Ocean Water Desalination - westbasindesal.org and Files/Research... · 39 to 102 (average 59) Bromide (mg/L) Chloramine ... and evaluation by CEC, ... Hydrology Water Quality Noise

Imagine the result

Ocean Water Desalination Program Master Plan

Imagine the result

Imagine the result Imagine the result

•Background & Objectives

•Conceptual System Design

•Power Supply

•Environmental Review

•Permitting

•Operations & Maintenance

•Costs & Funding

•Project Delivery

•Conclusions & Next Steps

Outline

© 2011 ARCADIS 22 January 2013 3

Background & Objectives

Comprehensive Planning

Ocean Water Desalination Program Master Plan

Demonstration Project (2010 – Present) Ocean Water Desalination Demonstration Facility

(OWDDF) at Sea Lab, Redondo Beach Intake technologies, energy usage, optimization, operation, water quality, discharge management

Piloting (8 Years)

Water treatment technologies: high rate pre-screening, MF/UF, reverse osmosis, etc.

Water quality monitoring: raw ocean source water, discharge concentrate, product water

• Improve reliability

• Reduce dependence on imported water

• Diversify water supply portfolio

• New source of local potable water




•Power Supply


•Permitting


•Costs & Funding

•Project Delivery


Outline


• Static overall demand < 200,000 AFY through 2035 (2010 UWMP)

• Reduce imported from 66% to approx. 33% by 2020 (WR 2020)

• Local demand supports 20-MGD

• Regional demand w/ exist MWD operational constraints is 25-MGD

• Site and regional conveyance system capable of 60-MGD

Scenarios

• 10-MGD Facility (full build-out) 1


• 10-MGD Facility (40-MGD backbone for expansion) 3A

• 40-MGD Facility (full build-out) 3B



• Candidate Sites* • El Segundo Generating Station (ESGS)

• Redondo Beach Generating Station (RBGS)

• Differences mainly due to space availability

• Sensitivity analysis shows near equivalent rank

Siting Evaluation

Criteria Description Percentage

Score

ESGS RBGS

Technical Performance Treatment Technology and Operational Complexity 40% 25 26

Economic Performance Sound Financial and Resource Management 20% 12 11

Environmental Performance Environmental Stewardship 20% 11 12

Social performance Stakeholder Acceptance and Customer Service 20% 14 13

Overall Performance 100% 64 65

Performance Rating

*Short listing to candidate sites

completed in previous effort by

West Basin.


Intake


Discharge


Treatment Process


Facilities 20-MGD Facility El Segundo


Facilities 20-MGD Facility Redondo Beach


Facilities 60-MGD Facility El Segundo


Facilities 60-MGD Facility Redondo Beach


• Permeate conditioning to mitigate

compatibility issues (corrosion)

• Likely Treatment Options • Lime with carbon dioxide

• Calcite filters

• Target pH 8.5 • Least chemical doses & treatment cost

• Target pH 8.2 w/o Sulfate Adj. • Moderate chemical doses & treatment cost

• Target pH 8.2 with Sulfate Adj. • Match MWD water quality

• Significant doses of sulfuric acid needed in

addition to lime and carbon dioxide

• Double treatment cost compared to no

sulfate adjustment

• Water Quality Integration Study

Product Water Quality

Parameter West Basin

Target Range

Metropolitan

Jensen Range

(and Average)

pH 8.2 to 8.5 7.4 to 8.4

(average 8.2)

Alkalinity

(mg/L as CaCO3) 45 to 100

80 to 99

(average 87)

Calcium (mg/L as

CaCO3) 40 to 100

55 to 93

(average 68)

Langelier Saturation

Index (LSI) > 0 Not reported

Calcium Carbonate

Precipitation Potential

(CCPP, mg/L)

0 < CCPP < 10 Not reported

Chloride (mg/L) ≤ 100 40 to 96

(average 68)

Sulfate (mg/L) No target 39 to 102

(average 59)

Bromide (mg/L) Chloramine

Stability

0.11 to 0.2

(average 0.18)

Boron (mg/L) 0.5 0.15 to 0.37

(average 0.21)

Product Water Quality Specifications


Conveyance 20-MGD Facility El Segundo

El Segundo Site

WB-28

WB-30

WB-20

WB-3,4,5

WB-29

WB-2A,2B,13

West Coast Feeder

West Basin Feeder

Se

pu

lve

da

Fe

ed

er


Conveyance 20-MGD Facility Redondo Beach

El Segundo Site

Redondo Beach Site

West Coast Feeder

West Basin Feeder

Se

pu

lve

da

Fe

ed

er

WB-3,4,5

WB-28

WB-30

WB-20

WB-29

WB-2A,2B,13


Conveyance 60-MGD Facility El Segundo

El Segundo Site

Feeder Tie-in

West Coast Feeder

West Basin Feeder

Sepulv

eda F

eeder


Conveyance 60-MGD Facility Redondo Beach

West Basin Feeder

West Coast Feeder

Se

pu

lve

da

Fe

ed

er

El Segundo Site

Redondo Beach Site

Feeder Tie-in


• Vertical Turbine Pumps

• Design Considerations • Flow velocity

• Head loss

• Materials of Construction

• Connection Pressures

• Flow Ranges

• Hydrostatic Grade El

• Pump Type

• Redundancy

• Diurnal Variation

• Related Components • Wet Well

• Sedimentation Chamber

• PS Building

• Overhead Crane

• Surge Tank

Product Water Pumping

10-MGD 20-MGD 40-MGD 60-MGD

3

400HP EA

5

700HP EA

7

1,500HP EA

9

1,500HP EA

Product Water Pump Stations (El Segundo & Redondo Beach)

Legend

Standby Duty




•Power Supply


•Permitting


•Costs & Funding

•Project Delivery


Outline


• Demand: 20-MGD 14 MW | 60-MGD 46 MW

Power Supply

Technical Evaluation

1. Onsite generation conventional means

2. Onsite generation renewable resources

3. Power directly purchased from SCE

Onsite Generation (Conventional)

• Gas turbine and steam turbine in combined

cycle mode, other options available

• Pipeline natural gas available at ES (NRG)

and RB (AES) sites

• > 50 MW would require detailed review

and evaluation by CEC, does not apply

• No renewable credits or carbon offsets

Onsite Generation (Renewable)

• Wind turbines: limited space, insufficient

wind speed to support

• Fuel cells: convert chemical energy

from fuel into electricity by oxidation

• Solar panels (CSP): limited space,

insufficient solar resources to support

• Rooftop PV panels feasible


Power Supply

Power Supply Option Advantages Disadvantages Conclusions

Onsite power generation

with conventional means

Lower cost.

Local control of power

source and agreement

terms.

Will require permitting

and regulatory approval.

Potential SCE standby

charges.

No renewable credits.

Obtaining emissions offsets

and permitting is major hurdle.

Economics marginal.

WB has limited experience in

operating power plant but joint

option could make feasible.

Onsite power generation

by renewable resources

Attractive – green power. Not very good wind or

solar resources at site,

not practical.

Highest cost, with SCE

supplying remaining

power.

If implemented, on site

renewable will generate <5%

of power need of the

desalination plant.

Power supply directly

purchased from SCE

System reliability,

defined contract terms

and most accurate cost

estimate. Will have 20-

33% renewable

component.

Current cost are well

defined, but future

escalation is subject to

PUC process, and can

have negative impact for

large user to subsidize

residential customers.

SCE >50 kV supply rates are

competitive. SCE will work

with WB within PUC guideline

for best rates.

Summary of Power Supply Options




•Power Supply


•Permitting


•Costs & Funding

•Project Delivery


Outline


• Technical Studies and Data Needs • Completed prior to or during EIR development vs. part of EIR process

• Study scopes

• Environmental Review Plan • Importance of Project Definition, detail and flexibility

• CEQA Lead Agency – anticipated to be West Basin

• Federal Agency – Marine construction (ACOE)

• Stakeholder input

• Preliminary Engineering and Design

• Least environmentally damaging practicable alternative

• CEQA/NEPA

• Risks (schedule, document defensibility, budget) • Potential litigation

• Insufficient stakeholder involvement

• Unanticipated delays

Environmental Review Aesthetics

Air Quality/GHGs

Marine Bio

Impingement

Entrainment

Salinity

Terrestrial Bio

Cultural

Geology

Soils

HazMat

Hydrology

Water Quality

Noise

Transportation


EIR/EIS Programs Define Proposed Project/Action

1. Review for Exemptions

CEQA PROCESS

2. Initial Study

3. EIR Required

4. Notice of Preparation

5. Scoping

6. Draft EIR

7. State Clearinghouse

8. Public & Agency Review

9. Prepare Responses to Comments

10. Review of Responses by Commentor

11. Final EIR

12. Agency Decision/Finding/SOC

13. File NOD within 5 days of Decision

14. Wait 30 days (Challenge Period)

15. Proceed with Project/Monitoring

1. Review for Exclusions

2. Environmental Assessment

3. EIS Required

4. Notice of Intent

5. Scoping

6. Draft EIS

7. EPA Filing: Federal Register

8. Public & Agency Review

9. Final EIS

NEPA PROCESS

10. EPA Filing: Federal Register

11. Agency Decision/Record of Decision

12. No Statute of Limitations for NEPA

13. Proceed with Project

Determine Lead Agency




•Power Supply


•Permitting


•Costs & Funding

•Project Delivery


Outline


Agency Permit/Authorization/Approval Timeline

Federal

USFWS ITP Endangered Species Act (ESA)

ITP Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 12-18 mo

NMFS ITP Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 12-18 mo

USACE Individual Permit, Clean Water Act (CWA)

Individual Permit, Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act 6-18 mo

State

RWQCB

NPDES General Permit

NPDES Permit, Clean Water Act (CWA)

Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), Porter-Cologne WQCA

Water Quality Certification, Clean Water Act (CWA)

12-24 mo

CSLC Land Use Lease 12-24 mo

CDFG ITP California Endangered Species Act (CESA)

Lake/Streambed Alteration Agreement

6-12 mo

6-12 mo

CCC Coastal Development Permit (CDP), California Coastal Act 24-36 mo

CDPH Permit to Operate a Public Water System 24-36 mo

CDPR Coordination, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 6-12 mo

Caltrans Encroachment Permit 12-24 mo

Regional

SCAQMD Permit to Construct

Permit to Operate

6-12 mo

6-12 mo

MWDOC Encroachment Permit for Work within Metropolitan ROW 12-24 mo

Local Cities Encroachment Permit 3-6 mo/ea




•Power Supply


•Permitting


•Costs & Funding

•Project Delivery


Outline


• Objectives • Basis for future staff planning

• Environmental analysis

• Framework for contract operations

procurement

• Operation Factors • Treatment capacity

• Raw water quality

• Effluent requirements

• Brine discharge limitations

• Preliminary plant design

• Operational Oversight • Monitoring influent and effluent

water quality and process variables

• Maintenance, replacement, and

calibration of equipment and

instrumentation

• Compliance and optimization goals

Operations & Maintenance Operational Parameters


Operations & Maintenance • Labor / Staffing Plan

• Facility Staffing Roles and

Certification Requirements

• Asset Maintenance and

Management System (MMS)

• Work Schedules

Staffing Roles and Certification Requirements

Work Schedules


Operations & Maintenance • Owner Operations

• Not used extensively by West Basin in the past

• Challenges: availability of staff, familiarity with desalination plant operation, high risk

• Contract Operations • Greater accountability for operations, transfer operations risks to private sector

• Benefits: fixed pricing, technical expertise

• RFQ process for selecting qualified Contractor

• Variety of forms due to duration/scope: performance based vs. staffing & materials

• Design Build Operate • Helps ensure operation factors are considered during design and construction

• Retain Project Team Prelim Design RFQ SOQs RFP Selection

• DBO Procurement typically longer than DBB Procurement, but DBB typically longer

design, bidding/selection, and construction.




•Power Supply


•Permitting


•Costs & Funding

•Project Delivery


Outline


• Annualized Capital and O&M Cost

Costs & Funding

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

10-MGD 20-MGD 10/40-MGD 30/40-MGD 40-MGD 60-MGD

Note: 10/40 is initial 10

MGD plant w/ 40 MGD

backbone for expansion.

30/40 refers to 30 MGD

expansion to 40 MGD.

Inc

rea

sin

g C

os

t


• Annualized Capital and O&M Cost ($/AF)

Costs & Funding

Note: 10/40 is initial 10

MGD plant w/ 40 MGD

backbone for expansion.

30/40 refers to 30 MGD

expansion to 40 MGD.


Operations & Maintenance

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

10-MGD 20-MGD 40-MGD 60-MGD

Power Chemicals Maintenance & Materials Labor Replacement

Inc

rea

sin

g C

os

t • Annual O&M Cost


Operations & Maintenance • Annual O&M Cost ($/yr)


• Internal Funding

• Federal Funding • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

• U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

• Water Infrastructure Finance and

Innovation Authority (WIFIA)

• State Funding • Proposition 84

• Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking

Water Supply Act of 2012

• Regional Funding • Seawater Desalination Program (SDP)

• Public Private Partnerships • Investment Funds

• Qualified Tax Credit Bond (QTCB)

Costs & Funding • Uncertainty in availability of

public grants (poor economy)

• Cost of Water Analysis

• Financial Impact Analysis

• Schedule/Sequencing • Limited flexibility in timing of

borrowings

• Phasing/expansions might provide

opportunity for varying timing of

borrowing to mitigate rate impact

• Construction segments

• Rate impact during design &

construction vs. after on-line date

• Debt service coverage requirements

• Metropolitan SDP incentive of up to

$250 per acre foot




•Power Supply


•Permitting


•Costs & Funding

•Project Delivery


Outline


• Advantages & Disadvantages

• Shortlisted to:

Project Delivery

• Design-Bid-Build (DBB) 1

• Design-Build (DB) 2

• Design-Build-Operate (DBO) 3

• Construction Manager (CM) at Risk 4

• Design Build Own Operate Transfer (DBOOT) 5

• Risk Profiles

• Key Drivers for APD Method Selection • Based on multiple years of project development and site specific understanding gained,

West Basin is likely in a more knowledgeable position on the preferred treatment system

performance than industry. As such, West Basin would likely consider providing the

definition on the technical/treatment components (i.e. prescriptive approach).

• Flexibility in contractor selection – ability to select based on best value

• Cost impacts

• Schedule (no regulatory constraints for expedited schedule)


• Cost & Schedule Comparison

Project Delivery

Delivery Method Cost w/ Operations Cost w/o Operations Schedule

Design-Bid-Build

(DBB)

DBB

Capital Cost

(baseline for comparison)

DBB

Life Cycle Cost


DBB

Capital Cost


DBB

Life Cycle Cost


DBB


Design-Build

(DB)

Lower than DBB Capital

Cost (15-35% lower)

Higher than DBB Life Cycle

Cost (5-15% higher)

Same as DBB

Capital Cost

Same as DBB

Life Cycle Cost

Shorter than DBB

(0 to 10% shorter)

Design-Build-Operate

(DBO)

Lower than DBB Capital

Cost (10 to 25% lower)

Lower than DBB Life Cycle

Cost (10 to 25% lower)

N/A

N/A

Shorter than DBB

(0 to 10% shorter)


• Intake/Discharge Structure: More risk, industry proprietary Performance-based

• Desalination Plant: Can be clearly defined by West Basin DBB or descriptive DB

• Conveyance System: Can be clearly defined by West Basin DBB or descriptive DB

• DBO also considered as incorporates long term operation into design/construction

Project Delivery • Example Program

Delivery Model


Project Delivery • Schedule




•Power Supply


•Permitting


•Costs & Funding

•Project Delivery


Outline


• Addition of SWRO Desal facility will help to diversify West Bain’s

water supply portfolio and reduce dependence on imported water.

• Pilot and demo plants determined SWRO acceptable for meeting

product water quality targets. Final process selection should be

based on demo plant and site specific requirements.

• Local demand supports up to 20-MGD at either site. Regional

demand w/ exist MWD operational constraints is 25-MGD.

• El Segundo and Redondo Beach sites are viable for SWRO up to

60-MGD and rank similarly on select performance criteria.

Conclusions


• Best config to meet objectives: existing tunnels as conduit for I&D

pipes with wedge wire intake screens and diffuser discharge ports.

• Conveyance into local distribution or MWD feeders viable at both

sites. Compatibility concerns must be studied further.

• Several options for power supply. Additional investigations and

negotiations with SCE, NRG, and AES should be pursued.

• DBB or DB appropriate for Desal Plant and Conveyance System.

Could consider performance-based for Intake/Discharge Struct.

Conclusions


• Additional Studies • Tunnel integrity at El Segundo

• RB discharge tunnel under pressure conditions

• Sediment transport / suspension

• Power Supply • Further evaluation of onsite self-generation and direct purchase from SCE options

• EIR Phase • Procurement of environmental and engineering support

• Address technical studies and data needs

• Prepare draft EIR/EIS and related NEPA/CEQA documentation

• Permitting • Comprehensive plan to acquire all permits

• Early and on-going consultation with permitting agencies

• Conduct initial scoping meetings

• Operations & Maintenance • Once preferred delivery method chosen, optimize an operations plan

Next Steps

• Bench or pilot-scale testing of

chemical dosing

• Water Quality Integration Study


Imagine the result

Documents

Ocean Water Desalination - westbasindesal.org and Files/Research... · 39 to 102 (average 59) Bromide (mg/L) Chloramine ... and evaluation by CEC, ... Hydrology Water Quality Noise