Subsurface Desalination Intake & Potable Reuse Feasibility Studies. TAP Workshop #2 City of Santa Barbara, California January 27, 2016

Transcription

1 Subsurface Desalination Intake & Potable Reuse Feasibility Studies TAP Workshop #2 City of Santa Barbara, California January 27, 2016

2 Agenda Feasibility Study Background & Objectives Update following TAP Workshop #1 Comments addressed Final Work Plan approval Subsurface Intake Study Summary of Regulations Summary of Alternatives Initial Screening Summary Potable Reuse Study Status update 2

3 Feasibility Study Background & Objectives 3

4 Study Scope & Work Plan Objective Scope of Study: direct staff [to evaluate the] feasibility, cost & timeline associated with both converting the offshore facility to a subsurface intake & look at the options about potable reuse (City Council 9/23/14) Scope includes: Identifying feasible alternatives Scope excludes: Determining best alternative Work Plan Objective: Establish the process & criteria used to evaluate feasibility 4

5 Work Plans define how the studies are to be conducted Work Plans have 7 sections that define study methods 1. Introduction 2. Basis of Design 3. Feasibility Criteria 4. Implementation Schedule Development 5. Cost Estimating Methodology 6. Feasibility Analysis 7. Technical Advisory Process 5

6 3 work authorizations allow incorporation of feedback from prior activities Work Authorization 1: Work Plan development Both subsurface intake & potable reuse (Completed) Work Authorization 2: Subsurface intake initial screening analysis & potable reuse feasibility study (In Progress) Work Authorization 3: Subsurface intake feasibility study (Pending) 6

7 Permit deadline drives the project schedule TAP Workshop #1 (Work Plans): 8/5/15 TAP Workshop #2 (SSI Initial Screening): 1/27/16 TAP Workshop #3 (Potable Reuse Initial Screening): 6/29/16 TAP Workshop #4 (Feasibility Analysis): 3/29/17 (pending) RWQCB Presentation: 5/18/17 7

8 Update Following TAP Workshop #1 8

9 Following August 5, 2015 TAP Workshop August 31, 2015 Responded to public comments Finalized & submitted Work Plans to RWQCB September 22, 2015 Awarded Work Authorization 2 contract to Carollo for: Subsurface Intake Basis of Design & Initial Screening Potable Reuse Feasibility Study October 20, 2015 Received approval of Work Plans from RWQCB 9

10 Regulatory Summary Subsurface Intake Study 10

11 TM02 presents regulatory & permitting requirements associated with SSI alternatives Major permitting agencies include: Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) California Coastal Commission (CCC) State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) City of Santa Barbara Etc. 11

12 There are many environmental, regulatory, & permitting requirements for developing SSI alternatives Testing & Data Collection Bore hole drilling Soil sample collection Environmental Review CEQA EIR Regulatory Requirements & Permitting 10 regulatory bodies 17 requirements/permits were identified 12

13 Basis of Design Subsurface Intake Study 13

14 Design, construction, & operational criteria must be evaluated when implementing an SSI project Design requirements Blend of seawater & groundwater Exposure to inundation & erosion Operation & maintenance requirements Periodic redevelopment Pump maintenance Construction requirements Construction area Duration 14

15 Project capacity Replace City s existing screened open ocean intake Provide seawater for buildout capacity of 10,000 AFY Design capacity: 15,898 gpm Includes: 45% RO recovery Volume of raw water needed for pretreatment backwashing 15

16 Site alternatives Onshore/Offshore considered Dependent on intake tech Offshore areas within ½ mile offshore considered Simplifies property acquisition Avoids fault crossing 16

17 Summary of Alternatives & Conceptual Design Subsurface Intake Study 17

18 Conceptual designs developed for alternatives Based on greatest production capacity if unable to meet 10,000 AFY production requirement 9,000 ft of beach available for SSI development East Beach: 5,300 feet West Beach: 1,300 feet Leadbetter Beach: 2,400 feet Property available (condemnation not required) Assume re-use of existing intake pipeline 18

19 Intake technologies Based on state of intake technology & recent studies conducted by others: Vertical Wells Lateral Beach Wells (Onshore Infiltration Galleries) Radial Collector Wells (i.e., Ranney Wells) Slant Wells Subsurface Infiltration Galleries (SIG) offshore HDD wells (i.e., Neodren) 19

20 Vertical wells are located close to the shoreline to maximize seawater contribution Hydrologic properties Depth and productivity Construction area: 100 ft x 100 ft Site preparation, drilling, development & testing: ~2 months per well Service facilities require an additional ~6 months 20

21 Screen Location 60' 30' 30' Vertical wells cross section Electrical Building (12'x24'x15') Well Structure (8'x8'x1' above grade) Upper Sand Aquifer Unit Clay Lenses Lower Sand Aquifer Unit 21

22 Vertical wells conceptual layout 15 wells & 5 electrical buildings 600 ft well spacing 1,400 gpm total capacity 22

23 Vertical wells are the most common SSI for desalination facilities Success in porous geology Global experience: Sand City (Monterey County): 400 gpm Well capacity reduced by ~50% Marina Coast WD (Monterey County): 400 gpm No operational data; threatened by erosion Morro Bay (CA central coast): 850 gpm total capacity 5 beach wells; high iron concentrations = pretreatment 23

24 Vertical wells conceptual design considerations Impact shallow groundwater Impact sensitive habitats Impacted by contamination Susceptible to tsunami inundation & erosion Impacted by sea level rise 24

25 Intake technologies Based on state of intake technology & recent studies conducted by others: Vertical Wells Lateral Beach Wells (Onshore Infiltration Galleries) Radial Collector Wells (i.e., Ranney Wells) Slant Wells SIG offshore HDD wells (i.e., Neodren) 25

26 Onshore infiltration galleries are similar in configuration & operation to SIGs Engineered filtration bed Successful in small projects Offshore conditions infeasible Compared to a SIG, 30-35% more area req d Freshwater impacts May require backwashing & chemical treatment Construction ~2 years 26

27 Onshore infiltration gallery cross section Collection Vault Pump Station Building (24'x24'x15') Upper Sand Aquifer Unit 60' 30' 30' Clay Lenses Lower Sand Aquifer Unit 4,500' Length of Drains, Total 27

28 Onshore infiltration gallery conceptual layout Infeasible at East Beach Feasible at Leadbetter, but problematic to construct 3 galleries total 5,000 gpm total capacity 28

29 There are no onshore infiltration galleries worldwide matching size & complexity Alicante 1 Seawater RO Plant (Spain) 3.2 mgd (2,100 gpm) capacity Highly porous limestone formation Lower water quality w/ much higher turbidity & SDI Alicante Vertical Well Alicante Onshore Infiltration Gallery 29

30 Onshore infiltration gallery conceptual design considerations Impact shallow groundwater Impact sensitive habitats Impacted by contamination Susceptible to tsunami inundation & erosion Impacted by sea level rise 30

31 Intake technologies Based on state of intake technology & recent studies conducted by others: Vertical Wells Lateral Beach Wells (Onshore Infiltration Galleries) Radial Collector Wells (i.e., Ranney Wells) Slant Wells SIG offshore HDD wells (i.e., Neodren) 31

32 Radial collector wells produce at higher rates than vertical wells Well screens placed horizontally w/in most productive aquifer zone Individual wells 1 to 5 mgd (700-3,500 gpm) 32

33 60' 30' 30' Radial collector wells cross section Well Structure (20' Dia x 15' H) Caisson (20' Dia) 150' Setback Upper Sand Aquifer Unit Clay Lenses 5 Radial Screens (150' Length Each) Lower Sand Aquifer Unit 33

34 Radial collector wells conceptual layout 15 wells total 600 ft well spacing 5,600 gpm total capacity 34

35 Radial wells require close proximity to shore sediment transport is important Salina Cruz (Mexico) only installation worldwide 3 wells deliver 3.8 mgd (2,650 gpm), each Beach erosion, reliability & environmental problems >20% decrease in production Seawater intrusion & complete drainage of coastal wetlands 1 year 4 years 35

36 Like vertical wells & onshore infiltration galleries, radial collector wells require access for operation & maintenance 36

37 Radial collector wells conceptual design considerations Impact shallow groundwater Impact sensitive habitats Impacted by contamination Susceptible to tsunami inundation & erosion Impacted by sea level rise 37

38 Intake technologies Based on state of intake technology & recent studies conducted by others: Vertical Wells Lateral Beach Wells (Onshore Infiltration Galleries) Radial Collector Wells (i.e., Ranney Wells) Slant Wells SIG offshore HDD wells (i.e., Neodren) 38

39 Slant wells are SSI wells drilled at an angle to maximize seawater collection & reduce impacts to coastal habitat areas Natural filtration by ocean floor sediments Construction similar to vertical wells Specialized drilling equipment needed 39

40 Slant wells cross section Slant Well Structure (24'x30'x15') 150' Setback Upper Sand Aquifer Unit 60' 30' 30' Clay Lenses Collection Vault Lower Sand Aquifer Unit 40

41 Slant wells conceptual layout 16 wells total, 8 sites 650 ft well spacing 4,400 gpm total capacity 41

42 Although no full scale installations exist, several test facilities have been constructed Dana Point, CA Test well salinity stabilized 50% seawater % seawater may increase High iron & manganese Monterey, CA Drilling & testing ongoing Current test demonstrates ~90% seawater Very low DO requires brine treatment 42

43 Slant wells conceptual design considerations Impact shallow groundwater Impact sensitive habitats Impacted by contamination Susceptible to tsunami inundation & erosion Impacted by sea level rise 43

44 Intake technologies Based on state of intake technology & recent studies conducted by others: Vertical Wells Lateral Beach Wells (Onshore Infiltration Galleries) Radial Collector Wells (i.e., Ranney Wells) Slant Wells SIG offshore HDD wells (i.e., Neodren) 44

45 SIGs are an engineered slow sand media filtration bed at the ocean floor. Used when horizontal/vertical wells are infeasible Sized & configured using slow sand filter design criteria Rely on wave/current action to remove solids 45

46 Construction of a SIG is more complex than any SSI alternative Huntington Beach TAP recommended construction of a permanent trestle Construction impacts may include: Loss of marine life & habitat w/in footprint Limited public beach access Large amounts of ocean sediment require dewatering & disposal Increase in truck traffic & construction phase GHG emissions. 46

47 Trestles provide a safer, more reliable means for construction & long term maintenance Jack up barge Trestle Dredging & periodic fill replacement Sheet pile 47

48 Global experience indicates SIGs may have long term performance issues Fukuoka (Japan) 13.2 mgd (9,200 gpm) from 5 acres In operation since % capacity reduction Biological fouling Long Beach (CA) Test facility Pretreatment necessary Cartridge filters replaced weekly Cartridge filter after one week of operation 48

49 Construction of a SIG at any of the project sites is infeasible East Beach: Stable sediment transport conditions not achieved within ½ mile area offshore West Beach: Construction activities interfere with harbor use & navigation Requires crossing the Rincon Creek Fault Leadbetter Beach: Stable sediment transport conditions not achieved within ½ mile area offshore Requires crossing the Rincon Creek Fault. 49

50 Intake technologies Based on state of intake technology & recent studies conducted by others: Vertical Wells Lateral Beach Wells (Onshore Infiltration Galleries) Radial Collector Wells (i.e., Ranney Wells) Slant Wells SIG offshore HDD wells (i.e., Neodren) 50

51 HDD systems consist of drains extending seaward from the shore Individual pipes deliver water into a common wet well Each collector well pipe yields mgd (800-2,400 gpm) 51

52 60' 30' 30' HDD wells cross section Pump Station Building w/ collection vault (24'x24'x15') 150' Setback Clay Lenses Drain Screen (1,000') Lower Sand Aquifer Unit 52

53 HDD wells conceptual layout 11 drains total, 1 site 1,500 ft well length 15,898 gpm total capacity 53

54 HDD technology used for 10 years in Spain w/ performance & reliability variability San Pedro de Pinatar Plant (Spain) 17 mgd (11,800 gpm); 20 wells in fan shape Encountered technical issues & limitations 4 wells lost over 40% capacity in 9 months Other wells losing capacity New wells needed to restore plant capacity 2 nd phase plant expansion uses screened open ocean intake 54

55 HDD well considerations Specialized equipment & materials required Must stabilize pressurized borehole walls w/ drilling fluid coating Conventional system installation requires daylighting the drill offshore Potential drilling fluid release would require mitigation New technologies claim to avoid drill daylighting (no successful installations to date) 55

56 HDD wells conceptual design considerations Do not impact shallow groundwater Do not impact sensitive habitats Not impacted by contamination Beach facilities are susceptible to tsunami inundation & erosion Beach facilities are impacted by sea level rise 56

57 Sediment Transport & Coastal Hazards Supporting Technical Analyses 57

58 Full analysis report is provided as an appendix in TM03 Addressed for each beach location in study Sediment transport Coastal hazards 58

59 Sediment transport analysis: West Beach Potentially Feasible for onshore infiltration gallery Sediment type leads to high plugging/fouling potential West Beach cannot sustain reliable production without periodic maintenance Not feasible for SIG or HDD due to fine sediment deposits 59

60 Sediment transport analysis: Leadbetter Beach Feasible for onshore infiltration gallery & SIG Construction & operational challenges High energy wave climates SIG cannot be constructed w/in ½ mile offshore Feasible for HDD 60

61 Sediment transport analysis: East Beach Not feasible for onshore infiltration gallery or SIG Feasible for HDD Only viable option Periodic dredging operation on East Beach 61

62 Coastal hazards analysis results Erosion 150 ft setback protects against shoreline erosion HDD drains unaffected by tsunami depth of 12 ft Sea Level Rise: No shore-side facilities flooded by wave run-up at present sea levels All facilities threatened from projected 50-year sea levels Tsunami Runup: All shore-side facilities inundated by tsunami events 62

63 Hydrogeological Analysis of SSI Alternatives Supporting Technical Analyses 63

64 Yield, intake facility spacing, & length of beach required Intake Type Vertical Wells Onshore Infiltration Gallery Radial Collector Wells Slant Wells SIG HDD Notes: Shallow Zone Layer Lower Sand Upper Sand Upper Sand Lower Sand Lower Sand Upper Sand Upper Sand No. Facilities Required 1 Approx. Spacing (feet) Beach Length Required (miles) 1 Yield per Facility (gpm) Potential Total Yield (gpm) ,500-4,800 6 N/A , Varies with length of available beach ,000 10,100 5,625 4,125-7, , ,000 4,400-8,000 (1) Total required to meet 10,000 AFY desal production (15,898 gpm). (2) Potential yield within available beach. (3) SSI is constructed offshore. 1 N/A 3 N/A 3 15,898 15, N/A 0.1 1,500 15,898 64

65 Yield, intake facility spacing, & length of beach required Intake Type Vertical Wells Onshore Infiltration Gallery Radial Collector Wells Slant Wells SIG HDD Notes: Shallow Zone Layer Lower Sand Upper Sand Upper Sand Lower Sand Lower Sand Upper Sand Upper Sand No. Facilities Required 1 Approx. Spacing (feet) Beach Length Required (miles) 1 Yield per Facility (gpm) Potential Total Yield (gpm) ,500-4,800 6 N/A , Varies with length of available beach ,000 10,100 5,625 4,125-7, , ,000 4,400-8,000 (1) Total required to meet 10,000 AFY desal production (15,898 gpm). (2) Potential yield within available beach. (3) SSI is constructed offshore. 1 N/A 3 N/A 3 15,898 15, N/A 0.1 1,500 15,898 65

66 Impact to sensitive habitats Note: Drawdown Beneath Sensitive Intake Type Habitats Vertical Wells 1 to 3 feet Onshore Infiltration Gallery 1 to 4 feet 1 Radial Collector Wells 0.5 to 3 feet Slant Wells 1 to 3 feet SIG 0 feet HDD 0 feet (1) Measured at a distance 250 feet from end of trench. Capture of known groundwater pollutants 75 contaminated sites w/in study area Only SIG & HDD technologies are not expected to mobilize groundwater contaminants 66

67 Initial Screening Subsurface Intake Study 67

68 SSI Study Initial Screening Criteria Criteria were included in Work Plan Geotechnical Hazards Hydrogeologic Factors Benthic Topography Oceanographic Factors Presence of Sensitive Habitats Design and Construction Constraints Approved by RWQCB October 20,

69 Initial screening results Initial Screening Criteria Geotechnical Hazards 1 Seismic Hazard a. Project facilities would cross a known fault line, or be exposed to a seismic hazard that could otherwise not be protected from loss by design Hydrogeologic Factors 2 Impact on existing freshwater aquifers, local water supplies, or existing water users Vertical Beach Wells Onshore Infiltration Gallery Radial Collector Wells Slant Wells Subsurface Infiltration Galleries HDD Wells PF PF PF PF NF PF a. b. 3 a. 4 Volume of groundwater in storage is reduced due to subsurface intake pumping, impacting drought supply & requiring additional desalination to make up for loss of groundwater. PF PF PF PF PF PF Operation of subsurface intake causes salt water intrusion into groundwater aquifers. PF PF PF PF PF PF Impact to sensitive habitats such as marshlands, drainage areas, etc. Operation of subsurface intake drains surface water from sensitive habitat areas or adversely changes water quality. NF NF NF NF PF PF Insufficient length of beach available for replacing full yield derived from existing open ocean intake. a. Small individual facility yield, large number of facilities required, & minimum spacing between facilities requires more shoreline than is available. Benthic Topography 5 Land type makes intake construction infeasible. Depth to bedrock too shallow (i.e., less than 40-feet deep); rocky a. PF* PF* PF* PF* PF PF coastline; cliffs PF PF PF PF PF PF Oceanographic Factors 6 Erosion, sediment deposition, sea level rise, or tsunami hazards. a. Notes: Oceanographic hazards make aspects of the project infrastructure vulnerable in a way that cannot be protected &/or would prevent the City from being able to receive funding or insurance for this concept. PF PF (4) PF PF NF PF (1) NF = Not Feasible (2) PF = Potentially Feasible (3) PF* = Potentially Feasible, but does not meet current study goals (4) Potentially feasible at Leadbetter & West Beach only. Sediment transport conditions at East Beach make the implementation of an onshore infiltration gallery infeasible (refer to Section 3.4.2). 69

70 Initial screening results (continued) Initial Screening Criteria Presence of Sensitive Habitats 7 Proximity to marine protected areas Location would require construction within a marine protected a. Vertical Beach Wells Onshore Infiltration Gallery Radial Collector Wells Slant Wells Subsurface Infiltration Galleries HDD Wells area. PF PF PF PF PF PF Design & Construction Constraints 8 Adequate capacity a. Subsurface material lacks adequate transmissivity to meet target yield of at least 15,898 gpm (i.e., build-out intake capacity necessary to produce 10,000 AFY). 9 Lack of adequate linear beach front for technical feasibility a. Length of beachfront available is not sufficient for construction of the required number of wells of all or portion of intake to meet target yield. 10 Lack of adequate land for required on-shore facilities a. b. NF NF NF NF PF PF NF NF NF NF PF PF Surface area needed for on-shore footprint (i.e., pump house) of an intake unit is greater than the available onshore area. PF PF PF PF PF PF Requires condemnation of property for new on-shore intake pumping facilities. PF PF PF PF PF PF 11 Lack of adequate land for required on-shore construction staging a. The amount of land available to stage construction does not meet need. PF PF PF PF PF PF 12 Precedent for subsurface intake technology a. Intake technology has not been used before in a similar seawater or fresh water application at a similar scale. PF PF PF PF PF NF Passes Initial Screening? Yes (Y) or No (N) N N N N N N Notes: (1) NF = Not Feasible (2) PF = Potentially Feasible (3) PF* = Potentially Feasible, but does not meet current study goals (4) Potentially feasible at Leadbetter & West Beach only. Sediment transport conditions at East Beach make the implementation of an onshore infiltration gallery infeasible (refer to Section 3.4.2). 70

71 HDD wells passed all initial screening criteria except for #12 - Precedent No CA or U.S. experience 10 years of global experience Inconsistent performance Not Feasible conclusion supported by TAP assembled by CCC for proposed Huntington Beach desalination facility. Experience at San Pedro de Pinatar Capacity loss & poor water quality Expansion will use screened open ocean intake 71

72 Subsurface desalination intake feasibility study summary No alternative passed initial screening criteria One alternative constrained by seismic and oceanographic factors Four alternatives impacted sensitive habitat areas Five alternatives had design and construction constraints HDD technology is being tested by others SDCWA pilot Camp Pendleton 72

73 Status Update Potable Reuse Study 73

74 Potable Reuse Study Status Update TM01 & TM02 are available on NWRI website Introduction & Regulatory/Permitting Requirements Groundwater modeling & conceptual design in progress Collaboration w/ USGS Workshop #3 Tentative date: June 29,

75 Subsurface Desalination Intake & Potable Reuse Feasibility Studies TAP Workshop #2 City of Santa Barbara, California January 27, 2016

76 Subsurface Intake Programmatic WPD 76

77 Potable Reuse Programmatic WPD 77

78 Central Coast RWQCB approved work plans revised following initial TAP meeting 78

79 SSI Work Plan Initial screening criteria of 10,000 AFY is acceptable for RWQCB study 1. Stepwise progression to consider social, economic & environmental impacts is accepted 2. This study may recommend the scope for future evaluations 79

80 PR Work Plan Initial screening criteria of 10,000 AFY is acceptable for RWQCB study 80

81 PR Work Plan Initial screening criteria of 10,000 AFY is acceptable for RWQCB study 1. Again - Stepwise progression to consider social, economic & environmental impacts is accepted 2. The City will use the information developed to inform future water supply planning efforts 81

82 The RWQCB will not Require the City to perform a combined SSI & PR feasibility study 82

83 The RWQCB will not require the City to perform a combined SSI & PR feasibility study 1. The City must report the maximum capacity feasible from SSI & PR 83

84 Vertical wells design summary Description Units Criteria Number of Wells 1 No. 15 Well Structure - Vault with Access Road Well Structure Dimensions (L x W x H) 2 feet 8 x 8 x 1 Capacity, each gpm 100 Capacity, total gpm 1,400 4 Pump Type - Submersible Depth feet -120 Screen Location feet -60 to -120 Casing Diameter inches 12 Well Spacing feet 600 Set-back from mean high tide feet 150 Maximum Electrical Cable Run 3 feet Electrical Buildings Required No. 5 Electrical Building Structure - Flood Protected Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) Building Electrical Building Dimensions (L x W x H) 2 feet 12 x 24 x 15 Notes: (1) Includes one standby well. (2) Height dimension represents height above grade. (3) Spacing based on assumed voltage drop for pump motors with a VFD. (4) Assuming lower value of range of hydraulic conductivity. (5) Electrical cable run includes spacing between wells & 100 feet of distance into the well. 84

85 Onshore infiltration gallery design summary Description Units Criteria Number of Pump Stations No. 2 3 Pump Station Structure - Flood Protected CMU Building Pump Station Dimensions (L x W x H) 1 feet 24 x 24 x 15 Pump Type - Pit Mounted Vertical Turbine Capacity, total gpm 5,000 Depth of Excavation 1 feet 30 Drain Diameter inches 18 Length of Drain, total feet 4,500 Set-back from mean high tide feet 150 Notes: (1) Height dimension represents height above grade. (2) Maximum depth of excavation. (3) Includes one pump station for two onshore infiltration galleries at Leadbetter Beach; One Pump station for West Beach. 85

86 Radial collector wells design summary Description Units Criteria Number of Wells 1 No. 15 Well Structure - Flood Protected CMU Building Well Dimensions (Diameter x H) 2 feet 20 x 15 Capacity, each gpm 375 Capacity, total gpm 5,600 Depth feet -25 to -30 Number of Radial Screens No. 5 Radial Screen Length feet 150 Radial Screen Diameter inches 12 Caisson Diameter feet 20 Well Spacing 3,4 feet 600 Set-back from mean high tide feet 150 Number of Pumps, per well No. 3 Pump Type - Pit Mounted Vertical Turbine Notes: (1) Conceptual design based on targeting the upper sand layer. (2) Height dimension represents height above grade. (3) Spacing based on assumed voltage drop for pump motors with a VFD. (4) Electrical cable run includes spacing between wells & 100 feet of distance into the well. 86

87 Slant wells design summary Description Units Criteria Number of Wells 1 No. 16 Number of Slant Well Sites No. 8 Slant Well Site Structure - Flood Protected CMU Building Slant Well Site Dimensions (L x W x H) 2 feet 24 x 30 x 15 Capacity, each gpm 275 Capacity, total gpm 4,400 3 Well Diameter inches 18 Well Depth 4 feet -60 to -120 Screen Length feet 175 Slant Well Angle degrees 22 Well Spacing feet 650 Set-back from mean high tide feet 150 Number of Pumps, per well No. 1 Pump Type - Submersible Notes: (1) Assuming slant well layout of 8 sites with 2 slant wells per site. Slant wells at each site are angled to minimize interference between wells. (2) Height dimension represents height above grade. (3) Assuming lower value of range of hydraulic conductivity. (4) Vertical depth. 87

88 HDD wells design summary Description Units Criteria Number of Drains No. 11 Capacity, each gpm 1,500 Capacity, total gpm 15,898 Well Length feet 1,500 Well Diameter inches 18 Length of Drain/Screen, each feet 1,000 Length of Drain/Screen, total feet 11,000 Drain Cover, minimum 1 feet 10 Pump Station Building Type - Flood Protected CMU Building Pump Station Building Dimensions (L x W x feet H) 2 24 x 24 x 15 Pump Type - Pit Mounted Vertical Turbine Set-back from mean high tide feet 150 Location - East Beach Note: (1) Minimum ocean bottom cover over HDD well. (2) Height dimension represents height above grade. 88

89 Percentage of ocean water inflow & impact to local groundwater Intake Type Vertical Wells Onshore Infiltration Gallery Radial Collector Wells Shallow Zone Layer Lower Sand (high K) Lower Sand (low K) No. Facilities Required Upper Sand 6 Upper Sand Lower Sand (high K) Lower Sand Yield Per Facility (gpm) Varies with Length 375 1, Potential Total Yield (gpm) 2 4,800 1,500 Screen Length (feet) Inland Contribution 3 18% 47% Offshore Contribution 4 82% 53% 10,100 9,000 5% 95% (low K) Lower Sand 8 1,000 8,000 8% 92% Slant Wells (high K) 175 Lower Sand ,400 5% 95% (low K) SIG Upper Sand 1 15,898 15,898 5,000 0% 100% HDD Upper Sand 11 1,500 15,898 11,000 0% 100% Notes: 5,600 7,000 4,125 (1) Total required to meet 15,898 gpm. (2) Potential yield within available beach. (3) Percentage of total produced flow derived from inland sources (groundwater). (4) Percentage of total produced flow derived from offshore sources (seawater) % 30% 39% 70% 70% 61% 89

90 Coastal Commission hearing transcript by Andrew Shea, U.S. development director for Acciona Corp. (owner/operator of San Pedro del Pinatar HDD project) For the record, [a HDD well system] was Phase 1 of the San Pedro del Pinatar project. Phase 2, which is also 17-mgd, did not use that same well system, largely because of the technical issues & limitations of local geology issues, that I think many of us need to consider when talking about the application of seawater wells in Southern California Operationally, we have difficulties keeping the finger lines open, & prefer to use the open Mediterranean seawater intake system for that particular location CDP E hearing transcript; November 15, 2007 (pages ) 90

91 Regulatory Summary Potable Reuse Study 91

92 Potable reuse applications include either IPR or DPR IPR: Introduction of advanced treated water into an environmental bugger (e.g., groundwater aquifer or surface water body) Spreading can use tertiary effluent in certain applications DPR: Advanced treated water introduced into a raw water supply upstream of a drinking water plant Alternatively, water from an AWTF can be introduced directly into distribution system. 92

93 CCR, Title 22 classifies 2 types of IPR and presents regulations 1. Groundwater replenishment by surface application Application of recharge water to a spreading area e.g., spreading basin, surface spreading 2. Groundwater replenishment by subsurface application Application of recharge water to a groundwater basin(s) by a means other than surface spreading e.g., injection wells, groundwater recharge, etc. 93

94 Title 22 defines full advanced treatment Necessary for Subsurface Application Decreases travel time requirements for Surface Application 94

95 Travel time requirements are based on RRT, IPR type, and treatment used Demonstrated by Added Tracer Demonstrated by Intrinsic Tracer Travel Time Calculated by Darcy's Law Calculated by Complex Numerical Model Application Surface Application - Disinfected Tertiary 6 Months 9 Months 24 Months 12 Months Water (1) Surface Application - Advanced Treated 2 Months 3 Months 8 Months 4 Months Water (1) Subsurface Application - Advanced Treated 2 Months 3 Months 8 Months 4 Months Water (2) Notes: (1) Title 22, Article 5.1. (2) Title 22, Article

96 Regulatory process for IPR consists of two central permitting documents Engineering Report Focused on public health protection Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) Focused on protection of groundwater quality or surface water Process least 12 months Depending on groundwater modeling and industrial source control 96

97 No regulations exist for DPR, though some are currently under development DPR guidelines are complete State of CA is conducting rigorous evaluation of DPR as a water supply alternative DDW has held a series of workshops regarding DPR Will review DPR projects on a case by case basis DPR projects like required to incorporate: Increased pathogen reduction requirements (14/12/12 vs. 12/10/10) Additional barrier for trace pollutants Engineered storage buffer 97

98 There are many environmental, regulatory, & permitting requirements for developing potable reuse alternatives Engineering Report and ROWD Environmental Review CEQA Regulatory Requirements & Permitting 8 regulatory bodies 12 requirements/permits were identified 98

99 TM02 presents regulatory & permitting requirements associated with potable reuse alternatives Major permitting agencies include: California Coastal Commission (CCC) State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) U.S. EPA Santa Barbara County Public Health Department City of Santa Barbara Etc. 99

100 Preliminary Work Potable Reuse Study 100