Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CUP 99-23A; Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (2)
City of Carlsbad LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION P-1 Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) Development Pennits S Coastal Development Permit (*) \~\ Minor 'ID^^^-VS A Conditional Use Permit (*) CH Minor CH Extension U Day Care (Large) (FOR DEPT. USE ONLY) Legislative Permits I I General Plan Amendment (FOR DEPT. USE ONLY) I I Environmental Impact Assessment I I Habitat Management Permit CH Minor I I Hillside Development Permit (*) CH Minor I I Nonconforming Construction Permit I I Planned Development Permit CH Minor I I Residential CH Non-Residential I I Planning Commission Determination I I Site Development Plan CH Minor I I Special Use Permit I I Tentative Parcel Map (Minor Subdivision) I I Tentative Tract Map (Major Subdivision) I I Variance CH Minor C<>P^'2.||'A" Q Local Coastal Program Amendment (*) I I Master Plan CH Amendment I I Specific Plan CH Amendment I I Zone Change (*) I I Zone Code Amendment South Carlsbad Coastal Review Area Permits I I Review Permit I I Administrative CH Minor CH Major yillaae Review Area Permits I I Review Permit I I Administrative CH Minor CH Major (*) = eligible for 25% discount NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: TM^^^I^^ Zli-IOl - "il (W07plO\ ^ •2\<\^0)% PROJECT NAME: Co.rls^'^A '.J&r fjicrJl-^cj fc^c. {,4^ fkctSi, JlT Z-/V^--^> BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: f\ 3/1/^6 0 e^..^<.Vo -f.u-^ -j ' 7 fr)hD,e^o.,..^.^-^ ^-dj.i^M |7^/^-/-.'j,o ^ Ql '-"^ •-•<^ Cc^Mc^^^.; f-_p 7^,^ CH--!'^ Tro •:-C^> t V/'^t-- 5 BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION: jc^e ?'^^%" Lc^.c,^. { Qe^c c :p^:,.^ 'fii^corj^^^ ^c.V / 7^ 5 " ^-^^'/^ LOCATION OF PROJECT: /^i/e^]cJU ON THE: BETWEEN (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) SIDE OF AND STREET ADDRESS_ (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) OWNER NAfVlE (Print): ^r^r^ffli^,clft4 ji'c^h/ Qjfrif MAILING AODRESS: 51lS0 ^( Ccxny .:>o ^(ir>A CITY, STATe. ZIP: Cc^khcJ.,C9 ^ZOO d —— •^u,t/',-7->4 -. TELEPHONg: EMAIL ADDptESS: APPLICANT NAME (Print): MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: TELEPHONE: ^ EMAIL ADDRESS: I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY SIGNATURE DAfE / I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNATURE DATE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE (Print): MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE. ZIP: TELEPHONE: EMAIL ADDRESS: I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNATURE DATE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE. NOTICE OF RESTRICTION: PROPERTY OWNER ACKNOWLEDGES AND CONSENTS TO A NOTICE OF RESTRICTION BEING RECORDEjD ON THE TITLE TO HIS PROPERTY IF CONDITIONED FOR THE APPLICANT. NOTICE OF RESTRICTIONS RUN WITH THE LAN^TAND BIND-ANY SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE FOR CITY USE ONLY NOV 0 5 2014 DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: P-1 Pane O A Iridemnification and Insurance Requirement for Village Area Administrative Permit Certificati-on Statement. I Certify that I am the Legal Business Owner of the subject business and that all of the above information is true and corr&ct to the best of my knowledge. I agree to accept and abide by any conditions placed on the subject project a& a result of approval of this application. I agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City of Carlsbad and its officers and employees from all claims, damage or liability to persons or property arising from or caused di rectly or indirectly by the installation or placement of the subject property on the public sidewalk and/or the operation of the subject business on the public sidewalk pursuant to this permit unless the damage or liability was caused by the sole active negligence of the City of Carlsbad or its officers or employees. I have submitted a Certificate of Insurance to the City of Carlsbad in the amount of one million dollars issued by a company which has a rating in the latest "Best's Rating Guide" of "A-" or better and a financial size of $50-$100 (currently class VII) or better which lists the City of Carlsbad as "additional insured" and provides primary coverage to the City. I also agree to notify the City of Carlsbad thirty days prior to any cancellation or expiration of the policy. The notice shall be delivered to: City Planner City of Carlsbad leasTaraday Avenue Carlsbad The insurance shall remain in effect for as long as the property is placed on the public sidewalk or the business Is operated on the public sidewalk. This agreement is a condition of the issuance of this administrative permit for the subject of this permit on the public sidewalk. I understand that an approved administrative permit shall remain in effect for as long as outdoor displays are permitted within the Village Review Area and the permittee remains in compliance with the subject approved permit. Signature /(/ //"y Date: Certification Statement. I Certify that I am the Legal Propertv Owner for the subject business location and that all of the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I support the applicant's request for a permit to place the subject property on the public sidewalk. I understand that an approved administrative permit shall remain in effect for as long as outdoor displays are permitted within the Village Review Area and the permittee remains in compliance with the subject approved permit. Signature Date: P-1 PanoTnfR RovicoH 19/1 f .^ Development Services - City of DISCLOSURE STATEMENT planning Division Carlsbad P- KA) '"'T^reoTZl www.carlsbadca.gov Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organizatloni corporation, estate, trust, receiver^ syndicate, in this and any other county^ city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person -'cA fr^^ (^S Corp/Part Title Cr. tj^c'-^ejLT Title. Address 5^56> ^/^^:-c. Address OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation. Include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person pg'->>'c/^ f)kl^5 Corp/Part Title i^^^i^ee^ Title Address S^SO Ei Address p-1 (A) Page 1 of 2 Revised 07/10 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person sen/ing as an officer or director of the non- profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust. / Non Profit/Trust_ Title Title Address / Address Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? I I Yes n/INo If yes, please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary, lertify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent p-1 (A) Page 2 of 2 Revised 07/10 Cht^. nf PROJECT DESCRIPTION Development Services ^iiy Ul D 1/D\ Planning Division ^Qj-jgl^Q^^ '^'*\°) 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov APPLICANT NAME: Please describe fully the proposed project by application type. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: , p-1 (B) Page 1 of 1 Revised 07/10 Ccityof Carlsbad HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SUBSTANCES STATEMENT P-1(C) Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue (760) 602-4610 www.carlsbadca.gov Consultation of Lists of Sites Related to Hazardous Wastes (Certification of Compliance with Government Code Section 65962.5) Pursuant to State of California Government Code Section 65962.5, I have consulted the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency and hereby certify that (check one): 0^ The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Government Code. I I The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the State Government Code. APPLICANT Name: iX^^'icA Plhl^h Address: S^^O l^l Name: PROPERTY OWNER Address: Phone Number: Address of Site: Phone Number: S2ZO fl Local Agency (City and Countv): t:-^^ (^/^ Assessor's book, page, and parcel number: 2.}^ ^/<^ ^ '^'7 Specify list(s): Regulatory Identification Number:. Date of List: Applicant Signature/Date Property Owner Signature/Date The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese List) is used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. P-1(C) Page 1 of 2 Revised 02/13 Draft Preliminary Design Report Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Phase III Expansion Prepared for City of Carlsbad Carlsbad Municipal Water District 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 September 2014 CH2MHILL 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1450 San Diego, CA 92101 Table of Contents Executive Summary E-1 Table of Contents 1. Project Introduction 1 1.1 Background and Objectives 1 1.2 Existing CWRF Description 1 2. Filtration Treatment Alternatives Evaluation 3 2.1 CWRF Feed Water Quality 3 2.1.1 EWCPF Secondary Effluent Quality 3 2.1.2 Filterability Assessment 6 Filterability Testing Without Chemical Preconditioning 6 Filterability Testing With Chemical Preconditioning 7 2.2 Recycled Water Flows and Filtration Plant Capacities 7 2.3 Treated Water Quality Requirements 8 2.4 Overview of the Filtration Technologies 10 2.4.1 Filtration Technologies 10 Depth Filtration 10 Surface Filtration 12 Membrane Filtration 14 Other Filtration Technologies 16 2.5 Treatment Technology Screening 18 2.6 Filtration Technology Selection 21 2.6.1 Design Considerations 21 2.6.2 Life-Cycle Costs for the Unit Treatment Processes 22 2.6.3 Benefit to Cost Ratios for Alternatives 24 2.6.4 Sensitivity Analysis 25 2.7 Recommendations 26 3. Operations & Maintenance Improvements Evaluation 29 3.1 Current Operational Protocols 29 3.1.1 Combined Pump Station 29 3.1.2 GMF Pretreatment by Chemical Conditioning 29 3.1.3 Granular Media Filtration Train 29 3.1.4 Membrane Microfiltration/Reverse Osmosis Train 30 3.1.5 Chlorine Contact Basin 31 3.1.6 Recycled Water Storage Basin 31 3.1.7 Equalization Feed Pumps/Secondary Effluent Equalization Basin 31 3.1.8 Solids Thickening Tank 31 3.1.9 Process Control System 31 3.1.10 General Operations 32 3.2 Existing CWRF Treated Water Quality 32 3.3 Impact of Potential Future Feed Water Quality Changes 34 3.4 Discussion of Existing O&M Concerns 35 3.4.1 Filtration Reliability 35 GMF Train 35 Membrane Microfiltration/Reverse Osmosis Train 36 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION 3.4.2 Operational Flexibility 36 3.4.3 Stored Recycled Water Quality 37 3.5 Scenario Development 37 3.5.1 Filtration Flexibility/Reliability Improvements 37 3.5.2 Recycled Water Quality Improvements 39 3.6 Filtration Flexibility/Reliability Improvements Analysis 40 3.6.1 Develop Life-Cycle Costs 41 3.6.2 Develop Benefit to Cost Ratios 43 3.7 Stored Recycled Water Quality Improvement Analysis 43 3.7.1 Develop Cost Estimates 45 3.7.2 Develop Benefit to Cost Ratios 45 3.8 Recommendations 45 Selected Project Process Descriptions, Design Criteria, and Facilities Sizing 47 4.1 Summary ofthe Selected Project 47 4.2 Existing Membrane Microfiltration Filtration Feed Pump Station Expansion 48 4.3 New Membrane Filtration System 48 4.4 Existing Chlorine Contact Basin Expansion 49 4.5 Existing Granular Media Filters Feed Static Mixer Upgrades 49 4.6 Miscellaneous Upgrades 50 Discipline Basis of Design 51 5.1 Structural Basis of Design 51 5.1.1 General 51 Membrane Filtration Feed Pump Station Expansion 51 New Membrane Filtration System 51 Existing Chlorine Contact Basin Expansion 51 5.1.2 Codes and Standards 52 Concrete 52 Steel 52 Masonry 52 Aluminum 52 5.1.3 General Structural Design Criteria 52 Design Loads 52 5.1.4 Materials and Design Approach 53 Concrete Design 53 Structural Steel Design 54 Masonry Design 54 Aluminum Design 54 5.1.5 Inspection Requirements 54 5.2 Electrical Basis of Design 55 5.2.1 Design Approach 55 Utility Power Service 55 Standby Power Distribution System 55 Telephone and Personnel Computing Network 55 Security System and Facility Access Control 55 5.2.2 Codes, Regulations, Standards, and References 55 5.2.3 Hazardous Area Definition 56 5.2.4 Design Criteria 56 Distribution Equipment 56 Listed and Labeled Equipment 56 Raceway Systems 57 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Lighting 57 5.2.5 Assumptions and Open Items 57 5.2.6 Preliminary Electrical Loads 57 5.3 Instrumentation and Controls Basis of Design 58 5.3.1 Codes and Standards 58 5.3.2 Field Instruments 58 5.3.3 Plant Supervisory Control System 59 Plant Supervisory PLC Panel 59 Plant Supervisory Human Machine Interface 60 5.3.4 Membrane Filtration Packaged Control System 60 Existing MMF Control System 60 New MMF Control System 60 MMF Feed Pump Control 60 5.4 Preliminary Design Documents 61 6. Selected Project Cost Estimate 62 7. Works Cited 64 Appendix A Preliminary Ust of Specifications Appendix B Preliminary Design Drawings Figures Figure 2-1 EWPCF Secondary Effluent (CWRF Feed) Turbidity Values (Data Cover Periods between 10/13/2011 and 10/29/2013) 2 Figure 2-2 EWPCF Secondary Effluent Particle Size Distribution (Sampling I Collected on November 18, 2013) 2 Figure 2-3 EWPCF Secondary Effluent Particle Size Distribution (Sampling II Collected on December 11, 2013) 3 Figure 2-4 2012 Monthly Average Influent Flows 6 Figure 2-5 Andritz Filters used at the CWRF 9 Figure 2-6 AquaDisk Components (Courtesy of Aqua-Aerobic Systems Inc.) 11 Figure 2-7 Hydrotech CMDF 12 Figure 2-8 Process Schematic of a Typical Pressurized MMF/UF System and Example of an MMF Skid 13 Figure 2-9 Fuzzy Filter Operation Schematic 14 Figure 2-10 AMFs for Tertiary Treatment 15 Figure 2-11 Operating Principles of Ultrascreen® and Media Material 16 Figure 2-12 Benefit Scores for the Evaluated Filtration Alternatives 18 Figure 3-1 Continuous CWRF GMF Feed Turbidity Concentrations 4 Figure 3-2 Daily CWRF GMF Feed and Recycled Water Effluent Turbidity Measurements 5 Figure 3-3 Daily CWRF Influent vs. Effluent Turbidity Concentrations 6 Figure 3-4 Benefit Scores for the Filtration Flexibility/Reliability Improvement Scenarios 12 Figure 3-5 Benefit Scores for the Stored Recycled Water Quality Improvement Scenarios 16 Tables Table E-1: CWRF Phase III expansion - Selected Project Elements E-2 Table 2-1: EWPCF Secondary Effluent (CWRF Feed) Water Quality 3 Table 2-2: Turbidity, TSS and Particle Counts for Sampling I and II (Analysis Conducted by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.) 5 Table 2-3: Filterability Testing Results (Analysis Conducted by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.) 6 Table 2-4: Filterability Testing Results with Chemical Preconditioning (Analysis Conducted by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.) 7 Table 2-5: Water Quality Requirement for Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water 9 Table 2-6: Master Reclamation Permit Discharge Specifications 9 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Table 2-7: Evaluation Criteria, Criteria Description and Assigned Weighing Factors 18 Table 2-8: Design Basis for the Filtration Alternatives 22 Table 2-9: Electricity Unit Cost and Chemical Unit Costs 23 Table 2-10: Cost Estimate Summary for the Filtration Alternatives 24 Table 2-11: B/C Ratios for the Short-Listed Filtration Alternatives 24 Table 2-12: Sensitivity Analysis Results 26 Table 3-1: Evaluation Criteria, Criteria Description, and Assigned Weighing Factors: Filtration Flexibility/ Reliability Improvements Analysis 40 Table 3-2: Electricity Unit Cost and Chemical Unit Costs 42 Table 3-3: Cost Estimate Summary for the Filtration Flexibility/Reliability Improvement Scenarios 42 Table 3-4: B/C Ratios for the Filtration Flexibility/Reliability Improvement Analysis 43 Table 3-5: Evaluation Criteria, Criteria Description, and Assigned Weighing Factors: Stored Recycled Water Quality Improvements Analysis 44 Table 3-6: Cost Estimate Summary forthe Stored Recycled Water Quality Improvement Scenarios 45 Table 3-7: B/C Ratios for the Stored Recycled Water Quality Improvement Analysis 45 Table 4-1: MMF Feed Pump Station Expansion Design Criteria and Equipment Capacity 48 Table 4-2: New MMF System Design Criteria and Equipment Sizing 49 Table 4-3: New MMF System Design Criteria and Equipment Sizing 49 Table 4-4: New GMF Static Mixer Design Criteria and Equipment Sizing 50 Table 5-1: Concrete Cover Summary 53 Table 5-2: Structural Steel Materials Recommended Summary 54 Table 5-3: Aluminum Materials Summary 54 Table 5-4: Electrical Load Summary PDP-1 57 Table 6-1: Construction Cost Estimate Summary 63 Abbreviations and Acronyms ll micron AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering AAF annual average flow AAL annual average load AC or ac alternating current ACI American Concrete Institute Al analog input AISC American Institute of Steel Construction AMF Amiad's microfiber filter amp amperes ANSI American National Standards Association AO analog output ASCE American Society of Civii Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATS automatic transfer switch AWG American Wire Gauge AWS American Welding Society B/C benefit to cost BOD biochemical oxygen demand CBC California Building Code CCB chlorine contact basin CDPH California Department of Public Health CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIP clean in place CMDF cloth media disk filtration (filter) CMU concrete masonry unit CMWD Carlsbad Municipal Water District CPES Cost Parametric Estimating System CPS combined pump station CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board CT concentration times time CWRF Carlsbad Water Reclamation Facility DC or dc direct current DI digital input DO digital output EWA Encina Wastewater Authority EWPCF Encina Water Pollution Control Facility fps feet per second ABBREVIATIONS PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION gfd gallon per square foot per day GMF granular media filtration gpm gallon per minute gpm/ft^ gallons per minute per square feet HMI Human Machine Interface hp horsepower Hz hertz l&C Instrumentation and Control ICS Industrial Control and Systems IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers lES Illuminating Engineering Society I/O input/output ISA International Society of Automation kVA kilovolt-ampere(s) kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt hour LCC life-cycle cost LCP Local Control Panel LED light-emitting diode MCA multi criteria analysis MG million gallons mg/L milligram per liter MGD million gallon(s) per day MMF membrane microfiltration MMF/UF membrane microfiltration/ultra filtration MMF/RO membrane microfiltration/reverse osmosis mph miles per hour MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids MPN most probable number MWRF Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility NEC National Electrical Code NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association NFPA National Fire Protection Association NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPT National Pipe Thread NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit O&M operations and maintenance P&ID Process and Instrumentation Diagram PLC programmable logic controller PP polypropylene ABBREVIATIONS • Psf pound(s) per square foot psi pound(s) per square inch PVC polyvinyl chloride PVDF polyvinyldenefluoride RGS rigid galvanized steel RO reverse osmosis RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board RWST recycled water storage tank SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric SDI silt density index SRT solids retention time SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDH total dynamic head TDS total dissolved solids TMP trans membrane pressure TSS total suspended solids UL Underwriters Laboratory V volts VFD variable frequency drive VPN Virtual Private Network VWD Vallecitos Water District WWTP wastewater treatment plant PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION I 1 Executive Summary Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) is in the process of implementing the Phase III Recycled Water Project, which involves an expansion of the current recycled water system to serve new customers. The Phase III Recycled Water Project Feasibility Study (Carollo, June 2012) evaluated alternatives for the expansion and recommended the expansion ofthe Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) to provide additional non-potable recycled water to meet Phase III demand projections. The CWRF is currently designed to treat secondary effluent from the adjacent Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) and produce up to 4.0 MGD of disinfected tertiary recycled water that meets Title 22 of the California Administrative Code for "unrestricted non-potable reuse". The CWRF is owned by CMWD and operated under contract by the Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA). CMWD requested assistance from CH2M HILL to perform the preliminary design for a 3.0 MGD expansion ofthe CWRF to deliver additional disinfected tertiary recycled water to existing and new customers within CMWD's service area. This Preliminary Design Report (PDR) is intended to achieve the following objectives: • Provide a project introduction (Section 1). • Evaluate and select the filtration treatment approach for the CWRF expansion (Section 2). • Evaluate and recommend operational improvements to the existing CWRF that can be incorporated into the project (Section 3). • Define the selected project and provide preliminary sizing and design criteria (Section 4). • Define the discipline basis of design for completing the selected project (Section 5). • Present the preliminary construction cost estimate for the selected project (Section 6). • This PDR will serve as the basis of design for implementation of the CWRF Phase III Expansion project (Project No. 5209). The existing CWRF currently utilizes granular media filtration (GMF) and membrane microfiltration (MMF) for filtration of secondary effluent at CWRF to comply with Title 22 of the California Administrative Code for "unrestricted non-potable reuse." As described in detail in Section 2 ofthis PDR, many filtration treatment technologies were evaluated and considered for the CWRF Phase III expansion project. Based on the evaluation, the preferred treatment technology for the 3.0 MGD expansion is MMF. This selection was based upon focused characterization of the CWRF feed water quality and filterability, treated water quality requirements, quality and characteristics of alternative technologies, and the overall benefit-to-cost score. MMF provides a high degree of operational reliability, compatibility with EWPCF secondary effluent, suitability for future regulations, and ease of O&M. MMF is relatively easy to operate and is very flexible, particularly when used in conjunction with GMF, and would allow operators to develop protocols for a variety of scenarios such as secondary treatment upsets, demand fluctuations and future changes to secondary effluent water quality. An Operations and Maintenance Improvements Evaluation of the existing CWRF was conducted by CH2M HILL to evaluate alternatives for increasing filtration reliability, operational flexibility and improving stored recycled water quality. As described in Section 3, the O&M evaluation included the development of alternative scenarios and an evaluation of those scenarios on the basis of benefit-to-cost ratio, and generally found that modest capital improvements to the existing CWRF would be most appropriate to accomplish the desired filtration reliability and operational flexibility. Elements ofthe selected CWRF Phase III Expansion project, as described in detail in Section 4, are summarized on Table E-1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION TABLE E-1: CWRF PHASE III EXPANSION - SELECTED PROJECT ELEMENTS ^ Supply and installation of three new 25 horsepower MMF feed pumps to convey secondary effluent to the new MMF treatment train. 2 Supply, installation and construction associated with the new MMF treatment train consisting of three pressurized MMF units producing a combined minimum 3.0 MGD of additional filtrate design flow. 3 Construction of the chlorine contact basin (CCB) expansion to provide disinfection of the additional design filtrate flows. 4 Construction of a 24-inch diameter pipeline with valve control and connections to discharge effluent recycled water from the CCB to the east recycled water storage basin. 6 Construction of a 24-inch diameter pipeline with valve control and connections to drain CCB effluent back to the EWPCF prior to discharging into the recycled water storage basin. Supply and replacement of the existing 36-inch diameter static mixer for the GMF feed with a 16-inch diameter static mixer prior to discharge. 7 Supply and installation of a new alum metering pump to increase the alum feed concentration to a minimum 60 mg/L 8 Implement process control and logic modifications via Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) integration to improve automation ofthe treatment processes and chemical addition. g Accommodate operational changes to startup and operations protocols as well as reinstltutlon of chemical conditioning for the GMF feed based on secondary effluent turbidity data. In addition, the project will implement other appurtenant work to complete the above project elements including survey, civil, architectural, structural, geotechnical, mechanical, electrical, instrumentation and control, SCADA, and other engineering. A modification to the current Master Reclamation Permit with Waste Discharge Requirements (Discharge Order No. 2001-352 and Discharge Order No. R9-2012-0027) will be required to increase the discharge capacity ofthe CWRF with the proposed project. Since the proposed project does not include treatment for iron concentrations, CMWD is planning to request an increase to the iron discharge limit since their current influent levels exceed the discharge limit of 0.3 mg/L. For operational flexibility to achieve the turbidity discharge limitations, the modified permit should maintain the existing point of compliance at the effluent channel of the CCB after blending of the GMF and MMF process trains. CH2M HILL'S opinion of probable construction cost for the selected project is $8,243,544. The estimate is considered accurate to -I-20 percent to -15 percent, based on the preliminary design, with a resulting cost estimate range of $7,007,012 to $9,892,253. This cost estimate includes assumptions of contractor markups, overhead and profit, contingency, schedule, escalation, and construction means and methods for completing the work. This cost estimate does not include project soft costs such as CMWD administration, design and construction management. It should be noted that this cost estimate is based on the preliminary design and will be subject to change during the final design development and SCADA integration definition. ) T 1. Project Introduction 1.1 Background and Objectives Constructed in 2005, the Carlsbad Water Reclamation Facility (CWRF) is currently designed to treat secondary clarified effluent from the adjacent 40 million gallons per day (MGD) Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) and produce up to 4.0 MGD of disinfected tertiary recycled water that meets Title 22 of the California Administrative Code for "unrestricted non-potable reuse". The CWRF is owned by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), a subsidiary district to the City of Carlsbad. Operation and maintenance of the CWRF is contracted to the Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA). CMWD is planning the Phase III Recycled Water Project, which includes a 3.0 MGD expansion of the CWRF to deliver additional disinfected tertiary recycled water to existing and new customers within CMWD's service area. This Preliminary Design Report (PDR) is intended to achieve the following objectives: • Evaluate and select the filtration treatment approach for the CWRF expansion (Section 2). • Evaluate and recommend operational improvements to the existing CWRF that can be incorporated into the project (Section 3). • Define the selected project (Section 4). • Define the design criteria for completing the selected project (Section 5). • Present the preliminary construction cost estimate for the selected project (Section 6). This PDR incorporates previous studies and references presented in Section 7 and will serve as the basis of design for implementation ofthe CWRF Phase III Expansion project. 1.2 Existing CWRF Description The CWRF is generally utilized as a peaking plant to produce recycled water when demands exceed the amount of recycled water that can be supplied from the Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF), which is owned and operated by Vallecitos Water District (VWD). Under the 2003 agreement between CMWD and VWD, CMWD can purchase up to 2 MGD of recycled water during the winter months and 3 MGD during the summer months. Over the last few years prior to the 2013/2014 winter, the CWRF had not operated during the months of December, January and February due to insufficient recycled water demand. Typically, the CWRF starts operating in February or March as recycled water demand increases and stops operating in November or December as demand decreases. The EWPCF effluent pump station (also called the Combined Pump Station or CPS) currently pumps the secondary treated effluent to two parallel treatment trains at the CWRF. One treatment train includes granular media filtration (GMF) with a filtrate production capacity of approximately 3.7 MGD; the other treatment train uses membrane microfiltration (MMF) and reverse osmosis (RO) with a design production capacity of approximately 0.7 MGD. The treated water from these two process trains is blended and disinfected in a chlorine contact basin (CCB) using sodium hypochlorite prior to recycled water storage and distribution. CMWD attempts to maintain a 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) chlorine residual within the recycled water entering the distribution system. The existing MMF and RO train was designed to meet the TDS discharge specification when the TDS concentration ofthe secondary effluent exceeds 1,100 mg/L. According to the CMWD 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan Final Report (Carollo and CH2M HILL, 2012), an investigation had been conducted since the original CWRF construction to determine the source of the high TDS levels. This investigation identified a specific user discharging seawater into the sewer system. Once this discharge was discontinued, the TDS levels in EWPCF's secondary effluent were reduced. Based on the lowered TDS levels, it is assumed that the future expansions ofthe CWRF will not require additional MMF/RO capacity for TDS control. The plant operations indicated that the MMF system has been used under process upset conditions, when feed water to the GMF is high and the GMF train alone had difficulty to meet Title 22 turbidity requirement of 2 Nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) or less for turbidity compliance. PAGE 1 OF 76 PROJECT INTRODUCTION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION The original design forthe GMF train included alum and polymer injection before an inline static mixer. The static mixer is located approximately 520 feet upstream ofthe filtration process in the 36-inch pipeline, which was sized for ultimate plant capacity of 16 MGD. The length and diameter of the filter influent pipe downstream of the static mixer are sized to provide 10 minutes of flocculation time at design flow of 4 MGD. The CWRF operations staff indicated that the existing alum feed is plugged off and no chemicals are currently being added at the static mixer location for preconditioning ofthe GMF influent. The discharge permit requires chemical addition priorto similar filtration treatment technologies to meet the effluent turbidity requirements when feed turbidity exceeds 5 NTU for more than 15 minutes. It is our understanding that turbidity compliance is currently achieved by treating a portion of secondary effluent with the MMF and blending treated effluents from GMF and MMF. If turbidity is higher than regulations allow, the plant is currently turned off to avoid a turbidity exceedance. If the Phase III expansion was comprised of additional GMF trains, this method may not be effective to meet the turbidity regulations because a lower proportion of the total flow will be treated through MMF. The CWRF was also designed with flexibility to add sodium hypochlorite to the GMF and MMF feed to minimize biological growth in the filters. According to CWRF operations staff, the addition of sodium hypochlorite is currently introduced to the GMF feed either on a continuous basis at a low dosage (i.e. 1-2 mg/L) or an intermittent basis at a higher dosage (i.e. 10-20 mg/L). The GMFs are continuous backwash, upflow filters manufactured by Andritz. The GMF system is comprised of an influent feed channel, two filter cells with six filter modules each, and backwash equipment. The flow enters the filtration influent feed channel on the north end ofthe filter complex. Flow into each filter cell is through a GMF inlet feed isolation valve and pipeline that feeds each ofthe six modules. The GMFs are designed to backwash continually with flow entering the bottom ofthe filter module and moving upwards through the descending media. An air lift, located at the center ofthe module, continuously lifts solids and filter media to a wash chamber located near the filter surface. Solids are collected in the wash chamber and flow by gravity back to the EWPCF. The solids thickener is no longer used. Within each GMF module, the cleaned media falls to the top of the filter media, where it begins filtering while moving downward again. There is a dedicated air compressor and air receiver supply air for the air lifts. Filtered flow passes over an internal weir and combines with flows from other filter cells at a common junction box before conveyance to the CCB for disinfection. A Memcor submerged MMF system supplied by Siemens is currently used to treat a portion ofthe secondary effluent from the EWPCF. As mentioned before, while the main objective for implementing MMF at the CWRF was to provide pretreatment for RO to achieve TDS reduction, the MMF has been used in recent years for meeting turbidity requirements in recycled water. Priorto entering the MMF system, and as a pretreatment step, a small amount of sodium hypochlorite is added to the MMF feed to form chloramines to protect MMF and RO membranes against biological fouling. A 500 micron (p) strainer is also provided as part of MMF pretreatment. The MMF system used at the CWRF is an early version of the MMF that uses polypropylene (PP) membranes with 0.2 [I nominal pore size. Although PP membranes exhibit good resistance to a wide operating pH range (2-14), they are not oxidant (i.e. chlorine, ozone, etc.) tolerant. The PP membranes can tolerate limited exposure to chloramines in the feed water (up to 0.5 ppm in a continuous manner). Recently, more oxidant tolerant membranes, including PVDF, polysulfone, polyethersulfone, and a blend of polyethersulfone and polyvinylpyrrolidone, have been used in municipal applications. Because the recycled water TDS has been in compliance with the Title 22 requirements in recent years, the RO system expansion will not be considered as part ofthe facility expansion. However, MMF or ultrafiltration (UF) can be used as a standalone filtration technology and, therefore, will be included in this report during the filtration technology evaluation. Sodium hypochlorite based chlorine disinfection is used to disinfect filtered water at the CWRF. The disinfection system includes sodium hypochlorite storage and feed system, rapid mix basin, and a CCB. A rapid mix basin receives filtered effluent where sodium hypochlorite is added and mixed prior to the CCB. Flow from the rapid mix basin enters the CCB via an inlet channel. The CCB has three passes, each pass is 150 feet long, 10 feet wide and 10 feet deep, that provides a modal contact time of at least 90 minutes in accordance with Title 22 recycled water regulations. PAGE 2 OF 76 1 2. Filtration Treatment Alternatives Evaluation The objective of this section is to evaluate alternative filtration treatment technologies and to determine the most suitable approach forthe CWRF expansion. This section is organized as follows: CWRF Feed Water Quality and Filterability Assessment Filtration Plant Capacities Treated Water Quality Requirements Overview of the Filtration Technologies Short Listing the Treatment Technologies Further Technology Cost Estimates Recommendations 2.1 CWRF Feed Water Quality 2.1.1 EWCPF Secondary Effluent Quality The EWPCF is a conventional activated sludge plant that is designed and operated to meet its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for ocean discharge. Because the current NPDES discharge permit does not require ammonia removal (nitrification), the EWPCF is operated with a shorter solids retention time (SRT). While this short SRT operation (< 2-3 days) is effective for avoiding nitrification and reducing energy cost ofthe secondary treatment, it is a challenge for tertiary filtration. First, short SRT does not provide means to form strong settable or filterable floes. As a result, short SRT activated sludge plant effluents have usually higher turbidity and/or contain more fine particles than longer SRT plants. Second, long organic molecules, such as polysacharrides, carbohydrates, etc., are not completely biodegraded in short SRT facilities. Those compounds can foul the filters, increase backwash frequency and reduce productivity. Table 2-1 summarizes key water quality data for the EWPCF secondary effluent over the last 2 years. TABLE 2-1: EWPCF SECONDARY EFFLUENT (CWRF FEED) WATER QUALITY . ... . 50% Percentile „^„, „ Average Maximum Minimum ... .. , 95% Percentile (Median) Carbonaceous Five-day biochemical 8 24 3 8 14 oxygen demand (CB0D5), mg/L 8 24 8 14 Total suspended solids (TSS), mg/L 10.0 32 2.60 9.70 17.3 Turbidity, NTU, Laboratory 3.16 10.7 1.14 3.13 4.92 measurements 3.16 3.13 Turbidity, NTU, On line measurements^ 3.68 10.0 0.8 3.90 7.85 TDS, mg/L 878 1,034 736 876 1,003 pH N/A2 9.0 6.0 N/A2 N/A2 > Reflect the measurements between 1/27/2013 and 11/12/2013 (the total number of measurements was 1,425) N/A: not available Despite periodic turbidity (10.7 NTU) and TSS (32 mg/L) excursions in EWPCF secondary effluent, most of the measured turbidity values in the secondary effluent (95%) were less than 5 NTU with a median and average value of around 3.1 NTU as depicted in Figure 2-1. A well designed and properly operated deep bed GMF is expected to meet 2 NTU turbidity effluent requirements without need for MMF and with occasional chemical additions when turbidity values begin to exceed 2 NTU. However, CWRF operators indicated that MMF has been used more frequently to meet the Title 22 turbidity requirements in the blended effluent of GMF and MMF. WBG0728H162755SDO\DRAFT CWRF PDR REV7 PAGE 27 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION FIGURE 2-1 EWPCF Secondary Effluent (CWRF Feed) Turbidity Values (Data Cover Periods between 10/13/2011 and 10/29/2013) Two separate sampling campaigns were initiated on November 18, 2013 (Sampling I) and December 11, 2013 (Sampling II) to better characterize EWPCF secondary effluent quality in terms of particle size distribution, assess filterability, and develop key design criteria (filtration rate and chemical doses, as applicable). The aim for the two sampling campaigns was to collect and analyze samples to understand secondary effluent quality under typical and process upset conditions. Figures 2-2 and Figure 2-3 summarize the particle size distribution for Sampling I and Sampling II, respectively. Table 2-2 compares water quality analysis for Sampling I and Sampling II. FIGURE 2-2 EWPCF Secondary Effluent Particle Size Distribution (Sampling I Collected on November 18,2013) Sampling I Partide Size Distribution (Analysis Conducted by Aqua Aerobic Inc.) l2-4^ 15-20 ^ • 4-6^ 20-25 n • 6-10^ 25-30 ^ 110-15 H >30^ Sampling I Particle Size Distribution (Analysis Conducted by Biowir) 1-2^ 16-31 ^ • 2-4^ 31-63 |i • 4-8(1 63-128 n • 8-16^ According to Encina Wastewater Authority staff, the samples from Sampling II are typical of the EWPCF effluent water quality for which the GMF units struggle to meet Title 22 turbidity requirements. WBG07 2 81416 2 7 5 5 SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 4 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION FIGURE 2-3 EWPCF Secondary Effluent Particle Size Distribution (Sampling II Collected on December 11,2013) Sampling II Particle Size Distribution (Analysis Conducted by Aqua Aerobic) 2-4 ^ • 4-6 p K 6-10 ^ • 10-15 |i 15-20 ^ • 20-25 ^ 25-30 (i >30^ TABLE 2-2: TURBIDITY, TSS AND PARTICLE COUNTS FOR SAMPLING I AND II (ANALYSIS CONDUCTED BY AQUA-AEROBIC SYSTEMS, INC.) Unit Sampling 1 November 18,2013 Sampling II December 11,2013 Turbidity NTU 3.47 4.40 TSS mg/L 5.40 10.4 Particle Counts -~ 2-4 p Particle/100 mL 812,380 1,207,700 4-6 p Particle/100 mL 141,850 336,600 6-10 p Particle/100 mL 78,999 178.150 10-15 p Particle/100 mL 31,952 64,954 15-20 p Particle/100 mL 14,510 33,886 20-25 p Particle/100 mL 5,886 11,198 25-30 p Particle/100 mL 2,394 4,615 >30p Particle/100 mL 3,729 8,097 Data presented in Figures 2-1 and 2-2 and Table 2-2 clearly indicate that between 65 and 90 percent ofthe total particles are less than 4 |i in size and more than 90 percent of the particles are less than 6 n in size in the CWRF influent. Poor water quality of the CWRF influent is of great concern for selecting and designing future filtration facilities for the following reasons: 1. The small particles can pass through many types of traditional filter media. Therefore, without chemical addition to precondition the feed, some filters cannot reliably meet turbidity requirements of Title 22 unrestricted non-potable reuse. However, the efficacy of chemical addition needs to be verified. 2. Despite chemical use, certain filtration technologies (i.e. shallow bed traveling bridge filters) are not approved under Title 22 to meet the turbidity requirement of 2 NTU if influent turbidity exceeds 10 NTU. 3. Poor feed quality fouls filters, requires much more frequent cleanings, reduces filter run times while generating increased of backwash waste, and increasing chemical costs. Although membranes are an absolute barrier and produce solids free effluent independent ofthe feed water quality, such concerns are valid for designing and flux selection and operating MMF facilities. WBG072814I62755SDO\DRAFT CWRF PDR REV7 PAGE 5 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMIIMARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION 2.1.2 Filterability Assessment Filterability Testing Without Chemical Preconditioning A set of filterability testing was conducted by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. on samples collected on November 18, 2013 (Sampling I) and December 11, 2013 (Sampling II). The wastewater was passed through a hydrated 3.5 inches by 3.5 inches (0.08507 ft^) square of hydrated virgin OptiFiber PES-14 polyester pile (5 p nominal pore size) that was secured vertically in a tabletop filter apparatus. The hydraulic loading rate was set at 3.25 gallons per minute per square feet (gpm/ft^) (~1.05 L/min) throughout the filtration runs. No chemical pretreatment was provided. The resulting filtrate stream was collected as a profile of 10 to 15 consecutive 2-liter composites. A 500 mL fraction of each profile composite was transferred to a labeled and sample-rinsed plastic bottle for subsequent turbidity and TSS determinations. As the run was being concluded, the filtration apparatus's influent and filtrate chamber water levels were measured and recorded. The volumes used in the filtration runs were not large enough to assess the ripening impact of filter media on turbidity removal. It is expected that higher filtrate quality can be achieved once the filter medium has been properly ripened over the course of the filter runs. In order to simulate filter ripening conditions. Sampling II was conducted by filtering with the activated sludge samples provided from the EWPCF aeration basin. Ripening continued until a 6-inch headless had been reached, which reflects half of the maximum headless allowable (12- inches). The filtration testing results are summarized in Table 2-3. The results presented in Table 2-3 clearly indicate that, without chemical addition, tested cloth filters cannot reliably meet the turbidity objective of 2 NTU. It appears that ripening marginally improved the turbidity removal performance but not enough to produce filtrate with less than 2 NTU consistently. Although values of 2.49 NTU or less are considered to be complaint (Title 22 regulatory requirements do not include any significant numbers after 2), 2.0 NTU is targeted to account feed quality and filter performance variations to reliably meet the turbidity requirements. TABLE 2-3: FILTERABILITY TESTING RESULTS (ANALYSIS CONDUCTED BY AQUA-AEROBIC SYSTEMS. INC.) Number Sample Description Throughput, L Sampling 1 November 18,2013 Turbidity, NTU Sampling II December 11,2013 Turbidity, NTU 1 Influent (feed) 3.47 4.40 2 Filtrate 0-2 2.67 2.66 3 Filtrate 2-4 2.59 2.60 4 Filtrate 4-6 2.46 2.54 5 Filtrate 6-8 2.50 2.55 6 Filtrate 8-10 2.46 2.45 7 Filtrate 10-12 2.33 2.56 8 Filtrate 12-14 2.35 2.29 9 Filtrate 14-16 2.24 2.49 10 Filtrate 16-18 2.31 2.49 11 Filtrate 18-20 2.27 2.38 12 Filtrate 20-22 2.29 13 Filtrate 22-24 2.22 14 Filtrate 24-26 2.26 15 Filtrate 26-28 2.17 16 Filtrate 28-30 2.22 Filtrate Average Turbidity, NTU Average Turbidity Removal, % 2.36 32.0 2.50 43.2 WBG072814162r55SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 6 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Filterability Testing With Chemical Preconditioning A set of filterability testing with chemical preconditioning was also conducted by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. on the sample collected on December 11. This specific bench testing was intended to evaluate the filterability of cloth media disk filters, although the results are useful for other technologies as well. Alum and polymer were added to the wastewater in varying doses as presented in Table 2-4. Following rapid mix (2,000 rpm for 15 seconds) and flocculation (40 rpm for 4 minutes and 20 rpm for 4 minutes), the conditioned wastewater was passed through a hydrated 3.5 inches by 3.5 inches (0.08507 ft^) square of hydrated virgin PES-13 polyester pile (10 p nominal pore size) that was secured vertically in a tabletop filter apparatus. The hydraulic loading rate was set at 3.25 gpm/ft^ (~1.05 L/min) throughout the filtration runs. The resulting filtrate stream was collected as 2-liter composites. A 500-mL fraction of each profile composite was transferred to a labeled and sample-rinsed plastic bottle for subsequent turbidity and TSS determinations. As the run was being concluded, the filtration apparatus's influent and filtrate chamber water levels were measured and recorded. The filtration testing results with chemical preconditioning are summarized in Table 2-4. TABLE 2-4: FILTERABILITY TESTING RESULTS WITH CHEMICAL PRECONDITIONING (ANALYSIS CONDUCTED BY AQUA-AEROBIC Number Alum, mg/L Polymer, mg/L Polymer Used Polymer Charge Flash Mix, sec Flocculation, min Feed Turbidity, NTU Filtrate Turbidity, NTU 1 (Baseline) 0 0 4.40 2.57 2 50 1.25 A-210P Anionic 15 8 4.40 1.90 3 50 0.625 A-210P Anionic 15 8 4.40 3.23 4 50 1.25 N-6310 Nonionic 15 8 4.40 1.39 5 50 0.625 N-6310 Nonionic 15 8 4.40 1.52 6 50 1.25 A-6340 Anionic 15 8 4.40 2.20 7 50 0.625 A-6340 Anionic 15 8 4.40 2.56 Based on the results ofthis test, the addition of alum with non-ionic polymer appeared to be most effective for improving turbidity removal performance and meeting the turbidity objectives. Although the chemical doses and reaction times were not optimized during bench evaluation, it appears that a high alum^ dose (i.e. 50 mg/L) is needed for reliable turbidity compliance. Using a lower polymer dose is preferred to reduce operating cost and minimize filter blinding issues. More bench testing may be needed to further optimize the chemical usage and operating cost. 2.2 Recycled Water Flows and Filtration Plant Capacities In 2012, existing influent flows to the CWRF ranged from 1.0 MGD to 2.6 MGD, with the plant typically offline during winter month (December through February). Figure 2-4 presents the average monthly influent flows to the CWRF during 2012. ^ A quick assessment of 15 mg/L alum and 1.25 mg/L polymer did not produce large filterable floes WBGO/'28H162r55SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 7 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION FIGURE 2-4 2012 Monthly Average Influent Flows Jan-12 Feb-U Mar-U Apr-12 Miiv-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Novl2 Dtc-12 Based on CMWD's near-term recycled water demand projections, CMWD has determined that the CWRF Phase I Expansion project will need to provide a minimum of 3.0 MGD of additional disinfection tertiary recycled water. 2.3 Treated Water Quality Requirements Currently, there are no federal regulations that directly govern recycled water projects in the United States. The Phase III expansion requires coordination between the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to allocate the primary areas of responsibility and authority between these agencies on the use of recycled water. While SWRCB is responsible for implementing Title 17 and 22 ofthe California Code of Regulations (which establish the treatment levels required to achieve recycled water quality objectives, minimum requirements for process reliability, redundancy, and monitoring), the RWQCB is the primary state agencies charged with protection, coordination, and control of surface and groundwater quality. The RWQCB issues the final permit for water reclamation projects. The proposed tertiary filtration facility will produce up to 3.0 MGD additional disinfected tertiary recycled water for unrestricted irrigation and urban reuse. The SWRCB defines disinfected tertiary recycled water as "oxidized, filtered and subsequently disinfected wastewater" that meets the criteria presented in Table 2-5. WBG0728M162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 8 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE Ul EXPANSION TABLE 2-5: WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENT FOR DISINFECTED TERTIARY RECYCLED WATER Parameter Requirement Organic material Wastewater has to be properly oxidized under all conditions. " 'Oxidized wastewater* means wastewater in which the organic matter has been stabilized, is nonputrescible, and contains dissolved oxygen." All biological treatment unit processes shall be provided with reliability features such as "alarms and multiple biological treatment units capable of producing oxidized wastewater with one unit not in operation." Turbidity (if treated through natural undisturbed soils or a bed of filter; i.e. dual or mixed media, upflow or pressure filtration systems, traveling bridge automatic filters) Average of 2 NTU within 24-hour period 5 NTU not more than 5 percent of the time during 24-hour period Less than 10 NTU at ail times Turbidity (if treated through microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, or RO membranes) Average of 0.1 NTU within 24-hour period 0.2 NTU not more than 5 percent ofthe time during 24-hour period Less than 0.5 NTU at all times Disinfection A chlorine disinfection process following filtration that provides a CT (the product of total chlorine residual and modal CT measured at the same point) value of not less than 450 milligram-minutes per liter at all times with a modal CT of at least 90 minutes, based on peak dry weather design flow; or 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. Total coliform bacteria 2.2 MPN per 100 mL per sample, median reading not to exceed over any 7-day continuous period 23 MPN per 100 mL per sample, not to occur more than once within 30 days 240 MPN per 100 mL in any sample In addition to the parameters listed in Table 2-5, the CWRF should also satisfy groundwater water quality objectives in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan), according to the Master Reclamation Permit (Order No. 2001-352) with manganese modification (Order No. R9-2012-0027) issued by the RWQCB. Table 2-6 presents a summary of the current discharge specifications (or limitations) for CWRF effluent. TABLE 2-6: MASTER RECLAMATION PERMIT DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS Daily Maximum, mg/L 30-Day Average, mg/L 12-Month Running Average, mg/L Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 45 30 - Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 45 30 - Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 1,200 -1,100 Chloride 400 350 - Sulfate 400 -350 Boron 0.75 0.75 0.75 Iron --0.3 Manganese --0.1 Fluoride --1.0 Methylene Blue Active Substances (Surfactant) --0.5 WBG072814162755 SD0\DRAFT..^CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 9 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPOF^T FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION 2.4 Overview of the Filtration Technologies The main purpose for implementing filtration is to remove solids to meet the turbidity requirements presented in Table 2-5. The filtration technologies considered in this report are for turbidity removal and will have little or no capability to directly reduce most of the compounds listed in Table 2-6. For the purpose of this project, it is important to consider technologies that have been proven to provide treatment to meet the turbidity requirements outlined in Table 2-5. Other treatment technologies (i.e. green sand adsorption, RO, etc.) may be considered if further reduction of iron, manganese or other dissolved constituents presented in Table 2-6 are of interest. 2.4.1 Filtration Technologies A number of filtration technologies have received Title 22 approval to meet turbidity requirements defined in Table 2-5. The filtration technologies used in such recycled water applications may be categorized as follows: • Depth filtration • Surface filtration • Membrane filtration Depth Filtration Depth filtration is one ofthe most common methods used for filtration of effluents from treatment processes, especially in water reuse applications. The types of depth filters used most commonly for wastewater filtration include the following: Deep bed upflow continuous backwash filters (including the GMF system currently used at the CWRF) Conventional down flow filters (mono, dual, and multimedia) Deep bed downflow filters Shallow bed traveling bridge filters Shallow pulsed bed filters Headless buildup occurs as filtration takes place, and the system is backwashed one filter cell at a time. Filters that must be taken off-line periodically for backwash are classified as semi-continuous filters, whereas filters in which backwash and filtration operation occur simultaneously are classified as continuous filters. Filter influent is conditioned using chemicals such as alum and polymer. Deep bed Upflow Continuous Backwash Filters Deep bed (typically 40 inches or higher) upflow continuous backwash filters, such as DynaSand, Siemens Astrasand, Westech Technasand, and Andritz's Hydras, among others, require the chemically preconditioned wastewater to be introduced from the bottom of the filter where it flows upward through a series of riser tubes and is distributed evenly into the sand bed through the open bottom of an inlet distribution hood. The water flows upward through the downward-moving sand. Clean filtrate exits from the sand bed, overflows to a weir, and is discharged from the filter. Sand and trapped solids are drawn downward at the same elevation into the suction of an airlift pipe that is in the center of the filter. Compressed air is introduced to the bottom of the airlift to uplift sand and solids containing water. It is possible to get sand blow off in the effluent, which can affect downstream disinfection. The deep bed upflow continuous backwash filters used at the CWRF were approved at a filtration rate of up to 5 gpm/ft^ for recycled water applications in California. Deep bed upflow continuous backwash filter users include CWRF, Sausalito-Marin City Sanitary District, and City of Rialto. A picture ofthe deep bed upflow continuous backwash filter used at CWRF is presented in Figure 2-5. WBGO?28H162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV^ PAGE 10 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION FIGURE 2-5 Andritz Filters used at the CWRF Advantages of Deep Bed Upflow Continuous Backwash Filters: • Proven track record • Can store solids within the filter bed, which increases filter run length and reduces backwash waste • Compatible with pretreatment chemicals • Relatively easy to operate Disadvantages of Deep Bed Upflow Continuous Backwash Filters: • Typically higher capital costs compared to other depth filtration options • Usually tall structure and large footprint • Prone to solids and sand carry-over Most advantages and disadvantages stated for upflow continuous backwash filters above are applicable to other deep bed filtration options (i.e. conventional downflow filters and deep bed downflow filters) presented under this sub section. Conventional Downflow Filters Flow containing suspended matter is applied to the top ofthe filter bed. Single, dual, and multimedia filter materials can be used. Sand and/or anthracite are the most common types used for reuse applications. Headloss buildup occurs as filtration takes place, and system must be backwashed routinely one filter cell at a time. They are classified as semi-continuous filters. The conventional down flow filters received Title 22 approval with a filtration rate of up to 5 gpm/ft^ for recycled water applications in California. Examples ofthe installations include South Orange County Wastewater Agency Regional Plant I and Eastern Municipal Water District Temecula Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Deep bed Downflow Filters The deep bed filters are similar to conventional filters with the exception that the filter medium depth and the size of filtering medium are greater than those values in conventional filters. Because of greater depth and larger medium size, more solids can be stored within the filter bed and the filter run length can be extended. These filters are not generally fluidized completely during backwash, thereby requiring air scour plus water for effective cleaning. They are also semi-continuous and received Title 22 approval with a filtration rate of up to 5 gpm/ft^ for recycled water applications in California WBG0728I4162755SD0\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 11 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Shallow Bed Traveling Bridge Filters Traveling bridge automatic backwash filters (ABF) are shallow bed (11 inches) continuous downflow, automatic backwash, low-head, and granular medium-depth filters. The filter bed is divided horizontally into long independent cells that treat the wastewater as it flows through them by gravity. A traveling bridge assembly is used to backwash each cell individually while other cells remain in service. Water used for backwashing is pumped directly from a clearwell plenum up through the medium and deposited in a backwash trough. Since backwashing is performed on an as-needed basis, the backwash cycle is termed semi-continuous. Title 22 approval limits the loading rate to 2 gpm/ft^ and the influent turbidity to a maximum of 10 NTU. Examples of users of these applications include Sacramento County, Sepulveda Water Reclamation, Folsom WWTP, and Inland Empire Utility Agency Carbon Canyon WRP. Shallow Bed Pulsed Filters They are the derivatives of sand filters that use a shallow bed (10 to 12 inches). They are operated with a pulsing bed where pulses occur at least every 6 minutes, and no more than 25 pulses per filter run are maintained in Title 22 applications. Title 22 approval limits the loading rate to 2 gpm/ft^ and the influent turbidity to a maximum of 10 NTU. Title 22 applications include San Luis Obispo, San Clemente, Rancho Murrieta, Fallbrook, and others. Advantages of Shallow Bed Filters (Include Traveling Bridge and Pulsed Filters): • Low energy requirement due to low head losses • Well established operating experience • Typically generates less backwash waste than deep bed media filtration options Disadvantages of Shallow Bed Filters (Include Traveling Bridge and Pulsed Filters): • They are not approved for high feed turbidity applications (>10 NTU) • Relatively large footprint due to low filtration rates (2 gpm/ft^) Surface Filtration Surface filtration involves the removal of suspended materials by mechanical sieving by passing the liquid through a thin septum. Filter materials include cloth fabrics, woven metal fabrics, and a variety of synthetic materials. The two common types of surface filtration systems used in water reuse applications with the Title 22 approval are the fixed cloth media and cloth media disk filters, and non-cloth disk filters (i.e. stainless steel media). Fixed Cloth Media and Cloth Media Disk Filters The cloth media filters utilize nylon, acrylic, and polyester pile fabric to remove suspended materials from the water. The system is typically arranged as vertical disks (i.e. AquaDisk from Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc., Hydrotech from Kruger, Forty X from Siemens, etc.) or the fixed cloth media (AquaDiamand from Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.) in concrete or fabricated steel or stainless steel tanks. Cloth media disk filters (CMDFs) are commonly used cloth filters that are available from multiple suppliers (i.e. Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc., Kruger, Siemens, Alfa Laval Ashbrook Simon Hartley, and Five Star Filtration). They can be designed based on outside-in or inside-out flow configurations. Outside-ln CMDF In outside-in CMDFs, disk filters are fully submerged in a tank and designed to backwash automatically based upon water differential while maintaining continuous filtration during backwash. Disks are mounted vertically to a common center tube, which conveys filtered effluent from the tank. This vertical media orientation allows for a large amount of filter area in a very small footprint (up to 75 percent less than typical filters). The pressure loss across the membrane increases as more particles are accumulated and a mat is formed on the surface ofthe filter media. The backwash operation is started when the terminal headloss (usually 12 inches of water) or a certain run time is reached. Accumulated particles are removed from the surface ofthe cloth filter media by liquid suction applied to each side of the disk. A backwash vacuum shoe or pipe is mounted on each side of the filter disk to collect the accumulated solids on the media surface. Filtration occurs through the remainder of the filter disk, resulting in continuous filtration operation. Filtered water is used for backwash. Therefore, a separate clean water tank is not required as part of the backwash system. Large particles that have settled in the WBGO?28I4162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 12 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION filter basin are removed through sludge assembly piping connected to the backwash pumps. Typical backwash is less than 3 to 4 percent (although this can be significantly higher depending upon feed water quality and usually increases during high solids loading), with a typical recovery time of less than 3 minutes. AquaDisk (supplied by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.), Iso Disc (supplied by Alfa Laval Ashbrook Simon Hartley), and Five Star Cloth Disk Filters (supplied by Five Star Filtration LLC) are the approved outside-in CMDFs. Figure 2-6 shows AquaDisk Cloth Media components. FIGURE 2-6 AquaDisk Components (Courtesy of Aqua-Aerobic Systems Inc.) AquaDisk® Components Overflow Weir Influent.Weir Disk Influent Backwash Waste Solids Collection Maniforld Drive Motor Effluent Weir Backwash Assembly Backwash/Solids Pump Media openings are 5 and 10 [i. The Title 22-approved maximum filtration rates for outside-in CMDFs vary between 6 and 15 gpm/ft^. The Title 22 applications include City of Los Angeles Tillman WRP, San Jacinto Valley RWRF, Temecula Valley Regional WRF, Santa Margarita Water District Chiquita WWTP, and El Toro Water Recycling Plant (under construction). Inside-out CMDFs With inside-out CMDFs, water enters a feed tank by gravity into a central drum supporting vertically mounted discs with filter cloth on each side. During filtration, particles are retained on the inner side of the filter panels and water flow through the filter is impeded. The resulting filtrate is collected into a filtrate header where it flows to final discharge over an overflow weir in the effluent channel. As solids accumulate in the cloth media, resistance to flow or headloss increases. When the headloss through the cloth media reaches a predetermined set value, the disks are backwashed. When the backwash is initiated, a preset timer controls the rotation of the disk through the backwash spray enough so that the submerged filter panels are sufficiently cleaned. Solids are backwashed into a collection trough as the disks rotate. Filtration is continuous and not stopped during backwashing. Inside-out filters are partially submerged in water. Submergence may vary among the suppliers but is typically around 65 percent. The leading inside-out CMF suppliers are Siemens (supplier of Forty X Cloth Media Disk Filter), Kruger (supplier ofthe Hydrotech Cloth Media Disk Filter), and Nordic Water (supplier of DynaDisc). Single frame of Hydrotech CMDF is presented in Figure 2-7. WBG07 2 814162755 SDO \DRAFT_C WRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 13 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION FIGURE 2-7 Hydrotech CMDF All three suppliers have received Title 22 approval, which limits the filtration rate to a maximum of 6 gpm/ft^. Media openings are around 10 pi. Advantages of Surface Filtration (Fixed Cloth Media and Cloth Media Disk Filters): • Established track record • Easy to operate and maintain • Continuous operation during backwash • Very low energy requirement • Low backwash waste generation (typically around 3-4 percent) Disadvantages of Surface Filtration (Fixed Cloth Media and Cloth Media Disk Filters): • Limited solids storage within the bed compared to granular media filtration • Difficult to meet 2 NTU turbidity requirements without chemical preconditioning under poor feed water quality conditions • The pretreatment may improve filterability but may have adverse impact on filtration performance (media blinding occurs even at low polymer dosages >1 mg/L) Membrane Filtration MMF and ultra filtration (UF) are pressure-driven separation processes that employ hollow-fiber polymeric membranes to block the passage of solids (i.e. turbidity, suspended solids) and pathogenic microorganisms, including bacteria and protozoa. While MMF pore sizes range from about 0.1 to 0.2 \i (nominally 0.1 n), UF pore sizes range from 0.01 to 0.05 ^l (nominally 0.01 Despite the pore size differences, both systems produce virtually solids-free effluent with a turbidity typically less than 0.1 NTU without chemical addition for particle coagulation. Both MMF and UF can be configured as both pressurized (encased) or submerged systems. MMF and UF systems are also classified based on flow pathway (outside-in versus inside-out). For high solids feed water applications (i.e. reuse application), outside-in MMF/UF systems generally perform better than inside-out configurations. In both types of systems, membrane fibers are bundled in groups of several thousand and potted in a resin on both ends to form a module, with tens to hundreds of modules coupled together to form a system. In pressurized type membranes, the modules are housed in a pressure vessel or the vessel is integral to the module. Feed water is pressurized and applied to the feed side ofthe membranes in the module. Typical operating pressures range from 3 to 40 pounds per square inch (psi), depending on membrane technology and specific product operating conditions. WBG072814I62755SDO\DRAFT CWRF PDR REV7 PAGE 14 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION AIR SCOUR SYSTEM MMF/UF systems are designed to filter small suspended solids and particles. Larger-size suspended solids, if allowed to enter the fiber bundle, can cause fiber damage (including breakage) and accumulate, leading to a buildup of solids. As a result, MMF/UF systems employ self-cleaning strainers with a screen size of 500 ^I or less to prevent entry of larger particulates into the membrane modules. As constituents accumulate on the membranes, modules need to be backwashed or cleaned chemically to prevent membrane fouling. Figure 2-8 is a process schematic of a typical pressurized MMF/UF system and example of a microfiltration skid. FIGURE 2-8 Process Schematic of a Typical Pressurized MMF/UF System and Example of an MMF Skid PRESSURIZED MtVBRASERACk FILTRATE C«MCALS CHEMICAL WASH' CP SYSTEM When coupled with a TDS removal technology (i.e. nanofiltration or RO), MMF provides the adequate pretreatment and satisfies turbidity and silt density index (SDI) requirements for a sustainable RO operation (RO membrane manufacturers require feed turbidity and SDI values to be less than 1 and 5 NTU, respectively, while the goal is less than 0.2 and 3 NTU, respectively, for sustainable RO system performance). Other membrane material such as ceramic membranes, and flat sheet and tubular configurations are able to meet Title 22 turbidity requirements. Because membranes are proprietary, the design filtration (flux), backwash, and chemical cleaning regimes may vary among suppliers. For small reuse applications (i.e. less than 5 MGD), pressurized hollow fiber membranes are the most cost-effective membrane technology (CH2M HILL, 2007). Title 22 MMF/UF full-scale installation examples include Ground Water Replenishment System at Orange County Water District, Water Replenishment District's Leo Vander Lans Advanced Water Treatment Facility, City of Oxnard Advanced Water Purification Facility, Lake Arrowhead Water Reclamation Facility, and Edward Little Advanced Treatment Facility at West Basin Municipal District. Advantages of Membrane Filtration: • Produces superior water quality with very low solids (i.e. turbidity less than 0.1 NTU), which can be directly fed into the RO without additional pretreatment • Meets water quality objectives independent of feed water quality and without requiring chemical pretreatment • Offers proven technology • Provides fully automated, relatively easy to operate technology • Reduces chlorine dose for chlorine disinfection Disadvantages of Membrane Filtration: • Requires high capital and O&M costs • Generates higher backwash volumes than many other filtration options (i.e. CMDF, shallow bed filters) • Requires more chemicals to store at the site WBGO 72814162755 SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE IS OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Other Filtration Technologies Compressible Medium Filters (Fuzzy Filters) Compressible medium filter technology, a relatively new filtration technology, has unique properties. It involves use of a synthetic compressible fiber (polyvaniladene) and porous material as the filtering medium instead of conventional granular material (Caliskaner and Tchobanoglous, 2006). The media properties can be changed, by varying media compression, to meet the filtration requirements of different feed characteristics. Therefore, the filtration rates can be much higher than those for conventional filters. A general schematic ofthe fuzzy filter system during both the filtration and wash cycles is shown in Figure 2-9. FIGURE 2-9 Fuzzy Filter Operation Schematic Motorized Retainer Plate Positionef Htter Influent Filter Media Raised Retainer Plate N FIter Blluent Medio Retainer Plates wash IP Cycle.^-J5-^ Waste HHef Influent FiHration Wash Cycle Airfor Wasti Cycle During filtration, the feed enters the bottom of the filter and travels upward through the media bed. The media consists of porous, compressible, synthetic-fiber balls that are 30 millimeters (mm), 1.25 inches, in diameter. Media depth is typically 30 inches but higher depths can be selected depending on applications. The media bed is supported on the bottom by a fixed retainer plate located above an influent plenum. On the top ofthe filter, the media bed is contained by a movable retainer plate. Both retainer plates have uniformly distributed holes to promote equal distribution of flow. The position of the top retainer plate can be changed by a motor and threaded shaft mounted to the top of the filter. By adjusting the position of the upper plate, the bed compression can be varied, depending on performance requirements. The fuzzy filters received Title 22 approval at filtration rates of up to 30 gpm/ft^ and at 30 inches uncompressed media depth and media effective size of 1.25 inches and uniformity coefficient of 1.50. There are few installations of fuzzy filters across the U.S., and only one installation in California (City of Yountville). Advantages of Fuzzy Filters: • Compact footprint due to higher filtration rates • Media depth and porosity are adjustable to potentially meet stringent water quality requirements Disadvantages of Fuzzy Filters: • Relatively new (no established track record on filter performance, chemical usage, backwash generation) • O&M costs are not established • Requires skilled operation Amiad's Microfiber Filtration Amiad's microfiber filtration (AMF) also known as thread filtration consists of self-cleaning microfiber cassettes for the treatment of wastewaters containing as fine as 2 p particles. Depending on the filter pore size selected, it may produce cartridge filter performance without cartridge filter replacement. The AMF filters support flow rates WBG072 814162755 SD0\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 16 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION of up to 1,410 US gpm (approximately 2 MGD) with filter pose sizes of 2 to 20 \x. Figure 2-10 shows AMFs used in tertiary treatment applications. FIGURE 2-10 AMFs for Tertiary Treatment The AMFs remove solid particles as water flows through multi-layered microfiber cassettes. Particles that accumulate on and within the microfiber layers create a pressure differential. At a preset pressure differential value or time interval, the control unit activates the self-cleaning cycle. Title 22 conditional acceptance is limited to 20 \i pore size and filtration rate of up to 2.1 gpm/ft^. There is no known installation of this technology in California. Advantages of AMFs: • Modular, easy to construct • Easy to operate Disadvantages of AMFs: • Relatively new (no established track record on process performance and longevity of the filter media) • O&M costs are not established • Currently only 20 p has received Title 22 approval. This pore size is not suitable for filtering particles consist mainly of 4 p or less Ultrascreen Mesh Filters This technology is listed under other filtration technologies (CDPH, 2013). The Ultrascreen mesh filter provided by Nova Water Technologies may also be categorized under surface filtration technologies. The Ultrascreen is an inside-out system that consists of continuously rotating disk filters made of AISI 316 stainless-steel micronic screen mesh. The stainless-steel weave allows the Ultrascreen to handle higher hydrostatic heads, which translates to more efficient use ofthe total available filtering surface, potentially decreasing the overall footprint. The influent flows into the filter between each pair of disks, and then passes through the media. The filtered water freefalls into a collection well and exits through the outlet pipe. The wet edge of each disk is sealed to form a positive barrier to prevent the filtered effluent from mixing with the feed. The flow through the media occurs at an acute angle, less than 90 degrees (tangential filtration). Due to the rotation of the disk and the dynamic tangential filtration, the manufacturer claims that particles smaller than 10 p can be removed with the 20-p nominal-size mesh screen. When the influent level in the feed box rises to a preset limit, a sensor actuates operation of the backwash system, with no interruption to the filtration process. Each disk has a dedicated spray header for efficient washing. The backwash waste from each set of disks is collected in a WBGO 72814162755 SDO \DRAFT_CW«F_PDR_REV7 PAGE 17 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION common 304 or 316 stainless-steel trough, and then exits the filter through a stainless-steel drain and returns to the head of the plant or to the biological process. As in other inside-out disk filters, the disks are partially submerged in the water. Typically, 1 to 2 percent of the filter influent flow is being rejected. Figure 2-11 shows operating principles of Ultrascreen and media material. FIGURE 2-11 Operating Principles of Ultrascreen® and Media Material Disk rotation Water \e\tl shown IS the t-atet \evel inside the disk filter Demonstration studies have indicated that the Ultrascreen® can produce an effluent with a turbidity of less than 2 NTU while operating at a filtration rate of up to 16 gpm/ft^ more than twice the hydraulic loading rate at which other commercially available technologies operate (Burgeous et.al., 2009). Despite the advantage of operating these filters at high filtration rates, the performance of these filters is very questionable for filtering secondary effluent with more than 90 percent particles are much less than the openings of the filters. 2.5 Treatment Technology Screening CH2M HILL'S proprietary software, SMART, uses a multi criteria analysis (MCA) methodology to develop clear and defensible benefit scores for each candidate treatment technology. CH2M HILL developed candidate criteria, and then submitted these criteria to CMWD for review, comments, and endorsement. Table 2-7 summarizes the resulting evaluation criteria, its description, and the assigned weights resulting from this collaborative process for the filtration technology options. TABLE 2-7: EVALUATION CRITERIA. CRITERIA DESCRIPTION AND ASSIGNED WEIGHING FACTORS Criteria Description Weighting Factor Reliable and consistent operation Operating experience Compatibility for treating EWPCF secondary effluent Ease of operation and maintenance TDS impact on recycled water Constructability (ease of incorporating into the existing facility) Suitability for seasonal and intermittent operation Ease of expansion Ability of the alternative to reliably treat wastewater regardless of influent wastewater quality conditions The extent of successful full-scale operations Ability of the alternative to treat secondary effluent from EWPCP without detailed pilot testing and excessive process optimization Relative degree of ease and extent of time required to operate and maintain the treatment facilities Relative contribution ofthis technology on recycled water TDS concentration as a result of chemical addition Degree of design and construction necessary to integrate alternative into existing plant, difficulty/time required for such integration, and extent of impact on ongoing operations Ability of the alternative to quickly adapt to and perform similar under seasonal and intermittent operations Ability of the alternative to be expanded 10 10 10 Backwash waste/reject generation The extent of backwash waste/reject generated from the facility WBGO 72814162755 SDO \DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 18 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Criteria Description Weighting Factor Suitability for future regulations Ability of the alternative to meet stringent future regulations (i.e. potential inclusions of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, endocrine disrupting compounds, and DBFs in future regulations) 6 Suitability with RO for demineralization Ability to alternative to be directly coupled with RO for TDS reduction 5 Suitability for iron and manganese removal Ability to alternative to reduce iron and manganese 5 Footprint Space requirement of each technology 4 Chemical usage Relative number of chemical storage and feed facilities, and hazardous nature of chemicals to be stored 3 Overall aesthetics Appearance of the facilities associated with the alternative and its visual/auditory/olfactory impact on project locations (height, noise, odor), and impacts of these effects on plant operators and surrounding neighborhood 2 Truck Traffic Extent of truck traffic for delivering chemicals and consumable and disposing waste 1 Once the criteria and weighting factors were determined, scores were entered into the SMART model, along with all criteria weights, to generate a total benefit score for each alternative. Each criterion received a point from 1 to 10, where 1 reflects the least favorable and 10 reflects the most favorable. The filtration technologies evaluated included: • Conventional deep bed GMF (reflective of the existing technology at the WRF) • Shallow bed filters • Compressible filters (Fuzzy filters) • CMDFs • MMF • AMF (Thread filtration) • Ultrascreen (Nova mesh filters) Figure 2-12 graphically displays the total benefit scores for the alternatives. WBG072814162i'55SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 19 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION FIGURE 2-12 Benefit Scores for the Evaluated Filtration Alternatives Carlsbad WRF Filtration Alternatives o Truck traffic • Overall aesthetics 0 Chemical usage arxl handling • Footprint • Suitability for iron and manganese removal • Suitability With RO for demineralization • Suitability for future regulations • Backwash waste/reject generation • Suitability for seasonal/intermittent Operation • Ease of expansion • Constructability (ease of incorporating into existing facility) •TDS impact on recycled water • Ease of operation and maintenance • Compatibility with Encina WPCF Secondary Effluent • Operating experience • Reliable and consistent operation The SMART decision model was used to objectively evaluate all technologies and determine the three alternative technologies with the highest benefit scores. The resulting short listed filtration technologies, which will be further evaluated, include: 1. MMF 2. CMDF 3. Conventional deep bed sand filters (i.e. GMF) The SMART analysis showed that MMF has the highest combined benefit score (8.49) among 7 filtration alternatives identified. MMF is a high cost option, but it is proven, and it provides robust treatment without need for chemical addition and independent of the feed water quality. This is the only technology that can satisfy turbidity requirements in treated effluent without further testing and optimization. The combined benefit scores for the CMDF and GMF are 5.78 and 5.74, respectively, which are substantially lower than that of MMF. CMDF systems are compact and easy to operate. However, as described in Section 2.1 of this report, robustness and compatibility with EWPCF secondary effluent is very questionable without detailed pilot testing and extensive process optimization. In addition, the inability of this technology to meet future regulations and provide adequate pretreatment for RO for demineralization projects lowered the combined benefit score for CMDF. Proven track record, suitability for iron and manganese removal, and consistently good scoring for most criteria are advantages tothe GMF. We believe it is reasonable to eliminate the remaining four technologies from further evaluation for the following reasons: • Compressible filters (Fuzzy filters) - These filters have very limited full-scale applications. Information regarding long term performance and O&M requirements is largely unknown. In addition, because too many variables can impact fuzzy filter performance (feed quality, compression ratio, etc.), its operation is more complex than other filtration options. All those factors reduced the overall score of the compressible filters to less than 5. WBG072814I62755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 20 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION • Shallow bed filters - Feed turbidity cannot exceed 10 NTU at any time for shallow-bed filters per Title 22 regulations. Even under short turbidity excursions (greater than 10 NTU) at the EWPCF secondary effluent, the shallow bed filters should be taken offline, which greatly reduces operational flexibility. Compared to GMFs, they do not provide solids storage within the media bed and require much larger footprint due to lower filtration rates approved (2 gpm/ft^) for Title 22 applications. • AMF (thread filtration) - Although thread filtration has Title 22 approval, it is relatively a new technology and has no full-scale application in the United States. Information regarding long term performance, O&M requirements, and life cycle costs was not established. Currently, only the 20-p product has approval for Title 22 applications, which makes performance of the AMF is very questionable for filtering EWPCF secondary effluent that is consisted mainly of very fine particles. All those factors reduced the overall score of the AMF. • Ultrascreen (Nova mesh filters) - Ultrascreen has an average mesh opening of 20 p. This makes the performance ofthe Ultrascreen very questionable for filtering EWPCF secondary effluent, which consists mainly of very fine particles. There is no full scale installation ofthis technology in California. 2.6 Filtration Technology Selection 2.6.1 Design Considerations As discussed earlier, the CWRF feed quality contains very small particles, which are difficult to remove without chemical pretreatment. Other than MMF, Title 22 requires filtration technologies to have the capability to provide chemical addition prior to filtration to meet the 2 NTU turbidity requirements in recycled water. Because MMF is an absolute barrier to solids, chemical pretreatment is not required to meet treated water objectives for the MMF. However, a conservative flux will be used to determine operating and maintenance cost ofthe facilities. No pretreatment facilities were included for MMF assuming that the existing compliance point (downstream of the CCB) will continue to serve as a single compliance point in the future (i.e. no separate compliance points for MMF and the existing GMF). This, however, needs to be verified with the RWQCB. There are more than 10 MMF/UF products that have Title 22 approval. For the purpose of evaluation, sizing and costing ofthe MMF system is based on a Pall Microza pressurized MMF system supplied by Pall Corporation. It should be noted that other approved MMF technologies supplied by Siemens, GE Zenon, Toray, Hydranautics, Dow, BASF Inge, and others, are also qualified and can be used for this project, if MMF is identified as the best technology. Sizing and costing of the CMDF, Aqua Disk supplied by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. was assumed for comparing filtration alternatives. Other approved CMDFs supplied by Alfa Laval Ashbrook Simon Hartley, Five Star Filtration, Siemens, Kruger and Nordic are also qualified and can be used for this project. Sizing and costing ofthe conventional deep bed sand filter is based on an upflow continuous backwash GMF system. Granular media filtration and CMDF options include rapid mix, flocculation, and chemical feed facilities for alum addition. The sizing of those facilities was also considered for treating current flows and the anticipated Phase III flows. WBG072814162755SOO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 21 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Table 2-8 summarizes design basis for sizing the unit treatment processes. For both the conventional deep bed sand filter and CMDF options, the chemical pretreatment facilities would be sized for the entire plant flow including existing flows. TABLE 2-8: DESIGN BASIS FOR THE FILTRATION ALTERNATIVES Criteria Description Design filtrate capacity, MGD 3.0 FILTRATION TECHNOLOGIES Conventional Deep Bed Sand Filters with Cliemical Pretreatment Alum dose, mg/L 60 (Based on filterability testing) Polymer dose, mg/L 1 (Based on filterability testing) Rapid mix detention time at design flow, sec IS (at 2,000 rpm) Number of flocculation stages 2 Flocculation time at design flow, min 8 (4 minutes at 40 rpm and 4 minutes at 20 rpm) Filter type Upflow continuous backwash (identical to the existing filters) Type of media Mono media sand Minimum media depth, inches 40 Number of Trains 2 Number of cells per train 6 Maximum design surface overflow rate at design flow, gpm/ft' 4.9 (with one train out of service) Projected backwash waste (% of the feed) 10 Cloth Media Disk Filters with Chemical Pretreatment Alum dose, mg/L 60 (Based on filterability testing) Polymer dose, mg/L 1 (Based on filterability testing) Rapid mix detention time at design flow, sec 15 (at 2,000 rpm) Number of flocculation stages 2 Flocculation time at design flow, min 8 (4 minutes at 40 rpm and 4 minutes at 20 rpm) Number of Trains 2 Maximum design surface overflow rate at design flow, gpm/ft^ 6 (with one train out of service) Projected backwash waste (% of the Feed) 5 MMF (Based on Pressurized Systems) Membrane Pretreatment-Self Cleaning Strainer Clean strainer pressure drop at rated flow, psig 1 Design flux at design flow with all membrane racks in service, gfd 22 Design flux at design flow with two racks out of service, gfd 30 Recovery, % 93 Maximum TMP, psi 40 Minimum spare module space, % 10 2.6.2 Life-Cycle Costs for the Unit Treatment Processes Cost estimates for the technology alternatives were developed by obtaining budgetary-level equipment costs from equipment suppliers and calculating facility costs using CH2M HILL's CPES for projects of similar type and size. The capital cost estimates used for the benefit to cost ratio comparison in this section assume a filtrate flow rate of 4 MGD. This comparison is valid for process selection. Section 6 ofthis report provides a cost estimate for the selected project at the final filtrate flow rate of 3 MGD. The cost estimates developed for this analysis provide a relative comparison of the treatment alternatives and are considered order-of-magnitude estimates. An order-of-magnitude cost estimate is defined as "an approximate estimate made without detailed engineering data." The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International defines order-of-magnitude costs as Class 5 cost estimates without detailed engineering data. Examples of order-of-magnitude costs include an estimate from cost capacity curves, an estimate using scale-up or scale-down factors, and an approximate ratio estimate. The estimates shown, and any resulting conclusions on project financial or economic feasibility or funding requirements, have been prepared to guide project evaluation and implementation from the information available at the time of cost estimation. The expected accuracy ranges for a Class 5 cost estimate are -15 to -30 percent on the low side and +20 to WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 22 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION +50 percent on the high side. The final costs of the project and resulting feasibility will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, actual site conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule, continuity of personnel and engineering, and other variables. The capital costs forthe alternatives include sale tax (8.0 percent); combined contractor markups (21 percent) that include overhead (10 percent), profits (6 percent), mobilization, and bond and insurance (5 percent); project contingency (20 percent); and design, engineering, and administrative fees (20 percent). Capital costs do not include factors for market adjustment, escalation during construction, land acquisition, and legal and permitting fees. The chemical and energy unit costs presented in Table 2-9 were used for comparing treatment alternatives on a 20-year life-cycle cost (LCC) basis using 4.5 percent discount and 3.0 percent inflation rates. The LCC is the total cost of ownership of equipment and technology, including its cost of acquisition and O&M. It takes into account the costs associated with consumables (chemicals, energy) and parts replacement (e.g., membranes, cloth filters, etc.), and is an effective, unbiased method to choose the most cost-effective alternative from a series of alternatives. TABLE 2-9: ELECTRICITY UNIT COST AND CHEMICAL UNIT COSTS Item Unit Cost Electricity, $/kWh 0.136 Sodium hypochlorite (12.5%), S/gal 0.54 Citric acid M50%), $/ton 2,500 Sodium bisulfite '(25%), $/ton 950 Sodium hydroxide =(25%), $/ton 850 Alums $/ton 660 Liquid polymer^, $/tpn 3,500 = Obtained from CPES Key O&M assumptions common to each alternative include the following: • The electrical unit cost is based on data provided by EWA for 2013 CWRF electrical consumption and average costs. • Annual O&M costs are based on annual average product flow of 3.0 MGD. • No additional personnel are needed to operate and maintain the facilities in each treatment alternative. • One percent of the capital cost is assigned for maintenance. • No flow equalization is needed upstream of the filtration. • Backwash waste from filtration facilities will be returned to EWCPF via existing pipelines. Costs associated with conveyance were not included for alternative comparison. • Membranes for the MMF will be replaced every 10 years and cost is based on Pall Aria membranes provided by Pall Corporation. • CMDF equipment and O&M costs projections are obtained from Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. Chlorine tolerant polyester cloth media was assumed in this evaluation. WBG072814I62755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 23 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Capital costs, O&M expenses, and LCCs were developed for the three filtration prescreened alternatives. Table 2- 10 presents the resulting cost estimate summary. TABLE 2-10: COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR THE FILTRATION ALTERNATIVES GMF Cloth Media Disk Filtration MMF Total Capital Cost, $ 6,017,0001 5,543,0001 11,024,0002 O&M Cost, $/year 288,000 250,000 298,000 LCC of O&M, $ 4,966,000 4,311,000 5,139,000 20-year LCC, $ 10,983,000 9,854,000 16,163,000 ^Includes new rapid mix, flocculation and alum feed and storage facilities existing GMF and new facilities ^Includes new rapid mix, flocculation and alum feed and storage facilities for existing GMF In order to properly compare alternatives, the MMF alternative includes a new rapid mix, flocculation and alum feed for the existing GMF trains. These facilities may not be necessary if MMF is implemented but would be required if GMF or CMDF were implemented for the expansion. It is important to note that the cost estimates presented in Table 2-10 do not include capital costs for other elements ofthe expansion including addition feed pumps, rehabilitation and O&M improvements forthe existing facilities (otherthan those noted specifically), or expansion ofthe CCB. As expected, MMF has the highest capital cost at approximately $11.2 million followed by the GMF and CMDF. The O&M costs are very similar for each alternative. While chemical costs contributed more than 70 percent of the total O&M cost forthe GMF and CMDF alternatives, power, membrane replacement, chemical, and maintenance costs made significant contribution to the O&M cost of MMF. The CMDF has the lowest capital, O&M, and hence, the lowest LCC. Therefore, in terms of LCC, CMDF is the most attractive alternative, whereas MMF is the least attractive. 2.6.3 Benefit to Cost Ratios for Alternatives The calculated total benefit scores were divided by LCC values presented in Table 2-10 to estimate benefit to cost (B/C) ratios for the three short-listed filtration alternatives. Table 2-11 presents the B/C analysis results. TABLE 2-11: B/C RATIOS FOR THE SHORT-LISTED FILTRATION ALTERNATIVES GMF Cloth Media Disk Filtration MF 20-year LCC, $ 10,983,000 9,854,000 16,163,000 Total Benefit Scores 5.74 5.78 8.49 B/C Ratio 0.523 0.587 0.525 Despite having a relatively low benefit score (5.78), the lowest LCC associated with the CMDF resulted in the highest B/C ratio, thereby putting CMDF slightly ahead of MMF and GMF. As discussed in Section 2.1, an important concern with the CMDF is that it is not typically well suited for treating feed waters containing very fine particles and treated feed waters requiring pretreatment chemicals in high dosages. In 2007, a 6 week pilot testing of MMF and CMDF was conducted at the J.B Latham Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for the South Orange County Wastewater Authority. While MMF met the 0.2 NTU water turbidity objectives without chemical addition, the tested CMDF had difficulty treating secondary effluent to meet 2 NTU water quality objectives, despite chemical additions and extensive optimization effort. The coagulant polymer combinations identified through the jar tests were effective for meeting water quality specifications, but excessive media blinding and fouling occurred with the chemical addition, which caused very rapid headloss development and much more frequent backwashes. This CMDF operation was deemed unsustainable, and it was not considered as a viable option in that location. Even though J.B. Latham WWTP is operated at shorter SRTs (i.e. less than 1.5 days) than EWPCF, the particle size distribution ofthe J.B. Latham secondary effluent was similar to that established in this project. Therefore, the outcome of the J.B. Latham testing may be relevant to this project. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 24 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION The benefit scores associated with CMDF were developed assuming that the CMDF can perform well with chemical addition and can fully satisfy turbidity criteria of Title 22 regulations after proper process optimization. Despite attractive monetary and non-monetary benefits, implementation of CMDF at CWRF without a detailed pilot demonstration is very risky and, therefore, is not recommended. Our collective experience shows that CMDFs can perform well for treating secondary effluents from the activated sludge plants that are operated at or near the nitrification SRT. In addition, sludge settling can improve in activated sludge plants if anaerobic or anoxic selector is used upstream ofthe aeration basins. Currently, EWPCF is not required to nitrify and, therefore, is operated well under the nitrification SRT. Incorporating an anaerobic zone requires modification and increases the cost. Increasing SRT and maintaining operations just below the nitrifying SRT is not an easy task. It requires a detailed process modeling effort to determine the impact of increased SRT on overall plant performance and operating cost (i.e. increased SRT results in higher solids loading to the clarifiers and increases the amount of oxygen required forthe biological treatment). If EWA were interested in exploring operational modifications to the EWPCF as described above, or if additional time was available to conduct further pilot testing to validate CMDF process performance, implementation of CMDF at the CWRF could be considered further. Otherwise, we do not recommend CMDF for CWRF expansion. GMF is the next lowest LCC option, but also has the lowest B/C ratio. While GMF received high scores with respect to operational experience and suitability for iron/manganese removal, it has been demonstrated that the technology is less compatible with the EWPCF secondary effluent without conditioning through chemical addition because of the water quality variability. One advantage in implementation of GMF for the expansion is that pretreatment facilities, including rapid mix and flocculation basins, could be easily sized to accommodate both existing and new plant flows. With the highest total benefit score, MMF provides robust and reliable treatment, can meet the water quality objectives without pretreatment, and offers much more overall benefits than any other filtration technologies evaluated but at a higher initial investment. If funding is available forthe increased investment, we recommend implementation of MMF for the CWRF expansion. MMF is a proven technology in which current operations staff have experience, it is compatible with the existing CWRF facility and should not require further ongoing chemical addition, and will provide enhanced operational flexibility for intermittent operations. It is important to note that our preliminary costs estimates for MMF take into account the construction of pretreatment facilities, including rapid mix and flocculation basins, for the existing GMF. This was done to provide an equal comparison of technologies. These facilities may be required if the discharge order for the expansion is rewritten, at the discretion of the RWQCB, to relocate the point of compliance to before blending of the two existing filtration processes. Therefore, the existing GMF effluent would be required to comply with the 2 NTU discharge specification on its own, instead of the blending effluent. If the point of compliance is not changed, it is possible the pretreatment facilities would not be required and thus the B/C score would be 0.586. 2.6.4 Sensitivity Analysis The LCC ofthe evaluated alternatives is sensitive primarily to alum dose, chemical and power unit costs. Changes in these parameters are expected to have an influence on the evaluation outcome. Three sets of sensitivity analysis were performed to support the decision process. The sensitivity analyses covered: 1. Sensitivity Analysis I: Reduce alum dose to 30 mg/L (again, alum dose of 60 mg/L used in the original estimation may be very conservative for estimating annual O&M costs). All other O&M costs were inflated using inflation rate of 3 percent (the original estimate). 2. Sensitivity Analysis II: Increase power unit cost by 5 percent per year for the project life. The electricity unit cost is highly variable in the project location. The unit cost may increase more than general inflation. All other O&M costs were inflated using inflation rate of 3 percent (the original estimate). 3. Sensitivity Analysis III: Increase of chemical costs by 5 percent per year for the project life. All other O&M costs were inflated using inflation rate of 3 percent (the original estimate). WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 25 OF 76 FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Table 2-12 compares the baseline and three sensitivity analysis LCCs and B/C ratios. TABLE 2-12: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Alternative Total Capital Cost, $ LCC Of O&M Cost, $ 20-Year LCC, $ B/C Advantage Baseline GMF 6,017,000 4,966,000 10,983,000 0.523 (Original Assessment) MMF 11,024,000 5,139,000 16,163,000 0.525 MF Sensitivity GMF 6,017,000 3,380,000 9,397,000 0.611 Analysis 1 MMF 11,024,000 4,587,000 15,611,000 0.544 GMF Sensitivity GMF 6,017,000 5,119,000 11,136,000 0.516 Analysis II MMF 11,024,000 5,412,000 16,436,000 0.516 Even Sensitivity GMF 6,017,000 5,760,000 11,777,000 0.488 Analysis III MMF 11,024,000 5,565,000 16,589,000 0.512 MF Sensitivity analysis I (reduced alum dose) slightly favored GMF over MMF, whereas initial evaluation and rest of the sensitivity analysis favored MMF over GMF. As mentioned before, if CMWD is able to afford the increased investment cost with the gained benefits, MMF appears to be the most suitable technology to select. We recommend CMWD carefully evaluate funds and budget available to implement the project. It is worth mentioning that the cost of the filtration technologies were developed conservatively assuming that the treatment process will be utilized at 3 MGD average flow throughout the year. In reality, a higher flow may be desired during the high demand summer months, which can be satisfied by operating filtration plants at increased filtration rates or flux thereby reducing size and capital cost of the treatment facilities. However, the cost savings ofthis approach are more realized with MMF than other filtration technologies because considerable investment is associated with membrane elements, which are proportional to the design flow selected. 2.7 Recommendations The existing CWRF primarily relies upon the operation of an upflow continuous flow GMF technology to filter secondary effluent and produce up to 4 MGD of disinfected tertiary recycled water. This section presents a summary of CH2M HILL's evaluation of filtration alternatives to achieve the proposed 3 MGD expansion. Based on limited data review, sampling and bench testing completed by CH2M HILL as part ofthis study, the EWPCF secondary effluent water quality is challenging to filter, primarily because more than 90 percent ofthe particles are smaller than 6 p. Modifying the existing operations at the EWPCF could improve filterability of the secondary effluent, but we understand this is not likely to be an option. Despite receiving the highest B/C ratio, implementation of CMDF at CWRF without a detailed pilot demonstration and/or improving secondary effluent quality with process modifications is very risky. While it is believed that the CMDFs could be optimized to meet Title 22 requirements, some potentially concerning outcomes include a significant amount of automation required (due to the variable nature of the EWCPF secondary effluent), a high level of chemical addition and backwash frequency, and challenges resulting from having three different parallel filtration trains. Furthermore, pilot testing demonstration and extensive optimization efforts will add cost, and delay the project schedule. With the lack of performance validation of CMDF, we recommend the CMWD eliminate CMDF for further consideration. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 26 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT FILTRATION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION GMF is the next lowest LCC option, but also has the lowest B/C ratio. While GMF received high scores with respect to operational experience and suitability for iron/manganese removal, it has been demonstrated that the technology is less compatible with the EWPCF secondary effluent without conditioning through chemical addition because of the water quality variability. One advantage in implementation of GMF for the expansion is that pretreatment facilities including rapid mix and flocculation basins could be easily sized to accommodate both new and existing plant flows. MMF provides robust and reliable treatment that is expected to meet the CWRF discharge specifications without chemical pretreatment. The technology offers many more overall benefits than any other filtration technologies evaluated but at a higher initial investment. Some of MMF's benefits that are important to note include operational reliability, suitability for future regulations, compatibility with ECWRF secondary effluent, ease of O&M, and TDS impact on recycled water. MMF is relatively easy to operate and is very flexible, particularly when used in conjunction with GMF, and would allow operators to develop protocols for a variety of scenarios, such as secondary treatment upsets, demand fluctuations, and future changes to secondary effluent water quality. One important uncertainty to note for MMF implementation is that the discharge order modification to accommodate the expansion could be rewritten, at the discretion ofthe RWQCB, to relocate the point of compliance before blending ofthe two existing filtration processes (i.e. there would be two new points of compliance including one at the GMF effluent and one at the MMF effluent). According to Title 22 regulations, the MMF effluent would be required to meet 0.2 NTU and the GMF effluent would be required to meet 2 NTU. In this situation, the existing GMF would need to be re-optimized in order to meet 2 NTU reliably, which will likely require the reintroduction of chemical conditioning, at a minimum. This is further discussed in Section 3 ofthis report. One disadvantage of MMF is that it is not likely to substantially reduce iron/manganese concentrations as well as a modified GMF unit. Currently, iron concentrations in the CWRF feed water are at the discharge specification of 0.3 mg/L. When the Report of Waste Discharge is submitted to obtain the expansion permit modification, we recommend that the discharge limit for iron be increased, similar to the approach taken for the recent manganese limit modification. Nonetheless, iron and manganese concentrations of more than 0.3 and 0.08 mg/L are at the upper range of recommended limits for MMF implementation. If higher iron and manganese concentrations are expected in the future, pretreatment such as chlorine or potassium permanganate injection could be necessary. Chloramines are not an effective means of iron or manganese oxidation. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF PDR_REV7 PAGE 27 OF 76 3. Operations & Maintenance Improvements Evaluation The objective ofthis section is to evaluate potential improvements to the operations and maintenance (O&M) of the existing CWRF and consider the potential impact of future feed water quality changes. This section is organized as follows: Current Operational Protocols Existing CWRF Treated Water Quality Impact of Potential Future Feed Water Quality Changes Discussion of Existing O&M Concerns Scenario Development Filtration Flexibility/Reliability Improvements Analysis Stored Recycled Water Quality Improvements Analysis Recommendations 3.1 Current Operational Protocols The following discussion will primarily focus on current operational protocols at the CWRF. 3.1.1 Combined Pump Station The CPS is located at the south end of the EWPCF and includes two sets of vertical turbine pumps to convey secondary effluent to the CWRF for treatment, as described below. • Two, 75 horsepower (HP) pumps are used to feed the GMF units. In automatic mode, the GMF feed pumps are controlled by the PLC based on an operator-adjustable GMF Loading Rate setpoint. • Two, 25-HP pumps are used to feed the existing MMF. In automatic mode, the MMF feed pump variable frequency drives (VFDs) are controlled by the MMF Supervisory PLC based on a calculated feed flow demand signal. EWA typically operates the MMF feed pumps in manual mode when the MMF is placed into service. All four feed pumps are equipped with VFDs to allow speed adjustment and flow control. 3.1.2 GMF Pretreatment by Chemical Conditioning Secondary effluent conveyed through the 36-inch diameter GMF feed line is passed through a 36-inch diameter inline static mixer. The original design forthe GMF train included chemical coagulation and flocculation, with alum and polymer injected before the static mixer. The length and diameter ofthe GMF feed pipe downstream ofthe static mixer are sized to provide 10 minutes of flocculation time at the flow of 4 MGD. The CWRF operations staff indicated that the existing alum feed is plugged off and no chemicals are currently being added at the static mixer location for preconditioning ofthe GMF influent. 3.1.3Granular Media Filtration Train The GMF system is a deep bed upflow continuous backwash technology and consists of two units, each with 6 modules and 40-inch media depth. The GMF feed pumps deliver secondary effluent to the GMF inlet feed trough and will stop in automatic mode when a high liquid level in the GMF inlet feed trough is reached. Sodium hypochlorite is currently added to the GMF feed prior to discharge into inlet feed trough at a dose of approximately 2 mg/L to prevent biological fouling within the GMF units. Flow into each unit is controlled by a pneumatic inlet feed valve. As the secondary effluent flows upward through the GMF modules, it passes through a media bed for filtration. Each GMF unit is equipped with a turbidimeter to measure turbidity ofthe GMF filtrate passing over the discharge WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 29 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION weir integral to the GMF unit. If the GMF filtrate turbidity is within an acceptable range, the filtrate is conveyed by gravity to the CCB for disinfection. In automatic mode, the PLC will close the GMF unit inlet feed valve if the turbidity exceeds the high concentration setpoint. The GMF system includes an air receiver tank and two air compressors to supply air to the air lift, which continuously pumps a mixture of settled sand and solids to a wash chamber. Solids from the wash chamber currently bypass the solids thickener and are discharged to the drain tank located at the EWCPF. The GMF backwash is currently sent back to the aeration basins at the EWCPF. 3.1.4 Membrane Microfiltration/Reverse Osmosis Train The existing MMF/RO system was originally designed to reduce the concentration of TDS to below 1,100 mg/L. In recent years however, TDS concentrations in the CWRF influent water have been consistently below 1,100 mg/L and running the RO system has not been necessary. The existing MMF system is a submerged membrane system with outside-in flow through the polymeric membranes which have 0.2 micron (p) pore size. The MMF was supplied by Siemens (formerly US Filter) as a package unit and was intended to be pretreatment forthe RO system. Secondary effluent conveyed by the MMF feed pumps is passed through an automatic backwash strainer to remove particles greater than 500 p before discharge into the MMF membrane tank. Two filtrate pumps are used to extract filtrate that has passed through the hollow fiber membranes. MMF filtrate is pumped to a MMF break tank which serves as the RO system feed tank. The original design included sodium hypochlorite injection into the MMF feed to provide a chlorine residual to inhibit biological fouling ofthe membranes. However, sodium hypochlorite is not currently used by EWA for MMF pretreatment. As suspended solids accumulate on the outside surface ofthe membranes, flow resistance increases and, therefore, filtrate flow decreases. In automatic mode, the filtrate pump VFD increases speed to provide suction to draw water through the membranes. A backwash is triggered when the recovery setpoint has been reached, or every 20 minutes for this system. The backwash operation includes flow reversal, air scour and tank drain. During backwash, solids are drained by gravity to the solids receiving tank, which drains by gravity back to the EWCPF. The MMF system includes a clean-in-place (CIP) operation, which consists of a caustic wash following by a citric acid wash to remove scaling on the membrane surface. The CIP was originally designed to use RO permeate as the source. CIP frequency is recommended at least every 1 to 4 weeks for this application, but could be more frequent with increased hardness. CIPs can also be automatically initiated if the transmembrane pressure rises above 11.6 psi. The MMF system also includes a pressure decay test function, which is performed daily during MMF operation to test membrane integrity. While the RO system has not been operated in recent years, it is available to be placed into service should TDS, iron or manganese concentrations increase to near their corresponding discharge limits, according to operations staff. Three RO transfer pumps withdraw filtrate from the MMF break tank and pump water through a single cartridge filter and into the suction header serving two high pressure RO feed pumps. Sulfuric acid and threshold inhibitor are injected into the RO feed water to minimize scaling on the membranes. The existing RO membranes are manufactured by Hydranautics. According to the original O&M Manual prepared by Black & Veatch for the CWRF, the two RO trains are capable of producing 240 gallons per minute (gpm) of permeate at a recovery of 80 percent. The membranes are configured as a two-stage system, in which the reject water from the first stage is the feed water for the second stage. The first stage contains seven pressure vessels, including seven 40-inch membrane elements per pressure vessel. The second stage is composed of three pressure vessels, including seven 40-inch membrane elements per pressure vessel. The RO system is operated in automatic mode by entering a feed flow that approximately matches the MMF filtrate supply flow. Feed pumping and chemical dosing are adjusted automatically. The RO membrane CIP system is used to clean the membranes when biological fouling or scaling ofthe membrane surfaces has occurred. The CWRF utilizes a low pH cleaning solution to remove inorganic salts and a high pH cleaning solution for organics. WBG0728H162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 30 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Neutralized CIP waste is discharged to the waste holding tank, which drains to the North Feed Well and eventually back to the EWCPF. Brine from the RO process is currently discharged backed to EWCPF via the drain vault. The RO permeate passes through a decarbonator designed to remove carbon dioxide for stabilization of the recycled water effluent. The 2014 R-CAMP prepared by RMC indicates that the membrane elements do not currently need to be replaced. One important note is that the RO system must be flushed with RO permeate whenever the unit is shut down for more than 1 hour and for less than 7 days. For shutdown periods in excess of 7 days, the system should be flushed weekly with dechlorinated potable water. 3.1.5 Chlorine Contact Basin The CCB provides disinfection ofthe tertiary recycled water in accordance with Title 22 requirements. Blended filtrate from the GMF and MMF/RO processes enters the rapid mix basin at the inlet of the CCB where sodium hypochlorite is injected and given adequate mixing. The CCB is designed to provide a contact time value of not less than 450 milligram-minutes per liter at all times with a modal contact time of at least 90 minutes prior to discharge to the Recycled Water Storage Basin. The existing CCB has a serpentine flow with three passes and a combined flow length of 450 feet. In automatic mode, the sodium hypochlorite metering pump adjusts based on operator setpoints for dosage factor, residual, pump correction factor, and pump stroke length factor. The CCB effluent is monitored for compliance with the discharge specifications of the Master Reclamation Permit. During tracer tests conducted at the time of initial plant startup, it was calculated that the CCB could possibly achieve a rating of up to 4.7 MGD, although the State Water Resources Control Board (formerly CDPH) recommended (and RWQCB stipulated) a maximum rating of 4.0 MGD. 3.1.6 Recycled Water Storage Basin Disinfected tertiary recycled water flows over the CCB discharge weir and is conveyed by gravity to the Recycled Water Storage Basin (also known as the West Basin), which has a capacity of approximately 4 million gallons (MG). The recycled water is stored within the basin until it is extracted by the Recycled Water Pump Station, which is located at the north end ofthe West Basin and operated by the CMWD. There is currently no means of sodium hypochlorite injection or recirculation of water at the Recycled Water Storage Basin. 3.1.7 Equalization Feed Pumps/Secondary Effluent Equalization Basin The original design ofthe CPS included equalization feed pumps which were intended to convey secondary effluent to the 4 MG Secondary Effluent Equalization Basin (also known as the East Basin) when discharges from the EWCPF exceeded the capacity ofthe Encina Ocean Outfall. According to EWA, this operation has not been necessary in recent years and, therefore, operation ofthe equalization feed pumps has not been required. In order to provide additional recycled water storage for the CWRF, the East Basin has been frequently used for recycled water storage. Disinfected tertiary recycled water enters the East Basin from the West Basin through the air gap vault immediately south of the North Feed Well. 3.1.8 Solids Thickening Tank The original design ofthe CWRF included a solids thickening process to thicken backwash waste from the GMF and MMF systems. CMWD and operators have confirmed that this process has not been used and that backwash waste is bypassed directly to the waste holding tank, which drains by gravity back to the EWCPF. 3.1.9 Process Control System The control system utilizes programmable logic controllers (PLCs) to provide distributed control and interface with the process equipment and other field devices. Computer-based operator workstation units provide the primary operator interaction with process equipment. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 31 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION The PLCs are Allen-Bradley SLC-5/05 processors and input/output (I/O) subsystems. Each PLC is housed in an enclosure with field terminals for connection ofthe I/O. The following major PLC systems are provided: • MMF Supervisory PLC (PLC-1) - Controls the MMF equipment. PLC-1 was programmed by the MMF package supplier • Plant Supervisory PLC (PLC-2) - Controls the RO and GMF equipment and other plant processes Primary control system communications are over an Ethernet link consisting of both fiber optic and metallic cable. 3.1.10 General Operations During the operating season, CWRF operators typically run the GMF continuously and adjust the GMF Loading Rate setpoint so that the recycled water production for that day approximately matches the plant's demand from the previous day. For example, if the Recycled Water Pump Station delivered 2 MGD to the CMWD distribution system, EWA will adjust the GMF Loading Rate setpoint so that approximately 2 MGD of recycled water will be produced by the CWRF, as measured by the CCB effluent flow meter. The EWA typically uses both the West Basin and the East Basin for storage of recycled water. The combined storage capacity is approximately 8 MG, which allows the CMWD to operate the Recycled Water Pump Station only during the off-peak hours of 10:00 PM and 5:00 AM to reduce electricity costs. Title 22 regulations require chemical addition prior to GMF or similar treatment technologies to meet the effluent turbidity requirements when feed turbidity exceeds 5 NTU for more than 15 minutes. It is our understanding that effluent turbidity compliance is currently achieved by treating a portion of secondary effluent with the MMF and blending treated effluents from GMF and MMF. If turbidity is higher than regulations allow, the plant is currently turned off to avoid a turbidity exceedance. Because the RO treatment has not been necessary in recent years, the RO process has been bypassed by manually closing a valve on the discharge side of the MMF break tank allowing MMF filtrate to overflow and drain to the CCB via modified piping and connection to the RO filtrate line. 3.2 Existing CWRF Treated Water Quality CH2M HILL completed a review of water quality data provided by EWA for 2011 through June 2013. According to data provided. Master Reclamation Permit discharge limits were generally satisfied for all parameters listed in Table 2-6, with the exception of Fluoride and Methylene Blue Active Substances, for which data was not reviewed. As discussed in Section 2, turbidity concentrations of the EWPCF secondary effluent can be highly variable. Figure 3-1 presents a summary of GMF feed turbidity concentrations based on "continuous" data (approximately every 30 minutes) from 2013. While the average influent turbidity concentration during this period was approximately 3.7 NTU, approximately 35 percent ofthe measurements were greater than 4 NTU and approximately 16 percent of the measurements were greater than 5 NTU. According to Encina Wastewater Authority operators, a majority ofthe turbidity measurements over 8 NTU are likely attributed to the need for cleaning the turbidimeter. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 32 OF 76 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION FIGURE 3-1 Continuous CWRF GMF Feed Turbidity Concentrations 1200 1000 Continuous EWPCF Effluent data from 2/21/13 through 11/12/13 000 Because of this variability and because more than 90 percent of the particles within the secondary effluent are smaller than 6 \i, it is challenging to achieve adequate filtration using GMF without automated chemical addition of alum and polymer for preconditioning. Based on our review of the daily CWRF water quality data provided by EWA from October 2011 through October 2013, it appears that the turbidity of effluent recycled water exceeded 2 NTU for 22 percent ofthe operating days during this timeframe. While this is not necessarily reflective of the CWRF historic compliance, it does substantiate the difficult filtration conditions. Figure 3-2 presents the CWRF influent and effluent turbidity data during this time period. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CVlff?F_PDR_REV7 PAGE 33 OF 76 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION FIGURE 3-2 Daily CWRF GMF Feed and Recycled Water Effluent Turbidity Measurements CWRF Turbidity - Daily Measurements 9/14/2011 12/23/2011 4/1/2012 7/10/2012 10/18/2012 1/26/2013 5/6/201i 8/14/2013 11/22/2013 It is also important to note the 12-month running average for iron has been between above 0.30 mg/L for the last 13 months. While this has not resulted in an exceedance because the limit is 0.3 mg/L (which includes concentrations up to 0.34 mg/L due to rounding), an evaluation of O&M improvements should consider the possible need to reduce iron concentration in the future. The existing CWRF is not designed to remove iron or manganese. CMWD was successful in obtaining a modification for the manganese discharge specification to increase the 12- month average limit to 0.1 mg/L. Currently, the average manganese concentration in the CWRF effluent recycled water is consistently around 0.08 mg/L. 3.3 Impact of Potential Future Feed Water Quality Changes There are two known potential impacts to the future CWRF feed water quality, which could impact operations and treatment, including: • Discharges from the Poseidon Resources Seawater Desalination Facility, and • Operational changes at the EWPCF resulting from the Operations Plan being completed by EWA. CH2M HILL has not received data regarding the characterization ofthe Poseidon Resources Seawater Desalination Facility discharges. According to CMWD staff, Poseidon is attempting to prevent discharges of seawater or brine to the sewer system. When the Industrial Waste Discharge permit application is submitted, this information should be reviewed to understand the potential impacts on the CWRF. To date, CH2M HILL has not been provided with a copy ofthe recently completed EWPCF Operations Plan. Therefore, we cannot comment on any potential impacts that would result from future operational changes at the EWPCF. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 34 OF 76 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION 3.4 Discussion of Existing O&M Concerns Based on discussions with CMWD and EWA operations staff, there are a number of existing O&M concerns at the CWRF which require further consideration. A discussion of the identified issues is provided below. 3.4.1 Filtration Reliability The reliability ofthe filtration process has become important in recent years due to changes in the secondary effluent characterization and higher variation of turbidity concentrations. Based on discussions with EWA and focused sampling completed by CH2M HILL during November and December 2013 (see detailed discussion in Section 2), it is difficult for the existing CWRF to achieve the discharge requirements for turbidity when the secondary effluent turbidity exceeds 4 NTU even though the plant was designed to treat a secondary effluent turbidity of 6 NTU. Figure 3-3 presents the CWRF influent vs. effluent turbidity concentrations. FIGURE 3-3 Daily CWRF Influent vs. Effluent Turbidity Concentrations CWRF Influent vs. Effluent Turbidity - Daily Measurements 000 100 200 )00 400 CWRF Infhitnt Turbidity (NTU) 500 600 7 00 It is suspected that the reason filtration is challenging is that a large majority of particles within the secondary effluent are less than 4 \i. Therefore, without prior conditioning by means of coagulation and flocculation, the small particles are able to pass through the GMF media. GMF Train The original design ofthe CWRF included preconditioning ofthe GMF feed with coagulation (achieved by alum injection) and flocculation (achieved by polymer injection). According to EWA, alum and polymer are not currently added and the chemical feed lines are currently plugged off. It is our understanding that effluent turbidity compliance is currently achieved by treating a portion of secondary effluent with the MMF and blending treated effluents from GMF and MMF. If turbidity is higher than regulations allow, the plant is currently turned off to avoid a turbidity exceedance. CH2M HILL believes that previous coagulation and flocculation was ineffective for the following two reasons: 1. Insufficient mixing. The velocity through the 36-inch static mixer at 2 MGD flow rate is 0.43 feet per second (fps). At 4 MGD, the velocity is 0.87 fps. A more common velocity for proper mixing would be between 2 and 8 fps. It is believed that the 36-inch static mixer was designed for the full 16 MGD plant WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT CWRF PDR REV7 PAGE 35 OF 76 _ PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION capacity. A12 to 16-inch static mixer might be more appropriate for a typical range of flow between 2 and 4 MGD. Furthermore, when mixing is critical to achieve permit compliance, a separate rapid mix and flocculation basin is common. 2. Insufficient coagulant/fioccuiant dosage. The design dosage of 10 mg/L of alum, combined with a design dosage of 2.5 mg/L of polymer, appears to be very low based on the particle size distribution identified by CH2M HILL during limited sampling conducted in November and December 2013. It is possible that the alum dosage could be as high as 60 mg/L during high influent turbidity conditions. Title 22 regulations require that chemical addition be applied when the influent turbidity is greater than 5 mg/L for more than 15 minutes. Therefore, CH2M HILL recommends some level of rehabilitation or replacement of the GMF coagulation and flocculation equipment. As described in Section 2, filterability testing conducted during December 2013 indicates that coagulation and flocculation will improve filter performance. The results of field testing completed by EWA in December 2013 also suggest that chemical addition will improve filter performance. CH2M HILL recommends that further testing would be necessary during the final design period, or possibly during expansion startup, to optimize the chemical dosages. Membrane Microfiltration/Reverse Osmosis Train According to EWA, the MMF train is operated when the CWRF influent turbidity exceeds approximately 4 NTU in order to achieve a blended recycled water turbidity of below 2 NTU. EWA reports that the MMF was operated for some duration approximately 65 percent ofthe days for which the plant operated during 2013. A more recent concern identified by EWA staff is the performance ofthe MMF filtrate pumps. The design capacity ofthe MMF system is 1.0 MGD with a minimum 88 percent design recovery. The EWA reports that the MMF system is currently producing less than 0.7 MGD of MMF filtrate when in operation. Reduced production from MMF is commonly caused by membrane degradation resulting from age, incompatible water quality, and/or improper maintenance. One specific challenge forthe CWRF operation is the intermittent use ofthe MMF system. With any type of MMF, it is critical that the membranes be stored in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations to avoid damage caused by biofouling that can occur in stagnant water. Most ofthe newer MMF technologies recommend that the membranes be stored in water containing a minimum of 5 mg/L chlorine residual if there is no flow for more than 2 days. Further, it is required the chlorine residual be maintained (usually by adding more sodium hypochlorite) until the membranes are taken out of storage. The existing MMF membranes at the CWRF are not chlorine tolerant, however, and it is unclear whether any storage regiment has been followed when the MMF units are not in operation. This could lead to increased biofouling, membrane damage and reduced membrane service life. The 2014 R-CAMP recommends that the existing MMF membrane elements are nearing the end of their useful service life and, therefore, require replacement. The current polymeric membranes have been in service for approximately 7 to 8 years. It is reasonable to believe that the existing membrane elements are in need of replacement, particularly due to their infrequent and sporadic use. 3.4.2 Operational Flexibility The CMWD has identified several operational limitations ofthe CWRF, including the following: 1. Turbidity spikes during feed pump start. According to CMWD and EWA staff, it is common for the GMF and MMF turbidity concentration to spike during the initial minutes of feed pump operation. This may be a result of the turbidimeter being too close to the pump discharge or, possibly more likely, the pump drawing settled solids within the CPS upon startup. There are currently no turbidimeters at the influent of the GMF units and no means of diverting water away from the GMF units if the turbidity concentrations are too high. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 36 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION 2. Lack of instrumentation and control forces reactive operations. The existing CWRF does not include some basic process control automation that would greatly improve the ability of operators to make proactive operational decisions, such as chemical dosing, that would improve performance. Suggested improvements include the addition of continuous water quality monitoring of the EWPCF effluent to reduce the response time in the event of a turbidity spike or other effluent water quality deficiency. 3. No CCB bypass. There is currently no means of discharging filtrate that does not meet discharge specifications away from the CCB. Instead, in the event of an exceedance, operators currently stop the feed pumps and manually drain the CCB back to the EWCPF via the Drain Vault, which can take between 8 and 10 hours. A new bypass valve and piping connection at the inlet of the CCB could be automated and interlocked with the GMF effluent turbidimeters so that off-spec filtrate would be discharged back to the EWCPF. This would enhance operational flexibility and alleviate the need to manually drain the CCB. Alternatively, a new and larger CCB drain could facilitate faster draining. 4. No Recycled Water Storage Basin bypass. There is currently no means of discharging off-spec water away from the recycled water storage basin after it has passed through the CCB. Currently, the CWRF point of compliance is at the CCB effluent. In the event of an exceedance, operators currently stop the feed pumps and manually drain the recycled water storage basins back to the EWCPF. A new bypass valve and piping connection at the effluent of the CCB could be automated and interlocked with the CCB effluent turbidimeter so that off-spec recycled water would be discharged back to the EWCPF. 5. Manual pumping of onsite storm drains. Currently, the storm drain in the northwest corner of the CWRF property is blocked off to prevent the discharge of non-treated (or treated) recycled water to the off-site storm drain in the event of process overflow. Therefore, during a storm event the collected rainwater must be manually pumped to a common pit that drains back to the EWPCF. The addition of permanent sump pumps at the northwest storm drain and pipeline to the north storm drain would alleviate the need to manually pump stormwater and/or recycled water overflows. 3.4.3Stored Recycled Water Quality According to CMWD and EWA operations staff, the water quality of recycled water stored in the Recycled Water Storage Basin can be impacted by birds, blowing debris from adjacent properties, and algae growth caused by sunlight particularly during the summer months. There is currently no means of monitoring water quality within the recycled water storage basin or as it is extracted by the Recycled Water Pump Station and conveyed to the distribution system. Further, there is no means of sodium hypochlorite injection or recirculation through the basin. CMWD has considered covering the recycled water storage basins to reduce the potential for recycled water quality degradation. However, it is necessary to maintain the ability to remove the cover(s) for cleaning of the basin interiors. Specifically, the Secondary Effluent Equalization Basin (also known as the East Basin) requires extensive manual cleaning prior to being used for recycled water storage if it stores secondary effluent for any amount of time. 3.5 Scenario Development To determine the best approach to address O&M concerns described in Section 3.4, CH2M HILL developed a range of alternative scenarios focused on resolving the following two objectives. • Improve the flexibility and reliability of the filtration process • Improve the recycled water quality in the recycled water storage basins Details ofthe scenario development methodology and elements are presented in this section. 3.5.1 Filtration Flexibility/Reliability Improvements It is important to note that Title 22 requires GMF filtrate to meet the following discharge specifications for turbidity: WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 " PAGE 37 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION • Shall not exceed an average value of 2NTU over a 24-hour period, • Shall not exceed 5NTU more than 5 percent of the time over a 24-hour period, and • Shall not exceed lONTU at any time. Further, chemical addition is required when filtrate turbidity concentrations exceed 5 NTU for more than 15 minutes. In order to objectively evaluate and compare the various filtration flexibility/reliability improvement considerations, CH2M HILL developed three scenarios as defined below. Each scenario suggests a number of projects that would be implemented. Scenario A - Minor Operational Adjustments. The intent of Scenario A is to implement minor operational adjustments at the CWRF and avoid major capital investment. Elements ofthis scenario include: • Rehabilitation of the MMF process train including membrane replacement. • Implementation of process control system operational limits based on turbidity: - Operate GMF alone up to effluent turbidity of 1.5 NTU (typically influent of up to 3-4 NTU) - Operate GMF and MMF up to compliant effluent turbidity as measured at the point of compliance - Divert off-spec water back to EWPCF when effluent turbidity exceeds compliance standards as measured at point of compliance until discharges are back in compliance • Cleaning and rehabilitation or replacement of existing GMF chemical addition equipment. • Replacement of 36-inch diameter static mixer with 16-inch diameter static mixer or jet pump for chemical injection on GMF feed. • Implementation of chemical addition based on turbidity setpoints: - Add alum if effluent turbidity greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 1.5 NTU. Alum dosage limited to current metering pump capacity. - Add polymer if effluent turbidity greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 1.8 NTU. Polymer dosage limited to current metering pump capacity. • Programming to include a control loop so that inlet valves to GMF units are closed if effluent turbidity is greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 2 NTU, but the feed pumps are allowed to operate. Overflow from GMF inlet feed trough is directed to North Feed Well which is drained back to EWPCF. • Programming to include a control loop so that MMF feed pumps do not start if GMF feed turbidity is greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 5 NTU. Scenario B - Minor Capital Upgrades. The intent of Scenario B is to implement minor operational adjustments and capital upgrades. Elements ofthis scenario include: • Rehabilitation of the MMF process train including membrane replacement. • Rehabilitation ofthe RO process train, installation of iron and TDS concentration analyzers on the GMF feed line and reprogramming to include control loops in the event of elevated feed concentrations. • Implementation of process control system operational limits based on turbidity: - Operate GMF alone up to effluent turbidity of 1.5 NTU (typically influent of up to 3-4 NTU) - Operate GMF and MMF up to compliant effluent turbidity as measured at the point of compliance WBG0728I4162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 38 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION - Divert off-spec water back to EWPCF when effluent turbidity exceeds compliance standards as measured at point of compliance until discharges are back in compliance • Replacement of existing GMF chemical addition equipment including increased metering pump capacity. • Replacement of 36-inch diameter static mixer with 16-inch diameter static mixer or variable flow mixer for chemical injection on GMF feed. • Implementation of chemical addition based on turbidity setpoints: - Add alum if effluent turbidity greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 1.5 NTU. Alum dosage up to 60 mg/L. - Add polymer if effluent turbidity greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 1.8 NTU. Polymer dosage up to 2 mg/L. • Installation of automated butterfly valve on CCB effluent with new piping connection to divert recycled water that is in exceedance of discharge specifications back to EWCPF prior to discharge into recycled water storage basins. • Programming to include a control loop so that inlet valves to GMF units are closed if effluent turbidity is greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 2 NTU, but the feed pumps are allowed to operate. Overflow from GMF inlet feed trough is directed to North Feed Well which is drained back to EWPCF. • Programming to include a control loop so that MMF feed pumps do not start if GMF feed turbidity is greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 5 NTU. Scenario C - Treatment Process Additions. The intent of Scenario C is to implement treatment process additions, which may require additional capital investment. Elements ofthis scenario include the same elements as Scenario B with the following exceptions: • Construction of rapid mix and flocculation basins for the GMF feed instead of replacing the static mixer. • Installation of iron and TDS concentration analyzers on the GMF feed line, construction of a 0.5 MGD iron/manganese bypass treatment system and reprogramming to include control loops in the event of elevated feed concentrations. This is an alternative to rehabilitation ofthe existing RO system. • Installation of turbidimeter and butterfly valve on CCB influent with new piping connection to divert filtrate that is in exceedance of discharge specifications back to EWCPF prior to discharge into CCB. This is an alternative to the GMF influent control loop. 3.5.2 Recycled Water Quality Improvements The following scenarios were developed with the intent of improving water quality within the recycled water storage basins for the benefit of recycled water customers and continued compliance with Title 22 regulations. Scenario 1 - Minor Operational Adjustments. Scenario 1 is designed to implement minor operational adjustments without major capital investment. Elements ofthis scenario include: • Ceasing to use the Secondary Effluent Equalization Basin (or East Basin) for recycled water storage. This may require some operation of the Recycled Water Pump Station outside of the hours of 10:00 PM to 5:00 AM. Scenario 2 - Minor Capital Upgrades. This scenario includes minor operational adjustments and minor capital upgrades. Elements ofthis scenario include: WBG072814t62755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 39 OF 76 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE 111 EXPANSION • Construction of new piping to allow compliant recycled water effluent to be diverted from the CCB effluent to Secondary Effluent Equalization Basin (East Basin) during such operation. • Construction of floating cover on Recycled Water Storage Basin. • Installation of chlorine residual and turbidity analyzers within Secondary Effluent Equalization Basin and Recycled Water Storage Basin to monitor water quality. This would aid in decisions to discharge recycled water back to EWPCF if necessary. Scenario 3 - Major Capital Improvements. This scenario will include major capital investment for greater reliability of recycled water quality within the recycled water storage basins. Elements ofthis scenario include: • Construction of new piping to allow compliant recycled water effluent to be diverted from CCB effluent to Secondary Effluent Equalization Basin (or East Basin) during such operation. • Implementation of operational adjustments and programming modifications for continuous operation to maintain flow through CCB and Recycled Water Storage Basin. This project includes construction of a new adjustable overflow weir within the Secondary Effluent Equalization Basin to control partial draining back to EWCPF. • Construction of aluminum cover on CCB. • Construction of aluminum cover on East Basin and floating cover on Recycled Water Storage Basin. • Installation of chlorine residual and turbidity analyzers at Recycled Water Pump Station to monitor water quality prior to discharge to distribution system. 3.6 Filtration Flexibility/Reliability Improvements Analysis CH2M HILL's proprietary software, SMART, uses MCA methodology to develop clear and defensible benefit scores for each filtration flexibility/reliability improvement scenario. Table 3-1 summarizes the evaluation criteria, its description, and the assigned weights. TABLE 3-1: EVALUATION CRITERIA, CRITERIA DESCRIPTION, AND ASSIGNED WEIGHING FACTORS: FILTRATION FLEXIBILITY/RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS ANALYSIS Criteria Description Weighting Factor Reliable and consistent operation Ease of operation and maintenance Operational flexibility Ease of incorporating into the existing facility Suitability for future regulations Backwash waste/reject volume Chemical usage and handling Overall aesthetics Ability of the scenario to reliably treat wastewater regardless of influent wastewater quality conditions Relative degree of ease and extent of time required to operate and maintain the treatment facilities Ability of the alternative to quickly adapt to and perform similar under seasonal and intermittent operations Degree of design and construction necessary to integrate alternative into existing plant, difficulty/time required for such integration, and extent of impact on ongoing operations Ability of scenario to reduce iron and manganese The extent of backwash waste/reject generated from the facility Relative number of chemical storage and feed facilities and hazardous nature of chemicals to be stored Appearance of the facilities associated with the alternative and its visual/auditory/olfactory impact on project locations (height, noise, odor) and impacts of these effects on plant operators and surrounding neighborhood 10 WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF PDR_REV7 PAGE 40 OF 76 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Once the criteria and weighting factors were determined, the scores were entered into the SMART model, along with all criteria weights, to generate a total benefit score for each scenario. Each criterion received a point from 1 to 10, where 1 reflects the least favorable and 10 reflects the most favorable score. Figure 3-4 graphically displays the total benefit scores forthe filtration flexibility/reliability scenarios. FIGURE 3-4 Benefit Scores for the Filtration Flexibility/Reliability Improvement Scenarios Carlsbad WRF Treatment Flexibility/Reliability Improvement Improvement Alternatives • Overall aesthetics • Chemical usage and handling •Suitability for future regulations • Backwash waste/reject volume • Ease of incorporating into the existing facility •Operational flexibility, potential labor cost savings • Ease of operation and maintenance • Reliable and consistent operation 3.6.1 Develop Life-Cycle Costs Cost estimates for the scenarios will be developed by obtaining budgetary-level costs from equipment suppliers and calculating facility costs using CH2M HILL's CPES for projects of similar type and size. The cost estimates developed for this analysis provide a relative comparison of the scenarios and are considered order-of-magnitude estimates. An order-of-magnitude cost estimate is defined as "an approximate estimate made without detailed engineering data." The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (/VACE) International defines order-of-magnitude costs as Class 5 cost estimates without detailed engineering data. Examples of order-of-magnitude costs include an estimate from cost capacity curves, an estimate using scale-up or scale-down factors, and an approximate ratio estimate. The estimates shown, and any resulting conclusions on project financial or economic feasibility or funding requirements, have been prepared to guide project evaluation and implementation from the information available at the time of cost estimation. The expected accuracy ranges for a Class 5 cost estimate are -15 to -30 percent on the low side and +20 to +50 percent on the high side. The final costs of the project and resulting feasibility will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, actual site conditions, final project scope, implementation schedule, continuity of personnel and engineering, and other variables. The capital costs for the alternatives include sale tax (8.0 percent); combined contractor markups (21 percent) that include overhead (10 percent), profits (6 percent), mobilization, bond and insurance (5 percent); project contingency (20 percent); and design, engineering, and administrative fees (20 percent). The capital costs do not WBG07 2 814162755 SDO \DRAFT_C WRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 41 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION include market adjustment factors, escalation to mid-point of construction, land acquisition, and legal and permitting fees. The chemical and energy costs presented in Table 3-2 were used for comparing scenarios on a 20-year life-cycle cost (LCC) basis using 4.5 percent discount and 3.0 percent inflation rates. LCC is the total cost of ownership of equipment and technology, including its cost of acquisition and O&M. It takes into account the costs associated with consumables (chemicals, energy) and parts replacement (e.g., membranes, cloth filters, etc.), and is an effective, unbiased method to choose the most cost-effective alternative from a series of alternatives. For new chemicals and any missing information (i.e. citric acid, sodium hydroxide, sodium bisulfide, etc.), CPES values were used. Only the increased O&M costs for new facilities are included. O&M costs resulting from rehabilitation of existing equipment is not taken into consideration because they were assumed to be existing costs. TABLE 3-2: ELECTRICITY UNIT COST AND CHEMICAL UNIT COSTS Item Unit Cost Electricity, $/kWh 0.136 Sodium hypochlorite (12.5%), $/gal 0.54 Citric acid =(50%), $/ton 2,500 Sodium bisulfite =(25%), $/ton 950 Sodium hydroxide =(25%), $/ton 850 Alum=, $/ton 660 Liquid polymer^, $/ton 3,500 'Obtained from CPES Key O&M assumptions common to each alternative include the following: • Electrical unit cost is based on data provided by EWA for 2013 CWRF electrical consumption and average costs. • No additional operations personnel are needed. • One percent of the capital cost is assigned for maintenance. • Backwash waste that will be returned to the EWCPF via existing pipelines. Capital costs, O&M expenses, and LCCs were developed forthe scenarios. Table 3-3 presents a summary ofthe cost estimates. TABLE 3-3: COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR THE FILTRATION FLEXIBILITY/RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT SCENARIOS Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Total Capital Cost, $ 831,000 1,332,000 2,770,000 Increased O&M Cost, $/year 5,000 8,000 91,300 LCC of Increased O&M, $ 87,000 138,000 1,575,000 20-year LCC, $ 918,000 1,470,000 4,345,000 Scenario C has the highest capital and O&M cost increase at approximately $2.8 million and $1.6 million based on LCC, primarily because it includes the following new treatment processes: 1. Construction of rapid mix and flocculation basins to achieve the highest degree of filterability possible from the existing GMF, and WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 42 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCUNG FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION 2. Construction of an iron/manganese bypass system, instead of recommissioning the current RO system, for iron removal to achieve discharge specifications. While intentionally designed to implement operational adjustments and avoid capital investment. Scenario A includes a number of small projects that will require upfront costs, such as rehabilitation of existing equipment, replacement ofthe MMF membrane elements, and reprogramming. Scenario B aims to increase flexibility over Scenario A by including a Recycled Water Storage Tank bypass to divert off-spec water back to the EWPCF and rehabilitate the entire MMF/RO treatment train. 3.6.2 Develop Benefit to Cost Ratios The calculated total benefit scores were divided to LCC values presented in Table 6-3 to estimate benefit to cost (B/C) ratios for the scenarios. Table 3-4 presents B/C analysis results. TABLE 3-4: B/C RATIOS FOR THE FILTRATION FLEXIBILITY/RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C 20-year LCC, $ 918,000 1,470,000 4,345,000 Total Benefit Scores 3.39 5.94 6.82 B/C Ratio 3.70 4.04 1.57 While Scenario C provides the highest reliability and highest overall benefit, it is substantially more costly. Not only does Scenario C include the construction of a rapid mix and flocculation basin, but it also includes an iron and manganese bypass treatment system such as green sand pressure vessel filtration. Currently, the iron concentration within the effluent is at or slightly above (but not resulting in an exceedance) the discharge limit of 0.3 mg/L. Scenario C would provide the greatest assurance relative to avoiding a non-compliance, however it does not utilize existing facilities to do so. Scenario A is similar to the current operations approach but does include limited process control enhancements, MMF rehabilitation to run more reliably and reintroduction of GMF preconditioning through chemical treatment. The static mixer would also be replaced with a more appropriate mixer design under Scenario A. Scenario B resulted in the highest overall B/C score due to the effectiveness at improving treatment reliability at the most efficient cost. This scenario includes projects to improve the reliability of the GMF, MMF, and RO processes by rehabilitation and implementation of new and straightforward process controls. The intent ofthe defined projects within Scenario B is to incorporate the best use of the existing facilities instead of constructing new processes. While reinstltutlon of preconditioning ofthe GMF feed is required through chemical addition. Scenario B prudently explores higher dosages and a more appropriate mixer design priorto construction of a rapid mix and flocculation basin (which is proposed for Scenario C). 3.7 Stored Recycled Water Quality Improvement Analysis CH2M HILL utilized a similar approach to evaluate the defined scenarios to improve recycled water quality within the Recycled Water Storage Basin and Secondary Effluent Equalization Basin. Table 3-5 summarizes the evaluation criteria, criteria definition and the assigned weights. WBG072814I62755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 43 OF 76 • OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION • PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION TABLE 3-5: EVALUATION CRITERIA, CRITERIA DESCRIPTION, AND ASSIGNED WEIGHING FACTORS: STORED RECYCLED WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS ANALYSIS Criteria Description Weighting Factor Reliable and consistent stored water quality Ability of the scenario to reliably maintain adequate water quality 10 Ease of operation and maintenance Relative degree of ease and extent of time required to operate and maintain the treatment facilities 9 Ease of incorporating into the existing facility Degree of design and construction necessary to integrate scenario into existing plant, difficulty/time required for such integration, and extent of impact on ongoing operations 8 Suitability for future regulations Relative compatibility to achieve future regulations such as recycled water quality compliance within the storage basins or distribution system 7 Impact on existing operations Degree of impact on existing operations including reduced storage volume or increased difficulty performing maintenance 6 Overall aesthetics Appearance of the facilities associated with the scenario and its visual/auditory/olfactory impact on project locations (height, noise, odor) and impacts of these effects on plant operators and surrounding neighborhood 5 Waste volume Impact from the amount of recycled water wasted from the facility 4 Ease of expansion Relative ease of expanding the scenario elements 3 Once the criteria and weighting factors were determined, a total benefit score for each scenario was generated. Each criterion received a point from 1 to 10, where 1 reflects the least favorable and 10 reflects the most favorable score. Figure 3-5 graphically displays the total benefit scores for the stored recycled water quality improvement scenarios. FIGURE 3-5 Benefit Scores for the Stored Recycled Water Quality Improvement Scenarios Carlsbad WRF Stored Recycled Water Quality Improvement Alternatives a Ease of expansion • Waste volume • Overall aesthetics • Impact on existing operations • Suitability for future regulations • Ease of incorporating into the existing facility • Ease of operation and maintenance • Reliable and consistent stored water quality « 2 « .2. Si o5 WBG07 2814162755 SDO\DRAFT_CVIff!F_PDR_REV7 PAGE 44 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION 3.7.1 Develop Cost Estimates Cost estimates for the stored recycled water quality improvement scenarios were developed in the same manner as those developed in Section 6. The same factors and assumptions were used for markups and unit costs. However, it is not anticipated that O&M costs will be significantly affected with any ofthe scenarios defined. Therefore, this evaluation will be completed on the capital cost alone. Table 3-6 presents a summary of the cost estimates. TABLE 3-6: COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FOR THE STORED RECYCLED WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT SCENARIOS Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Total Capital Cost, $ 194,000 872,000 3,539,000 3.7.2 Develop Benefit to Cost Ratios The calculated total benefit scores were divided by capital cost values presented in Table 3-6 to B/C ratios for the scenarios. Table 3-7 presents B/C analysis results. TABLE 3-7: B/C RATIOS FOR THE STORED RECYCLED WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Capital cost, $ 194,000 872,000 3,539,000 Total Benefit Scores 3.56 5.85 5.77 B/C Ratio 18.3 6.7 1.6 Based on the analysis completed. Scenario 1 is clearly the highest B/C ratio primarily due to its low cost. While this scenario has the lowest benefit score, it does provide some level of improved recycled water quality by stopping the use ofthe East Basin which has a greater tendency to be stagnant. The disadvantages of Scenario 1 are the reduced storage volume resulting from no longer using the East Basin for recycled water storage, possible increased energy consumption costs from increased recycled water pumping durations, and increased recycled water waste volumes in order to maintain circulation. Scenario 2 reflects the added benefit of continuing use ofthe East Basin for recycled water storage, discharging into the East Basin to increase circulation through the basins, and covering the West Basin with a floating cover to reduce external water quality impacts. Scenario 3 includes circulation and covers forthe CCB, East Basin, and West Basin. The CCB and East Basins would be fitted with aluminum covers to allow access for cleaning and maintenance. 3.8 Recommendations The results presented herein suggest that the following improvements, as defined by Scenario B, are the most cost effective means to increase the CWRF filtration flexibility and reliability: • Rehabilitation of the MMF process train including membrane replacement. • Implementation of process control system operational limits based on turbidity: o Operate GMF alone up to effluent turbidity of 1.5 NTU (typically influent of up to 3-4 NTU) o Operate GMF and MMF up to compliant effluent turbidity as measured at point of compliance o Divert off-spec water back to EWPCF when effluent turbidity exceeds compliance standards as measured at point of compliance until discharges are back in compliance WBG072814I62755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 45 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS EVALUATION CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION • Replacement of existing GMF chemical addition equipment including increased metering pump capacity. • Replacement of 36-inch dia static mixer with 16-inch dia or variable flow mixer for chemical injection on GMF feed. • Implementation of chemical addition based on turbidity setpoints: o Add alum if effluent turbidity greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 1.5 NTU. Alum dosage up to 60mg/L. o Add polymer if effluent turbidity greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 1.8 NTU. Polymer dosage up to 2mg/L. • Installation of automated butterfly valve on CCB effluent with new piping connection to divert recycled water that is in exceedance of discharge specifications back to EWCPF prior to discharge into recycled water storage basin • Programming to include a control loop so that inlet valves to GMF units are closed if effluent turbidity is greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 2 NTU, but the feed pumps are allowed to operate. Overflow from GMF inlet feed trough would be directed back to EWPCF. • Programming to include a control loop so that MMF feed pumps do not start if GMF feed turbidity is greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 5 NTU. In addition, we recommend the addition of sump pumps at the northwest storm drain with connection to the north storm drain to prevent discharges of recycled or non-recycled water resulting from emergency overflows. In order to improve stored recycled water quality at the CWRF, it appears from our analysis that the following project elements, as defined by Scenario 2, are favorable for implementation: • Construction of new piping/valving to allow compliant recycled water effluent to be diverted from the CCB effluent to East Basin during such operation. • Installation of chlorine residual and turbidity analyzers within the East and West Basins to monitor water quality. This would aid in decisions to discharge recycled water back to EWPCF if necessary. Both scenarios are defined as options that require minor capital upgrades. We believe the combined implementation ofthe above-referenced improvements will adequately address the specific O&M concerns identified by CMWD and EWA operations staff, and described in Section 3.4. There are still some uncertainties for which we are waiting to receive further clarity, such as the impact of future discharges from the Poseidon Resources Seawater Desalination facility, possible outcomes ofthe EWPCF Operations Plan, and direction regarding possible Master Reclamation Permit modifications. Generally, however, this collection of projects seems to provide an adequate level of flexibility and conservatism to be able to respond when those uncertainties are resolved. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 46 OF 76 4. Selected Project Process Descriptions, Design Criteria, and Facilities Sizing Based on the benefit-to-cost ratio evaluation of the filtration treatment alternatives in the Section 2, the preferred treatment technology for the 3.0 MGD CWRF expansion is MMF. MMF provides the most operational reliability, suitability for future regulations, compatibility with EWPCF secondary effluent, and ease of O&M. MMF is relatively easy to operate and is very flexible, particularly when used in conjunction with GMF, and would allow operators to develop protocols for a variety of scenarios such as secondary treatment upsets, demand fluctuations and future changes to secondary effluent water quality. As described in Section 3, the O&M evaluation included the development of alternative scenarios and an evaluation of those scenarios on the basis of benefit-to-cost ratio, and generally found that modest capital improvements to the existing CWRF would be most appropriate to accomplish the desired filtration reliability and operational flexibility. This section will define the elements ofthe selected project including processes and design criteria for the CWRF Phase III expansion. This section is organized as follows: • Summary of the Selected Project • Existing Membrane Microfiltration Feed Pump Station Expansion • New MMF Facility • Existing Chlorine Contact Basin Expansion • Existing Granular Media Filters Feed Static Mixer Upgrades • Miscellaneous Upgrades 4.1 Summary of the Selected Project Based on revised projections of future recycled water demand within the CMWD recycled water service area, CMWD has indicated that a 3 MGD expansion (based on maximum month flow) is adequate for the Phase III expansion project. The CWRF will continue to operate the existing GMF with a 3.7 MGD filtration production capacity for a total treatment capacity of 6.7 MGD at the CWRF. The new MMF treatment train will include three pressurized MMF units to provide adequate production capacity during normal operation which will involve frequent backwashing and clean-in-place (CIP) applications. Additional MMF feed pumps will be installed at the Combined Pump Station to increase the MMF feed flow. Consistent with current operations, the MMF effluent will include a connection to the existing MMF break tank which will have the ability to either: 1) feed the existing RO system, or 2) bypass the RO system to blend directly with the GMF effluent immediately prior to the CCB. A summary of other elements of the proposed Phase III expansion project include: • Expansion of the existing CCB by mirroring and doubling the disinfection capacity. • Replacement of the existing 36-inch diameter GMF static mixer with a 16-inch diameter GMF static mixer for improved preconditioning. • Installation of one additional alum metering pump to feed additional alum to the GMF feed. • Addition of a recycled water storage basin bypass to allow diversion of off-spec water back to the EWPCF. • Addition of a piping connection with valving to allow diversion of CCB effluent to the East Basin. • Implementation of various process control and logic modifications via SCADA integration to improve automation ofthe treatment processes and chemical addition. WBG072814I62755SDO\DRAFT CWRF PDR_REV7 PAGE 47 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT SELECTRED PROJECT PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS, DESIGN CRITERIA, AND FACILITIES SIZING CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION The proposed project will require a modification to the current Master Reclamation Permit with Waste Discharge Requirements (Discharge Order No. 2001-352 and Discharge Order No. R9-2012-0027) to increase the discharge capacity ofthe CWRF. An important part ofthe proposed Phase 111 expansion project will include the CMWD's plan to request an increase to the iron discharge limit above the current limit of 0.3 mg/L. As noted in Section 3, the recent CWRF influent iron concentrations have exceeded 0.30 mg/L. Neither the existing CWRF nor the proposed expansion project is designed to treat and reduce iron concentrations. It is also important that the modified permit maintain the existing point of compliance, which is at the effluent channel of the CCB following blending of the GMF and MMF process trains. This will allow operational flexibility to achieve the turbidity discharge limitations consistently. If the modified permit were to change the point of compliance, additional treatment processes (i.e. rapid mix basin and flocculation), analyzers and instrumentation would likely be necessary to accommodate the appropriate level of operations and permit compliance monitoring. The proposed project is anticipated to improve filtration reliability and operational flexibility and achieve some improvement to the stored recycled water quality due to better circulation. The CMWD will determine the need for floating covers on the recycled water storage basins and/or CCB at a later date. 4.2 Existing Membrane Microfiltration Filtration Feed Pump Station Expansion The existing MMF Feed Pump Station is one ofthe three pump stations that comprise the existing CPS at the EWPCF. Currently there are two vertical turbine pumps at the MMF Feed Pump Station to supply secondary effluent to the existing MMF system (which has the capacity to produce 1 MGD of MMF filtrate). Each ofthe existing pumps has a capacity of 800 gallons per minute (gpm) at approximately 90 feet of total dynamic head (TDH), and a 25 horsepower motor with a variable frequency drive. One of these pumps is a duty pump, the other is the standby unit and both are controlled by the existing MMF PLC. The MMF Feed Pump Station has space to add three more pumps. The new proposed MMF system is expected to have the capacity to produce 3 MGD filtrate. Adding three more vertical turbine pumps, of the same size as the existing, would allow the supply of secondary effluent to the new MMF system. The maximum month production capacity of the new MMF system is expected to be 3 MGD, which would allow one of the pumps to be the standby unit. Table 4-1 summarizes the design criteria and equipment capacity for modifications to the MMF Feed Pump Station. TABLE 4-1: MMF FEED PUMP STATION EXPANSION DESIGN CRITERIA AND EQUIPMENT CAPACITY Parameter Existing Phase III Expansion Capacity, MGD 1.15 3.46 Number of pumps 1 duty + 1 standby 3 duty Type of pump Vertical Turbine with VFD Vertical Turbine with VFD Capacity of each pump, gpm 800 800 Total dynamic head (TDH), feet 90 90 Horsepower of each pump 25 25 4.3 New Membrane Filtration System The new MMF system will consists of pressure-driven, outside-in membrane trains, each with the capacity to produce 1 MGD of MMF effluent. The MMF System is being designed based on the equipment manufactured by Pall Corporation. Based on the preliminary information provided by Pall Corporation, each ofthe three MMF trains will be complete with its own receiving tank, equipment skid (consisting of the feed pump, strainer, recirculation pump, piping, valves, instruments/devices, control panel, and variable frequency drives), reverse filtration tank, and membrane skid. The new MMF trains will share the clean-in-place (CIP) system, heater and the compressed air system. Each of the skids will be pre-piped and pre-wired at the factory. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 48 OF 76 SELECTRED PROJECT PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS, DESIGN CRITERIA, AND FACILITIES SIZING PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Table 4-2 summarizes the design criteria and equipment capacity for the new MMF system. TABLE 4-2: NEW MMF SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA AND EQUIPMENT SIZING Parameter Phase III Expansion Design Filtrate Flows, MGD 3 Approximate Flux, gfd 24 Recovery, % 90 Maximum Transmembrane Pressure, psi 40 CIP Interval, days 30 (minimum) Flow per train, MGD 1 Number of Trains 3 gpm gallons per minute TDH total dynamic head VFD variable frequency drive 4.4 Existing Chlorine Contact Basin Expansion The existing CCB is sized to treat at least 4 MGD of tertiary treated effluent. The expansion of the CCB will include doubling the existing capacity, using the existing south wall as a shared wall. The orientation ofthe CCB expansion will be a mirror ofthe existing basin and will include shared mixing and inlet/outlet channels. The CCB expansion should include the capability of removing the north, or south, CCB from service for maintenance or during times of low flow. The design ofthe new CCB passes will match the width (10 feet), length (150 feet), and depth (10 feet) of the existing ones. Table 4-3 summarizes the design criteria and sizing of the added facilities. The existing influent and effluent channels will be also be expanded and the new passes will be provided with an 8-inch drain pipe, which will be connected to the existing 14-inch diameter GMF overflow line discharging back to the EWPCF. In addition, an automated valve will be installed on the existing 24-inch pipe connecting the existing effluent pipe from the CCB to the West Basin. Two additional pipes, each with an automated valve, will be connected to the CCB effluent. One of these pipes, and its automated valve, will discharge flow to the existing East Basin to allow circulation through the recycled water storage basin system. The second pipe and automated valve will be routed to allow off-spec water to be drained to the EWPCF. TABLE 4-3: NEW MMF SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA AND EQUIPMENT SIZING Parameter Existing Phase III Expansion Minimum CCB Capacity, MGD Number of CCB Number of Passes per CCB Length of each pass, feet Width of each pass, feet Side Water Depth, feet (nominal) CCB Contact CT, mg/(L-min) 4 1 3 150 10 10 450 4 1 3 150 10 10 450 4.5 Existing Granular Media Filters Feed Static Mixer Upgrades The existing GMF have the capacity to treat 3.7 MGD. The GMF feed pipe is 36 inches in diameter and has a static mixer of the same diameter. With the existing flow of 3.7 MGD the velocity of the fluid is approximately 0.9 feet per second (feet/second), which is too low to provide effective mixing ofthe chemicals. The minimum velocity for effective mixing in a static mixer is 2 feet/second. To improve this condition, the static mixer will be replaced with WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 49 OF 76 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT SELECTRED PROJECT PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS, DESIGN CRITERIA, AND FACILITIES SIZING CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION a 16-inch diameter unit. At 3.7 MGD the fluid velocity will increase to more than 4.5 feet/second, which is above the minimum value for effective mixing. This upgrade will require modifying the existing, aboveground, west, 36-inch diameter, 90-degree elbow to a reducing (36 inch by 16 inch) 90-degree elbow. The 16-inch static mixer will be connected to the flanged 90- degree reducing elbow and to a flanged 36 inch by 16 inch reducer. This reducer will be connected to a 36-inch pipe spool, which will be connected to the existing double mechanical joint. The new 16-inch static mixer will be specified to have four chemical injection ports and similar materials of construction as the existing 36-inch static mixer. The removed 90-degree elbow, static mixer and spool piece will be provided to the district for storage. If the flows to the CWRF increase in the future, CMWD will have the larger components, so they can be re-installed. A new alum pump will be installed to increase the capacity of the alum feed capacity to a minimum 60 mg/L at the static mixer. Table 4-4 summarizes the design criteria and sizing ofthe static mixer. TABLE 4-4: NEW GMF STATIC MIXER DESIGN CRITERIA AND EQUIPMENT SIZING Parameter Existing Phase III Expansion Secondary Effluent Flow, MGD 3.7 3.7 Static Mixer Diameter, Inches 36 16 Fluid Velocity, feet/second (for flow above) 0.9 4.5 Minimum Fluid Velocity for a Static Mixer 2 2 Number of Chemical Ports (total) 4 4 Material of Construction Epoxy Lined DI Epoxy Lined DI 4.6 Miscellaneous Upgrades The following modifications and upgrades to improve operational flexibility and reliability are included in this project: Implement the following operational guideline based on the secondary effluent turbidity: - Operate GMF alone up to maximum flow of 2 MGD or maximum effluent turbidity based on operator setpoint, initially set at 2 NTU. - Operate GMF and MMF up to compliant effluent turbidity as measured at point of compliance. - Divert off-spec water back to the EWPCF when effluent turbidity exceeds compliance standards as measured at point of compliance until discharges are back in compliance. Implement the following operational changes to reinstitute chemical conditioning for the GMF feed based on the secondary effluent turbidity as follows: - Add alum if effluent turbidity greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 5 NTU. Alum dosage up to 60 mg/L. Actual criteria will be determined based on further testing. - Add polymer if effluent turbidity greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 6 NTU. Polymer dosage up to 2 mg/L. Actual criteria will be determined based on further testing. Add the requirement to change the existing PLC logic to include a control loop so that inlet valves to GMF units are closed if GMF feed turbidity is greater than operator setpoint, initially set at 8 NTU. The GMF feed pumps will continue to operate, and overflow from the GMF inlet feed trough will be drained back to EWPCF. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 50 OF 76 5, Discipline Basis of Design This section of the report will primarily focus on the basis of design for the engineering disciplines, which include: • Structural Basis of Design • Electrical Basis of Design • Instrumentation and Controls Basis of Design • Preliminary Design Documents 5.1 Structural Basis of Design 5.1.1 General The purpose of this narrative is to establish the structural systems to be used and the design criteria that will provide a uniform, efficient, and effective approach to the structural design forthe CWRF Phase III Expansion. The following concepts and design criteria will be the basis for structural design for the proposed facilities: • Membrane Filtration Feed Pump Station Expansion • New Membrane Filtration System • Existing Chlorine Contact Basin Expansion Membrane Filtration Feed Pump Station Expansion There are two existing vertical turbine pumps in this area. There will be three new vertical turbine pumps added as part of this project. Currently, there are a total of five concrete pump pedestals that were placed at the time of the original construction. Prior to acceptance of the existing concrete pedestals for the three new pumps, these pedestals will be checked once the information for the three new vertical turbine pumps is obtained from the pump manufacturers. If the existing concrete pedestals are deemed acceptable, there will not be any new concrete pump pedestals required for this project. New Membrane Filtration System The overall footprint ofthis new facility is 50 feet long by 84 feet wide. The foundation system will comprise of a concrete slab on grade, with a thickened perimeter edge. It will also have spread footings at the column bearing locations of the sunshade canopy. The sunshade canopy will be constructed using a prefabricated metal structure system. The canopy should be fabricated by a qualified manufacturer and should be designed to match the appearances of the existing sunshade canopies at the site. This facility will also follow the appearance of the existing sunshade canopies in that there will be 3-feet, 4-inch square split-face concrete masonry unit (CMU) encasements at each ofthe steel column locations to provide an enhanced architectural treatment. The canopy roof will have a 2:12 pitch off a center ridge, which will match the geometry ofthe existing canopies. Existing Chlorine Contact Basin Expansion The existing facility currently has three passes, each having a clear width of 10 feet. The CCB expansion should be a mirror of the existing CCB, using the south wall as a shared wall. The expansion portion will have the same alignment and geometry as the existing facility, including wall heights, walkway widths, and foundation depths. There will be a 4-foot-wide access walkway with railings on both sides on the top of the new exterior wall on the south end of the new CCB, similar to the walkway access at the top of the existing CCB. The net overall foundation width dimension in the east/west direction will be maintained in the expansion. To maintain structural integrity of this existing walkway when the supporting wall is removed, 1.5 feet of the existing vertical concrete wall will remain below the bottom slab of the walkway such that the final configuration will act as T-beam along the length of the wall cut. The original construction included the forethought to provide both foundation slab and wall joints such that the existing basins can be added onto properly with both WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 51 OF 76 DISCIPLINE BASIS OF DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION mechanical bar couplers. This will allow the steel reinforcement to act as continuous and embedded water stops so the expansion will operate to meet water holding facility requirements. 5.1.2 Codes and Standards The basis for the design will be the 2013 California Building Code (CBC), as amended by the City of Carlsbad, California and as supplemented by national material standards and codes as identified herein. Minimum design loads: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structure. Concrete • American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 - Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete Steel • American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Steel Construction Manual • AISC 360 Specifications for Structural Steel for Buildings • AISC Specifications for Structural Joints, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A325 or A490 bolts • American Welding Society (AWS) Dl.l Welding Code Masonry • ACI 530 - Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures Aluminum • The Aluminum Association - Aluminum Design Manual 5.1.3 General Structural Design Criteria Design Loads Live Loads • Process Areas: 200 pounds per square feet (psf) • Stairs, Walkways and Covered Grating Areas: 100 psf • Roof Loads: 20 psf minimum • Vehicle Access Areas: HS-20 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Dead Loads The loads resulting from the weight of all fixed construction, equipment, fixtures, etc., such as walls, floors, roofs, equipment bases, and all permanent non-removable stationary construction are considered to be dead loads. Numerical values used for these loads may be determined by either actual known weights ofthe respective items or by documentation presented in the 2013 CBC or other publications such as ASCE 7-05, Minimum Loads Design for Buildings, and Other Structures. Wind Loads • 90 miles per hour (mph) Basic Wind Speed, Exposure C, I = 1.15 Seismic Loads • Spectral Accelerations SS = 1.10 g, • Sl = 0.43 g. Occupancy Category III, Seismic Design Category D, • Design Spectral Accelerations SDS =0.78 g, SDI = 0.45 g, I = 1.25, Site Class D WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 52 OF 76 DISCIPLINE BASIS OF DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Soil Loads The new structures and facilities that are included in this project will use the site-specific soil design criteria and loadings per the Geotechnical Report that was prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc., dated September 12, 2001 (Report 51-594701) that was used for the original construction. The soil load parameters from this report will be stated on the drawing General Structural Notes. Deflection Loads Deflection limits shown below are applicable to service live loads unless specifically indicated otherwise. Deflections will be limited to the following maximum values in terms ofthe span length "I": • Grating and Floor plates: L/360 • Beams, lintels or slab supporting masonry: L/720 • Typical Roof Framing: total load of L/240 and live load of L/360 5.1.4 Materials and Design Approach Concrete Design The materials recommended forthe concrete on this project are as follows: • All cast-in-place concrete shall have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi). • Reinforcing steel shall conform to ASTM A615, grade 60. No reinforcement shall be welded. • Construction joint locations shall be suggested on the drawings where the length of pour is critical for crack control. The contractor may revise construction joint locations subject to specified requirements and shall submit all joint locations for review. Control and expansion joints shall be located on the drawings. The concrete design procedures that will be used on the project include the following: • Ultimate Strength Design will be used for all buildings and above grade structures. • Laps and embedment lengths shall conform to CH2M HILL's standard details and ACI requirements. The minimum concrete cover for reinforcing steel is summarized in Table 5-1 below. TABLE 5-1: CONCRETE COVER SUMMARY Location IVIinimum Cover (inches) Formed Concrete Against Earth 2 inches Unformed Concrete Against Earth 3 inches Liquid or Exterior Face of Walls 2 inches Exterior, Liquid Face of Slabs 2 inches Exterior, Dry Face of Slabs 1-1/2 Inches Interior, Dry Face of Walls No. 3-No. 5 1-1/2 inches No. 6-No. 11 2 inches Interior, Dry Face, Slabs No. 3-No. 5 1 inches No. 6-No. 11 1-1/2 inches Ties and Stirrups 1-1/2 inches WBG0728I4162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 53 OF 76 DISCIPLINE BASIS OF DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Structural Steel Design Bolts and Fasteners Unless shown otherwise, all framing connections will be bolted connections with high-strength bolts. Stainless steel will be used for bolts, fasteners, etc., where corrosion concerns dictate this requirement. Structural steel materials recommended for the project are summarized in Table 5-2 below. TABLE 5-2: STRUCTURAL STEEL MATERIALS RECOMMENDED SUMMARY IVIember Type ASTIVI Reference Fy(ksi) Rolled Members, Plates and Rods Steel Pipe Steel Tubes Bolts for Framing Connections Anchor Bolts, Wet Areas Anchor Bolts, Dry Areas Welding Electrodes A36 orA992 A501 or A53, Type E or S, Grade B A500, Grade B A325-N A193, Type 316 Stainless Steel A307, and Galvanized per A153 E70XX 36,50 35 46 Masonry Design The material recommended for the masonry design on the project are as follows: • Hollow CM Us will be ASTM C90, Grade N, Type 1, normal weight • Grout shall conform to ASTM C476 with a minimum compressive strength of 2000 psi • Mortar will conform to ASTM C270, Type S • Design assembly strength shall be F'm = 1,500 psi unless higher strengths are required by design. Allowable stresses may be increased by 1/3 for wind or seismic loading. Aluminum Design Aluminum materials to be used on this project are summarized in Table 5-3 below. TABLE 5-3: ALUMINUM MATERIALS SUMMARY IVIember Type ASTIVI Specification Shapes and Plates Alloy 6061-T6 conforming to the fiSTM sections in the Aluminum Association Construction Manual. Grating B221, Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum -Alloy Extruded Bars, Rods, Wire, Shapes, and Tubes. Handrails E985, Standard Specification for Permanent Metal Railing Systems and Rails for Buildings. Bolting for Aluminum A193, Type 316 Stainless Steel. Do not use Aluminum Bolts. 5.1.5 Inspection Requirements Owner-furnished, third party, special inspection shall be provided per Sections 1704 and 1710 of the 2013 CBC, as amended by the City of Carlsbad for the following portions of the work: • Concrete placement • Reinforcing steel placement • Structural steel welding • Concrete anchors and embeds WBG072814t62755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 54 OF 76 DISCIPLINE BASIS OF DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION • High strength bolts • Grading, excavation, and filling • Masonry work 5.2 Electrical Basis of Design The purpose ofthis section is to outline the electrical design process and set basic electrical design criteria forthe CWRF Phase III Expansion. The main equipment in this expansion includes: three new MMF pumps that will be added at the existing EWPCF and three new MMF skids and ancillary equipment that will be added at the existing CWRF. This section is organized into the following sections: 1. Design Approach 2. Codes, Regulations, Standards, and References 3. Hazardous Area Definition 4. Design Criteria 5. Assumptions and Open Items 6. Preliminary Electrical Loads 5.2.1 Design Approach Utility Power Service EWPCF - The existing 12 kilovolt (kV) incoming service at EWPCF is stepped down to 480 volts (V), three-phase by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) pad-mounted transformer. The existing service switchboard is rated for 480-V, 3000 amps, and is adequate for the new loads that will be added under this project. CWRF - The existing 12 kV incoming service at CWRF is stepped down to 480 V, three-phase by SDG&E pad- mounted transformer. The existing service switchboard is rated for 480-V, 2000 amps and is adequate for the new loads to be added under this project. Standby Power Distribution System No standby power system modifications are required. Telephone and Personnel Computing Network The existing telephone and personal computing network system does not require modification. Security System and Facility Access Control The new facilities and the existing facilities being upgraded are located outdoors within the existing CWRF fenced boundary, so the existing security system does not require modification. 5.2.2 Codes, Regulations, Standards, and References The design will meet the following codes and standards: Codes • 2014 National Electrical Code (NEC) standards • American National Standards Association (ANSI) • National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) • Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) WBG072 814162755 SD0\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 55 OF 76 DISCIPLINE BASIS OF DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION • ASTM • Underwriters Laboratory (UL) • Illuminating Engineering Society (lES) • National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 5.2.3 Hazardous Area Definition Because the CWRF treats secondary effluent, a hazardous area classification is not required. All areas, except Electrical Rooms, are classified nonhazardous and wet. 5.2.4 Design Criteria The basic goals ofthe design are to: 1. Develop safe, reliable, and maintainable electrical systems to energize the new equipment for CWRF Phase III expansion. 2. Promote a consistent and uniform design approach and standardize the types and quality level of equipment specified. 3. Meet the local and state requirements. Distribution Equipment EWPCF: Three new MMF feed pumps, each with a 25-horsepower (hp) motor, will be added for this project and powered from the existing Power Distribution Panel - "PP-A." Each new pump will be controlled by a new variable frequency drive (VFD). These VFDs will be located in the existing Electrical Room. Existing conduits between the Electrical Room and MMF pumps will be used for power and control. CWRF: Three new MMF skids and ancillary equipment will be added for this project and powered from new Power Distribution Panel - "PDP-1." Panel PDP-1 will be located at the new MMF facility and fed from existing switchboard SWBD-1, which is located in the existing Electrical Room. New conduits will be installed between the existing Electrical Room and the new MMF facility for power and monitoring. • 480 V, three-phase, three-wire distribution panel board - PDP-1. This panel board will supply power to the following loads: - MF Skids A, B, and C - Future MMF Skids D and E - Air Compressors #1 and # 2 - EFM/CIP Skid - Mini Power Center (480 V-208/120 V transformer with integral panel board) • Mini Power Center will supply power to the following loads: - Master Control Panel - Sump Pump Motor - MF Skid A Motor Operated Valves - MF Skid B Motor Operated Valves - MF Skid C Motor Operated Valves - Metering Pump No. 3 - Auto Dialer - MF Facility Interior Lighting Listed and Labeled Equipment The electrical system will incorporate materials and equipment manufactured within the scope of standards published by Underwriters Laboratory (UL), or standards established by a nationally recognized testing laboratory, or other acceptable organization. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT CWRF PDR REV7 PAGE 56 OF 76 DISCIPLINE BASIS OF DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Raceway Systems Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) coated rigid galvanized steel (RGS) conduit and fittings will be used when exposed above grade. PVC conduit and fittings will be used for below grade. Minimum conduit size shall be 3/4 inch. Conductors will be stranded copper. No. 12 American Wire Gauge (AWG) minimum for power. No. 14 AWG minimum for control, and No. 16 AWG minimum for signal. Type THWN-2 insulation will be used for No. 10 AWG and smaller conductors. Type XHHW-2 insulation will be used for No. 8 AWG and larger conductors. All raceways will be provided with equipment grounding conductor. The electrical distribution system will incorporate a grounding electrode system that integrates a ground ring bonding together with foundation rebar and power distribution equipment. Neutrals of derived sources will be bonded to grounding electrode systems. TVSS and surge protection devices will be bonded to grounding electrode systems. Non-current-carrying parts of all electrical equipment, devices, panel boards, and metallic raceways will be bonded to the grounding electrode system. Lighting EWPCF: No additional lighting luminaires are required. It is assumed that existing indoor and outdoor lighting levels are adequate at this facility. CWRF: New low-bay LED luminaires will be installed at the new MMF facility. These luminaires will be UL rated for wet location and controlled by 0-10 V dimming driver. No additional lighting luminaires are required for the roadway or in the existing Electrical Room. 5.2.5Assumptions and Open Items • Space is available in existing Panel PP-A (EWPCF) for three new circuit breakers. • Space is available in existing switchboard SWBD-1 (CWRF) for new circuit breaker to feed PDP-1. • New analyzers will be powered from the existing PLC. 5.2.6 Preliminary Electrical Loads The preliminary electrical load that will be added to the EWPCF is approximately 90 kVA (three new MMF feed pumps, each with a 25-hp motor). Table 5-4 below contains the preliminary electrical loads that will be added to the CWRF. TABLE 5-4: ELECTRICAL LOAD SUMMARY PDP-1 Electrical Load Summary - PDP-1 Total Connected Demand Demand Estimated Estimated Load Factor Load Speed Equipment Load Load amps percentage amps Control Name (kVA) (hp) (a) (%) (a) (cs/VFD) MF Skid A 63 79.1 100% 79.1 VFD MF Skid B 63 79.1 100% 79.1 VFD MFSkidC 63 79.1 100% 79.1 VFD MF Skid D (future) 63 79.1 100% 79.1 VFD MF Skid E (future) 63 79.1 100% 79.1 VFD Air Compressor tt 1 10 14.0 100% 14.0 cs Air Compressor # 2 10 14.0 0% 0.0 cs EFM/CIP Skid 60 75.3 70% 52.7 cs Mini power center - mpc-1 30 36.1 70% 25.3 Total load amps at service voltage 534.8 487.3 Largest ampere load 79.1 a WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 57 OF 76 DISCIPLINE BASIS OF DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION 25% of largest load / highest rated motor 19.8 a Feeder sizing load *** per NEC 430.24 554.5 a Total connected load at 480 V, three-phase 444.6 kVA 5.3 Instrumentation and Controls Basis of Design The Process Instrumentation and Control (l&C) design consists of control and monitoring field instruments. Local Control Panels (LCP), Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC), process control strategies. Human Machine Interface (HMI) hardware, software and communications, and integration associated with the CWRF Phase II Expansion. Control system design criteria includes adhering to safety requirements, meeting the process requirements, confirming reliable operation ofthe system, providing desirable operational control, maintainability, and developing an economically reasonable design. Because most of the work in this project is related to the installation of a complex MMF system, minimizing the complicated integration between the MMF system and the existing CWRF control system and equipment also is an important design criteria. Section 5.3.1 is a discussion of the codes and standards to be followed and individual control system elements as it relates to the preliminary design criteria. 5.3.1 Codes and Standards ANSI 255.1, Gray Finishes for Industrial Apparatus and Equipment ICS 1, General Standards for Industrial Control and Systems IEEE Standard 142, Grounding IEEE C62, Transient Voltage Surge Suppression ISA S5.1, Instrumentation Symbols and Identification ISAS5.4, Standard Instrument Loop Diagrams ISA S20, Specification Forms for Process Measurement and Control Instruments, Primary Elements and Control Valves ISA S50.1, Compatible Analog Signals for electronic Industrial Process Instruments NEMA 250, Enclosures for Electrical Equipment (1,000 V maximum) NEMA ICS-1, Industrial Control & Systems General Requirements NFPA 70, National Electrical Code NFPA 820, Standard for Fire Protection in Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities National Safety Fire Protection Code UL 508A, Standard for Safety, Industrial Control Panels UL 1449, UL Standard for Surge Protective Devices 5.3.2 Field Instruments The field instruments described in this subsection includes those provided as part of packaged process systems, such as the MMF system, in addition to those provided for the plant-wide l&C. The specification for the packaged process systems will include the requirements to meet the criteria listed below for field instruments. The field instruments will include the following: • Pressure Indicator - Pressure gauges will be provided in the design where shown on the process and instrumentation diagram (P&ID). For water service, a 4.5-inch diameter dial pressure gauge with black thermoplastic housing will be specified. For chemical service, a 3.5-inch diameter dial pressure gauge with stainless steel housing will be specified. Each gauge will be specified with Glycerin fill for reduced pointer vibration. Pressure will be sensed using a Bourdon tube element to provide an accuracy of V- 0.50 WBG072 814162 75 5SD0\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 58 OF 76 DISCIPLINE BASIS OF DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION percent. All wetted parts ofthe gauge will be stainless steel. The gauge will be stem mounted to the process piping using 0.5-inch male National Pipe Thread (NTP) and isolation ball valve. • Pressure Switch - monitor the pressure via a diaphragm-actuated switch with a given pressure setpoint and switch reset when the pressure drops below the setpoint by either a fixed or adjustable deadband, depending on the specific application. The switch will be rated for 10 amps at 120-V alternating current (ac). The process connection will be a 0.25-inch NPT female. • Diaphragm Seal - Diaphragm seals will be provided in the design to protect pressure instruments from dirty or corrosive process fluids. For service with secondary effluent, stainless steel lower housing and seal will be specified along with a Glycerin fill fluid. In the chemical room, the diaphragm seal lower housing, seal and fill fluid will be selected for compatibility with alum and the pressure ofthe chemical metering system. • Rotometer - Rotometers will be provided in the design for adjustment and visual monitoring of seal water flow for the MMF feed pumps. A durable plastic rotometer will be specified with a flow range appropriate for the seal water requirements of the pump. • Turbidity Analyzer - This unit will be specified with a stainless steel insertion type element, capable of being fully retractable from the pipe hot tap, and suitable for 120-V ac power. • Chlorine Residual Analyzer - This unit will be specified to measure total chlorine with a contacting gas sensor system that needs potassium iodine as the reagent and suitable for 24-V direct current (dc) power. • Conductivity Analyzer - Analyzer with contacting sensors (titanium or graphite electrodes), capable of high accuracy (errors less than 1 percent), in-place calibration, and suitable for 24-V dc power. 5.3.3 Plant Supervisory Control System Plant Supervisory PLC Panel An existing Plant Supervisory PLC panel {PLC-2) and remote input/output (I/O) panel (RIO-2) provides signal interface and control for most ofthe water recycling facility equipment with the exception ofthe existing MMF system and recycled water pump station. Existing alum chemical feed pump and instrument signals are wired to the PLC-2 panel. This panel will be modified as required to accept signals from a new alum chemical feed pump. To match the control signals from the existing chemical pumps, the following new signal connections are required: 1. Running Status (DI) 2. Remote Status (DI) 3. High Pressure (DI) 4. Run Permissive (DO) 5. Run Command (DO) 6. Speed Command (AO) The following additional signals are not required, but are typically specified for variable speed equipment when available: 1. Fail(DI) 2. Speed Reference (Al) Additional I/O modules may need to be installed into the existing PLC for integration ofthe new chemical pump signals. Addition ofthe new logic to control the new chemical feed pump will require modifications to the existing logic in the existing PLC-2. According to record drawings, this PLC is a SLC-5/05. The programming will match the existing alum chemical feed pumps. Some additional sequencing and fail over logic may be needed when adding the third pump. WBG072814t62755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 59 OF 76 DISCIPLINE BASIS OF DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION Plant Supervisory Human Machine Interface Record drawings for the CWRF show an existing HMI system for supervisory control and monitoring ofthe Recycled Water Pump Station, Reverse Osmosis System, Granual Media Filters, and miscellaneous CWRF instrumentation and equipment. Programming work to modify the exisiting system will be specified to integrate the new alum feed pump, MMF feed pumps, and MMF system. This work includes development of new process and equipment screens and configuration of new process data points for alarm, trending, and display. Software licensing may need to be upgraded depending on the spare capacity ofthe existing software license. The existing software may also need to be upgraded to a newer version to interface with new PLC hardware. The following assumptions for the existing Plant Supervisory HMI and Network are listed below: 1. No changes to remote access and network security except as noted for the MMF system. 2. No additional HMI computers. 3. No changes to existing HMI computer hardware. 4. Little or no modification to existing HMI screens. 5.3.4 Membrane Filtration Packaged Control System Existing MMF Control System Recording drawings for the CWRF show existing PLC control panels and a standalone HMI system for process control of the existing MMF system. Four PLC control panels are shown. There is a Supervisory PLC panel (PLC-1) with a remote I/O panel (CP-0901). CP-0901 provides I/O connections to the two existing MMF feed pumps. Each existing MMF unit has its own PLC panels. This system will remain in service with minimum modification. However, process signals from existing instrumentation that will be needed by the MMF system will need to be interfaced with the new MMF control system. This interface will be specified as hardwired signals if possible. This is intended to prevent reliablity issues with the existing MMF control system from effecting operation of the new MMFcontrol system. New MMF Control System The new MMFsystem will be specified to provide a complete and independent control system, similar in form and function to the existing MMF system. The new MMF system will interface with the new MMF feed pumps using hardwired signals to a new remote I/O panel. Control of the new MMF feed pumps will be implemented by the new MMF supplier as part of their control system. The remote I/O panel will be tied to the new Supervisory MMF PLC control panel using a dedicated rack-to-rack communication cable. If available, the rack-to-rack communication cable will be installed into an existing conduit between the existing MMF control panel and existing MMF remote I/O panel. The new MMFsystem also will be specified with its own HMI system. This system will incorporate the MMF manufacturer's standard HMI design. The HMI and PLC system will be required to be factory built and tested prior to arrival at the CWRF. With a packaged control system of this complexity, providing the MMF manufacturer with a Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection to their HMI and PLC system is recommended. This provides the MMF manufacturer with remote access for the purpose of providing technical support. A network firewall appliance and specific network configurations are required to provide secure VPN access for the MMF manufacturer while restricting access to only the MMF control system equipment. If CWRF operations staff require process data and HMI screens to be available on the CWRF HMI system, additional integration is required. The recommended approach is to interface the CWRF HMI with the MMF supervisor PLC. This allows process data to be read directly from the MMF supervisor PLC into the CWRF HMI for trending, alarming, and display of process screens. Modifications to the CWRF can be performed by the integrating subcontractor with minimal interaction and coordination with the MMF control system supplier. MMF Feed Pump Control Control signals for the new MMF feed pumps VFDs will be connected to the remote I/O panel for the new MMF system. The following signal connections are required for each VFD: WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 60 OF 76 DISCIPLINE BASIS OF DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION 1. Running Status (DI) 2. Remote Status (DI) 3. Fail Status (Dl) 4. Run Command (DO) 5. Speed Reference (Al) 6. Speed Command (AO) Seal water control for each pump will be implemented within the VFD. A signal to open the seal water solenoid will be activated prior to pump start. A low-pressure switch will monitor seal water pressure and stop the motor if seal water pressure is lost. The seal water solenoid will be fail open to allow seal water to continue to flow, if the solenoid fails. An additional low-pressure switch on the pump suction line will shut down the pump if suction pressure drops below a minimum value for a preset time. The fail signal to the CWRF PLC will activate for any condition that shuts down the pump. Individual faults such as motor high temperature, or pump suction low pressure, will be indicated on the VFD and require a local reset to be preformed by the operator. PLC control ofthe MMF feed pumps will be coordinated with the first named MMF system manufacturer. Control of pump sequencing, start/stop, fail over, and speed control will be detailed in the MMF system specification. Owner preferences and CWRF standards will be incorporated into the control description, where they do not conflict with process control requirements for the pumps and MMF system equipment. 5.4 Preliminary Design Documents The preliminary list of specifications (general requirements and technical sections) for the CWRF Phase III Expansion project is included in Appendix A. The preliminary design drawings for the project are in Appendix B and include the drawing index, site layout, and yard piping, structural, mechanical, one line diagram, and P&ID drawings. The site layout and yard piping drawing shows the location and overall footprint of the new MMF facility, the expansion of the existing CCB, the new main yard piping, relocation ofthe existing yard piping, and new electrical conduits. WBG072 814162755 SD0\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 61 OF 76 6. Selected Project Cost Estimate CH2M HILL prepared a Class 3 construction cost estimate forthe selected 3 MGD CWRF expansion project defined in Section 4, consisting ofthe elements listed below. 1. Supply and installation of three new 25 horsepower MMF feed pumps to convey secondary effluent to the new MMF treatment train. 2. Supply, installation and construction associated with the new MMF treatment train consisting of three pressurized MMF units producing a combined minimum 3.0 MGD of additional filtrate design flow. 3. Construction of the chlorine contact basin (CCB) expansion to provide disinfection of the additional design filtrate flows. 4. Construction of a 24-inch diameter pipeline with valve control and connections to discharge effluent recycled water from the CCB to the east recycled water storage basin. 5. Construction of a 24-inch diameter pipeline with valve control and connections to drain CCB effluent back to the EWPCF prior to discharging into the recycled water storage basin. 6. Supply and replacement of the existing 36-inch diameter static mixer for the GMF feed with a 16-inch diameter static mixer prior to discharge. 7. Supply and installation of a new alum metering pump to increase the alum feed concentration to a minimum 60 mg/L. 8. Implement miscellaneous site electrical and instrumentation and control (l&C) work to accommodate the plant-wide process control. CH2M HILL's opinion of probable construction cost for the selected project is $8,243,544. The estimate is considered accurate to +20 percent to -15 percent, based on the preliminary design, with a resulting cost estimate range of $7,007,012 to $9,892,253. The cost estimates herein have been prepared for guidance in the project evaluation and implementation from the information available. The final costs ofthe project will depend on actual labor and materials costs, competitive market conditions, final project costs, implementation schedule and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from the estimate presented herein. Because ofthis, project feasibility and funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions to help ensure proper project evaluation and adequate funding. CH2M HILL has made certain assumptions which are subject to change including: Construction schedule (assumed to be 16 months including construction and startup) and escalation rates (assumed to be 2.85 percent annually to the midpoint of construction). Contractor General Conditions assumed to be 7 percent. Sales Tax on Material assumed to be 8 percent. Type and methods of construction as defined in this PDR. Contractor overhead (assumed to be 4 percent) and profit (assumed to be 7 percent). Bonds and insurance (assumed to be 2.16 percent). Contingency (assumed to be 20 percent). Mobilization/demobilization assumed to be 2 percent. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFr_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 62 OF 76 SELECTED PROJECT COST ESTIMATE CARLSBADIWATER RECLAMATION FACILITY PHASE III EXPANSION • Other items such as labor rates, equipment rates, project site conditions, and other reasonable allowances to accomplish the work. This cost estimate does not include project soft costs such as CMWD administration, design and construction management. It should be noted that this cost estimate is based on the preliminary design and will be subject to change during the final design development and SCADA integration definition. Table 6-1 presents a summary of the loaded cost estimates for each of the defined project elements based on the preliminary design. TABLE 6-1: CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Element Description Quantity Units Total Cost (1) 1 New MMF Feed Pumps 3 Each $ 286,142 2 New MMF System 1 Lump Sum $ 5,941,741 3 CCB Expansion 1 Lump Sum $ 1,119,262 4 24-inch Pipeline from CCB effluent to East Basin 1 Lump Sum $ 319,634 5 24-inch Pipeline from CCB effluent to Drain to EWPCF 1 Lump Sum $ 63,321 6 static mixer replacement 1 Lump Sum $ 144,822 7 New alum metering pump 1 Lump Sum $ 53,194 8 Miscellaneous Electrical and l&C 1 Lump Sum $ 315,427 Total Construction Cost Estimate $ 8,243,544 Notes: (1) - Includes assumptions for contractor markups and contingencies. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 63 OF 76 i 7. Works Cited Caliskaner and Tchobanoglous. 2006. Optimization of Compressible Medium Filter for Secondary Effluent Filtration. Water Practice & Technology, IWA Publishing 2006. Carollo Engineers. June 2012. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Feasibility Study. CH2M HILL. 2007. Eastern Municipal District Perris Water Filtration Plant Recovery Project Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate Memorandum. November 2007. RMC Water and Environment. August 2013. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Phase III Recycled Water Project - Project Report. WBG072814162755SDO\DRAFT_CWRF_PDR_REV7 PAGE 64 OF 76 1* •' Appendix A Preliminary List of Specifications Appendix B Preliminary Design Drawings Notice of DetCTrnination From: CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-4600 To: ^ Office of Planning and Research PO Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 3 SD County Clerk Attn: James Scott 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 PO Box 121750 San Diego, CA 92101 Project No: CUP 99-23(A)/CDP 99-45(A) Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 ofthe Public Resources Code. Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Project Title SCH No. 2012091049 Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner (760) 602-4626 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number Generally located on the east side of Avenida Encinas, between Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane, at 6620 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA San Diego County. Project Location (include County) Name of Applicant: Carlsbad Public Works Department, David Ahles. Senior Engineer Applicant's Address: 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Applicant's Telephone Number: (760) 603-7350 Project Description: The Phase III expansion ofthe Carlsbad Water Recycling Facilitv (CWRF) was identified as one of the components of the Phase III Recycled Water Proiect. and will expand the existing CWRF from its current capacitv of 4.0 MGD to a total capacitv of 8.0 MGD. This component is within the scope ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was previouslv prepared and adopted for the Phase III Recycled Proiect. The MND identified that the proposed expansion of the CWRF would not result in anv direct nr indirect environmental impacts and no mitigation measures are required for this particular proiect. The proiect will be funded using Clean Water State Revolving Fund financing. The State Water Board (SWB) adopted CEQA findinss for the Phase III Recycled Water Proiect on December 11. 2014. All mitigation measures required bv SWB are incorporated into the conditions of approval. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on February 4, 2015, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Q An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. \Z] A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ^ This project was reviewed previously and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. 6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final Mitigated Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of 3ject approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. DON NEU, City Planner Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised 05/13 VENDOR NO. V001844 CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2430 CHECKNO. 269054 Invoice Oate Invoice # Puichase OTilet« Department Reference # Project # Description Invoice Amount Paid 01/05/15 094811 5077000 9060 52081 908 NOD CUP9923A CDP9945A 50 . 00 Total: 50 . 00 DETACH BEFORE DEPOSITING PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resicjent of the County aforesaW: I am over the age of eighteen years anij not a party to or lntereste(j In the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of UT - North County Formerly known as the North County Times and which newspaper has been adjudicated as a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court Of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree numbers 171349 & 172171, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed Is a printed copy (set In type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire Issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: January 24*, 2015 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Is true and correct. Dated at Oceanside, California On This 26^ day January, 2015 Jane Allshouse UT NORTH COUNTY Legal Advertising This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp City of Carlsbad JAN 2 8 2015 Planning Division Proof of Publication of PLANNING COAAMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICiE is HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your in-terest may be affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California/ at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 4, 201S, to consider the following: 1) CUP 99-23(A)/CDP 99-45(A) - CARLSBAD WATER RECY-CLING FACILITY - Request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment Ond Coastal DevdbiJnTirit' Permit Amendment for the Phase III Expansion of th^ Cartsbad Sftlflter Recycling Fa-cility located at i220=AvenldaEnclndS In the Mello II Segment of the Lpcal Coastol Prograni arW wJtftja Local Facilities Monoge- , ment Zone 22. The proiect Is within- tfliB scope of the Mitigated Negative DeclaratJon (MND) wot wfls prepared for the Phase III Recycled Woter Project and tne MND iadetiuately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA. This proiect Is not locat-ed within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commis-sion. 2) CT 14HI3/RP 14-1« - BEACHWALK AT MADISON - Request for a recommendation of approval of a Tentative Tract Map and a Malor Review Permit to allow for the construction of six (6) multi-family residential air space condominiums on a 0.28-acre site on the east side of Madison Street In Land Use District 8 of the Village Review zone and within Local Facilities Manage-ment Zone 1. The proiect qualifies as o CEQA Guidelines Sec-tion 15332 (In-Fill Development Proiects) Class 32 Categorical Exemption. If you challenge these proiects In court, you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or soraebnie' else raised at the pub-lic hearing described in this notice or In written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prlor to the public hear-ing. Copies of the environmental documents are available at the Planning Division at 1635 Faraday Avenue during regular busi-ness hours from 7:30 am to 5:30 pm Monday through Thursday and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Friday. Those persons wishing to speak on these praposais are cordially Invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff reports will be available online at http://carlsbad.9ranicus.com/ViewP! ubli$her.php?vlew id=6 on or after the Friday prior to the hear-ing date. If you have any questions, please call the Planning Di-vision at (760) 602-4600. CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION pub; 1/24/15 FILE Ccityof Carlsbad NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 4, 2015, to consider a request for the following: CASE NAME: CUP 99-23(A)/CDP 99-45(A) - CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PUBLISH DATE: January 16, 2015 DESCRIPTION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment for the Phase III Expansion of the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility located at 6220 Avenida Encinas in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities IVIanagement Zone 22. The project is within the scope of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was prepared for the Phase III Recycled Water Project and the MND adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA. This project is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing and provide the decision makers with any oral or written comments they may have regarding the project. Copies of the staff report will be available online at http://carlsbad.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php7view id=6 on or after the Friday prior to the hearing date. If you have any questions, or would like to be notified ofthe decision, please contact Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Division at (760) 434-2974, Monday through Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. APPEALS The time within which you may judicially challenge these projects, if approved, is established by State law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. • Appeals to the Citv Council: Where the decision is appealable to the City Council, appeals must be filed in writing within ten (10) calendar days after a decision by the Planning Commission. • Coastal Commission Appealable Project: O This site is located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. ^ This site is not located within the Coastal Zone Appealable Area. • Application deemed complete: December 16. 2014 Where the decision is appealable to the Coastal Commission, appeals must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days after the Coastal Commission has received a Notice of Final Action from the City of Carlsbad. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission of the date that their appeal period will conclude. The San Diego office of the Coastal Commission is located at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, California 92108-4402. CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax SITE MAP NOT TO SCALE CUP 99-23(A) / CDP 99-45(A) Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® BARONE FAMILY 6526 dCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 Bend along line to ^ ^p||eed Paper expose Pop-up Edge™ ^ PASEO DEL NORTE LLC 4130 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR #206 LA JOLLA CA 92037 AVERY® 5160® ! 1 PASEO DEL NORTE LLC 6183 PASEO DEL NORTE #180 CARLSBAD CA 92011 ADAMS FRANK J & JOAN P 6602 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 AFANSEV GEORGE & GLORIA FAMILY 6506 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 ALL-COAST ENTERPRISES INC 149 S BARRINGTON AVE #804 LOS ANGELES CA 90049 ALLMARAS MITCHELL L & LESLIE A 207 FLORENCE AVE EVANSTON WY 82930 ALTAMIRA MANAGEMENT ASSN NO 1 6992 EL CAMINO REAL #105 CARLSBAD CA 92009 AMEEN HENRY & MARY A 12811 CHAPARRAL DRIVE GARDEN GROVE CA 92840 ANDERSON JAMES W & ESTHER M FAMILY 1750 SAND STORM DR HENDERSON NV 89074 BANKS JOANNE 811 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 ARONSON NEILC 801 CAMINITO DEL MAR CARLSBAD CA 92011 BARNETT KENNETH R FAMILY 01-12-9 6528 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 BAILEY NANCY J 6511 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 BARON DAVID L FAMILY 06-30-13 2145 E TAHQUITZ WAY #4-286 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 BARRETT ROBERT & ELAINE 07-19-91 6525 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 BARTON SAMUEL J & CASSANDRA 78925 STARLIGHT LN BERMUDA DUNES CA 92203 BECKER BARRETT & AMY 804 CAMINITO DELMAR CARLSBAD CA 92011 BECKER MARK & PATIENCE 6529 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 BECKER MARK & PATIENCE J P 0 BOX 458 CHELSEA Ml 48118 BECKWITH JOYCE Y 6498 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 BENATTOU 2002 2969 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 BENDIG CHARLES H & ANN 6509 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 BENTON ROBERT J & LESLEY L 6507 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 BERT CLEMENT A 08-05-86 P 0 BOX 901236 SANDY UT 84090 BETRO DOMINICK F 6518 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 BEVERAGE MELANIE J 202 EASY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 BLACK MARY J 03-23-07 6507 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 BLEVINS DAVID S& JULIE L 802 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 BONNER HOYF C & FRANCES M 6503 FRIENDLY PL #17 CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes faciles h peler Utilisez le qabarit AVERY® 5160® Sens de Replies d ia hachure afin de | reveler te rebord POD-UO"' ! vinvw.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® BRAJKOVICH PAULE 2744 BITTERNUT CIR SIMI VALLEY CA 93065 j _ A Bend along line to i ^ ^Bteed Paper " expose Pop-up Edge™ | BRENNAN ALLAN P & MARTHA S 6530 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 AVERY® 5160® I BROGE FAMILY 10127 BOGUE ST TEMPLE CITY CA 91780 BROOCK FAMILY 04-04-06 6505 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 BUSSIO FAMILY 12-05-08 6513 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 BUTLER DONALD M PROPERTY 6618 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 BUTTNER BERNICE M 06-22-11 204 SEA BREEZE DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 BUZBEE DOROTHY SKEBER CYNTHIA G 2609 EL RASTRO LN CARLSBAD CA 92009 CARLSBAD SEAPOINTE RESORT 5050 AVENIDA ENCINAS #200 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD SEAPOINTE RESORT P O BOX 4068 CARLSBAD CA 92018 CASCARANO FAMILY 10-25-01 6533 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 CAVENDER 12-11-02 6606 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 CHAPMAN 09-22-06 6493 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 CLARKE FRANK & SALLY 08-27-90 1323 SMOKE TREE LN SANTA MARIA CA 93454 CLAYPOOL KENNETH J & DOROTHY C 6522 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 CORRAL CARMEN 808 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 CRAIG JEAN A 07-15-91 6514 OCEANVIEW CARLSBAD CA 92011 CRANDALL FAMILY 12-28-11 7040 AVENIDA ENCINAS #104-250 CARLSBAD CA 92011 CROWDER SCOTT SR & EILEEN 9602 W PEDERNALES RIVER DR CYPRESS TX 77433 CULP FAMILY 09-18-70 6614 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 CUTSHAW ROSS & SUSAN L P 0 BOX 232046 ENCINITAS CA 92023 DAILEY WILLIAM & BETTY L 6496 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 DAVIS DONNA 6498 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 DAVIS MICHAEL C & LESLIE C 6520 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 DEAN SHEILA A 6538 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 DEDERICK FAMILY 02-18-92 6524 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 DELONG DEBORAH 6537 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 DIVIONA FAMILY 06-30-04 6494 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 DONAHUE FAMILY 10-31-01 6458 SURFSIDE LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 DONALDSON MORRIS L & AGNES W 6510 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le qabarit AVERY® 5160® ^Sens de Repliez k la hachure afin de reveler le rebord POD-UD*"^ www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® DOYLE FAMILY 09-23-92 7 FONIAIRE COTO DE CAZA CA 92679 j ^ A Bend along line to i ^ ^BFeed Paper ^""^ expose Pop-up Edge™ ^ DUTTA FAMILY 07-07-97 6455 SURFSIDE LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 AVERY® 5160® ! EATON ALCIA M 12-05-90 2037 VISTA HERMOSA WAY EL CAJON CA 92019 EINSPAR JAMES M & PATRICIA H 6502 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 ELEVEN SAC SELF-STORAGE CORP 1250 E MISSOURI AVE PHOENIX AZ 85014 ELIAS RICK N 204 EASY PL #T CARLSBAD CA 92011 EVANS HAROLD R 6519 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 FIFIELD KATHLEEN J FAMILY 07-15-04 6494 SURFSIDE LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 FLEMING JANICE 03-12-03 6522 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 FOND WILLIAM J10-18-00 6515 EASY ST #55 CARLSBAD CA 92011 FRENCH FAMILY 04-01-92 6532 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 GIEBINK FAMILY 06-17-85 6506 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 GLUCS JEANNE 6520 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 GRUNNAN NORMANN L&THELMAJ 6504 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 HADLEY PAUL & PEGGY FAMILY P 0 BOX 12727 PALM DESERT CA 92255 HALL ALEX G & KAREN 6501 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 HALL ERIC & LAURIE 2004 06- 6459 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 HERRINGTON N KEITH & ALICE M 6610 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 HOLGUIN FAMILY 07-22-10 6536 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 HUTCHINGS KARL 6517 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 J W M III 06-18-01 12574 WOODGREENST LOS ANGELES CA 90066 JACKSON SHARON K 807 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 JENSEN FAMILY 09-14-04 6534 EASY ST #67 CARLSBAD CA 92011 JOHNSON MARILYN E 09-11-91 6492 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 JONES RICHARD & LILLIAN FAMILY 7242 NOAH CT SPARKS NV 89436 KEENAN FAMILY 11-18-04 67110 GARBINORD CATHEDRAL CITY CA 92234 KENNEDY DORIS J 06-27-05 814 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 KENNEDY SCOTTM 814 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 KENNY JAMES F 6523 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 KING JOHN A 6516 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® Sens de rhamoment Repliez d la iiachure afin de | reveler le rebord Pop-up"<^ i www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® LAI JOHNSON & SCHMIDT KIMBERLEY P O BOX 1136 RCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 LEITCH BRUCE D 2123 CURTIS AVE REDONDO BEACH CA 90278 Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge™ AVERY® 5160® ! i LIM TAN FAMILY 806 CAMINITO DELMAR CARLSBAD CA 92011 LOKER FAMILY 01-23-06 813 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 LOUGHRIN JAY R & YOLANDA P 0 BOX 587 KERNVILLE CA 93238 LUISI NINA 1992 6531 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 M L C F C 2007-7 PASEO DEL NORTE 1601 WASHINGTON AVE #700 MIAMI BEACH FL 33139 MACMILLAN JOHN C & CYNTHIA 808 CAMINITO DEL MAR CARLSBAD CA 92011 MANGINI FAMILY 1804 PARLIAMENT RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 MANNING JUANITAJ 6608 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 MARCHI CAREY M 203 SEA BREEZE DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 MARTELMARYJ 6507 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 MAXWELL/MCNAMARA FAMILY 6480 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 MCAMIS PROPERTIES LLC 803 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 MCCABE FAMILY 05-19-05 6489 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 MCKERNEY INTERVIVOS A 07-24-81 12914 WILDCAT CANYON RD LAKESIDE CA 92040 MCWINCORP P 0 BOX 2316 CARLSBAD CA 92018 MEANEY EILEEN <LE> MEANEY DENNIS 6604 TIERRA DR NW ALBUQUERQUE N. /I 87107 MELLOTT EARL & THELMA FAMILY 810 AVOCADO ST BREA CA 92821 MILLER SUSAN L FAMILY 112-27-93 7215 LINDEN TER CARLSBAD CA 92011 MINEO FAMILY 04-20-04 1751SUNNYPARK REDLANDS CA 92374 MITTSKUS VYTO & BETTYMAE 6492 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 MOORE CYNTHIA L 1262 KETTNER BLVD #1703 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 MOORE CYNTHIA L 6485 SURFSIDE LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 MORISSETTE DIANNE S 806 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 NEALE TED & CINDY A 1137 DEL ROBLES PL SIMI VALLEY CA 93063 Etiquettes faciles k peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® MURPHY MICHAEL R & KATHRYN J FAMILY 6490 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 WALTER CHENGCHE & DOROTHYSAUHAN 7959 CAMINO GATO CARISRAD f A 97009 Sens de Repliez k la Iiachure afin de | reveler le rebord Pop-up"^ | MUSCH CATHY L 10 MONTEREY IRVINE CA 92612 NGUYEN HAC CAO 8924 POLANCO ST SAN DIEGO CA 92129 vvww.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® NITTI ANNAS ETAL 1951 W MOUNTAIN ST GLENDALE CA 91201 i I I i mmmm ^^ed Paper ••"•i"" NOLTON LINDA R Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge™ 2306 OBSERVATORY AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90027 AVERY® 5160® I i OLIVER GUY & LISA 6467 SURFSIDE LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 ONEAL KENNETH & NANCY B FAMILY 201 W LEMON AVE MONROVIA CA 91016 PARKS DAVID G & PAMELA K 6527 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 PINTO CAROLYN 803 CAMINITO DEL MAR CARLSBAD CA 92011 PIPER RAYMOND A FAMILY 06-09-81 6502 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 PLEICK LEONA E 09-27-04 6510 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 POHLE CHESTER & JUDY FAMILY 15820 ARABELLA AVE BAKERSFIELD CA 93314 ROBERTIS FAMILY 07-13-88 6618 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 ROSS WILLIAM N 11-20-07 6516 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 ROWAN RALPH P 6492 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 RUSHFELDT HARVEY L 6508 EASY ST #27 CARLSBAD CA 92011 RUSSELL BERNA L 10-05-93 6508 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 SALDIN ROY M & DONNA I 22622 MORALIA DR MORENO VALLEY CA 92557 SANCHEZ PATRICIA L V 08-31-12 6498 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 SHARP 12-20-98 1775 ELEVADO RD VISTA CA 92084 SHORES FAMILY 2005 07-18-05 P 0 BOX 234069 ENCINITAS CA 92023 SMITH FAMILY 03-27-13 1515 HELENA LN REDUNDS CA 92373 SORENSEN FAMILY 02-23-83 6508 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 STANLEYO L & E L03-17-93 6504 OCEANVIEW DR #T CARLSBAD CA 92011 STECKLING DANA L & HILL MARILYN A 6512 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 STEENKEN RICHARD W DECEDENTS 3215 BARNES CIR GLENDALE CA 91208 STILLWELL VIVIAN E 04-28-11 6535 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 STOCKTON FAMILY 12-27-94 30378 COPPER HILL CT REDLANDS CA 92373 STOVALL JANITA J 12-20-01 812 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 SWENSON DOUGLAS E & CAROL J 2240 MIDLAND GROVE RD #303 ST PAUL MN 55113 TAPP ROBERT V & BETH A 07-05-05 6509 FRIENDLY PL CARLSBAD CA 92011 TODD FAMILY 12-28-06 7431 CAPSTAN DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 TOOHEY RICHARD M & MARY E FAMILY 6610 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes faciles k peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® I Sens de Repliez a la hachure afin de | reveler le rebord Pop-up"^ I www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 5160® Bend along line to I i ^jl^ ^^f^' expose Pop-up Edge™ TOTH JQHN R & DOAR-TOTH SHARON T TRAMUTOLA 10-12-11 3275 MAEZEL LN 25442 REMESA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 AVERY® 5160® 1 A TURNER JEFFREYS 208 PARADISE COVE RD MALIBU CA 90265 TURPIN JEFFREY S & BARBARA J 6456 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 VALLONE KENNETH L & MELINDA A 7668 EL CAMINO REAL #104-167 CARLSBAD CA 92009 VARAV KALLE & MICHELLE 6476 SURFSIDE LN CARLSBAD CA 92011 VEA GILBERT V & TRINIDAD T 2250 W HAMILTON AVE EL CENTRO CA 92243 VU TINH V & TRI T FAMILY 12-25-01 6534 OCEANVIEW DR CARLSBAD CA 92011 WALLACE FAMILY BYPASS 11-24-05 28469 CARRIAGE HILL DR HIGHLAND CA 92346 WANG 07-20-06 21 HAWKS NEST RD STONY BROOK NY 11790 WATSON B 09-17-92 6702 DARYN DR WEST HILLS CA 91307 WAZ MATTHEW C & ANNE M 6477 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 WEBER FAMILY 11-24-97 15063 BINNEY ST HACIENDA HEIGHTS CA 91745 WEITZ BETTY J 06-30-00 809 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 WHITE TOMMY B 6453 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 WHITE TOMMY B 09-15-00 6453 FRANCISCAN RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 WIESINGER SHIRLEY M 12-17-03 6611 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 WILLIAMS KAREN E 804 CAMINITO DEL REPOSO CARLSBAD CA 92011 WILLIAMS 11-28-06 3836 WHALER DR LK HAVASU CTY AZ 86406 WOODWARD DAVID K & BEVERLY M 3413 CORVALLIS ST CARLSBAD CA 92010 ZANE FAMILY 11-19-01 6602 EASY ST CARLSBAD CA 92011 Etiquettes faciles h peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® • Sens de ^ K St m Aavi am 4 Repliez k la Iiachure afin de { r^v^ler le rebord Pop-up"' I www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel® Labels I • Mmmm Bend along line to j AVERY® ^160® ! Use Avery® Template 5160® ] Jfcped Paper expose Pop-up Edge™ ] (A j-kwcixw aiou ^ CARLSBAD'WATER RECYCLING FACILITY 6220 AVENIDA ENCINAS Carlsbad 92011 A notice has been mailed to all property owners/occupants listed herein. Date: Signature:. i Incite Etiquettes faciles a peler [ c ^ H Repliez k ia hachure afin de | vwvw.avery.com Utilisezlegabarit AVERY® 5160® 1 rh^T^l„t reveler le rebord Pop-up"' I 1-800-GO-AVERY U.S. Postal ServicBrM '^'^.RTIFIEP MAIL. RECEIPT ( .nestle Mill 0nlyi No Insurance Coverage Provideu/ ForldeiiverV Ihforirtatlori visit our website at www.usps.com i (I - I I A L USE Postage CertKiod Pee Retum Receipt Fae (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) goo ^ PostmaK \ ^ Here} ' Total Pc • — CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 fpo2 7575 METROPOLITAN DR Sent To city,stat. SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 b STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 FEB 1 1 201S Planning Divisictn Sender: Please print your name, address, and CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-7314 ''iiiMiiiiiii'Hi'i'fi SENDER: COMPIMTE THIS SECTION Complete items ", 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 If Restricted Delivery Is desired. Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOllTAN DR SAN DIEGO CA-92108-4402 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A...Siq)j5tur?/ ^ ^ •^^^ • Agent • Addressee C. Date of Delivery Is delivery address different from Item 1 ? D Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: D No 3. Service Type •|32t;ertlfied Mail® • Priority Mall Express™ • Registered "~&Return Receipt for MerchandliSs • Insured Mail O Collect on Delivery 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) • Yes 2. Article Numt>er (Transfer from sen/Ice label} nc^ rr OOH ^ i. .1.. f^n.i n 7D1H D15D DDOO ^ITl QITS £ copy ^ City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION M^ct ^ p/l^ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT The following project is located within the City of Carlsbad Coastal Zone. A coastal permit application for the project has been acted upon. SENT TO COASTAL COMMISSION ON February 5. 2015 Application #: CDP 99-45(A) Filing Date: November 5. 2014 Case Name: Carlsbad Water Recvdine Facilitv Decision Date: February 4. 2015 Applicant: Carlsbad Public Works Department. David Agent (if different): N/A Ahles. Senior EnRineer Address: 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92010 Address. Phone: 760-603-7350 Phone: Project Description: Phase III Expansion of the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facilitv located at 6220 Avenida Encinas in the IVIello II Segment ofthe Local Coastal Program. Project Location: East side of Avenida Encinas, generally located between Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane. Carlsbad. CA ACTION: • APPROVED ^ APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS • DENIED (Copy of final resolution/cJecision letter is sent to: Coastal Commission, any persons who specifically requested it, and the applicant). COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL STATUS: ^ NOT APPEALABLE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION. O APPEALABLE TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30603. An aggrieved person may appeal this decision to the Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days following Coastal Commission receipt of this notice. Applicants will be notified by the Coastal Commission as to the date the Coastal Commission's appeal period will conclude. Appeals must be made in writing to the Coastal Commission's district office at the following address: California Coastal Commission, 7575 IVIetropolitan Dr., Suite 103, San Diego, California 92108-4402, Telephone (619) 767-2370. Attachment: - Location Map to CCC for non-appealable CDPs - Staff Report to CCC for appealable CDPs The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than ninety (90) days following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten (10) days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such a record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than thirty (30) days following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the CItyClerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008. Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax FILE COPY NOTICE CWPVBLIC HEARING - CITY OF C ALSBAD Response must be received by: February 3. 2014 Public Hearing Date: Tentative: February 4. 2014 Public Hearing Place: 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA. 92008 Public Hearing Time: 6:00 p.m. Project Title: CUP 99-23(AVCDP 99-45(A) - CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD - PLANNING StreetAddress: 1635 FARADAY AVENUE City: CARLSBAD Contact Person: Barbara Kennedy Phone: (760) 602-4626 Zip: 92008 County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROJECT LOCATION: County: SAN DIEGO COUNTY City/Nearest Community: CITY OF CARLSBAD Cross Streets: 6220 Avenida Encinas-East side of Avenida Encinas. south of Palomar Airport Road Total Acres: 8.5 Assessor's Parcel No. N/A Section: N/A Twp. N/A Range: N/A Base: San Bemadino Baseline and Meridian Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Interstate 5 Waterways: Pacific Ocean. Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and Batiquitos Lagoon Airports: McCLELLAN/PALOMAR Railways: NCTD Schools: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: CEQA: • NOP • Supplement/Subsequent 1 1 Early Cons • EIR (Prior SCH No.) 1 1 Neg Dec Other: Mitigated Negative Declaration (Prior SCH No. 2012091049) • Draft EIR LOCAL ACTION TYPE: 1 1 Annexation •General Plan Update • Specific Plan • Rezone 1 1 Annexation OCeneral Plan Amendment Q Master Plan • Use Permit 1 1 Redevelopment QOeneral Plan Element O Planned Unit Development • Land Division (Subdivision, ^ Coastal Pennit QZone Code Amendment O Site Plan Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) 15^ Other: Conditional Use Permit DEVELOPMENT TYPE: •Residential: Units N/A •office: Sq. Ft. N/A_ •commercial: Sq. Ft. N/A • industrial: Sq. Ft. N/A I [Recreational: N/A Acres N/A Acres N/A Acres N/A Acres N/A PROJECT ISSUES DISCUSSED IN DOCUMENT: •Aesthetic/Visual • •Agricultural Land • •Air Quality • ^Archaeological/Historical • I ICoastal Zone • •Drainage/Absorption • •Economic/Jobs • •Fiscal . • Flood Plain/Flooding Forest Land/Fire Hazard Geological/Seismic Minerals Noise Population/Housing Balance Public Services/Facilities Recreation/Parks I I Schools/Universities I I Septic Systems I I Sewer Capacity ^ Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading • Solid Waste IXI Toxic/Hazardous I I Traftlc/Circulation ^ Vegetation • • • • • Water Quality Water Supply/Ground Water Wetland/liparian Wildlife Growth Inducing Land Use Cumulative Effect Other: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use: Water Recycling Facility / Planned Industrial/Office (P-M/O) / Planned Industrial/Office (PI/O) Project Description: The project consists of an expansion to the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) located at 6220 Avenida Encinas. The proposed expansion is designed to increase the recycled water production capacity of the existing CWRF by an additional 3.0 MGD of non- potable water for use by residents of the city and within the region, thus reducing dependence on imported potable water; The CWRF will continue to operate in in conjunction with the existing Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. The project requires approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Pennit previously approved for the CWRF. The project is located in the Mello II Segment ofthe Local Coastal Program and is not appealable to the Califomia Coastal Commission. The project is a sub-component of the Phase 111 Recycled Water Project for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The MND identified that the CWRF expansion project would not result in any direct or indirect environmental impacts and no mitigation measures are required for this project. Additionally, CEQA Plus environmental review was performed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWCRB) for the Phase III Recycled Water Project. Although no additional mitigation measures were required for this project component, SWCRB requires the City to submit a copy of the approved CDP to the SWCRB prior to construction and to comply with the conditions identified therein. Mall notice to: San Diego County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Public Notice Hearings, Mailstop A-45, Room 402, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA 92101 Where documents are located for Public Review: Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 April 2011 state of California—Natural Resources Agency CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT ^'^y of Carls SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY . ^ RECEIPT* p2015 0153 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT ^'^y of Carls SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY . ^ S^tiefCfcLEARING HOUSE #f/fapp//cawe; 2012091049 LEADAGENCY ^' 1 (j Z(J15 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION DATE 02/20/2014 COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING P'ann/ng D/ui ' SAN DIEGO Vision DOCUME^fTNUMBER *20150032* PROJECTTPTLE CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECT APPLICANT NAME CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, DAVID AHLES, SENIOR ENGINEER PHONENUMBER (760) 603-7350 PROJECTAPPLICANT ADDRESS CFTY STATE 5950 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA ZIP CODE 92010 PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box): ^ Local Public Agency • School District Q Other Special District Q State Agency Q Private Entity 1 a 0 0 3 2 CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) El Negative Declaration (ND)(MND) • Application Fee Water Diversion (Sfafe Water Resources Control Board Only) • Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs (CRP) El County Administrative Fee • Project that is exempt from fees Q Notice of Exemption • CDFW No Effect Determination (Form Attached) • Other PAYMENT METHOD: • Cash • Credit • Check • Other CHK: 269054 $3,069.75 $ $2,210.00 $ $850.00 $ $1,043.75 $ $50.00 $ $0.00 $50.00 TOTAL RECEIVED $ $50.00 SIGNATURE X G. Meza TITLE Deputy !REM: 11/30/2012 RCT: SD2012 0981 ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY-CDFW/ASB COPY-LEAD AGENCY COPY-COUNTY CLERK FG753.5a (Rev 11/12) Notice of DeterThination To: ^ Officeof Planning and Research PO Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 SD County Clerk Attn: James Scott 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 PO Box 121750 San Diego, CA 92101 From: CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-4600 D [L 1 © Krnesl .1 Dronenburg. .Ir. Recorder CounB Cl«fk BY !1 5 0 0 3 2 FEB 2 0 2015 G. Meza DEPUtV Project No: CUP 99-23(A)/CDP 99-45(A) Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 ofthe Public Resources Code. Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Project Title SCH No. 2012091049 Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner (760) 602-4626 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Nuntber Generally located on the east side of Avenida Encinas, between Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane, at 6620 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA San Diego County. Project Location (include County) Name of Applicant: Carlsbad Public Works Department, David Ahles, Senior Engineer Applicant's Address: 5950 El Camino Real. Carlsbad, CA 92010 Applicant's Telephone Number: (760) 603-7350 Project Description: The Phase III expansion ofthe Carlsbad Water Recycling Facilitv (CWRF) was identified as one of the components of the Phase III Recycled Water Proiect, and will expand the existing CWRF from its current capacitv of 4.0 MGD to a total capacitv of 8.0 MGD. This component is within the scope ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was previouslv prepared and adopted for the Phase III Recycled Proiect. The MND identified that the proposed expansion of the CWRF would not result in anv direct or indirect environmental impacts and no mitigation measures are required for this particular proiect. The proiect will be funded using Clean Water State Revolving Fund financing. The State Water Board (SWB) adopted CEQA findings for the Phase III Recycled Water Proiect on December 11, 2014. All mitigation measures required bv SWB are incorporated into the conditions of approval. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on February 4, 2015, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Q An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Q A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ^ This project was reviewed previously and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation measures were made a condition ofthe approval ofthe project. A mitigation reporting or monitoring ptan was adopted for this project. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. 4. 5. 6. This is to certify that the final Mitigated Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of 3ject approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. DON NEU, City Planner Date received for filing at OPR: Date Revised 05/13 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK San OiMo County on ^EB ZD 2015 Posted2 0 2015 Reinoved APR 0 fi 7ni^ Returned lo agency on ^pf| Q g 2015 DepuG. Meza chii?OHNTii state of California—The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARK RECEIPT* SD2012 0981 STATE CLEARING HOUSE #ffa»ifM6W 2012091049 LEADAGENCY CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING SAN DIEGO Cny OF CARLSBAD DATE 11/30/2012 COCUMENTNUMBER •20120233* PROJECTTITLE PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECUi|RATl8^^ 03 2012 If^WNGDEPARTWENTj PROJECTAPPLICANT NAME PROJECTAPPLICANTADDRESS 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CITY CARLSBAD STATE~—' CA ZIP CODE 92008-7314 PROJECTAPPLICANT (Check appropriate box): • Local Public Agency Q School District • Other Special District • State Agency • Private Entity PHONENUMBER CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: • Environmental Impact Report Q Negative Declaration Q Application Fee Water Diversion CSfafe Water Resources Control Board Only) Q Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs EJ County Administrative Fee • Project that Is exempt from fees Q Notice of Exemption • DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) • Other ] PAYMENT METHOD: • Cash • Credit • Check • Other #237809 $2,919.00 $ $2,101.50 $ $850.00 $. $992.50 $ $50.00 $ , TOTAL RECEIVED $2,101.50 $50.00 $2,151.50 SIGNATURE TITLE X J. Samuela Deputy lllllllll! Illilllii ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPUCANT COPY.DFG/ASB COPY-LEAD AGENCY COPY-COUNTY CLERK TO 753.53 (Rev. 7/D8) City of Carisbad iVotice of Determination rrn«. „ ^ FEB 2 i 2015 " To: 1^ Office ofPlanning and Research From: CITY OF CARLSBAD . P.O. Box 3044 Planning Division'^^"""^CjjV/fflorte Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 1635 Faraday Avenue E„,M,J Dronenkur8..ir.R«5ercSicierk Carlsbad, CA 92008 SD County Clerk (760)602-4600 N9Y 3 0 2012 Attn: Jennifer Samuela San Diego, CA 92101 Project No: EIA 12-02 Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of tiie Public Resources Code. Phase III Recycled Water Project - Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Tide ~- ': 2012091049 City of Carlsbad, Barbara Kennedy (760) 602- 4626 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number City of Carlsbad, San Diego County Project Locations (include County) Name of Applicant: David Ahles, Senior Engineering, City of Carlsbad Applicant's Address: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Applicant's Telephone Number: 760-602-2748 Project Description: A Mitigated Negative Declaration for Phase III of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP), which would expand CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad and begin initial expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase III project components would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase UI project would expand the treatment capacity within the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility from 4,0 mgd to 8.0 mgd by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase IH project would also install 96,600 linear feet of pipeline, relocate or construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight expansion segment locations throughout the project area. This is to advise that the Board of Directors of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District has approved the above described project on November 27, 2012, and has made the followmg determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ^ A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. 6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final Mitigated Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record project approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. , ^ FILED IN THE OFFICE Cf TH| COUNTY CLERK //2<f-/Z. DON NEU, City Planner . Ran ntogn Countv on 'WV '^S- Posted NOV 30 rOuRginov-Bd Date received for filing at OPR: ^^^^ ^^^^^ Deputy J. Samuela Revised 04/12 Mitigated Negative Declaration Case Number: EIA 12-02 Project Title: Ptiase III Recycled Water Project Project Locatfon The Phase III Recycled Water Project (Phase III project) is located in the City of Carlsbad (City) in the County of San Diego, California, within the Carlsbad Municipal Water District ICMWD) service area (see Figure 1). A small portion of the project (Expansion Segnfient 4/^) is located in the City of Vista and a small component (Expansion Segment 5) is located in the City of Oceanside. The project components will Occur within public rights-of-way (ROW):and easements, with the exception of a portion of pipeline that would extend across the La Costa Resort and Spa property. The locations of individual components are shown in Figure 2. The Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) Expansion Would be installed at the existing CWRF, located at 6220 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA, 92011. The new or relocated storage tank would be located at the existing "Twin D" tank site near the Intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Black Rail Road. Expansion Segment lA (ES lA) is located in existing roadways south Of Palomar Airport Road, west of El Camino Real, and along Camino Via Roble. Expansion Segment 2 (ES 2) is located south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, along th? Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF) railroad track and Avenida Encinas. Expansion Segm^snt 4A (ES 4A) is located in South Melrose Avenue in the City of Vista> just east of the boundaryjof Carlsbad and Vista. Expansion Segment 5 (ES 5) north and south of State Route 78 (SR-78) along the Carlsbad/Oceanside boundary, and along El Camino Real to Kelly Street. Expansfpn Segment 7 (ES 7) is located south of SR-78, west of College Avenue, and north east of Carlsbjad Village Drive. Expansion Segment 8 (ES 8) is located along El Camino Real between Aviafa and La COsta Avenue and within the South La Costa Golf Course. Expansion Segment s (ES 9) i!s located north of Batiquitos Lagoon, west of Interstate 5, east of Highway lOi, and south of Poijisettia Avenue. Expansion Segment 18 (ES 18) is located southwest of Maerkle Reservoir along Pialmer Way and Impala Drive. Description of Project Implementation of the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) is divided ihtq three phases: Existing (Phase i and Phase ll). Phase III, and Build-out. The proposed project. Phase 111, would expand CMWD's recycled water system to the north area of Carlsbad and begin Initial expansion into neighboring water service agencies. The Phase III project compoiients would be completed between 2014 and 2020. The Phase III project would expand the treatment capacity (from 4.0 mgd to 8.0 mgd) within the CWRF by installing additional filtration units and chlorine contact basins. The Phase III project would also install 96,600 linear feet of pipelines, relocate or construct a new storage tank, convert existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and retrofit landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water in eight exjaanslon segment locations throughout the project area (see Figure 2). . CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND PageMND-l November 27,2012 j MITIGATED NEGAIIVE DECLARATION i Determination The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review ofthe above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation ofthe California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordihance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and theCity of Carlsbad finds as follows: . ^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect In this case because the mitigation measureis described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. r~} The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the isrivironment, but at least one potentially significant inipact 1| has been adequately analyzed In an Earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been iaddressed by mitigation measures based on the eariier analysis as described on attacheid sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envirpnment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because al| potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an eai-lier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuantto applicable standards and (b) have bfeen avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIliONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or N-EGATlVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mij:igatiOn measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further Is required. A copy ofthe initial study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on flle In the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 920Q8. ADOPTED: November 27.2012 pursuant to CMWD Resolution No. 1455. ATTEST: MATTH/ President, Carlsbad Municipal Water District CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Projects IS/MND Notice of Deteflhination To: IXI Officeof Planning and Research From: CITY OF CARLSBAD PO Box 3044 Planning Division Sacramento, CA95812-3©i4y of Car!sbd"#5 Faraday Avenue R n n Carlsbad, CA 92008 u- u u= ^ SD County Clerk FFR o 4 ?ni^ (760)602-4600 Attn: James Scott '""^ ^^^^ FEB 20 2015 K'mesl J Dronenburg, .ir. RecorxlerCounft CItfk 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 , • • ^^Ci-70 POBOX 121750 Planning Division BY ^. '^^^3 San Diego, CA 92101 ,1 R A 0 ^ ? DEPUTY • l si \J \J D L Project No: CUP 99-23(A)/CDP 99-45(A) Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 ofthe Public Resources Code. Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility Project Title SCH No. 2012091049 Barbara Kennedy, Associate Planner (760) 602-4626 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number Generally located on the east side of Avenida Encinas, between Palomar Airport Road and Poinsettia Lane, at 6620 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA San Diego County. Project Location (include County) Name of Applicant: Carlsbad Public Works Department, David Ahles, Senior Engineer Applicant's Address: 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92010 Applicant's Telephone Number: (760) 603-7350 Project Description: The Phase III expansion ofthe Carlsbad Water Recycling Facilitv (CWRF) was identified as one of the components of the Phase III Recycled Water Proiect, and will expand the existing CWRF from its current capacitv of 4.0 MGD to a total capacitv of 8.0 MGD. This component is within the scope ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was previouslv prepared and adopted forthe Phase III Recycled Proiect. The MND identified that the proposed expansion of the CWRF would not result in any direct or indirect environmental impacts and no mitigation measures are required for this particular proiect. The project will be funded using Clean Water State Revolving Fund financing. The State Water Board (SWB) adopted CEQA findings for the Phase III Recycled Water Project on December 11, 2014. All mitigation measures required bv SWB are incorporated into the conditions of approval. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on February 4, 2015, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Q An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. I I A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ^ This project was reviewed previously and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations .was not adopted for this project. 6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final Mitigated Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of Dject approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. DON NEU, City Planner Date Date received for filing at OPR: Revised 05/13 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK San Diego Ck)untv on I^EB 2 0 2015 san Diego uounty on Posted2 0 2015 Returned to agency on. ReTOved DeputGJVleza (:Ati?mA Slate of California—The Resources Agency 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARK RECEIPT* SD2012 0981 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARK STATE CLEARING HQUSE # (!f appifcawe) 2012091049 LEADAGENCY CITY OF CARLSBAD DATE 11/30/2012 COUNTY/STATEAGENCY OF FILING SAN DIEGO CmrOFCMlSBAD DOCUMENTNUMBER •20120233* PROJECTTIHf PHASE III RECYCLED WATER PROJECT - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECU RATMC 03 2012 PROJECTAPPLICANT NAME CITY OF CARLSBAD, DAVID AHLES, SENIOR ENGINEERING P^NW6 DEPARTMENT! PHONENUMBER 760-602-2748 PROJECTAPPUCANTADDRESS CITY STOTE" ' 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD CA ZIP CODE 92008-7314 PROJECTAPPLICANT (Check appropriate box): Q Local Public Agency Q School District • Other Special District • State Agency Q Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: Q Environmental Impact Report El Negative Declaration Q Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) Q Projects Sutjject to Certified Regulatory Programs Q County Administrative Fee Q Project that Is exempt from fees • Notice of Exemption • DFG No Elfeot Determination (Form Attached) • Other PAYMENT METHOD: • Cash • Credit • Check • Other #237809 $2,919.00 $ , $2,101.50 $ $850.00 $ . $992.50 $ $50.00 $ $2,101.50 $50.00 TOTAL RECEIVED $ $2,151.50 SIGNATURE TTfLE X J. Samuels Deputy llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllll ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY-DFG/ASB COPY-LEAD AGENCY COPY-COUNTY CLERK FG 753.6a (Rev, 7ffl8) state of California—Natural Resources Agency CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY RECEIPT* SD2015 0153 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY STATE CLEARING HOUSE #(ifapplicable) 2012091049 LEADAGENCY CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DIVISION 02/20/2014 COUNTY/STATEAGENCY OF FILING SAN DIEGO DOCUMENTNUMBER *20150032* PROJECTTITLE CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY PROJECTAPPLICANT NAME CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTIVIENT, DAVID AHLES, SENIOR ENGINEER PHONENUMBER (760) 603-7350 PROJECTAPPLICANTADDRESS CITY STATE 5950 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA ZIP CODE 92010 PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box): 3 Local Public Agency • School District • Other Special District Q State Agency Q Private Entity 16 0032 CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: Q Environmental Impact Report (EIR) El Negative Declaration (ND)(MND) Q Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Controt Board Only) Q Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs (CRP) 21 County Administrative Fee Q Project that is exempt from fees Q Notice of Exemption • CDFW No Effect Determination (Form Attached) • Other PAYMENT METHOD: • Cash • Credit 12 Check • Other CHK: 269054 $3,069.75 $ $2,210.00 $ $850.00 $ $1,043.75 $ $50.00 $ $0.00 $50.00 TOTAL RECEIVED $ $50.00 SIGNATURE X G. Meza TflLE Deputy IREM: 11/30/2012 RCT: SD2012 0981 ORIGINAL- PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - CDFW/ASB COPY-LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK FG 753.5a (Rev 11/12) £i#^st J. Dronenburg, Jr. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 103 San Diego.CA 92101-2480 Tel. (619) 236-3771 * Fax (619) 557-4056 www.sdarcc.coin RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 P.O. Box 121750 * San Diego, CA 92112-1750 Tel. (619)237-0502 • Fax (619)557-4155 Transaction #: 336008820150220 Deputy: GMEZAl Location: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 20-Feb-2015 16:26 FEES: 50.00 Qty of 1 Fish and Game Filing Fee 50.00 TOTAL DUE PAYMENTS: 50.00 Check 50.00 TENDERED SERVICES AVAILABLE AT OFFICE LOCATIONS Tax Bill Address Changes Records and Certified Copies: Birth/ Marriage/ Death/ Real Estate Fictitious Business Names (DBAs) Marriage Licenses and Ceremonies Assessor Parcel Maps Property Ownership Property Records Property Values Document Recordings SERVICES AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT www.sdarcc.com Forms and Applications Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Grantor/ Grantee Index Fictitious Business Names Index (DBAs) Property Sales Qn-Line Purchases Assessor Parcel Maps Property Characteristics Recorded Documents CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU Discretionary Review Checklist PROJECT NUMBER: CUP 99-23(A) / CDP 99-45(A) BUILDING ADDRESS: 6220 Avenida Encinas PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expansion of water treatment facility of 4 MGD to 7 MGD filtration, chlorine contact basin, piping and process valves for ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 214-101-97 FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. By: G. Ryan Date: 11.20.2014 DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with \Si. Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By: By: By: Date: Date: Date: ATTACHMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON NAME: ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 602^665 ''^ CARLSBAD CITY OF Memorandum December 15, 2014 To: Barbara Kennedy, Project Planner From: Steve Bobbett, Project Engineer Subject: CUP 99-23(A) CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY The engineering department has completed its review of the project. The engineering department is recommending that the project be approved, subject to the following conditions: Engineering Conditions NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval ofthis proposed development, must be met prior to approval of a grading permit or building permit, whichever comes first. General 1. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer forthe proposed haul route. Grading 32. Developer acknowledges that, pursuant to Order No. R9-2013-0001 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, new storm water requirements become effective near the end of 2015, and likely affect the design of this project. Prior to construction. Developer shall demonstrate compliance with latest storm water requirements to the satisfaction ofthe city engineer. 33. Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall implement best management practices at ali times. Best management practices include but are not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices Community & Economic Development - Land Development Engineering 1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-2740 I 760-602-1052 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov Page 1 of 15 or devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants ofthe above requirements. 36. Developer shall complete and submit to the city engineer a Project Threat Assessment Form (PTAF) pursuant to City Engineering Standards. Concurrent with the PTAF, developer shall also submit the appropriate Tier level Storm Water Compliance form and appropriate Tier level Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as determined by the completed PTAF all to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Developer shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per the city's latest fee schedule. 39. Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans (grading plans, improvement plans, landscape plans, building plans, etc) incorporate all source control, site design, treatment control BMP, applicable hydromodification measures, and Low Impact Design (LID) facilities. 40. Developer shall incorporate measures with this project to comply with Standard Stormwater Requirements per the city's Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP). These measures include, but are not limited to: 1) reducing the use of new impervious surfaces (e.g.: paving), 2) designing drainage from impervious surfaces to discharge over pervious areas (e.g.: turf, landscape areas), 3) and designing trash enclosures to avoid contact with storm runoff, all to the satisfaction ofthe city engineer. Utilities 61. Developer shall meet with the fire marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. Fire hydrants, if proposed, shall be considered public improvements and shall be served by public water mains to the satisfaction ofthe district engineer. Page 2 of 15 ^ CARLSBAD %. CITY OF Memorandum Nov 14, 2014 To: Barbara Kennedy, Planning From: MWf^eve Bobbett, P.E. Associate Engineer, Land Development Engineering Via: /v Jason Geldert, P.E. Engineering Manager, Land Development Engineering SUBJECT: 1** ENGINEERING REVIEW OF CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY (PHASE 3) (CUP 99-23(A) / CDP 99-45(A)) Land Development Engineering has completed its review of the above referenced project for application completeness and has determined that the application and plans submitted for this project are complete. Comments are provided below. 1. The project site appears to be comprised of several assessor's parcels within the Assessor's Book 214 pages 010, 031,033,034, 051 and 052. Some consolidation ofthe parcels should be considered. Attached are portion ofthe pages with the approximate project outline. 2. Comply with Standard Stormwater Requirements per the city's Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP). If you have any questions, please call me at 602-2747. Attachments cc: Jason Geldert P.E., Engineering Manager Engineering Project File c Q < Z o < cc rife BLVD i -? o HANGESI u HANGESI s HANGESI u HANGESI ut'J illll I I o O o o fl < o z o a IU r CHANGES 1 CUT 1 s 1 §1 3 CM i 1 I 1 1 1 1 CHANGES 1 ft i!i iS & fe a 9 8 s a s CHANGES 1 •6 z 1* J <h 0 1 n -! Ts. 01 BI il CHANGES 1 Cl o IN •••^ 1 n n rii e lA at s CHANGES 1 m a 5 o S o B n 5 5 KJ 5 o 5 1 < X 0. o> I— o> F o iigi -I- (/J to —' SS99 S CQ m OQ m I i^Mti meassi tai csmsu sin mm. <ii^ CITY OF V^CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION February 5, 2015 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CUP 99-23(A)/CDP 99-45(A) - CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY At the February 4, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, your application was considered. The Commission voted 6-0 to approve your request. The decision of the Planning Commission is final on the date of adoption unless a written appeal to the City Council is filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days in accordance with the provisions of Carlsbad Municipal Code section 21.54.150. The written appeal must specify the reason or reasons for the appeal. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please contact your project planner Barbara Kennedy at (760) 434-2974 or Barbara.kennedvPcarlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:BK:bd c: Data Entry File enc: Planning Commission Resolution No. 7084 Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 © %AF!LSBAD FILE COPY Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov December 30, 2014 David Ahles, Senior Engineer City of Carlsbad Utilities Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: CUP 99-23(A)/CDP 99-45(A) - CARLSBAD WATER RECYCUNG FACILITY - CAUFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUAUTY ACT (CEQA) APPUCABIUTY/PROCESS DETERMINATION This is to advise you that after reviewing the application for the project referenced above, the City has determined that the following environmental review process (pursuant to CEQA) will be required for the project: A Notice of Determination will be filed after approval of the project amendment with the San Diego County Clerk's Office which involves a filing fee. Please submit a check to the project planner in the amount of $50.00 made out to the San Diego County Clerk. The check should be submitted approximately one week prior to the Planning Commission hearing date. For additional information related to this CEQA applicability/process determination, please contact the project planner, Barbara Kennedy, at (760) 602-4626 or barbara.kennedv(5)carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, DON NEU, AlCP City Planner DN:BK:fn c: Dave de Cordova, Principal Planner File Copy Data Entry Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® ^CARLSBAD fILE COPY Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov December 2, 2014 David Ahles, Senior Engineer City of Carlsbad Utilities Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: 1st REVIEW FOR CUP 99-23(A)/CDP 99-45(A) - CARLSBAD WATER RECYCUNG FACILITY Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Division has reviewed your Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Coastal Development Permit Amendment, application nos. CUP 99-23(A) and CDP 99-45(A), as to its completeness for processing. The application is incomplete, as submitted. Attached are two lists. The first list is information which must be submitted to complete your application. The second list is project issues of concern to staff. In order to expedite the processing of your application, the "incomplete" items and your response to the project issues of concern to Staff must be submitted directly to your staff planner; therefore, please contact your staff planner directly to schedule a re-submittal appointment. As part of your re-submittal package, please prepare and include with your re-submittal: (1) a copy of these lists, (2) a detailed letter summarizing how all identified incomplete items and/or project issues have been addressed; and (3) five (5) sets of revised plans. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted, the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. In addition, please note that you have six months from the date the application was initially filed, November 5, 2014, to either resubmit the application or submit the required information. Failure to resubmit the application or to submit the materials necessary to determine your application complete shall be deemed to constitute withdrawal of the application. If an application is withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, a new application must be submitted. In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff Planner, Barbara Kennedy, at (760) 602-4626, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually as follows: • Land Development Engineering Division: Steve Bobbett, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2747 • Fire Department: Greg Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshall, at (760) 602-4661 Sincerely, DAVE DE CORDOVA Principal Planner DdC:BK:fn c: Don NGU, City Planner Kirsten Plonka, Engineering Manager Jason Geldert, Engineering Manager Steve Bobbett, Project Engineer Greg Ryan, Deputy Fire Marshall File Copy Data Entry Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® CUP 99-23(A)/CDP 99-45(A) - CARLSBAD WATER RECYCUNG FACILITY •f^ ' 91'" t^i ' Ciecegiber 2, 2014 i W ^eei^ Mi 'u u UST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPUCATION Planning: 1. The CEQA-Plus environmental process will need to be completed prior to deeming the application complete. However, staff can proceed working on the project review and staff report for the Planning Commission hearing in anticipation of a February 2015 hearing date. We understand that you are trying to stay on schedule to award a Design-Build contract on March 10, 2015. 2. Please provide the legal description of the property. 3. Please include a detail of the structure that will be located over the Granular Media Filtration Unit. Include all relevant dimensions, including the height to top of columns and top of roof, and specify the type of materials that will be used for the support columns and roof. 4. Please revise the drawings as follows: a. Sheet 1 - include the project address and update the name ofthe Public Works Director to Patrick Thomas. b. Sheet 8 - show the specific areas of work and location of underground piping (with a dark dashed line or similar) within Area 1 and 2. c. Sheet 14 - change the "A" and "B" section callout reference page from M-4 to M-2. d. Sheet 15 - show the diameter and height of the filtration tanks. e. Sheet 17 - indicate the height of the feed pumps. Engineering: None Fire: None CUP 99-23(A)/CDP 99-45(A) - CARLSBAD WATER RECYCLING FACILITY December 2, 2014 Page 3 ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 1. This project was analyzed as a component of the Phase III Recycled Water Master Plan for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted. Mitigation measures were not required for this component. However, the applicable Project Design Features that are identified in the Phase III MND will need to be incorporated into this project. Please include these features as notes on the plans and/or include the Project Design Features as an attachment to the contract documents. 2. As discussed previously, it would aid in understanding the existing and proposed project components by providing an exhibit similar to the aerial photo (Figure 3) in the Phase III MND. Figure 3 would essentially need to be updated to show the locations of the major components, the outline ofthe new structure over the filtration tanks and the location of the new piping. The major existing features should also be called out on the exhibit. Engineering: 1. Comply with Standard Stormwater Requirements per the City's Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP). 2. The project site appears to be comprised of several assessor's parcels within Assessor's Book 214 pages 010, 031, 033, 034, 051 and 052. Some consolidation of the parcels should be considered. Attached are portions ofthe pages with the appropriate project outline. Fire: None at this time.