BLACK - Camarillo Improvement... · BLACK & VEATCH | Executive Summary ES‐1 Executive Summary The...
Transcript of BLACK - Camarillo Improvement... · BLACK & VEATCH | Executive Summary ES‐1 Executive Summary The...
BLACK & VEATCH | i
Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary...........................................................................................................ES‐1
IntroductionandProjectObjectives(Chapter1)............................................................ES‐1
RegulatoryRequirements(Chapter2)................................................................................ES‐1
StudyAreaCharacteristics(Chapter3)...............................................................................ES‐2
SummaryofEnvironmentalImpactReport(Chapter4)..............................................ES‐3
WaterSupplyCharacteristicsandFacilities(Chapter5).............................................ES‐3
AssessmentofSiteAlternatives(Chapter6).....................................................................ES‐5
OpinionofProbableCostandO&MCosts(Chapter7)..................................................ES‐6
ConstructionandOperationMethods(Chapter8).........................................................ES‐8
FacilityImplementationSchedule(Chapter9)................................................................ES‐9
Non‐MonetaryBenefits(Chapter10)...................................................................................ES‐9
References(Chapter11)............................................................................................................ES‐9
1 IntroductionandProjectObjectives......................................................................1‐1
2 RegulatoryRequirements.........................................................................................2‐1
2.1 HistoricalWaterQualityandTreatmentRequirements...................................2‐1
2.2 ConstituentsofEmergingConcern............................................................................2‐1
3 StudyAreaCharacteristicsandSystemHydraulics..........................................3‐1
3.1 StudyAreaCharacteristics............................................................................................3‐1
3.2 SystemHydraulics............................................................................................................3‐1
4 SummaryofEnvironmentalImpactReport........................................................4‐1
4.1 Section1:Previousenvironmentaldocumentation...........................................4‐1
4.2 Section2:Summary..........................................................................................................4‐1
4.3 Section3:ProjectDescription......................................................................................4‐1
4.4 Section4:AlternativestotheProposedAction....................................................4‐2
4.5 Section5:EnvironmentalAnalysis............................................................................4‐2
4.6 Section6:GrowthInducement....................................................................................4‐7
4.7 Section7:ConsultationandCoordination..............................................................4‐7
4.8 Sections8,9,10,11,and12..........................................................................................4‐7
5 WaterSupplyCharacteristicsandFacilities.......................................................5‐1
5.1 GroundwaterFeedQuality............................................................................................5‐1
5.2 ProductwaterQualityGoals.........................................................................................5‐4
5.3 PilotStudyFindings.........................................................................................................5‐4
5.4 TreatmentProcessDescription...................................................................................5‐5
5.4.1 RawWaterSupply...................................................................................................5‐5
5.4.2 PretreatmentProcess............................................................................................5‐6
5.4.3 ROSystem................................................................................................................5‐13
ii |BLACK & VEATCH
5.4.4 BrineManagement...............................................................................................5‐17
5.4.5 Post‐Treatment.....................................................................................................5‐17
5.4.6 TreatedWaterDistribution..............................................................................5‐18
5.4.7 ChemicalFeedFacilities.....................................................................................5‐19
5.4.8 SiteLayout...............................................................................................................5‐25
5.5 OffsiteFacilities...............................................................................................................5‐31
5.5.1 Conveyance.............................................................................................................5‐31
5.5.2 WasteDisposal......................................................................................................5‐31
5.5.3 MonitoringWells..................................................................................................5‐31
5.6 AnticipatedTreatedWaterQuality.........................................................................5‐32
6 AssessmentofSiteAlternatives..............................................................................6‐1
7 OpinionofProbableCostandO&MCosts............................................................7‐1
7.1 OpinionofProbableCost...............................................................................................7‐1
7.2 OperatingandMaintenanceCostsandTotalUnitCost.....................................7‐1
8 ConstructionandOperationMethods...................................................................8‐1
8.1 ConstructionApproach...................................................................................................8‐1
8.2 Operations............................................................................................................................8‐2
8.3 Triggersforoperationalchanges................................................................................8‐2
9 FacilityImplementationSchedule..........................................................................9‐1
10 Non‐MonetaryBenefits............................................................................................10‐1
11 References....................................................................................................................11‐1
BLACK & VEATCH | iii
LIST OF TABLES TableES‐1:SecondaryMCLforApplicableGroundwaterContaminants..................ES‐2
TableES‐2:SummaryofRecommendedPumpingCapacityforZone1and2.........ES‐3
TableES‐3:SummaryofFinalProductWaterQualityGoals...........................................ES‐4
TableES‐4:AnticipatedTreatedWaterQuality...................................................................ES‐5
TableES‐5:SummaryoftheOpinionofProbableCapitalCostsfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility.........................................................................ES‐7
TableES‐6:SummaryofProbableO&MCostsfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility.....................................................................................................ES‐8
Table2‐1:SecondaryMCLforApplicableGroundwaterContaminants........................2‐1
Table3‐1:SummaryofRecommendedPumpingCapacityforZone1and2..............3‐3
Table5‐1:GroundwaterQuality...................................................................................................5‐3
Table5‐2:SummaryofFinalProductWaterQualityGoals................................................5‐4
Table5‐3:CSDWRPTMDLRequirements..................................................................................5‐4
Table5‐4:ContactTankandPretreatmentFilterFeedPumpDesignCriteria........5‐10
Table5‐5:PretreatmentGreensandFilterDesignCriteria..............................................5‐11
Table5‐6:BackwashSupplyTankandPumpStationDesignCriteria........................5‐12
Table5‐7:WashwaterEqualizationTankandRecoverySystemDesignCriteria............................................................................................................................5‐12
Table5‐8:ROFeedTankandLowPressureROTransferPumpStationDesignCriteria............................................................................................................5‐13
Table5‐9:CartridgeFilterDesignCriteria.............................................................................5‐14
Table5‐10:ROHighPressureFeedPumpDesignCriteria..............................................5‐14
Table5‐11:ROSystemDesignCriteria....................................................................................5‐15
Table5‐12:ROFlushTankandFlushPumpDesignCriteria..........................................5‐16
Table5‐13:ROCIPSystemDesignCriteria............................................................................5‐17
Table5‐14:DecarbonatorDesignCriteria..............................................................................5‐18
Table5‐15:TreatedWaterPumpStationDesignCriteria................................................5‐18
Table5‐16:SodiumHypochloriteFeedSystemDesignCriteria(PretreatmentOption1–DirectRO)...............................................................................................5‐20
Table5‐17:SodiumHypochloriteFeedSystemDesignCriteria(PretreatmentOption2–PretreatmentFiltration+RO)........................................................5‐20
Table5‐18:WellHeadSodiumBisulfiteFeedSystemDesignCriteria(PretreatmentOption1–DirectRO)..................................................................5‐21
Table5‐19:BulkSodiumBisulfiteFeedSystemDesignCriteria(PretreatmentOption2–PretreatmentFiltration+RO).........................5‐22
Table5‐20:SulfuricAcidFeedSystemDesignCriteria.....................................................5‐22
Table5‐21:AntiscalantFeedSystemDesignCriteria........................................................5‐23
Table5‐22:SodiumHydroxideFeedSystemDesignCriteria.........................................5‐24
iv |BLACK & VEATCH
Table5‐23:AquaAmmoniaFeedSystemDesignCriteria................................................5‐24
Table5‐24:TreatedWaterPumpStationDesignCriteria................................................5‐31
Table5‐25:Production/DistributionforNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility............................................................................................................................5‐31
Table5‐26:AnticipatedTreatedWaterQuality..................................................................5‐32
Table7‐1:OpinionofProbableCostfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility...............................................................................................................................7‐1
Table7‐2:SummaryofProbableO&MCostsfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility........................................................................................................7‐2
Table8‐1:PumpingRateCutbackContingencyPlan............................................................8‐2
LIST OF FIGURES Figure5‐1:HistoricalIronandManganeseDataforWellsAandB(1990‐
2008)..................................................................................................................................5‐1
Figure5‐2:Historicaldataforcalcium,sulfates,chloride,andTDSinWellA(1990–2008).................................................................................................................5‐2
Figure5‐3:Historicaldataforcalcium,sulfates,chloride,andTDSinWellB............5‐2
Figure5‐4:ProcessFlowDiagramforPretreatmentOption1(OxygenQuenchingforDirectRO)..........................................................................................5‐7
Figure5‐5:ProcessFlowDiagramforPretreatmentOption2(Chlorine+PretreatmentFiltration)............................................................................................5‐8
Figure5‐6:SiteLayoutfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility(PretreatmentOption1–DirectRO).................................................................5‐27
Figure5‐7:SiteLayoutfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility(PretreatmentOption2–PretreatmentFiltration+RO).........................5‐29
Figure5‐9:OverviewofOff‐SiteFacilitiesandTie‐InLocationsforPreferredSiteLocation#2..........................................................................................................5‐33
Figure5‐10:RecommendedMonitoringWells(exceptedfrom2015Bachman"NorthernPleasantValleyDesalterGroundwaterAnalysisandModeling"reportwithannotationadded)...........................5‐35
Figure6‐1:SiteLocationsfortheProposedNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility...............................................................................................................................6‐3
Figure9‐1:NPVGroundwaterDesalterSchedule..................................................................9‐3
City of Camarillo | FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE NORTH PLEASANT VALLEY GROUNDWATER TREATMENT FACILIITY
BLACK & VEATCH | v
ACRONYMS ac acre AFD adjustablefrequencydrive B&V Black&Veatch Ca Calcium CDPH CaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth CIP clean‐in‐place City CityofCamarillo Cl Chlorine CMAR ConstructionManagementatRisk CMWD CalleguasMunicipalWaterDistrict CO CarbonMonoxide CSDWRP CamarilloSanitataryDistrictWaterReclamationPlant CUE CamarilloAirportUtilityEnterprise DBIA Design‐BuildInstituteofAmerica DO dissolvedoxygen EIR EnvironmentalImpactReport EPA EnvironmentalProtectionAgency ERD energyrecoverydevice Fe Iron FTE FullTimeEmployees GMF granularmediafiltration gpm gallonsperminute gpm/sf gallonsperminutepersquarefoot HDPE high‐densitypolyethylene HGL HydraulicGradeLine IS InitialStudy kW kilowatts kWh kilowatthour MCLs SecondaryMaximumContaminantLevels MF microfiltration mg/L milligramsperliter mgd milliongallonsperday mm millimeter Mn Manganese msl meansealevel NaOH sodiumhydroxide NDMA N‐Nitroso‐Dimethylamine NOP NoticeofPreparation NOx Nitrogenoxides NPV NorthPleasantValley O&M operationandmaintenance PDB ProgressiveDesignBuild
vi Executive Summary |BLACK & VEATCH
pCi/L GrossAlpha PRVs pressurereducingvalves RO reverseosmosis ROC reactiveorganiccompounds SMP SalinityManagementPipeline SO4 Sulfates TDS totaldissolvedsolids TMDL TotalMaximumDailyLoad VCP vitrifiedclaypipe WDBC WaterDesignBuildCouncil
BLACK & VEATCH | Executive Summary ES‐1
Executive Summary TheCityofCamarillo(City)isimplementingaprojecttodevelopaGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitytodiversifytheregion’swatersupplyportfolioandreducerelianceonimportedwatersupplies.TheCitycontractedBlack&Veatch(B&V)todeveloptheFacilitiesPlanfortheNorthPleasantValley(NPV)GroundwaterTreatmentFacilityinsupportoftheEnvironmentalImpactReportandEnvironmentalAssessmenteffortsfortheproject.ThisExecutiveSummaryhighlightskeyfindingsandrecommendationsoftheFacilitiesPlan.
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES (CHAPTER 1) Overthepastdecade,muchoftheCity’sgroundwaterhasshownsignificantincreasesinsalinity,iron,andmanganese.Inresponsetotheobservedincreasingtrend,theCityhasreducedgroundwaterproduction,increasingitsrelianceonimportedwater,whichcurrentlyconstitutesapproximately60percentoftheCity’stotalwatersupply.Chapter1describesstudiesandpilottestingperformedbytheCitytoselectandoptimizegroundwatertreatmenttechnologyforagroundwatertreatmentfacility.Thefacility,plannedbytheCity,isanapproximately7mgdregionalmembranetreatmentfacilityandwillbedeveloped,built,andownedbytheCity.Thefacilitymayalsoprovidewatertoneighboringwateragencies.Themainobjectivesoftheprojectareto:
Diversifytheregion’swatersupplyportfolio ReducetheCity’srelianceonimportedwater ReestablishtheCity’sexistingWellsAandBtohaveacombinedproductioncapacityofapproximately3,000gallonsperminute(gpm)anddevelopanadditional3,000gpmthroughoneortwonewwells
Developacosteffectivestrategythatlocatesnewfacilitiesnearexistingwaterpipelines MaximizeuseofexistinggroundwateravailablefromthenorthernareaofPleasantValleyGroundwaterBasin
Improvewaterqualitytopotablewatercustomers Increaserecycledwaterusagewithimprovedwaterqualityatthesource
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS (CHAPTER 2) AspartoftheFacilitiesPlan,historicalwaterqualityfromWellsAandBwasreviewed,andconstituentsofemergingconcernwereconsidered.AsdiscussedinChapter2,historicalwaterqualityforWellsAandBindicatesthatconcentrationsofchloride,sulfate,totaldissolvedsolids(TDS),iron,andmanganesehasbeenincreasing.Averagevaluesforsulfate,TDS,andiron(WellAonly)arecurrentlyabovetheSecondaryMaximumContaminantLevels(MCLs)setforthbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth(CDPH).TheconstituentsidentifiedintheSecondaryMCLmayadverselyaffecttasteandodor,color,scale,staining,ortheappearanceofthewater.
TableES‐1listsregulatorystandardsforconstituentsandsummarizestheirconcentrations,bothintheCity’sgroundwaterwellsandintheimportedwaterprovidedtotheCitybyCMWD.
ES‐2 Executive Summary |BLACK & VEATCH
TableES‐1:SecondaryMCLforApplicableGroundwaterContaminants
CONSTITUENT SECONDARY MCL
CITY OF CAMARILLO WELLS IMPORTED WATER CALLEGUAS MWD (4) Well A (1) Well B (2) New Well (3)
Chloride, mg/L 250 124 159 136 56
Sulfate, mg/L 250 1,055 658 891 48
TDS, mg/L 1000 1,688 1,361 1,554 260
Iron, mg/L 0.3 0.36 0.17 0.28 ‐
Manganese, mg/L 0.05 0.23 0.15 0.20 ‐(1) Average of water quality data from 1998 through 2014 (2) Average of water quality data from 2001 through 2014 (3) Estimated average using Well A and B data (4) Based on CMWD 2013 Water Quality Report
STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS (CHAPTER 3) Since1994,theNorthPleasantValleygroundwaterbasinhasexperiencedpoor‐qualitybrackishwaterfromupstreamdischarges(surfacewaterrechargeemanatingfromtheArroyoLasPosas). The surface flows rapidly percolated through the coarse alluvial sediments that comprise the river bed and into the underlying Saugus and Los Posas Sand Formations that comprise the primary aquifer system in NPV.Theinfiltrationofthepoor‐qualitybrackishwaterhasresultedinraisedgroundwaterelevationsanddeterioratedgroundwaterquality.Thegroundwaterstudiesconcludedthatwater quality in this area will likely not improve in the foreseeable future and that the City should consider groundwater treatment to fully utilize the local groundwater supply.
TheCitycurrentlyimportsthemajorityofitswatersupplyfromtheCMWDthroughaseriesofmeteredconnections(turnouts)fromthe36‐inchOxnard‐SantaRosaFeederandthe39‐inchCamarilloFeeder.Thisimportedsupplyissupplementedwithgroundwatersuppliedthroughseveralwellsconnecteddirectlytothedistributionsystem.AlthoughAnnualAverageDemandpreviouslyreachedapproximately9.0mgd(10,000acre‐feet/year)andwasexpectedtogrowto11.3mgd(12,700acre‐feet/year)bybuild‐out,thesenumbershavesincebeenreviseddownwardinthe2015MasterPlanto7.6mgd(8.5AFY)and8.1mgd(9.1AFY),respectively.InsupportofplanninganddevelopmentoftheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility,theCityupdatedthewaterdistributionsystemmodeltomodifythepointofsupplyaswellasincorporatetheCamarilloAirportUtilityEnterprise(CUE).WellswhichhadsuppliedtheCUEasaseparatewatersystemhavebeenidledsince2007,andtheairport’swaterdistributionhasbeensuppliedfromandoperatedasanextensionoftheCity’sdistributionsystem.
Chapter3summarizesa2007reportpreparedfortheCitythatprovidedadistributionsystemhydraulicanalysisfortheGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityandAirportAddition.The2007reportevaluatedwhereandhowthe7mgdoutputfromthefacilitywouldbesuppliedintothedistributionsystem.TheproposedplantsiteiswithinZone1oftheCity’sdistributionsystem,yetZone2couldbeaccessedrelativelyeasilyviatheReservoirNo.2filllinelocatednearby.TwoalternativesweredevelopedandanalyzedbasedupontheproportionoftheGroundwaterTreatmentFacility’soutputtobesuppliedintoeachZone:1)Alternative1,SupplyProportionaltoZoneDemand,and2)Alternative2,SupplyProportionaltoHydraulicCapacity.Basedontheresultsofthehydraulic
BLACK & VEATCH | Executive Summary ES‐3
analyses,Alternative2wastherecommendedmethodforconnectingtheproposedNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityintoZones1and2ofthedistributionsystem.TherecommendedpumpingcapacityforeachzoneissummarizedinTableES‐2.Anupdatetothehydraulicsreportin2010addedanalysisofanadditionalpotentialtreatmentfacilitysitebutdidnotchangetheoverallconclusionsofthestudy.
TableES‐2:SummaryofRecommendedPumpingCapacityforZone1and2
OPERATION MODE ZONE 1 PUMPING CAPACITY ZONE 2 PUMPING CAPACITY
Normal 3,600 gpm 1,100 gpm
Non‐Standard 1,700 gpm 3,000 gpm
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (CHAPTER 4) TheCityofCamarillopreparedanInitialStudy(IS)andaNoticeofPreparation(NOP)inApril2008forasimilarproject.TheprojectwasassignedStateClearinghouseNo.2008041159.TheCityreceivedcommentsfrom10parties.ResponsestothesecommentsareprovidedintheFinalEIR.Oneofthecomments(fromFoxCanyonGroundwaterManagementAgencyanditsconsultants)subsequentlyledtochangingthebaselineconditionfrom“nomounding”to“noproject”.(“Mounding”referstotheincreasingsurfaceelevationofbrackishgroundwaterintheNorthPleasantValleyBasin.)Theprojectobjectivesaresummarizedasfollows:
RestoregroundwaterproductionfromWellsAandBtopastlevels FullyutilizeexistinggroundwaterallocationinthePleasantValleyGroundwaterBasin Addresstheplumeofsaltygroundwatermigratingintothebasin Reducedependenceonimportedpotablewater ReducesaltconcentrationsintreatedwastewaterdischargedtoConejoCreek Minimizecapitalcosts
AfullEIRwasdeemednecessaryduetoagriculturalconversion,annexationissues,andotherpotentiallysignificantimpactstotheenvironment.AnNOPwaspreparedanddistributedonSeptember27,2013,andcommentswerereceivedfrom15parties.AdraftEIRwassubmittedinMarch2014.ThefinalEIRisdatedMay2015.
WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERISTICS AND FACILITIES (CHAPTER 5) Chapter5presentsgroundwaterquality,productwaterqualitygoals,anddesigncriteriafortherecommendedtreatmentfacilitiesfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilities.TableES‐3summarizesthefinalproductwaterqualitygoals,whichwereestablishedtomeetprimaryandsecondaryMCLsaswellastheproductwaterqualitygoalspresentedinpreviousCitystudies.TableES‐3alsoindicatesthequalityofwaterimportedfromCMWD.TheprojectgoalsforTDS,chloride,andsulfatereflectboththeCity’sobjectivesfordrinkingwaterandimpactsonmeetingTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)limitsintheCamarilloSanitaryDistrictWaterReclamationPlant(CSDWRP)effluent.Theironandmanganesegoalsreflectconservativetargets,improvingtheaestheticsaswellasprovidingafactorofsafetyaboveregulatorylimits.Forexample,excessivelevelsofironandmanganesecancausewaterstainsatthecustomer’stap.
ES‐4 Executive Summary |BLACK & VEATCH
TableES‐3:SummaryofFinalProductWaterQualityGoals
CONSTITUENT PRODUCT WATER QUALITY GOAL IMPORTED WATER QUALITY(1)
Chloride, mg/L 65(2) 56
Gross Alpha, pCi/L 12 ND
Iron, mg/L <0.1 ‐
Manganese, mg/L <0.03 ‐
pH >8.0 8.3
Sulfate, mg/L 70(2) 48
TDS, mg/L 250(2) 260
Total Hardness, mg/L as CaCO3 75‐120(3) 100(1) Based on CMWD 2013 Water Quality Report for Imported Water Values (2) Established to meet TMDL requirements for CSDWRP and/or match current imported water quality (3) Range provided to accommodate blending requirements
KeycomponentsoftheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityinclude:
Groundwaterwellsdeliveringbrackishgroundwaterviatwoexistingwells(WellAandB)andeitheroneortwonewwells,totaling6,000gpm,fortreatment
Pretreatmentoftherawgroundwaterthroughoneofthetwooptionsdescribedbelow Reverseosmosis(RO)membranedesalination,withtheROconcentratedischargedtotheRegionalSalinityManagementPipeline(SMP)
Post‐treatment(viadecarbonation,RObypassblending,andpHadjustment)tostabilizetheROpermeate
Primarydisinfectionthroughchlorineadditionandchloraminesresidualismaintainedwhenleavingthetreatmentfacility
Chemicalfeedfacilities(sodiumhypochlorite,sodiumhydroxide,ammoniumsulfate,sodiumbisulfate,sulfuricacid,andantiscalant).
Ancillaryfacilities(administrationbuilding,electricalbuilding,standbypower,etc.)
PretreatmentrequirementsfortheROsystemwillbeselectedduringthedesignstageoftheproject.AspartofthisFacilitiesPlan,twooptionsweredeveloped.Preliminarydesigncriteria,processflowdiagram,sitelayout,andopinionofprobablecostswerepreparedforeachoption:
PretreatmentOption1–OxygenQuenchingforDirectROApplication.Oxygenquenchingchemical(e.g.sodiumbisulfite)wouldbeaddedatthewellheadtokeepironandmanganeseinsolubleform.ThisoptionwasdevelopedinthepilotstudyandreevaluatedaspartoftheFacilitiesPlan.Asitelayoutwaspreparedshowingthatthetotalfootprintofthetreatmentfacilitiesrequiredisapproximately17,800ft2.
PretreatmentOption2–ChlorineOxidation+PretreatmentFiltration.Chlorinewouldbeaddedoncombinedgroundwatertooxidizeironandmanganeseforremovalthroughpretreatmentgreensandfilters.BasedonBlack&Veatchexperiencewithwatersofsimilarquality,thisoptionwasaddedtotheFacilitiesPlanbecauseitwasnotedduringthepilotstudythatoxygenquenchingmaycontributetoincreasedbiofoulingpotentialifidealoperatingrangesarenotmaintained.PretreatmentOption2wouldrequiresignificantlymoretreatmentfacilitiesand
BLACK & VEATCH | Executive Summary ES‐5
land,havingatotalfootprintofapproximately38,300ft2.Therequiredpretreatmentfiltrationandsupportfacilitiesaccountforapproximately20,500ft2ofthistotal.
AnticipatedtreatedwaterqualityissummarizedforkeyconstituentsinTableES‐4.TreatedwaterfromtheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywillbedeliveredintotheexistingwaterdistributionsysteminsuchasmannerastobetterbalancethehydraulicsamongthefloatingreservoirsofeachzone.Thus,undernormalconditions,approximately60to75percentofthetreatedwaterwillbepumpedintoZone1and40to25percentintoZone2oftheCity’swaterdistributionsystem.OperationalsettingsattheKendall,RosewoodandFlynnPressureReducingValves(PRVs)willallowtheextraproductionfedintoZone1,conveyedthroughtheZoneandthenfedbackintoZone2atalocationwhichdoesnotcausethehydraulicgradeline(HGL)tobecomeunbalanced.
TableES‐4:AnticipatedTreatedWaterQuality
CONSTITUENT
RAW WATER1 (WELL C) TREATED2 GOAL3
Chloride,mg/L 136 20 65
pH 7.4 8.6 >8.0
Sulfate,mg/L 891 70 70
TDS,mg/L 1554 196 250
Calcium,mg/L 240 20 ‐‐
Magnesium,mg/L 66 10 ‐‐
Hardness,mg/lasCaCO3
896 70 75‐120
GrossAlpha,pCi/L 12.6 1.1 12
1AverageofWellAandWellBused.2Assumes4%bypass.3FromTableES‐3.Otherfacilitiesareanemergencygenerator(commontobothpretreatmentoptionstoensureareliablesourceofpowertothetreatmentfacilities),offsiteconveyancefacilities,andmonitoringwells.ROconcentratewillbedischargedtotheSMP,operatedbyCMWD,forultimatedisposaltothePacificOcean.
ASSESSMENT OF SITE ALTERNATIVES (CHAPTER 6) EightsitesforthenewNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywereidentifiedandevaluatedfortheEIRbyPadreAssociates.Chapter6providessummarydescriptionsofthesitesandincludesanaerialphotographshowingallofthesites.EachofthealternativesitesislocatedwithinonemileofthewellsitesandtheSMPpipelinealignment.TherecommendedsitewasSiteNo.2,locatedimmediatelynorthoftheCitylimitsintheunincorporatedportionofVenturaCountyalongAntonioDriveandacrossthestreetfromWellB.Theparcelisapproximately77acresandiscurrentlyusedforagriculture(rowcrops).Thesiteisincloseproximitytotheexistinggroundwaterwellsand,
ES‐6 Executive Summary |BLACK & VEATCH
becauseitislocatedalonganexistingroad,minimizesoverallagriculturallandtobetakenoutofservice.
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST AND O&M COSTS (CHAPTER 7) TheopinionofprobablecostfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywasdevelopedusingthepreliminarydesigncriteriaestablishedinthisFacilitiesPlan.AsummaryoftheopinionofprobablecostfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityisprovidedinTableES‐5.Theprojectedprobableoperationandmaintenance(O&M)costfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityissummarizedinTableES‐6.
TableES‐5:SummaryoftheOpinionofProbableCapitalCostsfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility
ITEM CAPITAL COST (OPTION 1 – DIRECT RO)
CAPITAL COST (OPTION 2 – PRETREATMENT FILTRATION + RO)
Site work and Piping $ 4,615,000 $ 4,733,000
New Groundwater Wells $ 3,575,000 $ 3,300,000
Contact Basin and Pretreatment Filtration System
$ ‐ $ 3,335,000
Washwater Equalization and Recovery System $ ‐ $ 1,390,000
RO Feed Tank and Transfer Pumps $ ‐ $ 1,293,000
RO System and Cartridge Filters $ 9,576,000 $ 9,576,000
Decarbonators $ 1,226,000 $ 1,226,000
Finished Water Pump Station $ 141,000 $ 141,000
Chemical Feed and Storage $ 577,000 $ 665,000
Administration, Electrical, Shop/Storage Building, Transformer, and Standby Generator
$ 5,868,000 $ 6,196,000
Land Purchase $ 400,000 $ 400,000
Connection to SMP $ 400,000 $ 400,000
Construction Monitoring Cost $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000
Subtotal $ 27,678,000 $ 33,955,000
Engineering, General Requirements, Contractor Fees, etc. (15%)
$ 3,836,000 $ 4,778,000
Contingency (30%) $ 7,672,000 $ 9,555,000
TOTAL PROBABLE COST $ 39,186,000 $ 48,288,000
Annualized Cost (25 years @ 5%) $ 2,780,000 $ 3,426,000
BLACK & VEATCH | Executive Summary ES‐7
TableES‐6:SummaryofProbableO&MCostsfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility
ITEM ANNUAL O&M COST (OPTION 1 – DIRECT RO)
ANNUAL O&M COST (OPTION 2 – PRETREATMENT FILTRATION + RO)
Electricity(1) $ 1,046,000 $ 1,261,000
Chemicals $ 740,000 $ 727,000
RO Membrane Replacement $ 125,000 $ 112,000
Cartridge Filter Replacement $ 13,000 $ 13,000
Maintenance, Repairs, and Spares(2) $ 302,000 $ 440,000
Labor(3) $ 240,000 $ 240,000
Brine Disposal Fee(4) $ 928,000 $ 928,000
TOTAL FIRST YEAR O&M COST(5) $ 3,394,000 $ 3,721,000
Equivalent Uniform Annual O&M Cost(6) $ 4,359,000 $ 4,779,000
Annualized Capital Cost $ 2,780,000 $ 3,426,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 4,139,000 $ 8,205,000
Cost of Product Water (per AF) (7) $ 949 $ 1,091(1) Estimated based on $0.12/kWh (2) Estimated based on 2% of capital equipment costs (3) Estimated based on four new FTEs (4) Cost of brine disposal to the Regional Salinity Management Pipeline used is $500/AF at concentrate flow of 1,855 AF/yr (5) O&M costs assumed to escalate at 2.5% per year (6) Converted to a uniform series using 25 year basis and 5% discount rate. (7) Product water production is 6.7 MGD (7519 AF/Year)
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION METHODS (CHAPTER 8) Projectstakeholdersexpressedaninterestinunderstandingvariousdeliverymodelsbywhichtheprojectcouldbepermitted,designed,andconstructed.TheCityandotherstakeholdersmetwithB&Vinasetoftwoworkshops.Thefirstworkshopprovidedanoverviewofvariousdeliverymodels,includingdiscussionsondesign‐bid‐build,design‐buildandconstructionmanagementatrisk(CMAR).Thesecondworkshopincludedamorein‐depth,round‐tablediscussionbetweenthestakeholdersonprojectdriversandgoals.B&V’sin‐housePairwisedecisiontoolwasutilizedtoevaluatethedecisionconsiderations,toprioritizeandapplyweightingfactors,andtoanalyzetheresultsfromthedecisionmodel.Itwasdeterminedthatdesign‐builddeliveryappearstobethemostappropriatechoicefortheprojecttakingintoaccountstakeholdergoalsforperformancecertainty(bothqualityandquantity)andcost(certaintyandcompetitiveness).Oftwodesignbuilddeliverymodelsavailable,ProgressiveDesignBuild(PDB)wasrecommendedprimarilyduetoitsabilitytoachievebestresultsforkeygoalsoflowinitialinvestmentcostandperformancecertainty,whichwerethetwohighestrankedpriorities.ItwasrecommendedthatthekeystakeholdersadvancetheirevaluationofthePDBdeliverymodelandfurtherexploreproject‐specificbenefits.
TheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityandassociatedgroundwaterwellswouldbeoperatedcontinuously,24hoursperdayand7daysperweekundernormaloperatingmodes.Atotalofnine
ES‐8 Executive Summary |BLACK & VEATCH
(9)fulltimeoperationstaffisestimatedforoperatingthetreatmentfacility.Theoperationstaffwillconsistofcertifieddrinkingwatertreatmentanddistributionsystemoperatorsandplantmaintenancestaff.Itmaybepossibletooperatethenightshiftunstaffedunderautomationwithanon‐calloperatorcloseby.
FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (CHAPTER 9) TheimplementationschedulefortheNorthPleasantValleyGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityispresentedinChapter9.KeyfeaturesarethecompletionoftheCEQAprocess,selectionoftheprojectmanagementteamanddesignteam,respectively,andcompletionoftheCalleguasBrinePipeline.Projectcompletion(startofoperation)isprojectedtobeinthelastquarterof2017.
NON‐MONETARY BENEFITS (CHAPTER 10) TheproposedNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywillmeetstakeholderobjectivesandprovideseveralnon‐monetarybenefitstotheCityandtheregion:
Diversitytheregion’swatersupplyportfolio MaximizeuseofexistinggroundwateravailablefromthenorthernareaofthePleasantValleyGroundwaterBasin
ReducetheCity’srelianceonimportedwaters Improvewaterqualityofthelocalgroundwaterbasinbyreducingcurrentmoundingofpoorqualitygroundwaterinthebasin
Watershedsaltsremoval
REFERENCES (CHAPTER 11) Chapter12liststhereportsandstudiesconsultedduringthedevelopmentoftheFacilitiesPlan.
BLACK & VEATCH | Introduction and Project Objectives 1‐1
1 Introduction and Project Objectives Overthepastdecade,muchoftheCityofCamarillo’s(City)groundwatersupplyhasshownsignificantincreasesinsalinity,iron,andmanganese.Withtheobservedincreasingtrend,groundwaterproductionbytheCityhasbeenreduced,andrelianceonimportedwaterhasincreased.DeterioratedgroundwaterqualityhasbeenobservedinbothWellsAandB,mainlyduetoelevatedlevelsofchloride,sulfate,totaldissolvedsolids(TDS),iron,andmanganese.TheCityhasplacedWellAonstandbyandisblendingwaterfromWellBwithimportedwaterfromtheCalleguasMunicipalWaterDistrict(CMWD)inordertomeetdrinkingwaterqualitystandards.TheCitycurrentlyimportsapproximately60percentofitstotalwatersupply,relyingongroundwaterwellsfortheremaining40percent.
In2004,theCitybeganevaluatingthefeasibilityfortreatingitsgroundwatersupplyinanefforttoreduceoverallrelianceonimportedwatersupplies.Aspartofthiseffort,aGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityFeasibilityStudywascompletedin2005.Thepurposeofthefeasibilitystudywastodeterminetheappropriatetechnologyandbasicconfigurationofthetreatmentprocessestobeused.Asaresultofthe2005FeasibilityStudy,apilottestingprogramwascompletedin2008toassesspretreatmentrequirementsandoptimaltreatmentconfiguration.Thepilotstudytookplaceoverthecourseofayear,withtheprimaryfocusonevaluatingpretreatmentapproachesforreverseosmosis(RO)membranedesalination.In2013,theGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityevolvedintoaregionalprojectwithCMWD,whichwillbebuiltandownedbytheCity,third‐partyoperated,andwhichmayalsoprovidewatertoneighboringwateragencies.ThefacilityplannedbytheCityhasisapproximately7mgdproductioncapacity.
TheCityandCMWDcontractedBlack&Veatch(B&V)todeveloptheFacilitiesPlanfortheNorthPleasantValley(NPV)GroundwaterTreatmentFacilityinsupportoftheEnvironmentalImpactReport(EIR)andEnvironmentalAssessmentefforts.Themainobjectivesoftheprojectinclude:
Diversifytheregion’swatersupplyportfolio
ReducetheCity’srelianceonimportedwaters
Re‐establishWellsAandBtohaveacombinedproductioncapacityofapproximately3,000gallonperminute(gpm)
Developacosteffectivestrategythatlocatesnewfacilitiesnearexistingwaterpipelines
MaximizeuseofexistinggroundwateravailablefromthePleasantValleyGroundwaterBasin
Improvewaterqualitytopotablewatercustomers
Increaserecycledwaterusagewithimprovedwaterqualityatthesource
BLACK & VEATCH | 2‐1
2 Regulatory Requirements TheproposedNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywillprovidetreatmenttoexistingWellsAandBaswellastwonewwellsofsimilarwaterqualitywithintheCity.Asummaryofregulatoryrequirementsandadiscussiononconstituentsofemergingconcernisprovidedinthissection.
2.1 HISTORICAL WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS AspartoftheFacilitiesPlan,historicalwaterqualityfromWellsAandBwasreviewed,andconstituentsofemergingconcernwereconsidered.AsdiscussedinChapter2,historicalwaterqualityforWellsAandBindicatesthatconcentrationsofchloride,sulfate,totaldissolvedsolids(TDS),iron,andmanganesehasbeenincreasing.Averagevaluesforsulfate,TDS,andiron(WellAonly)arecurrentlyabovetheSecondaryMaximumContaminantLevels(MCLs)setforthbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth(CDPH).RelevantconstituentsofconcerninthegroundwatersupplyaresummarizedinTable2‐1alongwithcurrentlevelsfoundintheimportedwatersupply.ValuesforWellsA&BandforImportedCMWDwaterweretakenfromthe2008PilotStudyandanyadditionalavailabledata.WaterqualityforWellCwasestimatedbyaveragingthewaterqualityatWellsA&B.
Table2‐1:SecondaryMCLforApplicableGroundwaterContaminants
CONSTITUENT SECONDARY MCL
CITY OF CAMARILLO WELLS IMPORTED WATER CALLEGUAS MWD (4) Well A (1) Well B (2) New Well (3)
Chloride, mg/L 250 124 159 136 56
Sulfate, mg/L 250 1,055 658 891 48
TDS, mg/L 1000 1,688 1,361 1,554 260
Iron, mg/L 0.3 0.36 0.17 0.28 ‐
Manganese, mg/L 0.05 0.23 0.15 0.20 ‐ (1) Average of water quality data from 1998 through 2014 (2) Average of water quality data from 2001 through 2014 (3) Estimated average using Well A and B data (4) Based on CMWD 2013 Water Quality Report
2.2 CONSTITUENTS OF EMERGING CONCERN BoththeCDPHandEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)haverecentlyidentifiedanumberofemergingcontaminants,whicharenotcurrentlyregulated,butmayhavemandatedremovalindrinkingwatertreatmentinthefuture.Thesechemicalswerepreviouslyunknowntobefoundindrinkingwater.Howeverduetoadvancesintechnology,theycannowbedetectedatverylowconcentrations.Currentresearchsuggeststhatsomeofthesechemicalsmayhavehumanhealtheffects.Anumberoftheseemergingcontaminantsweremonitoredinthe2008PilotStudy.Themonitoredchemicalsincludedthefollowing:boron,vanadium,hexavalentchromium,n‐nitroso‐dimethylamine(NDMA),chloropicrin,methylbromide(bromomethane),and1,3‐dichloropropene(cisandtrans).Onlytwoofthesevenemergingcontaminantsmonitoredduringthe2008PilotStudy,boronandvanadium,werefoundatconcentrationsabovethereportinglimit.
BLACK & VEATCH | 3‐1
3 Study Area Characteristics and System Hydraulics Thissectionsummarizesthestudyareacharacteristicsandsystemhydraulics.
3.1 STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS Groundwatermodelingandanalysisofthestudyareawasconductedin2008and2015bySteveBachmanandHopkinsGroundwaterConsultants,respectively.Asummaryofthestudyareacharacteristicsisprovidedinthissection.Forfurtherdetails,pleaserefertothe2008“PreliminaryHydrogeologicalStudy”andthe2015report,“NorthernPleasantValleyGroundwaterAnalysisandModelling”whicharebothincludedasappendicesintheFinalEIRdatedMay2015.
Since1994,theNorthPleasantValleygroundwaterbasinhasexperiencedpoor‐qualitybrackishwaterfromupstreamdischarges(surfacewaterrechargeemanatingfromtheArroyoLasPosas). The surface flows rapidly percolated through the coarse alluvial sediments that comprise the river bed and into the underlying Saugus and Los Posas Sand Formations that comprise the primary aquifer system in NPV.Theinfiltrationofthepoor‐qualitybrackishwaterhasresultedinraisedgroundwaterelevationsanddeterioratedgroundwaterquality.Thegroundwaterstudiesconcludedthatwater quality in this area will likely not improve in the foreseeable future and that the City should consider groundwater treatment to fully utilize the local groundwater supply.
The geologic formation materials in the study area consist of Quaternary geologic age young and older alluvium, the Quaternary/Tertiary age Saugus Formation and the Las Posas Sand Formation. The young and older alluvium is comprised of largely unconsolidated sediment locally deposited by outwash from the Camarillo Hills and flows in the Arroyo Las Posas. These alluvial deposits unconformably lie on top of marine and nonmarine mudstone, sandstone, and conglomerate deposits that comprise the Saugus and underlying Las Posas Sand Formations.
TypicalaquiferpropertiesinandsurroundingtheCityconsistsof:
Transmissivity=4,000to10,300ft2/day
Storativity=3.1E‐06to4.5E‐04
Horizontalhydraulicconductivity=11to30ft/day
3.2 SYSTEM HYDRAULICS InsupportofplanninganddevelopmentoftheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility,theCityupdatedthewaterdistributionsystemmodeltomodifythepointofsupplyaswellasincorporatetheCamarilloAirportUtilityEnterprise(CUE).AbriefsummaryoftheDistributionSystemHydraulicAnalysisfortheGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityandAirportAddition,2007,isprovidedinthissection.
TheCitycurrentlyimportsthemajorityofitswatersupplyfromtheCMWDthroughaseriesofmeteredconnections(turnouts).Thisimportedsupplyissupplementedwithgroundwatersuppliedthroughseveralwellsconnecteddirectlytothedistributionsystem.AlthoughAnnualAverageDemandpreviouslyreachedapproximately9.0mgd(10,000acre‐feet/year)andwasexpectedtogrowto11.3mgd(12,700acre‐feet/year)bybuild‐out,thesenumbershavesincebeenrevised
3‐2 Study Area Characteristics and System Hydraulics |BLACK & VEATCH
downwardinthe2015MasterPlanto7.6mgd(8.5AFY)and8.1mgd(9.1AFY),respectively.TheCityproposestoreduceitsimportedwaterdemandthroughconstructionoftheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility,whichwilltreatbrackishgroundwaterpumpedfromacombinationofexistingandnewgroundwaterproductionwells.ThenewNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywillprovideanewpointofsupplyfortheCity.Inadditiontomodifyingthepointofsupply,theCityalsoincorporatedtheCUEintotheexistingwaterdistributionhydraulicmodel.WellswhichhadsuppliedtheCUEasaseparatewatersystemhavebeenidledsince2007,andtheairport’swaterdistributionhasbeensuppliedfromandoperatedasanextensionoftheCity’sdistributionsystem.
Theprimarypurposeofthe2007HydraulicAnalysisReportisto:
AnalyzedistributionsystemperformancewiththenewsourceoffinishedwaterfromtheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityandrecommendthemostefficientmannerforoperationNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityandintroductionofthetreatedgroundwaterintothedistributionsystem.
AnalyzeperformanceoftheAirportDistributionSystemasapartoftheCity’sdistributionsystem.Recommendimprovementsforefficientoperationandensurethatpeakdemandsandfireflowneedscanbemet.
TheproposedNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywillproduceapproximately7mgdoftreatedgroundwaterfordistribution.TheproposedplantlocationisphysicallylocatedwithinZone1ofthedistributionsystem,yetZone2couldbeaccessedrelativelyeasilyviatheReservoirNo.2filllinelocatednearby.ThealternativesanalyzedarebasedupontheproportionoftheGroundwaterTreatmentFacility’soutputtobesuppliedintoeachZone.TheoveralloperationoftheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityisdescribedinthefollowing:
Alternative1–SupplyProportionaltoZoneDemand.Outputwillbedeliveredinproportiontothedemandofeachzone;roughly25to30percentintoZone1and70to75percentintothelargerZone2.ThebalanceofthedemandwithineachzonewillcontinuetobesuppliedwithimportedwaterdeliveredthroughtheCity’sturnouts.Treatmentproductionwillbeheldconstant,anddeliveriesthroughtheturnoutswillbevariedseasonally.
Alternative2–SupplyProportionaltoHydraulicCapacity.Outputwillbesuppliedinsuchamannerastobetterbalancethehydraulicsamongthefloatingreservoirsofeachzone:roughly60to75percentintoZone1and40to25percentintoZone2.OperationalsettingsattheKendall,Rosewood,andFlynnPressureReducingValves(PRVs)willallowtheextraproductionfedintoZone1,conveyedthroughtheZoneandthenfedbackintoZone2atalocationwhichdoesnotcausetheHydraulicGradeLine(HGL)tobecomeunbalanced.
Basedontheresultsofthehydraulicanalyses,Alternative2istherecommendedmethodforconnectingtheproposedNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityintoZones1and2ofthedistributionsystem(2007HydraulicAnalysisReport).Alternative2feedsbothzonesinahydraulicallybalancedmannersothattheHGLsremainrelativelylevelacrosseachzoneandthefloatingreservoirscanbeequallyexercisedwhilebeingmaintainedwithintheirnormaloperatingrange.Thiscouldalsobeaccomplishedwiththeinstallationofan18‐inchby21,000feettransmissionmaininPonderosaDr.,whichmayreduceoverallpumpingrequirements.However,the$36,000savingsinannualpumpingcostsdonotjustifythe$4.5millioncostofthepipeline(at$12/inchesdiameter‐ft).Especiallysincethecross‐zonecapacityalreadyexistsinZone1andthe
BLACK & VEATCH | Study Area Characteristics and System Hydraulics 3‐3
distributionsystemcanbeoperatedinthismannerwithoutupsettingzonehydraulics.Anupdatetothehydraulicsreportin2010addedanalysisofanadditionalpotentialtreatmentfacilitysitebutdidnotchangetheoverallconclusionsofthestudy.
Inordertoprovideflexibilityformaintenance,emergencyandothernon‐standardoperatingconditions,itisalsorecommendedthattheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitybeequippedtopumptheentireZone2supplydirectlyintotheReservoirNo.2fillline,withoutusingtheKendallPRV.AnaltitudevalveexistsonReservoirNo.2topreventitfromover‐toppingwhenpushingthefullZone2supplyinfromthetreatmentfacilitylocation.ReservoirNo.2wouldbemaintainedfullwhenoperatedinthismanner,butthiswouldlikelybeacceptableforshortperiodsduringemergenciesorothernon‐standardoperations.However,theremaybesomeconcernaboutmaintainingreservoirturnover.Itmaybenecessarytoinstallacontrolvalveattheintersectiontocloseoffflowtemporarilytoallowwatertoflowoutofthereservoirintothedistributionsystem.TherecommendedpumpingcapacityforeachzoneissummarizedinTable3‐1.
Table3‐1:SummaryofRecommendedPumpingCapacityforZone1and2
OPERATION MODE ZONE 1 PUMPING CAPACITY ZONE 2 PUMPING CAPACITY
Normal 3,600 gpm 1,100 gpm
Non‐Standard 1,700 gpm 3,000 gpm
BLACK & VEATCH | 4‐1
4 Summary of Environmental Impact Report ThefinalEIR,“EnvironmentalAssessmentfortheNorthPleasantValleyGroundwaterTreatmentFacility,”waspreparedbyPadreAssociates,datedMay2015.ThecontentsoftheEIRaresummarizedbysectionbelow.
4.1 SECTION 1: PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION TheCityofCamarillopreparedanInitialStudy(IS)andaNoticeofPreparation(NOP)inApril2008forasimilarproject.TheprojectwasassignedStateClearinghouseNo.2008041159.TheCityreceivedcommentsfrom10parties.ResponsestothesecommentsareprovidedintheFinalEIR.Oneofthecomments(fromFoxCanyonGroundwaterManagementAgencyanditsconsultants)subsequentlyledtochangingthebaselineconditionfrom“nomounding”to“noproject.”(“Mounding”referstotheincreasingsurfaceelevationofbrackishgroundwaterintheNorthPleasantValleyBasin.)Theprojectobjectivesaresummarizedasfollows:
RestoregroundwaterproductionfromWellsAandBtopastlevels FullyutilizeexistinggroundwaterallocationinthePleasantValleyGroundwaterBasin Addresstheplumeofsaltygroundwatermigratingintothebasin Reducedependenceonimportedpotablewater ReducesaltconcentrationsintreatedwastewaterdischargedtoConejoCreek Minimizecapitalcosts
AfullEIRwasdeemednecessaryduetoagriculturalconversion,annexationissues,andotherpotentiallysignificantimpactstotheenvironment.AnNOPwaspreparedanddistributedonSeptember27,2013,andcommentswerereceivedfrom15parties.AdraftEIRwassubmittedinMarch2014.
4.2 SECTION 2: SUMMARY ThetreatmentprocessdescribedisOption2whichutilizesoxidationandgreensandfiltrationtoremoveironandmanganese.Thedescriptionincludestwonewwellstoproviderawwaterinadditiontothatsuppliedbythetwoexistingwells.Thefacilitywilloperate24‐hoursperdayinthreeshiftswithatotalcrewofuptoninepersons.OneProposedActionFacilitysite(identifiedasSite#2inthisreport,locatednorthoftheCity,acrossfromWellB)andtwoalternativesweredescribed.ThePreferredActionFacilitysiteisconsideredtheenvironmentallysuperioralternative.Therearenomajorcontroversiesassociatedwiththisproject.Significantimpactscanbefeasiblymitigated,resultinginresidualimpactsthatarelessthansignificant.
4.3 SECTION 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION BecausetheProposedActionFacilityandthesupplywellsarelocatedoutsideoftheCityBoundaries,theCityisproposingamunicipalreorganizationbyannexingthesitestotheCityandbyannexingthemtotheCamarilloSanitaryDistrict.Inaddition,theCitywouldpre‐zonethesitestoR‐E(RuralExclusive)andamendtheGeneralPlantoreflecta“QuasiPublic/Utility”landusedesignation.
4‐2 Summary of Environmental Impact Report |BLACK & VEATCH
Thefacilityisdescribedastreating9,000acre‐feet/yearandproducing7,500acre‐feet/yearoftreatedwaterfortheCity.Asingleadministrationbuildingwillhouseanoffice,controlroom,electricalroom,andstoragearea.TheROequipmentwouldbeprotectedbyametalcanopy,butnotafullbuilding.Threepumpingfacilitiesassociatedwiththetreatmentprocesswouldbehousedinseparatestructuresorsoundenclosures.TreatedwaterwouldbepumpedtoeithertheCity’sZone1orZone2(orcombinationthereof)distributionsystems.TwonewwellswillbeinstalledtoproviderawwaterinadditiontothatfromtheexistingWellAandWellB.NewpipelineswouldconnectthewellstothetreatmentfacilityandtoconnectthefacilitywithdistributionsystemZone1andZone2.AbrinepipelinewouldconnectthefacilitytotheSMP.Therewouldalsobenewsewerconnectionsforwastewater.Pipelineswouldbelocatedinpublicroadways,ingeneral.Wheretheyareinstalledinfarmlands,theywillbeburiedatleast5feetbelowsurfacetoallcultivationabovethem.
4.4 SECTION 4: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Thealternativesincludedthefollowing:
NoAction/NoAlternative–utilizeexistingwatersources,blendingwithimportedwaterfromtheCalleguasMunicipalWaterDistrict,placingWellAonstandbyuseonly
Twoalternativesitesforthefacilityo Site4–AsdescribedinthisreportinChapter6o Site7‐AsdescribedinthisreportinChapter6
Onealternativepumpingratesalternative–withoutthetreatmentfacility
4.5 SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Theenvironmentalimpactsoftheproposedprojectaresummarizedbelow:
AESTHETICS
AffectedEnvironment–theprojectareaisinanagriculturalareatheinstitutionaluses(e.g.,hospital).Theviewshedisamixoflevelfieldsandresidentialandinstitutionaldevelopment.
EnvironmentalConsequences/Impacts–TheconsequencesweresimilaramongtheProposedActionandthetwoothersitealternatives.Therearenoscenicvistastobeimpacted.Someoftheindustrial‐appearingcomponentsthatmaybeviewedasincompatiblewiththevisualcharacterortheareawillbescreenedbyawallandlandscapingbuffer.Nightlightingwillbelimited,andisnotanticipatedtosignificantlydegradenighttimeviews.Solarpanelswillbecoveredwithanti‐relectivecoatingtoreduceglare.Cumulativeimpactsoftheprojectareconsideredlessthansignificant.
AGRICULTURALANDFORESTRYRESOURCES
AffectedEnvironment–TheProposedActionandthetwoalternativesitesarealllocatedinareaszonedforagriculturaluse.
BLACK & VEATCH | Summary of Environmental Impact Report 4‐3
EnvironmentalConsequences/Impacts–TheSite4projectrequiresthelargestamountofacreage(6.0acres)andexceedsthethresholdforprimefarmlandandthereforehasasignificantimpact.Theothertwoalternativesdonotexceedthisthreshold.NeithertheProposedActionnorthetwositealternativeshaveanysignificantimpactstogreenbeltagreements,LandConservationActContracts,oradverseaffectsonadjacentagriculturaloperations,orforestryresources.Likewisetheyarenotexpectedtoincreasepopulationgrowthbeyondforecastvalues.
Mitigation–NomitigationisneededfortheProposedAction.ForSite4,somemeasuresareneededtoreducetheprojectareatobelowthe5‐acrePrimeFarmlandsthreshold.ForSite7,purchaseofthefull5.77acreparcelwouldbeneededbecausetheproject,thoughactuallysmallerinareawouldrendertheremainingparcelunsuitableforcontinuedagriculturalproduction.
ResidualImpacts–TheProposedactionandthetwoalternativesiteseachhaveresidualimpactsthatarelessthansignificantaftermitigation.
AIRQUALITY
AffectedEnvironment–TheProposedActionsiteandthealternativesitesarelocatedintheOxnardPlainAirshed,asub‐basinoftheSouthCentralCoastAirBasin.
EnvironmentalConsequences/Impacts–TheimpactsfortheProposedActionandthetwoalternativesaresimilar.Constructionemissionsincludeexhaustandfugitivedust,however,dustcontrolmeasureswillbeineffectaspartofconstruction.Dieselexhaustemissionsandtoxicaircontaminantsareconsideredalessthansignificantimpacttoairquality.OperationsemissionsforNOxandROCarelessthantheadoptedthresholdsandarethereforeconsideredalessthansignificantimpact.Potentialodorsareconsideredalessthansignificantimpact.Long‐termimpactsassociatedwithtoxicdieselexhaustareconsideredlessthansignificant.TheProposedActionanditstwoalternativesarenotexpectedtocreateorcontributesubstantiallytoviolationofCOstandards.LikewisetheProposedActionanditsalternativesareconsistentwiththelocalAirQualityManagementPlan.Theincrementalcontributiontocumulativeimpactsisnotcumulativelyconsiderable.
CULTURALRESOURCES
AffectedEnvironment–TheProposedActionSiteandthealternativesitesarewithinthehistoricterritoryoftheChumashNativeAmericanIndiangroup.AnarcheologicalstudywasconductedontheProposedActionsiteandSite4in2013,butnotonSite7duetolackofaccess.Noevidenceofprehistoricorhistoricresourceswasobservedatthesurveyedsitesoralongtheproposedpipelineroutes.
EnvironmentalConsequences/Impacts–TheProposedActionSiteandthealternativesitesarelocatedinanactivedepositionalsetting,sothereisapossiblepresenceofburiedarcheologicalmaterialswhichcouldbeimpactedbyprojectimplementation.However,thecumulativeimpactstoculturalresourcesisunknown.
4‐4 Summary of Environmental Impact Report |BLACK & VEATCH
Mitigation–MitigationmeasuresincludehavinganarcheologistandaChumashrepresentativemonitorallproject‐relatedearthdisturbancesandsuspendinganyworkthatexposesarcheologicalresourcesorhumanremainssothattheproperauthoritiescanbenotified.Inaddition,Site7shallbesubjectedtoaPhase1ArcheologicalInvestigationasearlyaspossible.
ResidualImpacts–Mitigationmeasureswillreducepotentialimpactstolessthansignificant.
GREENHOUSEGASEMISSIONS
AffectedEnvironment–Greenhousegasesareaglobalissueratherthanalocalorregionalconcern.
EnvironmentalConsequences/Impacts–Impactsduetototalgreenhousegasemissions(constructionplusoperation)arelessthansignificantfortheProposedActionsiteandforthealternativesites.
HAZARDOUSMATERIALS
AffectedEnvironment–Databasesearchidentifiednoareasofcontaminationneartheprojectsite.
EnvironmentalConsequences/Impacts–Constructionactivitycouldpossiblyencountersoilscontaminatedwithhazardousmaterialsresultingfrompreviousagriculturalproductionandmaycontributetoincrementalcumulativeimpactsassociatedwithexposuretothem.WatertreatmentchemicalswillusedattheproposedfacilityattheProposedActionsiteorthealternativesites.Theyarenotconsideredacutelyhazardousandnohazardousemissionsareanticipated.TransportationandstorageofthesechemicalswillbeinaccordancewithStateandFederalrequirements.
Mitigation–Soilsampleswillbetakenandanalyzedpriortoexcavationandalongpipelinealignments.Soilfoundtobecontaminatedwillbeproperlysegregatedandcontained.CalOSHArequirementswillbefollowedtominimizeexposuretothecontaminatedsoils.
ResidualImpacts–Mitigationmeasureswillreducepotentialimpactstolessthansignificant.
WATERRESOURCES
AffectedEnvironment–TheprojectislocatedwithintheCalleguasCreekWatershed.Itwashistoricallycharacterizedasanephemeralstreamsystemwithsubstantialsurfaceflowonlyduringthewetseason.However,importationofwatersupplytothewatershedhascausedanincreaseindryweatherflows.Saltaccumulationwithinthewatershedisofconcernasaresultofimportingwater.Withrespecttogroundwater,theprojectareaislocatedwithintheSantaClara‐CalleguasHydrologicUnit.TheProposedActionwellsitesandCityWellsAandBarelocatedwithinthenortheasterportionofthePleasantValleyGroundwaterBasin.
BLACK & VEATCH | Summary of Environmental Impact Report 4‐5
EnvironmentalConsequences/Impacts–ConstructionimpactsincludestormwaterrunoffwhichwillbecontrolledviaaStormWaterPollutionPreventionPlan.Inadditionconcreteresiduedischargeisapotentialsignificantwaterqualityimpact.TheProposedActionSiteandtheSite7alternativearesubjecttofloodinginastormevent.SaltextractionviatheprojectstreatmentprocessisanticipatedtolowerthesaltcontentintreatedwastewaterdischargedintoConejoCreekwhichwillcontributetomeetingthesaltsTMDLintheCalleguasCreekwatershed.OnlythePumpingRateAlternativesareanticipatedtoaffectsurfacewaterflowbypotentiallydecreasingdryweatherflows.Theprojectisnotanticipatedtoexacerbateconditionsfortheintrusionofseawater.Projectoperationisanticipatedtosubstantiallyreducethemoundofbrackishwater,resultinginimprovedgroundwaterqualityinmostwellsintheNPVbasin.However,thePumpingRateAlternativeswillnotfullyaddressthemoundingofbrackishwaterresultinginstrandedsaltsintheNPVbasinunderlong‐termoperation.Project‐relatedpumpingwillreducethegroundwaterlevels,butnotbelowhistoriclevels.Impactstogroundwaterquantityareconsideredlessthansignificant.However,long‐termpumpingcanpotentiallyhaveasignificantcumulativeimpactbyreducinggroundwaterlevels.Projectlandsubsidenceimpactsareconsideredlessthansignificant.However,theprojectmayincrementallycontributetosubsidence.Floodrelatedimpactsarepotentiallysignificantbutcanbemitigated.
Mitigation–StormwatermitigationwillbeaddressedbytheStormwaterPollutionPreventionPlanimplementedbytheconstructioncontractor.Floodwallswillbedesignedandconstructedonthepropertyperimetertominimizethepotentialpropertydamageandlossofhumanlifeduringa100‐yearstormevent.Toaddressthecumulativeimpactofloweringofgroundwaterlevels,monitoringwillswillbeinstalled.Adjustmentstoprojectpumpingrateswillbemade,asneededtominimizeadverseeffectstolocalwells.Similarly,landsurveyswillbeusedtomonitorlandsubsidence.Pumpingwillbereducedasneededifsubsidenceisdetected.ForthePumpingRateAlternatives,acontingencyplanwillbedevelopedandimplementedifneededtoreducetheimpacttobiologicalresourcesresultingfromdecreasesindryweathersurfaceflows.
ResidualImpacts–Fullimplementationofidentifiedmitigationmeasureswillreducewaterresourcesimpactstobelowthelevelofsignificance.
LANDUSEANDPLANNING
AffectedEnvironment–TheProposedActionSiteandthetwositealternativesarelocatedinareasofrowcropsandorchards.TheProposedActionSiteandSiteAlternative4areinareaswheretheproposedprojectisnotallowedundercurrentzoning.AllthreesitesarelocatedoutsidetheCity’smunicipalboundaries.
Environmentalconsequences/Impacts–FortheProposedActionSiteandtheSite4alternative,theCitywillrequestapprovalforreorganizationtoannexthesitesandwellsitestotheCity,annexthesitestotheCamarilloSanitaryDistrict,anddetachthefacilitysitesfromtheVenturaCountyResourceConservationDistrict,VenturaCountyWaterWorksDistrictNo.19,CountyServiceAreano.32,andCountyServiceAreano.33.FortheSite7alternative,onlythewellswouldneedtobeannexedanddetached,respectivelyas
4‐6 Summary of Environmental Impact Report |BLACK & VEATCH
describedfortheProposedActionSiteandtheSite4alternative.Nosignificantimpactswereidentifiedforanyofthethreeprojects.
NOISE
AffectedEnvironment–NoisesensitivereceptorsneartheprojectsitesincludeSt.John’sHospitalandresidentialareas.
EnvironmentalConsequences/Impacts–Construction(includingwelldrilling)isanticipatedtoproducenoise.Operationisanticipatedtoproducenoise,buttheequipmentwillbeenclosedinstructuresorsoundenclosurestominimizeit.Thewellequipmentwillbethesubmersibletypeandarethereforeanticipatedtocomplywithnoisestandards.Theprojects’contributiontoincrementalnoiseimpactsisnotanticipatedtobecumulativelyconsiderable.
Mitigation–Tomitigateconstructionnoiseassociatedwithwelldrilling,periodswherenodrillingshouldbeoccurringarerecommendedalongwithnoisebarriersandadvancenotificationofdrillingactivities.Nighttimenoiseassociatedwithoperationwouldbemitigatedbyengineeringdesignreviewtoensurethatallnoise‐producingequipmentareenclosedandshieldedtominimizenoisegeneration.Inaddition,anoisestudywillbecompletedwithin90daysofstartofoperationtodetermineifadditionalnoisereductionmeasuresareneeded.
ResidualImpacts–Mitigationmeasureswillreduceoperationalnoiseimpactstolessthansignificant,exceptatthecaretakerresidenceatthewesternwellsiteduringwelldrilling.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
AffectedEnvironment–AccesstothesitesisviaStateRoutes34,118,andU.S.101.TrafficvolumesindicatethatStateRoutes34and118areatcapacityandareevenworseatmorningandeveningpeaktraffichours.
EnvironmentalConsequences/Impacts–Constructionandoperationactivitieswilladdtothenumberoftripsduringpeaktraffichour.
Mitigation–Twomitigationoptionsareavailable:1)theCitypaysaTrafficImpactMitigationfeetotheVenturaCountyTransportationDepartment,or2)theprojectspecificationlimitsthecontractortooff‐peaktripsonlyinschedulingofworkerhoursandmaterialsdeliveries.
ResidualImpacts–Mitigationreducestheimpactstoaleveloflessthansignificant.
ENVIRONMENTALJUSTICE
AffectedEnvironment–EPAandCal/EPEhaveregulationsstatingthatenvironmentalriskscannotbedisproportionatelyshiftedtoanyparticularminorityorlow‐incomepopulation.
EnvironmentConsequences/Impacts‐TheProposedActionwillnothaveanydisproportionaleffects.
BLACK & VEATCH | Summary of Environmental Impact Report 4‐7
SOCIOECONOMICEFFECTS
AffectedEnvironment–Socioeconomicconcernsincludejobsandtaxbaseassociatedwithagriculturalproduction,commercialoperations,andlightindustrialoperationsintheareaaroundtheprojects.
EnvironmentalConsequences–Buildingtheprojects,between4.6and6.0acresofprimefarmlandwouldbelost.
INDIANTRUSTASSETS
AffectedEnvironment–IndianTrustAssetsarelegalinterestsinpropertyheldintrustbytheFederalgovernmentforthebenefitofIndianTribesorindividuals.
EnvironmentalConsequences–Nosuchassetswereidentified.
4.6 SECTION 6: GROWTH INDUCEMENT Theoverallwatersupplytotheareadoesnotlimitpopulationgrowthinthearea.Therefore,thesmallincreaseinwatermadeavailablebythisprojectwillnotinducegrowth.
4.7 SECTION 7: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Thefollowingconsultationandcoordinationactivitieshavetakenplace:
PersonsandAgenciesConsultedo RickFarris,Ecologist,U.S.FishandWildlifeServiceo GerhardtHubner,DeputyDirector,FoxCanyonGroundwaterManagementAgencyo EricBergh,CalleguasMunicipalWaterDistrict
AnoticeofPreparationandInitialStudywerepreparedanddistributedtoresponsibleandtrusteeagencies.TheproposedprojectisalsoincludedintheFoxCanyonGroundwaterManagementPlan.
EndangeredSpeciesActfindingsof“Noeffect:suitablehabitatnotaffected”weremadeonidentifiedendangeredorthreatenedspecies.ThereisnodesignatedcriticalhabitatinproximityoftheProposedActionsite,thealternativesites,ortheproposedwellsites.
Adverseeffectsonmigratorybirdsarenotanticipated. Adverseeffectsonwetlandsarenotanticipated. TheFish&WildlifeCoordinationActdoesnotapplybecausetheprojectdoesnotinvolve
modificationofanystreamorotherwaterbody. NativeAmericanconsultationwasconductedaspartofthepreparationoftheDraftEIR/EA
andwillcontinuethroughtheSection106process.SuchconsultationwillbeinitiatedbytheFederalleadagency.
4.8 SECTIONS 8, 9, 10, 11, AND 12 These sections contain detailed listings. Refer to the EIR document for these lists:
Section 8: Summary of Mitigation Measures/Environmental Commitments
Section 9: List of Preparers
4‐8 Summary of Environmental Impact Report |BLACK & VEATCH
Section 10: References
Section 11: Distribution List
Section 12: Response to Comments
BLACK & VEATCH | 5‐1
5 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities Thissectionsummarizesthegroundwaterquality,productwaterqualitygoals,anddesigncriteriaoftherecommendedtreatmentfacilitiesfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility.
5.1 GROUNDWATER FEED QUALITY ThewaterqualityoftheCity’stwomaingroundwaterwells,WellsAandB,hasprogressivelydeclinedoverthepasttwodecades.WaterqualitydataforWellsAandB,obtainedduringthe2008PilotStudyaswellashistoricaldatareportedinthe2005FeasibilityStudy,indicateanincreaseinseveralkeyconstituentsincludingTDS,sulfate,andiron,whichareabovetheprimaryorsecondarydrinkingwaterstandards.HistoricaltrendskeywaterqualityconstituentsareprovidedinFigure5‐1throughFigure5‐3.
Figure5‐1:HistoricalIronandManganeseDataforWellsAandB(1990‐2008)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1989 1994 1999 2004 2009
Concentration(mg/L)
Year
WellA&BWaterQuality
WellAFe
WellBFe
WellAMn
WellBMn
FeSMCL300ppb
MnSMCL50ppb
BestFit(WellAFe)
BestFit(WellBFe)
BestFit(WellAMn)
BestFit(WellBMn)
5‐2 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
Figure5‐2:Historicaldataforcalcium,sulfates,chloride,andTDSinWellA(1990–2014)
Figure5‐3:Historicaldataforcalcium,sulfates,chloride,andTDSinWellB(1990–2014)
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐3
Combinedwaterqualitydataaveragevaluesofthewaterqualitydatafromthe2005FeasibilityStudy,the2008PilotStudy,andsubsequentdatathrough2014aresummarizedinTable5‐1.ForWellsAandB,thevaluesprovidedinTable5‐1areaveragevaluesfromavailabledata.TheWellC(newwell)valuesareestimatedbytakingtheaverageofWellAandBvalues.TherangeofblendedwaterqualityvaluesprovidedrepresentstherangeofdatafrombothWellAandB.ItisrecommendedthatthedesignoftheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitybebasedonthemaxvalueswhileaveragevaluesareusedforestimatingO&Mcosts,chemicalconsumption,etc.ItshouldbenotedthatincreasingtrendsinTDSandsulfatehavebeenobservedfromhistoricaldata,andprojectionsoftheseconstituentsshouldbeconsideredwhencarryingoutthedesign(e.g.projectingmaximumvalues).
Table5‐1:GroundwaterQuality
CONSTITUENT UNITS WELL A WELL B WELL C RANGE OF BLENDED WATER QUALITY
pH 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.1‐7.9
Conductivity uS/cm2 2499 1945 2297 1800‐2960
UV254 cm‐1 0.04 0.04 0.03‐0.04
Color C.U 6 6.1 2.5‐15
Total Iron mg/L 0.36 0.17 0.28 0.14‐1.1
Total Manganese mg/L 0.23 0.15 0.20 0.13‐0.28
Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 289 223 269 210‐310
Total Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 976 709 896 648‐1100
TDS mg/L 1688 1361 1554 1300‐2000
TOC mg/L 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5‐1.9
Ammonia mg/L 0.46 0.38 0.44 0.25‐0.81
Total Boron mg/L 0.69 0.55 0.65 0.46‐0.75
Calcium mg/L 270 201 240 184‐300
Chloride mg/L 124 159 136 92‐183
Magnesium mg/L 78 51 66 46‐97
Silica mg/L 32 45 34 29‐45
Sodium mg/L 205 147 176 130‐221
Sulfate mg/L 1055 658 891 550‐1430
Gross Alpha pCi/L 15.7 6.5 12.6 3.9‐20.4
5‐4 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
5.2 PRODUCT WATER QUALITY GOALS TheoverallprojectproductqualitygoalsaretomeettheconcentrationslistedinTable5‐2aswellasallprimaryandsecondarydrinkingwaterstandards.TheprojectgoalsforTDS,chloride,andsulfatereflectboththeCity’sobjectivesfordrinkingwaterandimpactsonmeetingTMDLlimitsintheCSDWRPeffluent(Table5‐3).Theironandmanganesegoalsreflectconservativetargets,improvingtheaestheticsaswellasprovidingafactorofsafetyaboveregulatorylimits.Forinstance,excessivelevelsofironandmanganesecancausediscoloredwateratthecustomers’tap.Thesecondarystandardsforironandmanganesearesetat0.3mg/Land0.05mg/Lrespectively;abovetheselimits,customersmayfindthestainsobjectionable.Fromourpastexperience,ironconcentrations<0.1mg/Landmanganeseconcentrations<0.03mg/Laregenerallywellacceptedbythepublic.Asummaryoftheproductwaterqualitygoals,establishedbythe2005FeasibilityStudyand2008PilotStudy,isprovidedinTable5‐2.ThecurrentimportedwatersupplyqualityfromCMWDisprovidedaswellforcomparisontotreatmentgoalsfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility.ItshouldbenotedthattheSMP(wherethebrineconcentratewillbesent)alsohasTMDLlimitsimposedonitintheNPDESpermit(asofJuly2015),thoughitisnotanticipatedthattheseTMDLswillaffectoperationsattheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility.
Table5‐2:SummaryofFinalProductWaterQualityGoals
CONSTITUENT PRODUCT WATER QUALITY GOAL IMPORTED WATER QUALITY(1)
Chloride, mg/L 65(2) 56
Gross Alpha, pCi/L 12 ND
Iron, mg/L <0.1 ‐
Manganese, mg/L <0.03 ‐
pH >8.0 8.3
Sulfate, mg/L 70(2) 48
TDS, mg/L 250(2) 260
Total Hardness, mg/L as CaCO3 75‐120(3) 100
(1) Based on CMWD 2013 Water Quality Report for Imported Water Values (2) Established to meet TMDL requirements for CSDWRP (refer to Table 5‐3) and/or match current imported water quality (3) Range provided to accommodate blending requirements
Table5‐3:CSDWRPTMDLRequirements
CONSTITUENT TMDL
Chloride, mg/L 150
Sulfate, mg/L 250
TDS, mg/L 850
5.3 PILOT STUDY FINDINGS The2008PilotStudywasconductedtotestROmembranesforbrackishwaterdesalinationandtoevaluatevariouspretreatmentoptionstoprotectROmembranesfromironandmanganesefouling.Fivepretreatmentoptionswereevaluated:
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐5
OxygenQuenching–dosesodiumthiosulfatetoquenchdissolvedoxygen(DO)andkeepironandmanganeseinreducedstate.
Aeration+GranularMediaFiltration(GMF)–oxidizeironandmanganeseusingairandremovewithmediafiltration.
ChlorineDioxide+GMF‐oxidizeironandmanganeseusingchlorinedioxideandremovewithmediafiltration.
Chlorine+GreensandFiltration‐oxidizeironandmanganeseusingfreechlorineandremovewithgreensandmediafiltration.
Aeration+Microfiltration(MF)‐oxidizeironandmanganeseusingairandremovewithMF.
The2008PilotStudyrecommendedPretreatmentOption1:OxygenQuenchingforthefull‐scalefacility.Availableoxygenquenchingagentsincludesodiumbisulfite,sodiumthiosulfate,andsodiummetabisulfite.Thepilotstudyrecommendedthatthefinalchemicalselectionshouldbebasedonbench‐scaletestingwiththefinalsourcewater.LowpressurelowenergybrackishwaterROelementswererecommended.Upto5percentoftheROfeedwatercouldbebypassedaroundtheROsystemforstabilizationandtomeettreatedwaterqualitygoals.
5.4 TREATMENT PROCESS DESCRIPTION KeycomponentsoftheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityinclude:
Groundwaterpumpingviatwoexistingwells(WellAandB)foratotalof3,000gpm
Drillingofoneortwonewgroundwaterwellstoprovideupto3,000gpm
PretreatmentofgroundwaterforROmembranedesalination
● PretreatmentOption1–SequesterironandmanganesefordirectROapplication
● PretreatmentOption2–Oxidizeandremoveofiron/manganesethroughpretreatmentfiltrationandassociatedwashwaterrecoveryprocess
ROmembranesystem
Post‐treatmenttostabilizetheROpermeateanddisinfection
Treatedwaterdistribution
Additionofsupportingchemicalfeedfacilities
Off‐sitefacilities
Monitoringwellstomonitorgroundwaterconditions
Descriptionanddesigncriteriaforeachtreatmentprocessaresummarizedinthissection.
5.4.1 Raw Water Supply
TheCity’stwoexistingwells(A&B)havecapacitiesof1,500gpmeach,foratotalcombinedcapacityof3,000gpm.Itisanticipatedthatuptotwonewgroundwaterwellswouldberequiredtoprovideanadditional3,000gpm.Thus,thetotalgroundwaterflowtotheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywillbeapproximately6,000gpm.Thetreatmentcapacityorfinaltreatedwater
5‐6 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
flowattheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywillbebasedonpretreatmentrequirementsandROoperatingrecovery,whichrangesfrom6.5mgdupto7mgd.
5.4.2 Pretreatment Process
PretreatmentrequirementsfortheROsystemwillbeconfirmedduringthedesignstageoftheproject.TwooptionsforpretreatmentaresummarizedbelowbasedonfindingsofthepilotstudyandBlack&Veatch’spastdesignexperiencewithgroundwaterdesalinationfacilitiestreatingsimilarwaterquality.TheprocessflowdiagramreflectsthetwopretreatmentoptionsareprovidedinFigure5‐4andFigure5‐5.ProcessFlowDiagramforPretreatmentOption2(Chlorine+PretreatmentFiltration).
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐7
Figure5‐4:ProcessFlowDiagramforPretreatmentOption1(OxygenQuenchingforDirectRO)
5‐8 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
Figure5‐5:ProcessFlowDiagramforPretreatmentOption2(Chlorine+PretreatmentFiltration)
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐9
5.4.2.1 Pretreatment Option 1 – Oxygen Quenching for Direct RO Application
The2008PilotStudydemonstratedthatpretreatmentremovalofironandmanganesemaynotberequiredwiththeadditionofanoxygenquenchingagentandkeepingtheironandmanganeseinsoluble/dissolvedform.Underthisoption,sodiumbisulfitewillbeaddedateachwellheadtoquenchanyDOthatmaybepresentinthegroundwaterandsentdirectlytotheROsystemattheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility.DesigncriteriaofthewellheadsodiumbisulfitestorageandfeedsystemareprovidedinSection5.4.6.
5.4.2.2 Pretreatment Option 2 – Chlorine + Pretreatment Filtration
AnalternativepretreatmentapproachisincludedintheFacilitiesPlanasitwasnotedduringthepilotstudythatoxygenquenchingmayleadtoincreasedbiofoulingpotentialifidealoperatingrangesarenotmaintained(e.g.pHrangeandsequesteringagentdose).Inaddition,shouldthegroundwaterwellsrequireperiodicshockchlorinationtocontrolironbacteriafouling,itwouldcomplicateoperationsforanoxygenquenchingpretreatmentapproach.Thepracticeofshockchlorinationwouldoxidizeironandmanganeseand,withoutpretreatmentfiltration,thewellwaterwouldneedtobeflushedoutanddisposedofbeforethetreatmentfacilitycouldbeplacedbackintoservice.BasedonBlack&Veatch’spastexperience,analternativepretreatmentsystemconsistingofchlorineadditionandfiltrationisincludedintheFacilitiesPlan.Additionalfacilitiesrequiredtosupportthepretreatmentfiltrationsysteminclude:
ContactTank–toprovidecontacttimebetweenoxidantandironandmanganeseandalsoactasarawwaterblendtankthatreceivesgroundwaterfromthevariousgroundwaterwells
SodiumHypochloriteFeedSystem–anadditionalsetofchemicalmeteringpumpsfordosingupstreamofthepretreatmentfiltersfromthebulkstoragetank
PretreatmentFiltrationSystem–toremoveoxidizedironandmanganeseviagreensandfiltration
WashwaterEqualizationTankandRecoverySystem–toequalizeandtreatbackwashwastefrompretreatmentfiltrationsystemtomaximizeoveralltreatmentefficiency
ROFeedTankandLowPressureFeedPump–toprovideahydraulicbuffertomaintainsteady‐stateROoperationsirrespectiveofthepretreatmentfiltrationsystem
5.4.2.2.1 Contact Tank
ChlorineisaddedpriortoenteringtheContactTankinordertopromotetheoxidationofironandmanganeseintherawwater.ThecontacttankwillalsoactasarawwaterequalizationbasinforthevariousgroundwaterwellsservingtheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility.DesigncriteriaforthecontacttankandpretreatmentfilterfeedpumpstationareprovidedinTable5‐4.DesigncriteriafortheadditionalsetofchemicalmeteringpumpsdosingupstreamofthecontacttankareprovidedinSection5.4.7.
5‐10 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
Table5‐4:ContactTankandPretreatmentFilterFeedPumpDesignCriteria
PARAMETER CRITERIA
CONTACT TANK
Detention Time, minutes 15
Capacity, gallons 90,000
PRETREATMENT FILTER FEED PUMP
Number 2 duty and 1 standby
Type Vertical Diffusion Vane
Rated Capacity (each), gpm 3,800
Rated Head, feet 60
Motor, hp 100
5.4.2.2.2 Pretreatment Filtration System
ThemainpurposeofthepretreatmentfiltersistoremoveironandmanganesefromthefeedwatertoprotecttheROmembranesfromironandmanganeseoxideparticlescanfoulROmembranesbydepositingonthemembranesurface.ThewaterqualitygoalforROfeedwateris<0.05mg/Lcombinedconcentrationoftotalironandmanganese.Thisisbasedonpreviousexperienceonbrackishgroundwaterdesalinationfacilitiesofsimilarwaterquality.Thegreensandfilterswillbeoperatedwithupto1mg/Lfreechlorineresidualpassingthroughthefilteratalltimes.Overtime,thefiltermediabecomescoatedwithmanganesedioxideandferrichydroxidesorferricoxidesunderanoxidizedenvironment.Bymaintainingfreechlorineresidualthroughthefilter,continuousadsorptiveuptakeofdivalentmanganesebychemicaloxidationonthemediasurfaceisachieved.
Manganesegreensandisapurple‐blackmedium,derivedbycoatingthenaturally‐occurringglauconitesandwithathinlayerofmanganesedioxidebytreatingitwithmanganoussulfateandpotassiumpermanganate.Greensandtypicallyhasaneffectivesizeof0.30to0.35millimeters(mm),auniformitycoefficientof<1.60,andaspecificgravityofabout2.4.Thegreensandmediaissoakedinconcentratedsolutionofpermanganateorchlorinepriortoinitialuseto“activate”themanganesedioxidesitesonthemediasurface.Followinginitialpreconditioning,removalofironandmanganeseintherawwateroccursthroughbothfiltrationandadsorption,andchlorineisusedtocontinuouslyregeneratethemedia.Alayeroflargeranthracitemediaoverthegreensandisprovidedtoremoveaportionoftheprecipitatingferrichydroxideparticles,therebyreducingoverallrateofheadlossaccumulationthroughthefilterandmaximizingthegreensand’sruntimepriortobackwashing.Manufacturedgreensandisalsoavailablewhereinsilicasandiscoatedwithmanganesedioxide.
Greensandfiltersaretypicallybackwashedatratesof12to18gpm/sffor8to12minutes.Airscourcouldbeusedtoassistinremovalofiron/manganeseoxidedeposits.Whilelowerbackwashratesarereportedtobeeffectiveinremovingthemetaloxidedepositsfromthemediabed,backwashratesof15to18gpm/sfarerequiredtorestratifythegreensandandanthracitelayersinthefilterbed.Filter‐to‐wastefollowingbackwashesmayberequiredtoensureshighqualityROfeedwaterwithlowironandmanganeseconcentrationsatalltimesofon‐lineoperation.Thefilter‐
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐11
to‐wastedurationshouldbeoptimizedduringplantstart‐up,dependingonthefinalnumberoffilterunitsprovided.Tooptimizeconstructability,cost,andfootprint,pressurefiltervesselswillbeusedtohousethemedia.PreliminarydesigncriteriaforthepretreatmentgreensandfiltersystemareprovidedinTable5‐5.
Table5‐5:PretreatmentGreensandFilterDesignCriteria
PARAMETER CRITERIA
FILTRATION SYSTEM
Type Pressurized
Number 4
Cells Per Filter 2
Design Loading Rate, gpm/sf 3.0
Filter Size, each
Overall Length, feet (2 filter cells) 40‐45
Diameter, feet 12‐14
Working Pressure, psi 75
FILTER MEDIA
Media Type Dual
Total Media Depth, inches 30‐42
Media Material
Material #1 Anthracite
Depth, inches 12‐18
Effective Size, mm 0.6 – 0.8
Uniformity Coefficient <1.6
Material #2 Greensand
Depth, inches 18‐24
Effective Size, mm 0.3 – 0.35
Uniformity Coefficient <1.6
BACKWAH REQUIREMENT
Rate, gpm/sf 15
Duration, min 15
Backwashingofthegreensandfilterswillremovethewastesolidsandexpandthemediabed.Thebackwashiscarriedoutusingwaterthathaspreviouslypassedthroughthefiltersandintothebackwashholdingtank.DesigncriteriaforthebackwashsupplytankandpumpstationareprovidedinTable5‐6.
5‐12 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
Table5‐6:BackwashSupplyTankandPumpStationDesignCriteria
PARAMETER CRITERIA
BACKWASH SUPPLY TANK
Usable Capacity, gallons 100,000
Capacity Criteria Minimum of 2 filter backwashes
BACKWASH SUPPLY PUMPS
Number 1 duty and 1 standby
Type Vertical Diffusion Vane
Rated Capacity, gpm, each 3,400
Rated Head, feet 45
Motor, hp 60
Drive Adjustable Frequency
Backwashwastefromthepretreatmentgreensandfilterswillbesenttoawashwaterequalizationtankandpumpedtoapackagedinclinedplatesettlersystemforfurthertreatment.Solidswillbekeptinsuspensionwithinthetankusingpropeller‐typemixers.Fromtheequalizationtank,thewashwaterwillbepumpedtoapackagetreatmentunit.Theequalizationtankandtheassociatedpumpswillbedesignedtoemptybetweenfilterbackwashes.Thepackagetreatmentunitwillincludeaflocculationbasinequippedwithverticalflocculator,asedimentationbasinequippedwithinclinedplatesettlers,andasludgehopper.Theclarifiedeffluentfromthepackagetreatmentunitwillbereturnedtotheheadoftheplant.Sludgecollectedfromtheinclinedplatesettlerswillbeconveyedtoanexistingsewerline.
DesigncriteriaforthewashwaterequalizationtankandrecoverysystemareprovidedinTable5‐7.
Table5‐7:WashwaterEqualizationTankandRecoverySystemDesignCriteria
PARAMETER CRITERIA
WASHWATER EQUALIZATION TANK
Capacity, gallons 112,000
Capacity Criteria 2x 15‐minute filter backwashes + 30 minutes filter to waste for one filter
WASHWATER RECOVERY SYSTEM
Type Packaged Inclined Plate Settler
Number 1
Capacity, gpm 250
5.4.2.2.3 RO Feed Tank and Low Pressure RO Transfer Pump Station
Filteredwaterfromthegreensandfiltrationsystemwillbesplitwithupto5percentoftheflowdirectedtotheRObypasspipelineandtheremaindertotheROfeedtank.TheROfeedtankwillprovideahydraulicbuffertoequalizetheflowtotheROsystem.ThisensuresthattheROsystemcanbeoperatedinasteadystate,irrespectiveoftheoperationofthepressurefilters.Provisionsfor
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐13
theadditionofsodiumbisulfiteateitherthetankinfluentoreffluentareprovidedtode‐chlorinatethefilteredwatereffluentorafterthecartridgefilters.Typically,thefilteredwaterisde‐chlorinatedattheinfluenttotheROfeedtank.However,dechlorinationafterthecartridgefiltershasshownbenefitsincontrollingbiofoulingofthecartridgefiltersinbrackishgroundwaterdesalinationapplications.Inaddition,periodicchlorineresidualmaintainedthroughtheROfeedtankalsohelpstocontrolbiologicalgrowth.Thus,provisionsforde‐chlorinationshouldbeprovidedattheinfluenttotheROfeedtankaswellasdownstreamofthecartridgefiltersforoperationalflexibility.
LowpressurepumpswillconveywaterfromtheROfeedtankthroughthecartridgefilterstothesuctionsideoftheROhighpressurefeedpumps.DesigncriteriafortheROfeedtankandlowpressureROtransferpumpstationareprovidedinTable5‐8.
Table5‐8:ROFeedTankandLowPressureROTransferPumpStationDesignCriteria
PARAMETER CRITERIA
RO FEED TANK
Detention time, minutes 15
Capacity, gallons 90,000
LOW PRESSURE RO TRANSFER PUMPS
Number 3 duty and 1 standby
Type Vertical Diffusion Vane
Rated Capacity, gpm, each 2,000
Rated Head, feet 100
Motor, hp 125
Drive Adjustable Frequency
5.4.3 RO System
WaterexitingtheROfeedtankwillbedosedwithsulfuricacidandantiscalanttoreducethepotentialforprecipitationofsparinglysolublesaltsontheROmembranes.Sodiumbisulfitewillalsobefedtothefilteredwatertoneutralizethechlorineresidual.TheROsystemconsistsof:cartridgefilters,theROhighpressurefeedpumps,ROtrains,ROflushsystem,andROCIPsystem.
5.4.3.1.1 Cartridge Filters
CartridgefilterswillbeprovidedupstreamoftheROmembranestoserveasafinalbarrierforremovalofanyparticulatematterthatmaybepresentintheROfeedtank.RemovalofparticulatematerialiscriticaltopreventfoulingofthefeedchannelsintheROmembraneelements.Thecartridgefiltervesselswillbeconnectedtoacommonfeedanddischargeheader.Thecartridgefilterswillbevalvedtoallowisolationofasinglevessel.Duringnormaloperation,alldutyvesselswillbeusedirrespectiveofthenumberofROunitsoperatingtopreventwaterstagnationwithinacartridgefilterandbiologicalgrowth.Whenthedifferentialpressurebetweenthefeedanddischargeheadersexceedthedesignsetpoint,thesparevesselwillbebroughtintoserviceandelementsineachofthedutyvesselswillbesequentiallyreplaced.Spentcartridgescanbe
5‐14 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
discardedinnormaltrash.Thelastdutyvesselwillthenbecomethesparevessel.DesigncriteriaforthecartridgefiltersareprovidedinTable5‐9.
Table5‐9:CartridgeFilterDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
Number of cartridge filter vessels 4
Design flow rate per vessel 2,000 gpm
Design loading rate 3.5 gpm/10” equivalent length
Vessel orientation Horizontal
Cartridge filter element dimensions 2.5” diameter and 40” long
Cartridge filter element rating 5 um nominal pore size
5.4.3.1.2 RO System
ThehighpressureROfeedpumpsdrawwaterfromthecartridgefiltersandfurtherboostthefeedwaterpressuretothatrequiredforoperationoftheROskids.ThepressurizedfeedwatertoeachROunitissuppliedbyadedicatedhighpressurepumpequippedwithanadjustablefrequencydrive(AFD).TheAFDforeachpumpiscontrolledtoachieveasettotalpermeatefromeachROunit.Thisarrangementsimplifiesthepumpcontrolstomatchflowswhenskidsarebroughtonlineortakenoffline.DesigncriteriafortheROhighpressurefedpumpsareprovidedinTable5‐10.
Table5‐10:ROHighPressureFeedPumpDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
Number of feed pumps 4 (one dedicated for each RO unit)
Nominal flow rate (gpm) 2,000
Rated head, psi TBD
Type of pump Vertical turbine in barrel
Motor AFD
TheROtrainswillremovethedissolvedsaltsandcontaminants,whichwillbedischargedorwastedintheconcentratestream.TheROsystemwillbedesignedtooperateoverarecoveryrangeof75‐85percent,dependingontheblendedgroundwaterwellwaterquality(e.g.silicaconcentration)andeffectivenessoftheantiscalantchemicalthatisapplied.The2008PilotStudyrecommendedarecoveryof75percent.TheROsystemdesigncriteria,establishedbasedontheresultsofthe2008PilotStudy,aresummarizedinTable5‐11.Alternativeconfigurations,suchasa3‐stagesystemor440‐ft2ROelementscouldbeconsideredduringdetaileddesigntomaximizerecoveryandminimizecost.Anenergyrecoverydevice(ERD)willbeincludedintheROsystemdesigntoprovideinter‐stageboostingforfluxbalancingandminimizeoverallenergyconsumptionoftheROsystem.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐15
Table5‐11:ROSystemDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
RO Recovery 75%
Number of RO trains 4 (3 duty, 1 standby)
Design permeate flow rate per train (gpm) 1,500
Design feed water flow rate per train (gpm) 2,000
Number of stages per train 2
Initial Feed Pressure, psi 200
Energy Recovery Device (inter‐stage boost), gpm 1,000
Pressure Vessels (each train)
1st Stage 40
2nd Stage 20
Elements/vessel 7
Total Elements 420
Membrane Elements
Size 8‐inch diameter x 40‐inch in length
Total Installed Number 1680
Average Flux Rate, gfd <14
Material Thin Film Composite/Polyamides (TFC/PA)
5.4.3.1.3 RO Support Systems
ThesystemsthatsupporttheROsystemarethefollowing:
ROflushSystem
Clean‐in‐place(CIP)System
Periodically,ROtrainsaretakenoutofserviceduetoreduceddemandandtoconstantlyrotatethevariousROtrains.Forinstance,evenifthefacilityisoperatingatfullcapacity,thesparetrainshouldbebroughtintooperationperiodicallytopreventdegradationofmembranesandallmovingparts.Thisistypicallyachievedbyoperatingmembranesinaroundrobinfashion,toensurethatnotrainisleftoff‐lineforanextendedperiodoftime.WheneveranROtrainistakenoutofservice,itisflushedautomaticallywithpermeate.
TheflushingsystemwillconsistofapermeateflushtankandpumpssummarizedinTable5‐12.Onesystemwillbeprovidedtoflushalltheunits.Partofthepermeatefromthecommonheaderwillbedivertedtofillthepermeatetank.TheflushingtankisdesignedtoholdsufficientwaterforroughlyonevolumetricdisplacementofthewaterinthepipingandoneROtrain.
5‐16 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
Table5‐12:ROFlushTankandFlushPumpDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
Flush Tank
Number 1
Tank Capacity, gallons 3,800
Tank Material FRP
Flush Pump
Number 1 duty and 1 standby
Capacity (each), gpm 1,600 @45 Psi
TheROmembraneswillbecomegraduallyfouledwithinorganicandorganicmaterialovertime.ThedegradationintheperformanceoftheROmembranesisassessedbasedonthefollowingparameters:
Normalizedpermeateflowdropsbymorethan10percent
Normalizeddifferentialpressureacrossanystageincreasesby15percent
Normalizedsaltpassageincreasesby10percent
Dependingonthemembraneelementselected,thesevaluesmaybeadjustedtomeetthemembraneelementmanufacturer’srecommendations.Normalizationistypicallydonetoaccountforvariationsinoperationalpracticessuchasrecovery,watertemperatureandquality.
Whenanyoftheabovementionedparameterstriggeracleaning,therelevantROtrainwillbetakenoutofservice.Dependingonthenatureoffoulants,cleaningwillbeperformedusingeitheracidicorbasicsolutionsorboth.Typically,acidiccleaningsolutionsareusedtoremoveinorganicfoulants,whilebasicsolutionisusedforremovaloforganicfoulants.Itisanticipatedthat,forthiswater,acidiccleaningwillbedonemorefrequentlythanbasic.Typically,citricacidisusedforcleaninginorganicconstituentsandcausticwithdetergentsisusedforremovaloforganicmaterial.PreliminarydesigncriteriafortheROCIPsystemareprovidedinTable5‐13.Typically,CIPprocedurescanbeoptimizedwhiletheROsystemisonline.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐17
Table5‐13:ROCIPSystemDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
CIP Tank
Number 2
Tank Capacity, gallons 4,500
Tank Material FRP
CIP Pump
Number 1 duty and 1 standby
Capacity (each), gpm 2,000
Motor AFD
Cartridge Filter
Nominal Flowrate, gpm 2,100
Element Loading Rate 5 gpm/10‐inch equivalent length
Neutralization Tank
Number 1
Tank Capacity, gallons 5,500
Tank Material FRP
5.4.4 Brine Management
TheROconcentratewillbedischargedtotheRegionalSalinityManagementPipeline(SMP),operatedbyCMWD,forultimatedisposaltothePacificOcean.TheROconcentrateflowwillrangefrom850to1,450gpmdependingonselectedrecoveryoftheROsystem.TheconnectiontotheRegionalSMPisapproximately3,700ftawayfromthepreferredlocationoftheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility.TheoptionofgravityorpressurizedpipelinethatconnectsthetreatmentfacilitytotheRegionalSMPshouldbeinvestigatedduringthedesignstage.
5.4.5 Post‐Treatment
Post‐treatmentstabilizationoftheROpermeateconsistsofdecarbonation,blendingwithRObypassflow,andadditionofsodiumhydroxideforfinalpHadjustment.Initialestimatesindicatethatupto5percentoftheROfeedwater,dependingonROrecovery,couldbebypassedandblendedtostabilizetheROpermeate.Designcriteriafordecarbonationanddisinfectionareprovidedinthissection.DesigncriteriaforthechemicalfeedsystemsareprovidedinSection5.4.7.
5.4.5.1 Decarbonation
DecarbonatorswillbelocateddownstreamoftheROsystemtotreatROpermeate.ThedecarbonatorswillremovecarbondioxidefromtheROpermeateandreducetheamountofsodiumhydroxide(NaOH)requiredforstabilizationofthetreatedwater.Thedesignshouldincludeprovisionsforhydrogensulfideremovalandpotentiallyoff‐gasscrubbersifhighlevelsarepresentinthenewgroundwaterwells.DesigncriteriaforthedecarbonatorsareprovidedinTable5‐14.
5‐18 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
Table5‐14:DecarbonatorDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
Type Packed Tower
Number 2
Design flow (each), gpm 2,250
Blowers
Number 1
Capacity, scfm 6,000
5.4.5.2 Disinfection
Disinfectionofthetreatedwaterisprovidedbyformationofchloraminesthroughadditionofaqua‐ammoniaandsodiumhypochloritefollowingthedecarbonators.Thesechemicaladditionfacilitiesaresizedforatargetresidualof1.2to1.5mg/Ltotalchlorine.DesigncriteriaforthechemicalfeedsystemsareprovidedinSection5.4.7.
5.4.6 Treated Water Distribution
Treatedwaterwillbecollectedintoa43,000gallonpumpwellbelowthefinishedwaterpumpstation.Thepumpswouldbehousedinsoundenclosuresfornoisecontrol.ThepumpstationwouldhavethecapabilitytopumpallofthewaterproducedeithertotheCity’sZone1orZone2distributionsystemortoacombinationofthetwozones.Undernormaloperations,twopumpswillbeinoperationforZone1,andonepumpwillbeinoperationtoserveZone2.PreliminarydesigncriteriaforthetreatedwaterpumpstationareprovidedinTable5‐15.ThefinaltreatedwaterproductioncapacityoftheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywillbebasedonpretreatmentoptionselectedandoptimizedROrecovery.
Table5‐15:TreatedWaterPumpStationDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
Treated Water Sump
Capacity, gallons 43,000
Zone 1 Distribution Pumps
Number 2 duty and 1 standby
Capacity (each), gpm 1800
Rated Head, feet 155
Motor AFD
Zone 2 Distribution Pumps
Number 1 duty and 2 standby
Capacity (each), gpm 1100
Rated Head, feet 72
Motor AFD
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐19
5.4.7 Chemical Feed Facilities
Thefollowingchemicalswillbeutilizedaspartofthetreatmentsystem:
SodiumHypochlorite‐toaidintheoxidationofironandmanganesethroughthePretreatmentFiltrationSystem(Option2)andusedfordisinfectionaspartofthechloraminationprocess
SodiumBisulfite–injectedatthewellheadtosequesteroxygen(PretreatmentOption1)oraddedupstreamofROsystem(PretreatmentOption2)toremoveanyresidualfreechlorinepresentintheROfeedwater
SulfuricAcid‐addedtotheROfeedwatertomaintainthedesiredpHwithintherangeof6.7to7.0tominimizescalingontheROmembranes
Antiscalant(ThresholdInhibitor)‐addedtotheROfeedwatertominimizethepotentialforinorganicscalingonthemembranesurface
SodiumHydroxide–toincreasethepHofthesoftened,treatedwaterandreduceitscorrosivity
Aquaammonia‐addedalongwithsodiumhypochloritetoformacombinedmonochloramineresidualinthetreatedwater
Sizingofeachchemicalfeedsystemisbasedonaminimumstoragecapacityof30daysforeachchemicalataveragechemicaldoses.
5.4.7.1 Sodium Hypochlorite
Onesodiumhypochloritefeedsystemwillbesuppliedtofeed12.5tradepercentsodiumhypochloritetothewellpumps,rawwaterinletandtothefinishedwaterfromtheROsystemdependingonthepretreatmentoptionselectedfordesign.Sodiumhypochloritewillbedeliveredtothesitebytankertruckandwillbestoredinbulkstoragetankssizedtoacceptafulltruckload.Requirementsforoneortwostoragetankswillbedeterminedduringthedesignstage.Thesodiumhypochloritewillbedeliveredtothefeedpointsbymeteringpumpsdesignedtofeedsodiumhypochloriteoverthefullrangeplantflowsanddoses.PreliminarydesigncriteriaforthesodiumhypochloritefeedsystemforthetwopretreatmentoptionsanddisinfectionaresummarizedinTable5‐16andTable5‐17.
5‐20 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
Table5‐16:SodiumHypochloriteFeedSystemDesignCriteria(PretreatmentOption1–DirectRO)
PARAMETER VALUE
Chemical Sodium Hypochlorite
Chemical Concentration 12.5%
Chemical Dose, mg/L 1.5 (avg), 0.5‐2.5 (range)
Storage Tank
Number 1
Capacity, gallons 5,000
Days 60(1)
Chemical Metering Pumps
Feed Point Upstream of RO
Type Peristaltic
Number of Pumps 2
Pump Capacity Each, gph 7(1) Larger tank provided in order to accept one full delivery of sodium hypochlorite to minimize chemical delivery cost
Table5‐17:SodiumHypochloriteFeedSystemDesignCriteria(PretreatmentOption2–PretreatmentFiltration+RO)
PARAMETER VALUE
Chemical Sodium Bisulfite
Chemical Concentration 25%
Chemical Dose, mg/L 1.5
Storage Tank
Number 1
Capacity, gallons 5,900
Days 30
Chemical Metering Pumps
Feed Point Raw water, upstream of contact tank
Type Peristaltic
Number of Pumps 2
Pump Capacity Each, gph 7
Feed Point Blended treated water
Type Peristaltic
Number of Pumps 2
Pump Capacity Each, gph 7
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐21
5.4.7.2 Sodium Bisulfite
Onesodiumbisulfitefeedsystemwillbesuppliedtofeed25percentsodiumbisulfiteeitherattheWellHead(PretreatmentOption1–DirectRO)orupstreamoftheROsystem(PretreatmentOption2–PretreatmentFiltration+RO).Thesodiumbisulfitewillbedeliveredtothefeedpointbymeteringpumpsdesignedtofeedsodiumbisulfiteoverthefullrangeflowsanddosages.PreliminarydesigncriteriaforthewellheadandtreatmentfacilityfeedsystemsareprovidedinTable5‐18andTable5‐19,respectively.
Table5‐18:WellHeadSodiumBisulfiteFeedSystemDesignCriteria(PretreatmentOption1–DirectRO)
PARAMETER VALUE
Chemical Sodium Bisulfite
Chemical Concentration 25%
Chemical Dose, mg/L 2.0(1)
Storage Tote
Well Head Capacity, gpm 1,500 3,000(2)
Type Tote Totes
Number 2 3
Capacity Each, gallons 300 300
Days 30
Chemical Metering Pumps
Feed Point Well Head
Type Peristaltic
Number of Pumps 2
Pump Capacity Each, gph 0.6 1.2(1) Dose based on 2008 Pilot Study (2) The new well(s) may be either 1,500 or 3,000 gpm in capacity
5‐22 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
Table5‐19:BulkSodiumBisulfiteFeedSystemDesignCriteria(PretreatmentOption2–PretreatmentFiltration+RO)
PARAMETER VALUE
Chemical Sodium Bisulfite
Chemical Concentration 25%
Chemical Dose, mg/L 2.0
Storage Tank
Number 1
Capacity, gallons 1,700
Days 30
Chemical Metering Pumps
Feed Point Upstream of RO
Type Peristaltic
Number of Pumps 2
Pump Capacity Each, gph 2
5.4.7.3 Sulfuric Acid
Onesulfuricacidfeedsystemwillbesuppliedtofeed93percentsulfuricacidupstreamoftheROsystem.Sulfuricacidwillbedeliveredtothesitebytankertruckandwillbestoredinabulkstoragetanksizedtoacceptafulltruckload.Thesulfuricacidwillbedeliveredtothefeedpointbytwometeringpumpsdesignedtofeedsulfuricacidoverthefullrangeflowsanddoses.DesigncriteriaforthesulfuricacidfeedsystemareprovidedinTable5‐20.
Table5‐20:SulfuricAcidFeedSystemDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
Chemical Sulfuric Acid
Chemical Concentration 93.2%
Chemical Dose, mg/L 90(1)
Storage Tank
Number 1
Capacity, gallons 13,000
Days 30
Chemical Metering Pumps
Dosing Location Upstream of RO
Type Peristaltic
Number of Pumps 2
Pump Capacity Each, gph 20(1) Dose based on 2008 Pilot Study
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐23
5.4.7.4 Antiscalant
OneantiscalantfeedsystemwillbesuppliedtofeedantiscalantupstreamoftheROsystem.Antiscalantwillbedeliveredtothesiteintotesandwillbestoredinthedeliveredtotes.Antiscalantwillbedeliveredtothefeedpointbymeteringpumpsdesignedtofeedoverthefullrangeflowsanddoses.PreliminarydesigncriteriafortheantiscalantfeedsystemareprovidedinTable5‐21.
Table5‐21:AntiscalantFeedSystemDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
Chemical Antiscalant
Chemical Concentration 100
Chemical Dose, mg/L 1‐5
Storage Tote
Number 1
Capacity, gallons 530
Days 45
Chemical Metering Pumps
Dosing Location Upstream of RO
Type Peristaltic
Number of Pumps 2
Pump Capacity Each, gph 0.6
5.4.7.5 Sodium Hydroxide
Onesodiumhydroxidefeedsystemwillbesuppliedtofeed25percentsodiumhydroxidetothefinishedwater.Sodiumhydroxidewillbedeliveredtothesitebytankertruckasa50percentsolutionandwillbedilutedandstoredinabulkstoragetanksizedtoacceptafulltruckloadplusdilutionwater.Thesodiumhydroxidewillbedeliveredtothefinishedwaterbytwometeringpumpsdesignedtofeedsodiumhydroxideoverthefullrangeofflowsanddoses.PreliminarydesigncriteriaforthesodiumhydroxidefeedsystemareprovidedinTable5‐22.
5‐24 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
Table5‐22:SodiumHydroxideFeedSystemDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
Chemical Sodium Hydroxide
Chemical Concentration 50% (delivered), 25% (stored)
Chemical Dose, mg/L 3‐5(1)
Storage Tank
Number 1
Capacity, gallons 4,500
Days 30
Chemical Metering Pumps
Dosing Location Blended treated water (RO Permeate + RO Bypass)
Type Peristaltic
Number of Pumps 2
Pump Capacity Each, gph 5(1) Dose range based on 2008 Pilot Study
5.4.7.6 Aqua Ammonia
Oneaquaammoniafeedsystemwillbesuppliedtofeed19percentaquaammoniatothefinishedwatertoformchloramines.Theaquaammoniawillbedeliveredtothefinishedwaterbytwometeringpumpsdesignedtofeedoverthefullrangeflowsanddoses.PreliminarydesigncriteriafortheaquaammoniafeedsystemareprovidedinTable5‐23.
Table5‐23:AquaAmmoniaFeedSystemDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
Chemical Aqua Ammonia
Chemical Concentration 19%
Chemical Dose, mg/L 0.3‐1.5(1)
Storage Tank
Number 1
Capacity, gallons 1,200
Days 30
Chemical Metering Pumps
Dosing Location Blended treated water (RO Permeate + RO Bypass)
Type Peristaltic
Number of Pumps 2
Pump Capacity Each, gph 2.5
(1) Dose based on 2008 Pilot Study
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐25
5.4.8 Site Layout
TwositelayoutswerepreparedfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitybasedonthetwopretreatmentoptionsavailable.ThesitelayoutsareprovidedinFigure5‐6andFigure5‐7.
Themajorityofthetreatmentfacilitieswillbelocatedoutdoorsandunderacanopy.Theadministrationbuilding(whichincludesthecontrolroom),electricalroom,andstorageroom/shopwillbelocatednearthemainentrancegate.TheonlyotherbuildingprovidedwillbefortheROhighpressurefeedpumpsfornoiseattenuation.Anaccessroadisprovidedalongtheperimeterofthesitetoprovidetruckaccessforchemicaldeliveriesandequipmentmaintenance.ThetotalfootprintoftheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityisapproximately104,755squarefeet.
ForPretreatmentOption1–DirectRO,therawgroundwaterwouldbepumpedtositeandwillbesentdirectlytothecartridgefiltrationsystemandboostedtotheROsystem.TheROpermeatewillthenundergopost‐treatmentconsistingofblendingwithRObypasswater,decarbonation,andchemicalconditioning(sodiumhydroxideaddition)forfinalpHadjustment.ThetreatedwaterwillflowbygravityfromthedecarbonatorsintothefinishedwaterwetwellandpumpedtoZone1andZone2fordistribution.ThetotalfootprintofthetreatmentfacilitiesrequiredforPretreatmentOption1isapproximately17,800squarefeet.
ForPretreatmentOption2–PretreatmentFiltration+RO,therawwaterfromthevariousgroundwaterwellswillbepumpedtothecontacttank,thenfedtothepretreatmentgreensandfilters.ThepretreatedwaterwouldthenflowtotheROfeedtank,thenbetransferredtothecartridgefiltersbeforeitisboostedtotheROsystem.Post‐treatmentoperationsandtreatedwaterdistributionwouldbethesamebetweenthetwooptions.AsindicatedinFigure5‐7,thepretreatmentfiltrationoptionwouldrequiresignificantlymoretreatmentfacilitiesandlandthanPretreatmentOption1–DirectRO.ThetotalfootprintofthetreatmentfacilitiesrequiredforPretreatmentOption2isapproximately38,300feetsquared.Therequiredpretreatmentfiltrationandsupportfacilitiesaccountsforapproximately20,500ft2ofthetotal38,300feetsquared.
Anemergencygenerator,commontobothoptions,wouldbeprovidedattheGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitysitetoensureareliablesourceofpowertothetreatmentfacilities.Theemergencygeneratormayalsobeusedtoprovideemergencypowertotheproposedgroundwaterwells(iflocatedwithincloseproximity).Theemergencygeneratorwouldonlybeusedduringpoweroutagesandforshortperiodsduringmaintenance.Thegeneratorwouldproduceupto2,000kilowatts(KW)andwouldbepoweredbyadieselengine.
TheoverallfootprintsofthefacilitiesareprovidedinTable5‐15.
Table5‐24:TreatedWaterPumpStationDesignCriteria
PARAMETER VALUE
Facilities Foot Print (sq Ft)
Pretreatment Option 1 17,800
Pretreatment Option 2 38,300
Total Area within Site Fencing 104,755
Total Area of new facility (includes 25’ buffer around facility 141,100
5‐26 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
INTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐27
Figure5‐6:SiteLayoutfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility(PretreatmentOption1–DirectRO)
5‐28 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
INTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐29
Figure5‐7:SiteLayoutfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility(PretreatmentOption2–PretreatmentFiltration+RO)
5‐30 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
INTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities 5‐31
5.5 OFFSITE FACILITIES
5.5.1 Conveyance
FinishedwaterfromtheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywillbepumpedtoeitherZone1orZone2.Zone1operatesatahigherpressureof155ft,whileZone2operates72ft.InNovember2007,aDistributionSystemHydraulicAnalysisdeterminedthatthatthemostefficientmethodforconnectingtothefinishedwatersystemwastosupplythemajorityofthewaterfromtheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityintoZone1andusetheconveyancecapacityofZone1totransfertheZone2supplyacrossthecity,breakingheadattheKendallPRVandfeedingitintoZone2.AportionoftheZone2waterwillbefeddirectlyintotheZone2linenearthefacilities.Thetie‐inpointsdeterminedinthatstudytobemostcostefficientareattheintersectionofAntonioAveandEastLasPosasRdforZone1,andatthecornerofAntonioAveandNorthPonderosaDrforZone2.TheproposedoperationflowratesareshowninTable5‐25.
Table5‐25:Production/DistributionforNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility
PARAMETER CRITERIA
Zone 1 Pumping 3,600 gpm @ 155 ft
Zone 2 Pumping 1,100 gpm @ 75 ft
Anoverviewoftheoff‐sitefacilitiesandpipelinetie‐inlocations(e.g.rawwaterpipelines,treatedwaterpipelines,potentialnewwelllocation,andsalinitymanagementpipelineconnectionlocation)areprovidedinFigure5‐8.Theapproximatepipelinedistancesareasfollows:Zone1piping=1,500feet,Zone2piping=1,500feet,RawWaterpiping=7,000feet(total),andpipingtoRegionalSalinityManagementPipeline=3,500feet.
5.5.2 Waste Disposal
TheROconcentratewillbedischargedtotheRegionalSMP,operatedbyCMWD,forultimatedisposaltothePacificOcean.The32inchhigh‐densitypolyethylene(HPDE)SMPhasbeenconstructedupthroughPhase2CterminatinginLewisRdjustnorthofPasPosas/Uplandroad.TheROconcentratestreamwillbepipedfromtheprojectsitealongAntonioAvetoUplandRoad.ItisanticipatedtheROconcentratelinewilltieintotheSMPatorbelowmanholeNo.9,about4feetdownstreamfromtheendoftheline.
ThesolidsdischargedfromthesiteaswellasanywastestreamsfromtheAdministrationBuildingwillbedischargedtothelocalsewer.Thereisan8‐inchvitrifiedclaypipe(VCP)attheintersectionofAntonioDriveandMarVista.Itisanticipatedthattheavailablesewercapacityandfinaltie‐inpointswillbeconfirmedduringdetaileddesign.
5.5.3 Monitoring Wells
The2015“NorthernPleasantValleyDesalterGroundwaterAnalysisandModelling”report(Bachman)recommendsthreemonitoringwells(Figure5‐9).Theirpurposewouldbeto1)establishbaselineinformationand2)totrackprogressofthedesalterprojectasitpullsaltsfromthebasin.Thelocationsarebasedonmodelingthattrackedmovementofbrackishwaterovera17
5‐32 Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities |BLACK & VEATCH
yearsimulationperiod.Bachmanfurtherinformationonthesemonitoringwellscanbefoundinthatreport.ThelocationsofthewellsrelativetoWellBareindicatedinthisfigure.
5.6 ANTICIPATED TREATED WATER QUALITY Anticipatedtreatedwaterquality,basedontheblendedrawwater(WellC)fromTable5‐1,ispresentedbelowinTable5‐26withcomparisontothewaterqualitygoals.
Table5‐26:AnticipatedTreatedWaterQuality
CONSTITUENT
RAW WATER1 (WELL C) PERMEATE REJECT
PRODUCT (TREATED)2 GOAL3
Chloride,mg/L 136 12 640 20 65
pH 7.4 5.6 7 8.6 >8.0
Sulfate,mg/L 891 30 4340 70 70
TDS,mg/L 1554 97 8980 196 250
Calcium,mg/L 240 8 1180 20 ‐‐
Magnesium,mg/L 66 2 330 10 ‐‐
Hardness,mg/lasCaCO3
896 26 4250 70 75‐120
GrossAlpha,pCi/L 12.6 0.6 60 1.1 121AverageofWellsAandB.RefertoTable5‐1.2Assumes4%bypass.3FromTable5‐2.
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities
Figure5‐8:OverviewofOff‐SiteFacilitiesandTie‐InLocationsforPreferredSiteLocation#2
5‐34 W
INTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK
City of Camarillo | FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE NORTH PLEASANT VALLEY GROUNDWATER TREATMENT FACILIITY
BLACK & VEATCH | Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities
Figure5‐9:RecommendedMonitoringWells(exceptedfrom2015Bachman"NorthernPleasantValleyDesalterGroundwaterAnalysisandModeling"reportwithannotationadded)
Well B
Monitoring
Wells
5‐36
INTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK
City of Camarillo | FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE NORTH PLEASANT VALLEY GROUNDWATER TREATMENT FACILIITY
BLACK & VEATCH | Assessment of Site Alternatives 6‐1
6 Assessment of Site Alternatives AtotalofeightsitesforthenewNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywereidentifiedandevaluatedfortheEIR.EachofthealternativesitesislocatedwithinonemileofthewellsitesandtheRegionalSalinityManagementpipelinealignment.ThelocationsoftheeightsitesarelistedbelowandprovidedinFigure6‐1.TheeightsiteswereevaluatedbyPadreAssociatesfortheEIR.
Site#1–locatedimmediatelynorthoftheCitylimitsintheunincorporatedportionofVenturaCountyneartheintersectionofPonderosaDriveandAntonioDrive.ThesiteiscurrentlyzonedAE‐40ac(AgricultureExclusive,40acreminimumparcelsize).Theparcelisapproximately58acresandiscurrentlyusedforagriculture(orchards).
Site#2‐locatedimmediatelynorthoftheCitylimitsintheunincorporatedportionofVenturaCountyalongAntonioDriveandacrossthestreetfromWellB.ThesiteiscurrentlyzonedAE‐40ac.Theparcelisapproximately77acresandiscurrentlyusedforagriculture(rowcrops).
Site#3‐locatedimmediatelynorthoftheCitylimitsintheunincorporatedportionofVenturaCountyneartheintersectionofAntonioDriveandVillamonteCourt.ItisalsolocatedacrossthestreetfromWellB.ThesiteiscurrentlyzonedAE‐40ac.Theparcelisapproximately77acresandiscurrentlyusedforagriculture(rowcrops).
Site#4‐locatedimmediatelynorthoftheCitylimitsadjacenttoanexistinghousingcommunity.ThesiteislocatedneartheintersectionofVillamonteCourtandFieldgateDrive.ThesiteiscurrentlyzonedAE‐40ac.Theparcelisapproximately77acresandiscurrentlyusedforagriculture(rowcrops).
Site#5–locatedneartheintersectionofLasPosasRoadandLewisRoad.ThesiteiscurrentlyzonedAE‐40ac.Theparcelisapproximately40acresandiscurrentlyusedforagriculture(rowcrops).
Site#6–locatedadjacenttoSite#5alongSomisRoad.ThesiteiscurrentlyzonedAE‐40ac.Theparcelisapproximately40acresandiscurrentlyusedforagriculture(rowcrops).
Site#7–locatedwithinCitylimitsandzonedRE(ruralexclusive),neartheintersectionofLewisRoadandUplandRoad.Theparcelisapproximately6acresandiscurrentlyusedforagriculture(orchards).
Site#8–locatedapproximately1,000feetnorthofexistingCitylimitsandwithintheunincorporatedportionofVenturaCounty.ThesiteiscurrentlyzonedAE‐40ac.Theparcelisapproximately58acresandiscurrentlyusedforagriculture(orchards).
Site#2iscurrentlyidentifiedasthepreferredlocationforthenewNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility.Site#2isincloseproximitytotheexistinggroundwaterwellsandminimizesoverallagriculturallandtakebybeinglocatedalonganexistingroad.
6‐2 Assessment of Site Alternatives |BLACK & VEATCH
INTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK
BLACK & VE
Figure6‐1
EATCH | Assessm
1:SiteLocati
ment of Site Alte
onsfortheP
ernatives
roposedNPVVGroundwateerTreatmentFacility
66‐3
6‐4 Assessment of Site Alternatives |BLACK & VEATCH
INTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK
BLACK & VEATCH | 7‐1
7 Opinion of Probable Cost and O&M Costs
7.1 OPINION OF PROBABLE COST TheopinionofprobablecostfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywasdevelopedusingthepreliminarydesigncriteriaestablishedinSection5.AsummaryoftheopinionofprobablecostfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityisprovidedinTable7‐1.
Table7‐1:OpinionofProbableCostfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility
ITEM CAPITAL COST (OPTION 1 – DIRECT RO)
CAPITAL COST (OPTION 2 – PRETREATMENT FILTRATION + RO)
Site work and Piping $ 4,615,000 $ 4,733,000
New Groundwater Wells $ 3,575,000 $ 3,300,000
Contact Basin and Pretreatment Filtration System
$ ‐ $ 3,335,000
Washwater Equalization and Recovery System $ ‐ $ 1,390,000
RO Feed Tank and Transfer Pumps $ ‐ $ 1,293,000
RO System and Cartridge Filters $ 9,576,000 $ 9,576,000
Decarbonators $ 1,226,000 $ 1,226,000
Finished Water Pump Station $ 141,000 $ 141,000
Chemical Feed and Storage $ 577,000 $ 665,000
Administration, Electrical, Shop/Storage Building, Transformer, and Standby Generator
$ 5,868,000 $ 6,196,000
Land Purchase $ 400,000 $ 400,000
Connection to SMP $ 400,000 $ 400,000
Construction Monitoring Cost $ 1,300,000 $ 1,300,000
Subtotal $ 27,678,000 $ 33,955,000
Engineering, General Requirements, Contractor Fees, etc. (15%)
$ 3,836,000 $ 4,778,000
Contingency (30%) $ 7,672,000 $ 9,555,000
TOTAL PROBABLE COST $ 39,186,000 $ 48,288,000
Annualized Cost (25 years @ 5%) $ 2,780,000 $ 3,426,000
7.2 OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AND TOTAL UNIT COST Theprojectedprobableoperationandmaintenance(O&M)costfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityissummarizedinTable.ThefollowingassumptionsweremadeindevelopingtheprobableO&Mcost:
Electricityrate=$0.12perkWh
ROmembranereplacementfrequencyof5years
7‐2 Opinion of Probable Cost and O&M Costs |BLACK & VEATCH
Atotaloffournewfulltimeemployees(FTE)willbehiredtooperatethefacility
Maintenance,repair,andsparerequirementsisassumedtobe2%ofthecapitalcostofeachtreatmentfacility
Table7‐2:SummaryofProbableO&MCostsfortheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility
ITEM ANNUAL O&M COST (OPTION 1 – DIRECT RO)
ANNUAL O&M COST (OPTION 2 – PRETREATMENT FILTRATION + RO)
Electricity(1) $ 1,046,000 $ 1,261,000
Chemicals $ 740,000 $ 727,000
RO Membrane Replacement $ 125,000 $ 112,000
Cartridge Filter Replacement $ 13,000 $ 13,000
Maintenance, Repairs, and Spares(2) $ 302,000 $ 440,000
Labor(3) $ 240,000 $ 240,000
Brine Disposal Fee(4) $ 928,000 $ 928,000
TOTAL FIRST YEAR O&M COST(5) $ 3,394,000 $ 3,721,000
Equivalent Uniform Annual O&M Cost(6) $ 4,359,000 $ 4,779,000
Annualized Capital Cost $ 2,780,000 $ 3,426,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 4,139,000 $ 8,205,000
Cost of Product Water (per AF) (7) $ 949 $ 1,091(1) Estimated based on $0.12/kWh (2) Estimated based on 2% of capital equipment costs (3) Estimated based on four new FTEs (4) Cost of brine disposal to the Regional Salinity Management Pipeline used is $500/AF at concentrate flow of 1,855 AF/yr (5) O&M costs assumed to escalate at 2.5% per year (6) Converted to a uniform series using 25 year basis and 5% discount rate. (7) Product water production is 6.7 MGD (7500 AF/Year)
BLACK & VEATCH | 8‐1
8 Construction and Operation Methods Thissectionsummarizestheconstruction/deliveryapproachandoperationoftheproposedNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacility.
8.1 CONSTRUCTION APPROACH Keystakeholdersoftheproject(City,CMWD,CityofThousandOaks,andCamrosaWaterDistrict)expressedaninterestinunderstandingvariousdeliverymodelsbywhichthesubjectprojectcouldbepermitted,designedandconstructed.Inparticular,theCityexpressedaninterestinbringingthestakeholderstogethertodiscussalternativedeliveryapproachesinachievingbestvalueinprocurementandexecutionoftheproject,takingintoconsiderationtheprojectdrivers,legislativeconstraints,andotherfactorsaffectingtheoveralldeliveryoftheproject.ThestakeholdersmetwithB&VinasetoftwoworkshopsduringOctober2013to1)understandthevariousdeliveryoptionsfortheprojectand2)discusstheprojectdriversandstakeholderobjectives.
Thefirstworkshopprovidedanoverviewofvariousdeliverymodels,includingdiscussionsondesign‐bid‐build,design‐buildandconstructionmanagementatrisk(CMAR).Thesecondworkshopincludedamorein‐depth,round‐tablediscussionbetweenthestakeholdersonprojectdriversandgoals.B&V’sin‐housePairwisedecisiontoolwasutilizedtoevaluatethedecisionconsiderations,toprioritizeandapplyweightingfactors,andtoanalyzetheresultsfromthedecisionmodel.
Highlightsofthetwoworkshopsaresummarizedbelow:
Lowinitialinvestmenttoproveoutbusinesscase,competitivecost,andperformancecertaintywereidentifiedasthehighestrankedgoalsaffectingtheprojectsuccessfromthekeystakeholder’sperspective.
Design‐builddeliveryappearstobethemostappropriatechoicefortheprojecttakingintoaccountthegoalsoftheprimarystakeholders.Fromaprojectperspective,thedesireforperformancecertainty(bothqualityandquantity),andcostfactors(certaintyandcompetitiveness)areofferedthroughthisdeliverymodelassubstantiatedbyrecentsurveysprovidedbybothDBIA(Design‐BuildInstituteofAmerica)andtheWDBC(WaterDesignBuildCouncil)
Ofthetwodesignbuilddeliverymodels,ProgressiveDesignBuild(PDB)isrecommendedprimarilyduetoitsabilitytoachievebestresultsforkeygoalsoflowinitialinvestmentcostandperformancecertainty,whichwerethetwohighestrankedpriorities.
FromaPDBperspective,thekeystakeholderswouldrecognizesignificantbenefitutilizingthisdeliverymodelduetothelowinitialinvestmentcostforprovingoutthebusinesscasefortheproject.
Inconsiderationofthesefactors,itwasrecommendedthatthekeystakeholdersadvancetheirevaluationofthePDBdeliverymodelandfurtherexplorethebenefitsspecifictotheprojectandtotheprogramcurrentlyenvisionedbythestakeholders.
8‐2 Construction and Operation Methods |BLACK & VEATCH
8.2 OPERATIONS TheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityandassociatedgroundwaterwellswouldbeoperatedcontinuously,24hoursperdayand7daysperweekundernormaloperatingmodes.Itisanticipatedthatwouldbestaffedwithtwo8‐hourshiftsduringtheday(twotothreeoperatorspershift)andonenight8‐hourshift(singleoperator).Oneortwooftheoperationstaffateachdaytimeshiftwouldhaveoverlappingshiftstomaintaincontinuousoperationsduringshiftchange.Alternatively,thenighttimeshiftcouldalsobeanon‐calloperatorthat’sincloseproximitytotheNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitytorespondtoalarmsandemergencies.Atotalofnine(9)fulltimeoperationstaffisestimatedforoperatingthetreatmentfacility24hoursperdayand7daysperweekthroughouttheyear.Theoperationstaffwillconsistofcertifieddrinkingwatertreatmentanddistributionsystemoperatorsandplantmaintenancestaff.
8.3 TRIGGERS FOR OPERATIONAL CHANGES Operationalcontingencyplanscallforcuttingbackpumpingrateswhenwaterlevelsinnearbywellsdroptoolow.Thefirsttriggerpointforcuttingbackonpumpingiswhenwaterlevelsdropto‐126feetmeansealevel(msl).PumpingcutbacksareasshowninTable8‐1.Ifwaterlevelsrecoverpumpingcanbeincreasedusingthesamecutbackformulainreverse.
Table8‐1:PumpingRateCutbackContingencyPlan
WATERLEVEL(FTMSL)
ACTION
-126 10% cutback
-140 20% cutback
-150 30% cutback
-155 40-50% cutback1
-160 75% cutback
-168 100% cutback1PendingFCGMAprojectapproval.
Additionalcontingencieshavealsobeenconsidered:
Assurethatbrackishwateriswhatispumped–CityisconsideringusingmanganeseasanindicatorbycomparingconcentrationsinWellsAandBcomparedwiththosefromWellD.
Seawaterintrusion–ceasepumpingwhenwaterlevelinwell35M2andafuturemonitoringwell(nearPonderosaandArneil)dropto‐120ftmsl.
Subsidence–ceasepumpingifsubsidenceof0.5feetisdetectedwithin6monthsduetogroundwaterwithdrawl.
BLACK & VEATCH | 9‐1
9 Facility Implementation Schedule TheimplementationschedulefortheNorthPleasantValleyGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityisshownonFigure9‐1.KeyfeaturesarethecompletionoftheCEQAprocess,selectionoftheprojectmanagementteamanddesignteam,respectively,andcompletionoftheCalleguasBrinePipeline.Projectcompletion(startofoperation)isprojectedtobeinthelastquarterof2017.
9‐2 Facility Implementation Schedule |BLACK & VEATCH
INTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK
BLACK & VEATCH | Facility Implementation Schedule 9‐3
Figure9‐1:NPVGroundwaterDesalterSchedule
9‐4 Facility Implementation Schedule |BLACK & VEATCH
INTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK
10‐1 |BLACK & VEATCH
10 Non‐Monetary Benefits Overthepastdecade,muchoftheCity’sgroundwatersupplyhasshownsignificantincreasesinsalinity,iron,andmanganese.Withtheobservedincreasingtrend,groundwaterproduction(existingWellsAandB)bytheCityhasbeenreduced,andrelianceonimportedwaterhasincreased.TheproposedNPVGroundwaterTreatmentFacilitywillprovidetreatmenttolocalgroundwatersuppliesandreducerelianceonthecurrentimportedwatersupply.Theprojectwillprovideseveralnon‐monetarybenefitstotheCityaswellastotheregion,including:
Diversifyandenhancesustainabilityoftheregion’swatersupplyportfolio MaximizeuseoflocalwatersuppliesfromthenorthernareaofthePleasantValleyGroundwaterBasin
ReducetheCity’srelianceonimportedwatersupply Improvewaterqualityofthelocalgroundwaterbasinbyreducingcurrentmoundingofpoorqualitygroundwaterinthebasin
Watershedsaltsremoval
10‐6
11‐1 |BLACK & VEATCH
11 References Bachman,Steve.NorthPleasantValleyDesalterGroundwaterAnalysisandModelingFinalReport,
2013.
Black&Veatch.CityofCamarilloGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityFeasibilityStudy,2005.
Black&Veatch.DistributionSystemHydraulicAnalysisandGroundwaterTreatmentFacilityandAirportAddition,2007.
CDMSmithandTrusselTechnologies.CityofCamarilloBrackishWaterDesalinationPilotStudy,2009.
HopkinsGroundwaterConsultants.CityofCamarilloPreliminaryHydrogeologicStudy,2003.
HopkinsGroundwaterConsultants.PreliminaryHydrogeologicStudy–NortheastPleasantValleyBasinSurfaceWaterandGroundwaterStudy,Somis,California,2008.
PadreAssociates,Inc.DraftEnvironmentalImpactReportEnvironmentalAssessmentfortheNorthPleasantValleyGroundwaterTreatmentFacility,2014.