Appendix T

MRWPCA GWR Discharge Dilution Analysis

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project

Draft EIR

April 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Pure Water Monterey GWR Project

Draft EIR

April 2015
Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc.

Flow Science Incorporated

48 S. Chester Ave., Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91106
(626) 304-1134 FAX (626) 304-9427

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

DATE:

November 10, 2014

TO:

Robert Holden
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA)

FROM:

Gang Zhao, Ph.D., P.E., Aaron Mead, P.E., E. John List, Ph.D., P.E.

SUBJECT:

MRWPCA GWR Discharge Dilution Analysis

FSI 144082

1. Introduction

As part of the preparation process for the Monterey Peninsula Groundwater

Replenishment Project (GWR Project), Flow Science Incorporated (Flow Science) was
retained by Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) to analyze
characteristics of the plume resulting from the discharge of effluent (comprised of
secondary effluent from the Regional Treatment Plant (RTP), truck hauled brine, and
brine concentrate produced by the Advanced Water Treatment Facility (AWTF) for the
proposed Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR Project))
through the existing MRWPCA ocean outfall.
In October 2014, Flow Science performed a dilution analysis of the proposed GWR
Project effluent for six (6) selected discharge scenarios, as summarized in Table 1.
These scenarios were selected based on the results of a dilution analysis for fourteen (14)
prescreening scenarios, as listed in Appendix C. Scenarios in Appendix C were selected
to cover a wide range of discharge conditions, and to provide preliminary knowledge of
the various factors affecting dilution of the effluent. For each scenario in Table 1,
temperature of the combined flow was assumed to be 20 C, and effluent dilution was
analyzed for three seasonal conditions: Davidson (January), Upwelling (July) and
Oceanic (September). Zero ocean current was used for all scenarios consistent with the
California Ocean Plan (State Water Resources Control Board, SWRCB, 2012).

Pasadena, CA Philadelphia, PA Harrisonburg, VA

www.flowscience.com

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Table 1 Diffuser scenarios modeled

Flow Assumptions (mgd)

Scenario
Wastewater

TDS Assumptions (mg/L)

Hauled GWR Total

Hauled GWR
Wastewater
Combined
Brine Brine Flow
Brine brine

0.2

0.1

0.94

1.24

1100

40,000 5,800

7800

0.4

0.1

0.94

1.44

1100

40,000 5,800

6869

0.6

0.1

0.94

1.64

1100

40,000 5,800

6166

0.8

0.1

0.94

1.84

1100

40,000 5,800

5615

1.0

0.1

0.94

2.04

1100

40,000 5,800

5173

1.2

0.1

0.94

2.24

1100

40,000 5,800

4809

mgd = million gallons per day, mg/L = milligrams per liter, TDS = total dissolved solids.

This Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizes the analysis Flow Science completed for
the scenarios presented in Table 1 and describes the input data, methods and results of
Flow Sciences analysis.
2. Analysis Input Data
Diffuser Configuration
The existing MRWPCA diffuser has 172 ports. Half of the ports discharge horizontally
from one side of the diffuser and half discharge horizontally from the other side of the
diffuser in an alternating pattern. Since Visual Plumes, the model used to analyze
effluent dilution in this analysis, does not have the capability to model ports on
alternating sides of a diffuser, all ports were modeled to be on one side of the diffuser.
This assumption leads to conservative model results because the plumes from individual
ports overlap more quickly under modeled conditions than in reality, and so modeled
effluent dilutions are somewhat lower than would be reflected in reality.
According to MRWPCA, the fifty-two (52) ports nearest to the shore (i.e., the shallowest
ports) are currently closed. In this analysis, Flow Science calculated dilution of effluent
discharged through the 120 open ports for Scenarios 1 through 6. A typical section of the
current diffuser is shown in Figure 1, although the actual cross-sectional profile of the
pipe ballast may have changed over time. The ports are approximately 6 inches above

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

the rock bedding of the diffuser pipeline, and drawings 1 (see Figure 1) indicate that they
are located approximately 3.9 feet above the seafloor 2. The gravel bedding dimensions
are nominal, as shown in Figure 1, and therefore, the port height above the seafloor is not
known with high accuracy. Momentum and buoyancy of the effluent are the key factors
in determining the dilution within the zone of initial dilution (ZID). Toward the end of
the ZID, the plume slows down and mixing is not as strong as at the beginning of the
ZID. Therefore, the dilution results are not likely to change by much if the port height is
not precisely known and, considering the overall uncertainty in the analysis, it is not
critical to determine the diffuser port height with high accuracy. In this analysis, it was
assumed that effluent plumes do not interact with the ballast, which is supported by the
plume dimensions computed. Details of the current diffuser configuration are
summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Current diffuser configuration.

Parameter

Value

Diffuser length

1368 feet (417 m)

Depth of diffuser ports

95 to 109 feet below MSL

Number of open ports

120

Port spacing

8 feet (2.44 m)

Port diameter

2 inches (0.051 m)

Port exit condition

Tideflex Series 35 4-inch duckbill valves

Port vertical angle

0 (horizontal)

Port elevation above sea floor

3.9 feet (1.19 m)

m = meters, MSL = mean sea level

Section F, Drawing P-0.03, Contract Documents Volume 1 of 1: Ocean Outfall Contract No. 2.1, January
1982 by Engineering Science for MRWPCA.
2
The 3.9 feet (ft) above seafloor used in this analysis is slightly higher than the 3.5 ft used in previous
analyses for the desalination brine because the thickness of the pipe wall (about 5 inches) is included. All
effluent plumes in this analysis are positively buoyant, and therefore, this change has no impact on the
results of this analysis.

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Figure 1. Typical diffuser section (currently in place).

The 120 ports that are currently open are fitted with Tideflex duckbill check valves, as
shown in Figure 2. The shape of the duckbill valve opening is elliptic and the area of
the opening depends on the discharge flow rate. The valve opening area in this analysis
was determined from an effective open area curve provided by Tideflex Technologies
(included as Appendix A). Although the ports were modeled as round openings with the
same opening area as the duckbill valves, because of the oblateness of the actual port
opening, the actual dilution will be slightly higher than the dilution computed assuming
circular ports. This is because the perimeter of ellipse, which is where the entrainment of
diluting water occurs, is larger than that of a circle having the same area.

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Figure 2. Typical duckbill valve detail (shown closed, i.e., with no flow).
Discharge Characteristics
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and temperature data for the proposed GWR Project brine
concentrate, hauled brine and the MRWPCA wastewater have been compiled and
provided by Trussell Technologies, Inc. (Trussell Tech). TDS is a measure of water
salinity, and salinity and temperature are used to calculate the density of the effluent and
ambient ocean water, which are important parameters in dilution analyses.
Discharge rate, temperature, and TDS data, provided by Trussell Tech and presented in
Table 3, were used in the analysis for all three seasonal conditions. For the combined
proposed GWR Project brine concentrate, trucked brine, and wastewater flow scenarios,
the concentrate was assumed to be fully mixed with the wastewater. Thus, the
temperature and TDS of the combined flow were calculated as the flow-weighted average
temperature and salinity of the brine and wastewater.
All scenarios summarized in Table 3 were analyzed for zero ocean current velocity
conditions, which represent worst-case conditions since any ocean current only increases
dilution. Ocean currents increase the amount of dilution that occurs because they
increase the flow of ambient water past the diffuser (i.e., increase the amount of ambient
water available for mixing with the discharge). Although ocean currents increase effluent

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

dilution, the California Ocean Plan (State Water Resources Control Board, SWRCB,
2012) requires that the no-current condition should be used in initial dilution calculations.
Table 3 Summary of input for analyzed scenarios.
Number Effective
Combined Combined Combined
of
Port
Scenario
Flow
TDS
Temp.
Diffuser
Diameter
o
(mgd)
(mg/L)
( C)
Ports
(inches)
1

1.24

7800

20

120

0.93

1.44

6869

20

120

0.97

1.64

6166

20

120

1.01

1.84

5615

20

120

1.05

2.04

5173

20

120

1.09

2.24

4809

20

120

1.12

Receiving Water Profiles

Representative ocean receiving water profile data (temperature and salinity) for the three
months corresponding to the selected seasonal conditions (July, January, and September)
used in a previous dilution study (Flow Science, 2014) for the proposed Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination Plant were also used in this analysis.
Receiving water profile data were collected by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Institute (MBARI) at station C1 at the head of Monterey Canyon, approximately five
miles northwest of the MRWPCA wastewater ocean outfall (see Figure 3). This location
has been occupied since 1988 by MBARI. Monthly conductivity, temperature, and depth
(CTD) profiles have been collected since 2002. The proximity of the location to the
MRWPCA ocean outfall and the long data record make this the most appropriate and
useful data set to characterize the ambient conditions for the brine discharge analysis.
Vertical profiles of temperature and salinity were analyzed for the upper 50 meters of the
water column for the years 2002-2012, and a single representative profile was selected
for each of the three ocean seasons. The appropriate profiles were selected based on
which were most complete, i.e., which profiles had data for the entire water column (in
some cases profiles did not extend over the entire depth of the water column), and to
ensure that the profiles represented typical conditions of the seasonal ocean profiles. For
the July model run, temperature and salinity profiles from 2011 were selected. For the
September model run, profiles from 2004 were selected. For the January model runs, a
temperature profile from 2004 and a salinity profile from 2011 were selected. Profile
data are shown in tabular form in Appendix B. Maximum and minimum values for each
profile are shown in Table 4.

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Outfall

Figure 3. Location map, MBARI ocean monitoring stations and MRWPCA outfall.

Table 4 Maximum and minimum ocean profile data.

Parameter

Season

Salinity (ppt)

Temperature (C )

Minimum

Maximum

Upwelling (July)

33.7

33.9

Davidson (January)

33.2

33.5

Oceanic (September)

33.5

33.6

Upwelling (July)

10.0

13.0

Davidson (January)

10.7

12.7

Oceanic (September)

10.6

15.8

Source: ESA (2013); Appendix B.

Receiving water flow conditions

As detailed in Figure 1, the existing diffuser ports are located just above the mid-point of
the outfall pipe (i.e., below the crown of the outfall pipe), about 6 inches above the top of
the ballast used to anchor the diffuser to the seafloor. Because the outfall rises above the

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

seafloor, it will influence the patterns of currents (receiving water flow velocity) at the
ports, and the current velocity at each individual port will be a complex function of the
local geometry. Local field data collection would be required to characterize the actual
current conditions at the diffuser ports, which was beyond the scope and budget of this
analysis. To simplify the analysis, effluent dilution was analyzed for a uniform 0.0 foot
per second (fps) current, which amounts to a worst case, stagnant (no current) receiving
water condition. Stagnant conditions are typically used as the basis for developing
NPDES permits, and the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2012) requires the no-current
condition be used in initial dilution calculations.

3. Plume Analysis Method

The UM3 modelpart of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Visual
Plumes diffuser modeling packagewas used to simulate the discharge of GWR Project
effluent and wastewater from the existing MRWPCA ocean diffuser. Visual Plumes is a
mixing zone computer model developed from a joint effort led by US EPA. Visual
Plumes can simulate both single and merging submerged plumes, and stratified ambient
flow can be specified by the user. Visual Plumes can be used to compute the plume
dilution, trajectory, diameter, and other plume variables (US EPA, 2003).
The UM3 model is based on the projected area entrainment hypothesis, which assumes
ambient fluid is entrained into the plume through areas projected in directions along the
plume centerline and perpendicular to the centerline (US EPA, 1994). In addition, shear
entrainment is included. The plume envelope is assumed to be in steady state, and as a
plume element moves through the envelope, the element radius changes in response to
velocity convergence or divergence, and entrainment of ambient fluid. Conservation
equations of mass, momentum and energy are used to calculate plume mass and
concentrations.
The actual depth of the diffuser ports varies between 95 and 109 feet below mean sea
level (MSL) since the diffuser is quite long and is situated on a sloping portion of the
ocean floor. However, since Visual Plumes cannot model a sloping diffuser, an average
depth of 104 feet below MSL was used for the 120-port scenarios (the deepest 120 ports
on the diffuser are assumed to discharge in this case, thereby increasing the average port
depth). Modeled ocean conditions are summarized in Table 5.
Visual Plumes assumes circular discharge ports, so the actual elliptical discharge area
was calculated for each port (Appendix A) and then converted to an effective circular
discharge diameter for use in Visual Plumes.

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Table 5 Visual Plumes modeled seasonal ocean conditions.

Depth (m)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38

Upwelling (July)
Temp.
Salinity
o
( C)
(ppt)
12.98
33.78
12.87
33.77
12.64
33.74
11.97
33.71
11.61
33.70
11.34
33.70
11.10
33.73
10.84
33.75
10.51
33.78
10.38
33.79
10.38
33.80
10.38
33.80
10.38
33.82
10.38
33.82
10.38
33.84
10.38
33.84
10.37
33.84
10.31
33.84
10.30
33.84
10.30
33.84

Davidson (January)
Temp.
Salinity
o
( C)
(ppt)
12.65
33.20
12.65
33.22
12.65
33.22
12.65
33.23
12.74
33.24
12.57
33.26
12.50
33.28
12.42
33.30
12.33
33.30
12.24
33.30
12.22
33.28
12.07
33.30
12.05
33.30
11.90
33.30
11.81
33.32
11.71
33.34
11.71
33.37
11.63
33.39
11.63
33.42
11.54
33.43

Oceanic (September)
Temp.
Salinity
o
( C)
(ppt)
15.75
33.46
15.75
33.46
15.75
33.46
15.53
33.46
14.46
33.46
13.81
33.46
13.17
33.46
12.27
33.46
11.83
33.46
11.52
33.46
11.19
33.46
11.06
33.46
11.22
33.49
11.39
33.50
11.39
33.50
11.31
33.50
11.23
33.50
11.22
33.50
11.05
33.50
10.97
33.50

Source: Interpolated from ESA | Water (2013) ocean profile data, Appendix B.

The UM3 model was used to calculate the size of the plume and dilution of the
discharged effluent within the ZID. The ZID is defined as the zone immediately adjacent
to a discharge where momentum and buoyancy-driven mixing produces rapid dilution of
the discharge. For a positively buoyant (rising) effluent plume, the ZID ends at the point
where the effluent plume reaches the water surface or attains a depth level where the
density of the diluted effluent plume becomes the same as the density of ambient water
(i.e., the trap level). Typically, within the ZID, which is limited in size, constituent
concentrations are permitted to exceed water quality standards. A discharge is generally
required to meet the relevant water quality standards at the edge of the ZID.
Analysis of the buoyant (rising) plume within and beyond the trap level would require
additional analysis methods. In the analysis presented here the spreading of the effluent
within and beyond the trap level and the subsequent additional dilution that would ensue,
has not been analyzed. Flow Science recommends that the computed dilution at the trap
level, (i.e., at the end of the ZID), be used as the basis for any NPDES permitting
activities and to analyze impacts.

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

4. Dilution Results
Several key results for the effluent plumes are reported at the edge of the ZID. As noted
above, the ZID is defined as the zone immediately adjacent to a discharge where
momentum and buoyancy-driven mixing produces rapid dilution of the discharge.
Results for positively buoyant plumes presented in this Technical Memorandum were
taken at the point where the plumes just reached the trap level, which is the depth level
where the density of the diluted plume becomes the same as ambient seawater.
Horizontal spreading of plumes at their trap levels was not included in this analysis.
Results from each scenario generally include the following quantities:

the minimum dilution of the plume at the point at which the plume reaches the
trap level or sea surface;
an estimate of the size of the plume (diameter) at the trap level or sea surface (i.e.,
at the edge of the ZID);
the horizontal distance from the diffuser port to the point at which the plume
reaches the trap level or sea surface;
the height of the trap level above diffuser ports.

Figure 4 shows a sample schematic graphic of the trajectory of a positively buoyant

plume from a horizontal discharge drawn approximately to scale, and the analysis results
described in the list above are illustrated. As the effluent travels away from the discharge
port, it entrains ambient seawater, which increases the diameter of the plume and
decreases the effluent concentration.
Table 6 presents analysis results for the six (6) modeled scenarios for the selected three
seasonal conditions. Effluent plumes are positively buoyant for all analyzed scenarios,
and all plumes reach trap levels below sea surface. The calculated minimum dilution
value is 218 for all scenarios under all three seasonal conditions.
Figure 5 illustrates the trajectory and shape of the buoyant plumes just reaching the trap
level, as computed from Visual Plumes for Scenario 4. Plumes computed for other
scenarios have similar trajectories and shape as shown in the figure.

10

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Horizontal Distance from the Port

Plume Diameter

Trap Level

Figure 4. Sample graphic showing the trajectory of a rising plume.

11

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Table 6 Analysis results.

Davidson (Jan.)
Upwelling (July)
Oceanic (Sept.)
Total Combined Number
Horiz. Height
Horiz. Height
Horiz. Height
Scenario Flow
TDS
of Open Plume Minimum Distance above Plume Minimum Distance above Plume Minimum Distance above
Diam.
Diam.
(MGD) (mg/L)
Ports Diam. Dilution
from
Port
Dilution
from
Port
Dilution
from
Port
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
Port (ft)
(ft)
Port (ft)
(ft)
Port (ft)
(ft)
1

1.24

7800

120

218

26

13

541

49

11

474

42

1.44

6869

120

11

285

34

13

512

50

11

439

43

1.64

6166

120

11

274

35

13

483

50

11

418

43

1.84

5615

120

11

263

35

13

453

50

11

396

44

2.04

5173

120

11

252

35

13

440

51

11

373

44

2.24

4809

120

11

242

36

14

426

52

11

362

45

Analysis results are at plume trap levels.

12

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Figure 5. Plume computed from VP for Scenario 4.

5. References
Flow Science (2014). Draft Technical Memorandum: MRWPCA Brine Discharge
Diffuser Analysis. Submitted to Environmental Science Associates (ESA), August
29, 2014.
State Water Resources Control Board (2012). California Ocean Plan, Water Quality
Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California.
US EPA (1994). Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges (3rd edition). EPA/600/R94/086, June, 1994.
US EPA (2003). Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges (4th edition). EPA/600/R03/025, March, 2003.

13

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

APPENDIX A DUCKBILL VALVE,

EFFECTIVE OPEN AREA

A-1

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Chart provided by Tideflex Technologies.

A-2

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

APPENDIX B AMBIENT OCEAN PROFILE DATA

B-1

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Table B1- Ambient ocean profile data, MBARI station C1

(Source: ESA)
Upwelling (July)
2011 Profile
2011 Profile
S (ppt)
33.78
33.76
33.78
33.78
33.76
33.74
33.72
33.74
33.72
33.70
33.70
33.70
33.70
33.70
33.72
33.74
33.74
33.74
33.76
33.78
33.78
33.78
33.80
33.80
33.80
33.80
33.80
33.82
33.82
33.82
33.82
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84
33.84

Z (m)
-0.93
-1.97
-1.98
-3.03
-4.06
-4.05
-4.04
-5.10
-5.09
-6.13
-7.17
-8.22
-9.27
-10.32
-11.37
-12.43
-13.48
-14.52
-14.53
-15.59
-16.64
-17.69
-18.74
-19.79
-20.84
-21.89
-22.93
-23.99
-25.04
-26.08
-27.13
-28.19
-29.24
-30.28
-31.33
-32.38
-33.42
-34.47
-35.52
-36.57
-37.61
-38.66
-39.71
-40.75
-41.80
-42.85
-43.90
-44.94

T (oC)
12.98
12.91
12.84
12.77
12.77
12.70
12.63
12.56
12.35
12.28
12.21
12.14
12.07
12.00
11.93
11.86
11.79
11.72
11.65
11.58
11.51
11.44
11.36
11.29
11.29
11.22
11.15
11.08
11.08
11.01
10.94
10.87
10.80
10.73
10.66
10.59
10.52
10.45
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38

Z (m)
-0.59
-1.63
-2.68
-2.68
-3.73
-3.73
-4.78
-4.78
-4.80
-4.80
-4.80
-4.81
-5.85
-5.86
-5.86
-6.91
-6.91
-6.92
-7.97
-7.97
-9.02
-9.02
-10.07
-10.07
-11.11
-11.12
-11.12
-11.13
-12.17
-13.22
-13.22
-13.22
-14.27
-15.32
-15.32
-15.33
-15.33
-16.38
-17.42
-18.46
-19.51
-20.55
-21.59
-22.63
-23.67
-24.71
-25.76
-26.80

Transition-Oceanic (Sept)
2004.2 Profile
2004.1 Profile
S (ppt)
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.50
33.54
33.54
33.54
33.54
33.54
33.57
33.57

Z (m)
-3.30
-4.29
-5.28
-6.28
-7.27
-8.27
-9.26
-10.25
-11.25
-12.24
-13.23
-14.23
-15.22
-16.22
-17.21
-18.20
-19.20
-20.19
-21.18
-22.18
-23.17
-24.16
-25.16
-26.15
-27.14
-28.14
-29.13
-30.12
-31.12
-32.11
-33.11
-34.10
-35.09
-36.09
-37.08
-38.07
-39.07
-40.06
-41.06
-42.05
-43.04
-44.03
-45.03
-46.02
-47.01
-48.01
-49.00
-49.99

T (oC)
15.83
15.66
15.66
15.75
15.83
15.75
15.66
15.23
15.15
15.06
14.98
14.89
14.81
14.72
14.64
14.55
14.47
14.38
14.30
14.21
14.12
14.04
13.95
13.87
13.78
13.70
13.61
13.53
13.44
13.36
13.27
13.19
13.10
13.02
12.93
12.85
12.76
12.67
12.59
12.50
12.42
12.33
12.25
12.16
12.08
11.99
11.91
11.82

Z (m)
-4.22
-4.22
-5.22
-6.21
-6.21
-6.21
-6.21
-6.21
-6.21
-6.21
-7.21
-7.21
-7.21
-7.21
-7.21
-7.21
-8.20
-8.20
-8.20
-9.19
-9.19
-9.19
-9.19
-10.19
-10.19
-10.19
-10.19
-11.18
-11.18
-12.17
-12.17
-12.17
-12.17
-12.17
-12.17
-12.17
-13.17
-13.17
-13.17
-13.17
-13.17
-14.16
-14.16
-14.16
-14.16
-15.16
-15.16
-15.16

Davidson (Jan)
2011 Profile
2004 Profile
S (ppt)
33.20
33.22
33.22
33.22
33.22
33.22
33.22
33.22
33.24
33.24
33.26
33.26
33.28
33.28
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.28
33.28
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.30
33.32
33.32
33.34
33.34
33.36
33.38
33.38
33.40
33.42
33.42
33.42
33.44
33.44
33.44
33.44
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46
33.46

Z (m)
-0.41
-0.40
-1.44
-2.47
-3.51
-4.54
-5.57
-6.61
-6.60
-7.63
-8.65
-9.69
-10.71
-11.74
-12.77
-13.80
-14.83
-15.87
-16.90
-17.93
-18.97
-20.01
-21.05
-22.07
-23.10
-24.14
-25.17
-26.20
-27.23
-28.26
-29.28
-30.32
-31.34
-32.36
-33.40
-34.42
-35.44
-36.48
-37.51
-38.53
-39.57
-40.60
-41.64
-42.66
-43.69
-44.73
-45.76
-46.79

T (oC)
12.65
12.65
12.65
12.65
12.65
12.65
12.65
12.74
12.74
12.65
12.57
12.57
12.57
12.48
12.48
12.39
12.39
12.31
12.31
12.22
12.22
12.22
12.14
12.05
12.05
12.05
11.97
11.88
11.88
11.80
11.80
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.71
11.63
11.63
11.63
11.63
11.54
11.54
11.46
11.37
11.29
11.20
11.20
11.20
11.12

Z (m)
-2.35
-2.35
-3.34
-4.33
-5.32
-6.31
-7.30
-7.30
-8.29
-8.29
-9.29
-10.28
-11.27
-12.27
-13.26
-14.26
-15.25
-16.24
-17.23
-18.23
-19.22
-20.21
-21.21
-22.20
-23.19
-24.19
-25.18
-26.18
-27.17
-28.16
-29.16
-29.16
-30.15
-31.14
-32.13
-33.13
-34.12
-35.11
-36.10
-37.10
-38.09
-39.09
-40.08
-41.08
-42.07
-43.06
-44.05
-45.05

B-2

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Table B1 (continued)
Upwelling (July)
2011 Profile
2011 Profile
S (ppt)
33.84
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86
33.86

Z (m)
-45.99
-47.05
-48.09
-49.14
-50.19
-51.23
-52.28

T ( oC)
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.38
10.37
10.37
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.30
10.23
10.23
10.16
10.16
10.16
10.09
10.09
10.09
10.02

Z (m)
-27.84
-28.88
-29.92
-30.97
-32.01
-33.05
-34.09
-35.14
-36.18
-37.22
-38.26
-39.30
-40.34
-41.39
-42.43
-43.47
-44.52
-45.56
-46.60
-47.65
-48.69
-49.73
-50.78
-51.82

Transition-Oceanic (Sept)
2004.2 Profile
2004.1 Profile
S (ppt)

Z (m)

T (oC)
11.82
11.74
11.65
11.57
11.48
11.39
11.31
11.22
11.22
11.14
11.14
11.05
11.05
11.14
11.22
11.31
11.39
11.39
11.39
11.39
11.31
11.31
11.22
11.22
11.22
11.14
11.05
11.05
10.97
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.88
10.80
10.79
10.79
10.71
10.71
10.62
10.62
10.62
10.62
10.62
10.62
10.62

Z (m)
-16.15
-17.14
-18.14
-18.14
-18.14
-18.14
-18.14
-19.13
-20.12
-20.12
-21.12
-21.12
-22.11
-23.11
-24.10
-25.09
-26.09
-27.08
-28.07
-29.07
-30.06
-31.06
-32.05
-33.04
-34.04
-35.03
-36.02
-37.02
-38.01
-39.01
-40.00
-40.99
-41.99
-42.98
-43.98
-44.97
-45.96
-46.96
-47.95
-48.94
-49.94
-50.93
-51.93
-52.92
-53.91

Davidson (Jan)
2011 Profile
2004 Profile
S (ppt)
33.48
33.50
33.50
33.51
33.51
33.53
33.53

Z (m)
-47.82
-48.84
-49.87
-50.90
-51.93
-52.95
-53.99

T (oC)
11.03
11.03
10.95
10.86
10.86
10.77
10.77
10.77
10.69
10.69

Z (m)
-46.05
-47.04
-48.03
-49.03
-50.02
-51.01
-52.01
-53.00
-53.99
-54.98

B-3

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

APPENDIX C ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR

ADDITIONAL SCENARIOS

C-1

MRWPCA
November 10, 2014

Table C1- Analysis results for additional scenarios

Flow Assumptions (mgd)

NO.
WW

TDS Assumptions (mg/L)

Hauled GWR Total

Hauled GWR
WW
Brine Brine Flow
Brine brine

Total

Davidson (Jan.)

Upwelling (July)

Oceanic (Sept.)

Horiz.
Horiz.
Horiz.
Height
Height
Height
Plume
Dist.
Plume
Dist.
Plume
Dist.
Min.
above
Min.
above
Min.
above
diam.
from
diam.
from
diam.
from
Dilution
port
Dilution
port
Dilution
port
(ft)
port
(ft)
port
(ft)
port
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)

Wastewater at design capacity

1a 29.6

0.1

29.7 800 40,000 4,000

932

23

143

34

75

19

136

31

64

17

126

30

58

1b 24.7

0.1

0.94

25.7 800 40,000 4,000

1069

22

152

31

73

18

144

28

63

17

134

28

57

Sensitivity Analysis: GWR Brine Flow

2a

0.1

0.41

0.51 800 40,000 4,000 11059

240

20

12

718

41

10

776

41

2b

0.1

0.82

0.92 800 40,000 4,000

7913

231

24

13

636

48

10

560

42

2c

0.1

0.3

0.4

800 40,000 4,000 13000

240

19

567

32

10

863

40

Sensitivity Analysis: Hauled Waste Flow

3a

0.94

0.94 800 40,000 4,000

4000

254

26

13

651

48

10

583

42

3b

0.94

1.94 800 40,000 4,000 22557

111

10

21

14

318

12

46

11

291

11

42

3c

0.94

3.94 800 40,000 4,000

1563

11

209

10

39

14

336

11

54

12

283

10

47

3d

0.1

0.94

4.04 800 40,000 4,000

2515

12

206

11

40

14

331

11

55

12

279

11

47

3e

0.94

4.94 800 40,000 4,000

9344

12

168

13

38

14

277

13

54

12

231

13

47

Sensitivity Analysis: GWR TDS

4a

0.1

0.94

1.04 800 40,000 4,000

7462

226

25

13

597

48

10

532

42

4b

0.1

0.94

1.04 1100 40,000 5,800

9088

218

25

13

592

49

10

523

42

4c

0.1

0.94

4.04 1100 40,000 5,800

3156

11

201

11

39

14

334

11

55

12

271

11

46

9673

214

24

13

576

48

10

509

42

Sensitivity Analysis: Hauled Waste TDS

5a

0.1

0.94

1.04 800 63,000 4,000

All scenarios were analyzed using a 20 C temperature for the combined flow discharging from 120 open ports. Analysis results are at plume trap levels.

C-2