1.

Geotechnical data

The ISTAP carefully evaluated fatal flaws of each subsurface intake type considered for application at
Huntington Beach. Only the seabed infiltration gallery and the surf zone (beach) gallery survived the
fatal flaw analysis, and both are deemed technically feasible. Both gallery types would face
constructability challenges related to subsea construction. The surf zone gallery was judged to have
particularly challenging construction issues (and thus a lesser degree of technical feasibility) related to
construction in a high-energy environment.

The ISTAP does not consider the existing scale of use of any particular subsurface intake compared to
the capacity requirement at Huntington Beach to be a fatal flaw for technical feasibility (e.g., the only
existing seabed infiltration gallery has a capacity of 27 MGD compared to the lower hydraulic capacity of
100 MGD required for the proposed Huntington Beach project, and no large scale implementation of a
beach gallery has been constructed and operated as of September 2014). The Panel interpreted its
charge relative to the Terms of Reference to be the evaluation of the technical feasibility of subsurface
intake technologies linked to the scale of a likely project proposal.

2. Hydrogeology

Consistent with that approach, the Phase 1 Panel considered nine technologies keyed to a potential
project with hydraulic capacity in the range 100 to 127 MGD. The Panel did address the broad issue of
downward scalability where it saw relevance, but did not consider a full or parsed range of scale options
for any of the nine technologies, as doing so would have exceeded the agreed-upon scope of work
defined in the TOR. Scalability issues could be addressed in subsequent assessments of other feasibility
factors at the discretion of the Conveners. It is the collective opinion of the ISTAP that each of the other
seven subsurface intake options for the target hydraulic capacity range (100-127 MGD) had at least one
technical fatal flaw that eliminated it from further technical consideration. The shallow vertical wells
would create unacceptable water level drawdowns landward of the shoreline and could impact
wetlands and cause movement of potential contaminants seaward. The deep vertical wells would have a
significant impact on the Talbert aquifer that would interfere with the management of the salinity
barrier and the management of the interior freshwater basin. The combined shallow and deep- FINAL
PHASE 1 REPORT 18 water wells would adversely impact both the shallow aquifer and Talbert aquifer,
and in addition, would produce waters with differing inorganic chemistry, which would adversely affect
SWRO plant operation. Radial collector wells constructed into the shallow aquifer would have to be
located very close to the surf zone which would make them susceptible to damage during storms and
would be impacted by the projected sea level rise. Slant wells tapping the Talbert aquifer would
interfere with the management of the salinity barrier and the management of the freshwater basin, and
further, would likely have geochemical issues with the water produced from the aquifer (e.g., oxidation
states of mixing waters).

A water tunnel constructed in the unlithified sediment at Huntington Beach would have overwhelming
constructability issues. e. Recommendations The ISTAP recommends that consideration be given solely
to seabed infiltration galleries (SIG) and beach gallery intake systems in the Phase 2 assessment. As
noted, the ISTAP was not asked to evaluate the economic considerations of using a subsurface intake
versus a conventional open-ocean intake during Phase 1 of the assessment. The ISTAP recommends that
in the next phase, the Panel should focus primarily on the constructability of the seabed infiltration and
beach gallery intake systems, because this greatly affects the economic viability of their potential use.
Other factors should be considered consistent with the definition of “feasibility” in the California Coastal
Act. However, the ISTAP recommends that in the Phase 2 evaluation of the subsurface intake options, a
detailed lifecycle cost analysis should be provided to the succeeding committee. This lifecycle cost
analysis should contain at least four scenarios, including:

1) the lifecycle cost over an appropriate operating period obtaining the feed water from a conventional
open-ocean intake without considering the cost of potential environmental impact of impingement and
entrainment, FINAL PHASE 1 REPORT 19

2) the lifecycle cost over an appropriate operating period obtaining feed water from a conventional
open-ocean intake considering the cost of potential environmental impact of impingement and
entrainment,

3) the lifecycle cost over an appropriate operating period obtaining the feed water from a seabed gallery
intake system (or beach gallery intake system) using the same pretreatment design as used in treating
open-ocean seawater, and

4) the lifecycle cost over an appropriate operating period obtaining the feed water from a seabed gallery
intake system (or beach gallery intake system) using a reduced degree of pretreatment, such as mixed
media filtration and entry into the cartridge filters. In each of these scenarios, the ISTAP recommends
that the selected design hydraulic capacity match both the minimum and maximum flow rates
consistent with the desired production rate of a 50 MGD desalination facility using the SWRO
technology. The definition of an “appropriate” operating period should follow accepted industry
standards for such lifecycle cost analyses. Typically, a period of 30 years is used, but given concerns on
the potential for sea level rise impacts, analysis over a longer operating period (e.g. 50 years) may be
desirable. In addition, the ISTAP questions the need for the use of seawater to dilute the concentrate
discharge given the well-known use of diffuser outfalls to meet ocean discharge requirements.

The ISTAP also recommends that the Phase 2 Panel continue to rely on the definition of “Technical
Feasibility” as defined by generally recognized factors as documented in the California Coastal Act of
1976 (Section 30108 of the California Public Resources Code) Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Poseidon
Resources (Surfside) LLC (Poseidon) has proposed construction of a seawater desalination facility using
the Sea Water Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) technology in Huntington Beach, California. The California
Coastal Commission (CCC or the Commission) acting under FINAL PHASE 1 REPORT 20 the California
Coastal Act is responsible for review and approval of the permit application for such facilities.

Poseidon’s permit application proposed the use of an existing open ocean intake for supply of feed
seawater to the facility. However, it has been reported that open ocean intakes can cause unacceptable
levels of impingement and entrainment of marine life and have the potential for degrading the local or
regional marine ecosystem(s). Because of these concerns, the CCC recommended that Poseidon work
with CCC staff to conduct an independent assessment of the feasibility of using subsurface intake
technology, with the intention of reducing ecological impacts while still providing a sufficient volume of
feed water to the proposed facility. As a result of this request, Poseidon has temporarily withdrawn the
permit application and, with the assistance of CONCUR, has worked with the CCC to form the ISTAP for
the express purpose of preparing a concise summary of the technical feasibility of using one or more
potential subsurface intake systems for supplying feed water to the proposed Huntington Beach
seawater desalination facility (See the convener’s preface for the background in establishing the ISTAP
process).

The specific question to be answered by the ISTAP is: Will any of the several potential subsurface intake
designs be technically feasible at the proposed site at Huntington Beach? CONCUR, CCC, and Poseidon
have provided the ISTAP with a wide range of technical information regarding the proposed desalination
facility, including specific information on the characterization of the geophysical, hydrological, and
geochemical features of the proposed site. However, the aim of CCC and Poseidon has been to conduct
an independent scientific fact - finding and review process where the findings and conclusions of the
assessment are completed without intervention from CONCUR, CCC or Poseidon. In addition, the ISTAP
has not relied solely on the information provided by CONCUR, CCC or Poseidon but has conducted its
own search for published literature, relevant case study reports, and available on-site studies of similar
or comparable SWRO desalination facilities around the world. For a listing of the documents reviewed
by the ISTAP please see Chapter VII of this report – Reports on Subsurface Intakes. FINAL PHASE 1
REPORT 21 The following brief summary of the proposed project and a site description was developed
from information provided to the Panel.

1.1 General The selected location of the proposed desalination facility is a 12-acre site inshore of the
Pacific Coast Highway, five to ten feet above MSL, adjacent to AES Huntington Beach generating station,
approximately two miles south of the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, and one mile north of the
mouth of the Santa Anna River. The site has an existing 1,800-ft long seawater intake previously used to
bring cooling water into the power plant and 1,500-ft outfall used to return the water. The beach area
that fronts the proposed site is designated for “Public” or “Semi-Public” use. The Huntington Beach
State and City Beaches see more than eight million beach goers annually.

1.2 Environmental The proposed site is adjacent to Huntington Beach Wetlands Conservancy. The
closest ocean Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to the proposed site are the inlet to the Bolsa Chica
estuarine/wetlands complex about three miles north and Crystal Cove, eight miles south of the
proposed desalination facility site.

1.3 Economical The proposed facility is about five miles from the regional potable water delivery system
operated by the Municipal Water District of Orange County and other water utilities, and the intent is
for Poseidon to construct a pipeline to this existing distribution system for distribution of the output of
the facility. FINAL PHASE 1 REPORT 22

1.4 Hydrological The proposed project site is located on the SW edge of the Municipal Water District of
Orange County, which pumps 70% of the water demand for 2.4-million people from 200 wells in Orange
County. The proposed site overlies the western portion of the Talbert aquifer, which is a significant
water supply source for Orange County’s water needs. The Talbert aquifer is a confined aquifer that
extends and outcrops on the seafloor. As the result of a reversed seaward gradient, seawater intrusion
has occurred at the coast and threatens inland portions of the aquifer system. Orange County injects 30
MGD of highly treated reclaimed wastewater into the aquifer system to replenish the basin and control
seawater intrusion.

1.5 Seismic activity Several active faults run parallel to the shoreline, underlie the proposed site, and
intersect the Talbert aquifer. These faults pose a risk of liquefaction and settlement at the facility.
1.6 Oceanographic setting The nearshore area of the site is a high-energy zone, characterized by large
swells and ocean currents. In the neighborhood of the Huntington Beach, average incident wave heights
of between 0.9 m and 1.2 m prevail 87% of the time during a typical year in an El Niño-dominated
climate period. This wave height range occurs primarily during the spring, summer and fall seasonal
periods. During the remaining 13% of the time (primarily during winter months), average incident wave
heights near the Huntington Beach increase to 2.4 m to 2.7 m, with some waves reaching significant
heights as large as 4 m to 6 m. The nearshore seabed in front of the proposed site is subject to seasonal
changes due to wave erosion and seasonal equilibrium changes. As a result, the inshore sediment cover
is subject to large-scale seasonal bottom profile changes. FINAL PHASE 1 REPORT 23

1.7 Constructability The high-energy surf zone environment off Huntington Beach prevents the use of
conventional floating construction equipment and necessitates the use of access trestles or elevated
bridging structures built out from shore to allow construction cranes and personnel to safely travel and
work above the waves. This method of construction is extremely slow and expensive. To provide clarity
of purpose in preparing this concise short report, the definition of “feasible” has been taken from
California Coastal Act of 1976 Definitions § 30108. FEASIBLE “Feasible” means capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social, and technological factors. The State Water Resources Control Board Draft
Desalination Policy published July 3rd 2014 states the following factors should be considered to
determine subsurface intake feasibility:

1. Geotechnical data

8. Local water supply and existing users

2. Hydrogeology

9. Desalinated water conveyance

3. Benthic topography

10. Existing infrastructure

4. Oceanographic conditions

11. Co-location with sources of dilution water

5. Presence of sensitive habitats

12. Design constraints (engineering, constructability)

6. Energy use

13. Project lifecycle costs

7. Impact on freshwater aquifers

14. Other site- and factory-specific factors This independent review is structured in two Phases. The
objective in Phase 1 is to examine the “Technical Feasibility” of subsurface intakes at or near the
proposed Huntington Beach site. For the Phase 1 report, the TOR’s working definition of “Technical
Feasibility” is: FINAL PHASE 1 REPORT 24 “Able to be built and operated using currently available
methods”. For this Phase 1 report, ISTAP has considered six of the above listed criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and
12 as relevant to technical considerations for a feasibility assessment. The Phase 2 ISTAP Report may
consider, among other issues, the remaining criteria: 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14.