Appendix D3

Water Quality Analysis of the

Discharges

550 Kearny Street

www.esassoc.com

Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.896.5900 phone
415.896.0332 fax

Appendix D3
memorandum
date

April 20, 2015

to

Eric Zigas

from

Asavari Devadiga

subject

Water Quality Analysis of the Discharges Associated with the Operation of the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project and the Project Variant

Introduction
ESA has developed this technical memorandum in the support of the analysis and determination of the water
quality impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The analysis in this memorandum focuses on the water
quality of the point discharges resulting from the operation of 1) the MPWSP proposed by California American
Company or CalAm (the proposed project or the operation of a 9.6-million gallons per day (MGD) MPWSP
Desalination Plant) in Section A, and, 2) the Project Variant in Section B. The Project Variant would consist of
operating a lower capacity desalination plant of a 6.4-MGD MPWSP Desalination Plant along with the
Groundwater Project (GWR Project) proposed by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
(MRWPCA) herein referred to as the MRWPCA-proposed GWR Project.
The intent of this memorandum is to present the water quality analysis, conducted utilizing the best available data,
and to identify any potential violations of water quality standards resulting from discharges associated with either
the proposed project (MPWSP) or the MRWPCA-proposed GWR Project. This memorandum describes the
methodology used to analyze the available water quality data, and then presents and discusses the results. This
memorandum also incorporates results from a separate water quality study undertaken by MRWPCA for both the
proposed project and Project Variant and prepared by Trussell Technologies, Inc. (2015). Subsequent to the data
analysis developed as part of this memorandum, MRWPCA prepared an additional study in late April 2015 for
the proposed project and the Project Variant; the results of this study are presented at the end of each section. The
memorandum does not make any impact conclusions related to CEQA.

A. Water Quality Analysis For the Proposed Project

9.6-MGD MPWSP Desalination Plant Operation and Discharge
Scenarios
The MPWSP Desalination Plant would treat the source water (extracted through the subsurface intake wells) at a 42
percent recovery rate to produce 9.6 MGD of desalinated product water. Approximately 13.98 MGD of brine would
be generated, consisting of concentrates from the pretreatment and reverse osmosis (RO) processes as well as waste
effluent produced during routine backwashing and operation and maintenance of the pretreatment filters. The brine
generated in the desalination process would be discharged into Monterey Bay through MRWPCAs existing ocean
outfall, which is currently used to discharge wastewater treated at the MRWPCAs Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant. During certain times of the year, the brine would blend with the treated wastewater forming a combined
discharge. Table A-1 shows the monthly projected brine flows from the MPWSP Desalination Plant and the
average monthly wastewater flows from MRWPCA.
TABLE A-1
MONTHLY AVERAGE FLOWS OF SECONDARY-TREATED WASTEWATER FROM THE MRWPCA REGIONAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (MGD) (19982012) AND
OF THE ESTIMATED BRINE STREAM UNDER MPWSP
Months

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Brine-Only

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

13.98

Treated Wastewater from

MRWPCA

19.78

18.41

14.68

7.02

2.40

1.89

0.90

1.03

2.79

9.89

17.98

19.27

Combined Discharge
(Brine+wastewater)

33.76

32.39

28.66

21.00

16.38

15.87

14.88

15.01

16.77

23.87

31.96

33.25

NOTES: Shaded cells represent the seasonal discharge scenarios used in the water quality analysis discussed further below.
Numbers in italics represent the flow rates used in the modeling analysis of salinity (Flow Science, Inc., 2014), the results of which were used to analyze other
constituents in the brine and combined discharges (discussed below in this memorandum). In the case of the combined discharge, the modeling analysis also
used lower wastewater flow rates of 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2 MGD.

SOURCES: MRWPCA, 2013; Trussell Technologies, 2015

As shown in Table A-1, the treated wastewater flow varies throughout the year, with the highest flows observed
during the non-irrigation season (November through March) and the lowest flows observed during the irrigation
season (April through October), when the treated wastewater is processed through the SVRP for tertiary treatment
and distributed to irrigators through the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project (CSIP) distribution system. During
the irrigation season, on some days, all of the wastewater flows could be provided to irrigators, and only the
project brine would be discharged into Monterey Bay through the outfall. Therefore, this analysis assumes that the
brine would be discharged without dilution during the entire irrigation season (dry months) or when wastewater is
not available, and that the combined discharge (i.e., the brine blended with treated wastewater) would be released
during the non-irrigation season (wet months) or when wastewater is released into the Bay through the outfall.
The discharge was assumed to be released through the MRWPCA outfall with 120 open ports at the diffuser. 1 The
water quality analysis therefore focuses on the brine-only discharge that would occur during the irrigation season

1 Subsequent to this analysis, MRPWCA conducted an additional study that incorporated updated modeling parameters, which included

130 open diffuser ports at the outfall. The results of this study are discussed at the end of the section.

(shaded cells in Table A-1) and the combined discharge that would occur during non-irrigation season. For the
combined discharge scenario, the analysis accounts for different wastewater flows ranging from 19.78 MGD in
the winter/Davidson season (when higher discharge flows are anticipated) to a range of lower flows of 0.25, 0.5,
1, and 2 MGD in case the wastewater is not available at higher rates (Table A-1). 2

Approach
The approach to analyzing discharge water quality from the MPWSP Desalination Plant is guided by the quality
of the source water reaching the MPWSP Desalination Plant, the efficacy of the desalination process, and
applicable regulatory standards. The availability of water quality data informed the identification of the
constituents that were studied for the impact analysis.
Based on published literature on discharges from desalination plants, temperature is a commonly studied
parameter. This is likely due to the co-location of desalination plants with existing power plants as well as the
anticipated increase in temperature from the distillation and other processes (Roberts et al., 2010; Dawoud and Al
Mulla, 2012). Typically, brine streams from desalination plants combined with those from power (thermal) plants
have high temperatures (Dawoud and Al Mulla, 2012). In the case of MPWSP, the MPWSP Desalination Plant
would be an independent facility and would not operate in combination with a thermal or power plant. There
would be no heating mechanism or presence of any process unit that would increase the source water temperature
as it passes through the units. Therefore, the desalination process for the MPWSP is not expected to increase the
temperature of the discharged brine effluent substantially and is not further discussed.

Source Water Quality

The quality of the source water entering the MPWSP Desalination Plant would depend on the intake process.
During project operations, as the ocean water would pass through the seafloor sediments into the proposed
subsurface intake wells, constituents (such as metals, organics, and man-made compounds) would come into
contact with microbes, sediment particles, and organic matter, which would break down some of the compounds
and remove others.
Sediments containing organic matter function to remove contaminants in two ways. First, contaminants with
chemical characteristics that give them relatively low solubility in water tend to adsorb, or get attached to,
sediment particles. Second, contaminants with chemical characteristics that give them relatively high solubility in
water tend to be absorbed by the sediment organic matter (Chiou and Kile, 2000). Consequently, it is highly
probable that the concentration of constituents present in the source water would be reduced to below ambient
levels (i.e. levels in the Bay) by the time the water reaches the MPWSP Desalination Plant through the subsurface
intake wells. While the desalination process would concentrate the remaining constituents, the mass of
constituents being delivered to the MPWSP Desalination Plant (and therefore, returned to the ocean as brine)
would be less than the mass returned to the ocean if the proposed project were to utilize open ocean intakes. This
analysis takes a conservative approach, therefore, by using water quality data from regional open ocean
monitoring, which likely has higher constituent (or pollutant) loading than is anticipated through the use of
subsurface intake wells.

2 Subsequent to this analysis, MRPWCA conducted an additional study that incorporated updated modeling parameters, which included

moderate (9 MGD) wastewater flows. The results of this study are discussed at the end of the section.

Desalination Process
The proposed desalination process at the MPWSP Desalination Plant would primarily utilize physical separation
and filtration processes of coagulation, flocculation, and membrane filtration, followed by RO treatment to
remove salts and other minerals from the source water. The salts and other minerals that would not be
metabolized, consumed, or converted into other substances during filtration or desalination would be discharged
as brine.

Regulatory Standards
The brine discharged from the MPWSP Desalination Plant via the existing MRWPCAs ocean outfall would be a
point discharge that would be characterized as a waste discharge under the California Ocean Plan. The
MRWPCAs NPDES permit for its Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 3 regulates the existing wastewater
discharge through the outfall, therefore, it is expected that the brine discharge would be incorporated as a new
discharge or as a modification to the existing discharge as part of the amendment of the NPDES permit. The
discharge would then be regulated through the Amended NPDES permit. The current NPDES permit does not list
objectives for discharges from desalination plants, and the effluent limitations established through the NPDES
permit amendment would be specific to the discharge that incorporates brine from the MPWSP Desalination
Plant.
The effluent limitations for brine discharge from the MPWSP Desalination Plant would be based on water quality
objectives established in the Ocean Plan (2012b). Currently, none of the water quality objectives in the Ocean
Plan are specifically applicable to waste discharges from desalination facilities such as the MPWSP Desalination
Plant. However, there are current regulatory standards for other waste discharges such as the treated wastewater
currently discharged through the MRWPCA outfall. Therefore, in the absence of directly applicable regulatory
standards for brine discharges, this approach utilizes the water quality objectives in the Ocean Plan as the guiding
regulatory standards for those constituents for which source water quality data is available. The Ocean Plan water
quality objectives would apply to both the brine-only and combined discharges.
Discharges typically result in two types of plumes, a buoyant (rising) plume in the case of a fresh or brackish
water discharge, or a negatively buoyant (sinking) plume in the case of discharges with high salinity. For both
types of discharges, there is rapid dilution in a zone called the zone of initial dilution (ZID) and the standards
apply at the edge of this ZID. The SWRCB (2012) recommends that the regulatory mixing zone include the near
field and that the water quality objectives be met at the edge of a regulatory mixing zonein this case, at the edge
of the ZID. The ZID can be defined as the zone immediately adjacent to a discharge where momentum and
buoyancy-driven mixing produces rapid dilution of the discharge (Flow Science, Inc., 2014). The outer boundary
of the ZID is the point at which a buoyant discharge achieves density equal to that of the ambient water. For
negatively buoyant discharges such as the brine-only discharge during the irrigation season, the outer boundary of
the ZID is defined as the point at which the discharge contacts the seafloor. This analysis is developed by
studying the constituent levels resulting from the brine and combined discharges at the edge of the ZID.
Based on the factors above, this analysis determines if the brine-only and combined discharges to Monterey Bay
would exceed water quality objectives established in the Ocean Plan at the edge of the ZID and identifies the
constituents that are estimated to exceed the water quality objectives.

Order No. R3-2014-0013, NPDES Permit No. CA0048551.

Methodology
The water quality of the brine was studied using source water data and the efficacy of the desalination process.
Two sets of available data were used to characterize source water quality that would enter the MPWSP
Desalination Plant:
1)

Well data obtained from water quality monitoring conducted by Trussell Technologies, Inc. (2010) for
Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) as part of a proposed desalination project. The well is located
approximately 5,000 feet south of the proposed subsurface intake wells for MPWSP.

2)

Water quality data for Monterey Bay obtained from the Central Coast Long-term Environmental
Assessment Network (CCLEAN). Time-integrated ocean samples collected over 30-day periods in both the
wet season and dry season from September 2008 through April of 2013 were obtained for two sites: the
Southern Monterey Bay site and the Northern Monterey Bay site, located approximately 4 and 12 miles
respectively, from the MPWSP-discharge site. These water quality data were used to calculate maximum
constituent concentrations in Monterey Bay.

Neither of the two data sets for source water covered the entire suite of constituents regulated under the Ocean
Plan, therefore this analysis is developed based on a subset and not the entire list of constituents regulated by
the Ocean Plan. With the absence of specific source water data, both the data sets were used. Using two different
data sets to characterize the source water quality allowed for a comparative study as well as a validation of the
conclusions drawn from the analysis (see the tables and results that follow). Further, the data tested under
CCLEAN were accurate to a substantially lower concentration limit for the monitored constituents due to the
much lower method reporting limits used (in nanograms per liter [ng/L]) in laboratory analysis of the CCLEAN
samples as compared to the tests for the well data (milligrams per liter [mg/L]). Due to the higher reporting limits
used for the well data, several constituents could not be detected; the same constituents that were tested under
CCLEAN showed a detectable, and a much lower concentration value.
Because the data sets employed different testing technologies and reporting limits and showed a wide range of
concentrations for several constituents, a tiered approach was taken to best utilize the existing data for a
conservative analysis. The constituent concentrations in the brine were studied first by using the well-data, which
had higher reporting limits but analyzed samples for a wider variety of water quality constituents, and then by
using the CCLEAN-data which was analyzed using substantially lower reporting limits, but had results for fewer
constituents as compared to the well-data.
In the case of the well data, only one data point was available, i.e., one set of constituent concentrations that were
used to generate the brine water quality. In the case of CCLEAN data, maximum concentrations over all 20
samples were used. In both the cases, the constituent levels were concentrated in the brine by the amount of
freshwater removed from the ocean water during the RO process (i.e., the masses of contaminants in source water
were concentrated into 13.84 MGD of brine) using 42% efficacy of the desalination process. This concentration
was then multiplied by the dilution factor (1:16) 4 achieved upon the discharge of the brine (estimated by Flow
Science, Inc., 2014) 5 and used as the concentration resulting at the edge of the ZID. The calculated concentrations
were then compared against the water quality objectives. The brine-only discharge is anticipated to occur during
the dry season.
4 The dilution ratio for the discharge is shown in terms of parts of discharge : parts of seawater.
5 Flow Science, Inc. (2014) estimated the dilution factor at the edge of the ZID as part of near-field modeling analysis of salinity. A similar

modeling analysis could be undertaken for other constituents.

During the wet season, when MRWPCA-treated wastewater would be available, the brine along with the treated
wastewater would form a combined discharge into the Bay. To evaluate the contaminant concentrations in the
combined discharge, water quality data for the wastewater was obtained from Trussell Technologies, Inc. (2014).
The data included flow-proportioned maximum concentrations that were collected over 30-day-periods in both the
wet season and dry season for treated wastewater from the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant from
September 2008 through April of 2013. The concentrations for the same list of constituents (as brine) were
calculated for the combined discharge.
The constituent concentrations in the combined discharge were calculated based on the relative proportions of the
brine and the treated wastewater in the discharge and multiplied by the dilution factor (1:68) estimated under the
near-field analysis by Flow Science, Inc., (2014). The concentrations were evaluated for the Davidson oceanographic
period, when the demand for reclaimed water from the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater for agricultural uses is
considered very low and hence the brine would combine with the treated wastewater prior to discharge. These
concentrations at the edge of the ZID were then compared against the water quality objectives. This calculation
would apply to combined discharges, which are anticipated to occur during wet or other seasons when treated
wastewater from the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment would be discharged into the outfall as discussed
above.
As shown in Table A-1, wastewater flows vary throughout the year and therefore, the brine may not combine
with an average of 19.78-MGD wastewater flow consistently through the year. To account for the variability,
conservative scenarios of low wastewater flows combining with brine were studied by using 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2
MGD of wastewater flows (Flow Science, Inc., 2014). This analysis uses the most conservative or low flow of
0.25-MGD wastewater for the combined discharge, which was estimated to have a dilution ratio of 1:17 (Flow
Science, Inc., 2014).

Results
Table A-2 below presents the estimated constituent levels in the brine-only and combined discharges using the
well data for source water quality. The table also shows how the levels at the edge of the ZID shown in two pale
grey columns compare with the Ocean Plan water quality objectives (the most conservative value among the 6month median, 30-day average, and daily and instantaneous maximums are used) shown in the dark grey column.
Table A-2 also includes the constituents with ocean water quality objectives that were tested in the MRWPCAwastewater and not in the well (or source) water. Concentrations for these constituents therefore could not be
calculated for the brine discharge and hence also when the brine combines with wastewater. Therefore
concentrations for these constituents under the brine-only and combined discharges are not provided.
The MCWD well data was collected using higher water concentration limits than the water quality objectives for
discharges. At the reporting limits of the test method, a substantive number of constituents were not detected and
therefore recorded using their reporting limits. For example, a constituent not detected at a reporting limit of 0.01
micrograms per liter (g/L) was reported at a concentration less than 0.01 g/L or <0.01 g/L, hence the
concentration of the constituent would range between 0 and 0.01 g/L. Here, the analysis used a conservative
approach and assumed the highest value in the range, that of 0.01 g/L as the concentration of the constituent. In
the case of reporting limits higher than the Ocean Plan water quality objective, the constituent, upon further
concentration as part of the desalination process, was expectedly found to exceed the water quality objective from
the brine discharge. Thus, the well data showed exceedances under the brine and combined discharge scenarios
for the constituents, which were not detected in the source water. All the detected constituents were however
found to be lower than, and in compliance with, the Ocean Plan water quality objectives.

TABLE A-2
OCEAN PLAN WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR BRINE-ONLY AND COMBINED DISCHARGES FROM THE
9.6-MGD DESALINATION PLANT USING WELL DATA AS SOURCE WATER ENTERING THE MPWSP DESALINATION PLANT (g/L)

Concentration in the Discharge Streams

Constituent

Concentration
in the Source
1*
Water

Concentration
in Brine (After
42% RO
Process
Recovery

Concentrations at the Edge of the ZID

MRWPCATreated
2*
Wastewater

Combined
Discharge

Baseline
Scenario:
Treated
Wastewater
Only (1:145
Dilution Ratio)

3,4

Ocean Plan Water Quality

Objectives

Brine Only
(1:16 Dilution
Ratio)

Combined
Discharge
(1:68 Dilution
Ratio)

Objective
(g/L)

Basis

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Marine Life

Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (Hexavalent)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Total Chlorine Residual
Ammonia (expressed
as Nitrogen)
Acute Toxicity
Chronic Toxicity
Phenolic Compounds
(non-chlorinated)
Chlorinated Phenolics
Endosulfan
Endrin
HCH

22
4.6
NA
22
3.7
<0.2
<5
32
4.9
<100
<5
NA
<50

37.93
7.93
37.93
6.38
0.34
8.62
55.17
8.45
172.41
8.62
86.21

45
1
<2
10.0
<0.5
0.019
5.2
3.0
<0.19
20.0
81.0
<200
36400

42.07
3.87
21.57
2.93
0.15
6.62
24.60
3.61
83.11
51.03
21362.48

0.310
0.007
0.014
0.069
0.003
0.00013
0.036
0.021
0.001
0.14
0.559
1.38
251.03

2.37
0.50
2.37
0.40
0.02
0.54
3.45
0.53
10.78
0.54
5.39

0.62
0.06
0.32
0.04
0.002
0.10
0.36
0.05
1.22
0.75
314.15

8
1
2
3
2
0.04
5
15
0.7
20
1
2
600

6-month median
6-month median
6-month median
6-month median
6-month median
6-month median
6-month median
6-month median
6-month median
6-month median
6-month median
6-month median
6-month median

NA
NA
NA

2.30
40
69

0.016
0.28
0.48

0.3 TU
1 TU
30

NA
NA
6-month median

NA
NA
<0.01
NA

0.017
-

<20
0.015
0.000079
0.034

0.01
-

0.14
0.0001
0.0000005
0.00023

0.0011
-

0.00011
-

1
0.009
0.002
0.004

6-month median
6-month median
6-month median
6-month median

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Human Health-Noncarcinogens

Acrolein
Antimony
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)
methane
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)
ether
Chlorobenzene
Chromium (III)

NA
9.6
NA

16.55
-

<5
0.65
<0.5

7.23
-

0.03
0.0045
0.003

1.03
-

0.11
-

220
1,200
4.4

30-day average
30-day average
30-day average

NA

<0.5

0.003

1,200

30-day average

<0.5
62

0.86
106.90

<0.5
3.0

0.65
46.02

0.003
0.02

0.05
6.68

0.01
0.68

570
190,000

30-day average
30-day average

TABLE A-2
OCEAN PLAN WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR BRINE-ONLY AND COMBINED DISCHARGES FROM THE
9.6-MGD DESALINATION PLANT USING WELL DATA AS SOURCE WATER ENTERING THE MPWSP DESALINATION PLANT (g/L)

Concentration in the Discharge Streams

Constituent
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Dichlorobenzenes
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
4,6-dinitro-2methylphenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Hexachlorocyclopentadi
ene
Nitrobenzene
Thallium
Toluene
Tributyltin
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
(1,1,1-TCA)

Concentrations at the Edge of the ZID

3,4

Ocean Plan Water Quality

Objectives

Combined
Discharge

Baseline
Scenario:
Treated
Wastewater
Only (1:145
Dilution Ratio)

Brine Only
(1:16 Dilution
Ratio)

Combined
Discharge
(1:68 Dilution
Ratio)

Objective
(g/L)

Basis

<5
1.6
<5
<2
<0.5

3.64
1.65
3.29
1.53
-

0.034
0.01
0.034
0.01
0.003

0.11
0.11
0.05
0.05
-

0.05
0.02
0.05
0.02
-

3,500
5,100
33,000
820,000
220

30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average

0.86
0.17
0.09

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5

0.65
0.36
0.33

0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003

0.05
0.01
0.01

0.010
0.005
0.005

4
4,100
15
58

30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average

8.62
0.86
0.86

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.05
<0.5

3.86
0.65
0.65

0.003
0.003
0.003
0.0003
0.003

0.54
0.05
0.05

0.057
0.01
0.01

4.9
2
85,000
0.0014
540,000

30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average

Concentration
in the Source
1*
Water

Concentration
in Brine (After
42% RO
Process
Recovery

MRWPCATreated
2*
Wastewater

<1
<1
<0.5
<0.5
NA

1.72
1.72
0.86
0.86
-

NA
<0.5
<0.1
<0.05
NA
<5
<0.5
NA
<0.5

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Human Health-Carcinogens

Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroform
DDT

NA
<0.01
<0.5
NA
<5
NA
<0.6

0.02
0.86
8.62
1.03

<2
<0.05
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
78

0.04
0.65
3.86
46.13

0.014
0.0003
0.0034
0.0034
0.0034
0.0034
0.538

0.001
0.05
0.54
0.06

0.0005
0.01
0.057
0.68

0.1
0.000022
5.9
0.000069
0.033
0.045
3.5

30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average

<0.5
<0.1
<0.5
<0.5
NA

0.86
0.17
0.86
0.86
-

<0.5
0.000735
<0.5
2
0.00109

0.65
0.07
0.65
1.53
-

0.003
0.000005
0.003
0.014
0.000008

0.05
0.011
0.05
0.05
-

0.01
0.0011
0.01
0.02
-

0.9
0.000023
8.6
130
0.00017

30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average

TABLE A-2
OCEAN PLAN WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR BRINE-ONLY AND COMBINED DISCHARGES FROM THE
9.6-MGD DESALINATION PLANT USING WELL DATA AS SOURCE WATER ENTERING THE MPWSP DESALINATION PLANT (g/L)

Concentration in the Discharge Streams

Constituent
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
(p-DCB)
3.3-dichlorobenzidine
1,2-Dichloroethane
(1,2-DCA)
1,1-Dichloroethylene
(1,1-DCE)
Dichlorobromomethane
Dichloromethane
(Methylene chloride)
1,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Isophorone
NNitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA)
N-Nitrosodi-npropylamine (NDPA)
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
Polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)
Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs)
TCDD equivalents

Concentrations at the Edge of the ZID

3,4

Ocean Plan Water Quality

Objectives

Combined
Discharge

Baseline
Scenario:
Treated
Wastewater
Only (1:145
Dilution Ratio)

Brine Only
(1:16 Dilution
Ratio)

Combined
Discharge
(1:68 Dilution
Ratio)

Objective
(g/L)

Basis

1.6

1.29

0.011

0.05

0.019

18

30-day average

0.86

<0.025
<0.5

0.65

0.0001724
0.003

0.05

0.01

0.0081
28

30-day average
30-day average

<0.5

0.86

<0.5

0.65

0.003

0.05

0.01

0.9

30-day average

<0.5
<0.5

0.86
0.86

<0.5
0.55

0.65
0.68

0.003
0.004

0.05
0.05

0.01
0.01

6.2
450

30-day average
30-day average

<0.5
<0.01
<0.1
NA
<1.5*
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.5
NA
<0.5
<0.002

0.86
0.02
0.17
2.59
0.02
0.02
0.09
0.86
0.86
0.00

<0.5
0.000503
<2
<0.5
0.54
<0.01
0.000059
0.000078
0.000009
<0.5
<0.5
0.017

0.70
0.01
1.24
1.39
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.36
0.65
0.01

0.003
0.0000035
0.0138
0.003
0.004
0.00007
0.0000004
0.0000005
0.0000001
0.0034
0.0034
0.0001

0.05
0.0011
0.01
0.16
0.001
0.0011
0.005
0.05
0.05
0.0002

0.01
0.00011
0.02
0.02
0.0002
0.0001
0.0005
0.005
0.01
0.0002

8.9
0.00004
2.6
0.16
130
0.00005
0.00002
0.00021
14
2.5
730
7.3

30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average
30-day average

<0.002

0.00

0.076

0.05

0.0005

0.0002

0.001

0.38

30-day average

NA
<0.5-<0.02*

0.86

<0.5
0.050100

0.29
0.39

0.00345
0.000346

0.05

0.004
0.006

2.5
0.0088

30-day average
30-day average

<0.08

0.14

0.000679

0.06

0.0000047

0.0086

0.00085

0.000019

30-day average

NA

0.00000015

1.05E-09

3.9E-09

30-day average

Concentration
in the Source
1*
Water

Concentration
in Brine (After
42% RO
Process
Recovery

MRWPCATreated
2*
Wastewater

<0.5

0.86

NA
<0.5

TABLE A-2
OCEAN PLAN WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR BRINE-ONLY AND COMBINED DISCHARGES FROM THE
9.6-MGD DESALINATION PLANT USING WELL DATA AS SOURCE WATER ENTERING THE MPWSP DESALINATION PLANT (g/L)

Concentration in the Discharge Streams

Constituent
1,1,2,2Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
(PCE)
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
(1,1,2-TCA)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Vinyl Chloride

Concentrations at the Edge of the ZID

3,4

Ocean Plan Water Quality

Objectives

Combined
Discharge

Baseline
Scenario:
Treated
Wastewater
Only (1:145
Dilution Ratio)

Brine Only
(1:16 Dilution
Ratio)

Combined
Discharge
(1:68 Dilution
Ratio)

Objective
(g/L)

Basis

<0.5

0.65

0.003

0.05

0.0096

2.3

30-day average

0.86

<0.5

0.65

0.003

0.05

0.0096

30-day average

<0.5
<0.5
<0.5

0.86
0.86
0.86

0.007090
<0.5
<0.5

0.36
0.65
0.65

0.00005
0.003
0.003

0.054
0.05
0.05

0.0053
0.0096
0.0096

0.00021
27
9.4

30-day average
30-day average
30-day average

NA
<0.3

0.00
0.52

<0.5
<0.5

0.29
0.51

0.003
0.003

0.00000000
0.03

0.0043
0.0075

0.29
36

30-day average
30-day average

Concentration
in the Source
1*
Water

Concentration
in Brine (After
42% RO
Process
Recovery

MRWPCATreated
2*
Wastewater

<0.5

0.86

<0.5

NOTES:
Constituents or parameters in italics were not sampled in the well water and hence their concentration was not available for the source water. Their concentration in the wastewater is provided where available.
NA = Not available
- = Not estimated because there was no data available for the source water (well water) and hence the concentration in the discharge could not be calculated.
* = Constituent that was not detected was recorded as occurring below its method reporting limit (i.e., <0.5 where 0.5 g/L is the method reporting limit).
Constituents in bold were found to exceed the water quality objectives.
1. Source water is the water entering through the intake system into the MPWSP Desalination Plant. Water quality data for the source water is the well water data collected as part of the MCWD testing of the
well ~5,000 feet south of the MPWSP Seawater Intake System (Trussell Technologies, 2010).
2. Data for the treated wastewater discharged from MRWPCA was received from CCLEAN and Trussell Technologies. These water quality data were used to calculate maximum constituent concentrations in
the wastewater and were used in the analysis.
3. Concentrations at the edge of the ZID were calculated using the concentrations in the discharge streams (in blue) and the dilution ratio estimated for that discharge stream at the edge of the ZID. The dilution
ratio for each discharge stream is noted in parenthesis (e.g., 1:16).
4. All dilution ratios were used as estimated by Flow Science, Inc. (2014).
SOURCES: Data compiled and studied from Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2010, Trussell Technologies, 2015, MRWPCA, 2013, Flow Science Inc., 2014.

10

Based on Table A-2, Table A-3 below lists the constituents that were found to exceed the water quality
objectives for the brine-only and combined discharges. Their concentrations in the source water (i.e., the well
water) for the desalination plant and in wastewater are provided as a reference.
As shown in Table A-3, none of the constituents in the brine and combined discharges that showed an exceedance
over water quality objectives were detected in the source water at the method reporting limits used. Further, in the
case of the combined discharge, three constituents aldrin, beryllium, and heptachlor were also not detected in
the wastewater. In these cases their method reporting limits used for source water testing were higher than the
water quality objectives, therefore their concentrations from the discharge expectedly showing an exceedance.
Even the constituents that were detected in the wastewater and showed an exceedance under the combined
discharge scenario, were found to have not been detected in the source water (at the high method reporting limits)
as shown in Table A-3. The method reporting limits used for testing the well (source) water were orders of
magnitude higher than the constituent concentrations in the wastewater and/or the water quality objective.
Although not shown in the table, the baseline wastewater discharge scenario showed an exceedance for aldrin,
benzidene, and heptachlor. However, none of the three constituents were detected in the wastewater at the method
reporting limits, which were higher than the water quality objectives; hence the observed exceedance.
Given the several undetected constituents for the well-data, for a more conservative approach, ESA continued the
water quality analysis utilizing the high-resolution data collected under CCLEAN from Monterey Bay as source
water quality for the MPWSP Desalination Plant.
Table A-4 below presents the estimated constituent concentrations in the brine and combined discharges using the
CCLEAN data for source water quality. The table lists the constituents that are monitored under CCLEAN, hence
does not include all of the constituents shown in Table A-2. Table A-4 shows the same dilution factors that were
used in Table A-2 and also shows how the constituent concentrations at the edge of the ZID in two pale grey
columns compare with the Ocean Plan water quality objectives in the dark grey column.
Most of the constituents that showed exceedances in Table A-2 (using well-data for source water quality) were
found at much lower concentrations in Table A-4 (using CCLEAN data 6 for source water quality) and found to
not exceed the water quality objectives. The brine discharge was found to result in exceedances for PCBs and
toxaphene, and the combined discharge was found to exceed for aldrin and heptachlor.
Under the brine discharge scenario, PCBs were the only detected constituent in the source water that was found to
result in an exceedance. Toxaphene was not detected in the source water and the highest method reporting limit
(0.0032 g/L) used as its concentration was higher than the water quality objective (0.00021 g/L).
Under the combined discharge scenario, aldrin was not detected in the Bay and hence recorded at its highest
method reporting limit of 0.000081 g/L, which was higher than the water quality objective of 0.000022 g/L.
The exceedance was also based on the high method reporting limit of 0.05 g/L for aldrin tested in the wastewater
and which is also higher a few orders of magnitude higher than the water quality objective. Heptachlor was
not detected in the wastewater and was recorded at its reporting limit of 0.01 g/L, which was higher than its
water quality objective of 0.00005 g/L and also higher than the concentration in the source water, i.e., recorded
under CCLEAN in the Bay (0.000005 g/L). PCBs were the only detected constituent in both the source water
(Monterey Bay water) and wastewater and were estimated at the level of the water quality objective of 0.000019
g/L under the combined discharge scenario.
6 For the constituents monitored under CCLEAN.

11

TABLE A-3
CONSTITUENTS FROM TABLE A-2 FOUND TO EXCEED THE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES USING WELL DATA FOR SOURCE WATER
Concentration at the
Edge of the ZID (g/L)*

Constituent
Concentration (g/L)**

Brine Only (1:16

Dilution Ratio)

Combined
Discharge (1:68
Dilution Ratio)

Aldrin

0.001

0.0005

0.000022

Beryllium

0.54

0.057

0.033

Chlordane

0.011

0.0011

Dieldrin

0.0011

Heptachlor

0.001

Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene

Constituent Found to Exceed

the Water Quality Objective from Table A-2

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Ocean Plan Water Quality

Objective (g/L)

In Source
Water

In Wastewater
(g/L)

30-day average

<0.01

<0.05

30-day average

<5

<0.5

0.000023

30-day average

<0.1

0.000735

0.00011

0.00004

30-day average

<0.01

0.000503

0.0002

0.00005

30-day average

<0.01

<0.01

0.0011

0.0001

0.00002

30-day average

<0.01

0.000059

0.005

0.0005

0.00021

30-day average

<0.05

0.000078

0.05

Not Exceeding

0.0088

30-day average

<0.5-<0.02

0.0501

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

0.0086

0.00085

0.000019

30-day average

<0.08

0.000679

Toxaphene

0.054

0.0053

0.00021

30-day average

<0.5

0.00709

NOTES:
Constituents in bold were found to exceed the water quality objectives as noted in the previous Table A-2.
* The numbers in parenthesis are dilution ratios estimated for each discharge stream. The dilution ratios were estimated by Flow Science, Inc. (2014).
** Constituent that was not detected was recorded as occurring at a concentration below its method reporting limit (e.g., <0.5 where 0.5 g/L is the method reporting limit).
SOURCES: Same as Table A-2.

12

TABLE A-4
OCEAN PLAN WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR BRINE-ONLY AND COMBINED DISCHARGES FROM THE 9.6MGD DESALINATION PLANT USING CCLEAN DATA FOR SOURCE WATER (g/L)

Concentration in the Discharge Streams

Constituent

Concentrations in
1,*
Source Water

Concentration
in Brine (After
42% RO
Process
Recovery

MRWPCATreated
2,
Wastewater *

Combined
Discharge

Concentrations at the Edge of the ZID

Baseline
Scenario:
Treated
Wastewater Only
(1:145 Dilution
Ratio)

Brine Only
(1:16 Dilution
Ratio)

3,4

Ocean Plan Water Quality

Objectives

Combined
Discharge
(1:68 Dilution
Ratio)

Objective

Basis

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Marine Life

Endosulfan

0.000039

0.000067

0.015

0.01

0.0001

0.000004

0.00013

0.009

6-month median

Endrin

0.000005

0.000009

0.000079

0.00005

0.0000005

0.000001

0.0000007

0.002

6-month median

HCH

0.00039

0.000678

0.034

0.02

0.00023

0.000042

0.00030

0.004

6-month median

0.29

0.003

0.000116

0.004

0.015

30-day average

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Human Health-Noncarcinogens

Fluoranthene

0.00108

0.001862

<0.5

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Human Health-Carcinogens

Aldrin

<0.000081

0.0001

<0.05

0.03

0.0003

0.000009

0.00043

0.000022

30-day average

Chlordane

0.000114

0.000197

0.000735

0.0005

0.000005

0.000012

0.000008

0.000023

30-day average

DDT

0.000319

0.000550

0.00109

0.0009

0.000008

0.000034

0.000013

0.00017

30-day average

Dieldrin

0.000051

0.000088

0.000503

0.0003

0.0000035

0.000005

0.000005

0.00004

30-day average

Heptachlor

0.000005

0.000009

<0.01

0.01

0.00007

0.000001

0.0001

0.00005

30-day average

Polyaromatic
hydrocarbons
(PAHs)

0.00691

0.011909

0.050100

0.03

0.000346

0.000744

0.001

0.0088

30-day average

0.00121

0.002093

0.000679

0.0013

0.0000047

0.000131

0.000019

0.000019

30-day average

<0.00074-0.0032

0.0055

0.007090

0.0064

0.00005

0.000345

0.000095

0.00021

30-day average

PCBs
Toxaphene

NOTES:
* = Constituent that was not detected was recorded as occurring below its method reporting limit (i.e., <0.5 where 0.5 g/L is the method reporting limit).
Constituents in bold were found to exceed the water quality objectives.
1. Source water is the water entering through the intake system into the MPWSP Desalination Plant. Concentrations in the source water are from the ocean water quality data obtained from CCLEAN (2008-2013)
from time-integrated ocean samples collected over 30-day periods in both the wet season and dry season from September 2008 through April of 2013. Samples were obtained for two sites: the Southern Monterey
Bay site and the Northern Monterey Bay site, located approximately 4 and 12 miles respectively, from the discharge site for the MPWSP. These water quality data were used to calculate maximum constituent
concentrations in Monterey Bay.
2. Data for the treated wastewater discharged from MRWPCA was received from CCLEAN and Trussell Technologies These water quality data were used to calculate maximum constituent concentrations in the
wastewater and were used in the analysis.
3. Concentrations at the edge of the ZID were calculated using the concentrations in the discharge streams (in pale grey columns) and the dilution ratio estimated for that discharge stream at the edge of the ZID.
The dilution ratio is shown in parenthesis (e.g., 1:16) for each discharge stream.
4. All dilution ratios were used as estimated by Flow Science, Inc. (2014).
SOURCES: Data compiled and studied from CCLEAN (2008-2013) obtained from D. Hardin (2014), MRWPCA, 2013, Trussell Technologies, 2015, and dilution ratios from Flow Science Inc., 2014.

13

The comparison between the constituent concentrations from the discharges at the edge of the ZID and the water
quality objectives could be made only based on the constituents that were tested and recorded at a detected value;
and that were tested at the method reporting limit comparable with (at, or lower, than) the water quality objective.
Based on the available data and its analysis, this memorandum identifies the constituents that are estimated to
exceed the Ocean Plan water quality objectives by using 1) high-resolution data collected under CCLEAN for the
brine-only discharge and 2) constituents that were detected both in the source water and wastewater for the
combined discharge. Thus, the only constituent that was found to have an exceedance was PCBs for the brine
discharge. For the combined discharge with 19.78-mgd wastewater flow, PCBs were found at a level exactly as
the water quality objective.
As shown in Table A-1, the wastewater flows varied through the year and flows as high as 19.78 MGD may not
be available throughout the year. Therefore, the combined discharge was analyzed using lowest available
wastewater flow of 0.25-MGD with a corresponding dilution ratio of 1:17 estimated by Flow Science, Inc. (2014)
for the discharge. Table A-5 below shows the constituents that were found to exceed the water quality objectives
at the edge of the ZID from the combined discharge using both 19.78-MGD and 0.25-MGD wastewater flows and
with the more conservative CCLEAN-data for source water entering the MPWSP Desalination Plant.
TABLE A-5
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE COMBINED DISCHARGE USING 19.78-MGD AND 0.25-MGD
WASTEWATER FLOWS AND CCLEAN DATA FOR SOURCE WATER QUALITY
Concentration at the Edge of the ZID (g/L)
Constituent Found
Exceeding the Water
Quality Objective

Ocean Plan Water Quality Objective (ug/L)

Combined Discharge
with 19.78-MGD
Wastewater
(1:68 Dilution Ratio)

Combined Discharge
with 0.25-MGD
Wastewater
(1:17 Dilution Ratio)

Aldrin

0.000022

30-day average

0.00043

0.00006

Heptachlor

0.00005

30-day average

0.0001

Not Exceeding

PCBs

0.000019

30-day average

0.000019

0.000122

Toxaphene

0.00021

30-day average

Not Exceeding

0.00033

NOTES:
Constituents in bold were found to exceed the water quality objectives.
SOURCES: Data compiled and studied from CCLEAN (2008-2013) obtained from D. Hardin (2014), MRWPCA, 2013, Trussell Technologies, 2015, and dilution
ratios from Flow Science Inc., 2014.

Table A-5 shows that the combined discharge with low wastewater flows would have an exceedance in aldrin,
PCBs, and toxaphene. Similar to the combined discharge with 19.78-MGD wastewater flows, aldrin was not
detected in the source water or the wastewater while toxaphene was not detected in the source water. For these
two constituents therefore, their method reporting limits were used as their concentrations and their resulting
concentrations at the edge of the ZID were found to be higher than the water quality objective.
In the case of heptachlor, its concentration was reported at 0.000005 g/L in the source water while it was not
detected in the wastewater hence recorded at its reporting limit <0.01 g/L, which is several orders of magnitude
higher than the water quality objective. As shown in Table A-4, heptachlor did not show an exceedance under the
brine-only discharge scenario, while for the combined discharge, it showed an exceedance with higher (19.78MGD) wastewater flow (dilution ratio of 1:68) and no exceedance with low (0.25-MGD) wastewater flow
(dilution ratio of 1:17).

14

PCBs were the only constituent which were detected both in the source water and the wastewater and found to
exceed the water quality objectives for the combined discharge scenario with 0.25-MGD wastewater flows. The
concentration of PCBs was higher in the source water than in the wastewater (see Table A-4). Also, as can be
seen in Table A-5, because of the detected value, PCBs can be compared for the different discharge scenarios.
The concentration of PCBs resulting from the combined discharge with 0.25-MGD wastewater flow was lower
than that with 19.78-MGD wastewater flow and lower than the brine-only discharge. This indicates a factor of
dilution from higher wastewater flows where the constituent was detected at a lower level in the wastewater than
in the source water. Further detailed testing of the source water can confirm the specific water quality of the
source water and the resulting discharges. There can be no conclusion drawn concerning exceedances under the
brine-only and combined discharge scenarios at the edge of the ZID for the constituents that were not detected in
the source water and/or wastewater or where constituent concentrations were not available
An additional study was conducted by MRWPCA (see Addendum in Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2015) with
select discharge scenarios to sufficiently demonstrate the impact of the updated model input parameters (e.g.,
number of open ports). 7 The study included a new scenario of combined discharge that would have a moderate
flow of 9 MGD and assumed the brine and combined discharges would be released through the outfall with 130
open ports at the diffuser (Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2015). The study also incorporated 0.1 mgd of hauled
brine, which is trucked to the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and blended with the secondary effluent
prior to being discharged (Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2015).
The study showed that the dilution ratio achieved by the brine-only discharge slightly increased from 1:16 to 1:17
and showed the same exceedances (i.e., PCBs). However, the new combined discharge with 9-mgd wastewater
flow showed an exceedance in PCBs and ammonia. For the combined discharge scenario, a lower dilution ratio
(1:22) was reported compared to that estimated for the combined discharge with higher (19.78-mgd) wastewater
flows (1:68). The combined discharge with high wastewater flow resulted in a rising plume with relatively higher
ocean mixing within the ZID (dilution ratio of 1:68). The potential Ocean Plan exceedance for the discharge
emerged when the treated wastewater was not present at a sufficiently higher flow to dilute the brine, and thus the
combined discharge was denser than seawater, forming a sinking plume with relatively low mixing within the
ZID. Similarly, as discussed previously, there was no exceedance in ammonia under the brine-with-low-(0.25MGD)-wastewater discharge scenario, where despite the relatively low ocean mixing within the ZID, the
ammonia concentration in the discharge was less because the wastewater formed a smaller fraction of the overall
discharge. 8 The ammonia concentration however increased near the point where the brine was discharged with the
highest flow of wastewater (i.e., 9 mgd) that still resulted in a sinking plume (Trussell Technologies, 2015). The
updated modeling analysis therefore showed that the combined discharge with 9-MGD wastewater would result in
an exceedance in ammonia in addition to PCBs (Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2015).
.

7 A number of factors affect the extent of mixing and dilution of a discharge. For example, the physical characteristics of the discharge i.e.,

how the discharge is released from a fewer or a higher number of open diffuser ports of the outfall, or the density of the discharge itself
where denser brine undergoes relatively lesser mixing than a lesser dense discharge when it mixes with say, wastewater.
8 Ammonia was reported at 36,400 g/L in the wastewater. There was no data available for ammonia under CCLEAN. The well data
included ammonia and it was not detected at a method reporting limit of 50 g/L. As discussed above, due to the undetected value, the
method reporting limit was used as the concentration of ammonia in the source water, in turn resulting in a concentration of 86 g/L in
the brine Also, see Trussell Technologies, Inc., (2015) for further details

15

B. Water Quality Analysis For the Project Variant

Discharge Scenarios Under Project Variant
Under the Project Variant, the MPWSP Desalination Plant would treat 15.5-MGD of source water at a 42 percent
recovery rate. Approximately 8.99 MGD of brine would be generated, consisting of concentrates from the pretreatment and reverse osmosis (RO) processes as well as waste effluent produced during routine backwashing and
operation and maintenance of the pretreatment filters. The brine generated in the desalination process would be
discharged into Monterey Bay through the MRWPCAs existing ocean outfall.
The Project Variant would also include operation of the MRWPCA-proposed GWR Project, which would involve
RO treatment of a minimum of 3.9 MGD of source water to produce 3.2 MGD of product water and 0.73 MGD of
effluent. 9 The operation of the Project Variant would result in the following different discharge scenarios that
would include brine from the MPWSP Desalination Plant, and/or effluent from the MRWPCA-proposed GWR
project, and/or treated wastewater from the existing MRWPCA wastewater treatment plant. Depending on the
operational scenario, the following discharges would be released into Monterey Bay through the existing
MRWPCA outfall:

Brine-only: 8.99 MGD of brine would be generated at the Desalination Plant and discharged alone through
the MRWPCA outfall. This operating scenario would occur if the GWR Project comes on line after the
MPWSP Desalination Plant, or the GWR Project periodically shuts down.

Brine-with-Wastewater: 8.99 MGD of brine would be discharged with varying volumes of treated
wastewater from the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. This operating scenario would
occur when treated wastewater is available and if the GWR Project comes on line after the MPWSP
Desalination Plant, or the GWR Project periodically shuts down.

GWR-only discharge or GWR Effluent: 0.73 MGD of effluent generated under the MRWPCA-proposed
GWR Project would be discharged alone through the MRWPCA outfall. This operating scenario would
occur if the GWR Project comes on line before the MPWSP Desalination Plant, or the MPWSP
Desalination Plant periodically shuts down.

Blended discharge: 8.99 MGD of brine generated from the MPWSP Desalination Plant would be blended
with 0.73 MGD of GWR-effluent to form 9.72 MGD of blended discharge. This operating scenario would
typically occur in the irrigation season.

Combined discharge: The blended discharge (9.72 MGD) would be combined with varying volumes of
treated wastewater from the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. This operating scenario
would typically occur in the non-irrigation season (explained further below).

GWR-with-Wastewater: 0.73 MGD of GWR-effluent would be discharged with varying volumes of treated
wastewater from the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. This operating scenario would
occur when treated wastewater is available and if the GWR Project comes on line before the MPWSP
Desalination Plant, or the MPWSP Desalination Plant periodically shuts down.

During certain times of the year, the brine-only, the GWR-effluent, and the blended discharges would combine
with treated wastewater from the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, when available. The
9

A minimum of 4,320 acre-feet per year (AFY) of source water would be treated to produce 3,500 AFY of product water. At the time of
this analysis, the available data for the GWR Project, i.e., 0.73 MGD of GWR effluent flow was used for the modeling analysis (also
see Flow Science, Inc., 2014).

16

wastewater flow from the MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant varies throughout the year with the
highest flows observed during the non-irrigation season (November through March) and the lowest flows during
the irrigation season (April through October) when the secondary treated wastewater is processed through the
SVRP for tertiary treatment and distributed to irrigators through the CSIP. During the irrigation season, on some
days, all of the wastewater flows could be provided to irrigators, and only the brine, the GWR-effluent, and/or the
blended discharges would be discharged into Monterey Bay through the outfall.
Table B-1 shows the average monthly projected flows for the various discharge scenarios associated with
operation of the Project Variant, including the treated wastewater flows from the existing MRWPCA Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is considered the existing or baseline discharge scenario for the analysis.
This analysis assumes that the brine would be discharged alone, or discharged with the GWR-effluent as blended
discharge during the entire irrigation season (dry months), and that the combined discharge (i.e., the blended
discharge along with the routine secondary-treated wastewater), brine-and-wastewater discharge, and GWR-andwastewater discharge would occur during the non-irrigation season (wet months) and/or other times of the year
when wastewater is released into the bay through the outfall. The wastewater from the routine operations of the
MRWPCA Wastewater Treatment Plant and the GWR-effluent would provide dilution for the brine under the
brine-and-wastewater and blended discharge scenarios respectively, which would not occur in the case of the
brine-only discharge. Using this conservative assumption, the impact is analyzed for the brine-only, the GWReffluent, and blended discharges that would occur during the entire irrigation season or when wastewater is not
available and the brine-and-wastewater, GWR-and-wastewater, and combined discharges that would occur during
non-irrigation season and/or when wastewater is available. The discharges were assumed to be released through
the MRWPCA outfall with 120 open ports at the diffuser.
For the brine-and-wastewater discharge scenario applicable directly to the operation of the MPWSP Desalination
Plant, the analysis accounts for different wastewater flows ranging from 19.78 MGD in the winter/Davidson
season (when higher discharge volumes are anticipated) to a range of lower flows of 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2 MGD in
case the wastewater is not available at higher rates (Table B-1). 10
The following sections discuss the approach, methodology, and results for water quality resulting from the brineonly, brine-with-wastewater, GWR effluent-only, GWR effluent-with-wastewater, blended, and combined
discharges.

Approach
Please see the approach under the water quality analysis for the proposed project (in Section A above). In addition
to the water quality and flow of source water and wastewater, the approach to the water quality analysis for the
Project Variant also considered the water quality and the flows estimated for the GWR effluent.
A separate water quality analysis was undertaken by MRWPCA as part of the MRWPCA-proposed GWR Project
and conducted by Trussell Technologies, Inc., (2015). The analysis included the discharge scenarios described
above for the Project Variant. The results from the MRWPCA-study are included in the discussion and
conclusions later in this memorandum.

10 The analysis with low wastewater flows is based on the analysis conducted by Flow Science, Inc. (2014) for the proposed project.

17

TABLE B-1
MONTHLY AVERAGE DISCHARGE FLOWS FROM THE PROPOSED DESALINATION PLANT AND THE GWR PROJECT UNDER THE PROJECT VARIANT,
AND SECONDARY-TREATED WASTEWATER FLOWS FROM EXISTING MRWPCA REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (MGD)
Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Treated
Wastewater from
a
MRWPCA

19.78

18.41

14.68

7.02

2.40

1.89

0.90

1.03

2.79

9.89

17.98

19.27

Brine-only

8.99

8.99

8.99

8.99

8.99

8.99

8.99

8.99

8.99

8.99

8.99

8.99

Brine-withWastewater

28.77

27.4

23.67

16.01

11.39

10.88

9.89

10.02

11.78

18.88

26.97

28.26

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

0.73

GWR-only
Discharge
GWR-withWastewater

20.51

19.14

15.41

7.75

3.13

2.62

1.63

1.76

3.52

10.62

18.71

20

Blended Discharge
(Brine-with-GWR
effluent)

9.72

9.72

9.72

9.72

9.72

9.72

9.72

9.72

9.72

9.72

9.72

9.72

Combined
Discharge
(Blended
Discharge-withWastewater)

29.5

28.13

24.4

16.74

12.12

11.61

10.62

10.75

12.51

19.61

27.7

28.99

NOTES: Shaded cells represent the seasonal discharge scenarios used in this analysis and modeled by Flow Science, Inc., (2014).
Numbers in italics represent the flow rates used in the modeling analysis of salinity conducted by Flow Science, Inc., (2014), the results of which were used to analyze other constituents in the brine and
combined discharges (discussed below in this impact analysis). In the case of the combined discharge, the modeling analysis also used lower wastewater flow rates of 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2 MGD.
SOURCES: aMRWPCA, 2013; Trussell Technologies, 2015

18

Methodology
Please see the methodology under the water quality analysis for the proposed project above (in Section A above).
Constituent concentrations resulting from the different discharges from the Project Variant at the edge of the ZID
were calculated similar to that under the proposed project as follows:

Brine: Similar to that under the proposed project.

Brine-with-Wastewater: Similar to the combined discharge under the proposed project except for the
dilution factor of 1:84 for discharge with 19.78-mgd wastewater flows.

GWR-only discharge or GWR Effluent: The constituent concentrations were calculated using the
concentrations obtained for the GWR effluent from MRWPCA and multiplying them with the dilution
factor of 1:270 estimated for the GWR Project. 11 This discharge is discussed in detail in the study
conducted for MRWPCA for the GWR Project by Trussell Technologies, Inc., (2015).

Blended discharge: Here, the brine would blend with GWR-effluent. The constituent concentrations in the
blended discharge were calculated based on the respective constituent concentrations in the brine and
GWR-effluent and the relative proportions of the brine and the GWR-effluent in the discharge. Then the
concentrations were multiplied by the dilution factor (1:17) estimated in the near-field salinity analysis for
the discharge by Flow Science Inc., (2014).

Combined discharge: Here, the brine and GWR-effluent would combine with the wastewater. The
constituent concentrations were calculated based on the respective constituent concentrations in the brine,
GWR-effluent, and wastewater, and the relative proportions of the three streams in the discharge, then
multiplied by the dilution factor (1:82) estimated in the near-field salinity analysis for the discharge by
Flow Science Inc., (2014).

GWR-with-Wastewater: Here, the discharge would consist of GWR-effluent and wastewater. The
calculation would use the constituent concentrations and the relative proportions in the GWR-effluent and
wastewater along with the estimated dilution ratio (1:180) for the discharge by Flow Science, Inc. (2014).
This discharge is also discussed in detail in the study conducted for MRWPCA-proposed GWR Project by
Trussell Technologies, Inc., (2015).

Results
Table B-2 below presents the estimated constituent levels under the six discharge scenarios using the well data
for source water quality. The table also shows how the levels at the edge of the ZID shown in pale grey columns
compare with the Ocean Plan water quality objectives (the most conservative value among the 6-month median,
30-day average, and daily and instantaneous maximums are used) shown in the dark grey column.
Table B-2 also includes the constituents with ocean water quality objectives that were tested in the MRWPCAwastewater and not in the well water. Concentrations for these constituents therefore could not be calculated for
the brine discharge and hence also when it combines with wastewater. Therefore concentrations for these
constituents under the discharges that contain brine are not provided.

11 This dilution factor was estimated under ESAs study of the discharge as part of MPWSP and Project Variant (Flow Science, Inc.,

2014). It is different than the dilution factor of 1:523, which was estimated under MRWPCAs study of the discharge as part of their
GWR Project (Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2015). The dilution factors were different owing to updates and changes to the flow and
water quality data for the GWR Project after ESA completed its study. As stated above, water quality results from Trussell
Technologies, Inc., (2015) were used for the GWR effluent and blended discharges and were compared between the two studies.

19

The MCWD well data was collected using higher water concentration limits than the water quality objectives for
discharges. At the tested method reporting limits, a substantive number of constituents were not detected. They
were therefore recorded using their reporting limits. For example, a constituent not detected at a reporting limit of
micrograms per liter (0.01 g/L) was reported at a concentration less than 0.01 g/L or <0.01 g/L, hence the
concentration of the constituent would range between 0 and 0.01 g/L. Here, the analysis used a conservative
approach and assumed the highest value in the range, that of 0.01 g/L as the concentration of the constituent. In
the case of reporting limits higher than the Ocean Plan water quality objective, the constituent, upon further
concentration as part of the desalination process, was expectedly found to exceed the water quality objective from
the brine discharge.
Similar to the results under the proposed project (discussed in Section A above), there were several constituents
observed that were found to exceed the water quality objectives under the different discharge scenarios. However
due to the higher method reporting limits used to test the well data, a substantive number of constituents tested
were not detected and were recorded at their reporting limits. In the case of reporting limits higher than the Ocean
Plan water quality objective, a constituent not detected was expectedly found to exceed the water quality
objective. Thus, the well data showed exceedances under all the discharge scenarios for the constituents, which
were not detected in the source water. All the detected constituents in the source water however were found to be
lower than, and in compliance with, the Ocean Plan water quality objectives.
Based on Table B-2, Table B-3 below lists the constituents that were found to exceed the water quality objectives
for the discharges occurring under the Project Variant. Their concentrations in the source water (i.e., the well
water) for the desalination plant, wastewater, and GWR effluent are provided as a reference.
As shown in Table B-3, none of the constituents in the discharges containing brine (i.e., brine-only, blended,
brine-and-wastewater, and combined discharges) that showed an exceedance over water quality objectives at the
edge of the ZID were detected in the source water at the method reporting limits used. Also, the method reporting
limits were higher than the water quality objectives, therefore their concentrations in the brine and thus the respective
listed discharges containing brine expectedly showed an exceedance. In the case of GWR-effluent, of the detected
constituents, ammonia and benzidene were found to exceed the water quality objectives at the edge of the ZID.
The baseline wastewater discharge scenario showed an exceedance for aldrin, benzidene, and heptachlor. These
constituents were not detected in the wastewater, hence, their method reporting limits were used as their
respective concentrations, which were higher than the water quality objectives, hence the exceedance observed.
Similar to the discussion for proposed project in Section A above, given the several undetected constituents for
the well-data, for a more conservative approach, ESA continued the water quality analysis utilizing the highresolution data collected under CCLEAN from Monterey Bay to represent the source water quality for the
MPWSP Desalination Plant.
Table B-4 below presents the estimated constituent concentrations in the discharge scenarios under the project
variant using the CCLEAN data for source water quality. The table lists the constituents that are monitored under
CCLEAN, hence does not include all of the constituents shown in Table A-2. Table B-4 shows the same dilution
factors that were used in Table B-2 and also shows how the constituent concentrations at the edge of the ZID in
pale grey columns compare with the Ocean Plan water quality objectives in the dark grey column.

20

TABLE B-2
OCEAN PLAN WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE DISCHARGES ANTICIPATED UNDER THE PROJECT VARIANT USING WELL DATA AS SOURCE WATER ENTERING THE MPWSP DESALINATION PLANT (g/L)

Constituent

Concentration in
Source Water1,*

Brine

Wastewater2

Brine+
Wastewater

GWR Effluent3

Blended
Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent)

Ocean Plan Water Quality

Objectives

4,5

Concentration in the Discharge Stream*

Concentration at the Edge of the ZID

GWR+
wastewater

Combined Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent+wastewater) Brine (1:15)

Wastewater
(1:145)

Brine+
Wastewater
(1:84)

GWR Effluent
(1:270)

Blended
Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent) (1:17)

GWR+Wastewater
(1:180)

Combined Discharge
(Brine+GWR effluent+
wastewater) (1:82)

Objective

Basis

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Marine Life

Arsenic

22

37.93

45

42.791

12.0

35.984

43.553

41.582

2.53

0.310

0.509

0.044

2.117

0.242

0.507

6-month median

Cadmium

4.6

7.93

3.166

6.4

7.818

1.238

3.585

0.53

0.007

0.038

0.024

0.460

0.007

0.044

6-month median

Chromium (Hexavalent)

NA

<2

14.0

2.526

0.014

0.052

0.014

6-month median

Copper

22

37.93

10

18.728

136.4

45.327

15.542

23.392

2.53

0.069

0.223

0.505

2.666

0.086

0.285

6-month median

Lead

3.7

6.38

<0.5

2.337

4.3

6.223

0.666

2.669

0.43

0.003

0.028

0.016

0.366

0.004

0.033

6-month median

Mercury

<0.2

0.345

0.019

0.121

0.5

0.357

0.041

0.147

0.02

0.0001

0.001

0.002

0.021

0.0002

0.002

0.04

6-month median

Nickel

<5

8.62

5.2

6.269

69.0

13.154

7.996

8.215

0.57

0.036

0.075

0.255

0.774

0.044

0.100

6-month median

Selenium

32

55.17

19.303

13.0

52.005

3.438

21.578

3.68

0.021

0.230

0.048

3.059

0.019

0.263

15

6-month median

Silver

4.9

8.45

<0.19

2.771

<0.19

7.828

0.190

3.086

0.56

0.001

0.033

0.001

0.460

0.001

0.038

0.7

6-month median

Zinc

<100

172.41

20.0

67.626

254.9

178.606

30.297

80.127

11.49

0.138

0.805

0.944

10.506

0.168

0.977

20

6-month median

Cyanide

<5

8.62

81.0

58.383

38.0

10.827

79.115

54.398

0.57

0.559

0.695

0.141

0.637

0.440

0.663

6-month median

Total Chlorine Residual

NA

<200

<200

200.000

1.379

0.741

1.111

6-month median

Ammonia (expressed as
Nitrogen)

<50

862.1

36400

25295.2

191578.9

15185.5

43203.6

28357.7

57.5

251.0

301.1

709.6

893.3

240.0

345.8

600

6-month median

Acute Toxicity

NA

2.3

0.770

2.233

0.016

0.003

0.012

NA

6-month median

Chronic Toxicity

NA

40

100

42.631

0.276

0.370

0.237

NA

6-month median

Phenolic Compounds
(non-chlorinated)

NA

69

363.2

81.897

0.476

1.345

0.455

30

6-month median

Chlorinated Phenolics

NA

<20

<20

20.000

0.138

0.074

0.111

6-month median

Endosulfan

NA

0.015

0.253

0.025

0.0001

0.001

0.0001

0.009

6-month median

Endrin

<0.01

0.017

0.00008

0.005

0.410

0.047

0.018

0.018

0.001

0.0000005

0.000

0.002

0.003

0.0001

0.000

0.002

6-month median

HCH

NA

0.034

0.314

0.046

0.0002

0.001

0.0003

0.004

6-month median

Radioactivity

NA

Gross B 32
pCi/L,Gross
A 18 pCi/L

Gross B 34.8
pCi/L,Gross A
14.4 pCi/L

Not to exceed limits specified in

Tile 17, Division 1, Chapter 5,
Subchapter 4, Group 3, Article 3,
Section 30253 of the California
Code of Regulations.

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Human Health-Noncarcinogens

acrolein

NA

<5

47.466

6.862

0.034

0.176

0.038

220

30-day average

antimony

9.6

16.552

0.650

5.619

4.138

15.619

0.803

6.32

1.103

0.004

0.067

0.015

0.919

0.004

0.077

1,200

30-day average

bis(2-chloroethoxy)
methane

NA

<0.5

<1

0.522

0.003

0.004

0.003

4.4

30-day average

bis(2-chloroisopropyl)
ether

NA

<0.5

<1

0.522

0.003

0.004

0.003

1,200

30-day average

chlorobenzene

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.5

0.835

0.500

0.63

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

570

30-day average

chromium (III)

62

106.897

3.000

35.465

38.332

101.747

4.55

40.43

7.126

0.021

0.422

0.142

5.985

0.025

0.493

190,000

30-day average

di-n-butyl phthalate

<1

1.724

<5

3.976

<1

1.670

4.825

3.74

0.115

0.034

0.047

0.004

0.098

0.027

0.046

3,500

30-day average

dichlorobenzenes

<1

1.724

1.600

1.639

8.421

2.227

1.899

1.84

0.115

0.011

0.020

0.031

0.131

0.011

0.022

5,100

30-day average

diethyl phthalate

<0.5

0.862

<5

3.707

<1

0.872

4.825

3.44

0.057

0.034

0.044

0.004

0.051

0.027

0.042

33,000

30-day average

dimethyl phthalate

<0.5

0.862

<2

1.644

<0.5

0.835

1.934

1.56

0.057

0.014

0.020

0.002

0.049

0.011

0.019

820,000

30-day average

4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol

NA

<0.5

<5

0.697

0.003

0.019

0.004

220

30-day average

2,4-dinitrophenol

NA

<0.5

<5

0.697

0.003

0.019

0.004

30-day average

ethylbenzene

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.5

0.835

0.50

0.63

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

4,100

30-day average

fluoranthene

<0.1

0.172

<0.5

0.398

<0.1

0.167

0.482

0.37

0.011

0.003

0.005

0.000

0.010

0.003

0.005

15

30-day average

21

TABLE B-2
OCEAN PLAN WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE DISCHARGES ANTICIPATED UNDER THE PROJECT VARIANT USING WELL DATA AS SOURCE WATER ENTERING THE MPWSP DESALINATION PLANT (g/L)

GWR Effluent3

Concentration at the Edge of the ZID

GWR+
wastewater

Combined Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent+wastewater) Brine (1:15)

Wastewater
(1:145)

Brine+
Wastewater
(1:84)

GWR Effluent
(1:270)

Blended
Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent) (1:17)

GWR+Wastewater
(1:180)

Combined Discharge
(Brine+GWR effluent+
wastewater) (1:82)

Objective

Brine

Wastewater2

Brine+
Wastewater

hexachlorocyclopentadiene <0.05

0.086

<0.5

0.371

<0.05

0.083

0.480

0.34

0.006

0.003

0.004

0.000

0.005

0.003

0.004

58

30-day average

nitrobenzene

NA

<0.5

<1

0.522

0.003

0.004

0.003

4.9

30-day average

thallium

<5

8.621

<0.5

3.038

3.656

8.248

0.638

3.437

0.575

0.003

0.036

0.014

0.485

0.004

0.042

30-day average

toluene

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.5

0.835

0.500

0.627

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

85,000

30-day average

tributyltin

NA

<0.05

<0.02

0.049

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.0014

30-day average

1,1,1-trichloroethane

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.5

0.835

0.500

0.627

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

540,000

30-day average

Constituent

Concentration in
Source Water1,*

Blended
Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent)

Ocean Plan Water Quality

Objectives

4,5

Concentration in the Discharge Stream*

Basis

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Human Health-Carcinogens

acrylonitrile

NA

<2

13.411

2.500

0.014

0.050

0.014

0.1

30-day average

aldrin

<0.01

0.017

<0.05

0.040

<0.01

0.017

0.048

0.037

0.001

0.0003

0.0005

0.00004

0.001

0.0003

0.0005

0.000022

30-day average

benzene

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.05

0.835

0.500

0.627

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

5.9

30-day average

benzidine

NA

<0.5

<0.05

0.480

0.003

0.0002

0.003

0.000069

30-day average

beryllium

<5

8.621

<0.5

3.038

<0.5

8.011

0.500

3.347

0.575

0.003

0.036

0.002

0.471

0.003

0.041

0.033

30-day average

bis(2-chloroethyl) ether

NA

<0.5

<1

0.522

0.003

0.004

0.003

0.045

30-day average

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

<0.6

1.034

78.000

53.950

410.526

31.788

92.579

60.481

0.07

0.54

0.64

1.52

1.87

0.51

0.74

3.5

30-day average

carbon tetrachloride

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

2.658

0.835

0.595

0.688

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.010

0.049

0.003

0.008

0.9

30-day average

chlordane

<0.1

0.172

0.001

0.054

0.004

0.160

0.001

0.061

0.011

0.00001

0.001

0.00001

0.009

0.000005

0.0007

0.000023

30-day average

chlorodibromomethane

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

12.858

0.835

1.042

0.979

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.048

0.049

0.006

0.012

8.6

30-day average

chloroform

<0.5

0.862

2.000

1.644

203.976

16.117

10.855

7.352

0.057

0.014

0.020

0.755

0.948

0.060

0.090

130

30-day average

DDT

NA

0.001

0.035

0.003

0.000008

0.0001

0.00001

0.00017

30-day average

1,4-dichlorobenzene

<0.5

0.862

1.600

1.369

8.421

1.430

1.899

1.535

0.057

0.011

0.016

0.031

0.084

0.011

0.019

18

30-day average

3.3-dichlorobenzidine

NA

<0.025

<2

0.112

0.000

0.007

0.001

0.0081

30-day average

1,2-dichloroethane

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.5

0.835

0.500

0.627

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

28

30-day average

1,1-dichlorethylene

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.5

0.835

0.500

0.627

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

0.9

30-day average

dichlorobromomethane

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

13.776

1.832

1.082

1.005

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.051

0.108

0.006

0.012

6.2

30-day average

dichloromethane

<0.5

0.862

0.550

0.648

3.387

1.052

0.674

0.740

0.057

0.004

0.008

0.013

0.062

0.004

0.009

450

30-day average

1,3-dichloropropene

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

2.957

1.019

0.608

0.697

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.011

0.060

0.003

0.008

8.9

30-day average

dieldrin

<0.01

0.017

0.001

0.006

0.003

0.016

0.001

0.006

0.001

0.000003

0.0001

0.00001

0.001

0.000003

0.0001

0.00004

30-day average

2,4-dinitrotoluene

<0.1

0.172

<2

1.429

<0.1

0.167

1.917

1.305

0.011

0.014

0.017

0.000

0.010

0.011

0.016

2.6

30-day average

1,2-diphenylhydrazine

NA

<0.5

<1

0.522

0.003

0.004

0.003

0.16

30-day average

halomethanes

<1.5

2.586

0.540

1.179

7.494

2.955

0.845

1.455

0.172

0.004

0.014

0.028

0.174

0.005

0.018

130

30-day average

heptachlor

<0.01

0.017

<0.01

0.012

<0.01

0.017

0.010

0.013

0.001

0.00007

0.0001

0.00004

0.001

0.0001

0.0002

0.00005

30-day average

heptachlor epoxide

<0.01

0.017

0.000

0.005

0.0003

0.016

0.00007

0.006

0.001

0.0000004

0.00006

0.000001

0.001

0.0000004

0.0001

0.00002

30-day average

hexachlorobenzene

<0.05

0.086

0.000

0.027

0.0004

0.080

0.00009

0.030

0.006

0.0000005

0.0003

0.0000015

0.005

0.000001

0.0004

0.00021

30-day average

hexachlorobutadiene

<0.5

0.862

0.000

0.269

0.00005

0.797

0.00001

0.302

0.057

0.000

0.003

0.000

0.047

0.0000001

0.004

14

30-day average

hexachloroethane

NA

<0.5

<0.5

0.500

0.003

0.002

0.003

2.5

30-day average

isophorone

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.5

0.835

0.500

0.627

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

730

30-day average

N-nitrosodimethylamine

<0.002

0.003

0.017

0.013

0.150

0.014

0.023

0.016

0.0002

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.0001

0.0002

7.3

30-day average

N-nitrosodi-N-propylamine

<0.002

0.003

0.076

0.053

0.019

0.005

0.074

0.049

0.0002

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.38

30-day average

N-nitrosodiphenylamine

NA

<0.5

<1

0.522

0.003

0.004

0.003

2.5

30-day average

Polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs)

<0.5-<0.02

0.862

0.050

0.304

0.278

0.818

0.060

0.341

0.057

0.0003

0.004

0.001

0.048

0.0003

0.004

0.0088

30-day average

Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs)

<0.08

0.138

0.001

0.044

0.004

0.128

0.001

0.049

0.009

0.0000047

0.001

0.000013

0.008

0.000004

0.001

0.000019

30-day average

TCDD equivalents

NA

1.5E-07

1.0E-06

0.000

1.0E-09

3.7E-09

1.1E-09

3.9E-09

30-day average

22

TABLE B-2
OCEAN PLAN WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE DISCHARGES ANTICIPATED UNDER THE PROJECT VARIANT USING WELL DATA AS SOURCE WATER ENTERING THE MPWSP DESALINATION PLANT (g/L)
Ocean Plan Water Quality
Objectives

4,5

Concentration in the Discharge Stream*

Concentration at the Edge of the ZID

Wastewater2

Brine+
Wastewater

GWR Effluent3

Blended
Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent)

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.5

0.835

0.500

0.627

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

2.3

30-day average

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.5

0.835

0.500

0.627

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

30-day average

<0.5

0.862

0.007

0.274

0.037

0.800

0.008

0.308

0.057

0.00005

0.003

0.0001

0.047

0.00005

0.004

0.00021

30-day average

trichloroethylene

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.5

0.835

0.500

0.627

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

27

30-day average

1,1,2-trichloroethane

<0.5

0.862

<0.5

0.613

<0.5

0.835

0.500

0.627

0.057

0.003

0.007

0.002

0.049

0.003

0.008

9.4

30-day average

2,4,6-trichlorophenol

NA

<0.5

<1

0.522

0.003

0.004

0.003

0.29

30-day average

vinyl chloride

<0.3

0.517

<0.5

0.505

<0.5

0.516

0.500

0.506

0.034

0.003

0.006

0.002

0.030

0.003

0.006

36

30-day average

Constituent

Concentration in
Source Water1,*

Brine

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane

<0.5

tetrachloroethylene

<0.5

toxaphene

GWR+
wastewater

Combined Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent+wastewater) Brine (1:15)

Wastewater
(1:145)

Brine+
Wastewater
(1:84)

GWR Effluent
(1:270)

Blended
Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent) (1:17)

GWR+Wastewater
(1:180)

Combined Discharge
(Brine+GWR effluent+
wastewater) (1:82)

Objective

Basis

FOOTNOTES:
Constituents or parameters in italics were not sampled in the well water and hence their concentration was not available for the source water. Their concentrations in the wastewater and GWR effluent are provided as available.
NA = Not available
- = Not estimated because there was no data available for the source water (well water) and the concentration in brine and in the discharges containing brine could not be calculated.
* = Constituents that were not detected in the source water, wastewater, and/or the GWR effluent, were recorded as occurring below their method reporting limit (i.e., <0.5 where 0.5 g/L is the method reporting limit).
Constituents in bold were found to exceed the water quality objectives.
1. Source water is the water entering through the intake system into the MPWSP Desalination Plant. Water quality data for the source water is the well water data collected as part of the MCWD testing of the well ~5,000 feet south of the MPWSP Seawater Intake System (Trussell Technologies, 2010).
2. Data for the treated wastewater discharged from MRWPCA was received from CCLEAN and Trussell Technologies.These water quality data were used to calculate maximum constituent concentrations in Monterey Bay and were used in the analysis.
3. Data for the GWR effluent was received from Trussell Technologies (Dec 5, 2014).
4. Concentrations at the edge of the ZID were calculated using the concentrations in the discharge streams (in pale grey columns) and the dilution ratio estimated for that discharge stream at the edge of the ZID. The dilution ratio is shown in parenthesis (e.g., 1:16) for each discharge stream.
5. All dilution ratios were used as estimated by Flow Science, Inc. (2014).
SOURCES: Data compiled and studied from Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2010, Trussell Technologies, 2015, MRWPCA, 2013, Flow Science Inc., 2014.

TABLE B-3
CONSTITUENTS FOUND TO EXCEED THE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES UNDER THE PROJECT VARIANT USING WELL DATA FOR SOURCE WATER ENTERING THE MPWSP DESALINATION PLANT(g/L)
Concentration at the Edge of the ZID*

Constituent Found Exceeding the Water

Quality Objective
Ammonia (expressed as Nitrogen)

Constituent Concentration

Blended Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent) (1:17)

GWR+wastewater (1:180)

Combined Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent+wastewater) (1:82)

Brine (1:15)

Brine+Wastewater (1:84)

GWR Effluent
(1:270)

709.6

893.3

Ocean Plan Water Quality Objective

Source Water

Wastewater

GWR-Effluent

600

6-month median

<50

Not applicable

191,579
0.41

Endrin

0.002

0.003

0.002

6-month median

<0.01

Not applicable

aldrin

0.001

0.0005

0.000022

30-day average

<0.01

<0.05

benzidine

0.0002

0.003

0.000069

30-day average

Not applicable

<0.5

beryllium

0.575

0.036

0.471

0.041

0.033

30-day average

<5

<0.5

<0.5

chlordane

0.001

0.009

0.0007

0.000023

30-day average

<0.1

0.000735

0.0039

dieldrin

0.001

0.0001

0.001

0.0001

0.00004

30-day average

<0.01

0.000503

0.0029

heptachlor

0.001

0.0001

0.001

0.0001

0.0002

0.00005

30-day average

<0.01

ND(<0.01)

ND(<0.01)

heptachlor epoxide

0.001

0.001

0.0001

0.00002

30-day average

<0.01

0.000059

0.00031

hexachlorobenzene

0.006

0.005

0.00021

30-day average

<0.05

Not applicable

0.00041

0.0088

30-day average

<0.5-<0.02

0.05

0.28

0.009

0.001

0.008

0.001

0.000019

30-day average

<0.08

3.9E-09

30-day average

Not applicable

0.057

0.003

0.047

0.004

0.00021

30-day average

<0.5

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
TCDD equivalents
toxaphene

NOTES:
Constituents in bold were found to exceed the water quality objectives as noted in the previous Table A-2.
* The numbers in parenthesis are dilution ratios estimated for each discharge stream. The dilution ratios were estimated by Flow Science, Inc. (2014). See Appendix D2.
** Constituent that was not detected was recorded as occurring below its method reporting limit (e.g., <0.5 where 0.5 g/L is the method reporting limit).
"-' = No exceedances were observed.
SOURCES: Same as Table A-2.

23

<0.05

0.000679

0.0036

0.00000015

0.000001

0.007090

0.037

TABLE B-4
OCEAN PLAN WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR DISCHARGES UNDER THE PROJECT VARIANT USING CCLEAN DATA FOR SOURCE WATER (g/L)

Constituent

Concentration
in Source
Water1,*

Brine

Wastewater2

Brine+
Wastewater

GWR Effluent3

Blended
Discharge
(Brine+GWR
effluent)

Ocean Plan Water Quality

Objectives

4,5

Concentration in the Discharge Stream*

Concentration at the Edge of the ZID

GWR+
wastewater

Combined
Discharge (Brine+
GWR effluent+
wastewater)

Brine (1:15)

Wastewater
(1:145)

Brine+
Wastewater
(1:84)

GWR Effluent
(1:270)

Blended
Discharge
Combined Discharge
(Brine+GWR
GWR+Wastewater (Brine+GWR effluent+
effluent) (1:17) (1:180)
wastewater) (1:82)

Objective

Basis

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Marine Life

Endosulfan

0.000039

0.0000672

0.015

0.010

0.253

0.019

0.025

0.017

0.000004

0.0001

0.00012

0.001

0.001

0.0001

0.00020

0.009

6-month median

Endrin

0.000005

0.0000086

0.00008

0.00006

0.410

0.031

0.018

0.012

0.0000006

0.0000005

0.0000007

0.0015

0.0018

0.0001

0.00014

0.002

6-month median

HCH

0.000393

0.000678

0.034

0.024

0.314

0.024

0.046

0.030

0.000045

0.0002

0.00028

0.001

0.001

0.0003

0.00037

0.004

6-month median

<0.1

0.01

0.482

0.314

0.0001

0.003

0.004

0.000

0.001

0.003

0.0038

15

30-day average

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Human Health-Noncarcinogens

fluoranthene

0.00108

0.0019

<0.5

0.344

Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Human Health-Carcinogens

aldrin

<0.000081

0.00014

<0.05

0.034

<0.01

0.0009

0.048

0.031

0.00001

0.0003

0.0004

0.00004

0.00005

0.0003

0.00038

0.000022

30-day average

chlordane

0.000114

0.00020

0.0007

0.0006

0.0039

0.00047

0.001

0.00064

0.00001

0.00001

0.000007

0.00001

0.000028

0.000005

0.000008

0.000023

30-day average

DDT

0.000319

0.00055

0.0011

0.0009

0.0346

0.0031

0.003

0.00185

0.000037

0.000008

0.000011

0.0001

0.00018

0.00001

0.000023

0.00017

30-day average

dieldrin

0.000051

0.000088

0.0005

0.0004

0.0029

0.0003

0.001

0.00043

0.000006

0.000003

0.000004

0.00001

0.000018

0.000003

0.000005

0.00004

30-day average

heptachlor

0.000005

0.000009

<0.01

0.007

<0.01

0.00002

0.010

0.0065

0.0000006

0.00007

0.0001

0.00004

0.00004

0.0001

0.00008

0.00005

30-day average

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons 0.00691

(PAHs)

0.0119

0.050

0.038

0.278

0.032

0.060

0.0432

0.00079

0.0003

0.00045

0.001

0.00188

0.0003

0.00053

0.0088

30-day average

Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs)

0.00121

0.0021

0.00068

0.0011

0.0036

0.002

0.001

0.0013

0.00014

0.0000047

0.000013

0.000013

0.00013

0.000004

0.000015

0.000019

30-day average

Toxaphene

<0.0032

0.0055

1.5E-07

0.007

1.0E-06

0.0079

0.000

0.0074

0.00037

1.0E-09

0.000079

3.7E-09

0.00047

1.1E-09

9.02E-05

3.9E-09

30-day average

NOTES:
Concentrations above the Ocean Plan water quality objectives are shown in bold.
*= Concentrations that were not detected are noted in terms of the reporting limit of that constituent during the test, e.g., <0.5 where the concentration is less than 0.5 ug/L so the concentration may be present at a concentration between 0 and 0.5 ug/L.
1. Source water is the water entering through the intake system into the MPWSP Desalination Plant. Concentrations in the source water are from the ocean water quality data obtained from CCLEAN (2008-2013) from time-integrated ocean samples collected over 30-day periods in both the wet season and dry season from September 2008 through April of 2013.
Samples were obtained for two sites: the Southern Monterey Bay site and the Northern Monterey Bay site, located approximately 4 and 12 miles respectively, from the discharge site. These water quality data were used to calculate maximum constituent concentrations in Monterey Bay and were used in the analysis.
2. Data for the treated wastewater discharged from MRWPCA was received from CCLEAN and Trussell Technologies. These water quality data were used to calculate maximum constituent concentrations in Monterey Bay and were used in the analysis.
3. Data for the GWR effluent was received from Trussell Technologies (Dec 5, 2014).
4. Concentrations at the edge of the ZID were calculated using the concentrations in the discharge streams and the dilution ratio estimated for that discharge stream at the edge of the ZID. The dilution ratios are shown in parenthesis (e.g., 1:15) for each discharge stream.
5. All dilution ratios were used as estimated by Flow Science, Inc. (2014).
SOURCES: Data from CCLEAN (2008-2013); MRWPCA, 2013.
* < = Constituent was tested but its concentration was not detected at the method reporting limits used. Therefore, the concentration for the constituent is recorded as less than the method reporting limit.
SOURCES: Data compiled and studied from CCLEAN, Trussell Technologies, 2015, MRWPCA, 2013, Flow Science Inc., 2014.

24

The constituent concentrations were calculated at the edge of the ZID for all the aforementioned discharge
scenarios under the Project Variant.
As Table B-4 shows, the constituents that showed exceedances in Table B-2 (using well-data for source water
quality) were found at much lower concentrations in Table B-4 (using CCLEAN data for source water quality)
and most of them were found to not exceed the water quality objectives. The discharges under the Project Variant
were found to result in exceedances for the following constituents:

Brine discharge: PCBs and toxaphene

Brine-and-wastewater discharge: Aldrin, heptachlor, and toxaphene

GWR effluent: Aldrin

Blended discharge: Aldrin, chlordane, DDT, PCBs, and toxaphene

GWR-and-wastewater: Aldrin and heptachlor

Combined discharge: Aldrin, heptachlor, and toxaphene

Of the constituents listed above, aldrin and toxaphene were not detected in the source water and heptachlor was
not detected in the wastewater. See the discussion for these constituents in Section A above for the proposed
project.
Similar to that discussed under the proposed project above, the comparison between the constituent concentrations
from the discharges at the edge of the ZID with the water quality objectives could be made only for the
constituents that were tested and recorded at a detected value; and that were tested at the method reporting limit
comparable with (at or lower than) the water quality objective. Based on the available data and its analysis, this
memorandum identifies the constituents that are estimated to exceed the Ocean Plan water quality objectives by
using 1) high-resolution data collected under CCLEAN for the brine-only discharge and other discharges
containing brine; 2) constituents that were detected both in the source water and wastewater for the brine-andwastewater discharge; 3) constituents that were detected both in the source water and GWR effluent for the
blended discharge. Thus, the constituents that were found to exceed the water quality objective at the edge of the
ZID were as follows:

Brine discharge: PCBs

Brine-and-wastewater discharge: None

Blended discharge: Aldrin, chlordane, DDT, PCBs, and toxaphene

Combined discharge: Aldrin, heptachlor, and toxaphene

Final conclusions (discussed further below in this memorandum) on exceedances of constituents for the GWReffluent and the GWR-and-wastewater discharges were drawn based on this analysis along with the separate
analysis conducted by MRWPCA as part of their GWR Project (Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2015).
Similar to the proposed project, the analysis for the Project Variant also included low wastewater flows (0.25MGD) as part of the brine-and-wastewater discharge 12. Table B-5 below presents the estimated constituent levels
12 Termed as combined discharge under the proposed project.

25

at the edge of the ZID for the brine and brine-and-wastewater discharges using the CCLEAN data for source
water quality where the calculations for the brine-and-wastewater discharge used both 19.78-MGD and 0.25MGD wastewater flows. The table shows the same dilution factors that were used in Table B-2, and also shows
how the constituent concentrations at the edge of the ZID compare with the Ocean Plan water quality objectives.
TABLE B-5
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE BRINE-AND-WASTEWATER DISCHARGE USING CCLEAN DATA FOR
SOURCE WATER QUALITY AND 19.78-MGD AND 0.25-MGD WASTEWATER FLOWS UNDER THE PROJECT VARIANT

Constituent Found
Exceeding the Water
Quality Objective

Ocean Plan Water Quality

Objective (ug/L)

Brine+19.78mgd
Wastewater

Brine+
0.25-mgd
Wastewater

Aldrin

0.000022

30-day average

0.0004

0.000088

Chlordane

0.000023

30-day average

DDT

0.00017

30-day average

Heptachlor

0.00005

30-day average

0.0001

Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs)

0.000019

30-day average

0.00012

Toxaphene

3.9E-09

30-day average

0.000079

3.3E-04

Table B-5 shows that the brine-and-wastewater discharge with low wastewater flows would have an exceedance
in aldrin, PCBs, and toxaphene. Please refer to the discussion for aldrin and toxaphene under the proposed project.
Compared to the brine-only discharge (Table B-4), the concentration of aldrin was higher in the brine-andwastewater discharge with 19.78-MGD-wastewater. Aldrin was not detected in the source water or the wastewater
however its method reporting limit for the source water testing was several orders of magnitude higher than its
method reporting limit used for wastewater testing. Toxaphene was not detected in the source water but detected
in wastewater, yet its method reporting limit (the maximum level used for this analysis as a conservative
approach) was several orders of magnitude higher than its detected concentration in wastewater. For these two
constituents therefore, their method reporting limits used as their concentrations were higher than the respective
water quality objectives, therefore resulted in the calculated concentrations at the edge of the ZID that were higher
than the water quality objective.
PCBs were the only constituent which were detected in the source water and the wastewater and found to exceed
the water quality objectives for the combined discharge scenarios with both 0.25-MGD-wastewater.
There can be no conclusion drawn concerning exceedances at the edge of the ZID for the constituents that were
not detected in the source water and/or wastewater or where constituent concentrations were not available.
As Table B-4 shows, constituents that showed exceedances in Table B-2 (using well-data for source water
quality) were found at much lower concentrations in Table B-4 (using CCLEAN data for source water quality)
and most of them were found to not exceed the water quality objectives. Table B-5 shows that the combined
discharge with lower wastewater flows (0.25-MGD) with a low dilution ratio of 1:17 would have higher
constituent concentrations than that with higher wastewater flows (19.78-MGD) that had a dilution ratio of 1:84.

26

The constituents that were found to exceed the water quality objectives at the edge of the ZID under the different
discharge scenarios are summarized in Table B-6. The final exceedances based on detected concentrations
identified are shown in the dark grey column.
TABLE B-6
CONSTITUENTS ESTIMATED TO EXCEED UNDER THE PROJECT VARIANT
Dilution Ratio at the Edge of
the ZID
(Discharge
Stream:Seawater)

Constituents That Exceeded Ocean

Plan Water Quality Objectives Using
High-Resolution CCLEAN Data for
Source Water

Detected Constituents* That

Exceeded Ocean Water
Objectives Using CCLEANData for Source Water

Treated wastewater-only

1:145

Aldrin

None

Brine-only

1:15

PCBs and toxaphene

PCBs

Brine-with-19.78-MGDwastewater

1:84

Aldrin, heptachlor, toxaphene

None

Brine-with-0.25-MGDwastewater

1:17

Aldrin, PCBs, toxaphene

PCBs

GWR-effluent only

1:270

None

None

Blended Discharge

1:17

Aldrin, chlordane, DDT, PCBs,

toxaphene

Chlordane, DDT, PCBs

Combined Discharge

1:82

Heptachlor and toxaphene

None

GWR-with-wastewater

1:180

Heptachlor

None

Discharge Scenario

* Constituents that were not detected in the source water and/or the wastewater and/or the GWR effluent and recorded at the method reporting limits.
NOTE: Trussell Technologies, Inc., (2015) used 19.68-MGD of wastewater flow for the brine-and-wastewater scenarios. The dilution ratio used for the GWReffluent was 1:270, which was lowest amongst the three ratios estimated in the three oceanic seasons (with 1:159 and 1:678).
SOURCE: Flow Science, Inc., 2014.

Using the same rationale as under the proposed project, the constituents that were estimated to exceed under the
Project Variant were identified based on the available water quality data for the constituents and based on the
constituents that were detected in the source water (for discharges involving brine) and also detected in the
wastewater and GWR-effluent for the remaining discharges. As shown in Table B-6, the brine-only and brine-and
0.25-MGD-wastewater discharge would result in an exceedance in PCBs. The blended discharge would result in
an exceedance in PCBs along with chlordane and DDT. Refer to the discussion of aldrin, heptachlor, and
toxaphene under the proposed project. Aldrin and toxaphene were not detected in the source water while
heptachlor was not detected in the wastewater and the GWR effluent and hence no final conclusion was drawn for
these constituents.
These results were consistent with results from the analysis conducted for the MRWPCA-proposed GWR Project
(Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2015) except for the exceedances under the blended discharge. The study identified
three additional constituents that would exceed the water quality objectives for the blended discharge: ammonia,
TCDD Equivalents, and toxaphene. All these constituents were present at a relatively higher concentration in the
GWR effluent than in the source water (as discussed below), resulting in an exceedance based on the following
rationales and methodologies:

27

Ammonia: There was no source water data available under CCLEAN for ammonia but it was detected at a
high concentration in the GWR effluent (191,579 g/L). Therefore, it was studied further by Trussell
Technologies by assuming the available information on ammonia in brine and its combination with the
GWR effluent. Ammonia was tested by MCWD and not detected, therefore as described above for
undetected constituents, its method reporting limit of 50 g/L was used at its concentration for the analysis.

TCDD Equivalents: Similar to ammonia, there was no CCLEAN data available for TCDD Equivalents but
they were tested in the GWR effluent and detected at 0.000000809 g/L. There was no well data available
for TCDD Equivalents, therefore the calculation for the constituent concentrations used zero as its
concentration in brine.

Toxaphene: As shown in Table B-6, toxaphene is identified as a constituent that would exceed the water
quality objective. However, it was undetected in the source water at 0.0032 g/L (highest in the range of
method reporting limits used), thus the method reporting limit was used as its concentration. In the GWR
effluent, toxaphene was detected at a higher concentration of 0.037 g/L and thus was studied further in the
blended discharge.

An additional study was conducted by MRWPCA in late April 2015 (see Addendum in Trussell Technologies,
Inc., 2015) with select discharge scenarios to sufficiently demonstrate the impact of the updated model input
parameters (i.e., number of open ports and GWR-effluent flow).7 The number of open ports used was 130 along
with a GWR effluent flow of 0.94 MGD. The study included new scenarios of brine-and-wastewater discharge
with moderate wastewater flow of 5.8 MGD and combined discharge with a moderate wastewater flow of 5.3
MGD and assumed that the discharges would be released through the outfall with 130 open ports at the diffuser.
The study also incorporated 0.1 MGD of hauled brine, which is trucked to the Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant and blended with the secondary effluent prior to being discharged (Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2015).
The study showed a slightly higher dilution ratio for the discharges using 130 open ports compared to the
discharges with 120 open ports. The discharges with moderate flows of wastewater showed additional
constituents that exceeded the Ocean Plan water quality objectives; however all the constituents were already
identified above. Table B-7 summarizes the updated results from this study.
TABLE B-7
UPDATED RESULTS FROM ADDITIONAL STUDY CONDUCTED BY MRWPCA
Dilution Ratio at the Edge of the ZID
(Discharge Stream:Seawater)

Discharge Scenario
Brine-only
Brine-with-5.8-MGDwastewater*
Blended Discharge

Combined Discharge
(Brine+GWR
Effluent+5.3-MGDwastewater)*

Constituents That Exceeded Ocean Plan Water Quality

Objectives at the Edge of the ZID

120 Open Ports at the

Diffuser

130 Open Ports

at the Diffuser

From Prior Discussion and

Table B-6

Updated Study

1:15

1:16

PCBs

PCBs

Not studied

1:22

Not studied

Ammonia, PCBs

1:17

1:18

Ammonia, chlordane, DDT,

PCBs, TCDD Equivalents,
toxaphene

Ammonia, chlordane, DDT,

PCBs, TCDD Equivalents,
toxaphene

Not studied

24

None

Ammonia, chlordane,
PCBs, TCDD Equivalents,
toxaphene

* Brine-with-19.78-MGD-wastewater and brine-with-0.25-MGD-wastewater were studied earlier as shown in Table B-6. Brine-with-low (0.25-MGD)-wastewater with
a dilution ratio of 1:17 showed an exceedance for PCBs only, while the brine-with-high (19.78-MGD)-wastewater with a dilution ratio of 1:82 showed no
exceedances.
Source: Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2015

28

The discharges that showed additional exceedances were the ones that contained moderate wastewater flows. The
brine-and-wastewater discharge with 5.8-MGD wastewater flow showed an exceedance in PCBs and ammonia.
As previously discussed, the brine-and-low-wastewater (0.25-MGD-wastewater flow) discharge showed an
exceedance only in PCBs. This indicates that the additional exceedance in ammonia may be resulting from higher
concentration of ammonia in the wastewater (36,400 g/L) compared to that in the source water entering the
Desalination Plant, in addition to its lower dilution ratio and a sinking plume compared to that of the combined
discharge with higher-wastewater flow (~20 MGD).
As previously shown, ammonia was not found to exceed its water quality objective under the GWR-effluent-andwastewater discharge scenario without the brine, or under the brine-with-higher wastewater flows; in both the
cases, the discharge resulted in a rising plume with relatively high ocean mixing within the ZID. This potential
Ocean Plan exceedance in both the cases emerged when the treated wastewater was not present at a sufficiently
higher flow to dilute the brine, and thus the two brine-with-wastewater and combined discharges were denser
than seawater, forming a sinking plume with relatively low mixing within the ZID. Similarly, as discussed
previously, there was no exceedance in ammonia under the brine-with-low-(0.25-MGD)-wastewater discharge
scenario, where even though there is relatively low ocean mixing in the ZID, the ammonia concentration in the
discharge was less because the wastewater formed a smaller fraction of the overall discharge. The ammonia
concentration however increased near the point where the brine was discharged with the highest flow of
wastewater that still results in a sinking plume (Trussell Technologies, 2015), in this case 5.8 MGD.
It should be noted that ammonia was already identified as a constituent with potential exceedance (along with
several other constituents) under the blended discharge with little or no treated wastewater; and as illustrated by
the additional study, the exceedances also apply to brine-and-wastewater discharge with moderate wastewater
flow (approximately 5.8 MGD).
The combined discharge (brine-GWR effluent-wastewater) with moderate wastewater flows (5.3 MGD) showed
an exceedance in ammonia, chlordane, PCBs, TCDD Equivalents, and toxaphene when as previously discussed
the same discharge with high (19.78-MGD) wastewater flows showed no exceedances. All of these constituents
were reported at higher concentrations in the wastewater and GWR effluent compared to that in the source water
entering the Desalination Plant (see Table B-2). Despite the higher concentrations, the higher wastewater flow in
the previously studied combined discharge contributed to the buoyancy and a higher dilution ratio of 1:82 for the
discharge and the resulting rising plume, whereas the new combined discharge with lower wastewater flows (5.3
MGD compared to 19.78-MGD) showed a lower dilution ratio (1:24) and higher density of the discharge resulting
from the moderate (5.3 MGD) wastewater flows. The discharge thus resulted in higher concentrations of
ammonia, chlordane, PCBs, TCDD Equivalents, and toxaphene. The potential Ocean Plan exceedances for the
discharge emerged when the treated wastewater (at 5.3 MGD) was not present at a sufficiently higher flow to
dilute the brine, and thus the combined discharge was denser than seawater, forming a sinking plume with
relatively low mixing within the ZID. Similar to ammonia, it should be noted that chlordane, chlordane, PCBs,
TCDD Equivalents, and toxaphene were already identified to exceed the water quality objectives under the
blended discharge and as illustrated by the additional study, these exceedances also apply to the combined
discharge with moderate wastewater flow (approximately 5.3 MGD).
The comparison between the constituent concentrations at the edge of the ZID from the discharges and the water
quality objectives could be made only based on the constituents that were tested and recorded at a detected value.
Therefore, based on the available data and the results from its analysis, this memorandum identifies the

29

constituents that are estimated to exceed the Ocean Plan water quality objectives by using 1) the high-resolution
data collected under CCLEAN and 2) constituents that were detected in the source water, GWR effluent, and
wastewater.
Consistent with the study conducted for the Project Variant as part of the MRWPCA-proposed GWR Project,
exceedances were also based on the following: In the case of constituents that were not detected in the source
water or not tested under CCLEAN or by MCWD, but were found at a higher concentration in GWR effluent or
wastewater compared to the source water, they were studied further and any exceedances were noted.

Conclusion
This analysis concludes that the following constituents would potentially exceed the Ocean Plan water quality
objectives:

The proposed project would result in an exceedance in PCBs under the brine-only and brine-andwastewater discharge (under low 0.25-MGD wastewater flows), and exceedances in PCBs and ammonia
under brine-and- wastewater discharge (under moderate 5.8-MGD wastewater flow).

The Project Variant would result in an exceedance PCBs under the brine-only discharge and brine-and-low
wastewater (0.25-MGD) discharge; PCBs and ammonia under the brine-and-moderate wastewater (5.3MGD) discharge; and ammonia, chlordane, DDT, PCBs, TCDD Equivalents, and toxaphene under the
blended discharge. The combined discharge with 5.3-MGD- wastewater would result in an exceedance in
ammonia, chlordane, PCBs, TCDD Equivalents, and toxaphene.

References
Chiou C. T and D. E. Kile, 2000. Contaminant Sorption by Soil and Bed Sediment Is There a Difference? USGS
Fact Sheet 087-00, June 2000.
Flow Science Inc., 2014. MRWPCA Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis, FSI 134302 Draft Technical
Memorandum, August 25, 2014.
Hardin, Dane, 2014. Water quality monitoring data collected Central California Long-term Environmental
Assessment Network (CCLEAN). Received over email on June 3, 2014.
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA), 2013. Influent SVRP-ocean outfall flows
1998-2012 and Wastewater quality data received from MRWPCA, 2013.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2012. Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of
California. California Ocean Plan, 2012. Effective August 19, 2013.
Trussell Technologies, Inc., 2010. Estimate of Brine Water Quality and Additions to Sampling Plan for the Marina
Coast Water District.
Trussell Technologies, Inc. 2015. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment Report for the Pure Water Monterey
Groundwater Replenishment Project and Addendum Report. March and April 2015.

30