Val S. Frenkel, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE.

1. Consideration for the Co-Siting of Desalination Facilities with Municipal and Industrial Facilities – A WRF StudyWRF-06-010D Val S. Frenkel, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE.

2. Overview • Introductions • Objectives and Research Methods • Co-Siting Scenarios • Advantages and Disadvantages • Summary of Research Results • Conclusions

3. Introductions • Anna Durden – WateReuse Project Manager • Project Advisory Committee (PAC): • Shahid Chaudhry, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA • Neil V. Callahan, R.W. Beck, Inc., Tampa, FL • Jonathan Dietrich, Dietrich Consulting Group, FL • Malynda Cappelle, UTEP • Andrew Tiffenbach, USBR • Fethi BenJemma, California DWR, CA • Pat Brady, Sandia National Laboratories • Project supporters: • Richard Kottenstette, Sandia, • Howard E. Steiman, RW Beck

4. Introductions • Project Team: • Val S. Frenkel – K/J Principal Investigator • Gregg Cummings – K/J Project Manager • Patrick Treanor – K/J Co-Investigator • Dawn Taffler – K/J Co-Investigator

5. Research Objectives and Requirements • Understand individual and combined life-cycle benefits of co-siting. • Document successful and unsuccessful co-siting case studies. • Develop a decision tool

6. Proposed Approach and Collection Methods • Develop seven potential scenarios • Develop a questionnaire covering the scenarios • Contact partners to identify potential case studies • Conduct an internet search for potential case studies • Contact owners and engineers for co-siting facilities, and obtain information for survey. • Use case studies to develop model.

7. Co-Siting Scenarios • 1: Power Plant – SWRO Co-siting • 2: SWRO – WWTP Co-siting • 3: BWRP – WWTP Co-Siting • 4: SWRO – Power Plant Co-siting • 5: Power Plant – BWRO Co-siting • 6: SWRO – Industrial Co-siting • 7: BWRO – Industrial Co-siting

8. Abbreviations • BWRO Brackish Water Reverse Osmosis • GHG Green House Gas • Q Flow • SWRO Sea Water Reverse Osmosis • WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant

16. Advantages • Shared intake infrastructure • Reduced Construction, No Increase in Total Intake Volume • Shared discharge infrastructure • Reduced Construction, Outfall Blending, Beneficial Use of Brine • Land Available and Zoned • Power plant synergies • Higher Temp, Electricity Rates, Less Transmission, benefits for power plant

17. Disadvantages • Life cycle of existing facility infrastructure • Opposition to Once-Through Cooling • Impacts to membrane performance • Concentration disposal limitations • Regulatory issues • Siting constraints • Patent restrictions • Operation constraints

18. Research Presented for 31 Case Studies • General: • Scenario, Location, Timeline, Status, Piloting, Intake and Outfall Configuration, and Water Source. • Technical: • Plant Flows, Flows of Existing Facilities, Salinity and Salinity Variations, Recovery, Feed Temperature and Energy Consumption. • Economics: • Capital Cost, Annual O&M cost, and Funding Sources. • Environmental: • Land Use, Endangered Species, Permitting/Regulatory, Intake Issues, Discharge Issues, and Mitigation Requirements. • Public Perception and Public Relations: • Issues of Public Concern, Political Will, Public Outreach, and Resistance by Special Interest Groups. • Advantages and Disadvantages: • Advantages, Disadvantages, and Key Lessons Learned.

19. Data Compiled From 170 References Data Compared, Analyzed, and Presented

20. Decision Tool

21. Case Study Summary • 7 Co-Sited Scenarios developed • 31 Case Studies Researched • Most were Scenario 1 (Power Plant -SWRO) • Remainder were Scenario 2 or 3 (SWRO-WWTP) or (BWRO-WWTP) • Capital costs comparable, O&M costs lower • Preliminary decision tool complete

22. Questions?