Wp mp-update-camp pendleton.-april_25_2013

Wp mp-update-camp pendleton.-april_25_2013

• 1.
  Report on Evaluationof Proposed Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project Water Planning Committee APRIL 25, 2013 Cesar Lopez Senior Water Resources Specialist
• 2.
  Presentation Outline Background Report onlatest planning and technical studies  Off-Shore Technical Studies  Site Development Evaluations  Product Water Conveyance Analyses Preliminary Cost Estimates 2
• 3.
  Proposed Desalination Project •50 - 150 mgd seawater RO Project • Phased implementation • Unique, large coastal site at top of Aqueduct system • 2 potential sites approved by the Base for further study • Unlike Carlsbad, project would require new seawater intake and discharge facilities 3
• 4.
  Potential Project Benefitsto Camp Pendleton • RELIABILITY – Drought-proof water supply located on the base • WATER QUALITY – High quality product water – Potential blending opportunity • OCEAN OUTFALL – Potential for dual-use outfall for treated wastewater and concentrate from desalination plant 4
• 5.
  Project Background • Conceptualfeasibility study completed • Board added additional technical and environmental studies to CIP in 2009 • Planning MOU between SDCWA and MCBCP executed in 2010 established framework for cooperation during performance of studies • Consultant contracts executed in 2011 for: • Technical Studies – Issues and impacts of offshore facilities • Site Development Evaluations – Plant and onshore infrastructure • Product Water Conveyance System Analyses 5
• 6.
  Technical Studies Objectives Intakes: •Determine viability of subsurface intake • Permitting agencies will require evaluation of alternative intake methods • Considered to have least impact to marine life • Locate and configure open ocean intake • Can be designed to minimize marine impacts Brine Discharge: • Locate and configure discharge system • Minimize marine impacts 6
• 7.
  Technical Studies -Geologic / Hydrogeologic Investigations • Conducted Geophysical Survey using seismic reflection • Drilled exploratory boreholes • Constructed test well and pump tested offshore aquifer • Built Groundwater Model Key Findings: • Large sub-seafloor ancient river channel • Potential favorable geology to support large subsurface intake system 7
• 8.
  Technical Studies -Marine Environment Investigations • Physical Oceanography – Ocean currents – Wave pressure • Water Quality Monitoring and Sampling – Temperature – Salinity – Boron / Bromide – Etc. • Marine Biology Monitoring and Sampling – Ichthyoplankton (larvae) – Phytoplankton (algae) – Demersal Species (fish) – Infauna Invertebrate (sea-floor habitants) Key Findings: • Typical marine environment – nothing unusual • No fatal flaws to siting open ocean intake and discharge 8
• 9.
  • Ancient riverchannel provides favorable geology for developing a sub-surface intake • Open ocean intakes are feasible with low and manageable marine environment impacts • Potential lower cost • Oceanographic conditions (i.e. ocean currents, wave action) and marine habitat in project area are favorable for siting a brine discharge diffuser system at approx. 40 ft. depth • Geotechnical conditions are suitable for soft- ground tunnel construction Technical Studies – Key Conclusions 9
• 10.
  10
• 11.
  11
• 12.
  Site Development EvaluationsObjectives • Analyze site access, traffic flow, space availability and security • Determine optimal and reliable treatment processes for project • For maximum utilization, consider producing “untreated” water • Determine power requirements, supply source and transmission • Screened Open Ocean • Subsurface Prepare water for desalination process • Conventional or membrane process • Desalination Process • Re-hardening • Disinfection Residual • Treated Water System • Untreated Water System Pre- treatment Intake System Reverse Osmosis Post Treatment Key Treatment Process Design Elements 12
• 13.
  MCTSSA Site Rendering 13
• 14.
  SRTTP Site Rendering 14
• 15.
  • Both sitesare viable for construction and operation • SRTTP Site offers the best site access • “Untreated” water production possible • Maximum plant utilization • Eliminates any potential overlap with treatment plant production • Increased cost of “re-treatment” • Cost savings likely due to reduced chemical requirements and potential elimination of second pass RO • Phase 1 (50 mgd) project can be supported by existing power supply infrastructure. • Future phases would require new power supply infrastructure ($91 - $164 million) Site Evaluations – Key Conclusions 15
• 16.
  Product Water ConveyanceAnalyses • 19 – 21 miles 72 inch diameter pipeline 16
• 17.
  Product Water Conveyance KeyConclusions • The southern alignment provides the best opportunity for efficient integration into the Water Authority Aqueduct system • Shorter alignment • Best alignment for both untreated and treated water integration • least direct impact to MCBCP 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 Elevation(ft) Length (ft) Pipeline Reach HGL of Pipeline 4 EL 1242 150 MGD – EL 1300 100 MGD – EL 1272 50 MGD – EL 1254 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G Proposed Forebay and Pump Station EL 650Proposed Desalination Facilities and Pump Station EL 60 150 MGD – EL 892 100 MGD – EL 767 50 MGD – EL 686 Ground Profile 17
• 18.
  Capital Cost Summary 50mgd Initial Phase Plant Site Seawater Intake Desalination Plant Brine Discharge Conveyance System Total MCTSSA $218 - $360 $670 - $698 $184 $328 $1,428 - $1,542 SRTTP $241 - $369 $636 - $663 $207 $317 $1,429 - $1,529 Based on supply integration into the untreated system. Costs include oversizing buried project components for the 150 mgd ultimate capacity. Costs in million $ 18
• 19.
  Cost Estimate Summary PlantProduction Capacity 50 mgd 150 mgd Capital Costs (million$) Desalination Plant 1,110 – 1,260 2,320 – 2,900 Conveyance 317 – 328 350 – 360 Annual O&M Costs (million$) 61 - 70 174 - 200 Total Unit Cost ($ per AF) 2,750 - 3,100 2,070 - 2,450 19
• 20.
  Questions? 20