Pismo Beach Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study - 2015Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study - Finalfor the
City of Pismo Beach
• April 2015•
Final
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
Prepared for the
City of Pismo Beach
Prepared Under the Responsible Charge of:
Laine E. Carlson
April 23, 2015
WATER 5VSTIMS CONSULTING, INC.
City of Pismo Beach Acknowledgements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study ‐ Final
4/23/2015 i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study (RWFPS) for the City of Pismo Beach was adopted by the
Pismo Beach City Council on April 21, 2015.
Shelly Higginbotham, Mayor
Edward Waage, Mayor Pro Tem
Erik Howell, Council Member
Mary Ann Reiss, Council Member
Sheila Blake, Council Member
The RWFPS was prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc., and its subconsultants, Carollo Engineers,
Cleath‐Harris Geologists, Inc. and Fugro Consultants, Inc. The primary authors are listed below.
Water Systems Consulting, Inc.
Jeffery Szytel, P.E., M.S., M.B.A.
Laine Carlson, P.E.
Daniel Heimel, P.E., M.S.
Spencer Waterman
Kaylie Ashton, EIT
Carollo Engineers
Steve Swanback, P.E., M.S.
Elisa Garvey, Ph.D., P.E.
Cleath‐Harris Geologists, Inc.
Timothy Cleath, PG, CHG, CEG
Fugro Consultants, Inc.
Paul Sorensen, PG, CHG
Water Systems Consulting, Inc. would also like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the
following people:
City of Pismo Beach
Benjamin Fine, P.E., M.S, M.B.A
Chad Stoehr, P.E.
Russ Fleming
Carolyn Johnson
Eric Eldridge, P.E.
Kristin Bennet
Madeline Musgrove
City of Arroyo Grande
Teresa McClish
Shane Taylor
City of Grover Beach
Gregory Ray, P.E.
The RWFPS is funded in part by a Water Recycling Facilities Planning Grant from the California State
Water Resources Control Board Water Recycling Funding Program.
City of Pismo Beach Table of Contents
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study ‐ Final
4/23/2015 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ i
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ v
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. ES‐1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... ES‐1
Goals and Objectives for Recycled Water ............................................................................................ ES‐1
Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................................................................ ES‐1
Recommended Alternative .................................................................................................................. ES‐3
Funding and Financing ......................................................................................................................... ES‐4
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1‐1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1‐1
1.2 Goals and Objectives for Recycled Water .................................................................................. 1‐1
1.3 Service Area Population ............................................................................................................. 1‐3
1.4 Jurisdictional Boundaries ........................................................................................................... 1‐4
1.5 Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 1‐8
1.6 Related Initiatives ...................................................................................................................... 1‐8
2 Water Supplies and Characteristics ................................................................................................... 2‐1
2.1 Surface Water ............................................................................................................................ 2‐1
2.2 Groundwater Basin, Management and Overdraft ..................................................................... 2‐2
2.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................. 2‐3
2.4 Water Rights .............................................................................................................................. 2‐4
2.5 Water Use Trends ...................................................................................................................... 2‐4
2.6 Water pricing ............................................................................................................................. 2‐5
2.7 Plans for New Facilities or Additional Water Sources ................................................................ 2‐6
3 Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities ......................................................................................... 3‐1
3.1 Existing Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................. 3‐1
3.2 Existing Facilities ........................................................................................................................ 3‐2
3.3 Existing and Projected Wastewater Flows ................................................................................. 3‐5
3.4 Recycled Water .......................................................................................................................... 3‐6
3.5 Future Facilities .......................................................................................................................... 3‐6
4 Treatment Requirements ................................................................................................................... 4‐1
City of Pismo Beach Table of Contents
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study ‐ Final
4/23/2015 iii
4.1 Recycled Water Quality Requirements ...................................................................................... 4‐1
4.2 Recycled Water Regulations ...................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.3 Recycled Water Quality Targets ............................................................................................... 4‐10
4.4 Operational and On‐site Requirements ................................................................................... 4‐13
5 Recycled Water Market/Opportunities ............................................................................................. 5‐1
5.1 Market Analysis Update ............................................................................................................. 5‐1
5.2 Preliminary Hydrogeological Assessment of Groundwater Recharge with Recycled Water ..... 5‐7
5.3 Stakeholder outreach ................................................................................................................. 5‐9
6 Planning and Design Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 6‐1
6.1 Facilities Planning and Design Criteria ....................................................................................... 6‐1
6.2 Planning Level Cost Estimates .................................................................................................... 6‐2
7 Project Alternatives Analysis .............................................................................................................. 7‐1
7.1 Alternatives Evaluated ............................................................................................................... 7‐1
7.2 Non‐recycled water alternative ............................................................................................... 7‐28
7.3 Water conservation/reduction analysis ................................................................................... 7‐29
7.4 No project alternative .............................................................................................................. 7‐30
7.5 Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................................ 7‐30
8 Recommended Facilities Project Plan ................................................................................................ 8‐1
8.1 Recommended Alternative ........................................................................................................ 8‐1
9 Implementation Plan ......................................................................................................................... 9‐1
9.1 Preliminary and Final Design ...................................................................................................... 9‐1
9.2 Permitting requirements............................................................................................................ 9‐2
9.3 Environmental documentation requirements (CEQA) ............................................................... 9‐5
9.4 Beneficiaries ............................................................................................................................... 9‐6
9.5 Coordination and Governance ................................................................................................... 9‐6
9.6 Public Outreach .......................................................................................................................... 9‐6
9.7 Implementation schedule .......................................................................................................... 9‐6
10 Construction Financing Plan ........................................................................................................ 10‐1
10.1 Funding Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 10‐1
11 References ................................................................................................................................... 11‐1
Appendix A. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit (CA0048151)
Appendix B. Potential Recycled Water Users
Appendix C. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Assessment of Groundwater Recharge with Recycled Water TM
Appendix D. Alternatives Unit Cost Detailed Tables
Appendix E. Evaluation Criteria Definitions and Scoring Approach
City of Pismo Beach List of Tables
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study ‐ Final
4/23/2015 iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Table of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. vii
Table ES‐1. RW Alternatives Qualitative Analysis Summary ................................................................... ES‐2
Table ES‐2. RW Alternatives Quantitative Analysis Summary ................................................................ ES‐3
Table ES‐3. RW Alternatives Ranking Summary ...................................................................................... ES‐3
Table 1‐1. Historical and Projected Future Population ............................................................................. 1‐4
Table 2‐1. Water Supplies ‐ Current and Projected (3) .............................................................................. 2‐1
Table 2‐2. Existing Groundwater Wells (3) ................................................................................................ 2‐3
Table 2‐3. Projected Water Demands ........................................................................................................ 2‐4
Table 2‐4. Water Rates (Effective July 2014) ............................................................................................. 2‐6
Table 2‐5. Current Water Service Charges (Effective July 2014) .............................................................. 2‐6
Table 3‐1. Summary of Current Conventional Pollutant Discharge Limits for the Pismo Beach WWTP .. 3‐1
Table 3‐2. Wastewater Flows ..................................................................................................................... 3‐5
Table 3‐3. Wastewater Flow Projections ................................................................................................... 3‐5
Table 4‐1. Summary of Approved Title 22 Uses of RW for Irrigation ........................................................ 4‐3
Table 4‐2. Summary of Approved Title 22 Industrial RW Uses .................................................................. 4‐4
Table 4‐3. Summary the Groundwater Recharge Regulations .................................................................. 4‐6
Table 4‐4. Key Components of the RW Policy ............................................................................................ 4‐7
Table 4‐5. Groundwater Quality Objectives for the Lower Nipomo Mesa ............................................... 4‐9
Table 4‐6. Groundwater Quality Objectives for the Lower Nipomo Mesa .............................................. 4‐10
Table 4‐7. Comparison of Pismo WWTP Effluent with Irrigation Water Quality Criteria ........................ 4‐12
Table 5‐1. Pismo Beach Previous RW Reports ........................................................................................... 5‐1
Table 5‐2. Pismo Beach Potential Secondary‐23 Water Use ..................................................................... 5‐2
Table 5‐3. Arroyo Grande Potential Secondary‐23 Water Use (10)........................................................... 5‐2
Table 5‐4. Disinfected Tertiary RW Use‐ Top 38 Potential Customers ...................................................... 5‐4
Table 6‐1. RW Facility Planning and Design Criteria .................................................................................. 6‐1
Table 6‐2. Irrigation Demand Peaking Factors .......................................................................................... 6‐2
Table 6‐3. Capital Cost Estimating Assumptions ........................................................................................ 6‐4
Table 7‐1. Unit Cost of Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................... 7‐2
Table 7‐2. Alternative 2 – RW Use and Customers by Segment ................................................................ 7‐8
Table 7‐3. Estimated MMD Demands ....................................................................................................... 7‐9
Table 7‐4. Alternative 2 Facilities Summary ............................................................................................ 7‐10
Table 7‐5. Alternative 2 Booster Pump Horsepower ............................................................................... 7‐10
Table 7‐6. Treatment Upgrade Cost for Disinfected Tertiary .................................................................. 7‐14
Table 7‐7. Unit Cost for Alternative 2 ...................................................................................................... 7‐16
Table 7‐8. Full Advanced Treatment Unit Cost ........................................................................................ 7‐19
Table 7‐9. Alternative 3a Pipe Segments Sizes and Lengths .................................................................... 7‐22
Table 7‐10. Unit Cost for Alterative 3a .................................................................................................... 7‐24
Table 7‐11. Alternative 3b Pipe Segments Sizes and Lengths .................................................................. 7‐26
Table 7‐12. Unit Cost for Alternative 3b .................................................................................................. 7‐28
Table 7‐13. Non‐recycled Water Supply Unit Cost .................................................................................. 7‐29
City of Pismo Beach List of Figures
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study ‐ Final
4/23/2015 v
Table 7‐14. Existing and Projected gpcd .................................................................................................. 7‐29
Table 7‐15. RW Alternatives Quantitative Analysis Summary ................................................................. 7‐31
Table 7‐16. Alternative Ranking Criteria .................................................................................................. 7‐31
Table 8‐1. Recommended Project Pipeline Summary............................................................................... 8‐4
Table 8‐2. Cost Estimate for Recommended Alternative .......................................................................... 8‐4
Table 9‐1. Water Quality Parameters for RO Process Design .................................................................... 9‐2
Table 9‐2. Tentative Water Recycling Requirements ................................................................................ 9‐4
Table 10‐1. 2014 Water Bond Funding Summary ................................................................................... 10‐2
Table 10‐2. Potential Grant Funding Sources .......................................................................................... 10‐3
Table 10‐3. Potential Debt Funding Sources ........................................................................................... 10‐5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES‐1. Interest Rate and Unit Cost Comparison ............................................................................ ES‐4
Figure 1‐1. City of Pismo Beach Vicinity Map ............................................................................................ 1‐2
Figure 1‐2. Historical and Projected Population ........................................................................................ 1‐4
Figure 1‐3. Sphere of Influence .................................................................................................................. 1‐6
Figure 1‐4. SMGB Management Areas ....................................................................................................... 1‐7
Figure 2‐1. Historic and Projected Water Demand .................................................................................... 2‐5
Figure 3‐1. Sphere of Influence and WWTP Location Map ........................................................................ 3‐3
Figure 3‐2. Process Flow Schematic ........................................................................................................... 3‐4
Figure 3‐3. Seasonal Variation of Average Monthly Flow .......................................................................... 3‐6
Figure 4‐1. Santa Maria Groundwater Subareas (9) .................................................................................. 4‐9
Figure 5‐1. Potential Disinfected Tertiary RW Use ‐ Northern Section Map ............................................. 5‐5
Figure 5‐2. Potential Disinfected Tertiary RW Use ‐Southern Section Map .............................................. 5‐6
Figure 5‐3. Potential Groundwater Recharge Areas in the NCMA ............................................................ 5‐8
Figure 7‐1. Alternative 1 – Secondary‐23 Overview .................................................................................. 7‐4
Figure 7‐2. Alternative 2 – Disinfected Tertiary Overview ......................................................................... 7‐6
Figure 7‐3. Estimated Seasonal Irrigation Consumption Per Segment ..................................................... 7‐8
Figure 7‐4. Northern Area ‐ Potential RW Customers ............................................................................ 7‐11
Figure 7‐5. Southern Area ‐ Potential RW Customers ............................................................................ 7‐12
Figure 7‐6. Simplified Process Flow Diagram to meet Disinfected Tertiary Requirements .................... 7‐15
Figure 7‐7. Simplified Process Flow Diagram for Full Advanced Treatment ........................................... 7‐20
Figure 7‐8. Alternative 3a Overview ........................................................................................................ 7‐23
Figure 7‐9. Alternative 3b Overview ....................................................................................................... 7‐27
Figure 7‐10. Alternatives Evaluation Results .......................................................................................... 7‐33
Figure 8‐1. Conceptual Site Layout for Recommended Alternative .......................................................... 8‐2
Figure 8‐2. Interest Rate and Unit Cost Comparison ................................................................................. 8‐5
Figure 8‐3. Recommended Alternative Overview ..................................................................................... 8‐6
Figure 9‐1. CCRWQCB Permitting Process ................................................................................................ 9‐4
Figure 9‐2. Preliminary Implementation Schedule ................................................................................... 9‐7
City of Pismo Beach List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
The abbreviations included in this report are spelled out in the text the first time they are used and are
subsequently identified by abbreviation only. A summary of the abbreviations used in this report is
provided in Table 1.
Note: References are noted throughout the text of this report with the reference number in
parentheses, i.e. (2). See Chapter 11 for the corresponding reference information.
Table 1. Table of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Description
AF Acre‐foot or Acre‐feet
AFY Acre‐feet per year
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AOP Advanced Oxidation Process
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast
Basin (2010)
CCF/Year 100 Cubic Feet per Year
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCRWQCB Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
CCWA Central Coast Water Authority
CEC Constituent of Emerging Concern
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHG Cleath‐Harris Geologist, Inc
City City of Pismo Beach
Coastal Act California Coastal Act of 1976
County San Luis Obispo County
Court Superior Court of California
CPI Western Region Consumer Price Index
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
CWC California Water Code
DDW Division of Drinking Water – California State Water
Resources Control Board
District San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FAT Full Advanced Treatment
Ft Foot
City of Pismo Beach List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 viii
Abbreviation Description
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information System
GPCD Gallons per Capita per Day
GPM Gallons per Minute
GRRP Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project
HCF Hundred Cubic Feet
HGL Hydraulic Grade Line
Hp Horsepower
In Inch
IPR Indirect Potable Reuse
Judgment Judgment After Trial
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
lbs/day Pounds per Day
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MF Microfiltration
μs/cm Microsiemens per centimeter
MG Million gallons
MGD Million gallons per day
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
mg/L as CaCO3 Milligrams per Liter as Calcium Carbonate
ml/L/hr Milliliters per Liter per Hour
MMD Maximum Month Day
MPN Most Probable Number
MPN/100 ml Most Probable Number per 100 milliliters
MSL Mean Sea Level
NCMA Northern Cities Management Area
NDMA N‐nitrosodimethylamine
NMMA Nipomo Mesa Management Area
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
OCSD Oceano Community Services District
PFD Process Flow Diagram
PSI Pounds per Square Inch
PSIG Pounds per Square Inch Gauge
RO Reverse Osmosis
RRWSP San Luis Obispo County Regional Recycled Water
Strategic Plan (2014)
RW Recycled Water
RW Policy Recycled Water Policy – California State Water
Resources Control Board
RWC Recycled Water Contribution
RWCmax Recycled Water Maximum Initial Contribution
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio
SAT Soil Aquifer Treatment
City of Pismo Beach List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 ix
Abbreviation Description
SMGB Santa Maria Groundwater Basin
SMVMA Santa Maria Valley Management Area
SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
SOI Sphere of Influence
South County South San Luis Obispo County
SRF State Revolving Fund
SSLOCSD South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District
Sub‐basin Tri‐Cities Mesa Sub‐basin
SWP State Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
Title 22 Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, Section 60301 et
seq., California Code of Regulations
TM Technical Memorandum
UF Ultrafiltration
UV Ultraviolet
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WDR Water Discharge Requirement
WRR Water Reclamation Requirement
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
City of Pismo Beach Executive Summary
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 ES‐1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The City of Pismo Beach (City) conducted this Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study (RWFPS) to
investigate alternatives for constructing a recycled water (RW) system that will enable the City to produce
and beneficially use RW to enhance its water supply portfolio. The City’s Wastewater treatment plant
currently treats approximately 1.1 million gallons of wastewater per day and discharges the treated
effluent to the ocean. Developing a RW system to reuse this water would allow the City and potential
partnering agencies to offset existing and future water demands and/or provide a new, drought proof,
source of water supply for the region. The RWFPS is funded in part by a grant from the California State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Recycling Funding Program.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR RECYCLED WATER
The City developed goals and objectives for RW through numerous meetings held with potential
stakeholders, partner agencies and City staff, considering information presented in prior water supply and
RW studies, and based on direction given by the City Council. The resulting goals and objectives are
summarized as follows:
1. Offset potable water uses to the extent practicable
2. Further diversify the City’s water supply portfolio by developing a local, sustainable and highly
reliable water supply
3. Provide a new source of recharge to the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (SMGB)
4. Relieve increased water demand due to proposed development
5. Develop a viable RW project in a timely manner to facilitate regional use of RW in South County
6. Secure outside funding and/or financing to support the development of the City’s RW system
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
A total of four alternatives were identified to be further developed and evaluated in this RWFPS:
Alternative 1: Providing RW at Disinfected Secondary‐23 standards for restricted reuse
Alternative 2: Providing RW at Disinfected Tertiary standards for unrestricted landscape irrigation
Alternative 3a: Providing RW that meets the standards for groundwater recharge for injection as
a coastal seawater intrusion barrier
Alternative 3b: Providing RW that meets the standards for groundwater recharge for injection
directly into the inland aquifer
A review of the City’s recent irrigation meter consumption records identified current customers who could
potentially be converted to use RW for irrigation under either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. This would
provide a direct offset to potable water use, but there is not sufficient demand to use the entire available
supply for either alternative. As a result, unit cost per acre‐foot (AF) of RW use are high for these
alternatives.
A preliminary hydrogeologic analysis was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of recharge basins and/or
injection wells for groundwater recharge and to identify conceptual design criteria for groundwater
recharge facilities. Injection wells were identified as the most feasible method of achieving groundwater
recharge for both Alternatives 3a and 3b, although a small portion of water could potentially be recharged
City of Pismo Beach Executive Summary
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 ES‐2
at existing storm water ponds overlying the SMGB. Due to limited storage capacity in the portion of the
SMGB underlying the Northern Cities area, the ability to continuously inject water depends upon
maintaining similar extraction rates at municipal wells. The preliminary hydrogeologic analysis is
summarized in Section 5.2. Full advanced treatment (FAT) upgrades are required to produce RW of
sufficient quality for groundwater recharge. Implementing groundwater recharge meets the goal of
diversifying the City’s water supply portfolio by developing a local, sustainable and highly reliable water
supply and provides a new source of recharge to the SMGB. It also helps to protect the SMGB from
seawater intrusion in the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA), which improves the reliability of and
access to existing groundwater supplies. These benefits are realized by all of the agencies who produce
groundwater from the portion of the SMGB underlying the NCMA, and potentially other producers as
well.
The alternatives were evaluated and ranked on the basis of the following qualitative, non‐economic
criteria, which are described further in Section 7.5.1:
Promotes Beneficial Management of Water Resources
Promotes Salt & Nutrient Management
Improves Basin Water Quality
O&M Complexity
Expandability
Ease of Implementation
Funding Opportunity
Consistency with Project Goals & Objectives
The total scores resulting from the qualitative analysis are presented in Table ES‐1.
Table ES‐1. RW Alternatives Qualitative Analysis Summary
Alternative Total Qualitative
Score
Alternative 1 – Secondary‐23 Irrigation 39.5
Alternative 2 – Tertiary Irrigation 44
Alternative 3a – FAT for Coastal Injection 70
Alternative 3b – FAT for Inland Injection 70
The alternatives were also compared on the basis of quantitative criteria, including Annualized Unit
Cost/AF and Water Recoverable for Beneficial Use. A summary of the results of the quantitative
comparison is presented in Table ES‐2 on page ES‐3.
City of Pismo Beach Executive Summary
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 ES‐3
Table ES‐2. RW Alternatives Quantitative Analysis Summary
Alternative
Alternative 1
Secondary‐23
Irrigation
Alternative 2
Tertiary
Irrigation
Alternative 3a
FAT for Coastal
Injection
Alternative 3b
FAT for Inland
Injection
Total Capital Cost $4,963,000 $20,679,000 $27,045,000 $29,708,000
Annual O&M Cost $44,000 $236,000 $598,000 $628,000
Total RW Used (AFY) 17 214 9301 9301
Annualized Cost ($/AF)2 $15,900 $5,400 $1,900 $2,100
Estimated % Recoverable 100% 100% 70% 75%
Estimated AFY
Recoverable 17 214 651 698
Annualized Cost ($/AF
Recoverable) $15,900 $5,400 $2,700 $2,800
Notes:
1. Based on estimate of actual RW production at buildout
2. The annualized unit cost is calculated by adding the annual payment for borrowed capital costs to the annual O&M cost
and dividing by the annual project yield. Annual payment for borrowed capital is based on an interest rate of 5% over
a payback period of 30 years.
The alternatives were also compared on the basis of the total qualitative scores and two quantitative
criteria: 1) Annualized Unit Cost/AF and 2) Water Recoverable for Beneficial Use. Each alternative
received a ranking between 1 and 4, with 1 being the most favorable and 4 being the least favorable. The
results of the alternatives ranking are presented in Table ES‐3 and the complete alternatives analysis is
presented in Chapter 7.
Table ES‐3. RW Alternatives Ranking Summary
Alternative Qualitative/Non
Economic Score
Annualized
Cost/AF
Recoverable
Water
Recoverable for
Beneficial Use
Alternative 1 – Secondary‐23 Irrigation 4 4 4
Alternative 2 – Tertiary Irrigation 3 3 3
Alternative 3a – FAT for Coastal Injection 1 1 2
Alternative 3b – FAT for Inland Injection 1 2 1
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The alternatives analysis concluded that groundwater recharge is the most favorable alternative;
Alternatives 3a and 3b received similar rankings. Based on the preliminary hydrologic assessment
completed as part of this RWFPS, both coastal and inland injection wells warrant further investigation.
For the purposes of this RWFPS, Alternative 3b for inland recharge is being carried forward as the
recommended alternative because it has the highest volume of water estimated to be recoverable for
beneficial use and the cost difference from Alternative 3a is considered insignificant at this preliminary
planning stage. However, a combination of coastal and/or inland injection wells should be considered in
City of Pismo Beach Executive Summary
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 ES‐4
subsequent analyses to develop the most beneficial groundwater recharge program for the City and
NCMA agencies. The recommended project is presented in more detail in Chapter 8.
FUNDING AND FINANCING
It is anticipated that the project will be funded through a combination of grants, low interest loans and
cost‐sharing contributions from partner agencies. The loans are anticipated to be secured through water
rates since the project benefits potable water supply.
The project unit costs presented in Table ES‐2 on page ES‐3 are based on borrowing 100% of the project
cost at 5% interest for a 30 year term, to be consistent with the assumptions used in the 2014 San Luis
Obispo County Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP). However, it is likely that project
financing can be secured at a lower interest rate through current financing programs, and obtaining grants
would reduce the required principal. Figure ES‐1 illustrates the range of annualized unit costs based on
varying interest rates. The figure also illustrates the difference in unit cost for the WWTP flow as of 2013
(860 AFY total yield, 645 AFY recoverable) and the buildout WWTP flow (930 AFY total yield, 698 AFY
recoverable).
Figure ES‐1. Interest Rate and Unit Cost Comparison
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
$2,000
$2,100
$2,200
$2,300
$2,400
$2,500
$2,600
$2,700
$2,800
$2,900
$3,000
$3,100
$3,200
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%Annualized Unit Cost ($/AF Recoverable)Interest Rate
698 AFY (Buildout)645 AFY (2013)
$1,940/AF
$2,120/AF
$2,790/AF
$2,090/AF
$2,290/AF
$3,010/AF
1%
Water Bond
2%
SRF Average
5%
RRWSP
City of Pismo Beach 1. Introduction
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 1‐1
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Pismo Beach (City) contracted with Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) to provide
engineering services to develop a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study (RWFPS). The purpose of the
RWFPS is to investigate alternatives for implementing a recycled water (RW) system to improve the
reliability of the City’s water supply portfolio. Developing a RW system would allow the City and potential
partnering agencies to offset some of the existing and future water demands and provide a new, drought
proof, source of water for the region. The RWFPS is funded in part by a grant from the California State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Recycling Funding Program.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The City is located in San Luis Obispo County (County) in the central coastal region of California (Figure
1‐1 on page 1‐2). The City is considered a part of the area known as “Five Cities” in southern San Luis
Obispo County (South County), which includes the incorporated cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach
and Pismo Beach, as well as the unincorporated communities of Oceano and Halcyon. The Oceano
Community Services District (OCSD) provides water and sewer service to the communities of Oceano and
Halcyon. Interstate Highway 101 runs from north to south through the City, which serves as the major
connecting corridor to San Luis Obispo (approximately 13 miles north), Santa Maria (approximately 20
miles south), and Santa Barbara (approximately 80 miles south). The City is bordered by the Pacific Ocean
on the west and Price Canyon on the east. Elevations within the City limits range from zero to
approximately 600 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The City’s existing water supplies and infrastructure
are described in Section 2, and their wastewater systems are described in Section 3.
1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR RECYCLED WATER
The City developed its goals and objectives for RW through numerous meetings held with potential
stakeholders and City staff, multiple RW studies, and based on direction given by the City Council. Based
on these efforts, the goals and objectives identified to guide the development of a RW program are
summarized as follows:
1. Offset some potable water uses
2. Further diversify the City’s water supply portfolio by developing a local, sustainable and highly reliable
water supply
3. Provide a new source of recharge to the SMGB
4. Relieve increased water demand due to proposed development
5. Develop a viable RW project in a timely manner to facilitate regional use of RW in South County
6. Secure outside funding and/or financing to support the development of the City’s RW system
City of Pismo Beach 1. Introduction
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 1‐2
Figure 1‐1. City of Pismo Beach Vicinity Map
City of Pismo Beach 1. Introduction
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 1‐3
1.3 SERVICE AREA POPULATION
As of January 1, 2010, the City had a population of 7,676 people in its incorporated areas, representing
2.9 percent of the County population. While the City saw moderate growth of 1.4 percent between 1995
and 2000, the City’s population has declined each year since 2000. In fact, the City’s average annual
growth rate between 1995 and 2010 is a net decline of 0.3 percent annually, and, as of 2010, has nearly
returned to its 1990 census population of 7,669 (1). According to the City’s 2010 UWMP, the reasons for
the City’s long‐term population decline is likely due to a number of factors, including the high cost of living,
an aging population and limited development (2).
The City’s General Plan predicts that future population growth in the City will primarily be driven by two
contributing factors: re‐development within the current City limits; and growth as a result of new
developments on currently undeveloped properties within the City’s Sphere of Influence (3). The City’s
General Plan specifies a limit on annual growth of 3 percent. If buildout within the current City limits,
estimated at 9,414, were assumed to occur by 2035, the City would experience an average annual growth
rate of approximately 0.8 percent (4). Therefore, for planning purposes, this RWFPS will assume an
average annual growth within the current City limits of 0.8 percent until buildout is reached, potentially
by 2035.
Additionally, the City has the potential to experience population growth as a result primarily of two
proposed development projects: Price Canyon and Los Robles Del Mar. Both projects are currently
outside the City limits but within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). Based on current planning
documents available for both development projects, Price Canyon and Los Robles Del Mar have the
potential to increase the City’s population by up to 2,440 people and would increase water demand and
wastewater generation for the City. In November 2014, Pismo Beach voters passed Measure H‐14, which
applies to the land on which the Price Canyon development is proposed, if it is annexed into the City.
Measure H‐14 amended the City’s General Plan to zone the area as a watershed and resource
management area and limited the area to primarily agricultural uses for the next 30 years. A project
proposing any other use would be subject to approval by the voters. Additionally, there is outstanding
litigation related to the annexation of the Los Robles Del Mar development. It is currently unknown
whether either project will receive the necessary Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), City
and/or voter approval; therefore, projected growth due to the Price Canyon and Los Robles Del Mar
developments is not included in the RWFPS. If and when either project is developed, it is assumed that
they will undergo a project‐specific water supply and RW analysis at the time of development and will be
subject to the City’s RW requirements in effect at that time. Table 1‐1 describes the City’s projected
population based on the planning criteria described above. Figure 1‐2 on page 1‐4 provides a graphical
representation of the City’s historical and projected population.
City of Pismo Beach 1. Introduction
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 1‐4
Table 1‐1. Historical and Projected Future Population
Years 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Service Area
Population(1) 7,680 8,000 8,330 8,680 9,040 9,410
Notes:
1. Service area population is defined as the population served by the distribution system. Projected population based on
estimates of regrowth within the City’s current City limits, up to its buildout population of 9,414, assumed to occur by
2035. This equates to an annual average growth rate of 0.8%.
Figure 1‐2. Historical and Projected Population
1.4 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES
1.4.1 City Boundary and Sphere of Influence
A large portion of the City lies within the Coastal Zone as designated by the California Coastal Act of 1976
(Coastal Act). Since the City’s western border stretches along the Pacific Ocean shoreline for
approximately seven miles, the City is required to have a Local Coastal Plan that is certified by the
California Coastal Commission; the City’s General Plan serves additionally as its Local Coastal Plan.
The City’s General Plan, updated in 1992 and amended several times between 1998 and 2010, identifies
boundaries associated with two planning areas: the incorporated area within the City limits and the
unincorporated area, which is a combination of the SOI and Extended Planning Area. The City’s Extended
Planning Area is a term used to describe the area encompassed by the SOI and any land outside its
boundaries that may be considered in the City’s future planning efforts. The City’s SOI (Figure 1‐3 on page
1‐6) represents the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area to which the City may extend
its services and project its growth. The County LAFCo adopted the City’s original SOI in 1983 and amended
it in 1987 and 2002. On February 19, 2008, the City Council authorized the initiation of a General Plan
Update study for properties within Price Canyon, including lands currently within the adopted SOI and
abutting properties within the City’s Extended Planning Area (5). The proposed SOI, included in Figure
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Projected Population Historic Population
City of Pismo Beach 1. Introduction
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 1‐5
1‐3, is coterminous with the boundaries of the Price Canyon Planning Area. The SOI descriptions provided
in this report include the City’s current SOI as of the 1992 General Plan update in addition to the proposed
SOI expansion detailed in the Price Canyon Specific Plan and Los Robles del Mar Area Annexation
Addendum.
The City has historically been a popular tourist destination and tourism continues to be the dominant
economic sector in the City. Though the City’s permanent population (discussed in Section 1.3) is relatively
small, visitors during the summer and on holidays can increase the population from 33 percent up to two
hundred or sometimes three hundred percent (6).
1.4.2 Northern Cities Management Area
The Northern Cities, comprised of the OCSD and the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Pismo
Beach, have a long history of cooperative management of their shared water resources, and continue to
actively work together to manage groundwater and surface water supplies for a combined service area
population of approximately 46,000. The Northern Cities initiated collaborative management of their
portion of the SMGB in 1983, with the development of the Agreement Regarding Management of the
Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin (Gentlemen’s Agreement). In 1997, the SMGB became subject to
litigation and in 2005 the Northern Cities and other Parties entered into the 2005 Stipulation, which
formally divided the SMGB into three management areas: the NCMA; the Nipomo Mesa Management
Area (NMMA); and the Santa Maria Valley Management Area (SMVMA). The boundaries of each of the
management areas are shown in Figure 1‐4 on page 1‐7. The Superior Court of California (Court) later
adopted the Stipulation in its January 25, 2008 Judgment After Trial (Judgment).
City of Pismo Beach 1. Introduction Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 1‐6 Figure 1‐3. Sphere of Influence
City of Pismo Beach 1. Introduction Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 1‐7 Figure 1‐4. SMGB Management Areas
City of Pismo Beach 1. Introduction
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 1‐8
1.5 STUDY AREA
As described in Section 1.2, the City desires to facilitate use of RW in the South County region. The Study
Area for this report extends beyond the City’s jurisdictional boundaries and includes the entirety of the
NCMA, which is shown in Figure 1‐4 on page 1‐7.
1.6 RELATED INITIATIVES
There are several other regional initiatives related to water supply and RW which are ongoing or have
recently been completed. The goals and recommendations presented in this Study are intended to work
conjunctively with these related initiatives to improve, increase and/or protect regional water supplies.
These related initiatives are summarized in the following subsections.
1.6.1 San Luis Obispo County Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan
The San Luis Obispo County RRWSP was completed in November 2014. The purpose of the of the RRWSP
was to identify and prioritize potentially viable next steps in successfully implementing water reclamation
in a safe and cost effective way across the County. The RRWSP focused on four study areas, including
Morro Bay, Nipomo Community Services District, Northern Cities and Templeton Community Services
District. The RRWSP used technical information developed by each agency and updated information
presented in prior reports. High priority projects were identified based on costs and benefits. The RRWSP
recommends next steps for each study area and includes policy, regulatory, permitting, legal, and
funding/financing considerations.
The RRWSP investigated the use of the City’s WWTP effluent for 1) irrigation use within the City and 2)
use in a regional RW project in combination with the South San Luis Obispo Community Services District
(SSLOCSD) WWTP effluent. The RRWSP identified potential constraints and next steps for further
exploration, including:
Explore alternative treatment other than tertiary
Compare viable projects with alternative water supplies
Continue to participate in discussion with regional SSLOCSD projects that could use the City’s
effluent in a beneficial use and confirm the ability of the City to receive a water supply benefit
Incorporate the salt and nutrient management planning into water, wastewater and RW planning
Further investigate the water supply benefits of implementing a small groundwater recharge
project
Determine if the close proximity of potable water wells to the recharge basins is a fatal flaw
Investigate the NCMA groundwater basin, potentially with a groundwater model, to identify
surface recharge locations
Determine benefits of and need for a seawater intrusion barrier
1.6.2 San Luis Obispo County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
In 2014, the County of San Luis Obispo, in conjunction with the San Luis Obispo Regional Water
Management Group, prepared an update to the San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management
Plan (IRWMP). The IRWMP presents a comprehensive water resources management approach to
managing the region’s water resources that focuses on strategies to improve the sustainability of current
and future needs for San Luis Obispo County. The IRWMP was also developed to help coordinate local,
regional and statewide water resource management efforts.
City of Pismo Beach 1. Introduction
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 1‐9
The top three issues identified by the IRWMP stakeholders for San Luis Obispo County include: water
supply; groundwater management; and water reclamation from wastewater treatment. To assist in
addressing these priority issues a select group of projects, including the Pismo Beach Recycled Water
Project, was selected as one of the High Priority Projects, for inclusion in the San Luis Obispo IRWMP and
potential future grant funding applications.
1.6.3 Northern Cities Management Area Strategic Plan
In June 2014, the NCMA Technical Group (TG) developed a strategic plan to provide the TG with: 1) a
mission statement to guide future initiatives; 2) a framework for communicating water resources goals;
and 3) a formalized work plan for the next 10 years. The mission statement for the TG is as follows:
“Preserve and enhance the sustainability of water supplies for the Northern Cities by:
Enhancing supply reliability
Protecting water quality
Maintaining cost –effective water supplies
Advancing the legacy of cooperative water resource management”
Utilizing a screening and objective ranking process, the TG identified the following list of strategies for
improving the sustainability of water resources in the NCMA:
Enhanced Management of NCMA Groundwater
Improve Inter‐agency Coordination
Develop Supplemental Supply
Improve Water Management Governance
Develop Regional UWMP and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Enhance Management of Surface Water
Included within each strategy is a series of initiatives that make up the TG’s work plan for the next 10
years. The highest priority initiative identified by the TG was the development of a groundwater model
to help improve their understanding of the groundwater basin. It is envisioned that the groundwater
model will allow the TG to further evaluate groundwater management and supplemental water supply
strategies (e.g. groundwater recharge with recycled water) to prevent seawater intrusion and improve
the water supply reliability of their groundwater supplies.
1.6.4 South San Luis Obispo Community Services District Recycled Water Facilities Planning
Study
The SSLOCSD and the City of Arroyo Grande have partnered to fund the development of a RWFPS for a
potential Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facility (SWRRF). A SWRRF would allow for the capture and
treatment of wastewater, at a location within the SSLOCSD’s collection system outside of the Coastal
Zone, to develop a supplemental supply source that could be utilized to offset groundwater pumping or
recharge the groundwater basin within the NCMA and/or possibly the NMMA. Additionally, it is
envisioned that the SWRRF would assist the SSLOCSD in meeting the redundancy requirements that the
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) has placed on its existing wastewater
treatment plant. The RWFPS will include evaluating and identifying a preferred SWRRF alternative and
City of Pismo Beach 1. Introduction
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 1‐10
developing an implementation plan. It is anticipated that the RWFPS will be partially funded through a
SWRCB Water Recycling Facilities Planning Grant.
The SSLOCSD RWFPS will be completed after this RWFPS and will consider the analysis and recommended
project presented herein when evaluating alternatives within the NCMA.
City of Pismo Beach 2. Water Supplies and Characteristics
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 2‐1
2 WATER SUPPLIES AND CHARACTERISTICS
The City’s water supply sources include surface water purchased from the Lopez Project and the State
Water Project (SWP) as well as groundwater from the SMGB. Table 2‐1 presents the current and projected
water supplies available to the City. Additional information about the City’s water supply sources can be
found in the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). As shown in Table 2‐1 the City’s water supply is
not expected to increase in the future.
Table 2‐1. Water Supplies ‐ Current and Projected (3)
Water Supply Sources Projected Water Supply (AFY)
Water purchased
from:
Wholesaler 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Lopez Reservoir Yes 892 892 892 892 892 892
State Water
Project1
Yes 1,240 1,240 1,240 1,240 1,240 1,240
Groundwater from
the SMGB2
No 700 700 700 700 700 700
Total 2,832 2,832 2,832 2,832 2,832 2,832
Notes:
1. The City’s current entitlement of SWP supply totals 1,240 AFY. Of this, 40 acre‐foot (AF) is allocated to Brad
Wilde Pismo 98, LLC (Preserve Property) and a 100 AF is allocated to Los Robles Del Mar. Therefore the current
supply available to the City is 1,100 AFY.
2. Groundwater supplies include the 700 AFY allocation from the NCMA of the Tri‐Cities Mesa Sub‐basin.
2.1 SURFACE WATER
The City’s possesses water supply contracts with the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (District) for its Lopez Project and SWP surface water supplies.
2.1.1 Lopez Project
The Lopez Project consists of Lopez Lake and Dam, Lopez Terminal Reservoir, Lopez Water Treatment
Plant and the Lopez Pipeline with turnouts. Water from Lopez Reservoir is diverted to the Lopez Terminal
Reservoir, treated at the Lopez Water Treatment Plant and delivered to Pismo Beach through the Lopez
Pipeline, through one of the City’s four Lopez Pipeline turnouts.
The reservoir’s total capacity is 51,990 AF and has an identified safe yield of 8,730 AFY. Of this safe yield,
4,530 AFY is allocated for diversion to municipal users and 4,200 AFY is allocated for downstream release
to Arroyo Grande Creek for agricultural irrigation, groundwater recharge and environmental habitat. Of
the 4,530 AFY for municipal diversion, the City is currently allocated 892 AFY of water from the Lopez
Project. Surplus Water from the reservoir is periodically available, but not on a consistent basis.
2.1.2 State Water Project
The City is a SWP subcontractor through a subcontract with the District. The District is a primary SWP
contractor with DWR and serves as the entity through which the City receives its SWP allocation. The
Coastal Branch pipeline, which connects to the California Aqueduct, delivers water from the SWP system
to the SWP subcontractors in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. The District possesses a
City of Pismo Beach 2. Water Supplies and Characteristics
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 2‐2
contract with the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) for treatment of its SWP supplies at the Polonio
Pass Water Treatment Plant. The District takes delivery of the treated SWP water at the Lopez Turnout,
located along the Coastal Branch pipeline near the Lopez WTP. Treated SWP water is blended with treated
Lopez Project water at the Lopez Water Treatment Plant Clearwell and delivered to the City through the
City’s four Lopez Pipeline turnouts. The City’s current contract entitlement amount of SWP with the
District is 1,240 AFY.
In addition, the District operates a drought buffer program whereby agencies subcontractors,
participating in the SWP through the District, can purchase additional SWP supply allocation for an annual
fee. Drought buffer water is water that has no associated pipeline capacity for delivery. Rather, it is used
to increase deliveries during time of drought when available deliveries are reduced. The City current has
a contract for 1,240 AFY of drought buffer with the District.
2.2 GROUNDWATER BASIN, MANAGEMENT AND OVERDRAFT
The city limits for the City overly a portion of the NCMA of the SMGB, with the majority of the City’s
boundary service area being located outside of the SMGB boundary. However, the City’s groundwater
production wells are located within the SMGB and the basin is an important component of the City’s water
supply portfolio.
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) identifies the SMGB as basin Number 3‐12, as described in
DWR Bulletin 118, and defines its boundaries to include Santa Maria Valley, the Nipomo Mesa, Tri‐Cities
Mesas, Arroyo Grande Plain, and the Arroyo Grande and Pismo Creek Valleys. The entire SMGB is
approximately 288 square miles (184,000 acres).
The City currently extracts groundwater from the Arroyo Grande Plain of the Tri‐Cities Mesa Sub‐basin
(Sub‐basin), which is the northern most portion of the SMGB. The NCMA includes the Tri‐Cities Mesa and
Arroyo Grande Plain portions of the SMGB. As discussed in Section 1.4.2, the SMGB is adjudicated. The
safe yield of the Sub‐basin was estimated at 9,500 AFY.
Natural recharge of the SMGB within the NCMA comes from seepage losses from major streams,
percolation of rainfall, and subsurface flow. Percolation of flow in Pismo Creek provides recharge for the
northern portion of the SMGB. Percolation of flow in Arroyo Grande Creek, controlled by releases from
Lopez Dam, provides recharge for the Tri‐Cities Mesa, Arroyo Grande Plain, and Arroyo Grande Valley
portions of the SMGB. Incidental recharge results from deep percolation of urban and agricultural return
water, and septic tank effluent. Some subsurface flow comes from consolidated rocks surrounding the
NCMA.
As described in Section 1.4.2, the Northern Cities are responsible for the management of the groundwater
within the NCMA. The Judgment requires that each Management Area develop a monitoring program
that must include data collection and monitoring. This information must be presented to the Court in an
annual report that summarizes the results of the monitoring program, changes in groundwater supplies
and any threats to groundwater supplies.
City of Pismo Beach 2. Water Supplies and Characteristics
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 2‐3
The 2008 Annual Monitoring Report for the NCMA indicated that drought conditions and subsequent
increased groundwater pumping were causing groundwater elevations to drop below MSL, increasing the
risk for and potentially causing seawater intrusion into the coastal groundwater aquifers. Monitoring in
2009 detected water quality constituents consistent with seawater intrusion in one of NCMA monitoring
wells. These findings sparked an aggressive campaign from the City and its NCMA partners to limit water
consumption, reduce groundwater pumping, increase groundwater elevations and prevent seawater
intrusion. The City and the NCMA agencies intentionally shifted their production strategy to utilize
available surface water supplies to alleviate stress on groundwater supply. As a result of these
groundwater conservation activities, the NCMA agencies were able to decrease their total groundwater
pumping to 1,544 AFY in 2013, a decrease of 51 percent since 2008.
The 2013 NCMA Annual Report identified that groundwater elevations are highest in the eastern portion
of the NCMA and drop to approximately 5 ft above MSL along the coastline. It also identified that there
are pumping depressions within the NCMA associated with municipal and agricultural pumping. The area
with lowest groundwater elevations occurred in the east‐central part of the NCMA in the vicinity of, and
south of, lower Arroyo Grande Creek. Though the pumping depression persists in the north‐central
portion on the NCMA where the municipal wells fields are located, other measured groundwater
elevations have recovered to above sea level conditions, decreasing the risk for seawater intrusion.
However, seawater intrusion from the coastal zone into fresh groundwater supply remains a primary
concern for the City and for the SMGB in general.
2.2.1 Groundwater Pumping Facilities
The City’s groundwater is pumped from two wells located outside of its City limits in Grover Beach. Table
2‐2 describes the existing well supply capacity of the two groundwater wells currently in use by the City.
Table 2‐2. Existing Groundwater Wells (3)
Well
Number
Location Year Installed Casing Depth
(feet)
Production
Capacity
(GPM)
5 8th Street and Grand Avenue 1973 500 600
23 900 Block of Huber Street 1990 395 950
Total (GPM) 1,550
2.3 WATER QUALITY
As reported in the 2010 UWMP, all of the City’s water supplies consistently meet state and federal primary
and secondary drinking water standards. The primary water quality factor affecting supply reliability for
the City is the threat of seawater intrusion into its groundwater supplies. Under natural and historical
conditions, a net outflow of freshwater from the groundwater basin towards the ocean has kept the
seawater/freshwater interface from moving onshore. However, as described previously, during a period
of depressed groundwater levels in 2007 through 2009, water quality constituents consistent with
seawater intrusion were detected in one of NCMA monitoring wells. Through implementation of
additional water conservation efforts, increased surface water importation and improved hydrologic
conditions, groundwater levels and water quality in the monitoring wells recovered in 2010.
City of Pismo Beach 2. Water Supplies and Characteristics
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 2‐4
However, in late 2013 and throughout most of 2014, groundwater levels within the NCMA monitoring
wells have dropped to levels similar to those seen in 2008 and 2009. This drop in groundwater levels has
occurred in spite of significantly reduced municipal groundwater pumping and increased conservation
efforts. Additionally, a deepening pumping depression within the NMMA appears to have reduced or
eliminated the groundwater divide between the NCMA and NMMA. With the loss of this divide there has
been a reversal of groundwater gradients and the development of a landward gradient in the southern
portion of the NCMA. This landward gradient creates conditions favorable for seawater intrusion in the
NCMA and NMMA (7). In spite of the NCMA agencies’ ongoing efforts to reduce their groundwater
pumping to amounts well below the identified safe yield for the NCMA (8), groundwater levels have
declined to levels that are similar to those observed in 2009, when seawater intrusion was detected in
one of the NCMA TG’s coastal monitoring wells. Given the decreased groundwater levels, the NCMA
agencies are very concerned that seawater could intrude into the basin and impact the water quality of
their groundwater supplies.
2.4 WATER RIGHTS
As stated in Section 2.2, the safe yield of the Sub‐basin was estimated at 9,500 AFY. The SMGB is
adjudicated and the City is allocated 700 AFY of the identified safe yield of Sub‐basin, as dictated by the
Judgment, which is discussed in Section 1.4.2.
2.5 WATER USE TRENDS
The City provides potable water service to its residential, commercial, landscape, and institutional
customers within its service area. Projected water demands were determined using the interim and target
per capita consumption rates as described in the 2010 UWMP, with the application of conservation
targets. These per capita consumption rates were applied to the projected population of the City as
described in Section 1.3. The projected demands include system losses, which the City estimates to be
10%. Projected water demands are presented in Table 2‐3. The historical and projected future water
demands are presented in Figure 2‐1 on page 2‐5.
Table 2‐3. Projected Water Demands
Year Distribution System
Population1
Projected Water Use2
MGD AFY
2015 7,996 1.88 2,108
2020 8,329 1.76 1,970
2025 8,676 1.83 2,053
2030 9,038 1.91 2,138
2035 9,414 1.99 2,227
Notes:
1. Distribution system population projections estimated as described in Section 1.3.
2. Demand projections are based on the City’s per capita water use targets for 2015 and 2020.
City of Pismo Beach 2. Water Supplies and Characteristics
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 2‐5
Figure 2‐1. Historic and Projected Water Demand
2.6 WATER PRICING
The City’s water rates are designed using the commodity‐demand methodology. In the commodity‐
demand method, revenue requirements are assigned as commodity costs (variable costs), demand costs
(fixed costs), and customer costs (fixed costs). Water rates are based on rates per HCF to account for
variable costs and water service charges to account for fixed costs.
The City is a member of the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC), and as such has
designed its rates to comply with the CUWCC Best Management Practice No. 1.4, to recover 30% of
revenues from fixed costs and 70% from variable costs to encourage conservation (7). The City’s billing
cycle is bi‐monthly and the current rate structure is shown in Table 2‐4 and Table 2‐5 on page 2‐6.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035Demand (AFY)Projected Demands w/ Conservation Historic Water Use
City of Pismo Beach 2. Water Supplies and Characteristics
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 2‐6
Table 2‐4. Water Rates (Effective July 2014)
Service Type
Water
Rates Per
HCF
Single
Family
Residential
Tier One (0‐10 HCF) $ 2.60
Tier Two (11‐20 HCF) $ 3.22
Tier Three (21‐35 (HCF) $ 3.80
Tier Four (Over 35 HCF) $ 5.20
Multi Family, Mobile Homes $ 3.22
Commercial $ 3.22
Irrigation $ 3.80
Construction/Hydrant $ 6.44
Municipal $ 3.22
Municipal Irrigation $ 3.80
Table 2‐5. Current Water Service Charges (Effective July 2014)
Meter Size Water Service
Charge
5/8" S 25.43
3/4" S 25.43
1" S 50.85
1 1/2" S 84.67
2" S 135.53
3" S 254.27
4" S 423.87
6" S 1,017.09
2.7 PLANS FOR NEW FACILITIES OR ADDITIONAL WATER SOURCES
If implemented, any development in Price Canyon and Los Robles Del Mar will require additional water
sources to provide long‐term sufficient supply for its residents and visitors. As described in Section 1.3,
these developments are not considered in this RWFPS and will be addressed on a project‐specific basis.
City of Pismo Beach 3. Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 3‐1
3 WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES
The City owns and operates a 1.9 million gallon per day (mgd) wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
located adjacent to Pismo Creek. The WWTP discharges secondary treated municipal wastewater to the
Pacific Ocean through an outfall diffuser system jointly owned by the City and the South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) and is located near Oceano, California. The location of the WWTP is
shown in Figure 3‐1 on page 3‐3.
The WWTP receives wastewater from the City owned collection system that consists of gravity sewers, lift
stations and force mains. The City’s service area and anticipated future service area annexations are
discussed in Section 1.4.1.
3.1 EXISTING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
The wastewater stream that is treated by the WWTP consists largely of sewage generated from urban
land uses. Domestic wastewater is the primary constituent with a small measure of commercial and light
industrial waste. There are no significant sources of major industrial waste or processing water treated by
the facility. The City’s discharges are currently regulated by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit (CA0048151) issued on March 10, 2009. A summary of effluent requirements for
conventional pollutants contained within the permit is presented in Table 3‐1. Based on the permit, the
WWTP can discharge up to 1.9 mgd via the ocean outfall. This flow is combined with up to 5.0 mgd of
effluent from the SSLOCSD. The combined flow is discharged to the ocean through an outfall diffuser
system, which provides a minimum initial dilution of approximately 165 to 1 (ocean water to effluent).
The SSLOCSD discharge is regulated under NPDES Permit No. CA0048003.
Table 3‐1. Summary of Current Conventional Pollutant Discharge Limits for the Pismo Beach WWTP
(NPDES Permit CA0048151)
Parameter Units Average
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Maximum
Daily
BOD5 mg/L 30 45 90
lbs/day 475 713 1426
TSS mg/L 30 45 90
lbs/day 475 713 1426
Settleable Solids ml/L/hr 1 1.5 3
Turbidity NTUs 75 100 225
Oil and Grease mg/L 25 40 75
lbs/day 396 634 1188
Fecal Coliform Bacteria MPN/100 ml 2001 2000
pH pH units 6.0 ‐ 9.0 at all times
Notes:
1. 7‐sample median
A copy of the existing NPDES permit, which expired on October 23, 2014, is attached in Appendix A. The
City is currently working through the permit renewal process but does not anticipate any significant
City of Pismo Beach 3. Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 3‐2
changes. Therefore, for this RWFPS, it is anticipated that the City’s WWTP will produce secondary effluent
in accordance with their current NPDES permit until the WWTP is upgraded.
3.2 EXISTING FACILITIES
The City’s WWTP was originally constructed in 1955. Process modifications and additions were
constructed in 1973 and 1984, and largely redeveloped in 2006, bringing the plant to its current capacity.
The WWTP provides secondary wastewater treatment for the community with processes consisting of the
following:
Screening: The plant currently has a single mechanical bar screen at the headworks with 0.625
inch (in) bar spacing to capture large debris, such as rags and sticks. To improve screening
capabilities, the City is in the process if replacing the existing screen with a new Duperon
Flexrake bar screen with ¼‐in bar spacing
Oxidation Ditches: Flow from the headworks is split between the two oxidation ditches, each
with a side water depth of 12 feet (ft) and a volume of 0.89 million gallons (MG).
Approximately 12 percent of each tank is anoxic, and 88 percent is aerobic. Aeration is
provided by mechanical aerators. The oxidation ditches remove nitrogen/ammonia to meet
current permit conditions
Secondary Clarification: Effluent from the oxidation ditches passes through the mixed liquor
splitter box and is distributed between the plant’s two 65‐foot (ft) diameter secondary
clarifiers
Chlorine Contact Basins: Flow from secondary clarifiers travels through a sodium hypochlorite
mixing box to the chlorine contact basin. Adequate detention time is provided to disinfect
the treated wastewater to meet discharge permit conditions
Dechlorination: To neutralize the toxic effects of chlorine, the final effluent is dechlorinated
with sodium bisulfite
Ocean Outfall Discharge: A five‐mile pipeline conveys treated effluent to the SSLOCSD
treatment plant located just south of Oceano, California, as shown on Figure 3‐1 on page 3‐3.
Final effluent from the WWTP comingles with the final effluent from SSLOCSD and is
discharged at a depth of approximately 55 feet through a 4,400 ft outfall diffuser system
Biosolids Treatment: Waste biosolids from the oxidation ditch are thickened in the dissolved
air floatation tanks, stored and dewatered with a belt filter press prior to hauling to the Engel
& Gray Composting Facility in Santa Maria for further treatment and land application. The City
is currently designing upgrades to the sludge dewatering system, see Section 3.5 for
discussion
The WWTP currently treats approximately 1.1 mgd of average annual flow. Figure 3‐2 on page 3‐4
presents a schematic of the existing treatment plant processes.
City of Pismo Beach 3. Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 3‐3 Figure 3‐1. Sphere of Influence and WWTP Location Map
City of Pismo Beach 3. Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 3‐4 Figure 3‐2. Process Flow Schematic
City of Pismo Beach 3. Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 3‐5
3.3 EXISTING AND PROJECTED WASTEWATER FLOWS
As discussed in Section 1.3, this report assumes an annual population growth within the current City limits
of 0.8 percent until buildout is reached, potentially by 2035. The analysis of historical flow forms the basis
of developing wastewater flow projections. The assessment of current flow conditions for the WWTP is
based on data from January 2009 through December 2013. Table 3‐2 presents the historical and current
wastewater flow parameters.
Table 3‐2. Wastewater Flows
Flow Parameter
(mgd)/ Years 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average Peaking
Factor
Average Annual
Flow 1.13 1.08 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.09 1.0
Maximum Month
Flow 1.29 1.40 1.28 1.26 1.27 1.30 1.2
Maximum Day Flow 2.68 3.05 2.79 2.81 2.81 2.83 2.6
Peak Hour Wet
Weather Flow 7.28 7.29 5.07 4.16 4.51 5.66 5.2
The flow projections presented in Table 3‐3 are based on Average flows presented in Table 3‐2 and
anticipated community growth, as presented in Section 1.3. The future average annual flow was
determined by multiplying the projected population by the average observed unit per capita wastewater
generation rate, which is 138 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). This is the average gpcd based on plant
data collected between 2009 and 2013. The resulting average annual flow projections are summarized
in Table 3‐3. Other projected flow rates were estimated by applying peaking factors developed through
evaluation of existing conditions to the projected average annual flows. This basic flow projection
technique was used for maximum month, maximum day, and peak hour wet weather flow.
Table 3‐3. Wastewater Flow Projections
Flow Parameter/ Years 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Anticipated Population 7,996 8,329 8,676 9,038 9,414
Average Annual Flow (mgd) 1.11 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30
Maximum Month Flow (mgd) 1.32 1.38 1.43 1.49 1.56
Maximum Day Flow (mgd) 2.87 2.99 3.12 3.25 3.38
Peak Hour Wet Weather Flow (mgd) 5.75 5.99 6.24 6.50 6.77
As discussed in Section 1.3, the Price Canyon and Los Robles Del Mar developments have the potential to
increase the City’s population by up to 2,440 people, which would increase wastewater generation. Based
on the methodology described in this section, these developments would increase the Annual Average
Flow by 0.34 mgd. Due to the uncertain timing of these developments, treatment and reuse of these
flows are not evaluated in this RWFPS; however, consideration will be given to phasing of treatment plant
upgrades to allow for incremental expansion in the future if needed.
City of Pismo Beach 3. Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 3‐6
3.3.1 Seasonal Variation
The seasonal variation of the average monthly flow is presented in Figure 3‐3. Typically for WWTPs, the
summertime flow (July through September) is the low flow period due to minimal precipitation and dry
ground conditions. However for the City, the flows during these months are higher than the average
annual flows due to tourist population influx. Based on the City’s General Plan, visitors during the summer
and on holidays can increase the population from 33 percent up to three hundred percent.
Figure 3‐3. Seasonal Variation of Average Monthly Flow
3.4 RECYCLED WATER
Currently, the City does not recycle wastewater and all of the effluent is discharged through the joint
ocean outfall. The agreement between the City and SSLOCSD for operation and maintenance of the joint
ocean outfall does not require the City to maintain a flow to the outfall; therefore, the City has rights to
use all of the current and future treated wastewater for RW projects.
3.5 FUTURE FACILITIES
As discussed in Section 3.2, the City is planning to upgrade the headworks by installing a new Duperon
Flexrake bar screen with ¼‐in bar spacing to reduce pump clogging and debris accumulation within the
WWTP. These upgrades are anticipated to be complete in 2015 and are therefore not included in the
costs in this RWFPS.
The City is also currently designing upgrades to the sludge handling system. The project includes
replacement of the existing dissolved air floatation tanks with a Rotary Screen Thickener for sludge
thickening, replacement of the existing belt filter press with a Screw Press for sludge dewatering, a new
City of Pismo Beach 3. Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 3‐7
building to house the sludge handling equipment, demolition of an abandoned digester, and upgrades to
the existing electrical, polymer and piping systems. The project is currently in the final design stage and
the City has applied for funding through the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program. The project will
begin upon funding approval and is anticipated to be complete in 2016.
No other improvements or facilities are anticipated at this time to accommodate growth or maintain
regulatory compliance.
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐1
4 TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
4.1 RECYCLED WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
This chapter identifies the RW quality requirements for each potential type of RW use. RW quality
requirements are established by state regulations and policies for various types of reuse. This chapter
also describes the operational and on‐site requirements for RW systems. The types of reuse considered
in this feasibility study include:
Irrigation – Landscape irrigation
Groundwater Recharge – Inland and/or coastal injection and/or surface spreading
4.2 RECYCLED WATER REGULATIONS
The SWRCB establishes general policies governing the permitting of RW projects consistent with its role
of protecting water quality and sustaining water supplies. The SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW)
(formerly under the California Department of Public Health) is charged with protection of public health
and drinking water supplies and with the development of uniform water recycling criteria appropriate to
particular uses of water. The SWRCB also exercises general oversight over RW projects, including review
of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permitting practices. The RWQCB is charged with
protection of surface and groundwater resources and with the issuance of permits that implement DDW
recommendations.
This section includes an overview of the regulations and policies that pertain to RW use for irrigation and
groundwater recharge, including:
DDW Regulations ‐ Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, Section 60301 et seq., California Code of
Regulations (Title 22)
SWRCB Policies – Recycled Water Policy and Antidegradation Policy
CCRWQCB – Central Coast Basin Plan
4.2.1 California Code of Regulations – Title 22
Title 22, established and administered by DDW, defines four types of RW uses based on the treatment
process used and water quality produced. These four types of RW are described as follows and as
summarized in Table 4‐1 on page 4‐3:
Undisinfected secondary RW ‐ Oxidized wastewater
Disinfected secondary‐23 RW ‐ RW that has been oxidized and disinfected so that the median
concentration of total coliform bacteria in the disinfected effluent does not exceed a Most
Probable Number (MPN) of 23 per 100 milliliters utilizing the bacteriological results of the last
seven days for which analyses have been completed, and the number of total coliform
bacteria does not exceed an MPN of 240 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample in any
30 day period
Disinfected secondary‐2.2 RW ‐ RW that has been oxidized and disinfected so that the median
concentration of total coliform bacteria in the disinfected effluent does not exceed a MPN of
2.2 per 100 milliliters utilizing the bacteriological results of the last seven days for which
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐2
analyses have been completed, and the number of total coliform bacteria does not exceed an
MPN of 23 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample in any 30 day period
Disinfected tertiary RW ‐ Filtered and subsequently disinfected wastewater that meets the
following criteria:
(a) The filtered wastewater has been disinfected by either:
1. A chlorine disinfection process following filtration that provides a CT (the
product of total chlorine residual and modal contact time measured at the
same point) value of not less than 450 milligram‐minutes per liter at all times
with a modal contact time of at least 90 minutes, based on peak dry weather
design flow; or
2. A disinfection process that, when combined with the filtration process, has
been demonstrated to inactivate and/or remove 99.999 percent of the
plaque forming units of F‐specific bacteriophage MS2, or polio virus in the
wastewater. A virus that is at least as resistant to disinfection as polio virus
may be used for purposes of the demonstration
(b) The median concentration of total coliform bacteria measured in the disinfected effluent
does not exceed an MPN of 2.2 per 100 milliliters utilizing the bacteriological results of
the last seven days for which analyses have been completed and the number of total
coliform bacteria does not exceed an MPN of 23 per 100 milliliters in more than one
sample in any 30 day period. No sample shall exceed an MPN of 240 total coliform
bacteria per 100 milliliters
Title 22 also establishes approved uses of RW for industrial use, as shown in Table 4‐2 on page 4‐4.
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐3
Table 4‐1. Summary of Approved Title 22 Uses of RW for Irrigation
Treatment Level Approved Uses Total Coliform
(median)
Undisinfected Secondary Fodder, Fiber and Seed Crops N/A
Disinfected Secondary 23
Pasture for Milking Animals
Landscape Irrigation1
Landscape Impoundment
Soil Compaction, Dust Control on Roads and
Streets
23/100 ml
Disinfected Secondary 2.2
Surface Irrigation of Food Crops
Restricted Recreational Impoundment
Surface Irrigation of Orchards, Vineyards
2.2/100 ml
Disinfected Tertiary
Spray Irrigation of Food Crops
Landscape Irrigation2
Unrestricted Recreational Impoundment
2.2/100 ml
Notes:
1. Includes restricted access golf courses, cemeteries, freeway landscapes, and landscapes with similar public
access.
2. Includes unrestricted access golf courses, parks, playgrounds, schoolyards, and other landscaped areas
with similar access.
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐4
Table 4‐2. Summary of Approved Title 22 Industrial RW Uses
Industrial Use Approved Uses
Supply for Cooling and
Air Conditioning
Industrial or commercial cooling or air‐conditioning involving
cooling tower, evaporative condenser, or spraying that
creates mist.
Industrial or commercial cooling or air‐conditioning not
involving cooling tower, evaporative condenser, or spraying
that creates mist
Other Allowed Uses
Flushing toilets and urinals
Priming drain traps
Structural fire fighting
Non‐structural fire fighting
Industrial process water that will not come into contact with
workers
Industrial process water that may contact workers
Industrial boiler feed water
Decorative fountains
Commercial laundries
Consolidation of backfill material around potable water
pipelines
Dust control on roads and streets
Mixing concrete
Flushing sanitary sewers
Soil compaction
Artificial snow making for commercial outdoor use
Cleaning roads, sidewalks, and outdoor work areas
Commercial car washes, not heating the water, excluding the
general public from washing processes
4.2.2 Groundwater Recharge Regulations
In response to current drought conditions in California, Senate Bill 104 was signed into law in March 2014.
This bill included a requirement for DDW to adopt emergency regulations for groundwater replenishment
using RW by June 30, 2014. The current Groundwater Recharge Regulations were adopted as an
emergency regulation and became effective June 18, 2014. These regulations have been incorporated in
the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22.
The Groundwater Recharge Regulations define a Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project (GRRP) as a
project using recycled municipal wastewater for the purpose of replenishment of groundwater that is
designated a source of water supply in a Water Quality Control Plan, or which has been identified as a
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐5
GRRP by the RWQCB. GRRPs can employ surface spreading basins or subsurface injection methods. The
Groundwater Recharge Regulations address the following types of recharge:
Surface spreading without full advanced treatment (FAT)
Subsurface application (FAT required for the entire flow)
Surface spreading with FAT
CCR Title 22, Section 60320.201 defines FAT as “the treatment of an oxidized wastewater . . . using a
reverse osmosis (RO) and an oxidation treatment process (AOP) . . . .” According to the Groundwater
Recharge Regulations, FAT is the required treatment process for groundwater augmentation using direct
injection, unless an alternative treatment has been demonstrated to DDW as providing equal or better
protection of public health and has received written approval from DDW.
Both surface spreading and subsurface application are considered to be indirect potable reuse (IPR). The
specific regulations for these different methods of groundwater recharge are different. However, the
regulations generally address the following elements:
Source control
Emergency response plan
Pathogen control
Nitrogen control
Regulated chemicals control
Initial RW contribution (RWC)
Increased RWC
Advanced treatment criteria
Application of advanced treatment
Soil aquifer treatment (SAT) performance (surface application)
Response retention time
Several of the key regulatory requirements for groundwater recharge are summarized in Table 4‐3 on
page 4‐6. Additional descriptions of pathogen controls, retention time and the RW contribution follows.
Pathogen controls include specific provisions for log reduction of microorganisms and treatment process
requirements. The treatment process used to treat recharge water for a GRRP must provide treatment
that achieves at least 12‐log enteric virus reduction, 10‐log Giardia cyst reduction, and 10‐log
Cryptosporidium oocyst reduction from raw sewage to usable groundwater. The treatment train shall
consist of at least three separate treatment processes. For each pathogen (i.e., virus, Giardia cyst, or
Cryptosporidium oocyst), a separate treatment process may be credited with no more than 6‐log
reduction, with at least three processes each being credited with no less than 1.0‐log reduction.
The Groundwater Recharge Regulations require a minimum “response retention time” or minimum
groundwater travel time of two months between the point of surface application or injection, and the
point of extraction. Groundwater travel time can be estimated by various methods, including intrinsic
tracer studies, numerical modeling, or analytical modeling. Depending on the method used, the “response
time credit” is discounted by different factors. The more rigorous the estimating approach, the more
advantageous the discounting factor.
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐6
The Groundwater Recharge Regulations require that the ratio of purified RW to the total injected water,
known as the RWC, be determined periodically, and that it is not to exceed a value determined during the
DDW’s review of the engineering report and the results of public hearings. Only water that is either a
DDW‐approved drinking water, or meets certain quality criteria (e.g., does not exceed primary or
secondary MCLs or notification levels) may be used as diluent water. The Groundwater Recharge
Regulations allow the RWC to be 100% if it can be demonstrated that sufficient protections are afforded
within the total project design and proposed operational scheme.
Table 4‐3. Summary the Groundwater Recharge Regulations
Element Surface Recharge Subsurface Recharge
Treatment Disinfected tertiary 100% RO and AOP treatment
for the entire waste stream
Retention time(1)
Minimum 2 months
(however additional treatment
may be required for < 6 months)
Minimum 2 months
Recycled Water Max
Initial Contribution
(RWCmax)
Up to 20% disinfected tertiary
Up to 100% with RO and AOP
Up to 100% with RO and AOP
Total Nitrogen Average <10 mg/L Average <10 mg/L
Total Organic Carbon Mound < 0.5 mg/L ÷ RWC < 0.5 mg/L
Dilution water
compliance
calculation
Based on 120‐month running
average
Based on 120‐month running
average
Notes:
1. Must be verified by a tracer study. An 8 month minimum is required for planning level estimates based on
numerical modeling
4.2.3 Recycled Water Policy
The SWRCB adopted the Recycled Water Policy (RW Policy) in February 2009, and subsequently amended
it in January 2013. The purpose of the policy was to provide the RWQCBs, proponents of RW projects,
and the public the appropriate criteria to be used in issuing permits for RW projects. The RW Policy
established more uniform requirements throughout the State and streamlined the permitting process for
the vast majority of RW projects. Key components of the RW Policy are summarized in Table 4‐4 on page
4‐7.
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐7
Table 4‐4. Key Components of the RW Policy
Component Description
Recycled Water Targets 200,000 AFY by 2020
300,000 AFY by 2030
Permitting Process
RW irrigation projects permitted within 120 days (except for
unusual requirements) without groundwater monitoring
component.
Salt and Nutrient
Management Plans
Required for all groundwater basins.
Includes identification of salt and nutrient sources,
assimilative capacity evaluation, load estimates, fate and
transport analysis and implementation measures.
Includes antidegradation analysis for RW projects.
Landscape Irrigation
Project Requirements
Requirements related to controlling water runoff, salt, and
soil nutrients.
Provisions for streamlined permitting for projects that meet
specific criteria related to application rates, oversight, and
controls.
RWQCB Groundwater
Requirements
Allows RWQCB to impose more stringent requirements for
groundwater recharge projects to address site specific
conditions.
Anti‐degradation
Analysis
Requirements for anti‐degradation analysis for groundwater
recharge and landscape irrigation projects based on the
amount of assimilative capacity use by the project.
CEC Monitoring Requirements for Constituent of Emerging Concern (CEC)
monitoring for groundwater recharge projects.
One of the key components of the RW Policy is the requirement for a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
(SNMP). The RW Policy states that SNMPs should be developed to facilitate basin‐wide management of
salts and nutrients from all sources in a manner that optimizes RW use while ensuring protection of
groundwater supply and beneficial uses, agricultural beneficial uses, and human health. A discussion of
Basin Plan Objectives follows in section 4.2.4.
Currently, an SNMP does not exist for the SMGB; however, the NCMA Strategic Plan identifies
development of an SNMP as a key strategic initiative and NCMA agencies are beginning to appropriate
funds for preparation of an SNMP. It is anticipated that an SNMP would be developed in conjunction with
the permitting process for the City’s RW projects, and will be incorporated into the project
implementation plan.
The SNMP will consider the Basin Plan water quality objectives, the existing groundwater quality data and
determine the assimilative capacity of the basin. The findings of the SNMP are anticipated to aid in
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐8
establishing the minimum treatment requirements for RW irrigation projects. The SNMP findings would
not likely impact groundwater recharge via injection projects because FAT effluent water quality is better
than the water quality objectives and may even be identified as a mitigation measure in the SNMP.
4.2.4 General Order for Recycled Water Use
The SWRCB adopted a General Order on June 3, 2014 to streamline permitting for RW. The General Order
took effect immediately following adoption. This General Order was developed in response to the
Governor’s Jan. 17, 2014 proclamation of a Drought State of Emergency.
The General Order establishes standard conditions for the use of RW and is intended to relieve producers,
distributors and users of RW from the sometimes lengthy permit approval process and provide them with
certainty around the requirements that they will be expected to meet. To obtain coverage under the
Order, applicants must submit a Notice of Intent and an application fee to the appropriate RWQCB.
Coverage under this General Order is limited to treated municipal wastewater for non‐potable uses. It
does not apply to the use of RW for groundwater recharge, or the disposal of treated wastewater by
means of percolation ponds. Specifically, the General Order allows the use of tertiary disinfected,
secondary disinfected and, in some cases, secondary undisinfected recycled municipal wastewater for
Title 22 approved non‐potable uses such as agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, dust control and
cooling tower make‐up water. RW use for irrigation is limited to agronomic application rates; therefore,
the amount of RW that could potentially reach groundwater will be limited. All uses of RW allowed by
the General Order must be consistent with SNMPs.
4.2.5 Basin Plan Objectives
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin (2011) (Basin Plan) identifies the beneficial
uses for surface waters and groundwater and the water quality objectives established to protect those
uses. As discussed in Section 2.2, the City is located within the SMGB. This groundwater basin underlies
the Santa Maria Valley in the coastal portion of northern Santa Barbara and southern San Luis Obispo
Counties. The basin also underlies Nipomo and Tri‐Cities Mesas, Arroyo Grande Plain, and the Nipomo,
Arroyo Grande and Pismo Creek Valleys (8).
The Basin Plan has general narrative objectives for taste and odor that apply to all groundwater. The plan
also imposes criteria for bacteria and DDW primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
that apply to groundwaters designated as municipal drinking water supplies; narrative groundwater
objectives to protect agricultural beneficial uses and soil productivity; and sub‐basin specific numeric
objectives for total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride, sulfate, boron, sodium, and nitrogen. The numeric
objectives for the Lower Nipomo Mesa, which is located within the northern section of the basin as shown
in Figure 4‐1 on page 4‐9 are presented in Table 4‐5 on page 4‐9.
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐9
Table 4‐5. Groundwater Quality Objectives for the Lower Nipomo Mesa
Parameter Objective
Total Dissolved Solids 710 mg/L
Chloride 95 mg/L
Sulfate 250 mg/L
Boron 0.15 mg/L
Sodium 90 mg/L
Nitrogen 5.7 mg/L as N 1
Notes:
1. The basin exceeds useable mineral quality.
(Footnote provided in the Basin Plan)
Figure 4‐1. Santa Maria Groundwater Subareas (9)
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐10
4.2.6 Anti‐degradation Policy
The RW Policy addresses implementation of the Anti‐degradation Policy, as it relates to RW projects (see
Section 4.2.3). In general, the Anti‐degradation Policy requires protection of groundwaters and surface
waters having quality that is better than that established in effective policies. The policy states that high
quality waters shall be maintained unless any change will be consistent with the maximum benefit to the
people of the State, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses and will not result
in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies.
4.3 RECYCLED WATER QUALITY TARGETS
Specific uses of RW as well as the Basin Plan objectives (see Section 4.2.5) can define water quality
requirements. Water quality requirements may be established based on the specific use of RW or based
on the objectives established in the Basin Plan to be protective of the groundwater.
4.3.1 Water Quality Targets – Basin Plan
The Basin Plan stipulates that discharges to groundwater (including groundwater recharge projects)
cannot cause or contribute to an exceedance of the water quality objectives. As discussed in Section 4.2.3,
an SNMP would include an evaluation of existing water quality, existing salt and nutrient loads to the
basin, and available assimilative capacity for RW projects. For the purposes of this RWFPS, a comparison
of existing WWTP effluent and Basin Plan Objectives will be used to determine whether there is potential
for a RW project, that contributes a new load to the basin, to lead to an exceedance of groundwater
quality objectives. Table 4‐6 presents the objectives for the Lower Nipomo Mesa and the Pismo Beach
WWTP effluent concentrations. The WWTP effluent is not regularly sampled for these Basin Plan
parameters. However, grab samples of the effluent from September 25, 2006, June 9, 2011 and June 10,
2011 were analyzed for these Basin Plan parameters. The average concentrations from these three events
are included in Table 4‐7 on page 4‐12. Note that the current WWTP effluent exceeds the Basin Plan
groundwater objectives for TDS, chloride, boron and sodium. Therefore, it is assumed that, at a minimum,
an assimilative capacity analysis will need to be performed to support a permit application for any RW
project which precedes the SNMP.
Table 4‐6. Groundwater Quality Objectives for the Lower Nipomo Mesa
Parameter Objective Pismo Beach WWTP
Effluent
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 710 1100
Chloride (mg/L) 95 310
Sulfate (mg/L) 250 Not analyzed
Boron (mg/L) 0.15 0.33
Sodium (mg/L) 90 240
Nitrogen (mg/L as N) 5.7 Not analyzed
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐11
4.3.2 Water Quality Targets‐ Landscape Irrigation
Water quality guidelines for general landscape irrigation are based on practical limits for different types
of irrigation approaches and the tolerance of various plants for specific constituents found in irrigation
water. Table 4‐7 includes a comparison of constituent guidelines/criteria and the WWTP effluent quality.
The WWTP effluent is not regularly sampled for the parameters that are used to evaluate landscape
irrigation use restrictions. Grab samples from September 25, 2006, June 9, 2011 and June 10, 2011 were
analyzed for most of the parameters in Table 4‐7 on page 4‐12. Average concentrations from the three
events are included in Table 4‐7.
The constituents that can impact use of RW for general landscape irrigation primarily include minerals
and nutrients. The WWTP effluent concentrations fall within the ranges highlighted in red in Table 4‐7 on
page 4‐12. In general, comparison of most constituents suggests that there may be slight restrictions in
the use of WWTP effluent for general landscape irrigation.
There are operational techniques associated with RW for landscape irrigation that can improve and
sustain a specific use. The successful long‐term use of irrigation water depends on rainfall, leaching, soil
drainage, irrigation water management, salt tolerance of plants, soil management practices, as well as
water quality. Since salinity problems may eventually develop from the use of any water, the following
guidelines are given, should they be needed, to assist water users to better manage salinity:
Irrigate more frequently to maintain an adequate soil water moisture
Select plants that are tolerant of an existing or potential salinity level
Routinely use extra water to satisfy the leaching requirements and to drive salts below the root
zone
If possible, direct the spray pattern of sprinklers away from foliage. To reduce foliar absorption,
try not to water during periods of high temperature and low humidity or during windy periods.
Change time of irrigation to early morning, late afternoon, or night
Maintain good downward water percolation by using deep tillage or artificial drainage to prevent
the development of a perched water table
Salinity may be easier to control under sprinkler and drip irrigation than under surface irrigation.
However, sprinkler and drip irrigation may not be adapted to all qualities of water and all
conditions of soil, climate, or plants
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐12
Table 4‐7. Comparison of Pismo WWTP Effluent with Irrigation Water Quality Criteria
Parameter Units
Degree of Use Restriction2 Pismo Beach WWTP
Effluent None Slight Severe
Salinity
Electrical Conductance µS/cm <700 700‐3000 >3000 1800
Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS) mg/L <450 450‐2000 >2000 1100
Permeability
SAR3 = 0 ‐ 3 and EC 700 700‐200 <200
= 3 ‐ 6 and EC 1200 1200‐300 <300
= 6 ‐ 12 and EC 1900 1900‐500 <500 SAR = 6.2, EC = 1800
= 12 ‐ 20 and EC 2900 2900‐1900 <1900
= 20 ‐ 40 and EC 5000 5000‐2900 <2900
Sodium
Root Absorption SAR <3 3‐9 >9 6.2
Foliar Absorption mg/L <70 >70 ‐ 240
Chloride
Root Absorption mg/L <140 140‐355 >365 310
Foliar Absorption mg/L <100 >100 ‐ 310
Boron mg/L <0.7 0.7‐3.0 >3.0 0.33
Total Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L <90 90‐500 >500 167
pH – 6.5‐8.4 (normal range) 7.35 to 7.564
Ammonia mg/L as N (see total N values below) 0.0784
Nitrate mg/L as N (see total N values below) 16
Total Nitrogen mg/L <5 5‐30 >30 Not analyzed
Hardness (as CaCO3)4 mg/L <90 90‐500 >500 290
Notes:
1. Adapted from University of California Committee of Consultants (1974) and Water Quality for Agriculture (Ayers and
Westcot 1985).
2. Definition of the "Degree of Use Restriction" terms:
None = Reclaimed water can be used similar to the best available irrigation water
Slight = Some additional management will be required above that with the best available irrigation water in terms of
leaching salts from the root zone and/or choice of plants
Severe = Typically cannot be used due to limitations imposed by the specific parameters
3. SAR = Sodium absorption ratio. Presence of bicarbonate can result in unsightly foliar deposits.
4. From 2013 annual report (pH monthly average range, ammonia single sample)
5. The City’s WWTP effluent concentrations fall within the ranges highlighted in red.
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐13
4.4 OPERATIONAL AND ON‐SITE REQUIREMENTS
Permit prohibitions and operational requirements will be directly from Title 22 and will be included in the
City’s RW permit. In addition, for RW irrigation use, the City will need to establish a “recycled water
ordinance” and “rules and regulations for recycled water”. Additional operational and site requirements
for RW irrigation use may also be included in these documents.
4.4.1 Incidental Runoff
The RW Policy defines incidental runoff as unintended small amounts of runoff from RW use areas, such
as unintended, minimal over‐spray from sprinklers that escapes the RW use area. Water leaving a RW use
area is not considered incidental if it is part of the following:
Facility Design
Excessive Application
Intentional Overflow or Application
Negligence
Incidental runoff may be regulated by waste discharge requirements, or when necessary, through an
NPDES permit. Regardless of the regulatory instrument, the project shall include the following practices:
Implementation of an operations and management plan that provides for detection of leaks,
and correction within 72 hours of learning of the runoff, or prior to the release of 1,000
gallons, whichever occurs first
Proper design and aim of sprinkler heads
Refraining from application during precipitation events
Management of any ponds containing RW such that no discharge occurs unless discharge is a
result of a 25‐year, 24‐hour storm event or greater, and there is notification of the appropriate
RWQCB Executive Officer of the discharge
4.4.2 Title 22 Use Area Requirements
Title 22 includes two main requirements that will need to be considered during the design phase. Per Title
22, no irrigation with disinfected tertiary RW shall take place within 50 feet of any domestic water supply
well unless the well meets certain criteria including:
An annular seal
Well housing to prevent RW spray from contacting the wellhead
The City approves of the elimination of the buffer zone
Also per Title 22, no impoundment of disinfected tertiary RW shall occur within 100 feet of any domestic
water supply well.
4.4.3 Recycled Water Ordinance
The purpose of a RW ordinance is to establish a water recycling policy and criteria for its use within the
SOI. In general, a RW ordinance will accomplish the following:
Establish Administrative Authority
Establish approved uses of RW
Define areas of potential eligibility for RW service
City of Pismo Beach 4. Treatment Requirements
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 4‐14
Specify mandatory and voluntary uses of RW, depending on user classifications
Require installation of transmission and distribution infrastructure
Provide enforcement and severability clauses
4.4.4 Recycled Water Rules and Regulations
The Rules and Regulations will govern the design, construction, and use of both the distribution system,
to be operated by the City, and on‐site RW systems to be operated by the users. In general, the Rules and
Regulations document will include the following elements:
Responsibilities for the City and Users
Requirements for the design, installation, and inspection of the distribution systems and on‐
site RW systems
Application procedures and the City approval process
Operation, Maintenance, and Management responsibilities for Users and the City
Cross connection control test procedures
Employee training requirements
Prohibitions and Enforcement
City of Pismo Beach 5. Recycled Water Market/Opportunities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 5‐1
5 RECYCLED WATER MARKET/OPPORTUNITIES
5.1 MARKET ANALYSIS UPDATE
The City has made steady progress to develop RW as a viable resource to supplement potable supplies.
The City’s previously completed RW studies include those summarized in Table 5‐1, in chronological order,
starting with the most recent. This report builds on the market analyses previously completed for
Secondary‐23 and disinfected tertiary Title 22 RW.
Table 5‐1. Pismo Beach Previous RW Reports
Report Title, Year Author Stated Purpose Findings/Recommendations
San Luis Obispo
County Regional
Recycled Water
Strategic Plan, 2014
Cannon
Identify and prioritize potentially
viable next steps in successfully
implementing RW across the
County in a cost-effective
manner while protecting public
health.
Confirm demand estimates for cost
effective projects. Refine potential
projects to develop a phased RW
program
Recycled Water
Distribution
System Conceptual
Plan –
City of Pismo
Beach WWTP,
2010
Wallace
Group
Investigate the feasibility of a
cooperative project with the
City of Arroyo Grande to deliver
Secondary-23 RW to customers
in Pismo Beach and Arroyo
Grande
A stand-alone Secondary-23
project is not economically
viable, however annualized
unit cost of the project can be
decreased substantially with
tertiary treatment and expanding
deliveries to Title 22 customers
Urban Water
Management
Plan, 2010
Carollo
Engineers
Comply with the Urban Water
Management Act
The City is committed to the
development of RW
for irrigation and groundwater
recharge/ recovery
Incremental
Reclaimed
Wastewater Study,
2008
Spanish Springs
Specific
Plan
RRM
Various
Provide a conceptual framework
to reduce potable demand
through the supply of RW.
Provide required environmental
and civic planning
documentation
for the proposed development
Phased implementation of tertiary
upgrades at the WWTP and
construction of a pond storage
and reclaimed distribution
system to serve existing irrigation
demands within the City limits
and the proposed development areas in
Price Canyon.RW demands, proposed
infrastructure, and project
impacts/mitigation measures
Water Reuse Study,
2007
Carollo
Engineers
Identify potential locations for
using reclaimed wastewater
and estimate the cost of the
infrastructure and operating
costs for implementation
Phased implementation of
tertiary upgrades at the WWTP
and construction of a distribution
system to serve existing demand
adjacent to the WWTP and
the proposed Price Canyon
Annexation area.
Spanish Springs
Specific
Plan
Various
Provide required environmental
and civic planning
documentation
for the proposed development
RW demands, proposed
infrastructure, and project
impacts/mitigation measures
City of Pismo Beach 5. Recycled Water Market/Opportunities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 5‐2
The market analyses for the previous studies were updated, where possible, with Fiscal Year (FY) 2010‐
2013 water consumption data to enhance the assessment of potential RW uses and the project
alternatives analysis.
5.1.1 Secondary‐23 Market Analysis
The Recycled Water Distribution System Conceptual Plan – City of Pismo Beach WWTP, Wallace Group,
2010 (2010 Wallace Group Report) identified multiple potential Secondary‐23 users in the City and in
neighboring cities. The 2010 Wallace Group Report’s potential Secondary‐23 RW use estimates for the
City were updated with 2010– 2013 consumption data, where available, as shown in Table 5‐2. The City
of Arroyo Grande’s Secondary‐23 potential RW use estimates from the 2010 Wallace Group report are
provided in Table 5‐3 for reference.
Table 5‐2. Pismo Beach Potential Secondary‐23 Water Use
Site
Metered Use
[CCF/year]1
Average
Annual
Demand
[AFY]
Average
Annual
Demand
[mgd]
Maximum
Month
Demand
[mgd]2
Peak Day
Demand
[mgd]3
James Way Slopes 993 2.28 0.002 0.005 0.007
Caltrans Median 6,259 14.37 0.013 0.029 0.043
TOTALS 7,252 16.65 0.015 0.033 0.050
Notes:
1. James Way Slopes could not be updated with available FY 2010‐2013 consumption data, so the consumption from the
2010 Wallace Group Report was maintained. Caltrans Median updated with FY 2010‐2013 consumption data.
2. Based on Maximum Month Demand peaking factor of 2.25 X Average Annual Demand from the 2010 Wallace Group
Report.
3. Based on Peak Day Demand peaking factor of 1.5 X Maximum Month Demand from the 2010 Wallace Group Report.
Table 5‐3. Arroyo Grande Potential Secondary‐23 Water Use (10)
Site
2007-2009
Metered Use
[CCF/year]
Average
Annual
Demand
[AFY]
Average
Annual
Demand
[mgd]
Potential
Irrigation
Reduction
Reduced
Average
Annual
Demand
[AFY]
Arroyo Grande
Cemetery1 12,952 29.7 0.027 20% 23.8
Caltrans
Median2 4,985 11.4 0.010 N/A 11.4
TOTALS 17,937 41.2 0.037 35.2
Notes:
1. Existing average calculated from 2010‐2012 consumption data.
2. Existing average calculated from 2010‐2013 consumption data.
City of Pismo Beach 5. Recycled Water Market/Opportunities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 5‐3
5.1.2 Disinfected Tertiary Market Analysis
Because the potential uses for Secondary‐23 RW are limited, the City would need to implement
disinfected tertiary treatment to serve a larger amount of potential RW uses. All previous studies have
analyzed Title 22 potential uses to some extent. The San Luis Obispo County Regional Recycled Water
Strategic Plan‐ Draft, 2014 (RRWSP) prepared by Cannon, compiled the market analyses completed prior
to 2014 and assigned an Identification Number (RRWSP ID No.) and ID Name to each of the 26 previously
identified potential users.
The prior market analysis was updated for this RWFPS with FY 2010‐2013 bi‐monthly water consumption
data from irrigation meters throughout the City. All users were assigned a new ID No. and ID Name. The
City provided consumption data for approximately 160 irrigation users. Some of these accounts were
matched to RRWSP ID No. and ID Names, which are shown in Table 5‐4 on page 5‐4. A large majority were
associated with a service location identified by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN). There were 119 accounts
that matched an APN within the City’s GIS Parcel database; the remaining 43 accounts did not have
sufficient address or APN information to be located at this time. In total, the accounts that were not
assigned an APN accounted for less than 10.5 AFY, or 5%, of total average 2010‐2013 water consumption
and each individually used less than 1.7 AFY. Due to the relatively minor demands associated with these
users, further investigation into these accounts is not planned at this time.
Three users were identified that do not have separate irrigation meters but who are known to have
significant irrigation water use: Francis Judkins Middle School, Shell Beach Elementary School and the
Everett Estate, a private residence. For these accounts, the City provided FY 2010‐2013 water
consumption data which included the total indoor and outdoor water use. The average consumption
readings for the two lowest billing periods, which occurred in February and April of each year, were
assumed to represent the base indoor water use. The additional incremental water use throughout the
year was assumed to equal the outdoor irrigation water use.
The top 38 potential RW uses over 2 AFY are shown in Table 5‐4 on page 5‐4, Figure 5‐1 on page 5‐5 and
Figure 5‐2 on page 5‐6. The users are generally numbered by largest use first, however some users do not
follow this rule as their demands were clarified after the initial ID numbers were assigned. The complete
list of 123 accounts were considered in the alternatives evaluation and are listed in Appendix B. Only the
top 38 are listed in this chapter for brevity.
City of Pismo Beach 5. Recycled Water Market/Opportunities Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 5‐4 4/23/2015 Table 5‐4. Disinfected Tertiary RW Use‐ Top 38 Potential Customers ID No. ID Name Account Address APN Average Irrigation Consumption 2010‐2013 (AFY) RRWSP ID No. & Name 1 Palisades Park 1774 EL DORADO 010‐154‐033 15.91 14 Palisades Park 2 Cal Trans (Hwy 101) Irrigation 461 928 SHELL BEACH Caltrans 14.36 3 Cal Trans (Hwy 101) Irrigation 3 Dinosaur Cave Park 8289 200 CLIFF 010‐345‐013 9.36 5 Dinosaur Cave Park 4 Baycliff Condos HOA 944 510 1/2 FOOTHILL 010‐071‐068 8.46 1 Baycliff Condos HOA 119 Shell Beach Elementary School 507 2100 Shell Beach Road 010‐221‐009 8.40 20 Shell Beach School 118 Francis Judkins Middle School 3929 680 Wadsworth 005‐041‐021 7.32 8 Francis Judkins MS 5 CLIFFS SHELL BEAC‐4606 4606 2757 SHELL BEACH 010‐041‐044 7.03 7 New Life Church 3150 990 JAMES 005‐403‐045 6.80 27 New Life Church 8 SHELTER COVE LODG‐6040 6040 2651 PRICE 005‐261‐001 4.78 9 SPYGLASS RIDGE HO‐8999 8999 MATTIE 010‐045‐041 4.67 10 RANCHO PACIFICA H‐8168 8168 MATTIE 010‐072‐038 4.40 11 SEACREST RESORT‐12307 12307 2241 PRICE 005‐261‐005 4.36 12 PISMO MEDICAL LLC‐13347 13347 2 JAMES 005‐271‐004 4.08 13 PACIFIC COAST PLA‐2075 2075 OAK PARK 005‐391‐062 3.86 6 Everett Estate 493 2801 Shell Beach Road 010‐152‐008 3.82 7 Everett Estate 14 PISMO MEDICAL CAM‐8223 8223 941 OAK PARK 005‐391‐062 3.28 15 SPYGLASS RIDGE HO‐946 946 CALLE CONSUETTA 010‐044‐052 3.20 16 UNITED STATES POS‐2400 2400 100 CREST 005‐391‐060 3.18 17 HILTON GARDEN INN‐14188 14188 601 JAMES 14188 3.11 18 SPYGLASS RIDGE VI‐941 941 BARCELONA 010‐045‐034 3.10 19 PISMO SHORES HOA‐‐3716 3716 100 PISMO 005‐301‐054 3.05 20 PLAYA DEL SOL HOA‐4668 4668 PLAYA DEL SOL 010‐083‐054 3.02 21 SPYGLASS RIDGE VI‐942 942 COSTA DEL SOL 010‐084‐038 2.99 22 Seacliff Park 7686 BEACHCOMBER SOUTH 010‐144‐025 2.97 19 Seacliff Park 23 South Palisades Park/Walk 1941 SHELL BEACH 010‐551‐048 2.93 21 South Palisades Park/Walk 24 OXFORD SUITES RES‐2032 2032 651 FIVE CITIES 005‐242‐042 2.92 25 Spyglass Park 1104 2551 SPYGLASS 010‐051‐001 2.91 22 Spyglass Park 26 PISMO WOODS IRRIG‐3420 3420 442‐480 BELLO 005‐311‐040 2.89 27 Pismo Beach Sports Complex 1 4445 FRADY‐FORD FIELD 005‐271‐003 2.83 16 Pismo Beach Sports Complex 28 PISMO LIGHTHOUSE‐6970 6970 2411 PRICE 005‐263‐071 2.79 29 DOLPHIN BAY HOTEL‐8379 8379 2727 SHELL BEACH 010‐041‐028 2.77 30 PISMO COAST PLAZA‐8644 8644 FIVE CITIES 005‐242‐050 2.69 31 Highland Park 2396 87 WHITECAP 005‐385‐055 2.66 9 Highland Park 32 Boosinger Park 4021 821 WADSWORTH 005‐018‐006 2.42 2 Boosinger Park 33 VILLAS ANTIQUA HO‐882 882 2074 COSTA DEL SO 010‐045‐001 2.30 34 921 OAK PARK INVE‐7454 7454 921 OAK PARK 005‐391‐064 2.24 35 Pismo Coast Village RV Park 5977 165 S DOLLIVER 005‐241‐053 2.13 17 Pismo Coast Village RV Park 36 SEARIDGE OWNERS A‐868 868 SEARIDGE 010‐141‐027 2.05 1 Prior to July 2013 the Pismo Beach Sports Complex used private wells, which did not give an accurate estimate for future RW demand. Therefore, values from Fiscal Year 2013/14 were used.
City of Pismo Beach 5. Recycled Water Market/Opportunities Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 5‐5 Figure 5‐1. Potential Disinfected Tertiary RW Use ‐ Northern Section Map
City of Pismo Beach 5. Recycled Water Market/Opportunities Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 5‐6 Figure 5‐2. Potential Disinfected Tertiary RW Use ‐Southern Section Map
City of Pismo Beach 5. Recycled Water Market/Opportunities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 5‐7
5.2 PRELIMINARY HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF GROUNDWATER
RECHARGE WITH RECYCLED WATER
As part of this RWFPS, Cleath‐Harris Geologists, Inc. (CHG) prepared a Technical Memorandum (TM)
documenting their Preliminary Hydrogeologic Assessment of Groundwater Recharge with Recycled Water
(Hydrogeologic Assessment TM). The Hydrogeologic Assessment TM is attached in Appendix C and a
summary of the findings is presented below. This preliminary assessment is based on hydrogeologic data
contained in published reports, as well as the August 2014 Draft Santa Maria Groundwater Basin
Characterization prepared by Fugro under contract with the County. There are no groundwater models
published for this area. The Hydrogeologic Assessment TM presents conceptual design criteria based on
preliminary and conservative assumptions developed through review of available data. Hydraulic
constraints and the impact of regional groundwater extractions should be investigated further on a site
specific basis to refine the design criteria.
The Hydrogeologic Assessment TM evaluated the feasibility of recharge basins and/or injection wells for
groundwater recharge within the NCMA. The area of focus was bounded by Grand Avenue and Highway
1, where the municipal/public water supply wells are located. In this area, groundwater levels vary
seasonally and regionally from 10 ft below sea level to 15 ft above sea level with the lower levels closer
to the coast. Pumping depressions occur in close proximities to producing wells. The available
groundwater storage in this area is roughly estimated to be 1,000 ‐ 1,500 AF. Due to limited storage
capacity in the basin, the ability to continuously inject water depends upon maintaining similar extraction
rates at municipal wells.
5.2.1 Surface Spreading
The NCMA area is generally underlain by aquitards that can perch water in the upper dune sands;
however, these silt and clay aquitards are not present everywhere and may not totally restrict downward
migration of percolated groundwater. Based on a review of geologic cross sections, the Hyrdogeologic
Assessment TM identified boundaries within which surface spreading would reach the aquifers used for
municipal supply. These areas are shown in Figure 5‐3 on page 5‐8. Within these areas, the City of Arroyo
Grande operates several stormwater infiltration basins. The assessment evaluated whether these existing
basins could be used in the dry season to recharge the groundwater basin.
Two basins were identified that have potential for use as RW percolation sites: the Ash Street Basins and
the Poplar Street basin. For planning level GRRP siting, the Groundwater Recharge Regulations require a
minimum retention time of 8 months if based on numerical modeling estimates. To achieve an 8‐month
retention time from municipal water supply wells of 8 months, a required setback of 550 feet is estimated.
Because the City of Arroyo Grande has several wells very close to the Ash Street Basins, it may be difficult
to prove that this retention time can be achieved so the Ash Street basins were not considered further.
The Poplar Basin is the only remaining stormwater basin under consideration. It is estimated that 50 –
100 AFY of RW could be recharged this location during the dry season, which is assumed to span eight
months.
City of Pismo Beach 5. Recycled Water Market/Opportunities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 5‐8
Figure 5‐3. Potential Groundwater Recharge Areas in the NCMA
City of Pismo Beach 5. Recycled Water Market/Opportunities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 5‐9
5.2.2 Subsurface Injection
The Hydrogeologic Assessment TM also developed conceptual design criteria for both inland and coastal
injection wells. It was estimated that a setback of 200 ft is required to achieve a minimum 8 month
retention time for injection wells.
For inland injection, each well is assumed to be capable of injecting 200‐300 AFY based on the
transmissivity of the aquifers. The wells would be designed to inject into the main aquifer zones with total
depths ranging from 400‐600 ft. The total available injection capacity in the area where the
municipal/public water supply wells are located is estimated to at 1,000 to 1,500 AFY. However, the
capacity could be higher, considering additional unsaturated aquifers within the pumping depression
area. It is estimated that 75% of the water injected could be recovered by municipal wells for beneficial
use.
For coastal injection, the wells would be designed to pump into the aquifer zones which have exhibited
evidence of seawater intrusion. A steady state groundwater flow model was constructed to conduct
preliminary analysis for the seawater intrusion barrier wells. Based on model predictions, it was
determined that three (3) injection wells, spaced at 4,000 ft apart would be sufficient to effect a seawater
intrusion barrier by injecting a combined 350 AFY. Additional water, up to 1,100 AFY total, could be
injected at these well locations provided that the three (3) nearby Pismo Beach and Oceano CSD wells
produce a total of 800 AFY to limit groundwater pressure heads. It is estimated that 70% of the water
injected could be recovered by municipals wells for beneficial use.
For each injection well, two monitoring wells would be needed to satisfy the Groundwater Recharge
Regulations. Monitoring wells would be equipped with water level and water quality monitoring
equipment.
Maintenance of the injection wells would involve monitoring of pressures, frequent inspections and
cleaning out the well casings and removing microbial build‐up once every two years. This bi‐annual
maintenance could be completed within 2 weeks.
5.3 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
Throughout the preparation of this RWFPS, the City encouraged the other NCMA agencies to participate
in the discussion and development of RW alternatives.
A kickoff workshop was conducted on April 23, 2014 to define the project goals and objectives and to
identify opportunities for joint use alternatives with the other NCMA agencies as well as coordination
needs. Representatives from the cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach were invited to the workshop.
A representative from the City of Arroyo Grande attended the Kickoff workshop and provided input on
the goals and objectives and expressed the City of Arroyo Grande’s interest in continuing to explore joint
RW use opportunities with the City.
A RW discussion was conducted during an NCMA Technical Group Meeting on May 12, 2014, which was
attended by representatives from the Cities of Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach as well as
Oceano CSD and SSLOCSD. Topics included a discussion of coordination with potential future SSLOCSD
City of Pismo Beach 5. Recycled Water Market/Opportunities
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 5‐10
RW projects, an update on the City’s Study, a discussion of potential grant funding available and a request
for available stormwater basin data.
An alternatives development workshop was held on June 30, 2014 to develop RW project alternatives to
be evaluated as part of this RWFPS. Representatives from the cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach
were invited to the workshop and a representative from the City of Arroyo Grande participated in the
workshop.
A presentation was conducted at the regular City Council meeting on August 19, 2014 to present the
project status, potential RW project alternatives and a preliminary quantification of RW landscape
irrigation demands within the City. This was a noticed public meeting.
An alternatives selection workshop was held on October 20, 2014 to review the alternatives analysis,
evaluate alternatives and select a preferred alternative. Representatives from The cities of Arroyo Grande
and Grover Beach were invited to the workshop and a representative from the City of Grover Beach
participated in the workshop.
A workshop was held on December 23, 2014 to review and discuss the Draft Study. Representatives from
The cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach were invited to the workshop
A second presentation to the City Council will be conducted following City staff’s review of the Draft Final
Study to present the project status, the recommended alternative, associated costs (capital and O&M),
and to seek input from the City Council. This will also be a noticed public meeting.
City of Pismo Beach 6. Planning and Design Assumptions
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 6‐1
6 PLANNING AND DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
This section presents the criteria applied to the project alternatives evaluated in this RWFPS and includes:
Facilities planning and design criteria
Planning level cost estimate assumptions
6.1 FACILITIES PLANNING AND DESIGN CRITERIA
RW systems consist of three primary sets of facilities:
Treatment plant facilities (treatment, concentrate management, storage / equalization, and
product water pump station
Distribution system facilities (pipelines, storage, and booster pump stations)
Customer facilities (treatment, storage, and booster pump stations) or Recharge facilities
(recharge basins or injection wells)
The basis for sizing RW facilities is presented in Table 6‐1.
Table 6‐1. RW Facility Planning and Design Criteria
Facilities Design Criteria
Distribution System Facilities
Pipelines Sized to maintain a headloss gradient of less than 10 ft of
headloss per 1000 ft of pipeline during peak hour.
Booster Pump Stations Capacity based on peak hour demand (assumes no gravity system
storage)
Station efficiency is assumed to be 75%
All pumps will have Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs)
Irrigation system booster stations will be equipped with a
hydropneumatic tank to control pressure variations
System Storage Capacity based on maximum day demand
Injection Well Site Size 50’ x 50’ permanent site; additional construction easements based
on site specific requirements
Customer Facilities
Customer Facilities Requirements will be site specific based on existing system
configuration and use area characteristics. Assume average costs
for dedicated services and combined systems. See Section 6.1.1 for
more information.
6.1.1 Customer Conversion Costs
For this RWFPS, on‐site customer facility costs to convert existing potable water irrigation services to RW
irrigation services are estimated based on the anticipated level of complexity of the conversion and are
classified into two types: (1) dedicated services and (2) combined systems. Conversion for customers who
already have a dedicated irrigation service which is separate from their potable service is anticipated to
be less complex due to the existence of separate piping systems. This type of conversion would require
City of Pismo Beach 6. Planning and Design Assumptions
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 6‐2
tie‐over of the existing meter to the RW system and minor on‐site retrofits such as painting RW
appurtenances purple, installing signage, retrofitting or removing hose bibs and adjusting sprinklers to
minimize overspray and runoff. The cost of a dedicated service conversion is estimated at $10,000. A
combined system which currently serves the domestic and irrigation systems through one service
connection and shared on‐site piping is anticipated to be more complex. This category applies to
customers such as parks and schools which often have restrooms and drinking fountains that are served
from a shared piping system. The conversion of a combined system would require research of the existing
piping system to identify cross connections, installation of a new RW meter and service line from the RW
system to the point of RW use on‐site, elimination of cross connections with the potable system, and the
minor retrofits described for the dedicated service conversion. The cost of a combined service conversion
is estimated at $50,000. A cross‐connection inspection and on‐site supervisor training would be provided
for all customer types.
Actual customer conversion costs will vary depending on the complexity of the existing domestic and
irrigation systems on each site. Each site will require an individual investigation to determine the retrofits
required to separate the RW system from the potable system and cost estimates should be refined
accordingly as the project develops.
6.1.2 Irrigation Demand Peaking Factors
Seasonal and hourly irrigation demand peaking factors used in the 2010 Wallace Group Report, the 2007
Carollo Water Reuse Study and the RRWSP were developed based on rainfall and evapotranspiration rates
and assumed that all irrigation use would be spread equally over an 8‐hour period overnight. WSC also
reviewed the peaking factors developed for the Draft Recycled Water Master Plan Update – City of San
Luis Obispo, Wallace Group, 2014 (2014 Wallace Group Draft Report). The City of San Luis Obispo (SLO)
developed a RW distribution system in 2006 and has been serving irrigation customers similar to those
identified in Pismo Beach, including schools, parks, freeway landscape, commercial landscape and a sports
complex. As part of the 2014 Wallace Group Draft Report, the peaking factors developed for the City of
SLO’s RW demands were compared to actual hourly demands in 2013 recorded by the City of SLO’s SCADA
system. Based on this comparison, the peaking factors were determined to be reasonable. Due to the
similar nature of RW use and the availability of actual hourly demand data for comparison, the peaking
factors used in the 2014 Wallace Group Draft Report are applied in this RWFPS. The peaking factors used
in this RWFPS are presented in Table 6‐2.
Table 6‐2. Irrigation Demand Peaking Factors
Peaking Factors
Maximum Month 2.5 Times Average Annual Demand
Maximum Day 1.2 Times Maximum Month
Peak Hour 3.5 Times Maximum Day
6.2 PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
Planning level cost estimates were developed for each of the alternatives presented in this chapter.
Assumptions used as the basis of these cost estimates are discussed in this section.
City of Pismo Beach 6. Planning and Design Assumptions
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 6‐3
6.2.1 Cost Opinion Basis
The cost opinions included in this RWFPS are prepared in conformance with industry practice and, as
planning level cost opinions, will be ranked as a Class 4 Conceptual Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
as developed by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Cost Estimate
Classification System. The AACE classification system is intended to classify the expected accuracy of
planning level cost opinions, and is not a reflection on the effort or accuracy of the actual cost opinions
prepared for the RWFPS. According to AACE, a Class 4 Estimate is to intended to provide a planning level
conceptual effort with an accuracy that will range from ‐30% to +50% and includes an appropriate
contingency for planning and feasibility studies. The conceptual nature of the design concepts and
associated costs presented in this RWFPS are based upon limited design information available at this stage
of the projects.
These cost estimates have been developed using a combination of data from RS Means CostWorks®,
recent bids, experience with similar projects, current and foreseeable regulatory requirements and an
understanding of the anticipated project components. As the projects progress, the design and associated
costs could vary significantly from the project components identified in this RWFPS.
For projects where applicable cost data is available in RS Means CostWorks® (e.g. pipeline installation),
cost data released in Quarter 2 of 2014, adjusted for San Luis Obispo, California, is used. Material prices
were adjusted in some cases to provide estimates that align closer with actual local bid results.
For projects where RS Means CostWorks® data is not available, cost opinions are generally derived from
bid prices from similar projects, vendor quotes, material prices, and labor estimates, with adjustments for
inflation, size, complexity and location.
Cost opinions are in 2014 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of: 9,800 for June 2014).
When budgeting for future years, appropriate escalation factors should be applied.
Cost opinions are planning‐level and may not fully account for site‐specific conditions that will affect the
actual costs, such as soils conditions and utility conflicts.
6.2.2 Markups and Contingencies
For the development of the planning level cost estimates, several markups and contingencies are applied
to the estimated construction costs to obtain the total estimated project costs. The markups are intended
to account for costs of engineering, design, administration, and legal efforts associated with implementing
the project (collectively, Implementation Markup). For the RWFPS, two different Implementation
Markups are used depending on the type of project. Irrigation projects have a 30% markup, while GRRPs
have a 40% markup. This difference is to account for the greater number of studies required and the
extended implementation schedule of a GRRP.
Unaccounted‐for Items and Contingency account for additional construction costs that could not be
anticipated at the time of this analysis. A summary of the markups and contingencies applied in this
RWFPS are presented in Table 6‐3 on page 6‐4.
City of Pismo Beach 6. Planning and Design Assumptions
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 6‐4
Table 6‐3. Capital Cost Estimating Assumptions
Estimated Construction Cost
+ 20% of Construction Subtotal for Contingency
+ 20% of Construction Subtotal for Unaccounted‐for items
= Subtotal 1
+ 30% of Subtotal 1 for Irrigation (or 40% of Subtotal 1 for GRRP) for Implementation Cost
= Total Capital Cost
6.2.3 Excluded Costs
Overall Program Management. If the magnitude of the capital program exceeds the capacity of
City staff to manage all of the work, then the services of a program management team may be
required
Public Information Program. Depending on the relative public acceptability of a major RW facility
or a group of facilities, there may be a need for a public information program, which could take
many different forms. It is recommended that the City engage in a proactive public outreach
program in coordination with other existing or planned outreach programs
6.2.4 Capital Cost Estimate Comparison for Alternatives
Unit costs of the various alternatives are compared using the annual payment method. The unit cost is
calculated with this method by adding the annual payment for borrowed capital costs to the annual O&M
cost and dividing by the annual project yield. This method provides a simple comparison between
alternatives in this RWFPS. The factors described below are used to calculate the unit cost with the annual
payment method.
The economic factors used to analyze the estimated costs for each of the project concepts are:
Inflation: Escalation of capital and O&M costs is assumed to be 3.0% based on a combination of
California CCI and Western Region Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the past 10 years (June 2004 to
June 2014). The average annual escalation rate for California CCI is 3.6%, while the average annual
inflation rate for CPI is 2.3%.
Project Financing: Interest Rate & Payback Period: 5% over 30 years. This assumption was used
to coincide with the RRWSP. It should be noted that multiple lower‐interest funding programs
are available, including the SRF loans, which the City is currently pursuing for other projects. Refer
to Chapter 10 for further discussion of SRF and other financing options.
Useful Life of Facilities: The useful life of facilities will vary based on several factors, including type
of facility, operating conditions, design life, and maintenance upkeep. Structural components of
most facilities are typically designed to last 50 years or longer. However, mechanical and electrical
City of Pismo Beach 6. Planning and Design Assumptions
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 6‐5
components tend to have a much shorter lifespan and typically require replacement or
rehabilitation at regular intervals. To simplify the lifecycle evaluation, this RWFPS assumes that all
facilities have a useful life matching the financing payback period of 30 years.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐1
7 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
7.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
Based on discussions at the alternatives development workshop, a total of four alternatives were
identified to be further developed and evaluated in this RWFPS. These alternatives include:
Alternative 1: Providing RW at Disinfected Secondary‐23 standards for restricted reuse
Alternative 2: Providing RW at Disinfected Tertiary standards for unrestricted landscape irrigation
Alternative 3a: Providing RW that meets the standards for groundwater recharge for injection as
a coastal intrusion barrier
Alternative 3b: Providing RW that meets the standards for groundwater recharge for injection
directly into the inland aquifer
7.1.1 Alternative 1 – Secondary 23
Secondary‐23 RW may only be used to irrigate restricted access areas such as cemeteries, freeway
landscaping or restricted access golf courses.
7.1.1.1 Potential Water Use
Within Pismo Beach, there are four potential customer connections: three Caltrans meters for freeway
landscape irrigation and James Way Slopes for restricted landscape irrigation. The three Caltrans
connections will demand a total 14.4 AFY and James Way Slope would use 2.3 AFY, as shown in Table 5‐2
on page 5‐2. The total demands for alternative will be 16.6 AFY, which accounts for approximately 1% of
the current effluent. The remaining 99% of the WWTP effluent will continue to be discharged to the
existing ocean outfall.
The Secondary‐23 RW effluent could also be used for soil compaction and for dust control; however, the
potential demand associated with these types of uses is variable and difficult to quantify. These uses are
not evaluated as part of this alternative.
7.1.1.2 Storage, Pumping & Distribution System
This alternative will require a 40,000 gallon reservoir and a 1 hp booster pump located at the WWTP. The
City will also need to install approximately 21,900 LF of 6‐inch pipeline from the WWTP to the four
customer connections. Figure 7‐1 on page 7‐4 illustrates the conceptual layout for Alternative 1.
7.1.1.3 Treatment Upgrades
Although water quality of the City’s existing WWTP effluent is not consistent with disinfected secondary‐
23 RW standards, the City recently conducted a disinfection test to determine if the existing plant is
capable of meeting these standards. The results of this initial test resulted in inconsistent effluent MPN
values which were often higher than the Secondary‐23 limits and the chlorine residual was unexpectedly
high. However, it is believed that a plant upset that occurred prior to testing may have contributed to the
inconsistent plant performance. Toward the end of the test, the MPN was trending down toward the
required levels to meet Secondary‐23 standards, indicating Secondary‐23 effluent may be achievable with
minor modifications. The City may conduct additional testing including water quality sampling to
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐2
investigate the source of the chlorine demand, more frequent maintenance of the chlorine contact
chamber to mitigate sludge buildup and a tracer test to investigate whether mixing and contact time in
the chlorine contact chamber is sufficient.
This alternative is based on the existing plant being able to meet Secondary‐23 standards and does not
include costs for treatment upgrades. If the existing plant is found to be unable to meet Secondary‐23
standards, or upgrades are needed to improve reliability of performance, treatment upgrade costs for this
alternative should be revisited.
7.1.1.4 Unit Cost
The unit cost for Alternative 1 consist of the capital and O&M costs of the 40,000 gallon reservoir, booster
pump, 21,900 LF 6‐inch pipeline and the 4 dedicated meter conversions. As discussed in Section 7.1.1.3,
this alternative assumes upgrades to the WWTP are not required; therefore, no additional WWTP
treatment capital and O&M costs are included. Table 7‐1 provides the estimated unit cost. The unit cost
per AF is $15,900. Detailed calculations are included in Appendix D.
Table 7‐1. Unit Cost of Alternative 1
Segment
Annual
Average
(AFY)
Total Capital
Cost
Cumulative
O&M Cost
Unit Cost
$/AF
1 16.6 $ 4,963,000 $ 44,000 $ 15,900
7.1.1.5 Advantages and Disadvantages
As discussed in Section 7.1.1.3, Alternative 1 may not require treatment upgrades to the existing WWTP
process. As a result, this alternative could be implemented in a relatively short time period.
Alternative 1 meets the City’s goal to develop a local, sustainable and highly reliable water supply and
provides a direct offset to some potable water use. However, with reuse of only 1% of the WWTP effluent,
the volume of water put to beneficial use is very small. The remaining 99% of the effluent would continue
to be discharged to the ocean outfall.
The approved uses for Secondary‐23 water limit the available reuse options and only four customers were
identified within the City. Alternative 1 could be expanded to include the potential City of Arroyo Grande
Secondary‐23 customers listed in Table 5‐3 on page 5‐2; however, a significant length of pipeline would
have to be added. The unit cost would remain high while the percent of reuse percent would remain low,
so this was not evaluated as part of Alternative 1.
The primary disadvantage is the exceptionally high unit cost. Since the four customer connections are
spread throughout the City, there is a large pipeline cost which greatly increases the unit cost per AF
beyond reasonable values. Additionally, Alternative 1 does not benefit the other NCMA agencies.
Caltrans previously expressed an interest in installing RW piping within the City to convert their existing
freeway landscape irrigation services to RW; however, the City was recently informed by Caltrans that
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐3
funding for this for conversion is not currently available. If Caltrans funding becomes available to fund a
portion of the infrastructure under this alternative, the effective unit cost of this alternative could
potentially be reduced.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 7‐4 Figure 7‐1. Alternative 1 – Secondary‐23 Overview
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐5
7.1.2 Alternative 2 – Disinfected Tertiary
Alternative 2 consists of upgrading the current WWTP to include tertiary treatment for unrestricted
irrigation for existing customers within the City. Additionally, the Groundwater Recharge Regulations
allow for disinfected tertiary RW to be reused for surface spreading with an initial RWC of 20% and blend
water of 80%. This alternative will utilize disinfected tertiary RW for irrigation of parks, school yards,
Caltrans freeway landscape and commercial/residential landscape as well as surface spreading at an
existing storm water infiltration pond.
Alternative 2 includes eight pipeline segments (T‐1 through T‐8). Segments T‐1 through T‐7 will serve
groups of irrigation customers within the City. Segment T‐8 delivers water to the Poplar Storm Water
Basin in the City of Arroyo Grande for surface spreading. The segments are organized incrementally and
will be constructed in sequence as additional customer connections are desired. A conceptual layout of
Alternative 2 is shown in Figure 7‐2 on page 7‐6.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 7‐6 Figure 7‐2. Alternative 2 – Disinfected Tertiary Overview
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐7
7.1.2.1 Potential Water Use
As previously stated, Segments T‐1 through T‐7 serve groups of irrigation customers within the City. To
identify these potential customer groups, irrigation customers were screened to include only those with
an annual irrigation water use greater than 1 AFY. City owned facilities with annual use less than 1 AFY
were also included. Conceptual pipeline segment alignments were selected that would serve the largest
customers as well as smaller customers adjacent to the pipeline. In general, segment breaks were placed
where a booster station would be required to serve additional customers or where significant piping
would be required to reach the next customer.
Segment T‐8 conveys RW to the Poplar Street storm water basin in the City of Arroyo Grande for surface
spreading, as discussed in 5.2.1. Because Alternative 2 uses Disinfected Tertiary RW, the Groundwater
Recharge Regulations set a maximum initial RWC of 20%, as described in Table 4‐3. The remaining 80%
blend water must be of sufficient quality to meet primary drinking water MCLs. Water quality data for
the storm water entering the Poplar Street basin is not available to assess suitability as blend water;
however, storm water volume captured in the Poplar basin in estimated for the purposes of determining
potentially available blend water volumes. The 2007 Water Balance Study for the Northern Cities Area
(2007 Water Balance) (11) estimates inflows into the basin, including storm water inflows for each of the
City of Arroyo Grande storm water basins. Based on the data presented in the 2007 Water Balance, the
estimated annual storm water infiltration into the Poplar Street basin is approximately 65 AFY. Based on
this blend water volume, up to 16 AFY of RW could be discharged to the Poplar Street basin to meet the
maximum initial RWC of 20%. As allowed by the Groundwater Recharge regulations, the RWC could be
increased over time if Total Organic Carbon (TOC) concentrations can be maintained below 0.5 mg/l. As
noted, the water quality of the blend water may need to be assessed to verify whether the storm water
qualifies as blend water. If storm water is found to be of insufficient quality, potable water from the City
of Arroyo Grande’s adjacent distribution system could be considered as an alternate blend water source.
A summary of the potential RW use for each segment in Alternative 2 is presented in Table 7‐2 on page 7‐
8. As shown, the potential total RW use for this alternative is 214 AFY if all segments are constructed,
which provides service to 57 irrigation customers and one surface spreading pond. Figure 7‐4 on page 7‐
11 and Figure 7‐5 on page 7‐12 shows the locations of potential customers and their annual irrigation
water usage.
Based on the FY 2010‐2013 average bi‐monthly water consumption data provided by the City, the monthly
irrigation demands for each segment were identified. The irrigation demand fluctuates seasonally as
shown in Figure 7‐3 on page 7‐8.
To maximize the volume of reuse, the treatment upgrades will be based on daily demands in the maximum
month, which occurs in July. The maximum month day (MMD) demands for each segment individually
and cumulatively are presented in Table 7‐3 on page 7‐9.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐8
Table 7‐2. Alternative 2 – RW Use and Customers by Segment
Segment RW Use (AFY) Number of Customers
T‐1 55.1 13
T‐2 43.8 10
T‐3 37.7 12
T‐4 15.4 3
T‐5 11.8 5
T‐6 23.4 8
T‐7 10.4 6
T‐8 16.0 1
Alternative 2 Total 214 58
Figure 7‐3. Estimated Seasonal Irrigation Consumption Per Segment
26.10 24.52 23.61
20.22
16.64
10.93
7.89 7.87 8.26
11.01
15.47
21.45
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
FY 2012‐2013 Consumption (AF)Annual Irrigation Consumption Per Segment
Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3 Segment 4
Segment 5 Segment 6 Segment 7 Total
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐9
Table 7‐3. Estimated MMD Demands
Segment MMD Demand (gpd),
July
Cumulative
MMD Demand (gpd)
T‐1 74,000 74,000
T‐ 2 73,000 147,000
T‐3 49,000 196,000
T‐4 21,000 217,000
T‐5 19,000 236,000
T‐6 31,000 267,000
T‐7 15,000 282,000
T‐8 14,000 296,000
As summarized in the previous section, the RW produced in this alternative will be used to irrigate school
yards, parks and other landscaped areas. To manage potential salinity problems that may eventually
develop from the use of RW, the guidelines presented in Section 4.4 can/should be followed by the tertiary
irrigation customers.
7.1.2.2 Storage, Pumping & Distribution System
Alternative 2 consists of a 0.6 MG reservoir located at or near the WWTP site along with five booster
pumps throughout the system, as shown in Table 7‐5 on page 7‐10. These booster stations are required
to provide reasonable service pressure ranges to customers throughout the City and separate the RW
distribution system into five pressure zones. These zones are similar to the existing potable water system
zones; however the HGL’s for the RW zones will be 10 ft lower than the corresponding potable water
zone. This will reduce the risk of backflow of RW into the potable water system in the event of a cross
connection. The range of hp for each booster pump presented in Table 7‐5 on page 7‐10 depends on the
number of segments constructed. As more segments are added, the hp requirements increase since each
booster needs to be sized to convey the total flow to its respective zone as well as all downstream zones.
Alternatively, the system could be served via elevated storage located northwest of the WWTP at the end
of Highland Drive near the City’s existing Pacific Estates reservoir. This configuration would only require
one booster station at the WWTP. However it would require extra piping and power to pump the entire
volume of water to a higher elevation along with several pressure reducing stations. This is anticipated
to be a higher cost alternative and is not evaluated further.
This alternative will also include a total of 11.25 miles of distribution pipeline of different sizes. The
facilities are summarized in Table 7‐4 on page 7‐10. A portion of the T‐1 segment pipeline is shown as
existing in Figure 7‐4 on page 7‐11. This segment has not yet been installed but is proposed by the City as
part of another project. The funding for this pipeline segment is included in another project so it is
considered existing for the purposes of this section.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐10
Table 7‐4. Alternative 2 Facilities Summary
Segment
Annual
Average
Demand
(AFY)1
Cumulative
Demand
(AFY)
Treatment
Capacity
(MGD)
Storage
(MG)2
Cumulative
Storage
(MG)
Pipelines
(miles)
Pipe
Size
(in)3
Number
of
Booster
Pumps
Needed5
T‐1 55 55 0.30 0.15 0.15 2.76 12 2
T‐2 44 99 0.30 0.12 0.26 2.57 8 1
T‐3 38 137 0.30 0.10 0.37 1.65 6 ‐
T‐4 15 152 0.30 0.04 0.41 0.36 4 1
T‐5 12 164 0.30 0.03 0.44 0.75 6 1
T‐6 23 187 0.30 0.06 0.50 1.01 6 ‐
T‐7 10 198 0.30 0.03 0.53 0.89 4 ‐
T‐8 16 214 0.30 0.04 0.57 1.27 6 ‐
Notes:
1. Average Annual Demands are based on 2010‐2013 irrigation demands (AFY) and are summed for all customers served by
each segment.
2. Storage volume is based on the maximum day demand of each alternative per Table 6‐1.
3. Pipeline size/ headloss calculations are provided in Appendix D.
4. 5 total pumps are required if all segments are constructed. Segments are arranged incrementally so the total number of
pumps for each segment is equal to the sum of pumps for that segment plus all prior segments
Table 7‐5. Alternative 2 Booster Pump Horsepower
Pump ID Potable
Water Zone
Potable
Water HGL
(ft)
Hydraulic
HGL (ft)
Horsepower
(hp)1
BPS 1 Main 176 166 15 to 60
BPS 2 Shell Beach 1 226 216 1 to 10
BPS 3 Shell Beach 2 325 315 2 to 10
BPS 4 Pismo Oaks 340 330 10 Pacific Estates 390 330
BPS 5 Heights 1 460 450 1 to 10
Notes:
1. Horsepower calculations are provided in Appendix D. Horsepower calculations
are provided in Appendix D.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 7‐11 Figure 7‐4. Northern Area ‐ Potential RW Customers
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 7‐12 Figure 7‐5. Southern Area ‐ Potential RW Customers
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐13
7.1.2.3 Treatment Upgrades
For Alternative 2, the RW will be treated to disinfected tertiary standards. This includes:
1. A filtration process that produces tertiary effluent with less than 2 nephelometric turbidity unit
(NTU) within a 24‐hour period, 5 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a 24‐hour period,
and 10 NTU at any time, and
2. A disinfection process that produces a total coliform bacteria measured in the disinfected tertiary
effluent to not exceed a most MPN of 2.2 per 100 mL for a 7‐day average, 23 per 100 mL in more
than one sample in any 30‐day period, and 240 per 100 mL in any sample.
A process flow diagram (PFD) of this alternative is presented in Figure 7‐6 on page 7‐15. The new
processes required for producing Title 22 water are:
1. Tertiary Influent Pump Station
2. Tertiary Filtration
3. Disinfection
7.1.2.3.1 Tertiary Influent Pump Station
Based on the existing hydraulic profile, the treatment system does not have adequate head availability to
accommodate two new processes. Therefore, a new tertiary pump station will be required prior to
filtration. The pump station will have an initial flow capacity of 75,000 gpd, expandable to an ultimate
capacity of 300,000 gpd if all 8 segments are served with RW.
7.1.2.3.2 Tertiary Filtration
Tertiary filters are designed to remove TSS from secondary effluent. There are several filter media options
available including fine sand, dual‐media (anthracite/sand), upflow sand filter (e.g., DynaSand®), and cloth
filters. For this evaluation, cloth filters were selected because of low cost, low energy, and ease of
operation, especially at lower flows anticipated at the City’s WWTP.
Cloth filter units are completely submerged and the liquid passes through the cloth media in an outside‐
in mode (by gravity) and entrained solids collect on the cloth filter surface. These solids will lead to head
loss across the cloth filter, resulting in rising water levels within the cloth filter tank. At a predetermined
tank water level or time, the backwash cycle is initiated and the solids are removed by a stationary
backwash suction head.
DDW has established a maximum loading rate of 6.0 gpm/ft2 for cloth filter operation. However, typical
loading rates would be around 3.25 gpm/ft2. At loading rates up to 4 gpm/ft2, a standard single disk would
be sufficient to meet the RW demands for segments T‐1 through T‐8.
7.1.2.3.3 Disinfection
In order to meet Title 22 standards for RW for irrigation use, the RW must be considered “disinfected
tertiary RW.” A chlorine or ultraviolet (UV) disinfection process following filtration is sufficient to meet
Title 22 irrigation water standards. For this RWFPS, inline UV was selected since the capital cost and O&M
costs at anticipated treated flows were comparable to chlorine. Additionally, the City need not handle
chemicals for UV disinfection.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐14
7.1.2.3.4 Treatment Unit Cost
Preliminary capital and O&M costs were developed for the disinfected tertiary alternative. The estimated
costs are presented in Table 7‐6.
Table 7‐6. Treatment Upgrade Cost for Disinfected Tertiary
Standard Cloth Filters and UV
Segment Capacity
(gpd)
Cumulative
Capacity
(gpd)
Total Project Cost
($)
O&M Cost
($/Year)
Unit Cost
($/AF)1
T‐1 through T‐8 300,000 300,000 $1,234,000 $30,000 $250
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 7‐15 Figure 7‐6. Simplified Process Flow Diagram to meet Disinfected Tertiary Requirements Tertiary Upgrades
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐16
7.1.2.4 Total Unit Cost
The unit cost for Alternative 2 is broken down by Segment T‐1 through T‐8, provided Table 7‐7. The unit
cost is comprised of capital and O&M cost for a reservoir, booster pump, pipeline, treatment upgrades
and customer conversions. Details of Alternative 2 unit cost is provided in Appendix D.
Table 7‐7. Unit Cost for Alternative 2
Segment
Annual
Average
(AFY)
Total Capital
Cost
Cumulative
O&M Cost
Cumulative
Unit Cost
$/AF
T‐1 55 $ 7,736,000 $ 105,000 $ 8,100
T‐2 44 $ 4,372,000 $ 144,000 $ 6,900
T‐3 38 $ 2,174,000 $ 162,000 $ 5,800
T‐4 15 $ 1,170,000 $ 183,000 $ 5,700
T‐5 12 $ 1,486,000 $ 204,000 $ 5,800
T‐6 23 $ 1,345,000 $ 215,000 $ 5,500
T‐7 10 $ 964,000 $ 221,000 $ 5,400
T‐8 16 $ 1,432,000 $ 236,000 $ 5,400
Total 214 $20,679,000 $ 236,000 $ 5,400
7.1.2.5 Advantages and Disadvantages
Alternative 2 meets the City’s goal to develop a local, sustainable and highly reliable water supply and
provides a direct offset to some potable water use in the amount of 198 AFY, if segments T‐1 through T‐7
are constructed. This alternative also provides a small amount of recharge of the SMGB of approximately
16 AFY via discharge into the Poplar Storm Water Basin if Segment T‐8 is constructed.
The tertiary treatment upgrades require a relatively low capital investment and O&M costs and
requirements are low for the recommended treatment system. Additionally, the treatment system
requires a small site footprint.
This alternative uses approximately 214 AFY, 17% of the current effluent. The remaining 83% of the
effluent would not be treated to disinfected tertiary standards and would continue to be discharged to
the ocean outfall. For the relatively small percentage of effluent that could be used, Alternative 2 requires
a substantial investment of distribution infrastructure to serve irrigation customers located throughout
the City.
Alternative 2 could be expanded to include the potential City of Arroyo Grande Disinfected Tertiary RW
customers identified in the RRWSP; however, a significant length of pipeline would have to be added to
reach these customers. Service to RW customers outside the City was not evaluated as part of this
alternative.
Alternative 2 primarily benefits the City.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐17
7.1.3 Alternative 3 – Full Advanced Treatment for Groundwater Recharge
Upgrade to FAT is required for Alternative 3. FAT employs treatment technology to produce a high quality
effluent that meets the requirements for groundwater recharge. Regulations for using RW for
groundwater recharge are significantly different from those for irrigation use. Since groundwater basins
are used for potable purposes, the regulations are designed to protect the beneficial uses of each aquifer.
These include control of pathogenic organisms, control of nitrogen compounds, and control of emerging
contaminants.
Alternative 3a consists of injecting FAT RW into the SMGB along the coast to help limit seawater intrusion.
Alternative 3b consists of injecting FAT RW into the inland portion of the SMGB to recharge the basin.
This alternative will benefit the entire basin and the cities that pull water from it. These cities include
Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, Arroyo Grande and the Oceano CSD.
The FAT treatment upgrades required for Alternative 3 are described in the following section, followed by
descriptions of the reuse evaluated for Alternatives 3a and 3b.
7.1.3.1 Treatment Upgrades
For Alternative 3, the secondary effluent from the existing WWTP would be fed to the advanced treatment
process train consisting of microfiltration/ultrafiltration (MF/UF), RO, and UV/ AOP. The combination of
MF, RO and AOP is considered the conventional indirect potable reuse treatment train. This treatment
train meets the criteria in the DDW Regulations Related to Recycled Water (Title 22, Article 5.2).
The treatment design capacity selected for this RWFPS is 1.3 MGD, which coincides with the current
maximum month flow shown in Table 3‐2 on page 3‐5 and the 2035 average annual flow shown in Table
3‐3 on page 3‐5.
A PFD of this alternative is presented in Figure 7‐7 on page 7‐20. The advanced treatment process units
identified for the WWTP are:
1. MF
2. RO
3. UV/AOP
4. Inject Water Pumping Station
7.1.3.1.1 Microfiltration
MF membranes are an efficient technology for particle removal and pathogen control either in a
pressurized or submerged configuration. For the former, water is pumped through the membranes in
modules or cartridges. In the latter form, membranes are submerged in tanks and water is pulled through
the membranes by vacuum. Overall, membrane filtration provides a near absolute barrier to suspended
solids and microorganisms.
For this analysis, pressurized MF membranes were used as they generally provide greater efficiency and
lower operating costs at this flow range. As water is pushed through the membranes using feed pumps,
the suspended solids and microorganisms are retained on the outside of the membrane. MF finished
water turbidities will be consistently below 0.1 NTU, independent of feed water quality. Due to high‐
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐18
quality effluent produced, MF has been shown to be the preferred pretreatment for RO systems treating
wastewater.
7.1.3.1.2 Reverse Osmosis
High‐pressure membrane processes, such as RO, are typically used for the removal of dissolved
constituents including both inorganic and organic compounds. RO is a process in which the mass‐transfer
of ions through membranes is diffusion controlled. The feed water is pressurized, forcing water through
the membranes, thereby concentrating the dissolved solids that cannot pass through the membrane.
Consequently, these processes can remove salts, hardness, synthetic organic compounds, disinfection by‐
product precursors, etc. However, dissolved gases such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide,
and neutral low molecular weight molecules, pass through RO membranes. The rejection by the RO
membranes (removal efficiency) is not the same for all dissolved constituents, and is influenced by
molecular weight, charge, and other factors.
RO is considered a high‐pressure process because it operates from 75 to 1,200 psig, depending upon the
TDS concentration of the feed water. Typical operating pressure in a wastewater application is in the
range of 150 to 250 psi. Recoveries for RO plants operating on domestic wastewater are around 85
percent depending on the type and concentrations of sparingly soluble salts (calcium sulfate, calcium
carbonate, calcium phosphate, silica, etc.) in the feed water. Silica can permanently scale RO membranes
when its concentration in the process exceeds about 100 to 120 mg/L. In wastewater applications,
calcium phosphate can often be the salt controlling overall recovery.
One of the issues with the RO process is discharge of the concentrate stream. The TDS removed from the
feed water is concentrated in the brine stream and needs to be disposed. It is assumed that this
concentrate stream can be discharged to the City’s existing ocean outfall.
7.1.3.1.3 Ultraviolet Advanced Oxidation Process
In general, advanced oxidation processes are processes that rely on chemical reactions with hydroxyl or
other radicals to remove organic compounds in water. For a UV‐based advanced oxidation process, a
chemical oxidant is added to the process, and with exposure to the UV light, hydroxyl or other radicals are
formed. The hydroxyl or other radicals are high‐energy, highly reactive molecules that attack chemical
bonds of organic molecules and oxidize them. UV/AOP is effective at oxidizing certain CECs such as certain
endocrine disrupting compounds, PPCPs, and other microconstituents such as 1,4‐dioxane and N‐
nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) that can be found in wastewater effluents. In addition, with a UV/AOP
process, the UV dose required for radical formation is greater than required for disinfection. Thus, a
UV/AOP process provides both a disinfection barrier as well as a microconstituent barrier.
There are several chemical oxidants that can be used in combination with UV to achieve advanced
oxidation. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is a common oxidant used for advanced oxidation. Other chemical
oxidants that can be combined with UV include ozone and hypochlorite. Each of these chemical oxidants
have advantages and disadvantages. The chemical oxidant for the UV/AOP process will be determined in
preliminary design.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐19
7.1.3.1.4 RW Production
The design treatment capacity is based on 1.3 MGD as discussed previously. However, due to hourly
variations in flow and the absence of flow equalization storage at the WWTP, the actual product water
will be less than 1.3 mgd. The City provided hourly WWTP influent flows for the first day of each month
for the past 2 years; effluent flow is not currently measured at the WWTP and hourly flow data beyond 2
years is not available.
Actual RW production was estimated by averaging the hourly flows for each hour within a given month,
using the monthly data from the past 2 years. Based on the average hourly flow, hourly peaking factors
for each hour in each month were determined. These were then applied to the 2013 average monthly
flows and reduced by the estimated recovery rates through the MF and RO processes. In this scenario,
each day of the month was assumed to have the same flow. Flows for each hour were capped at 1.3 mgd
for hours where the flow was greater and the hourly flow results on a monthly basis were summed. The
result is an estimated average annual production of approximately 0.77 mgd (860 AFY) based on 2013
monthly flows and approximately 0.83 mgd (930 AFY) based on projected 2035 flows.
It should be noted that there is dampening of the diurnal flows within the WWTP which is not captured in
this estimate due to the use of influent flow data. Additionally, the MF and RO recovery rates applied are
estimated and actual recovery rates will be a function of source water quality. It is recommended that
these RW production estimates be refined during the preliminary and final design phases based on more
detailed hourly flow data and actual MF and RO recovery rates. The addition of equalization storage to
further dampen diurnal flows and increase RW production could be considered during the preliminary
design phase; however storage costs are high and space on the WWTP site is limited.
For this RWFPS, the RW production is assumed to be capped at the buildout flows estimated in Table 3‐3
on page 3‐5, which corresponds to a RW production of 930 AFY. However, if future flows increase, RW
production would increase, up to the full FAT capacity of 1.3 mgd less losses through the MF and RO
processes, which is estimated to be approximately 1,100 AFY.
7.1.3.1.5 Treatment Unit Cost
The total estimated treatment capital and O&M cost for the full advanced treatment is presented in Table
7‐8. Note that this is based on the estimated RW production of 930 AFY rather than the capacity of the
treatment system itself.
Table 7‐8. Full Advanced Treatment Unit Cost
Total Project Cost ($) Annualized Project Cost ($) O&M ($/year) Unit Cost ($/AF)1
$15,134,000 $670,200 $502,000 $1,300
Notes:
1. Based on 930 AFY
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 7‐20 Figure 7‐7. Simplified Process Flow Diagram for Full Advanced Treatment Full Advanced Treatment Upgrade
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐21
7.1.3.2 Alternative 3a –Coastal Injection Wells for Seawater Intrusion Barrier
Alternative 3a consists of using the FAT RW at injection wells placed along the coast to provide a barrier
against seawater intrusion. Additional water injected in these wells will recharge coastal portion of the
groundwater basin.
7.1.3.2.1 Potential Water Use
This alternative will provide a seawater intrusion barrier and groundwater recharge to this portion of the
SMGB and will benefit all of the NCMA agencies. As discussed in Section 5.2.2, it is estimated that each
injection well could accommodate 200‐300 AFY. As part of the Hydrologic Assessment TM, preliminary
modeling was conducted to help refine design criteria for the seawater intrusion wells. Based on the
model predictions, it is anticipated that the entire 930 AFY effluent could be injected at these 3 wells,
provided that the nearby City and Oceano CSD wells are operated enough to maintain reasonable pressure
heads. The actual injection capacity of a given well will vary based on hydraulic constraints and regional
groundwater extractions impacting the particular well location and should be investigated further as part
of subsequent analysis. This results in injection of approximately 310 AFY at each well. It is estimated
that 70% of the water injected could be recovered at these municipal wells.
7.1.3.2.2 Injection Wells
This alternative includes three (3) injection wells located along the coast; representative well locations
are shown in Figure 7‐8 on page 7‐23. The locations shown are based on the setback distance to existing
wells, a general consideration of drill site area requirements, and the well spacing. As determined by the
analytical modeling in the Hydrogeologic Assessment TM, the three injection wells should be spaced 4,000
feet apart and at least 200 feet from water supply wells.
Depths of the wells will depend on the depths of the localized aquifers, ranging from 400 to 600 feet
depth. The injected zones and seals will be determined based on the specific site conditions.
In addition to the injection wells, monitoring wells will need to measure the groundwater level and quality.
Monitoring wells will be designed as pairs, one shallow and one deep, or nested dual aquifer completions
with separate casing in the injected aquifers and within the overlaying aquifer. Conceptually, the
monitoring well should be placed between the coastal injection wells and production wells. The
Groundwater Recharge Regulations require 2 monitoring wells for each injection well. There are several
existing coastal monitoring wells in the vicinity which may meet the requirements. For the purposes of
this RWFPS, 2 new monitoring wells per injection well are assumed; however, discussions should be held
with the CCRWQCB during the permitting process to determine whether the existing monitoring wells are
in suitable locations to be used for this purpose.
The estimated cost of each injection well is $500,000 per well and the estimated cost of each monitoring
well is $90,000 per well. Based on 2 monitoring wells, the total cost per injection well is estimated at
$680,000. Maintenance of the well should occur every two years which includes cleaning out the well
casings and removing microbial build‐up. O&M cost per well is estimated to be $10,000 per year.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐22
7.1.3.2.3 Storage, Pumping & Distribution System
As shown in Figure 7‐8 on page 7‐23, Alternative 3 includes a reservoir located at or near the WWTP site,
a 5 hp booster pump and a total of 4.04 miles of pipeline. Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3a pipeline
is broken into additive segments (FC‐1 through FC‐3). The sizes and lengths for each pipeline segment are
summarized in Table 7‐9 below.
Table 7‐9. Alternative 3a Pipe Segments Sizes and Lengths
Segment Pipe Size
(In)
Pipe
Length
(miles)
FC‐1 8 1.68
FC‐2 8 0.91
FC‐3 6 1.45
Notes:
1. Pipeline size/ headloss calculations are
provided in Appendix D.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 7‐23 Figure 7‐8. Alternative 3a Overview
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐24
7.1.3.2.4 Total Unit Cost
Unit costs associated with Alternative 3a includes the WWTP upgrade to FAT, a 0.83 MG reservoir, a 5 hp
booster pump, 4.04 miles of pipeline and 3 injection wells. Capital and O&M cost were calculated for all
components. These cost are summarized in Table 7‐10 and detailed unit cost calculations are provided in
Appendix D.
Table 7‐10. Unit Cost for Alterative 3a
Segment
Annual
Average
(AFY)
Total Capital
Cost
Cumulative
O&M Cost
Cumulative
Unit Cost
$/AF
FC‐1 310 $ 21,611,000 $ 555,000 $ 4,900
FC‐2 310 $ 2,484,000 $ 575,000 $ 2,600
FC‐3 310 $ 2,950,000 $ 598,000 $ 1,900
Total 930 $27,045,000 $ 598,000 $ 1,900
7.1.3.2.5 Advantages and Disadvantages
Alternative 3a meets the goal of diversifying the City’s water supply portfolio by developing a local,
sustainable and highly reliable water supply and provides a new source of recharge to the SMGB. It also
protects the SMGB against seawater intrusion, which improves the reliability of and access to existing
groundwater supplies. These benefits are realized by all of the NCMA agencies who produce groundwater
from the SMGB.
Additionally, FAT effluent water quality is better than the basin water quality objectives and may be
identified as a mitigation measure in the SNMP to manage basin water quality.
By providing FAT, this alternatives provides the City more flexibility for reuse because the water can be
used for groundwater recharge and for all other approved RW uses.
It is estimated that approximately 30% of the water injected will not be recoverable due to flow to the
north, south and west. This increases the unit cost on the basis of water put to beneficial use, but does
not account for the additional basin capacity that is made available by alleviating the threat of seawater
intrusion.
The WWTP upgrade to FAT has a high initial capital cost and will increase the cost and complexity of the
WWTP O&M. However, the unit cost of Alternative 3a is among the lowest of all the alternatives
evaluated.
7.1.3.3 Alternative 3b – Full Advanced Treatment for Inland Recharge
Alternative 3b focuses on recharging the SMGB through inland injection wells. Similar to alternative 3a,
this alternative will benefit not only the City but also the other NCMA agencies that rely on this basin for
supply.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐25
7.1.3.3.1 Potential Water Use
As discussed in Section 5.2.2, the total available injection capacity is estimated to be 1,000 to 1,500 AFY,
therefore this alternative is based on injecting the entire WWTP RW production volume of 930 AFY. Based
on an assumed injection well capacity of 200‐300 AFY, four (4) R injection wells would be needed to inject
the full volume of available RW. This results in injection of approximately 230 AFY at each well. The actual
injection capacity of a given well will vary based on hydraulic constraints and regional groundwater
extractions impacting the particular well location.
7.1.3.3.2 Recharge Basins & Injection Wells
Alternative 3b will require four (4) wells located in the northern area of the NCMA. Conceptual well
locations are shown in Figure 7‐9 on page 7‐27. Six (6) total conceptual well locations were identified in
the Hydrologic Assessment TM. For the purposes of Alternative 3b, the four (4) closest wells, FI‐1, FI‐2,
FI‐3 and FI‐4, are included in the cost. The two (2) remaining wells, FI‐5 and FI‐6, are considered alternate
injection well locations in the event additional injection capacity or alternate sites are needed; these are
not included in the cost of Alternative 3b. Injection well FI‐4 is anticipated to be located on the Poplar
Street stormwater basin site. Co‐locating these facilities provides the flexibility to percolate RW into the
pond during dry periods rather than use the injection well, which may extend the maintenance intervals
for the injection well.
The inland injection wells will need to have a minimum setback of 200 feet from existing water supply
wells. Depths of the wells will depend on the depths of the localized aquifers, ranging from 400 to 600
feet depth. The injected zones and seals will be determined based on the specific site conditions.
In addition to the injection wells, monitoring wells will need to measure the groundwater level and quality.
Monitoring wells will be designed as pairs, one shallow and one deep, or nested dual aquifer completions
with separate casing in the injected aquifers and within the overlaying aquifer(s). Conceptually, the
monitoring well should be placed between the coastal injection wells and production wells. The
Groundwater Recharge Regulations require 2 monitoring wells for each injection well.
The estimated cost of each injection well is $500,000 per well and the estimated cost of each monitoring
well is $90,000 per well. Based on 2 monitoring wells, the total cost per injection well is estimated at
$680,000. Maintenance of the well should occur every two years which includes cleaning out the well
casings and removing microbial build‐up. O&M cost per well is estimated to be $10,000 per year.
7.1.3.3.3 Storage, Pumping & Distribution System
Alternative 3b will consist of a 0.83 MG reservoir and a 20 hp booster pump located at the WWTP. This
alternative will also include 4.5 miles of pipeline which consist of five segments (FI‐0 through FI‐4)
connecting the WWTP to four injection wells. As discussed previously, two wells and their associated
piping (Segments FI‐5 and FI‐6) are shown as alternates in the event additional injection capacity or
alternate sites are needed; these are not included in the cost of Alternative 3b. Sizes and lengths of the
pipeline segments are summarized in Table 7‐11 on page 7‐26.
The conceptual layout for Alternative 3b overview is shown in Figure 7‐9 on page 7‐27.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐26
Table 7‐11. Alternative 3b Pipe Segments Sizes and Lengths
Segment Pipe
Size (in)
Pipe Length
(miles)
FI‐0 12 2.37
FI‐1 8 0.28
FI‐2 6 0.41
FI‐3 6 0.69
FI‐4 6 0.84
FI‐5 Alternate 6 1.14
FI‐6 Alternate 6 0.64
Notes:
1. Pipeline size/ headloss calculations are provided in
Appendix D.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 7‐27 Figure 7‐9. Alternative 3b Overview
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐28
7.1.3.3.4 Total Unit Cost
As shown in Table 7‐12, the Alternative 3b total unit cost is $2,100. This includes the capital and O&M
cost for a 0.83 MG reservoir, WWTP upgrades to FAT, a 20 hp booster pump, 4.5 miles of pipeline, and
four (4) injection wells. Detailed unit calculations of the unit cost is provided in Appendix D.
Table 7‐12. Unit Cost for Alternative 3b
Segment
Annual
Average
(AFY)
Total Capital
Cost
Cumulative
O&M Cost
Cumulative
Unit Cost
$/AF
FI‐0 0 $ 21,883,000 $ 554,000 ‐
FI‐1 232 $ 1,709,000 $ 572,000 $ 7,000
FI‐2 232 $ 1,776,000 $ 591,000 $ 3,700
FI‐3 232 $ 2,066,000 $ 609,000 $ 2,600
FI‐4 232 $ 2,274,00 $ 628,000 $ 2,100
Total 930 $ 21,708,000 $ 628,000 $ 2,100
7.1.3.3.5 Advantages and Disadvantages
Alternative 3b meets the goal of diversifying the City’s water supply portfolio by developing a local,
sustainable and highly reliable water supply and provides a new source of recharge to the SMGB. It also
indirectly protects the SMGB against seawater intrusion by alleviating water level drawdown in the vicinity
of the municipal supply wells. This improves the reliability of and access to existing groundwater supplies.
These benefits are realized by all of the NCMA agencies who produce groundwater from the SMGB.
Additionally, FAT effluent water quality is better than the basin water quality objectives and may be
identified as a mitigation measure in the SNMP to manage basin water quality.
By providing FAT, this alternatives provides the City more flexibility for reuse because the water can be
used for groundwater recharge and for all other approved RW uses.
It is estimated that approximately 25% of the water injected will not be recoverable at the existing
municipal water supply wells; this increases the unit cost on the basis of water put to beneficial use.
The WWTP upgrade to FAT has a high initial capital cost and will increase the cost and complexity of the
WWTP O&M. However, the unit cost of Alternative 3b is among the lowest of all the alternatives
evaluated.
7.2 NON‐RECYCLED WATER ALTERNATIVE
WSC reviewed and compiled previously completed studies that identify non‐recycled water supply. These
studies include the 2012 Lopez Lake Spillway Raise Project study, the 2008 South San Luis Obispo County
Desalination Funding Study and the 2007 Nipomo Community Services District SWP Supply Analysis. The
unit cost of water supplies presented in each study are summarized in Table 7‐13 on page 7‐29. All unit
costs were escalated to June 2014 dollars using the ENR Construction Cost Index.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐29
Table 7‐13. Non‐recycled Water Supply Unit Cost
Supply Source Unit Cost ($/AF)
Surface Water Lopez Lake Spillway Raise Project (Stetson 2012) (12) $1,300
Ocean Water South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study
(Wallace 2008) (13) $2,900
Potable Water Nipomo Community Services District SWP Supply Analysis
(Boyle 2007) (14) $2,000 to $2,500
Note: Unit cost from each reference are escalated to June 2014 based on ENR Construction Cost Index.
Financing assumptions applied by each study are not reconciled.
7.3 WATER CONSERVATION/REDUCTION ANALYSIS
The City is required to reduce water use by 20% by the year 2020 to comply with Senate Bill x 7‐7 (SB7).
The unit used to measure compliance with water conservation reduction targets is water use in gallons
per capita per day (gpcd). The 2010 UWMP describes the SB7 analysis in more detail. As described in the
2010 UWMP, the City’s 10 year baseline is 236 gpcd, the interim target (2015) is 214 gpcd, and the target
(2020) is 192 gpcd. Table 7‐14 shows that the 2010‐2013 average of 231 gpcd reflects a reduction from
the baseline of 236 gpcd; but gpcd is expected to be further reduced to 214 gpcd by 2015 and 192 gpcd
by 2020.
Table 7‐14. Existing and Projected gpcd
2010 2011 2012 2013
2010‐
2013
Average
2015
Target
2020
Target
Gross Water
Use (AFY) 1 1,944 1,912 2,029 2,148 2,008 2,036 2,002
Gross Water
Use (GPD) 1 1,735,491 1,706,924 1,811,374 1,917,611 1,792,850 1,817,624 1,787,270
Population2 7,676 7,697 7,789 7,861 8,484 9,305
gpcd 226 222 233 244 231 214 192
1 All gross water use data comes from the 2010 UWMP (2) or the 2013 NCMA Annual Report (15).
2 Population estimates based on United States Census Bureau data.
In order to meet conservation targets, the City has pursued multiple new water use efficiency measures
and actions in addition to its existing programs. Some of the measures and actions implemented include
implementing mandatory water use restrictions, a revised water and wastewater rate structure, and
multiple water conservation incentive programs. The new conservation incentive programs analyzed and
pursued include: Cash for Grass Rebates; Washing Machine Rebates, Smart Irrigation Controller Program,
Irrigation Retrofit Program; and Commercial Flushless Urinal Rebate Program. Since mandatory water use
restrictions went into place in February 2014, the City’s water consumption has declined.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐30
Outdoor water use conservation measures would reduce the irrigation demands that could be served with
RW under Alternatives 1 and 2. This would result in a lower potable water offset and a higher cost per AF
of RW put to beneficial use.
Indoor water use conservation measures would reduce wastewater generation and would result in a
lower RW production rate and a higher cost per AF of RW put to beneficial use.
7.4 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
A “No Project” alternative would include no treatment upgrades to the City’s WWTP and no RW
distribution infrastructure. All of the WWTP effluent would continue to be discharged to the ocean. This
alternative would not require additional funding.
Relative to Alternatives 1 and 2, effects of the “No Project” alternative include continuing to use potable
water for landscape irrigation. The City’s irrigation customers would not gain a second, more reliable,
supply for irrigation.
Relative to Alternatives 3a and 3b, the effects of the “No‐Project” alternative include limiting the water
supplies of the NCMA agencies to their current groundwater and surface water supply sources. The risk
of seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin would remain.
The No Project Alternative does not meet the City’s goals because it does not offset potable water uses,
diversify the City’s water supply portfolio by developing a local, sustainable and highly reliable water
supply and does not provide a new source of recharge to the SMGB.
7.5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
7.5.1 Qualitative Evaluation Criteria
Each alternative was screened using the following qualitative screening criteria:
Promotes Beneficial Management of Water Resources
Promotes Salt & Nutrient Management
Improves Basin Water Quality
O&M Complexity
Expandability
Ease of Implementation
Funding Opportunity
Consistency with Project Goals & Objectives
Each criteria has a corresponding scoring approach. The scoring approaches and definition of each criteria
are provided in Appendix E. The scoring approach was then weighted based on the importance of the
criteria to the project’s goals and objectives. For each alternative, the weighted score for the screening
criteria was added to form the qualitative total. Finally, each alternative was ranked based on the
qualitative score total.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐31
7.5.2 Quantitative Analysis Summary
Each alternative was compared based on Annualized Cost per AF Recoverable and water available for
beneficial use. Table 7‐15 summarizes the results from the quantitative comparison.
Table 7‐15. RW Alternatives Quantitative Analysis Summary
Alternative
Alternative 1
Secondary‐23
Irrigation
Alternative 2
Tertiary
Irrigation
Alternative 3a
FAT for Coastal
Injection
Alternative 3b
FAT for Inland
Injection
Total Capital Cost $4,963,000 $20,679,000 $27,045,000 $29,708,000
Annual O&M Cost $44,000 $236,000 $598,000 $628,000
Total RW Used (AFY) 17 214 9301 9301
Annualized Cost ($/AF)2 $15,900 $5,400 $1,900 $2,100
Estimated % Recoverable 100% 100% 70% 75%
Estimated AFY
Recoverable 17 214 651 698
Annualized Cost ($/AF
Recoverable) $15,900 $5,400 $2,700 $2,800
Notes:
1. Based on estimate of actual RW production at buildout
2. The annualized unit cost is calculated by adding the annual payment for borrowed capital costs to the annual O&M cost
and dividing by the annual project yield. Annual payment for borrowed capital is based on an interest rate of 5% over
a payback period of 30 years.
7.5.3 Alternative Ranking Criteria and Scoring Results
For the alternative analysis, each alternative was compared and ranked on the basis of qualitative criteria,
annualized cost per AF recoverable and water available for beneficial use. Each alternative received a
ranking between 1 and 4. The ranking system is as follows:
Table 7‐16. Alternative Ranking Criteria
Criteria Ranking of 1 Ranking of 4
Qualitative Highest weighted score Lowest weighted score
Annualized Cost per AF
Recoverable
Lowest Annualized Cost
per AF Recoverable
Highest Annualized Cost
per AF Recoverable
Water Available for
Beneficial Use
Largest RW amount
used Smallest RW amount used
As shown in Figure 7‐10 on page 7‐33, Alternatives 3a and 3b ranked the highest. Alternative 1 ranked
the lowest for every criteria.
7.5.4 Preferred Alternative
The alternatives analysis concluded that groundwater recharge is the most favorable alternative;
Alternatives 3a and 3b received similar rankings. Based on the preliminary hydrologic assessment
completed as part of this RWFPS, both coastal and inland injection wells warrant further investigation.
For the purposes of this RWFPS, Alternative 3b for inland recharge is being carried forward as the
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 7‐32
recommended alternative because it has the highest volume of water estimated to be recoverable for
beneficial use and the cost difference from Alternative 3a is considered insignificant at this preliminary
planning stage. However, a combination of coastal and/or inland injection wells should be considered in
subsequent analyses to develop the most beneficial groundwater recharge program for the City and
NCMA agencies. The recommended project will be discussed in Chapter 8.
City of Pismo Beach 7. Project Alternatives Analysis Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 7‐33 Figure 7‐10. Alternatives Evaluation Results
City of Pismo Beach 8. Recommended Facilities Project Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 8‐1
8 RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PROJECT PLAN
8.1 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
As discussed in Chapter 7, Alternative 3b for inland recharge is being carried forward as the recommended
alternative because it has the highest volume of water estimated to be recoverable for beneficial use and
the cost difference from Alternative 3a is considered insignificant at this preliminary planning stage. This
chapter describes representative facilities required to implement a GRRP using inland recharge wells.
However, a combination of coastal and/or inland injection wells should be considered in subsequent
analyses to develop the most beneficial groundwater recharge program for the City and NCMA agencies.
8.1.1 Potential Water Use
As discussed in Section 7.1.3.3.1, it is anticipated that the entire WWTP RW production volume of 930 AFY
can be injected in four (4) inland injection wells. It is anticipated that 75% of the injected water could be
recovered by municipal production wells as sustainable water supply.
Alternative 3b employs treatment technology to produce a high quality effluent that meets the most
stringent requirements for groundwater recharge. Therefore, dilution water is not anticipated to be
required at recharge basins. The proposed FAT process will provide the City with flexibility through the
planning period since this water can be used for any approved RW use, including landscape irrigation, if
desired.
8.1.2 Treatment Upgrades
A site layout for the recommended alternative is presented in Figure 8‐1 on page 8‐2. The area shown
will accommodate an MF, RO, and UV/AOP with a footprint of approximately 5,000 square feet. The
preliminary design parameters of the full advanced treatment are presented below:
1. Micro Filtration
The preliminary design for the MF process was based on the use of pressure‐driven microfiltration
membranes. The system can also be constructed with vacuum‐driven or submerged membrane
systems. The system was designed with an MF recovery rate of 90%, and assuming each MF module
would be online 80% of the time, on average, with one redundant unit.
2. Reverse Osmosis
The preliminary design is based on a standard two‐stage RO process with sulfuric acid pretreatment
and post treatment that included degasification and lime stabilization post RO. An RO recovery of
85% was assumed.
3. Ultraviolet/Advanced Oxidation Process
A UV/AOP system was assumed for this process to provide 1.2 log reduction of NDMA and 0.5 log
reduction of 1,4‐dioxane. The UV dose, chemical oxidant, and chemical oxidant dose required to meet
this target will be determined in preliminary design.
City of Pismo Beach 8. Recommended Facilities Project Plan Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 8‐2 Figure 8‐1. Conceptual Site Layout for Recommended Alternative
City of Pismo Beach 8. Recommended Facilities Project Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 8‐3
The total estimated capital cost for the WWTP upgrades is approximately $15.1 million. This cost estimate
is based upon preliminary engineering and is validated by comparisons with other recently completed
design/constructed projects. The advanced treatment alternatives are more expensive, but provide more
flexibility for groundwater recharge.
The existing outfall line would continue to be used to for the waste stream from the FAT system as well
as for secondary effluent from diurnal flows in excess of the FAT treatment system capacity. Modifications
to the effluent pump station and/or piping may be required to accommodate this operation. The
abandoned chlorine contact basins could potentially be used to provide some equalization storage. This
should be addressed during preliminary design.
8.1.3 Recharge Basins and Injection Wells
The recommended project will require four (4) wells located in the northern area of the NCMA.
Conceptual well locations are shown in Figure 8‐3 on page 8‐6. Six (6) total conceptual well locations were
identified in the Hydrologic Assessment TM. The four (4) closest wells, FI‐1, FI‐2, FI‐3 and FI‐4, are
recommended for this project. The two (2) remaining wells, FI‐5 and FI‐6, are considered alternate
injection well locations in the event additional injection capacity or alternate sites are needed.
The injection wells will require a minimum setback of 200 feet from existing water supply wells. Depths
of the wells will depend on the depths of the localized aquifers, ranging from 400 to 600 feet depth. The
injected zones and seals will be determined based on the specific site conditions.
In addition to the injection wells, monitoring wells will need to measure the groundwater level and quality.
Monitoring well will be designed as pairs, one shallow and one deep, or nested dual aquifer completions
with separate casing in the injected aquifers and within the overlaying aquifer. Conceptually, the
monitoring well should be placed between the coastal injection wells and production wells. The
Groundwater Recharge Regulations require 2 monitoring wells for each injection well.
8.1.4 Storage
A 0.83 MG reservoir will be required to provide equalization of the FAT effluent so that water can be
delivered to the injection wells at constant flow rates. Four conceptual locations for the reservoir have
been identified at the WWTP site and are depicted on Figure 8‐1 on page 8‐2. Further investigation of the
reservoir siting is required to determine whether these conceptual locations are suitable and whether
buried utilities or shallow groundwater are anticipated.
8.1.5 Pump Station
The RW pump station would be located adjacent to the reservoir at the WWTP site. The pump station
would be sized to pump the entire effluent at a constant rate of approximately 600 gpm. Based on
providing a minimum pressure head at the injection wells of approximately 10 psi, the booster pump is
anticipated to be 20 hp.
8.1.6 Piping Distribution System
Construction of approximately 4.5 miles of pipeline, which consists of five segments (FI‐0 through FI‐4), is
required to connect the WWTP to the four injection wells, as shown in Figure 8‐3 on page 8‐6. As
City of Pismo Beach 8. Recommended Facilities Project Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 8‐4
discussed previously, two wells and their associated piping (Segments FI‐5 and FI‐6) are shown as
alternates in the event additional injection capacity or alternate sites are needed; these are not included
in the cost of the recommended project. Sizes and lengths of the pipeline segments are summarized in
Table 8‐1 on page 8‐4.
Table 8‐1. Recommended Project Pipeline Summary
Segment Pipe
Size (in)
Pipe Length
(miles)
FI‐0 12 2.37
FI‐1 8 0.28
FI‐2 6 0.41
FI‐3 6 0.69
FI‐4 6 0.84
FI‐5 Alternate 6 1.14
FI‐6 Alternate 6 0.64
8.1.7 Easements & Land Acquisition
The reservoir and booster station are assumed to be located on City property and additional land
acquisition for these facilities is not anticipated. The pipelines are assumed to be located within existing
easements or public rights‐of‐way so easement acquisition is not anticipated.
Easement and/or land acquisition may be required for the four injection well sites. Each well site is
anticipated to require approximately 2,500 SF, or 0.06 acres for the permanent site. Additional temporary
construction easements may be required to accommodate well drilling operations and will be based on
site specific space constraints.
8.1.8 Cost Estimate
The cost estimate for the recommended alternative is presented in Table 8‐2.
Table 8‐2. Cost Estimate for Recommended Alternative
Segment
Annual
Average
(AFY)1
Total Capital
Cost
Cumulative
O&M Cost
Cumulative
Unit Cost
$/AF2
Estimated
AFY
Recoverable1
Cumulative
Unit Cost $/AF
Recoverable
FI‐0 0 $ 21,883,000 $ 554,000 ‐ 0 ‐
FI‐1 232 $ 1,709,000 $ 572,000 $ 7,000 174 $ 9,300
FI‐2 232 $ 1,776,000 $ 591,000 $ 3,700 174 $ 4,900
FI‐3 232 $ 2,066,000 $ 609,000 $ 2,600 174 $ 3,500
FI‐4 232 $ 2,274,000 $ 628,000 $ 2,100 174 $ 2,800
Total 930 $ 29,708,000 $ 628,000 $ 2,100 698 $ 2,800
Notes:
1. Based on estimate of actual RW production at buildout
2. The annualized unit cost is calculated by adding the annual payment for borrowed capital costs to the annual O&M cost
and dividing by the annual project yield. Annual payment for borrowed capital is based on an interest rate of 5% over a
payback period of 30 years.
City of Pismo Beach 8. Recommended Facilities Project Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 8‐5
The project unit costs presented in Table 8‐2 on page 8‐4 are based on borrowing 100% of the project cost
at 5% interest for a 30 year term, to be consistent with the assumptions used in the 2014 San Luis Obispo
County Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP). However, it is likely that project financing can
be secured at a lower interest rate through current financing programs and obtaining grants would further
reduce the net interest rate. Figure 8‐2 illustrates the range in annualized unit cost based on varying
interest rates. The figure also illustrates the difference in unit cost for the WWTP flow as of 2013 (860
AFY total yield, 645 AFY recoverable) and the buildout WWTP flow (930 AFY total yield, 698 AFY
recoverable).
Figure 8‐2. Interest Rate and Unit Cost Comparison
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
$2,000
$2,100
$2,200
$2,300
$2,400
$2,500
$2,600
$2,700
$2,800
$2,900
$3,000
$3,100
$3,200
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%Annualized Unit Cost ($/AF Recoverable)Interest Rate
698 AFY (Buildout)645 AFY (2013)
$1,940/AF
$2,120/AF
$2,790/AF
$2,090/AF
$2,290/AF
$3,010/AF
1%
Water Bond
2%
SRF Average
5%
RRWSP
City of Pismo Beach 8. Recommended Facilities Project Plan Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 8‐6 Figure 8‐3. Recommended Alternative Overview
City of Pismo Beach 9. Implementation Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 9‐1
9 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The City will need to address the following project components in implementing the RW project.
9.1 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DESIGN
As part of the preliminary and final design of the WWTP treatment upgrades, injection wells and
distribution system, the following specific tasks are recommended.
9.1.1 Groundwater Modeling
For this RWFPS, CHG constructed a conceptual groundwater mounding model of the groundwater basin
area along the coastline from Pismo Creek to Arroyo Grande Creek in order to develop planning level
design recommendations for the injection well field presented in this RWFPS. The quantity of recharged
water at each injection well, number of wells are required, percent of water recoverable, groundwater
extraction impacts on the mounding and the pressure heads that can be developed from injection
presented in this RWFPS are preliminary. These are critical values that require further refinement for
detailed design of an injection well field. Development of a groundwater model, including calibration and
sensitivity analysis, should be undertaken to support the preliminary design as well as development of an
SNMP. Seawater intrusion modeling for dual density flow will also be an important part of a more detailed
flow simulations.
9.1.2 Test Injection Well
The installation and testing of a "test" injection well and nearby monitoring wells would be an important
step in further defining the injection capacities and the groundwater level response to the injected
water. The site for the test injection well could be chosen based on the follow up modeling as discussed
above. The test injection well could be full size and designed for long term use for incorporation into the
final project.
9.1.3 Water Quality Sampling for RO Process Design
For RO process design, there are several water quality parameters that are used to refine the estimates
of RO recovery, permeate water quality and brine water quality. Many of these parameters are not
currently measured per the requirements of the City’s NPDES discharge permit and therefore additional
monitoring is recommended.
The effluent concentrations for many constituents important for RO design are influenced by the
concentrations in the City’s drinking water supplies and the addition of constituents between the drinking
water distribution system and the secondary effluent. It is recommended that additional sampling is
conducted on the drinking water supplies and wastewater on a quarterly basis. Table 9‐1 on page 9‐2
includes a list of parameters and recommended detection limits.
City of Pismo Beach 9. Implementation Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 9‐2
Table 9‐1. Water Quality Parameters for RO Process Design
Parameter Unit Recommended
Detection Limit
Field Tests
Temperature a oC ‐
pH a S.U. 2 to 12
Turbidity a NTU 0.01
Silt Density Index a S.U. 1
Hydrogen Sulfide a mg/L 0.5
Laboratory Work
Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 1.0
TDS mg/L 10
Calcium mg/L 1.0
Magnesium mg/L 1.0
Sodium mg/L 1.0
Potassium mg/L 1.0
Ammonia mg/L 0.050
Barium mg/L 0.002
Strontium mg/L 0.010
Sulfate mg/L 10
Chloride mg/L 5
Fluoride mg/L 0.050
Phosphate mg/L 1.0
Silica mg/L 1.0
Boron mg/L 0.050
Ironb mg/L 0.1
Manganese mg/L 0.002
Aluminum mg/L 0.025
Notes:
a. For secondary effluent samples only
b. If the water is anaerobic, speciation between ferrous/ferric iron is required
9.2 PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
9.2.1 Tentative Water Recycling Requirements of the CCRWQCB
In order to implement a RW project, the City will need to initiate a permit reopener and renewal process
with the CCRWQCB to obtain coverage for the proposed FAT upgrades, waste effluent discharge and
injection wells under a Water Discharge Requirement (WDR) and/or Water Reclamation Requirement
(WRR) permit. The City will need to submit a Report of Waste Discharge to the CCRWQCB and an
Engineering Report to CCRWQCB and DDW. The Engineering Report will need to include:
Description of the proposed FAT upgrades to the WWTP
A hydrogeological assessment of the proposed GRRP’s setting, including:
o a general description of geologic and hydrogeological setting of the groundwater basin(s)
potentially directly impacted by the GRRP;
City of Pismo Beach 9. Implementation Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 9‐3
o a detailed description of the stratigraphy beneath the GRRP, including the composition,
extent, and physical properties of the affected aquifers; and
o based on at least four rounds of consecutive quarterly monitoring to capture seasonal
impacts:
the existing hydrogeology and the hydrogeology anticipated as a result of the
operation of the GRRP
maps showing quarterly groundwater elevation contours, along with vector flow
directions and calculated hydraulic gradients.
A map of the GRRP site showing (1) the location and boundaries of the GRRP; (2) a boundary
representing a zone of controlled drinking water well construction based on required
retention times, (3) a secondary boundary representing a zone of potential controlled
drinking water well construction, depicting the zone within which a well would extend the
boundary in paragraph (2) to include existing or potential future drinking water wells, thereby
requiring further study and potential mitigating activities prior to drinking water well
construction; and (4) the location of all monitoring wells and drinking water wells within two
years travel time of the GRRP based on groundwater flow directions and velocities expected
under GRRP operating conditions
Justification of the required Response Retention Time and a protocol to be used to establish
the required retention times
A protocol describing the actions to be taken following construction of the upgrades to
demonstrate that all treatment processes have been installed and can be operated to achieve
their intended function
Demonstration that the project sponsor possesses adequate managerial and technical
capability to assure compliance with the regulations
An emergency response plan for an alternative source of potable water supply or treatment
at a drinking water well if the GRRP causes the well to no longer be safe for drinking purposes
A contingency plan which will assure that no untreated or inadequately‐treated wastewater
will be delivered to the use area
Water recycling requirements for the GRRP will be in accordance with the Groundwater Recharge
Regulations and are anticipated to include the requirements presented in Table 9‐2 on page 9‐4, which
have been incorporated in the recommended project plan. Figure 9‐1 on page 9‐4 illustrates the
anticipated CCRWQCB permitting process required.
City of Pismo Beach 9. Implementation Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 9‐4
Table 9‐2. Tentative Water Recycling Requirements
Element Subsurface Recharge
Treatment 100% RO and AOP treatment for the entire waste
stream
Retention time Minimum 2 months
Recycled Water Max Initial
Contribution (RWCmax) Up to 100% with RO and AOP
Total Nitrogen Average <10 mg/L
Total Organic Carbon < 0.5 mg/L
Monitoring Wells 2 monitoring wells down gradient of the GRRP
Figure 9‐1. CCRWQCB Permitting Process
City of Pismo Beach 9. Implementation Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 9‐5
Prior to the operation of the GRRP, the City will also be required to develop and implement the following:
An industrial pretreatment and pollutant source control program and maintain a source control
program. As a component of the source control program, an outreach program to industrial,
commercial, and residential communities discharging to the WWTP will be needed for the
purpose of managing and minimizing the discharge of chemicals and contaminants at the source.
An Operation Optimization Plan which identifies and describes the operations, maintenance,
analytical methods and monitoring necessary for the GRRP to meet the requirements of the
Groundwater Recharge Regulations.
9.2.2 Infrastructure Permits
It is anticipated that the City will need to obtain multiple permits to construct the recommend project
including, but not limited to, the following:
Caltrans encroachment permits for pipelines within Caltrans Right‐of‐Way
Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach encroachment permits for improvements within their
respective Rights‐of‐Way
Coastal Development Permit for any improvements located within the Coastal Zone and appeals
jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission
Grading permits for treatment upgrades and injection well sites
NPDES General Construction Permit
Building permits
Streambed Alteration Agreement through California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for
any stream crossings
Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) the WWTP upgrades from the Air
Quality Management District
9.2.3 Salt and Nutrient Management Plan
It is anticipated that an SNMP would be developed by the NCMA in conjunction with the permitting
process for the project. The SNMP will consider the Basin Plan water quality objectives, the existing
groundwater quality data and determine the assimilative capacity of the basin. The SNMP findings would
not likely impact permit requirements for the GRRP project because FAT effluent water quality is better
than the water quality objectives and may even be identified as a mitigation measure. The SNMP will
need to include an implementation plan and monitoring program to meet the salt and nutrient objectives.
The monitoring plan should be coordinated with the current basin monitoring efforts as well as the
additional monitoring required for the GRRP to optimize monitoring facilities and operations.
9.2.4 Change Petition
Prior to making any change to the point of diversion, place of use, or purpose of use of treated waste
water, the City must obtain approval from the SWRCB in accordance with California Water Code (CWC)
sections 1210‐1212 addressing water rights. This process is initiated by filing a Change Petition with the
SWRCB.
9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS (CEQA)
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it is anticipated the City will prepare
an Initial Study (IS) followed by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the recommended project. In
City of Pismo Beach 9. Implementation Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 9‐6
anticipation of applying for federal funding sources, the City may also prepare an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
9.4 BENEFICIARIES
The beneficiaries of this project include potable water customers of the City and the other NCMA agencies
who rely on the SMGB for a portion of their water supply. The potable water users benefit from a new
source of supply which is local, sustainable and highly reliable. In addition, the NCMA agencies water
customers benefit from the reduced risk of seawater intrusion, which improves access to and reliability of
the existing groundwater supplies.
Wastewater disposal for the City’s wastewater customers is currently being achieved effectively through
treatment and discharge to the ocean; therefore, the wastewater customers are not considered a
beneficiary of this project. However, similar to inland discharges, ocean outfall water quality
requirements will likely continue the trend of increased stringency as new issues are discovered and
regulated. As a result, it is feasible that increasing treatment levels in the future may be required for
proper wastewater disposal. In this situation, the wastewater customers would also receive benefits from
the treatment upgrades proposed by the recommended project.
9.5 COORDINATION AND GOVERNANCE
It is recommended that City continue discussions with the other interested agencies regarding cost sharing
of the fixed and variable project costs and the technical and legal basis for return flow accounting and
allocation within the NCMA.
It is anticipated that the City will take the lead on the project in partnership with other participating
agencies. With this model, the City would construct and operate the facilities and would negotiate
reimbursement agreements with partnering agencies for cost sharing based on the agreed‐upon shares
of project benefit.
It is anticipated that the allocation of water supply benefits associated with the project would need to be
reviewed by the Court.
9.6 PUBLIC OUTREACH
Depending on the relative public acceptability of a GRRP, there may be a need for a public information
program, which could take many different forms. It is recommended that the City engage in a proactive
public outreach program in coordination with other existing or planned outreach programs.
9.7 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
A preliminary implementation schedule is presented in Figure 9‐2 on page 9‐7. Note that this schedule is
based on traditional design‐bid‐build project delivery. AL tentative project delivery strategies, such as
design‐build, could be considered to accelerate the project schedule.
City of Pismo Beach 9. Implementation Plan Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study ‐ Final 4/23/2015 9‐7 Figure 9‐2. Preliminary Implementation Schedule
City of Pismo Beach 10. Construction Financing Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study ‐ Final
4/23/2015 10‐1
10 CONSTRUCTION FINANCING PLAN
Planning a RW program and building RW infrastructure requires significant upfront capital. Additionally,
adequate funding for annual operation and maintenance (O&M) is necessary to ensure successful
operation. Developing and implementing a RW program will require the project partners to develop a
sound financial plan.
It is anticipated that the project will be funded through a combination of grants, low interest loans and
cost‐sharing contributions from partner agencies. The loans are anticipated to be secured through water
rates since the project benefits potable water supply.
As discussed in Section 9.4, current regulations do not require upgrades to the City’s WWTP so wastewater
customers are not currently identified as a significant project beneficiary. Therefore sewer rates are not
included in the preliminary financial strategy. If this changes in the future due to regulatory revisions
and/or infrastructure constraints, this funding mechanism could be pursued.
10.1 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Pursuing project funding will require an upfront investment by the City, and grant funding is anticipated
to be highly competitive. The recommended recycled water project is anticipated to be attractive for
grant funding agencies because it meets several objectives commonly prioritized by funding programs,
including:
Relies upon and strengthens local and regional partnerships
Develops a new, local, sustainable water supply that benefits regional communities, including
Oceano, which is a Disadvantaged Community
Improves groundwater basin quality and provides protection from seawater intrusion
Reduces ocean discharge of treated wastewater effluent
The following sections present potential grant and loan funding opportunities that may be available for
the project, including the recently approved 2014 California Water Bond.
10.1.1 Grant Funding Opportunities
State and Federal grant funding for RW projects can be available through numerous programs. The
advantage to grant funding is that it does not have to be repaid and effectively reduces the cost of the
RW project borne by the local ratepayers. Table 10‐2 on page 10‐3 presents several potential grant
funding sources.
10.1.2 Debt Funding Opportunities
An alternative funding to internal and grant funding is debt funding. The advantage to debt funding is the
availability of a large sum with payback that extends over many years. The two types of debt funding are
low interest loans from public programs or private bonds. Table 10‐3 on page 10‐5 summarizes current
loan programs available for RW projects.
City of Pismo Beach 10. Construction Financing Plan
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study ‐ Final
4/23/2015 10‐2
10.1.3 2014 Water Bond
The 2014 California Water Bond, formally known as the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure
Improvement Act of 2014, was passed by voters in November 2014. This bond will fund $7.7 billion dollars
of statewide water projects in the forms of grants and loans. The bond is broken into several different
funding categories, which are summarized in Table 10‐1.
Table 10‐1. 2014 Water Bond Funding Summary
Project Category Funding Allocation
Regional Water Reliability $ 810 million
Water Storage Capacity $ 2.7 billion (projects must be
in Bay‐Delta watershed area)
Water Recycling $ 725 million
Groundwater Sustainability $ 900 million
Safe Drinking Water $ 520 million
Watersheds and Flood Management $ 1.89 billion
Since the bond was only recently passed, the timing of applications and funding availability, as well as the
specific eligibility criteria are still under development. However, it is anticipated that recommended
project may be eligible under the Regional Water Reliability, Water Recycling, Groundwater Sustainability
and Safe Drinking Water categories. Worth $810 million, the Regional Water Reliability program is open
to projects that will assist with water conservation, storm water capture and other programs that increase
local and regional water supplies. The Water Recycling program, worth $725 million, is available to water
recycling and salt‐removal projects. Funds can be used for projects such as new RW pipelines, testing new
treatment technologies and constructing desalination plants. Groundwater protection and cleanup
programs are eligible for the Groundwater Sustainability funding, worth $900 million. Since this the
recommended project will assist in protecting the SMGB from seawater intrusion and will introduce high
quality water into the basin, it is anticipated to qualify for the Groundwater Stainability category. For
these reasons, it may also qualify for the safe Drinking Water Category, which is allocated $520 million.
In addition to specific programs discussed above, the bond provides $810 million for regional water
reliability projects included in specific plans developed by local communities. The Central Coast region
has been allocated $43 million for regional water reliability projects, and developing a RW resource from
the City’s WWTP was included in the County’s RRWSP and IRWMP.
City of Pismo Beach 10. Construction Financing Plan Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 10‐3 Table 10‐2. Potential Grant Funding Sources Funding Source Description Implementation Consideration Pros and Cons Administration Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP): Water Recycling Construction Program (WRCP) Grants and loans for the design and construction of water recycling facilities to promote the beneficial use of treated municipal wastewater in order to augment fresh water supplie; Primarily funded through Proposition 50 and SRF loan program Public agencies are eligible Grants are limited to 25% of eligible construction costs of proposed project, up to $5 million Funding agreement may include a grant and/or loan Eligible costs may include allowances for design, legal tasks, construction management, engineering during construction Pros: Provides grants for 25% of eligible project costs, up to $5 million Cons: Grants are subject to appropriations and are very limited Timing is critical State funds administered by the SWRCB IRWM Implementation Grants Grants for the implementation of projects that have been identified within an adopted IRWM Plan as a project or program needed to implement the Plan; Funded through Proposition 84 Must have engaged in IRWM Planning process Designed for projects that are ready for or nearly ready for implementation Maximum grant amount varies for each solicitation, based on total amount available for each funding area 25% of the total project costs must be paid for with non‐State funds Reimbursable costs include engineering, design, land and easement, and project implementation Pros: IRWM Planning Regions compete within funding area for grant funds Allows City to pursue funding as a group with their IRWM Planning Region Cons: Projects/programs that are not identified in an adopted IRWM are ineligible State funds allocated by DWR
City of Pismo Beach 10. Construction Financing Plan Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 10‐4 Funding Source Description Implementation Consideration Pros and Cons Administration WaterSMART: Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program Construction Grant Funding Grants for planning, design, and construction of authorized Title XVI projects; Title XVI projects are water reuse projects specifically authorized for funding by Congress under the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Title XVI of Public Law 102‐575) Project must be specifically authorized under Title XVI and must meet all Title XVI pre‐construction requirements City must work with Congressional representative to get project authorized as Title XVI Project needs to have an approved feasibility study that meets Title XVI requirements; Study does not have to be performed through WaterSMART Title XVI Feasibility Studies Funding Program Maximum grant amount is $4 million Federal cost share is limited to 25% of total costs Solicitations are typically released annually Pros: Funding program is focused on RW Grant amount could be up to $4 million Cons: City needs to prepare a feasibility study that meets Title XVI requirements City needs to receive Congressional authorization designating project as Title XVI Must comply with all Title XVI requirements Compete with 17 Western States and Hawaii for grant funding Federal funds administered by USBR 2014 California Water Bond Grant Funding See Section 10.1.3
City of Pismo Beach 10. Construction Financing Plan Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 10‐5 Table 10‐3. Potential Debt Funding Sources Funding Source Description Implementation Considerations Pros and Cons Administration Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Low‐interest loans for the planning, design and construction of publicly owned facilities, including water reclamation facilities Public agencies are eligible Interest rate is set at ½ of most recent General Obligation (GO) bond rate Financing term is 20 years (30 years for disadvantaged communities) No limit to financing available to each project Maximum financing amount is $50 million per agency per year Repayment begins 1 year after construction Pros: Low‐interest loans Allows costs to be spread out over 20 years Applications are continuously accepted Cons: Principal, plus interest, must be repaid State funds administered by the SWRCB Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Low‐interest loans for the planning, design and construction of publicly owned facilities. Public agencies are eligible Interest rates range from 1.5 to 3 percent $20 million per project Pros: Low‐interest rates Allows cost to be spread out over 20 years Applications are continuously accepted Cons: Principal, plus interest, must be repaid State funds administered by the SWRCB
City of Pismo Beach 10. Construction Financing Plan Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 10‐6 Funding Source Description Implementation Considerations Pros and Cons Administration Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) Low‐interest loans for planning, design, and construction of a variety of infrastructure projects, including water treatment and distribution and sewage collection and treatment Public agencies are eligible Loan amounts range from $250,000 to $10,000,000 per applicant per year Maximum of $20 million per jurisdiction per year Financing term is up to 30 years Fixed interest rate set at approx. 67% of Thompson’s Municipal Market Data for an “A” rated tax exempt security Eligible costs include land acquisition Pros: Low‐interest loans Allows costs to be spread out over up to 30 years Pre‐applications are continuously accepted Cons: Principal, plus interest, must be repaid State funds administered by California Infrastructure and Development Bank (I‐Bank) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development: Water & Waste Disposal Loan & Grant Program Low‐interest loans for construction and improvement of infrastructure projects including drinking water treatment and distribution and sewage collection and treatment Public agencies are eligible Agencies must serve rural areas and towns with fewer than 10,000 people Financing terms is up to 40 years Average loan amount ranges from $3‐5 million Fixed interest rate based on need of the project and the median household income of the area to be served Eligible costs include land acquisition Pros: Fixed interest rate Allows cost to be spread out over up to 40 years Applications are continuously accepted Cons: Principal, plus interest must be repaid Federal funds administered by USDA
City of Pismo Beach 10. Construction Financing Plan Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 4/23/2015 10‐7 Funding Source Description Implementation Considerations Pros and Cons Administration Seawater Intrusion Control Loan Program Low‐interest loans for design and construction of facilities necessary to protect groundwater quality threatened by seawater intrusion Public agencies are eligible Interest rate is set at ½ of most recent General Obligation (GO) bond rate Financing term is up to 20 years Maximum loan amount per project is $2.5 million Pros: Low‐interest rate Allows cost to be spread out over up to 20 years. Cons: Principal, plus interest must be repaid Project is funded on a first come‐first served basis State funds administered by the SWRCB 2014 California Water Bond Loan Funding See Section 10.1.3
City of Pismo Beach 11. References
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 11‐1
11 REFERENCES
1. California Department of Finance.
2. Carollo Engineers. City of Pismo Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. September 2011.
3. Carollo Engineers 2. City of Pismo Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. October 7, 2011.
4. City of Pismo Beach. Memorandum: Revised population projections for use in sewer treatment plant
expansion analysis. April 11, 2001.
5. City of Pismo Beach 3. Draft Environmental Impact Report on Price Canyon Planning Area, General
Plan Update, SOI Change, Annexation and Specific Plan. September 2010.
6. City of Pismo Beach 2. City of Pismo Beach General Plan. 1992.
7. Fugro Consultants. Northern Cities Management Area 2013 Annual Monitoring Report. 2014.
8. Komar, Judge Jack. Judgement After Trial. 1‐97‐CV‐770214, s.l., County of Santa Clara : Superior Court
of California , 2008.
9. Tuckfield & Associates. Water and Wastewater Rate Study Pismo Beach, California. April 2013.
10. California Department of Water Resources, Southern District. Water Resources of the Arroyo
Grande‐Nipomo Mesa Area. 2002.
11. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region. Water Quality Control Plan for the
Central Coastal Basin. June 2011.
12. Wallace Group. Recycled Water Distribution System Conceptual Plan‐ City of Pismo Beach WWTP.
June 2010.
13. Todd Engineers. Water Balance Study for the Northern Cities Area. April 2007.
14. Stetson Engineers Inc. Lopez Lake Spillway Raise Project Report. 2013.
15. Wallace Group. South San Luis Obispo County Desalination Funding Study. 2008.
16. Boyle. Evaluation of Supplemental Water Alternatives: Technical Memorandum No. 3
Implementation of Water Supply from CCWA/State Water Pipeline. 2007.
17. Carollo Engineers. City of Pismo Beach Water Reuse Study. May 2007.
18. RRM Design Group. Pismo Beach Recycled Water System Conceptual Cost Estimate. June 16, 2009.
19. City of Pismo Beach. City Council Agenda Report. October 2009.
City of Pismo Beach 11. References
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
4/23/2015 11‐2
20. Northern Cities Management Area Technical Group. Northern Cities Management Area Annual
Monitoring Report. 2010.
21. California Department of Water Resources. California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160‐98.
22. City of Pismo Beach 4. 2004 Water Master Plan.
23. City of Pismo Beach 5. Los Robles Del Mar Area Annexation. Addendum to the Certified Final
Environmental Impact Report and Final Supplemental EIR (SCH 1996103448). November 2010.
24. California Department of Water Resources 2. Bulletin 118. 2004.
25. Fugro Consultants, Inc. 2013 Annual Monitoring Report Northern Cities Management Area. 2014.
City of Pismo Beach Appendix A
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
APPENDIX A. NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
PERMIT (CA0048151)
Linda S. Adams
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Coast Region
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101, San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805) 549-3147 Fax (805) 543-0397
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/
ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE CITY OF PISMO BEACH
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
The following Discharger is subject to waste discharge requirements as set forth in this Order.
Table 1. Discharger Information
Discharger City of Pismo Beach
Name of Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant
550 Frady Lane
Pismo Beach, CA 93449 Facility Address
San Luis Obispo County
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board have
classified this discharge as a minor discharge.
Discharges by the City of Pismo Beach from the discharge point identified below are subject to
waste discharge requirements as set forth in this Order.
Table 2. Discharge Location
Discharge
Point Effluent Description Discharge Point
Latitude
Discharge Point
Longitude Receiving Water
001 Secondary Treated Municipal
Wastewater
35º 06’ 04” N 120º 38’ 46” W Pacific Ocean
Table 3. Administrative Information
This Order was adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board on: October 23, 2009
This Order shall become effective on: October 23, 2009
This Order shall expire on: October 23, 2014
The Discharger shall file a Report of Waste Discharge in accordance with
title 23, California Code of Regulations, as application for issuance of new
waste discharge requirements no later than:
180 days prior to the Order
expiration date
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Order No. R3-2004-0051 is rescinded upon the effective date
of this Order except for enforcement purposes, and, in order to meet the provisions contained
in division 7 of the California Water Code (commencing with section 13000) and regulations
adopted thereunder, and the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and regulations
and guidelines adopted thereunder, the Discharger shall comply with the requirements in this
Order.
CITY OF PlSMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
I, Roger Briggs Executive Officer, do hereby certify that this Order, with all attachments, is a
full, true, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Central Coastal Region, on October 23, 2009.
/ {~,p--i.,
f Roger W. Briggs, Executive Officer
ORDER
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
ORDER 3
Table of Contents
I.Facility Information ............................................................................................................ 4
II.Findings............................................................................................................................. 4
III.Discharge Prohibitions....................................................................................................... 8
IV.Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications............................................................. 9
A.Effluent Limitations – Discharge Point 001 ................................................................. 9
B.Land Discharge Specifications.................................................................................. 15
C.Reclamation Specifications....................................................................................... 15
V.Receiving Water Limitations............................................................................................ 15
A.Surface Water Limitations......................................................................................... 15
B.Groundwater Limitations........................................................................................... 17
VI.Provisions........................................................................................................................ 17
A.Standard Provisions.................................................................................................. 17
B.Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) Requirements ........................................ 17
C.Special Provisions..................................................................................................... 17
1.Reopener Provisions............................................................................................. 17
2.Special Studies, Technical Reports and Additional Monitoring Requirements...... 17
3.Best Management Practices and Pollution Prevention ......................................... 19
4.Construction, Operation and Maintenance Specifications..................................... 20
5.Special Provisions for Municipal Facilities (POTWs Only).................................... 20
6.Other Special Provisions....................................................................................... 21
7.Compliance Schedules......................................................................................... 22
VII.Compliance Determination .............................................................................................. 22
List of Tables
Table 1. Discharger Information ............................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Discharge Location..................................................................................................... 1
Table 3. Administrative Information .......................................................................................... 1
Table 4. Facility Information...................................................................................................... 4
Table 5. Basin Plan Beneficial Uses for the Pacific Ocean....................................................... 6
Table 6. Ocean Plan Beneficial Uses ....................................................................................... 6
Table 7. Effluent Limitations for Conventional Pollutants.......................................................... 9
Table 8. Effluent Limitations for Toxic Pollutants...................................................................... 9
Table 9. Effluent Limitations for the Protection of Human Health, Non-Carcinogens............. 11
Table 10. Effluent Limitations for the Protection of Human Health, Carcinogens ................... 12
Table 11. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Schedule................................................................. 19
List of Attachments
Attachment A – Definitions .....................................................................................................A-1
Attachment B – Map...............................................................................................................B-1
Attachment C – Flow Schematic.............................................................................................C-1
Attachment D – Standard Provisions......................................................................................D-1
Attachment E – Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP)....................................................E-1
Attachment F – Fact Sheet..................................................................................................... F-1
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 4
I. FACILITY INFORMATION
The following Discharger is subject to waste discharge requirements as set forth in this
Order.
Table 4. Facility Information
Discharger City of Pismo Beach
Name of Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant
550 Frady Lane
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Facility Address
San Luis Obispo County
Facility Contact, Title, and Phone Stuart S. Stewart, Wastewater Systems Supervisor
805-773-7075
Mailing Address 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Type of Facility POTW
Facility Design Flow 1.9 million gallons per day (MGD)
II. FINDINGS
The California Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (hereinafter the Central
Coast Water Board), finds:
A. Background. The City of Pismo Beach is currently discharging pursuant to Order No. R3-
2004-0051 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.
CA0048151. The Discharger submitted a complete Report of Waste Discharge, dated
March 10, 2009, and applied for an NPDES permit renewal to discharge up to 1.9 MGD of
treated wastewater from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant.
For the purposes of this Order, references to the “discharger” or “permittee” in applicable
federal and state laws, regulations, plans, or policy are held to be equivalent to references
to the Discharger herein.
B. Facility Description. The Discharger owns and operates a wastewater collection,
treatment, and disposal system, which serves the City of Pismo Beach. During the term of
Order No. R3-2004-0051, the City’s treatment facility was upgraded to incorporate
extended aeration using oxidation ditches, secondary clarification, chlorine disinfection,
and dechlorination capability with a design flow of 1.9 MGD. Treated wastewater is
discharged to the Pacific Ocean at a depth of approximately 55 feet through a 4,400 foot
outfall/diffuser system, jointly owned by the Discharger and the South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District. Up to 1.9 MGD of secondary treated wastewater is discharged
by the City of Pismo Beach, which is combined with up to 5.0 MGD of effluent from the
South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District through the outfall/diffuser system. The
diffuser provides a minimum initial dilution of approximately 165 to 1 (ocean water to
effluent). The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District discharge is regulated
under NPDES Permit No. CA00480003.
C. Legal Authorities. This Order is issued pursuant to CWA section 402 and implementing
regulations adopted by the USEPA and chapter 5.5, division 7 of the California Water
Code (commencing with section 13370). This Order shall serve as an NPDES permit for
point source discharges from this facility to surface waters. This Order also serves as
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 5
Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) pursuant to article 4, chapter 4, division 7 of the
California Water Code (commencing with section 13260).
D. Background and Rationale for Requirements. The Central Coast Water Board
developed the requirements in this Order based on information submitted as part of the
application, through monitoring and reporting programs, and other available information.
The Fact Sheet (Attachment F), which contains background information and rationale for
Order requirements, is hereby incorporated into this Order and constitutes part of the
Findings for this Order. Attachments A through E are also incorporated into this Order.
E. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Water Code section 13389,
this action to adopt an NPDES permit is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA, Public
Resources Code sections 21100-21177.
F. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations. CWA Section 301(b) and USEPA’s NPDES
regulations at 40 CFR 122.44 require that permits include, at a minimum, conditions
meeting applicable technology-based requirements and any more stringent effluent
limitations necessary to meet applicable water quality standards. Discharges authorized
by this Order must meet minimum federal technology-based requirements based on
Secondary Treatment Standards established at 40 CFR Part 133 and Best Professional
Judgment (BPJ) in accordance with 40 CFR 125.3. A detailed discussion of development
of technology-based effluent limitations is included in the Fact Sheet (Attachment F).
G. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations. CWA Section 301(b) and NPDES
regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) require that permits include limitations more stringent
than applicable federal technology-based requirements where necessary to achieve
applicable water quality standards.
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(i) mandate that permits include effluent
limitations for all pollutants that are or may be discharged at levels that have the
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of a water quality standard,
including numeric and narrative objectives within a standard. Where reasonable potential
is established for a pollutant, but there is no numeric criterion or objective for the pollutant,
water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) must be established using: (1) USEPA
criteria guidance under CWA section 304(a), supplemented where necessary by other
relevant information; (2) an indicator parameter for the pollutant of concern; or (3) a
calculated numeric water quality criterion, such as a proposed state criterion or policy
interpreting the state’s narrative criterion, supplemented with other relevant information, as
provided at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vi).
H. Water Quality Control Plans. The Central Coast Water Board has adopted a Water
Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Region (the Basin Plan) that designates
beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation
programs and policies to achieve those objectives for receiving waters within the Region.
To address ocean waters, the Basin Plan incorporates by reference the Water Quality
Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (the Ocean Plan).
The Basin Plan implements State Water Board Resolution No. 88-63, which establishes
State policy that all waters, with certain exceptions, should be considered suitable or
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 6
potentially suitable for municipal or domestic supply (MUN). Because TDS levels of marine
waters exceed 3000 mg/L, such waters are not considered suitable for municipal or
domestic supply and therefore meet an exception to Resolution No. 88-63. Beneficial uses
established by the Basin Plan for coastal waters between Point San Luis and Point Sal are
presented in Table 5, below.
Table 5. Basin Plan Beneficial Uses for the Pacific Ocean
Discharge Point Receiving Water Beneficial Use(s)
001 Pacific Ocean
(Pt San Luis to Pt Sal)
• Water Contact and Non-Contact Recreation
• Industrial Service Supply
• Navigation
• Commercial and Sport Fishing
• Marine Habitat
• Shellfish Harvesting
• Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species
• Wildlife Habitat
I. California Ocean Plan. The State Water Board adopted the Ocean Plan in 1972 and
amended it in 1978, 1983, 1988, 1990, 1997, 2000, and 2005. The Ocean Plan is
applicable to point source discharges to the Ocean, and it identifies the following beneficial
uses of ocean waters.
Table 6. Ocean Plan Beneficial Uses
Discharge Point Receiving Water Beneficial Uses
001 Pacific Ocean • Industrial Water Supply
• Water Contact and Non-Contact Recreation, including
Aesthetic Enjoyment
• Navigation
• Commercial and Sport Fishing
• Mariculture
• Preservation and Enhancement of Designated Areas
of Special Biological Significance (ASBS)
• Rare and Endangered Species
• Marine Habitat
• Fish Migration
• Fish Spawning and Shellfish Harvesting
In order to protect beneficial uses the Ocean Plan establishes water quality objectives and
programs of implementation to achieve and maintain those objectives. Requirements of
this Order implement the Ocean Plan.
J. Alaska Rule. On March 30, 2000, USEPA revised its regulation that specifies when new
and revised state and tribal water quality standards become effective for CWA purposes.
[65 Fed. Reg. 24641 (April 27, 2000), codified at 40 CFR 131.21] Under the revised
regulation (also known as the Alaska Rule), new and revised standards submitted to
USEPA after May 30, 2000, must be approved by USEPA before being used for CWA
purposes. The final rule provides that standards already in effect and submitted to USEPA
by May 30, 2000, may be used for CWA purposes, whether or not approved by USEPA.
K. Stringency of Requirements for Individual Pollutants. This Order contains both
technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations for individual pollutants. As
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 7
discussed in section IV. B of the Fact Sheet, the Order establishes technology-based
effluent limitations for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS),
settleable solids, oil and grease, turbidity, and pH for Discharge Point 001. These
technology-based limitations implement the minimum, applicable federal technology-based
requirements. The Order also contains effluent limitations in addition to the minimum,
federal technology-based requirements, necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards. These limitations are not more stringent than required by the CWA.
WQBELs have been scientifically derived to implement water quality objectives that
protect beneficial uses. Both the beneficial uses and the water quality objectives have
been approved pursuant to federal law and are the applicable federal water quality
standards. Procedures for calculating individual WQBELs are based on the Ocean Plan,
as approved by USEPA on February 14, 2006. All beneficial uses and water quality
objectives contained in the Ocean Plan were approved under state law and submitted to
and approved by USEPA prior to May 30, 2000. Any water quality objectives and
beneficial uses submitted to USEPA prior to May 30, 2000, but not approved by USEPA
before that date, are nonetheless “applicable water quality standards for purposes of the
CWA” pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21(c)(1). Collectively, this Order’s restrictions on individual
pollutants are no more stringent than required to implement the requirements of the CWA.
L. Antidegradation Policy. NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 131.12 require that State water
quality standards include an antidegradation policy consistent with the federal policy. The
State Water Board established California’s antidegradation policy in State Water Board
Resolution No. 68-16, which incorporates the federal antidegradation policy where the
federal policy applies under federal law. Resolution No. 68-16 requires that the existing
quality of waters be maintained unless degradation is justified based on specific findings.
The Central Coast Water Board’s Basin Plan implements and incorporates by reference
both the State and federal antidegradation policies. As discussed in the Fact Sheet, the
permitted discharge is consistent with the antidegradation provisions of 40 CFR 131.12
and State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16.
M. Anti-Backsliding Requirements. CWA Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) and NPDES
regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(l) prohibit backsliding in NPDES permits. These anti-
backsliding provisions require effluent limitations in a reissued permit to be as stringent as
those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations may be relaxed. As
discussed in the Fact Sheet, effluent limitations and other requirements established by this
Order satisfy applicable anti-backsliding provisions of the CWA and NPDES regulations.
N. Endangered Species Act. This Order does not authorize any act that results in the
taking of a threatened or endangered specie or any act that is now prohibited, or
becomes prohibited in the future, under either the California Endangered Species Act
(Fish and Game Code sections 2050 to 2097) or the federal Endangered Species Act
(16 U.S.C.A. sections 1531 to 1544). This Order requires compliance with effluent limits,
receiving water limits, and other requirements to protect the beneficial uses of waters of
the State. The Discharger is responsible for meeting all requirements of State and
federal law regarding threatened and endangered species.
O. Monitoring and Reporting. NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.48 require that all
NPDES permits specify requirements for recording and reporting monitoring results.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 8
California Water Code sections 13267 and 13383 authorize the Central Coast Water
Board to require technical and monitoring reports. The Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Attachment E) establishes monitoring and reporting requirements to implement federal
and State requirements.
P. Standard and Special Provisions. Standard Provisions, which apply to all NPDES
permits in accordance with NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.41, and additional
conditions applicable to specified categories of permits in accordance with 40 CFR 122.42,
are provided in Attachment D. The Central Coast Water Board has also included in this
Order special provisions applicable to the Discharger. A rationale for the special
provisions contained in this Order is provided in the attached Fact Sheet.
Q. Provisions and Requirements Implementing State Law. The provisions/requirements
in subsections IV.B, IV.C, and V.B of this Order are included to implement State law only.
These provisions/requirements are not required or authorized under the federal CWA;
consequently, violations of these provisions/requirements are not subject to the
enforcement remedies that are available for NPDES violations.
R. Notification of Interested Parties. The Central Coast Water Board has notified the
Discharger and interested agencies and persons of its intent to prescribe Waste Discharge
Requirements for the discharge and has provided them with an opportunity to submit their
written comments and recommendations. Details of notification are provided in the Fact
Sheet accompanying this Order.
S. Consideration of Public Comment. The Central Coast Water Board, in a public
meeting, heard and considered all comments pertaining to the discharge. Details of the
Public Hearing are provided in the Fact Sheet of this Order.
III. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS
A. Discharge to the Pacific Ocean Bay at a location other than as described by this Order at
35º06’04” N. Latitude, 120º38’75” W. Longitude is prohibited.
B. Discharges of any waste in any manner other than as described by this Order are
prohibited.
C. The average monthly rate of discharge to the Pacific Ocean shall not exceed 1.9 MGD.
D. Wastes shall not be discharged to State Water Quality Protection Areas, described as
Areas of Special Biological Significance by the Ocean Plan (2005), except in accordance
with Chapter III.E of the Ocean Plan.
E. The discharge of any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent or high level
radioactive waste to the Ocean is prohibited.
F. Federal law prohibits the discharge of sludge by pipeline to the Ocean. The discharge of
municipal or industrial waste sludge directly to the Ocean or into a waste stream that
discharges to the Ocean is prohibited. The discharge of sludge or digester supernatant,
without further treatment, directly to the Ocean or to a waste stream that discharges to the
Ocean, is prohibited.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 9
G. The overflow or bypass of wastewater from the Discharger’s collection, treatment, or
disposal facilities and the subsequent discharge of untreated or partially treated
wastewater, except as provided for in Attachment D, Standard Provision I. G (Bypass), is
prohibited.
IV. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS
A. Effluent Limitations – Discharge Point 001
1. Conventional Pollutants. The Discharger shall maintain compliance with the
following effluent limitations at Discharge Point 001, with compliance measured at
Monitoring Location EFF-001 as described in the attached MRP.
Table 7. Effluent Limitations for Conventional Pollutants
Effluent Limitations Parameter Units Average Monthly Average Weekly Maximum Daily
mg/L 30 45 90 BOD5 lbs/day 475 713 1,426
mg/L 30 45 90 TSS lbs/day 475 713 1,426
Settleable Solids mL/L/hr 1.0 1.5 3.0
Turbidity NTUs 75 100 225
mg/L 25 40 75 Oil & Grease lbs/day 396 634 1,188
Fecal Coliform Bacteria MPN/100 mL 200 [1] 2,000
pH pH units 6.0 – 9.0 at all times
[1] 7-sample median
2. Toxic Pollutants. The Discharger shall maintain compliance with the following
effluent limitations for toxic pollutants at Discharge Point 001, with compliance
measured at Monitoring Location EFF-001, as described in the attached MRP.
Table 8. Effluent Limitations for Toxic Pollutants
Pollutant Unit 6-Month
Median[1] Daily
Maximum[2]
Instantaneous
Maximum[3]
mg/L 0.83 4.82 12.79 Arsenic
lbs/day 13 76 203
mg/L 0.17 0.66 1.66 Cadmium
lbs/day 2.6 11 26
mg/L 0.33 1.33 3.32 Chromium (+6)[4]
lbs/day 5 21 53
mg/L 0.17 1.66 4.65 Copper
lbs/day 2.66 26 74
mg/L 0.33 1.33 3.32 Lead
lbs/day 5 21 53
µg/L 6.56 26.48 66.32 Mercury
lbs/day 0.10 0.40 1.1
Nickel mg/L 0.83 3.32 8.30
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 10
Pollutant Unit 6-Month
Median[1]
Daily
Maximum[2]
Instantaneous
Maximum[3]
lbs/day 13 53 132
mg/L 2.49 9.96 24.90 Selenium
lbs/day 39 158 395
mg/L 0.09 0.44 1.14 Silver
lbs/day 1.4 7 18
mg/L 2.00 11.96 31.88 Zinc
lbs/day 32 190 505
mg/L 0.17 0.66 1.66 Cyanide[5]
lbs/day 2.6 11 26
mg/L 0.33 1.33 9.96 Total Chlorine Residual
lbs/day 5 21 158
mg/L 99.6 398.4 996 Ammonia (as N)
lbs/day 1578 6313 15783
Acute Toxicity[6],[7] TUa --- 5.25 ---
Chronic Toxicity[7],[8] TUc --- 166 ---
mg/L 4.98 19.92 49.80 Non-chlorinated Phenolics
lbs/day 79 316 789
mg/L 0.17 0.66 1.66 Chlorinated Phenolics
lbs/day 2.6 11 26
µg/L 1.49 2.99 4.48 Endosulfan[9]
lbs/day 0.024 0.05 0.07
µg/L 0.33 0.66 1.00 Endrin
lbs/day 0.005 0.011 0.016
µg/L 0.66 1.33 1.99 HCH[10]
lbs/day 0.011 0.021 0.032
Radioactivity Not to exceed limits specified in Title 17, Division 1, Chapter
5, Subchapter 4, Group 3, Article 3, Section 30253 of the
California Code of Regulations. Reference to Section 30253
is prospective, including future changes to any incorporated
provisions of federal law, as the changes take effect.
[1] The six-month median shall apply as a moving median of daily values for any 180-day period in which daily
values represent flow weighted average concentrations within a 24-hour period. For intermittent discharges, the
daily value shall be considered to equal zero for days on which no discharge occurred. The six-month median
limit on daily mass emissions shall be determined using the six-month median effluent concentration as Ce and
the observed flow rate Q in millions of gallons per day (each variable referring to Equation 3 of the Ocean Plan).
[2] The daily maximum shall apply to flow weighted 24-hour composite samples. The daily maximum mass emission
shall be determined using the daily maximum effluent concentration limit as Ce and the observed flow rate Q in
millions of gallons per day (each variable referring to Equation 3 of the Ocean Plan).
[3] The instantaneous maximum shall apply to grab sample determinations.
[4] The Discharger may, at its option, meet this limitation as total chromium.
[5] If a Discharger can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional water Board (subject to USEPA approval) that
an analytical method is available method is available to reliably distinguish between strongly and weakly
complexed cyanide, effluent limitations for cyanide may be met by the combined measurement of free cyanide,
simple alkali metal cyanides, and weakly complexed organometallic cyanide complexes. In order for the
analytical method to be acceptable, the recovery of free cyanide from metal complexes must be comparable to
that achieved by the approved method in 40 CFR Part 136, as revised May 14, 1999.
[6] The mixing zone for the Ocean Plan’s Table B acute toxicity objective shall be ten percent (10%) of the distance
from the edge of the outfall structure to the edge of the chronic mixing zone (zone of initial dilution). There is no
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 11
vertical limitation on this zone. This acute toxicity effluent limitation takes this requirement into consideration and
was derived using Equation No. 2 of the Ocean Plan.
[7] Acute Toxicity - Expressed in Toxic Units Acute (TUa)
Lethal Concentration 50% (LC 50) - LC 50 (percent waste giving 50% survival of test organisms) shall be
determined by static or continuous flow bioassay techniques using standard marine test species as specified in
the Ocean Plan Appendix III. If specific identifiable substances in wastewater can be demonstrated by the
discharger as being rapidly rendered harmless upon discharge to the marine environment, but not as a result of
dilution, the LC 50 may be determined after the test samples are adjusted to remove the influence of those
substances. When it is not possible to measure the 96-hour LC 50 due to greater than 50 percent survival of the
test species in 100 percent waste, the toxicity concentration shall be calculated by the expression:
log (100 - S) TUa = 1.7
where: S = percentage survival in 100% waste. If S > 99, TUa shall be reported as zero.
[8] This parameter shall be used to measure the acceptability of waters for supporting a healthy marine biota until
improved methods are developed to evaluate biological response.
Chronic Toxicity - Expressed as Toxic Units Chronic (TUc)
No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) - The NOEL is expressed as the maximum percent effluent or receiving water
that causes no observable effect on a test organism, as determined by the result of a critical life stage toxicity
test listed in Appendix III.
[9] Endosulfan shall mean the sum of endosulfan-alpha and –beta and endosulfan sulfate.
[10] HCH shall mean the sum of the alpha, beta, gamma (lindane) and delta isomers of hexachlorocyclohexane.
Table 9. Effluent Limitations for the Protection of Human Health,
Non-Carcinogens
Pollutant Units 30-Day Average
mg/L 36.52 Acrolein
lbs/day 579
mg/L 199.2 Antimony
lbs/day 3157
mg/L 0.73 Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane
lbs/day 12
mg/L 199.2 Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether
lbs/day 3157
mg/L 94.62 Chlorobenzene
lbs/day 1499
g/L 31.54 Chromium (+3)
lbs/day 499783
mg/L 581 Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
lbs/day 9207
mg/L 846.6 Dichlorobenzenes[1]
lbs/day 13415
g/L 5.478 Diethyl Phthalate
lbs/day 86804
g/L 136.12 Dimethyl Phthalate
lbs/day 2156958
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol mg/L 36.52
100 TUa = 96-hr LC 50%
100 TUc = NOEL
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 12
Pollutant Units 30-Day Average
lbs/day 579
mg/L 0.664 2,4-Dinitrophenol
lbs/day 11
mg/L 680.6 Ethylbenzene
lbs/day 10785
mg/L 2.49 Fluoranthene
lbs/day 39
mg/L 9.628 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
lbs/day 153
mg/L 0.813 Nitrobenzene
lbs/day 13
mg/L 0.332 Thallium
lbs/day 5
g/L 14.11 Toluene
lbs/day 223587
µg/L 0.23 Tributytin
lbs/day 0.0037
g/L 89.64 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
lbs/day 1420435
[1] Dichlorobenzenes shall mean the sum of 1,2- and 1,3-dichlorobenzene.
Table 10. Effluent Limitations for the Protection of Human Health, Carcinogens
Pollutant Unit 30-Day Average
µg/L 16.6 Acrylonitrile
lbs/day 0.26
ng/L 3.652 Aldrin
lbs/day 0.00006
µg/L 979.4 Benzene
lbs/day 16
ng/L 11.45 Benzidine
lbs/day 0.00018
µg/L 5.478 Beryllium
lbs/day 0.09
µg/L 7.47 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
lbs/day 0.12
µg/L 581 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
lbs/day 9
µg/L 149.4 Carbon Tetrachloride
lbs/day 0.24
ng/L 3.818 Chlordane[1]
lbs/day 0.00006
mg/L 1.428 Chlorodibromomethane
lbs/day 23
mg/L 21.58 Chloroform
lbs/day 340
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 13
Pollutant Unit 30-Day Average
ng/L 28.22 DDT[2]
lbs/day 0.0004
mg/L 3.988 1,4-Dichlorobenzene
lbs/day 47
µg/L 1.345 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
lbs/day 0.021
mg/L 4.648 1,2-Dichloroethane
lbs/day 74
µg/L 149.4 1,1-Dichloroethylene
lbs/day 2.4
mg/L 1.029 Dichlorobromomethane
lbs/day 16
mg/L 74.7 Dichloromethane
lbs/day 1184
mg/L 1.477 1,3-Dichloropropene
lbs/day 23
ng/L 6.64 Dieldrin
lbs/day 0.00011
µg/L 431.6 2,4-Dinitrotoluene
lbs/day 7
µg/L 26.56 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
lbs/day 0.4
mg/L 21.580 Halomethanes
lbs/day 342
ng/L 8.3 Heptachlor
lbs/day 0.00013
ng/L 3.32 Heptachlor Epoxide
lbs/day 0.00005
ng/L 34.86 Hexachlorobenzene
lbs/day 0.0006
mg/L 2.324 Hexachlorobutadiene
lbs/day 37
µg/L 415 Hexachloroethane
lbs/day 6.6
mg/L 121.18 Isophorone
lbs/day 1920
mg/L 1.212 N-nitrosodimethylamine
lbs/day 19
µg/L 63.08 N-nitrosdi-N-propylamine
lbs/day 1.0
µg/L 415 N-nitrosodiphenylamine
lbs/day 7
µg/L 1.461 PAHs[3]
lbs/day 0.023
PCBs[4] ng/L 3.154
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 14
Pollutant Unit 30-Day Average
lbs/day 0.00005
pg/L 0.6474 TCDD Equivalents[5]
lbs/day 0.00000001
µg/L 381.8 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
lbs/day 6
µg/L 332 Tetrachloroethylene
lbs/day 5
ng/L 34.86 Toxaphene
lbs/day 0.006
mg/L 4.482 Trichloroethylene
lbs/day 71
mg/L 1.56 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
lbs/day 25
µg/L 48.14 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
lbs/day 0.76
mg/L 5.976 Vinyl Chloride
lbs/day 95
[1] Chlordane shall mean the sum of chlordane-alpha, chlordane-gamma, chlordene-alpha, chlordene-gamma,
nonachlor-alpha, nonachlor-gamma, and oxychlordane.
[2] DDT shall mean the sum of 4,4’DDT, 2,4’DDT, 4,4’DDE, 2,4’DDE, 4,4’DDD, and 2,4’DDD.
[3] PAHs (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) shall mean the sum of acenaphthylene, anthracene, 1,2-
benzanthracene, 3,4-benzofluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, 1,12-benzoperylene, benzo[a]pyrene,
chrysene, dibenzo[ah]anthracene, fluorene, indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, phenanthrene and pyrene.
[4] PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) shall mean the sum of chlorinated biphenyls with analytical characteristics
resembling those of Aroclor-1016, Aroclor-1221, Aroclor-1232, Aroclor-1242, Aroclor-1248, Aroclor-1254 and
Aroclor-1260.
[5] TCDD equivalents shall mean the sum of concentrations of chlorinated dibenzodioxins (2,3,7,8-CDDs) and
chlorinated dibenzofurans (2,3,7,8-CDFs) multiplied by their respective toxicity factors, as shown below.
Isomer Group Toxicity Equivalence Factor
2,3,7,8-tetra CDD 1.0
2,3,7,8-penta CDD 0.5
2,3,7,8-hexa CDDs 0.1
2,3,7,8-hepta CDD 0.01
octa CDD 0.001
2,3,7,8 tetra CDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8 penta CDF 0.05
2,3,4,7,8 penta CDF 0.5
2,3,7,8 hexa CDFs 0.1
2,3,7,8 hepta CDFs 0.01
octa CDF 0.001
3. Percent Removal. The average monthly percent removal of BOD5 and TSS shall
not be less than 85 percent.
4 Initial Dilution. The minimum initial dilution of treated effluent at the point of
discharge to the Pacific Ocean shall not be less than 165 to 1 (seawater to effluent)
at any time.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 15
5. Effluent shall be essentially free of materials and substances that:
a. Float or become floatable upon discharge;
b. May form sediments which degrade benthic communities or other aquatic life;
c. Accumulate to toxic levels in marine waters, sediments, or biota;
d. Decrease the natural light to benthic communities and other marine life; and
e. Result in aesthetically undesirable discoloration of the ocean surface.
B. Land Discharge Specifications. This section of the standardized permit is not
applicable to the City of Pismo Beach.
C. Reclamation Specifications. If applicable, the Discharger shall comply with applicable
State and local requirements regarding the production and use of reclaimed
wastewater, including requirements established by the Department of Public Health at
title 22, sections 60301 - 60357 of the California Code of Regulations, Water Recycling
Criteria.
V. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS
A. Surface Water Limitations. The following receiving water limitations are based on
water quality objectives contained in the Ocean Plan and are a required part of this
Order. Compliance shall be determined from samples collected at stations
representative of the area within the waste field where initial dilution is completed.
1. Within a zone bounded by the shoreline and a distance of 1,000 feet from the
shoreline or the 30-foot depth contour, whichever is further from the shoreline, and in
areas outside this zone designated for water contact recreation use by the Central
Coast Water Board (i.e., waters designated as REC-1), but including all kelp beds,
the following bacteriological objectives shall be maintained throughout the water
column.
30-Day Geometric Mean: The following standards are based on the geometric mean
of the five most recent samples from each receiving water monitoring location:
a. Total coliform density shall not exceed 1,000 per 100 ml;
b. Fecal coliform density shall not exceed 200 per 100 mL; and
c. Enterococcus density shall not exceed 35 per 100 mL.
Single Sample maximum:
a. Total coliform density shall not exceed 10,000 per 100 ml;
b. Fecal coliform density shall not exceed 400 per 100 mL; and
c. Enterococcus density shall not exceed 104 per 100 mL.
d. Total coliform density shall not exceed 1,000 per 100 mL when the fecal coliform
to total coliform ratio exceeds 0.1
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 16
2. At all areas where shellfish may be harvested for human consumption, as
determined by the Central Coast Water Board, the following bacteriological
objectives shall be maintained throughout the water column:
a. The median total coliform density shall not exceed 70 organisms per 100 mLs,
and in not more than 10 percent of samples shall coliform density exceed 230
organisms per 100 mLs.
3. Floating particulates and grease and oil shall not be visible.
4. The discharge of waste shall not cause aesthetically undesirable discoloration of the
ocean surface.
5. Natural light shall not be significantly reduced at any point outside the initial dilution
zone as the result of the discharge of waste.
6. The rate of deposition of inert solids and the characteristics of inert solids in ocean
sediments shall not be changed such that benthic communities are degraded.
7. The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not at any time be depressed more than
10 percent from that which occurs naturally as a result of the discharge of oxygen
demanding waste material.
8. The pH shall not be changed at any time more than 0.2 units from that which occurs
naturally.
9. The dissolved sulfide concentration of waters in and near sediments shall not be
significantly increased above that present under natural conditions.
10. The concentration of substances set forth in Chapter II, Table B of the Ocean Plan in
marine sediments shall not be increased to levels that would degrade indigenous
biota.
11. The concentration of organic materials in marine sediments shall not be increased to
levels that would degrade marine life.
12. Nutrient levels shall not cause objectionable aquatic growths or degrade indigenous
biota.
13. Discharges shall not cause exceedances of water quality objectives for ocean
waters of the State established in Table B of the Ocean Plan.
14. Marine communities, including vertebrate, invertebrate and plant species, shall not
be degraded.
15. The natural taste, odor, and color of fish, shellfish, or other marine resources used
for human consumption shall not be altered.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 17
16. The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish, or other marine resources
used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to
human health.
17. Discharge of radioactive waste shall not degrade marine life.
B. Groundwater Limitations. Activities at the facility shall not cause
exceedance/deviation from the following water quality objectives for groundwater
established by the Basin Plan.
1. Groundwater shall not contain taste or odor producing substances in concentrations
that adversely affect beneficial uses.
2. Radionuclides shall not be present in concentrations that are deleterious to human,
plant, animal, or aquatic life; or result in the accumulation of radionuclides in the food
web to an extent that presents a hazard to human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
VI. PROVISIONS
A. Standard Provisions
1. Federal Standard Provisions. The Discharger shall comply with all Standard
Provisions included in Attachment D of this Order.
2. Central Coast Water Board Standard Provisions. The Discharger shall comply
with all Central Coast Water Board Standard Provisions included in Attachment D-1
of this Order.
B. Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) Requirements. The Discharger shall
comply with the Monitoring and Reporting Program, and future revisions thereto, in
Attachment E of this Order. All monitoring shall be conducted according to 40 CFR Part
136, Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants.
C. Special Provisions
1. Reopener Provisions. This permit may be reopened and modified in accordance
with NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122 and 124, as necessary, to include additional
conditions or limitations based on newly available information or to implement any
USEPA approved, new, State water quality objective. As effluent is further
characterized through additional monitoring, and if a need for additional effluent
limitations becomes apparent after additional effluent characterization, the Order will
be reopened to incorporate such limitations. This provision contemplates, without
limitation, effluent limitations that are necessary because monitoring establishes that
the discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an
excursion above a water quality objective in Table B of the Ocean Plan.
2. Special Studies, Technical Reports and Additional Monitoring Requirements
a. Toxicity Reduction Requirements. If the discharge consistently exceeds an
effluent limitation for toxicity specified by Section IV of this Order, the Discharger
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 18
shall conduct a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) in accordance with the
Discharger’s TRE Workplan.
A TRE is a study conducted in a step-wise process designed to identify the
causative agents of effluent or ambient toxicity, isolate the sources of toxicity,
evaluate the effectiveness of toxicity control options, and then confirm the
reduction in toxicity. The first steps of the TRE consist of the collection of data
relevant to the toxicity, including additional toxicity testing, and an evaluation of
facility operations and maintenance practices, and best management practices.
A TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION (TIE) may be required as part of
the TRE, if appropriate. A TIE is a set of procedures to identify the specific
chemical(s) responsible for toxicity. These procedures are performed in three
phases - characterization, identification, and confirmation using aquatic organism
toxicity tests. The TRE shall include all reasonable steps to identify the source of
toxicity. The Discharger shall take all reasonable steps to reduce toxicity to the
required level once the source of toxicity is identified.
The Discharger shall maintain a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) Workplan,
which describes steps that the Discharger intends to follow in the event that a
toxicity effluent limitation established by this Order is exceeded in the discharge.
The workplan shall be prepared in accordance with current technical guidance
and reference material, including EPA/600/2-88-070 (for industrial discharges) or
EPA/600/2-88/062 (for municipal discharges), and shall include, at a minimum:
(1) Actions that will be taken to investigate/identify the causes/sources of toxicity,
(2) Actions that will be evaluated to mitigate the impact of the discharge, to
correct the non-compliance, and/or to prevent the recurrence of acute or
chronic toxicity (this list of action steps may be expanded, if a TRE is
undertaken), and
(3) A schedule under which these actions will be implemented.
When monitoring measures toxicity in the effluent above a limitation established
by this Order, the Discharger shall resample immediately, if the discharge is
continuing, and retest for whole effluent toxicity. Results of an initial failed test
and results of subsequent monitoring shall be reported to the Central Coast
Water Board Executive Officer (EO) as soon as possible following receipt of
monitoring results. The EO will determine whether to initiate enforcement action,
whether to require the Discharger to implement a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation,
or to implement other measures. The Discharger shall conduct a TRE giving due
consideration to guidance provided by the USEPA’s Toxicity Reduction
Evaluation Procedures, Phases 1, 2, and 3 (EPA document nos. EPA 600/3-
88/034, 600/3-88/035, and 600/3-88/036, respectively). A TRE, if necessary,
shall be conducted in accordance with the following schedule.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 19
Table 11. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Schedule
Action Step When Required
Take all reasonable measures to immediately
reduce toxicity, where the source is known.
Within 24 hours of identification of
noncompliance.
Initiate the TRE in accordance to the Workplan. Within 7 days of notification by the EO
Conduct the TRE following the procedures in the
Workplan.
Within the period specified in the Workplan
(not to exceed one year, without an
approved Workplan)
Submit the results of the TRE, including summary of
findings, corrective action, and all results and data.
Within 60 days of completion of the TRE
Implement corrective actions to meet Permit limits
and conditions.
To be determined by the EO
3. Best Management Practices and Pollution Prevention
a. Pollutant Minimization Goal. The goal of the Pollutant Minimization Program is
to reduce potential sources of Ocean Plan Table B toxic pollutants through
pollutant minimization (control) strategies, including pollution prevention
measures, to maintain effluent concentrations at or below the effluent limitation.
b. Determining the Need for a Pollutant Minimization Program
(1) The Discharger shall develop and implement a Pollutant Minimization
Program if:
(i) A calculated effluent limitation is less than the reported Minimum Level,
(ii) The concentration of the pollutant is reported as DNQ, and
(iii) There is evidence showing that the pollutant is present in the effluent
above the calculated effluent limitation. Such evidence may include:
health advisories for fish consumption; presence of whole effluent toxicity;
results of benthic or aquatic organism tissue sampling; sample results
from analytical methods more sensitive than methods included in the
permit; and the concentration of the pollutant is reported as DNQ and the
effluent limitation is less than the MDL.
(2) Alternatively, the Discharger shall develop and implement a Pollutant
Minimization Program if:
(i) A calculated effluent limitation is less than the Method Detection Limit
(MDL),
(ii) The concentration of the pollutant is reported as ND, and
(iii) There is evidence showing that the pollutant is present in the effluent
above the calculated effluent limitation. Such evidence may include:
health advisories for fish consumption; presence of whole effluent toxicity;
results of benthic or aquatic organism tissue sampling; sample results
from analytical methods more sensitive than methods included in the
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 20
permit; and the concentration of the pollutant is reported as DNQ and the
effluent limitation is less than the MDL.
c. Elements of a Pollutant Minimization Program. A Pollutant Minimization
Program shall include actions and submittals acceptable to the Central Coast
Water Board including, but not limited to, the following.
(1) An annual review and semiannual monitoring of potential sources of the
reportable pollutant, which may include fish tissue monitoring and other bio-
uptake sampling;
(2) Quarterly monitoring for the reportable pollutant in influent to the wastewater
treatment system;
(3) Submittal of a control strategy designed to proceed toward the goal of
maintaining concentrations of the reportable priority pollutant in the effluent at
or below the calculated effluent limitation;
(4) Implementation of appropriate cost-effective control measures for the
pollutant, consistent with the control strategy;
(5) An annual status report that shall be sent to the Executive Officer that
includes:
(i) All Pollutant Minimization Program monitoring results for the previous
year;
(ii) A list of potential sources of the reportable pollutant;
(iii) A summary of all actions taken in accordance with the control strategy;
and
(iv) A description of actions to be taken in the following year.
4. Construction, Operation and Maintenance Specifications. This section of the
standardized permit is not applicable to the City of Pismo Beach.
5. Special Provisions for Municipal Facilities (POTWs Only)
a. Biosolids Management. The handling, management, and disposal of sludge
and solids derived from wastewater treatment must comply with applicable
provisions of USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 257, 258, 501, and 503, including all
monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements.
Solids and sludge treatment, storage, and disposal or reuse shall not create a
nuisance, such as objectionable odors or flies, and shall not result in
groundwater contamination. Sites for solids and sludge treatment and storage
shall have adequate facilities to divert surface water runoff from adjacent areas to
protect the boundaries of such sites from erosion, and to prevent drainage from
treatment and storage sites.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 21
The treatment, storage, disposal, or reuse of sewage sludge and solids shall not
cause waste material to be in a position where it is, or can be, conveyed from the
treatment and storage sites and deposited into waters of the State. The
Discharger is responsible for assuring that all biosolids produced at its facility are
used or disposed of in accordance with the above rules, whether the Discharger
uses or disposes of the biosolids itself, or transfers them to another party for
further treatment, use, or disposal. The Discharger is responsible for informing
subsequent preparers, appliers, and disposers of the requirements that they
must adhere to under these rules.
b. Pretreatment. A Pretreatment Program is a regulatory program administered by
the Discharger that implements National Pretreatment Standards. These
standards are promulgated by the USEPA in accordance with Section 307(b) and
(c) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). This permit implements General
Pretreatment Regulations of 40 CFR 403, latest revision.
The objective of the pretreatment program is to prevent the introduction of
pollutants into the POTW which will interfere with the operation of the treatment
works, pass through the treatment facility, reduce opportunities to recycle and
reuse municipal wastewater and sludge, or expose POTW employees to
hazardous chemicals.
In order to provide adequate legal authority for the Discharger to protect its
POTW, and to evaluate sources of industrial discharges, the Discharger must
perform the following pretreatment activities:
(1) Maintain a sewer use ordinance to provide all of the legal authorities described
in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1).
(2) By February 1, 2013, submit to this office the results of an updated industrial
waste survey as described in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(i)-(ii), and a report
summarizing potential impacts of industrial discharges upon the POTW. The
report must include an evaluation of the need for regulation of industrial
discharges to implement the objectives of the federal pretreatment program.
(3) If, in the evaluation of b.2. above, the Executive Officer determines that a
formal pretreatment program is necessary to adequately meet program
objectives, then the Discharger shall develop such a program in accordance
with 40 CFR 403.9.B
(4) The Discharger shall comply, and ensure affected "indirect dischargers"
comply, with Paragraph D.1. of "Standard Provisions and Reporting
Requirements."
6. Other Special Provisions
a. Discharges of Storm Water. For the control of storm water discharged from the
site of the wastewater treatment and disposal facilities, if applicable, the
Discharger shall seek authorization to discharge under and meet the
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 22
requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Quality Order
97-03-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000001, Waste Discharge
Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities
Excluding Construction Activities.
b. Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer
Systems (State Water Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ). This General
Permit, adopted on May 2, 2006, is applicable to all “federal and state agencies,
municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities that own or operate
sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length that collect and/or
convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment
facility in the State of California.” The purpose of the General Permit is to
promote the proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of
sanitary sewer systems and to minimize the occurrences and impacts of sanitary
sewer overflows. If applicable, the Discharger shall seek coverage under the
General Permit and comply with its requirements.
7. Compliance Schedules. This section of the standardized permit template is not
applicable.
VII. COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION
Compliance with the effluent limitations contained in Section IV of this Order will be
determined as specified below:
A. General. Compliance with effluent limitations for reportable pollutants shall be determined
using sample reporting protocols defined in the MRP and Attachment A of this Order. For
purposes of reporting and administrative enforcement by the Regional and State Water
Boards, the Discharger shall be deemed out of compliance with effluent limitations if the
concentration of the reportable pollutant in the monitoring sample is greater than the
effluent limitation and greater than or equal to the reported Minimum Level (ML).
B. Multiple Sample Data. When determining compliance with a measure of central
tendency (arithmetic mean, geometric mean, median, etc.) of multiple sample analyses
and the data set contains one or more reported determinations of “Detected, but Not
Quantified” (DNQ) or “Not Detected” (ND), the Discharger shall compute the median in
place of the arithmetic mean in accordance with the following procedure:
1. The data set shall be ranked from low to high, ranking the reported ND
determinations lowest, DNQ determinations next, followed by quantified values (if
any). The order of the individual ND or DNQ determinations is unimportant.
2. The median value of the data set shall be determined. If the data set has an odd
number of data points, then the median is the middle value. If the data set has an
even number of data points, then the median is the average of the two values
around the middle unless one or both of the points are ND or DNQ, in which case
the median value shall be the lower of the two data points where DNQ is lower than
a value and ND is lower than DNQ.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment A – DEFINITIONS A-1
ATTACHMENT A – DEFINITIONS
A
Acute Toxicity:
a. Acute Toxicity expressed in Toxic Units Acute (TUa)
b. Lethal Concentration 50% (LC 50)
LC 50 (percent waste giving 50% survival of test organisms) shall be determined by static
or continuous flow bioassay techniques using standard marine test species as specified in
Ocean Plan Appendix III. If specific identifiable substances in wastewater can be
demonstrated by the discharger as being rapidly rendered harmless upon discharge to the
marine environment, but not as a result of dilution, the LC 50 may be determined after the
test samples are adjusted to remove the influence of those substances.
When it is not possible to measure the 96-hour LC 50 due to greater than 50 percent
survival of the test species in 100 percent waste, the toxicity concentration shall be
calculated by the expression:
log (100 - S) TUa = 1.7
where: S = percentage survival in 100% waste. If S > 99, TUa shall be reported as zero.
Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS): are those areas designated by the State
Water Board as ocean areas requiring protection of species or biological communities to the
extent that alteration of natural water quality is undesirable. All Areas of Special Biological
Significance are also classified as a subset of STATE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
AREAS.
Average Monthly Effluent Limitation (AMEL): the highest allowable average of daily
discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured
during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that
month.
Average Weekly Effluent Limitation (AWEL): the highest allowable average of daily
discharges over a calendar week (Sunday through Saturday), calculated as the sum of all daily
discharges measured during a calendar week divided by the number of daily discharges
measured during that week.
Chlordane shall mean the sum of chlordane-alpha, chlordane-gamma, chlordene-alpha,
chlordene-gamma, nonachlor-alpha, nonachlor-gamma, and oxychlordane.
Chronic Toxicity: This parameter shall be used to measure the acceptability of waters for
supporting a healthy marine biota until improved methods are developed to evaluate biological
response.
a. Chronic Toxicity expressed as Toxic Units Chronic (TUc)
100 TUa = 96-hr 50%LC
100 TUc = NOEL
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment A – DEFINITIONS A-2
b. No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) is expressed as the maximum percent effluent or
receiving water that causes no observable effect on a test organism, as determined by the
result of a critical life stage toxicity test listed in Ocean Plan Appendix III.
Daily Discharge: Daily Discharge is defined as either: (1) the total mass of the constituent
discharged over the calendar day (12:00 am through 11:59 pm) or any 24-hour period that
reasonably represents a calendar day for purposes of sampling (as specified in the permit), for
a constituent with limitations expressed in units of mass or; (2) the unweighted arithmetic mean
measurement of the constituent over the day for a constituent with limitations expressed in
other units of measurement (e.g., concentration).
The daily discharge may be determined by the analytical results of a composite sample taken
over the course of one day (a calendar day or other 24-hour period defined as a day) or by the
arithmetic mean of analytical results from one or more grab samples taken over the course of
the day.
For composite sampling, if one day is defined as a 24-hour period other than a calendar day,
the analytical result for the 24-hour period will be considered as the result for the calendar day
in which the 24-hour period ends.
DDT shall mean the sum of 4,4’DDT, 2,4’DDT, 4,4’DDE, 2,4’DDE, 4,4’DDD, and 2,4’DDD.
Degrade: Degradation shall be determined by comparison of the waste field and reference
site(s) for characteristic species diversity, population density, contamination, growth
anomalies, debility, or supplanting of normal species by undesirable plant and animal species.
Degradation occurs if there are significant differences in any of three major biotic groups,
namely, demersal fish, benthic invertebrates, or attached algae. Other groups may be
evaluated where benthic species are not affected, or are not the only ones affected.
Detected, but Not Quantified (DNQ) are those sample results less than the reported
Minimum Level, but greater than or equal to the laboratory’s MDL.
Dichlorobenzenes shall mean the sum of 1,2- and 1,3-dichlorobenzene.
Downstream Ocean Waters shall mean waters downstream with respect to ocean currents.
Dredged Material: Any material excavated or dredged from the navigable waters of the
United States, including material otherwise referred to as “spoil.”
Enclosed Bays are indentations along the coast that enclose an area of oceanic water within
distinct headlands or harbor works. Enclosed bays include all bays where the narrowest
distance between headlands or outermost harbor works is less than 75 percent of the greatest
dimension of the enclosed portion of the bay. This definition includes but is not limited to:
Humboldt Bay, Bodega Harbor, Tomales Bay, Drakes Estero, San Francisco Bay, Morro Bay,
Los Angeles Harbor, Upper and Lower Newport Bay, Mission Bay, and San Diego Bay.
Endosulfan shall mean the sum of endosulfan-alpha and -beta and endosulfan sulfate.
Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons are waters at the mouths of streams that serve as mixing
zones for fresh and ocean waters during a major portion of the year. Mouths of streams that
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment A – DEFINITIONS A-3
are temporarily separated from the ocean by sandbars shall be considered as estuaries.
Estuarine waters will generally be considered to extend from a bay or the open ocean to the
upstream limit of tidal action but may be considered to extend seaward if significant mixing of
fresh and salt water occurs in the open coastal waters. The waters described by this definition
include but are not limited to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as defined by Section 12220
of the California Water Code, Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait downstream to Carquinez Bridge,
and appropriate areas of the Smith, Klamath, Mad, Eel, Noyo, and Russian Rivers.
Halomethanes shall mean the sum of bromoform, bromomethane (methyl bromide) and
chloromethane (methyl chloride).
HCH shall mean the sum of the alpha, beta, gamma (lindane) and delta isomers of
hexachlorocyclohexane.
Initial Dilution is the process that results in the rapid and irreversible turbulent mixing of
wastewater with ocean water around the point of discharge.
For a submerged buoyant discharge, characteristic of most municipal and industrial wastes
that are released from the submarine outfalls, the momentum of the discharge and its initial
buoyancy act together to produce turbulent mixing. Initial dilution in this case is completed
when the diluting wastewater ceases to rise in the water column and first begins to spread
horizontally.
For shallow water submerged discharges, surface discharges, and non-buoyant discharges,
characteristic of cooling water wastes and some individual discharges, turbulent mixing results
primarily from the momentum of discharge. Initial dilution, in these cases, is considered to be
completed when the momentum induced velocity of the discharge ceases to produce
significant mixing of the waste, or the diluting plume reaches a fixed distance from the
discharge to be specified by the Central Coast Water Board, whichever results in the lower
estimate for initial dilution.
Instantaneous Maximum Effluent Limitation: the highest allowable value for any single grab
sample or aliquot (i.e., each grab sample or aliquot is independently compared to the
instantaneous maximum limitation).
Instantaneous Minimum Effluent Limitation: the lowest allowable value for any single grab
sample or aliquot (i.e., each grab sample or aliquot is independently compared to the
instantaneous minimum limitation).
Kelp Beds, for purposes of the bacteriological standards of the Ocean Plan, are significant
aggregations of marine algae of the genera Macrocystis and Nereocystis. Kelp beds include
the total foliage canopy of Macrocystis and Nereocystis plants throughout the water column.
Mariculture is the culture of plants and animals in marine waters independent of any pollution
source.
Material: (a) In common usage: (1) the substance or substances of which a thing is made or
composed (2) substantial; (b) For purposes of the Ocean Plan relating to waste disposal,
dredging and the disposal of dredged material and fill, MATERIAL means matter of any kind or
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment A – DEFINITIONS A-4
description which is subject to regulation as waste, or any material dredged from the navigable
waters of the United States. See also, DREDGED MATERIAL.
Maximum Daily Effluent Limitation (MDEL): the highest allowable daily discharge of a
pollutant.
MDL (Method Detection Limit) is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be
measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than
zero, as defined in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, PART 136, Appendix B.
Minimum Level (ML) is the concentrations at which the entire analytical system must give a
recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point. The ML is the concentration in a sample
that is equivalent to the concentration of the lowest calibration standard analyzed by a specific
analytical procedure, assuming that all the method-specified sample weights, volumes and
processing steps have been followed.
Natural Light: Reduction of natural light may be determined by the Regional Water Board by
measurement of light transmissivity or total irradiance, or both, according to the monitoring
needs of the Regional Water Board.
Not Detected (ND) are those sample results less than the laboratory’s MDL.
Ocean Waters are the territorial marine waters of the State as defined by California law to the
extent these waters are outside of enclosed bays, estuaries, and coastal lagoons. If a
discharge outside the territorial waters of the State could affect the quality of the waters of the
state, the discharge may be regulated to assure no violation of the Ocean Plan will occur in
ocean waters.
PAHs (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) shall mean the sum of acenaphthylene,
anthracene, 1,2-benzanthracene, 3,4-benzofluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, 1,12-
benzoperylene, benzo[a]pyrene, chrysene, dibenzo[ah]anthracene, fluorene, indeno[1,2,3-
cd]pyrene, phenanthrene and pyrene.
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) shall mean the sum of chlorinated biphenyls whose
analytical characteristics resemble those of Aroclor-1016, Aroclor-1221, Aroclor-1232, Aroclor-
1242, Aroclor-1248, Aroclor-1254 and Aroclor-1260.
Pollutant Minimization Program (PMP) means waste minimization and pollution prevention
actions that include, but are not limited to, product substitution, waste stream recycling,
alternative waste management methods, and education of the public and businesses. The
goal of the PMP shall be to reduce all potential sources of Ocean Plan Table B pollutants
through pollutant minimization (control) strategies, including pollution prevention measures as
appropriate, to maintain the effluent concentration at or below the water quality-based effluent
limitation. Pollution prevention measures may be particularly appropriate for persistent
bioaccumulative priority pollutants where there is evidence that beneficial uses are being
impacted. The Central Coast Water Board may consider cost effectiveness when establishing
the requirements of a PMP. The completion and implementation of a Pollution Prevention
Plan, if required pursuant to Water Code section 13263.3(d), shall be considered to fulfill the
PMP requirements.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment A – DEFINITIONS A-5
Reported Minimum Level is the ML (and its associated analytical method) chosen by the
Discharger for reporting and compliance determination from the MLs included in this Order.
The MLs included in this Order correspond to approved analytical methods for reporting a
sample result selected by the Central Coast Water Board either from Appendix II of the Ocean
Plan in accordance with section III.C.5.a. of the Ocean Plan or established in accordance with
section III.C.5.b. of the Ocean Plan. The ML is based on the proper application of method-
based analytical procedures for sample preparation and the absence of any matrix
interferences. Other factors may be applied to the ML depending on the specific sample
preparation steps employed. For example, the treatment typically applied in cases where
there are matrix-effects is to dilute the sample or sample aliquot by a factor of ten. In such
cases, this additional factor must be applied to the ML in the computation of the reported ML.
Satellite Collection System is the portion, if any, of a sanitary sewer system owned or
operated by a different public agency than the agency that owns and operates the wastewater
treatment facility that a sanitary sewer system is tributary to.
Shellfish are organisms identified by the California Department of Public Health as shellfish
for public health purposes (i.e., mussels, clams and oysters).
Significant Difference is defined as a statistically significant difference in the means of two
distributions of sampling results at the 95 percent confidence level.
Six-month Median Effluent Limitation: the highest allowable moving median of all daily
discharges for any 180-day period.
State Water Quality Protection Areas (SWQPAs) are non-terrestrial marine or estuarine
areas designated to protect marine species or biological communities from an undesirable
alteration in natural water quality. All AREAS OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
(ASBS) that were previously designated by the State Water Board in Resolution No.s 74-28,
74-32, and 75-61 are now also classified as a subset of State Water Quality Protection Areas
and require special protections afforded by the Ocean Plan.
TCDD Equivalents shall mean the sum of the concentrations of chlorinated dibenzodioxins
(2,3,7,8-CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (2,3,7,8-CDFs) multiplied by their respective
toxicity factors, as shown in the table below.
Isomer Group
Toxicity Equivalence
Factor
2,3,7,8-tetra CDD 1.0
2,3,7,8-penta CDD 0.5
2,3,7,8-hexa CDDs 0.1
2,3,7,8-hepta CDD 0.01
octa CDD 0.001
2,3,7,8 tetra CDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8 penta CDF 0.05
2,3,4,7,8 penta CDF 0.5
2,3,7,8 hexa CDFs 0.1
2,3,7,8 hepta CDFs 0.01
octa CDF 0.001
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment A – DEFINITIONS A-6
Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) is a study conducted in a step-wise process designed
to identify the causative agents of effluent or ambient toxicity, isolate the sources of toxicity,
evaluate the effectiveness of toxicity control options, and then confirm the reduction in toxicity.
The first steps of the TRE consist of the collection of data relevant to the toxicity, including
additional toxicity testing, and an evaluation of facility operations and maintenance practices,
and best management practices. A TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION (TIE) may be
required as part of the TRE, if appropriate. (A TIE is a set of procedures to identify the specific
chemical(s) responsible for toxicity. These procedures are performed in three phases
(characterization, identification, and confirmation) using aquatic organism toxicity tests.)
Waste: As used in the Ocean Plan, waste includes a Discharger’s total discharge, of whatever
origin (i.e., gross, not net, discharge.)
Water Reclamation: The treatment of wastewater to render it suitable for reuse, the
transportation of treated wastewater to the place of use, and the actual use of treated
wastewater for a direct beneficial use or controlled use that would not otherwise occur.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment B – MAP B-1
ATTACHMENT B – MAP
B B
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment C – WASTEWATER FLOW SCHEMATIC C-1
ATTACHMENT C – FLOW SCHEMATIC
C
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-1
ATTACHMENT D –STANDARD PROVISIONS
D
I. STANDARD PROVISIONS – PERMIT COMPLIANCE
A. Duty to Comply
1. The Discharger must comply with all of the conditions of this Order. Any
noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the
California Water Code and is grounds for enforcement action, for permit termination,
revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a permit renewal application.
[40 CFR § 122.41(a)]
2. The Discharger shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established
under Section 307(a) of the CWA for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage
sludge use or disposal established under Section 405(d) of the CWA within the time
provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions, even if this
Order has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement. [40 CFR §
122.41(a)(1)]
B. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not a Defense. It shall not be a defense for a
Discharger in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce
the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this Order.
[40 CFR § 122.41(c)]
C. Duty to Mitigate. The Discharger shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent
any discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of this Order that has a reasonable
likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. [40 CFR §
122.41(d)]
D. Proper Operation and Maintenance. The Discharger shall at all times properly
operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related
appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Discharger to achieve compliance
with the conditions of this Order. Proper operation and maintenance also includes
adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This
provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities or similar systems that
are installed by a Discharger only when necessary to achieve compliance with the
conditions of this Order. [40 CFR § 122.41(e)]
E. Property Rights
1. This Order does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive
privileges. [40 CFR § 122.41(g)]
2. The issuance of this Order does not authorize any injury to persons or property or
invasion of other private rights, or any infringement of state or local law or
regulations. [40 CFR § 122.5(c)]
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-2
F. Inspection and Entry. The Discharger shall allow the Regional Water Board, State
Water Board, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and/or their
authorized representatives (including an authorized contractor acting as their
representative), upon the presentation of credentials and other documents, as may be
required by law, to [40 CFR § 122.41(i); Water Code, § 13383]:
1. Enter upon the Discharger's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located
or conducted, or where records are kept under the conditions of this Order [40 CFR
§ 122.41(i)(1)];
2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under
the conditions of this Order [40 CFR § 122.41(i)(2)];
3. Inspect and photograph, at reasonable times, any facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required
under this Order [40 CFR § 122.41(i)(3)]; and
4. Sample or monitor, at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring Order
compliance or as otherwise authorized by the CWA or the Water Code, any
substances or parameters at any location. [40 CFR § 122.41(i)(4)]
G. Bypass
1. Definitions
a. “Bypass” means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a
treatment facility. [40 CFR § 122.41(m)(1)(i)]
b. “Severe property damage” means substantial physical damage to property,
damage to the treatment facilities, which causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of natural resources that can reasonably be
expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does
not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. [40 CFR §
122.41(m)(1)(ii)]
2. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The Discharger may allow any bypass to occur
which does not cause exceedances of effluent limitations, but only if it is for essential
maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the
provisions listed in Standard Provisions – Permit Compliance I.G.3, I.G.4, and I.G.5
below. [40 CFR § 122.41(m)(2)]
3. Prohibition of bypass. Bypass is prohibited, and the Regional Water Board may take
enforcement action against a Discharger for bypass, unless [40 CFR §
122.41(m)(4)(i)]:
a. Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage [40 CFR § 122.41(m)(4)(i)(A)];
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-3
b. There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary
treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal
periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate
back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable
engineering judgment to prevent a bypass that occurred during normal periods of
equipment downtime or preventive maintenance [40 CFR § 122.41(m)(4)(i)(B)];
and
c. The Discharger submitted notice to the Regional Water Board as required under
Standard Provisions – Permit Compliance I.G.5 below. [40 CFR §
122.41(m)(4)(i)(C)]
4. The Regional Water Board may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its
adverse effects, if the Regional Water Board determines that it will meet the three
conditions listed in Standard Provisions – Permit Compliance I.G.3 above. [40 CFR
§ 122.41(m)(4)(ii)]
5. Notice
a. Anticipated bypass. If the Discharger knows in advance of the need for a
bypass, it shall submit a notice, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the
bypass. [40 CFR § 122.41(m)(3)(i)]
b. Unanticipated bypass. The Discharger shall submit notice of an unanticipated
bypass as required in Standard Provisions - Reporting V.E below (24-hour
notice). [40 CFR § 122.41(m)(3)(ii)]
H. Upset
Upset means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary
noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the Discharger. An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment
facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or
improper operation. [40 CFR § 122.41(n)(1)]
1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought
for noncompliance with such technology based permit effluent limitations if the
requirements of Standard Provisions – Permit Compliance I.H.2 below are met. No
determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was
caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative
action subject to judicial review. [40 CFR § 122.41(n)(2)]
2. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. A Discharger who wishes to
establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly
signed, contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence that [40 CFR §
122.41(n)(3)]:
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-4
a. An upset occurred and that the Discharger can identify the cause(s) of the upset
[40 CFR § 122.41(n)(3)(i)];
b. The permitted facility was, at the time, being properly operated [40 CFR §
122.41(n)(3)(ii)];
c. The Discharger submitted notice of the upset as required in Standard Provisions
– Reporting V.E.2.b below (24-hour notice) [40 CFR § 122.41(n)(3)(iii)]; and
d. The Discharger complied with any remedial measures required under
Standard Provisions – Permit Compliance I.C above. [40 CFR § 122.41(n)(3)(iv)]
3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the Discharger seeking to
establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. [40 CFR §
122.41(n)(4)]
II. STANDARD PROVISIONS – PERMIT ACTION
A. General. This Order may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause.
The filing of a request by the Discharger for modification, revocation and reissuance, or
termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not
stay any Order condition. [40 CFR § 122.41(f)]
B. Duty to Reapply. If the Discharger wishes to continue an activity regulated by this
Order after the expiration date of this Order, the Discharger must apply for and obtain a
new permit. [40 CFR § 122.41(b)]
C. Transfers. This Order is not transferable to any person except after notice to the
Regional Water Board. The Regional Water Board may require modification or
revocation and reissuance of the Order to change the name of the Discharger and
incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under the CWA and the
Water Code. [40 CFR § 122.41(l)(3); § 122.61]
III. STANDARD PROVISIONS – MONITORING
A. Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative
of the monitored activity. [40 CFR § 122.41(j)(1)]
B. Monitoring results must be conducted according to test procedures under Part 136 or, in
the case of sludge use or disposal, approved under Part 136 unless otherwise specified
in Part 503 unless other test procedures have been specified in this Order. [40 CFR §
122.41(j)(4); § 122.44(i)(1)(iv)]
IV. STANDARD PROVISIONS – RECORDS
A. Except for records of monitoring information required by this Order related to the
Discharger's sewage sludge use and disposal activities, which shall be retained for a
period of at least five years (or longer as required by Part 503), the Discharger shall
retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-5
records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation,
copies of all reports required by this Order, and records of all data used to complete the
application for this Order, for a period of at least three (3) years from the date of the
sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request
of the Central Coast Water Board Executive Officer at any time. [40 CFR § 122.41(j)(2)]
B. Records of monitoring information shall include:
1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements [40 CFR §
122.41(j)(3)(i)];
2. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements [40 CFR §
122.41(j)(3)(ii)];
3. The date(s) analyses were performed [40 CFR § 122.41(j)(3)(iii)];
4. The individual(s) who performed the analyses [40 CFR § 122.41(j)(3)(iv)];
5. The analytical techniques or methods used [40 CFR § 122.41(j)(3)(v)]; and
6. The results of such analyses. [40 CFR § 122.41(j)(3)(vi)]
C. Claims of confidentiality for the following information will be denied [40 CFR §
122.7(b)]:
1. The name and address of any permit applicant or Discharger [40 CFR §
122.7(b)(1)]; and
2. Permit applications and attachments, permits and effluent data. [40 CFR §
122.7(b)(2)]
V. STANDARD PROVISIONS – REPORTING
A. Duty to Provide Information. The Discharger shall furnish to the Regional Water
Board, State Water Board, or USEPA within a reasonable time, any information which
the Regional Water Board, State Water Board, or USEPA may request to determine
whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this Order or
to determine compliance with this Order. Upon request, the Discharger shall also
furnish to the Central Coast Water Board, State Water Board, or USEPA copies of
records required to be kept by this Order. [40 CFR § 122.41(h); Wat. Code, § 13267]
B. Signatory and Certification Requirements
1. All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Regional Water Board, State
Water Board, and/or USEPA shall be signed and certified in accordance with
Standard Provisions – Reporting V.B.2, V.B.3, V.B.4, and V.B.5 below. [40 CFR §
122.41(k)]
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-6
2. All permit applications shall be signed by either a principal executive officer or
ranking elected official. For purposes of this provision, a principal executive officer
of a federal agency includes: (i) the chief executive officer of the agency, or (ii) a
senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal
geographic unit of the agency (e.g., Regional Administrators of USEPA). [40 CFR §
122.22(a)(3)]
3. All reports required by this Order and other information requested by the Regional
Water Board, State Water Board, or USEPA shall be signed by a person described
in Standard Provisions – Reporting V.B.2 above, or by a duly authorized
representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described in Standard
Provisions – Reporting V.B.2 above [40 CFR § 122.22(b)(1)];
b. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility
for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of
plant manager, operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of
equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility
for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative
may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named
position.) [40 CFR § 122.22(b)(2)]; and
c. The written authorization is submitted to the Regional Water Board and State
Water Board. [40 CFR § 122.22(b)(3)]
4. If an authorization under Standard Provisions – Reporting V.B.3 above is no longer
accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall
operation of the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of Standard
Provisions – Reporting V.B.3 above must be submitted to the Regional Water Board
and State Water Board prior to or together with any reports, information, or
applications, to be signed by an authorized representative. [40 CFR § 122.22(c)\
5. Any person signing a document under Standard Provisions – Reporting V.B.2 or
V.B.3 above 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.” [40 CFR § 122.22(d)\
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-7
C. Monitoring Reports
1. Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified in the Monitoring and
Reporting Program (Attachment E) in this Order. [40 CFR § 122.41(l)(4)]
2. Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form
or forms provided or specified by the Central Coast Water Board or State Water
Board for reporting results of monitoring of sludge use or disposal practices. [40
CFR § 122.41(l)(4)(i)]
3. If the Discharger monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this Order
using test procedures approved under Part 136 or, in the case of sludge use or
disposal, approved under Part 136 unless otherwise specified in Part 503, or as
specified in this Order, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the
calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the DMR or sludge reporting form
specified by the Central Coast Water Board. [40 CFR § 122.41(l)(4)(ii)]
4. Calculations for all limitations, which require averaging of measurements, shall
utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified in this Order. [40 CFR §
122.41(l)(4)(iii)]
D. Compliance Schedules. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any
progress reports on, interim and final requirements contained in any compliance
schedule of this Order, shall be submitted no later than 14 days following each schedule
date. [40 CFR § 122.41(l)(5)]
E. Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
1. The Discharger shall report any noncompliance that may endanger health or the
environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24 hours from the time
the Discharger becomes aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall
also be provided within five (5) days of the time the Discharger becomes aware of
the circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of the
noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates
and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it
is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and
prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. [40 CFR § 122.41(l)(6)(i)]
2. The following shall be included as information that must be reported within 24 hours
under this paragraph [40 CFR § 122.41(l)(6)(ii)]:
a. Any unanticipated bypass that exceeds any effluent limitation in this Order. [40
CFR § 122.41(l)(6)(ii)(A)]
b. Any upset that exceeds any effluent limitation in this Order. [40 CFR §
122.41(l)(6)(ii)(B)]
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-8
3. The Regional Water Board may waive the above-required written report under this
provision on a case-by-case basis if an oral report has been received within 24
hours. [40 CFR § 122.41(l)(6)(iii)]
F. Planned Changes. The Discharger shall give notice to the Regional Water Board as
soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted
facility. Notice is required under this provision only when [40 CFR § 122.41(l)(1)]:
1. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for
determining whether a facility is a new source in section 122.29(b) [40 CFR §
122.41(l)(1)(i)]; or
2. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the
quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants that are not
subject to effluent limitations in this Order. [40 CFR § 122.41(l)(1)(ii)]
3. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the Discharger's sludge
use or disposal practices, and such alteration, addition, or change may justify the
application of permit conditions that are different from or absent in the existing
permit, including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during
the permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land
application plan. [40 CFR § 122.41(l)(1)(iii)]
G. Anticipated Noncompliance. The Discharger shall give advance notice to the Central
Coast Water Board or State Water Board of any planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity that may result in noncompliance with General Order requirements.
[40 CFR § 122.41(l)(2)]
H. Other Noncompliance. The Discharger shall report all instances of noncompliance not
reported under Standard Provisions – Reporting V.C, V.D, and V.E above at the time
monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in
Standard Provision – Reporting V.E above. [40 CFR § 122.41(l)(7)]
I. Other Information. When the Discharger becomes aware that it failed to submit any
relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit
application or in any report to the Central Coast Water Board, State Water Board, or
USEPA, the Discharger shall promptly submit such facts or information. [40 CFR §
122.41(l)(8)]
VI. STANDARD PROVISIONS – ENFORCEMENT
A. The Central Coast Water Board is authorized to enforce the terms of this permit under
several provisions of the Water Code, including, but not limited to, sections 13385, 13386,
and 13387.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-9
VII. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS – NOTIFICATION LEVELS
A. Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
All POTWs shall provide adequate notice to the Central Coast Water Board of the
following [40 CFR § 122.42(b)]:
1. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger that
would be subject to sections 301 or 306 of the CWA if it were directly discharging
those pollutants [40 CFR § 122.42(b)(1)]; and
2. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into
that POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of adoption
of the Order. [40 CFR § 122.42(b)(2)]
3. Adequate notice shall include information on the quality and quantity of effluent
introduced into the POTW as well as any anticipated impact of the change on the
quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW. [40 CFR §
122.42(b)(3)]
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-10
ATTACHMENT D-1 - CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL WATER BOARD STANDARD
PROVISIONS (JANUARY 1985)
I. Central Coast General Permit Conditions
A. Central Coast Standard Provisions – Prohibitions
1. Introduction of "incompatible wastes" to the treatment system is prohibited.
2. Discharge of high-level radiological waste and of radiological, chemical, and
biological warfare agents is prohibited.
3. Discharge of "toxic pollutants" in violation of effluent standards and prohibitions
established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act is prohibited.
4. Discharge of sludge, sludge digester or thickener supernatant, and sludge drying
bed leachate to drainageways, surface waters, or the ocean is prohibited.
5. Introduction of pollutants into the collection, treatment, or disposal system by an
"indirect discharger” that:
a. Inhibit or disrupt the treatment process, system operation, or the eventual use or
disposal of sludge; or,
b. Flow through the system to the receiving water untreated; and,
c. Cause or "significantly contribute" to a violation of any requirement of this Order,
is prohibited.
6. Introduction of "pollutant free" wastewater to the collection, treatment, and disposal
system in amounts that threaten compliance with this order is prohibited.
B. Central Coast Standard Provisions – Provisions
1. Collection, treatment, and discharge of waste shall not create a nuisance or
pollution, as defined by Section 13050 of the California Water Code.
2. All facilities used for transport or treatment of wastes shall be adequately protected
from inundation and washout as the result of a 100-year frequency flood.
3. Operation of collection, treatment, and disposal systems shall be in a manner that
precludes public contact with wastewater.
4. Collected screenings, sludges, and other solids removed from liquid wastes shall be
disposed in a manner approved by the Executive Officer.
5. Publicly owned wastewater treatment plants shall be supervised and operated by
persons possessing certificates of appropriate grade pursuant to Title 23 of the
California Administrative Code.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-11
6. After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this order may be terminated for cause,
including, but not limited to:
a. violation of any term or condition contained in this order;
b. obtaining this order by misrepresentation, or by failure to disclose fully all
relevant facts;
c. a change in any condition or endangerment to human health or environment that
requires a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized
discharge; and,
d. a substantial change in character, location, or volume of the discharge.
7. Provisions of this permit are severable. If any provision of the permit is found
invalid, the remainder of the permit shall not be affected.
8. After notice and opportunity for hearing, this order may be modified or revoked and
reissued for cause, including:
a. Promulgation of a new or revised effluent standard or limitation;
b. A material change in character, location, or volume of the discharge;
c. Access to new information that affects the terms of the permit, including
applicable schedules;
d. Correction of technical mistakes or mistaken interpretations of law; and,
e. Other causes set forth under Sub-part D of 40 CFR Part 122.
9. Safeguards shall be provided to assure maximal compliance with all terms and
conditions of this permit. Safeguards shall include preventative and contingency
plans and may also include alternative power sources, stand-by generators,
retention capacity, operating procedures, or other precautions. Preventative and
contingency plans for controlling and minimizing the affect of accidental discharges
shall:
a. identify possible situations that could cause "upset", "overflow" or "bypass”, or
other noncompliance. (Loading and storage areas, power outage, waste
treatment unit outage, and failure of process equipment, tanks and pipes should
be considered.)
b. evaluate the effectiveness of present facilities and procedures and describe
procedures and steps to minimize or correct any adverse environmental impact
resulting from noncompliance with the permit.
10. Physical Facilities shall be designed and constructed according to accepted
engineering practice and shall be capable of full compliance with this order when
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-12
properly operated and maintained. Proper operation and maintenance shall be
described in an Operation and Maintenance Manual. Facilities shall be accessible
during the wet-weather season.
11. Production and use of reclaimed water is subject to the approval of the Central
Coast Water Board. Production and use of reclaimed water shall be in conformance
with reclamation criteria established in Chapter 3, Title 22, of the California
Administrative Code and Chapter 7, Division 7, of the California Water Code. An
engineering report pursuant to section 60323, Title 22, of the California
Administrative Code is required and a waiver or water reclamation requirements
from the Water Board is required before reclaimed water is supplied for any use, or
to any user, not specifically identified and approved either in this Order or another
order issued by this Water Board.
C. Central Coast Standard Provisions – General Monitoring Requirements
1. If results of monitoring a pollutant appear to violate effluent limitations based on a
weekly, monthly, 30-day, or six-month period, but compliance or non-compliance
cannot be validated because sampling is too infrequent, the frequency of sampling
shall be increased to validate the test within the next monitoring period. The
increased frequency shall be maintained until the Executive Officer agrees the
original monitoring frequency may be resumed.
For example, if copper is monitored annually and results exceed the six-month
median numerical effluent limitation in the permit, monitoring of copper must be
increased to a frequency of at least once every two months (Central Coast Standard
Provisions – Definitions I.G.13.). If suspended solids are monitored weekly and
results exceed the weekly average numerical limit in the permit, monitoring of
suspended solids must be increased to at least four (4) samples every week (Central
Coast Standard Provisions – Definitions I.G.14.)
2. Water quality analyses performed in order to monitor compliance with this permit
shall be by a laboratory certified by the State Department of Public Health for the
constituent(s) being analyzed. Bioassay(s) performed in order to monitor compliance
with this permit shall be in accord with guidelines approved by the State Water
Board and the State Department of Fish and Game. If the laboratory used or
proposed for use by the discharger is not certified by the California Department of
Public Health or, where appropriate, the Department of Fish and Game due to
restrictions in the State's laboratory certification program, the discharger shall be
considered in compliance with this provision provided:
a. Data results remain consistent with results of samples analyzed by the Central
Coast Water Board;
b. A quality assurance program is used at the laboratory, including a manual
containing steps followed in this program that is available for inspections by the
staff of the Central Coast Water Board; and,
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-13
c. Certification is pursued in good faith and obtained as soon as possible after the
program is reinstated.
3. Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be
representative of the monitored activity. Samples shall be taken during periods of
peak loading conditions. Influent samples shall be samples collected from the
combined flows of all incoming wastes, excluding recycled wastes. Effluent samples
shall be samples collected downstream of the last treatment unit and tributary flow
and upstream of any mixing with receiving waters.
4. All monitoring instruments and devices used by the discharger to fulfill the
prescribed monitoring program shall be properly maintained and calibrated as
necessary to ensure their continued accuracy.
D. Central Coast Standard Provisions – General Pretreatment Provisions
1. Discharge of pollutants by "indirect dischargers” in specific industrial sub-categories
(appendix C, 40 CFR Part 403), where categorical pretreatment standards have
been established, or are to be established, (according to 40 CFR Chapter 1,
Subchapter N), shall comply with the appropriate pretreatment standards:
a. By the date specified therein;
b. Within three (3) years of the effective date specified therein, but in no case later
than July 1, 1984; or,
c. If a new indirect discharger, upon commencement of discharge.
E. Central Coast Standard Provisions – General Reporting Requirements
1. Reports of marine monitoring surveys conducted to meet receiving water monitoring
requirements of the Monitoring and Reporting Program shall include at least the
following information:
a. A description of climatic and receiving water characteristics at the time of
sampling (weather observations, floating debris, discoloration, wind speed and
direction, swell or wave action, time of sampling, tide height, etc.).
b. A description of sampling stations, including differences unique to each station
(e.g., station location, grain size, rocks, shell litter, calcareous worm tubes,
evident life, etc.).
c. A description of the sampling procedures and preservation sequence used in the
survey.
d. A description of the exact method used for laboratory analysis. In general,
analysis shall be conducted according to Central Coast Standard Provisions –
C.1 above, and Federal Standard Provision – Monitoring III.B. However,
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-14
variations in procedure are acceptable to accommodate the special requirements
of sediment analysis. All such variations must be reported with the test results.
e. A brief discussion of the results of the survey. The discussion shall compare
data from the control station with data from the outfall stations. All tabulations
and computations shall be explained.
2. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress reports on, interim
and final requirements contained in any compliance schedule shall be submitted
within 14 days following each scheduled date unless otherwise specified within the
permit. If reporting noncompliance, the report shall include a description of the
reason, a description and schedule of tasks necessary to achieve compliance, and
an estimated date for achieving full compliance. A second report shall be submitted
within 14 days of full compliance.
3. The “Discharger” shall file a report of waste discharge or secure a waiver from the
Executive Officer at least 180 days before making any material change or proposed
change in the character, location, or plume of the discharge.
4. Within 120 days after the discharger discovers, or is notified by the Central Coast
Water Board, that monthly average daily flow will or may reach design capacity of
waste treatment and/or disposal facilities within four (4) years, the discharger shall
file a written report with the Central Coast Water Board. The report shall include:
a. the best estimate of when the monthly average daily dry weather flow rate will
equal or exceed design capacity; and,
b. a schedule for studies, design, and other steps needed to provide additional
capacity for waste treatment and/or disposal facilities before the waste flow rate
equals the capacity of present units.
In addition to complying with Federal Standard Provision – Reporting V.B., the
required technical report shall be prepared with public participation and reviewed,
approved and jointly submitted by all planning and building departments having
jurisdiction in the area served by the waste collection, treatment, or disposal
facilities.
5. All “Dischargers” shall submit reports to the:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Coast Region
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7906
In addition, "Dischargers" with designated major discharges shall submit a copy of
each document to:
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-15
Regional Administrator
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Attention: CWA Standards and Permits Office (WTR-5)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
6. Transfer of control or ownership of a waste discharge facility must be preceded by a
notice to the Central Coast Water Board at least 30 days in advance of the proposed
transfer date. The notice must include a written agreement between the existing
“Discharger” and proposed “Discharger” containing specific date for transfer of
responsibility, coverage, and liability between them. Whether a permit may be
transferred without modification or revocation and reissuance is at the discretion of
the Water Board. If permit modification or revocation and reissuance is necessary,
transfer may be delayed 180 days after the Central Coast Water Board's receipt of a
complete permit application. Please also see Federal Standard Provision – Permit
Action II.C.
7. Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the Clean Water
Act (excludes effluent data and permit applications), all reports prepared in
accordance with this permit shall be available for public inspection at the office of the
Central Coast Water Board or Regional Administrator of USEPA. Please also see
Federal Standard Provision – Records IV.C.
8. By January 30th of each year, the discharger shall submit an annual report to the
Central Coast Water Board. The report shall contain both tabular and graphical
summaries of the monitoring data obtained during the previous year. The discharger
shall discuss the compliance record and corrective actions taken, or which may be
needed, to bring the discharge into full compliance. The report shall address
operator certification and provide a list of current operating personnel and their
grade of certification. The report shall inform the Board of the date of the Facility's
Operation and Maintenance Manual (including contingency plans as described
Central Coast Standard Provision – Provision B.9., above), of the date the manual
was last reviewed, and whether the manual is complete and valid for the current
facility. The report shall restate, for the record, the laboratories used by the
discharger to monitor compliance with effluent limits and provide a summary of
performance relative to Section C above, General Monitoring Requirements.
If the facility treats industrial or domestic wastewater and there is no provision for
periodic sludge monitoring in the Monitoring and Reporting Program, the report shall
include a summary of sludge quantities, analyses of its chemical and moisture
content, and its ultimate destination.
If applicable, the report shall also evaluate the effectiveness of the local source
control or pretreatment program using the State Water Resources Control Board's
“Guidelines for Determining the Effectiveness of Local Pretreatment Programs.”
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-16
F. Central Coast Standard Provisions – Enforcement
1. Any person failing to file a report of waste discharge or other report as required by
this permit shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000 per day.
2. Upon reduction, loss, or failure of the treatment facility, the "Discharger" shall, to the
extent necessary to maintain compliance with this permit, control production or all
discharges, or both, until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment
is provided.
G. Central Coast Standard Provisions – Definitions
(Not otherwise included in Attachment A to this Order)
1. A “composite sample" is a combination of no fewer than eight (8) individual samples
obtained at equal time intervals (usually hourly) over the specified sampling
(composite) period. The volume of each individual sample is proportional to the flow
rate at the time of sampling. The period shall be specified in the Monitoring and
Reporting Program ordered by the Executive Officer.
2. “Daily Maximum” limit means the maximum acceptable concentration or mass
emission rate of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or during any 24-hour
period reasonably representative of the calendar day for purposes of sampling. It is
normally compared with results based on "composite samples” except for ammonia,
total chlorine, phenolic compounds, and toxicity concentration. For all exceptions,
comparisons will be made with results from a “grab sample.”
3. “Discharger," as used herein, means, as appropriate: (1) the Discharger, (2) the local
sewering entity (when the collection system is not owned and operated by the
Discharger), or (3) "indirect discharger" (where "Discharger" appears in the same
paragraph as "indirect discharger,” it refers to the discharger.)
4. “Duly Authorized Representative" is one where:
a. the authorization is made in writing by a person described in the signatory
paragraph of Federal Standard Provision V.B.;
b. the authorization specifies either an individual or the occupant of a position having
either responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility, such as the
plant manager, or overall responsibility for environmental matters of the
company; and,
c. the written authorization was submitted to the Central Coast Water Board.
5. A "grab sample" is defined as any individual sample collected in less than 15
minutes. "Grab samples” shall be collected during peak loading conditions, which
may or may not be during hydraulic peaks. It is used primarily in determining
compliance with the daily maximum limits identified in Central Coast Standard
Provision – Provision G.2. and instantaneous maximum limits.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-17
6. "Hazardous substance” means any substance designated under 40 CFR Part 116
pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
7. "Incompatible wastes” are:
a. Wastes which create a fire or explosion hazard in the treatment works;
b. Wastes which will cause corrosive structural damage to treatment works, but in
no case wastes with a pH lower than 5.0 unless the works is specifically
designed to accommodate such wastes;
c. Solid or viscous wastes in amounts which cause obstruction to flow in sewers, or
which cause other interference with proper operation of treatment works;
d. Any waste, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc), released in such
volume or strength as to cause inhibition or disruption in the treatment works and
subsequent treatment process upset and loss of treatment efficiency; and,
e. Heat in amounts that inhibit or disrupt biological activity in the treatment works or
that raise influent temperatures above 40°C (104°F) unless the treatment works
is designed to accommodate such heat.
8. "Indirect Discharger” means a non-domestic discharger introducing pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment and disposal system.
9. "Log Mean” is the geometric mean. Used for determining compliance of fecal or total
coliform populations, it is calculated with the following equation:
Log Mean = (C1 x C2 x...x Cn)1/n,
in which “n" is the number of days samples were analyzed during the period and any
"C" is the concentration of bacteria (MPN/100 ml) found on each day of sampling. "n”
should be five or more.
10. “Mass emission rate" is a daily rate defined by the following equations:
mass emission rate (lbs/day) = 8.34 x Q x C; and,
mass emission rate (kg/day) = 3.79 x Q x C,
where “C" (in mg/L) is the measured daily constituent concentration or the average
of measured daily constituent concentrations and “Q” (in MGD) is the measured
daily flow rate or the average of measured daily flow rates over the period of interest.
11. The "Maximum Allowable Mass Emission Rate," whether for a month, week, day, or
six-month period, is a daily rate determined with the formulas in paragraph G.10,
above, using the effluent concentration limit specified in the permit for the period and
the average of measured daily flows (up to the allowable flow) over the period.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-18
12. “Maximum Allowable Six-Month Median Mass Emission Rate" is a daily rate
determined with the formulas in Central Coast Standard Provision – Provision G.10,
above, using the "six-month Median" effluent limit specified in the permit, and the
average of measured daily flows (up to the allowable flow) over a 180-day period.
13. "Median" is the value below which half the samples (ranked progressively by
increasing value) fall. It may be considered the middle value, or the average of two
middle values.
14. "Monthly Average" (or "Weekly Average”, as the case may be) is the arithmetic
mean of daily concentrations or of daily mass emission rates over the specified 30-
day (or 7-day) period.
Average = (X1 + X2 + ... + Xn) / n
in which “n" is the number of days samples were analyzed during the period and “X"
is either the constituent concentration (mg/l) or mass emission rate (kg/day or
lbs/day) for each sampled day. “n" should be four or greater.
15. "Municipality" means a city, town, borough, county, district, association, or other
public body created by or under State law and having jurisdiction over disposal of
sewage, industrial waste, or other waste.
16. "Overflow" means the intentional or unintentional diversion of flow from the collection
and transport systems, including pumping facilities.
17. "Pollutant-free wastewater" means inflow and infiltration, storm waters, and cooling
waters and condensates which are essentially free of pollutants.
18. "Primary Industry Category" means any industry category listed in 40 CFR Part 122,
Appendix A.
19. "Removal Efficiency" is the ratio of pollutants removed by the treatment unit to
pollutants entering the treatment unit. Removal efficiencies of a treatment plant shall
be determined using “Monthly averages" of pollutant concentrations (C, in mg/l) of
influent and effluent samples collected about the same time and the following
equation (or its equivalent):
CEffluent Removal Efficiency (%) = 100 x (1 – Ceffluent / Cinfluent)
20. "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage
to treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and
permanent loss to natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in
the absence of a "bypass.” It does not mean economic loss caused by delays in
production.
21. "Sludge" means the solids, residues, and precipitates separated from, or created in,
wastewater by the unit processes of a treatment system.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment D – STANDARD PROVISIONS D-19
22. To "significantly contribute" to a permit violation means an "indirect discharger" must:
a. Discharge a daily pollutant loading in excess of that allowed by contract with the
"Discharger" or by Federal, State, or Local law;
b. Discharge wastewater which substantially differs in nature or constituents from its
average discharge;
c. Discharge pollutants, either alone or in conjunction with discharges from other
sources, which results in a permit violation or prevents sewage sludge use or
disposal; or
d. Discharge pollutants, either alone or in conjunction with pollutants from other
sources that increase the magnitude or duration of permit violations.
23. "Toxic Pollutant" means any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307 (a) (1) of the
Clean Water Act or under 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix D. Violation of maximum daily
discharge limitations are subject to 24-hour reporting (Federal Standard Provisions
V.E.)
24. “Zone of Initial Dilution" means the region surrounding or adjacent to the end of an
outfall pipe or diffuser ports whose boundaries are defined through calculation of a
plume model verified by the State Water Resources Control Board
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-1
ATTACHMENT E – MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
E
Table of Contents
Attachment E – Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP)....................................................E-2
I.General Monitoring Provisions........................................................................................E-2
II.Monitoring Locations ......................................................................................................E-3
III.Influent Monitoring Requirements...................................................................................E-4
A.Monitoring Location INF - 001..................................................................................E-4
IV.Effluent Monitoring Requirements ..................................................................................E-4
A.Monitoring Location EFF - 001.................................................................................E-4
V.Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Requirements...............................................................E-5
VI.Land Discharge Monitoring Requirements .....................................................................E-8
VII.Reclamation Monitoring Requirements...........................................................................E-9
VIII.Receiving Water Monitoring Requirements – Surface Water and Groundwater.............E-9
A.Receiving Water Monitoring.....................................................................................E-9
B.Benthic Sediment Monitoring...................................................................................E-9
C.Benthic Biota Monitoring........................................................................................E-10
IX.Other Monitoring Requirements....................................................................................E-11
A.Biosolids Monitoring...............................................................................................E-11
B.Pretreatment Monitoring ........................................................................................E-12
C.Outfall Inspection...................................................................................................E-13
X.Reporting Requirements...............................................................................................E-13
A.General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements..................................................E-13
B.Self Monitoring Reports (SMRs) ............................................................................E-13
C.Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)..................................................................E-16
D.Other Reports ........................................................................................................E-16
List of Tables
Table E-1. Monitoring Station Locations................................................................................E-3
Table E-2. Influent Monitoring................................................................................................E-4
Table E-3. Effluent Monitoring at EFF - 001 ..........................................................................E-4
Table E-4. Approved Tests – Acute Toxicity..........................................................................E-5
Table E-5. Approved Tests – Chronic Toxicity.......................................................................E-7
Table E-6. Receiving Water Monitoring Requirements..........................................................E-9
Table E-7. Benthic Sediment Monitoring Requirements......................................................E-10
Table E-8. Biosolids Monitoring Requirements....................................................................E-12
Table E-9. Monitoring Periods and Reporting Schedule......................................................E-14
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-2
ATTACHMENT E – MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MRP)
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.48 require that all NPDES permits specify monitoring and
reporting requirements. Water Code sections 13267 and 13383 also authorize the Regional
Water Board to require technical and monitoring reports. This MRP establishes monitoring
and reporting requirements, which implement the federal and California regulations.
I. GENERAL MONITORING PROVISIONS
A. Laboratories analyzing monitoring samples shall be certified by the Department of Health
Services, in accordance with Water Code section 13176, and must include quality
assurance/quality control data with their reports.
B. Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the
volume and nature of the monitored discharge. All samples shall be taken at the
monitoring locations specified below and, unless otherwise specified, before the monitored
flow joins or is diluted by any other waste stream, body of water, or substance. Monitoring
locations shall not be changed without notification to and approval of the Central Coast
Water Board.
C. Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with accepted scientific
practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of
measurements of the volume of monitored discharges. The devices shall be installed,
calibrated, and maintained to ensure that the accuracy of the measurements is consistent
with the accepted capability of that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable of
measuring flows with a maximum deviation of less than ±10 percent from true discharge
rates throughout the range of expected discharge volumes. Guidance in selection,
installation, calibration, and operation of acceptable flow measurement devices can be
obtained from the following references.
1. A Guide to Methods and Standards for the Measurement of Water Flow, U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, NBS Special Publication
421, May 1975, 96 pp. (Available from the U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402. Order by SD Catalog No. C13.10:421.)
2. Water Measurement Manual, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Second Edition, Revised Reprint, 1974, 327 pp. (Available from the U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 20402. Order by Catalog No.
172.19/2:W29/2, Stock No. S/N 24003-0027.)
3. Flow Measurement in Open Channels and Closed Conduits, U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, NBS Special Publication 484, October
1977, 982 pp. (Available in paper copy or microfiche from National Technical
Information Services (NTIS) Springfield, VA 22151. Order by NTIS No. PB-273
535/5ST.)
4. NPDES Compliance Sampling Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water Enforcement, Publication MCD-51, 1977, 140 pp. (Available from the
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-3
General Services Administration (8FFS), Centralized Mailing Lists Services, Building
41, Denver Federal Center, CO 80225.)
D. All monitoring instruments and devices used by the Discharger to fulfill the prescribed
monitoring program shall be properly maintained and calibrated as necessary to ensure
their continued accuracy. All flow measurement devices shall be calibrated at least once
per year to ensure continued accuracy of the devices.
E. Monitoring results, including noncompliance, shall be reported at intervals and in a manner
specified in this MRP.
F. Unless otherwise specified by this MRP, all monitoring shall be conducted according to
test procedures established at 40 CFR 136, Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for
Analysis of Pollutants. All analyses shall be conducted using the lowest practical
quantitation limit achievable using the specified methodology. Where effluent limitations
are set below the lowest achievable quantitation limits, pollutants not detected at the
lowest practical quantitation limits will be considered in compliance with effluent limitations.
Analysis for toxics listed by the California Toxics Rule shall also adhere to guidance and
requirements contained in the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland
Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (2005). Analyses for toxics
listed in Table B of the California Ocean Plan (2005) shall adhere to guidance and
requirements contained in that document.
II. MONITORING LOCATIONS
The Discharger shall establish the following monitoring locations to demonstrate
compliance with the effluent limitations, discharge specifications, and other requirements of
this Order. The shoreline and ocean monitoring stations have previously been identified
only by letter or number designations (e.g., A-D and 001-004). Designation of monitoring
locations is being modified for consistency with other current permits issued by the
Regional Water Board.
Table E-1. Monitoring Station Locations
Discharge Point
Name
Monitoring
Location Name Monitoring Location Description
--- INF-001
Influent wastewater, prior to treatment and following all significant inputs to
the collection system or to the headworks of untreated wastewater and
inflow and infiltration
001 EFF-001
Location where representative sample of effluent, discharged through the
ocean outfall can be collected, after treatment and
chlorination/dechlorination and before mixing with South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District effluent and contact with receiving water
--- SRF-A At a location along the shoreline 300 meters south of the outfall in surf
zone, formerly identified as shoreline monitoring station A
--- SRF-B At a location along the shoreline adjacent to the outfall in surf zone,
formerly identified as shoreline monitoring station B
--- SRF-C At a location near the shoreline 300 meters north of the outfall in surf
zone, formerly identified as shoreline monitoring station C
--- SRF-D At a location near the shoreline at the mouth of Arroyo Grande Creek,
formerly identified as shoreline monitoring station D
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-4
--- RSW-001 At a location in the receiving water 300 meters north of outfall at mid-depth
of diffuser, formerly identified as ocean water monitoring station 1
--- RSW-002N At a location in the receiving water 20 meters north of outfall at mid-depth
of diffuser, formerly identified as ocean water monitoring station 2N
--- RSW-002S At a location in the receiving water 20 meters south of outfall at mid-depth
of diffuser, formerly identified as ocean water monitoring station 2S
--- RSW-003 At a location in the receiving water 300 meters south of outfall at mid-
depth of diffuser, formerly identified as ocean water monitoring station 3
--- RSW-004 At a location in the receiving water 1000 meters south of outfall at mid-
depth of diffuser, formerly identified as ocean water monitoring station 4
III. INFLUENT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Monitoring Location INF - 001
1. The Discharger shall monitor influent to the treatment facility at Monitoring Location
INF–001 in accordance with the following schedule.
Table E-2. Influent Monitoring
Parameter Units Sample Type Minimum Sampling
Frequency
BOD5 (20°C) mg/L 24 Hr Composite Weekly
TSS mg/L 24 Hr Composite Weekly
IV. EFFLUENT MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Monitoring Location EFF - 001
1. The Discharger shall monitor treated wastewater at Monitoring Location EFF–001 in
accordance with the following schedule.
Table E-3. Effluent Monitoring at EFF - 001
Parameter Units Sample Type Minimum Sampling
Frequency
Daily Flow MG Metered Daily
Maximum Daily Flow MGD Metered Daily
Mean Daily Flow MGD Calculated Monthly
BOD5(20°C) mg/L 24-hr composite Weekly
TSS mg/L 24-hr composite Weekly
Settleable Solids mL/L/hr Grab Monthly
Turbidity NTUs Grab Weekly
Oil and Grease mg/L Grab Monthly
Chlorine Residual mg/L Grab Daily
Chlorine Used lbs/day Recorded Daily
Total Coliform Organisms MPN/100 mL Grab Weekly
Fecal Coliform Organisms MPN/100 mL Grab 5 Days/Week
pH pH units Grab Monthly
Temperature ° F Grab Monthly
Ammonia mg/L Grab Annually (April)
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-5
Acute Toxicity [1] TUa Grab Once in life of permit
Chronic Toxicity [1] TUc 24-hr composite Annually (April)
Ocean Plan Table B Metals [2] µg/L 24-hr composite Annually (April)
Ocean Plan Table B Pollutants [3] µg/L 24-hr composite Annually (April)
[1] Whole effluent, acute and chronic toxicity monitoring shall be conducted according to the requirements
established in section V of this Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
[2] Those twelve metals (Sb, As, Cd, Cr+3, Cr+6, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, and Zn) with applicable water quality
objectives established by Table B of the Ocean Plan. Analysis shall be for total recoverable metals.
[3] Those pollutants identified in Table B of the Ocean Plan (2005). Analyses, compliance determination, and
reporting for these pollutants shall adhere to applicable provisions of the Ocean Plan, including the Standard
Monitoring Procedures presented in Appendix III of the Ocean Plan. The Discharger shall instruct its
analytical laboratory to establish calibration standards so that the Minimum Levels (MLs) presented in
Appendix II of the Ocean Plan are the lowest calibration standards. The Discharger and its analytical
laboratory shall select MLs, which are below applicable water quality criteria of Table B; and when applicable
water quality criteria are below all MLs, the Discharger and its analytical laboratory shall select the lowest ML.
Monitoring for the Table B pollutants shall occur one time per year. Analysis for all Table B pollutants can
coincide with monitoring for the Table B metals so that analysis for metals is not duplicated.
V. WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING REQUIREMENTS
A. Acute Toxicity. Compliance with acute toxicity objective shall be determined using a
USEPA approved method protocol as provided in 40 CFR 136 (Methods for Measuring
the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms, Fifth Edition, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA-821-R-02-012 (2002) or the
latest edition).
Acute Toxicity (TUa) = 100/96-hr LC 50.
LC 50 (percent waste giving 50% survival of test organisms) shall be determined by 96-
hour static or continuous flow bioassay techniques using standard marine test species
as specified in EPA-821-R-02-012 and as noted in the following table.
Table E-4. Approved Tests – Acute Toxicity
Species Scientific Name Effect Test Duration
shrimp Holmesimysis costata survival 48 or 96 hours
shrimp Mysidopsis bahia survival 48 or 96 hours
silversides Menidia beryllina survival 48 or 96 hours
sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus survival 48 or 96 hours
If the effluent is to be discharged to a marine or estuarine system (e.g., salinity values in
excess of 1,000 mg/L) originates from a freshwater supply, salinity of the effluent must
be increased with dry ocean salts (e.g., FORTY FATHOMS®) to match salinity of the
receiving water. This modified effluent shall then be tested using marine species.
Reference toxicant test results shall be submitted with the effluent sample test results.
Both tests must satisfy the test acceptability criteria specified in EPA-821-R-02-012. If
the test acceptability criteria are not achieved or if toxicity is detected, the sample shall
be retaken and retested within 5 days of the failed sampling event. The retest results
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-6
shall be reported in accordance with EPA-821-R-02-012 (chapter on report preparation)
and the results shall be attached to the next monitoring report.
When it is not possible to measure the 96-hour LC 50 due to greater than 50 percent
survival of the test species in 100 percent waste, the toxicity concentration shall be
calculated by the expression:
TUa = [log(100 – S)]/1.7 Where S = percentage survival in 100% waste.
If S > 99, TUa shall be reported as zero.
When toxicity monitoring finds acute toxicity in the effluent above the limitation
established by the Order, the Discharger shall immediately resample the effluent and
retest for acute toxicity. Results of the initial failed test and any toxicity monitoring
results subsequent to the failed test shall be reported as soon as reasonable to the
Water Board Executive Officer (EO). The EO will determine whether to initiate
enforcement action, whether to require the Discharger to implement toxicity reduction
evaluation (TRE) requirements (section VI.C.2.a of the Order), or to implement other
measures.
B. Chronic Toxicity. The presence of chronic toxicity shall be estimated as specified in
Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters
to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms, EPA-821/600/R-95/136; Short Term
Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine
and Estuarine Organisms, EPA-600-4-91-003; Procedures Manual for Conducting Toxicity
Tests developed by the Marine Bioassay Project, SWRCB 1996, 96-1WQ; and/or Short
Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Marine and Estuarine Organisms, EPA/600/4-87-028 or subsequent editions.
Chronic toxicity measures a sub lethal effect (e.g., reduced growth or reproduction) to
experimental test organisms exposed to an effluent compared to that of the control
organisms.
Chronic Toxicity (TUc) = 100/NOEL
The no observed effect concentration (NOEC) is the maximum tested concentration in a
medium which does not cause known adverse effects upon chronic exposure in the
species in question (i.e. the highest effluent concentration to which organisms are exposed
in a chronic test that causes no observable adverse effects on the test organisms; (e.g.,
the highest concentration of a toxicant to which the values for the observed responses are
not statistically significantly different from the controls). Examples of chronic toxicity
include but are not limited to measurements of toxicant effects on reproduction, growth,
and sublethal effects that can include behavioral, physiological, and biochemical effects.
In accordance with the 2005 Ocean Plan, Appendix III, Standard Monitoring Procedures,
the Discharger shall use the critical life stage toxicity tests specified in the table below to
measure TUc. Other species or protocols will be added to the list after State Water Board
review and approval.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-7
A minimum of three test species with approved test protcols shall be used to measure
compliance with the toxicity limitation. If possible, the test species shall include a fish, an
invertebrate, and an aquatic plant. After a screening period of no fewer than three tests,
monitoring can be reduced to the most sensitive species. Dilution and control water
should be obtained from an unaffected area of the receiving waters. The sensitivity fo the
test organisms to a reference toxicant shall be determined concurrently with each
bioassay test and reported with the test results.
Note: If the Discharger has already performed the screening described above, then the
Discharger may continue using the identified most sensitive species for chronic toxicity
testing without re-screening of three species. If an alternative species is proposed to be
used for chronic toxicity testing, the Discharger shall perform the screening and include the
proposed test species as one of those species screened.
Table E-5. Approved Tests – Chronic Toxicity
Species Test Tier [1] Reference [2]
Giant Kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera percent germination; germ tube
length 1 a, c
Red abalone, Haliotis rufescens abnormal shell development 1 a, c
Oyster, Crassostrea gigas; mussels,
Mytilus spp.
abnormal sell development;
percent survival 1 a, c
Urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus;
sand dollar, Dendraster excentricus
percent normal development;
percent fertilization 1 a, c
Shrimp, Homesimysis costata percent survival; growth 1 a, c
Shrimp, Menidia beryllina percent survival; fecundity 2 b, d
Topsmelt, Atherinops affinis larval growth rate; percent survival 1 a, c
Silverside, Menidia beryllina larval growth rate; percent survival 2 b, d
[1] First tier methods are preferred for compliance monitoring. If first tier organisms are not available, the
Discharger can use a second tier test method following approval by the Regional Water Board
[2] Protocol References:
a. Chapman, G.A., D.L. Denton, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1995. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms. U.S. EPA
Report No. EPA/600/R-95/136
b. Klemm, D.J., G.E. Morrison, T.J. Norberg-King, W.J. Peltier, and M.A. Heber. 1994. Short-term Methods
for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water to Marine and Estuarine Organisms.
U.S. EPA Report No. EPA-600-4-91-003.
c. SWRCB 1996. Procedures Manual for Conducting Toxicity Tests Developed by the Marine Bioassay
Project. 96-1WQ.
d. Webber, C.I., W.B. Horning II, D.J. Klemm, T.W. Nieheisel, P.A. Lewis, E.L. Robinson, J. Menkedick and F.
Kessler (eds). 1998. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving
waters to marine and estuarine organisms. EPA/600/4-87/028.
Dilution and control waters shall be obtained from an area of the receiving waters,
typically upstream, which is unaffected by the discharge. Standard dilution water can
be used, if the receiving water itself exhibits toxicity or if approved by the Central Coast
Water Board. If the dilution water used in testing is different from the water in which the
test organisms were cultured, a second control sample using culture water shall be
tested.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-8
If the effluent to be discharged to a marine or estuarine system (e.g., salinity values in
excess of 1,000 mg/L) originates from a freshwater supply, salinity of the effluent must be
increased with dry ocean salts (e.g., FORTY FATHOMS®) to match salinity of the
receiving water. This modified effluent shall then be tested using marine species.
For this discharge, the presence of chronic toxicity at more than 85 TUc shall trigger the
Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) requirement of this Order (Section VI.C.2.a).
C. Toxicity Reporting
1. The Discharger shall include a full report of toxicity test results with the regular
monthly monitoring report and include the following information.
a. toxicity test results,
b. dates of sample collection and initiation of each toxicity test, and
c. and/or chronic toxicity discharge limitations (or value).
2. Toxicity test results shall be reported according to the appropriate guidance -
Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fifth Edition, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA-
821-R-02-012 (2002) or the latest edition, or, EPA-821-R-02-012 (2002) or
subsequent editions.
3. If the initial investigation TRE workplan is used to determine that additional
(accelerated) toxicity testing is unnecessary, these results shall be submitted with
the monitoring report for the month in which investigations conducted under the TRE
workplan occurred.
4. Within 14 days of receipt of test results exceeding the chronic toxicity discharge
limitation, the Discharger shall provide written notification to the Executive Officer of:
a. Findings of the TRE or other investigation to identify the cause(s) of toxicity,
b. Actions the Discharger has taken/will take, to mitigate the impact of the discharge
and to prevent the recurrence of toxicity. When corrective actions, including
TRE, have not been completed, a schedule under which corrective actions will be
implemented, or the reason for not taking corrective action, if no action has been
taken.
When corrective actions, including a TRE, have not been completed, a schedule
under which corrective actions will be implemented, or the reason for not taking
corrective action, if no action has been taken, will be completed.
VI. LAND DISCHARGE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
This section of the standardized permit form is not applicable to this Discharger.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-9
VII. RECLAMATION MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
If applicable, the Discharger shall comply with applicable State and local monitoring
requirements regarding the production and use of reclaimed wastewater, including
requirements established by the Department of Health Services at title 22, sections 60301 -
60357 of the California Code of Regulations, Water Recycling Criteria.
VIII. RECEIVING WATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS – SURFACE WATER AND
GROUNDWATER
A. Receiving Water Monitoring. The following receiving water monitoring shall be
performed if operational changes, plant upsets, or effluent violations occur that are likely
to increase bacterial concentrations in the surf zone.
Table E-6. Receiving Water Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring Location Parameters Sampled
at Each Location Units Minimum Frequency of Sampling
SRF-A, SRF-B, SRF-C,
SRF-D
Total and Fecal Coliform
Organisms
MPN/100 mL Monthly and immediately in the event of plant
upset, operational changes, or effluent
violations
SRF-A, SRF-B, SRF-C,
SRF-D
Surf conditions (narrative) Narrative Monthly and immediately in the event of plant
upset, operational changes, or effluent
violations
SRF-D Current direction, if
discernible
Narrative Monthly and immediately in the event of plant
upset, operational changes, or effluent
violations
SRF-D If Arroyo Grande Creek is
Flowing to Ocean
Narrative Monthly and immediately in the event of plant
upset, operational changes, or effluent
violations
SRF-A, SRF-B, SRF-C Shellfish Tissue Fecal
Coliform Organisms
MPN/100 g Annually
B. Benthic Sediment Monitoring. Benthic monitoring shall assess the temporal and
spatial occurrence of pollutants in local marine sediments and evaluate the physical and
chemical quality of the sediments in relation to the outfall. At all benthic monitoring
stations, one grab sediment sample shall be collected using a 0.1 m3 Van Veen grab
sampler.
Sediment samples shall be analyzed according to Quality Assurance and Quality Control
(QA/QC) for 301(h) Monitoring Programs: Guidance on Field and Laboratory Methods
(EPA 430/9-86-004, 1987) and Analytical Methods for EPA Priority Pollutants and 301(h)
Pesticides in Estuarine and Marine Sediments (EPA 503-6-90-004, 1986). When
processing samples for analysis, macrofauna and large remnants greater than 0.25 inches
(0.64 cm) should be removed, taking care to avoid contamination.
All sediment results shall be reported in the raw form and expressed on a dry weight basis.
For all non-detect results, parameter detection limits shall be reported. Dry weight
concentration target detection levels are indicated for National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) National Status and Trends Program analyses.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-10
Benthic monitoring results shall be included in the Annual Report with a complete
discussion of benthic sediment survey results and (possible) influence of the discharge on
sediment conditions in the study area. The discussion should be based on graphical,
tabular, and/or appropriate statistical analyses of spatial and temporal patterns observed
for raw sediment parameters. The Annual Report should also present an analysis of
natural variation in sediment conditions, etc., which could influence the validity of study
results. The Discharger’s sediment results may also be compared with the results of other
applicable studies, numerical protective levels, etc., as appropriate. Survey results shall
be compared to pre-discharge and/or historical data using appropriate statistical methods.
Sampling specified in the following table shall occur in the period from July through
October at the ocean bottom directly below stations RSW-001, RSW-002N, RSW-002S,
RSW-003, and RSW-004.
Table E-7. Benthic Sediment Monitoring Requirements
Parameter Units Minimum Frequency of Sampling
Particle Size Phi (% volume) Once every three years (2010 and 2013)
Sediment Sulphides at pH 7 mg/kg “ “
BOD mg/kg “ “
Arsenic mg/kg “ “
Cadmium mg/kg “ “
Total Chromium mg/kg “ “
Chromium+6 mg/kg “ “
Copper mg/kg “ “
Lead mg/kg “ “
Nickel mg/kg “ “
Mercury mg/kg “ “
Silver mg/kg “ “
Zinc mg/kg “ “
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/kg “ “
Ammonia mg/kg “ “
Nitrate mg/kg “ “
TOC mg/kg “ “
C. Benthic Biota Monitoring. Benthic infaunal monitoring shall assess the temporal and
spatial status of local benthic communities in relation to the outfall. Sampling shall be
conducted as follows.
1. At least five benthic samples shall be taken at each of the five ocean monitoring
stations (RSW-001, RSW-002N, RSW-002S, RSW-003, and RSW-004) using a 0.1
m3 Van Veen grab sampler.
2. For benthic infauna analyses, each replicate sample shall be passed through a 1
mm screen, and the organisms retained and preserved as appropriate for
subsequent identification. It is recommended that sample preservation, sample
processing, and data analyses be conducted according to Quality Assurance and
Quality Control (QA/QC) for 301(h) Monitoring Programs: Guidance on Field and
Laboratory Methods (EPA 430/9-86-004, 1987).
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-11
3. Benthic infauna from each replicate sample shall be counted and identified to the
lowest possible taxon. For each replicate sample, number of individuals, number of
species, and number of individuals per species, and within each major taxonomic
group (polychaetes, mollusks, crustaceans, echinoderms, and all other
macroinvertebrates) shall be recorded.
4. The Annual Report shall include a complete discussion of benthic infaunal survey
results and (possible) influence of the outfall on benthic infaunal communities in the
study area. The discussion should be based on graphical, tabular, and/or
appropriate statistical analyses of spatial and temporal patterns. Temporal trends in
the number of individuals, number of species, number of individuals per species, and
community structure indices, species richness (S), Margalef index (d), Shannon-
Wiener index (H’), Brillouin index (h), Simpson’s index (SI), Swartz’s dominance, and
Infaunal Trophic Index (ITI) shall be reported. Statistical analyses shall include
multivariate techniques consisting of classification and ordination analysis. The
Annual Report should also present an analysis of natural community variation
including the effects of different sediment conditions, oceanic seasons, and water
temperatures, etc., that could influence the validity of study results. Survey results
shall be compared to pre-discharge and/or historical data using appropriate
statistical methods.
IX. OTHER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Biosolids Monitoring
1. The following information shall be submitted with the Annual Report required by
Central Coast Regional Water Board Standard Provision E-8. Adequate detail shall
be included to characterize biosolids in accordance with 40 CFR Part 503.
a. Annual biosolids production in dry tons and percent solids.
b. A schematic drawing showing biosolids handling facilities (e.g., digesters,
lagoons, drying beds, incinerators) and a solids flow diagram.
c. A narrative description of biosolids dewatering and other treatment processes,
including process parameters. For example, if biosolids are digested, report
average temperature and retention time of the digesters. If drying beds are used,
report depth of application and drying time. If composting is used, report the
temperature achieved and duration.
d. A description of disposal methods, including the following information as
applicable related to the disposal methods used at the facility. If more than one
method is used, include the percentage and tonnage of annual biosolids
production disposed by each method.
(1) For landfill disposal include: 1) the Central Coast Water Board WDR numbers
that regulate the landfills used, 2) the present classifications of the landfills
used, and 3) the names and locations of the facilities receiving biosolids.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-12
(2) For land application include: 1) the location of the site(s), 2) the Central Coast
Water Board's WDR numbers that regulate the site(s), 3) the application rate
in lbs/acre/year (specify wet or dry), and 4) subsequent uses of the land.
(3) For offsite application by a licensed hauler and composter include: 1) the
name, address and USEPA license number of the hauler and composter.
e. Copies of analytical data required by other agencies (i.e., USEPA or County
Health Department) and licensed disposal facilities (i.e., landfill, land application,
or composting facility) for the previous year.
2. A representative sample of residual solids (biosolids) shall be obtained from the last
point in the handling process (i.e., in the drying beds just prior to removal) and shall
be analyzed for total concentrations for comparison with TTLC criteria. The Waste
Extraction Test shall be performed on any constituent when the total concentration
of the waste exceeds ten times the STLC limit for that substance.
Table E-8. Biosolids Monitoring Requirements
Parameter Units Sample Type Minimum Frequency of Sampling
Quantity Tons or Yards Measured During Removal
Location of Disposal Site “ “
Moisture Content Percent Grab Annually
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/kg Grab “ “
Ammonia (as N) mg/kg Grab “ “
Nitrate (as N) mg/kg Grab “ “
Total Phosphorus mg/kg Grab “ “
pH Standard Units Grab “ “
Oil & Grease mg/kg Grab “ “
Arsenic mg/kg Grab “ “
Boron mg/kg Grab “ “
Cadmium mg/kg Grab “ “
Copper mg/kg Grab “ “
Chromium mg/kg Grab “ “
Lead mg/kg Grab “ “
Nickel mg/kg Grab “ “
Mercury mg/kg Grab “ “
Molybdenum mg/kg Grab “ “
Selenium mg/kg Grab “ “
Zinc mg/kg Grab “ “
B. Pretreatment Monitoring. At least once per year, influent, effluent, and biosolids shall
be sampled and analyzed for the priority pollutants identified under Section 307(a) of
the Clean Water Act. The Discharger shall summarize analytical results from
representative, flow-proportioned, 24-hour composite sampling of the plant’s influent
and effluent for those pollutants EPA has identified under CWA Section 307(a) which
are known or are suspected to be discharged by industrial users. The Discharger is not
required to sample and analyze for asbestos until EPA promulgates an applicable
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-13
analytical technique under 40 CFR Part 136. Biosolids shall be sampled during the
same 24-hour period and analyzed for the same pollutants as the influent and effluent
samples.
Wastewater and biosolids sampling and analysis shall be performed a minimum of
annually and not less than the frequency specified in the required monitoring program
for the plant. The Discharger shall also provide any influent, effluent, or biosolids
monitoring data for non-priority pollutants for which the Discharger believes may be
causing or contributing to interference, pass-through, or adversely impacting biosolids
quality. Sampling and analysis shall be performed in accordance with the techniques
prescribed in 40 CFR Part 136 and amendments thereto. Biosolids samples shall be
collected from the last point in solids handling before disposal. If biosolids is dried on-
site, samples shall be composited from at least twelve discrete samples from twelve
representative locations. Pretreatment monitoring may be coordinated with other
required monitoring to minimize duplicate effort and expense.
C. Outfall Inspection. Every three years (in 2010 and 2013), the Discharger shall conduct
an inspection of the outfall pipe/diffuser system to ensure the proper operation and
structural integrity of the system. This inspection shall include general observations and
video records of the outfall pipe/diffuser system and the surrounding ocean bottom in
the vicinity of the outfall/diffuser. The inspection shall note leaks and potential leaks
using dye studies, if necessary. The inspection shall be collected along the outfall
pipe/diffuser system from landfall to its ocean terminus. A report detailing inspection
results shall be submitted to the Central Coast Water Board and EPA with the Annual
Report required by Central Coast Water Board Standard Provision E-8.
X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. General Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. The Discharger shall comply with
all Standard Provisions (Attachment D) related to monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping.
B. Self Monitoring Reports (SMRs)
1. At any time during the term of this permit, the State or Regional Water Board may
notify the Discharger to electronically submit Self-Monitoring Reports (SMRs) using
the State Water Board’s California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS)
Program Web site (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/index.html). Until such
notification is given, the Discharger shall submit hard copy SMRs. The CIWQS Web
site will provide additional directions for SMR submittal in the event there will be
service interruption for electronic submittal.
2. The Discharger shall report in the SMR the results for all monitoring specified in this
MRP under sections III through IX. The Discharger shall submit monthly SMRs
including the results of all required monitoring using USEPA-approved test methods
or other test methods specified in this Order. If the Discharger monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required by this Order, the results of this monitoring
shall be included in the calculations and reporting of the data submitted in the SMR.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-14
3. Monitoring periods and reporting for all required monitoring shall be completed
according to the following schedule:
Table E-9. Monitoring Periods and Reporting Schedule
Sampling
Frequency Monitoring Period Begins On … Monitoring Period SMR Due Date
Continuous October 23, 2009 All Submit with monthly
SMR
Hourly October 23, 2009 Hourly Submit with monthly
SMR
Daily October 23, 2009
(Midnight through 11:59 PM) or
any 24-hour period that
reasonably represents a
calendar day for purposes of
sampling.
Submit with monthly
SMR
Weekly
Sunday following permit effective date
or on permit effective date if on a
Sunday
Sunday through Saturday Submit with monthly
SMR
Monthly
First day of calendar month following
permit effective date or on permit
effective date if that date is first day of
the month
1st day of calendar month
through last day of calendar
month
First day of second
calendar month
following the month of
sampling
Quarterly
Closest of January 1, April 1, July 1, or
October 1 following (or on) permit
effective date
January 1 through March 31
April 1 through June 30
July 1 through September 30
October 1 through December
31
Submit with monthly
SMR (May 1 st,
August 1 st, November
1 st, February 1st)
Semiannually Closest of April 1 or October 1 following
(or on) permit effective date
October 1 through March 31,
April 1 through September 31
Submit with monthly
SMR (May 1 st,and
November 1 st,
Annually April 1 following (or on) permit effective
date April 1 through March 31 Submit with Annual
Report February 1st
Triennially
(2010 and
2013)
October 23, 2009
Any date during the period of
July through October, 2010,
July through October 2013
Submit with Annual
Report February 1st
4. Reporting Protocols. The Discharger shall report with each sample result the
applicable reported Minimum Level (ML) and the current Method Detection Limit
(MDL), as determined by the procedure in Part 136.
The Discharger shall report the results of analytical determinations for the presence
of chemical constituents in a sample using the following reporting protocols:
a. Sample results greater than or equal to the reported ML shall be reported as
measured by the laboratory (i.e., the measured chemical concentration in the
sample).
b. Sample results less than the reported ML, but greater than or equal to the
laboratory’s MDL, shall be reported as “Detected, but Not Quantified,” or DNQ.
The estimated chemical concentration of the sample shall also be reported.
For the purposes of data collection, the laboratory shall write the estimated
chemical concentration next to DNQ as well as the words “Estimated
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-15
Concentration” (may be shortened to “Est. Conc.”). The laboratory may, if such
information is available, include numerical estimates of the data quality for the
reported result. Numerical estimates of data quality may be percent accuracy (+
a percentage of the reported value), numerical ranges (low to high), or any other
means considered appropriate by the laboratory.
c. Sample results less than the laboratory’s MDL shall be reported as “Not
Detected,” or ND.
d. Dischargers are to instruct laboratories to establish calibration standards so that
the ML value (or its equivalent if there is differential treatment of samples relative
to calibration standards) is the lowest calibration standard. At no time is the
Discharger to use analytical data derived from extrapolation beyond the lowest
point of the calibration curve.
5. The Discharger shall submit SMRs in accordance with the following requirements:
a. The Discharger shall arrange all reported data in a tabular format. The data shall
be summarized to clearly illustrate whether the facility is operating in compliance
with interim and/or final effluent limitations. The Discharger is not required to
duplicate the submittal of data that is entered in a tabular format within CIWQS.
When electronic submittal of data is required and CIWQS does not provide for
entry into a tabular format within the system, the Discharger shall electronically
submit the data in a tabular format as an attachment.
b. The Discharger shall attach a cover letter to the SMR. The information contained
in the cover letter shall clearly identify violations of the WDRs; discuss corrective
actions taken or planned; and the proposed time schedule for corrective actions.
Identified violations must include a description of the requirement that was
violated and a description of the violation.
c. SMRs must be submitted to the Regional Water Board, signed and certified as
required by the Standard Provisions (Attachment D), to the address listed below:
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
d. An Annual Report shall be due on February 1 following each calendar year and
shall include:
• All data required by this MRP for the corresponding monitoring period,
including appropriate calculations to verify compliance with effluent
limitations.
• A discussion of any incident of non-compliance and corrective actions taken.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment E – MRP E-16
C. Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
1. As described in Section X.B.1 above, at any time during the term of this permit, the
State or Regional Water Board may notify the Discharger to electronically submit
SMRs that will satisfy federal requirements for submittal of Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRs). Until such notification is given, the Discharger shall submit DMRs
in accordance with the requirements described below.
2. DMRs must be signed and certified as required by the standard provisions
(Attachment D). The Discharge shall submit the original DMR and one copy of the
DMR to the address listed below.
Standard Mail Fedex/UPS/Other Private Carriers
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
c/o DMR Processing Center
PO Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-1000
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
c/o DMR Processing Center
1001 I Street, 15th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
3. All discharge monitoring results must be reported on the official USEPA pre-printed
DMR forms (EPA Form 3320-1). Forms that are self-generated or modified cannot
be accepted.
D. Other Reports. The Discharger shall report the results of any special monitoring,
TREs, or other data or information that results from the Special Provisions, section VI.C,
of the Order. The Discharger shall submit such reports with the first monthly SMR
scheduled to be submitted on or immediately following the report due date.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-1
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET
F
Table of Contents
Attachment F – Fact Sheet.....................................................................................................F-3
I.Permit Information..........................................................................................................F-3
II.Facility Description .........................................................................................................F-4
A.Description of Wastewater and Biosolids Treatment or Controls.............................F-4
B.Discharge Points and Receiving Waters..................................................................F-4
C.Summary of Existing Requirements and Effluent Characterization..........................F-4
C.Compliance Summary..............................................................................................F-5
III.Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations...................................................................F-6
A.Legal Authorities......................................................................................................F-6
B.California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)..........................................................F-6
C.State and Federal Regulations, Policies, and Plans ................................................F-6
D.Impaired Water Bodies on CWA 303 (d) List...........................................................F-8
E.Other Plans, Polices and Regulations......................................................................F-8
IV.Rationale For Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications....................................F-8
A.Discharge Prohibitions.............................................................................................F-9
B.Technology-Based Effluent Limitations..................................................................F-10
1.Scope and Authority...........................................................................................F-10
2.Applicable Technology-Based Effluent Limitations ............................................F-10
C.Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs).............................................F-11
1.Scope and Authority...........................................................................................F-11
2.Applicable Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Criteria and Objectives..............F-12
3.Determining the Need for WQBELs...................................................................F-12
4.WQBEL Calculations .........................................................................................F-17
5.Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)...........................................................................F-18
D.Final Effluent Limitations........................................................................................F-19
E.Interim Effluent Limitations.....................................................................................F-19
F.Land Discharge Specifications...............................................................................F-19
G.Reclamation Specifications....................................................................................F-19
V.Rationale for Receiving Water Limitations....................................................................F-20
A.Surface Water........................................................................................................F-20
B.Groundwater..........................................................................................................F-20
VI.Rationale for Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.................................................F-20
A.Influent Monitoring .................................................................................................F-20
B.Effluent Monitoring.................................................................................................F-20
C.Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Requirements ......................................................F-21
D.Receiving Water Monitoring...................................................................................F-21
1.Surface Water....................................................................................................F-21
2.Groundwater......................................................................................................F-21
E.Other Monitoring Requirements.............................................................................F-21
VII.Rationale for Provisions................................................................................................F-22
A.Standard Provisions...............................................................................................F-22
B.Special Provisions..................................................................................................F-22
1.Reopener Provisions..........................................................................................F-22
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-2
2.Special Studies and Additional Monitoring Requirements..................................F-22
3.Best Management Practices and Pollution Prevention ......................................F-23
4.Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Specifications.................................F-23
5.Special Provisions for Municipal Facilities (POTWs Only).................................F-23
6.Other Special Provisions....................................................................................F-23
7.Compliance Schedules......................................................................................F-24
VIII.Public Participation.......................................................................................................F-24
A.Notification of Interested Parties............................................................................F-24
B.Written Comments.................................................................................................F-24
C.Public Hearing .......................................................................................................F-24
D.Waste Discharge Requirements Petitions..............................................................F-25
E.Information and Copying........................................................................................F-25
F.Register of Interested Persons ..............................................................................F-25
G.Additional Information............................................................................................F-25
List of Tables
Table F-1. Facility Information................................................................................................F-3
Table F-2. Historic Effluent Limitations, Discharge Point 001.................................................F-5
Table F-3. Effluent Characterization – 2004-2008.................................................................F-5
Table F-5. Secondary Treatment Requirements..................................................................F-10
Table F-6. Summary of Technology-Based Effluent Limitations..........................................F-11
Table F-7. RPA Results for Discharges of Secondary Effluent............................................F-15
Table F-8. Background Concentrations—Ocean Plan.........................................................F-18
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-3
ATTACHMENT F – FACT SHEET
As described in section II of the Order, this Fact Sheet includes the legal requirements and
technical rationale that serve as the basis for the requirements of this Order.
This Order has been prepared under a standardized format to accommodate a broad range of
discharge requirements for dischargers in California. Only those sections or subsections of
this Order that are specifically identified as “not applicable” have been determined not to apply
to this Discharger. Sections or subsections of this Order not specifically identified as “not
applicable” are fully applicable to this Discharger.
I. PERMIT INFORMATION
The following table summarizes administrative information related to the facility.
Table F-1. Facility Information
WDID 3 400106001
Discharger City of Pismo Beach
Name of Facility Wastewater Treatment Plant
570 Frady Lane
Pismo Beach, CA 93449 Facility Address
San Luis Obispo County
Facility Contact, Title and Phone Stuart S. Stewart, Wastewater Systems Supervisor, 805-773-7075
Authorized Person to Sign and
Submit Reports
Dwayne Chisam, Public Works Director, 805-773-4656
Mailing Address 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Billing Address 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Type of Facility POTW
Major or Minor Facility Major
Threat to Water Quality II
Complexity A
Pretreatment Program N
Reclamation Requirements NA
Facility Permitted Flow 1.9 MGD
Facility Design Flow 1.9 MGD
Watershed Pismo Creek
Receiving Waters Pacific Ocean
Receiving Water Type Ocean Water
A. The City of Pismo Beach is the owner and operator of a wastewater treatment plant, which
treats domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewaters collected from the City’s service
area. The wastewater treatment plant is located at 570 Frady Lane, Pismo Beach, San
Luis Obispo County.
For the purposes of this Order, references to the “discharger” or “permittee” in applicable
federal and state laws, regulations, plans, or policy are held to be equivalent to references
to the Discharger, the City of Pismo Beach.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-4
B. The facility discharges wastewater to Pacific Ocean, waters of the United States, and is
currently regulated by Order No. R3-2004-0051, which was adopted on September 10,
2004, and expires on September 10, 2009. The terms and conditions of the current Order
will be automatically continued and remain in effect until new Waste Discharge
Requirements and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit are
adopted pursuant to this Order.
C. The Discharger filed a Report of Waste Discharge and submitted an application for
renewal of its Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and NPDES permit on March 10,
2009. A site visit was conducted on April 24, 2009, to observe operations and collect
additional data to develop permit limitations and conditions.
II. FACILITY DESCRIPTION
A. Description of Wastewater and Biosolids Treatment or Controls. The City of Pismo
Beach wastewater treatment plant currently serves a population of approximately 8,603.
Residential, commercial, and industrial wastewater is conveyed to the recently
upgraded treatment plant, which has a design treatment capacity of 1.9 MGD (monthly
average).
A single mechanical bar screen captures large debris from the raw wastewater in the
headworks. From the headworks, an influent splitter box divides flow between two
oxidation ditches, each with a sidewall water depth of 12 ft. and a volume of 0.89 million
gallons. Aeration is provided by mechanical aerators; about 12 percent of each tank is
anaerobic, and 88 percent is aerobic. Effluent from the oxidation ditches passes
through the mixed liquor splitter box and is evenly distributed between the plant’s two
65-ft-diameter secondary clarifiers, which have a sidewall water depth of 14 ft and a
volume of 0.35 million gallons each. Following secondary clarification, flow travels to
the chlorine contact basin. Effluent is dechlorinated with sodium bisulfite before
discharge through the ocean outfall line.
Effluent from the City’s wastewater treatment plant and from the South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District wastewater treatment facility is discharged through a jointly
owned 4400 foot outfall/diffuser system, which terminates in the Pacific Ocean in
approximately 55 feet of water. Dewatered biosolids are hauled to a composting facility.
B. Discharge Points and Receiving Waters. Discharge from the wastewater treatment
plant at Discharge Point 001 occurs through a 4400-foot outfall/diffuser system that
terminates at a depth of approximately 55 feet in the Pacific Ocean at 35º 06’ 04” N.
latitude and 120º 38’ 46” W. longitude.
The minimum probable initial dilution (seawater to effluent) at Discharge Point 001 is 165
to 1, a figure that has been used by Central Coast Water Board staff to determine the
need for water quality based effluent limitations, and, if necessary, to calculate those
limitations.
C. Summary of Existing Requirements and Effluent Characterization. Effluent
limitations contained in the existing Order for discharges from Discharge Point 001 and
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-5
representative monitoring data for Monitoring Location EFF-001, for the term of the
previous Order, are presented in the following tables.
Table F-2. Historic Effluent Limitations, Discharge Point 001
Effluent Limitations
Parameter Units Average
Monthly Average Weekly Daily Maximum
mg/L 30 45 90
lbs/day 438 (475) [1] 657 (713) [1] 1314 (1426) [1]
BOD5
kg/day 199 (215) [1] 298 (323) [1] 596 (647) [1]
mg/L 30 45 90
lbs/day 438 (475) [1] 657 (713) [1] 1314 (1426) [1]
TSS
kg/day 199 (215) [1] 298 (323) [1] 596 (647) [1]
BOD5 and TSS % Removal by treatment shall not be less than 85 percent
mg/L 25 40 75
lbs/day 365 (396) [1] 584 (634) [1] 1095 (1188) [1]
Oil & Grease
kg/day 166 (180) [1] 265 (288) [1] 497 (539) [1]
Settleable Solids mL/L/hr 1.0 1.5 3.0
Turbidity NTUs 75 100 225
pH pH Units 6.0 – 9.0
Fecal Coliform MPN/100
mL
--- (7-sample median)
200
2000
Flow MGD Daily dry weather flow shall not exceed a monthly average
of 1.75 MGD (1.9 MGD after facility upgrade)
Ocean Plan Table
B Pollutants
varies Effluent limitations were established for all Table B
pollutants based upon water quality objectives established in
the 2001 Ocean Plan and a minimum initial dilution of 165:1.
[1] Values in parentheses apply after facility upgrade.
Table F-3. Effluent Characterization – 2004-2008
Units Highest Monthly Avg
Highest Daily Maximum
Effluent Flow MGD 1.505 3.045
BOD5 mg/L 49 110
TSS mg/L 23 130
Settleable Solids mL/L --- 9.0
Turbidity NTU --- 13.65
Oil & Grease mg/L --- 4.5
Temperature °C 25.0 26.5
pH pH units --- 6.50 - 8.11
Fecal Coliform MPN/100 mL 1600 (7-day median) ---
Total Coliform MPN/100 mL 8688 160,000
Total Ammonia mg/L --- 38
D. Compliance Summary. The Discharger experienced numerous incidents of
noncompliance prior to upgrading the treatment facility. Those violations and resulting
enforcement actions are summarized in Administrative Civil Liabilities Order No. R3-
2005-0009. Since completion of the facility upgrade, effluent quality has improved in its
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-6
compliance with discharge limits and day-to-day consistency. Discharge violations
occurring since the facility upgrade are characterized as follows.
May 24, 2006 – Fecal coliform bacteria violation due to equipment automatic equipment
inadequately calibrated to new facility.
November 30, 2007 – Fecal coliform bacteria violation suspected to be due to
inadequate chlorine contact chamber maintenance.
November 20, 2008 – Fecal coliform bacteria violation due to equipment malfunction.
In each instance, the problem has been rapidly identified and corrected. Based upon
Central Coast Water Board staff inspections and Discharger self-monitoring, ongoing
compliance with the permit requirements is anticipated.
E. Planned Changes. There are no significant operational or physical changes
anticipated during the term of the Order for the wastewater treatment plant.
III. APPLICABLE PLANS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS
The requirements contained in the proposed Order are based on the requirements and
authorities described in this section.
A. Legal Authorities. This Order is issued pursuant to CWA section 402 and
implementing regulations adopted by the USEPA and chapter 5.5, division 7 of the
California Water Code (commencing with section 13370). It shall serve as an NPDES
permit for point source discharges from this facility to surface waters. This Order also
serves as Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) pursuant to article 4, chapter 4,
division 7 of the Water Code (commencing with section 13260).
B. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Water Code section
13389, this action to adopt an NPDES permit is exempt from the provisions of CEQA,
Public Resources Code sections 21100 - through 21177.
C. State and Federal Regulations, Policies, and Plans
1. Water Quality Control Plans. The Central Coast Water Board has adopted a
Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Region (the Basin Plan) that
designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains
implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives for receiving
waters within the Region. To address ocean waters, the Basin Plan incorporates by
reference the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (the Ocean
Plan), which was adopted in 1972 and amended in 1978, 1983, 1988, 1990, 1997,
2000, and 2005. The most recent amendment to the Ocean Plan was adopted by
the State Water Resources Control Board (the State Water Board) on April 21, 2005
and became effective on February 14, 2006.
The Basin Plan implements State Water Board Resolution No. 88-63, which
establishes State policy that all waters, with certain exceptions, should be
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-7
considered suitable or potentially suitable for municipal or domestic supply (MUN).
Because of very high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) in the Pacific Ocean, the
receiving waters for discharges from the City of Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment
Plant meet an exception to Resolution No. 88-63, which precludes waters with TDS
levels greater than 3,000 mg/L from the MUN designation. Beneficial uses
established by the Basin Plan and the Ocean Plan for the Pacific Ocean are
described in section II. H and I of the Order.
Requirements of this Order implement the Basin Plan and Ocean Plan.
2. Thermal Plan. The State Water Board adopted a Water Quality Control Plan for
Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Water and Enclosed Bays and
Estuaries of California (Thermal Plan) on May 18, 1972, and amended this plan on
September 18, 1975. This plan contains the following temperature objective for
existing discharges to enclosed bays and coastal waters of California which is
applicable to this Discharger.
Elevated temperature waste discharges shall comply with limitations
necessary to assure protection of beneficial uses.
The Ocean Plan defines elevated temperature wastes as:
Liquid, solid, or gaseous material discharged at a temperature higher than the
natural temperature of receiving water.
3. California Ocean Plan. The State Water Board adopted the Water Quality Control
Plan for Ocean Waters of California, California Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan) in 1972 and
amended it in 1978, 1983, 1988, 1990, 1997, 2000, and 2005. The State Water Board
adopted the latest amendment on April 21. 2005 and it became effective on February
14, 2006. The Ocean Plan is applicable, in its entirety, to point source discharges to
the Pacific Ocean.
4. Alaska Rule. On March 30, 2000, USEPA revised its regulation that specifies when
new and revised state and tribal water quality standards become effective for CWA
purposes. [65 Fed. Reg. 24641 (April 27, 2000), codified at 40 CFR 131.21] Under
the revised regulation (also known as the Alaska Rule), new and revised standards
submitted to USEPA after May 30, 2000 must be approved by USEPA before being
used for CWA purposes. The final rule also provides that standards already in effect
and submitted to USEPA by May 30, 2000, may be used for CWA purposes, whether
or not approved by USEPA.
5. Antidegradation Policy. NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 131.12 require that State
water quality standards include an antidegradation policy consistent with the federal
policy. The State Water Board established California’s antidegradation policy in State
Water Board Resolution No. 68-16, which incorporates the federal antidegradation
policy where the federal policy applies under federal law. Resolution No. 68-16
requires that the existing quality of waters be maintained unless degradation is justified
based on specific findings. The Regional Water Board’s Basin Plan implements and
incorporates by reference both the State and federal antidegradation policies. The
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-8
permitted discharge must be consistent with the antidegradation provisions of 40 CFR
131.12 and State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16.
6. Anti-Backsliding Requirements. CWA Sections 402 (o) (2) and 303 (d) (4) and
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44 (l) prohibit backsliding in NPDES permits.
These anti-backsliding provisions require effluent limitations in a reissued permit to be
as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed.
D. Impaired Water Bodies on CWA 303 (d) List. CWA section 303 (d) requires states to
identify specific water bodies where water quality standards are not expected to be met
after implementation of technology-based effluent limitations on point sources. For all
303 (d) listed water bodies and pollutants, the Regional Water Board must develop and
implement TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) that will specify WLAs (Waste Load
Allocations) for point sources and Load Allocations for non-point sources.
The State’s 2006 303 (d) list of impaired water bodies, which was approved by USEPA in
June 2007, identifies the Pacific Ocean at Pismo Beach as impaired by “indicator
bacteria”. The outfall for this discharge is located approximately 4,400 feet offshore and
south of Pismo Beach.
E. Other Plans, Polices and Regulations
1. Discharges of Storm Water. Storm water flows from the wastewater treatment
process areas are directed to the headworks and discharged with treated
wastewater. These storm water flows constitute all industrial storm water at this
facility and, consequently, this permit regulates all industrial storm water discharges
at this facility along with wastewater discharges.
2. Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems
(State Water Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ). This General Permit, adopted on
May 2, 2006, is applicable to all “federal and state agencies, municipalities, counties,
districts, and other public entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems
greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially
treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in the State of California.”
The purpose of the General Permit is to promote the proper and efficient
management, operation, and maintenance of sanitary sewer systems and to
minimize the occurrences and impacts of sanitary sewer overflows. The Order
requires the Discharger to seek coverage under the General Permit and comply with
its requirements. Sewage spill reporting requirements from the previous permit have
not been retained in this Order, as coverage under the General Permit requires
reporting by the Discharger.
IV. RATIONALE FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS
The CWA requires point source dischargers to control the amount of conventional, non-
conventional, and toxic pollutants that are discharged into the waters of the United States. The
control of pollutants discharged is established through effluent limitations and other
requirements in NPDES permits. NPDES regulations establish two principal bases for effluent
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-9
limitations. At 40 CFR 122.44(a) permits are required to include applicable technology-based
limitations and standards; and at 40 CFR 122.44(d) permits are required to include water
quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) to attain and maintain applicable numeric and
narrative water quality criteria to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving water. When
numeric water quality objectives have not been established, but a discharge has the
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above a narrative criterion,
WQBELs may be established using one or more of three methods described at 40 CFR
122.44(d) - 1) WQBELs may be established using a calculated water quality criterion derived
from a proposed State criterion or an explicit State policy or regulation interpreting its narrative
criterion; 2) WQBELs may be established on a case-by-case basis using USEPA criteria
guidance published under CWA Section 304(a); or 3) WQBELs may be established using an
indicator parameter for the pollutant of concern.
A. Discharge Prohibitions
1. Discharge Prohibition III.A. (Discharge to the Pacific Ocean at a location other than as
described by this Order at 35º 06’ 04” N. Latitude, 120º 38’ 46” W. Longitude is
prohibited.) This prohibition is retained from the previous permit.
2. Discharge Prohibition III.B. (Discharges of any waste in any manner other than as
described by this Order are prohibited.) Because limitations and conditions of the
Order have been prepared based on specific information provided by the Discharger
and specific wastes described by the Discharger, the limitations and conditions of the
Order do not adequately address waste streams not contemplated during drafting of
the Order. To prevent the discharge of such waste streams that may be inadequately
regulated, the Order prohibits the discharge of any waste that was not described by the
Central Coast Water Board during the process of permit reissuance.
3. Discharge Prohibition III.C. (The average monthly rate of discharge to the Pacific
Ocean shall not exceed 1.9 MGD.) This flow limitation is retained from the previous
permit and reflects the current design treatment capacity of the Pismo Beach
wastewater treatment plant. The limitation ensures that the influent flow will not
exceed the treatment plant’s design capacity.
4. Discharge Prohibition III.D. (Wastes shall not be discharged to State Water Quality
Protection Areas, described as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the Ocean
Plan (2005), except in accordance with Chapter III.E of the Ocean Plan.) This
prohibition restates a discharge prohibition established in Chapter III.E of the Ocean
Plan.
5. Discharge Prohibition III.E. (The discharge of any radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare agent or high level radioactive waste to the Ocean is prohibited.) This
prohibition restates a discharge prohibition established in Chapter III.H of the Ocean
Plan.
6. Discharge Prohibition III.F. (Federal law prohibits the discharge of sludge by pipeline
to the Ocean. The discharge of municipal or industrial waste sludge directly to the
Ocean or into a waste stream that discharges to the Ocean is prohibited. The
discharge of sludge or digester supernatant, without further treatment, directly to the
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-10
Ocean or to a waste stream that discharges to the Ocean, is prohibited.) This
prohibition reflects the prohibition in Chapter III.H of the Ocean Plan.
7. Discharge Prohibition III.G. (The overflow or bypass of wastewater from the
Discharger’s collection, treatment, or disposal facilities and the subsequent
discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater, except as provided for in
Attachment D, Standard Provision I.G (Bypass), is prohibited.) The discharge of
untreated or partially treated wastewater from the Discharger’s collection, treatment,
or disposal facilities represents an unauthorized bypass pursuant to 40 CFR
122.41(m) or an unauthorized discharge, which poses a threat to human health
and/or aquatic life, and therefore, is explicitly prohibited by the Order.
B. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
1. Scope and Authority. NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(a) require that
permits include applicable technology-based limitations and standards. Where the
USEPA has not yet developed technology based standards for a particular industry
or a particular pollutant, CWA Section 402(a)(1) and USEPA regulations at 40 CFR
125.3 authorize the use of best professional judgment (BPJ) to derive technology-
based effluent limitations on a case-by-case basis. When BPJ is used, the permit
writer must consider specific factors outlined at 40 CFR 125.3, those factors are
described below.
This Order includes limitations based on the minimum level of effluent quality
attainable by secondary treatment, as established at 40 CFR 133. The Secondary
Treatment Regulation includes the following limitations applicable to all publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs).
Table F-5. Secondary Treatment Requirements
Effluent Limitation Parameter 30-Day Avg 7-Day Avg Percent Removal
BOD5 30 mg/L 45 mg/L 85
[1]CBOD5 25 mg/L 40 mg/L 85
TSS 30 mg/L 45 mg/L 85
pH 6.0 – 9.0 ---
[1] At the option of the permitting authority, effluent limitations for CBOD5 may be
substituted for those limitations specified for BOD5.
In addition, the State Water Board, in Table A of the Ocean Plan, has established
technology-based requirements, applicable to all POTWs, for oil and grease,
suspended and settleable solids, turbidity, and pH.
2. Applicable Technology-Based Effluent Limitations. The following table
summarizes technology-based effluent limitations established by the Order.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-11
Table F-6. Summary of Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
Effluent Limitations
Parameter Units Average
Monthly
Average
Weekly
Maximum
Daily
BOD5 [1] mg/L 30 45 90
lbs/day 475 713 1426
TSS [1] mg/L 30 45 90
lbs/day 475 713 1426
Settleable Solids mL/L/hr 1.0 1.5 3.0
Turbidity NTUs 75 100 225
Oil & Grease mg/L 25 40 75
lbs/day 396 634 1188
pH pH units 6.0 – 9.0 at all times
[1] The average monthly percent removal of BOD5 and TSS shall not be less than 85 percent.
All technology-based limitations are retained from the previous permit and are
required by NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 133 and/or Table A of the Basin Plan.
Mass-based limitations for BOD5, TSS, and oil and grease are based on a discharge
rate of 1.9 MGD, the design treatment capacity of the wastewater treatment plant.
C. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
1. Scope and Authority. NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) require that
permits include limitations more stringent than applicable federal technology-based
requirements where necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards,
including numeric and narrative objectives within a standard.
The process for determining “reasonable potential” and calculating WQBELs, when
necessary, is intended to protect the designated uses of receiving waters as
specified in the Basin and Ocean Plans, and achieve applicable water quality
objectives and criteria that are contained in the Basin Plan and in other applicable
State and federal rules, plans, and policies, including applicable water quality criteria
from the Ocean Plan.
Where reasonable potential has been established for a pollutant, but there is no
numeric criterion or objective for the pollutant, WQBELs must be established in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vi), using (1) USEPA
criteria guidance under CWA section 304(a), supplemented where necessary by
other relevant information; (2) an indicator parameter for the pollutant of concern; or
(3) a calculated numeric water quality criterion, such as a proposed state criterion or
policy interpreting the state’s narrative criterion, supplemented with other relevant
information.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-12
2. Applicable Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Criteria and Objectives.
Beneficial uses for ocean waters of the Central Coast Region are established by the
Basin Plan and Ocean Plan and are described by Section II. (Findings) H of the
Order.
Water quality criteria applicable to ocean waters of the Region are established by
the Ocean Plan, which includes water quality objectives for bacterial characteristics,
physical characteristics, chemical characteristics, biological characteristics, and
radioactivity. The water quality objectives from the Ocean Plan are incorporated as
receiving water limitations into this Order. In addition, Table B of the Ocean Plan
contains numeric water quality objectives for 83 toxic pollutants for the protection of
marine aquatic life and human health. Pursuant to NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
122.44(d)(1), and in accordance with procedures established by the Ocean Plan
(2005), the Central Coast Water Board has performed a reasonable potential
analysis (RPA) to determine the need for effluent limitations for the Table B toxic
pollutants.
3. Determining the Need for WQBELs. Procedures for performing a Reasonable
Potential Analysis (RPA) for ocean dischargers are described in Section III.C and
Appendix VI of the Ocean Plan. In general, the procedure is a statistical method that
projects an effluent data set while taking into account the averaging period of water
quality objectives, the long term variability of pollutants in the effluent, limitations
associated with sparse data sets, and uncertainty associated with censored data
sets. The procedure assumes a lognormal distribution of the effluent data set, and
compares the 95th percentile concentration at 95 percent confidence of each Table B
pollutant, accounting for dilution, to the applicable water quality criterion. The RPA
results in one of three following endpoints.
Endpoint 1 – There is “reasonable potential.” An effluent limitation must be
developed for the pollutant. Effluent monitoring for the pollutant,
consistent with the monitoring frequency in Appendix III [Ocean
Plan], is required.
Endpoint 2 - There is no “reasonable potential.” An effluent limitation is not
required for the pollutant. Appendix III [Ocean Plan] effluent
monitoring is not required for the pollutant; the Regional Board,
however, may require occasional monitoring for the pollutant or for
whole effluent toxicity, as appropriate.
Endpoint 3 - The RPA is inconclusive. Monitoring for the pollutant or whole
effluent toxicity testing, consistent with the monitoring frequency in
Appendix III [Ocean Plan], is required. Existing effluent limitations
shall remain in the permit; or if the previous permit did not include
limitations, the permit must include a reopener clause to allow for
subsequent modification of the permit to include effluent limitations
if monitoring establishes that the discharge causes, has the
reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to excursions above
Table B water quality objectives.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-13
The State Water Resources Control Board has developed a reasonable potential
calculator, which is available online on its website. The calculator (RPcalc 2.0) was
used in the development of this Order and considers several pathways in the
determination of reasonable potential.
a. First Path
If available information about the receiving water or the discharge supports a
finding of reasonable potential without analysis of effluent data, the Regional
Water Board may decide that WQBELs are necessary after a review of such
information. Such information may include: the facility or discharge type, solids
loading, lack of dilution, history of compliance problems, potential toxic effects,
fish tissue data, 303 (d) status of the receiving water, or the presence of
threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat, or other information.
b. Second Path
If any pollutant concentration, adjusted to account for dilution, is greater than the
most stringent applicable water quality objective, there is reasonable potential for
that pollutant.
c. Third Path
If the effluent data contains three or more detected and quantified values (i.e.,
values that are at or above the ML), and all values in the data set are at or above
the ML, a parametric RPA is conducted to project the range of possible effluent
values. The 95th percentile concentration is determined at 95 percent confidence
for each pollutant, and compared to the most stringent applicable water quality
objective to determine reasonable potential. A parametric analysis assumes that
the range of possible effluent values is distributed lognormally. If the 95th
percentile value is greater than the most stringent applicable water quality
objective, there is reasonable potential for that pollutant.
d. Fourth Path
If the effluent data contains three or more detected and quantified values (i.e.,
values that are at or above the ML), but at least one value in the data set is less
than the ML, a parametric RPA is conducted according to the following steps.
(1) If the number of censored values (those expressed as a “less than” value)
account for less than 80 percent of the total number of effluent values,
calculate the ML (the mean of the natural log of transformed data) and SL (the
standard deviation of the natural log of transformed data) and conduct a
parametric RPA, as described above for the Third Path.
(2) If the number of censored values account for 80 percent or more of the total
number of effluent values, conduct a non-parametric RPA, as described
below for the Fifth Path. (A non-parametric analysis becomes necessary
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-14
when the effluent data is limited, and no assumptions can be made regarding
its possible distribution.)
e. Fifth Path
A non-parametric RPA is conducted when the effluent data set contains less than
three detected and quantified values, or when the effluent data set contains three
or more detected and quantified values but the number of censored values
accounts for 80 percent or more of the total number of effluent values. A non-
parametric analysis is conducted by ordering the data, comparing each result to
the applicable water quality objective, and accounting for ties. The sample
number is reduced by one for each tie, when the dilution-adjusted method
detection limit (MDL) is greater than the water quality objective. If the adjusted
sample number, after accounting for ties, is greater than 15, the pollutant has no
reasonable potential to exceed the water quality objective. If the sample number
is 15 or less, the RPA is inconclusive, monitoring is required, and any existing
effluent limits in the expiring permit are retained.
Here, an RPA was conducted using secondary effluent monitoring data generated in
10 monitoring events between April 2004 and October 2008. The following tables
present results of the RPA, performed in accordance with procedures described by
the Ocean Plan for the City of Pismo Beach wastewater treatment plant. The RPA
endpoint for each Table B pollutant is identified.
As shown in the following table, the RPA frequently leads to Endpoint 3, which as
described previously is an inconclusive result. Following a finding of Endpoint 3,
existing effluent limitations are retained by the permit; or if the previous permit did
not include limitations, a reopener clause must be established by the new permit to
allow for inclusion of effluent limitations at a later time if monitoring establishes that
the discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to
excursions above Table B water quality objectives.
Because of the ongoing use of chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) at the facility and the
several operating variables that impact its use, the Central Coast Water Board staff
have determined that treated wastewater from the facility has a reasonable potential
to cause or contribute to exceedances of applicable water quality criteria for chlorine.
Such a determination is consistent with the RPA procedure of the Ocean Plan which
requires consideration of all available information, including the “potential toxic
impact of the discharge” to determine if WQBELs are necessary, notwithstanding the
statistical procedure with which the RPA is conducted for most pollutants.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-15
Table F-7. RPA Results for Discharges of Secondary Effluent
Table B Pollutant
Most
Stringent
WQO
(µg/L)
No. of
Samples
No. of
Non-
Detects
Max
Effluent
Conc.
(µg/L)
RPA Result, Comments
Objectives for Protection of Marine Aquatic Life
Ammonia (as N) 99600 ----- ----- ----- -----
Arsenic 833 10 7 2.0
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Cadmium 166 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Chlorinated Phenolics 166 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Chromium (VI) 332 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Copper 168 10 6 6 Endpoint 2 -- Effluent limitation not required
Cyanide 166 10 7 12
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Endosulfan (total) 1.49 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Endrin 0.332 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
HCH 0.664 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Lead 332 10 5 0.4 Endpoint 2 -- Effluent limitation not required
Mercury 6.56 10 3 0.04 Endpoint 2 -- Effluent limitation not required
Nickel 830 10 5 10 Endpoint 2 -- Effluent limitation not required
Non-chlorinated Phenolics 4980 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Selenium 2490 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Silver 89.8 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Zinc 2000 2 0 80
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Objectives for Protection of Human Health - Noncarcinogens
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 89640000 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
2,4-Dinitrophenol 664 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 36520 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Acrolein 36520 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Antimony 199200 10 8 3
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Bis(2-
Chloroethoxy)Methane 730 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether 199200 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Chlorobenzene 94620 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Chromium +3 31540000 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Dichlorobenzenes 846600 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Diethyl Phthalate 5478000 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Dimethyl Phthalate 136120000 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 581000 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-16
Table B Pollutant
Most
Stringent
WQO
(µg/L)
No. of
Samples
No. of
Non-
Detects
Max
Effluent
Conc.
(µg/L)
RPA Result, Comments
Ethylbenzene 680600 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Fluoranthene 2490 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 9628 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Nitrobenzene 8134 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Thallium 332 10 9 20
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Toluene 14110000 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Tributylin 0.2324 10 4 0.00502 Endpoint 2 -- Effluent limitation not required
Objectives for Protection of Human Health - Carcinogens
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 382 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1560 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
1,1-Dichloroethylene 149 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 4648 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 26.6 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
1,3-Dichloropropylene 1477 10 8 8.9
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2988 10 6 1.2 Endpoint 2 -- Effluent limitation not required
TCDD Equivalents 6.5E-07 7 7 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 48.1 10 8 10
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 432 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 1.34 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Acrylonitrile 16.6 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Aldrin 0.00365 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Benzene 979 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Benzidine 0.0115 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Beryllium 5.48 10 8 0.2
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether 7.47 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 581 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 149 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Chlordane 0.0038 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Chlorodibromomethane 1428 10 5 15.1 Endpoint 2 -- Effluent limitation not required
Chloroform 21580 10 0 1.6 Endpoint 2 -- Effluent limitation not required
DDT (total) 0.02822 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Dichlorobromomethane 1029 10 6 30.8 Endpoint 2 -- Effluent limitation not required
Dieldrin 0.0066 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-17
Table B Pollutant
Most
Stringent
WQO
(µg/L)
No. of
Samples
No. of
Non-
Detects
Max
Effluent
Conc.
(µg/L)
RPA Result, Comments
Halomethanes 21580 10 5 13.9 Endpoint 2 -- Effluent limitation not required
Heptachlor 0.0083 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.0033 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Hexachlorobenzene 0.0349 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Hexachlorobutadiene 2324 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Hexachloroethane 415 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Isophorone 121180 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Methylene Chloride 74700 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 1212 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine 63.1 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 415 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
PAHs (total) 1.46 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
PCBs 0.00315 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Tetrachloroethylene 332 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Toxaphene 0.0349 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Trichloroethylene 4482 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
Vinyl Chloride 5976 10 10 ND
Endpoint 3 -- RPA is inconclusive. Less than 3
detects or greater than 80% ND
ND indicates that the pollutant was not detected.
Minimum probable initial dilution for this Discharger is 165:1; WQOs presented above are adjusted for dilution.
Effluent data used for this RPA are from 10 monitoring events between April 2004 to October 2008.
All units are ug/L.
4. WQBEL Calculations. Based on results of the RPA, performed in accordance with
Ocean Plan methods for discharges to the Pacific Ocean, the Central Coast Water
Board is establishing WQBELs for all Table B pollutants. Based upon available
monitoring data, effluent limits are not required to be specified in the permit for
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, tributylin, 1,4-dichlorobenzene,
chlorodibromomethane, chloroform, dichlorobromomethane, and halomethanes.
However, based upon limited available data and the fact that water quality objectives
are applicable to the discharge regardless of whether they are specified in the
permit, applicable limitations for all Table B constituents are listed. As described by
Section III. C of the Ocean Plan, effluent limits for Table B pollutants are calculated
according to the following equation.
Ce = Co + Dm (Co – Cs)
Where …
Ce = the effluent limitation (µg/L)
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-18
Co = the concentration (the water quality objective) to be met at the completion
of initial dilution (µg/L).
Cs = background seawater concentration (µg/L)
Dm = minimum probable initial dilution expressed as parts seawater per part
wastewater (here, Dm = 165)
For this facility, Dm is unchanged from Order No. R3-2004-0051. Initial dilution is
the process that results in the rapid and irreversible turbulent mixing of wastewater
with ocean water around the point of discharge. As site-specific water quality data
are not available, in accordance with Table B implementing procedures, Cs equals
zero for all pollutants, except the following.
Table F-8. Background Concentrations—Ocean Plan
Pollutant Background Seawater Concentration
Arsenic 3 g/L
Copper 2 g/L
Mercury 0.0005 g/L
Silver 0.16 g/L
Zinc 8 g/L
All effluent limitations are retained from the previous Order, except for silver and
benzidine limits, which are revised to correct errors in the current permit. Effluent
limitations for the Table B pollutants are presented in Section IV.A.1 of this Order.
5. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET). Whole effluent toxicity (WET) limitations protect
receiving water quality from the aggregate toxic effect of a mixture of pollutants in
the effluent. WET tests measure the degree of response of exposed aquatic test
organisms to an effluent. The WET approach allows for protection of the narrative
“no toxics in toxic amounts” criterion while implementing numeric criteria for toxicity.
There are two types of WET tests - acute and chronic. An acute toxicity test is
conducted over a short time period and measures mortality. A chronic toxicity test is
conducted over a longer period of time and may measure mortality, reproduction,
and growth.
Central Coast Water Board staff have determined that treated wastewater from the
Wastewater Treatment Plant has a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to
acute and/or chronic toxicity in the discharge. Such a determination is consistent
with the RPA procedure of the Ocean Plan which requires consideration of all
available information, including the “potential toxic impact of the discharge” to
determine if WQBELs are necessary, notwithstanding the statistical procedure with
which the RPA is conducted for most pollutants. Because the cumulative effects of
various pollutants present at low levels in the discharge are unknown, acute and
chronic toxicity limitations are retained from the previous permit.
The Discharger must also maintain a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) Workplan,
which describes the steps that the Discharger intends to follow in the event that
acute and/or chronic toxicity limitations are exceeded. When monitoring measures
WET in the effluent above the limitations established by the Order, the Discharger
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-19
must resample, if the discharge is continuing, and retest. The Water Board
Executive Officer will then determine whether to initiate enforcement action, whether
to require the Discharger to implement a TRE or to implement other measures.
D. Final Effluent Limitations. Final, technology-based and water quality-based effluent
limitations established by the Order are discussed in the preceding sections of the Fact
Sheet.
1. Satisfaction of Anti-Backsliding Requirements. The Order retains effluent
limitations established by the previous permit for BOD5, TSS, fecal coliform bacteria,
oil and grease, settleable solids, turbidity, and pH. The Order also retains effluent
limitations from the previous permit for all Ocean Plan Table B toxic pollutants. The
effluent limitations for silver and benzidine have been revised to correct a prior
calculation error. Other changes in WQBELs established by this Order reflect the
updated list of Table B pollutants contained in the 2005 Ocean Plan.
2. Satisfaction of Antidegradation Policy. Provisions of the Order are consistent
with applicable antidegradation policy expressed by NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
131.12 and by State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16. The Central Coast Water
Board has previously determined that the facility’s discharge would not result in a
significant impact to water quality in light of the extensive dilution (Dm = 165)
provided by the outfall/diffuser system.
3. Stringency of Requirements for Individual Pollutants. This Order contains both
technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations for individual
pollutants. The technology-based effluent limitations consist of restrictions on BOD5;
TSS; settleable solids; turbidity; oil and grease; and pH. Restrictions on these
pollutants are discussed in section IV.B of the Fact Sheet. This Order’s technology-
based pollutant restrictions implement the minimum, applicable federal technology-
based requirements. In addition, this Order contains effluent limitations more
stringent than the minimum, federal technology-based requirements that are
necessary to meet water quality standards. These limitations are not more stringent
than required by the CWA.
Final, technology and water quality based effluent limitations are summarized in
sections IV.B and C of this Fact Sheet.
E. Interim Effluent Limitations. The Order does not establish interim effluent limitations
or schedules for compliance with final limitations.
F. Land Discharge Specifications. This section of the standardized permit is not
applicable to the City of Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant.
G. Reclamation Specifications. The Order does not address use of reclaimed
wastewater except to require compliance with applicable State and local requirements
regarding the production and use of reclaimed wastewater, including those
requirements established by the California Department of Public Health at title 22,
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-20
sections 60301 - 60357 of the California Code of Regulations, Water Recycling Criteria.
V. RATIONALE FOR RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS
A. Surface Water. Receiving water quality is a result of many factors, some unrelated to
the discharge. This Order considers these factors and is designed to minimize the
influence of the discharge on the receiving water. Receiving water limitations within the
proposed Order generally include the receiving water limitations of the previous Order;
however, these limitations have been supplemented and modified to reflect all
applicable, general water quality objectives of the Ocean Plan (2005). In particular,
receiving water limitations for bacteria have been modified to accurately reflect the
updated Ocean Plan.
B. Groundwater. Groundwater limitations established by the Order include general
objectives for ground water established by the Basin Plan for the Central Coast Region.
VI. RATIONALE FOR MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.48 require that all NPDES permits specify requirements
for recording and reporting monitoring results. Water Code sections 13267 and 13383 also
authorize the Regional Water Board to require technical and monitoring reports. Rationale
for the monitoring and reporting requirements contained in the Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MRP), which is presented as Attachment E of this Order, is presented below.
A. Influent Monitoring. In addition to influent flow monitoring, monitoring for BOD5 and
TSS is required to determine compliance with the Order’s 85 percent removal
requirement for those pollutants.
B. Effluent Monitoring. Effluent monitoring requirements of the previous permit for
Discharge Point 001 (the Ocean outfall) are retained in this Order, with the following
exceptions/changes.
• Monitoring frequencies for influent and effluent BOD and TSS are reduced from
every six days to weekly. Past monitoring has demonstrated these constituents do
not significantly vary on a day-of-the-week basis, which was the basis for the six-day
schedule. The regular weekly schedule will enable the City to improve staff
scheduling and convenience without reducing valuable information obtained from the
monitoring.
• Monitoring frequencies for total coliform bacteria, temperature, pH, settleable solids,
oil and grease, chronic toxicity, ammonia, and Ocean Plan metals are reduced in
this permit. Past monitoring has demonstrated consistent concentrations of these
constituents that can be adequately characterized by less frequent monitoring. Less
frequent monitoring of these constituents will provide for cost savings for the City
without significantly diminishing the value of compliance assessment data.
• Monitoring for all other Table B toxic pollutants is required one time per year in April,
as required in the previous Order and by the Ocean Plan (Appendix III). Monitoring
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-21
data will provide on-going characterization of the discharge and will allow Regional
Water Board staff to continually assess the levels of the Table B toxic pollutants.
C. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Requirements. Whole effluent toxicity (WET)
limitations protect receiving water quality from the aggregate toxic effect of a mixture of
pollutants in the effluent. Acute toxicity testing measures mortality in 100 percent
effluent over a short test period, and chronic toxicity testing is conducted over a longer
period of time and may measure mortality, reproduction, and/or growth. This Order
retains limitations and monitoring requirements for acute and chronic toxicity for
Discharge Point 001 from the previous permit.
D. Receiving Water Monitoring
1. Surface Water. Shoreline water monitoring and shellfish tissue bacterial monitoring
specified in section VII.A of the MRP have been conditionally waived by the
Executive Officer. If operational changes, plant upsets or effluent violations occur,
then the listed receiving water monitoring must resume.
Benthic sediment and benthic biota monitoring of the receiving water is retained from
the previous Order. The monitoring frequency of once every three years remains
unchanged. During the life of this Order, monitoring shall occur in 2010 and 2013.
These monitoring requirements are identical to those in the South San Luis Obispo
County Sanitation District Order to allow the two facilities to share the monitoring
and analytical responsibilities and costs.
2. Groundwater. Groundwater monitoring is not established in this Order.
E. Other Monitoring Requirements
1. Biosolids/Sludge Monitoring. Biosolids monitoring is required in this Order. The
requirements are retained from the previous Order; however, the date of sampling is
not specified so that the Discharger may coordinate with pretreatment monitoring
requirements.
2. Pretreatment Monitoring. Pretreatment monitoring requirements are retained from
the previous Order.
3. Outfall Inspection. The Order retains the requirement of the previous permit to
conduct triennial visual inspections of the outfall and diffuser system and provide
reports of those inspections to the Central Coast Water Board regarding the
system’s physical integrity.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-22
VII. RATIONALE FOR PROVISIONS
A. Standard Provisions. Standard Provisions, which apply to all NPDES permits in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.41, and additional conditions applicable to specified
categories of permits in accordance with 40 CFR 122.42, are provided in Attachment D
to the Order.
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(a)(1) and (b - n) establish conditions that apply to all
state-issued NPDES permits. These conditions must be incorporated into the permits
either expressly or by reference. If incorporated by reference, a specific citation to the
regulations must be included in the Order. 40 CFR 123.25(a)(12) allows the State to omit
or modify conditions to impose more stringent requirements. In accordance with 40
CFR123.25, this Order omits federal conditions that address enforcement authority
specified in 40 CFR 122.41(j)(5) and (k)(2), because the enforcement authority under the
Water Code is more stringent. In lieu of these conditions, this Order incorporates by
reference Water Code section 13387(e).
B. Special Provisions
1. Reopener Provisions. The Order may be modified in accordance with the
requirements set forth at 40 CFR 122 and 124, to include appropriate conditions or
limits based on newly available information, or to implement any, new State water
quality objectives that are approved by the USEPA. As effluent is further
characterized through additional monitoring, and if a need for additional effluent
limitations becomes apparent after additional effluent characterization, the Order will
be reopened to incorporate such limitations.
2. Special Studies and Additional Monitoring Requirements
a. Toxicity Reduction Requirements. The requirement to perform a Toxicity
Reduction Evaluation if the Acute or Chronic Toxicity limit is exceeded is retained
from Order No. R3-2004-0051. When toxicity monitoring measures acute or
chronic toxicity in the effluent above the limitation established by the Order, the
Discharger is required to resample and retest, if the discharge is continuing.
When all monitoring results are available, the Executive Officer can determine
whether to initiate enforcement action, whether to require the Discharger to
implement toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) requirements, or whether other
measures are warranted.
b. Benthic Sediment and Biota Monitoring Requirements. Benthic sediment
and benthic biota monitoring requirements are retained from the previous permit.
The Central Coast Water Board has imposed identical requirements in this Order
and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Order so that such
monitoring can be coordinated between the two agencies, minimizing redundant
effort and expense.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-23
3. Best Management Practices and Pollution Prevention
a. Pollutant Minimization Program. The 2005 Ocean Plan establishes guidelines
for the Pollutant Minimization Program (PMP). At the time of the proposed
adoption of this Order no known evidence was available that would require the
Discharger to immediately develop and conduct a PMP. The Central Coast
Water Board will notify the Discharger in writing if such a program becomes
necessary. The 2005 Ocean Plan PMP language is included to provide guidance
in the event that a PMP must be developed and implemented by the Discharger.
4. Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Specifications. This section of the
standardized permit template is not applicable.
5. Special Provisions for Municipal Facilities (POTWs Only)
a. Biosolids Management. Provisions regarding sludge handling and disposal
ensure that such activity will comply with all applicable regulations.
40 CFR Part 503 sets forth USEPA’s final rule for the use and disposal of
biosolids, or sewage sludge, and governs the final use or disposal of biosolids.
The intent of this federal program is to ensure that sewage sludge is used or
disposed of in a way that protects both human health and the environment.
USEPA’s regulations require that producers of sewage sludge meet certain
reporting, handling, and disposal requirements. As the USEPA has not
delegated the authority to implement the sludge program to the State of
California, the enforcement of sludge requirements that apply to the Discharger
remains under USEPA's jurisdiction at this time. USEPA, not the Regional Water
Board, will oversee compliance with 40 CFR Part 503.
40 CFR Part 503.4 (Relationship to other regulations) states that the disposal of
sewage sludge in a municipal solid waste landfill unit, as defined in 40 CFR
258.2, that complies with the requirements in 40 CFR part 258 constitutes
compliance with section 405 (d) of the CWA. Any person who prepares sewage
sludge that is disposed in a municipal solid waste landfill unit must ensure that
the sewage sludge meets the applicable requirements of 40 CFR Part 503.
6. Other Special Provisions
a. Discharges of Storm Water. Storm water flows from the wastewater treatment
process areas are directed to the headworks and discharged with treated
wastewater. These storm water flows constitute all industrial storm water at this
facility and, consequently, this permit regulates all industrial storm water
discharges at this facility along with wastewater discharges.
b. Sanitary Sewer System Requirements. The Order requires coverage by and
compliance with applicable provisions of General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (State Water Board Order No. 2006-
0003-DWQ). This General Permit, adopted on May 2, 2006, is applicable to all
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-24
“federal and state agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public
entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in
length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a
publicly owned treatment facility in the State of California.” The purpose of the
General Permit is to promote the proper and efficient management, operation,
and maintenance of sanitary sewer systems and to minimize the occurrences
and impacts of sanitary sewer overflows.
7. Compliance Schedules. The Order does not establish interim effluent limitations
and schedules of compliance with final limitations.
VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Central Coast Water Quality Control Board is considering the issuance of waste
discharge requirements (WDRs) that will serve as a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the City of Pismo Beach Wastewater Treatment
Plant. As a step in the WDR adoption process, the Central Coast Water Board staff has
developed tentative WDRs. The Central Coast Water Board encourages public
participation in the WDR adoption process.
A. Notification of Interested Parties. The Central Coast Water Board has notified the
Discharger and interested agencies and persons of its intent to prescribe waste
discharge requirements for the discharge and has provided them with an opportunity to
submit their written comments and recommendations. Notification was provided
through the publication in the local newspaper (The San Luis Obispo Tribune) on July 9,
2009, and posting on the Central Coast Water Board’s website.
B. Written Comments. Central Coast Water Board staff determinations are tentative.
Interested persons were invited to submit written comments concerning these tentative
WDRs. Comments must be submitted either in person or by mail to the Executive
Office at the Central Coast Water Board at the address above on the cover page of this
Order. During the public comment period, a single letter was received regarding the
proposed requirements. The City of Pismo Beach submitted minor editorial comments
and corrections, which have been incorporated into the proposed Order. The City of
Pismo Beach does not object to the specified requirements and supports reissuance of
the permit.
C. Public Hearing. The Central Coast Water Board held a public hearing on the tentative
WDRs during its regular Water Board meeting on the following date, time, and location:
Date: October 23, 2009
Time: 8:30 am
Location: Santa Barbara County Offices, Supervisors’ Hearing Room, 4th Floor
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Interested persons were invited to attend. At the public hearing, the Central Coast Water
Board heard testimony, if any, pertinent to the discharge, WDRs, and permit.
CITY OF PISMO BEACH ORDER NO. R3-2009-0047
NPDES NO. CA0048151
Attachment F – FACT SHEET F-25
D. Waste Discharge Requirements Petitions. Any aggrieved person may petition the
State Water Resources Control Board to review the decision of the Regional Water
Board regarding the final WDRs. The petition must be submitted within 30 days of the
Regional Water Board’s action to the following address:
State Water Resources Control Board
Office of Chief Counsel
P.O. Box 100, 1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
E. Information and Copying. The Report of Waste Discharge (RWD), related
documents, tentative effluent limitations and special provisions, comments received,
and other information are on file and may be inspected at the address above at any time
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copying of documents may
be arranged through the Regional Water Board by calling (805) 549-3147.
F. Register of Interested Persons. Any person interested in being placed on the mailing
list for information regarding the WDRs and NPDES permit should contact the Central
Coast Water Board, reference this facility, and provide a name, address, and phone
number.
G. Additional Information. Requests for additional information or questions regarding
this Order should be directed to Sorrel Marks at (805) 549-3695 or
SMarks@waterboards.ca.gov.
S:\NPDES\NPDES Facilities\San Luis Obispo Co\Pismo\current permit\09-0047 final.wdr.doc
City of Pismo Beach Appendix B Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final APPENDIX B. POTENTIAL RECYCLED WATER USERS ID No. ID Name Account Address APN Average Water Consumption FY 10‐13 (AFY) RRWSP ID No. & Name 1 Palisades Park 1774 EL DORADO 010‐154‐033 15.91311 14 Palisades Park 2 Cal Trans (Hwy 101) Irrigation 461 928 SHELL BEACH Caltrans 14.36907 3 Cal Trans (Hwy 101) Irrigation 3 Dinasour Cave Park 8289 200 CLIFF 010‐345‐013 9.362374 5 Dinasour Cave Park 4 Baycliff Condos HOA 944 510 1/2 FOOTHILL 010‐071‐068 8.465335 1 Baycliff Condos HOA 5 CLIFFS SHELL BEAC‐4606 4606 2757 SHELL BEACH 010‐041‐044 7.039715 6 Everett Estate 493 2801 Shell Beach Road 010‐152‐008 3.82 7 Everett Estate 7 New Life Church 3150 990 JAMES 005‐403‐045 6.807851 27 New Life Church 8 SHELTER COVE LODG‐6040 6040 2651 PRICE 005‐261‐001 4.789371 9 SPYGLASS RIDGE HO‐8999 8999 MATTIE 010‐045‐041 4.672291 10 RANCHO PACIFICA H‐8168 8168 MATTIE 010‐072‐038 4.403696 11 SEACREST RESORT‐12307 12307 2241 PRICE 005‐261‐005 4.367539 12 PISMO MEDICAL LLC‐13347 13347 2 JAMES 005‐271‐004 4.089761 13 PACIFIC COAST PLA‐2075 2075 OAK PARK 005‐391‐062 3.869376 14 PISMO MEDICAL CAM‐8223 8223 941 OAK PARK 005‐391‐062 3.283402 15 SPYGLASS RIDGE HO‐946 946 CALLE CONSUETTA 010‐044‐052 3.201905 16 UNITED STATES POS‐2400 2400 100 CREST 005‐391‐060 3.18641 17 HILTON GARDEN INN‐14188 14188 601 JAMES 14188 3.115243 18 SPYGLASS RIDGE VI‐941 941 BARCELONA 010‐045‐034 3.109504 19 PISMO SHORES HOA‐‐3716 3716 100 PISMO 005‐301‐054 3.050964 20 PLAYA DEL SOL HOA‐4668 4668 PLAYA DEL SOL 010‐083‐054 3.021694 21 SPYGLASS RIDGE VI‐942 942 COSTA DEL SOL 010‐084‐038 2.999311 22 Seacliff Park 7686 BEACHCOMBER SOUTH 010‐144‐025 2.976354 19 Seacliff Park 23 South Palisades Park/Walk 1941 SHELL BEACH 010‐551‐048 2.931589 21 South Palisades Park/Walk 24 OXFORD SUITES RES‐2032 2032 651 FIVE CITIES 005‐242‐042 2.928719 25 Spyglass Park 1104 2551 SPYGLASS 010‐051‐001 2.916667 22 Spyglass Park 26 PISMO WOODS IRRIG‐3420 3420 442‐480 BELLO 005‐311‐040 2.89371 27 Pismo Beach Sports Complex 4445 FRADY‐FORD FIELD 005‐271‐003 2.831535 16 Pismo Beach Sports Complex 28 PISMO LIGHTHOUSE‐6970 6970 2411 PRICE 005‐263‐071 2.795569 29 DOLPHIN BAY HOTEL‐8379 8379 2727 SHELL BEACH 010‐041‐028 2.772612 30 PISMO COAST PLAZA‐8644 8644 FIVE CITIES 005‐242‐050 2.690542 31 Highland Park 2396 87 WHITECAP 005‐385‐055 2.662994 9 Highland Park 32 Boosinger Park 4021 821 WADSWORTH 005‐018‐006 2.421373 2 Boosinger Park 33 VILLAS ANTIQUA HO‐882 882 2074 COSTA DEL SO 010‐045‐001 2.30831 34 921 OAK PARK INVE‐7454 7454 921 OAK PARK 005‐391‐064 2.248623 35 Pismo Coast Village RV Park 5977 165 S DOLLIVER 005‐241‐053 2.137282 17 Pismo Coast Village RV Park 36 SEARIDGE OWNERS A‐868 868 SEARIDGE 010‐141‐027 2.050046 37 BLUFFS HOA LANDSC‐1785 1785 LOT 25 BLUFF 010‐562‐024 1.923783 38 VILLAS AL MARE HO‐2398 2398 200 JAMES 005‐386‐056 1.875574
City of Pismo Beach Appendix B Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 39 CLIFFORD CHAPMAN‐1296 1296 1201 OCEAN BLVD 010‐302‐013 1.751607 40 PISMO DEVELOPMENT‐8264 8264 350 JAMES 005‐386‐057 1.704545 41 SPYGLASS RIDGE VI‐952 952 2174 COSTA BRAVA 010‐045‐078 1.606979 42 COTTAGE INN IRRIG‐3162 3162 2351 PRICE 005‐261‐006 1.592057 43 PACIFIC COAST PLA‐2066 2066 OAK PARK 005‐391‐062 1.520891 44 TOUCAN I HOA‐2759 2759 ERNA 005‐391‐007 1.488751 45 RANCHO PACIFICA H‐8164 8164 240‐242 FOOTHILL 010‐072‐039 1.462925 46 Ira Lease Park 3213 96 S DOLLIVER 005‐143‐006 1.412994 10 Ira Lease Park 47 PRATT CONSTRUCTIO‐11686 11686 1276 1/2 COSTA BR 010‐073‐013 1.374541 48 SIMON PROPERTIES,‐2503 2503 333 FIVE CITIES 005‐242‐050 1.359619 49 CITY OF PISMO BEA‐6145 6145 SILVER SHOALS 010‐142‐012 1.322888 50 PISMO MEDICAL CAM‐7799 7799 931 OAK PARK 005‐391‐064 1.278122 51 MCDONALD'S CORP‐9657 9657 350 FIVE CITIES 005‐242‐062 1.260904 52 PISMO MEDICAL CAM‐7798 7798 911 OAK PARK 005‐391‐063 1.18859 53 SIMON PROPERTIES,‐2506 2506 333 FIVE CITIES 005‐242‐065 1.170799 54 Chumash Park 9789 JAMES 005‐281‐024 1.163338 4 Chumash Park 55 GREEN DOLPHIN HOA‐886 886 109 BEACHCOMBER 010‐141‐045 1.096189 56 EMERALD POINTE LL‐1099 1099 MATTIE EMERALD WA 010‐083‐034 1.041667 57 TRACT 1520 HOA IR‐904 904 298 EBB TIDE 010‐143‐013 1.000344 58 CITY OF PISMO BEA‐3218 3218 VENTANA 005‐281‐025 0.981405 59 BELLO CONDO HOA‐3447 3447 701‐751 BELLO 005‐070‐026 0.873508 60 CERRO ROBLES HOA‐2496 2496 Fschool 005‐280‐003 0.835629 61 Mary Harrington Park 3217 96 S DOLLIVER 005‐145‐001 0.832759 13 Mary Harrington Park 62 PISMO CASTLE LLC‐3454 3454 100 STIMSON 005‐153‐054 0.829316 63 SIMON PROPERTIES,‐2502 2502 333 FIVE CITIES 005‐242‐065 0.823577 64 MILO FERINI‐5558 5558 1029 OCEAN BLVD 010‐302‐027 0.786846 65 CITY OF PISMO BEA‐1101 1101 300 EBB TIDE 010‐143‐005 0.742654 66 Eldwayen Ocean Park 1940 1957 OCEAN BLVD 010‐243‐037 0.707071 6 Eldwayen Ocean Park 67 BAYSHORE HOA‐620 620 2391 SHELL BEACH 010‐221‐044 0.700184 68 Margo Dodd Park 447 1401 OCEAN BLVD 010‐355‐001 0.68067 12 Margo Dodd Park 69 SEACLIFF HOMEOWNE‐682 682 111‐119 SEACLIFF 010‐511‐044 0.650253 70 PISMO BEACH HOTEL‐9851 9851 230 POMEROY 005‐191‐020 0.609504 71 SEAVIEW ESTATES H‐2487 2487 PARK AREA IRISH 005‐397‐049 0.556703 72 Memory Park 1105 202 SEACLIFF 010‐505‐017 0.522268 19 Seacliff Park 73 PLAYA DEL SOL HOA‐7028 7028 1920 MATTIE 010‐082‐006 0.493572 74 PLAYA DEL SOL HOA‐3488 3488 359 OCEAN VIEW 005‐138‐013 0.423554 75 ST ANDREWS CONDO ASSOC‐665 665 101‐109 SEACLIFF 010‐511‐058 0.414371 76 ESTATE FINANCIAL‐13667 13667 150 HINDS 005‐152‐033 0.404614 77 STIMSON HOA‐3406 3406 352‐366 STIMSON 005‐138‐009 0.398875 78 SIMON PROPERTIES,‐2505 2505 333 FIVE CITIES 005‐242‐065 0.389692 79 SIMON PROPERTIES,‐2504 2504 333 FIVE CITIES 005‐242‐065 0.352961 80 CITY OF PISMO BEA‐949 949 760 MATTIE 010‐073‐004 0.347796
City of Pismo Beach Appendix B Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final 81 CITY OF PISMO BEA‐3746 3746 581 DOLLIVER 005‐134‐001 0.315083 82 JOE SONGER ATTN:‐11610 11610 117 MORRO 010‐241‐023 0.315083 83 SHORECLIFF TENNIS‐10146 10146 2555 PRICE 005‐251‐006 0.306474 84 PARK AVENUE HOA I‐3476 3476 221‐247 PARK AVE 005‐146‐008 0.306474 85 VILLAS AL MARE HO‐4561 4561 51 1/2 CAPANNA 005‐386‐027 0.258264 86 PEOPLE'S SELF‐HEL‐15705 15705 360 PARK AVE 005‐101‐028 0.257117 87 MONTECITO HOA IRR‐1672 1672 120‐1/2 MONTECITO 010‐244‐004 0.253099 88 VILAMOURA HOA‐3419 3419 202‐214 STIMSON 005‐136‐034 0.248508 89 CYPRESS GARDENS H‐3510 3510 CYPRESS 005‐153‐052 0.240473 90 F MCLINTOCKS‐514 514 750 MATTIE 010‐073‐003 0.240282 91 RAMINDRA HOA IRRI‐3265 3265 157 OCEAN VIEW 005‐153‐034 0.237603 92 CITY OF PISMO BEA‐3541 3541 460 PRICE 005‐083‐068 0.231864 93 TIERRA DE PARAISO‐13815 13815 160 HINDS 005‐155‐001 0.229568 94 PHYLIS GREEN‐8693 8693 260 OCEAN VIEW 005‐142‐001 0.227273 95 PACIFIC COAST PLA‐2076 2076 OAK PARK 005‐391‐062 0.180785 96 280 HARLOE TRIPLE‐10339 10339 280 HARLOE ‐ IRRI 005‐113‐004 0.161846 97 PARK AVENUE CONDO‐6776 6776 140‐150 PARK AVE 005‐162‐053 0.141185 98 RABOBANK, NA‐3652 3652 801 PRICE 005‐076‐023 0.135445 99 TRACT 2164 HOA‐3535 3535 362‐378 PARK AVE 005‐101‐047 0.129132 100 ALPHY'S BASQUE CH‐15382 15382 1527 SHELL BEACH 010‐243‐038 0.118228 101 OCEANVIEW TOWNHOM‐3467 3467 150‐166 OCEAN VIE 005‐161‐041 0.10101 102 PARK PLACE APTS I‐3869 3869 369 HINDS 005‐131‐031 0.094697 103 PLAYA DE PISMO HO‐2029 2029 360‐368 HARBOR VI 005‐056‐006 0.091827 104 KAREN BRISCOE‐1460 1460 110 VISTA DEL MAR 010‐231‐033 0.085514 105 Ventana Islands Median 3219 VENTANA 005‐281‐025 0.078627 23 Ventana Islands Median 106 FRANK ABE‐3211 3211 379 WILMAR 005‐171‐029 0.065427 107 GREG SALSBURY‐7167 7167 350 HARLOE 005‐066‐006 0.061983 108 CITY OF PISMO BEA‐3881 3881 MAIN 005‐078‐008 0.060836 109 EDGEWATER REALTY‐3546 3546 1005 DOLLIVER 005‐121‐038 0.055096 110 PRICE STREET PLAZ‐3854 3854 575 PRICE 005‐132‐038 0.048209 111 CITY OF PISMO BEA‐1102 1102 2925 SHELL BEACH 010‐141‐027 0.047062 112 Price House Historic Park 13855 580 FRADY 005‐271‐019 0.046679 18 Price House Historic Park 113 SUNSET PALISADES‐1810 1810 MIRAMAR 010‐155‐074 0.044766 114 PISMO COAST VILLA‐2001 2001 300 S DOLLIVER 005‐141‐015 0.035009 115 STIMSON TOWERS HO‐6973 6973 436 STIMSON 005‐087‐014 0.021235 116 CITY OF PISMO BEA‐7264 7264 1999 SHELL BEACH 010‐232‐039 0.014348 117 GARY FERNANDES‐3659 3659 390‐398 DOLLIVER 005‐141‐021 0.012052 118 Francis Judkins Middle School 3929 680 Wadsworth 005‐041‐021 7.326676 8 Francis Judkins MS 119 Shell Beach Elementary School 507 2100 Shell Beach Road 010‐221‐009 8.400482 20 Shell Beach School
City of Pismo Beach Appendix D
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
APPENDIX C. PRELIMINARY HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT OF
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE WITH RECYCLED WATER TM
1 2/24/2015
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
PRELIMINARY HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE WITH RECYCLED WATER
City of Pismo Beach Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
Water Systems Consulting
P.O. Box 4255
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Cleath-Harris Geologists (CHG) herein presents findings reached during this preliminary
hydrogeologic assessment of groundwater recharge with recycled water from the City of
Pismo Beach Recycled Water Facilities. During this preliminary assessment CHG has:
Researched relevant data for considering conceptual alternatives to develop a
groundwater recharge project to protect the basin through the use of recycled
water;
Evaluated the conceptual feasibility of recharge basins and/or injection wells;
Developed a conceptual facilities design for an injection well field.
The San Luis Obispo office of Fugro Consultants has reviewed and provided input into
this assessment.
RESEARCH
Data for this assessment was obtained from Water Systems Consulting (WSC), the water
purveyors of the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA), and published reports.
WSC has provided input on the available recharge basin facilities, the potential delivery
pipelines, and an estimate of available recycled water.
Information was provided by the cities and districts within the study area related to
existing infiltration basins and wells and groundwater management. The annual
groundwater management reports for the Northern Cities Groundwater Management Area
were reviewed to obtain groundwater level and seawater intrusion information. Existing
infiltration basins that could act as recharge facilities and their drainage areas and basin
sizes were identified and defined with respect to percolation rate, depth to water, and
subsurface geology.
2/24/2015 2
Various groundwater investigation reports have been reviewed to establish the
hydrogeologic framework for groundwater recharge: the areal and vertical extent of
aquifers and aquitards; the hydraulic conductivity and storativity/specific yields; the
existing recharge and discharge locations and rates; and the water quality found in each
aquifer. The major published groundwater studies include several California Department
of Water Resources studies:
Investigation of Nitrates in Ground Water, Grover City, San Luis Obispo County
(Project No. 4103-054, April 1962). This report includes several geologic cross
sections within the area of study.
Sea Water Intrusion: Pismo-Guadalupe Area (Bulleting 63-3, 1970). This report
has a good description of the area hydrogeology with cross sections and identifies
aquifers with sea water intrusion.
Water Well Standards, Arroyo Grande Basin, San Luis Obispo County (Bulletin
74-7). This report has a contour map of the elevation of the base of the upper-
most aquitard.
Water Resources of the Arroyo Grande-Nipomo Mesa Area (Southern District
Report, 2002). This report is the most recent general overview of groundwater
conditions in the region.
Cleath & Associates/CHG has provided input to wastewater reuse studies in South San
Luis Obispo County, one prepared by Wallace Group for City of Arroyo Grande (2009)
that identified areas for possible inland injection wells. A 12-month residency time
setback of 2,300 feet was estimated based on groundwater flow calculations using
conservative hydrogeologic assumptions.
The County of San Luis Obispo has had studies prepared on stream flow and infiltration
and storm water runoff. The County is in the process of developing a strategic plan for
recycled water reuse with Cannon Associates and has contracted for the Santa Maria
Groundwater Basin Characterization and Planning Activities Study with Fugro
Consultants and a portion of the work has been completed and draft technical
memorandums for Tasks 1 and 2 have been submitted to the County of San Luis Obispo.
No groundwater flow/quality models have been published for this area.
HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK FOR GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
The aquifers underlying the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Northern Cities
Management Area tapped by the community wells include the Paso Robles Formation
gravel zones and the Careaga Formation sand zones. These aquifers underlie the Pismo
Creek, Meadow Creek and Arroyo Grande Creek alluvial deposits and the dune sands
that cover the Tri-Cities Mesa. The dune sands are fine-grained and permeable. Below
2/24/2015 3
these dune sands, there are aquitards within the Paso Robles Formation that can perch
water in the dune sands. These silt and clay aquitards are not everywhere present at this
contact and may not totally restrict downward migration of percolated groundwater but
can be expected to have some significant affect in many areas. Figure 1 (Figure 10 of the
2013 NCMA annual monitoring report prepared by Fugro) shows the NCMA area with
groundwater levels from October 2013 and identifies the coastal monitoring wells.
The 2002 California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Southern District Report,
“Water Resources of the Arroyo Grande-Nipomo Mesa Area”, and the 1970 DWR
Bulletin No. 63-3, “Sea-Water Intrusion: Pismo-Guadalupe Area” provide information on
the hydrogeology of the AG/TCM area. The geologic cross section from Bulletin 63-3,
as modified by Cleath-Harris Geologists, was used to establish the boundaries within
which potential recharge could occur benefiting the public water supply wells (Figure 2).
The southern boundary would be the faults located south of Arroyo Grande Creek.
Along the north boundary, the Paso Robles and Careaga Formation sedimentary beds rise
toward Meadow Creek along an anticline that has been defined herein. To the east, low
permeability sedimentary beds appear to rise to a boundary roughly at about Halcyon
Road.
The 1970 Water Well Standards report defines the base of the upper-most aquitard
(Figure 3) that would perch percolated water from infiltration basins. This contour map
and information from City of Arroyo Grande wells at the Elm Street Soto Park complex
were used to model the flow of percolated water at infiltration basins in the vicinity.
As a result of pumping from the different aquifers, groundwater levels in specific aquifer
zones vary. The groundwater levels and quality in the coastal sentry water wells, as
illustrated in Figure 4, provide an indication of which aquifers have been most impacted
by pumping. Zone A groundwater levels are high, indicating no significant impact due to
pumping. Some wells in Zone C exhibit lower minimum groundwater levels and higher
maximum chloride concentration than B, D, or E indicating impacts due to pumping.
Available groundwater storage for recycled water recharge within the Arroyo Grande-
TriCities Mesa portion of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin is limited to the
unsaturated portion of basin sediments. The groundwater elevation contours shown in
Figure 1 represent the base of the available storage reservoir. The area of focus for
recharge studies in this conceptual assessment is bounded by Grand Avenue and
Highway 1, where the municipal/public water supply wells are located. Potential surface
recharge areas are shown on Figure 1. In this area, groundwater levels vary seasonally
and regionally from 10 feet below sea level to 15 feet above sea level with the lower
levels closer to the coast. Pumping depressions occur in the close proximities to
producing wells. The available groundwater storage in this area is roughly estimated to
be 1,000-1,500 acre-feet, assuming a potential rise of groundwater levels over this area of
2/24/2015 4
9 feet (as estimated from the water level decline between 2007 and 2008 at 12 wells) and
an average specific yield of the basin sediments of 9 percent.
CONCEPTUAL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FACILITIES
Groundwater recharge facilities are designed to place water into available storage within
groundwater reservoirs where it can be effective in protecting and enhancing
groundwater supply wells. This can be accomplished by percolating water into
infiltration/recharge basins or by injecting water into specific aquifers via injection wells.
Recharge via Infiltration Basins
Several existing infiltration basins dispose of storm runoff in the Northern Cities
Management Area but many are too small for consideration as recharge facilities. The
only two infiltration basin facilities that could be considered as having more than a few
acre-feet of recharge capacity are the Ash Street infiltration basins and the Poplar Street
infiltration basins in Arroyo Grande. In order to be used for recharge of recycled water,
State guidelines require that the recharged water must demonstrate a travel time of either
2 months as determined by a tracer study or 8 months based on a groundwater flow
calculation. Since the City of Arroyo Grande wells are very close to the Ash Street
infiltration basins, it may be difficult to prove that this travel time can be achieved,
although the vertical migration of recycled water could be impeded by aquitards such that
the travel time may exceed the required duration. The Poplar Street infiltration basin was
the only existing facility that appeared to have some potential for recharge.
A MODFLOW groundwater flow model with particle tracking was constructed for the
Poplar Street area to quantify the amount of recharge that could occur at this basin and
determine the travel distance of the recharged water for the two required time durations.
Aquifer parameter values for the dune sand deposit underlying the site were taken from
data on dune sands in Los Osos. Assuming availability of the basin for recharge would
be during an eight month period, when storm runoff is not likely to occur, an estimated
50-100 acre-feet of water could be recharged, depending on the local hydraulic
conductivity of the dune sands. Groundwater flow during an eight month travel time
would reach a distance of up to 550 feet from the basin. Figure 5 illustrates the travel
time distance in plan view for the Poplar Street infiltration basin. The groundwater
percolates to the top of the first clay aquitard (whose depth was determined based on the
available cross sections and aquitard contour map) and mounds to just below the bottom
of the basin as it flows away from the basin area (Figure 6, Mounding Model Cross
Section). While the DWR cross section (Figure 2) suggests there may be an area where
the clay bed is less thick within the area beneath the shallow sand bed, the contoured
aquitard on Figure 3 still identifies it’s presence. Operational constraints at the basin may
restrict the recharged amount due to basin maintenance.
2/24/2015 5
Recharge via Injection Wells
Two injection well options are under consideration for the deep recharge of recycled
water into the aquifers tapped by water supply wells (Figure 7). One option would be a
coastal hydraulic barrier wells along Highway 1 between Grand Avenue and the airport.
The other option would be several inland injection wells located throughout the planning
area.
The injection wells would be located at sufficient distances from public water supply
wells to allow for adequate residence time of the recycled water prior to extraction. In a
previous conceptual well field layout, the setback recommended for 12 month travel time
was 2300 feet (Wallace Group, 2009). The shorter duration of residency considered
within this assessment would be between 2 and 8 months, depending on the level of
treatment. This previous estimate was found to be very conservative based on the
modeling performed in this current analysis. For an 8-month residency time, the
corresponding setback was calculated to be 113 feet. The calculation output was a
groundwater velocity of 0.47 feet per day for the Paso Robles Formation aquifers as
determined by the groundwater flow simulation when the injection wells recharged 1100
acre-feet per year and the two Pismo Beach wells and the Oceano CSD well pumped 800
acre-feet per year. Rounding off the setback up to the nearest hundred feet, the setback
should be 200 feet from existing water supply wells. Without pumping these wells, the
setback would be less.
The wells would be designed to inject water below a regional aquitard into the main
aquifer zones A-D (see Figures 2 through 4). The depths of the wells will depend upon
the depths of the aquifers and aquitards. The total depth of the injection wells will range
between 400 and 600 feet depth. The injected zones and the seals would be determined
based on the specific conditions encountered in the wells.
Six wells are proposed for injecting recycled water in the inland well field option and
three wells are proposed for the coastal injection well field. Each injection well site is
assumed to be capable of injecting up to 200 acre-feet per year based on the
transmissivity of the aquifers (about 20,000 gallons per day per foot) as determined from
a pumping test at City of Pismo Beach Well #5. The estimated cost of an injection well
at the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) Alamitos Barrier
project for year 2013 was roughly $500,000 per well. Wells in the Alamitos Barrier are
similar in depth to the coastal injection wells discussed in this report.
In addition to the injection wells, monitoring wells would be needed for measuring the
groundwater level and groundwater quality. The groundwater levels would be the basis
for determining the quantity of water injected in each well (and how variable the injection
water flow can be) and the water quality tests would determine the presence/absence of
sea water influence and be an indicator of the migration of the injected water and the
2/24/2015 6
resulting groundwater quality from the mixing of injected water with existing
groundwater.
The monitoring wells would be designed as pairs of wells (one shallow and one deep) or
nested dual aquifer completions with separate casings in the injected aquifers and within
the overlying aquifer. Conceptually, the monitoring wells should be placed between the
coastal injection wells and also between the injection wells and the production wells.
One new monitoring well would be assumed to be required for each injection well (an
existing well is assumed to provide a second monitoring location). Monitoring wells
would be equipped with water level/water quality measurement instrumentation, as is
being used at existing coastal monitoring wells. The costs of observation wells at the
LACDPW Alamitos Barrier project in 2012 were $75,000 per casing. Equipping costs
with telemetry are estimated to be about $10,000-$15,000 per well completion.
Maintenance of the injection wells would involve cleaning out the well casings and
removing microbial build-up once every two years. Well maintenance can be
accomplished within two weeks. In 2011-2012, the cost of maintenance services at an
LACDPW Alamitos Barrier injection well was about $5,000 to $20,000 depending on the
well design (number of aquifer zones injected) and condition.
Coastal Sea Water Intrusion Barrier Wells
Injection with highly treated recycled water along the coast can be an effective barrier to
sea water intrusion. The coastal barrier wells would be comprised of three wells along
Highway 1 between Grand Avenue and Oceano Airport at a well to well spacing of 4000
feet. The specific locations would depend on site constraints. The well locations on
Figure 7 were selected based on the setback distance to existing wells, a general
consideration of drill site area requirements, and the well spacing, as determined by
mounding analytical modeling.
The quantity of recharged water at each injection well, how many wells are required, the
amount of water recoverable/lost to the ocean, and the pressure heads that can be
developed from injection are critical values that should be determined for the design of an
injection well field. CHG constructed a conceptual groundwater mounding model of the
groundwater basin area along the coastline from Pismo Creek to Arroyo Grande Creek in
order to estimate these values.
The USGS MODFLOW 2002 groundwater flow simulation software was used for this
planning level recycled water injection analysis. This level of analysis has involved very
limited hydrogeologic parameter sensitivity analysis and limited analysis of groundwater
extraction impacts on the mounding. Further refinement of the groundwater flow
parameters will be necessary for more detailed design and groundwater management
2/24/2015 7
objectives. Seawater intrusion modeling for dual density flow will also be an important
part of a more detailed flow simulation.
This steady state model predicts the point at which the pressure head within the aquifers
reach equilibrium during injection. The model was built with four layers which represent
the primary aquifers in the coastal area. The layer number, the aquifer or aquitard it
represents, and the aquitard and aquifer properties are described in the table below. The
injection wells were screened in layers 3 and 4. The aquifer properties were calculated
from available pumping test data included in Fugro Consultants and CHG reports. To
simulate the equivalent fresh water head created by the ocean, the general head boundary
to the west was set to 10.5 feet in layer 4, 4.5 feet in layer 3 and 1.5 feet in layers 2 and 1.
The remaining general head boundaries were set to the October 2013 water levels.
Table1. Aquifer and Aquitard Parameters for Steady-State Model
Layer Thickness
(Feet)
Aquifer
Unit
*Aquitard
Hydraulic
Conductivity
(X,Y,Z)
Storativity Porosity
1 120 Paso Robles 29, 29, 2.9 0.09 30
2 40
*Sandy
Clay in
Paso Robles
0.01, 0.01,
0.01 0.05 45
3 80 Paso Robles 29, 29, 2.9 0.004 30
4 400 Careaga
Sandstone 12, 12, 1.2 0.004 30
Units: Hydraulic conductivity- feet per day; Storativity- dimensionless;
Porosity- percent
After running the model with varying scenarios, it was concluded that three injection
wells spaced approximately 4,000 feet apart, recharging a combined 367 acre-feet per
year, would create roughly 17 feet above sea level of pressure head along the alignment
of the wells in layers 3 and 4. The resulting pressure head in layer 1 was between 15 and
16 feet. These injection wells would be located to the west of existing production wells:
Pismo Well 5, Pismo Well 23 and Oceano CSD Well 8 (Figure 8). To create these
pressure heads, the injection rate of 367 acre-feet per year was distributed equally into the
three injection wells (122 acre-ft/yr per well). The clay layer (layer 2) creates an
effective seal, allowing less than a 120 acre-feet per year to leak into overlying layer 1.
At steady state, approximately 65 percent of the injected water flows to the east of the
injection wells while only three percent flows to the west towards the ocean. The
remaining water flows to the north or south. These results indicate with current
conditions in the basin approximately 350 acre feet of water can be injected annually into
the three proposed injection wells without apparent flooding.
2/24/2015 8
In a second scenario with both injection and extractions, groundwater extractions were
increased at Pismo Well 5, Pismo Well 23 and Oceano CSD Well 8. The injection rate
was increased to 1,100 acre-feet per year and the pumping rates of the production wells
were adjusted to create final pressure heads similar to those in the original steady-state
model (Figure 9). A total of 800 acre-ft per year (233 acre-ft/yr at Pismo Wells 5 and 23;
333 acre-ft/yr Oceano CSD Well 8) would need to be produced from these wells in order
to limit groundwater pressure heads of at least 15 feet in layers 3 and 4, and 13 feet in
layer 1. Approximately 770 acre-ft (70 percent) recovery of the injected water at the
three production wells would be expected. As within the original steady-state model,
roughly 300 acre-feet of excess water could be introduced into the model without
apparent flooding issues.
Inland Injection Wells
The inland injection wells would need to be spaced such that the maximum injected water
capture by existing wells could be obtained while keeping the setback distance. Figure 7
shows the location of the purveyor wells and one irrigation well with respect to possible
injection well sites. The injection sites shown are areas where drilling site requirements
could potentially be met. The specific locations will need to be confirmed based on more
detailed review of local constraints and delivery pipeline possibilities. In some areas, the
wells are located where infiltration basins are proximate for dual recharge capabilities. In
other areas, the wells are located where recycled water use could occur on existing
irrigated lands.
The amount of recycled water that can be introduced into the basin with the inland
injection wells is greater than the coastal barrier based on the existence of extraction
wells adjacent to the proposed injecting wells that maintain a lower water level in
localized pumping depressions. The available storage that can be recharged, as discussed
earlier, is estimated to be between 1,000 and 1,500 acre-feet but could be more,
considering additional unsaturated aquifers within the pumping depression area.
Continued recharge over multiple years would require the extraction of a similar amount
to that recharged in order to maintain the storage availability, in light of the limited
available storage.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our reconnaissance level analysis of groundwater in the Northern Cities
Groundwater Management Area, CHG has reached the following conclusions regarding
groundwater recharge options for the available highly treated reclaimed water from the
City of Pismo Beach:
2/24/2015 9
Existing infiltration basins do not have the capacity to percolate the quantity of
water available from reclaimed water.
Injection wells would be effective at recharging highly treated reclaimed water, if
properly designed and spaced.
Pumpage at existing production water wells has locally lowered groundwater
levels in the deeper aquifers (C-E), resulting in available storage for recharged
reclaimed water.
Dual density groundwater flow simulation modeling would be needed to
determine injection well field design for optimizing seawater intrusion barrier
effect and inland extractions benefits.
A test injection well would provide critical information for a full scale injection
well field.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!!
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
Oceano CSD
Observation Wells
(Green, Blue,
Silver, and Yellow)
Wells 32S/13E-30
N01, N02, & N03
Wells 32S/13E-30
F01, F02, & F03
Wells 32S/12E-24
B01, B02, & B03
Wells 12N/36W-36
L01 & L02
Well 12N/35W-32C03
Meadow Creek
Arroyo Grande Creek
L
o
s
B
e
r
r
o
s
C
r
e
e
kPismo Creek125.4
3
3
3
-1
2.95.5
6.5
2.7
1.3
4.7
6.3
0.5
5.5
2.7
2.9
1.2
3.5
5.5
5.8
4.6
1.3
9.3
-1.4
-6.7
-1.9
22.4
11.3
71.7
-2.5
-0.3 36.5
17.4
10.9
125.4
5
1001520-5
15Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC,
NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri
(Thailand), TomTom, 2013
120°34'0"W
120°34'0"W
120°36'0"W
120°36'0"W
120°38'0"W
120°38'0"W
35°8'0"N35°8'0"N35°6'0"N35°6'0"N35°4'0"N35°4'0"NNorthern Cities Management Area
Project No. 04.62130129
WATER LEVEL CONTOURS, OCTOBER 2013
Northern Cities Management Area
San Luis Obispo County, California FIGURE 10
Ü
0 5,0002,500
Feet
1:60,000
Legend
!'A NCMA Sentry Wells Northern Cities Management Area
Wells Used in
Groundwater Contouring
Water Level Contours
(October 2013)
Creeks
5
N:\Projects\04_2013\04_6213_0129_NorthernCitiesMangArea\Outputs\2014_NCMA_2013_Annual_Monitoirng_Report\mxd\Figure 9_2013 October NCMA Contours.mxd, 02/24/14, TNicely!
Sources: Base Map: Fugro Consultants, Northern Cities Management Area 2013 Annual Report Figure 10;
Cross section alignment from DWR Bulletin 63-3 Figure 1
Location Map
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
City of Pismo Beach
Cleath-Harris Geologists
cross section (Figure 2)
Potential Recharge Areas
Potential Recharge Area for A and B zones
Cross Section Source: California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 63-3, 1970, Plate 2A, cross section B-B’
Potential Recharge
Area to B, C
and D zones
100’
200’
-100’
-200’
-300’
-400’
-500’
-600’
-700’
0
Vertical to Horizontal Scales 10:1
Figure 2
Potential Recharge Areas: Arroyo Grande Plain-Tri-Cities Mesa
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
City of Pismo Beach
Cleath-Harris Geologists
Figure 3
Base of Shallow Aquitard for Perching of Percolated Water
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
City of Pismo Beach
Cleath-Harris Geologists
-500
-400
-300
-200
100
sea level
-100
Elevation in feet above sea levelFigure 4
Prole of Well Construction and Water Levels/Quality
Coastal Sentry Wells
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
City of Pismo Beach
Cleath-Harris Geologists
-600
perforations24B124B2 24B330F130F230F330N130N330N2greenbluesilveryellow36L136L2faultA
B
C
D
EPaso Robles FmnAlluviumCareaga Fmnmax Cl 1500 (20113) max Cl 690 (2009) max Cl 79 (1966) max Cl 140 (2010)max Cl 445 (2011)max Cl 82 (2009)max Cl 160 (2009)max Cl 180 (2009)max Cl 160 (2009)max Cl 1000 (2009) max Cl 69 (1966) min. wl 6.58 (2013)min WL 5.96 (2009)min WL 6.52 (2009)min WL 0.17 (2009)min WL 2.96 (2009)min WL 6.07 (2009)max Cl 190 (2010)min WL 6.27 (2013)min WL 5.41 (2013)min WL 1.56 (2009)min WL 0.43 (2010)min WL 1.14 (2009)min WL -0.52 (2009)max Cl 190 (2009)Oceano CSD
min WL 2.94 (2012)max Cl 63 (2009)max Cl 130 (2011)min WL 2.83 (2013)red : Cl >250 mg/l
blue min WL below elevation sucient to preclude sea water intrusionTarget Water Level Indexfor Deep Production zones: 7.5’ (Fugro 2013)Aquifer ZoneSee Figure 1 for well locations
550
F
e
e
t
Parti
c
l
e
T
r
a
c
e
Infiltration Pond Particle Travel Distance Model.
Cleath-Harris Geologists
Figure 5
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
City of Pismo Beach
Scale: 1 inch = 400 feet
0 400 800
Existing on-site well
Explanation
Infiltration Pond
240 day travel
distance from pond
(Approx. 550 feet)
AG #1
East Grand
Pond
Base map from Google Earth 2014. Image Date 8/23/13.
AG #4
AG #5
AG #7
Mean Sea Level0
Groundwate
r
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
Cross Section of
Figure 6
Infiltration Pond
Equal Water Pressure Contours.
Cleath-Harris Geologists
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
City of Pismo Beach
Scale: 1 inch = 400 feet
0 400 800
Existing on-site well
Explanation
Alluvium and Dune Sands
Clay Aquitard
Paso Robles Formation
Equal pressure contours
of water in feetElevation in Feet60
40
-40
100
Coastal Barrier Injection Well
Figure 7
Possible Injection Well Locations
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
City of Pismo Beach
Cleath-Harris Geologists
Irrigation well
Grover Elementary
Poplar
South Oak Park
Inltration
Ash and Alder
Purveyor Water Well
Dispersed Well Field
Injection Well
12th & Baden
0 1000
feet
N
S. 4th St
Production well
Proposed Injection well site
Explanation
Base map modified from Google Earth. Image date 8/23/2013.17.0Head Contour of Model
Layer 3 and 4
Figure 8
Steady-State Injection Well Model
Layer 3 and 4 Head Contours
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
City of Pismo Beach
Cleath-Harris GeologistsModel boundary
Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet
0 2000 4000
1
6
.
0
16 .5
16.516.517.017.017.0
Pismo 5
Pismo 23
Oceano 8
Injection Well
Injection Well
Injection Well
Production well
Proposed injection well site
Explanation
Base map modified from Google Earth. Image date 8/23/2013.13.0Head Contour of Model
Layer 3 and 4
Figure 9
Model boundary
Steady-State Injection and
Pumping Well Model
Layer 3 and 4 Head Contours
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
City of Pismo Beach
Cleath-Harris Geologists
Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet
0 2000 4000
Pismo 5
Pismo 23
Oceano 8
Injection Well
Injection Well
Injection Well
City of Pismo Beach Appendix D
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study‐ Final
APPENDIX D. ALTERNATIVES UNIT COST DETAILED TABLES
Alternative 1 Segment Secondary 23
Project
Max Supply 1.1 MGD 1232 AFY
Number of Customers 4
Demand
Average 0.01 MGD 16.63 AFY
Max Month 0.04 MGD
Peak Day 0.04 MGD
Peak Hour 0.16 MGD 108 GPM
Storage 0.04 MG
Treatment Capacity 0.04 MGD
Capital Cost
Advanced Treatment
Secondary‐23 Treatment
4" Pipeline LF ‐$
6" Pipeline 21890.00 LF 2,320,340$
8" Pipeline LF ‐$
10" Pipeline LF ‐$
12" Pipeline LF ‐$
Reused Conoco Pipeline LF ‐$
Total Pipeline 21890.00 LF 2,320,340$
Storage 66,802$
Pump Station 1Hp 300,000$
Customer Conversions 40,000$
Construction Subtotal 2,727,142$
Construction Contingency 545,428$
Construction Uncountable 545,428$
Implementation Costs 1,145,400$
Land Purchase AC ‐$
Total Capital Cost 4,963,000$
O&M Cost
Secondary 23 Treatment
Injection Wells
Stormwater Basin AC ‐$
Pipeline 23,203$
Storage 668$
Pump Station 20,268$
Maintenance 15,000$
Power 5,268$
Total O&M Cost 44,000$
Annual Cost Method
Annual Capital Payment 219,800$
Annual O&M 44,000$
Total Annual Cost 263,800$
Annual Yield (AFY)17
Unit Cost ($/AF)15,900$
Alternative 2 SegmentT‐1T‐2T‐3T‐4T‐5T‐6Max SupplyMGD336 AFYMGD0 AFYMGD0 AFYMGD0 AFYMGD0 AFYMG0 AFYNumber of Customers131012358DemandAverage0.05 MGD55.08 AFY0.04 MGD43.84AFY 0.03 MGD37.67 AFY 0.01 MGD 15.44AFY 0.01 MGD 11.77 AFY 0.02 MG 23.38 AFYMax Month0.12 MGD0.10 MGD0.08 MGD0.03 MGD0.03 MGD0.05 MGDPeak Day0.15 MGD0.12 MGD0.10 MGD0.04 MGD0.03 MGD0.06 MGDPeak Hour0.52 MGD359 GPM0.41 MGD285 GPM 0.35 MGD245 GPM 0.14 MGD101 GPM 0.11 MGD77 GPM 0.22 MG152 GPMStorage0.15 MG 0.12 MG 0.10 MG 0.04 MG 0.03 MG 0.06 MG Treatment Capacity0.30 MGDCaptical CostAdvanced Treatment ‐$ Tertiary Treatment677,750$ 4" Pipeline232.00LF21,112$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 1877.00LF 170,807$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 6" PipelineLF‐$ LF‐$ 8707.00LF 922,942$ LF‐$ 3956.00LF 419,336$ 5332.00LF 565,192$ 8" PipelineLF‐$ 13550.00LF1,626,000$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 10" PipelineLF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 12" Pipeline14343.00LF2,180,136$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Reused Conoco PipelineLF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Total Pipeline 14575.00LF2,201,248$ 13550.00LF1,626,000$ 8707.00LF 922,942$ 1877.00LF 170,807$ 3956.00LF 419,336$ 5332.00LF 565,192$ Storage 221,265$ 176,125$ 151,326$ 62,038$ 47,270$ 93,939$ Pump Station900,000$ 300,000$ ‐$ 300,000$ 300,000$ ‐$ Customer Conversions250,000$ 300,000$ 120,000$ 110,000$ 50,000$ 80,000$ Construction Subtotal3,572,513$ 677,750$ 2,402,125$ 1,194,268$ 642,845$ 816,606$ 739,131$ Construction Contingency714,503$ 135,550$ 480,425$ 238,854$ 128,569$ 163,321$ 147,826$ Construction Uncountable714,503$ 135,550$ 480,425$ 238,854$ 128,569$ 163,321$ 147,826$ Implementation Costs1,500,455$ 284,655$ 1,008,893$ 501,592$ 269,995$ 342,975$ 310,435$ Land PurchaseAC‐$ AC‐$ AC‐$ AC‐$ AC‐$ AC‐$ Total Distribution Capital Cost6,502,000$ 4,372,000$ 2,174,000$ 1,170,000$ 1,486,000$ 1,345,000$ Total Treatment Capital Cost1,234,000$ Total Captical Cost7,736,000$ 4,372,000$ 2,174,000$ 1,170,000$ 1,486,000$ 1,345,000$ O&M Cost Tertiary Trmt30,000$ Injection Wells‐$ Stormwater BasinAC‐$ AC‐$ AC‐$ AC‐$ AC‐$ AC‐$ Pipeline22,012$ 16,260$ 9,229$ 1,708$ 4,193$ 5,652$ Storage2,213$ 1,761$ 1,513$ 620$ 473$ 939$ Pump Station50,268$ 20,997$ 6,850$ 19,102$ 16,275$ 4,470$ Maintenance45,000$ 15,000$ ‐$ 15,000$ 15,000$ ‐$ Power5,268$ 5,997$ 6,850$ 4,102$ 1,275$ 4,470$ Total Distribution O&M Cost74,500$ 39,000$ 18,000$ 21,000$ 21,000$ 11,000$ Total Treatment O&M Cost30,000$ Total O&M Cost104,500$ 39,000$ 18,000$ 21,000$ 21,000$ 11,000$ Annual Cost MethodAnnual Capital Payment342,651.28$ 193,649.35$ 96,293.16$ 51,822.91$ 65,819.52$ 59,574.19$ Annual O&M 104,500$ 39,000$ 18,000$ 21,000$ 21,000$ 11,000$ Total Annual Cost447,151$ 232,649$ 114,293$ 72,823$ 86,820$ 70,574$ Annual Yield (AFY)554438151223Unit Cost ($/AF)8,100$ 5,300$ 3,000$ 4,700$ 7,400$ 3,000$ Cumulative Annual Cost MethodCumulative Annual Capital Payment536,301$ 632,594$ 684,417$ 750,236$ 809,810$ Cummulative Annual O&M 143,500$ 161,500$ 182,500$ 203,500$ 214,500$ Total Cumulative Annual Cost679,801$ 794,094$ 866,917$ 953,736$ 1,024,310$ Cumulative Annual Yield (AFY)98.92136.59152.03163.80187.18Cumulative Unit Cost ($/AF)6,900$ 5,800$ 5,700$ 5,800$ 5,500$
T‐7T‐8MGD0 AFYMGD0 AFY610.01 MGD10.39 AFY 0.01 MGD 16.00 AFY0.02 MGD 0.04 MGD0.03 MGD 0.04 MGD0.10 MGD68 GPM 0.15 MGD104 GPM0.03 MG 0.04 MG 4703.00LF 427,973$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 6722.00LF 712,532$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 4703.00LF 427,973$ 6722.00LF 712,532$ 41,740$ 64,277$ ‐$ ‐$ 60,000$ 10,000$ 529,713$ 786,809$ 105,943$ 157,362$ 105,943$ 157,362$ 222,480$ 330,460$ AC‐$ AC‐$ 964,000$ 1,432,000$ 964,000$ 1,432,000$ AC‐$ 2.64 AC 2,640$ 4,280$ 7,125$ 417$ 643$ 929$ 4,470$ ‐$ ‐$ 929$ 4,470$ 6,000$ 15,000$ 6,000$ 15,000$ 42,698.53$ 63,427.69$ 6,000$ 15,000$ 48,699$ 78,428$ 10164,700$ 4,900$ 852,509$ 915,937$ 220,500$ 235,500$ 1,073,009$ 1,151,437$ 197.57 213.575,400$ 5,400$
Alternative 3a SegmentFC‐1FC‐2FC‐3ProjectMax Supply0.83 MGD928 AFY0.83 MGD928 AFY0.83 MGD928 AFYNumber of Injection Wells111DemandAverage0.83 MGD310 AFY310 AFY310 AFYMax Month0.83 MGDPeak Day0.83 MGDPeak Hour0.83 MGD192 GPM192 GPM192 GPMStorage0.83 MGDTreatment Capacity0.83 MGDCapital Cost ‐‐Advance Treatment7,721,406$ 4" PipelineLF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 6" PipelineLF‐$ LF‐$ 7669.00LF812,914$ 8" Pipeline8893.00LF1,067,160$ 4793.00LF575,160$ LF‐$ 10" PipelineLF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ 12" PipelineLF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Reused Conoco PipelineLF‐$ LF‐$ LF‐$ Total Pipeline 8893.00LF1,067,160$ 4793.00LF575,160$ 7669.00LF812,914$ Storage 1,245,000$ ‐$ ‐$ Injection Wells680,000$ 680,000$ 680,000$ Pump Station5 Hp300,000$ ‐$ ‐$ Customer Conversions‐$ ‐$ ‐$ Construction Subtotal3,292,160$ 7,721,406$ 1,255,160$ 1,492,914$ Construction Contingency658,432$ 1,544,281$ 251,032$ 298,583$ Construction Uncountable658,432$ 1,544,281$ 251,032$ 298,583$ Implementation Costs1,843,610$ 4,323,987$ 702,890$ 836,032$ Land Purchase0.06 AC24,000$ 0.06 AC 24,000$ 0.06 AC 24,000$ Total Distribution Capital Cost6,477,000$ 2,484,000$ 2,950,000$ Total Treatment Capital Cost15,134,000$ Total Capital Cost21,611,000$ 2,484,000$ 2,950,000$ O&M Cost ‐‐Advance Treatmnet501,719$ Injection Wells10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ Stormwater BasinAC‐$ AC‐$ AC‐$ Pipeline10,672$ 5,752$ 8,129$ Storage12,450$ ‐$ ‐$ Pump Station20,268$ 4,102$ 4,470$ Maintenance15,000$ ‐$ ‐$ Power5,268$ 4,102$ 4,470$ Total Distribution O&M Cost53,000$ 20,000$ 23,000$ Total Treatment O&M Cost502,000$ Total O&M Cost555,000$ 20,000$ 23,000$ Annual Cost MethodAnnual Capital Payment957,217.78$ 110,024.01$ 130,664.59$ Annual O&M 555,000$ 20,000$ 23,000$ Total Annual Cost1,512,218$ 130,024$ 153,665$ Annual Yield (AFY)310310310Unit Cost ($/AF)4,900$ 419$ 496$ Cumulative Annual Cost MethodCumulative Annual Capital Payment1,067,242$ 1,197,906$ Cummulative Annual O&M 575,000$ 598,000$ Total Cumulative Annual Cost1,642,242$ 1,795,906$ Cumulative Annual Yield (AFY)620.00 930.00Cumulative Unit Cost ($/AF)2,600$ 1,900$
Alternative 3b Segment FI‐0FI‐1FI‐2FI‐3FI‐4
Max Supply 0.83 MGD 930 AFY 0.83 MGD 930 AFY 0.83 MGD 930 AFY 0.83 MGD 930 AFY 0.83 MGD 930 AFY
Number of Injection Wells 0 1 1 1 1
Demand
Average 0.83 MGD 930 AFY 232.00 AFY 232.00 AFY 232.00 AFY 232.00 AFY
Max Month 0.83 MGD
Peak Day 0.83 MGD
Peak Hour 0.83 MGD 576 GPM 144 GPM 144 GPM 144 GPM 144 GPM
Storage 0.83 MGD
Treatment Capacity 0.83 MGD
Capital Cost
Advanced Treatment 7,721,406$
4" Pipeline LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$
6" Pipeline LF ‐$ LF ‐$ 2019.00 LF 214,014$ 3413.00 LF 361,778$ 4415.00 LF 467,990$
8" Pipeline LF ‐$ 1497.00 LF 179,640$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$
10" Pipeline LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$
12" Pipeline 12490.00 LF 1,898,480$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$
Reused Conoco Pipeline LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$ LF ‐$
Total Pipeline 12490.00 LF 1,898,480$ 1497.00 LF 179,640$ 2019.00 LF 214,014$ 3413.00 LF 361,778$ 4415.00 LF 467,990$
Storage 1,245,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Injection Wells ‐$ 680,000$ 680,000$ 680,000$ 680,000$
Pump Station 20 hp 300,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Customer Conversions ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Construction Subtotal 3,443,480$ 7,721,406$ 859,640$ 894,014$ 1,041,778$ 1,147,990$
Construction Contingency 688,696$ 1,544,281$ 171,928$ 178,803$ 208,356$ 229,598$
Construction Uncountable 688,696$ 1,544,281$ 171,928$ 178,803$ 208,356$ 229,598$
Implementation Costs 1,928,349$ 4,323,987$ 481,398$ 500,648$ 583,396$ 642,874$
Land Purchase 0 AC ‐$ 0.06 AC 24,000$ 0.06 AC 24,000$ 0.06 AC 24,000$ 0.06 AC 24,000$
Total Distribution Capital Cost 6,749,000$ 1,709,000$ 1,776,000$ 2,066,000$ 2,274,000$
Total Treatment Capital Cost 15,134,000$
Total Capital Cost 21,883,000$ 1,709,000$ 1,776,000$ 2,066,000$ 2,274,000$
O&M Cost
‐‐‐‐
Advanced Treatment 501,719$
Injection Wells 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$ 10,000$
Stormwater Basin AC ‐$ AC ‐$ AC ‐$ AC ‐$ AC ‐$
Pipeline 18,985$ 1,796$ 2,140$ 3,618$ 4,680$
Storage 12,450$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Pump Station 20,268$ 5,997$ 6,850$ 4,102$ 4,470$
Maintenance 15,000$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Power 5,268$ 5,997$ 6,850$ 4,102$ 4,470$
Total Distribution O&M Cost 52,000$ 18,000$ 19,000$ 18,000$ 19,000$
Total Treatment O&M Cost 502,000$
Total O&M Cost 554,000$ 18,000$ 19,000$ 18,000$ 19,000$
Annual Cost Method
Annual Capital Payment 969,265.50$ 75,696.88$ 78,664.51$ 91,509.51$ 100,722.47$
Annual O&M 554,000$ 18,000$ 19,000$ 18,000$ 19,000$
Total Annual Cost 1,523,265$ 93,697$ 97,665$ 109,510$ 119,722$
Annual Yield (AFY)0 232 232 232 232
Unit Cost ($/AF)#DIV/0!404$ 421$ 472$ 516$
Cumulative Annual Cost Method
Cumulative Annual Capital Payment 1,044,962$ 1,123,627$ 1,215,136$ 1,315,859$
Cummulative Annual O&M 572,000$ 591,000$ 609,000$ 628,000$
Total Cumulative Annual Cost 1,616,962$ 1,714,627$ 1,824,136$ 1,943,859$
Cumulative Annual Yield (AFY)232.00 464.00 696.00 928.00
Cumulative Unit Cost ($/AF)7,000$ 3,700$ 2,600$ 2,100$
Pipeline
Pipe Sizes $/LF
4"91
6"106
8"120
10"134
12"152
16"156
24"237
Note: Pipe prices are based off RSMeans used 3rd Quarter pricing at San Luis Obispo area
Pipe Installation Factors
Trenchless‐Directional 2
Trenchless‐Jack & Bore 1.5
Unpaved Area 0.75
Note: Pipe installation factors were taken from SLO County Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan
Storage
Storage $ = Factor times Peak Demand times 1,500,000
Factor 1
$1500000
Pump Station
For O&M :(pg 2 of appendix E)
Pump efficiency:75%
Electricity:0.13$
Annual Hours 2920 (8 hrs/day, 365 Days)
Customer Conversion
1 Combine System 50,000$
2 Dedicated Meter System 10,000$
Injection Well
Capital 680000
Annual O&M 2% of injection well cost
Annual O&M 10000
Design and Cost Assumptions
Water Supply Benefit Factors
100% Irrigation Use
75% Inland Injection
50% Costal Injection
Implementation Factor
Landscape/Agricultural Projects 30%
GRRP 40%
Demands
Maximum Month 2.5 times Average Annual Demand
Maximum Day 1.2 Times Max Month
Peak Hour 3.5 times Max Month Day
Annual Payment Factor
Assumptions
Inflation Rate 3.0%
Interest Rate 5%
Real Interest Rate 1.9%
Terms (yr)30
Real Interest Rate
I = (if ‐f)/(1+f)
Annual Payment Factor 22.58
Pipe Diameter CalculationsAlternative 2 ‐Tertiary SegmentsFollowing Segments Length (ft)Total Peak Hour Demand (GPM)Demand (CFS)Velocity (ft/s) Area (ft) Diameter (in) Checking headloss/lengthSize (in)T‐12, 3, 4 14343.0 989.6 2.205 5 0.441 9.012T‐1 Branch232.0 26.9 0.060 5 0.012 1.54T‐23 13550.0 530.6 1.182 5 0.236 6.68T‐2 Branch 11042.1 1.8 0.004 5 0.001 0.4At 2" headloss is at .15 ft2T‐2 Branch 2682.0 3.3 0.007 5 0.001 0.5At 2" headloss is at .29 ft2T‐38707.0 245.2 0.546 5 0.109 4.56T‐41877.0 100.5 0.224 5 0.045 2.9At 4" headloss is 8/1000 and 15.34 ft4T‐563956.0228.8 0.510 5 0.102 4.3A 4" headloss is 40/1000. At 6" headloss is 5/1000 and 20.9 ft6T‐65332.0 152.2 0.339 5 0.068 3.5At 4" headloss is 18/1000. At 6" headloss is 3/1000 and 13.08 ft6T‐74703.0 67.6 0.151 5 0.030 2.4At 4" headloss is 4/1000 and 18.43 ft4T‐86722.00 150.0 0.334 5 0.067 3.5At 4" headloss was 17/1000. At 6" headloss was at 2/10006Alternative 1 ‐ Secondary 23SegmentsFollowing SegmentsLength (ft)Total Peak Hour Demand (GPM)Demand (CFS)Velocity (ft/s) Area (ft) Diameter (in) Checking headloss/lengthSize (in)S21890.00 108.2 0.241 5 0.048 3.0 At 6" headloss was 1/1000. 6At 12" headloss is 2/1000, 42.21 ftAt 2" headloss is 21/1000. At 4" headloss is 1/1000 and .17 ftAt 8" headloss is at 6/1000, 83.1 ft. At 12" headloss is at .9/1000, 12.33 ftAt 6" headloss is 6/1000, 51.52 ft.
Alternative 3b ‐ FAT SegmentsFollowing Segments Length (ft)Total Peak Hour Demand (GPM)Demand (CFS)Velocity (ft/s) Area (ft) Diameter (in) Checking headloss/lengthSize (in)FI‐0All 12490 720.0 1.604 5 0.321 7.7At 8" headloss is 11/1000. At 12" headloss is 2/1000 and 20.16 ft. 12FI‐12,3,4 1497 432.0 0.963 5 0.193 5.9At 6" headloss is 17/1000. At 8" headloss is 5/1000 and 6.81 ft8FI‐23 2019 288.0 0.642 5 0.128 4.9At 6" headloss is 8/1000 and 16.30 ft. At 8" headloss is 2/1000 and 4.22 ft6FI‐36 (Alternate)3413144.00.321 5 0.064 3.4At 6" headloss is 2/1000 and 7.58 ft. 6FI‐45 (Alternate) 4415 144.0 0.321 5 0.064 3.4At 6" headloss is 2/1000 and 9.79 ft6FI‐56036 144.0 0.321 5 0.064 3.4At 6" headloss is 2/1000 and 13.36. 6FI‐61819 144.0 0.321 5 0.064 3.4At 6" headloss is 2/1000 and 13.36. 6Note: The Total Peak Hour Demand (gpm) for the Alternates were not included in the pipe size calculations for Segments FI‐3 and FI‐4. Alternative 3a ‐ FAT SegmentsFollowing Segments Length (ft)Total Peak Hour Demand (GPM)Demand (CFS)Velocity (ft/s) Area (ft)Diameter (in) Checking headloss/lengthSize (in)FC‐1All 8893 576.0 1.283 5 0.257 6.9At 8" headloss is 7/1000 and 62.69 ft. At 10" headloss is 2/1000 and 21.15 ft. At 12" headloss is 1/1000 and 9.42 ft8FC‐22, 3 4793 384.0 0.856 5 0.171 5.6At 6" headloss is 14/1000 and 64.78 ft. At 8" headloss is 3/1000 and 15.96 ft8FC‐337669192.0 0.428 5 0.086 4.0At 6" headloss is 4/1000 and 28.75 ft. 6
Pump CapacitySegments Pressure of Zones (Irrigation)hp=Whp/efficiency1,7 Main 166 ftWHP= (gmp*TDH)/39601,2 SB1 216 ftDifferential Head=Downstream Flow ‐ Upstream Flow2,3SB2315 ftAssume pump efficiency is 75%5,6PO330 ft4Heights 1450 ftAlternative 2 ‐ Tertiary SegmentsT‐7Pump IDPump 1 Pump 2 Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 1 Pump 2 Pump 3 Pump 1 Pump 4 Pump 1 Pump 5 Pump 1 Pump 5 Pump 1Flow (GPM)35973 285 285 76 245 245 245 101101 77 14 152 152 68Upstream HGL (ft)22 166 22 166 216 22 166 216 22166 22 166 22 166 22Downstream HGL (ft)166 216 166 216 315 166 216 315 166450 166 330 166 330 166Differential Head (ft)14450 144 50 99 144 50 99 144284 144 164 144 164 144WHP13.04 0.92 10.38 3.60 1.90 8.92 3.10 6.13 3.66 7.21 2.79 0.59 5.54 6.30 2.46Station HP17.38 1.22 13.84 4.80 2.54 11.89 4.13 8.17 4.87 9.61 3.71 0.79 7.38 8.41 3.2812345T‐1 17.4 1.2T‐2 13.8 4.8 2.5T‐3 11.9 4.1 8.2T‐4 4.99.6T‐5 3.70.8T‐6 7.48.4T‐7 3.3Total (hp) 62.4 10.2 10.7 9.6 9.2Alternative 1 ‐ Secondary 23Pump IDPump 1use 1 Hp BPFlow (GPM)108Upstream HGL (ft)22Downstream HGL (ft)230Differential Head (ft)208WHP5.69Station HP7.58T‐1T‐6SegmentCumulative Pumps Capacity (gpm)Pump IDT‐2T‐3T‐4T‐5
Alternative 3b ‐ FATPump IDPump 1Use 20 HP Flow (GPM)576 Includes gpm for all wellsUpstream HGL (ft)22Downstream HGL (ft)113.1 based on 10 psi at injection sites, which have an elevation of 100 ft max Differential Head (ft)91.1WHP13.26Station HP17.68Alternative 3a ‐ FATPump IDPump 1use 5 HPFlow (GPM)576 Includes gpm for all wellsUpstream HGL (ft)22Downstream HGL (ft)39.1 based on 10 psi at injection sites, which have an elevation of 16 ft (5 ft below WWTP site)Differential Head (ft)17.1WHP2.49Station HP3.32
City of Pismo Beach Appendix E
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
APPENDIX E. EVALUATION CRITERIA DEFINITIONS AND SCORING
APPROACH
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
City of Pismo Beach
Recycled Water Alternatives Evaluation Criteria
Definitions for each screening criteria and the corresponding scoring approach is described
below. A “No Action” alternative will also be screened and scored relative to the other
alternatives. The “No Action” alternative is representative of the City’s current operations, for
which they do not produce recycled water for reuse.
1. Promotes Beneficial Management of Water Resources: This criterion focuses on the
benefits for improving water resource management and resiliency of water supply.
3 = Significantly enhances management of water resources or supply resiliency
2 = Provides some benefit for the management of water resources or supply resiliency
1 = Does not affect management of water resources or supply resiliency
2. Promotes Salt & Nutrient Management within the Basin: The alternative supports
and/or improves salt & nutrient management within the Basin.
3 = Significantly contributes to development of a Salt & Nutrient Management
Program
2 = Contributes to development of a Salt & Nutrient Management Program
1 = Does not contribute to development of a Salt & Nutrient Management Program
3. Improves Basin Water Quality: The alternative improves water quality in the Santa
Maria Groundwater Basin.
3 = Improves current basin water quality
2 = Does not affect current basin water quality
1 = Degrades current basin water quality
4. O&M Complexity: Focuses on the complexity of operating the treatment, distribution &
administrative aspects of the alternative.
3 = Simple O&M
2 = Moderately complex O&M
1 = Complex O&M
5. Expandability: Ability to expand the alternative for increased recycled water production
and reuse within the region.
3 = Highly expandable
2 = Moderately expandable
1 = Not expandable
6. Ease of Implementation: Focuses on the construction sequencing, constructing phasing,
jurisdictional considerations, permit acquisition and the ease of implementing the
alternative.
3 = Few barriers to implementation
2 = Moderately difficult to implement
1 = Difficult to implement
City of Pismo Beach
Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study
Page 2 of 2
7. Funding Opportunity: This criterion considers the marketability of the alternative for
potential funding opportunities
3 = High marketability for funding opportunities
2 = Moderate marketability for funding opportunities
1 = Low marketability for funding opportunities
8. Consistency with Project Goals & Objectives: Focuses on the alternative’s consistency
with previously defined projects goals and objectives.
3 = Consistent with project goals and objectives
2 = Fairly consistent with project goals and objectives
1 = Inconsistent with project goals and objectives