Agenda - 8/2/2022 (5) — Santa Maria City Council, August 2, 2022

FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 2022

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
Prepared by Director of Utilitie
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NOTICE OF INTENT

FOR ENROLLMENT IN THE GENERAL PERMIT (WASTE
DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. R3-2020-0020) FOR

THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt a Resolution approving a Notice of Intent with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for enrollment under the General Permit (Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2020-0020) for the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Santa Maria ("City") is currently permitted by Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Water Board") Order No. R3-2010-0001 for individual waste discharge requirements for discharges of domestic wastewater to land from the City Wastewater Treatment Plant ("WWTP") (the "Individual Permit").

On September 25, 2020, the Water Board adopted General Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2020-0020 for Discharges from Domestic Wastewater Systems with Flows Greater than 100,000 Gallons per Day (the "General Permit"). The City received notification from the Water Board on November 5, 2021, that the City was required to submit an application for enrollment under the General Permit by February 5, 2022.

On January 25, 2022, the City sent a formal request to the Water Board requesting the City's application deadline be extended to August 5, 2022, to: (1) meaningfully inform the City Council of the important, long-term infrastructure investment that enrollment in the General Permit will ultimately require, and (2) submit a complete, technically supported application to the Water Board for consideration. On February 24, 2022, the Water Board granted the City's extension request to August 5, 2022.

At a regular meeting on June 7, 2022, the City Council received a staff presentation outlining the permit requirements and a path toward the City's compliance with the General Permit.

DISCUSSION:

In addition to working with City staff to develop conceptual alternatives to the current treatment stream to meet the General Order effluent limits, Geosyntec Consultants has worked with City staff to develop a complete Notice of Intent package for submission to the Water Board (Attachment "A"). It is requested that City Council authorize the submission of the Notice of Intent to the Water Board to meet the extended deadline of August 5, 2022.

After acceptance of the City's application, the Water Board will issue a Notice of Applicability. Issuance of the Notice of Applicability authorizes coverage and enrollment of the City's WWTP in the General Permit and terminates the City's existing Individual Permit.

Fiscal Considerations
Costs associated with this undertaking will be borne by the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, of which revenues are derived from sewer ratepayers. As discussed with City Council during the June 7th presentation, the full scope of the modifications to the WWTP is not known. Projects to update and modify treatment at other treatment plants throughout the region have had costs of more than $100 million; however, the projects had different requirements and were generally smaller in size.

As the City's new Wastewater Master Plan is developed and the necessary improvements for compliance are identified, a better understanding of overall costs will be achieved, as well as strategies for funding those costs.

City staff has met with Water Board and State Water Resources Control Board staff to identify State funding and grants that may be available to assist the City with costs associated with this program. City staff will continue to work with various agencies to explore all funding opportunities for the project.

Alternatives
The City Council may direct staff not to submit the Notice of Intent as attached. This alternative is not recommended. Regardless of filing the Notice of Intent, the Water Board can still require the General Permit requirements at the WWTP and initiate enforcement actions as authorized under the California Water Code. Submission of the Notice of Intent demonstrates the City's good faith efforts and provides a pathway for the City to comply with the General Permit.

Impact to the Community
Upon completion of the upgrades to the WWTP to meet the General Permit requirements, the discharges from the WWTP will provide a higher quality return flow to the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. This, along with capacity considerations for projected long-term sewer needs for the community, will provide important infrastructure to support the City's continued development.
2 Impact to the City
Upgrading the VWVfP will be a large and complex program. Significant City staff time and resources, in addition to outside work from consultants and contractors, will be required to develop and implement the project and operate the program.

SHAD S. SPRINGER P.E., MPA
Director of Utilities
Attachments
Attachment "A" Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Notice of Intent 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Notice of Intent for WDR Order No R3-2020-0020
a. Application/Report of Waste Discharge General Information Form 200 b. Sewer Management Plan
c. Engineering Report

Notice of Intent
WDR Order No R3-2020-0020

NOTICE OF INTENT

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CENTRAL COAST REGION

NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. R3-2020-0020
FOR

DISCHARGES FROM DOMESTIC WASTEWATER SYSTEMS WITH FLOWS
GREATER THAN 100,000 GALLONS PER DAY
Document Date: August 5, 2022
This electronic Notice of Intent serves as the application for Order No.

R3-2020-0020 (General Permit R3-2020-0020) as specified in Attachment B of General Permit R3-2020-0020. Completion of this Notice of Intent (including all required attachments) constitutes a complete application. If you need assistance with the application process please contact a Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast Water Board) representative.

All sections in this document must be completed unless otherwise stated. For responses that require more than one word or number, complete sentences must be used to describe the information.

I. COMPLETE FORM 200
Form 200, a universal document required by generally all WDR facilities during the application process, is used to provide general facility information. An electronic version of Form 200 may be found at the link below:
https://www.waterboards.ca.qov/centralcoast/water issues/programs/ wastewater permittinq/docs/form200.pdf
Attach the Form 200 to your Notice of Intent and check the corresponding box to indicate a complete attachment.
a) Form 200
1 II. WASTEWATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Wastewater system name: City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Wastewater system address: 601 Black Road City: Santa Maria Is this system a Publicly owned Treatment Works (POTW)?: ® Yes O No Wastewater treatment level (select from drop down): Secondary What treatment method best describes this wastewater system? (select from drop down): Trickling Filter
Wastewater treatment level plant classification: Class I I I Peak influent design flow in gallons per day (gpd): 13.5 M Average incoming wastewater flow during previous calendar year in gpd: 6.95 M 1 Peak daily flow from previous calendar year in gpd: 9.56 M Total sewer connections (domestic & industrial) wastewater system serves: 22,312 Percent of domestic and industrial connections (approximate):

Domestic: 90% Industrial: 10%
Sections A through H: required descriptions must be provided in complete sentences. For descriptions that exceed the space provided text will automatically scroll. These descriptions must be stand alone, do not refer to a section of a report in a separate document.

A. HEADWORKS/PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
Describe the headworks technology in the space provided below:

Headworks consist of Parshall flume flow meter, three automatic bar screens followed by two aerated grit chambers.

Capacity of the headworks system in gpd:

13.5M
B. PRIMARY TREATMENT
Describe the primary treatment technology in the space provided below:

Primary trea mem consists of two primary ciaariers. Volume of each clarifier : 1.32 MG Capacity of the primary treatment technology in gpd: 27.92 M C. SECONDARY TREATMENT
Describe the secondary treatment technology in the space provided below:

Aerobic treatment of wastewater with two primary, and two secondary trickling filters.

Total Volume : Primary Tr 43,000 gal, Secondary TF = 170,000 gal Capacity of the secondary treatment technology in gpd: 17.7 M D. TERTIARY TREATMENT
Describe the tertiary treatment technology in the space provided below:

Capacity of the tertiary treatment technology in gpd:
2 E. DISINFECTION
Describe the disinfection technology in the space provided below:
ivone
Capacity of the disinfection technology in gpd:

F. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHOD
Describe the disposal method(s) and total surface area in the space provided below:
13 percolation ponds (123 acres)
Capacity of the wastewater disposal method(s) in gpd:

8.0 M
G. SOLIDS HANDLING
Describe the solids handling technology in the space provided below:

Gravity thickeners (2), anaerobic aigesrors(4), swage drying beds, composting Solids produced annually in tons:
1811
Solids disposal facility/location (name & address below):

Name: Engel and Gray Composting
Street Address: 468-594 Ray Road City: Santa Maria
H. RECYCLED WATER
Non -potable recycled water production? (If 'Yes' attach a title 22 report to this application. If 'No' the remainder of section 1.H may be skipped) No, wastewater system does NOT produce non -potable recycled water Average daily recycled water production volume in gpd:

Enrolled in State Water Resources Control Board Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use?* No, this wastewater system is NOT enrolled in WQ 2016-0068-DDW *Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use Existing recycled water quality limitations:

No, existing recycled water quality limitations
Non -potable recycled water usage: Recycled water is used on -site 3 Non -potable recycled water is distributed by a third party? No, recycled water is NOT distributed by a third party
Recycled water distributor:

III. WASTEWATER SYSTEM BACKGROUND
Attach the following documents to your Notice of Intent and check the corresponding box to indicate a complete attachment. All submittals requiring engineering or geologic evaluations/judgments must be performed under the direction of, signed and stamped by an appropriately registered professional.
1 1

ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE INCLUDED IN

THE ATTACHED ENGINEERING REPORT
a) A detailed engineering report including descriptions of all treatment components and their treatment objectives.
b) Scaled schematic of the wastewater system (e.g., treatment train, treated wastewater disposal, solids disposal, treated wastewater reuse, sampling locations, etc.).
c) Scaled aerial map of the wastewater system identifying wastewater system boundary, treatment components, sampling locations, treated wastewater disposal or reuse areas, solids disposal, etc.
d) Scaled aerial map of groundwater monitoring well location(s), groundwater elevation contours, and the direction of groundwater flow. e) Scaled wastewater system boundary map with parcel boundaries and Accessors Parcel Number(s) (APN) identified for all activities related to this wastewater system.
f) Latitude(s) and Longitutde(s) for the wastewater system, sampling points, groundwater wells, etc.
g) A list and description of all chemicals added to the waste stream treatment process.

IV. COLLECTION SYSTEM
This section pertains to the collection system that serves the subject wastewater system.

Population served by the collection system: 109,910
The collection system is enrolled in State Water Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ for Sanitary Sewers?*: Yes
*State Water Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ for Sanitary Sewer Systems 4 Attach a report detailing the following information regarding the facilities collection system and check the corresponding box to indicate a complete attachment. If this wastewater system is enrolled in State Water Board Order No. 2006-0003- DWQ, reports prepared to comply with this order satisfy this section and may be submitted in lieu of the following:
a) Age and condition of collection system.
b) Piping construction and layout (provide scaled map). c) Age, condition, and location of lift stations and backup pumping systems.
d) Failure warning system.
e) Inflow and infiltration (1/1) estimates (and any control that is necessary). 1 1
1 1
1 SEE ATTACHED SSMP
DATED JUNE 2020
V. OPERATOR CERTIFICATION
Provide a list of current or proposed operating personnel, their respective operator certification grade, and license number.

Operator Name
Grade
License Number
Russ Newman
4 28863
Lazaro Rosas
2 8525
Humberto Guerrrero
2 9091
Steven Soto
1 8412
David Gonzales
1 10440
Saul Ramirez
1 27806
Richard Villegas
1 40978
Derrik Treur
2 44249
esse Teniente
2 44251
VI. RECIEVING WATERS
Closest surface water body to discharge: Santa Maria River Underlying groundwater basin: Santa Maria River Valley Upper Guadalupe Refer to Table 3-6 of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (Basin Plan)
Attach the following documents to your Notice of Intent and check the corresponding box to indicate a complete attachment.
5 ITEMS LISTED BELOW ARE INCLUDED IN

THE ATTACHED ENGINEERING REPORT
1 1
1 1
a) Receiving surface and groundwater quality data in tabular and graphical format (minimum of ten years data).
b) Describe the management measures implemented at the Wastewater System to ensure that receiving water will be unaffected by discharge. c) Scaled aerial map showing location of all groundwater wells (water supply wells and monitoring wells) onsite and within one-half mile of the project site.
d) Table documenting the depth of all on -site groundwater wells, screened intervals, and depth to static water level. Each of these must be substantiated by a professional geologist.
e) A map detailing surface water within a one-half mile radius of the wastewater system, disposal area(s) and reuse area(s). Surface water includes but is not limited to storm water conveyance features, creek beds, streams, rivers, lakes, etc.

VII. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS OF FACILITY'S EXISTING PERMIT Complete the table and questions below. Type 'N/A' if the wastewater system does not have an existing effluent limitation for a specific parameter listed.

Constituent
Units
Effluent Limit 1a
Effluent Limit 2a
Specify Effluent Limit Type:a
Monthly Average
Daily Maximum
Biochemical Oxygen Demand,
5 -Day
mg/L
60 100
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
mg/L
60 100
Settleable Solids
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
mL/L

0.1 0.4
mg/L
1,000
-
Sodium
mg/L
180
-
Chloride
mg/L
180
-
Sulfate
mg/L
-
-
Boron
mg/L
-
-
Total Nitrogen
mg/L
-
-
Nitrate as Nitrogen
mg/L
-
-
a Effluent Limit 1 and 2 refer to the potential for a wastewater system to have different types of effluent limits. For example a maximum effluent limit and a mean effluent limit. 6 In the space provided below include any additional comments or effluent limitations that are not included in the table above. For a description that exceeds the space provided text will automatically scroll.

The pH limit is within the range of 6.5 to 8.4
If this wastewater system produces recycled water, include an attachment documenting recycled water effluent limitations. Select an option below to complete this section.

O
This wastewater system has recycled water effluent limitations and a document has been attached documenting these effluent limitations.

This wastewater system does NOT have recycled water effluent limitations.

VIII. WATER SUPPLY
Attach the following documents to your Notice of Intent and check the corresponding box to indicate a complete attachment.
a) Ten years of water supply data (both quality and quantity) for groundwater, surface water or third party sources.

Water supply sourced from a third party?
O Yes O No
• If Yes, identify the third party here: Central Coast Water Authority • If No, provide a map showing locations of all water supply wells, surface water diversions, holding facilities, (e.g., tanks, ponds, impoundments, etc.), treatment facilities, and any additional information that is necessary to describe the sources and facilities associated with the water supply.

IX. SOURCES OF WASTEWATER PRODUCTION
Identify all sources sending wastewater to the wastewater system. At a minimum the application must identify the following:

Attach the following documents to your application and check the corresponding box to indicate a complete attachment.
a) A list and/or map identifying all sources of wastewater including the name of the source, volume and concentration.
b) Ten years of previous data detailing the influent wastewater quality and quantity in tabular and graphical format (raw water characteristics: volume, organic concentration, nutrients, fats, oils, phenol, formaldehyde, contaminants of emerging concern, priority pollutants, etc.).

Existing pretreatment program?: Yes
Wastewater system regularly accept wastewater from industrial processing facilities such as cannabis or fruit and vegetable processors?: Yes 7 O
0 Wastewater system regularly accept waste directly or indirectly from chemical toilets or recreational vehicles (RVs)?: Yes
Wastewater system regularly accept high strength wastewater containing elevated levels of fats, oils, and grease?: Yes
X. PREFERRED METHOD OF COMPLIANCE
As specified in General Permit R3-2020-0020 the discharger is required to proceed with one of the options below. Even if the discharger choses Option A the Executive Officer may require groundwater monitoring to ensure protection of the beneficial uses. Effluent limitations will be specified in the discharger's notice of applicability (NOA).

Option A: Wastewater system discharges wastewater that complies with effluent limitations specified in Tables 3 - 5 and Table 6 (for wastewater disposal overlying designated groundwater basins) or Table 7 (for wastewater disposal overlying non -designated groundwater basins) of General Permit R3-2020-0020.

Compliance with effluent limitations will be confirmed with monitoring and reporting as specified in General Permit R3-2020-0020 Attachment D.

Option B: Wastewater system discharges wastewater that complies with effluent limitations specified in Tables 3 - 5, but does NOT comply with effluent limitations specified in Table 6 or Table 7 of General Permit R3-2020-0020. The discharger must implement a groundwater monitoring program, as specified in Attachment D of General Permit R3-2020-0020, to demonstrate compliance with the water quality objectives specified in the Basin Plan.

Option C: Wastewater system discharges wastewater that does NOT comply with effluent limitations specified in Table 3 - 5 and/or Table 6 or Table 7 of General Permit R3-2020-0020. The discharger must comply with interim effluent limitations as specified in their NOA, which will be based on the effluent limitations in their preexisting individual waste discharge requirements (individual permit). These interim effluent limitations will remain in effect for a maximum of 24 months after the date of issuance of the NOA.

Where a discharger believes that additional time (more than 24 months) is needed to achieve compliance with the effluent limitations as specified in Table 3 through 7 of General Permit R3-2020-0020, that discharger must request a time schedule order (TSO) pursuant to Water Code section 13300 for consideration by Central Coast Water Board no later than 12 months after the date of issuance of the NOA. The request for a TSO must be submitted as set forth in section VI.A.5 of General Permit R3-2020-0020.

XI. TECHNICAL REPORTS
Attach the following technical reports to your Notice of Intent and check the corresponding button to indicate a complete attachment. For technical reports that 8 are not complete at the time this Notice of Intent is submitted for review the technical reports must be submitted in accordance with the due dates presented in the table and in accordance with General Permit R3-2020-0020.

Report Type
Report Due Date a
Attached to this Notice
of Intent
Operations and Maintenance
Manual
Including:
• Sampling and Analysis Plan
• Sludge Management Plan
• Wastewater Disposal
Management Plan
• Spill Prevention and
Emergency Response Plan
• Training Records Log
Within 12 months
0Yes
Oi No
Climate Change Adaptation Plan
Within 24 months
0 Yes C No
Pretreatment Program Plan b,c
Within 24 months
O Yes 0 No
Salt and Nutrient Management Plan C
Not Applicable
0 Yes 0 No
Time Schedule Compliance Plan d
Within 12 months
Oi Yes O No
a. Reports are due within the time specified after issuance of NOA to the discharger. b. Dischargers that own and operate wastewater systems considered as publicly owned treatment works designed to treat 5 million gallons per day or more of community wastewater must submit a Pretreatment Program Plan. c. If directed by Central Coast Water Board Executive Officer. d. Required if Option C was chosen in Section X of this Notice of Intent.

XII. CERTIFICATION
Certification is required by one of the following:
a) For a corporation: by a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice president.
b) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.
c) For a public agency: by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.
d) For a LLC: either a member or manager given signing authority by the operating agreement of the LLC.
e) a "duly authorized representative" of one of the above. 9 "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. I also acknowledge I have reviewed the General Waste Discharge Requirements as specified in General Permit R3-2020-0020 and agree to comply with the terms and conditions set forth therein." Print Name: Jason Stilwell
Signature:

Title: City Manager
Date: August 2, 2022
XIII. SUBMITTAL
a) Submit the signed Notice of Intent, supporting documentation, and a photo copy of the application fee through email to centralcoast a(�,waterboarcis.ca.gov. b) Submit an application fee. An application fee is not required if the discharger is already enrolled in a permit and paying fees.

Directions on how to submit an application fee can be found at the link below:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water issues/programs/ wastewater permitting/
10 VI. OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION
Please provide a COMPLETE characterization of your discharge. A complete characterization includes, but is not limited to, design and actual flows, a list of constituents and the discharge concentration of each constituent, a list of other appropriate waste discharge characteristics, a description and schematic drawing of all treatment processes, a description of any Best Management Practices (BMPs) used, and a description of disposal methods.

Also include a site map showing the location of the facility and, if you are submitting this application for an NPDES permit, identify the surface water to which you propose to discharge. Please try to limit your maps to a scale of 1:24,000 (7.5' USGS Quadrangle) or a street map, if more appropriate.

VII. OTHER
Attach additional sheets to explain any responses which need clarification. List attachments with titles and dates below:

You will be notified by a representative of the RWQCB within 30 days of receipt of your application. The notice will state if your application is complete or if there is additional information you must submit to complete your Application/Report of Waste Discharge, pursuant to Division 7, Section 13260 of the California Water Code.

VIII. CERTIFICATION
"I certify under penalty of law that this document, including all attachments and supplemental information, were prepared under my direction and 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 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." Print Name Jason Stilwell Title City Manager
Signature

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date August 2, 2022
Date Form 200
Letter to
Fee Amount
Check #:

Received:

Discharger:

Received:

Form 200 (10/97)
4 Application/Report of Waste Discharge
General Information Form 200

INTRODUCTION
This application package constitutes a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260. Section 13260 states that persons discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, shall file a ROWD containing information which may be required by the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

This package is to be used to start the application process for all waste discharge requirements (WDRs) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits* issued by a RWQCB except:

1. Those landfill facilities that must use a joint Solid Waste Facility Permit Application Form, California Integrated Waste Management Board Form E-1-77; and

2. General WDRs or general NPDES permits that use a Notice of Intent to comply or specify the use of an alternative application form designed for that permit.

This application package contains:

1. Application/General Information Form for WDRs and NPDES Permits [Form 200 (10/97)].

2. Application/General Information Instructions.

Instructions
Instructions are provided to assist you with completion of the application. If you are unable to find the answers to your questions or need assistance with the completion of the application package, please contact your RWQCB representative. The RWQCBs strongly recommend that you make initial telephone or personal contact with RWQCB regulatory staff to discuss a proposed new discharge before submitting your application.

The RWQCB representative will be able to answer procedural and annual fee related questions that you may have. (See map and telephone numbers inside of application cover.)
All dischargers regulated under WDRs and NPDES permits must pay an annual fee, except dairies, which pay a filing fee only. The RWQCB will notify you of your annual fee based on an evaluation of your proposed discharge. Please do NOT submit a check for your first annual fee or filing fee until requested to do so by a RWQCB representative. Dischargers applying for reissuance (renewal) of an existing NPDES permit or update of an existing WDR will be billed through the annual fee billing system and are therefore requested NOT to submit a check with their application. Checks should be made payable to the State Water Resources Control Board.

Form 200 (10/97) 1

Additional Information Requirements
A RWQCB representative will notify you within 30 days of receipt of the application form and any supplemental documents whether your application is complete. If your application is incomplete, the RWQCB representative will send you a detailed list of discharge specific information necessary to complete the application process. The completion date of your application is normally the date when all required information, including the correct fee, is received by the RWQCB.
*NPDES PERMITS: If you are applying for a permit to discharge to surface water, you will need an NPDES permit which is issued under both State and Federal law and may be required to complete one or more of the following Federal NPDES permit application forms: Short Form A, Standard Form A, Forms 1, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, and 2F. These forms may be obtained at a RWQCB office or can be ordered from the National Center for Environmental Publications and Information at (513) 891-6561 Form 200 (10/97) 2

• ' 0 0
CA LIFORMI•
Water Boards
a

GAVIN NEWSOM

GOVERNOR

JARED BLUMENFELD

SECRETARY FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
State of California
Regional Water Quality Control Board

APPLICATION/REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE

GENERAL INFORMATION FORM FOR

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS OR NPDES PERMIT

INSTRUCTIONS
Instructions for completing the application/report of waste discharge general information form for: waste discharge requirements/ NPDES permit.

If you have any questions on the completion of any part of the application, please contact your RWQCB representative. A map of RWQCB locations, addresses, and telephone numbers is located on the reverse side of the application cover.

I. FACILITY INFORMATION
You must provide the factual information listed below for ALL owners, operators, and locations and, where appropriate, for ALL general partners and lease holders.

A. FACILITY: Legal name, physical address including the county, person to contact, phone number, and email at the facility. (NO P.O. Box numbers. If no address exists, use street and nearest cross street).

B. FACILITY OWNER: Legal owner, address, person to contact, phone number, and email. Also include the owner's Federal Tax Identification Number.

Owner Type: Check the appropriate owner type. The legal owner will be named in the WDRs/NPDES permit.

C. FACILITY OPERATOR (The agency or business, not the person): If applicable, the name, address, person to contact, telephone number, and email for the facility operator. Check the appropriate Operator Type. If identical to B. above, enter "same as owner".

D. OWNER OF THE LAND: Legal owner of the land(s) where the facility is located, address, person to contact, and phone number. Check the appropriate Owner Type. If identical to B. above, enter "same as owner".

E. ADDRESS WHERE LEGAL NOTICE MAYBE SERVED: Address where legal notice may be served, person to contact, and phone number. If identical to B. above, enter "same as owner".

Address where annual fee invoices should be sent, person to contact, and phone number. If identical to B. above, enter "same as owner".

Form 200 (10/97) 3

F. BILLING ADDRESS: Address where annual fee invoices should be sent, person to contact, and phone number. If identical to B. above, enter "same as owner".

II. TYPE OF DISCHARGE
Mark the appropriate box to describe whether the waste will be discharged to: Land or Surface Water.

Check the appropriate box(es) which best describe the activities at your facility.

Hazardous Waste: If you check the Hazardous Waste box, STOP and contact a representative of the RWQCB for further instructions.

Landfills: A separate form, APPLICATION FOR SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT/WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS, California Integrated Waste Management Board Form E-1-77, may be required. Contact a RWQCB representative to help determine the appropriate form for your discharge.

III. LOCATION OF THE FACILITY
• Enter the Assessor's Parcel Number(s) (APN), which is located on the property tax bill. The number can also be obtained from the County Assessor's Office.

Indicate the APN for both the facility and the discharge point. • Enter the Latitude of the entrance to the proposed/existing facility and of the discharge point. Latitude and longitude information can be obtained from a U.S.

Geological Survey quadrangle topographic map. Other maps may also contain this information.
• Enter the Longitude of the entrance to the proposed/existing facility and of the discharge point.

IV. REASON FOR FILING
NEW DISCHARGE OR FACILITY: A discharge or facility that is proposed but does not now exist, or that does not yet have WDRs or an NPDES permit.

CHANGE IN DESIGN OR OPERATION: A material change in design or operation from existing discharge requirements. Final determination of whether the reported change is material will be made by the RWQCB.

CHANGE IN QUANTITY/TYPE OF DISCHARGE: A material change in characteristics of the waste from existing discharge requirements. Final determination of whether the reported change would have a significant effect will be made by the RWQCB.

CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP/ OPERATOR: Change of legal owner of the facility.

Complete Parts I, III, and IV only and contact the RWQCB to determine if additional information is required.

Form 200 (10/97) 4

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS UPDATE OR NPDES PERMIT
REISSUANCE: WDRs must be updated periodically to reflect changing technology standards and conditions. A new application is required to reissue an NPDES permit which has expired.

OTHER: If there is a reason other than the ones listed, please describe the reason on the space provided. (If more space is needed, attach a separate sheet.) V. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
It should be emphasized that communication with the appropriate RWQCB staff is vital before starting the CEQA documentation and is recommended before completing this application. There are Basin Plan issues which may complicate the CEQA effort, and RWQCB staff may be able to help in providing the needed information to complete the CEQA documentation.

Name the Lead Agency responsible for completion of CEQA requirements for the project, i.e., completion and certification of CEQA documentation.

Check YES or NO. Has a public agency determined that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA? If the answer is YES, state the basis for the exemption and the name of the agency supplying the exemption on the space provided. (Remember that, if extra space is needed, use an extra sheet of paper, but be sure to indicate the attached sheet under Section VII. Other.)
Check YES or NO. Has the "Notice of Determination" been filed under CEQA? If YES, give the date the notice was filed and enclose a copy of the Notice of Determination and the Initial Study, Environmental Impact Report, or Negative Declaration. If NO, check the box of the expected type of CEQA document for this project, and include the expected date of completion using the timelines given under CEQA. The date of completion should be taken as the date that the Notice of Determination will be submitted. (If not known, write "Unknown") VI. OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION
To be approved, your application MUST include a COMPLETE characterization of the discharge. If the characterization is found to be incomplete, RWQCB staff will contact you and request that additional specific information be submitted.

This application MUST be accompanied by a site map. A USGS 7.5' Quadrangle map or a street map, if more appropriate, is sufficient for most applications.

VII. OTHER
If any of the answers on your application form need further explanation, attach a separate sheet. Please list any attachments with the titles and dates on the space provided.

VIII. CERTIFICATION
Certification by the owner of the facility or the operator of the facility, if the operator is different from the owner, is required. The appropriate person must sign the application form.

Form 200 (10/97) 5

Acceptable signatures are:

1. for a corporation, a principal executive officer of at least the level of senior vice- president;

2. for a partnership or individual (sole proprietorship), a general partner or the proprietor;

3. for a governmental or public agency, either a principal executive officer or ranking elected/appointed official.

Discharge Specific Information
In most cases, a request to supply additional discharge specific information will be sent to you by a representative of the RWQCB. If the RWQCB determines that additional discharge specific information is not needed to process your application, you will be so notified.

Form 200 (10/97) 6

•
CA LIFORMI•
Water Boards

GAVIN NEWSOM

GOVERNOR

JARED BLUMENFELD

SECRETARY FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
State of California
Regional Water Quality Control Board

APPLICATION/REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE

GENERAL INFORMATION FORM FOR

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS OR NPDES PERMIT
I. FACILITY INFORMATION
A. FACILITY:

Name City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant
Address 601 Black Road
City/County/State/Zip Code Santa Maria, California 93458 Contact Person Shad Springer
Telephone Number (805) 925-0951 x7211 Email [email protected] B. FACILITY OWNER:

Name City of Santa Maria
Address 601 Black Road
City/State/Zip Code Santa Maria, California 93458
Contact Person Alexandra Griffith
Telephone Number (805) 925-0951 x7241 Email [email protected] Federal Tax ID
Owner Type (Mark one):

Individual! Corporation
Other:

Governmental Agency Partnership
C. FACILITY OPERATOR (The agency or business, not the person):

Name City of Santa Maria
Address 601 Black Road
City/State/Zip Code Santa Maria, California 93458
Contact Person Alexandra Griffith
Telephone Number (805) 925-0951 x7241
Operator Type (Mark one):

Individual Corporation
Other:

Email [email protected]
Governmental Agency Partnership
Form 200 (10/97) 1

D. OWNER OF THE LAND
Name City of Santa Maria
Address 601 Black Road
City/State/Zip Code Santa Maria, California 93458
Contact Person Shad Springer
Telephone Number (805) 925-0951 x7211 Email [email protected] Owner Type (Mark one):

Individual
Other:

Corporation Governmental Agency n Partnership
E. ADDRESS WHERE LEGAL NOTICE MAYBE SERVED
Address 2065 E. Main Street
City/State/Zip Code Santa Maria, California 93454
Contact Person Shad Springer
Telephone Number (805) 925-0951 Email [email protected] F. BILLING ADDRESS
Address 2065 E. Main Street
City/State/Zip Code Santa Maria, California 93454
Contact Person Alexandra Griffith
Telephone Number (805) 925-0951 x7241 Email [email protected] II. TYPE OF DISCHARGE
Check Type of Discharge(s) Described in this Application:

Waste Discharge to Land ❑ Waste Discharge to Surface Water Check all that apply:

Animal or Aquacultural Wastewater
Animal Waste Solids
Biosolids/Residual
Cooling Water
Domestic/ Municipal Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal
Dredge Material Disposal
Hazardous Waste (see instructions)
n Industrial Process Wastewater
Land Treatment Unit
❑ Landfill (see instructions)
❑Mining
Storm Water
Surface Impoundment
Waste Pile
Wastewater Reclamation
Other, please describe
Form 200 (10/97)
2 III. LOCATION OF THE FACILITY
Describe the physical location of the facility:

1. Assessor's Parcel Number(s)
Facility: 113-120-034
Discharge Point: 113-120-034

2. Latitude
Facility: 34d56'35.62"N
Discharge Point: 34d56'54.93"N

3. Longitude
Facility: 120d29'29.48"W
Discharge Point: 120d29'49.59"W
IV. REASON FOR FILING
Check all that apply:

New Discharge or Facility
Change in Design or Operation
Change in Quantity/Type of Discharge
Changes in Ownership/Operator (see instructions)
Waste Discharge Requirements Update or NPDES Permit Reissuance Other:

V. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Name of Lead Agency Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Has a public agency determined that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA? Yes No
If yes, state the basis for the exemption and the name of the agency supplying the exemption on the line below:

Categorically exempt pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15301, section 15302, and section 15303
Has a "Notice of Determination" been filed under CEQA?
Yes ✓ No
If Yes, enclose a copy of the CEQA document, Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or Negative Declaration. If No, identify the expected type of CEQA document and expected date of completion.

Expected CEQA Documents: EIR Negative Declaration
Expected CEQA Completion Date:

Form 200 (10/97) 3

VI. OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION
Please provide a COMPLETE characterization of your discharge. A complete characterization includes, but is not limited to, design and actual flows, a list of constituents and the discharge concentration of each constituent, a list of other appropriate waste discharge characteristics, a description and schematic drawing of all treatment processes, a description of any Best Management Practices (BMPs) used, and a description of disposal methods.

VII. OTHER
Attach additional sheets to explain any responses which need clarification. List attachments with titles and dates below:

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Form 200
Letter to
Fee Amount
Check #:

Received:

Discharger:

Received:

Form 200 (10/97)
4 California Environmental Protection Agency
Bill of Rights for Environmental Permit Applicants
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) recognizes that many complex issues must be addressed when pursuing reforms of environmental permits and that significant challenges remain. We have initiated reforms and intend to continue the effort to make environmental permitting more efficient, less costly, and to ensure that those seeking permits receive timely responses from the boards and departments of the Cal/EPA. To further this goal, Cal/EPA endorses the following precepts that form the basis of a permit applicant's "Bill of Rights."

1. Permit applicants have the right to assistance in understanding regulatory and permit requirements. All Cal/EPA programs maintain an Ombudsman to work directly with applicants. Permit Assistance Centers located throughout California have permit specialists from all the State, regional, and local agencies to identify permit requirements and assist in permit processing.

2. Permit applicants have the right to know the projected fees for review of applications, how any costs will be determined and billed, and procedures for resolving any disputes over fee billings.

3. Permit applicants have the right of access to complete and clearly written guidance documents that explain the regulatory requirements. Agencies must publish a list of all information required in a permit application and of criteria used to determine whether the submitted information is adequate.

4. Permit applicants have the right of timely completeness determinations for their applications. In general, agencies notify the applicant within 30 days of any deficiencies or determine that the application is complete. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and public hearing requests may require additional information.

5. Permit applicants have the right to know exactly how their applications are deficient and what further information is needed to make their applications complete.

Pursuant to California Government code Section 65944, after an application is accepted as complete, an agency may not request any new or additional information that was not specified in the original application.

6. Permit applicants have the right of a timely decision on their permit application. The agencies are required to establish time limits for permit reviews.

7. Permit applicants have the right to appeal permit review time limits by statute or administratively that have been violated without good cause. For state environmental agencies, appeals are made directly to the Cal/EPA Secretary or to a specific board.

For local environmental agencies, appeals are generally made to the local governing board or, under certain circumstances, to Cal/EPA. Through this appeal, applicants may obtain a set date for a decision on their permit and, in some cases, a refund of all application fees (ask boards and departments for details).

8. Permit applicants have the right to work with a single lead agency where multiple environmental approvals are needed. For multiple permits, all agency actions can be consolidated under a lead agency. For site remediation, all applicable laws can be administered through a single agency.

9. Permit applicants have the right to know who will be reviewing their application and the time required to complete the full review process.

Sewer Management Plan

City of Santa Maria

SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

BIENNIAL AUDIT
June 2020
Santa iblaria
AII-America City
1 r>>

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 4
TABLE 1 SEWER MAIN BY AGE 4
TABLE 2 SEWER MAIN SIZE BY DIAMETER 5
EVALUATION OF SECTION 1: GOALS 5
TABLE 3 NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS 6
EVALUATION OF SECTION 2: ORGANIZATION 7
EVALUATION OF SECTION 3: LEGAL AUTHORITY 7
EVALUATION OF SECTION 4: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 9 EVALUATION OF SECTION 5: DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 10 EVALUATION OF SECTION 6: OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN 10 EVALUATION OF SECTION 7: FOG CONTROL PROGRAM 12
EVALUATION OF SECTION 8: SYSTEM EVAL & CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN 14 EVALUATION OF SECTION 9: MONITORING, MEASUREMENT & MODIFICATIONS 14 APPENDIX A SSOs SUMMARY 15
APPENDIX B OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SUMMARY 18
APPENDIX C REGULATORY CONTACT INFORMATION 19
APPENDIX D SOPs 20
City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 2 of 22 ends

INTRODUCTION
On May 2, 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (General WDRs).

The General WDRs apply to all public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system that is comprised of more than one mile of sewer pipe or line that convey wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility. The General WDRs refer to these public agencies as "enrollees". The Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the General WDRs was revised in 2013.

The City of Santa Maria (City) applied for coverage under the General WDRs by submitting a Notice of Intent to comply with the terms of the WDRs, along with the required fees to the SWRCB in August 2006, and commenced development of the required Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP).

The Water Resources Division of the City Utilities Department adopted its first SSMP in July 2009. The document contained all of the elements required by the SWRCB, including: goals; organization; legal authority; operations and maintenance program; design and performance standards; overflow emergency response plan; fats, oils, and grease control program; system evaluation and capacity assurance plan; monitoring, measurement, and program modifications; program audits; and a communication program.

The General WDRs and resulting SSMP outline the requirements for periodic internal audits at least once every two years after adoption of the SSMP. The original SSMP was adopted in July 2009, and since its adoption, two audits were completed in 2011 and 2013 to evaluate the effectiveness of the SSMP. The City's SSMP was revised in 2014 to reflect the revised monitoring and reporting program adopted in 2013. This document serves as the third audit of the revised SSMP.

Section 10 of the SSMP describes the general purpose of the audit, as well as the targets and objectives of the SSMP:

The City's short-term plan is to continue to work toward a downward trend in the number of sanitary sewer overflows. The long-term plan is to reduce overflows to below the industry standard of six per year per one hundred miles of pipe.

The City continues to maintain an overflow rate below industry standard and the City has generally met the goal of a downward trend in the number of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) since implementation of the SSMP while also reducing the number of overflows to below the industry -standard each year since implementation. Six sewer spills occurred in calendar year 2018; two were related to contract work for an influent piping upgrade at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Two overflows occurred in calendar year 2019. Three overflows occurred during the first half of calendar year 2020.

City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 3 of 22 ends

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Santa Maria is located approximately 250 miles south of San Francisco and 170 miles north of Los Angeles. It lies within the Santa Maria river valley in a fertile plain surrounded by hills on three sides and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The median age in the City is

28.6 years, according to the 2010 Census. Since 1970, the City's population has more than tripled. As of January 1, 2019, the City's population reached 107,356.

Annexations have increased the City's physical size to just over 23 square miles.

Agriculture remains an important role in the City's economy, however, other important sectors include retail, education, medical, aerospace, communications, high-technology research and development, energy production, military operations, and various manufacturing industries.

The Utilities Department Water Resources Division provides water and wastewater services to over 23,000 residential and commercial accounts. These services include water production and distribution and wastewater collection and treatment.

The wastewater collection system is comprised of approximately 250 miles of gravity flow sewer pipes and mains and one lift station with 0.2 mile of force main serving 117 residential parcels. The oldest sewer mains were installed in the early 1900s; however, the majority of sewer mains in the system were installed after 1960 when the City experienced significant growth.

Table 1 shows the distribution of sewer main by age.

TABLE 1 SEWER MAIN BY AGE
YEAR
MILES

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
Unknown

23.40 9.5%
Pre -1900

0.00 0.0%
1900-1919

0.00 0.0%
1920-1939

5.17 2.1%
1940-1959

9.56 3.9%
1960-1979

86.06 34.9%
1980-1999

87.14 35.3%
2000 -Present

35.60 14.4%
TOTAL
246.93
100%
Most of the City's older pipes are composed of vitrified clay pipe (VCP) and newer pipes are composed of polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC). Sewer mains range in size from four inches to 30 inches in diameter, with 60 percent constructed of VCP and 25 percent constructed of PVC.

City of Santa Maria
June 2020
Sewer System Management Plan
Biennial Audit

Page 4 of 22 ends

Table 2 shows the distribution of sewer mains by size.

TABLE 2 SEWER MAIN SIZE BY DIAMETER

SIZE (INCHES)
MILES

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
Unknown

16.00 6.5%
<6

97.08 39.3%
8 77.22

31.3%
9-18

44.73 18.1%
19-36

11.96 4.8%
TOTAL
246.99
100.0%
EVALUATION OF SECTION 1: GOALS
The following are five goals established in the SSMP along with an evaluation of how each goal has been furthered through SSMP implementation.

1. Properly manage, operate, and maintain all portions of the City's wastewater collection and treatment system.

The Utilities Department Water Resources Division developed an Operations and Maintenance Program included as Section 4 of the SSMP.

The program established cleaning and videoing frequencies along with other targets to ensure the appropriate operation and maintenance of the wastewater collections system. Evaluation of Section 4 discusses targets in detail and the effectiveness at reaching those targets.

2. Provide adequate capacity to convey the City's peak wastewater flows.

The Utilities Department Water Resources Division maintains records of the cause of all overflows. Since adoption of the SSMP, no overflows were related to inadequate capacity. Appendix A contains a summary of the SSOs that have occurred since adoption of the SSMP.

Wastewater flows have not exceeded the maximum monthly flow of 10.4 MGD, which occurred in August 2014. The absence of overflows due to insufficient capacity indicates that the City has met its goal of providing adequate capacity to convey peak wastewater flows.

3. Minimize the frequency of sewer system overflows.

The historical peak in SSOs occurred in 2003 with 69 SSOs. Since 2003, the number of overflows has steadily declined through 2007 and then City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 5 of 22 ends

dramatically declined with the implementation of the SSMP. Another contributing factor for the decrease in overflows was the change in reporting of private versus public overflows. In all, the City has reduced the frequency of overflows to below the industry standard of six overflows per year per 100 miles of pipe.

Table 3 shows the number of overflows from 2003 to through to June 2020.

TABLE 3 NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS
YEAR

NUMBER OF SSOS

OVERFLOWS
PER 100 MILES
2003
69 32.86
2004
59 28.09
2005
43 20.47
2006
37 17.61
2007
20 9.52
2008
15 6.81
2009
7 3.18
2010
12 5.45
2011
5 2.72
2012
12 5.00
2013
12 5.00
2014
8 3.33
2015
4 1.66
2016
6 2.43
2017
1 0.40
2018
6 2.43
2019
2 0.81
2020 (through June)
3 1.21
NOTE: OVERFLOWS FROM 2007 TO 2020 ARE FROM CITY MAINS ONLY.

4. Mitigate the impacts associated with any sewer overflows that may occur.

Appendix A includes overflows that have occurred since adoption of the SSMP. Two years after implementation, but prior to the first audit, the total volume of all overflows was 2,375 gallons, with the largest overflow of 600 gallons. Two years between the first audit and the second audit, the total volume of overflows was 1,766 gallons, with the largest overflow of 500 gallons. The total volume of spills from the third audit to the end of 2019 City of Santa Maria
June 2020
Sewer System Management Plan
Biennial Audit

Page 6 of 22 ends

was 12,891 gallons, with the largest being approximately 11,137 gallons when a contractor damaged a 30" trunk main near the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Another discharge in 2019 of 714 gallons also occurred due to a contractor's work at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Approximately 1,040 gallons of the 2018 and 2019 total spill volume was due to collection system overflows. The continued improvement is a result of quick response time, which meets the goal of mitigating the impacts of overflows that occur. Additionally, reducing the total number of overflows significantly reduces the potential impact of wastewater discharges to the environment.

The Utilities Department Water Resources Division installed over 40 sewer monitors in strategic locations to alert of rising water levels in order to respond to main blockages before they become overflows. Since installation of sewer sentinels in June 2013, approximately 38 overflows have been averted.

5. Meet all applicable regulatory notification and reporting requirements.

In 2009, one overflow qualified as a Category 1 spill and required notification to regulatory agencies. There have been no Category 1 spills since the last audit. The City has established a process to ensure that appropriate notification is made.

EVALUATION OF SECTION 2: ORGANIZATION
The Director of Utilities is the legally responsible official for the City's sanitary sewer collection system and Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Director has delegated authority to one additional legally responsible official. The organizational chart contained within Sub -Section II(a) of the SSMP represents the organizational structure. Section II(b) shows the flow of work and communication when overflows occur. Section II(c) provides personnel contact information. Contact information is maintained at the Utilities Department and is updated as necessary to reflect any changes.

EVALUATION OF SECTION 3: LEGAL AUTHORITY
The City has the legal authority to carry out activities to protect the wastewater collections system against SSOs. A discussion of each category of activity follows:

A. Prevent illicit discharges into the sanitary sewer system, including inflow and infiltration from satellite wastewater collection systems and laterals, stormwater, unauthorized debris, etc.

The Utilities Department works closely with the Code Enforcement City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 7 of 22 ends

Division to address issues associated with illicit discharges, stormwater violations, and unauthorized debris. Code Enforcement assists in obtaining compliance with serious non -compliant Food Service Establishments in accordance with the Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) regulations.

B. Require proper design and construction of sewers and connections.

The City has Standard Drawings and Specifications that specify design and construction standards to ensure adequate construction of sewer mains and laterals. The City Public Works Department employs inspectors to verify that City Standards are followed during construction.

C. Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, and repairs to publicly owned portions of laterals.

The Utilities Department works with the Public Works Department to ensure that sewer mains and laterals are built in a manner that facilitates access for maintenance and repair. The Utilities Department reviews drawings of public improvement plans before the infrastructure is finalized. This enables facility locations to be adjusted to meet the long- term collections system maintenance needs.

D. Limit the discharge of fats, oils, and grease (FOG) and other debris that may cause blockages.

The City has adequate legal authority to address FOG, debris, and other discharges that may cause blockages. FOG inspection contractors, Utilities Department Regulatory Compliance Staff, and City Code Enforcement Staff have actively addressed violations related to wastewater discharge regulations.

E. Enforce violations of its sewer ordinance.

FOG inspection contractors, Utilities Department Regulatory Compliance Staff, and City Code Enforcement Staff enforce Santa Maria Municipal Code Section 8-12. Enforcement has significantly reduced the number of facilities out of compliance with the City's FOG regulations and sewer use ordinance, in addition to a reduction in the number of overflows from residential and large rental properties.

City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 8 of 22 ends

EVALUATION OF SECTION 4: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM The City developed key elements in its Operations and Maintenance Program to ensure proper operation of its wastewater collection system. An evaluation of each element of the Operations and Maintenance Program is provided below:

A. Collection System Map.

The City continues to update its Geographical Information System database with information on sewer and storm drain systems. Since adoption of the SSMP, over 35 miles of sewer main have been digitally added to the database. Most of the new information resulted from the addition of information from development projects built after 2000. The City continues to improve the collections system map as new development takes place or as discrepancies are encountered in the field.

The initial SSMP discussed replacing individual updated sheets in the Atlas map with the date of last revision. Since the last SSMP audit, the City has implemented a tablet -based map and asset management program, which allows for both efficient map access and allows map discrepancies to be recorded and corrected within the program. Printed Atlas books are no longer the primary means of accessing City sewer and storm drain maps.

B. Preventative Operation and Maintenance.

The original SSMP established targets of 150 miles of sewer line cleaned and ten miles of sewer line videoed per year.

Appendix B shows a summary of the work completed since 2007. The average miles of sewer line cleaned is 172 miles per year and the average miles of sewer main videoed is 9.9 miles per year.

The City met over 100 percent of its cleaning and videoing goals in 2018 and 2019, which is a significant improvement over the 2007 results of 79 percent of the cleaning goal and 37 percent of the videoing goal.

The City will maintain its cleaning and videoing targets with the intent of reaching these targets each year.

C. Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan.

The City established a goal to complete repairs to its collections system at an average of two repairs per month.

City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 9 of 22 ends

Appendix B shows the number of repairs completed since the SSMP was implemented.

The City has met its goal of two repairs per month, with an average of 27 repairs per year. The City addresses pipe repairs in a timely manner and does not have a backlog of identified pipes requiring repair.

D. Training.

Operators are certified by the SWRCB as Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators. Operators receive weekly safety tailgate instruction as well as annual SSMP training.

E. Contingency Equipment and Replacement Inventories.

The City has multiple redundancy in both its facilities and equipment to address outages. No overflows have occurred because of insufficient facility or equipment inventory.

EVALUATION OF SECTION 5: DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Design of City facilities has not been identified as a cause for any overflows that have occurred since the adoption of the SSMP. System deficiencies are addressed through maintenance and repairs. The City's existing design and performance standards posted on the City's website at www.cityofsantamaria.org are comprehensive and effective.

EVALUATION OF SECTION 6: OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN The City has a defined overflow emergency response plan that has been implemented in each of the overflows occurring since adoption of the SSMP. The Overflow Emergency Response Plan contains several elements, each of which is evaluated below:

A. Proper notification procedures so that primary responders and regulatory agencies are informed of all SSOs in a timely manner.

The Utilities Department Water Resources Division is responsible for responding to overflows during assigned work hours and after-hours, and Operators are dispatched in a timely manner by the Department or by the City's public safety communications center.

Appendix A shows the response time for each overflow that has occurred since adoption of the SSMP. Since the last audit, the average response time after notification is 16 minutes, with a maximum operator response time of 95 minutes. A rapid response time helps minimize spill volume.

City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 10 of 22 ends

B. A program to ensure an appropriate response to all overflows.

The Utilities Department Water Resources Division responds to all clogs and overflows that occur within its service area. On average, the Department receives over 100 service calls per year. These service calls include overflows on City mains, overflows on private property, and sewer clogs that have not yet become sewer overflows. Each overflow was evaluated to determine cause and identify whether operational or other changes should be made to reduce the likelihood of future overflows.

C. Procedures to ensure prompt notification to appropriate regulatory agencies and other potentially affected entities.

Appendix C depicts the laminated wallet -sized card containing contact information for regulatory agencies. This card is held by the Wastewater Supervisor and kept in each of the vacuum trucks to contact the appropriate regulatory agencies when overflows occur requiring notification. This process is used for overflows of more than 1,000 gallons or those that reach the storm drain system and are not fully recovered.

D. Procedures to ensure that appropriate staff and contract personnel are aware of, and follow, the Emergency Response Plan and are appropriately trained.

All work associated with sewer system overflows over the last two years has been performed or coordinated by City Staff. The Wastewater Supervisor meets with Operators daily to discuss work issues. When questions arise regarding the work process associated with overflows, the topic is discussed as a group and addressed in a manner that meets the regulatory requirements while remaining operationally feasible.

Several standard operating procedures (SOPs) have been developed to address SSOs and are regularly revised. These SOPs are contained in Appendix D and are provided to Operators.

E. Procedures to address emergency operations such as traffic, crowd control, and other necessary response activities.

Since adoption of the SSMP, no overflows have required traffic or crowd control, or other response activity outside of City Code Enforcement procedures. However, Operators addressed response activities during 2010 storm events in which traffic control and street shutdowns became necessary. Wastewater Operators worked with the City Public Works and City Police Departments to secure and implement the necessary City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 11 of 22 ends

equipment and labor. If needed, a similar response would be implemented for a large overflow.

F. A program to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to contain and prevent the discharge of untreated and partially treated wastewater to Waters of the United States, and to minimize or correct any adverse impact on the environment resulting from the SSOs, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may be necessary to determine the nature and impact of the discharge.

Since adoption of the City's SSMP, there was one incident of untreated wastewater affecting the environment. In 2009, the City recovered 100 gallons of a 600 -gallon spill. However, since the 2018 audit, 12,871 gallons of spillage have been recovered and returned to the sanitary sewer or treatment system. Of the 12,871 gallons, 11,851 gallons were caused by a spill that was caused by a contractor hired to perform work at the Wastewater Treatment Plant in 2018.

EVALUATION OF SECTION 7: FATS, OILS, & GREASE (FOG) CONTROL PROGRAM The City has a comprehensive FOG Control Program that includes a media campaign, a presence on the City's website, and educational outreach to neighborhoods with overflows caused by FOG -created blockages. The program has been effective at reducing the number of overflows associated with FOG.

The program has several elements, each of which are discussed and evaluated below.

A. An implementation plan and schedule for public education and outreach that promotes proper disposal of FOG.

Targeted Grease Campaign: When overflows caused by FOG occur in predominately -residential areas, the City distributes English and Spanish FOG information to residents. Nearly 2,000 door hangers have been distributed since implementing the program. Apartment complexes FOG blockages have typically been targeted after FOG -related overflows have happened. Sewer customers in affected neighborhoods receive outreach materials about the proper disposal methods for kitchen grease.

Public Information Campaign: The City spent over $35,000 in FOG outreach in Fiscal Year 2019-20. This included participation in community events, where promotional and educational items where distributed. Additionally, radio and television commercials, cinema ads, print ads in newspapers, informational brochures, geo-targeting digital ads, and outdoor billboards were utilized.

City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 12 of 22 ends

B. A plan and schedule for the disposal of FOG generated within the sanitary sewer system service area.

Part of the FOG facility inspection program is to verify that grease traps and interceptors are cleaned regularly. The City operates a Septage Receiving Station at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Septage Receiving Station accepts sanitary waste and decanted grease wastewater. The Utilities Department Regulatory Compliance Division permits grease waste haulers to store grease tanks at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and decant the grease wastewater. The grease haulers store and decant grease in preparation for hauling to facilities that can accept the grease. All septage and grease haulers are monitored, permitted, and invoiced for services provided at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Wastewater Treatment Plant is not configured in a manner that allows grease to be disposed at the facility at this time, nor are there capital improvement plans or funding identified in the future.

C. The legal authority to prohibit discharges to the system and identify measures to prevent SSOs and blockages caused by FOG.

The City has the legal authority to address any contribution to the sewer system that negatively affects its performance. When compliance cannot be achieved during the FOG Inspection process, the Utilities Department can enlist the assistance of the City Code Enforcement Division to gain compliance with City regulations.

D. Requirements to install grease removal devices, such as traps or interceptors design standards for the removal devices,
maintenance requirements, BMP requirements, record keeping, and reporting requirements.

The Santa Maria Municipal Code provides the Utilities Department with the authority to require grease traps and interceptors where needed to address FOG from commercial facilities. The Utilities Department Regulatory Compliance Division reviews all building plan permits for grease trap/interceptor requirements and maintains approval authority for the reviews.

E. Authority to inspect grease producing facilities, enforcement authorities, and whether the Enrollee has sufficient staff to inspect and enforce the FOG ordinance.

The City has been successful getting grease traps or interceptors installed and facilities cleaned and repaired. There are 260 existing FOG regulated facilities within the City. In 2018, 216 inspections were City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 13 of 22 ends

performed and 126 inspections performed in 2019. Food service establishment facilities are inspected by a third -party, Water Systems Consulting, under contract with the Utilities Department.

F. An identification of sanitary sewer sections subject to FOG blockages and establishment of a cleaning schedule for each section.

The City maintains a list of sewer system locations that receive cleaning on a monthly basis. Records do not indicate that any additional areas should be added to the list at this time.

G. Development and implementation of source control measures for all sources of FOG discharged to the sanitary sewer system for each section identified in Section F above.

The City has identified commercial FOG facilities that have been placed on an annual inspection schedule to verify that grease traps and interceptors are operating properly and cleaned regularly.

EVALUATION OF SECTION 8: SYSTEM EVALUATION & CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN
The City has a capital improvement plan to address repairs, replacements, and upgrades to sewer mains and trunk lines to provide sufficient capacity. Recent overflows have not been related to capacity limitations. Trunk line upgrades occur as needed. Since implementation of the SSMP, there have been no sewer trunk line upgrades. The City has updated its utility planning document to prepare for future growth. Until additional growth occurs, the City's existing infrastructure is sufficient to provide capacity.

EVALUATION OF SECTION 9: MONITORING, MEASUREMENT, & PROGRAM

MODIFICATIONS
The City has multiple tools available for monitoring and measuring SSMP effectiveness, which have been used to provide information for this SSMP Biennial Audit. FOG inspection records are maintained in Linko, a pretreatment database program. The City is in the process of implementing a new asset management program for managing records of utility work completed, work assignments, utility map updates, and other useful functions. Overflow data is uploaded online into the California Integrated Water Quality System.
-END-
City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 14 of 22 ends

APPENDIX A
SSOs SUMMARY
Date
Location
Spill
Volume, 9a'
Volume
Recovered, gar
Spill Cause
p
Minutes to
Notify
Minutes to
Arrive
Minutes
to Stop
Overflow
Total
Response
p
Time, minutes
2009-12-3
2807 Airpark Dr
600
100
Debris
33 37
10 80
2009-12-6
400 McElhaney Ave
200
200
FOG
0 5
10 15
2009-12-19
655 Lee St
100
100
FOG
5 25
15 45
2010-1-5
609 School St
200
200
Debris
0 23
15 38
2010-1-31
209 Grant St
500
500
FOG
0 15
10 25
2010-2-2
430 Harding Ave
150
150
FOG
14 11
10 35
2010-2-26
2213 Almond La
30 30
FOG
45 30
5 80
2010-4-19
1017 Bradley Rd
100
100
FOG
2 12
19 33
2010-4-25
226 Main St
50 50
Debris
21 14
15 50
2010-6-3
200 Williams St
100
100
Contractor
15 5
0 20
2010-7-15
709 Lincoln St
25 25
FOG
0 15
15 30
2010-8-8
609 School St
55 55
Debris
0 11
8 19
2010-10-28
335 Mary Dr
15 15
FOG
5 20
5 30
2010-11-13
1017 Bradley Rd
150
150
FOG
0 20
5 25
2010-12-10
1330 Bradley Rd
20 20
FOG
0 11
0 11
2010-12-20
1003 Sugar Bush Dr
15 15
FOG
6 0
3 9
2011-2-3
112 Alvin Ave
5 5
Debris
0 10
0 10
2011-2-10
223 Betteravia Rd
60 60
FOG
2 7
5 14
2012-4-24
916 W Creston
100
100
Debris
unknown
0 20
20 2012-5-18
1011 S. Miller
15 15
Roots
unknown
10 5
15 2012-6-18
910 W Creston
100
100
Debris
unknown
27 4
31 2012-6-17
1800 N Railroad
10 10
FOG
2 10
2 12
2012-8-7
600 S Elizabeth
100
100
FOG
unknown
10 5
15 2012-9-6
708 N Lincoln
1 1
Debris
unknown
5 5
10 2012-10-1
1214 Lela La
20 20
Debris
20 20
70 90
2012-11-1
301 S Oakley
100
100
Debris
unknown
20 10
30 City of Santa Maria
June 2020

Page 15 ends

Sewer System Management Plan
Biennial Audit

Date
Location
Spill
Volume, 9a'
Volume
Recovered, Pr
Spill Cause
Minutes to
Notify
Minutes to
Arrive
Minutes
to Stop
Overflow
Total
onse
Response
Time, minutes
2013-1-5
1100 N Broadway
50 50
FOG
85 25
5 30
2013-1-15
1308 Valley Oak PI
100
100
FOG
unknown
20 10
30 2013-1-27
201 S Ranch
50 50
Debris
unknown
23 10
33 2013-1-7
1220 Lela La
10 10
Debris
unknown
10 0
10 2013-3-18
410 E Camino Colegio
500
500
Other
unknown
20 20
40 2013-4-27
1010 S Broadway
20 20
Debris
unknown
30 0
30 2013-5-1
1010 S Broadway
50 50
FOG
3 10
15 25
2013-6-10
303 E Betteravia Rd
200
200
Debris
unknown
10 35
45 2013-7-25
1501 E Alvin St
25 25
Debris
unknown
15 5
20 2013-9-12
Western & Main
250
250
FOG
N/A
40 5
45 2013-10-22
1225 Lucia Ct
200
200
FOG
N/A
30 10
40 2013-11-8
510 W Orchard
25 25
Debris
N/A
15 5
20 2013-12-6
2718 Santa Barbara
15 15
Debris
N/A
23 7
30 2014-3-26
1743 Adelyne Ln
50 50
FOG
N/A
45 10
55 2014-3-27
628 E Mill St
25 25
Debris
N/A
8 10
18 2014-4-4
525 E Mill in alley
5 5
FOG
N/A
10 10
20 2014-4-5
325 S Ranch St
50 50
Roots
N/A
30 10
40 2014-4-21
1653 LaSalle
75 75
FOG
N/A
7 8
15 2014-6-3
Cook & Orange Basin
75 75
FOG
N/A
15 10
25 2014-6-24
905 S Russell Ave
50 50
Structural Failure
N/A
9 150
159
2014-6-29
1308 Valley Oaks
25 25
Roots
N/A
15 13
28 2014-9-29
Albertson's
110
110
FOG
N/A
5 5
10 2015-2-6
1430 Jason Way
15 15
Debris
N/A
15 13
28 2015-2-25
800 -block Raaberg
200
200
FOG
N/A
13 6
19 2015-3-6
223 E Betteravia Rd
200
200
Debris
N/A
10 10
20 2015-9-10
Tunnell & East
300
300
Contractor
N/A
10 30
40 2016-6-21
South Airport
30 30
Debris/Roots/Rags
N/A
9 28
37 2016-7-29
1728 Glenwood ST
30 30
Const. Debris
N/A
20 10
30 2016-8-25
1308 Valley Oak
75 75
Debris/Rags
N/A
20 5
25 City of Santa Maria
June 2020

Page 16 ends

Sewer System Management Plan
Biennial Audit

Date
Location
Spill
Volume, gal
Volume
Recovered, gar
Spill Cause
p
Minutes to
Notify
Minutes to
Arrive
Minutes
to Stop
Overflow
Total
Response
p
Time, minutes
2016-9-24
City Motors
20 20
FOG
N/A
10 10
20 2016-9-26
100 E. Betteravia
25 25
Debris/Rags
N/A
15 5
20 2016-11-22
E. Main/Palisade
10 10
Debris/Rags
N/A
10 10
20 2017-11-17
302 S. Broadway
100
100
FOG
N/A
20 5
25 2018-7-18
200 BI. S. Miller
800
800
Debris/Rags
N/A
20 5
25 2018-8-14
512 S. Miller
50 50
FOG/Rags
N/A
35 10
45 2018-8-27
628 E. Mill
45 45
Debris/Rags
N/A
15 10
25 2018-8-29
515 S. Black Rd.
11137
11137
Contractor
N/A
1 780
781
2018-9-1
515 S. Black Rd.
714
714
Contractor
N/A
1 205
206
2018-9-16
1405 N. Bradley
45 45
Roots, Rags, FOG
N/A
10 5
15 2019-8-17
713 E. Orange
20 0
Roots
N/A
95 5
100
2019-12-11
3010 Skyway
80 80
Roots
N/A
10 5
15 TOTALS:
16617
16597
AVERAGE:
47 City of Santa Maria
June 2020

Page 17 ends

Sewer System Management Plan
Biennial Audit

APPENDIX B

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SUMMARY
Year
Miles Cleaned
Miles Videoed
Repairs
Completed
2007
119

3.70 4
2008
148

12.20 26
2009
144

5.80 24
2010
124

6.60 29
2011
103

10.60 21
2012
155

21.60 19
2013
144

5.50 18
2014
222

5.50 32
2015
263

7.70 19
2016
190

9.86 10
2017
152

10.32 21
2018
238

10.01 74
2019
236

19.85 53
Average
172

9.94 26.92
City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 18 of 22 ends

APPENDIX C

OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN

REGULATORY CONTACT INFORMATION

FOR A SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW THAT ENTERS

STORM DRAIN SYSTEM,
CONTACT RUSS NEWMAN (WITHIN 2 HOURS):

CELL: 805-###-#### PERSONAL: 805-###-####
IF UNABLE TO REACH RUSS, NOTIFY:

OES: 800-852-7550
RWQCB 805-549-3147 (BUSINESS HOURS)
805-235-8435 (AFTER HOURS)
SB County Health Dept. 805-346-8460
City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 19 of 22 ends

APPENDIX D
SOPs

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
City of Santa Maria Sewer System Management Plan
June 2020 Biennial Audit

Page 20 of 22 ends

i.� �
]a
Department
Utilities
Author
Shannon Sweeney
Santa Maria
bfrd
All -America City
1 I I ,
Division
Water Resources
Revision
3 - 6/22/20 RN
Group
Collections
Effective Date
11/18/09
Reporting Sewage Spills
Purpose
This Standard Operating Procedure outlines the steps required to report a sewage spill to stay in compliance with the City's Sanitary Sewer Management Plan and California Water Code Section 13271.

Step
Action
1 Determine how much spilled and where it spilled.
2 If the spill reached or will reach the storm drain system and has not been fully recovered (Category 1 spills), or if the spill is greater than 1,000 gallons, contact the Wastewater Supervisor immediately. If not available, call the following agencies:
• Office of Emergency Services (800) 852-7550
• RWQCB (805) 549-3147 during business hours, (805) 235-8435 after business hours
• SB County Health Department (805) 346-8460 within two hours of start of overflow. After hours or on weekends, call (805) 681-4900. 3 Complete a Sewage Spill report within 24 hours of the incident. WW Supervisor or LRO to complete step 4. If Wastewater Supervisor or LRO is unavailable, fax Cat 1 report to the RWQCB at (805) 543-0397 and to the Santa Barbara County Health Department at (805) 346-8485
4 Enter Cat 1 & 2 spills into the Online SSO reporting system within three days of the overflow. Certify report within 15 days of SSO end. Enter all other spills into the Online SSO reporting system by the end of the month following the date of the spill.

Issues
Discharges of less than 1,000 gallons must be reported if:
• The spill enters a water of the State, including public or private, natural or artificial channel. • The spill reaches the ground within 5 feet of groundwater, or within 500 feet of a surface water, water well, or domestic water supply source,
• The spill causes pollution or threatened pollution,
• The spill causes a nuisance (such as multiple calls to the same location), • The spill causes a potential threat to public health (such as an agricultural field or if dealing with crowds).

City of Santa Maria
June 2020
Sewer System Management Plan
Biennial Audit

Page 21 of 22 ends

MAD
Mli
Department
Utilities
Author
A. Pantoja/S. Sweeney
Santa Maria
krfril
All -America City
1 Illr
Division
Water Resources
Revision
1- 6/22/20 RN
Group
Collections
Effective Date
11/25/09
Sewer Overflows — Private Property
Purpose
Release of sewage violates the City's Municipal Code, Section 8-12.201, and is a threat to public health. Spills from laterals not caused by main backups are the responsibility of the property owner.

Step
Action
1 Respond to all sewer calls, regardless of cause.
2 If the overflow is on private property, contain the discharge from leaving the property.

Do not enter the property, except to vacuum standing sewage and cordon off the affected area.
3 Verify that the overflow is not being caused by a blockage at the main. 4 If the overflow is caused by a blockage on the lateral, attempt to contact a responsible party for the property (homeowner, renter, property manager). Document attempts to contact a responsible party.
5 If after one hour, no one has responded, contact a plumber and authorize the plumber only to restore flow. Use the attached list of licensed plumbers, and rotate through the list. If needed, also contact a restoration company for site cleanup and disinfection.

Use the attached list of restoration firms, and rotate through the list. 6 In the event that the sewage overflow cannot be contained, staff is authorized to shut off the water until the sewer lateral flow can be restored. However, this is only to be done if the situation cannot be controlled in any other way, and this condition is not to exist for more than two hours.
7 Document the situation with photos. Inform the reporting party of your findings. 8 Contact Code Enforcement at extension 2420 or cell phone number 805-868-7483. If after hours or holidays and weekends, leave a message.
9 Stay on site until proper sewer flow is restored, standing water that presents a public health issue is vacuumed, the affected area is cordoned off, and a restoration firm has been contacted, if needed.
10 Prepare an Outside Billing for the incident. Send the outside billing to Business Services and to Code Compliance (include photos to Code Enforcement).

Issues
Section 8-12.1410 authorizes the City to correct a condition causing a sewage release onto public or private property. "In order to enforce the provisions of (Chapter 8), the City may correct any violation of it. The cost of such correction may be added to any charges and fees payable by the person violating this chapter or the owner or tenant of the property upon which the violation occurred." City of Santa Maria
June 2020
Sewer System Management Plan
Biennial Audit

Page 22 of 22 ends

Engineering Report

Geosyntec D
consultants
engineers I scientists I innovators
City of
Santa Maria

CITY OF SANTA MARIA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

ENGINEERING REPORT
Prepared for
City of Santa Maria
601 Black Rd, Santa Maria
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
924 Anacapa Street, Suite 4A
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Project Number: HPE1852
August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant
Engineering Report
Prepared for
City of Santa Maria
601 Black Rd, Santa Maria
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
924 Anacapa Street, Suite 4A
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Hamid Amini, PhD, P.E. Jason Flowers PhD, P.E.

Principal Senior Engineer
Padam Neupane Dan Dowdy, P.E.

Staff Professional Principal
Project Number: HPE 1852
August 5, 2022
Santa Maria WWTP Engineering Report August 5, 2022

Geosyntec
consultants

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 3

2.1 WWTP General Description 3

2.1.1 WWTP Location 4

2.1.2 Chemicals Used at Existing WWTP 5

2.1.3 WWTP Design Criteria 5

2.2 Influent Wastewater Flows 5

2.3 Influent Wastewater Characteristics 6

2.4 Existing Plant Performance 7

2.5 Sources of Wastewater Production 9

2.6 Groundwater Monitoring 9

2.6.1 Groundwater Monitoring Network 9

2.6.2 Groundwater Quality 10

2.7 Solids Handling 12

2.8 Regulatory Status 12

2.8.1 California Environmental Quality Act 12

2.8.2 Summary of Existing Individual WDR Permit 13

2.8.3 Summary of the General WDR Permit 14

2.8.4 Existing Effluent Disposal Capacity 15

2.9 Potable Water Information 16

2.9.1 Potable Water Quality 16

2.9.2 Cross Connection Prevention 18

2.10 Contingency Planning 19

3. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES TO MEET GENERAL PERMIT 20

3.1 Conceptual WWTP Upgrade Alternatives 20

3.1.1 Biological Nitrogen Removal Conventional Activated Sludge 20

3.1.2 Biological Nitrogen Removal Membrane Bioreactor 20

3.1.3 Aerobic Granular Sludge 21

3.2 Summary 21

4. PLAN TO ADDRESS GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 23

5. REFERENCES 24
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report i August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
ccnpultants

LIST OF TABLES
Table A Locations of Key WWTP Features
Table B Influent Wastewater Flow
Table C Annual Septage Volume Received
Table D Influent Wastewater Characteristics
Table E Effluent Wastewater Characteristics
Table F Unit Process Performance Evaluation
Table G Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction Summary Table H Groundwater Monitoring Data Summary (2021)
Table I Summary Tabulation of Discharge Requirements
Table J Summary Tabulation of Domestic Discharge Requirements Table K Wholesale Water Supplies
Table L Primary Drinking Water Standards — Mandatory Health Related Standards Table M Secondary Drinking Water Standards — Aesthetic Standards Table N Lead and Copper Sampling Program (September 2019) Table 1 Design Criteria for Current Operations

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8a
Figure 8b
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Site Location Map
WWTP Sewer Service Area
Laguna County Sanitation District Agreement Area
WWTP Process Flow Schematic
WWTP Hydraulic Profile
WWTP Solids Process Diagram
Scaled WWTP Layout
Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations
Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations — WWTP Detail
Percolation Pond Location Map
Production Well Location Map
Conceptual Schedule

LIST OF APPENDICES
Individual Waste Discharge Requirements — Order R3-2010-0001 General Waste Discharge Requirements — Order R3-2020-0020 WWTP Design Criteria
Influent Wastewater Characteristics (2011-2021)
Monitoring Well Construction Diagrams
Annual Groundwater Analytical Data (2011-2021)
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report ii August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
ccnpultants

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C Degrees Celsius
AER Aerobic
AF Acre -Feet
AF/YR Acre -Feet per Year
Agreement Wastewater flow agreement between the City and LCSD AL Action Level
ANX Anoxic
APN Assessor's Parcel Number
Avg Average
BNR Biological Nitrogen Removal
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
cBOD Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CCR Consumer Confidence Report
CCRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region CCWA Central Coast Water Authority
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Santa Maria
ft amsl Feet Above Mean Sea Level
ft bgs Feet Below Ground Surface
GPD Gallons per Day
LCSD Laguna County Sanitation District
MBAS Methylene Blue Active Substances (foaming agents)
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level for Drinking Water
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
MGY Million Gallons per Year
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
MTBE Methyl Tertiary -butyl Ether
ND Not Detected
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report iii August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
ccnpultants
NA Not Analyzed; Not Applicable
NOI Notice of Intent
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
pCi/L Picocuries per Liter (a measure of radioactivity) PHG Public Health Goal
Plan Overflow and Emergency Response Plan
ppb Parts per Billion
ROWD Report of Waste Discharge
SSOs Sewer System Overflows
SWP State Water Project
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TSO Time Schedule Order
TSS Total Suspended Solids
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report iV August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
ccnpultants

1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Maria (City) owns and operates the wastewater collection, transport, and treatment system serving the City of Santa Maria, portions of the Santa Maria Airport District, and part of the Laguna County Sanitation District (LCSD). The treatment system, the City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located at 601 South Black Road in the City of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County, California (Figure 1). The WWTP was established in the early 1930s and underwent upgrades and expansions in 1941, 1962, 1979, 1996, and 2009 that included modifications to the existing WWTP infrastructure and/or installation of new infrastructure. The WWTP currently treats wastewater from approximately 110,000 users and is currently rated to process approximately 13.5 million gallons per day (MGD), with 2021 flows averaging approximately 6.95 MGD and recent 2022 flows averaging approximately 7.05 MGD.

Discharge from the WWTP is currently permitted by Order R3-2010-0001 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB, 2010, Appendix A) and the associated individual waste discharge requirements (WDR) for discharges of domestic wastewater to land (Individual Permit). On September 25, 2020, the CCRWQCB adopted General Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2020-0020 for Discharges from Domestic Wastewater Systems with Flows Greater than 100,000 gallons per day (GPD) (General Permit; CCRWQCB, 2020, Appendix B). CCRWQCB staff reviewed the available WWTP documents and determined that the General Permit will replace the current Individual Permit (CCRWQCB, 2021) for regulating the discharges from the WWTP. Pursuant to Section 13260 of the California Water Code, the CCRWQCB is requiring the City to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) for enrollment of the WWTP under the General Permit. This technical Engineering Report is required as part of the enrollment documentation.

As part of the conditions of the General Permit, during the initial 24 months following enrollment, dischargers may continue to comply with the discharge limitations contained in their respective individual permits. In cases where compliance with the General Permit cannot be achieved within 24 months, the General Permit allows time for a discharger to develop and implement a Time Schedule Compliance Plan to revise facility operations and/or upgrade the systems and/or treatment processes as necessary. The Time Schedule Compliance Plan must be presented for approval by the CCRWQCB. The City intends to comply with the General Permit requirements, although additional time will be needed considering the inherent size and complexity of the WWTP and factors that include:
• The WWTP receives and treats septage, which is variable in nature, and is being evaluated for impacts on the WWTP, including through treatability tests; • Additional or modified treatment processes are anticipated to be needed to meet certain General Permit discharge limits;
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 1 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
()11,,t1 1 t a ritS
• To build resiliency and longevity into the WWTP, the potential upgrades will be informed by assessments of long-term needs such as changes in population growth and general plan studies, which require time;
• Implementation of major additional and/or modified treatment processes is anticipated to require significant permitting efforts, including, but not limited to, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Study which will require ample time for analysis, document preparation, and public reviews, structural, electrical, environmental, and mechanical permits as applicable; and
• The WWTP is significantly larger than the minimum capacity set forth in the General Permit requirement (i.e., 100,000 GPD), and, consequently, the City Council approval, funding, engineering, procurement, and construction phases are expected to require more time than the General Permit default 2 -year period.

Based on these factors, the City will be requesting a Time Schedule Compliance Plan from the CCRWQCB to evaluate, design, procure, fund and construct upgrades necessary to achieve compliance with the new effluent limitations within the General Permit.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 2 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
ccnpultants

2. EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The WWTP and the LCSD wastewater treatment plant treat wastewater from the service area, as defined under an agreement (Agreement) dated August 1, 2017. Per the Agreement, the WWTP accepts wastewater generated primarily within the City boundaries as well as a small portion of the LCSD. Figure 2 depicts the WWTP sewer service area, and Figure 3 depicts the Agreement area indicating which portions are conveyed to the WWTP and which are conveyed separately to the LCSD wastewater treatment plant. The Agreement will expire in 2057. The WWTP also has a regional septage receiving station that accepts hauled liquid waste from septic systems, portable toilet waste, and decanted grease waste from portions of both Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties.

2.1 WWTP General Description
The collection system conveys wastewater predominantly by gravity to the WWTP, with additional flow from a single pump station that serves approximately 117 homes. Figure 4 depicts a schematic process flow diagram of the WWTP, which generally consists of a two -stage trickling filter system. The design capacity of the two -stage trickling filter system is 13.5 MGD through sequential processes that include the following:
• Parshall Flume flowmeter to totalize the influent flow volume; • Three automatic bar screens remove rags, sticks, and large objects that could clog pumps or damage equipment;
• Screened wastewater then flows to two aerated grit chambers with two grit classifiers to remove sand and grit;
• The wastewater flow is then split between two process trains of primary clarifiers. Settleable material is removed from the bottom of the basins, and floatable materials are skimmed from the top of the primary clarifier surfaces;
• The primary effluent is then pumped to the two primary (roughing) trickling filters; • Wastewater that is sent to Primary Trickling Filter #1 and #2 is treated and then settled in the intermediate clarifier before mixing with the primary clarifier effluent; • The treated wastewater flows through the two secondary clarifiers to percolation ponds for discharge.

Figure 5 depicts the hydraulic profile of the WWTP.

Solids removed by the mechanical bar screen are collected onto a belt conveyor and transferred to temporary storage for later disposal at a landfill. The inorganic grit removed within the aerated grit chamber is also conveyed to storage for landfill disposal.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 3 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
Primary clarifier sludge is pumped directly to gravity thickeners. Secondary clarifier sludge and intermediate clarifier sludge is pumped to the grit chamber effluent to co -thicken with the primary sludge prior to discharge to the gravity thickeners. After thickening, the gravity -thickened sludge is pumped to one of the three anaerobic digesters. The plant only requires two of three digesters to be in operation concurrently. Primary and secondary scum is pumped directly to the digesters as well. The digesters provide an anaerobic environment for the digestion of organic material to stabilize the sludge by reducing the volatile solids, vector attraction, and pathogen reduction. The contents are heated and mixed to aid the digestion process. Digested sludge is then stored in the sludge drying beds for several weeks to dry. Water contained within the digested sludge is removed by evaporation and decantation. Clear liquid from the drying beds can be decanted back to the supernatant pit pump. After the sludge has dried, it is removed from the sludge drying beds for composting by a third -party vendor or alternatively, the biosolids may be hauled to the City of Santa Maria Regional Landfill and used for alternative daily cover or vegetative cover for areas of the landfill reaching final closure (Santa Maria, 2021a). A schematic of solids flow through the plant is shown in Figure 6.

2.1.1 WWTP Location
The WWTP is located on an approximate 211 -acre parcel (SBCo., 2015) located at 601 Black Road, within the City of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County, California. The WWTP is located approximately four miles west of U.S. Highway 101. The area surrounding the WWTP is primarily agricultural lands with the Santa Maria River approximately 2.5 miles to the north. The main process works are primarily located on the eastern margins of the parcel, with the associated percolation ponds encompassing most of the remaining land. Figure 1 depicts the general location of the WWTP, and Figure 7 depicts the general WWTP layout.

The WWTP components are situated on a single parcel with an assessor's parcel numbers (APN) of 113-120-034. The City has acquired additional land east of Black Road (APN 117-191-010, - 013, 117-820-002, -003, -024, and -025), totaling approximately 252 acres, which is not currently utilized for wastewater treatment processes and continues to be utilized for agricultural purposes.

The following table summarizes the coordinates of pertinent WWTP features, including the associated groundwater monitoring wells.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 4 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
colp,ultants
Table A: Locations of Key WWTP Features
WWTP Feature
Latitude'
Longitude'
Primary Plant/Headworks
34°56'54.47"N
120°29'28.28"W
Effluent Percolation Ponds2
34°57'0.03"N
120°29'52.84"W
Influent Sampling Point
34°56'54.06"N
120°29'29.26"W
Effluent Sampling Point
34°56'48.64"N
120°29'29.53"W
Groundwater Monitoring Well 5H
34°56'50.40"N
120°25'58.13"W
Groundwater Monitoring Well UMW -1
34°56'57.94"N
120°29'25.74"W
Groundwater Monitoring Well DMW-1
34°57'04.04"N
120°29'57.43"W
Groundwater Monitoring Well DMW-2
34°56'47.46"N
120°29'58.07"W
'Latitude and Longitude correspond to the approximate midpoint of the feature. 2Effluent percolation ponds are clustered ponds; only one centralized location (latitude/longitude) is listed.

2.1.2 Chemicals Used at Existing WWTP
The WWTP does not require the routine use of chemical additives. The WWTP utilizes ferrous chloride to oxidize hydrogen sulfide from the sludge digesters. According to City staff and available records, no other chemicals are used at the WWTP.

2.1.3 WWTP Design Criteria
The WWTP has implemented several modifications since inception, with the latest being initiated in 2006 and executed in 2009. The latest modifications increased the process capacity from 9.5 MGD to 13.5 MGD (Carollo Engineers, 2006). The current design criteria are summarized in Table 1 and included in Appendix C.

2.2 Influent Wastewater Flows
The WWTP records influent flow daily. The influent flow to the WWTP for the past five years, (i.e., from 2017 to 2021) is summarized below in Table B, including the maximum monthly and annual average flows for the WWTP.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 5 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
ccnpultants
Table B: Influent Wastewater Flow
l car
Populationa
Maximum
Month Flown
(MGD)
Annual
Average
Flow''
(MGD)
Peak
Month
Factor`
2017
106,280

8.63 7.54

1.14 2018
106,645

8.46 7.40

1.14 2019
107,356

7.31 6.80

1.08 2020
107,407

7.86 7.30

1.08 2021
107, 407

7.47 6.95

1.08 a — City of Santa Maria (2017, 2018b, 2019b, 2020b, 2021b) b — City of Santa Maria (2017, 2018a, 2019a, 2020a, 2021a) c - Peak Month Factor = ratio of maximum month flow to annual average flow Table B quantities also include septage contribution, which varies daily. Table C presents annual septage volumes delivered to the WWTP from 2017 to 2021. These volumes are considered conservative, as the delivered quantities are not directly measured, but rather the total volume of the delivery vehicle (i.e., total hauling tank volume) is recorded (A. Griffith, personal communication, July 1, 2022). The average volume of septage received is approximately 8.41 million gallons per year (MGY), which includes an average annual grease volume of 0.098 MGY during the 5 -year period.

Table C: Annual Septage Volume Received
r
Total Septage Volume
(MGY) �L
Grease Volum
(MGY)
2017

8.55 0.122
2018

8.85 0.093
2019

9.78 0.131
2020

8.07 0.082
2021

6.88 0.063
Source: City of Santa Maria Annual Pretreatment Reports, 2017-2021, Section 5.1.1

2.3 Influent Wastewater Characteristics
Influent wastewater is collected and reported in accordance with the Individual Permit and associated monitoring and reporting program (CCRWQCB, 2010). Data collected for the past 10 years and reported in associated annual reports have been compiled and included in Appendix D.

Table D provides a summary of the influent wastewater characteristics for the last four years. The plant is rated for 39,000 and 42,800 lbs/day for BOD and TSS, respectively. Based on the data included in Table D, the plant is nearing the rated BOD and TSS capacity of the plant.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 6 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
Table D: Influent Wastewater Characteristics
Parameters
Units
2018
2019
2020
2021
Population
capita
106,645
107,356
107,407
107,407
Maxim Month BOD
Concentration
mg/L
445
479
437
430
Maximum Month
BOD Load
lb/d
31,412
29,215
28,663
26,783
TSS Concentration
mg/L
536
467
402
486
TSS Load
lb/d
37,830
28,485
26,375
30,269

2.4 Existing Plant Performance
Similar to the influent, the effluent wastewater is collected and reported in accordance with the Individual Permit and associated monitoring and reporting program (CCRWQCB, 2010). Data collected for the past 10 years and reported in associated annual reports have been compiled and included in Appendix D. Table E provides a summary of the yearly average effluent wastewater quality over the last four years, as well as the monthly average requirements for the Individual Permit as discussed later in Section 2.8.

While the average WWTP effluent for each year meets the permit requirements, there were some individual months that did not meet the permit limits (see Appendix D, Annual Reports). Also, while the Individual Permit does not include a limit for total nitrogen, the average total nitrogen values are shown in Table E because the General Permit has a limit of 10 mg/L.

Additional non -routine sampling and laboratory analysis were conducted in 2022 to further understand the treatment plant performance. To date, six sampling events have been conducted wherein samples were collected from various treatment units (including the primary clarifiers and primary trickling filters). The overall performance of the WWTP during these six sampling events showed -90% removal for biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS), but only 33% removal for total nitrogen.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 7 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
Table E: Effluent Wastewater Characteristics
Constituent
Unit
Individual
Permit Limit -
Monthly
Average
2018
Yearly
2019
Average
2020
20 =`
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
5 -day @ 20°C
mg/L
60 43
43 41
45 Total Suspended
Solids
mg/L
60 38
42 36
40 Total Dissolved
Solids'
mg/L
1,000
792
708
890
987
Sodium'
mg/L
180
150
133
147
148
Chloride'
mg/L
180
176
160
145
144
pH
pH units
Within the range

6.5 to 8.4

7.7 7.6

7.8 7.8
Total Nitrogen
mg/L
NA
46 45
42 39
Based on the non -routine sampling, the average BOD removal efficiency during the six samples is summarized in Table F along with standard percent removal performance.

Table F: Unit Process Performance Evaluation
knit Process
Typical BOD Remova Observed Removal
Efficiencya Performance
Primary Clarifiers
30-45%
55%
Primary Trickling Filter
40-70%
41%
Secondary Trickling Filter
80-90%
86%
a — Values from Tchobanoglous, Burton, & Stensel (2003).

Based on the results summarized in Table F, the primary clarifiers exceed the expected performance for standard primary clarifiers. Evaluation of the primary trickling filter was difficult because samples were collected from the primary trickling filter effluent wet well after Primary Trickling Filter #2 and before the intermediate clarifier; however, the average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand cBOD removal was 41%. This result is on the lower end of expected performance for primary trickling filters, but in line with expected performance for a sample collected before the intermediate clarifier since sloughed off trickling filter biofilm could be Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 8 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
present in the sample. Lastly, the secondary trickling filters removed 86% of the cBOD and TSS in the wastewater, which is in line with the expected performance.

Overall, the primary clarifier removal efficiency at the site is generally consistent with the expected performance objectives for that process. The primary and secondary trickling filters are treating wastewater at levels sufficient to meet the requirements of the Individual Permit; however, these processes are not anticipated to be able to remove BOD and/or total nitrogen to levels that would meet the requirements of a potential General Permit.

2.5 Sources of Wastewater Production
The primary source of wastewater to the WWTP are City residents with approximately 20,000 residential connections. A summary of the active service connections by customer class is included in the following (Santa Maria, 2021b):
• Single Family Residential: 19,188
• Multi -family Residential: 878
• Commercial/Institutional: 1,859
• Industrial: 95
The significant industrial users that maintain connections and contribute to the wastewater stream include the following (A. Griffith, personal communication, May 18, 2022):
• (2) Water Conditioning (brine waste)
• (2) Winery
• (2) Vegetable Processor
• Microwave Applications Group (Categorical Industrial User) • Commercial Laundry
• Berry Processor
• Strawberry Processor
As stated previously, the WWTP also accepts hauled liquid waste from septic systems, portable toilet waste, and decanted grease waste from portions of both Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties.

2.6 Groundwater Monitoring

2.6.1 Groundwater Monitoring Network
The WWTP utilizes four groundwater monitoring wells to evaluate the potential impact of the percolation ponds on local groundwater quality, including City Well 5H and WWTP monitoring wells UMW -1, DMW-1 and DMW-2 (Figures 8a and 8b). Groundwater samples are collected from the monitoring wells quarterly. Samples from City Well 5H, located approximately

3.25 miles east of the WWTP in downtown Santa Maria at Simas Park are utilized to represent Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 9 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
con ultants
background groundwater quality, and the data from the other three monitoring wells are used to evaluate groundwater influences in the vicinity of the percolation ponds. • Well UMW -1 is located on the eastern portion of the WWTP property, east of the septage receiving station and utilized as an upstream monitoring data point. • Well DWM-1 is located on the northwestern portion of the WWTP property in between the percolation ponds and utilized as a downstream monitoring data point. • Well DMW-2 is located on the southwestern portion of the WWTP property in between the percolation ponds and utilized as a downstream monitoring data point.

Well construction data available for the wells are summarized in Table G below (Fugro, 2008), and available well construction logs are included in Appendix E.

Table G: Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction Summary Well ID Total Depth Screened Interval
(ft bgs) (ft bgs)
Elevation
(ft amsTAI
Casing
nformation
5H
unknown
unknown
unknown
Well construction details
not known
UMW -1
unknown
unknown
175.6
Well construction details
not known
DMW-1
138
87-135
158.16
4" Schedule 80 PVC, 0.020"
slotting
4" Schedule 80 PVC, 0.020"
slottin
DMW-2
155
82-155
157.2
* — Tetra Tech, 2021
Regional groundwater elevation, flow direction, and magnitude have not been quantified; however, based on previous interpretations, groundwater is reported to flow in a westerly direction.

Groundwater gauging and sampling conducted during the fourth quarter 2021 (October 14, 2021) indicated the following depths to groundwater in the monitoring wells (Santa Maria, 2022). • 5H: 168.4 feet below measuring point
• UMW -1: 131.2 feet below measuring point
• DMW-1: 95.2 feet below measuring point
• DMW-2: 90.4 feet below measuring point

2.6.2 Groundwater Quality
On -site groundwater monitoring wells are sampled quarterly in accordance with the Individual Permit and associated monitoring and reporting program.

Table H below summarizes the average results from the four quarterly groundwater sampling events in 2021 aside from Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), which is sampled annually and, therefore, the 2021 single result is presented. Quarterly effluent sampling results for 2021 are also included, Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 10 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
with the exception of chloride data, which represents an average from weekly sampling.

Groundwater sampling data collected for the past 10 years and reported in associated annual reports have been compiled and included in Appendix F.

Table 11: Groundwater Monitoring Data Summary, Average of 2021 Sampling Events Sample ID
TDS
." i'4 i -
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate -N
Boron
Basin Plan
Objectives*
1,000
230
165
500

1.4 0.5
Individual Permit
Limits
1,000a
180 a
180 a
Not stated
Not stated
Not stated
General Permit
Limits
1,000
230
165
500
Not stated

0.5 5H
1,100
71 64
428
19 0.23
UMW -1
1,030
150
160
163

6.4 0.38
DMW-1
990
145
148
265

6.8 0.37
DMW-2
1,150
148
145
300
-0.57

0.37 Effluent
987
148
144
275

2.2 0.37
Note: All results are milligrams per liter (mg/L)
* - Basin Plan Objectives as stated in Order R3-2010-0001 (CCRWQCB, 2010) a — Monthly averages based on a three-year running mean The background TDS level results from Well 5H exceed the Basin Plan Objective of 1,000 mg/L.

Conversely, the effluent from the WWTP has been below the Basin Plan objective for TDS and is not contributing to an increase in the TDS in the vicinity of the percolation ponds.

The sodium and chloride effluent from the WWTP is below the Basin Plan Objectives and both constituents are below the permitted effluent discharge limits in the Individual Permit. Sodium and chloride levels in the downgradient groundwater wells are above the background levels of the upgradient monitoring well.

The sulfate effluent from the WWTP is below the Basin Plan Objective and below the background levels demonstrated at Well 5H. The effluent from the WWTP is likely beneficial in lowering the sulfate concentrations in the vicinity of the percolation ponds.

The nitrate as N effluent from the WWTP is above the Basin Plan Objective, but well below the upgradient background level for Nitrate.

The effluent boron concentration from the WWTP is below the Basin Plan Objective, but above the background level of boron sampling results for Well 5H.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 11 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
ccnpultants

2.7 Solids Handling
Recovered solids at the WWTP meet the classification for Class B biosolids and are typically hauled to the adjoining Engel & Gray Composting, Inc. facility (Figure 8b) for composting.

Alternatively, the biosolids may be hauled to the City of Santa Maria Regional Landfill and used for alternative daily cover or vegetative cover for areas of the landfill reaching final closure (Santa Maria, 2021a).

2.8 Regulatory Status
On August 13, 2007, the City filed a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) in accordance with Section 13260 of the California Water Code. The ROWD was filed seeking authorization to continue to discharge treated municipal wastewater within the Upper Guadalupe sub -area of the Santa Maria groundwater basin to reflect the current treatment and disposal practices, provide for an upgraded and expanded facility, protect the beneficial uses of the receiving water, and revise the Monitoring and Reporting Program accordingly. The ROWD superseded Order No. R3-2002- 0111 adopted by the CCRWQCB on December 13, 2002. The revised WDR was adopted February 4, 2010 (Appendix A). Since adoption, the WWTP has maintained compliance with the terms therein.

In September 2020, the CCRWQCB adopted a new General Permit (R3-2020-0020) for municipal wastewater treatment plants with flows greater than 100,000 GPD (Appendix B). Pursuant to Section 13260 of the California Water Code, the CCRWQCB is requiring the City to submit a NOI for enrollment of the WWTP under the General Permit.

The City is required to comply with the new General Permit, within 24 months of being enrolled in the General Permit. If compliance cannot be achieved within 24 months, the City must propose an alternative timeline for compliance. Once approved by the CCRWQCB, the revised schedule will become a time schedule order (TSO).

2.8.1 California Environmental Quality Act
In accordance with Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, (Categorical Exemptions), and as outlined in Order R3-2020-0020, enrollment of the WWTP under the General Permit is categorically exempt from CEQA.

Under a comparative analysis with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 through 15333 and the 33 "classes" of Categorical Exemptions (referred to as Class 1, Class 2, etc.), the project qualifies for a Class 1, "Existing Facilities" (§15301) exemption since it is an existing facility, and no expansion is planned as an immediate response to the notice of intent for enrollment. If major capital improvements are determined to be necessary to meet the requirements of the General Permit, an environmental review will be conducted and the requirements under CEQA will be applicable.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 12 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
ccnpultants

2.8.2 Summary of Existing Individual WDR Permit
Key aspects of the City's existing Individual Permit are summarized below:
• Specification B2. Effluent discharged to percolation ponds shall not exceed the following concentration limitations summarized in Table I.

Table I: Summary Tabulation of Discharge Requirements
Constituent
MIP
onthly
Average
Daily
Maximum
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
5 -day @ 20°C
mg/L
60 100
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
60 100
Settleable Solids
ml/L

0.1 0.4
Total Dissolved Solids'
mg/L
1,000
-
Sodium'
mg/L
180
---
Chloride'
mg/L
180
---
pH
pH units
Within the range 6.5 to 8.4
'Compliance shall be based upon three-year running mean • Specification B3. Freeboard shall equal or exceed 2 feet m all ponds unless the ponds are specifically designed for a different freeboard.
• Specification C 1. The discharge shall not cause groundwater to contain taste- or odor - producing substance in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. • Specification C2. The discharge shall not cause radionuclides to be present in concentrations that are deleterious to human, plant, animal, or aquatic life; or results in the accumulation or radionuclides in the food web to an extent that presents a hazard to human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
• Specification C3. The discharge shall not cause groundwater to contain concentrations of organic or inorganic chemicals in excess of the limiting concentrations set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 5.5, Section 64444 (organic) and Article 4, Section 64431 (inorganic).
• Specification C4. The discharge shall not cause groundwater to contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect the agricultural supply beneficial use.

Interpretation of adverse effects shall be as described in University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-2 of the Central Coast Basin Plan (CCRWQCB, 2017).
• Specification C5. The discharge shall not cause a significant increase in mineral constituent concentrations in the underlying groundwater, as determined by comparison of samples collected from wells located upgradient and downgradient of the disposal area.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 13 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
• Specification C6. The discharge shall not cause underlying groundwater to contain concentrations of constituents in excess of water quality objectives specified in the WDRs. • Specification D 1. The Discharger shall maintain an ongoing salt/nutrient management program with the intent of reducing mass loading of salts and nutrients (with an emphasis on nitrogen species) in treated effluent to a level that will ensure compliance with effluent limitations and protect beneficial uses of groundwater.
• Specification D2. Salt reduction measures shall focus on all potential salt contributors to the collection system, including water supply as well as commercial, industrial, and residential dischargers. The salt/nutrient management program shall also address the concentration of salts in the wastewater treatment process as a result of excessive hydraulic retention times and/or chemical addition.
• Specification D3. Nutrient reduction measures shall focus on optimizing wastewater treatment processes for nitrification and denitrification or other means of nitrogen removal. Reduction measures may also include source control (non -human waste from commercial and industrial sources) as appropriate.
• Specification D4. As part of the salt/nutrient management program, the Discharger shall submit an annual report of salt and nutrient reduction efforts. This salt/nutrient management report shall be included as part of the annual report described in Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R3-2010-0001.
• Specification D5. As an alternative to the salt/nutrient management program requirements described above, upon Executive Officer approval, the Discharger may submit documentation and summary of participation in a regional salt and nutrient management plan implemented under the provisions of State Water Board Resolution No. 2009-0011 (Recycled Water Policy).

2.8.3 Summary of the General WDR Permit
The requirements of the General Permit, as shown in Table J, are based on the secondary treatment effluent limitations for Trickling Filters and for discharge into the Upper Guadalupe Subbasin of the Santa Maria Basin. The General Permit has several additional requirements, including the addition of limits for boron, sulfate, and total nitrogen. Furthermore, the applicable levels for BOD, TSS, and chloride were lowered compared to the current Individual Permit levels, but the permit limits for sodium and settable solids were increased compared to the current Individual Permit levels.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 14 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
Table .1: Summary Tabulation of Domestic Discharge Requirements of the General Permit Constituent
Unit
30 -day
Average
-day Average
25 -Month
Rolling
Median
Sampl
Maximu
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
5 -day
mg/L
30 45
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Total Suspended
Solids

mg/L
30 45
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Settleable Solids
ml/L

0.3 Not Applicable
Not Applicable

0.5 pH
pH
units
Within the
range 6.5 to 8.4
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Total Dissolved
Solids
mg/L
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
1,000
Not Applicable
Chloride
mg/L
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
165
Not Applicable
Sulfate
mg/L
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
500
Not Applicable
Boron
mg/L
Not Applicable
Not Applicable

0.5 Not Applicable
Sodium
mg/L
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
230
Not Applicable
Total Nitrogen
mg/L
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
10 Not Applicable

2.8.4 Existing Effluent Disposal Capacity
The plant's maximum monthly flow in 2021 was 7.5 MGD, with a plant design capacity of

13.5 MGD. Effluent disposal is accomplished through a series of 13 on -site percolation ponds (Figure 9). Based on a study performed in 2003, the percolation ponds encompassed an area of approximately 123 acres with a percolation capacity of 8.0 MGD, designed to operate in fill, dry, and rest cycles to enhance nitrogen removal underlain (Cleath & Associates, 2003). Since the 2003 study, 4 percolation ponds have been decommissioned and the total percolation pond area is currently 111.4 acres. Therefore, the capacity of the remaining percolation ponds is now less than the previously reported 8.0 MGD capacity.

Alluvial deposits underlying the percolation ponds comprise predominantly sands, silty sands, sands, and some silt and clay layers. These conditions predominate down to around a depth of 150 foot below ground surface (ft bgs). The alluvium is underlain by the Paso Robles Formation, which itself consists of sand, gravel, and clay to a depth of approximately 1,500 ft bgs (Cleath & Associates, 2003).

Recent communications with the City of Santa Maria related that the ponds are consistently fully utilized, and ponds are not able to rest as the design was intended. A study of a potential percolation pond expansion area across Black Road that would add 145 acres for ponds was investigated in Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 15 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
2003 (Cleath & Associates, 2003). The study found that the area could be expanded to accommodate flows up to 13.5 MGD with 12 feet of mounding in the expansion area and an additional 2 feet of mounding at the existing ponds.

2.9 Potable Water Information
The City currently obtains water from two sources, including groundwater from six active production wells (Figure 10) and imported water supplies from the State Water Project (SWP) under contract with the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) (Santa Maria, 2021c).

The City's wells have a current total normal year active capacity of approximately 20,000 -acre- feet per year (AF/YR), and during the period from 2016 through 2020, the extracted groundwater averaged 4,648 AF/YR (Santa Maria, 2020d). According to the latest annual hydrogeologic report (Luhdorff & Scalmanini, 2021), the groundwater basin continues to remain similar to or slightly lower than historical ranges, which confirms the sufficiency of this water supply to meet the City's domestic needs. The City's water supply is expected to reliably meet the projected demands through 2045 (Santa Maria, 2021c).

According to the Water Supply Agreement with CCWA, the City has an allocation of 17,820 AF/YR of imported SWP water. The City has agreed to import and use no less than 10,000 AF/YR of available SWP water within the Basin, or the full amount of yearly allocated SWP water, if the amount available is less than 10,000 AF in a given year (Santa Maria, 2021c).

Table K below presents the contracted volumes available from CCWA to the City to meet the demands from 2025 through 2045. An average long-term reliability factor was used to determine available purchased water from CCWA (Santa Maria, 2021c).

Table K: Wholesale Water Supplies
Contracted
Wholesale Sources Volume
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 20
I Purchased Water 17,820
from SWP (AF)
10,492 10,399 10,305 10,212
10,118 10,025

2.9.1 Potable Water Quality
The following tables summarize the water quality parameters the City must meet for potable use.

The results are based on the City's 2021 Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). The results indicate the City's water supplies generally meet the applicable primary and secondary standards, although secondary water quality data for several parameters were not available in the 2021 CCR.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 16 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec°
consultants
Table L: Primary Drinking Water Standards — Mandatory Health Related Standards Contaminant
CA State
MCLa
CA State PHGa
(MCLG)
2021 Consumer Confidence
Report
Aluminum
1000
600
61 <50
Antimony
6 1
---
---
Arsenic
10 0.004
---
---
Barium
1000
2000
--
---
Beryllium
4 1
Cadmium
5 1
Chromium
50 NA
---
Cyanide
150
150
---
---
Hexavalent Chromium
NA

0.02 --
---
Fluoride, (mg/L)
2 1
Average = 0.76;
Range = 0.46 — 1.1
Gross Alpha Particle Activity (pCi/L)
15 None
ND

4.9 Combined Radium 226+228 (pCi/L)
5 ---
--
---
Mercury
2 1.2
---
---
Nickel
100
12 ---
---
Nitrate (as NO3) (mg/L)
10 45
Average = 2.5: R'
iwe = <0.40 — 5.1
Nitrite (as N)
1000
1000
--
---
Selenium
50 30
---
Thallium
2 0.1
Uranium (pCi/L)
20 0.43
NA

3.5 Total Trihalomethanes
80 7.9
— 9.6
Haloacetic Acids
60 2.7
— 2.8
Total Coliform Bacteria (percent
positive results/month)
5 ---
0 0
Fecal Coliform Bacteria (percent for
any repeat sample)
0 0
Notes:
a — California state MCLs and PHGs as of September 14, 20211 Units expressed in micrograms per liter (µg/L), except where noted. -- Data not available in the CCR
' mcls_dlrs phgs (ca.gov)
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 17 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
Table M: Secondary Drinking Water Standards — Aesthetic Standards Contaminant
Ali
Aluminum (mg/L)
CA State Secondary MCL
121 Consumer Confidence Rep
Recomme

0.2 Up i
ENE
NNE
---
---
--
Chloride (mg/L)
250
500
Average = 50; Range = 29 — 76
Color (color Units)
15 ---
---
Copper (mg/L)
1 ---
-
Corrosivity
---
---
-
MBAS (mg/L)

0.5 ---
-
Iron
300
---
---
Manganese
50 —
--
MTBE (mg/L)

0.005
—
--
Odor (odor units)
3 ---
Average = 2; Range = 1— 2
Silver (mg/L)

0.1 ---
—
I ---
Sulfate (mg/L)
250
500
Average = 265; Range = 150 — 320
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)
500
1000
Average = 600; Range = 490 — 730
Turbidity (NTU)
5 ---
Average = 0.15; Range = <0.1 — 2.0
Zinc (mg/L)
5 ---
—
1 --
a — California secondary drinking water standards as of October 1, 20182 Units expressed in micrograms per liter (µg/L), except where noted. — Data not available in the CCR
Table N: Lead and Copper Sampling Program (September 2019) Parameters
!Units
Samples
Collected
90th
Percentile No. of Sites
Level Exceeding AL
Detected
Actio
Level
Copper
ppb 51
68 0
1300
300
Lead
ppb 51
<5.0
0 15

0.2 2.9.2 Cross Connection Prevention
The possibility of cross connection with the City's water supply is highly unlikely, as treated effluent is disposed of in the percolation ponds rather than a recycled water system; therefore, cross connection to a recycled water system is not possible. A potable water source is not available within the boundary of the WWTP, and water used on site for domestic purposes is supplied by an on -site groundwater production well (Figure 8b). This on -site water is used for general purposes (sanitary facilities, washdown, etc.) and all on -site water distribution points are clearly marked as 2 Secondary Drinking Water Standards (ca.gov)
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 18 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
non -potable. The closest potable water source is located along Stowell Road, approximately

0.5 miles south of the WWTP.

2.10 Contingency Planning
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. Because the use area is the on -site percolation ponds with no public exposure, the WWTP does not require a contingency plan under this requirement.

The City has developed operational and design features intended to prevent inadequately treated wastewater from being released into the environment. The WWTP is operated by certified operators who are trained to implement contingency actions in the event of an untreated wastewater release. In addition, the operators utilize operations and maintenance manuals that include standard procedures for responding to system alarms and upsets.

Should untreated wastewater be released from the treatment works, the City has outlined a multi - element Overflow and Emergency Response Plan (Plan) within the City of Santa Maria Sewer Management Plan (City of Santa Maria, 2020c). This Plan has previously been implemented in response to earlier overflow events that have occurred since its adoption. The Plan includes elements of:
• Proper notification procedures so that primary responders and regulatory agencies are informed of potential sewer system overflows (SSOs) in a timely manner; • Procedures for prompt notification to appropriate regulatory agencies and other potentially affected entities;
• Procedures for the appropriate staff and contract personnel to be notified of, and follow, the Emergency Response Plan and are appropriately trained;
• Procedures to address emergency operations such as traffic, crowd control, and other necessary response activities; and
• A program to implement reasonable steps are taken to contain and prevent the discharge of untreated and partially treated wastewater to Waters of the United States, and to minimize and/or correct adverse impact on the environment resulting from the SSOs, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may be necessary to determine the nature and impact of the discharge.

The City also maintains sufficient contingency equipment and replacement inventories (City of Santa Maria, 2020c) and has multiple redundancies in both its facilities and equipment to address outages.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 19 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants

3. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES TO MEET GENERAL
PERMIT

3.1 Conceptual WWTP Upgrade Alternatives
The current treatment processes at the WWTP consist of trickling filters which are not designed to remove total nitrogen from the effluent as would be required by the General Permit. Additionally, the lower BOD and TSS effluent limits in the General Permit, compared to the Individual Permit, will also be challenging to meet consistently through the existing treatment processes. To address the General Permit requirements, the City of Santa Maria will likely need to upgrade the treatment process, including the addition of a biological nitrogen removal (BNR) activated -sludge process or some appropriate variation.

BNR typically occurs in two steps. Nitrification is the first step, which involves oxidizing ammonia to nitrate under aerobic conditions. Denitrification, the second step, involves reducing nitrate to nitrogen gas under anoxic conditions. Despite nitrification being the first step in the process, anoxic zones usually occur first in the activated -sludge process so that the bacteria that perform denitrification can utilize readily biodegradable carbon in the influent wastewater. In addition, anoxic zones at the start of the activated -sludge process promote good settling sludge that results in improved effluent TSS.

The following sections summarize three potential alternative improvements that could be made to the WWTP with regards to these treatment processes with the goal of meeting General Permit requirements.

3.1.1 Biological Nitrogen Removal Conventional Activated Sludge Conventional activated -sludge systems consist of an aeration basin and secondary clarifiers.

Bacteria (sludge) that degrade the wastewater in the aeration basins are separated from the treated wastewater in the secondary clarifiers. Sludge captured in the secondary clarifiers is mostly returned to the aeration basin to maintain the bacterial population, and a portion of the sludge is removed (wasted) from the system to maintain optimal bacterial growth conditions.

Multiple conventional activated -sludge configurations are capable of biological nitrogen removal.

The Bardepho process, which is an effective and widely used BNR activated -sludge process, consists of an activated -sludge system that is staged with anoxic (ANX 1), aerobic (AER1), anoxic (ANX2), and then a final aerobic (AER2) zone. The process has an internal mixed liquor recycle from the AER1 to the ANX1. The internal mixed liquor recycles nitrified wastewater to ANX1 to promote denitrification. Additional denitrification can occur in ANX2 if additional supplemental carbon feed is added. AER2 zone acts as a final polishing step for BOD oxidation and to re -aerate the wastewater before discharge of the wastewater.

3.1.2 Biological Nitrogen Removal Membrane Bioreactor
Membrane Bioreactors operate similarly to conventional activated -sludge systems except that the system uses a membrane to separate the sludge from the clean wastewater as compared to a Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 20 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
secondary clarifier. The implementation of BNR membrane bioreactor systems is similar to conventional activated -sludge systems, including the use of the Bardenpho process. However, because the system does not require gravity settling to separate the sludge from the wastewater, membrane bioreactors can contain a higher concentration of bacteria which allows for a higher volumetric loading to the basins that allow for a smaller footprint. Sludge is typically wasted from the thickened sludge from the membrane basins.

3.1.3 Aerobic Granular Sludge
Aerobic Granular Sludge systems are a relatively new process that follows similar biological processes to that of the BNR, except that the treatment process operates in a batch process that is performed in a sequence of vessels. The process involves feeding wastewater into a single vessel where the system is cycled through three main phases (Fill/Draw, React, Settling). The settling phase is significantly shorter than the settling time for secondary clarifiers, which promotes the growth of large granules that contain the bacteria. Because the granules are large, anoxic conditions exist inside the granule, while the outside of the granule is aerobic. As a result, aerobic granular sludge can perform simultaneous nitrification/denitrification. Similar to membrane bioreactors, aerobic granular sludge can have a higher concentration of bacteria per volume, which allows for a higher volumetric loading that allows for a smaller footprint.

3.2 Summary
The three potential technologies described in Section 3.1 are theoretically capable of meeting the treatment requirements of the General Permit, with associated advantages and disadvantages of each technology.

A BNR conventional activated -sludge system is the most established technology of the three alternatives. The process has been used in numerous treatment plants, including Moreno Valley Raw Water Reclamation Facility and City of Shasta Lake, while meeting stringent effluent limits.

In terms of energy usage, the BNR conventional activated -sludge system requires more energy than the aerobic granular sludge, but less energy than a membrane bioreactor. A major concern with BNR conventional activated -sludge systems is that performance is highly dependent on the ability of the sludge to settle in the secondary clarifier. While most plants do not have long-term sludge settling issues if operated correctly, upsets of the sludge settling can occur which can lead to treatment inefficiencies.

Due to the presence of a membrane on the system, the effectiveness of treatment for BNR membrane bioreactors is very high compared to BNR conventional activated -sludge systems. The concentration of BOD and TSS is normally extremely low, and the system does not depend on settling sludge for overall treatment performance. The major drawback for membrane bioreactors is that the system requires high operator engagement, is highly energy consuming, and thus high costs to operate.

Aerobic granular sludge is a relatively newer technology which can come with potential challenges. The process requires less energy than the other two alternatives, but with only a few Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 21 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
installations in the United States, it may be challenging to utilize operators with appropriate experience for operating the system. Also, because the system is a derivative of a sequencing batch reactor, installing an equalization tank upstream of the aerobic granular sludge system is recommended to handle the batch operation of the system, which will require significant real estate utilization.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 22 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
ccnpultants

4. PLAN TO ADDRESS GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
Following enrollment, the path to implement the potential modifications/upgrades for the WWTP to be able to meet the requirements of the General Permit will be multifaceted and require significant planning and coordination with associated agencies and parties. Some of the associated tasks for the City, after enrolling in the General Permit program may include the following:
• Develop a new Wastewater Master Plan to include evaluation of treatment alternatives and feasibility studies;
• Develop preliminary design documents for the WWTP modifications/upgrades; • Develop plan for funding and cash flow scenarios;
• Initiate applicable environmental studies, permitting and agency review processes; • Develop detailed engineering design plans and technical specifications; • Solicit and select construction contractor;
• Furnish applicable equipment and implement construction of the associated modifications/upgrades; and
• Commission the WWTP modifications/upgrades and demonstrate meeting General Permit requirements.

It is noted that due to the nature of the facility and services, the existing WWTP shall remain in service while modifications/upgrades are being implemented. A general schedule for the main anticipated tasks is outlined in Figure 11.

Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 23 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
ccnpultants

5. REFERENCES
Carollo Engineers (2006), Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion Preliminary Design Report. March 2006
Carollo Engineers (2008), Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Phase II Design Drawings.

January 2008
CCRWQCB (2010) Waste Discharge Requirements Order R3-2010-0001, February 4, 2010 CCWQCB (2017) Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin. September 2017.

CCRWQCB (2020) General Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2020-0020 for Discharges from Domestic Wastewater Systems with Flows Greater than 100,000 Gallons per Day, September 25, 2020
CCRWQCB (2021) Requirement for Notice of Intent/Report of Waste Discharge for Discharges from Domestic Wastewater Systems, November 5, 2021
Cleath & Associates (2003), Hydrologic Assessment of Percolation Pond Expansion Site for the City of Santa Maria. November 2003
City of Santa Maria (2022). City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant 2021 Annual Laboratory Report. January 31, 2022
City of Santa Maria (2021a). City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant 2020 Annual Laboratory Report. January 29, 2021
City of Santa Maria (2021b). City of Santa Maria Department of Water Resources Public Water System Statistics Report. 2021
City of Santa Maria (2021 c). City of Santa Maria 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021 City of Santa Maria (2021d). City of Santa Maria Consumer Confidence Report. 2021 City of Santa Maria (2020a). City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant 2019 Annual Laboratory Report. January 30, 2020
City of Santa Maria (2020b). City of Santa Maria Department of Water Resources Public Water System Statistics Report. 2020
City of Santa Maria (2020c). City of Santa Maria Sewer Management Plan Biennial Audit. June 2020
City of Santa Maria (2019a). City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant 2018 Annual Laboratory Report. January 30, 2019
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 24 August 5, 2022

Geosyntec °
consultants
City of Santa Maria (2019b). City of Santa Maria Department of Water Resources Public Water System Statistics Report. 2019
City of Santa Maria (2018a). City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant 2017 Annual Laboratory Report. January 31, 2018
City of Santa Maria (2018b). City of Santa Maria Department of Water Resources Public Water System Statistics Report. 2018
City of Santa Maria (2017). City of Santa Maria Department of Water Resources Public Water System Statistics Report. 2017
Fugro (2008). Hydrogeologic and Water Quality Review of Groundwater Conditions for the Wastewater Treatment Plant, Santa Maria, California. August 15, 2008 Laguna County Sanitation District (2019). Sewer Collection Systems Master Plan. February 2019 Luhdorff & Scalmanini. (2021). 2020 Annual Report of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Water Requirements, Supplies and Disposition - Santa Maria Valley Management Area. April 26, 2021
SBCo (2015). Santa Barbara County Assessors Map Book 113, Page 12. December 2015 City of Santa Maria (2010). City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance Manual
Tchobanoglous, Burton, & Stensel (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Tetra Tech (2021). Per- and Polyfluoroallcyl Substances (PFAS) Groundwater Monitoring Plan.

June 14, 2021
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineering Report 25 August 5, 2022

FIGURES
Santa Maria WWTP Engineering Report
August 5, 2022

8 8
s
S
..•
irt
z
BASE MAP: USGS 7.5' Santa
Maria, California quadrangle
map, photorevised 1982.

A N
T
A
Ado .ewe'
Site Location Map
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant
4 OY OM
•
Be ' "1
•
• • or .0
'ro
2 IA
Geosyntec °
consultants
la City of
Santa Maria
Santa Barbara
05 -August -2022
Figure
1 8
8 8
5 2
WWTP Sewer Service Area
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant
SOURCE: City of Santa Maria
Operations and Maintenance
Manual, 2010
Geosyntec °
consultants
coy or
Santa Maria
Santa Barbara
05-Auqust-2022
Figure
2 s
'//.// /////
Legend
LCSD Boundary
��■�■�■�, Orcutt Community Plan Boundary
City of Santa Maria
Agreement Area - flowing to WWTP
Agreement Area - flowing to LCSD
LCSD Pipe
Private Pipe
0 (City pipe not shown)
DRAINS •TO
LCSD
ixeniood'i r
MODIFIED FROM: Laguna
County Sanitation District
(2019). Sewer Collection
Systems Master Plan. Figure 1-3
DRAINS;TO tv
4CIT,YOF /

SANTA MARIA

DRAINS,TO
/CITY OF'

SANTA MARIA
j /eJ
•Clubhouse ,Dr
X I h sh%
INS • Mg Stubbs 'DownLg I.: 1)
I n I I 0 Fair
�--
oo Oaks.
o—Ma'estic.Dr-61),
Raymond m �-
KJ
Sunrise,Dr'//��///�
Blueridge.Dr
1 Koval'Ln G„?
Waller. n�iWe.
a)
a�
W
NGoodwi n . Rd
1 c'
-ill
!a!
�, NLi o.
\-x.Ave Y
\vo erh,
Wi LL-��"�� Miles I
- Lakeview Rd•�Ave
. � L
r m
in iTTC -�— l 1
� --,. a � �b�a
b-Harsm.L•n o l I ijcp
J C 'C,a Pve
�
st-L•n• Poppy J
Ln .l
0 t` Pab
-SI ler L
Ihirycrnairmont
Ave,
=1p

1. _Sem
m
yam».

A -P.1
o' s •',� .o
3yo �i� ,, Millstone
-a\ 3\ k 3t 'Ave
Brookslde•Ave
! 1-�.Uni on Valley'Parkway
O
i
Q
o IO(arch
Avcu
1■umi■li111i11.1+11181■1■ia1rteiet■i■u1111i1111111
c?o•
CPO
tf
I
03 •
m. •
¢� y
. mu 1 No se
•
I me I J
I
Laguna County Sanitation District
Agreement Area
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant
Geosyntec
consultants
Santa Barbara
Ciiy of
Santa Maria
05 -August -2022
Figure
3 7/ u/2022, dondovdy

DOMESTIC, INDUSTRIAL,

AND COMMERCIAL

INFLUENT WASTEWATER

SEPTAGE

RECEIVING
HW
SOURCE: City of Santa Maria
Operations and Maintenance
Manual, 2010
PTF #1 I � PTF �2
R
4 R R
GC
KEY
P C JI
PTFPS
I
INTC
GC = GRIT CHAMBERS
HW = HEADWORKS
INTC = INTERMEDIATE CLARIFIER
PC = PRIMARY CLARIFIER
PTF = PRIMARY TRICKLING FILTER
PTFPS = PRIMARY TRICKLING FILTER PUMP STATION
R = RECYCLED WATER
STF = SECONDARY TRICKLING FILTER
STFC = SECONDARY TRICKLING FILTER CLARIFIER
STFPS = SECONDARY TRICKLING FILTER PUMP STATION

SECONDARY EFFLUENT

TO PERCOLATION PONDS
-41
WWTP Process Flow Schematic
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant
Geosyntec °
consultants
(.„y„!.

Santa Maria
Santa Barbara
OS -August -2022
Figure
4 XXX.XX

PEAK WET WEATHER
XXX.XX

DRY WEATHER PEAK HOUR
-
-
XXX.XX

PEAK MONTH
85 80
166.04
167.79
166.04
166.88
166 04
166.32
75 163.53
167.76
164.17
163.41
166.84
164.08
170.83
18830
166.31
163.89
161.14
163.30
169,77
167.38
161.14
168.43
1 186.82
161.14
70 167.56
164.29
16626
164. 4
163.91
162.90
EL 188.51
.. 164.58
WEIR
162.82
WEIR
162.66

PARSHALL FLUME
_
EL 165.52
EL 165.61
65 _
°
`y
wr
--'
EL 163.47
160.56
160.56
BAR

SCREENS
, 15630
-
WEIR
160.55

160.55
__
3 E
160.53
WEIR
160.53
WEIR
157,86
W

i--
EL 160.37
EL 160.37
158.79
158.48
157.22
J
60 -
/
158,08
161.41
-
159.85
-=
/
1 R
E
,

HEADWORKS

BYPASS BOX
158.52159.29
158.52
M
55 50
)
/
r
45 ■
40 35
165
160
155
150
145
140

HEADWORKS
GRIT

CHAMBER

PRIMARY
CLARIFIER No. 1

PRIMARY
CLARIFIER No. 2

PRIMARY TRICKLING

FILTER PUMP STATION

58.1 158.1
158.24
158.41
158.24
15859
158.24
IS 93
15 45
161.07
161.07
l
157.45
1 161.07
\\\ 155.75
157.34
155.75
W WEIR , 1�,
1 Z EL 160.95 IWr_
157.13
155.75
=
157.50
1 15734
--
157.05
*ii
158.41
158.17
155.88
.-I8.-
--mil--
.
.41
(NOTE: DIRECTION REVERSE FOR FLOWS GREATER THAN 23 MGD J

INTERMEDIATE

CLARIFIER

SECONDARY TRICKLING

FILTER PUMP STATION

SECONDARY

TRICKLING FILTERS

SECONDARY

CLARIFIERS

PERCOLATION POND

PUMP STATION

INFLUENT BOX
165
160
155
150
145
140

PRIMARY TRICKLING
FILTER No. 1

PRIMARY TRICKLING
FILTER No. 2
185
180
175
170
165
160
155
150
145
140
135

CONFORMED BIDDING DOCUMENT

FOR CONSTRUCTION

THE ADDENDA ISSUED DURING THE BIDDING PERIOD ARE UNIFIED IN THIS DOCUMENT. IF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS UNIFIED SET AND THE BIDDING SET. INCLUDING ADDENDA. ARE FOUND. THE BIDDING SET WITH THE ORIGINAL ADDENDA SHALL GOVERN.

Ennlneere...Waridng Wanders Wlth Water"

YERFY SCALES

BAR IS ONE INCH ON

ORIGINAL DRAWING
0 ® 1

IF NOT ONE INCH ON

THIS SHEET, ADJUST

SCALES ACCORDINGLY
0 A
A
A
A
A
A

CRY OF SANTA MARIA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
9M.11.: CMH
c1.«E9.. DNA,

9.. 03/2008
NONE

ARPRONTO
OWO.I.RIIFEHEAO MEOW. 0,241.0E
LETTER
BY

4.11040

REVISION
LETTER
041E

REVISION

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PHASE II

HYDRAULIC PROFILE
or 144 Wein
�8
MNH618
00G06
r1G1HR.ER
I-1885.006
Las1Saved: 5-19.08 049am

1 HEADWORKS
r
J
L
GRIT

CHAMBERS
SP
SP
L

PRIMARY FCV

PRI MARY
CLARIFIER #2

PRI MARY
CLARIFIER #1
SP

GRAVITY

THICKENERS
ST
11 111.
---�
J
PTF #1
PTF #2
L__J

INTERMED,
y CLARIFIER
L__J

PRIMARY

TRICKLING

FILTERS
STF #1
i
SR
--� DIGESTERS
MODIFIED FROM: City of Santa
Maria Operations and
Maintenance Manual, 2010,
Figure 8.1
---SR --- RECIRCULATED SLUDGE
—W NORMAL WASTEWATER FLOW
— SP— PRIMARY SLUDGE

RETURN FLOW
— ST— THICKENED SLUDGE
SR
STF #2
1 1

SECONDARY SECONDARY
CLARIFIER#1 CLARIFIER#2
I
1 1
r- 1 L----1----SR-
1 SLUDGE
DRYING
BEDS
SLUDGE

TO DISPOSAL
J
WWTP Solids Process Diagram
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant
GeosyntecD
consultants
Santa Maria
Santa Barbara
OS -August -2022
Figure
6 nbmol onto:I:wee 7soolod Io:lilylOyOW 40Cx 7/142022.

MODIFIED FROM: Carollo
Engineers, Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion
Phase II, Sheet 4
STRUCTURES KEY:

A HEADWORKS 1979
B HEADWORKS 1995

C GRIT CHAMBER
D PRIMARY CLARIFIER No. 1
E PRIMARY CLARIFIER No. 2

F PRIMARY TRICKLING FILTER PUMP STATION

G PRIMARY SLUDGE PUMP STATION
H PRIMARY TRICKLING FILTER No. 1
I PRIMARY TRICKLING FILTER No. 2

J SECONDARY TRICKLING FILTER PUMP STATION

K INTERMEDIATE CLARIFIER
L SECONDARY TRICKLING FILTER No. 1
M SECONDARY TRICKLING FILTER No. 2
N SECONDARY CLARIFIER No. 1
O SECONDARY CLARIFIER No. 2

P SECONDARY SLUDGE PUMP STATION

O PERCOLATION POND PUMP STATION
R SLUDGE THICKENER No. 1
S SLUDGE THICKENER No. 2
T DIGESTER No. 1
U DIGESTER No. 2
V DIGESTER No. 3
W DIGESTER No. 4

X STORAGE BUILDING

Y OPERATIONS BUILDING

Z DIGESTER CONTROL BUILDING

AA ASPHALT SLUDGE DRYING BEDS

BB DIGESTER CONTROL BUILDING

CC PERCOLATION POND PUMP STATION INFLUENT BOX

DD OVERFLOW BOX

EE TRANSFORMER PAD

FF EMERGENCY GENERATOR
Scaled WWTP Layout
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant
Geosyntec °
consultants
laCity of
Santa Maria
Santa Barbara
OS -August -2022
Figure
7 8
0 s
a
R
SOURCE: Google Earth
LEGEND
® GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATION

ON -SITE WATER WELL
® AGRICULTURAL WELL LOCATION

APPROXIMATE WWTP BOUNDARY

AREA OF ACTIVE PERCOLATION PONDS
Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations-
WWTP Detail
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant
Geosyntec
consultants
City of
Santa Maria
Santa Barbara
05 -August -2022
Figure
8b

c•
s°
8 F
S
G8
F
Pond 14
Pond 13

COMPOSTING

FACILITY
l'ond 12
Percolation Pond Location Map
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant
! NORTH
Pond 7
Pond II
DKC Pond
Pond 5
U nI, Pond :1
SLUDGE
DRYING
BEDS
SOURCE: Google Earth
Geosyntec °
consultants
( itr n
Santa Maria
Santa Barbara
05 -August -2022
Figure
9 hletno hb:Ilgtse 10 p odk.Ion well loco, ico rtop.d.x. 711<R012.epneowey Legend
Production Facilities
Major Roads
City Boundary
BASE MAP: Santa Maria Urban
Water Management Plan 2020
Update, Figure 6-1
Production Well Location Map
Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant
Geosyntec °
consultants
laCity of
Santa Maria
Santa Barbara
05 -August -2022
Figure
10 ri
Figure 11
Santa Maria WWTP
Conceptual Timeline for General Order
Geosyntec °
consultants
Activity
Time in Years/Quarters
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Estimated Time Schedule Order
CCRWQCB Notice
General Permit Enrollment
Programmatic Consultant
City Capital Planning
Engineering Design
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Studies
Pre -Construction Permitting
Procurement & Construction
Startup & Commissioning

TABLES
Santa Maria WWTP Engineering Report
August 5, 2022

TABLE 1: Design Criteria for Current Operations
Santa Maria WWTP
Geosyntec
consultants
Unit Process
Details
Headworks
Mechanical Bar Screens
Each
Manual Bar Screens
Each
1 Channel Width
ft
3 Parshall Flume
in
30 Aerated Grit Chamber
Chambers
Each
2 Chamber Dimensions
L(ft) x W(ft) x D(ft)
24 x 12 x 8.5
Air Lift Pumps
Each
6 Primary Clarifier
Number
Each
1 Tank diameter
ft
290
Side Water Depth
ft
20 Primary Trickling Filter Pump Station
Vertical propeller pumps I
Each
I 2 -1 Standby
Primary Sludge Pump Station
Number of Pumps I
Lach
I 2+1 Standby
Primary Trickling Filters
Number
Lach
2 Tank diameter
ft
120
Media Type
N/A
Plastic/Crossflow
Intermediate Clarifier
Number
Each
1 Tank diameter
ft
70 Side Water Depth
ft
10 Secondary Trickling Filter Pump Station
Number of Pumps
Each
2+1 standby
1 TABLE 1: Design Criteria for Current Operations
Santa Maria WWTP
Geosyntec
consultants
Unit Process Unit
Details
Secondary Trickling Filters
Number
Lach
2 Tank diameter
ft
180
Media Type
N A
Plastic
Media Depth
Feet

3.33 Secondary Trickling Filter Clarifiers
Number
Each
2 Tank diameter
ft
140
Side Water Depth
ft
10 Effluent Ponds
Area
Acres
103
Gravity Thickeners
Number
Each
2 Tank Diameter
ft
35 Side Water Depth
ft

12.5 Surface Area
ft2
935
Digesters
Number of Small Diameter
Each
2 Number of Large Diameter
Each
2 Diameter of Small
ft
5()
Diameter of Large
ft
130
Total Volume
ft3
419.964
Sludge Drying Beds
Number of Existing Sand Beds
Each
21 Number of New Asphalt Beds
Each
12-15
Area of Existing
acres

12.1 Area of New
acres
6-7.5
Headworks Influent Flow
MGD

13.5 Aerated Grit Chamber
Detention Time (both chambers in service) (I)
min

3.7 Detention Time (one chamber out of service) (1)
min

1.9 Air Flow
CFM/LF

4.0 Grit Chamber Effluent Flow (2)
MGD

14.12 2

TABLE 1: Design Criteria for Current Operations
Santa Maria WWTP
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Unit Process
Details
Primary Clarifier
Influent Flow from Grit Chamber () (3)
MGD

27.92 Surface Overflow Rate (I)
GPD/SF
869
Detention Time (I)
Hours

2.10 Primary Trickling Filter Pump Station
Primary Clarifier Influent Flow
MGD

27.06 Influent from Gravity Thickeners
MGD

0.79 Pumped to Primary Trickling No. 1
MGD

11.70 Pumped to Primary Trickling No. 2
MGD

6.0 Pump Station Wetwell Overflow
MGD

10.15 Intermediate Clarifier Effluent (downstream o
wetwell)
MGD

3.76 Primary Trickling Filters
Trickling Filter No. 1 Influent Flow
MGD

11.70 Media Wetting Rate
GPM/SF

2.87 Trickling Filter No. 2 Influent Flow
MGD

6.0 Media Wetting Rate
GPM/SF

1.47 Intermediate Clarifier
Influent Flow
MGD

3.90 Effluent Flow
MGD

3.76 (4)
Surface Overflow Rate (I)
GPD/SF
1,013
Detention Time (I)
Hours

1.77 Secondary Trickling Filter Pump Station
Influent Flow
MGD

13.90 Return from Secondary Clarifiers
MGD

9.10 Secondary Trickling Filters
Influent Flow
MGD

23.0 Media Wetting Rate
GPM/SF

0.31 Secondary Trickling Filter Clarifiers
Influent Flow
MGD

23.0 Surface Overflow Rate (I)
GPD/SF
763
Detention Time (1)
Hours

2.35 Return to Secondary Trickling Filter Pump Station
MGD

9.10 3

TABLE 1: Design Criteria for Current Operations
Santa Maria WWTP
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Unit Process i nit
Details
WWTP Effluent
MGD

13.46 Gravity Thickeners
Thickener Feed (1)
MGD

0.865
Surface Overflow Rate (1)
GPD/SF
463
Detention Time (I)
Hours

4.9 Digesters
Digester Feed (1)
MGD

0.076
Minimum Detention Time
Days
15 Minimum Gas Production
CF/#VS
15 Sludge Drying Beds
Solids Loading - Existing Beds
#DS/SF/Yr
1 1.0
Solids Loading - New Beds
#DS/SF/Yr

13.5 Notes:

1. Including septage receiving

2. Includes sludge from Intermediate and Secondary Trickling Filter Clarifiers.

3. Includes 7.8 MGD recycle flow from Primary Trickling Filters.

4. Based on 100 GPM return to Grit Chamber.

Acronyms
CFM/LF
ft
in
CF
mg/L
GPM
GPD
MGD
GPD/SF
GPM/SF
CF/#VS
#DS/SF/Yr
Cubic feet per minute per linear foot
Feet
Inches
Cubit feet
Milligrams per liter
Gallons per minute
Gallons per day
Million gallons per day
Gallons per day per square foot
Gallons per minute per square foot
Cubic feet per pound of volatile solids destroyed
Pounds of dry solids per square foot per year
4 APPENDIX A
Individual Waste Discharge Requirements —
Order R3-2010-0001
Santa Maria WWTP Engineering Report August 5, 2022

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CENTRAL COAST REGION
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-7906

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
ORDER NO. R3-2010-0001
Waste Discharger Identification No. 3 420109001

FOR THE

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER FACILITY

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
The Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (hereafter Central Coast Water Board), finds that:

PURPOSE OF ORDER

1. On August 13, 2007, the City of Santa Maria (hereafter Discharger) filed a Report of Waste Discharge in accordance with Section 13260 of the Califomia Water Code. The submittal was augmented with additional information on August 26, 2008, April 1, 2009, and July 14, 2009.

The report was filed seeking authorization to continue to discharge treated municipal wastewater within the Upper Guadalupe sub -area of the Santa Maria groundwater basin.

2. This Order updates and revises Order No. R3-2002-0111 adopted by the Central Coast Water Board on December 13, 2002. Revisions are intended to reflect the current treatment and disposal practices, provide for an upgraded and expanded facility currently under construction, protect the beneficial uses of the receiving water, and revise the Monitoring and Reporting Program.

SITE OWNER AND LOCATION

3. The Discharger owns and operates a municipal wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system, located at 601 Black Road, in Section 18, T1ON, R34W, SB B&M (34°57'00" N. latitude, 120°30'00" W. longitude), as shown on Attachment A of this Order.

SITE/FACILITY DESCRIPTION

4. Service Area - The Discharger is responsible for wastewater collection and transport facilities for the City of Santa Maria, Santa Maria Airport District, and part of the Laguna County Sanitation District. Laguna County Sanitation District owns and retains responsibility for collection and transport facilities up to the point of discharge into interceptors owned and operated by the Discharger. It is up to this local sewering entity to protect the environment to the greatest extent possible and to ensure its collection system, as well as the receiving sewerage system, is protected and utilized properly. This responsibility includes preventing overflows and may include restricting or prohibiting the volume, type, or concentration of wastes that could be added to the system, in accordance with pretreatment program and/or sewer connection permits. Septage is hauled to the facility for treatment and disposal.

Order No. R3-2010-0001 2 February 4, 2010

5. Existing Treatment - The existing treatment facility is designed to treat 9.5 million gallons per day (MGD), including up to 65,000 gallons per day of hauled septage. The wastewater treatment processes include headworks, grit removal, primary clarifier, trickling filter, intermediate clarifier, secondary trickling filters, secondary clarifiers, gravity sludge thickeners, anaerobic digesters, and sludge drying beds.

6. Expanded Treatment - Construction of an expanded treatment facility is currently underway. The expanded facility (anticipated to be completed by 2010) is designed to treat

13.5 MGD with wastewater treatment processes including headworks (comminutor and flow meter), grit removal, primary clarifiers, trickling filters, intermediate clarifier, secondary trickling filters, secondary clarifiers, gravity sludge thickeners, anaerobic digesters, and sludge drying beds. The expanded treatment facilities, including current and future disposal areas are depicted on Attachments B and C of this Order.

7. Disposal - The treated wastewater is disposed of to 17 percolation ponds covering approximately 120 acres. The percolation ponds are operated in fill, dry, and rest cycles to enhance nitrogen removal. Expansion of the disposal facilities will include an additional 150 acres of percolation ponds phased in over the next 15 to 20 years.

8. Solids Handling - Solids removed during the treatment processes are anaerobically digested, dried, and disposed of at a composting facility or used at the Santa Maria landfill for soil amendment in the vegetative cover portion of the final cover system.

9. Geology and Soils - The vicinity of the discharge is characterized by a broad alluvial plain near the ocean that tapers gradually inland. The alluvial plain is further defined by upland or mesa areas, foothills and mountain complexes. The disposal ponds are located on level ground underlain by loamy sands, silty sands and clay layers.

10. Surface Water - The Santa Maria River flows in a westerly direction approximately two miles north of the treatment and disposal facility. There is no surface discharge from the treatment facility to the Santa Maria River.
11 Groundwater - The Santa Maria groundwater basin lies in a coastal valley in western Santa Barbara County and includes the extreme southwestern part of San Luis Obispo County.

Groundwater is approximately 40 to 50 feet below ground surface in the vicinity of the discharge location. Coarse -grained alluvial deposits exist along the river and grade to finer silts and clays as distance from the river channel increases. According to monitoring data provided by the Discharger, the underlying groundwater includes the following general mineral characteristics (all data in mg/L):

Location
TDS
Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate -N
Boron
5H (background)
1160
74 47
430
13 0.24
UMW #1
897
170
174
160

0.17 0.42
DMW #2
1070
160
164
220
14 0.48
DMW #3
986
160
165
220

2.9 0.48

Order No. R3-2010-0001 3 February 4, 2010

BASIN PLAN

12. The Regional Water Board has adopted the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin (the Basin Plan) that designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives for receiving waters within the Region.

13. Present and anticipated beneficial uses of groundwater in the vicinity of Santa Maria include municipal, domestic, agricultural and industrial supply.

14. The Basin Plan establishes certain water quality objectives for selected groundwaters in the vicinity of the discharge. These objectives are intended to serve as a water quality baseline for evaluating water quality management in the basin. The median groundwater quality objectives for the Upper Guadalupe Sub -Area are as follows (Basis for objectives is in the 'Water Quality Objectives for the Santa Maria Ground Water Basin Revised Staff Report, May 1985" and February 1986, Staff Report):

Constituent
Concentration (mg/L) 1' 2
Note
TDS
1000
This is a maximum objective in accordance with
Title 22 of the Code of Regulations
Sodium
230
Chloride
165
Sulfate
500
This is a maximum objective in accordance with
Title 22 of the Code of Regulations
Nitrogen (as N)

1.4 Boron

0.5 2 Objectives are shown as median values based on data averages.

15. Total maximum daily load (TMDL) allocations will be developed for impaired surface waters in the Central Coast Region. TMDL documents will allocate responsibility for constituent loading throughout the watershed. If TMDLs determine constituent contributions from waste discharged may adversely impact beneficial uses or exceed narrative or numeric water quality objectives, changes in these waste discharge requirements may be required. Waste discharge requirements may be modified to implement applicable TMDL provisions and recommendations. TMDL listings for the Santa Maria River include fecal coliform, E. coli., toxicity, pesticides, sodium, chloride, unionized ammonia, and nutrients. Water Board staff is currently developing Santa Maria River TMDLs.

MONITORING PROGRAM

16. Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) No. R3-2010-0001 is part of this Order. The MRP requires routine influent, effluent, and receiving water (groundwater) sampling to verify compliance with this Order. Biosolids (sludge) monitoring is also required. The MRP requires submittal of monthly self -monitoring reports, and an annual summary report submitted by January 30`" of each year.

Order No. R3-2010-0001 4

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
February 4, 2010

17. In 2006, the Discharger certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing the wastewater treatment plant upgrade project. An addendum to the Final EIR was certified in 2009 to address expansion up to 13.5 million gallons per day (MGD) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the California Code of Regulations. The Discharger is the lead agency for purposes of CEQA. The Final EIR and addendum identified mitigation measures to address environmental impacts that may result from the treatment facility expansion. Water quality impacts are not expected to result from the project and no water quality mitigation measures were identified. The Water Board is the responsible agency for purposes of CEQA. As a responsible agency, the Water Board complies with CEQA by considering the CEQA documents that have been prepared by the lead agency and determining that those documents were adequate for its purposes. CEQA Guidelines section 15096(g) requires the Regional Water Board as a responsible agency, when considering alternatives and mitigation measures, to mitigate or avoid only the direct or indirect environmental effects of those parts of the project which it decides to approve.

CEQA Guidelines section 15096(h) requires the responsible agency to make findings set forth in section 15091 for each significant effect of the project. The EIR did not identify any significant direct or indirect water quality impacts.

ANTIDEGRADATION

18. State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 (Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California) requires Regional Water Boards, in regulating the discharge of waste, to maintain high quality waters of the State unless it is demonstrated that any change in quality will be consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State, will not unreasonably affect beneficial uses, and will not result in water quality less than that described in a Regional Water Board's policies (i.e., quality that exceeds applicable water quality standards). Resolution No. 68-16 also states, in part:

Any activity which produces or may produce a waste or increased volume or concentration of waste and which discharges or proposes to discharge to existing high quality waters will be required to meet waste discharge requirements which will result in best practicable treatment and control of the discharge necessary to assure that (a) a pollution or nuisance will not occur and (b) the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State will be maintained.

The discharge regulated by this Order is subject to waste discharge requirements that will result in treatment, control, prevention of pollution and nuisance, and maintenance of water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State. As such, these waste discharge requirements are consistent with the provisions of Resolution No. 68-16. (RECYCLED WATER POLICY

19. The Strategic Plan Update 2008-2012 for the Water Boards includes a priority to increase sustainable local water supplies available for meeting existing and future beneficial uses by

Order No. R3-2010-0001 5 February 4, 2010
1,725,000 acre-feet per year, in excess of 2002 levels, by 2015, and ensure adequate water flows for fish and wildlife habitat. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted the Recycled Water Policy (Resolution No. 2009-0011) on February 3, 2009. The Recycled Water Policy is intended to support the Strategic Plan priority to Promote Sustainable Local Water Supplies. Increasing the acceptance and promoting the use of recycled water is a means towards achieving sustainable local water supplies and can result in reduction in greenhouse gases, a significant driver of climate change. The Recycled Water Policy is also intended to encourage beneficial use of, rather than solely disposal of, recycled water.

20. The Recycled Water Policy calls for the development of regional groundwater basin/sub- basin salt/nutrient management plans. The State Water Board recognizes that, pursuant to the letter from statewide water and wastewater entities dated December 19, 2008, and attached to Resolution No. 2009-0011 adopting the Policy, the local water and wastewater entities, together with local salt/nutrient contributing stakeholders, will fund locally driven and controlled, collaborative processes open to all stakeholders that will prepare salt and nutrient management plans for each basin/sub-basin in California, including compliance with CEQA and participation by Regional Water Board staff.
21 It is the intent of the Recycled Water Policy that salts and nutrients from all sources be managed on a basin -wide or watershed -wide basis in a manner that ensures attainment of water quality objectives and protection of beneficial uses. The State Water Board finds that the appropriate way to address salt and nutrient issues is through the development of regional or sub -regional salt and nutrient management plans rather than through imposing requirements solely on individual projects. The Central Coast Water Board finds that a combination of regional management plans and individual or programmatic project requirements may be necessary to protect beneficial uses.

22. One of the primary components of the required regional salt/nutrient management plans is the development and implementation of groundwater basin/sub-basin monitoring programs.

As specified in the Recycled Water Policy, salt/nutrient contributing stakeholders will be responsible for conducting, compiling, and reporting the monitoring data once the regional groundwater monitoring programs are developed.

23. A large number of technical reports and data contained within Central Coast Water Board files document widespread and increasing salt and nutrient impacts within the groundwater basins throughout the Central Coast Region, including the Santa Maria groundwater basin and sub -basins.

GENERAL FINDINGS

24. The Discharger enrolled in the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ (General Sewer System Order) in 2007. The General Sewer System Order, at a minimum, requires the Discharger to develop and implement a Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) by May 2, 2012. The Discharger, when developing the SSMP, is required to include organization goals, organization structure, legal authority, measures and activities, design and performance provisions; monitoring, measurement and plan modifications; overflow emergency response

Order No. R3-2010-0001 6 February 4, 2010
plan, source control program, system evaluation and capacity assurance plan, and annual updates. The General Sewer System Order also requires the Discharger to report sanitary sewer spills using the web -based Sanitary Sewer Overflow Database.

25. Stormwater - Federal Regulations for stormwater discharges were promulgated by the U.S.

EPA on November 19, 1990. The regulations [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 122, 123, and 124] require specific categories of industrial activities including Publicly Owned Treatment Works (municipal wastewater treatment facilities) with capacity in excess of one million gallons per day, which discharge stormwater to obtain an NPDES permit and to implement Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) to control pollutants in industrial stormwater discharges.

26. Stormwater flows from the wastewater treatment facility process areas are directed to the head works and commingled with wastewater thus becoming wastewater. These blended flows are treated through the facility, therefore no industrial stormwater is discharged and separate permitting is not needed.

27. This Order contains restrictions on individual pollutants. The effluent limitations for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) are based on achievable limits for secondary treatment as demonstrated by historical facility effluent data.

Effluent limitations in this Order for total dissolved solids, sodium and chloride have been scientifically derived to implement water quality objectives that protect beneficial uses. Both the beneficial uses and the water quality objectives have been approved pursuant to state law. All beneficial uses and water quality objectives contained in the Basin Plan were approved under state law and submitted to and approved by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to May 30, 2000. The requirements of this Order take into consideration past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of the receiving waters, the environmental characteristics, including water quality of the Santa Maria River hydrographic unit, and coordinated control of all factors which affect water quality in the area.

28. Discharge of waste is a privilege, not a right, and authorization to discharge is conditional upon the discharge complying with provisions of Division 7 of the California Water Code and any more stringent effluent limitations necessary to implement water quality control plans, to protect beneficial uses, and to prevent nuisance. Compliance with this Order should ensure this and mitigate any potential adverse changes in water quality due to the discharge.

29. On November 5, 2009, the Central Coast Water Board notified the Discharger and interested agencies and persons of its intent to revise waste discharge requirements for the discharge and has provided them with a copy of the proposed Order and an opportunity to submit written views and comments. Comments on the draft Order were to be submitted in writing no later than December 10, 2009.

30. After considering all comments pertaining to this discharge during a public hearing on February 4, 2010, this Order was found consistent with the above findings.

Order No. R3-2010-0001 7 February 4, 2010
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority in Section 13263 of the California Water Code, that the City of Santa Maria, its agents, successors, and assigns, may discharge waste from its wastewater treatment plant provided it complies with the following requirements.

All technical and monitoring reports submitted pursuant to this Order are required pursuant to Section 13267 of the California Water Code. The Central Coast Water Board requires these reports to determine compliance with this Order and the impacts, if any, of the discharge on receiving waters. Failure to submit reports in accordance with schedules established by this Order, or failure to submit a report of sufficient technical quality to be acceptable to the Executive Officer, may subject the Discharger to enforcement action pursuant to Section 13268 of the California Water Code.

Other prohibitions and conditions, definitions and the method of determining compliance are contained in "Standard Provisions and Reporting Requirements for Waste Discharge Requirements" dated January 1984 and incorporated as part of this Order.

Note: Throughout this Order, footnotes are listed to indicate the source of requirements specified. Requirement footnotes are as follows:

WC = Water Code
BP = Basin Plan
CFR = 40 CFR 403 (federal pretreatment requirements)
Requirements without footnotes are based on staffs professional judgment.

A. PROHIBITIONS

1. Discharge to areas other than the disposal ponds shown in Attachment A is prohibited.wc

2. Discharge of any wastes, including overflow, bypass, seepage, overspray and runoff from transport, treatment, or disposal systems, to adjacent properties, adjacent drainage ways, or to drainage ways tributary to the Santa Maria River is prohibited.wc

3. Bypass of the treatment facility is prohibited and discharge of improperly treated wastewater directly to the disposal ponds is prohibited.wc

4. Discharge of wastes within 150 feet of any well used for domestic supply or irrigation of food crops is prohibited.T22
B. DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS

1. Daily flow averaged over each month shall not exceed 9.5 MGD, until completion of expanded wastewater treatment facilities. After expansion of the treatment and disposal facilities, daily flow averaged over each month shall not exceed 13.5 MGD.

Order No. R3-2010-0001
8 February 4, 2010

2. Effluent discharged to disposal ponds shall not exceed the following limitations:

Constituent
Units
Monthly Average
Daily Maximum
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 -day)
mg/L
60 100
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
60 100
Settleable Solids
ml/L

0.1 0.4
Total Dissolved Solids'
mg/L
1,000
--
Sodium'
mg/L 180
---
Chloride'
mg/L 180 ---
pH
within the range 6.5 to 8 4 "
'Compliance shall be based on a three-year running mean.

3. Freeboard shall equal or exceed two feet in all ponds, unless the ponds are specifically designed for a different freeboard.

4. The treatment, storage, and disposal facilities shall be managed to exclude the public and posted to warn the public of the presence of wastewater.

C. RECEIVING WATER (GROUNDWATER) LIMITATIONS
(Receiving water quality is a result of many factors, some unrelated to the discharge. This Order considers these factors and is designed to minimize the influence of the discharge to receiving waters.)

1. The discharge shall not cause groundwater to contain taste or odor producing substance in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. BP

2. The discharge shall not cause radionuclides to be present in concentrations that are deleterious to human, plant, animal, or aquatic life; or results in the accumulation or radionuclides in the food web to an extent which presents a hazard to human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. BP

3. The discharge shall not cause groundwater to contain concentrations of organic or inorganic chemicals in excess of the limiting concentrations set forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, Article 5.5, Section 64444 (organic) and Article 4, Section 64431 (inorganic). BP

4. The discharge shall not cause groundwater to contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect the agricultural supply beneficial use.

Interpretation of adverse effects shall be as described in University of California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines provided in Table 3-3 of the Central Coast Basin Plan. BP

5. The discharge shall not cause a significant increase in mineral constituent concentrations in the underlying groundwater, as determined by comparison of samples collected from wells located upgradient and downgradient of the disposal area.BP

Order No. R3-2010-0001 9 February 4, 2010

6. The discharge shall not cause underlying groundwater to contain concentrations of constituents in excess of water quality objectives listed in Finding No. 14.

D. SALT & NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

1. The Discharger shall maintain an ongoing salt/nutrient management program with the intent of reducing mass loading of salts and nutrients (with an emphasis on nitrogen species) in treated effluent to a level that will ensure compliance with effluent limitations and protect beneficial uses of groundwater.

2. Salt reduction measures shall focus on all potential salt contributors to the collection system, including water supply, commercial, industrial and residential dischargers. The salt/nutrient management program shall also address the concentration of salts in the wastewater treatment process as a result of excessive hydraulic retention times and/or chemical addition.

3. Nutrient reduction measures shall focus on optimizing wastewater treatment processes for nitrification and denitrification, or other means of nitrogen removal. Reduction measures may also include source control (non -human waste from commercial and industrial sources) as appropriate.

4. As part of the salt/nutrient management program, the Discharger shall submit an annual report of salt and nutrient reduction efforts. This salt/nutrient management report shall be included as part of the annual report described in Monitoring and Reporting Program No.

R3-2010-0001. The report shall be submitted by January 30(t', and shall include (at a minimum):

Salt Component
a. Calculations of annual salt mass discharged to (influent) and from (effluent) the wastewater treatment or recycling facility with a description of contributing sources; b. Analysis of wastewater evaporation/salt concentration effects; c. Analysis of groundwater monitoring results for salts constituents and associated trends; d. Analysis of potential impacts of salt loading on the groundwater basin (focusing on the relationship between salt concentration in the discharge and the Basin Plan water quality objectives);
e. A summary of existing salt reduction measures; and,
f. Recommendations and time schedules for implementation of any additional salt reduction measures.

Nutrient Component
a. Calculations of annual nitrogen mass (for all identified species) discharged to (influent) and from (effluent) the wastewater treatment or recycling facility with a description of contributing sources;

Order No. R3-2010-0001 10 February 4, 2010
b. Analysis of wastewater treatment facility ability to facilitate nitrification and denitrification, or other means of nitrogen removal;
c. Analysis of groundwater monitoring results for nitrogen constituents and trends; d. Analysis of potential impacts of nitrogen loading on the groundwater basin (focusing on the relationship between salt concentration in the discharge and the Basin Plan water quality objectives);
e. A summary of existing nitrogen loading reduction measures; and, f. Recommendations and time schedules for implementation of any additional nitrogen loading reduction measures.

5. As an alternative to the salt/nutrient management program requirements described above, upon Executive Officer approval, the Discharger may submit documentation and summary of participation in a regional salt/nutrient management plan implemented under the provisions of State Water Board Resolution No. 2009-0011 (Recycled Water Policy).

E. PRETREATMENT SPECIFICATIONS

1. The discharger shall be responsible for performance of pretreatment requirements contained in 40 CFR 403 and shall be subject to enforcement actions, penalties, fines and other remedies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or other appropriate parties, as provided in the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 USC 1251 et seq.) (hereafter Act). The Discharger shall implement and enforce its approved Pretreatment Program. The Discharger's approved Pretreatment Program is hereby made an enforceable condition of this Order. EPA or the Water Board may initiate enforcement action against an industrial user for noncompliance with applicable standards and requirements as provided in the Act.cFR

2. The Discharger shall enforce the requirements promulgated under Section 307(b), 307(c), 307(d), and 402(b) of the Act. The Discharger shall cause industrial users subject to Federal Categorical Standards to achieve compliance no later than the date specified in those requirements or, in the case of a new industrial user, upon commencement of its discharge.cFR

3. The Discharger shall perform the pretreatment functions as required in 40 CFR 403.8(f), including but not limited to:
a. Implement the necessary legal authorities as provided in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1); b. Enforce the pretreatment requirements under 40 CFR 403.5 and 403.6; c. Implement the programmatic functions as provided in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2); and, d. Provide the requisite funding and personnel to implement the pretreatment program as provided in 403.8(f)(3).CFR

Order No. R3-2010-0001 11 February 4, 2010
F. BIOSOLIDS SPECIFICATIONS
Biosolids refers to non -hazardous sewage sludge as defined in 40 CFR 503.9. Sewage sludge that is hazardous (as defined in 40 CFR 261) must be disposed in accordance with requirements of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA). Sludge with PCB levels in excess of 50 mg/kg must be disposed in accordance with 40 CFR 761.

1. All biosolids generated by the Discharger shall be used or disposed in compliance with the applicable portions of the following regulations.
a. 40 CFR 503 - for biosolids that are land applied, placed in surface disposal sites (dedicated land disposal sites or monofills), or incinerated. b. 40 CFR 258 - for biosolids disposed in municipal solid waste landfills. c. 40 CFR 257 - for all biosolids use and disposal practices not covered under 40 CFR 258 or 503).
40 CFR 503 Subpart B (land application) applies to biosolids applied for the purpose of enhancing plant growth or for land reclamation. Section 503 Subpart C (surface disposal) applies to biosolids placed on the land for the purpose of disposal.

The Discharger is responsible for ensuring that all biosolids produced at its facility are used or disposed of in accordance with these rules, whether the discharger uses or disposes of the biosolids itself or transfers them to another party for further treatment, use, or disposal.

G. PROVISIONS

1. Order No. R3-2002-0111, Waste Discharge Requirements for City of Santa Maria, adopted by the Central Coast Water Board on December 13, 2002, is hereby rescinded, except for enforcement purposes.

2. Discharger shall comply with Monitoring and' Reporting Program No. R3-2010-0001, as specified by the Executive Officer.

3. Discharger shall comply with all items of attached "Standard Provisions and Reporting Requirements for Waste Discharge Requirements" dated January, 1984.

4. This Order may be reopened to address any changes in State or Federal plans, policies, or regulations that would affect requirements for the discharge.

5. The Discharger shall maintain a comprehensive operation and maintenance manual for the wastewater treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The Discharger shall also develop, update as needed, and maintain as part of its operations and maintenance manual; a mercury handling plan. The mercury handling plan shall (at a minimum) address inventory, inspection, monitoring, incident response, worker safety and training.

Order No. R3-2010-0001 12 February 4, 2010

6. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 9, the Discharger shall submit a Report of Waste Discharge to the Executive Officer not later than June 11, 2014, addressing: a) Whether there will be changes in the continuity, character, location or volume of the discharge; and, b) Whether, in their opinion, there is any portion of the Order that is incorrect, obsolete or otherwise in need or revision.

I, Roger W. Briggs, Executive Officer, do hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, on February 4, 2010.

ORDERED BX:
oger W. Brigs, Executive Officer
Fe.b Zvlo
Date
S:\WDR\WDR Facilities\Santa Barbara Co\Santa Maria WWTP\current WDR\2010-0001 final wdr.doc

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CENTRAL COAST REGION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. R3-2010-0001
FOR

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER FACILITY

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
Reporting responsibilities are specified in Sections 13225(a), 13267(b), 13383, and 13387(b) of the California Water Code. This Discharge Monitoring Program is issued in accordance with Provision G.2 of Central Coast Water Board Order No. R3-2010-0001.

Influent Monitoring
Representative samples of the treatment plant influent shall be collected and analyzed as follows:

Constituent
Units Type of Sample
Sampling & Analysis
Frequency
Flow Volume
MGD
Metered
Daily
Maximum Daily Flow
MGD
Metered
Monthly
Mean Daily Flow
MGD
Calculated
Monthly
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 -day)
mg/L
24 -hr composite
Monthly
Total Suspended Solids
mg/L
24 -hr composite
Monthly
Total Nitrogen (as N)
(all forms identified)
mg/L
24 -hr composite
Quarterly
Effluent Monitoring
Representative samples of the effluent discharged to the evaporation/percolation ponds shall be collected and analyzed as follows:

Constituent
Settleable solids
Units
m L/L
Type of Sample
Grab
Sampling & Analysis
Frequency
Dail
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 -day)
mg/L 24 -hr composite
Weekly
Total Suspended solids
mg/L
24 -hr composite
Weekly
pH
pH units
Grab
Weekly
Freeboard in all ponds
Feet
Measure
Weekly
Total Dissolved Solids
mg/L
24 -hr composite
Quarterly
Sodium
mg/L
24 -hr composite
Quarterly
Chloride
mg/L
24 -hr composite
Quarterly
Boron
mg/L Grab
Quarterly
Sulfate
mg/L
Grab
Quarterly
Total Nitrogen (as N)
(all forms identified)
mg/L
Grab
Quarterly

M & R Program No. R3-2010-0001 -2-
February 4, 2010
Groundwater Monitoring
Representative samples of groundwater from wells located up -gradient and down -gradient from the discharge area shall be monitored for the following constituents:

Parameter
Units
Type of Sample
Sampling & Analysis
Frequency
Depth to Groundwater
Feet
Measured
Quarterly
Total Nitrogen (as N)
(all forms identified)
mg/L
Grab
Quarterly
Sodium
mg/L
Grab
Quarterly
Chlonde
mg/L
Grab
Quarterly
Sulfate
mg/L
Grab
Quarterly
Boron
mg/L
Grab
Quarterly
At the Discharger's request, the Central Coast Water Board Executive Officer may approve participation in a basin -wide salt/nutrients management plan implemented under the provisions of State Water Board Resolution No. 2009-0011 (Recycled Water Policy) in lieu of the groundwater monitoring described above.

Biosolids Monitoring
The following information shall be submitted with the Annual Report (due January 30th). If no biosolids are removed from the facility during the reporting period (the year), then the Discharger shall include such statement in the Annual Report. a. Volume of biosolids removed and disposal and/or reuse destination. Order or permit number (if applicable) for the biosolids destination shall also be provided. b. Representative sample of biosolids removed from the drying beds shall be analyzed for the following parameters: Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Zinc, Total Nitrogen, and % solids.
c. Biosolids shall be identified as Class A or Class B (in accordance with criteria specified at 40CFR 503). The basis for classification shall also be described. d. Pathogen reduction and vector attraction reduction achievement methods shall be described in adequate detail to demonstrate compliance with 40CFR 503.32.

Effluent Salt & Nutrient Management Program Reporting
The Discharger shall report the status of its efforts to reduce effluent salts and nutrients in its Annual Report. The status reports shall include detailed descriptions of all measures implemented by the Discharger according to Salt & Nutrient Management Program requirements specified in section D of this Order.

Reporting
Monthly self -monitoring reports shall be submitted by the last day of the month following the monitoring period, and shall summarize the results of all monitoring performed during that period.

The Discharger shall electronically submit Self -Monitoring Reports (SMRs) using the State Water Board's California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Program Web site ( http://www.waterboards.ca.qov/ciwgs/index.html) . In the event there will be service interruption for electronic submittal, the Discharger shall submit self -monitoring reports electronically to

M & R Program No. R3-2010-0001 -3- February 4, 2010
centralcoast(awaterboards.ca.gov. Additionally, an Annual Report shall be submitted by January 30th and shall include:
a. Tabular and graphical summaries of the monitoring data obtained during the preceding year. Duplicate copies of monthly reports are not necessary and do not fulfill requirements for "summaries".
b. A discussion of any and all incidents of non-compliance and corrective actions taken to ensure compliance is restored.
c. List of facility staff and corresponding certification levels. d. Summary of biosolids monitoring, as described above. e. Summary of collection system management plans, or reference report submitted under separate cover as required by this or separate sanitary sewer requirements. f. Summary of salts and nutrient management program implementation. g•
Summary of mercury handling plan implementation.

Results of Ground Water Monitoring shall also be submitted to the County of Santa Barbara Environmental Health Services office in Santa Barbara.

ORDERED
oger W. Briggs, Executive Officer
(C t 2 -o)
Date
S:\WDR\WDR Facilities\Santa Barbara Co\Santa Maria WWTP\current WDR\2010-0001 final mrp.doc

APPENDIX B
General Waste Discharge Requirements —
Order R3-2020-0020
Santa Maria WWTP Engineering Report August 5, 2022

OALIFORMIA
Water Boards
4%0°

GAVIN NEWSOM

GOVERNOR

JARED BLUMENFELD

SECRETARY FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
November 5, 2021
Shad Springer, Public Works Director
City of Santa Maria
601 Black Road
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Email: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Springer:

Sent Via Electronic Mail

CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, 5125 MAIN STREET, CITY OF SANTA MARIA, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY — REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICE OF INTENT / REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE

FOR DISCHARGES FROM DOMESTIC WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
City of Santa Maria is currently permitted by Order No. R3-2005-0015, individual waste discharge requirements for discharges of domestic wastewater to land from the City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant (individual permit). On September 25, 2020, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast Water Board) adopted General Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2020-0020 for Discharges from Domestic Wastewater Systems with Flows Greater than 100,000 Gallons per Day (General Permit). Central Coast Water Board staff reviewed the available documents associated with your wastewater system and determined the discharges are more appropriately regulated pursuant to the General Permit than the current individual permit. Central Coast Water Board staff requires the City of Santa Maria enroll in the General Permit. City of Santa Maria must submit a notice of intent serving as an application (also referred to as a report of waste discharge) for enrollment of the City of Santa Maria in the General Permit by February 5, 2022.

A copy of the General Permit can be obtained at the following link:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board decisions/adopted orders/2 020/r32020 0020.pdf
Requirement for a Notice of Intent
City of Santa Maria is required to submit a notice of intent that contains current wastewater system information. By February 5, 2022, City of Santa Maria must

City of Santa Maria WWTP - 2 - November 5, 2021
complete the General Permit notice of intent found at the link below, and submit this notice of intent to: [email protected]. This notice of intent is an electronic form and must be completed by typing responses into the provided space. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board decisions/adopted orders/2021/not ice of intent.pdf
The Central Coast Water Board's requirement that the City of Santa Maria submit a notice of intent is made pursuant to section 13260 of the California Water Code.

Once Central Coast Water Board staff deem City of Santa Maria's application complete, Central Coast Water Board staff will issue a notice of applicability. Issuance of the notice of applicability authorizes coverage and enrollment of the City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant in the General Permit and terminates the existing individual permit. City of Santa Maria must comply with the conditions of the General Permit upon receipt of the notice of applicability.

Permit Fees
No application fee is required, as City of Santa Maria's paid their annual fee on January 1, 2021 for coverage under the existing individual permit. City of Santa Maria must continue to pay their annual fee to maintain coverage in the General Permit. The wastewater system is currently assigned a threat and complexity rating of 1B which currently has an associated permit fee of $93,975. Fees are charged (and updated) annually and are based on threat and complexity ratings, and the treatment technology employed. Threat and complexity ratings are defined in the fee schedule listed in California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 2200 and available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/resources/fees/water quality/#wdr Legal Requirements
Pursuant to California Water Code section 13260, the City of Santa Maria must file a report of waste discharge (also referred to as a notice of intent) serving as an application for enrollment in the General Permit. Pursuant to California Water Code section 13261, failure to furnish a notice of intent by February 5, 2022, may subject the City of Santa Maria to administrative civil liability (monetary penalties) for a maximum of $1,000 for each day of violation. If the Central Coast Water Board imposes a penalty, the required information still needs to be submitted. The Central Coast Water Board reserves the right to take any enforcement action authorized by law.

Central Coast Water Board staff recommends that the City of Santa Maria immediately review the General Permit as the requirements of this permit are different than for the individual permit and coordinate with Central Coast Water Board staff to determine the site -specific effluent limitations for their treatment technology and underlying groundwater basin. For questions regarding this letter, please contact Central Coast Water Board staff Mark Lemus at (805) 549-3703,
[email protected], or Jennifer Epp at (805) 594-6181.

City of Santa Maria WWTP - 3 - November 5, 2021
Sincerely,
for Matthew T. Keeling
Executive Officer
cc:

Russ Newman, [email protected]
Alexandra Griffith, [email protected]
Mark Lemus, [email protected]
Cecile Blancarte, [email protected]
Jennifer Epp, [email protected]
WDR Program, [email protected]
ECM/CIWQS = 255678
GeoTracker No. = WDR100029562
Rev 4/7/2020
ECM Subject Name = R:\RB3\Shared\WDR\WDR Facilities\Santa Barbara Co\Santa Maria WWTP\2021\Large Order Enrollment\13260 requirement for eNOI_large domestic_wwtp_City of Santa Maria.docx

APPENDIX C
WWTP Design Criteria
Santa Maria WWTP Engineering Report
August 5, 2022

City of Santa Maria
Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
Preliminary Design Report

BASIS OF DESIGN
DRAFT
March 2006
4 cnroenGinLLo
Office Address - Pull from File-New-CeAdd-Arial Narrow-7pt-Expand to fit margins (Format -Font -Character Spacing) H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc

CITY OF SANTA MARIA

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE II EXPANSION

PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT

DESIGN MEMORANDUM
NO. 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.

INTRODUCTION 1-3
DESIGN FLOW RATE 1-8
TREATMENT ANALYSIS 1-12
Wastewater Strength 1-12
Process Performance Calibration 1-12
WWTP Predicted Capacity of Current Facilities 1-18
PHASE II DESIGN ANALYSIS 1-21
Loading Factors 1-21
Solids Handling 1-26
Sludge Drying Beds 1-27
Dewatering Alternatives 1-29

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Current and Recommended Phase II Facilities 1-3 Table 1.2 Design Criteria for Phase II Expansion Facilities 1-5 Table 1.3 Maximum Month and Annual Average WWTP Influent Flow 2000 - 2005 1-8 Table 1.4 Monthly Average Volume of Septage Delivered- February 2005 to December 2005 (1) 1-10
Table 1.5 Process Input Parameters for WWTP Model Calibration 1-15 Table 1.6 Influent cBOD and TSS Values for Phase II Design 1-25 Table 1.7 Influent Wastewater Parameters before and after Septage Addition for Phase II Design 1-25
Table 1.8 Raw and Digested Solids Parameters for Phase II Design 1-27

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Projection of Maximum Monthly Flow to Current Design Capacity 1-9 Figure 1.2 Cumulative Septage Delivery Volumes February 2005 to December 20051-11 Figure 1.3 Cumulative Influent Biochemical Oxygen Demand 2000 - 2005 1-13 Figure 1.4 Cumulative Influent Total Suspended Solids 2000 - 2005 1-14 Figure 1.5 Effluent cBOD Concentration October 2002 to September 2005 1-16 Figure 1.6 Effluent TSS Concentration October 2002 to September 2005 1-17 DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc i

Figure 1.7 Cumulative Plot of the Ratio of Monthly cBOD to Annual Average cBOD November 2002 to September 2005 1-19
Figure 1.8 Projection of Annual Average Flow to Flow at Predicted Capacity 1-20 Figure 1.9 Projection of Maximum Monthly Flow to Phase II Design Capacity 1-22 Figure 1.10 Influent cBOD Loading Trends 2000 - 2005 1-23 Figure 1.11 Influent TSS Loading Trends 2000 - 2005 1-24 Figure 1.12 Proposed Sludge Drying Bed Location 1-28
DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc ii

Design Memorandum No. 1

BASIS OF DESIGN

INTRODUCTION
The Wastewater Master Plan prepared for the City of Santa Maria by Carollo Engineers in August 1993 proposed several alternatives for treating wastewater flow through Year 2010, when the City was expected to reach its maximum population. Construction of facilities was recommended to occur in phases. Phase I included facilities that did not increase the wastewater treatment plant's (WWTP) capacity, but Phase 11 included facilities to increase the capacity. The Phase 1 expansion of the WWTP occurred in 1996 and was based upon recommendations made by Carollo Engineers in October 1994 in a pre -design document entitled Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities Project. The WWTP capacity for Phase 11 was 13 million gallons per day (mgd).

This memorandum reviews the Phase II facilities recommended in these previous reports based on current and projected wastewater flows and strength. The WWTP including the new facilities is projected to treat up to 13.5 mgd. The growth within the City is slightly higher than previously anticipated, and 13.5 mgd will provide sufficient capacity to meet the treatment needs to approximately Year 2023. The current WWTP capacity is 9.5 mgd, which is expected to be reached this year. A review of the WWTP performance indicates the treatment capacity may allow construction of the expansion project to be delayed until early 2008. Table 1.1 provides the current facilities as well as the recommended facilities for the Phase II expansion project, and Table 1.2 provides design criteria for the Phase 11 facilities.

Table 1.1
Current and Recommended Phase II Facilities
Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Unit Process Unit
Current
Facilities
Additional
Phase II
Facilities
Headworks
Mechanical Bar Screens Each 2 1
Manual Bar Screens Each 1 N/A (1)
Channel Width Feet 3 N/A
Parshall Flume Inches 30 N/A
Aerated Grit Chamber
Chambers Each 2 N/A
Chamber Dimensions L(ft)Dx(W(ft) x 24 x 12 x 8.5 N/A
DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:\Client\S_Maria_SDO\7317A00\DIv\Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-3

Table 1.1
Current and Recommended Phase II Facilities
Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Unit Process Unit
Current
Facilities
Additional
Phase II
Facilities
Air Lift Pumps Each 6 N/A
Grit Screw Each 1 1
Primary Clarifier
Number Each 1 1
Tank diameter Feet 145 145
Side Water Depth Feet 10 10
Primary Trickling Filter Pump Station
Vertical propeller pumps Each 1+1 standby 1
Design Point (2) MGD @ TDH 11.7 @ 36 6 © 36
Primary Sludge Pump Station
Number of Pumps Each 1+1 standby 1
Design Point GPM @ TDH 300 @ ? 300 @ ?
Primary Trickling Filters
Number Each 1 1
Tank diameter Feet 60 60
Media Type N/A Plastic Crossflow
Media Depth Feet 12 12
Intermediate Clarifier
Number Each 1 N/A
Tank diameter Feet 70 N/A
Side Water Depth Feet 10 N/A
Seconday Trickling Filter Pump Station
Number of Pumps Each 2+1 standby N/A
Design Point MGD @ TDH 11.5 @ 20 N/A
Secondary Trickling Filters
Number Each 2 N/A
Tank diameter Feet 180 N/A
Media Type N/A Plastic N/A
Media Depth Feet 3.33 N/A
Secondary Trickling Filter Clarifiers
Number Each 2 N/A
DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:\Client\S_Maria_SDO\7317A00\DIv\Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-4

Table 1.1 Current and Recommended Phase II Facilities
Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Unit Process Unit
Current
Facilities
Additional
Phase II
Facilities
Tank diameter Feet
Side Water Depth Feet
Effluent Ponds
Area Square Feet
Gravity Thickeners
Number Each
Tank Diameter Feet
Side Water Depth Feet
Surface Area Square Feet
Digesters
Number of Small Diameter Each
Number of Large Diameter Each
Diameter of Small Feet
Diameter of Large Feet
Total Volume Cubic Feet
Sludge Drying Beds
Number of Existing Sand Beds Each
Number of New Asphalt Beds Each
Area of Existing Acres
Area of New Acres
140
10 52
2 35

12.5 935
2 1
50 65
187,100
21 N/A

12.1 N/A
N/A
N/A
52 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
65 232,864
N/A
12-15
N/A
6-7.5
Notes:

1.) Not Applicable

2.) Million gallons per day @ Total Dynamic Head (ft)
Table 1.2
Design Criteria for Phase II Expansion Facilities
Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Parameter
Unit
Phase I Phase II
Facilities Facilities
Headworks Influent Flow MGD 9.5 13.5
Aerated Grit Chamber
DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:\Client\S_Maria_SDO\7317A00\DIv\Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-5

5.3 3.7

2.6 1.9
Air Flow CFM/LF (4) 4.0 4.0
Grit Chamber Effluent Flow (2) MGD 9.96 14.12
Primary Clarifier
Influent Flow from Grit Chamber (1)(3) MGD 17.74 27.92
Surface Overflow Rate (1) GPD/SF(5) 1,105 869
Detention Time (1) Hours 1.60 2.10
Primary Trickling Filter Pump Station
Primary Clarifier Influent Flow MGD 17.31 27.06
Influent from Gravity Thickeners MGD 0.67 0.79
Pumped to Primary Trickling No. 1 MGD 11.70 11.70
Pumped to Primary Trickling No. 2 MGD N/A 6.0
Pump Station Wetwell Overflow MGD 6.28 10.15
Intermediate Clarifier Effluent (downstream MGD 3.61 3.76 of wetwell)
Primary Trickling Filters
Trickling Filter No. 1 Influent Flow MGD 11.70 11.70
Media Wetting Rate GPM/SF (6) 2.87 2.87
Trickling Filter No. 2 Influent Flow MGD N/A 6.0
Media Wetting Rate GPM/SF N/A 1.47
Intermediate Clarifier
Influent Flow MGD 3.90 3.90
Effluent Flow MGD 3.61 3.76 (7)
Surface Overflow Rate (1) GPD/SF 1,013 1,013
Detention Time (1) Hours 1.77 1.77
Secondary Trickling Filter Pump Station
Influent Flow MGD 9.89 13.90
Return from Secondary Clarifiers MGD 13.11 9.10
Secondary Trickling Filters
DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:\Client\S_Maria_SDO\7317A00\DIv\Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-6

Table 1.2
Design Criteria for Phase II Expansion Facilities
Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Parameter Unit
Phase I Phase II
Facilities Facilities
Influent Flow MGD 23.0 23.0
Media Wetting Rate GPM/SF 0.31 0.31
Secondary Trickling Filter Clarifiers
Influent Flow MGD 23.0 23.0
Surface Overflow Rate (1) GPD/SF 763 763
Detention Time (1) Hours 2.35 2.35
Return to Secondary Trickling Filter Pump MGD 13.11 9.10 Station
WWTP Effluent MGD 9.45 13.46
Gravity Thickeners
Thickener Feed (1) MGD 0.432 0.865
Surface Overflow Rate (1) GPD/SF 231 463
Detention Time (1) Hours 4.9 4.9
Digesters
Digester Feed (1) MGD 0.049 0.076
Minimum Detention Time Days 15 15
Minimum Gas Production CF/#VS (8) 15 15
Sludge Drying Beds
Solids Loading - Existing Beds #DS/SF/Yr (9) 10.9 11.0
Solids Loading - New Beds #DS/SF/Yr N/A 13.5
Notes:

1.) Based on 13.5 mgd WWTP influent flow.

2.) Includes sludge from Intermediate and Secondary Trickling Filter Clarifiers.

3.) Includes 7.8 mgd recycle flow from Primary Trickling Filters.

4.) Cubic feet per minute per linear foot.

5.) Gallons per day per square foot.

6.) Gallons per minute per square foot.

7.) Based on 100 gpm return to Grit Chamber.

8.) Cubic Feet per Pound of Volatile Solids destroyed.

9.) Pounds of Dry Solids per Square Foot per Year.

DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-7

DESIGN FLOW RATE
The 1996 Phase I Upgrades Project increased the maximum month treatment capacity to

9.5 mgd. The planned Phase II expansion project will further increase this to 13.5 mgd.

Figure 1.1 shows the maximum month flows from Years 2000 to 2005. Using a straight line (best fit) projection, the rated design capacity will be reached by middle to late 2006. Table

1.1 provides the maximum month and annual average flows and the maximum month peaking factors for this period.

Table 1.3
Maximum Month and Annual Average WWTP Influent Flow 2000 - 2005 Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Year
Peak Month Factor
Maximum Month Flow Annual Average Flow (Maximum
(mgd) (mgd) Month/Annual
Average
2000 8.09 7.45 1.09
2001 8.41 7.79 1.08
2002 8.42 7.91 1.06
2003 8.76 8.12 1.08
2004 9.19 8.50 1.08
2005 9.11 8.64 1.05
The City reports influent flow on a daily basis. The average of these daily flows for each month is the monthly average flow. The maximum of these monthly average flows is the maximum month flow. The average of these monthly average flows for a one-year period is the annual average flow. The average of the peak month factors is 1.08 times the annual average flow. This is typical of other cities in California.

DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-8

Figure 1.1 Projection of Maximum Monthly Flow to Current Design Capacity DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-9

The flows given in Table 1.3 include the septage contribution. Septage volume varies greatly on a day-to-day basis. Figure 1.2 presents a probability plot of all daily septage volumes delivered for a 200 day period from February 2005 to December 2005. The median volume of septage delivered is approximately 49,000 gallons per day (gpd). The monthly average volumes are given in Table 1.4. These values are not simply the total septage volume delivered for a month divided by the number of days in that month. Days with no deliveries were not included. In addition, several deliveries throughout the year occurred on weekends and consisted of one to three loads per day. These deliveries and associated days were not included in the calculation for the monthly average volumes to prevent them from skewing the results to a lower average daily volume. A minimum daily volume of 15,000 gpd was chosen. Volumes less than this represent the weekend loads.

Table 1.2 shows that the annual average delivery volume for 2005 was approximately 52,000 gpd. If the deliveries less than 15,000 gpd were included in the calculation, the annual average for 2005 would drop to 45,000 gpd. Thus, the lower figure would not adequately reflect the actual daily loading to the treatment process.

Table 1.4 Monthly Average Volume of Septage Delivered- February 2005 to December 2005 (1)
Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Month
Average Septage Delivery Volume
(gpd)
February
33,160
March
49,510
April
50,280
May
53,820
June
57,040
July
56,990
August
57,590
September
54,860
October
55,060
November
52,110
December
50,900
Average for 2005:
51,940
(1) Does not include delivery volumes less than 15,000 gpd.

DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-10

Figure 1.2 Cumulative Septage Delivery Volumes February 2005 to December 2005 DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc

TREATMENT ANALYSIS
Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No.R3-2002-0111 provides the discharge and monitoring and reporting requirements for the WWTP adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Among other requirements, the WDR limits the monthly means for five-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) to 60 mg/L each and the monthly average influent flow to 9.5 mgd.

Wastewater Strength
Data for influent wastewater downstream of septage addition are available for the past five years. This data includes cBOD and TSS. Figure 1.3 shows the influent cBOD probability based on values from January 2000 through September 2005. The median value is approximately 349 mg/L. This value represent samples taken downstream of septage addition. Also shown are values taken upstream of septage addition during the period of June 2004 through May 2005. The average value is approximately 282 mg/L.

Figure 1.4 provides the influent TSS probability for January 2000 through September 2005.

The median value is approximately 323 mg/L. TSS data measured upstream of septage addition is not reliable because the reported values are lower than what would be expected.

Thus, the data was not considered, and TSS values were assumed.

Process Performance Calibration
A process model in Excel spreadsheet format was developed to predict the WWTP performance based on measured data. This model was originally developed for the Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities Project dated October 1994. It has been updated to reflect the current process performance within the limits of assumptions that were made. The total influent cBOD and TSS including septage reflect the average of the measured values since Year 2000, and the cBOD upstream of septage addition is the average of the one-year period from June 2004 through May 2005. Assumptions in the model were necessary because recent performance data within the WWTP does not exist.

This data consists of cBOD and TSS values downstream of the primary clarifier and upstream of the secondary trickling filters. Assumptions represent, among others, volatile fractions and parameters used in calculating settling rates and removal efficiencies. Table

1.5 provides input data used for model calibration. Model output is provided in Appendix A.

The predicted effluent cBOD and TSS values from the calibrated model are 42 mg/L and 33 mg/L, respectively. Figure 1.5 shows the effluent cBOD for the previous three years. The three-year average is 43 mg/L, and the last one-year average is 39 mg/L. Figure 1.6 shows effluent TSS for the same period. The three-year average is 33 mg/L, and the last one-year average is 32 mg/L. This model provides the basis for predicting effluent parameters for the Phase 11 annual average and maximum month flow rates.

DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:\Client\S_Maria_SDO\7317A00\DIv\Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-12

Figure 1.3 Cumulative Influent Biochemical Oxygen Demand 2000 - 2005 DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-13

Figure 1.4 Cumulative Influent Total Suspended Solids 2000 - 2005 DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-14

Table 1.5 Process Input Parameters for WWTP Model Calibration Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Parameter Unit Value
Wastewater Upstream of Septage
• Annual Average Wastewater Flow mgd 8.52
• Five -Day cBOD (before septage addition) mg/L 282
• Soluble cBOD Fraction % 43
• TSS (before septage addition) mg/L 299 (1)
• TSS Volatile Fraction % 80
• Design Temperature °C 21.5
Septage
• Septage Volume mgd 0.052
• Septage Five -Day cBOD mg/L 7,000
• Septage Soluble cBOD Fraction °Ao 50
• Septage TSS mg/L 4,267
• Septage Volatile TSS Fraction % 75
Total Wastewater and Septage
• Flow mgd 8.57
• Five -Day cBOD mg/L 323
• Soluble cBOD Fraction % 44
• Total Suspended Solids mg/L 323
• TSS Volatile Fraction °Ao 80
Internal Flows and Recycle Rates
• Pumped Primary Trickling Filter Flow mgd 11.4
• Recycle Flow to Primary Clarifier mgd 6.0
• Intermediate Clarifier Flow mgd 5.4
• Pumped Secondary Trickling Filter Flow mgd 23.0
(1) Assumed value. Measured TSS data not reliable.
(2) Septage values assumed so total influent cBOD and TSS matches measured values.

DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-15

Figure 1.5 Effluent cBOD Concentration October 2002 to September 2005 DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-16

Figure 1.6 Effluent TSS Concentration October 2002 to September 2005 DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-17

WWTP Predicted Capacity of Current Facilities
The calibrated model was used to predict the maximum flow to the WWTP while treating the wastewater to a level that remains within the WDR permitted discharge requirements.

Calculations must allow for peaks by determining an average effluent concentration lower than the maximum permitted concentration. This analysis was based on a statistically derived annual average effluent cBOD limit. The WWTP effluent must not exceed this value to limit violations to no more than one in a three-year period. This is a derived value and does not represent a regulated effluent limit. Waste Discharge Requirements state that the effluent cBOD monthly mean shall not exceed 60 mg/L.

The statistical analysis used effluent cBOD measurements for the period of November 2002 to September 2005. The measured effluent cBOD for October 2002 was 66 mg/L as shown in Figure 1.5. This high value is attributed to a process upset the WWTP was experiencing during this period and was excluded from the analysis. This was due to accumulation of solids in the primary clarifier and gravity thickeners. The ratio of each monthly effluent cBOD value to the average of all the values is plotted cumulatively to show the probability that value has not been exceeded. This plot is shown in Figure 1.7. The ratio of monthly cBOD to annual average cBOD that corresponds to the point at the 96th percentile is slightly above 1.2. The 96th percentile represents that for which only one effluent value exceeds the limit in a three-year period. For this analysis, the value of 1.25 was used. The effluent cBOD monthly mean cannot exceed 60 mg/L without causing a violation, so statistically, the average cBOD should not exceed 60 mg/L divided by 1.25. This equals 48 mg/L. Statistically, this represents the annual average effluent cBOD concentration while the maximum month concentration would be 60 mg/L. Using the calibrated model and maintaining the septage contribution to 0.052 mgd, the WWTP raw influent flow was increased until the effluent cBOD concentration reached 48 mg/L. This occurred at a flow of

9.5 mgd. The total WWTP influent including septage was 9.55 mgd. Figure 1.8 shows the annual average flows from Years 2000 to 2005 projected to the period corresponding to

9.55 mgd, which is early 2009. Thus, the model predicts the WWTP can treat a total influent flow of 9.55 mgd while statistically exceeding the cBOD monthly mean effluent limit only once in a three-year period. This indicates that the Phase 11 expansion project should start construction during Year 2007 or early 2008.

DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:\Client\S_Maria_SDO\7317A00\DIv\Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-18

Figure 1.7 Cumulative Plot of the Ratio of Monthly cBOD to Annual Average cBOD November 2002 to September 2005
DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-19

Figure 1.8 Projection of Annual Average Flow to Flow at Predicted Capacity DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-20

PHASE II DESIGN ANALYSIS
The Phase II WWTP expansion will increase the maximum month capacity to 13.5 mgd.

The projection of the Figure 1.1 trend line based on the maximum month flows for the previous five years is given in Figure 1.9. It crosses 13.5 mgd during Year 2023. The Utility Plan Update, Water and Sewer Section, dated May 2002 indicates that the City will be built out by Year 2020 with a population of 118,000. It also projects the annual average wastewater flow to be 11.7 mgd. Using the peak month factor of 1.08, the maximum month flow would be 12.6 mgd. The trend line in Figure 1.9 crosses 12.6 mgd in mid 2019. This indicates that the City is growing at the rate anticipated or slightly higher. If the City continues to grow at this rate, the Phase II design capacity of 13.5 mgd will be sufficient to meet its wastewater treatment requirements.

Loading Factors

13.5 mgd represents the maximum month design capacity of the WWTP. This represents

1.08 times the annual average flow, which would equal 12.5 mgd. Annual average cBOD and TSS loadings expressed in pounds per day (lb/day) were determined using the process model calibration concentrations of 317 mg/L and 320 mg/L, respectively. These include the septage contribution. In order to define the design concentrations for cBOD and TSS for maximum month, the ratio of maximum month to average loadings must be determined.

This is referred to as the loading factor ratio for cBOD and TSS. Figure 1.10 shows the monthly cBOD loadings in pounds per day from January 2000 through September 2005. It also highlights the three highest values for each year. Trend lines through each set of data points indicates that even as the cBOD loading generally increases as flow increases, the maximum monthly values are slightly decreasing. The loading factor ratio is 1.18. Figure

1.11 provides results of a similar analysis for TSS for the same period. This figure shows that the data is more variable from month -to -month. The trends for both the average monthly and maximum monthly values increase over time. Removing the two highest values from the maximum monthly trend slightly lowers the loading factor ratio, but the trend continues to increase. Thus, no values were removed from the analysis, and the ratio is 1.28.

Table 1.6 provides the results of calculations using the ratios for both cBOD and TSS.

These results are used as input for the Phase II process model for both the annual average and maximum month conditions. Table 1.7 provides specific information including values before and after septage addition. The Phase II models include an additional 145 -foot diameter primary clarifier, a 60 -foot diameter primary trickling filter, a 50 -foot diameter digester and associated pumping equipment and piping. The model output is provided in Appendix A.

DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-21

Figure 1.9 Projection of Maximum Monthly Flow to Phase II Design Capacity DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-22

Figure 1.10 Influent cBOD Loading Trends 2000 - 2005
DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-23

Figure 1.11 Influent TSS Loading Trends 2000 - 2005
DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-24

Table 1.6 Influent cBOD and TSS Values for Phase II Design Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Parameter
Unit
Annual
Average
Maximum
Month
• Influent Flow Rate including Septage
• cBOD Loading
• Five -Day cBOD
• TSS Loading
• Total Suspended Solids
mgd
lb/day
mg/L
lb/day
mg/L

12.5 33,050
317
33,360
320

13.5 39,000(1)
346
42,700(1)
380
(1) Annual average value multiplied by the loading factor ratio.

Table 1.7
Influent Wastewater Parameters before and after Septage Addition for Phase II Design
Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Parameter Unit
Annual Maximum
Average Month
Wastewater Upstream of Septage
• Annual Average Wastewater Flow mgd 12.45
• Five -Day cBOD (before septage addition) mg/L 284
• Soluble cBOD Fraction °Ao 43
• TSS (before septage addition) mg/L 273
• TSS Volatile Fraction °Ao 80
• Design Temperature °C 22
Septage
• Septage Volume mgd 0.052 0.052
• Septage Five -Day cBOD mg/L 8,500 8,500
• Septage Soluble cBOD Fraction °Ao 50 50
• Septage TSS mg/L 12,000 12,000
• Septage Volatile TSS Fraction % 67 67
Total Wastewater and Septage
• Flow mgd 12.5 13.5
• Five -Day cBOD mg/L 318 346
• Soluble cBOD Fraction °Ao 44 44
• Total Suspended Solids mg/L 322 380

13.45 314
43 335
80 25
DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-25

Table 1.7
Influent Wastewater Parameters before and after Septage Addition for Phase II Design
Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Parameter Unit
Annual Maximum
Average Month
• TSS Volatile Fraction % 78 78
Internal Flows and Recycle Rates
• Pumped Primary Trickling Filter No. 1 Flow mgd 11.7 11.7 • Pumped Primary Trickling Filter No. 2 Flow mgd 6.0 6.0 • Recycle Flow to Primary Clarifier mgd 7.8 7.8
• Intermediate Clarifier Flow mgd 3.9 3.9
• Pumped Secondary Trickling Filter Flow mgd 23.0 23.0
Septage values for design purposes are higher than reported in Table 1.5 for the process model calibration. These values better represent those found in the literature for septage waste. Results from the process analysis for the maximum month condition indicate that the effluent cBOD and TSS are 52 mg/L and 39 mg/L, respectively. The annual average values are 44 mg/L and 31 mg/L, respectively. The annual average cBOD value of 48 mg/L was previously derived through a statistical analysis to limit effluent violations to one in a three- year period. The annual average cBOD value of 44 mg/L does not exceed this value. This indicates the proposed facilities are adequate to treat flows up to a maximum month value of 13.5 mgd.

Solids Handling
Currently, sludge from one Primary Clarifier and one intermediate clarifier is pumped to two Gravity Thickeners before being stabilized in anaerobic digesters. The pumping rate to the Gravity Thickeners is 300 gpm, 24 hours per day. The Phase]] expansion will add one new Primary Trickling Filter and Primary Clarifier, so the volume of flow to the thickeners will double to 600 gpm. No additional thickening facilities are planned for the Phase 11 expansion project. Based on records from the Operations staff, approximately 40,000 to 45,000 gpd thickened sludge is currently pumped to the anaerobic digesters. This value is predicted to increase to approximately 76,000 gpd for the Phase II maximum month condition. The current digester detention time is approximately 18 days, which is approaching the 15 day detention time requirement for Class B digested solids. Thus, a new digester of size equal to Digester 1 is planned for the Phase II expansion. Table 1.8 provides both raw and digested solids parameters for Phase 11 annual average and maximum month conditions.

DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:\Client\S_Maria_SDO\7317A00\DIv\Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-26

Table 1.8
Raw and Digested Solids Parameters for Phase II Design
Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II Expansion
City of Santa Maria
Parameter Unit
Annual Maximum
Average Month
Raw Solids Feed to Digesters
• Thickened Sludge Flow gpd 61,000 76,000
• Solids Content % 6.3 6.3
• Total Solids Ib/day 32,000 40,100
• Volatile Fraction % 78 78
• Volatile Solids Ib/day 24,700 31,100
Digested Solids
• Digested Sludge Flow mgd 61,000 76,000
• Solids Content °Ao 3.9 3.9
• Total Solids Ib/day 19,600 24,500
• Volatile Solids Reduction % 50 50
• Volatile Solids Destroyed Ib/day 12,400 15,600
Sludge Drying Beds
There are currently 17 sand drying beds with an area of approximately 10.3 acres. The City is constructing four more that will increase the total area to 12.1 acres. Based on 10.3 acres, the current loading rate on the beds is 11.3 pounds of dry solids per square foot per year (Ib DS/sf/yr). Based on 12.1 acres, the loading rate drops to 9.5 Ib DS/sf/yr. New beds will be required for the Phase II expansion. It is recommended the beds be constructed with an asphalt surface with sand strips. The beds would be separated by block walls and include some method for decanting the liquid surface after the sludge has been allowed to settle. Each bed would be sized to hold the average daily drawdown of one digester with a 6 -inch maximum depth of sludge in the bed. An additional 12 beds can be constructed at Percolation Pond 1 encompassing an area of approximately nine acres. Figure 1.12 shows a potential drying bed layout. Including both current and new beds, the turn -around time for each bed will be increased to approximately one month. Each new bed will be 120 feet by 180 feet. For a maximum depth of six inches, this will provide enough volume for the required draw down of one digester for one day during at the WWTP capacity of 13.5 mgd.

DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-27

Figure 1.12 Proposed Sludge Drying Bed Location
DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1ClientlS_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv1Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-28

Dewatering Alternatives
Mechanical methods are available including belt filter presses or high-speed centrifugation.

Centrifuges typically achieve higher solids content cake due to the high centrifugal force developed in the centrifuge bowl. A belt press typically achieves a dewatered sludge concentration of 16% to 18% solids by weight, and a centrifuge can achieve up to 25% solids by weight. Higher solids content translates to a lower disposal cost. Centrifuges, on the other hand, have higher polymer and electrical requirements than belt presses.

Two reports were prepared by Carollo Engineers in February 2003 for the City of Santa Maria. These are entitled, 1) Sludge Dewatering, and 2) Septage Receiving and Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment. These reports considered an increase in septage volume to the WWTP, which required additional solids handling facilities. A comparison between sludge drying beds and centrifugation based on annual equivalent cost showed the sludge drying beds to be more cost effective. Although criteria for the facilities considered in these reports are different than those considered here, the conclusion is still valid. Capital costs for both the drying beds and a 200 gpm centrifuge facility are approximately the same, but the centrifuge system has annual costs that would not be associated with drying beds.

These include:
• Power costs,
• Polymer costs,
• Maintenance costs, and
• Increased operations costs.

Disposal costs may or may not be more for the centrifuge system. Centrifuge cake is typically 22% to 25% solids. The City's drying bed cake typically reaches 85% solids. Thus, the centrifuge cake volume would be over three times the volume of the drying bed cake resulting in higher disposal costs. On the other hand, the cake from the existing drying beds contains sand, which increases the disposal cost if the cake is composted. The proposed drying beds will not have this problem because the bed surface will be asphalt rather than sand. Thus, it is recommended to install drying beds rather than a mechanical dewatering system.

DRAFT - June 30, 2022
H:1Client1S_Maria_SDO17317A001DIv\Dm\Chapl Basis of Design.doc 1-29

APPENDIX D
Influent Wastewater Characteristics
(2011-2021)
Santa Maria WWTP Engineering Report August 5, 2022

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand (CBOD) 2021 Date
Influent
TSS
Monthl\
Influent Monthly
CBOD Average
.I:kN 6 433 432
13 463 448 418 425
FEB 3 421 375
17 386 404 344 360
MAR 3 358 370
17 410 384 400 385
APR 7 437 350
21 388 413 280 315
MAY 12 418 418 330 330
JUN 2 357 340
16 398 378 371 356
7 368 368 386 386
AUG 4 343 361
18 330 337 386 374
SEP 6 517 424
27 378 378 440 440
OCT 6 395 449
20 467 467 411 411
NOV 3 362 301
17 351 357 302 302
DEC 8 427 379
22 453 427 415 379
Annual Average: 403
376
700
600
500
400
300
200
Influent TSS & CBOD: Bi-Monthly Analysis
Influent TSS
JAN PIfl3 MAR :APR MAY JUN
Influent CBOD

AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
(Minimum testing requirement is once a month.)

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary for Nitrogen Species
Influent
Total Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite
2021 Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen
(mg/L) (ml ) (mid) (mgt)
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Iv
a JAN 80 59 <0.40 <0.40 80
u
Iv
b APR 54 54 <0.40 <0.40 54
C
N
JUL 65 43 <0.40 <0.40 65
e
M
OCT 69 51 <0.40 <0.40 69
v
90 80
70 60
50 E 40
30 20
10 0
Average 67 52 <0.40 <0.40 67
SO
54 Influent Nitrogen Species
■ JAN ■ APR JUL ■ OCT
65 69
59 54 51
43 80
—54
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65 69
Total Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Total Kjeldahl (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) Nitrogen (mg/L)

Section C: Flow Evaluation (Treatment Plant Capacity)
Annual Influent Flow Monitoring Sumnmry
2021
Influent Parameters
Influent Flow Average (MGD)
Influent Flow Max (MGD)
13 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg Total MG 4th Quarter Annual

6.62 6.78 6.96

9.29 7.25 7.40

6.61 6.65 7.31

7.80 7.60 8.00

7.47 7.29 7.18

8.06 7.72 7.64

7.18 6.81 6.56

8.47 7.53 7.96

6.95 2537.74
City of Santa Maria WWTP Influent Flow Monitoring
Monthly Average Influent MGD Monthly Max Influent MGD
11 0
9 c 7
5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Wastewater Treatment Plant Key Design Parameters
Parameter
Unit
Design
Annual
Average
Design
Maximum
Month
2021 Annual
Average
2021
Maximum
Month
2025 Annual
Average2
Influent flow'
ingd

12.5 13.5

6.95 7.47

7.51 cBOD
lb/day
33,050
39,000
22,801
24,048
24,680
TSS
lb/day
33,360
42,700
23,301
27,405
25,221
WWTP Monthly Avg MGD Capacity
1 Includes Septage
2 Assumes 2% growth per year
The City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant will not reach design capacity in the next four years per the calculation shown in the table above.

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD) 700
600
500
400
300
200
JAN 1 1 13 MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2020 Date
Influent
TSS
Nlonthl),
AN cr:Igc
Influent Monthly
CBOD Average
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
8 22
5 19
4 18
1 15
6 21
3 17
8 22
5 26
9 30
14 28
4 25
9 23
389
373
428
381
358
291
339
457
361
483
353
386
379
378
348
350
333
338
469
378
379
374
361
359
381
4115
325
398
422
370
379
349
336
424
377
361
379
352
498
401
429
339
400
431
389
473
430
413
417
405
424
428
397
446
500
389
451
344
362
422
366
450
384
416
431
422
411
426
422
445
398
362
Annual Average: 377
413
Influent TSS & CBOD: Bi-Monthly Analysis
Influent TSS — Influent CBOD
(Minimum testing requirement is once a month.)

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary for Nitrogen Species
Influent
Total Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite
2020 Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen
(mg/L) (ml ) (mid) (mgt)
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Iv
a JAN 70 52 <0.40 <0.40 70
u
APR 78 56 <0.40 <0.40 78
JUL 73 50 <0.40 <0.40 73
e
M
OCT 77 43 <0.40 <0.40 77
v
90 80
70 60
50 E 40
30 20
10 0
Average 75 50 <0.40 <0.40 75
70 1
Influent Nitrogen Species
78 77 ■ JAN
73 ■ APR JUL ■ OCT
56 70
78 77
73 Total Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Total Kjeldahl (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) Nitrogen (mg/L)

Section C: Flow Evaluation (Treatment Plant Capacity)
Annual Influent Flow Monitoring Summary
2020
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Annual
Influent Parameters Jan Feb Mar A.r Ma Jun Jul Au Se. Oct Nov Dec Av ' Total MG Influent Flow Average (MGD) 6.56 7.00 7.39 I 6.92 7.03 7.58 7.49 7.85 7.86 7.75 7.34 6.86 7.30 2673.16 Influent Flow Max(MGD) 7.16 7.59 9.32 1 8.12 7.77 8.44 8.05 8.84 8.48 9.56 8.28 7.59 13 11
0 µ, 9
7 5
City of Santa Maria WWTP Influent Flow Monitoring
->lonthh- Average Influent MGD
-Monthly Max Influent MGD
-WWTP Monthly Avg MGD Capacity
Jar
I eh Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep
Oct
Nov Dec
Wastewater Treatment Plant Key Design Parameters
Parameter
Unit
Design
Annual
Average
Design
Maximum
Month
2020 Annual
Average
2020
Maximum
Month
2024 Annual
Average2
Influent flow'
mgd

12.5 13.5

7.30 8.97

8.30 cBOD
lb/day
33,050
39,000
25,144
26,271
23,823
TSS
lb/day
33,360
42,700
22,953
27,405
23,421
1 Includes Septage
2 Assumes 2% growth per year
The City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant will not reach design capacity in the next four years per the calculation shown in the table above.

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD) 700
600
500
400
300
200
2019 Date
Influent \lont!II Influent Monthly
TSS Average CBOD Average
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
1/9 477 432
1/23 498 488 425 429
2/6 386 432
2/20 436 411 412 422
3/6 403 383
3/20 440 422 390 387
4/3 355 378
4/17 453 404 386 382
5/8 426 398
5/23 423 425 349 374
6/5 395 459
6/19 434 415 376 418
7/10 425 487
7/24 404 415 408 448
8/7 357 417
8/21 406 382 412 415
9/4 404 442
9/18 450 427 534 488
10/11 427 500
10/23 346 387 386 443
11/6 374 420
11/27 456 415 377 399
12/11 382 373
12/26 451 417 404 389
Annual Average: 417 416
Influent TSS & CBOD: Bi-Monthly Analysis
Influent TSS Influent CBOD

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
(Minimum testing requirement is once a month.)

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary for Nitrogen Species
Influent
Total Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite
2019 Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Iv
a JAN 80 54 <0.40 <0.40 80
u
Iv
b APR 78 51 <0.40 <0.40 78
C
N
JUL 69 48 <0.40 <0.40 69
e
M
90 80
70 60
50 E 40
30 20
10 0
OCT 74 51 <0.40 <0.40 74
Average 75 51 <0.40 <0.40 75
80 78
Influent Nitrogen Species
■ JAN ■ APR JUL ■ OCT
80 78
Total Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Total Kjeldahl (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Nitrogen (mg/L)

Section C: Flow Evaluation (Treatment Plant Capacity)
Influent And Effluent Annual Monitoring Sunrmry
2019
I s t Quarter
2nd Quarter
Influent Parameters Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Influent Flow Average (MGD) 6.49 6.63 6.65
Influent FlowMax(MGD) 8.97 7.42 8.18
13 6.21 6.74 6.97

7.49 7.33 7.44
3rd Quarter
Jul Aug Sep

6.87 6.84 6.74

7.32 7.36 7.78
City of Santa Maria WWTP Influent Flow Monitoring
4th Quarter
Annual
Oct Nov Dec Avg Total MG

7.19 7.31 6.97

7.86 7.90 7.60

6.80 2476.15
q^ Monthly Average Influent MGD Monthly Max Influent MGD WWTP Monthly Avg MGD Capacity 011
9 8
a 60
7:42 9�9.�J=rdd--93z-ra6�'�75-7:86�7.3�
7 6.63 6.65-__�6:i1 G $7 G.$4 -6:74 7-i9 �6 y7

6.44 5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Wastewater Treatment Plant Key Design Parameters
Parameter
Unit
Design
Annual
Average
Design
Maximum
Month
2019 Annual
Average
2019
Maximum
Month
2023 Annual
Average2
Influent flow)
mgd

12.5 13.5

6.80 8.97

8.17 cBOD
lb/day
33,050
39,000
23,592
27,433
22,826
TSS
lb/day
33,360
42,700
23,649
26,404
22,962
2 Includes Septage
2 Assumes 2% growth per year
The City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant will not reach design capacity in the next four years per the calculation shown in the table above.

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand (CBOD) 700
600
500
400
300
200
2018 Date
Influent monthlc influent Monthly
TSS era<gc (130D Average
.1:k.\
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
1/3 362
1/17 440
2/7 315
2/21 319
3/7 348
3/27 314
4/4 344
4/18 330
5/2 458
5/16 376
6/6 430
6/20 363
7/11 392
7/25 383
8/8 422
8/22 403
9/5 453
9/19 392
10/3 441
10/17 448
11/7 671
11/21 511
12/5 460
12/19 376
401
317
331
337
417
397
388
413
423
445
591
418
391
375
383
384
428
313
324
374
419
376
437
434
439
419
434
457
478
426
420
389
378
471
502
390
383
384
371
349
398
436
429
446
452
405
425
446
J
Annual Average: 406
410
Influent TSS & CBOD: Bi-Monthly Analysis
Influent TSS
Influent CBOD
0N
FEB
MAR

APR MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG

SEP OCT
NOV
DEC
(Minimum testing requirement is once a month.)

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary for Nitrogen Species
Influent
Total Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite
2018 Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
1'otal
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
(mg4)
Iv
a JAN 73 47 <0.40 <0.40 73
u
Iv
b APR 77 52 <0.40 <0.40 77
C
N
JUL 80 51 <0.40 <0.40 80
e
M
90 80
70 60
50 ;.t
c 40
30 20
10 0
OCT 68 42 0.46 <0.40 67
Average 75 48 0.5 <0.1 74
77 80
Influent Nitrogen Species
• JAN
68 ■ APR
JUL
■ OCT 77 80
0 0.0 0.0 0.46 0 0 0 0
73 67
Total Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Total Kjeldahl (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) Nitrogen (mg/L)

Section C: Flow Evaluation (Treatment Plant Capacity)
2018
Influent Annual Monitoring Summary
Influent Parameters Jan Feb Mar
Influent Flow Average (MGD) 7.93 8.46 8.09
Influent Flow Max(MGD) 9.00 9.50 9.20
Influent Flow (MGD)
13 11
9 7
5 Apr May Jun

7.68 6.27 7.13

8.17 9.10 7.77
Jul Aug Sep

7.57 7.67 7.37

8.24 8.28 7.92
Oct Nov Dec

7.35 6.88 6.36

8.04 9.72 6.96
City of Santa Maria WWTP Influent Flow Monitoring
Avg TotaIMG

7.40 2697.54
Monthly Average Influent MGD Monthly Max Influent MGD WWTP Monthly Avg MGD Capacity Jan Feb Mar Apr \lat\ Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Wastewater Treatment Plant Key Design Parameters
Parameter
Unit
Design
Annual
Average
Design
Maximum
Month
2018
Annual
Average
2018
Maximum
Month
2022
Annual
Average2
Influent flow'
mgd

12.5 13.5

7.40 8.46

8.01 cBOD
lb/day
33,050
39,000
20,675
27,094
22,379
TSS
lb/day
33,360
42,700
20,798
22,366
22,512
' Includes Septage
2 Assumes 2% growth per year
The City of Santa Maria Wastewater Treatment Plant will not reach design capacity in the next four years per the calculation shown above.

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand (CBOD) 2017 Date

TSS CBOD
(mgt-) (mgt-)
JAN 1/4 354 322
1/18 329 335
FEB 2/8 353 341
2/22 387 387
MAR 3/8 333 335
3/22 329 340
APR 4/12 376 335
4/26 302 342
MAY 5/10 337 330
5/25 379 344
JUN 6/7 274 399
6/21 336 416
JUL 7/5 296 356
7/19 315 418
AUG 8/2 300 465
8/16 333 428
SEP 9/6 290 398
9/20 325 409
OCT 10/4 310 437
10/18 329 447
NOV 11/1 327 343
11/15 311 351
DEC 12/6 328 368
12/21 370 433
Annual Average:
330 378
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
Influent TSS & CBOD: Bi-Monthly Analysis
—TSS —CBOD

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
(Minimum testing requirement is once a month.)

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary for Nitrogen Species
Influent
Total Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite
2017 Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen
(mg/L) (mg/14 (mg/L) (mg/L)
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
(mgt)
Iv
a JAN 55 53 <0.1 <0.1 55
u
Iv
b APR 62 61 0.1 <0.1 62
C
N
JUL 71 69 0.1 <0.1 71
e
M
80 70
60 50
40 30
20 10
0 OCT 53 58 <0.1 <0.1 53
Average 60 60 0.1 <0.1 60
55 {
62 Influent Nitrogen Species
71 ■ JAN 69 ■ APR JUL o OCT
61 58
53 53
0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 0 0 0
55 1
62 1
71 53
Total Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Total Kjeldahl (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) Nitrogen (mg/L)

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand (CBOD) 2016 Date TSS CBOD
JAN 1/6 366 450
1/20 318 364
FEB 2/3 274 345
2/17 301 302
MAR 3/2 293 353
3/23 317 378
APR 4/6 341 360
4/20 343 389
MAY 5/4 469 392
5/18 327 383
JUN 6/15 489 489
6/29 428 428
JUL 7/13 281 435
7/27 258 431
AUG 8/13 387 423
8/27 297 366
SEP 9/7 306 419
9/21 344 492
OCT 10/19 377 404
NOV 11/2 316 396
11/16 316 348
DEC 12/6 333 331
12/22 369 364
600
550
500
450
-61i 400
350
300
250
200
Annual Average:
341 393
Influent TSS & CBOD: 2016 Bi-Monthly Analysis
—TSS
CBOD
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP off NOV DEC
(Minimum testing reguirement is once a month.)

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Influent Annual Summary for Nitrogen Species
Influent
Total Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite
2016 Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitorgen Nitrogen
Img/LI Img/LI Img/LI 1mg/LI
Total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
a JAN 33 30 <0.1 <0.1 33
Vi
APR 55 43 0.1 <0.1 55
N
a JUL 38 44 0.1 <0.1 38
e
M
a OCT 50 41 0.2 <0.1 50
Average 44 40 0.1 <0.1 44
Influent Nitrogen Species
80 70 JAN APR JUL OCT
60 55 55
50 50 43 44
38 41
40 33 30 33
30 20
10 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0
0 38
50 Total Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen Nitrate Nitorgen Nitrite Nitrogen Total Kjeldahl [mg/11 [mg/1..] [mg/L] [mg/11 Nitrogen [mg/11

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL COAST REGION Specifically Ordered Influent Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order No. R3-2010-0001)
(Minimum testing reguirement is once a month.)
,2015
Total
Suspended
CBOD Solids
Math DAY (ma/1) (mg/1)
JAN 1/14/2015 308 291
1/28/2015 341 305
FEB 2/11/2015 365 366
2/25/2015 238 304
MAR 3/11/2015 350 386
3/25/2015 320 318
APR 4/15/2015 330 348
4/22/2015 391 371
MAY 5/13/2015 343 333
5/21/2015 353 356
JUN 6/3/2015 354 307
6/17/2015 553 480
JUL 7/8/2015 452 492
7/22/2015 454 384
AUG 8/5/2015 376 363
8/19/2015 387 354
SEP 9/9/2015 404 338
9/23/2015 318 289
OCT 10/7/2015 471 286
10/21/2015 386 214
NOV 11/4/2015 335 301
11/18/2015 362 329
DEC 12/1/2015 312 318
12/16/2015 357 322
Average: 369
340
600
550
500
450
13) 400
350
300
250
200
Monthly Influent CBOD & TSS

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2015
-•-CBOD (mg/I) -Total Suspended Solids

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL COAST REGION Specifically Ordered Influent Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order No. R3-2010-0001)
2015
Influent
Total Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite
Day/ Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen TKN
Month (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
JAN 64 35.0 <0.1 <0.2 64
APR 68 49 <0.1 <0.1 68
JUL 84 51 0.1 <0.1 84
OCT 53 43 0.1 <0.1 53
Average: 67.3

44.5 0.1
<0.1

67.3 90
80 70
60 50
E 40
30 20
10 0
JAN
Quarterly Influent Total Nitrogen & Species
APR
2015
JUL
OTotal Nitrogen QAmmonia Nitrogen !Nitrate Nitrogen ONitrite Nitrogen ■TKN OCT

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL COAST REGION Specifically Ordered Influent Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order No. R3-2010-0001)
(Minimum testing requirement is once a month.)
2914
Total
Suspended
CBOD Solids
Mouth Mix (mg/11 (mg/11
JAN 3 470 588
15 491 630
29 360 336
FEB 12 514 398
26 441 592
MAR 12 441 198
26 419 595
APR 9 501 667
23 438 594
MAY 7 483 690
21 590 671
JUN 4 536 662
18 453 539
JUL 2 425 526
16 508 615
AUG 13 460 433
27 307 302
SEP 10 630 656
24 583 423
OCT 8 398 480
22 329 281
NOV 5 366 335
19 353 276
DEC 3 240 275
17 370 309
Average: 444 483
Monthly Influent CBOD & TSS
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 JAN

FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
2014
-.-CBOD (mg/I) —Total Suspended Solids 1

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL COAST REGION Specifically Ordered Influent Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order No. R3-2010-0001)
2014
Influent
Total Ammonia Nitrate Nitrite
Day/ Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen Nitrogen TKN
Month (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (ma/11 (mall)
JAN 81 47.4 <0.1 <0.1 81
APR 69 26.9 <0.1 <0.1 69
JUL 77 38 8.8 0.2 68
OCT 77 40 <0.1 <0.1 77
Average: 76.0 38.1 8.8 0.2 73.8
Quarterly Influent Total Nitrogen & Species
90 80
70 60
50 iBb
E 40
30 20
10 0
JAN
APR
JUL
OCT
2014
oTotal Nitrogen •Ammonia Nitrogen •Nitrate Nitrogen °Nitrite Nitrogen ■TKN i --I

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL COAST REGION Specifically Ordered Influent Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order No. R3-2010-0001)
(Minimum testing reguirement is once a month.)
2013
Total
Suspended
CBOD Solids
Month PAX (mg/1) (ma/1)
JAN 5 360
19 355
FEB 6 242
20 210
MAR 6 332
20 299
APR 3 310
17 318
MAY 1 278
23 420
JUN 12 310
JUL 2 326
24 499
AUG 7 310
21 306
SEP 4 270
18 326
OCT 2 393
16 316
30 340
NOV 13 332
26 340
DEC 11 319
600
500
400
E 300
200
Average: 327
400
367
357
274
210
261
290
366
392
517
299
314
464
307
264
300
262
325
340
287
369
277
321
329
Monthly Influent CBOD & TSS
a-
1'.

FEB MAR APR MAY JURIUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-•- CBOD (mg/I) t Total Suspended Solids

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL COAST REGION Specifically Ordered Influent Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order No. R3-2010-0001)
(Minimum testing reguirement is once a month.)
2012
Total
Suspended
BOD Solids
Month DAY (mq/l) (mg/1)
JAN 11 280 230
FEB 15 329 240
29 275 196
MAR 14 280 200
28 298 281
APR 11 261 207
25 370 350
MAY 9 337 280
23 260 294
JUN 6 370 394
JUL 6 334 298
18 365 308
24 298 349
AUG 22 297 305
SEP 5 351 481
19 460 700
OCT 3 400 860
17 659 364
NOV 20 461 1030
DEC 5 360 400
19 355 367
Average: 352 387
Monthly Influent BOD & TSS
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 JAN
JUL
2012

SEP OCT NOV
BOD (mg/I) —II— Total Suspended Solids1

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL COAST REGION Specifically Ordered Influent Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order. No. R3-2010-0001)
(Minimum testing reguirement is once a month.)
2011
Total
Suspended
BOD Solids
Month PAY (mJj) f W 11
JAN 4 344 279
FEB 2 373 309
16 354 251
MAR 2 318 201
16 364 283
30 219 238
APR 20 255 193
MAY 4 389 250
JUN 8 394 227
JUL 6 364 168
AUG 3 398 226
SEP 7 353 242
OCT 5 415 297
19 279 260
26 380 290
NOV 2 302 190
16 242 240
30 310 130
DEC 14 261 291
450
400
350
300
c 250
E 200
150 -
100
50 0
JAN
Average: 332
Monthly Influent BOD & TSS

APR JUN AUG OCT
DEC
2011
240
-� BOD (mg/I) - - Total Suspended Solids

2011 ANNUAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PERFORMED BY FGL LABORATORIES, INC.
(Certification No.1563)

INFLUENT
(Sampled 1/5/1 I & 1/11/11)
(Only species found above the detection limit are reported.) Method 200.7
Boron 0.3 mg/I
Iron 1.04 mg/1
Method 200.8
Aluminum 1.17 mg/I
Barium 0.0468 mg/1
Cadmium 0.0004 mg/I
Chromium 0.002 mg/1
Cobalt 0.0006 mg/I
Copper 0.063 mg/I
Lead 0.0028 mg/1
Lithium 0.007 mg/I
Manganese 0.0278 mg/1
Molybdenum 0.003 mg/1
Nickel 0.003 mg/I
Vanadium 0.003 mg/I
Zinc 0.22 mg/I
Method 245.1
Mercury 0.08 ug/1
Method 4500-P E
Phosphorous, Total 7.4 mg/1
Method 9010B
Fluoride 0.2 mg/1
Method 624
Acetone 430 ug/I
Bromodichloromethane 4.6 ug/I
Bromoform 2.0 ug/I
Dibromochloromethane 4.7 ug/1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.9 ug/1
Chloroform 8.8 ug/I
Toluene 0.9 ug/I
Method 625
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate 11 ug/1
Diethylphthalate 6 ug/I
Phenol 22 ug/I

APPENDIX E
Monitoring Well Construction Diagrams
Santa Maria WWTP Engineering Report August 5, 2022

WELL NUMBER DMW-2
JO8 NUMBER
SB 98216
CLIENT: CITY OF SANTA MARIA
LOCATION: WASTE WATER PLANT
PAGE
1 OF 1
03 w
Cr
ELEVATION:
155' MSL
DRILLING METHOD:
12' H S AUGER
SURFACE CONDITIONS:

FILL SOIL - BERM
SAMPUNG METHOD:

SPT
CASING SIZE AND TYPE: 4' SCHEDULE 80 PVC
SCREEN SIZE AND TYPE: 4• SCHEDULE BO PVC
W1TH 0.020
FILTER PACK: LONE STAR 03 SAND •SLOTS

SAMPLE INFORMATION

DEPTH SAMPLE
(FEET) INT.
0--
5 10
15 20
- L
25 30 z
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 �s
70 75 -�
80 85 1 _
90 95 --
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140 —
145 —
150 —
155 —
160 —

BLOWS PER
FOOT
WELL

DETAILS
LOCKING COVEn

PVC CAP ,
„
30 18
16 25
18 22
23 14
21 22
18 10
12 12
26 20
24 30
54 24
29 21
17 24
17 PVC BOTTOM CAP
SOIL

PROFILE
START DATE: 1/6/99 TIME: 12:00 NOON
FINISH DATE: 1/7/99 TIME: 4:00 P.M.

FIELD GEOLOGIST: RON GUTTER (CGI)
DRILLER: BEYLIK

SOIL DESCRIPTION
•
•
/ / i
1 I I
11111
iii
1� I I 1
Fill: Medium brown medium SAND, dry, loose.

Below 5' becomes slightly moist, asphalt fragments.

Below 9' becomes black, slight organic odor, minor clay.

Alluvium: Medium brown silty CLAY, moist, soft, minor gravel.

Cobbles at 17'.

Medium brown clayey SILT, slightly moist, soft.

Medium brown fine -medium SAND, molst, dense.

Below 30' medlum SAND.

Medium brown SILT, very moist, stiff.

Water at 36'.

Medium brown fine SAND, wet, dense.

Below 50' grades down to medlum SAND.

Medium brown clayey SILT, wet, stiff.

Medium brown medium SAND, wet, dense.

CENT uz Medium brown fine sandy SILT, wet, stiff.

CFNTnAUZEn
Medium brown medium SAND, wet, dense.

Gravel at 87' - 90',
No sample due to cobbles at 95'.

Below 110' becomes medlum-coarse SAND.

Below 120' contains gravel.

Below 121' grades down to coarse gravelly SAND.

Total Depth 135 feet.

WELL NUMBER DMW-1
JOB NUMBER CLIENT: CITY OF SANTA MANIA
SB 98216 LOCATION WASTE WATER
PLAN
T
PAGE
1 OF 1
d
rn
m
i
ELEVATION:
155' MSL
SURFACE CONDITIONS:

FILL SOIL - BERM
DRILLING METHOD:
12'HSAUGER
SAMPLING METHOD:

VISUAL

OBSERVATION

SAMPLE INFORMATION
DEPTH
(FEET)
SAMPLE
INT.
0 -
5 —
1 10 —
15 —
20 —
25 —
30 —
35 —
40 —
45 —
50 —
55 —
60 —
65 —
70 —
75 —
80 —
85 —
90 —
95 —
100 —
105 —
110 —
115 —
120 —
125 —
130 —
135 —
140 —
145 —
150 —
155 —
160 —

BLOWS PER
FOOT
LOCKING COVFf
WELL

DETAILS
CASING S ZE AND TYPE: 4' SCHEDULE 80 PVC
SCREEN SIZE AND TYPE: 4' SCHEDULE 80 PVC
WITH 0.020' SLOTS
FILTER PACK: LONE STAR 03 SAND
SOIL

PROFILE
START GATE: 1/4/99 TIME: 8:00 A.M.

FINISH DATE: 1/6/99 TIME: 11:30 A.M.

FIELD GEOLOGIST: RON GUTTER (CGI)
DRILLER: BEYLIK

SOIL DESCRIPTION
PVC CAP \�\�

PVC BOTTOM CAP
/ /
\ \ ••
I /' \\ \\ .•
I I / / .
\ \
I I\'\ .
• S.

I/ ISIS
\ \ \\"
I/ I /
\\
.\
/ I I /
• \\
`'•' I I
• \ \
I /
I I I\/\
\ \ \ \
/ I / I
\\ \\
/ I / I
• S. \

I I / /
.
. \ . \
\.I \
. .
\ \ /\.
. / //
.\ \\
/• I /• •.
\ \ .\/\
II //
• \ \\
▪ / ,\,\
-
• \ \\
/ I / /
\ \ \ \
/ I / /
\ \ \ \
/ I / /
\ \ \\
\'\' '\'\

I I / / -
. \ N.

I I / /
\ \\
I I e/
\ \ \ \
' ' ''
\\ \\
/ I / /
•• \ \

I I / /
\ \ \
/ I / /
\ \\
FIII: Medium brown medium SAND, slightly moist, loose.

Below 5' becomes dense.

Below 9' becomes black, slight organic odor.

Alluvium: Medium brown medium SAND, slightly molst, dense.

Becomes gravelly SAND at 25' - 27'.

Gravelly SAND at 30' - 35'.

Below 38' becomes very moist medium SAND.

Water at 42'.

Gravel at 99' - 105'.

Below 100' medlum brown medlum-coarse SAND, wet, dense.

Total Depth 138 feet.

BORING DMW-1A

JOB NUMBER
SB 98216
CLIENT: CITY OF SANTA MARIA
LOCATION: WASTE WATER PLANT
(15' n/o DMW-1)
PAGE
1 OF 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
t
a
1 ELEVATION:
155' MSL
SURFACE CONDrTIONS:

FILL SOIL - BERM
DRILLING METHOD:
12' H S AUGER
SAMPLING METHOD:

SPT
CASING SIZE AND TYPE: N/A
SCREEN SIZE AND TYPE: N/A FILTER PACK: N/A

ABANDONED HOLE USING GROUT/

BENTONITE SLURRY
START DATE: 12/29/98 TIME:1:00 P.M.

FINISH DATE: 12/30/98 TIME: 4:00 P.M.

FIELD GEOLOGIST: RON GUTIER (CGI)
DRILLER: BEYLIK

SAMPLE INFORMATION

DEPTH SAMPLE
(FEET) INT.

BLOWS PER
FOOT
WELL

DETAILS
SOIL

PROFILE

SOIL DESCRIPTION
0 —
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 •
70 —
75 —
80 85
90 95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
31 39
8 14
20 25
59 40
42 21
32 65
36 : 47
140 —
145 —
150 —
155 —
160 —
35 ..///
♦ ♦♦♦♦♦
/ / / / /
♦ ♦♦♦•♦
• ♦♦ ♦.
♦ ♦ ♦♦
♦ ♦♦♦♦♦
//
♦.♦ ♦♦
• ♦♦..♦
• •• ••
• ♦.♦..
.....
♦ ♦♦♦..
♦.♦.♦♦
..♦.♦♦
/ / / /
♦ ♦♦
......
......
. *, •
......
/ / /
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
/ / / / /
♦ ♦♦♦♦♦
/ / / / /
♦♦ ♦♦
♦.♦♦♦♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ S.
♦ ♦♦♦♦♦
♦ ♦♦♦.♦
• ♦.♦
• ♦.♦♦♦
♦♦
/../
• /./.
♦. ♦ •
. ♦• ♦ ♦♦ :'
• //.
• ♦.♦♦ •
.♦ .
♦ ♦♦♦♦ •
Alt: Medium brown silty medium SAND, slightly moist, loose.

Below 5' becomes dense.

Below 9' becomes black, minor organic odor.

Alluvium: Medium brown medium SAND, slightly moist, dense.

Medlum brown and gray CLAY, moist, stiff, expansive.

Medium brown medlum SAND; slightly moist, dense.

Medium brown SILT, moist, stiff.

Water at 43'.
•r
Medium brown and gray CLAY, moist, stiff.

Medium brown end dark brown medium SAND, very moist, dense.

Below 46' medium brown medium SAND, wet.

No sample due to sloughing at 55'.

Unable to sample due to heaving sands at 65' - 80'.

Fine -medium SAND at 85' - 90'.

Below 100' One -medium SAND.

Medium brown clayey SILT, wet, stiff, minor gravel.

Medium brown silty medium SAND, wet, dense, minor gravel.

Below 125' becomes gravelly coarse SAND.
•
Y Y
Medium brown gravelly SILT, wet, stiff.

Medium brown medium SAND, wet, dense.

Total Depth 138 feet.

APPENDIX F
Annual Groundwater Analytical Data
(2011-2021)
Santa Maria WWTP Engineering Report August 5, 2022

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Groundwater Quality Monitoring Annual Summary
2021
Groundwater Quality Water Monitoring
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Average
Well 5H (Uneradient) 1/21/21 4/15/21 7/29/21 10/14/21
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 157.5 159.2 160.0 168.4
Sodium (mg/L) 71 71 70 71 71
Chloride (mg/L) 67 66 62 61 64
Sulfate (mg/L) 440 420 430 420 428
Boron (mg/L) 0.23 0.29 0.19 0.21 0.23
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 19 17 19 19 19
Ammonia, NI -13-N (mg/L) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 19 17 19 19 19
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 UMW -1 (Down2radient) 1/21/21 4/15/21 7/29/21 10/14/21
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 127.2 126.4 129.9 131.2
Sodium (mg/L) 150 160 140 150 150
Chloride (mg/L) 170 160 150 160 160
Sulfate (mg/L) 190 170 150 140 163
Boron (mg/L) 0.37 0.50 0.34 0.32 0.38
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 8.0 8.3 17 1.6 8.7
Ammonia, NI -13-N (mg/L) <0.10 0.17 10 <0.10 2.6
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 8.0 8.3 7.8 1.6 6.4
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 8.9 <0.40 2.4 DMW-1 (Downgradient) 1/21/21 4/15/21 7/29/21 10/14/21
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 94.4 93.1 94.8 95.2
Sodium (mg/L) 140 150 140 150 145
Chloride (mg/L) 160 140 140 150 148
Sulfate (mg/L) 230 290 270 270 265
Boron (mg/L) 0.38 0.46 0.33 0.32 0.37
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 17 9.0 8.4 15 12
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) 7.7 6.1 0.16 12 6.5
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 7.1 3.2 8.4 8.4 6.8
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 9.5 5.8 <0.40 15.0 7.6
DMW-2 (Down!radient) 1/21/21 4/15/21 7/29/21 10/14/21
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 92.9 91.4 91.1 90.4
Sodium (mg/L) 140 150 150 150 148
Chloride (mg/L) 150 140 140 150 145
Sulfate (mg/L) 270 270 340 320 300
Boron (mg/L) 0.36 0.43 0.36 0.34 0.37
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 15 17 21 25 20
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) 13 17 20 20 18
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 1.1 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.57
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 14 17 21 25 19

Groundwater Well Monitoring - 2021 Graphical Analysis
30 25
20 J
15 10
5 0
18 15
12 a▪ • 9
6 3
0 Total Nitrogen
■ 5H ■ UMW -1 DMW-1 DMW-2
19 I AO
17 17 17
15 1st Qtr
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
30 25
20 0▪ 15
10 5
0 19
■ 5H
3 ■ 5H
Am ionia-
UMW-1
Nitrate -N
21 19
—17
19 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
25 f
• DMW-1
■ DMW-2
12 0
0 0.16
3rd Qtr
1 0
4th Qtr
■UMW -1 L DMW-1
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr

5.0 4.0

3.0 -

2.0 1.0 -

0.0 20
15 0
19 Nitrite -N
DMW-2
19 ■ 5H . UMW -1 E DMW-1 R DMW-2
<0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
<0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
■ 5H I UMW -1 17 DMW-1
14 0 0
it

8.9 • DMW-2 15.0

5.8 0 0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
ATI
0 0
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Groundwater Well Monitoring - 2021 Graphical Analysis

DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER
a.
a
w
c

4. a
a
0 240
200
160
120
80 40
0 240
200
160
6 - 120
80 40
0 280
240
200
160
on
E 120
80 40
0 600
157.5
■ 5H
1st Qtr
• 5H
150 140 140
■ UMW -1 ■ DMW-1
159.2
I 126.4
_M 93.1 91.4
E
2nd Qtr
SODIUM
• UMW -1
160 150 150
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
• 5H
IN UMW -1
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
500 440
400
r� 300
E
200
100
0 0.80

0.60 a) 0.40
E

0.20 0.00
160.0
129.9

CI ILORIDE

SULFATE

94.8 91.1
DMW-2
168.4
131.2

95.2 90.4
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
DMW-1
140 140 150
DMW-2
150 150 150
DMW-1
e DMW-2
■ 5H ■ UMW -1 ■ DMW-1 ■ DMW-2
420
270
230
190
170
290 270
430- 420
340 320
270 270
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
• 5H
037 038 036
023
■ UMW -1
050
BORON
■ DMW-1 ■ DMW-2
0A6 0A3
029
019
034 0.33 036 0.32 032 034
021
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Groundwater Quality Monitoring Annual Summary
2020
Groundwater Quality Water Monitoring
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Average
Well 5H (Upgradient) 1/30/20 4/16/20 7/23/20 10/15/20
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 149.8 148.1 149.8 153.5
Sodium (mg/L) 79 76 74 72 75
Chloride (mg/L) 72 68 60 62 66
Sulfate (mg/L) 510 470 460 420 465
Boron (mg/L) 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 24 21 18 18 20
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 24 21 18 18 20
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 UMW -1 (Downgradient) 1/30/20 4/16/20 7/23/20 10/15/20
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 125.6 123.0 125.9 127.7
Sodium (mg/L) 160 170 160 160 163
Chloride (mg/L) 160 160 150 150 155
Sulfate (mg/L) 200 220 200 190 203
Boron (mg/L) 0.37 0.43 0.39 0.38 0.39
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 10 16 15 10 13
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 10 16 15 10 13
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 DMW-1 (Downgradient) 1/30/20 4/16/20 7/23/20 10/15/20
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 95.5 92.8 93.3 94.5
Sodium (mg/L) 140 150 150 140 145
Chloride (mg/L) 150 150 150 140 148
Sulfate (mg/L) 140 170 170 200 170
Boron (mg/L) 0.35 0.37 0.31 0.33 0.34
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 10 11 16 4.6 10
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) 5.7 8.0 7.9 5.0 6.7
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 3.6 3.9 6.7 0.55 3.7
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 6.4 7.5 9.5 4.0 6.9
DMW-2 (Downgradient) 1/30/20 4/16/20 7/23/20 10/15/20
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 93.4 91.0 90.8 93.2
Sodium (mg/L) 150 150 150 150 150
Chloride (mg/L) 160 160 160 140 155
Sulfate (mg/L) 140 190 200 210 185
Boron (mg/L) 0.37 0.37 0.32 0.34 0.35
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 8.7 12 18 11 12
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) 7.6 11 13 11 11
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 0.69 0.44 4.3 <0.40 1.5
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 8.0 11 14 11 11

Groundwater Well Monitoring - 2020 Graphical Analysis
30 25
20 J
.1=a, 15
10 5
0 18
15 12
Total Nitrogen
24 5H _ UMW -1
21 1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
Ammonia -N
DMW-1
• DMW-2
■ 5H a UMW -1 ■ DMW-1 • DMW-2
13 11
9 76 8.0 7.9
� 5.7 5.0
6 3 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
30 25
20 0▪ 15
10 5
0 Nitrate -N
24 ■ 5H
■ UMW -1
21 L DMW-1
1 16
10 13.6

0.69 1st Qtr
18 ■ DMW-2
11 11
18 I 15
10 6.7

3.9 4.3
■ 0.44 I In 0.55 0
2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

5.0 4.0

3.0 -

2.0 1.0 -

0.0 20
15 5
0 Nitrite -N
5H ■UMW -1 ■ DMW-1
<0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
0 0
DMW-2
<0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
• 5H UMW -1 • DMW-1 • DMW-2
14 6.4

7.5 4.0
1st Qtr
0 0 0 0 0 0
2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Groundwater Well Monitoring - 2020 Graphical Analysis

DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER
d
a
••-
c
r
a
a
0 240
200
160
120
80 40
0 240
200
160
65 120
80 40
0 280
240
200
160
on
E 120
80 40
0 600
500
400
r� 300
E
200
100
0 0.80

0.60 a) 0.40
E

0.20 0.00
149.8
125.6
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
■ 5H

95.5 93.4
• 5H
160 150
140
■ UMW -1 ■ DMW-1
148.1
123.0

92.8 91.0
SODIUM
■ UMW -1
70 150 150
149.8
125.9
E 93.3 90.8
DMW-2
153.5
127.7

94.5 93.2
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
DMW-1 • DMW-2
160 150 150 160 140 150
79 ' ' 76 1 1 74 ' ' 72 1
I 1 M-1 1 1 I I I
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
• 5H
160 150 160

CI ILORIDE
• UMW -1
160 150 160
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr

SULFATE
510 ■ 5H 470■ UMW -1
1 200
0 140
170 190
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
DMW-1
150 150 160
• DMW-2
150 140 140
DMW-1
460
200 170 200
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
■ DMW-2
420
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
023
BORON
■ 5H ■ UMW -1 ■ DMW-1 ■ DMW-2
0A3
037 Q35 037 037 037
039
031 032
024 024 024
038
033 034
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Ground Water Quality Monitoring Annual Summary
2019
(:round Water Quality Water Monitoring
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Average
Well 5H (Uneradient) 1/22/19 4/16/19 7/30/19 10/8/19
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 158.0 158.7 155.9 154.0
Sodium (mg/L) 67 65 78 71 70
Chloride (mg/L) 51 62 66 68 62
Sulfate (mg/L) 330 400 450 450 408
Boron (mg/L) 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.22 0.23
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 16 19 22 21 20
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 16 19 22 21 20
Nitrite, NO2 -N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 UMW -1 (Down!radient) 1/22/19 4/16/19 7/30/19 10/8/19
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 129.2 125.3 126.7 127.8
Sodium (mg/L) 160 150 160 150 155
Chloride (mg/L) 150 160 150 150 153
Sulfate (mg/L) 190 180 190 190 188
Boron (mg/L) 0.35 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.38
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 3.9 6.9 8.3 13 8.0
Ammonia, NI -13-N (mg/L) 0.20 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.13
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 3.9 6.9 8.3 13 8.03
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 DMW-1 (Downgradient) 1/22/19 4/16/19 7/30/19 10/8/19
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 96.1 93.8 94.4 94.6
Sodium (mg/L) 150 140 150 130 143
Chloride (mg/L) 150 170 160 150 158
Sulfate (mg/L) 120 160 160 100 135
Boron (mg/L) 0.32 0.36 0.34 0.30 0.33
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 13 10 9.3 9.3 10
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) 9.1 6.9 7.6 8.7 8.08
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 1.8 3.1 1.9 0.49 1.8
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 11 7.0 9.3 8.8 9.0
DMW-2 (Downeradient) 1/22/19 4/16/19 7/30/19 10/8/19
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 93.9 91.4 92.3 92.5
Sodium (mg/L) 150 130 140 130 138
Chloride (mg/L) 160 170 160 150 160
Sulfate (mg/L) 130 140 140 120 133
Boron (mg/L) 0.33 0.33 0.29 0.29 0.31
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 9.2 12 11 7.6 10
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) 8.8 8.3 8.4 7.1 8.2
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) <0.40 2.6 0.56 <0.40 0.99
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 9.2 9.0 11 7.6 9.2
*2nd Qtr Well 5H depth measured on 4/22/19

Ground Water Well Monitoring - 2019 Graphical Analysis
30 25
20 .a
r�i, 15
10 5
0 18
15 12
rte. 9
E
6 3
0 30
25 20
.a
rte. 15
10 5
0 5.0

4.0 3.0
on

2.0 1.0

0.0 20
15 GI 5H
19 Total Nitrogen
■ UMW -1
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
Ammonia -N
■ DMW-1
22 ▪ DMW-2
21 III 5H ■UMW -1 L DMW-1 ■DMW-2

9.1 8.8

6.9 8.3
0 0.20
16 0 0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
• 5H

3.9 1.8
1st Qtr
-7.6 8.4 8.7
0 0 Itt 0.00
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Nitrate -N
■ UMW -1 L DMW-1
19 —2-2
0 G.9
• DMW-2

8.3 21
1 3.1 2 6

1.9 0.56 ■ 0.49 0
2nd Qtr
■ 5H
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Nitrite -N
■ UMW -1 • DMW-1
DMW-2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
■ 5H
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
■ UMW -1
■ DMW-1 • DMW-2
11 11
o� • 10 9.2 9.0 9.3 8.8

7.0 0 0 0 0 II 0 0 0 0
E
5 0
1st Qtr

7.6—
2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Ground Water Well Monitoring - 2019 Graphical Analysis

DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER
d
a
••-
c

4. a
a
0 240
200
160
120
80 40
0 240
200
160
6 - 120
80 40
0 280
240
200
160
on
E 120
80 40
0 600
500
400
ra 300
E
200
100
0 0.80

0.60 a> 0.40
E

0.20 0.00
158.0
1st Qtr
a 5H
129.2

96.1 93.9
• 5H
160 150 150
■ UMW -1
158.7
125.3

93.8 M. M
m

91.4 3rd Qtr
■ DMW-1
155.9
126.7

94.4 92.3
• DMW-2
154.0
127.8

94.6 92.5
2nd Qtr
SODIUM
❑ UMW -1 . DMW-1
150 140 160 150140
130
• 5H
150 150 160

CI ILORIDE
❑ UMW -1
160 170 170
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
330
■ 5H

SULFATE
4th Qtr
C DMW-2
150
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
DMW-1
66 r
150 160 160
• DMW-2
150 150 150
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
• UMW -1 DMW-1
400
190
180
1 190 160
140
•450" "W-2
190
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
i
■5H
035 032 033
• UMW -1
023
BORON
■ DMW-1
■ DMW-2
038 036 033
025
0A2
n34
029
022
038
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Ground Water Quality Monitoring Annual Summary
2018
Ground Water Quality Water Monitoring
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
Well 5H (Uneradient) 1/16/18 6/19/18 7/24/18 10/16/18
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 169.5 170.0 167.0 165.0
Sodium (mg/L) 67 69 59 59
Chloride (mg/L) 47 42 43 47
Sulfate (mg/L) 390 380 370 350
Boron (mg/L) 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 16 17 16 15
Ammonia, NI -13-N (mg/L) <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.20
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 16 17 16 15
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.10 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.40 0.53 <0.40 <0.40
UMW -1 (Downeradient) 1/16/18 6/19/18 7/24/18 10/16/18
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 129.1 129.6 130.1 131.0
Sodium (mg/L) 160 160 140 140
Chloride (mg/L) 180 190 170 180
Sulfate (mg/L) 240 250 220 210
Boron (mg/L) 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.41
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 3.4 4.1 3.6 2.9
Ammonia, NI -13-N (mg/L) 0.44 0.47 0.69 <0.10
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 2.7 3.2 2.6 2.9
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.67 0.89 0.99 <0.40
DMW-1 (Downgradient) 1/16/18 6/19/18 7/24/18 10/16/18
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 98.1 97.3 97.2 97.7
Sodium (mg/L) 140 160 130 130
Chloride (mg/L) 150 180 160 170
Sulfate (mg/L) 99 150 130 120
Boron (mg/L) 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.33
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 6.5 9.0 11 8.4
Ammonia, NI -13-N (mg/L) 6.3 8.0 10 6.3
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) <0.40 0.87 0.40 0.67
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 6.5 8.1 11 7.7
DMW-2 (Downeradient) 1/16/18 6/19/18 7/24/18 10/16/18
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 90.2 91.4 91.2 93.0
Sodium (mg/L) 160 150 130 130
Chloride (mg/L) 160 170 160 170
Sulfate (mg/L) 140 160 160 140
Boron (mg/L) 0.34 0.28 0.28 0.33
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 11 12 8.9 7.0
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) 10 8.4 8.7 4.1
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) <0.40 4.8 <0.40 <0.40
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 11 7.2 8.9 7.0

Ground Water Well Monitoring - 2018 Graphical Analysis
25 20
15 E 10
5 0
16 1 5H
11 4
17 Total Nitrogen
UMW -1 DMW-1
16 1L

9.0 4.1
■

3.6 11

8.9 ■
DMW-2
15 8.4 7.0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
18 15
12 9
6 3
0 Ammonia -N
■ 5H - UMW -1 ■ DMW-1 ■ DMW-2

6.3 8.0 8.4
•
0 0.44
0 0.47
0 0=6

8.7 6.3

0.20 0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
25 20
15 10
■ 5H
Nitrate -N
• UMW -1 ■ DMW-1
16 3.2

4.8 16
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
■ DMW-2
15 2.9

0.40 0 1 0.67 0
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

5.0 4.0

3.0 on
E 2.0

1.0 0.0
Nitrite -N
■ 5H ■ UMW -1 ■ DMW-1 DMW-2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
20 ■ 5H
15 ..a
b�30

6.5 5 1111

0.00 0.67
0 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
■ UMW -1 • DMW-1
11 11
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
L DMW-2
0 0 11
4th Qtr

Ground Water Well Monitoring - 2018 Graphical Analysis
240
200
160
• 120
• 80
40 0
240
200
160
3 - 120
80 40
0 280
240
200
160
on
E 120
80 40
0 600
500
400
3 300
E
200
100
0 1st Qtr
169.5
O5H
129.1

98.1 90.2
1st Qtr
• 5H
Depth to Groundwater
OUMW-1 ODMW-1
170.0
129.6

97.3 91.4
11 2nd Qtr
Sodium
■ UMW -1
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
167.0
411
130.1

97.2 91.2
11 11
3rd Qtr
DMW-1
ODMW-2
165.0
11 11,
131.0

97.7 93.0
411
4th Qtr
❑ DMW-2
Chloride
■ 5H Id UMW -1
180 150 160 190 180 170
390
■ DMW-1 • DMW-2
1-70 160 160 180 170 170
jllhIIjIF
___A 2
2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
■ 5H
■ UMW -1
380
Sulfate
• DMW-1
370
■ DMW-2
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
Boron

0.80 0.60
041
E 0.40 0.39 034 034 032 0.23 Q38 030 028 033 033
021 022 022 023

0.20 0.00
■ 5H ■ UMW -1 ■ DMW-1 ■ DMW-2
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Ground Water Quality Monitoring Annual Summary
2017
Ground Water Quality Water Monitoring
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
Well 5H (Upgradient) 1/17/17 4/25/17 7/25/17 10/10/17
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 171.0 170.0 178.5 169.2
Sodium (mg/L) 160 72 66 67
Chloride (mg/L) 50 50 43 50
Sulfate (mg/L) 251 371 360 371
Boron (mg/L) 0.150 0.250 0.240 0.260
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 4.5 17 16 16
Ammonia, NI -13-N (mg/L) <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 4.5 17 16 16
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
UMW -1 (Downgradient) 1/17/17 4/25/17 7/25/17 10/10/17
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 127.4 124.1 127.1 128.3
Sodium (mg/L) 160 160 170 160
Chloride (mg/L) 170 163 160 165
Sulfate (mg/L) 227 248 270 254
Boron (mg/L) 0.330 0.440 0.430 0.440
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 2.3 13 16 6.3
Ammonia, NI -13-N (mg/L) <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) 2.3 13 16 4.8
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.5
DMW-1 (Downgradient) 1/17/17 4/25/17 7/25/17 10/10/17
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 97.7 95.9 97.5 98.2
Sodium (mg/L) 160 160 130 140
Chloride (mg/L) 195 195 170 145
Sulfate (mg/L) 125 122 100 98
Boron (mg/L) 0.380 0.410 0.330 0.330
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 9.1 7.1 7.3 7.7
Ammonia, NI -13-N (mg/L) 7.5 7.0 5.7 6.6
Nitrate, NO3 -N (mg/L) 1.6 <0.40 0.73 0.12
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 7.4 7.1 6.6 7.7
DMW-2 (Downgradient) 1/17/17 4/25/17 7/25/17 10/10/17
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 90.3 88.5 89.7 88.5
Sodium (mg/L) 150 150 130 140
Chloride (mg/L) 195 200 150 140
Sulfate (mg/L) 83 87 45 84
Boron (mg/L) 0.350 0.320 0.280 0.320
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 13 12 8.9 10
Ammonia, NI -13-N (mg/L) 12 13 6.7 8.8
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 0.22
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 13 12 8.9 9.7

Ground Water Well Monitoring - 2017 Graphical Analysis
240.0
200.0
160.0
120.0

80.0 40.0

0.0 240
200
160
-ea) 120
80 40
0 280
240 195 195
200 170
160
Depth to Groundwater
p5H DUMW-1 DDMW-1
171.0 170.0 178.5
127.4
1st Qtr
0 5H
160 160 160 150
124.1
111 1,

95.9 88.5
LI
2nd Qtr
11 1,
.11 116.

Sodium
■ UMW -1
160 160 150
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
^r, 120
80 40
0 600
500
400
tIJ 300
200
100
0 0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
■ 5H
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
Chloride
UMW -1
195 200
163
127.1

98.2 88.5
4th Qtr
• DMW-2
DMW-1
160 170
150
160
^ DMW-2
165
145 140
Sulfate
• 5H
■ UMW -1
■ DMW-1
• DMW-2
371
360
371
X227
248
270
2ri4
1Z5
83 87
I 100as
I 98
84 mi

1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
❑5H
0330 03) 0350
0150
Boron
■ UMW -1
0440 0410
■ DMW-1
• DMW-2
0320
Q250 0240
0430
0330 0283
021)
0440
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Ground Water Well Monitoring - 2017 Graphical Analysis
3 0
25 20
a 15
E 10
5 0
Total Nitrogen
5H ■ UMW -1 ■ DMW-1
17 16 16
1st Qtr
2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
Ammonia -N
■ DMW-2
16 ■ 5H ■ UMW -1 ■ DMW-1 k DMW-2
13 12
0 0
75 1st Qtr
25 20
0 0
OF -

5.7 6.7 6.6
0 0 0 0
2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Nitrate -N
X 5
15 alp
E 10

4.5 5 2.3 1.6
0 ■��
1st Qtr
5 4
3 cn
E 2
1 0
20 15
al - 10
5 0
1st Qtr
■ UMW -1
0 2nd Qtr
3rd Qtr
DMW-1
16 16
Nitrite -N
DMW-2
16 8.8

4.8 0.12 0.22
4th Qtr
■ 5H ■ UMW -1 ■ DMW-1 DMW-2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
■ 5H
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
■ UMW -1
■ DMW-1 L DMW-2
12 8.9

7.1 6.6

7.7 9.7

1.5 0 0 0 0 0
2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

CITY OF SANTA MARIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WDR Order No. R3-2010-0001
Ground Water Quality Monitoring Annual Summary
2016
Ground Water Quality Water Monitoring
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr
4th Qtr
Well 511 (Upgradient)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 163.5 165.0 170.5 171.8
Sodium (mg/L) 73 73 65 71
Chloride (mg/L) 52 50 50 50
Sulfate (mg/L) 425 407 368 387
Boron (mg/L) 0.230 0.270 0.220 0.270
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 16 18 17 17
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Nitrate. NO3 -N (mg/I.) 16 18 17 17
Nitrite. NO2 -N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) <1.0 <0.1 <1.0 <1.0
UMW -1 (Downgradient)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 126.7 126.5 129.0 129.4
Sodium (mg/L) 170 170 160 170
Chloride (mg/L) 180 153 170 165
Sulfate (mg/I.) 311 319 228 235
Boron (mg/L) 0.440 0.410 0.400 0.440
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 3.1 2.8 1.6 1.8
Ammonia. NI -13-N (mg/L) <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Nitrate. NO3 -N (mg/L) 3.1 2.8 1.6 1.8
Nitrite, NO2 -N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
DMW-1 (Downgradient)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 96.5 95.8 99.9 99.6
Sodium (mg/L) 150 160 160 150
Chloride (mg/L) 182 180 200 195
Sulfate (mg/L) 252 284 176 171
Boron (mg/L) 0.410 0.490 0.370 0.420
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 10 12 10 9.0
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/L) 7.2 6.3 3.5 4.7
Nitrate. NO3 -N (mg/L) 2.2 5.0 7.2 1.5
Nitrite. NO2 -N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 7.8 6.5 3.3 7.5
DMW-2 (Downgradient)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 90.4 90.1 89.9 89.6
Sodium (mg/L) 170 170 150 140
Chloride (mg/L) 152 178 200 185
Sulfate (mg/L) 276 310 181 145
Boron (mg/L) 0.410 0.170 0.350 0.430
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 12 16 13 10
Ammonia, N1I3-N (mg/L) 1.3 10 7.3 10
Nitrate. NO3 -N (mg/L) <0.40 2.8 5.7 <0.40
Nitrite, NO2 -N (mg/L) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 11 13 7.5 10

Ground Water Well Monitoring - 2016 Graphical Analysis
Total Nitrate
25 20
,_j 15
e 10
5 0
15 12
9 E 6
3 0
25 20
15 on
E. 10
5 0
5 4
3 cn
2 1
0 100
80 -11) 60
40 20
0 5H UMW -1
18 16 16

1st Qtr
0 0
16 r
YY�
5H
DMW-1
17 DMW-2
17 12 „;'i. 12 fi:,i 13
10 sic �� r it

2.8 ,i)V 1.6 1.8
14:

9.0 10
2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Ammonia -N
UMW -1
10 DMW-1 DMW-2

7.2 6.3 7.3
1st Qtr

3.1 SH

2.2 1.3
0 2nd Qtr
UMW -1
18 Nitrate -N

5.0 2.8 2.8
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
Nitrite -N

3.5 0 0
0 0

4.7 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
DMW-1
17 7.2

5.7 DMW-2
17 10

1.8 1.5
0 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
5H UMW -1 DMW-1 DMW-2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
73 t
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
5H UMW -1

7.8 11
0 1st Qtr
13 6.5
0 2nd Qtr
65 DMW-1

3.3 7'5
DMW-2
71 7.5 10
0 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

Ground Water Well Monitoring - 2016 Graphical Analysis
240
200
,_ 160
120
C 80
40 0
240
200
160
31 120
80 40
0 163.5
NUMMI
73 280
240
200
-�� 160
on
120
80 52
40 0
600
500
400
J
n 300
200
100
0 0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
1st Qtr
0440 0.410 0.410
1st Qtr
126.7
a5'ri

96.5 90.4
1st Qtr
Depth to Groundwater
OUMW-1 ®DMW-1
165.0 170.5
126.5

95.8 90.1
2nd Qtr
Sodium
5H UMW -1
170 170 170 160 170
150
73 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr
Chloride
_15H UMW -1
180 182 180 178
152 153
129.0

99.9 89.9
3rd Qtr
DMW-1
160 160 150
3rd Qtr
DMW-1
200 200
170
1;20M W-2
171.3
129.4

99.6 89.6
111
4th Qtr
DMW-2
170
150 140
4th Qtr
DMW-2
195 185
165
50 50 50
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
SH
425
311 252 276
Sulfate
UMW -1
407
319 284 310
2nd Qtr
DMW-2
387
235
; 171 145
r . ,
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Boron
5H UMW -1 DMW-1

0.490
0410 0400
0270 0.220
2nd Qtr

0.170
0350
DMW-2
0270
0443 0,420 0.430
3rd Qtr 4th Qtr

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITIY CONTROL BOARD
Central Coast Region
Mandated Ground Water Quality Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order No. R3-2010-0001)
2015
LOCAL WELL WATER MONITORING* na JUN SEP DEC
Upgrade Well (5H)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 156' 156' (158')* 164'
Sodium (mg/I) 66 72 75 79
Chloride (mg/I) 49 45 50 53
Sulfate (mg/I) 380 390 420 489
Boron (mg/I) 0.19 0.26 0.24 0.24
Total Nitrogen (mg/I) 16 16 17 18
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/I) <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/I) 16 16 17 18
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/I) <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
TKN (mg/I) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Downgrade Well (UMW -1)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 114'11" 120'2" 132'6" 124'2" Sodium (mg/I) 160 140 170 170
Chloride (mg/I) 161 147 147 156
Sulfate (mg/I) 300 310 320 380
Boron (mg/I) 0.34 0.44 0.39 0.39
Total Nitrogen (mg/I) 2.0 1.1 2.2 4.3
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/I) 0.9 1.2 <0.5 <0.5
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/I) <0.4 <0.4 2.2 4.3
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/I) <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
TKN (mg/I) 2.0 1.1 <1.0 <1.0
Downgrade Well (DMW-1)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 92'6" 90'11" 85'6" 96'8" Sodium (mg/I) 160 170 160 160
Chloride (mg/I) 154 143 152 180
Sulfate (mg/I) 330 330 310 322
Boron (mg/I) 0.38 0.43 0.37 0.40
Total Nitrogen (mg/I) 8.9 8.5 8.3 9.3
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/I) 3.4 3.7 5.6 6.0
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/I) 4.1 5.3 1.9 1.9
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/I) <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
TKN (mg/I) 4.8 3.2 6.0 7.4
- Downgrade Well (DMW-2)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 89'8" 89'4" 90' 91'9"
Sodium (mg/I) 160 160 150 160
Chloride (mg/I) 150 145 154 185
Sulfate (mg/I) 340 340 300 356
Boron (mg/I) 0.39 0.40 0.36 0.41
Total Nitrogen (mg/I) 9.0 10 12 11
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/I) 5.6 6.6 10 2.9
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/I) <0.4 2.8 0.63 1.9
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/I) <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 4.5
TKN (mg/I) 9.0 7.5 11 5.0
*Measured Oct -20

Depth To Groundwater
160
140
120
100
ft 80
60 40
20 0
MAR

JUN SEP DEC
2015
®Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■Downgrade Well DMW-1 ODowngrade Well DMW-2 OUpgrade Well 51-1 mg/L
180
160
140
120
100
80 60
40 20
0 Monitoring Wells - Sodium
MAR
JUN
2015
SEP
DEC
ODowngrade Well UMW -1 ■Downgrade Well DMW-1 ODowngrade Wel DMW-2 OUpgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells - Chloride
200
150
mg/L 100 -
50 I
MAR
JUN
2015
SEP
DEC
ODowngrade Well UMW -1 ODowngrade Well DMW-1 ODowngrade Welt DMW-2 OUpgrade Well 5H 500
450
400
350
300
mg/L 250
200
150
100
50 0
Monitoring Wells - Sulfate

MAR JUN SEP DEC
2015
L 0 Downgrade Well UMW -1 °Downgrade Well DMW-1 oDowngrade Well DMW-2 OUpgrade Well 5H 1

Monitoring Wells - Boron

0.45 0.4 -

0.35 -

0.3 0.25
mg/L

0.2 0.15

0.1 0.05
0 1
s
,
-.�
MAR
JUN
2015
SEP
DEC
ODowngrade Well UMW -1
13 Downgrade Well DMW-1 oDowngrade Well DMW-2 ®Upgrade Well 5H 18 16
14 12
10 mg/L
8 6
4 2
0 Monitoring Wells - Total Nitrogen

MAR SEP DEC
2015
®Downgrade Well UMW -1 ODowngrade Well DMW-1 ODowngrade Well DMW-2 OUpgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells NH3-N

10.0 i

9.0-'

8.0 I

7.0 1

6.0 5.0
mg/L

4.0 3.0 •

2.0 1.0

0.0 MAR JUN SEP DEC
2015
l t]Downgrade Well UMW -1 °Downgrade Well DMW-1 °Downgrade Well DMW-2 OUpgrade Well 5H 18 16 -
14 12
10 mg/L
8 6
4 2
Monitoring Wells - Nitrate (as N)
MAR
JUN
SEP
DEC
2015
DDowngrade Well UMW -1 •Downgrade Well DMW-1 ODowngrade Well DMW-2 •Upgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Well NO2-N
mg/L

4.5 4

3.5 3

2.5 2

1.5 1

0.5 0
MAR
JUN
2015
SEP
DEC
()Downgrade Well UMW -1 aDowngrade Well DMW-1 ()Downgrade Well DMW-2 ['Upstream Well SH mg/L
12 Monitoring Wells - TKN
10 -�
8 -

MAR JUN SEP DEC
2015
1 ['Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■Downgrade Well DMW-1 ()Downgrade Well DMW-2 oUpgrade Well 5H

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITIY CONTROL BOARD
Central Coast Region
Mandated Ground Water Quality Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order No. R3-2010-0001)
2014
LOCAL WELL WATER MONITORING* EAR JUN SEE DEC
Upgrade Well (5H)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 136 137 138 139
Sodium (mg/1) 68 66 65 69
Chloride (mg/1) 48 52 50 50
Sulfate (mg/1) 370 380 400 390
Boron (mg/1) 0.20 0.20 0.350 0.210
Total Nitrogen (mg/1) 16 15 16 16
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/1) <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Nitrate, NO3 -N (mg/1) 16 15 16 16
Nitrite, NO2 -N (mg/1) <0.400 <0.400 <0.400 <0.400
TKN (mg/1) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
- Downgrade Well (UMW -1)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 105'5" 110'l" 114'3" 113'10.! Sodium (mg/1) 160 150 140 160
Chloride (mg/1) 170 172 168 163
Sulfate (mg/1) 210 220 260 280
Boron (mg/1) 0.37 0.40 0.350 0.400
Total Nitrogen (mg/1) 7.6 1.2 2.8 3.6
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/1) 1.9 1.5 2.2 2.4
Nitrate, NO3 -N (mg/1) 3.4 1.2 0.42 0.80
Nitrite, NO2 -N (mg/1) <0.400 <0.400 <0.400 <0.400
TKN (mg/1) 4.3 <1.0 2.4 2.8
- Downgrade Well (DMW-1)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 83'5" 86'7" 89'11" 89'9" Sodium (mg/1) 160 160 150 160
Chloride (mg/1) 170 172 154 152
Sulfate (mg/1) 260 270 340 350
Boron (mg/1) 0.38 0.39 0.330 0.360
Total Nitrogen (mg/1) 8.3 6.5 5.9 7.6
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/1) 1.7 2.0 3.0 3.7
Nitrate, NO3 -N (mg/1) 3.6 4.6 2.2 3.3
Nitrite, NO2 -N (mg/1) <0.400 <0 400 <0.400 <0.400
TKN (mg/1) 4.7 2.0 3.6 4.2
- Downgrade Well (DMW-2)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 84'4" 85'7" 88' 82'4"
Sodium (mg/1) 180 170 140 160
Chloride (mg/1) 160 172 150 149
Sulfate (mg/1) 300 310 350 360
Boron (mg/1) 0.41 0.36 0.210 0.350
Total Nitrogen (mg/1) 5.6 4.0 5.2 6.7
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/1) 2.7 4.1 4.2 6.0
Nitrate, NO3 -N (mg/1) 0.9 <0.40 0.4 <0.40
Nitrite, NO2 -N (mg/1) <0.400 <0.400 <0.400 <0.400
TKN (mg/1) 4.7 4.0 5.2 6.7

Depth To Groundwater
140
120 -
100 -
80 0

MAR JUN SEP DEC
2014
laDowngrade Well UMW -1 ODowngrade Well DMW-1 ODowngrade Well DMW-2 OUpgrade Well 5H Monitoring Wells - Sodium
mg/I
180
160
140
120
100
80 60
40 20
0 MAR
JUN
SEP
2014
DEC
ODowngrade Well UMW -1 ODowngrade Well DMW-1 ODowngrade Wel DMW-2 OUpgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells - Chloride
200
150
mg/I 100
50 0
f
MAR

JUN SEP
2014
DEC
Downgrade Well UMW -1 ODowngrage Well DMW-1 oDowngrade Well DMW-2 OUpgrade Well 5H 400
350
300
250
mg/I 200
150 -
100
50 -
0 Monitoring Wells - Sulfate
r
l

MAR JUN SEP DEC
2014
T ®Downgrade Well UMW -1 ODowngrade Well DMW-1 ODowngrade Well DMW-2 DUpgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells - Boron
mg/I

0.45 -

0.4 -

0.35 -

0.3 -

0.25 -

0.2 -

0.15 -

0.1 -

0.05 0J

MAR JUN SEP DEC
2014
°Downgrade Well UMW -1 °Downgrade Well DMW-1 °Downgrade Well DMW-2 DUpgrade Well 5H i
16 14
12 10
mg/I 8
6 4
2 0
Monitoring Wells - Total Nitrogen

MAR JUN SEP DEC
2014
i
°Downgrade Well UMW -1 °Downgrade Well DMW-1
°Downgrade Well DMW-2 °Upgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells NH3-N

6.0 -

5.0 4.0

3.0 -
mg/I

2.0 -

1.0 -

0.0 MAR JUN SEP DEC
2014
[oowngracie Well UMW -1 ®Downgrade Well DMW-1 ODowngrade Well DMW-2 DUpgrade Well 5H 16 14
12 10
mg/I 8
6 4
2 0
Monitoring Wells - Nitrate (as N)
-r'
h
MAR
JUN
2014
SEP
DEC
ODowngrade Well UMW -1 ODowngrade Well DMW-1 oDowngrade Well DMW-2 OUpgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Well NO2-N
mg/I
1 0.8 -

0.6 -

0.4 0.2 -
0 J
MAR

JUN SEP DEC
2014
ODowngrade Well UMW -1 ODowngrade Well DMW-1 ODowngrade Well DMW-2 OUpstream Well 5H mg/I
6 4
3 0
Monitoring Wells - TKN
MAR

JUN SEP
2014
DEC
❑Downgrade Weil UMW -1 •Downgrade Well DMW-1 DDowngrade Well DMW-2 OUpgrade Well 5H

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITIY CONTROL BOARD
Central Coast Region
Mandated Ground Water Quality Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order No. R3-2010-0001)
2013
LOCAL WELL WATER MONITORING* ME JUN $EP NOV
- Upgrade Well (5H)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0
Sodium (mg/I) 60 68 64 64
Chloride (mg/I) 48 47 49 50
Sulfate (mg/l) 330 340 350 360
Boron (mg/I) 0.21 0.22 0.200 0.21
Total Nitrogen (mg/l) 14 14 14.0 14.0
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/I) <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/I) 14 14 14.0 14
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/1) <0.400 <0.400 <0.400 <0.400
TKN (mg/I) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Downgrade Well (UMW -1)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 95.9 99.0 103.3 104.9
Sodium (mg/1) 140 140 140 140
Chloride (mg/I) 180 177 173 167
Sulfate (mg/1) 160 170 170 170
Boron (mg/I) 0.31 0.36 0.200 0.32
Total Nitrogen (mg/I) 4.7 4.9 4.6 3.9
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/I) 2.9 3.3 2.5 2.4
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/1) 1.10 <0.40 0.74 0.8
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/I) <0.400 <0.400 <0.400 <0.400
TKN (mg/I) 3.6 4.9 3.8 3.2
Downgrade Well (DMW-1)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 77.2 78.0 82.0 83.0
Sodium (mg/I) 130 130 130 140
Chloride (mg/1) 177 182 174 170
Sulfate (mg/I) 150 150 180 190
Boron (mg/I) 0.31 0.30 0.330 0.36
Total Nitrogen (mg/I) 0.9 1.9 3.0 2.5
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/I) <0.50 <0.50 1.8 1.6
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/I) 0.9 <0.40 0.68 0.7
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/I) <0.400 <0.400 <0.400 <0.400
TKN (mg/1) <1.0 1.9 2.2 1.8
- Downgrade Well (DMW-2)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 76.5 73.0 81.83 84.3
Sodium (mg/I) 130 140 140 160
Chloride (mg/I) 184 176 169 161
Sulfate (mg/I) 150 140 180 210
Boron (mg/I) 0.31 0.28 0.380 0.46
Total Nitrogen (mg/I) 0.0 1.8 1.7 1.4
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/I) <0.50 <0.50 1.5 1.7
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/I) <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/I) <0.400 <0.400 <0.400 <0.400
TKN (mg/I) <1.0 1.8 1.7 1.4

Depth To Groundwater
140-
120-
100-
80 -
ft
60-
40 20
0 MAR
JUN
C

SEP NOV
2013
Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■ Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 5H 160-
140-
120-
100 -
mg/I 80-
60-
40-
20-
0 Monitoring Wells - Sodium

MAR JUN SEP NOV
2013
0 Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■ Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Wel DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells - Chloride
200-
180
160
140-
120
mg/I 100-
80-
60 40-
20-
0-
611

MAR JUN
2013

SEP NOV
Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■ Downgrage Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 D Upgrade Well 5H 400
350
300
250
mg/I 200
150
100
50 -
Monitoring Wells - Sulfate
0-rAm
MAR
JUN
CT
SEP
2013
NOV
l Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■ Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells - Boron

0.5 0.45

0.4 -

0.35-

0.3 -
mg/I 0.25-

0.2-

0.15-

0.1-

0.05-
C^
MAR
JUN
2013
t

SEP NOV
■ Downgrade Well UMW -1 O Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 ® Upgrade Well 5H 16 14
12 10
mg/I 8-
6-
4-
2 -
Monitoring Wells - Total Nitrogen
MAR
JUN
2013
SEP
NOV
0 Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■ Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells NH3-N

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0
mg/I

1.5 1.0

0.5 0.0
ogir
1 16-
14-
12-
10-
mg/I 8-
6-
4 2-
0 MAR JUN SEP
2013
NOV
El Downgrade Well UMW -1
■ Downgrade Well DMW-1
❑ Downgrade Well DMW-2
O Upgrade Well 5H
Monitoring Wells - Nitrate (as N)
•
MAR
JUN
2013
SEP
NOV
® Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■ Downgrade Well DMW-1 O Downgrade Well DMW-2 O Upgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Well NO2-N
1-

0.9-

0.8-

0.7-

0.6-
mg/I 0.5-

0.4-

0.3 0.2

0.1 0
MAR
JUN
SEP
2013
NOV
IRDowngrade Well UMW -1 II Downgrade Well DMW-1
❑ Downgrade Well DMW-2 ❑ Upstream Well 5H
5-

4.5-
4-

3.5 -
3-
mg/I 2.5
2-

1.5-
1-

0.5-
0 -
Monitoring Wells - TKN

MAR JUN SEP NOV
2013
"'Downgrade Well UMW -1
■ Downgrade Well DMW-1
❑Downgrade Well DMW-2
❑ Upgrade Well 5H

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITIY CONTROL BOARD
Central Coast Region
Mandated Ground Water Quality Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order No. R3-2010-0001)
2012
LOCAL WELL WATER MONITORING* Mar JUt1 SEP nF
Upgrade Well (5H) $g_
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0
Sodium (mg/I) 69 68 64 58
Chloride (mg/1) 53 35 49 47
Sulfate (mg/I) 390 360 340 340
Boron (mg/I) 0.18 0.190 0.210 0.16
Total Nitrogen (mg/1) 16 11 14 14.0
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/I) <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/1) 16 11 14.0 14
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/I) <0.400 <0.400 <0.400 <0.400
TKN (mg/I) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Downgrade Well (UMW -1) MB
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 95.5 96.8 99.3 95.1
Sodium (mg/1) 140 149 150 120
Chloride (mg/1) 144 150 167 171
Sulfate (mg/1) 130 149 160 160
Boron (mg/l) 0.36 0.5 0.310 0.26
Total Nitrogen (mg/I) 3.3 4 3.3 3.6
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/1) 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.8
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/1) 0.50 0.5 <0.40 <0.400
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/I) <0.400 <0.1 <0.400 0.5
TKN (mg/I) 2.8 3 3.3 3.1
- Downgrade Well (DMW-1)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 75.9 76.3 78.6 76.4
Sodium (mg/1) 140 141 140 120
Chloride (mg/1) 140 151 170 168
Sulfate (mg/1) 150 164 150 130
Boron (mg/I) 0.32 0.3 0.27 0.36
Total Nitrogen (mg/1) 2.6 <0.1 <0.1 <1
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/I) <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Nitrate. NO3-N (mg/I) 2.6 9.8 <0.40 <0.40
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/I) <0.400 <0.4 <0.400 <0.400
TKN (mg/1) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Downgrade Well (DMW-2)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 76.3 78.4 79.5 76.5
Sodium (mg/1) 150 141 130 130
Chloride (mg/I) 134 177 170 165
Sulfate (mg/1) 220 162 110 65
Boron (mg/1) 0.35 0.4 0.370 0.31
Total Nitrogen (mg/I) <0.1 2 1.6 <0.1
Ammonia. NH3-N (mg/1) <0.50 <0.2 <0.50 <0.50
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/I) <0.40 1.8 1.6 <0.40
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/I) <0.400 <0.1 <0.400 <0.400
TKN (mg/1) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Depth To Groundwater
140
120
100
80 ft
60 40
20 0
Mar JUN
2012
SEP
DEC
BDowngrade Well UMW -1 Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 5H ! 160
140
120
100
mg/I 80
60 40
20 0-sola--
Monitoring Wells - Sodium
•
Mar JUN SEP DEC
2012
❑ Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Wel DMW-2 0Upgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells - Chloride
mg/I
180
160
140
120
100
80 60
40 20
0 M a
JUN

SEP DEC
2012
El Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■Downgrage Well DMW-1 ElDowngrade Well DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 5H • 400 .-
350
300
250
mg/I 200
150
100
50 0
Monitoring Wells - Sulfate
1 el
Mar JUN SEP DEC
2012
:E Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells - Boron

0.5 ,.

0.45 0.4

0.35 0.3
mg/I 0.25

0.2 0.15

0.1 0.05
0 Mar JUN SEP DFC
2012
■ Downgrade Well UMW -1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 III! Upgrade Well 5H Monitoring Wells - Total Nitrogen
16 14
12-
10 mg/I 8
6-
4 Mar
JUN
SEP
DEC
2012
Downgrade Well UMW -1 II Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells NH3-N

3.0 2.5

0.5 0.0
Mar JUN SEP
16 T—
14 12
10 mg/I 8
6 4
2 0`
r, a r
2012
DEC
❑ Downgrade Well UMW -1
■ Downgrade Well DMW-1
❑ Downgrade Well DMW-2
❑ Upgrade Well 5H
Monitoring Wells - Nitrate (as N)
r'1
JUN
2012

SEP DEC
0 Downgrade Well UMW -1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 5H l

Monitoring Well NO2-N

0.5 0.45

0.4 0.35

0.3 mg/I 0.25

0.2 0.15

0.1 0.05
0 Mar

JUN SEP
2012
0 Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■ Downgrade Well DMW-1'
1❑ Downgrade Well DMW-2 ❑ Upstream Well 5H
Monitoring Wells - TKN
Mar

JUN SEP
2012
DEC
DEC
■ Downgrade Well UMW -1
• Downgrade Well DMW-1
❑Downgrade Well DMW-2
0 Upgrade Well 5H

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITIY CONTROL BOARD
Central Coast Region
Mandated Ground Water Quality Monitoring
(Under WQCB Order. No. IH3-2010-0001)
2 D
LOCAL WELL WATER MONITORING* Mar 40 SEP DEC AVERAGE
Upgrade Well (5H) Apr
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 Sodium (mg/1) 59 77 69 75 70.0
Chloride (mg/1) 46 46 44 49 46.3
Sulfate (mg/1) 400 400 400 360 390.0
Boron (mg/1) 0.20 0.19 0.25 0.20 0.21
Total Nitrogen (mg/1) 14.0 15.0 14.0 13.0 14.0
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/1) <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Nitrate, NO3 -N (mg/1) 14.0 15.0 14.0 13.0 14.0
Nitrite, NO2 -N (mg/1) <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
TKN (mg/1) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Downgrade Well (UMW -1) MAR
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 99.2 108.8 101.3 99.7 102.2 Sodium (mg/1) 150 150 140 150 147.5
Chloride (mg/1) 166 171 165 153 163.8
Sulfate (mg/1) 200 170 170 160 175.0
Boron (mg/1) 0.39 0.34 0.44 0.36 0.38
Total Nitrogen (mg/1) 2.8 3.8 3.7 4.2 3.6
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/1) 2.6 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.3
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/1) <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
Nitrite, NO2 -N (mg/1) <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
TKN (mg/1) 2.8 3.8 3.7 4.2 3.6
Downgrade Well (DMW-1)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 31.8 77.7 81.0 86.95 69.4 Sodium (mg/1) 150 130 130 140 137.5
Chloride (mg/1) 172 153 145 137 151.8
Sulfate (mg/1) 160 180 110 110 140.0
Boron (mg/1) 0.36 0.27 0.35 0.34 0.33
Total Nitrogen (mg/1) 7.7 9.8 4.2 3.4 6.3
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/1) <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Nitrate, NO3-N (mg/1) 7.7 9.8 4.2 3.4 6.3
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/1) <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
TKN (mg/1) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Downgrade Well (DMW-2)
Depth to Groundwater (in feet) 78.0 79.1 81.5 77.1 78.9 Sodium (mg/1) 150 120 120 130 130
Chloride (mg/1) 155 128 135 123 135
Sulfate (mg/1) 180 110 GB 71 107
Boron (mg/1) 0.34 0.24 0.35 0.34 0.32
Total Nitrogen (mg/1) 6.3 5.0 Q.95 0.4 3.2
Ammonia, NH3-N (mg/1) <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
Nitrate, NO3 -N (mg/1) 6.3 3.9 0.95 0.41 2.9
Nitrite, NO2-N (mg/1) <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4
TKN (mg/1) <1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0

Depth To Groundwater
140
120-
100-
80 ft
6L'
40 20
0 Mar 1'. SEP DEC
2011
L® Downgrade Well UMW -1 II Downgrade Well DMW-1 ❑Downgrade Well DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 511 160—'
140-
120 -
100-
mg/1 80
60-
40-
20-
0-f
Mar
Monitoring Wells - Sodium
JUN
2011

SEP DEC
-
roDowngrade Well UMW -1 M Downgrade Well DMW-1 °Downgrade Wel DMW-2 °Upgrade Well SH

Monitoring Wells - Chloride
mg/I
180
160
140
120 1'
100 °
80 60}
40 20 ,ir_.
0 '
JUN
SEP
DEC
Mar
2011
ODowngrade Well UMW -1 : Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 0Upgrade Well SH- 400-
350-
300
250
mg/I 200
150-
100
Monitoring Wells - Sulfate
JUN S
2011
F-,
DEC
lu Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■ Downgrade Well DMW-1 UDowngrade Well DMW-2 OUpgrade Well SH

Monitoring Wells - Boron
Mar JUN SLP
2011
DEC
■Downgrade Weil UMW -1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-1 ❑ Downgrade Well DMW-2 El Upgrade Well 5H I 16 14-
12-
10-
mg/I 8
6 4
2-
0 -
Monitoring Wells - Total Nitrogen
' It i 91.411 - .u. i I .• - li. i -: II. tllld:ll== . - , . I, • " ''iI1PI'ii1' : ... "I .I _
.. .III _ .

Vii_
Mar
JUN
2011
SEP
DEC
0 Downgrade Well UMW -1 ■ Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Wells NH3-N
40 35
30 75
mg/I 2.0
15 I0
05 00
14 12
10-
mgfl 8
6 Mar JUN SU'
2011
rc
Monitoring Wells - Nitrate (as N)
'.I I 1
Mar
JUN
ICI Downgrade Well UMW -11
In Downgrade Well DMW 1
O Downgrade Well DMW2
n Upgrade Well 5H
2011
Y
SEE
DEC
0Downgrade Well UMW -1 E Downgrade Well DMW-1 °Downgrade Well DMW-2 0 Upgrade Well 5H

Monitoring Well NO2-N
t

0.9 0.8

0.7 0.6
mg/I 0.5

0.4 0.3 d

0.2 0.1
Mar JUN SEP DEC
2011
Downgrade Well UMW -1 ® Downgrade Well DMW-1 0 Downgrade Well DMW-2 0 Upstream Well H 45 4

3.5 3-
15-
mgll
2 1.5

0.5 n
I
Mat
Monitoring Wells - TKN
it N
2011
Ll Downgrade Well UMW -1
le Downgrade Well DMW-1
0 Downgrade Well DMW-2
,0Upgrade Well 511

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NOTICE OF INTENT WITH THE CENTRAL COAST

REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD FOR ENROLLMENT

UNDER THE GENERAL PERMIT (WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
ORDER NO. R3-2020-0020) FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria ("City") is permitted by Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Water Board") Order No. R3-2010-0001 for individual waste discharge requirements for discharges of domestic wastewater to land from the City Wastewater Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2020, the Water Board adopted General Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2020-0020 for Discharges from Domestic Wastewater Systems with Flows Greater than 100,000 Gallons per Day (the "General Permit"); and
WHEREAS, the City is required to enroll under the General Permit by August 5, 2022, via submission to the Water Board of an Application/Report of Waste Discharge General Form for Waste Discharge Requirements (Form 200), appropriate application fees, and a technical report that describes the wastewater generation, treatment, storage, and disposal ("Notice of Intent"); and
WHEREAS, after coverage under the General Permit has been authorized, the Water Board will issue the City a Notice of Applicability that will contain specific monitoring and reporting requirements for the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

1. The Notice of Intent for Order No. R3-2020-0020, incorporated herein by reference and on file with the Utilities Department, is hereby approved.

2. The City Manager, or their designee, is hereby authorized and directed to submit to the Water Board the referenced Notice of Intent consistent with the terms of the General Permit, or to submit a revised Notice of Intent if that revision is determined to be in the best interest of the City of Santa Maria and in substantial conformance with the approved Notice of Intent and the General Permit; and

3. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary. 1//

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria held on this 2nd day of August 2022.

Mayor
ATTEST:

Chief Deputy City Clerk

APPROV S T
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

Department Dregr
City Manager
2

Santa Maria City CouncilAugust 2, 2022

Santa Maria City Council
August 2, 2022