DEIR Appendix U

Appendix U
Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the Pure Water

Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project
Pure Water Monterey GWR Project

Draft EIR
April 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.
This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Draft EIR
April 2015
Appendix U1
Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the Pure Water
Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project

Draft EIR
April 2015

Draft EIR
April 2015
Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment

for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater
Replenishment Project
Technical Memorandum
February 2015
Prepared for:
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 600

Oakland, CA 94612
Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment

for the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment
Project

Technical Memorandum
February 2015
Prepared By:

Trussell Technologies, Inc.
Gordon Williams, Ph.D., P.E.
Ocean Plan Compliance
February 2015
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Treatment through the RTP and AWT Facility .................................................................................................. 2
1.2 California Ocean Plan .................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Objective of Technical Memorandum .................................................................................................................... 4
2 Methodology for Ocean Plan Compliance ......................................................................... 5
2.1 Methodology for Determination of Discharge Water Quality ..................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Future Secondary Effluent ....................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 GWR RO Concentrate ................................................................................................................................................. 9
2.1.3 Hauled Brine .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
2.1.4 Combined Ocean Discharge Concentrations ................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Ocean Modeling and Ocean Plan Compliance Analysis Methodology .................................................. 10
3 Ocean Plan Compliance Results ....................................................................................... 12
3.1 Water Quality of Combined Discharge ............................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Ocean Modeling Results ........................................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Ocean Plan Compliance Results ............................................................................................................................ 16
4 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 21
5 References ...................................................................................................................... 21
Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland
February 2015
1 Introduction
The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) and the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District (Project Partners) are in the process of developing the
Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed
Project involves treating secondary effluent from the MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant
(RTP) through the proposed Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWT Facility) and then
injecting this highly purified recycled water into the Seaside Groundwater Basin, later extracting
it for replacement of existing municipal water supplies. The Proposed Project will also provide
additional tertiary recycled water for agricultural irrigation in northern Salinas Valley as part of
the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CISP). A waste stream, known as the reverse
osmosis concentrate (RO concentrate), would be generated by the AWT Facility and
discharged through the existing MRWPCA ocean outfall. The goal of this technical
memorandum is to analyze whether the discharge of the Proposed Projects RO concentrate to
the ocean through the existing outfall would impact marine water quality, and thus, human
health, marine biological resources, or beneficial uses of the receiving waters.
1.1 Treatment through the RTP and AWT Facility

The existing MRWPCA RTP treatment process includes screening, primary sedimentation,
secondary biological treatment through trickling filters (TFs), followed by a solids contactor (i.e.,
bio-flocculation), and then clarification (Figure 1). Much of the secondary effluent undergoes
tertiary treatment (granular media filtration and disinfection) to produce recycled water used for
agricultural irrigation. The unused secondary effluent is discharged to the Monterey Bay through
the MRWPCA Outfall. MRWPCA also accepts trucked brine waste for ocean disposal, which is
stored in a pond and mixed with secondary effluent for disposal.
The proposed AWT Facility would include several advanced treatment technologies for
purifying the secondary effluent water: ozone (O3), biologically active filtration (BAF) (this is an
optional unit process), membrane filtration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), and an advanced
oxidation process (AOP) using UV-hydrogen peroxide. The Project Partners conducted a pilotscale study of the ozone, MF, and RO elements of the AWT Facility from December 2013
through July 2014, successfully demonstrating the ability of the various treatment processes to
produce highly-purified recycled water that complies with the California Groundwater
Replenishment Using Recycled Water Regulations (Groundwater Replenishment Regulations)
and Central Coast Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) standards, objectives and guidelines
for groundwater.
February 2015
Figure 1 Simplified diagram of existing MRWPCA RTP and proposed AWT Facility treatment
Reverse osmosis is an excellent removal process, separating out most dissolved constituents
from the recycled water. The dissolved constituents removed through RO are concentrated into a
waste stream known as the RO concentrate. Unlike the waste streams from the BAF and MF, the
RO concentrate cannot be recycled back to the RTP headworks and would be discharged through
the MRWPCA Outfall. Discharges through the outfall are subject to National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, which is based on the California State
Water Resources Control Board 2012 Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan). Monitoring of the RO
concentrate was conducted during the Proposed Projects pilot-scale study.
1.2 California Ocean Plan

The Ocean Plan sets forth water quality objectives for ocean discharges with the intent of
preserving the quality of the ocean water for beneficial uses, including the protection of both
human and aquatic ecosystem health (SWRCB, 2012). For typical wastewater discharges, when
released from an outfall, the wastewater and ocean water undergo rapid mixing due to the
momentum and buoyancy of the discharge.1 The mixing occurring in the rising plume is affected
1
Municipal wastewater effluent, being effectively fresh water, is less dense than seawater and thus rises (due to
buoyancy) while it mixes with ocean water.
February 2015
by the buoyancy and momentum of the discharge, a process referred to as initial dilution (NRC,
1993). The Ocean Plan objectives are to be met after the initial dilution of the discharge into the
ocean. The initial dilution occurs in an area known as the zone of initial dilution (ZID). The
extent of dilution in the ZID is quantified as the minimum probable initial dilution (Dm). The
water quality objectives established in the Ocean Plan are adjusted by the Dm to derive the
NPDES ocean discharge limits for a wastewater discharge prior to ocean dilution.
The current MRWPCA wastewater discharge is governed by NPDES permit R3-2014-0013
issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Because the
existing NPDES permit for the MRWPCA ocean outfall must be amended to discharge the RO
concentrate, comparing future discharge concentrations to current NPDES permit limits would
not be an appropriate metric or threshold for determining whether the Proposed Project would
have a significant impact on marine water quality. Instead, compliance with the Ocean Plan
objectives was selected as an appropriate threshold for determining whether or not the Proposed
Project would result in a significant impact requiring mitigation. Modeling of the Proposed
Project ocean discharge was conducted by FlowScience, Inc. to determine Dm values for the
various discharge scenarios. The ocean modeling results were combined with projected
discharge water quality to assess compliance with the Ocean Plan.
1.3 Objective of Technical Memorandum

Trussell Technologies, Inc. (Trussell Tech) estimated worst-case water quality for the Proposed
Project ocean discharge water in-pipe (i.e., prior to being discharged through the outfall and
diluted in the ocean) and used the FlowScience ocean discharge modeling results to provide an
assessment of whether the Proposed Project would consistently meet Ocean Plan water quality
objectives. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the assumptions,
methodology, results and conclusions of the Ocean Plan compliance assessment.
February 2015
2 Methodology for Ocean Plan Compliance

To analyze impacts due to ocean discharge of RO concentrate, the Proposed Project technical
team (Trussell Tech with MRWPCA staff) conducted a thorough water quality and flow
characterization of the proposed sources of water to be diverted into the wastewater collection
system that, after primary and secondary treatment, will be used as influent to the AWT Facility.
The team collected all available water quality data for secondary effluent and water quality
monitoring results for the Proposed Project new source waters.2 Using the full suite of data, the
team was able to estimate the future worst-case water quality of the combined ocean discharge.
With the results of ocean modeling, concentrations at the edge of the ZID were estimated to
determine the ability of the Proposed Project to comply with the Ocean Plan. The purpose of this
section is to outline the methodology used to make this determination. A summary of the
methodology is presented in Figure 2.
2.1 Methodology for Determination of Discharge Water Quality

Water quality data for three types of discharge waters were used to estimate the future combined
water quality in the ocean outfall discharge under Proposed Project conditions: (1) the RTP
secondary effluent, (2) hauled brine waste (discussed in Section 2.1.3), and (3) the Proposed
Project RO concentrate. First, Trussell Tech estimated the potential influence of the new source
waters (e.g., agricultural wash water and agricultural drainage waters) on the worst-case water
quality for each of the three types of discharge water. The volumetric contribution of each new
source water would change under the different flow scenarios that could occur under the
Proposed Project. MRWPCA staff estimated the volume that would be collected from source
water for each month of the different types of operational years for the Proposed Project (Bob
Holden, Source Water Scenarios Spreadsheet, October 16, 2014)3. All of the different flow
scenarios were considered in developing the assumed worst-case concentrations for the Ocean
Plan constituents in the secondary effluent. This conservative approach used the highest
observed concentrations from all data sources for each source water in the analysis4. Once the
estimated worst-case water quality was determined for the RTP secondary effluent, these values
were used in estimating the worst-case water qualities for the hauled brine waste and the
A one-year monitoring program from July 2013 to June 2014 was conducted for five of the potential source
waters. Regular monthly and quarterly sampling was carried out for the RTP secondary effluent, agricultural wash
water, and Blanco Drain drainage water. Limited sampling of stormwater from Lake El Estero was performed due
to seasonal availability, and there was one sampling event for the Tembladero Slough drainage water.
3
The monthly flows for each source water were estimated by MRWPCA staff for three types of operational years:
(1) wet/normal years where a drought reserve is being built, (2) wet/normal years where the drought reserve has
been met, and (3) a drought year. Further, two phases of the Proposed Project have been defined for each of these
types of years (Phase A and Phase B).
4
The exception to this statement is cyanide. Only cyanide data collected from April 2005 through January 2011, as
part of the NPDES monitoring program, were used in the analysis. In mid-2011, Monterey Bay Analytical Service
(MBAS) began performing the cyanide analysis on the RTP effluent, at which time the reported values increased by
an order of magnitude. Because no operational or source water composition changes took place at this time that
would result in such an increase, it is reasonable to conclude the increase is an artifact of the change in analysis
method and therefore the results were questionable. Therefore, although the cyanide concentrations reported by
MBAS are presented separately; they are not used in the analysis for evaluating compliance with the Ocean Plan
objectives for the EIR.
February 2015
Proposed Project RO concentrate, as appropriate. The methodology for each type of water is
further described in this section.
Figure 2 Logic flow-chart for determination of project compliance with the Ocean Plan objectives
2.1.1 Future Secondary Effluent

Because the Proposed Project involves bringing new source waters into the RTP, the water
quality of those source waters as well as the existing secondary effluent needed to be taken into
account to estimate the water quality of the future secondary effluent. The following sources of
data were considered for selecting an existing secondary effluent concentration for each
constituent in the analysis:
Source water monitoring conducted for the Proposed Project from July 2013 through
June 2014
Historical NPDES compliance data collected semi-annually by MRWPCA (2005-2014)
February 2015
Historical Priority Pollutant data collected annually by MRWPCA (2004-2014)

Data collected by the Central Coast Long-Term Environmental Assessment Network
(CCLEAN) (2008-2013)
The existing secondary effluent concentration for each constituent selected for the analysis was
the maximum reported value from the above sources.
Only one data source was available for several of the new source waters (i.e., agricultural wash
water, Blanco Drain, Tembladero Slough, and the Reclamation Ditch5), namely, data collected
during the source water monitoring conducted for the Proposed Project. From these data, the
maximum observed concentration was selected for each source water.
Source water flows used for calculation of blended future secondary effluent concentrations were
taken from the six projected operational conditions prepared by MRWPCA staff Phase A and
B for the three conditions: (a) normal/wet year, building reserve, (b) normal/wet year, full
reserve, and (c) drought year6. For each constituent, a total of 72 future concentrations were
calculated 12 months of the year for the 6 projected future source water flow contributions. Of
these concentrations, a maximum monthly flow-weighted concentration was selected for each
constituent to be used for the Ocean Plan compliance analysis.
When a constituent cannot be quantified or is not detected, it is reported as less than the Method
Reporting Limit (<MRL).7 Because the actual concentration could be any value equal to or less
than the MRL, the conservative approach is to use the value of the MRL in the flow-weighting
calculations. In some cases, constituents were not detected in any of the source waters; in this
case, the values are reported as ND(<X), where X is the MRL. For some non-detected
constituents, the MRL exceeds the Ocean Plan objective, and thus no compliance determination
can be made8.
5
For the Reclamation Ditch, water quality data related to the Ocean Plan were not available. Concentrations for the
Reclamation Ditch were conservatively assumed to be the higher of either the Blanco Drain or Tembladero Slough
concentration.
6
An alternative scenario exists in which all reasonably available source waters are diverted to the RTP regardless of
whether there is demand for recycled water (spreadsheet provided by Larry Hampson, October 17, 2014). This
scenario was not evaluated here because it would represent an unlikely flow scenario in which there would be RTP
effluent discharged to the ocean in the summer months. Trussell Technologies performed an analysis using this
alternative scenario and estimated that the concentrations of the Ocean Plan constituents would be less than or equal
to the estimated concentrations of the primary scenarios used in this memorandum, and thus further analysis of the
alternative scenario is not included.
7
The lowest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with stated, acceptable precision
and accuracy under stated analytical conditions (i.e., the lower limit of quantitation). Therefore, acceptable quality
control and quality assurance procedures are calibrated to the MRL, or lower. To take into account day-to-day
fluctuations in instrument sensitivity, analyst performance, and other factors, the MRL is established at three times
the Method Detection Limit (or greater). The Method Detection Limit is the minimum concentration of a substance
that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero. (40 Code
of Federal Regulations Section136 Appendix B).
8
This phenomenon is common in the implementation of the Ocean Plan where for some constituents, suitable
analytical methods are not capable of measuring low enough to quantify the minimum toxicologically relevant
concentrations. For these constituents, a discharge is considered compliant if the monitoring results are less than the
MRL.
February 2015
The following approaches were used for addressing the cases where a constituent was reported as
less than the MRL:
Aggregate constituents with multiple congeners or sub-components: Some Ocean
Plan constituents are a combination of multiple congeners or sub-components (e.g.,
chlordane, PAHs, PCBs, and TCDD equivalents). Per the Ocean Plan, if individual
congeners or sub-components are below the MRL, they are assumed to be zero for the
purposes of calculating the aggregate parameter.
Combining different types of waters: The same approach to constituents that were
below the MRL was used for both combining different source waters (i.e., predicting
future secondary effluent concentrations based on source water contributions) and for
combining the different discharge components (i.e., RTP secondary effluent, hauled
brine, and RO concentrate). For each constituent:
o When all waters had maximum values reported above the MRL: The flowweighted average of the maximum detected concentrations was used when all
water had values reported above the MRL.
o When some waters had maximum values reported as less than the MRL:
When the MRL was more than two orders of magnitude greater (i.e., more
than 100 times greater) than the highest detected value from the other
waters, the waters with maximum concentrations below the MRL were
ignored (i.e. treated as having a concentration of zero). This case is
exclusive to times when CCLEAN data were reported as detections for the
RTP secondary effluent, and all of the other source waters were below the
MRL9. The analytical methods used for CCLEAN are capable of
detecting concentrations many orders of magnitude below the detection
limits for traditional methods, and thus to include the <MRL from the
other methods would overshadow the CCLEAN data. Additionally, in
cases where the traditional analytical method had an MRL greater than the
Ocean Plan objective, performing the analysis using the high MRL from
the non-CCLEAN methods would result in an inability to make a
compliance determination for these constituents.
When the MRL was within two orders of magnitude or less (i.e., less than
100 times greater) than the highest detected value from the other waters,
the constituents that were reported as less than the MRL and were
assumed to have a concentration at the MRL for the purposes of
calculating a flow-weighted average.
o All waters had maximum values reported as less than the MRL: A flowweighted average MRL was calculated for the constituent and the result was
reported as less than this combined MRL. For constituents where multiple MRLs
exist for the same water (due to different laboratory analysis methods or
dilutions), the lowest MRL was used.
Specifically, this case applies to endrin, chlordane, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene,
PCBs, and toxaphene.
February 2015
2.1.2 GWR RO Concentrate

Two potential worst-case concentrations were available for the Proposed Project RO concentrate:
Measured in the concentrate during pilot testing
Calculated from the blended future secondary effluent concentration, using the following
treatment assumptions10:
o No removal prior to the RO process (i.e., at the RTP or AWT Facility ozone or
MF)
o 81% RO recovery (i.e., of the water feeding into the RO system, 81% is product
water, also known as permeate, and 19% is the RO concentrate)
o Complete rejection of each constituent by the RO membrane
The higher of these two values was selected as the final concentration of the RO concentrate for
all constituents, except as noted in the Appendix footnotes.
2.1.3 Hauled Brine

Currently, small volumes of brine water are trucked to the RTP and blended with secondary
effluent in a brine pond. The waste from this pond (hauled brine) is then discharged along
with the secondary effluent bound for ocean discharge (if there is any). For the Proposed
Project, the hauled brine would be discharged with both secondary effluent and RO concentrate
(see Figure 1). The point at which the hauled brine is added to the ocean discharge water is
downstream of the AWT Facility intake, and thus it would not impact the quality of the Proposed
Project product water or the RO concentrate. Currently, all sampling of the hauled brine takes
place after dilution by secondary effluent in the brine pond, and so the data represent a mix of
secondary effluent and brine water. It is appropriate to use these data for the hauled brine quality
since the practice of diluting with secondary effluent will continue in the future. Two potential
values were available for the hauled brine concentration:
Historical NPDES compliance data collected semi-annually by MRWPCA (2005-2013)
of hauled brine water diluted with existing secondary effluent
Future secondary effluent concentration, as previously described
The higher of these two values was selected for all constituents; because the hauled brine is
diluted by secondary effluent prior to discharge, it is also appropriate to use future secondary
effluent concentrations to represent the concentration within hauled brine. Even if a constituent
were not present in the hauled brine, if it is present in the secondary effluent it would be present
in the combined discharge.
2.1.4 Combined Ocean Discharge Concentrations

Having calculated the worst-case future concentrations for each of the three discharge
components, the combined concentration prior to discharge was determined as a flow-weighted
average of the contributions of each of the three discharge components. As discussed in Section
3.1, a range of secondary effluent flow conditions was considered.
10
Based on the treatment assumptions, the RO concentrate would equal 5.3 times the AWT Facility influent (i.e.,
blended future secondary effluent) concentration.
February 2015
2.2 Ocean Modeling and Ocean Plan Compliance Analysis

Methodology
In order to determine Ocean Plan compliance, Trussell Tech used the following information: (1)
the in-pipe (i.e., pre-ocean dilution) concentration of a constituent (C in-pipe) that was developed
as discussed in the previous section, (2) the minimum probable dilution for the ocean mixing
(Dm) for the relevant discharge flow scenarios that was modeled by FlowScience (FlowScience,
2014), and (3) the background concentration of the constituent in the ocean (CBackground) that is
specified in the Ocean Plans Table 3. With this information the concentration at the edge of
the zone of initial dilution (CZID) was calculated using the following equation:
C!"# =
!!"!!"!# ! !! !!"#$%&'()*
!! !!
(1)
The CZID was then compared to the Ocean Plan objectives11 in the Ocean Plans Table 1
(SWRCB, 2012). As described previously, the in-pipe concentration was estimated as a flowweighted average of the future secondary effluent, Proposed Project RO concentrate, and hauled
brine with the concentrations determined as discussed above. The Dm values for various flow
scenarios were determined by modeling (see FlowScience, 2014). Note that this approach could
not be applied for some constituents (e.g., acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, and radioactivity12).
The assumptions used by FlowScience for the ocean discharge dilution modeling are as follows:
Flow: A sensitivity analysis of relationship between Dm and flow rate was performed for
the various discharges types. The greatest Dm sensitivity to flow changes was to
variations in the RTP secondary effluent flow. To simplify the analysis, the flow
scenarios used in the compliance analysis only considered the maximum flows for the
hauled brine and the RO concentrate, because these flows result in the lowest Dm, thus
making the analysis conservative. The flows considered for each discharge type are as
follows:
o Secondary effluent: a range of conditions was modeled that reflect realistic future
discharge scenarios (minimum flow, moderate flow, and maximum flow).
o Proposed Project RO concentrate: 0.94 million gallons per day (mgd), which
would be the resulting RO concentrate flow when the AWT Facility is producing
11
Note that the Ocean Plan (see Ocean Plan Table 2) also defines effluent limitations for oil and grease, suspended
solids, settable solids, turbidity, and pH; however, it was not necessary to evaluate these parameters in this
assessment. If necessary, the pH of the water would be adjusted to be within acceptable limits prior to discharge.
Oil and grease, suspended solids, settable solids, and turbidity do not need to be considered in this analysis as the
RO concentrate would be significantly better than the secondary effluent with regards to these parameters. Prior to
the RO treatment, the process flow would be treated by MF, which will reduce these parameters, and the waste
stream from the MF will be returned to RTP headworks.
12
Calculating flow-weighted averages for toxicity (acute and chronic) and radioactivity (gross beta and gross alpha)
is not appropriate based on the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured individually for the
secondary effluent and RO concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
objectives (Trussell Technologies, 2014 and 2015). See section 3.4.
10
February 2015
4.0 mgd of highly-purified recycled water (corresponds to treating 5.49 mgd of

RTP secondary effluent); although the AWT Facility will not be operated at this
influent flowrate year round, this is the highest potential RO concentrate flow
o Hauled brine: 0.1 mgd, which is the maximum anticipated value (blend of
secondary effluent and hauled brine) anticipated by MRWPCA.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): the greatest dilution is achieved when the salinity of the
discharge water is the most different from the ambient salinity; therefore, the most
conservative TDS will be the highest (i.e., closest to ambient salinity) of:
o Secondary effluent: 1,100 milligram per liter (mg/L), which is the maximum
expected future TDS, taking into account the flow contribution of each source
water and the maximum observed TDS value from each source water
o Proposed Project RO concentrate: 5,800 mg/L, which is the maximum expected
future TDS based on the maximum expected future secondary effluent TDS and
the RO treatment assumptions listed in the section above (i.e. in a drought year).
o Hauled brine: 40,000 mg/L, which is the maximum anticipated value (blend of
secondary effluent and hauled brine) from MRWPCA.
Ambient salinity: 33,500 mg/L
Temperature: 20C
An additional consideration of the ocean dilution modeling is the variation in ocean conditions
throughout the year. Three conditions were modeled for all flow scenarios: Davidson
(November to March), Upwelling (April to August), and Oceanic (September to October)13. In
order to conservatively demonstrate Ocean Plan compliance, the lowest Dm from the applicable
ocean conditions was used for each flow scenario.
Ocean dilution modeling covered a range of secondary effluent flowrates between 0 and 24.7
mgd14, and the results showed that Ocean Plan compliance would be achieved when considering
all potential secondary effluent flowrates. To simplify the calculation and presentation of these
results, representative flowrate ranges were chosen. In order to select the representative flow
scenarios to use for the compliance assessment, the balance between in-pipe dilution and dilution
through the outfall needed to be taken into account. In general, higher secondary effluent flows
being discharged to the ocean would provide dilution of the Proposed Project RO concentrate;
however, greater dilution due to ocean water mixing would be provided at lower wastewater
discharge flows. The balance of these influences was considered in determining compliance
under the five representative discharge conditions that are described in Section 3.2 for the
Proposed Project.

13
Note that these ranges assign the transitional months to the ocean condition that is typically more restrictive at
relevant discharge flows.
14
The 24.7 mgd represents the secondary effluent flow if the RTP is operating at its design capacity of 29.6 mgd,
and there is a net flow of 4.9 mgd to the AWT Facility (a total flow of approximately 5.46 mgd would be sent to the
AWT Facility, but 0.55 mgd of MF backwash water is returned to the RTP headworks from the AWT Facility).
11
February 2015
3 Ocean Plan Compliance Results

3.1 Water Quality of Combined Discharge
As described above, the first step in the Ocean Plan compliance analysis was to estimate the
worst-case water quality for each of the three future discharge components: future RTP effluent,
Proposed Project RO concentrate, and hauled brine waste. A summary of the estimated water
qualities of these components is given in Table 1. Additional considerations and assumptions for
each constituent are documented in the Table 1 notes section.

Table 1 Summary of estimated worst-case water quality for the three waters that would be
discharged through the ocean outfall
Secondary
Hauled Brine
Effluent
Ocean Plan water quality objectives for protection of marine aquatic life
Arsenic
g/L
45
45
Cadmium
g/L
1.2
1.2
Chromium (Hexavalent)
g/L
2.7
130
Copper
g/L
25.9
39
Lead
g/L
0.82
0.82
Mercury
g/L
0.089
0.089
Nickel
g/L
13.1
13.1
Selenium
g/L
6.5
75
Silver
g/L
ND(<1.59)
ND(<1.59)
Zinc
g/L
48.4
48.4
Cyanide (MBAS data)
g/L
89.5
89.5
Cyanide
g/L
7.2
46
Total Chlorine Residual
g/L
ND(<200)
ND(<200)
Ammonia (as N), 6-month median
g/L
36,400
36,400
Ammonia (as N), daily maximum
g/L
49,000
49,000
Acute Toxicity
TUa
2.3
2.3
Chronic Toxicity
TUc
40
40
Phenolic Compounds (non-chlorinated)
g/L
69
69
Chlorinated Phenolics
g/L
ND(<20)
ND(<20)
Endosulfan
g/L
0.048
0.048
Endrin
g/L
0.000079
0.000079
HCH (Hexachlorocyclohexane)
g/L
0.060
0.060
Radioactivity (Gross Beta)
pCi/L
32
307
Radioactivity (Gross Alpha)
pCi/L
18
457
Objectives for protection of human health - noncarcinogens
Acrolein
g/L
9.0
9.0
Antimony
g/L
0.79
0.79
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
g/L
ND(<4.2)
ND(<4.2)
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
g/L
ND(<4.2)
ND(<4.2)
Chlorobenzene
g/L
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
Chromium (III)
g/L
7.3
87
Di-n-butyl phthalate
g/L
ND(<7)
ND(<7)
Dichlorobenzenes
g/L
1.6
1.6
Diethyl phthalate
g/L
ND(<5)
ND(<5)
Dimethyl phthalate
g/L
ND(<2)
ND(<2)
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol
g/L
ND(<20)
ND(<20)
2,4-dinitrophenol
g/L
ND(<13)
ND(<13)
Constituent
Units
RO Concentrate
Notes
12
6.4
14
136
4.3
0.510
69
34
ND(<0.19)
255
143
38
ND(<200)
191,579
257,895
0.77
100
363
ND(<20)
0.25
0.00
0.314
34.8
14.4
1,12
2,11
2,11
2,11
2,11
5,12
2,11
2,11
4,14
2,11
2,12,13,16
6,11,16
10
1,11
1,11
7,12,13
7,12,13
1,9,11
4,14
5,9,11
3,11
11
1,7,12,13
1,7,12,13
47
4
ND(<1)
ND(<1)
ND(<0.5)
38
ND(<1)
8
ND(<1)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<5)
ND(<5)
2,11
1,11
4,14
4,14
4,14
1,11
4,14
1,11
4,14
4,14
4,14
4,14
12

Constituent
Units
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Nitrobenzene
Thallium
Toluene
Tributyltin
1,1,1-trichloroethane
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
February 2015
Secondary
Effluent
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<2.3)
0.69
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.05)
ND(<0.5)
Hauled Brine
RO Concentrate
Notes
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<2.3)
0.69
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.05)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.1)
ND(<0.05)
ND(<1)
3.7
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.02)
ND(<0.5)
4,14
4,14
4,14
4,14
2,11
4,14
8,14
4,14
2.5
ND(<0.007)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<19.8)
0.0052
ND(<4.2)
78
0.5
0.000735
2.4
39
0.022
1.6
ND(<19)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
2.6
0.64
0.56
0.0056
ND(<2)
ND(<4.2)
1.4
ND(<0.01)
0.000059
0.000078
0.000009
ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5)
0.096
0.076
ND(<2.3)
0.0529
0.000679
1.54E-07
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.00709
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5)
13
ND(<0.01)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.05)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<1)
411
2.7
0.00387
13
204
0.035
8.4
ND(<2)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
14
3.4
3.0
0.0029
ND(<0.1)
ND(<1)
7.5
ND(<0.01)
0.000311
0.000411
0.000047
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.150
0.019
ND(<1)
0.278
0.00357
8.09E-07
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
3.73E-02
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<1)
ND(<0.5)
2,11
4,14
4,14
4,14
4,14
4,14
1,11
2,11
3,9,11
2,11
2,11
2,9,11
1,11
4,14
4,14
4,14
2,11
2,11
2,11
2,11
4,14
4,14
2,9,11
4,14
3,11
3,11
3,11
4,14
4,14
2,12,13
1,12,13
4,14
3,9,11
3,9,11
8,9,11
4,14
4,14
3,11
4,14
4,14
4,14
4,14
Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3-dichlorobenzidine
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethylene
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichloromethane (methylenechloride)
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine (azobenzene)
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosodi-N-Propylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-trichloroethane
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
g/L
2.5
ND(<0.007)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<19.8)
ND(<0.69)
ND(<4.2)
78
0.5
0.000735
2.4
39
0.0011
1.6
ND(<19)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
2.6
0.64
0.56
0.0005
ND(<2)
ND(<4.2)
1.4
ND(<0.01)
0.000059
0.000078
0.000009
ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5)
0.096
0.076
ND(<2.3)
0.0529
0.000679
1.54E-07
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
0.00709
ND(<0.5)
ND(<0.5)
ND(<2.3)
ND(<0.5)
13
February 2015
Table 1 Notes:
RTP Effluent and Hauled Brine Data
1
Existing RTP effluent exceeds concentrations observed in other proposed source waters; the value reported is the
existing secondary effluent value.
2
The proposed new source waters may increase the secondary effluent concentration; the value reported is based on
predicted source water blends.
3
RTP effluent value is based on CCLEAN data; no other source waters were considered due to MRL differences.
4
MRL provided represents the maximum flow-weighted MRL based on the blend of source waters.
5
The only water with a detected concentration was the RTP effluent, however the flow-weighted concentration
increases due to higher MRLs for the proposed new source waters.
6
Additional source water data are not available; the reported value is for RTP effluent.
7
Calculation of the flow-weighted concentration was not feasible due to constituent and the maximum observed
value reported.
8
Agricultural Wash Water data are based on an aerated sample, instead of a raw water sample.
9
This value in the Ocean Plan is an aggregate of several congeners or compounds. Per the approach described in
the Ocean Plan, for cases where the individual congeners/compounds were less than the MRL, a value of 0 is
assumed in calculating the aggregate value, as the MRLs span different orders of magnitude.
10
For all waters, it is assumed that dechlorination will be provided when needed such that the total chlorine residual
will be below detection.
RO Concentrate Data
11
The value presented represents a calculated value assuming no removal prior to RO, complete rejection through
RO membrane, and an 81% RO recovery.
12
The value represents the maximum value observed during the pilot testing study.
13
The calculated value for the RO concentrate data (described in note 11) was not used in the analysis because it
was not considered representative. It is expected that the value would increase as a result of treatment through the
AWT Facility (e.g. formation of N-Nitrosodimethylamine as a disinfection by-product), or that it will not
concentrate linearly through the RO (e.g. toxicity and radioactivity).
14
The MRL provided represents the limit from the source water and pilot testing monitoring programs.
15
The value presented represents a calculated value assuming 20% removal through primary and secondary
treatment, 70% and 90% removal through ozone for DDT and dieldrin, respectively (based on Oram, 2008),
complete rejection through the RO membrane, and an 81% RO recovery. The assumed RTP concentrations for
Dieldrin and DDT do not include contributions from the agricultural drainage waters. This is because in all but one
flow scenario (Scenario 4, described later), either the agricultural drainage waters are not being brought into the RTP
because there is sufficient water from other sources (e.g. during wet and normal precipitation years), or the RTP
effluent is not being discharged to the outfall (e.g., summer months). In this one scenario (Scenario 4), there is a
minimal discharge of secondary effluent to the ocean during a drought year under Davidson ocean conditions; for
this flow scenario only, different concentrations are assumed for the RTP effluent. DDT and dieldrin concentrations
of 0.022 g/L and 0.0056 g/L were used for Scenario 4 in the analysis.
Cyanide Data
16
In mid-2011, MBAS began performing the cyanide analysis on the RTP effluent, at which time the reported
values increased by an order of magnitude. Because no operational or source water composition changes took place
at this time that would result in such an increase, it is reasonable to conclude the increase is an artifact of the change
in analysis method and therefore questionable. Therefore, the cyanide values as measured by MBAS are listed
separately from other cyanide values, and the MBAS data were not be used in the analysis for evaluating compliance
with the Ocean Plan objectives for the EIR.
3.2 Ocean Modeling Results

FlowScience performed modeling of various discharges that include combinations of RTP
secondary effluent, hauled brine waste, and Proposed Project RO concentrate (FlowScience,
2014). Year-round compliance with the Ocean Plan objectives was assessed through the
evaluation of five representative discharge scenarios. All scenarios assume the maximum flow
14
February 2015
rates for the RO concentrate and hauled brine waste, which is a conservative assumption in terms
of constituent loading and minimum dilution. Various secondary effluent flows were used in the
compliance analysis, which represent the different types of future discharge compositions.
The five scenarios used for the compliance assessment in terms of secondary effluent flows to be
discharged with the other discharges are shown in Table 2, and include:
(1) RTP Design Capacity: maximum flows for the Proposed Project with all 172
discharge ports open15. The Oceanic ocean condition was used as it represents the
worst-case dilution for this flow scenario. This scenario represents the maximum
(NPDES) permitted wastewater flow (with the Proposed Project in operation).
(2) Maximum Flow under Current Port Configuration: the maximum flow that can
be discharged with the current ports configuration (130 of the 172 ports open)16. The
Oceanic ocean condition was used as it represents the worst-case dilution for this
flow scenario. This scenario was chosen as it represents the maximum wastewater
flow under the existing diffuser conditions.
(3) Minimum Wastewater Flow (Oceanic/Upwelling): the maximum influence of the
Proposed Project RO concentrate on the ocean discharge under Oceanic/Upwelling
ocean conditions (i.e., no secondary effluent discharged). The Oceanic ocean
condition was used as it represents the worst-case dilution for this flow scenario.
(4) Minimum Wastewater Flow (Davidson): the maximum influence of the Proposed
Project RO concentrate on the ocean discharge under Davidson ocean condition (i.e.,
the minimum wastewater flow). Observed historic wastewater flows generally
exceed 0.4 mgd during Davidson oceanic conditions. Additional source waters would
be brought into the RTP if necessary to maintain the 0.4 mgd minimum.
(5) Moderate Wastewater Flow: conditions with a moderate wastewater flow when the
Proposed Project RO concentrate has a greater influence to the water quality than in
Scenarios 1 and 2, but where the ocean dilution (Dm) is reduced due to the higher
overall discharge flow (i.e., compared to Scenarios 2 and 3). The Davidson ocean
15
Note that this scenario would only apply if wastewater flows increased to the point that MRWPCA took action to
open the 42 discharge ports that are currently closed. Scenario 2 is the maximum discharge flow under the current
port configuration.
16
For Scenarios 2 through 5, ocean modeling was performed assuming 120 ports open, which would yield more
conservative Dm values than 130 ports, as dilution increases with increasing numbers of open ports.
15
February 2015
Table 2 Flow scenarios and modeled Dm values used for Ocean Plan compliance analysis
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Flows (mgd)
Discharge Scenario
(Ocean Condition)
RTP Design Capacity
(Oceanic)
RTP Capacity with Current Port Configuration
(Oceanic)
Minimum Wastewater Flow
(Oceanic)
Minimum Wastewater Flow
(Davidson)
Moderate Wastewater Flow Condition
(Davidson)
Dm
Secondary
effluent
RO
concentrate
Hauled
brine
24.7
0.94
0.1
150
23.7
0.94
0.1
137
0.94
0.1
523
0.4
0.94
0.1
285
0.94
0.1
201
3.3 Ocean Plan Compliance Results

The flow-weighted in-pipe concentration for each constituent was then calculated for each
discharge scenario using the water quality presented in Table 1 and the flows presented in Table
2. The in-pipe concentration was then used to calculate the concentration at the edge of the ZID
using the Dm values presented in Table 2. The resulting concentrations for each constituent in
each scenario were compared to the Ocean Plan objective to assess compliance. The estimated
concentrations for all five flow-scenarios are presented as concentrations at the edge of the ZID
(Table 3) and as a percentage of the Ocean Plan objective (Table 4). As shown, none of the
constituents are expected to exceed 80% of their Ocean Plan objective17.
Table 3 Predicted concentrations of Ocean Plan constituents at the edge of the ZID
Constituent
Units
Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life

Arsenic
ug/L
Cadmium
ug/L
ug/L
Copper
ug/L
Lead
ug/L
Mercury
ug/L
Nickel
ug/L
Selenium
ug/L
Silver
ug/L
Zinc
ug/L
Cyanide (MBAS data)
ug/L
Cyanide
ug/L
ug/L
Ammonia (as N) - 6-mo median
ug/L
Ammonia (as N) - Daily Max
ug/L
Ocean
Plan
Objective
8
1
2
3
2
0.04
5
15
0.7
20
1
1
2
600
2,400
3.3
0.009
0.02
2.2
0.006
0.006
0.1
0.05
<0.17
8.3
0.61
0.056
<1.3
279
375
3.3
0.01
0.03
2.2
0.007
0.006
0.1
0.06
<0.17
8.3
0.66
0.062
<1.4
306
413
3.0
0.01
0.05
2.2
0.008
0.006
0.1
0.07
<0.16
8.4
0.26
0.074
<0.4
337
454
3.1
0.02
0.07
2.3
0.011
0.006
0.2
0.10
<0.16
8.6
0.44
0.105
<0.7
481
648
3.2
0.01
0.04
2.2
0.008
0.006
0.1
0.07
<0.17
8.4
0.50
0.076
<1.0
359
483
Estimated Concentrations at Edge of ZID by Discharge Scenario
17
Aldrin, benzidine, 3,3-dichlorobenzidine and heptachlor were not detected in any source waters, however their
MRLs are greater than the Ocean Plan objective. Therefore, no percentages are presented Table 4 as no compliance
conclusions can be drawn for these constituents. This is a typical occurrence for ocean discharges since the MRL is
higher than the ocean plan objective for some constituents.
16
February 2015
Constituent
Units
Ocean
Plan
Objective
Acute Toxicitya
Chronic Toxicitya
Phenolic Compounds (non-
TUa
TUc
0.3
1
ug/L
30
chlorinated)

1
0.53
0.58
0.64
0.91
0.68
<0.14
0.00040
6.7E-07
0.00050
<0.04
0.00045
7.3E-07
0.00055
<0.07
0.00064
1.0E-06
0.00079
<0.10
0.00047
7.8E-07
0.00059
0.08
0.0066
<0.03
<0.03
<0.004
0.064
<0.05
0.01
<0.04
<0.01
<0.1
<0.09
<0.004
<0.004
<0.003
<0.02
0.006
<0.004
<0.0004
<0.004
0.08
0.0073
<0.002
<0.002
<0.001
0.082
<0.003
0.01
<0.003
<0.001
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.0003
<0.0002
<0.002
0.006
<0.001
<0.00004
<0.001
0.1
0.010
<0.007
<0.007
<0.002
0.116
<0.01
0.02
<0.008
<0.004
<0.04
<0.03
<0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
0.009
<0.002
<0.0001
<0.002
0.09
0.0078
<0.02
<0.02
<0.002
0.082
<0.03
0.02
<0.02
<0.008
<0.08
<0.06
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.007
<0.002
<0.0002
<0.002
0.02
<0.00005
<0.004
<0.1
0.005
<0.03
0.66
0.004
6.2E-06
0.02
0.3
1.8E-05
0.01
<0.1
<0.004
0.004
0.02
0.02
<0.00002
<0.001
<0.004
0.001
<0.002
0.72
0.005
6.8E-06
0.02
0.4
6.4E-05
0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.001
0.02
0.03
<0.00003
<0.002
<0.02
0.002
<0.007
1.03
0.007
9.7E-06
0.03
0.5
1.1E-04
0.02
<0.03
<0.002
0.002
0.03
0.03
<0.00004
<0.002
<0.08
0.003
<0.02
0.77
0.005
7.2E-06
0.02
0.4
4.7E-05
0.02
<0.1
<0.002
0.002
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
4.5E-06
<0.01
0.01
6.1E-06
<0.001
0.01
1.3E-05
<0.003
0.01
5.9E-06
<0.01
<0.03
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
ug/L
1
<0.13
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.009
0.00037
Endrin
ug/L
0.002
6.0E-07
ug/L
0.004
0.00046
Radioactivity (Gross Beta)a
pci/L
Radioactivity (Gross Alpha)a

pci/L

Acrolein
ug/L
220
0.07
Antimony
ug/L
1200
0.0060
ug/L
4.4
<0.03
ug/L
1200
<0.03
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
570
<0.003
Chromium (III)
ug/L
190000
0.058
ug/L
3500
<0.04
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
5100
0.01
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
33000
<0.03
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
<0.01
ug/L
220
<0.1
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4.0
<0.08
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
4100
<0.003
Fluoranthene
ug/L
15
<0.003
ug/L
58
<0.003
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
4.9
<0.01
Thallium
ug/L
2
0.005
Toluene
ug/L
85000
<0.003
Tributyltin
ug/L
0.0014
<0.0003
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
ug/L
540000
<0.003
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.10
0.02
Aldrinb
ug/L
0.000022
<0.00005
Benzene
ug/L
5.9
<0.003
Benzidineb
ug/L
0.000069
<0.1
Beryllium
ug/L
0.033
0.005
ug/L
0.045
<0.03
ug/L
3.5
0.60
ug/L
0.90
0.004
Chlordane
ug/L
0.000023
5.6E-06
ug/L
8.6
0.02
Chloroform
ug/L
130
0.3
DDT
ug/L
0.00017
1.6E-05
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
ug/L
18
0.01
3,3-Dichlorobenzidineb
ug/L
0.0081
<0.1
1,2-Dichloroethane
ug/L
28
<0.003
1,1-Dichloroethylene
ug/L
0.9
0.003
ug/L
6.2
0.02
Dichloromethane
ug/L
450
0.005
(methylenechloride)
1,3-dichloropropene
ug/L
8.9
0.004
Dieldrin
ug/L
0.00004
4.0E-06
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
ug/L
2.6
<0.01
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
ug/L
0.16
<0.03
(azobenzene)
17
February 2015
Constituent
Units
Ocean
Plan
Objective
Halomethanes
Heptachlorb
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinyl chloride
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36

1
0.011
<0.0001
4.5E-07
6.0E-07
6.9E-08
<0.01
<0.003
0.001
0.0005
<0.01
0.00041
5.20E-06
1.18E-09
<0.003
<0.003
5.43E-05
<0.003
<0.003
<0.01
<0.003
2
0.012
<0.0001
5.0E-07
6.6E-07
7.6E-08
<0.02
<0.004
0.001
0.001
<0.02
0.00045
5.72E-06
1.30E-09
<0.004
<0.004
5.97E-05
<0.004
<0.004
<0.02
<0.004
3
0.013
<0.00002
5.5E-07
7.2E-07
8.3E-08
<0.001
<0.001
0.0003
0.00005
<0.002
0.00049
6.29E-06
1.42E-09
<0.001
<0.001
6.57E-05
<0.001
<0.001
<0.002
<0.001
4
0.019
<0.00003
7.8E-07
1.0E-06
1.2E-07
<0.004
<0.002
0.0005
0.0001
<0.01
0.00070
8.98E-06
2.03E-09
<0.002
<0.002
9.38E-05
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.002
5
0.014
<0.00005
5.8E-07
7.7E-07
8.9E-08
<0.01
<0.002
0.001
0.0003
<0.01
0.00052
6.70E-06
1.52E-09
<0.002
<0.002
6.99E-05
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.002
is not appropriate based the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured individually for the
objectives.
b
All observed values from all data sources were below the MRL, and the flow-weighted average of the MRLs is
higher than the Ocean Plan objective. No compliance conclusions can be drawn for these constituents.
18
February 2015
Table 4 Predicted concentrations of all COP constituents, expressed as percent of Ocean Plan
Objective
Constituent
Units

Arsenic
ug/L
Cadmium
ug/L
ug/L
Copper
ug/L
Lead
ug/L
Mercury
ug/L
Nickel
ug/L
Selenium
ug/L
Silver
ug/L
Zinc
ug/L
Cyanide (MBAS data)
ug/L
Cyanide
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Acute Toxicitya
TUa
Chronic Toxicitya
TUc
Phenolic Compounds (nonug/L
chlorinated)
Ocean
Plan
Objective
8
1
2
3
2
0.04
5
15
0.7
20
1
1
2
600
2,400
0.3
1
30
ug/L
1
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.009
Endrin
ug/L
0.002
ug/L
0.004
Radioactivity (Gross Beta)a
pci/L
Radioactivity (Gross Alpha)a

pci/L

Acrolein
ug/L
220
Antimony
ug/L
1200
ug/L
4.4
ug/L
1200
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
570
Chromium (III)
ug/L
190000
ug/L
3500
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
5100
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
33000
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
ug/L
220
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4.0
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
4100
Fluoranthene
ug/L
15
ug/L
58
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
4.9
Thallium
ug/L
2
Toluene
ug/L
85000
Tributyltin
ug/L
0.0014
ug/L
540000
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.10
Aldrinb
ug/L
0.000022
Benzene
ug/L
5.9
Benzidineb
ug/L
0.000069
Beryllium
ug/L
0.033
Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan Objective at Edge of ZID by

Discharge Scenarioc
1
41%
1%
1%
73%
0.3%
14%
2%
0.3%
<24%
42%
61%
6%
46%
16%
41%
1%
1%
73%
0.3%
14%
2%
0.4%
<24%
42%
66%
6%
51%
17%
38%
1%
2%
75%
0.4%
15%
2%
0.5%
<23%
42%
26%
7%
56%
19%
38%
2%
3%
78%
0.5%
16%
3%
0.7%
<23%
43%
44%
10%
80%
27%
40%
1%
2%
75%
0.4%
15%
3%
0.5%
<24%
42%
50%
8%
60%
20%
2%
2%
2%
3%
2%
<13%
4%
0.03%
11%
<14%
4%
0.03%
13%
<4%
5%
0.04%
14%
<7%
7%
0.05%
20%
<10%
5%
0.04%
15%
0.03%
<0.01%
<0.61%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.06%
<2.10%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.01%
<0.30%
0.27%
<0.01%
<23%
<0.01%
0.03%
<0.01%
<0.67%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.06%
<2.30%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.01%
<0.33%
0.29%
<0.01%
<25%
<0.01%
0.04%
<0.01%
<0.06%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.28%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.04%
0.32%
<0.01%
<3%
<0.01%
0.05%
<0.01%
<0.17%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.68%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.10%
0.46%
<0.01%
<8%
<0.01%
0.04%
<0.01%
<0.39%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<1.38%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.20%
0.34%
<0.01%
<15%
<0.01%
20%
<0.06%
14%
21%
<0.06%
15%
24%
<0.02%
3%
34%
<0.03%
5%
25%
<0.04%
9%
19
February 2015
Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan Objective at Edge of ZID by
Discharge Scenarioc
Constituent
Units
Ocean
Plan
Objective
Chlordane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidineb
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
(methylenechloride)
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
(azobenzene)
Halomethanes
Heptachlorb
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
0.045
3.5
0.90
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017
18
0.0081
28
0.9
6.2
1
<60%
17%
0.4%
24%
0.2%
0.2%
9%
0.1%
<0.01%
0.4%
0.3%
2
<66%
19%
0.5%
27%
0.2%
0.3%
10%
0.1%
<0.01%
0.4%
0.4%
3
<6%
21%
0.5%
30%
0.3%
0.3%
37%
0.1%
<0.01%
0.1%
0.4%
4
<16%
29%
0.7%
42%
0.4%
0.4%
62%
0.1%
<0.01%
0.2%
0.6%
5
<38%
22%
0.6%
32%
0.3%
0.3%
27%
0.1%
<0.01%
0.3%
0.4%
ug/L
450
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
8.9
0.00004
2.6
0.05%
10%
<0.5%
0.05%
11%
<0.5%
0.06%
15%
<0.02%
0.08%
34%
<0.1%
0.06%
15%
<0.3%
ug/L
0.16
<17%
<18%
<2%
<5%
<11%
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36
0.01%
2%
0.3%
<0.01%
<0.6%
<0.01%
0.01%
0.13%
<0.6%
5%
27%
30%
<0.1%
<0.2%
26%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<5%
<0.01%
0.01%
2%
0.3%
<0.01%
<0.6%
<0.01%
0.01%
0.14%
<0.7%
5%
30%
33%
<0.2%
<0.2%
28%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<6%
<0.01%
0.01%
<38%
3%
0.3%
<0.01%
<0.1%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.01%
<0.1%
6%
33%
37%
<0.04%
<0.05%
31%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<1%
<0.01%
0.01%
<70%
4%
0.5%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<0.01%
0.01%
0.04%
<0.2%
8%
47%
52%
<0.1%
<0.1%
45%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<2%
<0.01%
0.01%
3%
0.4%
<0.01%
<0.4%
<0.01%
0.01%
0.08%
<0.4%
6%
35%
39%
<0.1%
<0.1%
33%
<0.01%
<0.03%
<3%
<0.01%
is not appropriate based the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured individually for the
objectives (see Section 3.4).
b
c
Note that if the percentage as determined by using the MRL was less than 0.01 percent, then a minimum value is
shown as <0.01% (e.g., if the MRL indicated the value was <0.000001%, for simplicity, it is displayed as
<0.01%).
3.4 Toxicity
The NPDES permit includes daily maximum effluent limitations for acute and chronic toxicity
that are based on the current allowable Dm of 145. The acute toxicity effluent limitation is 4.7
TUa (acute toxicity units) and the chronic toxicity effluent limitation is 150 TUc (chronic
20
February 2015
toxicity units). The permit requires that toxicity testing be conducted twice per year, with one
sample collected during the wet season when the discharge is primarily secondary effluent and
once during the dry season when the discharge is primarily trucked brine waste. The MRWPCA
ocean discharge has consistently complied with these toxicity limits (CCRWQCB, 2014).
Toxicity testing of RO concentrate generated by the pilot testing was conducted in support of the
Proposed Project (Trussell Technologies, 2015). On April 9, 2014, a sample of RO concentrate
was sent to Pacific EcoRisk for acute and chronic toxicity analysis. Based on these results (RO
concentrate values presented in Table 1), the Proposed Project concentrate requires a minimum
Dm of 16:1 and 99:1 for acute and chronic toxicity, respectively, to meet the Ocean Plan
objectives. These Dm values were compared to predicted Dm values for the discharge of
concentrate only from the Proposed Projects full-scale AWT Facility and the discharge of
concentrate combined with secondary effluent from the RTP. The minimum dilution modeled for
the various Proposed Project discharge scenarios was 137:1, which is when the secondary
effluent discharge is at the maximum possible flow under the current port configuration
(FlowScience, 2014). Given that the lowest expected Dm value for the various Proposed Project
ocean discharge scenarios is greater than the required dilution factor for compliance with the
Ocean Plan toxicity objectives, this sample illustrates that the discharge scenarios would comply
with Ocean Plan objectives.
4 Conclusions
The purpose of the analysis documented in this technical memorandum was to assess the ability
of the Proposed Project to comply with the Ocean Plan objectives. Trussell Tech used a
conservative approach to estimate the water qualities of the RTP secondary effluent, RO
concentrate, and hauled brine waste for the Proposed Project. These water quality data were then
combined for various discharge scenarios, and a concentration at the edge of the ZID was
calculated for each constituent and scenario. Compliance assessments could not be made for
selected constituents, as noted, due to analytical limitations, but this is a typical occurrence for
these Ocean Plan constituents. Based on the data, assumptions, modeling, and analytical
methodology presented in this technical memorandum, the Proposed Project would comply with
the Ocean Plan objectives.
5 References
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB), 2014. Waste Discharge
Requirements for the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Regional
Treatment Plant.
FlowScience, 2014. MRWPCA GWR Discharge Dilution Analysis FSI 144082. Technical
Memorandum to Robert Holden, MRWPCA. 8 Nov.
NRC, 1993. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency (SWRCB),
2012. California Ocean Plan: Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California.
21
February 2015
Trussell Technologies, Inc. (2014). Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Recharge Project:
Advanced Water Treatment Facility Piloting. Draft Report, Prepared for the MRWPCA
and the MPWMD. Dec.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. (2015). AWT Facility Pilot-Scale RO Concentrate Toxicity
Testing. Communication, Prepared for Bob Holden, MRWPCA. Feb.
22
Appendix U2
Addendum Report to Ocean Plan Compliance
Assessment Reports

Draft EIR
April 2015

Draft EIR
April 2015
!Addendum!Report!to!Ocean!Plan!Compliance!Assessment!Reports:!
Monterey!Peninsula!Water!Supply!Project,!Pure!Water!Monterey!
Groundwater!Replenishment!Project,!and!the!Monterey!Peninsula!
Water!Supply!Project!Variant!
Addendum!Report!
April&17th&2015&
Prepared for:
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 600

Oakland, CA 94612
Addendum!Report!to!Ocean!Plan!Compliance!Assessment!Reports:!
Monterey!Peninsula!Water!Supply!Project,!Pure!Water!Monterey!
Groundwater!Replenishment!Project,!and!the!Monterey!Peninsula!
Water!Supply!Project!Variant!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!Addendum!Report!
April!17th!2015!
Prepared&By:&
&
Trussell!Technologies,!Inc.!
Gordon&Williams,&Ph.D.,&P.E.&
Addendum to Ocean Plan Compliance Reports
April 2015
Table!of!Contents!
1! Introduction!......................................................................................................................!2!
2! Modeling!Update!Results!..................................................................................................!3!
2.1! Updated!Results!for!the!MPWSP!..............................................................................................................................!3!
2.2! Updated!Results!for!the!Variant!Project!...............................................................................................................!4!
2.3! Updated!Results!for!the!GWR!Project!....................................................................................................................!6!
3! Conclusions!.......................................................................................................................!8!
4! References!......................................................................................................................!10!
Appendix!A!!Updated!Ocean!Discharge!Modeling!Results!...................................................!11!
Appendix!B!!Estimated!Concentrations!of!All!Ocean!Plan!Constituents!...............................!14!
April 2015
1 Introduction!
Trussell Technologies, Inc. (Trussell Tech) previously prepared two Technical Memoranda to
assess compliance of the following three proposed projects with the California Ocean Plan
(SWRCB, 2012):
1. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP), which would include a
seawater desalination plant capable of producing 9.6 million gallons per day (mgd) of
drinking water (Ocean Plan compliance assessment described in Trussell Tech, 2015b).
2. Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR Project),
which would include an Advanced Water Treatment facility (AWT Facility) capable of
producing an average flow of 3.3 mgd of highly purified recycled water for injection into
the Seaside Groundwater Basin (Ocean Plan compliance assessment described in Trussell
Tech, 2015a). The AWT Facility source water would be secondary treated wastewater
(secondary effluent) from the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agencys
(MRWPCAs) Regional Treatment Plant (RTP).
3. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Variant or Variant Project, which
would be a combination of a smaller seawater desalination plant capable of producing 6.4
mgd of drinking water along with the GWR Project (Ocean Plan compliance assessment
described in Trussell Tech, 2015b).
Both the proposed desalination facility and the proposed AWT Facility would employ reverse
osmosis (RO) membranes to purify the waters, and as a result, both projects would produce RO
concentrate waste streams that would be disposed through the existing MRWPCA ocean outfall:
the RO concentrate from the desalination facility (Desal Brine), and the RO concentrate from
the AWT Facility (GWR Concentrate). Additional details regarding the project backgrounds,
assessment methodologies, results, and conclusions for discharge of these waste streams are
described in the previous Technical Memoranda (Trussell Tech, 2015a and 2015b).
The Ocean Plan objectives are to be met after initial dilution of the discharge in the ocean. The
initial dilution occurs in an area known as the zone of initial dilution (ZID). The extent of
dilution in the ZID is quantified and referred to as the minimum probable initial dilution (Dm).
The water quality objectives established in the Ocean Plan are adjusted by the Dm to derive the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits for a treated
wastewater discharge prior to ocean dilution.
Part of the methodology for estimating the concentration of a constituent for the Ocean Plan is
estimating the Dm based on ocean modeling. FlowScience, Inc. (FlowScience) conducted
modeling of mixing in the ocean for various discharge scenarios related to the proposed projects
to determine Dm values for the key discharge scenarios. Recently, additional modeling by
FlowScience (FlowScience, 2015) was performed to (1) update the number of currently open
discharge ports in the MRWPCA ocean outfall from 120 to 130 open ports, (2) update the GWR
RO concentrate flow from 0.73 to 0.94 mgd and account for the hauled brine1 for the MPWSP
1
The hauled brine is waste that is trucked to the RTP and blended with secondary effluent prior to being discharged.
The maximum anticipated flow of this stream is 0.1 mgd (blend of brine and secondary effluent).
April 2015
and Variant Project discharge scenarios, and (3) model additional key discharge scenarios that
were missing from the initial ocean modeling for the MPWSP and Variant Project.
The purpose of this Addendum Report is to provide an understanding of the impact of the
updated ocean discharge modeling on the previous Ocean Plan compliance assessments for the
various proposed projects.
2 Modeling!Update!Results!
FlowScience performed additional ocean discharge modeling for key discharge scenarios (see
Appendix A) and Trussell Tech used these modeling results to perform an updated analysis of
Ocean Plan compliance for the various proposed projects. Results from these analyses are
presented in the following subsections: the MPWSP in Section 2.1; the Variant Project in Section
2.2; and the GWR Project in Section 2.3. Note that the results for the GWR Project in Section
2.3 are also applicable to the Variant Project. Not all previously modeled scenarios were
repeated; the scenarios selected for updating were chosen to demonstrate the impact of the
updated model input parameters (i.e., number of open ports, inclusion of the hauled waste flow,
and GWR Concentrate flow update). In addition, some new scenarios were added to ensure that
the worst-case discharge conditions were considered for all of the proposed projects.
2.1 Updated!Results!for!the!MPWSP!
The following discharge scenarios related to the MPWSP were modeled using 130 open ports for
the MRWPCA ocean outfall:
1. Desal Brine with no secondary effluent (updated scenario): The maximum influence of
the Desal Brine on the overall discharge (i.e., no secondary effluent discharged) would be
when there is no secondary effluent discharged. This scenario would be representative of
conditions when demand for recycled water is highest (e.g., during summer months), and
all of the RTP secondary effluent is recycled through the Salinas Valley Reclamation
Project (SVRP) for agricultural irrigation. The hauled waste is also included in this
discharge scenario.
2. Desal Brine with moderate secondary effluent flow (new scenario): Desal Brine
discharged with a relatively moderate secondary effluent flow that results in a plume with
slightly negative buoyancy. This scenario represents times when demand for recycled
water is low or the secondary effluent flow is low, and there is excess secondary effluent
that is discharged to the ocean.
The updated Dm values for these two discharge scenarios are provided in Table 1. The net
impact of using 130 open ports and including the hauled waste was a slight increase
(approximately 6%) in the amount of dilution associated with ocean mixing. This confirms that
previously modeled MPWSP discharge scenarios with Desal Brine included in Trussell 2015b
were conservative (i.e. the previous analysis slightly over-estimated the ZID concentration for
the Ocean Plan constituents).
April 2015
!
Table!1!!Updated!minimum!probable!dilution!(Dm)!values!for!select!MPWSP!discharge!scenarios!!
No.
Discharge flows (mgd)
Discharge Scenario
(Ocean Condition)
Secondary
effluent
Hauled
Waste
Desal
Brine
Previously
Reported Dm
(120 ports)a
Updated Dm
(130 ports)
Desal Brine with no secondary effluent flow

0
0.1
13.98
16
17
(Davidson)
Desal Brine with moderate secondary
2
effluent flow
9
0.1
13.98
n/a b
22
(Davidson)
a
The previously reported Dm was used in the analysis presented in Trussell 2015b, and was determined with the
assumption that 120 ports on the outfall were open and did not consider the hauled waste flow.
b
Not applicable, as Discharge Scenario 2, consisting of Desal Brine and a moderate secondary effluent flow, was
not previously modeled.
1
The Dm values reported in Table 1 were used to assess the Ocean Plan compliance for MPWSP
Scenarios 1 and 2 using the same methodology and water quality assumptions previously
described (Trussell, 2015b). The estimated concentrations at the edge of the ZID for constituents
that are expected to exceed the Ocean Plan objective are provided in Table 2. A new exceedance
was identified in MPWSP Scenario 2, where the ammonia concentration at the edge of the ZID
was predicted to exceed the 6-month median Ocean Plan objective. A list of estimated
concentrations for these two scenarios for all Ocean Plan constituents is provided in Appendix B
(Table A1).
Table!2!W!Predicted!concentration!at!the!edge!of!the!ZID!expressed!for!constituents!of!interest!in!the!
MPWSP!as!both!a!concentration!and!percentage!of!Ocean!Plan!Objective!a!
MPWSP Ocean Discharge Scenario
Estimated Concentration at Edge Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan
of ZID
objective at Edge of ZID
1
2
1
2
Units
Ocean
Plan
Objective
Ammonia (as N) 6-mo median
ug/L
600
19
626
3%
104%
PCBs
ug/L
1.9E-05
1.2E-04
6.7E-05
609%
351%
Constituent
Red shading indicates constituent is expected to exceed the ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.
2.2 Updated!Results!for!the!Variant!Project!
The following discharge scenarios related to the Variant Project were modeled using 130 open
ports for the MRWPCA ocean outfall:
1. Desal Brine without secondary effluent or GWR Concentrate (updated scenario):
Desal Brine discharged without secondary effluent or GWR Concentrate. This scenario
would be representative of conditions when the smaller (6.4 mgd) desalination facility is
in operation, but the AWT Facility is not operating (e.g., offline for maintenance), and all
of the secondary effluent is recycled through the SVRP (e.g., during high irrigation water
demand summer months). The hauled waste is also included in this discharge scenario.
2. Desal Brine with moderate secondary effluent flow and no GWR concentrate (new
scenario): Desal Brine discharged with a relatively moderate secondary effluent flow, but
no GWR Concentrate, which results in a plume with slightly negative buoyancy. This
April 2015
scenario represents times when demand for recycled water is low or the secondary
effluent flow is low, and there is excess secondary effluent that is discharged to the
ocean. The hauled waste is also included in this discharge scenario.
3. Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and no secondary effluent (updated scenario):
Desal Brine discharged with GWR Concentrate and no secondary effluent. This scenario
would be representative of the condition where both the desalination facility and the
AWT Facility are in operation, and there is the highest demand for recycled water
through the SVRP (e.g., during summer months). The hauled waste is also included in
this discharge scenario.
4. Desal Brine with GWR Concentrate and a moderate secondary effluent flow (new
scenario): Desal Brine discharged with GWR Concentrate and a relatively moderate
secondary effluent flow that results in a plume with slightly negative buoyancy. This
scenario represents times when both the desalination facility and the AWT Facility are
operating, but demand for recycled water is low and there is excess secondary effluent
discharged to the ocean. The hauled waste is also included in this discharge scenario.
Variant conditions with no Desal Brine contribution: All scenarios described for the
GWR Project are also applicable to the Variant Project. See Section 2.3 for these
additional scenarios.
The updated Dm values for these two discharge scenarios are provided in Table 3. Similar to the
MPWSP modeling, the net impact of using 130 open ports, including the hauled waste, and using
a GWR concentrate flow of 0.94 mgd (instead of 0.73 mgd) was a slight increase (approximately
6%) in the amount of dilution associated with the ocean mixing for the Variant Project discharge
scenarios. This confirms that previously modeled Variant discharge scenarios with Desal Brine
included in Trussell 2015b were conservative (i.e. the previous analysis slightly over-estimated
the ZID concentration for the Ocean Plan constituents).
!
No.
Discharge Scenario
(Ocean Condition)
Secondary
effluent
Hauled
Waste
GWR
Concentrate
Desal
Brine
Previously
Reported
Dm
(120 ports)a
Updated
Dm
(130 ports)
Desal Brine with no secondary

effluent and no GWR Conc.
0
0.1
0
8.99
15
16
(Upwelling)
Desal Brine with moderate
2
secondary effluent flow and no
5.8
0.1
0
8.99
n/a b
22
GWR Conc. (Davidson)
Desal Brine and GWR Conc. with
3
no secondary effluent flow
0
0.1
0.94
8.99
17
18
(Upwelling)
Desal Brine and GWR Conc. with
4
moderate secondary effluent flow
5.3
0.1
0.94
8.99
n/a b
24
(Upwelling)
a
The previously reported Dm was used in the analysis presented in Trussell 2015b, and was performed with 120
open ports on the outfall, did not consider the hauled waste flow, and assumed a GWR Concentrate flow of 0.73
instead of 0.94 mgd.
b
Not applicable, as Discharge Scenarios 2 and 4, with moderate secondary effluent flows, were not previously
modeled.
1
April 2015
The Dm values reported in Table 3 were used to assess the Ocean Plan compliance for Variant
Project Scenarios 1 through 4 using the same methodology and water quality assumptions
previously described (Trussell, 2015b). The estimated concentrations at the edge of the ZID for
constituents that are expected to exceed the Ocean Plan objective are provided in Table 4. For
the updated scenarios (Variant Project Scenarios 1 and 3), the changes to the underlying
modeling parameters increased the amount of dilution in the ocean mixing, thus the resulting
ZID concentrations decreased slightly. For the new scenarios (Variant Project Scenarios 2 and
4), ammonia was identified as an exceedance in Variant Scenario 2 when there is no GWR
Concentrate in the combined discharge. This had not been shown in the previous analysis. A list
of estimated concentrations for these four scenarios for all Ocean Plan constituents is provided in
Appendix B (Table A2).
Table!4!W!Predicted!concentration!at!the!edge!of!the!ZID!expressed!for!constituents!of!interest!in!the!
MPWSP!as!both!a!concentration!and!percentage!of!Ocean!Plan!Objective!a!
Constituent
Ocean
Units
Plan
Objective
Variant Project Ocean Discharge Scenario

Estimated Percentage of Ocean Plan
Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

Copper
ug/L
3
2.1
Ammonia (as N)
ug/L
600
29
6-mo median
2.4
2.7
2.7
70%
81%
91%
90%
629
968
985
4.8%
105%
161%
164%
Chlordane
ug/L
2.3E-05
1.2E-05
1.8E-05
2.9E-05
2.4E-05
52%
77%
125%
106%
DDT
ug/L
1.7E-04
4.6E-05
3.9E-05
2.1E-04
1.2E-04
27%
23%
122%
70%
PCBs
ug/L
1.9E-05
1.2E-04
6.7E-05
1.2E-04
6.7E-05
643%
351%
614%
355%
TCDD Equivalents
ug/L
3.9E-09
1.0E-10
2.7E-09
4.1E-09
4.2E-09
2.6%
68%
104%
107%
Toxaphene
ug/L
2.1E-04
8.0E-05
1.6E-04
2.5E-04
2.2E-04
38%
74%
119%
106%
Shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed (red shading) the
Ocean Plan objective for that discharge scenario.
2.3 Updated!Results!for!the!GWR!Project!
The proposed Variant Project is inclusive of the proposed GWR Project, such that the analysis in
this section is also part of the Variant Project. The following discharge scenarios related to the
GWR Project were modeled using 130 open ports for the MRWPCA ocean outfall:
1. Maximum Flow under Current Port Configuration (updated scenario): the maximum
flow that can be discharged with the current port configuration (130 of the 172 ports
open). The Oceanic ocean condition was used as it represents the worst-case dilution for
this flow scenario. This scenario was chosen because it represents the maximum
secondary effluent flow under existing diffuser conditions.
2. Minimum Secondary effluent Flow - Oceanic/Upwelling (updated scenario): the
maximum influence of the GWR Concentrate on the ocean discharge under Oceanic and
Upwelling ocean conditions (i.e., no secondary effluent discharged). The Oceanic ocean
condition was used as it represents less dilution for this flow scenario compared to the
Upwelling condition.
April 2015
3. Minimum Secondary effluent Flow Davidson (updated scenario): the maximum

influence of the GWR Concentrate on the ocean discharge under Davidson ocean
condition (i.e., the minimum secondary effluent flow). Observed historic secondary
effluent flows generally exceed 0.4 mgd during Davidson oceanic conditions. Additional
source waters would be brought into the RTP if necessary to maintain the 0.4 mgd
minimum.
4. Low Secondary effluent Flow (updated scenario): conditions with a relatively low
secondary effluent flow of 3 mgd when the GWR Concentrate has a greater influence on
the water quality than in Scenarios 1, but where the Dm is reduced due to the higher
overall discharge flow (i.e., compared to Scenarios 2 and 3). The Davidson ocean
5. Moderate Secondary effluent Flow (new scenario): conditions with a relatively
moderate secondary effluent flow of 8 mgd when the GWR Concentrate has a greater
influence on the water quality than in Scenario 1, but where the ocean dilution is reduced
due to the higher overall discharge flow (i.e., compared to Scenarios 2 through 4). The
Davidson ocean condition was used as it represents the worst-case dilution for this flow
scenario.
The updated Dm values for these five discharge scenarios are provided in Table 5. Similar to the
modeling for the MPWSP and Variant Project, the impact of using 130 open ports was a slight
increase (approximately 4%) in the amount of dilution associated with the ocean mixing for the
GWR Project discharge scenarios. This confirms that previously modeled GWR Project
discharge scenarios included in Trussell 2015a were conservative (i.e. the previous analysis
slightly over-estimated the ZID concentration for the Ocean Plan constituents).
!
No.
Discharge Scenario
(Ocean Condition)

Secondary
effluent
Hauled
Waste
GWR
Concentrate
Previously
Reported Dm
(120 ports)a
Updated Dm
(130 ports)
Maximum flow with GWR Concentrate

23.7
0.1
0.94
137
142
with current port configuration (Oceanic)
GWR Concentrate with no secondary
2
0
0.1
0.94
523
540
effluent (Oceanic)
GWR Concentrate with minimum
3
0.4
0.1
0.94
285
295
secondary effluent flow (Davidson)
GWR Concentrate with low secondary
4
3
0.1
0.94
201
208
effluent flow (Davidson)
GWR Concentrate with moderate
5
8
0.1
0.94
n/a b
228
secondary effluent flow (Davidson)
a
The previously reported Dm was used in the analysis presented in Trussell 2015a, and was performed with 120
open ports on the outfall.
b
Not applicable, as Discharge Scenarios 5, with 8 mgd of secondary effluent flow, was not previously modeled.
1
The Dm values reported in Table 5 were used to assess Ocean Plan compliance for GWR Project
Scenarios 1 through 5 using the same methodology and water quality assumptions previously
described (Trussell, 2015a). For the updated scenarios (GWR Project Scenarios 1 through 4), the
changes to the underlying modeling parameters increased the amount of dilution from ocean
mixing. Thus, as previously shown, none of the GWR Project scenarios resulted in an estimated
April 2015
exceedance of the Ocean Plan objectives. For the new scenario (GWR Project Scenario 5), it
was estimated that none of the Ocean Plan objectives would be exceeded. Tables with the
estimated Ocean Plan constituent concentrations at the edge of the ZID for the GWR Project
discharge Scenarios 1 through 5 are provided in Appendix B as concentrations (Table A3) and as
a percentage of the Ocean Plan objective (Table A4).
3 Conclusions!
Additional modeling of the ocean discharges of various scenarios for the MPWSP, Variant
Project, and GWR project were performed, including updating previous modeling to reflect
changes in the baseline assumptions and key discharge scenarios that were absent from the
previous analyses. Two primary conclusions can be drawn from these efforts: (1) all conclusions
from the previously modeled discharge conditions remain the same, and (2) ammonia was
identified as a potential exceedance for both the MPWSP and the Variant Project when the Desal
Brine is discharged with a moderate flow of secondary effluent.
For the updated scenarios, three changes were made with respect to modeling of the ocean
discharge: (1) there are currently 130 open discharge ports, which is more than the 120 ports
used in the previous analysis; (2) for the MPWSP and Variant Project scenarios, the hauled waste
flow was added; and (3) for the Variant Project scenarios, a GWR Concentrate flow 0.94 mgd
was used instead of 0.73 mgd. In all cases, the impact of making these changes to the ocean
mixing was minor and resulted in slightly greater dilution of the ocean discharges and thus
slightly lower concentrations of constituents at the edge of the ZID. These changes were
minimal and do not alter the previous conclusions.
Results from the newly modeled scenarios have implications with respect to Ocean Plan
compliance. Previously, two types of exceedance were identified: (1) exceedance of PCBs for
discharges with a high fraction of Desal Brine flow, and (2) exceedance of several parameters
(ammonia, chlordane, DDT, PCBs, TCDD equivalents, and toxaphene) when discharging Desal
Brine and GWR Concentrate with little or no secondary effluent. In this most recent analysis, a
third type of exceedance was identifiedwhen the discharge contains both the Desal Brine and a
moderate secondary effluent flow there may be an exceedance of the Ocean Plan 6-month
median objective for ammonia. This type of exceedance was shown for both the MPWSP
(Scenario 2) and the Variant Projects (Scenarios 2 and 4) and is a result of the combination of
having high ammonia in the treated wastewater with the high salinity (i.e., higher density) of the
Desal Brine.
As previously shown, ammonia is not an issue when discharging secondary effluent and GWR
Concentrate without Desal Brine, or when the dense Desal Brine2 is discharged with sufficient
secondary effluent, such that the combined discharge results in a rising plume with relatively
2
Compared to the ambient seawater (33,000 to 34,000 mg/L of TDS), the Desal Brine is denser (~57,500 mg/L of
TDS) and when discharged on its own would sink, whereas the secondary effluent (~1,000 mg/L of TDS) and GWR
Concentrate (~5,000 mg/L) are relatively light and would rise when discharged. In the combined discharge, the
secondary effluent and GWR Concentrate would dilute the salinity of the desalination brine and thus reduce the
density. With sufficient dilution, the combined discharge would be less dense than the ambient ocean water,
resulting in a rising plume with more dilution in the ZID.
April 2015
high ocean mixing in the ZID. This potential Ocean Plan exceedance emerges when there is not
sufficient secondary effluent to dilute the Desal Brine, and thus the combined discharge is denser
than the ambient seawater. This negatively buoyant discharge sinks, resulting in relatively low
mixing in the ZID. Similarly, as previously shown, ammonia is not an issue when the Desal
Brine is discharged with a low secondary effluent flow, where even though there is relatively low
ocean mixing in the ZID, the ammonia concentration in the discharge is less because the
secondary effluent is a smaller fraction of the overall combined discharge. The worst-case
scenario occurs near the point where the Desal Brine is discharged with the highest flow of
secondary effluent that still results in a sinking plume. This secondary effluent flow ends up
being a moderate flow: approximately 9 mgd when combined with the Desal Brine from the
MPWSP or 5.3 mgd of Desal Brine in the case of the Variant Project.
It should be noted that ammonia was already identified as a potential exceedance (along with
several other constituents) when the Desal Brine is discharged with the GWR Concentrate with
little or no secondary effluent; however, as illustrated by the Variant Scenario 4, these
exceedances also apply when there is a moderate flow of secondary effluent (approximately 5.3
mgd).
April 2015
4 References!
FlowScience, 2015. Results of dilution analysis FSI 144082. Transmittal from Gang Zhao.
April 17, 2015 (see Appendix A)
State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency (SWRCB),
2012. California Ocean Plan: Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California.
Trussell Technologies, Inc (Trussell Tech), 2015a. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the
Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project. Technical Memorandum
prepared for MRWPCA and MPWMD. Feb.
Trussell Technologies, Inc (Trussell Tech), 2015b. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Project Variant. Technical Memorandum
prepared for MRWPCA. March.
10
April 2015
Appendix!A!!Updated!Ocean!Discharge!Modeling!Results!
FlowScience, 2015. Results of dilution analysis FSI 144082. Transmittal from Gang Zhao.
April 17, 2015!
11
Flow Science Incorporated

48 S. Chester Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91106
(626) 304-1134 FAX (626) 304-9427
T r a n s m it t a l L e t t e r
To:
Gordon Williams Ph.D., PE.

Trussell Technologies Inc.
Subject:
Results of dilution analysis

FSI 144082
From:
Gang Zhao Ph.D., PE.

Flow Science Inc.
Date:
April 17, 2015
Dear Dr. Williams,
Please find attached the Excel spreadsheet containing results of the latest round of dilution
analyses for effluent discharged through the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agencys ocean outfall. The method used in the Visual Plumes (VP) model is capable of
handling slightly negatively buoyant conditions and produces reasonable results. In addition, the
VP model results are conservative for the slightly negatively buoyant scenarios in that the VP
predicted dilution ratios are lower than those obtained from the semi-empirical method.
Therefore, the semi-empirical method was not used for all slightly negatively buoyant scenarios.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Gang Zhao Ph.D., PE.

Principal Engineer
Flow Science Incorporated
48 South Chester Ave., Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-304-1134
Fax: 626-304-9427
email: [email protected]
Pasadena, CA Philadelphia, PA Harrisonburg, VA

www.flowscience.com
MPWSP, Variant Project, and GWR Project Discharge Scenarios Update

From: Flow Science Inc. (FSI 144082)
Flow (mgd)
Scenario Description
RTP
Secondary
Effluent
Hauled
Waste
GWR
Concentrat
e
Desal
Brine
Ocean Condition
Total
Combined Combined
Discharge TDS (mg/L) Temp (C)
Flow (MGD)
Davidson Upwelling Oceanic
VP
Semi-EMP
Number of
Open
Discharge
Ports
Plume
diam.
(inch)
Min.
Dilution
Horiz.
Distance
from port
(ft)
130
130
130
130
130
84
90
100
192
22
23
25
54
17
18
20
41
79
89
172
22
25
51
16
18
36
Plume
diam.
(inch)
Min.
Dilution
Horiz.
Distance
from port
(ft)
37
17
12
84
34
32
16
10
82
37
35
18
11
MPWSP Scenarios (Large desal)

0
0.1
9
0.1
Desal Brine with Moderate WW flow
9.5
0.1
10
0.1
12
0.1
MPWSP Variant Scenarios (Small desal + AWT Facility RO Conc.)
Var.1 Desal Brine with no WW and no GWR flow
0
0.1
Var.2 Desal Brine with Moderate WW flow
5.8
0.1
6.2
0.1
6.7
0.1
Var.5 Desal Brine and GWR Conc. with no WW flow
0
0.1
M.1
M.2
M.3
M.4
M.5
13.98
13.98
13.98
13.98
13.98
14.08
23.08
23.58
24.08
26.08
58,101
35,254
34,523
33,823
31,290
11.7
14.9
15.0
15.1
15.5
0
0
0
0
0.94
8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99
8.99
9.09
14.89
15.29
15.79
10.03
58,029
35,353
34,457
33,401
53,135
10.0
14.9
15.1
15.2
10.9
Desal Brine with no WW flow
X
X
X
X
X
130
130
130
130
130
Var.6
Desal Brine and GWR Conc. with moderate WW flow
5.3
0.1
0.94
8.99
15.33
35,145
14.1
130
86
24
18
Var.7
5.6
0.1
0.94
8.99
15.63
34,491
14.2
130
99
28
20
Var.8
0.1
0.94
8.99
19.03
28,133
16.0
130
161
56
33
0
0.4
0.4
3
8
23.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
1.04
1.44
1.44
4.04
9.04
24.74
9,088
6,869
6,869
3,156
2,019
1,436
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
130
130
130
130
130
130
124
128
126
136
208
200
540
295
454
208
228
142
6
6
6
10
17
26
X
X
X
X
Variant (when no Brine and GWR Only)

GWR.1
GWR.2
GWR.3
GWR.4
GWR.5
GWR.6
Minimum wastewater flow (Oceanic/Upwelling)

Minimum wastewater flow (Davidson)
Minimum wastewater flow (Oceanic)
Low wastewater flow
Moderate Wastewater flow
Max flow under current port configuration
X
X
X
X
X
X
April 2015
Appendix!B!!Estimated!Concentrations!of!All!Ocean!Plan!
Constituents!
Table!A1!!MPWSP!complete!list!of!Ocean!Plan!constituents!at!the!edge!of!the!ZID!as!estimated!
concentration!and!as!a!percentage!of!the!Ocean!Plan!objective!a!
Constituent
Units
Ocean
Plan
Objective

of ZID
1
2
1
2

Arsenic
ug/L
8
Cadmium
ug/L
1
ug/L
2
Copper
ug/L
3
Lead
ug/L
2
Mercury
ug/L
0.04
Nickel
ug/L
5
Selenium
ug/L
15
Silver
ug/L
0.7
Zinc
ug/L
20
Cyanide
ug/L
1
Total Chlorine Residual d
ug/L
2
ug/L
600
ug/L
2,400
Acute Toxicity b
TUa
0.3
Chronic Toxicity b
TUc
1
ug/L
30
ug/L
1
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.009
Endrin
ug/L
0.002
ug/L
0.004
Radioactivity (Gross Beta) b
pci/L
Radioactivity (Gross Alpha) b

pci/L
Objectives for protection of human health non carcinogens

Acrolein
ug/L
220
Antimony
ug/L
1200
ug/L
4.4
ug/L
1200
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
570
Chromium (III)
ug/L
190000
ug/L
3500
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
5100
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
33000
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
ug/L
220
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4.0
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
4100
Fluoranthene
ug/L
15
ug/L
58
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
4.9
Thallium
ug/L
2
Toluene
ug/L
85000
Tributyltin
ug/L
0.0014
ug/L
540000
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.10
4.9
0.44
0.051
2.1
0.35
0.021
0.48
3.1
0.15
9.5
0.49
-19
24
4.6
0.23
0.058
2.2
0.18
0.013
0.32
1.5
0.16
8.9
0.36
-626
842
62%
44%
2.6%
69%
18%
53%
10%
20%
22%
47%
49%
3.2%
1.0%
58%
23%
2.9%
72%
8.8%
33%
6.3%
10%
23%
45%
36%
104%
35%
0.027
<0.0079
9.6E-06
1.6E-06
5.1E-05
1.2
<0.34
2.6E-04
2.1E-06
6.0E-04
0.09%
<0.8%
0.1%
0.08%
1.3%
3.9%
<34%
2.9%
0.1%
15%
<0.0020
0.91
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
5.9
<0.0020
6.3E-04
<0.0020
<7.9E-04
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
1.0E-04
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
<0.094
<0.050
<2.0E-05
<0.050
<0.086
0.45
<0.0086
<0.0086
<0.0086
2.9
<0.086
0.027
<0.086
<0.034
<0.0086
<0.0086
<0.0086
4.9E-05
<0.0086
<0.0086
<0.053
<0.032
<8.6E-04
<0.032
<0.01%
0.08%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<4.7%
<0.01%
<1.4%
<0.01%
<0.04%
0.04%
<0.2%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<0.01%
0.00%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<2.7%
<0.0%
<61%
<0.01%
<7.9E-04
<0.034
<0.8%
<34%
14
Constituent
Units
Ocean
Plan
Objective
Aldrin c
Benzene
Benzidine c
Beryllium
Chlordane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (azobenzene)
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
0.000022
5.9
0.000069
0.033
0.045
3.5
0.90
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017
18
0.0081
28
0.9
6.2
450
8.9
0.00004
2.6
0.16
130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36
April 2015

of ZID
1
2
1
2
<2.0E-05
<0.050
<2.0E-04
2.1E-06
<2.0E-04
0.086
<0.028
1.1E-05
<2.0E-04
7.9E-04
3.1E-05
0.050
<9.9E-06
<0.050
0.050
<2.0E-04
0.050
<0.050
5.0E-06
<7.9E-04
<2.0E-04
2.9E-04
4.8E-07
2.3E-08
3.1E-08
3.6E-09
<2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
1.7E-04
2.0E-04
<2.0E-04
6.8E-04
1.2E-04
6.0E-11
<0.050
<0.050
7.5E-05
<0.050
<0.050
<2.0E-04
<0.028
<8.6E-04
<0.032
<0.0086
0.0085
<0.0086
1.4
<0.022
1.8E-05
<0.0086
0.034
3.3E-05
0.051
<4.3E-04
<0.032
0.032
<0.0086
0.033
<0.032
1.1E-05
<0.034
<0.0086
0.0093
2.3E-07
1.0E-06
1.3E-06
1.5E-07
<0.0086
<0.0086
3.7E-04
0.0014
<0.0086
0.0012
6.7E-05
2.6E-09
<0.032
<0.032
1.6E-04
<0.032
<0.032
<0.0086
<0.022
<0.8%
<0.01%
<0.4%
2.5%
<3.1%
48%
<0.01%
<0.01%
18%
0.3%
<0.1%
<0.2%
5.5%
<0.01%
0.01%
<0.6%
13%
<0.03%
<0.1%
<0.01%
1.0%
0.1%
0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.05%
<0.01%
7.7%
609%
1.5%
<2.2%
<2.5%
35%
<0.2%
<0.5%
<0.07%
<0.08%
<0.5%
26%
<19%
39%
<2.4%
77%
<0.10%
0.03%
20%
0.3%
<5.3%
<0.1%
3.6%
<0.1%
<0.01%
<0.4%
27%
<1.3%
<5.4%
<0.01%
0.5%
5.1%
0.6%
<0.01%
<0.3%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.4%
<0.3%
14%
351%
67%
<1.4%
<1.6%
74%
<0.1%
<0.3%
<3.0%
<0.06%
<0.01%). Also, shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed
(red shading) the ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.
b
is not appropriate based on the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured for the secondary
effluent and those concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan objectives.
c
d
For total chlorine residual, any waste streams containing a free-chlorine residual would be dechlorinated prior to
discharge.
15
April 2015
Table!A2!!Variant!Project!list!of!predicted!concentrations!of!Ocean!Plan!constituents!at!the!edge!of!
the!ZID!as!a!concentration!and!as!a!percentage!of!the!Ocean!Plan!objective!a!
Constituent
Ocean
Units
Plan
Objective

8
Arsenic
ug/L
1
Cadmium
ug/L
2
ug/L
3
Copper
ug/L
2
Lead
ug/L
0.04
Mercury
ug/L
5
Nickel
ug/L
15
Selenium
ug/L
0.7
Silver
ug/L
20
Zinc
ug/L
1
Cyanide
ug/L
2
ug/L
600
Ammonia (as N); 6-mo median ug/L
2,400
Ammonia (as N); Daily Max
ug/L
0.3
Acute Toxicity b
TUa
1
Chronic Toxicity b
TUc
Phenolic Compounds (non30
ug/L
chlorinated)

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5.1
0.46
0.084
2.1
0.37
0.022
0.51
3.3
0.16
9.6
0.53
-29
37
4.6
0.23
0.083
2.4
0.18
0.014
0.45
1.6
0.18
9.4
0.36
-629
846
4.7
0.41
0.14
2.7
0.32
0.021
0.75
2.8
0.16
10.5
0.62
-968
1302
4.4
0.22
0.11
2.7
0.17
0.014
0.56
1.5
0.18
9.8
0.41
-985
1325
63%
46%
4.2%
70%
19%
56%
10%
22%
22%
48%
53%
-4.8%
1.5%
58%
23%
4.2%
81%
9.1%
35%
9.0%
10.5%
26%
47%
36%
-105%
35%
59%
41%
6.9%
91%
16%
54%
15%
19%
22%
53%
62%
161%
54%
55%
22%
5.3%
90%
8.6%
36%
11%
10%
25%
49%
41%
164%
55%
0.045
1.2
1.8
1.9
0.1%
4.0%
6.1%
6.2%
<0.34
8.3E-04
2.1E-06
0.0010
4.6
0.23
<0.11
0.0013
3.4E-06
0.0016
4.7
0.41
<0.33
0.0013
2.8E-06
0.0016
4.4
0.22
<1.3%
0.4%
0.08%
2.0%
63%
46%
<34%
9.2%
0.10%
26%
58%
23%
<11%
14%
0.2%
40%
59%
41%
<33%
14%
0.1%
41%
55%
22%
0.16
0.45
<0.072
<0.072
<0.0086
3.0
<0.12
0.028
<0.086
<0.034
<0.34
<0.22
<0.0086
4.9E-05
<0.0086
<0.040
0.057
<0.032
<8.6E-04
<0.032
0.24
0.80
<0.0071
<0.0071
<0.0027
5.3
<0.0086
0.042
<0.0076
<0.0035
<0.035
<0.031
<0.0027
5.8E-04
<5.1E-04
<0.0061
0.10
<0.045
<1.2E-04
<0.045
0.24
0.41
<0.062
<0.062
<0.0083
2.7
<0.10
0.043
<0.073
<0.029
<0.29
<0.20
<0.0083
2.9E-04
<0.0072
<0.035
0.059
<0.029
<7.5E-04
<0.029
<0.01%
0.08%
<0.06%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.03%
5.0%
<0.01%
<2.3%
<0.01%
0.07%
0.04%
<1.64%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<5.6%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.8%
2.8%
<0.01%
<62%
<0.01%
0.1%
0.07%
<0.2%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.8%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.1%
4.9%
<0.01%
<8.9%
<0.01%
0.1%
0.03%
<1.40%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.1%
<4.9%
<0.01%
0.05%
<0.01%
<0.7%
2.9%
<0.01%
<54%
<0.01%
0.044
<1.2E-04
<0.032
<0.34
0.067
<5.3E-05
<0.045
<0.011
0.069
<1.2E-04
<0.029
<0.28
1.6%
<21%
<0.9%
44%
<0.5%
67%
<0.8%
69%
<0.5%
1
<0.013
ug/L
0.009
3.5E-05
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.002
1.7E-06
Endrin
ug/L
0.004
7.8E-05
ug/L
5.1
pci/L
0.46
pci/L
Objectives for protection of human health non carcinogens
220
0.0058
Acrolein
ug/L
1200
0.96
Antimony
ug/L
4.4
<0.0027
ug/L
1200
<0.0027
ug/L
570
<3.2E-04
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
190000
6.3
Chromium (III)
ug/L
3500
<0.0045
ug/L
5100
0.0010
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
33000
<0.0032
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
<0.0013
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
220
<0.013
ug/L
4.0
<0.0084
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4100
<3.2E-04
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
15
1.1E-04
Fluoranthene
ug/L
58
<3.2E-04
ug/L
4.9
<0.0015
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
2
0.10
Thallium
ug/L
85000
<0.053
Toluene
ug/L
0.0014
<3.2E-05
Tributyltin
ug/L
540000
<0.053
ug/L
0.10
0.0016
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.000022
<4.5E-06
Aldrin c
ug/L
5.9
<0.053
Benzene
ug/L
0.000069
<0.013
Benzidine c
ug/L
16
Constituent
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether c
Chlordane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine c
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
a
April 2015
Ocean
Units
Plan
Objective

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3.4E-06
<0.0027
0.11
0.029
1.2E-05
0.0016
0.025
4.6E-05
0.053
<0.012
<0.053
0.053
0.0017
0.053
0.053
8.7E-06
<0.0013
<0.0027
9.2E-04
5.0E-07
3.8E-08
5.0E-08
5.8E-09
<0.0015
<3.2E-04
2.4E-04
2.2E-04
<0.0015
7.3E-04
1.2E-04
1.0E-10
<0.053
<0.053
8.0E-05
<0.053
<0.053
<0.0015
<0.029
0.033
0.045
3.5
0.90
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017
18
0.0081
28
0.9
6.2
450
8.9
0.00004
2.6
0.16
130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36
1.5E-06
<0.072
1.4
0.022
1.8E-05
0.042
0.67
3.9E-05
0.051
<0.33
<0.032
0.032
0.045
0.035
0.033
1.2E-05
<0.034
<0.072
0.025
2.3E-07
1.0E-06
1.3E-06
1.6E-07
<0.040
<0.0086
0.0017
0.0014
<0.040
0.0012
6.7E-05
2.7E-09
<0.032
<0.032
1.6E-04
<0.032
<0.032
<0.040
<0.022
0.0025
<0.0071
2.1
0.037
2.9E-05
0.065
1.0
2.1E-04
0.085
<0.020
<0.045
0.045
0.069
0.060
0.057
2.2E-05
<0.0015
<0.0071
0.038
4.1E-07
1.6E-06
2.1E-06
2.4E-07
<0.0037
<0.0027
9.3E-04
2.8E-04
<0.0061
0.0020
1.2E-04
4.1E-09
<0.045
<0.045
2.5E-04
<0.045
<0.045
<0.0061
<0.026
0.0012
<0.062
2.1
0.025
2.4E-05
0.066
1.0
1.2E-04
0.064
<0.27
<0.029
0.029
0.071
0.038
0.036
1.8E-05
<0.028
<0.062
0.038
2.0E-07
1.6E-06
2.1E-06
2.4E-07
<0.034
<0.0083
0.0018
0.0012
<0.035
0.0017
6.7E-05
4.2E-09
<0.029
<0.029
2.2E-04
<0.029
<0.029
<0.035
<0.020
0.01%
<6.0%
3.1%
3.3%
52%
0.02%
0.02%
27%
0.3%
<0.2%
5.9%
0.03%
0.01%
0.6%
22%
<0.05%
<1.7%
<0.01%
1.0%
0.2%
0.02%
<0.01%
<0.06%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.06%
<0.06%
8.3%
643%
2.6%
<2.3%
<2.6%
38%
<0.2%
<0.6%
<0.5%
<0.08%
<0.0%
39%
2.4%
77%
0.5%
0.5%
23%
0.3%
<0.1%
3.6%
0.7%
<0.0%
0.4%
31%
<1.3%
<45%
0.02%
0.5%
5.1%
0.6%
<0.01%
<1.6%
<0.01%
0.02%
0.4%
<1.6%
14%
351%
68%
<1.4%
<1.6%
74%
<0.1%
<0.3%
<14%
<0.06%
7.5%
<16%
60%
4.1%
125%
0.8%
0.8%
122%
0.5%
<0.2%
5.0%
1.1%
0.01%
0.6%
54%
<0.06%
<4.5%
0.03%
0.8%
7.8%
1.0%
<0.01%
<0.1%
<0.01%
0.01%
0.07%
<0.2%
22%
614%
104%
<2.0%
<2.3%
119%
<0.2%
<0.5%
<2.1%
<0.07%
3.7%
61%
2.8%
106%
0.8%
0.8%
70%
0.4%
<0.1%
3.3%
1.1%
<0.01%
0.4%
44%
<1.1%
<39%
0.03%
0.4%
8.0%
1.0%
<0.01%
<1.3%
<0.01%
0.02%
0.3%
<1.4%
19%
355%
107%
<1.3%
<1.5%
106%
<0.1%
<0.3%
<12%
<0.06%
<0.01%). Also, Shading indicates constituent is expected to be greater than 80 percent (orange shading) or exceed
(red shading) the ocean plan objective for that discharge scenario.
b
is not appropriate based on the nature of the constituent. These constituents were measured individually for the
secondary effluent and GWR concentrate, and these individual concentrations would comply with the Ocean Plan
objectives.
c
d
discharge.
17
April 2015
Table!A3!!GWR!Project!complete!list!of!predicted!concentrations!of!Ocean!Plan!constituents!at!the!
edge!of!the!ZID!for!updated!scenarios!
Constituent
Units

Arsenic
ug/L
Cadmium
ug/L
ug/L
Copper
ug/L
Lead
ug/L
Mercury
ug/L
Nickel
ug/L
Selenium
ug/L
Silver
ug/L
Zinc
ug/L
Cyanide
ug/L
Total Chlorine Residual c
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
Acute Toxicity a
TUa
Chronic Toxicity a
TUc
Phenolic Compounds (nonug/L
chlorinated)
Ocean
Plan
Objective
Estimated Concentration at Edge of ZID by Discharge Scenario

1
8
1
2
3
2
0.04
5
15
0.7
20
1
2
600
2,400
0.3
1
3.3
0.010
0.025
2.2
0.0066
0.0057
0.11
0.055
<0.17
8.3
0.060
295
398
3.0
0.011
0.046
2.2
0.0073
0.0059
0.12
0.071
<0.16
8.4
0.072
326
439
3.1
0.016
0.064
2.3
0.010
0.0062
0.17
0.10
<0.16
8.6
0.10
465
626
3.2
0.012
0.040
2.2
0.0078
0.0059
0.12
0.070
<0.17
8.4
0.073
346
466
3.2
0.0077
0.023
2.2
0.0051
0.0056
0.083
0.045
<0.17
8.3
0.047
230
309
30
0.56
0.62
0.88
0.66
0.44
<0.14
3.9E-04
6.4E-07
4.8E-04
<0.037
4.3E-04
7.1E-07
5.4E-04
<0.068
6.1E-04
1.0E-06
7.6E-04
<0.10
4.6E-04
7.5E-07
5.7E-04
<0.087
3.0E-04
5.0E-07
3.8E-04
0.073
0.0064
<0.028
<0.028
<0.0035
0.061
<0.047
0.013
<0.034
<0.014
<0.14
<0.089
<0.0035
<0.0034
<0.0034
<0.016
0.0056
<0.0035
<3.4E-04
<0.0035
0.081
0.0071
<0.0024
<0.0024
<9.2E-04
0.079
<0.0029
0.014
<0.0026
<0.0012
<0.012
<0.011
<9.2E-04
<2.6E-04
<1.7E-04
<0.0021
0.0062
<9.2E-04
<4.2E-05
<9.2E-04
0.12
0.010
<0.0071
<0.0071
<0.0017
0.11
<0.010
0.020
<0.0081
<0.0034
<0.034
<0.026
<0.0017
<8.1E-04
<7.0E-04
<0.0049
0.0089
<0.0017
<1.0E-04
<0.0017
0.086
0.0075
<0.017
<0.017
<0.0024
0.079
<0.027
0.015
<0.019
<0.0079
<0.079
<0.053
<0.0024
<0.002
<0.0019
<0.010
0.0066
<0.0024
<2.1E-04
<0.0024
0.057
0.0050
<0.017
<0.017
<0.0022
0.050
<0.028
0.010
<0.020
<0.0081
<0.081
<0.053
<0.0022
<0.002
<0.0020
<0.0095
0.0044
<0.0022
<2.0E-04
<0.0022
0.021
<5.0E-05
<0.0035
<0.13
0.0047
<0.028
0.023
<1.8E-05
<9.2E-04
<0.0036
8.4E-04
<0.0024
0.033
<3.0E-05
<0.0017
<0.023
0.0018
<0.0071
0.024
<3.7E-05
<0.0024
<0.073
0.0030
<0.017
0.016
<3.2E-05
<0.0022
<0.078
0.0029
<0.017
1
ug/L
0.009
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.002
Endrin
ug/L
0.004
ug/L
Radioactivity (Gross Beta) a

pci/L
Radioactivity (Gross Alpha) a

pci/L
Objectives for protection of human health non-carcinogens
220
Acrolein
ug/L
1200
Antimony
ug/L
4.4
ug/L
1200
ug/L
570
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
190000
Chromium (III)
ug/L
3500
ug/L
5100
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
33000
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
220
ug/L
4.0
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4100
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
15
Fluoranthene
ug/L
58
ug/L
4.9
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
2
Thallium
ug/L
85000
Toluene
ug/L
0.0014
Tributyltin
ug/L
540000
ug/L
0.10
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.000022
Aldrin b
ug/L
5.9
Benzene
ug/L
0.000069
Benzidine b
ug/L
0.033
Beryllium
ug/L
0.045
ug/L
18
April 2015
Constituent
Units
Ocean
Plan
Objective
Chlordane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine b
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Halomethanes
Heptachlor b
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
3.5
0.90
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017
18
0.0081
28
0.9
6.2
450
8.9
0.00004
2.6
0.16
130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36
0.63
0.0041
6.0E-06
0.020
0.31
1.7E-05
0.013
<0.13
<0.0035
0.0035
0.021
0.0052
0.0046
4.3E-06
<0.013
<0.028
0.012
<7.0E-05
4.8E-07
6.3E-07
7.3E-08
<0.016
<0.0035
6.9E-04
5.2E-04
<0.016
4.3E-04
5.5E-06
1.2E-09
<0.0035
<0.0035
5.8E-05
<0.0035
<0.0035
<0.016
<0.0035
0.70
0.0045
6.6E-06
0.022
0.35
6.2E-05
0.014
<0.0067
<9.2E-04
9.2E-04
0.023
0.0058
0.0050
5.9E-06
<5.2E-04
<0.0024
0.013
<1.8E-05
5.3E-07
7.0E-07
8.1E-08
<0.0012
<9.2E-04
2.7E-04
4.5E-05
<0.0021
4.7E-04
6.1E-06
1.4E-09
<9.2E-04
<9.2E-04
6.4E-05
<9.2E-04
<9.2E-04
<0.0021
<9.2E-04
1.0
0.0064
9.4E-06
0.031
0.50
8.2E-05
0.020
<0.027
<0.0017
0.0017
0.033
0.0082
0.0072
8.2E-06
<0.0026
<0.0071
0.018
<3.4E-05
7.5E-07
1.0E-06
1.2E-07
<0.0038
<0.0017
4.4E-04
1.3E-04
<0.0049
6.8E-04
8.7E-06
2.0E-09
<0.0017
<0.0017
9.1E-05
<0.0017
<0.0017
<0.0049
<0.0017
0.74
0.0048
7.0E-06
0.023
0.37
4.5E-05
0.015
<0.072
<0.0024
0.0024
0.025
0.0061
0.0053
5.7E-06
<0.0074
<0.017
0.014
<4.8E-05
5.6E-07
7.4E-07
8.6E-08
<0.0090
<0.0024
5.2E-04
3.0E-04
<0.010
5.0E-04
6.5E-06
1.5E-09
<0.0024
<0.0024
6.7E-05
<0.0024
<0.0024
<0.010
<0.0024
0.49
0.0032
4.6E-06
0.015
0.24
2.1E-05
0.010
<0.075
<0.0022
0.0022
0.017
0.0041
0.0035
3.5E-06
<0.0079
<0.017
0.0090
<4.4E-05
3.7E-07
4.9E-07
5.7E-08
<0.0092
<0.0022
4.5E-04
3.1E-04
<0.0095
3.3E-04
4.3E-06
9.7E-10
<0.0022
<0.0022
4.5E-05
<0.0022
<0.0022
<0.0095
<0.0022
is not appropriate based on the nature of these constituents. These constituents were measured individually for the
objectives.
b
c
discharge.
19
April 2015
Table!A4!!GWR!Project!complete!list!of!predicted!concentrations!of!Ocean!Plan!constituents!at!the!
edge!of!the!ZID!as!a!percentage!of!the!Ocean!Plan!objective!for!updated!scenarios!a!
Constituent
Units
Ocean
Plan
Objective

8
Arsenic
ug/L
1
Cadmium
ug/L
2
ug/L
3
Copper
ug/L
2
Lead
ug/L
0.04
Mercury
ug/L
5
Nickel
ug/L
15
Selenium
ug/L
0.7
Silver
ug/L
20
Zinc
ug/L
1
Cyanide
ug/L
2
ug/L
600
ug/L
2,400
ug/L
0.3
Acute Toxicity b
TUa
1
Chronic Toxicity b
TUc
30
ug/L
1
ug/L
0.009
Endosulfan
ug/L
0.002
Endrin
ug/L
0.004
ug/L

pci/L

pci/L
Objectives for protection of human health non-carcinogens
220
Acrolein
ug/L
1200
Antimony
ug/L
4.4
ug/L
1200
ug/L
570
Chlorobenzene
ug/L
190000
Chromium (III)
ug/L
3500
ug/L
5100
Dichlorobenzenes
ug/L
33000
Diethyl phthalate
ug/L
820000
Dimethyl phthalate
ug/L
220
ug/L
4.0
2,4-Dinitrophenol
ug/L
4100
Ethylbenzene
ug/L
15
Fluoranthene
ug/L
58
ug/L
4.9
Nitrobenzene
ug/L
2
Thallium
ug/L
85000
Toluene
ug/L
0.0014
Tributyltin
ug/L
540000
ug/L
0.10
Acrylonitrile
ug/L
0.000022
Aldrin c
ug/L
5.9
Benzene
ug/L
0.000069
Benzidine c
ug/L
0.033
Beryllium
ug/L
0.045
ug/L
3.5
ug/L

1
41%
1.0%
1.3%
73%
0.3%
14%
2.1%
0.4%
<24%
42%
6.0%
49%
17%
38%
1.1%
2.3%
74%
0.4%
15%
2.4%
0.5%
<23%
42%
7.2%
54%
18%
38%
1.6%
3.2%
78%
0.5%
16%
3.3%
1%
<23%
43%
10%
78%
26%
40%
1.2%
2.0%
75%
0.4%
15%
2.5%
0.5%
<24%
42%
7.3%
58%
19%
40%
0.8%
1.1%
72%
0.3%
14%
1.7%
0.3%
<24%
41%
4.7%
38%
13%
1.9%
<14%
4.3%
0.03%
12%
2.1%
<3.7%
4.8%
0.04%
13%
2.9%
<6.8%
6.8%
0.05%
19%
2.2%
<9.6%
5.1%
0.04%
14%
1.5%
<8.7%
3.4%
0.02%
9%
0.03%
<0.01%
<0.6%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.06%
<2.2%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.01%
<0.3%
0.3%
<0.01%
<24%
<0.01%
0.04%
<0.01%
<0.05%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.3%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.04%
0.3%
<0.01%
<3.0%
<0.01%
0.05%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<0.7%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.1%
0.4%
<0.01%
<7.3%
<0.01%
0.04%
<0.01%
<0.4%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<1.3%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.2%
0.3%
<0.01%
<15%
<0.01%
0.03%
<0.01%
<0.4%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<1.3%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.2%
0.2%
<0.01%
<15%
<0.01%
21%
<0.06%
0.4%
<63%
18%
23%
<0.02%
2.5%
<5.4%
20%
33%
<0.03%
3.3%
<16%
28%
24%
<0.04%
1.7%
<37%
21%
16%
<0.04%
0.7%
<38%
14%
20
April 2015
Constituent
Units
Ocean
Plan
Objective
Chlordane
Chloroform
DDT
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine c
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane
1,3-dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Halomethanes
Heptachlor c
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
PAHs
PCBs
TCDD Equivalents
Tetrachloroethylene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
0.90
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017
18
0.0081
28
0.9
6.2
450
8.9
0.00004
2.6
0.16
130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3
0.38
2.5
0.0088
0.000019
3.9E-09
2.3
2.0
2.1E-04
27
9.4
0.29
36
0.5%
26%
0.2%
0.2%
10%
0.07%
<0.01%
0.4%
0.3%
<0.01%
0.05%
11%
<0.5%
<18%
<0.01%
2.4%
0.3%
<0.01%
<0.6%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.1%
<0.6%
4.9%
29%
32%
<0.2%
<0.2%
27%
<0.01%
<0.04%
<5.4%
<0.01%
0.5%
29%
0.3%
0.3%
36%
0.08%
<0.01%
0.1%
0.4%
<0.01%
0.06%
15%
<0.02%
<1.5%
<0.01%
<37%
2.6%
0.3%
<0.01%
<0.05%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.01%
<0.08%
5.4%
32%
35%
<0.04%
<0.05%
30%
<0.01%
<0.01%
<0.7%
<0.01%
0.7%
41%
0.4%
0.4%
49%
0.1%
<0.01%
0.2%
0.5%
<0.01%
0.08%
21%
<0.10%
<4.5%
0.01%
<68%
3.8%
0.5%
<0.01%
<0.2%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.03%
<0.2%
7.7%
46%
50%
<0.07%
<0.08%
43%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<1.7%
<0.01%
0.5%
30%
0.3%
0.3%
26%
0.08%
<0.01%
0.3%
0.4%
<0.01%
0.06%
14%
<0.3%
<10%
0.01%
2.8%
0.4%
<0.01%
<0.4%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.08%
<0.4%
5.7%
34%
38%
<0.1%
<0.1%
32%
<0.01%
<0.03%
<3.3%
<0.01%
0.4%
20%
0.2%
0.2%
12%
0.06%
<0.01%
0.2%
0.3%
<0.01%
0.04%
8.9%
<0.3%
<11%
<0.01%
1.9%
0.2%
<0.01%
<0.4%
<0.01%
<0.01%
0.08%
<0.4%
3.8%
23%
25%
<0.09%
<0.1%
21%
<0.01%
<0.02%
<3.3%
<0.01%
<0.01%).
b
is not appropriate based on the nature of these constituents. These constituents were measured individually for the
objectives.
c
d
discharge.
21

DEIR Appendix U

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEIR Appendix U

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEIR Appendix U

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix U

Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment for the Pure Water

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project

Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment

1939 Harrison Street, Suite 600

Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment

Ocean Plan Compliance

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

1.1 Treatment through the RTP and AWT Facility

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

1.2 California Ocean Plan

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

1.3 Objective of Technical Memorandum

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

2 Methodology for Ocean Plan Compliance

2.1 Methodology for Determination of Discharge Water Quality

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

2.1.1 Future Secondary Effluent

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

Historical Priority Pollutant data collected annually by MRWPCA (2004-2014)

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

2.1.2 GWR RO Concentrate

2.1.3 Hauled Brine

2.1.4 Combined Ocean Discharge Concentrations

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

2.2 Ocean Modeling and Ocean Plan Compliance Analysis

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

4.0 mgd of highly-purified recycled water (corresponds to treating 5.49 mgd of

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

3 Ocean Plan Compliance Results

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

Objectives for protection of human health - carcinogens

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

3.2 Ocean Modeling Results

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

Trussell Technologies, Inc. | Pasadena | San Diego | Oakland

Ocean Plan Compliance

3.3 Ocean Plan Compliance Results

Objectives for protection of marine aquatic life