Review of Brine Disposal System

DEIR, Monterey Desal Project

DRAFT Presentation to Monterey
Peninsula Regional Water Authority
23 June 2015

DRAFT

Outline

Brine Disposal System Overview

Critical Issues
Near Field Approach
Semi-Empirical Analysis
Conservative assumptions
Potential weaknesses

Far Field Approach

Conservative assumptions
Potential weaknesses

Results and Mitigation

Conclusions
Recommendations
DRAFT

Brine Disposal System

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agencys

(MRWPCA) ocean outfall and diffuser (existing)
Diffuser

1,100 ft long
90 110 ft deep
172 ports total
130 ports open
8 ft port spacing
Alternating sides
Horizontal discharge
3.5 to 4 ft above
sea floor

Source: Appendix D2

DRAFT

Brine Disposal System

Buoyancy
Wastewater floats

wastewater

High dilution

Brine sinks
Lower dilution

Blend can do either

brine
Source: modified from Appendix D2

DRAFT

Geosyntec C>

Discharge Composition

consultants

Table 2- Mode led flow scena rios for the MPWSP

29.6

0.1

Desai Brine with no secondary effluent

13.98

0.1

Desai Brine with low secondary effluent

13.98

0.1

Desai Brine with high secondary effluent b

19.68

13.98

0.1

RTP design capacity without Desai Brine

Table .3 - M ode led flow scenarios for the Var iant project

Desai Brine only

2
3
4

Desai Brine with high secondary effluent b

Desai Brine with GWR Concentrate and
high secondary effluent
Desai Brine with GWR Concentrate and
no secondary effluent

8.99

0.1

19.68

8.99

0.1

15.92

8.99

0.94

0.1

8.99

0.94c

0.1

Source: Modified from Appendix D4

5

DRAFT

Terminology
Near Field

Far Field

Source: Abessi & Roberts (2014)

Dominated by jets
Short time and length
scales
Seconds to minutes
Feet to tens of feet
6

Source: Jenkins and Wasyl (2009).

Dominated by ocean processes

Long time and length scales
Hours to days
Hundreds of feet to miles
DRAFT

Critical Issues

Near Field (mixing due to jet/plume velocity/buoyancy)

Achieving targets at edge of brine mixing zone (defined as
the lesser of the zone of initial dilution (ZID) and 100 m)
Change in salinity < 2.0 ppt (SWRCB March 2015
recommendation)
Concentrations for numerous constituents as per 2012
California Ocean Plan

Edge of ZID governs (ZID within 100 m)

Critical case is when plume sinks

DRAFT

Critical Issues

Far Field (mixing due to ambient ocean currents)

May 5, 2015 Draft Final Desalination

Amendment to the Ocean Plan

Hypoxic: low dissolved oxygen concentration

Density currents
Pooling due to bathymetry
8

DRAFT

Near Field Approach

Rising positively-buoyant plume

When volume of blended wastewater is large enough plume
will rise
Analyzed using Visual Plumes (VP)
Well accepted for rising (buoyant) plumes
Used appropriate ambient salinity and temperature conditions
Assumed zero ambient cross-flow (conservative assumption)

Large dilution ( 68) at edge of ZID is achieved

Salinity and Ocean Plan objectives easily met

DRAFT

Near Field Approach

Sinking negatively-buoyant plume

Considered two approaches:
Visual Plumes (VP)
VP is well-validated for rising plumes
Less validation for sinking plumes (especially for horizontal
discharge)
Compelling evidence that dilution from VP is substantially underestimated for negatively-buoyant discharges (Palomar et al., 2012)
CORMIX, CORJET, and JetLag also substantially underestimate

Dilution results from VP were not used

Semi-empirical analysis
Based on analysis by Kikkert et al., (2007) and Fischer et al., (1979)
Approach is reasonable
10

DRAFT

Semi-Empirical Analysis (Near Field)

Plume trajectory based on

analysis by Kikkert et al. (2007)
Well validated by experiments

Dilution based upon analysis

for non-buoyant jet (Fischer et
al., 1979) using plume length
calculated along trajectory

~12 ft

3.5 ft

Fischer approach is reasonable due to flat trajectory

[vertical distance (3.5 feet) << horizontal distance (~12 feet)]
i.e., jet behavior dominates in this region

11

DRAFT

Semi-Empirical Analysis (Near Field)

Conservative assumptions
Dilution calculation assumed round jet, whereas jet is oval
shaped
Oval shape has higher area to volume ratio and will achieve
more dilution than circular shape

Assumed minimum height above sea-floor of 3.5 feet (only

19 ports have height of 3.5 feet, most ports have height
nearer to 4 feet)
Larger height will allow for longer travel distance and more
dilution

12

DRAFT

Semi-Empirical Analysis (Near Field)

Conservative assumptions
The dilution at the impact point was used in the analysis.
However, the near-field continues beyond the impact point
(the flow and mixing are still dominated by jet processes)
and additional dilution will occur within the near field (i.e.,
the ZID is larger than assumed)
the increase in dilution
from the impact point to
the end of the near field
is approximately 60%
for nonmerged jets
(inclined jets,
Abessi & Roberts, 2014)

13

DRAFT

Semi-Empirical Analysis (Near Field)

Potential Weaknesses
Analysis used in DEIR to assess merging of jets is ad-hoc
Volume of water entrained in 10 seconds was compared to
volume of water available per port
Merging of jets will reduce dilution
Recommend replacing analysis in EIR with improved Port
Spacing Analysis by Geosyntec (provided on Slide 16)

Coanda effect is not addressed in DEIR

Coanda effect is the tendency for a jet to deviate towards and
attach to near surfaces (in this case the sea-floor)
Coanda attachment would reduce dilution
Recommend including new Coanda Analysis by Geosyntec in
EIR (provided on Slide 17)
14

DRAFT

Semi-Empirical Analysis (Near Field)

Potential Weaknesses
Existing ports are horizontal which is not optimal for
negatively-buoyant discharges
Consider retrofit with inclined ports if additional dilution is
required

15

DRAFT

Port Spacing Analysis

Based on experiments Abessi & Roberts (2014)

recommend the following to avoid merging of jets;
s >~2.d.F
where s = spacing, d = port diameter, and F = densimetric
Froude number
d = 1.86 inches (Appendix D2, Table 3)
F 26 (Appendix D1, Table 5)
s > ~ 8 ft
Port spacing on diffuser is 16 ft (alternating sides)
Jets will not merge
Same conclusion as in DEIR, but this analysis is more robust
16

DRAFT

Coanda Analysis

Based on experiments Shao & Law (2011) recommend

the following minimum clearance above the sea-floor to
prevent Coanda attachment;
z0 > 0.12 (/4)0.25 d.F = 0.11 d.F
where, d = port diameter, and F = densimetric Froude
number
d = 1.86 inches (Appendix D2, Table 3)
F 26 (Appendix D1, Table 5)
z0 > ~ 0.5 ft
Ports are 3.5 ft above sea-floor
Coanda attachment will not occur
Include this analysis in EIR
17

DRAFT

Far Field Approach

Uses regional ocean model (ROM) to extract time-series

of horizontal velocities (u and v) at diffuser location
Examines different seasonal patterns
Oceanic, Davidson, Upwelling

Assumes the velocity field (u,v) is spatially homogeneous

Generally conservative assumption
Neglects local variations in bathymetry
Bathymetry in vicinity of brine plume is generally flat (no
depressions or ridges) and sloping to sea
Brine plume does not extend to Monterey Canyon

Diffuser structure may act as a ridge to trap brine locally

Solves 2-D advection-diffusion

18

DRAFT

Far Field Approach

Conservative assumptions
Neglects vertical mixing
Mixing and dilution underestimated away from the diffuser
Stability was examined via computing Richardson number

Uses low-end lateral diffusion coefficient

1.37 m2/s (versus 2 m2/s measured by Ledwell et al., (1998))

Neglects wave action

Waves provide additional mixing

Neglects gravity current

Gravity current would tend to move brine away from diffuser
more quickly (down-slope)

19

DRAFT

Far Field Potential Weaknesses

Present analysis is dated

Appendix D1, page 8

Modern approach would use full 3D model including density

effects and spatially varying velocity field
However, present analysis is generally conservative
3D model will likely result in additional dilution

Neglects gravity currents

Unlikely to affect conclusions, since bathymetry is generally
flat in vicinity of diffuser
Brine plume does not reach Monterey Canyon
20

DRAFT

Far Field Potential Weaknesses

Brine particles are only tracked for 48 hours

Simulation period is 90 days
What happens to particle after 48 hours?
If particle simply disappears then will the extent of the plume be
underestimated?

Unlikely to affect conclusions, since exceedances are

governed by near field

21

DRAFT

Far Field Potential Weaknesses

Local trapping of brine by diffuser structure was not fully

addressed
Trapping is minimized by aligning diffuser structure with
slope (perpendicular to shore)
Recommend adding discussion of this issue considering
current directions (from ROM) with respect to diffuser
alignment and tidal reversals

Potential for hypoxia was not addressed

Recommend including Hypoxia Analysis by Geosyntec in
EIR (provided on Slides 23-25)

22

DRAFT

Hypoxia Analysis

Potential for hypoxia can be addressed using simple

mass balance approach;
Estimate oxygen demand from sediments
Estimate oxygen supplied by brine plume (including entrained
flow)
Entrainment of dissolved oxygen

Sediment oxygen demand

23

DRAFT

Hypoxia Analysis

Sediment oxygen demand (SOD) in Monterey Bay

5.0 to 13.5 mmol/m2/day (Berelson et al., 2003)
0.16 to 0.43 g/m2/day

Areal extent of plume

~3,000 ft x 1,500 ft = 4,500,000 ft2
~420,000 m2

Mass flux consumed;

70 to 180 kg/day
Figure 4.3-5

24

DRAFT

Hypoxia Analysis

Brine flow rate = 13.98 MGD

Dilution > 15
Entrained flow > 15 x 13.98 = 210 MGD = 9.2 m3/s
Ambient dissolved oxygen concentration > 7 mg/L
lower limit of Ocean Plan

Mass flux supplied;

> 5,600 kg/day

Oxygen supplied by entrained flow > 30 times greater

than oxygen consumed by sediments
Hypoxia unlikely
25

DRAFT

Results and Monitoring

Results of analyses indicate some exceedances of

Ocean Plan criteria at edge of ZID are possible for
certain constituents;
Copper, Ammonia, Chlordane, DDT, PCBs, TCDD
Equivalents, Toxaphene
Depends upon Project versus Variant and on flow blends

Monitoring program may indicate no exceedances

Many conservative assumptions in analysis
Drawing source water through sand/sediments will likely
remove some PCBs
Will this cause a build up of PCBs in sediments?
26

DRAFT

Mitigation Measures

Proposed Mitigation Measure 4.3-4

Additional pre-treatment of source water
Treatment of discharge
Temporary storage and release of brine
3 million gallon brine storage basin
Store 5 to 8 hours of flow

Can pulsing achieve necessary dilutions?

Recommend conducting additional near-field analysis to
demonstrate (if necessary)

Consider retrofit of diffuser to add inclined ports

60o 65o is optimal for negatively-buoyant
Need to also consider buoyant cases (trade-off)
27

DRAFT

Brine Disposal System - Conclusions

Brine disposal governed by near field

Concentrations at ZID

DEIR used two methodologies for near field

Visual Plumes for rising discharges
Semi-empirical analyses for sinking discharges
Trajectory for sinking plume from Kikkert et al., (2007)
Dilution for sinking plume estimated using method for nonbuoyant jet (Fischer et al., 1979)

28

DRAFT

Brine Disposal System - Conclusions

Near field analyses make reasonable and conservative

assumptions
Round jets (instead of oval)
Minimum height of port above sea-floor of 3.5 feet
ZID defined as jet impact point and not end of near field

29

DRAFT

Brine Disposal System - Conclusions

Near field analysis of merging jets was ad-hoc
New analysis by Geosyntec indicates jets will not merge

Near field analysis of Coanda attachment was not

included
Analysis by Geosyntec indicates Coanda attachment will not
occur

Near field analysis was not performed to demonstrate

extent of increased dilution due to pulsing
Mitigation measure 4.3-4

30

DRAFT

Brine Disposal System - Conclusions

Far field analyses makes conservative assumptions

No vertical mixing of brine

Low-end estimate for horizontal diffusivity
Neglects wave action
No density current*

Far field method is dated

3D simulations including density currents could be used
3D simulations would likely result in more dilution
Flat bathymetry in the vicinity of the diffuser and conservative
assumptions

31

DRAFT

Brine Disposal System - Conclusions

Potential for hypoxia not discussed

Analysis by Geosyntec indicates hypoxia is unlikely

Brine trapping by diffuser structure not analyzed

Minimized by aligning diffuser structure with slope
(perpendicular to shore)

Brine particles are only tracked for 48 hours

What happens to particle after 48 hours?

32

DRAFT

Brine Disposal System Recommendations

Include the following analyses provided by Geosyntec
Port merging
Coanda effect
Hypoxia

Address/discuss potential for build up of PCBs in

sediments surrounding intakes
Conduct additional near field analysis to estimate
additional dilution achievable by pulsing brine discharge
Consider retrofit of diffuser ports with inclined angles to
achieve more dilution if necessary
33

DRAFT

Brine Disposal System Recommendations

Add discussion of potential for diffuser structure to trap
brine
Consider current directions (from ROM) and bathymetry
slope with respect to diffuser alignment and tidal reversals

Consider using 3D far field model

Will likely result in additional dilution
Will better address potential for brine trapping by diffuser
structure

Add discussion of the effect of only tracking brine

particles for 48 hours
34

DRAFT

Recommended Minor Edits

35

Issue

Description

Page

Comments / Recommendations

Incorrect
interpretation
of SWRCB
2012a

SWRCB 2012a states that increase

in salinity should be limited to < 5%
of background, corresponding to 1.7
ppt in California waters. The DEIR
then rounds this to 2.0 ppt, but this
is an incorrect interpretation of the
2012 document (i.e., it should be 1.7
ppt).

4.3-27

The phrase, (rounded to 2.0 ppt) should be

removed from the EIR. Note that SWRCB 2015
refers directly to 2.0 ppt (it does not refer to 5% or
1.7 ppt). That is, 2.0 ppt is the correct target per
SWRCB 2015, but not per SCWRCB 2012a.

Different
number of
ports

The correct number of open ports

(130) is first mentioned in Section
4.3. This is late in the report to
mention the change (from 120) and
surprises the reader.

4.3-72

The incorrect number of ports should be mentioned

earlier in the EIR, including in the Executive
Summary. It should also be re-iterated that using
130 instead of 120 provides additional dilution (as
demonstrated in Addendum to Appendix D4).

Misleading
statement
overstates the
extent of the
plume

The DEIR states, where the plume

extended from near the Monterey
Submarine Canyon rim to the center
of the southern half of Monterey
Bay. This statement overstates the
extent of the plume, and is perhaps
mistakenly based on the inset figure.

4.3-88

Revise wording to better indicate that the plume

extent is several miles from the Monterey Submarine
Canyon rim.

DRAFT

Recommended Minor Edits

36

Issue

Description

Page

Comments / Recommendations

Unnecessary
footnote in
table

See Comments / Recommendations

Table
4.3-11

Footnote a should be removed and the column

header changed from Average Dilution to
Centerline Dilution.

Equation for
centerline
dilution not
provided

Equation (7) presented in Appendix

D2 is for average dilution, whereas
calculations provide centerline
dilution (which is ~1.4 times lower
(Fischer et al., 1979)).

App D2,
pages 10
and C-13

EIR should be modified to include the relation

between average and centerline dilution.

Apparent
discrepancy in
port and
duckbill size

4 inch duckbill valves are specified,

but the port size is given as 2 inch.

App D2

This discrepancy should be corrected or explained.

DRAFT

References

37

1.

Abessi & Roberts (2014), Multiport Diffusers for Dense Discharges, J. Hydraul. Eng. 04014032-1.

2.

Berelson, McManus, Coale, Johnson, Burdige, Kilgore, Colodner, Chavez, Kuleda, Boucher
(2003), A time series of benthic flux measurements from Monterey Bay, CA, Continental Shelf
Research 23 (2003) 457-481.

3.

Fischer, List, Koh, Imberger, Brooks (1979), Mixing in Inland and Coastal Waters, Academic
Press

4.

Jenkins & Wasyl (2009), Current Analysis for Receiving Water of the Santa Cruz Seawater
Desalination Project, submitted to City of Santa Cruz, 49 pp + app.

5.

Kikkert, Davidson, Nokes (2007), Inclined Negatively Buoyant Discharges, J. Hydraul. Eng.
2007.133:545-554.

6.

Ledwell, Watson, Law, Law, (1998), Mixing of a tracer in the pycnocline, Journal of Geophysical
Research, 103(C10), 21499-21529.

7.

Palomar, Lara, Losada (2012), Near field brine discharge modeling part 2: Validation of
commercial tools, Desalination 290 (2012) 28-42.

8.

Shao & Law (2011), Boundary impingement and attachment of horizontal offset dense jets,
Journal of Hydro-environment Research 5 (2011) 15-24.

DRAFT