TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14

8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14

1/120

AgendaMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)Special Meeting

10:00 AM, Thursday, October 9, 2014Council Chamber580 Pacific Street

Monterey, California

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

PUBLIC COMMENTSPUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on anysubject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA TAC and which is not on the agenda. Anyperson or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Committee may do so byaddressing the Committee during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to:MPRWA TAC, Attn: Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriatestaff person will contact the sender concerning the details.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. September 9, 2014 Special Meeting

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Acknowledgement of Executive Director as TAC Chair

3. Receive Report On How "Feasibility" Is To Be Considered In CEQA And In The LargeSettlement Agreement For The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project - Cullem

4. Receive Separation Processes Inc (SPI) Analysis Of The Value Engineering Alternatives,Discuss, And Make Recommendations To The Water Authority Directors - Cullem

5. Receive Report On The Latest Information Pertaining to Public Funding, Including BondFunding, For The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project - Stoldt

6. Receive Report And Discuss Status Of the Deep Water Desal And The Peoples MossLanding Water Desal Project, Including The Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Cost ComparisonStudy, And Make Recommendations To The Water Authority Directors As Appropriate -Stoldt

7. Receive Report And Discuss Status And Schedule Of Memorandum of Understanding AndAgreements For Ground Water Replenishment Source And Product Water - Israel/Stoldt


2/120

Created date 10/06/2014 11:06 AM Thursday, October 9, 2014

2

8. Receive And Discuss Updated The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Critical Path(CPM) Permits & Approvals Schedule To Include The CEMEX Access Issue, And As ItPertains To The November Coastal Commission Meeting To Consider The Test Slant Well- Crooks

9. Receive And Discuss A "Decision Tree" For Slant Well Alternatives And Options IncludingA Potential Move To The Protrero Road Site - Crooks

10. Discuss The Issue Of "Stranded Costs" And Make A Recommendation To The Water

Authority Directors - Stoldt

ADJOURNMENT

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to including the disabled in allof its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Monterey CityClerks Office at (831) 646-3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Cityto make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-

35.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. Forcommunication-related assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak toCity offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial711 to use CRS to talk to the Monterey City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of adevice.

Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for publicinspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with CaliforniaGovernment Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.


3/120

M I N U T E SMONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)Special Meeting

10:30 AM, Monday, September 8, 2014COUNCIL CHAMBER

580 PACIFIC STREETMONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Members Present: Huss, Narigi, Israel, Stoldt, Riedl, Lee

Members Absent: Riley

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 10:38 AM. Member Riedl was the acting Chair for this

meeting.

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

Chair Riedl invited reports from the TAC and had no requests to speak.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Chair Riedl invited public comment and had no requests to speak.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On a motion by Committee Member Israel, seconded by Committee Member Stoldt, and carriedby the following vote, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee approved the minutes fromAugust 4, 2014

AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Huss, Narigi, Israel, Stoldt, Riedl

NOES: 0 MEMBERS: NoneABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: RileyABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: LeeRECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None

1. August 4, 2014 Regular Meeting


4/120

MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, September 8, 2014

2

AGENDA ITEMS

2. Welcome Brian Lee as Member of the Technical Advisory Committee - Cullem

Executive Director Cullem welcomed newly appointed Brian Lee from the Marina Coast Water

District to serve on the TAC. He reminded the Committee that the purpose of the TAC was toprovide unbiased information to the Directors. The TAC welcomed Member Lee. Member Leethanked the Committee for the opportunity to participate.

Chair Riedl invited public comments and had no requests to speak.

3. Receive Report on the CPUC Administrative Law Judge Ruling of August 21, 2014 Updatingthe Schedule and Discuss Its Impact on the Ground Water Replenishment Schedule -Cullem/Israel

Executive Director Cullem reported that the delay of the bore hole drilling impacted the delayedrelease of the draft EIR, therefore the CPUC officially extended the dates for the Administrative

Law Judge hearings until spring. Member Israel added the CPUC has acknowledged that thedelayed release of the EIR for the Desal would impact the GWR project, therefore the settlingparties have met and formed a recommendation for a response to the CPUC. The GWR EIR iscontingent upon portions of the Desal EIR because there are linkages for the projects.

Member Narigi expressed concern that the desal project EIR is being pushed back due to theGWR project.

Chair Riedl invited public comment on the item.

Tom Rowley requested the snap shot report of the Salinas Valley made at the requestof Supervisor Calcagno be released. He also repeated past comments that releasing

the draft DIR without the initial results of the test well is illogical. He closed byexpressing disappointment with the lack of approval from the City of Marina.

This item was for discussion and information only.

4. Receive Report and Discuss Memorandum of Understanding for Ground Water ReplenishmentSource and Product Water - Israel

Member Israel spoke to the preliminary Memorandum of Understandings negotiated andreported that a semi-finalized MOU was distributed for consideration and should hopefully meetthe September 15th deadline. He indicated that the MPWMD has discontinued contributing

funding toward the GWR project until the MOU has been finalized and all costs are being paidby MRWPCA at this time. Members Stoldt and Huss agreed with the comments of Mr. Israel.

Chair Riedl invited comments from the public and had no requests to speak.

5. Receive Report and Discuss the Status of the Cost Comparison and Externalities Studies forGround Water Replenishment vs Desal - Stoldt


5/120


3

Member Stoldt spoke to the item noting that costs can be determined once the MOU has beensigned and that the three potential consultants have been put on hold for the externality studyuntil then. The cost comparison is intended to be done at 10% design completion to be able toprovide an initial cost assessment. Also, many of the costs are contingent on SRF eligibility,and the applications are currently being prepared. Mr. Stoldt indicated that the cost comparison

should take only a couple of weeks to complete once initiated.

Executive Director Cullem reminded the TAC that the Directors mandated that the TACcontinue to focus on the cost comparison, which is why it's been on the agenda repetitively.Member Israel spoke to the externality study, to the intangible aspects of the project andagreed it is important piece for consideration.

Chair Riedl invited public comments on the item.

Tom Rowley expressed concern regarding unintended consequences with expandingCSIP and expanding GWR. Wanted to ensure that they are properly and legallyapproved as projects prior to funds being expended.

Member Stoldt spoke to Mr. Rowley's comments clarifying it is not an expansion of CastrovilleSea Water Intrusion Project (CSIP) but an increase in the supply of water that is available toCSIP. Member Huss agreed with Member Stoldt that CSIP will not be expanded with the GWRproject, but will be done separately, voted on and paid for by those that will benefit from it.

Executive Cullem indicted the TAC may need to address the potential impacts of the bondmeasure if passed in November and should visit discuss all potential funds available for bothprojects. Mr. Stoldt spoke to the funding mechanisms available and indicated he can provide awater bond summary at the next meeting.

6. Receive report and discuss status of Marina consideration of the test slant well MND andCoastal Development Permit - Cullem/Crooks

Executive Director Cullem reported that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the issuance of apermit for the test slant test wells was not certified by the City of Marina. He spoke to the twotechnical issues that voted down the item. The first was an interpretation of CEQA law that thepermit was part of a larger project and should be submitted as such. The second point that wasthe fact the expert testimonys given disagreed. Mr. Cullem reported that the permit will beappealed to the Coastal Commission. The TAC discussed the process of approval from theCoastal Commission and reminded the public regarding the requirement to test the slant wellsbefore considering alternative well options.

Chair Riedl invited comments from the public and had no requests to speak.

7. Receive Report and Discuss Status of the Hydrogeological Model and Study - Crooks

Executive Director Cullem reported on his meeting with the hydrogeological working groupregarding the status of the models. Static data was input but cannot proceed further until


6/120


4

dynamic data is received from the test slant well. Total test period was to be two years andhopefully there would be enough data at some point to have a level of confidence that theCPUC EIR team can move forward.

Member Lee indicated that MCWD and Cal Am met and has agreed to include MCWD lands fordesalination so we can build a technical relationship between the two agencies.

Chair Riedl invited public comment and had no requests to speak.

8. Receive Updated Critical Path Method (CPM) Schedule, and Discuss How It Pertains to theCoastal Commission Meeting to Consider the Test Slant Well - Crooks

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the item in the absence of Ian Crooks, and indicated thatdue to the decision by the City of Marina, the MPWSP is several weeks back on the scheduleas presented at previous meetings but is still on tract to have their appeal agendized before forthe Coastal Commission in October.

Chair Riedl invited public comment on the item.

Tom Rowley spoke to the delays and requested the Authority to keep a conscious eyeon the requests for additional studies and legal costs and the impacts for strandedcosts. Requested a future discussion on how the delays affect the total cost of theproject.

Chair Riedl questioned if Cal Am has a cost cap before abandoning a project.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 AM.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,

Lesley E. Milton, Committee Clerk Rick Riedl, Acting TAC Chair


7/120

FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Executive Director named as Chair of the TAC by the Water AuthorityBoard on Sept 11, 2014.

DISCUSSION:

At it meeting of September 11, 2014, the Water Authority Board considered therecommendations of the TAC that the Chair remain a member of the Water AuthorityBoard.

Following discussion, the Board members agreed that there was at least theappearance that the TAC agenda and TAC recommendations could be undulyinfluenced by a Board member sitting on the TAC, particularly if serving as the Chair.The Board then unanimously voted for the Executive Director to serve as TAC Chairuntil further notice.


8/120


9/120


SUBJECT: Receive Report On How "Feasibility" Is To Be Considered In CEQA AndIn The Large Settlement Agreement For The MPWSP.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the TAC receive a report on the definition of "feasibility" in theCEQA process as well as it was intended to be considered in the Large SettlementAgreement on Cal Am's Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) under

consideration by the CPUC.

DISCUSSION:

At the Water Authority meeting of September 11, the issue of what constitutes "feasible"as pertains to CEQA and approval agency requirements for the Cal Am Desal project ingeneral and the slant wells in particular. The question is at what point in the process dothe additional cost and time delays associated with the slant well, as opposed to purelytechnical considerations on slant well construction and operation, determine theirfeasibility.

Section 6.1 of the "Large Settlement Agreement" to which 16 Interveners agreed states,"The parties agree that it is reasonable for California American Water to use subsurfaceintake via slant wells for the desalination plant, subject to confirmation of the feasibilityof this option by the test well results and hydogeologic studies."


10/120


11/120


SUBJECT: Receive SPI Analysis Of The Value Engineering (VE) Final Report ForThe Cal Am Desal Facility, Discuss, And Provide Recommendations ToThe Water Authority Board.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the TAC review the Separation Processes, Inc. (SPI) analysis ofMonterey of the Final Value Engineering ( VE) Study of the Monterey Peninsula WaterSupply Project (MPWSP) and make recommendations to the Water Authority Board.

DISCUSSION:

The Final Value Engineering (VE) Study for 30% design of the desal facility was

completed by Value Management Strategies (VMS) and briefed to a joint meeting of

the Governance Committee and the MPRWA at a special meeting on July 10 and to the

TAC on Aug 4. The VE study focused on value improvements, in particular potential

cost savings. Requirements mandated by the settlement agreements, as well as

directions from the Governance Committee on environmental and aesthetic issues,

should still be incorporated into the design.

At its meeting of Aug 14, 2014, the Water Authority voted to request SPI to perform an

analysis of the VE Study in advance of the Authority forwarding its recommendations to

the Governance Committee. The SPI Analysis is at Exhibit A, and the full text of the VE

report is available on the Water Authority web site http://www.mprwa.org/wp-

content/uploads/2012/03/MPWSP-Final-VE-Report.pdf and on the Cal Am MPWSP

project web site www.watersupplyproject.org.

Following review and comment by the MPRWA, the SPI analysis will be forwarded to

the Governance Committee for action in accordance with the Governance Agreement.

EXHIBITS:

A- Separation Processes, Inc. (SPI) Analysis of the MPRWA VE Study


12/120

SPI Comments on VE Study

1

1Introduction

AValueEngineering(VE)study,sponsoredbytheMontereyPeninsulaRegionalWater

Authority

and

facilitated

by

Value

Management

Strategies,

Inc.

(VMS),

was

conducted

for

the

Desalination

Plant

portion

of

the

Monterey

Peninsula

Water

Supply

Project.

The

study

was

conducted

at

the

offices

of

California

American

Water

in

Monterey,

California

July

7

through

11,

2014.

ThisreportpreparedbySeparationProcesses,Inc.(SPI)reviewsthereportpreparedbyVMS.

Costs

are

presented

for

any

changes

recommended

by

SPI.

Theitemsareidentifiedbytheformat(numberingsystem)usedinthereport.Costestimates

aregivenforeachchangemadetotheVEstudy.

SomeoftheresultscontainedinthestudyareacceptabletoSPIandarenotdiscussedherein.

2PurposeofthisReport

TheintentofthisreportistoreviewtheresultsobtainedbytheVE teamandcommentupon

themwhereappropriateandproposechangeswereneeded.

3ReportAssumptions

Certain assumptions had to be made in order to present the costs given herein. These are

as follows:

YearofConstruction,2014

Servicelife,30years

Interest,

8%

Electricity

cost,

$0.10/kWh

Chemicalcostsatpresentdayrates


13/120


2

4VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:BD1:Revise layout of RO and Admin

building: create one building with overlook, improved sight lines and a reduced courtyard

4.1VE

Description

of

Baseline

Concept:

The plan layout of the SWRO Building and

Admin Building indicates two buildings separated by a 50footwide open Garden space.

4.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:The alternate concept attaches the AdminBuilding to the SWRO building in order to provide visual and direct physical connectivityfrom the Control Room, located inside the Admin Building, into the SWRO Building. TheControl Room can either be one or two stories depending on whether or not visualconnection is desired from a higher vantage point.

4.3

SPI

Comment:

This revision has merit, but will impact the schedule by more than theone month as mentioned in the VE study and add to the project costs. The added costs will

not only include the construction costs but also the revisions required to the architectural

drawings followed by revisions to the 30% design. In particular revisions will have to be

made not only to the building design/arrangement but also to the piping and layout

drawings.

This alternative proposal has been given a cost of $250,000.00, but does not include the

cost for redesign. The cost for redesign is estimated to be approximately $100,000.00.

Thus, the total cost extra for this item amounts to $350,000.00. There is no savings in the

life cycle cost.

4.4SPIScheduleImpacts:The redesign effort will require an additional approximately 3

months.

4.5SPIRiskImpacts:This change will increase the project costs due to the additional

architectural and engineering time required to complete the revisions.

4.6SPIConclusion:The cost estimate given for this change is estimated to be $250,000.00,

which cost only includes the administration portion of the building. SPIs review of the cost

estimate given in the VE study does not appear to include the additional architectural and

engineering fees associated with this change. It is therefore considered to be low. When

these are added this cost extra becomes approximately $350,000.00.

Thus, it is SPIs conclusion that this alternative not be chosen.


14/120


3

5VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:BD2:Eliminatefireprotectionofthebuildings

wherenotrequiredbycode

5.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:The30%designsubmittaldoesnotspecifyareaswithin

theplantreceivingfiresprinklercoverage.PerMikeZaferofCDMSmithon7/9/14,theSWRO

Building,the

Admin

Building

and

the

Filter

Building

are

all

fully

sprinkled

in

the

current

baseline

concept.

5.2Descrip tion of Alternative Concept:Thisrecommendationsimplyproposestheproject

teamshouldconfirmwhetherfiresprinklercoverageisrequiredin(1)theFilterbuilding,and

deleteifnot,and(2)iftheROroomwithintheSWRObuildingcanchangetononsprinkled.

5.3SPIComment:SPI agrees with this change.

5.4SPIScheduleImpacts:SPI sees no schedule impacts due to this change.

5.5SPIRiskImpacts:SPI sees no risk impact due to this change.

5.6SPIConclusion:SPI agrees with the costs presented by the VE team for this item and

can recommend acceptance.


15/120


4

6 VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:BD3:Increaseoccupancycategoriesof

processstructures(categoryIVfortheprocesscriticalfacilities)

6.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Table197RiskCategoriesoftheBODRcallsfor

FacilityRisk

Category

of

IV

for

the

finished

water

storage

tanks

and

related

equipment,

and

FacilityRiskCategoryofIIIforotherstructure.

6.2DescriptionofAlternativeConcept:TheVEteamrecommendsthatacloserlookshould

begiventothefacilitieswherehigherOccupancyCategorymaybeneededforsomestructures

andaloweronefortherest;forexample,SWROmightbeIV,andAdminBuildingmightbeII.


6.4SPIScheduleImpacts:SPI sees no schedule impacts due to this change.

6.5SPIRiskImpacts:SPI sees no risk impact due to this change.

6.6SPIConclusion:SPI agrees with the costs presented by the VE team for this item and

can recommend that this item be accepted.


16/120


5

7VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:BD4:Shift site layouts to avoid collapsiblesoils

7.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:The baseline concept calls for constructing thefacility in an area that is generally comprised of loose to very loose sand, which according

to the BODR is considered unsuitable. The project geotechnical engineer estimates 2 to 3inches of seismicallyinduced settlement during a design earthquake event, as compared tothe 0.5 to 1 inches of seismically induced settlement reported in the Baseline GeotechnicalReport (URS).

The BODR proses to redensify the soil below the proposed building pads in order toprovide uniform and adequate bearing capacity for the foundation systems. The proposeddesign considers over excavation and compaction, in addition to one of the followingalternatives to address the differential settlement:

Structures supported by mat foundations

Geopiers beneath the structures Dynamic compaction beneath the structures

7.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:It was communicated to the VE team that thesite area is roughly 43 acres. Therefore, this alternative recommends considering one of thetwo following options:

Shift the entire location of the facility within the site to an area where more suitablefoundation material is located

Shift location of facilities in relation to each other within the same area (i.e.,

interchange the Brine Equalization Basin with Admin and SWOR TreatmentBuildings)

7.3SPIComment:This alternate makes good sense and would be recommended by SPI.

However, the costs needed to perform this work need to be corrected.

7.4SPIScheduleImpacts:The schedule will be impacted by the time required to complete

the new soils boing tests and geotechnical work. This work will delay the project by one

month.

7.5SPIRiskImpacts:This alternative will decrease the risks.

7.6SPIConclusion:The cost savings given in the VE study are $42,000.00. However, this

cost excludes the work of additional soils borings and geotechnical tasks which is

estimated to cost approximately $100,000.00. This will more than offset the cost savings

given in the VE study as $42,000.00.


17/120


6

It is SPIs conclusion that this item be accepted, but the costs updated to show this

additional cost $142,000.00.


18/120


7

8

VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:BD5:Useageogridreinforcedsoilmatinlieu

ofdynamicsoilcompaction

8.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:TheBaselinedesignisconsideringover excavation

andcompactioncombinedwithoneofathreealternativesbelowtoaddressthe2to3inches

ofestimated

differential

settlement:

Structuressupportedbymatfoundations

Geopiersbeneaththestructures

Compactionbeneaththestructures

8.2

VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thisalternativecallsfora

geosyntheticreinforcedsoilmattobeplacedundertheSWROandAdminbuildingsthathave

conventionalfootings.Thepurposeofthesoilmatwouldbetolimitdifferentialsettlement

acrossthebuildingfootprintineventofseismicallyinducedsettlementasopposedtoother

proposedmeasure.

8.3SPIComment:SPI agrees with this change and recommends acceptance.

8.4SPIScheduleImpacts: SPI sees no schedule impacts due to this change.

8.5SPIRiskImpacts: SPI sees no risk impact due to this change.

8.6SPIConclusion:SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend acceptance.


19/120


8

9

VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:BD6:Connectthe4160to480transformers

directlytothe21kVswitchgear

9.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Theexistingelectricaldistributionsystemhasthe

21kvto

4160

volt

(5000

kva)

transformer

and

the

4160

volt

to

480

volt

(2500

kva)

transformer

connectedinseries.Thepowerforthe2500kvatransformergoesthroughthe5000kva

transformer.Theconfigurationistypicalfortwotransformers,circuitsMDS2AandMCS2B.All

fourtransformersarepadmounted,oilfilledtransformers.

9.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Changethe2500transformersfrom"4160volt

to480volt"to"21kvto480volt"andconnecttothe21kVswitchgear.Thechangewould

requirethecablesbeinstalledfromthe21kVswitchgearinsteadofthe4160voltswitchgear.

Twoadditionalfusedswitcheswouldbeaddedtothe21kVswitchgearandtwocircuitbreakers

wouldbedeletedfromthe4160voltswitchgear.



9.5SPIRiskImpacts: The system requires an analysis prior to acceptance.

9.6SPIConclusion:Assuming that the analysis indicates there will be no effect on the

downstream equipment, this alternative can be accepted.


20/120


9

10 VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:BD7:Simplifylandscapingusingxeriscaping

principlesandeliminateirrigation

10.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Thelandscapedesigninthe30%submittal

includesindigenous

plants

that

only

require

irrigation

until

their

roots

are

established

as

reportedbyJoniJanecki,LandscapeArchitecton7/7/14.The30%designisnotyetdetailed

enoughtoshowhowthisinitialirrigationperiodconceptwillbeimplemented.

TheBasisofDesignDraftReport(BODR)dated4/14/14indicatesonly"Adripirrigationsystem

willbedesignedandimplemented".Thedesignalsoincludesvegetablesplantedinraisedbeds

tocreatean"agriculturaleducationgarden"pertheBODR.Asreportedon7/8/14,thegardens

willbeirrigatedwithrainwater(andpossiblywaterfromthedesalinationfacility)thatwillbe

capturedthenstoredwithinanabovegroundcisterntank.Ms.Janeckireportedthatthe

cistern'scapacitycanprovideupto50%ofthewaternecessarytoirrigatethegarden

vegetablesthroughout

agiven

year.

10.2

VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept: Exploreanddesignameanstoeliminatethe

useofpotablewaterentirelyfortheirrigationofplants.Scalebackplantmaterialsand

irrigationasmuchaspossible.

10.3SPIComment:SPI agrees with this change and can recommend its acceptance.


10.5SPIRiskImpacts: SPI sees no risk impact due to this change.

10.6SPIConclusion:SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend its acceptance.


21/120


10

11VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:E1:ReviseconfigurationofROtrainsto

accommodateflatfootfoundation

11.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Currentlythedesalinationplantbuildingis

designedto

include

atwo

level

configuration

of

the

foundations.

The

upper

level

houses

all

equipmentandthelowerlevel(pipegalleries)housemostoftheinterconnectingpiping.

11.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thisrecommendationproposestoreconfigure

theInterconnectingpipingandequipmentlayoutsuchthatthebuildingfoundationissimplified

toaflatfootfoundation.

11.3SPIComment:By making the change recommended in the VE study will result in a

much larger building (footprint area). This increase in area will result in a redesign of the

building, equipment and piping arrangements.

The equipment arrangement given in the 30% design is not unusual and has been

accomplished on a number of different projects.

The cost savings for this alternative are given as $400,000.00. However, SPIs estimate

shows that the cost of the flat foot arrangement is actually higher. This results from the

apparent use of the same unit cost for building construction. In the case of using the two

story RO arrangement with the equipment located in a floor below the RO process

equipment has a unit cost greater than the flatfloor arrangement as shown in SPIs cost

figures. Thus, the result is a slightly higher cost.

11.4SPIScheduleImpacts:This alternative will impact the schedule.

11.5SPIRiskImpacts:No risks are found.

11.6SPICostEstimate:The VE study gives a cost estimate savings of $400,000.00. The

cost is calculated on the basis that the unit cost per square foot for the 2level arrangement

is $250.00 per square foot ( as given in VE # BD3) for the RO building base case. The base

case RO building has the RO trains on one floor and the equipment mounted below. Thus,

for this arrangement the VE team used a unit cost of $250.00 per square foot. For the flat

foot arrangement proposed in this item then, the unit cost per square foot has to be lower.

SPI used a unit cost of $200.00 per square foot. The area of the building will increase by at

least 50% to a total of about 41,400 square feet.

The figures generated from the calculation result in an initial cost extra of $780,000.00 and

an additional lifecycle cost increase and an increase in life cycle costs of $69,264.00.


22/120


11

11.6.1

Capital

Cost

The capital cost for this alternative is given in the following table.

E1 CapitalCost

CONSTRUCTION

ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT

DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total

Foundation 1 2,100,000.00 2,100,000.00 1 1,500,000.00

ROBuilding sf 27,600.00 250 6,900,000.00 41,400.00 200 8,280,000

SUBTOTAL

PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 9,000,000.00 9,780,000

SAVINGS 780,000.00

11.6.2

Life

Cycle

Cost

The life cycle cost for this alternative is given in the following table.

E1 LifeCycleCost

CONSTRUCTION



Foundation

1

186,480.00

186,480.00

1

133,200.ROBuilding sf 27,600.00 250 612,720.00 41,400.00 200 735,2

SUBTOTAL


TOTAL 799,200.00 868,4

SAVINGS 69,264.

11.78

SPI

Conclusion:

SPI does not recommend acceptance of this alternative.


23/120


12

12VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:E2:Useradiallysplitcasepumpsinlieuof

segmentalpumps

12.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Thebaselineconceptincludestheuseof

segmentalringhighpressurepumpsdesignedtooperateat82%efficiency.Figuresare

providedon

the

following

page

to

illustrate

the

type

of

pumps.

12.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thealternativeconceptproposestoreplace

thesegmentalringpumpswithradiallysplitcasepumps.Further,considertheuseofone

radiallysplitcasepumptofeedtwoROtrainsinordertoincreasethehighpressurepumpsize

andobtainpumpefficiencyof87%(insteadof82%)andtoachievecapitalcostsavings.This

conceptproposestheuseof4radiallysplitcasepumpsinsteadof7segmentalringpumps.

12.3SPIComment:A better choice for cost effective pumps for high pressure (HP) service

to the RO process are the multiple stage horizontal centrifugal type. These have become the

standard in for SWRO service. The advantage in using this type of pump in lieu of the

pumps provided in the base case is its higher efficiency. The pumps provided in the base

case have an efficiency of 82% and those proposed for the alternate have an efficiency of

84% 87%. Therefore, the electrical draw for the proposed pumps will be significantly

lower therefore offsetting the higher costs.

The VE recommendation is to also change the number of pumps from 7 to 4. This change

will result in reducing the capital cost because of a reduction in the number of pumps and

the reduction in piping and valves required.

12.4

SPI

Schedule

Impacts:Delivery times for these pumps can normally be obtained in ashorter time period. Thus, this may assist in having no appreciable impact on the project

schedule.

12.5SPIRiskImpacts:This type of pump has been used for a number of years in SWRO

systems. Thus, there is no risk introduced for this project.

12.6SPICostEstimate:

12.6.1CapitalCostEstimate

The capital cost estimate for these pumps is given in the following table.


24/120


13

E2 CapitalCost

CONSTRUCTION


DESCRIPTION

UNIT

QTY

COST/UNIT

Total

QTY

COST/UNIT

Total

RadialSplit 7 286,000.00 2,002,000.00 7

Horizontal 0.00 4.00 365,000.00 1,460,000

SUBTOTAL


TOTAL 2,002,000.00 1,460,000

SAVINGS 542,000.00

12.6.2

Life

Cycle

Cost


E2 LifeCycleCost

CONSTRUCTION


DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY AnnualCost Total QTY

Annual

Cost Total

RadialSplit 5,605,377.60 0.00 0

Horizontal 0.00 5,242,648 200 5,242,6

SUBTOTAL


TOTAL 0.00 5,242,6

PW 63,116,552 0.00 PW 59,032,2

SAVINGS 4,084,335.

12.7

SPI

Conclusion:

SPI finds merit to this proposal, but also understands the inherent

process implications from reducing the number of pumps. CalAm intends to operate

standby units to boost capacity on a short term basis and insure annual delivery targets are

achieved. In reducing the number pumps, the capacity of each pump is increasedleading

to a larger flow demand of the associated standby pump. This larger flow would have a

correspondingly higher raw water demand and increase the number of supply wells

required. With this in mind we do not see the proposal as beneficial on a net basis.


25/120


14

13VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:E3:Installacceptancetestingconnectionsas

permanent

13.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Thebaselineconceptat30%stagedoesnot

contemplateanyspecialprovisionsorconnectionstorecirculatewaterduringthestartupand

commissioning

phase.

Also,

it

does

not

contain

any

provisions

to

recirculate

flow

to

the

head

of

theplanttokeeptheplantrunningduringshortperiods,insteadofshuttingtheplantdown.

13.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Installapermanentconnectionbetweenthe

treatedwaterlineandtherawwaterlineatthedesalinationplantduringtheinitial

construction.Thiswillassistinstartup/commissioningaswellasallowingtheplanttorecycle

flowunderabnormalcondition(insteadofhavingtoshutdown).

13.3SPIComment:SPI finds no fault in this recommendation and would agree with this

alternative.

13.4SPIScheduleImpacts:SPI sees no impact on the schedule, since this line can be

installed during site construction.

13.5SPIRiskImpacts:SPI sees no impact due to risk factors with this recommendation.



26/120


15

14VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:E4:Constructthefilteredwaterstorage

tanksoutofconcreteandconstructasrectangular

14.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Thebaselineconceptincludestwo750,000gallon

prestressedconcretefinishedwaterstoragetanks(approximatedimensions:70'diameterby

27'tall).

14.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thisalternativeproposesreplacingtwotanks

withasingletwocellreinforcedconcretestoragetank.

14.3SPIComment:Concrete tanks are often used for the purpose intended for this case.

The savings, (i.e., $73,000.00) however, do no warrant making this change. This resultsbecause; the new configuration does not improve operation or maintenance.

In any event SPI recommends that these tanks be deleted (refer to our comments in itemM1, below).

14.4SPIScheduleImpacts:SPI sees no impact on the schedule.

14.5SPIRiskImpacts:SPI sees no impact due to risk factors with this recommendation.

14.6SPIConclusion:The additional $73,000.00 does appear to be warranted.


27/120


28/120


17

E5 CapitalCost

CONSTRUCTION


DESCRIPTION

UNIT

QTY

COST/UNIT

Total

QTY

COST/UNIT

Total

MediaFilters 10 60,000.00 600,000.00 0 0.00

BrinePonds

2 500,000.00 1,000,000.00 0 0.00

Backwash 2 300,000.00 600,000.00 0 0.00

Pump&PipingCost 2 92,000.00 184,000.00 0 0.00

SUBTOTAL 2,384,000.00 0.00


TOTAL

2,384,000

0.00

SAVINGS 2,384,000.00

15.6.2

Life

Cycle

Cost


CONSTRUCTION


DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY AnnualCost Total QTY AnnualCost Total

FilterAmortization 10 5,328.00 53,280.00 0.00 0.0

BrinePonds

Amortization 2 44,400.00 88,800.00 0.00 0.0

BackwashAmortization 2 26,640.00 53,280.00

BackwashElec. 2 47,000.00 94,000.00

Pump&PipingCost 2 8,169.60 16,339.20 0.00 0.0

PumpElec. 2 38,300.00 38,300.00

SUBTOTAL 343,999.20 0.0

PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00 0.0

TOTAL 343,999.20 0.0

PW

3,873,430.99 PW

0.0

SAVINGS 3,873,430.9

15.7SPIConclusion:SPI recommends that these filters be included as presently designed,

until the feed water quality is known. Regarding vessel material, we agree that FRP may


29/120


30/120


19

16VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:E6:RelocateVFDsforROfeedwaterhigh

pressure

pumps

to

filter

effluent

transfer

pumps

16.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Inthebaselineconcept,VFDsareproposedtobe

installedonboththehighpressurepumpsandononeofthefiltereffluenttransferpumps.

16.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:ThisconceptproposestoinstallVFDsonall

filtereffluenttransferpumpsandeliminatetheVFDsonthehighpressurepumps.

16.3SPIComment:At this point in time this alternative makes technical sense and would

be recommended by SPI. In the event the filters can be removed, the VFDs can be moved to

the well supply pumps.

16.4SPIScheduleImpacts:No schedule impacts are noted.

16.5SPI

Risk

Impacts:No project risks result from this change.


15.6.1CapitalCost

In the event the filters can be eliminated, the following cost savings result:


31/120


20

E6 CapitalCost

CONSTRUCTION



VFDat

HP

Pumps

7

85,000.00

595,000.00

0.00

VFDatWells 0.00 7 22,000.00 154,000.00

0.00 0 0.00

0.00 0 0.00

SUBTOTAL 595,000.00 154,000.00


TOTAL 595,000 308,000.00

SAVINGS 287,000.00


32/120


21

16.6.2

Life

Cycle

Cost


E6 LifeCycleCost

CONSTRUCTION



Annual

Cost Total

VFDatHPPumps 7 52,836.00 369,852.00 0.00

VFDatWellPumps 0.00 7.00 13,675.20 95,72

0.00

0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00

SUBTOTAL

369,852.00

95,726


TOTAL 369,852.00 95,726

PW 4,164,533.52 PW 1,077,879

SAVINGS 3,873,430

16.7SPIConclusion:As presently designed, SPI can recommend the inclusion of this

alternative.


33/120


22

17VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:E7:UseabovegroundFRPpipinginlieuof

belowgradeHDPE

17.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:PermeateandRaw/SalineWaterpipesare

specifiedasbelowgradehighdensitypolyethylene(HDPE)andfiberreinforcedplastic(FRP)

abovegrade

pipes

in

the

baseline

concept.

17.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thisalternativeproposestosubstitute

belowgradeHDPEpipingwithabovegradeFRPpiping.

17.3SPIComment:Above grade FRP piping is often used for reverse osmosis systems and

can be employed for this project. This piping however, suffers from degradation from the

effects of sunlight. Therefore, they must be painted or protected in a similar manner.

17.4SPIScheduleImpacts:No project schedule impacts are considered for this

alternative.

17.5SPIRiskImpacts:No project risks result from this change.

16.6SPIConclusion:SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend its acceptance

for the project.


34/120


23

18VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:M1:Increasesizeofthefilteredwater

storagetanks

18.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Thebaselineconceptincludestwo

300,000galloncovered,glasslinedtanks,withatotalvolumeofapproximately600,000

gallons.Assuming

a5foot

minimum

operating

level,

the

effective

volume

is

approximately

440,000gallons.

18.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept: Thisalternativeproposestheinstallationof

two500,000galloncovered,glasslinedtanks,resultinginatotalvolumeofapproximately

1,000,000gallons.Assuminga5footminimumoperatinglevel,effectivevolumeis

approximately770,000gallons.

18.3SPIComment:Any tanks placed to hold sea water is to be avoided. This is because

the sea water will contain microbes that will grow within these tanks and therefore enter

the SWRO membranes. This will create increased fouling and increase the frequency ofmembrane cleaning operations. Increasing the cleaning frequency, results in lowering the

membrane life, therefore increasing the cost of operation.

There exists no technical reason for these tanks.

SPI recommends that in lieu of increasing the size of these tanks, they be eliminated.

18.4SPIScheduleImpacts:The elimination of these tanks will result in reducing the

construction schedule.

18.5

SPI

Risk

Impacts:Elimination of these tanks reduces risk from contamination of themembranes due to biofouling.


18.6.1CapitalCosts

The savings in capital costs are given in the following table.


35/120


24

M1 CapitalCost

CONSTRUCTION


DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total]

FilterStorageTanks 2 354,000.00 708,000.00 0 0.00

SUBTOTAL 708,000.00


TOTAL 708,000 0

SAVINGS 708,000.00

18.6.2

Life

Cycle

Costs

Thelifecyclecostforthisalternativeisgiveninthefollowingtable.

M1 LifeCycleCost

CONSTRUCTION


DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total]

FilterStorageTanks

Amortization 2 31,435.20 62,870.40 0 0.00

SUBTOTAL 62,870.40


TOTAL 62,870 0

SAVINGS 62,870.40

18.7SPIConclusion:SPIrecommendstheremovalofthesetanks.


36/120


37/120


26

20VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:M3:Eliminatepumpsinchemicalstorage

sumps

20.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Theexistingdesignshowssumppumpsin

chemicalstoragesumps.Thepumpswouldoperateonamanualenableswitchandshutoffby

floatswitch

activation.

At

present,

pumps

are

connected

to

the

sanitary

sewer.

20.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thisconceptproposestoprovideportable

sumppumpsandreceptaclesforpowerconnection.Theoperatorswouldputthesumppumps

inthesumpswhensumpsarefull.Pumpswouldbeconnectedtoreceptaclesontheoutsideof

thebuildingsuchthatchemicalscouldbeloadedintoatruckorcontainerfordisposal.

20.3SPIComment:SPI has no opinion or this matter.

20.4SPIScheduleImpacts:No schedule impacts are seen.

20.5SPI

Risk

Impacts:No risks are envisioned.



38/120


27

21VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:M4:SplittheC02tanktoshare120ton

requirementbetweentwotanks

21.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:OneCO2120tonstoragetankisprovidedinthe

baselineconcept.(DrawingsheetM45andM46).

21.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Toprovideforredundancyduringtank

maintenance,thisalternativerecommendsutilizetwostoragetankstoprovidethesame

amountofstorage.

21.3SPIComment:SPI recommends that this system be removed and all carbon dioxide

be obtained from the acid pretreatment system. This will save a significant amount in life

cycle costs as shown and discussed in item TP4.

21.4SPIScheduleImpacts:None are foreseen.

21.5SPI

Risk

Impacts:No added risks are expected.

21.6SPIConclusion:SPI recommends that the Water Authority utilize the alternative

given above.


39/120


28

22VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:RS1:Refinethedesigntomeettestwelldata

waterqualityinformation

22.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Theprojecthasbeendesignedaroundmany

assumptions

relative

to

the

quality

and

quantity

of

raw

water

that

will

be

delivered

to

the

plant

fromtheintakewells.Keyassumptionsincludeequipmentsizing,chemicaltreatment

processes,andstoragequantities.Thereportedintentistonotsignificantlyrevisethedesign

whentheinformationfromthetestwellisavailable.Theassumptionisthatthedesignwillbe

robustenoughtoaccountforanywaterqualityorquantityissues.Currently,thedesignteam

hasbeencontractuallylimitedrelativetotheirengineeringdesignfees.Thefullamountof

engineeringdesignfeeswillnotbeauthorizeduntiltheprojectreceivescertainregulatory

approvalsinordertoproceed.

22.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Performadesignanalysisofthetreatment

processes,

Equipment

sizing,

and

storage

capacities

once

water

quality

and

quantity

informationisavailablefromtheseawaterintaketestwell.Iftheinformationindicatesthatthe

plantisoverdesignedforcertainaspects,entertainrevisionstothedesignsufficientto"right

size"andoptimizethedesignperthetestinformation.

22.3SPIComment:The design of any SWRO process always begins with an analysis of the

water to be treated. There is no reason that the water from the proposed well will not

deliver normal sea water at the expected quality. Thus, the design of the process at this

time has minimal risk, since the performance of the plant can be projected from membrane

manufacturers computer programs. The well will supply sea water that is considered to bein the normal range of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentration of 34,500 mg/L. Further

the well supply will deliver a water quality of significantly low Silt Density Index (SDI). This

value can be expected to be 1.0 or less. A value of this SDI level is not unusual for a water

supply from a well.

The only refinement in design would be accomplished after the feed water quality from the

wells has been determined. This refinement is expected to be the removal of the

pretreatment filters.

22.4SPI

Schedule

Impacts:

No schedule impacts are expected.

22.5SPIRiskImpacts:This approach has minimal risk.

22.6SPIConclusion:The VE cost study gives a potential savings of $5,227,000.00. This

appears reasonable and in fact could be lowed further as discussed above.


40/120


29

23VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:RS2:Reviseconstructionscheduleusing

multiplecrewsperdisciplinetoaccelerateprojectcompletion

23.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:TheCDMSmithproposedscheduleindicatesa

sequentiallyphasedconstructionschedule,likelyusingonecrewperdisciplinetypethatmoves

around

the

project

site.

23.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thisalternativeproposestostartconstruction

ofallfacilitiesassoonaspossibleafterundergroundinfrastructureiscomplete,andconsider

multiplecrewsperdisciplinetoacceleratethescheduleandcompleteconstructionsooner.

23.3SPIComment:SPI agrees with this concept.

23.4SPIScheduleImpacts:This item will reduce schedule impacts.

23.5SPIRiskImpacts:No risk would result from this approach.

23.6SPIConclusion:SPI agrees with the alternative presented above and can recommend

its acceptance.


41/120


30

24VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP1:Considerassumingahigherrecovery

rateontheROto50%onthefirstpassand90%onthesecondpass(48%totalrecovery)

24.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Theexistingdesignisbasedon45%recoveryrate

of

the

first

pass

SWRO

system

and

90%

recovery

rate

of

the

second

pass.

The

total

plantrecoveryrateisapproximately43%.

24.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thisalternativeproposestodesignthe

desalinationplantsuchthattherecoveryofthefirst(SWRO)passis50%insteadof45%.By

definition,recoveryisthepercentageofraw(source)waterconvertedintodesalinatedwater.

ThehigherthedesignROsystemrecovery,thelesssourcewaterisneededtobecollected,

pretreatedanddesalinatedtoproducethesamevolumeoffreshwater.IncreaseoftheSWRO

systemrecoveryfrom45%to50%willresultin11%(50%/45%=1.11)lowerintake,

pretreatmentsystem,andSWROsystem.Afigurewidelyusedforplantswithintakewellsis

50%recovery.

24.3SPIComment:SPI agrees with this revision, because it reduces the cost of the well

system, feed piping, pumping equipment and other associated equipment, which contribute

significantly to the capital and operating costs. However, at a recovery of 50%, and

assuming normal sea water concentration of 34,400 mg/L the brine concentration will

exceed the required maximum about 62,500 mg/L. At 50% recovery, the brine will have a

concentration of about 68,650 mg/L. Thus, this item cannot be addressed until the well

supply has been developed and the final water quality has been determined.

Regarding the electrical requirement for the HP pump, the electrical requirement is about

35% higher energy usage for the 50% case as compared with the 45% case. However, this

additional cost will be more than offset by the reduction in well supply electricity usage

and lower capital costs for the well and associated piping and valves feeding the process.

For the higher recovery, there may exist a problem obtaining the required boron content in

the final permeate, which will require further study. This will depend upon the membrane

used. For example the boron concentration can be met using the DOW membrane, but not

with the Hyrdanautics membrane. These conclusions were reached using the

manufacturers projection programs and should be verified.

The design of the SWRO process has to include a flux as well as a recovery optimization in

order to determine the optimized design. The optimization of flux is required because as

with the recovery, as the flux changes, the operating pressure changes as well.

Confirmation of the optimized design cannot be performed at this time due to the fact that

the feed water quality is not known.


42/120


31

24.4

SPI

Schedule

Impacts:This alternative will result in impacting the project schedule;

due to the revision in design.

24.5

SPI

Risk

Impacts:The risk associated with this alternative is not considered to be a

significant factor.

24.6SPIConclusion:SPI cannot recommend this alternative until the final feed water

quality is known.


43/120


32

25VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP2:Installaplugonthemainpermeates

lineafterthesecondorthirdmembraneandusesallofthesameelements

25.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept: Atpresent,theSWROsystemvessel

configurationhasaninternallystageddesignwheretwodifferenttypesofmembranes

(SWC5LD

and

SWC6

LD)

elements

are

used.

See

the

baseline

concept

figure

on

the

following

page.

Thedesignincludesasplitpermeateconfigurationwhereaportionofthepermeatewater

producedfromthefront3elementsisremovedfromthefrontofthevesselsratherthan

allowedtomixwiththepermeatewaterfromtheremainderoftheelementswithinthevessel.

Twodifferenttypesofelementsareusedinordertomaximizethebenefitofcollectinghigh

qualitywaterfromthefrontendofthevessels.Ifthesameelementsareused,thepermeate

watercollectedfromthefrontofthevesselswillnotbeofashighofqualitybecausepermeate

fromthebackandfrontmembranesinthevesselwillmixandbackelementsalwaysproduce

worse

quality

permeate

than

front

elements.

SWC5

LD

is

a

higher

salt

rejection,

lower

productivityelementthanSWC6LD.

25.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept: ThisalternativeproposestousethesameRO

elementsfortheentirevesselforexampleSWC5orSWC5+elements(orother

nonHydranauticselementswiththesameorhigherproductivity)andinstallapluginthe

permeatetubebetweenthe3rdand4th

elementsinthevessels.UseofthesameROelements

withinthevesselswillsimplifyplantoperation(i.e.,membranerotationandprocurement)and

lowermembranereplacementcosts.

25.3SPIComment: SPI supports this idea. Use of this system will result in improved

water quality without sacrificing technical aspects or costs.

This design has been accomplished in many SWRO installations and will result in obtaininga better permeate water quality because the permeate water is taken from the leadelements which produce the lowest TDS. SPI finds that no problems will result if thisalternative is chosen.

This alternative will also result in the reduction of electrical consumption in the HP pumpof the next stage. This reduction carries a present worth of $142,000.00.

There appears no benefit of increasing the number of elements from 7 to 8. Doing this,would reduce the water quality coming from the lead elements (i.e., higher TDS) andincrease the TDS of the permeate water from the lower membranes. This would increasethe electrical usage due to the higher operating pressure. Therefore, eliminating anyadvantage offered by using 8elements per pressure vessel.

25.4SPIScheduleImpacts:No schedule impacts are expected.


44/120


33

25.5

SPI

Risk

Impacts:There is no risk for using 7membranes but an increased risk of

higher cost of water for using 8elements per pressure vessel.

25.6

SPI

Conclusion:

This alternative cannot be evaluated until the final feed water quality

is known.


45/120


34

26VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP3:InstallasecondpassbrackishROtrain

onthesplitstreamtoimprovewaterqualityandreduceenergyuse

26.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept: InstallasecondpassbrackishROtrainonthesplit

streamtoimprovewaterqualityandreduceenergyuse.

26.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thealternativeconceptproposestoinstalla

brackishwaterROtreatmentsystemforthepermeatecollectedfromthefrontoftheSWRO

vesselsinordertousetheenergyinthisstreamtoproducebetterqualityfrontpermeatewater

andreducethesizeofthesecondpass.Becausethepermeatecarriesenergyadequateto

retreatitthroughasecondpass,noadditionalpumpingwillbeneeded.Therecoveryofthe

frontendpermeatewillbe95%andthewaterqualitywillbeof20mg/LTDSorless,as

comparedtotheTDSofthefrontendpermeatewhichwillbe80to120mg/L.

26.3SPIComment:This concept will result in increasing energy usage, because pressure

is, of course necessary in order to produce water in this new stage. During operation the

membranes will foul, increasing the pressure requirement of the first pass HP pump for

water production. As this occurs, two operating scenarios can be taken, the first would be

to maintain the pressure of the first pass in a constant condition and in the second case,

and the pressure can be increased. Both of these operating scenarios are not

recommended, because in the case of maintaining constant pressure, the production from

the first pass will decrease. In the second case to maintain production, the increase in

pressure leads to an increase in electrical usage.

In addition, there is no need to improve the water quality from the process.

For these reasons, SPI does not support the use of this alternative.

26.4SPIScheduleImpacts:The implementation of this additional pass will result in

changes in design of the process, also affecting the layout and arrangement drawings. It is

estimated that this change would require an additional month for redesign, specification,

ordering of equipment and site construction time. A t5ime extension of one month can be

expected.

26.5SPIRiskImpacts:This is a new proposal. That it is not normally used in a

conventional SWRO process. Thus, it is not fully proven.

26.6SPI

Conclusion:SPI recommends that this alternative not be included in the final

design.


46/120


35

27VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP4:Eliminatesulfuricacidadditionfrom

process

27.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Sulfuricacidisincludedinthebaselineconceptas

atoolforcontrollingtheformationofcalciumcarbonateonthemembranes.

27.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thealternativeconceptproposestoeliminate

sulfuricacidequipmentbasedonthefactthattheproductionwaterisanticipatedtobenearly

100%seawater,wheremagnesiumcarbonateisthedriver.

27.3SPIComment:If the acid is used for pretreatment, it produces carbon dioxide as it

mixes with the sea water supply. This carbon dioxide can be recovered in a decarbonator

and used for the post treatment step. This eliminates the need for purchasing carbon

dioxide and can reduce operating costs.

The collection of carbon dioxide for use in the post treatment step is not a new idea. It is

carried out in many plants in the Middle East area.

27.4SPIScheduleImpacts:No design revisions are required.

27.5SPIRiskImpacts:No risks result from this revision.


27.6.1CapitalCost

The capital costs are given in the following table:


47/120


36

TP4 CapitalCost

CONSTRUCTION



Decarbonator

1

0.00

0.00

1

475,000.00

CarbonDioxide

SUBTOTAL


TOTAL 0 475,000

SAVINGS 475,000.00

27.6.2LifeCycleCosts

The life cycle costs are given in the following table:

TP4 LifeCycleCost

CONSTRUCTION



Annual

Cost Total

DecarbonatorBlower Kw 7.5 0.00 1 6,200.00 6,200

Decarb,Amortization 1 42,180.00 42,180

CarbonDioxide

Usage

mg/L

15

96,000.00

302,500.00

0.00

0

AcidUsage mg/L 49.5 475,000.00 475,000.00 49.5 475,000.00 475,000

SUBTOTAL 777,500.00 523,380

PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00 0

TOTAL 777,500.00 523,380.00 523,380.00

PW 8,754,650.00 PW 5,893,2

SAVINGS 2,861,39

27.7

SPI

Conclusion:The cost savings resulting from this change shows the significant

benefit offered. SPI recommends that the sulfuric acid treatment in the present design be

used and the resulting formation of carbon dioxide be collected for use in post treatment.


48/120


37

28VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP5:Provideasparechemicalinjection

function

to

Desal

Plant

28.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Thebaselineconceptprojectdoesnotinclude

additionalspaceorequipmenttoaccommodatechemicalinjectionbeyondthecurrently

assumed

water

treatment

28.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thisalternativeproposestoconstructan

outbuildingseparatefromtheRObuildingsufficienttohouseenoughchemicalstoragetanks

andequipmenttosupportfuturechemicalinjectionintothewateraftertheROmembranes.

28.3SPIComment:Additional chemical treatment facilities can always be provided at the

future time when additional capacity is added. The provision of this facility should be based

on the future expansion requirements, which are not known at this time.

28.4SPIScheduleImpacts:This item will increase the design and construction periods of

the facility.

28.5SPIRiskImpacts:The risk incurred is based on the additional time and costs for this

alternative.

28.6SPIConclusion:The costs given in the VE study assumed a specific additional plant

capacity. However, at this time the additional capacity is not known, so the building

provided may in fact be too large or not large enough. Since the addition of this building

will incur redesign, additional architectural services and increased construction time, it is

considered not practical at this time.


49/120


38

29VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP6:EliminatetheUVtreatmentsystem

29.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Inthebaselineconcept,theUVsystemis

installeddownstreamoftheROmembranesandupstreamofthepoststabilizationsystem.The

purposeofthesystemistoprovideaminimum4loginactivationofGiardiaand

Cryptosporidium.The

system

consists

of

3trains

of

reactors

in

a2+1configuration.

The

train

consistsofaflowmeter(forflowdocumentation),reactor,andaflowvalve.Eachtrainwill

haveaUPStoprovide10minutesofridethroughtimeuponpowerfailure.

29.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:ThisconceptproposestoremovetheUV

systemfromtheproject.Differentmethodsofobtainingthe4logremovalcouldbeinstalled.

ThesemethodsaredescribedinVEAlternativeTP7whichsuggeststheuseofeithera

coagulantchamberwithflocculationoranothertypeofpretreatment.Theexactmethodis

undefinedandaroughcostestimateisgiven.

29.3SPIComment:SPI agrees with this alternative. Different systems could be employed

and to determine which system to recommend would require further study.

29.4SPIScheduleImpacts:Including this alternative will result in a reduction in

construction time.

29.5SPIRiskImpacts:No risks are identified.

28.6SPIConclusion: SPI recommends acceptance of this alternative provided disinfection

credits can be achieved elsewhere in the process.


50/120


39

30VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP7:Considermoreefficientwaysof

meetingCTrequirements(flocculationchamber,membranepretreatment,etc.)

30.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Existinggranularmediapretreatmentfiltersdo

nothave

flocculation/mixing

chamber

and

coagulant

addition,

which

does

not

allow

them

to

be

givenPathogenremovalcreditsbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth(CDPH).

30.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thisalternativewouldinstalla

flocculation/mixingchamberupstreamoftheexistingfilterstoreceive2logpathogenremoval

creditfromtheCDPH.Installingamixingchamberwillimprovetheoxidationofironand

manganese(iftheyarefoundinthewater)andresultinimprovedremovalofthesecompounds

aswell.Installmembranepretreatmentfiltersinsteadofgranularmediapretreatmentfiltersto

receive4logremovalcreditfromtheCDPH,andeliminatetheneedforcartridgefiltersandthe

UVdisinfectionsystem.

30.3SPIComment:Normal sea water does not contain manganese or iron. Thus, there is

no need to remove these constituents. The installation of membrane filtration as a

pretreatment step will increase the project costs and the cost of operation significantly.

Adding flocculation would require the addition of ferric chloride. The addition of this

chemical (iron) will not be allowed to be discharged to the sea without treatment

(removal). This treatment step is quite costly from both the capital and operating cost

stand point.

In addition, the solids removed in this treatment step would have to be trucked to a land fillor similar facility.

30.4SPIScheduleImpacts:The VE study states that the project schedule would be

increased by one month for the commissioning of these membranes. It neglects to mention

that this change would also require a revision to the design and construction periods of the

facility.

This alternative will have a significant impact on the project costs and schedule and

therefore is not recommended as a viable alternative.

30.5SPI

Risk

Impacts:Increased capital and operating costs (see below).


30.6.1CapitalCosts



51/120


40

TP7 CapitalCost

CONSTRUCTION


DESCRIPTION

UNIT

QTY

COST

Total

QTY

COST

Total

MediaFilters 10 60,000.00 600,000.00 600,000.00 10 600,000.00 600,000.00

Flocculation 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 5,000.00 50,000.00

DischargeTreatment 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00

FerricChlorideCapital 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 53,000.00 53,000.00

SUBTOTAL

PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 3,658,000.00 3,703,000.00

TOTAL 600,000 4,303,000

SAVINGS 3,703,000.00

30.6.2LifeCycleCosts

The life cycle costs are given in the following table:

TP7 LifeCycleCost

CONSTRUCTION



Annual

Cost Total

MediaFilters 10 53,280.00 53,280.00 53,928.00 53,928.0

Flocculation 10 4,440.00 4,440.0

DischargeTreatment 1 266,400.00 266,400.0

FerricChlorideCapital 10 4,706.40 4,706.4

FerricChlorideUse 10 62,500.00 62,500.0

SUBTOTAL 53,280.00 391,974.40 391,974.4


TOTAL 53,280.00 391,974.40 391,974.40

PW 599,932.80 PW 4,413,63

SAVINGS 3,813,698.

30.7

SPI

Conclusion:SPI does not recommend inclusion of this alternative for the final

design.


52/120


41

31VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP8:Eliminatebafflesinthetreatedwater

storagetanks;obtainCTpointselsewhere

31.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:ThebaselineconceptincludestwoHypalonbaffle

curtainspertreatedwaterstoragetanktoachievea0.5bafflingfactorandprovide1log

inactivation

of

giardia.

31.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thebaselineconceptrecommendsdeleting

thebafflesintreatedwaterstoragetanks.RequiredContactTime(CT)pointswillbeachieved

elsewhereinthesystem.

31.3SPIComment:The elimination of these baffles would appear to be unwarranted at

this time.

31.4SPIScheduleImpacts:Elimination of the baffles could result in an increased risk of

not obtaining the required final water quality.

31.5SPIRiskImpacts:No increased risk was found

31.6SPIConclusion:SPI recommends that this alternative not be accepted.


53/120


42

32VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP9:Optimizeconfigurationfromintake

wellstoROmembranesystem

32.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Thebaselineconceptincludesthefollowingsteps

forpumpingwaterfromthebaytotheinletoftheROhighpressurepumps:

1.Slantwellswithsubmersiblepumpsandmotorspumpwaterthroughthepressure

filtersanddischargetothefilteredwatertanks.

2.FilteredWaterPumpspumpwaterthroughthecartridgefiltersandtothesuction

sideofROhighpressurepumps.

32.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:SeveralitemsarepresentedinthisVE

alternativethatmayresultinasavingsinconstructioncostoroperationalcosts.Thismaybe

evenmorenecessaryifthepretreatmentprocessischangedinordertoobtainmoreCT

disinfectioncredit(SeeVEAlternativeTP7).Thealternativeconceptswouldinclude(asa

minimum):

1.Changingtheconfigurationofthefilteredwatertanks.Forexample,usingconcrete

withcommonwallconstructionbymakingitrectangular

2.Usingverticalturbinepumpsasthefilteredwaterpumps.Thismayresultinmore

efficientpumpsandmorecosteffectiveconstruction

3.Ifitisfeasibletohavelessthan600,000gallonsoffilteredwatertankstorage,this

wouldallowtheprojecttoreducetanksizeandassociatedcosts

4.IfflocculationisusedtoincreasetheCTdisinfectioncredits,thentheentirepumping

layoutwillhavetobereevaluated

32.3SPIComment:

Optimization of the configuration would be recommended for any process design.However, until the final feed water quality is known, it is only conjecture at this

time. Thus, the optimization of the system would be completed after the well has

been developed and the feed quality is known.

32.4SPIScheduleImpacts:Any schedule impacts cannot be determined at this time.

32.5SPIRiskImpacts:Any risks are associated with the results of the final feed water

quality.

32.6SPIConclusion:SPI recommends that this alternative not be pursued at this point.


54/120


43

33VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP10:Considersandremovalprocessprior

topretreatment

33.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Thebaselinedesignanticipatesproductionwells

withoutaruntowaste,andpumpingdirectlytopressurefiltersatthedesalinationplantto

capturesand/silt

and

particulate.

33.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thisalternativeproposestoinstall

runtowasteabilityeitheratthedesalinationplantoratwellheadswhenwellsarefirstcycled.

33.3SPIComment:The runtowaste system is normally provided for all SWRO systems,

as the water is not sent to the RO process until it meets the SDI requirements of the

membrane manufacturer.

The VE study expresses concern in this regard with elimination of sand before the pressure

filters. However a properly designed and constructed well will not produce sand.

If it is found that the well has not been constructed properly and sand ingress becomes a

problem, a strainer can be installed to eliminate this condition at that time.

33.4SPIScheduleImpacts:A properly designed and constructed well, will not result in

having sand in the supply. Well supply systems for SWRO systems are the preferred

process due to the low amount of constituents in this type of supply.

33.5SPIRiskImpacts:No risks are associated with this type of feed water supply system.

33.6SPICostEstimate

33.6.1CapitalCost



55/120


56/120


45

34VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP11:Eliminatethebackwashtreatment

systemanddischargedirectlytobrinebasin

34.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Theexistingconfigurationhasthebackwash

wastegoingtotwobackwashponds.Thewateristhensettledandsenteithertothefrontof

theplant

or

to

the

outfall.

The

solids

settle

out

and

need

to

be

removed

periodically

by

plant

staff,whichdewateranddisposeofthesolids.Thebaselineconceptalsocontainsonelarge

brinestoragepondwhichisusedtostorebrinebeforeitisdisposedofbypumpingittothe

outfall.

34.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Thealternativeconceptproposestoeliminate

thebackwashponds.Thebackwashwasteandbrinewouldbesenttothesameponds.The

brinepondswouldbereconfiguredandenlargedintotwoseparateponds.Thecombination

backwashwaste/brinewouldbedisposedofbypumpingittotheoutfall.Thepondswouldbe

configuredtobedewateredandthesludgeremoved,dewatered,anddisposedofoffsite.

34.3SPIComment:There appears to be no drawbacks to employing this alternative.

34.4SPIScheduleImpacts:No schedule impacts are expected.

34.5SPIRiskImpacts:No risks have been identified.

34.6SPIConclusion:SPI sees a benefit in terms of capital facilities and operating costs at

the desal facility. However, it would have impacts in terms of raw water supply and brine

disposal that must be considered as well. The treatment of backwash waste conserves the

amount of raw water pumped from the supply wells to the site; which would otherwisehave to be made up with additonal or larger supply wells. Separately, comingly filter

backwash residuals with waste brine may impact the securing of a disposal authorization

to the MRWPCA ocean outfall. Given these concerns we do not see a net benefit with the

proposal.


57/120


46

35VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP12:Installsystemtoblendthebrinewith

raw

water

35.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:Thebaselineconceptdoesnotaddresshowbrine

willbedisposedofwhenthereisnoflowintheoutfallfromtheMRWPCAwastewaterplant.

Modeling

is

still

being

performed

to

evaluate

whether

the

outfall

diffusers

can

provide

sufficientdilutionintotheseawaterwhenthebrineisnotcombinedwithanytreated

wastewatereffluent.

35.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:Ifadditionaldilutionisrequiredduringperiods

ofnotreatedwastewatereffluentavailability,thissolutioncouldpossiblyprovidesufficient

dilution.Theproposedalternativesolutionwoulduserawwaterfromtheslantwellsto

augmentthebrineflowtotheoutfall.

35.3SPIComment:The blending of the brine with raw water allows the plant to continue

producing water when there is insufficient waste water to blend the brine with fordisposal. This would prevent the shutdown of the plant or the storage of membranes in

sterilized solution. Thus, it is recommended by SPI as a viable alternative.

35.4SPIScheduleImpacts:There should be no schedule impacts due to this item.

35.5SPIRiskImpacts:No increased risks are perceived.

35.6SPIConclusion:SPI recommends acceptance of this alternative.


58/120


47

36VEAlternativeNumberandDescription:TP13:For6.4MGDplantoption,eliminate

brinepitandcirculatethepermeateandbrineuntildischargeisallowed

36.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:BrineconcentrateflowsfromROsystemtoBrine

dischargeatMRWPCAoutfallusingexcesspressurefromROprocess.Whenoutfallcapacityis

exceeded,

brine

is

directed

to

a

3

million

gallon

brine

storage

pond.

A

6

MGD

brine

pump

stationisusedtodrawdownthebrinestoragepondwhentheoutfallcapacityisrestored.Plant

feedwateroverflow,aswellasseveralotheroverflowsources,arealsosenttothebrine

storagepond.

36.2VEDescriptionofAlternativeConcept:ThisconceptproposestodeletetheBrine

StoragePondandBrinePumpStationandrecirculateplantflowtoheadofplantwhenthe

MRWPCAoutfallcapacityisnotavailable.Theslantwellswouldneedtobeshutoffwhen

outfallcapacityisnotavailable.Inordertorecirculatetheflowandkeeptheplantinready

standby,a16MGDrecirculationpumpstationwouldbeneeded.

36.3SPIComment:This alternative does not address the 9.6 mgd case. In either event, the

plant may have to be secured in the event the disposal of brine cannot be carried out. In

that case it is recommended that the plant be put into intermittent operation (i.e.,

operation every 2days for a period of 4hours).

36.4SPIScheduleImpacts:No schedule impacts result

35.5SPIRiskImpacts:No risk impacts result.

36.6SPIConclusion:The costs given for this alternative do not appear to justify its use.


59/120

FROM: Dave Stoldt, General Manager MPWMD

SUBJECT: Receive report and discuss the latest information on public funding,including bond funding, for the MPWSP.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the TAC review, discuss, and make a recommendation to theAuthority Board if appropriate, the following update on a report on public funding of theMPWSP that was provided to the Water Authority on September 11, 2014.

DISCUSSION:

Senate Bill 939 is the legislation that allows a contribution of public financing in support

of the Cal-Am desalination facility in order to reduce the costs to ratepayers. On August

19, 2014 the bill passed the Assembly in a 77-0 vote. On August 20, 2014 it was

passed by the Senate 32-0. It has now been signed by the Governor.

As now permitted by the new law, the Settling Parties have agreed to ask the California

Public Utilities Commission to issue a Financing Order in concert with its Certificate of

Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the desalination project that would direct

Cal-Am to utilize the Water Rate Relief financing as a component of its funding plan.

On August 13, 2014 the California Legislature also approved AB 1471, a new Water

Bond that will be placed before the voters in the November election.

A summary of the bill has been posted on the Water Authority web page. Of the $7.5

billion, only approximately $2.4 billion will be relevant to the needs of the Monterey

Peninsula, with Chapter 9 specifically allocation $725 million to water recycling and

desalination.

SectionAmountinAB 1471($million)

AmountRelevantToMontereyPeninsula

Discussion

Ch. 5 $520 $0 Water quality for small and disadvantagedcommunities; Unlikely to help Peninsula, but would be


60/120

relevant to assist Watsonville and other impairedareas of the County; However, limits construction

grants to $5 million ($20 million for regional projects)which doesnt help enough.

Ch. 6 $1,495 $505 Most of this money is earmarked. Of $302.5 million inSection 79731 only $100.5 is to the State CoastalConservancy and most of that will be expendedelsewhere; Other possible moneys include Section79733 with $200 million for enhanced stream flows,Section79735(b) with $20 million for urbanwatersheds, but 25% is earmarked for disadvantagedcommunities, and Section 79737 with $285 million forwatershed restoration outside of the Delta. All other

monies in this Chapter are earmarked for elsewhere inthe State.

Ch. 7 $810 $343 Section 79744 is $510 million of geographic fundingthrough the IRWM program. The Central Coast hasonly $43 million authorized. In earlier Rendon andHueso bills, $58 million was targeted for the CentralCoast region. In the June revision to SB 848 (Wolk)the regional amount was $85 million. This is areduction.

However, we favorably view Section 79746 with $100

million for water conservation and Section 79747 with$200 million for stormwater. However, this is areduction for stormwater from $500 million in the Juneversion. We on the Central Coast are faced with otherCalifornia regulatory mandates to eliminate stormwaterdischarges to Areas of Special Biological Significance(i.e. Monterey Bay) so a higher funding level ispreferred and assurances that ocean dischargers cancompete for the funds is needed. Prop 84sstormwater rules excluded ocean dischargers.

Ch. 8 $2,700 $0 State Water Project, CALFED, Bay-Delta only.

Ch. 9 $725 $725 We love this. Includes water recycling, desalination,and potable reuse. This is up from $500 million in theJune version.

Ch. 10 $900 $730 We might be able to apply for funding of the AquiferStorage and Recovery or Groundwater Replenishmentprojects here, but will be a stretch. 10% set aside fordisadvantaged communities.

Ch. 11 $395 $100 This is primarily a Delta levee protection chapter.


61/120

However, the Carmel River lagoon barrier and otherflood control measures would compete for crumbs of

the remainder.TOTAL $7,545 $2,403 Source: MPWMD 8-19-14

8/11/2019 TAC MPR

TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14

Documents

Transcript of TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14