Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Regular Meeting

2:00 PM, Monday, September 17, 2012
Council Chambers
Few Memorial Hall of Records
Monterey, California

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

1. Receive Report From MPRWA Board Meeting of September 13, 2012

2. Receive Other Reports from TAC Members

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Discuss Kris Helm Preliminary Findings and Next Steps

4. Discuss SPI Preliminary Scoping and Constraints Evaluation Memorandum and Next
Steps (Stoldt)

5. Plan October TAC Meeting Schedule and Agendas

ADJOURNMENT


The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all of
its services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California Relay
Service (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of the
Authority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a
meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office at
(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.

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


MPRWA TAC Meeting, 9/17/2012 , tem No. 4., tem Page 1, Packet Page 1
Date: August 30, 2012
To: Dave Stoldt
From: Alex Wesner
Subject: Monterey Desalination Study Initial Scoping and Constraints Analysis

SUMMARY
Consistent with the Scope of Services, we have completed an initial review of proponent projects
from California American Water (Cal-Am), the DeepWater Desal group (DWD), and the
Peoples Moss Landing project (PML). This review included the proponent proposals and
responses to questions submitted to Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) as well as in-person interviews and site investigations
conducted with members of each proponent team. Each team also provided supplemental
information and materials which are described in the individual proponent discussions below.
The scoping and constraint evaluation focused on several discrete categories of evaluation,
including technical feasibility, reliability, schedule and cost. The evaluation was preliminary in
nature, examining each project on a screening basis to determine if any proponent project should
be excluded from the more detailed evaluation to follow. The evaluation was conducted based
on the information available at this time, which was somewhat limited in nature. The subsequent
evaluation will seek to obtain additional information to inform the analysis.
In summary, each candidate project has attendant risk, with none considered to be disqualifying
at this juncture. The project proponents at this stage have completed varying degrees of design
and cost development. It is our opinion that the MPRWA Board deserves a full examination of
each; and that only a balanced evaluation on a uniform set of criteria can provide the necessary
information. We therefore recommend the inclusion of each proponent project in the full
evaluation. As criteria for the full evaluation, we will look to establish the following:
Uniformity in plant design capacity for the two non-regional approaches; equivalent
capacity allocation for the proposed DWD regional project.
Equivalency in treatment to achieve: a common reverse osmosis (RO) feed water quality
following pretreatment; a common treated water quality goal; and pathogen removal
credits required for the applicable supply source.
Uniformity in equipment redundancy.
Uniformity in unit cost criteria for common items.
Uniformity in cost factors applied to aggregated costs (e.g., contingencies; electrical and
I&C costs; etc.).
Uniformity in unit costs for chemicals and other consumables for treatment evaluations.
A discussion of the individual elements of our evaluation across the three candidate projects is
presented below.
Separation Processes, Inc.
3156 Lionshead Ave.,Suite 2
Carlsbad, CA 92010
Tel: 760-400-3660
Fax: 760-400-3661
www.spi-engineering.com
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 9/17/2012 , tem No. 4., tem Page 2, Packet Page 2
Attachment A
SPI MEMORANDUM August 30, 2012
Subject: Initial Scoping and Constraints Analysis Page 2


DISCUSSION
The three proponent proposals to MPRWA were evaluated at this initial phase along with
supplemental documentation from each team for the purposes of this initial investigation. This
supplemental information included the following:
For Cal-Am:
Presentation: Technical Workshops on Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project A.12-
04-019; July 26 & 27, 2012
Presentation: Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Presentation to Monterey Co.
Water Resources Agency, June 25, 2012
Presentation: Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, April 23, 2012
Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and
Future Costs in Rates, Filed April 23, 2012 before the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California
Memorandum (CEQA Project Description), dated April 20, 2012 To: Richard Svindland,
California American Water; From: Paul Findley/Kevin Thomas/Sarp Sekeroglu, RBF
Consulting; Subject: Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Project
Description
Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and
Future Costs in Rates, Direct Testimony of Keith Israel Filed April 23, 2012 before the
Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and
Future Costs in Rates, Direct Testimony of Eric J. Sabolsice Filed April 23, 2012 before
the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and
Future Costs in Rates, Direct Testimony of F. Mark Schubert, P.E. Filed April 23, 2012
before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and
Future Costs in Rates, Direct Testimony of Richard C. Svinland Filed April 23, 2012
before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Presentation: Monterey Water Supply Analysis, October 26, 2011
Technical Memorandum: Implementation Schedule Risk Analysis of Water Supply
Alternatives, Paul Findley, RBF Consulting, October 24, 2011
Technical Memorandum: Cost Analysis of Water Supply Alternatives, Paul Findley, RBF
Consulting, October 19, 2011

MPRWA TAC Meeting, 9/17/2012 , tem No. 4., tem Page 3, Packet Page 3
SPI MEMORANDUM August 30, 2012
Subject: Initial Scoping and Constraints Analysis Page 3


For DWD:
Presentation: An Oceanographic Solution to Produce Fresh Water, Corporate
Presentation, August 2012

For PML:
The Peoples Moss Landing Water Desal Project Fresh Water for All, Important New
Updates, July 2012 (Includes the Replacement Cost Appraisal Summary Report produced
by Landmark Realty Analysts, Inc., October 3, 2011)
Structural Evaluation, Intake and Outfall Pipelines, Intake Pump Station, and Water
Storage Reservoirs, The Peoples Moss Landing Water Desalination Project, Moss
Landing Green Commercial Park, Moss Landing, CA by JAMSE Engineering Inc.
August 14, 2012
Environmental Technical Services Inc. Report on results of Asbestos Cleaning Materials
and Lead Based Paint, April 25, 2005.
In addition, we made site specific visits and met with representatives of each project on August
20, 2012. The materials were used in our initial evaluation of each project in the areas of
Technical Feasibility, Reliability, Schedule and Cost. Our findings regarding each category with
respect the individual candidates are included below.

Technical Feasibility
All of the candidate projects appear to have or the ability to acquire land for their proposed
facilities. Remaining issues related to supply, treatment, and brine disposal are discussed
individually below.
Cal-Am
The Cal-Am approach proposes a seawater supply system from new slant wells constructed on
the coast. Water would be treated with single stage, dual media filtration in either gravity beds
or pressure filters. The pretreated water would be stored and fed to the RO desalination process
units, consisting of first and second pass RO trains. The second pass trains would treat 40 50
percent of the product water produced by the first pass trains, resulting in a final treated product
with a 40 50 percent blend of second pass product to first pass product. The blended RO
product supply would be stabilized through calcite contact beds and supplemental carbon
dioxide. Disinfection would be through sodium hypochlorite addition; although there is
discussion of potentially using UV disinfection in series on a temporary basis. Solids from the
pretreatment system would be sent to a settling basin with decant sent along with RO brine to the
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Authoritys outfall.
Two facility designs are proposedone producing 5.4 mgd and a second producing 9.0 mgd;
targeted at producing an annual supply of 5,500 AFY and 9,000 AFY, respectively.
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 9/17/2012 , tem No. 4., tem Page 4, Packet Page 4
SPI MEMORANDUM August 30, 2012
Subject: Initial Scoping and Constraints Analysis Page 4


The overall approach is considered acceptable. The quality of water produced by the slant wells
is likely to be low in solids and particulate, making the use of additional filtration ahead of the
RO process membranes conservative. There is a chance the wells could take up iron and
manganese laden water, in which case removal could be accomplished across the filters with
supplemental oxidant addition (as proposed by Cal-Am). The concentrate disposal strategy
appears feasible and the capacity of the outfall should be adequate under most operating
scenarios. Cal-Am has also proposed up to 3.0 million gallons of additional brine storage on site
to provide operational flexibility.
DWD
DWD proposes to draw seawater through a new open ocean intake installed at approximately 65-
ft depth in the Monterey Bay across from Moss Landing, beneath the photic zone. The intake
would be screened, which, in concert with the intakes depth, is intended to limit the
impingement and entrainment of marine organisms. For the new intake line there is an existing
intake line and easement owned and maintained by the Moss Landing Power Plant (MLPP). It is
proposed to use the existing easement and install a new, larger diameter intake line in place of
the existing pipeline. It is noted that the existing 24-in pipeline has a constricted access vault
crossing Highway 1 that may be too constrained to pass the proposed 48-in intake pipeline. In
this case, it may be necessary to provide two parallel lines and a new easement for that portion of
the alignment.
The supply would be drawn through an existing, abandoned wet well and pump station at the
Moss Landing Power Plant (MLPP) site. The raw water would be pumped through a proprietary
warming system located in an existing structure at the MLPP to increase its temperature from 8
C up to 29 35 C. The heated supply would be piped to the proposed treatment plant site and
treated with single stage, dual media filters. Facilities for pre-oxidation and coagulant addition
ahead of the filters are considered. The pretreated supply would be stored and pumped to the
RO membrane process, proposed as a single pass system. The RO product supply would be
stabilized through calcite contact beds and supplemental carbon dioxide. Disinfection would be
through sodium hypochlorite addition. Solids from the pretreatment system would be sent with
other process residuals to an equalization basin, with supernatant drawn off to a proposed
concentrate basin for subsequent disposal. The preferred location for concentrate disposal is the
mixing vault at MLPP for the existing cooling water outfall. It is unclear at the this time whether
or not DWD will be granted access to the existing outfall, in which case they would need to
provide a new, stand-alone outfall.
Two facilities designs are proposed, broken into two phases. The first phase envisions
construction of 9.1 mgd treatment system to supply the Monterey Peninsula. The second phase
would expand the plant to 22.3 mgd to supply water to northern customers.
The overall approach appears feasible. While the quality of water produced by a deep water
intake is unproven, conventional media filtration could be effective and further assured through a
second stage of filtration if needed. The proprietary warming equipment is a poorly detailed
black box and hence an area of concern. However, with sufficient redundancy and/or bypass
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 9/17/2012 , tem No. 4., tem Page 5, Packet Page 5
SPI MEMORANDUM August 30, 2012
Subject: Initial Scoping and Constraints Analysis Page 5


capabilities it could be acceptable. Lastly, while DWD does not explain in their existing project
documentation how they would service a 5,500 AFY demand condition for the Monterey
Peninsula it is not considered an insurmountable barrier at this time.
PML
PML is considering two alternative intake approaches currentlyone to use an existing open
intake pumping system in the Moss Landing Harbor and existing supply pipelines; and a second
to modify an existing outfall and use it as supply line drawing water from the bay, similar to the
DWD intake. With either intake alternative, they propose to treat the incoming supply with
single stage, granular media filters and store the filtrate in a clear well ahead of the RO
membrane process units. There is no reference within the documents as to whether the proposed
RO process is a single pass system or includes a partial or full second pass. Post-treatment
facilities are referenced but not specified in any detail. Similarly, a proposed solids handling
system is referenced but not detailed in terms of approach or equipment. It is proposed that
brine and other process residuals be discharged through an existing 51-in (internal diameter)
concrete outfall with discharge to the bay.
PML has proposed two facility design capacities4.8 mgd and 9.4 mgd. These capacities are
targeted at providing 5,500 AFY and 10,700 AFY, respectively.
The lack of specificity in the PML treatment approach is a concern, but not considered
disqualifying. With the right treatment approach, a facility could be constructed on the proposed
site; and available existing infrastructure could be a benefit. The use of the existing outfall as an
intake supply conduit seems likely, based on our site visit; but details on the proposed
configuration remain to be specified, particularly in the context of brine disposal. The proposed
use of single stage granular media filtration as pretreatment is a concern, but could be modified
as part of a subsequent proposal or cost assessment.

Reliability
Our initial evaluation of reliability considered both potential issues with treatment approach as
well as equipment reliability/redundancy considerations. A discussion of each candidate facility
is presented below.
Cal-Am
From an approach perspective, concerns with the Cal-Am proposal center on the use of slant
wells for the intake supply. Slant wells have associated benefits in terms of the water quality
produced over open intakes. The technology is, however, new, and the long term capacity of
slant wells is not assured. Should loss of capacity occur the facility could lose production and
fail to meet established delivery targets.
The slant wells are also projected to draw a small amount (3 percent) of groundwater from local
aquifers in addition to seawater. That amount of capture is factored into the Cal-Am treatment
approach, which seeks to treat and return an equivalent amount of water to the aquifer system
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 9/17/2012 , tem No. 4., tem Page 6, Packet Page 6
SPI MEMORANDUM August 30, 2012
Subject: Initial Scoping and Constraints Analysis Page 6


through the desalination treatment facility (replenish with facility product water). The risk in
this case is if the proportion of groundwater extracted with the supply is higher than projected,
forcing a higher requirement for the replenishment supply and decreasing the amount of water
available for delivery to the distribution system.
While the above issues are a concern the risks can be mitigated. Cal-Am has proposed to install
a test slant well that will assist in collecting data necessary to verify hydraulic modeling of the
proposed well field. This should assist in determining the amount of groundwater captured and
allow adjustment to the treatment facility capacity if needed. In terms of the well capacity issue,
the test well should help collect initial data and allow assessment of transmissivity. If it is found
to be too low, an alternate subsurface intake approach could be considered (e.g. Ranney-style
collector). If initial data are positive, then uncertainties in later years can be offset by
conservative planning for well maintenance and/or replacement or installation of new wells.
In terms of equipment reliability and redundancy, the Cal-Am approach seems sufficient. Major
rotating equipment items and process units are proposed with N+1 redundancy, including the
first and second pass RO trains. The proposal also includes a backup engine generator to supply
the product water distribution pumps in the event of a power outage.
DWD
The primary process-related concern for the DWD approach is the single-stage media filtration
pretreatment. While particulate entrainment of the proposed intake may be low, it likely cannot
be assured. Without pilot verification, we feel a two-stage filtration approach would be
appropriate.
Secondarily, an unspecified heat exchange system at the front-end of the treatment process
introduces additional uncertainty. With no track record of successful operation it could prove
unreliable and affect performance of the entire treatment system. While it could be bypassed, the
colder water would impact permeability of the RO process membranes and increase operating
pressure or reduce capacity, depending on capabilities of the process pumps.
Each of the above issues could be mitigated through a revised treatment approach.
In terms of equipment redundancy, there is insufficient information in the proponent documents
to make an assessment at this time.
PML
For PML it is difficult to make an assessment of treatment process risk without a defined intake
strategy. A harbor intake would likely require coagulation in association with
clarification/dissolved air flotation followed by membrane based microfiltration/ultrafiltration
pretreatment at a minimum; while the bay intake could suffice with dual-stage media filtration.
There is a defined concern with the condition of the existing outfall, which may be used for an
intake, outfall, or both. While the above referenced JAMSE Engineering Inc. Structural
Evaluation indicates only minor damage to the outfall, its scope and level of examination is ill
defined. Photographic evidence is referenced but not provided; and there is no description of the
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 9/17/2012 , tem No. 4., tem Page 7, Packet Page 7
SPI MEMORANDUM August 30, 2012
Subject: Initial Scoping and Constraints Analysis Page 7


extent or method of inspection. Other documents, including a previous evaluation of regional
projects on the Monterey Peninsula conducted by SPI and Bookman-Edmonston in 2004,
reference damage to the outfall. The 2004 report included photographs showing a section of the
line decoupled along with significant fouling of the line terminus.
The pretreatment issue can be mitigated through application of revised treatment approach once
the intake scheme is finalized. Additional information on the condition of the outfall is required
to make a final determination, but at the outside could be ameliorated through installation of a
new outfall within the existing easement.
Schedule
Our initial evaluation of schedule focused exclusively on the design and construction portions of
the proposed work. Permit and CEQA issues as they relate to schedule will be addressed in our
final report. Major milestone completion dates from each candidate proposal are summarized in
the table below.

Summary of Proponent Estimated Schedules
1

Cal-Am DWD PML
CPUC Approval: 12/13
Test Slant Well: 4/14
DB Selection: 12/13
DBB Design: 8/14
Pipeline Comp.: 6/16
Const./Startup: 12/16

Permits Complete: 8/13
JPA Formed: 8/13
Project Funded: 8/13
Design Complete: 4/13
Const./Startup: 9/15

Permits Complete: 9/14
Financing Obtained: 9/14
Const./Startup: 1/16
1
Dates provided by project proponents have not been verified and are subject to further analysis.
Cal-Am is proposing a design-build (DB) delivery approach for the treatment plant and has set a
36-month schedule for project design, delivery and startup. Wells and pipelines would be
constructed via conventional design-bid-build (DBB). The schedule for design and construction
of the plant appears conservative; but could effectively be modified in April 2014 when the
planted testing of the slant well is complete. This could reduce the overall design and
construction schedule from 36 to 32 months. It is likely that the overall project could be
delivered from a design and construction perspective according to the proposed schedule, and
possibly accelerated from 4 to 6 months.
The DWD proposes common construction schedule for the plant and project pipelines of roughly
29 months. This is gauged to be achievable. We do question the design completion date of April
2013 which predates the formation of the planned facility joint powers authority (JPA) and
project funding. Providing enough funding can be arranged prior to that date, or design activities
are performed at-risk, the schedule could stand.
The PML proposal does not propose a milestone for design completion so it is left to conjecture.
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 9/17/2012 , tem No. 4., tem Page 8, Packet Page 8
SPI MEMORANDUM August 30, 2012
Subject: Initial Scoping and Constraints Analysis Page 8


But if the design does not commence prior to project funding in September 2014, the schedule
leaves only 16 months for design and construction. This is considered very aggressive for a
project of this magnitude, which must include a long product water distribution pipeline.
Though some existing infrastructure at the site could be used, this is likely to offset at most 3 to 4
months of work at the site. A schedule allowing 26 months for design and construction would be
recommended at this stage of project development.
It appears that any of the candidate projects could be completed by January 1, 2017 from a
design and construction perspective.

Cost
Capital and annual operating and maintenance costs for each project were extracted from the
available documents and are summarized in the table below. For capital costs, all identified
contingencies and other like factors (e.g., accuracy estimates) were removed from the base
capital costs to alleviate substantive differences among the three proponents. No adjustments
were made to listed operating costs. All of the cost data presented represent the 9,000 AFY
project scenario from each proponent.
Summary of Estimated Proponent Costs
1
Cal-Am DWD PML
Capital: $166.8M
Annual O&M: $12.76M
2


Capital: $147.0M
Annual O&M: $6.8M

Capital: $128.7M
Annual O&M: $9.35M

1
Cost estimates provided by proponents have not been verified and are subject to further analysis.
2
Includes cost associated the Begonia Iron Removal Plant (BIRP), Segunda Pump Station, and Aquifer Storage and
Recovery (ASR) pump station.
From a capital cost perspective, the highest and lowest cost projects are separated by roughly 30
percent at this stage. Given the disparity in treatment approach and level of equipment
specificity the differential is not considered unreasonable. It is our opinion that the level of
facility information developed by each proponent is sufficient to develop at most a Class 5 cost
estimate as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, having an
accuracy range of -30 to +50 percent. Cal-Ams costs appear high, but their level of project
definition is comparably greater, and includes large additional cost factors associated with
implementation, right-of-way, and mitigation that the others lack. Also, Cal-Am has proposed a
partial 2-pass RO system along with significant levels of equipment redundancy that the other
proposals dont appear to match. Going forward, our analysis will seek to correct for such
differences.
No proponent has provided much detail on what cost assumptions have been made in developing
the listed O&M cost estimates at this stage (e.g., cost electricity, cost of chemicals, cost of
equipment replacement, etc.). While Cal-Am has provided chemical use quantities and pump
operating assumptions, the others have not. Without that information, a detailed examination of
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 9/17/2012 , tem No. 4., tem Page 9, Packet Page 9
SPI MEMORANDUM August 30, 2012
Subject: Initial Scoping and Constraints Analysis Page 9


operating costs cannot be made at this time.
Given the absence of apples to apples cost information currently available, it is not
recommended to disqualify any proponent on a cost basis at this time. We have made additional
data requests of each proponent, which, if fulfilled, will provide additional information on which
to base our subsequent evaluation and comparative analysis.

Cc: Gerry Filteau
MPRWA TAC Meeting, 9/17/2012 , tem No. 4., tem Page 10, Packet Page 10