1/14/ Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Transcription

1 1/14/2011 Implementing Coastal and Inland Desalination Facilities and Assessing Seawater Intake Systems Bob Raucher, Stratus Consulting Inc. Tom Seacord, Carollo Engineers Jennifer Warner, Research Manager 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Water Research Foundation Advancing the science of water to improve the quality of life 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 1

2 1/14/2011 Foundation s Contribution to the Water Community Practical applications to help utilities optimize operations and ensure customer satisfaction Early alert and proactive solutions on future issues Direct, immediate benefits to utility subscribers 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. National Agenda Promotes Collaboration Desalination and Water Purification Technology Roadmap pdf National Academies Review of the Roadmap Collaboration takes off WaterRF, USBR, Sandia, Water Reuse Research Foundation, WERF, California Division of Water Resources, others! 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2

3 1/14/2011 WaterRF Desalination Projects Published o o o Zero Liquid Discharge for Inland Desalination (Order 91190) Critical Assessment of Implementing Desalination Technologies (Order 91253) Evaluation of VSEP to Enhance Water Recovery During Treatment of Brackish Water and RO Concentrate (Order 4148) o Membrane Fouling by Marine Algae in Seawater Desalination (Order 4201) Nearly Complete o o Post-Treatment Stabilization of Desalinated Water (#4079) Desalination Facility Design and Operation for Maximum Energy Efficiency (#4038) 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Contact for More Information Jennifer Warner jwarner@waterrf.org 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 3

4 Guidelines for Planning and Implementing Seawater and Brackish Water Desalination Facilities Water Research Foundation Project 4078 Bob Raucher, PI Stratus Consulting Inc. Boulder, Colorado Water Research Foundation Webcast January 11, 2011 STRATUS CONSULTING Guidelines for Implementation of Seawater and Brackish Water Desal Facilities: Overview Sponsored and managed by the Water Research Foundation Supported by CA DWR and US DOE Sandia Lab Report recently published (December 2010) Aimed at informing and assisting utilities (and others) through the desal planning and implementation process Responds to fact that many utilities find it very challenging to move forward with desal projects Follow up to Foundation Project 4006: A Critical Assessment of Implementing Desalination Technologies Pei Xu, PI, Colorado School of Mines STRATUS CONSULTING 1

5 Research Team Technical aspects (e.g., engineering) Pei Xu, Jorg Drewes, Tzahi Cath (Co-PIs, CO School of Mines) Robert Reiss (Reiss Environmental); Tom Pankratz; Joe Cotruvo; Mike Mickley Institutional aspects (e.g., permits, public acceptance) Bob Raucher, Janet Clements, and others at Stratus Consulting Jeff Oxenford, Linda Macpherson, Brent Haddad, John Ruetten, Steve Kasower STRATUS CONSULTING Participating Utilities Cal-American Phoenix El Paso Poseidon Inland Empire San Francisco Iride Acqua Gas Singapore PUB (Italy) Southern Nevada Irvine Ranch Tampa Bay Water Jupiter Veolia Long Beach Water Corp. (Perth, Newport News AU) Orlando STRATUS CONSULTING 2

6 Thinking about desal within a Systems perspective Water Utility System Supply reliability Costs and rates Blending and distribution Compliance (e.g., DBPs, MCLs) Community, Socioeconomic, and Political Systems Costs and rate implications Growth and land use debates Private sector roles Environmental justice Desalting System Feedwater intake/well Pretreatment Desalting process (membrane or other) Post treatment, blending, and distribution Concentrate management Energy Systems Power source (grid or green) Energy efficiency Power demands and costs Peak and off-peak loads GHG and other emissions Power reliability Environmental and Regulatory Systems Permitting Coastal impingement and entrainment Coastal discharges Concentrate management Climate change impacts STRATUS CONSULTING Overview of Our Approach Examining a broad suite of institutional as well as technical issues While there is always value in technical enhancements (cost, performance, energy use) The predominant obstacles to desal typically are institutional (e.g., regulatory permitting) Therefore, our focus was on institutional aspects Technology foci defined by institutional drivers STRATUS CONSULTING 3

7 Utility Survey and Workshop Results: Priority Desal Issues & Utility Needs Coastal and inland respondents both ranked concentrate management as the biggest technical/ process challenge For coastal facilities, feedwater intake is the second biggest challenge Environmental regulation and permitting was ranked as the top institutional challenge STRATUS CONSULTING Tools to facilitate desal planning and implementation 4Utilities placed a high value on a decision-support system framework (the PIM ) 4Web site tool that links to useful resources and colleagues; and 4Synthesis that pulls together information and practical resources 4 All utilities also placed a high value on developing: 4Procedures for pilot testing and design 4Strategies for working with stakeholders STRATUS CONSULTING 4

8 An Introduction to the Desalination Planning Issues Matrix (PIM) Prepared for: Water Research Foundation webcast Prepared by: Janet Clements and Bob Raucher Stratus Consulting Boulder, CO January 11, 2011 STRATUS CONSULTING PIM Background Excel-based, interactive guide Hyperlinks enable easy navigation Provided on a CD, with final report Placed on Water Research Fdn website Intended for utility managers and other water professionals interested in desal Separate materials for inland and coastal applications Covers broad range of issues STRATUS CONSULTING 5

9 The Overview page gives the user the opportunity to evaluate either a coastal or inland facility, provides a brief summary of each desal process component, and provides links to relevant matrices. PIM Organization For each desal process component, the PIM is organized according to four topic areas: Environmental and public health risks and regulations (e.g., permitting issues) Technical and engineering issues Energy use and GHG issues Economic and social issues STRATUS CONSULTING 6

10 Topic Area Desal process component Element of desal process component Key point PIM Organization (cont.) For each key point, the PIM provides a Word file summary of Key issues Strategies for addressing the issues Uncertainties (e.g., scientific, regulatory) Costs and benefits (both market and non-market) Suggested reference materials STRATUS CONSULTING 7

11 PIM Navigation Test Drive STRATUS CONSULTING PIM Introductory Page 8

12 9

13 10

14 11

15 12

16 13

17 Planning and Implementation Portion of the PIM Seventh component of desal process is Desalination Planning and Analysis Broad array of desal planning and implementation issues are covered in the PIM, although not in matrix format STRATUS CONSULTING 14

18 Desal Strategic Planning Guide 1. Getting Started Do I need additional water? What options do I have? Is this a local or regional issue? 2. Implementation Planning What do I need to do to successfully implement desal? What opportunities or barriers need to be considered? Who else should be involved? 3. Pre-design What processes are appropriate for my site? How will they perform? What will be the challenges (technical, economic, social, environmental, administrative) and how do I solve them? 15

19 4. Design What criteria/processes need to be in place to get the plant funded, approved and ready for construction? What additional staff training/operational support is needed? 5. Facility Construction What processes need to be in place and managed during construction? What questions should be asked during start-up? 6. Implementation How do I effectively transition to desalination? How do I optimize people and processes to achieve optimum efficiency? Am I meeting all my goals and permit conditions? Did I make the right decision? Desal Facility Case Studies Intake Long Beach, CA Subsurface Intake and Discharge Dana Point, CA Slant Well Intake Study Perth, AU - Water quality challenges of co-location Energy savings and GHGs Ashkelon, Israel Carlsbad, CA Oxnard (Brackish Water) Alternative Energy Australian examples Concentrate Disposal Other Planning Issues El Paso, TX Deep well Tampa Bay, FL injection Carlsbad, CA Perth, AU Inland Empire, CA Inland Empire, CA SARI line Phoenix, AZ West Basin, CA Regional Approach Monterey, CA 16

20 Thank you! Bob Raucher (ext 216) Stratus Consulting Inc th St. Suite 201 Boulder, CO STRATUS CONSULTING Questions? For website access to PIM, go to: detail.aspx%3ftype%3d2%26pid%3d4078 %26OID%3d4078 STRATUS CONSULTING 17

21 Using a Decision-Tool to Navigate the Seawater Desalination Plant Intake Selection Process Tom Seacord, Erin Mackey David Mayer, Tenera Environmental Henry Hunt, Collector Wells Intl. Acknowledgements 1. Water Research Foundation 2. California Department of Water Resources 3. Participating Utilities & Regulators a. Cambria Community Services District b. City of Corpus Christi c. City of Santa Cruz d. Long Beach Water Department Long Beach e. Marin Municipal Water District f. Marina Coast Water District g. Tampa Bay Water Clearwater h. Texas Water Development Board 1

22 Efficient Selection of Ocean Intakes Is Hampered by Information Gaps and a Piecemeal Approach to Implementation 1. Problem: Duplication of effort, unforeseen pitfalls, uninformed decision-making. Efficient Selection of Ocean Intakes Is Hampered by Information Gaps and a Piecemeal Approach to Implementation 1. Problem: Duplication of effort, unforeseen pitfalls, uninformed decision-making. 2. The best solution : a negotiation between optimizing cost and operations with the needs of the local ecology and community interests. 2

23 Efficient Selection of Ocean Intakes Is Hampered by Information Gaps and a Piecemeal Approach to Implementation 1. Problem: Duplication of effort, unforeseen pitfalls, uninformed decision-making. 2. The best solution : a negotiation between optimizing cost and operations with the needs of the local ecology and community interests. The industry needs a user-friendly state-of-the-science report. Information Is Only as Valuable as Its Accessibility TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview 1 Controlling Parameters in the Intake Selection Process 4 Intake Technologies 6 Open Intakes Subsurface Intakes Beach wells 1. Solution 1: Co-Location of Seawater Intakes Consolidate the available data on intake selection, design, implementation and operation Deliverable #1: Distill available data into a State-of-the- Science Report Potential New Approaches to Well Drilling 23 Environmental Impacts of Intake Construction and Operation 26 Overview of Ocean Biota of Concern Impact of Intake Construction and Operation Influence of Source Water Characteristics on Intake Impacts Impact and Mitigation Measures for Open Intakes 29 Screen Types and Application Sites Active Screening Technologies Passive Screening Technologies Impact and Mitigation Measures for Subsurface Intakes 48 Entrainment and Impingement Loss of Benthic Habitat Impact and Mitigation Measures for Beach Wells 49 Permitting & Regulations 50 Overview of the Permitting Process Federal Permitting Requirements Select State Permitting Requirements Public and Stakeholder Involvement 59 Stakeholders Are Intrinsic to the Decision-Making Process The Relative Values of Trade-Offs Are Relative Tips for Successful Stakeholder Involvement 3

24 Information Is Only as Valuable as Its Accessibility 1. Solution 1: Consolidate the available data on intake selection, design, implementation and operation Deliverable #1: Distill available data into a State-of-the- Science Report Information Is Only as Valuable as Its Accessibility 1. Solution 1: Consolidate the available data on intake selection, design, implementation and operation Deliverable #1: Distill available data into a State-of-the- Science Report 4

25 Information Is Only as Valuable as Its Accessibility 1. Solution 1: Consolidate the available data on intake selection, design, implementation and operation Deliverable #1: Distill available data into a State-of-the- Science Report Information Is Only as Valuable as Its Accessibility 1. Solution 1: Consolidate the available data on intake selection, design, implementation and operation Deliverable #1: Distill available data into a State-of-the- Science Report 5

26 Information Is Only as Valuable as Its Accessibility Information Is Only as Valuable as Its Accessibility 1. Solution: Integrate Information with Execution Deliverable #2: An Easy-to-Navigate Decision Tree Links Data with Decision-making 6

27 Microsoft Access-Based Provides a User Friendly Interface to Navigate the Decision Making Process The Controlling Parameters Define the Decision Tool 1. Intake-Specific a. WQ b. Geology c. I&E d. 2. General Construction 3. Permitting 4. Site Access 5. Stakeholder Issues 7

28 What Do You Need to Know To Start Using the Tool? 1. How big? What Do You Need to Know? 1. How big? 2. What state? t 8

29 What Do You Need to Know? 1. How big? 2. What state? t 3. What location(s)? To Help Users Use The Tool, There Are 2 Built-in Examples: Carlsbad and Santa Cruz 9

30 The Overview Screen Allows the User to Define the Intake Evaluation Alternatives The Overview Screen Allows the User to Define the Intake Evaluation Alternatives 10

31 The Overview Screen Allows the User to Define the Intake Evaluation Alternatives The Overview Screen Allows the User to Define the Intake Evaluation Alternatives 11

32 The Overview Screen Allows the User to Define the Intake Evaluation Alternatives The Decision Process Solicits Information, But Does Not Require It 12

33 Example: For each Location, the Tool Solicits Information Specific to the Different Types of Intakes to Help Determine Feasibility Example: For each Location, the Tool Solicits Information Specific to the Different Types of Intakes to Help Determine Feasibility 13

34 Example: For each Location, the Tool Solicits Information Specific to the Different Types of Intakes to Help Determine Feasibility Example: For each Location, the Tool Solicits Information Specific to the Different Types of Intakes to Help Determine Feasibility 14

35 Example: For each Location, the Tool Solicits Information Specific to the Different Types of Intakes to Help Determine Feasibility To Help Users Answer the Screening Questions - The Decision Tool References (Links) the State-of-Science Report 15

36 To Help Users Answer the Screening Questions - The Decision Tool References (Links) the State-of-Science Report To Help Users Answer the Screening Questions - The Decision Tool References (Links) the State-of-Science Report 16

37 Example: For each Location, the Tool Solicits Information on the Different Types of Intakes to Help Determine Feasibility If an Intake Type Is Determined Not Feasible Based Upon Initial Screening, it is not Considered Further 17

38 If an Intake Type Is Determined Not Feasible Based Upon Initial Screening, it is not Considered Further If an Intake Type Is Determined Not Feasible Based Upon Initial Screening, it is not Considered Further 18

39 If an Intake Type Is Determined Not Feasible Based Upon Initial Screening, it is not Considered Further Again The Tool Solicits Information To Help Determine If the Intake Type is Feasible (Can a Permit Be Attained?) 19

40 Again The Tool Solicits Information To Help Determine If the Intake Type is Feasible (Can a Permit Be Attained?) Again The Tool Solicits Information To Help Determine If the Intake Type is Feasible (Can a Permit Be Attained?) 20

41 Again The Tool Solicits Information To Help Determine If the Intake Type is Feasible (Can a Permit Be Attained?) If the Intake Type Can Be Permitted, the Decision Tool Solicits Cost Information 21

42 If the Intake Type Can Be Permitted, the Decision Tool Solicits Cost Information If the Intake Type Can Be Permitted, the Decision Tool Solicits Cost Information 22

43 If the Intake Type Can Be Permitted, the Decision Tool Solicits Cost Information If the Intake Type Can Be Permitted, the Decision Tool Solicits Cost Information 23

44 Stakeholder Values Can Be Used to Evaluate the Feasibility of Each Intake Type Stakeholder Values Can Be Used to Evaluate the Feasibility of Each Intake Type 24

45 Feasible Options Can be Compared Based Upon A Variety of Criteria The Tool Asks Users to Define These Criteria and Assign Them Importance ( Weight ) Feasible Options Can be Compared Based Upon A Variety of Criteria The Tool Asks Users to Define These Criteria and Assign Them Importance ( Weight ) 25

46 Feasible Options are Scored from 1 to 5 Based Upon the Tool User s Impression of the Intake Type s Adherence to the Definitions Presented in the Grading Tab Feasible Options are Scored from 1 to 5 Based Upon the Tool User s Impression of the Intake Type s Adherence to the Definitions Presented in the Grading Tab 26

47 Documentation is Important In Any Decision Making Process The Tool Allows Users to Print Reports To Determine Where More Information Is Needed Or Where Alternatives Failed Feasibility Criteria. Documentation is Important In Any Decision Making Process The Tool Allows Users to Print Reports To Determine Where More Information Is Needed Or Where Alternatives Failed Feasibility Criteria. 27

48 This Approach Results in a Straightforward Decision Methodology for Ocean Intake Project Implementation 1. The State-of-the-Science the Science reflects both published data and lessons learned 2. The Microsoft Access-based Decision tool animates the decision process, easing navigation 3. Working through the Tool helps utilities a. Develop technically defensible options b. Create an action plan to efficiently gather and assess the data needed This Decision Tool Facilitates Assessing the Feasibility of Seawater Intake Options 1. Intake design & implementation is uncharted territory for many utilities considering SWRO. 2. Approval of the intake design is critical to desalination project success. 3. The viability of different intake options is heavily site-specific. 4. Non-technical issues often drive this process. 5. This Decision Tool helps the user efficiently and effectively navigate the decision-making process. 28

49 The comments and views detailed The comments and views detailed herein may not necessarily reflect the views of the Water Research Foundation, its officers, directors, affiliates or agents. 29