Gloria L. Young, Executive Officer introduced the speakers:
Sandra Tripp-Jones is the Vice President of Sentient Systems, an organization that provides consulting and training services to the public sector in the areas of strategic planning, organization development, and community involvement projects. She served as the City Administrator of Santa Barbara from 1993 and retired from the City of Santa Barbara in 2001. During her service with the City of Santa Barbara, she managed their desalination project.
Jared Huffman is a Board member from Marin Municipal Water District since 1994 and Board President in 1997 and 2002. He is also an attorney and project manager for Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in San Francisco. He serves on behalf of fifteen environmental and fishing groups led by NRDC. He manages the San Joaquin River restoration project and is responsible for overall management and legal oversight for scientific studies.
Ark Pang, Vice President of Business and Development for Ionics has over twenty-five years of water and wastewater treatment experience with emphasis on membrane technology in the field of water purification and desalination. He is a native New Yorker and started his professional engineering career in the industrial corridor of New Jersey with the Dupont Chemical Company. He has led for Ionics the development of a number of world’s showcase membrane treatment facilities.
Billy Owens, Vice President, Poseidon Resources Corporation is responsible for directing the development of the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination project. Prior to joining Poseidon, Mr. Owens spent twenty-five years developing and closing U.S. and international independent electric power projects.
Commissioner Fellman facilitated the session. A list of elements and issues were distributed to the speakers to address and is available at the Clerk of the Board’s Office, Room 244, City Hall.
Mr. Ark Pang showed a video tape of the desalination project that was installed in Santa Barbara in 1991 and 1992 by Ionics. A presentation was given discussing costs; seawater desalination design basics; the state-of-the-art large capacity seawater desalination "BOOT" Facility in Trinidad; and the future desalination design trend.
Ms. Sandra Tripp-Jones discussed the Santa Barbara desalination facility that was built in the 1991 and 1992 time period at which time she was the City Administrator and Project Manager. She has retired from the City of Santa Barbara, and if there are any follow-up questions about the Santa Barbara experience, City Administrator Jim Armstrong is willing to assist. A presentation was given about the facts surrounding Santa Barbara’s experience with the desalination project. Topics included the plant’s production capacity; energy usage; actual production; ownership; water quality of desalinated water; timeline from the desalination feasibility study to potable water delivery; approach to selection of contractor; proposal evaluation criteria; why Santa Barbara chose desalination; costs; contract management between the City of Santa Barbara and Ionics; and a long-term water supply alternatives analysis completed in April of 1991.
Commissioner Fellman questioned whether the voters later approved using state water rather than desalination.
Ms. Tripp-Jones stated in June of 1991 the voters approved both state water and desalination as long-term water supply. So one of the determinations that led to being able to put the desalination project in storage was that with the advent of state water which comes every day whether you want it or not unless you happen to sell it and because the operating costs for desalination are relatively high while the capital costs are relatively low, the desalination is the better supply to bring online during periods of severe shortage.
Commissioner Fellman asked if the desalination plant was still seen as drought-proofing backup for the state water supply.
Ms. Tripp-Jones stated yes. It is part of the city’s approved water supply program.
Commissioner Ammiano asked do you have a gray water program, e.g., water that is used and then recycled?
Ms. Tripp-Jones stated yes. It was about ten to twelve percent, 1700 acre feet approximately. Not great.
Commissioner Fellman stated I think the drought cycles are supposed to be every ten or eleven-years.
Ms. Tripp-Jones stated the critical drought analysis going back as far as records can be had, still projects that the city’s current storage supplies plus ground water and reclaimed water will probably suffice until the kind of seventh year of when a drought period would hit.
Mr. Jared Huffman gave a presentation on the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) and it’s experience with desalination. Topics included a description of MMWD; it’s Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRMP); current MMWD supply and demand for water and projected demand increase; utilizing the North Marin pipeline; projected 2015 scenario; possible solutions; supplemental supply options; developments since 1992; factors favoring desalination; the desalination process including its potential, pitfalls, and challenges; and MMWD’s critical path.
Commissioner Ammiano asked what some of the inappropriate applications would be for desalination.
Mr. Huffman stated that he would be concerned if desalination was proposed for a community that had not exhausted reasonable conservation and recyclying alternatives. You don’t want to resort to big capital projects like desalination before soft-path options have been pursued. One could also get concerned looking at some of the Central Coast communities that have been off limits for development because of the care and capacity that the water supply presented. The marine sanctuaries along those areas, and people will have to be careful about the growth inducing impacts of siting a desalinization plant in those types of locations.
Commissioner Ammiano asked if there is any municipalization of the desalination in the examples that were mentioned. Or is it all public private?
Mr. Huffman stated it varies, and that Mr. Owens may be able to speak to it better. Marin’s intent would be to own its desalination plant. We would never want a private company operating or owning it. There are lots of different options where you can partner with private companies to get the plant up and going. The Tampa plant has switched over to public ownership.
Commissioner Ammiano asked in terms of the expertise in running it on a day to day basis, are there workers trained? Do you have to recruit and find workers?
Mr. Huffman stated I assume that is right.
Ms. Sandra Tripp-Jones stated that when the City of Santa Barbara decided to take over ownership of the plant, they also transferred training to City employees who are currently waste-water plant operators and operate the reclaimed water facilities as well. It was a matter of training and setting appropriate standards for training. They did consolidate.
Mr. Pang stated there’s a wealth of brackish water desalination which is basically the same technology that is used widely throughout the states. Those operators are readily available and trained. The majority of municipal plants in the state are not primarily owned by the municipality, or what’s becoming popular is design-build.
Mr. Huffman stated we’re often asked why desalinate from San Francisco Bay? Why not go to the ocean side of Marin County? San Francisco will have similar considerations if they pursue desalination seriously. We see several advantages to the bay side of Marin. First of all, the water is warmer. That makes it able to go through the reverse osmosis process with less energy. It’s also less saline and brackish which again makes it easier and more efficient to desalinate. The down side is it’s more turbid and has more solids that have to be removed in the pre-treatment process. There are pros and cons. The big pro for Marin was that location was very close to our delivery system, so we didn’t have to build a big pipe taking it into the heart of the water delivery system.
Commissioner Ammiano stated even with wastewater, the bay even though it is turbid is less brackish than saline.
Mr. Huffman stated the bay would be much less saline than the ocean. Brackish is normally associated with ground water, the intrusion of salt.
Commissioner Ammiano asked, you were mentioning the electricity and the amount of kilowatts needed, has anyone thought of using solar in conjunction to power with desalination?
Mr. Huffman stated we are looking very seriously at that. We actually think there are exciting opportunities on the energy front. When you look at the kilowatt hours required to produce an acre foot of desalination, you have to remember that one of the real benefits of desalination is that you can turn it on and off. Don’t always assume that the desalination plant will be operating at full capacity. In fact, you might be able to idle it and use a much lower energy consuming source when it is available. We will be able to do that with our reservoirs, which will consume much less energy. We are also looking at solar. We are looking at the possibility of going out onto the energy market in the state of California and buying a block of green renewable energy to power the entire desalination plant. Not only making sure that we’re not creating a global warming problem, but helping drive a market towards renewable energy.
Commissioner Fellman asked is MMWD planning on building a large-scale desalination plant right now?
Mr. Huffman stated Marin is in the process of seriously investigating. The majority of our Board has identified it right now as the preferred alternative for a supplemental supply. Barring some big flaw in their investigation of desalination in the next couple of years, we will be doing it.
Commissioner Fellman asked will it be as large as Santa Barbara’s?
Mr. Huffman stated it will be about the same size. It will be up to about ten million gallons a day. The size of that is driven by the capacity to blend the discharge with that wastewater out fall that I mentioned. Beyond ten million gallons a day, we see more environmental impacts from that discharge. It also happens to coincide with providing enough water to meet current demand projections for the existing City and Countywide plans. It is nice to be able to say that it is only designed to meet existing approved demand and will not be fueling new demand.
Commissioner Fellman asked would you have an accelerated timeline for construction like Santa Barbara—you have about a five-year timeline here?
Mr. Huffman stated Santa Barbara had fear because of a critical drought that enabled them to do that amazing "two-minute mile." We hope to not have that sort of necessity.
Mr. Billy Owens gave a presentation on the benefits of desalination. Poseidon Resources is a private company that specializes in developing and financing water projects with focus on seawater desalination and membrane water treatment and reuse. They have done a desalination plant in Tampa Bay that is officially fully capacity operational May 1 of this year and are pursuing two plants in California. Topics discussed included benefits of seawater desalination; major desalination plants worldwide; large membrane reverse osmosis plants; state-of-the art treatment; reliability; costs; water quality; environmental issues; co-location opportunities; California water system; Poseidon Resources Corporation and desalination plant; the Ocean as a renewable resource; Tampa Bay desalination plant; and plant and technology treatment process schematic.
Commissioner Ammiano stated that he was captivated by the idea of a regional approach because we don’t do a lot of that in this area except around transportation, so that may have some promise.
Ms. Young stated that Dr. Ralph Cheng, a Senior Research Hydrologist for the United States Geological Survey a speaker at the February 28, 2003 tidal energy hearing made a nexus between desalination and tidal energy. Ms. Young had spoken to Mr. Ark Pang about whether there is a relationship.
Mr. Pang stated he knows that tidal energy is an alternative source of energy. The areas that he has been involved in looking at using tidal effect are in areas where the tide deference in the course of a day is quite high. We were looking at one potential prospect for a developer in the Sea of Cortez in the upper reaches of Baja to build dams, to actually capture the tide, and to run off that water to actually generate power or to run the desalt plants. There are environmental aspects of looking at that. Outside of that, he has not been that familiar with tidal energy.
Mr. Peter O’Donnell, Senior Energy Specialist, Department of the Environment is a renewable energy project manager for a wide variety of projects that they hope to build in San Francisco over the next ten years. He would like to offer to bring in the Hydro-Venturi team for Marin County. He knows where there is 100 megawatts of clean renewable power at the tip of Point Tiburon, where the old submarine base was and where it runs a good 120 feet deep and where you can leverage the outflow of the Sacramento River. Along the coast of Florida, we know if they look at the infrastructure in the Florida Keys and along the East Coast of Florida and if we leverage some of the bridges with the Hydro-Venturi technology and or other second generation replacement technology, we could make 20 or 30 megawatts per site with the flow of the current through these underwater wing apparatuses with onshore air turbines. Then you can leverage the outflow when you pump your brine.
He would encourage you to expand your model for the poor struggling municipalities, states, and soon to be federal governments so that when you approach us with one of these projects, you include a renewable energy option be it solar, hybrid with wind, hybrid with tidal because we can bond and we can eventually acquire. But, we’re not allowed to build out systems because we don’t have that expertise. If you give us a turnkey complete 360 system including the power and the water, we’re in a very good position to go forward.
Commissioner Fellman stated it is worth emphasizing what Mr. Huffman stated regarding the purchase of a block of green power. The LAFCo is doing a study regarding community aggregation which would be under AB117 and would allow San Francisco to become its own power procurer. That would be another vehicle to have renewable, not just on the site, but providing power to the site. We are in the information-gathering stage. As a LAFCo we will discuss what direction we want to take on this and also discuss it with the Hetch-Hetchy department as they have the authority over the water as it comes into the City and County of San Francisco.
Commissioner Schmeltzer stated there was a mention of ongoing economic benefits that you were going to be able to speak about with regard to desalination plants.
Mr. Owen stated he doesn’t have as much detail as he would like. The essence of it is that when you are pulling your local supplies in the immediate neighborhood, you are able to concentrate those efforts. He doesn’t recall any additional press releases from Tampa talking about the synergies there.
Mr. Huffman stated there was a link on Poseidon’s website about Tampa Bay that refers to $100 million dollars that went back into the Tampa Bay regional economy.
Mr. Owens stated I thought it was an increment above that. That value is associated with the indirect benefits of construction costs both drawing the equipment locally, labor, and other things. It is your typical benefits of a construction cycle. There are added benefits locally. Partly because the geology in Florida doesn’t allow you to have the flexibility we have had here in the West, reservoirs and other things, almost everything has to be pumped in or pulled directly out of the ground. So desalination fits the profile they have in Florida and as a result keeps the services and everything else more local than they have had in the past.
Ms. Sandra Tripp-Jones stated that desalination is part of an overall water supply portfolio and looked at as the drought supply or the backup supply or the safety margin that allows the operation of other storage-based lower cost supplies to be drafted at a higher level than a safe-field level. That is a benefit to your rate payers because they are able to use the cheaper water to a higher degree and bring desalination online when there are periods of extreme shortage.
Mr. Jones stated that Mother Nature is your source of largely recharging your ground water basins and your surface water. The second form of that is obviously recycling which would take ten to fifteen years. It takes time for that to happen especially when you go through a drought period that extends the normal average. One of the advantages of a continuous supply when you choose to use it is that in those dry years, you can take the time to allow the system to refill or recharge or even take an extra year to do so. There are economic benefits, otherwise people start paying extraordinary prices for other measures. In addition to other water which would be fine if you have your local supplies, you can do better.
Public Comment
Mr. O’Donnell stated I am intrigued by the brine and what you may find in it. I am sure you are looking at that. For example, we have many old gold mines here. When gold was $35 an ounce, it didn’t make sense to recycle the tailings. Now it does at $300 an ounce. I wonder if you are finding hard minerals or anything as you look at that brine and any other uses for it, industrial uses or anything of that nature?
Mr. Pang stated there is in brines, particularly seawater brines, trace metals that have value. For instance, Japan has developed specific filters to track selenium from brine for semiconductors. There are other things like boron and magnesium that are in brine that you can possibly draw out. For instance, the Dead Sea is the main source of Israeli income for drawing out magnesium and other specific salts or trace metals. There is the potential there, but it hasn’t been exploited yet.
Mr. O’Donnell asked I imagine the size of the system would be quite large for that to be worthwhile?
Mr. Jones stated there is value there, but the capital you would have to invest to extract enough to at least make it commercially valuable is significant. But there are aspects that you can use that you can put back that would help the water systems as well as operational characteristics. We are personally looking at that to the extent there are beneficial uses in the immediate area. We are hardly going to go out and start extracting selenium or gold or other things that are there for commercial purposes. If we find that value, we would contract that to somebody else to handle. But, we are investigating.
Mr. Pang stated we are not that familiar in the U.S. with solar evaporation of sea salt. Sea salt is a high cost commodity in the gourmet shops. We have two or three of our installations around the world, particularly in the Middle East that our brine is going into conventional solar ponds for generating sea salt. It is a way of utilizing that brine and getting a product from it, then eventually what comes off is evaporated water.
Mr. Michael Carlin, Planning Director, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission stated I wanted to reinforce some of the things that the panel members said. We are looking at developing a water supply portfolio, and desalination is part of what we are looking at. We have to take into consideration that we don’t supply water just to the people of San Francisco. We have 1.7 million people outside of San Francisco that are also customers of ours. We have actually teamed up and partnered with two other water utilities, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the East Bay MUD Utility District to actually begin the feasibility analysis of desalination in the Bay Area between our three respective agencies. It has certain advantages—1) it is regional—we don’t have to locate the plant in our territory, it can be in somebody else’s territory; 2) we are interconnecting our water systems already. We are starting to put in inner ties between our systems so in times of emergencies or droughts, we can actually transfer water back and forth. We have one with Santa Clara. We are building one with East Bay MUD; 3) it broadens our portfolio of water supplies. We have imported water. We have local water; we have potable ground water that we can use and we are also going to be developing recycled water. So it leads towards long-term sustainability. All of these things are important to us.
We are starting off in a high level feasibility analysis of what we can do in the Bay Area. I am pleased that the Marin Municipal Water District is here giving you an idea of their plans, and Poseidon is actually bidding on the work. We very much have this as something that is in our options portfolio. We are exploring it. As we move along, we would be glad to come back and tell this Commission anything that we have uncovered and bring back our partners as to what they have been doing as well.
Chairperson Commissioner Gonzalez asked the speakers to discuss what actually is done with the brine.
Ms. Sandra Tripp-Jones stated that in Santa Barbara the brine is released back to the ocean as a mixture with waste-water effluent. By mixing it with waste-water effluent it brings it back to the consistency of seawater, and it also affects the same area of the ocean already affected by wastewater effluent.
Chairperson Commissioner Gonzalez asked has there been environmental opposition to doing that?
Ms. Sandra Tripp-Jones stated not specifically. The EIR itself looked at those impacts along with others. The analysis that was done most closely with the Regional Water Quality Control Board that has to issue discharge permits and revise the waste-water treatment plant discharge permit found again that the area of effect was the same as the waste-water discharge, and there was in the specific case of making the salinity closer to that of seawater a benefit.
Mr. Huffman stated that in 1991 Marin Municipal did a pilot plant and experimented with blending brine from that plant with the wastewater out fall. We did an extensive bio-asset test at the site of the out-fall. We picked several target species and we studied them very closely with the Department of Fish and Game with the San Francisco Estuary Institute and we found no impacts at all. If anything, our study suggested a possible net improvement of that environmental impact. That won’t always be the case, and I alluded in my presentation to looking at this on a case by case basis. So to the extent that San Francisco and others in the region are looking at big regional plants, I think I would caution that with the large power plants, there will certainly be opportunities where a desalination intake and out fall can fit within the environmental footprint of an existing power plant. I would look carefully about whether the footprint of that power plant is something that you may be wanting to reduce down the road. Because there may be situations where adding a desalination project can perpetuate a footprint that you might have opportunities to improve. For example, lots of large power plants have very inefficient ones through cooling. So you are dealing with existing impacts of major intakes that entrain and impinge marine life in some cases. It may be in the future that you may be able to move them to a more efficient cooling system to reduce that footprint.
Mr. Pang stated I agree with your earlier comment that there is a size of a plant where the brine discharges that is something that can be handled, 10 mgd, and 5 mgd. We have a number of plants like this as in Santa Barbara--putting the waste and blending it into the sewage line which in essence you are putting in potable salinity quality water, 500, 300 PPM water into the sea which has its own environmental impact. Here you are mixing it with brine to bring that salinity up so there is some positive impact in doing that. We have a number of cases like this. There is a benefit also in siting at a power station. At Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station and that’s a very small flow, that’s like one and a half million gallons of water a day, we are taking water from its intake system and discharging our brine into their discharge system. It's a small flow. Regional plants and we have seen this also not only in the states all over the world, sizable power stations, those don’t have to be too large, their inlet flow to cool the condensers in a power station would be a significant flow. So, even with a 20 or 30 or more million gallons a day plant, the amount of brine you are discharging into their discharge stream may only be a few percent of the actual flow that is being acquired. So it sort of gets diluted, and the salinity does not have a major impact and thus has to be evaluated. The concern we often have is how long will that power station be sited there? Especially if you are going to put a desalination plant into a power station that is twenty or twenty-five years old or reaching its life. When you design that desalination plant, you are designing it around the infrastructure of that power station, its intake system, its environmental discharge permits. That has to be taken into consideration. The other consideration that has to be taken is that these power stations in cases have to come down for maintenance. What do you do during that period? Do you shut down your desalination plant? Of course your whole design parameter changes
when you operate that plant. So those are the kinds of things that you have to look at.
Ms. Sylvia Johnson spoke during public comment.
Presentations are available at the Clerk of the Board’s Office, Room 244, City Hall.