Wp mp-update-camp pendleton.-april_25_2013


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Wp mp-update-camp pendleton.-april_25_2013

  1. 1. Report on Evaluation ofProposed Camp PendletonSeawater Desalination ProjectWater Planning CommitteeAPRIL 25, 2013Cesar LopezSenior Water Resources Specialist
  2. 2. Presentation OutlineBackgroundReport on latest planning and technicalstudies Off-Shore Technical Studies Site Development Evaluations Product Water Conveyance AnalysesPreliminary Cost Estimates2
  3. 3. Proposed Desalination Project• 50 - 150 mgd seawater RO Project• Phased implementation• Unique, large coastal site at top ofAqueduct system• 2 potential sites approved by theBase for further study• Unlike Carlsbad, project wouldrequire new seawater intake anddischarge facilities3
  4. 4. Potential Project Benefits to 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 concentratefrom desalination plant4
  5. 5. Project Background• Conceptual feasibility study completed• Board added additional technical and environmental studies to CIPin 2009• Planning MOU between SDCWA and MCBCP executed in 2010established framework for cooperation during performance ofstudies• 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 Analyses5
  6. 6. Technical Studies ObjectivesIntakes:• Determine viability of subsurface intake• Permitting agencies will require evaluation of alternative intakemethods• Considered to have least impact to marine life• Locate and configure open ocean intake• Can be designed to minimize marine impactsBrine Discharge:• Locate and configure discharge system• Minimize marine impacts6
  7. 7. Technical Studies - Geologic / HydrogeologicInvestigations• Conducted Geophysical Survey using seismic reflection• Drilled exploratory boreholes• Constructed test well and pump tested offshore aquifer• Built GroundwaterModelKey Findings:• Large sub-seafloor ancient river channel• Potential favorable geology to supportlarge subsurface intake system7
  8. 8. Technical Studies - Marine EnvironmentInvestigations• 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 openocean intake and discharge8
  9. 9. • Ancient river channel provides favorablegeology for developing a sub-surface intake• Open ocean intakes are feasible with low andmanageable marine environment impacts• Potential lower cost• Oceanographic conditions (i.e. ocean currents,wave action) and marine habitat in project areaare favorable for siting a brine dischargediffuser system at approx. 40 ft. depth• Geotechnical conditions are suitable for soft-ground tunnel constructionTechnical Studies – Key Conclusions9
  10. 10. 10
  11. 11. 11
  12. 12. Site Development Evaluations Objectives• 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• ScreenedOpen Ocean• SubsurfacePrepare water fordesalination process• Conventional ormembrane process• DesalinationProcess• Re-hardening• DisinfectionResidual• Treated Water System• Untreated Water SystemPre-treatmentIntakeSystemReverseOsmosisPostTreatmentKey Treatment Process Design Elements12
  13. 13. MCTSSA Site Rendering13
  14. 14. SRTTP Site Rendering14
  15. 15. • Both sites are 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 potentialelimination of second pass RO• Phase 1 (50 mgd) project can be supported by existing power supplyinfrastructure.• Future phases would require new power supply infrastructure ($91 - $164 million)Site Evaluations – Key Conclusions15
  16. 16. Product Water Conveyance Analyses• 19 – 21 miles 72 inch diameter pipeline16
  17. 17. Product Water ConveyanceKey Conclusions• The southern alignment provides the best opportunity for efficientintegration into the Water Authority Aqueduct system• Shorter alignment• Best alignment for both untreated and treated water integration• least direct impact to MCBCP010020030040050060070080090010001100120013001400Elevation(ft)Length (ft)Pipeline ReachHGL of Pipeline 4EL 1242150 MGD – EL 1300100 MGD – EL 127250 MGD – EL 12542A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2GProposed Forebay andPump StationEL 650Proposed DesalinationFacilities and PumpStationEL 60150 MGD – EL 892100 MGD – EL 76750 MGD – EL 686Ground Profile17
  18. 18. Capital Cost Summary50 mgd Initial PhasePlantSiteSeawaterIntakeDesalinationPlantBrineDischargeConveyanceSystemTotalMCTSSA $218 - $360 $670 - $698 $184 $328 $1,428 - $1,542SRTTP $241 - $369 $636 - $663 $207 $317 $1,429 - $1,529Based on supply integration into the untreated system.Costs include oversizing buried project components for the 150 mgd ultimate capacity.Costs in million $18
  19. 19. Cost Estimate SummaryPlant Production Capacity50 mgd 150 mgdCapital Costs (million$)Desalination Plant 1,110 – 1,260 2,320 – 2,900Conveyance 317 – 328 350 – 360Annual O&M Costs (million$) 61 - 70 174 - 200Total Unit Cost ($ per AF) 2,750 - 3,100 2,070 - 2,45019
  20. 20. Questions?20