Update on the Water Replacement Project 03-05-13

7/29/2019 Update on the Water Replacement Project 03-05-13

1/130


2/130


3/130


4/130


5/130


6/130


7/130


8/130


9/130


10/130


11/130


12/130


13/130


14/130


15/130


16/130


17/130


18/130


19/130


20/130


21/130


22/130


23/130


24/130


25/130


26/130


27/130


28/130


29/130


30/130


31/130


32/130


33/130


34/130


35/130


36/130


37/130


38/130


39/130


40/130


41/130


42/130


43/130


44/130


45/130


46/130


47/130


48/130


49/130

85

TABLE OF CONTENTS MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

4.3 .1 Plant Design Capacity ..... .. .... ..... ............ .... ................................................................. .............. .... ..... 4-54.3.2 Targeted Product Water Quality ............ .................................................................. .... ........ ............. 4-54.3.3 D isinfection Strategy ... ... .. .... ... ......... ..... ............. ........................................................ ...... .... ...... ....... 4-6

5 . ECONOMICS ........... ........... ........... ........... .... . . ... ...................................................................................... . ... 5-1

5 . 1 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER (CAL - AM ) . . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . . ... .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 5- 5

5 . 2 DEEPWATER DESAL (DWD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . .. . ... .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 8

5 .3 PEOPLES M o s s LANDING (PML) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 5 - 12

6 IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .. . . .. . . .. . ................ . ......... .... .................................. 6-1

6. 1 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER (CAL-AM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6- 3

6 .2 DEEPWATER DESAL ( D W D ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6- 7

6 .3 PEOPLES M o s s LANDING (PML) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

6.3.1 Assessment of Impacts of Seawater Intake .................... ............... ... .................. ...... ....................... 6-106.3.2 Brine Discharge .......... ........... .......... . .... ..... ...... ...... ...... ..... ... ......... ....... ............ ... ............ .................. 6-11

7 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... ... ................................................ 7-1

APPENDIX A - RESPONSES ~ 0 COMMENTS ON NOVEMBER DRAFT REPORT............. . ......................................... A-1

LIS'f OF 'fABLESTABLE E S -1 -1 - SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PRODUCT WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. ES-4

TABLE ES-1-2- SUMMARY OF EVALUATED CA PITAL AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ES-6

TABLE 4 - 1 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PRODUCT QUALITY FROM CAL-AM FACILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 3

TABLE 4 - 2 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PATHOGEN CRED ITS FOR CAL- AM PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3

TABLE 4 - 3 - SUMMARY OF PROJECTED PRODUCT QUALITY FROM D WD FACILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4- 4

TABLE 4 - 4 - SUMMARY OF PROJ ECTED PATHOGEN CREDITS FOR D WD PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 5

TABLE 4 - 5 - SUMMARY OF PROJECT ED PRODUCT QUALITY FROM PM L FACILITY1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 6

TABLE 4 - 6 - SUMMARY OF PROJ ECT ED PAT HOGEN CREDITS FOR PM l PROJECT . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... 4- 6

TABLE 5-1-SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL UNIT PRICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. .... ... . .. 5 -2TABLE 5 - 2 - SUMMARY OF EVALUATED CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 5 -4

TABLE 5 - 3- SUMMARY OF CAL-A M CAPITAL COST EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 5- 6

TABLE 5 - 4 -SUMMARY OF CAL-AM O & M COST EVALUATION .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 -7

TABLE 5 - 5 - SUMMARY OF CAL-AM COST SENSITIVITY EVALUATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . 5 -8

TABL E 5 - 6 -SUMMARY OF DW D CAPITAL COST EVALUATION . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 5 -9

TABLE 5- 7 -SUMMARY OF DW D O & M COST EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . 5-10

TABLE 5 - 8 - SUMMARY OF D W D COST SENSITIVITY EVALUATIONS .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 11

TABLE 5-9-SUMMARY OF P M L CAPITAL COST EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 12

TABLE 5-10 -SUMMARY OF PM L O & M COST EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 13

LIS'f OF FIGURES

FIGURE E S -1 - PROJECTED CAL-AM PROJ ECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-8

FIGURE E S -2 - PROJECTED DW D PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-8

FIGURE E S - 3 - PROJECTED P M L PROJ ECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-8

FIGURE 2 - 1 - CAL-AM PROJECT LO CATION MA P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... . . . . .. . .. ... .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 3

FIGURE 2 - 2 - D WD PROJECT LOCATION MA P .. . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 5

FIGURE 2 - 3 - P M L PROJECT LOCATION MA P ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -7

FIGURE 6- 1 - CONCEPTUAL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FO R T HE CAL-AM PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6- 6

January 2013 Page ii


50/130

86

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY .TABLEOF CONTENTS

FIGURE 6-2- CAL-AM PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... . .. ... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ... . 6-6FIGURE 6 - 3 - DWD PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .......... . . . . ..... ... ... 6-7FIGURE 6 - 4 - CONCEPTUALIMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE DWD PROJECT . . .. . . .. ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .... . . . ....... 6-9FIGURE 6-5- CONCEPTUALIMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR THE PM L PROJECT . ..... . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ... . ....... 6-11

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMSAACE - Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering

A F - Acre-Foot

AFY- Acre-Feet/Year

ASR- Aquifer Storage and Recovery

Cal-Am - California American Water

CDPH- California Department of Public Health

CEQA- California Environmental Quality Act

CPCN- Certificate ofPublic Convenience and Necessity

CPUC- California Public Utilities Commission

CRF- Capital Recovery Factor

Crypto- Cryptosporidium

CSIP - Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project

DWD -DeepWater Desai

E A - Environmental Assessment

EIR- Environmental Impact Report

EIS -Environmenta l Impact Statement

EPA- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERD -Energy Recovery Device

fps - feet per second

FPVC- Fusible Polyvinyl Chloride\

gfd- Gallons per Day per Square Foot

GWR- Groundwater Replenishment

HDPE- High Density Polyethylene

JP A - Joint Powers Authority

KHC- Kris Helm Consulting

lb - pound

L F - Lineal Foot

January 2013 Page iii


51/130

87

TABLE OF CONTENTS MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

M C L - Maximum Contaminant Level

MPRWA- Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

MRWPCA- Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

mgd - Million Gallons per DayI\1F- Microfiltration

M G - Million Gallons

MLCP - M o s s Landing Commercial Park

MLPP - Moss Landing Power Plant

MPWSP- Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

N E PA - National Environmental Policy Act

N O D - Notice of Determination

N O P - Notice of Preparation

N O A A - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O&M - Operations and Maintenance

P G & E - Pacific Gas and Electric

P M L - Peoples Moss Landing

RO -Reverse Osmosis

SCADA- Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

S D I - Silt Density Index

SPI - Separation Processes Inc.

S V G B - Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin

SWRCB - State Water Resources Control Board

S W T R - Surface Water Treatment Rule

TA C - Teclmical Advisory Committee

T B D - To Be Determined

T D S - Total Dissolved Solids

T O C - Total Organic Carbon

UF - Ultrafiltration

U V - Ultra Violet Light

January 2013 Pageiv


52/130

88

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONALWATER AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSeparation Processes Inc. (SPI) in association with Kris Helm Consulting (KHC) is providing

. engineering and consulting support to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority(MPWRA) to assist with the evaluation of tluee candidate desalination projects on the MontereyPeninsula. This report presents the results of our evaluation of the projects, targeted at replacingsupplies currently extracted from the Carmel River but subject to a 1995 order from the StateWater Resources Control board to secure an alternate source of supply by December, 2016.

The proposed strategy for meeting the projected annual demand within the California AmericanWater service area of 15,250 acre-feet is a multi-pronged approach including permittedextractions from the Cannel River and Seaside Basin, an aquifer-storage and recovery system,and the existing Sand City desalination plant--totaling 6,250 acre-feet; leaving a 9,000 acre-feetgap in supply. Two alternatives are under consideration to compose this final supply-a 9,000acre-feet production seawater desalination plant; or a 5 ,500 acre-feet seawater desalination plantin concert with a groundwater water replenishment project using advanced treated recycled waterof 3,500 acre-feet.

This report presents the results of our evaluation of three candidate alternatives for the seawaterdesalination component of the overall water supply portfolio. California American Water isactively engaged with the California Public Utilities Commission to build a facility and securethe required supply. Two other development groups have proposed alternative projects forconsideration-DeepWater Desai, LLC and the People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project.The three projects were analyzed on functional, performance, economic and implementationgrounds in an effort to provide a balanced evaluation for consideration by the MPRW A. Thisreport is based on information collected on each project up through October 15, 2012. It doesnot cover additional project developments between that time and the date of this report.

PROJECT SUMMARIESThe three projects are in the conceptual or preliminary stage of development and all three have astheir . objective to provide California American Water the seawater desal component of therequired replacement water supply under State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 95-10.The DeepWater Desai group proposes to provide an expandable plant capable of servingadditional regional water needs as well, outside of the California American Water service area.Bri ef surrunaries of the projects follow:

. .Monterey P e n i n ~ u l aWater Supply P r : o J ~ C t(fv1PWSP}

.

Proponent(s) California American Water (Cal-Am)

Location 46-acre siteof

vacant, disturbed land westof the

MRWPCARegional Treatment Plant (RTP).

To supply supplemental desal component of th e Monterey

PurposePeninsula regional water supply

This project is currently under consideration by theCalifornia Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

Production Volume 5. 4 mgd or 9.0 mgd

January 2013 Page ES-1


53/130

89

EXECUTIVESUMMARY MONTEREYPENINSULAREGIONALWATER AUTHORITY

' 'r. .

[ ) ~ ~ p W a t ~ rPe5al ([)WPl ...

Proponent(s)DeepWater Desai, LLC, Dynegy Moss Landing Power Plant,M F J I ~Partnmshi13 of the CaJ3urro Raneh, P\'2 Solar, and~ e o F f ! e r t+eehnologies G3 Data Centers

Location CaJ3urro Raneh ProJ3erty, north o f l ~ l l ~ h o F ASlough MossLanding Power Plant

Phase 1 to supply supplemental desal component of thePurpose Monterey Peninsula regional water supply

Phase 2 to supply northern customers

Production Volume Phase 1:4.9 mgd or 9.1 mgd

Phase 2: 22.0 mgd

.,". . . '- The pedple's M o ~U;inding Water Desai Project(PML)_. . . . ,,. . . . _- . , ; , ' ' , . . . ; - . . ,_ '

Proponent(s)DeSai America, LLC composed of Moss LandingCommercial Park, LLC;and Stanley and Patricia-VanceLueck

Location Moss Landing Commercial Park

To supply supplemental desal component of the Monterey

Purpose Peninsula regional water supply

This project is currently proposed as alternative to th e Cal-Am MPWSP.

Production Volume 4. 8 mgd or 9.4 mgd

PROJECT FUNCTIONWe evaluated the function o f each project in terms o f project purpose, customers identifi.ed,adequacy o f treatment approach, residuals handling, feed water characterization, quality o fproject information, and any omissions or fatal flaws in the information provided. Theevaluation was conducted based on information provided in response to a 56-item questionnaireprepared by the :MPR W A technical advisory committee and submitted by each proponent; alongwith additional information each provided in response to specific questions and interviews from

SPI and KHC.All three projects have available sites for building the required treatment facilities; and credibleseawater intake and brine disposal approaches, though there are substantive differences amongthem. Cal-Am proposes to use a group o f subsurface slant intake wells (up to eight for themaximum capacity plant alternative); DWD proposes a new screened open ocean intake installedat roughly 65-ft o f depth; and PML is considering options to use either an existing seawaterintake pump station drawing from the Moss Landing Harbor, or potentially a new screened open

Page ES-2 January 2013


54/130

90

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ocean intake installed coincident with an existing 51-in diameter concrete outfall pipeline ownedby the Moss Landing Commercial Park. Cal-Am has projected there may up to 3 percent ofgroundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB) entrained with their intakesupply that would need to be returned (as facility product water) to the basin. For brine disposal,Cal-Am and DWD propose to blend concentrated brine from the desal plants with existingoutfall flows-Cal-Am blending with the existing Monterey Peninsula Regional Water PollutionControl Agency's wastewater plant outfall; and DWD using the existing cooling water returnoutfall at the Moss Landing Power Plant. Both sources have sufficient dilution and hydrauliccapacities. PML proposes to use their existing 51-in diameter outfall, currently penni tted todischarge magnesium-depleted seawater. There is some evidence of disrepair of the outfall intenns of pipeline integrity and condition of the existing diffusers which would need to beaddressed along with the permitting of a non-shore diluted brine stream.

Cal-Am and PML propose to serve only the identified demand within the Cal-Am service area atthe two plant capacity increments under consideration; while DWD envisions a higher capacityregional project, capable of producing up to 25,000 AFY. DW D has not yet secured agreementswith any potential customers.

In terms of treatment approach-all three candidate teams propose to use reverse osmosis (RO)as the primary desalination technology. However, both DWD and PM L propose a single passRO system; while Cal-Am has proposed a partial double or two pass system-treating a portionof the product water from the first pass RO system with a second RO system and blending thesupplies to form the final treated water. The issue relates to the quality of product waterproduced, more than treatment function; as either approach is considered functional.

Pre- and post-treatment approaches are similar. All incorporate granular media filtration of theincoming seawater, with PML following on with a low pressure membrane filtration system(microfiltration or ultrafiltration) to deal with the anticipated higher solids load from waterextracted from Moss Landing Harbor. In the case of Cal-Am, the aquifer filtration provided by

the slant wells could obviate the need for media filtration; but the potential presence of iron andmanganese in the supply could just as well make them necessary-so the approach is consideredconservative. In the case of DWD, the incoming seawater extracted at depth will be cold(roughly 15 C) and wanned through a proprietary warming system at the Moss Landing PowerPlant prior to transmission to the treatment plant site. All three proponents propose to use calcitebeds, carbon dioxide and sodium hydroxide for re-mineralization/stabilization of the RO treatedproduct water and chlorine disinfection.

Cal-Am and DV/D will require offsite pipelines for feed, product water and brine disposal; whilePML proposes to use existing intake and outfall pipelines originating on site; requiring only aproduct water delivery pipeline. D\VD's site location notth of the Elkhorn Slough is likely toentail compleJc issues with crossings for all three of their large diameter pipelines (one 4 8 in andt\vo 36 in). DWD's co-located site at the Moss Landing Power Plan t will permit it to connect toexisting intake and outfall facilities; requiring only on off-site product water pipeline.

All three proponents were cooperative with our original evaluation and provided all availableand requested information. The Cal-Am project through past work on other regional projects aswell as ongoing procedures with the California Public Utilities Commission has produced themost detailed infonnation on their project, followed by DWD who have prepared a fair amountof predesign data on their proposed system along with active environmental investigations for



55/130

91

EXECUTIVESUMMARY MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONALWATER AUTHORITY

their proposed intake. PML is at a more preliminary level of engineering and plalllling incomparison. Their project has transitioned in ownership/proponents, with the new entity electingnot to participate in this evaluation. Importantly however, we have not found any fatal flaws of atechnical nature associated with any of the candidate projects.

PROJECT PERFORMANCEPerfonnance of each proposed system was gauged relative to categories of plant design capacity,targeted product water quality and disinfection strategy.

For plant capacity, we considered the proposed instantaneous design capacity of each treatmentfacility in comparison to the required allllual production increment--either 5,500 AFY or 9,000AFY. What we found were wide variations-with Cal-Am proposing capacities of 5.4 mgd and9.0 mgd; DWD of 4.9 mgd and 9.1 mgd; and PML at 4.8 mgd and 9.4 mgd. We considered thelevel of equipment redundancy proposed by each team in the context of the amount of "online"time it would require a facility at a given rated capacity to deliver the required alUlual allotment.For Cal-Am, we gauged their plalllled design capacities adequate considering the need to return

flow to the SVGB as well as meet the 5,500 AFY or 9,000 AFY into their distribution system.At capacities of 5.4 mgd and 9.0 mgd, the plant(s) would need to operate 98 percent of the timeto meet production-not overly conservative but achievable given the level of equipmentredundancy (including spare process units) in their proposed facility. DWD, with similarproposed levels of redundancy, would have equivalent minimum facility capacity requirementsof 5.0 mgd and 8.2 mgd; somewhat lower than Cal-Am as they lack the requirement to returnflow to the SVGB. PML did not provide a detailed equipment list indicating numbers of processunits; so gauging proposed levels of equipment redundancy was uncertain. However, we feel thefacility should have adequate reliability and conducted our evaluation on that basisrecommending equivalent capacity ratings to DWD of 5.0 mgd and 8.2 mgd.

The product quality produced by the proposed systems would differ based on the configuration

of their proposed RO systems. Cal-Am's proposed partial two-pass system could likely achievechloride, boron, and total dissolved solids (TDS) consistent with current Carmel River supplies;but the single pass systems would not. We consider a lower salinity product supply an asset andevaluated all three projects (from an economic perspective) as having partial two-pass ROsystems. The recommended product quality goal is summarized in Table ES-1-1.

Table ES-1-1 -Summary of Proposed Product Water Quality

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 380

Chloride mg/L 60

Boron mg/L 0.5

pH units ;::.s.o

Calcium mg/L as CaC03 40

Alkalinity mg/L as CaC03 40



56/130

92

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONALWATER AUTHORITY EXECUTIVESUMMARY

For disinfection, the proposed facilities must comply with the Smface Water Treatment Rule andLong-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Under these regulations, pathogenremoval/inactivation requirements are set on a logarithmic (log) scale, with the California .Department of Public Health establishing specific log removal for priority pathogens, includinggiardia, cryptosporidium (crypto), and virus. The levels set will be based on source water qualityand other factors, and are expected to be in the range of 3-5 for giardia, 2-4 for crypto, and 4-6for virus, based on each of the project source waters being classified as surface waters or underthe influence of surface waters. We find all three projects are likely to achieve sufficient logremoval credits under their proposed treatment schemes to comply.

ECONOMICS

A primary focus of our evaluation was to provide a balanced, "apples to apples" comparison ofthe candidate projects from an economic perspective. We implemented this by focusing on thefollowing principles:

e Uniformity in plant design capacity for the two non-regional approaches; equivalentcapacity allocation for the proposed DWD regional project.

Equivalency in treatment to achieve: a common RO feed water quality followingpretreatment; a common treated water quality goal; and pathogen removal creditsrequired for the applicable supply source.

o Uniformity in equipment redundancy.

0 Uniformity in unit cost criteria for common items.

o Uniformity in cost factors applied to aggregated costs (e.g., contingencies; electricaland I&C costs; etc.).

o Uniformity in unit costs for chemicals and other consumables for treatmentevaluations.

To implement the above, we adjusted plant capacities for the evaluation on the basis described inthe Project Performance discussion, rating Cal-Am's proposed system at design capacities of 5.4mgd and 9.0 mgd; and the DWD and PML systems at 5.0 mgd and 8.2 mgd. In terms oftreatment process, we attempted to maintain the overall proposed process design of theproponents, but did evaluate all as including a pat1ial (40 percent) capacity second pass ROsystem. We also assumed N+ 1 redundancy on all rotating equipment and major treatmentprocess units (e.g., filters, RO membrane trains). We employed an equivalent basis indeveloping our capital equipment cost estimates, relying on targeted quotes for equipment andSPis cost information from past, similar seawater RO projects. For indirect costs, we assumedfixed factors and applied them uniformly to each project.

We implemented a similar strategy on annual operating and maintenance expenses, using

common chemical unit prices along with pricing on common consumables, suchas

the ROprocess membranes. The results of our evaluation are presented in Table ES-1-2.

Legal and financial considerations, such as water rights and payment schedules (for example,Surcharge 2 proposed by Cal-Am) were outside the scope of this evaluation and are notaddressed herein. Overall, the costs presented are meant for comparative evaluation on aplanning basis. They have an overall accuracy level of -30 to +50 percent.



57/130

93

EXECUTIVESUMMARY MONTEREYPENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

Table ES-1-2- Summary of Evaluated Capital and Operating Cost Estimates

CAPITALCOSTS (in Millions 2012 Dollars)

Intake/Outfal l Facilities $23.0 $17 .7 $-0- $-0- $-0 - $ ~0 -

Pretreatment & Residuals Handling $10.6 $7.94 $11.2 $7 .94 $2 0 .2 $1 3 .6

De salination System $22.4 $15.0 $1 9 .4 $1 3 .2 $19.9 $14.0

Post-Treatment $1.48 $0.88 $1.48 $0 .88 $1.66 $1 .07

Distribution Facilitie s $6.14 $5.08 $3.35 $3.26 $0 .35 $0.26

Site Structures $11.5 $10.8 $3 .65 $2.52 $10.0 $7.00

Offsite Trenched Pipelines $24.9 $24.9 $23.0 $22.7 $25.1 $25.1

Indirect Costsl $57.5 $50 .3 $52.9 $42.7 $67 .9 $6 2 .3

Contingency Allowance (30%) $47.2 $39 .8 $34.5 $28.0 $43.6 $37.0

Mitigation Allowance (1%) $1.60 $1.30 $1 .20 $0 .90 $1.50 $1.20

TOTAL $206 $174 $151 $122 $190 $161

ANNUALO&M COSTS (in Millions 2012 Dollars)

Energy $5.38 $3.26 $3.44 $2.10 $3.98 $2.43

Chemicals $0.32 $0.19 $0.81 $0.49 $0 .93 $0 .57

Expendab les $0.69 $0.45 $0.78 $0.52 $1.09 $0 .65

Other Proponent Expenses $1.59 $1.45

O&M Labor $2.69 $2.36 $2.69 $2.36 $2.69 $2.36

Equipment Replacement2 $1.50 $1.23 $0.93 $0 .76 $1.16 $0.92

TOTAL $10.6 $7.49 $10.2 $7.68 $9.85 $6.93

ANNUALCOST OF WATER (in Millions 2012 Dollars)

.Capital Recovery3 $19.1 $16.2 $8.73 $7.06 $1 1 .0 $9 .37

Total Annual Cost $2 9 .7 $2 3 .7 $ 18.9 $1 4 .7 $20.9 $16.3

Production Cost of Water ($JAF)4 $3,300 $4,310 $2,100 $2,670 $2,320 $2,965RANGE ($/AF) $2,310 . $q,950 S3 ,017- $6,465 $1,470 .$ 3,150 $1 ,870.$4 ,005 Sl ,625 - $3,480 S2,075- $4 ,450

11ncludes implementation costs at 25%; ROW easement/land costs, mobilization/demobilization at 2%; electrical and I&Csystems at 18%; engineering and startup at 15%; and additional project proponent prescribed costs . Allpercentages appliedto plant facilities costs.

2 Calculated as 1.5% of plant facilities costs.3 Capital recovery factor for DWD and PML based on an interest rate of 4.0% and term of 30 years; based on an interest rate of

8.49% and 30 years for Cal-Am; see add itional discussion in Section 5.40verall accuracy of costs is estimated at AACE Class 5 with an accuracy of -30% to +50%; range values indicate potential

spread .



58/130

94

MONTEREYPENINSULA REGIONALWATER AUTHORITY EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Overall, the projected capital and operating costs for each facility are fairly equivalent given theoverall accuracy ofthe estimate and degree of project development. Cal-Am's capital cost is thehighest; owing largely to its high intake system cost. PML is proposing to reuse existing intakeinfrastructure; while DWD has an unspecified separate business entity which will be funding itsintake, outside of the assigned DWD facility budget. Cal-Am's operating cost is also relativelyhigh, owing in large measure to higher stipulated energy costs than either DWD or P M L -roughly $0.13/kW-hr vs. $0.08 kW-hr. However, Cal-Am has recently indicated they may beable to secure lower power through a direct purchase agreement with PG&E, resulting in a costof $0.087 kW -hr. The potential impact of this change is addressed in a sensitivity analysis forCal-Am's costs in Section 5. The overall water production costs diverge considerably in ourevaluation, due to the higher cost of capital assigned to Cal-Am vs. DWD and PML; so while thebase costs are similar, Cal-Am's cost of water produced is higher. An expanded discussion ofhow the capital recovery factor (CRF) for Cal-Am was generated is presented in Section 5.

IMPLEMENTATIONCONSIDERATIONS

The three projects are at varying states of development in terms of the regulatory permittingprocess. Cal-Am is further along than either DWD or PML, though DWD has completed or isnearing completion of their initial CEQA compliance documents. Forecast projectimplementation schedules were identified for each project proponent, based on a select numberof key environmental and permitting tasks, including:

1. A project description must be completed.

2. An Environmental Assessment must be made.

3. An EJRJEIS must be completed (CEQAINEPA compliance).

4. Commercial Agreements must be negotiated/ Cal-Am must obtain a Certificate of PublicConvenience and Necessity (CPCN), after certification ofthe EIR.

5. Jurisdictional Permits must be obtained for facilities impacting Waters of the U.S.

6. NPDES Pennits must be amended/obtained.

7. Coastal Development Permits must be obtained.

It was further assumed that each proponent had the financial capacity to proceed with predesignpreparation/procurement package development such that the project could be put out to finaldesign and construction bid coincident with approval ofthe final project permits. The schedulesare provided below as Figure ES-1, Figure ES-2 and Figure ES-3. The project proponentswere invited to provide their updated schedules following publication of the draft report. CalAm and DWD each elected to provide a schedule, which are included in Section 6.



59/130

95

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

Figure ES-1- Projected Cal-Am Project Implementation Schedule

Figure ES-2- Projected DWD Project Implementation Schedule

Figure ES-3- Projected PML Project Implementation Schedule

January 2013


60/130

96

MONTEREYPENINSULA REGIONALWATER AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION

Separation Processes Inc. (SPI) and Kris Helm Consulting (KHC) are providing engineering andconsulting support to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPWRA) to assist

with the evaluation of three candidate desalination projects on the Monterey Peninsula. SPIconducted technical and economic evaluations of the proposed projects; while KHC examinedissues relating to permitting and environmental compliance.

California American Water (Cal-Am) is an investor owned public utility who is responsible forproviding the water supply to cities covered within the MP R W A-Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del ReyOaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside. The proposed projects wouldsupplement supply previously extracted for the region from the Carmel River. In 1995, the StateWater Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in its Order No 95-10 found that Cal-Am waswithdrawing water from a subterranean stream, rather than percolating groundwater; and in theprocess extracting an average of 10,730 AFY in excess of its valid right of 3,376 AFY. Theorder required Cal-Am to secure a replacement source of supply by December 2016.

The average annual water demand in the region is 15,250 AFY1

Currently identified sourcesinclude established rights to Carmel River and Seaside Basin waters of 4,850 AFY, the aquiferstorage and recovery (ASR) system of 1,300 AFY, and 94 AFY from the Sand City DesalinationPlant. This leaves a roughly 9,000 AF Y deficit to be made up. Alternatives include a new 9,000AFY seawater desalination plant; and a new groundwater replenishment (GWR) project of3,500AFY in combination with a new 5,500 AFY seawater desalination plant.

The technical advisory committee (TAC) of the MPRW A developed a list of 56 questions tosubmit to the three desalination project proponents, including Cal-Am, DeepWater Desai, LLC(DWD) and the Peoples' Moss Landing Desai (PML). Each proponent is proposing to build adesalination facility to satisfy the planned desalination component .of the regional water supply.Responses and supp01ting infonnation were received from each, exhibiting various stages of

development and differences in approach. The differences were such that a deliberative, faircomparative evaluation could not be conducted solely on the basis of the information provided.

This report presents the results of a more detailed evaluation and analysis conducted by SPI andKHC. The work was conducted based on infonnation provided in the original responses to thequestions from the TAC along with supplemental information provided by each proponent. Thegoal was to provide an "apples-to-apples" comparison of each project on an equivalent costbasis; along with an evaluation of the realistic implementation schedule for each, taking intoaccount environmental and pennitti ng issues.

1RBF Memorandum, Recommended Capacity for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)

Desalination Plant, April20, 2012

January 2013 Page 1-1


61/130

97

MONTEREYPENINSULAREGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY PROJECT SL)MMARIES

2 PROJECT SUMMARIES

The tabular summaries provided in this section include information on each of the proponentprojects, including:

o Project name

o Proponent(s)

o Location

& Purpose

o Production volume

0 Key features

a Facility map

s Key information provided to review teamo Persons interviewed/corresponded with

The TAC requested information from each proponent that would satisfy the desalinationcomponent of the proposed water supply. Responses received from the Cal-Am and PMLgroups were generally in line with this request; though there were slight differences in theproposed plant capacities. The DWD response proposed to only serve the higher 9,000 AFYrequirement, along with a planned expansion to act as a regional water supply source to otheragencies on the peninsula as well as cities north of Moss Landing. DWD did reveal in responseto subsequent inquiries how they would serve the 5,500 AFY supply scenario. The informationpresented for each project represents their current status from the proponents at the time of thisreport writing.

January 2013 Page 21


62/130

98

PROJECT SUMMARIES MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONALWATER AUTHORITY

2. 1 CALIFORNIAAMERICANWATER (CAL-AM)

Project Name

Proponent(s)

Location

Purpose

Production Volume

Key Features

Key Information Provided

Persons Interviewed/Corresponded With

Page 2-2

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project(MPWSP)

California American Water

46-acre site of vacant, disturbed land west of theMRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant (RTP).

To supply supplemental desal component of theMonterey Peninsula regional water supply

This project is currently under consideration by theCalifornia Public Utilities Conunission (CPUC).

5.4 mgd or 9.0 mgd

1. Raw seawater supply through a series of up toeight sub-surface slant wells located on a vacant

376 acre parcel with roughly 7,000 feet of oceanshoreline.

2. Raw water and pump to waste transmissionthi-ough one of eight candidate alignments.

3. Single-stage, dual media pressure filtrationpretreatment.

4. Partial 2-pass RO desalination treatment withenergy recovery. Final product has a proposedblend of 60:40 first pass:second pass product.

5. Product stabilization with calcite, carbon dioxide,and sodium hydroxide.

6. Disinfection with sodium hypochlorite andtemporary UV.

7. 2 x 1.0 MG product storage tanks, productdistribution pumps, and 36-in diameter productpipeline to Cal-Aln distribution system nearSeaside.

8. 24-in brine disposal pipeline to the existing RTPoutfall.

1. TAC response package2. Response to supplemental questions from SPI

andKHC

3. Relevant testimony to the CPUC4. RBF 2011 memo on implementation schedule

risk of regional supply alternatives5. RFB 2011 memo on cost analysis of regional

supply alternatives

Richard Svindland

January 2013


63/130

99

MONTEREYPENINSULA REGIONALWATER AUTHORITY

Figure 2-1 - Cal-Am Project Location Map

~ -- ;;;) r i t a k e

,Brine

~ f ' r o d u c t W 1 U e rDesalination Plant

t i e~i n t o CALAM

'e ~s ~f u gJ a ~ i l it i~%'

January 2013

PROJECT SUMMARIES

Page 2-3


64/130

100

PROJECT SUMMARIES

2. 2 DEEPWATER DESAL(DWD)

Project Name

Proponent( s)

Location

Purpose

Production Volume

Key Features

Ke y Infonnation Provided


Page 2-4

MONTEREYPENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

DeepWater Desai

Deep Water Desai, LLC, Dynegy Moss LandingPower Plant, !VIFTI( Partnership of the Capurro

Raneh, PV2 Solar, and Eeomert Teeh:nologies G3Data Centers

Capurro Raneh Property, north of /Elkhorn SloughMoss Landing Power Plant

Phase 1 to supply supplemental desal component ofthe Monterey Peninsula regional water supply;Phase 2 to supply northern customers

Phase 1: 4.9 mgd or 9.1 mgd

Phase 2: 22.0 mgd

1. Raw seawater supply through a ne w 48-in openintake extending into the Monterey Bay west ofMoss Landing at a depth of roughly 65-ft.

2. Raw water transmission through an existingright of way maintained by MLPP to an existingpump station at MLPP for transfer to the site.

3. Proprietary warming system at MLPP whichwill increase the temperature of the raw water.

4. Transmission of the v,zarmed feed '.Vater througha nevi 36 in pipeline to the Capurro Raneh site.

5. Single-stage, dual media pressure filtrationpretreatment.

6. Single-pass RO desalination treatment withenergy recovery.

7. Product stabilization with calcite, carbondioxide, and corrosion inhibitor.

8. Disinfection with sodium hypochlorite .9. 2.5 MG product storage tank, product

distribution pumps, and 30-in diameter productpipeline to Cal-Am distribution system.

10. 36-in brine disposal pipeline to MLPP existingcooling water ocean discharge.

1. TAC response package

2. Response to questions from SPV KHC3. Tenera Environmental, Preliminary Modeling of

Potential Impacts from Operation o f aDesalination Facility Ocean Intake, August 22,2012

Dennis Ing, Scott Jackson, Jonathan Dietrich

January 2013


65/130

101

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

Figure 2-2 - DWD Project Location Map

~ i -

Brine. '

. __ _ roductWater:f . D ~ s a l i p a t i c mPlant

@ , - Tit'icin toC_AI;AMexisting,facilities

January 2013

PROJECT SUMMARIES

Page 25


66/130

102

PROJECT SUMMARIES

2.3 PEOPLES MOSS LANDING (PML)

Project Name

Proponent(s)

Location

Purpose

Production Volume

Ke y Features

Ke y Information Provided


Page 2-6

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project

DeSai America, LLC composed of Moss LandingCommercial Park, LLC; and Stanley and PatriciaVance Lueck

Moss Landing Commercial Park

To supply supplemental desal component of theMonterey Peninsula regional wat er supply

This project is currently proposed as alternative toth e Cal-Am MPWSP.

4.8 mgd or 9.4 mgd

1. Ra w seawater supply through an existing intakesystem drawing from the Moss Landing Harbor.

2. Single-stage, zeolite pressure filtration followedby ultrafiltration (UF) pretreatment.

3. Single-pass RO desalination treatment withenergy recovery.

4. Produc t stabilization wi th calcite, carbondioxide, and sodium hydroxide.

5. Disinfection unspecified, bu t presumed to bewith sodium hypochlorite.

6. Produc t storage in existing site tankage. Ne wdistribution pump station and 36-in diameterproduct pipeline to Cal-Am distribution systemnear Seaside.

7. Brine disposal through existing 51-in (internaldiameter) outfall.

1. TAC response package2. Project infonnation package dated July 20123. Response to supplemental questions from SPI

and KH C 4 . Video of a portion of th e existing outfall.5. August 2012 Structural Evaluation Report of site

structures and outfall, conducted by JAMSEEngineering, Inc.

6. Construction drawings for the outfall (1973) andmodifications made to th e intake pump station(1968) .

7. September 2012 Environmental Issues andConstraints Report by SI\1B En v ironmental Inc.

Nader Agha, George Schroeder, Stanley Lueck

January 2013


67/130

103

MONTEREYPENINSULAREGIONALWATER AUTHORITY PROJECT SUMMARIES

Figure 2 - 3 - PIVILProject Location Map



68/130

104

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY PROJECT FUNCTION

3 PROJECT FUNCTION

The function of each proponent project is evaluated on the following criteria:

0

Project purpose0 Customers identified

0 Adequacy oftreatment approach

0 Residuals handling

0 Feed water characterization

II) Quality ofproject information

a Omissions or fatal flaws

In an initial screening level evaluation 2 , we found no disqualifying criteria for any of thecandidate projects . We did however fmd differences in the level of project development andapproach. Each project is discussed separately below .

3. 1 CALIFORNIAAMERICANWATER (CAL-AM)

3.1.1 Project Purpose

Cal -Am proposes their project to serve the needs of the identified demand on the MontereyPeninsula within their service area to comply with SWRCB Order 95-10. The proposedtreatment plant would serve the identified desalination component of the regional water supplyportfolio. They specifically do not propose to provide a plant capacity in excess of definedregional water supply requirements under two scenarios-with GWR and without GWR 3 .

3.1 .2 Customers Identified

Treated water would be supplied to the Cal-Water distribution system for service to its cmTentservice area. Any groundwater from Salinas Basin drawn through the proposed supply wellswould be returned the basin as plant treated water through the Castroville Seawater IntrusionProject (CSIP) ponds 3

3.1.3 Adequacy of Treatment Approach

Feed water for the desalination plant would be extracted from subsurface slant wells. Over thelong term, feed water is projected to include about 97 percent seawater and 3 percent intruded

groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB)3

. The desalination plant willbe operated such that on an annual average basis, the plant would return desalinated water to theSVGB in an amount equal to the freshwater extracted from the slant wells.

2SPI Memorandum , Monterey Desalination Study- Initial Seeping and Constraints Analysis, August 30, 2012

3 Direct Testimony ofRichard C . Svindland Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, filedApril23, 2012



69/130

105

PROJECT FUNCTION MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

The prefeJTed site for construction of the slant wells is an approximately 3 7 6 acre parcel of landwith 7,000 feet of ocean shoreline, located west of the proposed desal plant site. The angle of theslant wells will be determined by a proposed test well program, with a maximum well length ofapproximately 750 lineal feet. Wells would initially be placed on the beach, as far as possiblefrom the ~ x i s t i n gshoreline, but avoiding undisturbed dune habitat. This may cause some or allwells to be within the predicted 50-year erosion boundary; however, the expected useful life ofthe wells is less than 50 years. A contingency plan will be needed for relocating the wells inlandin the event that coastal erosion renders the wells inoperable 4 .

Two design capacities are proposed: (1) seven wells operating at 2,200 gpm per well plus oneadditional well as a backup, for a total of 22 mgd (15,400 gpm) producing 9.0 mgd of productwater; (2) five wells operating at 1,840 gpm per well plus one additional well as backup, for atotal of 13.2 mgd (9,200 gpm) producing 5.4 mgd of product water 4 .

Eight feed water pipeline alignments are being considered, all of which will be made ofHDPE orFPVC, and will have a 30-inch or 36-inch diameter. The final selected alignment would includea parallel 16-in diameter pump to waste pipeline, to allow wasting of initial produced water from

a pump following startup.The proposed treatment plant would be located on a vacant but disturbed 46-acre parcel west ofthe MRWPCA Regional Treatment Plant (RTP). The site would be accessed of f of CharlesBenson Rd., a two-lane roadway that also serves the MRWPCA RTP along with the MontereyRegional Waste Management District. Access would be via an easement from the WasteManagement District. A new turn lane would need to be provided to allow safe access to theproposed desal plant for persmmel and chemicals deliveries. Cal-Am is currently in negotiationsto purchase the site from the existing land owner. Overall, land acquisition is not a large concernas Cal-Am has the authority to exercise eminent domain privileges should a negotiated purchaseprove untenable.

Incoming seawater would be stored in two 0.5 MG storage tanks then pumped to granular mediapressure filters. Provisions would be included to pre-chlorinate the filter feed if necessary; aswell as include proprietary media to remove iron and manganese should it be present in the rawseawater. Filter effluent would be dechlorinated if necessary, then flow to in line cartridge filtersprior to routing to the RO trains. The proposed RO system would be arranged as a full singlepass and partial second pass; with the second pass product making up 4 0 - 50 percent of the finalproduct supply. The first pass trains would include high pressure booster pumps and isobaricenergy recovery devices (ERDs); while the second pass trains would be equipped with highpressure booster pumps only. Operating recovery of the first pass trains would be roughly 45.5percent; while the second pass trains would operate at 90 percent. First and second pass trains,related pumps, and ERDs would be aiTanged in an N+ 1 configuration, with a total of fourprocess trains for the 5.4 mgd plant option and six process trains for the 9.0 mgd plant option. 5

The product water from the RO system would be post-treated with calcite and carbon dioxide forstabilization, along with addition of a corrosion inhibitor. For disinfection, the product would bedosed with sodium hypochlorite and stored in two, 1.0 MG storage tanks . Provisions may beincluded for a temporary or pennanent UV disinfection system as well, should conditionswan-ant (e.g., if additional disinfection credits are required) .5

4 REF Memorandum, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Proje ct (MPWSP) Project Description, April20, 20125

Cal-Am Response to SPI Questions, Octobe r 3, 2012

Page 3-2 January 2013


70/130

106

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONALWATER AUTHORITY PROJECT FUNCTION

Overall the treatment approach is gauged to be sound. The greatest process risk is likelyassociated with the proposed slant wells . Slant well intake systems can provide significantadvantages over traditional open ocean intakes including:

e Natural filtration

o A voidance of impingement and entrainment of marine life

o No ocean construction impacts

o No permanent aesthetic impacts.

However, slant wells can also pose more construction challenges than other well types as a resultof shallow construction angles and less vertical gravitational force. Slant wells need periodicaccess to the well head area. In areas where recreation exists (e.g., at a public beach) provisionmust be made to minimize disturbance 6 . Slant well intakes can be used with large desalinationplants, with seawater intake capacities of up to 50 mgd 7 . Maintenance of well specific capacitylong term is unlrnown; and elsewhere where employed the wells have been known to initiallydraw from an ancient marine aquifer containing high levels of iron and manganese 8. Lastly, thespecific long term amount of groundwater uptake from the SVGB, estimated at up to 3 percent,is uncertain.

Cal-Am plans to install a test slant well to establish site specific operating conditions andgenerate data which should help to confirm actual conditions and allow development ofappropriate mitigation strategies. Cal-Am has already included provisions for removing iron andmanganese across their pretreatment filters if necessary. The slant wells themselves can bescreened or installed at different angles to control the mix of seawater to diluent water extracted.Cal-Am is currently pursuing permits for the test well. An initial operating period of 6 - 12months is planned to develop data required for the EIR CEQA work. Cal-Am has indicated thatthe test period could extend as long as 18-24 months if additional data is required 5 . Should thetest well reveal slant wells to be problematic, a more conventional Rmmey sub-surface intakewell could be used as an alternative. The conceptual layout would include three vertical caissonsand horizontal well clusters located across a 1,000- 1,500 feet beach front area. Each caissonwould be capable of extracting up to 10 mgd. Costs would roughly equivalent to the proposedslant wells; however, shoreline disruption would be greater. To help gauge the potential costimpacts of shmter-than anticipated life of the slant wells, a cost sensitivity analysis is provided inSection 5.

With either intake system, delivered raw seawater quality is likely to be good, with lowparticulate and silt density index (SDI) levels, making single-stage filtration an acceptablepretreatment approach. The RO process design is conservative, with a full first pass and partialsecond pass; including N+ 1 redundancy for all process units. The proposal does not includeacidification or . antiscalant dosing to the first pass RO system feed water, but this is likely

6Williams, D.E.- Design and Construction of Slant and Vertical Wells for Desalination Intake. IDA World

Congress-Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre (PCEC)- Perth, Western Austrailia September 4-9 ,2011- REF:IDA WC/PER11-0507 Pankratz, T . - A Review of Seawater Desai Intake, Pretreatment & Discharge Technologies. I D A - Iran 06 WDTSProceedings September 17 & 18, 20068 Ghiu, S. - 18 Month Demonstration of Slant Well Intake System Pretreatment and Desalination Technology forSeawate r Desalination. WaterReuse Research Conference Proceedings, June 2012 .



71/130

107

PROJECT FUNCTION MONTEREY PENINSULAREGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

acceptable as the planned recovery of the first pass system is limited to 45 percent. Feed andproduct storage tanlcs are arranges as 2 x 50 percent units, allowing the ability to take a tank outof service for maintenance. A preliminary site plan indicates the proposed site is sufficient toaccommodate the proposed treatment plant facilities and related administrative and maintenancefacilities adequately.

3.1 .4 Residuals Handling

Plant residuals would be handled in a combination o f storage and transfer systems. Backwashwaste from the filters would be collected in a 0.5 acre storage pond, with decant disposed withthe RO brine. RO brine would be sent to the MRWPCA ocean outfall. Analyses have shownthat the outfall has sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected peak brine flow from theplant under all but a worst case hydraulic loading scenario that is anticipated to last for sixhours 9 In these situations, brine would temporarily be stored on site in a 3.0 MG detentionpond. The majoritY of the time (96 percent) the outfall is projected to have sufficient capacity.Waste residuals from the RO cleaning system would be neutralized and discharged with the brine

to the outfall as well; or alternately to the site sanitary sewer if disposal with the brine is notpermitted.

3 .1 .5 Feed Water Characterization

. There has been no detailed characterization of plant feed water to date. Data will be generated aspart of the platll1ed test well program.

3 .1 .6 Quality of Project Informat ion

Available documentation for the Cal-Am project is the most extensive and well developed

among the three proponents. Primari ly this is a consequence of their involvement in thepreviously proposed regional project with Marina Coast Water District along with filings to theCPUC supporting their proposed project and development of required CEQA documentation.Appendices to their response to the TAC included th e following:

o RBF Memorandum, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (l\l[f'WSP) Capital andO&M Cost Estimate Update, April20, 2012.

0 RBF Memorandum, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (l\l[f'WSP) ProjectDescription, April20, 2012.

0 Direct Testimony o f Jeffrey T. Linam Before the Public Utilities Commission of theState of California, Filed April 23, 2012.

Other project related documents were available on the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Projectwebsite, including:

9Trussel Technologies Inc. Technical Memorandum, MRWPCA Outfall Hydraulic Capacity Analysis, April 18,2012.



72/130

108


California America Water Company, Coastal Water Project, Final EnvironmentalImpact Report, October 30, 2009.

o Download Filings for Proceeding A1204019

oPresentations, including Technical Workshops on Monterey Peninsula Water SupplyProject (July 2012); Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Presentation (April2012); and Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Presentation (July 2012).

o Project Map (April23, 2012).

o California American Water Application for Monterey Project (PDFA)

o California American Water Application for Monterey Project (POS, NOA,PDFA)

o California American Water Direct Testimony of Keith Israel, including a TechnicalMemo from Tmssell Technologies, MRWPCA Outfall Hydraulic Capacity Analysis,April 18, 2012

o California American Water Direct Testimony of Jeffrey T. Linam

0 California American Water Direct Testimony of Eric J. Sabolsice

o California American Water Direct Testimony ofF. Mark Schubert, P.E.

e California American Water Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson

ca California American Water Direct Testimony of Richard C. Svindland

o California American Water Direct Testimony of Kevin Thomas

Cal-Am also provided a response to questions from SPI, including the following documents:

s Capital Cost Worksheet

ca O&M Cost Worksheeto RBF Memorandum, Implementation Schedule Risk Analysis of Water Supply

Alternatives, October 24, 2011

o RBF Memorandum, Cost Analysis of Water Supply Alternatives, October 19, 2011

Overall the information is considered sufficient to evaluate the proposed project from a technicaland economic perspective.

3.1.7 Omissions or Fatal Flaws

Our evaluation and investigation of the proposed Cal-Am project did not uncover any perceived

fatal flaws of a technical nature or significant omissions of project information.



73/130

109


3. 2 DEEPWATER DESAL(DWD)


DWD proposes a project that could serve both the defined demand within the Cal-Am servicearea for a desal supply of either 5,500 AF Y or 9,000 AF Y along with an expanded supply for theregion with a total plant capacity of 25,000 AFY. The project is predicated on development ofcertain components (e.g., the seawater intake, feed pipeline, brine pipeline) for the 25,000 AF Yplant, with cost allocation based on treated water flow to defined customers. DWD plans toestablish a joint powers authority (JP A) composed of local public agencies to ultimatelyprosecute its project.

3.2.2 Customers Identified

DWD seeks to supply either 5,500 AF Y or 9,000 AFY to Ca l-Am. The balance of the proposedplant capacity would b e supplied to other customers. These may include the City of Santa Cruz,Soquel Creek Wate r Distict, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, areas ofNorth MontereyCounty which may have a need and communities along the Highway 1 01 conidor between

Salinas and Santa Clara.3.2.3 Adequacy o f Treatment Approach

DWD proposes two plant design capacities to meet the 5,500 AF Y and 9,000 AF Y deliverytargets---4.9 mgd and 9.1 mgd. Each of these capacities is different than the Cal-Am listed flowsof 5.4 mgd and 9.0 mgd, respectively.

DWD proposes a new passive-screened open seawater intake drawing from Monterey Ba y nearMoss Landing. Feed water would be withdrawn from a new 48-in. diameter pipe that wouldreplace an existing pipeline previously used by PG&E for offloading fuel oil. The intake pipewould be 10,000 feet long and located at a depth of approximately 65-ft at its end. The pipeterminus would be screened with a passive, cylindrical wedge-wire screen constructed with 2mm. slot openings and a maximum design velocity of 0.5 fps through the screen to preventimpingement of marine organisms.

The intake would cross Hwy. 1 through an existing utility tunnel; or space not permitting, a newcrossing. The line would connect to an existing, abandoned pump clear well at the Dynegy MossLanding Power Plant (MLPP). Ne w pumps would be installed to transfer the influent seawaterfrom the clear well through a new 48-in diameter HDPE pipeline to the project site locatedroughly one mile north of l\4LPP along HVI) ' . 1, a location Jmovm as the Capurro Ranchtreatment facilities located on the :MLPP site. En route to the site treatment plant, the waterwould transition through a proprietary wanning system owned by Dynegy, increasing itstemperature from roughly 10 oc up to as high as M 26 C.

The project site is currently occupied by an active vegetable distribution facility, v1ith t\vo large,

refrigerated buildings on site. The site is currently mvned by MFLK Partnership, who are alsoequity partners in Deep\Vater Desai LLC . DWD has secured a 3 4 year ground lease for the sitev1ith an option to mctend it for t\vo successive 32 year periods . The site area is 8.14 acres; andDWD has secured an option to lease an additional 8 acre parcel adjacent to the site shouldadditional area be required for plant construction The project facilities would be located in anexisting, abandoned structure that previously housed electrical generating equipment, co-locatedwith a planned data center; or altemately on available, open prop erty on the Dynegy site .



74/130

110


No feed water storage tanks are proposed, with the supply pumped directly to granular mediapressure filters. Provisions would be included to pre-chlorinate the filter feed if necessary; aswell as include a filter aid coagulant (ferric chloride). Filter effluent would be dechlorinated ifnecessary, then flow to inline cartridge filters prior to routing to the RO trains. The proposed ROsystem would be arranged as a single pass system. The trains would include high pressurebooster pumps and isobaric ERDs. Operating recovery of the first pass trains would be variablebetween 43 and 47 percent. The RO trains, related pumps, and ERDs would be ananged in anN+ 1 configuration, with a total of three wocess trains for the 4.9 mgd plant option and sixprocess trains for the 9.1 mgd plant option. 0 .

The product water from the RO system would be post-treated with calcite and carbon dioxide forstabilization. For disinfection, the product would be dosed with sodium hypochlorite and storedin a single 2.5 MG storage tank.

Overall the treatment approach is gauged to be sound, though th e proposed RO system designwould produce a lower quality product than the proposed Cal-Am system, consisting solely of asingle pass of RO treatment. The greatest process risk is likely associated with the proposedopen intake and feed water delivery system. Water quality sampling conducted at depth hasindicated the raw seawater will likely be low in turbidity and suspended solids. This is backedup by available literature. Intake depth can have a significant impact on water quality. Sun raysare absorbed by the ocean surface, limiting photosynthesis and algae quantity as depth increases.It is for this reason that deep water intakes typically provide feed water with less biologicalactivity and fewer suspended solids than conventional open water/surface intakes. However, thedisadvantage is that seawater temperature decreases with depth, increasing either membranesurface area or feed pressure required for treatment. On the other hand, more stable annualtemperatures at this depth may facilitate plant design and operation

11 To address the

temperature issue, DWD has proposed warming the supply in proprietary system on the IVILPPsite. The proposed system is subject to a non-disclosure agreement at present, limiting the

publicly available infonnation. However, it appears the system will likely be integral tooperations at the MLPP, providing a cooling water source. The approach is certainly synergistic,but it also in effect links operations between MLPP and the desal plant to a certain extent,introducing potential reliability issues. In addition, there is no experience with the effect ofwarming a deep source supply. There is potential for the increase in temperature to cause anincrease in biological activity and associated biological fouling within the treatment process.There is no way to gauge the potential magnitude of this risk element at this time. The DWDproject proponents do not consider it a large concern and have not proposed a pilot test programon the candidate source water and overall pretreatment process. The issue becomes what wouldbe the impact of a problem discovered once the project was built? Remedies may be limited ifthe warming process is contingent on an agreement between Dynegy and DWD. If the warmingprocess could be bypassed, then the issues with cold water treatment would come into play,increasing RO system operating pressures and potentially exceeding operating capabilities ofinstalled pumping equipment.

10 DWD Response to SPI Questions, September 12, 201211

Cartier G., Corsin P.- Description ofDifferent Water Intakes for SWRO Plants. IDA World CongressMaspalornas, Gran Can aria -Spain October 21-26, 2007- REF : IDA WCIMP07-I 85.



75/130

111


The RO process design from an operations perspective is conservative, with N+ 1 redundancy forall process units. There is no proposed feed storage tank, which is considered acceptable; but thelack of any type of redundancy in product storage is a concern; as any required maintenance onthe tank would necessarily require a shutdown of the treatment facility unless suitable temporarystorage could be obtained. 1\ preliminary site plan DWD indicates the proposed site is sufficientto accommodate the proposed treatment plant facilities and related administrative andmaintenance facilities adequately.

From a process perspective, the proposed pretreatment system design is likely acceptable. Thereis sufficient precedence for single stage filtration on open seawater intakes among successfullyoperating facilities to provide confidence in this approach 12 The proposal does not includeacidification or antiscalant dosing to the first pass RO system feed water , but this is likelyacceptable if recovery is limited to the proposed operating range. A larger concern is with theRO system process design as a single pass system which would produce a treated product supplywith TDS, boron and chloride levels above the existing supplies from the Carmel River. I t is ourrecommendation that any desalination system incorporating RO as the primary process forPeninsula customers include a partial (at least 40 percent) second pass RO system to furtherimprove product quality, especially at the elevated temperature operation proposed.

3.2.4 Residuals Handling

Backwash waste from the filters would be collected in a 175,000 gallon settling tank, with decantsent to a separate 150,000 gallon tank for disposal along with the RO brine. RO brine would besent to back to the existing MLPP outfall for disposal along with the plant cooling water throughtheir existing ocean outfall at a projected dilution ratio between 20 and 60 to 1. DWD alsoproposes to neutralize chemical cleaning wastes and dispose of them with the brine as well.

During our site visit it was made clear that an agreement between DWD and Dynegy for use ofthe cooling water outfall was still subject to negotiation among the parties.3.2.5 Feed Water Characterizat ion

DWD has a buoy in the area of the proposed intake collecting data on salinity, temperature andturbidity at fixed intervals. Comprehensive analytical data is not available at this time. DWDhas retained Tenera Envirorunental to conduct a 12 month study on impingement andentrainment issues. Sampling in support of the study is ongoing. Tenera did conduct apreliminary analysis based on available information and a proposed intake flow of 25 mgd. Thatreport found low projected levels of entrairunent. However, additional more detailed analysesare required based on site specific data; in particular to assess the presence of a large, verticalmixing zone at the interface ofthe submarine canyon in the bay 13 .

3.2.6 Quality of Project Information

Available documentation for the DWD project is adequate at this stage of project development.DWD has not yet progressed with their formation of a joint powers authority (JPA) for projectimplementation and production of envirorunental pennitting packages . Infonnation collected to

12 DWD Response to SPI Questions, September 8, 2012.13

Tenera Environmental, Preliminary Modeling of Potential Impacts from Operation of a Desalination FacilityOcean Intake, August 22, 2012 .

Page 38 January 2013


76/130

112

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONALWATER AUTHORITY PROJECTFUNCTION

data has largely been in service of defining the project approach, securing agreements, anddeveloping project cost estimates. The nature of the agreement between DWD and Dynegy isstill confidential between the parties.

A listing of documents provided in addition to the response to the TAC is as follows:o Product Water Pipeline Alignment

e Intake Pipeline Hydraulic Grade Line

e Draft Design Criteria

o Tenera- Preliminary Intake Assessment

Ill Conductivity, Temperature and Turbidity Data May 3 0 - June 12, 2012.

e Raw Water Characterization Program Memo

e Capital and O&M Cost Estimate Worksheets

e Site Layout for Capurro Ranch

o Presentation: An Oceanographic Solution to Product Freshwater, August 2012

Overall the information is considered sufficient to evaluate the proposed project from a technicaland economic perspective.


We have not identified any fatal flows of a technical nature with the DWD proposed system.The only omissions of information are acknowledged by DWD and related to the agreementsbetween DWD and Dynegy.

3.3 PEOPLES MOSS LANDING(PML)


PML proposes a project that could serve the defined demand within the Cal-Am service area fora desal supply of either 5,500 AFY or 9,000 AFY.

3.3.2 Customers Identified

PML seeks to supply either 5,500 AFY or 9,000 AFY to Cal-Am. Supply to other customers isnot proposed.

3.3.3 Adequacy of Treatment Approach

PML proposes two plant design capacities to meet the 5,500 AFY and 9,000 AFY deliverytargets--4.8 mgd and 9.1 mgd. Each of these capacities is different than the Cal-Am listed flowsof 5.4 mgd and 9.0 mgd, respectively. The difference results from their targeting deliveries of



77/130

113

PROJECT FUNCTION MONTEREYPENINSULA REGIONAL WATERAUTHORITY

5,000 AFY and 10,000 AFY in their response to the TAC and subsequent information providedto SPI.

PML proposes to use an existing seawater intake system originally installed to serve the KaiserRefractories Moss Landing Magnesia Plant back in 1968-the same site that is now called theMoss Landing Commercial Park (MLCP). The pump station draws from the Moss LandingHarbor and supplies water to the site through two 36-in diameter pipelines that cross beneathHwy. 1 through a pair of 72-in corrugated steel conduits. One of the pipelines has beenupgraded to steel throughout its length; while the second maintains a section of the original woodstaved piping on site. Proponents have also indicated the ability to repurpose the existing siteseawater outfall as dual intake-outfall conduit extending into the Monterey Bay out front of MossLanding Harbor. The existing concrete outfall is 51-in intemal diameter; and could have a newintakeline installed in the annular space; with brine flowing out in the opposite direction. Costestimates provided to SPI were based on use of he existing intake system so this approach formsthe basis of our evaluation.

The 1968 drawings show the installation of seven pumps. The condition of the pumps at this

time is unknown; but would likely require rehabilitation and rework to supply the proposedtreatment plant. The pump bowls reportedly draw from below the harbor seafloor, but the actualdepth is unknown.

The MLCP site still contains infrastructure from the time it was employed as a magnesiumextraction facility . The total site occupies roughly 200 acres; with a proposed 25 acre parceloffered for sale or lease as part of the proposed desal treatment plant. Available facilities offeredfor use include the following:

o Intake pumps and pipeline and outfall pipeline.

Q Up to four 5.0 MG concrete storage tanks.

Q A 12kV, 12,000 amp electrical service along with two 1 ,000 amp engine generators.

o Rail transportation terminal.

e Non-exclusive easements for site access.

a Non-exclusive use of a 2,100 gpm well supply source.

o A 5,000 gpd trailer-mounted pilot plant.

e Up to 20,000 sq. ft. of existing buildings.

Existing infrastructure is in various states of repair as detailed in two site investigations 14 15andwould require some refurbishment and rework to be acceptable for integration into a municipaldrinking water facility. Portions of the site are likewise located within the flood plain 16 and

constructed facilities would need to be built in accordance with any ensuing requirements.

14Replacement Cost Approaisal Summary Report, prepared by Landmark Realty Analysts, Inc., Oct obe r 3, 2011.

15 Structural Evaluation, Intake & Outfall Pipelines, Intake Pump Station and Water Storage Reservoirs, ThePeople 's Moss Landing Water Desalination Project, Moss Landing Green Commercial Park, Modd Landing, CA,August 14,2012.16 Monterey County Planning & Building Inspection Department; Meeting September 30, 2004, Agenda Item 6.



78/130

114


The proposed PM L treatment system would include inlet screens, booster pumps, single stagepressure filters, an ultrafiltration (UF) membrane treatment system, antiscalant dosing system,high pressure booster pumps with pressure exchange type ERDs, single pass RO system, posttreatment system, and product storage and distribution pump station. The RO system would

operate at 40 percent recovery and limit operating flux to 8 gfd . The UF system would operate ata proposed flux of 35 gfd.

The product water from the RO system would be post-treated with calcite and carbon dioxide forstabilization, along with addition of a corrosion inhibitor. For disinfection, the product would bedosed ~ i t hsodium hypochlorite and stored in existing tankage on site.

PM L did not provide a detailed list of equipment or a site layout plan, stating that it was too earlyin the development of their project to have that information developed. I t is therefore somewhatdifficult to gauge the robustness of their approach. From the narrative description provided andlisted membrane area assumptions, it is not clear that the major UF and RO train equipmentcontain redundant process units.

From a process perspective, the proposed pretreatment system design may be acceptable. Thelargest unknown is the quality of water that will be extracted from the Moss Landing Harbor .There could be organics , metals and other contaminants entrained in the sediments overlayingthe supply pumps that could complicate treatment. PM L has proposed conducting a pilot studyprogram prior to finalizing their process design, so this should help allay concerns. A previouspilot study conducted at MLPP found that direct UF pretreatment operated in concert with acoagulant was effective at pretreating a supply drawn from the Moss Landing Harbor , but thatflux should be limited to 30 gfd 17 .

A larger concern is with the RO system process design as a single pass system similar to theDWD approach. As stated in that discussion, we recommend including a partial second pass ROtreatment system to produce a final product quality more in keeping with current supplies in thedistribution system.

3.3.4 Residuals Handling

Pretreatment residuals would come from the proposed filters and UF process uni ts . A backwashrecovery system is proposed, with decant sent to the outfall with the RO system brine stream .Neutralized UF and RO cleaning wastes would b e treated similarly; or recovered for reuse w ithinthe MLCP. Brine would be discharged to the existing outfall.

The outfall is currently not in use and there is evidence of disrepair in a video survey cond uctedsometime prior to 2008

18 The video shows evidence of several areas of decoupling along the

main outfall alignment. Also, according to the original plans, the outfall was installed belowgrade until the diffuser section

19 However, portions of the main outfall appear to be currently

uncovered; and one section shifted up--possibly as a consequence of the 1989 Lorna Prietaeat1hquake. Many of the diffusers are clogged and covered with marine growth; and from the

17 Coastal Water Project Pilot Plant Report, May 2010, MW H .18 Outfall Video, Moss Landing Marine Lab, California State University.19

Seawater Outfall for Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, Moss Landing, California, b y K aiserEngineers, 1971.



79/130

115

PROJECT FUNCTION MONTEREYPENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY

terminus of the outfall it appears it may be largely filled with sand-up to half of thecircumference. Consequently a fair amount of rehabilitative work would be required to place theoutfall into service, and more detailed assessment-including an inspection of the interior of theoutfall-is warranted.

3.3.5 Feed Water Characterization

PivlL does not at this point have analytical data characterizing the proposed raw water supply. Itwill presumably be collected during their pla1med pilot test program.

3.3.6 Quality of Project Information

The PivlL project is the least developed among the three as evidenced by the level of informationprovided. They were however very forthcoming in sharing all that was available, includingoriginal construction plans for the intake and outfall, video survey of the outfall, and other sitespecific reports.

A listing of documents provided in addition to the response to the TAC is as follows:

"' Construction Plans: Seawater Outfall

o Construction Plans: Relocation of Sea Water Intake

a The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project, Important New Updates, July 2012

e Response to SPI Questions, September 4, 2012 and September 27, 2012

o Environmental Issues and Constraints Report, SJ\11B Environmental, September 2012

o Structural Evaluation , JAMSE Engineering Inc., August 2012.

oReplacement Cost Appraisal Summary Report, Landmark Realty Analysts, Inc.,October 2011 .

. o Adopted Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2009-002, National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0007005 - Moss LandingCommercial Park and Moss Landing Cement Company, Moss Landing CementCompany Facility, Monterey County, March 2009.

Overall, the lack of specificity as to the proposed plant facilities makes the technical andeconomic evaluation difficult and forces us to make additional assumptions on our own.


We have not identified any fatal flows of a technical nature with the PivlL proposed system. Theprimary omission is the lack of defined lists of equipment in order to assist in validating costestimates.



80/130

116

MONTEREYPENINSULAREGIONALWATER AUTHORITY PROJECTED PERFORMANCE

4 PROJECTED PERFORMANCE

This section discusses the following perfonnance issues for each project:

a Plant design capacity

a Targeted product water quality

o Disinfection strategy

Plant design capacity refers to the proposed instantaneous flow achieved by a given plant designto achieve the annual produced water flow of 9,000 AFY or 5,500 AFY. The design capacity ofa facility impacts both its construction and operating cost, and must take account of issues suchas equipment redundancy, periodic maintenance, and overall online operating factor.

The issue of product water quality is closely tied to the proposed demineralization systemprocess desigri of each facility. As discussed previously, DWD and PML have proposed singlepass RO systems; while Cal-Am has proposed a partial (40 percent) second pass system. The twoapproaches will produce different qualities of final product water from an overall salinityperspective, as well as levels o f boron and chloride.

In addition to salinity and individual constituent targets, the design must also achieve regulatorypathogen removal thresholds. The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has primacyto regulate public water systems within the State. As such, they will review these proposedtreatment approaches for compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) and theLong Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. I t is antic

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	l-a-paterson
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Update on the Water Replacement Project 03-05-13

Documents