Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Feasibility Study Final Report

PrePared for:

SaN dIeGo

CoUNTY WaTer

aUTHorITY

JN: 25-101785

VOLUME IfINaL rePorT

deCeMBer 2009

Prepared by:

CaMP PeNdLeToN SeaWaTer deSaLINaTIoN ProJeCT

feaSIBILITY STUdY

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CCCAAAMMMPPP PPPEEENNNDDDLLLEEETTTOOONNN SSSEEEAAAWWWAAATTTEEERRR DDDEEESSSAAALLLIIINNNAAATTTIIIOOONNN PPPRRROOOJJJEEECCCTTT

FFFEEEAAASSSIIIBBBIIILLLIIITTTYYY SSSTTTUUUDDDYYY RRREEEPPPOOORRRTTT

VVVOOOLLLUUUMMMEEE 111

Prepared for:

San Diego County Water Authority 4677 Overland Avenue

San Diego, California 92123

Prepared by:

December 2009

CCCAAAMMMPPP PPPEEENNNDDDLLLEEETTTOOONNN SSSEEEAAAWWWAAATTTEEERRR DDDEEESSSAAALLLIIINNNAAATTTIIIOOONNN PPPRRROOOJJJEEECCCTTT

FFFEEEAAASSSIIIBBBIIILLLIIITTTYYY SSSTTTUUUDDDYYY RRREEEPPPOOORRRTTT

VVVOOOLLLUUUMMMEEE 111

Prepared for: San Diego County Water Authority

4677 Overland Avenue San Diego, California 92123

Bob Yamada Water Resources Manager

Cesar Lopez Project Manager Prepared by:

RBF CONSULTING 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92124 858.614.5000 Telephone 858.614.5001 Fax

Paul Findley, PE Project Manager Makrom Shatila, PE Project Engineer Rick Hendrickson, GISP GIS Professional Kevin Thomas, CEP Environmental Professional RBF JN 25-101785 H:\PDATA\25101785\Task 12 Feas Report\Draft\Draft_SDCWA Desal Feas Study_Vol1.doc

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RBF Consulting and the San Diego County Water Authority would like to extend a special thanks to all Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Personnel and Staff who were a key component to the completion of this Feasibility Study. The Water Authority would also like to extend a special thanks to the following funding agencies, Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Through their support and vision, they have helped agencies throughout California evaluate and implement alternative water supplies. The Water Authority appreciates the assistance that staff from each of these agencies provided in support of the Water Authority’s administration of Proposition 50 grant funds.

RBF Consulting also wishes to acknowledge the contribution of the subconsultant’s involved with this study, which provided their professional services in their given field of expertise. Below is a list of each subconsultant and the Technical Memorandum (TM) they prepared, which was essential to completing this Feasibility Study. Each TM is provided in its entirety in the Appendix (Volume 2): MBC Applied Environmental Sciences: Review of Marine Resources and Constraints for

a Proposed Desalination Project near the Santa Margarita River, Camp Pendleton, California (December 2007).

Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants: Geotechnical Reconnaissance Desalination Plant Feasibility Study, MCB Camp Pendleton (February 4, 2008).

Jacobs Associates: Project Memorandum: Camp Pendleton Desalination Plant Tunnel (April 15, 2008).

Malcolm Pirnie: Intake Technical Memorandum 3.2 (TM-3.2): Camp Pendleton Desalination Facility Intake Structure (September 2008). Brine Disposal Technical Memorandum 4.1 (TM-4.1): Camp Pendleton Desalination Discharge Feasibility Study (September 2008).

Geoscience Support Services, Inc: Technical Memorandum 3.3 (TM-3.3): Camp Pendleton Desalination Project - Slant Well Feasibility Study (October 2008).

DHK Engineers: Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Feasibility Study, Utility Provisions Technical Memorandum (April 5, 2009).

Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) & Malcolm Pirnie: Project Memorandum: San Diego County Water Authority Alliance Contracting Model Memorandum (April 14, 2009).

Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project Feasibility Study

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 : Introduction ............................................................................................ 1-1

1.0 Water Authority History.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Study Background................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Study Objectives ................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 1-5

Chapter 2 : Project Setting........................................................................................ 2-1 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Physiography ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Climate.................................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Oceanography....................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 2-8 2.5 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................... 2-9

Chapter 3 : Seawater Intake ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Background........................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Offshore Feedwater Conveyance .......................................................................................... 3-7 3.3 Onshore Feedwater Conveyance .......................................................................................... 3-9 3.4 Open-Ocean Wedge-Wire Screens ..................................................................................... 3-12 3.5 Seabed Infiltration Gallery ................................................................................................... 3-20 3.6 Deep Infiltration Gallery ....................................................................................................... 3-26 3.7 Beach Slant Wells ............................................................................................................... 3-29

Chapter 4 : Concentrate Disposal ............................................................................ 4-1 4.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Background........................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Offshore Concentrate Conveyance........................................................................................ 4-3 4.3 Onshore Concentrate Conveyance........................................................................................ 4-4 4.4 Concentrate Diffuser System................................................................................................. 4-4

Chapter 5 : Desalination Facility............................................................................... 5-1 5.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Desalination Facility Sites...................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2 Desalination Treatment Process............................................................................................ 5-9 5.3 Power Service..................................................................................................................... 5-30 5.4 Facility Sustainability ........................................................................................................... 5-43


Page ii

Chapter 6 : Desalinated Water Conveyance.............................................................6-1 6.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................6-1 6.1 South Boundary Pipeline Segment.........................................................................................6-2 6.2 Oceanside Pipeline Segment ...............................................................................................6-10 6.3 Water Authority Pipeline Segment........................................................................................6-15 6.4 Hydraulics............................................................................................................................6-20 6.5 Desalinated Water Pump Station .........................................................................................6-29 6.6 Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station ...........................................................................................6-32 6.7 Silverleaf Pump Station........................................................................................................6-36 6.8 Impacts................................................................................................................................6-40

Chapter 7 : Product Water Integration......................................................................7-1 7.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................7-1 7.1 Twin Oaks Diversion Structure / Clearwells ............................................................................7-2 7.2 North County Distribution Pipeline..........................................................................................7-3 7.3 Second Aqueduct ..................................................................................................................7-7 7.4 Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use Project ......................................................................7-9 7.5 MCB Camp Pendleton .........................................................................................................7-12 7.6 Municipal Water District of Orange County...........................................................................7-12

Chapter 8 : Environmental And Permitting ..............................................................8-1 8.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................8-1 8.1 Overview ...............................................................................................................................8-2 8.2 Permitting Summary ..............................................................................................................8-4 8.3 Desalination Facility ...............................................................................................................8-9 8.4 Seawater Intake...................................................................................................................8-15 8.5 Concentrate Disposal...........................................................................................................8-21 8.6 Desalinated Water Conveyance...........................................................................................8-24 8.7 Key Regulatory Permits and Approvals ................................................................................8-30 8.8 Recommendations...............................................................................................................8-39 8.9 Potential CEQA/NEPA Documentation.................................................................................8-40 8.10 Potential Technical Studies..................................................................................................8-40

Chapter 9 : Project Alternatives ................................................................................9-1 9.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................9-1 9.1 SRTTP Site ...........................................................................................................................9-2 9.2 MCTSSA Site ......................................................................................................................9-13


Page iii

Chapter 10 : Cost Development.............................................................................. 10-1 10.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Capital Costs....................................................................................................................... 10-1 10.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs..................................................................................... 10-17 10.3 Life Cycle Present Worth Analysis ..................................................................................... 10-29

Chapter 11 : Project Implementation...................................................................... 11-1 11.0 Project Summary................................................................................................................. 11-1 11.1 Potential Funding Opportunities........................................................................................... 11-3 11.2 Next Steps .......................................................................................................................... 11-5 11.3 Pilot / Demonstration Project ............................................................................................. 11-11 11.4 Contract Delivery Models................................................................................................... 11-12


Page iv

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Water Authority Service Area .............................................................................................1-2 Figure 1-2: Year 2020 San Diego Region Water Supply Portfolio .........................................................1-6 Figure 1-3A: Potential Project Impact Areas .......................................................................................1-10 Figure 1-3B: Potential Project Impact Areas.......................................................................................1-10 Figure 2-1: Surface Water Circulation in the SCB.................................................................................2-4 Figure 2-2: Offshore Data ....................................................................................................................2-7 Figure 2-3: Geologic Map...................................................................................................................2-10 Figure 3-1: Artist Rendition of Pipe-In-Pipe Tunnel (RBF).....................................................................3-8 Figure 3-2: Cross Section of Seabed Pipelines (Malcolm Pirnie)...........................................................3-9 Figure 3-3: Proposed FWPS Sites......................................................................................................3-10 Figure 3-4: Tee Wedge-wire Intake Screen (Johnson Screens®)........................................................3-12 Figure 3-5: Johnson Screens® Patented Dual Flow Modifier ..............................................................3-13 Figure 3-6: Hendrick Screens® Patented Core Cylinder Design .........................................................3-13 Figure 3-7: Air Backwash System in Action ........................................................................................3-14 Figure 3-8: Intake Screen Configuration (Hendrick Screens®) ............................................................3-17 Figure 3-9: Open-Ocean Wedge Wire Screen Intake Location............................................................3-19 Figure 3-10: Seabed Infiltration Gallery (Fukuoka, Japan) ..................................................................3-20 Figure 3-11: Seabed Infiltration Gallery (SIG) Conceptual Layout .......................................................3-25 Figure 3-12: Deep Infiltration Gallery (DIG) Intake Conceptual Layout ................................................3-28 Figure 3-13: Slant Well Intake Profile .................................................................................................3-29 Figure 3-14: Beach Slant Well Intake Conceptual Layout ...................................................................3-33 Figure 3-15: Groundwater Model Aquifer Thickness ...........................................................................3-34 Figure 4-1: Cross Section of Seabed Pipelines (Malcolm Pirnie)...........................................................4-3 Figure 4-2: Diffuser System Layout (Malcolm Pirnie) ............................................................................4-9 Figure 4-3: Outfall Diffuser Location for Slant Well or DIG Intake........................................................4-11 Figure 4-4: Outfall Diffuser Location for Wedge-Wire Screen or SIG Intake ........................................4-12 Figure 5-1: Initial Sites for MCB Camp Pendleton Desalination Facility .................................................5-4 Figure 5-2: Final 3 Sites for MCB Camp Pendleton Desalination Project...............................................5-5 Figure 5-3: Maximum Probable Inundation Areas During a 100-Year Event..........................................5-7 Figure 5-4: Open-Ocean Intake Process Flow Diagram......................................................................5-11 Figure 5-5: Subsurface Intake Process Flow Diagram ........................................................................5-12 Figure 5-6: Typical Drum Screens (EIMCO) .......................................................................................5-13 Figure 5-7: Drum Screen Flow Configuration (EIMCO) .......................................................................5-13 Figure 5-8: Typical DAF Tanks...........................................................................................................5-14


Page v

Figure 5-9: Dissolved Air Flotation Process (Wikipedia) ..................................................................... 5-15 Figure 5-10: Submerged Ultra-filtration (UF) Tanks (Siemens) ........................................................... 5-16 Figure 5-11: Typical Horizontal Cartridge Filter Vessel ....................................................................... 5-18 Figure 5-12: Typical SWRO Skid Array (Australia) ............................................................................. 5-20 Figure 5-13: PX-260 Energy Recovery Device (ERI).......................................................................... 5-22 Figure 5-14: PX Device Components (ERI)........................................................................................ 5-23 Figure 5-15: Typical Flow Path for SWRO PX Device (ERI) ............................................................... 5-24 Figure 5-16: Typical PX ERD Arrays (ERI)......................................................................................... 5-25 Figure 5-17: Potential Power Line Alignment Options ........................................................................ 5-35 Figure 5-18: MED Process Schematic ............................................................................................... 5-37 Figure 5-19: Cogeneration Power Plant Layout.................................................................................. 5-42 Figure 6-1: Desalinated Water Conveyance - South Boundary Pipeline Segment................................. 6-9 Figure 6-2: Desalinated Water Conveyance - Oceanside Pipeline Segment....................................... 6-14 Figure 6-3: Desalinated Water Conveyance - Water Authority Pipeline Segment................................ 6-19 Figure 6-4: DWCP Hydraulic Profile – DWPS to TODS...................................................................... 6-22 Figure 6-5: DWCP Hydraulic Profile – DWPS to Pipeline 4 ................................................................ 6-23 Figure 6-6: Typical Pump Station Layout – Vertical Turbine Pumps ................................................... 6-27 Figure 6-7: Typical Pump Station Layout – Horizontal Split Case Pumps ........................................... 6-28 Figure 6-8: Proposed Site for the Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station ..................................................... 6-35 Figure 6-9: Proposed Site for Silverleaf Pump Station........................................................................ 6-39 Figure 7-1: Proposed NCDP Connection Points................................................................................... 7-5 Figure 7-2: Proposed NCDP 5-MG FRS & Pump Station ..................................................................... 7-6 Figure 7-3: SMRCUP Proposed Pipelines.......................................................................................... 7-11 Figure 7-4: Coastal Pipeline Alternatives ........................................................................................... 7-14 Figure 8-1A: Potential Project Impact Areas......................................................................................... 8-6 Figure 9-1: SRTTP Site – Potential Configuration ................................................................................ 9-5 Figure 9-2A-B-C: Desalination Facility at SRTTP Site ............................................................... 9-6 to 9-8 Figure 9-3A-B-C-D: SRTTP Site – Visual Renderings .............................................................. 9-9 to 9-12 Figure 9-4: MCTSSA Site – Potential Configuration ........................................................................... 9-16 Figure 9-5A-B: Desalination Facility at MCTSSA Site..............................................................9-17 to 9-18 Figure 9-6A-B-C-D: MCTSSA Site – Visual Renderings ..........................................................9-19 to 9-22 Figure 11-1: Preliminary Project Implementation Schedule ................................................................ 11-9


Page vi

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Feedwater Pump Station Design Data.................................................................................3-11 Table 3-2 Wedge-Wire Screen Intake Design Data ............................................................................3-17 Table 3-3 DIG Intake Design Data......................................................................................................3-27 Table 4-1 Diffuser System Conceptual Design Data .............................................................................4-8 Table 5-1 Drum Screen Design Criteria...............................................................................................5-10 Table 5-2 DAF System Design Criteria................................................................................................5-15 Table 5-3 UF Membrane System Design Criteria.................................................................................5-17 Table 5-4 Pretreatment Cartridge Filter Design Criteria .......................................................................5-18 Table 5-5 SWRO Design Criteria ........................................................................................................5-21 Table 5-6 Energy Recovery System Design Criteria ............................................................................5-25 Table 5-7 Average Daily Chemical Usage – 50 MGD ..........................................................................5-29 Table 5-8 Average Power Requirements – 50 MGD............................................................................5-31 Table 5-9 40-MW Combined Cycle Plant Preliminary Design Criteria ..................................................5-36 Table 6-1 South Boundary Pipeline Preliminary Design Data.................................................................6-3 Table 6-2 Oceanside Pipeline Segment Preliminary Design Data ........................................................6-12 Table 6-3 Water Authority Pipeline Segment Preliminary Design Data.................................................6-16 Table 6-4 Proposed Pump Stations.....................................................................................................6-21 Table 6-5 Desalinated Water PS Design Data.....................................................................................6-30 Table 6-6 Desalinated Water PS Power Demands ..............................................................................6-31 Table 6-7 Twin Oaks Valley PS Design Data - TODS..........................................................................6-33 Table 6-8 Twin Oaks Valley PS Design Data – Pipeline 4....................................................................6-33 Table 6-9 Twin Oaks Valley PS Power Demands - TODS ...................................................................6-34 Table 6-10 Twin Oaks Valley PS Power Demands – Pipeline 4...........................................................6-34 Table 6-11 Silverleaf PS Design Data .................................................................................................6-37 Table 6-12 Silverleaf PS Power Demands...........................................................................................6-38 Table 8-1 Potential Environmental Impacts ...........................................................................................8-8 Table 8-2 Anticipated Permits and Approvals ......................................................................................8-38 Table 9-1 SRTTP Seawater Intake Components ...................................................................................9-2 Table 9-2 SRTTP Concentrate Disposal System Components ..............................................................9-3 Table 9-3 SRTTP Desalination Facility Components .............................................................................9-4 Table 9-4 SRTTP DWCP Components..................................................................................................9-4 Table 9-5 MCTSSA - Intake Components Per Phase ..........................................................................9-13


Page vii

Table 9-6 MCTSSA - Brine Disposal Components Per Phase............................................................. 9-14 Table 9-7 MCTSSA - Desalination Components Per Phase ................................................................ 9-15 Table 9-8 MCTSSA - DWCP Components Per Phase......................................................................... 9-15 Table 10-1 Project Alternatives Capital Cost Estimates (Grid Power) .................................................. 10-2 Table 10-2 40-MW Utility Power Service Capital Cost Estimate .......................................................... 10-3 Table 10-3 Project Alternatives Capital Cost Estimates (Cogeneration)............................................... 10-4 Table 10-4 40-MW Cogeneration Facility Capital Cost Estimate.......................................................... 10-5 Table 10-5 Capital Cost Comparison .................................................................................................. 10-7 Table 10-6 SRTTP Site: Capital Cost Estimate (Grid Power) .............................................................. 10-9 Table 10-7 MCTSSA Site: Capital Cost Estimate (Grid Power) ......................................................... 10-11 Table 10-8 SRTTP Site: Capital Cost Estimate (Cogeneration) ......................................................... 10-13 Table 10-9 MCTSSA Site: Capital Cost Estimate (Cogeneration) ...................................................... 10-15 Table 10-10 O&M Cost Estimate Utilizing Grid Power....................................................................... 10-18 Table 10-11 O&M Cost Estimate Utilizing Cogen Power ................................................................... 10-19 Table 10-12 40-MW Cogeneration Facility O&M Cost Estimate......................................................... 10-19 Table 10-13 Subsurface Intake O&M Cost Estimate Utilizing Grid Power .......................................... 10-21 Table 10-14 Screened Open-Ocean Intake O&M Cost Estimate Utilizing Grid Power........................ 10-23 Table 10-15 Subsurface Intake O&M Cost Estimate Utilizing Cogen Power ...................................... 10-25 Table 10-16 Open-Ocean Intake O&M Cost Estimate Utilizing Cogen Power.................................... 10-27 Table 10-17 50-Year Present Worth and Average Cost of Water (Grid Power).................................. 10-30 Table 10-18 50-Year Present Worth and Average Cost of Water (Cogeneration) .............................. 10-30 Table 10-19A SRTTP Site: 50-Yr Present Worth Cost Analysis (Grid Power) .................................... 10-33 Table 10-20A MCTSSA Site: 50-Yr Present Worth Cost Analysis (Grid Power) ................................. 10-35 Table 10-21A SRTTP Site: 50-Yr Present Worth Cost Analysis (Cogeneration) ................................ 10-37 Table 10-22A MCTSSA Site: 50-Yr Present Worth Cost Analysis (Cogeneration) ............................. 10-39


Page viii

LIST OF ACRONYMS ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers BMP Best Management Practices BOR Bureau of Reclamation CCC California Coastal Commission CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDP Coastal Development Permit CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHP Combined Heat & Power CIP Clean-In-Place CPUC California Public Utilities Commission DB Design – Build DBB Design – Bid – Build DBO(M) Design – Build – Operate (Maintain) DHS Department of Health Services DIG Deep Infiltration Gallery DOE Department of Energy DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DWPS Desalinated Water Pump Station DWR Department of Water Resources ERD Energy Recovery Device ERH Electromagnetic Radiation Hazard FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FPUD Fallbrook Public Utility District FRS Flow Regulatory Structure FWPS Feedwater Pump Station HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan LCP Local Coastal Plan LT2 Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule MCBCP Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton MCC Motor Control Center MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MCTSSA Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfection Level MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NCTD North County Transit District NEM Net Energy Metering


Page ix

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration NOP Non-Owner Participant O&M Operations & Maintenance PX Pressure Exchanger RO Reverse Osmosis RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCB Southern California Bight SCE Southern California Edison SDCAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SIG Seabed Infiltration Gallery SLPS Silverleaf Pump Station SLRR San Luis Rey River SMR Santa Margarita River SMRCUP Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use Project SONGS San Onofre Generating Station SRF State Revolving Fund SRTTP Southern Region Tertiary Treatment Plant STRACNET Strategic Rail Corridor Network SWRO Seawater Reverse Osmosis SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board SWP State Water Project TBM Tunnel Boring Machine TDS Total Dissolved Solids THM Trihalomethanes TM Technical Memorandum TOC Total Organic Carbon TODS Twin Oaks Diversion Structure UF Ultra-filtration USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service UV Ultra-Violet VOC Volatile Organic Compound TOVPS Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station WAP Water Authority Pipeline WMP Wire Mountain Pipeline WPA Water Purchase Agreement WTP Water Treatment Plant YBP Ysidora Basin Pipeline


Page x

LIST OF UNITS

AFY Acre-feet per year BTU British thermal units Dth Dekatherm = 10 Therms ft/s Feet per second gpd Gallons per day gpm Gallons per minute Hz Hertz kV Kilovolt kVA Kilovolt-Ampere kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-hour mg/L Milligrams per liter mgd Million gallons per day MG Million gallons MW Megawatt thm Therm = 100,000 BTU


Page 1-1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.0 WATER AUTHORITY HISTORY

The San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) is a regional water wholesaler, established by the California State Legislature in 1944 to provide a supplemental supply of water as the San Diego region’s civilian and military population expanded to meet wartime activities. Due to the strong military presence, the federal government arranged for supplemental supplies from the Colorado River in the 1940’s. In 1947, water began to be imported from the Colorado River via a single pipeline (Pipeline 1 – First Aqueduct) that connected to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California‘s (MWD) Colorado River Aqueduct located in Riverside County. In order to meet the water demand for a growing population and economy, the Water Authority constructed four additional pipelines (Pipeline 2 – First Aqueduct and Pipelines 3, 4, & 5 – Second Aqueduct) between 1950 and 1980 that are connected to MWD’s distribution system, which delivers water into San Diego County. The Water Authority is now the predominant source of water, supplying approximately 97 percent of the regions needs. The Water Authority’s boundaries extend from the border with Mexico in the south, to Orange and Riverside Counties in the north, and from the Pacific Ocean to the foothills that terminate the coastal plain in the east. With a total of 908,959 acres (1,420.3 square miles), the Water Authority’s service area encompasses the western third of San Diego County as illustrated in Figure 1-1. The Water Authority, governed by a 35-member Board of Directors, is comprised of 24 member agencies that purchase water for use at the retail level, and serves approximately 3 million residents of San Diego County (County of San Diego is an ex-officio member). The member agencies have diverse and varying water needs and consist of six cities, five water districts, eight municipal water districts, three irrigation districts, a public utility district, and Marine Corp Base Camp Pendleton (MCBCP).

1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND

The Water Authority currently imports approximately 70 percent of its water supply from MWD. MWD’s ability to provide reliable water supplies, particularly in a dry year, is constrained by the preferential right of each of its member agencies, as well as by current uncertainties regarding the continued reliability of the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River. For these reasons, developing new water supplies for the region is a key component in the Water Authority’s diversification effort.


Page 1-2

Source: SDCWA 2002 Regional Facilities Master Plan

Figure 1-1: Water Authority Service Area


Page 1-3

Seawater desalination represents a new, safe, and drought-proof water supply. Seawater desalination has emerged as an integral part of the Water Authority’s water supply diversification strategy that also includes aggressive water conservation, water recycling, and agriculture to urban water transfers. The Water Authority has been evaluating seawater desalination as a highly reliable local water resource since the early 1990s. From 1991 to 1993, the Water Authority conducted detailed studies of the feasibility of developing a seawater desalination facility in conjunction with plans by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) to re-power its existing South Bay Power Plant in Chula Vista. In 1999, the Water Authority conducted an engineering study of a potential seawater desalination plant located at the Encina Power Station in Carlsbad that would use cooling water from the power plant and discharge concentrate into the blended power plant effluent via the existing discharge channel. The Carlsbad Encina Project was also being pursued by Poseidon Resources (PR), a private company that specializes in developing and financing water infrastructure projects, primarily seawater desalination and water treatment plants. Eventually the Water Authority decided not to pursue a Water Authority led Carlsbad Encina Project. The Water Authority is also participating in a study for a desalination plant that would be sited at a power plant in Rosarito Beach, Mexico. The Water Authority, in collaboration with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), first began a pre-feasibility (fatal flaw) analysis of constructing a seawater desalination facility in the northern portion of Camp Pendleton near the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), operated by Southern California Edison (SCE). Co-location benefits existed for a desalination facility located at SONGS due to the availability of existing infrastructure for power supply, feedwater intake, and concentrate (brine) discharge. However, as the study progressed, SCE raised concerns with a desalination facility at or near SONGS, citing incompatibility with nuclear power plant operations, and public perception. In coordination with MCBCP staff, it was subsequently decided to move the desalination study location. The area of interest for siting the desalination plant was then shifted to the south end of Camp Pendleton, closer to the Water Authority’s distribution system. Due to the distance of this location from Orange County, MWDOC dropped out of further study participation. Several meetings were held with Camp Pendleton Personnel to determine pre-feasibility (fatal flaws) with locating a desalination facility in the southwest region of Camp Pendleton. The MCBCP Region SW Commander and the MCBCP Commanding Officer both granted approval to conduct a complete feasibility study as long as the project does not interfere with, or have adverse affects on the training mission or operation of the base.


Page 1-4

A timeline summary of how this project has developed over the years is provided below:

DATE DESCRIPTION Early 2005 Completed Pre-Feasibility (Fatal Flaw) Study at SONGS. Feb 2005 Received authorization from Major General Donovan to proceed with

detailed Feasibility Study. Nov 2005 Water Authority Issues Notice to Proceed for Feasibility Study. April 2006 SCE informs Water Authority of its concerns in locating a desalination

facility at or near SONGS. Nov 2006 Revised SOW submitted to Camp Pendleton for review and comments. April 2007 Received MCBCP concurrence to proceed with revised SOW focused on

southern sites at MCBCP. Sept 2007 Received comments from MCBCP staff on initial site evaluation.

Jan 2008 Finalized Technical Memo #1 (TM-1) Seawater Desalination Facilities

Description and Site Identification, incorporating MCBCP comments.

July 2008 Finalized Site Evaluation Memo, prioritizing and analyzing final three sites Dec 2008 Authorization letter received from MCBCP (Col. G.W. Storey), giving

approval to conduct feasibility study on the final two sites: MCTSSA Site and SRTTP Site.

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES

This report is an engineering feasibility-level study on the development of a regional seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination facility located in the southwest region of Camp Pendleton. Several sites to construct a desalination facility were identified during a reconnaissance-level study for potential sites along the Camp Pendleton coastline. Several discussions were held with Camp Pendleton personnel and a pre-feasibility Technical Memorandum, Seawater Desalination Facilities Description and Site Identification (TM-1), was developed for Camp Pendleton personnel to review and determine the most feasible sites for a desalination facility while considering base training and operations (refer to Section 5.1 for a description of all sites considered).


Page 1-5

The pre-feasibility TM-1 and Site Evaluation Memo (provided in Appendix D) identified two sites where a desalination facility could be located and identified preliminary conveyance alignments where product water could be conveyed to the Water Authority’s aqueduct system. This feasibility study would involve site-specific evaluation of these two sites to locate a desalination facility; the marine environment for seawater intake and concentrate discharge pipelines; and the conveyance pipeline alignment to the Water Authority’s system in order to determine how this project would be constructed. This would include a preliminary geotechnical evaluation; a layout of the facility on each site, treatment process options based on different intakes; a concentrate discharge system; and potential product water conveyance alignments and integration. The objective of this feasibility-level study is to evaluate potential constraints that would limit or eliminate options for the design and operation of the proposed desalination facility, and related project infrastructure in the proposed project area, shown in Figure 1-3A and Figure 1-3B. The corridor for the conveyance pipeline identified for this evaluation follows a route along the southwest region of Camp Pendleton, San Luis Rey River (SLRR) in Oceanside, and existing Water Authority easements in San Diego County north of Vista. The project area for the desalination facility, intake, and discharge identified for this evaluation covers the estuary and nearshore marine habitat associated with the mouth of the Santa Margarita River (SMR). Existing data would be utilized to describe an area extending 10,000 ft upcoast, downcoast and offshore of the center point of the river mouth as well as the habitat subject to marine influence in the SMR estuary wetland. This report will describe local marine resources and identify potential constraints resulting from physical restrictions or environmental concerns in the project area. In addition, potential constraints to project design and further data needs would be evaluated. This report would also determine the constructability, cost effectiveness, and potential design constraints of a seawater desalination facility located at either of the two site alternatives in Camp Pendleton.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Water Authority is taking steps to reduce its dependence upon imported water and diversify its water supply portfolio. The Water Authority’s 2002 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan identifies water supplies and facilities that would be needed to serve the region through 2030. In addition, the Water Authority’s updated 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes seawater desalination as part of the regions future supply. Specific goals of the UWMP and Master Plan are increased reliability and diversification of Water Authority’s water supply portfolio, which results in a targeted goal for seawater desalination to be 10 percent of the portfolio by year 2020 or about 80


Page 1-6

million gallons per day (mgd). Figure 1-2 illustrates the region’s projected water supply portfolio in year 2020. Fifty (50) mgd of this goal would be met by the Carlsbad Desalination Project. The next increment of the seawater desalination, up to and beyond the 80 mgd goal in 2020 is the subject of this study.

Figure 1-2: Year 2020 San Diego Region Water Supply Portfolio In order to achieve this next increment, a regional desalination facility and conveyance pipelines to deliver the water to the Water Authority’s facilities could be constructed. Camp Pendleton’s coastline offers the potential opportunity to develop a large, phased regional desalination facility. The expected product water capacity of the desalination facility would be 50 mgd for the initial project (Phase I) with two subsequent expansions of 50 mgd each for an ultimate capacity of 150 mgd that could be brought on-line as supply and demand conditions warranted. The Master Plan calls for an increase in supply to the Second Aqueduct by an increment of 232 cfs (150 mgd), some or all of which could be provided by this desalination project. On the statewide level, the development of a local supply like seawater desalination means that a growing area like San Diego County can reduce its need for additional water supplies from the Bay-Delta (State Water Project). Seawater desalination has emerged as an important new supply for the Water Authority based on its cost-effectiveness and the degree of water reliability it can provide the region.

Conservation 11%

Canal Lining Transfer

9%

Local Surface Water 7%

Groundwater 6%

Recycled Water 6%

MWD 29%

Seawater Desalination

10%

IID Transfer 22%


Page 1-7

This project would be located on land owned by Camp Pendleton. A secondary objective of this project is the identification of potential benefits to Camp Pendleton. Camp Pendleton has two potential water issues; water quality and water reliability. Both issues can be improved with desalinated water. To resolve the water quality issue, desalinated water could be blended with base well water to improve the overall water quality of water supplied to the base. The water reliability issue could be improved by the desalination plant providing a reliable, drought-proof water supply to the base. Camp Pendleton’s recently constructed Southern Region Tertiary Treatment Plant (SRTTP) can also benefit from this project. Under normal operating conditions wastewater from SRTTP is reclaimed and no effluent is discharged to the ocean. Currently, a connection to the City of Oceanside’s Ocean Outfall is used as a fail-safe disposal method. Oceanside would ultimately need their full capacity, which would require Camp Pendleton to find other means to dispose of its effluent. Therefore the outfall for this project could be used as a fail-safe discharge of SRTTP effluent. Furthermore, the outfall could potentially support brine discharge from other existing or future brackish water treatment plants on Camp Pendleton, i.e., Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use Project (SMRCUP), as would be further discussed in Chapter 7.

1.3.1 Facilities Two sites in the southwest corner of Camp Pendleton near the Santa Margarita River (SMR) have been approved to continue forward as part of this all inclusive feasibility study to construct a regional SWRO desalination facility. The MCTSSA Site alternative is located on leased agricultural tomato fields just east of the Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity (MCTSSA) Center, west of I-5. The SRTTP Site alternative is located northwest of Camp Pendleton’s SRTTP, south of SMR, east of I-5. Several sites were evaluated before focusing on these two sites. Section 5.1 provides details on each of the evaluated sites and the decision variables which eliminated them from further consideration. Feedwater (seawater) for the desalination plant would be obtained from a new, dedicated offshore intake, which would consist of open-ocean wedge-wire screens, a Seabed Infiltration Gallery (SIG), or a Deep Infiltration Gallery (DIG) Collector Well system. Another intake system also being considered is an onshore slant well intake system. Each subsurface intake option is considered feasible until further hydrogeologic investigations are conducted. All intake options are discussed in further detail in Chapter 3 – Seawater Intake.


Page 1-8

For a project of this magnitude, seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) membranes are the preferred desalination technology. SWRO membranes are sensitive to microbial contamination, turbidity, and other contaminants, and therefore pretreatment of the raw seawater would be required to prevent the membranes from fouling. The assumed pretreatment process would consist of drum screens, dissolved air flotation (DAF), Ultra-filtration (UF) membranes (screened open-ocean intake only), and cartridge filters. After the RO process, desalinated water (permeate) would go through post-treatment by adding minerals to the water to prevent corrosion of the distribution pipelines and resemble existing potable water supplies. The desalination facility and treatment process is discussed in further detail in Chapter 5 – Desalination Facility. The SWRO desalting process converts the feedwater into potable water and by-product water, called concentrate or brine, with a salinity about twice that of seawater. Concentrate and pretreatment backwash waste would be discharged back to the ocean through a new offshore discharge outfall as discussed in Chapter 4 – Concentrate Disposal. The outfall would be designed with diffuser ports to promote local dilution of the concentrate discharge. The outfall would be designed to accept occasional discharge of treated wastewater from Camp Pendleton’s SRTTP facility and proposed SMRCUP. The product water would be delivered from the desalination plant to the Water Authority’s Twin Oaks Diversion Structure (TODS) or the recently completed Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant (TOVWTP) clearwells, a distance of approximately 19 miles. A potential conveyance pipeline alignment traverses through Camp Pendleton, City of Oceanside, and San Diego County, north of the City of Vista. Other alignment alternatives would be analyzed as part of subsequent planning studies. The product water would be blended with other untreated or treated water sources, dependant upon delivery location, and conveyed to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct system for distribution throughout San Diego County to other member agencies. Product water could also be conveyed to the north region of MCBCP and potentially South Orange County through a separate (coastal) pipeline or as part of a cross-base pipeline that Camp Pendleton is considering as part of the SMRCUP. Product water conveyance and integration options are further discussed in Chapter 6 – Desalinated Water Conveyance and Chapter 7 - Product Water Integration. Refer to Figure 1-3A and Figure 1-3B for a project area map illustrating all the potential areas that may be impacted by this project.


Page 1-9

1.3.2 Implementation This study would focus on developing a conceptual desalination project for each of the two approved site alternatives, MCTSSA and SRTTP. For each site alternative, this study will determine:

Project constructability;

Potential design constraints;

Potential pipeline alignments (feedwater, concentrate disposal, conveyance);

Environmental and permitting issues (Chapter 8 - Environmental And Permitting);

Capital, O&M, and life cycle costs (Chapter 10 – Cost Development).

The Water Authority recognizes its role as a steward of the environment in its mission to provide a safe and reliable water source to San Diego County. As such, this report would identify potential ways to mitigate environmental impacts, which could likely be resolved with measures contained in the Water Authority’s Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). This feasibility study would recommend project delivery methods (contracting) for different portions of the project while also developing a preliminary project implementation schedule (Chapter 11 – Project Implementation).

FIG

UR

E1-

3A

13

FIG

UR

E1-

3B

13


Page 1-12



Page 2-1

CHAPTER 2: PROJECT SETTING

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The following sections describe the physiography, climate, oceanography, and geology within the project area, which all contribute to the general character of the study area. Physiography, climate, and oceanography have natural long- and short-term cycles as well as periodic components. The information provided in this chapter (except for the geology section) was obtained and summarized from a study completed by MBC Applied Environmental Sciences. MBC’s complete study, entitled Review of Marine Resources and Constraints for a Proposed Desalination Project near the Santa Margarita River, Camp Pendleton, California (December 2007) is provided in Appendix A.

2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY

The Southern California Bight (SCB) is an open embayment of the Pacific Ocean, which extends from Point Conception, California to Cabo Colnett, Baja California and is bounded approximately 125 miles (mi) offshore by the California Current. The general orientation of the coastline between Point Conception and the Mexican border is northwest to southeast. The continental margin has been slowly emerging (on a geologic time scale), resulting in a predominant cliff coastline, broken by coastal plains in the Oxnard-Ventura, Los Angeles, and San Diego areas. Drainage of the coastal region is provided by many relatively small streams. The mainland shelf is narrow, ranging in width from less than one mile to more than 11 mi, averaging about 4 mi. Seaward of the mainland shelf is an irregular and geologically complex region known as the continental borderland. The borderland is composed of basins and ridges which extend from near the surface to depths of more than 1.5 mi. The continental shelf in the SCB is cut by numerous submarine canyons, which facilitate the transport of water between deep, offshore areas and the shallow nearshore environment. The Carlsbad Canyon, one of 14 major canyons in the SCB, is located approximately 6.5 mi downcoast of the Santa Margarita River. The coastline in the vicinity of the project area is sandy beach backed by the alluvial fan at the mouth Santa Margarita River (SMR) for about a half mile upcoast and three-quarters of a mile downcoast of the current river opening. Farther upcoast, the beach is backed by bluffs, with a small drainage at the upcoast extent of the project area. Agricultural fields occupy most of the bluff-top upcoast of the river in the project area.


Page 2-2

Downcoast of the SMR mouth, the beach is backed by low dunes that grade into a lightly developed area. About 1.3 miles downcoast of the river opening, a breakwater extends offshore of the beach and downcoast to provide protection and a shared entrance channel for the Del Mar Boat Basin and the Oceanside Harbor. At about the same distance from the river opening as the breakwater, the beach is bisected by the entrance channel to the boat basin. Inside the protected artificial embayment created by the breakwater, a peninsula that extends slightly into the harbor separates the Del Mar Boat Basin, operated by Camp Pendleton, from the Oceanside Harbor. The downcoast extent of the project area coincides with the northwest end of Harbor Beach, which is riprapped, with a small offshore breakwater to protect the downcoast edge of the harbor and entrance channel. The SMR Estuary is one of 29 remaining coastal wetlands in southern California between Point Conception and the Mexican border. A railroad trestle and the bridges for the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway divide the estuary about 3,800 ft upstream of the river mouth, while another bridge at Stuart Mesa Road crosses the estuary another 3,110 ft upstream. The SMR Estuary is divided into three areas based on these bridge crossings for descriptive purposes. The first is coastal, the area of the river between the ocean and the adjacent railroad and I-5 bridges. The middle section extends upstream of these bridges to the bridge at Stuart Mesa Road. The third section extends between Stuart Mesa Road and a small hill in the floodplain upstream known as the blockhouse, which is the usual upstream extent of marine influence in the river. The mouth of SMR lacks a persistent sand bar, which partially or totally closes the river mouth, reducing or eliminating tidal influence in the estuary during the dry season. During the wet season, rains and winter storms breach the sand bar and open the river to tidal flow for a period of weeks or months. As a result, the marine influence in the estuary at the mouth of the river may extend about 2 to 4 miles upstream of the ocean, with salinity in the lower river variable between fresh and marine depending on the season and tidal flow and mixing. Between 1997 and 2000, it was noted that the estuary lagoon varied between 65 and 1,650 ft in width with an average depth of 5 ft or less and a relatively narrow, deeper central channel. Offshore of the river, the nearshore marine habitat is an open coast. Sandy beach dominates the intertidal habitat, except along the rocky riprap breakwater of Oceanside Harbor. The sandy beach grades to a soft-bottomed sea floor that gently slopes with distance to a depth of about 60 ft at 10,000 ft offshore of the river mouth. No natural hard-bottom substrate occurs in the project area; however, the shallower portions of Oceanside Artificial Reef 2 are located at a depth of about 42 ft south of the river mouth in the project area.


Page 2-3

2.2 CLIMATE

Southern California lies in a climatic regime broadly defined as Mediterranean, which is characterized by short, mild winters and warm, dry summers. Long-term annual precipitation near the coast averages about 18 inches (in), of which 90% occurs between November and April. Sea breezes are caused by differential heating between land and sea. During the summer, these breezes combine with the prevailing winds that blow out of the northwest to produce strong onshore winds. In late fall and winter, a reverse pressure system frequently develops, causing coastal offshore winds from the southeast from November through February. Monthly mean air temperatures along the coast range from 8.3°C (47°F) in winter to 20.6°C (69°F) in summer, with the minimum dropping slightly below freezing and maximum reaching above 37°C (98°F).

2.3 OCEANOGRAPHY

2.3.1 Currents Water in the north Pacific Ocean is driven eastward by prevailing westerly winds until it impinges on the western coast of North America where it divides and flows both north and south. The southern component is the California Current, diffuse southeastward flowing water mass. No true western boundary of this current exists, but more than 90% of the southeastward transport is within 450 mi of the California coast. South of Point Conception, the current diverges. One branch turns northward and flows inshore through the Channel Islands, forming the inner edge of the Southern California Countercurrent. Surface speeds in the counter current average between 0.16 and 0.33 ft/s. The flow pattern is complicated by small eddies within the Channel Islands and it fluctuates seasonally, being more developed in summer and autumn and weak or occasionally absent in winter and spring. Currents in the nearshore area are affected by many factors, including wind, weather, tides, local topography, density structure, and offshore oceanic currents. The latter, which are super-imposed on the tidal motion, usually have a strong diurnal component in response to local wind patterns. Therefore, short term observations of currents near the coast often vary in both directions and speed due to combined wind-induced and tidal motions as shown in Figure 2-1.

2.3.2 Tides Tides along the California coast are mixed semi-diurnal, with two unequal highs and two unequal lows during each 25-hr period. In the eastern North Pacific Ocean, the tide wave rotates in a counterclockwise direction. As a result, flood tide currents flow upcoast and ebb tide currents flow downcoast.


Page 2-4

Figure 2-1: Surface Water Circulation in the SCB (Hickey)

2.3.3 Upwelling Northwesterly winds are predominantly responsible for the large-scale upwelling noted along the California coast. From about February to October, these winds induce offshore movement (Ekman transport) of surface water, resulting in the upward movement of deeper ocean waters near the coast. The up-welled water is colder, more saline, lower in oxygen, and higher in nutrient concentrations than surface waters. This phenomenon alters the physical properties of the surface waters, while the influx of nutrients enhances biological productivity.

2.3.4 El Niño/La Niña The oceanic and climatic event known as El Niño occurs on a yearly basis off the coast of Peru and is characterized by displacement of coastal waters by warmer and lower salinity water mass. Every few years, a weakening of the California Current allows northward migration of warmer equatorial water into the North Pacific Ocean and the SCB. When this occurs, local marine water temperatures rise, occasionally up to 10°C


Page 2-5

(50°F) above normal, and may last from one to three years. A contrasting phenomenon, known as La Niña, recurs in the SCB every four to ten years. La Niñas are characterized by colder than normal water and increased coastal productivity.

2.3.5 Sand Movement The beaches in the project area are part of the Oceanside Littoral Cell, which extends from Dana Point to La Jolla. Coastal sand movement within this cell includes both onshore and offshore seasonal migration and longshore transport. Major fluvial inputs of sand in this littoral cell include the Santa Margarita River and the San Luis Rey River. Sand transport into the cell by rivers is intermittent, depending on rain amounts and duration, and sediment contributions by these rivers have been reduced from natural levels by upstream damming. Another natural source of sand replenishment, erosion of coastal bluffs, has been reduced due to protective armoring. Because of these reductions, sand contribution by beach nourishment has become important in maintaining the sand balance in the cell. Sand contributed by rivers, erosion, and nourishment eventually moves downcoast due to longshore transport, and is ultimately lost to the Scripps Canyon. The Oceanside Harbor, in the middle of the littoral cell, effectively divides the cell into two sub cells, one from Dana Point to the Oceanside Harbor, and a second from the Oceanside Harbor to the La Jolla and Scripps submarine canyons. Sand input into the northern sub-cell eventually migrates to Oceanside Harbor, which effectively breaks the natural transport process in the cell. Instead of continuing downcoast, sand accretes along the upcoast breakwater of the harbor, gets deposited in the entrance channel of the Oceanside Harbor, or gets diverted offshore by the breakwater.

2.3.6 Navigation and Restricted Areas Two restricted navigation areas have been established offshore of Camp Pendleton for military training and activities. Approximately 1.3 mi downcoast of the mouth of the SMR, a restricted area extends about 1,640 ft to the upcoast edge of the Oceanside Harbor breakwater and 1.1 mi offshore. Any activity in this restricted area which may endanger underwater installments such as anchoring, fishing, or trawling is prohibited at all times. Traffic may cross the area if the vessel maintains a direct route without delay. A second restricted area near the project area is a military exercise area, which cautions mariners of activity between 6:00 AM and 12:00 AM. In addition to these restricted areas, there is one artificial reef (discussed in next section) and two buoys southwest of the Oceanside Harbor (see Figure 2-2). No activity is restricted in this area and the two buoys post no navigational restrictions.


Page 2-6

Additional navigational restrictions may exist in the area depending on the vessel types and frequency of maritime traffic. The intake and brine system and their associated conveyance system should be designed to provide adequate clearance and avoidance of disturbance of marine traffic. The local U.S. Coastguard Private Aids to Navigation office need to be consulted when the final intake type, depth, and location is determined.

2.3.7 Artificial Reefs The Oceanside Artificial Reef #2 is located approximately 0.75 mi offshore between the Del Mar Boat Basin and the Santa Margarita river estuary (see Figure 2-2). This reef is the largest in the region and covers approximately 256 acres of seafloor. The reef was built of 10,000 tons of quarry rock in 1987 and is now known habitat for Barred Sand Bass and Kelp Bass. The intake structure should be located well north of this habitat to avoid impact on resident populations. The SRTTP Site is located south of the SMR Estuary. All else equal, sites south of the SMR may be less desirable than sites on the north side of the river if the intake and discharge system (including the associated conveyance system) are located perpendicular to shore due to their increased proximity to the reefs. However, the southern sites could be mitigated by angling the conveyance system upshore to reach a comparable location as the northern sites. There would be an expected increase in the costs for the conveyance system for the southern sites to reach a comparable depth. Although none of the species living in the rocky intertidal substrate are federally listed as threatened or endangered, the artificial reefs should be a key consideration for the placement of the intake structure. The structure should be located well north of the reefs so that eggs and larvae which stray upcoast with the average current are not impinged or entrained.

2.3.8 Kelp Beds The Department of Fish and Game surveyed the kelp canopy along the coast of California in the summer and fall seasons of 2005. The closest kelp bed location from this dataset is located 4.4 mi downshore from the SMR estuary, and 0.6 mi offshore. A second larger bed covering 1,000 acres is located 6.8 mi upshore. Since this location is even farther north than the restricted area imposed by the base for training activities, the intake structure and dual-use tunnel would not be located near these surveyed kelp beds.

YWX

XXXXXXXX

XXXX XX

XX XXXX

Reef2 4C Reef

2 3C

Reef2 2C

Reef2 1C

Reef2 4B Reef

2 3BReef2 2B

Reef2 1B

Reef2 4A

Reef2 3A

Reef2 2A

Reef2 1A

Reef 1HReef 1G

Reef 1E Reef 1B

OceansideOceanOutfall300'400'

100'

600'

200'

500'

Source: NOAA, DFG, MBC

0 0.5 10.25 MilesF

YWX Oceanside Ocean Outfall

X Artificial Reefs

Kelp Beds

Navigation Zones

Latitude / Longitude

Offshore Data

33°16'

33°15'

33°14'

33°13'

33°12'

33°11'

33°10'

33°09'

117°

22'

117°

23'

117°

24'

117°

25'

117°

26'

117°

27'

FIGURE 2-2


Page 2-8

2.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

The following sections describe the regional geology, site geology, faults, and groundwater within the project area (desalination plant sites). The information provided in this section was obtained and summarized from a study completed by Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants. Ninyo & Moore’s complete geotechnical report titled Geotechnical Reconnaissance Desalination Plant Feasibility Study, MCB Camp Pendleton (February 4, 2008) is provided in Appendix A.

2.4.1 Regional Geologic Setting The project study area is situated in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. In general, the Peninsular Ranges are underlain by Jurassic- and Cretaceous-age metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks and by Cretaceous-age igneous rocks of the southern California batholith. The westernmost portion of the province in San Diego County generally consists of Upper Cretaceous-, Tertiary-, and Quaternary-age sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges, like much of southern California, are traversed by several major active faults. The nearby Rose Canyon fault zone, located west of the project site alternatives, has been recognized as active by the State of California. The proposed project sites are not underlain by faults capable of ground surface rupture, but the Rose Canyon fault zone, as well as other active faults within miles of the region have the potential for generating strong ground motions at the project sites and therefore the requirements of the governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes should be considered in the project design. Other hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction and tsunamis. California earthquakes are created when two sides of a fault slide laterally against each other, called strike-slip faults which generally do not create tsunamis. Off of southern California, a series of canyons and ridges, some of which give rise to the Channel Islands and San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, San Clemente and Coronado islands, present obstacles to an approaching tsunamis and absorb much of its energy. Therefore tsunamis at the project site are not considered very likely. Some of the saturated alluvial materials in and around the Santa Margarita River may have a potential for liquefaction.


Page 2-9

2.4.2 Site Geology Based on a literature review of published geologic maps and available geologic reports and field reconnaissance, the study area, consisting of the southwestern region of Camp Pendleton, is generally underlain by fill, topsoil, alluvium, older paralic deposits, and materials of the San Mateo and San Onofre formations (refer to Figure 2-3). Due to the primarily granular nature of the on-site soils, abundant moderately to highly expansive soils are not anticipated. The presence and extent of expansive soils should be further evaluated by subsurface and laboratory evaluation. Potential mitigation measures for expansive soils may include removal or deep burial during grading, moisture conditioning, or specially designed foundations and slabs. The earth units on the sites are expected to be rippable with typical heavy-duty earthmoving equipment.

2.4.3 Offshore Geology Offshore portions of the study area have been mapped as mostly unconsolidated and poorly consolidated Pleistocene sand, silt, and clay deposits that mantle the modern seafloor including sandstone, siltstone, conglomerate, and breccia. Alluvial deposits of the Santa Margarita River are anticipated to be present on the continental shelf. The older sedimentary materials (i.e. Old Paralic Deposits, San Mateo Formation, and San Onofre Breccia) may also extend offshore in the vicinity of the outfall tunnel alignments.

2.5 GROUNDWATER

Based on Ninyo & Moore’s experience in the vicinity of the site, nearby subsurface explorations, and due to the proximity of the potential project sites to the Pacific Ocean and the SMR, the groundwater table is assumed to be at or somewhat above sea level. Variations in groundwater levels may occur due to tidal influence, ground surface topography, subsurface geologic conditions and structure, rainfall, groundwater injection or withdrawal, and other factors.

SRTTP SITE

MCTSSA SITE

LEGENDYOUNG ALLUVIAL FLOOD PLAIN DEPOSITS (HOLOCENE AND LATE PLEISTOCENE)- MOSTLY POORLY CONSOLIDATED, POORLY SORTED, PERMEABLE FLOOD PLAIN DEPOSITS

106211001 11/07

NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS, AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

SOURCE: SANGIS FEATURE CLASS, CGS QUAD MAP

DESALINATION PLANT FEASIBILITY STUDYMARINE CORP BASE CAMP PENDLETON

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

GEOLOGIC MAP 2-3

Qy

Qop6 OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, UNIT 6 (LATE TO MIDDLE PLEISTOCENE) MOSTLY POORLY SORTED,MODERATELY PERMEABLE, REDDISH-BROWN, INTERFINGERED STRANDLINE, BEACH,ESTUARINE AND COLLUVIAL DEPOSITS COMPOSED OF SILTSTONE, SANDSTONDE, AND CONGLOMERATEOLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, UNIT 7 (LATE TO MIDDLE PLEISTOCENE) MOSTLY POORLY SORTED,MODERATELY PERMEABLE, REDDISH-BROWN, INTERFINGERED STRANDLINE, BEACH,ESTUARINE AND COLLUVIAL DEPOSITS COMPOSED OF SILTSTONE, SANDSTONDE, AND CONGLOMERATE

Qop7

Qop4 OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, UNIT 4 (LATE TO MIDDLE PLEISTOCENE) MOSTLY POORLY SORTED,MODERATELY PERMEABLE, REDDISH-BROWN, INTERFINGERED STRANDLINE, BEACH,ESTUARINE AND COLLUVIAL DEPOSITS COMPOSED OF SILTSTONE, SANDSTONDE, AND CONGLOMERATE

Tsm SAN MATEO FORMATION (EARLY PILOCENE AND LATE MIOCENE) - YELLOWISH-GRAY, NERSHOREMARINE AND PARALIC SILTSTONE, SANDSTONE AND CONGLOMERATE

SSAN ONOFRE BRECCIA (MIDDLE MIOCENE) - CHIEFLY MARINE SEDIAMENTARYBRECCIA, CONGLOMERATE, AND LITHIC SANDSTONETso

±2,500 0 2,5001,250

FeetAPPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET


Page 3-1

CHAPTER 3: SEAWATER INTAKE

3.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter would provide a preliminary feasibility assessment for the seawater intake options that would supply feedwater to the proposed SWRO desalination facility, located at either the MCTSSA or SRTTP Sites. The four seawater intake options consist of one open-ocean intake and three subsurface intake options. A subsurface intake is defined by any intake that is located beneath the seabed, utilizing it as a natural filter. The four seawater intake options assessed in this study include:

Screened Open-Ocean Intake: An offshore open-ocean intake using cylindrical wedge-wire mesh screens suspended in the water column.

Seabed Infiltration Gallery (SIG): An offshore shallow pipe gallery installed under the seabed using the sand as a filter.

Deep Infiltration Gallery (DIG): A gallery of deep offshore collector wells drilled from an underground tunnel below the seabed; and

Beach (Slant) Wells drilled from onshore.

Site-specific physical (Chapter 2 – Project Setting) and environmental (Chapter 8 – Environmental And Permitting) characteristics of the project area are provided in the designated chapters, which help establish a basis for identifying potential design criteria for the intake system, which must be considered to minimize overall impact and ensure operational success. The following design criteria would be addressed for each of the four potential intakes discussed in the following sections:

Impingement/entrainment,

Intake water quality,

Benthic communities,

Biofouling,

Hydrogeology, and

Navigational restrictions.

Conveyance of seawater to shore from any of the intake options (except beach wells) would be accomplished by modifying the outfall into a pipe-in-pipe tunnel (refer to Section 3.2). The pipeline within the tunnel would convey concentrate (under pressure) out to sea, while the annular space of the tunnel would convey seawater to shore.


Page 3-2

3.1 BACKGROUND

The information pertaining to each intake option was obtained from a study completed by Malcolm Pirnie. Malcolm Pirnie’s complete Seawater Intake Technical Memorandum 3.2 (TM-3.2) entitled Camp Pendleton Desalination Facility Intake Structure (September 2008) is provided in Appendix B. This section describes feedwater (seawater) quality and reviews offshore conditions, both of which need to be considered when evaluating a seawater intake system for a desalination facility. The desalination facility would be built in phases, with the first phase producing 50 mgd of desalinated product water, and final phases providing an ultimate capacity of 150 mgd. The approximate efficiency (ration of product water flow to total feedwater flow) of a SWRO desalination process using feedwater from a screened open-ocean intake is approximately 45 percent; therefore, a total intake flow of approximately 110 mgd to 330 mgd of seawater would be required. The approximate efficiency of a SWRO desalination process using feedwater from a subsurface intake is 50 percent; therefore a total intake flow of approximately 100 mgd to 300 mgd of seawater would be required. Dependant on the efficiency (recovery) rate of the pretreatment system (discussed in Chapter 5), increased intake flow may be required.

3.1.1 Nearshore Water Quality The SWRO process is sensitive to input water quality and therefore parameters including temperature, salinity, turbidity, dissolved solids, and silt density index (SDI) would influence the overall efficiency of the desalination process. Characterization of the water quality near the proposed project area is useful to site the intake structure and identify pretreatment requirements at the onshore facility. The following sections present data on available nearshore water quality parameters of interest for this project. A more detailed localized analysis would be required before the intake is designed.

Temperature Natural nearshore water temperatures fluctuate throughout the year in response to seasonal and diurnal variations in currents as well as meteorological conditions such as wind, air temperature, relative humidity, cloud cover, ocean waves, and turbulence. Several of these conditions were previously introduced in Chapter 2. Natural temperature is defined by the California State Water Resources Control Board as "the temperature of the receiving water at locations, depths, and times which represent conditions unaffected by any elevated temperature waste discharge”. Previous studies have shown that natural surface temperatures may vary several degrees in a single day depending on time of day and year, as well as meteorological and oceanographic conditions.


Page 3-3

Diurnally, natural surface water temperatures typically vary 2 to 4°F in summer and 1 to 2°F in winter. Factors contributing to rapid daytime warming of the sea surface are light winds, clear skies, and warm air temperatures. Factors that reduce diurnal temperature ranges are overcast skies, moderate air temperatures, and vertical mixing of the surface waters by winds and waves. The region where a sharp difference between more uniform surface water and bottom water temperature exists is called a thermocline. A thermocline is a stable stratification, separating the surface layer from the subsurface layer based on a general inverse relationship between water temperature and density. Artificial thermoclines may be found in the vicinity of thermal discharges where large volumes of water at elevated temperatures result in heated water overlaying the cooler receiving water. In the SCB, reasonably sharp natural thermoclines have been reported in nearshore waters at depths of 40 to 50 ft during the summer months, but they are typically absent during the winter. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have been recorded at a nearshore oceanographic buoy 8 mi off of Oceanside since May 1997. Mean monthly temperatures during this time ranged from a low of 58.5°F in February to a high of 70°F in August. During this period, a low temperature of 52.7°F was recorded in March of 2002, while a high of 76.8°F occurred in August 2007, with similarly high values found in September 1997. Temperatures in the project area are likely to be similar to, but slightly higher than, those reported at the buoy. Higher temperatures are common in the nearshore environment due to solar heating (insolation) of the surf zone and shallow intertidal and subtidal waters. In the project area, nearshore water temperature may also be influenced diurnally by water ebbing out of Oceanside Harbor, which may be warmer than waters offshore. Unlike thermal desalination processes, warmer water is preferred for reverse osmosis (RO) desalination performance. The ideal temperature for most membranes is approximately 77°F. This is warmer than even summer surface ocean water temperatures. Although siting intake screens in warmer, surface or near-shore waters may improve operational efficiency of the RO process, such the benefits of such locations may be negated by increased: (1) turbidity of the intake waters, (2) biofouling of the intake structure, (3) exposure of marine organisms to impingement and entrainment, and (4) risks associated with navigation.

Salinity / Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Salinity / TDS in nearshore environments is affected by the introduction of fresh water (from land runoff and direct rainfall), upwelling and by evaporation. Offshore, salinities throughout the SCB are fairly uniform and normally range from 33.0 to 34.0 parts per thousand (ppt). RO membranes can desalinate feed water with up to 45 ppt salinity.


Page 3-4

Similar to temperature, salinity in the nearshore environment has seasonal components. Based on information obtained from a similar project area located near the Encina Power Station (Carlsbad, CA), a halocline (a region of rapid salinity change within a relatively small change in depth) generally forms at a depth of 65 to 100 ft in the early spring, with cooler, more saline water found near bottom. In summer, as surface waters warm, the halocline thickens and moves upward in the water column, and higher salinities are typically found in surface waters. In fall, decreased solar isolation and increased surface mixing push the halocline deeper in the water column, with the nearshore halocline generally disappearing in winter. Despite these apparent salinity trends, salinity at Encina between 1985 and 1991 was relatively similar in the area to a depth of about 150 ft, varying between 31.9 and 34.1 ppt over the multi-year sampling period, with a water column average of about 33.4 ppt.

Density Seawater density varies inversely with temperature and directly with salinity at a given pressure. The pycnocline (a region of rapid density change within a relatively small change in depth) is the dominant feature observed in the vertical density profile of the water column and the major factor affecting its stability and resistance to vertical mixing. Water temperature is the major component influencing water density and density stratification in southern California because salinity is relatively uniform. Therefore, large density gradients are most pronounced further offshore when spring and summer thermoclines are present. The pycnocline in the project area could be affected by the brine discharge of the desalination facility. Depending on the depth of discharge, and the temperature of the effluent, high salinity discharge water could contribute to a stronger pycnocline. The dense brine would remain in the region below the pycnocline and consequently reinforce the water column stability and effective vertical mixing (and dilution).

Dissolved Oxygen The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration of seawater is affected by physical, chemical, and biological variables. DO concentrations reflecting highly oxygenated water (i.e., > 5 to 6 mg/L), may be the result of cool water temperatures (solubility of oxygen in water increases as temperature decreases), active photosynthesis, and/or mixing at the air-water interface. Conversely, low DO concentrations may result from high water temperatures, high rates of organic decomposition, and/or extensive mixing of surface waters with oxygen-poor subsurface waters. A vertical DO gradient is typically seen in the water column during the summer months, while during winter DO exhibits relatively constant values throughout the water column. Dissolved oxygen typically fluctuates in the nearshore temperate environment around 7.5 mg/l, with the threshold of biological concern being 5 mg/l. DO concentrations in the SCB typically range from 5 to 13 mg/l.


Page 3-5

Hydrogen Ion Concentration In the open ocean, the hydrogen ion concentration (pH) remains fairly constant due to the buffering capacity of seawater. However, in nearshore areas, pH may be more variable due to various physical, chemical, and biological influences. For instance, in areas with a large organic influx, such as bays, estuaries, and river mouths, microbial decomposition increases. Along with a reduction in DO, decomposition also results in the production of humic acids, which decrease pH. Reduced pH values may also occur in areas of freshwater influx, since fresh water usually has a lower pH than salt water. In contrast, phytoplankton blooms (red tide), which are often associated with nearshore upwelling, may cause pH to increase. High photosynthetic rates increase the removal of carbon dioxide from water, thus reducing the carbonic acid concentration and raising pH. The pH in surface waters off southern California varies narrowly around a mean of approximately 8.0 and decreases slightly with depth.

3.1.2 Location and Operation Considerations

Navigation / Restricted Areas Refer to Section 2.3.6 and Figure 2-2 for a detailed discussion on offshore navigation and restricted areas. Two restricted navigation areas have been established offshore for military activities and an artificial reef exists (Section 2.3.7). Additional navigational restrictions may exist in the area depending on the vessel types and frequency of maritime traffic. The intake system and its associated conveyance system should be designed to provide adequate clearance and avoidance of marine traffic. The local U.S. Coastguard Private Aids to Navigation Office would need to be consulted when the final intake type, depth and location is determined.

Wave Energy The degree to which wave energy would affect structures near the seabed is directly related to the water velocity at the depth of the structure. This velocity is also a function of the wave height. Offshore wave data was collected from Buoy #46224 (operated by Scripps Institute), located offshore at a depth of 722 ft near Oceanside, CA. Hourly data is taken to determine the dominant wave period (the period with the maximum wave energy) and significant wave height. Averaging values for 2007 yielded an average dominant wave period of 13.0 sec and an average significant wave height of 3.05 ft. Assuming deepwater waves at the buoy, the approximate average wavelength was calculated to be 863 ft. Waves are assumed to behave like deep water waves until a depth of half the dominant wavelength, or about 430 ft. Horizontal seabed velocity at this depth attributable to wave action is theoretically zero. Shallow water waves begin to occur at a depth of 1/20 the dominant wavelength, or at about the 43-foot depth contour.


Page 3-6

At that depth, maximum sinusoidally varying horizontal seabed velocity based on a 1-m wave height is calculated to be 1.41 ft/s. The effect these velocities have on the operation of an intake structure would depend heavily on the type and location (i.e. depth) of the structure.

Separation of Intake and Outfall Systems Many factors affecting the design and location of the intake system are evaluated in this study. One such factor involves the assurance of adequate separation between the intake system and brine discharge. The intake system and brine discharge must be designed to prevent recirculation of the brine effluent and degradation of the intake water quality.

Biofouling All structures constructed in the ocean are subject to biofouling, or the growth of bacterial and algal microorganisms on the structure. This growth, if left unimpeded, causes blockage of screens or filter media, resulting in an increased pressure differential across the intake system. Biofouling of the intake structure increases maintenance cost and risk of failure of the feedwater intake system. Biofouling would also reduce the overall efficacy of the intake since the pressure differential increases. The degree to which biofouling would occur for a certain intake or outfall structure depends heavily on its location and the material selected for its construction.

TSS/Turbidity Solids in feedwater are quantified, utilizing tests that measure total suspended solids (TSS) and silt density index (SDI). The SDI is a measurement of the fouling capacity of water and is generally independent of turbidity. Raw seawater has an average SDI value of 5.6, which must be reduced to less than approximately 3.5 to avoid rapid fouling or clogging of the SWRO membrane. Chlorine is sometimes used as an oxidant for feedwater pretreatment, however, this has been found to cause increased SDI since organic matter in the water (mainly algae) may be broken down and passed through the pretreatment system with other naturally occurring colloids. The RO process requires feedwater having a maximum mean particle size of 5 to 20 μm. To achieve this goal, raw seawater would typically require pretreatment. Obtaining the best possible water quality from the intake system would reduce overall treatment requirements and reduce cost. Water quality of the feedwater is heavily dependent on the type and location of the intake structure. Subsurface intake water, for example, has lower solids content than seawater extracted directly from the ocean. All else being equal, nearshore shallow waters are typically more turbid than deeper offshore waters due to the effects from wave action and currents in shallower waters.


Page 3-7

3.2 OFFSHORE FEEDWATER CONVEYANCE

3.2.1 Description This section describes the proposed pipe-in-pipe intake/discharge tunnel that would convey feedwater from an offshore intake (wedge-wire screens, SIG, or DIG) to the onshore Feedwater Pump Station (FWPS). The potential intake sites are located further offshore than the tunnel terminus and therefore seabed pipelines are required to convey feedwater from the intake system to the tunnel terminal structure.

3.2.2 Pipe-In-Pipe Tunnel The proposed pipe-in-pipe (dual-use) tunnel would serve both offshore intake and brine conveyance as illustrated in Figure 3-1. The tunnel would be approximately 2,000 to 4,000 feet long with a tunnel shaft (portal) located at each end of the tunnel. The tunnel would be 16-feet in diameter (requiring an approximate 20-foot diameter borehole), with an approximate 8-foot diameter interior pipe serving as the outfall pipeline. Feedwater would be conveyed within the annular space of the tunnel, while concentrate would be conveyed in the pressurized interior pipeline. The intake and outfall pipelines would rise to the ocean floor at the tunnel terminal structure and extend further offshore using marine construction to their designated locations. If slant wells are used for feedwater intake, the tunnel would be designated as an outfall only and the interior pressure pipe would not be required. The tunnel would terminate at a maximum depth of 100 feet below the ocean floor with a maximum ocean depth of approximately 40 feet. Depending on the final design and site conditions, the tunnel boring machine (TBM) would likely be a slurry pressure balanced machine. The selection of tunneling equipment would partially determine the shaft diameter and construction method. Detailed information for tunnel construction was provided by Jacobs Associates (Tunnel sub-consultants). Jacobs’ complete tunnel feasibility study entitled Camp Pendleton Desalination Plant Tunnel (April 15, 2008) is provided in Appendix C.

3.2.3 Tunnel Shafts The 100- to 150-foot deep onshore shaft (portal) should be located close to the shoreline to reduce tunneling footage. The shaft would be 40 to 50 feet in diameter, but the official size would be determined by the tunnel excavation method, support equipment, ground conditions, and the need to accommodate the permanent facilities (i.e. FWPS). After tunnel construction, the shaft would provide permanent access to the intake and outfall lines and permanent civil facilities.


Page 3-8

The 150 foot deep offshore shaft would be located approximately 4,000 feet offshore at the tunnel terminus. The shaft would be approximately 40 feet in diameter to accommodate large diameter intake and brine disposal pipelines that would extend further offshore to their designated locations. The shaft size would be determined by the tunnel excavation method, support equipment, ground conditions, and the need to accommodate the permanent facilities (i.e. intake and brine conveyance pipelines). Shaft construction methods would be designed to withstand the hydrostatic forces, construction loads, and be constructed without dewatering necessitating the use of in-the-wet construction methods. Typical construction methods that meet these design requirements are: a) slurry wall, secant pile, or soil mixing; b) ground freezing; c) cast-in-place caisson; and d) reverse circulation drilling. The anticipated ground conditions are likely to dictate that a cast-in-place caisson shaft would be the most likely shaft support system.

Figure 3-1: Artist Rendition of Pipe-In-Pipe Tunnel (RBF)

Note: 30-inch pipeline used for fail-safe disposal of SRTTP effluent and/or SMRCUP concentrate (low flow conditions) is not illustrated in the dual-use tunnel below.


Page 3-9

3.2.4 Feedwater Seabed Pipeline The optimal placement for a screened open-ocean intake or SIG necessitates that it be located a distance greater than 4,000 ft offshore. Therefore, large diameter seabed pipelines (10-ft ID max., dependant on intake type) would be required to convey feedwater from their designated locations to the tunnel terminal structure. The pipeline(s) would be placed within an 18-ft deep trench lined with gravel and backfilled with native soil (Figure 3-2). As described in Section 4.2.3, the brine diffuser system would also require a large diameter seabed pipeline to convey brine from the tunnel terminus to the diffuser discharge location. The pipelines may actually host their own artificial habitat since biota tends to accumulate on hard surfaces, which would probably not be detrimental to the structure, but the presence of this habitat should be noted.

Figure 3-2: Cross Section of Seabed Pipelines (Malcolm Pirnie)

3.3 ONSHORE FEEDWATER CONVEYANCE

3.3.1 Feedwater Pump Station Once the feedwater from the offshore intake arrives onshore through the tunnel, it would need to be pumped to the desalination plant utilizing a Feedwater Pump Station (FWPS). The FWPS would employ pumps of the high-flow, low- head type, used to convey feedwater from the onshore tunnel terminus, to the desalination plant. The FWPS would be constructed above the nearshore tunnel shaft (portal). A FWPS for the MCTSSA Site could be located on the bluffs in the northwest corner of the tomato fields. This site may not be feasible due to interference with MCTSSA operations. If necessary, the FWPS could move south approximately 1,000 ft or onto the MCTSSA Site, extending the length of the tunnel. A FWPS for the SRTTP Site could be located near the Del Mar Beach Recreation area, just south of the SMR. This site may not be feasible due to future Base planning efforts in the Del Mar Area (Area 21). If necessary, the FWPS could be located on the SRTTP Site and therefore extend the length of the tunnel by approximately 4,200 feet. Although tunnel length would be increased, it would eliminate the need for onshore feedwater and concentrate pipelines. The onshore FWPS site alternatives are illustrated in Figure 3-3.


Page 3-11

The total dynamic head (TDH) for the FWPS would be similar for each site due to the comparison between pipeline length and site elevation. The conceptual design data for the FWPS (independent of site location) is provided in Table 3-1. The first phase of the pump station installation would require a back-up pump. Therefore three pumps could provide the Phase I design capacity if one pump were to fail or need to be maintained. To assume a worst case scenario, the intake pumping volumes in Table 3-1 are based on a screened open-ocean intake system with a reverse osmosis (RO) recovery rate of 45%, an ultra-filtration (UF) membrane recovery rate of 90% and a pretreatment recovery rate of 95%; for a total plant recovery rate of 38.5%. For a subsurface intake, the desalination process would have a RO recovery rate of 50%, and a pretreatment recovery rate of 95%, for a total plant recovery rate of 47.5%.

Table 3-1 Feedwater Pump Station Design Data

Description Phase 1 50 mgd

Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

FWPS Design Flow 130 mgd 260 mgd 390 mgd (90,000 gpm) (180,000 gpm) (270,000 gpm) FWPS Design Head 105 ft 115 ft 120 ft Pump Design Flow 50 mgd 50 mgd 50 mgd Pump Type Vertical Turbine Pump Motor - VFD 4 x 1350 HP 6 x 1350 HP 8 x 1350 HP Pump Operating Head ~ 100 ft ~ 105 ft ~ 115 ft Discharge Pressure 43 psi 45 psi 50 psi Operating Efficiency ~ 80% ~ 80% ~ 80% Operating Power per Pump 710 HP 1000 HP 1230 HP

3.3.2 Feedwater Pipeline

For the ultimate project, two 84-inch diameter feedwater conveyance pipelines are required to convey feedwater from the FWPS to the desalination facility. Approximately 4,000 feet of pipe (two pipes) is required to reach the MCTSSA site while nearly 8,000 feet is required for the SRTTP site. Tunneling options for the feedwater conveyance pipelines were considered. However, the required length of tunneling to the SRTTP site would require that a new TBM be utilized; therefore, use of a refurbished TBM to minimize tunneling costs cannot be considered. Tunneling at the proposed lengths is expected to be expensive; therefore, the onshore conveyance of feedwater would be accomplished by large diameter pipelines installed using conventional trenching methods. The feedwater conveyance pipelines to the SRTTP site would require crossing under I-5. Trenchless construction methods (with Caltrans approval) would be used to install pipelines under I-5.


Page 3-12

3.4 OPEN-OCEAN WEDGE-WIRE SCREENS

3.4.1 Description Wedge-wire screens are one of the most commonly used water intake structures. They are considered passive surface water intake structures, which mean they require no moving parts and are designed to maintain a uniform low intake velocity. Wedge-wire screens consist of a large cylindrical cap on the end of an intake pipe below the water surface which is designed to diffuse the flow velocities. Wires are wrapped around the circumference of the cylinder, which have a triangular or wedge shaped cross-section to allow an increase in slot opening size from the exterior to the interior of the cylinder. Wedge-wire screens can be made in a “tee” or “drum” configuration. This study would focus on the installation of Tee screens, which are recommended due to the large intake flows and turbulent ocean atmosphere. Tee screens are oriented horizontally and are typically equipped with a conical cap debris deflector which is attached to the upstream end of the cylinder in flowing waters to prevent accumulation of material on the closed end, as seen in Figure 3-4.

Figure 3-4: Tee Wedge-wire Intake Screen (Johnson Screens®) Johnson Screens® has patented a dual open pipe flow modifier system which uses two flow modifiers to distribute the flow more evenly to the wedge wire surface, thereby increasing total flow without increasing peak velocity (see Figure 3-5). Hendrick® Screens has a proprietary core cylinder design which is a cylinder with perforations increasing in diameter from the center of the Tee screen, which also is an attempt to achieve uniform flow velocity (see Figure 3-6).


Page 3-13

Figure 3-5: Johnson Screens® Patented Dual Flow Modifier

Figure 3-6: Hendrick Screens® Patented Core Cylinder Design

Slot size is defined as the distance between two of the screen‘s wires and is effectively the “filter size” of the screen. Slot size is determined based on the characteristics of the installation site, including the plant and animal species expected to be present. Typical slot sizes range from 0.5 to 5 mm. The length and number of structures is determined based on diameter, slot size, and required flow capacity. Intake velocity is also a constraint with a goal of 0.5 ft/s or less to reduce impingement. Some wedge wire screen intakes utilize an air-burst system to clear debris that may accumulate on the outside of the screen. A package compressor and air-receiver for the system are installed onshore with a pump. When the pressure drop across the filter reaches a pre-defined threshold, a single burst of air is sent through a perforated inner cylinder at the bottom of the screen to remove debris from the wedged openings, while the current carries the debris away (see Figure 3-7). The controlled entrance velocity and the air backwash system keep the intake screen clean and operating.


Page 3-14

Figure 3-7: Air Backwash System in Action

3.4.2 Design Criteria Traditional intake systems that move large volumes of seawater from the ocean through screened pipes typically experience many ecological and operational challenges. This section explores potential mitigation methods for wedge-wire screens in response to the applicable design criteria.

Impingement/Entrainment The effectiveness of reducing entrainment would depend on the screen size, the slot size, and the location of the structures. Physical exclusion occurs when the slot size of the screen is smaller than the organisms susceptible to entrainment. A sufficient ambient current must also be present in the source waters to aid organisms to bypass the structure and to remove debris/organisms from the screen face. The ability to maintain clean screening surfaces would affect the biological performance of the cylindrical wire mesh. Increased fouling or impinged material would reduce the filtering area available, thus increasing intake velocity. The location and depth of installation determine the fish and invertebrate taxa most affected by such a system. There are no known field evaluations or installations of cylindrical wire mesh in southern California. In 2005, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) evaluated wedge-wire screens in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, using a specially constructed test facility. The study concluded that entrainment densities were lower with smaller slot widths. Additionally, larval entrainment densities increased as ambient velocity increased, though egg entrainment densities did not. Entrainment density decreased with larval length. A slot size of 0.5 mm reduces total entrainment by >72 percent compared to a control port. The 1.0 mm slot size significantly reduced entrainment in only one of three species tested by >44 percent. Egg entrainment was reduced by >92 percent at the 0.5 mm slot width, however no significant reduction in egg entrainment was observed at the 1.0 mm slot width.


Page 3-15

Intake Water Quality Water turbidity and SDI decrease with depth. A less turbid feedwater increases efficacy of the RO process. Therefore, water drawn from as deep as practical has some desirable attributes. Ideally, the desalination facility using a screened open-ocean intake would be located where depths of 100 ft can be reached close to the shoreline provided a gradual slope of the seafloor exists. Near the site alternatives, a depth of 100 ft occurs at an offshore distance of 2.2 miles. A conveyance tunnel of this length would be more costly than a shallower intake close to shore. The benefits of higher quality intake water theoretically available from a deep intake structure would need to be balanced against other operational and capital costs. If a screened open-ocean intake structure is moved to shallower water, it would be preferred to keep the structure below the depth of the thermocline as turbidity, and biofouling would be expected to be much higher above the thermocline. This suggests the top of the intake structures be at least 50 ft to 65 ft in depth or deeper, which occurs at approximately 1.4 mi offshore from the site alternatives. Warmer water is preferred for reverse osmosis (RO) desalination performance. The ideal temperature for most membranes is approximately 25°C. A surface intake structure would provide the warmest feedwater possible, but has other biological drawbacks. Water is cooler from depths below the thermocline at 50 to 60 feet, but reduced pre-treatment may be a fair tradeoff for cooler water. Since water would be consistently below 25°C, heating a fraction of the feedwater may be required to boost RO efficiency. The implications of the above discussion is that there are trade-offs in selecting higher quality water from deeper depths and warmer more turbid water from shallower depths beyond the capital and operational costs associated with distance from shore. Existing site-specific data are insufficient to fully evaluate the trade-offs for this study.

Biofouling A screen suspended in the water column is at risk for biofouling. Biofouling of the screens is affected directly by the water quality, which means that the same conflict identified above regarding water quality is also applicable to biofouling. Deeper waters below the thermocline are less biologically productive and therefore less at-risk for biofouling. This is the result of lower water temperature and reduced light penetration. Increased particulate load of phytoplankton organisms in the source water during a red tide may clog intake filters and require increased maintenance or temporary shutdown of the desalination facility during plankton blooms. Several design considerations can help minimize biological fouling of the structure, including the material, non-toxic coatings, and/or chemical injection. These options are considered based on efficacy, cost, and durability.


Page 3-16

Copper-nickel alloys containing 70 to 90 percent copper have been shown to resist corrosion and biofouling. Johnson Screens® employs a proprietary copper-nickel alloy called “z-alloy”. Currently, there is no evidence of metal leaching into the water source.

Non-toxic coatings which discourage the settling of sessile organisms. Cook coating company has patented such a material called Jacquelyn coating which has proven to prevent bio-fouling for at least two years after installation.

Chemical shock injection of chlorine at the intake has been found to reduce biological fouling of the structure. Chlorine is not ultimately lost to the surrounding environment since the flow is towards the intake; however, this has been shown to increase feed water SDI.

Despite these mitigation techniques, the screen would inevitably accumulate debris in the slot openings. For this application, an air-burst system may not be feasible due to the extensive distance offshore. Therefore, divers would ultimately be required to perform periodic manual screen cleaning. The frequency of these cleanings would depend on the severity of clogging and the effectiveness of natural wave energy clearing the screens. Clogging would increase head loss and may accelerate the corrosion process in un-clogged parts of the screen due to increased flow in those areas.

Wave Energy Static structures built in the ocean are constantly experiencing direct forces induced by currents, tides, and waves. At a depth of 100 feet, maximum seabed velocity caused by wave action is likely to remain below 1.6 ft/s for waves up to 13 ft in height. This velocity doubles when depth is decreased to 65 ft. Wave energy conditions are more favorable at depths of 100 feet or greater. The installation of an intake structure at shallower depths would require consideration of additional impacts on the structure including, scouring, structural integrity, and water quality. This depth occurs at an offshore distance of 2.4 miles from the site alternatives. Local wave and seabed velocity data should be collected to verify assumptions used in this analysis.

3.4.3 Conceptual Design Based on a worst case overall plant recovery of 40 percent, an intake flow of approximately 390 mgd (ultimate) of seawater is required. Due to the costs associated with marine construction, the intake system should be built to accommodate the ultimate size of the project, and not built in phases. The average velocity is assumed 90 percent of the maximum velocity since the velocity profile across the entire cylinder would not achieve uniformity.


Page 3-17

Screen design is based on manufacturer-specific information supplied by Johnson Screens® of New Brighton, Minnesota. Each screen would consist of a wedge-wire grid constructed of a V-shaped wire spirally wound around and welded to a cylindrical cage of longitudinally-oriented support rods with a slot width of 1.0 mm (0.04 in). The wire width is assumed 1.803 mm (0.071 in). The screens are designed based on a maximum approach velocity of 0.5 fps resulting in a maximum through-slot velocity of 0.9 fps. The diameter of the screen is assumed 72 in (6 ft) with a length of 24 ft. Eight (8) screens would be required to achieve the maximum required feedwater flow of approximately 390 mgd. The screens would be placed in two lines of four, oriented horizontally end to end as demonstrated in Figure 3-8. Each screen would be attached to a 2-ft long pipe fitting located at the midpoint of the screen. On the up-current end of each line of screens, a conical debris deflector would be installed. The conceptual design data for a screened open-ocean intake is provided in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 Wedge-Wire Screen Intake Design Data

Design Parameter Ultimate Project Model T-72 (Johnson Screen) No. of Screens 8 Max. Flow rate, mgd 390

T-72 Screen Parameters Per Screen Max. Flow rate, mgd 44.4 Max Slot Velocity, ft/s 0.9 Slot Width, in 0.04 (1.0 mm) Width, ft 24.0 Diameter, in. 72.0 Outlet Flange, inch 48.0 End Closure Cone Screen Material Z-Alloy

Figure 3-8: Intake Screen Configuration (Hendrick Screens®)


Page 3-18

The screens should be located such that the top of the screens are covered by a minimum of 50 feet of water. Given a screen height of approximately 15 feet, the total required water depth would be approximately 65 feet, which occurs approximately 1.4 miles (7,400 ft) offshore from the site alternatives. The total seabed area required for the placement of the screens would depend on the final intake capacity which governs the number and dimension of the screens. Screens should be placed at least 1 meter above the seafloor to avoid pulling up sand particles which would be smaller than the slot width.

3.4.4 Conclusions A conceptual site layout for a screened open-ocean intake based on wedge-wire screen technology is shown in Figure 3-9. Tradeoffs exist between the consistencies of feedwater quality, ease of maintenance; impacts associated with water currents, and cost that need further consideration prior to selecting a final location. Placing the structure in deeper water below the thermocline would provide a more consistently clear feedwater quality. According to the wave energy analysis, the recommended depth for a surface structure is at least 100 ft. However, reaching the depths recommended to avoid some of the criteria listed above may be prohibitively expensive. Maintenance for such a deep water structure can be costly and dangerous, and building a tunnel to this depth is very costly. Site specific data would have to be obtained to solidify the preliminary assumptions and recommendations made in this report. Since the open-ocean wedge wire screen intake structures protrude above the seafloor, a Notice to Mariners (NTM) would have to be completed and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ocean navigation charts would have to be updated. A meeting was held with MCBCP personnel and the Navy (ACU-5) in April 2009, and they stated that the underwater intake structures are not anticipated to impact training or operations as long as an NTM is completed and navigation charts are updated. Overall, screened open-ocean intakes like the wedge-wire screen are part of an existing, proven intake technology which would be able to effectively provide required source water volumes. Additionally, if costs or technical feasibility rule out the use of a subsurface intake, the wedge-wire option may still be viable. However, issues that may pose an obstacle to feasibility include navigational considerations, loss of sea floor habitat, continued (although minimal) impingement and entrainment losses, and potential for increased maintenance or temporary shutdown of the desalination facility during plankton blooms.

Santa MargaritaRiver Estuary

Del MarBoat Basin

MCBCPRestricted Use Area MCBCP

Restricted Use Area

SRTTP Site

MCTSSA Site

50 ft

150 ft

100 ft

��I-5

��I-5

O2-4

CO

2-3C

O2-2

C

O2-1

C

O2-4

BO2-3

B

O2-2

B

O2-

1B

O2-4A

O2-3A

O2-2AO2-

1A

Legend

Final Proposed Site

! Artificial Reefs

Restricted AreasPendleton Use Areas

Bathymetry (ft)

!(

!(

Oceanside

San Diego

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10.1

Miles

Oceanside Artificial Reef 2

Wedgewire Intake Structure Footprint

Wedgewire Intake Potential Location Zone

Subsurface ConveyanceTunnel (4,000 ft offshore)

Conveyance Pipe on Seabed

³

OPEN-OCEAN WEDGE-WIRE SCREENINTAKE LOCATION FIGURE 3-9

San Diego County Water Authority

Seawater Desalination Facilityat Camp Pendleton

RBF Consulting

~1.4mile

s


Page 3-20

3.5 SEABED INFILTRATION GALLERY

3.5.1 Description An alternative to a screened open-ocean seawater intake is a subsurface intake system. One type of subsurface intake is a seabed infiltration gallery (SIG). Infrastructure for a SIG consists of a series of horizontal wells buried 6 to 14 feet deep in the subtidal zone. The system is designed as a slow underground sand filter using the media (seabed) surrounding the wells to remove suspended material. Seawater from a SIG is generally of a higher quality than seawater from surface intakes due to this natural filtration. Subsurface intakes are more stable and less affected by inclement weather since they are below surface and not affected by turbulence in the water column. They are also less visually and physically obtrusive on the beach and in the water since both the pipe gallery and the aqueduct are buried.

Figure 3-10: Seabed Infiltration Gallery (Fukuoka, Japan)

3.5.2 Background The city of Fukuoka, Japan began operations of a new desalination plant in June 2005. The plant is the largest in Japan, with a fresh water production rate of 13.2 mgd and intake capacity of approximately 27 mgd. Several new technologies were featured in the Fukuoka plant to increase throughput and efficiency, including the offshore SIG intake system. Currently, the Fukuoka plant is the only large desalination facility (>5 mgd) with a SIG intake in operation.


Page 3-21

The SIG consists of an offshore network of perforated subsurface pipes. The entire footprint of the pipe gallery is approximately 5 acres. One hundred foot long, 2 ft diameter HDPE, perforated infiltration pipes (laterals) are buried 10 ft under the sea floor, approximately 2,100 ft offshore at a water depth of approximately 38 feet. The laterals are installed with an external mesh layer to keep sand out of the feedwater and are arranged perpendicular to the shoreline 16.5 ft apart and stem horizontally off a header running parallel to the shore. The header is 6 ft diameter HDPE and is connected in the center to a concrete aqueduct (5 ft diameter) which leads onshore. The Fukuoka SIG was designed to withstand a 50-year frequency wave event. The connection points between the laterals and the header were designed to withstand ground shaking and liquefaction due to earthquakes. Since operations began, the plant has been hit by an earthquake (seismic intensity of more than 5) and aftershocks (seismic intensity of around 4). Additionally, a typhoon passed in September 2005. The only reported effect on the intake system during these events was an increase in seawater turbidity to a maximum reading of 1.0 mg/L after the typhoon. Other smaller earthquakes have had no effect on the intake system.

3.5.3 Design Criteria Many ecological and operational concerns invoked by the use of screened open-ocean intakes are eliminated when water is collected under the seabed. For example, the filtering action of the seabed reduces the need for feedwater pre-treatment. Additionally, fish and suspended larvae and eggs are unaffected by the subsurface pipes since no high velocity flows occur in the water column of sufficient intensity to cause entrainment or impingement.

Impingement / Entrainment Impacts due to impingement and entrainment are not anticipated during operation of the SIG. The effectiveness of eliminating impingement and entrainment would depend on the type and size of material selected for the SIG, the intake velocity at the seafloor, and the location of the galleries. Infiltration galleries act on the premise that aquatic organisms would not pass through the sediment and into the intake. A successful system would provide low withdrawal velocities and exclude small marine organisms. The SIG at Camp Pendleton would be located well offshore to avoid impact to intertidal species.

Intake Water Quality Feedwater quality from a submerged intake would be better than that from a surface water intake due to the substrate‘s filtering action. This reduces the costs and effort associated with the pre-treatment process. Changes in water quality characteristics in surface waters related to plankton blooms are not expected to be detected in the subsurface source water. Increased particulate load and demoic acid concentrations in


Page 3-22

phytoplankton organisms in surface waters are expected to be filtered from the source water by overlaying sediments and should not concentrate in collection galleries even if dead organisms accumulate on the seabed above the intake, although this should be confirmed for the overlaying sediment material. Water quality may be substantially improved during summer months from being located at a depth below the thermocline since biological productivity at this depth is substantially lower. However, according to data from the nearby Encina Ocean Outfall, the thermocline exists at approximately 50 ft depth. Construction of the gallery at this depth may be difficult and conveyance to shore from this depth would be substantially more expensive. Mean water temperature of feedwater from a subsurface intake would be even lower than water taken from a wedge-wire screen on the seafloor, particularly in La Nina years. Warmer water is more ideal for the efficiency of the RO process, however this may be a fair tradeoff since overall solids content would be significantly lower.

Benthic Communities Assuming the SIG is designed to maintain low intake velocities to minimize impingement, the organisms which are most likely to be affected by the operation of the SIG include those which reside in or spend time in contact with the seafloor. Installation of a SIG requires excavation and modification of between 18 and 55 acres of native sediments causing a large disruption to the benthic community. While a benthic community would undoubtedly recolonize the area, changes in sediment characteristics could affect other biological communities that utilize the seafloor as habitat. The community that recolonizes the area would likely be different from the existing community because of the different substrate characteristics. The main environmental impacts caused by shallow SIG are due to the excavation of natural seabed substrate and replacement with an engineered filter bed. In-water construction activities would increase short-term localized suspended sediment, turbidity, and possibly contaminant levels in the area surrounding the offshore construction site. The required excavation to install the SIG would result in large volumes of suspended sediments which would move with the current and be redeposited down current (upshore in this case). This reduced water quality in the vicinity of the construction site could disrupt migratory fish. Demersal fish may also be disrupted during the construction and installation of the SIG. Disturbance of the benthic zone would disrupt food and nutrient sources for these fish. Predicting the effect of sedimentation and turbidity on local biota requires knowledge of the sediments, duration of exposure, the type of material, the species, and life stage of the organism and other factors. Sound levels attained during construction may result in


Page 3-23

avoidance or migration delays for certain species of fish and/or marine mammals. Depending on the local substrate in the area and the depth of excavation, a vibration hammer may be used during construction. Underwater sound pressure levels above 180 decibels may result in sub-lethal or lethal effects for certain species. Mitigation efforts during construction to minimize excavation and collect suspended sediment in screens would help to reduce overall impact. If benthic communities can recover after construction, the overall project impact would be greatly reduced. This would depend on the construction process and the type of fill used after the installation of the SIG.

Biofouling / Siltation Biofouling of an intake structure under the seabed is less likely; however, shallow submerged intake structures are subject to clogging by debris and silt, and re-colonization of the benthic habitat by plants, microorganism, and animals. This type of fouling would cause a more severe disruption to plant operations since the clearing of underground structures and restructuring of filter media would be a costly and involved process. To reduce the risk of siltation, the SIG should be located at a sufficient distance offshore where wave and current energy would not overly disrupt the seabed filter, but should also remain in a location which would receive some wave/current energy where the seabed is not constantly in a depositional state. Finding this equilibrium is the main challenge in siting a SIG.

Wave Energy Although too much wave energy may encourage siltation of the seabed filter due to stirring of the sand and allowing the constructed grading to be re-mixed, some wave energy is beneficial for a SIG. The turbulence associated with wave action causes the sand filter to be cleaned and re-graded, making the waves an effective natural ”backwashing” system for the filter. Wave energy also ensures that the location is not entirely depositional, and some clearing of organic deposition would occur. The wave energy also helps to aerate the filter and recharge DO concentrations. This reduces biological fouling by microbial organisms. If the submerged intake is exposed to high wave energy, the filter media could be mixed, lose its grading and require reconstruction.

Navigational Restrictions Navigation restrictions may become a concern during construction and maintenance for the structure. Additionally, if the SIG is located in shallow water, the presence of certain vessels may pose a risk. The local U.S. Coast Guard Aid to Navigation officer should be consulted during the preliminary design phase of the project.

Hydrogeology The groundwater/seawater profile of the site alternatives would need to be assessed for a shallow SIG. This information may affect the required distance offshore or the depth to which the SIG should be buried.


Page 3-24

3.5.4 Conceptual Design The proposed desalination facility at Camp Pendleton would have a freshwater output 4 to 8 times larger than that of the Fukuoka desalination facility. This implies a similar scale difference for the intake structure. Assuming a subsurface intake recovery rate of 50 percent, the average intake water feed rate would be 100 to 300 mgd for a 50 to 150 mgd product water capacity. Using Fukuoka‘s loading rate of 0.087 gpm/ft2, the total area of the ocean floor needed to be excavated to construct a SIG with a capacity of 100 to 300 mgd is 18 to 55 acres. This estimate is based on assumptions at the site and a more detailed analysis would be required to yield accurate specifications. Using the same 100 ft laterals used at Fukuoka, the SIG would have a width of 200 ft and a header length of 0.75 to 2.25 mi for capacities of 100 to 300 mgd, respectively. This configuration may require 4 to 10 redundant systems, each with a header and concrete aqueduct. Alternatively, longer laterals could be used with a shorter header to make the entire footprint more consolidated, spanning less shoreline. For example, with laterals of 500 ft, the width of the entire footprint would become 1,000 ft and the length would be 780 to 2,400 ft for capacities of 100 to 300, respectively. Both options cover the same total area. To determine the optimal location of a SIG with respect to the distance from shore, years of sea level/wave data need to be analyzed to determine the optimal wave energy to naturally “backwash” the seabed. In general, the potential location of a SIG is similar as the location for the wedge-wire screen alternative. Local sensitive biological populations may prohibit certain placement configurations. For example, if the gallery extends too far to the south, the Artificial Reef would be disrupted.

3.5.5 Conclusions A conceptual site layout for a subsurface intake SIG is shown in Figure 3-11. Many of the potential environmental concerns associated with the open-ocean wedge-wire screen alternative (e.g., impingement and entrainment) are eliminated with the SIG alternative. However, this system would raise additional environmental concerns associated with the disruption of natural bottom sediments over a much larger area than impacted by the wedge-wire screen alternative. The projected seabed area needed for the wedge-wire screen intake system is approximately 1 acre, compared to the 18 to 55 acres needed for a SIG. A SIG may be able to be sited closer towards shore than wedge-wire screens to take advantage of expected increased current velocity to prevent significant deposition on or in the sediment filter. This could also lower the costs for the offshore intake conveyance system. However, shallower, near-shore locations are also expected to be more turbid due to natural wave action and may result in increased clogging of the sediment filter. As with the wedge-wire screen intake, additional information is needed to refine the recommended location of a SIG.


Del MarBoat Basin

MCBCPRestricted Use Area


Shallow Seabed InfiltrationGallery Potential Location Zone

Shallow Seabed InfiltrationGallery Footprint (see Inset)


Conveyance Pipeon Seabed

2,400 ft

1,000 ft

SRTTP Site

MCTSSA Site

50 ft

150 ft

100 ft

200 ft

��I-5��I-5

O2-4C

O2-3C

O2-2C

O2-1C

O2-4B

O2-3B

O2-2B

O2-1B

O2-4A

O2-3A

O2-2AO2-1

A

Legend

Final Proposed Site

! Artificial Reefs


Bathymetry (ft)

!(

!(

Oceanside

San Diego

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10.1

Miles


¦

1,200 ft

Note: The shallow seabed infiltration gallery shown is sized at 55 acres to accomodate the maximum potential production rate of the plant (150 MGD). A reduced production rate would result in a smaller footprint.

³



SEABED INFILTRATION GALLERY (SIG) INTAKECONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE 3-11

RBF Consulting

~1.5mile

s


Page 3-26

3.6 DEEP INFILTRATION GALLERY

3.6.1 Description A deep infiltration gallery (DIG) would be comprised of a series of angled collector wells drilled radially from a barge platform above the ocean. The soil surrounding the tunnel is assumed stable and therefore would not supply a large amount of feedwater due to low permeability. Therefore, the radial collector wells would be drilled at a downward angle from the barge to the dual-use tunnel, below the sandy alluvium. The collector wells act as an infiltration gallery, in that the underground seawater infiltrates into the wells and gravity flows into the annular space of the tunnel, which conveys the feedwater onshore.

3.6.2 Design Criteria The benefits associated with a SIG are similar for a DIG. The filtering action of the seabed reduces the need for feedwater pretreatment and since the DIG is located underground; fish, suspended larvae, and eggs are unaffected; biofouling is not a concern; navigational restrictions are not a concern; and wave energy does not have a negative effect on the operation of a subsurface intake system.

Intake Water Quality Feedwater from a DIG would be slightly less saline than seawater, which would increase overall RO efficiency. Suspended particulates would also be reduced.

Benthic Communities Minimal benthic community disturbance is expected only during construction of the collector wells that stems from the tunnel pipe. The bores drilled would penetrate the seabed so that casings can be installed from a barge above. After the well screens and gravel pack are in place, the casings would be removed, so any disturbance would be temporary. The distance between the seafloor and the top of the well screens is unknown; however, sand would be replaced in this area after construction.

Hydrogeology Salinities drawn from a DIG may be significantly lower than those observed in the water column if a confined alluvium containing freshwater is intercepted in the vicinity of the DIG. However, the concept of the DIG is that the radial collector wells would be located within the unconfined alluvium in direct contact with the overlying ocean (seawater). Therefore, salinity is expected to be similar to that for the SIG intake discussed in Section 3.5. The aquifer should be profiled and characterized before the design of a DIG system to assess the aquifer depth, thickness, and water quality. Since a trough of hydraulic depression is expected to occur in the vicinity of the DIG, the potential for any seawater intrusion inland would be negated.


Page 3-27

3.6.3 Conceptual Design A DIG intake at Camp Pendleton would be composed of approximately 30 (110 mgd) to 90 (330 mgd) collector wells, assuming that each well could produce approximately 2,400 gpm with an average length of 80 feet. The collector wells would be drilled radially from a barge above the ocean and installed in pairs of two spaced approximately 75 feet apart along the length of the tunnel (see Figure 3-12). The first set of wells would be drilled 500 feet offshore (out of the surf zone) and continue every 75 feet to the tunnel terminus, 4,000 ft offshore. This equates to approximately 45 rows for a total of 90 collector wells. The conceptual design data for a DIG intake is provided in Table 3-3. To take advantage of the permeable alluvium, the collector wells would be drilled at an angle of approximately 45 degrees (see Figure 3-12). The well screens are assumed 12-inch diameter. A 20-inch casing would follow the drilling auger from a barge down to the tunnel. Once the casing is in place, a 12.5-inch auger would be used to drill through the tunnel wall. The well screen would then be installed in the center of the casing, with gravel placed in the annular space between the casing and the well screen. Once completed, the casing would be pulled. An access hatch would be welded to the top of each well screen to provide access for maintenance. The benthic area disturbed by the drilling would be replaced with sand. The DIG well screens are assumed to be installed in phases, yet all the collector well casings would be installed during Phase 1. Therefore, 30 wells would be completed in Phase 1, while the remaining 60 wells would only have the casings installed. When the desalination facility expands to 100 mgd (Phase 2) or 150 mgd (ultimate) capacity, the remaining collector well screens and gravel pack would be installed and the casings pulled.

Table 3-3 DIG Intake Design Data

Design Parameter Ultimate Project No. of Wells 90 (30 each phase) No. of Rows (2 wells per row) 45 Row Spacing, ft 75 Average Flow rate, gpm 2,400 Well Screen Diameter, inch 12 Average Well Length, ft 80 Screen Material Super Stainless Steel

3.6.4 Conclusions The DIG alternative would likely result in minimal environmental impacts compared to the other four alternatives evaluated. However, offshore geotechnical investigations and construction feasibility require further evaluation to determine if it is both feasible and cost-effective.


Del MarBoat Basin

MCBCPRestricted Use Area MCBCP

Restricted Use Area

Deep InfiltrationGallery Area (See Inset)


600 ft

3,500 ft

500 ft

SRTTP Site

MCTSSA Site

50 ft

150 ft

100 ft

200 ft

��I-5��I-5

O2-4C

O2-3C

O2-2C

O2-1C

O2-4B

O2-3B

O2-2B

O2-1B

O2-4A

O2-3A

O2-2AO2-1

A

!(

!(

Oceanside

San Diego

Legend

Final Proposed Site

! Artificial Reefs


Bathymetry (ft)0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10.1

Miles


¦

Note 1: The deep infiltration gallery consistsof a series of angled wells drilled from inside the conveyance tunnel. The artist rendered inset (above) was created by RBF Consultants.

INSET



DEEP INFILTRATION GALLERY (DIG) INTAKECONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE 3-12

RBF Consulting


Page 3-29

3.7 BEACH SLANT WELLS

3.7.1 Description There are two main types of beach wells: slant wells and vertical wells. Only slant wells are being investigated for this project, since vertical wells would not be adequate to provide the required feedwater flow for the plant’s ultimate production rate of 150 mgd. The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) drilled and have successfully operated a test slant well in Dana Point, CA (2005) to be used to better understand aquifer dynamics and provide input for groundwater modeling. Slant wells are typically drilled from the beach and extend beyond the shoreline under the seabed to tap the saline aquifer under the ocean. A slant well, as illustrated in Figure 3-13, is a combination of both vertical and horizontal directionally drilled (HDD) wells, since it is nearly horizontal, yet the construction method is similar to a vertical well. The shallow-entry dual rotary drill rig is angled approximately 15-25 degrees from the horizontal, and then drilled straight, unlike a HDD drill rig that gradually turns as it drills to achieve a horizontal well. Well depth, production rate, and water quality vary based on the groundwater profile and soil matrix at a particular location.

Figure 3-13: Slant Well Intake Profile Slant wells could also potentially supply feedwater to the proposed desalination facility. As with other subsurface intakes, the wells reduce or eliminate many concerns regarding feedwater quality associated with screened open-ocean intakes. The factors most affecting the feasibility of the use of slant wells as the primary intake for the proposed facility at Camp Pendleton are:

The amount of shoreline required for the wells to produce 300 mgd of feedwater.

The local hydrogeologic conditions, including salt and freshwater aquifer profiles.

The potential ecological effects on the intertidal zone and the SMR Estuary.


Page 3-30

The design criteria described in the following section was obtained from Malcolm Pirnie’s Seawater Intake Technical Memorandum 3.2 (TM-3.2) provided in Appendix C. Groundwater modeling and recommendations for the feasibility of a slant well intake system were provided by Geoscience Support Services, Inc. Geoscience’s complete Slant Well Feasibility Study, Technical Memorandum 3.3 (TM-3.3) titled Camp Pendleton Desalination Project - Slant Well Feasibility Study (October 2008) is provided in Appendix B.

3.7.2 Design Criteria The benefits associated with a subsurface infiltration gallery (shallow or deep) are similar for a beach well intake. The filtering action of the seabed reduces the need for feedwater pretreatment and since the DIG is located underground; fish, suspended larvae, and eggs are unaffected; biofouling is not a concern; and navigational restrictions are not a concern for subsurface intake systems. Wave energy may have an effect on the slant wells if they are not properly located. Assumed future erosion conditions must be considered when locating the slant wells onshore.

Impingement / Entrainment Underground wells do not face some of the ecological issues caused by surface intakes, including impingement and entrainment of biota. However, siting a beach well should still take into consideration the presence of sensitive environmental populations in the vicinity. The wells should be located upshore and/or downshore from the SMR Estuary so that salinity profiles in this area do not change. Certain species, including the tidewater goby, require a relatively small salinity concentration window to survive. Changing the profile in or around the estuary my cause a disruption to sensitive species, like the goby. Offshore sensitive habitats including the Artificial Reefs are not likely to be disrupted. Since the estuary habitat is, for the most part, hydraulically separate from the ocean, wells near it could potentially de-water the system. Even if they did not affect the salinity profile, the overall reduction in water in the estuary could be detrimental.

Intake Water Quality The sand provides an effective means of pre-filtering source water to remove suspended sediments, and macro- micro-organisms. Lower TSS concentrations and SDI in beach well source water have been observed. Like with the other subsurface options, the ecological impact associated with impingement and entrainment is virtually eliminated since the seafloor and water column are left undisturbed. Turbidity and SDI of feedwater from a beach well have been observed at levels as low as 1 NTU and less than 2, respectively. A study conducted at the SWRO plant at Al-Birk on the southwestern Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia examined the option of replacing the original surface intake system with a beach well system due to significant membrane fouling problems. Bacteriological and


Page 3-31

nutrient analysis showed that bacterial counts were one order of magnitude lower in beach well water as compared to seawater; however, beach well water showed an accelerated bacterial growth due to a significantly high concentration of inorganic nutrients as compared with the seawater. Temperature fluctuations are buffered in beach well feedwater, however mean temperatures are typically lower than surface water temperatures. RO process efficiency increases with warmer feed water, however this potential decrease in efficiency may be mitigated by the efficiency increase associated with the high feedwater quality.

Benthic Communities Since the slant wells would be drilled underground, it is not anticipated that benthic communities would be affected. However, indirect effects of dewatering the SMR estuary could be a concern for benthic organisms as discussed above. Similarly, a change in the nearshore saltwater profile could affect sensitive species.

Hydrogeology Pumping from coastal wells could potentially invoke a negative impact on nearby fresh groundwater aquifers. Traditional onshore groundwater wells in confined coastal aquifers have increased in quantity due to rising populations. As the freshwater aquifer is depleted without being recharged through natural processes, salt water intrusion from the ocean occurs. Desalination has often been cited as a way to reduce saltwater intrusion by producing potable water without disturbing freshwater aquifers. However, depending on the local groundwater profile, beach wells to supply the desalination plant could exacerbate intrusion problems. A site specific Hydrogeological survey needs to be consulted before a conclusion can be made on the feasibility and impacts of beach wells at this site.

3.7.3 Conceptual Design Two areas along the shoreline have been deemed feasible to construct a slant well intake system due to the favorable soil. The proposed northern well field, located just north of the SMR consists of wells along the coastal bluffs, extending from the mouth of the SMR to the ACU-5 (LCAC) ramp. The proposed southern well field, located just south of the SMR consists of wells along the shoreline and the Oceanside Harbor Jetty. Refer to Figure 3-14 for an illustrated location of the two well fields. Pumping rates for each well are based on the model calibrated hydraulic conductivity values for the Lower Alluvium (350 ft/day) and the San Mateo Formation (20 ft/day). A pumping rate of 1,000 gpm was used for slant wells that are screened within the San Mateo Formation, and 3,000 gpm was used for slant wells that are screened within the Lower Alluvium.


Page 3-32

Southern Well Field The feedwater supply wells in the Southern Well Field (Figure 3-14) are conceptualized as 12-inch diameter wells drilled at a 20° angle below the horizontal to a total length of 600 lineal ft, consisting of 200 ft of blank casing and 400 ft of well screen. The total vertical depth at maximum well length is 205 ft. An optimum configuration of 30 supply wells was modeled, consisting of two groups of three wells each and four groups of six wells each, extending radially outward from a common entry location. Each slant well would produce approximately 1,000 - 3,000 gpm, depending on the local geology.

Northern Well Field The feedwater supply wells in the Northern Well Field (Figure 3-14) are conceptualized as 12-inch diameter wells drilled at a 20° angle below the horizontal to a total length of 750 lineal ft, consisting of 250 ft of blank casing and 500 ft of well screen. The total vertical depth at maximum well length is 257 ft. An optimum configuration of 30 supply wells was modeled, consisting of ten groups of three wells each, extending radially outward from a common entry location. Each slant well would produce approximately 1,000 -3,000 gpm, depending on the local geology.

3.7.4 Model Results The groundwater model for the potential slant well intake system was developed for the unconsolidated alluvium sediments and the upper 600 ft of Quaternary San Mateo Formation of the Camp Pendleton coastline and near-shore land areas. The groundwater model consisted of four (4) model layers described below:

Layer 1: Only active beneath the ocean and assumed to be 1 ft thick.

Layer 2: Upper Alluvium.

Layer 3: Lower Alluvium.

Layer 4: Top 600 ft of the San Mateo Formation

The model layers were developed in GIS based on the review of geologic logs in published reports and drillers logs for local wells. Figure 3-15 illustrates each model layer and its associated thickness. Each well field (north and south) was first modeled separately for a 10-year period, and then combined. Results of the groundwater model simulations are presented in terms of groundwater elevations, regional drawdowns, and TDS concentrations, throughout the modeling period. A summary of the model results for each well field are provided below. For a more detailed analysis of the groundwater model and associated results, refer to Geoscience’s full feasibility report (TM-3.3) provided in Appendix B.


Del MarBoat Basin



Beachwells (Slant Wells)(required number and

size unknown)

SRTTP Site

MCTSSA Site

50 ft

150 ft

100 ft

200 ft250 ft

§̈¦I-5

§̈¦I-5

O2-4C

O2-3C

O2-2C

O2-1C

O2-4B

O2-3B

O2-2B

O2-1B

O2-4A

O2-3A

O2-2AO2-1

A

Legend

Final Proposed Site! Artificial Reefs

Restricted AreasPendleton Use AreasBathymetry (ft)

Map Document: (S:\GIS_Resources\Standards_Guidelines\MapTemplates\GIS_TEMPLATES_2005\17x11_Portrait.mxt)7/19/2005 -- 5:19:30 PM

!(

!(

Oceanside

San Diego

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.250.125

Miles


¦

CA

L I FO

RN

I A



BEACH SLANT WELL INTAKECONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE 3-14

RBF Consulting


Page 3-35

Southern Well Field – 74,000 gpm (106 mgd) After ten years of pumping approximately 74,000 gpm, the maximum regional drawdown in the vicinity of the Southern Well Field is approximately 25 ft, 55 ft, and 20 ft for model layers 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Hydrographs for selected slant wells show that predicted groundwater elevations are relatively stable, reaching a minimum elevation in one year of approximately -27 to -52 ft amsl in the Southern Well Field. This corresponds to a drawdown in the aquifer of approximately 27 to 52 ft. Assuming a well efficiency of 80%, the drawdown in the slant wells would be 34 to 65 ft. Over the ten-year period, the TDS concentration of the feedwater extracted by the 30 slant wells would average approximately 34,200 mg/L. Therefore approximately 92% of the feedwater pumped from the southern slant well intake system is directly coming from the ocean.

Northern Well Field – 36,000 gpm (52 mgd) After ten years of pumping approximately 36,000 gpm, the maximum regional drawdown in the vicinity of the Northern Well Field is approximately 25 ft, 50 ft and 30 ft for model layers 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Hydrographs for selected slant wells show that predicted groundwater elevations are relatively stable, reaching a minimum elevation in one year of approximately -45 to -52 ft amsl in the Northern Well Field. This corresponds to a drawdown in the aquifer of approximately 45 to 52 ft. Assuming a well efficiency of 80%, the drawdown in the slant wells would be 56 to 65 ft. Over the ten-year period, the TDS concentration of feedwater extracted by the 30 slant wells would average approximately 34,300 mg/L. Therefore approximately 92% of the feedwater pumped from the northern slant well intake system is directly coming from the ocean.

Combined Well Field – 110,000 gpm (158 mgd) After ten years of pumping approximately 110,000 gpm from the combined northern and southern well fields, the maximum regional drawdown is approximately 25 ft, 55 ft and 30 ft for model layers 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Hydrographs for selected slant wells show that predicted groundwater elevations are relatively stable, reaching a minimum elevation in one year of approximately -28 to -52 ft amsl in the Southern Well Field and approximately -45 to -52 ft amsl in the Northern Well Field. This corresponds to a drawdown in the aquifer of approximately 28 to 52 ft. Assuming a well efficiency of 80%, the drawdown in the slant wells would be 35 to 65 ft. Over the ten-year period, the TDS concentration of the feedwater extracted by all 60 slant wells would average approximately 34,300 mg/L. Therefore approximately 93% of the feedwater pumped from the combined slant well intake system is seawater. For the entire model area, the changes in groundwater storage would be a decline of 1,251 acre-ft/yr, 1,965 acre-ft/yr and 3,203 acre-ft/yr for the southern, northern, and combined well fields, respectively. The maximum decline in groundwater level as the result of decline in groundwater storage would be localized to the slant well fields.


Page 3-36

3.7.5 Conclusions Similar to both a SIG and DIG intake, a number of environmental concerns such as impingement and entrainment are reduced through a beach (slant) well intake system. The potential location of the well fields should be restricted to the ocean beach area north and south of the SMR estuary, but should not be installed within the estuary itself as shown in Figure 3-14. The SMR estuary provides habitat for many potentially sensitive species, and a slant well intake system within the estuary could adversely impact the quantity and quality of surface waters. Potential impacts associated with dewatering the inter-tidal zone from over-pumping should be avoided. The slant well intake system feasibility analysis conducted by Geoscience is considered preliminary since it is predominately based on assumptions. Therefore before designing a pilot program, a detailed hydrogeologic study, consisting of a site investigation and exploratory test boreholes, should be conducted to verify assumptions associated with site-specific aquifer properties. Borehole geophysical surveys and aquifer pumping tests should be conducted to assess aquifer thicknesses, the location of the seawater/freshwater interface, aquifer hydraulic conductivity, and well capacity. A test well should be constructed to demonstrate the viability of using a slant well intake, and should be monitored for a sufficient period of time to adequately measure changes in groundwater levels and TDS concentrations as the result of extraction. One advantage of an onshore slant well intake system is that the outfall tunnel could be reduced in size since it would no longer be needed for feedwater conveyance. This results in a major disadvantage also. If the outfall tunnel is reduced in size and slant wells are the sole source of feedwater, the desalination plant would be limited to a maximum capacity of approximately 75 mgd (25 mgd from the north and 50 mgd from the south), based on the assumed hydrogeology and modeling results. Therefore, if the Water Authority wanted to increase capacity greater than 75 mgd, another intake system, including conveyance, would be needed, increasing capital costs in the future.


Page 4-1

CHAPTER 4: CONCENTRATE DISPOSAL

4.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter would determine the feasibility of an offshore ocean discharge structure designed to convey and dilute the concentrate (brine), which is a byproduct of the proposed SWRO desalination facility located at either the SRTTP or MCTSSA Site alternatives. This chapter would identify a feasible outfall location and preliminary diffuser configuration to meet dilution and water quality criteria. The information for this chapter is based on a study completed by Malcolm Pirnie. Malcolm Pirnie’s complete Brine Disposal Technical Memorandum 4.1 (TM-4.1) entitled Camp Pendleton Desalination Discharge Feasibility Study (September 2008) is provided in Appendix C. Data on the existing physical characteristics (Chapter 2 – Project Setting) and biological resources (Chapter 8 – Environmental and Permitting) in the project area were previously summarized in the designated chapters. The physical characteristics assessed in Chapter 2 include local bathymetry, currents, tides, upwelling, sediment movement, navigation, and water quality which all help to establish a basis for identifying potential design criteria which must be considered to minimize overall impact and ensure operational success of an ocean outfall concentrate diffuser system. Two waste streams are being considered for this project: 1) concentrate from the proposed SWRO desalination facility, and 2) treated wastewater effluent from Camp Pendleton’s Southern Region Tertiary Treatment Plant (SRTTP). Diffuser parameters such as port diameter, orientation of the ports, number of ports, and the spacing between ports would be determined by modeling the dilution of the waste streams discharged together (combined) and independently. Various water modeling techniques (performed by Malcolm Pirnie) were used to determine the dilutions achieved using several alternative outfall diffuser designs. Concentrate conveyance is achieved using three pipeline segments, similar to the feedwater conveyance pipelines. Each segment is detailed in the following sections. The first pipeline segment conveys brine from the desalination plant to the outfall tunnel. The second segment is the outfall tunnel itself, whether it is a dual-use tunnel or a designated outfall. The third segment is a seabed pipeline that would convey brine from the tunnel terminal structure to the diffuser discharge location.


Page 4-2

4.1 BACKGROUND

Concentrate disposal necessitates its own discussion due to its associated environmental and permitting concerns. Concentrate discharge off the coast of California represents one of the biggest permitting hurdles to date for large desalination facilities. Discharge through an outfall may be extremely difficult to permit unless the brine salinity can be diluted to approximately 40 ppt or less. Optionally, an engineered diffuser system may provide a suitable alternative to permitting of high salinity brine discharge. The concentrate from the SWRO desalination facility would be composed of highly saline seawater and possibly some solids recovered from the pretreatment process. For the ultimate desalination capacity of 150 mgd, approximately 185 mgd of concentrate would be produced from the proposed desalination facility based on a screened open-ocean intake, or approximately 150 mgd produced from a subsurface intake, dependant on the recovery rate. The typical salinity concentration of seawater is approximately 35,000 mg/L (35 ppt). The anticipated salinity concentration of feedwater from a subsurface intake located at or near the beach would range from 25,000 to 34,000 mg/L. After pretreatment and the reverse osmosis (RO) process, the salinity of the concentrate would be highly concentrated at up to 78,000 mg/L (78 ppt). Approximately 55-percent (screened open-ocean intake) to 50-percent (subsurface intake) of the RO feed water would leave the desalination plant as concentrate. The concentrate exiting the RO pressure vessels does so at very high-pressure. Energy recovery devices using pressure exchanger (PX) technology (Section 5.2.3) are typically employed at newer desalination facilities to recover and convert the excess pressure to usable energy while minimizing overall power requirements. Energy recovery produces energy at the expense of losing pressure in the brine disposal pipeline. Sufficient pressure would be maintained at the outlet of the energy recovery system to drive concentrate flow to its destination without additional pumping. One major benefit of this project could potentially provide Camp Pendleton the use of the outfall for disposing effluent from its new Southern Region Tertiary Treatment Plant (SRTTP). SRTTP allows for 100 percent reclamation of wastewater for re-use. In the event of a shutdown of this facility for maintenance, there needs to be a back-up option for disposal of primary treated effluent. Currently, the MCBCP relies on the Oceanside Ocean Outfall (OOO) for discharge of this potential effluent which could amount up to 15 mgd. This agreement with the City of Oceanside is temporary and Camp Pendleton is investigating the outfall associated with the proposed desalination facility as a way to discharge treated wastewater effluent from the Base. Although the wastewater would normally be mixed with the brine, the wastewater effluent may be discharged alone if the desalination plant is not in service (e.g. during low potable water demand season, etc.).


Page 4-3

4.2 OFFSHORE CONCENTRATE CONVEYANCE

4.2.1 Description The following section describes the offshore portion of the concentrate conveyance system, which consists of an outfall tunnel and seabed pipeline. The discharge area is located further offshore than the tunnel terminus; therefore, a seabed pipeline is required to convey concentrate from the outfall tunnel to the offshore diffuser system.

4.2.2 Outfall Tunnel The outfall tunnel is proposed as a pipe-in-pipe (dual-use) tunnel, which would be required for an offshore intake. If an onshore intake system (slant wells) is employed, then the tunnel would be designated as an outfall only. Detailed information for tunnel construction was provided by Jacobs Associates. Jacobs’ complete tunnel feasibility study entitled Camp Pendleton Desalination Plant Tunnel (April 15, 2008) is provided in Appendix C. More details for the dual-use tunnel and tunnel shafts are summarized in Section 3.2.2. The 4,000 ft long dual-use tunnel would be 16-feet in diameter (requiring an approximate 20-foot diameter borehole), with a maximum 9-foot diameter interior pipe serving as the outfall (brine disposal) pipeline. If an offshore intake was used, feedwater would be conveyed within the annular space of the dual-use tunnel, while brine would be conveyed in the lightly pressurized pipeline inside the tunnel.

4.2.3 Brine Seabed Pipeline Optimal placement for the concentrate discharge diffuser system is located a distance greater than 4,000 ft offshore. Therefore, a large diameter seabed pipeline (10-ft ID max.) would be required to convey brine from the tunnel terminal structure to the diffuser system. The pipeline would be placed within an 18-ft deep trench, lined with gravel, and backfilled with native soil (Figure 4-1). As described in Section 3.2.4, an offshore intake system would also require large diameter seabed pipelines to convey feedwater from the intake to the tunnel terminal structure. The pipeline may actually host its own artificial habitat since biota tends to accumulate on hard surfaces, which would probably not be detrimental to the structure, but the presence of this habitat should be noted.

Figure 4-1: Cross Section of Seabed Pipelines (Malcolm Pirnie)


Page 4-4

4.3 ONSHORE CONCENTRATE CONVEYANCE

4.3.1 Description Concentrate discharged from the desalination process would require an onshore pipeline to convey flow to the outfall tunnel. Enough pressure would be sustained within the RO concentrate discharge system (post energy recovery) to ensure that brine could be discharged through the offshore diffuser system with no additional pumping.

4.3.2 Brine Disposal Pipeline As previously described in Section 3.3.2, the SRTTP Site would require approximately 4,000 feet of additional tunneling from the shoreline to the desalination site, creating an 8,000 foot long tunnel. Tunneling at long lengths gets expensive, and therefore the onshore conveyance of concentrate would be accomplished by a large diameter pipeline installed using conventional trenching methods. For the ultimate project, an 84-inch diameter brine pipeline is necessary to convey concentrate from the desalination plant to the outfall tunnel. The same applies to the MCTSSA Site, except the pipeline would be much shorter in length and would not cross under I-5. Trenchless construction methods would be used to install any pipelines under I-5 (with Caltrans approval) as part of the SRTTP or MCTSSA Site alternative.

4.4 CONCENTRATE DIFFUSER SYSTEM

4.4.1 Description The desalination facility at either the SRTTP or MCTSSA Site does not have a source of dilution water to dilute the concentrate to approximately 40 ppt or less, therefore it is required that an engineered diffuser system is used to discharge the concentrate, in a way that would increase permitability. The brine discharged from the SWRO desalination facility would be composed of high salinity seawater and possibly some solids recovered from the pretreatment process. An engineered diffuser system consists of a long pipeline with discharge ports spaced evenly along the pipe, sized to achieve certain dilution requirements with the ambient seawater within a specified distance from the diffusers. One issue affecting brine discharge is the wide range of production capacities for the desalination facility. The desalination facility may begin operation at a capacity of 50 mgd with the potential to expand to a capacity of 150 mgd. Due to the volatile costs associated with marine construction, the diffuser system would be constructed for the ultimate capacity and operated in two phases, rather than constructed in two phases. Port velocity must be maintained to achieve the required dilution, even when the flow rate is significantly low. The diffuser can be constructed in a linear configuration with ports along the entire length of the pipe, or a “Y” configuration with ports located along


Page 4-5

two shorter branches. A diffuser system with a “Y” configuration gives the facility the ability to only operate one branch, and open the other branch when the plant expands to an ultimate capacity of 150 mgd. At the intersection of the Y-configuration would be a junction chamber with a sluice gate or gates that could be opened or closed at any time after the construction of the diffuser to allow use of one or both branches. To avoid having issues with biofouling of the unused diffuser ports, they would each be plugged while the extension arm was not in use. The same procedure would be used for a linear diffuser extension. Before operation, the ports would be unplugged by a diver. Camp Pendleton could potentially use the new outfall for disposing effluents from the SRTTP in conjunction with the desalination plant. Currently, the expected wastewater effluent is approximately 5 mgd. The SRTTP facility is proposing a facility expansion which would increase the effluent capacity to 7.5 mgd with a short term peaking flowrate of approximately 15 mgd. Dual use of the outfall presents a unique challenge. It might not be possible hydraulically to design a diffuser that works properly for flows as low as 5 mgd and as high as 180 mgd. When the desalination plant is in operation, 5 to 15 mgd added to the brine stream would have little effect on the diffuser system and its hydraulics. The issue lies when SRTTP effluent would continue when the desalination plant is not in operation due to low potable water demand or maintenance. In order to maintain the hydraulic integrity of the system, one approach is to maintain a higher minimum flow by incorporating seawater with the wastewater when the outfall is used only for disposing wastewater effluent. The other option is to construct a separate smaller diffuser system that would be used to discharge flows as low as 5 mgd and as high as 15 mgd.

4.4.2 Design Criteria Design of an offshore outfall should take into account physical site characteristics and existing marine habitat data to determine overall feasibility. Overall success of an offshore outfall design includes the strategic placement of the discharge structure to avoid sensitive biological communities while taking into account the physical properties of the area including depth profile and water quality. This is in addition to the requirement for a diffuser system design which achieves a target dilution to minimize impact to a limited area surrounding the outfall. One of the preliminary criteria for this study is to address the different characteristics of both waste streams: brine and treated wastewater effluent. Conventional wastewater discharge plumes are generally buoyant and tend rise to the surface when discharged into the ocean. This buoyancy is due to the density differential between the discharge and the receiving water. Wastewater is usually warmer and lower in salinity than the receiving seawater. The brine discharge from the desalination plant, however, has a relatively higher density due to the increased salinity and therefore, it tends to sink upon release.


Page 4-6

Concentrate Characteristics Because the desalination plant intakes seawater and discharges concentrated seawater, the notable difference between brine discharge and ambient seawater is salinity and the resultant difference in density. Though the discharge from the desalination plant would also “double” other constituents present in the seawater, these constituents are unlikely to affect the physical characteristics of the discharge. Therefore, only the potential salinity increases are considered in this portion of the feasibility study. The plant capacity for product water would be in the range of 50 to 150 mgd. Production or recovery rate can vary from 45 to 60 percent, depending on the type of intake structure. Seawater can be expected to have a higher salinity (thus lower yield) than a subsurface intake. As a result, the feedwater withdrawn from the intake and concentrate discharged to the outfall would vary. The salinity of the brine discharge also varies with varying production rate.

Receiving Water Characteristics Certain physical parameters discussed in Section 2.3 are also applicable to the outfall design. General bathymetry and current data are useful for the placement of the structure while water quality parameters including salinity and temperature are used as inputs for the dilution models. Ambient temperature and salinity stratifications are major factors affecting near field dilution. Salinity in the study area remains relatively constant over the water depth and for different months of the year. However, the temperature profile exhibits variation over the water depth. These variations are seasonal and more prominent from May through September. Because a brine plume discharged upward tends to sink towards the ocean floor once it loses its initial momentum, the plume is likely to interact only with the lower portion of the water column. Detailed salinity and temperature profiles of the upper portion of the water column are conceivably not critical for modeling brine plume movement and dilution if the brine discharge occurs at depth of over 100 feet and the plume trajectory remains 75 to 80 feet below the water surface. Currents drive plume migration and affect dilution by causing mixing. Because of this, it is useful to characterize ambient current data in the project area. Since the project site is located in open coastal area, both large eddies in the SCB and tidal current can contribute to ambient current. Daily surface currents (Figure 2-1) near the project site show that ambient currents can prevail in one direction for days and in the reverse direction for the next several days. It should be noted that surface currents might not be indicative of bottom currents, where the brine discharge is likely to occur. In future stages of the project, local data monitoring would be required to quantify ambient current conditions at the proposed site and at the depth of discharge.


Page 4-7

Concentrate Dilution Requirements Currently, no specific water quality standards regulate concentrate discharge. Ten percent increase in salinity has been allowed in some concentrate discharge permits. To be conservative, 5-10% salinity increase over ambient is assumed acceptable at the edge of the zone of initial dilution (ZID). The ZID is the area defined in the permit where the water quality standards can be exceeded. For a 45% recovery rate, 45% of the feedwater becomes potable water with a salinity assumed to be near zero. If 10% salinity increase is allowed at the edge of the ZID, the required dilution is approximately 8.2. For a recovery rate of 60%, the required dilution is approximately 15. As a point of reference, a dilution of 30 would keep excess salinity below 5% for the typical production rate of 45–60%.

SRTTP Effluent Dilution Requirements As mentioned previously, the desalination diffuser may also be used to discharge treated wastewater effluent from Camp Pendleton’s SRTTP. The wastewater discharge could occur even when the desalination plant is out of service during low potable water demand period. This introduces issues with a minimum flow rate requirement. For the purpose of this feasibility study, the dilution requirement for the wastewater discharge was considered 80, the same as was applied to the Oceanside Ocean Outfall.

4.4.3 Conceptual Design Several configurations (both linear and “Y”) were modeled by Malcolm Pirnie to determine the optimal size and configuration of the combined flow (concentrate + wastewater effluent) diffuser system. The combined diffuser system is sized for an ultimate desalination capacity of 150 mgd which would produce approximately 185 mgd of concentrate assuming a worst case recovery rate of 45%, plus an additional 15 mgd of effluent for a total of 200 mgd. Changing production rate from 50% to 45% increases the concentrate discharge flow, yet decreases the concentrate salinity. The optimal port size is approximately 6-inch. Port orientation and port spacing have only secondary effects on dilution; therefore their orientation is fixed at 45 degrees from the horizontal and spaced 10 feet apart. The design information for the combined diffuser system is provided in Table 4-1. As mentioned previously, it might not be possible hydraulically to design a diffuser that works properly for flows as low as 5 mgd (SRTTP effluent only) and as high as 200 mgd. In order to maintain the hydraulic integrity of the system, one approach is to construct a separate smaller diffuser system that would be used to discharge only SRTTP effluent. The standby effluent diffuser system would be sized for a maximum flow of 15 mgd. The optimal port size for the smaller separate diffuse system is approximately 3 to 4-inch. The diffuser would be raised off the seafloor (approximately 2 feet) with the port


Page 4-8

orientation horizontal, spaced 40 feet apart. The design information for the standby effluent diffuser system is provided in Table 4-1. The model results would determine the required depth for the diffuser systems based on plume movement. The placement of the outfall structure and associated pipe should avoid artificial reefs and kelp beds identified as biological sensitive communities. From the model results, the proposed outfall diffuser system should be located at a depth of at least 100 feet directly offshore from the mouth of the SMR. The diffuser may have to extend beyond a depth of 100 feet depending on the design and location of the intake system discussed in Chapter 3. Figure 4-2 illustrates the relative location of the outfall diffuser for a slant well or DIG intake system, while Figure 4-3 illustrates the discharge location relative to the approximate zone where a SIG or wedge-wire screen intake would be located.

Table 4-1 Diffuser System Conceptual Design Data

Design Parameter Combined Flow Diffuser System

SRTTP Effluent Only Diffuser System

Distance Offshore, mi. 2.4 2.0 Water Depth, ft 100 80 Max. Flow Rate, mgd 150 – 200 5 – 15 Max. Flow Rate, mgd (per branch) 75 – 100 5 – 15 Configuration “Y” Linear Pipe Material MLCSP MLCSP Pipe Diameter, in. 84 30 - 36 Pipe Length, ft. (per branch) 1,200 550 Diffuser Ports (per branch) 60 14 Port Diameter, in. 6.0 4.0 Port Spacing, ft. 10.0 40.0

4.4.4 Conclusions For concentrate discharge, a dilution of 20 to 30 is required to keep the excess salinity at the edge of the ZID to 5 to 10-percent over the ambient salinity. A UM3 model was used to demonstrate that several diffuser configurations can achieve this required dilution. The diffuser can be configured linearly or in a “Y”. For optimal performance, the diffuser should be operated in two stages, which has several advantages over a fully operational diffuser. The diffuser should be constructed for the ultimate capacity (approximately 188 mgd), yet operated in two stages by keeping some ports closed, and opening them (using divers) as capacity is increased.


Page 4-9

Figure 4-2: Diffuser System Layout (Malcolm Pirnie)


Page 4-10

The proposed outfall and diffuser system can also be used for discharge of Camp Pendleton’s SRTTP wastewater effluent. If the desalination plant is not operational at the time of wastewater discharge, the effluent could be mixed with seawater prior to discharge in order to increase the hydraulic integrity of the system and achieve the required dilution of the effluent. The diffuser needs to maintain a minimum flow to function hydraulically. The total dilution, consisting of the near field dilution from discharge of mixture of wastewater effluent and recycled seawater, is comparable to the probable dilution of 80 permitted at the nearby Oceanside Ocean Outfall. If both branches of the combined “Y” diffuser system were in operation, the seawater required for premixing or recycling would be approximately 35 mgd, for 5 mgd of wastewater effluent. Similarly, 20 mgd of seawater would be required for premixing if only one branch were operational. Because pumping is required only for recycled seawater from the same elevation, the energy cost associated with pumping the required recycle seawater might not be prohibitive. Another option for discharging 5 to 15 mgd of effluent is to construct a separate diffuser system designed for 15 mgd of wastewater effluent only, which would not require re-circulation of seawater. The required dilution could be achieved with a diffuser designed to handle the type and volume of effluent. The capital costs of a separate system should be compared with the energy costs and infrastructure requirements for seawater re-circulation. The separate diffuser would require diligent maintenance during periods in which it was not being used. An idle marine diffuser would gather fines and sediment buildup around the ports. Biofouling and growth may occur not only outside the structure and piping, but also inside since there would be no flow to constantly expel organisms and sediment. The diffuser would likely need to be flushed each month to clear out the pipe and diffusers, and to prevent seizing of any valves. Rigorous monitoring and instrumentation would be installed to identify problems with the system during periods of non-use. Lastly, the structure would require additional permit conditions allowing a monthly discharge for maintenance purposes. The results presented within this report are feasibility level only. Detailed diffuser configuration can be revised to achieve optimal hydraulic performance and dilution in subsequent design phases. Additional knowledge of prevailing ambient currents, both direction and magnitude, is needed to better assess plume movement beyond the near field and its potential impact on biological communities as well as define the minimum separation required between the intake and discharge to avoid re-circulation of brine and a buildup of effluent.

100

ft

Sub

surfa

ceC

onve

yanc

eTu

nnel

(4,0

00ft

offs

hore

)

Out

fall

Diff

user

and

Zone

ofIn

itial

Dilu

tion

(ZID

)Loc

atio

nS

eeIN

SE

T1

ford

etai

l.

Dis

char

geC

onve

yanc

eP

ipe

onS

eabe

d Bea

chw

ellI

n tak

eA

rea

(req

uire

dsi

zeun

know

n)

Dee

pIn

filtra

tion

Gal

lery

500

ftto

4,0 0

0ft

Offs

hore

from

Con

veya

nce

Tunn

el

Bea

chw

ellI

ntak

eA

rea

(req

uire

dsi

zeun

know

n)

50 ft

SantaMargaritaRiver

O2-4C

O2-3C

O2-2C

O2-1C

O2-4B

O2-3B

O2-2B

O2-1B

O2-4A

O2-3A

O2-2A

O2-1A

§̈ ¦I-5

SRTT

P Si

te

MC

TSSA

Site

!(

!(

Oce

ansi

de San

Die

go

Artif

icia

l Ree

fO

cean

side

No.

2

³

01,

200

2,40

03,

600

4,80

060

0Fe

et

Not

es:

1. A

rtific

ial R

eef L

ocat

ions

from

Cal

iforn

ia D

epar

tmen

t of F

ish

and

Gam

e.2.

Site

loca

tions

from

RBF

Site

Eva

luat

ion

Mem

o.

3. R

estri

cted

are

as fr

om M

BC M

arin

e R

esou

rces

Rep

ort.

4. A

eria

l orth

oim

ager

y fro

m U

SGS

(199

7).

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

PACIFIC

OCEAN

MC

BC

P R

estri

cted

Ar

ea

Stu

a rt M

esa

Rd

Sant

a M

arga

rita

Riv

er E

stua

ry

MC

BC

P R

estri

cted

Ar

ea

Del

Mar

Bo

at B

asin

Lege

nd Fina

l Pro

pose

d Si

te

!Ar

tific

ial R

eefs

Bath

ymet

ry (f

t)

Pend

leto

n U

se A

reas

Seni

stiv

e H

abita

t

San

Die

goC

ount

yW

ater

Aut

horit

y

Cam

pP

endl

eton

Des

alin

atio

nP

roje

ct

OU

TF

AL

LD

IFF

US

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NF

or

Sla

nt

Wel

lor

DIG

Inta

ke

RB

FC

ON

SU

LTIN

G

FIG

UR

E4-

3

~2.4miles

100

ft

150

ft

50 ft

Su

bsu

rfac

eC

onv

eya

nce

Tun

nel

(4,0

00

fto

ffsho

re)

Out

rall

Diff

use

ran

dZ

one

of

Initi

alD

ilutio

n(Z

ID)

Loca

tion

Se

eIN

SE

T1

for

det

ail.

Dis

char

ge

Con

veya

nce

Pip

eo

nS

eab

ed(s

ee

Not

e5

)

Inta

kean

dD

isch

arg

eC

onve

yanc

eP

ipe

son

Se

abed

Zon

ew

he

reth

eS

eabe

dIn

filtr

atio

nG

alle

ryIn

take

orW

edge

wir

eS

cree

nIn

take

coul

dbe

loca

ted

(se

eN

ote

6)

Out

fall

Loc

atio

nZ

one

-D

epe

ndan

ton

the

pla

cem

enta

ndco

nfig

ura

tion

ofth

ein

take

stru

ctur

ean

dm

ore

site

spec

ific

data

.

Sh

allo

wS

eab

edIn

filtr

atio

nG

alle

ryIn

take

Str

uct

ure

Fo

otp

rint

Wed

gew

ire

Scr

een

Inta

keS

tru

ctur

eF

oot

prin

tSantaMargarita

River

O2-4C

O2-3C

O2-2C

O2-1C

O2-4B

O2-3B

O2-2B

O2-1B

O2-4A

O2-3A

O2-2A

O2-1A

� ��I-5

SR

TT

P S

ite

e

MC

TS

SA

Site

!(

!(

Oce

ansi

de San

Die

go

Art

ifici

al R

eef

Oce

ans

ide

No.

2

³

01,

300

2,60

03,

900

5,20

065

0

Fee

t

Not

es:

1. A

rtifi

cial

Ree

f Loc

atio

ns fr

om C

alifo

rnia

Dep

artm

ent o

f Fis

h an

d

G

ame.

2. S

ite lo

catio

ns fr

om R

BF

Site

Eva

luat

ion

Mem

o.

3. R

estr

icte

d ar

eas

from

MB

C M

arin

e R

esou

rces

Rep

ort.

4. A

eria

l ort

hoim

ager

y fr

om U

SG

S (

1997

).5.

Dis

tanc

e fr

om in

take

to d

isch

arge

stru

ctur

es to

be

d

eter

min

ed b

ased

on

avoi

danc

e of

re-

circ

ulat

ion

of b

rine

and

site

s

peci

fic d

ata.

Dis

char

ge s

truc

ture

at d

epth

>=

100

ft.6.

The

pre

cise

loca

tion

for

a w

edge

wire

scr

een

inta

ke o

r sh

allo

w

sea

bed

infil

trat

ion

galle

ry to

be

deci

ded

base

d on

add

ition

al s

ite

spe

cific

info

rmat

ion.

CA

LI

FO

RN

IA

PACIFIC

OC

EAN

MC

BC

P

Res

tric

ted

Are

a

Stu

art

Me

s aR

d

Sa

nta

Ma

rga

rita

Riv

er E

stua

ry

MC

BC

P

Res

tric

ted

Are

a

Del

Ma

r B

oat

Ba

sin

Leg

end

Fina

l Pro

pose

d S

ite

!A

rtific

ial R

eefs

Bat

hym

etry

(ft)

Pen

dlet

on U

se A

reas

Sen

istiv

e H

abita

t

San

Die

goC

ount

yW

ater

Aut

horit

y

Cam

pP

endl

eton

Des

alin

atio

nP

roje

ct

OU

TF

AL

LD

IFF

US

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NF

or

Wed

ge

Wir

eS

cree

no

rS

IGIn

take

FIG

UR

E4-

4

RB

FC

ON

SU

LTIN

G


Page 5-1

CHAPTER 5: DESALINATION FACILITY

5.0 INTRODUCTION

The proposed Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Facility is intended to address long-term water supply issues identified in the Water Authority’s Regional Water Facilities Master Plan and Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Specific goals of each are increased reliability and diversification of the Water Authority’s water supply portfolio, which results in a targeted goal for seawater desalination to be 10 percent of the portfolio by year 2020 or about 80 mgd. 50 mgd of this goal would be met by the Carlsbad Desalination Project. The next increment of the seawater desalination, up to and beyond the 80 mgd goal in 2020 could be provided by this desalination project. The expected product water capacity of the desalination facility is 50 mgd (Phase I) with two subsequent expansions of 50 mgd each for an ultimate capacity of 150 mgd. This Chapter will cover the following:

Approved desalination facility sites (by MCB Camp Pendleton Personnel);

Desalination treatment process for both screened and subsurface intakes;

Power requirements and service; and

Facility Sustainability.

The total land area required for an ultimate 150 mgd desalination facility is approximately 25 to 30 acres. The Water Authority’s desalination facility would be located at one of two sites in the southwest region of Camp Pendleton, near the City of Oceanside boundary. These two sites (described in Sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3) are located in proximity to I-5, the SMR, and the Pacific Ocean. The project would include the development of a desalination facility utilizing reverse osmosis (RO) technology to ultimately produce 150 mgd of potable drinking water. Other facilities onsite are typical for water treatment plants, which include pretreatment equipment, pumps, chemical handling, residuals handling, storage facilities, administration building, and laboratory. The desalination process would include pretreatment to remove suspended solids that can cause the RO membranes to foul. After passing through the RO process, the desalted water is void of essential minerals and so pure that it is highly corrosive. Post-treatment, or re-mineralization, is required to protect downstream piping systems and to improve the permeate compatibility with other Water Authority member agencies water supplies.


Page 5-2

The desalination facility would have normal daytime staff ranging from 8 to 12 personnel with weekend staff ranging from 4 to 6 personnel. Graveyard (swing) shift staff would range from 2 to 4 personnel. Maintenance personnel would be required for any planned and/or corrective maintenance. All desalination facility personnel would need to pass through security clearance at Camp Pendleton gates. San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) is the local power provider (retailer). Southern California Edison (SCE) owns and operates the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) and is one of the local power generators that SDG&E purchases power from. Power for the desalination facility would either be purchased from the grid or generated on-site utilizing turbine generators (qualified cogeneration facility) as discussed in Section 5.3. Chemicals that may be required for the desalination process include ferric chloride (coagulant), sulphuric acid (pH adjustment), caustic (enhanced boron removal), sodium bisulfite (de-chlorination), chlorine gas or sodium hypochlorite (disinfection), lime and carbon dioxide (remineralization). Various chemical delivery methods are being considered; including rail delivery and truck delivery either through a new dedicated I-5 ramp, through the Main South Gate, or through the Las Pulgas Gate.

5.1 DESALINATION FACILITY SITES

5.1.1 Site Evaluation The desalination plant site would need to accommodate pretreatment and desalination process facilities, chemical storage facilities, other appurtenant facilities, and possibly an on-site power generation facility. As shown below, the total land area required would range from approximately 15 to 30 acres.

50 -100 mgd plant = +/- 15 ac

150 mgd plant = +/- 25 ac

Power Generation Facility = +/- 5 ac (optional)

These are conservative values, as alternative construction methods could be applied (such as vertical, stacked construction) in order for the desalination facility to occupy less acreage. The first preliminary reconnaissance survey of the area resulted in the identification of eight potentially feasible sites for the desalination facility as listed below and illustrated in Figure 5-1.


Page 5-3

Site 1 (25 ac): Near existing percolation ponds east of I-5;

Site 2 (25 ac): Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) 13 Site;

Site 3 (17 ac): Along Vandegrift Blvd;

Site 4 (15 ac): Southeast corner of Vandegrift & Stuart Mesa Road;

Site 5 (25 ac): Agricultural land west of I-5;

Site 6 (25 ac): Agricultural land east of I-5;

Site 7 (25 ac): Open Space land south of ACU-5;

Site 8 (20 ac): Open Space land near Del Mar Boating Area.

An initial assessment of these sites indicated that portions of each site had been “previously disturbed”, and did not appear to directly impact Camp Pendleton training or operations (except Site 8). A detailed description of each site is provided in a technical memorandum (TM) completed by RBF Consulting. RBF’s initial TM, entitled Feasibility Study for a Seawater Desalination Project at Camp Pendleton TM-1 (January 2008) is provided in Appendix D. After several meetings and discussions with MCBCP staff and personnel (see meeting minutes in Appendix D), six of the eight sites were eliminated due to various reasons (i.e. site constraints, environmental concerns, training grounds, base infrastructure, etc.), while one additional site was added for a total of three feasible site alternatives as listed below and illustrated in Figure 5-2.

MCTSSA Site: Agricultural land west of I-5 near MCTSSA;

SRTTP Site: STP 13 site and land along SMR;

Stuart Mesa Site: Northeast of Stuart Mesa Housing Area.

A site evaluation memo was written describing the project components required for a desalination facility located at each of the final three sites. RBF’s site evaluation memo, entitled Feasibility Study for a Seawater Desalination Project at Camp Pendleton, Site Evaluation Memo (July 2008) is provided in Appendix D. The site evaluation memo was reviewed by MCBCP personnel and Base Commander. In December 2008, Col. G.W. Storey sent the Water Authority a Letter of Authorization (see letter in Appendix D) approving further investigation of a 150 mgd desalination facility on either the SRTTP or MCTSSA Site alternatives. The following sections would discuss the pros and cons associated with constructing a regional large-scale desalination facility on either the SRTTP Site (Section 5.1.2) or the MCTSSA Site (Section 5.1.3).


Page 5-6

5.1.2 SRTTP Site The SRTTP Site is located east of I-5, south of the SMR, approximately 1.0-mile east of the Pacific Ocean. The site is approximately 25 acres in size and is bisected by an abandoned rail line. The site is occupied by a portion of STP 13 (abandoned) on the east side of the tracks and undisturbed land along the SMR on the west side of the tracks. Site access could be provided by Lemon Grove Road and Stuart Mesa Road. Listed below are the advantages and disadvantages of constructing a large-scale desalination facility on the SRTTP Site. Advantages related to constructing a desalination facility on the SRTTP Site are:

Portion of site is previously disturbed (STP 13);

Access via Vandegrift Blvd (Lemon Grove Road) and Stuart Mesa Road;

Visual impacts minimal due to existing water treatment facilities (SRTTP);

Potential railroad access for chemical delivery;

Conveyance pipeline would not cross SMR if WMP alignment used;

Favorable for subsurface intake due to proximity to SMR outlet (alluvial fan).

Disadvantages related to constructing a desalination facility on the SRTTP Site are:

Portion of the site may require environmental mitigation (along SMR);

Would require levee protection since a small portion of the site is within SMR 100-year flood plain as illustrated in Figure 5-3;

Feedwater and brine pipelines would cross I-5;

Site would require new power transmission lines;

Conveyance pipeline would cross SMR twice if YBP alignment used;

Off-site FWPS or extended length dual-use tunnel.

The SRTTP Site is a favorable site for locating a regional desalination facility in the southwest region of Camp Pendleton. The visual impacts associated with this site are minimal since a portion of the facility is located on the abandoned sewage treatment plant 13 (STP 13) site. The site is adjacent to the existing SRTTP facility and surrounded by existing water storage ponds behind the base commissary. Therefore, visual impacts would be minimal due to the locations of the existing facilities. Chapter 9 – Project Alternatives contains a complete project description for a regional desalination facility located at the SRTTP Site utilizing a DIG subsurface intake. Refer to Section 9.1 for a detailed project description (intake, treatment, brine disposal, conveyance, etc.), site layout, and visual rendition of a proposed regional desalination facility located at the SRTTP Site alternative.

FIGURE 5-3

SRTTP SITE


Page 5-8

5.1.3 MCTSSA Site The MCTSSA Site is located north of SMR, adjacent to and west of I-5, east of the Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity (MCTSSA) Center. The site is currently leased agricultural tomato fields. The site is approximately 30 acres. Access to the site could be provided by Lower Santa Margarita River Road (unpaved road) or Camp Pendleton Road (MCTSSA I-5 bridge crossing). This site could utilize any intake method, yet a screened open-ocean intake is favorable for this site due to the assumed poor hydrogeology. Listed below are the advantages and disadvantages of constructing a regional desalination facility on the MCTSSA Site. Advantages related to constructing a desalination facility on the MCTSSA Site are:

Previously disturbed land (tomato fields), therefore no sensitive habitat/species;

Site located near shoreline, west of I-5.

Feedwater and brine pipelines would not cross under I-5;

FWPS could be located on-site if coastal site is not attainable;

Visual impact from the ocean is minimal since located behind MCTSSA facility;

Conveyance Pipeline would cross SMR once if YBP or WMP used.

Disadvantages related to constructing a desalination facility on the MCTSSA Site are:

Access: Lower SMR Road and I-5 Bridge crossing would need to be improved;

Visual Impact from I-5 since site is west of and adjacent to I-5;

Site may require new power transmission lines, which would cross I-5;

Conveyance pipeline and SRTTP effluent pipeline would cross I-5;

Assumed poor offshore hydrogeology for subsurface intake options;

Possible interference from MCTSSA radar operations.

The MCTSSA Site is a favorable site for locating a large scale desalination facility in the southwest region of Camp Pendleton since it is located on previously disturbed agriculture fields in close proximity to the ocean. The visual impacts associated with this site are minimal, since the site is located east of the existing MCTSSA facility. From I-5 south, the view of the facility is obstructed by the I-5 bridge crossing. From I-5 north, the same views are obstructed by existing MCTSSA facility. Chapter 9 – Project Alternatives contains a complete project description for a large scale desalination facility located at the MCTSSA Site utilizing a screened open-ocean intake. Refer to Section 9.2 for a detailed project description (intake, treatment, brine disposal, conveyance, etc.), site layout, and visual rendition of a proposed regional desalination facility located at the MCTSSA Site alternative.


Page 5-9

5.2 DESALINATION TREATMENT PROCESS

The Water Authority’s proposed Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Facility would desalinate raw seawater obtained from a screened open-ocean or subsurface intake. For a project of this magnitude, seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) membranes are the preferred desalination technology. SWRO membranes are sensitive to microbial contamination, turbidity, and other contaminants, and therefore pretreatment of the raw seawater would be required to prevent the membranes from fouling. The assumed pretreatment scheme, discussed in Section 5.2.1, would consist of:

Drum screens;

Dissolved air flotation (DAF);

Ultra-filtration (UF) membranes (screened open-ocean intake only); and

Cartridge filters.

The assumed pretreatment process is considered worst case, and specific processes (i.e. DAF) could be eliminated if the seawater intake is optimally located to enhance feedwater quality. Specific pretreatment process would be determined during pilot testing. The pretreatment process would require the use of chemicals (Section 5.2.6) to increase pretreatment removal efficiency. Potential chemicals to be used are:

Sodium Hypochlorite (shock chlorination of screens - disinfection);

Ferric Chloride (coagulant);

Sodium Hydroxide (enhanced boron reduction);

Sulphuric Acid (pH adjustment); and

Sodium Bisulfite (de-chlorination).

After pretreatment, the filtered water (filtrate) would be pumped through SWRO membranes. An energy recovery system (Section 5.2.3) would be used to recover the energy from the brine stream prior to its disposal to assist in reducing energy costs. After the RO process, desalinated water (permeate) would go through post-treatment (Section 5.2.4) to prevent corrosion of the distribution pipelines and resemble existing potable water supplies. The post-treatment process would consist of:

Carbon dioxide;

Lime (calcite beds);

Sodium hydroxide (pH adjustment); and

Sodium hypochlorite (disinfection - chlorine residual).

Waste streams (sludge and solids) from the DAF and UF membranes would be conveyed to an on-site solids handling facility (Section 5.2.5). Figure 5-4 and Figure 5-5 illustrate treatment process flow diagrams for both a screened open-ocean intake and subsurface intake, respectively.


Page 5-10

5.2.1 Pretreatment An extensive pretreatment system would be necessary if using a screened open-ocean intake due to the abundant amount of solids and colloidal particles that are typically present in raw seawater. Pretreatment for a screened open-ocean intake would typically consist of initial screening, dissolved air flotation (DAF), ultra-filtration (UF) membranes, and cartridge filters. If a subsurface intake (SIG, DIG, or slant wells) were utilized, UF membranes would not be required due to the anticipated natural filtration provided by the seabed. The following section describes each pretreatment process.

Drum Screens Raw seawater obtained from either intake option would first pass through initial screening to remove marine debris that is sloughed off of the intake piping. This is not expected to be a heavy load or a constant continuous load, but screening this flow stream before the processes following it would permit a more constant operation of those processes. Drum screens are cylindrical devices whose skin is perforated to allow water to pass through, while retaining solids. The size of the solids depends on the screen opening size selected. Seawater is introduced from the outside into the inside of the drum, which is mounted horizontally in a concrete structure, and rotates slowly (see Figure 5-6). The design criteria for the drum screens are provided in Table 5-1. The drum is equipped with a pressurized water spray system which washes the accumulated debris from the exposed screen as it rotates out of the water. Washwater is obtained from the filtrate water storage tank downstream of the UF membranes. Typically, the screened solids are conveyed back to the ocean since the screenings consist of natural marine debris. If intermittent disinfection is used on the intake screens, the screenings may have to be conveyed to the solids handling facility with other backwash residuals from the DAF units, membrane filters, and RO cleaning solutions.

Table 5-1 Drum Screen Design Criteria

Design Parameter Phase 1 50 mgd

Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Type Double Entry Max. Flow rate, mgd 111 222 333 Flow rate / Screen, mgd 37.0 Screen Opening, mm 3 - 5 Screen Diameter, ft 20.0 Screen Width, ft 6.5 Screen Area / Unit, ft2 400 # of Units 4 (3 +1) 7 (6 +1) 10 (9 +1) Total Screen Area, ft2 1,200 (+ 400) 2,400 (+ 400) 3,600 (+ 400)


Page 5-13

Figure 5-6: Typical Drum Screens (EIMCO)

Figure 5-7: Drum Screen Flow Configuration (EIMCO)


Page 5-14

Dissolved Air Flotation Following initial screening, the feedwater flows to the second pretreatment process, dissolved air flotation (DAF), as illustrated in Figure 5-8. DAF is the process of removing suspended solids, organics, oils, and other contaminants via the use of flocculation and air bubble flotation. Flocculation, enhanced by a chemical coagulant (i.e. ferric chloride) occurs in two to three stages. The feedwater is gently stirred in each stage, allowing the floc to form without shearing. The water then enters the air injection zone. Air is dissolved into the water, mixed with the influent seawater, and released from solution while in intimate contact with the contaminants. Microscopic air bubbles form, attach to the solids, increase their buoyancy, and float the solids to the water's surface where they are mechanically skimmed and removed from the tank. A percentage of the effluent is recycled and super-saturated with air, mixed with the influent and injected into the DAF separation chamber. Refer to Figure 5-9 for an illustrated DAF process schematic. The DAF process is recommended at this point in the pretreatment scheme due to its suitability for removing light material from seawater more efficiently than traditional clarification, and without the need to create large settleable floc particles, which reduces the cost of chemicals for coagulation, and results in a lower volume of solids entering the residuals handling equipment (sludge from DAF typically has a 2-4% concentration of solids). In recent years DAF has seen a significant growth in applications for seawater RO pretreatment. A major consideration is the ability of the process to remove a high percentage of algae, reported as being ~ 90%.

Figure 5-8: Typical DAF Tanks


Page 5-15

Figure 5-9: Dissolved Air Flotation Process (Wikipedia) Given the topography of each site, and the proposed location of the drum screen structures, it may be possible for the screened water to travel to the DAF basins by gravity. If this turns out to be infeasible, low head high volume pumps would transfer the screened water from a wet well to the inlet to the DAF flocculation step. At the entrance to the DAF units, the seawater pH would be adjusted using sulphuric acid, and a coagulant would be dosed to create the floc. These chemicals would be added in a static mixer ahead of the flocculation chambers. It is estimated that approximately 10-20 mg/l of 96% sulphuric acid would be required to lower the pH to a value of 7.0. Typically a ferric salt dosage for optimum performance would be in the range of 10-15 mg/l. The optimum pH and actual dosing values would be determined by jar testing. Dependant on the location of the seawater intake and quality of the feedwater, DAF may not be necessary, which would be determined during pilot testing.

Table 5-2 DAF System Design Criteria


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Type Concrete Tank Rise rate, gpm/ft2 15.0 Max. Flow rate, mgd 111 222 333 Flotation Area, ft2 6,160 12,320 18,480 Number of DAF Basins 3 6 9 Basin Dimensions, L ft x W ft 60 x 32 Height, ft 6.0


Page 5-16

Submerged Ultra-Filtration A screened open-ocean intake would require an additional process within the pretreatment scheme due to the large amount of organics and colloidal particles within the feedwater. Clarified seawater from the DAF units would be pumped from the DAF clarified water wet well to the inlet of the submerged ultra-filtration (UF) system. Figure 5-10 illustrates a typical submerged UF system. A submerged UF system is preferred for this purpose rather than a pressure system, because of the possibility that additional ferric salt may be required, either on a continuous or periodic basis for further reduction of the organic materials that can cause RO membrane fouling. Although both systems can accommodate this feature, the submerged systems are not susceptible to the fibers being blocked by the coagulant. An alternative to submerged systems is the outside-in pressurized system, which by design also avoids the possibility of fiber blockage. However, the submerged systems do not require the strainers that are typically required for pressurized systems, since any grit, shell fragments, etc. that bypass the DAF step would tend to sink in the tank. Thus the cost and significant maintenance requirement of the automatic strainers is avoided.

Figure 5-10: Submerged Ultra-filtration (UF) Tanks (Siemens) UF is becoming more common in recent large seawater RO projects, in the Middle East, Mediterranean, Asia, and Africa. It is almost a perfect barrier for bacteria, and consistently produces a filtrate turbidity of 0.1 NTU or less, regardless of the influent turbidity, and corresponding SDI’s of 2 to 3. The design criteria for the UF system are provided in Table 5-3. After the water has been filtered through the membrane system, the filtrate enters a filtrate tank (approx. 100,000 gallons) that would be used to backwash the membrane system and spray rinse the drum screens.


Page 5-17

Table 5-3 UF Membrane System Design Criteria


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Manufacturer / Model Siemens Memcor ® Type Submerged Membrane Pore Size, microns 0.02 Number of Membrane modules/Tank 576 Total Number of Tank Basins 28 56 84 Total Number of Membrane modules 16,244 32,489 48,733 Max. Flow rate, mgd 123 247 370 Tank Dimensions, L ft x W ft 14 x 14 Tank Height, ft 5.0

Cartridge filters Cartridge filters in SWRO are traditionally provided as the final pretreatment (polishing) step before the feedwater enters the SWRO units. The purpose of this fine filtration step is to provide a final barrier to any material that may have worked their way through the proceeding processes, and which could cause operational issues by either contributing to membrane fouling or becoming lodged in the feed brine spacer, causing a foothold for plugging. These filters are typically sized at 5-10 microns, and can be either wound polypropylene, or spun cast polypropylene. They are housed in a stainless steel vessel, and are considered as operating disposable. With the addition of UF membrane filtration to the pretreatment process, there has been some debate as to whether cartridge filters are still necessary, since the size exclusion is much larger than that of membrane filtration. However since there is always the potential for UF fiber rupture, it is recommended that the prudent approach is to maintain the presence of cartridge filters until such time as the operating history from plants using UF in the pretreatment step demonstrates that cartridge filtration can safely be removed from the process. Cartridge filters are typically sized for a flow rate of 3.5 – 4.0 gpm per ten inch length. The devices are available in 10-inch increments up to 50-inch. For large flow rates such as this project, 50-inch is recommended since this would reduce the number of cartridges to a minimum, and therefore would reduce the number of filter vessels. For a 50-inch cartridge, the flow per cartridge would be approximately 20 gpm.


Page 5-18

Figure 5-11: Typical Horizontal Cartridge Filter Vessel The vessels come in two configurations, horizontal and vertical. For a 50-inch vessel, it is recommended that the horizontal vessel be used since cartridge change out becomes much easier with the cover being opened horizontally rather than lifted vertically, as shown in Figure 5-11. Care must be taken in the specification of these assemblies to make sure that at least one support plate is included, and that the cartridges themselves are of the single open ended, double O-ring seal type. For corrosion resistance, all of the wetted surfaces should be duplex stainless steel, although plastic and rubber lined vessels have been used with some success. The design criteria for the cartridge filters are provided in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4 Pretreatment Cartridge Filter Design Criteria


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Type Horizontal Vessel Filter Vessel Material 316 S.S. or AL6XN Cartridge Filter Material Polypropylene Cartridge Flow rate, gpm 20 Filter Size, um 5-10 Cartridge Length, inch 50 Max. flow per Vessel, gpm 5,000 Cartridges per Vessel 250 No. of Vessels 15 30 45 # of Cartridge Elements 3,750 7,500 11,250


Page 5-19

5.2.2 Seawater Reverse Osmosis The Water Authority’s proposed desalination facility would use raw seawater from a screened open-ocean or subsurface intake as its feedwater source. For a project of this magnitude, it is preferred that seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) membranes are used to desalinate the feedwater. The SWRO process provides a barrier against bacteria and viruses as defined by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and is awarded 2 log removal credits for giardia, cryptosporidium, and viruses under current California Department of Health regulations. Seawater, by virtue of their depths and volume are generally not affected by surface runoff and are not considered surface water by the USEPA. Therefore, seawater systems are not required to comply with the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)1. Additionally, the health risk from pathogens is generally much less significant in seawater than in fresh surface water since typically pathogenic organisms are quickly inactivated in seawater due to the high salt content. When designing a SWRO system, several important design parameters must be considered. The two fundamental design parameters that impact both cost and permeate quality are recovery and flux. These are somewhat inter-related, since both are related to feed pressure, and by extension, feedwater temperature. Flux is the term used to describe the rate at which water passes through a unit area of membrane, and is measured as gallons per square foot per day (gfd). The flux is directly proportional to the net applied pressure, which is in turn derived from the feed pressure, average osmotic pressure, hydraulic pressure drop, and permeate back pressure. In seawater systems operating on relatively cold water, historic flux ranges between 7 and 10 gfd. Another important consideration is the flux that is generated on the lead element, where the osmotic pressure is lowest in the system. The system parameters should be selected such that the lead element flux does not exceed 14-16 gfd, to reduce the fouling potential at this point. Use of cooler feedwater helps control the lead element flux while enabling the system to be operated at somewhat higher recovery, thus reducing pretreatment and energy cost. For this project, a conservative flux of 8-9 gfd has been selected, so that advantage may be taken from operating at a higher recovery. The recovery in a SWRO system establishes the average osmotic pressure in the system, the feed pressure, and the permeate quality. Since the first SWRO plant using thin film composite membranes went into operation in 1977, the membrane characteristics have been significantly improved by the manufacturers, both in terms of productivity, and salt rejection. The average salt rejection for a high rejection membrane today is approximately 99.8% of sodium chloride. This means that even at high recovery, good permeate quality is available in a single pass. Recovery for this project would be approximately 45%, although 50% recovery appears to be achievable at little additional energy cost, and good permeate quality. However, for this study, the recovery has been limited to 45%.

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Applicability of the SWTR and IESWTR to Seawater Systems. December 1999.


Page 5-20

Figure 5-12: Typical SWRO Skid Array (Australia) Membrane diameter has become a consideration in the past two years. The advantage of using larger diameter membrane elements in large plants is clear. Capital cost savings exist due to the smaller footprint required, and there are less potential o-ring leak sites. All of the major membrane manufacturers are now claiming to have developed large format membranes, with the standard being set by the Large Format Membrane Consortium Report at 16-inch. Koch Membrane systems has standardized 18-inch as its large format diameter. For this study, given the lack of actual plant performance data for large format membranes, the decision was made to stay with the current commercial diameter of 8-inch. For the purposes of this study it is assumed that high recovery, low energy membranes in 8-inch format would be used. Based on this assumption, each 5 MGD train would require 224 vessels, each containing 7 membrane elements, for a total of 1,568 membrane elements/train. If future study determines that higher recovery is valid, then the vessel length could be increased to eight elements. However, based on the 45% recovery design point, the lead element flux is estimated to be 12.8 gfd for the seven element vessel, well within the guidelines. This indicates that the recovery could be increased to 50% in the seven element vessel, negating the need for the longer vessels. At the 50% recovery design point, the lead element flux is 13.7, still very acceptable. Refer to Table 5-5 for the SWRO system design criteria.


Page 5-21

Table 5-5 SWRO Design Criteria


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

First Pass – First Stage Model SW30 HRLE-400 Type Spiral Wound Manufacturer DOW Filmtec Active Area, sq. ft 400 Diameter/ inch 8.0 Permeate Flow / Train, mgd 5 Elements / Vessel 7 Number of Vessels / Train 224 Number of Trains 10 20 30 Number of Elements 15,680 31,360 47,040 Operating Flux / Train, gfd 8.7 Operating Pressure, psi 970 Recovery, % 45 - 50 % The feedwater (raw seawater) would have an initial TDS concentration of approximately 36,000 mg/L. From membrane modeling software, the SWRO membranes are assumed to produce permeate that would have an approximate TDS concentration of 122 mg/L, a chloride concentration of approximately 70 mg/L, and a boron concentration of approximately 0.7 mg/L, which is suitable for potable water use. The SWRO membranes would require cleaning on a regular basis to remove natural organic matter and chemical scale. A clean-in-place (CIP) process consisting of a CIP solution storage tank (20,000 gallons), flush tank (100,000 gallons), cartridge filter, and CIP pump, would be utilized to perform the required RO membrane cleaning. CIP for SWRO membranes include two steps: first circulating a number of cleaning chemicals in a predetermined sequence through the membranes; and second, flushing the membranes with clean permeate water to remove the cleaning solutions. The exact chemicals, their concentrations, and cleaning frequency required are not known at this time, but would be determined by pilot testing.

5.2.3 Energy Recovery Seawater desalination is an energy intensive process and therefore utilizing an energy recovery system is highly recommended to recover the energy from the concentrate stream prior to its disposal to assist in reducing energy costs. Energy recovery has become standard in today’s SWRO systems. Two types of energy recovery devices (ERD) are considered for today’s large seawater systems, which are the work exchanger (Pelton Wheel) and the pressure exchanger (PX).


Page 5-22

Each device has its own advantages; however, for large plants utilizing large high-pressure RO feed pumps, PX devices, sometimes called isobaric devices are capable of providing optimum energy recovery over a wider flow range. This study assumes the use of Energy Recovery Inc’s (ERI) PX series pressure exchanger model PX-260, as shown in Figure 5-13 below. The PX-260 was first operated in seawater in August 2005. After demonstrating two years of reliable performance in beta test, it was commercially released in October 2007.

Figure 5-13: PX-260 Energy Recovery Device (ERI) The PX Pressure Exchanger (PX®) ERD uses the principle of positive displacement and isobaric chambers to achieve extremely efficient transfer of energy from a high-pressure waste (brine) stream from a SWRO desalination unit, to a low-pressure incoming feed stream. Because the PX is up to 98% efficient, virtually no energy is lost in the transfer. The PX devices are encased in industry standard housing proven to provide extended field service life in SWRO applications. Since its introduction, PX technology has emerged as the industry standard solution for SWRO desalination. PX devices installed for several years have proven the endurance of the ceramic construction by requiring no routine maintenance when operated for tens of thousands of hours in tough seawater environments.

How the PX ERD Works The PX Pressure Exchanger facilitates pressure transfer from the high pressure brine reject stream to a low-pressure seawater feed stream. It does this by putting the streams in direct, momentary contact in the ducts of a rotor. The rotor is fit into a ceramic sleeve between two ceramic end covers with precise clearances that, when filled with high-pressure water, create an almost frictionless hydrodynamic bearing. The rotor spinning inside the hydrodynamic bearing is the only moving part in the PX device.


Page 5-23

At any given instant, half of the rotor ducts are exposed to the high-pressure stream and half to the low-pressure stream. As the rotor turns, the ducts pass a sealing area that separates high and low pressure. Thus, the ducts that contain high pressure are separated from the adjacent ducts containing low pressure by the seal that is formed with the rotor’s ribs and the ceramic end covers. A schematic representation of the ceramic components of the PX ERD is provided in Figure 5-14. Low-pressure seawater is supplied to the PX rotor duct via the low-pressure feedwater inlet port (lower left side of figure). The feedwater flow comes into momentary contact with and expels the concentrate from the rotor duct through the low-pressure concentrate to drain port (lower right side of figure). After the rotor turns past a sealing area, high-pressure brine from the high pressure concentrate port (upper right side of figure) flows into the rotor duct, compressing and expelling the seawater through the high-pressure feedwater port (upper left side of figure). The pressurized seawater receives minimal additional boost by the circulation pump before combining with the seawater pressurized by the main high-pressure pump. The combined high-pressure seawater enters the SWRO membranes and high-pressure brine exits the SWRO membrane toward the PX device. This pressure exchange process is repeated for each duct with every rotation of the rotor, so that the ducts are continuously filling and discharging. At a nominal speed of 1,200 rpm, 20 revolutions of the PX rotor are completed every second.

Figure 5-14: PX Device Components (ERI)


Page 5-24

PX ERD in SWRO Systems In a SWRO system with an ERI ERD installed, the main high-pressure (HP) pump is sized approximately to equal the SWRO permeate flow and a small amount of bearing lubrication flow (3-6%), not the full SWRO feed flow. Therefore, PX energy recovery technology significantly reduces flow through the main HP pump. This point is significant because a reduction in the size of the main HP pump results in lower capital and operating costs. In a typical SWRO system with a PX unit operating at 40% recovery, the main HP pump would provide 41% of the energy, the circulation booster pump would provide 2%, and the PX unit would provide the remaining 57%. Since the PX unit uses no external power, a total energy savings of approximately 57% is possible using this example compared to a system with no energy recovery. Figure 5-15 illustrates the typical flow path of a PX energy recovery device in a SWRO system. The reject concentrate from the SWRO membranes [G] passes through the PX unit, where its pressure is transferred directly to a portion of the incoming raw seawater [B] at up to 98% efficiency. This pressurized seawater stream [D], which is nearly equal in volume and pressure to the concentrate reject stream, passes through a circulation (booster) pump. The booster pump is used to increase the pressure of the PX driven high-pressure stream [D] exiting the PX array by about 35-40 psi, so that the water, equal in flow to the concentrate flow plus additional flow for lubrication and leakage, enters the feedwater piping [E] at the same pressure as that of the feedwater discharge from the high-pressure (HP) pump [A-C-E]. Fully pressurized seawater from the booster pump merges with the HP pump discharge [C] to feed the membranes [E]. The flow rate of the HP feedwater stream from the PX device is controlled by a variable frequency drive (VFD) on the booster pump motor. A concentrate control valve, located downstream of the PX array on the concentrate piping [H] is provided to adjust the SWRO membrane recovery and ensure that sufficient pressure remains in the concentrate pipeline to convey the brine directly to the outfall without additional pumping.

Figure 5-15: Typical Flow Path for SWRO PX Device (ERI)


Page 5-25

The overall performance of the PX device is dependent on the ability to control feed flow through the device and concentrate pressure. As long as the flow rates and pressures remain within the design envelope of each PX device or array, pressure (power) transfer efficiency remains high and varies little. Refer to Table 5-6 below for the ERD system design criteria.

Table 5-6 Energy Recovery System Design Criteria


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Technology Pressure Exchanger (PX) Model # ERI PX-260 Unit Flow, gpm 235.7 Efficiency 96% Number of PX Units / Train 18 Number of Trains 10 20 30 Total Number of PX Units 180 360 540 Power Savings per train, kW 1,889 Total Power Savings, kW 18,890 37,780 56,670

Unlimited capacity is achieved by arraying multiple PX devices in parallel as illustrated in Figure 5-16. By arraying multiple PX units, there is no limitation to the train size possible with PX technology. Up to 40 PX devices have been successfully arrayed in a single train and 10 to 16 rotors in parallel are common. If one or more rotors in an array stop turning, flow safely passes through the stuck rotor allowing a plant operator to wait for a convenient time to service the unit. PX units in an array can be easily and quickly removed or added, providing flexible capacity. PX device isolation within an array should be considered to allow for individual device replacement without shutting down the entire array and consequently the SWRO train.

Figure 5-16: Typical PX ERD Arrays (ERI)


Page 5-26

5.2.4 Post-Treatment Permeate from the RO system would undergo post-treatment to meet potable water stability requirements. Hardness, alkalinity, and pH of the permeate would require adjustment following the RO process to assure aesthetic water quality and to provide distribution pipeline (corrosion) protection. The post-treatment process may include the addition of the following chemicals: CO2 addition: The product water from the RO system is very low in alkalinity. CO2

would be injected into the water to provide a source for the carbonate ion to adjust the alkalinity within 60-80 mg/L as CaCO3. The CO2 injection system would be a package vacuum feed system with high reliability and ease of operation.

Calcite addition: Once the water is saturated by CO2, it passes through a crushed

limestone (calcite) bed in order to neutralize the pH and adjust the hardness of water within 60-80 mg/L as CaCO3. The anticipated application rate is approximately 3.5 gpm/ft2. This system would consist of 4 concrete tank basins (per phase) loaded with calcite. Calcite (in bulk) would be stored in silos above the calcite beds and transferred to the beds as needed.

Sodium Hydroxide (Caustic) addition: To adjust the pH level of the final product,

caustic (NaOH) would be injected into the water to control the pH level within a desired range of 7.5-8.5. This injection system would include metering pumps and a caustic storage tank. Caustic addition may not be necessary if the two previous steps are able to raise the pH sufficiently within the desired range.

Sodium hypochlorite addition: The potable water would be disinfected by sodium

hypochlorite (NaOCl) prior to pumping to the storage tanks (clearwell) to retain a chlorine residual through the entire desalinated water conveyance pipeline (DWCP) and associated distribution pipelines. This injection system consists of metering pumps and chemical storage tanks.

Corrosion Inhibitor: If additional pipeline protection is required, a corrosion

inhibitor can be injected into the water. This injection system would include metering pumps and storage tanks.

Final post-treatment requirements are determined through pilot testing. Refer to Section 5.2.6 for typical post-treatment chemical dosage and daily consumption values.


Page 5-27

5.2.5 Residuals Management The desalination process would produce several waste streams listed below:

Drum screen residue;

Solids waste from the DAF process;

Continuous backwash water from the UF membranes;

CIP solutions from cleaning of the UF and SWRO membranes;

Concentrate from the SWRO process.

Drum Screens and RO Initial screening of the feedwater (drum screens), would result in the collection of residual organic marine material. This material would be mixed with carrying water and conveyed to the brine disposal pipeline, where it would mix with the concentrate produced from the SWRO process before being discharged back to the ocean through the engineered outfall diffuser system as discussed in Chapter 4.

DAF and UF After initial screening, the feedwater is pretreated before the SWRO process using dissolved air flotation (DAF) and ultra-filtration (UF) membranes (open-ocean intake only). Solids obtained from the DAF process and the backwash stream from the UF membranes would contain organic solids of marine origin that passed through the screens and DAF. If a chemical coagulant (i.e. ferric chloride) is used in the pretreatment process (determined from pilot testing), this stream would contain the chemical precipitate form of the chemical. In this case, the spent backwash water would be directed to an on-site solids handling treatment facility, where it would be treated with additional chemicals to generate a thickened sludge. The sludge would then be dewatered using a belt filter press or centrifuge. The excess water from the dewatering process would be returned to the feedwater stream before the DAF tanks. Thickened solids from the dewatering process would be transferred to on-site sludge drying beds. The solids would remain in the sludge drying beds until moisture content falls below 50 percent, at which time the dried solids would be hauled off-site to an appropriate landfill for final disposal. If pretreatment coagulant chemicals are not used, the spent backwash water would be conveyed directly to the brine disposal pipeline to be discharged to the ocean, since suspended solids contained in the stream would be entirely of marine origin.


Page 5-28

Clean-In-Place Intermittent (non-continuous) cleaning of accumulated silts or scale on both the UF and SWRO membrane is necessary to ensure peak membrane performance. The clean-in-place (CIP) process consists of proprietary and non-proprietary acidic and/or alkaline chemicals passing through the membranes and then flushed as described in Section 5.2.2. The used CIP waste stream from both membrane systems would be collected in a separate collection sump, neutralized, and subsequently taken by tanker truck to an appropriate off-site disposal site.

5.2.6 Chemical Usage Several chemicals are required during the desalination treatment process. Refer to Table 5-7 for typical chemical dosages and daily quantities required for the desalination treatment process (pretreatment, SWRO, post-treatment, and residuals handling). Shock chlorination (disinfection) using sodium hypochlorite, is initially used to kill bacteria and control bio-fouling on the wedge-wire screens, intake pipelines, UF membranes and cartridge filters. Shock chlorination would occur approximately twice a day for one hour. Once the water passes through the drum screens, ferric chloride (coagulant) is injected to enhance the flocculation process through the DAF tanks. Sulphuric acid is also injected to lower the pH to approximately 6.0 to 7.0 to improve the coagulation efficiency. Using chlorine as a primary disinfectant requires that the chlorine subsequently be removed from the filtrate water, using sodium bisulfite (dechlorination), to prevent chlorine degradation of the RO membranes. Chlorine resistant membranes are in research and early development stages; however, membrane manufactures require that no chlorine residual be present in the feedwater to currently available thin-film-composite (TFC) polyamide SWRO membranes. Boron is assumed present in the feedwater; therefore, sodium hydroxide may be injected into the filtrate water to enhance boron removal efficiency through the SWRO membranes. Antiscalant is sometimes used to prevent scaling and/or fouling on the RO membranes and reduce cleaning frequency. The use of antiscalant should be eliminated due to potential permitting issues associated with brine discharges that contain antiscalant. Sulphuric acid injected during pretreatment also assists in reducing scaling, and because of this, it is assumed that an antiscalant would not be required. Both UF and SWRO membranes would require periodic cleaning to ensure peak performance. A clean-in-place (CIP) process as described in Section 5.2.2 is used to backwash the membranes. Typical CIP chemicals consist of, but are not limited to sodium hydroxide, sulphuric acid, citric acid, hydrochloric acid, and/or other proprietary chemical formulations. The cleaning solutions used and frequency of cleaning are determined during pilot testing.


Page 5-29

Post-treatment of the SWRO permeate is required to ensure that adequate disinfection is provided to comply with drinking water regulations and to mitigate corrosion in the distribution system. Remineralization (stabilization) would be accomplished using carbon dioxide and lime (calcite beds) as previously discussed in Section 5.2.4. If the pH is not increased to 7.5 to 8.5 through the calcite beds, sodium hydroxide would be added to increase the pH. Final post-treatment requirements would be determined through pilot testing. The residuals (solids) handling process as described in Section 5.2.5 may require the addition of ferric chloride (coagulant) to assist with thickening the waste sludge from the DAF process and UF membranes before it is dewatered with belt presses.

Table 5-7 Average Daily Chemical Usage – 50 MGD

Chemical Use Chemical Molecular Average MCTSSA SRTTP Description Name Formula Dosage1 Daily Use Daily Use

(mg/L) (lbs) (lbs) Pretreatment Shock Chlorination2 Sodium Hypochlorite NaOCl 6.0 542 438 Coagulant Ferric Chloride FeCl 10.0 10,842 8,757 pH Adjustment Sulphuric Acid H2SO4 20.0 21,684 17,514 Dechlorination Sodium Bisulfite NaHSO3 6.0 5,554 5,254 UF CIP Chemicals3 - - - - - Reverse Osmosis Boron Removal4 Sodium Hydroxide NaOH 30.0 27,772 25,020 Antiscalant5 - - 2.0 2,777 2,502 RO CIP Chemicals3 - - - - - Post-Treatment Remineralization Lime CaCO3 60.0 25,020 25,020 Remineralization Carbon Dioxide CO2 30.0 12,510 12,510 pH Adjustment6 Sodium Hydroxide NaOH 4.0 2,085 2,085 Chlorine Residual Sodium Hypochlorite NaOCl 4.0 1,668 1,668 Residuals / Solids Handling Coagulant7 Ferric Chloride FeCl 3.0 175 -

1. Actual chemical dosage to be determined by jar testing (pilot test). 2. Shock Chlorination to occur twice a day for one hour near the wedge-wire intake screens. 3. CIP chemicals are used in small dosage and could consist of NaOH, H2SO4, Citric, and HCl. 4. Enhanced boron removal may not be necessary depending on feedwater quality. 5. Antiscalant assumed to not be used due to sulphuric acid use. 6. NaOH may not be necessary if pH is raised sufficiently through calcite beds. 7. Coagulant used to improve sludge thickening in thickening tanks (screened intake only).


Page 5-30

5.3 POWER SERVICE

The SWRO desalination process, pretreatment, and associated conveyance pumping (i.e. DWPS) are extremely energy intensive processes that requires its own discussion. This section describes the feasibility of traditional and alternative sources of power service for the proposed seawater desalination facility. These potential sources of power include:

Utility supplied electric power (from the grid);

Cogeneration technology such as natural gas-fueled turbine generators;

This section would focus on the preliminary utility support requirements and available on-site self-generation options. Information for this section and costs associated with power service were obtained from a technical memorandum (TM) written by DHK Engineers, entitled Seawater Desalination Feasibility Study - Utility Provisions (April 5, 2009). DHK Engineer’s complete TM is provided in Appendix F. In recent years, technological advances in renewable energy production and legislative incentives have made the utilization of power generated by renewable power supplies such as solar, wind, or wave power (currently, not commercially available), a viable alternative to, or enhancement (supplement) of power supplied by local utilities. For smaller capacity desalination plants, renewable energy is a very attractive alternative compared to traditional utility supplied power. The size of any renewable energy infrastructure to fully support a project of this magnitude exceeds feasibility, yet renewable energy could be pursued at any time during the project as a potential supplemental power source. Camp Pendleton has several locations that could potentially utilize wind turbines to generate power. Several large rooftops (i.e. warehouses, etc.) exist throughout Camp Pendleton that have the potential to locate photovoltaic (solar) panels to generate power. Although, currently not commercially available, wave energy is an emerging segment of the renewable energy market. An offshore wave energy farm could potentially be located off the coast of Camp Pendleton, with power brought to shore by an electrical cable on the seafloor. Phase 1 consists of constructing a desalination facility capable of producing 50 mgd of desalinated water. This process would require approximately 105–130 mgd of raw seawater, which varies depending on the utilized intake. The pretreatment process for the feedwater (raw seawater) include, drum screens, dissolved air flotation (DAF), ultra-filtration (UF) membranes, and cartridge filters. After pretreatment, the filtrate would be pumped through high-pressure SWRO membranes to produce desalinated water. The desalinated water undergoes post-treatment before being pumped to the Water Authority’s Twin Oaks facility as later discussed in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7. The two


Page 5-31

desalination facility site alternatives, SRTTP and MCTSSA, would have initial electrical loads in the range of 35 to 45 megawatts (MW), respectively. Table 5-8 below, demonstrates the approximate power load requirements associated with each step of the desalination process. As would be demonstrated in Chapter 9, the MCTSSA Site would use a screened open-ocean intake, although any intake method discussed in Chapter 3 is feasible, until further offshore hydrogeologic testing is conducted. Therefore Table 5-8 demonstrates a worst case, due to the additional power required for the UF system. The SRTTP Site would use a subsurface intake and therefore would not require a UF membrane system. For the purpose of this evaluation, a 40 MW load would be considered.

Table 5-8 Average Power Requirements – 50 MGD

Process Equipment Power (kw)

Drum Screens Drum power, washwater pumps, dirty water transfer pumps 40 DAF Units Flocculators, air compressors, Recirculation pumps, sludge pumps 390 UF Systems UF draw pumps, backwash pumps, air blowers 5,100 SWRO Systems Feedwater pumps, RO feed pumps, ERD pumps, CIP pumps, etc. 24,900 Post-Treatment Product transfer pumps, Calcite backwash pumps 750 Conveyance DWPS 12,430 Residuals Handling Thickener motor, Sludge pumps, Centrifuge or belt-press 140 Chemical feed systems Pretreatment, SWRO, Post-treatment 45 Miscellaneous Valves, controls, etc. 60 Buildings UF, SWRO, Admin/Lab 1,150 Residuals handling, substation, etc.

TOTAL 45 MW


Page 5-32

5.3.1 Existing Utilities

Electrical Service Both site alternatives are located on Camp Pendleton, where power service is provided by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). SDG&E purchases power from various sources. Southern California Edison (SCE) is one of the local power generators that SDG&E purchases power from. SCE owns and operates the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). SONGS is located in the north region of Camp Pendleton and a major electrical transmission line servicing the San Diego Metropolitan Area is located within 2 miles of each site alternative. Several stepped down electrical service lines are currently extended to each site location with unknown available kilovolt amperes (kVA) service. The service capacity and the resulting transformer switchyard would be selected to the highest available service, which would be at least 16 kVA. Access easements, environmental permitting, design, and construction of the interconnection to the SDG&E service would typically be completed by SDG&E with revenue recovered by the project. The SDG&E Planning Department has a straightforward process for allocating electrical service, load management, rate negotiation, and capital recovery. The desalination facility would typically operate as a base-loaded facility (operational 24 hours per day), would be able to shutdown without safety issues, and produces and conveys potable water. These factors would be beneficial when developing the terms of a power purchase agreement (PPA) with SDG&E.

Natural Gas On-site power generation is being evaluated to determine a cost-effective approach to satisfy each facility’s electrical requirements and potential merits of a cogeneration classification for preferred natural gas rates. An inquiry was made regarding the high-pressure natural gas lines within the project area. A 12-inch high-pressure natural gas line, with an operating pressure of 290 pounds per square inch (psig), is located east of I-5, and immediately adjacent to each site alternative (see Figure 5-17). Large natural gas users are classified as “non-core users”. Since a cogeneration facility of this magnitude would use a large amount of natural gas, the rules of natural gas procurement and transportation vary. The cost of natural gas depends on the following:

Amount of natural gas required;

Reliability of natural gas service; and

Service pressure.

Due to regulations imposed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), SDG&E is not authorized to provide gas services to non-core customers. As a result, the non-core customers are required to purchase natural gas from a supplier other than


Page 5-33

SDG&E. Several natural gas providers service the San Diego area and would be available to negotiate terms and conditions associated with the purchase agreement. The cost of natural gas has varied substantially over the past several years with commodity pricing ranging from $4.50 per dekatherm (Dth) in February 2009 to as high as $13.00 per Dth in late 2007, early 2008. The natural gas forecast provided by the California Energy Commission Projections 2006-2015 (CEC 2006) indicate an upward trend with a maximum rate of $8.00 per Dth in 2015. It should be noted that the global and geopolitical factors must be considered when forecasting future commodity prices. The project would be able to negotiate a long-term natural gas contract with a natural gas provider and SDG&E would charge a transmission supplemental fee. Refer to Chapter 10 – Cost Development for detailed capital and O&M cost tables relating to power service.

5.3.2 Power Service - Option 1 Power for the proposed desalination facility would be obtained from the local power grid. As mentioned previously, the desalination facility would require approximately 40-MW of electrical service on a continuous basis. It is anticipated that service can be arranged for a minimum of 66 kVA from the adjacent power service. The ability of the facility to be turned down or partially curtailed (load shedding) during critical region power shortages is uncertain. The facility operating profile(s) would assess:

Demand charges;

Transmission and usage fees;

Taxes (varies); and

Miscellaneous charges.

Each site requires approximately two miles of transmission lines to reach an appropriate service connection. The transmission lines and on-site transformers are typically constructed by SDG&E. The SDG&E capital recovery provision (surcharge) is typically included in the PPA and would be a line item in the monthly bill. The service availability from SDG&E for a 40 MW continuous load (16 kVA) is probable although project specific requirements regarding the availability of the project load has not been confirmed with SDG&E Planners for the specific area. The implementation schedule for the electrical service would be as follows:

1. Meet with SDG&E Planning group; 2. Meet with Camp Pendleton personnel; 3. Fatal flaw analysis for alignment options (i.e. MCBCP mission impacts); 4. Confirmation of load profiles and other project demands;


Page 5-34

5. Environmental impact analysis for transmission alignment; 6. Negotiate power purchase agreement and interconnection strategy; 7. SDG&E constructs interconnection service; 8. SDCWA constructs facility; 9. SDG&E provides interconnection to facility.

The overall timeline would take approximately 1 to 3 years. The 3-year timeline critical path factors include:

Lengthy (~ 2 mi) transmission line to main 66 kVA service connection;

MCBCP restrictions for flight and/or mission constraints;

Environmental restrictions for construction of transmission lines; and

Unavailable electrical resources within SDG&E service area.

A 2-MW emergency back-up power system is recommended as a minimum to ensure health and safety of operations staff, and facility security in the event that the SDG&E service is curtailed and/or disrupted due to natural disaster or other unforeseen events. The greater the electrical service connection capacity the less the resulting transmission losses. In other words, high voltage transmits electrical energy more efficiently over long distances. Future considerations for self generation would be easier with a higher service capacity to enable selling excess power to SDG&E (or the California Grid). For the purpose of this report, a 16 kVA service would be assumed. The switchyard (substation) would be designed for 16 kVA with step-down transformers for plant electrical requirements. A step-down switchyard from SDG&E with 69 kVA feeders to a lower service 16 kVA would allow overhead or underground service lines. Rather than conveying power from the main transmission power lines that traverses (north-south) through MCBCP from SONGS at a distance of approximately 2 miles from each site, closer power transmission lines exist that traverse (north-south) along the west side of the Stuart Mesa housing area (east side of the tomato fields east of I-5). These power lines then head northeast along Macs Road once it gets to SMR. It has not yet been determined if these power lines have the capacity to fulfill the desalination facility power requirements. A third option is to convey power directly from an existing 69 kVA power substation (Stuart Mesa) located in the northwest corner of the Stuart Mesa Housing area, east of I-5. Whether the substation has capacity to supply the required amount of energy to the desalination facility would need to be confirmed. Several power line alignment options (overhead or underground) exist to convey power from either power source mentioned above as illustrated in Figure 5-17.


Page 5-35

Figure 5-17: Potential Power Line Alignment Options

5.3.3 Power Service - Option 2 A second option for electrical power would be to construct an on-site, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed power generation facility. SDCWA has the charter and legal authority to develop its own power producing facility in support of a Water Authority project. A qualifying cogeneration facility (topping-cycle) requires an efficiency standard of 42.5% of the total energy input of natural gas with useful thermal energy of the facility no less than 5 percent of the total energy input. Classification as a Qualifying Facility (QF) allows for purchase of natural gas at a preferred rate; export and sell excess power at the “avoided utility cost”; and requires the area service provider to accept the generated power.


Page 5-36

Cogeneration Power Facility The cogeneration QF would consist of a 40-MW combined cycle steam turbine power block, and a Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) facility using the waste heat generated by the combined heat and power (CHP) facility. Potential waste heat utilization sources include:

Pre-heating feedwater supply to the proposed desalination facility to increase SWRO efficiency; exporting steam across the fence-line to MCBCP for refrigeration at the commissary and/or space heating/cooling in nearby buildings.

A 40-MW combined cycle cogeneration system would have an overall thermal efficiency of approximately 60-70 percent (Lower Heating Values – LHV). The combined cycle system is 20-30 percent more efficient than a simple cycle system. The additional efficiency represents capture and reuse of waste heat that results in increased generation of electricity. Table 5-9 provides the preliminary design criteria for a combine cycle power plant using a General Electric LM6000 PD-40 MW configuration. Advance emission control technology would be required for the facility. Gas Turbine emission technology has been successfully developed and operated using low NOx technology in combination with selective catalytic reduction, ammonia addition, and steam re-injection. The facility would be equipped with a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS). It is anticipated that NOx requirements would be in the range of 6-9 ppm at 15 percent oxygen (O2) based upon evaluations of recent power plant emissions data within the San Diego region.

Table 5-9 40-MW Combined Cycle Plant Preliminary Design Criteria

Performance Characteristics Units Value Electrical Capacity MW 40 Electric Heat Rate BTU/kWh, HHV 9,220 Electrical Efficiency % HHV 37 Fuel Input MMBTU/hr 368.8 Required Gas Pressure psig 435 CHP Characteristics Exhaust Steam Flow 1,000 lbs/hr 954 Gas Turbine Exhaust temperature Degrees F 854 HRSG Exhaust Gas temperature Degrees F 280 Steam Output MMBTU/hr 136.8 Steam Output kW eq. 40,100 Total CHP Efficiency % HHV 74 Power/Heat Ratio -- 1.0 Net Heat Rate BTU/kWh 4,944 Effective Electrical Efficiency %, HHV 69


Page 5-37

Figure 5-19 provides a generic site plan for a 40-MW cogen facility including switchyard, water treatment, gas compression, gas metering, gas turbine, HRSG, and MED system. The arrangement of the facility would be dependent on the final facility location, orientation of support utilities, and available land.

Waste Heat Options Waste heat extracted by the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) would provide a continuous low pressure steam source. A QF cogeneration plant would be required to “beneficially use” 15% of the inlet fuel source. From Table 5-9, 15% of fuel input would represent approximately 55 MMBTU/hr. Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) is used around the world to produce drinking water from seawater. MED takes place in a series of vessels or effects (as shown in Figure 5-18), and uses the principle of reducing the ambient temperature and pressure in the various effects. This allows the feedwater to undergo multiple boiling points without supplying additional heat after the first effect. In an MED plant, the seawater enters the first effect and is raised to the boiling point after being preheated in tubes. The seawater is either sprayed or otherwise distributed onto the surface of horizontal evaporator tubes in a thin film to promote rapid boiling and evaporation. The tubes are heated by steam from the power generation process, which is then condensed on the opposite sides of the tubes.

Figure 5-18: MED Process Schematic Only a portion of the seawater applied to the tubes in the first effect is evaporated. The remaining feed water is fed to the second effect, where it is again applied to a tube bundle. These tubes are in turn being heated by the vapors created in the first effect. This vapor is condensed to fresh water, while giving up heat to evaporate a portion of the remaining seawater feed in the next effect. This continues for several effects, with 8 or 16 effects being found in a typical large plant.


Page 5-38

Any number of evaporative-condensers (effects) may be incorporated into the plant’s heat recovery sections, depending on the temperature and cost of the available low grade heat and the optimal trade-off point between investment and steam economy. The MED (IDE Technologies) system is optimal for back pressure steam from a combined cycle system as discussed above. The low pressure steam from a 40-MW facility can produce 1.5 – 2.0 mgd of distilled water. Typically, the remaining seawater in each effect would be pumped to the next effect to apply it to the next tube bundle. Additional condensation takes place in each effect on tubes that bring the feed water from its source through the plant to the first effect. This warms the feed water before it is evaporated in the first effect. MED plants are typically built in units of 0.5 to 2.5 mgd but 10 mgd plants have been built. Some of the more recent plants have been built to operate with a top temperature (in the first effect) of about 158 degrees F, which reduces the potential for scaling of seawater within the plant but in turn increases the need for additional heat transfer area in the form of tubes. Most of the more recent applications for MED plants have been in the Caribbean.

Revenue Recovery One benefit of a QF plant and requirement for a stand alone desalination facility is the interconnection to the utility power grid. The interconnection to the SDG&E grid would allow the cogen facility to start-up and shut-down without tripping the local service to the facility and allows the desalination plant to operate at various loads without major adjustment to the cogen facility load profile. The plant may also provide a localized grid stabilization source for SDG&E, and allows the Water Authority to sell excess electricity to SDG&E. The details of the interconnection, standby charges, exported power to SDG&E, and terms and conditions are part of the purchased power negotiation process.

Implementation Cross connection to the SDG&E utility grid would be required for electrical power back-up and provide a means to distribute and sell excess electrical power not consumed by the facility. For both power service options, an electrical backbone and interconnection would be required. The electrical infrastructure would allow phasing of the cogeneration options and/or partially offsetting the plant electrical requirements. The ultimate sizing and project phasing would be a coordinated effort by all parties focusing on system reliability, ability to provide a localized power source for Camp Pendleton, as well as the benefits of various uses for the waste heat derived from the cogeneration facility. The implementation schedule for the cogeneration alternative would be as follows:


Page 5-39

1. Meeting with SDG&E Planning Group for electrical backbone and interconnection

requirements.

2. Meeting with Camp Pendleton personnel for possible partnering, use of waste heat and partial load allocation.

3. Fatal flaw for cogeneration options (i.e. MCBCP mission impacts including height/obstacle requirements).

4. Permitting requirements through local planning organization or CEC (12-month review process).

5. Confirmation of load profiles and other project demands. 6. Environmental impact analysis and permitting (NEPA and CEQA due to federal

land administration within California). 7. Negotiate PPA and interconnection strategy with SDG&E. 8. SDG&E constructs interconnection service. 9. SDG&E constructs natural gas pipeline interconnection. 10. SDWCA cogeneration facility design. 11. SDCWA constructs facility. 12. Cogeneration permitting as a Qualifying Facility. 13. SDG&E provides interconnection to facility.

The overall timeline would be approximately 2 to 5 years. The 5-year timeline critical path factors include:

Lengthy (~ 2 mi) transmission line to 66 kVA service connection;

MCBCP restrictions for flight and/or mission constraints;

Environmental restrictions for construction of transmission lines;

Procurement of emission reduction credits; and

Ability to construct desalination facility within timeframe.

The Capital and O&M cost estimates for a 40-MW cogen facility are provided in Chapter 10 – Cost Development.

Permitting Issues Prior to 1975, utilities were required to go through a multi-year process to obtain permits from numerous federal, state, and local agencies before constructing new power plants. The Legislature established the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1975 and mandated a comprehensive siting process for new power plants. The Legislature gave the CEC statutory authority to license thermal power plants with capacity in excess of 50 MW including transmission lines, fuel supply lines, and related support facilities


Page 5-40

Although the Phase 1 facility would be sized less than the 50 MW threshold, the permitting process, potential subsequent mitigation measures, and requirements would follow a similar path. The advantage of the QF classification (meeting the efficiency standards set forth in the PU Code Section 218.5) is the allowance of preferred natural gas rates as well as providing a source to sell excess generated electrical power to SDG&E at the “utility avoidable rate”. The facility would be classified as a “must take” by SDG&E. The operation of a cogen power plant in concert with a 40-MW desalination facility would require flexibility to start-up and/or shutdown equipment. Connection to the SDG&E grid would provide this capacity. The purchase power agreement would outline the terms and conditions including standby-capacity fees to provide this system flexibility.

An air emission offset (emission reduction credits) would be required for the cogeneration facility. The emission reduction credits would be procured and assigned to the project. The availability and associated costs is uncertain but would present a critical evaluation and cost analysis as the project moves forward.

Cogeneration equipment consists of several large and tall elements including a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) and stack. The stack would present a potential flight obstacle. Therefore, siting and clearance must be approved by Camp Pendleton, before any further investigation. Once-through cooling is planned for the generator, so the need for evaporative cooling towers is not anticipated. However, in the event cooling towers are required, the vapor plume may be considered a flight obstacle as well, especially when considering the typical atmospheric conditions along the coast. Close communications with Camp Pendleton personnel would be required throughout this project.

5.3.4 Power Recommendations Power service options would be discussed further with SDG&E and Camp Pendleton. Option 1 would provide a reliable interconnection to the grid and electrical service. Option 2 (cogeneration) would require a substantial portion of the transmission interconnection assets required for Option 1. If the cogeneration option is initially pursed and constructed during phase 1, the substation located at the desalination facility would be sized for 34 kVA to import/export power. If option 1 is initially used, and power is provided by the main transmission line (230 kVA and 69 kVA), approximately 2 miles from either site, the substation located at the desalination facility would be sized for 16 kVA feeders. Although an alternative may exist to utilize the Stuart Mesa Substation, it may be in the projects best interest to construct a new substation adjacent to the SDG&E primary transmission lines and in essence control the transmission system to and from the desalination facility.


Page 5-41

With QF status, Option 2 would require an interconnection to the utility grid in order for start-up and shutdown capability, exporting and selling excess power, stabilization of the local grid, and allow the cogeneration facility to operate in a safe and optimal configuration. Areas for the cogeneration and switchyard should be designated within the overall project footprint to ensure adequate space is available as illustrated in Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-5. The electrical switchyard and plant power bus should be installed during Phase 1 to allow the option of installation and interconnection of the cogeneration facility as part of Phase 1 or as part of a later phase. It is critical that the cogeneration option remain a consideration during the next level of design and through PPA negotiations with SDG&E. The terms and conditions of the PPA may be easier to negotiate with Option 2 partially or fully developed. Although technological advances in renewable energy production and legislative incentives have made the utilization of power generated by renewable power supplies such as solar, wind, or wave power (currently, not commercially available), a viable alternative to power supplied by local utilities, the size of any renewable energy infrastructure to fully support a project of this magnitude exceeds feasibility. Renewable energy could be pursued at any time during the project as a potential supplemental power source. Camp Pendleton has several locations that could potentially utilize wind turbines to generate power. Many large rooftops (i.e. warehouses, etc.) exist throughout Camp Pendleton that have the potential to install photovoltaic (solar) panels to generate power. Wave energy is currently not commercially available, yet when it is, an offshore wave energy farm could potentially be located off the coast of Camp Pendleton, with power brought to shore by an electrical cable on the seafloor.

MSHATILA

Text Box

FIGURE 5-19

MSHATILA

Rectangle

MSHATILA

Rectangle

MSHATILA

Rectangle

MSHATILA

Rectangle


Page 5-43

5.4 FACILITY SUSTAINABILITY

Building design would follow the principles of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. This is a program of the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and is developed to promote construction of sustainable buildings that reduce the overall impact of building construction and functions on the environment by:

Sustainable site selection and development;

Energy efficiency;

Materials selection;

Indoor environmental quality; and

Water savings.

Consistent with the principles of the LEED program, the desalination facility would include features and materials that allow minimizing energy use for lighting, air-conditioning, and ventilation. For example, non-emergency interior lighting would be automatically controlled to turn off in unoccupied rooms and facilities, and a monitoring system would ensure that the ventilation in the individual working areas in the building is maintained at its design minimum requirements. Buildings would be designed to maximize use of natural light. A potential enhancement of a green building design is the option to install a rooftop photovoltaic (PV) system for solar power generation. The power generated from the PV system could be used to supply power to a portion of the desalination facility, while reducing the projects net carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of the seawater desalination plant is the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that would be released into the air from the power generation sources that would supply electricity for the facility. Most of the time, carbon footprint is measured in pounds (lb) or metric tons (t) of CO2 emitted per year (CO2/y). The Total plant carbon footprint is dependant on these key factors:

Quantity of electricity used by the desalination facility;

Source (fossil fuels, wind, solar, etc.) used to generate electricity for the facility;

Transportation and production of chemicals.

The energy used at the facility is converted into a carbon footprint by multiplying it by the electric-grid emission factor (EF), which is the amount of greenhouse gasses (GHG) emitted during the production of unit electricity consumed from the power transmission and distribution system. The actual value of the EF is specific to the supplier of electricity for the project and is determined based on a standard protocol developed by the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR), the authority in California that sets the rules by which GHG emissions are determined and accounted for. A GHG analysis is out of scope for this feasibility study but would be conducted during the EIR process.


Page 5-44



Page 6-1

CHAPTER 6: DESALINATED WATER CONVEYANCE

6.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter evaluates the preliminary design criteria of the Desalinated Water Conveyance Pipeline (DWCP) and associated pump stations for the Water Authority’s proposed desalination facility located near the southwest region of MCB Camp Pendleton. The DWCP is not limited to the proposed alignment in this study. Other alignment alternatives would be analyzed as part of subsequent planning studies. The DWCP consists of a series of recommended component facilities designed to deliver desalinated water to the Water Authority’s Twin Oaks Diversion Structure (TODS) or Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant (TOVWTP) Clearwell. The TODS assists in diverting water to different transmission pipelines within the Water Authority’s First (Pipeline 1 and 2) and Second Aqueduct (Pipeline 3, 4, and 5). Therefore water can be distributed throughout San Diego County from this location. An alternative that could eliminate 2.3 miles of conveyance pipeline is to connect directly to Pipeline 4, north of the TODS (Section 6.3.4). The location is at the east end of the Water Authority’s existing North County Distribution Pipeline (NCDP), just west of the City of Oceanside’s Robert A. Weese Water Treatment Plant (Weese WTP). Another cost saving alternative that will be discussed, is to utilize the Water Authority’s existing NCDP (Section 6.3.4). This option requires a water exchange agreement with the City of Oceanside and an additional 25 mgd pump station (Section 6.7), but would avoid constructing an additional 3.7 miles of conveyance pipeline. For a detailed discussion on product (desalinated) water integration into existing and proposed Water Authority facilities, refer to Chapter 7. The DWCP segments and facilities to be discussed in this Chapter are the:

South Boundary Pipeline (SBP) Segment – Section 6.1;

Oceanside Pipeline Segment – Section 0;

Water Authority Pipeline (WAP) Segment – Section 6.3;

Initial Lift: Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS) – Section 6.5; and

Intermediate Lift: Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station (TOVPS) – Section 6.6;

Many factors are evaluated for the DWCP, including system hydraulic requirements, constructability, environmental constraints, and operational impacts. This chapter will recommend conceptual design information for each pump station for the 50 mgd, 100


Page 6-2

mgd, and 150 mgd capacities. The DWCP, DWPS, and TOVPS structures would be sized for 150 mgd, with pumping capacity (pumps) installed in phases. Currently, the DWCP would be a 72-inch diameter mortar lined and coated steel pipe (MLCSP) capable of conveying 150 mgd of desalinated water, which would flow at an approximate velocity of 8.0 ft/s. Water Authority standards state that pipeline velocity be less than 10.0 ft/s. The total dynamic head (TDH) for 150 mgd is approximately 1,010 feet (437 psi) with a static lift of 800 feet from the DWPS to the TOVPS. If the pipeline were increased 12-inches in diameter, an 84-inch diameter pipeline would decrease the TDH to approximately 900 feet (390 psi). With a TDH difference of approximately 110 feet, it may be beneficial to increase the pipeline diameter. If the DWCP diameter is increased to 84-inches and the 72-inch diameter NCDP were utilized for this project as is recommended later in this chapter, a reducer would be required. Once the official alignment and pumping requirements are established, an additional DWCP study would be required to determine the most beneficial pipe size, based on life cycle costs (i.e. installation costs vs. pumping cost).

6.1 SOUTH BOUNDARY PIPELINE SEGMENT

6.1.1 Description The South Boundary Pipeline (SBP) segment of the DWCP would ultimately convey desalinated water from the DWPS located at the desalination plant (at either the SRTTP or MCTSSA Site) to a connection point with the Oceanside Pipeline segment as illustrated in Figure 6-1. The point of connection for the SBP and the Oceanside Pipeline segments is located on the toe of the south (or north) levee of the San Luis Rey River (SLRR) near Whelan Lake in the City of Oceanside. The SBP consists of two pipeline alignment alternatives, which are listed below and further discussed in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.1.4:

Ysidora Basin Pipeline (YBP); and

Wire Mountain Pipeline (WMP).

The YBP and WMP alignments can technically be utilized by either of the desalination facility site alternatives (MCTSSA or SRTTP). The YBP alignment is preferred over the WMP alignment for either site location since the alignment is located predominately in open-space (ease of construction) and would not greatly impact the housing and training areas within Camp Pendleton. Several pipeline connector options exist to convey water from either of the site alternatives to the origin of the proposed SBP alignment. The connector pipeline selection is dependant on the desalination facility site and SBP route (YBP or WMP)


Page 6-3

chosen. Five connector pipeline segments exist, which are listed below and described in detail in Sections 6.1.5 – 6.1.9:

Lower Santa Margarita River (SMR) Road Connector;

Santa Margarita River (SMR) Connector;

Railroad Connector;

Stuart Mesa Road Connector;

Vandegrift Blvd Connector;

6.1.2 Design Criteria Figure 6-1 illustrates the proposed SBP segment alternatives, connector pipelines, and areas of special concern within the alignments. The preliminary design of the entire DWCP is based on desalinated water production during maximum demand for the ultimate project (150 mgd). Table 6-1 below summarizes the preliminary design data for the SBP alternatives and connectors, while Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 demonstrate the ground and hydraulic profile of the entire DWCP alignment. Air release valves (ARV) and air vacuum valves (AVV) or combination valves would be installed at high points and sudden grade changes along the alignment in order to prevent water column separation, vacuum conditions, and release accumulated air from the pipeline. The pipeline would be constructed of mortar lined and coated (tape) steel pipe (MLCSP).

Table 6-1 South Boundary Pipeline Preliminary Design Data

Description Ultimate Project System Design Flow: 150 mgd Recommended Pipeline Diameter: 72-inch Pipe Material: MLCSP Pressure Class: 500 psi South Boundary Pipeline Alt. Routes: Ysidora Basin Pipeline Alignment: 25,000 LF Wire Mountain Pipeline Alignment: 28,000 LF Connector Pipeline Alternatives: Lower SMR Road Connector: 12,000 LF SMR Connector: 1,200 LF Railroad Connector: 1,700 LF Stuart Mesa Road Connector: 2,250 LF Vandegrift Blvd. Connector: 1,300 LF


Page 6-4

6.1.3 Ysidora Basin Pipeline Alignment

Description The Ysidora Basin Pipeline (YBP) alignment is approximately 5.0 miles long and begins just east of Stuart Mesa Road north of the SMR in Camp Pendleton. The YBP runs northerly for approximately 2.4 miles along Lower Santa Margarita River (SMR) Road (unpaved road), along the north bank of the SMR. The alignment then runs east along El Camino Real (unpaved road), through the Lower Ysidora Basin. The pipeline would be installed along most of its alignment using open trench construction. Trenchless construction methods would be used under both the SMR and Vandegrift Blvd. From the southeast side of Vandegrift Blvd, the pipeline would continue east on El Camino Real (unpaved road) using open-trench construction to the Camp Pendleton / Oceanside border near Whelan Lake. From this location, the pipeline would be installed using trenchless construction methods under the environmentally sensitive open-space area to the toe of the levee on either the north or south side of the San Luis Rey River (SLRR) where it would connect with the Oceanside Pipeline segment.

Construction Concerns The YBP alignment crosses the Kinder-Morgan petroleum pipeline. Additional safety measures would need to be implemented to insure the protection of the gas pipeline and working crew when trenching near these petroleum pipelines. Due to the close proximity of the pipeline to the SMR, certain sections of the pipeline may require additional protection, due to potential SMR flooding and erosion concerns. Due to limitations of traditional trench construction, trenchless installation methods consisting of jack-and-bore drilling, micro-tunneling, or directional drilling may be required at the following locations:

Santa Margarita River / Vandegrift Blvd Crossing;

Environmentally sensitive conservancy area near Whelan Lake; and

San Luis Rey River Crossing (if DWCP follows the south levee - Section 0).

6.1.4 Wire Mountain Pipeline Alignment

Description The Wire Mountain Pipeline (WMP) alignment is approximately 5.3 miles long, generally employing open-trench construction, beginning at the intersection of Vandegrift Blvd and Ash Road in Camp Pendleton. The alignment runs south along Ash Road to the recently constructed military housing at Daffodil Street. From this point, the pipeline would jog southwest and follow the property line between the new military housing area and the North Terrace Elementary School, where it would intersect Capistrano Street in the City


Page 6-5

of Oceanside. The pipeline would then run south along Loretta Street (fire access road) southwest to the SLRR. The pipeline would be installed using trenchless construction methods under the SLRR to the toe of the levee on the south bank. The pipeline would follow east along the levee (bike trail), where it would connect with the Oceanside Pipeline segment near Whelan Lake.

Construction Concerns The WMP alignment crosses the Kinder-Morgan petroleum pipeline along the SLRR near Fireside Park in Oceanside. Additional safety measures would need to be implemented to insure the protection of the pipeline and working crew when trenching near these petroleum pipelines. Construction of the WMP would impact the Wire Mountain Housing area. Ash Road would be highly impacted during construction and vehicle traffic may be limited. Fortunately, two other roads (Wire Mountain Road and Carnes Road) are capable of accessing all areas of the Wire Mountain Housing area. Construction activities associated with the WMP could potentially result in the temporary closure or narrowing of the SLRR bike path, which may ultimately limit access for pedestrians and bicyclists. The SLRR levee bike path begins near I-5 and continues east to College Blvd. Due to limitations of traditional trench construction, trenchless installation methods consisting of jack-and-bore drilling, micro-tunneling, or directional drilling may be required to cross the SLRR near Loretta Street.

6.1.5 Lower Santa Margarita River Road Connector

Description The Lower Santa Margarita River (SMR) Road Connector pipeline is approximately 12,000 LF (~2.2 mi) and would be utilized to connect the desalination facility located at the MCTSSA Site directly to the YBP alignment. If the WMP alignment were preferred, the Lower SMR Road Connector would be used in conjunction with the SMR and Stuart Mesa Road Connectors. The Lower SMR Road Connector pipeline alignment begins at the MCTSSA Site and follows Lower SMR Road, under Highway 5, and terminates at the beginning of the YBP, just east of Stuart Mesa Road. The pipeline installation would probably require road and improvement along Lower SMR Road under I-5.

Construction Concerns An area of concern regarding construction of the Lower SMR Road Connector pipeline is the I-5 and Stuart Mesa Road Crossings. Stuart Mesa Road is a heavily traveled arterial road within Camp Pendleton, and traffic impacts should be kept to a minimum. Due to limitations of traditional trench construction, trenchless installation methods consisting of


Page 6-6

jack-and-bore drilling, micro-tunneling, or directional drilling may be required at the following locations:

Stuart Mesa Road Crossing;

Highway 5 Crossing.

The I-5 crossing may be able to be accomplished without trenchless construction. If this occurs, that section of pipeline would require additional protection, due to Caltrans requirements, and potential SMR flooding and erosion concerns.

6.1.6 Santa Margarita River Connector

Description The Santa Margarita River (SMR) Connector pipeline is approximately 1,200 LF and is used to cross the SMR using trenchless construction. The SMR Connector pipeline could be used in conjunction with either the Stuart Mesa Road Connector or Railroad Connector to connect the SRTTP Site to the YBP alignment. It may also be used in conjunction with the Lower SMR Road and Stuart Mesa Road Connectors to connect the MCTSSA Site to the WMP alignment.

Construction Concerns Due to the environmentally sensitive areas surrounding the SMR, trenchless installation methods consisting of jack-and-bore drilling, micro-tunneling, or directional drilling may be required to cross the SMR so as not to disturb any environmentally sensitive areas.

6.1.7 Railroad Connector

Description The Railroad Connector pipeline is approximately 1,700 LF and follows the existing railroad spurs (National Strategic Rail System) that traverse the SRTTP Site. The railroad spurs are currently active and are used to deploy troops and equipment in the case of rapid deployment. The staging area where this occurs is south of the SRTTP Site, just south of Lemon Grove Road. The railroad spurs end near SMR at Stuart Mesa Road. The portion of railroad spurs that traverse the SRTTP Site is assumed to not be in use (north of the staging area). The Railroad Connector pipeline is only applicable to connect the SRTTP Site to the YBP alignment. This connector would be used in lieu of the Vandegrift Blvd and Stuart Mesa Road Connector pipelines and would therefore be more beneficial to the base since traffic impacts on Vandegrift Blvd. and Stuart Mesa Road would be minimized.


Page 6-7

Construction Concerns One concern regarding the Railroad Connector is the construction impacts associated with installing a pipeline parallel to the existing railroad line without impacting rail service. Although not anticipated, pipeline construction activities within the National Strategic Rail System corridor could potentially result in disruption or delay of operation of the railroad, due to the presence of construction vehicles and workers, or staging area requirements. Due to close proximity to the SMR, erosion conditions exist along the Railroad Connector pipeline alignment and therefore the pipeline would need to be protected against possible flooding events. Portions of the existing railroad corridor may also need to be improved to insure rail safety and stability.

6.1.8 Stuart Mesa Road Connector

Description The Stuart Mesa Road Connector pipeline is approximately 2,250 LF and parallels Stuart Mesa Road from the SMR (south bank) to the WMP alignment. The Stuart Mesa Road Connector would be used in conjunction with the Lower SMR Road and SMR Connectors to connect the MCTSSA Site to the WMP alignment. It could also be used in conjunction with the Vandegrift Blvd and SMR Connectors to connect the SRTTP Site to the YBP alignment.

Construction Concerns Construction of this pipeline would have an impact to vehicular traffic on Stuart Mesa Road if the pipeline is constructed within the existing roadway. This can be minimized by installing the pipeline offset from Stuart Mesa Road, outside of the paved roadway.

6.1.9 Vandegrift Blvd Connector

Description The Vandegrift Blvd Connector pipeline is approximately 1,300 LF and parallels Vandegrift Blvd just north of the commissary near Lemon Grove Road. This connector would only be needed for the SRTTP Site in lieu of the Railroad Connector. It can directly connect the SRTTP Site to the WMP alignment or be used in conjunction with the Stuart Mesa Road and SMR Connectors to connect to the YBP alignment.

Construction Concerns Construction of this pipeline would have an impact to vehicular traffic on Vandegrift Blvd if the pipeline were constructed within the existing roadway. This can be minimized by installing the pipeline offset from Vandegrift Blvd, outside of the paved roadway.


Page 6-8

6.1.10 Recommendation SBP alignments were chosen because they could accommodate a 72-inch diameter pipeline. The preferred SBP alignment, independent of either desalination site (MCTSSA or SRTTP) is the Ysidora Basin Pipeline (YBP) alignment. A majority of the YBP alignment traverses the southwest corner of Camp Pendleton, yet the alignment has minimal impacts to base housing; operations and training; and the SLRR levee. The YBP alignment runs parallel to unpaved, minimal traffic, roads (Lower Santa Margarita River Road and El Camino Real), and therefore avoids construction (traffic) impacts and disturbances along surface streets. This is a complete contrast to the Wire Mountain Pipeline (WMP) alignment, which impacts Ash Road, the Wire Mountain Housing area, and the SLRR levee bike path. The entire YBP alignment is constructed within non-traffic, unpaved roads through the base (Lower Santa Margarita River Road and El Camino Real). The YBP alignment would cross the Kinder-Morgan Petroleum pipeline near the Camp Pendleton / Oceanside border. When trenching near this petroleum pipeline, many safety measures would need to be implemented to insure the protection of the pipeline and working crew. Due to limitations of traditional trench construction, trenchless construction methods consisting of jack-and-bore drilling, micro-tunneling, or horizontal directional drilling (HDD) may be required for the YBP alignment at the SMR / Vandegrift Blvd Crossing; environmentally sensitive area near Whelan Lake; and the SLRR Crossing if the DWCP were to continue east on the south levee. If the SRTTP site is used, an additional SMR crossing would be required east of Stuart Mesa Road to access the start of the YBP alignment. If the MCTSSA site is used, a trenchless construction installation may be required to cross under I-5 along the Lower Santa Margarita River Road. During construction, the transport of hazardous materials would also occur, as trucks would be required to carry such materials through Camp Pendleton and around sensitive areas such as the SMR. In addition, petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, crankcase oil, lubricants, and cleaning solvents, would be present during construction. These products would be used to fuel, lubricate, and clean vehicles and equipment, and would be transported in containerized trucks or in other approved containers. When not in use, hazardous materials would be properly stored to prevent drainage or accidents.


Page 6-10

6.2 OCEANSIDE PIPELINE SEGMENT

6.2.1 Description The Oceanside Pipeline segment of the DWCP is approximately 8.3 miles long and would convey desalinated water from the SBP segment connection near Whelan Lake to the Water Authority Pipeline (WAP) segment connection near the east end of the Water Authority’s existing North County Distribution Pipeline (NCDP) in San Diego County, as illustrated in Figure 6-2. The Oceanside Pipeline alignment begins on the north or south levee of the San Luis Rey River (SLRR) near Whelan Lake. If the SBP segment is constructed along the preferred YBP alignment, the north levee is preferred since the pipeline would therefore not have to cross SLRR within the City of Oceanside. It has been noted that increased construction impacts (environmental, local, etc.) exist along the north levee compared to the south levee; therefore construction of the pipeline may be forced to occur along the south levee. If the SBP is constructed along the WMP alignment, the south levee is preferred since the pipeline would already be located along the south levee. The SLRR Levee, completed in 2000, was constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) for flood control. The pipeline would be constructed in the middle of the levee along the bike path or the toe of the levee, dependant on the location approved by the ACOE. If the Oceanside Pipeline is constructed along the south levee, trenchless construction methods would be required to cross SLRR to get back to the north levee near College Boulevard. Once at College Blvd, the pipeline alignment leaves the levee ROW and follows North River Road east for approximately 2.5 miles. Certain sections of the pipeline along North River Road would require additional protection, due to potential SLRR flooding and erosion concerns. Approximately 600 feet east of Sleeping Indian Road, the alignment departs North River Road and enters agricultural fields. The alignment crosses the fields for approximately 1.4 miles. The pipeline is then constructed using trenchless construction methods under SLRR and Highway 76. Once across Highway 76, the alignment continues south on East Vista Way (S-13) for approximately 1.5 miles. The alignment connects with the WAP segment near the west terminus of the NCDP, at the corner of East Vista Way and Osborne Street near the City of Vista.


Page 6-11

6.2.2 Construction Concerns One concern is the impact that construction would have on the bike trail along the SLRR levee. The SLRR levee bike path begins near I-5 and continues east to College Blvd. Activities associated with construction of the Oceanside Pipeline could potentially result in the temporary closure or narrowing of pedestrian or bicycle pathways, which may ultimately limit access for pedestrians and/or bicyclists. In addition, there is a potential for a short-term increase in safety hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians resulting from pipeline construction and operation of construction equipment where crossings of a bikeway or pedestrian path occur. Another concern is the potential for pipeline damage due to SLRR bank erosion on river bends near North River Road. Areas that are known for this to occur during storm events are near Melba Bishop Park and a bend further upstream. Therefore, segments of the pipeline alignment in close proximity to these potential erosion areas would require additional protection. Within the Oceanside Pipeline alignment, two locations exist where the alignment crosses the SLRR. One location is parallel to the College Blvd Bridge crossing (if the alignment follows the levee on the south side of SLRR. The other location is near the State Route (SR) - 76 / East Vista Way intersection. Due to limitations of traditional trench construction, trenchless construction methods consisting of jack-and-bore drilling, micro-tunneling, or horizontal directional drilling (HDD) would be used for pipeline installation to avoid construction in environmentally sensitive areas around the river. Therefore minimal construction impacts are anticipated to the SLRR. During construction, the transport of hazardous materials would occur, as trucks would be required to carry such materials through Oceanside and around sensitive areas such as the SLRR. In addition, petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, crankcase oil, lubricants, and cleaning solvents, would be present during construction. These products would be used to fuel, lubricate, and clean vehicles and equipment, and would be transported in containerized trucks or in other approved containers. When not in use, hazardous materials would be properly stored to prevent drainage or accidents.

6.2.3 Design Criteria Figure 6-2 illustrates the Oceanside Pipeline segment and areas of concern within the alignment. The preliminary design of the entire DWCP is based on production of the desalination plant during ultimate peak summer demands. Table 6-2 summarizes the design data for the Oceanside Pipeline segment, while Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 demonstrate the ground profile and design HGL of the entire DWCP. Air release and vacuum valves (AVV) or combination valves (ARV and AVV combined into one dual orifice valve) would be installed at high points and sudden grade changes along the alignment in order to prevent water column separation; vacuum conditions; and release


Page 6-12

accumulated air from the pipeline. The pipeline would be constructed of mortar lined and coated (tape) steel pipe (MLCSP).

Table 6-2 Oceanside Pipeline Segment Preliminary Design Data

Description Ultimate Project System Design Flow: 150 mgd Recommended Pipeline Diameter: 72-inch Pipe Material: MLCSP Pressure Class: 500 psi Pipeline Length: 44,000 LF

6.2.4 Alternative Routes

Mission Avenue An alternative route considered for the Oceanside Pipeline segment other than following the SLRR Levee is to use Mission Avenue. Mission Avenue is a highly traveled roadway in the City of Oceanside and the construction involved to install a 72-inch diameter conveyance pipeline would have a significant impact on vehicular traffic, yet it is technically feasible.

SR-76 Utility Corridor A utility corridor exists along SR-76 between Frazee Road and S-14 / Santa Fe Avenue. The utility corridor is not very wide (20-30 feet) and if a joint trench or any pipelines currently exist in the corridor, it is assumed that there would not be adequate space to install a 72-inch diameter pipeline.

S-14 / N. Santa Fe Avenue Whether the alignment followed local city streets or the SR-76 utility corridor, the alignment could then follow S-14 / Santa Fe Ave through Oceanside and Vista to Taylor Street. The alignment would continue east on Taylor Street. Osborne Street was first considered rather than Taylor Street, but due to two 24-inch diameter water pipelines in the street, it was determined that there would not be sufficient space to locate a 72-inch diameter pipeline. From Taylor Street, the pipeline would follow S-13 / East Vista Way north to connect with the Water Authority Pipeline at the intersection of Osborne Street.


Page 6-13

6.2.5 Recommendation The preferred alignment for the Oceanside Pipeline Segment would be to follow the SLRR Levee as described in Section 6.2.1. The fact that the alignment follows the SLRR levee through a majority of the built-up areas of Oceanside means less traffic impacts on city streets. However, potential disturbances to pedestrian and bicycle traffic exist, as described below. Several permitting issues (navigation, biological, etc) would have to be resolved (refer to Chapter 8) before a pipeline can be constructed near the SLRR. Construction activities associated with the Oceanside Pipeline Segment could potentially result in the temporary closure or narrowing of pedestrian and bicycle pathways along the SLRR, which may ultimately limit access for pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, there is a potential for a short-term increase in safety hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians resulting from pipeline construction and operation of construction equipment where crossings of a bikeway or pedestrian path occur. The potential for pipeline damage due to SLRR bank erosion exists on river bends near North River Road. Areas that are known for this to occur during storm events are near Melba Bishop Park and a bend further upstream. Therefore, segments of the pipeline alignment in close proximity to these potential erosion areas would require additional protection. Two locations exist where the alignment crosses the SLRR. One location is parallel to the College Blvd Bridge crossing (if the alignment follows the levee on the south side of SLRR. The other location is near the State Route (SR) - 76 / East Vista Way intersection. Due to limitations of traditional trench construction, trenchless construction methods consisting of jack-and-bore drilling, micro-tunneling, or horizontal directional drilling (HDD) would be used for pipeline installation to avoid construction in environmentally sensitive areas around the river.


Page 6-15

6.3 WATER AUTHORITY PIPELINE SEGMENT

6.3.1 Description The Water Authority Pipeline (WAP) segment of the DWCP is approximately 6.0 miles long and would convey desalinated water from the Oceanside Pipeline connection near the east end of Osborne Street to the existing Water Authority’s Twin Oaks Diversion Structure (TODS) or recently completed Twin Oaks Valley WTP (TOVWTP) Clearwells in San Diego County just north of San Marcos. The WAP alignment is adjacent to the Water Authority’s existing North County Distribution Pipeline (NCDP) and Second Aqueduct Pipelines (Pipelines 3, 4, and 5). The NCDP easement begins near the intersection of East Vista Way and Osborne Street and continues east for approximately one-half mile and then turns north for approximately a quarter mile. The NCDP continues east for approximately 3.0 miles, weaving through mountainous terrain, crossing the Vista Valley Country Club, and then parallels Silverleaf Lane to the NCDP terminus (1 MG FRS tank) near the City of Oceanside’s Robert A. Weese Water Treatment Plant (Weese WTP). The Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct pipelines run north-south, just east of the NCDP terminus. Once at the NCDP terminus near Weese WTP, the WAP alignment continues south adjacent to the existing Second Aqueduct pipelines for approximately 2.3 miles to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. The desalinated water could be blended with treated water in the TOVWTP Clearwells and then distributed to member agencies as a treated water supply. If the water were conveyed to the TODS, the desalinated water would be blended with untreated water and conveyed to other member agencies through Pipelines 1, 2, 3, or 5, as a raw water supply requiring re-treatment at their WTP.

6.3.2 Construction Concerns A majority of the WAP segment is located in rural San Diego County within undeveloped open-space and would therefore have minimal impacts to the surrounding area. The proposed 72-inch pipeline could be installed within the existing Water Authority’s NCDP and Second Aqueduct pipeline easements, yet a wider construction easement would be necessary. Construction activities associated with the WAP could potentially result in the temporary closure of the front nine holes of the Vista Valley Country Club (VVCC). The VVCC previously experienced impacts associated with pipeline construction in the spring of 1995. The Water Authority constructed the NCDP in an existing easement, which traverses the front nine holes of the VVCC golf course. As was done in 1995, it is


Page 6-16

assumed that the Water Authority would compensate the VVCC for anticipated loss of income and inconvenience. Streets along the WAP alignment that may potentially be impacted are Vista Valley Drive, Twin Oaks Valley Road, Silverleaf Lane, and El Farra. These streets are primarily used for residential and minimal commercial access (Weese WTP, tree farms, etc.), and therefore do not convey large traffic volume. Pipeline construction along these rural roads would have minimal effect on vehicular traffic. During construction, the transport of hazardous materials would also occur, as trucks would be required to carry such materials through San Diego County and around sensitive areas. In addition, petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, crankcase oil, lubricants, and cleaning solvents, would be present during construction. These products would be used to fuel, lubricate, and clean vehicles and equipment, and would be transported in containerized trucks or in other approved containers. When not in use, hazardous materials would be properly stored to prevent drainage or accidents.

6.3.3 Design Criteria Figure 6-3 illustrates the WAP segment and areas of concern within the alignment. The preliminary design of the entire DWCP is based on production of the desalination plant during peak summer demands. Table 6-3 summarizes the design data for the WAP segment, while Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 demonstrate the ground and hydraulic profile of the entire DWCP. Air release valves (ARV) and air vacuum valves (AVV) or combination valves would be installed at high points and sudden grade changes along the alignment in order to prevent water column separation; vacuum conditions; and release accumulated air from the pipeline. The pipeline would be constructed of mortar lined and coated (tape) steel pipe (MLCSP).

Table 6-3 Water Authority Pipeline Segment Preliminary Design Data

Description Ultimate Project System Design Flow: 150 mgd Recommended Pipeline Diameter: 72-inch Pipe Material: MLCSP Pressure Class: 250 psi Pipeline Length: 31,000 LF


Page 6-17

6.3.4 Alternative Routes

Water Authority’s North County Distribution Pipeline A practical alternative for the WAP entails eliminating the construction of approximately 3.7 miles of pipeline parallel to the Water Authority’s existing North County Distribution Pipeline (NCDP). The alternative would utilize the existing 72-inch NCDP to convey desalinated water east to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. The NCDP currently conveys approximately 25 mgd of treated water westward to several North County member agencies (City of Oceanside, Vista Irrigation District, Vallecitos Water District, and Rainbow Municipal Water District). This water is either treated water from the Robert A. Weese Water Treatment Plant (Weese WTP) or treated water directly from the Water Authority’s Pipeline 4 (Second Aqueduct). The Weese WTP is owned and operated by the City of Oceanside and treats approximately 25 mgd of raw water obtained from the Water Authority’s Pipeline 5. If the NCDP were used to convey desalinated water east to the TODS, the flow in the pipeline would be reversed from its current operation. Therefore, a water exchange would have to be implemented between the City of Oceanside and the Water Authority. North County member agencies that received treated water from Weese WTP would receive desalinated water instead. The 25 mgd of treated water from Weese WTP that would have typically been flowing in the NCDP would therefore be pumped and blended with the desalinated water in the DWCP. Currently, treated water from Weese WTP, is sent to a 1 MG FRS tank before being conveyed westward through the NCDP. Discussions with City of Oceanside personnel confirm that currently, Weese WTP does not have the capability to pump treated water back into Pipeline 4 at the required pressure gradient. Therefore, to accommodate the water exchange, a new pump station (refer to Section 6.7) would be constructed to pump approximately 25 mgd of treated water from the existing FRS tank directly into the DWCP before it reaches the TODS or Pipeline 4 (as described in the following section). The concept of utilizing the NCDP for desalinated water conveyance is further detailed in Chapter 7 – Product water Integration.

Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct Another alternative to the WAP, entails eliminating an additional 2.3 miles of conveyance pipeline between Weese WTP and the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. This alternative would utilize the Water Authority’s existing 96-inch Pipeline 4 (Second Aqueduct) to convey desalinated water from the NCDP east terminus to the TODS. The WAP could be constructed parallel to the Water Authority’s NCDP and Second Aqueduct pipelines. Pipelines 3 and 5 of the Second Aqueduct convey raw water to southern parts of the county, while Pipeline 4 conveys treated potable water. If both alternatives were utilized, the WAP segment would not have to be constructed and only a 25 mgd pump station would be required.


Page 6-18

A second option would oversize the WAP within this 2.3 mile segment to convey desalinated water from the NCDP to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. The pipeline could later be integrated into the Water Authority’s Master Plan (Pipeline 6). This option has briefly been discussed with Water Authority personnel. Pipeline 6, which has an anticipated capacity of 500 cfs, would originate at MWD’s Skinner WTP in Riverside County and terminate at the TODS. Pipeline 6 would be constructed adjacent to the existing Second Aqueduct pipelines from Weese WTP to the TODS. Therefore, this option would construct an oversized WAP from Weese WTP to the TODS as an initial phase of Pipeline 6. The concept of utilizing existing or proposed Second Aqueduct pipelines for desalinated water conveyance is further detailed in Chapter 7 - Product Water integration.

6.3.5 Recommendation The preferred action for the WAP segment is to utilize the Water Authority’s existing NCDP and Second Aqueduct (Pipeline 4) to convey water from the terminus of the Oceanside Pipeline to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. This alternative is preferred due to the substantial cost savings associated with eliminating construction of approximately six miles of 72-inch diameter MLCSP and any assumed monetary compensation to impacted parties along the pipeline route (i.e. Vista Valley Country Club). Therefore the only construction that would occur along the WAP segment is the proposed intermediate pump station to boost the desalinated water to its final destination, the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. The intermediate pump station (Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station) and flow regulatory structure (FRS) is discussed in detail in Section 6.6. The preferred alternative requires a water exchange between the City of Oceanside and the Water Authority, since the City of Oceanside owns and operates the Weese WTP. All though six miles of pipeline no longer required, an additional pump station would be needed to lift approximately 25 mgd of treated water from Weese WTP into the DWCP. This pump station is significantly smaller than the two proposed pump stations required to convey desalinated water to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. In addition, this pump station would not require expansion for any subsequent phases of the project, unless the City of Oceanside and the Water Authority intend to expand the capacity of the Weese WTP. This pump station (Silverleaf Pump Station) is discussed in detail in Section 6.7.


Page 6-20

6.4 HYDRAULICS

6.4.1 Description The SWRO desalination facility would be located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of approximately 35-55 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The anticipated connection point of the DWCP is the Water Authority’s Twin Oaks Diversion Structure (TODS) or Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant (TOVWTP) Clearwell, with an approximate water elevation of 1,080 feet MSL. An alternative connection point for the DWCP is to tie directly into the Water Authority’s Pipeline 4 (Second Aqueduct) approximately 2.3 miles north of the TODS. Pipeline 4 (96-inch diameter) is currently the only Second Aqueduct pipeline that conveys treated water. The other two pipelines (Pipelines 3 and 5) convey raw untreated water. The HGL of Pipeline 4 is approximately 1,250 feet near the anticipated connection point. Refer to Chapter 7 for further discussion on product water integration options. The following sections would discuss the pumping requirements to convey desalinated water from the desalination facility to the Water Authority’s Twin Oaks facilities or directly into the Second Aqueduct (Pipeline 4). The TODS and Second Aqueduct are essential components of the Water Authority’s vast distribution system, which conveys raw and treated water throughout San Diego County.

6.4.2 Pump Stations Pumping desalinated water from the SWRO desalination facility to any of the DWCP connection options mentioned above would be accomplished by two high-pressure pump stations. The initial lift is achieved by the desalinated water pump station (DWPS) located at the desalination facility site. Refer to Section 6.5 for a detailed description of the DWPS. The second lift is achieved by the Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station (TOVPS), which would lift the desalinated water to any of the Twin Oaks facilities. A potential site for the TOVPS and associated flow regulatory structure (FRS) tanks is located along the NCDP alignment, east of Vista Valley Drive and the Vista Valley Country Club (VVCC), near Twin Oaks Valley Road. Refer to Section 6.6 for a detailed description of the TOVPS. If the WAP segment is not constructed, as recommended in Sections 6.3.4 and 6.3.5, and the DWCP utilizes the existing NCDP to convey desalinated water, an additional pump station known as the Silverleaf Pump Station (SLPS) would be required to lift approximately 25 mgd of treated water from Weese WTP into the DWCP. Refer to Section 6.7 for a detailed description of the SLPS. The proposed pump stations required along the DWCP alignment to convey desalinated water from the desalination facility to the proposed terminal connections are listed in Table 6-4.


Page 6-21

Figure 6-4 demonstrates an approximate hydraulic profile that would result from pumping desalinated water to the TODS, while Figure 6-5 demonstrates the approximate hydraulic profile that would result from pumping desalinated water directly into Pipeline 4. With two pump stations, the DWPS would pump to a new FRS tank located at an approximate elevation of 830 feet MSL. The TOVPS would then pump water from the new FRS to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells at an approximate elevation of 1,080 feet MSL, or directly into Pipeline 4 with an approximate hydraulic grade line (HGL) of 1,250 feet.

Table 6-4 Proposed Pump Stations

Description Name Acronym Approx. Elev. Refer To (Ft) Section Initial lift Desalinated Water Pump Station DWPS 40 6.5 Intermediate lift Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station TOVPS 830 6.6 Water Exchange Silverleaf Pump Station SLPS 980 6.7 Terminus 1A Twin Oaks Diversion Structure TODS 1,080 7.1 Terminus 1B Twin Oaks Valley WTP Clearwells TOVWTP 1,080 7.1 Terminus 2 Second Aqueduct – Pipeline 4 - 1,250 7.3

Design Criteria Key design criteria for each pump station are listed below. These criteria would be improved and refined during preliminary and final design.

The pump stations would be designed for 50 mgd with provisions built in to allow expansion to 150 mgd. Therefore the site work, building, and piping would be designed for a 150 mgd facility. The initial bid package would require that only three 25 mgd pumps (one as a back-up pump) be installed. By adding two pumps later (Phase 2), the capacity could be increased to 100 mgd and 2 more additional pumps for 150 mgd capacity.

The static lift from the treatment plant to the TODS is approximately 1,040 feet and would require up to another 250 feet of dynamic head to overcome piping and friction losses.

The pressure in the DWCP shall not exceed 500 psi within the SBP, Oceanside Pipeline, and WAP segments.

If the NCDP were used (section 6.3.4), pressures within the NCDP would not exceed 250 psi (which is the assumed design pressure).

Pumps are assumed either vertical turbine or horizontal split case pumps. Refer to Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7 for typical pump station layouts.

One additional (stand-by) pump would be provided in each pump station for reliability (firm capacity).

The TOVPS would require a FRS tank(s) as described in Section 6.4.3.


Page 6-24

Pump Equipment The pumps for these capacities and head conditions are extraordinary and technical data are not found in readily available manufacturer’s catalogs. Two types of pumps could be used for this type of application, vertical turbine (preferred) and horizontal split case pumps, which could be manufactured by approximately eight pump manufacturers within the United States and Japan. Due to similar conveyance studies performed for the Water Authority, the pump stations are assumed to utilize 25 mgd pumps. Pumps capable of pumping upwards of 50 mgd could be considered, but the shear size of these pumps and motors limits the number of manufactures capable of constructing them, reducing the competitive bid process. The motor for a 50 mgd pump could be as great as 10,000 HP, based on the required flow and head requirements, which poses technical feasibility challenges. The pumps would be built specifically for this application and would take 12 to 14 months to build and deliver. The manufacturers would typically not stock spare parts for these custom-built pumps. The bid documents would require the pump manufacturer to deliver spares of certain critical replacement parts. Parts that are manufactured in Japan may take up to 6 months to obtain. However, other parts may be manufactured in Southern California with a shortened delivery schedule. None of these factors preclude the use of these pumps, and with a regular maintenance program and proper stocking of spare parts, the pump reliability would be maintained. The electric motors for the 25 mgd pumps would be approximately 5,000 horsepower (HP) for the DWPS and 1,500 – 2,500 HP for the TOVPS, dependant on whether the terminus of the DWCP is the Twin Oaks facilities or Pipeline 4, respectively. The SLPS pumps would require 800 HP motors if this option were utilized. A typical pump station layout for vertical turbine and horizontal centrifugal pumps are shown in Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7, respectively. The shaft and bowl assemblies on the vertical turbine pumps would be installed in pumping cans fed by a suction manifold pipeline. Each pump would be equipped with a variable frequency drive (VFD), which allows the speed of the pump to be changed between 80 and 100 percent of normal motor speed. This allows the pump capacity to vary, to better match the treatment plant production rate and discharge head requirements. Each pump would have isolation valves on both the suction and discharge sides, and a pump control valve on the discharge side to allow a gradual startup, in the event that a VFD fails. Check valves would also be provided on the discharge side of each pump. A 21-ton bridge crane can be provided to lift the pump equipment onto trucks for service or replacement. An alternative option for vertical turbine pumps to limit the building height would be to provide removable skylights in the roof (no crane). Vertical turbine pump columns could be lifted by a mobile truck-mounted crane through the skylight.


Page 6-25

All pump stations would be equipped so that they can be controlled on site, or remotely at the Water Authority’s Operations Center. It would be connected to the Operations Center through a fiber optic cable buried with the pipeline. The controls would be coordinated with the treatment plant control system.

6.4.3 Flow Regulatory Structure A flow regulatory structure (FRS) is used in the DWCP system to potentially serve two functions:

Isolate the Second Aqueduct from surges; and

Provide water to the Second Aqueduct to replace the desalinated supply should the pump stations (DWPS or TOVPS) shut down.

A FRS reservoir tank would be co-located with the TOVPS. The clearwells at the desalination facility site would serve as the FRS. Desalinated water would be pumped (by the DWPS) directly from the clearwells at the desalination facility to the FRS reservoir tanks at the TOVPS site at an elevation of approximately 830 feet. The TOVPS would then pump the water directly to the TODS or Pipeline 4 (as described in Section 6.3.4). The FRS tanks would help prevent surges, but as is described in the following section, additional surge facilities would be required at the desalination facility DWPS.

6.4.4 Hydraulic Surge and Control When pump stations shut off rapidly, such as when there is an unexpected power failure, a hydraulic transient, surge, or water hammer condition can occur. To control this surge, a series of pressurized air chambers (surge tanks) may be included at the pump station sites. These pressurized air chambers are cylindrical steel tanks approximately 10 feet in diameter, partially filled with water and air. In the event of a rapid pump shut off, these pressurized chambers force the water into the pipeline and dissipate the surge. Another way to control surge is the addition of rotating inertial mass to the pumps by means of a flywheel, a large metal disk centered on the pump shaft. In the event of a power failure, the flywheel keeps the pump spinning longer, slowing down the pumping rate in a more gradual fashion, and thus reducing the surge. Adding flywheels to vertical turbine pumps is thought to be feasible, but requires more research for confirmation. A complete hydraulic transient (surge) analysis was removed from the scope of work for this feasibility study, yet it is assumed that surge protection would be required at the DWPS. Surge protection would most likely be accomplished with pressurized air chambers (surge tanks). The surge tanks would have sufficient volume to prevent water


Page 6-26

column separation following pump power failure. The designed working pressure of the air chambers would be more than the static head of approximately 800 feet. Therefore an inside tank diameter of 10 feet was selected to minimize the steel shell thickness and develop the overall feasibility. This diameter could be optimized during design following selection of a final pipeline alignment and pump station parameters. Approximately nine to twelve pressurized surge tanks would be required for the Ultimate Project (150 mgd). Three to four tanks would be required for the first phase and each subsequent phase that follows. The steel surge tanks would be approximately 10 feet in diameter and anywhere from 30 to 40 feet long. Refer to Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-5, which illustrate the surge tank locations at the two desalination facility site alternatives. An alternative to electric pump motors at the DWPS, are gas driven motors. The use of gas powered motors can reduce the size of the surge protection facilities. The assumed back-up power for a gas powered motor would be the electrical power grid (SDG&E) itself, therefore surge protection facilities would only need to be sized to accommodate one pump failing, rather than the entire pump station failing due to a power outage. The pumps would be installed with a back-up power disconnect to the electrical power grid as a fail-safe, if the natural gas system fails. This option has not been confirmed feasible by the Water Authority operations staff and would require further research.


Page 6-29

6.5 DESALINATED WATER PUMP STATION

6.5.1 Description The Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS) would be located at the Water Authority’s proposed SWRO desalination facility at either the MCTSSA or SRTTP Site alternatives. Refer to Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-5 for a desalination facility site layout for the SRTTP and MCTSSA Sites, respectively. The DWPS provides the initial lift to convey desalinated water to the Water Authority’s TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. A second (intermediate) lift pump station (refer to Section 6.6) is required along the DWCP alignment to convey desalinated water to its final destination at Twin Oaks or Pipeline 4; as previously described in Section 6.3.4. Phase I of the DWPS would require approximately 15,000 HP installed to pump up to 50 mgd (35,000 gpm) of desalinated water to the TODS. The ultimate project, would require approximately 42,000 HP installed to deliver up to 150 mgd (105,000 gpm) of desalinated water to the TODS. The pumping requirements for the DWPS (initial lift) would not change whether the termination of the DWCP is at the TODS or Pipeline 4. The DWPS pump house would be sized for the ultimate project with the pumps installed in phases. Phase 1 would consist of constructing a 5 MG clearwell and installing three 25 mgd pumps to convey 50 mgd of desalinated water. All three pumps are anticipated to operate full time, yet two pumps would be capable of pumping 50 mgd if a pump fails or needs to be maintained (firm capacity). Phase 2 would require the construction of another 5 MG clearwell adjacent to the existing clearwell and two additional 25 mgd pumps. Phase 3 (Ultimate) would require the addition of two more 25 mgd pumps to accommodate pumping up to 150 mgd.

6.5.2 Design Criteria The DWPS preliminary design data provided in Table 6-5 is independent of the desalination facility site (SRTTP or MCTSSA) due to the similar TDH associated with each site alternative. The water surface elevation in the proposed clearwell at the desalination plant site would be approximately 50 feet. In order to convey desalinated water to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells, the DWPS must provide a static lift of approximately 780 feet to reach the FRS tank at the intermediate pump station site (refer to Section 6.6). Additional pipe, fitting, and valve losses for the maximum pumping conditions yield a TDH of approximately 820, 900, and 1,020 feet for Phase 1, Phase 2, and the Ultimate Project, respectively. Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 demonstrate the ground and approximate hydraulic profile that would result from maximum pumping conditions for each phase.


Page 6-30

Table 6-5 Desalinated Water PS Design Data

Description Phase 1 Phase 2 Ultimate System Design Flow 50 mgd 100 mgd 150 mgd (35,000 gpm) (70,000 gpm) (105,000 gpm) System Design Head 820 ft 900 ft 1,020 ft Pump Design Flow 25 mgd 25 mgd 25 mgd Pump Type Vertical Turbine or Horizontal Split Case Pump Motor (VFD) 3 x 5,000 HP 5 x 5,000 HP 7 x 6,000 HP Pump Operating Flow 16.7 mgd 20 mgd 21.5 mgd Pump Operating Head 810 ft 890 ft 1012 ft Pump Discharge Pressure 350 psi 385 psi 440 psi Pump Operating Efficiency ~ 80% ~ 80% ~ 80% Pump Avg. Operating Power 2,970 HP 3,900 HP 4,770 HP

6.5.3 Power Options Table 6-6 depicts the criteria used to determine the power demands of the DWPS, based on the selected pump criteria shown in Table 6-4. The DWPS would utilize the same power source as the desalination plant since it is tied to the facility. Electrical power to operate the desalination plant and DWPS would be obtained from the electrical power grid (SDG&E) at standard rates as discussed in Section 5.3. Anticipated operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, including power costs are available in Section 10.2. An alternative power source for the desalination facility and associated DWPS, as discussed in Section 5.3, is combined heat and power (CHP) technology. CHP could be achieved by using turbines that burn natural gas, creating high-speed rotation that turns an electrical generator. In CHP applications, the waste heat from the gas turbines is used to produce hot water, to heat building space or supply other thermal energy needs in a building or industrial process. The waste heat may also be used to heat the feedwater to the desalination plant, which would potentially result in higher RO removal efficiencies and lower power requirements. Gas powered turbines provide stable and reliable power; produce low emissions, and have many cost saving advantages for large pump stations. Two cost saving advantages of natural gas power generation are:

Back-up power generation facilities are no longer required, and

Surge protection facilities are minimized.

Increase feedwater temperature to improve RO removal efficiency.


Page 6-31

Back-up power generator facilities are no longer required (optional) since power generated from natural gas is considered a reliable and stable power source. The assumed back-up power for a CHP system is the electrical power grid itself. The size of surge protection facilities are reduced for the same reason. Surge protection facilities would only need to be sized to accommodate one pump failing, rather than the entire pump station failing due to a power outage. Another power alternative that should be investigated further is the use of gas powered motors at the DWPS. This option would be used for the same advantages listed previously about reduced surge protection and back-up power generation facilities. The pumps would be installed with a back-up power disconnect to the electrical power grid as a fail safe, if the natural gas system fails.

Table 6-6 Desalinated Water PS Power Demands

Description Phase 1 Phase 2 Ultimate System Design Flow 50 mgd 100 mgd 150 mgd (35,000 gpm) (70,000 gpm) (105,000 gpm) Number of Pumps Operating 3 5 7 Pump Operating Flow 16.7 mgd 20 mgd 21.5 mgd Pump Operating Head 810 ft 890 ft 1012 ft Electrical Power Demand 6,670 kW 14,630 kW 25,040 kW


Page 6-32

6.6 TWIN OAKS VALLEY PUMP STATION

6.6.1 Description The Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station (TOVPS) is the intermediate pump station required to operate at all times to assist in conveying desalinated water to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. Water is initially pumped from the DWPS (refer to Section 6.5) at the desalination facility site to the FRS tank at the TOVPS site. The TOVPS then lifts the water to its final destination at the either of the Twin Oaks facilities or Pipeline 4 (Second Aqueduct). The preferred connection point is Pipeline 4, north of the TODS, near the east terminus of the NCDP as previously described in Section 6.3.4. A potential site for the TOVPS and FRS tank is located near the City of Vista, adjacent to the NCDP alignment, east of Vista Valley Drive and the Vista Valley Country Club (VVCC), near Twin Oaks Valley Road as illustrated in Figure 6-8. The pumping requirements for the TOVPS depend on the DWCP termination (connection) point. If the termination of the DWCP is the TODS or clearwells, Phase 1 of the TOVPS would require approximately 4,500 HP installed to pump 50 mgd (35,000 gpm) of desalinated water to the TODS, while the Ultimate Project would require approximately 11,900 HP installed to pump 150 mgd (105,000 gpm). If the termination of the DWCP is Pipeline 4, Phase 1 of the TOVPS would require approximately 7,500 HP installed to pump 50 mgd, while the Ultimate Project would require approximately 17,500 HP installed to pump 150 mgd. The TOVPS pump house would be sized for the ultimate project with the pumps installed in phases. Phase 1 would consist of constructing a 5 MG FRS tank and installing three 25 mgd pumps to convey 50 mgd of desalinated water. All three pumps are anticipated to operate full time, yet two pumps would be capable of pumping 50 mgd if a pump fails or requires maintenance (firm capacity). The Ultimate Project would require seven 25 mgd pumps.

6.6.2 Design Criteria The TOVPS preliminary design data provided in Table 6-7 is based on the DWCP terminating at the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. The ground surface elevation near the proposed FRS tank at the TOVPS site would be approximately 830 feet. In order to convey desalinated water to the TODS, the TOVPS must provide a static lift of approximately 250 feet. Additional pipe, fitting, and valve losses for the maximum summer day pumping conditions yield a TDH of approximately 256, 270, and 292 feet for Phase 1, Phase 2, and the Ultimate Project, respectively. Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 demonstrate the ground and approximate hydraulic profile that would result from maximum pumping conditions for each phase.


Page 6-33

Table 6-7 Twin Oaks Valley PS Design Data - TODS

Description Phase 1 Phase 2 Ultimate System Design Flow 50 mgd 100 mgd 150 mgd (35,000 gpm) (70,000 gpm) (105,000 gpm) System Design Head 260 ft 270 ft 295 ft Pump Design Flow 25 mgd 25 mgd 25 mgd Pump Type Vertical Turbine or Horizontal Split Case Pump Motor (VFD) 3 x 1,500 HP 5 x 1,600 HP 7 x 1,700 HP Pump Operating Flow 16.7 mgd 20 mgd 21.5 mgd Pump Operating Head 256 ft 270 ft 292 ft Pump Discharge Pressure 111 psi 117 psi 126 psi Pump Operating Efficiency ~ 80% ~ 80% ~ 80% Pump Avg. Operating Power 940 HP 1,185 HP 1,380 HP The preferred alternative, as discussed previously in Section 6.3.4, would utilize the Water Authority’s existing NCDP and tie directly into Pipeline 4, north of the TODS. The TOVPS preliminary design data provided in Table 6-8 is based on TOVPS pumping directly to Pipeline 4. If this were to occur, the TOVPS would need to provide a static lift of approximately 420 feet, while pipe, fitting, and valve losses would yield a TDH of approximately 422, 427, and 435 feet for Phase 1, Phase 2, and the Ultimate Project, respectively. This option would require a water exchange agreement between the City of Oceanside and the Water Authority for the 25 mgd of treated water typically flowing in the NCDP and an additional 25 mgd pump station, which is discussed in Section 6.7.

Table 6-8 Twin Oaks Valley PS Design Data – Pipeline 4

Description Phase 1 Phase 2 Ultimate System Design Flow 50 mgd 100 mgd 150 mgd (35,000 gpm) (70,000 gpm) (105,000 gpm) System Design Head 430 ft 435 ft 440 ft Pump Design Flow 25 mgd 25 mgd 25 mgd Pump Type Vertical Turbine or Horizontal Split Case Pump Motor (VFD) 3 x 2,500 HP 5 x 2,500 HP 7 x 2,500 HP Pump Operating Flow 16.7 mgd 20 mgd 21.5 mgd Pump Operating Head 422 ft 427 ft 435 ft Pump Discharge Pressure 183 psi 185 psi 190 psi Pump Operating Efficiency ~ 80% ~ 80% ~ 80% Pump Avg. Operating Power 1,545 HP 1,872 HP 2,050 HP


Page 6-34

6.6.3 Power Options Table 6-9 and Table 6-10 depict the criteria used to determine the power demands of the TOVPS, based on the selected pump criteria shown in Table 6-7 and Table 6-8 respectively. Electrical power required to operate the TOVPS would be obtained from the electrical power grid (SDG&E) at standard rates. Anticipated O&M costs, including power are available in Section 10.2. An alternative power option for the high capacity pump motors, which would need to be studied further, is to utilize gas powered motors. The use of gas powered motors has many cost saving advantages for a large pump station. Two cost saving advantages of gas powered pump motors are:

Back-up power generation facilities are no longer required (optional), and


Back-up power generator facilities would not be required since gas powered motors are considered reliable and stable. The assumed back-up power for a gas powered pump motor would be the electrical power grid (SDG&E) itself. The size of surge protection facilities are reduced for this same reason. Surge protection facilities would only need to be sized to accommodate one pump failing, rather than the entire pump station failing due to a power outage. The motors would be installed with a back-up power disconnect to the electrical power grid as a fail safe, if the natural gas system fails.

Table 6-9 Twin Oaks Valley PS Power Demands - TODS


Table 6-10 Twin Oaks Valley PS Power Demands – Pipeline 4



Page 6-36

6.7 SILVERLEAF PUMP STATION

6.7.1 Description The Silverleaf Pump Station (SLPS) is only required if the NCDP is used to convey desalinated water to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. Rather than constructing the WAP, the preferred alternative would reverse the flow in the existing 72-inch NCDP to convey desalinated water eastward to the Twin Oaks facilities, while eliminating the construction of approximately 3.7 miles of conveyance pipeline, as described in Section 6.3.4. Currently the NCDP conveys approximately 25 mgd of treated water west to North County member agencies. The water conveyed in the NCDP is from one of two sources; either treated water from the Robert A. Weese Water Treatment Plant (Weese WTP) or treated water directly from Pipeline 4. Weese WTP is owned and operated by the City of Oceanside and treats raw water from the Water Authority’s Pipeline 5. If the NCDP were used to convey desalinated water east to the TODS, the flow in the pipeline would be reversed from its current operation. Therefore, a water exchange would have to be implemented between the City of Oceanside and the Water Authority. North County member agencies who received treated water from Weese WTP would receive desalinated water instead. Although the NCDP is indirectly connected to Pipeline 4, the connection was intended to convey water by gravity from Pipeline 4 (approximate HGL of 1,250 ft) to the NCDP 1 MG FRS tank (approximate water level of 975 ft). Discussions with City of Oceanside personnel confirm that currently, Weese WTP does not have the capability to pump treated water back into Pipeline 4 at the required pressure gradient. Therefore the 25 mgd of treated water from Weese WTP that would have typically been conveyed westward in the NCDP would be pumped by the SLPS directly into the DWCP and blended with the desalinated water. A similar pump station was discussed in the Water Authority’s 2002 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan (RWFMP). A potential location for the SLPS is just west of Weese WTP, on the south side of Silverleaf Lane, east of El Paseo, as illustrated in Figure 6-9. Another potential location, as described in the RWFMP is the existing 1 MG FRS site. The RWFMP also proposes constructing a new 5 MG FRS tank that would replace the existing 1 MG tank, which currently provides insufficient storage. The SLPS pumping capacity is not based on desalination production, and therefore would not expand during project phasing. The SLPS would require approximately 2,400 HP installed to pump up to 30 mgd (21,000 gpm) of treated water into the DWCP. Currently, treated water from the Weese WTP is conveyed to a 1 MG FRS tank before it is conveyed west through the NCDP. If the SLPS is used, a new pipeline would be installed from the FRS tank to the SLPS to pump the treated water into the DWCP.


Page 6-37

Refer to Chapter 7 – Product Water Integration for details on the DWCP connection alternatives with the NCDP, Twin Oaks Facilities, and Second Aqueduct (Pipeline 4).

6.7.2 Design Criteria The SLPS preliminary design data is provided in Table 6-13. The ground surface elevation at the proposed SLPS site is approximately 970 feet. The SLPS must provide a static lift of approximately 280 feet in order to pump desalinated water into the DWCP, which has an approximate HGL of 1,250 feet at the connection. Additional pipe, fitting, and valve losses for maximum pumping conditions yield a TDH of approximately 281 ft.

Table 6-11 Silverleaf PS Design Data

Description Phase 1 Phase 2 Ultimate System Design Flow 30 mgd 30 mgd 30 mgd (21,000 gpm) (21,000 gpm) (21,000 gpm) System Design Head 285 ft 285 ft 285 ft Pump Design Flow 12.5 mgd 12.5 mgd 12.5 mgd Pump Type Vertical Turbine or Centrifugal Pump Motor (VFD) 3 x 800 HP 3 x 800 HP 3 x 800 HP Pump Operating Flow 8.3 mgd 8.3 mgd 8.3 mgd Pump Operating Head 270 ft 270 ft 270 ft Pump Discharge Pressure 117 psi 117 psi 117 psi Pump Operating Efficiency ~ 80% ~ 80% ~ 80% Pump Avg. Operating Power 493 HP 493 HP 493 HP

6.7.3 Power Options Table 6-14 depicts the criteria used to determine the power demands of the SLPS, based on the selected pump criteria shown in Table 6-13. Electrical power required to operate the SLPS would be obtained from the electrical power grid (SDG&E) at standard rates. Anticipated O&M costs, including power are available in Section 10.2. An alternative power option for the high capacity pump motors, which would need to be studied further, is to utilize gas powered motors. The use of gas powered motors has many cost saving advantages for a large pump station. Two cost saving advantages of gas powered pump motors are:

Back-up power generation facilities are no longer required (optional), and



Page 6-38

Back-up power generator facilities would no longer be required gas powered motors are considered reliable and stable. The assumed back-up power for a gas powered pump motor would be the electrical power grid (SDG&E) itself. The size of surge protection facilities are reduced for this same reason. Surge protection facilities would only need to be sized to accommodate one pump failing, rather than the entire pump station failing due to a power outage. The motors would be installed with a back-up power disconnect to the electrical power grid as a fail safe, if the natural gas system fails.

Table 6-12 Silverleaf PS Power Demands

Description Phase 1 Phase 2 Ultimate System Design Flow 30 mgd 30 mgd 30 mgd (20,830 gpm) (20,830 gpm) (20,830 gpm) Number of Pumps Operating 3 3 3 Pump Operating Flow 8.3 mgd 8.3 mgd 8.3 mgd Pump Operating Head 270 ft 270 ft 270 ft Electrical Power Demand 1,110 kW 1,110 kW 1,110 kW


Page 6-40

6.8 IMPACTS

6.8.1 Pipeline Construction Impacts Wherever possible, the pipeline and equipment would be placed in existing or future public rights-of-way, including streets, highways, utility corridors, or other publicly owned facilities. This approach minimizes disruption to property owners. Permanent rights-of-way would generally be 60-120 feet wide for large diameter pipelines and an accompanying asphalt patrol road. The Water Authority would have access to the permanent rights-of-way for inspection, maintenance, and repairs for the life of the project. Temporary construction staging areas may be leased for materials stockpiling. These areas would be disturbed areas, generally adjacent to roadways. The majority of the construction would be open cut trenching. Pipe sections would be placed in a trench of varying depth depending on pipe size and topography, and covered using conventional equipment such as backhoes, side-boom cranes, wheeled leaders, sheep’s-foot compactors, and excavators. Typically, earth cover over the pipe would be five feet. Variations to this depth would be required to accommodate local topography, hydraulic grade, and utility congestion among other factors. For portions of the alignment where it is not feasible to perform open-cut trenching, tunneling techniques may be utilized, such as boring-and-jacking, micro-tunneling, horizontal directional tunneling (HDD), or similar methods. These special construction methods would be used in areas such as highway crossings, flood control channel crossings, stream crossings, high utility congestion areas, etc. The Water Authority would utilize the most cost-effective method depending upon geologic and hydrologic conditions encountered at final crossing sites. The width of the disturbance corridor for the pipeline construction, under typical circumstances, would be approximately 80 feet. Boring-and-jacking or micro-tunneling may require larger staging areas to facilitate construction at entry and exit locations. Typically, work tasks are anticipated to proceed in the following order:

Clearing, grubbing, and grading the rights-of-way;

Trenching and hauling of excess spoils;

Relocate utilities if required; Deliver pipe and pipe bedding material;

Install pipe bedding material, install pipe, backfill trench;

Disinfect, bacteriological and Hydrostatic testing; and

Restore the rights-of-way to pre-existing conditions.


Page 6-41

Typical pipeline installation rates would be about 200 feet per day. All construction activities would be restricted to the rights-of-way approved by the applicable landowner or agency. Construction activities may involve trenching, spoil handling, pipeline installation, backfilling and restoration and vehicle ingress and egress. All roadways disturbed during pipeline installation would be restored. Generally, trench spoils would be temporarily stockpiled within the construction easement, then backfilled to the trench after pipeline installation. Staging for the project would be dependent upon the contractor and subcontractors. Typically, the pipe would be brought to the site just ahead of construction and staged along the alignment ready for placement. Equipment and other construction materials may require a storage site. If the contractor is local, they may stage equipment and materials in their own yard. Alternately and in the case of contractors from outside of the area, staging would likely be accomplished at strategic locations on leased land along selected alignments of the pipeline.

6.8.2 Pipeline O&M Pipelines typically require O&M protocols including:

Visual inspection of pipeline alignments;

Mowing within pipeline alignments;

Grading of access roads as needed;

Testing / servicing of blow-off valves, air/vacuum valve assemblies as needed;

Yearly walk pipeline alignment and inspect cathodic protection system; and

Pressure testing pipeline, painting pipeline appurtenances, repairing tunnel entrances, and repairing any minor leaks in buried pipeline joints or segments

6.8.3 Operation Impacts Typical O&M protocols for pump stations would be adhered to, which include:

Conduct routine operation maintenance checks;

Conduct routine general pump station cleaning and maintenance;

Perform routine maintenance of pump station exteriors;

Routinely test pumps during non-emergency periods, verify operational readiness under anticipated full emergency project head;

Annually perform major maintenance and clean-up;

Service motor cooling system, replace pump seals, paint pump station and equipment, and disassemble pump to inspect bearing and impeller as needed;

Restocking water disinfecting agents, as needed.


Page 6-42



Page 7-1

CHAPTER 7: PRODUCT WATER INTEGRATION

7.0 INTRODUCTION

The desalinated (product) water produced at the proposed Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Facility would be delivered to the Water Authority’s Twin Oaks Diversion Structure (TODS) or to the Water Authority’s recently completed Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant (TOVWTP) Clearwells. The product water would be conveyed to the TODS or clearwells utilizing the Desalinated Water Conveyance Pipeline (DWCP), discussed in Chapter 6. The desalinated product water would be blended with treated water from the TOVWTP and distributed throughout San Diego County utilizing the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct pipeline system. Existing Water Authority infrastructure that could be impacted by the proposed product water conveyance system are the Twin Oaks Diversion Structure (TODS) or TOVWTP Clearwells, the North County Distribution Pipeline (NCDP), and the Second Aqueduct (various pipelines). As previously discussed in Section 6.3, a practical alternative to constructing the Water Authority Pipeline (WAP) segment of the DWCP is to utilize the NCDP and Pipeline 4 (Second Aqueduct) rather than constructing approximately 6.0 miles of new 72-inch pipeline parallel to these existing Water Authority pipelines. The following sections would discuss the need to use each of these existing facilities or pipelines. Product water could also potentially be conveyed to the north region of MCBCP or the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) service area through a Coastal I-5 Pipeline or as part of a cross-base pipeline that Camp Pendleton is considering as part of the Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use Project (SMRCUP). This chapter would discuss potential product water integration issues relating to:

Twin Oaks Diversion Structure or Clearwells;

North County Distribution Pipeline;

Second Aqueduct;

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton;

Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use Project; and

Municipal Water District of Orange County.


Page 7-2

7.1 TWIN OAKS DIVERSION STRUCTURE / CLEARWELLS

The Twin Oaks Diversion Structure (TODS) is one of two feasible delivery points for the desalinated product water. The TODS is used to store untreated water that would either be treated at the Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant (TOVWTP) or conveyed to other member agency owned water treatment plants (WTP). Once blended with untreated water at the TODS, the desalinated water would be considered raw and would require treatment again before it could be distributed as potable water. The TODS assists in diverting untreated water to different transmission pipelines within the Water Authority’s First and Second Aqueduct systems, resulting in distribution of the water to other member agencies throughout San Diego County from this location. At the TODS, water may either continue south in Pipeline 3, 4, or 5 or diverted to the First Aqueduct through the Crossover Pipeline. The TODS is a 22 million-gallon (MG) capacity, rectangular-shaped, reinforced concrete tank, approximately 30 feet in height, partially buried, with the upper three to five feet and concrete roof exposed. The weir elevation of the TODS is approximately 1,080 feet mean sea level (MSL). Therefore the static lift from the desalination facility to the TODS is approximately 1,025 to 1,045 feet, dependant upon the desalination facility site, MCTSSA or SRTTP, respectively. Refer to Figure 6-4 for a hydraulic profile to convey desalinated water from the desalination facility to the TODS. The recently completed TOVWTP Clearwells (15 MG) provides the second feasible delivery point to which the desalinated water may be conveyed. The clearwell provides a suitable location to pump desalinated water for blending with treated water; thus, the need for re-treatment of the desalinated water is avoided. The low-water level of the TOVWTP Clearwell is approximately the same as that of the TODS with an elevation of 1,080 feet. Therefore the Aqueduct pipelines may be fed by gravity from either delivery point. The product water would be conveyed to either the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwell by the proposed 72-inch DWCP. The alignment and pumping requirements for the DWCP to are discussed in detail in Chapter 6.


Page 7-3

7.2 NORTH COUNTY DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE

A practical alternative to constructing an additional 3.7 miles of new conveyance pipeline parallel to the Water Authority’s North County Distribution Pipeline (NCDP), as part of the proposed DWCP WAP segment discussed in Section 6.3, is to utilize the existing 72-inch NCDP to convey desalinated water to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. The west end of the NCDP easement begins near the intersection of East Vista Way and Osborne Street and continues east for approximately one-half mile; turns north for approximately a quarter mile; and then continues east for approximately 3.0 miles. The NCDP weaves through mountainous terrain, crossing the Vista Valley Country Club (VVCC), and then parallels Silverleaf Lane to the NCDP terminus near the City of Oceanside’s Robert A. Weese Water Treatment Plant (Weese WTP). The Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct pipelines run north-south, just west of the Weese WTP. The NCDP currently conveys approximately 25 mgd of treated water west to the City of Oceanside and other North County water users. This water is either treated water from Weese WTP or treated water directly from Water Authority’s Pipeline 4. The Weese WTP is owned and operated by the City of Oceanside and treats approximately 25 mgd of raw water obtained from the Water Authority’s Pipeline 5. Water treated at the Weese WTP is conveyed to a 1 MG Flow Regulatory Structure (FRS) tank, and then conveyed eastward through the NCDP to North County member agencies. Under this distribution alternative, flow in the NCDP would be reversed from its current operation and revised to convey desalinated water eastward to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. North County member agencies who previously received treated water from the Weese WTP or Pipeline 4 would receive desalinated water instead. Discussions with City of Oceanside personnel, confirm that currently Weese WTP does not have the capability to pump treated water back into Pipeline 4 at the required pressure gradient. Therefore, the 25 mgd of treated water from the Weese WTP that would have been conveyed west in the NCDP would be pumped by the proposed Silverleaf Pump Station (SLPS) directly into the DWCP and blended with the desalinated water. Refer to Section 6.7 for a detailed discussion of the SLPS. A pump station similar to the proposed SLPS has been proposed in the Water Authority’s 2002 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan (RWFMP). Therefore this option has previously been considered by the Water Authority. An additional water facility that was proposed in the RWFMP, which could be integrated into this project, is a new 5-MG FRS tank that would replace the existing 1 MG tank. The existing 1 MG tank currently provides insufficient storage.


Page 7-4

A potential location for the SLPS is just west of Weese WTP, on the south side of Silverleaf Lane, east of El Paseo. Refer to Figure 7-1 for the proposed location of the SLPS and assumed NCDP pipeline connection configuration. Another potential location for the SLPS is the existing 1 MG FRS site. This site would be available if the proposed 5 MG tank were constructed to replace the existing 1 MG tank as described in the RWFMP and illustrated in Figure 7-2. In addition to the City of Oceanside, other Water Authority member agencies that have connections to the NCDP include the following:

Rainbow Municipal Water District;

Vallecitos Water District; and

Vista Irrigation District.

The Rainbow Municipal Water District (RMWD) provides water to the unincorporated communities of Rainbow and Bonsall, and portions of Oceanside, and Fallbrook. RMWD has a stub on the NCDP; however this connection is not currently utilized. The Vallecitos Water District (VWD) provides water to San Marcos, the community of Lake San Marcos, and parts of Carlsbad, Escondido, and Vista. VWD conveys water from the NCDP to their Vallecitos Tanks #1 and #2 for storage and subsequent distribution. The Vista Irrigation district (VID) provides water to the City of Vista, portions of San Marcos, Escondido, and Oceanside, and unincorporated areas of San Diego County. VID conveys water from the NCDP to storage tanks within their system. Current water agencies supplied by the NCDP would receive desalinated water instead of water treated at the Weese WTP. As a result, a water exchange agreement would have to be implemented between the City of Oceanside and the Water Authority to exchange Weese WTP water for desalinated water. It is anticipated that an exchange agreement would not be necessary between the Water Authority and the other affected member agencies (RMWD, VID, and VWD) since their allocated amounts would remain unchanged. Once the approximate flow of 25 mgd of desalinated water is allocated along the NCDP to the appropriate member agencies, the SLPS would pump an equal amount of treated water from the Weese WTP back into the DWCP system.


Page 7-6

Source: SDCWA Regional Water Facilities Master Plan (2002)

Figure 7-2: Proposed NCDP 5-MG FRS & Pump Station


Page 7-7

7.3 SECOND AQUEDUCT

Pipelines 3, 4, and 5 form the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct. Each of these pipelines is operated independently. All three pipelines run from the Metropolitan Water District’s (MWD) delivery point to the Twin Oaks Diversion Structure and south to the Miramar Vents near Miramar Reservoir. Pipeline 5 terminates at the Miramar Vents while Pipelines 3 and 4 continue to the south end of the County, terminating at the City of San Diego’s Lower Otay Reservoir a few miles north of the U.S. - Mexico border. The Water Authority’s Regional Water Facilities Master Plan is available for download on their website at: http://www.sdcwa.org/infra/masterplan.phtml. Per the Master Plan, the current design capacities for Pipelines 3 and 4 are 280 cfs and 425 cfs, respectively. Pipeline 5 has a design capacity of 480 cfs at the delivery point from MWD. MWD has agreed that Pipeline 4 could be operated at a flow rate approximately 10 percent higher than its design capacity for limited peak demand periods until future Pipeline 6 is constructed. Therefore, a peak capacity of 470 cfs for Pipeline 4 is being used for master planning purposes. Pipelines 3 and 5 are used to deliver untreated water, while Pipeline 4 is used to deliver treated water. Pipeline 4, operating in conjunction with the First Aqueduct, provides a total treated-water delivery capacity of approximately 650 cfs from MWD to the Water Authority’s service area. Member Agencies that currently receive treated water from Pipeline 4 in the vicinity of the project area are Fallbrook Public Utility District (FPUD), City of Oceanside, Rainbow Municipal Water District (RMWD), Vallecitos Water District (VWD), and Vista Irrigation District (VID). As discussed in Section 6.3, approximately 2.3 miles of conveyance pipeline would be needed to extend the DWCP WAP segment from the NCDP eastern terminus to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. One option would eliminate the construction of this 2.3 mile segment parallel to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct. The other option would over-size the WAP within this segment, so that it could later be integrated into the Water Authority’s Master Plan (Pipeline 6). Option 1 – would utilize the existing 96-inch Pipeline 4 to convey desalinated water along this 2.3 mile segment. Discussions were held with Water Authority personnel to determine the feasibility of conveying approximately 150 mgd (232 cfs) of desalinated water in Pipeline 4 from Weese WTP to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. Staff noted that sufficient capacity could be made available in Pipeline 4, if a sufficient volume of treated water is withdrawn from Pipeline 4 by member agencies upstream of the proposed connection point, illustrated in Figure 7-1. The approximate HGL of Pipeline 4 in the vicinity of the connection point near Weese WTP is approximately 1,250 ft.

http://www.sdcwa.org/infra/masterplan.phtml


Page 7-8

Therefore the static lift from the proposed desalination facility to the Pipeline 4 connection point is approximately 1,195 to 1,215 feet, dependant upon the desalination facility site (MCTSSA or SRTTP, respectively). Refer to Figure 6-5 for a hydraulic profile, illustrating the conveyance of desalinated water from the proposed desalination facility directly to the Pipeline 4 connection point. Option 2 – would oversize the WAP within the 2.3 mile segment between Weese WTP and the TODS to convey desalinated water from the NCDP to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. The pipeline could later be integrated into the Water Authority’s Master Plan (Pipeline 6). This option has briefly been discussed with Water Authority personnel. Pipeline 6 is currently listed in the Water Authority’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as providing the next increment of delivery capacity for imported untreated water from MWD to the Water Authority. Pipeline 6, which has an anticipated capacity of 500 cfs, would originate at MWD’s Skinner WTP in Riverside County and terminate at the TODS. Pipeline 6 would be constructed adjacent to the existing Second Aqueduct pipelines from Weese WTP to the TODS. Therefore, this option would construct an oversized WAP from Weese WTP to the TODS as an initial phase of Pipeline 6. The remainder of Pipeline 6 could be constructed in a subsequent phase when the additional imported water capacity is needed. Of the two options presented, use of Pipeline 4 (Option 1) would be preferred if the product water is conveyed directly to the TOVWTP Clearwells. This option would defer pipeline construction and allow blending with treated water from the TOVWTP. If Pipeline 4 does not have capacity to convey both treated water sources south of Twin Oaks, a portion of the treated water could be diverted to the TODS, and distributed to member agencies as raw water using Pipelines 1,2, 3, or 5. The treated water would then be considered raw water and would require re-treatment at a member agency WTP. It is recommended that subsequent planning efforts further evaluate the options for utilizing the Water Authority’s aqueduct system to distribute desalinated water from the proposed desalination facility.


Page 7-9

7.4 SANTA MARGARITA RIVER CONJUNCTIVE USE PROJECT

In 2003, Congress directed the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), through Public Law (P.L.) 108-7, to perform the studies needed to address current and future municipal, domestic, military, environmental, and other water uses from the Santa Margarita River (SMR). In 2004, Congress appropriated the funds to initiate the study, known as the Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use Project (SMRCUP). The purpose of the project is to help meet water demands of Fallbrook Public Utility District (FPUD) and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, to reduce dependence on imported water while maintaining watershed resources, and to improve water supply reliability by managing the yield of the lower SMR basin and perfecting the water rights permits that were assigned to the BOR in 1974. Currently FPUD receives imported water from the Water Authority Second Aqueduct (Pipeline 4) while Camp Pendleton’s water supply is met primarily by groundwater pumping. At present, water is supplied to Camp Pendleton through diversions from SMR to Lake O’Neil and percolation ponds on the base that recharge underlying groundwater basins. The SMRCUP currently has a “Proposed Action” with two alternatives to the proposed action. Project components of the SMRCUP “Proposed Action” that could potentially be integrated into the proposed Camp Pendleton desalinated water conveyance system includes:

A 13-mile bi-directional pipeline (24-36-inch) from Reservoir Ridge (Camp Pendleton) to Fallbrook’s Red Mountain Reservoir, terminating at a connection point to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct, with two pump stations located:

1. At the Camp Pendleton boundary with the Naval Weapons Station; and

2. At Knoll Park (Fallbrook), with a FRS for temporary water storage.

A 24-mile bi-directional cross-base pipeline (30-inch) to Orange County for delivery of treated SMR water to MWDOC, including at least two pumping stations.

Both pipelines mentioned above are illustrated in Figure 7-3. The 13 mile bi-directional conveyance pipeline would be used to deliver water to FPUD and any additional water to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct. The pipeline would be bi-directional so that water could be delivered back (from Second Aqueduct) to FPUD or Camp Pendleton during emergency outages or during severe drought periods when ground water is insufficient to meet demands.


Page 7-10

This bi-directional conveyance pipeline could serve as an alternative to the DWCP proposed in Chapter 6. The pipeline could be upsized to convey both treated water from the proposed SMRCUP Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) plant and the Water Authority’s proposed desalination facility. Therefore, if Camp Pendleton or Fallbrook required additional water due to emergency outages or during severe drought periods, they could receive desalinated water instead of imported water from Pipeline 4. The two pumping stations would have an increased discharge pressure to overcome additional head when compared to the DWCP pump stations (DWPS and TOVPS), since the HGL of Pipeline 4 near Red Mountain Reservoir is approximately 1,433 feet, compared to approximately 1,250 feet near Weese WTP. Although pumping costs may be increased, the cost to construct and operate the pipelines and pump stations could be shared between BOR, FPUD, Camp Pendleton, and the Water Authority. The 24-mile bi-directional cross-base pipeline is proposed as an alternative to the “Proposed Action”. This cross-base pipeline traversing north-south across the base, could present a significant regional opportunity, as it could be upsized to serve as the middle link of a Coastal Pipeline to link Orange County and the Water Authority’s distribution systems. Refer to Section 7.6 for discussions on Orange County integration and additional Coastal Pipeline alternatives. Another project component of the “Proposed Action” that could be integrated into the Camp Pendleton Desalination Project is the proposed AWT plant(s). The proposed AWT would treat approximately 25 mgd (size not officially determined) of pumped groundwater (within Camp Pendleton). A portion of the water would be treated by carbon filtration (GAC) and the other portion treated by low-pressure RO to reduce dissolved solids. This process would generate a reject stream of brackish water (7,000 to 10,000 mg/L TDS) that would require disposal. A brine pipeline is proposed from the AWT plant to the Lemon Grove Pump Station for subsequent disposal to the MCB Boat Basin, Del Mar Jetty, Fallbrook Outfall Pipeline (via a cross-connection from the existing 527B pipeline), or the Oceanside Ocean Outfall (OOO), via existing pipeline 527B. As discussed in Chapter 4, one major benefit the desalination project could provide Camp Pendleton is the use of the proposed outfall for disposing effluent from its SRTTP facility. In the event of a shutdown of the SRTTP facility for maintenance, there needs to be a back-up option for disposal of primary treated effluent. Currently, Camp Pendleton relies on the OOO for discharge of this effluent which could amount up to 15 mgd. This agreement with the City of Oceanside is temporary and therefore Camp Pendleton is investigating other alternatives for a fail-safe disposal method of primary effluent. The disposal of the AWT plant brackish water effluent stream could also be accomplished using the proposed Camp Pendleton Desalination Project ocean outfall.

FIG

UR

E 7-

3SM

RC

UP

PRO

POSE

D P

IPEL

INES

SO

UR

CE

:CO

AS

TA

LP

IPE

LIN

ES

TU

DY

(SD

CW

A,M

WD

,&M

WD

OC

)


Page 7-12

7.5 MCB CAMP PENDLETON

A secondary objective of this project is potential benefits to MCB Camp Pendleton. Camp Pendleton has two potential water issues; water quality and water reliability, both of which could be resolved with this new desalinated water source. Camp Pendleton’s water supply needs are primarily met by groundwater pumping. At present, water is diverted from SMR to percolation ponds that recharge the underlying groundwater basins. To resolve water quality issues, desalinated water would be blended with Camp Pendleton well water to improve the water quality of water supplied to the base. The water reliability issue would be resolved by the desalination plant providing a reliable drought-proof water supply to the base. Desalinated water could be blended with base well water in any of their treated water storage tanks (i.e. Reservoir Ridge). It is recommended that blending occur at a tank that is in close proximity to the desalination facility or along the DWCP to reduce pipeline costs. A pressure reducing valve (PRV) would be required on the downstream end of the connection point to Camp Pendleton’s conveyance system, to reduce the higher DWCP pressures to a level compatible with the base’s potable water distribution system. Water supply and water quality issues are also prevalent in the northern region of Camp Pendleton. As discussed in the previous section, one option of the SMRCUP is to construct a cross-base pipeline (see Figure 7-3). The cross-base pipeline would supply water to the north end of the base and potentially to the MWDOC service area (further discussed in the following section). Therefore, the cross-base pipeline could convey both SMRCUP treated water and/or desalinated water during drought conditions to supply water to the northern area of the base. Furthermore, this water could be blended with well water in the north during non-drought periods to improve water quality in the northern area of Camp Pendleton.

7.6 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY

The Water Authority, in collaboration with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), first began investigating the pre-feasibility analysis of constructing a SWRO desalination facility in the northern portion of Camp Pendleton near the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), which is operated by Southern California Edison (SCE). Once it was determined that SCE’s concerns regarding a regional desalination project could not be resolved, the area of interest for siting the desalination plant was shifted to the south end of Camp Pendleton, closer to the Water Authority’s distribution system.


Page 7-13

Due to the distance of this location from Orange County (approximately 25 miles), MWDOC removed itself from further study participation. However, as discussed in the previous two sections, one option of the SMRCUP is to construct a cross-base pipeline (see Figure 7-3) to supply water to the north end of the base and potentially to the MWDOC service area. This proposed pipeline could potentially be upsized to serve as the middle link of a Coastal Pipeline to link Orange County and the Water Authority’s distribution systems. The water supplied to MWDOC could be by direct distribution from the proposed desalination facility, or by water exchange, where Camp Pendleton treated groundwater is delivered to MWDOC/MWD while treated MWD/SDCWA water is delivered to FPUD. In July 2006, while the desalination facility was proposed to be located at SONGS, the Water Authority, MWDOC, and MWD collaborated on the preparation of a report entitled, Coastal Pipeline Study. This study evaluated the feasibility of a Coastal Pipeline connecting the infrastructure of MWD to serve portions of Orange County and San Diego. The study confirmed that a Coastal Pipeline is technically feasible and that two potential alignments exist. One alignment is the SMRCUP Cross-Base Pipeline discussed previously. The other alignment is referred to as the “I-5” Alternative. Under this alternative, the proposed I-5 alignment of the Coastal Pipeline would connect to the terminus of the South County Pipeline (SCP) in Southern Orange County and traverse in a southerly direction roughly parallel to the proposed Foothill South Segment of the Highway 241 Foothill Toll Road to I-5. The pipeline would continue south, parallel to I-5 to either the MCTSSA or SRTTP desalination facility site and connect to the proposed DWCP (discussed in Chapter 6). Figure 7-4 illustrates both the “I-5” and “Cross-Base” Pipeline alternatives to connect the Water Authority and MWDOC service areas. Figure 7-4 was obtained from the Coastal Pipeline Study and therefore has not been updated to demonstrate that the proposed desalination facility at SONGS has moved to the southern region of Camp Pendleton. The proposed Coastal Pipeline Pumping Plant shown in Figure 7-4 would now be considered the proposed Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS) discussed in Section 6.5.

FIG

UR

E 7-

4C

OA

STA

L PI

PELI

NE

ALT

ERN

ATI

VES

SO

UR

CE

:CO

AS

TA

LP

IPE

LIN

ES

TU

DY

(SD

CW

A,M

WD

,&M

WD

OC

)


Page 8-1

CHAPTER 8: ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING

8.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter intends to identify and provide an overview of the environmental, regulatory, and construction permits and approvals necessary for the implementation of the Water Authority’s proposed Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project as they pertain to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and potential regulatory permits. The complete desalination project, with all its feasible alternatives for project implementation, entails two potential desalination facility sites, four alternative intake methods, two alternative discharge methods, and two alternative product water conveyance alignments with multiple connector pipelines. This chapter will also identify key CEQA-related technical reports that may be necessary in the future during implementation of the proposed project. In addition, it will also identify potential key regulatory agencies that the Water Authority would need to consult during early consultation. Development of the proposed desalination project would require various permits, approvals, and consultation with the Federal, State, and Local regulators. Some of the anticipated regulatory agencies include Camp Pendleton (U.S. Dept of Defense), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Coastal Commission (CCC), Caltrans, and California Department of Health (CDH). The information provided in this chapter was obtained and summarized from a technical memorandum (TM) completed by RBF Consulting’s Certified Environmental Professional (CEP). The complete TM, entitled Environmental and Permitting Issues Technical Memorandum for the San Diego County Water Authority’s Seawater Desalination Facility at Camp Pendleton (May 2008) is provided in Appendix E. Several attachments (B-D) are provided in the complete TM (Appendix E), which illustrates Camp Pendleton’s Natural Resources, Oceanside’s Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP), and North County’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan. The initial TM was prepared as a preliminary document, based upon available information, with limited access to project sites, Camp Pendleton data, and a generalized description of the project without discussions with outside parties, including regulatory agencies and other stakeholders.


Page 8-2

8.1 OVERVIEW

Table 8-1 identifies environmental impacts associated with each component of the project alternatives, while Table 8-2 identifies anticipated permits and approvals required for implementation. The complete project, consisting of an intake system, desalination facility, concentrate disposal system, and conveyance system extends from the Pacific Ocean in the southwest region of Camp Pendleton to the Twin Oaks Diversion Structure (TODS) located north of Vista, as illustrated in Figure 8-1A and Figure 8-1B. Aesthetic public view sheds exist along Interstate 5 (I-5) and the surrounding Family Housing areas (Stuart Mesa, Del Mar, and Wire Mountain). The Stuart Mesa Family Housing area is located southwest of Stuart Mesa Road, northeast of an agricultural field and I-5. The Del Mar Family Housing area is located adjacent to the City of Oceanside and Camp Pendleton’s boundary, west of I-5, northeast of the Oceanside Harbor. The Wire Mountain Family Housing area is located northeast of I-5, south of the SMR, and north of Oceanside, as illustrated in Figure 8-1A. Two large agricultural fields are located on the east and west side of I-5, north of the SMR. The agricultural field on the west side of I-5, east of the Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity (MCTSSA) is a potential site for the desalination facility (MCTSSA Site – refer to Section 5.1.3). The other agricultural field, on the east side of I-5, north of the SMR, has been proposed for future base housing. MCTSSA is located in the northwest corner of the agricultural field, west of I-5. The MCTSSA facility houses two permanent radar installations. Radar and other high-energy electromagnetic emissions can constitute a hazard to personnel exposed to radiation above a maximum power density. A 1,000-meter radius designates the Electromagnetic Radiation Hazard (ERH) zone of potential hazard to personnel that would exist if the radars were to stop rotating. A high-frequency radiation (HFR) survey was conducted 5 years ago which established an advisory requirement stating that any computer or electrical equipment located in an area taller than a single-story structure may be affected by the radar installations within the ERH zone. Additional safety measures (i.e. shielding) may be recommended to protect any electrical equipment that may be affected by the electromagnetic emissions. It is anticipated that most, if not all electrical equipment would be contained to the first story of any proposed structure. The HFR study was conducted prior to the new radar locations, and therefore an updated HFR survey may be required. Shielding and other means to protect electrical equipment can be very expensive and therefore, the Water Authority and Camp Pendleton may want to consider moving the MCTSSA Site south (still located on tomato fields), just outside of the ERH zone if it is determined that the radar emissions would impact desalination operations.


Page 8-3

South Camp Pendleton has an existing secondary sewer treatment plant called Sewer Treatment Plant 13 (STP 13), located northwest of Vandegrift Boulevard, east of I-5. STP 13 has recently been decommissioned and replaced by the Southern Region Tertiary Treatment Plant (SRTTP), which is located just south of STP 13. STP 13 is scheduled for demolition and site restoration. The STP 13 site and additional land north of the effluent storage ponds is the other potential site for the desalination facility (SRTTP Site – refer to Section 5.1.2). Although Camp Pendleton is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, currently no intake or discharge pipelines for wastewater discharge exist. Camp Pendleton wastewater effluent is currently treated and reclaimed or discharged to the Oceanside Ocean Outfall (OOO). Sensitive biological resources that exist in South Camp Pendleton include sensitive habitat, plant species, and animals. Refer to Attachment B, Camp Pendleton Natural Resources, in Appendix E for a complete illustration of Camp Pendleton’s Natural Resources. The Santa Margarita River (SMR) contains sensitive habitat such as riparian (woodlands and scrub), vernal pools, and Tidewater Goby habitat. Sensitive biological plant species include the San Diego Button Celery and the Torrey Pine Tree. The SMR is home to protected biological species such as the:

California Gnatcatcher;

Light-footed Clapper Rail;

California Least Tern;

Belding’s Savannah Sparrow;

California Brown Pelican;

California Least Bell’s Vireo;

Tidewater Goby;

Arroyo Toad; and

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.

The South Camp Pendleton area serves as the nesting area for the California Least Tern and Snowy Plover. Cockleburr Canyon is the California Least Tern foraging area and has California Least Bell’s Vireo habitat. Near the mouth of Cockleburr Canyon are the Light-footed Clapper Rail and Belding’s Savannah Sparrow. Along South Camp Pendleton’s beach area is sensitive dune habitat. Sensitive biological resources that exist in Oceanside along the desalinated water conveyance Pipeline (DWCP) alignment include sensitive habitat, plant species, and animals. Refer to Attachment C, Oceanside Subarea HCP/NCCP, in Appendix E for a complete illustration of Oceanside’s Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community


Page 8-4

Conservation Plan. The San Luis Rey River (SLRR) contains sensitive habitat such as beach/saltpan, grassland, riparian scrubs, riparian forests/woodlands, and sticky dudleya. The SLRR is home to protected biological species such as the:

California Gnatcatcher;

California Least Bell’s Vireo;

Orange-throated Whiptail;

Cooper’s hawk;

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher;

Yellow-breasted Chat; and

White-faced Ibis.

Sensitive biological resources that exist within the County of San Diego along the DWCP alignment include grasslands, riparian/wetlands, eucalyptus woodlands, Stephens Kangaroo Rat, Gnatcatcher habitat, and the Arroyo Toad. Refer to Attachment D, North County Subarea MSCP, in Appendix E for a complete illustration of North County’s Multiple Species Conservation Program.

8.2 PERMITTING SUMMARY

The following is a partial list of key permitting issues associated with regional desalination projects, based on recent examples throughout the State. These issues need to be adequately considered and addressed as part of the conceptual facility alternatives analyses, and as the project moves through the environmental and regulatory approval process, and design: 1) Co-location: This issue has been addressed through the basic site concept, which

does not involve co-location with a once-through cooled (OTC) power plant. As experienced on several regional desalination plants along the California Coast, co-locating with an OTC power plant creates a number of serious design, operational, environmental, and regulatory issues.

2) Impingement/Entrainment (I/E): This project would avoid I/E issues that pertain to

a OTC power plant based desalination plant, but would have to tackle this issue if a screened open-ocean intake is used, which is one of four feasible intake options. I/E remains one of the major obstacles to successful permitting of a seawater desalination plant. Recent seawater desalination projects have been legally challenged, in part, due to failure to consider I/E issues as part of the Clean Water Act compliance (through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or California Coastal Commission (CCC)).


Page 8-5

3) Energy/Climate Change: This emerging issue requires serious consideration, both

at the feasibility level, and as the project moves through the environmental and regulatory approval process. As seen in recent deliberations by CCC and State Lands Commission (SLC), regulatory agencies are likely to request detailed analysis of project-related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, both direct and indirect. It is also reasonable to anticipate further legislation, at the State or Federal level that further regulates GHG emissions. Project design features that reduce energy demand or otherwise offset GHG emissions would be highly desirable toward improving success at the environmental and regulatory approval stages.

4) Concentrate Discharge: This issue is common to any desalination facility, and can be addressed through proper discharge location (away from sensitive benthic marine resources) and proper design. The SWRCB is currently evaluating Ocean Plan amendments that may regulate concentrate discharge.

5) Sensitive Biological Resources: The ideal project would have limited or no impact upon sensitive species and habitat, as well as “Waters of the U.S.”, as this would complicate the environmental/regulatory approval process, increase project costs, and likely lead to project delays. In particular, sites or alignments should be designed or sited to minimize or, preferably, avoid such sensitive locations as Cockleburr Canyon, SMR, vernal pools, and close proximity to sensitive dune habitat. Impacted sensitive areas can be minimized, but with many projects is inevitable, and therefore environmental mitigation would be required.

6) Growth/Cumulative Impacts: This issue would occur with any “new” water supply, regardless of site-specific issues and regardless of the source. This project would need to address consistency with adopted water supply plans, on a local and regional level, which may raise additional growth/cumulative issues.

7) Camp Pendleton: Clearly, the project must be designed in a manner that is acceptable to Camp Pendleton, as the property owner and key federal agency.

8) Local Support: The ideal project would have support from the local community and businesses, which would greatly facilitate approvals as the project moves through the environmental and regulatory process.

For a detailed discussion regarding potential permits and regulatory consultation, refer to Section 8.7, Key Regulatory Permits and Approvals.

FIG

UR

E8-

1A

8

FIG

UR

E8-

1B

8


Page 8-9

8.3 DESALINATION FACILITY

8.3.1 Description The Water Authority’s proposed desalination facility would be located in the southwest region of Camp Pendleton, near the City of Oceanside boundary. The two proposed sites are located in proximity to I-5, the SMR, and the Pacific Ocean. The proposed project would include the development of a desalination facility utilizing reverse osmosis (RO) technology to produce approximately 50 mgd initially of potable drinking water, with the potential to expand up to 150 mgd in 50 mgd increments. For a detailed description regarding the desalination facility, refer to Chapter 5. Other facilities onsite are typical for water treatment plants and include pretreatment equipment, pumps, chemical storage and handling, residuals handling, storage facilities, administration building, and laboratory. The desalination facility process would include pretreatment to remove suspended solids that can cause RO membranes to foul. After the RO process, the desalted water is void of essential minerals and so pure that it is highly corrosive. Post-treatment, or remineralization, is required to protect downstream piping systems and to make the permeate compatible with the end users (Water Authority member agencies and Camp Pendleton) water supply. Power for the desalination facility would either be purchased from the grid or generated onsite utilizing turbine generators as discussed in Section 5.3. San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) is the local power provider (retailer), who purchases power from various sources. Southern California Edison (SCE) owns and operates the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) and is one of the local power generators that SDG&E purchases power from. A reduction in GHG’s related to nuclear power use would depend on the fraction of the power that comes from nuclear power in the project area. Chemicals that may be required for the desalination process include ferric chloride (coagulant), sulphuric acid (pH adjustment), caustic (enhanced boron removal), sodium bisulfite (de-chlorination), chlorine gas or sodium hypochlorite (disinfection), lime and carbon dioxide (remineralization). Various chemical delivery methods are being considered; including rail delivery and truck delivery either through a new dedicated I-5 ramp, through the Main South Gate, or through the Las Pulgas Gate. The total land area required for an ultimate 150 mgd desalination facility is approximately 20 – 30 acres. Environmental impacts associated with the two proposed desalination facility sites, SRTTP and MCTSSA, are unique, and are described in detail in the following sections.


Page 8-10

The desalination facility would have normal daytime staff ranging from 8 - 12 personnel with weekend staff ranging from 4 - 6 personnel. Graveyard (swing) shift staff would range from 2 - 4 personnel. Maintenance personnel would be required for any planned and/or corrective maintenance. All desalination facility personnel would need to pass through security clearance at Camp Pendleton gates.

8.3.2 SRTTP Site The SRTTP Site is located east of I-5, south of the SMR, on the former STP 13 site, and is approximately 1.0-mile east of the Pacific Ocean. The site is bisected by an abandoned rail line. The SRTTP Site is approximately 25 acres and could accommodate a 150 mgd desalination facility. The site is occupied by a portion of STP 13 on the eastern side of the site and by undisturbed land along the SMR on the western side of the site. STP 13 is scheduled for demolition and site restoration. Site access can be provided by Lemon Grove Road. The SRTTP Site could utilize any of the intake methods described previously in Chapter 3.

8.3.3 MCTTSA Site The MCTSSA Site is located north of SMR, adjacent to and west of I-5, east of the MCTSSA facility. The site is currently leased agricultural tomato fields. The MCTSSA Site is in excess of 25 acres and could accommodate a 150 mgd desalination facility. The Lower Santa Margarita River Road (existing dirt road) or Camp Pendleton Road (MCTSSA I-5 bridge crossing) could provide access to the site. The bridge crossing which is accessed by Stuart Mesa Road, currently serves MCTSSA personnel and tomato farmers. The MCTSSA Site could utilize any of the proposed intakes, yet a screened open-ocean intake is favorable for this site due to the assumed poor offshore hydrogeology.

8.3.4 Potential Environmental Impacts A portion of the SRTTP Site is on previously disturbed land, yet a portion of the site is located on undisturbed land adjacent to SMR. The MCTSSA Site is located on previously disturbed agricultural land. Potential environmental impacts pertinent to these site locations include aesthetics, air quality, agricultural resources (MCTSSA Site only), biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality as described below.

Aesthetics The SRTTP Site would be visible from I-5 and the Wire Mountain Housing area. However, adjacent to the site is the SRTTP facility, which offers protection from eastern views. The decommissioned STP 13 is located on a portion of the SRTTP site.


Page 8-11

Therefore any new water treatment facilities would have similar aesthetics to the existing conditions. The MCTSSA Site would be visible from I-5 and the Stuart Mesa Family Housing area. Views from the coast would be minimal since the site is located east of the MCTSSA facility, yet coastal areas would be sensitive to the Coastal Act viewshed impacts. Similarly, views along I-5 would be sensitive to I-5 viewshed impacts. Further analysis would be necessary to fully assess the potential visual impact; therefore a Visual Impact Assessment is recommended.

Air Quality Short-term construction-related air quality impacts are anticipated during construction of the desalination facility. Fugitive dust emissions, construction equipment emissions, worker trips, and equipment transportation would create potential short-term air quality impacts. In addition, potential operational impacts may occur. These could include emissions from energy consumption to operate the intake system, pumps, discharge, and maintain the facility and additional trip generation to staff the facility and deliver chemicals. Measures to reduce emissions and adherence to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) rules and regulations would be necessary to reduce potential impacts. In addition, the desalination facility may impact climate change (due primarily to direct and indirect energy consumption, by the project, and as may be related to cumulative or growth-inducing effects of the project). Further analysis is required to analyze the potential air quality impacts during construction and operation. An Air Quality Assessment and a Climate Change Assessment are recommended.

Agricultural Resources The MCTSSA Site is currently leased for agricultural use (tomato fields). Development of the desalination facility at this location would convert farmland to an industrial use. Locating the desalination facility at this location would potentially have a significant impact on agricultural resources, both in terms of agricultural land loss and due to potential operational issues in proximity to remaining agricultural operations.

Biological Resources The SRTTP Site is located adjacent to the SMR on disturbed and partially undisturbed land. Refer to Section 8.1 for a detailed discussion regarding SMR sensitive habitat and species. This site is in close proximity to identified sensitive bird and plant species and therefore could potentially impact sensitive biological habitat, resources, or animal species. Although the MCTSSA Site is disturbed and has no biologically sensitive resources on-site, the surrounding sensitive biological resources could potentially be impacted during construction and operation of the desalination facility (including gnatcatcher, snowy plover near the dunes, and SMR). As such, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is recommended.


Page 8-12

Mitigation measures would be required to ensure these areas would not be significantly impacted by construction or operation of the desalination facility. Adherence to Camp Pendleton’s Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) would be necessary to ensure any potential impacts to the nearby sensitive habitat would be less than significant. A Biological Resources Report would be necessary to further evaluate the existing biological resources on-site. In addition, potential jurisdictional impacts may occur, therefore a Jurisdictional Delineation may be required, and mitigation measures to ensure this area would not be significantly impacted by construction or operation of the desalination facility.

Cultural Resources Potential impacts in regards to cultural resources may occur during short-term construction activities. During earth moving and grading activities, cultural resources may be encountered and create a cultural resource impact. A Cultural Resources Report is recommended to assess existing cultural resources on-site.

Geology and Soils Potential impacts in regards to geology and soils may occur during construction and operation of the desalination facility. Potential impacts may occur during tunneling of pipeline under I-5, the NCTD rail line, and the Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET) rail line to meet the feedwater and discharge pipelines. A Geotechnical Report is recommended to assess the geology of the potential site and ascertain the existing conditions of the sites.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials The SRTTP Site may potentially encounter hazardous materials associated with STP 13, while the MCTSSA Site may encounter pesticides associated with agriculture use. Further analysis would be necessary to assess the potential hazards and hazardous material impacts. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment would be necessary to evaluate the sites. The MCTSSA Site is located adjacent to the MCTSSA facility which houses two permanent radar installations. The MCTSSA facility radar and other high-energy electromagnetic emissions can constitute a hazard to personnel exposed to radiation above a maximum power density. A 1,000-meter radius designates the Electromagnetic Radiation Hazard (ERH) zone of potential hazard to personnel that would exist if the radars were to stop rotating. Further analysis is required to assess the potential hazard and hazardous material impacts in regards to the ERH zone. A high-frequency radiation (HFR) survey was conducted 5 years ago which established an advisory requirement stating that any computer or electrical equipment located in an area taller than a single-story structure may be affected by the radar installations within the ERH zone.


Page 8-13

Additional safety measures (i.e. shielding) may be recommended to protect any electrical equipment that may be affected by the electromagnetic emissions. It is anticipated that most, if not all electrical equipment would be contained to the first story of any proposed structure. The study was conducted prior to the new radar locations, and therefore a new Radiation Frequency Survey may be necessary. Shielding and other means to protect electrical equipment can be very expensive and therefore, the Water Authority and Camp Pendleton may want to consider moving the MCTSSA Site south (still located on tomato fields), just outside of the ERH zone.

Hydrology and Water Quality A portion of the SRTTP Site is located within the SMR 100-year flood zone. Mitigation measures would be necessary to mitigate this potential impact, by either developing levees or constructing the desalination facility on the current location of STP 13 at a higher elevation. Both sites are located within the Santa Margarita and Aliso Watersheds. Potential hydrology and water quality impacts (runoff) may occur during construction and operation of the desalination facility. To mitigate and reduce potential impacts, BMP’s would be adhered to prevent potentially contaminated water runoff from entering the SMR or Pacific Ocean. Further analysis is necessary to determine the potential impact and recommended adequate mitigation measures and therefore a Hydrology Report is recommended.

Land Use and Relevant Planning Both sites would require analysis of site-specific land use and relevant planning issues. In particular, potential effects upon Camp Pendleton military operations and existing local agricultural operations would need to be assessed. The SRTTP Site is east of I-5, and therefore not within the Coastal Zone. On the other hand, the MCTSSA Site is west of I-5, within the Coastal Zone. Both sites would be required to address consistency with Camp Pendleton’s INRMP.

Noise Potential short-term construction impacts may occur during project implementation. Potential noise sources include construction equipment, construction supply trucks, and boats. In addition, potential long-term operational impacts may occur with operations of the desalination facility. Potential noise sources include pumps, truck deliveries, reverse osmosis membrane process, generator, and other mechanical equipment. An Acoustical Assessment is recommended to assess if any noise, sound frequencies, or vibrations associated with short-term construction and long-term operations impacts sensitive areas and/or marine life.


Page 8-14

Population and Housing Potential long-term operational impacts may occur with implementation of the proposed project. The increase in available potable water may be growth inducing to the San Diego County Water Authority’s service area. A detailed assessment of potential cumulative and growth-inducing impacts would be required.

Transportation and Traffic Short-term transportation and traffic impacts may occur during construction as the construction workers commute to and from the project’s construction site and the building equipment and supplies are transported to the project site. Long-term transportation and traffic impacts may occur during the operation of the desalination facility. The additional worker’s commuting to and from the desalination facility may pose significant traffic impacts. A Traffic Impact Analysis is recommended to further assess the potential impacts associated with the proposed project. A Traffic Management Plan would be required as part of project construction, and should be conceptually identified within the project’s environmental document.

Utilities and Service Systems Implementation of the proposed project may impact the existing utilities and service systems during operation. The proposed project may increase the power demand on the California Grid, increase the amount of potable water on the utility services, and potentially increase the need for security on-site. Significant impacts may occur to utilities and service systems with implementation of the proposed project, however further analysis is necessary to fully assess the project’s potential impacts.

8.3.5 Conclusion The Desalination Facility site, regardless of location, would encounter various environmental concerns including aesthetics, air quality, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use and relevant planning, noise, population and housing, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Selection of a site that minimizes potential environmental impacts is consistent with the goals of CEQA, NEPA, and regulatory agency requirements for alternatives analysis. This would also streamline the project’s CEQA/NEPA process and provide greater certainty for regulatory agency approval. The SRTTP Site has impacts due to aesthetics (I-5 and base housing), biological resources (SMR, sensitive species/habitat), water quality, and hazardous materials. The MCTSSA Site has impacts due to aesthetics (I-5, coast, base housing), biological resources (sensitive species/habitat), agricultural resources, and hazardous materials. If either site were selected, further analysis and technical studies are necessary, such as:


Page 8-15

Air Quality Assessment

Acoustical Assessment

Visual Impact Report

Biological Resources Report

Cultural Resources Report

Geotechnical Report

Hydrology Report

Jurisdictional Delineation

Traffic Impact Analysis & Traffic Management Plan

Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment

8.4 SEAWATER INTAKE

8.4.1 Description A new seawater intake facility would need to be constructed to obtain feedwater for the desalination facility since no viable existing intake structures currently exist near South Camp Pendleton. Four intake methods are being considered for this project, three offshore intake methods, and one onshore intake method. The three offshore intake options include a screened open-ocean (wedge-wire screen) intake, a seabed infiltration gallery (SIG), and a deep infiltration gallery (DIG) collector well system. The onshore intake method being considered is a slant well intake system. For a detailed description of each intake option, refer to Chapter 3. Each of the offshore intake methods would utilize a “pipe-in-pipe” concept for the intake of feedwater and the discharge of RO concentrate (brine) as described in Section 3.2. Existing kelp beds and reefs exist offshore (refer to Figure 2-2), which must be considered in facility design and environmental/regulatory compliance. Environmental impacts associated with each intake method are quite similar, yet the largest impacts are associated with biological resources. The feedwater from an offshore intake would need to be pumped to the desalination plant utilizing a Feedwater Pump Station (FWPS). For both sites, a 1-2 acre parcel of land is needed near the coast to locate the FWPS. The proposed FWPS associated with the SRTTP Site is to be located near the beach, just south of the SMR. For the MCTSSA Site, the proposed FWPS is to be located on the bluffs in the northwest corner of the tomato fields. Refer to Section 3.3 for a detailed description of the FWPS.


Page 8-16

8.4.2 Screened Open-Ocean Intake The proposed screened open-ocean intake system would consist of eight “T”-shaped cylindrical wire-mesh screens (see Figure 3-4). Each cylindrical screen is 6 feet in diameter and 24 feet long. The screens would be constructed of material (Z-Alloy) to repel mussels, resist biofouling, and minimize corrosion from seawater. To restore efficient screen performance, the screens would be equipped with an air-scour system to generate a periodic blast of air through the screen assembly to dislodge any material or impinged sea life. The screened open-ocean intake system would be located approximately 7,400 feet offshore at a water depth of 65 feet (see Figure 3-9). Refer to Section 3.4 for a detailed description of the screened open-ocean intake. This option would involve temporary impacts during construction (onshore launch pit, temporary seafloor disruption, etc), and long-term impacts associated with open-ocean seawater intake through wedge-wire screens and onshore feedwater pumps.

8.4.3 Seabed Infiltration Gallery The SIG would require the removal (dredging) of the top 10 to 15 feet of the seafloor to install a system of horizontal drains. The dredged native sand would be replaced with an engineered gravel pack consisting of crushed gravel and sand. The SIG would be located approximately 2,000 to 6,000 feet offshore and could occupy up to 10 to 50 acres of the seafloor. Refer to Section 3.5 for a detailed description of the SIG intake system. This option would involve temporary impacts during construction (onshore launch pit, temporary seafloor disruption, etc.), and long-term impacts associated with permanent seafloor disruption and onshore feedwater pumps. Refer to Figure 3-11 for the proposed SIG location, south of the kelp beds and north of the artificial reefs.

8.4.4 Deep Infiltration Gallery The DIG would consist of approximately 30-90 collector wells (12-inch diameter) drilled at an approximate angle of 45 degrees from a barge platform above the ocean to access the sandy alluvium above the tunnel (see Figure 3-12). Minimal impact would occur to the seafloor during installation of the well casings. The wells would be spaced approximately 75 feet apart with an average length of approximately 80 feet. Refer to Section 3.6 for a detailed description of the DIG intake system. The success of a DIG is heavily dependent on the hydrogeology of the deep sediments. This option would involve temporary impacts during construction (onshore launch pit, well casing penetrating seafloor), and long-term impacts associated with the onshore feedwater pumps. This intake option would substantially avoid marine-related impacts associated with a screened open-ocean intake and SIG. However, this approach is more susceptible to local hydrogeology due to reliance upon native sediments for transmissivity. In addition, this alternative would have potentially different pre-treatment requirements due to feedwater being drawn through native materials, which could convey trace minerals and other chemicals.


Page 8-17

8.4.5 Slant Well Intake System The slant well intake system would consist of 12- to 24- inch diameter slant wells, approximately 700 feet in length drilled from the shore (see Figure 3-13). Two well fields are proposed north and south of the SMR mouth. The wells would be grouped in clusters of three or more and would be spaced approximately 500 feet apart. Each cluster would be equipped with well pumps and discharge into a common manifold feedwater pipeline, which would convey the feedwater to the desalination facility. Refer to Section 3.7 for a detailed description of the slant well intake system. The slant wells would be drilled from the shore, therefore no construction impacts would occur on the seafloor. The well clusters are assumed located on the bluffs to avoid the biologically sensitive beach (see Figure 3-14). This option would involve temporary construction impacts, and long-term pumping impacts. Similar to the approach used at Doheny State Beach and Long Beach, this intake option would substantially (or entirely) avoid marine-related impacts associated with I/E impacts and unproven technology and SIG (temporary and permanent seafloor disruption). However, this approach is more susceptible to local hydrogeology due to reliance upon native sediments for transmissivity. In addition, this alternative would have potentially different pre-treatment requirements due to feedwater being drawn through native materials, which could convey trace minerals and other chemicals into the RO system. The conceptual onshore launch areas are in close proximity to the coastal dunes and SMR, where several sensitive bird species have been identified in Camp Pendleton’s INRMP.

8.4.6 Potential Environmental Impacts Potential environmental impacts pertinent to these intake methods include aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and noise as described below.

Aesthetics Construction of the intake system and pipelines may include boats and equipment on the ocean and staging areas on the shore. Potential visual and aesthetic impacts may occur during short-term construction. Views of the Pacific Ocean from I-5 and the Family Housing areas (Stuart Mesa, Del Mar, and Wire Mountain) may be affected. This impact would be short-term in nature as operation of the intake system would be underwater and only periodic maintenance would occur. Operational impacts may occur for the three offshore intake methods, which require a feedwater pump station (FWPS), which would be located on the shore, potentially within public view, nearby residential areas, and I-5. Operational impacts for the slant well intake system may occur since the well


Page 8-18

heads are assumed located on the bluffs, potentially within public view, nearby residential areas, and I-5. This could be minimized by locating the well heads within a vault and installing submersible pumps. Further analysis would be necessary to assess potential impacts and recommend potential mitigation measures to reduce impacts. A Visual Impact Report is recommended.

Air Quality Construction of any intake system would cause short-term air quality impacts. Emissions from the construction equipment, the boats/barges necessary to construct the pipeline offshore, and transportation of equipment from the shore to the construction site pose as potential impacts. Adherence to the SDAPCD rules and regulations would be necessary to reduce potential impacts. In addition, potential operation impacts may occur. Operation of the FWPS may emit air quality emissions that may exceed the SDCAPCD’s thresholds. Further analysis is required to analyze the potential air quality impacts during construction of the site and operation of the proposed project. An Air Quality Assessment is recommended to analyze potential air quality impacts.

Biological Resources In relation to a screened open-ocean intake, short-term construction-related impacts would occur during the installation of the seabed pipelines and screens. Potential operational impacts to biological resources may include the impingement and entrainment (I/E) of marine organisms through the intake system and RO process. Even though the wedge-wire screens are designed to reduce impingement of marine organisms and avoid entrainment of marine life through periodic air bursts, further study of this technology would be necessary to fully analyze potential impacts. This technology has been tested in rivers and estuary conditions, but has little or no data for open-ocean applications. Therefore, proceeding with this technology involves a certain level of risk through the environmental and regulatory permitting process. Even with this technology, it is possible that regulators would require additional mitigation of I/E impacts. In relation to a SIG, short-term construction-related impacts would occur to the seabed to install the SIG. Replacing the native sand with engineered gravel pack would potentially cause a significant biological impact to existing benthic marine life. However, once the SIG is in place, no marine life would be harmed by I/E due to the low intake velocity and density of the gravel pack. The SIG, with an estimated footprint of 10 to 50 acres, would permanently alter the benthic environment within the ocean floor footprint. Although a similar facility has recently been constructed in Fukuoka, Japan (see Figure 3-10), this technology would represent a new approach to California coastal desalination, with inherent risks in demonstrating environmental superiority to other available alternatives.


Page 8-19

In relation to a DIG or slant well intake system, potential impacts to terrestrial biological resources may occur during construction. Minimal disturbance of the seafloor during installation of the DIG wells is anticipated since the collector well casings would be installed from ocean. Adherence to Camp Pendleton’s INRMP would be necessary in addition to project-specific mitigation measures to ensure any potential impacts to the surrounding beach area and any nearby sensitive habitat would be less than significant. Although the technology of a DIG and slant well allows the water to be filtered through the sand and reduce I/E of marine life, operation of these intakes may impact marine life. Of particular concern is any construction or operational features in proximity to coastal dunes or SMR (slant wells). Further analysis and study is necessary for all intake alternatives to fully assess the potential marine biological impact. A Marine Biological Resources Report is necessary.

Hydrology and Water Quality Potential short-term impacts may occur during construction of the DIG. Impacts may include construction water runoff to the nearby water bodies. BMP’s would be required during construction to reduce impacts, specifically during drilling and excavation activities. Operational impacts are not anticipated to be significant, however periodic maintenance of the facilities would be necessary to ensure the equipment is working in proper condition and not causing contaminated water supplies to runoff into nearby water bodies. A Hydrology Report is recommended.

Geology and Soils Potential construction- and operation- related impacts could occur during implementation of the proposed intake. The existing surface geologic conditions and seafloor topographic conditions of the intake sites are unknown. Potential seismic and geologic conditions may pose a significant impact to the proposed intake method. Further analysis is necessary to adequately assess the existing conditions and potential impacts. A Geotechnical Report and Bathymetry Report are recommended.

Noise Potential short-term construction noise impacts may be associated with development of the intake system. Construction equipment, boats/barges, and construction activity may have a potential significant effect on migrating marine life (whales) and nearby sensitive receptors located onshore or near shore during construction. Subsurface and/or surface construction areas (even if temporary) near the coastal dunes may represent significant environmental and regulatory hurdles due to snowy plover and other sensitive bird species associated with coastal dunes and SMR, as recently seen with the Cambria test well hearings. An Acoustical Assessment is recommended to assess if any noise, sound frequencies, or vibrations associated with short-term construction and long-term operations impacts sensitive areas and/or marine life.


Page 8-20

Transportation and Traffic Short-term transportation and traffic impacts may occur during construction as the construction workers commute to and from the project’s construction site and the building equipment and supplies are transported to the project site. Camp Pendleton and U.S. Coast Guard navigational restrictions may exist in the offshore area depending on the vessel types and frequency. The seawater intake system and its associated conveyance system would be constructed offshore using barges and other sea vessels. Therefore the local U.S. Coastguard Private Aids to Navigation office needs to be consulted when the final intake type, depth, and location is determined. Long-term operational impacts are not anticipated, as the structures are not trip generating facilities. Further analysis is recommended to fully assess potential impacts.

8.4.7 Conclusion All intake methods create various environmental concerns including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation and traffic. In relation to a screened open-ocean intake or SIG, successful environmental and regulatory approvals would require adequate demonstration of I/E reduction efficiency, and the ability to avoid or mitigate impacts to sensitive coastal (dunes) and offshore (reef/kelp) resources. Refer to Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the offshore biological resources. Although subsurface intake alternatives (SIG, DIG, or Slant well) reduce or avoid the majority of intake-related marine resource impacts (i.e. I/E), successful environmental and regulatory approval would require further study to document potential long-term benthic effects of a subsurface intake system, as well as potential unique RO pretreatment issues associated with this concept. All intake methods would require further analysis and technical studies would be necessary such as:




Bathymetry Report

Marine Biological Resources Report

Geotechnical Report

Hydrology Report

In addition consultation would have to occur with Camp Pendleton and the U.S. Coast Guard regarding any navigational issues within the project area.


Page 8-21

8.5 CONCENTRATE DISPOSAL

The selection of a concentrate (brine) discharge method is dependent upon the intake method selected. The three offshore intake methods would utilize a dual-use, pipe-in-pipe ocean outfall tunnel. The onshore intake method (slant wells) would require a dedicated discharge ocean outfall tunnel. Generally, environmental impacts associated with each discharge method are similar in nature. For a detailed description of the two outfall configurations, refer to Chapter 4.

8.5.1 Dual-Use Outfall The dual-use outfall or “pipe-in-pipe” concept would consist of mounting a discharge pipe inside the intake tunnel (see Figure 3-1). The proposed concentrate discharge location is approximately 12,700 feet offshore at a water depth of approximately 100 feet. The dual-use intake/discharge tunnel is subsurface for approximately 4,000 feet. Therefore, approximately 8,700 feet of the brine disposal pipeline would be laid on the ocean floor after the tunnel terminus. The diffuser system could be configured linearly or with a “Y” configuration, which is preferred. For a detailed description of the concentrate disposal system, refer to Section 4.2.

8.5.2 Single-Use Outfall The single-use (dedicated) ocean outfall would only be utilized if an onshore slant well intake system were constructed. Other than being reduced in size (diameter and length) and no inner pipeline, the single-use ocean outfall would be constructed in the same manner as the dual-use outfall. The discharge location would occur approximately 12,700 feet offshore within 100 feet depth of water. Therefore, approximately 8,700 feet of the brine disposal pipeline would be laid on the ocean floor after the tunnel terminus. The single use outfall location, associated with the onshore intake system, would be located south of SMR, and would therefore be angled northwest to avoid potential impacts to the identified sensitive offshore reef areas.

8.5.3 Potential Environmental Impacts Potential environmental impacts pertinent to both outfall configurations include aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and noise as described below.

Aesthetics Construction of the brine disposal system would include boats and equipment on the ocean and staging areas on the shore. Potential visual and aesthetic impacts may occur during short-term construction as views of the Pacific Ocean from I-5 and the Family Housing areas (Stuart Mesa, Del Mar, and Wire Mountain) could be affected. This


Page 8-22

impact would be short-term in nature as operation of the system would be underwater and only periodic maintenance of the tunnel and diffusers would occur. Further analysis would be necessary to assess potential impacts and recommend potential mitigation measures to reduce impacts. A Visual Impact Report is recommended.

Air Quality Construction of the brine disposal system would cause short-term air quality impacts. Emissions from the construction equipment, the boats/barges necessary to construct the pipelines offshore, and transportation of equipment from the shore to the construction site pose as potential impacts. Adherence to the SDAPCD rules and regulations would be necessary to reduce potential impacts. In addition, potential operation impacts may occur. Further analysis is required to analyze the potential air quality impacts during construction of the site and operation of the proposed project. An Air Quality Assessment is recommended to analyze potential air quality impacts.

Biological Resources Short-term construction-related impacts may be associated with the outfall, similar to the intake alternatives, during installation. The operations of the discharge tunnel may significantly impact marine life. Seawater concentrate would be almost twice the original salinity of the ocean water. Although the difference in temperature of the discharge and the receiving ocean and the ocean currents both serve to distribute the seawater concentrate throughout the ocean, potential impacts may occur during initial discharge of the seawater concentration to benthic organisms and the surrounding coastal habitat area. Further analysis and study is necessary to fully assess the potential marine biological impact. A Marine Biological Resources Report would be necessary.

Geology and Soils Potential construction- and operation- related impacts could occur during implementation of the proposed project. The existing surface geologic conditions and ocean seafloor topographic conditions of the site are unknown. Potential seismic and geologic conditions may pose a significant impact to the proposed project. Further analysis is necessary to adequately assess the existing conditions and potential project impacts. A Geotechnical Report and Bathymetry Report are recommended.

Hydrology and Water Quality Potential short-term impacts may occur during construction of the dual-use outfall. A Hydrology Report is recommended. Potential operational impacts may occur as the seawater concentrate is discharged. The temperature of the seawater concentrate, salinity of the seawater concentrate, and ocean currents are components that contribute to the seawater concentrate’s dilution and distribution. Further study and analysis is necessary to ascertain the ocean’s bathymetry and ocean currents. A Hydrodynamic Modeling Report is recommended.


Page 8-23

Noise Potential short-term construction-related noise impacts may be associated with development of the outfall. Construction equipment, boats/barges, and construction activity may have a potential significant effect on nearby sensitive receptors located onshore or near shore during construction. Subsurface and/or surface construction areas (even if temporary) near the coastal dunes may represent significant environmental and regulatory hurdles due to snowy plover and other sensitive resources, as recently seen with the Cambria test well hearings. Further analysis is needed to assess potential noise impacts. An Acoustical Assessment is recommended to assess if any noise, sound frequencies, or vibrations associated with short-term construction and long-term operations, impacts sensitive areas and/or marine life.

Transportation and Traffic Short-term transportation and traffic impacts may occur during construction as the construction workers commute to and from the project’s construction site and the building equipment and supplies are transported to the project site. Camp Pendleton and U.S. Coast Guard navigational restrictions may exist in the offshore areas, depending on the vessel type and frequency. The brine disposal system and its associated conveyance system would be constructed offshore using barges and other sea vessels. Therefore the local U.S. Coastguard Private Aids to Navigation office needs to be consulted when the final intake type, depth, and location is determined. Long-term operational impacts are not anticipated, as the structures are not trip generating facilities. Further analysis is recommended to fully assess potential impacts.

8.5.4 Conclusion The Dual-Use and Single-Use Outfall would both encounter various environmental concerns including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation and traffic. Successful environmental/regulatory approval would require further study and hydraulic modeling to document potential long-term marine effects of the discharge options, particularly with respect to identified offshore sensitive resources. Refer to Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the offshore resources. Opportunities for blending the concentrate with lower salinity waters (such as treated wastewater) could offset salinity impacts. The SWRCB is presently evaluating Ocean Plan amendments that may regulate salinity, and this would be a major regulatory hurdle with the RWQCB NPDES Permit, as evidenced by recent regulatory hearings for several coastal desalination projects. Each outfall configuration would require further analysis and technical studies such as:


Page 8-24

Air Quality Assessment;

Acoustical Assessment;

Visual Impact Report;

Bathymetry Report;

Geotechnical Report

Marine Biological Resources Report; and a

Hydrodynamic Modeling Report.

In addition, if the dual-use (pipe-in-pipe) tunnel concept is utilized, consultation with the Department of Environmental Health (DEH) would have to occur to discuss the issue of concentrate and wastewater effluent being in intimate contact with the desalination feedwater. A monitoring system may have to be installed within the tunnel to monitor if any intrusion is occurring or pipeline breaks within the tunnel. Discussions with DEH should occur before further development of the tunnel project. In addition, consultation would have to occur with Camp Pendleton and the U.S. Coast Guard regarding any navigational issues within the project area.

8.6 DESALINATED WATER CONVEYANCE

In addition to the desalination facility and its accompanying intake and brine disposal system, the proposed project includes a product water conveyance pipeline (DWCP) and associated pumping stations. The DWCP alignment traverses Camp Pendleton through the City of Oceanside and terminates at the TODS within the City of Vista. For a detailed description of the DWCP system, refer to Chapter 6. The South Boundary Pipeline (SBP) segment has two potential alignments and accompanying connector pipelines capable of serving both the SRTTP and MCTSSA Sites. The two proposed alignments are the Ysidora Basin Pipeline (YBP) and the Wire Mountain Pipeline (WMP). The YBP alignment is generally north of the SMR within the Ysidora Basin, while the WMP alignment is located south of the SMR. Both alignments would connect to the proposed Oceanside Pipeline segment near the San Luis Rey River (SLRR) and Whelan Lake, which traverses through the City Of Oceanside. The pipeline then connects to the proposed Water Authority Pipeline (WAP) segment which connects to the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells. Environmental impacts associated with each conveyance alignment are similar and would not result in significant long-term operational impacts, but would include short-term construction impacts.


Page 8-25

8.6.1 SBP - Ysidora Basin Pipeline Alignment The YBP alignment (see Figure 6-1) would traverse through Camp Pendleton northeast along the north bank of the SMR, along SMR Road, for approximately 2.4 miles. The pipeline would then be constructed using trenchless construction methods under both the SMR and Vandegrift Boulevard. The alignment would continue east on an existing unpaved road (El Camino Real) to the Camp Pendleton / City of Oceanside border near Whelan Lake. From this location, the pipeline would be tunneled under the sensitive open-space area to the toe of the SLRR levee on either the north or south side of the SLRR. The YBP alignment would connect to the proposed Oceanside Pipeline segment. Refer to Section 6.1.3 for a detailed description of the YBP.

8.6.2 SBP - Wire Mountain Pipeline Alignment The WMP alignment (see Figure 6-1) begins at the intersection of Vandegrift Boulevard and Ash Road. The pipeline alignment would follow Ash Road through the Wire Mountain Housing area to the newly constructed military housing at Daffodil Street. From this point, the pipeline would jog southwest and follow the property line between the new military housing area and the North Terrace Elementary School, where it would intersect Capistrano Street in the City of Oceanside. The pipeline would then run south along Loretta Street (fire access road) southwest to the SLRR. The pipeline would be constructed using trenchless construction methods under the SLRR to the toe of the levee on the south bank. The pipeline would follow along the toe of the levee or along the bike trail east, where it would eventually connect with the proposed Oceanside Pipeline near Whelan Lake. Refer to Section 6.1.4 for a detailed description of the WMP.

8.6.3 SBP – Connector Pipelines Five (5) Connector Pipeline alternatives are proposed for the SBP segment (see Figure 6-1). Selection of the Connector Pipeline(s) is dependant upon which desalination facility site is selected, SRTTP or MCTSSA. The Connector Pipeline(s) are needed to give each desalination facility site the ability to connect to either one of the SBP alignment alternatives (YBP or WMP). The five Connector Pipeline alternatives are listed below with a brief description. Refer to Sections 6.1.5 – 6.1.9 for a detailed description of each Connector Pipeline alternative.

1) Lower Santa Margarita River Road Connector: Connects MCTSSA site directly to YBP alignment. The pipeline would be installed along the Lower Santa Margarita River Road north of SMR, beginning at the west of I-5, ending at the YMP alignment.

2) Santa Margarita River Connector: The SMR Connector is used to connect the

MCTSSA site to the WMP alignment (with Stuart Mesa Road Connector) or the SRTTP site to the YBP alignment (with SMR Connector). The pipeline would be installed using trenchless construction methods to cross SMR.


Page 8-26

3) Stuart Mesa Road Connector: The Stuart Mesa Road Connector is used to

connect the MCTSSA site to the WMP alignment. It could also be used to connect the SRTTP Site to the YBP alignment (with Vandegrift Blvd and SMR Connectors). The pipeline would be constructed within Stuart Mesa Road or within the right-of-way, out of the traveled roadway.

4) Railroad Connector: The Railroad Connector is one option used to connect the

SRTTP Site to either the YBP alignment (with SMR Connector) or the WMP alignment (with Stuart Mesa Road Connector). The pipeline would be installed parallel to the abandoned railroad tracks that bisect the SRTTP site and terminate at Stuart Mesa Road.

5) Vandegrift Blvd Connector: The Vandegrift Blvd Connector can be used to

connect the SRTTP Site directly to the WMP alignment or the YBP alignment (with Stuart Mesa Road and SMR Connectors). The pipeline would be constructed within Vandegrift Blvd or within the right-of-way, out of the traveled roadway.

8.6.4 Oceanside Pipeline Segment The proposed Oceanside Pipeline alignment is approximately 44,000 LF and is located primarily within the City of Oceanside It ultimately connects the South Boundary Pipeline segment to the Water Authority Pipeline segment (see Figure 6-2). The Oceanside Pipeline alignment begins near Whelan Lake within the SLRR levee right-of-way (north or south levee to be determined) and follows the levee east towards College Boulevard. At College Boulevard, the pipeline would be installed east along North River Road for approximately 2.5 miles. The pipeline would cross through agricultural fields for approximately 1.4 miles and then using trenchless construction methods, would be installed under SLRR and Highway 76. From Highway 76, the pipeline would continue south down East Vista Way (S-13) for approximately 1.5 miles to its terminus at the corner of East Vista Way and Osborne Street in the City of Vista. Refer to Section 0 for a detailed description of the Oceanside Pipeline segment.

8.6.5 Water Authority Pipeline Segment The Water Authority Pipeline (WAP) connects to the Oceanside Pipeline and ultimately conveys the product water to the Water Authority’s TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells (see Figure 6-3). The WAP is approximately 6.0 miles long and would be located within the Water Authority’s existing NCDP and Second Aqueduct Easements. The NCDP easement begins near the intersection of East Vista Way and Osborne Street. It continues east for approximately 3.25 miles, weaving through mountainous terrain, the Vista Valley Country Club, and then parallels Silverleaf Lane to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct near the Weese WTP. The WAP would then continue south parallel to the Second Aqueduct pipelines to either of the Twin Oaks facilities. Refer to Section 6.3 for a detailed description of the WAP segment.


Page 8-27

8.6.6 Potential Environmental Impacts Potential environmental impacts pertinent to DWCP alignments include aesthetics, air quality, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, and traffic as described below.

Aesthetics Potential short-term construction-related aesthetic impacts may occur during trenching and installation activities. After pipe installation, minimal long-term operational aesthetic impacts are anticipated although the pipeline is subsurface. Visual impacts would be associated with air release valves (ARV), air vacuum valves (AVV), blow-off valves and/or combination valves along high and low points of the pipeline would have to be considered. Further analysis would be necessary to assess potential impacts and recommend potential mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. A Visual Impact Report is recommended.

Air Quality Construction of the YBP would cause short-term air quality impacts to occur specifically during grading and trenching activities. Emissions from the construction equipment, construction activities, and transportation of equipment to the construction site pose as potential impacts. Adherence to the SDAPCD rules and regulations would be necessary to reduce potential construction impacts. Operational impacts are not anticipated to be significant as the pipeline alignment would be subterranean would not emit emissions. However, operation of the proposed pump stations (refer to Section 6.4), required to convey the product water, may emit air quality emissions that may exceed the SDCAPCD’s thresholds. Further analysis is required to analyze the potential air quality impacts. An Air Quality Assessment is recommended to analyze potential air quality impacts.

Agricultural Resources As the pipeline traverses through agricultural fields, potential significant impacts may occur if construction conflicts with a Williamson Act contract. Further analysis is necessary to fully analyze potential impacts. Long-term impacts are not anticipated, as the pipeline would be underground.

Biological Resources Potential biological impacts may occur during short-term construction activities as the pipeline alignments traverse through sensitive biological resources. Key sensitive resources potentially affected include SMR and environs, smaller tributary drainages, and SLRR (refer to Attachment B, Camp Pendleton Natural Resources, Attachment C, Oceanside Subarea HCP/NCCP, and Attachment D, North County Subarea Plan MSCP all located in Appendix E). Although trenchless construction methods are proposed where the pipeline would cross drainages, the sensitive biological resources may require


Page 8-28

consultation with the USFWS, CDFG, ACOE, City of Oceanside, and County of San Diego. A Jurisdictional Delineation may also be required. The cross-country portions of the pipeline alignments, through open-space areas, appear to traverse areas mapped in the Camp Pendleton INRMP as potentially containing Least Bells Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Gnatcatcher, Pacific Pocket Mouse, Arroyo Toad, Tidewater Goby, and vernal pools (possibly fairy shrimp), with riparian birds, fish and amphibian species associated with SMR and SLRR. Potential sensitive biological resources within the City of Oceanside include beach/saltpan, grassland, riparian forests/woodlands, riparian scrubs, Sticky Dudleya, California Gnatcatcher, Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Orange-throated Whiptail, Cooper’s hawk, Yellow-breasted Chat, and White-faced Ibis. Sensitive biological resources within the County of San Diego include grasslands, riparian/wetlands, eucalyptus woodlands, Stephens Kangaroo Rat, Gnatcatcher habitat, and Arroyo Toad. Adherence to the City of Oceanside’s or Water Authority’s HCP/NCCP would be necessary to ensure that any potential impacts to sensitive habitat would be less than significant. The Water Authority is not signatory to Oceanside’s HCP/NCCP, and therefore is not bound by it. The SMR and SLRR have well-established environmental/ community groups that closely watch and may challenge projects deemed to adversely affect these resources. A formal Biological Resources Report would be necessary to further evaluate the existing biological resources along the pipeline alignments.

Cultural Resources Potential impacts in regards to cultural resources may occur as the pipelines are constructed along SMR and SLRR and undisturbed land where Native American resources may exist. A Cultural Resources Report is recommended to assess potential on-site cultural resources.

Geology and Soils Potential impacts in regards to geology and soils may occur. Any alignments along SMR or SLRR may be susceptible to erosion. The geologic stability of the pipeline routes need to be confirmed. A Geotechnical Report is recommended to assess the geology of the alignment.

Hydrology and Water Quality As the pipelines traverse areas adjacent to SMR and SLRR, the alignments could be within the rivers 100-year flood zone. Potential water runoff from construction activities may impact the SMR, SLRR, and Santa Margarita and Aliso Watersheds. To mitigate and reduce potential impacts, BMPs would be adhered to prevent potentially


Page 8-29

contaminated water runoff from entering surrounding rivers or creeks. Further analysis is required to assess potential impacts, a Hydrology Report is recommended.

Noise Potential short-term construction impacts may occur during trenching and installation activities from construction activities, which may affect sensitive biological resources and other sensitive receptors. Long-term impacts are not anticipated to be significant since the pipelines would operate underground. However, potential impacts may occur from the pump stations. Further analysis is required to fully assess impacts of the proposed project. An Acoustical Assessment is recommended.

Transportation and Traffic Short-term transportation and traffic impacts may occur with any pipeline alignments proposed along or crossing street routes (Stuart Mesa Road, Vandegrift Blvd, Ash Road, North River Road, East Vista Way, Vista Valley Drive, Twin Oaks Valley Road, Silverleaf Lane). Any crossings that may affect major roadways could be installed using trenchless construction methods to minimize impact. Short-term transportation and traffic impacts may occur during construction as the construction workers commute to and from the project’s construction site and the building equipment and supplies are transported to the project site. Specifically, construction-related trenching and potential road closures may occur. A Traffic Impact Analysis is recommended to detail the potential impacts associated with short-term construction. Long-term operational impacts are not anticipated since the pipeline alignment is not a trip generating facility. Further analysis is recommended to fully assess potential impacts.

8.6.7 Conclusion The proposed DWCP alignments would encounter various environmental concerns including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation and traffic. The relatively long stretches along SMR, SLRR and cross-country native habitat represents a potentially serious constraint, in terms of potential project mitigation, environmental/community opposition, and regulatory agency processing challenges. All DWCP alignment options would require further analysis. Additional technical studies would be necessary such as:

Air Quality Assessment;

Acoustical Assessment;

Visual Impact Report;

Biological Resources Report;

Cultural Resources Report;

Geotechnical Report;


Page 8-30

Hydrology Report;

Jurisdictional Delineation; and a

Traffic Impact Analysis.

In addition, consultation with the USFWS, CDFG, ACOE, City of Oceanside, and County of San Diego is recommended. The Railroad Connector may have potential impacts relating to railroad operations and therefore consultation with the National Strategic Rail System / MCBCP is recommended.

8.7 KEY REGULATORY PERMITS AND APPROVALS

This section assumes the following permits are necessary for the desalination facility, the two proposed site alternatives, the four intake methods, the two discharge methods, and the DWCP alignments. The following is a preliminary discussion, and is not intended to represent an exhaustive list of permits/approvals. Preliminary agency scoping is recommended to further refine the requirements and issues associated with these and other potential regulatory permits/approvals. Table 8-2 summarizes the anticipated permits and approvals required for project implementation.

8.7.1 Federal Agencies

MCB Camp Pendleton Easement/Approval/ Partnership/Agreement Implementation of the proposed project would require approval from Camp Pendleton. This approval process can be separated into three categories: 1) approvals to access the site for environmental and engineering investigations (e.g. access for general reconnaissance, geotechnical investigation, hazardous materials reconnaissance, etc.); 2) a lease agreement for construction and operation of the desalination facility; and 3) federal conformity determination for consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act (see CCC discussion below). The site access is critical to adequately consider physical site constraints and existing/potential permit conditions. As part of this data acquisition, the Water Authority’s team would need to discuss sensitivity in what types of data collected and how the data is presented, in consideration of permitting or monitoring requirements that Camp Pendleton may be involved in. The lease agreement is essential to ensure the site viability. As part of these discussions with Camp Pendleton, it would be important to understand the relationship of the proposed desalination facility site with current and potential future operations. It would also be important to define construction-related and operational site access and parking, as well as utility and pipeline routing and interconnections.


Page 8-31

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The ACOE, Section 404 permit is required for any discharge into “waters of the U.S.” and is therefore anticipated for implementation of the proposed project. The Section 10 permit would be required, as new structures would be placed in the navigable ocean (intake and outfall structures, including wedge-wire device for open intake, brine disposal pipelines, and temporary marine construction activities). Section 404 and Section 10 Permits would be under the jurisdiction of the ACOE’s Los Angeles District office (http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/). Concurrent with this permit process, ACOE would consult with other federal agencies, including EPA, Coast Guard, NOAA NMFS (for marine-related regulations such as ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act), and Section 106 compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (cultural/historic resources). The environmental document to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) could potentially be lead by Camp Pendleton (Department of Defense) or ACOE. To facilitate permitting, the project’s technical studies should be conducted in coordination with ACOE and in compliance with NEPA and ACOE requirements. Impacts to federal resources (federally-listed species, significant cultural resource sites) would represent potential additional delays and costs. In addition, construction of the Oceanside Pipeline would require consultation with the ACOE as the SLRR is under the jurisdiction of the ACOE. Clean Water Act Section 404(a): “The Secretary may issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites. Not later than the fifteenth day after the date an applicant submits all the information required to complete an application for a permit under this subsection, the Secretary shall publish the notice required by this subsection.” Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899: ” That the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is hereby prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War; and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or enclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning the same.”

http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/


Page 8-32

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required as part of federal consultation (CCC, ACOE, etc.) for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compliance. Related to this is federal consultation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act compliance. These issues would arise during construction near shorebird habitat, and may occur due to the discharge, or any disturbance of native habitat or wetlands. Key USFWS issues for this project are anticipated to include, but not be limited to, potential adverse effects upon coastal dune species (snowy plover), federally-listed species (particularly for conveyance routes), sensitive marine resources (reef and kelp areas, as well as potential affects of any marine construction or operation), I/E issues associated with the open intake, and brine discharge. Endangered Species Act, Section 7(a)(2): “Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an "agency action") is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data available.”

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) / Federal Funding Should the Water Authority pursue federal funding for any element of the proposed project (such as through the U.S. EPA or U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), compliance with NEPA would be required. The appropriate NEPA document would likely be an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is anticipated that the EIS could rely heavily on analysis performed for the EIR, although modifications would be necessary at the discretion of the Federal lead agency. The federal agency that would lead the NEPA EIS process would be either Camp Pendleton (DOD) or ACOE. In addition, NEPA compliance would be required by individual federal agencies as part of any federal permit/approval, such as the ACOE Section 10/404 process, and Camp Pendleton’s FOST/FOSL process.

8.7.2 State Agencies

California Coastal Commission The State Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is required for the California Coastal Act (CCA) compliance. However, with the State CDP, all long-lead discretionary permits must be obtained prior to receiving a CDP from the State. The State CDP (issued by the


Page 8-33

CCC) is required only for the ocean outfall and intake structures (offshore), as Camp Pendleton administers Coastal Act compliance for land-based projects within the Coastal Zone. However, the Federal Agency must submit documentation stating how the project complies with CCC regulations. The CCC has the ability to approve or deny a project; however, the CCC does not have the ability to conditionally approve the project. Key issues for CCA compliance include water quality (discharge), marine resources (including impingement/entrainment), growth, energy (GHG), coastal access, coastal views, coastal dune resources, and alternatives. The CCC retains permanent coastal permit jurisdiction over development proposed on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands. They also act on appeals from certain local government coastal permit decisions. The CCC administers the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), with review/approval authority of Camp Pendleton actions within the Coastal Zone. The most significant provisions of the CZMA give CCC regulatory control over all Federal activities and federally licensed, permitted, or assisted activities if the activity affects coastal resources. As part of the State CDP, the CCC would engage in federal consultation with EPA (CZMA conformity), USFWS, NOAA/NMFS for ESA and Marine Mammals Act compliance, and the Coast Guard. The CCA includes several policies intended to protect water quality. Requirements include controlling runoff and waste discharges to protect water quality and preventing substantial interference with surface water flows in order to sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters, and minimizing the alteration of riparian habitats and streams. The CCC would provide a discretionary review of detailed development plans for any proposed use, structure, or activity located within the coastal zone (unless specifically exempted) as established by the CCA.

California Environmental Quality Act Documentation The proposed project would require compliance with the CEQA prior to implementation. It is anticipated that the appropriate document for the proposed project would be an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project would be supported by numerous technical studies. Many of the supporting technical studies would also be utilized for other required permits and approvals for the proposed project. It is anticipated that key issues for CEQA compliance would be local land use compatibility/zoning, concentrate discharge (water quality), and marine resources (I/E). In compliance with CEQA, the EIR would provide a description of existing conditions, environmental impacts, and mitigation for such impacts. The EIR would be adopted by the Water Authority, the CEQA lead agency, and would be required for any other local or State agency for which permits/approvals are required (unless that agency’s permitting program has been approved as functionally equivalent and therefore exempt from CEQA, such as the CCC’s CDP program).


Page 8-34

California Regional Water Quality Control Board This permit is necessary for the brine discharge, including brine and any other physical changes to the source water (see discussion below regarding WDR and 401 Certification). The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems Permit (NPDES) have recently been issued for two major desalination projects in Huntington Beach and Carlsbad (50 mgd each), and have been issued for a demonstration facility in Long Beach (300,000 gpd). Water quality issues are also relevant to the CEQA process, as well as CDP, and must consider a variety of water quality regulations, including the Ocean Plan and Thermal Plan (see http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/plnspols/oplans.html and http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/npdes/index.html). The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) may also address salinity issues as they relate to ambient conditions. In addition, due to diversion of permeate for product water, and due to the increased volume of brine and chemical discharge, the water quality and marine biological (receiving water) analyses would be detailed and would receive greater scrutiny from the public. The permit would likely involve discharge monitoring, and it would be important to establish a “point of regulation”

California State Lands Commission The California State Lands Commission (SLC) was given the authority and responsibility to manage and protect the important natural and cultural resources on certain public lands within the state and the public’s rights to access these lands. SLC’s jurisdiction extends to more than 120 rivers and sloughs, 40 lakes and the state’s coastal waters, extending from the shoreline out to three miles offshore. The SLC manages the public trust lands including tidelands. A Land Use Lease from the SLC would be required, since the proposed project would develop a new intake and/or outfall pipeline. Key SLC issues would be similar to those identified for the CCC; including concerns for marine resources, GHG, and growth (see http://www.slc.ca.gov/ Regulations/Article_9.html).

California Department of Transportation Interstate 5 (I-5) bisects the proposed project’s pipeline system for feedwater conveyance, desalinated water conveyance, and discharge conveyance. Pipelines would either be tunneled under I-5 using trenchless construction methods or be tunneled under the I-5 SMR crossing. Thus, consultation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and obtaining an Encroachment Permit would be required.

California State Parks At this time, it does not appear that the proposed project would encroach onto the California State Parks lands during construction of the conveyance pipeline tunnels and construction of the intake/discharge tunnels. If so, an Encroachment Permit would be necessary from the California State Parks.

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/plnspols/oplans.html

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/npdes/index.html

http://www.slc.ca.gov/


Page 8-35

California State Department of Toxic Substances Control Existing hazardous materials contamination at some of the Alternative Sites may require permits and/or approvals from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), RWQCB, and/or the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA). Camp Pendleton would have to grant clearance prior to sale or lease of any property owned by DOD, either a Finding of Suitability for Transfer (FOST) or Finding of Suitability for Lease (FOSL). This would be a condition of transfer/lease, and would need to be addressed in relevant environmental/permitting documents (and may supersede the DTSC process for property on Camp Pendleton). Soil contamination may exist at either desalination facility site. Should the project utilize a subsurface seawater intake, potential groundwater contamination must also be examined. Should contamination be present, the site must be remediated, and to the satisfaction of the DTSC, a Remedial Action Plan would be required and implemented for the proposed project. Should a site require “corrective action” (have contamination, either surface or groundwater, that exceeds a minimum action level), it may take two or more years to go through the DTSC site remediation and site clearance process. Should the Water Authority proceed in the absence of DTSC clearance, the Water Authority may retain liability for eventual site remediation should it be required in the future. An intermediate process is possible, involving informal coordination with DTSC on hazardous materials investigations to determine whether the site requires corrective action. The Water Authority should explore means of avoiding or limiting liability, such as capping the site to prevent ground disturbance, and avoiding any dewatering or groundwater pumping to affect (and therefore trigger liability) the existing contaminated plumes. A subsurface intake system has the potential to affect the contaminated groundwater plumes and as such could incur substantial liability for the Water Authority. This should be further evaluated in hydrogeologic modeling as part of the permitting and CEQA process. If the groundwater is contaminated in proximity to the site or pipeline alignments, effects on subsurface pipelines (feedwater, conveyance, etc.) would have to be investigated.

California Dept of Fish and Game A 1602 Agreement and 2080 Permits are required for disruption of any streambed through an open cut trench or otherwise, or for impacts to State-listed endangered species. CDFG may also comment on State-regulated marine and fishery resources, as well as potential construction-related issues such as pipeline tunneling “frac-outs”. This permit would be required as different aspects of the proposed project involve construction near shorebird habitat, may disturb native habitat or drainages, and includes a seawater concentrate discharge to the Pacific Ocean.


Page 8-36

California Dept of Health Services The purpose of the proposed project is to provide the Water Authority with 50 - 150 mgd of new potable water for distribution to the Water Authority’s service area and member agencies. The Domestic Water Supply Permit is required prior to potable use of the permeate, and is issued following startup of the desalination facility. Typically, as part of a desalination project’s environmental and regulatory approval process, a Water Supply Assessment is prepared, which requires detailed analysis of the proposed source water’s water quality. The California Department of Health Services (DHS) would review and process the Water Authority’s Domestic Water Supply Permit in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, Section 116525(a): “No person shall operate a public water system unless he or she first submits an application to the department and receives a permit as provided in this chapter. A change in ownership of a public water system shall require the submission of a new application.”

Clean Water Act Compliance The State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit would be required for any surface discharge not regulated by the NPDES, such as dewatering, which may be required during construction. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification would be required for the project’s ACOE Section 404 discharge permit for discharge into the “waters of the U.S.”. Clean Water Act Section 401(a)(1): ” Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or permitting agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that any such discharge would comply with the applicable provisions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of this title.”

8.7.3 Local Agencies

San Diego Air Pollution Control District As required by the California Clean Air Act and the Federal Clean Air Act, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) is responsible for air monitoring, permitting, enforcement, long-range air quality planning, regulatory development, and education and public information activities to air pollution. The SDAPCD regulates the use of stationary equipment generating air emissions. Should the proposed project require the use of diesel- or natural gas-powered equipment (whether duty or emergency backup), the proposed project would require a Permit to Operate from the SDAPCD and be required to adhere to the SDAPCD rules and regulations.


Page 8-37

Waste Water Discharge Requirements This permit may be necessary for dewatering, such as may occur with the onshore intake alternative, and pipeline crossings of natural drainages. The Regional Water Quality Control Board would review and process the Waste Discharge Requirements Permit in accordance with the Water Code Section 13260. Water Code Section 13263(a): “The regional board, after any necessary hearing, shall prescribe requirements as to the nature of any proposed discharge, existing discharge, or material change in an existing discharge, except discharges into a community sewer system, with relation to the conditions existing in the disposal area or receiving waters upon, or into which, the discharge is made or proposed. The requirements shall implement any relevant water quality control plans that have been adopted, and shall take into consideration the beneficial uses to be protected, the water quality objectives reasonably required for that purpose, other waste discharges, the need to prevent nuisance, and the provisions of Section 13241.”

Private Landowners/Cities Encroachment Permit/Easements/ROW As an off-site network of product water conveyance pipelines would be necessary for the proposed project, it is expected that multiple encroachment permits would be required for construction of these pipelines. These permits would likely need to be acquired from local agencies such as the City of Oceanside (local roadways/infrastructure), San Diego County (for any regional floodway crossings), and/or Caltrans (for construction affecting State highways, such as I-5).

Other Local Permits/Approvals The proposed project would require multiple utility connections, such as electricity, natural gas, sewer, stormwater, and telephone. The Water Authority would be required to coordinate with applicable local utility providers to establish necessary connections, and pay applicable connection fees when applicable. The Water Authority may also require approvals from Camp Pendleton Staff for utility relocation at Camp Pendleton. A large network of underground utilities may exist throughout the alternative sites and may require relocation for desalination facility and pipeline infrastructure construction.

8.7.4 Permitting Schedule Figure 11-1 in Chapter 11 – Project Implementation illustrates a complete preliminary project implementation schedule, including the permitting process, for the construction and operation of the Water Authority’s proposed Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project. Refer to Section 11.2 – Next Steps for a discussion on the procurement of the environmental consultant, which would lead the environmental regulatory process.


Page 8-39

8.8 RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommendations below are general and not specific to site, intake method, discharge method, or DWCP alignment. Once a specific site, intake, discharge method, and DWCP alignment is identified as the preferred project, a detailed project specific analysis would be required to assess the project specific CEQA/NEPA documentation and technical studies. The following factors would need to be addressed as part of successful permitting for the project:

1) Gain stakeholder support/consensus early; 2) Conduct informal scoping with key stakeholders, including regulatory agencies; 3) Procure a technical consultant to mange the project from start to finish. 4) Procure an environmental consultant that would develop the EIR. They would

conduct or assist in technical studies and reports; 5) Provide flexibility in the permits and CEQA/NEPA process to adapt to design

modifications. 6) Recommendation to prepare CEQA/NEPA documents as “alternatives” analyses,

where each site is evaluated, along with intake/discharge and process options. This allows the CEQA process and permitting to commence early and involves stakeholders (including the local community, environmental groups, and regulatory agencies) in the project selection process, although it does require additional upfront costs for additional technical studies evaluating the alternatives, and invites outside parties into the project selection process;

7) Conduct additional research regarding specific regulatory permit issues; 8) Develop a Risk/Opportunity Matrix to identify risks of various site conditions and

recommendations, to balance against potential benefits. This matrix should consider, at minimum: subsurface intakes; sites; treatment processes; and timing of preliminary design, environmental, permitting, final design, and construction.

9) Potential development of a pilot scale (or demonstration scale) project to facilitate ultimate facility design, CEQA/NEPA and permitting;

10) Develop/implement an integrated design/permitting/public outreach process; 11) Retain a coastal processing strategist with experience in water law and

desalination; 12) Retain outside legal counsel with expertise in water law, permitting, CEQA/NEPA

and hazardous materials; 13) Develop/implement integrated regulatory agency communication protocol and

data acquisition plan, in consultation with Public Relations staff; and 14) Key risks to the schedule should be identified with contingency plans developed,

including site access/lease agreements, DTSC clearance of any hazardous materials, NPDES permitting, litigation, appeals, and Coastal Development Permit processing, as well as design/build options to accelerate construction.


Page 8-40

8.9 POTENTIAL CEQA/NEPA DOCUMENTATION

The proposed project consists of the development of a desalination facility, located at one of the two proposed site locations, an intake system, a brine disposal system, and a desalinated water conveyance system. An EIR/EIS is required for the proposed project. In addition to the required CEQA/NEPA sections, potential impact sections include:

Aesthetics

Air Quality

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Geology and soils

Hazards and hazardous materials

Hydrology and water quality

Land Use/Relevant Planning

Noise

Population and housing

Traffic/Circulation/Access

Utilities and service systems (including source water and product water quality)

8.10 POTENTIAL TECHNICAL STUDIES

Potential technical studies to conduct the EIR/EIS include:



Climate Change Assessment

Biological Resources Report (including Marine Resources)


Geotechnical Report

Bathymetry Report

Hydrology Report


Radiation Frequency Survey

Receiving Water Modeling Report


Traffic Impact Analysis

Military Impacts

Water Supply Assessment


Page 9-1

CHAPTER 9: PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

9.0 INTRODUCTION

After several meetings, two sites were approved by Camp Pendleton personnel to continue further investigation of constructing a regional desalination facility with an ultimate capacity of 150 mgd in the southwest region of Camp Pendleton. These two site alternatives are known as the SRTTP Site and the MCTSSA Site (refer to Section 5.1 and 5.2). The SRTTP and MCTSSA Site alternatives are considered feasible to construct a regional desalination facility. After additional technical studies are completed and further discussions are held with Camp Pendleton, one site would become the preferred project while the other would carry forward as an alternative. The Water Authority assumes that Camp Pendleton personnel would have a preference on which site is most suitable to construct a desalination facility based on the minimization of impacts to Camp Pendleton training, operations, and mission. Once determined, the Water Authority can define the preferred project description that would be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). The following sections would list the components of the desalination project associated with each site alternative. The tables in each section list what is required for each phase of the project. Both sites would utilize the dual-use tunnel for both intake and brine discharge. The SRTTP Site would utilize a DIG intake while the MCTSSA Site would use a screened open-ocean intake (refer to Chapter 3 for intake options). Therefore each desalination facility would consist of a treatment process designed to treat the anticipated water quality associated with each type of seawater intake (refer to Chapter 5 for treatment options). The brine disposal (diffuser) system is independent of the site location and would be sized and built for the Ultimate Project. The diffuser system would be constructed with one “Y” branch shut-off until the desalination facility increases capacity. During Phase 2, a dive team would open a valve and uncap the remaining diffuser ports to utilize the entire diffuser system (refer to Chapter 4 for brine disposal options). The desalinated water conveyance pipeline (DWCP) is also independent of the site location. The DWCP would utilize the NCDP (and SLPS) to pump desalinated water directly into Pipeline 4 to avoid constructing approximately six miles of conveyance pipeline (refer to Chapter 6 and 7 for details on conveyance).


Page 9-2

9.1 SRTTP SITE

This section will describe the proposed project components (intake, disposal, treatment, conveyance) required for each phase of the desalination project as it pertains to the SRTTP Site alternative. The SRTTP Site is located east of I-5, south of the SMR, approximately 1.0-mile east of the Pacific Ocean. The site is approximately 26 acres and is occupied by the STP 13 site and open-space along the SMR.

Seawater Intake The seawater intake system proposed for the SRTTP Site is the DIG intake system (refer to Section 3.6 for a detailed description of the DIG). The DIG intake is proposed for this site due to the assumed permeable hydrogeology offshore of the SMR outlet. It must be noted that any of the intake options are feasible for this site though. The dual-use tunnel would be drilled in a northwest direction for the reasons listed below:

1. Take advantage of the SMR alluvial soil near the mouth of the river, which would have a much higher hydraulic conductivity to assist with greater DIG infiltration rates.

2. Reduce the length of the brine disposal pipeline laid on the seafloor, since the brine discharge location is northwest of the onshore tunnel portal site.

The Feedwater Pump Station (FWPS) could be located near shore, just east of the Del Mar Beach area, south of SMR. Other locations could be evaluated as part of subsequent planning efforts. The feedwater pipelines, which consist of two 7-foot diameter pipelines, would be installed in two phases. The two I-5 crossings would be installed during Phase I, but only one pipeline would be constructed, capable of conveying approximately 105 mgd of feedwater to the desalination plant. When the plant expands capacity, the deferred pipeline would be installed. Refer to Figure 9-1 for the proposed FWPS and feedwater pipeline locations. Refer to Table 9-1 below for a list of the seawater intake components required for the SRTTP Site.

Table 9-1 SRTTP Seawater Intake Components

Component Phase 1 50 mgd

Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

DIG Collector Wells 30 initial wells 30 additional wells 30 additional wells Feedwater Pipeline (tunnel) 4,000 ft, 16-ft diam. - - Feedwater Pipeline (land) 4,200 ft, 7-ft diam. 4,200 ft, 7-ft diam. - Feedwater PS (installed hp) 5,400 hp 8,100 hp 10,800 hp


Page 9-3

Concentrate Disposal The concentrate disposal system for the SRTTP Site would vary slightly compared to the MCTSSA Site (refer to Chapter 4 for a detailed description of the concentrate disposal system). The brine disposal pipelines (on the seabed) would be longer in length for the SRTTP Site since the discharge location is further away from the onshore tunnel portal compared to the MCTSSA Site. The brine disposal pipeline (on land) would also be longer in length since the SRTTP Site is further inland than the MCTTSA Site. The diffuser system would be sized and built for the ultimate project capacity. One leg would be closed off and the diffuser ports capped until phase 2 of the project commenced. When this occurs, divers would uncap the remaining diffuser ports and open the valve to the second leg of the system. Refer to Table 9-2 for a list of the SRTTP Site concentrate disposal system components.

Table 9-2 SRTTP Concentrate Disposal System Components


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Combined “Y” Diffuser System (2) legs - 1,200 ft, 7-ft diam. divers - Dedicated Effluent Diffuser 8,700 ft, 2-ft diam. - - Brine Disposal Pipeline (seabed) 8,700 ft, 7-ft diam. - - Brine Carrier Pipeline (tunnel) 4,000 ft, 9-ft diam. - - Brine Disposal Pipeline (land) 4,200 ft, 7-ft diam. - -

Desalination Facility The SRTTP Site would require less treatment components compared to the MCTSSA site due to the use of a subsurface DIG intake. A subsurface intake takes advantage of the natural seabed filtration and therefore produces fewer solids to treat before the desalination process. The pretreatment process for the feedwater (raw seawater) would consist of drum screens, dissolved air flotation (DAF), and cartridge filters. It must be noted that the SRTTP site could accommodate the additional treatment facilities required (UF, sludge thickening tanks, etc) if a screened open-ocean intake were employed. After pretreatment, the filtrate is pumped at high pressure through SWRO membranes to produce desalinated water (permeate). The permeate would undergo post-treatment to remineralize the water so that it would not corrode distribution pipelines and resemble existing potable water quality characteristics. Post-treatment would consist of lime addition (calcite beds), carbon dioxide (CO2), and chlorination. Solids from the pretreatment process would be sent to a solids handling facility where they would be dewatered before being hauled to a landfill. Refer to Chapter 5 for a detailed description of the desalination treatment process. Table 9-3 provides a list of the SRTTP Site desalination facility components. Refer to Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3 for the SRTTP Site desalination facility site layout and visual rendering, respectively.


Page 9-4

Table 9-3 SRTTP Desalination Facility Components


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Pretreatment Drum Screens 4 Units (3+1) 3 Units 3 Units Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) 3 DAF Tanks 3 DAF Tanks 3 DAF Tanks Desalination Reverse Osmosis (10) 5-mgd trains (10) 5-mgd trains (10) 5-mgd trains Energy Recovery Device (ERD) 180 ERI PX 180 ERI PX 180 ERI PX ERD Booster Pumps 10 Pumps 10 Pumps 10 Pumps Post-Treatment Lime, CO2, Chlorination, etc. Structure & Equip. Additional Equip. Additional Equip. Clearwell Tank 5 MG 5 MG - Solids Handling Dewatering Belt Press 1 Unit 1 Unit -

Desalinated Water Conveyance The DWCP would use the YBP alignment for the SBP segment. The collector pipeline lengths are reduced for the SRTTP Site due to its close proximity to the YBP alignment, yet the collector pipeline would require trenchless construction under SMR. The DWCP would use the Oceanside Pipeline segment as previously described, but would not utilize the WAP segment. Rather than constructing six miles of the WAP segment, the DWCP would utilize the existing NCDP and Pipeline 4 (Second Aqueduct) to convey desalinated water to the TODS. To achieve this, the flow in the NCDP would be reversed and a water exchange would need to be implemented between the City of Oceanside and the Water Authority. The SLPS would be used to pump 25 mgd of treated water from the Robert A Weese WTP, which would typically be conveyed west to North County water users, directly into the DWCP. Refer to Chapter 6 for a detailed description of the DWCP and associated pump stations. Table 9-4 provides a list of DWCP components associated with the SRTTP Site.

Table 9-4 SRTTP DWCP Components


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Railroad & SMR Connectors 3,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - South Boundary Pipeline Segment 25,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - Oceanside Pipeline Segment 44,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - Desalinated Water PS (installed hp) 15,000 hp 30,000 hp 42,000 hp Twin Oaks Valley PS (installed hp) 7,500 hp 12,500 hp 17,500 hp TOVPS FRS Tank 5 MG 5 MG - Silverleaf PS (installed hp) 2,400 hp - -

FIG

UR

E 9-

1SR

TTP

SITE

- PO

TEN

TIA

L C

ON

FIG

UR

ATIO

N

SRTT

PD

esal

Faci

lity

Site

SRTT

PPl

ant

Oce

anO

utfa

ll&

Feed

wat

erTu

nnel

Two

-84"

Feed

wat

erPi

pelin

es

84"

Brin

eD

ispo

sal

Pipe

line

30"

SRTT

PEf

fluen

tW

ater

Pipe

line

72"

Prod

uctW

ater

Con

veya

nce

Pipe

line

LEG

END

Tren

chle

ssC

onst

ruct

ion

Und

erI-5

(~10

00LF

)

Feed

wat

erPu

mp

Stat

ion

&Tu

nnel

Dril

ling

Port

al

Pro

duct

Wat

erC

onve

yanc

eYs

idor

aB

asin

Pipe

line

NO

TE:

REF

ER T

O F

IGU

RES

9-3

B, 9

-3C

, & 9

-3D

FOR

AD

DIT

ION

AL

REN

DER

ING

S

FIG

UR

E 9-

3A

SRTT

P SI

TE -

VISU

AL

REN

DER

ING

LOO

KIN

G E

AST

RE

ND

ER

ING

CR

EA

TE

DB

YF

PB

AR

CH

ITE

CT

S

FIG

UR

E 9-

3B

SRTT

P SI

TE -

VISU

AL

REN

DER

ING

LOO

KIN

G W

EST

FIG

UR

E 9-

3C

SRTT

P SI

TE -

VISU

AL

REN

DER

ING

LOO

KIN

G S

OU

TH

FIG

UR

E 9-

3DSR

TTP

SITE

- VI

SUA

L R

END

ERIN

GFR

OM

I-5


Page 9-13

9.2 MCTSSA SITE

This section will describe the proposed project components (intake, disposal, treatment, conveyance) required for each phase of the desalination project as it pertains to the MCTSSA Site alternative. The MCTSSA Site is located north of the SMR, adjacent to and west of I-5, east of the MCTSSA facility. The site is approximately 30 acres and is currently leased agricultural fields (tomato fields)

Seawater Intake The seawater intake system proposed for the MCTSSA Site is a wedge-wire screened open-ocean intake system (refer to Section 3.4 for a detailed description of an open-ocean intake). A screened open-ocean intake was chosen for this site due to the assumed poor hydrogeology directly offshore of the site. It must be noted that even though a screened open-ocean intake is proposed, a subsurface intake is still feasible for this site given further offshore hydrogeologic investigations. Since this alternative does not require the use of DIG collector wells, the dual-use tunnel would be half as long to locate the tunnel terminus past the surf zone. Due to a shorter tunnel length, the seabed pipelines would be longer in length. The FWPS associated with the MCTSSA Site would be located near the shore, in the northwest corner of the tomato fields, just south of the MCTSSA facility. If this is not feasible, a second option would be to locate the FWPS further inland on the proposed MCTSSA desalination facility site, which would increase the tunnel length, or further south, so as not to interfere with MCTSSA operations. The Feedwater pipelines, which consist of two 7-foot diameter pipelines, would be installed in two phases. During Phase I, only one pipeline would be constructed, conveying approximately 130 mgd of feedwater to the desalination plant. When the plant expands capacity, the deferred pipeline would be installed. Refer to Figure 9-4 for the proposed location of the FWPS and feedwater pipelines. Refer to Table 9-5 for a list of the MCTSSA Site seawater intake components.

Table 9-5 MCTSSA - Intake Components Per Phase


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Wedge-wire Screen Intake (8) ”T” Screens, 6ft diam. - - Feedwater Pipelines (seabed) (2) 6,000 ft, 10-ft diam. - - Feedwater Pipelines (tunnel) 2,000 ft, 16-ft diam. - - Feedwater Pipelines (land) 1,500 ft, 7-ft diam. 1,500 ft, 7-ft diam. - Feedwater PS (installed hp) 5,400 hp 8,100 hp 10,800 hp


Page 9-14

Concentrate Disposal The concentrate disposal system for the MCTSSA Site varies slightly to the SRTTP Site (refer to Chapter 4 for a detailed description of the concentrate disposal system). The brine disposal pipelines (on the seabed) are longer in length for the MCTSSA Site since the tunnel would be shorter. The brine disposal pipeline (on land) is shorter in length since the MCTSSA Site is in close proximity to the shore. Refer to Table 9-6 for a list of the MCTSSA Site brine disposal system components.

Table 9-6 MCTSSA - Brine Disposal Components Per Phase


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Combined “Y” Diffuser System (2) legs - 1,200 ft, 7-ft diam. divers - Dedicated Effluent Diffuser 10,000 ft, 2-ft diam. - - Brine Disposal Pipeline (seabed) 10,000 ft, 10-ft diam. - - Brine Carrier Pipeline (tunnel) 2,000 ft, 9-ft diam. - - Brine Disposal Pipeline (land) 1,500 ft, 7-ft diam. - -

Desalination Facility The MCTSSA Site alternative would require additional pretreatment components compared to the SRTTP site due to the use of a screened open-ocean intake. A screened open-ocean intake can require extensive pretreatment to handle the large amount of solids loading. The pretreatment process for the feedwater (raw seawater) would consist of drum screens, dissolved air flotation (DAF), ultra-filtration (UF) membranes, and cartridge filters. After pretreatment, the filtrate is pumped at high pressure through SWRO membranes to produce desalinated water (permeate). The permeate would undergo post-treatment to remineralize the water so that it would not corrode the conveyance pipelines and resemble existing potable water quality characteristics. Post-treatment would consist of lime addition (calcite beds), carbon dioxide (CO2), and chlorination. Solids and sludge from the pretreatment process would be sent to a solids handling facility where the slurry would be thickened and dewatered before being hauled to a landfill. Refer to Chapter 5 for a detailed description of the desalination treatment process. Table 9-7 provides a list of the MCTSSA Site desalination facility components. Refer to Figure 9-5 and Figure 9-6 for the MCTSSA Site desalination facility site layout and visual rendering, respectively.


Page 9-15

Table 9-7 MCTSSA - Desalination Components Per Phase


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Pretreatment Drum Screens 4 Units (3+1) 3 Units 3 Units Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) 3 DAF Tanks 3 DAF Tanks 3 DAF Tanks Submerged UF 28 UF Basins 28 UF Basins 28 UF Basins Desalination Reverse Osmosis (RO) (10) 5-mgd trains (10) 5-mgd trains (10) 5-mgd trains Energy Recovery (ERD) 180 ERI PX 180 ERI PX 180 ERI PX ERD Booster Pumps 10 Pumps 10 Pumps 10 Pumps Post-Treatment Lime, CO2, Chlorination, etc. Structure & Equip. Additional Equip. Additional Equip. Clearwell Tank 5 MG 5 MG - Solids Handling Sludge Thickening Tanks 2 Tanks 2 Tanks 2 Tanks Dewatering Belt Press 2 Units 2 Units 2 Units

Desalinated Water Conveyance The DWCP would use the YBP alignment for the SBP segment. The collector pipeline would cross under I-5. The crossing would occur under the I-5 / SMR Bridge and may not require trenchless installation. The DWCP would use the Oceanside Pipeline segment, but would not utilize the WAP segment. Rather than constructing the six miles of the WAP segment, the DWCP would utilize the existing NCDP and Pipeline 4 (Second Aqueduct) to convey desalinated water to the TODS. To achieve this, the flow in the NCDP would be reversed and a water exchange would need to be implemented between the City of Oceanside and the Water Authority. The SLPS would be used to pump 25 mgd of treated water from the Robert A. Weese WTP, which would typically be conveyed west to North County water users, directly into the DWCP. Refer to Chapter 6 for a detailed description of the DWCP and associated pump stations. Table 9-8 provides a list of DWCP components associated with the MCTSSA Site.

Table 9-8 MCTSSA - DWCP Components Per Phase


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Lower SMR Road Connector 12,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - South Boundary Pipeline Segment 25,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - Oceanside Pipeline Segment 44,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - Desalinated Water PS (installed hp) 15,000 hp 30,000 hp 42,000 hp Twin Oaks Valley PS (installed hp) 7,500 hp 12,500 hp 17,500 hp TOVPS FRS Tank 5 MG 5 MG - Silverleaf PS (installed hp) 2,400 hp - -

FIG

UR

E 9-

4M

CTS

SA S

ITE

- PO

TEN

TIA

L C

ON

FIG

UR

ATIO

N

Feed

wat

erPu

mp

Stat

ion&

Tunn

elD

rillin

gPo

rtal

MC

TSSA

Pro

duct

Wat

erC

onve

yanc

eYs

idor

aBas

inP

ipel

ine

MC

TSSA

Des

alFa

cilit

ySite

72"

Prod

uctW

ater

Con

veya

nceP

ipel

ine

LEG

END

30"

SRTT

PEf

fluen

tW

ater

Pip

elin

e

(2)-

84"

Feed

wat

erPi

pelin

es

84"B

rine

Dis

posa

lPi

pelin

e

Oce

anO

utfa

ll&

Feed

wat

erTu

nnel

AC

U-5

From

SRTT

PPl

ant

FIG

UR

E 9-

6A

MC

TSSA

SIT

E - V

ISU

AL

REN

DER

ING

LOO

KIN

G E

AST

REF

ER T

O F

IGU

RES

9-6

B,9

-6C

, & 9

-6D

FOR

AD

DIT

ION

AL

REN

DER

ING

S

NO

TE:

FIG

UR

E 9-

6B

MC

TSSA

SIT

E - V

ISU

AL

REN

DER

ING

LOO

KIN

G W

EST

FIG

UR

E 9-

6C

MC

TSSA

SIT

E - V

ISU

AL

REN

DER

ING

LOO

KIN

G N

OR

TH

FIG

UR

E 9-

6D

MC

TSSA

SIT

E - V

ISU

AL

REN

DER

ING

FRO

M I-

5


Page 10-1

CHAPTER 10: COST DEVELOPMENT

10.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will reveal the costs, in 2009 dollars, associated with the two SWRO desalination project alternatives (SRTTP and MCTSSA) proposed in Chapter 9. The desalination facility would initially be constructed for 50 mgd (Phase 1) with an ultimate capacity of 150 mgd. Two subsequent 50 mgd expansion phases would increase the ultimate capacity of the desalination facility to 150 mgd. The Desalinated Water Conveyance Pipeline (DWCP) would be sized and constructed to convey the ultimate flow of 150 mgd of product water from the desalination facility to the Water Authority’s aqueduct system and Twin Oaks facilities as discussed in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7. The costs developed in this chapter for the two project alternatives are:

Capital Costs

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

50-Year Life Cycle Costs (grid power vs. on-site power cogeneration)

10.1 CAPITAL COSTS

As defined in the Water Authority’s Cost Estimating Guidelines Manual (ESD 260 – January 2008), the capital cost estimate for a feasibility-level study is defined as Class 4. Class 4 cost estimates are generally prepared based on limited information and subsequently have wide accuracy ranges. They are typically used for project screening, determination of feasibility, concept evaluation, and preliminary budget approval. Typically, engineering and project definition is from 1% to 15% complete. Class 4 cost estimates would include, at a minimum, the following types of information: linear footage of pipe, pipe size, pressure class, consideration of construction conditions (rural vs. urban), etc. Class 4 estimates usually use unit cost factors, but for elements where these are lacking, may use statistical estimating methods such as cost/capacity curves, factors, and other parametric and modeling techniques. In addition, unit rate estimates can be used based upon similar projects, by using a schedule of values, and by escalating to present value, as was done for pipeline and pump station costs.


Page 10-2

Typical accuracy ranges for Class 4 cost estimates are -15% to -30% on the low side, and +20% to +50% on the high side. These ranges depend on the technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an appropriate scope and market allowance determination (contingency). The capital costs (in 2009 dollars) provided in Table 10-1 and Table 10-3 for the two desalination project alternatives, include the following components:

Seawater Intake (Intake system, tunnel, and feedwater pipelines);

Brine Disposal (Diffuser system and brine disposal pipelines);

Desalination Facility (Pretreatment, RO, Post-treatment, etc);

Desalinated Water Conveyance System (DWCP, and pump stations); and

Electrical Power Service: Power purchased from the Utility Grid (Table 10-1).

On-site power cogeneration (Table 10-3).

10.1.1 Utility Supplied Power Service The capital costs shown in Table 10-1 assume electrical power service is obtained from the local power grid. As described in Section 5.3, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) is the local power retailer in the area that purchases power from various sources. Southern California Edison (SCE) is one of the local power generators that SDG&E purchases power from. SCE owns and operates the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

Table 10-1 Project Alternatives Capital Cost Estimates (Grid Power)

Site Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Expansion Expansion SRTTP $ 1,245,000,000 $ 556,000,000 $ 502,000,000 MCTSSA $ 1,303,000,000 $ 642,000,000 $ 598,000,000

* Costs provided in 2009 dollars Table 10-6 and Table 10-7 provide a detailed capital cost estimate, utilizing grid power, for the two project alternatives discussed in Chapter 9, SRTTP and MCTSSA, respectively. Power would be conveyed to either of the proposed desalination facility sites by constructing approximately two miles of new transmission lines (16 kVA or 34 kVA) from the service transmission lines (230 kVA & 69 kVA) that traverse (north–south) across Camp Pendleton from SONGS. The service capacity and the resulting substation would


Page 10-3

be selected to the highest available service, which would be at least 16 kVA. The utility supplied power capital cost estimate provided in Table 10-2 assumes a two mile 16 kVA interconnect (overhead or underground) to the main service transmission lines with switchyards on both ends of the new lines. Access easements, environmental permitting, design, and construction of the interconnection to the SDG&E service would typically be completed by SDG&E with revenue recovered by the proposed project (negotiated rate). Therefore the costs detailed in Table 10-2 below are not incorporated into the capital cost estimates provided in Table 10-6 and Table 10-7 since these costs are covered by SDG&E and recovered in the negotiated power rate.

Table 10-2 40-MW Utility Power Service Capital Cost Estimate

# Description Units Value Overhead Power Lines

1a Step-down Switchyard (69 kVA – 16 kVA) $ 500,000 2a Transmission Line Overhead miles 2 Transmission Line Overhead $/mile 650,000

3a Switchyard and Main Switch Gear at Plant $ 600,000 4a Installed Subtotal $ 2,400,000 5a Design / Environmental / Easements $ 1,500,000 6a Project Contingency $ 1,500,000 7a Total $ 5,400,000 Underground Power Lines

1b Step-down Switchyard (69 kVA – 16 kVA) $ 500,000 2b Transmission Line Underground miles 2 Transmission Line Underground $/mile 2,200,000

3b Switchyard and Main Switch Gear at Plant $ 600,000 4b Installed Subtotal $ 5,500,000 5b Design / Environmental / Easements $ 1,500,000 6b Project Contingency $ 1,500,000 7b Total $ 8,550,000

* Costs provided in 2009 dollars Discussions with SDG&E have been limited and detailed alignment, costs, and schedule from SDG&E are not available. Future planning efforts and discussions with SDG&E are required. The cost of commodities (e.g. copper) would impact the overall cost as well as non-interference with Camp Pendleton mission requirements, including flight path obstacle issues.


Page 10-4

10.1.2 On-Site Power Cogeneration Service On-site power generation is being evaluated to determine a cost-effective approach to satisfy each facility’s electrical requirements and potential merits of a cogeneration classification for preferred natural gas rates. The capital costs portrayed in Table 10-3 assume electrical service is obtained from an on-site power cogeneration facility, as described in Section 5.3 . The cogeneration facility would burn natural gas to run the power generating turbines. An SDG&E natural gas pipeline located east of I-5 and immediately adjacent to each of the two proposed sites may be capable of supplying the required amount of natural gas to run the facility. The pipeline is a 12-inch high-pressure natural gas line, with an operating pressure of approximately 290 psig.

Table 10-3 Project Alternatives Capital Cost Estimates (Cogeneration)

Site Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Expansion Expansion SRTTP $ 1,328,000,000 $ 635,000,000 $ 578,000,000 MCTSSA $ 1,387,000,000 $ 718,000,000 $ 676,000,000

* Costs provided in 2009 dollars Table 10-8 and Table 10-9 provide a detailed capital cost estimate, utilizing on-site power cogeneration for the two project alternatives, SRTTP and MCTSSA, respectively. The last two columns of Table 10-3 regarding mechanical equipment replacement are assumed required expenditures approximately every 10 to 15 years after the last expansion phase to replace aging mechanical equipment. One benefit of on-site power generation is the potential interconnection to the utility power grid. The interconnection to the SDG&E grid would allow the cogen facility to start-up and shut-down without tripping the local service to the facility and allows the desalination plant to operate at various loads without major adjustment to the cogen facility load profile. The plant may also provide a localized grid stabilization source for SDG&E, and allows the Water Authority to sell excess electricity to SDG&E. The details of the interconnection, standby charges, exported power to SDG&E, and terms and conditions are part of the purchased power negotiation process. As mentioned in the previous section, typically access easements, environmental permitting, design, and construction of the interconnection to the SDG&E service is completed by SDG&E with revenue recovered by the proposed project. For the cogeneration option, it is assumed that SDG&E would design and construct the interconnection and transmission lines, but the cost for this would be paid for by the Water Authority since SDG&E would not be recovering costs from the project.


Page 10-5

Therefore, the costs provided in Table 10-2 are incorporated into the project capital costs if the Water Authority chose to utilize on-site power generation. The capital costs associated with constructing a 40-MW cogeneration facility is shown in Table 10-4. These costs have been incorporated into the Camp Pendleton SWRO Desalination Project capital cost estimates provided in Table 10-3. Table 10-8 and Table 10-9 provide a detailed capital cost estimate, utilizing on-site power cogeneration for the two project alternatives, SRTTP and MCTSSA, respectively.

Table 10-4 40-MW Cogeneration Facility Capital Cost Estimate

# Description Value 1 Gas Turbine System $ 18,000,000 2 Heat Recovery Steam Generator $ 3,000,000 3 Water Treatment $ 500,000 4 Gas Compression and Metering $ 1,750,000 5 SCR & Emission Controls $ 2,000,000 6 Electrical Equipment $ 3,000,000 7 Other Equipment $ 3,000,000 8 Multi-effect Distillation (MED) $ 7,500,000 9 Materials $ 4,500,000

10 Labor $ 6,500,000 11 Subtotal $ 50,000,000 12 General Facility Capital Fee $ 2,000,000 13 Engineering/ Permitting $ 3,500,000 14 Process Contingency $ 1,500,000 15 Project Contingency $ 5,500,000 16 Total $ 62,500,000 17 Total Process Capital per Net kW $ 1,075 / kW 18 Total Cost per Net kW $ 1,345 / kW

* Costs provided in 2009 dollars The operation and maintenance costs (O&M) associated with the cogeneration alternative are provided in Section 10.2.


Page 10-6

10.1.3 Assumptions Listed below are the assumptions and sources (price quotes) used to generate the capital cost estimates for both project alternatives described in Chapter 9.

Costs provided in 2009 dollars.

The pretreatment system was designed, using a physical filtering process, rather than a chemical process to treat the feedwater (seawater). While this increases capital costs, it decreases O&M and life cycle costs due to the significant decrease in chemical usage.

Buildings are steel frame with costs provided by JR Conkey and RBF.

DAF, UF, sludge thickening, and calcite tanks to be cast-in-place concrete.

Clearwells and FRS tanks are assumed pre-stressed concrete with costs provided by DYK.

Pretreatment submerged UF equipment costs obtained from an Industry Survey presented by Ben Movahed at the 2008 AMTA conference at an assumed cost of $0.75/gallon (raw water).

RO equipment costs provided by Membrane Systems Incorporated (MSI).

Energy recovery devices (ERD) are assumed pressure exchanger (PX) devices with costs provided by Energy Recovery Inc. (ERI).

Electrical and Instrumentation costs for the desalination facility (incl. DWPS) were assumed to be 15% of the facility process equipment costs.

The costs associated with power service, both utility supplied, and cogeneration was obtained from DYK Engineers.

Wedge-wire seawater intake screens (MCTSSA Site) and brine disposal system costs were obtained from a memo produced by Malcolm Pirnie.

The tunneling and tunnel portal structure costs were obtained from a memo produced by Jacobs Associates.

Conveyance pipeline and pump station costs were obtained from existing Water Authority cost data.

The costs associated with the marine construction of the DIG tunnel collector well intake system (SRTTP Site) were obtained from Manson Construction Company.

Phase expansion costs include an additional 1% of the construction cost (with out contingencies) to cover mobilization and demobilization of construction crews and equipment.

All above referenced memos and capital cost source data is provided in Appendix F.


Page 10-7

10.1.4 Implementation Implementation costs, which include engineering, environmental documentation, legal, property acquisition services, construction management, and administration, were assumed at 25% (per Water Authority request) of the total construction cost, including contingency.

10.1.5 Contingency Various contingency factors were applied to certain items of the capital cost estimate. Contingency factors are assumed to decrease once additional technical studies and investigations have been conducted and conceptual design begins. Listed below are the different contingences used:

40% contingency was applied to all marine and tunneling construction work due to the current level of uncertainty and unknowns.

30% owner contingency (Class 4) is applied to the remaining balance based on the Water Authority’s Cost Estimating Guidelines (ESD 260).

25% owner contingency is applied to the expansion phase construction costs (Phase 2 and 3) since the number of unknowns (underground & marine environments) would be reduced.

10.1.6 Capital Cost Comparison Although the capital costs are significant, they are comparable to recently constructed seawater desalination projects in Australia with similar capacity, infrastructure, and treatment processes, as demonstrated in Table 10-5 below.

Table 10-5 Capital Cost Comparison

Location Initial Capacity Capital Cost (mgd) (2009 Dollars)

Queensland (Brisbane, AUS) 33 $1.1 Billion Sydney (AUS) 66 $1.2 Billion Camp Pendleton, CA (USA) 50-100 $1.3 - $1.9 Billion Melbourne (AUS) 108 $2.0 Billion

* Costs provided in 2009 dollars (USD) As previously mentioned, the proposed treatment process is considered worst case and as a result, the capital costs are considered conservative. Specific processes (i.e. DAF) could be eliminated if the seawater intake is optimally located to enhance feedwater quality, which would reduce capital costs.


Page 10-8


SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITYPROJECT: CAMP PENDLETON SWRO PROJECT AT SRTTP SITE PHASE: PHASE 1 - 3DESCRIPTION: PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE DATE: JAN 2009PREPARED BY: RBF CONSULTING

UNIT TOTAL 50 MGD Expansion EXPANSION 50 MGD Expansion EXPANSIONDESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST COST Description COST Description COST

INTAKE/DISCHARGE DUAL-USE TUNNEL1 PIPE - IN - PIPE TUNNEL

ONSHORE TUNNEL SHAFT 150 VF $70,700 10,605,000$ -$ -$

USED SLURRY TUNNEL BORING MACHINE (TBM) 1 LS $5,000,000 5,000,000$ -$ -$

TUNNEL EXCAVATION/SUPPORT 4,000 LF $9,000 36,000,000$ -$ -$

MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION 10% 5,160,500$ -$ -$

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 5% 2,580,250$ -$ -$

OFFSHORE TUNNEL TERMINAL SHAFT 1 LS $17,500,000 17,500,000$ -$ -$

SUBTOTAL TUNNEL COST 76,845,750$ -$ -$

2 96" HDPE BRINE CARRIER PIPE (INSIDE TUNNEL) 4,000 LF $1,000 4,000,000$ -$ -$

3 30" HDPE WWTP EFFLUENT PIPE (INSIDE TUNNEL) 4,000 LF $200 800,000$ -$ -$

SUBTOTAL- DUAL-USE TUNNEL 81,645,750$ -$ -$

SEAWATER INTAKE1 DIG - COLLECTOR WELL INTAKE SYSTEM

24" WELL CASING MATERIAL 5,000 LF $1,000 5,000,000$ -$ -$

12" SUPER STAINLESS WELL SCREEN 2,500 LF $1,000 2,500,000$ Install additional Intake DIG Wells 2,500,000$ Install additional Intake DIG Wells 2,500,000$

ENGINEERED GRAVEL PACK MATERIAL 2,500 LF $300 750,000$ Additional Gravel Pack Material 750,000$ Additional Gravel Pack Material 750,000$

INSTALLATION

1 MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $300,000 300,000$ -$ -$

1 MATERIAL BARGE 3 MO $45,000 135,000$ 45,000$ 45,000$

1 DERRICK BARGE w/ CRANE 1,500 HRS $2,000 3,000,000$ 800,000$ 800,000$

1 TUG BOAT 1,500 HRS $750 1,125,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$

1 TUG BOAT (STAND-BY) 1,500 HRS $500 750,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$

1 CREW BOAT 1,500 HRS $250 375,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$

1 DRILL EQUIPMENT 1,500 HRS $1,200 1,800,000$ 480,000$ 480,000$

8 TRADESMAN 1,100 HRS $80 704,000$ 64,000$ 64,000$

8 TRADESMAN (OVERTIME) 400 HRS $110 352,000$ 264,000$ 264,000$

2 DIVE CREWS 3 MO $175,000 1,050,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$

INDIRECT COSTS (MATERIALS, ETC.) 15% 2,676,150$ 877,950$ 877,950$

SUBTOTAL DIG INTAKE SYSTEM 20,517,150$ 6,730,950$ 6,730,950$

2 FEEDWATER PUMP STATION (FWPS)

2,700 HP STATION (8,100 HP ULTIMATE) 1 LS $15,930,000 15,930,000$ Increase to 5,400 HP 8,100,000$ Increase to 8,100 HP 8,100,000$

BUILDING (SIZED FOR 8,100 HP) 30,000 SF $0 incl above

DRILL 8 DEEP CANS (130' DEEP, 8' DIA) 1.86 CY/VLF 2,000 CY $2,000 4,000,000$ -$ -$

SMR LEVEE WALL (FLOOD PROTECTION) 1,000 LF $130 130,000$

3 FEEDWATER PIPELINES

84" DIAMETER 4,200 LF $2,200 9,240,000$ Install additional 4,200 LF 9,240,000$ -$

TRENCHLESS CONSTRUCTION - UNDER I-5 2,000 LF $2,500 5,000,000$ -$ -$

SUBTOTAL - SEAWATER INTAKE 54,817,150$ 24,070,950$ 14,830,950$

BRINE DISPOSAL1 BRINE DISCHARGE SYSTEM (ON SEAFLOOR)

10' DIAMETER BRINE DISCHARGE PIPELINE 8,700 LF $1,200 10,440,000$ -$ -$

24" DIAMETER WWTP EFFLUENT DISCHARGE PIPELINE 8,700 LF $700 6,090,000$ -$ -$

7' DIA DIFFUSER PIPELINES 2,400 LF $1,500 3,600,000$ -$ -$

STRUCTURE AT OUTFALL "Y" 1 LS $2,000,000 2,000,000$ -$ -$

DIFFUSER ORIFICES 1 LS $750,000 750,000$ -$ -$

GRAVEL TRENCH BEDDING 26,000 CY $50 1,300,000$ -$ -$

MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $300,000 300,000$ -$ -$

INSTALLATION -$ -$

4 BARGES 18 MO $55,000 3,960,000$ -$ -$

2 CRANES 18 MO $45,000 1,620,000$ -$ -$

1 TUG BOAT 18 MO $50,000 900,000$ -$ -$

3 DIVE CREWS 12 MO $175,000 6,300,000$ Un-plug additional diffuser ports 90,000$ -$

40 TRADESMAN 18 MO $18,000 12,960,000$ -$ -$

SUBTOTAL BRINE DISCHARGE SYSTEM (ON SEAFLOOR) 50,220,000$ -$ -$

2 BRINE DISPOSAL PIPELINE (ON LAND) -$

84" DIAMETER 4,200 LF $2,200 9,240,000$ -$ -$

TRENCHLESS CONST. - UNDER I-5 1,000 LF $2,500 2,500,000$ -$ -$

3 SRTTP EFFLUENT DISPOSAL PIPELINE (ON LAND) -$

30" DIAMETER 2,200 LF $550 1,210,000$ -$ -$


SUBTOTAL - BRINE DISPOSAL 64,170,000$ 90,000$ -$

PRODUCT WATER CONVEYANCE1 SOUTH BOUNDARY PIPELINE (SBP) SEGMENT

72" MLCSP (CLASS 500) 28,000 LF $1,800 50,400,000$ -$ -$

TRENCHLESS CONST. - SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (SMR) 1,200 LF $2,000 2,400,000$ -$ -$

TRENCHLESS CONST. - SMR & VANDEGRIFT BLVD 2,650 LF $2,000 5,300,000$ -$ -$

TRENCHLESS CONST. - ENVIRON. SENSITIVE AREA / SLRR 2,750 LF $2,000 5,500,000$ -$ -$

SMR PIPELINE PROTECTION - PCC ENCASEMENT 10,500 LF $350 3,675,000$ -$ -$

2 OCEANSIDE PIPELINE SEGMENT -$

72" MLCSP (CLASS 500) 44,000 LF $1,800 79,200,000$ -$ -$

TRENCHLESS CONST. - SAN LUIS REY RIVER (SLRR) 750 LF $2,000 1,500,000$ -$ -$

TRENCHLESS CONST. - SLRR & HWY 76 1,200 LF $2,000 2,400,000$ -$ -$

SLRR PIPELINE PROTECTION - PCC ENCASEMENT 3,000 LF $350 1,050,000$ -$ -$

3 DESALINATED WATER PUMP STATION (DWPS) -$


HYDRO-PNEUMATIC SURGE TANK SYSTEM 1 LS $0 incl above Additional Surge Tanks incl above Additional Surge Tanks incl above

BUILDING (SIZED FOR 30,000 HP) 30,000 SF $0 incl above -$ Enlarge DWPS Building 3,750,000$

CLEARWELL - 2 @ 5 MG EA 1 EA $2,250,000 2,250,000$ Second 5 MG Tank 2,250,000$ -$

4 TWIN OAKS VALLEY PUMP STATION (TOVPS) -$



BUILDING (SIZED FOR ULTIMATE) 30,000 SF $0 incl above incl above incl above

FRS TANK - 2 @ 5 MG EA 1 EA $2,250,000 2,250,000$ Second 5 MG Tank 2,250,000$ -$

5 SILVERLEAF PUMP STATION (SLPS)

2,400 HP STATION 1 LS $16,000,000 16,000,000$ -$ -$

HYDRO-PNEUMATIC SURGE TANK SYSTEM 1 LS $0 incl above -$ -$

BUILDING 10,000 SF $0 incl above -$ -$

Table 10-6SRTTP Site: Capital Cost Summary Utilizing Grid Power

PHASE 1 - 50 MGD CAPACITY PHASE 2 - 100 MGD CAPACITY PHASE 3 - 150 MGD CAPACITY

TABLE 10-5: SRTTP - Capital Costs PAGE 1 OF 2SRTTP Capital Costs_2009_v2_GRID POWER.xls



Table 10-6SRTTP Site: Capital Cost Summary Utilizing Grid Power


SUBTOTAL - PRODUCT WATER CONVEYANCE 279,175,000$ 74,500,000$ 63,250,000$

DESALINATION FACILITY1 STRUCTURES & SITE WORK

SMR LEVEE WALL (FLOOD PROTECTION) 3,000 LF $130 390,000$ -$ -$

ADMINISTRATION BUILDING / LABS 30,000 SF $250 7,500,000$ -$ -$

DRUM SCREEN STRUCTURE 2,400 CY $900 2,160,000$ -$ -$

DAF TANKS 1,400 CY $900 1,260,000$ Additional DAF Tanks 1,260,000$ Additional DAF Tanks 1,260,000$

RO & OPERATIONS BUILDING 74,000 SF $150 11,100,000$ Enlarge RO Building 8,850,000$ -$

POST TREATMENT BUILDING 18,000 SF $150 2,700,000$ Additional Calcite Beds 1,800,000$ Additional Calcite Beds -$

SOLIDS HANDELING BUILDING 5,000 SF $150 750,000$ -$ -$

YARD PIPING 1 LS $1,000,000 1,000,000$ Additional Yard Piping 500,000$ Additional Yard Piping 500,000$

2 PRE-TREATMENT

DRUM SCREENS (6 m x 2m, 3 mm MESH) 4 EA $1,800,000 7,200,000$ Additional Drum Screens 5,400,000$ Additional Drum Screens 5,400,000$

DAF SYSTEM (SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL) 3 EA $1,500,000 4,500,000$ Additional DAF Units 4,500,000$ Additional DAF Units 4,500,000$

COAGULANT (FERRIC CHLORIDE) DOSING SYSTEM 1 LS $200,000 200,000$ Additional dosing equipment 100,000$ Additional dosing equipment 100,000$

3 ENERGY RECOVERY DEVICES (ERD)

ERD BOOSTER PUMPS 10 EA $160,000 1,600,000$ Additional ERD booster pumps 1,600,000$ Additional ERD booster pumps 1,600,000$

ERD PX EQUIPMENT (ERI Model PX-260) 180 EA $27,800 5,004,000$ Additional PX-260 5,004,000$ Additional PX-260 5,004,000$

4 REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM 1 LS $190,000,000 190,000,000$ Additional RO Skids 190,000,000$ Additional RO Skids 190,000,000$

5 MGD TRAINS (1,440 ELEMENTS), INC CONNECTING PIPING 10 EA $0 incl above incl above incl above

RO FEED PUMP 10 EA $0 incl above incl above incl above

CIP SYSTEM 1 LS $0 incl above incl above incl above

CARTRIDGE FILTERS 1 LS $0 incl above incl above incl above

TRAIN PIPING & VALVES (DUPLEX STAINLESS STEEL OR BETTER) 1 LS $0 incl above incl above incl above

CHLORINATION EQUIPMENT 1 LS $0 incl above incl above incl above

DECHLORINATION EQUIPMENT 1 LS $0 incl above incl above incl above

SCALE INHIBITOR EQUIPMENT 1 LS $0 incl above incl above incl above

5 POST-TREATMENT incl above incl above incl above

CARBON DIOXIDE SYSTEM 1 LS $0 incl above incl above incl above


CORROSION INHIBITOR SYSTEM 1 LS $0 incl above incl above incl above

6 SLUDGE THICKENING & HANDELING

SOLIDS DEWATERING EQUIPMENT, ETC. 1 LS $1,000,000 1,000,000$ Additional Dewatering Device 1,000,000$ -$

7 ELECTRICAL & INSTRUMENTATION 15% 38,783,100$ 15% 33,705,600$ 15% 31,868,100$

SUBTOTAL - DESALINATION FACILITY 275,147,100$ 253,719,600$ 240,232,100$

1 SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION COST w/o CONTINGENCY) 755,000,000$ 352,000,000$ 318,000,000$

2 PHASE EXPANSION MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION COSTS 1% -$ 1% 3,000,000$ 1% 3,000,000$

3 TUNNEL & MARINE CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY1 40% 60,000,000$ 40% 2,000,000$ 40% 2,000,000$

4 SDCWA CLASS 4 CONTINGENCY ON REMAINDER2 30% 181,000,000$ 25% 88,000,000$ 25% 79,000,000$

5 SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION COST + CONTINGENCY) 996,000,000$ 445,000,000$ 402,000,000$

6 IMPLEMENTATION (LEGAL, ADMINISTRATION, ENGINEERING, ETC.) 25% 249,000,000$ 25% 111,000,000$ 25% 100,000,000$

PHASE 1 - TOTAL PROJECT COST (50 MGD) 1,245,000,000$

PHASE 2 - TOTAL EXPANSION COST (50 MGD TO 100 MGD) 556,000,000$

PHASE 3 - TOTAL EXPANSION COST (100 MGD TO 150 MGD) 502,000,000$ FOOTNOTE:

1 TUNNEL & MARINE CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY GREATER THAN 30% DUE TO INCREASED NUMBER OF UNKOWNS AND UNDEFINED SCOPE.2 CLASS 4 CONTINGENCY BASED ON SDCWA ESD 260 COST ESTIMATING GUIDELINES: TABLE 2-1 CLASS ESTIMATE CHARACTERISTICS.

TABLE 10-5: SRTTP - Capital Costs PAGE 2 OF 2SRTTP Capital Costs_2009_v2_GRID POWER.xls

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITYPROJECT: CAMP PENDLETON SWRO PROJECT AT MCTSSA SITE PHASE: PHASE 1 - 3DESCRIPTION: PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE DATE: JAN 2009PREPARED BY: RBF CONSULTING


INTAKE/DISCHARGE DUAL-USE TUNNEL

1 PIPE - IN - PIPE TUNNEL










4 6" AIR PIPING (1 PIPELINE PER INTAKE SCREEN) 16,000 LF $15 240,000$ -$ -$


SEAWATER INTAKE

1 WEDGE -WIRE INTAKE SYSTEM

INTAKE HEADERS (ON SEAFLOOR) - 10 FT DIAMETER 8,000 LF $1,200 9,600,000$ -$ -$

INTAKE SCREENS - 72" DIA (JOHNSON SCREENS T-72) 8 EA $150,000 1,200,000$ -$ -$

6" AIR PIPES (1 PIPELINE PER INTAKE SCREEN) 32,000 LF $15 480,000$ -$ -$

INSTALLATION - INCLUDED WITH OUTFALL INSTALLATION COST BELOW 1 LS $0 -$ -$ -$

SUBTOTAL WEDGE-WIRE INTAKE SYSTEM 11,280,000$ -$ -$





3 FEEDWATER PIPELINES (ON LAND)



BRINE DISPOSAL

1 BRINE DISCHARGE SYSTEM (ON SEAFLOOR)







INSTALLATION -$ -$

1 MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $300,000 300,000$

4 BARGES 18 MO $55,000 3,960,000$ -$ -$

2 CRANES 18 MO $45,000 1,620,000$ -$ -$

1 TUG BOAT 18 MO $50,000 900,000$ -$ -$


40 TRADESMAN 18 MO $18,000 12,960,000$ -$ -$



84" DIAMETER 1,500 LF $2,200 3,300,000$ -$ -$


30" DIAMETER 13,000 LF $550 7,150,000$ -$ -$

SMR PIPELINE PROTECTION - PCC ENCASEMENT 2,600 LF $200 520,000$ -$ -$


PRODUCT WATER CONVEYANCE

1 SOUTH BOUNDARY PIPELINE (SBP) SEGMENT

72" MLCSP (CLASS 500) 36,900 LF $1,800 66,420,000$ -$ -$




2 OCEANSIDE PIPELINE SEGMENT

72" MLCSP (CLASS 500) 44,000 LF $1,800 79,200,000$ -$ -$




3 DESALINATED WATER PUMP STATION (DWPS)



BUILDING (SIZED FOR 30,000 HP) 30,000 SF $0 incl above Enlarge DWPS Building 3,750,000$








2,400 HP STATION 1 LS $16,000,000 16,000,000$ -$ -$




DESALINATION FACILITY

1 STRUCTURES & SITE WORK


UF MEMBRANE FILTER BASINS 1,600 CY $900 1,440,000$ Additional UF Basins 1,440,000$ Additional UF Basins 1,440,000$





SOLIDS HANDELING BUILDING 4,500 SF $150 675,000$ Enlarge Belt Press Building 675,000$ Enlarge Belt Press Building 675,000$

Table 10-7MCTSSA Site: Capital Cost Summary Utilizing Grid Power


TABLE 10-6: MCTSSA - Capital Costs PAGE 1 OF 2MCTSSA Capital Costs_2009_v2_GRID POWER.xls



Table 10-7MCTSSA Site: Capital Cost Summary Utilizing Grid Power


SLUDGE THICKENING TANKS 600 CY $750 450,000$ Additional Thickening Tanks 450,000$ Additional Thickening Tanks 450,000$


2 PRE-TREATMENT

DRUM SCREENS (6 m x 2m, 1.5 mm MESH) 4 EA $1,800,000 7,200,000$ Additional Drum Screens 5,400,000$ Additional Drum Screens 5,400,000$



SUBMERGED UF FILTRATION 1 LS $55,000,000 55,000,000$ Additional UF Membrane System 55,000,000$ Additional UF Membrane System 55,000,000$

UF FILTRATE STORAGE TANK (UNDERGROUND) 1 LS $2,000,000 2,000,000$ -$ -$


















SOLIDS DEWATERING EQUIPMENT, ETC. 1 LS $2,000,000 2,000,000$ Additional Dewatering Devices 2,000,000$ Additional Dewatering Devices 2,000,000$

7 ELECTRICAL & INSTRUMENTATION 15% 48,563,100$ 42,915,600$ 41,228,100$




3 TUNNEL & MARINE CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY1 40% 49,000,000$ 40% -$ 40% -$


5 SUBTOTAL (CONSTRUCTION COST + CONTINGENCY) 1,043,000,000$ 514,000,000$ 479,000,000$





FOOTNOTE:1 TUNNEL & MARINE CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY GREATER THAN 30% DUE TO INCREASED NUMBER OF UNKOWNS AND UNDEFINED SCOPE.2 CLASS 4 CONTINGENCY BASED ON SDCWA ESD 260 COST ESTIMATING GUIDELINES: TABLE 2-1 CLASS ESTIMATE CHARACTERISTICS.

TABLE 10-6: MCTSSA - Capital Costs PAGE 2 OF 2MCTSSA Capital Costs_2009_v2_GRID POWER.xls



INTAKE/DISCHARGE DUAL-USE TUNNEL1 PIPE - IN - PIPE TUNNEL











SEAWATER INTAKE1 DIG - COLLECTOR WELL INTAKE SYSTEM

24" WELL CASING MATERIAL 5,000 LF $1,000 5,000,000$ -$ -$

12" SUPER STAINLESS WELL SCREEN 2,500 LF $1,000 2,500,000$ Additional DIG Intake Wells 2,500,000$ Additional DIG Intake Wells 2,500,000$

ENGINEERED GRAVEL PACK MATERIAL 2,500 LF $300 750,000$ Additional Gravel Pack Material 750,000$ Additional Gravel Pack Material 750,000$

INSTALLATION

1 MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $300,000 300,000$ -$ -$

1 MATERIAL BARGE 3 MO $45,000 135,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 45,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 45,000$

1 DERRICK BARGE w/ CRANE 1,500 HRS $2,000 3,000,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 800,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 800,000$

1 TUG BOAT 1,500 HRS $750 1,125,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 300,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 300,000$

1 TUG BOAT (STAND-BY) 1,500 HRS $500 750,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 200,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 200,000$

1 CREW BOAT 1,500 HRS $250 375,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 100,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 100,000$

1 DRILL EQUIPMENT 1,500 HRS $1,200 1,800,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 480,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 480,000$

8 TRADESMAN 1,100 HRS $80 704,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 64,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 64,000$

8 TRADESMAN (OVERTIME) 400 HRS $110 352,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 264,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 264,000$

2 DIVE CREWS 3 MO $175,000 1,050,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 350,000$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 350,000$

INDIRECT COSTS (MATERIALS, ETC.) 15% 2,676,150$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 877,950$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 877,950$

SUBTOTAL DIG INTAKE SYSTEM 20,517,150$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 6,730,950$ Install additional DIG Intake Wells 6,730,950$





SMR LEVEE WALL (FLOOD PROTECTION) 1,000 LF $130 130,000$

3 FEEDWATER PIPELINES


TRENCHLESS CONSTRUCTION - UNDER I-5 2,000 LF $2,500 5,000,000$ -$ -$


BRINE DISPOSAL1 BRINE DISCHARGE SYSTEM (ON SEAFLOOR)







MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $300,000 300,000$ -$ -$

INSTALLATION -$ -$

4 BARGES 18 MO $55,000 3,960,000$ -$ -$

2 CRANES 18 MO $45,000 1,620,000$ -$ -$

1 TUG BOAT 18 MO $50,000 900,000$ -$ -$


40 TRADESMAN 18 MO $18,000 12,960,000$ -$ -$



84" DIAMETER 4,200 LF $2,200 9,240,000$ -$ -$



30" DIAMETER 2,200 LF $550 1,210,000$ -$ -$



PRODUCT WATER CONVEYANCE1 SOUTH BOUNDARY PIPELINE (SBP) SEGMENT

72" MLCSP (CLASS 500) 28,000 LF $1,800 50,400,000$ -$ -$

TRENCHLESS CONST. - SANTA MARGARITA RIVER (SMR) 1,200 LF $2,000 2,400,000$ -$ -$




2 OCEANSIDE PIPELINE SEGMENT -$

72" MLCSP (CLASS 500) 44,000 LF $1,800 79,200,000$ -$ -$




3 DESALINATED WATER PUMP STATION (DWPS) -$



BUILDING (SIZED FOR 30,000 HP) 30,000 SF $0 incl above -$ Enlarge DWPS Building 3,750,000$








2,400 HP STATION 1 LS $16,000,000 16,000,000$ -$ -$



Table 10-8SRTTP Site: Capital Cost Estimate Utilizing On-site Cogeneration Power


TABLE 10-5: SRTTP - Capital Costs PAGE 1 OF 2SRTTP Capital Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls



Table 10-8SRTTP Site: Capital Cost Estimate Utilizing On-site Cogeneration Power



DESALINATION FACILITY1 STRUCTURES & SITE WORK

SMR LEVEE WALL (FLOOD PROTECTION) 3,000 LF $130 390,000$ -$ -$






SOLIDS HANDELING BUILDING 5,000 SF $150 750,000$ -$ -$


2 PRE-TREATMENT

DRUM SCREENS (6 m x 2m, 3 mm MESH) 4 EA $1,800,000 7,200,000$ Additional Drum Screens 5,400,000$ Additional Drum Screens 5,400,000$




















SOLIDS DEWATERING EQUIPMENT, ETC. 1 LS $1,000,000 1,000,000$ Additional Dewatering Device 1,000,000$ -$

7 COGENERATION FACILITY (40-45 MW)

GAS TURBINE SYSTEM 1 LS $18,000,000 18,000,000$ Enlarge Gas Turbine System 18,000,000$ Enlarge Gas Turbine System 18,000,000$

HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATOR (HRSG) 1 LS $3,000,000 3,000,000$ Additional HRSG's 3,000,000$ Additional HRSG's 3,000,000$

WATER TREATMENT 1 LS $500,000 500,000$ Additional Water Treament Equip. 500,000$ Additional Water Treament Equip. 500,000$

GAS COMPRESSION AND METERING 1 LS $1,750,000 1,750,000$ Additional Gas Compression Equip. 1,750,000$ Additional Gas Compression Equip. 1,750,000$

SCR AND EMISSION CONTROLS 1 LS $2,000,000 2,000,000$ Additional SCR Equip. 2,000,000$ Additional SCR Equip. 2,000,000$

MULTI-EFFECT DISTILLATION (MED) 1 LS $7,500,000 7,500,000$ Enlarge MED System 7,500,000$ Enlarge MED System 7,500,000$

MATERIALS AND LABOR 1 LS $10,000,000 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$

STEP-DOWN SUBSTATION AT MAIN TRANSMISSION LINES 1 LS $500,000 500,000$ -$ -$

TRANSMISSION LINES (OVERHEAD) 1 LS $1,300,000 1,300,000$ -$ -$

SUBSTATION AT DESALINATION FACILITY 1 LS $600,000 600,000$ -$ -$

8 ELECTRICAL & INSTRUMENTATION 15% 45,555,600$ 15% 40,118,100$ 15% 38,280,600$




3 TUNNEL & MARINE CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY1 40% 60,000,000$ 40% 2,000,000$ 40% 2,000,000$






PHASE 3 - TOTAL EXPANSION COST (100 MGD TO 150 MGD) 578,000,000$ FOOTNOTE:

1 TUNNEL & MARINE CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY GREATER THAN 30% DUE TO INCREASED NUMBER OF UNKOWNS AND UNDEFINED SCOPE.2 CLASS 4 CONTINGENCY BASED ON SDCWA ESD 260 COST ESTIMATING GUIDELINES: TABLE 2-1 CLASS ESTIMATE CHARACTERISTICS.

TABLE 10-5: SRTTP - Capital Costs PAGE 2 OF 2SRTTP Capital Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls



INTAKE/DISCHARGE DUAL-USE TUNNEL

1 PIPE - IN - PIPE TUNNEL










4 6" AIR PIPING (1 PIPELINE PER INTAKE SCREEN) 16,000 LF $15 240,000$ -$ -$


SEAWATER INTAKE

1 WEDGE -WIRE INTAKE SYSTEM

INTAKE HEADERS (ON SEAFLOOR) - 10 FT DIAMETER 8,000 LF $1,200 9,600,000$ -$ -$

INTAKE SCREENS - 72" DIA (JOHNSON SCREENS T-72) 8 EA $150,000 1,200,000$ -$ -$

6" AIR PIPES (1 PIPELINE PER INTAKE SCREEN) 32,000 LF $15 480,000$ -$ -$

INSTALLATION - INCLUDED WITH OUTFALL INSTALLATION COST BELOW 1 LS $0 -$ -$ -$

SUBTOTAL WEDGE-WIRE INTAKE SYSTEM 11,280,000$ -$ -$





3 FEEDWATER PIPELINES (ON LAND)



BRINE DISPOSAL

1 BRINE DISCHARGE SYSTEM (ON SEAFLOOR)







INSTALLATION -$

1 MOBILIZATION / DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $300,000 300,000$ -$

4 BARGES 18 MO $55,000 3,960,000$ -$ -$

2 CRANES 18 MO $45,000 1,620,000$ -$ -$

1 TUG BOAT 18 MO $50,000 900,000$ -$ -$


40 TRADESMAN 18 MO $18,000 12,960,000$ -$ -$



84" DIAMETER 1,500 LF $2,200 3,300,000$ -$ -$


30" DIAMETER 13,000 LF $550 7,150,000$ -$ -$

SMR PIPELINE PROTECTION - PCC ENCASEMENT 2,600 LF $200 520,000$ -$ -$


PRODUCT WATER CONVEYANCE

1 SOUTH BOUNDARY PIPELINE (SBP) SEGMENT

72" MLCSP (CLASS 500) 36,900 LF $1,800 66,420,000$ -$ -$




2 OCEANSIDE PIPELINE SEGMENT

72" MLCSP (CLASS 500) 44,000 LF $1,800 79,200,000$ -$ -$




3 DESALINATED WATER PUMP STATION (DWPS)



BUILDING (SIZED FOR 30,000 HP) 30,000 SF $0 incl above Enlarge DWPS Building 3,750,000$








2,400 HP STATION 1 LS $16,000,000 16,000,000$ -$ -$




DESALINATION FACILITY

1 STRUCTURES & SITE WORK


UF MEMBRANE FILTER BASINS 1,600 CY $900 1,440,000$ Additional UF Basins 1,440,000$ Additional UF Basins 1,440,000$





SOLIDS HANDELING BUILDING 4,500 SF $150 675,000$ Enlarge Belt Press Building 675,000$ Enlarge Belt Press Building 675,000$

Table 10-9MCTSSA Site: Capital Cost Estimate Utilizing On-site Cogeneration Power


TABLE 10-6: MCTSSA - Capital Costs PAGE 1 OF 2MCTSSA Capital Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls



Table 10-9MCTSSA Site: Capital Cost Estimate Utilizing On-site Cogeneration Power


SLUDGE THICKENING TANKS 600 CY $750 450,000$ Additional Thickening Tanks 450,000$ Additional Thickening Tanks 450,000$


2 PRE-TREATMENT

DRUM SCREENS (6 m x 2m, 1.5 mm MESH) 4 EA $1,800,000 7,200,000$ Additional Drum Screens 5,400,000$ Additional Drum Screens 5,400,000$



SUBMERGED UF FILTRATION 1 LS $55,000,000 55,000,000$ Additional UF Membrane System 55,000,000$ Additional UF Membrane System 55,000,000$

UF FILTRATE STORAGE TANK (UNDERGROUND) 1 LS $2,000,000 2,000,000$ -$ -$


















SOLIDS DEWATERING EQUIPMENT, ETC. 1 LS $2,000,000 2,000,000$ Additional Dewatering Devices 2,000,000$ Additional Dewatering Devices 2,000,000$

7 COGENERATION FACILITY (40-45 MW)

GAS TURBINE SYSTEM 1 LS $18,000,000 18,000,000$ Enlarge Gas Turbine System 18,000,000$ Enlarge Gas Turbine System 18,000,000$

HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATOR (HRSG) 1 LS $3,000,000 3,000,000$ Additional HRSG's 3,000,000$ Additional HRSG's 3,000,000$

WATER TREATMENT 1 LS $500,000 500,000$ Additional Water Treament Equip. 500,000$ Additional Water Treament Equip. 500,000$

GAS COMPRESSION AND METERING 1 LS $1,750,000 1,750,000$ Additional Gas Compression Equip. 1,750,000$ Additional Gas Compression Equip. 1,750,000$

SCR AND EMISSION CONTROLS 1 LS $2,000,000 2,000,000$ Additional SCR & Emission Equip. 2,000,000$ Additional SCR & Emission Equip. 2,000,000$

MULTI-EFFECT DISTILLATION (MED) 1 LS $7,500,000 7,500,000$ Enlarge MED System 7,500,000$ Enlarge MED System 7,500,000$

MATERIALS AND LABOR 1 LS $10,000,000 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$

STEP-DOWN SUBSTATION AT MAIN TRANSMISSION LINES 1 LS $500,000 500,000$ -$ -$

TRANSMISSION LINES (OVERHEAD) 1 LS $1,300,000 1,300,000$ -$ -$

SUBSTATION AT DESALINATION FACILITY 1 LS $600,000 600,000$ -$ -$

8 ELECTRICAL & INSTRUMENTATION 15% 55,335,600$ 49,328,100$ 47,640,600$




3 TUNNEL & MARINE CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY1 40% 49,000,000$ 40% -$ 40% -$







FOOTNOTE:1 TUNNEL & MARINE CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY GREATER THAN 30% DUE TO INCREASED NUMBER OF UNKOWNS AND UNDEFINED SCOPE.2 CLASS 4 CONTINGENCY BASED ON SDCWA ESD 260 COST ESTIMATING GUIDELINES: TABLE 2-1 CLASS ESTIMATE CHARACTERISTICS.

TABLE 10-6: MCTSSA - Capital Costs PAGE 2 OF 2MCTSSA Capital Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls


Page 10-17

10.2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

The annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, in 2009 dollars, provided in Table 10-10 and Table 10-11 for the two desalination project alternatives described in Chapter 9 include costs related to:

Energy: Process equipment, pumping (both on- and off-site), buildings, etc;

O&M costs generated using utility grid power (Table 10-10), and

On-site cogeneration power option (Table 10-11);

Labor: For all facilities including off-site pump stations;

Materials: Membranes, lab equipment, etc.;

Chemicals: Pretreatment, post-treatment, etc.; and

Inspection: Tunnel and intake structures.

The key factor that differentiates O&M costs between the two proposed project alternatives is the type of intake utilized. As previously described in Chapter 9, the MCTSSA Site is proposed as using a wedge-wire screened open-ocean intake, while the SRTTP Site would utilize a subsurface DIG intake. Although each site has been proposed to utilize a specific type of intake, all intake options proposed previously in Chapter 3 are feasible for both sites. Further offshore hydro-geotechnical investigations are necessary to determine the feasibility of a subsurface intake for either site. A screened open-ocean intake (wedge-wire screen) requires additional chemicals and pretreatment consisting of Ultra-filtration (UF) membranes due to the increased solids load. This additional pretreatment increases O&M costs when compared to a subsurface intake (SIG, DIG, slant wells), which utilizes natural filtration through the seabed. Therefore the O&M costs are evaluated and based on the type of intake used, independent of the site location. The O&M costs assume that sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) would be used as the disinfectant. The O&M costs have currently been produced assuming that NaOCl is purchased from a chemical supplier. Since a steady stream of brine is available, another option that should be considered is on-site generation of NaOCl. This would slightly increase capital costs, but considerably reduce O&M costs.

10.2.1 Utility Supplied Power Service The O&M costs provided in Table 10-10 assume the local power grid would supply electrical power for the Camp Pendleton Desalination Project. SDG&E is the local power retailer in the area. The O&M costs were calculated assuming a preferred rate of $0.10/kWh, assuming revenue recovery for the proposed transmission lines is incorporated into the rate.


Page 10-18

Table 10-10 O&M Cost Estimate Utilizing Grid Power

Intake Phase 1 Phase 2 Ultimate Type 50 mgd 100 mgd 150 mgd

Subsurface $ 45,300,000 $ 86,600,000 $ 130,800,000 Screened Open-Ocean $ 54,600,000 $ 104,800,000 $ 157,700,000

* Costs provided in 2009 dollars Refer to Table 10-13 (A-C) and Table 10-14 (A-C) for detailed O&M cost estimates associated with a subsurface intake (SRTTP Site) and an open-ocean intake (MCTSSA Site), utilizing utility grid power for 50 mgd, 100 mgd, and 150 mgd SWRO treatment capacity, respectively.

10.2.2 On-Site Cogeneration Power Service Large natural gas users are classified as “non-core users”. Since a cogeneration facility of this magnitude would use a large amount of natural gas, the rules of natural gas procurement and transportation vary. The cost of natural gas depends on the following:

Amount of natural gas required;

Reliability of natural gas service; and

Service pressure.

Due to regulations imposed by The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), SDG&E is not authorized to provide gas services to non-core customers. As a result, the non-core customers are required to purchase natural gas from a supplier other than SDG&E. Several natural gas providers service the San Diego area and would be available to negotiate terms and conditions associated with the purchase agreement. The cost of natural gas has varied substantially over the past several years with commodity pricing ranging from $4.50 per dekatherm (Dth) in February 2009 to as high as $13.00 per Dth in late 2007, early 2008. The natural gas forecast provided by the California Energy Commission Projections 2006-2015 (CEC 2006) indicate an upward trend with a maximum rate of $8.00 per Dth in 2015. It should be noted that the global and geopolitical factors must be considered when forecasting future commodity prices. The O&M costs provided in Table 10-11 were calculated assuming a natural gas price of $5.00 per Dth. The project would be able to negotiate a long-term natural gas contract with a natural gas provider and SDG&E would charge a transmission supplemental fee. Power generated on-site would be used to power on-site facilities, while off-site facilities (FWPS, TOVPS, etc.) would be powered by utility supplied power.


Page 10-19

Table 10-11 O&M Cost Estimate Utilizing Cogen Power

Intake Phase 1 Phase 2 Ultimate Type 50 mgd 100 mgd 150 mgd

Subsurface $ 37,500,000 $ 70,300,000 $ 103,600,000 Screened Open-Ocean $ 43,100,000 $ 81,000,000 $ 119,300,000

* Costs provided in 2009 dollars The O&M components associated with a 40-MW natural gas cogeneration facility are listed below in Table 10-12. These costs have been incorporated into the Camp Pendleton SWRO Desalination Project O&M cost estimates utilizing on-site cogeneration power. Refer to Table 10-15 (A-C) and Table 10-16 (A-C) for detailed O&M cost estimates associated with a subsurface intake (SRTTP Site) and a screened open-ocean intake (MCTSSA Site), utilizing cogeneration power for 50 mgd, 100 mgd, and 150 mgd SWRO treatment capacity, respectively.

Table 10-12 40-MW Cogeneration Facility O&M Cost Estimate

# Description Units Value 1 Electrical Production (8,000 hrs @ 40 MW) kWh 320,000,000 2 Natural Gas Fuel Therms/hr 3,680 3 Natural Gas Fuel Dth/hr 368 4 Natural gas Fuel (8,000 hrs @ 40 MW) Dth/yr 2,944,000 5 Cost per dekatherm (assume $5 / Dth) $ 14,700,000 6 Non - Fuel Cost $/kWh $ 0.0042 7 Cost for Non - Fuel $ 1,400,000 8 SCR & Emission Monitoring $/kWh $ 0.0016 9 Cost for SCR & Emission Monitoring $ 500,000

10 Electrical Standby Charge $/kW/month SDG&E negotiations * Costs provided in 2009 dollars


Page 10-20


SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITYPROJECT: CAMP PENDLETON SWRO PROJECT AT SRTTP SITEDESCRIPTION: PRELIMINARY O&M COST ESTIMATEPREPARED BY: RBF CONSULTING

Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost $/AFProduction Capacity

56,000 afy

13,402,671 kWh 0.10$ 1,340,267$ 193,611,466 kWh 0.10$ 19,361,147$ 103,358,242 kWh 0.10$ 10,335,824$ 310,372,379 kWh 0.10$ 31,037,238$ $550.00

Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Cost $/AFFeedwater Intake System

DIG Collector Well Intake SystemAnnual Cleaning (Vessel & Crew) 2 weeks 60,000.00$ 120,000$

Intake Subtotal 120,000$ Feedwater Pump Station (FWPS)

Annual Flow 117,895 afyLift 85 ftAvg. Power Requirement 1,846 hpAnnual Power 13,402,671 kWh 0.10$ 1,340,267$

FWPS Subtotal 1,340,267$ Total Feedwater Intake O&M 1,460,000$ $30.00

Desalination Plant

PretreatmentAnnual Flow (Applied) 117,895 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 50 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 363,053 kWh 0.10$ 36,305$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 475 hpDAF Annual Power 3,449,007 kWh 0.10$ 344,901$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 2,563,453 lbs. 0.70$ 1,794,417$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 160,216 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 160,216$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 15 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 4,806,474 lbs. 0.20$ 961,295$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 63,419 lbs. 2.25$ 142,692$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 30 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 217,832 kWh 0.10$ 21,783$

Pretreatment Subtotal 3,460,000$ Reverse Osmosis (RO)

Annual Flow (Applied) 112,000 afyAnnual Permeate Production 56,000 afyAnnual Brine Production 56,000 afyAvg. Power Requirement 24,733 hpAnnual Power 179,587,193 kWh 0.10$ 17,958,719$ NaOH Dosage (Enhanced Boron Reduction) 25.0 mg/lAnnual NaOH 7,610,250 lbs. 0.35$ 2,663,588$ Misc. CIP Chemicals 1 LS 200,000$ Membrane Replacement 1 LS 1,764,000$

RO Subtotal 22,590,000$ Post Treatment & Disinfection

Annual Flow 56,000 afyLime Dosage 60 mg/lAnnual Lime 9,132,300 lbs. 0.15$ 1,369,845$ CO2 Dosage 30 mg/lAnnual CO2 4,566,150 lbs. 0.20$ 913,230$ NaOH Dosage (pH adjustment) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOH 608,820 lbs. 0.35$ 213,087$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 608,820 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 608,820$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 10 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 72,611 kWh 0.10$ 7,261$

Post Treatment Subtotal 3,110,000$

PHASE: PHASE 1 - 50 MGDESTIMATE DATE: JAN 2009

Table 10-13(A)Subsurface Intake: 50 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)

Power Requirement Summary

Operation and Maintenance Summary

Power Description

O&M Description

Desalination Plant (50 MGD)Power RequirementsFeedwater Intake PumpingDesalination Facility (not incl. DWPS)Conveyance PumpingTotal Annual Power Required

TABLE 10-13(A) PAGE 1 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls



Table 10-13(A)Subsurface Intake: 50 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)

Residuals Handeling (Solids Dewatering & Drying)Annual Flow 2,358 afyAvg. Power Requirement 100 hpAnnual Power 726,107 kWh 0.10$ 72,611$

Residuals Handeling Subtotal 80,000$ Miscellaneous

Facility Operations and Staff Labor 40,000 hours 75.00$ 3,000,000$ Laboratory Materials 1 LS 150,000$ Misc. Valves Avg. Power Requirement 60 hpMisc. Valves Annual Power 435,664 kWh 0.10$ 43,566$ Buildings Avg. Power Requirement 1,000 kwBuildings Annual Power 8,760,000 kWh 0.10$ 876,000$

Misc Subtotal 4,070,000$ Total Desalination Plant O&M 33,310,000$ $590.00

Conveyance Pumping

Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS)Annual Flow 56,000 afyLift 820 ftAvg. Power Requirement 8,458 hpAnnual Power 61,415,767 kWh 0.10$ 6,141,577$

DWPS Subtotal 6,140,000$ Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station (TOVPS)

Annual Flow 56,000 afyLift 425 ftAvg. Power Requirement 4,384 hpAnnual Power 31,831,343 kWh 0.10$ 3,183,134$ Annual Operations Labor 1,000 hours 75.00$ 75,000$

VVPS Subtotal 3,260,000$ Silverleaf Pump Station (SLPS)


SLPS Subtotal 1,090,000$ Total Conveyance Pumping O&M 10,490,000$ $190.00

TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS 45,300,000$ $810.00

TABLE 10-13(A) PAGE 2 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls



112,000 afy

28,382,126 kWh 0.10$ 2,838,213$ 378,462,933 kWh 0.10$ 37,846,293$ 207,839,944 kWh 0.10$ 20,783,994$ 614,685,003 kWh 0.10$ 61,468,500$ $550.00






Desalination Plant

PretreatmentAnnual Flow (Applied) 235,789 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 100 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 726,107 kWh 0.10$ 72,611$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 950 hpDAF Annual Power 6,898,013 kWh 0.10$ 689,801$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 5,126,905 lbs. 0.70$ 3,588,834$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 320,432 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 320,432$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 15 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 9,612,947 lbs. 0.20$ 1,922,589$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 126,838 lbs. 2.25$ 285,384$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 60 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 435,664 kWh 0.10$ 43,566$




Annual Flow 112,000 afyLime Dosage 50 mg/lAnnual Lime 15,220,500 lbs. 0.15$ 2,283,075$ CO2 Dosage 30 mg/lAnnual CO2 9,132,300 lbs. 0.20$ 1,826,460$ NaOH Dosage (pH adjustment) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOH 1,217,640 lbs. 0.35$ 426,174$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 1,522,050 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 1,522,050$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 20 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 145,221 kWh 0.10$ 14,522$



Table 10-13(B)Subsurface Intake: 100 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)



Power Description

O&M Description


TABLE 10-13(B) PAGE 1 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls



Table 10-13(B)Subsurface Intake: 100 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)

Residuals Handeling (Solids Dewatering & Drying)Annual Flow 4,716 afyAvg. Power Requirement 200 hpAnnual Power 1,452,213 kWh 0.10$ 145,221$




Conveyance Pumping








TABLE 10-13(B) PAGE 2 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls



168,000 afy

47,303,543 kWh 0.10$ 4,730,354$ 563,314,399 kWh 0.10$ 56,331,440$ 335,914,288 kWh 0.10$ 33,591,429$ 946,532,230 kWh 0.10$ 94,653,223$ $560.00






Desalination Plant

PretreatmentAnnual Flow (Applied) 353,684 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 150 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 1,089,160 kWh 0.10$ 108,916$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 1,425 hpDAF Annual Power 10,347,020 kWh 0.10$ 1,034,702$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 7,690,358 lbs. 0.70$ 5,383,251$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 480,647 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 480,647$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 15 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 14,419,421 lbs. 0.20$ 2,883,884$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 190,256 lbs. 2.25$ 428,077$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 90 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 653,496 kWh 0.10$ 65,350$





Post Treatment Subtotal 4 9,110,000$


Table 10-13(C)Subsurface Intake: 150 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)



Power Description

O&M Description


TABLE 10-13(C) PAGE 1 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls



Table 10-13(C)Subsurface Intake: 150 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)

Residuals Handeling (Solids Dewatering & Drying)Annual Flow 7,074 afyAvg. Power Requirement 300 hpAnnual Power 2,178,320 kWh 0.10$ 217,832$


Facility Operations and Staff Labor 48,000 hours 75.00$ 3,600,000$ Laboratory Materials 1 LS 150,000$ Misc. Valves Avg. Power Requirement 180 hpMisc. Valves Annual Power 1,306,992 kWh 0.10$ 130,699$ Buildings Avg. Power Requirement 1,000 kwBuildings Annual Power 8,760,000 kWh 0.10$ 876,000$


Conveyance Pumping

Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS)Annual Flow 168,000 afyLift 1,015 ftAvg. Power Requirement 31,409 hpAnnual Power 228,062,209 kWh 0.10$ 22,806,221$







TABLE 10-13(C) PAGE 2 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITYPROJECT: CAMP PENDLETON SWRO PROJECT AT MCTSSA SITEDESCRIPTION: PRELIMINARY O&M COST ESTIMATEPREPARED BY: RBF CONSULTING


56,000 afy

19,453,838 kWh 0.10$ 1,945,384$ 251,435,453 kWh 0.10$ 25,143,545$ 103,358,242 kWh 0.10$ 10,335,824$ 374,247,533 kWh 0.10$ 37,424,753$ $670.00


Wedge-Wire Intake SystemAnnual Inspection (Intake & Diffusers) 2 weeks 60,000.00$ 120,000$ Annual Cleaning (Vessel & Crew) 2 weeks 60,000.00$ 120,000$




Desalination Plant

PretreatmentPretreatment Annual Flow (Applied) 145,455 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 50 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 363,053 kWh 0.10$ 36,305$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 475 hpDAF Annual Power 3,449,007 kWh 0.10$ 344,901$ UF Annual Flow (Applied) 138,182 afyUF Avg. Power Requirement 6,000 hpUF Annual Power 43,566,400 kWh 0.10$ 4,356,640$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 3,162,701 lbs. 0.70$ 2,213,891$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 197,669 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 197,669$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 20 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 7,906,753 lbs. 0.20$ 1,581,351$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 70,420 lbs. 2.25$ 158,444$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 40 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 290,443 kWh 0.10$ 29,044$ UF Membrane Replacement 1 LS 600,000$




Annual Flow 55,964 afyLime Dosage 60 mg/lAnnual Lime 9,126,370 lbs. 0.15$ 1,368,955$ CO2 Dosage 30 mg/lAnnual CO2 4,563,185 lbs. 0.20$ 912,637$ NaOH Dosage (pH adjustment) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOH 608,425 lbs. 0.35$ 212,949$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 608,425 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 608,425$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 10 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 72,611 kWh 0.10$ 7,261$




Power Description

O&M Description



Table 10-14(A)Open-Ocean Intake: 50 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)

TABLE 10-14(A) PAGE 1 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls



Table 10-14(A)Open-Ocean Intake: 50 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)

Residuals Handeling (Solids Dewatering & Drying)Annual Flow 7,273 afyAvg. Power Requirement 175 hpAnnual Power 1,034,775 kWh 0.10$ 103,478$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 3.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 59,301 lbs. 0.70$ 41,510$




Conveyance Pumping








TABLE 10-14(A) PAGE 2 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls



112,000 afy

42,798,444 kWh 0.10$ 4,279,844$ 494,110,906 kWh 0.10$ 49,411,091$ 207,711,549 kWh 0.10$ 20,771,155$ 744,620,898 kWh 0.10$ 74,462,090$ $660.00






Desalination Plant

PretreatmentPretreatment Annual Flow (Applied) 290,909 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 100 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 726,107 kWh 0.10$ 72,611$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 950 hpDAF Annual Power 6,898,013 kWh 0.10$ 689,801$ UF Annual Flow (Applied) 276,364 afyUF Avg. Power Requirement 12,000 hpUF Annual Power 87,132,800 kWh 0.10$ 8,713,280$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 6,325,403 lbs. 0.70$ 4,427,782$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 395,338 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 395,338$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 20 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 15,813,506 lbs. 0.20$ 3,162,701$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 140,839 lbs. 2.25$ 316,888$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 80 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 580,885 kWh 0.10$ 58,089$ UF Membrane Replacement 1 LS 1,200,000$








Power Description

O&M Description



Table 10-14(B)Open-Ocean Intake: 100 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)

TABLE 10-14(B) PAGE 1 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls



Table 10-14(B)Open-Ocean Intake: 100 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)





Conveyance Pumping








TABLE 10-14(B) PAGE 2 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls



168,000 afy

70,033,818 kWh 0.10$ 7,003,382$ 736,241,779 kWh 0.10$ 73,624,178$ 335,702,727 kWh 0.10$ 33,570,273$

1,141,978,323 kWh 0.10$ 114,197,832$ $680.00






Desalination Plant

PretreatmentPretreatment Annual Flow (Applied) 436,364 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 150 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 1,089,160 kWh 0.10$ 108,916$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 1,350 hpDAF Annual Power 9,802,440 kWh 0.10$ 980,244$ UF Annual Flow (Applied) 414,545 afyUF Avg. Power Requirement 18,000 hpUF Annual Power 130,699,200 kWh 0.10$ 13,069,920$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 9,488,104 lbs. 0.70$ 6,641,673$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 593,006 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 593,006$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 20 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 23,720,260 lbs. 0.20$ 4,744,052$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 211,259 lbs. 2.25$ 475,332$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 120 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 871,328 kWh 0.10$ 87,133$ UF Membrane Replacement 1 LS 1,800,000$








Power Description

O&M Description



Table 10-14(C)Open-Ocean Intake: 150 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)

TABLE 10-14(C) PAGE 1 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls



Table 10-14(C)Open-Ocean Intake: 150 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Grid Power)



Facility Operations and Staff Labor 58,000 hours 75.00$ 4,350,000$ Laboratory Materials 1 LS 150,000$ Misc. Valves Avg. Power Requirement 180 hpMisc. Valves Annual Power 1,306,992 kWh 0.10$ 130,699$ Buildings Avg. Power Requirement 1,000 kwBuildings Annual Power 8,760,000 kWh 0.10$ 876,000$


Conveyance Pumping

Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS)Annual Flow 167,891 afyLift 1,015 ftAvg. Power Requirement 31,389 hpAnnual Power 227,914,116 kWh 0.10$ 22,791,412$







TABLE 10-14(C) PAGE 2 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_GRID POWER.xls

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITYPROJECT: CAMP PENDLETON SWRO PROJECTDESCRIPTION: PRELIMINARY O&M COST ESTIMATEPREPARED BY: RBF CONSULTING


56,000 afy2,000 afy

13,402,671 kWh 0.10$ 1,340,267$

106,688,496 kWh 0.10$ 10,668,850$ 120,091,167 kWh 0.10$ 12,009,117$ $210.00






Desalination Plant

PretreatmentAnnual Flow (Applied) 117,895 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 50 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 363,053 kWh -$ -$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 475 hpDAF Annual Power 3,449,007 kWh -$ -$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 2,563,453 lbs. 0.70$ 1,794,417$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 160,216 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 160,216$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 15 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 4,806,474 lbs. 0.20$ 961,295$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 63,419 lbs. 2.25$ 142,692$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 30 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 217,832 kWh -$ -$


Annual Flow (Applied) 112,000 afyAnnual Permeate Production 56,000 afyAnnual Brine Production 56,000 afyAvg. Power Requirement 24,733 hpAnnual Power 179,587,193 kWh -$ -$ NaOH Dosage (Enhanced Boron Reduction) 25.0 mg/lAnnual NaOH 7,610,250 lbs. 0.35$ 2,663,588$ Misc. CIP Chemicals 1 LS 200,000$ Membrane Replacement 1 LS 1,764,000$


Annual Flow 58,000 afyLime Dosage 60 mg/lAnnual Lime 9,458,454 lbs. 0.15$ 1,418,768$ CO2 Dosage 30 mg/lAnnual CO2 4,729,227 lbs. 0.20$ 945,845$ NaOH Dosage (pH adjustment) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOH 630,564 lbs. 0.35$ 220,697$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 630,564 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 630,564$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 10 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 72,611 kWh -$ -$


Power Description

O&M Description

Desalination Plant (50 MGD)

Power RequirementsFeedwater Intake PumpingDesalination Facility (including DWPS)Conveyance Pumping (not including DWPS)Total Annual Power Required

Table 10-15(A)Subsurface Intake: 50 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)

Power Provided by On-site Power Cogeneration Facility



Cogeneration MED Plant (1.8 MGD)

TABLE 10-15(A) PAGE 1 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls


Table 10-15(A)Subsurface Intake: 50 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)


Post Treatment Subtotal 3,220,000$ Residuals Handeling (Solids Dewatering & Drying)

Annual Flow 2,358 afyAvg. Power Requirement 100 hpAnnual Power 726,107 kWh -$ -$

Residuals Handeling Subtotal -$ 40-MW Cogeneration Facility

Electrical Production (8,000 hrs) 320,000,000 kWhAnnual Natural Gas Fuel 2,944,000 Dth 5.00$ 14,720,000$ Annual Non-Fuel Costs 320,000,000 kWh 0.0042$ 1,344,000$ Annual SCR & Emmision Monitoring 320,000,000 kWh 0.0016$ 512,000$ Electrical Standby Charge kW TBD -$

Cogen Subtotal 16,580,000$ Miscellaneous

Facility Operations and Staff Labor 52,000 hours 75.00$ 3,900,000$ Laboratory Materials 1 LS 150,000$ Misc. Valves Avg. Power Requirement 60 hpMisc. Valves Annual Power 435,664 kWh -$ -$ Buildings Avg. Power Requirement 1,000 kwBuildings Annual Power 8,760,000 kWh -$ -$


Conveyance Pumping

Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS)Annual Flow 58,000 afyLift 820 ftAvg. Power Requirement 8,760 hpAnnual Power 63,609,187 kWh -$ -$

DWPS Subtotal -$ Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station (TOVPS)






TABLE 10-15(A) PAGE 2 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls



112,000 afy4,000 afy

28,382,126 kWh 0.10$ 2,838,213$

214,901,687 kWh 0.10$ 21,490,169$ 243,283,813 kWh 0.10$ 24,328,381$ $210.00






Desalination Plant

PretreatmentAnnual Flow (Applied) 235,789 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 100 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 726,107 kWh -$ -$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 950 hpDAF Annual Power 6,898,013 kWh -$ -$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 5,126,905 lbs. 0.70$ 3,588,834$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 320,432 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 320,432$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 15 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 9,612,947 lbs. 0.20$ 1,922,589$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 126,838 lbs. 2.25$ 285,384$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 60 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 435,664 kWh -$ -$




Annual Flow 116,000 afyLime Dosage 50 mg/lAnnual Lime 15,764,089 lbs. 0.15$ 2,364,613$ CO2 Dosage 30 mg/lAnnual CO2 9,458,454 lbs. 0.20$ 1,891,691$ NaOH Dosage (pH adjustment) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOH 1,261,127 lbs. 0.35$ 441,395$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 1,576,409 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 1,576,409$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 20 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 145,221 kWh -$ -$


Power Description

O&M Description



Table 10-15(B)Subsurface Intake: 100 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)





TABLE 10-15(B) PAGE 1 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls


Table 10-15(B)Subsurface Intake: 100 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)


Post Treatment Subtotal 6,270,000$ Residuals Handeling (Solids Dewatering & Drying)

Annual Flow 4,716 afyAvg. Power Requirement 200 hpAnnual Power 1,452,213 kWh -$ -$

Residuals Handeling Subtotal -$ (2) 40-MW Cogeneration Facility

Electrical Production (8,000 hrs) 640,000,000 kWhAnnual Natural Gas Fuel 5,888,000 Dth 5.00$ 29,440,000$ Annual Non-Fuel Costs 640,000,000 kWh 0.0042$ 2,688,000$ Annual SCR & Emmision Monitoring 640,000,000 kWh 0.0016$ 1,024,000$ Electrical Standby Charge kW TBD -$




Conveyance Pumping








TABLE 10-15(B) PAGE 2 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls



168,000 afy6,000 afy

47,303,543 kWh 0.10$ 4,730,354$

347,550,115 kWh 0.10$ 34,755,011$ 394,853,658 kWh 0.10$ 39,485,366$ $230.00






Desalination Plant

PretreatmentAnnual Flow (Applied) 353,684 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 150 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 1,089,160 kWh -$ -$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 1,425 hpDAF Annual Power 10,347,020 kWh -$ -$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 7,690,358 lbs. 0.70$ 5,383,251$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 480,647 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 480,647$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 15 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 14,419,421 lbs. 0.20$ 2,883,884$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 190,256 lbs. 2.25$ 428,077$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 90 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 653,496 kWh -$ -$




Annual Flow 174,000 afyLime Dosage 50 mg/lAnnual Lime 23,646,134 lbs. 0.15$ 3,546,920$ CO2 Dosage 30 mg/lAnnual CO2 14,187,680 lbs. 0.20$ 2,837,536$ NaOH Dosage (pH adjustment) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOH 1,891,691 lbs. 0.35$ 662,092$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 2,364,613 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 2,364,613$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 30 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 217,832 kWh -$ -$


Power Description

O&M Description



Table 10-15(C)Subsurface Intake: 150 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)





TABLE 10-15(C) PAGE 1 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls


Table 10-15(C)Subsurface Intake: 150 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)


Post Treatment Subtotal 4 9,410,000$ Residuals Handeling (Solids Dewatering & Drying)

Annual Flow 7,074 afyAvg. Power Requirement 300 hpAnnual Power 2,178,320 kWh -$ -$

Residuals Handeling Subtotal -$ (3) 40-MW Cogeneration Facility



Facility Operations and Staff Labor 68,000 hours 75.00$ 5,100,000$ Laboratory Materials 1 LS 150,000$ Misc. Valves Avg. Power Requirement 180 hpMisc. Valves Annual Power 1,306,992 kWh -$ -$ Buildings Avg. Power Requirement 1,000 kwBuildings Annual Power 8,760,000 kWh -$ -$


Conveyance Pumping

Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS)Annual Flow 174,000 afyLift 1,015 ftAvg. Power Requirement 32,531 hpAnnual Power 236,207,288 kWh -$ -$







TABLE 10-15(C) PAGE 2 OF 2SRTTP O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls



56,000 afy2,000 afy

19,453,838 kWh 0.10$ 1,945,384$

43,079,309 kWh 0.10$ 4,307,931$ 62,533,147 kWh 0.10$ 6,253,315$ $110.00






Desalination Plant

PretreatmentPretreatment Annual Flow (Applied) 145,455 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 50 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 363,053 kWh -$ -$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 475 hpDAF Annual Power 3,449,007 kWh -$ -$ UF Annual Flow (Applied) 138,182 afyUF Avg. Power Requirement 6,000 hpUF Annual Power 43,566,400 kWh -$ -$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 3,162,701 lbs. 0.70$ 2,213,891$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 197,669 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 197,669$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 20 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 7,906,753 lbs. 0.20$ 1,581,351$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 70,420 lbs. 2.25$ 158,444$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 40 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 290,443 kWh -$ -$ UF Membrane Replacement 1 LS 600,000$




Annual Flow 57,964 afyLime Dosage 60 mg/lAnnual Lime 9,452,524 lbs. 0.15$ 1,417,879$ CO2 Dosage 30 mg/lAnnual CO2 4,726,262 lbs. 0.20$ 945,252$ NaOH Dosage (pH adjustment) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOH 630,168 lbs. 0.35$ 220,559$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 630,168 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 630,168$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 10 hp


Power Description

O&M Description


Grid Power RequirementsFeedwater Intake PumpingDesalination Facility (including DWPS)Conveyance Pumping (not including DWPS)Total Annual Power Required

Table 10-16(A)Open-Ocean Intake: 50 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)





TABLE 10-16(A) PAGE 1 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls


Table 10-16(A)Open-Ocean Intake: 50 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)


Chemical Feed Annual Power 72,611 kWh -$ -$ Post Treatment Subtotal 3,210,000$

Residuals Handeling (Solids Dewatering & Drying)Annual Flow 7,273 afyAvg. Power Requirement 175 hpAnnual Power 1,034,775 kWh -$ -$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 3.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 59,301 lbs. 0.70$ 41,510$

Residuals Handeling Subtotal 40,000$ 45-MW Cogeneration Facility

Electrical Production (8,000 hrs) 360,000,000 kWhAnnual Natural Gas Fuel 3,312,000 Dth 5.00$ 16,560,000$ Annual Non-Fuel Costs 360,000,000 kWh 0.0042$ 1,512,000$ Annual SCR & Emmision Monitoring 360,000,000 kWh 0.0016$ 576,000$ Electrical Standby Charge kW TBD -$




Conveyance Pumping








TABLE 10-16(A) PAGE 2 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls



112,000 afy4,000 afy

42,798,444 kWh 0.10$ 4,279,844$

76,823,207 kWh 0.10$ 7,682,321$ 119,621,651 kWh 0.10$ 11,962,165$ $110.00






Desalination Plant

PretreatmentPretreatment Annual Flow (Applied) 290,909 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 100 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 726,107 kWh -$ -$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 950 hpDAF Annual Power 6,898,013 kWh -$ -$ UF Annual Flow (Applied) 276,364 afyUF Avg. Power Requirement 12,000 hpUF Annual Power 87,132,800 kWh -$ -$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 6,325,403 lbs. 0.70$ 4,427,782$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 395,338 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 395,338$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 20 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 15,813,506 lbs. 0.20$ 3,162,701$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 140,839 lbs. 2.25$ 316,888$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 80 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 580,885 kWh -$ -$ UF Membrane Replacement 1 LS 1,200,000$




Annual Flow 115,927 afyLime Dosage 60 mg/lAnnual Lime 18,905,047 lbs. 0.15$ 2,835,757$ CO2 Dosage 30 mg/lAnnual CO2 9,452,524 lbs. 0.20$ 1,890,505$ NaOH Dosage (pH adjustment) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOH 1,260,336 lbs. 0.35$ 441,118$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 1,260,336 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 1,260,336$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 20 hp


Power Description

O&M Description



Table 10-16(B)Open-Ocean Intake: 100 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)





TABLE 10-16(B) PAGE 1 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls


Table 10-16(B)Open-Ocean Intake: 100 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)




Residuals Handeling Subtotal 80,000$ (2) 45-MW Cogeneration Facility





Conveyance Pumping








TABLE 10-16(B) PAGE 2 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls



168,000 afy6,000 afy

70,033,818 kWh 0.10$ 7,003,382$

111,342,827 kWh 0.10$ 11,134,283$ 181,376,645 kWh 0.10$ 18,137,664$ $110.00






Desalination Plant

PretreatmentPretreatment Annual Flow (Applied) 436,364 afyDrum Screen Avg. Power Requirement 150 hpDrum Screen Annual Power 1,089,160 kWh -$ -$ DAF Avg. Power Requirement 1,350 hpDAF Annual Power 9,802,440 kWh -$ -$ UF Annual Flow (Applied) 414,545 afyUF Avg. Power Requirement 18,000 hpUF Annual Power 130,699,200 kWh -$ -$ FeCl Dosage (Coagulant) 8.0 mg/lAnnual FeCl 9,488,104 lbs. 0.70$ 6,641,673$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 6.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 593,006 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 593,006$ H2SO4 Dosage (pH adjustment) 20 mg/lAnnual H2SO4 Reqmnt 23,720,260 lbs. 0.20$ 4,744,052$ NaHSO3 Dosage (Dechlorination) 5.0 mg/lAnnual NaHSO3 211,259 lbs. 2.25$ 475,332$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 120 hpChemical Feed Annual Power 871,328 kWh -$ -$ UF Membrane Replacement 1 LS 1,800,000$




Annual Flow 173,891 afyLime Dosage 60 mg/lAnnual Lime 28,357,571 lbs. 0.15$ 4,253,636$ CO2 Dosage 30 mg/lAnnual CO2 14,178,785 lbs. 0.20$ 2,835,757$ NaOH Dosage (pH adjustment) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOH 1,890,505 lbs. 0.35$ 661,677$ NaOCl Dosage (as Chlorine) 4.0 mg/lAnnual NaOCl 1,890,505 lbs. Cl 1.00$ 1,890,505$ Chemical Feed Avg. Power Requirement 30 hp


Power Description

O&M Description



Table 10-16(C)Open-Ocean Intake: 150 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)





TABLE 10-16(C) PAGE 1 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls


Table 10-16(C)Open-Ocean Intake: 150 mgd O&M Cost Estimate (Cogeneration)




Residuals Handeling Subtotal 120,000$ (2) 45-MW Cogeneration Facility

Electrical Production (8,000 hrs) 1,080,000,000 kWhAnnual Natural Gas Fuel 9,936,000 Dth 5.00$ 49,680,000$ Annual Non-Fuel Costs 1,080,000,000 kWh 0.0042$ 4,536,000$ Annual SCR & Emmision Monitoring 1,080,000,000 kWh 0.0016$ 1,728,000$ Electrical Standby Charge kW TBD -$


Facility Operations and Staff Labor 78,000 hours 75.00$ 5,850,000$ Laboratory Materials 1 LS 150,000$ Misc. Valves Avg. Power Requirement 180 hpMisc. Valves Annual Power 1,306,992 kWh -$ -$ Buildings Avg. Power Requirement 1,000 kwBuildings Annual Power 8,760,000 kWh -$ -$


Conveyance Pumping

Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS)Annual Flow 174,000 afyLift 1,015 ftAvg. Power Requirement 32,531 hpAnnual Power 236,207,288 kWh -$ -$







TABLE 10-16(C) PAGE 2 OF 2MCTSSA O&M Costs_2009_COGEN POWER.xls


Page 10-29

10.3 LIFE CYCLE PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS

A Life Cycle Cost (LCC) present worth analysis was conducted for both project alternatives (SRTTP and MCTSSA) described previously in Chapter 9. The LCC analysis was performed utilizing an escalated dollar approach known as the cost escalation method, as described in Chapter 16 of the Water Authority’s Design Manual Volume 1 - Design Contractor Guide (ESD-160). In the escalated dollar approach, all future costs are escalated at an assumed inflation rate (i1), and then discounted to present value using a discount rate (i2) that accounts for both the true cost-of-money and inflation over an assumed present worth analysis time-period (n). This approach involves additional complexity, but provides a better estimate of the actual dollar value of future projects. The present worth analysis for the two project alternatives assumes that the Water Authority would begin Phase 1 bond payments in year 2018 and the desalination facility would begin operation (50 mgd) in 2019. Each subsequent expansion would occur every 10 years. Therefore, the desalination facility would be capable of producing 100 mgd in 2028 and 150 mgd in 2038. The capital costs for each phase presented in Section 10.1 are assumed to be paid over a 40-year bond life (nb). The capital costs (in 2009 dollars) are inflated to the assumed year that the expenditure would occur and that value is then amortized over 40 years to determine annual bond payments. Similarly, the O&M costs (in 2009 dollars) presented in Section 10.2 are inflated annually. In addition, replacement costs are incorporated into the LCC analysis for major mechanical equipment (pumps, motors, intake screens, RO skids, etc.). These mechanical replacement costs range between $270 million (grid power) and $315 million (cogeneration) for a subsurface intake treatment process and $325 million (grid power) to $370 million (cogeneration) for a screened open-ocean intake treatment process. These costs are assumed to occur every 30 years, therefore, Phase 1 mechanical equipment would be replaced in year 2048 while Phase 2 mechanical equipment would be replaced in year 2058. Assumptions used to conduct the present worth analysis are listed below:

Life Cycle Period (n): 50 Years beginning year 2015 and ending year 2065;

Bond Period (nb): 40-years;

Inflation Rate (i1): 3.0% (average inflation rate);

Discount Rate (i2): 5.5% (Water Authority Finance Department);

Capital Costs: Costs developed in Section 10.1;

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs: Costs developed in Section 10.2;


Page 10-30

Replacement Costs: Major mechanical equipment replaced every 30 years;

Note: RO & UF membrane replacement costs are incorporated into the annual O&M costs since they are considered consumables. RO membrane replacement is based on 15% of the total number of elements to be replaced annually, occurring after the first 5 years of operation of each phase (expansion).

10.3.1 Utility Supplied Power Service Table 10-17 below demonstrates the 50-year present worth (PW) for each project alternative, utilizing electrical power from the local utility grid.

Table 10-17 50-Year Present Worth and Average Cost of Water (Grid Power)

Average cost of water ($/AF) Site Acre-Feet Produced

2009 Present Worth (w/ Inflation)

2009 PW $/AF Inflated Uninflated

SRTTP 6,832,000 $4,018,700,000 $588 $3,858 $1,687 MCTSSA 6,832,000 $4,653,800,000 $681 $4,514 $1,932

Refer to Table 10-19 and Table 10-20 for a detailed 50-year life present worth analysis associated with the SRTTP Site (subsurface intake) and MCTSSA Site (screened open-ocean intake), respectively, utilizing grid power. Each Table has two versions (A and B), which designates using inflation at the assumed 3% (A) and no inflation (B).

10.3.2 On-Site Cogeneration Power Service Table 10-18 below demonstrates the 50-year present worth (PW) for each project alternative, utilizing on-site cogeneration power.

Table 10-18 50-Year Present Worth and Average Cost of Water (Cogeneration)

Average cost of water ($/AF) Site Acre-Feet Produced

2009 Present Worth (w/ Inflation)

2009 PW $/AF Inflated Uninflated

SRTTP 7,076,000 $3,757,600,000 $531 $3,439 $1,572 MCTSSA 7,076,000 $4,203,500,000 $594 $3,882 $1,743

Refer to Table 10-21 and Table 10-22 for a detailed 50-year life cycle cost analysis associated with the SRTTP Site (subsurface intake) and MCTSSA Site (screened open-ocean intake), respectively, utilizing on-site cogeneration power. Each Table has two versions (A and B), which designates using inflation at the assumed 3% (A) and using no inflation (B).


Page 10-31

10.3.3 Conclusions Capital costs for each project description vary only slightly when comparing such large scale project costs. The capital cost associated with additional pretreatment equipment (UF membrane system) required for a screened open-ocean intake (proposed at MCTSSA Site) is only slightly more expensive than the capital costs associated with constructing a subsurface intake. Capital costs associated with pipelines (on land) are similar for each project alternative. Although the MCTSSA Site requires longer pipelines for wastewater effluent discharge and desalinated water conveyance, the SRTTP Site requires increased pipeline lengths for feedwater and concentrate discharge pipelines. As demonstrated previously in Table 10-5, the capital costs, although significant, are comparable to recently constructed seawater desalination projects in Australia with similar capacity, infrastructure, and treatment processes. The key difference in life cycle costs for the two project alternatives is the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with each type of intake option (screened open-ocean vs. subsurface). Even though a screened open-ocean intake is proposed at the MCTSSA Site, and a subsurface DIG intake is proposed at the SRTTP Site, any intake option is feasible at either site until further offshore hydrogeologic investigations are conducted. A screened open-ocean intake requires additional pretreatment, which in turn requires additional energy, chemicals, and labor. Due to the increase in solids load, additional residuals and solids handling is required which increases annual O&M costs. Although on-site power cogeneration increases initial capital costs, cost savings exist when compared to purchasing power from the local utility grid over the life of the desalination facility. Since the cogeneration multi-effect distillation (MED) process increases the desalinated water production capacity by approximately 2,000 AFY, and it is cheaper to purchase natural gas rather than grid power, the $/AF cost over a 50-year life cycle decreases approximately $300 - $400 for any intake option at either site if on-site cogeneration power is utilized. An additional disadvantage to on-site power cogeneration other than increasing capital costs is the additional complexity that the MED process would bring to the desalination facility. The SWRO desalination process is already a complex operation, requiring operators with advanced training. The additional complexity of the MED process would require hiring operators and maintenance workers with special expertise, skills, and capabilities. This would increase O&M costs, which currently have not been factored into the O&M estimates.


Page 10-32


TAB

LE 1

0-19

(A)

SAN

DIE

GO

CO

UN

TY W

ATE

R A

UTH

OR

ITY

PR

OJE

CT:

CA

MP

PEN

DLE

TON

SW

RO

PR

OJE

CT

AT

SRTT

P SI

TEP

OW

ER

:G

RID

NFL

ATI

ON

RA

TE:

3.0%

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N:

50-Y

R L

IFE

CYC

LE C

OST

AN

ALY

SIS

ES

TIM

ATE

DA

TE:

JAN

200

9D

ISC

OU

NT

RA

TE:

5.5%

PR

EP

AR

ED

BY

:R

BF

CO

NSU

LTIN

GB

ON

D L

EN

GTH

(yrs

): 40

Cal

enda

rC

apita

l & O

&M

2009

Acr

e-Fe

etA

vg A

nnua

lA

nnua

lYe

arn

2009

Infla

ted

Cos

tPh

ase

1Ph

ase

2Ph

ase

3M

ech.

Equ

ip.

Mec

h. E

quip

.20

09In

flate

d C

ost

Cos

tsPr

esen

t Wor

thPr

oduc

ed

Pres

ent W

orth

Cos

tD

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)D

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

Per Y

ear

(A/P

, %, n

)Pe

r Yea

r$/

AF

$/A

F20

189

1,24

5,00

0,00

0$

1,62

4,00

0,00

0$

101,

200,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-$

-

$

101,

200,

000

$

62

,500

,000

$

0

-$

-

$

2019

10-

$

-

$

10

1,20

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

43

,536

,000

$

59

,000

,000

$

160,

200,

000

$

93

,800

,000

$

56

,000

1,67

5$

2,86

1$

20

2011

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

43,5

36,0

00$

60,0

00,0

00$

16

1,20

0,00

0$

89,5

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

598

$

2,

879

$

2021

12-

$

-

$

10

1,20

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

43

,536

,000

$

62

,000

,000

$

163,

200,

000

$

85

,800

,000

$

56

,000

1,53

2$

2,91

4$

20

2213

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

43,5

36,0

00$

64,0

00,0

00$

16

5,20

0,00

0$

82,4

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

471

$

2,

950

$

2023

14-

$

-

$

10

1,20

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

43

,536

,000

$

66

,000

,000

$

167,

200,

000

$

79

,000

,000

$

56

,000

1,41

1$

2,98

6$

20

2415

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

45,3

00,0

00$

71,0

00,0

00$

17

2,20

0,00

0$

77,1

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

377

$

3,

075

$

2025

16-

$

-

$

10

1,20

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

45

,300

,000

$

73

,000

,000

$

174,

200,

000

$

74

,000

,000

$

56

,000

1,32

1$

3,11

1$

20

2617

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

45,3

00,0

00$

75,0

00,0

00$

17

6,20

0,00

0$

70,9

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

266

$

3,

146

$

2027

18-

$

-

$

10

1,20

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

45

,300

,000

$

77

,000

,000

$

178,

200,

000

$

68

,000

,000

$

56

,000

1,21

4$

3,18

2$

20

2819

556,

000,

000

$

975,

000,

000

$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

84

,836

,000

$

14

9,00

0,00

0$

31

1,00

0,00

0$

112,

500,

000

$

11

2,00

01,

004

$

2,

777

$

2029

20-

$

-

$

10

1,20

0,00

0$

60,8

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

84,8

36,0

00$

153,

000,

000

$

315,

000,

000

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

112,

000

964

$

2,81

3$

20

3021

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

84

,836

,000

$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

32

0,00

0,00

0$

104,

000,

000

$

11

2,00

092

9$

2,

857

$

2031

22-

$

-

$

10

1,20

0,00

0$

60,8

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

84,8

36,0

00$

163,

000,

000

$

325,

000,

000

$

10

0,10

0,00

0$

112,

000

894

$

2,90

2$

20

3223

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

84

,836

,000

$

16

7,00

0,00

0$

32

9,00

0,00

0$

96,0

00,0

00$

112,

000

857

$

2,93

8$

20

3324

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

86

,600

,000

$

17

6,00

0,00

0$

33

8,00

0,00

0$

93,5

00,0

00$

112,

000

835

$

3,01

8$

20

3425

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

86

,600

,000

$

18

1,00

0,00

0$

34

3,00

0,00

0$

89,9

00,0

00$

112,

000

803

$

3,06

3$

20

3526

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

86

,600

,000

$

18

7,00

0,00

0$

34

9,00

0,00

0$

86,7

00,0

00$

112,

000

774

$

3,11

6$

20

3627

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

86

,600

,000

$

19

2,00

0,00

0$

35

4,00

0,00

0$

83,4

00,0

00$

112,

000

745

$

3,16

1$

20

3728

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

86

,600

,000

$

19

8,00

0,00

0$

36

0,00

0,00

0$

80,4

00,0

00$

112,

000

718

$

3,21

4$

20

3829

502,

000,

000

$

1,18

3,00

0,00

0$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

129,

036,

000

$

304,

000,

000

$

539,

700,

000

$

11

4,20

0,00

0$

168,

000

680

$

3,21

3$

20

3930

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

129,

036,

000

$

313,

000,

000

$

548,

700,

000

$

11

0,10

0,00

0$

168,

000

655

$

3,26

6$

20

4031

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

129,

036,

000

$

323,

000,

000

$

558,

700,

000

$

10

6,30

0,00

0$

168,

000

633

$

3,32

6$

20

4132

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

129,

036,

000

$

332,

000,

000

$

567,

700,

000

$

10

2,30

0,00

0$

168,

000

609

$

3,37

9$

20

4233

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

129,

036,

000

$

342,

000,

000

$

577,

700,

000

$

98

,700

,000

$

16

8,00

058

8$

3,

439

$

2043

34-

$

-

$

10

1,20

0,00

0$

60,8

00,0

00$

73

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

12

9,03

6,00

0$

35

3,00

0,00

0$

58

8,70

0,00

0$

95,3

00,0

00$

168,

000

567

$

3,50

4$

20

4435

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

368,

000,

000

$

603,

700,

000

$

92

,700

,000

$

16

8,00

055

2$

3,

593

$

2045

36-

$

-

$

10

1,20

0,00

0$

60,8

00,0

00$

73

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

37

9,00

0,00

0$

61

4,70

0,00

0$

89,4

00,0

00$

168,

000

532

$

3,65

9$

20

4637

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

390,

000,

000

$

625,

700,

000

$

86

,300

,000

$

16

8,00

051

4$

3,

724

$

2047

38-

$

-

$

10

1,20

0,00

0$

60,8

00,0

00$

73

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

40

2,00

0,00

0$

63

7,70

0,00

0$

83,4

00,0

00$

168,

000

496

$

3,79

6$

20

4839

270,

000,

000

$

855,

000,

000

$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

41

4,00

0,00

0$

70

3,00

0,00

0$

87,1

00,0

00$

168,

000

518

$

4,18

5$

20

4940

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

42

7,00

0,00

0$

71

6,00

0,00

0$

84,1

00,0

00$

168,

000

501

$

4,26

2$

20

5041

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

43

9,00

0,00

0$

72

8,00

0,00

0$

81,1

00,0

00$

168,

000

483

$

4,33

3$

20

5142

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

45

3,00

0,00

0$

74

2,00

0,00

0$

78,3

00,0

00$

168,

000

466

$

4,41

7$

20

5243

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

46

6,00

0,00

0$

75

5,00

0,00

0$

75,5

00,0

00$

168,

000

449

$

4,49

4$

20

5344

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

48

0,00

0,00

0$

76

9,00

0,00

0$

72,9

00,0

00$

168,

000

434

$

4,57

7$

20

5445

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

49

5,00

0,00

0$

78

4,00

0,00

0$

70,5

00,0

00$

168,

000

420

$

4,66

7$

20

5546

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

50

9,00

0,00

0$

79

8,00

0,00

0$

68,0

00,0

00$

168,

000

405

$

4,75

0$

20

5647

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

52

5,00

0,00

0$

81

4,00

0,00

0$

65,7

00,0

00$

168,

000

391

$

4,84

5$

20

5748

-$

-$

101,

200,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

54

0,00

0,00

0$

82

9,00

0,00

0$

63,5

00,0

00$

168,

000

378

$

4,93

5$

20

5849

270,

000,

000

$

1,14

9,00

0,00

0$

-$

60,8

00,0

00$

73

,700

,000

$

53,3

00,0

00$

71

,600

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

557,

000,

000

$

816,

400,

000

$

59

,200

,000

$

16

8,00

035

2$

4,

860

$

2059

50-

$

-

$

-

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

71,6

00,0

00$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

57

3,00

0,00

0$

83

2,40

0,00

0$

57,2

00,0

00$

168,

000

340

$

4,95

5$

20

6051

-$

-$

-$

60,8

00,0

00$

73

,700

,000

$

53,3

00,0

00$

71

,600

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

591,

000,

000

$

850,

400,

000

$

55

,400

,000

$

16

8,00

033

0$

5,

062

$

2061

52-

$

-

$

-

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

71,6

00,0

00$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

60

8,00

0,00

0$

86

7,40

0,00

0$

53,6

00,0

00$

168,

000

319

$

5,16

3$

20

6253

-$

-$

-$

60,8

00,0

00$

73

,700

,000

$

53,3

00,0

00$

71

,600

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

627,

000,

000

$

886,

400,

000

$

51

,900

,000

$

16

8,00

030

9$

5,

276

$

2063

54-

$

-

$

-

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

71,6

00,0

00$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

64

5,00

0,00

0$

90

4,40

0,00

0$

50,2

00,0

00$

168,

000

299

$

5,38

3$

20

6455

-$

-$

-$

60,8

00,0

00$

73

,700

,000

$

53,3

00,0

00$

71

,600

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

665,

000,

000

$

924,

400,

000

$

48

,600

,000

$

16

8,00

028

9$

5,

502

$

2065

56-

$

-

$

-

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

71,6

00,0

00$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

68

5,00

0,00

0$

94

4,40

0,00

0$

47,1

00,0

00$

168,

000

280

$

5,62

1$

20

6657

-$

-$

-$

60,8

00,0

00$

73

,700

,000

$

53,3

00,0

00$

71

,600

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

705,

000,

000

$

964,

400,

000

$

45

,600

,000

$

16

8,00

027

1$

5,

740

$

2067

58-

$

-

$

-

$

60

,800

,000

$

73,7

00,0

00$

53

,300

,000

$

71,6

00,0

00$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

72

6,00

0,00

0$

98

5,40

0,00

0$

44,2

00,0

00$

168,

000

263

$

5,86

5$

20

6859

-$

-$

-$

60,8

00,0

00$

73

,700

,000

$

53,3

00,0

00$

71

,600

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

748,

000,

000

$

1,00

7,40

0,00

0$

42

,800

,000

$

16

8,00

025

5$

5,

996

$

2,84

3,00

0,00

0$

5,78

6,00

0,00

0$

--

--

--

-28

,447

,400

,000

$ 4,

018,

700,

000

$

6,83

2,00

058

8$

3,

858

$

TOTA

LS

PHASE 3 - ULTIMATE

Ann

ual O

&M

Cos

t

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Cap

ital C

ost

Cap

ital C

ost P

aym

ents

(40-

Year

Bon

d Te

rm)

INFL

ATE

D C

OST

S

TAB

LE 1

0-19

(B)

SAN

DIE

GO

CO

UN

TY W

ATE

R A

UTH

OR

ITY

PR

OJE

CT:

CA

MP

PEN

DLE

TON

SW

RO

PR

OJE

CT

AT

SRTT

P SI

TEP

OW

ER

:G

RID

NFL

ATI

ON

RA

TE:

0.0%

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N:

50-Y

R L

IFE

CYC

LE C

OST

AN

ALY

SIS

- NO

INFL

ATI

ON

ES

TIM

ATE

DA

TE:

JAN

200

9D

ISC

OU

NT

RA

TE:

5.5%

PR

EP

AR

ED

BY

:R

BF

CO

NSU

LTIN

GB

ON

D L

EN

GTH

(yrs

): 40

Cal

enda

rC

apita

l & O

&M

2009

Acr

e-Fe

etA

vg A

nnua

lA

nnua

lYe

arn

2009

Uni

nfla

ted

Cos

tPh

ase

1Ph

ase

2Ph

ase

3M

ech.

Equ

ip.

Mec

h. E

quip

.20

09U

ninf

late

d C

ost

Cos

tsPr

esen

t Wor

thPr

oduc

ed

Pres

ent W

orth

Cos

tD

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)D

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

Per Y

ear

(A/P

, %, n

)Pe

r Yea

r$/

AF

$/A

F20

189

1,24

5,00

0,00

0$

1,24

5,00

0,00

0$

77,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-$

-

$

77,6

00,0

00$

47

,900

,000

$

0

-$

-$

20

1910

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

43,5

36,0

00$

44,0

00,0

00$

12

1,60

0,00

0$

71,2

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

271

$

2,17

1$

20

2011

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

43,5

36,0

00$

44,0

00,0

00$

12

1,60

0,00

0$

67,5

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

205

$

2,17

1$

20

2112

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

43,5

36,0

00$

44,0

00,0

00$

12

1,60

0,00

0$

64,0

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

143

$

2,17

1$

20

2213

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

43,5

36,0

00$

44,0

00,0

00$

12

1,60

0,00

0$

60,6

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

082

$

2,17

1$

20

2314

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

43,5

36,0

00$

44,0

00,0

00$

12

1,60

0,00

0$

57,5

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

027

$

2,17

1$

20

2415

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

45,3

00,0

00$

45,0

00,0

00$

12

2,60

0,00

0$

54,9

00,0

00$

56,0

0098

0$

2,18

9$

20

2516

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

45,3

00,0

00$

45,0

00,0

00$

12

2,60

0,00

0$

52,1

00,0

00$

56,0

0093

0$

2,18

9$

20

2617

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

45,3

00,0

00$

45,0

00,0

00$

12

2,60

0,00

0$

49,3

00,0

00$

56,0

0088

0$

2,18

9$

20

2718

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

45,3

00,0

00$

45,0

00,0

00$

12

2,60

0,00

0$

46,8

00,0

00$

56,0

0083

6$

2,18

9$

20

2819

556,

000,

000

$

556,

000,

000

$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

84

,836

,000

$

85

,000

,000

$

197,

300,

000

$

71

,300

,000

$

11

2,00

063

7$

1,76

2$

20

2920

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

84

,836

,000

$

85

,000

,000

$

197,

300,

000

$

67

,600

,000

$

11

2,00

060

4$

1,76

2$

20

3021

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

84

,836

,000

$

85

,000

,000

$

197,

300,

000

$

64

,100

,000

$

11

2,00

057

2$

1,76

2$

20

3122

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

84

,836

,000

$

85

,000

,000

$

197,

300,

000

$

60

,800

,000

$

11

2,00

054

3$

1,76

2$

20

3223

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

84

,836

,000

$

85

,000

,000

$

197,

300,

000

$

57

,600

,000

$

11

2,00

051

4$

1,76

2$

20

3324

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

86

,600

,000

$

87

,000

,000

$

199,

300,

000

$

55

,100

,000

$

11

2,00

049

2$

1,77

9$

20

3425

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

86

,600

,000

$

87

,000

,000

$

199,

300,

000

$

52

,300

,000

$

11

2,00

046

7$

1,77

9$

20

3526

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

86

,600

,000

$

87

,000

,000

$

199,

300,

000

$

49

,500

,000

$

11

2,00

044

2$

1,77

9$

20

3627

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

86

,600

,000

$

87

,000

,000

$

199,

300,

000

$

47

,000

,000

$

11

2,00

042

0$

1,77

9$

20

3728

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

86

,600

,000

$

87

,000

,000

$

199,

300,

000

$

44

,500

,000

$

11

2,00

039

7$

1,77

9$

20

3829

502,

000,

000

$

502,

000,

000

$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

129,

036,

000

$

129,

000,

000

$

272,

600,

000

$

57

,700

,000

$

16

8,00

034

3$

1,62

3$

20

3930

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

129,

036,

000

$

129,

000,

000

$

272,

600,

000

$

54

,700

,000

$

16

8,00

032

6$

1,62

3$

20

4031

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

129,

036,

000

$

129,

000,

000

$

272,

600,

000

$

51

,800

,000

$

16

8,00

030

8$

1,62

3$

20

4132

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

129,

036,

000

$

129,

000,

000

$

272,

600,

000

$

49

,100

,000

$

16

8,00

029

2$

1,62

3$

20

4233

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

129,

036,

000

$

129,

000,

000

$

272,

600,

000

$

46

,600

,000

$

16

8,00

027

7$

1,62

3$

20

4334

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

274,

600,

000

$

44

,500

,000

$

16

8,00

026

5$

1,63

5$

20

4435

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

274,

600,

000

$

42

,200

,000

$

16

8,00

025

1$

1,63

5$

20

4536

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

274,

600,

000

$

40

,000

,000

$

16

8,00

023

8$

1,63

5$

20

4637

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

274,

600,

000

$

37

,900

,000

$

16

8,00

022

6$

1,63

5$

20

4738

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

274,

600,

000

$

35

,900

,000

$

16

8,00

021

4$

1,63

5$

20

4839

270,

000,

000

$

270,

000,

000

$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

13

1,00

0,00

0$

29

1,40

0,00

0$

36,1

00,0

00$

168,

000

215

$

1,

735

$

2049

40-

$

-

$

77

,600

,000

$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

291,

400,

000

$

34

,200

,000

$

16

8,00

020

4$

1,73

5$

20

5041

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

13

1,00

0,00

0$

29

1,40

0,00

0$

32,4

00,0

00$

168,

000

193

$

1,

735

$

2051

42-

$

-

$

77

,600

,000

$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

291,

400,

000

$

30

,800

,000

$

16

8,00

018

3$

1,73

5$

20

5243

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

13

1,00

0,00

0$

29

1,40

0,00

0$

29,1

00,0

00$

168,

000

173

$

1,

735

$

2053

44-

$

-

$

77

,600

,000

$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

291,

400,

000

$

27

,600

,000

$

16

8,00

016

4$

1,73

5$

20

5445

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

13

1,00

0,00

0$

29

1,40

0,00

0$

26,2

00,0

00$

168,

000

156

$

1,

735

$

2055

46-

$

-

$

77

,600

,000

$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

291,

400,

000

$

24

,800

,000

$

16

8,00

014

8$

1,73

5$

20

5647

-$

-$

77,6

00,0

00$

34

,700

,000

$

31,3

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

-$

13

0,80

0,00

0$

13

1,00

0,00

0$

29

1,40

0,00

0$

23,5

00,0

00$

168,

000

140

$

1,

735

$

2057

48-

$

-

$

77

,600

,000

$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

-

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

291,

400,

000

$

22

,300

,000

$

16

8,00

013

3$

1,73

5$

20

5849

270,

000,

000

$

270,

000,

000

$

-$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

230,

600,

000

$

16

,700

,000

$

16

8,00

099

$

1,37

3$

20

5950

-$

-$

-$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

230,

600,

000

$

15

,900

,000

$

16

8,00

095

$

1,37

3$

20

6051

-$

-$

-$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

230,

600,

000

$

15

,000

,000

$

16

8,00

089

$

1,37

3$

20

6152

-$

-$

-$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

230,

600,

000

$

14

,200

,000

$

16

8,00

085

$

1,37

3$

20

6253

-$

-$

-$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

230,

600,

000

$

13

,500

,000

$

16

8,00

080

$

1,37

3$

20

6354

-$

-$

-$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

230,

600,

000

$

12

,800

,000

$

16

8,00

076

$

1,37

3$

20

6455

-$

-$

-$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

230,

600,

000

$

12

,100

,000

$

16

8,00

072

$

1,37

3$

20

6556

-$

-$

-$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

230,

600,

000

$

11

,500

,000

$

16

8,00

068

$

1,37

3$

20

6657

-$

-$

-$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

230,

600,

000

$

10

,900

,000

$

16

8,00

065

$

1,37

3$

20

6758

-$

-$

-$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

230,

600,

000

$

10

,300

,000

$

16

8,00

061

$

1,37

3$

20

6859

-$

-$

-$

34,7

00,0

00$

31

,300

,000

$

16,8

00,0

00$

16

,800

,000

$

130,

800,

000

$

131,

000,

000

$

230,

600,

000

$

9,

800,

000

$

168,

000

58$

1,

373

$

2,84

3,00

0,00

0$

2,84

3,00

0,00

0$

--

--

--

-11

,345

,600

,000

$ 2,

031,

700,

000

$

6,83

2,00

029

7$

1,68

7$

UN

INFL

ATE

D C

OST

S

TOTA

LS

PHASE 3 - ULTIMATE

Ann

ual O

&M

Cos

t

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Cap

ital C

ost

Cap

ital C

ost P

aym

ents

(40-

Year

Bon

d Te

rm)

TAB

LE 1

0-20

(A)

SAN

DIE

GO

CO

UN

TY W

ATE

R A

UTH

OR

ITY

PR

OJE

CT:

CA

MP

PEN

DLE

TON

SW

RO

PR

OJE

CT

AT

MC

TSSA

SIT

EP

OW

ER

:G

RID

NFL

ATI

ON

RA

TE:

3.0%

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N:

50-Y

R L

IFE

CYC

LE C

OST

AN

ALY

SIS

ES

TIM

ATE

DA

TE:

JAN

200

9D

ISC

OU

NT

RA

TE:

5.5%

PR

EP

AR

ED

BY

:R

BF

CO

NSU

LTIN

GB

ON

D L

EN

GTH

(yrs

): 40

Cal

enda

rC

apita

l & O

&M

2009

Acr

e-Fe

etA

vg A

nnua

lA

nnua

lYe

arn

2009

Infla

ted

Cos

tPh

ase

1Ph

ase

2Ph

ase

3M

ech.

Equ

ip.

Mec

h. E

quip

.20

09In

flate

d C

ost

Cos

tsPr

esen

t Wor

thPr

oduc

ed

Pres

ent W

orth

Cos

tD

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)D

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

Per Y

ear

(A/P

, %, n

)Pe

r Yea

r$/

AF

$/A

F20

189

1,30

3,00

0,00

0$

1,70

0,00

0,00

0$

105,

900,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-$

-

$

105,

900,

000

$

65

,400

,000

$

0-

$

-$

2019

10-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

52

,236

,000

$

70

,000

,000

$

175,

900,

000

$

10

3,00

0,00

0$

56,0

001,

839

$

3,14

1$

2020

11-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

52

,236

,000

$

72

,000

,000

$

177,

900,

000

$

98

,700

,000

$

56,0

001,

763

$

3,17

7$

2021

12-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

52

,236

,000

$

74

,000

,000

$

179,

900,

000

$

94

,600

,000

$

56,0

001,

689

$

3,21

3$

2022

13-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

52

,236

,000

$

77

,000

,000

$

182,

900,

000

$

91

,200

,000

$

56,0

001,

629

$

3,26

6$

2023

14-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

52

,236

,000

$

79

,000

,000

$

184,

900,

000

$

87

,400

,000

$

56,0

001,

561

$

3,30

2$

2024

15-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

54

,600

,000

$

85

,000

,000

$

190,

900,

000

$

85

,500

,000

$

56,0

001,

527

$

3,40

9$

2025

16-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

54

,600

,000

$

88

,000

,000

$

193,

900,

000

$

82

,300

,000

$

56,0

001,

470

$

3,46

3$

2026

17-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

54

,600

,000

$

90

,000

,000

$

195,

900,

000

$

78

,800

,000

$

56,0

001,

407

$

3,49

8$

2027

18-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

54

,600

,000

$

93

,000

,000

$

198,

900,

000

$

75

,900

,000

$

56,0

001,

355

$

3,55

2$

2028

1964

2,00

0,00

0$

1,

126,

000,

000

$ 10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

102,

436,

000

$

180,

000,

000

$

356,

100,

000

$

12

8,80

0,00

0$

112,

000

1,15

0$

3,

179

$

20

2920

-$

-$

105,

900,

000

$

70

,200

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

2,43

6,00

0$

18

5,00

0,00

0$

36

1,10

0,00

0$

123,

800,

000

$

11

2,00

01,

105

$

3,22

4$

2030

21-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

102,

436,

000

$

191,

000,

000

$

367,

100,

000

$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

112,

000

1,06

5$

3,

278

$

20

3122

-$

-$

105,

900,

000

$

70

,200

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

2,43

6,00

0$

19

6,00

0,00

0$

37

2,10

0,00

0$

114,

600,

000

$

11

2,00

01,

023

$

3,32

2$

2032

23-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

102,

436,

000

$

202,

000,

000

$

378,

100,

000

$

11

0,40

0,00

0$

112,

000

986

$

3,

376

$

20

3324

-$

-$

105,

900,

000

$

70

,200

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

4,80

0,00

0$

21

3,00

0,00

0$

38

9,10

0,00

0$

107,

600,

000

$

11

2,00

096

1$

3,47

4$

2034

25-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

104,

800,

000

$

219,

000,

000

$

395,

100,

000

$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

112,

000

925

$

3,

528

$

20

3526

-$

-$

105,

900,

000

$

70

,200

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

4,80

0,00

0$

22

6,00

0,00

0$

40

2,10

0,00

0$

99,9

00,0

00$

11

2,00

089

2$

3,59

0$

2036

27-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

104,

800,

000

$

233,

000,

000

$

409,

100,

000

$

96

,400

,000

$

112,

000

861

$

3,

653

$

20

3728

-$

-$

105,

900,

000

$

70

,200

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

4,80

0,00

0$

24

0,00

0,00

0$

41

6,10

0,00

0$

92,9

00,0

00$

11

2,00

082

9$

3,71

5$

2038

2959

8,00

0,00

0$

1,

409,

000,

000

$ 10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

15

5,33

6,00

0$

36

6,00

0,00

0$

62

9,90

0,00

0$

133,

300,

000

$

16

8,00

079

3$

3,74

9$

2039

30-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

15

5,33

6,00

0$

37

7,00

0,00

0$

64

0,90

0,00

0$

128,

600,

000

$

16

8,00

076

5$

3,81

5$

2040

31-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

15

5,33

6,00

0$

38

8,00

0,00

0$

65

1,90

0,00

0$

124,

000,

000

$

16

8,00

073

8$

3,88

0$

2041

32-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

15

5,33

6,00

0$

40

0,00

0,00

0$

66

3,90

0,00

0$

119,

700,

000

$

16

8,00

071

3$

3,95

2$

2042

33-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

15

5,33

6,00

0$

41

2,00

0,00

0$

67

5,90

0,00

0$

115,

500,

000

$

16

8,00

068

8$

4,02

3$

2043

34-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

43

1,00

0,00

0$

69

4,90

0,00

0$

112,

500,

000

$

16

8,00

067

0$

4,13

6$

2044

35-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

44

4,00

0,00

0$

70

7,90

0,00

0$

108,

700,

000

$

16

8,00

064

7$

4,21

4$

2045

36-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

45

7,00

0,00

0$

72

0,90

0,00

0$

104,

900,

000

$

16

8,00

062

4$

4,29

1$

2046

37-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

47

1,00

0,00

0$

73

4,90

0,00

0$

101,

400,

000

$

16

8,00

060

4$

4,37

4$

2047

38-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

48

5,00

0,00

0$

74

8,90

0,00

0$

97,9

00,0

00$

16

8,00

058

3$

4,45

8$

2048

3932

5,00

0,00

0$

1,

029,

000,

000

$ 10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

64,1

00,0

00$

-

$

157,

700,

000

$

499,

000,

000

$

827,

000,

000

$

10

2,50

0,00

0$

168,

000

610

$

4,

923

$

20

4940

-$

-$

105,

900,

000

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

51

4,00

0,00

0$

84

2,00

0,00

0$

98,9

00,0

00$

16

8,00

058

9$

5,01

2$

2050

41-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

64,1

00,0

00$

-

$

157,

700,

000

$

530,

000,

000

$

858,

000,

000

$

95

,500

,000

$

168,

000

568

$

5,

107

$

20

5142

-$

-$

105,

900,

000

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

54

6,00

0,00

0$

87

4,00

0,00

0$

92,2

00,0

00$

16

8,00

054

9$

5,20

2$

2052

43-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

64,1

00,0

00$

-

$

157,

700,

000

$

562,

000,

000

$

890,

000,

000

$

89

,000

,000

$

168,

000

530

$

5,

298

$

20

5344

-$

-$

105,

900,

000

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

57

9,00

0,00

0$

90

7,00

0,00

0$

86,0

00,0

00$

16

8,00

051

2$

5,39

9$

2054

45-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

64,1

00,0

00$

-

$

157,

700,

000

$

596,

000,

000

$

924,

000,

000

$

83

,000

,000

$

168,

000

494

$

5,

500

$

20

5546

-$

-$

105,

900,

000

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

61

4,00

0,00

0$

94

2,00

0,00

0$

80,2

00,0

00$

16

8,00

047

7$

5,60

7$

2056

47-

$

-

$

10

5,90

0,00

0$

70,2

00,0

00$

87

,800

,000

$

64,1

00,0

00$

-

$

157,

700,

000

$

633,

000,

000

$

961,

000,

000

$

77

,600

,000

$

168,

000

462

$

5,

720

$

20

5748

-$

-$

105,

900,

000

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

65

2,00

0,00

0$

98

0,00

0,00

0$

75,0

00,0

00$

16

8,00

044

6$

5,83

3$

2058

4932

5,00

0,00

0$

1,

383,

000,

000

$ -

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

86,2

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

67

1,00

0,00

0$

97

9,30

0,00

0$

71,0

00,0

00$

16

8,00

042

3$

5,82

9$

2059

50-

$

-

$

-

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

86,2

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

69

1,00

0,00

0$

99

9,30

0,00

0$

68,7

00,0

00$

16

8,00

040

9$

5,94

8$

2060

51-

$

-

$

-

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

86,2

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

71

2,00

0,00

0$

1,

020,

300,

000

$

66,5

00,0

00$

16

8,00

039

6$

6,07

3$

2061

52-

$

-

$

-

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

86,2

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

73

3,00

0,00

0$

1,

041,

300,

000

$

64,3

00,0

00$

16

8,00

038

3$

6,19

8$

2062

53-

$

-

$

-

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

86,2

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

75

5,00

0,00

0$

1,

063,

300,

000

$

62,3

00,0

00$

16

8,00

037

1$

6,32

9$

2063

54-

$

-

$

-

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

86,2

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

77

8,00

0,00

0$

1,

086,

300,

000

$

60,3

00,0

00$

16

8,00

035

9$

6,46

6$

2064

55-

$

-

$

-

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

86,2

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

80

1,00

0,00

0$

1,

109,

300,

000

$

58,4

00,0

00$

16

8,00

034

8$

6,60

3$

2065

56-

$

-

$

-

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

86,2

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

82

5,00

0,00

0$

1,

133,

300,

000

$

56,5

00,0

00$

16

8,00

033

6$

6,74

6$

2066

57-

$

-

$

-

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

86,2

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

85

0,00

0,00

0$

1,

158,

300,

000

$

54,8

00,0

00$

16

8,00

032

6$

6,89

5$

2067

58-

$

-

$

-

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

86,2

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

87

6,00

0,00

0$

1,

184,

300,

000

$

53,1

00,0

00$

16

8,00

031

6$

7,04

9$

2068

59-

$

-

$

-

$

70

,200

,000

$

87,8

00,0

00$

64

,100

,000

$

86,2

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

90

2,00

0,00

0$

1,

210,

300,

000

$

51,4

00,0

00$

16

8,00

030

6$

7,20

4$

3,19

3,00

0,00

0$

6,64

7,00

0,00

0$

--

--

--

-33

,493

,300

,000

$ 4,

653,

800,

000

$

6,83

2,00

068

1$

4,51

4$

TOTA

LS

PHASE 3 - ULTIMATE

Ann

ual O

&M

Cos

t

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Cap

ital C

ost

Cap

ital C

ost P

aym

ents

(40-

Year

Bon

d Te

rm)

INFL

ATE

D C

OST

S

TAB

LE 1

0-20

(B)

SAN

DIE

GO

CO

UN

TY W

ATE

R A

UTH

OR

ITY

PR

OJE

CT:

CA

MP

PEN

DLE

TON

SW

RO

PR

OJE

CT

AT

MC

TSSA

SIT

EP

OW

ER

:G

RID

NFL

ATI

ON

RA

TE:

0.0%

DE

SC

RIP

TIO

N:

50-Y

R L

IFE

CYC

LE C

OST

AN

ALY

SIS

- NO

INFL

ATI

ON

ES

TIM

ATE

DA

TE:

JAN

200

9D

ISC

OU

NT

RA

TE:

5.5%

PR

EP

AR

ED

BY

:R

BF

CO

NSU

LTIN

GB

ON

D L

EN

GTH

(yrs

): 40

Cal

enda

rC

apita

l & O

&M

2009

Acr

e-Fe

etA

vg A

nnua

lA

nnua

lYe

arn

2009

Uni

nfla

ted

Cos

tPh

ase

1Ph

ase

2Ph

ase

3M

ech.

Equ

ip.

Mec

h. E

quip

.20

09U

ninf

late

d C

ost

Cos

tsPr

esen

t Wor

thPr

oduc

ed

Pres

ent W

orth

Cos

tD

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)D

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

Per Y

ear

(A/P

, %, n

)Pe

r Yea

r$/

AF

$/A

F20

189

1,30

3,00

0,00

0$

1,

303,

000,

000

$ 81

,200

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-

$

-$

81

,200

,000

$

50,2

00,0

00$

0-

$

-$

2019

10-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

52,2

36,0

00$

52,0

00,0

00$

13

3,20

0,00

0$

78,0

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

393

$

2,37

9$

2020

11-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

52,2

36,0

00$

52,0

00,0

00$

13

3,20

0,00

0$

73,9

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

320

$

2,37

9$

2021

12-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

52,2

36,0

00$

52,0

00,0

00$

13

3,20

0,00

0$

70,1

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

252

$

2,37

9$

2022

13-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

52,2

36,0

00$

52,0

00,0

00$

13

3,20

0,00

0$

66,4

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

186

$

2,37

9$

2023

14-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

52,2

36,0

00$

52,0

00,0

00$

13

3,20

0,00

0$

62,9

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

123

$

2,37

9$

2024

15-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

54,6

00,0

00$

55,0

00,0

00$

13

6,20

0,00

0$

61,0

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

089

$

2,43

2$

2025

16-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

54,6

00,0

00$

55,0

00,0

00$

13

6,20

0,00

0$

57,8

00,0

00$

56,0

001,

032

$

2,43

2$

2026

17-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

54,6

00,0

00$

55,0

00,0

00$

13

6,20

0,00

0$

54,8

00,0

00$

56,0

0097

9$

2,43

2$

2027

18-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

54,6

00,0

00$

55,0

00,0

00$

13

6,20

0,00

0$

52,0

00,0

00$

56,0

0092

9$

2,43

2$

2028

1964

2,00

0,00

0$

642,

000,

000

$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

2,43

6,00

0$

10

2,00

0,00

0$

223,

200,

000

$

80

,700

,000

$

11

2,00

072

1$

1,99

3$

2029

20-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

2,43

6,00

0$

10

2,00

0,00

0$

223,

200,

000

$

76

,500

,000

$

11

2,00

068

3$

1,99

3$

2030

21-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

2,43

6,00

0$

10

2,00

0,00

0$

223,

200,

000

$

72

,500

,000

$

11

2,00

064

7$

1,99

3$

2031

22-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

2,43

6,00

0$

10

2,00

0,00

0$

223,

200,

000

$

68

,700

,000

$

11

2,00

061

3$

1,99

3$

2032

23-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

2,43

6,00

0$

10

2,00

0,00

0$

223,

200,

000

$

65

,100

,000

$

11

2,00

058

1$

1,99

3$

2033

24-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

4,80

0,00

0$

10

5,00

0,00

0$

226,

200,

000

$

62

,600

,000

$

11

2,00

055

9$

2,02

0$

2034

25-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

4,80

0,00

0$

10

5,00

0,00

0$

226,

200,

000

$

59

,300

,000

$

11

2,00

052

9$

2,02

0$

2035

26-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

4,80

0,00

0$

10

5,00

0,00

0$

226,

200,

000

$

56

,200

,000

$

11

2,00

050

2$

2,02

0$

2036

27-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

4,80

0,00

0$

10

5,00

0,00

0$

226,

200,

000

$

53

,300

,000

$

11

2,00

047

6$

2,02

0$

2037

28-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

10

4,80

0,00

0$

10

5,00

0,00

0$

226,

200,

000

$

50

,500

,000

$

11

2,00

045

1$

2,02

0$

2038

2959

8,00

0,00

0$

598,

000,

000

$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

155,

336,

000

$

155,

000,

000

$

31

3,50

0,00

0$

66,4

00,0

00$

168,

000

395

$

1,

866

$

20

3930

-$

-

$

81

,200

,000

$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

-$

-$

15

5,33

6,00

0$

15

5,00

0,00

0$

313,

500,

000

$

62

,900

,000

$

16

8,00

037

4$

1,86

6$

2040

31-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

155,

336,

000

$

155,

000,

000

$

31

3,50

0,00

0$

59,6

00,0

00$

168,

000

355

$

1,

866

$

20

4132

-$

-

$

81

,200

,000

$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

-$

-$

15

5,33

6,00

0$

15

5,00

0,00

0$

313,

500,

000

$

56

,500

,000

$

16

8,00

033

6$

1,86

6$

2042

33-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

155,

336,

000

$

155,

000,

000

$

31

3,50

0,00

0$

53,6

00,0

00$

168,

000

319

$

1,

866

$

20

4334

-$

-

$

81

,200

,000

$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

-$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

316,

500,

000

$

51

,300

,000

$

16

8,00

030

5$

1,88

4$

2044

35-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

157,

700,

000

$

158,

000,

000

$

31

6,50

0,00

0$

48,6

00,0

00$

168,

000

289

$

1,

884

$

20

4536

-$

-

$

81

,200

,000

$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

-$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

316,

500,

000

$

46

,100

,000

$

16

8,00

027

4$

1,88

4$

2046

37-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

157,

700,

000

$

158,

000,

000

$

31

6,50

0,00

0$

43,7

00,0

00$

168,

000

260

$

1,

884

$

20

4738

-$

-

$

81

,200

,000

$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

-$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

316,

500,

000

$

41

,400

,000

$

16

8,00

024

6$

1,88

4$

2048

3932

5,00

0,00

0$

325,

000,

000

$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

336,

800,

000

$

41

,700

,000

$

16

8,00

024

8$

2,00

5$

2049

40-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

336,

800,

000

$

39

,600

,000

$

16

8,00

023

6$

2,00

5$

2050

41-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

336,

800,

000

$

37

,500

,000

$

16

8,00

022

3$

2,00

5$

2051

42-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

336,

800,

000

$

35

,500

,000

$

16

8,00

021

1$

2,00

5$

2052

43-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

336,

800,

000

$

33

,700

,000

$

16

8,00

020

1$

2,00

5$

2053

44-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

336,

800,

000

$

31

,900

,000

$

16

8,00

019

0$

2,00

5$

2054

45-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

336,

800,

000

$

30

,300

,000

$

16

8,00

018

0$

2,00

5$

2055

46-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

336,

800,

000

$

28

,700

,000

$

16

8,00

017

1$

2,00

5$

2056

47-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

336,

800,

000

$

27

,200

,000

$

16

8,00

016

2$

2,00

5$

2057

48-

$

-$

81,2

00,0

00$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

-$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

336,

800,

000

$

25

,800

,000

$

16

8,00

015

4$

2,00

5$

2058

4932

5,00

0,00

0$

325,

000,

000

$

-$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

20,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

157,

700,

000

$

158,

000,

000

$

27

5,90

0,00

0$

20,0

00,0

00$

168,

000

119

$

1,

642

$

20

5950

-$

-

$

-

$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

20,3

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

275,

900,

000

$

19

,000

,000

$

16

8,00

011

3$

1,64

2$

2060

51-

$

-$

-$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

20,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

157,

700,

000

$

158,

000,

000

$

27

5,90

0,00

0$

18,0

00,0

00$

168,

000

107

$

1,

642

$

20

6152

-$

-

$

-

$

40

,000

,000

$

37,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

20,3

00,0

00$

15

7,70

0,00

0$

15

8,00

0,00

0$

275,

900,

000

$

17

,000

,000

$

16

8,00

010

1$

1,64

2$

2062

53-

$

-$

-$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

20,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

157,

700,

000

$

158,

000,

000

$

27

5,90

0,00

0$

16,2

00,0

00$

168,

000

96$

1,64

2$

2063

54-

$

-$

-$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

20,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

157,

700,

000

$

158,

000,

000

$

27

5,90

0,00

0$

15,3

00,0

00$

168,

000

91$

1,64

2$

2064

55-

$

-$

-$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

20,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

157,

700,

000

$

158,

000,

000

$

27

5,90

0,00

0$

14,5

00,0

00$

168,

000

86$

1,64

2$

2065

56-

$

-$

-$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

20,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

157,

700,

000

$

158,

000,

000

$

27

5,90

0,00

0$

13,8

00,0

00$

168,

000

82$

1,64

2$

2066

57-

$

-$

-$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

20,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

157,

700,

000

$

158,

000,

000

$

27

5,90

0,00

0$

13,0

00,0

00$

168,

000

77$

1,64

2$

2067

58-

$

-$

-$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

20,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

157,

700,

000

$

158,

000,

000

$

27

5,90

0,00

0$

12,4

00,0

00$

168,

000

74$

1,64

2$

2068

59-

$

-$

-$

40,0

00,0

00$

37

,300

,000

$

20,3

00,0

00$

20

,300

,000

$

157,

700,

000

$

158,

000,

000

$

27

5,90

0,00

0$

11,7

00,0

00$

168,

000

70$

1,64

2$

3,19

3,00

0,00

0$

3,

193,

000,

000

$ -

--

--

--

13,0

91,9

00,0

00$

2,30

5,40

0,00

0$

6,

832,

000

337

$

1,

932

$

TO

TALS

PHASE 3 - ULTIMATE

Ann

ual O

&M

Cos

t

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Cap

ital C

ost

Cap

ital C

ost P

aym

ents

(40-

Year

Bon

d Te

rm)

UN

INFL

ATE

D C

OST

S

TAB

LE 1

0-21

(A)

SAN

DIE

GO

CO

UN

TY W

ATE

R A

UTH

OR

ITY

PR

OJE

CT:

CA

MP

PEN

DLE

TON

SW

RO

PR

OJE

CT

AT

SRTT

P SI

TEP

OW

ER

:C

OG

ENN

FLA

TIO

N R

ATE

: 3.

0%D

ES

CR

IPTI

ON

:50

-YR

LIF

E C

YCLE

CO

ST A

NA

LYSI

SE

STI

MA

TE D

ATE

:JA

N 2

009

DIS

CO

UN

T R

ATE

: 5.

5%P

RE

PA

RE

D B

Y:

RB

F C

ON

SULT

ING

BO

ND

LE

NG

TH (y

rs):

40

Cal

enda

rC

apita

l & O

&M

2009

Acr

e-Fe

etA

vg A

nnua

lA

nnua

lYe

arn

2009

Infla

ted

Cos

tPh

ase

1Ph

ase

2Ph

ase

3M

ech.

Equ

ip.

Mec

h. E

quip

.20

09In

flate

d C

ost

Cos

tsPr

esen

t Wor

thPr

oduc

ed

Pres

ent W

orth

Cos

tD

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)D

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

Per Y

ear

(A/P

, %, n

)Pe

r Yea

r$/

AF

$/A

F20

189

1,32

8,00

0,00

0$

1,73

3,00

0,00

0$

108,

000,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-$

-

$

108,

000,

000

$

66

,700

,000

$

0

-$

-

$

20

1910

-$

-$

108,

000,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

35,7

36,0

00$

48,0

00,0

00$

15

6,00

0,00

0$

91,3

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

574

$

2,69

0$

2020

11-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

35

,736

,000

$

49

,000

,000

$

157,

000,

000

$

87

,100

,000

$

58

,000

1,50

2$

2,

707

$

20

2112

-$

-$

108,

000,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

35,7

36,0

00$

51,0

00,0

00$

15

9,00

0,00

0$

83,6

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

441

$

2,74

1$

2022

13-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

35

,736

,000

$

52

,000

,000

$

160,

000,

000

$

79

,800

,000

$

58

,000

1,37

6$

2,

759

$

20

2314

-$

-$

108,

000,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

35,7

36,0

00$

54,0

00,0

00$

16

2,00

0,00

0$

76,6

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

321

$

2,79

3$

2024

15-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

37

,500

,000

$

58

,000

,000

$

166,

000,

000

$

74

,400

,000

$

58

,000

1,28

3$

2,

862

$

20

2516

-$

-$

108,

000,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

37,5

00,0

00$

60,0

00,0

00$

16

8,00

0,00

0$

71,3

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

229

$

2,89

7$

2026

17-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

37

,500

,000

$

62

,000

,000

$

170,

000,

000

$

68

,400

,000

$

58

,000

1,17

9$

2,

931

$

20

2718

-$

-$

108,

000,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

37,5

00,0

00$

64,0

00,0

00$

17

2,00

0,00

0$

65,6

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

131

$

2,96

6$

2028

1963

5,00

0,00

0$

1,

113,

000,

000

$ 10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

68,5

36,0

00$

120,

000,

000

$

297,

400,

000

$

10

7,50

0,00

0$

116,

000

927

$

2,

564

$

20

2920

-$

-$

108,

000,

000

$

69

,400

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

68

,536

,000

$

12

4,00

0,00

0$

30

1,40

0,00

0$

103,

300,

000

$

11

6,00

089

1$

2,59

8$

2030

21-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

68,5

36,0

00$

127,

000,

000

$

304,

400,

000

$

98

,900

,000

$

11

6,00

085

3$

2,62

4$

2031

22-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

68,5

36,0

00$

131,

000,

000

$

308,

400,

000

$

95

,000

,000

$

11

6,00

081

9$

2,65

9$

2032

23-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

68,5

36,0

00$

135,

000,

000

$

312,

400,

000

$

91

,200

,000

$

11

6,00

078

6$

2,69

3$

2033

24-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

70,3

00,0

00$

143,

000,

000

$

320,

400,

000

$

88

,600

,000

$

11

6,00

076

4$

2,76

2$

2034

25-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

70,3

00,0

00$

147,

000,

000

$

324,

400,

000

$

85

,100

,000

$

11

6,00

073

4$

2,79

7$

2035

26-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

70,3

00,0

00$

152,

000,

000

$

329,

400,

000

$

81

,900

,000

$

11

6,00

070

6$

2,84

0$

2036

27-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

70,3

00,0

00$

156,

000,

000

$

333,

400,

000

$

78

,600

,000

$

11

6,00

067

8$

2,87

4$

2037

28-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

70,3

00,0

00$

161,

000,

000

$

338,

400,

000

$

75

,600

,000

$

11

6,00

065

2$

2,91

7$

2038

2957

8,00

0,00

0$

1,

362,

000,

000

$ 10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

-$

-$

10

1,83

6,00

0$

24

0,00

0,00

0$

50

2,30

0,00

0$

106,

300,

000

$

17

4,00

061

1$

2,88

7$

2039

30-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

-$

-$

10

1,83

6,00

0$

24

7,00

0,00

0$

50

9,30

0,00

0$

102,

200,

000

$

17

4,00

058

7$

2,92

7$

2040

31-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

-$

-$

10

1,83

6,00

0$

25

5,00

0,00

0$

51

7,30

0,00

0$

98,4

00,0

00$

174,

000

566

$

2,

973

$

20

4132

-$

-$

108,

000,

000

$

69

,400

,000

$

84,9

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

101,

836,

000

$

262,

000,

000

$

524,

300,

000

$

94

,500

,000

$

17

4,00

054

3$

3,01

3$

2042

33-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

-$

-$

10

1,83

6,00

0$

27

0,00

0,00

0$

53

2,30

0,00

0$

91,0

00,0

00$

174,

000

523

$

3,

059

$

20

4334

-$

-$

108,

000,

000

$

69

,400

,000

$

84,9

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

283,

000,

000

$

545,

300,

000

$

88

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

050

7$

3,13

4$

2044

35-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

-$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

29

2,00

0,00

0$

55

4,30

0,00

0$

85,1

00,0

00$

174,

000

489

$

3,

186

$

20

4536

-$

-$

108,

000,

000

$

69

,400

,000

$

84,9

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

300,

000,

000

$

562,

300,

000

$

81

,800

,000

$

17

4,00

047

0$

3,23

2$

2046

37-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

-$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

30

9,00

0,00

0$

57

1,30

0,00

0$

78,8

00,0

00$

174,

000

453

$

3,

283

$

20

4738

-$

-$

108,

000,

000

$

69

,400

,000

$

84,9

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

319,

000,

000

$

581,

300,

000

$

76

,000

,000

$

17

4,00

043

7$

3,34

1$

2048

3931

5,00

0,00

0$

99

8,00

0,00

0$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

328,

000,

000

$

652,

500,

000

$

80

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

046

5$

3,75

0$

2049

40-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

338,

000,

000

$

662,

500,

000

$

77

,800

,000

$

17

4,00

044

7$

3,80

7$

2050

41-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

348,

000,

000

$

672,

500,

000

$

74

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

043

0$

3,86

5$

2051

42-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

359,

000,

000

$

683,

500,

000

$

72

,100

,000

$

17

4,00

041

4$

3,92

8$

2052

43-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

369,

000,

000

$

693,

500,

000

$

69

,400

,000

$

17

4,00

039

9$

3,98

6$

2053

44-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

380,

000,

000

$

704,

500,

000

$

66

,800

,000

$

17

4,00

038

4$

4,04

9$

2054

45-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

392,

000,

000

$

716,

500,

000

$

64

,400

,000

$

17

4,00

037

0$

4,11

8$

2055

46-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

404,

000,

000

$

728,

500,

000

$

62

,100

,000

$

17

4,00

035

7$

4,18

7$

2056

47-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

416,

000,

000

$

740,

500,

000

$

59

,800

,000

$

17

4,00

034

4$

4,25

6$

2057

48-

$

-

$

10

8,00

0,00

0$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

428,

000,

000

$

752,

500,

000

$

57

,600

,000

$

17

4,00

033

1$

4,32

5$

2058

4931

5,00

0,00

0$

1,

341,

000,

000

$ -

$

69

,400

,000

$

84,9

00,0

00$

62

,200

,000

$

83,6

00,0

00$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

44

1,00

0,00

0$

74

1,10

0,00

0$

53,8

00,0

00$

174,

000

309

$

4,

259

$

20

5950

-$

-$

-$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

83

,600

,000

$

103,

600,

000

$

454,

000,

000

$

754,

100,

000

$

51

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

029

8$

4,33

4$

2060

51-

$

-

$

-

$

69

,400

,000

$

84,9

00,0

00$

62

,200

,000

$

83,6

00,0

00$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

46

8,00

0,00

0$

76

8,10

0,00

0$

50,1

00,0

00$

174,

000

288

$

4,

414

$

20

6152

-$

-$

-$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

83

,600

,000

$

103,

600,

000

$

482,

000,

000

$

782,

100,

000

$

48

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

027

8$

4,49

5$

2062

53-

$

-

$

-

$

69

,400

,000

$

84,9

00,0

00$

62

,200

,000

$

83,6

00,0

00$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

49

6,00

0,00

0$

79

6,10

0,00

0$

46,6

00,0

00$

174,

000

268

$

4,

575

$

20

6354

-$

-$

-$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

83

,600

,000

$

103,

600,

000

$

511,

000,

000

$

811,

100,

000

$

45

,000

,000

$

17

4,00

025

9$

4,66

1$

2064

55-

$

-

$

-

$

69

,400

,000

$

84,9

00,0

00$

62

,200

,000

$

83,6

00,0

00$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

52

7,00

0,00

0$

82

7,10

0,00

0$

43,5

00,0

00$

174,

000

250

$

4,

753

$

20

6556

-$

-$

-$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

83

,600

,000

$

103,

600,

000

$

542,

000,

000

$

842,

100,

000

$

42

,000

,000

$

17

4,00

024

1$

4,84

0$

2066

57-

$

-

$

-

$

69

,400

,000

$

84,9

00,0

00$

62

,200

,000

$

83,6

00,0

00$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

55

9,00

0,00

0$

85

9,10

0,00

0$

40,6

00,0

00$

174,

000

233

$

4,

937

$

20

6758

-$

-$

-$

69,4

00,0

00$

84

,900

,000

$

62,2

00,0

00$

83

,600

,000

$

103,

600,

000

$

575,

000,

000

$

875,

100,

000

$

39

,200

,000

$

17

4,00

022

5$

5,02

9$

2068

59-

$

-

$

-

$

69

,400

,000

$

84,9

00,0

00$

62

,200

,000

$

83,6

00,0

00$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

59

3,00

0,00

0$

89

3,10

0,00

0$

37,9

00,0

00$

174,

000

218

$

5,

133

$

3,

171,

000,

000

$ 6,

547,

000,

000

$ -

--

--

--

26,1

04,1

00,0

00$

3,75

7,60

0,00

0$

7,

076,

000

531

$

3,

439

$

TO

TALS

PHASE 3 - ULTIMATE

Ann

ual O

&M

Cos

t

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Cap

ital C

ost

Cap

ital C

ost P

aym

ents

(40-

Year

Bon

d Te

rm)

INFL

ATE

D C

OST

S

TAB

LE 1

0-21

(B)

SAN

DIE

GO

CO

UN

TY W

ATE

R A

UTH

OR

ITY

PR

OJE

CT:

CA

MP

PEN

DLE

TON

SW

RO

PR

OJE

CT

AT

SRTT

P SI

TEP

OW

ER

:C

OG

ENN

FLA

TIO

N R

ATE

: 0.

0%D

ES

CR

IPTI

ON

:50

-YR

LIF

E C

YCLE

CO

ST A

NA

LYSI

S - N

O IN

FLA

TIO

NE

STI

MA

TE D

ATE

:JA

N 2

009

DIS

CO

UN

T R

ATE

: 5.

5%P

RE

PA

RE

D B

Y:

RB

F C

ON

SULT

ING

BO

ND

LE

NG

TH (y

rs):

40

Cal

enda

rC

apita

l & O

&M

2009

Acr

e-Fe

etA

vg A

nnua

lA

nnua

lYe

arn

2009

Uni

nfla

ted

Cos

tPh

ase

1Ph

ase

2Ph

ase

3M

ech.

Equ

ip.

Mec

h. E

quip

.20

09U

ninf

late

d C

ost

Cos

tsPr

esen

t Wor

thPr

oduc

ed

Pres

ent W

orth

Cos

tD

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)D

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

Per Y

ear

(A/P

, %, n

)Pe

r Yea

r$/

AF

$/A

F20

189

1,32

8,00

0,00

0$

1,32

8,00

0,00

0$

82,8

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-$

-

$

82,8

00,0

00$

51

,100

,000

$

0

-$

-

$

20

1910

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

35,7

36,0

00$

36,0

00,0

00$

11

8,80

0,00

0$

69,5

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

198

$

2,04

8$

2020

11-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

-$

35

,736

,000

$

36

,000

,000

$

118,

800,

000

$

65

,900

,000

$

58

,000

1,13

6$

2,

048

$

20

2112

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

35,7

36,0

00$

36,0

00,0

00$

11

8,80

0,00

0$

62,5

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

078

$

2,04

8$

2022

13-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

-$

35

,736

,000

$

36

,000

,000

$

118,

800,

000

$

59

,200

,000

$

58

,000

1,02

1$

2,

048

$

20

2314

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

35,7

36,0

00$

36,0

00,0

00$

11

8,80

0,00

0$

56,1

00,0

00$

58,0

0096

7$

2,04

8$

2024

15-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

-$

37

,500

,000

$

38

,000

,000

$

120,

800,

000

$

54

,100

,000

$

58

,000

933

$

2,

083

$

20

2516

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

37,5

00,0

00$

38,0

00,0

00$

12

0,80

0,00

0$

51,3

00,0

00$

58,0

0088

4$

2,08

3$

2026

17-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

-$

37

,500

,000

$

38

,000

,000

$

120,

800,

000

$

48

,600

,000

$

58

,000

838

$

2,

083

$

20

2718

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

37,5

00,0

00$

38,0

00,0

00$

12

0,80

0,00

0$

46,1

00,0

00$

58,0

0079

5$

2,08

3$

2028

1963

5,00

0,00

0$

63

5,00

0,00

0$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

68,5

36,0

00$

69,0

00,0

00$

19

1,40

0,00

0$

69,2

00,0

00$

116,

000

597

$

1,

650

$

20

2920

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

39

,600

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

68

,536

,000

$

69

,000

,000

$

191,

400,

000

$

65

,600

,000

$

11

6,00

056

6$

1,65

0$

2030

21-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

68,5

36,0

00$

69,0

00,0

00$

19

1,40

0,00

0$

62,2

00,0

00$

116,

000

536

$

1,

650

$

20

3122

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

39

,600

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

68

,536

,000

$

69

,000

,000

$

191,

400,

000

$

58

,900

,000

$

11

6,00

050

8$

1,65

0$

2032

23-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

68,5

36,0

00$

69,0

00,0

00$

19

1,40

0,00

0$

55,9

00,0

00$

116,

000

482

$

1,

650

$

20

3324

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

39

,600

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

70

,300

,000

$

70

,000

,000

$

192,

400,

000

$

53

,200

,000

$

11

6,00

045

9$

1,65

9$

2034

25-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

70,3

00,0

00$

70,0

00,0

00$

19

2,40

0,00

0$

50,5

00,0

00$

116,

000

435

$

1,

659

$

20

3526

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

39

,600

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

70

,300

,000

$

70

,000

,000

$

192,

400,

000

$

47

,800

,000

$

11

6,00

041

2$

1,65

9$

2036

27-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

70,3

00,0

00$

70,0

00,0

00$

19

2,40

0,00

0$

45,3

00,0

00$

116,

000

391

$

1,

659

$

20

3728

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

39

,600

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

70

,300

,000

$

70

,000

,000

$

192,

400,

000

$

43

,000

,000

$

11

6,00

037

1$

1,65

9$

2038

2957

8,00

0,00

0$

57

8,00

0,00

0$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

10

1,83

6,00

0$

10

2,00

0,00

0$

260,

400,

000

$

55

,100

,000

$

17

4,00

031

7$

1,49

7$

2039

30-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

10

1,83

6,00

0$

10

2,00

0,00

0$

260,

400,

000

$

52

,200

,000

$

17

4,00

030

0$

1,49

7$

2040

31-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

10

1,83

6,00

0$

10

2,00

0,00

0$

260,

400,

000

$

49

,500

,000

$

17

4,00

028

4$

1,49

7$

2041

32-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

10

1,83

6,00

0$

10

2,00

0,00

0$

260,

400,

000

$

46

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

027

0$

1,49

7$

2042

33-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

10

1,83

6,00

0$

10

2,00

0,00

0$

260,

400,

000

$

44

,500

,000

$

17

4,00

025

6$

1,49

7$

2043

34-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

262,

400,

000

$

42

,500

,000

$

17

4,00

024

4$

1,50

8$

2044

35-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

262,

400,

000

$

40

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

023

2$

1,50

8$

2045

36-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

262,

400,

000

$

38

,200

,000

$

17

4,00

022

0$

1,50

8$

2046

37-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

262,

400,

000

$

36

,200

,000

$

17

4,00

020

8$

1,50

8$

2047

38-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

-$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

262,

400,

000

$

34

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

019

7$

1,50

8$

2048

3931

5,00

0,00

0$

31

5,00

0,00

0$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

104,

000,

000

$

28

2,00

0,00

0$

34,9

00,0

00$

174,

000

201

$

1,

621

$

20

4940

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

39

,600

,000

$

36,0

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

282,

000,

000

$

33

,100

,000

$

17

4,00

019

0$

1,62

1$

2050

41-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

104,

000,

000

$

28

2,00

0,00

0$

31,4

00,0

00$

174,

000

180

$

1,

621

$

20

5142

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

39

,600

,000

$

36,0

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

282,

000,

000

$

29

,800

,000

$

17

4,00

017

1$

1,62

1$

2052

43-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

104,

000,

000

$

28

2,00

0,00

0$

28,2

00,0

00$

174,

000

162

$

1,

621

$

20

5344

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

39

,600

,000

$

36,0

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

282,

000,

000

$

26

,700

,000

$

17

4,00

015

3$

1,62

1$

2054

45-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

104,

000,

000

$

28

2,00

0,00

0$

25,3

00,0

00$

174,

000

145

$

1,

621

$

20

5546

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

39

,600

,000

$

36,0

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

282,

000,

000

$

24

,000

,000

$

17

4,00

013

8$

1,62

1$

2056

47-

$

-

$

82

,800

,000

$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

-

$

103,

600,

000

$

104,

000,

000

$

28

2,00

0,00

0$

22,8

00,0

00$

174,

000

131

$

1,

621

$

20

5748

-$

-$

82,8

00,0

00$

39

,600

,000

$

36,0

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

-$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

282,

000,

000

$

21

,600

,000

$

17

4,00

012

4$

1,62

1$

2058

4931

5,00

0,00

0$

31

5,00

0,00

0$

-

$

39

,600

,000

$

36,0

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

218,

800,

000

$

15

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

091

$

1,

257

$

20

5950

-$

-$

-$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

103,

600,

000

$

104,

000,

000

$

21

8,80

0,00

0$

15,0

00,0

00$

174,

000

86$

1,25

7$

2060

51-

$

-

$

-

$

39

,600

,000

$

36,0

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

218,

800,

000

$

14

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

082

$

1,

257

$

20

6152

-$

-$

-$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

103,

600,

000

$

104,

000,

000

$

21

8,80

0,00

0$

13,5

00,0

00$

174,

000

78$

1,25

7$

2062

53-

$

-

$

-

$

39

,600

,000

$

36,0

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

218,

800,

000

$

12

,800

,000

$

17

4,00

074

$

1,

257

$

20

6354

-$

-$

-$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

103,

600,

000

$

104,

000,

000

$

21

8,80

0,00

0$

12,1

00,0

00$

174,

000

70$

1,25

7$

2064

55-

$

-

$

-

$

39

,600

,000

$

36,0

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

218,

800,

000

$

11

,500

,000

$

17

4,00

066

$

1,

257

$

20

6556

-$

-$

-$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

103,

600,

000

$

104,

000,

000

$

21

8,80

0,00

0$

10,9

00,0

00$

174,

000

63$

1,25

7$

2066

57-

$

-

$

-

$

39

,600

,000

$

36,0

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

10

3,60

0,00

0$

10

4,00

0,00

0$

218,

800,

000

$

10

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

059

$

1,

257

$

20

6758

-$

-$

-$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

103,

600,

000

$

104,

000,

000

$

21

8,80

0,00

0$

9,80

0,00

0$

17

4,00

056

$

1,

257

$

20

6859

-$

-$

-$

39,6

00,0

00$

36

,000

,000

$

19,6

00,0

00$

19

,600

,000

$

103,

600,

000

$

104,

000,

000

$

21

8,80

0,00

0$

9,30

0,00

0$

17

4,00

053

$

1,

257

$

3,

171,

000,

000

$ 3,

171,

000,

000

$ -

--

--

--

10,9

19,8

00,0

00$

1,96

8,90

0,00

0$

7,

076,

000

278

$

1,

572

$

TO

TALS

PHASE 3 - ULTIMATE

Ann

ual O

&M

Cos

t

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Cap

ital C

ost

Cap

ital C

ost P

aym

ents

(40-

Year

Bon

d Te

rm)

UN

INFL

ATE

D C

OST

S

TAB

LE 1

0-22

(A)

SAN

DIE

GO

CO

UN

TY W

ATE

R A

UTH

OR

ITY

PR

OJE

CT:

CA

MP

PEN

DLE

TON

SW

RO

PR

OJE

CT

AT

MC

TSSA

SIT

EP

OW

ER

:C

OG

ENN

FLA

TIO

N R

ATE

: 3.

0%D

ES

CR

IPTI

ON

:50

-YR

LIF

E C

YCLE

CO

ST A

NA

LYSI

SE

STI

MA

TE D

ATE

:JA

N 2

009

DIS

CO

UN

T R

ATE

: 5.

5%P

RE

PA

RE

D B

Y:

RB

F C

ON

SULT

ING

BO

ND

LE

NG

TH (y

rs):

40

Cal

enda

rC

apita

l & O

&M

2009

Acr

e-Fe

etA

vg A

nnua

lA

nnua

lYe

arn

2009

Infla

ted

Cos

tPh

ase

1Ph

ase

2Ph

ase

3M

ech.

Equ

ip.

Mec

h. E

quip

.20

09In

flate

d C

ost

Cos

tsPr

esen

t Wor

thPr

oduc

ed

Pres

ent W

orth

Cos

tD

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)D

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

Per Y

ear

(A/P

, %, n

)Pe

r Yea

r$/

AF

$/A

F20

189

1,38

7,00

0,00

0$

1,81

0,00

0,00

0$

112,

800,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-$

-

$

112,

800,

000

$

69

,700

,000

$

0

-$

-

$

20

1910

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

40,7

36,0

00$

55,0

00,0

00$

16

7,80

0,00

0$

98,2

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

693

$

2,89

3$

2020

11-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

40

,736

,000

$

56

,000

,000

$

168,

800,

000

$

93

,700

,000

$

58

,000

1,61

6$

2,

910

$

20

2112

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

40,7

36,0

00$

58,0

00,0

00$

17

0,80

0,00

0$

89,8

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

548

$

2,94

5$

2022

13-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

40

,736

,000

$

60

,000

,000

$

172,

800,

000

$

86

,200

,000

$

58

,000

1,48

6$

2,

979

$

20

2314

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

40,7

36,0

00$

62,0

00,0

00$

17

4,80

0,00

0$

82,6

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

424

$

3,01

4$

2024

15-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

43

,100

,000

$

67

,000

,000

$

179,

800,

000

$

80

,500

,000

$

58

,000

1,38

8$

3,

100

$

20

2516

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

43,1

00,0

00$

69,0

00,0

00$

18

1,80

0,00

0$

77,2

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

331

$

3,13

4$

2026

17-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

-$

-$

-$

-$

43

,100

,000

$

71

,000

,000

$

183,

800,

000

$

74

,000

,000

$

58

,000

1,27

6$

3,

169

$

20

2718

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

43,1

00,0

00$

73,0

00,0

00$

18

5,80

0,00

0$

70,9

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

222

$

3,20

3$

2028

1971

8,00

0,00

0$

1,

259,

000,

000

$ 11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

78,6

36,0

00$

138,

000,

000

$

329,

300,

000

$

11

9,10

0,00

0$

116,

000

1,02

7$

2,

839

$

20

2920

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

78

,636

,000

$

14

2,00

0,00

0$

33

3,30

0,00

0$

114,

200,

000

$

11

6,00

098

4$

2,87

3$

2030

21-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

78,6

36,0

00$

146,

000,

000

$

337,

300,

000

$

10

9,60

0,00

0$

116,

000

945

$

2,

908

$

20

3122

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

78

,636

,000

$

15

1,00

0,00

0$

34

2,30

0,00

0$

105,

400,

000

$

11

6,00

090

9$

2,95

1$

2032

23-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

78,6

36,0

00$

155,

000,

000

$

346,

300,

000

$

10

1,10

0,00

0$

116,

000

872

$

2,

985

$

20

3324

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

81

,000

,000

$

16

5,00

0,00

0$

35

6,30

0,00

0$

98,6

00,0

00$

116,

000

850

$

3,

072

$

20

3425

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

81

,000

,000

$

17

0,00

0,00

0$

36

1,30

0,00

0$

94,7

00,0

00$

116,

000

816

$

3,

115

$

20

3526

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

81

,000

,000

$

17

5,00

0,00

0$

36

6,30

0,00

0$

91,0

00,0

00$

116,

000

784

$

3,

158

$

20

3627

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

81

,000

,000

$

18

0,00

0,00

0$

37

1,30

0,00

0$

87,5

00,0

00$

116,

000

754

$

3,

201

$

20

3728

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

81

,000

,000

$

18

5,00

0,00

0$

37

6,30

0,00

0$

84,0

00,0

00$

116,

000

724

$

3,

244

$

20

3829

676,

000,

000

$

1,59

3,00

0,00

0$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

116,

936,

000

$

276,

000,

000

$

566,

600,

000

$

11

9,90

0,00

0$

174,

000

689

$

3,

256

$

20

3930

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

116,

936,

000

$

284,

000,

000

$

574,

600,

000

$

11

5,30

0,00

0$

174,

000

663

$

3,

302

$

20

4031

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

116,

936,

000

$

292,

000,

000

$

582,

600,

000

$

11

0,80

0,00

0$

174,

000

637

$

3,

348

$

20

4132

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

116,

936,

000

$

301,

000,

000

$

591,

600,

000

$

10

6,60

0,00

0$

174,

000

613

$

3,

400

$

20

4233

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

116,

936,

000

$

310,

000,

000

$

600,

600,

000

$

10

2,60

0,00

0$

174,

000

590

$

3,

452

$

20

4334

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

326,

000,

000

$

616,

600,

000

$

99

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

057

4$

3,54

4$

2044

35-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

-$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

33

6,00

0,00

0$

62

6,60

0,00

0$

96,2

00,0

00$

174,

000

553

$

3,

601

$

20

4536

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

346,

000,

000

$

636,

600,

000

$

92

,600

,000

$

17

4,00

053

2$

3,65

9$

2046

37-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

-$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

35

6,00

0,00

0$

64

6,60

0,00

0$

89,2

00,0

00$

174,

000

513

$

3,

716

$

20

4738

-$

-$

112,

800,

000

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

367,

000,

000

$

657,

600,

000

$

86

,000

,000

$

17

4,00

049

4$

3,77

9$

2048

3937

0,00

0,00

0$

1,

172,

000,

000

$ 11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

378,

000,

000

$

741,

600,

000

$

91

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

052

8$

4,26

2$

2049

40-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

389,

000,

000

$

752,

600,

000

$

88

,400

,000

$

17

4,00

050

8$

4,32

5$

2050

41-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

401,

000,

000

$

764,

600,

000

$

85

,100

,000

$

17

4,00

048

9$

4,39

4$

2051

42-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

413,

000,

000

$

776,

600,

000

$

82

,000

,000

$

17

4,00

047

1$

4,46

3$

2052

43-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

425,

000,

000

$

788,

600,

000

$

78

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

045

3$

4,53

2$

2053

44-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

438,

000,

000

$

801,

600,

000

$

76

,000

,000

$

17

4,00

043

7$

4,60

7$

2054

45-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

451,

000,

000

$

814,

600,

000

$

73

,200

,000

$

17

4,00

042

1$

4,68

2$

2055

46-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

465,

000,

000

$

828,

600,

000

$

70

,600

,000

$

17

4,00

040

6$

4,76

2$

2056

47-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

479,

000,

000

$

842,

600,

000

$

68

,000

,000

$

17

4,00

039

1$

4,84

3$

2057

48-

$

-

$

11

2,80

0,00

0$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

493,

000,

000

$

856,

600,

000

$

65

,600

,000

$

17

4,00

037

7$

4,92

3$

2058

4937

0,00

0,00

0$

1,

575,

000,

000

$ -

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

73

,000

,000

$

98,2

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

50

8,00

0,00

0$

85

7,00

0,00

0$

62,2

00,0

00$

174,

000

357

$

4,

925

$

20

5950

-$

-$

-$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

98

,200

,000

$

119,

300,

000

$

523,

000,

000

$

872,

000,

000

$

60

,000

,000

$

17

4,00

034

5$

5,01

1$

2060

51-

$

-

$

-

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

73

,000

,000

$

98,2

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

53

9,00

0,00

0$

88

8,00

0,00

0$

57,9

00,0

00$

174,

000

333

$

5,

103

$

20

6152

-$

-$

-$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

98

,200

,000

$

119,

300,

000

$

555,

000,

000

$

904,

000,

000

$

55

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

032

1$

5,19

5$

2062

53-

$

-

$

-

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

73

,000

,000

$

98,2

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

57

1,00

0,00

0$

92

0,00

0,00

0$

53,9

00,0

00$

174,

000

310

$

5,

287

$

20

6354

-$

-$

-$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

98

,200

,000

$

119,

300,

000

$

589,

000,

000

$

938,

000,

000

$

52

,100

,000

$

17

4,00

029

9$

5,39

1$

2064

55-

$

-

$

-

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

73

,000

,000

$

98,2

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

60

6,00

0,00

0$

95

5,00

0,00

0$

50,2

00,0

00$

174,

000

289

$

5,

489

$

20

6556

-$

-$

-$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

98

,200

,000

$

119,

300,

000

$

624,

000,

000

$

973,

000,

000

$

48

,500

,000

$

17

4,00

027

9$

5,59

2$

2066

57-

$

-

$

-

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

73

,000

,000

$

98,2

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

64

3,00

0,00

0$

99

2,00

0,00

0$

46,9

00,0

00$

174,

000

270

$

5,

701

$

20

6758

-$

-$

-$

78,5

00,0

00$

99

,300

,000

$

73,0

00,0

00$

98

,200

,000

$

119,

300,

000

$

663,

000,

000

$

1,01

2,00

0,00

0$

45

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

026

0$

5,81

6$

2068

59-

$

-

$

-

$

78

,500

,000

$

99,3

00,0

00$

73

,000

,000

$

98,2

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

68

2,00

0,00

0$

1,

031,

000,

000

$

43,8

00,0

00$

174,

000

252

$

5,

925

$

3,

521,

000,

000

$ 7,

409,

000,

000

$ -

--

--

--

29,6

29,0

00,0

00$

4,20

3,50

0,00

0$

7,

076,

000

594

$

3,

882

$

INFL

ATE

D C

OST

S

TOTA

LS

PHASE 3 - ULTIMATE

Ann

ual O

&M

Cos

t

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Cap

ital C

ost

Cap

ital C

ost P

aym

ents

(40-

Year

Bon

d Te

rm)

TAB

LE 1

0-22

(B)

SAN

DIE

GO

CO

UN

TY W

ATE

R A

UTH

OR

ITY

PR

OJE

CT:

CA

MP

PEN

DLE

TON

SW

RO

PR

OJE

CT

AT

MC

TSSA

SIT

EP

OW

ER

:C

OG

ENN

FLA

TIO

N R

ATE

: 0.

0%D

ES

CR

IPTI

ON

:50

-YR

LIF

E C

YCLE

CO

ST A

NA

LYSI

S - N

O IN

FLA

TIO

NE

STI

MA

TE D

ATE

:JA

N 2

009

DIS

CO

UN

T R

ATE

: 5.

5%P

RE

PA

RE

D B

Y:

RB

F C

ON

SULT

ING

BO

ND

LE

NG

TH (y

rs):

40

Cal

enda

rC

apita

l & O

&M

2009

Acr

e-Fe

etA

vg A

nnua

lA

nnua

lYe

arn

2009

Uni

nfla

ted

Cos

tPh

ase

1Ph

ase

2Ph

ase

3M

ech.

Equ

ip.

Mec

h. E

quip

.20

09U

ninf

late

d C

ost

Cos

tsPr

esen

t Wor

thPr

oduc

ed

Pres

ent W

orth

Cos

tD

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)(A

/P, %

, 40)

(A/P

, %, 4

0)D

olla

rs(F

/P, %

, n)

Per Y

ear

(A/P

, %, n

)Pe

r Yea

r$/

AF

$/A

F20

189

1,38

7,00

0,00

0$

1,38

7,00

0,00

0$

86,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-$

-

$

86,4

00,0

00$

53

,400

,000

$

0

-$

-

$

20

1910

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

40,7

36,0

00$

41,0

00,0

00$

12

7,40

0,00

0$

74,6

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

286

$

2,19

7$

2020

11-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

-$

40

,736

,000

$

41

,000

,000

$

127,

400,

000

$

70

,700

,000

$

58

,000

1,21

9$

2,

197

$

20

2112

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

40,7

36,0

00$

41,0

00,0

00$

12

7,40

0,00

0$

67,0

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

155

$

2,19

7$

2022

13-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

-$

40

,736

,000

$

41

,000

,000

$

127,

400,

000

$

63

,500

,000

$

58

,000

1,09

5$

2,

197

$

20

2314

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

40,7

36,0

00$

41,0

00,0

00$

12

7,40

0,00

0$

60,2

00,0

00$

58,0

001,

038

$

2,19

7$

2024

15-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

-$

43

,100

,000

$

43

,000

,000

$

129,

400,

000

$

58

,000

,000

$

58

,000

1,00

0$

2,

231

$

20

2516

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

43,1

00,0

00$

43,0

00,0

00$

12

9,40

0,00

0$

54,9

00,0

00$

58,0

0094

7$

2,23

1$

2026

17-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

-$

43

,100

,000

$

43

,000

,000

$

129,

400,

000

$

52

,100

,000

$

58

,000

898

$

2,

231

$

20

2718

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

-

$

43,1

00,0

00$

43,0

00,0

00$

12

9,40

0,00

0$

49,4

00,0

00$

58,0

0085

2$

2,23

1$

2028

1971

8,00

0,00

0$

71

8,00

0,00

0$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

78,6

36,0

00$

79,0

00,0

00$

21

0,10

0,00

0$

76,0

00,0

00$

116,

000

655

$

1,

811

$

20

2920

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

44

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

78

,636

,000

$

79

,000

,000

$

210,

100,

000

$

72

,000

,000

$

11

6,00

062

1$

1,81

1$

2030

21-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

78,6

36,0

00$

79,0

00,0

00$

21

0,10

0,00

0$

68,3

00,0

00$

116,

000

589

$

1,

811

$

20

3122

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

44

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

78

,636

,000

$

79

,000

,000

$

210,

100,

000

$

64

,700

,000

$

11

6,00

055

8$

1,81

1$

2032

23-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

78,6

36,0

00$

79,0

00,0

00$

21

0,10

0,00

0$

61,3

00,0

00$

116,

000

528

$

1,

811

$

20

3324

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

44

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

81

,000

,000

$

81

,000

,000

$

212,

100,

000

$

58

,700

,000

$

11

6,00

050

6$

1,82

8$

2034

25-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

81,0

00,0

00$

81,0

00,0

00$

21

2,10

0,00

0$

55,6

00,0

00$

116,

000

479

$

1,

828

$

20

3526

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

44

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

81

,000

,000

$

81

,000

,000

$

212,

100,

000

$

52

,700

,000

$

11

6,00

045

4$

1,82

8$

2036

27-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

-

$

-

$

-

$

81,0

00,0

00$

81,0

00,0

00$

21

2,10

0,00

0$

50,0

00,0

00$

116,

000

431

$

1,

828

$

20

3728

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

44

,700

,000

$

-$

-$

-$

81

,000

,000

$

81

,000

,000

$

212,

100,

000

$

47

,400

,000

$

11

6,00

040

9$

1,82

8$

2038

2967

6,00

0,00

0$

67

6,00

0,00

0$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

-$

-$

11

6,93

6,00

0$

11

7,00

0,00

0$

290,

200,

000

$

61

,400

,000

$

17

4,00

035

3$

1,66

8$

2039

30-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

-$

-$

11

6,93

6,00

0$

11

7,00

0,00

0$

290,

200,

000

$

58

,200

,000

$

17

4,00

033

4$

1,66

8$

2040

31-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

-$

-$

11

6,93

6,00

0$

11

7,00

0,00

0$

290,

200,

000

$

55

,200

,000

$

17

4,00

031

7$

1,66

8$

2041

32-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

-$

-$

11

6,93

6,00

0$

11

7,00

0,00

0$

290,

200,

000

$

52

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

030

1$

1,66

8$

2042

33-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

-$

-$

11

6,93

6,00

0$

11

7,00

0,00

0$

290,

200,

000

$

49

,600

,000

$

17

4,00

028

5$

1,66

8$

2043

34-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

-$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

292,

200,

000

$

47

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

027

2$

1,67

9$

2044

35-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

-$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

292,

200,

000

$

44

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

025

8$

1,67

9$

2045

36-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

-$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

292,

200,

000

$

42

,500

,000

$

17

4,00

024

4$

1,67

9$

2046

37-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

-$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

292,

200,

000

$

40

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

023

2$

1,67

9$

2047

38-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

-$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

292,

200,

000

$

38

,200

,000

$

17

4,00

022

0$

1,67

9$

2048

3937

0,00

0,00

0$

37

0,00

0,00

0$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

119,

000,

000

$

31

5,30

0,00

0$

39,1

00,0

00$

174,

000

225

$

1,

812

$

20

4940

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

44

,700

,000

$

42,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

315,

300,

000

$

37

,000

,000

$

17

4,00

021

3$

1,81

2$

2050

41-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

119,

000,

000

$

31

5,30

0,00

0$

35,1

00,0

00$

174,

000

202

$

1,

812

$

20

5142

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

44

,700

,000

$

42,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

315,

300,

000

$

33

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

019

1$

1,81

2$

2052

43-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

119,

000,

000

$

31

5,30

0,00

0$

31,5

00,0

00$

174,

000

181

$

1,

812

$

20

5344

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

44

,700

,000

$

42,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

315,

300,

000

$

29

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

017

2$

1,81

2$

2054

45-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

119,

000,

000

$

31

5,30

0,00

0$

28,3

00,0

00$

174,

000

163

$

1,

812

$

20

5546

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

44

,700

,000

$

42,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

315,

300,

000

$

26

,900

,000

$

17

4,00

015

5$

1,81

2$

2056

47-

$

-

$

86

,400

,000

$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

-

$

119,

300,

000

$

119,

000,

000

$

31

5,30

0,00

0$

25,5

00,0

00$

174,

000

147

$

1,

812

$

20

5748

-$

-$

86,4

00,0

00$

44

,700

,000

$

42,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

-$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

315,

300,

000

$

24

,100

,000

$

17

4,00

013

9$

1,81

2$

2058

4937

0,00

0,00

0$

37

0,00

0,00

0$

-

$

44

,700

,000

$

42,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

252,

000,

000

$

18

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

010

5$

1,44

8$

2059

50-

$

-

$

-

$

44

,700

,000

$

42,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

252,

000,

000

$

17

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

099

$

1,

448

$

20

6051

-$

-$

-$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

119,

300,

000

$

119,

000,

000

$

25

2,00

0,00

0$

16,4

00,0

00$

174,

000

94$

1,44

8$

2061

52-

$

-

$

-

$

44

,700

,000

$

42,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

252,

000,

000

$

15

,600

,000

$

17

4,00

090

$

1,

448

$

20

6253

-$

-$

-$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

119,

300,

000

$

119,

000,

000

$

25

2,00

0,00

0$

14,8

00,0

00$

174,

000

85$

1,44

8$

2063

54-

$

-

$

-

$

44

,700

,000

$

42,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

252,

000,

000

$

14

,000

,000

$

17

4,00

080

$

1,

448

$

20

6455

-$

-$

-$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

119,

300,

000

$

119,

000,

000

$

25

2,00

0,00

0$

13,3

00,0

00$

174,

000

76$

1,44

8$

2065

56-

$

-

$

-

$

44

,700

,000

$

42,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

252,

000,

000

$

12

,600

,000

$

17

4,00

072

$

1,

448

$

20

6657

-$

-$

-$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

119,

300,

000

$

119,

000,

000

$

25

2,00

0,00

0$

11,9

00,0

00$

174,

000

68$

1,44

8$

2067

58-

$

-

$

-

$

44

,700

,000

$

42,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

11

9,30

0,00

0$

11

9,00

0,00

0$

252,

000,

000

$

11

,300

,000

$

17

4,00

065

$

1,

448

$

20

6859

-$

-$

-$

44,7

00,0

00$

42

,100

,000

$

23,1

00,0

00$

23

,100

,000

$

119,

300,

000

$

119,

000,

000

$

25

2,00

0,00

0$

10,7

00,0

00$

174,

000

61$

1,44

8$

3,52

1,00

0,00

0$

3,52

1,00

0,00

0$

--

--

--

-12

,189

,000

,000

$ 2,

167,

300,

000

$

7,07

6,00

030

6$

1,74

3$

UN

INFL

ATE

D C

OST

S

TOTA

LS

PHASE 3 - ULTIMATE

Ann

ual O

&M

Cos

t

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Cap

ital C

ost

Cap

ital C

ost P

aym

ents

(40-

Year

Bon

d Te

rm)


Page 11-1

CHAPTER 11: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

11.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

Two site alternatives (SRTTP and MCTSSA) have been approved by Camp Pendleton personnel to conduct a feasibility study for the Water Authority’s proposed Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project, as described in Chapter 9. After additional technical studies are completed and further discussions are held with Camp Pendleton personnel, one of the sites would be designated as the preferred project site that could be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report / Statement (EIR/EIS), while the other site would carry forward as an alternative. Once this is determined, the Water Authority could begin to define the EIR/EIS preferred Project Description The following subsections give a brief summary of each key component of the two proposed project alternatives described in Chapter 9. The key components of the desalination project consist of a seawater intake system, brine disposal system, desalination (treatment) facility, and desalinated (product) water conveyance. The major difference between the two proposed project alternatives is the intake system and associated pretreatment due to the assumed water quality variation. The minor difference between the proposed projects is pipeline lengths associated with intake, brine disposal, and conveyance collector pipelines.

11.0.1 Seawater Intake Feedwater (seawater) for the proposed desalination facility sites would be provided by a wedge-wire screened open-ocean intake (MCTSSA) or a subsurface DIG intake (SRTTP). Although these two preferred intake methods have been proposed for the two site alternatives, any of the intake options described in Chapter 3 could technically provide feedwater for an ultimate capacity 150 mgd desalination facility (except slant wells). Both sites would utilize the dual-use (pipe-in-pipe) tunnel for feedwater intake and brine discharge. The approximate capacity of the intake system could range from 105 mgd to 390 mgd, depending upon the intake method used, capacity of the plant, and the efficiency of the desalination process. Feedwater conveyance would be achieved using three major pipeline segments. The first pipeline segment conveys feedwater via a seabed pipeline from the intake location (wedge-wire screens) to the tunnel terminal structure. The second segment is the dual-use tunnel, while the third segment is the feedwater conveyance pipelines (on land) that convey feedwater from the FWPS to the desalination facility. A detailed description of the feedwater conveyance system is provided in Chapter 3.


Page 11-2

11.0.2 Concentrate Disposal Two waste streams are being considered for this project: 1.) concentrate (brine) from the proposed SWRO desalination facility, and 2.) treated wastewater effluent from Camp Pendleton’s Southern Region Tertiary Treatment Plant (SRTTP). The brine diffuser location is independent of the desalination site location and would be sized and built for the ultimate project. Only the pipeline lengths (both on land and on the seabed) would differ for each site. The ultimate diffuser system would be constructed with one “Y” branch shut-off until the plant increased capacity. During Phase 2, a dive team would open the valve and uncap the remaining diffuser ports to utilize the entire concentrate diffuser discharge system. Concentrate conveyance is achieved using three major pipeline segments. The first pipeline segment (brine pipeline on land) conveys concentrate from the desalination plant to the proposed dual-use outfall tunnel. The second segment is the outfall tunnel itself, while the third segment is the seabed pipeline that would convey brine from the tunnel terminal structure to the diffuser discharge location. A designated low flow wastewater effluent only diffuser system is also being proposed for the project. A detailed description of the concentrate disposal system is provided in Chapter 4.

11.0.3 Desalination Facility The desalination facility treatment process would be designed to treat the anticipated water quality associated with each type of seawater intake. Therefore the treatment technique to be employed at either desalination facility site is dependant upon the type of intake method used. A screened open-ocean intake (proposed at the MCTSSA Site) would require extensive pretreatment (DAF, UF, etc.) before the RO process, while a subsurface intake (proposed at the SRTTP Site) would not require UF pretreatment due to the assumed natural filtration that would occur through the seabed. A detailed description of the desalination facility and preferred treatment options is provided in Chapter 5.

11.0.4 Desalinated Water Conveyance The desalinated water conveyance pipeline (DWCP) is independent of the site location. The preferred alignment would follow the YBP alignment due to less construction impacts to the base. The SRTTP Site would require two SMR crossings compared to one for the MCTSSA Site, yet the MCTTSA Site requires an I-5 crossing. The SRTTP site would require approximately 9,000 ft less of collector pipeline. The pipeline alignment (other than collector pipelines) and pump stations would be identical for either site alternative.


Page 11-3

The DWCP is divided into three major pipeline segments. The first pipeline segment (SBP) conveys product water from the desalination facility to a connection point near Whelan Lake and SLRR. The second segment (Oceanside Pipeline) conveys product water from the SBP terminus through the City of Oceanside to the west terminus of the NCDP. The third segment (WAP) conveys product water from the Oceanside Pipeline terminus to the TODS. The DWCP would utilize the existing NCDP and the proposed SLPS to pump desalinated water directly into Pipeline 4 to avoid constructing the WAP. Refer to Chapter 6 for a more detailed description of the DWCP.

11.1 POTENTIAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

Several potential funding opportunities exist that the Water Authority could pursue to help finance the proposed Camp Pendleton SWRO Desalination Project. Potential governmental agencies that could provide funding opportunities are listed below and described in the following sections:

California Department of Water Resources

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Department of Energy

These potential funding sources described in the following sections are based solely upon limited desktop analysis. Further research would be required to determine which specific grants are available from each agency that could be pursued by the Water Authority.

11.1.1 California Department of Water Resources The Water Authority is currently utilizing grant funds obtained from the states Proposition 50 (Prop 50) initiative. Prop 50 was a California proposition that was passed by voters on the November 2005 ballot. Prop 50 allowed approximately $3.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund a variety of water projects. Prop 50 grant applications related to desalination were handled by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR Grant opportunities are anticipated to be available for future desalination projects.


Page 11-4

11.1.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) could potentially help fund project planning including geotechnical investigations required to determine the most favorable location for either an offshore or onshore subsurface intake. The ACOE recently (October 17, 2008) awarded a contract for the geotechnical investigation of the beach adjacent to Shamel Park for the Cambria Community Service District’s (CCSD) proposed desalination plant. The ACOE would be dealing with all the requisite permitting processes as the Cambria project goes forward. The contract would be funded with federally appropriated funds from an earlier Water Resource Development Act authorization.

11.1.3 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (BOR) accomplishments in desalination are funded through a number of different programs. The majority of projects are funded through the Desalination and Water Purification Research and Development Program, the Science and Technology Program, the Water Reuse Program - Title XVI, and Water 2025. The Desalination and Water Purification Research & Development (DWPR) Program was authorized by Congress under the Water Desalination Act of 1996. The primary goal of the DWPR program is to develop more cost-effective, technologically efficient, and implementable means to desalinate water. In November 2005, BOR awarded over $1.7 million for 16 desalination research and cooperative agreements. Potential Stimulus package money would be earmarked for existing federal projects, with some discretionary (limited) funds for the BOR, which could be pursued by the Water Authority.

11.1.4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The Water Authority is currently receiving grant funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for various projects. Additional requests could be pursued to obtain extra stimulus funding for the proposed Camp Pendleton Desalination Project.

11.1.5 U.S. Department of Energy The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has potential funding sources consisting of stimulus package money set aside for projects that address energy efficiency and green house gas (GHG) emissions. In 2005, the House of Representatives published a report titled Desalination Water Supply Shortage Prevention Act of 2005. The report recognized the importance of desalination as a new source of needed water and the cost of the energy consumed in the desalination process. It states that “qualified desalination plants” would be paid 62¢ per thousand gallons (or about $200 per acre foot) of


Page 11-5

desalinated water produced and sold, adjusted for inflation every year using the method used by the IRS. The Secretary of the DOE is authorized to appropriate approximately $200 million from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2016. In any fiscal year not more than 60 percent of the funds made available by the Secretary under this section shall be made available to the owners or operators of qualified desalination facilities that obtain source water directly from the sea, an estuary, or from in-bank extraction wells that are of seawater origin. In awarding incentive payments under this section, the Secretary would give priority to any application for a project that:

Uses innovative technologies to reduce the energy demand of the project;

Uses renewable energy supplies in the desalination process;

Provides regional water supply benefits;

Provides a secure source of new water supplies for national defense activities;

Reduces the threat of a water supply disruption as a result of a natural disaster or acts of terrorism;

Uses technologies that minimize the damage to marine life; or

Provides significant water quality benefits.

11.2 NEXT STEPS

The next steps for the proposed Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project, following the completion of this Feasibility Study and approval by the Water Authority’s Board of Directors are to conduct further planning studies that would assist in defining the project description necessary to conduct the Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and required permits. This section serves as a preliminary guide, listing the necessary action items and milestones necessary to implement the project. Listed below are initial action items that should be accomplished:

MCBCP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Planning Studies Consultant Procurement

Conduct planning studies (power, conveyance, offshore investigations, etc.)

Environmental Consultant (EIR/EIS) Procurement

Negotiate Implementation / Lease Agreement with MCBCP

Project Financial Plan

Public Relations


Page 11-6

The following sections provide a description and milestone dates associated with each action item listed above. Figure 11-1 illustrates the approximate project implementation schedule for these action items to occur. Based on the milestones presented in Figure 11-1, this project is expected to come online by 2019. Per the current schedule, the Environmental Consultant’s Notice to Proceed (NTP) for the preparation of the EIR/EIS would be issued in June 2012. The Water Authority consultant procurement process takes 6 to 8 months, starting from the RFP preparation to a signed contract and typically consists of the following:

Prepare and Issue RFP

Receive Proposals

Conduct Interviews

Choose TC and Negotiate Contract

Board Approval and NTP

11.2.1 MCBCP Memorandum of Understanding The execution of the MOU between the Water Authority and Camp Pendleton is the most crucial milestone as completion of subsequent events would be contingent upon its completion. Written Base approval would be obtained between January and February 2010. The MOU would cover, but is not limited to, the items listed below:

Approval to access MCBCP data on environmental resources and infrastructure to assist in developing the Preliminary Project Description;

MCBCP Access approval to conduct physical investigations / studies;

Define physical access to conduct offshore / onshore investigations and studies

Define MCBCP rights for review and comment of the Project Description;

Define Public Information Program.

11.2.2 Planning Studies The Water Authority intends to conduct several planning studies over the next two years to further develop the proposed project description. The Request for Proposals (RFP) to procure the planning studies consultant is anticipated to be released in March 2010 with Board approval and contract complete by June 2010. The planning studies would consist of, but are not limited to, power options, additional conveyance alternatives, product water integration alternatives, and offshore / onshore geotechnical investigations, and are anticipated to be completed by March 2012.


Page 11-7

The results of the subsequent planning studies, particularly the Camp Pendleton Desalination Project product water integration analysis, would be incorporated into the Water Authority’s regional water facility master planning effort, which would begin around June 2010 and conclude around June 2012. The regional master plan would evaluate local water supply options, including proposed seawater desalination supplies, along with imported water supply reliability assessments to develop and prioritize an appropriate mix of local and imported supply development projects that will meet the region’s needs.

11.2.3 Environmental Consultant Procurement Once the planning studies and regional master plan are near their completion, a decision would be made by the Board on whether to continue, delay, or defer the project based on the result and recommendation of the master planning effort. If the project continues, the next step would be to hire an Environmental Consultant (EC) to lead the EIR/EIS process. The entire procurement process would take approximately 6-8 months. The RFP for the EC is anticipated to be released in late 2011 with Board approval and contract completion by June 2012. The EC team would conduct necessary technical studies (biological resources, cultural resources, visual impacts, air quality, traffic, noise, etc.) and prepare the draft and final EIR/EIS. The technical studies and EIR/EIS process are assumed to take approximately two and half years, with the EIR/EIS certified by December 2014. The initial permitting process would commence during the EIR/EIS preparation process. The EC team would assist the Water Authority with regulatory agency (Federal, State, & Local) coordination meetings and permit application process. Once the Final EIR/EIS is certified, the Water Authority would begin discussions with MCBCP to negotiate project implementation and property lease agreement. This could take approximately two years to finalize with a signed agreement by December 2016.

11.2.4 Technical Studies / Investigations Once the Environmental Consultant (EC) has received the NTP, the EC would perform or hire sub-consultants to conduct the technical studies listed below to assist in the completion of the EIR/EIS. Dependant upon the defined project description, not all the listed technical studies may be necessary, but for a project of this magnitude and due to its location near the Pacific Ocean and SMR, it is assumed they would all be required.



Climate Change Assessment

Biological Resources Report (including Marine Resources)


Page 11-8


Geotechnical Report

Bathymetry Report

Hydrology Report


Radiation Frequency Survey

Receiving Water Modeling Report


Traffic Impact Analysis

Military Impacts

Water Supply Assessment

11.2.5 Project Financial Plan The Project Financial Plan (PFP) would commence near the completion of this Feasibility Study. The entire PFP could take approximately 12 months to complete. The only milestone currently established is to create a budget for the planning studies.

11.2.6 Public Relations Public relations and community outreach associated with this project should have already begun and should continue throughout the duration of the project. Public outreach would consist of workshops, education, site visits, groundbreaking, press releases, etc. All public events would require coordination with Camp Pendleton.

11.2.7 Preliminary Project Implementation Schedule A preliminary feasibility-level project implementation schedule is provided in Figure 11-1. It illustrates the anticipated durations of the various project implementation tasks discussed previously. The schedule may be used as a rough guide of the required schedule should the Water Authority choose to implement this project.

ID Task Name DurationStart

Finish

1 Water Authority's Desalination Facility at Camp Pendleton 2760 days Mon 06/01/09 Fri 12/27/19

2 Public Outreach 2760 days Mon 06/01/09 Fri 12/27/19

4 Negotiate MOU with MCBCP 35 wks Mon 06/01/09 Fri 01/29/10

5 Advanced Planning Studies 520 days Mon 02/01/10 Fri 01/27/12

6 Procure Consultant for Planning Studies 26 wks Mon 02/01/10 Fri 07/30/10

7 Conveyance and Power Study 260 days Mon 08/02/10 Fri 07/29/11

9 Offshore Investigations and Water Sampling 390 days Mon 08/02/10 Fri 01/27/12

10 Permits and Consultation for Drilling/Sampling 26 wks Mon 08/02/10 Fri 01/28/11

11 Subsurface Intake Investigation 95 days Mon 01/31/11 Fri 06/10/11

12 Mobilization/Setup 1 wk Mon 01/31/11 Fri 02/04/11

13 Initial Non-destructive Tests 4 wks Mon 02/07/11 Fri 03/04/11

14 Drill Investigative Boreholes 10 wks Mon 03/07/11 Fri 05/13/11

15 Drill and Develop Test Well 4 wks Mon 05/16/11 Fri 06/10/11

16 Water Quality Monitoring and Sampling 260 days Mon 01/31/11 Fri 01/27/12

22 Onshore Investigations and Surveys 230 days Mon 08/02/10 Fri 06/17/1123 Permits and Consultation for Onshore Investigations 26 wks Mon 08/02/10 Fri 01/28/11

24 Geotechnical Site Investigation 55 days Mon 01/31/11 Fri 04/15/11

28 Geotechnical/ Conveyance Route Investigation 45 days Mon 04/18/11 Fri 06/17/11

32 CEQA/ NEPA Clearance (EIR/ EIS) 848 days Mon 10/17/11 Wed 01/14/15

33 Procure Environmental Consultant for EIR/EIS 36 wks Mon 10/17/11 Fri 06/22/12

34 MCBCP Data Acquisition 40 days Mon 06/25/12 Fri 08/17/12

35 MCBCP Data Collection 1 mon Mon 06/25/12 Fri 07/20/12

36 SDCWA (Consultant) Data Acquisition 1 mon Mon 07/23/12 Fri 08/17/12

37 Preliminary Design Report 180 days Mon 06/25/12 Fri 03/01/13

41 Technical Studies/ Surveys 120 days Mon 08/20/12 Fri 02/01/1356 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation 60 days Mon 01/07/13 Sun 03/31/13

57 Initial Study Preparation 8 wks Mon 01/07/13 Fri 03/01/13

58 30-Day Public Review 30 edays Fri 03/01/13 Sun 03/31/13

59 Draft EIR/ EIS 271 days Mon 04/01/13 Mon 04/14/14

60 Screencheck Draft EIR/ EIS Preparation 6 mons Mon 04/01/13 Fri 09/13/13

61 Preliminary Draft EIR/ EIS Preparation 6 mons Mon 09/16/13 Fri 02/28/14

62 45-Day Public Review 45 edays Fri 02/28/14 Mon 04/14/14

63 Final EIR/ EIS 197 days Tue 04/15/14 Wed 01/14/15

64 Final EIR/ EIS Preparation 13 wks Tue 04/15/14 Mon 07/14/14

65 Public Hearing 13 wks Tue 07/15/14 Mon 10/13/14

66 Notice of Decision (NOD) Issued 0 days Mon 10/13/14 Mon 10/13/14

67 Record of Decision (ROD) 45 days Tue 10/14/14 Mon 12/15/14

68 30 day CEQA Challenge Period 30 edays Mon 12/15/14 Wed 01/14/15

69 Permits and Regulatory Approvals 400 days Mon 03/03/14 Fri 09/11/15

70 Long-Lead Discretionary Permits 400 days Mon 03/03/14 Fri 09/11/1577 Construction Permits 120 days Tue 10/14/14 Mon 03/30/15

84 Site Lease/ ROW Acquisition 520 days Tue 10/14/14 Mon 10/10/16

85 Negotiate Project Implementation/ Lease Agreement with MCBCP 104 wks Tue 10/14/14 Mon 10/10/16

86 Conveyance ROW Acquisition 96 wks Tue 12/09/14 Mon 10/10/16

87 Design/ Construction 1040 days Fri 01/01/16 Thu 12/26/1988 Procure DBO Contractor 52 wks Fri 01/01/16 Thu 12/29/16

89 Preliminary and Final Design 65 wks Fri 12/30/16 Thu 03/29/18

90 Construction 134 wks Fri 06/02/17 Thu 12/26/19

91 Final Permits/ Commissioning/ Startup 1488 days Tue 04/15/14 Thu 12/26/19

92 Local Utility Companies Agreements 4 mons Tue 04/15/14 Mon 08/04/14

93 Local Sanitary Sewer Connection/Industrial Waste Discharge 3 mons Tue 04/15/14 Mon 07/07/14

94 RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements 1 day Tue 04/15/14 Tue 04/15/14

95 State Department of Health - Domestic Water Supply Permit 26 wks Fri 06/28/19 Thu 12/26/19

96 SDAPCD Permit to Operate 26 wks Fri 06/28/19 Thu 12/26/19

97 Commissioning and Startup 39 wks Fri 03/29/19 Thu 12/26/19

10/13

Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 12010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Task Split Progress Milestone Summary Project Summary External Tasks External Milestone Deadline

San Diego County Water Authority's Seawater Desalination Facility at Camp Pendleton

Preliminary Project Implementation Schedule FIGURE 11-1


Page 11-11

11.3 PILOT / DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

During the EIR/EIS process, the Water Authority may want to begin the process of designing and permitting a pilot / demonstration project. The purpose of a pilot / demonstration project includes:

Operation and testing of different pretreatment schemes;

Determine chemical usage (pretreatment, CIP, etc.) requirements;

Determine residuals / solids handling requirements;

Assists in designing the treatment process; and

Required for Dept. of Public Health (DPH) drinking water permit.

The construction of the pilot / demonstration project could occur after the completion of the EIR/EIS. Once operating, the pilot would run for a minimum of twelve months to obtain a DPH drinking water permit. Currently, the size (flowrate), location (MCTSSA or SRTTP), and type of intake to utilize (screened open-ocean or subsurface), has not yet been determined. If the hydrogeologic investigations determine that a subsurface intake is feasible, the proposed intake would most likely consist of onshore slant wells that would simulate a subsurface intake option (SIG, DIG, wells); otherwise, a screened open-ocean intake would be constructed. A subsequent demonstration project could also be constructed, although it is not required. A demonstration project is similar to a pilot project, but typically has a larger capacity. A demonstration project takes a pilot project to the next level in that it produces product water that could be used for a beneficial use. The alternatives to utilize the product water would be investigated. The alternatives would include, but not be limited to, providing irrigation supply for neighboring farms and connecting to reclaimed water system connections. The base would be contacted to investigate these alternatives and discuss additional alternatives. The product water could not be used for drinking water purposes since it would not yet be permitted by DPH. The beneficial use demand would be a significant factor for developing the demonstration project capacity. However, if a beneficial user can not be identified or the demand is too small, the project size would be finalized independently. If a beneficial use does not exist, the water would be disposed of by means of injection wells, sewer discharge, or other means still to be determined. The location of the pilot / demonstration project would be close to the shoreline to limit the length of pipeline required. Two potential sites (but not limited to) exist to locate the proposed pilot / demonstration project. One site is the agricultural tomato fields where the MCTSSA Site is proposed. This site is close to the ocean and has the option to


Page 11-12

utilize the product water for agricultural purposes. No pipelines would have to cross I-5 since the product water would not leave the general vicinity of the tomato fields. The second location is the proposed site of the SRTTP feedwater pump station (FWPS), as illustrated in Figure 3-3. This site is also in close proximity to the ocean and could be connected to the Bases reclaimed water system for irrigation purposes. During the design phase, a preliminary capital cost estimate to implement a demonstration project would be prepared. The project costs would include all the equipment costs, construction costs, and implementation costs, including design, permitting, and project management. An implementation schedule would also be generated. Testing during the pilot / demonstration project includes pretreatment, reverse-osmosis (RO), clean-in-place (CIP), and post-treatment (demonstration scale only) trials. The equipment performance, feedwater quality, and product water quality is monitored, and based on the results of the pilot plant testing, the Water Authority can determine what process is most efficient and economical.

11.4 CONTRACT DELIVERY MODELS

Several contracting delivery models (project delivery methods) are available for the Water Authority to pursue to construct the desalination facility and associated components (i.e. dual-use tunnel, intake, outfall diffuser system, DWCP, etc.). One contract delivery model that has been used to construct several desalination projects worldwide is Alliance Contracting. Alliance Contracting has been extensively used in Australia for large civil works projects (i.e. desalination projects) and vertical construction. Alliance Contracting has also seen continued use in the United Kingdom and is beginning to be adopted in the United States. Since Alliance Contracting is quite new to the United States, Sinclair Knight Merz Consulting (SKM), based in Sydney, Australia, in collaboration with Malcolm Pirnie has prepared a memorandum to enhance the understanding of Alliance Contracting and to consider its suitability for the Camp Pendleton Desalination Project. This section will provide a broad overview of the features of Alliance Contracting and compare these to more conventional delivery models such as:

Design – Bid – Build (DBB)

Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Management (EPCM)

Design – Build (DB)

Design – Build – Operate (DBO) and maintain (DBOM)

Build – Own – Operate – Transfer (BOOT)

Build – Own – Operate (BOO)


Page 11-13

The list above has been arranged in approximately increasing order of private sector involvement. As the various methods (listed above) allocate risk differently between the Owner (Water Authority) and the private sector, it is important that the Owner understand the implications of all methods and associated risks. SKM Consulting’s complete memorandum entitled San Diego County Water Authority Alliance Contracting Model Memorandum (Dated: April 14, 2009), is available in its entirety in Appendix G.

11.4.1 Alliance Contracting The origins of Alliance Contracting can be traced back to the difficulties that were encountered towards the end of the 1980’s and early 90’s in the delivery of offshore Oil and Gas platforms in the North Sea. The development of the Andrews Oil platform by BP is seen by many as the beginning of Alliance Contracting. In this project the owner and seven other contractors worked together to collectively share the risk of developing the project in a pre agreed manner. In doing so they were able to develop a very difficult project which would not have been possible if a traditional procurement path had been followed. This project was followed by a number of other Alliance contracts in Australia, including Wandoo B and the East Spar Oil and Gas Alliance during the 1990’s which demonstrated the benefits of a collaborative working arrangement in delivering to a broad range of client objectives at minimum cost. A project alliance is a commercial/legal framework between a department, agency or Government-Backed Enterprise (GBE) as “owner”-participant and one or more private sector parties as ‘service provider’ or ‘non-owner participants’ (NOPs) for delivering one or more capital works projects, characterized by2:

Collective sharing of (nearly) all project risk, performance, and outcome;

No fault, no blame, and no dispute between the alliance participants (except in very limited cases of default);

Payment of NOPs services under a “three-limb” compensation model comprising:

Limb 1 – Direct cost: Expenditure on the work under the alliance (including mistakes, rework, and wasted effort) and project-specific overheads related to the work under the alliance are reimbursed at actual cost, subject to audit.

Limb 2 – Fee: A fee to cover ‘normal’ profit and a contribution towards recovery of non-project specific (i.e. corporate) overheads.

2 The Department of Treasury and Finance, State of Victoria (Australia). Project Alliancing Practitioners’ Guide. April 2006.


Page 11-14

Limb 3 – Pain/Gain: An equitable pre-agreed share of the ‘pain’ or ‘gain’, depending on how actual outcomes compare with pre-agreed targets (in both cost and non-cost performance areas).

Unanimous principle-based decision-making on all key project issues; and

An integrated project team selected on the basis of best person for each position.

In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for an agency or GBE to participate in a project alliance as an NOP, distinct from the government owner-participant. Working inside an Alliance Contract revolves around each participant adhering to a clear set of Alliance Principles. These form the foundation upon which all decisions are made and define the standards of behavior expected from all participants to the alliance. For these principles to be meaningful they must be developed from within the team members. In general, the following principles can be found inside most alliances.

All participants win, or all participants lose, depending on the outcome achieved.

The participants have a peer relationship where each has an equal say in decisions for the project.

Risks and responsibilities are shared and managed collectively rather than allocated to individual participants.

Risks and rewards are shared equitably among the participants.

All participants provide best-in-class- resources.

The participants are committed to developing a culture that promotes and drives innovation and outstanding performance.

There is a clear definition of responsibilities in a no blame culture.

All transactions are to be fully open-book.

Communication between all participants is open, straight, and honest.

Important decisions should be made on a “best for project” basis according to the principles above and not on the basis of organizational positions. Other forms of project delivery methods or contracts (i.e. DBB, DBO, etc.) can cause parties to adopt defensive behavior, which can lead to adversarial relationships which lead to misdirected effort. It is common for the owner to engage a consultant to assist them in establishing an alliance. This consultant would have experience in establishing Alliances on behalf of owner clients and is typically heavily involved in development of commercial arrangements and the process of short-listing and selecting alliance participants.


Page 11-15

In a conventional project delivery method risks are transferred from the owner to the NOPs and there are clear obligations. This has historically led to an adversarial relationship between owners and their contractors. If the risks are well understood and can be quantified and managed, these processes can be successful. In projects where this is not possible then the allocation of risk can be the source of litigation. In Alliance contracting, all risks are shared in an equitable manner between the owner and NOPs. They are allocated in pre-agreed proportions which are defined in the commercial agreement. This applies to both pain and gain structures. In doing so it focuses all alliance participants on finding solutions which are optimum for all parties. Typically, four phases exist over the life cycle of an Alliance as listed below:

Phase 1 – Establish Alliance: Typically an expression of interest would be called which would draw out the various consortia who wish to tender for the opportunity. Commonly their responses would be assessed and a shortlist of four would be asked to attend a half day interview. The interview process is used to assess which groups are most likely to have the potential to form a high performance team. From this interview process a reduced shortlist of two are invited to attend a workshop where they are assessed in more detail for their capacity to provide the best solution. The top ranked consortia from this process is then asked to attend a commercial workshop where details on profit and overhead are negotiated along with how the commercial model would work with key result areas

Phase 2 – Project Development: In this phase the owner and the NOPs work to define the project and agree on a Target Outturn Cost (TOC). If this process provides a viable project the alliance moves into the implementation phase. This finishes when practical completion is reached.

Phase 3 – Implementation: In this phase the Alliance Team delivers the agreed outcome (construction, etc.).

Phase 4 – Defects Correction Period: This period would vary depending on the project but is typically one year after practical completion. At the end of this period the NOPs role in the project is complete.

For alliances that have a period of operation associated with them it is common for the constructor and designer to step out of the Alliance at the time of practical completion. The Alliance then continues with the Operator and Owner for the remaining term of the alliance.

Advantages Can deliver a project quickly

Where projects have objectives other than cost this method can directly incorporate these considerations into the reimbursement of the Alliance


Page 11-16

members. For example, in the Northside Storage Tunnel the project had time, environment, safety, and community objectives in addition to cost. This allows the focus of the team to be more balanced than in the DBB method

Allows risks to be managed in an equitable manner.

All costs are open book and therefore transparent to the Owner and NOPs, thus building trust.

Encourages all participants to focus on solving problems in collaborative manner.

Changes to scope are priced in a transparent manner with no opportunity for windfall profits to be made by NOPs.

Can include an operating period if required.

Disadvantages Requires a high level of expertise of team members from all Alliance parties.

Value for money can be difficult to prove objectively.

Limited precedent for Alliancing in the United States.

The owner carries the majority of the risk once the Limb 2 of the NOPs is extinguished.

Case Studies Since their development by the North Sea oil industry, Project Alliances have been extensively used in Australia for large civil works (i.e. desalination projects) and vertical construction. Below is a list of three desalination projects in Australia that utilized Alliance contracting as its project delivery method.

Gold Coast Desalination Plant: The Alliance was comprised of the client/owner (Queensland State Government), constructor (John Holland) and operator (Veolia Water). Sub-alliance partners were SKM, as the principal designer, and Cardno, who undertook network modeling and design of the network integration works. The project included design, build, and operation for ten years with an option to extend for a further ten years, with eventual handover to the client/owner. The Gold Coast Desalination Project has similar project components (tunnel, outfall, desalination facility, conveyance, etc.) as the proposed Camp Pendleton SWRO Desalination Project. Refer to the project website for additional information: http://www.desalinfo.com.au/Home.asp

Western Australia Desalination Plant: Water Corporation of Western Australia is in the process of procuring its second, large SWRO desalination plant in the last five years. Both plants have been procured through a competitive alliance delivery method. The new plant is currently in the design phase.

Sydney Desalination Plant: Utilized an alliance contract between five NOP’s and the Sydney Water Company (client) to construct approximately eleven miles of desalinated water conveyance pipeline vital to the project. The Sydney desalination facility itself was constructed utilizing a DBOM contract.

http://www.desalinfo.com.au/Home.asp


Page 11-17

Refer to the memorandum in Appendix G for a complete description of these three case studies and what worked (and not worked) best within the Alliance contracting method. Also refer to the complete memo to discuss the implementation process and steps required to conduct an Alliance contract.

11.4.2 Design – Bid – Build Design-bid-build (DBB) is unquestionably the most prevalent delivery model for a construction project in the United States construction industry. DBB involves the Owners appointing a project manager to sequentially manage performance requirements/demand, investigation, and planning approvals followed by separate stages for design and construction. Construction is by hard dollar competitive tendering. The Owner takes over and operates works after acceptance tests. The Owner can be involved in and provide its input at each stage. The Owner requirements can be incorporated in regard to design issues and operational requirements. DBB relies on skill of the concept designer together with value management to obtain the best value solution rather than the market place pressure provided by other methods. In this method the risk of negligent design is with the design consultant. Construction risk is with Contractor if tender documentation is adequate. The Project Manager is allocated the risk associated with poor contract administration. The Owner assumes risks associated with operation, financial, demand and the planning process. Projects best suited for DBB contracts involve little scope for post tender innovation due to the nature and location of the project. DBB should include schedule of rates items where there are large costs associated with uncertainty in foundation or excavation conditions. DBB is also suited for projects involving augmentation of existing works where most of the project parameters have been set and there is a need to conform to the overall design of the facility.

Advantages The Owner chooses the design consultant and has close control of concept and

detailed design development and can ensure the features the Owner wants are incorporated.

The Owners can obtain competitive prices for construction of its chosen design.

Within reason the Owner can adjust the design, extent of work and cope with varied ground conditions by paying for actual conditions and quantities through a schedule of rates contract.


Page 11-18

Disadvantages Process can be lengthy as tasks are sequential

When construction or operational problems occur, disputes on responsibility (Owner, project manager, designer, and contractor) can be difficult to resolve.

Limited opportunity for innovation and hence cost savings once the concept design has been adopted.

Interface/lack of integration between designer, constructor and operator

Litigation is a risk as the form of contract is adversarial in nature.

11.4.3 Engineering Procurement Construction Management Engineering Procurement Construction Management (EPCM) is characterized by the Owner contracting a single organization to provide Engineering, Procurement, and Construction management on its behalf. The main objective is to have a single entity that is capable of managing design, multiple subcontracts, Owner furnished equipment and the commissioning process. The EPCM contract is essentially a professional services contract. The EPCM contractor receives a fee for undertaking the management of the delivery process. Individual contracts are let which allocate risk to the Contractor. Importantly these contracts are between the owner and the contractor as the EPCM contractor has only a management role. EPCM contracts are very popular for mining projects where the owner has clear requirements for production and quality of equipment. It is gaining popularity in the petrochemical, power, and desalination sector.

Advantages Suitable for large projects where the client does not have a team large enough to

manage the project.

Allows extensive owner interaction at key stages through the project.

Allows owner to nominate equipment which may be part of an overall asset management strategy.

Good for fast track projects.

Owner can modify project specifications with some flexibility as there are multiple contracts and not a single over arching Contract.

Allows smaller equipment providers and contractors to participate.


Page 11-19

Disadvantages Cost risks are largely borne by the owner.

Legal costs can be higher as there are multiple contracts to negotiate.

Substantial owners involvement is needed to ensure specific requirements are understood by EPCM contractor.

Schedule risk with the owner.

High level of interface risk.

11.4.4 Design – Build Design-build (DB) is characterized by a single point of responsibility for both design and construction activities. The owner often chooses DB to transfer risk and coordination effort to one contractual entity and to assure a higher level of coordination. By combining design and construction under a single entity, coordination, constructability, and cost-of-change is presumed to be improved. Most of the risk is borne by the design-builder, often in exchange for retaining some or all of any savings identified. The design of the project is based on meeting explicit performance requirements for the operating asset. The design-builder may subcontract some of the tasks required, for example a contractor often uses a separate consulting company to undertake some technical design tasks. The asset when completed is transferred to the client for subsequent operation. The client’s role in DB has typically required heavy involvement early in defining the project criteria, followed by less management later on as the design-builder executes the project in conformance with the established criteria. The burden is on the client to be clear on the acceptable level of quality expectations through descriptive, quantitative, or performance requirements in the owner’s design criteria. This is not a simple task and warrants careful attention. There are numerous examples of DB contracts in the water supply and wastewater sectors. DB can in some cases deliver the asset in a shorter total time than DBB. Costs can be reduced for some asset types because the design is driven by the contractor with a focus on winning a competitive tender. All of the bidders have to complete a proportion of the design to finalize their financial bids, hence there is a duplication of design to finalize their financial bids, and hence there is a duplication of design effort but an opportunity to assess different design approaches. The degree of specification for the contract would reflect the potential for innovation and cost savings. Over specification for example, as occurs in the Design Develop and Construct (DDC) method, which involves development of the client’s concept design would provide less potential for innovation than a DB project which involves a performance only specification.


Page 11-20

DB contracts are well suited to projects with simple investigation and planning approval needs where the time frame to completion is required to be shortened. They are also suited for complex projects (e.g. treatment works or major pumping stations) where a number of options would satisfactorily meet performance. DB is more suited to assets where most of the total life cycle cost is in the initial capital cost. If it is to be used for assets with high operating costs then these costs need to be provided in the tender and a proving period incorporated in the contract to demonstrate their appropriateness.

Advantages Contractor has a clear responsibility to deliver a facility which meets performance

requirements and thus is responsible for adequacy of both design and construction. This minimizes problems in responsibility for and resolution of faults.

There is standard documentation for DB contracts and these are now well understood in the market place.

The method is often adopted to shorten the delivery time.

If site conditions are predictable and scope is well defined, control of the design by the contractor should lead to a low capital cost facility.

In some cases, design and construct contractors have process knowledge, patented equipment not available to design consultants.

Disadvantages A thorough knowledge of the performance requirements is needed prior to calling

tenders.

It is not suitable when the Owners objectives may change during project execution.

Although tenders should be evaluated on the basis of life cycle costs, tenders may concentrate on reducing the capital cost as they are not responsible for long-term operation; this could lead to high operational costs. However, recent tenders have a proving period of up to 3 years to overcome this concern.

A high level of expertise is required to define performance requirements and incorporate these into contractual documents.



Page 11-21

11.4.5 Design – Build – Operate Similar to DB, design-build-operate (DBO) is characterized by a single point of responsibility for design, construction, and operation of a facility. The owner often chooses DBO to transfer risk and coordination effort to one contractual entity and to assure a higher level of coordination. Most of the risk is borne by the DBO contractor, often in exchange for retaining some or all of any savings identified. The owner’s role in DBO has typically required heavy involvement early in defining the project criteria, followed by less management later on as the design-builder executes the project in conformance with the established criteria. A DBO contract could potentially be expanded to incorporate maintenance and therefore be a design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) contract, where the DBO contractor takes on the responsibility of maintaining the facility on top of operations. Currently, the Water Authority maintains its water treatment facilities, but this is always an option. The DBO method suits projects with capital values exceeding $5 million involving a water or wastewater treatment facility. The DBO method is suited to projects where operational costs are a significant proportion of total life cycle costs. DBO is also suited to Owners who do not wish to transfer ownership of facilities to the private sector but wish to introduce a competitive model into their existing system. As a minimum it would provide useful benchmarking data for Owners of other facilities. The method is suited to Owners where operation of facilities is not seen as core business.

Advantages Contractor is responsible for design, construction, and operation which should

help achieve a minimum cost solution provided reasonable design freedom is possible and foundation cost, and process uncertainties are not overly significant.

The Owner retains ownership of the facility and thus has some control to cope with unexpected changes in performance requirement.

In some cases, DBO contractors have process knowledge, patented equipment not available to design consultants.

Disadvantages This method requires intensive effort from the Owner to define project

requirements and risks prior to initiating the tendering process. Significant tendering costs are involved.

Extensive administration over the life of the project is also required.

Changes cannot be made after awarding the contract without significant technical, administrative, and commercial effort.



Page 11-22

11.4.6 Build – Own – Operate – Transfer With this method, a consortium is chosen to build-own-operate- and eventually transfer (BOOT) the asset back to the Client after an agreed period. The consortium is generally reimbursed on an availability and volume basis so that it recovers its costs and gains a return on the investment. A high level of Client involvement is required at an early stage to define all project requirements. Close monitoring of performance is required over the life of the project to administer payment to the consortium. The risks associated with design, construction, operation, financial, and commerce are allocated primarily to the private sector. The degree of allocation is dependent on individual contract arrangements. Since the legal arrangements must cover all aspects of the project including design, construction, operation, financing, and transfer of asset, they are clearly substantial documents. The BOOT method suits Greenfield projects over $20 million and also where O&M costs are a significant proportion of the total life cycle cost. It also suits projects with some complexity and scope for innovation. Also suited for projects which are easily separable from the rest of the Owners business and where Owners operation of project facility is not seen as core business. The method is suited where Owners are looking to achieve minimum cost solutions and to lock these in over a long time frame.

Advantages The method obtains competition for design, construction, operation, and finance

of the project. It should therefore achieve a minimum cost solution provided reasonable design freedom is possible and uncertainties such as foundation costs are not overly significant.

The vast majority of project risk is allocated to the private sector.

The interface between maintenance and replacement costs is eliminated during the currency of the project.

Disadvantages This method requires intensive effort from the Owner to define project

requirements and risks prior to initiating the tendering process. Significant tendering costs are involved.

The Client has less control than under DBO to deal with unexpected changes in performance requirements since the site and the asset are under the control of the consortium

Not flexible, e.g. changing regulatory requirements or changing demand

In view of the extensive existing assets, the method is not suited to rectifying existing water supply distribution systems or sewage collection systems (World Bank, 1997).


Page 11-23

11.4.7 Build – Own – Operate With this method a company is selected to DBO and own the facility (BOO), therefore the assets are owned by the private sector. The successful contractor finances construction and operation in return for revenue which is normally paid by way of two parts, an availability charge, and a volume charge. A proving period is normally incorporated into the contract to ensure the project is operating to specification. Once compliance with the physical performance criteria has been achieved the revenue begins to be transferred to the private sector. All major project risks are transferred to the private sector. A high level of involvement of the Client would be required prior to involving the private sector to establish performance criteria and guarantee requirements for design, construction, operation, and finance. There is no standard documentation for BOO type projects, therefore the legal fees associated with this style of project would be high. As assets may be transferred in the process it adds another difficulty not present in earlier methods. BOO suited projects:

Greenfield projects over $20 million.

Projects where O&M costs are a significant proportion of total life cycle cost.

Projects which have a limited life, where there would be no value in acquiring the assets at the end of the period, or where the owner’s strategies may make the asset redundant at a particular time in the future.

Where Owners wish to have max amount of risk transferred to the private sector.

Where Owners operation of project facility is not seen as core business.

Where Owners are looking to achieve minimum cost solutions and to lock these in over a long time frame.

Advantages The method obtains competition for design, construction, operation, and finance

of the project. It should therefore achieve a minimum cost solution provided reasonable design freedom is possible and uncertainties such as foundation costs are not overly significant.

The vast majority of project risk is allocated to the private sector.

The interface between maintenance and replacement costs is eliminated during the currency of the project.

Disadvantages BOOT, requires intensive effort from the Client to define project requirements

and risks, and involves very significant tendering costs and complex negotiations. Similarly with BOO, Client has little control to deal with unexpected changes in performance requirements.

Not flexible due to transfer of ownership.

Requires a strong regulatory structure.


Page 11-24

11.4.8 Recommended Delivery Method The selection of the delivery method which best meets the requirements of an owner can only be made in the context of the overall strategic plan for the organization. There are a number of factors which should be taken into consideration when choosing a contract model, which include:

Capital Value & Complexity of Project: As the scale and complexity of the project increases, more delivery methods become feasible. For smaller projects which are simple in nature the DBB method has a proven track record and minimizes the cost of tendering to the industry. As the project value increases, larger contractors become more interested in tendering and they offer innovations in the design, construction, and operation of facilities. They are also prepared to invest more in developing their ideas if the ultimate reward is large.

Government Policy: Some government policies may preclude certain methods of delivery. This is particularly true of private ownership of assets. In this case the DBB, DB, DBO, EPCM, and Alliance methods would still be feasible options. In some jurisdictions owners may not be able to share risks which they are not directly responsible for. In this case the Alliance method in its pure form would not be permissible. There have been modifications to alliance agreement to allow for specific allocation of some risks.

Finance: Where the owner has a high level of debt and wishes to avoid additional debt. BOOT and BOO are feasible options.

Regulatory Approvals: Where detailed designs are needed to obtain regulatory approval. This favors DBB and EPCM delivery methods.

Timing: For projects where very tight delivery times are required. This favors Alliance, DB, and EPCM delivery methods.

Design: Where the best skills to undertake the design are with contractor/ operators then DB, DBO, BOOT, BOO and Alliance models are preferred.

Type of Site: Where there are existing assets and operators which need to be taken into account (Brownfield), then DBB, EPCM, and Alliance methods allow a high level of client/owner interaction. For Greenfield projects which have a high degree of complexity and the potential for innovation is high, then DB, DBO, BOOT, BOO, and Alliance delivery methods are favored.

Operation: Where the Owner has a high level of skill in operations and this is seen as core business, then DBB, EPCM, DB, and Alliance models are favored. Where operations is a non core skill, or current operators are at lower than industry bench mark levels than DBO, BOOT, and BOO are favored. Alliances can be used in this situation providing there exists participants with world class operating skills.


Page 11-25

Project Risk: Where project risks are well understood then DBB or EPCM methods are preferred. Where there is a high likelihood of performance requirements changing, then DBB, EPCM, and Alliance models are preferred.

If demand/load projections are likely to change dramatically then it is best to avoid methods with long term operational terms. In this case DBB, DB, EPCM, and Alliance methods are preferred.

If risks are poorly understood (i.e. geotechnical, wave climate, ocean currents, etc.) or scope is poorly defined then the Alliance method provides a clear process for managing this situation.

Desalinated Water Conveyance System The Water Authority has previously constructed several large diameter conveyance pipelines (i.e. aqueduct pipelines) and pump stations (i.e. San Vicente). For these types of projects, the Water Authority has relied on a design-bid-build (DBB) or a design-build (DB) project delivery method. Therefore it is assumed that the construction of the Desalinated Water Conveyance Pipeline (DWCP) and the proposed Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station (TOVPS) would be constructed with a DBB or DB contract model. The proposed Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS) would be constructed as part of the desalination facility which is discussed in the following section.

Desalination Facility The Water Authority currently has the time needed to define this project and therefore allows a wide range of delivery methods to be considered. This could change however if drought conditions significantly worsen or an earthquake causes damage to the aqueduct pipelines. The Camp Pendleton Desalination Project can be well defined for the desalination facility components with more risk associated with the DIG collector well intake system and tunnel arrangements. A screened open-ocean intake does not involve as mush risk as a subsurface intake system, since several marine contractors have experience with installing screen intake systems. Given the long term operating nature of the project, a Design Build Operate (DBO) delivery method seems to best fit the majority of owner objectives and should be considered further. The Water Authority has recent experience with the DBO project delivery method. In April 2008, CH2MHILL began the successful operation of the Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant (TOVWTP), which is currently the world’s largest submerged membrane treatment plant. The Water Authority owns the plant, yet it was designed, constructed, and is currently operated by CH2MHILL. Consideration should also be given to the use of an Alliance Contract for the DIG collector well intake system, as the scale of this type of intake is much larger than any existing system Therefore no experience can be used to objectively quantify the risks


Page 11-26

prior to preparation of the tender documents. The marine construction associated with a screened open-ocean intake, outfall diffuser system, and associated seabed pipelines, don’t involve as much risk, since several marine contractors have experience with constructing and installing these types of components. The existence of two contracts would however bring its own risks as the desalination facility would depend on the timely completion and reliable performance of the DIG collector well intake system (or any other intake option for that matter) for its performance. If this did not occur then there would exist the risk of litigation by the desalination plant contractor. On balance, the risks associated with multiple contracts should be weighed against the alternative of including the intake, outfall diffuser system, and desalination facility in one contract, if feasible. Selecting a project delivery method with respect to the Camp Pendleton Desalination Project (excluding the DWCP), involves considering a number of risks. Some of these risks can be well defined if time is available and others are more difficult to quantify. These risks include (but are not limited to):

Unexpected Site conditions: Early investigations should be comprehensive.

Military Base Location: This would require a close relationship to be developed with the Base in order that construction is not impacted adversely. This relationship is facilitated by the MOU.

Complex / Changing Regulatory Conditions: Managed by the Owner.

CDPH Approvals: Managed using traditional Water Authority approaches.

Litigation: This is always a possibility with DBB and DB methods but is not possible with Alliance Contracting. This risk can be reduced if there is enough time to identify and quantify risks prior to issuing tender documents if traditional methods are used.

Marine Construction: The coastline is a relatively high energy environment and therefore there is the potential for damage or disruption to construction if weather turns adverse. There are experienced Contractors however who are familiar with these conditions and it should be possible to manage these risks.

Tunnel Construction: The construction of tunnels always carries risks which are very difficult to quantify precisely before construction commences. This aspect lends itself to Alliance Contracting.

DIG Wells / Slant Wells: The scale of the proposed DIG and Slant Well Intake System is much larger than any existing system currently in operation. This brings with it a range of risks both from construction and long-term operation perspectives. The Alliance Contracting method is well suited to managing these uncertain forms of risks

Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Feasibility Study Final Report

Documents

Transcript of Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Feasibility Study Final Report