonio Pass and desert areas, bringing lessons learned and collaboration to the City Treatment Process Lead Alex Franchi will lead the
treatment process train scheme and the technical details related to the MBR and disinfection systems. He will
coordinate with Gabriel, Vince and the rest of the team to make sure the most cost-effective technical solutions are brought forward and he will be on point for discussions with critical technology vendors to ensure our design and the scope of supply align.

Preconstruction Manager Vince Guillama will work
closely with Mike, Gabriel and the City’s team to establish the initial project estimate and update it regularly as design decisions are made and the scope is finalized. He will also work closely with Construction Manager Marcos Reyes in developing and maintaining the project
schedule. Vince is a proven collaborator in this role,
having provided preconstruction services for a multitude of DB projects, notably the City of Davis, City of Santa Cruz, East County AWP (1&3), and City of Stockton
Projects, all undertaken as part of the AECOM/Lyles JV.

Construction Manager Marcos Reyes will participate in
constructability and VE reviews during Phase One. He will work with Vince in maintaining the project schedule.

During Phase Two, he will oversee the construction of the upgrades. Marcos has over 15 years of experience
managing construction of wastewater facilities. He is
currently serving as WRF Construction Manager for the
ECAWP Project, following his successful role as
Construction Manager on the $25M Rialto WWTP Project
(also operated by Veolia), both in collaboration with
AECOM.

BEST for

BANNING
Being a highly experienced, integrated 50/50
JV team functioning as one entity, our business
operating culture is truly collaborative with
all parties dedicated to the same goal of
designing to a budget. This is in stark contrast
to other DB entities who will have designers
subcontracted to a general contractor.
1947
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 5 City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach Constructability, Operability,
Maintainability, Durability, Sustainability,
VE, and Efficiency of Design and
Construction
Applying the best aspects of progressive designbuild. Our approach builds upon the work completed by the City and our concept is a starting point for discussions with the City’s team (see Part 3). We applaud the City’s approach to use the progressive design-build (PDB)
model and we know that collaborative, cost-centric
discussions will drive best solutions. We are no strangers to this process with PDB projects completed and
underway in Rialto, Stockton, and the ECAWP program in
Santee. Phase One management elements will be
focused on workshops, design development, price
certainty and construction sequencing. Preconstruction
Manager Vince Guillama and Construction Manager
Marcos Reyes will participate in the VE sessions and
constructability reviews to provide their input.

Our JV will use Primavera P6 to track the schedule and
adjust as needed. The meetings and workshops schedule
will be critical in driving technical decisions to maintain overall project schedule and designing to budget as the primary goal through direct presentation of cost impacts as they relate to specific options. Details on our approach to both Phase One and Two are presented in the
following subsections.

Phase One Approach
Our design to budget approach starts with a detailed
agreement of the process train and we will leverage
vendor provided designs when they provide capital
and operational benefits.

Our scope and initial estimate will establish the City’s the must have scope items. We will also make separate list of wish list items that can be added into the project during Phase One, as the budget allows.

Building on the baseline cost and critical guardrails
established from the programming workshop, we will
step through the workshop process. The baseline cost
model will be used to measure alternatives or
modifications against the initial layout to compare costs associated with alternative concepts, equipment or
approaches that may be contemplated during the
workshop process. Decision Log maintains positive
momentum and serves as a go-to reference point so that
decisions aren’t constantly revisited.

We will use a clear process that documents agreed
upon elements in the Decision Log to maintain
positive project momentum. Elements that need
adjustments or a different alternative will be vetted,
refined and brought back to the City at a future meeting.

We have learned that having a baseline upon which to
compare “real-time” options allows the entire team to
make educated, value-based decisions with the total
project cost in mind. A critical Lesson Learned by our
team is the importance of having sufficient engineering and planning budget. The additional effort placed on
Phase 1 will result in significantly lower total project costs through sound decision making and review of total
project lifecycle costs
Disciplined cost accounting controls are the essential
responsibility of the Project Manager in Phase One as
engineering progresses to 100%. Weekly Estimates to
Complete (ETC) are tracked by the Project Manager with
weekly design cost reporting prepared by the JV controls team. Design to budget efforts is continual with regular construction cost and schedule adjustments reflected in the outcomes of design workshops, equipment/materials
market interaction and early subcontractor inclusion.

As described later in this Section under the Collaboration heading, we envision a workshop process to involve
the City and its advisors to make the above
decisions. The workshops will also be a key way we
obtain operations team input and get feedback
when finalizing equipment selection.

BEST for

BANNING
Our proven approach for PDB projects starts
with an initial estimate that is based on real
numbers from similar projects plus market
outreach. The estimate is updated regularly,
allowing the City to make value based
decisions so there is no surprises at the GMP.

PROVEN INNOVATION TO DRIVE DOWN

PROJECT COSTS
Our VE and optioneering efforts on
other design-build projects has resulted
in an average savings to clients of 21%
when comparing our solution to the
owner’s original concept
1948
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 6 City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach Design
During Phase One, as part of the Progress Meetings, we
will conduct design reviews on selected topics with the purpose of disseminating information, promoting
discussion and obtaining feedback so that City staff
understands the design and has enough information to
approve the design. More resembling a workshop than a
meeting, this approach to review meetings has been
developed and honed on similar large and complex
projects. We will manage design review meetings using
the following best practices:
9 Dedicated leader to facilitate
9 Up-front technical discussion materials
9 Clear agendas that specify: (1) purpose and
decisions expected, (2) overview topics and issues, (3) discussion and review, (4) summary decisions made,
and (5) approvals
9 Clear, action-oriented minutes
9 Follow-up action items and distribution of issue
resolution
Schedule Management and City Reviews. We will use
Primavera P6 to track progress and adjust course, as
needed. The meetings, submittals, and review schedule
will be critical in driving decisions to maintain overall project schedule. As described more fully in Part IV, we will use a cost loaded schedule and provide 3 week look
aheads as appropriate.

Our Integrated JV Addresses City Concerns
Providing continuity in leadership between Project
phases. A hallmark of how the AECOM/Lyles JV does
design-build work is that we promote staff continuity
throughout all project phases. This virtually eliminates any risk of discontinuity in leadership and any issues with information transfer. For instance, the project manager will stay engaged for all phases of the project. The design manager and all discipline leads will continue to be
involved in the project after the design is complete,
providing interpretation and responding to any questions in the field to make sure the design intent is carried out in We will use 3D models during detailed design. We have experienced the benefits of using this tool in other projects as it provides a better perspective facilitating the understating among the design-build team, City staff, and other stakeholders, and, in the end, the decision-making process. It also helps break down the
compartmentalization between design and construction, and avoid clashes between disciplines during construction, to see the project visualized early on.

BEST for

BANNING
We recognize that all projects face some level of
financial pressure. To this end we have already begun
looking at potential alternatives to to meet the City’s desired project budget. While these alternative will be developed more comprehensively during the phase 1
activities, we present a number of these in detail in Part III as a sign of commitment to the City that we take this responsibility seriously:
9 Right-sizing tankage and basins to save cost.

Our modeling and analysis shows that the sizing
the aeration and mbr basins can be reduced,
saving construction costs, while still providing the
appropriate redundancy.
9 Three tank configuration of bioreactors. Will
provide required redundancy while providing cost
savings.
9 Eliminate the initial need for the RO system and
evaporation ponds. We believe that blending MBR
effluent and potable water can meet the nitrogen
and TDS limits at a lower cost.
9 Hydraulics. Maximize the use of gravity flow
through the plant to lower pumping costs
9 Eliminate the third primary clarifier. Savings
can provided by not constructing the third primary
clarifier without impacting the performance of the
MBR system
9 Site layout. The site’s large area with limited
interface points allows for spacious logistics,
staging, and stormwater management. Early
procurement and just-in-time delivery will
streamline the project timeline and prevent delays.
9 Chlorination basin vs. UV disinfection. Eliminate
the construction of a large chlorination basin with a
more cost-efficient and environmentally friendly UV
disinfection.

OPTIMIZING DESIGN-TO-BUDGET

THROUGH CREATIVE CONCEPTS
1949
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 7 City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach what is being built. Similarly, the construction manager will engage in the project during phase 1 to understand the design, and provide constructability and VE input.

Compartmentalization between design and
construction. As an integrated JV our delivery model
breaks down the barriers that could compartmentalize
design and construction activities. Our key staff have
worked together before on progressive design-build
treatment plant projects have a rapport and an efficient communication style that promotes collaboration. For
example, our team does page flip reviews at critical
milestones to make sure that the design and construction implementation members are all aligned in what is being presented and priced.

Contractor or equipment supplier interests overriding
engineering-based decisions. All equipment and
materials for the project will be reviewed and approved by the Engineer of Record that designed and specified
these items, including any vendor provided designs. For critical equipment, including all mechanical equipment, AECOM/Lyles, in close coordination with the City, will also be in charge of recommending to the City suppliers,
selecting the equipment and approving all shop
submittals prior to release for fabrication. Alex Franchi will be involved with critical process equipment to make sure vendor supplied equipment align with overall design
decisions and anticipated performance requirements.

This approach provides an unbiased process that
ensures that the City’s preferences are considered and
the best value with respect to cost, functionality, and durability are part of the selection process.

Phase Two Approach
Experience Developing/Managing the GMP
As an experienced design-builder, AECOM/Lyles has a
unique advantage of developing realistic costs during the GMP development phase of the project. Our DB project
manager, design and procurement team and
subcontractor partners understand technical and quality requirements and are skilled at developing detailed,
bottoms up cost estimates. They have long-lasting
relationships with reputable equipment suppliers which
reduces the risk of scope creep during the design and,
ultimately, construction.

Additionally, our team will work closely with the City to implement decisions on equipment, materials of
construction, and overall site considerations that will positively impact the GMP. Techniques will include using a decision log to document each decision made along with
any associated cost impacts, so that a running tally of the current project cost is maintained and can be easily measured against a baseline. Our team will also make
sure that multiple bids are received for not only the
equipment but also subcontractors to achieve the lowest project cost possible. Internal contractor prequalification procedures will also verify that vendors and
subcontractors selected for the project are financially stable and will provide the workmanship and ethics
commensurate with the AECOM/Lyles JV philosophy.

Beginning with our rigorous prequalification process, we will communicate with subcontractors the importance of
quality, safety and performance, in addition to best value provided.

Our team recommends the GMP process occurs after the
60% design milestone in order to maintain the project
schedule.

Estimating and Cost Monitoring
AECOM and Lyles have very successful histories
managing costs on both lump sum and progressive
design-build projects. Vince and Marcos will provide the City and its advisory team frequent cost estimate
updates during design leading not surprise at the GMP.

Our partnership with key subconsultants during the
design phase will allow our team to further develop a
reliable cost estimate for the GMP, that accurately
captures the electrical components of this project.

Highlights of AECOM/Lyles team estimating, and cost
monitoring procedures include:
9 An initial cost estimate will be performed before the kickoff workshop and updated on an ongoing basis.
9 One difference maker for AECOM/Lyles is that we
start with a detailed estimate from day one, drawing
upon a wealth of similar past construction projects
to establish a baseline estimate. We are much more
accurate and transparent than our competition.
9 VE and constructibility reviews are performed
throughout the design phase.
9 Another difference maker is the flexibility of
contractual approach from conversion to a lump
sum or cost plus with a GMP with a shared savings,
depending on the City’s preferences.

BEST for

BANNING
We design and build to budget on all our
design-build projects to ensure client
satisfaction: the proof – no client has ever
taken the off ramp at the GMP stage on any of
our projects.
1950
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 8 City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach Biggest Lessons Learned Developing GMPs
AECOM/Lyles will meet the challenges of establishing the GMP price for the City’s project, by staying flexible during the design process and keeping a strong focus on
designing to budget. The three key issues we have
encountered when designing to the GMP include:

1. Defining project “must haves” to establish early
cost certainty. AECOM and Lyles use an early
partnering approach through common sharing of
project budgets, which allows both the owner and
design-builder to establish “must-have” items as well
as “wish list” items and make value-based decisions
against a mutually agreeable baseline.

2. Clear scope expectations/scope-creep. Early
agreement between the owner and the design-builder
regarding the core project design criteria and scope is critical to cost, schedule, and project certainty.

3. Escalation of materials. Recent market volatility and global economics have affected material costs and
could have a significant impact on overall project
costs. Our constant bidding of wastewater projects in
California allows us to stay in touch with market
pricing and minimizes surprises at the GMP deliverable.

Other Mitigation Measures. AECOM/Lyles suggests
holding regular meetings to openly discuss and evaluate engineering options, while providing a continual accurate update of the agreed upon budget and schedule, and
jointly maintaining control of detailed scope. This
approach has worked well on other projects and will
serve as another way to facilitate design to budget.

Approach to Construction
AECOM/Lyles has a proven track record of successfully
delivering complex treatment plant projects, particularly with desert communities. We have developed a robust
approach to site layout, logistics, and construction
sequencing that prioritizes efficiency, safety, and
environmental stewardship. Details of construction
approach are presented in Part IV of this proposal.

Site Layout and Logistics
We approached the site layout and logistical plan with a focus on maximizing efficiency and minimizing
disruption. As part of this analysis we are also focused how decisions we make relative to the layout and logistics of build the new plant and how that could affect the
day-to-day operations of your existing plant. Our
approach has been developed to have minimal impact
to current vehicular and pedestrian access and
maintaining as little impact to your current facility.

The project site provides a large area with limited
interface and tie-in points for the main portion of the work with the existing facility, affording a spacious area for site logistics, staging, and stormwater management
both during and following construction. We understand
that this project demands meticulous planning and
execution to balance the need for efficient construction LEGEND
1: Construction Laydown
2: Staging Area
3: Access Roads/Traffic Management
4: Parking
5: Site Security Measures
6: Emergency Exit
7: Restricted Area
8: Soils Hauling Route
9: Waste Management Facilities
 Charles St.

TRAILERS & LOCKABLE

CONTAINER STORAGE

TRAILER & VISITOR

PARKING

EXISTING PLANT
ACCESS

ENTRANCE WITH

GUARD SHACK

CONSTRUCTION AREA

ACCESS RD
& CRANE/EQUIPMENT ROUTE

CRAFT PARKING

SITE ACCESS
ROAD

PERIMETER FENCE &

GREEN SCREEN
AROUND

CONSTURCTION
AREA

EMERGENCY
EXIT

UNDISTURBED
AREA

NEW FACILITY

LAYDOWN &

STAGING

SOILS HAULING
ROUTE
Figure 2-2. Site Plan Logistics
1951
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 9 City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach with the necessity of minimizing environmental impacts.

The uncomplicated nature of the site enables a
straightforward approach to layout, logistics, and
resource management, ensuring that all construction
activities are confined within the designated boundaries while adhering to strict regulatory requirements. We do not foresee any resource limitations that would affect
project progress. With the ability to self-perform 75% of the work, we can control costs, create efficiencies,
enhance coordination, mitigate risks, and improve safety while enabling resource flexibility and ensuring quality.

Our early procurement strategies and just-in-time delivery streamline project timelines by securing critical materials and equipment in advance, minimizing storage costs,
reducing the risk of damage, and preventing delays in
construction progress.

Location and Layout of Key Elements. Construction
Laydown Areas: Strategically positioned within the site to allow easy access to materials while minimizing the
footprint on undisturbed areas.

Laydown and Staging Areas. Located near the main
construction zones to facilitate the efficient movement of equipment and materials, reducing downtime and
delays. This will be constructed immediately adjacent to the work site to avoid double or triple handling of
materials.

Access Roads
and Traffic
Management will
be clear and
concise, carefully
planned to ensure
safe and efficient
movement of
vehicles and
machinery while
minimizing
impacts on
surrounding areas. This will also allow easy access to all the different key element areas and keep truck haul roads away from trailers and parking areas for a straight, easy in and out. Traffic flow will be managed to prevent
bottlenecks and maintain site safety. We expect a
primary access point off Charles street past the existing entrance of the existing facility.

Parking. Designated parking areas will be established
within the site boundaries to prevent off-site disruptions and ensure easy access for workers. Two designated
areas will be created: one for CM/Project personnel and another for craft labor and subs.

Site Security Measures. A comprehensive security plan
will be implemented, including fencing, surveillance, and controlled access points, to protect the site and ensure compliance with safety protocols. We will include a guard shack at the front gate and a separate entrance to avoid disturbing the existing plant entrance. Site fencing and security gates will be locked after hours. Web-based
security cameras will also be installed.

Utilities Placement. Utilities will be strategically placed to support construction activities while minimizing
interference with the natural environment and existing
infrastructure.

Waste Management Facilities. Designated areas will be
established for waste collection and sorting, ensuring
that all waste is handled in an environmentally
responsible manner. These areas will be strategically
positioned near the main construction/staging area, as
well as near the trailers and exit, for ease of access.

Containment within Boundaries. All elements,
including laydown areas, staging zones, and access
roads, will be fully contained within the specified site boundaries and established easements. This ensures that our activities do not encroach on protected areas or
disrupt neighboring properties.

Mitigation Measures to Minimize Environmental
Impacts. To further minimize environmental impacts, we
will implement a range of mitigation measures, including sediment control, dust suppression, and noise reduction strategies. These measures will be continuously
monitored and adjusted as needed to ensure compliance
with environmental regulations and best practices.

Startup and Commissioning
Our startup and commissioning approach is presented in
Part IV of this proposal. We acknowledge the
procurement requirements regarding startup and
commissioning, including the requirement for 30 days for startup and testing and pre-commissioning meeting to
discuss plan with the City 3 to 6 months before startup and testing is scheduled to begin.
1952
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 10 City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach Permitting
BEST for

BANNING
Our long-term relationships with California
permitting agencies and regulators will
provide the City with a streamlined process to
meet the project schedule.

Anticipated Permits and Schedule. Please see our full
project schedule included in Appendix A for a breakdown of the timeframe to apply for and obtain permits. Below is a list of anticipated permits:

City of Banning
• Community Development
• Building Permit
• Public Works Coordination
• Encroachment Permit Coordination
County of Riverside
• Dept. of Environmental Health
• Solid Waste Facility Requirements
• Fire Dept. - Hazardous Materials Div.
• Hazardous Materials Business Plan
• Transportation and Land Mgmt Agency and Planning
• Flood Control and WaterConservation District
CA State Waterboard R7: Colorado River
• Stormwater
• Industrial User Waste Discharge Reqmnts
• SWPPP Updates associated w/Industrial Activities
• Construction General Permit (w/SWPPP by contractor)
• Recycled Water
• Title 22 Eng. Report for Prod., Dist., & Use of Recycled Water
South Coast Air Quality Management District
• Authority to Construct Permit
• Permit to Operate (after Construction)
Understanding of Permit Process and Support for the
City. For permitting and governmental approvals we will create a Permit Work Plan that will identify each specific permit required, the permitting agency contacts,
submittal requirements, prerequisite conditions,
processing times, and schedule for submittals. Key
success factors for our plan include:
9 Implementing up-front coordination with the City and
permit agencies to facilitate the approval process.

This will help minimize the risk of delays.
9 Coordinating design activities with permit submittals 9 Preparing discrete permit submittal packages
9 Follow-up shortly after submittal to confirm
information compliance and/or additional
information required
Title 22 and RWQCB permits. The AECOM/Lyles Team
will provide the necessary technical information to
support development of the Title 22 Engineering Report
permit approval process. We will provide the elements
that are related to our scope of work, i.e., descriptions of the WWTP , pathogenic microorganism control, reliability of features for the new facilities, contingency plan,
monitoring system, recycled reverse osmosis
performance, advanced oxidation performance,
operational optimization plan, and an operations and
maintenance readiness plan.

CEQA Compliance. We will review the CEQA
documentation and the design team will incorporate the
specific requirements into the early design concepts.

Specific measures will be taken to ensure applicable
mitigation, monitoring and reporting measures will be
included on design plans to foster compliance. At the
onset of the project, a master list of Mitigation,
Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) requirements
that are applicable to each design element will be
created and distributed to the project team.

Grant/Loan Compliance. AECOM/Lyles is very
comfortable working on projects with SRF and WIFIA
requirements; both the ECAWP, Davis and Stockton
design-build projects received SRF funding. We will review existing grant and loan requirements, including
documentation and reporting requirements, with the City at the onset and incorporate those procedures into our
project management and execution plan to ensure
schedule and funding compliance. Task and schedule
reporting milestones will be added into our master
project schedule.

Design Build Quality Control Plan
One of the benefits of AECOM/Lyles’ extensive history
of working together previously on PDB projects is
that we have a well-established joined QA/QC
program that provides robust oversight at every
stage of the project. Building on the successful QA/QC
programs we have executed together on the Rialto
WWTP, Stockton WWTP, and Santa Cruz WTP PDB
projects, we will implement the following program.

Our Certified Quality Management System
AECOM/Lyles will provide the City with a Quality
Management Plan (QMP) that will define the procedures
and protocols that we will utilize to provide QA/QC
throughout the project, from design through
construction, start-up and commissioning. The policies
1953
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 11 City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach and procedures provided within AECOM’s Quality
Management System (QMS) will be utilized as AECOM/
Lyles’ procedures to execute the QMP. The AECOM Water
offices in the U.S. are an ISO 9001:2015 certified
organization. ISO 9000 standards are globally
recognized as the foundation of establishing quality
management systems. Our QMP will include established
procedures governing overall quality management and
specific procedures for each phase of this project. The QA/QC program is enhanced when the City and the
AECOM/Lyles Team works collaboratively on a daily basis to monitor progress. The AECOM/Lyles Team selfperforming civil, concrete and mechanical aspects of the work provides optimum control of quality workmanship.

Construction work progress will be monitored and
documented using the Site Field Resident’s (SFR’s) Daily Report which will document the progress of the work by
recording the time development of the work, weather
conditions, the crew sizes, equipment, etc. The SFR will review the reports to verify their accuracy. Work progress will also be documented in the CPM Schedule. This
documentation includes operating logs, source and field testing/sampling log, records of inspections and tests
with daily logs and site photographs, written reports and engineering data of material testing, audit reports (from third parties to the JV), certifications, proper equipment installation confirmed by manufacturer representatives, system test results, personnel qualifications and
certifications records, procedures and document review
records. QA/QC records will be uploaded to the agreed
upon project portal on a routine basis for review by the City.

Document Control and Records Management
We will launch and maintain an internet-based electronic Document Management System (DMS) to provide
efficient loading and retrieval of project-related
documents, provide links and search functions indicating where the documents are located within the DMS, and
provide training for key City personnel that will have
access to the DMS. All documents and records will be
uploaded to the City’s system on a routine basis to ensure your staff has access to current data at any given time.

The QA/QC staff is empowered to enforce all quality
objectives and will maintain all the necessary recorded documents to provide the City with proper
implementation of a QA/QC Program.

Key Personnel responsible for QA/QC
QA/QC Lead Rosaida Harris, will have overall
responsibility for the Quality Management Plan (QMP).

Rosaida is a QA/QC leader for AECOM Water projects. In
close coordination with design and construction team,
Table 2-2. Our quality control process provides oversight at every step from concept to completion Design-Build
Quality
Management
This plan will outline the quality assurance and quality control requirements for design, permitting, construction, commissioning, and testing phases of the project. The plan will detail procedures that we will apply to ensure that each element of the project is delivered with quality in accordance with the contract documents and industry standards. We will use standardized forms and checklists to document all procedures have been followed according to the plan.

Technical
Reviews
Our ISO 9001 standards require review and sign-off by a Technical Quality Advisor for all key disciplines.

This offers the project team timely reviews. Each submittal will be reviewed for engineering decisions and correctness of calculations, code compliance, as well as content, clarity and presentation, incorporation of standards, consistency with the City’s project budget and schedule. Quality control reviews will be documented through our project website and each corrective action noted in our QA/QC log.

Construction
Management
and Inspection
The AECOM/Lyles team will provide full-time construction management services reporting directly to City staff to oversee construction activities and coordinate materials testing to confirm compliance with the design and approved shop drawings.

Acceptance Test
Plan
This plan will outline the process and procedures for verifying all commissioning activities are coordinated, executed, and documented to demonstrate that the project performs satisfactorily in all manners, and meets all water quality objectives for final effluent reuse and disposal required by the Regional Board, including the Beaumont Basin Plan limits for TN and TDS.

Phase 2 - Revised QMP – Package 1 3 03/10/2023
Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1Background ........................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 References......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 7

1.4 Quality Management Plan Purpose and Objective .................................................................. 7

1.5 QMP Amendments and Distribution ............................................................................................ 8

2.0 PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...................................................... 9

2.1 Quality Management Responsibility ............................................................................................ 9

3.0 STAFFING AND ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................ 10

3.1 Quality Management Organizational Structure .................................................................. 10

3.2 QA/QC Responsibilities and Authority Levels ............................................................................ 12

4.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY MEETINGS ................................................................................................. 16

4.1 Initial QA/QC Meeting ................................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Weekly Construction Meetings and QA/QC Updates ........................................................... 17

4.3 Specialty Trade/New Work QA/QC Meetings ......................................................................... 17

4.4 Special QA/QC Meetings ................................................................................................................ 17

4.5 Internal QA/QC Meetings and Continued Improvements ......................................................... 17

5.0 DEFINABLE FEATURES OF THE WORK ................................................................................................. 18

6.0 MATERIALS RECEIPT AND EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT ................................................................. 19

6.1 Manufacturing of Materials ........................................................................................................... 19

6.2 AIS Waiver Process ......................................................................................................................... 20

6.3 Delivery and Receipt of Materials ................................................................................................. 21

6.4 Material Receipt, Documentation and Location Reports: ......................................................... 21

6.5 Installation of Materials .................................................................................................................. 22

7.0 INSPECTION AND VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 22

7.1 Construction Quality Control and Field Inspection Approach............................................. 22

7.1.1 Initial Construction Site Inspections ................................................................................. 22

7.1.2 Progress Construction Site Inspections ........................................................................... 23

7.1.3 Inspection Verification Points ............................................................................................ 23

7.1.4 Special Inspection and Observation .................................................................................. 25

EAST COUNTY ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION PROJECT
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

SANTEE, CALIFORNIA
Phase 2 - Revised QMP – Package 1 4 03/10/2023

7.1.5 Non-Conformance and Construction Deficiencies......................................................... 25

8.0 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT TESTING ANDSAMPLING................................................................ 26

9.0 DOCUMENTATION MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 29

9.1Final Design Coordination and Independent Review .................................................................... 29

9.2Construction Documentation and Records Management............................................................ 29

10.0 TRANSITION FROM CONSTRUCTION TO START-UPSERVICES ..................................................... 32

10.1 Control of Operational Status - Startup and Commissioning.................................................. 32

10.2 Operations and Maintenance......................................................................................................... 34

11.0 ACCEPTANCE PLANS .............................................................................................................................. 34

12.0 QUALITY AUDITS...................................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix............................................................................................................................................................. 35 QualityDefinitions............................................................................................................................................. 35 Appendix - Link.............................................................................................................................................. 36 Project Structural Testing Requirements.................................................................................................... 36 Appendix - Link.............................................................................................................................................. 37 Forms and Logs - Inspection Checklists ..................................................................................................... 37 Appendix D - Link ........................................................................................................................................... 38 Inspection and Test Plans .............................................................................................................................. 38 Appendix E - Link .......................................................................................................................................... 39 Third Party Laboratory Qualification and Certifications................................................................................. 39 Appendix F - Link .......................................................................................................................................... 40 Resumes............................................................................................................................................................... 40 Through our numerous projects done together, we
have developed a strong QA/QC program that
blends design and construction activities.
1954
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 12 City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach she will be responsible for monitoring the QA/QC aspects of the project, coordinating with the appropriate lead
engineers, construction management and site
superintendents and technical discipline needs.

AECOM/Lyles Team has extensive QA/QC experience
routinely performing full oversight of essentially selfinspection on many public projects. This experience will provide the City with a high level of transparency.

Team Partnership Environment
The AECOM/Lyles JV promotes collaboration across
all elements of the project life-cycle and with all
stakeholders—it is more than a philosophy, it is a core value. It demands proactive involvement, respectful
dialogue, challenges to the status quo, and transparency by all parties. We have used our JV collaboration
approach successfully on several of California’s largest PDB projects. Internally, our design and construction
personnel are fully integrated. This means that our
designers are not designing in isolation; rather, they are in constant communication with construction personnel
and your team to validate that key design decisions such as the location of construction joints, or the type of pipe restraint is consistent with what has been priced. This focused dialogue allows us to stand behind our
commitment of “no surprises” at the GMP or at any
interim pricing update. We commit to optimizing the
City’s goals and vision, and to best assure a successful project journey. This is illustrated on the next page in Figure II-2, which provides a roadmap that shows how we will develop and finalize the design during phase 1,
maintaining the schedule while also incorporating crucial feedback from the City.

City Involvement and Communication
Key aspects of our collaborative approach that facilitate City involvement include:
9 Collaborative, detailed approach to ensure the
right data is carried forward as design criteria.

The goal is to get all preferences and constraints
on the table so the best options are advanced for
implementation in the design.
9 Engineering meetings that seamlessly coordinate
construction and operations elements. Our design
team holds internal weekly progress meetings. Every
few weeks, production drawings are uploaded to
MS Teams so that the estimating and construction
teams can review. Joe, Gabe and Vince will efficiently
manage constructability challenges to confirm
the design drawings reflect the most cost-efficient
approach to construct the project. As VE ideas arise
they will evaluate the cost and schedule impacts and
provide an overview to facilitate proactive dialogue
with the City’s project team. We will gain consensus
with your team through bi-weekly coordination
meetings that track overall status, and perform
continuous constructability review and reach
consensus on time sensitive issues.
9 Major milestone meetings to improve quality. Our
team meets ahead of major submittal milestones to
QC the design plans, reports and specifications that
accompany the submittal. This additional level of
scrutiny holds all parties accountable on our team
and further promotes our united, project-centric
approach.
9 Real time pricing updates improve decisionmaking. Starting with a solid initial estimate, we will isolate discrete alternatives with conceptual layouts;
then provide real-time updates to show where the
money is being allocated to facilitate value-based
decision-making by the City.
9 Leadership meetings will increase collaboration
and will occur throughout the project. The City’s
team (including operations staff), owner’s advisor
and other stakeholders participation will be key to
the project success. Meetings will be frequent early
in the process, as Phase One decisions have the
biggest impact on total project cost and operational
considerations.
9 Executive meetings demonstrate our corporate
commitment. Monthly meetings between the City
and our JV executive team (Grant Gourley and
Brian Daly) can bring early corrective action. They
also routinely reviews project status, adherence to
the City’s budget, staffing, and project challenges.

Brian and Grant are design-build practitioners on
numerous water/ wastewater design-build projects
and will be actively engaged in the details of this
project.

Project Manager Role
The project manager on this Project, Joe Lawrence, is
responsible for overseeing the entire project team,
including all firms and individuals involved in both preconstruction and construction phases. Joe has the authority to make critical decisions related to project management, resource allocation, and ensuring the
project meets its goals and objectives. He plays a key role in integrating design and construction organizations,
managing cost and schedule, and coordinating with key
personnel and entities involved in the Project.

I am fully committed to collaborating with the
City and providing leadership to find the most
cost-effective project that meets the City’s objectives and provides for future growth and expansion.
– Joe Lawrence
Design-Build Project Manager
1955
City of Banning PART II | Project Team, Experience & Approach AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 13 Kick-off
Workshop
Site Layout
Collaboration
9 Site and roadway
optimization
9 Solar option
9 Space for future
expansion
9 Reuse of existing
infrastructure
9 Architectural
9 Hydraulic model
9 Process mechanical
9 Site plan/layout
9 General arrangements
9 Electrical/SCADA/I&C
9 Civil, Process,
Mechanical, P&IDs,,
HVAC and Plumbing
substantially complete.
9 All disciplines complete
pending final input
from City
9 Integrated strategy
to expedite
construction
while maintaining
existing operations
9 Risk mitigation
9 Need for Building vs.
canopies
9 Need to convert
secondary digester
9 Strategy
9 Sequence
9 Actions Baseline
cost
update
9 Need for Primaries
9 BioWin modeling
9 Disinfection strategy
9 Basin sizing
30% Design/
Final PDR
30%
Design
Workshop
60% Design
Workshop
GMP
Workshop
90% Design
Workshop Final Design
Workshop
Phase 2 NTP
Phase 2
MBR and Disinfection
Collaboration
SCADA
Workshop 1
SCADA
Workshop 2
SCADA
Workshop 3
SCADA
Workshop 4
10%
Design/
Draft PDR
Preferred
Vendors
Identified
Data Collection & Analysis
9 Geotechnical and survey
9 Potholing
9 Survey
9 Environmental support
$ 
$
LEGEND
Engineering Task
Collaborative Workshop
Engineering Deliverable
Construction Cost Check
Owner Review
$

Constructability/
Risk Mgmt
VE Workshop Workshop
Permitting
Collaboration
9 Initial
hydraulic
model
9 Title 22 Report
GMP + 2nd Constructability Workshop
In order to meet the overall schedule, we envision
GMP negotiations commencing after 60% design and
begin advancing long-lead equipment and early civil
works activities
NTP
Final
Design
BEST for

BANNING
Below we present representative details to show how robust the preparation and documentation for each key meeting will be with the City so you can be confident in each decision made:
9 Kickoff meeting. Discuss project expectations with the City including project execution, quality control, progress reporting, and deliverables. Review concept design and evaluate major unit process treatment that will meet the project performance goals.

Make a preliminary selection of preferred major unit process options and vendors. A Project Quality Plan and Project Execution Plan will be developed for discussion in the kick-off meeting. 9 Technical Progress meetings. The main purpose of the Technical Progress Meetings is to facilitate effective collaboration between the City and AECOM/Lyles to allow the selection of preferred unit process options that will be verified by subsequent design development. Evaluate and analyze the major unit process treatment alternatives that will meet the project performance goals and make a preliminary selection of preferred major unit process options. 9 Risk Management Workshop. AECOM/Lyles will develop and maintain a risk log. The risk log is the key document used in managing risk. The log records risks identified during proposal and work plan development; workshops, technical reviews, and monthly project meetings; and through other events that occur during the project. An initial risk workshop will be used to build consensus among stakeholders and as a means to bring the Project together to identify and evaluate potential risks Our team will be well-prepared for each meeting, bringing the required detailed information to allow the City to understand the options and make the best choices to meet your budget 9 Major equipment
9 PLCs
9 Instrumentation
9 Pumps
90%
Design
60%
Design
Early Work
&
Procurement
NTP
- A portion of the Project Progress Meetings will be allocated for Technical collaboration sessions. Only a few anticipated technical collaboration sessions are shown in this diagram.
- Value engineering will occur organically as part of our “Design-to-budget Approach”. Value engineering will be specifically covered during the design workshops for the different design milestones as well as the cost update workshops.
- Dates and duration of activities, including anticipated permit sequence are included in the schedule, included in Appendix A.

Figure 2-3. Roadmap to Achieve Lowest Total Project Cost in Phase 1 
 
Our comprehensive approach to planning, collaboration and design development will result in clear decisions, streamlined procurement and construction and the Lowest total project cost delivered for your project
1956
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 14 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
Introduction
We appreciate the challenges the City faces in balancing numerous items associated with the expansion of its
WWTP, including:
9 Minimizing the cost to your rate payers
9 Meeting future water quality requirements
9 Promoting the use of recycled water
9 Providing for long-term community growth
We will work closely with you to explore value based
solutions and will be constantly challenging ourselves to make sure a design to budget approach is employed.

AECOM/Lyles has taken a close look at the City’s initial concept and have noted several opportunities and
challenges with this concept on Figure 3-1 on the following page. Later in this section, we present our concept that builds on the one presented in the DCR to optimize the
project costs even further. We view this concept as the starting point on our collective journey to cost savings– throughout this section we present additional ideas, that if incorporated into the final scope, will provide the City additional cost savings while still meeting all of your core goals of this environmentally sensitive project.

Hydraulic Capacity
We understand the importance of efficient hydraulics
and accurate flow splitting between unit processes. Our team will optimize the head loss through the plant to
reduce the energy costs associated with increased
pumping, significantly reducing the initial capital
and lifelong operating costs of the facility.

We will confirm existing profiles (as related to our new work) to ensure compatibility with existing plant tie-ins and prepare a comprehensive hydraulic profiles that
considers minimum, average, and maximum flow rates
and considers anticipated critical units out of service.

Figure 3-2 on page 3-3 show our initial hydraulic profile and a drawing is included in Appendix A. Our proposed
scheme will minimize pumping as the wastewater
will only be pumped once from equalization through
the MBR process.

Technical Approach
Delivering a quality project while driving down cost
III
PART
BEST for

BANNING
Throughout this Section we highlight how
are team is committed to doing what is best
for Banning. We will bring forward the most
cost-effective solutions—but not at the cost
of quality. We will not cut corners or propose
items that are not in your best interest.

BEST for

BANNING
9 Redundant pumping (one redundant pump
in all trains that convey the rated hydraulic
capacity)
9 In normal operation, one duty fine screen and
one backup. Future third channel.
9 Three aeration basins, two duty and one
standby
9 Three Membrane Tanks, two duty and one
standby
9 UV disinfection channel duty (~.5 MGD) and
remaining flow directed to percolation ponds
or UV disinfection channel off-line and all flows
directed to percolation ponds
Hydraulic Highlights- Building in
Reliability & Flexibility for the future
Our cost saving ideas can
save the City more than
$10M
1957
City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 15 Figure 3-1. Challenges and Opportunities with the City’s Base Design presented in the DCR 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 Plant wide comprehensive hydraulic approach – Due to flat topography of the site careful consideration must be given to minimize long term operations costs associated with pumping flow multiple times vs use of gravity conditions where possible. 2 Water quality and flow data availability – use of historical data can be supplemented with text book evaluations for overall plant design considerations 3 Balancing the use of existing assets verses constructing new systems - utilization of existing plant primary clarifiers versus need for an additional primary as it relates to the overall ability of the plant to meet future effluent guidelines. 4 Identification of critical equipment and preselected vendors – this strategy will allow all parties to gain early certainty in performance, project schedule and total project cost early in the project .
5 Beaumont Basin water quality requirements (specifically for Total Nitrogen) present a unique challenge for reuse and overall design of the facility. Consideration and inclusion of a supplemental carbon source will be required to meet RWQB requirements.
6 Identifying design elements and construction approach to take advantage of adjacent structures will shrink the overall footprint on site, reduce subsurface utilities and lower the total project cost.
7 Getting the sizing correct- Right sizing building and units to accommodate immediate needs and potential future regulatory or facility expansion 8 Costly RO system adds significant complexity to the plant layout and more important operator interface, monitoring and maintenance . 9 Industry accepted CCT approach using Sodium Hypochlorite works against the Beaumont Basin TDS requirements and challenges long term treatment goals.

Using a technologically accepted alternative will lower overall operations cost, promote reuse, and align with long term TDS goals
When we looked at your DCR documents and drawings, we identified several key areas that were potentially adding cost, were technically complex or had implications for long-term operations or future expansion. These key items are summarized below and on page 18, we present our recommended solutions to improve the project budget and overall plant performance.

OUR INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS WILL SAVE THE CITY MONEY
9 Shrink the size of the basins while still
providing sufficient redundancy
9 Using existing assets instead of new
construction where practical
9 Strategy to eliminate the need for the costly
RO system will still meeting reuse goals
9 Placing MBR under canopy instead
Details of our cost
saving solutions are
presented on Figure
3-3 and throughout
this section
1958
City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 16 Figure 3-2. Our Hydraulic Profile Minimizes Pumping Costs Our initial assessment is that the new primary effluent equalization basin pump station can convey the primary effluent from the equalization pump station to the proposed 2-mm mechanical screens. Effluent will be combined with return activated sludge (RAS) from the membrane tanks and then flow by gravity to a splitter box for even distribution through each aeration tanks and ultimately to the membrane tanks.

Treated effluent (permeate) will be pumped out of the membranes to fill permeate tanks that will feed the UV disinfection process and or discharge to the percolation ponds (via the existing chlorination tank).

Based on flow data presented in the Carollo study (2018) and the primary effluent equalization design documents, we believe the maximum day flow of 7.2 MGD shown in
the conceptual design documents correlates to a peak
hour wet weather flow. Based on the most current
equalization basin and pump station design provided we
believe the stated peak hourly flows can be managed by
the equalization basin volume and the maximum daily
flow rate should be in the range of 5 to 5.5 MGD which
could also be mostly absorbed by the EQ basin. We
recommend that early in the design setting a reasonable maximum day flow to secondary treatment that
balances design hydraulic throughput with the cost of
implementation.

We will confer with the City prior to finalizing design decisions cost and operational implications. This
collaborative effort will provide the City with all the technical and non-technical information necessary
to make value-based, design to budget decisions
that meet the City’s current needs while also creating
a plan for the future.
2105

HYDRAULIC PROFILE
MAX WSEL 2116.50

FROM EQ BASIN

PUMP STATION
2122.00

EQUALIZATION

BASIN PUMP STATION
2101.00 2100.00

TOP OF BERM VARIES
MIN 2115

RETURN FROM

WET WEATHER

FLOW STORAGE

OVERFLOW TO

WET WEATHER

FLOW STORAGE

MAX WSEL
2112.00

EQUALIZATION
BASIN

WET WEATHER

FLOW STORAGE

MIN WSEL
2098.00
TOW 2118.50
2114.00
2099.00

TO FINE SCREENS
2145
2150
2145
2150
2140 2140
2135 2135

BAR SCREEN GRIT CHAMBER METER VAULT

PRIMARY

CLARIFIERS
2118.25
TO EQ
BASIN
2119.00
2111.58
2126.39
INV
2124.36
TOW
2124.67
WEIR
2123.04
WEIR
2124.49
2123.22 2124.29
2124.91
2125.36
2125.01
2140 2140
2135 2135
2110
2115
2120
2125
2130
2125
2130
2110
2115
2120
2095 2095
2105
2110
2115
2120
2125
2130
2100 2100
2124.00
TOW
2130.00
2125
2130
2110
2115
2120
FINE

SCREENS

RAS/DEOX
TANK

RAS MIXING

AND FLOW

SPLITTING

STRUCTURE

AERATION
TANKS

MEMBRANE
TANKS

PERMEATE
TANKS

RO SYSTEM
(FUTURE) BLENDING

STRUCTURE

UV DISINFECTION
SYSTEM
OG
2126.00
G=7.2 MGD (PEAK DAY FLOW)
WSE
2130.50
TOC
2132.50 TOC
2131.50 WSE
2128.50
TOC
2129.00
WSE
2127.75

PERMEATE PUMPS
~19,000 GAL
D=20 FT
SWD=8FT
WSE
2126.50
WSE
2126.00
TOC
2129.00 TOC
2128.00
WSE
2125.50
WSE
2125.00
WSE
2124.50

EXCESS FLOWS THAT ARE

NOT GOING TO CCB ARE

DIVERTED TO PERC PONDS

BY OTHERS
WSE
2129.30
WSE
2127.30
WSE
2136.5
RAS
RAS
24" ADD FLOW CONTROL

VALVE AND FLOWMETER FOR

BLENDING WITH RO EFFLUENT
(FUTURE)

RO FEED PUMPS
(FUTURE)

CONSULTANT
CLIENT
City of Banning, CA
2242 CHARLES STREET
BANNING, CA 92220
951.922.3100 tel
www.BANNING.CA.US.com

PROJECT

BANNING WWTP

RECYCLED WATER

UPGRADES PROJECT
2242 Charles Street
Banning, CA

REGISTRATION

I/R DATE DESCRIPTION

ISSUE/REVISION
1 5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2
D
Designed By:

PROJECT NUMBER

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
04191986

DISCIPLINE
AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.
250 APOLLO DRIVE
CHELMSFORD, MA 01824
PHONE: (978) 905-2100
www.aecom.com
Drawn By:

Dept Check:

Proj Check:

Date:

Scale:

C
B
A
GP
OCTOBER 2024
JF
IB
CB

AS NOTED
00 G-006

HYDRAULIC PROFILE

GENERAL
L:\DCS\PROJECTS\WTR\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\G\00 G-006.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:PLOT DATE: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:06:24 AM Monday, October 7, 2024 4:05:01 PM
BEST for

BANNING
9 Piping sizing and layout for fourth aeration basin
9 An expandable flow splitter box
9 Space in membrane tanks for additional
membranes to accommodate flows for a fourth
aeration basin
9 Space in the UV channel to accommodate
additional UV banks for additional disinfection
capacity
9 Tie ins and layout for a future RO system and space
for evaporation ponds
9 Electrical systems expandable to accommodate
the expanded facilities described above
9 Spare I/Os in PLCs
9 Spare conduits for electrical and instrumentation.

Future-proofing the WWTP for
future flows and loads
1959
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 17 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
Treatment Processes,
Equipment Selection &
Capacity
Our team has invested significant effort over the last
several months to develop concepts that
demonstrate our project understanding, innovation
and commitment to partnering with the City to deliver
fiscally responsible solutions that consider both up-front capital and long-term operations cost savings, as
summarized on Figure 3-3 on next page.

Determining the volume requirements for the major new
process areas and establishing mass balances and
critical process requirements for mechanical equipment is dependent on flows and wastewater constituent loads.

The recommendations we are presenting herein are a
result of our of review the water quality data provided coupled with industry accepted guidelines and
representative data from other plants in the area. Our
concept is to provide a facility that is right-sized without over-designing and causing challenges to the operations staff and having facilities that may not be needed for
many years.

We successfully used a similar approach for City of
Stockton, for the upgrade and expansion of their WWTP.

Thus, as discussed in our confidential meeting with you, our base approach for your facility is to design the MBR facility to treat the 30-day maximum monthly of 3.6 mgd with BOD, TSS and TN concentrations as specified in the July 2024 CDR presented with the RFP.

In support of our approach, we developed an initial
plant-wide process model in Biowin. We estimated
primary clarifier TSS removal efficiencies using historical correlations between hydraulic retention times and TSS.

The anticipated removal efficiency ranged from 55-60%
for 2mgd to 45-50% for a peak of 3.6mgd.

Our modeling indicates
that the City would
have sufficient capacity
with our proposed three
aeration tank approach with
a combined volume of 1.2
million gallons. This
approach provides
sufficient redundancy to
allow a tank to be removed
from service and is about
17% smaller than the
volume shown in the draft
drawings in RFP. This design to budget mindset is the
cornerstone of our approach to assist the City with
stretching is dollars to get the most out of the facility.

We had a VE session and spoke to hollow fiber
membrane vendors about best practices and O&M
considerations. This helped us achieve a layout that
streamlines construction, considers future expansion and reduces the total project cost.

Key concepts for the development of the design of the
new treatment facilities are here discussed following the flow of water from primary settling, through equalization and pumping, fine screening, biological treatment with a MBR system (aeration tanks and membrane tanks), and
disinfection.

BEST for

BANNING
9 Beaumont. MBR system installation at neighboring
desert community
9 Stockton: we analyzed the flows and loads, and
future flow projections to implement a strategy
that deferred some expansion to a future date, if
and when it was needed.
9 Multiple MBR installations: we have developed
designs for similar-sized facilities such as Sand Island WWTP (Hawaii), City of Brandon (Canada), North
Gate (Arizona), Provo (Utah).
9 Rialto. Progressive Design-build where AECOM/Lyles
did significant design to budget VEs to find a project
scope that solved Rialto’s WWTP issues while staying
within their budget.
9 High Desert. Progressive Design-Build of treatment
plant including MBR and UV
Proven Experience implementing our Proposed Solutions
Our modeling shows 1.2 MG is available within a
three aeration tank configuration
1960
City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 18 Figure 3-3. Our Design Concept Provides Numerous Cost Saving Options 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 Modify new Equalization Pumps (if needed) to promote gravity flow from EQ pump station through the proposed
MBRs.
2 Optimization of core treatment elements and tank sizing will be based on a Max month flow rate of 3.6 MGD and
representative concentrations for BOD, TSS and Total
Nitrogen
3 Facility size and our initial design efforts provide the opportunity to eliminate the new primary clarifier through use of existing clarifiers ahead of the EQ tank and
implementation of new fine screens ahead of the aeration basins
4 Packaging of vendor supplied equipment (screen,
aeration system and MBR) will preserve process
guarantee and provide a single point of process
responsibility in meeting future effluent goals
5 Design to budget approach will provide a right sized MBR with provisions to add in a modular fashion future tanks or membranes if community growth or regulatory
changes require expansion.
6 Plant hydraulic optimization coupled with use of common wall concrete construction provides a compact, costeffective approach and minimizes subsurface utilities. 7 Placing the MBR tanks and auxiliary equipment under a canopy rather than in a fully enclosed building will provide protection from weather while avoiding costly
implementation of HVAC and full building system
requirements.
8 Elimination of the proposed RO system and Brine
management ponds and utilize blending of MBR effluent
and potable water to meet nitrogen and TDS limits will
save millions and reduce the operational complexity and regulatory reporting requirements.
9 Utilize a UV chlorination systems dedicated to disinfecting MBR water to be delivered to the Sun Valley CC. This
innovative approach will eliminate the use of chlorine thus minimize the generation of additional TDS in the recycled water.
1961
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 19 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
complete, the decision-making process will be thorough
and clear. On previous projects, Owners have chosen to
proceed with advancing the procurement process
through and early GMP and lock critical equipment
vendors into guaranteed pricing for the project. We
would look to explore this option with the City (typically around the 30% design phase). A key benefit is obtaining shop drawings during the design phase which will
expedite the design and delivery of the equipment and
over all reduce the risk of design and construction
challenges later in the project.

Discuss the anticipated useful life of the
proposed systems
A key element to ensure value for the City is to ensure the quality of the construction and a long useful life for the equipment selected. In general concrete structures and
buried civil infrastructure will last over 50 years.

Equipment useful life will depend on materials used as
well as proper installation, and O&M: however, Table 3-1 presents planning level useful life expectancies.

Vendors Selection for Large and Critical
Processes and Electrical Components
During the early stages of Phase I, a critical step will be the identification, pre-selection of vendors for competitive solicitation efforts of critical equipment including an MBR package (potentially inclusive of fine screens, aeration system (blowers and diffusers), permeate pumps, and
membrane equipment) and UV disinfection system. We
have found this approach to be effective as it provides MBR vendors sufficient control over the scope of supply to allow provision of a reliable performance guarantee
while still maintaining a competitive procurement
process. We will also consider other long lead equipment such as transformers and electrical switchgear. This step will be completed in collaboration with the City and your advisory team to ensure that the pre-selection includes the City’s preferences and ability to provide reliable
service following post construction.

Early solicitation and selection allows the design to
confidently identify footprint, piping and electrical and instrumentation requirements to provide an accurate
final design that avoids design revisions and other costly surprises during the construction phase. This effort will also mitigate schedule constraints, secure early pricing certainty and help to reduce the total project cost.

From our past experience with MBRs and other
technologies, we have developed a strong understanding
of what works and what doesn’t work. We align with
industry leading vendors that provide process and
performance guarantees for their equipment. Our
approach further encourages flexibility from the suppliers to contribute their know-how to ensure innovation is
incorporated, that is budget-conscious.

Our procurement approach has been successfully
implemented on numerous past progressive design build
projects for public agency Owners that have secured
both SRF and WIFIA project funding. We will develop and finalize a cost evaluation for use in evaluating the
equipment proposals. With the City’s input, we will
carefully document our evaluation so that once it is
BEST for

BANNING
We will take a close look if primary clarifiers
are actually needed as part of the new
treatment system—eliminating them would
provide cost savings to the City
Table 3-1. Anticipated Useful Life
Infrastructure Anticipated Life
Concrete structures 50 years
Permeate tank 30 years
Membranes 10-15 years
UV System 20 years
Blowers 20 years
Pumps 15-20 years
Fine Screens 20 years
Buildings & Canopies 20-25 years
Rotary Drum Thickener 15-20 years
BEST for

BANNING
When we procure the MBR system we will
specify to the vendor key parameters for
them to base their proposal on–Specifying
what works rather just accepting whatever
arrangement the vendor typically provides.
1962
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 20 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
Primary Clarifiers
The design team assessed the two existing primary
clarifiers. Based on our previously mentioned removal
rates for TSS and BOD and the use of 2 mm fine screens, we believe a third primary clarifier can be deferred to the future and not be provided as part of this project. There are many MBR plants of a size similar to this one that
operate without any primary clarification. Our review of past condition assessments revealed that the primaries
are in good condition, and could be left in operation to provide continued removal of solids upstream of the fine screens. The size of the aeration tanks, aeration system (blowers, diffusers) we have modeled (for a 1.2 MG overall tank volume) accounts for the elimination of the third
clarifier. A secondary benefit of this approach is its
support for achieving Total Nitrogen reduction goals in the plant. An additional primary tank could remove
too much carbon from influent and require a costly
additional chemical dosing system ahead of the
membrane tanks to achieve this water quality goal.

Equalization Pump Station and Off-line
Equalization
Although this process is currently being added under a
different project it is important to confirm during design that the equalization pumps provide sufficient head and flow to meet the elevation requirements for the new fine screens to optimize the water level in the aeration and membrane tanks. Early in the design, an assessment
should be made of the optimal elevation for siting the
new MBR facility. There is typically significant cost and operability differences between locating the aeration
tanks aboveground, below ground or partially in the
ground, based on geotechnical conditions, construction
costs and operability. Once this is established, the
operating conditions for the EQ pumps can be finalized.

Fine Screens
The build-up of debris within the membrane tanks is
operationally unacceptable and an ongoing challenge
for MBR operations. MBR manufacturers properly require
the installation of fine screens upstream of the MBR to remove inorganic material, fibers, and hair present in the wastewater stream before they get into the membrane
tank. Manufacturers of hollow fiber membranes, typically, require 2 mm or smaller openings to protect the
membranes while flat sheet MBR systems allow larger
openings as their cassettes are less affected by the
accumulation of solids.

Our approach considers in-channel gravity rotary drums
equipped with perforated plates as they provide proper
protection for the membranes, are easy to maintain and
provide efficient solids collection and handling.

Figure 3.4 illustrates a layout for in-channel gravity rotary drum screens at your new plant. Primary effluent after
diurnal equalization will be pumped from the new
primary effluent pump station into the fine screening
influent channel. Two screens, each sized for 100%
capacity will designed. Space for a third screen will be reserved for future expansion. The solids collection and management system can be equipped with an integral
bagging system that will both assist with solids
consolidation into the solids container with the additional benefit of odor mitigation.

Aeration Tanks
Hydraulic and biological modeling of the new aeration
and MBR facilities will be important in optimizing the
design of the anoxic/aerobic zones and RAS
de-oxygenation zone to meet the anticipated permit
requirements for nitrogen.

We have conducted a preliminary plant-wide treatment
model based on the data available with the RFP,
supplemented and enhanced with plant influent data
(COD, N and P) collected by this team on wastewaters of similar strength and community demographics in
southern California. We also considered anticipated
loads generated by your solids processing and digestion (three primary digesters) systems—particularly the stream containing the high ammonia concentration from the
drying beds and future dewatering. Some of the key
considerations are described on the two pages.

Figure 3-4.

Layout for fine
screens
1963
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 21 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
After review of three and four-tank
configurations, a three-tank configuration for
the aeration tanks is recommended to
minimize overall cost. Based on the conceptual-level
process modeling results, a total volume of 1.2 million gallons. An aerobic Solids Retention Time (SRT) of 8 days was assumed under winter conditions and a maximum
Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) concentration of
8,000 mg/L was used. This is well below what most MBR
facilities can operate (10,000 mg/l). The aerated zones in the three aeration tanks will be supplied air from a
common air header system and three blowers in a two
duty/one standby configuration. Space will be allocated for a fourth MBR of identical dimensions and additional blowers to allow the City to build additional treatment capacity in the future.

A 4-stage Bardenpho process will allow the City to
reliably meet the plant effluent Total Nitrogen (TN)
limit of 10 mg/L (see Figure 3.5). The “Pre-Anoxic” zone will receive nitrate from the Return Activated Sludge (RAS) from the downstream membrane tanks (see following
section on the membrane tanks) and Internal Mixed
Liquor Return (IMLR) as shown below. Following the
Pre-Anoxic zone will be a single aerated zone with
dissolved oxygen control. The “Post-Anoxic” zone in each reactor will provide endogenous denitrification. In the final “Post-Aerobic” stage, the mixed liquor will be aerated to oxidize remaining ammonia prior to the mixed liquor
flowing into effluent channel. With the RAS and IMLR
pumps, the operators will have an opportunity to
optimize nitrogen removal through the different seasons.

A mixed RAS Deoxygenation Zone with 5 minutes of
contact time at the 3.6 MGD design condition will allow the dissolved oxygen to be depleted prior to the RAS
being mixed with primary effluent. Depleting the
dissolved oxygen in the RAS ahead of the primary
effluent will allow more readily degradable carbon to be available for denitrification in the Pre-Anoxic zones
without the need for an expensive additional carbon
chemical system.

Blower Selection – High-speed turbo blowers and hybrid
(rotary screw) blowers will be considered for process
aeration. Blowers are also required for scouring the
membrane cassettes to manage membrane fouling. For
the size of this facility, a positive displacement blower is most common. Final selection will not be based solely on membrane supplier preferences or the lowest equipment
cost, but will also consider operating cost and
maintenance requirements, with the City’s input to ensure this key process mechanical equipment meets the City’s
needs. As noted above, space will be provided in the
blower room for installation of an additional blower(s) in the future.

Diffuser Type Selection – There are a wide variety of
diffusers available in today’s markets in many different shapes and materials. Each performs differently in a
site-specific environment in terms of fouling and longterm oxygen transfer efficiency. Our team has performed diffuser analysis for other facilities in California and will bring that experience to the City. Fine bubble disc and tube diffusers will be considered since they are most
commonly used and multiple manufacturers are
available for competitive bidding. Selection will be based on the option that meets the oxygen transfer
requirements and efficiency at the lowest cost.

Figure 3-5. The aerated zone that follows the Pre-Anoxic zone would be comprised of three separate diffuser grids
1964
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 22 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
Diffuser Layout – Aeration diffusers provide air for both oxygen transfer and mixing energy in the aerated zones
in each aeration basin. They must be laid out in patterns that allow the changing oxygen demand along the
length of the aerated zone to be efficiently met. Diffusers are typically laid out in a tapered density pattern as the first level of control of airflow rates. Higher oxygen
transfer is required in the upstream section of the aerated zone where oxygen demand is highest, resulting in a
need for a higher diffuser density, and lowest at the end of the aerated zone prior to the Post-Anoxic zone.

Diffusers will be designed in specific grids sized to allow localized control. The aerated zone that follows the
Pre-Anoxic zone will be comprised of three separate
diffuser grids, each with a Dissolved Oxygen (DO) probe, an air flow control valve with high precision actuator and air flow meter. The aerated zone downstream of the
Post- Anoxic zone will have a single diffuser grid. The ultimate diffuser layout will be proposed by the diffuser supplier in concert with the MBR supplier and in close
coordination with AECOM/Lyles.

Airflow Control System –Our experience has shown that
primary effluent constituent loads to the aeration tanks will change throughout the day due to diurnal changes
in their concentrations (cBOD5, TKN). In-line analyzers (DO probes) and automated control systems (most open
valve/blower output) providing an instantaneous
response to these changing conditions will be
implemented.

The design will be based on tapered DO setpoints for the three diffuser grids in the aerated zone that follows the Pre-Anoxic zone such as 2, 1.5 and 1 mg/L. The aeration system will have sufficient turndown to allow lower
setpoints to be used to optimize performance and
minimize energy consumption. The DO concentration at
the end of the aerated zone will be designed to be no
higher than 1 mg/L since the IMLR pumps send mixed
liquor from this location to the Pre-Anoxic zone.

The DO in the aerobic zone following the Post-Anoxic
zone will be designed for greater than 1 mg/L to ensure residual ammonia is thoroughly oxidized.

Optional Aeration Improvement. There has been an
increasing trend in the industry in the use of Ammonia
Based Aeration Control (ABAC) to control airflow while
using DO probes to establish both maximum and
minimum set points. In our experience from
implementing ABAC in other facilities, this is a reliable control philosophy that further minimizes blower power
consumption while optimizing process performance.

However, ABAC requires ammonia probes and
associated maintenance and calibration. Information on
ABAC can be provided to the City to determine if its
implementation is justified and best meets the City’s
needs. This will be one of the topics planned for one of our technical collaboration segments.

Large bubble mixing is proposed for use in the
RAS de-oxygenation zone, bioreactor mixed liquor
effluent channel and the anoxic zones as this
mixing approach has the lowest energy costs. Note the
proposed use of a PE/RAS flow splitter box eliminates
the need for a flow distribution channel and its
associated mixing requirement.

Supplemental Organic Carbon Addition – While
advanced WWTPs commonly achieve an effluent TN of
less than 10 mg/L without any carbon supplementation,
our approach for deferring the RO will require an effluent nitrogen of approximately 6 mg/L for meeting blended
water quality requirements for reuse at Sun Lakes. Since this lower level of effluent nitrogen may not be
achievable, we recommend including a supplemental
carbon feed system. By providing carbon storage,
pumping, piping, and distribution diffusers in the PostAnoxic zones in the three aeration tanks, supplemental carbon can be added as needed. Micro-C 2000, a
non-hazardous glycerin-based product produced and
marketed by Environmental Operating Solutions, Inc. are commonly used for facilities of this size and is
recommended by AECOM/Lyles. Dosage rates can be
controlled by a nitrate-N probe in each Post-Anoxic zone.

This approach will reduce TN to a level low enough to
minimize the amount of potable water used for blending
to defer the RO system construction.

BEST for

BANNING
A small, low cost supplemental carbon
addition system will allow the plant to meet
treatment objectives without a costly RO
system
1965
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 23 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
Membrane Tanks
Based on our experience from developing designs for
similar-sized facilities, and following discussions with several prominent MBR suppliers, our team has
developed a preliminary layout with several innovative/ alternative ideas that enhance the system layout,
performance and operator interface. The design is based on typical dimensions using hollow fiber cassettes. Flat plate technology can also be used in a similar
configuration.

Figure 3.6 illustrates a 3-tank configuration and how we propose to integrate the membrane tanks within the new
biological system.

The concept layout shown utilizes the Veolia Leap MBR
cassettes. This approach will require four cassettes
(500EV modules), and with one membrane tank out of
service will meet the City’s peak flow (3.6 mgd) and load requirement. The proposed two-row cassette layout is
advantageous since it reduces the length of the tanks
and provides a more compact common-wall design and
provides a conservative flux rate of 14 gfd under average day flow conditions. During the detailed design we will explore with the City the option to add an additional six feet of length to accommodate additional cassettes
consistent with a fourth (future) aeration basin.

In this layout, the footprint includes an average sidewater depth of 20 feet (which we deem to be optimal for
aeration design) and will be gravity-fed through a
common channel that collects flow from all aeration
tanks in service. Lastly, two duty RAS pumps will be
required to pump up to 15 MGD (400% of the primary
effluent flow rate) to limit the membrane tank MLSS to
10,000 mg/L at the design condition. At plant influent
flows and loads in the near-term, the RAS pumping rate is anticipated to be 100 to 150% of the primary effluent flow rate. Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) pumps (one duty/one
standby) will also pump sludge from this channel to the mechanical thickener.

Our initial cost assessment of this layout suggests
that a concrete structure with common walls
for the entire MBR system is the lowest cost
option, in comparison to concrete aeration tanks
followed by elevated individual stainless steel membrane tanks that will require additional piping, controls and electrical elements.

Other key design-to-budget aspects of our robust and
flexible membrane tanks approach include:
9 Total membrane filtration area and range of
design fluxes minimize fouling for the following flow
conditions: 30-day ADWF of 3.6 MGD; peak 24-hour
average flow up to 5 MGD.
9 Provide spaces to accommodate additional
membranes for future flows without capital
expansion
9 Provide redundancy to allow one membrane tank
to be removed from service for the clean-in-place
procedure required
9 Minimize pumping energy by pumping only RAS back
to the aeration basin rather than pumping ML (PE +
RAS flows) to the membrane tanks
9 Safe delivery and storage areas for membrane
cleaning chemicals (i.e, sodium hypochlorite and
citric acid)
Scum Management. Scum formation is anticipated to
occur at some undefined frequency in the three aeration tanks and MBR tanks. A manual weir gate is proposed at
the end of each tank that allows the operators to lower the weir to remove scum from the tanks. A similar manual weir gate will be provided in the RAS channel at the end of the membrane tanks. In both cases scum will be
conveyed to a scum wet well and pumped to the digester
inlet.

Figure 3-6.

A 3-tank
configuration
is cost
effective and
allows for
easy
expansion in
the future
1966
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 24 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
We have done a preliminary design for a UV facility for

1.07 mgd (the combined amount used by Sun Lake CC
and by the new plant)and this will require a single
channel (LxWxD of 35x5x8 feet, respectively) with three UV banks (two duty and one standby, each bank with 4
modules with 8 250 W lamps per module). Our
preliminary estimate of the construction cost for this
system is approximately $ 0.75 M
The approximate annual power usage and cost to treat

1.07 mgd are 140,160 kW and $14,160, respectively. An
additional bank can be added to increase the firm
capacity for this system to 1.6 mgd, if additional capacity is needed in the future.

Primary Sludge and Waste Activated Sludge
Processing
While co-thickening primary sludge and waste activated
sludge (WAS) is shown in the RFP documents, our
experience is that the primary sludge will likely not be consistent enough to give a stable operating point for the mechanical thickener. This could result in the need to
construct, operate, and maintain a large combined
sludge storage tank with feed pumping ahead of the
thickener to provide a more consistent solids composition by mixing and equalization. With respect to gas
production it is beneficial to avoid spikes can result from intermittent feed pumping and instead have a mostly
continuous feed of sludge (especially primary) to the
digester which can provide constant gas production and
more stable digester operation. Therefore, the team
proposes to keep the two sludges separate and the
primary sludge will be fed to the digesters as it is done in the current operation while thickening the WAS. Since
primary sludge readily thickens, we suggest adding a
density meter to the combined discharge of the primary
sludge pumps to provide feedback to the operators for
achieving the desired primary sludge feed concentration to the digesters.

Our recommendation is to provide two rotary drum
thickeners (one operating, one spare) to thicken WAS with space for expansion in the future. We agree with the RFP selection of rotary drum thickening (RDT) as the most
cost-competitive thickening technology for this
application and installation size. Furthermore, there is demonstrated experience with the unattended operation
of RDTs with WAS feed, which provides the City with
greater flexibility for 24-hour WAS processing and
constant feed to the digester while saving on capital cost by installing a smaller unit.

Final Disinfection
A portion of the MBR effluent will be used for unrestricted water reuse (irrigation) and will require Title 22
disinfection. The remaining MBR effluent diverted to
percolation ponds does not require disinfection and will reduce the size of this systems thus right sizing the overall application lower both the capital and long-term
operating costs of the facility.

The DCR base approach project includes chlorine
disinfection using a three-pass 110,000-gallon chlorine contact basin (LxWxD of 60x20x12 feet, respectively) to provide a chlorine residual that provides 450-milligram minutes per liter (mg-min/L) under a minimal modal
contact time (CT) of 90 minutes. The chemical for
disinfection is NaOCl. Per the 2022 Feasibility Report, the cost of this contact basin and chemical storage and feed system is ~ $2.4 M. This is a solid approach that follows industry accepted practice and guidelines.

Our team examined this approach and applied
some additional critical thinking including
operability, meeting future water quality
requirements, and providing recycled flow to the Sun
Lake Country Club. We concluded that a UV system
would best serve the City’s goals for this project while meeting disinfection requirements. We believe UV is a
more cost-effective solution that is readily
expandable to accommodate future demands.

One of the key considerations of our proposed
modification is that chlorine disinfection utilizes sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which increases the Total Dissolved Solids of the effluent. We estimate the additional TDS
added to the MBR effluent within the 12-15 mg/l. This
outcome is contrary to the City goals associated with the anticipated RWQB requirements and need to reduce TDS
overall to provide a suitable water source to the Sun Lake Country Club. The additional costs associated with an RO system, brine management and disposal approach
make our approach highly attractive. We have also
considered a cost effective unique approach to the
recycled water production for the country club described in greater detail below. Eliminating the hypochlorite
disinfection approach will save up to $75k to $95k
annually.

In recent years and on several projects (Rialto, Stockton) AECOM/WML have compared the life cycle cost of UV
and chlorine disinfection (both chloramination and free chlorine) and UV disinfection has turned out to be the
most economical alternative. For Banning, because of the improved UV transmittance of membrane effluent (>65%),
UV disinfection is particularly attractive.
1967
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 25 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
The DCR includes an RO system to reliably meet the water quality objectives for this basin, specifically TN ≤ 5 mg/l and TDS ≤ 330 mg/L. All other uses have less restrictive water quality objectives. We anticipate that the water
quality generated by the MBR system will have a TN < 6.3 mg/l and TDS of ~380.

The proposed RO solution has substantial capital and
annual operational costs to the City. Additionally, the handling of multiple chemicals for scaling minimization and periodic cleaning of the membranes will place
additional stress on the operations staff and possibly
require additional personnel support. Lastly the option requires a large amount of land allocated for brine
disposal evaporation ponds (potentially up to 15 acres or more depending on the treated flow).

Per the 2022 Feasibility Study, the construction cost of these facilities is estimated at $8.75M. The cost for power and chemicals for a 0.4 mgd system is estimated at
~$260k per year. Additional O&M costs to be considered
include labor for operations and maintenance for the RO system and brine evaporation ponds, spare parts, and
environmental monitoring for the evaporation ponds and
ultimate disposal of the brine salt which will likely need to be treated as a regulated or hazardous waste depending
on the concentration of certain metals.

Having completed several recent RO systems associated
with water reuse project, we are very aware of items that lead to the successful design and operation of these
complex systems. Water characterization that includes
silica and phosphates concentrations are essential to
understanding membrane fouling, chemical recovery
and performance warranty offered by the vendors. Many
communities have invested in extensive water quality
sampling and pilot studies to determine the ultimate
efficacy of using a proposed RO system. We appreciate
the challenges the City is facing with providing a
sustainable water source for Sun Lakes and other
recycled uses and believe that it is the City’s best interest to consider another option.

Deferment and potential elimination of the RO system
reduces the overall risk exposure to both the City and its operators. Our team has a solution that is sustainable
and cost effective (both capital and operations). Our
Mechanical thickening will be provided with the
associated polymer feed system. We recommend that
the skid system using liquid polymer totes. Both
thickening and polymer system will be installed outside under the canopy structure.

Recuperative Thickening Alternative. A main driver for
the mechanical thickening is the optimization of digestion capacity. As an alternative to thickening WAS prior to
digestion or separately thickening primary sludge in the future, the City could consider recuperative thickening of digested sludge. Recuperative thickening consists of
pumping some sludge from the digester, thickening it
and returning thickened sludge into the digester. This
could be cost-competitive and provides several
operational benefits. First, it keeps the digester feed operation the same as it is currently. It can be operated on demand, when there is a need for more digester
capacity. The feed to thickening is more uniform since it is digested solids, making it easier to control the thickening performance. Recuperative thickening does not require
tanks upstream or downstream, and the thickening
process can happen for each digester in sequential order.

The limit of thickening is typically based on the type of digester mixing system. Although replacing the digester mixing system is not part of this project, it may be
possible to change the digester mixing system in the
future to further increase overall capacity. For example, this could be done using low speed, high torque
mechanical mixers similar ones our team is implementing on the East County AWP project in Santee.

Conversion of the Secondary Digester to a Primary
Digester. As stated in the RFP scope, the secondary
digester needs to be upgraded to a primary digester to
ensure the City can continue producing Class B biosolids.

We will provide new digester heating system similar to the heating systems of the other digesters for the familiarity of operation and controls. Digester gas handling and use for the upgraded digester will be connected to the
existing boiler and the digester gas flare. Although the upgrade of the digester gas system is not in the scope of this project, once the thickening system is selected and designed, the potential peaking factors in digester gas production in the future upgraded system be evaluated.

If the digesters feeding happens over short periods of
time at higher rates, the digester gas peak flows may
potentially be higher than the existing system capacity and may require an upgrade.

Our Solution alleviates the need for RO
A key element of this project is to produce recycled water suitable for irrigation within the boundaries of the
Beaumont Basin, specifically the Sun Lakes Country Club.

BEST for

BANNING
Eliminating the need for the RO system will
save the City nearly $9M in construction
expenditures.
1968
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 26 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
features of the project will be documented in the PDR,
additional meetings with the City staff will be conducted to further flesh out existing operational needs and
practices at the WWTP. Some initial thoughts about the
approach and challenges are presented below for civil/
site work, geotechnical, and building services. All of these engineering and architectural design disciplines are
located together in one place – the AECOM design center.

Civil/Site Work
Key features include:
9 New force main to transfer flow from the equalization basin to the to the new MBR facility.
9 New force main to transfer treated effluent from the
UV system to the the reservoir tank.
9 New pipe to transfer excess flow from the permeate
tank to the evaporation ponds
9 New roadways and parking to support the new MBR
treatment facility.
9 Management and establishment of site specific
stormwater measures
9 Onsite vehicular access and roadway systems that
accommodates chemical deliveries and emergency
vehicles
9 Site grading that promotes positive run-off away from buildings and structures
We plan to follow existing pipeline alignments where
possible to best avoid any conflicts with existing
structures and subsurface obstacles. Site grading will be developed around new facilities such that there is a
natural transition from new to existing facilities.

Geotechnical Field Investigations
We will perform subsurface geotechnical investigation in the vicinity of proposed new structures to determine soil conditions to assist in the development of detailed design and construction cost estimates. Investigations will
include review of available geotechnical maps and
documents along with site reconnaissance and obtaining
appropriate permits. Soil borings will be conducted with hollow stem auger methods. Borings will be advanced to
an appropriate depth determined during preliminary
investigations and soils will be collected for laboratory testing and analysis including moisture and density, grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, corrosion potential, and direct shear testing. A geotechnical report will be
developed including results of field investigation and
laboratory testing and will provide geotechnical
engineering recommendations for seismic design,
foundations, slope stability and earthwork. Based on
preliminary review of site conditions and provided
subsurface information we anticipate that foundations
option will eliminate the capital expenditure of $8.75M associated with the RO and brine management ponds
and the annual operating costs of $260K/year would be
offset by a similar cost, however with significantly less stress placed on the operations staff. There is also the elimination of the brine salt disposal which may requires specialized handling and disposal requirements due to
heavy metal concentrations.

To accomplish the project goals without the
use of an RO system, AECOM/Lyles suggests
the blending of MBR effluent with potable
water. The key elements of this approach are:

Optimize total nitrogen removal in the biological process from 7.5 mg/l to 6.3 mg/l to reduce the amount of
potable water needed for blending.

Blend MBR effluent and potable water for irrigation at
Sun Lakes Country Club only. Per the 2023 water quality reports the potable water of the City of Banning, TN is ~1.5 mg/l and TDS is ~200 mg/l.

Using this scheme, 0.55 mgd of UV-disinfected MBR
effluent will be blended with 0.21 mgd (143 gpm) of
potable water at the Sun Lakes Country Club. The
resulting blend will provide 0.76 mgd of irrigation water and meet the TDS and TN requirements for the
Beaumont Basin.

The estimated yearly cost of the potable water is ~ $390k using $3.88 per HCF (2024-2025 retail rate). This expected to be even lower, that the O&M cost for the RO and
evaporation ponds facilities when adding in the
additional labor and brine salt disposal costs.

Considering that blending with potable water is only
required for the flow pumped to the Sun Lakes Country
Club, this approach will meet ALL irrigation demands
(1.07 mgd), using 0.86 mgd of recycled water produced at the WWTP and 0.21 mgd of potable water, while deferring or totally eliminating the capital and O&M costs
associated with an RO system and evaporation ponds.

As part of our blending concept we will prepare a
technical memorandum focused on salinity and nitrogen
management and we will endeavor to meet with the
Regional Board to get obtain their concurrence with this cost effective solution.

Non-Process Design and
Auxiliary Facilities
Once the key decisions are made regarding the major
process facilities then the remainder of the project
elements can be developed. These non-process related
1969
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 27 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
9 The new electrical system equipment will be housed in air conditioned, environmentally controlled electrical
rooms.
9 During the design phase, a detailed and
comprehensive electrical load analysis to evaluate
plant service loading at the main switchboard as well
as each MCC, distribution and lighting panels. The
load study will be used to support the plant upgrade
and to confirm each electrical system loading.
9 The motor control centers, variable frequency
drives (VFDs)switchboards, distribution panels and
lighting panels shall be provided with integral surge
protection devices (SPDs) for increased electrical
system reliability and for safe operation.
9 Overall short circuit withstand and interrupt rating of the equipment will be determined as required.
9 To optimize plant power operation and to monitor
electrical energy and electrical protection functions,
the electrical distribution equipment shall be
provided with a plant wide power monitoring system
connected in a network to a dedicated power
monitoring workstation.

Standby Power
9 Evaluate capacity required to provide standby power
for both new and existing facility loads and provide a
standby diesel engine generator set.
9 Standby generator to be provided with double wall,
sub-base fuel tank sized as required for 48 hours of
full load operation.
9 Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS) to be provided to
transfer from utility power to standby generator
power if utility power is unavailable. Transfer switch to be open-transition type
Instrumentation & Controls
The distributed PLC-based SCADA system will include a
client server environment, highly integrated Human
Interface (HMI), and process control distributed to the unit process. Workshops will be held to develop the specific design approach for the new system, including
requirements for redundancy and reliability. Balance of Plant PLCs will be distributed throughout the site and
connected via a fiber optic communication backbone.

Vendor-provided PLCs will control packaged systems and
connect to the local balance of plant PLCs. The SCADA
system will be flexible and expandable to allow for future process enhancements and hardware changes.

The system will provide information to the Operators and other users from any system access point. Operator
control commands generated from an HMI shall be
executed in the respective PLC. Access and information
may be expanded and available based on needs,
technology, and cost of ownership.
for the main proposed structure development will
primarily consist of shallow foundations (spread and
continuous footings, mat foundations).

Process Building
Our concept for the new process building includes a new pre-engineered metal building on a reinforced concrete
slab floor with individual equipment support pads. The
process building will house the main electrical room that will support the upgrades, blowers, chemical metering, as well as a new laboratory and office space. Initial
collaborative discussions will include identifying the needs of the City and WWTP staff to right size this building and provide value based design to budget. Building will be
designed to 2022 Building Code. All finishes (both interior and exterior) will be developed and selected
collaboratively between our team and your staff. Building layout will consider ADA requirements in appropriate
areas. Windows and Doors will meet the intended use of
the areas (i.e. finishes, size, area requirements, area classification).

Power Supply & Electrical
Equipment
Evaluation of the existing electrical distribution will be critical in developing the electrical design on the new treatment facility. One of our team’s initial efforts in support of the electrical design will be to evaluate the total operating demand of the existing WWTP loads and
review 12-month peak demand KW from the utility. Then
with an inventory of existing equipment to remain and
proposed equipment our electrical design team will verify that the existing transformer and switchboard have
enough capacity to run the new and existing loads.

It is anticipated that the existing electrical system is in good condition and will be expanded upon as part of
the facility upgrades. The upgrade will include 480VAC
feeders installed from the existing spare breakers at the existing main switchboard SWBD-MS. The following
presents our approach to the electrical design of the
upgrades.
1970
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 28 City of Banning PART III | Technical Approach
Innovation & Design
Optimization
Please refer to Figure 3-3 for a graphical summary of our innovation and optimization concepts. Below, we
summarize them.

Design Criteria. Base the process volumes on 3.6
MGD 30-day average flow rate with average
influent concentration data to avoid over-building
tank volume in comparison to assuming maximum
month load peaking factors. Revisit peak-day flows as it is likely will be lower than 7.2 mgd.

Overall Site Layout and Piping and Pumping.

Efficient layout and adequate sizing of yard piping
will ensure the project set the stage for the future
capacity expansions beyond this project. Our approach
minimizes pumping by providing gravity flow for most of liquid train, with only two pumping stages (permeate
pumps and disinfected effluent pumps) from the fine
screens discharge to the recycled water storage tank.

Headworks and Primary Treatment. Defer
construction of a third primary clarifier.

Performance of the two existing clarifiers is
anticipated to be adequate for flows up to the deswign
flow of 3.6 MGD.

Biological Treatment. A four-stage Bardenpho
configuration will allow optimization of nitrogen
removal and flexibility to reduce the effluent TN as
desired to eliminate the need for RO.

Disinfection. UV offers cost savings and provides
additional flexibility for future expansion.

Eliminate Costly RO. Use Potable Water or Raw
Water for Blending RW to SL Golf Course to
Eliminate the Need for RO.

The commonality of control will extend throughout the
facilities control hierarchy from the discrete devices in the field, to the PLCs, and the HMI. Specified instruments will monitor plant process parameters to optimize plant
operation. Operator and machine safety will be
integrated into the monitoring and control of the facilities.

The alarm management system will provide a uniform
and easily understood operator alarm notification
presented at the HMI. Software and control system
integration will monitor and control the process and
provide text-based reports for operations and regulatory reporting needs.

Energy Incentives
There are several energy incentive options that will help adding solar energy to the project a substantially more affordable proposition. Adding solar energy to the
project will pay by itself in a few a years and help offset the added energy consumption from the added
treatment processes.

Solar Incentives (Federal ITC)
The Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) allows the water treatment facility to claim 30% of the total cost of their solar installation. This includes solar panels, inverters, labor, and other associated costs like permitting fees. The ITC applies to projects completed between now and
2032, providing significant tax savings. For instance, a $100,000 solar installation would result in a $30,000 tax credit, reducing upfront expenses. If the facility’s tax liability is less than the credit, the remaining amount can be carried over into future years. This makes solar
installation more affordable and offers a quicker return on investment.

Battery Energy Storage Incentives (SGIP)
The California Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) provides rebates for battery energy storage systems
(BESS). The rebate starts at $150 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of installed battery capacity. After the SGIP rebate is applied, the federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) allows you to claim 30% of the remaining project cost. For
example, if a battery system costs $100,000 and qualifies for a $15,000 SGIP rebate, the ITC would then apply to the remaining $85,000. This combined approach can
significantly reduce the overall cost.

Direct Pay Provision
For tax-exempt entities like nonprofits or government-run facilities, Direct Pay allows them to receive the full value of the ITC as a direct payment instead of a tax credit. This ensures that even entities without tax liabilities can fully benefit from both the ITC and any bonus credits.
1971
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 29 City of Banning PART IV | Construction and Startup Process Introduction
We’ve developed a comprehensive sequence plan,
layout, and schedule addressing site logistics, safety, and compliance to balance efficient construction with
environmental preservation. AECOM/Lyles has extensive
experience working in dry and windy landscapes like the City of Banning, having successfully completed projects in neighboring communities, including a similar project in nearby Beaumont. This regional expertise, combined with our local craft labor resources and access to local
subcontractors, ensures we can secure the right partners to deliver your project successfully. Our team lives and works in Riverside and the surrounding area and
have strong relationships with local subcontractors/
suppliers through our dedicated outreach efforts and
repeat business on completed and ongoing projects. This network allows us to quickly secure qualified
subcontractors familiar with the local conditions. Our
regional projects include the Hi-Desert Wastewater
Reclamation Facility, CR&R Riverside County
Environmental Center, VVWRA Hesperia Subregional MBR
Plant, VVWRA Apple Valley Subregional MBR Plant,
Morongo WWTP, Palm Springs WWTP, Yucaipa WWTP,
Yucaipa Water Treatment Plant and Lytle Creek WWTP.

These successfully completed projects demonstrate our
ability to leverage our resources and local reputation to deliver positive results.

Construction Planning and
Sequencing
With years of experience in managing large-scale
infrastructure projects, we have developed a robust
approach that prioritizes efficiency, safety, environmental stewardship, and the operation of existing facilities.

Your project site is ideally situated, with many of the proposed new facilities located on the adjacent lot. This allows a straightforward approach to site layout,
logistics, and resource management. Notably, the bulk of the proposed facilities are greenfield in nature, confined between the existing plant entrance road, Charles St, and the Animal Shelter facility. Reference Part II: Site Layout for further discussion. Other than the smaller-scale RDT,
Digester improvements and a few miscellaneous
Construction & Startup Process
Understanding the balance required between efficient construction, maintaining plant operations and preserving environmental conditions, we have devised a comprehensive plan that addresses all aspects. With our proven track record and strategic planning, we are poised to deliver a project that exceeds your expectations.

IV
PART
improvements at the existing plant, this limits the impact on the existing facilities and personnel. Shutdowns of the plant are also limited, allowing for the completion of the main MBR facilities to be constructed almost in whole, off to the side, and without straining existing space and
resources. When work involves interaction with existing facilities, AECOM/Lyles will submit a detailed shutdown request that includes a field coordination meeting and a comprehensive plan submission, for City approval at
least two weeks prior to the scheduled activity.

Our early procurement strategies and just-in-time delivery streamline project timelines by ensuring that critical
materials and equipment are secured in advance and
arrive when needed. Our QA/QC team will implement a
QR code tracking system to verify that all process
equipment is checked in upon delivery, ensuring it arrives undamaged and meets project specifications. This
provides an early opportunity to confirm that the
equipment is in proper condition before installation.

Additionally, the City can use the QR code system for
real-time, on-the-spot compliance verification in the field.

This proven approach will minimize storage costs,
reduce the risk of damage, and prevent delays in
construction. Our specific strategy for your project,
including the advancement of a 60% GMP in line with
early procurement and work packages, allows us to
achieve your construction schedule and proactively
address current long lead durations on critical
BEST for

BANNING
We have assigned Philip Portillo, who has
nearly 12 years of safety experience, to serve as
our Safety Director. He will work closely with
the local safety manager to ensure our site
safety representatives are all well qualified
and expertly trained. Our safety team will
passionately pursue compliance with safe
practices dictated by locations, conditions,
and circumstances unique to this project.
1972
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 30 City of Banning PART IV | Construction and Startup Process Securing Competitive Bids
AECOM/Lyles will collaborate closely with the City to tailor our procurement strategies to the project specifics to
ensure that adequate vendors and subcontractors are
identified, facilitating maximum competitive bidding from qualified firms. Before beginning procurement,
anticipated purchase agreements and subcontracts will
be prioritized based on complexity, manufacturing lead
time, historical performance of the vendors/
subcontractors, impact on schedule and sequencing,
overall value, and long-term O&M. Using this
methodology, our team will identify critical scopes and recommend that some be competitively procured early,
aiding the GMP development, and allowing the design to
be tailored accordingly. This approach maximizes design efficiency and ensures that the City and other
stakeholders are fully satisfied with the critical elements.

The procurement of the remaining work will be timed to
provide maximum pricing competition, particularly for
commodities such as concrete, piping, and metals. We
will reach out to trusted partners to ensure participation as well as solicit the overall market through Good Faith Efforts (GFE). The team will use Building Connect or other solicitation software to ensure GFE documentation and
related requirements are adhered to along with
maximum distribution.

Our team will use both one-step best value and low
lump sum procurement approaches across the various
scopes.
9 Best value selection will be used for complex scopes
or where subcontractor input during the design
would benefit the project. These are typically initiated through RFP that is tailored to the scope specifics
and will conform to minimum 30-day solicitation
requirements. RFP scoring will be based on criteria
established with the City and include experience,
safety record, bonding capacity, and other proof of
financial stability requirements followed by technical
requirements and pricing. Following panel review,
the highest scoring proposer will be recommended
to the City for confirmation and subsequent award.

Interviews and/or reference validation may be
required.
9 Low lump sum selection is typically used for more
straightforward scopes where the benefit of
subcontractor input in the design is minimal (i.e.
painting & coating) or for commodity or equipment
purchases that are specification-based (piping,
valves, etc.). Lump sum selected proposers will still
be prequalified to ensure responsible and responsive
bids before selection.
equipment and materials. We advocate for early Phase 2
NTP following GMP, and ahead of the Final Design. This is specifically discussed in the Schedule section.

Approach to Self-Performance
AECOM/Lyles has the capability to self-perform
approximately 75% of the construction work on this
project, including all earthwork, concrete, structural steel and metals, mechanical piping, equipment installation
and instrumentation integration for the project. This
allows us to control project costs, maintain efficiency, enhance coordination, mitigate risks, improve safety,
enable resource flexibility, control schedules, and ensure quality. The benefit to the Ciy is the lowest total
project cost due to reduced schedule and elimination
of double markup on subcontractors.

As a JV, this self-performance responsibility is shared by both parties and is supported by the capabilities of both AECOM and Lyles. This approach provides the City joint
and several accountabilities while providing confidence in the availability of resources. Also, the integration of design scope with primarily self-performed construction scope and a limited number of dedicated subcontractors
reduces the layers and amount of markup embedded in
the price. What sets us apart for the Banning project is our unmatched self-performance experience with MBR.

We have installed, modified, removed, and replaced
more MBR cassettes than any other contractor in
Southern California, giving us deep insight into both
effective and flawed designs. For Banning, this means
AECOM/Lyles will not only execute the MBR installation
with precision but will also bring invaluable expertise to guide the design for optimal operations and long-term
maintenance. Our team will design the MBR tanks, bridge crane, permeate piping, and air piping connections to
ensure the safe and efficient removal and replacement of the MBR cassettes—prioritizing the safety of the
operations team long after our work is complete.

While Lyles self-performs a majority of the work, we
typically subcontract specialty trades such as concrete reinforcing steel (rebar), masonry, painting and coating, interior finishes, and electrical. This allows AECOM/Lyles to leverage the expertise and experience of industry leaders who can provide input in schedule, budget, and
constructability, expanding the benefit of trade partners beyond installation only. Our goal is to align with
subcontractors and vendors who share our “project-first” mindset, are local to the project thus keeping the money spent in the community, fostering a collaborative work
atmosphere that delivers high-quality results for the
overall benefit of the project.
1973
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 31 City of Banning PART IV | Construction and Startup Process information exchange among all participants and will be accessible to all stakeholders. This site will also store and allow access to the Submittal, RFI, and PCO/Change Logs, as well as Daily Construction Reports, Testing Reports, etc.

Our project team will hold regular progress meetings with the City and other stakeholders, supplemented by
as-needed ad-hoc meetings to address specific issues or opportunities. We encourage open dialogue, actively
listen to feedback, and being responsive to any concerns or questions that arise from the team, implementing or
revising best practice strategies where applicable.

Project decisions made during these meetings will be
documented in a Decision Log and stored on the project
SharePoint site as well.

The construction team will meet weekly with
superintendents and foremen and as needed to review
the 3-week schedules and ensure that all preceding work and resources are onsite or in transit. Premobilization or Kick-off meetings for any new subcontractors on site will be conducted to ensure that all new personnel are
aware of the project details, safety requirements, site access, and hauling routes, etc. Noncompliance is
unacceptable and may result in the replacement of
nonconforming personnel. To address client interface,
we will maintain open and consistent communication
with the City and other stakeholders throughout the
project. This will also involve regular progress updates, transparent reporting through our dedicated SharePoint
site, and scheduled meetings to discuss any emerging
issues or opportunities. Our goal is to foster a
collaborative environment where client feedback is
actively sought and integrated into project
decision-making.

Through our focus on self-performance, rigorous
sub-selection, and proactive communication,
AECOM/Lyles will ensure a well-managed,
collaborative project environment that delivers
outstanding results.

Approach to Safety
With AECOM/Lyles, safety isn’t just a priority; it’s our most important core value, ingrained in every aspect of our
operations. We are dedicated to implementing an
effective safety program on your project that
emphasizes best practices, rigorous safety protocols,
workforce training, and fostering a culture centered
around safety. Our commitment extends to providing a
safe and healthy working environment during all phases
of the project for all employees (both our and yours),
Our final selections will be made with City input and
consensus, following thorough bid validation. We will
clearly define roles, responsibilities, and expectations with all selected subcontractors to ensure seamless
collaboration and alignment with our project goals.

Communication Strategies
Our approach to self-performance, sub-selection
management, and communication is designed to
maximize efficiency, quality, and collaboration with you and your Owner’s Advisor throughout the project.

We will establish a dedicated SharePoint site to share
updates, schedules, technical information, and other
relevant documents in real-time. This centralized platform will ensure transparency and facilitate efficient
Shown above is an example of a Table of
Contents that we include in all of our Safety
Manuals. This enables easy navigation and
quick reference to specific safety topics. It also
clearly demonstrates the comprehensive
nature of our safety planning, covering all
critical aspects for a safe and successful
project.

Figure 4-1. Safety Manual Table of Contents
1974
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 32 City of Banning PART IV | Construction and Startup Process subcontractors, project stakeholders, and the
community. Our most important resource is our people
and our priority is to ensure their wellbeing.

Our commitment to safety begins with the designation of a full-time, on-site Safety Coordinator who is responsible for overseeing all safety protocols throughout the project.

This ensures that safety remains a top priority every day, on every part of the site.

We have established a comprehensive safety review
process that includes regular safety meetings, where
issues are proactively addressed, and any concerns are
resolved quickly and efficiently. Our safety framework
also includes thorough documentation of all safety
procedures, ensuring full compliance with regulations
and that all team members have access.

Central to our approach is the meticulous evaluation of risks associated with the project. We recognize that every project comes with its own set of challenges and
potential hazards. Therefore, we conduct thorough risk
assessments to fully identify and understand these
potential hazards. This allows us to devise strategies for equitable risk identification and distribution, ensuring that safety concerns are addressed proactively throughout
the project lifecycle. Job Site Safety Analyses (JSAs) are developed for each task on a daily basis, followed,
monitored, and revised as necessary. Every employee has the authority to stop work at the first sign of an issue. This allows the team to come together and reassess a
situation and provide alternate safer approaches.

We emphasize workforce training to promote safety
excellence. Our team receives extensive training and
resources to navigate diverse construction environments safely. This training is both general to our industry as well as specific to the project site and the tasks at hand and would look to integrate your staff into this training
protocol as well. This empowers our workforce to
recognize and respond to hazards, fostering a culture of vigilance and accountability.

We prioritize site safety and security through specialized training in construction traffic management and
equipment handling. All personnel receive material safety training to ensure proper chemical handling and storage.

Strict access controls and personnel tracking systems
maintain a secure job site, allowing us to deliver highquality results on schedule while safeguarding everyone involved. A guard shack and security guard will be utilized for the site entrance off Charles St. to direct both
construction traffic and check-in visitors and direct them accordingly or deter unnecessary personnel. All
construction facilities around your project site will be fenced.

By aligning with your O&M goals, we reinforce our
commitment to these safety initiatives. This dedication to safety is demonstrated by both AECOM and Lyles, which
have a Worker’s Compensation Insurance Interstate
Experience Modification Rate (EMR) well below industry
averages statewide and nationally.

Table 4-1. AECOM/Lyles EMR Numbers
AECOM and Lyles prioritize safety, as shown by our
low EMRs. This shared commitment minimizes risks
and supports the City’s goals for a successful project..

EMR 2024 2023 2022
AECOM 0.57 0.62 0.58
Lyles 1.0 0.93 0.74
Design-Build Schedule
AECOM/Lyles understands that the City expects to issue
the Notice to Proceed in December 2024, with the goal of achieving Final Acceptance in the 4th Quarter of 2027. To meet this objective, we have developed a comprehensive
Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule outlining all major activities and milestones from the Contract Date to Final Completion. As shown in Appendix A, our schedule
includes approximately 375 activities with a critical path that extends from NTP through PDR/10% Design, 30%
Design, 60% Design, GMP and Construction Amendment
Approvals, early equipment and subcontractor
procurement, Aeration Basin construction, MBR facility
construction, start-up, and into Plant Commissioning and Acceptance activities. Using the December 10, 2024
tentative NTP date listed in the RFP, our team anticipates Substantial Completion on August 16, 2027, followed by
Final Completion and Acceptance on November 9, 2027.

This provides for approximately 33 working days of total float against the City’s Final Completion goal.

We understand the City’s schedule requirements for key
milestones, approvals, construction, shutdown and
tie-ins, procurement, start-up and testing and our
schedule clearly outlines the necessary design,
construction, and start-up phases. We will collaborate
with the City and plant O&M staff to proactively address project requirements, define responsibilities, and
maintain momentum while maintaining existing
operations.
1975
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 33 City of Banning PART IV | Construction and Startup Process Our dedicated scheduler will work closely with Joe
Lawrence, Gabe Perigault, Vince Guillama, key
subcontractors, trusted suppliers, and the City to
iteratively refine the schedule throughout the design
phase. We will provide regular monthly schedule
updates as well as at each design milestone (30%, 60%,
etc.) and at any major change or update in scope or
duration. Three-week schedule updates will be provided
at each Progress Meeting to help provide more detailed
information on ongoing or anticipated activities to
enhance coordination with the existing plant operations.

Project Schedule
The project schedule includes 33 working days of float, which provides some flexibility, but requires careful
management to avoid delays. Proactive monitoring of
progress against the schedule is essential, with
immediate action taken at the first signs of potential
delays. Identifying opportunities to recapture lost float is crucial to maintaining the project timeline. Delays in
procurement, civil works, design, or other aspects can
quickly erode this buffer due to the schedule’s tightness.

Therefore, vigilant planning and monitoring are
necessary to keep the project on track and avoid
consuming the float.

This strategy will require associated amendments to
allocate the necessary funds. However, it will significantly reduce the need for extensions and ensure a more
streamlined project timeline.

Early Procurement of Equipment and Materials
Recognizing the City’s willingness to request modifications to funding deadlines to accommodate extended
construction durations, while desiring a 2027 completion, our team recommends the early procurement of major
and/or long-lead-time equipment pieces. This approach
offers several advantages:

Design Efficiencies: Early procurement expedites the
receipt of shop drawings for key equipment allowing
designs to be tailored around the specific equipment for the project, avoiding generic representations and
potential costly revisions during the submittal and
construction phases. This further ensures a precise fit and optimal system configuration from the outset.

Price Certainty: Early contracting locks in prices for
high-value equipment, reducing uncertainty and
conservatism in the GMP or related contingencies and
effectively shielding the project from unpredictable
market fluctuations and potential supplier escalation.

Global conflict often strains supply and drives up costs.

Early price certainty provides a solid financial foundation for the project moving into construction.

Supply Chain Mitigation: Procuring equipment early
can avoid vulnerable points in the supply chain, such as potential production lulls during Phase 2. Coming out of COVID and the resulting ramp-up to meet high
demands exposed the economic and supply chain
vulnerability to work stoppages such as the recent East and Gulf Coast longshoreman and harbor disputes.

Climate change and major natural disasters in and
around major manufacturing facilities can also prove to be an issue. We are already hearing of extended delays
related to certain electrical equipment manufacturers in and around North Carolina and have already seen
deliveries for PLCs and VFDs on current projects
increasing up to 56 weeks after submittal approval, still affected by the lingering pandemic effects. By obtaining submittals and releasing as far in advance as
reasonable, we can minimize the risk of overall project delays and ensure a steady progression of work.

Schedule Condensing: By strategically shifting
components of the procurement forward, overlapping
with Phase 1, we can condense the overall project
Lyles’ recent success with the Hi-Desert Water District (HDWD) exemplifies the value we can bring to the City of Banning. When HDWD needed to select equipment for their MBR units, we guided them through a complex procurement process that demanded a deep understanding of technical specifications and budget constraints. Our collaborative approach, transparent analysis, and constant communication empowered HDWD to make informed decisions that aligned with their goals and priorities. By involving HDWD throughout the process, we ensured the selected solution met their unique needs and expectations, delivering a cost-effective, highquality result that met all technical requirements. Given the similar scope and terrain of the City of Banning project, we are confident in our ability to replicate this success.

Through our collaborative, transparent, and data-driven approach, we will deliver a project that exceeds expectations and sets a new standard for municipal water infrastructure in the region.
1976
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 34 City of Banning PART IV | Construction and Startup Process schedule. This streamlined approach optimizes the
construction timeline for greater efficiency.

To take advantage, we anticipate early procurement of
the following major equipment pieces in order to
advance early design and ensure on-time delivery;
9 Electrical Gear (PLCs, VFDs, MCCs, Transformers, etc.) 9 Fine & Course Bubble Diffuser Systems
9 Aeration Blower Equipment
9 Membrane Bioreactor Equipment
Early Procurement of Subcontractors
Similar to the critical equipment and materials strategies noted above, our team recommends the early
procurement of select subcontractors. Specifically, this would include electrical and instrumentation (EI&C),
pre-engineered metal buildings (PEMB), and concrete
reinforcing. While requiring design details to advance
sufficiently at earlier stages with a higher upfront effort, this approach offers several advantages:

Increased Constructability: Bringing a subcontractor
on prior to the completion of Final Design, in this case between the 60% and 90% stages, allows us to take
advantage of the specialty expertise, ensuring that the design as shown can be built and used efficiently as well as providing the ability to take and use real-time and
real-world alternate approaches that have the potential to save time, cost, and/or reduce risk for the
subcontractor and the project overall.

Budgeting and Price Certainty: Early subcontracting
also helps lock in pricing for critical specialty scopes not performed by the AECOM/Lyles team. We rely on our
partners to review and back-up our original budget
assumptions advanced from early design and estimate
iterations as well as provide their current understanding of the market conditions in their specific sectors for a more precise GMP. The subcontractor input on design
ensures that the design details necessary for pricing are available and accurate, reducing conservatism and
contingency.

Supply Chain Mitigation: Just like general contractors, subcontractors are exposed to the same vulnerabilities in the supply chain related to limited supply, work
stoppages, conflict, etc. Deliveries for PLCs and VFDs on current projects are increasing up to 56 weeks after
submittal approval, still affected by the lingering
pandemic effects. Getting early development, shop
drawings, and into the fabrication queue for these types of items is imperative for on-time project completion. We then rely on and support our subcontractors to
coordinate with their known contacts as well as maintain dates and track deliveries to minimize the risk of delays and ensure a steady progression of work for them and
the project overall. Electrical gear on this project has limited float and has the potential to push start-up
beyond the intended completion dates if not properly
managed.

Schedule Condensing: Early subcontracting also allows
our subcontractor to procure equipment and materials
during Phase 1 that would traditionally not be available until first executing a subcontract and then second-tier purchase agreements after a Phase 2 NTP, extending
project duration. For this project, acquiring a concrete reinforcement (Rebar) subcontractor in lockstep with the 60% Design and GMP is imperative. This allows for the
necessary time for the rebar design, submittal, approvals, and fabrication to advance specifically for the Aeration Figure 4-2. Milestone Schedule
NTP & Phase 1 Design
GMP Development & Proposal
NTP Phase 2A Construction (Early Works)
Early Procurement
Phase 1 Design Complete
Aeration Basin
NTP Phase 2B Construction
Phase 2B Procurement
UV Disinfection
Process Building
Membrane Facilities
Start-up & Commissioning
Anticipated Final Completion
Milestones
2024 2025 2026 2027
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1977
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 35 City of Banning PART IV | Construction and Startup Process Cash Flow
AECOM/Lyles recognizes that one of the most important
monthly deliverables is providing an accurate cash flow forecast for the City’s use and for coordination with
funding agency requirements. We will provide an initial Cash Flow curve related to the anticipated schedule,
equipment and material deliveries, and construction
operations for the City’s use. Any changes or updates in either the schedule or expected dollar distribution will be communicated with the greater team. Note that all costs incurred are summarized weekly, and tracked against the initial budget. Additionally, an “estimate to complete” is performed routinely to track the status of the project
against the remaining budget. Any deviations from the
expected or forward-looking budget concerns are
brought to the overall project team during Progress
Meetings. These estimates will also be compared against the baseline drawdown schedule to ensure that the City
can proactively manage its financial needs. This will be made available as part of our open-book process to
ensure no surprises throughout the project delivery.

Functional Testing, Startup,
Acceptance Testing and Transfer
of Operations
Proper implementation of these activities is a key
element in achieving ultimate success for this project.

These steps will be the culmination of nearly a decade of hard work invested by the city into this project.

Recognizing the significance, we have already started
planning for start-up in our design, as designing with the end performance goals in mind is a key tenet of the
AECOM/WML Team’s approach to design-build.

Prior to any commissioning, startup, training, or
performance testing activities, our team will develop
testing and training plans that align with City staff
schedules to demonstrate the efficiency of the new
facility. Many key items have already been considered in developing our conceptual design and proposal offering.

Some key elements of plan are presented in the following subsections.

The plan will be documented in our Startup and
Commissioning Plan. This approach has been
implemented successfully on other projects involving
complex startup and sequencing efforts, including
California WWTP design-build projects for the cities of Davis, Rialto, and Stockton.

Basin well ahead of the Final Design. This ensures that rebar can be onsite at the earliest possible date to
maintain construction on one of the most critical
structures due to its depth and the proximity of other
structures within its excavation footprint.

Early Work Packages
In order to take advantage of early procurement, design for specific aspects of the work must be substantially
advanced to allow vendors and subcontractors to
accurately price the work, and with minimal revisions.

Several of these packages will be developed as part of
the 60% Design and will be provided to the City for review and comment before being revised and stamped for
construction use. This will require our design team to
advance selection of and design around critical
equipment pieces ahead of the Final Design. This will
allow the submittal, review, and release of long lead
items. Additionally, advancement of this design will allow the construction team to excavate, install underground
utilities, and move into foundation construction while
preparing for equipment installation during the
fabrication period. To ensure on-time completion, we
anticipate the development of an early work package for the Aeration Basins allowing for civil work (including mass excavation) and structure foundations. Completion of
this deep structure is critical to advancement of the MBR Tank and all other structures within the AB excavation
footprint. Early procurement is a key strategy for
ensuring a more streamlined project timeline,
staying within budget, and ultimately delivering a
superior final product for the City.

The Phase 1 Design period is anticipated to be 390
calendar or 275 working days through December 15, 2026.

We anticipate GMP development beginning in July 2025,
following completion of the 60% Design, moving into a
City approval of an early works GMP. Approval of
Construction or NTP 2A by October 30, 2026 ahead of
Phase 1 completion. The early works GMP NTP marks the
go-point to procurement of major equipment and critical material, taking advantage of the strategies noted. Phase 2B NTP is anticipated to occur shortly thereafter, marking the issue of the full construction documents and the start of the balance of the construction and remaining
procurement.. This approach saves the project
approximately four months and avoids a down period
allowing design completion for negotiations,
amendment drafting, and agreements. The design and
construction teams are able to roll seamlessly from
design into construction and engineering support during construction, maintaining team focus and momentum.
1978
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 36 City of Banning PART IV | Construction and Startup Process fine screen/MBR system and testing of all associated
equipment (blowers, diffusers, pumps etc.) Once testing is complete, the water would be transferred to the next screen/aeration/MBR tank for the next round of testing
and so on until and all facilities are satisfactory.

Examples of systems that will be tested include:
9 Aeration/biological systems including membranes,
pumps, blowers, diffusers, and instrumentation
9 UV disinfection systems
9 Dewatering equipment, pumps, VFDs, pipelines,
valves and control logic
9 Standby and emergency systems, including
generators and UPS systems
9 Power distributions and MCC equipment
Additional vendor documentation including additional
COPI forms will be submitted at the completion of the
systems testing process documenting the successful
results of the functional testing.

Wastewater Startup
Startup of the new facilities on wastewater will follow completion of all pre-startup checks. This will be
performed in accordance with a written startup plan
and under the direction of our team’s startup manager.

For the most operational flexibility, startup of the new MBR facility can be done in a stepwise manner: first the biological treatment process will be started up with the objective of discharging fully treated but undisinfected effluent to the onsite disposal beds. Because biological treatment systems need to grow sufficient mass of
bacteria to treat the incoming wastewater, the start-up must be done in gradual increments to slowly ramp up
treatment capacity. This will require close coordination between the existing WWTP and the startup of the MBRs
as the bulk of treatment will still need be provided by the existing trickling filters.

Following systems testing with clean water, off-site
biological material (waste activated sludge or seed) will be collected and transported to the site and introduced to the biological (SBR or MBR) system. This critical step will require a well thought-out plan of introducing raw wastewater to the new plant in a controlled manner.

Equipment Documentation and Testing
Many of the requirements for equipment and system
testing can be found in the Final Design Specifications and will be implemented during construction. These
activities include:
9 Leak testing of tanks and pipes
9 Electrical and instrumentation tests (aka dry testing) 9 Vendor certification (where applicable) of installed
process equipment
Other activities will be addressed in a draft startup and commissioning plan developed and submitted to the
City and its Advisor for review during the early stages of construction. Examples of planned activities include:
9 Confirmation that all process equipment supplier
O&M manuals have been received
9 Inspection of the electrical power system completed
by the local power authority
9 Vendor startup and checkout of process equipment
The plan will include ample time for manufacturers’
representatives to be on site and to allow time for
potential revisits and adjustments. Results of the
equipment testing, including vendor startup and
checkout reports, will be compiled and submitted as
documentation of the testing program. Certificates of
Proper Installation (COPI) will be prepared and signed by equipment manufacturer representatives.

System/Clean Water testing
After the individual process components are functionally tested, a series of systems tests will follow. Whereas the equipment testing will have focused on individual units, these tests will be structured to confirm that inter-related components will work correctly. Typically, this testing is done with clean water. For example, one aeration tank,
membrane tank, and permeate tank would be filled with
water. A temporary pump would be installed at the
permeate tank to recycle a water stream back to the fine screens where one screen would be in service and
treated flow would travel by gravity to the in-service
aeration basin and membrane tank. Here, a permeate
pump would transfer flow back to the permeate tank.

This would result in a constant flow of water thought the Figure 4-3. The AECOM/Lyles team will develop a well thought-out Startup Plan 1979
AECOM/WM Lyles Design and Construction of the City of Banning Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Upgrades Project | 37 City of Banning PART IV | Construction and Startup Process Small batches of wastewater will initially be received, with the treatment process closely monitored to ensure
complete treatment. These batch increments will be
slowly increased (typically 5 to 10% per day) until one treatment train is full and treated flow is of a high
enough quality to discharge to the effluent beds. The
next step is to bring the second aeration tank online and continue to slowing ramp up the wastewater flow while
monitoring mixed liquor concentration levels and
permeate quality. These steps will allow a viable
biological community to be established that will be
capable of treating the full plant flow. This process
typically takes four to six weeks to complete.

Following the establishment of a strong biological
community, the plant will be run for a few weeks to
ensure all systems are working and fine-tuned prior to
formal acceptance testing. At some point prior to
acceptance testing but after full plant flow is achieved, UV disinfection will be placed in service for its Title 22 treatment. UV testing as required by DDW will be
accomplished.

All equipment will be operated in accordance with the
operational needs of the plant at flow/process loading
rates as determined by the AECOM/Lyles Team. The
purpose of the startup testing will be to demonstrate the operational readiness of the equipment and the
functionality of associated instrumentation.

Acceptance testing
Following functional testing, we propose to operate the new facilities during a two-week acceptance test to
demonstrate satisfactory performance and compliance
with Title 22 reuse regulations and effluent bed discharge requirements.

In general, the liquid processes will be operated to treat the influent flow and loads that enter the treatment
facility over the 14-day test period, with reuse water
treated in quantities as needed and the remainder of the flow discharged to the effluent disposal beds.

During the acceptance test we anticipate that sampling
and testing will be in accordance with the discharge
permit requirements. Composite samples of the influent
and final effluent will be collected and analyzed at the required permit frequency. In addition, sampling of the primary influent and effluent will be included for targeted water quality parameters.

Once the acceptance testing has been completed,
normal industry practice is to transfer full operational responsibility back to the Owner.

BEST for

BANNING
Vijay Kumar, a seasoned Startup and
Commissioning Manager, brings 27+ years of
hands-on experience in water/wastewater
treatment system installation, commissioning,
and optimization. A notable example is his
Commissioning Engineer role on the $54.4M
City of Beaumont WWTP Salt Mitigation
Upgrade Project. This extensive project
demanded the demolition, modification, and
construction of various system components.

Vijay’s technical expertise and problemsolving skills ensured a successful, on-schedule commissioning process. His comprehensive
knowledge and experience make him an ideal
partner for efficient and reliable water/
wastewater treatment projects.
1980
A

APPENDIX
Preliminary Drawings and Schedule
1981
CONSULTANT CLIENT City of Banning, CA 2242 CHARLES STREET BANNING, CA 92220 951.922.3100 tel www.BANNING.CA.US.com PROJECT BANNING WWTP RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT 2242 Charles Street Banning, CA REGISTRATION I/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 D Designed By: PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER 04191986 DISCIPLINE AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 250 APOLLO DRIVE CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 PHONE: (978) 905-2100 www.aecom.com Drawn By: Dept Check: Proj Check: Date: Scale: CBA GPOCTOBER 2024 CONCEPTUAL JFIBCBAS NOTED 00 G-001 COVER SHEET GENERAL CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA RFP-24-074 BANNING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT BANNING, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 2024 L:\DCS\PROJECTS\WTR\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\G\00 G-001.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:

PLOT DATE: Friday, October 4, 2024 10:47:44 AM
Wednesday, October 2, 2024 9:49:16 AM
1982
CONSULTANT CLIENT City of Banning, CA 2242 CHARLES STREET BANNING, CA 92220 951.922.3100 tel www.BANNING.CA.US.com PROJECT BANNING WWTP RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT 2242 Charles Street Banning, CA REGISTRATION I/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 D Designed By: PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER 04191986 DISCIPLINE AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 250 APOLLO DRIVE CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 PHONE: (978) 905-2100 www.aecom.com Drawn By: Dept Check: Proj Check: Date: Scale: CBA GPOCTOBER 2024 CONCEPTUAL JFIBCBAS NOTED 00 G-002 INDEX OF DRAWINGS AND PFD ABBREVIATIONS GENERAL GENERAL 00 G-001 COVER SHEET 00 G-002 INDEX OF DRAWINGS AND PFD ABBREVIATIONS 00 G-003 VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP 00 G-004 DESIGN CRITERIA 00 G-005 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 00 G-006 HYDRAULIC PROFILE CIVIL 00 C-101 SITE PLAN 00 C-102 ENLARGED PLAN PROCESS FLOW ABBREVIATIONS AAB AERATION AIR BLOWER BSC BAR SCREEN BW BACKWASH CCT CHLORINE CONTACT TANK DS/DSL DIGESTED SLUDGE GR GRIT GP GRIP PUMP HEX HEAT EXCHANGER HW HOT WATER HWR HOT WATER RETURN HWS HOT WATER SUPPLY MBR MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR MBS MECHANICALLY CLEANED BAR SCREEN POL POLYMER PFD PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM RAS RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE RLS RAW SLUDGE RO REVERSE OSMOSIS RSP RAS PUMP SCC SCREENING COMPACTOR SCN SCREENINGS SE SECONDARY EFFLUENT SH SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE WAS WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE WSP WAS PUMP INDEX OF DRAWINGS L:\DCS\PROJECTS\WTR\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\G\00 G-002.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:

PLOT DATE: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:06:53 AM
Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:39:25 AM ARCHITECTURAL 00 A-101 ARCHITECTURAL VIEWS PROCESS 00 D-101 UV CHANNEL PLAN AND SECTION 00 D-102 MBR PLAN AND SECTION 1983
NORTH
NORTH CONSULTANT CLIENT City of Banning, CA 2242 CHARLES STREET BANNING, CA 92220 951.922.3100 tel www.BANNING.CA.US.com PROJECT BANNING WWTP RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT 2242 Charles Street Banning, CA REGISTRATION I/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 D Designed By: PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER 04191986 DISCIPLINE AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 250 APOLLO DRIVE CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 PHONE: (978) 905-2100 www.aecom.com Drawn By: Dept Check: Proj Check: Date: Scale: CBA GPOCTOBER 2024 CONCEPTUAL JFIBCBAS NOTED 00 G-003 VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP GENERAL VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE PROJECT LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE L:\DCS\PROJECTS\WTR\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\G\00 G-003.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:

PLOT DATE: Friday, October 4, 2024 11:53:31 AM
Friday, October 4, 2024 10:50:01 AM
1984
CONSULTANT CLIENT City of Banning, CA 2242 CHARLES STREET BANNING, CA 92220 951.922.3100 tel www.BANNING.CA.US.com PROJECT BANNING WWTP RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT 2242 Charles Street Banning, CA REGISTRATION I/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION 1 5
4 3
2 1
5 4
3 2
D Designed By: PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER 04191986 DISCIPLINE AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 250 APOLLO DRIVE CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 PHONE: (978) 905-2100 www.aecom.com Drawn By: Dept Check: Proj Check: Date: Scale:C BA GPOCTOBER 2024 CONCEPTUAL JFIBCBAS NOTED 00 G-004 DESIGN CRITERIA GENERAL L:\DCS\PROJECTS\WTR\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\G\00 G-004.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:

PLOT DATE: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:42:51 AM
Friday, October 4, 2024 10:52:11 AM
1985
INF BYPASS CHANNEL MECHANICAL BAR SCREEN SCREENINGS WASHER COMPACTOR SCREENING CONTAINER TO DISPOSAL GRIT CONTAINER GRIT CLASSIFIER PRIMARY CLARIFIER 3 (FUTURE) PRIMARY EFFLUENT PUMP STATION FINE SCREEN 1 PERMEATE BACKWASH PUMP 3 TRICKLING FILTER 1 AERATION BLOWERS MBR AIR SCOUR BLOWERS PIPE GALLERY RECIRCULATION PUMP STATION DIGESTER 1 DRYING BEDS THICKENED SLUDGE PUMPS MECHANICAL THICKENER INFLUENT FLOW SPLITTER BOX GRIT CHAMBER GRIT PUMP 1 CITRIC ACID SODIUM HYPO TO PERCOLATION PONDS TSL TSL
RSL RAS PRIMARY CLARIFIER 1 PRIMARY CLARIFIER 2 GRIT PUMP 2 GRIT PERSL RSL PE PI RSL PE SECONDARY CLARIFIER 2 TRICKLING FILTER 2 SESE TRICKLING FILTER RECIRCULATION PUMPS SESE TO PERCOLATION PONDS SLUDGE THICKENER DIGESTER 2 DIGESTER 3 HEAT EXCHANGER HWR HWS HEAT EXCHANGER

RSL INF
INF MBR 1 PERMEATE BACKWASH PUMP 2 PERMEATE BACKWASH PUMP 1 PERM BWBW PERM PERM RSL WAS
DSL
DSL
DSL HWR HWS HEAT EXCHANGER TANK 4 PRE-ANOXIC ZONE (FUTURE) TANK 4 AEROBIC ZONE SECONDARY CLARIFIER 1 WASHER/ COMPACTOR 1 FINE SCREEN 2 WASHER/ COMPACTOR 2 FINE SCREEN 3 (FUTURE) WASHER/ COMPACTOR 3 (FUTURE) TANK 4 POST-ANOXIC TANK 3 PRE-ANOXIC ZONE TANK 3 AEROBIC ZONE TANK 3 POST-ANOXIC TANK 2 PRE-ANOXIC ZONE TANK 2 AEROBIC ZONE TANK 2 POST-ANOXIC TANK 1 PRE-ANOXIC ZONE TANK 1 AEROBIC ZONE TANK 1 POST-ANOXIC EFFLUENT CHANNELBW PERM PERMEATE BACKWASH PUMP 4 HWR HWS PI BW SODIUM HYPO CHLORINE CONTACT TANK WAS PE PE RSL PERM PERM PERM PERM PE BAR SCREEN IR PUMP 1 IR PUMP 2 IR PUMP 3 IR PUMP 4 TO DISPOSAL RECYCLE WATER RESERVOIR (BY OTHERS) NON-POTABLE RECYCLE WATER BOOSTER (BY OTHERS) RO FACILITY TO BRINE EVAPORATION PONDS RO BRINE EQUALIZATION BASIN (BY OTHERS) EQUALIZATION BASIN PUMP STATION (BY OTHERS) RETURNOF (FUTURE) (FUTURE) (FUTURE) BW MBR EFFLUENT (BLENDING) EMERGENCY BYPASS CARBON FEED RESERVOIR AND PLANT WATER PUMPS POLYMER FERRIC SUFLATE POLYMER TANK 4 POST- AEROBIC (FUTURE) TANK 3 POST- AEROBIC TANK 2 POST- AEROBIC TANK 1 POST- AEROBIC POLYMER UV SYSTEM PER/RAS FLOW SPLITTER RAS/ DEOX TANK PERM TANKS WAS CONSULTANT CLIENT City of Banning, CA 2242 CHARLES STREET BANNING, CA 92220 951.922.3100 tel www.BANNING.CA.US.com PROJECT BANNING WWTP RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT 2242 Charles Street Banning, CA REGISTRATION I/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 D Designed By: PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER 04191986 DISCIPLINE AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 250 APOLLO DRIVE CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 PHONE: (978) 905-2100 www.aecom.com Drawn By: Dept Check: Proj Check: Date: Scale: CBA GPOCTOBER 2024 CONCEPTUAL JFIBCBAS NOTED 00 G-005 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM GENERAL L:\DCS\PROJECTS\WTR\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\G\00 G-005.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:

PLOT DATE: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:56:39 AM
Monday, October 7, 2024 2:01:43 PM
1986
2105 HYDRAULIC PROFILE MAX WSEL 2116.50 FROM EQ BASIN PUMP STATION 2122.00 EQUALIZATION BASIN PUMP STATION 2101.00 2100.00 TOP OF BERM VARIES MIN 2115 RETURN FROM WET WEATHER FLOW STORAGE OVERFLOW TO WET WEATHER FLOW STORAGE MAX WSEL 2112.00 EQUALIZATION BASIN WET WEATHER FLOW STORAGE MIN WSEL 2098.00 TOW 2118.50 2114.00 2099.00 TO FINE SCREENS 2145 2150 2145 2150 2140 2140 2135 2135 BAR SCREEN GRIT CHAMBER METER VAULT PRIMARY CLARIFIERS 2118.25 TO EQ BASIN 2119.00 2111.58 2126.39 INV 2124.36 TOW 2124.67 WEIR 2123.04 WEIR 2124.49 2123.22 2124.29 2124.91 2125.36 2125.01 2140 2140 2135 2135 2110 2115 2120 2125 2130 2125 2130 2110 2115 2120 2095 2095 2105 2110 2115 2120 2125 2130 2100 2100 2124.00 TOW 2130.00 2125 2130 2110 2115 2120 FINE SCREENS RAS/DEOX TANK RAS MIXING AND FLOW SPLITTING STRUCTURE AERATION TANKS MEMBRANE TANKS PERMEATE TANKS RO SYSTEM (FUTURE) BLENDING STRUCTURE UV DISINFECTION SYSTEM OG 2126.00 G=7.2 MGD (PEAK DAY FLOW) WSE 2130.50TOC 2132.50 TOC 2131.50 WSE 2128.50 TOC 2129.00 WSE 2127.75 PERMEATE PUMPS ~19,000 GAL D=20 FT SWD=8FT WSE 2126.50WSE 2126.00 TOC 2129.00 TOC 2128.00 WSE 2125.50 WSE 2125.00 WSE 2124.50 EXCESS FLOWS THAT ARE NOT GOING TO CCB ARE DIVERTED TO PERC PONDS BY OTHERS WSE 2129.30 WSE 2127.30 WSE 2136.5 RAS RAS 24" ADD FLOW CONTROL VALVE AND FLOWMETER FOR BLENDING WITH RO EFFLUENT (FUTURE) RO FEED PUMPS (FUTURE) CONSULTANT CLIENT City of Banning, CA 2242 CHARLES STREET BANNING, CA 92220 951.922.3100 tel www.BANNING.CA.US.com PROJECT BANNING WWTP RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT 2242 Charles Street Banning, CA REGISTRATION I/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 D Designed By: PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER 04191986 DISCIPLINE AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 250 APOLLO DRIVE CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 PHONE: (978) 905-2100 www.aecom.com Drawn By: Dept Check: Proj Check: Date: Scale: CBA GPOCTOBER 2024 CONCEPTUAL JFIBCBAS NOTED 00 G-006 HYDRAULIC PROFILE GENERAL L:\DCS\PROJECTS\WTR\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\G\00 G-006.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:

PLOT DATE: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:06:24 AM
Monday, October 7, 2024 4:05:01 PM
1987
02 0103 04 07 08 06 09 10 05 CHARLES STREET PLAN SCALE: 1"=40' CONSULTANT CLIENT City of Banning, CA 2242 CHARLES STREET BANNING, CA 92220 951.922.3100 tel www.BANNING.CA.US.com PROJECT BANNING WWTP RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT 2242 Charles Street Banning, CA REGISTRATION I/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 D Designed By: PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER 04191986 DISCIPLINE AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 250 APOLLO DRIVE CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 PHONE: (978) 905-2100 www.aecom.com Drawn By: Dept Check: Proj Check: Date: Scale: CBA GPOCTOBER 2024 CONCEPTUAL JFIBCBAS NOTED 00 C-101 SITE PLAN CIVIL C:\USERS\THIBODM\AECOM DIRECTORY\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\C\00 C-101.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:

PLOT DATE: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:25:05 AM
Monday, October 7, 2024 3:59:57 PM
1988
02 0103 04 07 08 06 05 SCALE: 1"=20' CONSULTANT CLIENT City of Banning, CA 2242 CHARLES STREET BANNING, CA 92220 951.922.3100 tel www.BANNING.CA.US.com PROJECT BANNING WWTP RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT 2242 Charles Street Banning, CA REGISTRATION I/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION 1 5
4 3
2 1
5 4
3 2
D Designed By: PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER 04191986 DISCIPLINE AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 250 APOLLO DRIVE CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 PHONE: (978) 905-2100 www.aecom.com Drawn By: Dept Check: Proj Check: Date: Scale:C BA GPOCTOBER 2024 CONCEPTUAL JFIBCBAS NOTED 00 C-102 ENLARGED PLAN CIVIL C:\USERS\THIBODM\AECOM DIRECTORY\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\C\00 C-102.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:

PLOT DATE: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 1:46:26 PM
Tuesday, October 8, 2024 11:41:35 AM PLAN
1989
CONSULTANT CLIENT City of Banning, CA 2242 CHARLES STREET BANNING, CA 92220 951.922.3100 tel www.BANNING.CA.US.com PROJECT BANNING WWTP RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT 2242 Charles Street Banning, CA REGISTRATION I/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 D Designed By: PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER 04191986 DISCIPLINE AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 250 APOLLO DRIVE CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 PHONE: (978) 905-2100 www.aecom.com Drawn By: Dept Check: Proj Check: Date: Scale: CBA GPOCTOBER 2024 CONCEPTUAL JFIBCBAS NOTED 00 A-101 ARCHITECTURAL VIEWS ARCHITECTURAL C:\USERS\THIBODM\AECOM DIRECTORY\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\A\00 A-101.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:

PLOT DATE: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 1:09:45 PM
Tuesday, October 8, 2024 12:59:14 PM ELEVATION - LOOKING EAST NOT TO SCALE VIEW - LOOKING NORTH EAST NOT TO SCALE VIEW - LOOKING SOUTH WEST NOT TO SCALE ELEVATION - LOOKING WEST NOT TO SCALE 1990
CONSULTANT CLIENT City of Banning, CA 2242 CHARLES STREET BANNING, CA 92220 951.922.3100 tel www.BANNING.CA.US.com PROJECT BANNING WWTP RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT 2242 Charles Street Banning, CA REGISTRATION I/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 D Designed By: PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER 04191986 DISCIPLINE AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 250 APOLLO DRIVE CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 PHONE: (978) 905-2100 www.aecom.com Drawn By: Dept Check: Proj Check: Date: Scale: CBA GPOCTOBER 2024 CONCEPTUAL JFIBCBAS NOTED 00 D-101 UV CHANNEL PLAN AND SECTION PROCESS C:\USERS\THIBODM\AECOM DIRECTORY\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\D\00 D-101.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:

PLOT DATE: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:58:44 AM
Monday, October 7, 2024 3:53:04 PM 0 2' 4' 3/8" = 1'-0 SECTION A-A SCALE 3 8"=1'-0" PLAN SCALE 3 8"=1'-0" 1991
CONSULTANT CLIENT City of Banning, CA 2242 CHARLES STREET BANNING, CA 92220 951.922.3100 tel www.BANNING.CA.US.com PROJECT BANNING WWTP RECYCLED WATER UPGRADES PROJECT 2242 Charles Street Banning, CA REGISTRATION I/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION 1 5
4 3
2 1
5 4
3 2
D Designed By: PROJECT NUMBER SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER 04191986 DISCIPLINE AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. 250 APOLLO DRIVE CHELMSFORD, MA 01824 PHONE: (978) 905-2100 www.aecom.com Drawn By: Dept Check: Proj Check: Date: Scale:C BA GPOCTOBER 2024 CONCEPTUAL JFIBCBAS NOTED 00 D-102 MBR PLAN AND SECTION PROCESS Z:\CHELMSFORD-USCHL1\DCS\PROJECTS\WTR\04191986_BANNING_WWTP\900_CAD_GIS\910_CAD\20-SHEETS\D\00 D-102.DWG PATH/FILENAME:

LAST UPDATE:

PLOT DATE: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 2:02:18 PM
Monday, October 7, 2024 2:41:31 PM SECTION A-A SCALE: 1"=4' PLAN SCALE: 1"=4' 97"

TOP OF CASSETTES
144"

TANK DEPTH
1992
Activity ID Activity Name Planned
Duration
Start Finish Total Float
City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant & Recycled Water Project 724 10-Dec-24 26-Oct-27 43 Design & Construction Project 724 10-Dec-24 26-Oct-27 43 Key Milestones & Dates 724 10-Dec-24 26-Oct-27 43
ADM.10 NTP - Phase 1 Design 0 10-Dec-24* 0ADM.20 Phase 2 GMP Proposal & Amendment Complete 0 01-Oct-25 43ADM.30 Council Review & Approval - P2 20 02-Oct-25 29-Oct-25 43ADM.50 Begin Early Work Procurement - Critical Equip / Site Civil 0 02-Oct-25 63ADM.45 Receipt of Permit to Construct 0 16-Oct-25 53ADM.40 NTP - Phase 2A Approval of Construction 0 30-Oct-25 43ADM.60 Phase 1 Design Complete 0 15-Dec-25 127ADM.70 NTP - Phase 2B Approval of Construction 0 23-Dec-25 122ADM.80 Substantial Completion - Phase 2 Construction 0 16-Aug-27 83ADM.90 Final Completion & Accept - Anticipated (Reqd End Q4 2027) 0 26-Oct-27 43 Tasks 716 10-Dec-24 14-Oct-27 52
Design 255 10-Dec-24 15-Dec-25 122
Task 1.1: Preliminary Design Report (PDR) / 10% Design 90 10-Dec-24 18-Apr-25 68 P1D.1000 10% Design / PDR - Draft 50 10-Dec-24 21-Feb-25 43P1D.1010 10% Design / PDR - Draft - City Review 20 24-Feb-25 21-Mar-25 48P1D.1020 10% Design / PDR - Final 20 24-Mar-25 18-Apr-25 48Phase 1 Schedule 35 10-Dec-24 30-Jan-25 123 P1D.1040 Phase 1 Schedule - Draft 15 10-Dec-24 31-Dec-24 47P1D.1050 Phase 1 Schedule - Draft - City Review 10 02-Jan-25 15-Jan-25 123P1D.1060 Phase 1 Schedule - Final 10 16-Jan-25 30-Jan-25 123 Preferred Vendor Identification 30 02-Jan-25 14-Feb-25 46 P1D.1030 Identify Preferred Vendors 30 02-Jan-25 14-Feb-25 46 Task 1.2: 30% Design Phase 65 24-Feb-25 23-May-25 73
P1D.1070 30% Design 45 24-Feb-25 25-Apr-25 43P1D.1080 30% Design - City Review 20 28-Apr-25 23-May-25 73 Task 1.3: 60% Design Phase 110 28-Apr-25 01-Oct-25 44
P1D.1090 60% Design 50 28-Apr-25 08-Jul-25 43P1D.1100 60% Design - City Review 20 09-Jul-25 05-Aug-25 83P1D.1810 Early Works Package (Civil, Equip, Aeration Basins) - Draft 20 09-Jul-25 05-Aug-25 44P1D.1820 Early Works Package (Civil, Equip, AB's) - City Review 20 06-Aug-25 03-Sep-25 44P1D.1830 Early Works Package (Civil, Equip, AB's) - Final/Issue 20 04-Sep-25 01-Oct-25 44 Task 1.4: Hydraulic Profile Modeling 70 28-Apr-25 05-Aug-25 83 P1D.1110 Hydraulic Profile 50 28-Apr-25 08-Jul-25 83P1D.1120 Hydraulic Profile - City Review 20 09-Jul-25 05-Aug-25 83 Task 1.5: 90% Design Phase 80 09-Jul-25 29-Oct-25 122
P1D.1130 90% Design 60 09-Jul-25 01-Oct-25 122P1D.1140 90% Design - City Review 20 02-Oct-25 29-Oct-25 122 Task 1.6: Final Design Phase 50 02-Oct-25 15-Dec-25 122 P1D.1150 Final Design 50 02-Oct-25 15-Dec-25 122
Task 2.0: Cost Estimating 179 04-Mar-25 13-Nov-25 142
Task 2.1: Initial Baseline Cost Model & Updates 179 04-Mar-25 13-Nov-25 142 Initial Baseline Cost Estimate 30 04-Mar-25 14-Apr-25 72 D Jan F M Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D Jan F Mar Apr M Jun Jul A S Oct N D 2025 2026 2027
NTP - Phase 1 Design
Phase 2 GMP Proposal & Amendment Complete
Council Review & Approval - P2
Begin Early Work Procurement - Critical Equip / Site Civil Receipt of Permit to Construct
NTP - Phase 2A Approval of Construction
Phase 1 Design Complete
NTP - Phase 2B Approval of Construction
Substantial Completion - Phas
Final Completion &
10% Design / PDR - Draft
10% Design / PDR - Draft - City Review
10% Design / PDR - Final
Phase 1 Schedule - Draft
Phase 1 Schedule - Draft - City Review
Phase 1 Schedule - Final
Identify Preferred Vendors
30% Design
30% Design - City Review
60% Design
60% Design - City ReviewEarly Works Package (Civil, Equip, Aeration Basins) - Draft Early Works Package (Civil, Equip, AB's) - City Review
Early Works Package (Civil, Equip, AB's) - Final/Issue
Hydraulic Profile
Hydraulic Profile - City Review
90% Design
90% Design - City Review
Final Design
City of Banning - Wastewater Treatment Plant Recycled Water Project APPENDIX A - Proposed Phase 1 Design & Phase 2 Construction Schedule 09-Oct-24 Actual Level of EffortActual Work
Remaining WorkCritical Remaining Work
Milestone TASK filter: All Activities