tac mprwa final special meeting agenda packet 10-09-14
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
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
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
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
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
5/120
MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, September 8, 2014
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
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
6/120
MPRWA TAC Minutes Monday, September 8, 2014
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
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
8/120
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
9/120
FROM: Executive Director Cullem
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."
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
10/120
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
11/120
FROM: Executive Director Cullem
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
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
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
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
13/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
14/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
15/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
6.3SPIComment:SPI agrees with this change.
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
16/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
17/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
6
It is SPIs conclusion that this item be accepted, but the costs updated to show this
additional cost $142,000.00.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
18/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
19/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
9.3SPIComment:SPI agrees with this change.
9.4SPIScheduleImpacts: SPI sees no schedule impacts due to this change.
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
20/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
10.4SPIScheduleImpacts: SPI sees no schedule impacts due to this change.
10.5SPIRiskImpacts: SPI sees no risk impact due to this change.
10.6SPIConclusion:SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend its acceptance.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
21/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
22/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total
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
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 799,200.00 868,4
SAVINGS 69,264.
11.78
SPI
Conclusion:
SPI does not recommend acceptance of this alternative.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
23/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
24/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
13
E2 CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
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
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 2,002,000.00 1,460,000
SAVINGS 542,000.00
12.6.2
Life
Cycle
Cost
The life cycle cost for this alternative is given in the following table.
E2 LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
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
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
25/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
13.6SPIConclusion:SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend its acceptance.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
26/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
27/120
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
28/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
17
E5 CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
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
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
TOTAL
2,384,000
0.00
SAVINGS 2,384,000.00
15.6.2
Life
Cycle
Cost
The life cycle cost for this alternative is given in the following table.
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
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
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
29/120
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
30/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
16.6SPICostEstimate:
15.6.1CapitalCost
In the event the filters can be eliminated, the following cost savings result:
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
31/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
20
E6 CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total
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
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 595,000 308,000.00
SAVINGS 287,000.00
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
32/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
21
16.6.2
Life
Cycle
Cost
The life cycle cost for this alternative is given in the following table.
E6 LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY AnnualCost Total QTY
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
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
33/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
34/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
18.6SPICostEstimate:
18.6.1CapitalCosts
The savings in capital costs are given in the following table.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
35/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
24
M1 CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
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
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 708,000 0
SAVINGS 708,000.00
18.6.2
Life
Cycle
Costs
Thelifecyclecostforthisalternativeisgiveninthefollowingtable.
M1 LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
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
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 62,870 0
SAVINGS 62,870.40
18.7SPIConclusion:SPIrecommendstheremovalofthesetanks.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
36/120
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
37/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
20.6SPIConclusion:SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend its acceptance.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
38/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
39/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
40/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
41/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
42/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
43/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
44/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
45/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
46/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
27.6SPICostEstimate:
27.6.1CapitalCost
The capital costs are given in the following table:
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
47/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
36
TP4 CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total
Decarbonator
1
0.00
0.00
1
475,000.00
CarbonDioxide
SUBTOTAL
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 0 475,000
SAVINGS 475,000.00
27.6.2LifeCycleCosts
The life cycle costs are given in the following table:
TP4 LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY AnnualCost Total QTY
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
48/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
49/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
50/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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).
30.6SPICostEstimate:
30.6.1CapitalCosts
The capital costs are given in the following table:
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
51/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
40
TP7 CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
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
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY AnnualCost Total QTY
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
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00 0.0
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
52/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
53/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
54/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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
The capital costs are given in the following table:
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
55/120
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
56/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
57/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
58/120
SPI Comments on VE Study
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
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
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
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.
-
8/11/2019 TAC MPRWA Final Special Meeting Agenda Packet 10-09-14
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