Gen Bus 1

DESALINATION TASK FORCE
MEMORANDUM
TO: DESALINATION TASK FORCE

FROM: PROGRAM MANAGERS
SUBJECT: SWRO DESALINATION FACILITY DESALINATION PROCESS
CONFIGURATION
DATE: MAY 18, 2011
RECOMMENDATION: That the scwd2 Desalination Task Force review and provide comment
on draft Technical Memorandum No. 2 from Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) titled Desalination
Process Preliminary Design, accept as final with comments incorporated as appropriate, and
support staff recommendation on the desalination process.
BACKGROUND: At its September 2010 meeting the Task Force approved the scope of work
with Camp Dresser & McKee for design of a seawater reverse osmosis desalination facility.
CDM’s first task (Task 1.1 of their scope of work) was to recommend a pretreatment process(es)
ahead of the seawater desalination system. CDM’s first deliverable, Technical Memorandum
No. 1, summarized their evaluation of six pretreatment alternatives and recommended DAF +
pressurized MF/UF as the preferred pretreatment process for the project. At its December 2010
meeting the Task Force supported this staff recommendation on the pretreatment process.
CDM’s next task, Task 1.2, was to advance the design of the desalination plant downstream of
the pretreatment process to the point of connection to the potable distribution system.
DISCUSSION: The SWRO Pilot Test Program recommended a single stage reverse osmosis (RO)
system as the main desalination components to achieve water quality goals with a future potential second
pass to provide flexibility. The CDM design team and technical advisory committee revisited the SWRO
Pilot Test data, assumptions and goals and confirmed that this proposed configuration remains
appropriate. Because the recommendation on the desalination process was consistent with the
recommendations from the pilot work, there was no workshop necessary to vet different
alternatives as was done with the pretreatment process. Rather, staff met with CDM on several
occasions to review the evaluation process, review and modify the TM, and concur with its
findings.
While the focus of Task 1.2 was design of the RO process, other components upstream and
downstream of the RO process were also advanced in their level of design to adequately inform
the project and the Environmental Impact Report. There are many design considerations that
will be further evaluated as the project proceeds; several are shown below.
8
1. As mentioned previously to the task force, no standby power will be provided for the
main process equipment. Because the facility provides supplemental water supply,
periodic, short-term interruptions in plant operation caused by power outages will be
mitigated by existing raw water supplies and treated water storage.
2. The current area required for the proposed treatment facility is approximately 4 to 5
acres. This will be refined as the actual site alternatives is narrowed; decisions are made
about functionality of the Control Building (currently oversized at 7,000 sf to
accommodate meeting and office space and other amenities that may be reduced and/or
eliminated); and the overall design progresses.
3. As the design proceeds, additional consideration will be given to flexibility, reliability
and redundancy with an eye towards reducing costs.
CDM is currently on hold until the site selection process is able to eliminate those sites with
significant space limitations. Once sites are eliminated, CDM will resume work on completing
preliminary design so as to fully inform the EIR. (The site selection process is discussed in a
separate agenda item.)
FISCAL IMPACT: Costs are inclusive of all major SWRO treatment facility elements and
ancillary systems known at this time. (I.e., costs shown below do not include intake facilities, or
other infrastructure improvements leading to and from the SWRO treatment facility.)
Construction costs include a 30% contingency to allow for additional costs that cannot be
estimated without detailed engineering design drawings and were escalated at 3% per year from
January 2011 to the midpoint of construction assumed to be June 2015. The engineer’s opinion
of probable construction cost at this level of design effort is $47 to $71 million. The purpose for
presenting a range of costs is to address the uncertainties and variability associated with: design
considerations; site location; permitting; environmental constraints; economic conditions;
availability of equipment, material and labor; and, other factors that may impact construction
costs.
Operation and maintenance costs include a 10% contingency and were escalated at 3% per year
to 2015. The engineer’s estimate is $2.75 million.
ATTACHMENTS: Final Draft Technical Memorandum No. 2 (without appendices)
9
Draft Technical Memorandum No. 2 (TM-2)
Desalination Process Preliminary Design
Purpose
Contents:
The primary purpose of Task 1.2 Desalination Process
Purpose .................................................................. 1
Preliminary Design is to advance the design of the Summary ................................................................ 2
desalination plant from the equalization basin ahead of the Production and Water Quality Goals..................... 8
reverse osmosis (RO) process to the connection to the Summary of Functional Analysis ......................... 10
potable distribution system. Other components before Overview of Preliminary Design........................... 11
and after the RO process are discussed and advanced in Reverse Osmosis Membrane System and
Energy Recovery Devices..................................... 13
their design as appropriate at this level of evaluation.
Post-Treatment, Disinfection and Product
Preliminary design criteria and process flow diagrams are Water Pumping..................................................... 27
presented in this memorandum for: Chemical Storage and Feed Systems ................. 31
RO Concentrate Storage and Pump Station....... 33
Desalination and Energy Recovery Residuals Production, Handling and Disposal ... 35
Disinfection and Treated Water Pumping Projected Energy Use........................................... 40
Desalination System Construction and
Chemical Systems Operating Cost Estimates.................................... 41
Residuals Handling Appendices
A. TM-2A Summary of Functional Analysis
Also included are more detailed process and B. Preliminary Design Criteria Tables
instrumentation diagrams and electrical one-line diagrams C. Preliminary Design Drawings
for the following components that comprise the D. Source Water Quality Summary
desalination system: E. Membrane Projections
F. Acronym Table
Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration (MF/UF) Filtrate and RO
Feed Water Equalization Basin
Single-Stage High Pressure RO Feed Pumps
Single-Stage RO Membrane Skids
RO Cleaning System
Calcite Contactor, Chlorine Contact Tank and Distribution Pumps.
In Task 1.1 Pretreatment Process Evaluation and Recommendation, the project team evaluated six
pretreatment alternatives: 1) slow sand filtration; 2) MF/UF with no chemical addition or clarification; 3)
dissolved air floatation (DAF) and MF/UF; 4) flocculation, sedimentation and MF/UF; 5) DAF and granular
media filtration (GMF); and 6) flocculation, sedimentation and GMF. The evaluations were conducted with
assumptions made regarding the number, size and operating criteria for each alternative and for the
ancillary equipment (such as residuals handling and chemical systems) required for each alternative. The
CDM Team made these assumptions based on pilot testing results, experience at other similar facilities
and treatment practices throughout the drinking water industry. scwd2 selected DAF and MF/UF based
Α TM2-1
10
Draft TM2: Desalination Process Preliminary Design City of Santa Cruz & Soquel Creek Water District
several factors including performance, cost, reliability, energy efficiency, area requirements and other
considerations. In Task 1.2, the design team developed more detailed preliminary design criteria for the
pretreatment facilities, residuals handling system, chemical systems and other ancillary equipment. This
information was used to develop recommendations for the primary electrical power system, prepare
electrical single-line diagrams for the facility and develop area requirements and conceptual equipment
layouts for the plant.
Summary
Desalination System
The scwd2 Pilot Testing Program recommended a single-stage RO system with a future partial second
pass as the main treatment facilities to meet the water quality and supply objectives for the Project. In
Tasks 1.1 and 1.2, the CDM Team reviewed this recommendation, confirmed that the treatment
techniques are appropriate and developed more complete preliminary design information.
The recommended desalination process (illustrated in Figure 1) features four equally sized, single-stage
RO skids, each with a design treatment capacity of 0.83 million gallons per day (mgd). The firm treatment
capacity is 2.5 mgd with three units in service and one unit in standby mode. Provisions for a future
second pass of low-pressure RO membranes have been incorporated into the preliminary design should
future regulations or water quality objectives require additional treatment.
Under normal raw water quality conditions (characterized by low turbidity and low algae concentrations),
pretreatment will consist of chemical coagulation, MF/UF and cartridge filtration. When storm events (high
turbidity), moderate algae blooms or red tide events occur, DAF pretreatment units will clarify the
seawater to reduce particulate and organic loading to the MF/UF membranes and to mitigate potential
fouling of the RO membranes. As shown in Figure 1, the CDM team recommends pump water injection
rather than a static mixer for rapid mixing and placing a strainer before the MF/UF system rather than
upstream of the DAF units. The rationale for these recommendations is found later in this TM.
The RO system will meet the scwd2 water quality goals in an energy efficient manner through a
combination of high rejection and low energy RO elements. The RO system will operate at flux rates
ranging from 8 to 10 gallons per day per square foot of membrane area (gfd) and permeate recovery rates
of 40 to 50 percent. The optimal RO system recovery for energy efficiency will be approximately 42.5
percent. This range of flux and recovery values allows flexibility to achieve production during anticipated
source water quality variations and to temporarily produce more water from an individual unit as
necessary. Energy efficiency will be realized through the use of high-efficiency pumps and motors and
energy recovery devices mounted on each of the four RO skids. The anticipated average energy use for
the entire treatment process from raw seawater pumping through treatment and distribution of the finished
water is 14.1 kWh/kgal. This estimate is similar to the average energy use estimates included in the Pilot
TM2-2 Α
11
Seawater Desalination
Dechlorination
Chlorine (Optional)
Supply System Facility
Ferric Chloride
Transfer
Pumps
Transfer MF/UF
Dissolved Air Flotation Pumps
Intake
Raw Pumps
Seawater Strainer
Intake &
Screen
Coagulation RO Feed Water

Reclaimed
& Rapid Backwash to Equalization Basin
Washwater Solids to Thickener
Mixing MF/UF Feed Water Washwater
for Disposal to Sewer Equalization Basin Equalization
Bypass for Direct Filtration
Carbon Dioxide
Caustic Soda
Antiscalant
Corrosion Inhibitor
Desalination Pipeline
(Optional)
(Optional)
Chlorine
Facility Improvements
Carbon Dioxide
High Service
Chlorine
Cartridge
Single-Stage Calcite Pump Station
Filters High Pressure
RO System Contactor
Booster Pumps To Distribution
Mixing
System
Limestone
Bypass for
Future Partial
Bypass for Split Stream
2nd Pass RO System
ERD Pressure Remineralization Chlorine Contact
Booster Pump High Transfer Tank/Clearwell
Pressure RO Pumps
To WWTF
RO Feed Concentrate Outfall
Water
RO
Concentrate
RO Feed Water
Energy
Recovery RO Concentrate
System Equalization Basin
W:\REPORTS\Santa Cruz City of\Desalination Project_10\TM-2_Jan11\Figures\Figure 1_SWRO Desalination Plant Treatment Process.ai 03/31/11 JJT
Figure 1
 12 SWRO Desalination Plant Treatment Process
City of Santa Cruz & Soquel Creek Water District Draft TM2: Desalination Process Preliminary Design
Program Report and the Pretreatment Technical Memorandum (TM-1). Energy use will continue to be
evaluated and updated as the preliminary design progresses.
Post Treatment
Because reverse osmosis removes many of the minerals from the water, desalinated water tends to taste
flat, and the lack of hardness and alkalinity makes the water more corrosive to concrete and other
materials. To improve the taste and reduce the corrosive properties of the desalinated water, the
permeate will be treated with carbon dioxide, then pass through calcite contactors to increase the calcium
content and alkalinity. The treated permeate will pass through a chlorine contact basin to meet regulatory
requirements for primary disinfection. After disinfection, a corrosion inhibitor, identical to the chemical
currently used for corrosion control at the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant, will be added before
pumping the finished water into the distribution system.
Residuals Handling and Disposal

Residual streams produced at the plant include: 1) a mixture of the floating solids and clarified water from
the DAF basins; 2) used washwater from the MF/UF system; 3) cleaning solutions from the MF/UF and
RO systems; and 4) RO concentrate. The DAF residuals stream and MF/UF used washwater stream
contain significant concentrations of suspended solids and will require treatment before recovery of the
water. As shown in Figure 2, the DAF residuals and used washwater will be clarified and thickened in two
parallel treatment units. Thickened solids from the two clarifiers/thickeners will be sent to the City’s
sanitary sewer system for disposal. Clarified water from the two units will be recycled to the plant influent
for treatment. Chemical cleaning solutions from the MF/UF and RO systems will be dechlorinated and/or
adjusted to neutral pH (6 to 9 units), then disposed of to the sanitary sewer. RO concentrate disposal is
discussed in the following section.
Α TM2-3
13
Figure 2
Residuals Handling System
Flow Schematic
RO Concentrate Storage and Disposal

RO concentrate from the desalination process will be produced at rates ranging from approximately 0.83
to 3.8 mgd and salinity will range from approximately 60,000 to 75,000 mg/L depending on raw water
quality and recovery rates for the RO system. The concentrate will be pumped from the desalination plant
site and mixed with treated effluent from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility. Preliminary design for
the 2.5 mgd desalination plant includes a 600,000 gallon concentrate storage basin as recommended in
the technical memorandum, Dilution Analysis for Brine Disposal via Ocean Outfall, prepared by Brown
and Caldwell for scwd2 in 2010. The concentrate storage basin will store concentrate during the night,
when WWTF effluent flowrates are typically low. The stored concentrate would then be discharged during
the day when effluent flowrates increase. This approach permits maintaining the appropriate concentrate
to effluent ratio to meet the outfall discharge requirements.
Electrical Power System

Two essential power supply components lay the groundwork for electrical distribution system design: 1)
the horsepower (HP) of the high pressure RO feed pumps; and 2) primary metering of the electrical
service. To maintain continuity with the electrical metering approach recently installed at the Graham Hill
WTP, CDM assumed that the City would prefer to take advantage of the reduced energy costs associated
with primary metering of the PG&E electrical supply. The plant electrical service equipment (vacuum
circuit breaker and service transformer) will be City owned and maintained. For purposes of this
preliminary document, the primary voltage is assumed to be 21 kV. This assumption will be revisited when
the exact plant site is identified and details are discussed with PG&E. Transformers will convert the 21 kV
primary service to medium voltage (4,160 volts alternating current or VAC) to power the RO feed pumps,
and to low voltage (480 VAC) for all the other loads at the plant. Preliminary electrical distribution single-
line diagrams based on these concepts are shown on attached Drawings E-1 and E-2 in Appendix C.
Other relevant electrical design concepts include the following:
Standby power for the main process equipment is not proposed. Because the desalination plant
provides a supplemental water supply, scwd2 anticipates that periodic, short-term interruptions in plant
operations caused by power outages will be mitigated by existing treated water storage in the
distribution system and the existing primary water supplies such as the City’s Graham Hill Surface
Water Treatment Plant, Beltz Groundwater Treatment Plant, or the District’s groundwater wells and
treatment facilities.
TM2-4 Α
14
A small emergency diesel engine generator will be provided for operation of critical life safety systems
and RO flush valves and pumps.
UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supplies) will be provided for all programmable logic controllers (PLCs)
and operator-machine interface (OMI) hardware.
All facility lighting will be designed to comply with California Title 24 Energy Efficiency requirements.
A photovoltaic system (PV) may be included in the project. It is assumed that PV panels will be
mounted on the Control Building and other roofs as appropriate. Sizing and other PV system concepts
will be developed in Task 1.10 Solar Power Evaluation.
Concepts for auxiliary systems such as security, access control, in-plant communications, the City’s
wide area network (WAN), fire alarm, and others will be developed in Task 1.8 Overall Desalination
Facility Preliminary Design.
Process Instrumentation System

The Plant Control System (PCS) will be based on PLC (Programmable Logic Controllers) and OMI
(Operator Machine Interface) software to closely match the recently upgraded system at the City’s
Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant. Multiple PLCs and associated input and output (I/O) signals will be
located throughout the plant to interface with field equipment. The OMI software will run on personal
computers located in the control room. Additional OMI computers will be located near the process areas
as appropriate to assist the plant staff in operating and monitoring the process equipment.
Other relevant instrumentation and control concepts include the following:
PLC system will be Modicon hardware to match the Graham Hill WTP.
OMI system will be WonderWare System Platform software to match the Graham Hill WTP.
In general, all field equipment connections to the PCS will be via hardwired connections to I/O
modules. Data highway connections to field equipment are not proposed.
Typically a “Local / Off / Remote” hardware switch will be provided at the motor controller for each
major component. Local allows manual operation and remote allows automated operation from the
PCS.
4- 20 mA will be used for all analog field signals.
24 VDC will be used for all discrete field signals.
The PCS major components (PLC and OMI) will typically be interconnected with fiber optic cabling
utilizing Ethernet protocol.
Α TM2-5
15
A “system supplier” approach will be used for the RO and MF/UF to maximize unit responsibility to
provide effective system performance and warranty requirements. Instrumentation and control
components directly affected by the system mechanical equipment will be furnished by the system
supplier.
Plant Area Requirements

The required area for the proposed treatment facility will be approximately 4 to 5 acres. This is an
increase over the 3.5 acres estimated in the Pilot Test Program Report and TM-1. Reasons for the
increases include:
1. The Control Building area increased from an assumed size of approximately 2,000 sf to approximately
7,000 sf; scwd2 is currently evaluating the proposed uses and room sizes.
2. In previous work, CDM assumed concentrate storage facilities to store approximately 200,000 gallons
onsite; however, a recent study by Brown and Caldwell recommends 600,000 gallons of onsite
storage for the proposed 2.5 mgd plant, and 2,000,000 gallons at the plant’s potential future expanded
capacity (4.5 mgd).
3. For more effective and reliable operation, current design of the residuals handling system provides
approximately one week of onsite storage of sludge in the clarifier/thickener units under worst-case
conditions; and the redundancy of one duty and one standby clarifier/thickener. Previous design
assumptions assumed smaller, high-rate clarifiers with limited thickening ability and minimal onsite
sludge storage (i.e., less than one day).
4. In anticipation of the California Coastal Commission requiring more stringent stormwater handling
practices, the CDM team used 25-year storm event data to size retention and pervious areas instead
of 10-year storm event data as assumed in earlier planning.
5. Visual buffering areas and vehicle access routes for staff, visitors and chemical deliveries are larger
for the three sites now being evaluated.
Three potential sites are currently being evaluated by scwd2 and the CDM Team under Task 1.3 Site
Investigations and Task 1.6 Site Layout Plans. Figure 3 presents a layout for the 2.5 mgd plant and
includes major process units, buildings and ancillary equipment. Potential future equipment additions such
as second pass RO units and process units to expand the plant to an ultimate capacity of 4.5 mgd are
also shown.
Estimated Construction and Operating Costs

The engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost range for the desalination plant is $47 to $71 million
(shown in Table 1) and assumes the project will be bid in 2014 and the midpoint of construction will be
June 2015.
TM2-6 Α
16
420’
Stormwater Stormwater
Retention Basin Detention Basin
Future Future
RO Concentrate
Solids
RO Concentrate RO Concentrate
EQ Basin
Handling Solids Solids EQ Basin EQ Basin
Building Clarifiers and Clarifiers and
Thickeners Thickeners
Reclaimed Sludge Transfer

Water PS Station
DAF Solids PS Air Saturator
DAF Recycle Water

Strainers Pumps Channel
Rapid Mix
Used Washwater
Air
EQ Basin
Room
Pumps Feed Pumps Transfer Pumps
EQ Basin
BW/CEB/
420’
MF/UF
CIP Area
MF/UF Skids
Administration
RO Feed Water
EQ Basin
Building
ERD ERD RO Future

CIP
DAF Clarification Basins
2nd Pass RO
2nd Pass RO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
Calcite Contactors Future
HP Pump HP Pump
CO2
Cartridge Filters
System
Permeate Flush/ High Service PS,

Outdoor Chemical Loading 2nd Pass Surge Tank and
and Containment Area Feed EQ Basin Wet Well
Bilsul- NaClO NaOH
Emergency
Generator fite
Clearwell
Mech.
Electrical Room
Electrical Room
Switch FeCl3 Anti- Corrosion
Gear scalant Inhibitor Stormwater Stormwater
Retention Basin Detention Basin
0 25 50
Feet
W:\REPORTS\Santa Cruz City of\Desal Pilot_Final Report_09\Graphics\Figure 3_Preliminary Site Layout.ai 03/30/11 JJT
Figure 3
 Preliminary Site Layout
17 (4 acre site)
Operating costs for the desalination plant are estimated at $2.75 million per year, as shown in Table 2.
Α TM2-7
18
Table 1: Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs in Millions ($2015)

System, Process or Building Description Construction Cost Estimate
Control Building $3.2
DAF Facility $2.7
MF/UF Facility $4.1
RO Facility $5.8
Calcite Contactors $0.5
Chlorine Contact Basin, Clearwell and Flush Tank $0.9
Treated Water Pumping $0.8
Residuals Handling Facilities $1.3
RO Concentrate Storage and Pumping System $0.9
Chemical Systems $1.8
Electrical Equipment, Instrumentation and Controls $5.5
Yard Piping, Site Development and Miscellaneous Facilities $4.4
Land(1) $5.0
Subtotal $36.9
30% contingency $11.1
Subtotal $48.0
Escalation at 3% per year to June 2015 $6.8
Total $54.8
Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Range $47-71
Land costs based on required land for treatment facilities to produce initial capacity of 2.5 mgd treated water
(1)
and additional land for potential future expansion to 4.5 mgd treated water; land cost assumed to be $1 million
per acre.
Table 2: Estimated Annual O&M Costs in Millions ($2015)

Estimated Annual Cost(1)
Annual Cost Components/Descriptions ($million per year)
Energy $1.50
Labor $0.42
Pretreatment chemicals $0.27
Consumable replacement (cartridge filters, filter media, UF & RO membranes) $0.21
Solids disposal $0.10
Sub-total $2.50
Estimated Annual O&M Costs Total $2.75
Estimates assume an annual average production rate of 1.6 mgd.
(1)
This concludes the summary portion of this technical memorandum.
TM2-8 Α
19
Production and Water Quality Goals

Desalination Facility Operation and Production Goals
The City (SCWD) and District (SqCWD) propose to operate the 2.5 mgd seawater desalination facility to
provide water to each agency at various times throughout each year to meet the different agencies’ needs
and objectives. For Task 1.2, CDM assumed that the water produced by the facility will be allocated
according to a monthly priority system similar to Table 3 which was prepared by scwd2 and included in
the Request for Proposal for the project. The priority system identifies the maximum plant output, but
production may be scaled back at the discretion of each party within its priority. When neither party
requests water according to its priority, then the plant will be put in standby mode. Additional information
presented by scwd2 at the project’s Quality Management Program (QMP) Workshop in October 2010
indicated that the plant must reliably produce 2.5 mgd of drinking water during droughts; and during non-
drought conditions, the average production from the Desalination Plant could range from less than 1 mgd
to 2 mgd. CDM considered the entire range of the potential plant production rates in the development of
TM-2.
Table 3: scwd2 Desalination Facility Production Priority System

January February March April May June
Agency with SCWD/
SqCWD SqCWD SqCWD SCWD SCWD
1st Priority SqCWD
Quantity (mgd) 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.25 each 2.5 2.5
Agency with SCWD/
SCWD SCWD SCWD SqCWD SqCWD
2nd Priority SqCWD
Quantity (mgd) 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.25 each 2.5 2.5
July August September October November December
Agency with SCWD/
SqCWD SCWD SCWD SCWD SqCWD
1st Priority SqCWD
Quantity (mgd) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.25 each 2.5
Agency with SCWD/
SCWD SqCWD SqCWD SqCWD SCWD
2nd Priority SqCWD
Quantity (mgd) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.25 each 2.5
Water Quality Goals and Design Criteria

Table 4 summarizes the product water quality objectives for the facility. These goals were established
during the pilot testing phase of the project and the boron and chloride concentration goals are being re-
evaluated and confirmed as a part of Task 1.2. Designing the SWRO system to meet the boron and
bromide concentration goals under expected source water quality conditions will produce product water
that meets the TDS, sodium and chloride goals. The plant will meet product water hardness, alkalinity, pH,
chlorine residual, and phosphate residual requirements during the post-treatment process prior to
distribution.
Α TM2-9
20
Table 4: scwd2 Desalination Facility Product Water Quality Goals

Parameter Units Criteria
TDS mg/L <300
Sodium mg/L <80
Chloride mg/L <150
Boron mg/L <1.0
Bromide mg/L <0.5
Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 30 to 60
Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 30 to 60
pH pH Units Match pH in distribution system (approx. 7.3)
Chlorine residual mg/L Match residual in distribution system (approx. 1.0)
Phosphate residual mg/L Match GHWTP dose (approx. 1.0)
Table 5 summarizes the range of anticipated raw seawater quality used to develop the preliminary design
for the Regional Desalination Plant. The values were developed during the pilot testing phase and are
based on both historical water quality data and water quality sampling data collected at the pilot plant
intake during the scwd2 Seawater Reverse Osmosis Desalination Pilot Test Program (March 2008 to April
2009); and the proposed plant intake during monitoring for the Watershed Sanitary Survey (January 2008
to December 2009). This sampling data is summarized in Appendix D.
Table 5: Raw Seawater Data

Description units Average (Range)
Source Water TDS mg/L 36,000 (35,000 - 37,000)
Temperature Degrees C 14 (10 – 18)
pH
Source Water pH Units 8.0 (7.8 – 8.1)
RO feedwater 7.6 (7.3 – 8.1)
Source water turbidity NTU 5 (1 – 100)
Source water TOC mg/L 3.0 (1 – 20)
Source water chloride mg/L 19,000 (18,000 – 20,000)
Source water bromide mg/L 70 (60 – 80)
Source water boron mg/L 4.5 (4.0 – 5.0)
TM2-10 Α
21
Summary of Functional Analysis

For this project, “functional analysis” refers to the quantitative method used to estimate the available
production capacity for the treatment facility based on the planned and unplanned outages for individual
treatment processes, specifically DAF, MF/UF and RO.
The CDM team developed four production scenarios for the plant based on information from scwd2
communicated in the project description in the Request for Proposal and in discussions at the
Pretreatment Workshop:
Drought 2.5 mgd- Maximum plant production rate.
High 2.0 mgd- Upper end of daily average production requirements in non-drought months.
Average 1.6 mgd- Approximate average of daily production requirements in non-drought months.
Low 0.83 mgd- Lowest average daily production requirement of approximately 1 mgd as described by
scwd2 and based on the smallest RO skid evaluated in the functional analysis.
Next, the team developed nine process alternatives (3 DAF, 2 MF/UF and 4 RO), each consisting of
various numbers and sizes of major equipment items. Design and operating assumptions were
documented and estimates for the frequencies and durations of planned and unplanned outages were
prepared for each major equipment item. Probability analysis techniques were applied to determine the
estimated outages for each unit process and the impacts on overall plant production. The alternatives
were compared with respect to relative reliability, construction and operating costs, area and building
space requirements and other factors. The following are CDM’s recommendations for the number and
size of treatment units for the plant:
DAF- Two basins (3.1 mgd each; 6.2 mgd nominal design capacity)
MF/UF- Four racks (2.1 mgd each; 6.2 mgd nominal design capacity)
RO- Four skids (0.83 mgd each; 2.5 mgd nominal design capacity)
Table 6 presents a summary of the results of the functional analysis in terms of the estimated days per
year that each unit process and the plant can operate at treated water production capacities up to 2.5
mgd. A more thorough discussion of the assumptions, alternatives, methodology and results is presented
in Draft TM-2A Summary of Functional Analysis (provided as Appendix A).
Α TM2-11
22
Table 6: Summary of Functional Analysis Results for Recommended Alternatives

Production Treated Estimated Days per Year that Each Treatment System and the Plant
Scenario Water Can Meet the Specified Production Goals
Production
Goal DAF1, 2 MF/UF3 RO4 Plant
(mgd) (2 Basins, 3.1 mgd each; (4 Racks, 2.1 mgd each; (4 Skids, 0.83 mgd each; (Production
2 Duty , 0 Standby) 3 Duty and 1 Standby) 3 Duty and 1 Standby) Rate)
356
Drought 2.5 365 365 356
(2.5 mgd)
361
High 2.0 365 365 361
(2.0 mgd)
361
Average 1.6 365 365 361
(1.6 mgd)
365
Low 0.83 365 365 365
(0.83 mgd)
1 DAF design surface loading rate (SLR) with two DAF basins in service at 6.2 mgd clarified water (2.5 mgd treated water) is 10 gpm/sf;
manufacturers’ report that DAF units can operate effectively at SLRs up to 20 gpm/sf.
2 Because DAF is only required to operate during adverse storm events, algae blooms or red tides and each event typically lasts from
approximately 1 week to 3 months, DAF performance is acceptable when followed by MF/UF.
3 MF/UF membranes design flux with three MF/UF racks in service at 6.2 mgd filtered water (2.5 mgd treated water) is 40 gfd; MF/UF
membranes can operate at flux up to 44 gfd based on results of scwd2 Desalination Pilot Test Program.
4 RO design flux with three RO skids in service at 2.5 mgd permeate/treated water is 8 gfd; RO membranes can operate at flux up to 10 gfd.
The results presented in Table 6 indicate that during a given year, the plant is expected to produce:
2.5 mgd or more 356 days per year,
1.6 to 2.0 mgd for 6 days per year, and
0.83 mgd for the remaining 3 days per year.
The City and District indicated during the Pretreatment Workshop that 2.5 mgd is expected from the
facility during summer months during a drought, but that reduced production from the facility during other
times of the year is acceptable for short periods of time.
The reason that the RO system is not expected to be as reliable as MF/UF or DAF is that RO has different
operational requirements and is more apt to be offline than more traditional water treatment processes.
The CDM team considered adding a second redundant RO unit to improve anticipated reliability; however,
the additional cost could not be justified for the minor increase in reliability provided by an additional unit.
Overview of Preliminary Design

Process Description
A process flow drawing for the scwd2 seawater RO treatment facility is presented in Figure 1. Seawater
intake alternatives for this facility are currently being investigated by scwd2 under a separate contract.
While this study is investigating both an open ocean intake alternative and subsurface intake alternatives,
the process flow drawing reflects that seawater will be withdrawn from an open ocean intake. This
TM2-12 Α
23
scenario will require pretreatment facilities and treatment process at least as comprehensive as a
subsurface intake scenario. If a subsurface intake is determined to be viable for this project, naturally
occurring sand/soil layers or pre-engineered fill material may provide filtration for the removal of
suspended solids and isolation of the intake from algal blooms. In this case, it may be possible to
eliminate some of the pretreatment unit processes, such as the DAF. However, the remaining
desalination and post-treatment facilities would be similar to those shown in the drawing. From this
perspective, this drawing represents a more comprehensive treatment process which may be simplified if
a subsurface intake can be developed.
The SWRO desalination plant will likely include the following components. These recommendations are
based on the assumption that the plant will be supplied from an open ocean intake.
Pretreatment: Rapid mixing, coagulation, DAF clarification.
Pressurized MF/UF: Feed pumps, auto-backwasing strainers, MF/UF membranes, backwash,

cleaning system and ancillary support systems. Provisions will be included to allow bypassing the
flocculation and/or DAF clarification process and to operate the MF/UF system in a direct filtration
mode.
SWRO Desalination: Equalization basin, RO feed transfer pumps, cartridge filters, high pressure RO
feed pumps, RO units, energy recovery system, RO cleaning and flushing systems. Provisions will be
included to accommodate the installation of a partial second pass RO treatment system in the event
that it is determined that higher levels of boron removal will be desired in the future.
Post-treatment and Distribution: Carbon dioxide (CO2) system, calcite contactors, chlorine contact
basin, clearwell, and high service pump station. Provisions will be made to facilitate the installation of
onsite product water storage facilities if they are determined to be desired in the future.
Residuals Handling: Washwater equalization basin, solids clarifiers/thickeners, reclaimed washwater

pump station, solids transfer pump station, and a solids disposal pump station or solids mechanical
dewatering system (if discharging solids to the SCWD’s sewer system is not feasible).
Concentrate Disposal: Concentrate equalization basin andpotentially a concentrate disposal pump

station (depending on the final plant elevation).
Chemical Systems: Sodium hypochlorite, sodium bisulfite, ferric chloride, antiscalant, caustic soda,
CO2, sodium hypochlorite, corrosion inhibitor, provisions for additional MF/UF and RO cleaning
chemicals including, citric acid, caustic soda, strong acid, and other cleaners. Provisions will also be
included for future chemicals.
Miscellaneous Facilities: Operations and maintenance rooms, electrical equipment room, yard piping,
stormwater detention/handling, and other miscellaneous items.
Α TM2-13
24
In TM-1, 100 to 120-micron strainers were recommended before the DAF units. These strainers would
protect both the DAF and MF/UF systems from debris that could potentially damage the process
equipment. As the preliminary design has progressed, the design team assumed that the DAF basins
would be outdoors and uncovered. With uncovered basins, debris (such as sand or pine needles) could
enter the basins, be pumped to the MF/UF system and damage the membranes. Based on discussions
with the potential MF/UF system suppliers and experience at other MF/UF facilities, CDM recommends
locating strainers after the DAF units and MF/UF feed pumps, and immediately before the MF/UF
membranes. This revised strainer location will prevent debris larger than approximately 100 microns from
reaching the MF/UF membranes when the DAF units are in operation or when raw or coagulated water is
bypassed around the DAF basins and sent directly to the MF/UF membranes. CDM will continue
discussions with potential DAF equipment suppliers to determine if screens, strainers or other particle
removal equipment should also be installed before the DAF units.
Similarly, static mixers were shown for rapid mixing in the Pilot Test Program Report and TM 1. In TM-2,
CDM recommends pumped water injection because it will provide the following benefits over static mixers
or impellor-type mixers: 1) more effective mixing over the entire range of anticipated flows; 2) less
susceptible to fouling and fewer maintenance requirements; 3) closed pipe system can be located indoors
or outdoors and will not produce potentially corrosive salt water aerosols; 4) low energy use; and 5)
preference expressed by City’s operating staff.
Reverse Osmosis Membrane System and Energy Recovery Devices

Reverse Osmosis Introduction
In the seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) process, seawater is pumped through high rejection seawater
membranes at high pressure to produce a high purity stream (permeate) that meets established drinking
water quality standards. High pressure RO pumps are used to increase the feed pressure to the seawater
reverse osmosis membranes to the range of 800 to 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi). Operation at
these high feed pressures overcomes the natural osmotic pressure of seawater and allows high purity
water to flow through the membranes while removing over 95 percent of the dissolved salts. In a typical
seawater RO system, 40 to 50 percent of the seawater that is fed to the reverse osmosis system passes
through the membranes and becomes high purity drinking water. Because approximately half of the water
is removed from the remaining seawater stream while the majority of the dissolved salts are retained, this
stream becomes more concentrated and is called the concentrate (a.k.a., brine) stream. The concentrate
stream leaves the RO at a pressure only 20 to 40 psi lower than the feed pressure to the membranes.
For this reason there is a significant amount of energy remaining in the concentrate stream and energy
recovery devices are used to recover over 95 percent of the energy in this process stream, which greatly
improves the overall energy efficiency of the process. This section will describe the components of the
RO system and the energy recovery system.
TM2-14 Α
25
Reverse Osmosis Process Description

Figure 4 illustrates the proposed desalination process, and Table 7 shows the mass balance for
desalination system at maximum daily plant flow. Filtered seawater from the MF/UF process will be
pumped by transfer pumps from the RO feed equalization basin to the seawater RO process. This filtered
feedwater will first pass through cartridge filter vessels to remove any suspended particles that may have
accumulated downstream of the MF/UF process or in the MF/UF clearwell. A chemical supply line and
static mixer with injection ports will be supplied for dosing antiscalant, caustic soda, or sodium bisulfite
ahead of the RO system as necessary 1 . Downstream of the cartridge filters, a portion of the feedwater
flow, equal to the RO concentrate flow, will be directed to the energy recovery devices (ERD’s). The
remaining feedwater flow will be directed to the high pressure RO pumps. These pumps will pressurize
the RO feedwater up to approximately 900 psi at average salinity and temperature conditions and up to
approximately 1,000 psi for the condition of maximum feedwater salinity at minimum temperature and a
five year membrane life. The feedwater passing through the ERD devices will be pressurized by
recovering energy from the RO concentrate using isobaric pressure exchangers with an energy recovery
efficiency greater than 95 percent. The feedwater stream leaving the ERD’s will require minor pressure
boosting by an ERD booster pump to compensate for the pressure losses experienced from the
feed/concentrate stream passing through the feedwater channels of the RO membranes, any pressure
loses in the piping, and ERD energy transfer inefficiencies. The necessary pressure boost will typically be
in the range of 30 to 35 psi. The feedwater from the ERD boost pumps will be combined with feed water
from the high pressure RO pump discharge for treatment in the RO membranes. The RO membranes will
be a hybrid arrangement of high boron rejection seawater RO membranes in the three (3) lead element
positions and low energy consumption seawater RO membranes in the four (4) tail element position of the
RO pressure vessels. This hybrid arrangement provides the optimum balance of boron removal to meet
treatment objectives while minimizing RO system energy requirements. The RO system will have the
ability to operate from 40 to 50 percent recovery, however, it is anticipated that the RO system will
typically operate in a recovery range of 40 to 45 percent.
1
The Technical Advisory Committee recommends that provisions for antiscalant, caustic soda, and sodium bisulfate be
included upstream of the RO system. Antiscalant addition may be desired to reduce iron fouling of the RO membranes
when an iron based coagulant is added during pretreatment. Caustic soda addition may be desired to temporarily reduce
boron concentrations in the desalinated water. Sodium bisulfate addition will be necessary for dechlorination when chlorine
is added upstream for biofouling control and/or MF/UF cleaning.
Α TM2-15
26
Figure 4
Desalination System
Table 7: Mass Balance for Desalination System at Maximum Daily Plant Flow
ID Description Flow TDS TSS
No. (gpm) (mg/L) (mg/L)
1 Pretreated/RO feed water from MF/UF pretreatment via the 6.3 36,000 <0.1
RO feedwater equalization basin
2 Split RO feedwater stream through high pressure pumps 2.6 36,000 <0.1
3 Split RO feedwater stream through energy recovery system 3.7 36,000 <0.1
4 Recombined RO feedwater 6.3 36,750 <0.1
5 RO permeate 2.5 150 <0.1
6 RO concentrate 3.8 62,500 <0.1
TM2-16 Α
27
The low pressure concentrate stream leaving the ERD’s will pass through a flow control valve which
regulates the flow through the ERD’s and will flow to a concentrate equalization basin. Transfer pumps
will pump the concentrate from the equalization basin to a pipeline where it will blend with the treated
effluent from the waste water treatment facility prior to disposal in the ocean through the existing outfall
line.
Membrane Performance Projections

Membrane performance projections have been developed to determine the optimum membrane selection
to meet the finished water quality goals based on the anticipated operating ranges of seawater salinity,
temperature, and water quality as outlined in the Water Quality, Production and Operational Goals section
of this TM. For a specified plant capacity, the membrane performance projections will calculate the
required operating pressure and predicted permeate quality for the selected membrane element model(s)
and the specified RO system configuration based on input information concerning feedwater quality and
temperature. All the major membrane manufacturers (e.g., Hydranautics, Toray, Dow Filmtec) provide
software for generating membrane performance projections for their products. Because of the importance
of energy recovery on the overall performance of a seawater RO system, several have made provisions in
their projection programs to include various energy recovery devices. At the present time, the membrane
projection software from Hydranautics appears to be the most advanced in integrating a number of
features of importance in the design of seawater RO systems including isobaric energy recovery devices,
“split partial” permeate stream splitting which can significantly increase product quality or reduce second
pass size in a two pass system, hybrid membrane configurations with isobaric energy recovery, etc.
Since pilot testing and membrane performance projections developed during the pilot phase of this project
indicated that a hybrid membrane element configuration using isobaric energy recovery devices would be
the optimum design for this project, the Hydranautics software was considered the best membrane
projection software for further developing the design criteria for this project. Now that the initial projections
have been developed using the Hydranautics program, projected ERD performance from this work will
help to facilitate performing similar analyses using projection software from other major membrane
manufacturers.
As discussed in the functional analysis section of this memo, membrane unit capacities in the range of
0.83 mgd to 1.25 mgd would be a logical choice to provide a balance between capital and operating costs
and plant reliability. The selection of the type of high pressure RO pump may also impact the selected
capacity for the membrane treatment units as described in the High Pressure RO feed pump section of
this TM.
Membrane projections defining the anticipated operating envelope for this project are presented in
Appendix E. As shown in the projections, the maximum TDS and minimum temperature condition at the
maximum assumed membrane age requires the highest membrane operating pressure. This pressure is
used in the calculation to determine the required total dynamic head (TDH) for the design of the HP RO
Α TM2-17
28
pump. The maximum TDS and maximum temperature case at maximum membrane age represents the
worst case membrane permeate quality. Performance at average conditions reflect typical plant operating
values for parameters such as power and chemical consumption that can be used as a basis for
evaluating typical system operating costs. The minimum TDS and maximum temperature case with new
membranes reflects the lowest head condition for the HP RO pump and defines the turndown ratio of this
pump from the maximum design TDH to the minimum required TDH.
It is intended that the design of this facility provide sufficient flexibility to allow operation over a range of 40
to 50 percent recovery to provide the optimum balance between plant operating costs and capital cost.
For operation over a wide range of the anticipated salinity and temperature conditions a recovery rate of
42.5 to 45 percent should be optimum. However, at extreme conditions of maximum salinity and minimum
temperature, it may be desirable to operate at approximately 40 percent recovery. Similarly under certain
conditions, there may be benefits in terms of reduced feed flow requirements or concentrate discharge
requirements associated with operation at higher recovery. Experience with other seawater RO projects
indicates that operation at an average design flux of approximately 8 gfd results in optimum balance of
power cost versus capital cost. The system could be operated at an average flux of up to 10 gfd at
conditions of lower salinity and higher temperature; however, as shown in the membrane projections, flux
and recovery will be limited as the membranes age and foul.
For this design, it was determined that a combination of “high boron rejection” and “low energy” seawater
RO membranes would provide the optimum solution to meet the established boron treatment goal at the
lowest energy consumption. For the membrane performance projections, a hybrid design was selected
that utilizes three high boron rejection Hydranautics SWC4B membranes in the lead element positions
and four lower energy consumption Hydranautics SWC5 membranes in the tail end positions of each
pressure vessel, which is where TDS will increase and feed pressure will decrease as seawater flows
through the vessel. Although the performance projections were based on Hydranautics RO elements,
seawater RO elements from other qualified manufacturers can also meet the treatment goals and the RO
elements will be competitively bid during the procurement phase of the project.
The Hydranautics RO performance projection program also provides the flexibility for the user to adjust
how membrane performance might vary over time with respect to membrane flux decline and salt passage
increase. Hydranautics published RO membrane design guidelines give “conservative”, “typical”, and
“aggressive” values of membrane flux decline factor and salt passage increase factors based on the
application (brackish, seawater, groundwater, surface water, etc.) and the level of pretreatment required.
These membrane projections are based on Hydranautics “typical” design guidelines for an open seawater
intake with MF/UF pretreatment ahead of the RO system. The “typical” design guidelines for MF/UF
pretreatment ahead of the RO system are an RO membrane flux decline factor of 7 percent per year and
a salt passage increase factor of 10 percent per year. For end of life membrane performance, an average
membrane life of 5 years has been used in these projections; therefore the projections are conservative.
The RO membranes are often replaced systematically at frequencies that maintain the 5-year life, but
TM2-18 Α
29
reduce the average membrane age to less than 5 years; in these cases, water quality may be better than
indicated by the projections for 5-year membrane life.
Table 8 provides a summary of membrane performance at maximum, average, and minimum operating
conditions.
RO Feed Equalization and Transfer

While the RO units tend to operate continuously with infrequent offline cleanings, the MF/UF units cycle
back and forth between filtration mode and backwash mode at frequencies of once or twice per hour. To
compensate for the time out of service during backwash mode, the MF/UF units operate at a capacity
higher than the required feed flow to the RO units. This higher production rate compensates for
production lost while the units are out of service for backwashing, chemically enhanced backwashes,
integrity testing, etc. For this reason, it is common practice to install a RO feed equalization tank between
the MF/UF units and the RO units. This equalization tank provides buffer capacity to compensate for the
differences in the production rates of the MF/UF units and the feed requirements for the RO units. This
basin can also serve as a reservoir for backwash water for the MF/UF system. While it is possible to
coordinate operation of the MF/UF and RO units so that filtrate from MF/UF units can go directly to the
suction of the HP RO pumps without the use of an RO feed equalization basin, feed transfer pumps or
cartridge filters, this design approach (a.k.a., direct coupling) will require more complex programming for
the MF/UF system and more close coordination with the RO system. This approach may require (1)
having additional MF/UF units online, (2) the MF/UF units may need to operate at higher flow rates to
maintain full RO feed flow when a MF/UF unit goes into backwash, and (3) a recirculation loop from the
MF/UF filtrate line back to the clearwell after the DAF system. It was considered that the more
conventional and easier to operate system that includes the equalization tank between the MF/UF and RO
systems should be used as the basis of the preliminary design. Direct coupling of the MF/UF and RO
systems will be investigated during the detailed design phase if scwd2 elects to pursue this option. Sizing
information and design criteria for the RO equalization basin is provided in Table 9.
A total of 3 RO feed transfer pumps will be provided with two pumps required for operation at full plant
capacity with the third unit serving as an installed spare. The RO feed transfer pumps will be designed to
provide a suction pressure of 20 to 30 psi at the suction side of the HP RO pump allowing for
approximately 15 psi pressure drop for dirty cartridge filters, static mixer and piping losses. It is
anticipated that these pumps will be vertical turbine wet pit type pumps. These pumps will be of
superduplex stainless steel construction for seawater service. Table 8 indicates that these pumps will be
equipped with variable frequency drives; however, these pumps will be further evaluated during the
detailed design to determine whether constant speed pumps will provide adequate coverage over the
required operating range.
Α TM2-19
30
Table 8: Membrane Performance Summary

Parameter Units RO Membrane Type
Membrane Elements Selected To Run RO Membrane Hydranautics SWC4B or equal (3 Lead Elements)
Projections Model Nos. Hydranautics SWC5 or equal (4 Tail Elements)
Maximum Design Average Design Minimum Design
Pressure and Flow Design Values Operating Condition
Pressure Conditions Pressure Conditions Pressure Conditions
Assumed Element Age years 5 3 0
Feedwater Temperature Degree C 10 14 18
7% Flux Decline/10% 7% Flux Decline/ 7% Flux Decline/ 10%
Assumed Fouling Allowance Per Year1 units
Salt passage increase 10% Salt Rejection Salt Rejection
Pressure Vessels in Single Stage,
number 37 37 37
Single Pass Array
SWRO Elements per Pressure Vessel number 7 7 7
Total Elements per Skid number 259 259 259
Permeate Recovery Rate2 percent 40% 42.5% 42.5%
Permeate Capacity per Skid mgd 0.83 0.83 0.83
Permeate Capacity per Skid gpm 588 588 588
Average Flux gfd 8.0 8.0 8.0
Maximum Single Element Flux gfd 9.5 10.3 11.8
Feedwater Pressure (w/Fouling
psi 9883 861 775
Allowance)
Total Permeate Back Pressure psi 10 10 10
Feedwater pH units 8.0 7.6 7.6
5-Year Water Quality Average Water Quality Initial Water Quality
Permeate Water Quality Values Operating Condition
Projections4 Projections Projections
Permeate Water Quality
Assumed Element Age years 5 3 0
Permeate Recovery Rate2 percent 40% 42.5% 45%
Average Flux gfd 8.0 8.0 8.0
Modified RO Feedwater Temperature
Degree C 18 14 18
Conditions at Criteria Above
Calcium mg/L 0.6 0.4 0.4
Magnesium mg/L 1.9 1.4 1.2
Sodium mg/L 75 51 48
Bicarbonate mg/L 1.6 0.9 1.0
Sulfate mg/L 4.2 4.1 2.7
Chloride mg/L 121 83 77
Boron mg/L 0.83 0.54 0.46
Bromide mg/L 0.42 0.29 0.27
Total Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 1.3 0.7 0.8
Total Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 9.3 6.8 5.9
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 208 144 133
pH units 6.5 6.4 6.3
Concentrate Water Quality
Temperature Condition Degree C 182 14 18
Calcium mg/L 761 781 721
Magnesium mg/L 2424 2484 2,256
Sodium mg/L 20,105 19,135 18,997
Bicarbonate mg/L 265 212 251
Sulfate mg/L 5,047 6,744 4,774
Chloride mg/L 36,170 33,670 34,280
Boron mg/L 8.2 7.6 6.8
Total Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 217 174 206
Total Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 11,889 12,186 11,097
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 65,549 63,815 62,059
pH units 8.5 8.5 8.5
Notes:
1. Allowances are for flux decline and salt passage increase.
2. Operation at recovery rates less than 42% will typically be associated with low feedwater temperature and advanced membrane age.
3. Maximum feedwater pressure assumes maximum TDS, minimum temperature, and membrane age of 5 years.
4. Maximum TDS and Maximum Temperature Conditions Assumed to Indicate Maximum Salt Concentrations in RO permeate.
TM2-20 Α
31
Table 9: RO Feedwater Equalization Basin and Low Pressure RO Feed Pumps Design Criteria
Potential Expansion to
Parameter Units Initial 2.5 mgd Facility
4.5 mgd
MF/UF Filtrate/ RO Feedwater EQ Basin Type Concrete Concrete
Rated Capacity (Minimum-Maximum) mgd 1.7-6.3 1.7-11.3
Number of Chambers no. 2 2
Nominal Rated Capacity gpm 4,340 7,813
Volume Required for 10 Minutes of
gallons 78,000 78,000
Equalization at Future Rated Capacity
MF/UF Backwash Volume Required gallons 17,000 28,000
Dimensions Each Chamber
Length feet 27 27
Width feet 30 30
Height feet 20 20
Water Depth (Maximum) feet 18 18
Total Volume gallons 109,000 109,000
Detention Time at Rated Capacity minutes 25 14
RO Feedwater Low Pressure Transfer Vertical Wet Pit with Vertical Wet Pit with
Type
Pumps VFD VFD
Number of Pumps in Operation No. 2 3
Number of Pumps in Installed No. 3 4
Design Flow per Pump gpm 2,170 2,604
Firm Capacity gpm 4,340 7,813
Design Differential Pressure (TDH) psi 50 50
Motor Size HP 125 125
Cartridge Filters & Static Mixer

Cartridge filtration will be provided upstream of the RO units as a safety precaution to remove any sand,
silt, pipe shavings, and other suspended solids that may enter the system downstream of the MF/UF units
and foul or physically damage the membrane elements. The filter cartridges will measure 40 inches in
length, 2.5 inches in diameter, and have a nominal pore size of 5 microns. The cartridge filter vessels
accommodate either string-wound cartridge filters or rigid-structure cartridge filters. With MF/UF filtration
ahead of the cartridge filter, it is anticipated that the feedwater will be of high quality in terms of low sand
and suspended solids levels. In this case, the string-wound cartridges should be adequate for normal
operating conditions; however, with the low fouling potential and relatively long times between cartridge
change out, either string-wound or rigid-structure cartridges could be used cost effectively.
For seawater RO systems there are several alternate materials of construction that have been used for
cartridge filter housings. High alloy stainless steel construction such as AL6XN, 254 SMO, or super
Α TM2-21
32
duplex stainless steel have proven to give reliable service in seawater RO plants; however, these alloys
can cost two to four times as much as 316L SS housings. On large international design/build/operate
projects some contractors have supplied carbon steel rubber lined vessels. For the size of cartridge filter
housings for the scwd2 project, fiberglass cartridge filters can be a cost effective solution that provides a
high degree of corrosion resistance. As shown in Table 10, three cartridge filter vessels will be provided.
Each housing will hold the equivalent of 472, 10-inch long filters. This will result in loading rates of 3.1
gpm per 10-inch cartridge with 3 cartridge vessels in service and 4.6 gpm per 10-inch cartridge with 2
vessels in service when producing 2.5 mgd at 40 percent recovery.
Table 10: Cartridge Filter Design Criteria

4.5 mgd
Horizontal Fiberglass Horizontal Fiberglass
Cartridge Filters Type
Housings Housings
Number of Filter Housings (in
No. 2 4
service)
Number of Filter Housings (total) No. 3 5
mgd 3.1 3.3
Design Flow per Vessel
gpm 2,170 2,604
gpm per 10
Loading Rate – All-in-service 3.1 3.3
in. of filter
gpm per 10
Loading Rate – One-out-of-service 4.6 4.1
in. of filter
Length of Each Cartridge Filter inches 40 40
Nominal Pore Size micron 5 5
Pressure Drop, Clean psi 1 to 2 1 to 2
Pressure Drop, Dirty psi 10 to 15 10 to 15
High Pressure RO Pumps

For seawater treatment plants in the capacity range envisioned for the scwd2 project there are two broad
classifications of pumps, positive displacement and centrifugal, that can be used for the high pressure
(HP) RO pumps. Selection of the type of high pressure RO pump may also impact the selected capacity
for the membrane treatment units. For example positive displacement pumps while typically providing
high operating efficiencies may be limited to membrane unit capacities of 1.0 mgd or less. On the other
hand, centrifugal RO pumps can accommodate much larger capacity membrane units and would tend to
have increasing efficiency as membrane unit size increases. Budgetary quotes received from vendors
indicated that the positive displacement pump would have an efficiency of 88 percent while the centrifugal
pump would have an efficiency of 78 percent. These quotes assumed seawater RO membrane unit
capacities of 0.83 mgd and 1.25 mgd for the positive displacement (PD) and centrifugal pumps
respectively. In comparison, the centrifugal HP RO pumps for the Blue Hills, Bahamas plant, which has a
design permeate production of 1.2 mgd per unit, have an efficiency of 82 percent. In this case it is
TM2-22 Α
33
anticipated that the efficiency difference between centrifugal pumps is due to differences in pump models
rather than differences in the pump capacity. Consolidated Water supplied both the 2.6 mgd Windsor and
the 7.2 mgd Blue Hills desalination plants as well as over a dozen other seawater RO plants in the
Caribbean in the size range of 0.2 mgd to 7.2 mgd. Some of these facilities use positive displacement HP
RO pumps while others use centrifugal pumps. Consolidated advised that based on their experience with
both positive displacement and centrifugal HP RO pumps, that “even with approximately $0.35/kWh
(USD) electrical costs (in several Caribbean islands) we are moving away from reciprocating PDs and
going exclusively to centrifugal pumps, due to overall cost effectiveness and reliability.” Until a final
decision is made concerning the type of HP RO pump to be used for this project, the design criteria has
been based on the use of centrifugal pumps which result in a more conservative design approach in terms
of power consumption and configuration of the electrical power system. These options will be investigated
further in the detail design phase to determine whether improvements can be made on energy efficiency
and the cost of the electrical power system.
One dedicated horizontal multistage split case HP RO pump with variable frequency drive will be provided
for each RO membrane unit. A total of four HP RO pumps are provided with three pumps normally in
service when the plant is operating at full plant capacity with one installed standby unit, which is dedicated
to the standby RO unit. The design criteria data for the HP RO pumps are based on a budgetary pump
quote for horizontal multistage split case (HMSC) centrifugal pumps. This is the pump type currently used
in Blue Hills, Tampa, Trinidad and numerous other seawater desalination plants. Another option for
centrifugal HP RO pumps is the radially split multistage centrifugal pump. These pumps tend to be
somewhat lower in capital cost but not quite as efficient (76 percent) as the HMSC pumps. The HMSC
pumps are also considered to have higher reliability and are easier to maintain.
As noted in the discussion of membrane performance projections, HP RO pumps would be designed to

operate over a range of conditions of RO unit feed pressure from initial (0-year) conditions at minimum
TDS and maximum temperature to the long term (5-year membrane life) maximum TDS and minimum
temperature conditions. Due to the anticipated range in TDS and temperature conditions and initial and
long-term membrane performance conditions, each HP RO pump will require a wide operating range. As
discussed previously, the RO feed transfer pumps will be designed to provide a suction pressure of 20 to
30 psi at the suction side of the HP RO pump allowing for approximately 15 psi pressure drop for dirty
cartridge filters, static mixer and piping losses. The HP RO pumps will require a TDH to pump the RO
feed water from the suction pressure provided by the RO feed transfer pumps to the required operating
pressure of the RO membrane unit based on the feed salinity and temperature conditions and the degree
of fouling of the membrane elements. Operating conditions are expected to range from 587 gpm at a total
dynamic head of approximately 756 psi for initial (0 yr) conditions at minimum TDS and maximum
temperature to 589 gpm at a total dynamic head of 967 psi for the long term (5 year membrane life)
maximum TDS and minimum temperature condition.
Α TM2-23
34
To optimize operating efficiency over this range of operating flow and pressure, a variable frequency drive
will be provided on each HP RO pump. The variable frequency drive will allow the RO membrane unit to
maintain water production under varying water quality conditions, temperatures, and fouling conditions.
These variable frequency drives conserve energy by allowing the pump and motor to operate at the
minimum energy required for that particular operating condition. The HP RO pumps will be installed in a
separate pump room to minimize pumping noise in the rest of the membrane plant. The materials of
construction will be superduplex stainless steel or equal in terms of corrosion resistance.
Seawater Reverse Osmosis Units

As discussed in the functional analysis section of this memo, membrane unit capacities in the range of
0.83 mgd to 1.25 mgd would be the most logical choice to provide the best balance between capital and
operating costs and plant reliability for the initial design phase and potential expansion for this project. As
discussed in the previous section, the HP RO pump selection may impact the selected treatment capacity
of the membrane units. For the purposes of this analysis a membrane unit size of 0.83 mgd was selected
as providing the flexibility to use either positive displacement or centrifugal pump options.
The RO units will be configured as independent membrane units with a dedicated HP RO pump and
energy recovery system for each membrane unit. Each membrane unit will be arranged in a single pass
configuration with the membrane vessels in that pass installed in parallel in a single stage configuration.
Each membrane unit will have 37 pressure vessels installed and will be configured to accommodate the
installation of a total of 42 vessels. Each pressure vessel will contain 7 membrane elements, for a total of
259 elements per skid. Membrane elements will be arranged in a hybrid configuration with high rejection
boron elements in the lead positions and low energy elements in the tail positions of each vessel to
optimize the balance between boron removal and power consumption. The configuration reflected in the
membrane projections is based on three high boron rejection SWC4B membranes followed by four SWC5
low energy elements in each vessel. The design basis reflects the use of standard 8-inch diameter by 40-
inch long seawater RO elements with 400 sf membrane area per element. Due to the potential for
biofouling associated with algal bloom events, this design envisions the use of standard 400 sf rather than
higher membrane area elements. In addition, it is recommended that membrane elements with 31 mil or
larger feed/brine spacers be selected to reduce pressure drops across the membrane elements during
biofouling events as compared to standard 28 mil spacers. It is recommended that biostatic spacers be
provided where available. The larger feed/brine spacers reduce pressure drop per element which
translates to lower energy loss. The larger feed/brine channels tend to be less susceptible to biofouling
buildup and facilitate membrane element cleaning. Each membrane unit will include all pressure vessels,
membrane elements, supporting frame, sample panels, on-board instrumentation and associated panels,
piping, valves and actuators, and all necessary appurtenances.
TM2-24 Α
35
A total of four 0.83 mgd permeate production capacity membrane units will be provided for the initial
design phase. Three membrane units would normally be in operation with the fourth unit representing an
installed spare.
Energy Recovery System

A high-efficiency, isobaric pressure exchanging energy recovery system will be provided for each RO
membrane unit to significantly reduce the overall power consumption of the SWRO system. The energy
recovery system described in Table 11 is based on pressure exchanger type ERDs as manufactured by
Energy Recovery Inc. (ERI); additional ERDs will be evaluated in future tasks. A total of 4 ERI model PX-
300 ERD’s will be provided per RO membrane unit. In this configuration, three units would normally be in
service at RO recoveries of 43 to 50%; the fourth unit would only be necessary at RO recoveries of 40%
to 42%. The design flow rate per ERD will be 261 gpm at an operating recovery of 42.5 percent resulting
in design flow rate of 783 gpm per energy recovery system. The system will have the operating flexibility
to operate at a recovery down to 40 percent. At 40 percent recovery, the total concentrate flow will be 868
gpm and the flow per unit would be 289.3 gpm.
Table 11: SWRO System Design Criteria

Potential Expansion to 4.5
mgd
Horizontal, Split-case, Horizontal, Split-case,
RO High Pressure Feed Pumps Type
Centrifugal with VFD Centrifugal with VFD
Number of Duty Pumps No. 3 5
Number of Pumps Installed No. 4 6
Feed Flow per RO Unit gpm 1,447 1,563
Feed Flow per HPRO Pump gpm 590 638
Maximum Feed Pressure psi 993 1,000
ft 2,310 2,310
Maximum Motor Size HP 500 600
Skid-mounted; single- Skid-mounted; single-
RO Treatment Skids Type
stage; single pass array stage; single pass array
mgd 2.5 4.5
Total Permeate Capacity
gpm 1,736 3,125
No. of Units per Skid No. 2 2
Number of Duty Units in Operation No. 3 5
Number of Units Installed No. 4 6
Permeate Capacity per Unit mgd 0.83 0.90
gpm 579 625
Expected Design Recovery % 40-50 40-50
Elements per Pressure Vessel No. 7 7
Active Pressure Vessels in (per Unit) No. 37 37
Non-active vessels per unit No. 5 5
Total Vessels per Unit No. 42 42
Α TM2-25
36
Table 11: SWRO System Design Criteria

Potential Expansion to 4.5
mgd
Number of Elements per Unit No. 259 259
Area per Element sf 400 400
Average Permeate Flux gfd 8.0 8.7
Energy Recovery Devices Type Isobaric Isobaric
Manufacturer and Model Number Name ERI PX-300 ERI PX-300
Number of Duty ERD's per Unit No. 4 5
Number of ERD's per Skid No. 4 5
Concentrate Flow Rate per ERD gpm 289 235
Feed Flow Rate per ERD gpm 262 231
PX Lubrication Flow % 0.10 0.10
PX Efficiency % 0.96 0.96
Vertical Inline; Vertical Inline;
ERD Booster Pumps Type
Centrifugal with VFD Centrifugal with VFD
Number of Duty Pumps No. 3 5
Design Flow per Pump gpm 858 925
Design Differential Pressure (TDH) psi 55 55
Motor Size HP 50 50
The feedwater stream leaving the ERD’s will require minor pressure boosting by an ERD booster pump to
compensate for the pressure losses experienced from the feed/concentrate stream passing through the
feedwater channels of the RO membranes, any pressure loses in the piping, and ERD pressure transfer
energy inefficiencies. Each energy recovery system will have a dedicated vertical in-line centrifugal ERD
booster pump. Each pump will be designed to deliver 925 gpm at a total dynamic head of 55 psi. Each
pump will be supplied with a 50 HP motor and a variable frequency drive to maintain water production
under different fouling conditions.
RO Cleaning System
Because RO membranes are very effective in removing dissolved and suspended solids, they tend to foul
or become dirty over time and periodic cleaning is needed. A clean-in-place (CIP) system will be provided
for periodic cleaning of the RO membranes. As shown in Table 12, the primary components of the CIP
system include cleaning tanks with a tank heater, cleaning pumps, and cartridge filters. Two cleaning
tanks are recommended to provide operating flexibility and reduce cleaning time. With two tanks, the
operator can be cleaning with a low pH solution in one tank and can be preparing a high pH cleaning
solution in the other tank. Having this flexibility can save a couple of hours on every cleaning operation. A
small batching tank will also be provided. This tank will allow chemicals to be batched in smaller
quantities closer to ground level and then transferred to the cleaning tanks.
TM2-26 Α
37
The primary RO cleaning chemicals anticipated for use in the facility will be acid for low pH cleaning and
sodium hydroxide for high pH cleaning. This selection of cleaning chemicals is based on foulants that
might migrate past the MF/UF units in the pretreatment. Other acids or bases may need to be used for
less common cleaning applications. Various common detergents may also be used in combination with
the acidic and basic solutions.
After use, these high pH and low pH cleaning solutions will be neutralized to a pH range of 6 to 9 prior to
being discharged to the sanitary sewer for treatment at the City wastewater treatment plant.
Α TM2-27
38
Table 12: RO Cleaning and Flush System Design Criteria

4.5 mgd
RO Cleaning (CIP) System Type RO Clean-in-Place RO Clean-in-Place
Number of Storage Tanks (cleaning
solution mix tank and waste No. 2 2
neutralization tank )
Storage Tank Capacity Each gallons 8,500 8,500
Number of Mixers per Tank No. 1 1
Number of Cleaning Pumps No. 2 (1 duty; 1 standby) 2 (1 duty; 1 standby)
Design Discharge Pressure psi 60 60
Motor Size HP 100 100
Concrete; connected Concrete; connected
RO Flushing/2nd Pass RO Feed Tank Type
to clearwell to clearwell
Number of Chambers No. 1 1
Length ft 30 30
Width ft 30 30
Water Depth ft 18 18
Height ft 20 20
Volume gallons 122,000 122,000
Number of Flush Pumps No. 1 1
Design Discharge Pressure psi 40 40
Motor Size HP 75 75
RO Flushing System
Because of high concentrations of dissolved salts in seawater and the concentrate, it is recommended to
flush the RO concentrate out of the system when an RO membrane unit is shut down for any reason to
reduce the potential for membrane scaling and to reduce corrosion potential. The flushing will be done
with RO permeate from a tank that is kept full and renewed periodically.
This simple permeate flushing system will consist of a tank and a flush pump that is similar to the cleaning
pumps, along with the appropriate controls and valves to automatically flush a membrane unit on
shutdown including those initiated by plant operators, system alarms and power outages.
TM2-28 Α
39
Post-treatment, Disinfection, and Product Water Pumping

RO Permeate Re-mineralization and Stabilization
The desalination process will produce high quality water with very low concentrations of minerals such as
calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate. Because of the low concentrations of these minerals, the
desalinated water will taste flat. Additionally, introducing desalinated water into a distribution system can
impact the formation and release of existing corrosion scale within the distribution system.
To address taste and corrosion concerns, calcium and alkalinity are added to the desalinated water. Post-
treatment typically includes reintroducing calcium carbonate into the water in the form of lime or limestone
and carbon dioxide addition. Blending with another potable water source, pH adjustment with caustic
soda, and the addition of phosphate-based corrosion inhibitor are additional post-treatment methods used
at desalination plants.
Calcite contactors, carbon dioxide, and corrosion inhibitor are the post-treatment processes selected
during the scwd2 Seawater Reverse Osmosis Desalination Pilot Program to meet the post-treated water
goals summarized in Table 13. Carbon dioxide addition will add alkalinity and lower the pH to increase
calcium uptake from the calcite, which adds hardness and increases pH. Figure 5 illustrates the post-
treatment process.
Table 13: Post-treatment Water Quality Goals

Parameter Units Design Goal Design Range
pH pH Units 7.3 to match GHWTP water 7.1-7.5
Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 40 30-60
Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 45 30-60
Phosphate (corrosion inhibitor) mg/L 1.0 to match GHWTP water 0.5-1.2
Figure 5
Α TM2-29
40
Post-Treatment and Distribution System
Calcite Contactors
Calcium hardness will be added to the RO permeate as it flows through the calcite contactor bed. The
calcite slowly dissolves and must be periodically replenished. The rate of calcium uptake will be
determined by the pH and hardness of the RO permeate. Continuous carbon dioxide will be necessary to
reduce pH to meet the target alkalinity and hardness goals. The carbon dioxide dose will vary to a slight
degree as the RO membranes age.
Calcite can be delivered as needed or stored onsite as dry chemical. Options for loading the calcite into
the contactors will be investigated as the design advances; options include pneumatic loading, lifting
equipment with bag splitters, and conveyor systems. Calcite loading is expected to occur between once
and twice a year per contactor. Table 14 summarizes design criteria for the calcite contactors. The criteria
assumes the calcite contactors will be sized to treat 2.5 mgd; split-stream re-mineralization will be
evaluated in more detail during subsequent tasks.
Table 14: Calcite Contactor System Design Criteria

Initial 2.5 mgd Potential Expansion to
Parameter Units
Facility 4.5 mgd
Maximum Flow Basis mgd 2.5 4.5
No. of Vessels Online No. 5 9
No. of Vessels Installed No. 6 10
Design Flow per Vessel gpm 347 347
Filtration Area/Vessel sf 113 113
Normal Loading Rate gpm/sf 3.1 3.1
Vessel Material Type FRP FRP
Vessel Diameter ft. 12 12
Vessel Height ft. 16 16
Vessel Pressure Rating psi 100 100
Calcite Particle Diameter mm 1-3 1-3
Calcite Depth ft. 10 10
Calcite Volume/Filter cf 1,131 1,131
Calcite Volume/Filter gallons 8,465 8,465
Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT) minutes 24 24
Average Calcite Consumption mg/L 50 50
Maximum Calcite Consumption mg/L 60 60
Purity as Delivered % 95% 95%
Maximum Day Usage lbs/day 1,250 2,252
Duration between Loadings at Max Usage Per
days 203 203
Contactor1
Average Daily Usage lbs/day 1,043 1,877
Duration between Loadings at Avg. Usage Per
days 244 244
Contactor1
TM2-30 Α
41
1 Assumes that calcite will be replenished when approximately half of the volume is remaining.
Corrosion Inhibitor and pH Adjustment

Following the calcite contactors, chlorine and corrosion inhibitor will be added before the re-mineralized
RO permeate is ready to be pumped into the distribution system.
Sodium hypochlorite (chlorine) will be added before and/or after the calcite contactors for disinfection.
Corrosion inhibitor will be added after the calcite contactors to provide additional stabilization to reduce
corrosion in the distribution system and to match addition at the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant
(GHWTP). Final pH adjustment will be achieved through addition of sodium hydroxide (to increase pH as
needed) or carbon dioxide (to decrease pH as needed) downstream of the calcite contactors. It is
expected that carbon dioxide to lower pH will be required more often than caustic soda based on water
quality model calculations. Design criteria for carbon dioxide, corrosion inhibitor, and caustic soda storage
and feed systems are presented in the Chemical Systems section of this Technical Memorandum.
Disinfection
Pathogen Inactivation Requirements

Disinfection to meet 0.5 log Giardia and 2.0 log virus inactivation will be required by the California
Department of Public Health (CDPH) to provide a multiple barrier approach against pathogens entering
the distribution system. CDPH measures inactivation credits for various disinfectants as “CT”, the product
of the disinfectant residual “C” (in mg/L) and contact time “T”. The range of CT values required to meet
these levels of inactivation using free chlorine is summarized in Table 15. The table indicates that the CT
required for 0.5 log of Giardia inactivation at minimum temperature and maximum pH conditions will
dictate the design of the disinfection process.
Table 15: Range of CT Values to Meet Pathogen Inactivation Based on Projected Treated Water
Temperature and pH
CT at 1.0 mg/L of free chlorine,
CT at 1.0 mg/L of free chlorine, pH =
pH = 8.01, and temperature =
Pathogen Inactivation (log) 6.02, and temperature = 20oC
10oC
(mg/L x minutes)
(mg/L x minutes)
Giardia 0.5 27 7
Virus 2.0 3 1
1. Although the product water pH goal is approximately 7.2, a conservative pH value was selected because pH will vary
during the post-treatment process.
2. A pH of 6.0 assumes that chlorine is added prior to the calcite contactors.
Α TM2-31
42
Clearwell/Chlorine Contact Tank

The clearwell is sized to provide full CT credit assuming that at times CT credit will not be achieved by
adding chlorine upstream of the calcite contactors. This will provide operations staff the flexibility to
optimize the post-treatment and disinfection processes separately as needed. A maximum depth of 20
feet was selected for the clearwell so that it can be buried or partially buried to allow gravity flow from the
calcite contactors. Table 16 summarizes the design criteria to meet the required CT credit entirely in the
chlorine contact tank.
Table 16: Clearwell Design Criteria

Initial 2.5 mgd Potential Expansion
Parameter Units
Facility to 4.5 mgd
mgd 2.5 4.5
Nominal Rated Capacity
gpm 1,736 3,125
Number of Chambers No. 1 2
Chamber Length (each) ft 30 30
Chamber Width (each) ft 25 25
Chamber Height ft 20 20
Disinfection Volume per Chamber gallons 101,000 101,000
Detention Time at Design Flow minutes 58 65
Design Baffling Factor % 0.5 0.5
T10 minutes 29 32
Min Chlorine Dose at Design Flow mg/L 1 1
Design CT credit mg/L x minutes 29 32
Distribution
High Service Pump Station and Wetwell

An additional chamber will be included at the end of the clearwell to provide a wetwell for a high service
pump station to pump water into the distribution system. It is assumed that the pumps will be installed on
top of the wetwell to reduce footprint. The design pressure assumes that the pumps will be able to lift
water to the overflow of the new Bay Street Storage tanks and is based on initial estimates provided by
SCWD. Table 17 summarizes the design criteria for the high service pumps and wetwell.
TM2-32 Α
43
Table 17: High Service Pump Station and Wetwell Design Criteria
Parameter Units Facility to 4.5 mgd
Number of Pumps in Operation No. 2 3
Rated Capacity gpm 1,736 3,125
Design Flow per Pump gpm 868 1,042
Total Installed Capacity gpm 2,604 4,167
psi 125 125
Design Differential Pressure (TDH)
ft 289 289
Motor Size (HP) HP 125 125
Assumed Efficiency % 75% 75%
Pump and Drive Type Vertical Turbine with Variable Frequency Drive
Wetwell Length ft 10 10
Wetwell Width ft 25 25
Wetwell Water Depth ft 16 16
Chamber Sidewall Height ft 20 20
Wetwell Volume gallons 30,000 30,000
Wetwell Detention Time minutes 17 10
Chemical Storage and Feed Systems

Multiple chemicals will be required for treatment, disinfection, and membrane cleaning at the desalination
facility. The following section provides a summary of these requirements.
Chemical Description and Application Points

Table 18 provides a summary of the chemicals, application points, and chemical doses selected for the
preliminary design phase of the desalination facility.
Table 18: Chemical and Application Point Summary

Dose (mg/L)
Chemical Description of Use Application Points
Average Range
Continuous dispersant addition to
Antiscalant minimize SWRO membrane scaling RO feedwater 1.5 0-3.0
and/or iron fouling.
Continuous alkalinity addition and pH
RO permeate before calcite
Carbon Dioxide reduction to improve calcium uptake 40 20-60
contactors
during post-treatment.
Continuous phosphate addition to
Corrosion Inhibitor inhibit corrosion in the distribution Product water 1.0 0.5-1.5
system.
Α TM2-33
44
Table 18: Chemical and Application Point Summary

Dose (mg/L)
Chemical Description of Use Application Points
Average Range
Continuous coagulant addition to
improve removal of suspended Raw water
Ferric Chloride 5 0-15
particulates and dissolved constituents Used washwater
during pretreatment.
Intermittent use as a reducing agent to
dechlorinate RO feedwater and prior to RO feedwater
disposal of chlorinated discharges and Membrane cleaning tanks
Sodium Bisulfite cleaning solutions. Neutralization tank 8 0-14
It is also used to preserve RO RO Concentrate disposal EQ
membranes during extended periods of basin
downtime.
Intermittent use to improve boron RO Feedwater
rejection, control product water pH, Product water
Sodium Hydroxide 15 0-25
clean MF/UF and RO membranes, and Membrane cleaning tanks
neutralize acidic cleaning solutions. Neutralization tank
Raw water
Continuous use as a disinfectant.
MF/UF Membrane cleaning
Intermittent use as a pre-oxidant to
Sodium Hypochlorite tanks 1.0 0.5-3.0
improve pretreatment and to clean
Product water
MF/UF membranes.
Limestone Contactors
Citric acid will be used intermittently as
a chelating agent to clean MF/UF and
Citric Acid and Batch Batch
RO membranes. Potentially, other MF/UF Cleaning Tanks
Potential MF/UF and process; process;
membrane cleaning chemicals (EDTA RO Cleaning Tanks
RO Cleaning Chemicals Varies Varies
and detergent chemicals) may be
recommended in addition to citric acid.
Space included to allow up to two Raw water,
Spare chemicals for future treatment or RO feedwater, and/or TBD TBD
cleaning requirements. Product water
Chemical Use and Storage Requirements

Table 19 provides a summary of the chemical use and storage requirements assuming average and
maximum doses in Table 18 above, an average monthly production of 1.6 mgd, and maximum monthly
production of 2.5 mgd. The values for carbon dioxide are presented in terms of pounds instead of gallons
because this is the industry standard for gaseous chemicals.
TM2-34 Α
45
Table 19: Chemical Use and Storage

Use (gpd) Storage
Chemical Design Design Operating Days at Avg. Days at Max.
Tanks
Average at Maximum at 2.5 Volume Use at 1.6 Use at 2.5
(No.)
1.6 mgd mgd (gallons) mgd mgd
Antiscalant 10 35 1 400 40 11
Carbon Dioxide 400 lbs/day 1,040 lbs/day 1 25,200 lbs. 63 24
Corrosion Inhibitor 12 27 1 1,000 83 37
Ferric Chloride 38 192 1 5,000 131 26
Sodium Bisulfite 26 71 1 1,800 69 25
Sodium Hydroxide 160 422 1 5,000 33 12
Sodium Hypochlorite1 34 108 1 2,500 74 23
Citric Acid and
These chemicals are typically ordered as needed and stored temporarily in totes or pallets
Potential MF/UF and
before use. Space will be included in the MF/UF and RO CIP equipment areas.
RO Cleaning Chemicals
Spare TBD TBD 2 TBD TBD TBD
1 The upcoming preliminary design phase will include an evaluation of an onsite generation system for sodium
hypochlorite similar to the systems at the City’s Beltz and Graham Hill treatment plants.
RO Concentrate Storage and Pump Station

Approximately 40 to 50 percent of the seawater entering the desalination facility will be treated to drinking
water standards. The remaining 50 to 60 percent is commonly referred to as brine or RO Concentrate.
The concentrate will be returned back to Monterey Bay via the City’s existing outfall after combining with
the effluent from the City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). The allowable blending percentage of
concentrate and effluent is determined by the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) discharge permit (Permit No. CA 0048194) with a minimum initial dilution ratio (MIDR) of 139:1.
Therefore, concentrate will be stored onsite to reduce discharge during periods of low effluent discharge
(e.g., night hours during low rainfall periods) from the WWTF. Work performed by Brown and Caldwell
from a separate study indicates that up to 600,000 gallons of concentrate storage should be provided for a
facility producing 2.5 mgd and space should be provided to allow up to 2,000,000 gallons for a potential
future expansion to 4.5 mgd. Table 20 summarizes the results of the Brown and Caldwell Study.
Α TM2-35
46
Table 20: Estimated RO Concentrate Storage Requirements

RO
Concentrate Minimum WWTF Minimum
Flow Based on Effluent Flow RO Concentrate Effluent Flow RO Concentrate
Desalination Plant 45 Percent Required During Storage Volume Required During Storage Volume
Production Flow Recovery Summer/Fall During Summer/Fall Winter Months During Winter
(mgd) (mgd) Months (mgd) Months (mg) (mgd) Months (mg)
2.5 3.1 2.1 0.6 2.1 0.6
3.5 4.3 4.1 1.3 4.8 1.6
4.5 5.5 5.3 2.0 6.3 2.0
Table 21 summarizes the preliminary design criteria for the concentrate equalization basin and discharge
pumps.
Table 21: RO Concentrate Disposal System Summary

Potential Future Expansion to
Brine EQ Basin Initial 2.5 mgd Facility
4.5 mgd
gpm 2,600 4,688
Design Flow Basis
mgd 3.75 6.75
Length ft 100 100
Width ft 50 150
Height ft 20 20
Volume gallons 674,000 2,020,000
Detention time hours 4.3 7.2
RO Concentrate Discharge Pumps
Number of Pumps
No. 2/1 3/1
(Duty/Standby)
Total Installed Capacity gpm 3,906 6,250
Design Differential Pressure psi 30 30
Pump Type Vertical Turbine with Variable Frequency Drive
Motor Size HP 50 50
TM2-36 Α
47
Figure 6 illustrates the concentrate storage and disposal system. The concentrate equalization basin will
also be designed to capture and discharge saline overflows
from plant processes such as raw seawater before
coagulant addition and RO feedwater following
pretreatment, and overflows from the solids clarifier
thickeners. Overflows from the DAF and MF/UF feedwater
equalization basin will be captured and transferred to the
solids clarifier thickeners for treatment before overflow to
the concentrate equalization basin.
Residuals Production, Handling and Disposal

Figure 6
RO Concentrate Storage and Disposal
System Description System
The major residual streams that will be produced at the
desalination plant will include DAF solids, used washwater from the MF/UF system, and chemical cleaning
solutions from clean-in-place (CIP) procedures conducted periodically at the MF/UF and RO membrane
units. The recommended Residuals Handling System is shown schematically in Figure 2 and consists of
one (1) Solids Transfer Pump Station, one (1) Washwater Equalization Basin, two (2) 40-foot diameter
Clarifier Thickeners, and one (1) Reclaimed Water Pump Station. The system will: separate liquids and
solids in the DAF Solids and MF/UF washwater; recycle the clarified (reclaimed) water to the plant influent
for treatment; and dispose of the thickened solids to the sanitary sewer. CIP wastes will be produced
intermittently and in much smaller volumes than the DAF Solids and MF/UF Washwater. CIP wastes can
also contain high levels of metals, organic constituents, chlorine and other compounds that can disrupt the
coagulation and treatment processes, hinder (MF/UF and RO) membrane performance and/or contribute
to membrane fouling. For these reasons, CIP wastes will be dechlorinated and neutralized to pH of 6 to 9
units and disposed of through the sanitary sewer. The mass balance for the Residuals Handling System,
operating at the maximum daily flow and highest anticipated solids loading, is presented in Figure 7 and
Table 22. Additional information used to develop the preliminary design of the Residuals Handling
System are presented in the paragraphs that follow.
Α TM2-37
48
Figure 7
Mass Balance Schematic for Residuals Handling System
Table 22: Mass Balance for Residuals Handling System at Maximum Daily Plant Flow(1)
ID Description Flow TDS TSS
No. (gpm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (lbs/day)
1 Used Washwater from MF/UF to Solids Clarifier/ 536 36,000 51 330
Thickener No. 1
2 Clarified MF/UF Used Washwater from Solids 535 36,000 2 13
Clarifier/Thickener No. 1
3 Thickened Solids from Clarifier/Thickener No. 1 1(3) 36,000 20,000 317
4 DAF Waste to Clarifier/Thickener No. 2 109(2) 36,000 2,259 2,967
5 Clarified DAF Waste from Solids Clarifier/Thickener No. 2 97 36,000 2 3
6 Thickened Solids from Clarifier/Thickener No. 2 12(3) 36,000 20,000 2,964
7 Combined Reclaimed Water to Plant Influent 632 36,000 2 16
8 Combined Thickened Solids to Sanitary Sewer 13(3) 36,000 20,000 3,281
(1)
Assumptions for Mass Balance include:
Raw Seawater Flow = 7 mgd Raw Seawater TSS = 45 mg/L
Ferric Chloride Dose = 30 mg/L MF/UF Efficiency = 90%; used washwater production = 10%
RO Recovery = 40% DAF Efficiency = 98%; DAF waste production = 2%
Thickened Sludge = 2% by weight
(2)
DAF Waste flow of 109 gpm is the daily average; actual flows will be intermittent and are anticipated to range from 150 to 600 gpm.
(3)
Thickened sludge flows from clarifier thickeners are daily averages; actual flows will be intermittent and are anticipated to
range from 150 to 600 gpm for a 4-inch to 6-inch diameter discharge line to the sanitary sewer.
TM2-38 Α
49
Solids Production
Solids will consist of naturally occurring organic and inorganic matter in the raw seawater and iron
precipitated from coagulation with ferric chloride. An average of 320 pounds of dry solids will be produced
per day based on total suspended solids (TSS) of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and an average plant raw
water flow rate of 3.72 mgd. A maximum of 3,281 pounds dry solids per day will be produced during worst
case conditions (storm events or algae blooms where TSS averages 45 mg/L and maximum raw water
flow of 7.0 mgd).
DAF Waste
Approximately 1 to 2 percent of the incoming flow to the DAF basins will be removed with the coagulated
solids and sent to the residuals handling facilities. Most of this flow will be recycled back to the headworks
of the plant after clarification and only a few thousand gallons of water per day will be disposed of as
sludge to the City’s sanitary sewer system. The TSS of the DAF waste will typically range between 5,000
to 20,000 mg/L depending on water quality and operating conditions. The DAF solids will be pumped
directly to one of the clarifier/thickeners or combined with used washwater from MF/UF in Washwater
Equalization Basin. Operators will have the option to add ferric chloride to the DAF waste prior to the
Clarifier/Thickener to enhance clarification and thickening; no polymers will be used as
clarification/thickening aids due to potential fouling of membranes.
MF/UF Used Washwater

Between 5 to 10 percent of filtered water from the MF/UF system will be used as washwater to periodically
clean the MF/UF membranes. The composition of the used washwater will typically consist of TSS of 100
mg/L or less dry solids. Each MF/UF rack will undergo a brief washing lasting approximately 2 minutes
every 30 minutes; the used washwater will flow by gravity to the Washwater Equalization Basin. Once a
day, chemicals will be added to the backwash water to improve cleaning; chemicals will include hydroxide
(caustic soda), sodium hypochlorite (liquid chlorine) and acid. A submerged mixer will keep the solids in
suspension in the Washwater Equalization Basin and the washwater will be pumped at constant rate to a
clarifier/thickener. The clarified water will flow by gravity to the Reclaimed Water Pump Station where it
will pumped to the plant headworks and blended with raw seawater prior to chemical addition and
treatment. Operators will have the option to add ferric chloride to the MF/UF Washwater prior to the
Clarifier/Thickener to enhance clarification and thickening; no polymers will be used as
clarification/thickening aids due to potential fouling of membranes.
MF/UF Cleaning Solutions

Intermittent cleaning of MF/UF membranes will be conducted to remove biologic, organic, metals and
mineral fouling. The frequency of cleanings will typically be once every three months per rack. Chemicals
will include sodium hydroxide, sodium hypochlorite, and acid. Spent cleaning solutions will be pumped to
neutralization tank where the contents will be dechlorinated, and neutralized for pH (6 to 9 units). The
dechlorinated and neutralized water will be sent to the sanitary sewer for disposal.
Α TM2-39
50
RO Cleaning Solutions
Intermittent cleaning of the RO membranes will be conducted to remove biologic, organic, metals and
mineral fouling. The frequency of cleanings will typically be once per every three to six months per skid.
Chemicals will typically include sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), detergents and acids. Spent cleaning
solutions will be pumped to a neutralization tank where the contents will be dechlorinated and neutralized
for pH (6 to 9 units). The dechlorinated and neutralized water will be sent to the sanitary sewer for
disposal.
Solids Disposal
Sludge will accumulate in the clarifier thickeners and thicken to a concentration of 20,000 to 60,000 mg/L
depending on water quality and operating conditions. The clarifier thickeners will have the capacity to
store solids (sludge) for up to 7 days during adverse water quality conditions (i.e., storm events or algae
blooms) while operating at the maximum design rate of 2.5 mgd. This design will provide operational
flexibility to allow operators to optimize the storage and disposal of sludge to mitigate the potential impacts
of increased solids loading at the City’s wastewater treatment facility. Under normal raw water quality
conditions (i.e., low turbidity), the clarifiers/thickeners will have the ability to store up to approximately 38
days of sludge at the maximum flow of 2.5 mgd. However, the thickened sludge will typically be
discharged to the City’s sanitary sewer system on a daily basis; average sludge detention times will be
less than one week. Odors are not expected to be a problem because the clarifiers/thickeners will
maintain aerobic conditions throughout the depth: 1) the units are relatively shallow; 2) rotating rakes will
continually mix the sludge to aid thickening; and 3) used washwater and DAF solids streams will contain
high levels of oxygen and will constantly flow from the bottom of the units to the overflow weirs at the
water’s surface.
Gravity Clarifiers/Thickeners
Two 40-ft diameter units will treat DAF Solids and MF/UF washwater separately (preferred) or combined.
The maximum hydraulic loading of 0.40 gpm/sf will occur with 500 gpm of flow to one unit; the average
hydraulic loading rate of 0.25 gpm/sf will occur with 320 gpm of flow to one unit. The maximum and
average solids loading rates with all solids split between two (2) clarifiers/thickeners will be 1.3 lb/d/sf and
0.13 lb/d/sf, respectively.
Preliminary Design Criteria

Basic preliminary design criteria for the Residuals Handling System are presented in Table 23 and
additional detailed criteria are provided in Appendix B.
Table 23: Residuals Handling System Design Criteria

Parameter Units
Facility to 4.5 mgd
Used Washwater Equalization Basin Type Concrete Concrete
Rated Capacity (Minimum-Maximum) gpm 100-500 100-1000
TM2-40 Α
51

Parameter Units
Facility to 4.5 mgd
No. of Basins No. 1 1
Dimensions
Length feet 10 10
Width feet 18 18
Height feet 24 24
2 (1 Duty; 1 2 (1 Duty; 1
Mixers No.
Standby) Standby)
Used Washwater Pumps (to Solids Clarifiers/ Submersible; Submersible;
Type
Thickeners) Variable Speed Variable Speed
2 (1 Duty; 1 3 (2 Duty; 1
Number no.
Standby) Standby)
Capacity, each (Minimum-Maximum) gpm 100-500 100-500
Total Dynamic Head feet 40 40
Solids Clarifiers/ Thickeners Type Concrete Concrete
2 (1 washwater; 1 3 (2 washwater; 1
Number of Clarifier Thickeners no.
DAF Solids) DAF Solids)
Maximum (hourly) Hydraulic Capacity gpm 500 1,000
Average (daily) Hydraulic Capacity gpm 180 340
Minimum (hourly) Hydraulic Capacity gpm 100 100
Maximum Solids Production (Maximum flow
lbs/day 2,910 5,230
at 50 mg/L)
Average Solids Production (Average flow at
lbs/day 320 590
TSS 10 mg/L)
% by
Thickened Sludge Concentration 2% 2%
weight
Maximum Sludge Production (Maximum flow
lbs/day 17,400 31,400
at 50 mg/L)
Average Sludge Production (Average flow at
lbs/day 1,900 3,500
TSS 10 mg/L)
Basin Dimensions
Diameter feet 40 40
Sidewall Depth feet 16 16
Water Depth feet 14 14
Basin Volume (each)
Total (14-ft depth) gallons 132,000 132,000
Clarification (8-ft depth) gallons 75,000 75,000
Sludge Storage (6-ft depth) gallons 56,000 56,000
Surface Area (each) sf 1,257 1,257
Surface Loading Rate
Maximum Capacity (hourly) gpm/sf 0.40 0.40
Average (daily) gpm/sf 0.14 0.14
Hydraulic Detention Time (8-ft water depth)
Design Maximum minutes 150 150
Average minutes 417 441
Sludge Storage Time (6-ft sludge depth)
Α TM2-41
52

Parameter Units
Facility to 4.5 mgd
Design Maximum days 6 5
Average days 59 48
Minimum days 140 210
Sludge Thickening/Collection
Type Rotating scraper Rotating scraper
Number per Basin no. 1 1
Maximum Sludge Concentration % 6 6
Clarified Washwater EQ Basin/Pump Station Type Concrete Concrete
Rated Capacity (Minimum-Maximum) gpm 100-500 100-1000
Number no. 1 1
Length feet 10 10
Width feet 10 10
Height feet 12 12
Submersible; Submersible;
Pumps Type
Variable Speed Variable Speed
2 (1 Duty; 1 3 (2 Duty; 1
Number no.
Standby) Standby)
Capacity, each (Minimum-Maximum) gpm 100-500 100-500
Total Dynamic Head feet 40 40
Horsepower hp 10 10
Buried Manhole Buried Manhole
Solids Transfer Pump Station - if needed Type
Type Wetwell Type Wetwell
No. of Pumps No. 2 (1 duty; 1 standby) 2 (1 duty; 1 standby)
Buried Manhole Buried Manhole
Sludge Disposal Pump Station - if needed
Type Wetwell Type Wetwell
No. of Pumps No. 2 (1 duty; 1 standby) 2 (1 duty; 1 standby)
Projected Energy Use

Energy use was estimated for the desalination system and ancillary systems based on the descriptions,
drawings and design criteria summarized in this memorandum. The estimates include energy use for plant
treatment systems during typical operations following startup and do not include estimates for energy
used during construction of the facility or for vehicle traffic to and from the facility. The anticipated energy
use at the facility is 14.1 kWh per 1,000 gallons depending on source water quality conditions and impacts
of membrane age and fouling. The energy estimates are summarized in Table 24.
This estimate is similar to the average energy use estimates included in the Pilot Program Report and TM-
1. However, a 3% contingency has been added to provide estimates for miscellaneous electrical loads
not accounted for in the process design criteria assumptions. Energy use will continue to be evaluated
and updated as the preliminary design progresses.
TM2-42 Α
53
Table 24: Estimated Energy Use (kWh per 1,000 gallons)

Process/System Description Expected Annual Average
Source Water Pumping 0.8
Pretreatment including Backwashing,
1.3
Cleaning, and Residuals Handling
Low Pressure RO Feed Pumps and RO
1.3
Cleaning
High Pressure RO Pumps and ERD
9.4
Booster Pumps
Post-treatment and treated water
0.9
pumping
3% contingency 0.4
Total Estimated Energy Use 14.1
Note that the RO system energy use calculations have been updated to reflect the specific design criteria
included in this memorandum; this includes a three (3) RO unit design sized for 0.83 mgd each using
horizontal split-case centrifugal pumps, isobaric PX-300 energy devices, and a hybrid SWC4B/SWC5
membrane combination. Selecting different pumps, RO unit size, membranes, or energy recovery devices
will change estimated energy use for the proposed plant.
Desalination System Construction and Operating Cost Estimates

Estimated Construction Cost
Construction costs were estimated for the scwd2 Regional Desalination Plant including the major
treatment facilities and ancillary systems from the descriptions, drawings and design criteria summarized
in this memorandum. The estimated construction costs in TM-2 are based on:
Unit costs for similar facilities from recent projects that were designed and/or built by CDM.
Estimates from potential equipment suppliers for major process equipment packages (such as DAF
equipment, MF/UF membrane sysystems, and SWRO membrane systems).
Prorates as percentages of total facilities costs were used to estimate the cost for the electrical
distribution system (15 percent), instrumentation and control systems (10 percent) and site
development and yard piping (20 percent).
Land costs of $1 million per acre.
A 30 percent contingency was added to estimate the cost of items not identified at this preliminary
stage of design (i.e., without detailed design drawings and specifications).
Α TM2-43
54
Escalation of 3 pecent per year from January 2011 to the midpoint of construction assumed to be
June 2015.
Standard foundations, a flat site, and no site remediation.
Costs do not include estimates for environmental review, permitting, or design.
The engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost for the scwd2 Regional Desalination Plant (midpoint
of construction in June 2015; online by June 5, 2016) is $54.8 million. Table 25 presents the anticipated
costs for each major treatment process or facility, land, a contingency for unidentified items, and
escalation. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Estimating International (AACE) recommends
presenting the engineer’s opinion of probable construction cost at the preliminary stage of design as a
range of -15 to + 30 percent of the engineer’s estimate. The purpose for presenting a range of costs is to
address the uncertainties and variability associated with: design considerations; site location; permitting;
environmental constraints; economic conditions; availability of equipment, materials and labor; and other
factors that can affect the construction cost. The range of costs based on the engineer’s opinion of
probable construction cost is $47 to $71 million.
At this stage in the design process, there are several decisions that will need to be made by the scwd2
and design team before the preliminary design is advanced and a more accurate estimate (i.e., less
uncertainty and smaller cost range) is prepared. Examples of important pending decisions related to the
treatment plant include, but are not limited to:
Site Selection - Foundation design, excavation, drainage, working conditions, permitting and
environmental constraints, security, access, power and other utilities.
Architecture - Size of buildings, construction materials, finishes and landscaping.
Residuals Handling - Type and size of facilities, provisions for future dewatering.
Control Building - Functions and sizes of rooms, single or multi-story.
Concentrate Handling - Size of storage basins and pump station.
The estimated total is similar to the costs presented by CDM in the Pilot Test Program Report and TM-1;
however, the costs for the various systems have changed to reflect the preliminary design criteria such as
the recommended number and size of the facilities, and moving the start-up date from July 2015 to June
2016. More detailed cost estimates based on equipment quotes, quantities and labor estimates will be
prepared and presented in the Preliminary Design Report as the design is advanced.
TM2-44 Α
55
Table 25: Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs in Millions ($2015)

System, Process or Building Description Value
Control Building $3.2
DAF Facility $2.7
MF/UF Facility $4.1
RO Facility $5.8
Calcite Contactors $0.5
Chlorine Contact Basin, Clearwell and Flush Tank $0.9
Treated Water Pumping $0.8
Residuals Handling Facilities $1.3
RO Concentrate Storage and Pumping System $0.9
Chemical Systems $1.8
Electrical Equipment, Instrumentation and Controls $5.5
Yard Piping, Site Development and Miscellaneous Facilities $4.4
Land1 $5.0
Subtotal $36.9
Subtotal $48.0
Escalation at 3% per year to June 2015 (midpoint of
$6.8
construction)
Total $54.8
Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Range $47-71
1 Land costs based on required land for treatment facilities to produce initial capacity of 2.5 mgd treated water and
additional land for potential future expansion to 4.5 mgd treated water; land cost assumed to be $1 million per
acre.
Estimated Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

Annual operations and maintenance costs for the RO system and the entire plant were estimated at $2.75
million per year. This estimate was based on the treatment processes described in this memorandum and
design criteria summarized in Appendix B. Operations and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for labor;
power for pretreatment and residuals; pretreatment chemicals; cartridge filter, filter media, and RO and UF
membrane replacement; pretreatment maintenance/repairs; and solids disposal are shown in Table 26.
The O&M costs were escalated at 3 percent per year to 2015 dollars ($2015). Assumptions include:
Average source water flow of 3.7 mgd which corresponds to a treated water flow rate of 1.6 mgd at 43
percent RO recovery.
Power cost: $0.16 per kilowatt hour (kWh).
Labor: two operators onsite for 16 hours per day and one operator onsite for 8 hours per day; salaries
assume rates from GHWTP Basis of Design Report (BDR) times 1.3 multiplier.
Sewer disposal cost: $10 per 100 cubic feet plus flat fee of $2,011 per month.
Α TM2-45
56
A 10 percent contingency was added to account for unidentified annual costs.
Table 26: Estimated Annual O&M Costs in Millions ($2015)

Estimated Annual Cost1
Annual Cost Components/Descriptions ($million per year)
Energy $1.50
Labor $0.42
Pretreatment chemicals $0.27
Consumable replacement (cartridge filters, filter media, UF & RO membranes) $0.21
Solids disposal $0.10
Sub-total $2.50
Estimated Annual O&M Costs Total $2.75
1Estimates assume an annual average production rate of 1.6 mgd.
TM2-46 Α
57

Gen Bus 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gen Bus 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESALINATION TASK FORCE

TO: DESALINATION TASK FORCE

ATTACHMENTS: Final Draft Technical Memorandum No. 2 (without appendices)

Coagulation RO Feed Water

Bypass for Direct Filtration

Residuals Handling and Disposal

RO Concentrate Storage and Disposal

Electrical Power System

Other relevant electrical design concepts include the following:

Process Instrumentation System

Other relevant instrumentation and control concepts include the following:

 4- 20 mA will be used for all analog field signals.

 24 VDC will be used for all discrete field signals.

Plant Area Requirements

Estimated Construction and Operating Costs

Reclaimed Sludge Transfer

DAF Solids PS Air Saturator

DAF Recycle Water

Pumps Feed Pumps Transfer Pumps

ERD ERD RO Future

DAF Clarification Basins

Permeate Flush/ High Service PS,

Table 1: Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Costs in Millions ($2015)

Table 2: Estimated Annual O&M Costs in Millions ($2015)

This concludes the summary portion of this technical memorandum.

Production and Water Quality Goals

Table 3: scwd2 Desalination Facility Production Priority System

Water Quality Goals and Design Criteria

Table 4: scwd2 Desalination Facility Product Water Quality Goals

Table 5: Raw Seawater Data

Summary of Functional Analysis

 Drought 2.5 mgd- Maximum plant production rate.

Table 6: Summary of Functional Analysis Results for Recommended Alternatives

 2.5 mgd or more 356 days per year,

 1.6 to 2.0 mgd for 6 days per year, and

 0.83 mgd for the remaining 3 days per year.

Overview of Preliminary Design

 Pretreatment: Rapid mixing, coagulation, DAF clarification.

 Pressurized MF/UF: Feed pumps, auto-backwasing strainers, MF/UF membranes, backwash,

 Residuals Handling: Washwater equalization basin, solids clarifiers/thickeners, reclaimed washwater

 Concentrate Disposal: Concentrate equalization basin andpotentially a concentrate disposal pump

Reverse Osmosis Membrane System and Energy Recovery Devices

Reverse Osmosis Process Description

Membrane Performance Projections

RO Feed Equalization and Transfer

Table 8: Membrane Performance Summary

Cartridge Filters & Static Mixer

Table 10: Cartridge Filter Design Criteria

High Pressure RO Pumps

As noted in the discussion of membrane performance projections, HP RO pumps would be designed to

Seawater Reverse Osmosis Units

Energy Recovery System

Table 11: SWRO System Design Criteria

Table 11: SWRO System Design Criteria

Table 12: RO Cleaning and Flush System Design Criteria

Post-treatment, Disinfection, and Product Water Pumping

Table 13: Post-treatment Water Quality Goals

Post-Treatment and Distribution System

Table 14: Calcite Contactor System Design Criteria

Corrosion Inhibitor and pH Adjustment

Pathogen Inactivation Requirements

Clearwell/Chlorine Contact Tank

Table 16: Clearwell Design Criteria

High Service Pump Station and Wetwell

4- 20 mA will be used for all analog field signals.

24 VDC will be used for all discrete field signals.

Drought 2.5 mgd- Maximum plant production rate.

2.5 mgd or more 356 days per year,

1.6 to 2.0 mgd for 6 days per year, and

0.83 mgd for the remaining 3 days per year.

Pretreatment: Rapid mixing, coagulation, DAF clarification.

Pressurized MF/UF: Feed pumps, auto-backwasing strainers, MF/UF membranes, backwash,

Residuals Handling: Washwater equalization basin, solids clarifiers/thickeners, reclaimed washwater

Concentrate Disposal: Concentrate equalization basin andpotentially a concentrate disposal pump

Land costs of $1 million per acre.

Standard foundations, a flat site, and no site remediation.

Costs do not include estimates for environmental review, permitting, or design.

Architecture - Size of buildings, construction materials, finishes and landscaping.

Control Building - Functions and sizes of rooms, single or multi-story.

Concentrate Handling - Size of storage basins and pump station.

Power cost: $0.16 per kilowatt hour (kWh).

A 10 percent contingency was added to account for unidentified annual costs.