Santa Paula City Council
June 17, 2026

E. All monitoring reports must include, at minimum, the following:
373
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-3

1. Well or location identification, date and time of sampling;

2. Sampler identification, laboratory identification, and chain of custody;

3. Quarterly observation of groundwater levels, recorded to 0.01 feet mean sea level (MSL), and flow direction; and

4. Calculation of vertical separation of the water table from the bottom of the disposal system.

II. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Monitoring shall be used to determine compliance with waste discharge requirements and shall include, but is not limited to, implementation and documentation of the following:

1. Locations of each groundwater well where representative samples can be obtained and the rationale for the selection. The City must include a map, at a scale of 1 inch equals 1,200 feet or less, that clearly identifies the locations of the SPWRF, and all groundwater monitoring wells.

2. Sampling protocols (specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 136 or American Water Works Association standards where appropriate) and chain of custody procedures.

3. For groundwater monitoring, outline the methods and procedures to be used for measuring water levels; purging wells; collecting samples; decontaminating equipment; containing, preserving, and shipping samples; and maintaining appropriate documentation. Also include the procedures for handling, storing, testing, and disposing of purge and decontamination waters generated from the sampling events.

4. Laboratory or laboratories, which conducted the analyses. Include copy or copies of laboratory certifications by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW) every year or when the City changes their contract laboratory.

5. Analytical test methods used and the corresponding Detection Limits for Purposes of Reporting (DLR) for unregulated and regulated chemicals.

Please see the DDW’s website at
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/EDT.shtml for unregulated and regulated chemicals.

6. Quality assurance and control measures.

B. The samples shall be analyzed using analytical methods described in 40 C.F.R.

Part 136; or where no methods are specified for a given pollutant, by 374
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-4
commercially available methods approved by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or DDW, Regional Board and/or State Board. The City shall select the analytical methods that provide reporting detection limits (RDLs) lower than the limits prescribed in waste discharge requirements.

C. The City shall instruct its laboratories to establish calibration standards so that the RDLs (or its equivalent if there is a different treatment of samples relative to calibration standards) are the lowest calibration standard. At no time shall the City use analytical data derived from extrapolation beyond the lowest point of the calibration curve.

D. Upon request by the City, the Regional Board, in consultation with the USEPA or DDW and the State Board Quality Assurance Program, may establish RDLs in any of the following situations:

1. When the pollutant has no established method under 40 C.F.R. Part 136 (revised May 14, 1999, or subsequent revision);

2. When the method under 40 C.F.R. Part 136 for the pollutant has a RDL higher than the limit specified in this Order; or

3. When the City agrees to use a test method that is more sensitive than those specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 136 and is commercially available.

E. Samples of influent and disinfected effluent must be analyzed within allowable holding time limits as specified in 40 C.F.R. section 136.3. All quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) analyses must be run on the same dates when samples were actually analyzed. The City shall make available for inspection and/or submit the QA/QC documentation upon request by the Regional Board. Proper chain of custody procedures must be followed and a copy of that documentation shall be submitted with the quarterly monitoring report.

F. Constituents of emerging concern (CECs): In recent years, the Regional Board has required monitoring of a select group of anthropogenic chemicals, particularly pesticides, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, known collectively as CECs, into monitoring and program requirements to better understand the propensity, persistence and effects of CECs in our environment. Recently adopted permits in this region contain requirements for CEC effluent monitoring, including identification of the CECs to be monitored in the effluent, sample type, sampling frequency, and sampling methodology.

1. The City shall monitor a selective list of CECs identified in Attachment C in the SPWRF’s effluent discharge and in the groundwater. The reporting limits in Attachment C shall be used for these constituents.

2. The City shall select methods according to the following approach:
375
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-5
i. Use USEPA drinking water methods, if available;
ii. Use DDW-recommended methods for CECs, if available; iii. If there is no DDW-recommended drinking water method for a chemical, and more than a single USEPA-approved method is available, use the most sensitive USEPA-approved method; iv. If there is no USEPA-approved method for a chemical, and more than one method is available from the scientific literature and commercial laboratory, after consultation with DDW, use the most sensitive method; or
v. If no approved method is available for a specific chemical, the City’s laboratory may develop or use its own methods and should provide the analytical methods to DDW or the Regional Board for review and approval. Those methods may be used until DDW-recommended or USEPA-approved methods are available.
vi. In the event that subsections II.F.2.i. or II.F.2.v. are applicable, the City shall inform the Regional Board.

3. CECs identified in Attachment C shall be monitored once within six months from the effective date of this Order (by May 2, 2018) and once every five years thereafter. The Regional Board Executive Officer may add or delete chemicals from Attachment C as new analytical methods become available and may also make revisions to approved analytical methods as needed. A revised CECs list will be made available to the City when changes occur. The City shall request (and submit a justification for) any deviation from the attached list for Executive Officer approval, if a change is required, before collecting samples.

4. Monitoring results shall be reported as part of the annual report. Analysis under this section is for monitoring purposes only as there are currently no standards for these constituents.

III. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The City shall submit all reports to the Regional Board by the dates indicated in Section I. All quarterly and annual reports shall clearly list all non-compliance with WDRs, as well as all excursions of effluent limits. All quarterly and annual monitoring reports shall contain a separate section titled “Summary of Non-Compliance”, which discusses the compliance records and corrective actions taken or planned that may be needed to bring the discharge into full compliance with WDRs. 376
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-6
A. Quarterly Monitoring Reports

1. These reports shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
i. The volume of the effluent used for land disposal via percolation. ii. The date and time of sampling and analyses on the influent, effluent, and groundwater.
iii. All analytical results of samples collected during the monitoring period of the influent, effluent, and groundwater.
iv. Documentation of all QA/QC procedures that were followed during sampling and laboratory analyses.
v. Records of any operational problems, plant upset and equipment breakdowns or malfunctions, and any discharge(s) used for land disposal via percolation.
vi. Discussion of compliance, non-compliance, or violation of waste discharge requirements.
vii. All corrective and/or preventive action(s) taken or planned with schedule of implementation, if any violation occurs.

2. For the purpose of reporting compliance with numerical limitations, analytical data shall be reported using the following reporting protocols:
i. Sample results greater than or equal to the RDL must be reported “as measured” by the laboratory (i.e., the measured chemical concentration in the sample);
ii. Sample results less than the RDL, but greater than or equal to the laboratory’s method detection limit (MDL), must be reported as “Detected, but Not Quantified” (DNQ). The laboratory must write the estimated chemical concentration of the sample next to DNQ as well as the words “Estimated Concentration” (may be shortened to Est.

Conc.); or
iii. Sample results less than the laboratory’s MDL must be reported as “None-Detected” (ND).

3. If the City samples and performs analyses (other than for process/operational control, startup, research, or equipment testing) on any sample more frequently than required in this MRP using approved analytical methods, the results of those analyses shall be included in the report. These results shall be included in the calculation of the average 377
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-7
used in demonstrating compliance with average effluent limits, receiving groundwater limits, etc.

4. The Regional Board may request supporting documentation, such as daily logs of operations.

B. Annual Summary Reports
These reports shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

1. Tabular and graphical summaries of the monitoring data (quality of influent, effluent, and groundwater; quantity of influent and effluent to percolation ponds,) obtained during the previous calendar year. A comparison of laboratory results against effluent limits contained in these WDRs and notations of any exceedances of limits or other requirements shall be summarized and submitted at the beginning of the report.

2. Discussion of the compliance record and corrective and/or preventive action(s) taken or planned that may be needed to bring the treated effluent, including the treated effluent used for recycled water, into full compliance with the requirements in the WDRs.

3. An in-depth discussion of the results of the final effluent monitoring and groundwater monitoring conducted during the previous year includes:
i. Any change of receiving groundwater resulting from effluent discharges at percolation ponds; and
ii. Any change of groundwater flow pattern resulting from discharge via percolation ponds.

Temporal and spatial trends in the data shall be analyzed, with particular reference to comparisons between stations with respect to distances from the monitoring wells and comparisons to data collected during previous years. Appropriate statistical tests and indices, subject to approval by the Regional Board Executive Officer, shall be calculated and included in the annual report.

4. The description of any changes and anticipated changes including any impacts in operation of any unit processes or facilities shall be provided.

5. A list of the analytical methods employed for each test and associated laboratory QA/QC procedures shall be included. The report shall restate the laboratories used by the City to monitor compliance with the accompanying Order, their status of certification, and provide a summary of analyses.
378
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-8

6. The report shall confirm operator certification and provide a list of current operating personnel, their responsibilities, and their corresponding grade of certification.

7. The report shall also summarize any change of the Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan (OMM Plan) due to the optimization of the existing SPWRF operation. The summary shall discuss conformance with the SPWRF's OMM Plan for operations, maintenance, and monitoring of the SPWRF, and whether the OMM Plan requires revision for the current facilities.

IV. WATER QUALITY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Influent Monitoring

1. The City shall monitor influent to the SPWRF at Influent Pump Station located in the main stream of the influent channel prior to the headworks as specified in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Influent Monitoring
Constituents Units[1] Type of Sample Minimum Frequency of Analysis
Total waste flow gpd Recorder Continuous[2]
BOD5@20o
C mg/L Grab Monthly
Total suspended solids mg/L Grab Monthly
Chloride mg/L 24-hour composite Monthly
Sulfate mg/L Grab Monthly
Boron mg/L Grab Monthly
Total dissolved solids mg/L Grab Monthly
Metals[3] µg/L Grab Quarterly
Table nots: [1] gpd: gallons per day; mg/L: milligrams per liter; µg/L: micrograms per liter [2] The City shall report the daily minimum, maximum, and average values. [3] Metals include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc.

B. Effluent Monitoring

1. The City shall monitor its discharge of tertiary-treated effluent at downstream of all treated effluent passing through the effluent sampling station, including the final disinfection process.
379
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-9

2. The following shall constitute the effluent monitoring program, specified in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Effluent Monitoring
Constituent Unit[1] Type of Sample[2] Minimum Frequency of Analysis
Total flow gpd Recorder Continuous
[3]
UV mW-s/cm2 Recorder Continuous[3]
Turbidity NTU Recorder Continuous[3][4]
pH pH units Grab Daily
Fecal coliform MPN/100mL Grab Daily
Total coliform MPN/100mL Grab Daily
Enterococcus MPN/100mL Grab Weekly
Total suspended solids mg/L 24-hour composite Monthly
BOD5@20o
C mg/L 24-hour composite Monthly
Oil and grease mg/L Grab Monthly
Ammonia as nitrogen mg/L Grab Monthly
Nitrate as nitrogen mg/L Grab Monthly
Nitrite as nitrogen mg/L Grab Monthly
Organic nitrogen mg/L Grab Monthly
Residual chlorine mg/L Grab Monthly
Total dissolved solids mg/L Grab Monthly
Sulfate mg/L Grab Monthly
Chloride mg/L Grab Weekly
Boron mg/L Grab Monthly
MBAS[5] mg/L Grab Quarterly
CTAS[6] mg/L Grab Quarterly
Total hardness mg/L 24-hour composite Quarterly
Total phosphorus mg/L 24-hour composite Quarterly
Constituents listed in
Attachment A-1 to A-6
various Grab/24-hour
composite Quarterly
380
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-10
Constituent Unit[1] Type of Sample[2] Minimum Frequency of Analysis
CECs in Attachment C various Grab
Once within 6 months
and every 5 years
thereafter[7]
Remaining priority
pollutants in Attachment D µg/L Grab/24-hour composite Annually Table notes: [1] NTU: Nephelometric turbidity unit; mW-s/cm2:milli-watts seconds per square centimeter; MPN/100mL: most probable number per 100 milliliter; µg/L: micrograms per liter
[2] Grab sample is an individual sample collected in a short period of time not exceeding 15 minutes. Grab samples shall be collected during normal peak loading conditions for the parameter of interest, which may or may not be during hydraulic peaks. When an automatic composite sampler is not used, composite sampling shall be done as follows. If the duration of the discharge is equal to or less than 24 hours but greater than eight (8) hours, at least eight (8) flow-weighted samples shall be obtained during the discharge period and composited. For discharge duration of less than eight (8) hours, individual “grab” sample may be substituted. 24-hour composite is for semi-volatile and volatile chemicals.
[3] The City shall report the daily minimum, maximum, and average values. [4] In the event the continuous turbidity meter and recorder fail, grab sampling may be substituted for a period of up to 24 hours. The turbidity samples must be taken at intervals of no more than 1.2 hours over a 24- hour period to determine compliance for turbidity.
[5] MBAS: Methylene Blue Active Substances
[6] CTAS: Cobalt Thiocyanate Active Substances
[7] CECs shall be monitored once within six months from the effective date of this Order (by May 2, 2018) and once every five years thereafter.

C. Groundwater Monitoring

1. The City shall monitor the groundwater at and surrounding the SPWRF to assess the water quality impact of the SPWRF’s discharges to groundwater.

2. The City shall continue to conduct groundwater monitoring from all existing wells, including MW-1, MW-2a, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-7a, MW8, and MW-9 until such time as the City’s work plan proposing a modified groundwater monitoring network, described in Section IV.C.3 below, is approved by the Executive Officer and is implemented by the City.

3. By May 1, 2018, the City shall submit to the Regional Board a work plan proposing a modified groundwater monitoring network for compliance determination with the groundwater limitations. The proposed 381
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-11
groundwater monitoring network shall include groundwater monitoring wells upgradient, cross gradient, and downgradient to the percolation pond. In addition to installation of new wells, the City may propose continuing to use some or all of the existing groundwater monitoring wells (MW-1, MW-2a, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-7a, MW-8, and MW-9).

For compliance determination with the groundwater limitation for chloride, the City’s proposed modified groundwater monitoring network shall include wells at approximately 150 feet downgradient from the percolation pond. The work plan shall be submitted to the Regional Board for the Executive Officer’s review and approval. If the City proposes to use existing wells (such as water supply or irrigation wells) not owned by the City, or proposes to install new wells on property not owned by the City, the City shall include as part of its work plan any access agreements between the City and property owner(s) to use and/or install groundwater wells on non-City-owned property. The City shall implement the work plan, by completing installation of any new wells and commencing monitoring from them, within 60 days after the Executive Officer’s approval.

4. The required groundwater monitoring of constituents/parameter with sample type and frequencies is specified in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Groundwater Monitoring
Constituents Units Type of Sample Minimum Frequency
of Analysis[2]
Water level elevation[1] feet Recorder Monthly
pH pH units Grab Monthly
Total coliform MPN/100mL Grab Monthly
Fecal coliform MPN/100mL Grab Monthly
Enterococcus MPN/100mL Grab Monthly
Ammonia as nitrogen mg/L Grab Monthly
Nitrate as nitrogen mg/L Grab Monthly
Nitrite as nitrogen mg/L Grab Monthly
Organic nitrogen mg/L Grab Monthly
Total dissolved solids mg/L Grab Monthly
Sulfate mg/L Grab Monthly
Chloride mg/L Grab Monthly
Boron mg/L Grab Monthly
382
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-12
Constituents Units Type of Sample Minimum Frequency
of Analysis[2]
Constituents listed in
Attachments A-1 to A-5
various Grab Annually
CECs in Attachment C µg/L Grab
Once within 6 months
and every 5 years
thereafter
Remaining priority
pollutants in Attachment D µg/L Grab Annually
Table notes: [1] Annual samples shall be collected during the dry season each year. [2] Water level elevations must be measured to the nearest 0.01 feet, and referenced to mean sea level.

D. Monitoring of Effluent Flow to Percolation Ponds
The City shall record the volume in gallons per day (GPD) of treated wastewater discharged to the three percolation ponds. This information shall be submitted as part of the quarterly monitoring reports.

V. GENERAL MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. The City shall comply with all Standard Provisions (Attachment B) related to monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping.

B. For every requirement not met, the City shall submit a statement of the actions undertaken or proposed that will bring the treated effluent into full compliance with requirements at the earliest possible time, and submit a timetable for implementation of the corrective measures.

C. Monitoring reports shall be signed by either the principal Executive Officer or ranking elected official. A duly authorized representative of the aforementioned signatories may sign documents if:

1. The authorization is made in writing by the signatory;

2. The authorization specifies the representative as either an individual or position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity; and

3. The written authorization is submitted to the Regional Board Executive Officer.

D. The monitoring report shall contain the following completed declaration:
“I certify under penalty of law that this document, including all attachments and supplemental information, was prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly 383
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-13
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 a fine and imprisonment.”
Executed on the ___ day of _____ at ______
______________________ Signature
______________________ Title
E. The City shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance, monitoring instrumentation, and copies of all reports required by this Order, for a period of at least three (3) years from the date of sampling measurement, or report. This period may be extended by request of the Regional Board at any time and shall be extended during the course of any unresolved administrative proceeding or judicial litigation regarding the regulated activity.

F. Records of monitoring information shall include:

1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;

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

3. The date(s) analyses were performed;

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

5. The analytical techniques or methods used; and

6. The results of such analyses.

G. The City shall submit to the Regional Board, together with the first monitoring report required by this Order, a list of all chemicals and proprietary additives that could affect the quality of the treated effluent. Any subsequent changes in types and/or quantities shall be reported promptly. An annual summary of the quantities of all chemicals, listed by both trade and chemical names that are used in the treatment process shall be included in the annual report.

VI. WASTE HAULING REPORTING
In the event that waste sludge, septage, or other wastes are hauled offsite, the name and address of the hauler shall be reported, along with types and quantities hauled during the reporting period and the location of final point of disposal. In the event that 384
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-14
no wastes are hauled during the reporting period, a statement to that effect shall be submitted in the quarterly monitoring report.

VII. PRETREATMENT REPORTING
The City shall submit annual reports to the Regional Board, with copies to the State Board, and USEPA Region 9, describing the City's pretreatment activities over the period.

A. The annual reports shall identify:

1. All significant industrial users (SIUs) that violated any standards or reporting requirements during that year;

2. The violations committed;

3. The enforcement actions undertaken; and

4. The status of active enforcement actions from previous periods, including closeouts (facilities under previous enforcement actions that attained compliance during the quarter).

B. By March 1 of each year, beginning January 1, 2018, the City shall submit an annual summary report to the Regional Board describing the pretreatment activities within the service area during the previous year. In the event that any control authority within the service area is not in compliance with any conditions or requirements of this Order or their approved pretreatment program (such as due to industrial user discharges, interjurisdictional agency agreement implementation issues, or other causes,) then the City shall also include the reasons for noncompliance and state how and when the City and the control authority shall comply with such conditions and requirements. The report shall contain, but not be limited to, the following information:

1. A summary of analytical results from representative, flow-proportioned, 24-hour composite sampling of the SPWRF's influent and effluent wastewaters for those pollutants that are known or suspected to be discharged by industrial users (IUs) as identified by the pretreatment program.

2. The summary shall include the result of annual full priority pollutant scan, with quarterly samples analyzed only for those pollutants detected in the full scan.

3. The City shall also provide any influent or effluent monitoring data for nonpriority pollutants that the City believes may be causing or contributing to Interference, Pass Through or adversely impacting sludge quality. 385
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-15

4. Sampling and analysis shall be performed in accordance with the techniques prescribed in pretreatment program and amendments thereto.

5. A discussion of any upset, interference, or pass-through incidents at the treatment plant (if any), which the City knows or suspects were caused by IUs of the SPWRF system. The discussion shall include the following:
i. The reasons why the incidents occurred, the corrective actions taken, and, if known, the name and address of the IU(s) responsible. ii. A review of the applicable pollutant limitations to determine whether any additional limitations, or changes to existing requirements, may be necessary to prevent pass through, interference or
noncompliance with sludge disposal requirements, if any.

6. A complete and updated list of the City's significant industrial users (SIUs), including names, Standard Industrial Classification code(s) and addresses, and a list of any SIU deletions and/or additions.

7. The City shall provide a brief explanation for each deletion. The SIU list shall identify the SlUs equivalent to Federal Categorical Standards by specifying which standards are applicable to each SIU. The list shall also indicate which SlUs are subject to local limitations and those that are not subject to local limits.

8. A list or table characterizing the industrial compliance status of each SIU, including:
i. SIU name and address;
ii. Industrial category;
iii. The type (processes) of wastewater treatment in place; iv. Number of samples taken by the SPWRF during the year; v. Number of samples taken by the SIU during the year;
vi. Whether all needed certifications (if allowed) were provided by SlUs that have limits for total toxic organics;
vii. Regional Standards violated during the year, reported separately; viii. whether the SIU at any time in the year was in Significant Noncompliance (SNC), equivalent to that defined in 40 C.F.R. section 403.12(f)(2)(vii);
386
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-16
ix A summary of enforcement actions against the SIU taken during the year, including the type of action, final compliance date, and amount of fines assessed/collected (if any). Proposed actions, if known, should be included; and
x. Number of inspections conducted at each SIU during the year.

9. A compliance summary table that includes:
i. SIU's which were in SNC at any time during the year; ii. The total number of SlUs that are in SNC with pretreatment, compliance schedules during the year; and
iii. The total number of notices of violation and administrative orders issued against SlUs during the year:
a. The total number of civil and criminal judicial actions filed against SlUs during the year;
b. The number of SlUs that were published as being in SNC during the year; and
c. The number of IUs from which penalties were collected during the year.

10. A short description of any significant changes in operating the pretreatment program that differ from the previous year including, but not limited to changes concerning:
i. The program's administrative structure;
ii. Local industrial discharge limitations;
iii. Monitoring program or monitoring frequencies;
iv. Legal authority or enforcement policy;
v. Funding mechanisms; and
vi. Resource requirements and/or staffing levels.

11. A summary of the annual pretreatment budget, including the cost of pretreatment program functions and equipment purchases.

12. A summary of public participation activities to involve and inform the public.
387
City of Santa Paula Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-9259 Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
E-17

13. A description of any changes in sludge disposal methods and a discussion of any concerns not described elsewhere in the report.

14. The cumulative number of industrial users that the City has notified regarding Baseline Monitoring Reports and the cumulative number of industrial user responses.

15. The City shall submit the quarterly compliance status reports and the annual pretreatment report to the Regional Board.

VIII. MONITORING FREQUENCIES
The Regional Board Executive Officer is delegated authority to revise this Monitoring and Reporting Program, including monitoring frequencies and parameters. The City may make a request (with justification) to reduce the monitoring frequency or to modify the list of monitoring constituents. The City shall not make any adjustment until the Executive Officer provides written approval after determining that the request is adequately justified.
388

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

LOS ANGELES REGION
320 West 4th Street, Suite 200, Los Angeles, California 90013 (213) 576-6600 • Fax (213) 576-6640
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/
Adopted: February 8, 2018
Amended: May 12, 2022
T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E

CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
FOR

CITY OF SANTA PAULA
ORDER NO. R4-2018-0023, AS AMENDED BY
ORDER NO. R4-2018-0023-A01
(SANTA PAULA WATER RECYCLING FACILITY)
(FILE NO. 16-189)

REQUIRING CITY OF SANTA PAULA

TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS TOWARD COMPLIANCE WITH

CHLORIDE REQUIREMENTS IN WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR

DISCHARGES FROM SANTA PAULA WATER RECYCLING FACILITY
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Water Board) finds:

1. The City of Santa Paula (City or Discharger) is the owner of the Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility (SPWRF), a Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW), located at 920 Corporation Street in Santa Paula, California. The SPWRF is operated by Ventura Regional Sanitation District and discharges tertiary-treated wastewater to groundwater via three percolation ponds adjacent to the facility.

2. The SPWRF treats wastewater generated within the City and is designed for a flow of 4.2 million gallons per day (MGD). Based on the discharge records between July 2010 and June 2017, the monthly average effluent discharged from the SPWRF ranged between 1.36 and 2.44 MGD, with an average of 1.86 MGD.

3. The wastewater treatment process at the SPWRF consists of preliminary treatment (coarse and fine mechanical screening and grit removal at the Influent Lift Station), flow equalization (two flow equalization tanks), secondary treatment (three aeration tanks with nitrification and denitrification activated sludge), tertiary treatment (six biomembrane reactors, providing further carbonaceous oxidation, nitrification/denitrification and solids removal to meet the limits of the WDRs), and disinfection (UV). Treated and disinfected effluent is discharged to three percolation ponds. The returned activated sludge is treated at two of three aerobic digesters (one aerobic digester is for backup) after being thickened at two thickeners. The solids generated at the aerobic digesters receive final dewatering at the screw dewatering press. Final solids meeting the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Class B reuse standards are sent to the Ventura County Regional Bio-Solids facility.

4. The SPWRF is able to meet all final effluent limitations in the City's waste discharge requirements (WDRs) except for chloride. This is due to the SPWRF not being 389
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
2 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
designed to remove chloride. Since the SPWRF has no ability to remove chloride, chloride is passed through to the effluent and then groundwater via discharges to the percolation pond. Noncompliance with chloride effluent and groundwater limitations is the most problematic issue with the SPWRF. Table 1 summarizes the chloride concentrations of effluent discharged from the SPWRF.

Table 1. Annual Average Chloride Concentrations[1] (milligrams per liter, mg/L) in SPWRF Effluent
Period Effluent of SPWRF
2010 156
2011 153
2012 149
2013 155
2014 145
2015 134
2016 137
2017 131
2018 121
2019 120
2020 118.88
2021 112
Range[2] 135.99 ± 15.61
Table 1 notes:
[1] All data were collected from grab samples.
[2] Data range is based on one standard deviation.

A. The monthly effluent chloride concentration ranged from 125 to 166 mg/L between July 2010 and June 2017, which continuously exceeded the chloride effluent limitation of 110 mg/L. This has led to an escalation of the chloride concentrations in groundwater below and surrounding the three percolation ponds with a range of 121 to 168 mg/L and an average of 140 mg/L since July 2010. The groundwater and effluent data indicate that the chloride discharges from the SPWRF have impacted the receiving groundwater quality in the vicinity of the SPWRF.

B. The elevated chloride concentrations in the effluent were believed to be associated with the approximately 1,250 Self-Regenerating Water Softeners (SRWS) installed in the households of the City. These SRWS generate brine 390
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
3 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
containing elevated chloride concentrations, which are discharged to sewers and delivered to the SPWRF as influent.

C. According to the effluent data collected between October 2015 and June 2017, a total of 2,479 pounds/day (lbs/day) of chloride, based on the effluent flow rate of 2.2 MGD [95 percentile of monthly average effluent flows, resulting from data recorded between October 2015 (beginning of the SRWS Buyback Program) and June 2017] and a chloride effluent concentration of 135 mg/L, were discharged to the groundwater underlying the percolation pond.

D. The chloride interim effluent limit of 1,983 lbs/day was exceeded twice between 2018 and 2021: 2,040 lbs/day in February 2021, calculated from February 8, 2021 through March 7, 2021, and 2,030 lbs/day in March 2021, calculated from March 8, 2021 through April 7, 2021.

E. The chloride interim groundwater limitation was exceeded at downgradient wells AW01 in July 2018 and at AW03 in August 2020.

5. The Regional Water Board issued three Notices of Violation (NOVs), described below, to the City for exceedances of the chloride effluent and groundwater limitations in Order No. R4-2007-0028. These NOVs required the City to implement corrective and preventative actions to bring the City's discharge into full compliance with chloride effluent limitations and receiving water requirements specified in Order No. R4-2007-0028, previously adopted by this Regional Water Board on May 3, 2007.

A. The November 3, 2011 NOV summarized chloride limit exceedances between the second quarter of 2010 and the third quarter of 2011. These violations included 15 exceedances of chloride and one exceedance of total nitrogen, di(2-ethyl)phthalate, and dioxin in effluent; and 1 exceedance of sulfate, 5 exceedances of chromium, 10 exceedances of aluminum, 1 exceedance of nickel and boron and nitrate plus nitrite, and 26 chloride exceedances of groundwater limitations.

B. The December 30, 2014 NOV summarized 36 and 88 chloride exceedances in effluent and groundwater, respectively, between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the third quarter of 2014.

C. The March 20, 2017 NOV summarized 27 and 50 chloride exceedances in effluent and groundwater, respectively, between the fourth quarter of 2011 and the fourth quarter of 2016.

6. The City's efforts to reduce the chloride concentration in the influent to the SPWRF are summarized below:
391
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
4 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
A. The City identified that the influent to the SPWRF contains brine with elevated chloride concentration from Self-Regenerating Water Softeners (SRWS).

There are approximately 1,250 residential SRWS used in the City.

B. On September 5, 2006, the City established Ordinance No. 1160 prohibiting the installation or replacement of residential SRWS.

C. On June 22, 2015, the City adopted Resolution No. 6918 approving a SRWS Buyback and Incentive Program. This program offers a financial incentive to residents to voluntarily remove SRWS. A Kick-Off SRWS Buyback event was held on September 19, 2015. The removal of SRWS under this program began in October 2015. Three hundred (300) of the approximately 1,250 SRWS have been removed from October 2015 through February 2022. A reliable decreasing trend for chloride has not been observed in the effluent.

7. To address the City's chloride exceedances in the effluent and groundwater, the Regional Water Board required the City to submit a Chloride Reduction Workplan.

Board staff also met with the City on several occasions to discuss the City's chloride exceedances. A summary of these events are as follows:

A. On December 19, 2013 and May 11, 2015, the Regional Water Board met with the City to discuss its Chloride Reduction Workplan. The City's Chloride Reduction Workplan includes the following tasks:
i. Prohibit SRWS installations or replacements;
ii. Implement a SRWS Buyback Program;
iii. Implement a Recycled Water Program to reduce effluent discharged to the three percolation ponds; and
iv. Implement Supplemental Strategies, if needed, including advanced treatment (e.g., reverse osmosis) and disposal of brine.

B. On January 28, 2016, Regional Water Board staff discussed with the City the necessary actions to reduce the chloride concentration in the effluent, which included the SRWS Buyback Program. The City also proposed to explore application of recycled water at locations other than identified groundwater hot spots and to conduct groundwater impact investigation and remediation activities. The City was notified that detailed schedules and milestones were required for all actions.

C. On March 8, 2016 and September 14, 2016, the City met with Regional Water Board staff to provide an update of its SRWS Buyback Program efforts. The City noted that five City employees were deployed to conduct door-to-door visits to encourage participation in the SRWS Buyback Program among 7,500 dwellings within the City.
392
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
5 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
D. On October 31, 2016, the City met with Regional Water Board staff to provide an update on the following topics:
i. Status of implementing the chloride compliance strategy and potential for reduction of effluent discharged to the three percolation ponds via the City's Recycled Water Program;
ii. Assimilative capacities for chloride at different groundwater locations beneath the City based on the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the Lower Santa Clara River Basin; and
iii. Groundwater hot spots (i.e., chloride impaired areas with no assimilative capacity for recycled water applications) in the City.

E. On May 1, 2018, the City submitted the Self-Regenerating Water Softener Buyback Program Evaluation Report to comply with CDO requirements. The report concluded that the Buyback Program is partially effective in reducing chloride loadings to the SPWRF, but the estimated reduction in the chloride concentration in the effluent has not been met.

F. On January 30, 2019, the City submitted the Recycled Water Project Layout Report to identify potential recycled water opportunities, conduct outreach to potential recycled water users, and draft conceptual recycled water projects and evaluate them. During the process, the City met with potential project partners and interested parties to discuss opportunities, project components, design criteria, and project feasibility. However, the City was unable to accomplish the recycled water project due to an incompatibility in schedules between the City and potential recycled water partners.

G. On September 20, 2019, the City submitted the Alternative Effluent Chloride Mitigation Workplan to request a Basin Plan amendment to adopt a site-specific groundwater quality objective for chloride after discussions on January 30, 2019 and June 27, 2019.

H. On February 28, 2020, the Regional Water Board provided comments on the Alternative Effluent Chloride Mitigation Workplan. The comments required the City to provide supporting information regarding a site-specific chloride groundwater quality objective that would be protective of beneficial uses for agricultural water supply for salt sensitive crops.

I. On April 15, 2020, the City notified the Regional Water Board of its modified approach to upgrade the SPWRF with reverse osmosis (RO), in lieu of the proposed recycled water project, to reduce chloride concentrations in the treated effluent to meet the permit requirements.
393
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
6 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
J. On July 13, 2020, the City requested development of a site-specific groundwater quality objective for chloride of 117 mg/L as a Basin Plan amendment to reduce the cost of the RO implementation.

K. On December 1, 2021, the City and Regional Water Board staff discussed the progress of the RO plant development and the requested Basin Plan amendment. The City decided to implement the advanced wastewater treatment system with RO based on the existing groundwater quality objective for chloride of 110 mg/L.

8. On July 9, 2015, the Regional Water Board adopted Resolution No. R15-007, an amendment to the Basin Plan that incorporated stakeholder-developed groundwater quality management plan for salts and nutrients in the Lower Santa Clara River groundwater basins. Groundwater quality management measures were developed by stakeholders as part of the Salt and Nutrient Management Plan (SNMP) for the Lower Santa Clara River Basins in Ventura County. Such plans are a requirement of the State Water Resources Control Board's (State Water Board) Recycled Water Policy and are intended to maintain high quality waters and to protect the beneficial uses of groundwater while promoting recycled water use throughout the state. The SNMP utilized a groundwater quality model that characterized the water quality in the Santa Paula Basin and examined the degree of impairment to water quality in the Basin. The model shows there is available assimilative capacity for salts and nutrients, including chloride, in most areas of the Santa Paula Basin to allow for recycled water projects consistent with the Recycled Water Policy. As described below, the City is planning to recycle effluent that is currently discharged to the percolation pond.

9. The City developed and utilized a simple spreadsheet mixing model, the Groundwater Chloride Transportation Model (Chloride Model), to analyze the effect of future effluent discharges on groundwater overtime at various distances from the percolation pond. The City's modeling assumed some degradation of groundwater with respect to chloride within a limited range of mixing zone radius below and adjacent to the SPWRF, measured from the boundaries of the percolation pond.

This distance is the maximum allowable distance where SPWRF effluent disposed to the percolation pond can mix with groundwater and result in receiving water chloride concentrations of 110 mg/L or less in order to provide protection to groundwater beneficial uses at the first encountered water supply wells which are at 150 feet away from the percolation ponds. Groundwater within the mixing zone will exceed the chloride groundwater quality objective (GQO) of 110 mg/L. Mass-volume balance calculations along with Darcy's Law are used to account for travel in porous media. The Chloride Model simulates instantaneous and complete mixing of ambient groundwater with effluent seepage reaching the water table from the percolation pond using SPWRF data for flow and chloride effluent concentrations. It was conservatively assumed that any effluent discharge to the percolation pond would infiltrate into the underlying aquifer and not be diverted for other uses. Groundwater parameters within the spreadsheet model were selected based on recent monitoring reports in order to be representative of average conditions within the vicinity of the 394
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
7 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
SPWRF. The Chloride Model assumes an initial volume of groundwater underlying the ponds possessing background chloride concentrations of 136 mg/L. The volume of the existing groundwater body is calculated as the product of the radius of interest (150-1200 feet), an assumed saturated thickness of potentially impacted groundwater (50 feet), and the porosity of the underlying sediments (assumed to be

0.2) based on the low end of published literature values for a sand and gravel mixture. Based on the regional groundwater quality data documented in the SNMP, regional groundwater inflow is assumed to have a chloride concentration of 91 mg/L.

On December 14, 2016, Regional Water Board staff met with the City to discuss the results of the Chloride Model, which evaluated compliance with the groundwater quality objectives beneath and adjacent to the three percolation ponds, for various discharge scenarios. Based on Regional Water Board staff's comments, the City implemented additional discharge scenarios in the Chloride Model, which was discussed in meetings held on February 8, 2017, February 17, 2017, July 24, 2017, and August 7, 2017.

10. The Chloride Model simulated chloride concentrations in the receiving groundwater resulting from chloride mass loading reduction in the three percolation ponds. The Model predicted GQOs being achieved at 150 feet away from the percolation pond when the total mass of chloride in the effluent is significantly reduced. The initial mass of chloride is calculated based on the average chloride effluent concentration of 135 mg/L and the discharge rate of 2.2 MGD, which results in 2,479 pounds total mass of chloride discharged per day. The reduction of chloride mass discharged to the percolation pond can be achieved by improving the effluent chloride concentration (e.g., source control or treatment), or diverting a significant amount of flow for recycled water uses, or a combination of both in order to protect water supply wells AW01, AW02, and AW03, approximately 150, 150, and 300 feet, respectively, away from percolation pond. Water produced from these wells is primarily for agricultural irrigation use.

To achieve the chloride GQO of 110 mg/L in groundwater at least 150 feet away from the percolation pond, the City provided various effluent chloride concentrations and allowable flow combinations (Table 2). Based on the hydrology and hydrogeologic condition at the SPWRF percolation ponds area, the higher the concentration of chloride in the effluent, the less volume and mass can be discharged to percolation ponds to comply with the chloride GQO in the Basin Plan.

For example, if the chloride concentration in the effluent is 135 mg/L, only 0.07 MGD, which is equivalent to 79 pounds of chloride per day, could be discharged to the percolation pond to achieve the chloride GQO of 110 mg/L at 150 feet away from the percolation pond. If the chloride concentration in the effluent is reduced to 120 mg/L, then more flow (0.2 MGD) can be discharged to the percolation pond and achieve the chloride GQO 150 feet away from the percolation pond.

Table 2. Groundwater Chloride Transportation Model – Continuous Discharge 395
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
8 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
Chloride Effluent
Concentration
Flow to
Percolation Ponds
(% of 2.2 MGD)
Allowable Effluent
Mass Load to
Groundwater
(Daily)
Chloride
Groundwater
Concentration at
150 feet
135 mg/L 0.07 MGD (3.2%) 79 pounds (lbs) 110 mg/L
130 mg/L 0.1 MGD (4.5%) 108 lbs 110 mg/L
125 mg/L 0.13 MGD (5.9%) 135 lbs 110 mg/L
120 mg/L 0.2 MGD (9.1%) 200 lbs 110 mg/L
115 mg/L 0.4 MGD (18.2%) 384 lbs 110 mg/L

11. To achieve compliance with the chloride GQO and to conserve potable water, the City will construct the advanced wastewater treatment system with RO as proposed in the April 15, 2020 letter. The Regional Board has evaluated the proposed RO system and determined that it will be consistent with the State Water Board's Recycled Water Policy and will preserve available assimilative capacity within the Santa Paula Basin consistent with the SNMP. The mass-based effluent limitation for chloride previously established in the WDRs will no longer be applicable, but the concentration-based effluent limitation for chloride is appropriate after implementing the RO system. The groundwater limitations are based on the GQOs in the Basin Plan.

12. On December 22, 2015, the City submitted the Recycled Water Program Technical Report and Notice of Intent with the Title 22 Engineering Report to the State Water Board's Division of Drinking Water (DOW) for approval. DOW conditionally approved the Title 22 Engineering Report on August 19, 2016. On June 14, 2017, the Regional Water Board enrolled the City's recycled water program under separate Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use Order WQ 2016-0068-DDW, issued by the State Water Board on June 7, 2016.

In March 2020, the City decided to upgrade the SPWRF with the RO process to reduce the chloride concentrations in the effluent to meet the permit requirements.

In December 2021, the City stated that the RO system would be able to produce 110 mg/L of chloride in the effluent to meet the groundwater quality objective in the Basin Plan. Currently, the City has completed the State Water Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund application with the State Water Board Division of Financial Assistance. The City plans to complete construction of the RO system within two years of receiving the Final Funding Agreement but no later than December 2024.

13. In the City's report, Chloride Load Reduction Milestones, submitted to the Regional Water Board on March 14, 2017, the City included the construction of reverse osmosis treatment at the SPWRF as an option (under Supplemental Strategies), if needed, in order to comply with the chloride groundwater quality objective of 110 mg/L. The City will continue its source control efforts to remove SRWSs and will first focus on recycling most of its effluent in order to bring the groundwater back into 396
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
9 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
compliance with GQOs. Progress with these efforts will be assessed at Year 2022 and determination will be made as to whether advanced treatment will be required to meet the chloride GQO at Year 2027. If advanced treatment is required, effluent limits will be applied in a way to ensure protection of all beneficial uses, including salt-sensitive crops.

In March 2020, the City decided to upgrade the SPWRF with an advanced treatment system, including RO, to reduce the chloride concentrations in the effluent to meet the permit requirements. In December 2021, the City stated that the RO system would be able to produce effluent with a chloride concentration of 110 mg/L to meet the groundwater quality objective in the Basin Plan. The City has submitted a State Water Board Clean Water State Revolving Fund application with the State Water Board Division of Financial Assistance. The City plans to complete construction of the RO system within two years of receiving the Final Funding Agreement but no later than December 2024.

14. Due to the following reasons, the City cannot immediately comply with the chloride effluent and groundwater limitations prescribed in this Order: (1) elevated chloride concentrations in the influent, (2) the wastewater treatment process not currently designed to remove chloride out of the waste stream, and (3) time needed to construct the advanced wastewater treatment system with RO. In addition, the current progress of the City's SRWS Buyback Program does not reliably ensure that the SPWRF will comply with the chloride effluent and groundwater limitations.

Therefore, the Regional Board has determined that issuance of an accompanying CDO is appropriate and necessary to put the City on the path towards compliance with the effluent and groundwater limitations for chloride set forth in this Order. The CDO requires the City to comply with interim chloride effluent and groundwater limitations and implement actions pursuant to a prescribed time schedule.

During the pendency of the CDO schedule, there will be permitted degradation of groundwater with respect to chloride within a limited mixing zone radius downgradient and adjacent to the SPWRF percolation ponds, measured from the boundaries of the percolation ponds to 150 feet. This distance is the shortest distance where SPWRF effluent disposed to the percolation pond can mix with groundwater and result in receiving water chloride concentrations of 110 mg/L or less. Groundwater within the 150-foot mixing zone will exceed the chloride GQO of 110 mg/L for the duration of the CDO schedule. Based on the available data, there are no water supply wells within the 150-foot mixing zone. The City can arrange for alternative water supplies for any well owners in the mixing zone, if any are discovered. At the end of the CDO schedule, the mixing zone is no longer allowed, and compliance with the chloride limitation of 110 mg/L at monitoring wells adjacent to and downgradient from the boundaries of the percolation ponds is required.

15. California Water Code (CWC) section 13301 provides in pertinent part "When a regional board finds that a discharge of waste is taking place, or threatening to take place, in violation of requirements or discharge prohibitions prescribed by the regional board or the state board, the board may issue an order to cease and desist 397
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
10 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
and direct that those persons not complying with the requirements or discharge prohibitions (a) comply forthwith, (b) comply in accordance with a time schedule set by the board, or (c) in the event of a threatened violation, take appropriate remedial or preventive action ... Cease and desist orders may be issued directly by a board, after notice and hearing."

16. As a result of the historical monitoring data and other activities described in this CDO, the Regional Water Board finds that a discharge of waste is taking place or threatening to take place in violation of requirements or discharge prohibitions prescribed by the Regional Water Board in the City's WDRs, Order No. R4-2018- 0022. This CDO requires the City to take appropriate remedial action and to comply in accordance with the time schedule set forth below. The compliance schedules provide the City sufficient time to achieve compliance with the chloride requirements in its WDRs.

17. This Order includes interim effluent and groundwater limitations, identified below, and actions and milestones proposed by the City leading to compliance with the effluent and groundwater limitations for chloride. The interim effluent and groundwater limitations are based on gradual reductions in chloride mass loading.

The established compliance schedule is as short as possible, taking into account the technological, operation, and economic factors that affect the design, development, and implementation of the remedial actions that are necessary to comply with the effluent and groundwater limitations.

18. A CDO is appropriate in these circumstances to allow time for the City to implement the advanced wastewater treatment system to bring the SPWRF into compliance with the effluent and groundwater limitations. The temporary exceedances allowed by this CDO are in the public interest given the significant environmental benefits associated with reducing chloride loading to groundwater to promptly achieve compliance with the effluent and groundwater limitations, and to allow for potential recycled water use throughout the City of Santa Paula, especially in light of California's historic drought and predictions for future climatological effects from climate change.

19. CWC section 13267 provides in pertinent part:
(a) A regional board, in establishing or reviewing any water quality control plan or waste discharge requirements, or in connection with any action relating to any plan or requirement or authorized by this division, may investigate the quality of any waters of the state within its region.
(b)(1) In conducting an investigation specified in subdivision (a). the regional board may require that any person who has discharged, discharges, or is suspected of having discharged or discharging, or who proposes to discharge waste within its region ... shall furnish, under penalty of perjury, technical or monitoring program reports which the regional board requires. The burden, including costs, of these reports shall bear a reasonable relationship to the need for the 398
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
11 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
report and the benefits to be obtained from the reports. In requiring those reports, the regional board shall provide the person with a written explanation with regard to the need for the reports, and shall identify the evidence that supports requiring that person to provide the reports.

20. The technical and/or monitoring reports required by this CDO are necessary to assure compliance with the WDRs Order No. R4-2018-0022 and this CDO. The City operates the SPWRF that produces and discharges the waste subject to WDRs. The actions and reports required by this CDO are directly related to the City's compliance with these requirements and do not require expense that is not already required pursuant to the WDRs. This CDO provides time for the City to comply and to spread costs over several years. The burden of these actions and reports bears a reasonable relationship to the need for the actions and reports.

21. This CDO concerns an existing facility and does not significantly alter the status with respect to the SPWRF. The issuance of this Order is an enforcement action by a regulatory agency and is being taken for the protection of the environment.

Therefore, issuance of this Order is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21100, et seq.) in accordance with sections 15061(b)(3), 15301, 15306, 15307, 15308, and 15321 (a)(2) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

22. The Regional Water Board has notified the City and interested agencies and persons of its intent to issue this CDO concerning compliance with the WDRs. The Regional Water Board accepted written comments, and heard and considered all comments and evidence pertaining to this matter in a public hearing.

23. Any person aggrieved by this action of the Regional Water Board may petition the State Water Board to review the action in accordance with California Water Code section 13320 and California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 2050 and following. The State Water Board must receive the petition by 5:00 p.m., 30 days after the date of this Order, except that if the thirtieth day following the date of this Order falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or state holiday, the petition must be received by the State Water Board by 5:00 p.m. on the next business day. Copies of the law and regulations applicable to filing petitions may be found on the Internet at Water Quality Petitions | California State Water Resources Control Board (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/public_notices/petitions/water_quality) or will be provided upon request.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to California Water Code sections 13301 and 13267, the City of Santa Paula, as owner of the SPWRF, shall comply with the following measures to ensure compliance with Order No. R4-2018-0022:

1. Cease and desist discharging chloride in violation or threatened violation of Order No. R4-2018-0022. No term or condition of Order No. R4-2018-0022 is superseded or stayed by this CDO.
399
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
12 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E

2. The discharge of treated wastewater from the SPWRF shall not cause the exceedance of the following groundwater limitations in Table 3 below. Comply immediately with the interim effluent and groundwater limitations for chloride prescribed in Table 3 below, and in accordance with the following schedule.

Table 3. Interim Chloride Limitations
Effluent Limitation
(Monthly Average)[0]
Mass
Reduction
Groundwater Limitation
(Monthly Average) Deadline
2,479 lbs/day[1] 0% 136 mg/L[2] February 8, 2018
2,231 lbs/day[1] 10% 136 mg/L[2] February 8, 2020
1,983 lbs/day[1] 20% 136 mg/L[2] February 8, 2021
1,983 lbs/day[5][6] 20% 136 mg/L[2] July 1, 2022
110 mg/L[3] Not applicable 129 mg/L[4] March 30, 2025
110 mg/L[3] Not applicable 114 mg/L[4] February 8, 2027 Table 3 notes:
[0] Monthly Average except as noted.
[1] Based on the City’s Chloride Load Reduction Milestones dated August 8, 2017. [2] Based on the 95th percentile of chloride effluent concentrations during the implementation of the SRWS Buyback Program from October 2015 to September 2017.
[3] The concentration-based effluent limitation is based on the groundwater quality objective in the Santa Paula Groundwater Basin-West of Peck Road Subbasin.

The deadline considers the date of December 30, 2024 for completion of construction of the reverse osmosis unit and a 90-day optimization period. [4] The change in the groundwater concentration is not expected to be immediate. [5] Based on paragraph No. 4.D, the City cannot consistently comply with the effluent limitation on a monthly basis due to a lack of flow control measures that would have been in place with the recycled water project. [6] Compliance with the effluent limitation is based on an annual monthly running average. For example, to meet the July 1, 2022 compliance date, the monthly average from July 2021 to June 2022 must be no greater than 1,983 lbs/day.

3. Comply with the following remedial actions and milestones according to the time schedule below:

A. By May 1, 2018, the City shall submit a technical report evaluating the longterm effectiveness of the SRWS Buyback Program for the reduction of chloride concentration in the SPWRF's effluent and the groundwater.

B. By August 1, 2018, the City shall submit a Groundwater Chloride Investigation and Well Protection Workplan (with schedules and milestones) for the Executive Officer's review and approval. The City shall implement this 400
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
13 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
Workplan within 120 days from the Executive Officer's approval. The Workplan shall:
i. Identify the names/numbers and locations of the groundwater monitoring wells to determine site-specific groundwater flow direction and gradient for the purposes of adequately assessing any impacts of chloride discharges to the quality of the receiving groundwater; ii. Identify all water supply wells that may be influenced by the discharge of chloride from the SPWRF, the well structures, ownership and associated groundwater quality; and
iii. Include an approach to ensure that groundwater quality influenced by the discharge of chloride from the SPWRF and delivered from agricultural water supply wells to irrigate salt-sensitive crops be no higher than 117 mg/L. Alternatively, the City may voluntarily provide alternative water supplies to private well owners to irrigate salt-sensitive crops, upon request by the well owners.

C. By March 15, 2022, the City shall submit the final design report for the advanced treatment system at the SPWRF, including brine concentration facility and brine management plan.

D. By October 15, 2022, the City shall complete all necessary regulatory requirements, including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and obtain all necessary permits for construction and/or installation of the advanced treatment system.

E. Within three months of receiving the Final Funding Agreement from the Department of Financial Assistance, but no later than March 30, 2023, the City shall complete and release a Bid Package for the advanced wastewater treatment system with a reverse osmosis process.

F. No later than June 30, 2023, the City shall complete contractor selection and award the contract for construction of the advanced wastewater treatment system with a reverse osmosis process.

G. Within twenty-four months of receiving the Final Funding Agreement from the Department of Financial Assistance, but no later than December 30, 2024, the City shall complete construction and start-up of the advanced wastewater treatment system with a reverse osmosis process.

H. As soon as possible, but no later than February 8, 2028, the City shall achieve full compliance with the effluent and groundwater limitations for chloride prescribed in Order No. R4-2018-0022.
401
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
14 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
I. After each date listed in subsection A through G above, the City shall provide a verbal report at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting pertaining to the compliance, or lack thereof, with the requirement.

J. Subsections F and G, above, do not limit the City's ability to propose a Basin Plan amendment for Regional Water Board consideration prior to November 14, 2024. At any time during the term of this CDO, the City may propose a Basin Plan amendment that the Regional Water Board will consider, including an averaging period and/or a site-specific chloride GQO that protects beneficial uses. As with subsection G, the City shall include supporting scientific and technical information and analysis demonstrating that beneficial uses would be protected, as well as documentation that such a proposal was discussed in detail by a stakeholder working group.

4. Submit quarterly progress reports on the status of the City's compliance with the effluent and groundwater limitations for chloride in Order No. R4-2018-0022 and this CDO.

A. Each quarterly progress report shall include, but is not limited to:
i. Continuous SRWS Buyback Program Assessment - The City shall report its progress on the SRWS Buyback Program and evaluate whether the Program is resulting in chloride reductions in the effluent and groundwater.
ii. Groundwater and Well Protection Program - The City shall report its progress on implementing the Groundwater Chloride Investigation and Well Protection Workplan, including the actions taken to protect water supply wells influenced by the discharge of chloride from the SPWRF. iii. Alternative Effluent Chloride Mitigation Implementation - The City shall provide the progress of implementing the alternative effluent chloride mitigation workplan and evaluate the compliance with the schedule and milestones set forth in the CDO and WDRs.

B. Quarterly progress reports shall be received by the Regional Water Board by the 30th day of the month following the end of each quarterly monitoring period according to Table 4 below. The first report is due by April 30, 2018.

Table 4. Reporting Period and Due
Quarterly Report Reporting Period Report Due
First Quarter January – March April 30
Second Quarter April – June July 30
Third Quarter July – September October 30
402
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
15 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
Quarterly Report Reporting Period Report Due
Fourth Quarter October – December January 30
Annual January – December April 30
Table 4 notes if a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or State holiday, the report must be received by the next business day.

5. Any person signing a document submitted under this CDO shall make the following certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.

Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."

6. In accordance with California Business and Professions Code sections 6735, 7835, and 7835.1, engineering and geologic evaluations and judgments shall be performed by or under the direction of registered professionals competent and proficient in the fields pertinent to the required activities. All technical reports specified herein that contain work plans for, that describe the conduct of investigations and studies, or that contain technical conclusions and recommendations concerning engineering and geology shall be prepared by or under the direction of appropriately qualified professional(s), even if not explicitly stated. Each technical report submitted by the City shall contain the professional's signature and/or stamp of the seal.

7. The City shall submit all reports required under this CDO, including groundwater monitoring data in Electronic Data Format, well and discharge location data, and searchable Portable Document Format (PDF) of reports and correspondence, to the State Water Board's GeoTracker database under Global ID WDR100000849.

8. If the City fails to comply with any provision of this CDO, the Regional Water Board may take any further action authorized by law. The Executive Officer, or his/her delegee, may take appropriate administrative enforcement action pursuant, but not limited to, California Water Code sections 13268 and/or 13350. The Regional Water Board may also refer any violations to the Attorney General for judicial enforcement, including injunction and civil monetary remedies.

9. This CDO may be reopened at the Regional Water Board's discretion to consider limits or other requirements for the SPWRF and may specifically be reopened to make revisions consistent with the City's efforts to reduce chloride discharge from the SPWRF.
403
City of Santa Paula Order No. R4-2018-0023-A01
Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility File No. 06-189
16 T
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E

10. This Order becomes effective immediately upon issuance.

I, Renee Purdy, Executive Officer, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, on May 12, 2022.

Renee Purdy
Executive Officer
404

APPENDICES
City of Santa Paula Wastewater Collection System and Water Recycling Facility Master Plan Appendix D – Trussel Technologies, Inc., Evaluation of Biological Design and Process Sizing Technical Memorandum
405
406

 













,00GEI,F;43WS;O:WK4JQ;K43W:;9:WK,O4NWG5WE;T43W@<JQGKW0;K0QA,O;GFWE4,FNWO:,OW 0,QO;GFWEQNOW/4W4T4K0;N43WOGW4FNQK4WO:,OW;FO4F343W,FGT;0WVGF4NWK4E,;FW,FGT<0 W
;GAG9;0,AWEG34A;F9WN;EQA,O;GFNWS4K4WI4K5GKE43WQN;F9W
$&+WIKG04NNWN;EQA,OGK
W

$&+W;NW,WEG3QA,KWEQAO; IQKIGN4WEG34B;F9W4FR;LGFE4FOW5HKWO:4WN=EQB,O;GFWG5W EQF;0;I,AW,F3W;F3QNOK;,AWS,NO4S,O4KWOK4,OE4FOWIA,FONW
$&
+W'40:F;0,AW
%454K4F04W:,IO4KW
W
$&
+W5KGEW
U3KGE,FO;NW;NWN;E;A,KWOGW#*"WGKWGO:4KW
S,NO4S,O4KWEG34ANW


$

$

$
(:4W5AGSW;F5GKE,O;GFW,F3W,FFQ,AW,R4K,94W;F5AQ4FOWS,NO4S,O4KW0:,K,0O4K;NO;0NW IK4N4FO43W;FW',/B4W W ,F3W(,/A4WWS4K4WG/O,;F43W5KGEWO:4W%4JQ4NOWGKW$KGIGN,BW
%$WII4F3;TWW
$4K5GKE,F04W&I40;5<0,O;GFW5KGEWO:4W;OUWG5W&,FO,W$,QA,W5HKW ,WF4SW*,O4KW%40U0B;F9W
,0;D;OUW
*%
W
$
$  
$

"
!$# !#!$

# $
 
 

 



 

 

 




 










 
  

  
)-.C4W$#$

"
!$# !#!$! ! $




 
 





 

 






 





GS4R4KWN0K44F43W;F5AQ4FOWS,NO4S,O4KW0:,K,0O4K;NO60NWIK4N4FO43W;FW',/A4WWS4K4W QN43W5HKWO:4W34N0K;/43WEG34A;F9W47GKONW':;NW;NW/40,QN4WO:4W0:,F94NW;FW S,NO4S,O4KWIKGI4M;4NWO:KGQ9:WO:4WN0K44F;F9WIKG04NNW94F4K,BBUWK43Q04WO:4WK,O;GW G5W#8 "WS:;0:WS;AAW:,R4W,FW;EIGLP,FOW;EI,0OWGFW,W/;GAG9;0,AW34N;9FW5GKW F;OKG94FWK4EGR,AW33;O;GF,DAUW,BBW!%WE,FQ5,0OQK4KNWK4JQ;K4W5;F4WN244F;F9WG5W ;F5BQ4FOWS,NO4S,O4KWOGWIKGO40OWO:4WE4E/K,F4NW5KGEWI:UN;0,BW3,E,94 WGKWO:;NW
34N;9FWO:4W:4,3SGK?NW0GFN;NONWG5WO:K44WNO4INW
N44W;9QK4WWW  1G,KN4W/,KWN0K44FNW
WEE
 0;K0QB,KW9L>OW0:,E/4KN

Q/4KW%GOGE,OW5>F4W3LQEWN0K44FNW
WEE






 

  


407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431

APPENDICES
City of Santa Paula Wastewater Collection System and Water Recycling Facility Master Plan Appendix E – Lift Station Condition Assessment
432
Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: _______Sarah Mathews____________________________ Lift Station Name: _______Harding Park________________________ Date:___9/12/23_______ Location (Add Sketch Pg. 5):______________________________________________ Weather:___Sunny_______ Personnel:____Morgan and Tanner____________________
Surroundings (i.e., enclosure, lawn, street):_________________________________________________________________________ Year Built/Improved:___________________________________________________________________________________________ As‐Builts Available: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Design Capacity:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Pump Maintenance:___________________________________________________________________________________________ Model #:_______________________________________________________________________________________ Serial #:________________________________________________________________________________________ Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Configuration / Pumps:

Wet well w/ submers.

Or suction Lift ‐ round wet well
Wet well / dry well ‐ submersibles in wet well
Number of Pumps 2 ‐ collects from 1 house located 350+ ft NW of LS and 1 restroom directly W of LS VFDs N ‐ recent seal failure (per operator)
Wet well shape and size
# of inlets 2
Size?
Depth relative to
Pumps/Floor
Known Pump Issues
Overheating/ Noise/ Ragging
Lift Station Safety Features:

Fall protection N ‐ lighting comes from parking lot
Bollards N
Lifting equipment N
Explosion‐proof fixtures
Ventilation of wet well/ dry well
Lighting
Locks of hatches/ covers/ etc. Y
Stair Railing
Eye wash
(if chemical treatment)
Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: _______Sarah Mathews____________________________ Lift Station Name: _______Harding Park________________________ Date:___9/12/23_______ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Flood Resilience:

Backup power ‐ some flooding issues historically but not recently Redundant controls
Flood doors
Elevated station (or barriers)
Backup Power:

Perm. Generator N ‐ use submersible pump
Generator Plug Panel ‐ vactor truck
Type of fuel
Automatic Transfer Switch N
Manual Transfer Switch N
Space for Temporary Gen.

Wet Well Structure:

Material type / condition Y ‐ coating ok
Liner (presence / type) ‐ odor issues
Offsets ‐ debris issues
Protrusions ‐ grease buildup
Exposed reinforcing
Access hatch‐type/condition
Scratch test
Odor Control
Overflow Level
FOG Issues
High Water Level Stains

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: _______Sarah Mathews____________________________ Lift Station Name: _______Harding Park________________________ Date:___9/12/23_______ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Dry Well Structure:

Shape ‐ good
Dimensions
Structural Condition
Lighting
Ventilation
Access to Equipment
Perm. Lifting Equipment
Sump Pump
Pipe Supports
Equipment Anchors
Coatings:

Pipe coatings‐exposed ‐ good
Valve coatings‐exposed
Pipe coatings‐wet well
Valve coatings‐wet well
Pipe coatings‐vault
Valve coatings‐vault
Structure Coatings (other than wet
well)
Instrumentation:

Level controls ‐ level sensor
Flow meter ‐ antenna radios to lemonwood 1 (power failure, high level) Gauges
Pressure switches
SCADA/Telemtry
Antennae
Alarms (List)
MCC Enclosure‐style/condition
Shade structure (Elec.)
Shade structure (Instr.)
Intrusion Alarms

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: _______Sarah Mathews____________________________ Lift Station Name: _______Harding Park________________________ Date:___9/12/23_______ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Access:

Vehicular ‐ parking lot leads to LS
Maint. Equip. (ie vactor truck /
crane
Surfacing (paved, gravel)
Height/orientation of panels
Bypassing Provisions:

Points of connection ‐ none
Quick connects
Site Features:

Potable water Y ‐ located in park
Spill containment
On‐site Eqpt. Storage
Gates, Site Fencing
Lighting
Overflow Tank / Containment

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: _______Sarah Mathews____________________________ Lift Station Name: _______Harding Park________________________ Date:___9/12/23_______ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist
‐ rain water comes down through ceiling conduit into panel; fried some of the safeties

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: __________Sarah Mathews_________________________________ Lift Station Name: _______Lemonwood 1_______________________________ Date:____9/12/23__________________ Location (Add Sketch Pg. 5):______________________________________________ Weather:___________________ Personnel:_____Morgan and Tanner________________________________________________________ Surroundings (i.e., enclosure, lawn, street):_________________________________________________________________________ Year Built/Improved:___________________________________________________________________________________________ As‐Builts Available: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Design Capacity:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Pump Maintenance:___________________________________________________________________________________________ Model #:_______________________________________________________________________________________ Serial #:________________________________________________________________________________________ Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Configuration / Pumps:

Wet well w/ submers.

Or suction Lift ‐ 2 aboveground pumps over wetwell suction lift Wet well / dry well ‐ flow conditions are ok following installation of new lift station Number of Pumps 2 Y ‐ pumps are old, not super strong
VFDs N ‐ operators stated they prefer submersible pumps Wet well shape and size
# of inlets
Size?
Depth relative to
Pumps/Floor
Known Pump Issues
Overheating/ Noise/ Ragging
Lift Station Safety Features:

Fall protection N ‐ lighting upgrades are recent
Bollards N
Lifting equipment
Explosion‐proof fixtures
Ventilation of wet well/ dry well N
Lighting Y
Locks of hatches/ covers/ etc. Y
Stair Railing N/A
Eye wash
(if chemical treatment)
N
Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: __________Sarah Mathews_________________________________ Lift Station Name: _______Lemonwood 1_______________________________ Date:____9/12/23__________________ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Flood Resilience:

Backup power ‐ runoff problems
Redundant controls ‐ no flooding issues historically
Flood doors
Elevated station (or barriers)
Backup Power:

Perm. Generator ‐ manual transfer switch
Generator Plug Panel ‐ portable generator if needed
Type of fuel
Automatic Transfer Switch
Manual Transfer Switch
Space for Temporary Gen.

Wet Well Structure:

Material type / condition ‐ coating is ok
Liner (presence / type) ‐ low inlets
Offsets
Protrusions
Exposed reinforcing
Access hatch‐type/condition
Scratch test
Odor Control
Overflow Level
FOG Issues
High Water Level Stains

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: __________Sarah Mathews_________________________________ Lift Station Name: _______Lemonwood 1_______________________________ Date:____9/12/23__________________ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Dry Well Structure:

Shape ‐ N/A
Dimensions
Structural Condition
Lighting
Ventilation
Access to Equipment
Perm. Lifting Equipment
Sump Pump
Pipe Supports
Equipment Anchors
Coatings:

Pipe coatings‐exposed ‐ OK
Valve coatings‐exposed
Pipe coatings‐wet well
Valve coatings‐wet well
Pipe coatings‐vault
Valve coatings‐vault
Structure Coatings (other than wet
well)
Instrumentation:

Level controls ‐ radio; works fine; operator called it "sensophone" Flow meter ‐ flow meter
Gauges ‐ level sensor (~ 3 yrs)
Pressure switches ‐ bubbler control panel; bubbler is cycling consistently SCADA/Telemtry
Antennae Y
Alarms (List)
MCC Enclosure‐style/condition
Shade structure (Elec.) Y
Shade structure (Instr.)
Intrusion Alarms

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: __________Sarah Mathews_________________________________ Lift Station Name: _______Lemonwood 1_______________________________ Date:____9/12/23__________________ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Access:

Vehicular Y ‐ Pavement has some condition issues
Maint. Equip. (ie vactor truck /
crane ‐ Access by homeless; fence broken
Surfacing (paved, gravel) Y ‐ Hard to turn around in vehicle; small site Height/orientation of panels
Bypassing Provisions:

Points of connection Y
Quick connects Y
Site Features:

Potable water Y ‐ graffiti on walls
Spill containment N
On‐site Eqpt. Storage
Gates, Site Fencing
Lighting Y
Overflow Tank / Containment

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: __________Sarah Mathews_________________________________ Lift Station Name: _______Lemonwood 1_______________________________ Date:____9/12/23__________________ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: ________Sarah Mathews______________________ Lift Station Name: _______Harvest______________ Date:____9/12/23______ Location (Add Sketch Pg. 5):______________________________________________ Weather:____Sunny______ Personnel:______Morgan and Tanner________________________ Surroundings (i.e., enclosure, lawn, street):_________________________________________________________________________ Year Built/Improved:___________________________________________________________________________________________ As‐Builts Available: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Design Capacity:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Pump Maintenance:___________________________________________________________________________________________ Model #:_______________________________________________________________________________________ Serial #:________________________________________________________________________________________ Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Configuration / Pumps:

Wet well w/ submers.

Or suction Lift ‐ round wet well shape
Wet well / dry well ‐ submersibles
Number of Pumps 3 ‐ no issues w/ pumps
VFDs N
Wet well shape and size
# of inlets
Size?
Depth relative to
Pumps/Floor
Known Pump Issues
Overheating/ Noise/ Ragging
Lift Station Safety Features:

Fall protection Y
Bollards N
Lifting equipment
Explosion‐proof fixtures
Ventilation of wet well/ dry well
Lighting Y
Locks of hatches/ covers/ etc. Y
Stair Railing
Eye wash
(if chemical treatment)
Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: ________Sarah Mathews______________________ Lift Station Name: _______Harvest______________ Date:____9/12/23______ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Flood Resilience:

Backup power ‐ N/A
Redundant controls
Flood doors
Elevated station (or barriers)
Backup Power:

Perm. Generator Y
Generator Plug Panel
Type of fuel
Automatic Transfer Switch
Manual Transfer Switch
Space for Temporary Gen.

Wet Well Structure:

Material type / condition ‐ H2S damage on metal piping, switches, electronics, etc.

Liner (presence / type) ‐ structure doing well; just coating and piping damage Offsets ‐ ongoing H2S issues
Protrusions ‐ has capsule‐shaped 10,000 gal overflow tank Exposed reinforcing
Access hatch‐type/condition
Scratch test
Odor Control
Overflow Level
FOG Issues
High Water Level Stains

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: ________Sarah Mathews______________________ Lift Station Name: _______Harvest______________ Date:____9/12/23______ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Dry Well Structure:

Shape
Dimensions
Structural Condition
Lighting
Ventilation
Access to Equipment
Perm. Lifting Equipment
Sump Pump
Pipe Supports
Equipment Anchors
Coatings:

Pipe coatings‐exposed ‐ general corrosion
Valve coatings‐exposed ‐ vault had previous leakage
Pipe coatings‐wet well ‐ vault has some H2S due to drain to wet well Valve coatings‐wet well
Pipe coatings‐vault
Valve coatings‐vault
Structure Coatings (other than wet
well)
Instrumentation:

Level controls ‐ level sensing transmitter
Flow meter ‐ no flow metering
Gauges
Pressure switches
SCADA/Telemtry
Antennae
Alarms (List)
MCC Enclosure‐style/condition
Shade structure (Elec.)
Shade structure (Instr.)
Intrusion Alarms

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: ________Sarah Mathews______________________ Lift Station Name: _______Harvest______________ Date:____9/12/23______ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Access:

Vehicular ‐ gated
Maint. Equip. (ie vactor truck /
crane ‐ no issues
Surfacing (paved, gravel) ‐ access a bit tight
Height/orientation of panels
Bypassing Provisions:

Points of connection Y
Quick connects
Site Features:

Potable water Y ‐ site ~ 3 yrs old
Spill containment N
On‐site Eqpt. Storage
Gates, Site Fencing Y
Lighting Y
Overflow Tank / Containment Y

Lift stations are considered confined spaced.  DO NOT ENTER FOR ANY REASON.

Make observations from the surface using photo/video equipment and lighting.

Name of Observer: ________Sarah Mathews______________________ Lift Station Name: _______Harvest______________ Date:____9/12/23______ Lift Station Visual Inspection Checklist

APPENDICES
City of Santa Paula Wastewater Collection System and Water Recycling Facility Master Plan Appendix F – Treated Effluent Monthly Average Monitoring Results 2019-2023
448
Total
Dissolved
Solids
(mg/L)
Chloride1
(mg/L)
Sulfate
(mg/L)
Boron
(mg/L)
Nitrite-N
(mg/L)
Ammonia-N +
Nitrate-N +
Nitrite-N
(mg/L)
2,000 110 800 1 1 10
January 1190 118 427 0.752 0 7.07
February 1370 125 569 0.889 0 7.95
March 1250 129 511 0.74 0.02 3.74
April 1270 126 500 0.766 0.01 7.48
May 1280 119 474 0.842 0.02 4.62
June 1250 124 521 0.694 0.04 5.24
July 1180 122 482 0.685 0.2 0.54
August 1200 116 457 0.846 0.04 1.58
September 1150 112 437 0.787 ND 0.7
October 1200 114 446 0.673 ND 1.5
November 1270 117 435 0.736 0.03 9.07
December 1160 116 413 0.684 0.02 7.36
January 1270 120 458 0.77 0.03 5.31
February 1230 121 458 0.689 0.04 4.38
March 1220 122 458 0.72 0.03 1.62
April 1300 126 481 0.798 0.03 6.22
May 1250 120 469 0.77 ND 2.51
June 1250 118 444 0.631 0.05 4.42
July 1260 116 421 0.759 0.03 4.13
August 1220 116 418 0.723 0.03 3.44
September 1210 117 432 0.659 0.05 4.8
October 1240 116 451 0.781 0.07 5.4
November 1190 118 381 0.848 0.04 7.8
December 1200 118 421 0.775 ND 8.86
January 1210 113 444 0.766 ND 5.31
February 1250 122 449 0.984 ND 17.9
March 1260 128 400 0.772 ND 8.32
April 1250 112 467 0.737 0.05 9.4
May 1250 117 414 0.835 0.04 8.6
June 1310 115 414 0.729 <0.1 6.7
July 1260 106 447 0.77 0.02 9.9
August 1220 107 422 0.874 0.03 6.1
September 1210 110 427 0.711 0.03 9.6
October 1240 104 453 0.874 0.03 7.71
November 1240 97 457 0.849 0.03 11.7
December 1210 109 383 0.849 0.03 10.2
Treated Effluent Monthly Average Monitoring Results (2019-2023) WDR Limit
2 0
1 9
2 0
2 0
2 0
2 1
449
Total
Dissolved
Solids
(mg/L)
Chloride1
(mg/L)
Sulfate
(mg/L)
Boron
(mg/L)
Nitrite-N
(mg/L)
Ammonia-N +
Nitrate-N +
Nitrite-N
(mg/L)
WDR Limit 2,000 110 800 1 1 10
January 1240 105 493 0.914 0.2 3.57
February 1220 107 409 0.776 0.03 9.4
March 1200 109 442 0.866 0.04 6.4
April 1200 110 387 0.833 0.07 7.06
May 1260 101 407 0.612 ND 6.8
June 1220 106 394 0.763 0.02 8.7
July 1240 108 420 0.794 0.04 16.85
August 1250 101 418 0.91 0.05 22.3
September 1230 109 435 0.962 0.3 8.5
October 1200 118 400 1.15 0.04 5.54
November 1230 120 469 0.832 0.04 8
December 1170 116 445 0.836 ND 11.2
January 1380 116 556 0.994 0.03 7.18
February 1290 124 457 0.881 0.04 4.4
March 1420 116 584 1.12 0.03 8.9
April 1390 121 543 0.921 0.02 13.62
May 1310 124 418 0.852 ND 11.3
June 1250 122 458 0.089 ND 9.3
July 1390 116 543 0.921 0.02 13.62
August 1290 113 446 0.909 <0.1 6.3
September 1230 114 472 0.9 0.03 6.5
October 1260 115 456 0.755 ND 7.5
November 1250 122 476 0.972 0.03 8.03
December 1240 120 462 0.854 0.03 7.7
Notes:

1. Exceedances are underlined and italicized.

2. ND = Not detected
2 0
2 2
2 0
2 3
450

APPENDICES
City of Santa Paula Wastewater Collection System and Water Recycling Facility Master Plan Appendix G – WRF Condition Assessment Checklist
451
Name of Observer: Mike Nunley, PE
WWTP Name:  Santa Paula Water Recycling Facility Date: 7/27/23 Personnel: Pete, Ethan Weather: Clear
Year Built/Improved: 2010
As‐Builts Available: Yes
Design Capacity: 4.1  MGD
Item
Mechanical
• Lifting chain corroded ‐ needs to be replaced
• Check valves on lift station have issues
• Volutes are in good shape (VRSO, CPO)
• Lift station pumps are the original pumps ‐ evaluate pumps to repair or replace Instrumentation
• Seal failure
• No local HMI
Electrical
• Consider changing cords out
Structural
• Concrete/liners in bad shape ‐ haven't been in ILS
• Aluminum cover ‐ should be fiberglass, support brackets are failing • Spalling of slab near influent meter
• Replace manhole cover and ring
• Influent flow weir is worn concrete, no metal protection • Influent channel needs to be repaired and relined
• Grating worn
• No fall arrest on any ladder
Operator Notes and Observations
• N/A
Mechanical
• #2 Grit classifier failing ‐ stainless steel rotting out, wear plates missing and need to be replaced • Total of 2 coarse screen, 2 fine screens, 2 classifiers • Need manufacturer's maintenance, bearing replacement, screens and augers Instrumentation
• Total of 2 space level transducer, 6 endress hauser panels • H2S gas causing problem w/ electrical cords + panels
• H2S will damage Huber stainless equipment
Wastewater Treatment Plant Visual Inspection Checklist
• Need harnesses, hoists, blowers, gas detectors (confined space equipment; VRSD is currently charging for their own equipment) Influent Pump Station
Influent Pump Station (Continued)
Safety
Grit Removal/Coarse & Fine Screens

Wastewater Treatment Plant Visual Inspection Checklist
Electrical
• N/A
Structural
• N/A
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• Replaced bagging system, which has been working well ‐ less dumpster corrosion Mechanical
• No aeration
Instrumentation
• Pacing used to be automatic; now operator has to log in every night for shaving • SCADA needs to be set to work automatically with flow rates, auto shaving Electrical
• Conduit getting corroded (intermittent)
Structural
• EQ weirs ‐ concrete doesn't have knife's edge, worn
• Aluminum & orange grating needs to be replaced
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• N/A
Mechanical
• N/A
Instrumentation
• N/A
Electrical
• N/A
Structural
• EQ weirs ‐ concrete doesn't have knife's edge, worn
• Aluminum & orange grating needs to be replaced
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• Rarely used; except when plant has high flow events
Grit Removal/Coarse & Fine Screens (Cont.)
Flow Equalization Tank 1
Flow Equalization Tank 2

Wastewater Treatment Plant Visual Inspection Checklist
Mechanical
• April/May ‐ exceeded NO3 due to failed RAS/WAS pump
• EQ valve in #3 failed ‐ can now be isolated with first 2 valves Instrumentation
• N/A
Electrical
• N/A
Structural
• Top 3 ft starting to corrode
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• N/A
Mechanical
• Need RAS spare pump
• Issues with mixers in RAS + WAS  tangling, rails bending, skewed, cut up cables etc.

Instrumentation
• N/A
Electrical
• N/A
Structural
• Upper 3‐4 ft in general are worn ‐ potential need for coating • Tank 1 has scars from mixer
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• Working well
Mechanical
• Self clean not working ‐ won't run in reverse for cleaning, brushes worn out ‐ needs maintenance • Oil box needs 10 year overhaul
• Feed pump doesn't prime well
• Rotary lobe pumps feed thickener + press, rotary lobe pumps have worn plates • Replace bristles
Instrumentation
• N/A
Electrical
• N/A
Aeration Tanks
Thickeners/Screw Press
Anoxic Tanks

Wastewater Treatment Plant Visual Inspection Checklist
Structural
• N/A
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• Needs redundancy
• Need second unit
• Auger to trailer needs maintenance
Mechanical
• Both blowers working
• Software not compatible with old blower ‐ microsoft doesn't cover HMIs anymore ‐ results in needing new inverter Instrumentation
• N/A
Electrical
• N/A
Structural
• N/A
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• N/A
Mechanical
• One blower (MBR #1) shuts off randomly at times
• Return channel ‐ blower not sized adequately
Instrumentation
• #2 WAS pump fault ‐ turns off
• Tie citric acid  pump into MBR PLC
• MBR PLC #M needs redundant back up just like PLC A&B (not in back up PLC list order #1) Electrical
• N/A
Structural
• Coatings starting to chip off
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• Tie citric acid pump into MBR PLC
• Permeate pumps need to be evaluated and rebuilt
• Operators prefer separate turbidity meters for each train on MBR Aerobic Digesters
Membrane Separation Tanks
Thickeners/Screw Press (Cont.)

Wastewater Treatment Plant Visual Inspection Checklist
Mechanical
• Only 3 out of 5 modules are seeing flow
• Replaced 2/3 of bulbs
• Lot of shattered bulbs
• Bulbs at 30,000 hrs ‐ should be replaced at 12,000 hrs per manufacturer recommendation Instrumentation
• N/A
Electrical
• N/A
Structural
• N/A
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• 3 modules in use at any time
• Recently maintenance had shattered valves
• Electronics need to be replaced ‐ many back panels not working Mechanical
• N/A
Instrumentation
• N/A
Electrical
• N/A
Structural
• N/A
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• N/A
Mechanical
• Irrigation system not working ‐ cracked pipeline
Instrumentation
• N/A
Electrical
• N/A
Structural
• N/A
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• Water is beginning to pool in one pond
• Rocks, etc. need to be cleared out
• Replace liners (rips in ponds), perform weed control
Percolation Pond
UV Disinfection
Percolation Pond Diversion Structure

Wastewater Treatment Plant Visual Inspection Checklist
Mechanical
• N/A
Instrumentation
• N/A
Electrical
• N/A
Structural
• N/A
Safety
• N/A
Operator Notes and Observations
• N/A
• No insulation on roof
• Windows ‐ leak in control room
• Screens damaged ‐ replace
• Doors ‐ repaint; door locks damaged
• Paint trim
• Two HVAC units need to be replaced
• Lighting poor ‐ replace with LEDs; ballasts need to be replaced • No insulation on roof
• Windows ‐ leak in control room
• Screens damaged ‐ replace
• Doors ‐ repaint; door locks damaged
• Paint trim
• Lighting poor ‐ replace with LEDs; ballasts need to be replaced • Remove sludge
• Replace transformer
• Need new sump pumps
• New exhaust fan ‐ should be automatic when vault opens and current one is not • Repair circ. pump and valves
• Fix water leaks into vault
• New pond lights
• Liner is in ok condition
• Ladder rusting
• Hatch is in good condition
Biofilter
Controls Building
Decorative Pond
• Fire alarm system ‐ replace panel; smoke detector in building failed Headworks Building

Wastewater Treatment Plant Visual Inspection Checklist
• Dump Station ‐ not used and they do not plan on using it in the future • Crane ‐ needs maintenance and load certification
• Concrete spalled on pad for old odor control system ‐ repair • Reuse line ‐ a lot of movement on startup
• Operators requested new tools ‐ tap and die set (SAE and Metric), multi‐function welder for SS, electric winches for gantry, blower, battery rachet • Portable ladders ‐ old, worn out, sun damaged; all fixed ladders are good • Add rolling stair for sludge truck ‐ 12 foot step ladder unsafe • Effluent meter ‐ no weir/flume, does not measure accurately • Paint condition is poor throughout plant
• Blowers need to be replaced or rebuilt in general
• Wasting pumps have problems with SCADA on start
• Generator needs service, filters, hoses, fuel polish, batteries, oil change, and paint • Transfer switch needs service
• Irrigation system timer runs numerous cycles a day, should only be running once (needs replacement) General Observations

APPENDICES
City of Santa Paula Wastewater Collection System and Water Recycling Facility Master Plan Appendix H – WRF Condition Assessment Photos
459
Headworks Fine Screen Unit Coarse Screen Unit Grit Classifier 460
Dewatering Screw Press Thickener Feed Pump Gravity Belt Thickener 461
MBR Basins Permeate
Pump MBR Basins
462
Headworks/Dewatering and Controls Building 463
UV Disinfection CIP Pump UV Channels RO Low Pressure Pump UV Module Instrumentation 464

APPENDICES
City of Santa Paula Wastewater Collection System and Water Recycling Facility Master Plan Appendix I – MBR Process Design Calculations
465
I. Wastewater Parameters/Characteristics Enter values in yellow cells only.

Design ww Flow Rate, Qo = 3.00 MGD Influent TSS, TSSo = 329 mg/L Influent BOD, BODo = 420 mg/L Influent VSS, VSSo = 260 mg/L Influent sBOD, sBODo = 168 mg/L
Influent TKN, TKNo = 70 mg/L
Influent COD, CODo = 857 mg/L TKN peak/ave factor, FS = 1.0 Influent sCOD, sCODo = 129 mg/L Influent NH4-N, NH4-No = 42 mg/L Influent rbCOD, rbCODo = 86 mg/L Influent Alkalinity, Alko = 300 (mg/L as CaCO3)
ratio, bCOD/BOD = 1.6 Aeration WW Temp, Tww = 66.2 o
F
II. Biological Kinetic Coefficients - For BOD Removal
Synth. Yield Coeff., Y = 0.40 lb VSS/lb bCOD Half Veloc. Coeff., Ks = 20 mg/L Temp coeff., q, for mm = 1.07 Temp coeff., q, for kd = 1.04 Resid. biomass fract., fd = 0.15
Max spec. gwth rate at 20o
C, µm20 = 6 lb VSS/d/lb VSS
Endog. Decay coeff. at 20o
C, kd20 = 0.12 lb VSS/d/lb VSS
III. Biological Kinetic Coefficients - For Nitrification The source for the values in the table above is:

Synth. Yield Coeff., Yn = 0.12 lb VSS/lb NOx
Temp coeff., q, for mmn = 1.070 Half Veloc. Coeff. at 20o C, Kn = 0.7 mg/L
Temp coeff., q, for kdn = 1.040 Half Veloc. Coeff. at 20oC, Ko = 0.5 mg/L Temp coeff., q, for Kn = 1.053 Temp coeff., q, for Ko = 1 Max spec. gwth rate at 20o
C, µmn20 = 0.8 lb VSS/d/lb VSS
Endog. Decay coeff. at 20oC, kdn20 = 0.08 lb VSS/d/lb VSS IV. Constants Used in the Calculations
Saturation D.O. in water
Ratio of BOD5 to BODu , f = 0.68 at 20o
C & 1 atm, Css = 9.17 mg/L
BODu equiv. of VSS = 1.42 lb BODu/lb VSS Standard Pressure = 14.7 psi Spec Wt of water, γH2O = 62.4 lb/ft3 Standard Temperature = 68.0 o F
Mol. Wt. of Air = 28.97 Mol. Wt. of Oxygen = 32.0
Temp Coeff. for O2 rate, θ = 1.024 O2 mole fraction in Air = 0.209 The source for the values in the table above is:

Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. Introduction to Water Rsource Recovery Facility Design, 2nd Ed., Table 6.2 WW INFORMATION BIOL. KINETIC COEFFICIENTS CONSTANTS
MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units User Inputs and Constants
Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice
Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes Introduction to Water Resource Recovery Facility Design, 2nd Ed., Table 6.1 Existing Conditions
466
I. Membrane/Membrane Module Parameters
(Values typically available from membrane manufacturer or vendor - Enter values in yellow cells) Module packing density, φ = 182 m2
/m3 equals 55.5 ft2
/ft3
Specific Aer. Demand, SADM = 0.2 m3
air/hr/m2 membrane
equals 0.656 ft3
air/hr/ft2 membrane
Values given for MBR specific area (module packing density) range from 150 -334 m2/m3 II. Process Design Calculations (done by worksheet) in Table 8-35 of Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Resource Recovery, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, 2014
Membrane Flux, J = 21.1 L/hr/m2 equals 0.518 gal/hr/ft2 Equations Used in the Calculations:

Membrane Area, AM = 241,123 ft2
Membrane Module Vol., VM = 4,347 ft3 Module packing density, φ, in ft2 /ft3
= (φ in m2
/m3
)/3.28084
Scouring Air Flow Required = 2,637 ft3
/min (ACFM) = 2,625 SCFM Specific Aeration Demand, SADM , in ft3 air/hr/ft2
membrane =
= SADM in m3
air/hr/m2
membrane/3.28084
(This is the scouring air flow rate needed for the membrane module, Membrane Flux, J, in L/hr/m2 = 0.4056Tww - 5.7278 (with Tww in o
F)
typically provided by a coarse bubble diffuser system.) (See Worksheet 6 for derivation of this eqution) Membrane Flux, J, in gal/hr/ft2 = [(Membrane Flux (J) in L/hr/m2 )/3.7854]/(3.280842
)
Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. Membrane Area, AM = (Qo*106/24)/J Membrane Module Volume, VM = AM/φ
Scouring Air Flow Required, ACFM = (SADM)(AM)/60 ACFM
Scouring Air Flow Req'd, SCFM = (ACFM)[(Tstd + 459.67)/(Tww + 459.67)](Patm/Pstd) SCFM MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units Membrane Module Sizing Calculations

INPUTS CALCULATIONS
Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice
Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes 467
I. User Inputs - Enter values in yellow cells only
Target Effluent Concentrations:

MLSS in Aer Tank, MLSS = 8,500 mg/L BOD
e = 10 mg/L
MLSS in Waste Sludge, X
w = 8,500 mg/L TSS
e = 10 mg/L
DO in Aer. Tank, DO
o =
2 mg/L NH
4-N
e = 1.0 mg/L
Number of Aeration Tanks =2 Tank Freeboard = 2.0 ft
Liquid Depth in Tank = 22 ft Tank L:W ratio = 2.3
Initial Estimate of NO
x = 44.93 mg/L (Tank L:W ratio is only used for
Note that an initial estimate is needed for NO
x rectangular tanks) As noted in all four of the above references, MLSS and X w for MBR processes are typically in
in cell D14 to start an iterative calculation of NO
x Influent TKN, TKN
o = 70 mg/L the range from 8,000 to 12,000 mg/L.
below. 80% of the influent TKN is suggested for (value transferred from Worksheet 2) this initial estimate. 80% of TKN
o = 56.0 mg/L
II. Calculate Design SRT
µmn at Tww = 0.70 lb VSS/d/lb VSS
K
n at
Tww
= 0.70 mg/L
kdn at Tww = 0.08 lb VSS/d/lb VSS Theor. SRT
= 3.96 days
µ
n = 0.25 lb VSS/d/lb VSS Design SRT
= 3.96 days
Flow Diagram - Membrane Bioreactor for BOD Removal & Nitrification III. Calculate the Biomass Production Rate
The biological treatment process design calculations for the MBR process are carried out using biological kinetics constants and equations typically used for completely mixed µ
m at Tww = 5.61 lb VSS/d/lb VSS bCODo
= 672 mg/L activated sludge systems as described in the following references:
k
d at Tww = 0.1154 lb VSS/d/lb VSS
S
= 1.404 mg bCOD/L
Biomass Production Rate, Px,bio = 5029 lb VSS/day
IV. Determine the Amount of Nitrogen Oxidized to Nitrate Equations Used in the Calculations:

µmn at Tww = (
µmn_20)*
θ
µmn
[((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
Calculated amount of nitrogen oxidized to nitrate, NO
x = 44.932 mg/L
kdn at
Tww = (
kmn
_20)*
θ
kdn
[((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
Difference between estimated and calculated values NO
x = 0.00000 mg/L
K
n at
Tww = (
K
n
_20)*
θ
Kn
[((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
Goal Seek Result:

Amount of nitrogen oxidized to nitrate, NO
x = 44.93 mg/L
µ
n =
[
µmn
*NH
4-N
e/(K
n + NH
4-N
e)]*[DO
o/(0.5 + DO
o)] - kdn
Theor. SRT = 1/
µ
n
NOTE: This is an iterative solution. You must use Excel's "Goal Seek" to find the NO x value as Design SRT = (Theor. SRT)FS ( FS = TKN Peak/Ave Factor ) follows: Place the cursor on the green cell G42 and click on "goal seek" (in the "tools" menu or under "Data - What If Analysis" depending on the version of Excel). Enter values to "Set cell:" G42, "To µ
m at
Tww = (
µ
m
_20)*
θ
µm
[((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
value:" 0, "By changing cell:" D14, and click on "OK". The calculated value of NO x will appear in cell
k
d at
Tww = (
k
m
_20)*
θ
k
d
[((Tww-32)/1.8)-20] bCODo = 1.6*BODo
F44 and G42 should be zero if the process worked properly. Note that cell D14 needs an initial estimate for NO
x in order for the iterative solution to work properly. S = K s*[1 +(k
d*SRT)]/[SRT*(
µ
m - k
d) - 1]
IV. Calc. the Prod. Rate and Mass of VSS and TSS in Aeration Basin Px,bio
= (Q
o*Y*(
µ
m - kd)*8.34/(1 + (kd*SRT)))
+ (fd*k
d*Qo*Y*(
µ
m - kd)SRT*8.34/(1 + (kd*SRT)))
+ (Q
o*Yn*NOx*8.34/(1 + (kdn*SRT)))
bpCOD/pCOD = 0.554 nbVSS = 115.9 mg/L
NO
x = TKN
o - NH
4-N
e - [(0.12 Px,bio/8.34)/Q
o
]
Aeration Tank VSS Production Rate, PX,VSS = 7928 lb VSS/day Aeration Tank TSS Production Rate, PX,TSS = 9656 lb TSS/day bpCOD/pCOD = (bCOD/BOD)*(BOD o - sBODo)/(CODo - sCODo
)
Mass of MLVSS = 31,413 lb VSS Mass of MLSS = 38,258 lb TSS nbVSS = [ 1 - (bpCOD/pCOD)]VSS o
Px,VSS = Px,bio + (Q
o*nbVSS*8.34)
Px,TSS = Px,VSS + [Q
o(TSS
o - VSSo)8.34]
V. Aeration Tank Calculations (User input needed in yellow cells) Mass of MLVSS = PX,VSS*SRT Mass of MLSS = PX,TSS*SRT
Req. Aeration Vol., Vaer,min = 72,149 ft
3 Click on green box & then on the arrow
Aer. + Membr. Vol., Vtot = 76,496 ft
3 to select tank shape Required Aeration Volume =
Vaer,min = (Mass of MLSS/(MLSS*8.34))*(10
6 /7.48)
Req. Vol. per tank, Vtank = 38,248 ft
3 Actual Tank Width = 38.3 ft
Calculated Tank Width = 27.6 ft Actual Tank Length = 71.8 ft Aeration Detntion Time, τ = (Vaer,act*7.48/10 6 )*N*24/Q
o
Calculated Tank Length = 63.9 ft Act. Aer. Vol., Vaer,act = 57,500 ft 3 Tank Wall Height = 23.7 ft Memb. Mod. Vol/Tank: 2,173 ft 3 Vol. BOD Loading =
Q
o*BOD
o*8.34/((Vaer,act/1000)*N)
Aer. Detention Time,
τaer = 6.9 hr MLVSS = 6,979 mg/L MLVSS = MLSS(Mass of MLVSS/Mass of MLSS) Vol. BOD Loading = 91.4 lb BOD/d/1000 ft
3 F:M ratio = Q
o*8.34*BOD
o/((MLVSS*8.34*(Vaer,act*7.48/10
6 )*N))
F:M ratio = 0.210 lb BOD/d/lb MLVSS
Sludge Wasting Rate,
Q
w = 217,112 gal/day
Q
w = ((N*Vaer,act*7.48/10
6 )*MLSS/(SRT*X
w))*10
6 Air Requirement/Blower Design Calculations
VI. User Inputs - Enter values in yellow cells only
Patm = 14.696*EXP[-32.17*MWair*Elev/(g
c*R*Tamb
)
Standard Design Elevation above This equation for Patm as a function of elev. above sea level and ambient temperature comes from:

O
2 transf. Effic., SOTE = 30.0% Sea Level, Elev = 225 ft (from diffuser mfr or vendor) ambient air Temp., Tamb = 70 o
F
Ratio of oxygen transfer rate in wastewater P
D = Patm + (62.4*ddiff/2)/144
ρair = MWair*Pstd /(10.73*(Tstd + 459.67))
to that in clean water, α = 0.5 Diffuser Fouling Factor, F = 0.8
Ratio of D.O. saturation in ww to that in clean lb/day O 2:
mO2 = Q
o*8.34*(BOD
o - BODe)/f - (1.42*Px,VSS) + (4.57*Q
o*8.34*NO
x
)
water at same T & P,
B = 1.0 Depth of Diffuser, ddiff = 21.7 ft
D.O sat'n conc. for clean water at ww Pressure drop across This equation for oxygen utilization rate comes from:
temp. & 1 atm, C
s = 9.3 mg/L diffuser,
∆Pdiff = 10.8 in H
2 O
NOTE: Derivation of the equation for
C
s as (from diffuser mfr or vendor)
a function of
Tww is shown in wksht 7. The equation below for the actual oxygen transfer efficiency, AOTE, is found as

VII. Air Requirement/Blower Design Calculations Note that for use in this equation Tww must be
converted to
o
C
Barom. Pressure,
Patm = 14.6 psia Des. Air Flow Rate, SCFM: 4,311 scfm
Pressure at Mid Depth,
P
D = 19.3 psia
Standard Air Density,
ρair = 0.07521 lb/ft
3 Des. Air Flow Rate, ACFM: 2591 acfm Design Air Flow Rate, SCFM = (mO2/AOTE)*MWair/(O 2_mole fraction*MW_O
2 *ρair_std*60*24
(from Ideal Gas Law) (at delivery point)
O
2 Utilization Rate,
mO2 = 8,976 lb/day Blower Outlet Press.,
PB2 = 24.38 psia Design Air Flow Rate, ACFM = SCFM*(Pstd/Pblower)*((Tww + 459.67)/(Tstd + 459.67)) Actual O
2 transf. Efficiency, AOTE = 8.33% Blower Outlet Press., PB2 = Patm +
∆Pdiff*0.036126 + 62.4*ddiff/144
(This is the air flow rate needed for the aeration tank, typically provided by a fine bubble diffuser system.) Alkalinity used for Nitrification, AlkNitrif = 7.14*NOx mg/L as CaCO 3 VIII. User Inputs and Constants- Enter value in yellow cell only Alkalinity needed = AlkNitrif + AlkEffl - Alk o mg/L as CaCO3
Alkalinity needed Alk_perday = (AlkNitrif + AlkEffl - Alk o)Qo*8.34 lb/day as CaCO3
Target Effluent Alkalinity = 20 mg/L as CaCO
3 Sodium Bicarbonate needed to maintain alkalinity = Alk_perday*84/50 lb/day NaHCO 3 Equiv. Weight of CaCO
3 = 50 g/equiv.

Equiv. Weight of NaHCO
3 = 84 g/equiv.

Alkalinity used for Nitrification = 7.14 g CaCO
2/g NH
3-N
IX. Calculation of Alkalinity Requirement
Alkalinity used for Nitrification = 320.8 mg/L as CaCO
3 Alkalinity needed = 40.8 mg/L as CaCO
3 Alkalinity needed = 1,021 lb/day as CaCO
3 Sodium Bicarbonate needed
per day to maintain alkalinity = 1,716 lb/day NaHCO
3 Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. rectangular
cylindrical
Nalco Water Handbook, 4th Ed., Ch. 23 Eqns 23.6 and 23.7 Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Equation 12.32 Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual, 3rd Ed., Sec. 6.21, Activated Sludge Process Handbook of Environmental Eng. Calculations, 2nd Ed., Sec. 1.7.21, Activated Sludge Process Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications, Sec. 2.2 Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice

ALKALINITY REQUIREMENT
MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units BOD Removal and Nitrification

INPUTS PROCESS DESIGN CALCULATIONS
rectangular
AER. TANK CALC'NS OXYGEN/AIR/BLOWER REQUIREMENTS
468
This worksheet makes the design calculations for preanoxic denitrification basin(s) to go with the Aeration Tank(s) designed for BOD removal and Nitrification in Worksheet 4. (Wastewater parameters/characteristics and biological kinetic coefficients entered on Worksheet 2 will also be used in this worksheet)
I. User Inputs - Enter values in yellow cells only
Effluent Nitrate conc., Ne = 5.0 mg/L Mixing Energy
Nitrate conc. in RAS, NRAS = 5.0 mg/L for Anoxic Reactor = 0.38 hp/103 ft3
Temp. Coeff. For SDNR = 1.026 . Design % Excess
Tank Freeboard = 2.3 ft Nitrif. Capacity = 2%
No. of Anoxic Tanks, Nan = 2 . Liquid Depth in Tank = 22 ft Est. of detention time, tan = 0.9654 hr Tank L:W ratio = 1 Note that an initial estimate is needed for (Tank L:W ratio is only used for anoxic detention time in cell D19 to start rectangular tanks) an iterative calculation of minimum required
anoxoc detention time below.

II. Calculate RAS Ratio and Anoxic Tank Active Biomass Conc.

Membrane Bioreactor for Preanoxic Denitrification
RAS ratio, RAS = 7.99 Aer. Tank Act. Biomass, Pxb = 4609 lb/d An. Tank MLSS, MLSSAN = 7554 mg/L The biological treatment process design calculations for the MBR process are carried Aeration Tank Active Biomass Fraction, Xaer,b = 0.4773 out using biological kinetics constants and equations typically used for completely mixed Anoxic Tank Active Biomass Conc., Xan,b = 3606 mg/L activated sludge systems as described in the following references:

III. Calc Feed Rate of NOx to Anoxic Tank and Anoxic Tank Volume RAS ratio, RAS = (NOx/NRAS) - 1
Aer Tank Act. Biomass, Pxb = [Qo*Y*(bCODo - S)*8.34]/[1 + (kd*SRT)] Flow rate to Anoxic Tank = 24.0 MGD Anaer. Tank MLSS, MLSSAN = [RAS/(RAS + 1)] MLSSw (RAS flow containing nitrate) Anoxic Tank Volume, Van = 16,132 ft3 Aeration Tank Active Biomass Fraction, Xaer,b = Pxb/Px,vss NOx rate to Anoxic Tank = 999 lb/day (based on detention time value in cell D19) Anoxic Tank Active Biomass Conc., Xan,b = Xaer,b*MLSSAN Flow Rate to Anoxic Tank , QAN = RAS*Qo
IV. Calculate the SDNR (Specific Denitrification Rate) NOx Rate to Anoxic Tank = QAN*NRAS*8.34 Anoxic Tank Volume, Van = (Qo*106
/7.48)*tAN/24
Anoxic Tank F/M ratio = 2.8979 lb BOD/day/lb MLVSS Anoxic Tank F:M ratio, F:M = Qo*BODo*8.34/((Van*7.48/106 )*Xan,b/8.34)
rbCODo/bCODo ratio = 0.1275
Next lower rbCOD/bCOD value from table = 0.1 Coefficients for: SDNR = bo + b1 [ln(F:M)] The SDNR equation, Next higher rbCOD/bCOD value from table = 0.2 rbCOD/bCOD bo b1 coefficient values, SDNR for rbCOD/bCOD = 0.1 is equal to 0.26899 0.1 0.186 0.078 and temperature SDNR for rbCOD/bCOD = 0.2 is equal to 0.33855 0.2 0.213 0.118 correction equations

0.3 0.235 0.141 are from: Metcalf & Eddy,
SDNR for rbCOD/bCOD = 0.1275 is equal to 0.2881 0.4 0.242 0.152 Wastewater Engineering ( at 20o
C) 0.5 0.27 0.162 Treatment and Resource
SDNR at Tww = 0.2808 lb NO3-N/day/lb biomass (at Tww) 0.10 0.1860 0.0780 Recovery , 5th Ed.,

0.20 0.2130 0.1180 McGraw-Hill, 2014
V. Calculate Anoxic Tank Volume, Dimensions, and Detention Time Note that for F:M < 0.5, SDNR at 20o C is calculated as: SDNR = 0.24*F:M
SDNR at Tww = (SDNR at 20o
C)*θSDNR
[((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
NO3-N reduction capacity = 1019 lb/day % Excess Nitrif Capacity = 2.0% NO3-N reduction capacity = (Van*7.48/106
)*SDNR*Xan,b*8.34
Difference between Design and Calculated % Excess Nitrif. Capacity = 0.000 % Excess Nitrif. Capac. = (N03-N Reduction Capacity - NOx Rate to Anoxic Tank) Anoxic Tank min. Vol, Van = ft3 NOx Rate to Anoxic Tank Min. Anoxic Det'n Time, tan = hr Min. Anoxic Det'n Time, tan = Van*24/(Qo*106 /7.48)
Min. Vol. per Tank, Vtank = Van/Nan
NOTE: This is an iterative solution. You must use Excel's "Goal Seek" to find the Van and tan values as follows: Place the cursor on the green cell G64 and click on "goal seek" (in the "tools" menu or under "Data - What If Analysis" depending on the version of Excel). Enter values to "Set cell" G64 "To value:" 0, "By changing cell:" D19, and click on "OK". The calculated values Oxygen credit for nitrate reduction = 2.86 Qo(NOx - Ne) of Van and tan will be in cells D66 and D68. Cell G64 should be zero if the process worked right.

A preliminary estimate for tan is needed in cell D19 in order for the iterative solution to work.

Alkalinity produced by nitrate reduction = 3.57(NOx - Ne) Min. Vol. per tank, Vtank = 8,066 ft3 Click on green box & then on the arrow Calculated Tank Width = 19.3 ft to select tank shape Sludge Wasting Rate:

Calculated Tank Length = 19.3 ft Actual Tank Width = 28.0 ft Qw = [((Vaer*MLSS + Vanox*Xb)/SRT)]/(TSSw) Tank Wall Height = 24.0 ft Actual Tank Length = 38.0 ft Act. Tank Liq. Vol. = 23,089 ft3
Anoxic Detention Time, τan = 2.763 hr (Preanoxic Tank Liquid Volume) VI. Calc. Revised Air Requirement & Alkalinity Requirement, Mixing Power & Sludge Wasting Rate
Oxygen Credit = 2857 lb/day equals: 119.1 lb/hr
O2 Utilization Rate = 255 lb/hr
Required Air Flow Rate (in Aeration Tank), SCFM = 2938.6 SCFM Required Air Flow Rate (in Aeration Tank), ACFM = 1766.0 ACFM Alkalinity Produced = 142.6 mg/L as CaCO3
Alkalinity Needed = -101.7 mg/L as CaCO3
Alkalinity Needed = -2546 lb/day as CaCO3
Sodum Bicarbonate Needed per Day to Maintain Alkalinity (lb/day NaHCO3) = -4277 Required Anoxic Tank Mixing Power = 17.5 hp
Sludge Wasting Rate = 254,094 gal/day
Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. rectangular
cylindrical
Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual, 3rd Ed., Sec. 6.21, Activated Sludge Process Handbook of Environmental Eng. Calculations, 2nd Ed., Sec. 1.7.21, Activated Sludge Process MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units PreAnoxic Denitrification
INPUTS
Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice
Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes

FINAL CALCULATIONS

0.97 rectangular

TANK VOLUME AND DIMENSIONS PROCESS DESIGN CALCULATIONS
16,132
469
I. Wastewater Parameters/Characteristics Enter values in yellow cells only.

Design ww Flow Rate, Qo = 3.51 MGD Influent TSS, TSSo = 329 mg/L Influent BOD, BODo = 420 mg/L Influent VSS, VSSo = 260 mg/L Influent sBOD, sBODo = 168 mg/L
Influent TKN, TKNo = 70 mg/L
Influent COD, CODo = 857 mg/L TKN peak/ave factor, FS = 1.0 Influent sCOD, sCODo = 129 mg/L Influent NH4-N, NH4-No = 42 mg/L Influent rbCOD, rbCODo = 86 mg/L Influent Alkalinity, Alko = 300 (mg/L as CaCO3)
ratio, bCOD/BOD = 1.6 Aeration WW Temp, Tww = 66.2 o
F
II. Biological Kinetic Coefficients - For BOD Removal
Synth. Yield Coeff., Y = 0.40 lb VSS/lb bCOD Half Veloc. Coeff., Ks = 20 mg/L Temp coeff., q, for mm = 1.07 Temp coeff., q, for kd = 1.04 Resid. biomass fract., fd = 0.15
Max spec. gwth rate at 20o
C, µm20 = 6 lb VSS/d/lb VSS
Endog. Decay coeff. at 20o
C, kd20 = 0.12 lb VSS/d/lb VSS
III. Biological Kinetic Coefficients - For Nitrification The source for the values in the table above is:

Synth. Yield Coeff., Yn = 0.12 lb VSS/lb NOx
Temp coeff., q, for mmn = 1.070 Half Veloc. Coeff. at 20o C, Kn = 0.7 mg/L
Temp coeff., q, for kdn = 1.040 Half Veloc. Coeff. at 20oC, Ko = 0.5 mg/L Temp coeff., q, for Kn = 1.053 Temp coeff., q, for Ko = 1 Max spec. gwth rate at 20o
C, µmn20 = 0.8 lb VSS/d/lb VSS
Endog. Decay coeff. at 20oC, kdn20 = 0.08 lb VSS/d/lb VSS IV. Constants Used in the Calculations
Saturation D.O. in water
Ratio of BOD5 to BODu , f = 0.68 at 20o
C & 1 atm, Css = 9.17 mg/L
BODu equiv. of VSS = 1.42 lb BODu/lb VSS Standard Pressure = 14.7 psi Spec Wt of water, γH2O = 62.4 lb/ft3 Standard Temperature = 68.0 o F
Mol. Wt. of Air = 28.97 Mol. Wt. of Oxygen = 32.0
Temp Coeff. for O2 rate, θ = 1.024 O2 mole fraction in Air = 0.209 The source for the values in the table above is:

Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. Introduction to Water Rsource Recovery Facility Design, 2nd Ed., Table 6.2 WW INFORMATION BIOL. KINETIC COEFFICIENTS CONSTANTS
MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units User Inputs and Constants
Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice
Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes Introduction to Water Resource Recovery Facility Design, 2nd Ed., Table 6.1 Near-Term Conditions
470
I. Membrane/Membrane Module Parameters
(Values typically available from membrane manufacturer or vendor - Enter values in yellow cells) Module packing density, φ = 148 m2
/m3 equals 45.0 ft2
/ft3
Specific Aer. Demand, SADM = 0.2 m3
air/hr/m2 membrane
equals 0.656 ft3
air/hr/ft2 membrane
Values given for MBR specific area (module packing density) range from 150 -334 m2/m3 II. Process Design Calculations (done by worksheet) in Table 8-35 of Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Resource Recovery, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, 2014
Membrane Flux, J = 21.1 L/hr/m2 equals 0.518 gal/hr/ft2 Equations Used in the Calculations:

Membrane Area, AM = 282,113 ft2
Membrane Module Vol., VM = 6,271 ft3 Module packing density, φ, in ft2 /ft3
= (φ in m2
/m3
)/3.28084
Scouring Air Flow Required = 3,085 ft3
/min (ACFM) = 3,071 SCFM Specific Aeration Demand, SADM , in ft3 air/hr/ft2
membrane =
= SADM in m3
air/hr/m2
membrane/3.28084
(This is the scouring air flow rate needed for the membrane module, Membrane Flux, J, in L/hr/m2 = 0.4056Tww - 5.7278 (with Tww in o
F)
typically provided by a coarse bubble diffuser system.) (See Worksheet 6 for derivation of this eqution) Membrane Flux, J, in gal/hr/ft2 = [(Membrane Flux (J) in L/hr/m2 )/3.7854]/(3.280842
)
Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. Membrane Area, AM = (Qo*106/24)/J Membrane Module Volume, VM = AM/φ
Scouring Air Flow Required, ACFM = (SADM)(AM)/60 ACFM
Scouring Air Flow Req'd, SCFM = (ACFM)[(Tstd + 459.67)/(Tww + 459.67)](Patm/Pstd) SCFM MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units Membrane Module Sizing Calculations

INPUTS CALCULATIONS
Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice
Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes 471
I. User Inputs - Enter values in yellow cells only
Target Effluent Concentrations:

MLSS in Aer Tank, MLSS = 8,500 mg/L BODe = 10 mg/L
MLSS in Waste Sludge, Xw = 8,500 mg/L TSSe = 10 mg/L
DO in Aer. Tank, DOo = 2 mg/L NH4-Ne = 1.0 mg/L
Number of Aeration Tanks = 2 Tank Freeboard = 2.0 ft
Liquid Depth in Tank = 22 ft Tank L:W ratio = 2.3
Initial Estimate of NOx = 44.93 mg/L (Tank L:W ratio is only used for Note that an initial estimate is needed for NOx rectangular tanks) As noted in all four of the above references, MLSS and Xw for MBR processes are typically in in cell D14 to start an iterative calculation of NOx Influent TKN, TKNo = 70 mg/L the range from 8,000 to 12,000 mg/L. below. 80% of the influent TKN is suggested for (value transferred from Worksheet 2) this initial estimate. 80% of TKNo = 56.0 mg/L
II. Calculate Design SRT
µmn at Tww = 0.70 lb VSS/d/lb VSS Kn at Tww = 0.70 mg/L kdn at Tww = 0.08 lb VSS/d/lb VSS Theor. SRT = 3.96 days µn = 0.25 lb VSS/d/lb VSS Design SRT = 3.96 days
Flow Diagram - Membrane Bioreactor for BOD Removal & Nitrification III. Calculate the Biomass Production Rate
The biological treatment process design calculations for the MBR process are carried out using biological kinetics constants and equations typically used for completely mixed µm at Tww = 5.61 lb VSS/d/lb VSS bCODo = 672 mg/L activated sludge systems as described in the following references:
kd at Tww = 0.1154 lb VSS/d/lb VSS S = 1.404 mg bCOD/L
Biomass Production Rate, Px,bio = 5883 lb VSS/day
IV. Determine the Amount of Nitrogen Oxidized to Nitrate Equations Used in the Calculations:
µmn at Tww = (µmn_20)*θµmn
[((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
Calculated amount of nitrogen oxidized to nitrate, NOx = 44.932 mg/L kdn at Tww = (kmn_20)*θkdn [((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
Difference between estimated and calculated values NOx = 0.00000 mg/L Kn at Tww = (Kn_20)*θKn [((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
Goal Seek Result:

Amount of nitrogen oxidized to nitrate, NOx = 44.93 mg/L µn = [µmn*NH4-Ne/(Kn + NH4-Ne)]*[DOo/(0.5 + DOo)] - kdn Theor. SRT = 1/µn
NOTE: This is an iterative solution. You must use Excel's "Goal Seek" to find the NOx value as Design SRT = (Theor. SRT)FS ( FS = TKN Peak/Ave Factor ) follows: Place the cursor on the green cell G42 and click on "goal seek" (in the "tools" menu or under "Data - What If Analysis" depending on the version of Excel). Enter values to "Set cell:" G42, "To µm at Tww = (µm_20)*θµm [((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
value:" 0, "By changing cell:" D14, and click on "OK". The calculated value of NOx will appear in cell kd at Tww = (km_20)*θkd [((Tww-32)/1.8)-20] bCODo = 1.6*BODo
F44 and G42 should be zero if the process worked properly. Note that cell D14 needs an initial estimate for NOx in order for the iterative solution to work properly. S = Ks*[1 +(kd*SRT)]/[SRT*(µm - kd) - 1] IV. Calc. the Prod. Rate and Mass of VSS and TSS in Aeration Basin Px,bio = (Qo*Y*(µm - kd)*8.34/(1 + (kd*SRT))) + (fd*kd*Qo*Y*(µm - kd)SRT*8.34/(1 + (kd*SRT)))
+ (Qo*Yn*NOx*8.34/(1 + (kdn*SRT)))
bpCOD/pCOD = 0.554 nbVSS = 115.9 mg/L
NOx = TKNo - NH4-Ne - [(0.12 Px,bio/8.34)/Qo]
Aeration Tank VSS Production Rate, PX,VSS = 9276 lb VSS/day Aeration Tank TSS Production Rate, PX,TSS = 11298 lb TSS/day bpCOD/pCOD = (bCOD/BOD)*(BODo - sBODo)/(CODo - sCODo) Mass of MLVSS = 36,753 lb VSS Mass of MLSS = 44,762 lb TSS nbVSS = [ 1 - (bpCOD/pCOD)]VSSo Px,VSS = Px,bio + (Qo*nbVSS*8.34) Px,TSS = Px,VSS + [Qo(TSSo - VSSo)8.34] V. Aeration Tank Calculations (User input needed in yellow cells) Mass of MLVSS = PX,VSS*SRT Mass of MLSS = PX,TSS*SRT
Req. Aeration Vol., Vaer,min = 84,415 ft3 Click on green box & then on the arrow Aer. + Membr. Vol., Vtot = 90,686 ft3 to select tank shape Required Aeration Volume = Vaer,min = (Mass of MLSS/(MLSS*8.34))*(106 /7.48)
Req. Vol. per tank, Vtank = 45,343 ft3 Actual Tank Width = 38.3 ft Calculated Tank Width = 30.0 ft Actual Tank Length = 71.8 ft Aeration Detntion Time, τ = (Vaer,act*7.48/106)*N*24/Qo Calculated Tank Length = 69.6 ft Act. Aer. Vol., Vaer,act = 56,538 ft3 Tank Wall Height = 23.7 ft Memb. Mod. Vol/Tank: 3,135 ft3 Vol. BOD Loading = Qo*BODo*8.34/((Vaer,act/1000)*N)
Aer. Detention Time, τaer = 5.8 hr MLVSS = 6,979 mg/L MLVSS = MLSS(Mass of MLVSS/Mass of MLSS) Vol. BOD Loading = 108.8 lb BOD/d/1000 ft3 F:M ratio = Qo*8.34*BODo/((MLVSS*8.34*(Vaer,act*7.48/106 )*N))
F:M ratio = 0.250 lb BOD/d/lb MLVSS
Sludge Wasting Rate, Qw = 213,479 gal/day Qw = ((N*Vaer,act*7.48/106 )*MLSS/(SRT*Xw))*106
Air Requirement/Blower Design Calculations
VI. User Inputs - Enter values in yellow cells only
Patm = 14.696*EXP[-32.17*MWair*Elev/(gc*R*Tamb)
Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual, 3rd Ed., Sec. 6.21, Activated Sludge Process Handbook of Environmental Eng. Calculations, 2nd Ed., Sec. 1.7.21, Activated Sludge Process Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice
MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units BOD Removal and Nitrification

INPUTS PROCESS DESIGN CALCULATIONS
rectangular
AER. TANK CALC'NS S
472
Standard Design Elevation above This equation for Patm as a function of elev. above sea level and ambient temperature comes from:

O2 transf. Effic., SOTE = 30.0% Sea Level, Elev = 225 ft (from diffuser mfr or vendor) ambient air Temp., Tamb = 70 o F
Ratio of oxygen transfer rate in wastewater PD = Patm + (62.4*ddiff/2)/144 ρair = MWair*Pstd /(10.73*(Tstd + 459.67)) to that in clean water, α = 0.5 Diffuser Fouling Factor, F = 0.8 Ratio of D.O. saturation in ww to that in clean lb/day O2: mO2 = Qo*8.34*(BODo - BODe)/f - (1.42*Px,VSS) + (4.57*Qo*8.34*NOx) water at same T & P, B = 1.0 Depth of Diffuser, ddiff = 21.7 ft D.O sat'n conc. for clean water at ww Pressure drop across This equation for oxygen utilization rate comes from:
temp. & 1 atm, Cs = 9.3 mg/L diffuser, ∆Pdiff = 10.8 in H2O NOTE: Derivation of the equation for Cs as (from diffuser mfr or vendor) a function of Tww is shown in wksht 7. The equation below for the actual oxygen transfer efficiency, AOTE, is found as

VII. Air Requirement/Blower Design Calculations Note that for use in this equation Tww must be
converted to o
C
Barom. Pressure, Patm = 14.6 psia Des. Air Flow Rate, SCFM: 5,044 scfm Pressure at Mid Depth, PD = 19.3 psia
Standard Air Density, ρair = 0.07521 lb/ft3 Des. Air Flow Rate, ACFM: 3031 acfm Design Air Flow Rate, SCFM = (mO2/AOTE)*MWair/(O2_mole fraction*MW_O2*ρair_std*60*24 (from Ideal Gas Law) (at delivery point)
O2 Utilization Rate, mO2 = 10,502 lb/day Blower Outlet Press., PB2 = 24.38 psia Design Air Flow Rate, ACFM = SCFM*(Pstd/Pblower)*((Tww + 459.67)/(Tstd + 459.67)) Actual O2 transf. Efficiency, AOTE = 8.33% Blower Outlet Press., PB2 = Patm + ∆Pdiff*0.036126 + 62.4*ddiff/144 (This is the air flow rate needed for the aeration tank, typically provided by a fine bubble diffuser system.) Alkalinity used for Nitrification, AlkNitrif = 7.14*NOx mg/L as CaCO3 VIII. User Inputs and Constants- Enter value in yellow cell only Alkalinity needed = AlkNitrif + AlkEffl - Alko mg/L as CaCO3 Alkalinity needed Alk_perday = (AlkNitrif + AlkEffl - Alko)Qo*8.34 lb/day as CaCO3 Target Effluent Alkalinity = 20 mg/L as CaCO3
Sodium Bicarbonate needed to maintain alkalinity = Alk_perday*84/50 lb/day NaHCO3 Equiv. Weight of CaCO3 = 50 g/equiv.

Equiv. Weight of NaHCO3 = 84 g/equiv.

Alkalinity used for Nitrification = 7.14 g CaCO2/g NH3-N IX. Calculation of Alkalinity Requirement
Alkalinity used for Nitrification = 320.8 mg/L as CaCO3 Alkalinity needed = 40.8 mg/L as CaCO3
Alkalinity needed = 1,195 lb/day as CaCO3
Sodium Bicarbonate needed
per day to maintain alkalinity = 2,007 lb/day NaHCO3
Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. rectangular
cylindrical
Nalco Water Handbook, 4th Ed., Ch. 23 Eqns 23.6 and 23.7 Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Equation 12.32 Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications, Sec. 2.2

ALKALINITY REQUIREMENT OXYGEN/AIR/BLOWER REQUIREMENTS
473
This worksheet makes the design calculations for preanoxic denitrification basin(s) to go with the Aeration Tank(s) designed for BOD removal and Nitrification in Worksheet 4. (Wastewater parameters/characteristics and biological kinetic coefficients entered on Worksheet 2 will also be used in this worksheet)
I. User Inputs - Enter values in yellow cells only
Effluent Nitrate conc., Ne = 5.0 mg/L Mixing Energy
Nitrate conc. in RAS, NRAS = 5.0 mg/L for Anoxic Reactor = 0.38 hp/103 ft3
Temp. Coeff. For SDNR = 1.026 . Design % Excess
Tank Freeboard = 2.3 ft Nitrif. Capacity = 2%
No. of Anoxic Tanks, Nan = 2 . Liquid Depth in Tank = 22 ft Est. of detention time, tan = 0.9654 hr Tank L:W ratio = 1 Note that an initial estimate is needed for (Tank L:W ratio is only used for anoxic detention time in cell D19 to start rectangular tanks) an iterative calculation of minimum required
anoxoc detention time below.

II. Calculate RAS Ratio and Anoxic Tank Active Biomass Conc.

Membrane Bioreactor for Preanoxic Denitrification
RAS ratio, RAS = 7.99 Aer. Tank Act. Biomass, Pxb = 5393 lb/d An. Tank MLSS, MLSSAN = 7554 mg/L The biological treatment process design calculations for the MBR process are carried Aeration Tank Active Biomass Fraction, Xaer,b = 0.4773 out using biological kinetics constants and equations typically used for completely mixed Anoxic Tank Active Biomass Conc., Xan,b = 3606 mg/L activated sludge systems as described in the following references:

III. Calc Feed Rate of NOx to Anoxic Tank and Anoxic Tank Volume RAS ratio, RAS = (NOx/NRAS) - 1
Aer Tank Act. Biomass, Pxb = [Qo*Y*(bCODo - S)*8.34]/[1 + (kd*SRT)] Flow rate to Anoxic Tank = 28.0 MGD Anaer. Tank MLSS, MLSSAN = [RAS/(RAS + 1)] MLSSw (RAS flow containing nitrate) Anoxic Tank Volume, Van = 18,875 ft3 Aeration Tank Active Biomass Fraction, Xaer,b = Pxb/Px,vss NOx rate to Anoxic Tank = 1169 lb/day (based on detention time value in cell D19) Anoxic Tank Active Biomass Conc., Xan,b = Xaer,b*MLSSAN Flow Rate to Anoxic Tank , QAN = RAS*Qo
IV. Calculate the SDNR (Specific Denitrification Rate) NOx Rate to Anoxic Tank = QAN*NRAS*8.34 Anoxic Tank Volume, Van = (Qo*106
/7.48)*tAN/24
Anoxic Tank F/M ratio = 2.8979 lb BOD/day/lb MLVSS Anoxic Tank F:M ratio, F:M = Qo*BODo*8.34/((Van*7.48/106 )*Xan,b/8.34)
rbCODo/bCODo ratio = 0.1275
Next lower rbCOD/bCOD value from table = 0.1 Coefficients for: SDNR = bo + b1 [ln(F:M)] The SDNR equation, Next higher rbCOD/bCOD value from table = 0.2 rbCOD/bCOD bo b1 coefficient values, SDNR for rbCOD/bCOD = 0.1 is equal to 0.26899 0.1 0.186 0.078 and temperature SDNR for rbCOD/bCOD = 0.2 is equal to 0.33855 0.2 0.213 0.118 correction equations

0.3 0.235 0.141 are from: Metcalf & Eddy,
SDNR for rbCOD/bCOD = 0.1275 is equal to 0.2881 0.4 0.242 0.152 Wastewater Engineering ( at 20o
C) 0.5 0.27 0.162 Treatment and Resource
SDNR at Tww = 0.2808 lb NO3-N/day/lb biomass (at Tww) 0.10 0.1860 0.0780 Recovery , 5th Ed.,

0.20 0.2130 0.1180 McGraw-Hill, 2014
V. Calculate Anoxic Tank Volume, Dimensions, and Detention Time Note that for F:M < 0.5, SDNR at 20o C is calculated as: SDNR = 0.24*F:M
SDNR at Tww = (SDNR at 20oC)*θSDNR
[((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
NO3-N reduction capacity = 1192 lb/day % Excess Nitrif Capacity = 2.0% NO3-N reduction capacity = (Van*7.48/106)*SDNR*Xan,b*8.34 Difference between Design and Calculated % Excess Nitrif. Capacity = 0.000 % Excess Nitrif. Capac. = (N03-N Reduction Capacity - NOx Rate to Anoxic Tank) Anoxic Tank min. Vol, Van = ft3 NOx Rate to Anoxic Tank Min. Anoxic Det'n Time, tan = hr Min. Anoxic Det'n Time, tan = Van*24/(Qo*106 /7.48)
Min. Vol. per Tank, Vtank = Van/Nan
NOTE: This is an iterative solution. You must use Excel's "Goal Seek" to find the Van and tan values as follows: Place the cursor on the green cell G64 and click on "goal seek" (in the "tools" menu or under "Data - What If Analysis" depending on the version of Excel). Enter values to "Set cell" G64 "To value:" 0, "By changing cell:" D19, and click on "OK". The calculated values Oxygen credit for nitrate reduction = 2.86 Qo(NOx - Ne) of Van and tan will be in cells D66 and D68. Cell G64 should be zero if the process worked right.

A preliminary estimate for tan is needed in cell D19 in order for the iterative solution to work.

Alkalinity produced by nitrate reduction = 3.57(NOx - Ne) Min. Vol. per tank, Vtank = 9,437 ft3 Click on green box & then on the arrow Calculated Tank Width = 20.9 ft to select tank shape Sludge Wasting Rate:

Calculated Tank Length = 20.9 ft Actual Tank Width = 28.0 ft Qw = [((Vaer*MLSS + Vanox*Xb)/SRT)]/(TSSw) Tank Wall Height = 24.0 ft Actual Tank Length = 38.0 ft Act. Tank Liq. Vol. = 23,089 ft3
Anoxic Detention Time, τan = 2.362 hr (Preanoxic Tank Liquid Volume) VI. Calc. Revised Air Requirement & Alkalinity Requirement, Mixing Power & Sludge Wasting Rate
Oxygen Credit = 3343 lb/day equals: 139.3 lb/hr
O2 Utilization Rate = 298 lb/hr
Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual, 3rd Ed., Sec. 6.21, Activated Sludge Process Handbook of Environmental Eng. Calculations, 2nd Ed., Sec. 1.7.21, Activated Sludge Process MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units PreAnoxic Denitrification
INPUTS
Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice
Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes TIONS

0.97 rectangular

TANK VOLUME AND DIMENSIONS PROCESS DESIGN CALCULATIONS
18,875
474
Required Air Flow Rate (in Aeration Tank), SCFM = 3438.1 SCFM Required Air Flow Rate (in Aeration Tank), ACFM = 2066.2 ACFM Alkalinity Produced = 142.6 mg/L as CaCO3
Alkalinity Needed = -101.7 mg/L as CaCO3
Alkalinity Needed = -2978 lb/day as CaCO3
Sodum Bicarbonate Needed per Day to Maintain Alkalinity (lb/day NaHCO3) = -5004 Required Anoxic Tank Mixing Power = 17.5 hp
Sludge Wasting Rate = 250,461 gal/day
Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. rectangular
cylindrical FINAL CALCULAT
475
I. Wastewater Parameters/Characteristics Enter values in yellow cells only.

Design ww Flow Rate, Qo = 4.12 MGD Influent TSS, TSSo = 329 mg/L Influent BOD, BODo = 420 mg/L Influent VSS, VSSo = 260 mg/L Influent sBOD, sBODo = 168 mg/L
Influent TKN, TKNo = 70 mg/L
Influent COD, CODo = 857 mg/L TKN peak/ave factor, FS = 1.0 Influent sCOD, sCODo = 129 mg/L Influent NH4-N, NH4-No = 42 mg/L Influent rbCOD, rbCODo = 86 mg/L Influent Alkalinity, Alko = 300 (mg/L as CaCO3)
ratio, bCOD/BOD = 1.6 Aeration WW Temp, Tww = 66.2 o
F
II. Biological Kinetic Coefficients - For BOD Removal
Synth. Yield Coeff., Y = 0.40 lb VSS/lb bCOD Half Veloc. Coeff., Ks = 20 mg/L Temp coeff., q, for mm = 1.07 Temp coeff., q, for kd = 1.04 Resid. biomass fract., fd = 0.15
Max spec. gwth rate at 20o
C, µm20 = 6 lb VSS/d/lb VSS
Endog. Decay coeff. at 20o
C, kd20 = 0.12 lb VSS/d/lb VSS
III. Biological Kinetic Coefficients - For Nitrification The source for the values in the table above is:

Synth. Yield Coeff., Yn = 0.12 lb VSS/lb NOx
Temp coeff., q, for mmn = 1.070 Half Veloc. Coeff. at 20o C, Kn = 0.7 mg/L
Temp coeff., q, for kdn = 1.040 Half Veloc. Coeff. at 20oC, Ko = 0.5 mg/L Temp coeff., q, for Kn = 1.053 Temp coeff., q, for Ko = 1 Max spec. gwth rate at 20o
C, µmn20 = 0.8 lb VSS/d/lb VSS
Endog. Decay coeff. at 20oC, kdn20 = 0.08 lb VSS/d/lb VSS IV. Constants Used in the Calculations
Saturation D.O. in water
Ratio of BOD5 to BODu , f = 0.68 at 20o
C & 1 atm, Css = 9.17 mg/L
BODu equiv. of VSS = 1.42 lb BODu/lb VSS Standard Pressure = 14.7 psi Spec Wt of water, γH2O = 62.4 lb/ft3 Standard Temperature = 68.0 o F
Mol. Wt. of Air = 28.97 Mol. Wt. of Oxygen = 32.0
Temp Coeff. for O2 rate, θ = 1.024 O2 mole fraction in Air = 0.209 The source for the values in the table above is:

Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. Introduction to Water Rsource Recovery Facility Design, 2nd Ed., Table 6.2 WW INFORMATION BIOL. KINETIC COEFFICIENTS CONSTANTS
MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units User Inputs and Constants
Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice
Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes Introduction to Water Resource Recovery Facility Design, 2nd Ed., Table 6.1 Ultimate Conditions
476
I. Membrane/Membrane Module Parameters
(Values typically available from membrane manufacturer or vendor - Enter values in yellow cells) Module packing density, φ = 148 m2
/m3 equals 45.0 ft2
/ft3
Specific Aer. Demand, SADM = 0.2 m3
air/hr/m2 membrane
equals 0.656 ft3
air/hr/ft2 membrane
Values given for MBR specific area (module packing density) range from 150 -334 m2/m3 II. Process Design Calculations (done by worksheet) in Table 8-35 of Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Resource Recovery, 5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, 2014
Membrane Flux, J = 21.1 L/hr/m2 equals 0.518 gal/hr/ft2 Equations Used in the Calculations:

Membrane Area, AM = 331,142 ft2
Membrane Module Vol., VM = 7,361 ft3 Module packing density, φ, in ft2 /ft3
= (φ in m2
/m3
)/3.28084
Scouring Air Flow Required = 3,621 ft3
/min (ACFM) = 3,605 SCFM Specific Aeration Demand, SADM , in ft3 air/hr/ft2
membrane =
= SADM in m3
air/hr/m2
membrane/3.28084
(This is the scouring air flow rate needed for the membrane module, Membrane Flux, J, in L/hr/m2 = 0.4056Tww - 5.7278 (with Tww in o
F)
typically provided by a coarse bubble diffuser system.) (See Worksheet 6 for derivation of this eqution) Membrane Flux, J, in gal/hr/ft2 = [(Membrane Flux (J) in L/hr/m2 )/3.7854]/(3.280842
)
Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. Membrane Area, AM = (Qo*106/24)/J Membrane Module Volume, VM = AM/φ
Scouring Air Flow Required, ACFM = (SADM)(AM)/60 ACFM
Scouring Air Flow Req'd, SCFM = (ACFM)[(Tstd + 459.67)/(Tww + 459.67)](Patm/Pstd) SCFM MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units Membrane Module Sizing Calculations

INPUTS CALCULATIONS
Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice
Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes 477
I. User Inputs - Enter values in yellow cells only
Target Effluent Concentrations:

MLSS in Aer Tank, MLSS = 8,500 mg/L BODe = 10 mg/L
MLSS in Waste Sludge, Xw = 8,500 mg/L TSSe = 10 mg/L
DO in Aer. Tank, DOo = 2 mg/L NH4-Ne = 1.0 mg/L
Number of Aeration Tanks = 2 Tank Freeboard = 2.0 ft
Liquid Depth in Tank = 22 ft Tank L:W ratio = 2.3
Initial Estimate of NOx = 44.93 mg/L (Tank L:W ratio is only used for Note that an initial estimate is needed for NOx rectangular tanks) As noted in all four of the above references, MLSS and Xw for MBR processes are typically in in cell D14 to start an iterative calculation of NOx Influent TKN, TKNo = 70 mg/L the range from 8,000 to 12,000 mg/L. below. 80% of the influent TKN is suggested for (value transferred from Worksheet 2) this initial estimate. 80% of TKNo = 56.0 mg/L
II. Calculate Design SRT
µmn at Tww = 0.70 lb VSS/d/lb VSS Kn at Tww = 0.70 mg/L kdn at Tww = 0.08 lb VSS/d/lb VSS Theor. SRT = 3.96 days µn = 0.25 lb VSS/d/lb VSS Design SRT = 3.96 days
Flow Diagram - Membrane Bioreactor for BOD Removal & Nitrification III. Calculate the Biomass Production Rate
The biological treatment process design calculations for the MBR process are carried out using biological kinetics constants and equations typically used for completely mixed µm at Tww = 5.61 lb VSS/d/lb VSS bCODo = 672 mg/L activated sludge systems as described in the following references:
kd at Tww = 0.1154 lb VSS/d/lb VSS S = 1.404 mg bCOD/L
Biomass Production Rate, Px,bio = 6906 lb VSS/day
IV. Determine the Amount of Nitrogen Oxidized to Nitrate Equations Used in the Calculations:
µmn at Tww = (µmn_20)*θµmn
[((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
Calculated amount of nitrogen oxidized to nitrate, NOx = 44.932 mg/L kdn at Tww = (kmn_20)*θkdn [((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
Difference between estimated and calculated values NOx = 0.00000 mg/L Kn at Tww = (Kn_20)*θKn [((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
Goal Seek Result:

Amount of nitrogen oxidized to nitrate, NOx = 44.93 mg/L µn = [µmn*NH4-Ne/(Kn + NH4-Ne)]*[DOo/(0.5 + DOo)] - kdn Theor. SRT = 1/µn
NOTE: This is an iterative solution. You must use Excel's "Goal Seek" to find the NOx value as Design SRT = (Theor. SRT)FS ( FS = TKN Peak/Ave Factor ) follows: Place the cursor on the green cell G42 and click on "goal seek" (in the "tools" menu or under "Data - What If Analysis" depending on the version of Excel). Enter values to "Set cell:" G42, "To µm at Tww = (µm_20)*θµm [((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
value:" 0, "By changing cell:" D14, and click on "OK". The calculated value of NOx will appear in cell kd at Tww = (km_20)*θkd [((Tww-32)/1.8)-20] bCODo = 1.6*BODo
F44 and G42 should be zero if the process worked properly. Note that cell D14 needs an initial estimate for NOx in order for the iterative solution to work properly. S = Ks*[1 +(kd*SRT)]/[SRT*(µm - kd) - 1] IV. Calc. the Prod. Rate and Mass of VSS and TSS in Aeration Basin Px,bio = (Qo*Y*(µm - kd)*8.34/(1 + (kd*SRT))) + (fd*kd*Qo*Y*(µm - kd)SRT*8.34/(1 + (kd*SRT)))
+ (Qo*Yn*NOx*8.34/(1 + (kdn*SRT)))
bpCOD/pCOD = 0.554 nbVSS = 115.9 mg/L
NOx = TKNo - NH4-Ne - [(0.12 Px,bio/8.34)/Qo]
Aeration Tank VSS Production Rate, PX,VSS = 10888 lb VSS/day Aeration Tank TSS Production Rate, PX,TSS = 13261 lb TSS/day bpCOD/pCOD = (bCOD/BOD)*(BODo - sBODo)/(CODo - sCODo) Mass of MLVSS = 43,141 lb VSS Mass of MLSS = 52,541 lb TSS nbVSS = [ 1 - (bpCOD/pCOD)]VSSo Px,VSS = Px,bio + (Qo*nbVSS*8.34) Px,TSS = Px,VSS + [Qo(TSSo - VSSo)8.34] V. Aeration Tank Calculations (User input needed in yellow cells) Mass of MLVSS = PX,VSS*SRT Mass of MLSS = PX,TSS*SRT
Req. Aeration Vol., Vaer,min = 99,085 ft3 Click on green box & then on the arrow Aer. + Membr. Vol., Vtot = 106,446 ft3 to select tank shape Required Aeration Volume = Vaer,min = (Mass of MLSS/(MLSS*8.34))*(106 /7.48)
Req. Vol. per tank, Vtank = 53,223 ft3 Actual Tank Width = 38.3 ft Calculated Tank Width = 32.5 ft Actual Tank Length = 71.8 ft Aeration Detntion Time, τ = (Vaer,act*7.48/106)*N*24/Qo Calculated Tank Length = 75.4 ft Act. Aer. Vol., Vaer,act = 55,993 ft3 Tank Wall Height = 23.7 ft Memb. Mod. Vol/Tank: 3,680 ft3 Vol. BOD Loading = Qo*BODo*8.34/((Vaer,act/1000)*N)
Aer. Detention Time, τaer = 4.9 hr MLVSS = 6,979 mg/L MLVSS = MLSS(Mass of MLVSS/Mass of MLSS) Vol. BOD Loading = 129.0 lb BOD/d/1000 ft3 F:M ratio = Qo*8.34*BODo/((MLVSS*8.34*(Vaer,act*7.48/106 )*N))
F:M ratio = 0.296 lb BOD/d/lb MLVSS
Sludge Wasting Rate, Qw = 211,422 gal/day Qw = ((N*Vaer,act*7.48/106 )*MLSS/(SRT*Xw))*106
Air Requirement/Blower Design Calculations
VI. User Inputs - Enter values in yellow cells only
Patm = 14.696*EXP[-32.17*MWair*Elev/(gc*R*Tamb)
MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units BOD Removal and Nitrification

INPUTS PROCESS DESIGN CALCULATIONS
rectangular
AER. TANK CALC'NS S
Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice
Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual, 3rd Ed., Sec. 6.21, Activated Sludge Process Handbook of Environmental Eng. Calculations, 2nd Ed., Sec. 1.7.21, Activated Sludge Process 478
Standard Design Elevation above This equation for Patm as a function of elev. above sea level and ambient temperature comes from:

O2 transf. Effic., SOTE = 30.0% Sea Level, Elev = 225 ft (from diffuser mfr or vendor) ambient air Temp., Tamb = 70 o F
Ratio of oxygen transfer rate in wastewater PD = Patm + (62.4*ddiff/2)/144 ρair = MWair*Pstd /(10.73*(Tstd + 459.67)) to that in clean water, α = 0.5 Diffuser Fouling Factor, F = 0.8 Ratio of D.O. saturation in ww to that in clean lb/day O2: mO2 = Qo*8.34*(BODo - BODe)/f - (1.42*Px,VSS) + (4.57*Qo*8.34*NOx) water at same T & P, B = 1.0 Depth of Diffuser, ddiff = 21.7 ft D.O sat'n conc. for clean water at ww Pressure drop across This equation for oxygen utilization rate comes from:
temp. & 1 atm, Cs = 9.3 mg/L diffuser, ∆Pdiff = 10.8 in H2O NOTE: Derivation of the equation for Cs as (from diffuser mfr or vendor) a function of Tww is shown in wksht 7. The equation below for the actual oxygen transfer efficiency, AOTE, is found as

VII. Air Requirement/Blower Design Calculations Note that for use in this equation Tww must be
converted to o
C
Barom. Pressure, Patm = 14.6 psia Des. Air Flow Rate, SCFM: 5,920 scfm Pressure at Mid Depth, PD = 19.3 psia
Standard Air Density, ρair = 0.07521 lb/ft3 Des. Air Flow Rate, ACFM: 3558 acfm Design Air Flow Rate, SCFM = (mO2/AOTE)*MWair/(O2_mole fraction*MW_O2*ρair_std*60*24 (from Ideal Gas Law) (at delivery point)
O2 Utilization Rate, mO2 = 12,327 lb/day Blower Outlet Press., PB2 = 24.38 psia Design Air Flow Rate, ACFM = SCFM*(Pstd/Pblower)*((Tww + 459.67)/(Tstd + 459.67)) Actual O2 transf. Efficiency, AOTE = 8.33% Blower Outlet Press., PB2 = Patm + ∆Pdiff*0.036126 + 62.4*ddiff/144 (This is the air flow rate needed for the aeration tank, typically provided by a fine bubble diffuser system.) Alkalinity used for Nitrification, AlkNitrif = 7.14*NOx mg/L as CaCO3 VIII. User Inputs and Constants- Enter value in yellow cell only Alkalinity needed = AlkNitrif + AlkEffl - Alko mg/L as CaCO3 Alkalinity needed Alk_perday = (AlkNitrif + AlkEffl - Alko)Qo*8.34 lb/day as CaCO3 Target Effluent Alkalinity = 20 mg/L as CaCO3
Sodium Bicarbonate needed to maintain alkalinity = Alk_perday*84/50 lb/day NaHCO3 Equiv. Weight of CaCO3 = 50 g/equiv.

Equiv. Weight of NaHCO3 = 84 g/equiv.

Alkalinity used for Nitrification = 7.14 g CaCO2/g NH3-N IX. Calculation of Alkalinity Requirement
Alkalinity used for Nitrification = 320.8 mg/L as CaCO3 Alkalinity needed = 40.8 mg/L as CaCO3
Alkalinity needed = 1,403 lb/day as CaCO3
Sodium Bicarbonate needed
per day to maintain alkalinity = 2,356 lb/day NaHCO3
Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. rectangular
cylindrical ALKALINITY REQUIREMENT OXYGEN/AIR/BLOWER REQUIREMENTS Nalco Water Handbook, 4th Ed., Ch. 23 Eqns 23.6 and 23.7 Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Equation 12.32 Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications, Sec. 2.2 479
This worksheet makes the design calculations for preanoxic denitrification basin(s) to go with the Aeration Tank(s) designed for BOD removal and Nitrification in Worksheet 4. (Wastewater parameters/characteristics and biological kinetic coefficients entered on Worksheet 2 will also be used in this worksheet)
I. User Inputs - Enter values in yellow cells only
Effluent Nitrate conc., Ne = 5.0 mg/L Mixing Energy
Nitrate conc. in RAS, NRAS = 5.0 mg/L for Anoxic Reactor = 0.38 hp/103 ft3
Temp. Coeff. For SDNR = 1.026 . Design % Excess
Tank Freeboard = 2.3 ft Nitrif. Capacity = 2%
No. of Anoxic Tanks, Nan = 2 . Liquid Depth in Tank = 22 ft Est. of detention time, tan = 0.9654 hr Tank L:W ratio = 1 Note that an initial estimate is needed for (Tank L:W ratio is only used for anoxic detention time in cell D19 to start rectangular tanks) an iterative calculation of minimum required
anoxoc detention time below.

II. Calculate RAS Ratio and Anoxic Tank Active Biomass Conc.

Membrane Bioreactor for Preanoxic Denitrification
RAS ratio, RAS = 7.99 Aer. Tank Act. Biomass, Pxb = 6330 lb/d An. Tank MLSS, MLSSAN = 7554 mg/L The biological treatment process design calculations for the MBR process are carried Aeration Tank Active Biomass Fraction, Xaer,b = 0.4773 out using biological kinetics constants and equations typically used for completely mixed Anoxic Tank Active Biomass Conc., Xan,b = 3606 mg/L activated sludge systems as described in the following references:

III. Calc Feed Rate of NOx to Anoxic Tank and Anoxic Tank Volume RAS ratio, RAS = (NOx/NRAS) - 1
Aer Tank Act. Biomass, Pxb = [Qo*Y*(bCODo - S)*8.34]/[1 + (kd*SRT)] Flow rate to Anoxic Tank = 32.9 MGD Anaer. Tank MLSS, MLSSAN = [RAS/(RAS + 1)] MLSSw (RAS flow containing nitrate) Anoxic Tank Volume, Van = 22,155 ft3 Aeration Tank Active Biomass Fraction, Xaer,b = Pxb/Px,vss NOx rate to Anoxic Tank = 1372 lb/day (based on detention time value in cell D19) Anoxic Tank Active Biomass Conc., Xan,b = Xaer,b*MLSSAN Flow Rate to Anoxic Tank , QAN = RAS*Qo
IV. Calculate the SDNR (Specific Denitrification Rate) NOx Rate to Anoxic Tank = QAN*NRAS*8.34 Anoxic Tank Volume, Van = (Qo*106
/7.48)*tAN/24
Anoxic Tank F/M ratio = 2.8979 lb BOD/day/lb MLVSS Anoxic Tank F:M ratio, F:M = Qo*BODo*8.34/((Van*7.48/106 )*Xan,b/8.34)
rbCODo/bCODo ratio = 0.1275
Next lower rbCOD/bCOD value from table = 0.1 Coefficients for: SDNR = bo + b1 [ln(F:M)] The SDNR equation, Next higher rbCOD/bCOD value from table = 0.2 rbCOD/bCOD bo b1 coefficient values, SDNR for rbCOD/bCOD = 0.1 is equal to 0.26899 0.1 0.186 0.078 and temperature SDNR for rbCOD/bCOD = 0.2 is equal to 0.33855 0.2 0.213 0.118 correction equations

0.3 0.235 0.141 are from: Metcalf & Eddy,
SDNR for rbCOD/bCOD = 0.1275 is equal to 0.2881 0.4 0.242 0.152 Wastewater Engineering ( at 20o
C) 0.5 0.27 0.162 Treatment and Resource
SDNR at Tww = 0.2808 lb NO3-N/day/lb biomass (at Tww) 0.10 0.1860 0.0780 Recovery , 5th Ed.,

0.20 0.2130 0.1180 McGraw-Hill, 2014
V. Calculate Anoxic Tank Volume, Dimensions, and Detention Time Note that for F:M < 0.5, SDNR at 20o C is calculated as: SDNR = 0.24*F:M
SDNR at Tww = (SDNR at 20oC)*θSDNR
[((Tww-32)/1.8)-20]
NO3-N reduction capacity = 1399 lb/day % Excess Nitrif Capacity = 2.0% NO3-N reduction capacity = (Van*7.48/106)*SDNR*Xan,b*8.34 Difference between Design and Calculated % Excess Nitrif. Capacity = 0.000 % Excess Nitrif. Capac. = (N03-N Reduction Capacity - NOx Rate to Anoxic Tank) Anoxic Tank min. Vol, Van = ft3 NOx Rate to Anoxic Tank Min. Anoxic Det'n Time, tan = hr Min. Anoxic Det'n Time, tan = Van*24/(Qo*106 /7.48)
Min. Vol. per Tank, Vtank = Van/Nan
NOTE: This is an iterative solution. You must use Excel's "Goal Seek" to find the Van and tan values as follows: Place the cursor on the green cell G64 and click on "goal seek" (in the "tools" menu or under "Data - What If Analysis" depending on the version of Excel). Enter values to "Set cell" G64 "To value:" 0, "By changing cell:" D19, and click on "OK". The calculated values Oxygen credit for nitrate reduction = 2.86 Qo(NOx - Ne) of Van and tan will be in cells D66 and D68. Cell G64 should be zero if the process worked right.

A preliminary estimate for tan is needed in cell D19 in order for the iterative solution to work.

Alkalinity produced by nitrate reduction = 3.57(NOx - Ne) Min. Vol. per tank, Vtank = 11,078 ft3 Click on green box & then on the arrow Calculated Tank Width = 22.6 ft to select tank shape Sludge Wasting Rate:

Calculated Tank Length = 22.6 ft Actual Tank Width = 28.0 ft Qw = [((Vaer*MLSS + Vanox*Xb)/SRT)]/(TSSw) Tank Wall Height = 24.0 ft Actual Tank Length = 38.0 ft Act. Tank Liq. Vol. = 23,089 ft3
Anoxic Detention Time, τan = 2.012 hr (Preanoxic Tank Liquid Volume) VI. Calc. Revised Air Requirement & Alkalinity Requirement, Mixing Power & Sludge Wasting Rate
Oxygen Credit = 3924 lb/day equals: 163.5 lb/hr
O2 Utilization Rate = 350 lb/hr
TIONS

0.97 rectangular

TANK VOLUME AND DIMENSIONS PROCESS DESIGN CALCULATIONS
22,155
Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual, 3rd Ed., Sec. 6.21, Activated Sludge Process Handbook of Environmental Eng. Calculations, 2nd Ed., Sec. 1.7.21, Activated Sludge Process MBR WW Treatment Process Design Calculations - U.S. Units PreAnoxic Denitrification
INPUTS
Discussion and References
For background information about Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs) see:

Design of Water Resource Recovery Facilities, 6th Ed., Sec. 12.6 Membrane Bioreactors Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice Section 23.8, Membrane Bioreactor Design Practice
Membrane Bioreactors: WEF MOP No. 36, Chap. 4, Membrane Bioreactor Process Design Water Reuse: Issues, Technologies, and Applications
Section 7.8, Analysis and Design of Membrane Bioreactor Processes 480
Required Air Flow Rate (in Aeration Tank), SCFM = 4035.6 SCFM Required Air Flow Rate (in Aeration Tank), ACFM = 2425.3 ACFM Alkalinity Produced = 142.6 mg/L as CaCO3
Alkalinity Needed = -101.7 mg/L as CaCO3
Alkalinity Needed = -3496 lb/day as CaCO3
Sodum Bicarbonate Needed per Day to Maintain Alkalinity (lb/day NaHCO3) = -5873 Required Anoxic Tank Mixing Power = 17.5 hp
Sludge Wasting Rate = 248,404 gal/day
Copyright © McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC. All rights reserved. rectangular
cylindrical FINAL CALCULAT
481

APPENDICES
City of Santa Paula Wastewater Collection System and Water Recycling Facility Master Plan Appendix J – Annual Major Service and Replacement Budget 482

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Clete Saunier, Public Works Director
City of Santa Paula
From: Becca Bugielski – PE | MKN & Associates, Inc.

Mike Nunley– PE | MKN & Associates, Inc.

Date: 3/4/2024
Re: Annual Major Service and Replacement Budget

1.0 Objectives
As part of the Santa Paula Wastewater Master Plan Update, MKN identified major mechanical equipment and developed recommendations for budgeting to repair and/or replace that equipment. The City of Santa Paula completed the WRF in 2010, and many of the mechanical systems have required replacement or major service since the ten-year milestone is a critical event for evaluating membranes, blowers, pumps, and other major pieces of equipment.

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation is to allow the City to develop a budget for major service and/or replacement of critical mechanical equipment. These recommendations are based on observation of existing plant systems, cost for ongoing service, and cost for services at similar facilities or for similar pieces of equipment.

2.0 Annual Major Service and Replacement Budget
The table on the following page is based on the equipment schedules in Section 4.4 of the Draft Wastewater Master Plan Update. Five year and ten-year intervals are identified, since these are typically the major milestones or design lives for blowers, pumps, and other mechanical equipment. 483
| 2
Major Service and Replacement Recommendations
5 Year 10 Year
Processes Quantity Cost Opinion Comment Cost Opinion Comment Influent Lift Station
Pumps 4 $ 40,000
New seals and
Impellers $ 100,000 Replacement
Plug Valves 4 $ 20,000
New internals and
operator service $ 20,000
New internals and
operator service
Swing-Flex Check
Valves 4 $ 20,000
New internals and
operator service $ 20,000
New internals and
operator service
Slide Gates 2 $ 10,000
New internals and
operator service $ 10,000
New internals and
operator service
Flap Gates 2 $ 10,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 10,000
Inspection and
repairs
Headworks
Primary Screens 2 $ 30,000
New bearings and
inspection/ repairs $ 200,000 Screen replacement
Grit Vortex 2 $ 10,000
New bearings and
inspection/ repairs $ 100,000 Replacement
Grit Classifier 2 $ 15,000
New bearings and
inspection/ repairs $ 30,000 Replacement
Primary Screens
Conveyor 2 $ 10,000
New bearings and
inspection/ repairs $ 100,000 Replacement
Fine Screens 2 $ 30,000
New bearings and
inspection/ repairs $ 200,000 Screen replacement
Fine Screens
Conveyor 2 $ 10,000
New bearings and
inspection/ repairs $ 100,000 Replacement
Slide Gates 6 $ 30,000
New internals and
operator service $ 30,000
New internals and
operator service
EQ Basins
Slide Gates 2 $ 20,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 20,000
Inspection and
repairs
Anoxic Basins
Anoxic Mixer 3 $ 15,000 Replacement $ 15,000 Replacement Diversion Channel
Slide Gates 3 $ 20,000
New internals and
operator service $ 20,000
New internals and
operator service
Aeration Basins
MBR Feed Pumps 3 $ 30,000
New seals and
Impellers $ 210,000 Replacement
RAS Pumps 3 $ 30,000
New seals and
Impellers $ 210,000 Replacement
Aeration Panels 207 $ 100,000 Replace panels $ 100,000 Replace panels Biological Aeration
Blowers 4 $ 200,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 400,000 Replacement
ML Collection and MLSS Recirculation Channels
WAS Pumps 2 $ 20,000
New seals and
Impellers $ 140,000 Replacement
484
| 3
Mud Valves 6 $ 30,000
New internals and
operator service $ 30,000
New internals and
operator service
Slide Gates 3 $ 30,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 30,000
Inspection and
repairs
Channel Aeration
Blowers 2 $ 100,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 200,000 Replacement
MBR Filtration Modules
Mud Valves 6 $ 30,000
New internals and
operator service $ 30,000
New internals and
operator service
Membrane
Filtration Modules 24 $ 50,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 250,000 Replacement
Permeate Pumps 6 $ 60,000
New seals and
impellers $ 420,000 Replacement
Membrane Module
Aeration 3 $ 150,000
UV Disinfection
UV Modules 10 $ 50,000
Inspect modules and
replace lamps $ 100,000
Replace modules
and lamps
UV Air Flush-out
Compressor 1 $ 15,000 Replacement $ 15,000 Replacement
Automatic Level
Gate 2 $ 20,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 20,000
Inspection and
repairs
Channel Weir Gates 2 $ 20,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 20,000
Inspection and
repairs
CIP Storage Tanks and Foam Spray System
CIP Pumps 2 $ 60,000 Replacement $ 60,000 Replacement
Chemical
Metering/Injection
Pumps 2 $ 20,000 Replacement $ 20,000 Replacement
Foam Spray Pumps 2 $ 20,000 Replacement $ 20,000 Replacement Foam Spray
Nozzles 270 $ 50,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 100,000
Inspection and
repairs
Storage Tank Drain
- Mud Valves 2 $ 10,000
New internals and
operator service $ 10,000
New internals and
operator service
Solids Processing System
Gravity Belt
Thickeners 2 $ 50,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 300,000 Replacement
Digester Blowers 3 $ 150,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 300,000 Replacement
Rethickening
Pumps 2 $ 20,000
New seals and
impellers $ 140,000 Replacement
Screw Press Feed
Pumps 1 $ 10,000
New seals and
impellers $ 70,000 Replacement
Screw Press 1 $ 30,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 150,000
New internals and
motor
Polymer Units 3 $ 15,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 60,000 Replacement
Odor Control System
485
| 4
Foul Air Blower 1 $ 10,000
Inspection and
repairs $ 50,000 Replacement
Biological Trickling
Filter 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Total (Rounded) $ 1,800,000 $ 4,600,000
Notes
1) ENR LA CCI (Jan 2024) = 15299.7
2) Future Costs have not been escalated. It is assumed costs will be escalated during development of the rate study.

As shown in the attached table, 5-year major expenditures of $1.8M and 10-year expenditures of $4.6M should be anticipated by the City. These costs are not escalated, but it is recommended the City budget annually to build reserves for payment of these expenses. An annual allocation of $640,000, with annual escalation as recommended by the City's financial consultant, would allow the City to prepare to cover these anticipated costs at these 5- and 10-year milestones.
486

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Dale Goodman – Public Works Director
City of Santa Paula
From: Alex Maher, PE – Project Manager | MKN
Luis Garcia, EIT – Assistant Engineer II | MKN
Date: February 6, 2026
Re: Santa Paula Water Master Plan – Condition Assessment Technical Memorandum

1.0 Background and Objective

1.1 Background
The City of Santa Paula (City) contracted with Michael K. Nunley & Associates, LLC (MKN), an Ardurra Group, Inc. (Ardurra) company, to assist in the development of a comprehensive Water System Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to identify infrastructure improvements needed to meet existing and future water demands. As part of this effort, MKN was tasked with conducting site assessments of aboveground potable water facilities. These assessments included site visits and facility walk-throughs, with the findings documented in this Technical Memorandum (TM) to support the development of the CIP.

The City owns and operates various aboveground potable water facilities. The facilities included in the scope of this assessment are listed below:
• Storage Facilities (7 Total): Anderson Tank, Case Tank, Cherry Hill Tank, Fuchsia Tank, Limoneira Tank, Peck Tank, and Main Reservoir
• Booster Pump Stations (BPS; 7 Total): Anderson BPS, Canyon BPS, Glade BPS (inactive), Park BPS, Terracina No. 1 BPS (inactive), Terracina No. 2 BPS, and View Drive BPS (abandoned)
• Production Wells and Treatment (5 Total): Well 1-B, Well 11, Well 12, Well 13, and Well 14 Maps showing the general locations of each facility can be found in Appendix A.

DRAFT 487
| 2

1.2 Report Objective
The purpose of this assessment report is to summarize the existing condition of select potable water facilities and provide recommendations for future improvements to support the City in developing CIP budgets for upcoming fiscal years.

This TM documents the condition of each potable water storage tank, well site, and BPS as well as the Steckel Conditioning Facility. Structural and seismic evaluations were performed by MKN’s subconsultant Buehler Engineering, Inc. (Buehler) while underwater inspections and heavy metals analyses of the storage facilities were conducted by MKN’s subconsultant CSI Services (CSI).

This report does not include assessments of belowground facilities or pipelines, which were outside the scope of work.

2.0 Observations
MKN and Buehler visited the City’s aboveground facilities July 9-10, 2025. Characteristics such as site layout, general condition of facilities, site safety features, and types of equipment present were documented. Condition and functionality of electrical and instrumentation features were not assessed.

In addition to MKN and Buehler’s field observations, CSI performed interior tank dive inspections for the Anderson, Peck, Case, Cherry Hill, Fuchsia, and Limoneira Tanks. These detailed inspection reports, along with a tank priority matrix prepared by CSI summarizing relative interior and exterior coating condition and maintenance priority, were incorporated into the evaluation presented in this section.

Site assessment forms that were completed by MKN and Buehler for each site visited can be found in Appendix B, while the full CSI inspection reports and priority matrix are included in Appendix C.

2.1 Tank Sites
The following assessments are based on site visits conducted by all parties, as well as review of the individual maintenance inspection reports and tank priority rankings prepared by CSI. Seismic evaluations, conducted by Buehler, were performed in accordance with ASCE 7-22 using default Site Class D seismic design parameters due to the absence of geotechnical information for the tank sites.

In general, the tank sites appear to be reasonably well maintained, with exceptions noted in the individual evaluations. However, many of the tanks share common deficiencies, such as agerelated wear, structural concerns, and outdated safety features that reflect the age and original construction of these facilities. Multiple tanks fail to meet current AWWA D100 code requirements for anchorage, shell plate thickness, and freeboard, and several have foundation or settlement conditions that cannot be corrected without major reconstruction. While selective rehabilitation (e.g., recoating, minor structural repairs, drainage improvements) may extend short-term service DRAFT 488
| 3
life, such work will not address the underlying structural limitations associated with the tank’s age and original construction. Given these conditions, it is recommended that the City consider full tank replacement as it may provide a more reliable and cost-effective long-term solution.

2.1.1 Anderson Tank
Overview
The Anderson Tank is located on North Peck Road and was constructed in 1953. The site consists of a 620,000-gallon aboveground welded steel tank. No concrete foundation or seismic anchorage was observed, but based on the tank’s age and construction era, it is likely supported on a buried granular or oil sand base rather than a concrete foundation. Access to the site is limited and requires foot travel via a steep, degraded asphalt path.

The tank serves the 200-foot (ft) pressure zone, along with the Main Reservoir and Limoneira Tank, and is supplied by the City’s groundwater wells.

Figure 2-1: Anderson Tank
DRAFT 489
| 4
Tank Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Anderson Tank is presented in Table 2-1 below.

Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-1: Anderson Tank Summary
Year Installed Type Capacity (MG*) Diameter (ft) Shell Height (ft) 1953 Steel 0.62 50 42
*MG = million gallon
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment and dive inspection:
• Piping and Valve Condition – Piping is in poor condition with visible signs of corrosion and inadequate support. Flexible couplings are not present at the inlet and outlet. The drain valve is partially buried, and the tank connection is missing. A cracked thrust anchor was also observed. Corrosion was observed at the sample ports and outlet penetrations. • Foundation/Chime Condition – No concrete foundation, gravel ring, or other defined support structure was visible at the site. Gunite applied at the base is failing, and burrowing animal activity was noted around the tank perimeter, which could further undermine structural stability. Tank settlement was observed, with up to approximately 3 inches of differential elevation between high and low sides.
• Coating Condition –
o Exterior: The paint system on the exterior was found to be relatively thin and in poor condition on the roof but in good condition on the shell. All surfaces on the roof have isolated spot rust and areas of peeling. The overall system is severely weathered and has poor adhesion.
o Interior: The coating on the underside of the roof plates and roof support structure is in poor condition with corrosion common to the edges of the support member flanges and roof plates. Spot peeling and cracking were observed throughout the roof. The shell was found to be in poor condition with areas of dark rust and pitting especially within the mean water-level segment of the shell. • Site Access and Grading – Site access is poor. Grading issues were observed, with soil sloped directly up to tank piping and the tank wall, which may lead to accelerated corrosion and hinder maintenance access. Overall drainage at the site is poor. • Site Security – The perimeter fencing is compromised, with visible gaps underneath that could allow unauthorized entry or animal intrusion.
• Level Monitoring Systems – The level monitoring system appears to be present, though functionality was not verified during the site visit.
• Cathodic Protection – No cathodic protection system present.

DRAFT 490
| 5
• Seismic Evaluation – Structural analysis indicates the tank does not meet current seismic criteria. The overturning ratio exceeds the allowable threshold for a self-anchored tank, sliding resistance is exceeded, and shell stresses under seismic loading are greater than allowable limits. Freeboard is also inadequate. It is recommended that the City reduce the tank operating level to provide sufficient freeboard, perform ultrasonic testing to evaluate wall thickness, and add a ringwall footing and anchorage system or lower operating level to reduce seismic uplift demand.
• General – The retaining wall near the tank is showing signs of failure. Roof vents are boxstyle. Electrical components in the area are corroded.

2.1.2 Case Tank
Overview
The Case Tank is located on North Ojai Road, across Santa Paula Creek from Steckel Park.

Constructed in 1966, this 500,000-gallon tank is an aboveground welded steel tank. No concrete foundation or seismic anchorage was observed, but based on the tank’s age and construction era, it is likely supported on a buried granular or oil sand base rather than a concrete foundation.

It serves as the only storage facility within the 900-ft pressure zone.

Vehicle access to the site is currently limited due to a landslide and the lack of a paved access road; the tank can currently only be reached by foot. The Case Tank is supplied by the Canyon BPS.

DRAFT 491
| 6
Figure 2-2: Case Tank
Tank Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Case Tank is presented in Table 2-2 below. Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-2: Case Tank Summary
Year Installed Type Capacity (MG) Diameter (ft) Shell Height (ft) 1966 Steel 0.50 60 24
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment and dive inspection:
• Piping and Valve Condition – Outlet piping is exposed and not properly restrained. Hose tap on-site was found unlocked and lacks an access tap. • Foundation/Chime Condition – The tank rests on a gravel base. Stakes were noted around the tank perimeter being used as support. Sediment and soil have built up against the tank, covering the gravel ring, particularly along the northeast side, where the grade appears to be approximately one foot above the tank base. Evidence of a prior slope failure and continued hillside movement was noted.
• Coating Condition –
DRAFT 492
| 7
o Exterior: The paint system was found to be relatively thin and in fair condition. The exterior surfaces have only isolated spot rust, and the paint appears to have significantly weathered from chalking. Adhesion at the shell was found to be moderate and satisfactory on the roof.
o Interior: The coating on the underside of the roof plates and roof support structure is in good condition with corrosion common to the edges of the support member flanges and edges of roof plates. Minor instances of spot peeling and cracking were observed throughout the roof with dark corrosion appearing from undercutting. Lining on the shell was found to be in fair condition with areas of dark rust. A large amount of sediment was found upon the tank bottom but spot checks revealed the lining to be in good condition.
• Site Access and Grading – Access to the site is poor due to steep and narrow unpaved roadways. Grading is inadequate, with no formal drainage in place. Runoff appears to flow toward the rear of the site, where bank erosion was reported during a storm event two years ago.
• Site Security – The site is enclosed by a barbed wire fence; however, there is no chain link or solid barrier present.
• Level Monitoring Systems – A water depth gauge board was present and appeared to be functional.
• Cathodic Protection – A cathodic protection system was present and appeared to be inactive.
• Seismic Evaluation – Structural analysis indicates the tank does not meet current seismic criteria. The overturning ratio exceeds the allowable threshold for a self-anchored tank, sliding resistance is exceeded, and shell stresses under seismic loading are greater than allowable limits. Freeboard is also inadequate. It is recommended that the City reduce the tank operating level to provide sufficient freeboard, perform ultrasonic testing to evaluate wall thickness, and add a ringwall footing and anchorage system or lower operating level to reduce seismic uplift demand.
• General – The site is overgrown with vegetation and shows signs of ongoing slope movement and erosion.

2.1.3 Cherry Hill Tank
Overview
The Cherry Hill Tank was constructed in 1954 and is located west of State Highway 150. The site consists of a 470,000-gallon aboveground welded steel tank resting on an oil sand foundation with a gravel grade band. Access to the site is via an unpaved dirt road, which is in poor condition.

The tank serves the 400-ft east pressure zone and is supplied primarily by the Park BPS.

DRAFT 493
| 8
Figure 2-3: Cherry Hill Tank
Tank Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Cherry Hill Tank is presented in Table 2-3 below.

Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-3: Cherry Hill Tank Summary
Year Installed Type Capacity (MG) Diameter (ft) Shell Height (ft) 1954 Steel 0.50 66 21
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment and dive inspection:
• Piping and Valve Condition – A sample tap is present but lacks a secure lock. Overflow piping is contributing to localized erosion around the tank footing. No other issues with visible piping or valve components were noted during the assessment.

DRAFT 494
| 9
• Foundation/Chime Condition – Visible portions indicate chime is in fair condition.

Erosion from the overflow discharge piping is visibly affecting the area surrounding the tank footing. A retrofit of the bank was reportedly performed in 1985, though the long-term stability of the slope should be further evaluated. The tank is constructed on an uneven slope. The lower shell plates have a height difference of approximately 21 to 24 inches noted along the base perimeter. One tank shell segment appears to be welded on only three sides.
• Coating Condition –
o Exterior: The paint on the roof is in good condition with minimal chalking. Dark rust was present in areas where paint was peeling. At the shell, the paint system is in good condition. Adhesion at the shell was found to be moderate and satisfactory on the roof.
o Interior: The coating on the underside of the roof plates and roof support structure is in good condition with corrosion common to the edges of the support member flanges and edges of roof plates. Minor instances of spot peeling and cracking were observed throughout the roof with dark corrosion appearing from undercutting. Lining on the shell was found to be in fair condition with areas of dark rust. A large amount of sediment was found upon the tank bottom but spot checks revealed the lining to be in good condition.
• Site Access and Grading – Site access is limited. The access gate is not set back from the adjacent roadway, making vehicle entry and maneuvering difficult. On-foot access is possible but constrained. The tank is located on a steep slope, and grading around the tank is poor, contributing to drainage issues and erosion. • Site Security – A gate is present but poorly situated near the roadway. The site fencing is a chain link fence with barbed wire type. Additional measures such as securing the sample tap and confirming overall perimeter protection are recommended. • Level Monitoring Systems – A water depth gauge board was present and appeared to be functional.
• Cathodic Protection – A cathodic protection system was present and appeared to be operational.
• Seismic Evaluation – Structural analysis indicates the tank does not meet current seismic criteria. The overturning ratio was found to be within acceptable limits for a self-anchored tank, sliding resistance is exceeded, and shell stresses under seismic loading are greater than allowable limits. Freeboard is also inadequate. It is recommended that the City reduce the tank operating level to provide sufficient freeboard and perform ultrasonic testing to evaluate wall thickness.
• General – The site shows evidence of rodent activity. The tank ladder does not include any fall protection features.

DRAFT 495
| 10

2.1.4 Fuchsia Tank
Overview
The Fuchsia Tank is located at the end of 10th Street, within a residential neighborhood on Coronado Circle. Constructed in 1955, the site consists of a 500,000-gallon aboveground welded steel tank. No concrete foundation or seismic anchorage was observed, but based on the tank’s age and construction era, it is likely supported on a buried granular or oil sand base rather than a concrete foundation. Access to the site is provided via a well-paved road, though maneuverability around the tank is limited due to a narrow perimeter. The tank serves the 400-ft east pressure zone and is supplied primarily by the Park BPS.

Figure 2-4: Fuchsia Tank
Tank Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Fuchsia Tank is presented in Table 2-4 below. Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-4: Fuchsia Tank Summary
Year Installed Type Capacity (MG) Diameter (ft) Shell Height (ft) 1955 Steel 0.50 60 24
DRAFT 496
| 11
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment and dive inspection:
• Piping and Valve Condition – An altitude valve is present and actively leaking. Two manways were noted on the tank and appear to be in good condition. No other significant piping deficiencies were observed.
• Foundation/Chime Condition – The tank does not have a concrete foundation and is supported directly on soil. Settlement was measured at up to 2.2 inches, with the tank settling toward the uphill side. Evidence of burrowing animals was observed beneath tank edges. Localized shell deformation consistent with an “elephant foot bulge” was observed at the tank base.
• Coating Condition –
o Exterior: The paint on the roof is in excellent condition with minimal chalking. Dark rust was present in areas where paint was peeling. At the shell, the paint system is in excellent condition. Adhesion at the shell was found to be moderate and satisfactory on the roof.
o Interior: The coating on the underside of the roof plates and roof support structure is in good condition with corrosion common to the edges of the support member flanges and edges of roof plates. Minor instances of spot peeling and cracking were observed throughout the roof with dark corrosion appearing from undercutting. Lining on the shell was found to be in fair condition with areas of dark rust within tank accessories and edges. A large amount of sediment was found upon the tank bottom but spot checks revealed the lining to be in good condition. • Site Access and Grading – The road around the tank is narrow, which may limit access for maintenance equipment. Erosion concerns are present and site drainage should be evaluated to prevent future undermining of the tank base or surrounding infrastructure. • Site Security – Perimeter fencing is present but in poor condition. Locks were noted on the tank roof access, but overall site security should be improved to limit unauthorized access.
• Level Monitoring Systems – A water depth gauge board was present and appeared to be functional.
• Cathodic Protection – A cathodic protection system was present and appeared to be operational.
• Seismic Evaluation – Structural analysis indicates the tank does not meet current seismic criteria. The overturning ratio exceeds the allowable threshold for a self-anchored tank, sliding resistance is exceeded, and shell stresses under seismic loading are greater than allowable limits. Freeboard is also inadequate. It is recommended that the City reduce the tank operating level to provide sufficient freeboard, perform ultrasonic testing to evaluate wall thickness, and add a ringwall footing and anchorage system or lower operating level to reduce seismic uplift demand.

DRAFT 497
| 12

2.1.5 Limoneira Tank
Overview
The Limoneira Tank is located approximately 2,000 feet west of the Cummings Road and Foothill Road intersection, situated on private property. The tank consists of a 480,000-gallon aboveground welded steel tank. No concrete foundation or seismic anchorage was observed, but based on the tank’s age and construction era, it is likely supported on a buried granular or oil sand base rather than a concrete foundation. It serves the 200-ft west pressure zone and is currently active. Site access is via a dirt roadway that passes through a large orchard.

Figure 2-5: Limoneira Tank
Tank Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Limoneira Tank is presented in Table 2-5 below.

Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-5: Limoneira Tank Summary
Year Installed Type Capacity (MG) Diameter (ft) Shell Height (ft) - Steel 0.48 50 35.33
DRAFT 498
| 13
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment and dive inspection:
• Piping and Valve Condition – Coating failure was observed on exposed piping. A gauge is located on the back side of the tank. No significant valve deficiencies were noted, but piping corrosion will require attention to prevent further deterioration. • Foundation/Chime Condition – The subgrade appears unstable. No concrete foundation, gravel ring, or other defined support structure was visible at the site. This presents a potential long-term structural concern, especially given the age of the facility. • Coating Condition –
o Exterior: The paint on the roof is in poor condition with moderate chalking. Dark rust was present in areas where paint was peeling. At the shell, the paint system is in good condition. Overall, the paint system was estimated to exhibit poor adhesion.
o Interior: The coating on the underside of the roof plates and roof support structure is in poor condition with corrosion common to the edges of the support member flanges and edges of roof plates. Spot peeling and cracking were observed throughout the roof. The shell surfaces were found to be covered with heavy sediment and the lining was found to be in poor condition with areas of dark rust and pitting especially within the mean water-level segment of the shell. A large amount of sediment was found upon the tank bottom but spot checks revealed the lining to be in good condition.
• Site Access and Grading – Site access is poor, which may complicate routine maintenance or emergency response. No significant grading or drainage improvements appear to have been implemented.
• Site Security – Ladder protection is inadequate, and there is no safety rail at the roof perimeter. The vent at the top of the tank lacks a screen. • Level Monitoring Systems – The tank does not have a functioning external level gauge; water level is monitored using pressure gauge readings. • Cathodic Protection – No cathodic protection system present. • Seismic Evaluation – Structural analysis indicates the tank does not meet current seismic criteria. The overturning ratio exceeds the allowable threshold for a self-anchored tank, sliding resistance is exceeded, and shell stresses under seismic loading are greater than allowable limits. Freeboard is also inadequate. It is recommended that the City reduce the tank operating level to provide sufficient freeboard, perform ultrasonic testing to evaluate wall thickness, and add a ringwall footing and anchorage system or lower operating level to reduce seismic uplift demand.
• General – The tank was not in active use at the time of the site visit, and City staff indicated it is not critical for service in the west zone due to sufficient storage capacity at the Anderson Tank.

DRAFT 499
| 14

2.1.6 Peck Tank
Overview
The Peck Tank is located at the north end of Peck Road and has a capacity of 500,000 gallons.

Constructed in 1988, this aboveground welded steel tank rests on a granular berm with a steel retainer ring around the tank perimeter and is accessed via an inclined paved roadway. The facility serves the 400-ft west pressure zone, providing water to a small number of residences, and is supplied by the Anderson BPS.

Figure 2-6: Peck Tank
Tank Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Peck Tank is presented in Table 2-6 below. Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-6: Peck Tank Summary
Year Installed Type Capacity (MG) Diameter (ft) Shell Height (ft) 1988 Steel 0.50 60 24
DRAFT 500
| 15
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment and dive inspection:
• Piping and Valve Condition – Pipe supports are not bolted, reducing stability and increasing the risk of joint stress or failure. A flexible connector is present, but overall piping condition warrants further evaluation. The overflow piping discharges directly to the surface, which may cause erosion or ponding.
• Foundation/Chime Condition – Severe ground settling was observed at the rear of the tank near the roadway, with elevation differences of up to 4.9 inches. • Coating Condition –
o Exterior: The paint on the roof is in good condition with minimal chalking. Dark rust was present in areas where paint was peeling. At the shell, the paint system is in good condition. Adhesion at the shell was found to be moderate and satisfactory on the roof.
o Interior: The coating on the underside of the roof plates and roof support structure is in good condition with corrosion common to the edges of the support member flanges and edges of roof plates. Minor instances of spot peeling and cracking were observed throughout the roof with dark corrosion appearing from undercutting. Lining on the shell was found to be in fair condition with areas of dark rust. A large amount of sediment was found upon the tank bottom but spot checks revealed the lining to be in good condition.
• Site Access and Grading – Grading and drainage around the tank are inadequate and require redesign. Surrounding asphalt concrete around the tank is in poor condition; several cracking systems were observed.
• Site Security – Security is poor, with significant graffiti present on the tank. A chain link fence with barbed wire is present. Additional protection measures, such as improved fencing and lockable gates, are recommended. Bollards should be installed around exposed piping and appurtenances.
• Level Monitoring Systems – No issues with level monitoring systems were observed. • Cathodic Protection – A cathodic protection system was present and appeared to be operational.
• Seismic Evaluation – Structural analysis indicates the tank does not meet current seismic criteria. The overturning ratio exceeds the allowable threshold for a self-anchored tank, sliding resistance is exceeded, and shell stresses under seismic loading are greater than allowable limits. Freeboard is also inadequate. It is recommended that the City reduce the tank operating level to provide sufficient freeboard, perform ultrasonic testing to evaluate wall thickness, and add a ringwall footing and anchorage system or lower operating level to reduce seismic uplift demand.

DRAFT 501
| 16

2.1.7 Main Reservoir
Overview
The Main Reservoir is the City’s first major reservoir, built in 1896, and remains the largest potable water storage facility with a capacity of 4.4 MG. Constructed as a predominantly buried reservoir with an irregular shape, it is located near the intersection of North 10th Street and Terracina Drive.

Access to the site is provided via a well-paved driveway directly off North 10th Street through a locked gate. The reservoir serves the 200-ft pressure zone and is supplied by the City’s groundwater wells.

Figure 2-7: Main Reservoir
Tank Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Main Reservoir is presented in Table 2-7 below.

Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-7: Main Reservoir Summary
Year Installed Type Capacity (MG) Diameter (ft) Shell Height (ft) 1896 Buried 4.4 - 30
DRAFT 502
| 17
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment:
• Piping and Valve Condition – No major deficiencies in exposed piping or valves were observed.
• Foundation/Chime Condition – Tank is buried; unable to assess foundation. • Coating Condition – Not applicable.
• Roof and Wall Condition – Roof hatches are in good condition. There is evidence of ponding on the tank roof. Fascia boards around the wall perimeter require repainting.

Cracks are also observed in the surrounding shotcrete walls, with vegetation growing through concrete.
• Site Access and Grading – Site access is adequate via a paved road; however, localized grading improvements are recommended to correct ponding and improve drainage away from the structure. A V-ditch around the perimeter showed cracking with minor debris accumulation.
• Site Security – The existing perimeter fence lacks barbed wire, reducing deterrence against unauthorized access. The site does have live security monitoring, which provides some mitigation.
• Level Monitoring Systems – A HydroRanger level controller was present and appears to be operational.
• General – Potential structural concerns were noted, including signs that may indicate localized failure. The wood structural support columns should be replaced with aluminum or steel. Additional evaluation is recommended to confirm tank wall integrity. A concrete evaluation of the side walls is recommended to assess overall structural integrity. Due to the relatively short remaining useful life of this 100+ year old reservoir and the significant anticipated retrofitting cost, consider full replacement of existing reservoir with new.

2.2 Pump Stations
The assessments below are based on MKN and Buehler’s observations during the site visits as well as discussions with operations staff. The City’s potable water BPSs are equipped with vertical turbine pumps in a parallel configuration. All site installations are outdoors and enclosed behind fencing and/or walls. The pump station layouts generally consist of buried suction piping and above-grade discharge manifolds.

2.2.1 Anderson Booster Pump Station
Overview
The Anderson BPS is located near 639 North Peck Road, adjacent to the Anderson Tank. Access to the site is through a locked gate in the perimeter fence. The station is bordered by a hillside to the west and residential properties along North Peck Road to the east. The BPS is equipped with two vertical turbine pumps operating in parallel, which convey water to the Peck Tank.

DRAFT 503
| 18
Figure 2-8: Anderson Booster Pump Station
Pumps and Hydraulics
Pump information and a hydraulic summary of the Anderson BPS are presented in Table 2-8 below. Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-8: Anderson Booster Pump Information and Hydraulic Summary Pump Style
Pump
Configuration
Motor
Size (HP1)
Design Capacity
per Pump
Permanent
Generator
Vertical Turbine
Parallel (2 pumps)
15 242 gpm2,3 Yes
Vertical Turbine 7.5 135 gpm3 Yes
Notes:

1. HP = horsepower.

2. gpm = gallon per minute.

3. Per Southern California Edison Pump Tests dated October 11, 2024.

DRAFT 504
| 19
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment:
• Pump and Piping Condition – Piping is in poor condition with inadequate supports and visible coating deterioration.
• Structural Condition – The station is partially enclosed by concrete masonry unit (CMU) retaining walls. Cracking was observed near the embedded fence post at the top of the wall. Minor cracking was observed at slab penetrations. • Electrical and Controls – Electrical components show signs of notable weathering and corrosion. The steel support frame for the electrical equipment shows coating failure and surface corrosion.
• Emergency Backup Power – A portable generator connection is available; however, no permanent onsite backup generator is present.
• Site Condition and Grading – Site access is acceptable. No significant grading or drainage concerns were observed.
• Site Security – A gap under the perimeter fence was observed. Additional security upgrades are recommended.

2.2.2 Canyon Booster Pump Station
Overview
The Canyon BPS is located at the northern end of the City, off State Highway 150 just north of Bridge Road. The station supplies the Case Tank through a single pump with a capacity of 137 gpm. Site access is currently open, and the area is undergoing construction due to recent landslide activity. City staff indicated this site is scheduled for a complete rehab in 2026.

DRAFT 505
| 20
Figure 2-9: Canyon Booster Pump Station
Pumps and Hydraulics
Pump information and a hydraulic summary of the Canyon BPS are presented in Table 2-9 below.

Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-9: Canyon Booster Pump Information and Hydraulic Summary Pump Style
Pump
Configuration
Motor
Size (HP)
Design Capacity
per Pump
Permanent
Generator
Vertical Turbine Single Unknown 137 gpm1 No
Note:

1. Per “City of Santa Paula Potable Water System Master Plan” prepared by Boyle Engineering Corp., October 2005.

Observations
The Canyon BPS site was found to be in poor overall condition. The station is located within an area impacted by landslide activity, lacks pavement, and has no site security measures in place.

DRAFT 506
| 21

2.2.3 Glade Booster Pump Station
Overview
The Glade BPS is located on Glade Drive, north of View Drive. The pump station is currently inactive. City staff indicated that this station will be reconfigured to a pressure reducing station that will allow water from the 600-zone back to the 400-zone.

Figure 2-10: Glade Booster Pump Station
Pumps and Hydraulics
Pump information and a hydraulic summary of the Glade BPS are presented in Table 2-10 below.

Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-10: Glade Booster Pump Information and Hydraulic Summary Pump Style
Pump
Configuration
Motor
Size (HP)
Design Capacity
per Pump
Permanent
Generator
Vertical Turbine Single 20 260 gpm1 No
DRAFT 507
| 22
Note:

1. Per existing pump plate.

Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment of this inactive BPS:
• Pump and Equipment Condition – The station is inactive, and the equipment appears to be in poor condition.
• Piping Condition – Above-grade piping is deteriorated and shows signs of corrosion.

Connections and supports are inadequate.
• Structural and Building Condition – The CMU enclosure housing the pump is set on a slope and retains soil on multiple sides. The walls appeared in good condition with no major cracks observed. The slab-on-grade foundation showed only minor cracking. • Electrical and Controls – Electrical equipment is outdated and inactive. Corrosion was noted.
• Site Condition and Grading – Access to the site is through a CMU wall. Grading is not adequate for reliable long-term use.
• Site Security – Security features are minimal, with no fencing or barriers to restrict access.

2.2.4 Park Booster Pump Station
Overview
The Park BPS is located north of Park Street, between Mill Street and Ojai Road. The station operates with two parallel vertical turbine pumps that primarily serve the Ojai Road area. In addition, the Park BPS supplies water to both the Fuchsia Tank and Cherry Hill Tank within the 400-ft pressure zone.

DRAFT 508
| 23
Figure 2-11: Park Booster Pump Station
Pumps and Hydraulics
Pump information and a hydraulic summary of the Park BPS are presented in Table 2-11 below.

Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-11: Park Booster Pump Information and Hydraulic Summary Pump Style
Pump
Configuration
Motor
Size (HP)
Design Capacity
per Pump
Permanent
Generator
Vertical Turbine
Parallel (2 pumps)
40 696 gpm1 No
Vertical Turbine 50 889 gpm1 No
Note:

1. Per Southern California Edison Pump Tests dated April 26, 2024.

DRAFT 509
| 24
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment:
• Pump and Equipment Condition – Pump seals were observed leaking when the pumps were off. Pump #2 was not in use due to cracked supports. Additionally, the cooling fan on Pump #2 was cracked. Pedestals for the pumps have cracking and the pump sole plate is not anchored to the pedestal.
• Piping Condition – Piping appeared functional, with no major deficiencies observed. The slabs at pipe supports have extensive cracking with exposed rebar. Pipe stands are anchored.
• Electrical and Controls – Electrical equipment was in place but should be reviewed to ensure compliance.
• Site Condition and Grading – Site access is acceptable. No significant grading or drainage concerns were observed.
• Site Security – Security at the site is poor. Site lighting, security cameras, and intrusion alarms were not evident.

2.2.5 Terracina No. 1 Booster Pump Station
Overview
The Terracina No. 1 BPS is located near Terracina Drive and North 10th Street. This station is currently inactive; however, it can be used as a backup to the Park BPS. The facility was originally constructed to supply the Teague Tank within the 400-ft pressure zone.

DRAFT 510
| 25
Figure 2-12: Terracina No. 1 Booster Pump Station
Observations
The station is inactive and shows limited signs of upkeep. Minor site deficiencies were noted, including worn equipment and lack of recent maintenance. No active pumping or operational systems are in service at this location.

2.2.6 Terracina No. 2 Booster Pump Station
Overview
The Terracina No. 2 BPS is located near Terracina Drive and North 10th Street. The station consists of two primary vertical turbine pumps, a fire pump, associated aboveground piping and appurtenances, and electrical and controls equipment. The pumps and electrical systems are housed within a CMU building, while the onsite generator is located adjacent to the building within a walled enclosure secured by a locked gate. The Terracina No. 2 BPS boosts water to both Mesa Tanks within the 600-ft pressure zone.

DRAFT 511
| 26
Figure 2-13: Terracina No. 2 Booster Pump Station
Pumps and Hydraulics
Pump information and a hydraulic summary of the Terracina No. 2 BPS are presented in Table 2-12 below. Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-12: Terracina No. 2 Booster Pump Information and Hydraulic Summary
Pump Style
Pump
Configuration
Motor
Size (HP)
Design Capacity
per Pump
Permanent
Generator
Vertical Turbine
(primary)
Parallel
60 425 gpm1
Yes Vertical Turbine
(primary) 60 425 gpm1
Vertical Turbine
(fire) 200 1,500 gpm1
Note:

1. Per existing pump plates.

DRAFT 512
| 27
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment:
• Pump and Piping Condition – Primary pumps and the fire pump are understood to be in good working condition. Pump and pipe coatings appear to be in good condition. Piping appears to be in good working condition. Sufficient check and isolation valves are in place and are understood to be in good working condition. Steel pipe supports are in place and appear to be in good condition.
• Metering and Pressure Monitoring – Magnetic flow meters are in place and are understood to be in good working condition. Pressure gauges are present and appear to be in good working condition.
• Emergency Backup Power – A permanent backup power generator is in place and understood to be in good working condition.
• Site Condition and Grading – Site access via the adjacent road appears to be sufficient.

No significant grading or drainage concerns were observed. • Site Security – Pump station facilities are secured inside a locked building. Site lighting, cameras, and intrusion alarms were present and appear to be functioning.

2.2.7 View Drive Booster Pump Station
Overview
The View Drive BPS is located near View Drive and Bradley Street. This station is currently inactive but was originally constructed to supply the Teague Tank within the 400-ft pressure zone.

Figure 2-14: View Drive Booster Pump Station
DRAFT 513
| 28
Observations
The View Drive BPS is currently inactive and not in service. The site shows evidence of structural and site deterioration, including a failing wall, poor security features, and lack of drainage.

Electrical components appear outdated, and pumps are not operational. Discussions with City staff indicated potential interest in repurposing the site for backfeed to another zone; however, the station is not currently functional nor contributing to the active distribution system.

2.3 Well Sites
The assessments below are based on MKN and Buehler’s site visits and discussions with operators. The City’s potable water wells consist of primarily vertical turbine pumps.

2.3.1 Well 1-B
Overview
Well 1-B is located within the City’s Palm Maintenance Yard at South Palm Avenue and Ventura Street. The well historically supplied water to the 200-ft pressure zone tanks and, unlike other sources, does not pump through the Steckel Conditioning Facility but directly into the City’s distribution system. Water produced at this site is treated with sodium hypochlorite for disinfection and sodium polyphosphate for corrosion control.

Recently, City staff reported that the well began producing sand, leading to its removal from active service. City has indicated that Well 1-B has been permanently inactivated and will require abandonment in the near term.

DRAFT 514
| 29
Figure 2-15: Well 1-B
Well Site Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Well 1-B site is presented in Table 2-13 below. Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-13: Well 1-B Summary
Type Motor Size (HP)
Reported
Production Rate
Emergency
Generator
Vertical Turbine 150 1,200 gpm No
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment:
• Well and Pumping Equipment – The pump is not securely bolted to its base and the 10- inch steel discharge piping shows signs of age. Well is on standby due to production of sand.
• Site Security – The maintenance yard is surrounded by a chain link fence with barbed wire and a locked gate. The well site within the yard is surrounded by a chain link fence and locked gate.
• Emergency Backup Power – A generator was not present. • Onsite Treatment – The hypochlorite feed system is in poor condition. Tubing is broken and not adequately covered. The line to the injector is exposed. The hypochlorite shed DRAFT 515
| 30
foundation shows slab spalling but no major movement. Siding and trim are weathered and in poor condition.
• Electrical – Electrical equipment is outdated and shows signs of wear.

2.3.2 Well 11
Overview
Well 11 is located on Cemetery Road, north of Main Street, and supplies water to the 200-ft pressure zone. This well discharges to the City’s distribution system through the Steckel Conditioning Facility. The design capacity of the well is approximately 1,300 gpm.

Figure 2-16: Well 11
Well Site Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Well 11 site is presented in Table 2-14 below. Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-14: Well 11 Summary
Type Motor Size (HP)
Reported
Production Rate
Emergency
Generator
Vertical Turbine 150 1,300 gpm No
DRAFT 516
| 31
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment:
• Well and Pumping Equipment – The pump is mounted to a concrete pad in good condition, but it is not securely anchored. Corrosion was observed on the pump mounting plate and pipe stands. Piping supports are either not bolted or not in contact with the pipe.

Piping coatings are in poor to fair condition. Operating pressure was reported at approximately 105 pounds per square inch.
• Electrical and Controls – Electrical equipment is mounted to a galvanized steel structure and concrete slab, which are in good condition. Electrical equipment appears outdated, and generator connections would benefit from replacement. • Chemical Feed Systems – The sodium hypochlorite shed is prefabricated fiberreinforced polymer construction. The slab foundation is obscured by secondary containment. Anchorage is not visible and the storage tank is not anchored. Hypochlorite tubing is exposed, and the secondary containment conduit is not secure. • Site Condition and Drainage – Surface drainage is inadequate, with the drain discharging into a creek and contributing to bank erosion. Asphalt concrete paving at the site is in poor condition, with weeds growing through pavement cracks and joints. The bypass discharge building is not secure.
• Site Security and Protection – Site is located in a residential area and surrounded by a chain link fence and roller gate in poor condition. Barbed wire on the fencing is broken. No bollards are present around critical features such as exposed piping.

2.3.3 Well 12
Overview
Well 12 is located at the southeast part of the City, south of State Route 126 on Lemonwood Drive. The well supplies water to the 200-ft pressure zone and is equipped with an onsite iron and manganese removal facility prior to discharge into the City’s distribution system. The well has a design capacity of approximately 1,500 gpm.

DRAFT 517
| 32
Figure 2-17: Well 12
Well Site Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Well 12 site is presented in Table 2-15 below. Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

DRAFT 518
| 33
Table 2-15: Well 12 Summary
Type Motor Size (HP)
Reported
Production Rate
Emergency
Generator
Vertical Turbine 150 1,500 gpm Yes
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment:
• Well and Pumping Equipment – The site includes surge protection with three vessels plus one additional vessel. Piping and appurtenances appear to be in fair condition. The level gauge is broken. Unsecured ball valves were observed on the side of the backwash tank. The well pump pedestal shows cracks and the pump anchorage was not visible. • Electrical and Controls – The electrical building is in poor condition. Electrical components are functional but aged.
• Emergency Backup Power – A portable generator was present. • Chemical Feed Systems – The hypochlorite fill line includes a live valve that is not locked.

Containment for hypochlorite storage appears inadequate. Tanks inside the chemical shed are unanchored, and the shed exterior shows deterioration and corrosion at the fascia.
• Tanks and Appurtenances – The 57,200-gallon bolted backwash tank, constructed in 1994, is anchored and in good condition. Cracks were observed in the tank foundation.

The external galvanized ladder is in good condition. Three Trusco tanks supported on unbraced legs are in good condition, with anchorage intact. The pipe rack system, consisting of wide flange steel frames with Unistrut supports, appears in good condition. • Site Security – The well is located in an industrial area, surrounded by a CMU wall and locked gate. The site has security camera monitoring. However, signs of graffiti and vandalism indicate that the existing security monitoring is not fully effective.

2.3.4 Well 13
Overview
Well 13 is located on Cemetery Road north of Santa Barbara Road. The well supplies water to the 200-ft pressure zone and is controlled by the Anderson Tank and Main Reservoir. It pumps through the Steckel Conditioning Facility prior to discharge into the City’s distribution system. The well has a capacity ranging from approximately 1,800 to 2,220 gpm, depending on pump speed.

DRAFT 519
| 34
Figure 2-18: Well 13
Well Site Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Well 13 site is presented in Table 2-16 below. Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

Table 2-16: Well 13 Summary
Type Motor Size (HP)
Reported
Production Rate
Emergency
Generator
Vertical Turbine 300 1,800 gpm No
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment:
• Well and Pumping Equipment – The pump is anchored to a 50-inch square pad and has large cracks visible. Piping and supports show minor corrosion and coating failure. Pump operation can be controlled automatically based on tank level, but this functionality is currently not working per operators.

DRAFT 520
| 35
• Chemical Feed Systems – Sodium hypochlorite tubing is unprotected. The building exhaust fan used for chemical ventilation is not working. • Electrical Systems – The electrical room wall showed signs of efflorescence. • Building and Structural Condition – The CMU structure housing the well is in good condition. The slab foundation has small cracks and the CMU walls have minor cracks near the large pump room opening. The fascia on the removable roof over the pump room showed rot and damage.
• Site Conditions and Security – Security at the site is poor, with graffiti present and fencing lacking barbed wire. Vandal-proof valve locks would improve protection of exposed equipment. A palm tree on the site obstructs camera views. Accessibility is restricted via a narrow road.

2.3.5 Well 14 and Steckel Conditioning Facility
Overview
Well 14 is located within the Steckel Conditioning Facility on Steckel Drive, south of Main Street near Glen City Elementary School. The well supplies water to the 200-ft pressure zone and is controlled by the Anderson Tank and Main Reservoir. It is equipped with a variable frequency drive and has a maximum pumping capacity of approximately 3,400 gpm, though flows are limited by the Steckel Conditioning Facility to around 2,800 gpm.

The Steckel Conditioning Facility, constructed in February 2000, receives water from Wells 11, 13, and 14. The facility has a maximum flow capacity of about 3,200 gpm under clean filter conditions and removes dissolved iron and manganese prior to discharge into the City’s distribution system.

DRAFT 521
| 36
Figure 2-19: Well 14 and Steckel Conditioning Facility
Well Site Characteristics
A summary of the characteristics of the Well 14 and Steckel Conditioning Facility site is presented in Table 2-17 below. Information is based on site observations and information provided by the City.

DRAFT 522
| 37
Table 2-17: Well 14 and Steckel Conditioning Facility Summary Type Motor Size (HP)
Reported
Production Rate
Emergency
Generator
Vertical Turbine 500 3,200 gpm Yes
Observations
The following field observations were made during the site assessment:
• Pump and Piping Condition – The pump does not appear to be securely bolted to its base. Seal leakage was observed. Corrosion and cracking were observed on the flexible couplings.
• Electrical and Controls – Electrical equipment is housed in the same room as water process equipment.
• Coatings and Structural – Vessel coatings around hatches are in poor condition. Exterior vessel and piping coatings were generally in good condition. Asphalt concrete around the facility was recently rebuilt and in good condition.
• Emergency Backup Power – The site has rental generators. The site would benefit from the installation of permanent generators.
• Site Condition – Poor drainage was observed. General clutter typical of operational sites was also noted.

3.0 Capital and Maintenance Recommendations
This section summarizes the recommended capital and maintenance improvements for the City’s aboveground potable water facilities based on field observations, structural evaluations, and tank inspection reports.

3.1 Tank Sites Recommendations
Many of the City’s older steel tanks exhibit structural and seismic deficiencies that prevent them from meeting current AWWA D100 design requirements. Common issues identified across multiple sites include insufficient shell plate thickness, inadequate freeboard, lack of anchorage, foundation settlement, and seismic vulnerabilities such as excessive overturning ratios and sliding resistance deficiencies. These inherent structural limitations cannot be fully addressed through coating replacement or appurtenance rehabilitation alone.

If the City elects to rehabilitate these tanks without correcting the underlying structural code deficiencies, the tanks will continue to fall short of current seismic standards—even after significant investment in linings, coatings, piping upgrades, and site improvements. As a result, the City would be committing substantial capital funds to extend the life of tanks that remain noncompliant, structurally limited, and more vulnerable during a seismic event.

DRAFT 523
| 38
Given the age of many of the tanks, the extent of observed deterioration, and the costs associated with bringing them up to current standards, full tank replacement should be carefully considered as part of long-term capital planning, particularly for tanks with foundational instability, seismic non-conformance, or extensive corrosion and settlement.

The following recommendations presented in Table 3-1 were developed for the tank sites.

Table 3-1: Project Recommendations – Tank Sites
Site Recommended Projects
Anderson Tank
• Remove and replace the lining system at all interior surfaces • Remove and replace the exterior paint system
• Address structural deficiencies, including lack of foundation, observed settlement, inadequate freeboard, and seismic
noncompliance (overturning, sliding, and shell stresses) • Stabilize slope and improve drainage and site grading around tank
• Consider retrofitting the tank piping to include flexible couplings and the relocation of tank bottom connections to the lower shell • Install cathodic protection following completion of interior relining • Improve site security and site access
• Consider full tank replacement
Case Tank
• Remove and replace the lining system at all interior surfaces • Repair the exterior paint system by spot repair and/or overcoat • Address structural deficiencies, including lack of foundation, observed settlement, inadequate freeboard, and seismic
noncompliance (overturning, sliding, and shell stresses) • Stabilize slope and improve drainage and site grading around tank
• Repair or reconstruct the tank foundation and base support • Replace or reactivate cathodic protection following completion of interior relining
• Improve site security and access
DRAFT • Consider full tank replacement
524
| 39
Table 3-1: Project Recommendations – Tank Sites
Site Recommended Projects
Cherry Hill Tank
• Remove and replace the lining system at all interior surfaces • Repair the exterior paint system by spot repair and/or overcoat • Address structural deficiencies, including lack of foundation, observed settlement, inadequate freeboard, and seismic
noncompliance (overturning, sliding, and shell stresses) • Repair shell plate irregularities
• Stabilize slope and improve drainage and site grading around tank
• Repair or replace overflow piping
• Improve site security and access
• Evaluate the operation of the cathodic protection system • Consider full tank replacement
Fuchsia Tank
• Place tank on a 3-to-5-year maintenance inspection schedule as recommended by AWWA and continue to repair interior surfaces as needed by patch repairs
• Repair the exterior paint system by spot repair
• Address structural deficiencies, including lack of foundation, observed settlement, inadequate freeboard, and seismic
noncompliance (overturning, sliding, and shell stresses) • Repair shell plate irregularities
• Repair or replace leaking altitude valve
• Improve drainage and site grading around tank
• Improve site security
• Conduct a detailed structural and seismic retrofit evaluation • Evaluate the operation of the cathodic protection system • Consider full tank replacement
Limoneira Tank
• Remove and replace the lining system at all interior surfaces • Remove and replace the exterior paint system
• Address structural deficiencies, including lack of foundation, observed settlement, inadequate freeboard, and seismic
noncompliance (overturning, sliding, and shell stresses) • Improve drainage and site grading around tank
• Install cathodic protection following completion of interior relining • Install a new external level gauge
• Evaluate long-term need for tank given redundancy with Anderson Tank
DRAFT 525
| 40
Table 3-1: Project Recommendations – Tank Sites
Site Recommended Projects
Peck Tank
• Place tank on a 3-to-5-year maintenance inspection schedule as recommended by AWWA and continue to repair interior surfaces as needed by patch repairs
• Repair the exterior paint system by spot repair and/or overcoat • Address structural deficiencies, including lack of foundation, observed settlement, inadequate freeboard, and seismic
noncompliance (overturning, sliding, and shell stresses) • Replace and anchor pipe supports and secure overflow discharge piping
• Reconstruct and regrade the foundation area
• Improve site drainage and pavement conditions
• Evaluate the operation of the cathodic protection system • Improve site security and access
• Consider full tank replacement
Main Reservoir
• Address structural deficiencies, including potential rafter/column damage, aging concrete roof support structure, and seismic vulnerabilities
• Investigate evidence of ponding and potential structural issues • Evaluate roof condition and replace if needed
• Improve site drainage
• Consider replacing wood columns with aluminum/steel
• Evaluate tank walls
• Consider full tank replacement

3.2 Booster Pump Stations Recommendations
Recommendations presented in Table 3-2 for the City’s booster pump stations reflect observed conditions of pumps, piping, site security, drainage, electrical systems, structural elements, and general site conditions.

Table 3-2: Project Recommendations – Pump Stations
Site Recommended Projects
Anderson Booster
Pump Station
• Repair/replace corroded electrical equipment
• Replace piping and valve supports
• Repair retaining wall
• Address drainage and grading around tank connection
• Address gunite deterioration and coating failures
DRAFT 526
| 41
Table 3-2: Project Recommendations – Pump Stations
Site Recommended Projects
Canyon Booster
Pump Station
• Full replacement recommended due to landslide damage, lack of pavement, and no security
Glade Booster
Pump Station
• Consider full replacement or permanent decommissioning if not needed for system operations (site inactive)
Park Booster Pump
Station
• Repair leaking seals
• Replace cooling fan on Pump #2
• Anchor safety plates
• Improve security (fencing, locks)
• Address aging pumps and piping as needed
Terracina No. 1
Booster Pump
Station
• Consider full replacement or permanent decommissioning if not needed for system operations (site inactive)
Terracina No. 2
Booster Pump
Station
• Inspect and repair/replace pumps and associated piping as needed
View Drive Booster
Pump Station
• Replace failing walls
• Improve security
• Improve drainage
• Consider repurposing as backfeed to another zone per City discussion or fully decommission if not needed

3.3 Well Sites Recommendations
Recommendations presented in Table 3-3 for the well sites include mechanical, structural, electrical, security, and chemical system improvements based on field observations and structural notes.

Table 3-3: Project Recommendations – Well Sites
Site Recommended Projects
Well 1-B
• Repair pump anchorage
• Replace broken hypochlorite tubing and secure injector line • Upgrade electrical systems
• Improve site security
• Evaluate long-term usefulness given standby status
DRAFT 527
| 42
Table 3-3: Project Recommendations – Well Sites
Site Recommended Projects
Well 11
• Replace pump and piping supports
• Recoat piping
• Upgrade electrical systems and generator connections
• Secure hypochlorite tubing
• Improve surface drainage
• Replace asphalt concrete paving
• Install bollards for equipment protection
• Secure chemical storage shed/building
Well 12
• Replace/rehabilitate electrical building
• Secure hypochlorite fill valve and improve containment • Replace broken level gauge
• Improve site security
• Address coating deficiencies
• Improve pavement condition
Well 13
• Restore automatic control to tank-level operation
• Replace building exhaust fan
• Replace existing VFD
• Improve site security (fencing with barbed wire, vandal-proof valve locks)
• Clear vegetation obstructing site camera
• Remove graffiti
Well 14 & Steckel
Conditioning Facility
• Anchor pump base
• Repair seal leakage
• Replace corroded/cracked flexible couplings
• Improve drainage
• Replace or rehabilitate vessel coatings at hatches
DRAFT • Install permanent generator (replace rental use) 528
Appendix A
Site Location Map
DRAFT 529
530
531
532
Appendix B
Condition Assessment Forms
DRAFT 533

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
FACILITY AND REVIEWING INFORMATIONDate/Time of Assessment: 7/9/2025Site Name/ Facility ID: Anderson TankSite Address: Assessor Name: JH/SCGENERAL INFORMATION FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSInstallation Date 1953As-builts available? NoReservoir Type Above-ground, welded steel tankReservoir Capacity 0.62 MGDiameter 50'Height 42'Overflow Elevation (ft)Previous Dive Inspections? YesSAFETY FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSFencing YES
Security system, gate or intrusion alarm
Gate only
Safety Tie-offsRailings
Yes
Other Fall protection / Safety
Yes

RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS MKN

534

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
SITE ACCESS/FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSSite Grading Poor drainage. Grading is up to side of the tank.

Site Access (Road, Gates, etc.)
Accessible by foot only, needs improvement, very poor
Surface Improvements (landscape, bollards, etc.)
Overgrown landscaping
EXTERIOR FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSExterior Shell Condition Coating is poor
Exterior Roof Condition
Poor
Inlet/Outlet Condition
Poor condition. Drain valve partially buried.

Foundation ConditionChime Condition

535

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
APPURTENANCES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLevel Gauge
Yes
Exterior Ladder and Cage
Yes
Access Hatch
Yes
Overflow
Yes
Inlet/Outlet diameter (in)
10" goes to 12"
Roof Vent ConditionManway(s) Condition
OK Only one present.

Seismic Anchorage
Not present
ELECTRICAL FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLighting
Not present
CommunicationsCathodic Protection
Not present
NOTESNo foundation on tankSigns of burrowing animalsThrust anchor cracked.Piping in poor conditionPipe coating poor - heavy chalkingGunite failingBox vents on roots

ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION

536
Project: City of Santa Paula Water Master Plan
Project No.: 2025-0064
Engineer: MEP/JMK

STEEL WATER STORAGE TANK SITE VISIT NOTES
LOCATION: Anderson Tank
DATE: 7/9/2025

DESCRIPTION
Welded steel water storage tank located on N. Peck Rd. Tank is located on a hill and has shotcrete wall retaining soil around roughly 270-degrees of the tank.

YEAR CONSTRUCTED 1953
AS-BUILTS AVAILABLE No
HEIGHT 42-feet
DIAMETER 50-feet
CAPACITY 0.62 - MG
OVERFLOW ELEVATION 41-feet (Assumed)
NUMBER OF SHELL COURSES 6
FOUNDATION TYPE No foundation. Tank supported on soil.

ANCHORED OR UNANCHORED Unanchored
MANWAY 1 - Bolted, No Hinge
LADDER Single run with cage and security door. Safety climb system.

NAME PLATE Illegible. Painted over.

CONDITION ASSESSMENT
FOUNDATION No concrete foundation. Evidence of ground burrowing animals under tank edges. Grass and plants growing near tank bottom. Tank bottom is settling. The high side elevation is 2.8-inches and low side -0.8-inches.

EXTERIOR SHELL Coating failure, flaking and peeling. Spot corrosion around bottom of tank shell and tank bottom. Rust staining.

EXTERIOR ROOF Coating failure. Heavy presence of rusting and corrosion.

PIPE PENETRATIONS Corrosion at sampling penetration. No flexible connection provided at outlet.

OVERFLOW Corrosion on overflow pipe.

SITE AROUND TANK Shotcrete walls have multiple cracks with plants growing at cracking.

APPERTANENCES
EXTERIOR LADDER Some corrosion exhibited on ladder.

MANWAY
A single bolted manway is provided for access at the east side of the tank.

Coating has failed at the edges of the plate. There is corrosion at the bolts.

ROOF HATCH
A bolted roof hatch is provided near the ladder. The railing does not extend to the roof hatch. Roof hatch diameter doesn't meet current AWWA D100 requirements.

RAILING
Railing is galanized an appears to have been added after the orginal tank construction.

WATER LEVEL GAUGE
537
Project: City of Santa Paula Water Master Plan
Project No.: 2025-0064
Engineer: MEP/JMK

ROOF VENT
4 roof vents are provided around the perimeter of the tank.All vents show signs of corrosion.

SEISMIC ANALYSIS

OVERTURNING/ANCHORAGE
Overturning Ratio J exceeds 1.54 for a self-anchored tank. Recommend reducing operating level or adding ringwall footing and anchoring tank.

SHELL STRESSES
Shell stress for seismic loads exceeds allowable based on assumed material thicknesses for hydrostatic loading. Recommend UT testing shell to determine actual thickness.

FREEBOARD
Inadequate freeboard is provided. Recommend reducing Maximum Operating Level.

SLIDING Sliding resistance is exceeded.
538

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
FACILITY AND REVIEWING INFORMATIONDate/Time of Assessment: 7/9/2025Site Name/ Facility ID: Case TankSite Address: Assessor Name: JH/SCGENERAL INFORMATION FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSInstallation Date 1966As-builts available? NoReservoir Type Above-ground, welded steel tankReservoir Capacity 0.50 MGDiameter 60'Height 24'Overflow Elevation (ft)Previous Dive Inspections? YesSAFETY FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSFencing Yes
Security system, gate or intrusion alarm
None Barbed wire fence - no chain link.

Safety Tie-offsRailings
Yes
Other Fall protection / Safety
Yes

RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS MKN

539

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
SITE ACCESS/FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSSite Grading Poor, water drains to low point/back next to inlet/outlet piping. No outlet.Excavate regrade.

Site Access (Road, Gates, etc.)
Poor access due to landslide, no pavement, bank washed out 2 years ago. Can't access tank, have to walk.

Surface Improvements (landscape, bollards, etc.)
Needs landscaping, hills have eroded and buried ~1' of tank. Hill has slid down.

EXTERIOR FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSExterior Shell Condition Poor coating with heavy chalking, some coating failures. Wind girder present.

Exterior Roof ConditionInlet/Outlet Condition
Fair/poor - outlet piping is not restrained and is exposed. Hose tap is not locked.

Foundation Condition
Rings supported by stakes. Dirt against edge of tank covering ring/gravel. - Estimate 1' deep @ NE side.

Chime Condition

540

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
APPURTENANCES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLevel Gauge Exterior Ladder and Cage Access HatchOverflow Inlet/Outlet diameter (in) 12" Outlet that should be buried is exposed.

Roof Vent ConditionManway(s) Condition
2 Mono bolt manways.

Seismic Anchorage
None
ELECTRICAL FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLighting
None
CommunicationsCathodic Protection
Present but off
NOTESHose tap not locked and needs saddle tap.

ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION

541

STEEL WATER STORAGE TANK SITE VISIT NOTES
LOCATION: Case Tank
DATE: 7/9/2025
DESCRIPTION Welded steel water storage tank located off Mud Creek Rd. The tank is sited on a hill side.

The roof is supported by 15 roof raffters which are visible from the roof vent. A wind girt is located near the top of the tank.

YEAR CONSTRUCTED 1966
AS-BUILTS AVAILABLE No
HEIGHT 24-feet
DIAMETER 60-feet
CAPACITY 0.5 MG
OVERFLOW ELEVATION Appears to be approximately 4-feet down from top of tank.

NUMBER OF SHELL COURSES 4
FOUNDATION TYPE AWWA D100 Type 5 - Granular berm with steel retainer ring ANCHORED OR UNANCHORED Unanchored
MANWAY 2
LADDER Single run with cage and security door. Galvanized.

NAME PLATE Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company, Contract No.: 36702-03

CONDITION ASSESSMENT
FOUNDATION No concrete foundation. Around the perimeter of the tank there is soil and organic matter on the edge of the tank bttom. Some corrosion around the bottom of the shell at the tank bottom.

EXTERIOR SHELL Rust staining in some locations on the shell and near the bottom of tank. Generally in good condition.

EXTERIOR ROOF Minor spot corrosion. Generally in good condition.

PIPE PENETRATIONS Appears in good condition. Penetraion is equiped with a seismic joint.

OVERFLOW Good condition. Overflow stops above finish grade and is located on the exterior of the tank.

SITE AROUND TANK

APPERTANENCES

EXTERIOR LADDER
A new galvanized ladder appears to have been added after the orginal tank construction.

Ladder was in good condition.

MANWAY Two manways are provided for access.

ROOF HATCH Two hinged roof hatches are provided. One is near the railing and ladder.

RAILING
Some railing is galanized an appears to have been added after the orginal tank construction. The rest of the railing appears to be original to the tank and is in good condition.

WATER LEVEL GAUGE
ROOF VENT Single center roof vent. Some corrosion, but overall in good condition.

SOLAR A new solar panel was installed on the roof. It is attached to the roof with unistrut.

SEISMIC ANALYSIS

OVERTURNING/ANCHORAGE
Overturning Ratio J exceeds 1.54 for a self-anchored tank. Recommend reducing operating level or adding ringwall footing and anchoring tank.

SHELL STRESSES
Shell stress for seismic loads exceeds allowable based on assumed material thicknesses for hydrostatic loading. Recommend UT testing shell to determine actual thickness.

FREEBOARD Inadequate freeboard is provided. Recommend reducing Maximum Operating Level.

SLIDING Sliding resistance is exceeded.
542

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
FACILITY AND REVIEWING INFORMATIONDate/Time of Assessment: 7/9/2025Site Name/ Facility ID: Cherry Hill TankSite Address: Assessor Name: JH/SCGENERAL INFORMATION FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSInstallation Date 1954 Tank retrofitted in 1985 - raised?
As-builts available? NoReservoir Type Above-ground, welded steel tankReservoir Capacity 0.50 MGDiameter 66'Height 21'Overflow Elevation (ft)Previous Dive Inspections? YesSAFETY FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSFencing Yes Rodents got under.

Security system, gate or intrusion alarm
Gate barbed wire OK
Safety Tie-offsRailings
Yes
Other Fall protection / Safety
Yes

RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS MKN

543

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
SITE ACCESS/FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSSite Grading OK drainage has led to some ruts that may affect access.

Site Access (Road, Gates, etc.)
Poor Very poor acccess road. Unpaved dirt road, super rutted, gate is not set back from the road.

Surface Improvements (landscape, bollards, etc.)
Could use bollards for piping, issues with rodents, overflow pipe causes erosion around footing.

EXTERIOR FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSExterior Shell Condition Good, lower shell not uniform - 2 1/2 inches difference in height of bottom layer around tank (got bigger towards the back and smaller at the front) Exterior Roof Condition
Good
Inlet/Outlet Condition
Good, needs lock on sample tap. Coating good.

Foundation Condition
Good
Chime Condition
Good

544

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
APPURTENANCES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLevel Gauge
Yes
Exterior Ladder and Cage
Yes Not safe to climb on ladder.

Access HatchOverflow
Yes
Inlet/Outlet diameter (in)
10"
Roof Vent ConditionManway(s) ConditionSeismic Anchorage Not present
ELECTRICAL FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLighting
No
Communications
No
Cathodic Protection
Yes Present
NOTESOne rim vent covered but only weded on 3 sides.'21' measured - 24' on gauge

ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION

545

STEEL WATER STORAGE TANK SITE VISIT NOTES
LOCATION: Cherry Tank
DATE: 7/9/2025
DESCRIPTION Welded steel water storage tank located off Cherry Hill Rd.

The tank is sited on a hill side.

YEAR CONSTRUCTED 1954
SERIAL NUMBER FC44976
AS-BUILTS AVAILABLE No
HEIGHT 21-feet
DIAMETER 66-feet
CAPACITY 537,390 GAL
OVERFLOW ELEVATION Appears to be approximately 1-feet down from top of tank.

NUMBER OF SHELL COURSES 5
FOUNDATION TYPE AWWA D100 Type 5 - Granular berm with steel retainer ring ANCHORED OR UNANCHORED Unanchored
MANWAY 1 - Bolted
LADDER Single run with cage and security door. Galvanized.

NAME PLATE ARL Standard Tank - Graver Tank & MFG Co. Inc

CONDITION ASSESSMENT
FOUNDATION No concrete foundation. Around the perimeter of the tank there is plant material growing between the steel retainer ring and shell. Some corrosion around the bottom of the shell at the tank bottom.

EXTERIOR SHELL Generally in good condition. Minimal staining.

EXTERIOR ROOF
Many dents or pitting on tank roof. Minimal rust staining and corrosion.

PIPE PENETRATIONS
Appears in good condition. Penetraion is equiped with a seismic joint. Previous penetrations have been removed and reinforcing plate covered over openings.

OVERFLOW Good condition. Overflow stops above finish grade and is located on the exterior of the tank.

SITE AROUND TANK Flat with minimal plant growth.

APPERTANENCES

EXTERIOR LADDER
A new galvanized ladder appears to have been added after the orginal tank construction. Ladder was in good condition.

MANWAY A single bolted manway is provided for access.

ROOF HATCH A hinged roof hatch is provided near the railing and ladder.

RAILING
Some railing is galanized an appears to have been added after the orginal tank construction. The rest of the railing appears to be original to the tank and is in good condition.

WATER LEVEL GAUGE

ROOF VENT
Center roof vent and a second vent near edge of tank. Some corrosion, but overall in good condition.

SOLAR A new solar panel was installed on the roof. It is attached to the roof with unistrut.

SEISMIC ANALYSIS
OVERTURNING/ANCHORAGE Overturning Ratio J is within limits.

SHELL STRESSES
Shell stress for seismic loads exceeds allowable based on assumed material thicknesses for hydrostatic loading.

Recommend UT testing shell to determine actual thickness.

FREEBOARD
Inadequate freeboard is provided. Recommend reducing
Maximum Operating Level.

SLIDING Sliding resistance is exceeded.
546

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
FACILITY AND REVIEWING INFORMATIONDate/Time of Assessment: 7/9/2025Site Name/ Facility ID: Fuschia TankSite Address: Assessor Name: JH/SCGENERAL INFORMATION FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSInstallation Date 1955As-builts available? NoReservoir Type Above-ground, steel tankReservoir Capacity 0.50 MGDiameter 60'Height 24'Overflow Elevation (ft)Previous Dive Inspections? Yes/NoSAFETY FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSFencing Yes Security fencing is poor, rodents under the tank
Security system, gate or intrusion alarm
Poor barbed wire condition
Safety Tie-offsRailings
Yes
Other Fall protection / Safety
Yes

RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS MKN

547

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
SITE ACCESS/FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSSite Grading OK
Site Access (Road, Gates, etc.)
Fair/Poor access, not a wide road around the tank
Surface Improvements (landscape, bollards, etc.)
Tree/plants cracking shotcrete, narrow road may call for bollards around inlet/outlet piping.

EXTERIOR FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSExterior Shell Condition Good - slight elephant foot/buldge. Coating is good, minor chalking Exterior Roof Condition
Rocks on roof
Inlet/Outlet Condition
Mild corrosion, altitude valve is leaking. Drainage should be evaluated to reduce rish of erosion.

Foundation Condition
Not present
Chime Condition
OK - minor corrosion at chime

548

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
APPURTENANCES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLevel Gauge
Yes
Exterior Ladder and Cage
Yes
Access Hatch
Yes
Overflow
Yes
Inlet/Outlet diameter (in)
8"
Roof Vent ConditionManway(s) Condition
OK Two present
Seismic Anchorage
Not present
ELECTRICAL FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLighting
None
CommunicationsCathodic Protection
Yes Present and appears to be okay.

NOTESNo fan

ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION

549
Project: City of Santa Paula Water Master Plan
Project No.: 2025-0064
Engineer: MEP/JMK

STEEL WATER STORAGE TANK SITE VISIT NOTES
LOCATION: Fuscia Tank
DATE: 7/9/2025

DESCRIPTION
Welded steel water storage tank located off Coronado Cir. The tank is sited on a hill and has shotcrete wall retaining soil around roughly 180-degrees of the tank.

YEAR CONSTRUCTED 1955
AS-BUILTS AVAILABLE No
HEIGHT 24-feet
DIAMETER 60-feet
CAPACITY 0.50 - MG
OVERFLOW ELEVATION 23-feet (Assumed)
NUMBER OF SHELL COURSES 3
FOUNDATION TYPE No foundation. Tank supported on soil.

ANCHORED OR UNANCHORED Unanchored
MANWAY 1 - Bolted with Hinge
LADDER Single run with cage and security door. Safety climb system.

NAME PLATE Cosolidated Western, 1955

CONDITION ASSESSMENT
FOUNDATION No concrete foundation. Evidence of ground burrowing animals under tank edges. Tank bottom is settling. The high side elevation is 0-inches and low side -

2.2-inches. The tank is settling toward the uphill side.

EXTERIOR SHELL Some deformation in the shell plate, possible elephants foot. Spot corrosion around bottom of tank shell and tank bottom. Rust staining.

EXTERIOR ROOF
Minor spot corrosion. Generally in good condition. Rocks through from a nearby walkway are scattered on the roof. A roof tie off is provided at the center of the tank.

PIPE PENETRATIONS Corrosion at sampling penetration. No flexible connection provided at outlet.

OVERFLOW Corrosion on overflow pipe.

SITE AROUND TANK
Shotcrete walls have multiple cracks that have been repaired with an unknown sealant.

APPERTANENCES

EXTERIOR LADDER
A new galvanized ladder appears to have been added after the orginal tank construction. Ladder was in good condition.

MANWAY
A single bolted manway is provided for access at the east side of the tank.

Coating has failed at the edges of the plate. There is corrosion at the bolts.

ROOF HATCH A hinged roof hatch is provided near the railing and ladder. 550
Project: City of Santa Paula Water Master Plan
Project No.: 2025-0064
Engineer: MEP/JMK

RAILING
Railing is galanized an appears to have been added after the orginal tank construction. Railing is in good condition.

WATER LEVEL GAUGE Level gauge is operable.

ROOF VENT
4 roof vents are provided around the perimeter of the tank. Coating on vents is good.

SOLAR A new solar panel was installed on the roof. It is ballusted with a weight.

SEISMIC ANALYSIS

OVERTURNING/ANCHORAGE
Overturning Ratio J exceeds 1.54 for a self-anchored tank. Recommend reducing operating level or adding ringwall footing and anchoring tank.

SHELL STRESSES
Shell stress for seismic loads exceeds allowable based on assumed material thicknesses for hydrostatic loading. Recommend UT testing shell to determine actual thickness.

FREEBOARD
Inadequate freeboard is provided. Recommend reducing Maximum Operating Level.

SLIDING Sliding resistance is exceeded.
551

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
FACILITY AND REVIEWING INFORMATIONDate/Time of Assessment: 7/9/2025Site Name/ Facility ID: Limoneira TankSite Address: Assessor Name: JH/SCGENERAL INFORMATION FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSInstallation DateAs-builts available? NoReservoir Type Above-ground, welded steel tank Reservoir Capacity 0.48 MGDiameter 50'Height 35' - 4"Overflow Elevation (ft)Previous Dive Inspections? YesSAFETY FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTS Fencing
Yes
Security system, gate or intrusion alarm
On private property
Safety Tie-offs
No
Railings
No
Other Fall protection / Safety
Yes Poor ladder protection

RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS MKN

552

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
SITE ACCESS/FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSSite GradingSite Access (Road, Gates, etc.) Poor access, trees overgrowing easement. No rail.

Surface Improvements (landscape, bollards, etc.)EXTERIOR FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSExterior Shell Condition Poor. Lap welds, not butt - on tank walls.

Exterior Roof Condition
Vent at top - no screen
Inlet/Outlet Condition
Fair/poor, coating failures.

Foundation Condition
Not present - unstable site & slope/erosion. No anchors.

Chime Condition

553

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
APPURTENANCES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLevel Gauge
No Not present - uses pressure gauge.

Exterior Ladder and Cage
Yes Poor
Access Hatch
Yes
Overflow
Yes
Inlet/Outlet diameter (in)
12"
Roof Vent ConditionManway(s) ConditionSeismic Anchorage Not Present
ELECTRICAL FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLighting
No
Communications
No
Cathodic Protection
No Not present
NOTESTank is lap welded, not well built, this is a complete do-overNot needed per Isaac, the Anderson tank is enough.No foundationUnstable subversionNo drainage

ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION

554

STEEL WATER STORAGE TANK SITE VISIT NOTES
LOCATION: LimoneiraTank
DATE: 7/9/2025
DESCRIPTION Welded steel water storage tank located off Foothill Rd. The tank is sited on a hill side.

YEAR CONSTRUCTED
Serial Number
AS-BUILTS AVAILABLE No
HEIGHT

DIAMETER

CAPACITY
OVERFLOW ELEVATION Top of overflow is 3 inches from top of tank.

NUMBER OF SHELL COURSES 6
FOUNDATION TYPE Tank bearing on soil
ANCHORED OR UNANCHORED Unanchored
MANWAY 1 - Bolted
LADDER Single run with cage and security door.

NAME PLATE

CONDITION ASSESSMENT
FOUNDATION No concrete foundation. Asphault ring around perimeter. Around the perimeter of the tank there is plant material growing near the tank bottom.

Some corrosion around the bottom of the shell at the tank bottom.

EXTERIOR SHELL Extensive staining, but is possibly runoff from water on the roof.

EXTERIOR ROOF Extensive corrosion
PIPE PENETRATIONS Appears in good condition. Penetraion is equiped with a seismic joint.

OVERFLOW Extensive corrosion on overflow. Overflow does not extend below finish grade.

SITE AROUND TANK Evidence of ground burrowing animals

APPERTANENCES
EXTERIOR LADDER Appears to be the original ladder equiped with cage and security door.

MANWAY A single bolted manway is provided for access. Corrosion on bolts.

ROOF HATCH No roof hatch.

RAILING No railing tank roof.

WATER LEVEL GAUGE
ROOF VENT Pipe penetration with 180 degree elbow and screen at end of elbow.

SOLAR A new solar panel was installed on the roof.

SEISMIC ANALYSIS

OVERTURNING/ANCHORAGE
Overturning Ratio J exceeds 1.54 for a self-anchored tank. Recommend reducing operating level or adding ringwall footing and anchoring tank.

SHELL STRESSES
Shell stress for seismic loads exceeds allowable based on assumed material thicknesses for hydrostatic loading. Recommend UT testing shell to determine actual thickness.

FREEBOARD
Inadequate freeboard is provided. Recommend reducing Maximum Operating Level.

SLIDING Sliding resistance is exceeded.
555

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
FACILITY AND REVIEWING INFORMATIONDate/Time of Assessment: 7/9/2025Site Name/ Facility ID: Main ReservoirSite Address: 200 S Tenth StAssessor Name: JH/SCGENERAL INFORMATION FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSInstallation Date 1896As-builts available? NoReservoir Type Constructed by earth
embankments w/a
concrete liner and has a
non-symmetrical shape
Reservoir Capacity 4.40 MGDiameterHeight 30'Overflow Elevation (ft)Previous Dive Inspections? YesSAFETY FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSFencing Yes
Security system, gate or intrusion alarm
Yes Needs barbed wire - main fence is new, live security Safety Tie-offs
Tank is generally below grade
Railings
Tank is generally below grade
Other Fall protection / Safety
Tank is generally below grade

RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS MKN

556

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
SITE ACCESS/FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSSite Grading OK
Site Access (Road, Gates, etc.)
OK
Surface Improvements (landscape, bollards, etc.)
OK Vegetation growing through shotcrete retaining walls EXTERIOR FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSExterior Shell Condition Buried
Exterior Roof Condition
OK, evidence of potential structural failure, ponding occurs on roof. TPO roof - fair condition, not too old. Drip rail not correct - should flash behind reglet.

Inlet/Outlet Condition
Buried
Foundation Condition
Buried
Chime Condition
Buried

557

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
APPURTENANCES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLevel Gauge
Digital, accessed elsewhere. Hydroranger and SCADA.

Exterior Ladder and Cage
Buried
Access Hatch
Yes
Overflow Inlet/Outlet diameter (in)Roof Vent Condition
Poor
Manway(s) Condition
OK
Seismic AnchorageELECTRICAL FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLightingCommunicationsCathodic ProtectionNOTESConsider replacing wood strucutre with aluminum on steel?Evaluate concrete?Geotech evaluation of side walls?Gunite in good conditionDrainage unclear - no DI observed, all sheet over side?100 year old

ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION

558
Project: City of Santa Paula Water Master Plan
Project No.: 2025-0064
Engineer: MEP/JMK

RESERVOIR SITE VISIT NOTES
LOCATION: Main Reservoir
DATE: 7/9/2025
DESCRIPTION The reservoir is an in ground concrete reservoir that is concrete lined on sloping soil. The roof consists of a wood framed roof supported by wood posts. The roof is extended above finish grade and the perimeter is wrapped with a mesh screen allowing venting of the reservoir. A V ditch is provided around the perimeter of the reservoir for drainage.

YEAR CONSTRUCTED 1896
AS-BUILTS AVAILABLE No
HEIGHT 30-feet
LENGTH x WIDTH 270-feet x 175-feet
CAPACITY 4.40 - MG
OVERFLOW ELEVATION Unknown
FOUNDATION TYPE Concrete slab with sloping walls
ANCHORED OR UNANCHORED Unanchored
MANWAY 2 - Hinged
LADDER Single run with cage and security door. Safety climb system.

CONDITION ASSESSMENT
FOUNDATION The reservoir was in service and the interior was not accessed.

ROOF The roof has low spots and had some water ponding. Based on the observations it is expected that there may be some damaged rafters or columns.

WALLS/VENTS
The fascia board around the perimeter is in need of paint. Some screens have been repaired, but new screens are recommended.

APPERTANENCES
ROOF HATCH Roof hatches are in good condition.

SITE AROUND TANK
Shotcrete walls have cracks with plants growing thorugh concrete. Minor amounts of plant debris in the V ditch around reservoir. Some cracks in the V ditch.
559

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
FACILITY AND REVIEWING INFORMATIONDate/Time of Assessment: 7/9/2025Site Name/ Facility ID: Peck TankSite Address: Assessor Name: JH/SCGENERAL INFORMATION FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSInstallation Date 1988As-builts available? Yes* *only have peck tank site rehab as-builts. No structural info in as-builts.Reservoir Type Above-ground, steel tankReservoir Capacity 0.50 MGDiameter 60'Height 24'Overflow Elevation (ft)Previous Dive Inspections? YesSAFETY FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSFencing Yes
Security system, gate or intrusion alarm
Gate Poor - lots of graffiti
Safety Tie-offsRailings
Yes
Other Fall protection / Safety
Yes

RESERVOIR CHARACTERISTICS MKN

560

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
SITE ACCESS/FEATURES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSSite Grading Poor asphalt
Site Access (Road, Gates, etc.)
Poor access, AC around tank is poor, severe ground settling at rear of tank (road) Surface Improvements (landscape, bollards, etc.)
Needs landscaping, erosion, bollards are needed, overflow drains to surface, complete REDO of grading/drainage, tank drain is inadequate, several cracking systems EXTERIOR FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSExterior Shell Condition OK
Exterior Roof Condition
OK
Inlet/Outlet Condition
OK/Moderate corrosion
Foundation Condition
OK
Chime Condition
OK

561

CITY OF SANTA PAULA

RESERVOIR CONDITION ASSESSMENT FORM
REV. Date 11/12/2025
APPURTENANCES FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLevel Gauge
OK
Exterior Ladder and Cage
OK
Access Hatch
OK
Overflow
OK - overflow draws to surface
Inlet/Outlet diameter (in)
10"
Roof Vent ConditionManway(s) Condition
OK - two of them
Seismic Anchorage
Not present
ELECTRICAL FIELD DATA REVIEWER COMMENTSLighting
Not Present
CommunicationsCathodic ProtectionNOTESPipe supports not boltedFlexible connection present

ELECTRICAL/INSTRUMENTATION

562
Project: City of Santa Paula Water Master Plan
Project No.: 2025-0064
Engineer: MEP/JMK

STEEL WATER STORAGE TANK SITE VISIT NOTES
LOCATION: Peck Tank
DATE: 7/9/2025
DESCRIPTION Welded steel water storage tank located on N. Peck Rd. Tank is located on a hill and has shotcrete wall retaining soil around roughly 270-degrees of the tank.

Tank is located on the hill above Anderson Tank.

YEAR CONSTRUCTED 1988
AS-BUILTS AVAILABLE No
HEIGHT 24-feet
DIAMETER 60-feet
CAPACITY 0.50 - MG
OVERFLOW ELEVATION 23-feet (Assumed)
NUMBER OF SHELL COURSES 3
FOUNDATION TYPE AWWA D100 Type 5 - Granular berm with steel retainer ring ANCHORED OR UNANCHORED Unanchored
MANWAY 2 - Bolted with Hinge
LADDER Single run with cage and security door. Safety climb system.

NAME PLATE Not found

CONDITION ASSESSMENT

FOUNDATION
Weeds are growing out of the granular berm near tank bottom. Tank bottom is settling unevenly. The high side elevation is 0-inches and low side -4.9-inches.

EXTERIOR SHELL
Spot coating failure, but no excessive signs of corrosion.

EXTERIOR ROOF Spot coating failure, but no excessive signs of corrosion.

PIPE PENETRATIONS Flexible connection is provided at the outlet.

OVERFLOW Minor corrosion at the mesh screen cover.

SITE AROUND TANK Shotcrete walls have multiple cracks with plants growing at cracking. The AC pavin

APPERTANENCES
EXTERIOR LADDER Galvanized ladder in good condition.

MANWAY
A single bolted manway is provided for access at the east side of the tank.

Coating has failed at the edges of the plate. There is corrosion at the bolts.

ROOF HATCH
A bolted roof hatch is provided near the ladder. The railing does not extend to the roof hatch.

RAILING Railing is galanized and is in good condition.

WATER LEVEL GAUGE Gauge appears operable.

ROOF VENT
Single roof vent centered on tank. There is some minor corrosion at the screen and the frame.
563
Project: City of Santa Paula Water Master Plan
Project No.: 2025-0064
Engineer: MEP/JMK

SEISMIC ANALYSIS

OVERTURNING/ANCHORAGE
Overturning Ratio J exceeds 1.54 for a self-anchored tank. Recommend reducing operating level or adding ringwall footing and anchoring tank.

SHELL STRESSES
Shell stress for seismic loads exceeds allowable based on assumed material thicknesses for hydrostatic loading. Recommend UT testing shell to determine actual thickness.

FREEBOARD
Inadequate freeboard is provided. Recommend reducing Maximum Operating Level.

SLIDING Sliding resistance is exceeded.
564
Name of Observer: Shayne/Jon
Pump Station Name: __Anderson BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Location (Add Sketch Pg. 5): 200 S Tenth St Weather:___________________ Personnel:_____________________________________________________________ Surroundings (i.e., enclosure, lawn, street):_________________________________________________________________________ Year Built/Improved:___________________________________________________________________________________________ As-Builts Available: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Design Capacity:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Pump Maintenance:___________________________________________________________________________________________ Model #:_______________________________________________________________________________________ Serial #:________________________________________________________________________________________ Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Configuration / Pumps:

Style (VT can, VT deck, Horiz., etc.) VT
Pumps (number, capacity, make, model) 1+1 Config
Motors (size hP, make, model) 7.5HP and 15HP Motors
Series or Parallel Installation Parallel
Pump Location - Outdoor / Indoor Outdoor (pump below grade) Electrical & Controls Location Outdoors
VFDs (1, 2, etc. or all) No
Suction Manifold - above/buried Buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Indiv. Pump Inlet - above/buried Buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Indiv. Pump Discharge - above/buried Above
Size & Material Steel, 2-3"
Height Above/Below Grade 2'
Isolation Valve
Metered
Pump Disch. Manifold - above/buried Buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Pump Issues (heat, noise, leaks) None
Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist

Name of Observer: Shayne/Jon
Pump Station Name: __Anderson BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Safety Features:

Fencing and Gates Yes - poor security and gap under fence Alarms (buildings, gates, etc.)
Lighting (standards, wall packs, etc.) Yes
Hatches
Fall Protections (if applicable)
Railing
Ladders
Eye wash (if applicable)
Chemical storage
Slippery surfaces
Cameras
Bollards No
Signage Yes
Labeling Yes
Maintenance Issues
Spacing (access for personnel and tools)
Height of instruments
Pipe Supports (sufficiency, location, etc.) Yes - Not bolted Disassembly Points
Seals Issues (leaks, drains, etc.)
Isolation for each Pumping Unit
Hydro/Air Chamber
Hydro/Air Chamber (isolatable - locking)
Hydro/Air Chamber (compressor)
Backup Power:

Perm. Generator
Generator Plug Panel Generator recepticle
Type of fuel
Automatic Transfer Switch
Manual Transfer Switch
Space for Temporary Gen.

Name of Observer: Shayne/Jon
Pump Station Name: __Anderson BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Pump Structure (if applic.):

Materials (reinforced concrete, metal, etc.)
Exposed Rebar
Lining (in pump well, etc.)
Lighting
HI improvements (fillets, splitters, etc.)
Pump Mounts (cans, sole plates, etc.)
Pump, Elec., Contr. Building (if applic.)
Roof (flat, a-frame, metal, comp.,etc.)
Walls (material)
Interior (ceiling or open, insulation)
Lighting
Doors (type, location, locks, emergency)
Ventilation (fans, AC, etc.)
Coatings:

Pipe coatings-exposed Yes
Valve coatings-exposed Yes
Pipe coatings-vault
Valve coatings-vault
Structure Coatings

Name of Observer: Shayne/Jon
Pump Station Name: __Anderson BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Instrumentation:

Level controls (type, location)
Flow meter (make, model, location)
Gauges
Pressure switches
SCADA/Telemtry
Antennae
Alarms (List)
MCC Enclosure-style/condition
Shade structure (Elec.) Electrical is exposed and corroded (not covered) Shade structure (Instr.)
Intrusion Alarms
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Access:

Vehicular Y
Maint. Equip. (i.e., chem., cranes, etc.) Y
Surfacing (paved, gravel) Y, gravel
Ponding / Mud
Site Features:

Potable water
On-site Equipment Storage
Restrooms
Lab

Project: City of Santa Paula Water Master Plan
Project No.: 2025-0064
Engineer: MEP/JMK

PUMP STATION VISIT NOTES
LOCATION: Anderson Pump Station
DATE: 7/9/2025
STRUCTURE Pump Station

DESCRIPTION
Fenced enclosure housing two pumps and electrical equipment located on hillside downhill from the Anderson Tank. Two sides have CMU retaining wall retaining 5-feet of soil maximum. Cantilever steel structure is supporting electcial equipment. Pump and piping is mounted on a concrete slab.

AS-BUILTS AVAILABLE No

CONDITION ASSESSMENT
SLAB ON GRADE Minor cracking in slab on grade, particularly at penetrations. Generally OK condition.

CMU WALLS
Cracking in top of wall at the embedded fence post. Face of walls don't indicate any major cracking or stress.

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

SUPPORT
Steel structure has some coating failure and rust forming. No excessive steel section loss was exhibited.
569
Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Canyon BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Location (Add Sketch Pg. 5):______________________________________________ Weather:___________________ Personnel:_____________________________________________________________ Surroundings (i.e., enclosure, lawn, street):_________________________________________________________________________ Year Built/Improved:___________________________________________________________________________________________ As-Builts Available: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Design Capacity:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Pump Maintenance:___________________________________________________________________________________________ Model #:_______________________________________________________________________________________ Serial #:________________________________________________________________________________________ Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Configuration / Pumps:

Style (VT can, VT deck, Horiz., etc.) VT
Pumps (number, capacity, make, model) 1 Pump
Motors (size hP, make, model) 15 HP
Series or Parallel Installation
Pump Location - Outdoor / Indoor
Electrical & Controls Location
VFDs (1, 2, etc. or all)
Suction Manifold - above/buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Indiv. Pump Inlet - above/buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Indiv. Pump Discharge - above/buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Pump Disch. Manifold - above/buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Pump Issues (heat, noise, leaks)
Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Complete Rehab/Replacement

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Canyon BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Safety Features:

Fencing and Gates
Alarms (buildings, gates, etc.)
Lighting (standards, wall packs, etc.)
Hatches
Fall Protections (if applicable)
Railing
Ladders
Eye wash (if applicable)
Chemical storage
Slippery surfaces Landslide site - to be rehabilitated
Cameras No security
Bollards
Signage
Labeling
Maintenance Issues
Spacing (access for personnel and tools)
Height of instruments
Pipe Supports (sufficiency, location, etc.)
Disassembly Points
Seals Issues (leaks, drains, etc.)
Isolation for each Pumping Unit
Hydro/Air Chamber
Hydro/Air Chamber (isolatable - locking)
Hydro/Air Chamber (compressor)
Backup Power:

Perm. Generator
Generator Plug Panel
Type of fuel
Automatic Transfer Switch
Manual Transfer Switch
Space for Temporary Gen.

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Canyon BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Pump Structure (if applic.):

Materials (reinforced concrete, metal, etc.)
Exposed Rebar
Lining (in pump well, etc.)
Lighting
HI improvements (fillets, splitters, etc.)
Pump Mounts (cans, sole plates, etc.)
Pump, Elec., Contr. Building (if applic.)
Roof (flat, a-frame, metal, comp.,etc.)
Walls (material)
Interior (ceiling or open, insulation)
Lighting
Doors (type, location, locks, emergency)
Ventilation (fans, AC, etc.)
Coatings:

Pipe coatings-exposed
Valve coatings-exposed
Pipe coatings-vault
Valve coatings-vault
Structure Coatings

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Canyon BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Instrumentation:

Level controls (type, location)
Flow meter (make, model, location)
Gauges
Pressure switches
SCADA/Telemtry
Antennae
Alarms (List)
MCC Enclosure-style/condition
Shade structure (Elec.)
Shade structure (Instr.)
Intrusion Alarms
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Access:

Vehicular
Maint. Equip. (i.e., chem., cranes, etc.)
Surfacing (paved, gravel) No pavement
Ponding / Mud
Site Features:

Potable water
On-site Equipment Storage
Restrooms
Lab

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Canyon BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
NOTES:

Easement needed? - on county property not city property

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Glade BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Location (Add Sketch Pg. 5):______________________________________________ Weather:___________________ Personnel:_____________________________________________________________ Surroundings (i.e., enclosure, lawn, street):_________________________________________________________________________ Year Built/Improved:___________________________________________________________________________________________ As-Builts Available: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Design Capacity:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Pump Maintenance:___________________________________________________________________________________________ Model #:_______________________________________________________________________________________ Serial #:________________________________________________________________________________________ Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Configuration / Pumps:

Style (VT can, VT deck, Horiz., etc.) VT
Pumps (number, capacity, make, model) 1 pump
Motors (size hP, make, model) 20 HP
Series or Parallel Installation
Pump Location - Outdoor / Indoor Outdoors
Electrical & Controls Location Outdoors
VFDs (1, 2, etc. or all)
Suction Manifold - above/buried Buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Indiv. Pump Inlet - above/buried Buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Indiv. Pump Discharge - above/buried Above
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Pump Disch. Manifold - above/buried Above
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Pump Issues (heat, noise, leaks)
Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
210 TDH, 260 GPM

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Glade BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Safety Features:

Fencing and Gates Y No barbed wire, no security
Alarms (buildings, gates, etc.)
Lighting (standards, wall packs, etc.) Y
Hatches
Fall Protections (if applicable)
Railing
Ladders
Eye wash (if applicable)
Chemical storage
Slippery surfaces
Cameras
Bollards
Signage
Labeling
Maintenance Issues
Spacing (access for personnel and tools)
Height of instruments 6'
Pipe Supports (sufficiency, location, etc.) OK - not bolted Disassembly Points
Seals Issues (leaks, drains, etc.)
Isolation for each Pumping Unit
Hydro/Air Chamber
Hydro/Air Chamber (isolatable - locking)
Hydro/Air Chamber (compressor)
Backup Power:

Perm. Generator
Generator Plug Panel
Type of fuel
Automatic Transfer Switch
Manual Transfer Switch
Space for Temporary Gen.

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Glade BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Pump Structure (if applic.):

Materials (reinforced concrete, metal, etc.)
Exposed Rebar
Lining (in pump well, etc.)
Lighting
HI improvements (fillets, splitters, etc.)
Pump Mounts (cans, sole plates, etc.)
Pump, Elec., Contr. Building (if applic.)
Roof (flat, a-frame, metal, comp.,etc.)
Walls (material) Wall failing
Interior (ceiling or open, insulation)
Lighting
Doors (type, location, locks, emergency)
Ventilation (fans, AC, etc.)
Coatings:

Pipe coatings-exposed Y - fair
Valve coatings-exposed
Pipe coatings-vault
Valve coatings-vault
Structure Coatings

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Glade BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Instrumentation:

Level controls (type, location)
Flow meter (make, model, location)
Gauges
Pressure switches
SCADA/Telemtry
Antennae
Alarms (List)
MCC Enclosure-style/condition
Shade structure (Elec.)
Shade structure (Instr.)
Intrusion Alarms
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Access:

Vehicular
Maint. Equip. (i.e., chem., cranes, etc.)
Surfacing (paved, gravel)
Ponding / Mud
Site Features:

Potable water
On-site Equipment Storage
Restrooms
Lab

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Glade BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
NOTES:

Inactive
Pumps from Zone 400 to zone 600 - terracina 2 now pumps from 200 to 600 zones and eliminates the need for Glade and View BPS Wants to turn it into a PRV

Project: City of Santa Paula Water Master Plan
Project No.: 2025-0064
Engineer: MEP/JMK

PUMP STATION VISIT NOTES
LOCATION: Glade Booster Pump Station
DATE: 7/9/2025
STRUCTURE Pump Station

DESCRIPTION
CMU enclosure housing pump. Inside the enclosure is a slab on grade. The enclosure is accessed with a swinging gate. The enclosure is mounted on a slope and the CMU walls are retaining soil. At the time of assessment the neigboring house was under construction. It appears that grading of the slopes near the enclosure walls had occured recently.

AS-BUILTS AVAILABLE No

CONDITION ASSESSMENT
SLAB ON GRADE Minor cracking in slab on grade. Generally in good condition.

CMU WALLS CMU walls appear in good condition. No major cracks were noted.

ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
SUPPORT The electrical equipment is mounted to the east wall. 580
Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Park BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Location (Add Sketch Pg. 5):______________________________________________ Weather:___________________ Personnel:_____________________________________________________________ Surroundings (i.e., enclosure, lawn, street):_________________________________________________________________________ Year Built/Improved:___________________________________________________________________________________________ As-Builts Available: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Design Capacity:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Pump Maintenance:___________________________________________________________________________________________ Model #:_______________________________________________________________________________________ Serial #:________________________________________________________________________________________ Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Configuration / Pumps:

Style (VT can, VT deck, Horiz., etc.) VT
Pumps (number, capacity, make, model) 2, but only 1 is used due to cracked support on P2 Motors (size hP, make, model) 40 HP
Series or Parallel Installation Parallel
Pump Location - Outdoor / Indoor Outdoor
Electrical & Controls Location Outdoor
VFDs (1, 2, etc. or all) No
Suction Manifold - above/buried Buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Indiv. Pump Inlet - above/buried Above
Size & Material Steel
Height Above/Below Grade 3'
Isolation Valve Yes
Metered Yes
Indiv. Pump Discharge - above/buried Above
Size & Material Steel
Height Above/Below Grade 3'
Isolation Valve
Metered
Pump Disch. Manifold - above/buried Above
Size & Material Steel ~8"
Height Above/Below Grade 3'
Isolation Valve
Metered
Pump Issues (heat, noise, leaks) Broken/cracking supports, cans not bolted down, sole plates not bolted down Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Park BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Safety Features:

Fencing and Gates Y
Alarms (buildings, gates, etc.)
Lighting (standards, wall packs, etc.)
Hatches
Fall Protections (if applicable)
Railing
Ladders
Eye wash (if applicable)
Chemical storage
Slippery surfaces
Cameras
Bollards
Signage
Labeling
Maintenance Issues
Spacing (access for personnel and tools)
Height of instruments
Pipe Supports (sufficiency, location, etc.)
Disassembly Points
Seals Issues (leaks, drains, etc.) Seals are leaking when pump is off Isolation for each Pumping Unit
Hydro/Air Chamber
Hydro/Air Chamber (isolatable - locking)
Hydro/Air Chamber (compressor)
Backup Power:

Perm. Generator No generator
Generator Plug Panel
Type of fuel
Automatic Transfer Switch
Manual Transfer Switch
Space for Temporary Gen.

Security is poor

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Park BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Pump Structure (if applic.):

Materials (reinforced concrete, metal, etc.)
Exposed Rebar
Lining (in pump well, etc.)
Lighting
HI improvements (fillets, splitters, etc.)
Pump Mounts (cans, sole plates, etc.)
Pump, Elec., Contr. Building (if applic.)
Roof (flat, a-frame, metal, comp.,etc.)
Walls (material)
Interior (ceiling or open, insulation)
Lighting
Doors (type, location, locks, emergency)
Ventilation (fans, AC, etc.) Fan on #2 is cracked
Coatings:

Pipe coatings-exposed
Valve coatings-exposed
Pipe coatings-vault
Valve coatings-vault
Structure Coatings Good

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Park BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Instrumentation:

Level controls (type, location)
Flow meter (make, model, location)
Gauges
Pressure switches
SCADA/Telemtry
Antennae
Alarms (List)
MCC Enclosure-style/condition
Shade structure (Elec.)
Shade structure (Instr.)
Intrusion Alarms
Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Access:

Vehicular
Maint. Equip. (i.e., chem., cranes, etc.)
Surfacing (paved, gravel)
Ponding / Mud
Site Features:

Potable water
On-site Equipment Storage
Restrooms
Lab

Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Park BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
NOTES:

Poor security
Seals are leaking when pump off
Pipe supports are good

Project: City of Santa Paula Water Master Plan
Project No.: 2025-0064
Engineer: MEP/JMK

PUMP STATION VISIT NOTES
LOCATION: Park St. Booster
DATE: 7/9/2025
STRUCTURE Pump Station
DESCRIPTION Outdoor pump station with fence enclosure.

AS-BUILTS AVAILABLE No

CONDITION ASSESSMENT
HOUSE KEEPING PADS The slabs at pipe supports have extensive cracking. The pedestal pad at the pipe has exposed rebar and cracking. Pipe stands are anchored.

PUMP PADS
Pedestals for the pumps have cracking. The pump sole plate is not anchored to the pedestal.
586
Name of Observer: Jon, Shayne
Pump Station Name: __Terracina No. 1 BPS___________________________________________ Date: 7/9/25 Location (Add Sketch Pg. 5):______________________________________________ Weather:___________________ Personnel:_____________________________________________________________ Surroundings (i.e., enclosure, lawn, street):_________________________________________________________________________ Year Built/Improved:___________________________________________________________________________________________ As-Builts Available: ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Design Capacity:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Pump Maintenance:___________________________________________________________________________________________ Model #:_______________________________________________________________________________________ Serial #:________________________________________________________________________________________ Item
Exist.
(Y/N)
Oper.
(Y/N) Notes
Configuration / Pumps:

Style (VT can, VT deck, Horiz., etc.)
Pumps (number, capacity, make, model)
Motors (size hP, make, model)
Series or Parallel Installation
Pump Location - Outdoor / Indoor
Electrical & Controls Location
VFDs (1, 2, etc. or all)
Suction Manifold - above/buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Indiv. Pump Inlet - above/buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Indiv. Pump Discharge - above/buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Pump Disch. Manifold - above/buried
Size & Material
Height Above/Below Grade
Isolation Valve
Metered
Pump Issues (heat, noise, leaks)
Pump Station Visual Inspection Checklist
To be converted to PRS