Moss Landing Commercial Park Submittal To TAC OCR Document

A.
Project Proponents
T A C Questions
Moss Landing Commercial Park
1. Who are the applicants?
The applicant is Moss Landing Commercial Park, LLC, a California
limited liability company (referred to h e r ~ i n as MLCP), a wholly owned subsidiary
of HMBY, L.P. a California limited partnership, of which Nader Agha is the sole
General partner
2. Who are the project partners?
The project partner is DeSai America, LLC, a California limited
liability company, the members of which are MLCP as one member, and Stanley
R. Lueck and his wife, Patricia Vance-Lueck, together, as the other member. Mr.
and Mrs. Lueck are the sole owners ofRodi Systems Corp., a New Mexico
corporation which specializes in membrane-based water treatment technologies
such as reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration.
3. Is there a public agency partner?
Yes, the City of Pacific Grove.
4. Describe your proposal regarding builder, operator, turnkey etc.
There are two increments of this proposal. The first increment is the
acquisition of the site for the desalination plant by the public agency. MLCP is the
owner of the 200 acre property at the southeast comer of State Highway One and
Dolan Road referred to in the attached proposal of The People's Moss Landing
Water Desai Project. MLCP will sell, or lease, to the public agency up to a twenty
five (25) acre site on that property (depending on the size of the plant) on which it
can build a desalination plant. Included with the site will be the right to use
existing infrastructure on the property which is appropriate for the desalination
process as follows:
1. Pumps and intake and outfall pipes in the harbor enclave and the open
bay to supply water for the desalination plant and to discharge effluent as permitted
by the EIR, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Coastal
Commission.
2. Up to four storage tanks of five million gallons each capacity as needed.
If more than four are needed, space will be provided on which they can be built.
3. 12 KV electric power source.
4. Railroad tracks on the property for delivery of supplies etc.
5. Non-exclusive easements for ingress and egress to site.
6. Non-exclusive right to use water delivered to site from two fresh water
wells two miles from the site on Dolan Road as a back up source as may be
required by the Monterey County Health Dep't. (2100 gallons per minute capacity)
7. One or two large generators for emergency purposes.
8. Use of one small desalination pilot plant (50,000 gals./day) as pilot
project.
9. Up to 20,000 sq. ft. of existing buildings.
The price of the foregoing is $25,000,000.00
If the public agency chooses to contract with DeSai America to build the
desalination plant, and desires to add the solar power element to the project,
MLCP will sell to the agency a 30 acre site on which to build the solar power plant
for the price of $5,000,000.00, and contract with a reputable company to build the
solar plant to produce six (6) megawatts of power at a price of$18,000,000, or the
public agency may contract for the solar plant separately.
The second increment is that the public agency, at is discretion, may enter
into an agreement with DeSai America, LLC to build the desalination plant. Desai
America would contract with Rodi Systems Corp to build the desalination plant.
DeSai America proposes to build a plant as described in section B. 1 below. The
public agency may desire to request competitive proposals for this increment in
which DeSai America would be a bidder, but there would be no restriction on the
public agency to select the lowest bid.
The price of the DeSai America proposed plant with a capacity of 5500 AFY
would be $60,650,000.00, not including the land cost or the solar site and
improvements.
The price of the DeSal America proposed plant with a capacity of 10,700
AFY would be $80,650,000.00, not including the land cost or the solar site and
improvements.
5. Experience in building this type of project.
As mentioned above, DeSai America would contract with Rodi
Systems Corp. of Aztec New Mexico. Rodi systems recommends building this
project in 2000 acre feet per year modules. Attached to these questions are the
following relating to Rodi Systems: Summary of Major Membrane-related Water
Treatment Projects; Major Client List; Client References; and Corpoate Summary.
Also attached hereto is a brief description of the background and experience of our
engineer, Ben Movahed.
6. Independent third party review?
Yes. See attached review by Mike Mickley, P .E., Ph.D. dated 3/8/12.
B. Project Description.
1. Basic Description.
Proponent believes that it is wiser to build a desal plant producing
10,700 AFY to assure a drought proof supply of water rather than a smaller plant
which would require reliance on the ASR and GWR. The Peninsula ratepayers will
be the only customers of this project. Rodi Systems recommends using 2000 AFY
modules to reduce the impact of an outage. We will use five 2000 AFY units and
one 700 AFYunit, (9.4 MGD). However, because Cal Am has proposed a smaller
plant as an alternative we have also included an analysis of a 5,400 AFY (4.8
MGD) facility for cost comparison purposes.
The Peninsula ratepayers will be the only customers for the product
water.
2. Understanding of basic decision making process.
We propose to have the City of Pacific Grove, together with any other
city on the Peninsula that may want to join Pacific Grove, as the public agency to
build and operate the facility, that the Monterey Peninsula Water Authority would
recommend that The Peoples's Project be chosen as the project that would serve
the best interests of the people on the Peninsula, that the public agency intervene
in the current PUC hearings related to Cal Am's proposal of its current water
project to show that there is an alternative source of water that likely can be in
operation faster than Cal Am and be able to meet the December 2016 deadline of
the State Water Resources Order 95-10. The public agency would deliver the
water to Cal Am at its pipe in Seaside and contract with Cal Am to for the delivery
of the water to its customers. The public agency will obtain a coastal permit from
Monterey County that will be reviewed by the State Coastal Commission . The
CPUC will regulate the relationship of Cal Am with the public agency and the
water rates.
C. Site Requirements.
1. Land acquired? Yes, it is presently owned by Proponent and is
available for purchase or lease by the public agency. See pages 13. and 15. Of our
proposal attached.
2. Land identified?
The portion of the property available is identified generally as set
forth on the General Description diagram attached hereto. The exact parcel or
parcels will depend on the size and capacity of the desal plant proposed, whether
existing buildings will be included in the acquisition, and whether the agency
desires to have a solar plant included.
3. Transmission Pipeline and Easements.
Proponent is working with the Transportation Agency of Monterey
County , the County of Monterey and Union Pacific Railroad to obtain easements
for the pipeline from the property to and along the railroad right of way from Moss
Landing to Seaside where the Cal Am connection to its distribution system is
located. The distance of the pipeline will be approximately 15 miles.
D. Source Water.
I
i
1. Source of water for project.
The source will be seawater pumped from our existing pumps in the
harbor at Moss Landing or from Monterey Bay by way of an intake pipe added
within our existing outfall line.
2. Water rights needed for source water.
A permit from the State Water Resources Control Board and a Coastal
Commission permit.
3. Does fresh water constitute a portion of the source water?
Not for normal operations. However, in the event of an emergency,
we are offering the use of two fresh water wells with 2,100 gpm , as well as a one
million gallon fresh water tank, as back up.
4. Describe how source water system complies with the SWRCB
requirement that the source be derived from the best location, best technology
and best design.
This will be determined in part by the EIR, the engineering plans and
the permit we get from that Board.
5. Describe pre-treatment requirements based on source water quality
and requirements for the selected osmosis system.
This will be determined by our engineer. It will depend on whether
we will be permitted to take water from the harbor or from the bay. As soon as
that has been determined our engineer will determine the pretreatment.
E. Desalination.
1. Previous experience with desalination.
See attached information regarding Rodi Systems Corp and engineer
Ben Movahed.
2. Specific reverse osmosis system proposed.
See attached preliminary scope of supply summary. This scope
includes media filtration and ultrafiltration. Pretreatment may be modified as we
progress with installation.
3. Current or necessary agreements for pilot or feasibility work, and
with whom.
Engineering work to be done by Ben Movahed.
F. Concentrate Discharge.
1. Describe concentrate disposal system.
This will not be available until the engineering is completed.
2. What facilities, easements, agreements exist, or must be obtained.
Outfall line is in place and easement is already obtained.
3. Describe how the proposed concentrate disposal system complies
with best location, best tehnology and best design requirements of SWRCB.
As indicated above, this will be determined in the permit process.
G. Estimated construction costs. (In 2012 dollars)
1. Provide a total planning level cost breakdown of the expected costs to
plan, design, and build the entire system being proposed. Include an estimate
of all predesign costs such as permitting, CEQA, and, as appropriate, NEPA
compliance. Include a contingency factor.
For the 10,700 AFY facility this is shown on page 15. of proponents
May 2012 revised proposal attached hereto.
For the 5,400 AFY facility this is shown on page 13. of the proposal.
2. Show Capital costs separately for product water and for
transmission to Cal Am system.
See pages 13. and 15. of attached proposal.
H. Estimated Operations and Maintenance costs.
See page pages 14. And 16 of attached proposal.
1. Provide a planning level estimate of annual 0 & M costs over a 30
year period .
This would need basic assumptions of rates of inflation which are
difficult to assume in light of the recent upheaval in the economy and the resulting
actions taken by the federal government in printing money. In addition, future
regulations will impact this matter. A meaningful estimate is not possible at this
time.
I. Financing. (Based on 30 year debt financing.)
1. Public agency fmancing available? Explain.
Yes. We will work only with a public agency.
2.Explain the proposed fmancing and interest rate assumptions for each
source. Do not include possible offsets from gov't. loans and grants.
The project will be financed with governmental debt obligations.
Based upon present market conditions, proposed investors have agreed to purchase
such obligations at an overall blended yield of approximately 2.75%, assuming a
22 year repayment period.
3. Show separately the planned use of possible low interest loans and
grants, and the underlying assumptions and the basis for your eligibility.
We will be applying for ALL available state and federal grant and
loan monies; however, the financing program is self-contained and does not
depend on such monies for outcome viability. Any free subsidies obtained will be
utilized to reduce overall borrowing costs. State and federal loan monies will be
utilized only in the event that the overall costs of such funds are less than the
overall costs of the funds that we obtain. We will also be requesting the state and
federal government to subordinate their respective positions, in which case we ar
more likely to utilize such funds due to the credit enhancement effect that it would
have on the senior debt. Again, overall economic effect will be measured to
determine the best course of action. ,
4; Summarize your proposal for use of all sources of financing used to
arrive at the total project cost, annual operating cost, total annual cost,
including debt service.
We anticipate 100% financing for all project costs as well as
capitalized interest through start-up. Post start-up will be run just like any other
California utility. All maintenance and operation costs and debt service will be
provided from the net income of operations, with debt service payments being
subordinate to maintenance and operations.
5. What are the capital requirements for conducting the work up to the
time when cash is available from debt financing, and do the project
proponents have sufficient funds available to finance this cost?
Our estimate is $600,000.00. Yes we have .
6. Will the capital component of the Cal Am water rates be determined
based on annual debt service of total capital expenditures, or on an expected
return on investment and depreciation pursuant to CPUC rate setting
procedures.
The Cal Am capital costs and return on investment as it affects the
ratepayers will be determined by the CPUC. The public agency's rate will be
determined by its costs.
J. Summarize Total Costs
1. Show total estimated construction cost, broken down by project
component. Provide a table showing annual amortized capital cost as well as
operating and maintenance costs over a 30 year term, both on a total annual
cost basis and as total cost per AF.
2. Show O&M costs annually, and as cost per AF.
10,700 AFY $15,210,926 $1,436.00/AF
5,400 AFY $-t0,600,0()t) $}<;922.0tt/AF
K. Energy Supply.
~ I (pt.fOJ ooo 1
1
&00
1. What are the energy sources for the project.
The main source will be the Dynegy plant across the street from the
project.
2. Explain if any alternative sources are planned.
Our proposal includes the addition of a six megawatt solar source.
Also we have two large generators on standby.
3. What is the expected annual energy cost. Approximately $600 per AF
L. Critical Path Flow Chart and Schedule. See page 20 of proposal
attached.
1. Obtain Peninsula public agency to be owner of facility.
2. Prepare project facility plan.
3. Complete EIR.
4. Obtain support of CPUC and other necessary parties.
5. Obtain permits.
6. Complete detailed design and bidding.
7. Complete construction, startup and testing.
8. Comply with required mitigations and conditions.
9. Indicate the date water can be delivered.
M. CEQA Status.
1. Who is the lead agency. The City of Pacific Grove.
2. Describe the specific type of CEQA procedure you will use, e.g. full
EIR, Supplemental or Subsequent EIR, etc.
It will be a full EIR.
3. Describe key issues that need resolution for success.
1. The method of obtaining the seawater.
2. The restrictions that may be placed on discharge to the bay.
3. Financing.
N. Permit Status.
1. Describe the status of existing permits, if any.
The site has had a discharge permit for many years which we acquired
when we bought the property in 2003, and we have maintained a permit for the
discharge of 60 million gallons per day to the present date. Prior owners had
perm1ts for the manufacturing of fire bricks. The particular use permitted by the
existing permit is for the operation of a cement manufacturing operation. We
anticipate that we will be required to modify that permit to allow discharge of the
concentrate from the desalination process.
2. Describe key permit issues that need resolution for success, including
specifically Calif. Coastal Commission, and SWRCB/RWQCB.
See the answers to the two preceding questions.
3. Describe recent interactions with any regulatory body.
Because of our existing discharge permit we have occasion to
coordinate with the SWRQCB in San Luis Obispo.
4. Have any local, state or federal permits been applied for/approved?
Explain. Not yet.
0. Other Pertinent Information
1. What makes your project unique.
Proximity to the seawater source.
History of having a discharge permit.
Infrastucture that has a fifty year history of being used for an
operation very similar to desalination.
2. What advantages do you have over competing projects.
1. From the time the permits are issued, we can complete construction
faster than any competing project because of the existing infrastructure.
2. Being the owner of the property, we do not have to acquire land on
which to build the plant or acquire easements to get the water from the ocean to the
plant, or partner with others or get easements or rights to be able to discharge the
effluent.
3. We are offering the site at a price that is far below present market
value, and the total finished project at a cost that is far below the competing
projects.
4. We are not likely to be sued by the Salinas Valley Ag industry.
5. The cost to the ratepayers is far less than the competition.
6. The ownership and operation of the desal plant will be a public
agency that is responsible to the ratepayers and the ratepayers will own the plant
when the bonds are paid off.
THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING
WATER DESAL PROJECT
Quick, Reliable, Affordable, Green and Sustainable Project
NEW
BREAKING NEWS: The City of Pacific Grove agrees to become the lead Public
Agency for The People's Moss Landing Water Desalination Project. The vote was
taken at the Pacific Grove City Council Meeting on April18, 2012 with a majority
vote of6 to 1. THIS PROJECT CAN NOW LEGALLY BE BUILT.
New option added: 5,400 acre-feet per year as requested by interested parties as an
alternative to the 10,700 acre-feet per year. The decision to change the delivery
from 10,700 to 5,400 acre-feet per year is up to the public agency who is sponsoring
the desal project.
May 2012
THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT
Quick, Reliable, Affordable, Green and Sustainable
Table of Contents
Introduction- Background ......................................................... 1-6
Project Summary . .................................................................... 7-11
Site Features and Benefits ............................................................ 12
Costs- 5,400 acre-feet per year ................................................. 13-14
Costs- 10,700 acre-feet per year ................................................ 15-16
Costs - North County Modular ...................................................... 1 7
Cost Comparison ............... ...................................................... .... 18
Timeline ... ........................................................................... 19-20
At a Glance ........................................................................... 21-22
Project Structure ........................................................................ 22
Project Advisory Board ................................................... ............. 23
Management Team Experience ...................................................... 24
History ................................................................................. 25-27
2
*Including the discounted cost of 55 acres and the existing infrastructure for a desal plant. (Certified MAl appraisal available for the actual market value
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months from May 2012 to January 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: Information subject to change.
THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT www. ThePeoplesWater.com
449 Alvarado Street, Monterey, CA 93940 Office: 831-646-1677 Mobile: 831-594-9711
We need a new reliable and affordable source of.fresh water now and for generations to come.
Situated at the 200-acre Moss Landing Green Commercial Park, THE PEOPLE'S
MOSS LANDING WATERDESAL PROJECT (approximately 55 acres including
desal and solar) is a continuation of the original Moss Landing Desai Project that
was launched in 2004.
According to the Carmel River Dam Contingency Plan- Plan B Project Report
which was prepared for The Water Division of the California Public Utilities
Commission and published in July 2002, out of the twenty-one possible water sites
evaluated, the site of THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL
PROJECT (formerly the National Refractories & Minerals plant) was selected as
a "Best" Apparent Site.
The report also states that the dependability of the site's desalination water source is "drought proof." Desalination
proves to be a reliable and affordable water solution for as little as $600 per acre-foot. However, here on the
Monterey Peninsula, the reported costs of other proposed desal projects are shockingly high, as much as $7,500
per acre-foot
THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT has many advantages. Its development is
years ahead of any other idea or proposed desal project. The following cost, environmental and timing benefits
supersede any reasoning for considering any other desal projects:
1) Land, infrastructure and zoning already exists (land, pipes, tanks, backup system, and energy source).
a. Reduces costs and saves public hundreds of millions of dollars in new construction costs.
b. Reduces or eliminates any environmental impact associated with building a new site/plant.
2) The proponent of this project has an established relationship with the manufacturer of the desal plant.
a. Saves the public money as the building of this plant and any future additional modular will be
significantly less.
b. Reduces costs now and in the future.
3) Management team of engineers and experts is already in place.
4) Independent Review is already prepared.
5) Will qualifY for AAA rating (through public agency) and will save the ratepayers hundreds of millions of
dollars in interest payments.
6) Provides a drought-proof source of water sooner than any other desal project.
The people will have water sooner, and will save money on their water bills. The water produced by THE
PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT will be pumped from Moss Landing to the Cal Am
delivery system in Seaside at a cost to the ratepayers of approximately $12.50 per month (not including cost
for water delivery from Seaside to Monterey Peninsula homes and businesses, and other fees.) However,
due to the possibility of reducing the project to 5,400 acre feet per year, (and adding other projects) this
price could increase. THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT is the answer to the
region's water dilemma and will produce affordable water by January 2016.**
3
449 Alvarado Street, Monterey, CA 93940 Office: 831-646-1677 Mobile: 831-594-971 I
The City of Pacific Grove agrees to become the lead Public Agency for
The People's Moss Landing Water Desalination Project (TPMLWDP).
This project, which is located in Moss Landing, California, has been under development since 2004. Over the
years, TPML WDP management and professional team has faithfully complied with the Monterey County
ordinance requiring that a desal plant must be publicly owned. TPML WDP can now legally be built.
The City of Pacific Grove agreed to become the lead Public Agency for The People's Moss Landing Water
Desalination Project. The vote was taken on April18, 2012 with a majority vote of 6 to 1. This was the missing
link which we were waiting for to comply with the Monterey County Board of Supervisors requirement in their
1987 ordinance that stated any desalination project must owned by public agency.
This news resonated favorably all over the Monterey Peninsula with a majority of the people surveyed
approving of this development.
Why TPMLWDP Management Team abandoned the deep sea intake concept even
though the deep sea intake is available at the end of the present existing outfall:
The deep sea intake idea has been around for over 25 years and was considered by Kaiser and by the National
Refractory. Eight years ago, the Moss Landing Water Desai Project's management team seriously considered
inserting a 24- to 36-inch pipe into the site's existing 52-inch concrete outfall pipe to draw water from the deep
sea (which is legally available to the project).
However, the team was advised by certain highly-respected representatives of environmental groups that it is
best to stay away from the deep sea and the open sea, and rather stay with the plan to utilize the site's existing
intake pipe location in the enclave next to Moss Landing Harbor. In addition, staying at the enclave, rather than
the deep sea and the open sea, will eliminate the potential of litigation by environmental groups.
This position was questioned by a coastal commissioner at a recent meeting who indicated there is not a
significant difference in the environmental impact between the intake from the deep sea (100-foot) or from the
surface.
Drawing the water from the enclave location near the harbor will gently rotate the water producing a cleansing
effect in Moss Landing Harbor.
4
Moss Landing, California -Monterey Bay
People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project
Red line is the existing outfall pipeline.
Blue line is the existing intake pipelines.
Proposed Delivery Pipeline
79,200-foot linear pipeline (plus or minus) to Seaside.
Cost to build: $18.6 million (approx.): $250per linear foot.
5
THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT www.ThePeoplesWater.com
PORTABLE DESAL SYSTEM ONSITE
6
THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT www. ThePeoples Water. com
PROJECT SUMMARY
A. OVERVIEW
The proposed Moss Landing Desalination Sea Water Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) project is taking a truly innovative
approach toward providing an alternative water supply for the Monterey Bay region. The proposed project would
deliver raw seawater to the desalination plant through the use of existing intake and outfall pipelines, currently
permitted to discharge up to 60 million gallons per day (MGD), regulated by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (NPDES CA0007005).
The project is presently designed to deliver 10 MGD of high-quality drinking water at a projected cost of
approximately $1,317 per acre-foot per year to Seaside. The project can be designed, assembled, and
commissioned within approximately 18 months after acquiring of permits.
B. PLANT LOCATION
The proposed project would be located at the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park, adjacent to the Moss Landing
Power Plant on the former National Refractories & Minerals Corporation site. The approximately 200-acre site
is presently zoned for light and heavy industrial use. Approximately 25 acres will be designated for the desal
plant. This 200-acre site contains approximately 300,000 sq. ft. of existing building space. Importantly for the
proposed desalination project, the site is presently permitted for seawater intake and discharge of up to 60 MGD
conveyed from existing pipelines and pumps station originally installed and permitted to support the magnesium
extraction from seawater and refming operations previously conducted at the site, and to discharge water back to the
ocean. The water produced by THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT will be made
available at the site to the water distribution pipe to the Monterey Peninsula.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & ENGINEERING
The desalination project will consist of the following major components:
1. Screened, passive intake pipeline- existing
2. Outfall pipeline - existing
3. Intake pump station - existing
4. Pretreatment media filtration system
5. 10 MGD seawater desalination system to be assembled on site
6. Energy recovery system to reduce power consumption
7. Post-treatment facilities
8. Product water pump station
9. Solids handling system
10. Electrical power supply
11 . Solar 6-megawatt energy system - could be increased to 8-megawatt system.
7
*Including the discounted cost of 55 acres and the existing irifi-astructure for a desal plant. (Certified MAl appraisal available for the actual market value
D. TRANSMISSION PIPELINE
a) Transmission pipeline- paved/Hwy 1 20000 LF R-0-W
b) Transmission pipeline- unpaved R-0-W 47900 LF
c) Mojo Cojo Slough Crossing 500 LF
d) Temb1adero Slough Cross 100 LF
e) Salinas River Crossing 1000 LF
E. WATER STORAGE
Product water will be stored onsite for distribution. Sufficient storage (45 million gallon storage tanks) will be
provided to meet all regulatory requirements for disinfection. The product water pump station will provide high
quality drinking water to the distribution pipeline at the flow and pressure required for distribution.
F. WASTE STREAMS
The desalination plant will generate waste streams consisting of concentrate from the SWRO process, sludge from the
media filter backwash, sanitary wastewater, spent membrane solution, solid waste, and surface runoff. The plant will
be designed and constructed to handle all waste streams generated in an environmentally sound manner and in
compliance with all codes and regulatory requirements as may be applicable.
The proponent of the project recently reached an agreement to include a new system which could result in NEAR-
ZERO DISCHARGE to the ocean after desalination. This mechanical system utilizes the on-site existing magnesium
hydroxide to extract the salt out of the concentrate (brine). This project may be the first of its kind in the world to
utilize this revolutionary technology.
G. ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Power will be provided to the project by the local electrical supply existing within the footprint of the existing
facility. Circuits feeding the desalination plant will be provided from an existing 12 KV electrical system through a
460- volt circuit and from a 6-megawatt solar energy system.
H. TREATMENT COMPONENTS
a) Pretreatment will utilize a granular media filtration system, a proven technology, to protect the integrity,
useful life, and reliability of the seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) membrane system. The system will
consist of a single-stage, dual-media granular media system with sufficient redundancy to ensure a reliable,
sustainable supply for downstream desalination. Coagulant and filter aid polymer systems will be
provided to improve the efficiency of the pretreatment system, if needed, during system operation. The filters
will be fully automated and monitored to assure trouble-free operation.
b) Filtered, pretreated water, will be temporarily collected in a clean/veil, insuring continuous operation of the
downstream SWRO system, prior to being pumped through cartridge filters, and the downstream SWRO
desalination system. The media filters are designed to use filtered seawater as a source of backwash water or
alternative concentrate.
8
I. WATERQUALITY
The plant will supply product water quality in compliance with the regulatory requirements of the California
Department of Public Health, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the California Title 22 Code for Drinking Water
Standards. The finished product water from the desalination plant will be compatible with other sources of potable
water delivered to the same distribution system.
J. SERVICE AND SUPPORT FACILITIES
The desalination plant will incorporate existing structures and service facilities located at the Moss Landing Green
Commercial Park including buildings, roads, parking lots, and a railroad spur. Handicapped access and landscaping
will be added.
K. ADMINISTRATION, LEGAL, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
a) Rights-of-way and easement (existing easement on the site of the railroad from Moss Landing to Seaside is
owned by Monterey County and available)
b) Environmental review, permits
c) Mitigation measures
d) Design engineering
e) Construction management
f) Administration/legal
L. PERMITTING AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Regulatory Requirements/Permits- (NtA-NotApplicable)
REGULATORY REQUREMENT AGENCY REQUIRED? STATUS
Certificate of Public California Public Utilities Yes (until public agency N/A
Convenience and Necessity Commission involvement)
California Environmental State of California Applies N/A
Quality Act (CEQA)
SWRCB OrderWR 95-10 State Water Resources Must comply, but no Pending
Control Board approval permit required Public Agency
Involvement
Well Permit Monterey County Yes (back-up wells) EXISTING
Environmental
Health Department
General Plan City of Seaside Yes N/A
Underground Services Alert N/A (unless drilling N/A
(USA) required)
Monterey Bay National The National Oceanic and The MBNMS provides Waiting for
Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) Atmospheric Administration sanctuary approval on Public Agency
Management Plan (NOAA) RWQCB and other agency Involvement
permits. Before
construction of the
proposed project a
request for NMSA must be
obtained
9
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months from May 2012 to January 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: lliformation subject to change.
Regulatory Requirements/Permits (Cont.)
Central Coast Regional Central Coast Regional Yes
Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Control
Basin Plan Board
Carmel Valley Master Plan Monterey County No
Monterey County General Plan Monterey County Yes
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Monterey County Yes
Plan
City of Marina General Plan and City of Marina Yes
LCP
Fort Ord Reuse Plan (FORP) Fort Ord Reuse Authority Yes
City of Del Rey Oaks General Plan City of Del Rey Oaks Yes
City of Monterey General City of Monterey Yes
Plan
Water distribution system Monterey Peninsula Water Yes
Permit Management District
Encroachment and construction Monterey County and Cities Yes
permits of Monterey, Del Rey Oaks,
Seaside, Sand City,
Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific
Grove
Coastal Development Permit California Coastal CCC is one of California's Pending
Commission two designated coastal Public
management agencies.(Y) Agency
Involvement
Section 1600 Streambed California Department of Yes
Alteration permit and Fish and Game
incidental take permits
National Pollutant Regional Water Quality Yes
Discharge Elimination Control Board (RWQCB)
System (NPDES) and
Permit/401 certification
Clean Water Act (CWA) Army Corps of Engineers Yes
Section 10 and 404 permits _(USAGE)
Endangered Species Act US Fish & Wildlife Service Yes
(ESA) Section 7 & Marine and National and
Mammal Protection Act Oceanographic and
Section 9 Consultation Atmospheric Administration
Fisheries/NMFS
Fish and Wildlife Coordination US Fish and Wildlife Requires federal agencies to
Act Service provide equal consideration
to fish and wildlife resources
in the planning of and
proposals for water resource
development projects
10
*Including the discounted cost of 55 acres and the existing infrastructure for a desal plant. (Celtified MAl appraisal available for the actual market value
Regulatory Requirements/Permits (Cont.)
Section 2081 of the Fish and California Department of Prohibits "take" of any Section 2081
Game Code Fish and Game state-listed species that of the Fish
the State Fish and Game and
Commission determines to Game Code
be endangered or
threatened.
Section 1 0 of the Rivers and US Corps of Engineers Permits to authorize
Harbors Act of 1899 certain structures or work
in or affect navigable
waters of the United
States
Regional Water Quality Control State of California Central Develops and enforces
Board Coast water quality objectives
and implementation plans
to protect the beneficial
uses of the state's waters.
Operations in US waters; US Coast Guard TBD
Navigation
Clean Air Act US Environmental No
Protection Agency
Air quality permitting Monterey Bay Unified Air Yes
Pollution Control District
Facilities Siting Permits State Lands Commission Approve leases for new Existing
facilities and intakes using Intake and
once-through cooling Outfall
systems and imposing Permits
certain conditions on lease
renewals and extensions
for existing facilities. The
Commission resolved that
intake of large volumes of
water OTC has impacts
on coastal organisms by
entrainment and
impingement
Local Coastal Plans Local Agencies Identify the location, type,
densities and other ground
rules for future
development in the coastal
zone.
11
M. SITE FEATURES AND BENEFITS
As mentioned above, the following table summarizes the features and benefits of the Moss Landing Green
Commercial Park site, which will significantly reduce both the cost of the desalination facility and accelerate
the construction schedule when compared to other undeveloped site locations.
SITE FEATURE BENEFIT
Approximately 55 acres on the available ; 200-acre site
Available for lease as well as sale.
(25 acres for plant and 30 acres for optional solar)
Presently zoned for light, heavy industry and
Eliminates need for re-zoning.
production of utilities
300,000 sq. ft. of existing building space. Eliminates or reduces project infrastructure cost.
Millions of dollars have been spent to clean the site and
Eliminates additional costs.
buildings 100% of the asbestos, lead and oil.
12 KV electrical service available and in working order Eliminates or reduces project infrastructure cost.
on-site Reduces electrical permitting time and cost.
Existing 60 MOD permit for seawater intake and discharge
Eliminates or reduces project cost and accelerates
construction schedule.
Existing easements and infrastructure for seawater intake and
Eliminates or reduces costs and time associated with
some permits. Eliminates costs and inconvenience
concentrate disposal
associated with construction under Highway 1
Enables less expensive bulk chemical delivery and
Railroad Spur Access pretreatment solids removal. Reduces heavy truck
traffic on Hwy 1.
44 million gallons of existing on-site storage capacity tanks Eliminates and drastically reduces project
have been recently repaired and upgraded infrastructure cost.
Available water source to support construction
On-site existing fresh water tanks and nearby existing fresh activities and plant operations and backup systems
water wells w/capacity of 2100 gallons per minute as required by the Monterey County Health
Department
Pilot Project in Place
Portable (on wheels) desalination plant in place that can Cost is advanced by the proponent of the project.
produce 50,000 GPD
EIR bid obtained for $650,000 to be commissioned only by Cost will be advanced by the proponent of the project
a public agency and refunded from future financing.
TIIE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT www. ThePeoplesWater.com
N. SCHEDULE
Approximately 44 months from May 2012 to January 2016
O.COSTS
COST OF DESALINATION PLANT DELIVERED FROM MOSS LANDING TO SEASIDE
5,400 ACRE-FEET/YEAR
Plant, delivery, and assembly; includes 10% contingency $27,000,000
Resurfacing remaining tanks, pipes and pumps $ 1,000,000
Screening and filtering system $ 4,000,000
Engineering & design $3,000,000
Delivery system to distribution line ( onsite) $ 1,000,000
Reserve for chemicals & parts $2,000,000
Purchase land: @24% of appraised value (76% discount ofMAI $25,000,000
fair appraised market value for approx. 55 acres); Appraised value
$121,000,000* minus $91,000,000 =$30,000,000
The 55 acres could be reduced to 20 acres, and the price reduced to
$25,000,000 0
Solar - 4 megawatts or more (optional) $14,000,000
ElR- 3 bids: $375k; $450k; $650k $ 650,000
Permits- Fees $ 1,350,000
Miscellaneous $ 2,000,000
Pipeline to Seaside from Moss Landing $18,650,000
Pipeline is 30 inches in diameter 15 miles= 79,200 feet x $250 per ft
TOTAL COST including pipeline to Seaside and solar as above
Plant, delivery, and assembly, including 10% contingency, will be sold to the public agency
(bid without any profit added) for $27,000,000.
$99,650,000
The main contributing factor for the reduction of this cost is the existence of approximately $121,000,000* in infrastructure at a cost to a
public agency or the State ofCalifomia of$25,000,000, and no added profit over the selling price/bid of$27,000,000 for the 5,400 acre-
feet per year desal plant, delivery and assembly. This reduction in the cost of the land and the infrastructure and the low cost of the plant,
delivery and assembly, will be reflected in the investment of the future building of desalination operations and solar fields to provide
energy in the U.S. and around the world. Also planned are separate entities which will include extraction of sea salt for profit, and the
development of bio-tech fuel using algae from the ocean as encouraged by the federal administration.
13
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 monthsjiom May 2012 to January 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: Information subject to change.
COST OF YEARLY OPERATION PER 5,400 ACRE FEET
TO THE MONTEREY PENINSULA RATEPAYERS
Loan Payment on $99,650,000 interest and principal @3.5% for 30 years =yearly
$4,484,250 Monthly $374,000 divided by 5,400 acre-feet=
$69.00 divided by 8.8 housing uriits/acre-foot = $7.90 per houset
Maintenance- Yearly $2,500,000 divided by 5,400 acre/feet= 500 divided by 12
months= $42.00 divided by 8.8 housing units per acre-foot = $4.70
Utilities -From solar farm, energy recovery system and PG&E
$600 per acre foot per year, divided by 12 months= $50.00 divided by 8.8 housing
units per acre foot= $5.60 per housing unit per 100 gallons per day
Delivered to distribution line in Seaside+
Approximate cost per housing unit per month $18.80. This does not include the
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
cost of the purveying system by Cal Am Monthly Total
tCost per acre foot per year: $18.20 x 8.8 x 12 mos. Per Year
$7.90
$4.70
$5.60
$18.20
$1,922
Annualized Cost ($M/YR) $1,922 x 5,400 acre-foot Per Year $10,600,000
+ This does not include the cost of Cal Am purveying system of $14.87 per month- for an approximate total of
$33.67 per month delivered to households.
With a grant of25% = $25,000,000 -leaving a balance of$75,000,000 at 3.5% for 30 years: $1,763 per acre-
foot.
Without land, solar and pipeline, the cost will be $42,000,000. The main contributing factor in the reduction of
this cost is the existence of approximately $121,000,000* in infrastructure at a cost to a public agency or the State
of California of $25 million and the elimination of the profit over the actual cost of the desalination plant.
t 100 gallons per day x 365 days= 36,500 gallons per house per year.
320,000 gallons per acre-foot divided by 36,500 = 8.8 housing units per acre-foot.
$1,922 per acre-foot per year including pipeline and a bond at 3.5% interest
3.5% 30-year bond financing is available. Also available is 2% state financing which will lead to additional
savings.
The county agencies and the Water Management District are working on the ARS and Reclaimed Water Projects for
approx. 5,300 acre-feet, leaving a balance ofapprox. 5,400 acre- feet as above.
14
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months from May 20! 2 to January 20! 6 as advised by consultant. Note: Information subject to change.
Tiffi PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT www.ThePeoplesWater.com
The reason for the 10,700 acre-feet is to satisfy the state requirement to eliminate the over-pumping of this amount from the
Carmel River. However, a smaller plant of5000 acre-feet per year could be delivered at a cost of$28,000,000, and an
additional modular of5,000 acre-feet per year could be delivered within two years at a cost of$17,000,000 without
additional unnecessary front cost. More modulars of2,000-5,000 acre-feet per year could be easily added to meet the water
needs of other municipalities in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. See page 17.
COST OF DESALINATION PLANT DELIVERED FROM MOSS LANDING TO SEASIDE
10,700 ACRE-FEETNEAR
Plant, delivery, and assembly; includes 10% contingency $45,000,000
Resurfacing remaining tanks, pipes and pumps $ 1,000,000
Screening and filtering system $ 4,000,000
Engineering & design $4,000,000
Delivery system to distribution line (onsite) $ 1,000,000
Reserve for chemicals & parts $2,000,000
Purchase land: @24% of appraised value (76% discount ofMAI $30,000,000
fair appraised market value for approx. 55 acres); Appraised value
$121,000,000* minus $91,000,000 =$30,000,000
Includes $5,000,000 which will be pledged to a Public Agency
which comes on board. This money will be reserved for
miscellaneous costs.
Solar - 6 megawatts or more $18,000,000
EIR $ 650,000
Permits- Fees $ 1,350,000
Miscellaneous $ 3,000,000
Pipeline to Seaside from Moss Landing $18,650,000
Pipeline is 30 inches in diameter 15 miles= 79,200 feet x $250 per ft
TOTAL COST including pipeline to Seaside
Plant, delivery, and assembly, including 10% contingency, will be sold to the public agency
(bid without any profit added) for $45,000,000.
$128,650,000
The main contributing factor for the reduction of this cost is the existence of approximately $121,000,000* in infrastructure at a cost
to a public agency or the State of California of $30,000,000, and no added profit over the selling price/bid of $45,000,000 for the
desal plant, delivery and assembly. This reduction in the cost of the land and the infrastructure and the low cost of the plant, delivery
and assembly, will be reflected in the investment of the future building of desalination operations and solar fields to provide energy
in the U.S. and around the world. Also planned are separate entities which will include extraction of sea salt for profit, and the
development ofbiofuel using algae from the ocean as encouraged by the federal administration.
15
*Including the discounted cost of 55 acres and the existing irifrastructure for a desal plant. (Certified MAl appraisal available for the actual market value
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months from May 2012 to Januwy 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: Jriformation subject to change.
COST OF YEARLY OPERATION PER 10,700 ACRE FEET
TO THE MONTEREY PENINSULA RATEPAYERS
Loan Payment on $128,650,000 interest and principal @3.5% for 30 years =yearly
$4,790,926 Monthly $399,243 divided by 10,700 acre-feet=
$37.00 divided by 8.8 housing units/acre-foot= $4.24 per houset
Maintenance- Yearly $4,000,000 divided by 10,700 acre/feet= 373.83 divided by 12
months= 31.00 divided by 8.8 housing units per acre-foot = $3.50
$500 per acre foot per year, divided by 12 months= $41.67 divided by 8.8 housing
units per acre foot= $4.73 per housing unit per 100 gallons per day
Delivered to distribution line in Seaside+
Approximate cost per housing unit per month $12.47. This does not include the
Monthly $4.24
Monthly $3.50
Monthly $4.73
cost of the purveying system by Cal Am Monthly Total $12.47
tCost per acre foot per year: $12.47 x 8.8 x 12 mos. Per Year $1,317
Annualized Cost ($M/YR) $1317 x 10,700 acre-foot Per Year $14,100,000
+This does not include the cost of Cal Am purveying system of$14.87 per month- for an approximate total of
$27.34 per month delivered to households.
With a grant of25% = $32,000,000 -leaving a balance of$96,000,000 at 3.5% for 30 years: $1224 per acre-foot.
With the sale of700 acre-feet (which is no longer needed due to conservation but included in the 10,700 acre-feet
above) to legal lots of record owners and add-ons: $25,000,000 -leaving a balance of$71,000,000 at 3.5% for 30
years: $1135 per acre-foot.
Without land, solar and pipeline, the cost will be $66,100,000. The main contributing factor in the reduction of
this cost is the existence of approximately $121 ,000,000* in infrastructure at a cost to a public agency or the State
of California of$30 million and the elimination of the profit over the actual cost of the desalination plant.
t 100 gallons per day x 365 days= 36,500 gallons per house per year.
320,000 gallons per acre-foot divided by 36,500 = 8.8 housing units per acre-foot.
$1317 per acre-foot per year including pipeline and a bond at 3.5% interest
3.5% 30-year bond financing is available. Also available is 2% state financing which will lead to additional
savings.
16
COST OF YEARLY OPERATION FOR 5,000 ACRE-FEET MODULAR
TO BE ADDED TO THE 10,700 ACRE-FEET AT A COST OF $28 MILLION
NORTH MONTEREY COUNTY
PER MONTH
Loan Payment on $28,000,000 @ 3.5% for 30 years
Yearly $1,042,720 Monthly $86,893 divided by 5,000 acre-feet= $17.38 divided by 8.8 house per-acre
foot = $1.97 $1.97
Maintenance
$1,000,000 divided by 5,000 acre/feet divided by 12 months divided by 8.8 =$1.40 $1.40
500 divided by 12 divided by 8.8= $4.70 per housing unit $4.70
Per North Monterey County household delivered to delivery system TOTAL $8.07
Per acre-foot per year in North Monterey County is $8.07 x 8.8 x 12 =
approximately $852 per acre-foot to delivery system.
The addition of this 5000 acre-feet modular system will be at a lesser cost than
the main 10,700 acre feet plant because of the usage of the same existing
infrastructure without the need for any duplication.
Land is available for this addition.
Land is available for expansion with all the backup systems necessary to operate
a desal plant.
Similarly, another modular of7,000 acre-feet for Pajaro Valley (North Monterey County) could be
added and 3,000 acre-feet for Santa Cruz at the same price per acre-foot as North Monterey County.
Water also will be made available through additional modulars to any area with salt water intrusion if
needed.
17
10,700 Acre-feet Per Year
*Source: R BF Consu h:ants for Cal Am
COST COMPARISONS AMONG
CURRENT COMPETITIVE
DESALINATION PROJECTS
1
Costin
Billion of
Dollars
0
5
fl(fgiooat Deep sea
Desalination Project
Pttopte's
18
*Including the discounted cost of 55 acres and the existing irifrastructure for a desal plant. (Certified MAl appraisal available for the actual market value
P. TIMELINE
The People's
Moss
Landing
Water Desai
Project
Public
Agency
T=20 mo
Includes 4 months
leeway for unforeseen
circumstances
>
Construction
Build Desai
Build Pipeline
19
THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT- ESTIMATED TIMELINE
Beginning May 2012 and ending January 2016 (approximate) for a total of 44 months
Public EIR Permits Financing- 2 Construction: Leeway added Water
Agency 8 months 16 months months- in Build Desai for Delays Delivery
4 months progress Build Pipeline or/and
starting during permit Unforeseen
May 2012 process Circumstances
May 2012 - Sept. 2012 Sept. 2014 Sept. 2014 July 2015 6 Months Jan. 2016
Sept. 2012 - May 2013
Q. AT -A-GLANCE
Monthly Cost to
Approx. $12.50 per month or less- this is an average cost.
Ratepayers
10,700 ACRE-Ff PER YEAR
Cost to Build Approx. $128,650,000
Includes a(l.(l.roximate/J!. 25 acres o[_land f!?r the desal[l.lant and 30 acres f!?r the solar {grm [l.lus
existing infj:_astructure f!?r a new desal(l.lant at a discounted [l.rice o(_$30,000,000
Also included: Solar Energy- 6-megawatt to 8-megawatt solar energy system which will cost
$18,000,000 million or less to build, and the pipeline to Seaside from Moss Landing, approximately
$18,650,000.
Cost of Financing 3.5% interest or less
(A 3.5% 30-year bond financing is available. Also available is 2% state financing which will lead to additional
savings.)
Cost per Acre-foot of Water Approximately $1,317 or less delivered to the Monterey Peninsula's purveying system in Seaside.
New Water Available Within approximately 44 months from May 2012 to January 2016.**
Profit The provider of the desal plant equipment will sell it to the public agency without adding any profit
over the bid price of$66, I 00,000 for the actual desal plant equipment and machinery (does not
include the land, the solar farm and the pipeline from Moss Landing to Seaside -see page 10). As a
consideration, Desai America retains the right to use this plant as a demonstration pilot project to
introduce this technology with the solar and the separate biotech and desalt for profit.
Bonus: This will stimulate the local economy as people will visit the area from around the world to
learn about this exciting green and sustainable profitable technology.
NOTE: The sale of the land and existing infrastructure to be purchased by a public agency at a rate
that is significantly less than the market value (76% discounted of the MAl appraised value).
20
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months from May 2012 to January 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: information subject to change.
THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATERDESAL PROJECT www.ThePeoplesWater.com
Q. AT-A-GLANCE (Cont.)
1. It will produce approximately 10 million gallons of water per day. This amount is equivalent to the 10,700
acre-feet per year that is now being over-pumped from the Carmel River.
2. It will provide fresh water within approximately 44 months from March 2012 to November 2015
3. It is at least 70% less expensive than the presently proposed project.
4. It will convert seawater into the required 10,700 acre-feet per year for a reliable, drought-resistant and
permanent fresh water supply.
5. The facility will have three back-up systems for peace of mind, although only one back-up system is
required by the Monterey County Health Department.
a. There are 14 existing water storage tanks already on-site capable of holding 44 million gallons of
water.
b. Two existing fresh water wells near the property will provide 2,100 gallons of water per minute
through an existing pipeline from the wells to the property.
c. An existing 45-acre, 25-foot deep storage facility can be made available in the future to provide an
additional storage of 1,250 acre-feet of water.
6. It will use the deep underground existing 52-inch wide concrete outfall pipeline that goes to the ocean or a
24-inch outfall pipeline that terminates in our marine enclave next to the highway, and two existing 52-inch
wide intake pipelines under Highway 1 that connect to the existing pumping station at Moss Landing
Harbor. These huge pipes are designed for handling 60 million gallons per day whereas the new desalination
plant needs only 12 million gallons intake and 2 million gallons outfall.
7. The intake is not from the deep sea, but from the site's marine enclave next to the highway. An elaborate
state-of-the-art screening and filtering system will be installed to protect the sea organisms.
8. The existing infrastructure on the site will significantly reduce any additional cost and environmental
impact associated with new construction. The site has been
9. The approximate $128,650,000 cost of THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT
will include the development of a 6-megawatt solar energy system which will provide a large portion of the
electricity (75%) needed to run the desal plant, thereby drastically lowering energy costs, the cost of water
to you, and lessening the environmental impact by reducing the use of fossil fuels. Also included is the cost
of the pipeline from Moss Landing to the Seaside distribution system to the Monterey Peninsula.
10. It will be publicly owned. That means YOU, the public, will own and control it.
11. There will be no conflict of interest in its operation or staff since it is a public agency and all transactions
will be transparent.
12. Monterey Peninsula ratepayers will own and have control over the plant operations through a public agency
or an elected board of directors. Public agencies are in the business of serving the public. They are not a "for
profit business". The rates charged to the ratepayers (homeowners, renters, business owners, hotels,
restaurants and others) will be no more than the actual expenses of the public agency. This will save all
ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars!
13. It will be monitored by the Monterey County Health Department to maintain the high quality of the water.
14. This is the only project with all the needed infrastructure in place now and it is ready to go.
21
*Including the discounted cost of 55 acres and the existing inji-astructure for a desal plant. (Certified MAl appraisal available for the actual market value
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months from May 2012 to Janua1y 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: Information subject to change.
GREEN SUSTAINABLE FEATURES
Including, but not limited to:
Construction- By utilizing existing buildings, we save the exuberant cost of construction, eliminate waste
removal, eliminate heavy truck traffic, reduce environmental impact, carbon footprint, pollution, noise and
traffic emissions.
Transportation -The existing railroad spurs will be used for transporting materials and will reduce
environmental impact, carbon footprint, fossil fuel use, emissions and pollution, and heavy truck traffic.
Energy- The solar energy will reduce fossil fuel use, reduce the carbon footprint and save energy.
Conservation- The owner of the project is salvaging and using the algae which come from the intake water to
develop biofuel through the new company (Biofuel USA). Owner also plans to mechanically extract the
majority of sea salt from the concentrate, instead of returning it to the ocean (separate business entities).
A Green Sustainable Project
PROJECT STRUCTURE
22
*Including the discounted cost of 55 acres and the existing inji-astructure for a desal plant. (Certified MAl appraisal available for the actual market value
THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATERDESAL PROJECT www.ThePeoplesWater.com
A Quick, Affordable, Green and Sustainable Project
PROJECT ADVISORY BOARD
23
*Including the discounted cost of 55 acres and the existing injiastructure for a desal plant. (Ce11ijied MAl appraisal available for the actual market value
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months from May 2012 to Janumy 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: Information subject to change.
Q. TEAM EXPERIENCE
George Schroeder Limited Partner The People's Moss Landing Water Desal Project
George Schroeder practiced law in Monterey, CA from 1960-2000, with an emphasis in real estate and estate planning. He was a member of the
City of Monterey Planning Commission for four years, including two years as Chairman. He has represented Nader Agha in all real estate matters
from I 965 - 2000, and has been his partner since I 980 in real estate development in Monterey County. Since retiring from practice, he has been
an advisor and consultant to Mr. Agha. Mr. Schroeder is a University of California at Beikeley undergraduate and a graduate from its law school,
Boalt Hall, in I 958.
Ben B. Movahed PE BCE President Watek Engineering Comoration
Ben B. Movahed, PE, BCE, is the President ofWatek Engineering Corporation. He has over 25 years of engineering experience in the study,
evaluation, design and constmction services for water fucility projects. An internationally respected engineer, Mr. Movahed has hands-on
experience with over 40 advanced treatment technology projects, such as Reverse Osmosis, Nanofiltration, EDR, Microfiltration, MBR,
Ultrafiltration and Ion Exchange treatment. He was the main author of the recently negotiated and published ten state standard policy fur
membrane filtration and Reverse Osmosis and has been in direct communication with EPA staf( as well as various state regulatory agencies
through his activities as the chair of the AMTA government affuirs and publication committee.
Stan Lueck Manufilcturer/Partner in DeSai America LLC/President/Rodi Systems Inc.
Mr. Lueck holds a Bachelor of-Science in chemistry and has spent the last 30 years as a technical professional. His experience began as an
undergraduate research associate in surface chemistry, and since then, he has been involved in numerous projects related to water treatment and
environmental control. His client list includes Fortune 500 companies as well as federal government agencies. For the last 22 years, Mr. Lueck
has specialized in the area of water treatment. He has designed treatment systems, provided troubleshooting and membrane cleaning services,
conducted pilot tests and feasibility studies, and developed monitoring and control syste1ns specifically for reverse osmosis and ion exchange
applications. Mr. Lueck has trained several hundred water treatment operators from around the world,
Gina Kathuria KCE Engineering Inc.
Gina Kathuria, P.E. is the President ofKCE Engineering, Inc. with offices in California and Maryland. As a registered engineer with the state of
California, Ms. Kathuria has over 19 years of diverse experience in private consulting, local and state govermnent. She worked for the San
Francisco Bay Water Board and Jed the team that authored the water discharge permit for the first desalination plant in the San Francisco Bay
area. She has also authored many permits in the areas of wastewater treatment plants, power plants, refineries, aquaculture filcilities, groundwater
treatment systems and more. She is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in Civil Engineering.
Cameron A. Weist Attorney at Law/Public and Private Financing
Cameron A. Weist, Attorney at Law, and founding partner of the Scotts Valley, CA-based Weist Law Firm, has over 20 years of experience in
municipal law, securities law and tax Jaw aspects of public and private finance. He is also educated and trained in several branches of economics,
urban and regional planning, public policy, business administration, operations research, demography, accounting, finance and real estate. His
decades of experience are applied to a broad array of financing projects and programs, and address such issues as infrastmcture development,
economic development, development feasibility, policy research, strategic planning, program and project financing evaluation.
Nader Agha Managing Partner The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project
Nader Agha, Managing Partner and the founder and developer of the 200 acre Moss Landing Green Business Park, leads THE PEOPLE'S MOSS
LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT'S highly experienced management and engineering team.
Mr. Agha is a general contractor who has worked on over 90 projects and has been described as one of the best planners and estimators in
Monterey County.
Mahir Agha- Project Consultant
Mahir was born and raised on the Monterey Peninsula. He earned his BFA from Cornell University along with a concentration of courses in
Business-Economics-Real Estate. His career is highlighted with having grown and managed an office of25 real estate appraisers; having been
employed by a national bank with management responsibilities including risk management, quality control, and asset recovery; and most recently
running his own real estate appraisal business. His recent contributions to the community include having served as a Cub master, an Assistant
Scoutmaster, and as founder and Race Director of the Carmel Valley Fiesta Mountain RU!l
Wendy Brickman- Marketing! Public Relations
Wendy Brickman is the founder of the award-wirnring marketing finn, Brickman Marketing, which, since 1990, has provided an array of
marketing, publicity, advertising, social media and market research services. She has an MBA in Marketing Management from Loyola
Marymount University in Los Angeles, MAin Broadcast Journalism from USC and a BA in English from UCBerkeley.
Barbara Howard - Marketing Consultant
Barbara Howard is an award-winning marketing professional with extensive marketing, writing and project direction experience. She has worked
in an executive capacity in many industries including Energy Conservation, Natural Products, Manufilcturing, Distribution, and Publishing. She
offers expertise in all media and multichannel integration, and is also a director of video, television and radio productions.
24
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months from May 2012 to Janumy 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: Information subject to change.
THE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT www. ThePeoolesWater.com
A Quick, Affordable, Green and Sustainable Project
HISTORY
2003 Purchase of200-acre former Kaiser National Minerals and Refractories Plant by Nader Agha. The
site is renamed the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park.
2003 Nader Agha realizes the site and existing infrastructure and "grandfathered" permits (presently
zoned for light and heavy industry and production of utilities) will make an excellent site for a
tentative 10,700 acre-feet/year desalination plant using approximately 25 acres and another 35
acres for a solar farm. There are two existing "grandfathered" intake pipes and two existing outfall
pipes. One outfall pipe terminates at a portion of the interior harbor that is part of the site and one
pipe terminates at the deep sea 4000 feet away from the property. The site also has many other
desirable features and has existing 300,000 square feet of building space and 12 KV electrical
service available on-site. It has an existing 60 million gallons per day permit for seawater intake
and discharge. It has railroad spur access and 44 million gallons of storage capacity plus on-site
fresh water tanks and nearby fresh water wells for stand-by.
2004 Nader Agha meets with the Monterey County Health Department and is told he has to have a
public agency, and have a backup system in case of a mishap, to build a desalination plant. It is
recommended that he contact the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Water Services District
(Pajaro/Sunny Mesa).
2004 Nader Agha meets with Pajaro/Sunny Mesa, and they tell him it desires to build a desal plant to
service its customers.
2004 Nader Agha enters into a 98-year lease of a portion of the 200 acre site and the infrastructure with
Pajaro/Sunny Mesa on which Pajaro/Sunny Mesa is to build its desal plant. The lease contains a
provision that if permits and EIR are not obtained by Pajaro/Sunny Mesa within five years, the
lease may be terminated.
2005 The site is described by the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories to be the most suitable site for a
desalination plant in the state of California.
2005 Permit for Pilot Project received from Monterey County.
2005 Nader Agha meets with Cal Am President and others at Cal Am and tells them about the project.
They were very supportive, pleased and interested.
2005-2009 Two Coastal Commissioners request review of the Existing Monterey County Desai Pilot Permit.
Pajaro/Sunny Mesa proposes remedies and still the Commission did not act on it.
2007-2011 Repairs of over $300,000 are made to the existing seven 3-million gallon storage tanks on the site
which are modified to hold 5 million gallons of water each for a total of 35 million gallons. All
electrical to the pumps stations has been completely rewired.
2007-2009 Marina Regional Desalination project plan proposed as required by PUC.
25
*Including the discounted cost of 55 acres and the existing infrastructure for a desal plaiu. (Certified MAl appraisal available for the actual market value
2009 An amendment to the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa lease is signed extending the time to obtain the permits
and EIR to March 2011, with a requirement that monthly reports be given to Nader Agha about
progress regarding them.
2010 Nader Agha signs agreement with Desai America to be the provider of the desal plant.
2010 Brent Constanz and David Armanasco become associated with Nader Agha to develop his Moss
Landing desal project on Nader's property. Six months after joining the project, they break away
and start their own competing desal water project in Moss Landing under the name ''Deep Water
Desai", which is similar to Mr. Agha's but without any site on which to build it.
2011 Someone connected to Surfriders Foundation suggested to Nader Agha that the desal intake be
limited to the small marine enclave he owns next to the Moss Landing Harbor near the highway.
2011 Permits and EIR not obtained by Pajaro/Sunny Mesa and lease expires.
2011 Nader Agha proposes to sell or lease the land and existing infrastructure and the pilot project and
the in-progress EIR at a significant discount (75%) of the MAl certified appraisal of fair market
value.
2006-2011 Nader Agha looked into purchasing a solar 6-megawatt energy system.
2006-2011 Nader Agha instructed his engineers to locate a state-of-the-industry screening and filtering system
to protect the sea organisms.
2011 Calculations are done to show that the cost of the whole project will be only $128,750,000 or less.
2011 Independent MIA appraisal of the site and its current infrastructure is completed
2011 New public relations team instead of David Armanasco Public Relations is brought in. The
project's name is changed to The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project and the public
relations team begins sharing information with the public and elected officials.
2011 New team meets with several entities that can become the necessary public agency.
Oct. 2011 The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project purchases the on-site portable pilot desal plant
(50,000 gallons per day) from Calera.
Oct. 2011 New team negotiates a price with EIR consultant.
Nov. 2011 Makes presentation at Monterey Peninsula Public Forum in Monterey, California
Nov. 2011 Presents The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project Public Forum, Seaside, California
Dec. 2011 Produces television programs which air on AMP and MyTV, Comcast Channell I
Dec. 2011 The video programs can be viewed online: www.ThePeoplesWater.com
Dec. 2011 Several city officials tour The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project site: Cities represented
were: Pacific Grove, Carmel, and Monterey. Also present were representatives from MRWPCA
andMPWMD.
26
1HE PEOPLE'S MOSS LANDING WATER DESAL PROJECT www.ThePeoplesWater.com
Dec. 2011 CSUMB class tours The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project site as part of their research
project. They declare the project to be the best water solution for the Monterey Peninsula.
Dec. 2011 Monterey County Superior Court judge orders a new environmental review for the proposal.
Judge Lydia Villarreal said the Marina Coast Water District should be the lead agency on the
project and must prepare and certify an environmental impact report. Marina Coast's board
improperly relied on the PUC's environmental report to approve the regional project and a new
EIR will be required to consider alternatives, impacts and mitigations more fully.
NOTE: Previous public statement made by Nader Agha since 2010: "Neither the PUC nor
Cal Am have the right to order an Em. Only a Public Agency which will build the plant has
the right to order the Em."
Jan. 2012 The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project continues plans for a non-profit organization to
interface with a public agency.
Jan. 2012 As requested by several local mayors and other interested parties, a respected water desal
independent consultant is hired to provide an evaluation of The People's Moss Landing Water
Desai Project.
Mar. 2012 Nader Agha forms SolarAmerica to develop and construct solar operations including solar field in
South Monterey County, some of which could be used to power the desal plant in addition to the 6-
megawatt solar onsite in Moss Landing.
Mar. 2012 Independent Consultant Review provided by Mike Mickley, P.E., Ph.D., Mickley & Associates.
Mar. 2012 After years of study and preparation, Nader Agha forms the companies, DeSalt America, to
mechanically extract sea salt from the concentrate-brine, and Biotech USA, for the development of
algae from the ocean into biofuel as encouraged by the President of the United States and his
administration. (These companies are separate entities.)
April2012 The proponent of the project recently reached an agreement to include a new system which could
result in NEAR-ZERO DISCHARGE to the ocean after desalination. This mechanical system
utilizes the on-site existing magnesium hydroxide to extract the salt out of the concentrate (brine).
This project may be the first of its kind in the world to utilize this revolutionary technology.
April2012 The City of Pacific Grove agreed to become the lead Public Agency for The People's Moss
Landing Water Desalination Project. The vote was taken on April18, 2012 with a majority 6 to 1.
This was the missing link which we were waiting for to comply with the Monterey County
requirement of 1987 Supervisors Resolution that stated any desalination project must owned by
public agency. This news resonated favorably all over the Monterey Peninsula with a majority of
the people surveyed approving of this development.
May 2012 New option added of 5,400 acre-feet per year as requested by interested parties as an alternative to
the 10,700 acre-feet per year. The decision to change the production from 10,700 to 5,400 acre feet
is up to the public agency who is sponsoring the desal project.
27
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months ji-om May 2012 to Janua1y 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: Information subject to change.
PINION
28
!.
Urlitin
i'rM!.t lJ;J:tti1:
Supervisors should abandon desaJ project
If the waterpowersof do notget their
act together by2014 andreduce.watNtak{m from rhe
Cannel Riwrby iO !Jel'Ce'rit, sev&re,rationing;vi!l be
impo,;ed.on all CalAmratcpay0rs.
1he tinw ha;; come for the Board nf$upervisors to
abandon the s,candalo\ls and questionable Marina Coast
(leS<>l project. '01ey have beenin set->sion meqia!ion
talks since sunmier '*eking a way to continue ll1is
belea.O,.>uered, litigious and outrage<lUsly expeilsive project
promotcd by CalAm.
lbeli(:ve the public can reasonably t'Xpect our
supervi&lrs to renounce this highly controversial
and C()!ISider amitheraltemative; the very affordable
Mos.s J..Uidii1g D0sa! Project.
reverse osmosis system is truly an iunov8.tlve appmm:h
toward providing an alternative water resource for Uu;
peninsula.
independent knowledgeable lo,:al ,;pokesman,
Ron Weitzman, chairs an organization; WaterPlus. He is a
stn)ng advocate for the People's.Moss:tanding water
project and continues to prmnulgate.releY<\nt infommtion
tQ cnligi}ten on this long-tenn water solution.
For eiiai:nple, the estimated cost of Cal Am water is $3,600
per acre.footcompared with Moss L<mding.'s S1,800.per
aen"-foot
Perhaps the supervisors and Cal Am need a reality
in 2()12, whkh just happens to be an elet."tion year
urn wmoughby
Pacific Giwe
29
Judge
orders new
desal EIR
VILLAREAL SAYS COAST
SHOULD TAKE LEAD ON PROOEm'
hJll$ JUli.U
fl&J/4 ,1;4fl/fr1Wt"

J<dd m.'!lll liDlre_ !& tM
u!od!!<l the t<.!1-
ab)Ji!}' ol the ptilP.d r.cicl
"'':l:liif impd.<
W Pl'll:>
!mic'iim,d
nf:>'tiier ilool -u!Jdw

tl!.:&!Un<!iVi!IWy.
'Tho>. lw; Llmd
.'fr'J$1.. .. mm;zulk
'in;iri<racltm . dedi
!>'lied .ta .flleli<lryl'itiilt>
oi '"''d.
pl'!liltrty . a a pru-
<kil.i!
Wt!USilt
. Jli Lttd
1\UilfOO' '-!iti\l!i'l $1;,.1\P ;;aid
the rillil>E.h>rl
W
ip!ition a ii<:rutliw of tM
regian:d pi'Qjt.>ct; V.illch blis
!Mgoly :cid
d .. '
r 1nmk 11 'l*-""1$ !)i,l:ld"
l
I
l l;'(rur):ttt.lti emto\ial lo
! trmnagr RMC \\"aSrt&l1t em t1UJ(<:L
l
. lt higl1 dme the rt!'!ikie:ns n[ this rcnutly tltelM a In
the rtd wiltt gvt in
, M lxlcli rot;m!litld try !fJ :lptntd t&lql.1Y'i:f money with<ittf iulf
j dim;lm>u:re nt the
Nut nne rnor(: sl:tvuM be tilshurse<l on the tles.1!
pttlect WJ.til tht: tiugning
\XUUpletl:>il
lobtft . M:UtgOIUI'J
lJC
ll.ldf/ 1-l&nf$/r#irr:t it it fi;rml!r gNUrwi Ni!tf#ti fit Ftiltm.i
ltn1>Tgt Mmirtittmtfi#i mtd thil +Wtitr Heu.w: 0.!/itri fA/ Cdlt$lli!J>W'
a!ld IM IJS.
30
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 monthsfiom May 2012 to January 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: Information subject to change.
A:n'r:'M=:;t.&::fl:
...
..
11mt fer Pttte hhhlf
*llperrvltiDA tmt attemlli.Wl! m
Am crt:dit lr PY tlttt
thvdelimet
whmilllbt
me.
RMC fAA ltrWllnttHllik'1Jni. sbnutd tJ(lj
t11$W: llH:rt:le}t, It !'ltoulct f\)fimd 1*11 cttc it
hu11 to ftw fts iJttlity nel!ct'IUrtHl
Curtin W<>t:;kw, 1'hil'll1l in
wdi!ttinn tlf 1!1\1 ttlltl $UIT!.iHMing \%1 lftilUI{!trtJHL
II Will tnoUmh l<>r mut)ttn4mo!1 iJ} tM1ti mHre tmd
to the flnL iii my n ill !tmt1 fw Drwid
Pntt;w, wna iw gety lor m
bimRU :from the l!fi l!ft11V(fllt:eiwe tX!titd uz:t
obj4'cttVt\l)', l'!fld of lhw

Jh>(ff!r AIU
Filt(lf,t
is"awri<s
31
*Including the discounted cost of 55 acres and the existing irifi-astructure for a desal plant. (Certified MAl appraisal available for the actual market value
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months from May 2012 to January 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: Jriformation subject to change.
32
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months from May 2012 to January 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: Iriformation subject to change.
33
of this discounted price) **Approximately 44 months jiom May 2012 to Januwy 2016 as advised by consultant. Note: Information subject to change.
Independent Consultant Review:
The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project Proposal
March 2012
Prepared for:
The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project
by
Mike Mickley, P.E., Ph.D.
Mickley & Associates
Boulder, CO 80303
303 499-3133
mike@mickleyassoc.com
March 8, 2012
Independent consultant review:
The People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project proposal -
March 2012
SUMMARY
An independent review ofThe People's Moss Landing Water Desai Project proposal dated January 2012
has been conducted. There are no fatal flaws in the concept or implementation of it as described in the
proposal. The unique aspects of the proposal include the location, availability, and zoning of the site and
the availability of existing infrastructure which has been improved for desalination plant use. In the
context of proposals that do not include such factors, they represent savings in both implementation
time and cost.
The total project capital cost is on the low side of previous seawater desalination projects proposed for
the Monterey region. The site owner states his position as seeking no profit on the desalination plant
and viewing the project as one of giving back to the community for years of doing business in the region
[1]. This is arguably one factor in leading to the low capital cost relative to previous regional proposals.
The proposed capital cost does not appear to be artificially low and is well within the range of historical
global and U.S. seawater desalination plant costs.
There are three other projects that may be sited on or near the desalination plant site. The reason for
mentioning them is to state their possible relationship with the desalination plant project and most
importantly to stress that the desalination project is not dependent on these other projects.
Biofuels/algae production project: This project will be completely separate from the desalination
effort and will not affect the desalination project timing or cost.
Salt recovery project: This project may eventually abstract salts from the desalination plant
concentrate and thereby reduce or eliminate the need to discharge concentrate to the Bay. The
project, however, will be funded and implemented completely separately from the desalination
project and will not affect the desalination project timing or cost.
Solar energy project: This project is included in the proposal as a means of providing a
substantial portion of the project's required energy. The success oft he desalination project,
however, is not dependent on implementation of the solar part of the project.
Thus the desalination project efforts, including piloting, permitting, design, and construction, are not
dependent on these projects.
Typical concerns associated with seawater desalination projects include:
piloting
permitting
schedule
use of environmentally state-of-the art intake and outfall technologies
2
As with any proposal at this stage of development, such concerns need to be addressed at the next
project development stage. These and other concerns are discussed below. The potential impact of
addressing these concerns {on possible increased project time and cost) is one reason for budget
contingency fees. The concerns appear to be anticipated in the proposal and the proposed budget {and
associated contingency fee) appears adequate to address these concerns.
The one recommended change to the proposal is to increase the proposed schedule by 4 months to
allow more time for piloting and permitting tasks.
DETAILS
Overview
Information in the subject proposal {referred to hereafter as TPMLWDP proposal) was reviewed and
evaluated to determine the general efficacy and accuracy of the conceptual design, plan, and other
information in the proposal. The review was based on information gathered in the general areas of
technical
environmental/regulatory
economic
general/public/political,
with focus on the first three areas.
Background
The TPMLWDP proposal for a regional desalination plant is one of several that have been considered in
recent years to address the objective of providing California American Water with a replacement water
supply, and thus to resolve the issues associated with the State Water Resource Control Board Order No.
95-10 and the overdraft ofthe Seaside Groundwater Basin [2, 3].
As a result, the review and evaluation ofthe TPMLWDP proposal was aided by published information on
other projects, including some comparative analyses of projects. The previous projects included one
similar to the TPMLWDP project, in that it was based on a seawater desalination plant to be constructed
on the same Moss Landing site and using much of the same existing infrastructure [2]. This project has
been referred to in some documents as the Monterey Regional Seawater Desalination Project
{MBRSDP). Important differences between the two same-site projects include:
different project team
different project size {20 mgd as opposed to the present TPMLWDP project size of 10 mgd)
somewhat different source water
o In the case of the MBRSDP project the source water was considered to be a mix of
seawater from the existing intake associated with the site and, when available, return of
cooling water from the adjacent Moss Landing Power Plant.
o In the present TPMLWDP project the source water is considered to be seawaterfrom
the existing intake associated with the site or seawater obtained from the Bay via a new
intake.
The review and evaluation included the following efforts:
review of past same-site project studies/reports
discussion with some present TPMLWDP team members
discussion with regulatory groups associated with required permits
3
discussion with Moss Landing Marine Laboratory
comparison ofTPMLWDP proposal information with information from other somewhat similar
projects
review of literature
review of permit, appraisal, and other documents which the TPMLWDP proposal information is
based on.
review of potential project efforts by the site owner to create environmentally beneficial and
sustainable businesses that will be on the same site as desalination project.
A list of references and contacts appears at the end of this memo.
General Findings
Project development stage
Information in TPMLWDP proposal is at a mix of screening and conceptual levels of development-
not uncommon to projects at this stage of consideration. As such projects move forward, they
typically involve the lead agency hiring a consulting firm to do a more detailed analysis of project
elements and a more detailed design suitable for competitive bidding of both the final design and
construction of the desalination plant and other physical elements of the project.
Project site and condition
Relative to many/most desalination projects at this project stage, availability of a secured and
suitably zoned site is an advantage that can result in savings of time and cost associated with
procuring a site.
The existing infrastructure (buildings, storage tanks, pipelines, pumps, intake structure, outfall
structure, roads, etc.) are documented in a real estate appraisal dated October 3, 2011 [4] and
mentioned in two reports associated with the previous MBRSDP project [2, 3].
The appraisal document includes a detailed description of the 55-acre site being considered for the
desalination project. Parts of the appraisal are included in an appendix to this report.
The 55-acre site has an appraised value ($121,000,000) of nearly four times that proposed for sale
to the project ($30,000,000) [4], representing a cost savings relative to typical desalination projects.
Portions of the infrastructure have been recently upgraded and made suitable for use with minimal
restoration or upgrading (described in the appendix).
The appraised value of the 55-acre site is divided into two components:
o Land (with coastal access)- $44,000,000
o Existing improvements for a desalination plant- $77,000,000
It appears that substantial renovation and remediation ofthe site have taken place after Mr. Nader
purchased the site in December, 2003 [4, 5]. Details are provided in reference 4.
These land, infrastructure, and improvements are all real and positive factors as described in
TPMLWDP proposal.
None of the site clean-up was required by the EPA or the regional water quality control board. All of
it was done voluntarily and paid for by Mr. Nader. The work, however, was done in conjunction with
water board approval [5].
Asbestos found in some ofthe structures was taken out; no urea-formaldehyde insulation was
found.
No soil or groundwater contamination was found on the 55 acre site. Some groundwater
contamination on adjacent land occupied by the original Kaiser company is being monitored by
4
several wells and at one point an in-situ water treatment project was initiated to further reduce the
groundwater contamination. The monitoring wells (not on the 55-acre site) show decreasing levels
of contaminants and no further action is required. At some time the monitoring will no longer be
required. This historic groundwater contamination on the adjacent property should have no effect
on the desalination plant site or its operation.
Thus the desalination plant site appears to be clean and suitable for the proposed desalination plant
use.
Present NPDES intake and discharge permit
The present permit (ORDER NO. R3-2009-0002; NPDES NO. CA0007005) is not suitable for
discharging seawater desalination plant concentrate [6]. This is due to the process generating the
effluent and the effluent itself being substantially different from the process and effluent in the
existing permit. Thus the existing permit must be rescinded and a new NPDES permit obtained.
Pre-dilution of concentrate by other source water is not allowed in California and in this way differs
from general USEPA requirements [6, 7]. Thus mixing of concentrate with stored seawater and/or
groundwater from wells on the plant site is not permitted.
Forthcoming amendments to California's Ocean Plan will likely require discharges from coastal
seawater desalination plants to have a salinity within 10% of receiving water salinity [6, 7]. With the
use of diffuser technology, offering a high immediate dilution factor, this should not be a problem
for the projected concentrate discharge.
Other forthcoming amendments to the California Ocean plan will deal with intake requirements
regarding impingement and entrainment [7]. For instance, the forthcoming Ocean Plan may also
include a flow-based mitigation fee for addressing impingement and entrainment issues associated
with intake structures [6].
The discharge of a high salinity brine from the desalination plant should not have any effect on the
Moss Landing Power plant intake due to their relative locations (see Figure 1). The planned and
existing desalination plant outfall is in the Bay and the power plant intake is in the harbor. Further,
the Bay discharge location is near the head of the Monterey Submarine Canyon which contributes to
the high dispersion/mixing activity at the discharge site (see Figure 2).
The discharge may have an effect, but not one necessarily of concern, on data from the Bay
monitoring stations which routinely take data to observe the conditions of the Bay [8].
Thus due to the location of the outfall in a region of high water activity near the entrance of the
Monterey Submarine Canyon and to the planned use of a state-of-the-art diffuser system, the
discharge of the concentrate should be well within environmentally-based regulatory limits.
As mentioned below in relation to pilot tests, the eventual intake for source water may be in the Bay
via an intake- outfall system utilizing portions of the existing outfall system.
While this arrangement would likely provide higher quality source water that that from the harbor,
it may not be necessary- in which case the existing intake site will be used.
Intake
The existing intake is in the Southeast portion of the harbor relatively near where the Moho Cojo
Slough and the Old Salinas River portions ofthe harbor meet (see Figure 1 map).
The intake pump system is capable of pumping 60 mgd feed water [2]. The proposed 10 mgd
desalination plant operating at 50% recovery would require a feed water flow of approximately 22
mgd (product water+ concentrate+ filter backflush and system rinse water). This flow level is well
within the system capabilities.
5
The harbor is flushed primarily by tidal forces (two high and low tides each day), and a qualitative
estimate was that the harbor might be flushed on the order of 2 or 3 days, which is conducive to
eliminating stagnant zones [8].
Historical water quality information is available which indicates high turbidity [3].
There is a concern for high organic levels due to hydrocarbons from boating activity in the harbor.
One indication of low levels of organics [2] has been called into question by another report [3]. High
organic levels in the feed water to a desalination plant require more extensive pre-treatment to
protect the membrane elements from fouling.
The harbor is subject to some level of agricultural runoff by high rain activity and subsequent flow
into the harbor by the Old Salinas River [4]. The concern raised is for the organic content of the feed
water and the variability of feed water content with time.
Plans and budget include improving the existing intake structure [1].
Pre-treatment and piloting
A key desalination plant component is the pre-treatment system required to allow efficient and
cost-effective operation ofthe membrane system. There is a trade-off between the extent and
costs of pre-treatment and the frequency (and thus cost) of periodic membrane cleaning. As
discussed with reference to the intake location the harbor feed water may differ from open Bay
water in ways requiring more substantial pre-treatment.
The major question is what pre-treatment system is required to address concerns associated with
possible high organic, high turbidity, and high variability harbor feed water.
Reference 2 contains a good discussion of pre-treatment concerns and treatment options including
the possible need for Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) to address concerns associated with high organic
levels.
For seawater desalination, determination of pre-treatment needs is a prime function of pilot tests.
For higher quality feed water the pilot test can be shorter and focused on confirming the pre-
treatment system. For lower quality feed water the pilot test can be longer and focused on defining
the appropriate pre-treatment system.
Thus the feed water quality is a factor in determining the length and complexity of pilot plant testing
needed to define the extent of pre-treatment required and the complexity and cost of the pre-
treatment system.
It appears that the concern for source water quality has been anticipated and included in the project
budget.
More specifically, the pilot test will include feed from both the existing intake area and also from in
the Bay. For the pilot test using Bay source water, it will be obtained through the existing 56"
discharge pipe and outfall structure. In the eventuality ofthe full-sized plant using source water
from the Bay, a smaller pipe can be inserted into the 56" outfall pipe and extended several hundred
meters past the current outfall position. The annular region between the outside of the inserted
pipe and the inside of the existing larger pipe can be used for concentrate discharge [1]. The
diffuser system would need to be modified to accommodate for this arrangement.
The design and components of the existing seawater pilot plant will need to be reviewed for
conducting the pilot tests. While other equipment may need to supplement the existing pilot
system, its availability should translate into time and cost savings to the project.
6
Outfall
The outfall is in the Bay (see Figure 1 map).
There is photographic evidence of damage to the outfall structure [3] in terms of joint
disconnections and clogged diffuser ports.
The power plant intake is in the harbor (see Figure 1 map) and likely not influenced by a high salinity
discharge in the Bay [8].
The discharge might affect monitoring activity in the highly studied/monitored Bay- but this will not
necessarily be a problem [8].
The discharge is through a 620-foot, 51-inch (inside diameter) outfall/diffuser system. The last 130
feet of pipe consists of a diffuser section which has 32 nozzles placed to gradually diffuse the
discharge to the ocean. The 2009 NPDES permit allows a discharge of up to 56 mgd for the calcium
and magnesium depleted seawater discharged from the then existing Moss Landing Cement
Company [9]. The proposed 10 mgd desalination plant operating at 50% recovery would discharge
approximately 12 mgd effluent consisting of concentrate, filter flush water, and rinse water from the
membrane cleaning operation. The discharge system is capable of handling flows well in excess of
this level.
The minimum initial dilution factor of the unrepaired outfall diffuser system as determined for the
existing NPDES permit was 33:1 (seawater: effluent) [9]. This level should meet the likely
forthcoming amendment to the Ocean Plan that will stipulate that the discharge at the edge of the
mixing zone be within 10% of ambient salinity.
Further, the discharge area has high activity near the head of the submarine canyon that will aid in
rapid dispersion ofthe discharge [8]. See Figure 2.
If as a result of pilot tests the desired feed water source is the Bay rather than the harbor, the outfall
structure will need to be modified as discussed in the pre-treatment and piloting section.
Energy requirement
A nominal energy requirement for seawater reverse osmosis desalination is 13.6 kWh/kgal of
product water. For a 10 mgd facility this translates to an energy requirement of 6.7 MW.
The proposed solar energy system was stated as generating 6 MW, which would supply a substantial
percentage of the energy need.
Desalination plant conceptual design
Seawater membrane desalination plants are fairly standard in terms of general design, and the
components mentioned in the proposal are consistent with standard practices.
While the salinity and ionic makeup of seawater are regionally quite consistent, water quality can
vary significantly from site to site in terms of turbidity, suspended solids, and organic content.
As mentioned several times above with regard to intake, pre-treatment, and piloting, the feed water
in the harbor may have high turbidity and high organic levels that require more than normal pre-
treatment and piloting. These items have been anticipated in the proposed pilot tests and in the
project costing [1].
Size of available buildings appears adequate to house the desalination facility.
Other system components, depending on more detailed design considerations, will likely be
standard.
7
Permitting (general)
The listing of permits appears complete. Similar lists have appeared in various reports and
conceptual design documents for California desalination sites.
The complexity of permitting seawater desalination plants in California is well known. It is
imperative to interact in depth with multiple regulatory groups as early as possible in the
consideration of a desalination plant. This is crucial because final design and subsequent
construction depend on permitting.
Obtaining a new NPDES permit for the proposed location does not appear to be unusually difficult
given the favorable discharge location and use of state-of-the art intake structure to address
impingement and entrainment concerns.
This and the attainment of other permits assumes, as a footnote in the proposal says, 'no
extraneous, unnecessary, or political interference' which, unfortunately, frequently occur.
Project schedule
The proposed schedule is ambitious. It would require time-efficient public agency decision making,
pilot testing/definition of the pre-treatment system, and permitting.
For this reason, I suggest adding four months to the proposed schedule, primarily to the time before
construction.
Project financing
This is one area the reviewer is not qualified to comment on beyond seeing that the terms and
approach appear to be consistent with current practices.
Other projects associated with the site or nearby
1- Bio fuel venture [10]
Although not mentioned in the proposal, an effort has been made to investigate and initiate study of
seawater to feed biofuels and algae harvesting operations. The biofuels and algae producing efforts
have multiple potential benefits ranging from providing an alternative source of fuel, providing a source
of animal feed, and employing local people. This project will be completely separate from the
desalination project and will not affect the piloting, permitting, scheduling, or cost of the desalination
project.
2- Salt recovery venture
The previous owner of the site, Kaiser Industries (plant referred to as Kaiser National Materials and
Refractories}, used the site to remove calcium and magnesium from seawater, obtaining seawater
via the existing intake, and discharging calcium and magnesium-depleted seawater via the existing
outfall.
The intent of Desalt America, LLC, mentioned in the proposal, is to recover various constituents from
the concentrate as commercial grade salts or constituents that can be transformed into value-added
products.
Recoverable salts include magnesium hydroxide and sodium chloride (common salt}.
Magnesium hydroxide is used in water and wastewater treatment as well as feedstock for
recovering magnesium metal. Sodium chloride is used in food and industrial processes; many
industries require bulk salt supply. Magnesium can be used in building materials.
8
The salt removal process typically involves high alkaline water processing, which can also be used for
carbon capture since high alkaline water can absorb C0
2
from the atmosphere and upon further
processing convert it to calcium carbonate.
Such an activity would not be part of the publicly owned desalination plant but of a separate
company (Desalt America LLC} that would provide the service and conduct all marketing and sales.
The reason for including comments about this effort, which is substantially separate from the
desalination plant effort, is to examine the possible linkage between the two efforts.
The processing steps involved in multiple salt recovery typically amount to a high water recovery
process which results in minimizing the concentrate volume. In the extreme it may be a zero liquid
discharge process converting all solids in the concentrate to commercial products (in some cases to
a mixture of commercial products and solid waste}, thereby eliminating the need for discharge.
In the present case, the additional processing required to remove salts would take place using the
desalination plant concentrate as feed water.
The timing, schedule, piloting, and cost of the salt removal project are independent of the
desalination project.
Upon possible implementation of the salt recovery effort, the salt recovery entity (DESALT
AMERICA} would purchase the concentrate from the desalination plant. The desalination plant
NPDES permit would need to be modified to reflect this change in modifying or eliminating the
outfall discharge.
Removing salt by further processing the concentrate can serve to reduce environmental concerns
associated with the desalination plant discharge.
3 -Solar system
The proposed solar system will produce 6 MW of energy at a capital cost of $18,000,000.
The acreage required for 6 MW is on the order of 35 to 50 acres, suggesting that the sizing of the
solar facility was based on available acreage after the desalination plant construction.
I have been told the cost of $18,000,000 is from a bid; however I have not seen the bid. The figure is
on the low side of historical bids on other large solar projects [11]. However, given the continuing
improvements in photovoltaic collectors and the size ofthe project, the amount the $18,000,000
figure appears reasonable.
The proposed on-site solar system can provide a large portion ofthe energy requirement and can
also serve to reduce the carbon footprint ofthe desalination plant.
The desalination plant project, however, is not dependent on the solar plant effort, as a standard
source of electricity is possible.
Pipeline
The proposal includes a map of the proposed pipeline alignment (path}.
The cost ofthe pipeline is based on the assumption of $250/LF for installation.
Much of the proposed distribution pipeline path is along railroad right-of-way and permission will
need to be obtained from the Union Pacific Railroad. Where Monterey County right-of- way is
involved, permissions will be obtained through the County of Monterey Public Works Department
[12].
Railroad spur access at the plant site
The access will provide both a cost and environmental benefit to the project.
9
Project cost
The proposed total cost, $128,650,000, presented on page 10 ofthe proposal, is made up ofthe
separate parts of:
o desalination plant $57,000,000
o land purchase $30,000,000
o solar system $18,000,000
o pipeline $18,650,000
o miscellaneous $5,000,000
The land purchase at $30,000,000 is set by the owner.
The site appraisal for the 55 acre site is for a total of $121,000,000 consisting oftwo components:
o Land (with coastal access}- $44,000,000
o Existing improvements for a desalination plant- $77,000,000
The solar system cost at $18,000,000 was based on a bid.
The pipeline cost at $18,650,000 appears reasonable based on a cost of $250/LF.
The capital cost of the proposed desalination plant is assumed here to be $62,000,000 (=
$57,000,000 + $5,000,000}. This figure does not include infrastructure costs which would normally
be included in desalination plant costs. It is difficult to estimate what this figure would be given that
not all infrastructure on the 55 acre site will be used for the desalination project.
Further, the previous project also planned to use existing infrastructure on the site. So for
comparison purposes, this difficult to estimate cost is not included in either capital cost.
The approaches taken here to estimate the capital cost of the desalination plant are:
o #1- comparison with specific historic and relevant costs for similar systems
o #2- use of cost predictors
Approach #1:
o The previous same-site project [2] listed a project capital cost of $145,200,000 for a 20 mgd
desalination plant and transfer pipeline based on 2006 dollars. Land (site} is not purchased
but is rented and the total cost does not consider a solar system. The cost of the transfer
pipeline is $19,500,000. The desalination plant cost is taken to be $125,700,000 (=
$145,200,000- $19,500,000}.
o Comparing desalination plant and transfer pipeline costs for the two projects requires
adjusting the 2006 costs for inflation to a present day cost using a factor of 1.12 (based on
yearly inflation rates}. This gives a 20 mgd desalination plant cost of $140,250,000
(=$125,700,000 * 1.12} and a pipeline cost of $21,800,000 (=$19,500,000 * 1.12}.
o The desalination plant comparison becomes $140,250,000 for the previously proposed 20
mgd plant versus $62,000,000 for the currently proposed 10 mgd plant.
o The previous project has a unit capital cost of $7.0/gpd (= $140,250,000/20 mgd} whereas
the proposed project has a unit capital cost of $6.2/gpd (=$62,000,000/10 mgd}. Normally
the larger plant would have a lower unit capital cost due to economies of scale.
o From this approach, the previous project value of $140,250,000 for a 20 mgd plant appears
high or the proposed value of $62,000,000 for a 10 mgd plant appears to be low.
o The difference in unit cost may be due to profit which is part of the previous project but not
of the proposed project; it may also be due to anticipated legal and administrative costs in
anticipation of legal issues- something that the present proposal proponent does not
anticipate. It may also be due to a higher contingency factor assumed in the previous
project.
10
Approach #2:
o In late 2009 John Tonner developed a seawater reverse osmosis chart showing the
relationship between capital cost and plant size [13]. It is based on data of worldwide plants
and represents an average obtained by curve fitting many data points.
o The chart suggests that capital costs for a 20 mgd plant, adjusted for inflation to present
day, would be about $100,000,000 and for a 10 mgd plant about $56,000,000. This data
suggests that the previous project value of $140,250,000 for the 20 mgd plant was high and
that the $62,000,000 value for the proposed 10 mgd plant is reasonable.
It should be noted that the capital costs for the Tonner chart are total costs and thus include a
profit. As noted above, the present proposal does not include a profit- as the only financial benefit
to the owner is associated with the sale (undervalue} ofthe land.
Approach #2:
o A recent study [14] examining historical and more recent costs of seawater reverse osmosis
desalination plants reached the following conclusions:
More recent costs are not significantly different from inflated historical costs.
The typical range for unit capital costs for facilities of 10 mgd and greater is $4 to
$6/gpd.
o Note that the proposed unit capital cost is $6.2/gpd ($62,000,000/10,000,000 gpd}. Note
also that this calculation used the $62,000,000 value for the desalination plant- one that, as
stated above, is a low side estimate of the proposed cost of the desalination plant as
presented in the proposal. Thus the proposed unit capital cost may be somewhat greater
than $6.2/gpd.
While cost comparisons with other seawater desalination plants are always difficult due to each site
being different, each design having somewhat different concerns, and reported costs being
developed on different bases, the above analysis supports the proposed capital cost of $62,000,000
for the 10 mgd desalination plant appears to be well in agreement with historical and more recent
desalination plant costs.
REFERENCES
[1] personal communications with Nader Agha.
[2] Monterey Bay Regional Desalination Project: Conceptual Design Report by Pajaro/Sunny Mesa
Community Services District in Cooperation with Poseidon Resources Corporation, March, 2006
[3] Final Report: Evaluation of Seawater Desalination Projects Proposed for the Monterey Peninsula.
submitted to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District; prepared by GEI/Bookman
Edmonston, Separation Processes Inc, and Malcolm Pirney Inc., February 20, 2008.
[4] Replacement Cost Appraisal Summary Report prepared by Landmark Realty Analysts, Inc. October 3,
2011.
[5] personal communications with Sam Bose, former facilities manager with Kaiser National Materials
and Refractory, February 24 and March 5, 2012.
[6] personal communications with Dr. Peter von Langen, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board, on February9,10, 28 and March 5, 2012.
[7] personal communication with Dominic Gregorio, State Water Resources Control Board, on February
13, 2012.
[8] personal communication with Dr. Kenneth Coale, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories on February 13,
2012.
[9] California Regional Water Control Board Central Coast Region NPDES permit No. CA0007005, Order
No. R3-2009-0002
[10] personal communications with Ryan Brown, CEO Urban Algae, Inc. on March 1, 3, 5, 2012.
11
[11] from: http://www. masterresou rce.org/2009/11/h igh-ca pita 1-costs-plagu e-sola r-rps-m a ndates-
cost-dilution-via-energy-mixing-required-part-iii/
[12] personal communication with Dennis Esteban, County of Monterey Public Works, Planning and
Building Department, March 5, 2012.
[13] http:/ /www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/10/11/analysis/seawater-reverse-osmosis-desalination-
plant-costs-chart.html
[14] Bergman, R.A., J.R. Elarde, and R.P. Huehmer, Cost of Membrane Treatment- Current Costs and
Trends, presented at 2012 Membrane Technology Conference and Exposition, February 28, 2012,
Glendale, AZ.
In addition to the above references, helpful discussions were held with the proposal team members,
including Stan Leuck, George Schroeder, and Ben Movahed.
The statements and opinions expressed in this review are those ofthe author and do not necessarily
reflect opinions of proposal team members.
12
APPENDIX A: Portions of Site Appraisal Report [1]
from Improvements Description (page 10-11)
The Moss Landing Commercial Park is already improved with 34 industrial buildings as well as concrete
tanks sufficient to hold 44 million gallons of water. Some of the buildings on site were originally constructed
as long ago as the mid 1940s and early 1950s. Others were constructed more recently up into the 1980s.
However, extensive renovations, removal of interior subdivisions and old equipment and machinery and
more recent accurate measurements and calculations of space put the total size of the building improvements
at 318,552 square feet. Please see the Site Map in the Appendix which shows the distribution of the
buildings on the site and their measured dimensions.
Two of these buildings are being held in reserve for use by the proposed desalinization plant. Building One
is a warehouse building built in 1965 containing 20,800 square feet. It is a metal-frame building with metal
siding on a concrete slab foundation and has direct access to a rail spur along its south side. The building
dimensions are 80' x 260'. It has been completely refurbished and is in good condition as a shell building,
meaning that interior finishes will be done to the user's needs and specifications.
The second building reserved for the desalinization project use is Building 16, which was built in 1982. It
is a three- to four-story metal-clad building with a concrete frame containing 14,050 square feet. It also is
a refurbished shell building with interior finishes to be done to a user's needs and specifications.
Both buildings have new or partially new exterior siding and have been recently painted. The appraiser
considers the effective age for the buildings to be 10 years, with a remaining economic life of at least 35
years.
The former park rehabilitation manager, Sam Bose, estimated that all the existing improvements (excluding
20 acres ofthe land originally set aside for the desalinization plant) lie on approximately 90 acres of the
total usable site area of 164.89 acres. As noted, the desalinization plant was originally expected to occupy
20 acres. However, the anticipated site has been expanded to 55 acres in order to include a six megawatt
solar electric plant which will provide power for the desalinization plant and the rest of the park.
The existing improvements for the proposed desalinization plant also include seven five-million-gallon in-
ground concrete water tanks into which seawater can be pumped to begin the process of extracting salt and
other minerals. These tanks have been cleaned, refurbished, resealed and tested. The Calera Cement
13
Company on site uses some of these tanks for demineralizing seawater and would share the tanks with the
desalinization plant. There is a market for some or all of the salt and minerals removed from the water.
The improvements also include three three-million-gallon above-ground concrete tanks and three one-
million-gallon above-ground concrete tanks that can be used to store desalinized water. These tanks are in
basically sound condition but do need cleaning and some minor refurbishing.
The improvements also include an extensive system of pipes, values and pumps to bring water in from the
bay and move water around on site from one tank to another as it is processed. This includes two 36-inch
diameter intake pipes and two outfall pipes, both concrete, and one of which is 54 inches in diameter that
goes out to 300 feet deep in Monterey Bay. The pipes go under Highway 1 into the Moss Landing Harbor
Marina, and the bay pipe goes under the marina and the marina parking lot island, under the commercial
harbor, under the island on which the Marine Laboratory sits, and out into the bay. The pipes were installed
in the 1940s by Kaiser Industries and are essentially irreplaceable today given the development that has
occurred in Moss Landing in the decades since the pipes were built. They have been recently inspected and
are in good condition, needing only some minor repair and cleaning. As noted, some of them are being used
already by the Calera Cement Company operations in the Moss Landing Commercial Park.
Overall, the basic infrastructure for a seawater desalinization plant is mostly already extant in the Moss
Landing Commercial Park. The original facility built by Kaiser Industries was essentially a water
demineralizing plant, the purpose of which was to remove desired minerals- principally magnesium- from
the seawater. The demineralized water was then pumped back into the ocean. The facilities were used for
this purpose into the 1980s. Today, using modern technology, the same infrastructure can be used as the
basis for a modern state-of-the-art high-technology water desalinization plant that can provide millions of
gallons of potable water that can be put into the domestic water systems of Monterey County.
The existing improvements in the portion of the Moss Landing Commercial Park that is the subject of this
replacement cost analysis were constructed to extract minerals from seawater. The facilities are still viable
and usable today, and their projected use as the basis for a modern seawater desalinization plant constitutes
the highest and best use of the subject land and improvements today.
regarding cleanup, decontamination of land and groundwater (page 10-11)
Since the date of the most recent purchase, the owner has cleaned up the property by removing old industrial
equipment and interior partitioning from the buildings on site, renovating and painting the exteriors of the
buildings, cleaning up and decontaminating the land and ground water, and planning for new uses such as
a water desalinization plant and new industrial, warehouse and office uses of the renovated buildings. The
current owner reportedly has spent more than $30 million to date on these activities and expects to spend
perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars more before all the work of redeveloping the property is done. As
of the date of this valuation, most of the large concrete water tanks on the property have been cleaned,
repaired and sealed tor use by one of the tenants as a "green" cement pilot manutacturing plant or tor tuture
use as part of a water desalinization plant.
14
Old Salinas River
Moho Cojo Slough
Product water service to
Monterey Peninsula
Former National
Refractories Plant
Figure 1. General map of proposed desalination plant site and landmarks.
depiction of Monterey Submarine
Canyon; note head of canyon near
Moss Landing and discharge site
Figure 2. Monterey Submarine Canyon (from: http://www.mtycountv.com/mbs pgs/mbscyn.html)
15
Michael Mickley, P.E., Ph.D.
Dr. Mickley has over 44 years of experience in the field of membrane and process technology. He is
recognized nationally and internationally as a leading expert on the issues of saline effluent
management, and in the past fifteen years has given invited presentations in France, England, Israel,
Costa Rica, Cyprus, and across the United States.
Since 1990, most of the Dr. Mickley's efforts have been focused on the area of membrane concentrate
and salinity management. As a consultant to major engineering companies, he has prepared site-specific
evaluations of disposal options for several national and international desalination projects. Research
projects have been funded by AwwaRF, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Naval Research, and
WateReuse Research Foundation (WWRF), all addressing various concentrate management issues. His
most recent WWRF 2011 report entitled Development of a Knowledge Base for Desalination Concentrate
and Salt Management is a background reference report for the future development of concentrate
management guidelines. Dr. Mickley has also published numerous other articles and white papers on
desalination and concentrate management.
Dr. Mickley has collaborated with several engineering companies on projects evaluating concentrate
disposal alternatives for industrial and municipal clients. In municipal projects, he has worked, or is
currently working as subcontractor with several cities/agencies including Southern Nevada Water
Authority, Thornton, Colorado; City of Aurora, Colorado; County of Maui, Hawaii; City of San Antonio,
Texas; City of Brighton, Colorado; City of Melbourne, Australia; and many others.
He has worked on industrial projects in South Africa, Australia, Oman, and Kazakhstan, as well as in the
United States. In most ofthese situations, the general task is to identify and evaluate concentrate
disposal options and to assist in developing of conceptual designs for water treatment and concentrate
management solutions.
Dr. Mickley has also been the principal investigator in several projects addressing membrane
modification, membrane process pre-treatment, effluent management issues, and high recovery
processing of water and wastewater.
Dr. Mickley holds a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado, 1976, an M.S., University of Colorado, 1970
and a B.S., Illinois Institute ofTechnology, 1966. All degrees were in Chemical Engineering (B.S. included
a minor in Gas Technology). He is a Professional Engineer, State of Colorado (#18485).
Dr. Mickley is on the editorial board of Desalination and Water Treatment. Additional information on Dr.
Mickley and Mickley & Associates may be found at www.mickleyassoc.com.
16
Ben B. Movahed, PE, BCEE
President
Education:
Registrations:
Awards and
Presentations:
Professional
Affiliations:
MS/Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, USA, 1986
BS/Civil Engineering, University of Houston, USA, 1982
Registered Professional Engineer in seven states in USA. Board Certified
Environmental Engineer by the Academy of Environmental Engineers.
Mr. Movahed has received 10 awards from various national organizations,
such as American Water Works Associations, American Desalination
Association, and American Membrane Technology Association. He has
published I presented over 50 papers at various conferences and in national
journals. He has co-authored and edited books and continues teaching short
courses related to membrane technology to Johns Hopkins graduate students
and local water plant operators.
Board of Directors, American Membrane Technology Associates
(AMT A), 1999 to present.
President of the American Membrane Technology Association
(AMTA}, (2002-2004).
Member of Board of Directors, American Desalting Association (ADA},
1998-2000.
Chair of the Water Quality Committee, American Water Works
Association, Chesapeake Section, 1997 to 2000.
Member of American Water Works Association, International
Desalination Association, American Society of Civil Engineers and the
Washington Society of Engineers.
Summary of Experience 25 years of engineering experience in stud
Corporate Summary
ROD I Systems Corp., Aztec, New Mexico, USA
Summary: RODI Systems Corp. (RODI) is a multi-faceted design and manufacturing business specializing in water treat-
ment technology. RODI's products include membrane based water treatment systems such as reverse osmosis, nanofiltration,
and ultrafiltration. Application areas include seawater desalination, wastewater treatment and reclamation, and water purifi-
cation. RODI specializes in portable and mobile treatment systems. RODI also provides design and manufacturing services
specific to water treatment controls and instrumentation. Since 2001, RODI has supplied over six thousand control systems
to the water treatment industry. RODI was founded in 1995 and is located near Aztec, New Mexico.
IDSTORY
RODI was founded in 1995 as a consulting company to
broker used reverse osmosis (RO) and deionization (DI)
equipment. Within months of its founding, clients began
to ask for new equipment designed for specific applica-
tions. RODI accepted the task and has grown to be a
well-known and respected provider of high quality water
treatment systems, control systems, and instrumentation.
RODI was founded by Mr. Stan Lueck, a noted expert in
the field of membrane-based water treatment. Mr. Lueck
still serves as RODI's president and principal owner.
RODI's facilities include office and manufacturing space
located on a four acre site near Aztec, New Mexico, USA.
Aztec is in the northwest corner of New Mexico approxi-
mately 200 miles from Albuquerque, New Mexico, and
400 miles from Denver, Colorado. The nearest major
airport is Durango, Colorado (45 miles).
PRODUCT LINE
WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
RODI specializes in membrane-based water treatment
technologies such as reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, and
ultrafiltration. The applications listed below describe how
these technologies are used.
Desalination of Seawater - RODI has been designing
and building seawater desalination systems since its
founding in 1995. In this application, reverse osmosis is
used to remove fresh water from seawater for potable use,
industrial use, or irrigation.
Wastewater Treatment - RODI is well experienced in
using membrane treatment technologies for treating chal-
lenging wastewaters. Our systems are being used for
treating wastewaters from food and beverage processing,
oil and gas processing, textile dyeing, and contaminated
groundwater. RODI's membrane systems are also being
used to treat domestic wastewater (sewage).
Water Recycling and Rense - Because of the superior
quality from RODI's membrane-based water treatment
systems, the treated water from the systems is often suita-
ble for reuse without further treatment.
Portable Systems - RODI is well experienced in building
trailer-mounted and containerized treatment systems.
RODI's systems are currently in use worldwide. RODI's
PureBoxlM containerized systems were developed to be
an affordable, high quality system that can be rapidly de-
ployed to any point on the globe.
PRODUCT LINE
CONTROLS AND INSTRUMENTATION
As a water treatment systems integrator, RODI is unique
in that it designs and builds its own control and instru-
mentation products. In fact, RODI has sold thousands of
control systems to other water treatment systems integra-
tors. Here are some details on RODI's capabilities in the
area of controls and instrumentation:
Control System Integration - RODI is well experienced
in designing, building, and programming integrated con-
trol systems utilizing "off the shelf' control components.
RODI has provided sophisticated industrial control sys-
tems with over 500 I/0 points.
Instrumentation Design and Development - When the
appropriate instrumentation is not available, RODI de-
signs and builds the necessary instrument. Our EZSDIIM
automatic silt density monitors are in use all over the
world to monitor the quality of RO feed water.
OEM Controls- Since 2001, RODI has been providing
custom made control systems to other water treatment
systems integrators. RODI's control products are current-
ly in use on more than six thousand water treatment sys-
tems around the world.
Remote Monitoring - RODI has been building remote
monitoring systems since the late 1990's. The original
systems were designed to operate over simple "land line"
telephone modems. Over the years communication tech-
nology has developed rapidly. RODI now provides re-
mote monitoring systems capable of utilizing cellular in-
ternet gateways which allow clients to monitor their sys-
tems over the internet from anywhere in the world.
SERVICES
RODI offers a number of services both as an adjunct to its
treatment system and control products and as stand-alone
services to assist clients with specific problems.
Technical Support - RODI is proud of the technical sup-
port it provides its water treatment system clients.
RODI's responsiveness, knowledge, and experience allow
it to compete head-to-head with some of the largest cor-
porations on the planet. RODI's clients find comfort in
the fact that they can easily reach a real person knowl-
edgeable in their treatment system and application.
Operator Training - The high performance water treat-
ment systems provided by RODI are designed for ease of
operation and maintenance. However, it is still impera-
tive that the local operators be well trained to insure de-
pendable and cost-effective operation. The principals at
RODI have trained over 1000 water treatment system
operators during the length of their careers. RODI is
therefore well experienced in providing effective training,
even for those not familiar with water treatment.
Pilot Testing - Many challenging applications require
pilot testing before a full-scale system can be designed
and built. RODI can provide a complete test plan along
with rental equipment to ensure that, in the end, the full-
scale project is successful.
System Audits and Troubleshooting - RODI has helped
numerous clients get more value from their existing
treatment systems, even if the system wasn't provided by
RODI. By auditing the system, RODI can identify ways
in which the client can save money and increase perfor-
mance. In many cases, this can be done with a minimum
investment.
CONCLUSION
For almost twenty years, RODI Systems has been helping
clients solve their water treatment problems. Our
knowledge and experience allow us to provide solutions
that are effective and efficient utilizing both conventional
and high performance water treatment technologies.
RODI's products are in use in more than 7000 facilities
worldwide. Every day, those facilities process over 1.5
billion gallons of water.
RODI is anxious to help new and existing clients find
cost-effective solutions to their most challenging water
treatment problems.
505-334-5865 ph 505-334-5867 fax
www.rodisystems.com
email: info@rodisystems.com
936 Highway 516 Aztec, NM 87410
&RODI
~ s y s t e m s
CLIENT REFERENCES
Mr. Gregg Case
SeaWorld of Florida
7007 SeaWorld Drive
Orlando, FL 32821
407-363-2191
Email: Gregg.Case@SeaWorld.com
Mr. David Gray .
SeaWorld of Florida
7007 SeaWorld Drive
Orlando, FL 32821
407-363-2531
Email: David.Gray@SeaWorld.com
Mr. Rich Flint
Discovery Cove
6000 Discovery Cove Way
Orlando, FL 32821
407-370-1184
Email: Rich.Fiint@SeaWorld.com
Robert Korneluk
for
RODI Systems Corp.
936 Hwy 516
Aztec, NM 87410
Phone 505-334-5865
Fax 505-334-5867
Mr. Chuck Thomas
Cajun Controls LLC
Gonzales, LA
225-270-2401
Email: cthomas@cajuncontrols.com
Mr. Jim Riley
RG Systems
1050 Innovation Ave. Suite B1 05
North Port, FL 34289
813-230-2870
Email: jim.riley1 O@comcast.net
Mr. Lance Larkin
GE Energy
16415 Jacintoport Blvd
Houston, TX 77015
281-864-2567
Email: lance.larkin@ge.com
Powerhouse Equipment and Engineering Co.
240 Creek Road
Mr. Mikel Ferri
Siemens Industry
Orlando, FL
407-394-5702
Delanco, NJ 08075
856-368-8023
Email: robk@powerhouse.com
Mr. Robert Wells
Brown Sheep Company
1 00662 County Road 16
Mitchell, NE 69357
308-635-2198
Email: bsc_co@brownsheep.com
Mr. John Morgan
Hot Springs Power Co.
41 0 Henderson Road
Malvern, AR 721 04-7932
501-467-3232 x1 04
Email: John.Morgan@gdfsuezna.com
Email: mikel.ferri@siemens.com
Major Client List
RODI Systems Corp., Aztec, New Mexico, USA
Summary: Since its founding in 1995, RODI Systems Corp. (RODI) has served well over one hundred
clients around the world. The list below illustrates some of the major clients that have benefited from
RODI's products and services.
AES Corporation
Alabama Power
Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority
Naval Research Laboratory
Newport News Shipbuilding
Nortel North America
Northern Indiana Public Service
PG&E National Energy Group
Philips Semiconductor
American Electric Power
Anheuser Busch
Applied Membranes
Archer Daniels Midland
Baker Industrial Chemicals
GE Betz
Brown & Root
Calpine
Dow FilmTec
Duke Energy
Duke Fluor Daniel
Florida Power
GE Aero Energy
GE Automation Services
GE Power and Water
HarnR/0
Intel Corporation
ITT
Nalco
Ripley's Aquarium, Gatlinburg
Sea World of Florida
Seven Seas Water Corporation
Severn Trent
Siemens Water Technologies
Siemens-Westinghouse Power Corporation
Southern Company Services
Stewart and Stevenson
Tennessee Valley Authority
TU Electric
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
US Filter
Veolia
Water and Power Technologies
Watts Water Technologies
Williams Energy Services
505-334-5865 ph 505-334-5867 tax
www.rodisystems.com
aRODI
~ systems
Differentiating RODI Systems from Its Competition
ROD I Systems Corp., Aztec, New Mexico, USA
This document provides a comparison of RODI Systems' products and services to that of its competition.
The table shown below lists a number of points with the resulting comparison between RODI Systems
and its competition. Please note that the comparisons shown below are general in nature and based on
ROD I Systems' current knowledge of the competition. These points of comparison are not directed at any
one particular competitor.
Point of Comparison
Overall Experience
Desalination Experience
Waste Treatment
Experience
Portable Systems
Experience
Controls Capabilities
RODI Systems
RODI Systems has been designing and
building water treatment systems for
almost two decades. Moreover, the
principal owner of RODI has thirty-three
years of total technical experience in
water treatment and environmental
management.
RODI delivered its first desalination
system in 1995 and that system is still
in operation. Since then, RODI has
provided desalination systems for a
multitude of applications including
seawater treatment for potable water,
seawater treatment for industrial use,
ground water remediation, oil and gas
produced water treatment, and
industrial waste water treatment.
RODI has provided waste water
treatment systems for some of the most
challenging applications. These include
food and beverage waste, oil and gas
produced water, textile dyeing waste,
contaminated ground water, cooling
tower blowdown, and waste water from
natural gas processing.
RODI specializes in the design and
construction of portable and
containerized treatment systems.
RODI delivered its first portable system
in 1997. Since then, RODI has shipped
portable desalination, water purification,
and wastewater treatment systems
worldwide. Our experience has taught
us much in regard to designing,
building, and shipping portable
systems.
RODI has a long history in designing,
building, and programming its own
control systems. RODI also supplies
controls to other major water treatment
manufacturers including Siemens and
GE. Since 2001, ROD I has supplied
over 5,000 controllers to other water
treatment OEMs.
Competition
Very few competitors can match RODI's
lifetime in the business. Even fewer
can match that lifetime under the same
ownership as they have changed
ownership during their lifetime and their
tenure exists in name only.
Many competitors specialize in only one
area, the desalination of seawater for
potable use. While they have gained
experience in that application, they lack
the broad experience that RODI has
acquired by working in other, more
challenging applications.
With the possible exception of the
large, multi-national firms, very few
competitors have the same broad
experience in both waste water
treatment and water purification. Those
that do are seldom as cost-effective as
ROD I.
Only a handful of competitors specialize
in portable systems. Many of these are
located outside the U.S. and do not
adhere to the quality standards set forth
by RODI.
No other water treatment systems
suppliers are known to match RODI's
controls capabilities.
Instrumentation Capabilities
Treatment System Design
Technical Support and
Operator Training
RODI holds several patents for unique
monitoring systems designed
specifically for monitoring reverse
osmosis (RO) systems. RODI's
EZSDI automatic silt density index
monitors are used around the world for
monitoring the quality of RO feed water.
RODI takes a very conservative
approach in designing its water
treatment systems. RODI uses only the
best quality components. Membrane
flux rates are kept to minimum.
Materials are selected corrosion
resistance and durability.
RODI is proud of its reputation for
providing on-going support to its clients
around the world. RODI is dedicated to
ensuring its clients receive the
maximum value from the treatment
systems and products supplied by
RODI. The principals at RODI have
trained over 1000 water treatment
operators during their careers. Their
experience carries forward as RODI
provides training to its clients and
distributors.
No other water treatment systems
suppliers are known to match RODI's
instrumentation capabilities.
Many competitors take shortcuts in
design and fabrication simply for the
sake of price.
Very few competitors can match RODI's
experience and dedication in supporting
system owners, especially in the area
of operator training. Short-lived
competitors may be able to provide an
inexpensive system but can fall short
on providing long-term support.
505-334-5865 ph 505-334-5867 fax
www.rodisystems.com
aRODI

Summary of Major Membrane-Related Water Treatment Projects
RODI Systems Corp., Aztec, New Mexico, USA
Summary: Since its founding in 1995, RODI Systems Corp. (RODI) has completed numerous
membrane-related water treatment projects around the world. The list below illustrates some of the major
projects that RODI has completed in the areas of seawater desalination, brackish desalination, and waste
water treatment utilizing membrane technologies.
Client: AES Deepwater, Inc.
Location: Pasadena, Texas
Description: Design and pilot testing of a 2 million gallon per day (MGD) reverse osmosis (RO) system
for treating municipal wastewater effluent for use as boiler makeup in a 100 megawatt power plant and
adjacent oil refinery.
Client: Cajun Controls
Location: Port Arthur, Texas
Description: Design, fabrication, installation, and startup of a 2 MGD RO system for treating brackish
water for use as boiler makeup in 275,000 barrel per day crude oil refinery. This project was completed
(installed and operating) within sixteen weeks ofreceipt of order.
Client: Infinity Research and Development
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Description: Startup and troubleshooting of a ultrafiltration (UF) and RO system used for reclamation of
oil field produced water.
Client: AES Deepwater, Inc.
Location: Pasadena, Texas
Description: Design and fabrication of 120 gpm RO unit treating surface water from the Channel
Industrial Water Association (CIWA). System also included an inclined plate clarifier, and multi-media
filtration. RODI also added local 110 panels to the plants existing Allen-Bradley control system to
monitor and control the RO system (including pretreatment).
Client: Modular Systems International
Location: Suez, Egypt
Description: Startup and troubleshooting of two RO based wastewater recovery systems in a palm oil
refining plant. These systems involved extensive pretreatment steps including dissolved air flotation.
Client: Southern Company Services
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Description: Design and fabrication of a PC based monitoring and control system for an industrial RO
unit used for preparation of boiler makeup. This system included a custom-programmed panel-mounted
PC with ISA type 1/0. The system was designed to not only control the RO unit but also log and
graphically display normalized operating data.
Client: Alabama Power
Location: Mobile, Alabama
Description: Design and fabrication of a PC based monitoring and control system for an industrial RO
unit used for preparation of boiler makeup. This system included a custom-programmed panel-mounted
PC interfaced with a RODI Systems AquaLynx monitoring unit. The system was designed to not only
control the RO unit but also log and graphically display normalized operating data.
Client: Sea World of Florida
Location: Orlando, Florida
Description: Design, fabrication, and startup of a seawater RO system. This system was used for
maintaining the salinity of the seawater in the killer whale habitat. The RO was built on a fiberglass skid
and incorporated two multi-stage centrifugal pumps in series as opposed to a single positive displacement
pump. The RO unit included a PC based monitoring and control system.
Description: Refurbished a seawater RO system used to control salinity in various animal habitats of the
marine park. The project included replacing the existing control system with one ofRODI's AquaLynx
LX control units.
Client: Nortel North America
Location: Nepean, Ontario
Description: Assisted the client in interfacing an RO unit with the central building control system in a
semi-conductor fabrication facility. This required the use of a panel-mounted PC which interfaced with
the Landis & Staefa building control network. In addition to providing the control panel with the PC
hardware, RODI Systems provided consulting and startup assistance to complete the project.
Client: Seven Seas Water Corporation
Location: St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands
Description: Design and fabrication of a micro-processor based monitoring system for a seawater RO
system. System included modem communication for remote.
Description: Design and fabrication of a PLC-based monitoring and control system for a seawater RO
system. System included monitoring and control panel and motor control panel.
Description: Assisted in refurbishing a containerized portable seawater RO system. The refurbished
system included energy recovery and modem communication for remote monitoring and data download.
Client: Seawater Systems, Inc.
Location: Los Cabos, Mexico
Description: Design, programming, and fabrication of monitoring and control systems for three separate
seawater RO units serving resort hotels. Systems featured Modicon PLCs communicating with a
Telemechanique Magelis HMI using Modbus protocol.
Client: Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
Location: Healy, Alaska
Description: Provided a system audit and troubleshooting services for a 200 gpm RO and mixed bed
treatment system for boiler makeup at a 120 megawatt power plant.
Client: Siemens Westinghouse
Location: Merida, Mexico
Description: Provided startup and troubleshooting services for a 0.5 MGD RO and mixed bed treatment
system for boiler makeup at a 200 megawatt power plant.
Client: Newport News Shipbuilding
Location: Newport News, Virginia
Description: Design of a seawater RO monitoring system for use aboard the CVNX class aircraft carrier
and the Virginia class fast attack submarine.
Client: Dow FilmTec
Location: Orange County, California
Description: Design, programming, and installation of a monitoring and control system in FilmTec's
mobile RO pilot plant. This plant was used in a performance study to demonstrate the use of
FilmTec's membranes for Orange County's 70 million gallon per day water reclamation project. The
monitoring and control system was rather extensive considering the size of the plant. Based upon an
Allen-Bradley MicroLogix 1500, it provides multiple PID loops for flow and pressure control in the
RO. The system also logs all operating data and provides for remote data retrieval via modem.
Description: Design and fabrication of a trailer-mounted portable seawater RO system. The system had
two membrane passes to insure permeate quality. The system included one ofRODI's AquaLynx
monitoring and control systems.
Client: A2 Water
Location: Austin, Texas
Description: Design, startup, and troubleshooting of an RO system with UF pretreatment. The RO
permeate was treated further with ion exchange and used as boiler feed. Surface water with high turbidity
was used as the feed source. RODI was also responsible for the design, fabrication, installation,
programming, and startup of the PLC based control system used on the UF/RO.
Client: Discovery Cove
Description: Design and fabrication of a trailer-mounted portable seawater RO system. The system
included one ofRODI's AquaLynx monitoring and control systems.
Client: Ripley's Aquarium
Location: Gatlinburg, Tennessee
Description: Design and fabrication of a seawater RO system used to control salinity in various marine
habitats. The unit was mounted on a fiberglass skid and controlled with one ofRODI's AquaLynx
monitoring and control systems.
Description: Refurbished an existing seawater RO system. The project included replacing the existing
control system with one ofRODI's AquaLynx LX control units.
Description: Design, fabrication, and startup of an integrated membrane treatment system utilizing UF,
nanofiltration (NF), and RO for recovering contaminated seawater. This trailer-mounted system included
extensive monitoring and control hardware including several ofRODI's AquaLynx LX control units.
Client: Calera
Location: Moss Landing, California
Description: Design and fabrication of a dual train integrated membrane (UF and RO) seawater
desalination system. The system was used as a research tool for studying the feasibility of recovering
alkaline earth metals from seawater for use in manufacturing "green" cement.
Client: Stephen Ross Winery
Location: San Luis Obispo, California
Description: Design, fabrication, and startup of a containerized membrane bioreactor (MBR) system for
treatment of winery wastewater.
Client: Brown Sheep Company
Location: Scottsbluff, Nebraska
Description: Design, fabrication, installation, and startup of an integrated membrane treatment system
(UF and RO) for the treatment of saline wastewater from a wool dyeing operation. The desalinated
wastewater is reused in the facility as boiler makeup.
Client: General Electric
Location: Nigeria
Description: Design and fabrication of a containerized brackish water RO unit for production of potable
water for a remotely located cement plant. The project was completed within six weeks of receipt of
order.
Client: National Research Laboratory
Location: Libya
Description: Design and fabrication of aUF and RO pilot plant for furthering the design of a ten million
gallon per day seawater desalination plant. RODI also provided extensive field support to the client's
personnel on the ground in Libya.
505-334-5865 ph 505-334-5867 fax
www.rodisystems.com
ROD I
systems

Moss Landing Commercial Park Submittal To TAC OCR Document

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moss Landing Commercial Park Submittal To TAC OCR Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.

You might also like