Crescent City City Council
March 6, 2023

Appendix C.4 Treatment Sizing and Hydraulic Calculations Flow Split Assumed:

Current Conditions
Minimum Flow to Maintain Biology RBCsi: 0.30 MGD
Minimum Flow to Maintain Biology MBRsi: 0.25 MGD
Max flow to MBRsi: 0.42 MGD
Dry Season Percent of Flow to RBCsb: 30%
Dry Season Percent of Flow to MBRsb: 70%
Minimum MBR Flow for Blending (Dry Season)i: 0.30 MGD
Future Conditionsh
Percent of Flow to RBCsb: 30%
Percent of Flow to MBRsb: 70%
Max Flow to MBRsi: 1.0 MGD
Flow to RBCsi: 0.30 MGD
Treatment Recovery Rates Assumedf:

Primary Treatmentc = 80%
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) = 90%
Ultra Filtration / Membrane Filtration = 90%
Reverse Osmosis = 80%
Conversion Factors
1 MG = 3.068 AF
1 CF= 7.48 gal
Demand Assumptions for Total Recycled Water Distributed:

Dry Season 150 days of RW Irrigation demand (5 months)
Notes
a. Based on wastewater treatment plant flow data from April 2017 through February 2021. b. Approximately 30% of flow sent to RBCs and 70% of flow sent to MBRs based on conversations with WWTF operators for future conditions during dry season. It is assumed the flow split is the same during wet season. c. Primary treatment recovery rate of 80% is assumed.
d. It is assumed that no recycled water will be produced during the wet season. All tertiary effluent from MBRs will be used for blending with secondary effluent from the RBCs. e. The volume of recycled water produced is adjusted to meet the demand for each alternative. Any tertiary effluent from the MBRs not required for recycled water use will be blended with secondary effluent from the RBCs. f. Treatment recovery rates assumed based on previous project experience. g. Effluent volumes for CIP cleaning and pretreatment effluent are based on conversations with Rumiano representatives. h. Future Conditions are post membrane replacement upgrades based on conversations with WWTF operators. i. Based on conversations with Crescent City WWTF operators.

Crescent City Reccyled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA \\KJC.local\KJC-Root\KJ-Projects\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_9_Report\9.09_Report\Appendices\App C.4 Hydraulic Calculations.xlsx

Appendix C.4 Treatment Sizing and Hydraulic Calculations Hydraulic Calculations RW Conveyance Pipeline and Pump Stations Calculations (2) (3) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Recycled Water
Production Flow
Velocity Area Nominal
Pipe Size
Pipe
Length
Starting
Elevation
Max
Elevation
Ending
Elevation
D Head Frictional
Headloss Hf
Minor
Losses
Pressure
Head
Pipeline Cost Storage Storage Tank
Costse
[GPD] [GPD] [cfs] [GPD] [cfs] [GPD] [cfs] [fps] [ft2
] [ft] [in] [in] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [ft] [psi] [$] [gal] [$] Existing 12" RW pipeline from UV System to
cap
a

0.11 0.785 1 12 12 200 8 13 13 5 0.0010 0.0000 0 5 2.16 N/A N/A N/A RW conveyance line from 12" RW Stubout to
Storage Tank at Beach Front Parkb
6 0.014 0.14 1.63 4 150 16 16 13 0 4.2 0.21 0 4 1.9 $ 6,000 Tank Overflow Pipingf 6 0.785 1.00 12 12 150 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 23,000 RW Distribution Main from Storage Tank to
park irrigation systemc,d 85,000 0.39 6 0.066 0.29 3.47 4 2,000 13 16 8 3 56.4 2.82 138.6 201 86.9 $ 80,000 Existing 12" RW pipeline from UV System to
cap
a

0.12 0.785 1 12 12 200 8.5 13 13 4.5 0.0011 0.0001 0 5 1.95 N/A N/A N/A RW conveyance line from 12" RW Stubout to
Storage Tank at Beach Front Parkb
6 0.015 0.14 1.68 4 150 16 16 13 0.0 4.2 0.21 0 4 1.9 $ 6,000 Tank Overflow Pipingf 6 0.785 1.00 12.00 12 150 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 23,000 RW Distribution Main from Storage Tank to
park irrigation systemc,d 85,000 0.395 6 0.066 0.29 3.47 4 2,000 13 16 8 3.0 56.4 2.82 138.6 201 86.9 $ 80,000 RW conveyance line from Rumiano to Storage
Tank at Peterson Parkb
6 0.003 0.06 0.69 2 1,000 42 42 31 0 63.2 3.16 0 66 28.7 $ 40,000 Tank Overflow Pipingf 6 0.196 0.50 6.00 6 70 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $ 5,000 RW Distribution Main from storage tank to
park irrigation systemc,d 16,000 0.074 6 0.012 0.13 1.51 4 500 0 0 0 0 14.1 0.70 138.6 153 66.4 $ 20,000 Notes:
a. 12" RW pipeline segment is included for the headloss calculations for pump sizing purposes and is not considered to be replaced in this project alternative. b. Recycled water pipelines from WWTF and Rumiano to storage tanks are sized for average day irrigation demand (recycled water produced). c. Recycled water pipelines from storage tanks to irrigation systems are sized for peak hour demand over a period of 8 hours of irrigation, using a peaking factor of 3 applied to the peak day demand. d. The pressure required to be maintained in each irrigation system is assumed to be 60 psi. e. Storage Tank costs were estimated using RS Means Data Online system. f. Tank overflow piping will connect to existing sanitary sewer by gravity and drain back to treatment plant. Tank overflow piping was sized to drain tank storage in 30 minutes at 6 fps. Overflow pipe lengths are approximate and estimated using google earth and assuming tanks are 15-20 ft in height.

Force Main Calculation Notes Tank Overflow Pipe Sizing
(1) Peak Hour Factor = 3 60,000 gal 10,000 gal
(2) Assumed Pipe Velocity = 6 ft/s 30 min 30 min
(3) Area = Q / V 2000 gpm 333.33333 gpm
(4) Design Diameter =SQRT(Area*4/p) 4.464 cfs 0.744 cfs Diameter [in] = Diameter [ft] * 12 6 fps 6 fps
(5) Round the Design Diameter up to the nearest inch (or standard pipe size) Area 0.74 sq. ft 0.12 sq. ft (6) Approximate Length of pipeline [ft] and [miles] from Google Earth 107.14 sq in 17.86 sq in

0.97 ft 0.40 ft

11.68 in 4.77 in
Headloss Calculation Notes
(7) From Google Earth Elevation Profiles
(8) Ending or Max Elevation - Starting Elevation
(9) Pipeline Frictional Head loss as defined by Hazen Williams formula Hf = (3.022)*(v )

1.85*L [ft]
(C)1.85*(D)1.165
Hazen-Williams Coefficient (C) = 150 [-]
(10) Other Losses as a % of Hf 5%
(11) Required psi at connection = 2.31 *psi
(12) Total Dynamic Head (TDH) for the pump station =
TDH [ft] = Static Lift [ft] + Hf total + Minor Losses
TDH [ft] / 2.31 = TDH [PSI]
(13) Pipeline Costs = Pipe Diameter x Length [ft] x Unit Cost of Pipeline 10,000 0.015
10,000 0.015 16,000 0.025
Average Day Demand Peak Day Demand
56,000 0.0867 85,000 0.13
Alternatives
3 Rumiano Effluent for
Peterson Park Irrigation 10,000
1 Beach Front Park 56,000
2 Beach Front Park + Fill
Station
60,000
10,000 $ 10,000
56,000 0.087
60,000 $ 25,000

0.093
60,000
(1) (4)
Required
Diameter
Design Flow (Average
Day/Peak Hour Demand)
$25,000
60,000
TDH for
Pump Station
60,000 0.0929 85,000 0.13
Pipeline Segment
Crescent City Reccyled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA \\KJC.local\KJC-Root\KJ-Projects\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_9_Report\9.09_Report\Appendices\App C.4 Hydraulic Calculations.xlsx

Appendix C.4 Treatment Sizing and Hydraulic Calculations Pump Stations
Recycled Water
Production Flow TDH
Brake
HorsePower (of
Duty
Pumps)
Total
Motor HP
Required
for the
Pump
Station
Total Motor
HP
Required
(Rounded)
Pump Costb
Total Pump
Cost
[GPD] [GPD] [gpm] [GPD] [gpm] [GPD] [gpm] [ft] [hp] [hp] [hp] [ea] $

Q H BHP P P
Existing 12" RW
pipeline from
UV System to
5 RW conveyance
line from 12"
RW Stubout to
Storage Tank at 4
Pump will be located outside of storage tank at
BFP. Pump is sized to convey peak hour
demand flows from storage tank to irrigation
system within BFP
RW Distribution
Main from
Storage Tank to
park irrigation
system
85,000 177 201 11.22 11 15 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Existing 12" RW
pipeline from
UV System to
cap 5
RW conveyance
line from 12"
RW Stubout to
Storage Tank at
Beach Front Park
4 Pump will be located at BFP storage tank.

Pump is sized to convey peak hour demand
flows from storage tank to irrigation system
within BFP using the corresponding pipeline
segments
RW Distribution
Main from
Storage Tank to
park irrigation
system
85,000 177 201 11.22 11 15 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Pump will be located at Rumiano treatment
facility. Pump is sized to convey average daily
demand flows to storage tank at Peterson Park
using the corresponding pipeline segment.

RW conveyance
line from
Rumiano to
Storage Tank at
Peterson Park
10,000 7 66 0.15 0.145 0.5 $ 1,100 $ 1,100
Pump will be located at Peterson Park to
convey peak hour demand flows to Peterson
Park irrigation system using the corresponding
pipeline segment.

RW Distribution
Main from
storage tank to
park irrigation
system
16,000 33 153 1.61 1.614 2.0 $ 2,200 $ 2,200
Notes:
a. No pump redudancy is assumed.
b. Estimated pump costs were determined using RS Means and vendored packaged pumps.

Brake Horsepower Notes:

Q Pump Station Peak Hour Flow, gpm - Not required if P is known H Pump Station Total Dynamic Head at Peak Hour Flow, ft - Not required if P is known BHP Brake Horsepower BHP = BHP = Q [gpm] * TDH [ft] [hp] 3960 * Efficiency
Assume 80% Efficiency
85,000 59
Average Day Demand Peak Day Demand
Pump Station Description
Design Flow
(Average Day/Peak Hour
Flow)
1 Beach Front Park 56,000 56,000 39
3 10,000 16,000 11
Rumiano Effluent for
Peterson Park Irrigation 10,000 7
Alternatives

0.1 0.12 0.50
Pumps will be replacing the two existing MBR
reuse pumps (1 duty, 1 standby) in the existing
UV system in the MBR building basement.

Pumps are sized to convey average day
demand flows to the storage tank at BFP using
the corresponding pipeline segments.
56,000 39 0.1 0.12
1,100$ 2,200$

0.50 1,100$ 2,200$
Pipeline
Segment
2 Beach Front Park + Fill
Station
60,000 60,000 42 85,000 59
Pumps will be replacing the two existing MBR
reuse pumps (1 duty, 1 standby) in the existing
UV system in the MBR building basement.

Pumps are sized to convey average day
demand flows to the storage tank at BFP using
the corresponding pipeline segments. 60,000 42
Crescent City Reccyled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA \\KJC.local\KJC-Root\KJ-Projects\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_9_Report\9.09_Report\Appendices\App C.4 Hydraulic Calculations.xlsx

Appendix D
Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs
Appendix D.1 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost
Study: Crescent City RWFS Prepared By: AM, CW
Project: Project Alternative 1: Beach Front Park Date Prepared: 8/31/2022 Estimate: Conceptual Level Cost-Analysis - Class 4 K/J Proj. No. 2076056.00 ENR 0.00
Item
No. Description Qty Units $/Unit Capital Cost

1.0 Treatment 46,000

1.1 UV Reactors 1 LS 40,000 40,000

1.2 UV Electromagnetic Flow Meter 1 LS 6,000 6,000

1.3 UV Reactor Redundancy (not included in final cost) 1 LS 40,000 40,000 Redundancy not included in final costs

2.0 Pipelines 130,000

2.1 4-in RW piping from stubout to storage tank 150 LF 50 7,500 RS Means Line#221113741940

2.2 4-in RW piping from storage tank to park irrigation system 2,000 LF 50 100,000

2.3 12-in RW tank overflow piping to nearest sewer manhole 150 LF 150 22,500 Santa Cruz RWFS

3.0 Pumps 12,200

3.1 MBR reuse pump replacement (0.50-hp) 2 EA 1,100 2,200 Flint & Walling 1/2-hp pump (https://www.grainger.com/search/pumps/centrifugal-pumps/booster-and-pressure-pumps/booster-pump

3.2 Booster pump at storage tank (15-hp) 1 EA 10,000 10,000 RS Means Line #221123104220, assumes no pump redudancy

3.3 Pump Redundancy (not included in final cost) 1 EA 10,000 10,000 Redundancy not included in final costs

4.0 Storage 25,000

4.1 60,000-gal storage tank 1 EA 25,000 25,000 RS Means Line#33165637200

5.0 Site Retrofit Costs 132,000

5.1 Irrigation Retrofit & Cross Connection Test 33 AC 4,000 132,000 Estimate from Golden Gate Park (relevant KJ project) Subtotal Facility Costs $345,200
Additional Facility Capital Costs

6.0 Site Development, Misc Piping, Electrical, I&C, and Remote (low-tech) Control @ 20% 16,640 % of Subtotal treatment, pumps, & storage Subtotal Additional Facility Costs $16,640
Facility Direct Costs Subtotal Facility Direct Costs $361,840 Taxes @ 8.75% 7,462 apply taxes to 40% of the Subtotal Facility Costs Mobilization/Bonds/Permits @ 5% 18,092 % of Facility Direct Costs Contractor Overhead & Profit @ 15% 54,276 % of Facility Direct Costs Estimate Contingency @ 30% 108,552 % of Facility Direct Costs Subtotal with Contractor Markups and Contingency $550,222 Escalation to Midpoint of Construction @ 4.0% 22,229 assume 2% percent over 2 Construction Start= 2024% end= 2026
Project Capital Cost Total $573,000
Annualized Capital Cost ($/AF) $1,100.00
RS Means Online Data System - Line #221119382660, Water Supply Meter, 500gpm Total Costs
Notes/Source
Facility Capital Costs
$708,000/MGD for average day demand at Beach Front Park, only one UV reactor replaced Crescent City Reccyled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA P:\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_10_Eng&Design\10.03_Cost_Estimates\Crescent City_RWFS_Cost Estimates Page 1 of 6 Appendix D.1 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost
Study: Crescent City RWFS Prepared By: AM, CW
Project: Project Alternative 1: Beach Front Park Date Prepared: 8/31/2022 Estimate: Conceptual Level Cost-Analysis - Class 4 K/J Proj. No. 2076056.00 ENR 0.00
Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Item Facility Total Annual Costs
No. Description Life (yrs) Qty Units $/Unit Total

1.0 Energy Costs

1.1 Energy - UV 10 KWh 0.24 30 Based on Santa Cruz RWFS 24 hours per day 3600 hours operated per year (150 days in irrigation year) Neotech D438 UV Unit
303 Watts

0.303 kW

0.72 MGD (500gpm)

10.1 kWh/MG

0.002333333 MGH (average day demand)

1.2 Energy - Pumping 12 KWh 0.24 10,000 Based on Santa Cruz RWFS 24 hours per day 3600 hours operated per year (150 days in irrigation year) Total Pump HP 16 HP
12 kW

1.3 Energy - Other @ 5% 500 5% of pumping energy use

1.4 Maintenance - Other @ 1% 3,000 1% of facility costs excluding treatment

2.0 Contingency @ 10% 10,000 10% of above O&M costs
Annual O&M Costs ($/year) $23,530 4%
Annualized O&M Costs ($/AF) $900
Annualized Total Costs ($/AF) $2,000.00
Crescent City Reccyled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA P:\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_10_Eng&Design\10.03_Cost_Estimates\Crescent City_RWFS_Cost Estimates Page 2 of 6 Appendix D.1 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost
Study: Crescent City RWFS Prepared By: AM, CW
Project: Project Alternative 2: Beach Front Park & Fill Station Date Prepared: 8/31/2022 Estimate: Conceptual Level Cost-Analysis - Class 4 K/J Proj. No. 2076056.00 ENR 0.00
Item
No. Description Qty Units $/Unit Capital Cost

1.0 Treatment 49,000

1.1 UV Reactors 1 LS 43,000 43,000

1.2 UV Electromagnetic Flow Meter 1 LS 6,000 6,000

1.3 UV Reactor Redundancy (not included in final cost) 1.0 LS 43,000 43,000 Redundancy not included in final costs

2.0 Pipelines 130,000

2.1 4-in RW piping from stubout to storage tank 150 LF 50 7,500 RS Means Line#221113741940

2.2 4-in RW piping from storage tank to park irrigation system 2,000 LF 50 100,000

2.3 12-in RW tank overflow piping to nearest sewer manhole 150 LF 150 22,500 Santa Cruz RWFS

3.0 Pumps 12,200

3.1 MBR reuse pump replacement (0.50-hp) 2 EA 1,100 2,200 Flint & Walling 1/2-hp pump (https://www.grainger.com/search/pumps/centrifugal-pumps/booster-and-pressure-pumps/booster-pumps

3.2 Booster pump at storage tank (15-hp) 1 EA 10,000 10,000 RS Means Line #221123104220, assumes no pump redudancy

3.3 Pump Redundancy (not included in final cost) 1 EA 10,000 10,000 Redundancy not included in final costs

4.0 Storage 25,000

4.1 60,000-gal storage tank 1 EA 25,000 25,000 RS Means Line#33165637200

5.0 Site Retrofit Costs 132,000

5.1 Irrigation Retrofit & Cross Connection Test 33 AC 4,000 132,000 Estimate from Golden Gate Park (relevant KJ project)

6.0 Fill Station Costs 14,000
6-in piping 50 LF 50 2,500
6-in tee 2 EA 910 1,820 RS Means Line #3314158220
6" 45 deg elbow fittings 6 EA 575 3,450 RS Means Line #331413158400 6"x4" tee 1 EA 460 460 RS Means Line #3314158450
4" Gate valve 1 EA 1,300 1,300 RS Means Line #331419209120 4'x4'x0.5' Concrete Pad 1 CY 615 615 CMSA Tertiary Fill Station Steel bollards 1 LS 1,200 1,200 RS Means Line #347113172700 6" gate valve 1 EA 1,700 1,700 RS Means Line #331419209140 Subtotal Facility Costs $362,200
Additional Facility Capital Costs

7.0 Site Development, Misc Piping, Electrical, I&C, and Remote (low-tech) Control @ 20% 20,040 % of Subtotal treatment, pumps, fill station & storage Subtotal Additional Facility Costs $20,040
Facility Direct Costs Subtotal Facility Direct Costs $382,240 Taxes @ 8.75% 8,057 apply taxes to 40% of the Subtotal Facility Costs Mobilization/Bonds/Permits @ 5% 19,112 % of Facility Direct Costs Contractor Overhead & Profit @ 15% 57,336 % of Facility Direct Costs Estimate Contingency @ 30% 114,672 % of Facility Direct Costs Subtotal with Contractor Markups and Contingency $581,417 Escalation to Midpoint of Construction @ 4.0% 23,489 assume 2% percent over 2 Construction Start= 2024% end= 2026
Project Capital Cost Total $605,000
Annualized Capital Cost ($/AF) $1,100.00
RS Means Online Data System - Line #221119382660, Water Supply Meter, 500gpm Total Costs
Notes/Source
Facility Capital Costs
$708,000/MGD for average day demand at Beach Front Park+Fill Station, only one UV reactor Crescent City Reccyled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA P:\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_10_Eng&Design\10.03_Cost_Estimates\Crescent City_RWFS_Cost Estimates Page 4 of 6

Appendix D.1 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost
Study: Crescent City RWFS Prepared By: AM, CW
Project: Project Alternative 2: Beach Front Park & Fill Station Date Prepared: 8/31/2022 Estimate: Conceptual Level Cost-Analysis - Class 4 K/J Proj. No. 2076056.00 ENR 0.00
Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Item Facility Total Annual Costs
No. Description Life (yrs) Qty Units $/Unit Total

1.0 Energy Costs

1.1 Energy - UV 10 KWh 0.24 30 Based on Santa Cruz RWFS 24 hours per day 3600 hours operated per year (150 days in irrigation year) Neotech D438 UV Unit
303 Watts

0.303 kW

0.72 MGD (500gpm)

10.1 kWh/MG

0.0025 MGH (average day demand)

1.2 Energy - Pumping 12 KWh 0.24 10,000 Based on Santa Cruz RWFS 24 hours per day 3600 hours operated per year (150 days in irrigation year) Total Pump HP 16 HP
12 kW

1.3 Energy - Other @ 5% 500 5% of pumping energy use

1.4 Maintenance - Other @ 1% 3,000 1% of facility costs excluding treatment

2.0 Contingency @ 10% 10,000 10% of above O&M costs
Annual O&M Costs ($/year) $23,530 4%
Annualized O&M Costs ($/AF) $800
Annualized Total Costs ($/AF) $1,900.00
Crescent City Reccyled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA P:\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_10_Eng&Design\10.03_Cost_Estimates\Crescent City_RWFS_Cost Estimates Page 4 of 6 Appendix D.1 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost
Study: Crescent City RWFS Prepared By: AM, CW
Project: Project Alternative 3: Irrigation of Peterson Park Date Prepared: 8/31/2022 Estimate: Conceptual Level Cost-Analysis - Class 4 K/J Proj. No. 2076056.00 ENR 0.00
Item
No. Description Qty Units $/Unit Capital Cost

1.0 Treatment (N/A) 0 No treatment upgrades assumed for Rumiano

2.0 Pipelines 69,900

2.1 2-in RW piping from Rumiano to storage tank 1,000 LF 40 40,000

2.2 4-in RW piping from storage tank to park irrigation system 500 LF 50 25,000 RS Means Line#221113741940

2.3 6-in RW tank overflow piping to nearest sewer manhole 70 LF 70 4,900 Santa Cruz RWFS

3.0 Pumps 3,300 assumes no pump redudancy

3.1 Booster pump at Rumiano (0.50-hp) 1 EA 1,100 1,100 Flint and Walling 1/2-hp pump (https://www.grainger.com/search/pumps/centrifugal-pumps/booster-and-pressure-pumps/booster-pumps-a

3.2 Booster pump at storage tank (2-hp) 1 EA 2,200 2,200 Flint and Walling 2-hp pump (https://www.grainger.com/search/pumps/centrifugal-pumps/booster-and-pressure-pumps/booster-pumps-an

3.3 Booster Pump Redundancy (not included in final cost) 2 EA 3,300

4.0 Storage 10,000

4.1 10,000-gal storage tank 1 EA 10,000 10,000 RS Means Line#33165637000

5.0 Site Retrofit Costs 29,600

5.1 Irrigation Retrofit & Cross Connection Test 7 AC 4,000 29,600 Estimate from Golden Gate Park (relevant KJ project) Subtotal Facility Costs $112,800
Additional Facility Capital Costs

6.0 Site Development, Misc Piping, Electrical, I&C, and Remote (low-tech) Control @ 20% 2,660 % of Subtotal treatment, pumps, & storage Subtotal Additional Facility Costs $2,660
Facility Direct Costs Subtotal Facility Direct Costs $115,460 Taxes @ 8.75% 2,912 apply taxes to 40% of the Subtotal Facility Costs Mobilization/Bonds/Permits @ 5% 5,773 % of Facility Direct Costs Contractor Overhead & Profit @ 15% 17,319 % of Facility Direct Costs Estimate Contingency @ 30% 34,638 % of Facility Direct Costs Subtotal with Contractor Markups and Contingency $176,102 Escalation to Midpoint of Construction @ 4.0% 7,115 assume 2% percent over 2 Construction Start= 2024% end= 2026
Project Capital Cost Total $184,000
Annualized Capital Cost ($/AF) $1,900.00
Total Costs
Notes/Source
Facility Capital Costs
Crescent City Reccyled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA P:\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_10_Eng&Design\10.03_Cost_Estimates\Crescent City_RWFS_Cost Estimates Page 5 of 6

Appendix D.1 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost
Study: Crescent City RWFS Prepared By: AM, CW
Project: Project Alternative 3: Irrigation of Peterson Park Date Prepared: 8/31/2022 Estimate: Conceptual Level Cost-Analysis - Class 4 K/J Proj. No. 2076056.00 ENR 0.00
Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs
Item Facility Total Annual Costs
No. Description Life (yrs) Qty Units $/Unit Total

1.0 Energy Costs

1.1 Energy - UV (N/A) No treatment upgrades assumed for Rumiano

1.2 Energy - Pumping 2 KWh 0.24 2,000 Based on Santa Cruz RWFS 24 hours per day 3600 hours operated per year (150 days in irrigation year) Total Pump HP 3 HP
2 kW

1.3 Energy - Other @ 5% 100 5% of pumping energy use

1.4 Maintenance - Other @ 1% 1,000 1% of facility costs excluding treatment

2.0 Contingency @ 10% 310 10% of above O&M costs
Annual O&M Costs ($/year) $3,410 2%
Annualized O&M Costs ($/AF) $700
Annualized Total Costs ($/AF) $2,600.00
Crescent City Reccyled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA P:\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_10_Eng&Design\10.03_Cost_Estimates\Crescent City_RWFS_Cost Estimates Page 6 of 6 Appendix D.2 Project Alternatives Potable Water Costs Equivalents Monthly Demand Monthly Demand
Monthly Potable Water Cost
Equivalenta
Annual Potable
Water Cost
Equivalentb
Annual Potable Water Cost
Equivalentc
AFY CF/MO $/MO $/YR $/AF
Project Alternative 1: Beach Front Park 26 224,599 $5,894 $29,469 $1,133 Project Alternative 2: Beach Front Park & Fill Station 28 240,642 $6,314 $31,571 $1,128 Project Alternative 3: Peterson Park 5 40,107 $1,060 $5,301 $1,060 Notes:
a. Monthly potable water costs are calculated using the City's monthly water rates on their website: $22.49 for 500 CF, and $2.42/100 CF above 500 CF.

Crescent City Potable Water Fee Summary
Water Usage (CF)
Current Monthly Fee
($/month)
500 $22.49 $22.49 $22.49 $22.49
>500 for every 100 CF $2.62 $5,871 $6,292 $1,038
b. One year of irrigation is 5 months.
c. Annual PW Cost ($/yr) / Monthly Demand (AFY)
Alt 1 Potable Cost Equivalent Alt 2 Potable Cost Equivalent Alt 3 Potable Cost Equivalent $5,894 $6,314 $1,060
Crescent City Reccyled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA P:\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_10_Eng&Design\10.03_Cost_Estimates\Crescent City_RWFS_Cost Estimates Page 1 of 1 Appendix E
Detailed Scoring and Ranking Evaluation
Appendix E.1 Project Alternatives Matrix and List of Required Facilities Project Alternatives Matrix
# Alternative Description Source Water Treatment Limiting Conditions Approx Avg Day Demand (GPD)
Approx Peak Day
Demand (GPD)
Required
Storage (gal) Demand Description Notes
1 Beach Front Park RW produced at CC WWTF stored
at Beach Front Park for irrigation
Tertiary Effluent from

CC WWTF
Existing Treatment at
WWTF (MRB + UV)

1. Requires space for storage tank at
BFP 56,000 85,000 60,000 Beach Front Park
RW produced at WWTF conveyed to storage tank at Beach Front Park for irrigation. 2 Beach Front Park + Fill Station
Same facilities as Alternative 1 with
addition of truck fill station at
WWTF
Tertiary Effluent from

CC WWTF
Existing Treatment at
WWTF (MRB + UV)

1. Requires space for storage tank at
BFP

2. Requires space for fill station
connection at WWTF.
60,000 85,000 60,000
Beach Front Park and Truck Fill
Station
RW produced at WWTF conveyed to storage tank at Beach Front Park for irrigation.

Fill station at WWTF assumes 4,000 gallons per truck, 1 truck per day, 150 days a year.

Irrigation of nearby Schools
and Parks
Irrigation of nearby schools and
parks with RW stored at Beach
Front Park (within City Limits)
Tertiary Effluent from

CC WWTF
Existing Treatment at
WWTF (MRB + UV)

1. Need to confirm irrigation demand
with school district

2. Coordination with CC parks
department
41,000 62,000 150,000
Crescent Elk
Joe Hamilton
Peterson Park
Pyke Field
Piping from storage tank at Beach Front Park to Crescent Elk, Joe Hamilton, Peterson Park, and Pyke Field. Booster pump station and additional storage required.

Irrigation of North Schools
and Cemetary
Irrigation of Schools and Cemetary
outside City Limits
Tertiary Effluent from

CC WWTF
Existing Treatment at
WWTF (MRB + UV)

1. Long pipeline

2. Limited RW to meet irrigation
demands

3. Coordination with school district
51,000 77,000 225,000
Del Norte Schools
400 E Cooper Cemetary
Piping from storage tank at Beach Front Park to Del Norte Schools and 400 E Cooper Ave Cemetery. Booster pump station and additional storage required. 3 Rumiano Effluent for
Peterson Park Irrigation
Irrigation of Peterson Park with
Rumiano Industrial Effluent
Rumiano Industrial
Effluent RO and UV

1. Additional permitting requirements

2. Coordination with Rumiano, CC
parks department
10,000 16,000 10,000 Peterson Park
Rumiano treated industrial effluent conveyed from storage tank at Rumiano to Peterson Park for irrigation. Requires permitting coordination between City and Rumiano.

Rumiano Effluent for
Schoolyard Irrigation
Irrigation of Crescent Elk and Joe
Hamilton Schoolyards with
Rumiano Industrial Effluent
Rumiano Industrial
Effluent UF, RO, and UV

1. Additional permitting requirements

2. Confirm irrigation demand with
school district

3. Coordination with Rumiano,
school district
24,000 35,000 40,000
Crescent Elk
Joe Hamilton
Rumiano treated industrial effluent conveyed from storage tank at Rumiano to Crescent Elk and Joe Hamilton for irrigation. Requires permitting coordination between City and Rumiano.

Notes:
a) Storage is based on average day demand.
b) Text in gray indicates alternatives were not explored further.

PURPOSE: Summarize Alternatives being considered for Crescent City to begin use of recycled water, including coordination with Rumiano Cheese Company for use of their effluent for nearby irrigation to reduce the load on the City's WWTF.

Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA \\KJC.local\KJC-Root\KJ-Projects\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_9_Report\9.09_Report\Appendices\ Page 1 of 2 Appendix E.1 Project Alternatives Matrix and List of Required Facilities List of Required Facilities
Alternative 1 2 0 0 3 0
Beach Front Park Beach Front Park + Fill Station Irrigation of nearby Schools and Parks
Irrigation of North Schools
and Cemetary
Rumiano Effluent for
Peterson Park Irrigation
Rumiano Effluent for
Schoolyard Irrigation
Description
RW produced at CC
WWTF stored at Beach
Front Park for irrigation
Same facilities as Alternative 1
with addition of truck fill station at
WWTF
Irrigation of nearby schools
and parks with RW stored at
Beach Front Park (within
City Limits)
Irrigation of Schools and
Cemetary outside City Limits
Irrigation of Peterson Park
with Rumiano Industrial
Effluent
Irrigation of Crescent Elk
and Joe Hamilton
Schoolyards with Rumiano
Industrial Effluent
Disinfection Required
Yes, replace/upgrade
existing UV, reuse pumps,
and flow meter
Yes, replace/upgrade existing UV,
reuse pumps, and flow meter
Yes, replace/upgrade
existing UV, reuse pumps,
and flow meter
Yes, replace/upgrade
existing UV, reuse pumps,
and flow meter
No Yes, UV or chlorine TBD
Tertiary Treatment Train Repairs/Upgrades No No No No Noc Maybe Storage Tank Yes, at Beach Front Park Yes, at Beach Front Park Yes, at Beach Front Park Yes, at Beach Front Park Yes, at Peterson Park Maybe Fill Station No Yes No No No No
Third-Party Coordination No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pipeline Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Approximate Pipeline Length (ft) 2,300 2,300 3,000 10,000 1,570 1,000 Pumps Yesa
Yesa
Yes Yes Yesb Maybe
Park Irrigation Site Retrofits Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Notes:
a) Pumps are assumed to be required at storage tank and MBR replacement pumps. b) Pumps are assumed to be required at Rumiano Treatment facility and storage tank at Peterson Park. c) No treatment train upgrades or additions are assumed to be required for the Rumiano effluent.

Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA \\KJC.local\KJC-Root\KJ-Projects\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_9_Report\9.09_Report\Appendices\ Page 2 of 2 Appendix E.2 Scoring Criteria Guidelines
Scoring Criteria Guidelines
Qualitative Criteria for Comparing Alternatives and Scoring Fully Meets Criteria Generally Meets Criteria Unable to Meet Criteria 3 2 1
Availability of Recycled Water
Is there sufficient volume of recycled water produced to supply the demands? Yes, there is sufficient volume of recycled water to meet peak demands during all months where demand exists.

There is enough recycled water to meet peak demands during at least 50% of the months where demand exists.

There is recycled water available to meet peak demands for less than 50% of the months where demand exists.

Infrastructure Requirements
What infrastructure is required to implement the alternative? No additional infrastructure or improvements to existing infrastructure required. The alternative calls for opportunities to utilize or minimally improve existing infrastructure.

The alternative requires significant improvement of existing infrastructure or installation of new infrastructure.

Is coordination with different agencies necessary? No coordination with outside agencies or entities Coordination with one outside agency or entity Coordination with more than one outside agency or entity Are there permitting requirements? Simple permitting pathway. Moderate permitting pathway. Complex permitting pathway.

Will the alternative result in an impact to City operations due to a decrease in volume sent to the WWTF? Low impact to current operations Moderate impact to current operations High impact to current operations Cost Effectiveness What is the cost of using recycled water to meet demand versus potable water?
The cost of using recycled water to meet demand is less than the cost of using potable water.

The cost of using recycled water to meet demand is comparable to the cost of using potable water.

The cost of using recycled water to meet demand is considerably more than the cost of using potable water.

What is the total capital cost? Relative to other alternatives, the total capital cost is low. Relative to other alternatives, the total capital cost is comparable. Relative to other alternatives, the total capital cost is high.

What is the annual O&M cost? Relative to other alternatives O&M costs, the total O&M cost is low. Relative to other alternatives O&M costs, the total O&M cost is comparable.

Relative to other alternatives O&M costs, the total O&M cost is high.

What is the annualized unit cost (Capital + O&M costs per volume of recycled water produced)? Relative to other alternatives, the annualized unit cost is low. Relative to other alternatives, the annualized unit cost is comparable. Relative to other alternatives, the annualized unit cost is high.

Funding & Financing Are there any opportunities for obtaining funding for implementation of the alternative?
There are numerous funding opportunities available and a high likelihood of receiving funding.

There are funding opportunities available. The likelihood of receiving funding is moderate.

There are limited funding opportunities available. There is low likelihood of receiving funding.

Guidance for Scoring
Considerations for Assessing Project Based on
Criteria
Alternatives Screening
Criteria Categories

ENGINEERING &

OPERATIONAL

CONSIDERATIONS

ECONOMIC
Administrative Complexity
Capital and Operations & Maintenance Costs
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CAP:\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_9_Report\9.09_Report\Appendices\ Page 1 of 2 Appendix E.2 Scoring Criteria Guidelines
Weighting for Alternatives Screening Criteria
Categories Alternatives Screening Criteria Baseline (Balanced) Minimize
Administrative
Complexity
Maximize Engineering
& Operational
Considerations
Low Cost
Availability of Recycled Water 15% 10% 10% 5%
Infrastructure Requirements 15% 10% 25% 5%Administrative Complexity 15% 40% 25% 5%Cost Effectiveness 20% 10% 15% 30%
Capital and Operations & Maintenance Costs 20% 10% 20% 30% Funding & Financing 15% 20% 5% 25%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%

ENGINEERING &

OPERATIONAL

CONSIDERATIONS

ECONOMIC
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CAP:\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_9_Report\9.09_Report\Appendices\ Page 2 of 2 Appendix E.3 Scoring Results
Summary of Quantitative Results for Alternatives (use for scoring some criteria) Alternative # Description
RW
Distributed
(AFY)
RW
Demand
(MGD)
RW Total Capital
($)
RW Annual
O&M
($/yr)
Annualized
RW Total
Cost
($/AF)
Potable
Water Cost
($/AF)
Annualized
RW Total
Cost / PW
Cost [-]
Total
Pipeline
Length
(ft)
# of Sites for
Irrigation
Retrofit
(#)
# of Fill
Stations to
Construct (#)
Storage
Requireda
(gal)
Total
Pump(s)
Powerb (hp)
Beach Front Park 1
RW produced at CC WWTF stored at Beach
Front Park for irrigation
26 56,000 $ 573,000 $ 23,530 $ 2,000 $ 1,144 1.75 2,300 1 0 60,000 16.0 Beach Front Park + Fill Station 2
Same facilities as Alternative 1 with
addition of truck fill station at WWTF
28 60,000 $ 606,000 $ 23,530 $ 1,940 $ 1,128 1.72 2,300 1 1 60,000 16.0 Rumiano for Peterson 3
Irrigation of Peterson Park with Rumiano
Industrial Effluent 5 10,000 $ 183,000 $ 3,410 $ 2,600 $ 1,060 2.45 1,570 1 0 10,000 2.5 Notes: 1 MG = 3.068 AF
a. Storage required is based on average day demand for each alternative. Wet Season 151 days available for recharge b. Pump Stations are sized for pumping requirements for conveyance from the recycled water treatment system to the storage tank/fill station associated with the alternative. Dry Season 214 days of RW Irrigation demand c. Coordination with Outside Agencies: Footprint 5000 SF/MGD Alternative 1: System testing and upgrades would require agency coordination.

Alternative 2: System testing and upgrades would require agency coordination. Annualized Cost = Typical Interest Alternative 3: Would require coordination with Rumiano and agency coordination. Cost x (i x ( (i+1)n ) Facility Rate d. Permitting Requirements: ( 1 + i )n
-1 Life (n) (i)
Alternative 1: Some permitting required for treatment system upgrades. 30 3% Alternative 2: Some permitting required for treatment system upgrades.

Alternative 3: Will have complex permitting due to Title 22 Permitting for using effluent. e. Impact to City Operations:

Alternative 1: City will maintain and operate treatment system upgrades.

Alternative 2: City will maintain and operate treatment system upgrades.

Alternative 3: Will have high impact because less effluent will be sent to City sewer system.

Recycled Water Volume RW Estimated Costs RW vs PW Comparison RW Facilities Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA \\KJC.local\KJC-Root\KJ-Projects\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_9_Report\9.09_Report\Appendices\ Page 1 of 4 Appendix E.3 Scoring Results
RW Available to Meet Demand
if "y" score = 3
if "p" score = 2 (partial)
if "n" score = 1
RW
Availability
Relative amount
of pipelines
Min=3
Max=1
Relative number of
Irrigation Retrofit Sites
Min=3
Max=1
Relative number of Fill
Stations to Construct
Min=3
Max=1
Storage
Min=3
Max=1
Pumps
Min=3
Max=1
Amount of
Infrastructure
(ave subcriteria
scores)
Coordination with Agenciesc
Maximum Coordination = 1
Moderate Coordination = 2
Minimal Coordination = 3
Coordination
Permitting Requirementsd
Complex Permitting = 1
Moderate Permitting = 2
Minimal Permitting = 3
Permitting
Impact to City Operationse
High Impact = 1
Moderate Impact = 2
Low Impact = 3
Impact to City
Operations
Y 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0
Y 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0
Y 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.6 1 1.0 2 2.0 2 2.0
Availability of Recycled Water Infrastructure Requirements Administrative Complexity Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA \\KJC.local\KJC-Root\KJ-Projects\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_9_Report\9.09_Report\Appendices\ Page 2 of 4 Appendix E.3 Scoring Results
Cost Effectiveness Funding and
Financing
Comparison to
Potable Water
Min=3
Max=1
Score Based on
Capital Costs
Min=3
Max=1
Score Based on
O&M Costs
Min=3
Max=1
Score Based on
Annualized Costs
Min=3
Max=1
Relative Financial
Implementability
(ave subcriteria
scores)
Opportunities
Max=3
Min=1

2.9 1.2 1.0 2.8 1.7 3.0

3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.7 3.0

1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.3 3.0

ECONOMIC
Capital and O&M Costs
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA \\KJC.local\KJC-Root\KJ-Projects\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_9_Report\9.09_Report\Appendices\ Page 3 of 4 Appendix E.3 Scoring Results
Scoring Results
TOTAL
Availability of
Recycled Water
Infrastructure
Requirements
Cost
Effectiveness
Capital and O&M
Costs
Funding &
Financing
Description Sufficient Volume
Available
Amount of
Infrastructure
Required
Coordination
with Others
Permitting
Requirements
Impact to City
Operations
Comparison to
Potable Water
Financial
Implementability
Opportunities for
Funding
Beach Front Park 1 RW produced at CC WWTF stored at Beach Front Park for irrigation 3.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 1.7 3.0 18.0 78 77 69 81 Beach Front Park + Fill Station 2
Same facilities as Alternative 1 with addition of truck fill station at WWTF 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.7 3.0

17.7 76 76 66 82
Rumiano for Peterson 3 Irrigation of Peterson Park with Rumiano Industrial Effluent 3.0 2.6 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.3 3.0 16.9 74 72 71 70 Sensitivity Analysis Weighting Factors Funding & Financing Agency Coordination,
Partnerships and
Agreements
Cost
Effectiveness
Capital and O&M
Costs
Funding &
Financing
Total Weighted
Score
(max 100)
Sufficient Volume
Available
Amount of
Infrastructure
Required
Coordination
with Others
Permitting
Requirements
Impact to City
Operations
Comparison to
Potable Water
Financial
Implementability
Opportunities for
Funding
Baseline (Balanced) 15.0% 15.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 20.0% 20.0% 15.0% 100% Average Weight (Normalized to 100 points) 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 20.0 15.0 100 Minimize Administrative Complexity 10.0% 10.0% 13.3% 13.3% 13.3% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 100% Average Weight (Normalized to 100 points) 10.0 10.0 13.3 13.3 13.3 10.0 10.0 20.0 100 Maximize Engineering & Operational Considerations 10.0% 25.0% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 15.0% 20.0% 5.0% 100% Public Works Dept Weight (Normalized to 100 points) 10.0 25.0 8.3 8.3 8.3 15.0 20.0 5.0 100 Low Cost 5.0% 5.0% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 30.0% 30.0% 25.0% 100% Average Weight (Normalized to 100 points) 5.0 5.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 30.0 30.0 25.0 100 Adminstrative Complexity
Low Cost
SENSITIVITY SCORING Maximize Engineering & Operational Considerations

ENGINEERING & OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ECONOMIC

ENGINEERING & OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Administrative Complexity
Total Raw Score
(Max 24)
Baseline (Balanced)Minimize Administrative Complexity
Categories
Alternatives Screening Criteria

ECONOMIC
Alternative
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study, Crescent City, CA \\KJC.local\KJC-Root\KJ-Projects\Eugene\2020\2076056.00_Stover_Feasibility_Study_for_Recycled_Water\Section_9_Report\9.09_Report\Appendices\ Page 4 of 4 Appendix F
Permitting Pathway Materials

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
Adoption Date
June 7, 2016

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................... ............................................................................. .............................................................................................. ............................................................................................. ................................................................................. .................................................................................................. .............................................................................................. .............................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................... ........................................
............................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................... ..............
................................
.................................................................

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1
FINDINGS: 1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY ISSUES 5
ANTIDEGRADATION ANALYSIS 8
PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY 15
BASIN PLANS AND BENEFICIAL USES 17
CEQA AND PUBLIC NOTICE 17
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 18
A. PROHIBITIONS 18
B. SPECIFICATIONS 20
C. WATER RECYCLING ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS 21
D. GENERAL PROVISIONS 23
CERTIFICATION 25
ATTACHMENT A: NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) – GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS A-1 ATTACHMENT B: MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM B-1
ATTACHMENT C: STANDARD PROVISIONS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS . C-1 ATTACHMENT D: DEFINITION OF TERMS D-1
TOC-1
June 7, 2016

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AGR Agricultural supply
Antidegradation Policy State Water Board Resolution 68-16, the Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California AQUA Aquaculture
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan
BPTC Best practicable treatment or control
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEC Contaminants of Emerging Concern
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DBP Disinfection By-products
Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Estuary
DDW Division of Drinking Water
DWR Department of Water Resources
E. coli Escherichia coli
e.g. Latin exempli gratia (for example)
FRESH Fresh water replenishment
gpd gallons per day
GWR Groundwater recharge
IND Industrial service supply
mg/L Milligrams per liter
MPN Most Probable Number
MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program
MUN Municipal supply
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
NOA Notice of Applicability
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
pdf Portable Document Format
PROC Industrial process supply
REC-1 Water contact recreation
Regional Water Board Regional Water Quality Control Board State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board
TBD To Be Determined
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
Water Boards State Water Board and Regional Water Boards WILD Wildlife habitat
WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements
WRRs Water Reclamation Requirements
ACR-1
June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
FINDINGS:

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) finds that:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. On January 17, 2014, California’s Governor proclaimed a Drought State of Emergency and directed state officials to take all necessary actions to prepare for drought conditions. On March 1, 2014, the Governor signed bipartisan drought relief legislation, Senate Bill (SB) 103 and 104, modifying the Budget Act of 2013 (Stats. 2013, ch. 20 and 354) to provide additional funds for drought relief. (Stats. 2014, ch. 2 and 3, respectively).

2. On April 25, 2014, the Governor proclaimed a continued State of Emergency due to severe drought conditions and directed the State Water Board to “adopt statewide general waste discharge requirements to facilitate the use of treated wastewater that meets standards set by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) in order to reduce demand on potable water supplies.”

3. California experiences frequent drought conditions. The recent emergency actions follow a similar Declaration of Statewide Drought in effect from 2008 through 2011 (Executive Order S-06-08) and Drought Declaration State of Emergency in effect from 2009 through 2011 (Executive Order S-11-09).

Drought conditions in California also persisted from 1987 through 1992.

Paleoclimatologists have reconstructed medieval climate episodes from tree ring studies, sediment deposition, and other sources. These studies show that the most severe droughts during the past 1,000 years have lasted from 20 to more than 150 years. 1

4. On June 3, 2014, the State Water Board adopted Water Quality Order 2014- 0090-DWQ, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Recycled Water Use to streamline permitting of recycled water use statewide.

5. Order WQ 2014-0090-DWQ was adopted to facilitate recycled water use and reduce demand on potable water supplies; this General Order further encourages recycled water projects by (1) maintaining the streamlined approach in permitting new Users through a water recycling program and (2) providing the option for a single recycled water use permit coverage for larger Users that typically need permit coverage from multiple Regional Water Boards. Enrollees issued a Notice of Applicability (NOA) under order WQ 2014-0090-DWQ must 1 Michael Dettinger, Droughts, Epic Droughts and Droughty Centuries—Lessons from California’s Paleoclimatic Record: A PACLIM 2001 Meeting Report, (Summer 2001) Interagency Ecological Program Newsletter, at p. 50.
1 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
notify the State Water Board of its intention to be regulated under this General Order.

6. Prior to July 1, 2014, CDPH provided public health recommendations to the Water Boards through review and approval of Title 22 Engineering Reports prepared pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 60323.

The Water Boards then issue permits. Effective July 1, 2014, the administration of the Drinking Water Program, including responsibility for review of Title 22 Engineering Reports was transferred from the CDPH to the State Water Board.

7. “Recycled water” means water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource. (Wat. Code, § 13050(n).) Coverage under these Water Reclamation Requirements (WRRs) for Recycled Water Use (General Order) is limited to treated municipal wastewater for uses consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria, and other uses approved by the State Water Board on a case-by-case basis, other than direct or indirect potable uses. An estimated 1.85 to 2.25 million acre-feet of water supply could be realized annually though recycling by the year 2030.2 Of this total amount, an estimated 0.9 million to 1.4 million acre-feet of recycled water could be realized through recycling of municipal wastewater that is discharged into the ocean or saline bays. Downstream beneficial uses will be protected by requiring compliance with Water Code section 1211, as described in the Antidegradation Analysis section of this General Order.

8. Recycled water use can help to reduce local water scarcity. It is not the only option for bringing supply and demand into a better balance, but it is a viable cost effective solution that is appropriate in many cases. The feasibility of recycled water use depends on local circumstances, which affect the balance of costs and benefits. In drought conditions, recycled water can be particularly valuable, given the scarcity of alternative supplies. In normal precipitation years recycled water use may reduce groundwater extraction.

9. The California Legislature has declared that a substantial portion of the future water requirements of the state may be economically met by beneficial use of recycled water. (Wat. Code, § 13511.) The Legislature also expressed its intent that the state undertakes all possible steps to encourage development of water recycling facilities so that recycled water may be made available to help meet the growing water requirements of the state. (Wat. Code, § 13512.)

10. On February 3, 2009, the State Water Board adopted Resolution 2009-0011, Adoption of a Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled Water (Recycled Water Policy) (Revised January 22, 2013, effective April 25, 2013.) The 2 California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 160-2009, p. 11-9. 2 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
Recycled Water Policy promotes the use of recycled water to achieve sustainable local water supplies and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

11. Water recycling is an essential part of an overall program to manage local and regional water resources. Many local governing bodies have adopted resolutions establishing their intent to proceed with planning, permitting, and implementation of recycled water projects. These projects will provide water supply and municipal wastewater disposal benefits for communities, and will provide water supply benefits to agriculture.

12. The Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria was established for the protection of public health and are codified in the California Code of Regulations, title 22, division 4, chapter 3 (herein referred to as Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria).

Approved uses of recycled water under the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria depend on the level of treatment and potential for public contact. Under the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria, recycled water is categorized based on treatment levels. There are four categories of recycled water relevant to this General Order; they are listed here and defined in the indicated regulations section:
a. Undisinfected secondary recycled water (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 60301.900.)
b. Disinfected secondary-23 recycled water (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 60301.225.)
c. Disinfected secondary-2.2 recycled water (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 60301.220.)
d. Disinfected tertiary recycled water (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 60301.230.) An approved Title 22 Engineering Report addressing protection of public health is required before authorization to use recycled water is granted by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer.

13. When used in compliance with the Recycled Water Policy, the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria , and all applicable state and federal water quality laws, the State Water Board finds that recycled water is safe for approved uses, and strongly supports recycled water as a safe alternative to raw and potable water supplies for approved uses.

14. This General Order authorizes beneficial, non-potable recycled water uses consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria and any additional requirements specified in the Notice of Applicability. Activities that are not authorized by this Order include:
3 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
a. Activities designed to replenish groundwater resources. Groundwater replenishment activities include surface spreading basins, percolation ponds, or injection through groundwater wells3
.
b. Disposal of treated wastewater by means of percolation ponds, excessive hydraulic loading of recycled water in use areas, etc., where the primary purpose of the activity is disposal of treated wastewater. c. Direct potable reuse (Wat. Code, § 13561(b)), indirect potable reuse for groundwater recharge (Wat. Code, § 13561(c)), or surface water augmentation (Wat. Code, § 13561(d)).

15. There are many sources of salts and nutrients in surface and groundwater, including water soluble inorganic and organic constituents in imported water, leaching of naturally occurring salts in soils as a result of irrigation and precipitation, animal wastes, fertilizers and other soil amendments, municipal use including water softeners, industrial wastewater, and oil field wastewater. In coastal areas and areas adjacent to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, seawater intrusion is also a source of salinity in groundwater, particularly in overdrafted basins. Imported water is a major source of salt. In water year 2010, 45 percent of the surface water used in the San Joaquin Valley was imported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta through the Delta Mendota Canal, Folsom South Canal, and California Aqueduct (DWR).4 In an average year, more than 800,000 tons of salt are imported from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Estuary (Delta) into the northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, and another two million tons of salt are imported into the Tulare Lake Basin.5 Southern California also imports significant water supplies from the Delta. In addition, it imports 4.4 million acre-feet of water each year from the Colorado River. Colorado River water has, on average, twice the salinity of northern California water sources, and water imported from the Delta is blended with Colorado River supplies to control salinity. The use of recycled water for irrigation has the potential to increase salts and other constituents in groundwater, but is not expected to be a significant source of salt loading relative to other potential sources, particularly when recycled water is used in the same watershed in which it would otherwise be discharged. Basin-specific salt and nutrient management plans, however, will provide definitive information on where assimilative capacity is available.
3 Injection well is defined in Water Code 13051.
4 Water Recycling and Desalination Section, California Department of Water Resources. 5 Department of Water Resources, Water Facts-Salt Balance in the San Joaquin Valley <http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/environment/salt_balance_in_the_san_joaquin_valley water facts_20_/water_facts_20.pdf>, accessed 3 April 2014.
4 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE

16. Use of recycled water has the potential to increase nutrients in groundwater supplies. In order to minimize the nutrient loading, this Order requires that recycled water used for irrigation purposes be applied at agronomic rates.

17. The Recycled Water Policy calls on local water and wastewater entities together with other stakeholders who contribute salt and nutrients to a groundwater basin or sub-basin, to fund and develop Salt and Nutrient Management Plans to comprehensively address all sources of salts and nutrients. The State Water Board herein reasserts the need for comprehensive salt and nutrient management planning and directs that salinity and nutrient increases should be managed in a manner consistent with the Recycled Water Policy. It is the intent of the Recycled Water Policy that every groundwater basin/sub-basin in California ultimately has a consistent Salt and Nutrient Management Plan. The appropriate way to address salt and nutrient issues is through the development of regional or subregional Salt and Nutrient Management Plans.

18. The Recycled Water Policy includes monitoring requirements for Constituents of Emerging Concern6 (CECs) for the use of recycled water for groundwater recharge by surface and subsurface application methods. The monitoring requirements and criteria for evaluating monitoring results in the Recycled Water Policy are based on recommendations from a Science Advisory Panel.7 Because this General Order is limited to non-potable uses and does not authorize groundwater replenishment activities, monitoring for CECs is not required.

19. The Recycled Water Policy requires permits for landscape irrigation with recycled water to include priority pollutant monitoring at the recycled water production facility. Annual monitoring is required for design production flows greater than one million gallons per day; a five year monitoring frequency is required for flows less than one million gallons per day. Priority pollutants are listed in Appendix A of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 423.

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY ISSUES

20. Pursuant to Water Code section 13523, the Regional Water Board, after consulting with and receiving the recommendation of the State Water Board, may prescribe water reclamation requirements for water that is used or proposed to be used as recycled water. The requirements shall be established in 6 For this Policy, CECs are defined to be chemicals in personal care products, pharmaceuticals including antibiotics, antimicrobials; industrial, agricultural, and household chemicals; hormones; food additives; transformation products, inorganic constituents; and nanomaterials.. 7 The Science Advisory Panel was convened in accordance with provision 10.b of the Recycled Water Policy. The panel’s recommendations were presented in the report; Monitoring Strategies for Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CECs) in Recycled Water - Recommendations of a Science Advisory Panel, dated June 25, 2010.
5 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
conformance with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria pursuant to Water Code section 13521. Pursuant to Water Code section 13523 (b), the requirements for use of recycled water not addressed by the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria will be considered on a case-by-case basis by Regional Water Boards, after consulting with and receiving the recommendations of the State Water Board. The State Water Board provides such recommendations through acceptance letters for Title 22 Engineering Reports. These recommendations become requirements of the Order when specified in the Notice of Applicability.

21. Pursuant to Water Code section 13528.5, the State Water Board may carry out duties and authority granted to a Regional Water Board pursuant to the Water Code, division 7, chapter 7, including the authority to prescribe water reclamation requirements pursuant to Water Code section 13523.

22. Pursuant to Water Code section 13241 and 13263, the State Water Board, in establishing the requirements contained herein, considered factors including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of water; b. Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration, including the quality of water available thereto;
c. Water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors which affect water quality in the area; d. Economic considerations;
e. The need for developing housing within the region(s); and f. The need to develop and use recycled water.

23. Pursuant to Water Code section 106.5, 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 General Order promotes that policy by encouraging uses of recycled water.

Such uses must be consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations (including the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria). This General Order furthers the human right to water by encouraging use of recycled water thus reducing demand on other other sources, including use of potable water used for non-potable uses where recycled water is available.

24. Technical and monitoring reports specified in this General Order are required pursuant to Water Code section 13267. Failing to furnish the reports by the due date or falsifying information in the reports is a misdemeanor that may result in assessment of civil liabilities against the Discharger. Water Code section 13267 states, in part:
“In conducting an investigation specified in subdivision (a), the regional board may require that any person who has discharged, discharges, or is 6 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
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 regional 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 regional 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. … (f) the State Board may carry out the authority granted to a regional board pursuant to this section.”
The technical reports required by this General Order, the NOI, and the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) are necessary to assure compliance with this General Order. The burden and cost of preparing the reports are reasonable and consistent with the best interest of the people of the state in maintaining water quality.

25. This General Order is applicable to recycled water projects where recycled water is used or transported for non-potable uses (for example: landscape irrigation, irrigation of crops and pasture land, construction, fire suppression, hydrostatic testing, etc.) This General Order does not regulate the treatment of wastewater.

Compliance with this General Order does not relieve producers or distributors from the obligation to comply with applicable Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for discharges from wastewater treatment plants, other than the recycled water uses described herein.

26. The uses of recycled water described in this General Order are exempt from the requirements of Consolidated Regulations for Treatment, Storage, Processing, or Disposal of Solid Waste in California Code of Regulations, title 27, division 2, subdivision 1, section 20005, et seq. The activities are exempt from the requirements of title 27 so long as the activity meets, and continues to meet, all preconditions listed below. (Cal Code Regs., tit. 27, § 20090.) a. Sewage—Discharges of domestic sewage or treated effluent which are regulated by WDRs issued pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 23, division 3, chapter 9, or for which WDRs have been waived, and which are consistent with applicable water quality objectives, and treatment or storage facilities associated with municipal wastewater treatment plants, provided that residual sludge or solid waste from wastewater treatment facilities shall be discharged only in accordance with the applicable State Water Board promulgated provisions of this division. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 20090(a).)
7 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
b. Wastewater—Discharges of wastewater to land, including but not limited to evaporation ponds, percolation ponds, or subsurface leach fields if the following conditions are met: (1) the applicable Regional Water Board has issued WDRs, reclamation requirements, or waived such issuance; (2) the discharge is in compliance with the applicable water quality control plan; and (3) the wastewater does not need to be managed according to, California Code of Regulations, title 22, division 4.5, chapter 11, as a hazardous waste. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 20090(b).)
c. Reuse – Recycling of other use of materials salvaged from waste or produced by waste treatment, such as scrap metal, compost, and recycled chemicals, provided that discharges of residual wastes from recycling or treatment operations to land shall be according to applicable provisions of Title 27 regulations.(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 20090(h).)

ANTIDEGRADATION ANALYSIS

27. State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16, the Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California (the Antidegradation Policy) requires that disposal of waste into the waters of the state be regulated to achieve the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state. The quality of some waters is higher than established by adopted policies and that higher quality water shall be maintained to the maximum extent possible consistent with the Antidegradation Policy. The Antidegradation Policy requires the following:
a. Higher quality water will be maintained until it has been demonstrated to the state that any change will be consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of the water, and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies.
b. Any activity that produces a waste or may produce waste or increased volume or concentration of waste and discharges to existing high quality waters will be required to meet waste discharge requirements that will result in the best practicable treatment or control (BPTC) of the discharge necessary to assure pollution or nuisance will not occur, and the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state will be maintained.

28. This General Order regulates discharges to groundwater basins throughout the state. There is not sufficient data to determine which groundwater basins are high quality waters for the various constituents that may be associated with recycled water. To the extent use of recycled water may result in a discharge to a groundwater basin that contains high quality water, this General Order authorizes limited degradation consistent with the Antidegradation Policy as described in the findings below. Further, Salt and Nutrient Management Plans, 8 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
developed in accordance with the Recycled Water Policy, will require analysis on an ongoing basis to evaluate inputs to the basin, the salt and nutrient mass balance, and the available assimilative capacity.

29. This General Order requires BPTC, which is a combination of treatment, storage, and application methods that implement the requirements of the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria and the Regional Water Board Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans). Recycled water is generated by treating (primarily) domestic wastewater adequately to make the water suitable for a direct beneficial use that would not otherwise occur. The required level of treatment corresponds to the proposed use of the recycled water. In addition, this General Order includes requirements regarding the storage and application of recycled water to protect water quality and limit public contact to recycled water, where appropriate. Wastewater treatment can be accomplished many different ways, but generally consists of physical, chemical, and/or biological methods.

Depending upon the use of the recycled water, disinfection may be performed.

In addition to the treatment processes, this General Order also requires the following control measures:
a. Recycled water use shall not cause unacceptable groundwater and/or surface water degradation.
i. Regional Water Boards have discretion regarding permitting storage of recycled water in unlined ponds. Applicants shall improve storage facilities if deemed necessary by a Regional Water Board. ii. Application of recycled water is limited to agronomic rates, which limits the potential for significant amounts of recycled water to impact groundwater quality and allows plants to take up wastewater constituents such as nitrogen compounds.
iii. Recycled water use shall be controlled to prevent significant runoff from application areas. This General Order authorizes use of recycled water for application to land, where recycled water is further treated in natural soil processes.
b. Recycled water shall not create nuisance conditions. i. The Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria requires wastewater to be oxidized, which removes putrescible matter and requires dissolved oxygen. Maintaining dissolved oxygen in the wastewater will generally prevent nuisance odors.
ii. Application of recycled water is controlled to prevent airborne spray from entering dwellings, eating areas, or food handling areas. iii. Application of recycled water to saturated soil is prohibited.

Application to saturated soil reduces the soil treatment processes and may create conditions for mosquito breeding.
9 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
c. Recycled water shall only be used consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria and any other requirements specified in the Notice of Applicability.
i. A written approval of a Title 22 Engineering Report must be obtained from the State Water Board before a Notice of
Applicability (NOA) can be issued.
ii. Uses of recycled water are subject to category-specific use area signage, and monitoring frequency requirements as specified in the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria. Uses not addressed by the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria will be considered on a caseby-case basis by Regional Water Boards , after consulting with and receiving the recommendations of the State Water Board. These recommendations become requirements of the Order when
specified in the Notice of Applicability.
iii. Uses of recycled water are subject to backflow prevention, cross connection tests, and setback requirements for surface
impoundments, wells, etc. as contained in the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria and California Code of Regulations, title 17, division 1, article 2.

30. In an arid climate, such as the climate that exists in most of California, the maximum benefit to the people of the state can only be achieved by ensuring long and short-term protection of economic opportunities, public health, and environmental protection. In order to do that, water uses must be better matched to water quality and use of local supplies must be encouraged to the extent possible, including reusing water that would otherwise flow to the ocean or other salt sinks without supporting beneficial uses during transmission. The use of recycled water in place of both raw and potable water supplies for the nonpotable uses allowed under this General Order improves water supply availability and helps to ensure that higher quality water will continue to be available for human uses and for instream uses for fish and wildlife. It also reduces the need for groundwater pumping that has resulted in permanent loss of aquifer storage capacity and land subsidence in some parts of the state.

As required by the Antidegradation Policy, the State Water Board finds that the limited degradation of water that may occur as the result of recycling under the conditions of this General Order provides maximum benefit to the people of California, provided recycled water treatment and use are managed to ensure long-term reasonable protection of beneficial uses of waters of the state.

Recycled water available for reuse under this General Order has been treated at a wastewater treatment plant to levels that comply with permits issued by the State Water Board or Regional Water Boards pursuant to the Clean Water Act for discharges to waters of the United States or the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act for discharges to land. Treatment technologies required under these 10 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
laws and permits include secondary and/or tertiary treatment and disinfection when needed for pathogen reduction.

The Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria imposes limitations on the uses of recycled water, based on the level of treatment and the specific use in this General Order to protect public health. By restricting the use of recycled water to those meeting the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria, this General Order ensures that recycled water is used safely. To the extent that the use of recycled water may result in some waste constituents entering the environment after effective source control, treatment, and control measures are implemented, the conditions of this General Order limiting the use of recycled water to agronomic rates is part of the suite of treatment, storage and applications measures that comprise BPTC for uses with frequent or routine application, such as landscape or agricultural irrigation. Other types of uses that may be approved, such as dust control, firefighting, hydrostatic testing, and other short term or infrequent application are unlikely to result in sufficient loading of waste constituents that impact water quality.

31. Constituents associated with recycled water that have the potential to degrade groundwater include salinity, nutrients, pathogens (represented by coliform bacteria), disinfection by-products (DBPs), constituents of emerging concern (CECs), and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). If the discharge is not consistent with Basin Plan requirements, the applicant may elect to improve treatment to enroll under this General Order, or to apply for a site-specific order from the Regional Water Board. The State Water Board finds that the use of recycled water permitted under this General Order will not unreasonably affect beneficial uses or result in water quality that is less than that prescribed in applicable policies. The characteristics and requirements associated with each of the recycled water constituents of concern are discussed below:
a. Salinity is measured in water through various measurements, including but not limited to, total dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical conductivity.

Excessive salinity can impair the beneficial uses of water. Salinity levels in the receiving water can be affected by the use of recycled water if the recycled water has elevated concentrations of salinity. However, it is anticipated that in most cases, the use of recycled water for irrigation will consist of a portion of the total applied irrigation water. Other sources of irrigation water are likely to be potable water, imported water, agricultural water supply wells, irrigation districts (surface water supplies), and precipitation. The blending of sources of irrigation water (e.g. recycled water blended with stormwater) will generally reduce concentrations of, and/or loading rates of salinity constituents. As a result, salinity increases in use areas where the irrigation water is a blend of water sources are less likely to impair an existing and/or potential beneficial use of groundwater. 11 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
b. Nitrogen is a nutrient that may be present in recycled water at a concentration that can degrade groundwater quality. This General Order requires application of recycled water to take into consideration nutrient levels in recycled water and nutrient demand by plants. Application of recycled water at agronomic rates and considering soil, climate, and plant demand minimizes the movement of nutrients below the plants' root zone. When applied to cropped (or landscaped) land, some of the nitrogen in recycled water will be taken up by the plants, lost to the atmosphere through volatilization of ammonia or denitrification, or stored in the soil matrix. As a result, nitrogen increases are unlikely to impair an existing and/or potential beneficial use of groundwater.
c. Pathogens and other microorganisms may be present in recycled water based on the disinfection status. Coliform bacteria are used as a surrogate (indicator) because they are present in untreated wastewater, survive in the environment similar to pathogenic bacteria, and are easy to detect and quantify. Pathogens are generally limited in their mobility when applied to land.

Setbacks from recycled water use areas are required in the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria as a means of reducing pathogenic risks by coupling pathogen inactivation rates with groundwater travel time to a domestic water supply well or other potential exposure route (e.g. water contact activities). In general, a substantial unsaturated zone reduces pathogen survival compared to saturated soil conditions. Fine grained soil particles (silt or clay) reduce the rate of groundwater transport and therefore are generally less likely to transport pathogens. Setbacks also provide attenuation of other recycled water constituents through physical, chemical, and biological processes.

When needed, disinfection can be performed in a number of ways. The Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria lists disinfection requirements for specifically listed activities.
d. Disinfection by-products (DBPs) consist of organic and inorganic substances produced by the interaction of chemical disinfectants with naturally occurring substances in the water source. Common disinfection by-products include trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, bromate, and chlorite. DBPs present in recycled water receive additional treatment when applied to land.

Biodegradation, adsorption, volatilization, and other attenuative processes that occur naturally in soil will reduce the concentrations and retard migration of DBPs in the subsurface.
e. Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CECs) in recycled water as they pertain to the State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy are defined to be chemicals in personal care products, pharmaceuticals including antibiotics, antimicrobials; industrial, agricultural, and household chemicals; hormones; 12 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
food additives; transformation products, inorganic constituents; and nanomaterials. CECs are new classes of chemicals, diverse, and relatively unmonitored chemicals. Many of them are so new that standardized measurement methods and toxicological data for interpreting their potential human or ecosystem health effects are unavailable. The State Water Board convened a CEC Advisory Panel to address questions about regulating CECs with respect to the use of recycled water. The Panel’s primary charge was to provide guidance for developing monitoring programs that assess potential CEC threats from various water recycling practices, including groundwater recharge/reuse and urban landscape irrigation. The Panel provided recommendations for monitoring specific CECs in recycled water used for groundwater recharge reuse. Monitoring of health-based CECs or performance indicator CECs is not required for recycled water used for landscape irrigation due to the low risk of ingestion of the water. These recommendations were made part of the Recycled Water Policy. This General Order does not provide coverage for groundwater recharge activities or production of recycled water.
f. Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are mostly man-made, found in various materials such as pesticides, metals, additives, or contaminants in food, and personal care products. Human exposure to EDCs occurs via ingestion of food, dust and water, via inhalation of gases and particles in the air, and through the skin. Perchlorate is an EDC that may be present in hypochlorite solutions, which is a type of disinfectant used for wastewater.

Formation of perchlorate in hypochlorite solution can be minimized when proper manufacturing, handling, and storage conditions are followed.

Perchlorate accumulation has been documented in fruit and seed bearing crops and leafy vegetation irrigated with perchlorate contaminated water.

Recycled water currently makes up less than one percent of California agricultural water supply. Much of the recycled water used for agricultural irrigation is either undisinfected or is disinfected by means that do not result in perchlorate generation, such as ultraviolet light and chlorine gas. Some sources of agricultural water supply in some areas of the state contain perchlorate, such as surface water from Colorado River or groundwater sources in areas near industrial or military application sites (e.g. Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties). The blending of sources of irrigation water will further reduce any concentration of perchlorate present in recycled water and will be unlikely to affect beneficial uses or degrade groundwater quality.

32. The use of recycled water that would otherwise be discharged to a watercourse can adversely affect the availability of water for beneficial uses of water downstream of the discharge point, including in-stream uses. Water Code section 1211 requires that: (1) the owner of any wastewater treatment plant obtain the approval of the State Water Board before making any change in the 13 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
point of discharge, place of use, or purpose of use of treated wastewater where changes to the discharge or use of treated wastewater have the potential to decrease the flow in any portion of a watercourse, and (2) the State Water Board review the proposed changes pursuant to the provisions of Water Code section 1700 et seq. In order to approve the proposed change, the State Water Board must determine that the proposed change will not operate to the injury of any legal user of the water involved. (Wat. Code, §1702.) The State Water Board also has an independent obligation to consider the effect of the proposed change on public trust resources and beneficial uses established for areas downstream of the discharge point, and to protect those resources where feasible. (National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419 [189 Cal. Rptr. 346].)

33. This General Order authorizes uses of recycled water statewide. If an existing or proposed use of recycled water seeking coverage under this General Order could result in water quality degradation as described below, the Regional Water Board’s Executive Officer shall notify the applicant/discharger of the need to either revise the proposed/existing project, or apply for or continue coverage under a site-specific order of the Regional Water Board. The Regional Water Board’s Executive Officer or the State Water Board’s Executive Director (or designee) shall explain the need for a revised project, design, operation, or coverage under a different order, by making one or more of the following findings in the NOI response letter:
a. The proposed use of recycled water is not consistent with Findings 27 through 32 of this General Order, which collectively provide for compliance with antidegradation findings for projects covered by this General Order. The degradation may be from salinity, nitrogen compounds, pathogens, disinfection by-products, or other substances.
b. The proposed method of recycled water storage in unlined ponds is not consistent with Findings 27 through 32 of this General Order, which collectively provide for compliance with antidegradation findings for projects covered by this General Order. The degradation may be from salinity, nitrogen compounds, pathogens, disinfection by-products, or other substances.
c. The proposed use of recycled water or method of recycled water storage will cause or contribute to pollution or nuisance, or otherwise fail to comply with the applicable Basin Plan or State Water Board plans or policies. d. The proposed use of recycled water does not implement mitigation measures in a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document. e. The proposed use of recycled water is not consistent with a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) waste load or load allocation, or implementation plan as adopted by the Regional Water Board and made part of the Regional Water Board’s Basin Plan.
14 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
f. The proposed use of recycled water is not consistent with the Basin Plan provisions for implementing a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan.

PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY

34. The State Water Board recognizes the need for streamlined permitting consistent with the State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy. The State Water Board’s intention in the issuance of this statewide order is to provide consistent regulation of non-potable uses of recycled water statewide. To provide such consistency, the State Water Board intends that regulatory coverage under an existing Regional Water Board general order or conditional waiver for nonpotable uses of recycled water (landscape irrigation, golf course irrigation, dust control, street sweeping, etc.) will be terminated by the applicable Regional Water Board within three (3) years after adoption of this General Order.

Enrollees covered by a Regional Water Board general order or conditional waiver for non-potable uses of recycled water may continue discharging under that authority until the applicable Regional Water Board issues a Notice of Applicability to an Administrator per the terms of this Order. Enrollees under Order WQ 2014-0090-DWQ will be transferred for coverage under this General Order.

35. This document serves as a statewide General Order authorizing the use of recycled water by Producers, Distributors, and Users for uses consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria, other than direct or indirect potable reuse.

The intent of this General Order is to streamline the permitting process and delegate the responsibility of administrating water recycling programs to an Administrator to the fullest extent possible. The following may apply for coverage under this General Order and agree to become the Administrator:
a. Producers of recycled water: Producers may be publicly or privately owned.

A Producer will typically produce recycled water that meets the requirements of the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria. A Producer may also act as an Administrator.
b. Distributors of recycled water: In some cases, a Distributor may provide additional treatment (such as disinfection) to meet the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria for its intended use, and distribute it to Users. A Distributor is not required to take physical possession of the recycled water and may act simply as an Administrator.
c. Users of recycled water: Users take physical possession of the recycled water from Producers and/ or Distributors for an approved beneficial recycled water use consistent with Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria. A User that takes physical possession of recycled water may act as an Administrator and distribute to other Users. Users of recycled water may also use the recycled water under a Water Recycling Use Permit from another Administrator. 15 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
d. A legal entity: A joint powers agreement or equivalent contractual agreement between a Producer, Distributor, irrigation district, or other entity. Similar to a Distributor, a legal entity is not required to take physical possession of the recycled water and may act simply as an Administrator.

36. To obtain coverage under this General Order, the applicant shall submit an NOI (Attachment A) and an application fee to the Regional Water Board of jurisdiction. An applicant proposing a water recycling program that covers recycled water use areas within multiple Regional Water Board jurisdictions may submit an NOI (Attachment A) and application fee to the State Water Board. Fee amounts are in accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 23, division 3, chapter 9, article 1. The applicant shall declare responsibility for the administration of the water recycling program authorized pursuant to this General Order. The applicant shall describe a program they will administer to ensure that recycled water use complies with the requirements of the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria, and this General Order. Upon authorization by the State or Regional Water Board, the applicant then becomes the Administrator. The Administrator shall be billed for an annual fee until coverage under the General Order is terminated.

37. Pursuant to Water Code section 13554.2, any person or entity proposing the use of recycled water shall reimburse the State Water Board for reasonable costs incurred in performing duties relevant to the implementation of regulatory oversight related to protection of public health for uses of recycled water.

38. This General Order does not authorize discharges of pollutants from point sources to water of the United States, thus the use of recycled water allowed pursuant to the terms of this General Order are not subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. To the extent that this General Order results in agricultural irrigation return flows entering waters of the United States, such return flows are not subject to NPDES permits (33 U.S.C., §1342(l)(1)) but may be subject to waste discharge requirements or conditional waivers as adopted by Regional Water Boards. Where such waste discharge requirements or conditional waivers exist, this General Order requires that uses of recycled water comply with their provisions.

39. The State Water Board recognizes the need to allow a centralized enrollment process under this General Order to facilitate opportunities for non-potable uses of recycled water by a single entity that may occur in more than one Regional Water Board jurisdictions (for example: hydrostatic testing of utility pipelines owned by a utility company or landscape irrigation at facilities managed by other state agencies). An NOI may be submitted to the State Water Board for such uses of recycled water, when managed by a single Administrator and subject to the corresponding recycled water quality, use area requirements, and reliability features.
16 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE

40. Enrollment under this General Order may serve as additional authorization for new uses of recycled water presently not covered under existing WDRs, Master Reclamation Permits, or WRRs, as long as such new uses meet the requirements of this General Order and an approved Title 22 Engineering Report. A User that serves as an Administrator may use the additional authorization provided by this General Order to obtain recycled water from other Producers or Distributors permitted under other existing WDRs, Master Reclamation Permits, or WRRs.

41. Agricultural operations subject to waste discharge requirements or waivers of waste discharge requirements regulating discharges from irrigated lands may obtain authorization pursuant to this General Order to use recycled water for irrigation. Such authorization may take the form of a Water Recycling Use Permit from an Administrator covered by this General Order, or the agricultural operation may enroll as its own Administrator. The State Water Board recognizes the need to simplify regulation of recycled water use on agricultural lands. Pursuant to Water Code section 13267, Regional Water Boards’ Executive Officers may modify the MRP to prevent duplication of monitoring and reporting activities that satisfy the requirements of both orders.

BASIN PLANS AND BENEFICIAL USES

42. Beneficial uses of groundwater are determined by each Regional Water Board and are listed in their respective Basin Plans. Beneficial uses for groundwater are: municipal supply (MUN), industrial service supply (IND), industrial process supply (PROC), fresh water replenishment (FRESH), aquaculture (AQUA), wildlife habitat (WILD), water contact recreation (REC-1), agricultural supply (AGR), and groundwater recharge (GWR). Some beneficial uses only apply to certain geographical areas within regions.

43. Basin Plans establish water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses. The water quality objectives may be narrative, numerical, or both. This General Order requires proposed recycled water uses to comply with Basin Plan requirements. Determination of compliance with the Basin Plan is part of the application process.

CEQA AND PUBLIC NOTICE

44. On April 25, 2014, the Governor issued an Executive Order declaring a continued state of emergency due to severe drought conditions. Directive No. 10 of the Executive Order directs the State Water Board to adopt statewide general waste discharge requirements to facilitate the use of treated wastewater that meets standards set by CDPH, in order to reduce demand on potable water supplies. Effective July 1, 2014 the authority to establish such standards was transferred from CDPH to the State Water Board. This General Order is intended to satisfy the Directive No. 10 requirement. Directive No. 19 of the Executive Order provides that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 17 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
requirement to conduct an environmental review is suspended to allow the State Water Board to adopt this General Order as quickly as possible.

45. On November 13, 2015, the Governor issued an Executive Order (B-36-15) extending suspension of Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code and regulations adopted pursuant to that Division in the January 17, 2014 Proclamation, April 25, 2014 Proclamation, and Executive Orders B-26-14, B-28-14, and B-29-15. The suspension will remain in effect until the drought state of emergency is terminated. The suspension also applies to the adoption of water reclamation requirements by the State Water Board that serve the purpose of paragraph 10 of the April 25, 2014 Proclamation.

46. The State Water Board has notified interested agencies and persons of its intent to prescribe these WRRs, and has provided them the opportunity to attend a public meeting and to submit their written views and recommendations.

47. The State Water Board, in a public meeting, heard and considered all comments pertaining to this matter.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Order WQ 2014-0090-DWQ is hereby rescinded except for enforcement purposes, effective 60 calendar days after adoption of this General Order (“Effective Date”).

To enroll under this General Order, a prospective enrollee must file an NOI indicating its intention to be regulated under the provisions of this General Order, and receive authorization from the appropriate Regional Water Board. A prospective enrollee that intends to obtain authorization from multiple Regional Water Boards may file an NOI and receive authorization from the State Water Board.

To obtain coverage under this General Order, an enrollee under Order WQ 2014-0090-DWQ must notify the State Water Board of its intention to be regulated under this General Order. See Attachment A, “Who May Apply.” Coverage will terminate on the Effective Date for any existing enrollee that fails to submit the required documentation.

Pursuant to Water Code sections 13263,13267, 13523 and 13523.1, enrollees under this Order, in order to meet the provisions contained in division 7 of the Water Code (commencing with section 13000) and regulations adopted thereunder, shall comply with the requirements in this Order.

A. PROHIBITIONS

1. The treatment, storage, distribution, or use of recycled water shall not cause or contribute to a condition of pollution as defined in Water Code section 13050(l) or nuisance as defined in Water Code section 13050(m).

2. Recycled water shall not be applied for irrigation during periods when soils are saturated.
18 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE

3. Recycled water shall not be allowed to escape from the use area(s) as surface flow that would either pond and/or enter surface waters, unless authorized by WDRs, waivers of WDRs, or conditional prohibitions regulating agricultural discharges from irrigated lands.

4. Spray or runoff shall not enter a dwelling or food handling facility and shall not contact any drinking water fountain, unless specifically protected with a shielding device. If the recycled water is undisinfected secondary or disinfected secondary-23 quality then spray or runoff shall not enter any place where public access is not restricted during irrigation.

5. The incidental runoff of recycled water shall not result in water quality less than that prescribed in water quality control plans or policies unless authorized through time schedule provisions in WDRs, waivers of WDRs, or conditional prohibitions regulating agricultural discharges from irrigated lands.

Recycled water shall not be discharged from treatment facilities, irrigation holding tanks, storage ponds, or other containment, other than for permitted use in accordance with this General Order; Regional Water Board issued WDRs, WRRs, or Master Reclamation Permits; NPDES permits; or a contingency plan in an approved Water Recycling Use Permit.

6. There shall be no cross-connection between potable water supply and piping containing recycled water. All Users of recycled water shall provide for appropriate backflow protection for potable water supplies as specified in California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 7604 or as determined by the State Water Board on a case-by-case basis to protect public health.

7. This General Order authorizes certain beneficial recycled water uses consistent with Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria. The following activities are not authorized by this General Order:
a. Activities designed to replenish groundwater resources. Groundwater replenishment activities include surface spreading basins, percolation ponds, or injection through groundwater wells.
b. Disposal of treated wastewater by means of percolation ponds, excessive hydraulic loading of application areas, or any other method, where the primary purpose of the activity is the disposal of treated wastewater. c. Direct potable reuse (Wat. Code, § 13561(b)), indirect potable reuse for groundwater recharge (Wat. Code, § 13561(c)), or surface water augmentation (Wat. Code, § 13561(d)).

8. The use of recycled water in violation of the applicable Regional Water Board’s Basin Plan is prohibited.
19 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
B. SPECIFICATIONS

1. Recycled water distribution and use permitted under this General Order shall be in compliance with all of the following requirements:
a. Regulations related to recycled water (including its subsequent revisions) contained in California Code of Regulations, title 17, sections 7583 – 7586, sections 7601 – 7605, and California Code of Regulations, title 22, sections 60001 – 60355.
b. All requirements of this General Order.
c. An approved Title 22 Engineering Report that demonstrates or defines compliance with the Uniform Statewide Recycling criteria (and amendments). d. The NOA issued by the Regional Water Board or State Water Board. e. Applicable Salt and Nutrient Management Plan adopted by the Regional Water Board as a Basin Plan Amendment.
f. WDRs or NPDES permits for recycled water production facilities, to the extent that the WDRs or NPDES permits include provisions that address recycled water.
g. Any applicable water quality related CEQA mitigation measure. h. Water Code section 1211 for facilities where the changes to the discharge are necessary to accomplish water recycling and will result in changes in flow in a watercourse.
i. Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled Water (Recycled Water Policy)

2. The Administrator shall discontinue delivery of recycled water during any period in which it has a reason to believe that the quality of the delivered recycled water is not meeting the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria specification. The Administrator shall notify the Regional Water Board, and the State Water Board if it issued the NOA, within one (1) business day of determining that delivery of offspecification recycled water has taken place. In circumstances where the emergency requires termination of delivery to Users, the Regional Water Board, and the State Water Board if it issued the NOA, shall be copied on any correspondence concerning non-compliance between the Administrator and User. This notification does not supersede any notification requirements contained within a Producer’s WDRs or Master Reclamation Permit for production facilities.

3. Uses of recycled water with frequent or routine application (for example:
agricultural or landscape irrigation uses) shall be at agronomic rates and shall consider soil, climate, and plant demand. In addition, application of recycled water and use of fertilizers shall be at a rate that takes into consideration nutrient levels in recycled water and nutrient demand by plants. The State or Regional Water Board may require the Administrator to submit an Implementation or 20 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
Operations and Management Plan specifying agronomic rates and nutrient application for the use area(s) and a set of reasonably practicable measures to ensure compliance with this General Order. An Administrator may submit a nutrient management plan developed to comply with another Water Board’s order, such as waste discharge requirements or a waiver regulating discharges from irrigated lands, in lieu of an Implementation or Operations and Management Plan. Other uses of recycled water that are infrequent (for example: dust control, firefighting, hydrostatic testing, etc.) must also be addressed by a set of reasonably practicable measures within an Implementation or Operations and Management Plan.

C. WATER RECYCLING ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

1. Applicants seeking coverage under this General Order shall submit an NOI in accordance with Attachment A. Responsibilities for an Administrator shall be described in the NOI.

2. Coverage under this General Order becomes effective when the State or Regional Water Board issues an NOA. The Regional Water Board and the State Water Board will coordinate to include Title 22 Engineering Report requirements and conditions of approval.

3. Under this General Order, the Administrator’s program shall be implemented to accomplish compliance with Specification B.1. Upon State or Regional Water Board approval of the Administrator's program, which shall accompany the NOI, the Administrator may authorize and/or implement water recycling projects, in accordance with the Administrator’s approved program and the approved Title 22 Engineering Report. The Administrator shall obtain written approvals for any changes to the Administrator’s approved program, for example: new recycled water use types or distribution methods not already described in the Administrator’s approved program.

4. The Administrator shall establish and enforce rules or regulations for recycled water uses governing the design and construction of recycled water use facilities and the use of recycled water in accordance with Specification B.1.

5. A User acting as a water recycling program Administrator is subject to the conditions of its water recycling program prepared in accordance with Specification B.1. A User acting as a water recycling program Administrator is responsible to implement water recycling administration requirements applicable to Users and Administrators as described in Water Recycling Administration Requirements C.1 – C.16.

6. The Administrator shall inspect to ensure that cross-connections between potable water and non-potable water systems have not been created and that backflow prevention devices are in proper working order by conducting or requiring User testing in accordance with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria and California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 7605. Reports of 21 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
testing and maintenance shall be maintained by the Administrator. The Administrator may use a third party agent to perform this task, however, the Administrator is solely responsible for compliance with conditions of this permit and the approved water recycling program.

7. The Administrator shall ensure recycled water meets the quality standards of this General Order and shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of major transport facilities and associated appurtenances. If an entity other than the Administrator has actual physical and ownership control over the recycled water transport facilities, the Administrator may delegate operation and maintenance responsibilities for such facilities to that entity. The Administrator shall require the use of the recycled water to be in accordance with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria and to comply with this General Order, including requirements to apply only at agronomic rates and not cause unauthorized degradation, pollution, or nuisance. If not the same entity, the Producer shall provide water quality data and communicate to Users the nutrient levels in the recycled water.

8. The Administrator shall conduct periodic inspections of the User's facilities and operations to determine compliance with conditions of the Administrator requirements and this General Order. The Administrator shall take whatever actions are necessary, including the termination of delivery of recycled water to the User, to correct any User violations. The Administrator may use a third party agent to perform this task, however, the Administrator is solely responsible for compliance with conditions of this permit and the approved water recycling program.

9. The Administrator shall comply with all applicable items of the attached Standard Provisions and Reporting Requirements (Attachment C) and any amendments thereafter.

10. The Administrator shall require Users to comply with the Administrator’s use area conditions. Use area requirements shall be consistent with Specification B.1.

11. If recycled water will be transported by truck for uses consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria such as dust control, the Administrator shall provide notification and control measures for Users consistent with the provisions of the approved Title 22 Engineering Report that addresses protection of public health.

12. A copy of the Water Recycling Use Permit must be provided to Users by the Administrator (electronic format is acceptable). The Users must have the documents available for inspection by State and Regional Water Board staff, State/County officials, and/or the Administrator.

13. The Administrator shall comply with the attached monitoring and reporting program including any amendments issued by the entity that issued the NOA (State or Regional Water Board). This monitoring program shall be consistent with any applicable Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the basin/sub-basin. 22 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
The Administrator is responsible for collecting reports from Users. Where applicable, Users are responsible for submitting on-site observation reports and use data to the Administrator, who will compile and file an annual report with the entity that issued the NOA. The Administrator, at its discretion, may assume the User's responsibility for on-site observation reports and use data.

14. The Administrator and Users shall maintain in good working order and operate as efficiently as possible any facility or control system to achieve compliance with this General Order. The Administrator may use a third party agent to perform this task, however, the Administrator is solely responsible for compliance with conditions of this permit and the approved water recycling program.

15. The Administrator shall require that personnel receive training to assure proper operation of recycling facilities, worker protection, and compliance with this General Order. The Administrator shall require Recycled Water Supervisor(s) to be familiar with the Administrator permit conditions.

16. The Administrator shall assure that all above ground equipment, including pumps, piping, storage reservoir, and valves which may at any time contain recycled water are identified with appropriate notification as required by the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria and California Health and Safety Code section 116815. The Administrator may use a third party agent to perform this task, however, the Administrator is solely responsible for compliance with conditions of this permit and the approved water recycling program.

D. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. The Administrator shall document compliance with all conditions of this General Order and requirements specified in the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria and California Code of Regulations title 17.

2. If directed by the State Water Board or a Regional Water Board pursuant to Water Code section 13267, an Administrator shall prepare and submit a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, acceptable to the entity that issued such order, to ensure that the overall impact of permitted water recycling projects does not degrade groundwater resources in a manner inconsistent with Findings 27 through 32. Unless otherwise directed by the entity that issued such order, in lieu of developing an individual Salt and Nutrient Management Plan, the Administrator shall participate in a Regional Water Board’s existing salt and nutrient management planning effort to meet the requirements of this provision.

3. State and/or Regional Water Board staff may conduct inspections/audits of water recycling projects. The Administrator and Users shall permit the State and/or Regional Water Board or its authorized representatives, in accordance with Water Code section 13267(c):
23 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
a. Entry upon premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where records are kept under the conditions of this General Order.
b. Access to and copy of, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept as a condition of this General Order.
c. Inspection, at reasonable times, of any facility, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this General Order.
d. To sample or monitor, at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring compliance with this General Order.

4. The State or Regional Water Board may terminate or modify an Administrator’s coverage under this General Order for cause, including, but not limited to:
a. Violation of any term or condition contained in this General Order; b. Obtaining this General Order by misrepresentation, or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts;
c. Endangerment to public health or environment that can only be mitigated to acceptable levels by General Order modification or termination. d. An increase in recycle flows which causes a reduction of treated effluent flow from the wastewater treatment plant into a surface water body with beneficial uses dependent on flow without the approval of the Division of Water Rights.

5. The State or Regional Water Board, upon a finding of non-compliance with this General Order, may revoke an Administrator's authority to issue Water Recycling Use Permits.

6. The State Water Board will review this General Order periodically and may revise the requirements as deemed necessary.

7. Users shall comply with all requirements of other applicable WDRs or waivers of WDRs, including without limitation WDRs or waivers regulating agricultural discharges from irrigated lands.

8. The Administrators shall comply with the MRP issued with the NOA, as specified by the Regional Water Board’s Executive Officer or State Water Board’s Executive Director (or designee). A model MRP is provided as Attachment B.

However, the State Water Board’s Executive Director (or designee) may modify or replace the MRP when deemed necessary.
24 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE

CERTIFICATION
The undersigned, Clerk to the State Water Board, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on June 7, 2016.

AYE: Chair Felicia Marcus
Vice Chair Frances Spivy-Weber
Board Member Tam M. Doduc
Board Member Steven Moore
Board Member Dorene D’Adamo
NAY: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Jeanine Townsend
Clerk to the Board
25 June 7, 2016

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
Attachments:

A. Notice of Intent (NOI) - General Instructions
B. Monitoring and Reporting Program
C. Standard Provisions & Reporting Requirements
D. Definition of Terms
26 June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT A: NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) – GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE

WHO MAY APPLY
This Order is intended to serve as a statewide General Order for use of recycled water.

It may be used to (1) replace waste discharge requirements (WDRs) / water reclamation requirements (WRR) , or a conditional waiver of WDRs; (2) serve as an additional authorization for new uses of recycled water not previously permitted, issued to any of the following:
a. Producers of recycled water. Producers may be publicly or privately owned. A Producer will typically produce recycled water that meets the requirements of the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria. A Producer may also act as an Administrator.
b. Distributors of recycled water. In some cases, a Distributor may provide additional treatment (such as disinfection) to meet the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria for its intended use, and distribute it to Users. A Distributor is not required to take physical possession of the recycled water and may act simply as an Administrator.
c. Users of recycled water: Users take physical possession of the recycled water from a Producer or Distributor for an approved beneficial recycled water use consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria. Users may use the recycled water under a Water Recycling Use Permit from an Administrator or act as an Administrator.
d. A legal entity such as a joint powers agreement or equivalent contractual agreement between a Producer, Distributor, irrigation district, or other entity.

Similar to a Distributor, a legal entity is not required to take physical possession of the recycled water and may act simply as an Administrator.

Applicants that have been previously issued an order authorizing water recycling may be able to submit an abbreviated information package. Such applicants should contact Regional Water Board and State Water Board staff to determine the application information needs.

Enrollees covered under Order WQ 2014-0090-DWQ who wish to continue coverage must acknowledge in writing their consent to coverage under this General Order.

Enrollees who submit the required documentation will automatically be covered under this General Order. The State Water Board will provide existing enrollees with a form for this purpose. A new NOI is not required if the project has not materially changed.

Any applicant whose NOI is pending on the date this General Order is adopted must update its NOI to request coverage under this General Order. If the NOI is approved before the Effective Date, the applicant will be enrolled in Order WQ 2014-0090-DWQ A-1
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT A: NOI GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
until the Effective Date and coverage under this General Order will commence on the Effective Date.

WHERE TO APPLY
An applicant should submit an NOI to their applicable Regional Water Board and submit a Title 22 Engineering Report to the applicable State Water Board Division of Drinking Water Field Operations Branch office. The NOI cannot be considered complete until the responsible staff in the State Water Board provides a Title 22 Engineering Report approval letter. An Applicant proposing to administer a water recycling program that covers recycled water use areas within multiple Regional Water Board jurisdictions and is therefore seeking General Order coverage from multiple Regional Water Boards may submit an NOI to the State Water Board.

WHEN TO APPLY
An applicant should normally file the NOI at least 90 days prior to the project start.

WHAT TO FILE
The NOl shall include a water recycling program technical report containing the following information:

SECTION I - FACILITY/WASTE TREATMENT INFORMATION
Description of existing and/or proposed treatment, storage, and transmission facilities for water recycling (much of this may be from current orders/reports, but should be updated if necessary). This shall include the type and level of wastewater treatment for water recycling applications, estimated seasonal flows of recycled water, and a summary of monitoring data that describes the chemical, physical, and disinfection characteristics of the recycled water. A copy of the approved Title 22 Engineering Report and the corresponding State Water Board approval letter, shall be included in the submittal.

SECTION II – RECYCLED WATER APPLICATION
Describe how recycled water will be used. This should include the following information:
a. Administrator owned/controlled uses

1. An estimated amount of recycled water used at use area(s) A-2
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT A: NOI GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE

2. Relevant information regarding use type and use area (e.g. for agricultural irrigation use, provide information on irrigation type, acreage, and locations; for hydrostatic testing of utility pipelines, provide information on project locations, schedule/duration of testing, and type of utility pipeline; etc.).

3. A proposed Implementation or Operations and Management plan (Plan). For uses with frequent or routine application (such as irrigation), the Plan shall specify agronomic rates and nutrient application for the use area(s) and a set of reasonably practicable measures to ensure compliance with this General Order. For uses with infrequent or non-routine applications, the Plan shall specify a list of practices to ensure compliance with this General Order. The Plan may include a water and nutrient budget for use area(s), site supervisor training, periodic inspections, or other appropriate measures. An Administrator may submit a nutrient management plan developed to comply with another Water Board order, such as waste discharge requirements or a waiver regulating discharges from irrigated lands, in lieu of an Implementation or Operations and Management Plan.
b. Non-Administrator owned/controlled uses or contracted user applications (use areas that consist of small lots, e.g., residential/ industrial developments, roadway median irrigation, etc., may be aggregated to combine acreage for calculation purposes.)

1. List of Users receiving or proposing to receive recycled water (including a list of uses of recycled water for each User).

2. An estimated amount of recycled water used at use area(s) of each User.

3. A proposed Implementation or Operations and Management plan (Plan). For uses with frequent or routine application (such as irrigation), the Plan shall specify agronomic rates and nutrient application for the use area(s) and a set of reasonably practicable measures to ensure compliance with this General Order. For uses with infrequent or non-routine applications, the Plan shall specify a list of practices to ensure compliance with this General Order. The Plan may include a water and nutrient budget for use area(s), site supervisor training, periodic inspections, or other appropriate measures. This requirement does not apply to the extent Users are subject to WDRs or waivers of WDRs that require implementation of nutrient management plans.

4. Descriptions/maps of use area(s).

5. Method(s) of conveyance to Users.

A-3
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT A: NOI GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
SECTION Ill - DESCRIPTION OF WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM
The Administrator’s water recycling program should be fully described as follows:
a. Description of the Administrator agency’s authority, rules, and/or regulations b. Design and implementation of program
c. Cross-connection testing responsibilities and procedures d. Monitoring and Reporting Program
e. Use area inspection program
f. Operations and Maintenance program
g. Compliance program
h. Employee and User Training
i. Emergency procedures and notification

SECTION IV - ADDITIONAL SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
If existing orders have additional site specific conditions and/or restrictions not covered in the General Order, they shall be described here. If a CEQA document for the project was prepared, include a copy of the certified or adopted document(s).

SECTION V - WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Describe organization and responsibilities of pertinent personnel involved in the water recycling program. Provide the name(s), title(s) and phone number(s) of contact person(s) who are charged with operation/oversight of the water recycling program.

Identify all agencies or entities involved in the production, distribution, and use of recycled water, and include a description of legal arrangements, such as, but not limited to, charters, agreements, or Memorandum of Understanding. Copies of such legal documents and organizational charts may be useful.

A-4
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT B: MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
This monitoring and reporting program (MRP) describes requirements for monitoring a recycled water system. This MRP is issued pursuant to Water Code section 13267. The Administrator shall not implement any changes to this MRP unless and until a revised MRP is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) Executive Officer.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and Regional Water Boards are transitioning to the paperless office system.

During the life of this General Order, the State Water Board or Regional Water Board may require the Administrator to electronically submit reports using the State Water Board’s California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) program or an alternative database.

Electronic submittal procedures will be provided when directed to begin electronic submittals. Until directed to electronically submit reports, the Administrator shall submit hard copy reports.

In some regions, Administrators will be directed to submit reports (both technical and monitoring reports) to the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database over the Internet in portable document format (pdf). In addition, analytical data shall be uploaded to the GeoTracker database under a site-specific global identification number. Information on the GeoTracker database is provided on the Internet at:
<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ust/electronic_submittal/index.shtml> The Administrator has applied for and received coverage for the recycled water system that is subject to the notice of applicability (NOA) of Water Quality Order 2016-0068-DDW. The reports are necessary to ensure that the Administrator complies with the NOA and General Order. Pursuant to California Water Code section 13267, the Administrator shall implement this MRP and shall submit the monitoring reports described herein.

All samples shall be representative of the volume and nature of the discharge or matrix of material sampled. The name of the sampler, sample type (grab or composite), time, date, location, bottle type, and any preservative used for each sample shall be recorded on the sample chain of custody form. The chain of custody form must also contain all custody information including date, time, and to whom samples were relinquished. If composite samples are collected, the basis for sampling (time or flow weighted) shall be approved by Regional Water Board staff.

B-1
June 7, 2016
8 ATTACHMENT B: MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
Field test instruments (such as those used to test pH, dissolved oxygen, and electrical conductivity) may be used provided that they are used by a California Environmental Laboratory Program (ELAP) certified laboratory or:

1. The user is trained in proper use and maintenance of the instruments;

2. The instruments are field calibrated prior to monitoring events at the frequency recommended by the manufacturer;

3. Instruments are serviced by the manufacturer or authorized representative at the recommended frequency; and

4. Field calibration reports are maintained and available for at least three years.

Monitoring requirements listed below may duplicate existing requirements under other orders including WDRs or waivers of WDRs that regulate agricultural discharges from irrigated lands. Duplication of sampling and monitoring activities are not required if the monitoring activity satisfies the requirements of this General Order. Collecting composite samples is acceptable in most cases. The facility may continue using existing sampling collection equipment that is consistent with the applicable facility order. However, due to short sample holding times, bacteriological samples collected to verify disinfection effectiveness must be grab samples. In addition to submitting the results under another order, the results shall be submitted in the reports required by this General Order.

All of the monitoring listed below may not be applicable to all recycled water projects.

Consult the NOA or Regional Water Board staff to determine applicable requirements.

RECYCLED WATER MONITORING
If recycled water is used for irrigation of landscape areas 1 , priority pollutant monitoring is
required at the production facility. The frequency of monitoring corresponds to the flow rate of the recycled water use. Sampling shall be consistent with the following:

Constituent Treatment System
Flow Rate
Sample
Frequency Reporting Frequency
Priority Pollutants < 1mgd 5 years The next annual report. ≥ 1mgd Annually Annually
mgd denotes million gallons per day.
1 Landscape areas are defined as parks; greenbelts, playgrounds; school yards; athletic fields; golf courses; cemeteries; residential landscaping; common areas; commercial landscaping (except eating areas); industrial landscaping (except eating areas); freeway, highway, and street landscaping.

B-2
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT B: MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE

DISINFECTION SYSTEM MONITORING
If disinfection is performed, samples shall be collected from downstream of the disinfection system and analyzed by an approved laboratory per Title 22, section 60321(a). Depending upon the level of disinfection and recycled water application to land, monitoring requirements vary. Disinfection monitoring shall be customized to the site-specific conditions from the following:

Constituent/Parameter Units Sample
Type
Sample
Frequency
Reporting
Frequency
Total Coliform Bacteria MPN/100
mL(a)
Grab TBD (b) TBD (c)
Turbidity NTU(a) Grab/Meter TBD (b) TBD (c)
(a) MPN/100 mL denotes most probable number per 100 mL sample. NTU denotes nephelometric turbidity unit.
(b) TBD (to be determined) shall be specified in the NOA or as required by California Code of Regulations, title 22 section 60321.
(c) TBD (to be determined) shall be specified in the NOA or as required by CCR, title 22, section 60329(c).

POND SYSTEM MONITORING
In some cases, recycled water storage ponds may be used to store recycled water when it is not needed. These monitoring requirements apply only to ponds permitted through this General Order. Ponds covered by an existing order shall continue to be monitored in accordance with that order. Pond(s) containing recycled water shall be monitored for the following:

Parameter Units Sample Type Sample
Frequency(a) Reporting Frequency
Freeboard 0.1 feet Measurement Quarterly Annually
Odors -- Observation Quarterly Annually
Berm condition -- Observation Quarterly Annually
(a) Or less frequently if approved by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer

USE AREA MONITORING
The Administrator shall monitor use areas(s) at a frequency appropriate to determine compliance with this General Order and the Administrator’s recycled water use program requirements. An Administrator may assign monitoring responsibilities to a User as part of the Water Recycling Use Permit program; the Administrator retains responsibility to ensure the data is collected, as well as prepare and submit the annual report.

B-3
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT B: MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
The following shall be recorded for each user with additional reporting for use areas as appropriate. The frequency of use area inspections shall be based on the complexity and risk of each use area. Use areas may be aggregated to combine acreage for calculation or observation purposes. Use area monitoring shall include the following parameters:

Parameter Units Sample Type Sampling
Frequency(a)
Reporting
Frequency
Recycled Water User -- -- -- Annually
Recycled Water Flow gpd(b) Meter(c) Monthly Annually
Acreage Applied(d) Acres Calculated -- Annually
Application Rate inches/acre/year Calculated -- Annually Soil Saturation/Ponding -- Observation Quarterly Annually Nuisance Odors/Vectors -- Observation Quarterly Annually Discharge Off-Site -- Observation Quarterly Annually
Notification Signs(e) -- Observation Quarterly Annually (a) Or less frequently if approved by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer. (b) gpd denotes gallons per day. (c) Meter requires meter reading, a pump run time meter, or other approved method. (d) Acreage applied denotes the acreage to which recycled water is applied. (e) Notification signs shall be consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 60310 (g).

COOLING/INDUSTRIAL/OTHER USES OF RECYCLED WATER
If recycled water is used for industrial, commercial cooling, or air conditioning in which a mist is generated, the cooling system shall comply with California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 60306 (c).

DUAL PLUMBED RECYCLED WATER SYSTEMS
If dual plumbed recycled water systems are proposed, consult with State Water Board for additional reporting, design, and operation requirements. The frequency of testing for cross connection and backflow prevention devices shall be as listed below or more frequently if specified by State Water Board.

Requirement Frequency Reporting
Frequency
Cross Connection Testing Four Years(a) 30 days/Annually(b) Backflow Incident -- 24 hours from
discovery
Backflow Prevention Device Testing and
Maintenance Annually(c) Annually
B-4
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT B: MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
(a) Testing shall be performed at least every four years, or more frequently at the discretion of the State Water Board Division of Drinking Water. (b) Cross connection testing shall be reported pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 22, section 60314. The report shall be submitted to State Water Board within 30 days and included in the annual report to the Regional Water Board. (c) Backflow prevention device maintenance shall be tested by a qualified person as described in California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 7605.

REPORTING
In reporting monitoring data, the Administrator shall arrange the data in tabular form so that the date, data type (e.g., flow rate, bacteriological, etc.), and reported analytical or visual inspection results are readily discernible. The data shall be summarized to illustrate compliance with this General Order and NOA as applicable. The results of any monitoring done more frequently than required at the locations specified in the MRP shall be reported in the next regularly scheduled monitoring report and shall be included in calculations as appropriate.

During the life of this General Order, the State Water Board or Regional Water Board may require the Administrator to electronically submit reports using the State Water Board’s California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) program or an alternative database.

Electronic submittal procedures will be provided when directed to begin electronic submittals. Until directed to electronically submit reports, the Administrator shall submit hard copy reports.

A. Annual Report
Annual Reports shall be submitted to the Regional Water Board by April 1st following the monitoring year. The Annual Report shall include the following:

1. A summary table of all recycled water Users and use areas. Maps may be included to identify use areas. Newly permitted recycled water Users and use areas shall be identified. When applicable, supplement to the Title 22 Engineering Report and the State Water Board approval letter supporting those additions shall be included.

2. A summary table of all inspections and enforcement activities initiated by the Administrator. Include a discussion of compliance and the corrective action taken, as well as any planned or proposed actions needed to bring the discharge into compliance with the NOA and/or General Order. Copies of documentation of any enforcement actions taken by the Administrator shall be provided.

3. An evaluation of the performance of the recycled water treatment facility, including discussion of capacity issues, system problems, and a forecast of the flows anticipated in the next year.

B-5
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT B: MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE

4. Tabular and graphical summaries of all monitoring data collected during the year, including priority pollutant monitoring, if required.

5. The name and contact information for the recycled water operator responsible for operation, maintenance, and system monitoring.

A letter transmitting the annual report shall accompany each report. The letter shall summarize the numbers and severity of violations found during the reporting period, and actions taken or planned to correct the violations and prevent future violations. The transmittal letter shall contain the following penalty of perjury statement and shall be signed by the Administrator or the Administrator's authorized agent:
“I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of the 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 submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.”
The Administrator shall implement the above monitoring program.

B-6
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT C: STANDARD PROVISIONS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. Duty to Comply
a. An Administrator must comply with all of the conditions of this General Order and the MRP. Any General Order or MRP non-compliance constitutes a violation of the Water Code and/or Basin Plan and is subject to enforcement action. b. The filing of a request by the Administrator for a modification, revocation and reissuance, termination, a notification of planned changes, or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any General Order or MRP condition.

2. Duty to Mitigate
The Administrator shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in violation of this General Order which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting public health or the environment, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as requested by the State or Regional Water Board to determine the nature and impact of the violation.

3. Property Rights
This General Order does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive privileges. The requirements prescribed herein do not authorize the commission of any act causing injury to the property of another, nor protect the discharger from liabilities under federal, state, or local laws.

4. Duty to Provide Information
The Administrator shall furnish, within a reasonable time, any information the Regional Water Board may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating the General Order coverage. The Administrator shall also furnish to the Regional Water Board, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by its General Order.

5. Availability
A copy of this General Order, the NOA, and the MRP shall be maintained at the Administrator facilities and be available at all times to operating personnel.

B. GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

1. Signatory Requirements
a. All reports required by this General Order and other information requested by the Regional Water Board shall be signed by the Administrator principal owner or operator, or by a duly authorized representative of that person.

C-1
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT C: STANDARD PROVISIONS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
Duly authorized representative is one whose:
1) Authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as general manager in a partnership, manager, operator, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position), and
2) Written authorization is submitted to the Regional Water Board. If an authorization becomes no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements above must be submitted to the Regional Water Board prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative. b. Certification
All reports signed by a duly authorized representative under Provision C.1 shall contain the following certification:
“I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments are prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who managed the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.”

2. Should the responsible reporting party discover that it failed to submit any relevant facts or that it submitted incorrect information in any report, it shall promptly submit the missing or correct information. All violations of any requirements in this General Order, including Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria requirements shall be submitted in the annual self-monitoring reports.

3. False Reporting
Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this General Order, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or non-compliance shall be subject to enforcement procedures as identified in Section C of these Provisions.

C-2
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT C: STANDARD PROVISIONS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
C. ENFORCEMENT

1. The provision contained in this enforcement section shall not act as a limitation on the statutory or regulatory authority of the State and Regional Water Board.

2. Any violation of this General Order constitutes violation of the Water Code and regulations adopted thereunder, and are the basis for enforcement action, General Order termination, General Order revocation and reissuance, denial of an application for General Order reissuance, or a combination thereof.

3. The State and Regional Water Board may impose administrative civil liability, may refer a discharger to the State Attorney General to seek civil monetary penalties, may seek injunctive relief or take other appropriate enforcement action as provided in the Water Code for violation of this General Order.

C-3
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT D: DEFINITION OF TERMS
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
Definitions noted with (*) are from the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria. The definitions are provided in this Attachment for convenience and are subject to revisions should the codes are formally revised. Please refer to the formal published codes [Health & Safety Code or Title 22 of the California Code Regulations] to obtain the latest version.

Administrator: An Administrator is an entity (Producer, Distributor, User, or legal entity) that submits an NOI and application fee to the Regional Water Board for coverage under this General Order. An Administrator may issue use permits for uses of recycled water consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria. An Administrator is responsible for coordinating, collecting data, and reporting the monitoring reports to the Regional Water Board.

Agronomic Rates: The rate of application of recycled water to plants necessary to satisfy the plants' evapotranspiration requirements, considering allowances for supplemental water (e.g., effective precipitation), irrigation distribution uniformity, and leaching requirement, thus minimizing the movement of nutrients below the plants' root zone.

Coagulated Wastewater *: Oxidized wastewater in which colloidal and finely divided suspended matter have been destabilized and agglomerated upstream from a filter by the addition of suitable floc-forming chemicals.

Conventional Treatment *: A treatment chain that utilizes a sedimentation unit process between the coagulation and filtration processes and produces an effluent that meets the definition for disinfected tertiary recycled water.

Disinfected Secondary-23 *: Recycled water that has been oxidized and disinfected so that the median concentration of total coliform bacteria in the disinfected effluent does not exceed a most probable number (MPN) of 23 per 100 milliliters using the bacteriological results of the last seven days for which analyses have been completed, and the number of coliform bacteria does not exceed an MPN of 240 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample in any 30 day period.

Disinfected Secondary-2.2 *: Recycled water that has been oxidized and disinfected so that the median concentration of total coliform bacteria in the disinfected effluent does not exceed a most probable number (MPN) of 2.2 per 100 milliliters utilizing the bacteriological results of the last seven days for which analyses have been completed, and the number of coliform organisms does not exceed an MPN of 23 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample in any 30 day period.

Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water *: A filtered and subsequently disinfected wastewater that meets the following criteria:
(a) The filtered wastewater which has been disinfected by either:

D-1
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT D: DEFINITION OF TERMS
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
(1) A chlorine disinfection process following filtration that provides a contact time (CT, the product of total chlorine residual and modal contact time measured at the same point) value of not less than 450 milligram-minutes per liter at all times with a modal contact time of at least 90 minutes, based on peak dry weather design flow; or
(2) A disinfection process that, when combined with the filtration process, has been demonstrated to inactivate and/or remove 99.999 percent of the plaque forming units of F-specific bacteriophage MS2, or polio virus in the wastewater. A virus that is at least as resistant to disinfection as polio virus may be used for purposes of the demonstration.
(b) The median concentration of total coliform bacteria measured in the disinfected effluent does not exceed an MPN of 2.2 per 100 milliliters utilizing the bacteriological results of the last seven days for which analyses have been completed and the number of total coliform bacteria does not exceed an MPN of 23 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample in any 30 day period. No sample shall exceed an MPN of 240 total coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters.

Disinfected Wastewater *: Wastewater in which the pathogenic organisms have been reduced by chemical, physical or biological means. For the purposes of this General Order, disinfected wastewater is safe for use when applied consistent with the requirements of the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria.

Distributor: A private or public agency which receives recycled water from a Producer for the purpose of distribution to Users. In some cases, a distributor may provide additional treatment (such as disinfection) to meet the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria for its intended use, and distributes it to Users. A Distributor may not take physical possession of the recycled water and may act simply as an Administrator.

Dual Plumbed System *: A system that utilizes separate piping systems for recycled water and potable water within a facility and where the recycled water is used for either of the following purposes:
a) To serve plumbing outlets (excluding fire suppression systems) within a building or b) Outdoor landscape irrigation at individual residences.

Filtered Wastewater *: An oxidized wastewater that meets the criteria in the subsection 1 or 2:
(1) Has been coagulated and passed through natural undisturbed soils or a bed of filter media pursuant to the following:
a. At a rate that does not exceed 5 gallons per minute per square foot of surface area in mono, dual or mixed media gravity, upflow or pressure filtration systems, or does not exceed 2 gallons per minute per square foot of surface area in travelling automatic backwash filters; and
D-2
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT D: DEFINITION OF TERMS
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
b. So that the turbidity of the filtered wastewater does not exceed any of the following:
i. An average 2 NTU within a 24-hour period;
ii. 5 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period; and iii. 10 NTU at any time
(2) Has been passed through a microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, or reverse osmosis membrane so that the turbidity of the filtered wastewater does not exceed any of the following:
a. 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period; and b. 0.5 NTU at any time
F-specific bacteriophage MS-2 *: A strain of a specific type of virus that infects coliform bacteria that is traceable to the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC 15597B1) and is grown on lawns of E. Coli (ATCC 15597).

Incidental Runoff: Unintended small amounts (volume) of runoff from recycled water use areas, such as unintended, minimal over-spray from sprinklers that escapes the recycled water use area. Water leaving a recycled water use area is not considered incidental if it is part of the facility design, if it is due to excessive application, if it due to intentional overflow or application, or if it is due to negligence.

Legal Entity: A legal entity is an entity formed by a legal document (such as a joint powers agreement or equivalent contractual agreement) between a Producer, Distributor, irrigation district, or other entity. Similar to a Distributor, a legal entity may not take physical possession of the recycled water and may act simply as an Administrator.

Modal Contact Time *: The amount of time elapsed between the time that a tracer, such as salt or dye, is injected into the effluent at the entrance to a chamber and the time that the highest concentration of the tracer is observed in the effluent from the chamber.

Nonrestricted Recreational Impoundment *: An impoundment of recycled water, in which no limitations are imposed on body-contact water recreational activities.

NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit) *: A measurement of turbidity as determined by the ratio of the intensity of light scattered by the sample to the intensity of incident light scattered by the sample to the intensity of incident light as measured by method 2130 B. in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed.; Eaton, A.D., Clesceri, L.S., and Greenberg, A.E., Eds; American Public Health Association:

Washington, DC, 1995; p.2-8.

Oxidized Wastewater *: Wastewater in which the organic matter has been stabilized, is nonputrescible, and contains dissolved oxygen.

Recycled Water Producer: Any entity that produces recycled water.

D-3
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT D: DEFINITION OF TERMS
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
Recycled Water: Means water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur therefore considered a valuable resource. (Wat. Code, § 13050(n).) Coverage under these Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use (General Order) is limited to treated municipal wastewater for non-potable uses.

Recycled Water Supervisor: A person designated, by the Administrator that acts as the coordinator between the supplier and User. The Recycled Water Supervisor shall have authority to ensure recycled water use complies with the General Order, NOA, and the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria.

Regional Water Board: All references to a Regional Water Board include the Executive Officer, who may act for the Regional Water Board in carrying out this General Order.

See Water Code section 13223.

Restricted access golf course *: A golf course where public access is controlled so that areas irrigated with recycled water cannot be used as if they were part of a park, playground, or school yard and where irrigation is conducted only in areas and during periods when the golf course is not being used by golfers.

Restricted Recreational Impoundment *: An impoundment of recycled water in which recreation is limited to fishing, boating, and other non-body-contact water recreational activities.

Spray Irrigation *: The application of recycled water to plants to maintain vegetation or support growth of vegetation by applying it from sprinklers.

State Water Board: All references to the State Water Board refer to divisions within the State Water Board whose roles in carrying out this General Order are as following:
 Division of Drinking Water reviews and approves (Title 22 Engineering Report and provide recommendations to the Regional Water Boards to address protection of public health. Division of Drinking Water is also processes any Notice of Intent submitted by a potential enrollee needing coverage from multiple Regional Water Boards.
 Division of Water Rights is responsible for approval of wastewater change petitions for water recycling projects that will decrease the amount of water in a stream or other waterway.

Surface Irrigation: Application of recycled water by means other than spraying such that contact between the edible portion of any food crop and recycled water is prevented (i.e., drip or flood irrigation).

Title 22 Engineering Report : Engineering report prepared to describe the manner by which a project or a water recycling program will comply with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria.

Undisinfected Secondary *: Means oxidized wastewater.

D-4
June 7, 2016
ATTACHMENT D: DEFINITION OF TERMS
ORDER WQ 2016-0068-DDW

WATER RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR RECYCLED WATER USE
Use Area: An area of recycled water use with defined boundaries. Agricultural use areas may contain one or more facilities (ditch, irrigated fields, pumping stations, etc.); use areas may also consist of an aggregate of small lots (e.g., residential/ industrial developments, roadway median irrigation, etc.).

Use Area Supervisor: A person designated, by the owner or manager of the property upon which recycled water will be applied, to discharge the responsibility of the owner or manager of the property for: (a) installation, operation and maintenance of a system that enables recycled water to be used; (b) for prevention of potential hazards; (c) implementing and complying with conditions of all Water Recycling Use Permits and associated documents; (d) coordination with the cross-connection control program of the supplier of drinking water and the local health/environmental health agency; (e) control of on-site piping to prevent any cross connections with potable water supplies; (f) routine inspection and maintenance of backflow prevention devices. (A Recycled Water Supervisor and Use Area Supervisor may be one in the same in some instances).

User: Users take physical possession of the recycled water from Producer and/or Distributor for an approved beneficial recycled water use consistent with the Uniform Statewide Recycling Criteria. Users may use the recycled water under either a Water Recycling Use Permit from an Administrator or act as an Administrator under this General Order.

Water Recycling Use Permit: A permit issued by the Administrator to the Recycled Water User, which is consistent with the requirements specified in this General Order.

D-5
June 7, 2016

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

DRINKING WATER PROGRAM

RECYCLED WATER UNIT

GUIDELINES FOR THE

PREPARATION OF AN ENGINEERING REPORT

FOR THE PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND USE OF RECYCLED WATER March 2001
(Replaces September 1997 Version)

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The current State of California Water Recycling Criteria (adopted in December 2000) require the submission of an engineering report to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the Department of Health Services (DHS) before recycled water projects are implemented. These reports must also be amended prior to any modification to existing projects. The purpose of an engineering report is to describe the manner by which a project will comply with the Water Recycling Criteria. The Water Recycling Criteria are contained in Sections 60301 through 60355, inclusive, of the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. The Criteria prescribe:
* Recycled water quality and wastewater treatment requirements for the various types of allowed uses,
* Use area requirements pertaining to the actual location of use of the recycled water (including dual plumbed facilities), and * Reliability features required in the treatment facilities to ensure safe performance.

Section 60323 of the Water Recycling Criteria specifies that the engineering report be prepared by a properly qualified engineer, registered in California and experienced in the field of wastewater treatment.

Recycled water projects vary in complexity. Therefore, reports will vary in content, and the detail presented will depend on the scope of the proposed project and the number and nature of the agencies involved in the production, distribution, and use of the recycled water. The report should contain sufficient information 2 to assure the regulatory agencies that the degree and reliability of treatment is commensurate with the requirements for the proposed use, and that the distribution and use of the recycled water will not create a health hazard or nuisance.

The intent of these guidelines is to provide a framework to assist in developing a comprehensive report which addresses all necessary elements of a proposed or modified project. Such a report is necessary to allow for the required regulatory review and approval of a recycled water project.

References which may assist in addressing various project elements include:
· State of California Water Recycling Criteria (December 2000) · State of California Regulations Relating to Cross-Connections · California Waterworks Standards
· California Water Code
· Guidelines for the Distribution of Non-potable Water, (California-Nevada Section-AWWA, 1992)
· Guidelines For The On-Site Retrofit of Facilities Using Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water (California-Nevada
Section-AWWA, 1997)
· Manual of Cross-Connection Control/Procedures and Practices (DOHS)
· Ultraviolet Disinfection – Guidelines for Drinking Water and Water Reuse (NWRI/AWWARF, December 2000)

2.0 RECYCLED WATER PROJECT
The following sections discuss the type of information that should be presented and described in the engineering report. Some sections may be applicable only to certain types of uses.

2.1 General
The report shall identify all agencies or entities that will be involved in the design, treatment, distribution,
construction, operation and maintenance of the recycled facilities, including a description of any legal arrangements outlining authorities and responsibilities between the
3 agencies with respect to treatment, distribution and use of recycled water. In areas where more than one agency/entity is involved in the reuse project, a description of arrangements for coordinating all reuse-related activities (e.g. line construction/repairs) shall be provided. An organizational chart may be useful.

2.2 Rules and Regulations
The procedures, restrictions, and other requirements that will be imposed by the distributor and/or user should be described.

In multiple projects covered under a Master Permit issued by the Regional Boards where the reuse oversight responsibility is delegated to the distributor and/or user, the requirements and restrictions should be codified into a set of enforceable rules and regulations. The rules and regulations should include a compliance program to be used to protect the public health and prevent cross connections. Describe in the report the adoption of enforceable rules and regulations that cover all of the design and construction, operation and maintenance of the distribution systems and use areas, as well as use area control measures. Provide a description of the organization of the agency or agencies who has the authority to implement and enforce the rules and regulations, and the
responsibilities of pertinent personnel involved in the reuse program. Reference to any ordinances, rules of service, contractual arrangements, etc. should be provided.

2.3 Producer – Distributor - User
The producer is the public or private entity that will treat and/or distribute the recycled water used in the project.

Where more than one entity is involved in the treatment or distribution of the recycled water, the roles and
responsibilities of each entity (i.e. producer, distributor, user) should be described.

2.4 Raw Wastewater
Describe the chemical quality, including ranges with median and 95th percentile values;
Describe the source of the wastewater to be used and the proportion and types of industrial waste, and
Describe all source control programs.

2.5 Treatment Processes
Provide a schematic of the treatment train;
4 Describe the treatment processes including loading rates and contact times;
All filtration design criteria should be provided (filtration and backwash rates, filter depth and media specifications, etc.). The expected turbidities of the filter influent (prior to the addition of chemicals) and the filter effluent should be stated;
State the chemicals that will be used, the method of mixing, the degree of mixing, the point of application, and the dosages. Also describe the chemical storage and handling facilities, and
Describe the operation and maintenance manuals available.

2.6 Plant Reliability Features
The plant reliability features proposed to comply with
Sections 60333 - 60355 of the Water Recycling Criteria should be described in detail. The discussion of each reliability feature should state under what conditions it will be
actuated. When alarms are used to indicate system failure, the report should state where the alarm will be received, how the location is staffed, and who will be notified. The report should also state the hours that the plant will be staffed.

2.7 Supplemental Water Supply
The report should describe all supplemental water supplies.

The description should include:
* Purpose
* Source
* Quality
* Quantity available
* Cross-connection control and backflow prevention measures

2.8 Monitoring and Reporting
The report should describe the planned monitoring and
reporting program, including all monitoring required by the Water Recycling Criteria, and include the frequency and location of sampling. Where continuous analysis and recording equipment is used, the method and frequency of calibration 5 should be stated. All analyses shall be performed by a laboratory approved by the State Department of Health
Services.

2.9 Contingency Plan
Section 60323 (c) of the Water Recycling Criteria requires that the engineering report contain a contingency plan
designed to prevent inadequately treated wastewater from being delivered to the user. The contingency plan should include:
* A list of conditions which would require an immediate diversion to take place;
* A description of the diversion procedures;
* A description of the diversion area including capacity, holding time and return capabilities;
* A description of plans for activation of supplemental supplies (if applicable);
* A plan for the disposal or treatment of any inadequately treated effluent;
* A description of fail safe features in the event of a power failure, and
A plan (including methods) for notifying the recycled
water user(s), the regional board, the state and local
health departments, and other agencies as appropriate, of any treatment failures that could result in the delivery of inadequately treated recycled water to the use area.

3.0 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
Maps and/or plans showing the location of the transmission facilities and the distribution system layout should be provided.

The plans should include the ownership and location of all potable water lines, recycled water lines and sewer lines within the recycled water service area and use area(s).

4.0 USE AREAS
The description of each use area should include:
* The type of land uses;
* The specific type of reuse proposed;
6 * The party(s) responsible for the distribution and use of the recycled water at the site;
* Identification of other governmental entities which may have regulatory jurisdiction over the re-use site such as the US Department of Agriculture, State Department of Health
Services, Food and Drug Branch, the State Department of Health Services, Licensing and Certification Section, etc. These agencies should also be provided with a copy of the Title 22 Engineering Report for review and comment.
* Use area containment measures;
* A map showing:
-Specific areas of use
-Areas of public access
-Surrounding land uses
-The location and construction details of wells in or within 1000 feet of the use area
-Location and type of signage
* The degree of potential access by employees or the public; * For use areas where both potable and recycled water lines exist, a description of the cross-connection control
procedures which will be used.

In addition to the general information described above, the following should be provided for the following specific proposed uses:

4.1 Irrigation
-Detailed plans showing all piping networks within the use area including recycled, potable, sewage and others as
applicable.
-Description of what will be irrigated (e.g. landscape, specific food crop, etc.);
-Method of irrigation (e.g. spray, flood, or drip);
-The location of domestic water supply facilities in or adjacent to the use area;
7 -Site containment measures;
-Measures to be taken to minimize ponding;
-The direction of drainage and a description of the area to which the drainage will flow;
-A map and/or description of how the setback distances of Section 60310 will be maintained;
-Protection measures of drinking water fountains and
designated outdoor eating areas, if applicable;
-Location and wording of public warning signs,
-The proposed irrigation schedule (if public access is
included), and
-Measures to be taken to exclude or minimize public contact.

4.2 Impoundments
-The type of use or activity to be allowed on the impoundment; -Description of the degree of public access;
-The conditions under which the impoundment can be expected to overflow and the expected frequency, and
-The direction of drainage and a description of the area to which the drainage will flow.

4.3 Cooling
-Type of cooling system (e.g. cooling tower, spray, condenser, etc.);
-Type of biocide to be used, if applicable;
-Type of drift eliminator to be used, if applicable, and -Potential for employee or public exposure, and mitigative measures to be employed.

4.4 Groundwater Recharge
An assessment of potential impacts the proposal will have on underlying groundwater aquifers. The appropriate information 8 shall be determined through consultation with the Department on a case by case basis.

4.5 Dual Plumbed Use Areas
In accordance with Sections 60313 through 60316 of the Water Recycling Criteria.

4.6 Other Industrial Uses
The appropriate information shall be determined on a case by case basis.

4.7 Use Area Design
The report should discuss how domestic water distribution system shall be protected from the recycled water in
accordance with the Regulations Relating to Cross-Connections and the California Waterworks Standards, and how the
facilities will be designed to minimize the chance of recycled water leaving the designated use area. Any proposed deviation from the Water Recycling Criteria and necessity therefore, should be discussed in the report.

4.8 Use Area Inspections and Monitoring
The report should describe the use area inspection program.

It should identify the locations at the use area where
problems are most likely to occur (e.g. ponding, runoff, overspray, cross-connections, etc.) and the personnel in charge of the monitoring and reporting of use area problems.

4.9 Employee Training
The report should describe the training which use area
employees will receive to ensure compliance with the Recycled Water Criteria, and identify the entity that will provide the training and its' frequency. The report should also identify any written manuals of practice to be made available to employees.

Rwdisk2/RGUIDE2001.DOC

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

NORTH COAST REGION
ORDER NO. R1‐2016‐0002

GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR

DISCHARGES OF WINE, BEVERAGE AND FOOD PROCESSOR WASTE TO LAND

IN THE NORTH COAST REGION
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, (hereinafter Regional Water Board) finds that:

1. Order No. R1‐2016‐0002 serves as General Waste Discharge Requirements (hereafter General WDRs or Order) for eligible wine, beverage and food processing facilities in the North Coast Region that meet the requirements established in this Order.

2. For purposes of this Order, the types of wine, beverage and food (WBF) processing facilities that are eligible to apply for coverage under this Order include wineries, breweries, cider houses, non‐alcoholic beverage producers, distilleries, post‐slaughter cut and wrap meat processing facilities, fruit and vegetable processors, and dairy product manufacturers.

3. Discharges to land from such eligible WBF processing facilities have certain common characteristics, such as similar constituents, concentrations of constituents, flow ranges, and treatment, disposal and reuse techniques.

4. This Order covers the discharge of WBF processing waste to land for the purpose of disposal or reuse. Reuse activities covered by this Order include the use of treated process wastewater as irrigation or frost protection water on agricultural land or landscaping and the use of nonhazardous decomposable solid waste as a soil amendment pursuant to best management practices.

5. For the purpose of this Order, WBF processing waste includes but is not limited to pomace, lees, fruit and vegetable matter, soil, washwater, cooling water, and any stormwater sent to the WBF processor wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system.

6. The discharge of WBF processing solids to land poses a minimal threat to waters of the state provided the Discharger complies with the conditions of this Order.

LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

7. California Water Code (Water Code) section 13260 subdivision (a) requires that any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste, other than to a community sewer system, that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, to file a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) with the Regional Water Board to obtain coverage under Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 2 ‐
WBF Processor WDR
Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or a waiver of WDRs. “Waste” is defined in Water Code section 13050 subdivision (d).

8. Water Code section 13263 subdivision (i) authorizes the Regional Water Board to prescribe general WDRs for a category of discharges if the discharges are produced by the same or similar operations, involve the same or similar types of waste, require the same or similar treatment standards, and are more appropriately regulated under general WDRs than individual WDRs.

9. Discharges to land from wine, beverage and food processor waste treatment and disposal systems have certain common characteristics, such as similar constituents, concentrations of constituents, disposal techniques, flow ranges and they require the same or similar treatment standards. These types of discharges are more appropriately regulated under General Waste Discharge Requirements (General WDRs).

10.The Regional Water Board has historically regulated such discharges through the adoption of individual WDRs, enrollments under Order No. R1‐2002‐0012, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Winery Waste to Land (Winery Order), or through the issuance or adoption of waivers of WDRs. This Order establishes conditions and requirements for discharges of WBF processing wastewater to land.

11.The Regional Water Board adopted the Winery Order on March 28, 2002. The Winery Order authorizes discharges to land from enrolled facilities’ winery process wastewater treatment and disposal systems. The Winery Order contains effluent limits, and regulates the application of treated wastewater to land for the purpose of frost protection and irrigation and the application of processing wastes at agronomic rates.

Surface and subsurface wastewater disposal systems are eligible for coverage under the Winery Order. A General Monitoring and Reporting Program allows determination of compliance with effluent limits, receiving water limitations and discharge prohibitions.

The Winery Order was developed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Winery Order were adopted by the Regional Water Board on March 28, 2002.

12.Discharges of process waste to land by beverage and food processing facilities, other than wineries, have historically been authorized under individual facility specific WDRs.

These individual WDRs are on average 22 years old and in need of updating.

13.Subsurface disposal systems receiving WBF processing waste must comply with United States Environmental Protection Program (U.S. EPA), Underground Injection Control requirements. A subsurface disposal system receiving non‐hazardous decomposable wastewater such as that generated by manufacturing, chemical processing, industrial fluid disposal, automotive repair, or recycling, and other than domestic wastewater, are classified as a Class V well. There are over 20 different Class V well types, including the subtype of Food Processing Disposal.

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 3 ‐
WBF Processor WDR
Disposal systems that are classified as Class V wells must be registered with U.S. EPA, Region 9, by completing the online form at:
http://www.epa.gov/uic/forms/underground‐injection‐wells‐registration

BASIN PLAN

14.All Orders adopted by the Regional Water Board are required to implement the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan). Therefore, this Order requires the Discharger to comply with all applicable Basin Plan provisions, including any prohibitions and water quality objectives governing the discharge.

15.Pursuant to the Basin Plan, the existing and potential beneficial uses of groundwater within the North Coast Region include: Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN), Agricultural Supply (AGR), Industrial Supply (IND), Industrial Process Supply (PROC), Freshwater Replenishment (FRSH), Aquaculture (AQUA), and Native American Culture (CUL).

ANTIDEGRADATION ANALYSIS

16.State Water Board Resolution 68‐16, the Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Waters of California (hereafter the Antidegradation Policy) requires the disposal of waste into waters of the state be regulated to achieve the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state.

The quality of some waters is higher than established by adopted policies and that higher quality water shall be maintained to the maximum extent possible consistent with the Antidegradation Policy. The Antidegradation Policy requires the following:
a. Higher quality water will be maintained until it has been demonstrated to the state that any change will be consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of the water, and will not result in water quality less than prescribed in the policies. b. Any activity that produces a waste and discharges to existing high quality waters will be required to meet WDRs that will result in the best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary to assure pollution or nuisance will not occur, and the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state will be maintained.

17.When seeking permit coverage under this Order, the Discharger must demonstrate the Best Practicable Treatment or Control necessary to maintain the highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state will be implemented.

18.This Order addresses discharges to numerous groundwater bodies, each with its own characteristics. If a discharge to high quality waters takes place, this Order limits degradation consistent with the Antidegradation Policy as described in the findings below.

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 4 ‐
WBF Processor WDR

19.Constituents of concern that have the potential to degrade groundwater include salinity, and nutrients and minerals released from soil. This Order contains effluent limits for aboveground discharges and groundwater limitations for both subsurface and aboveground discharges. This Order includes a Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) that ensures the Best Management Treatment or Control is effective, water quality objectives will not be exceeded, and confirms that water quality will be maintained at a level that is protective of beneficial uses. Each of the wastewater constituents of concern are discussed below:
a. Salinity is a measure of dissolved solids in water. Excessive salinity can impact the beneficial uses of water. Salinity can be affected by discharges of wastewater with elevated concentrations of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). TDS consists of both volatile (organic) and fixed (inorganic) fractions. In a well operated land application system, volatile dissolved solids in the water that percolates through the soil will be reduced to negligible concentrations. Sodium and chloride are two major inorganic fractions that constitute salinity among other solutes. The Technical Information Form requires that WBFP facilities characterize sodium and chloride as a measure of salinity in the process wastewater to determine first if the facilities are eligible for the WDRs coverage. For those facilities that are eligible for the WDRs coverage, the Executive Officer will determine which facilities will be required to monitor sodium and chloride in effluent to demonstrate compliance with the effluent limitations prior to the discharge of treated process wastewater for the purpose of reuse or disposal. Additionally, this Order requires WBF processing facilities to identify and control sources of salinity and requires process wastewater treatment and disposal systems to be designed, operated and maintained to control salinity in the effluent. b. Nitrogen is a nutrient present in WBF process waste at a concentration that can degrade groundwater quality. The potential for degradation depends upon the wastewater control and treatment method and the environment into which the wastewater effluent is discharged. Nitrogen concentration reduction is not required in every situation, such as when wastewater control and treatment and application are performed in a way that is protective of the beneficial uses of waters of the state.

When needed, nitrogen concentrations can be reduced in a number of ways, such as settling/clarifying, nitrification/denitrification, and/or by crop uptake and removal.

The preferred method of nitrogen control is left to the wastewater system designer and must be documented in the ROWD. Discharges of treated process wastewater or process solids that rely on crop uptake and removal for reduction of nitrogen concentrations are required to submit a Facility‐specific Nutrient Management Plan (FNMP) (Appendix D). The FNMP must include Nutrient Budget Calculations that will establish the application practices for the reuse of WBF process wastewater or process solids based on the nutrient need of the vegetation being grown in the land application area. Crop nutrient application rates shall not approach a site’s maximum ability to contain one or more nutrients through soil adsorption. If the nutrient budget shows that the nutrients in the process wastewater and process solids exceed the amount needed by crops in the land application area, then the Discharger must implement management practices that will prevent impacts to surface water or groundwater due to application of excess nutrients. Such practices Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 5 ‐
WBF Processor WDR
may include obtaining access to additional land for nutrient application, or exporting the non‐hazardous, decomposable processing solid waste to a permitted composting facility or landfill.
c. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a measure of the amount of dissolved oxygen needed by aerobic organisms to break down the organic material present in wastewater. This Order establishes an effluent limit for BOD of 100 pounds per acre per day for aboveground reuse or disposal. This limitation is based on literature values for BOD loading in land disposal systems for food processing systems.

Consequences of BOD overloading may result in an impact to groundwater quality by lowering the oxidation/reduction potential in the underlying soil resulting in potential mobilization of naturally present contaminants in soil such as iron and manganese. In a properly operated land application system, where the discharge complies with this Order, BOD overloading will likely not occur.

20.This Order is expected to improve water quality in the areas where discharges of WBF processing waste are currently taking place by addressing nutrients in the waste streams and requiring the monitoring of shallow groundwater to assess potential impacts. This Order will replace the Winery Order. The Winery Order did not identify nutrients or Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) as constituents of concern in winery processing waste and as such did not require Dischargers enrolled under the Winery Order to characterize the amount of nutrients or TDS in the process wastewater or process solids being discharged to land. This Order requires the characterization of the TDS content of the process wastewater and the nutrient content of the process wastewater and solids. This Order requires that either nutrient effluent limitations based on water quality objectives be met prior to discharge; that the waste be applied at a rate equal to the nutrient up‐take level of the vegetation being grown (i.e., the agronomic rate); or that the subsurface or at‐grade treatment and disposal system be designed to treat nutrients to a level meeting water quality objectives. Groundwater monitoring is required for all subsurface and at‐grade treatment and disposal systems to confirm compliance with conditions and requirements in this Order. Groundwater monitoring is additionally required for those WBF processing facilities that produce 10,000 gallons per day (gpd) or greater of process wastewater.

21.This Order is consistent with the Antidegradation Policy because it includes specific requirements and conditions of discharge to minimize water quality degradation.

Information obtained as a result of the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) will confirm that best practicable treatment and control methods are implemented.

22.Limited degradation of groundwater by some waste constituents associated with wine, beverage and food processor waste, after effective source control, treatment, and control measures are implemented, is consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state. The continued economic prosperity of communities and associated industry is of maximum benefit to the people of the state and provides sufficient justification for allowing the limited groundwater degradation that may occur pursuant to this Order. The requirements of the Order are set as to avoid unreasonably affecting present and anticipated beneficial uses, and to prevent exceedances of water quality Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 6 ‐
WBF Processor WDR
objectives, and monitoring is established to ensure this compliance. Any change to water quality will be consistent with the maximum benefit of the people of the State, and the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State will be maintained.

23.The Discharger is required to submit to the Regional Water Board a complete Form 200 (Appendix A) and Technical Information Form (TIF) (Appendix B) when applying for coverage under this Order. The technical information required in the TIF will disclose sufficient information about the operations of the facilities and the waste being generated to demonstrate best practicable treatment and control is being implemented and to allow Regional Water Board staff to determine whether the proposed discharge qualifies for coverage under this Order.

24.Reporting of the Discharger’s efforts to achieve sustained water quality protection is required in the semiannual monitoring reports, as per MRP No. R1‐2016‐0002 (Appendix C) that are due to the Regional Water Board on a semiannual schedule. The Annual Summary, to be included with the first semiannual monitoring report, shall document compliance with the conditions of this Order.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

25.Waste discharges to land covered under this Order are subject to CEQA requirements.

The Regional Water Board, acting as the lead agency, adopted an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Winery Order on March 28, 2002. This Order is intended to replace the previously issued Winery Order and to expand coverage to other beverage and food processors (Project).

26.The Regional Water Board, as the lead agency, is required to prepare a new or subsequent CEQA document if there is a substantial change in the Project that could cause new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. (Pub. Resources Code § 21166; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15162.) While compliance with this Order is not expected to result in any significant physical changes to the environment or impacts that are substantially different than those described and analyzed in the 2002 adopted Negative Declaration and Initial Study, the Regional Water Board has developed a new Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration to document this conclusion.

27.In accordance with the mitigation measures included in the Initial Study, this Order limits the concentration of constituents in effluent to either water quality objectives in the WBF processing wastewater or at agronomic rates for the WBF processing wastewater that is reused for irrigation in the land application area. Subsurface discharges to disposal fields or flood application discharges to spreading basins are required to meet a minimum separation to groundwater and be designed for the unique characteristics of the process wastewater. All discharges are required to meet groundwater water quality objectives. This Order includes specific prohibitions and conditions of discharge that will protect the beneficial uses of surface water or groundwater.

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 7 ‐
WBF Processor WDR

28.Existing WBF processing facilities that expand or new WBF processing facilities that are constructed after adoption of this Order are subject to local agency approvals, permits, and possibly a project‐level CEQA review, at which time potential adverse impacts to other resources must be evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures implemented.

29.The Regional Water Board, as lead agency, provided notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration for this Order on October 23, 2015(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15072). The mitigated negative declaration reflects the Regional Water Board’s independent judgment and analysis. After considering the document and comments received during the public review process, the Regional Water Board hereby determines that the Project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant effect on the environment and adopts the mitigated negative declaration. The documents or other materials, which constitute the record, are located at 5550 Skylane Blvd, Suite A, Santa Rosa, CA 95403. The Regional Water Board will file a Notice of Determination within five days from the issuance of this Order. Mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate significant impacts on the environment and monitoring and reporting are incorporated as conditions of approval below.

TITLE 27 EXEMPTION

30.The wastewater treatment, storage, and disposal activities described in this Order are exempt from the requirements of Consolidated Regulations for Treatment, Storage, Processing, or Disposal of Solid Waste, as set forth in California Code of Regulations, title 27, section 20005, et seq. (hereafter title 27). The activities are exempt from title 27 requirements pursuant to section 20090 so long as the activity meets, and continues to meet, all preconditions listed:
a. Subparagraph (b) Wastewater—Discharges of wastewater to land, including but not limited to evaporation ponds, percolation ponds, spreading basins or subsurface leach fields if the following conditions are met:
i. the applicable Regional Water Board has issued WDRs, reclamation requirements, or waived such issuance;
ii. the discharge is in compliance with the applicable water quality control plan; and iii. the wastewater does not need to be managed according to California Code of Regulations, title 22, chapter 11, division 4.5, as a hazardous waste. b. Subparagraph (f) Soil Amendments—Use of nonhazardous decomposable waste as a soil amendment pursuant to applicable best management practices, provided that Regional Water Boards may issue waste discharge or reclamation requirements for such use.

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 8 ‐
WBF Processor WDR

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

31.The monitoring and reporting program requirements in this Order and MRP No. R1‐ 2016‐0002 (Appendix C) are necessary to determine compliance with the conditions of this Order and to determine the discharges impacts, if any, on groundwater.

32.As such, the burden, including costs, of this monitoring bears a reasonable relationship to the need for that information and the benefits to be obtained from that information.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

33.The Regional Water Board has notified the public, all known potential Dischargers and all other known interested parties of the intent to adopt this Order.

PUBLIC MEETING

34.The Regional Water Board conducted a public hearing on January 28, 2016, in Santa Rosa, California and considered all evidence concerning this matter.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to Water Code sections 13263, subdivision (a), and 13267, the Regional Water Board adopts this “General Waste Discharge Requirements for the Discharge of Wine, Beverage and Food Processor Waste to Land” and requires Dischargers subject to this Order shall comply with the following:

APPLICATION PROCESS

1. A Discharger seeking authorization to discharge under this Order shall submit to the Regional Water Board, a complete Form 200 and Technical Information Form (TIF).

For new and expansion of existing facilities, the TIF shall include the appropriate documentation of facility specific CEQA compliance. The Form 200 and TIF are included as Appendix A and B of this Order. The information required with the Form 200 and TIF is equivalent to a ROWD.

2. Upon review of the Form 200 and TIF, Regional Water Board staff will determine if coverage under this Order is appropriate. The Regional Water Board Executive Officer will issue a Notice of Coverage (NOC) letter when coverage under this Order has been authorized. Coverage under this Order will take effect on the issue date of the NOC letter.

3. A Discharger seeking authorization to discharge under this Order and either: 1) applies treated process wastewater to land at concentrations exceeding the effluent limits in Table 1 for ammonia, nitrate or nitrite; or 2) applies non‐hazardous solid, decomposable processor waste to land as a source of nutrients and a soil amendment; shall submit a FNMP for approval by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer.

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 9 ‐
WBF Processor WDR

4. A Discharger seeking authorization to discharge under this Order for the land application of treated process wastewater for the purpose of reuse or disposal, and which demonstrates during the application process that the discharge will not be able to meet the treated process wastewater effluent limitations for sodium, chloride, pH or BOD, the groundwater limitations or other Order requirements has the option to either (1) apply for coverage under individual waste discharge requirements that includes an approved schedule for compliance with Order requirements, or (2) make the appropriate modifications to the treatment and disposal system so that the discharge meets Order requirements no later than six months after the date of Order adoption.

5. Wineries currently enrolled under the Winery Order shall submit to the Regional Water Board a Form 200 and TIF for authorization to discharge under this Order, no later than 6 months after the date of the adoption of this Order.

6. WBF processing facilities subject to this Order shall submit an updated Form 200 and TIF to the Regional Water Board when there is a change in activities at the facility that may affect the quality or quantity of the waste discharge.

7. This Order does not authorize the discharge from facilities that have not submitted a Form 200 and TIF, and have not received an NOC letter from the Regional Water Board.

8. Enrollment in this Order: (a) is conditional; (b) may be terminated at any time; (c) does not permit an illegal activity; (d) does not preclude the need for permits which may be required by other local or governmental agencies; and (e) does not preclude the Regional Water Board from administering enforcement remedies (including civil penalties) pursuant to the Water Code and other applicable law.

DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS

1. Discharge of any waste not specifically regulated by this Order is prohibited.

2. Discharge of wastes to surface waters or surface water drainage courses is prohibited.

3. Discharge of hazardous waste to the WBF processing wastewater treatment and disposal system is prohibited.

4. Discharge of domestic waste to the WBF processing wastewater treatment system is prohibited.

5. Bypass or overflow of untreated or partially treated WBF processing waste from anywhere within the collection, treatment, or disposal system is prohibited.

6. The use of treated WBF process wastewater on land application areas not under the control of the Discharger is prohibited, except as described and documented in an FNMP, as approved by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer in the NOC letter.

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 10 ‐
WBF Processor WDR

7. The use of WBF processing solid waste as a soil amendment on agricultural land that is not under the control of the Discharger is prohibited, except as described and documented in the FNMP, as approved by the Regional Water Board in the NOC letter.

8. The application of treated WBF process wastewater or processing solids to the land application area is prohibited during the following times:
a. Within 24 hours of a forecasted precipitation event with a greater than 50‐percent probability of occurring;
b. During a precipitation event;
c. Within 24 hours after a precipitation event of a ½ inch or more precipitation that results in a storm water discharge from the land application area; and d. When the land application area surface soil is saturated.

9. The discharge of leachate from the storage of WBF processing solid waste to groundwater is prohibited.

10.The discharge of leachate or WBF process solids from the WBF process solid waste storage area to surface waters, or storm water runoff that has come into contact with the solids being stored, is prohibited.

11.Creation of pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined by section 13050 of the Water Code is prohibited.

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR ABOVE GROUND REUSE OR DISPOSAL

1. The following effluent limitations apply to facilities covered under this Order that discharge treated WBF process wastewater effluent to the ground surface for the purpose of reuse or disposal.
a. The treated effluent shall not contain constituents of BOD, Sodium, or Chloride in excess of the limits in Table 1.
b. The treated effluent shall not contain constituents of ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite in excess of limits in Table 1 or, alternatively, in excess of the agronomic rate in a FNMP approved by the Executive Officer.
c. The treated effluent shall not have an instantaneous pH of less than 6.0 or greater than 9.0.

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 11 ‐
WBF Processor WDR
Table 1 – Effluent Limitations
Constituent Unit
Average Monthly
Effluent Limit
Average Quarterly
Effluent Limit
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand pounds/acre/day 1001 ‐‐
Ammonia as N mg/l 1.52 ‐‐
Nitrate as N mg/l 10.03 ‐‐
Nitrite as N mg/l 1.03 ‐‐
Sodium mg/l ‐‐ 604
Chloride mg/l 1065 ‐‐

GROUNDWATER LIMITATIONS

1. The following groundwater limitations apply to all facilities covered under this Order including those that dispose or reuse treated effluent aboveground and those that dispose process wastewater effluent at grade or below ground to a spreading basin, leachfield or other type of dispersal system for final effluent treatment and subsurface discharge.

2. The collection, treatment, storage, reuse and disposal of process wastewater and solids shall not cause groundwater to:
a. Exceed a total coliform organism level of 1.1 MPN/100mL as a 7‐day median. b. Exhibit an instantaneous pH of less than 6.5 or greater than 8.5 pH units.

3. The collection, treatment, storage, reuse and disposal of process wastewater and solids shall not cause groundwater designated for domestic or municipal supply to contain levels of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, title 22, division 4, chapter 15, article 4 and article 5.5.

1 Nuisance threshold, Pollution Abatement in the Fruit and Vegetable Industry, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA Publication 625/3‐77‐0007)
2 Odor threshold, Amoore and Hautala 1983 and World Health Organization 2003 3Drinking water threshold, California Primary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for drinking water 4 Taste and odor threshold, USEPA Drinking Water Advisory 5 Agricultural supply threshold, Ayers, R. S. and D. W. Westcott, Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ‐ Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev. 1, Rome (1985) Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 12 ‐
WBF Processor WDR

4. The collection, treatment, storage and disposal of process wastewater and solids shall not cause groundwater designated for agricultural supply to contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect its use for agriculture.

5. The collection, treatment, storage, reuse and disposal of process wastewater and solids shall not cause groundwater designated for domestic or municipal supply to contain levels of radionuclides in excess of the limits specified in California Code of Regulations, title 22, division 4, chapter 15, article 5, section 64443.

6. The collection, treatment, storage, reuse or disposal of process wastewater and solids shall not cause groundwater to contain substances in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS

1. The average daily flow of process wastewater shall not exceed the designed monthly average daily flow for the treatment or disposal system, as stated in the TIF.

2. The average daily flow of process wastewater shall not exceed the designed maximum daily flow for the treatment or disposal system, as stated in the TIF.

3. Process wastewater shall be captured, and treated separately from domestic wastewater.

4. Process wastewater ponds shall be operated and maintained to prevent inundation or washout due to floods with a 100‐year return frequency.

5. The dissolved oxygen concentration in the treatment/holding ponds shall not be less than 1.0 mg/l at any time.

6. Process wastewater ponds without an overflow pipe shall maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard, defined as the elevation difference between the liquid level in the pond and the top of the bank, at all times, except with prior authorization from the Regional Water Board Executive Officer. Process wastewater ponds with an overflow pipe shall maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard, defined as the elevation difference between the liquid level in the pond and the bottom of the overflow pipe, at all times, except with prior authorization from the Regional Water Board Executive Officer.

7. Land application areas that receive treated process wastewater shall be managed to prevent ponding, runoff and erosion.

8. For subsurface disposal systems, the following discharge requirements apply:
a. The subsurface wastewater disposal system(s) shall be maintained so that at no time will wastewater surface at any location.

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 13 ‐
WBF Processor WDR
b. The solids accumulation in the septic tanks shall be managed in accordance with sections IV. A and B of MRP No. R1‐2016‐0002.

9. For at‐grade spreading basins, the following discharge requirements apply:
a. Spreading basins shall be operated in a regular rotating sequence. b. Wastewater contained in the spreading basins shall be no deeper than four inches. c. The spreading basin shall not contain ponded wastewater for a period of time exceeding twenty four hours.
d. Spreading basins shall maintain at least two (2) feet of freeboard, defined as the elevation difference between the liquid level in the basin and the top of the bank, at all times, except with prior authorization from the Regional Water Board Executive Officer.

DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

1. Process wastewater treatment and disposal systems shall be designed for the maximum daily flow of wastewater and organic loading generated, including flows from precipitation.

2. Process wastewater treatment ponds that are constructed or expanded, by footprint area or capacity, following the adoption date of this Order shall be lined with either a relatively impermeable membrane or two feet of soil with a permeability of less than 10‐6 centimeters per second, or an equivalent engineered alternative approved by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer in the NOC letter.

3. Process wastewater treatment ponds constructed prior to the adoption date of this Order where the type of existing lining systems is unknown shall be evaluated for permeability within 5 years of the date of the NOC letter. The Permeability Evaluation shall take place when the pond is emptied for operational and maintenance activities such as solids removal. Results of the Permeability Evaluation shall be submitted to the Regional Water Board. Ponds found to be leaking will be required to comply with Design Specifications 2 of this Order no later than 1 year following submittal of the Permeability Evaluation. As an alternative to lining the pond, the Discharger may have a registered professional engineer or geologist propose and conduct groundwater monitoring to demonstrate that any vertical and lateral leakage from the pond does not adversely impact the underlying groundwater quality. Prior to conducting a groundwater study, the Discharger must propose a groundwater monitoring and reporting plan for review and approval by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer.

The groundwater monitoring and reporting plan shall be submitted to the Regional Water Board no later than 1 year following submittal of the Permeability Evaluation.

The Regional Water Board Executive Officer may require the submittal of a treatment pond Permeability Evaluation every 10 years for all treatment ponds for the purpose of verifying the ponds do not leak.

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 14 ‐
WBF Processor WDR

4. Process wastewater treatment and storage ponds shall be designed with a storage capacity adequate to contain process wastewater flows, precipitation falling directly on the ponds, and storm water flows directed to the ponds.

5. Process wastewater ponds shall have the physical integrity to prevent failure due to settlement, compression, or uplift and all effects of ground motions resulting from at least the maximum probable earthquake, as certified by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist.

6. For subsurface disposal systems, the following design requirements apply:
a. The system shall be designed for the unique characteristics of the process wastewater, and shall include the removal of screenable solids prior to discharge to the tank and adequate detention time for solids separation. b. The distance between any soil absorption system’s trench bottom and groundwater shall not be less than five feet, unless approved by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer in the NOC letter.
c. Infiltration surface shall be sized based on organic loading, or hydraulic loading, whichever results in a more conservative design.
d. No part of the disposal system(s) shall extend to a depth where waste may pollute groundwater.
e. New subsurface disposal systems shall reserve sufficient land area for possible future 100 percent replacement of the subsurface disposal area.

7. For at‐grade spreading basins, the following design requirements apply:
a. The distance between the bottom of the spreading basins and groundwater shall not be less than five feet, unless approved by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer in the NOC letter.
b. The bed slope of the spreading basins shall be maintained to ensure even distribution of wastewater and prevent standing water.

8. Process wastewater treatment and disposal systems should be designed to minimize chemical addition and maintenance.

SOLIDS DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS

1. All screenings, sludges and other solid waste removed from process wastewater shall be collected from screens, sumps, ponds, and tanks as needed to ensure optimal system operation.

2. Collected screenings, sludges, and other solids removed from process wastewater that will not and/or cannot be used agronomically shall be disposed of at a legal point of disposal, and in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board promulgated provisions of title 27, division 2 of the California Code of Regulations.

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 15 ‐
WBF Processor WDR

3. Land application areas that receive non‐hazardous, decomposable, solid WBF processing wastes as a soil amendment shall be managed to prevent ponding, runoff and erosion.

4. During wet weather conditions when the solid WBF processing wastes cannot be incorporated into the soil or hauled off‐site for disposal, the wastes shall be temporarily stored in a designated, covered or tarped, solids storage area. The storage area shall be managed to prevent discharges of leachate to groundwater and discharges of leachate or solids to surface waters, or stormwater runoff that has come in contact with the solids.

5. If accumulated sludge from a WBF processor wastewater treatment pond is to be used as a soil amendment on agricultural lands, a proposal containing, at a minimum, the following information shall be submitted to the Regional Water Board for approval:
a. The physical properties of the sludge to be removed from the pond, including the volume and percent solids of the sludge.
b. A summary of laboratory results on an analysis of a composite sample of the stockpiled sludge. The constituents of concern are: cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc and total nitrogen. If deemed necessary by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer, additional constituents of concern may need to be monitored and/or a leachability test of the sludge may be required. c. A statement verifying that neither hazardous waste nor domestic waste has been discharged to the ponds.
d. A description of the proposed land application areas, including a map denoting water courses, acreage and the crops to be grown thereupon. e. Calculations showing that the sludge will be applied at agronomic rates (based on nutrient uptake of the crop).
f. A project schedule. Sludge application shall be confined to the dry season, which is generally between April 15th and October 15th of each year. Sludge shall be spread and incorporated into the soil in a manner to prevent erosion, runoff or any nuisance conditions.

GENERAL PROVISIONS
Failure to comply with provisions or requirements of this Order, or violation of other applicable laws or regulations governing discharges from the permitted WBF processing facility, may subject the Discharger to administrative or civil liabilities, criminal penalties, and/or other enforcement remedies to ensure compliance. Additionally, certain violations may subject the Discharger to civil or criminal enforcement from appropriate local, state, or federal law enforcement entities. The Discharger shall comply with the following provisions:

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 16 ‐
WBF Processor WDR

1. Availability
A copy of this Order and the associated MRP shall be maintained at the WBF processing facility and be available at all times to operating personnel.

2. Enforcement
The Discharger shall implement the project as described in the Form 200 and TIF.

Violation of any requirements contained in this Order subject the Discharger to enforcement action, including civil liability, under the Water Code.

3. Severability
Provisions of these waste discharge requirements are severable. If any provision of these requirements is found invalid, the remainder of these requirements shall not be affected.

4. Operation and Maintenance
The Discharger shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) that are installed or used by the Discharger to achieve compliance with this Order. Proper operation and maintenance includes appropriate standard operating procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities or similar systems that are installed by a Discharger only when necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Order.

The Discharger shall maintain an updated Operation and Maintenance Manual (O&M Manual) for the systems of treatment and control that are installed or used by the Discharger to achieve compliance with this Order. The Discharger shall update the O&M Manual, as necessary, to conform to changes in operation and maintenance of the wastewater treatment and disposal systems. The O&M Manual shall be readily available to operating personnel on‐site. The O&M Manual shall include the following:
a. A detailed description of safe and effective operation and maintenance of treatment processes, process control instrumentation, and equipment. b. All process and equipment inspection and maintenance schedules. c. A description of safeguards to assure that, should there be reduction, loss, or failure of electric power, the Discharger will be able to comply with requirements of this Order.
d. A description of preventive and contingency plans for controlling accidental discharges, and for minimizing the effect of such events. These plans shall identify the possible sources (such as loading and storage areas, power outage, waste treatment unit failure, process equipment failure, tank and piping failure) of accidental discharges, untreated or partially treated waste bypass, and polluted drainage.

5. Change in Discharge
The Discharger shall promptly report to the Regional Water Board any material change in the character, location, or volume of the discharge. The Discharger shall submit an Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 17 ‐
WBF Processor WDR
updated Form 200, TIF and design proposals for the new process wastewater treatment system to the Regional Water Board for review prior to the change in discharge.

6. Change in Ownership
The Discharger is required to notify the Regional Water Board of any change in ownership or control of land or waste discharge facilities presently covered by this Order. Coverage under this Order is not transferable. In the event of any change in control or ownership, the Discharger shall also notify the succeeding owner or operator of the existence of this Order by letter and shall inform the new owner or operator of the requirement to submit a Form 200 at least 120 days before commencing operation of the facility. A copy of the letter shall be immediately forwarded to the Regional Water Board Executive Officer.

The succeeding owner or operator, in order to obtain authorization for discharges regulated by this Order, must apply in writing to the Regional Water Board Executive Officer, requesting coverage under this Order. This request must include the submittal of a complete Form 200 which includes identification of the new owner or operator, the reasons for the change, and effective date of the change. Discharges conducted without submittal of this request will be considered discharges without waste discharge requirements, which are violations of the Water Code section 13260.

7. Vested Rights
This Order does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive privileges.

The requirements prescribed herein do not authorize the commission of any act causing injury to persons or property, nor protect the Discharger from liability under federal, state, or local laws, nor create a vested right for the Discharger to continue the waste discharge.

8. Monitoring and Reporting
The Discharger shall comply with the MRP and any modifications to these documents as specified by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer. Chemical analyses shall be conducted at a laboratory certified for such analyses by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (DDW) and shall conform to DDW guidelines.

The Discharger shall comply with the MRP and future revisions thereto, in Appendix C of this Order.

9. Records Retention
The Discharger shall maintain records of all monitoring information, including calibration and maintenance records and all strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this Order, and records of all data used to complete the application for this Order, for a period of at least three (3) years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Regional Water Board Executive Officer.

Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 18 ‐
WBF Processor WDR

10.Signatory Requirement
All ROWD applications submitted to the Regional Water Board shall be signed by a principal executive officer, ranking elected official, or responsible corporate officer. a. For purposes of this provision, a responsible corporate officer means:
i. A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision making functions for the corporation; or
ii. The manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures.
b. Reports required by this Order and other information requested by the Regional Water Board may be signed by a duly authorized representative provided:
i. The authorization is made in writing by a person described in paragraph (a) of this provision;
ii. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the entity; and
iii. The written authorization is submitted to the Regional Water Board prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications signed by the authorized representative.
c. Any person signing a document under paragraph (a) or (b) of this provision shall make the following certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted, is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."

11.Inspections
The Discharger shall permit authorized staff of the Regional Water Board the following:
a. Entrance to the premises in which treatment, collection or management of waste occurs, where an effluent source is located or in which any records required by this Order are kept;
Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 19 ‐
WBF Processor WDR
b. Access to inspect and copy any monitoring equipment or records required for compliance with terms and conditions of this Order; and c. Access to sample any discharge or monitoring location associated with the Facility.

12.Noncompliance
In the event the Discharger is unable to comply with any of the conditions of this Order due to breakdown of waste treatment equipment, accidents caused by human error or negligence, or other causes such as acts of nature, the Discharger shall notify the Regional Water Board staff by telephone as soon as it or its agents have knowledge of the incident and confirm this notification in writing within five (5) business days of the telephone notification. The written notification shall include pertinent information explaining reasons for the noncompliance and shall indicate the steps taken to correct the problem and the dates thereof, and the steps being taken to prevent the problem from recurring.

13.Revision Requirements
The Regional Water Board will review this Order periodically and may revise requirements when necessary.

COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION
Compliance with the effluent limitations, the groundwater limitations, and the discharge specifications contained in this Order will be determined as specified below.

1. Average Monthly Effluent Limitation (AMEL)
The arithmetic mean of all samples collected in a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all samples in a calendar month divided by the number of samples. If only one sample is collected in a calendar month, that sample result will constitute the monthly average and daily maximum results for the purpose of determining compliance with effluent limitations.

If the average of daily discharges over a calendar month exceeds the AMEL for a given parameter, this will represent a single violation, though the Discharger will be considered out of compliance for each day of that month for that parameter (e.g., resulting in 31 days of non‐compliance in a 31‐day month). If only a single sample is taken during the calendar month and the analytical result for that sample exceeds the AMEL, the Discharger will be considered out of compliance for that calendar month.

The Discharger will only be considered out of compliance for days when the discharge occurs.

2. Instantaneous Minimum Effluent Limitations
If the analytical result of a single grab sample is lower than the instantaneous minimum effluent limitation for a parameter, the Discharger will be considered out of compliance for that parameter for that single sample. Non‐compliance for each sample will be considered separately (e.g., the results of two grab samples taken within a calendar day Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 20 ‐
WBF Processor WDR
that both are lower than the instantaneous minimum effluent limitation would result in two instances of non‐compliance with the instantaneous minimum effluent limitation).

3. Instantaneous Maximum Effluent Limitations
If the analytical result of a single grab sample is higher than the instantaneous maximum effluent limitation for a parameter, the Discharger will be considered out of compliance for that parameter for that single sample. Non‐compliance for each sample will be considered separately (e.g., the results of two grab samples taken within a calendar day that both exceed the instantaneous maximum effluent limitation would result in two instances of non‐compliance with the instantaneous maximum effluent limitation).

4. BOD Effluent Limitation
The mass of BOD discharged to land shall not exceed a daily maximum of 100 pounds per acre per day. Compliance with this requirement shall be determined using the following formula:

M = C x V x (8.345)
A
Where:

M = BOD mass for a given field in pounds per acre per day (lb/ac/day); C = reported BOD monitoring result for the last calendar month in milligrams per liter (mg/L);
V = total volume of effluent discharged to the field on that day in millions of gallons (MG);
A = Area of the field irrigated in acres; and 8.345 = units conversion factor for converting the product of mg/L and MG to pounds.

5. Bacteriological Limitations
The median is the central tendency concentration of the pollutant. The data set shall be ranked from low to high, ranking the Non‐Detect (ND) concentrations lowest, Detected, Not Qualified (DNQ) determinations next, followed by quantified values. The order of the individual ND and DNQ determinations is not important. The median value is determined based on the number of data points in the data set. If the data set has an odd number of data points, then the median is the middle value. If the data set has an even number of data points, the median is the average of the two middle values, unless one or both points are ND or DNQ, in which case the median value shall be the lower of the two middle data points. DNQ is lower than a detected value, and ND is lower than DNQ. Compliance with the 7‐day median will be determined as a rolling median during periods when sampling occurs more frequently than weekly. During periods when sampling is weekly, this requirement shall apply to each weekly sample.

6. Average Daily Treatment System Flow
The average daily treatment system flow is the total volume of WBF processing wastewater sent through the treatment system during a calendar month divided by the number of days in the month. The number shall be reported in gallons per day.

Compliance will be determined by comparing the computed average daily treatment Order R1‐2016‐0002 ‐ 21 ‐
WBF Processor WDR
system flow to the design average daily treatment system capacity reported in the TIF.

If the computed average daily treatment system flow exceeds the design average daily treatment system capacity, the Discharger will be considered out of compliance for that parameter for that month.

7. Average Daily Disposal System Flow
The average daily disposal system flow is the total volume of WBF processing wastewater being disposed during a calendar month divided by the number of days in the month. The number shall be reported in gallons per day. Compliance will be determined by comparing the computed average daily disposal system flow to the design average daily disposal system capacity reported in the TIF. If the computed average daily disposal system flow exceeds the design average daily disposal system capacity, the Discharger will be considered out of compliance for that parameter for that month.

8. Maximum Daily Treatment System Flow
Compliance shall be determined by comparing the computed average daily treatment system flow to the design maximum daily treatment system flow capacity reported in the TIF. If the computed average daily treatment system flow exceeds the design maximum daily treatment system capacity, the Discharger will be considered out of compliance for that parameter for that month.

9. Maximum Daily Disposal System Flow
Compliance shall be determined by comparing the computed average daily disposal system flow to the design maximum daily disposal system flow capacity reported in the TIF. If the computed average daily disposal system flow exceeds the design maximum daily disposal system capacity, the Discharger will be considered out of compliance for that parameter for that month.

I, Matthias St. John, Executive Officer, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region, on January 28, 2016.
_________________________________
Matthias St. John
Executive Officer
16_0002_WBFP_WDR
Appendices
Appendix A: Form 200
Appendix B: Technical Information Form (TIF)
Appendix C: Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP)
Appendix D: Facilities Nutrient Management Plan (FNMP) Appendix A – Form 200 ‐ 1 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
APPENDIX A – FORM 200

An electronic .pdf version of the Form 200 can be found on the State Water Resource Control Board website at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov and clicking on the Publications/Forms Tab at the top of the page, then clicking on the Forms link.

Additionally, the Form 200 can be accessed at the following pathway http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/publications_forms/forms/index.shtml or by clicking on the following hyperlink Form 200 Hyperlink.
16_0002_WBFP_WDR_AppendixA_Form200
Appendix B ‐ TIF ‐ 1 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
APPENDIX B – TECHNICAL INFORMATION FORM (TIF)
Complete all applicable sections of this form and attach the required maps, diagrams, laboratory data, etc. A Notice of Coverage letter will not be issued unless the Report of Waste Discharge is complete and demonstrates that Order No. R1‐2016‐0002 (Order) is applicable to the proposed discharge.

1. PROCESSING FACILITY INFORMATION
Facility Name (as provided on Form 200):

Facility Address (as provided on Form 200):

2. LOCATION MAP
Provide a map or accurately scaled and labeled drawing showing the location of the Wine, Beverage, or Food (WBF) processing facility in the context of the general vicinity.

3. FACILITY SITE PLAN OR MAP
Provide a map or an accurately scaled and labeled drawing showing a plan view of the WBF processing facility showing all relevant site features and locations of the WBF process wastewater system, including storage structures, and discharge location(s). Also include on the map the location of the process solids storage area, on‐site wells, on‐site drainage courses and nearby surface waters.

4. OTHER MAPS OR PLANS (Optional)
Provide other maps, plans, or sketches, as desired, to illustrate the WBF processing wastewater treatment and disposal system location or design features.

5. FACILITY TYPE AND PRODUCTION CAPACITY Additional information attached Type of Processing facility:

Winery Brewery Cider House Distillery

Olive Oil Cannery Fruit or Vegetable Processing

Cut & Wrap Meat Packaging Dairy product Other beverage_____________________________ Other food ___________________________________

Appendix B ‐ TIF ‐ 2 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002

6. PRODUCTION INFORMATION Additional information attached Processing Season: (include start and end dates)
Annual Processing Volume of Produce or Commodity: (e.g. grapes, malt, olives, milk) Weight (tons): ____________ or Volume (gallons): _____________ Annual Production Volume:

Cases of Wine: _______________________

Gallons of other Liquid: (e.g. beer, olive oil, etc.) _______________________________ Pounds of Product: (e.g. meat, cheese, potatoes, etc.) ___________________________

7. REGIONAL WATER BOARD DISCHARGE COVERAGE Additional information attached Identify whether the WBF processing facility is new or existing. For existing facilities identify the current Regional Water Board permit coverage authorizing the discharge of process wastewater and solids to land in a manner protective of water quality. If the discharge has not been authorized by a Regional Water Board permit or action, check the “No coverage” box.

New WBF Processing Facility (no operations to date)
Planned Operations Start Date: _____________ Planned date of first Discharge: ___________________ Existing WBF Processing Facility

Currently (check one): In operation Or Not in operation Current or historical discharge authorization: (check all applicable boxes) Issued Facility Specific Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) WDR Order No.: ________________________________
Enrolled under General Winery WDR Order R1‐2002‐0012
Issued Small Winery Waiver Letter
Other: ____________________________________________________________________________ No Coverage
Appendix B ‐ TIF ‐ 3 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002

8. EXISTING PERMITS ‐ OTHER AGENCIES Additional information attached Identify the following for all permits issued by other agencies for the facility and/or the facility wastewater system (e.g. conditional use permit, building permit, grading permit):

Permit Type or Subject Permit Agency Permit Number Date of Issue

1. 2.

3. 4.

9. TREATMENT, DISPOSAL and/or REUSE Additional information attached Check all that apply. In addition, provide a detailed description of processes and practices for treatment, disposal, and/or reuse of solid and liquid waste streams. Include engineering design information. Initial Treatment
Solids Separation Method: pH Neutralization Method:

Treatment/Storage
Septic Tank Equipped with Effluent Filter? Tank Volume (gallons): ______________ Yes No

Detention Time (days): _______________ Equipped with Septic Tank Riser? Yes No
Pond
Total Volume (gallons): ______________ Facultative Aerobic with Aerators Yes No
Detention Time (days): _______________ number of aerators: ___________ Number of Ponds: _____________________ Pond Lining? Yes No Type of liner: __________________________________
Constructed Wetland Detention Time: _________________________ Appendix B ‐ TIF ‐ 4 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002 Disposal Treated or Untreated Wastewater Aboveground Disposal
Use: Irrigation Water Frost Protection
Disposal Area Size (acres): __________________
Irrigation Method: Drip Spray
Other Irrigation Method: _________________________________________ Subsurface Disposal and At Grade Disposal:

Type: Conventional Leach field; Spreading Basin; Subsurface Drip; Other: _____________________________ Inspection Ports: Yes No 100% Replacement Area: Yes No Total Leachline Length: ___________________ Depth of trench: ____________________ Depth to groundwater (feet below ground surface): ________________________________ Number of spreading basins: _____________ Total basin acreage: ___________________ Method and Location of Processing Solids Disposal:

Other Treatment and/or Disposal Methods:

10. FLOW DIAGRAM
Provide a flow chart or schematic diagram showing the WBF process wastewater system components and the path of process wastewater flow throughout the system, from source water to final disposal.

11. WASTEWATER FLOWS and DESIGN FLOWS Additional information attached Average Daily Flow
(gallons per day)
Maximum Daily Flow
(gallons per day)
Wastewater Flow, Peak
Production Period
Wastewater Flow, Non‐Peak
Production Period
Treatment System Design Flow
Disposal System Design Flow
Appendix B ‐ TIF ‐ 5 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002

12. CHARACTERIZATION OF DISCHARGE
Attach a sheet with known or estimated quality of:

The treated process wastewater discharged to land for reuse or disposal; AND
The septic tank effluent, or process wastewater being discharged to a spreading basin or overland flow treatment system
At a minimum, include information on the following constituents of concern:
pH, BOD, TDS, Ammonia (as N), Nitrite (as N), Nitrate (as N), Sodium and Chloride

13. GROUNDWATER PROTECTION Additional information attached.

Information Provided:

Water Balance Engineering Plans Soil Borings Significant Separation to Groundwater (include date of determination) Percolation Test Monitoring Wells Other: __________________________________________________________ Explain how above cited information demonstrates protection:

Appendix B ‐ TIF ‐ 6 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002

14. INDUSTRIAL STORM WATER PERMIT COVERAGE Additional information attached For facilities currently regulated under the statewide Industrial Storm Water Permit, identify the following:

WDID No.: Stormwater Program NOI Date:

Has a "No Exposure Certification" been issued for this facility? Yes No If yes, date:

Has a "Notice of Non Applicability" been issued for this facility? Yes No If yes, date:

Has a "Notice of Termination" been issued for this facility? Yes No If yes, date:

15. SIGNATURE and CERTIFICATION
“I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision, in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.”
Signature: _______________________________________________________ Date: __________________________ Printed Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Title: __________________________________________________________________________________________ 16_0002_WBFP_WDR_AppendixB_TIF
Appendix C ‐ MRP ‐ 1 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
APPENDIX C– MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM No. R1‐2016‐0002 Dischargers regulated under the General WDRs for Discharges of Wine, Beverage, and Food Processor Waste to Land, Order No. R1‐2016‐0002 (Order) shall be subject to the following monitoring and reporting requirements, unless such requirements are modified by the Executive Officer. California Water Code section 13267 authorizes the Regional Water Board to require technical and monitoring reports. This MRP establishes monitoring and reporting requirements, which implement California regulations. Any person failing to furnish technical or monitoring reports or falsifying any information therein is guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be subject to civil liability. (Wat. Code, § 13268.) I. GENERAL MONITORING PROVISIONS
A. If the Discharger monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this Order, using test procedures as specified in this Order, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the semiannual self‐monitoring reports.

B. Laboratories analyzing monitoring samples shall be certified by the California Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP), in accordance with Water Code section 13176, and must include quality assurance/quality control data with their reports.

C. Compliance monitoring analyses shall be conducted using commercially available and reasonably achievable detection limits that are lower than the applicable effluent limitation. If no minimum level (ML) value is below the effluent limitation, the lowest ML shall be selected as the reporting level (RL).

II. PROCESS AND PRODUCTION VOLUME
A. Monitoring
The processing season, processing volume and production volume of the facility shall be recorded as listed below.

Parameter Units
Processing
Season
Start & End Dates
(If processing takes place year round, report as “All Year”) Processing
Volume
Tons/Year; Pounds/Year; or Gallons/Year
(Use Units most appropriate for Type of Facility)
Production
Volume
Cases/Year; Barrels/Year; Gallons/Year; Tons/Year; or Pounds/Year (Use Units most appropriate for Type of Facility)
B. Reporting
The annual process and production volume measurements shall be included in the second semiannual monitoring report. The due dates for the semiannual monitoring reports are listed in Section X.A of this MRP.

III. CHEMICAL USAGE
A. Monitoring
An estimate of the volume(s) and type(s) of chemical(s) used at the facility that could be either included in the process wastewater being treated and/or the process waste solids being reused on lands as a soil amendment.

Appendix C ‐ MRP ‐ 2 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
B. Reporting
Annual chemical usage estimates shall be included in the second semiannual monitoring report. The due dates for the semiannual monitoring reports are listed in Section X.A of this MRP.

IV. SEPTIC TANK(S) AND DISPOSAL LEACH FIELD(S)
A. Septic Tank Monitoring
Sludge and scum accumulation in all septic tanks shall be inspected and measured annually for the following parameters listed below. An inspection is not required during the year the septic tank is pumped.

B. Septic Tank Maintenance
The septic tank(s) shall be pumped when any of the following conditions exist.

C. Disposal Field Monitoring
The disposal leach fields(s) shall be monitored for the parameters listed below.

Parameter Units Sample Type Sampling
Frequency
Average Daily
Flow Gallons/Day (gpd)
Metered, Recorded Pumping
Hours or Estimated based on
water usage1
Monthly2
Field
condition Dry or Saturated Visual3 Monthly
Table Notes:

1. Water usage for processing activities only. Explanation of how this estimate was calculated must be included with the reported value.

2. As measured during the first seven days of the month.

3. Ponded wastewater on surface of leach field or wetness of ground surface.

Parameter Units Measurement Frequency
Date of Inspection. Date ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Annually
Sludge depth and scum thickness in each
compartment of each septic tank.

Feet Staff Gauge Annually
Distance between bottom of scum layer and
bottom of outlet device.

Inches Staff Gauge Annually
Distance between top of sludge layer and
bottom of outlet device.

Inches Staff Gauge Annually
Parameter Condition
Combined sludge and scum thickness Exceeds one third (1/3) of the tank depth of the 1st compartment
Bottom of floating scum layer Within 3 inches of the outlet device Top of sludge layer Within 8 inches of the outlet device Appendix C ‐ MRP ‐ 3 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
D. Disposal Field Maintenance
Systems designed with multiple disposal leach fields shall be alternated on a specified schedule, no less than semiannually, to prevent clogging and surfacing effluent.

E. Septic Tank and Disposal Field Reporting
Septic tank and disposal leach field monitoring measurements shall be included in the semiannual monitoring report that reports on the time period when the measurement was taken. The due dates for the semiannual monitoring reports are listed in Section X.A of this MRP.

V. OTHER TREATMENT SYSTEMS (NON SEPTIC TANK LEACH FIELD SYSTEMS) A. Treatment Pond System Monitoring
The Discharger shall monitor the following parameters of the process wastewater pond treatment system.

Parameter Units Sample Type Sampling
Frequency
Average Daily Flow to Pond
System
Gallons/Day
(gpd)
Metered, Recorded
Pumping Hours or
Estimated based on
water usage1
Monthly2
Freeboard of each pond Feet Measured Monthly
Dissolved Oxygen mg/l Grab Monthly
Odors ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Observation Monthly
Berm Condition ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Observation Monthly
Depth of Settled Solids in pond Feet Measured 5 years
Table Notes:

1. Water usage for processing activities only. Explanation of how this estimate was calculated must be included with the reported value.

2. As measured during the first seven days of the month.

B. Non‐pond Treatment System Monitoring
The Discharger shall monitor the following parameters of the process wastewater treatment system.

Parameter Units Sample Type Sampling
Frequency
Average Daily Flow to
Treatment System
Gallons/Day
(gpd)
Metered, Recorded Pumping
Hours or Estimated based on
water usage1
Monthly2
Odors ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Observation Monthly
Operation & Maintenance
Activities
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Reported Monthly
Freeboard of each basin3 Feet Measured Monthly
Table Notes:

1. Water usage for processing activities only. Explanation of how this estimate was calculated must be included with the reported value.

2. As measured during the first seven days of the month.

3. Applies to spreading basins only.

Appendix C ‐ MRP ‐ 4 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
C. Effluent Monitoring Other Treatment Systems
The Discharger shall monitor the following parameters of the treated process wastewater prior to reuse as crop or landscape irrigation water.

Parameter Units Sample Type Sampling
Frequency
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)
mg/l Grab Monthly1
BOD loading pounds/acre/day Calculated Monthly1
Dissolved Oxygen mg/l Grab Monthly1
pH pH Units Grab Monthly1
Total Dissolved Solids mg/l Grab Monthly1
Ammonia (as N) mg/l Grab Monthly1
Nitrite (as N) mg/l Grab Monthly1
Nitrate (as N) mg/l Grab Monthly1
Chloride2 mg/l Grab Monthly1
Sodium2 mg/l Grab Monthly1
Fats, Oil & Grease2 mg/l Grab Monthly1
Table Notes:

1. When irrigation, re‐use, or other type of land disposal is anticipated.

2. Applies only to those processing facilities identified in the Notice of Coverage letter as being required to monitor for these constituents.

D. Effluent Load Monitoring
The discharge of treated effluent to land for the purpose of reuse as irrigation water or disposal, and the discharge of process wastewater to an at‐grade land treatment system such as to a spreading basin or overland flow treatment system, shall be monitored for the parameters listed below.

Parameter Units Sample Type Sampling
Frequency
Land application area Acres N/A Monthly1
Volume of effluent
applied to land
Millions of gallons Metered or Recorded
pumping hours
Monthly1
Mass of BOD applied to
land (including
spreading basins)
Pounds/acre/day Calculated Monthly1
Wetting cycle duration2 Hours Measured Continuous1
Wetting cycle volume2 Gallons/acre/cycle Measured Continuous1 Table Notes:

1. When irrigation, re‐use, or other type of land disposal is anticipated.

2. Applies to spreading basins only.

E. Other Designed Treatment System Reporting
Other designed treatment system monitoring measurements shall be included in the semiannual monitoring report that reports on the time period when the measurement was taken. The due dates for the semiannual monitoring reports are listed in Section X.A of this MRP.

Appendix C ‐ MRP ‐ 5 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
VI. GROUNDWATER
A. Groundwater Monitoring
Facilities discharging process wastewater to an at‐grade spreading basin or below ground to a disposal field, for wastewater treatment, are required to monitor groundwater for the purpose of assessing compliance with the conditions of the Order. Additionally, Regional Water Board staff may require in the Notice of Coverage (NOC) letter that any other Discharger monitor groundwater if deemed necessary to verify compliance with the Order. The Discharger shall monitor groundwater as follows:

Parameter Units Sample Type Minimum Sampling
Frequency
Depth to Groundwater 0.1 feet Measurement Quarterly
Groundwater Elevation 0.1 feet MSL Measurement Quarterly pH std units Grab Quarterly
Nitrate (as N) mg/L Grab Quarterly
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L Grab Quarterly
Chloride mg/L Grab Quarterly
Sodium mg/L Grab Quarterly
B. Groundwater Reporting
Groundwater monitoring measurements shall be included in the semiannual monitoring report covering the time period when the measurement was taken. The due dates for the semiannual monitoring reports can be found in Section X.A of this MRP.

C. Monitoring Wells
A minimum of three monitoring wells (one up‐gradient and two down‐gradient) shall be used as described in the design plans submitted with the Technical Information Form (TIF). The Discharger shall submit a report that includes but is not limited to relevant subsurface stratigraphy and lithology; a diagram of each well showing total drilled depth, well installation depth, and construction details including screened interval and top of casing elevation; and location map of all installed wells. For new wells the report shall be submitted within 60 days of completion of construction. For existing wells the report shall be included in the TIF.

D. Monitoring Well Locations
Within one year of the issuance of the NOC letter, the Discharger shall begin groundwater monitoring at appropriate locations and depths to yield groundwater samples to assess whether changes in groundwater quality are occurring as a result of the discharge to the disposal field. Samples shall be collected from the wells for the constituents as specified in Section VI.A.

VII. LAND APPLICATION AREA
A. Land Application Monitoring
The Discharger shall inspect the land application area(s) at least once daily during each irrigation event with treated process wastewater effluent and each reuse event of process solid waste as a soil amendment. Evidence of erosion, field saturation, runoff, or the presence of nuisance conditions (e.g., flies, odors, etc.) shall be noted in a field log. The field log should include the time and date of the inspection and the name of the individual performing the inspection.

The Discharger shall retain precipitation records, for times of wet weather when land application occurred. The precipitation records should include, but not be limited to; Appendix C ‐ MRP ‐ 6 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002

1. A printed copy of a precipitation event1 forecast from the National Weather Service Forecast Office (i.e., by entering the zip code of the land application area at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/forecast);

2. The time, date, and rain gauge reading of the precipitation event;

3. The date, time, and location of visual observations;

4. The individual(s) who performed the visual observation.

B. Land Application Area Reporting
Land application area inspections shall be included in the semiannual monitoring report covering the time period when the inspection took place. The due dates for the semiannual monitoring reports can be found in Section X.A of this MRP.

VIII. FACILITY‐SPECIFIC NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
A. Content
A Facility‐specific Nutrient Management Plan (FNMP) is required for those facilities that either;

1.) Apply treated process wastewater to land at concentrations exceeding effluent limits for ammonia, nitrate or nitrite or 2.) Apply solid non‐hazardous, decomposable processor waste to land as a source of nutrients and a soil amendment. The FNMP shall include the components described in Appendix D of this Order.

B. Revisions
Changes or updates to the original FNMP, approved by Regional Water Board staff in the Notice of Coverage (NOC) letter, shall be submitted to the Regional Water Board for approval prior to making the change or update.

C. Groundwater Monitoring
Facilities producing greater than 10,000 gpd of process wastewater, as averaged over a calendar month, that land apply treated process wastewater for the purpose of reuse or disposal, and apply nutrients above the treated process wastewater effluent limits, at agronomic rates, in accordance with an approved facility specific nutrient management plan (FNMP), are required to monitor groundwater for the purpose of assessing compliance with conditions of the Order. Within one year of the issuance of the NOC letter, the Discharger shall begin groundwater monitoring at appropriate locations and depths to yield groundwater samples to assess whether changes in groundwater quality are occurring as a result of the discharge.

The Discharger shall monitor groundwater as follows:

Parameter Units Sample Type Minimum Sampling
Frequency
Depth to Groundwater 0.1 feet Measurement Quarterly
Groundwater Elevation 0.1 feet MSL Measurement Quarterly Nitrate (as N) mg/L Grab Quarterly
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L Grab Quarterly
Alternatively, ground water monitoring requirements may be met by participation in a regional monitoring program approved by the Regional Water Board or Executive Officer.

1 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) defines a chance of precipitation as a probability of precipitation of 30% to 50% chance of producing precipitation in the project area. Precipitation is water that falls to the ground as rain, snow, etc. at a measurable amount of 0.01 inch or more.

Appendix C ‐ MRP ‐ 7 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
Those facilities participating in an approved regional monitoring program shall begin groundwater monitoring within two years of WBFP WDRs adoption date.

IX. SOLIDS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Solids Monitoring
The Discharger shall monitor the following parameters of process solid waste generated during wine, beverage or food processing activities:

1. Amount of process solids generated annually;

2. Amount of solids stored annually (including location of storage and measures implemented to prevent leachate generation or control and disposal of any leachate that is generated);

3. Amount of process solids land applied as a soil amendment, reported as cubic feet per acre ; and

4. If applicable, the annual amount of solids disposed off‐site at an appropriate permitted facility (including amount disposed off‐site, location of disposal site, and hauler identification).

B. Solids Monitoring Reporting
Solids monitoring measurements shall be included in the semiannual monitoring report covering the time period when the measurement was taken. The due dates for the semiannual monitoring reports can be found in Section X.A of this MRP.

X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Monitoring Periods and Reporting Schedule
All monitoring results shall be reported in the semiannual monitoring reports which are to be received by the Regional Water Board by the first day of the second month after the six‐month reporting period. Therefore, monitoring reports are due as follows:

Report Title Reporting Period Due Date
1st Semiannual
Report
January 1 through June 30 August 1
2nd Semiannual
Report
July 1 through December 31 February 1, following year
B. Annual Summary
The second semiannual monitoring report shall include a discussion, or annual summary, of how the treatment and disposal system functioned the previous year. The summary should discuss compliance (or non‐compliance) with effluent limits and other Order requirements and the corrective actions taken or planned to bring the discharge into full compliance with the Order.

C. Electronic Reporting
The semiannual monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Regional Water Board via e‐mail to [email protected] or on disk (CD or DVD) in a Portable Document Format (PDF) file in lieu of paper‐sourced documents. The guidelines for electronic submittal of documents can be found on the Regional Water Board website at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast.

Appendix C ‐ MRP ‐ 8 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
D. Transmittal Letter
A transmittal letter, identifying the Facility name, address and WDID number shall accompany each monitoring report. The transmittal letter shall discuss any violations that occurred during the reporting period and all actions taken or planned for correcting the violations, such as operation or system modifications. If the Discharger previously submitted to the Regional Water Board a report describing the corrective action or time schedule for implementing the corrective actions, reference to the previous report is satisfactory.

E. Report Format
The Discharger shall arrange the monitoring results in tabular form so that the date, the constituents, and the concentrations are readily discernible. The results shall be summarized in such a manner as to illustrate clearly whether the discharge complies with the Order.

Records of monitoring information shall include:

1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurement(s);

2. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurement(s);

3. The date(s) analysis were performed;

4. The individual(s) who performed the analysis;

5. The analytical techniques or method used;

6. The results of such analysis; and

7. The complete laboratory data sheets for each analysis.

F. Signature and Submittal
The semiannual monitoring reports shall be signed by a duly authorized representative, as specified in General Provision 10, of the Order. The person signing the semiannual report shall make the following certification:
“I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.” 16_0002_WBFP_WDR_AppendixC_MRP
Appendix D ‐ FNMP ‐ 1 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
APPENDIX D ‐ FACILITY‐SPECIFIC NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (FNMP) Owners and operators of wine, beverage and food processors (hereinafter identified as “Dischargers”) seeking coverage under the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Wine, Beverage, and Food Processor waste to Land, Order No. R1‐2016‐ 0002(Order) and who propose to either; 1.) Apply treated process wastewater to land at concentrations exceeding the effluent limits in Table 1 of the Order for ammonia, nitrate or nitrite or 2.) Apply solid non‐hazardous, decomposable processor waste to land as a source of nutrients and a soil amendment; are required to develop and implement a Facility‐ specific Nutrient Management Plan (FNMP).

I. FNMP purpose and implementation
The purpose of the FNMP is to identify practices that will be used to minimize adverse impacts to groundwater and surface water from the land application of nutrients found in process wastewater and process solids.

The FNMP describes the agronomic rate application of the process wastewater and process solids to land and documents compliance with the Order requirements. It identifies the land application area, the crop or vegetation being grown, the nutrient requirements of that crop or vegetation, and the land application method.

The FNMP will be submitted when applying for coverage under the Order. Regional Water Board staff will review the FNMP to document the use of agronomic application rates, the application method and compliance with the requirements of the Order.

Approval of the FNMP shall be referenced in the Notice of Coverage (NOC) letter. The approved FNMP shall be kept at the Facility for use by Facility staff and review by Regional Water Board staff during inspections.

The FNMP shall be revised if changes in conditions or practices at the Facility require modification of the FNMP. Conditions that may require modification of the FNMP include but are not limited to, changes in effluent nutrient concentration, changes in type of crop/vegetation grown, designation of a new land application area and any needed modification of land application practices to prevent the off‐site movement of process wastewater or process solids.

Records on the timing and amounts of process waste water and process solids applied to land shall be collected and submitted in accordance with the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) associated with the Order, MRP No. R1‐2016‐0002.

Appendix D ‐ FNMP ‐ 2 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
II. CONTENTS OF FNMP
At a minimum, the FNMP must contain the following components:

A. Contact Information
The name and phone number of (a) the facility owner, (b) the facility operator who is responsible for implementing the FNMP (if different from the owner), and (c) the developer of the FNMP.

B. Specific dates
The date that the FNMP was completed and the most recent annual review date.

C. Facility and Land Application area information
The following information must be included:

1. Name of the facility;

2. Facility address;

3. Assessor’s Parcel Number(s) for the facility location and land application area;

4. The total acreage of the land application area; and the acreage used for the application of (a) process wastewater, (b) non‐hazardous, decomposable, processing solids , or (c) both;

5. The type of crop(s) or vegetation being grown within the land application area; and

6. Copies of any written agreements that authorize the Discharger to apply process wastewater and process solids on property not owned or operated by the Discharger.

D. Maps and Drawings:

One or more United States Geological Survey quadrangle maps or equivalent showing the location of the facility and the land application area. One or more aerial photos or scaled map drawings showing the entire land application area. The aerial photo(s) and/or drawing(s) of the land application area should include a map legend and identify the locations of all of the following: surface water courses, drainage ditches and drainage controls (berms, levees, etc.); subsurface (tile) drainage systems and associated discharge points; groundwater wells and type (domestic, industrial, agricultural, or monitoring); and septic systems and leachfields.

E. Nutrient Budget Calculations
The FNMP must include a data table showing the total annual nitrogen load in pounds/acre/year being applied to the land application area from the reuse of process wastewater and process solids. The table should identify the annual load of nitrogen associated with both the process wastewater and the process solids. The average nutrient content and total annual volume of process wastewater and process solids being land applied shall be included in the table. The data table shall also include the annual agronomic nutrient need, of the crop(s) or landscape vegetation grown in the land application area.

An annual agronomic rate calculator for various types of crops and vegetation can be found on the Regional Water Board website at the following link:

Appendix D ‐ FNMP ‐ 3 ‐ R1‐2016‐0002
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/wine_beverage_f ood/. The calculator may be used to determine the annual nutrient need of the crop.

The calculator will be updated, as needed.

The data table must clearly demonstrate how the annual nitrogen agronomic nutrient rate for the crop(s) or vegetation will not be exceeded through the land application of the process wastewater and process solids. The data table must be reviewed annually and updated if there are any significant changes in conditions or practices at the facility that necessitate changes in the FNMP. The data table and calculations may be reviewed by Regional Water Board staff during inspections.

F. Land application practices and water quality protection The FNMP must describe how and when process wastewater and solid non‐ hazardous, decomposable processor waste will be applied to the land application area(s). If the nutrient budget shows that the nutrients generated by the Facility exceed the amount needed by crops in the land application area, then the Discharger must include in the FNMP management practices that will be implemented to prevent impacts to surface water or groundwater due to application of excess nutrients. Such practices may include obtaining access to additional land for nutrient application, or exporting the solid non‐hazardous, decomposable processing waste to a permitted composting facility or landfill.

III. RECORD‐KEEPING AND FNMP REVIEW
The Discharger should maintain records for each land application area and use the records as a basis for revisions to the FNMP. The FNMP must be available for Regional Water Board staff review during inspections.
16_0002_WBFP_WDR_AppendixD_FNMP
Appendix G
Meeting Materials
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Kickoff Call
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- October 15, 2020
Microsoft Teams Call
11:00 am – 12:00 pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meeting Objective: Kick-off of the Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study Plan with the City and consulting team. The intent is to determine the information available for development of the Study, discuss the proposed Study outline and overall project schedule of deliverables.

Attendees:

Crescent City – Jonathan Olson, Andrew Leighton
Stover Engineering – Ward Stover
KJ – Cayla Whiteside, Claudia Llerandi, Dawn Taffler, Sachi Itagaki AGENDA
I. Introductions
II. Review Scope

1. Study Focus – value for City

2. Recycled Water use options:
a. NPR Market: irrigation, parks, developers (seawood), Tribe b. Industrial: Rumiano Cheese, Seaquake Brewery, Port O’Pints Brewery c. Fill station
d. CSA partnership
e. Airport?
f. Other?

3. Indirect/Direct Potable Reuse (high level review?)
III. Request for information – to be provided as separate attachment IV. Proposed Study Outline – refer to attachment A proposed report outline

1. Introduction

2. Project Area

3. Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities

4. Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities

5. Treatment Requirements

6. Recycled Water market

7. Project Alternatives Analysis

8. Recommended Project

9. Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program
V. Schedule of Deliverables

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE
Crescent City
Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Kickoff
October 15, 2021

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE
Agenda1. Recycled Water Feasibility Analysis
• Purpose• Recycled Water Use Options• Indirect/Direct Potable Reuse

2. Request for Information3. Proposed Study Outline4. Schedule • Webinars• Complete Draft• Final Report
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

1. Recycled Water Feasibility Analysis• Purpose:

A. Evaluate feasibility of beneficial and cost‐effective use of recycled water within the City.

B. Meet requirements of Water Recycling Grant
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

1. Recycled Water Feasibility Analysis• Recycled Water Use Options:

A. Irrigation – Parks, landscape areasB. Fill station – dust control, construction, homeoners landscape
C. Tribe casino irrigation, toilet flushing, water features.

D. Industrial Users
Rumiano Cheese (MBBR onsite)
Seaquke BreweryPort O’Pints Brewery
E. CSA partnershipF. AirportG. PrisonH. Other?
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

1. Recycled Water Feasibility Analysis• Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR):
High level reviewA. Groundwater Replenishment
• Not needed?
B. Reservoir Water Augmentation
• No reservoir available, not applicable
• Direct Potable Reuse (DPR):
High level reviewA. Raw Water Augmentation
• No Water Treatment Plant, not applicable
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

2. Request for Information1. 2020 Urban Water management Plan2. Irrigation Data – Discuss available meter data

3. Industrial data – non potable demands4. Water Service Area – Confirmation of boundary

5. Infrastructure that could be repurposed (tribal
RW line)

6. Water rates
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

2. Request for Information• 2015 Urban Water management Plan Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

2. Request for Information• Available meter data
• Estimated irrigation demand (based on meter
description)
• Includes Residential and Commercial meters
(inside/outside)
• No industrial irrigation meters?
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study
2017 2018 2019 Avg Units
762,521 1,549,330 882,147 1,064,666 CF

17.5 35.6 20.3 24.4 AFY0.02 0.03 0.02 0.0 MGD
15,626 31,751 18,078 21,818 GPD
11 22 13 15.2 GPM

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

WATER SYSTEM HYDRAULIC PROFILE
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Outfall
Sea Line?
Fish Waste
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RW Production:1.2 mgd (capacity)BOD/TSS = 10/10 mg/L
Discharge Limits:1.86 mgd (dry weather)

6.12 mgd (wet weather)
BOD/TSS = 30/30 mg/L
MBR = 2.4 mgd (max)
24” Outfall = 12 mgd12/18” Outfall = 2 ‐ 4 mgd
CCT = 6.1 mgd (max)
Screens = 15 mgd (max)
UV = 2 mgd
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

3. Study Outline
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

1. Introduction2. Project Area

3. Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities

4. Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities5. Treatment Requirements6. Recycled Water market7. Project Alternatives Analysis

8. Recommended Project9. Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

3. Study Approach
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

1. Prepare a market assessment of potential recycled water uses in the City’s service area.

2. Explore options for reuse from identified industrial users.

3. Evaluate alternatives to distribute recycled water.

4. Estimate cost of implementation
• Capital Cost• O&M Cost

5. Develop a comparison matrix to score and rank the alternatives • Establish quantitative/qualitative criteria for selection preferred alternative

6. Develop an implementation plan that defines design, financial and operational considerations for the preferred project.

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

4. Schedule
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study

1. Grant Milestones

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE

4. Schedule
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Task Duration  Meeting/Conf Call
Activity Duration  Preliminary Outcomes
Review Period  Final Deliverable
 City Provided Info
LEGEND

INTERVIEW AND CLIENT NAME HERE
Thank you
Dawn Taffler [email protected] 415.243.2484Claudia Llerandi [email protected] 415.243.2506Cayla Whiteside [email protected] 925.953.1522 Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Recycled Water Market Assessment Call
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- February 04, 2022
Microsoft Teams Call
2:30 pm – 3:30 pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meeting Objective: Review analysis of recycled water market assessment for Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Attendees:

Crescent City – Jonathan Olson, Andrew Leighton, Eric Weir Stover Engineering – Ward Stover
KJ – Cayla Whiteside, Claudia Llerandi, Dawn Taffler
AGENDA
I. Irrigation Demands

1. Climate Data
i. Smith river cimis station data 2020-2021 water year
ii. Calculated average irrigation demand from difference in ETo and Precip iii. Only needing irrigation from May – September
iv. Peaking factor of 1.5 estimated from peak and average ETo

2. Irrigation Demand Estimates

3. Irrigation Demand Assumptions
i. 80% efficiency acceptable?
ii. Crop coefficient of 1
iii. Peaking factor from ETo
iv. May-sept irrigation period
v. 8 hrs irrigation per day – might be too long for current practices but would be acceptable for transitioning to RW
vi. Irrigation schedule – assume every other day irrigation over 8 hours (spread over sections)
vii. RW production hours – 24 hours production

1. MBR capacity of 1.2 MGD but City usually runs 2 out of 3 trains to meet blend capacity.

2. City has to have some of the MBR effluent to meet WWTP discharge quality.

3. Assume 1/3 of the MBR capacity can be used for RW production and the other 2/3 for blending water quality.

4. ACTION: Jon to connect KJ with Austin Nova (new WWTP operator) to discuss data for MBR capacity used during the past couple of years viii. No min irrigation pipe size
II. Recycled Water Market Assessment

1. Irrigation Customers
a. Split into phased approach
b. Change names of legend and size legend
c. Pipe alignments generally ok along D street? A street might be preferable d. Brother Jonathan – alignment along coast is not irrigated (remove from map) e. No irrigation along battery vista – mostly bluffs and hardscaped or natural wetlands
f. Joe Hamilton is vacant and not irrigated
g. No irrigation at hospital plus is outside of City limits so remove. Area is vacant commercial property
h. Keep Del Norte High, and community, 400 Cemetery
i. Remove Bees maxwell – no irrigation and outside city limits j. Unknown fields for catholic school – keep and rename to St Joseph k. Consider RV park south of point of honor?
l. Include area north of WTP
m. Can it be defined as a mandatory use zone for irrigation with RW for areas in the vicinity near a RW line
n. Update chart of phase consumption per customers

2. Industrial/Commercial Customers
a. Cannabis Growers
• Assume 2,000 SF as a max footprint
• Assume up to 2 near future, 5 growers max to up to 10,000 SF • Slowed down process due to high cost for growers due to it being taxed now
• Assume all to be indoor demand use
b. Truck Fill Station
• What to assume for trucked demand?
• Hydrant meters for contractors? Only for work inside city limits • A truck per day as assumption
• No backup fill stations
• One combined fill station for trucks or residential users c. Rumiano Cheese
• Add UV to their MBBR to use the effluent to irrigate Joe Hamilton, Crescent Elk and schools nearby – Add as alternative
• Decentralized approach
• Put storage on school footprints
• Good for school outreach/demonstration project
• Public private partnership
• Probably less than 10 NTU for UV or consider chlorine disinfection • ACTION: City to contact Rumiano to set up a meeting to discuss directly with client. KJ to prepare slides for discussion
d. Seaquake & Port O’Pints Breweries
• Seaquake plans to expand and may require additional pre-treatment that could improve effluent quality
• Refer to in the plan as not feasible currently but a consideration for the future – could use rumiano as example
• Port of pints same as Seaquake

3. Recycled Water Market Considerations
i. Consider sewer flushing – tied to truck fill station ii. There isn’t a flushing program for sewer, very small flushing demands. Supply with truck fill
iii. Truck fill station for agricultural use
iv. Truck fill station can be used for agg, commercial, sewer flushing but minor flow III. RWFS – Status Update
IV. Schedule
V. Next Steps
Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Recycled Water Market Assessment
February 4, 2022

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY

1. Irrigation Demands
Climate Data
Irrigation Demand Estimates
Irrigation Demand Assumptions

2. Recycled Water Market Assessment
Irrigation Customers
Industrial/Commercial
Considerations

3. RWFS Status Update

4. Next Steps

5. Schedule
Agenda

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Climate Data
Irrigation Demand Estimates
Irrigation Demands

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Climate Data
• Irrigation Demand = ETo - Precipitation
• Peak Irrigation Demand = 4 in (July)
• ETo data: CIMIS 2020-21 water year
• CIMIS station = Smith River #263
Month Average ETo (in)(a) Average Precip (in)(b)
Average
Irrigation
Demand(c) (in)
Dry Year
Irrigation
Demand(d) (in)
Jan 1.56 11.59 0.00 0.00
Feb 1.93 9.82 0.00 0.00
Mar 3.11 9.21 0.00 0.00
Apr 4.09 5.44 0.00 0.00
May 4.50 3.49 1.01 4.50
Jun 4.92 1.64 3.28 4.92
Jul 4.44 0.44 4.00 4.44
Aug 4.21 0.61 3.60 4.21
Sep 3.56 1.81 1.75 3.56
Oct 2.87 5.23 0.00 0.00
Nov 1.84 9.83 0.00 0.00
Dec 1.47 11.65 0.00 0.00
Total 38.50 70.77 13.64 21.63
Average(e) 3.21 5.90 1.14
Peak(f) 4.92 11.65 4.00
Peaking Factor(g) 1.5
Table 1: Average Precipitation, Evapotranspiration (ETo), and Irrigation Demand

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
• Potential Largest Customers:

1. Beach Front Park

2. 400 E Cooper Cemetery

3. Del Norte High School

4. Crescent Elk Elementary School

5. Joe Hamilton Elementary School
Total Irrigation Area = 120 acres
Irrigation Demand Estimates
User
Area
(acres)(a)
Average Annual
(AFY)(b),(c),(d)
Average Day
(MGD)(e)
Peak Day
(MGD)
Peak Hour
(gpm)
Parks and Fields
Pyke Field 4.3 3.9 0.007 0.011 23
Beach Front Park 33 30.2 0.056 0.085 176
Brother Jonathan Park 1.0 0.9 0.002 0.003 5
Peterson Park 6.1 5.6 0.010 0.016 33
Coastal Trail, Battery Park Vista 5.3 4.8 0.009 0.014 28 Point of Honor Area 3.5 3.2 0.006 0.009 18
Unknown Field and Basketball Court 1.1 1.0 0.002 0.003 6 SUB-TOTAL 54.5 49.6 0.093 0.139 289
Cemetaries
Cemetary (400 E Cooper Ave) 14.4 13.1 0.025 0.037 77
Brother Jonathan Cemetary 2.6 2.4 0.004 0.007 14
SUB-TOTAL 17.0 15.5 0.029 0.043 90
Institutions
Crescent Elk Elementary School 10.3 9.3 0.017 0.026 54
Crescent Elk School Garden 0.3 0.3 0.001 0.001 2
Joe Hamilton Elementary School 10 8.8 0.017 0.025 52
Church of Christ 0.7 0.6 0.001 0.002 4
New Life Church 0.4 0.3 0.001 0.001 2
Church of the Nazarene 0.5 0.4 0.001 0.001 3
Bess Maxwell Elementary School 3.1 2.8 0.005 0.008 17
Del Norte Community School 4.9 4.5 0.008 0.012 26
Del Norte High School 10.8 9.8 0.018 0.027 57
Sutter Coast Hospital 6 5.4 0.010 0.015 31
SUB-TOTAL 46.6 42.3 0.079 0.119 247
Apartments and Commercial
Seabreeze Apartments 0.5 0.5 0.001 0.001 3
SeaQuake Brewing 0.3 0.2 0.000 0.001 2
Seagull Villa Apartments 0.9 0.8 0.001 0.002 5
SUB-TOTAL 1.7 1.5 0.001 0.004 9
TOTAL 120 109 0.20 0.30 635

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Irrigation Estimates Assumptions

1. Irrigation areas estimated with GIS mapping

2. Irrigation Efficiency = 80%

3. Turf grass with crop coefficient of 1

4. Peaking Factor = Peak Month Eto / Average Eto = 1.5

5. Irrigation Days = 150 (May to Sept)

6. Irrigation Hours = 8/day

7. Average Annual Demand = Efficiency x Crop Coeff x Area x Annual Demand

8. Average Day Demand = Average Annual Demand / Irrigation Days

9. Peak Day Demand = Average Day x Peaking Factor

10.Peak Hour Demand = Peak Day / Irrigation hours
Confirm:
• RW Production vs Irrigation hours
• Min pipe size requirements?
• Irrigation schedules (days/week)

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Irrigation Customers
Recycled Water Market Assessment

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Recycled Water Market Assessment (Irrigation)
*Used demand estimates

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Recycled Water Market Assessment (Irrigation)
*Used demand estimates

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Recycled Water Market Assessment (Irrigation)
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Average Annual Demand (AFY)
Average Annual Irrigation Demand by Type and Phase
Park School Cemetary Hospital Church Apartments Commercial *Used demand estimates

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Cannabis Growers Water Demand Estimates
Truck Fill Station
Rumiano Cheese
Breweries
Industrial - Commercial Market Assessment

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Cannabis Growers Water Demand Estimates
• Average Water Use – Dillis 2020:
o Outdoor Farms: 7.4 gal/sq ft/year
o Mixed-Light Farms: 10.1 gal/sq ft/year
o From Humboldt County:
 37% of farms are outdoor,
 62% mixed-light,
 <1% indoor
• Average Water Use – New Frontier 2021:
o Outdoor: 11 gal/sq ft/year
o Indoor: 209 gal/sq ft/year
o Indoor - steady annual water demand with multiple harvests per year o Outdoor - highest demand in late summer/early fall, only one harvest per year

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Truck Fill Station
• Commercial:
o Estimate = 4,000 gallons per truck
o Consider a backup fill station?
o How many trucks should be assumed per day for contractor use? • Residential use:
o Estimate = 300 gallons per fill
o Consider a residential fill station?
o How many residential vehicles should be assumed per day?

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Rumiano Cheese
• Water Use (2018 meter data):
o Annual = 32.6 AFY
o Average Monthly = 25,000 gpd
• Industrial (Process) Wastewater:
o Effluent Discharge = 20,000 – 75,000 gpd
o Effluent Average = 43,500 gpd
o Pretreatment: screening, pH adjustment, MBBR, DAFT (w/coagulation) o No disinfection
o Effluent Quality Average (2021):
 TSS = 17.8 mg/L (max 140 mg/L)
 BOD = 10.4 mg/L (max 67 mg/L)
 pH = 8.1

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Seaquake Brewery
• Water Use (2018 meter data):
o Annual = 2.0 AFY
o Average Monthly = 1,600 gpd
• Industrial (Process) Wastewater:
o Effluent Average = 1,500 gpd (summer)
o Small irrigation area
o No pretreatment
o No disinfection
o Effluent Quality Average (2021):
 TSS = 3,174 mg/L
 BOD = 14,000 mg/L
 pH = 6

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Port o’ Pints Brewery
• Water Use (2018 meter data):
o Annual = 0.9 AFY
o Average Monthly = 700 gpd
• Industrial (Process) Wastewater:
o Effluent Average = 200 gpd (a couple of times per week) o No pretreatment
o No disinfection
o Effluent Quality Average (2021):
 TSS = 162 mg/L
 BOD = 13,500 mg/L
 pH = 7

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Recycled Water Market Considerations
Recycled Water Supply & Demand Analysis
Recycled Water Market Considerations

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Recycled Water Market Considerations
• Non-Potable Reuse Market
o Irrigation Demands 
o Commercial and Industrial Demands 
o Construction Use – Truck Fill station 
o Sewer Flushing – to be considered?
o Agricultural Use – to be considered?
o Environmental Considerations
o Loss of Revenue Considerations (potable demands replaced with RW)

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Recycled Water Market Considerations
• Potable Reuse Market Assessment
o Indirect Potable Reuse
 Groundwater replenishment in the Smith groundwater basin – not feasible? o Direct Potable Reuse
 Advanced Purified Water Supply to Water Treatment Plant – High level conceptual evaluation

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Recycled Water Supply & Demand Analysis
Data Sources:
• Billing Meter Data 2018
o Water Consumption
o Irrigation Meters*
• RW Production
Capacity = 1.2 MGD
• Purified Production
Capacity = 1 MGD
(80% losses assumed)
• Wastewater Discharge
Monitoring Records
(2018)
o Influent (with rain)
o Effluent (treated) *Meter data lower than demand estimates

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Average Demand (MGD)
Recycled Water Supply and Demand Analysis
Irrigation Meter Demand Water Meter Demand Irrigation Demand Estimate (120 Acres) WW Influent Flow WW Effluent Flow RW Production Capacity Purified Water Production Capacity

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RWFS Report Update
RWFS Status Update

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RWFS Report Update
• Introduction – drafted
• Project Area – drafted
• Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities – in progress • Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities – in progress • Treatment Requirements
• Recycled Water Market – current presentation
• Project Alternatives Analysis – next steps
• Recommended Project
• Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Schedule & Milestones
Schedule

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Schedule
Task Duration  Meeting/Conf Call
Activity Duration  Preliminary Outcomes
Review Period  Final Deliverable
 City Provided Info
LEGEND
Notice to Proceed 
Task 1 - Project Management & QA/QC
Project Setup, Monthly Status Reports and Invoices               Kickoff, Webinars/Calls (6), Internal Coordination  #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 QAQC Activities
Task 2 - Collect Background Information
Data Request and Review  
Study Area Characteristics 
Water/WW Characteristics 
Task 3 - Recycled Water Market Assessment
Customer and Demand Tables 
NPR Recycled Water Market Survey 
Industrial/Commercial Stakeholders Calls (3) 
IPR/DPR Potential 
Task 4 - Treatment Evaluation
Define Water Quality Objectives for Uses 
Summarize Regulatory Requirements 
Treatment Evaluation 
Task 5 - Alternatives Analysis
Define Alternatives 
Evaluate/Rank Alternatives 
Virtual Workshop (stakeholders/public) 
Capital, O&M and Life Cycle Costs 
Task 6 - Recommended Project Plan
Preliminary Facilities Design Criteria 
Implementation Plan 
Task 7 - Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program Anticipated Financing Plan 
Anticipated Revenue Projection Program 
Task 8 - RWFS Report
First Draft for City  City
SWRCB Draft Report Submittal (9/16/22) 
SWRCB Meeting/Presentation 
Second Draft For City  City
SWRCB Final Report Submittal (12/16/22) 
Jul Aug
Task and Key Activities/Deliverables
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
2021 2022
Sept Oct Nov Dec
KO
SWRCB
Webinar/Call Focus
#1 Customers and Demands
#2 Market Assessment
#3 Defining Alternatives
#4 Evaluate/Rank Alternatives
#5 Implementation Plan
#6 Present Admin Draft RWFS
 Schedule is
on track

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Grant Milestones
Milestone Estimated Date Critical Date
Draft Project Report Submittal 9/16/2022
Mid-Course Meeting 9/30/2022
Final Project Report Submittal 12/16/2022
Work Completion Date 3/31/2024
Final Disbursement Request 9/30/2024

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Next Steps
• January :
o Customer Demands
o NPR Recycled Water Market
o Industrial/Commercial users call  – Calls with Rumiano, Construction or Agg stakeholders? • February
o IPR/DPR Potential
o Regulatory Requirements
o Treatment Evaluation
• March:
o Start alternatives development
• April:
o Evaluate and rank alternatives
o Workshop (Stakeholders/Public) – stakeholders to be included? o Capital & O&M costs

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Thank you
Dawn Taffler [email protected] 415.243.2484
Claudia Llerandi [email protected] 415.243.2506 Cayla Whiteside [email protected] 925.953.1522 Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Recycled Water Market Assessment Call
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ March 25, 2022
Microsoft Teams Call
1:00 pm – 2:00 pm
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Meeting Objective: Discuss the opportunity to include a project alternative for the City’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS) that evaluates the feasibility of reusing Rumiano’s process effluent as a source for production of recycled water for irrigation of nearby landscape areas and parks.

Attendees:

Rumiano Cheese – Joby Rumiano
Crescent City – Eric Weir
Stover Engineering – Ward Stover
KJ – Cayla Whiteside, Claudia Llerandi
AGENDA
I. City’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS)

1. Purpose & Approach
II. Industrial Effluent Reuse Alternative

1. Concept

2. Benefits

3. Drawbacks

4. Similar Project Examples
III. Water Quality and Treatment System Requirements

1. Existing Treatment System

2. Process Effluent Water Quality

3. Water Quality Requirements for Reuse/Irrigation
IV. Potential Recycled Water Users

1. Map Overview of potential Landscape Areas and Parks

2. Effluent Production and Irrigation Demand Analysis
V. Considerations for Effluent Reuse

1. Stakeholder Engagement

2. Permitting Pathways

3. Additional Improvements Needed
VI. Next Steps
Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Industrial Effluent Reuse Concept
March 25, 2022

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY

1. City’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study

2. Industrial Effluent Reuse Alternative

3. Water Quality & Treatment System
Requirements

4. Potential Recycled Water Users

5. Considerations for Effluent Reuse

6. Next Steps
Agenda

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Purpose & Approach
Recycled Water Feasibility Study for
Crescent City

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study
• Purpose:

A. Evaluate feasibility of beneficial and cost-effective use of recycled water within the City.

B. Meet requirements of Water Recycling Grant
• Recycled Water Use Options:

A. Irrigation – Parks, landscape areas
B. Fill station – dust control, construction, homeowners landscape C. Indoor non potable demands: toilet flushing, cleaning, water features.

D. Industrial Users

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study
• Approach:

A. Prepare a market assessment of potential recycled water uses in the City’s service area.

B. Explore options for reuse from identified industrial users.

C. Evaluate alternatives to distribute recycled water.

D. Estimate cost of implementation (Capital + O&M)
E. Develop a comparison matrix to score and rank the alternatives F. Establish quantitative/qualitative criteria for selection preferred alternative
G. Develop an implementation plan for the preferred alternative.

Here

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Concept
Benefits
Drawbacks
Similar Project Examples
Industrial Effluent Reuse Alternative

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Industrial Reuse Concept Alternative
• Concept:

A. Provide additional treatment and/or disinfection for Rumiano’s Process Effluent to produce Recycled Water
B. Provide storage and conveyance system to deliver treated/disinfected effluent (RW) to nearby landscape areas
C. Irrigate landscape areas using treated/disinfected effluent (RW)

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Industrial Reuse Concept Alternative
• Benefits:

A. Reduce effluent discharged from Rumiano to the City’s sewer system ▪ Reduce sewer discharge costs for Rumiano
▪ Reuse treated industrial effluent
▪ Reduce potable water used for non potable demands (irrigation) ▪ Increase capacity in sewer collection system
▪ Increase hydraulic capacity on the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant B. Reduce conveyance needed to deliver RW from the City’s RWTP ▪ Reduce pipeline installation to deliver RW to landscape areas ▪ Minimize disruption due to installation of pipelines

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Industrial Reuse Concept Alternative
• Drawbacks:

A. Additional Treatment
▪ Additional treatment/disinfection to meet water quality needed for irrigation ▪ Increase in treatment and O&M costs
B. Conveyance System Needs
▪ Location for storage of treated effluent (Recycled Water) ▪ Location for pump system to deliver Recycled Water to landscape areas ▪ Installation of new pipelines to convey recycled water to landscape areas C. Irrigation System Upgrades
▪ Retrofit Irrigation Areas (purple pipe, fittings, signage) D. Additional Permit Required for Production & Use of RW for Irrigation ▪ New Title 22 Permit and/or
▪ New WDR

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Similar Projects
• Confidential Cheese Company in Central Valley:
o Discharge to farmland for irrigation (approx. 1,200 acres) o Permitted through a WDR
▪ Groundwater monitoring wells and reporting program
o Monthly average flow of 2.5 MGD
o Treatment System: Anaerobic Digester, DAFs, UF/RO, Evaporator • Confidential Cheese & Dairy Company + City Wastewater Project in Central Valley:
o Combined treated wastewater from Company and City to use for irrigation (approx. 2,400 acres) o Total combined flow of 7 MGD
o Wastewater blended with supplemental groundwater supplies o Poor shallow groundwater quality
o Company’s Treatment System: MBBRs, SBRs, Filtration
o City’s Treated effluent meets Title 22 Disinfected Secondary Treated 23 requirements • Confidential Dairy Company in Central Valley:
o Discharge to farmland for irrigation
o Permitted through WDR
o Treatment System: Evaporator, DAFs, Aerobic/Anaerobic Lined Ponds

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Existing Treatment System
Process Effluent Water Quality
Water Quality Requirements for Reuse/Irrigation
Water Quality Treatment System
Requirements

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Rumiano Treatment System
• Is the Sanitary Discharge
comingled with the Process
Effluent ?
• Is production seasonal?
• Could effluent be diverted prior to
City Discharge for additional
treatment?
• Maintain option to discharge to City
To RW
Treatment
Disinfection

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Rumiano Effluent Flow and Water Quality
Month TSS
(mg/L)
BOD
(mg/L)
pH
(mg/L)
Effluent
(avg)
(gpd)
Effluent
(min)
(gpd)
Effluent
(max)
(gpd)
Jan 25.7 4.85 8.1 39,942 9,747 70,423
Feb 16.5 26.7 8.2 39,739 647 64,766
Mar 8 8.3 8.3 42,745 12,700 66,170
Apr 14.1 7.2 8.2 48,276 19,224 60,913
May 12.3 6.9 8.2 48,930 22,579 67,632
Jun 20.7 11.8 8.1 45,352 16,708 63,660
Jul 11.4 7 8.1 45,672 20,920 64,608
Aug 19.3 7.5 8.1 41,768 20,061 58,445
Sep 39.8 9.2 8.1 43,153 11,323 64,735
Oct 19.5 9.1 8.1 44,896 15,891 73,498
Nov 20.4 9.5 8 40,983 12,202 68,228
Dec 5.6 10.7 8.2 40,379 10,332 70,680
Average 17.8 9.9 8.1 43,486 14,361 66,147
2021 Monthly Sample Results and Flowrate
• Are there months with no
effluent generation (i.e. Feb)?
• Any considerations for water
quality variability?
• Any expectations for effluent
flow and quality to change in
the future?
• Increase in Production
• New Product line
• Changes in Production Equipment
or Methods

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Water Quality Requirements for Reuse/Irrigation
Recycled Water Quality Guidelines for Irrigation
Constituent
or
Parameter
Issue of Concern Units
Degree of Restriction on Use(a)
Rumiano’s Effluent
Sample None (b) Slight to
Moderate Severe
Boron Toxicity to Plants mg/L < 0.7 0.7 to 3.0 > 3.0 NT Chloride Ion toxicity, Spray
(Overhead) Irrigation mg/L < 100 >100 NT
Surface irrigation mg/L < 140 140 to 350 > 350
pH Misc. Effects -- Normal Range 6.5 to 8.4 7.9
Residual
chlorine
Leaf Burn from Spray
(Overhead) Irrigation mg/L < 1 1 to 5 > 5 NA
TDS Plant Response mg/L < 450 450 to 2,000 >2,000 1,120 Notes: TDS = total dissolved solids; N/A = Not Applicable; NT = Not Tested Source: Water quality objectives from 2004 Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse (Tchobanoglous et al.), based on Ayers and Westcot (1985) with additional information from Tanji et al. (2007). (a) None – Suitable water quality as is;
Slight to Moderate – Manageable with proper irrigation scheduling, amendments, and/or plant selection; Severe – Problematic, may need partial removal of the constituent. (b) Process Effluent Sample collected in March 2022 by City Representative These guidelines are not
plant specific and may be
too restrictive for some
plants and not restrictive
enough for more sensitive
plants.

Constituent Rumiano
3/22 Sample
pH 7.9
Settleable Solids
(mg/L) 0.1
Total Suspended
Solids (mg/L) 28.0
Electrical
Conductivity (mg/L) 1,775
Total Dissolved
Solids (mg/L) 1,120
BOD (mg/L) >19.1

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Map Overview of potential Landscape Areas and Parks
Effluent Production and Irrigation Demand Analysis
Potential Recycled Water Users

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Nearby Irrigation Demands

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Effluent Production and Irrigation Demands
* 2021 flow data for Rumiano with 10% losses assumed for additional treatment ** Irrigation demand estimates based on annual average evapotranspiration and acreage of irrigation area

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Stakeholder Engagement
Permitting Pathways
Additional Improvements Needed
Considerations for Effluent Reuse

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Stakeholder Engagement
• Evaluate Interest of using RW for irrigation with potential Users:
o Crescent Elk Middle School
o Joe Hamilton Elementary School
o Peterson Park – City
o Brother Jonathan Cemetery
• Engage the Community
• Discuss Feasibility with Regulators
• Other Stakeholders?

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Permitting Pathways
Title 22 Pathway for Recycled Water Permitting:
• Requires treatment and disinfection to meet Regulatory Requirements • Permit Steps:

1. Submit an Engineering Report to DDW for review and approval

2. Submit Notice of Intent to RWQCB to enroll under RW General Order

3. Obtain Notice of Applicability from RWQCB to enroll under RW General Order

4. Comply with Monitoring and Reporting Program
▪ Daily sample collection
▪ Reporting to RWQCB
DDW – Division of Drinking Water under the State Water Resources control Board (SWRCB) RWQCB – Regional Water Quality Control Board
RW General Order – WQ 2016-0068-DDW Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use for the treatment, distribution, and use of recycled water

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Permitting Pathways
WDR Pathway for Industrial Effluent Application:
• May require treatment to meet land application requirements and protection of groundwater quality
• May require disinfection
• Permit Steps:

1. Submit Report of Waste Discharge to RWQCB
▪ May require Antidegradation Analysis (potential impacts to groundwater quality)

2. Obtain a WDR from RWQCB

3. Comply with Monitoring and Reporting Program
▪ May require groundwater monitoring wells
WDR – Waste Discharge Requirements
RWQCB – Regional Water Quality Control Board

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Additional Improvements Needed
• Evaluation of effluent water quality
• Additional treatment to reduce dissolved solids, turbidity • Disinfection (UV or chlorine)
• Storage for produced Recycled Water
• Pump Station for pressurizing Recycled Water
• Pipelines to Irrigation Sites
• Retrofits of irrigation sites
o Purple Pipes
o Purple Fittings
o Signage
• Cross Connection Testing

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Next Steps

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Next Steps
• Determine Stakeholder Interest in Assessing this Alternative • Discuss feasibility and permitting pathways with Regulators • Assess Effluent Water Quality
• Establish Additional Treatment Requirements for Reuse • Establish Feasibility of Implementation
• Estimate Costs for Implementation
• Compare and Rank this Alternative with other Recycled Water Alternatives • Summarize Findings in Recycled Water Feasibility Report for the City

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Thank you
Claudia Llerandi [email protected] 415.243.2506 Cayla Whiteside [email protected] 925.953.1522 Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Recycled Water Alternatives Workshop
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- May 10, 2022
Microsoft Teams Call
2:30 pm – 3:30 pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meeting Objective: Review recycled water project alternatives for Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study and select criteria to evaluate projects by.

Attendees:

Crescent City – Jonathan Olson, Andrew Leighton
Stover Engineering – Ward Stover
KJ – Cayla Whiteside, Claudia Llerandi, Sachi Itagaki
AGENDA
I. RW Production Capacity
II. Rumiano Effluent Available
III. Recycled Water Project Alternatives Evaluation

1. Alternatives Matrix

2. Facilities and Site Requirements

3. Evaluation Criteria

4. Project Selection
IV. Community Engagement
V. RWFS Report status
VI. Schedule & Next Steps
Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Alternatives Workshop
May 10, 2022

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY

1. RW production Capacity

2. Rumiano Effluent Available

3. RW Project Alternatives Evaluation
a. Alternatives Matrix
b. Facilities & Site Requirements
c. Evaluation Criteria
d. Project Selection

4. Community Engagement

5. Report Status

6. Schedule & Next Steps
Agenda

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study
• Approach:

A. Prepare a market assessment of potential recycled water uses in the City’s service area.

B. Explore options for reuse from identified industrial users.

C. Evaluate alternatives to distribute recycled water.

D. Develop a comparison matrix to score and rank the alternatives E. Establish quantitative/qualitative criteria for selection preferred alternative
F. Estimate cost of implementation (Capital + O&M)
G. Develop an implementation plan for the preferred alternative.

Here

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RW production Capacity Updates
• WWTF Operational Constraints (From discussion with Jacobs):

A. RBCs
 Need about 0.3 MGD per train to maintain biological treatment.  About 1 month needed to ramp up biological treatment at 1 RBC  3 RBCs typically in operation, unless there is not enough flow B. MBR
 Membrane replacement planned for Oct 2022 (high TMP due to age)  Producing about 0.42 MGD (max production with 2 units, high TMP)  2 units always running with 1 on standby
 Need about 0.25 MGD for two units to maintain biological treatment.

C. UV
 Has not been commissioned, needs DDW validation
 2 MGD Capacity, 2 reactors
 ~$20K for replacement of parts

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RW production Capacity Updates
• WWTF Operational Constraints:

A. Flow split between RBCs and MBRs driven by
 Min flow/BOD needs to maintain biology on each system  Meeting NPDES discharge requirements
B. Blended Effluent:
 Dry weather flow of 1 MGD: 70% RBCs and 30% MBR
 Dry weather flow < 1 MGD: 60% RBCs and 40% MBR
 0.3 - 0.4 MGD of MBR effluent needed for blending
 0.1 MGD of MBR effluent available for RW production (current)  0.2 MGD of MBR effluent available for RW production (after membrane replacement)

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RW Production Capacity at WWTF
Flow to MBR
=0.7 MGD
Flow Discharged to
Outfall = 0.7 MGD
Flow to RBC
=0.3 MGD
Dry Weather Flow =

1.2 MGD (Ave)
RW Production Capacity =

0.2 MGD
Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility
Study
RBCs =

0.3 MGD
Flow from MBR = 0.4
MGD (for blending)
Flow from MBR
= 0.6 MGD

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RW Production at WWTF
UV stubout for
connection to
park
UV recirculation
Blending
Channel

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Rumiano Effluent Available
• Industrial Effluent (From discussion
with Rumiano):

A. Pretreatment System (WWTP)
 DAF and MBBR treatment
 Comingled with Polished
Effluent from CIP Silo before
discharge to City
 About 45,000 gpd average
effluent discharge
 Comingled effluent has high
EC, TDS and BOD for
irrigation
From CIP
Storage
Silo

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Rumiano Effluent Flow and Water Quality
Month TSS
(mg/L)
BOD
(mg/L)
pH
(mg/L)
Effluent
(avg)
(gpd)
Effluent
(min)
(gpd)
Effluent
(max)
(gpd)
Jan 25.7 4.85 8.1 39,942 9,747 70,423
Feb 16.5 26.7 8.2 39,739 647 64,766
Mar 8 8.3 8.3 42,745 12,700 66,170
Apr 14.1 7.2 8.2 48,276 19,224 60,913
May 12.3 6.9 8.2 48,930 22,579 67,632
Jun 20.7 11.8 8.1 45,352 16,708 63,660
Jul 11.4 7 8.1 45,672 20,920 64,608
Aug 19.3 7.5 8.1 41,768 20,061 58,445
Sep 39.8 9.2 8.1 43,153 11,323 64,735
Oct 19.5 9.1 8.1 44,896 15,891 73,498
Nov 20.4 9.5 8 40,983 12,202 68,228
Dec 5.6 10.7 8.2 40,379 10,332 70,680
Average 17.8 9.9 8.1 43,486 14,361 66,147
2021 Monthly Sample Results and Flowrate

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Water Quality Requirements for Reuse/Irrigation
Recycled Water Quality Guidelines for Irrigation
Constituent
or
Parameter
Issue of Concern Units
Degree of Restriction on Use(a)
Rumiano’s Effluent
Sample None (b) Slight to
Moderate Severe
Boron Toxicity to Plants mg/L < 0.7 0.7 to 3.0 > 3.0 NT Chloride Ion toxicity, Spray
(Overhead) Irrigation mg/L < 100 >100 NT
Surface irrigation mg/L < 140 140 to 350 > 350
pH Misc. Effects -- Normal Range 6.5 to 8.4 7.9
Residual
chlorine
Leaf Burn from Spray
(Overhead) Irrigation mg/L < 1 1 to 5 > 5 NA
TDS Plant Response mg/L < 450 450 to 2,000 >2,000 1,120 Notes: TDS = total dissolved solids; N/A = Not Applicable; NT = Not Tested Source: Water quality objectives from 2004 Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse (Tchobanoglous et al.), based on Ayers and Westcot (1985) with additional information from Tanji et al. (2007). (a) None – Suitable water quality as is;
Slight to Moderate – Manageable with proper irrigation scheduling, amendments, and/or plant selection; Severe – Problematic, may need partial removal of the constituent. (b) Process Effluent Sample collected in March 2022 by City Representative Guidelines are not plant
specific
Constituent Rumiano
3/22 Sample
pH 7.9
Settleable Solids
(mg/L) 0.1
Total Suspended
Solids (mg/L) 28.0
Electrical
Conductivity (mg/L) 1,775
Total Dissolved
Solids (mg/L) 1,120
BOD (mg/L) >19.1

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Rumiano Effluent Available
• WWTF Operational Constraints (From discussion with Rumiano):

A. CIP Treatment System
 Polished stream treated with UF, RO and UV
 Produces about 30,000 gpd polished effluent
 Stored at 30,000 gal silo
 CIP uses about 18,000 gpd for cleaning
 12,000 gpd remaining comingled with pretreatment effluent and discharged to City (could be used for irrigation)
 5 days per week of production
Raw milk
Standardization
Pasteurization
Curd
manufacture
Drainage
Cheddaring
Milling
Salting
Forming
Pressing
Wrapping
Curing
Sweet whey
Cheese
Salty whey
Rennet & Culture
Pre-treatment
Cream
UF Lactose
Crystallization
Evaporation/
Drying
Lactose
Butter
WPC-80
RO

CIP WASTE
Mother liquor
(minerals)
Waste Water Sludge
(Polymer+ bugs)
Salty Whey
(Na)
RO impurities
(minerals + soil)
Cream/butter
(leftover)
Rumiano’s Effluent Generation
Waste Silo
UF Permeate
UF Retentate

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Permitting Pathways
Title 22 Pathway for Recycled Water Permitting:
• Requires treatment and disinfection to meet Regulatory Requirements • Permit Steps:

1. Submit an Engineering Report to DDW for review and approval

2. Submit Notice of Intent to RWQCB to enroll under RW General Order

3. Obtain Notice of Applicability from RWQCB to enroll under RW General Order

4. Comply with Monitoring and Reporting Program
 Daily sample collection
 Reporting to RWQCB
DDW – Division of Drinking Water under the State Water Resources control Board (SWRCB) RWQCB – Regional Water Quality Control Board
RW General Order – WQ 2016-0068-DDW Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use for the treatment, distribution, and use of recycled water

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Permitting Pathways
WDR Pathway for Industrial Effluent Application:
• May require treatment to meet land application requirements and protection of groundwater quality
• May require disinfection
• Permit Steps:

1. Submit Report of Waste Discharge to RWQCB
 May require Antidegradation Analysis (potential impacts to groundwater quality)

2. Obtain a WDR from RWQCB

3. Comply with Monitoring and Reporting Program
 May require groundwater monitoring wells
WDR – Waste Discharge Requirements
RWQCB – Regional Water Quality Control Board
Project Alternatives Matrix
Facilities and Site Requirements
Evaluation Criteria
Project Selection
RW Project Alternatives Evaluation

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RW Project Alternatives Matrix
# Alternative Description Source Water Treatment Limiting Conditions Avg
Demand
(MGD)
Peak
Demand
(MGD)
Estimated
Storage
(gal)
RW Use Sites Notes
1 Baseline Truck Fill Station at
WWTF
Tertiary Effluent
from WWTF
Existing
Treatment at
WWTF
(MBR + UV)

1. Requires space for
storage tank 0.004 N/A 5,000 Truck Fill Station Assumes 4,000 gallons per truck, 1 truck per day, 365 days per year
2 Beach Front Park
RW produced at WWTF
stored at Beach Front
Park for irrigation
Tertiary Effluent
from WWTF
Existing
Treatment at
WWTF
(MBR + UV)

1. Requires space for
storage tank 0.07 0.1 60,000 -
90,000
Beach Front Park
Point of Honor
RW produced at WWTF conveyed to storage tank at
Beach Front Park for irrigation. Booster pump station
required

2.1 Irrigation of
nearby Schools
and Parks
Irrigation of nearby
schools and parks with
RW stored at Beach
Front Park (within City
Limits)
Tertiary Effluent
from WWTF
Existing
Treatment at
WWTF
(MBR + UV)

1. Need to confirm irrigation
demand with school district

2. Coordination with CC
parks department

0.04 0.06 100,000 -
150,000
Crescent Elk
Joe Hamilton
Peterson Park
Pyke Field
Piping from storage tank at Beach Front Park to Crescent Elk, Joe Hamilton, Peterson Park, and Pyke Field
Booster pump station and additional storage required

2.2 Irrigation of North
Schools and
Cemetery
Irrigation of Schools
and Cemetery outside
City Limits
Tertiary Effluent
from WWTF
Existing
Treatment at
WWTF
(MBR + UV)

1. Long pipeline

2. Limited RW to meet
irrigation demands

3. Coordination with school
district

0.05 0.08 150,000 -
225,000
Del Norte Schools
Cooper Cemetery
Piping from storage tank at Beach Front Park to Del Norte Schools and 400 E Cooper Ave Cemetery
Booster pump station and additional storage required
3 Rumiano Effluent
for Peterson Park
Irrigation
Irrigation of Peterson
Park with Rumiano
Industrial Effluent
Rumiano
Industrial
Effluent
UF, RO and UV

1. Additional permitting
requirements

2. Coordination with
Rumiano, CC parks
department

0.01 0.02 10,000 -
20,000 Peterson Park
Rumiano Treated Industrial effluent conveyed from
storage tank at Rumiano to Peterson Park for irrigation Requires permitting coordination between City and
Rumiano
4 Rumiano Effluent
for Schoolyard
Irrigation
Irrigation of Crescent
Elk and Joe Hamilton
Schoolyards with
Rumiano Industrial
Effluent
Rumiano
Industrial
Effluent
UF, RO and UV

1. Additional permitting
requirements

2. Confirm irrigation
demand with school district

3. Coordination with
Rumiano, school district

0.02 0.04 25,000 -
40,000
Crescent Elk
Joe Hamilton
Rumiano Treated Industrial effluent conveyed from
storage tank at Rumiano to Crescent Elk and Joe
Hamilton for irrigation
Requires permitting coordination between City and
Rumiano

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RW Production Capacity and Alternative 2 Irrigation Demands 0 0.05

0.1 0.15

0.2 0.25
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Demand (MGD) Recycled Water Supply and Demand Analysis
Beach Front Park Irrigation Demand Point of Honor Irrigation Demand RW Available for NPR Demand Future RW Available for NPR Demand Notes: 1) Irrigation demand estimates based on average ETo and Precipitation for Crescent City and the estimated acreage for irrigation. A factor of 80% irrigation efficiency was applied. 2) Future RW Available for NPR Demand = after replacement of MBR membranes

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Rumiano Effluent and Alternatives 3 - 4 Irrigation Demands 0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Flowrate (gpd) Rumiano Effluent (gpd) and Nearby Irrigation Demands
Crescent Elk Middle Joe Hamilton Elementary Peterson Park Rumiano Available Effluent (avg) Rumiano Available Effluent (min) Rumiano Treated Effluent

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Facilities & Site Requirements
Alternative
1 2 2A 2B 3 4
Baseline WWTF Effluent for Beach
Front Park Irrigation
Irrigation of Schools and
Parks from Beach Front
Park Storage
Irrigation of Schools and
Cemetery from Beach
Front Park Storage
Rumiano Effluent for
Peterson Park Irrigation
Rumiano Effluent for
Schoolyard Irrigation
Description Truck Fill Station at
WWTF
Effluent from CC WWTF piped
to Storage Tank at Beach Front
Park for irrigation
Irrigation of Crescent Elk,
Joe Hamilton, Peterson
Park, and Pyke Field from
Storage Tank at Beach
Front Park
Irrigation of Del Norte High
and Community School, and
400 E Cooper Cemetary
from Storage Tank at Beach
Front Park
Irrigation of Peterson Park
from Rumiano WWTP
Effluent
Irrigation of Crescent Elk
and Joe Hamilton
Schoolyards from Rumiano
WWTP Effluent
Disinfection Required Yes, replace/upgrade
existing UV
Yes, replace/upgrade existing
UV
Yes, replace/upgrade
existing UV
Yes, replace/upgrade
existing UV Yes, UV or chlorine TBD Yes, UV or chlorine TBD Treatment Train Repairs/Upgrades No No No No Maybe Maybe Storage Tank Yes, at WWTF Yes, at Beach Front Park Yes, at Beach Front Park Yes, at Beach Front Park Maybe Maybe Fill Station Yes No No No No No
Third-Party Coordination No Maybe Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pipeline Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Approximate Pipeline Length (ft) 50 3,700 3,100 10,400 800 1,000 Booster Pumpstation Yes Yes Yes Yes Maybe Maybe
Customer Irrigation Site Retrofit No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Evaluation Criteria
• Technical Feasibility
• RW availability
• Infrastructure needed
• Other benefits (i.e. Community Improvements)
• Costs: Capital and O&M
• Other Qualitative Criteria?
o Operational complexity
o Administrative Feasibility
o Funding & Financing
o Public Acceptance
o Environmental Impact (CEQA)

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Project selection
• Apply Evaluation Criteria to 1 or more projects?
• Ranking and scoring of multiple projects?
• Recommend most feasible project?
o Develop Implementation & Construction Financing Plan
o Funding Opportunities
• OR No project recommended due to limited benefits/drivers and high costs

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Community Engagement
Opportunities for stakeholder participation:
• Public meetings with the local community members, potential recycled water users, and other agencies that have a stake in the study:
Rumiano
oElk Valley Rancheria – Tribe
o City Parks & Rec
o City Schools
o City Council briefing?
o Other?

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RWFS Report Update
• Introduction – drafted
• Project Area – drafted
• Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities – in progress • Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities – in progress • Treatment Requirements – drafted
• Recycled Water Market – in progress
• Project Alternatives Analysis – current presentation
• Recommended Project
• Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Schedule
Task Duration  Meeting/Conf Call
Activity Duration u Preliminary Outcomes
Review Period  Final Deliverable l City Provided Info
LEGEND
Webinar/Call Focus
#1 Customers and Demands
#2 Market Assessment
#3 Defining Alternatives
#4 Evaluate/Rank Alternatives
#5 Implementation Plan
#6 Present Admin Draft RWFS

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Grant Milestones
Milestone Estimated Date Critical Date
Draft Project Report Submittal 9/16/2022
Mid-Course Meeting
9/30/2022
Final Project Report Submittal 12/16/2022
Work Completion Date
3/31/2024
Final Disbursement Request
9/30/2024

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Next Steps
• January :
o Customer Demands
o NPR Recycled Water Market
o Industrial/Commercial users call
• February
o IPR/DPR Potential 
o Regulatory Requirements 
o Treatment Evaluation 
• March/April:
o Industrial/Commercial users call 
o MBR Effluent Assessment 
o Alternatives Development 
• May:
o Evaluate and rank alternatives
o Workshop (Stakeholders/Public)
o Capital & O&M costs
• June:
o Recommended Project Plan
• July:
o Construction & Financing Plan
o Draft RWFS Report

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Thank you
Claudia Llerandi [email protected] 415.243.2506 Cayla Whiteside [email protected] 925.953.1522 Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Recycled Water Alternatives Workshop
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 18, 2022
Microsoft Teams Call
3:00 pm – 4:00 pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meeting Objective: Review recycled water project alternatives for Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study and select criteria to evaluate projects by.

Attendees:

Crescent City – Jonathan Olson, Andrew Leighton
Stover Engineering – Ward Stover
KJ – Cayla Whiteside, Abbie McNomee, Claudia Llerandi, Sachi Itagaki AGENDA
I. Recycled Water Project Alternatives Evaluation

1. Alternatives Matrix

2. Evaluation Criteria

3. Alternatives Assumptions

4. Capital and O&M Cost Estimates
II. Alternatives Evaluation

1. Evaluation Criteria

2. Weighting

3. Scoring & Sensitivity Analysis
III. RWFS Report status
IV. Schedule & Next Steps
Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Alternatives Evaluation and Ranking Workshop
July 18, 2022

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY

1. RW Project Alternatives
a. Summary
b. Maps
c. Assumptions
d. Capital and O&M Cost Estimates

2. Alternatives Evaluation
a. Evaluation Criteria
b. Weighting
c. Scoring & Sensitivity Analysis

3. Report Status

4. Schedule & Next Steps
Agenda

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study
• Approach:

A. Prepare a market assessment of potential recycled water uses in the City’s service area.

B. Explore options for reuse from identified industrial users.

C. Evaluate alternatives to distribute recycled water.

D. Develop a comparison matrix to score and rank the alternatives E. Establish quantitative/qualitative criteria for selection of preferred alternative
F. Estimate cost of implementation (Capital + O&M)
G. Develop an implementation plan for the preferred alternative.

Here
Summary
Maps
Assumptions
Capital and O&M Cost Estimates
RW Project Alternatives

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RW Project Alternatives Matrix Summary
# Alternative Source Water Treatment Approx Avg Day
Demand (GPD)
Approx Peak
Day Demand
(GPD)
Required Storage
(gal)
1 Beach Front Park Tertiary Effluent from

CC WWTF
Existing Treatment at
WWTF (MRB + UV) 56,000 85,000 60,000
2 Beach Front Park + Fill
Station
Tertiary Effluent from

CC WWTF
Existing Treatment at
WWTF (MRB + UV) 60,000 85,000 60,000
3 Rumiano Effluent for
Peterson Park Irrigation
Rumiano Industrial
Effluent UF, RO, and UV 10,000 16,000 10,000

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 1 – Beach Front Park Overview

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 1 - Sizing Assumptions
Criteria Sizing
Assumptions Design Criteria For The Following:

Irrigated Area 33 acres Irrigation Demand
Average Day Irrigation Demand 56,000 GPD
(39 GPM)
-MBR Reuse Replacement Pumps
-Flowmeter
-UV Reactor
-RW conveyance line from UV system to storage tank at
park
-Storage tank at park
Peak Hour Irrigation Demand 177 GPM
-RW conveyance line from storage tank to park irrigation system
-Pump at storage tank
Recommended Irrigation System
Pressure 60psi -Pump at storage tank

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 1 – Treatment Facility Assumptions
• Existing 25-HP @ 0.60 MGD MBR Reuse pumps are oversized and will be replaced with two 0.50- HP pumps.*
• Existing 1.2 MGD UV reactors are oversized. Only one UV reactor will be replaced in the UV system.*
• Flowmeter will be replaced in the UV system.*
• Existing membrane bioreactor membranes are estimated to be replaced in Fall 2022. *Assumptions to be confirmed by the City

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 1 – Piping Assumptions
• Existing 12” RW stub-out from MBR building
basement will not be replaced.*
• Proposed 4” RW distribution main from
treatment plant to storage tank will connect
to existing 12” RW stub-out.
• UV recirculation loop and UV stub-out within
the plant fence has not been constructed.*
• 4” UV recirculation loop recommended for
operation of the system.
*Assumptions to be confirmed by the City

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 1 – Piping Assumptions
*Assumptions to be confirmed by the City
• 4” RW distribution main will follow
alignment identified in the 2010
Engineering Report.*

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 1 – Storage Tank and Irrigation System Retrofit Assumptions Storage Tank
• Separate 60,000-gallon storage required at Beach Front Park. • 15-HP pump (1 duty, no standby) required to convey RW from storage tank to park irrigation system.*
Park Irrigation System Retrofits
• Includes connections, piping, headers, controllers, signage, and sprinklers.
*Assumptions to be confirmed by the City

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 2 – Beach Front
Park + Fill Station

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 2 – Facility and Sizing Assumptions
Fill Station Facility Assumptions:
• Connection to fill station is on UV recirculation loop. • Piping, fittings, valves, concrete pad, and steel bollards. • Location of fill station at WWTF is assumed to be in the open space area east of the RBC’s.* • Parking space was not considered for truck fill station. It assumed there is enough space and reduced enter/exit traffic at the Howe Drive gate.*
• Will only be able to use fill station when RW is being produced (150 days/year).

Sizing Assumptions:
• Alternative 1 sizing assumptions apply.
• 4,000 gallons/day for one truck, 150 days a year.
*Assumptions to be confirmed by the City

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 3 – Rumiano Effluent for Peterson Park Overview

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 3 – Sizing Assumptions
Criteria Sizing
Assumptions Design Criteria For The Following:

Irrigated Area 6 acres Irrigation Demand
Average Day Irrigation Demand 10,000 GPD
(7 GPM)
-RW conveyance line from Rumiano to storage tank
-Storage tank at park
Peak Hour Irrigation Demand 33 GPM
-RW conveyance line from storage tank to park irrigation system
-Pump at storage tank
Recommended Irrigation System
Pressure 60psi -Pump at storage tank sized to convey RW to park irrigationsystem

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Alternative 3 – Facility Assumptions
Rumiano Treatment Facility:
• No additional treatment is required for CIP effluent from Rumiano.*
• CIP effluent is stored in 30,000-gallon silo at Rumiano. • 0.50-HP pump (1 duty, no standby) and 2” RW conveyance line for CIP effluent from Rumiano Treatment Facility to Peterson Park.*
Storage Tank:
• Separate 10,000-gallon storage required at Peterson Park.* • 2-HP pump (1 duty, no standby) required to convey RW from storage tank to park irrigation system.*
*Assumptions to be confirmed by the City
Piping:
• 2” and 4” piping required for
recycled water distribution mains.

Park Irrigation System Retrofits:
• Includes connections, piping,
headers, controllers, signage, and
sprinklers.

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Capital and O&M Costs
• Capital Costs include:
o Treatment System Upgrades
o Piping
o Pumps
o Storage tanks
o Fill station
o Irrigation System Retrofit
o Cross Connection Testing
• O&M Costs include:
o UV system energy use
o Pump energy use
o Other energy use
o Maintenance
o Contingency

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Capital and O&M Costs
Notes:
a. Other site costs include estimated costs for site development, yard piping, and electrical, I&C, and Remote (low-tech) Control b. Other costs include taxes, Mobilization/Bonds/Permits, Contractor Overhead & Profit, Estimate Contingency. These costs are estimated to be 50% of the subtotal for treatment, pipeline, pump station, and storage costs. c. Capital Cost includes escalation to mid point of construction of 2024 assumed for all alternatives (2% assumed over 4 years). d. Monthly potable water costs are calculated using the City's monthly water rates on their website: $22.49 for 500 CF, and $2.42/100 CF above 500 CF. e. Assuming one year of irrigation is 5 months.
f. Site retrofit costs include irrigation distribution system retrofits (connections and headers) and sprinklers. Costs can vary based on conditions of current irrigation system.

Recycled Water Treatment and Production
Alternatives RW Production Treatment
Cost
Pipeline
Cost
Pump
Cost
Storage
Cost
Irrigation
Site Retrofit
Costf
Fill Station
Cost
Other Site
Costs a
Other, Markups,
Contingencies b
Total
Capital
Cost c
Annual
O&M Cost
Annualized
Capital Cost
Annualized Total
Cost
Annual Potable Water
Cost
# Description Average Day
Demand [GPD] [AFY] [CF/MO] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$/yr] [$/AF] [$/AF] [$/AF] 1 RW produced at CC WWTF
stored at Beach Front Park for
irrigation
56,000 26 224,599 $46,000 $117,000 $12,000 $25,000 $132,000 $0 $16,600 $181,300 $551,000 $23,530 $1,100 $2,000 $1,144 2 Same facilities as Alternative
1 with addition of truck fill
station at WWTF
60,000 28 240,642 $49,000 $117,000 $12,000 $25,000 $132,000 $14,000 $20,000 $192,095 $584,000 $23,530 $1,060 $1,900 $1,128 3 Irrigation of Peterson Park
with Rumiano Industrial
Effluent
10,000 5 40,107 $0 $85,000 $3,300 $10,000 $29,600 $0 $2,660 $68,721 $207,000 $3,410 $2,100 $2,800 $1,060

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Potable vs Recycled Water Cost Comparison

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Evaluation Criteria
Weighting
Scoring & Sensitivity Analysis
Alternatives Evaluation

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Evaluation Criteria
Guidance for Scoring
Categories Alternatives Screening
Criteria
Considerations for Assessing Project
Based on Criteria
Fully Meets Criteria Generally Meets Criteria Unable to Meet Criteria 3 2 1

ENGINEERING &

OPERATIONAL

CONSIDERATIONS
Availability of Recycled
Water
Is there sufficient volume of recycled
water produced to supply the demands?
Yes, there is sufficient volume of recycled water to
meet peak demands during all months where
demand exists.

There is enough recycled water to meet peak
demands during at least 50% of the months
where demand exists.

There is recycled water available to meet
peak demands for less than 50% of the
months where demand exists.

Infrastructure
Requirements
What infrastructure is required to
implement the alternative?
No additional infrastructure or improvements to
existing infrastructure required.

The alternative calls for opportunities to
utilize or minimally improve existing
infrastructure.

The alternative requires significant
improvement of existing infrastructure or
installation of new infrastructure.

Administrative
Complexity
Is coordination with different agencies
necessary?
No coordination with outside agencies or entities Coordination with one outside agency or entity
Coordination with more than one outside
agency or entity
Are there permitting requirements? Simple permitting pathway. Moderate permitting pathway. Complex permitting pathway.

Will the alternative result in impact to City
operations due to a decrease in volume
sent to the WWTF?
Low impact to current operations Moderate impact to current operations High impact to current operations

ECONOMIC
Cost Effectiveness What is the cost of using recycled water to meet demand versus potable water?
The cost of using recycled water to meet demand is
less than the cost of using potable water.

The cost of using recycled water to meet
demand is comparable to the cost of using
potable water.

The cost of using recycled water to meet
demand is considerably more than the cost
of using potable water.

Capital and Operations
& Maintenance Costs
What is the total capital cost?
Relative to other alternatives, the total capital cost is low.

Relative to other alternatives, the total capital
cost is comparable.

Relative to other alternatives, the total
capital cost is high.

What is the annual O&M cost?
Relative to other alternatives O&M costs, the total
O&M cost is low.

Relative to other alternatives O&M costs, the
total O&M cost is comparable.

Relative to other alternatives O&M costs,
the total O&M cost is high.

What is the annualized unit cost (Capital +
O&M costs per volume of recycled water
produced)?
Relative to other alternatives, the annualized unit
cost is low.

Relative to other alternatives, the annualized
unit cost is comparable.

Relative to other alternatives, the
annualized unit cost is high.

Funding & Financing
Are there any opportunities for obtaining
funding for implementation of the
alternative?
There are numerous funding opportunities available
and a high likelihood of receiving funding.

There are funding opportunities available. The
likelihood of receiving funding is moderate.

There are limited funding opportunities
available. There is low likelihood of
receiving funding.

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Weighting
Categories Alternatives Screening Criteria Baseline (Balanced) Minimize
Administrative
Complexity
Maximize Engineering
& Operational
Considerations
Low Cost

ENGINEERING & OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Availability of Recycled Water 15% 10% 10% 5%
Infrastructure Requirements 15% 10% 25% 5%
Administrative Complexity 15% 40% 25% 5%

ECONOMIC
Cost Effectiveness
20% 10% 15% 30%
Capital and Operations & Maintenance Costs
20% 10% 20% 30%
Funding & Financing
15% 20% 5% 25%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Scoring and Sensitivity Analysis
Baseline (Balanced)
Minimize Administrative Complexity
Maximize Engineering & Operational
Considerations
Low Cost
Categories ENGINEERING & OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ECONOMIC TOTAL Alternatives Screening Criteria Availability of
Recycled Water
Infrastructure
Requirements Administrative Complexity Cost Effectiveness Capital and O&M
Costs
Funding &
Financing
Total Raw Score
(Max 24)
Alternative Sufficient Volume
Available
Amount of
Infrastructure
Required
Coordinatio
n with
Others
Permitting
Requirements
Impact to City
Operations
Comparison to
Potable Water
Financial
Implementability
Opportunities for
Funding SENSITIVITY SCORING
Beach Front Park 1 3.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.9 1.7 3.0 17.9 77 76 69 81 Beach Front Park + Fill Station 2 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.7 3.0 17.7 76 76 66 82 Rumiano for Peterson 3 3.0 2.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 1.0 12.9 60 50 62 53

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Report Update
Schedule
Grant Milestones
Next Steps
Report Update and Next Steps

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RWFS Report Update
• Introduction – drafted
• Project Area – drafted
• Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities – drafted • Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities – drafted
• Treatment Requirements – drafted
• Recycled Water Market – drafted
• Project Alternatives Analysis – in progress
• Recommended Project
• Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Notice to Proceed l
Task 1 - Project Management & QA/QC
Project Setup, Monthly Status Reports and Invoices ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Kickoff, Webinars/Calls (6), Internal Coordination  #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 QAQC Activities
Task 2 - Collect Background Information
Data Request and Review ✓ l
Study Area Characteristics u
Water/WW Characteristics u
Task 3 - Recycled Water Market Assessment
Customer and Demand Tables u
NPR Recycled Water Market Survey u
Industrial/Commercial Stakeholders Calls (3)  
IPR/DPR Potential u
Task 4 - Treatment Evaluation
Define Water Quality Objectives for Uses u
Summarize Regulatory Requirements u
Treatment Evaluation u
Task 5 - Alternatives Analysis
Define Alternatives u
Evaluate/Rank Alternatives u
Virtual Workshop (stakeholders/public) 
Capital, O&M and Life Cycle Costs u
Task 6 - Recommended Project Plan
Preliminary Facilities Design Criteria u
Implementation Plan u
Task 7 - Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program Anticipated Financing Plan u
Anticipated Revenue Projection Program u
Task 8 - RWFS Report
First Draft for City u City
SWRCB Draft Report Submittal (9/16/22) u
SWRCB Meeting/Presentation (9/30/22) 
Second Draft For City u City
SWRCB Final Report Submittal (12/16/22) ✓
Task and Key Activities/Deliverables
Dec Jan May Jun
2021
Oct Nov Jul Aug
2022
Feb Mar Apr Sept Oct Nov Dec
KO
SWRCB
Schedule
Task Duration  Meeting/Conf Call
Activity Duration u Preliminary Outcomes
Review Period ✓ Final Deliverable
l City Provided Info
LEGEND
Webinar/Call Focus
#1 - 12/2/21 - Customers and Demands
#2 - 2/04/22 - Market Assessment
#3 - 5/10/22 - Defining Alternatives
#4 - 7/18/22 - Evaluate/Rank Alts
#5 - 8/1/22 - Implementation Plan
#6 - 8/15/22 - Present Admin Draft RWFS
RWFS Report
8/8/2022 – First Draft Submittal to City
8/29/2022 – Comments back from City
9/16/2022 –Draft Submittal to SWRCB
9/30/2022 – Present RWFS to SWRCB

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Grant Milestones
Milestone Estimated Date Critical Date
Draft Project Report Submittal 9/16/2022
Mid-Course Meeting 9/30/2022
Final Project Report Submittal 12/16/2022
Work Completion Date 3/31/2024
Final Disbursement Request 9/30/2024

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Next Steps
• January :
o Customer Demands✓
o NPR Recycled Water Market✓
o Industrial/Commercial users call✓
• February
o IPR/DPR Potential ✓
o Regulatory Requirements ✓
o Treatment Evaluation ✓
• March/April:
o Industrial/Commercial users call ✓
o MBR Effluent Assessment ✓
o Alternatives Development ✓
• June-July:
o Evaluate and rank alternatives ✓
o Capital & O&M costs ✓
o Workshop (Stakeholders/Public) ?
• August:
o Recommended Project Plan
o Construction & Financing Plan
o Draft RWFS Report
• September:
o Admin Draft RWFS Report to SWRCB
o Meeting with SWRCB

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Next Steps
Outstanding RFI’s for Alternatives Evaluation and RWFS Documentation:
1) Updated NPDES Permit (current permit expired on 3/22) 2) Treatment Plant flow data to support 70%/30% MBR, RBC split 3) Effluent water quality data (parameters monitored for NPDES compliance) 4) Description of routine operation and maintenance for RBC’s and MBR’s at treatment plant 5) Photos of UV stubout within plant fence
6) 2021 Water Rate Study by other design consultant (Abigail Seaman)

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Thank you
Claudia Llerandi [email protected] 415.243.2506 Cayla Whiteside [email protected] 925.953.1522 Abbie McNomee [email protected] 858.676.7511 Crescent City – Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Implementation Plan Workshop
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- August 31, 2022
Microsoft Teams Call
11:00 am – 12:00 pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meeting Objective: Review implementation, financing plan and revenue projection, draft RWFS report, and State Board meeting for Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study.

Attendees:

Crescent City – Jonathan Olson, Andrew Leighton
Stover Engineering – Ward Stover
KJ –Abbie McNomee, Claudia Llerandi, Sachi Itagaki
AGENDA
I. Implementation Plan

1. Project Alternative 1: Beach Front Park

2. Project Alternative 3: Irrigation of Peterson Park
II. Construction Financing and Revenue Plan

1. Funding Sources

2. RW vs PW Cost Projections
III. Draft RWFS Report

1. City Comment Feedback and Outstanding RFI’s
IV. SWRCB Meeting, Schedule & Next Steps
Recycled Water Feasibility Study
Implementation Plan Workshop
August 31, 2022

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY

1. Implementation Plan
a. Project Alternative 1 – Beach Front
Park
b. Project Alternative 3 – Irrigation of
Peterson Park

2. Construction Financing and Revenue
Plan
a. Funding Sources
b. RW vs PW Cost Projections

3. Draft Report Status and Outstanding
RFI’s

4. SWRCB Meeting, Schedule & Next
Steps
Agenda

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study
• Approach:

A. Prepare a market assessment of potential recycled water uses in the City’s service area.

B. Explore options for reuse from identified industrial users.

C. Evaluate alternatives to distribute recycled water.

D. Develop a comparison matrix to score and rank the alternatives E. Establish quantitative/qualitative criteria for selection of preferred alternative
F. Estimate cost of implementation (Capital + O&M)
Here G. Develop an implementation plan for the preferred alternative(s).

Project Alternative 1 – Beach Front Park
Project Alternative 3 – Irrigation of
Peterson Park
Implementation Plan

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Implementation Plan: Project Alternative 1 – Beach Front Park

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Implementation Plan: Project Alternative 3 - Irrigation of Peterson Park

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Implementation Plan: Project Alternative 1 – Beach Front Park Implementation Plan
Items
Project Alternative 1: Beach
Front Park
Project Alternative 3: Irrigation of
Peterson Park
Coordination City departments, CRWQB, design & construction activities Ability and Timing of
Users To Join Dependent upon permitting, construction and operation of facilities Tentative Recycled Water
Requirements See details on following slides See details on following slides Commitments from
Potential Users
City park is the user, further coordination between the parties to formalize commitments
Water Rights Impact No water rights impacts are expected Permits, ROW, Design, and
Construction
Recycled water permitting, encroachment permits for pipeline within City right-of-way
Schedule See details on following slides See details on following slides Operational Plan See details on following slides See details on following slides Monitoring Plan See details on following slides See details on following slides

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Implementation Plan: Project Alternative 1 – Beach Front Park Tentative Recycled Water Requirements:
• WWTF currently operates under NPDES Discharge Permit Order #R1-2017-0002 • Amendments to current NPDES permit will be required for treatment plant upgrades
• Obtain permit coverage for the use of recycled water under the statewide General Order (WQ-2016-0068-DDW)
• Notice of Intent (NOI)
• Prepare Title 22 Engineering Report
• Complete applicable CEQA documentation (expected to be minimal) • Validation testing

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Implementation Plan: Project Alternative 3 - Irrigation of Peterson Park Tentative Recycled Water Requirements:
• Waste Discharge Permit required for discharging waste effluent to land for reuse purposes
• Obtain coverage under the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order #R1- 2016-002
• Application for WDR: Form 200, Technical Information Form (TIF) • Demonstrate compliance with all applicable provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region
• File a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD), including an Antidegradation Analysis
• Complete applicable CEQA documentation

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Implementation Plan: Project Alternative 1 – Beach Front Park Detailed Schedule:

LEGEND
Task Duration
Activity Duration
Task and Key Activities 2024 2025 2026 2027
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Predesign
Utility Location, Survey, Geotechnical Investigations
Confirm Pipeline Alignment and Facility Sizing Assumptions Permitting
RWQCB WWTF NPDES Permit Update
CEQA Compliance (Mitigated Negative Declaration assumed) RWQCB/DDW Permit Requirements for RW Production/Distribution/Use Design
CC WWTF Treatment Upgrades
Off-Plant Conveyance Piping and Storage
Park Irrigation System and Retrofits
Construction
Bid and Award (treatment, distribution, irrigation system) CC WWTF Treatment Upgrades
Off-Plant Conveyance Piping and Storage
Park Irrigation System and Retrofits
Commissioning
UV Disinfection Validation Testing
Cross Connection Testing
Startup

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Implementation Plan: Project Alternative 3 - Irrigation of Peterson Park Detailed Schedule:

LEGEND
Task Duration
Activity Duration
Task and Key Activities/Deliverables 2024 2025 2026 2027 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Predesign
Utility Location, Survey, Geotechnical Investigations
Confirm Pipeline Alignment and Facility Sizing Assumptions Permitting
CEQA Compliance (Mitigated Negative Declartion assumed) RWQCB WDR Permit Requirements for RW Production/Distribution/Use Design
Rumiano Treatment Upgrades
Off-Plant Conveyance Piping and Storage
Park Irrigation System and Retrofits
Construction
Bid and Award (treatment, distribution, irrigation system) Rumiano Treatment Upgrades
Off-Plant Conveyance Piping and Storage
Park Irrigation System and Retrofits
Commissioning
Testing
Cross Connection Testing
Startup

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Implementation Plan
Operational Plan:

Considerations Project Alternative 1: Beach
Front Park
Project Alternative 3: Irrigation
of Peterson Park
Responsbile PartiesCity WWTF Operators, City Parks &
Rec Dept, City Public Works Dept
City Parks & Rec Dept, City Public
Works Dept, Rumiano Cheese
Company
Equipment Operations &
Maintenance
City WWTF Operators= WWTF
Upgrades
Rumiano= Treatment System
Upgrades
City Public Works= Storage and
Distribution Systems
City Public Works= Storage and
Distribution Systems
City Parks = Irrigation System City Parks = Irrigation System Monitoring
City WWTF Operators= RW
Production, effluent quality
Rumiano= RW Production, effluent
quality
City Public Works= Storage and
Distribution Systems
City Public Works= Storage and
Distribution Systems
City Parks = Irrigation System City Parks = Irrigation System Irrigation SchedulingCity Parks City Parks

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Implementation Plan: Project Alternative 1 – Beach Front Park General Order - Monitoring and Report Program
Constituents/Parameters Measured:
• Total Coliform Bacteria (daily sample)
• Turbidity (continuous)
• Disinfection Requirements (UV Dose, UV Intensity, UVT) • Salt and nutrient monitoring may be required (TDS)
• Use Area Monitoring requirements for irrigation and dual-plumbed systems (recycled water flow, acreage applied, application rate, other observations) Reporting Frequency
• Annually
• WWTF Operators and City to work collaboratively on monitoring and reporting requirements

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Implementation Plan: Project Alternative 3 - Irrigation of Peterson Park WDR Monitoring and Reporting Program
• Semi-annual monitoring reports for processing volume and chemical usage, effluent quality analyses for BOD, DO, pH, TDS, ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate • Additional monitoring and reporting requirements for groundwater and land application area may be required
• Rumiano and City to work collaboratively on monitoring and reporting requirements

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Funding Sources
Projections
Construction Financing and Revenue Plan

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Construction Financing and Revenue Plan: Funding Sources Grant and Loan Options:
1) SWRCB – Water Recycling Funding Program (grants/loans) 1) Clean Water State Revolving Fund
2) California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) (loan terms)
3) US Bureau of Reclamation (75% local cost share)
4) Office for Coastal Management – NOAA Coastal Resiliency Grants Program (matching funds)

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Construction Financing and Revenue Plan: Funding Sources Clean Water State Revolving Fund
• Low interest loans including forgivable loans (i.e. grants) for severely disadvantaged communities (SDAC), to public agencies for planning, design, and construction of water recycling projects
SDAC
• Area with an average household income (AHI) of <60% the state average • California’s Current AHI: $63,783
• 60% of California’s AHI: $38,270
• Crescent City’s 2016-2020 MHI: $33,347
• Crescent City considered a small SDAC

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Construction Financing and Revenue Plan: RW vs PW Projections

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Construction Financing and Revenue Plan: RW vs PW Projections

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Report Update
Schedule
Grant Milestones
Next Steps
Report Update and Next Steps

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
RWFS Report Update
• Introduction – drafted
• Project Area – drafted
• Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities – drafted • Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities – drafted
• Treatment Requirements – drafted
• Recycled Water Market – drafted
• Project Alternatives Analysis – drafted
• Recommended Project – drafted
• Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program – drafted

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Outstanding Items and Report Comments
Draft Report Comments pending City Feedback:
1) Confirm how to define the Jacob’s staff role (staff engineer’s and operators) 2) Confirm whether new rate study is ongoing
3) Confirm whether the CSA is an agency of Del Norte County 4) Confirm size of UV recirculation line (12-inch)
5) Confirm flow split data
6) Confirm Rumiano section
7) Confirm whether Rancheria has responded
8) Confirm UV reactor redundancy for Alt 1 (present costs with single unit or with redundant unit)
9) Confirm pump redundancy (present costs with single unit or with redundant unit) 10) Public outreach for preferred alternatives

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Outstanding Items and Report Comments
Outstanding RFI’s for RWFS Documentation:
1) Updated NPDES Permit (current permit expired on 3/22) 2) Treatment Plant flow data to support 70%/30% MBR, RBC split 3) Effluent water quality data (parameters monitored for NPDES compliance and Section 5 of report)
4) 2021 Water Rate Study by other design consultant (Abigail Seaman)

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Notice to Proceed l
Task 1 - Project Management & QA/QC
Project Setup, Monthly Status Reports and Invoices ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Kickoff, Webinars/Calls (6), Internal Coordination  #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 QAQC Activities
Task 2 - Collect Background Information
Data Request and Review ✓ l
Study Area Characteristics u
Water/WW Characteristics u
Task 3 - Recycled Water Market Assessment
Customer and Demand Tables u
NPR Recycled Water Market Survey u
Industrial/Commercial Stakeholders Calls (3)  
IPR/DPR Potential u
Task 4 - Treatment Evaluation
Define Water Quality Objectives for Uses u
Summarize Regulatory Requirements u
Treatment Evaluation u
Task 5 - Alternatives Analysis
Define Alternatives u
Evaluate/Rank Alternatives u
Virtual Workshop (stakeholders/public) 
Capital, O&M and Life Cycle Costs u
Task 6 - Recommended Project Plan
Preliminary Facilities Design Criteria u
Implementation Plan u
Task 7 - Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program Anticipated Financing Plan u
Anticipated Revenue Projection Program u
Task 8 - RWFS Report
First Draft for City u City
SWRCB Draft Report Submittal (9/16/22) u
SWRCB Meeting/Presentation (9/30/22) 
Second Draft For City u City
SWRCB Final Report Submittal (12/16/22) ✓
Task and Key Activities/Deliverables
Dec Jan May Jun
2021
Oct Nov Jul Aug
2022
Feb Mar Apr Sept Oct Nov Dec
KO
SWRCB
Schedule
Task Duration  Meeting/Conf Call
Activity Duration u Preliminary Outcomes
Review Period ✓ Final Deliverable
l City Provided Info
LEGEND
Webinar/Call Focus
#1 - 12/2/21 - Customers and Demands
#2 - 2/04/22 - Market Assessment
#3 - 5/10/22 - Defining Alternatives
#4 - 7/18/22 - Evaluate/Rank Alts
#5 - 8/1/22 - Implementation Plan
#6 - 8/15/22 - Present Admin Draft RWFS
RWFS Report
8/8/2022 – First Draft Submittal to City
8/29/2022 – Comments back from City
9/16/2022 –Draft Submittal to SWRCB
9/30/2022 – Present RWFS to SWRCB

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Grant Milestones
Milestone Estimated Date Critical Date
Draft Project Report Submittal 9/16/2022
Mid-Course Meeting 9/30/2022
Final Project Report Submittal 12/16/2022
Work Completion Date 3/31/2024
Final Disbursement Request 9/30/2024

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Next Steps
• January :
o Customer Demands✓
o NPR Recycled Water Market✓
o Industrial/Commercial users call✓
• February
o IPR/DPR Potential ✓
o Regulatory Requirements ✓
o Treatment Evaluation ✓
• March/April:
o Industrial/Commercial users call ✓
o MBR Effluent Assessment ✓
o Alternatives Development ✓
• June-July:
o Evaluate and rank alternatives ✓
o Capital & O&M costs ✓
• August:
o Recommended Project Plan ✓
o Construction & Financing Plan ✓
o Draft RWFS Report ✓
o Workshop (Stakeholders/Public) ?
• September:
o Admin Draft RWFS Report to SWRCB
o Meeting with SWRCB

CRESCENT CITY RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
Thank you
Claudia Llerandi [email protected] 415.243.2506 Cayla Whiteside [email protected] 925.953.1522 Abbie McNomee [email protected] 858.676.7511 Appendix H
Abbreviations
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS) H-1 \\kjc\kjc-root\kj-office\eug\wp\2020\2076056.00 - stover engrg - crescent city feasibility study for recycled water\09-reports\9.09-reports\final appendices\app h abbreviations.docx Appendix H: Abbreviations
Ac Acre
AF Acre-feet
AFD Acre-feet per day
AFY Acre-feet per year
AOP Advanced oxidation process
ASR Aquifer storage & recovery
AWPF Advanced Water Purification Facility
AWTF Advanced Water Treatment Facility
AWT Advanced Water Treatment
BAC Biologically Activated Carbon
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region bg billion gallons
bgy billion gallons per year
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
COS Cost of service
CCF Hundred cubic feet
CCR California Code of Regulations
CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board
CCT Chlorine contact tank
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEC Contaminant of Emerging Concern
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Crescent City
CWA Clean Water Act
DAF Dissolved Air Flotation
DBP disinfection byproduct
DDW Division of Drinking Water
DPR Direct potable reuse
DWR Department of Water Resources
EHS County Environmental Health Services
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FAT Full Advanced Treatment
FPR Facilities Planning Report
Ft Feet
GAC Granular activated carbon
General Order Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use GHWTP Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant
GMF Granular media filtration
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS) H-2 \\kjc\kjc-root\kj-office\eug\wp\2020\2076056.00 - stover engrg - crescent city feasibility study for recycled water\09-reports\9.09-reports\final appendices\app h abbreviations.docx gpd Gallons per day
gpm Gallons per minute
GRAS Generally Regarded As Safe
GRRP Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GW Groundwater
HOA Home Owner Association
IPR Indirect potable reuse
IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management
IWP Integrated Water Plan
JPA Joint Powers Authority
LF Lineal feet
LRV Log reduction values
M million
Max Maximum
MBBR Moving bed biofilm reactor
MBR Membrane bioreactor
MCL Maximum contaminant limit
MF Microfiltration
MG Million gallons
MGA Mid-County Groundwater Agency
mgd Million gallons per day
mg/L Milligrams per liter
Min Minimum
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPR Non-Potable Reuse
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units
O&M Operations and maintenance
Ocean Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Waters of California PAYGO Pay-as-you-go
PTG Pasteurization Technology Group
RL Reporting limit
RO Reverse osmosis
RW Recycled water
Crescent City Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS) H-3 \\kjc\kjc-root\kj-office\eug\wp\2020\2076056.00 - stover engrg - crescent city feasibility study for recycled water\09-reports\9.09-reports\final appendices\app h abbreviations.docx RWFPS Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
SRF State Revolving Fund
SRPGB Smith River Plain Groundwater Basin
SWA Surface Water Augmentation
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDH Total dynamic head
TDS Total dissolved solids
TOC Total organic carbon
TM Technical memorandum
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
RBC Rotating Biological Contactor
TSS Total suspended solids
ug/L Micrograms per liter
UF Ultrafiltration
uS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV Ultraviolet
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
V/G/C Virus, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium
WC Water Code
WCMP Water Conservation Master Plan
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WQO Water Quality Objective
WRF Water Reclamation Facility
WRFP Water Recycling Funding Program
WRRF WateReuse Research Foundation
WSAC Water Supply Advisory Committee
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility