a.12-04-019 exhibits 1-16 mpwsp report.pdf

7/28/2019 A.12-04-019 Exhibits 1-16 MPWSP Report.pdf

1/232

Exhibit 1


2/232

California-American Water Company

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

APPLICATION NO. A.12-04-019DATA REQUEST RESPONSE

Response Provided By: Richard C. Svindland

Title: Vice President Engineering

Address: 4701 Beloit Drive

Sacramento, CA 95838

DRA Request: DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 007

Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 001 (a)

Date Received: 08/02/2012

Date Response Due: 08/12/2012

Subject Area: Cost Estimates

DRA QUESTION:

1. Please provide justifications for the percentage values (shown in bold below)used to calculate the following items in Cal Ams cost estimates:

a) Implementation costs (20% of base construction cost);

COMPANY RESPONSE:

Implementation costs for the intake, desalination plant and product water pipeline were


3/232









Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 001 (b)




DRA QUESTION:


b) Contingencies (25% of base construction cost + implementation cost +

ROW/Land/Outfall cost);

COMPANY RESPONSE


4/232









Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 001 (c)




DRA QUESTION:


c) Mitigation Costs (1% of base construction cost + implementation cost +

ROW/Land/Outfall cost).

COMPANY RESPONSE:


5/232









Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 002




DRA QUESTION:

2. Please provide all items included in Cal Ams calculation of Implementation Costsfor the MPWSP as reflected in Table 3 of Appendix E (Pg. 6).

COMPANY RESPONSE:

Implementation costs shown on Table 3 of Appendix E are for future engineering, legal,permitting, and day-to-day administrative and management work required to implement


6/232













DRA QUESTION:

3. In Cal Ams application (Appendix E, Pg. 6), RBF Consulting provided a costbreakdown for the Intake Wells/Supply/Return Facilities line item under BaseConstruction Costs of both plant options (5.4 and 9.0 mgd). For each line itemon the cost breakdown, please identify and provide a justification for all

unit costs. Additionally, please include a breakdown of activities and costs forline items under Base Construction Costs in the Intake Wells andSupply/Return Facilities section.


7/232









Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 004 (a)




DRA QUESTION:

4. In Cal Ams application (Appendix E, Pg. 7), the analysis prepared by RBFConsulting shows that intake facility costs in the new project (MPWSP) arehigher than the intake facility costs for the RDP. One of the proffered reasons forthe difference in cost is the number of required intake wells for the MPWSP.

RBF Consulting then explains that there are different assumptions regarding thefollowing items:(a) Capacity of each well;


8/232




8 slant wells, including one standby well, at approximately 2200 gpm per well,

for the 9.0 mgd desalination plant alternative.

Estimated overall desalination plant recovery of 40.6 percent.

The assumed well capacity is subject to confirmation by the test well program. Standbywell capacity is consistent with accepted reliability and redundancy criteria (n+1) forwater production facilities and allows full production from the desalination plant in theevent that one of the well pumps needs to be maintained or repaired. During normaloperation with all wells available and the desalination plant at full production, thestandby status would be rotated among the pumps, with each one of the wells placed instandby mode (rested) for a few hours per day.

The desalination plant recovery is calculated using a series of process calculations andinvolves engineering assumptions and judgment as well as computerized RO processmodels. Since these calculations and assumptions were done by different engineers,with slightly different process trains and loading rates, and different RO process models,slightly different results would be expected. In this case, the predicted plant recoveryfor the MPWSP is less than 3 percentage points different than the higher recovery ratecalculated for the RDP.


9/232









Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 004 (b)




DRA QUESTION:

4. In Cal Ams application (Appendix E, Pg. 7), the analysis prepared by RBFConsulting shows that intake facility costs in the new project (MPWSP) arehigher than the intake facility costs for the RDP. One of the proffered reasons forthe difference in cost is the number of required intake wells for the MPWSP.

RBF Consulting then explains that there are different assumptions regarding thefollowing items:(b) Recovery percentage of desalination plant


10/232









Company Number:MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 004 (c)




DRA QUESTION:

4. In Cal Ams application (Appendix E, Pg. 7), the analysis prepared by RBF

Consulting shows that intake facility costs in the new project (MPWSP) are

higher than the intake facility costs for the RDP. One of the proffered reasons for

the difference in cost is the number of required intake wells for the MPWSP.RBF Consulting then explains that there are different assumptions regarding the

following items:


11/232


Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project











DRA QUESTION:

5. In Cal Ams application (Appendix E, Pg. 8), RBF Consulting provided a costbreakdown for the product water pipeline for both plant options (5.4 and 9.0mgd).

Please provide a detailed cost breakdown that lists all items included in thebase construction cost of the product water pipeline. For each item on thecost breakdown, please provide justifications for all unit costs.


12/232













DRA QUESTION:

6. If Cal Am has undertaken groundwater modeling specifically for the MPWSP,please provide results and assumptions for this modeling. In addition, pleasesubmit any reports that have been compiled for any such groundwater modeling.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

California American Water has not performed any groundwater modeling specifically forthe MPWSP. We have relied on modeling work performed and included the prior FEIR


13/232













DRA QUESTION:

7. Answer 64 in the direct testimony of Mr. Richard Svindland discusses potentialoffsets to the cost of additional wells and pipeline for the GWR project. Pleaselist and explain all potential modifications to the number and size of the TerminalReservoirs and the sizing of other pipelines.

COMPANY RESPONSE:


14/232

Exhibit 2


15/232

February 7, 2013

Ms. Suzie Rose, PURA IVDivision of Ratepayer AdvocatesCalifornia Public Utilities Commission505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Ms. Rose:

RE: DRA Data Request A.12-04-019 California American Water (U210W)Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

At the January 9, 2013 public participation meetings in Monterey for California-

America Water Companys (Cal Am) A.12-04-019, the MRWPCA providedupdated estimated costs for the Groundwater Replenishment Project (GWR).Your request of February 5 provides an opportunity to clarify that information.M R b t H ld P i i l E i f th GWR j t h f i h d th


16/232

DRA Data RequestFebruary 7, 2013Page 2 of 2

4. Please discuss the factors that have resulte4d in a lower projectedpurchase price for GWR water than the costs provided in A.12-04-019.

The factors that have resulted in a lower water purchase price include: Increasing the loan duration and reducing the interest rate Increasing the size of the facility to provide water to Monterey County

Water Resources Agency in addition to GWR Proposing a separate pump station and pipeline to procure other water

sources

5. Please provide MRWPCAs most current projection for the schedule of theGWR Project.

Our current projected schedule anticipates:

Completing the CEQA process in the second quarter of 2014 Completing design in the first quarter of 2015 Completing construction and starting injection in the fourth quarter of

2016.

MRWPCA is still in the planning stage. We hope to start a feasibility study inMarch 2013 that will allow us to get a better idea of the anticipated costs.

If you have any questions, or if there is additional information that would behelpful to you, please feel free to contact us. Mr. Holden can be reached viaemail [email protected] by phone at 831-645-44634.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


17/232

Exhibit 3


18/232

Bureau of Reclamation Review

Comments on Coastal WaterProject and AlternativesMonterey, CA

Prepared for the Division of Ratepayers AdvocatesCalifornia Public Utilities Commission


19/232

Contents

Page

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................... 31.2 Bureau of Reclamation Experience ................................................................... 31.3 Data.................................................................................................................. 31.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 4

2 Water Treatment .................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Inlet and Source Water ..................................................................................... 62.1.1 Slant Wells ................................................................................................ 62.1.2 Vertical Wells............................................................................................ 82.1.3 Well Water Composition and Need for a Pilot Project for both NorthMarina Alternative and Regional Project................................................................. 92.1.4 Boron ...................................................................................................... 102.1.5 Sodium and Chloride ............................................................................... 11

2.2 Pretreatment ................................................................................................... 11

2.3 Desalination.................................................................................................... 112.3.1 Membrane Replacement .......................................................................... 122.3.2 Water Analyses ....................................................................................... 132.3.3 Plant Staffing........................................................................................... 13

2.4 Post Treatment................................................................................................ 132.4.1 Stabilization ............................................................................................ 132.4.2 Disinfection............................................................................................. 14

2.5 Concentrate Disposal ...................................................................................... 15

2.6 Water Treatment Costs from a Technical Perspective ..................................... 152.6.1 Desalination Equipment Costs ................................................................. 152.6.2 Chemical Costs........................................................................................ 202 6 3 L b C 20


20/232

3.6.3 Regional Project ...................................................................................... 263.7 Unit Costs....................................................................................................... 27

3.7.1 Regional Project ...................................................................................... 273.8 Contractors Overhead and Profit.................................................................... 283.9 Implementation Costs ..................................................................................... 28

3.9.1 North Marina Project Pilot Plant ........................................................... 293.9.2 General.................................................................................................... 29

3.10 Project Contingency.................................................................................... 293.11 Mitigation Measures.................................................................................... 303.12 Accuracy Range of Estimates...................................................................... 30

3.13 Cost Summary ............................................................................................ 314 Conclusion........................................................................................................... 33

Appendix A Documents Reviewed in 2008Appendix B Determination of Fraction of Groundwater in a Mixture of Seawater andGroundwaterAppendix C Boron Concentration DataAppendix D Base-Loading of a Desalination Plant

Appendix E ASR Review (performed in 2008)Appendix F Pipeline and Corrosion Review (performed in 2008)Appendix G Moss Landing Unit Cost Review (performed in 2008)


21/232

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

In March 2007 the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) entered into an Agreement withthe California Public Utilities Commission Division of Ratepayers Advocates (DRA) toreview and analyze the technical feasibility, reliability, risks, and cost estimates for amajor desalination plant on Monterey Bay, as proposed by California American Water

Company. As stated in the Agreement, Reclamation will provide a neutral effort on theexhibits or the documents reviewed. The United States acting by and through the Bureauof Reclamation Technical Service Center (TSC) shall maintain a neutral posture withregard to any effort, action and/or analysis provided under this Agreement.

In July 2008 Reclamation provided draft review comments to DRA regarding the MossLanding alternative of the Coastal Water Project (CWP). At that time, the two largestproject risks identified by Reclamation were the uncertainties regarding the water

treatment component of the project and the application of adders (contingencies,implementation, etc.) in the preliminary cost estimates. Please see Appendix A for a listof documents reviewed in 2008. Reclamations review of the CWP has now expanded toinclude the Moss Landing Project, the North Marina Project, and the Monterey RegionalWater Supply Project (Regional Project).

1.2 Bureau of Reclamation Experience

The Bureau of Reclamation was established in 1902, and is the largest wholesaler ofwater in the United Sates. Reclamation brings water to more than 31 million people andprovides irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland. Reclamation is also the


22/232

to DRA staff, who then submitted the request to the appropriate parties. Reclamationreviewed the following documents:

Direct Testimony of Mark Schubert, Phase 2 Issues, 5/22/09 (with exhibits) Direct Testimony of Kevin Thomas, Phase 2 Issues, 5/22/09 (with exhibits) Direct Testimony of David A. Berger, Phase 2 Issues, 5/22/09 (with exhibits) Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson, Phase 2 Issues, 5/22/09 (with exhibits) Direct Testimony of Lyndel W. Melton, Phase 2 Issues, 6/24/09 (with exhibits) Direct Testimony of Thomas E. Gaffney, Phase 2 Issues, 6/24/09 (with exhibits) Technical Memorandum - Capital and O&M Cost Estimate Update for the

Coastal Water Project, 8/14/09 (with Project Cost Comparison Exhibit) [JointComparison Exhibit or JCE]

Costal Water Project Data Request Responses #34 - #50 Technical Memorandum: Changes to DEIR Phase 1 Project, Marina Coast Water

District, California American Water, and Monterey County Water ResourcesAgency, 10/15/2009

For the purposes of this review, the information found in the Joint Comparison Exhibit(JCE) was assumed to be the most accurate and up to date data. Where discrepanciesexisted between the JCE and other sources, the information found in the JCE was used.Information discussed at the Coastal Water Project Cost Workshop (7/7/09 7/8/09) isalso included in this report.

1.4 Recommendations

Throughout this report a number of recommendations are made which could lead toimproved project reliability, a decrease in capital or operations and maintenance costs, ora decrease in project risk. A summary of these recommendations are as follows:


23/232

Conduct the Brine Waste Disposal Study and further investigate the impact ofpossible brine corrosion issues of outfall system as recommended by Brown and

Caldwell. In addition, investigation the potential formation of disinfectionbyproducts in the concentrate stream. (Section 2.5)

Further investigate the feasibility and potential cost savings associated with base-loading the desalination plant. (Section 2.6.1)

Decrease the capacity of the proposed Moss Landing desalination plant from12million gallons per day (MGD) [6 arrays of 2 MGD] to 10 MGD [5 arrays of 2MGD]. (Section 2.6.1)

Obtain a second cost estimate for the proposed desalination plant from a potentialbidder. (Section 2.6.1)

Obtain desalination plant by competitive bid. (Section 2.6.1) Separate the cost of energy recovery equipment from cost of desalination plant.

(Section 2.6.1)

Investigate constructing the 6-MG Terminal reservoir structure above-ground in orderto reduce estimated construction costs. (Section 3.4)

Generate estimates for anticipated land purchases for the Regional Project

desalination plant and source water wells in order to ascertain how much extra thesewill add to overall project costs. (Section 3.6.3)

Obtain an independent estimate for Regional Project unit costs to provide a moreaccurate estimate of costs. (Section 3.7)

Generate mitigation cost estimates based upon the FEIR impact and mitigationsummary. (Section 3.11)


24/232

2 Water Treatment

Discussed within this section are topics of concern that may affect the cost and thereliability of the proposed Moss Landing Plant, the North Marina Plant and the RegionalPlant. These topics relate primarily to the treatment of water. The topics are presented inprocess order from inlet to the plant to outlet. Because some costs are influenced bytechnical concerns, they are discussed in Section 2.6. Concerns are listed by subjectrather than being separated into design, construction and operation. Where desirable, thediscussion is followed by a specific recommendation. Data taken directly from the MossLanding pilot project quarterly progress reports is confidential and has been redacted.

2.1 Inlet and Source Water

The feedwater for the Moss Landing Plant, with the possible exception of a fewcomponents, has been thoroughly investigated and it appears suitable for the reverseosmosis system that is envisioned. However, the feedwaters for the North Marina Plantand for the Regional Plant have not been characterized. Feed for the latter two plants is

to be taken from wells, in the first case slant wells, in the second case vertical wells.

2.1.1 Slant Wells

The source water for the North Marina alternative is to be taken from slant wells yet to bedrilled. Slant wells conceptually offer certain advantages: Like that of vertical wells, thewater slant wells produce is filtered, so there should be less burden on the pretreatmentsystem and there should be little entrapment or impingement. The productivity per well

is expected to be greater than that of a vertical well for an aquifer of given thickness. Byorienting the well so that it protrudes toward or under the sea, the ratio of seawater togroundwater extracted by a slant well should be substantially higher than that of a vertical

ll Thi h f d l i l f i i h l f d


25/232

Technical Memorandum 31.003-021 contains some geological information, although thepermeability of the sand or gravel layer is not indicated. As an example of what kind of

information is needed, Figure 1, below, taken from the final report on a test slant well atDana Point provided to Reclamation2, shows approximately where permeable andimpermeable layers are located and indicates to a non-geologist that the formationappears appropriate for water collection by a slant well and suggests where the wellshould be cased and where the well screen should be located.

It is assumed that the natural filtration of water from either slant or vertical wells willgreatly reduce the concentration of suspended solids. Modeling of the slant wells

suggests that the water taken from such wells would be 95% seawater and 5%groundwater, which would cause a decrease, by about 5%, in the total salinity of thewater. The groundwater can be expected to contain some iron and possibly other foulingspecies. These are all assumptions, reasonable ones indeed, but still assumptions thatneed to be followed up by appropriate testing. See Section 2.1.3 for further discussion onfeed water composition.

Drilling and operating a test well was discussed at the Cost Workshop. This well should

be operated for long enough for the water to come to steady state. This might take 3 to 4months. It may be possible from the modeling done for the proposed wells to make abetter estimate than this of how long it would take for a well to come to steady state.Approach to steady state can be determined by tracking concentrations of species thatappear in significant concentrations in seawater such as bromide and magnesium. Amuch poorer test, albeit a continuous test, would be to monitor conductivity of waterfrom the well. Please see Appendix B for a procedure to determine the fraction ofgroundwater found in the water extracted from the proposed wells.


26/232

Figure 1. MWDOC Test Slant Well, Dana Point, CA (Drawing by Geoscience)

Recommendation: Before proceeding with the North Marina alternative, drill and operatea test slant well as discussed above.

2.1.2 Vertical Wells

The vertical wells proposed for the Regional Project are more conventional than the slantwells proposed for the North Marina project. The information that we have does notappear to say much about the process that was used to establish the assertion that thewater in these wells would be 85% seawater and 15% groundwater. This vertical well

3


27/232

for a procedure to determine the fraction of groundwater found in the water extractedfrom the proposed wells.

Recommendation: Before proceeding with the Regional Project, drill and operate a testvertical well as discussed above.

2.1.3 Well Water Composition and Need for a Desalting Pilot Projectfor both North Marina Alternative and Regional Project

The groundwater taken in by the wells at either the North Marina or the Regional Project

will differ from that at the Moss Landing site. It can be expected to be anaerobic. Thismeans that iron would be in the ferrous (Fe++) state and manganese, which frequentlyaccompanies iron in terrestrial deposits and consequently in groundwater, would be in themanganous (Mn++) state. Manganese is a concern since manganous ion is not as easilyoxidized as ferrous ion. Chlorine, in sufficiently high concentration, should take care ofthis problem. There is the probability of contamination by other species like calcium,magnesium, bicarbonate and sulfate in relatively higher proportions than are normallyfound in seawater. These are scale forming materials that, in high enough concentrations,can adversely affect the performance of the RO membranes. We believe that piloting thedesalting facility would be a wise course and would be worth the time and expense. Notto do so would be a risky procedure.

Recommendation: If either the North Marina or the Regional alternative is selected as thechoice of long term water supply, then perform a year-long desalting pilot test usingwater from the test well.

If the pilot unit from Moss Landing can be refurbished and used, the estimated cost forthe pilot test would be about $1.5 million ($1 million for moving, reconfiguring tosimulate the plant as designed and startup, and $0.5 million for operation). Cal Am has


28/232

2.1.4 Boron

The Joint Comparison Exhibit indicates that plants at all three possible locations will be

designed to have a second pass in the desalination plant capable of treating 40% of theproduct water from the first pass in the plant with a recovery of 85% to 95%. This isexpected to reduce the boron content of the treated water to below 0.5 mg/L. Thenecessity for this level of boron reduction is discussed below. Based on the performanceof commercial SWRO elements, this expectation is reasonable, although, if it is appliedto the North Marina and the Regional alternatives, it includes the unspoken assumptionthat the groundwater contains low or negligible concentrations of boron, which may notbe correct.

Boron concentration in sea water can vary significantly. If this were the case at MossLanding, it is possible that the second pass system might need to be operated only duringcertain seasons of the year to achieve the goals of reducing the boron level in treatedwater to below 0.5 mg/L. This would clearly affect both modes of operation andoperation costs. It is likely that whatever phenomenon causes the variation in boroncontent of the water at Moss Landing would also cause a variation at the intake wells forthe North Marina Alternative and for the Regional Plant, so the same operationalconsiderations would probably hold true in these cases as well.

However, for human consumption, the production of water of 0.5 mg/L appearsexcessively strict and is unnecessary. The California Department of Public Health(CDPH) has a boron notification level of 1 mg/L.6 CDPH does not have testing orsampling protocols. For the Carlsbad desalination plant, CDPH has suggested twosamples per year. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently raised their

guideline on boron in drinking water from 1 mg/L to 2.4 mg/L

7

. This change will appearin the next printed version of the WHO Guidelines. Background information for thisdecision is published8. Treating the source water to the level of 0.5 mg/L addsunnecessary additional expense. The results of the pilot project at Moss Landing indicate


29/232

It is important to note that boron concentration in the feedwater of the Moss Landing

pilot project is not necessarily the same as the boron concentrations that will exist in thefeedwater for either the North Marina or Regional Project alternatives. A comparison ofthe feedwaters for at least several months after the test wells have come to steady statewill indicate whether a second pass is required in the RO system for a project locatedsomewhere other than Moss Landing. This can be confirmed during a desalination pilottest (See Section 2.1.3).

Please see Appendix C for additional comments regarding boron issues. Please note that

Appendix C contains confidential information.

2.1.5 Sodium and Chloride

The concentration limits of 100 mg/L for sodium and chloride, proposed in Appendix Qof the FEIR, are excessively strict for drinking water. Compared to anticipated values of180 and 200 mg/L respectively, there would be little improvement of taste, which is theonly aesthetic parameter that might be affected. That the anticipated values are higherthan the current average values of 54 and 69 mg/L is a weak justification for a substantial

cost increase. The CDPH does not have a notification level or primary standard for eithersodium or chloride, but does have secondary standards.9 For chloride the secondarystandard is 250 mg/l. There is a 500 mg/l secondary standard for total dissolved solids(TDS), which would include sodium. The Environmental Protection Agency has asecondary standard of 250 mg/L for chloride and no standard for sodium (except for theoverall secondary standard of 500 mg/L for TDS).

Recommendation (based on 2.1.4 and 2.1.5): Abandon the concept of a second pass forthe RO system as it is not necessary to meet existing CDPH notification level for Boronand secondary standards for sodium and chloride.


30/232

2.3.1 Membrane Replacement

Membrane element replacement costs are based on membrane lifetime. It appears that

the membrane elements in the Moss Landing pilot plant have worked well for one year.However, from a pilot test of one years duration, it is not possible to make a reasonableestimate of membrane lifetime, which may be 5 or more years under reasonableconditions. A reliable estimate can only be obtained from operational experience inplants of similar service, usually by the element manufacturer. The current projection forthe Moss Landing plant, and probably for the other alternatives, is that there will be noelement replacement for the first 5 years and 15% replacement per year thereafter.Fifteen percent replacement per year is equivalent to a membrane element lifetime of 6.7

years. This is a long lifetime. We have not been able to locate a reference to this extentof lifetime. Cal Am, in CWP Data Response #42, did not provide any documentation tosubstantiate this estimate.

It is admittedly difficult to express membrane replacement from startup since one startswith all new elements and one does not usually replace all of the elements in a plant atone time. For our analysis, we assume that all replacement occurs at the beginning of theyear. The first 15% of the elements to be replaced would have a service life of 5 years.Other original elements would have increasingly longer service lives with the last 10% ofthe original elements to be replaced having a service life of at least 11 years, which seemsimprobably long. The consequence of not replacing elements when some fraction of theelements are not working adequately is that the plant will operate at reduced capacityand/or the product water quality will not be as good as it should be. It is unlikely that acompetent plant manager would ignore element replacement so completely that the plantwould fall out of service.

In addition, it will be necessary to set up a procedure to determine when a single elementor group of elements will be replaced.


31/232

2.3.2 Water Analyses

Costs for a laboratory are shown in the JCE cost estimates, but it is not clear whether this

is to be a certified laboratory for potable water. The cost of having a certified laboratorywould be slightly higher, but it would avoid the inconvenience to the plant manager andoperators of having to ship out samples with the attendant complexities of chain ofcustody and record keeping.

2.3.3 Plant Staffing

The staffing for the desalination plant is scheduled so that one operator will be inworking alone for 16 hours per day and one operator will be working alone duringweekends. This means that over 75% of the time one operator will be working alone.This concept is satisfactory for calculating the workforce required for the plant since itappears that the required operational procedures for maintaining the plant can beadequately carried out. Tending a desalination plant does not appear to involveoperations where OSHA regulations specifically prohibit working alone. However, thereare potential hazards including pressures up to 900 psi, voltages above 110 volts,

hazardous chemicals, and possibly wet and slippery surfaces. Consequently, as anoperating procedure, it is not desirable to have an operator working alone.

Recommendation: As a minimum, a formal written work alone policy and anyrequired equipment such as communication or signaling devices should be in place whenoperation starts.

2.4 Post TreatmentPost-treatment includes any operations following the desalination process.


32/232

significant risk of pipe corrosion or of a red water incident12. Unfortunately, the latterconstitutes a public relations risk, which can be serious and troublesome.

There are several problems here, all of which must be solved. Piping systems that havebeen in use for some time usually have a coating consisting mostly of calcium carbonatebut also of corrosion products. The water must be treated in such a way that: 1) it is notaggressive to the materials of any new piping that is installed, and 2) it is not aggressiveto any coatings that have developed through use in any piping into which the treatedwater may be introduced. While the water must be negatively aggressive, that is, have atendency to deposit material on the pipe surfaces, it must not deposit so much material

that the pipes begin to close off. The stabilization must work correctly right from thestart. Finally, mixtures of the treated water and any other water that may be flowingthrough the system must meet these same criteria. Several standards may be usedincluding the Langelier Saturation Index, the Ryznar Stability Index and the CalciumCarbonate Precipitation Potential, which are combinations of pH, calcium concentration,and alkalinity. It is not clear which of these standards would produce the best results.There is no practical way to put a dollar value on the effect of serious red-water incident.Depending on the seriousness, such an incident might stop production of the plant for a

year or longer.

Recommendation: Carry out the proposed stabilization tests looking at the effect of bothproduct water and product water mixtures on both new piping and on existing piping.

2.4.2 Disinfection

Final treatment of the product water consists of addition of sodium hypochlorite fordisinfection. This process and the initial disinfection of the sea water feed typicallyproduce disinfection byproducts. The product water so treated needs to be analyzed toensure that the product does not contain materials that would be hazardous to the health


33/232

2.5 Concentrate Disposal

Both the North Marina or the Regional plants would dispose of the brine concentrate

through the MRWPCA ocean outfall. While a preliminary review by Brown andCaldwell (BC) did not find any fatal flaw that would prohibit the proposed brinedischarges, BC recommended a more comprehensive Brine Waste Disposal Study toevaluate the impacts of the brine discharges on the compliance of the NPDES permitrequirements, including a detailed description of the brine receiving and monitoringfacilities. 14 This would be required to obtain approval for the Regional Water QualityControl Board. BC also noted possible corrosion issues that should be investigatedfurther.15 The potential formation of disinfection byproducts in the concentrate stream

(due to the use of chlorine in the treatment process) should also be investigated.Concentrate disposal at the Moss Landing Plant is simpler and the present plans, mixingwith the cooling water to be discharged, appear to be reasonable.

Recommendation: Conduct the Brine Waste Disposal Study and further investigate theimpact of possible brine corrosion issues of outfall system as recommended by BC. Inaddition, investigate the potential formation of disinfection byproducts in the concentratestream.

2.6 Water Treatment Costs from a Technical Perspective

2.6.1 Desalination Equipment Costs

In the discussion that follows, numbers and costs relate to the Moss Landing Plant.

Similar arguments can be made for the other projects; only the numbers will be a littledifferent. When one looks at the total cost of water, the overall impression is that thewater, which translates to $10.79/kgal, is expensive16. For comparison, a published listf t d lti l t d t t d i th W t D li ti R t17


34/232

individual plants with capacities mostly between 5 and 60 MGD. The black line is acurve fit, which essentially is the average cost as a function of capacity. To quantify the

distribution around this average, a red line shows 25% above average cost and the pink

Figure 2. Comparison of Water Production Costs

line shows 15% below average cost. The yellow square show the Moss Landing

estimated costs per kgal. The cost of the proposed Moss Landing project is well abovethe average cost of other plants.

S l lt ti l ti il bl Fi t th M L di Pl t t


35/232

Recommendation: Decrease the capacity of the proposed Moss Landing desalination

plant from 12 MGD [6 arrays of 2 MGD] to 10 MGD [5 arrays of 2 MGD].

18

Second, the plant contains a second pass for boron removal, treating 40% of the productof the first pass at 90% recovery. This is actually a 3.8 MGD brackish water plant. Ananalysis developed from WTCost II (a cost estimate program supported in part byReclamation) indicates that that addition of a second pass will increase the capital cost byapproximately one third of the first pass capital cost.

Recommendation: As noted above, remove the second pass for boron removal.19

A third reason may be that the price for the desalination plant is based on a single vendorquote. This does not allow for the significant effect of competitiveness. It is generallyobserved, that the more competition that is involved, the lower the price. While there isno general method for determining the distribution of bids for a plant, Table 1 shows thedistribution of bids for a recent seawater desalination plant, which is about the size of theplants under discussion. Note that the lowest bid is only 57% of the highest bid. This is

an example, which is typical of the bids received in open competition20.

Table 1. Summary of Bids from a Recent Seawater Desalination Plant Tender

Bidder

10.9 MGDinitial capacity,

$ US

7.2 MGDaddition,

$USAqua Engr 75,610,189 16,569,121Aqua (Alternative) 74,531,746 16,125,509

Veolia 111,612,750 24,197,861Veolia (Alternative) 109,419,759 20,831,863Degrmont 121,463,724 20,785,553Befesa 131 546 039 38 191 201


36/232

Recommendation: Obtain plant by competitive bid rather than by sole-sourceprocurement.

Typically desalination costs cited relate to the desalination plant only. In particular, thedistribution system is typically not included in water production costs. If we exclude thisfrom the overall costs, the capital cost item would be reduced by 23% ($32.7million/$140 million). If we exclude both the intake and distribution systems forcomparison purposes, the capital costs would be reduced by 25% ($34.5 million/$140million).

Figure 3 compares the approximate cost of water for the proposed Moss Landing projectwithout including the costs of the associated distribution system21. As seen in this Figure,removing the distribution costs from the proposed project only results in a modestdecrease in the overall cost of water.


37/232

The distribution of costs is also unusual. As a general rule, one expects costs to bedistributed about 1/3 each to energy, other operating costs, and capital amortization. A

recently published typical distribution is shown in Figure 4. In this figure operating costsare broken down into chemicals, maintenance, labor membranes and cartridge filters,which sum up to 27%22. In the Joint Cost Comparison, the annualized capital cost of theMoss Landing plant is 62% of the total annual costs ($18.70 million/ $30.08 million)

Figure 4. Distribution of Desalination Costs

The distribution of costs given in Figure 4 above is believed to be for a plant without

energy recovery. One must ask what is the effect of energy recovery on this distribution.Since the energy recovery system is not split out in the cost sheets, we can only estimatewhat effect this has. Unfortunately energy recovery equipment is sufficiently new that it

Energy (at $0.07/kWh)36%

Annualized Capital Costs37%

Chemicals12%

Total Maintenance6%

Membranes (5-yr life)4%

Cartridge filters1%

Total Labor4%


38/232

would be 50% capital, 16.7% energy and 33.4% other. This ratio is still not as lopsidedas the Moss Landing plant cost estimate which is 65% capital, 12% energy and 23%

other.

Recommendation: Separate cost of energy recovery equipment from cost of desalinationplant.

Looking at the other two alternatives, the cost of water is $6.90/kgal for the RegionalProject and $10.49/kgal for the North Marina alternative

23. These numbers include costs

for intake and distribution system. While these values are lower than those for the Moss

Landing Plant, the water is still expensive. The cost for the Regional Project is lowerbecause the production to consumers is substantially higher and the capital cost is lower.

2.6.2 Chemical Costs

Calculation of chemical costs is very straightforward, requiring simple application ofstoichiometry. Data required are process stream flowrate, dosage and unit chemical cost.The dosage is determined during desalting pilot testing, leaving only the unit chemical

cost during the operating time of the plant to be projected. The values in the JointComparison exhibit appear reasonable.

2.6.3 Labor Costs

As indicated in Section 2.3.3, the staffing appears reasonable.

2.7 ASR System

As part of the 2008 review, preliminary plans for the ASR system were reviewed. Thisreview can be found in Appendix E There is still much uncertainty regarding the ASR


39/232

2.8 Desalinated Product Water Pipeline

Cal Am Data Response #50 (Q2) provides clarification on the size of the proposeddesalinated water conveyance line. The FEIR allows for a transmission line up to 36,which is the size used in the JCE. As requested in Data Request #50, Cal Am hasprovided an estimate of cost savings if the 36 pipeline was reduced to 30. Anestimated $24 per lineal foot in pipe material costs (for a total of $2.2 million) would besaved by with the pipeline size reduction. The approach used to estimate the cost savingsseems reasonable since the pipeline installation costs will not be substantially affected bya minor change in pipeline size. The larger pipeline size would allow for increased

operationally flexibility in the future, as more water will be able to flow from theproposed desalination plant location to the Cal Am service area.

It is important to note that cost estimate for Cal Ams proposed Monterey and Seasideand product water pipeline North of Reservation Road uses different unit costs forcertain portions of the pipeline due to varying pipeline installation rates. As described inMr. Schuberts testimony,24 the Seaside pipeline assumes an average installation pace of100 lineal feet per day, the Monterey pipeline assumes 150 lineal feet per day, and theNorth of Reservation Road pipeline assumes 240 lineal feet per day. One would expect alower average installation pace (resulting in a higher unit cost) in urban environments dueto the existence of other underground utilities, the need to cut and replace pavement,increased traffic control issues, etc. so these differences are reasonable.

As part of the 2008 review, preliminary pipeline plans were reviewed. This review canbe found in Appendix F.


40/232

3 Capital Costs

In order to evaluate estimated Coastal Water Project and costs, and the costs of the twoalternatives, Reclamation reviewed the Technical Memorandum Capital and O&M CostEstimate Update for the Coastal Water Project (TM and Project Cost Comparisonsspreadsheet (generally referred to as the Joint Comparison Exhibit or JCE), dated August14, 2009, compiled by the California-American Water Company (CAW) and the MarinaCoast Water District (MCWD). The TM was completed in response to the informal costworkshop held in San Francisco, California, on July 7 and 8, 2009, to discussassumptions and costs for the Moss Landing desalination plant and the two proposed

alternatives to provide water to the Monterey County, California, area; andAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) Minkins July 21, 2009 ruling. As requested by ALJMinkin, CAW and MCWD coordinated to provide an apples to apples comparison andsummary of the costs for the alternatives presented.

The three alternatives are summarized in the TM and their capital costs (designated asAugust 2009 costs for this review) with contingency (designated as Most ProbableCapital Cost with Contingency) are listed on Sheet 1 of 18 of the TM Exhibit as follows:-

i. Coastal Water Project Moss Landing (ML) - Desalination Plant Siteproposed by CAW at $213,750,000; excluding the CAW-Only Facilitiesshown at $73,200,000. Combined total equals $286,950,000.

ii. North Marina Alternative (NMA) - Desalination Plant Site proposed by CAWat $200,000,000; excluding the CAW-Only Facilities shown at $73,200,000.Combined total equals $273,200,000.

iii. Regional Project (RP) proposed by MCWD at $170,100,000; excluding theMCWD-Only Facilities shown at $7,400,000 and CAW-Only Facilities shownat $73,200,000. Combined total equals $250,700,000.


41/232

The costs presented in the TM and JCE assume a partial second pass treatment for all

three desalination plants (see Section 2.1.4). The MCWDs RP costs do not include anycosts for a Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) that was previously included at$26,000,000 in some variations for the RP presented at the Cost Workshop, which nowallows for an apples to apples comparison. Note the June 2009 RP total costs in theabove table did not include the SWTP. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)issued October 30, 2009, evaluates the Regional Project without the SWTP.

No detailed backup was provided so a review of the unit prices could not be completed.

The following sections provide general review comments on how capital costs includedin Cal Am and MCWD testimony were modified in the Joint Comparison Exhibit.

3.1 Intake Facilities (Off-site Feedwater)

3.1.1 Moss Landing (ML) and North Marina Alternative (NMA)

ProjectsRevisions add $600,000 to the NMA for the 3,000 feet of extra pipe due to a relocation ofthe NMA desalination plant per TM.

3.1.2 Regional Project

The contractors overhead and profit for intake facilities was actually reduced by

$1,060,000 to $840,000 from the $1,900,000 included in the June 2009 costs although thescope of work is unchanged. The reduction is based on the assumption that the overheadand profit are included in the CAW unit costs used for this estimate. See Unit Costscomments below


42/232

reasonable although no details are provided for the sitework associated with the$5,100,000 lump sum costs.

Building unit costs for the general structures and buildings range from approximately$160.00 to $180.00/SF, and for the administration/O&M/lab building $200.00/SF is used,which appear reasonable although no details are provided.

3.2.2 North Marina Alternative Project

The 3-MG clearwell costs were reduced by $2,200,000 from $5,200,000 to $3,000,000 as

a result of reducing the unit cost from $1.75 to $1.00/gallon since the sitework isaccounted for separately. . The sitework lump sum cost of $2,178,000 for the August2009 summary is $322,000 lower than the previous June 2009 summary which included$2,500,000. From the summary sheets it appears that the August 2009 costs are for435,600 square feet of sitework while the June 2009 summary was for 500,000 squarefeet. No details are provided for either area and costs. The clearwell cost is higher thanused for Moss Landings $0.70/gallon. The description for the North Marina clearwellindicates partially buried and may account for the difference of additional sitework and

tank construction. Note the Regional Project below also utilized the $1.00/gallon unitcost.

The general structures and buildings unit costs range from $137.00 to $167.00/SF, whilethe administration/O&M/lab building utilizes the same $200.00/SF as Moss Landing.Again, these appear reasonable but no details provided.


The clearwell costs were reduced by $4,500,000 from $7,500,000 to $3,000,000 as aresult of reducing the unit cost to $1.00/gallon similar to North Marina above and also


43/232

The contractors overhead and profit line item was reduced from the $6,350,000 (June2009) to zero dollars. The reduction is based on the assumption that the overhead and

profit are included in the CAW unit costs used for this estimate. See Unit Costscomments below.

3.3 Desalinated Water Transfer Pipelines

As indicated in the TM the various pipelines have been re-organized to provide therequested apples to apples comparison. A review of the lengths and unit costs, andtherefore the costs, for all three projects appear to be the same with minor adjustments as

described in the TM (see Section 2.8). However, see Regional Project comment oncontractor overhead and profit below.


The contractors overhead and profit line item was reduced from the $5,430,000 (June2009) to zero dollars. The reduction is based on the assumption that the overhead andprofit are included in the CAW unit costs used for this estimate. See Unit Costscomments below.

3.4 CAW-Only Facilities

These components are listed separately but are required for all projects.

The 6-MG Terminal reservoir structures costs were reduced by $3,900,000 from

$10,500,000 to $6,600,000 as a result of reducing the unit cost from $1.75 to $1.10/gallonsince the sitework is accounted for separately. The unit cost for the clearwell appearsreasonable although it is $0.10/gallon higher than previous partially buried clearwell.No details are provided for the sitework associated with the $2 600 000 lump sum costs


44/232

3.5 MRWPCA Outfall Capacity Charge

This item is only included for the North Marina and Regional Projects. New added cost

of $9,400,000 included in the JCE. Costs are based on a letter report prepared by Brownand Caldwell for the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency28.

Recently, an Outfall Agreement was completed between Monterey Regional WaterPollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) and Marina Coast Water District. As shown inExhibit C of the Outfall Agreement, the one time capacity charge has been reduced to anestimated $2,436,305 reflecting the fact that 72% of the initial costs to construct theoutfall were funded through grants. The outfall capacity charge appears reasonable.

3.6 Right of Way Easements and Land Acquisition Costs (ROWand LA)

3.6.1 Moss Landing Project

The total Right of Way (ROW) and Land Acquistion (LA) costs are shown on TM

Exhibit Sheet 10 of 18 as $7,200,000. When combining the totals shown on theSummary Sheet for the CAW-Moss Landing Alternative ($3,100,000) and the CAW-Only Facilities ($2,730,000) the ROW and LA costs equal $5,830,000 which is$1,370,000 less that the $7,200,000 shown. The TM provides no explanation for thisdifference. CAW has indicated

29that the ROW values did not properly transpose onto

the Summary Sheet, and that the $3,100,000 cost for ROW Easements and LandAcquisition should be $4,500,000.

3.6.2 North Marina Alternative

Similar to the Moss Landing Project above the ROW and LA total costs (Sheet 10 of 18)$


45/232

Projects Desalination Intake Facilities and Desalination Plant and no explanation isgiven.

Exhibit 2830 in the direct testimony of Lloyd W. Lowery, Jr. indicates that MCWD willpay the J.G. Armstrong family members $45,000 every six months from December 2003through December 2009, and $50,000 every six months thereafter for an option on land inthe MCWD Reserved Area. It also states that payments made by MCWD will becredited against the purchase price of any portion of the MCWD Reserved Area. It isunclear what the purchase price of this land will be however. Furthermore, the directtestimony of Lyndel W. Melton31 states that MCWD is also negotiating with the

Armstrongs for the property necessary to locate the desalination source water wells. It isunclear what the purchase price of this land may be either.

When combining the CAW-Only Facilities ROW and LA costs ($2,730,000) with the$1,200,000 above the total equals $3,930,000. This total is $1,900,000 less than theMoss Landing Project combined total and $1,000,000 less than the North Marina Projectcombined total. The TM does not provide comment on the differences.

Recommendation: Estimates are needed for anticipated land purchases for the RegionalProject desalination plant and source water wells in order to ascertain how much extrathese will add to overall project costs.

3.7 Unit Costs

During this evaluation, no breakdown was provided for a detailed review of unit costs. In2008 Reclamation reviewed unit costs (for the proposed Moss Landing project) providedin CAW testimony32 which included labor, materials, equipment, and subcontract costs.At the time of the previous review, it was determined that in general, the raw costs


46/232

The use of CAW unit costs for the pipelines, buildings, tanks, and site work as well as theassumption of all the common facilities prices being equal tends to indicate that theMCWD estimate is a lower level appraisal type estimate.

Recommendation: To obtain a more accurate estimate of costs, MCWD should obtain anindependent estimate for Regional Project unit costs for the pipelines, buildings, tanks,and site work as well as common facilities.

3.8 Contractors Overhead and Profit

The TM indicates that all three projects utilize the same adder (18%) for Overhead andProfit. The TM is more a summary of the costs and the majority of the Overhead andProfit is included in the unit costs.

The Contractor Overhead and Profit of 18%, which includes General Conditions at 3%(includes Mobilization) and Overhead and Profit at 15%, appears low compared totypical BOR percentages. Typically, BORs combined total range for Mobilization (5%),Field Office Overhead (10 to 15%), Home Office G&A (7 to 8%) and Profit (7 to 8%) is

32 to 40% when compounded.

Note that the Desalination Plants for all three projects include a 1% adder formobilization but for the other components the mobilization is considered included in theContractors Overhead and Profit. Either method is reasonable although the BORtypically includes up to 5% for mobilization and preparatory work.

The Moss Landing and North Marina Projects assumed that the Contractors Overheadand Profit was included in the unit costs for both the June and August 2009 costs and hadno additional line item for these costs.


47/232

For the desalination facilities, the Implementation Costs for Design/Build are included at15% for CAWs Moss Landing and North Marina Projects, and also 15% for theMCWDs Regional Project. This is a 5% reduction from the 20% used in June 2009 forthe North Marina and RP Projects. See further comments below in Section 3.9.2.

3.9.1 North Marina Project Pilot Plant

For the June 2009 costs the workshop indicated that the extra 5% was included for theImplementation Costs for a total of 20% (or approximately $4 million) for the North

Marina Alternate for the Pilot Plant construction and associated engineering andoperations. For the 2009 August costs the total percentage for the Implementation Costshave been reduced to 15% which appears low when compared to the earlier estimate(early 2008) for the Moss Landing Pilot Plant which was about $4 million in 2005dollars.

It appears that a higher percentage than the 15% utilized for the Implementation Costswould be required for the North Marina Project as well as the MCWDs Regional Project

plant since no pilot plant has been initiated for either project and no costs are specificallyincluded for a pilot plant in the August 2009 costs. Please refer to Section 2.1.3 for afurther discussion on pilot plant costs.

Also at the Cost Workshop it was indicated that the California Coastal Commission(CCC) may require 12 months of pilot testing. It is unclear whether this has beenverified. See Section 2.1.3 for additional information regarding pilot testing.

3.9.2 General

For the Design/Build Implementation costs of the 15% (or 20% in June 2009) adder for


48/232

included at least 10% (typically 15%), while the Construction Contingencies are includedat 25%. These percentages are compounded when applied. Therefore, Reclamationcontingencies (compounded) range from approximately 37.5% to 44% versus 25% shownin the estimates. For these projects (for which preliminary and final designs have notbeen initiated)33 a higher percentage to cover contingencies appears warranted.

3.11 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation costs are included at 1% resulting in $2,800,000 for the Moss Landing Project;$2,700,000 for the North Marina Project and $2,500,000 for the Regional Project. The

ALJ ruling of 11/5/09 stayed the procedural schedule by 60 days, so mitigation costestimates have not yet been developed by either CAW or MCWD. A preliminary reviewof the FEIR impact and mitigation summary (found on pages ES-21 through ES-54)indicates that it is unlikely that the proposed mitigations measures will be a significantcost driver of the project. It is recommended that mitigation cost estimates be generatedbased upon the FEIR impact and mitigation summary. Once cost estimates are prepared,it will be possible to conduct a reasonableness review and determine if the currentmitigation cost allocation (1% of construction costs) is appropriate.

Recommendation: Generate mitigation cost estimates based upon the FEIR impact andmitigation summary.

3.12 Accuracy Range of Estimates

All three estimates provide a High End of the Accuracy Range at +25% and a Low End at

-15% of the Accuracy Range. As stated in the workshop, the estimates are consideredClass 3/Class 4 based on the Association for Advancement of Cost Estimating (ACCE)Classifications. This would be similar to BORs feasibility level estimate, which can beused for Congressional Authorization


49/232

estimates account for variations in parameters and risks affecting the project. Forexample, for the MPH, an additional source well might need to be drilled if the first welldid not pass. Also, these probable estimates can attempt to account for fluctuations inmaterial prices and sources, and any other potential factors affecting costs. Theseestimates, with use of a statistical program (i.e., Crystal Ball), can help graphicallyillustrate cost ranges.

3.13 Cost Summary

The August 2009 Most Probable Capital Costs with Contingency for the three Projects

are shown in the following table and are compared against the June 2009 costs presentedat the Cost Workshop:

August 2009 June 2009 DifferenceAug vs. June

CAW Moss Landing $ 290,000,000 * $ 270,000,000 $ 20,000,000CAW North Marina Alt $ 270,000,000 * $ 250,000,000 $ 20,000,000

MCWD Regional Project $ 243,300,000 $ 251,100,000 ($ 7,800,000)

All totals include the CAW-Only Facilities and the Regional Project excludes theMCWD-Only Facilities. The Regional Project total is developed from Sheet 1 of 18 bysumming Regional Project and CAW-Only costs. Totals exclude MCWD-Only costs forAugust 2009 estimate, but it is unclear if the June 2009 estimate included MCWD-Onlycosts.

* From Sheet 10 of 18 of the TM Exhibit.

The costs for the CAW projects have increased by 7.4% (Moss Landing) and 8.0%


50/232

The primary goal of the TM was to provide an apples to apples comparison andsummary of costs of the three project alternatives. The scope of work outlined in the TMappears to meet that goal. From the cost perspective independent development of pricesfor the Regional Project by MCWD would be recommended in lieu of utilizing CAWsunit costs. Please refer to Section 2.6.1 for a discussion on how competitive biddingcould have a substantial impact on actual construction costs.

Pilot Plant costs for the North Marina and Regional Projects are not specifically calledout in the TM and appear to be excluded. Please see section 2.1.3 for recommendations

regarding a potential pilot project.


51/232

4 Conclusion

Since the preliminary/final design of facilities will not commence until a projectalternative has been selected, there are many unknowns and uncertainties. As describedin Section 2, the pilot project currently running at Moss Landing will provide valuableinformation which can be used to further refine the design of the proposed watertreatment components. Some of the data gathered at Moss Landing will be applicable tothe other alternatives, but additional site-specific pilot testing (including test wells) isrecommended if the North Marina or Regional Project is eventually selected.

As discussed in Section 2, there is continued uncertainty regarding the cost of the watertreatment equipment. As recommended in Section 2, the elimination of excess treatmentequipment (such as the reduction of the Moss Landing nominal capacity from 10 MGD to8 MGD) and the removal of the second pass RO system could have a substantial effect onproject costs. The suggested use of a competitive bidding process introduces additionalcost uncertainties, but will most likely decrease the overall project cost.

As shown in Section 3, a review of the costs presented in the Joint Cost Exhibit wasperformed. Unit costs were not reviewed at this time, although unit costs were deemed tobe reasonable during a previous review. The Overhead and Profit adders used in theCWP cost estimates (18.5%) are significantly lower than the adders that Reclamationwould use at this level of design (32% - 40%). The Contingency adder used in the CWPcost estimates (25%) is also significantly lower than the Contingency that Reclamationwould use at this stage of the project. At an appraisal level design, Reclamation would

typically include a 15% adder for Design Contingency and a 25% adder for ConstructionContingency. Due to a delay in the procedural schedule, mitigation cost estimates hadnot yet been generated at the time of this report. It is not anticipated that mitigationmeasures will be a significant cost driver in the CWP but it is recommended that


52/232

Appendix A Documents Reviewed in 2008

Draft Coastal Water Project Conceptual Design Report (including appendices A andB) [Conceptual Design Report]

Proponents Environmental Assessment for the Coastal Water Project Section 3.0(Project Description) [PEA]

Direct Testimony of Lawrence E. Gallery, P.E. (Exhibit B of Amended Application7/14/2005) [Gallery Testimony]

Estimate of Probably Construction Costs California American Water CoastalWater Project Regional Project 2004 (Exhibit 2 of Gallery testimony, alsoreferred to as the Conkey Report) [Conkey Report]

Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary (Exhibit 3 of Gallery testimony) American Water Pridesa / CWP Preliminary Budget (Exhibit 5 of Gallery

testimony) [Pridesa Estimate]

California American Water Company Response CWP-29 (FL) (including Exhibits 1 10) [CWP-29]

California American Water Company Response CWP-30 [CWP-30] CWP Capital Cost Excel Spreadsheet (engineering_cost_LW_042507.xls)34


53/232

Appendix B - Determination of Fraction of Groundwaterin a Mixture of Seawater and Groundwater

Problem Analysis

A straightforward method of determining the fraction of groundwater in water extractedby seawater wells is by chemical analysis of the solutions being mixed and of theresulting mixture.

The mass balance of mixing seawater and groundwater to get well water gives us

gVgsVsmVm r+r=r (1)

In this equation, V is the volume of the water sample in liters and the lower case lettersm, s and g, are used to identify the mixture, seawater, and groundwater, respectively. It isnecessary to include the water density since during mixing volume is not necessarilyconserved, but mass (or weight) is. For solution densities of seawater, groundwater and

well water, we use s = 1.025 g/mL, g = 1.00 g/mL and assume m = 1.02 g/mL.

For each chemical component, such as calcium or sodium, a mass balance can be written:

VgCgVsCsVmCm += (2)

in which C is the concentration of the component in milligrams per liter (mg/L).

We eliminate Vs from these two equations by rearranging equation (1) and substituting inequation (2).


54/232

r-rr-r

=gCssCg

mCssCm

Vm

VgF (5)

Using concentration values of several components that appear in either seawater orgroundwater in significant concentrations, we can calculate several independent values ofF.

Calculational Example

Table 1 below lists hypothetical data with the associated calculation results. The

concentrations from a published35 analysis of seawater are provided. The groundwateranalysis represents a hard water that might present some scaling problems. The 85/15mixture was calculated from the given seawater and the groundwater analyses. Theresults from this calculation were rounded to show only 3 significant figures, whichwould be characteristic of laboratory analyses. From this the value of groundwater in themixture (F) was calculated using equation (5).

Table 1.

Ion Symbol

Concentration inSeawater,

mg/L

Concentration inan Ordinary

Groundwater,mg/L

85/15mixture,

mg/L

ProbableReportedResult,mg/L

F

Chloride Cl- 18,980. 675. 16,234.25 16,200. 15.06%Sodium Na+ 10,556. 325. 9,021.35 9,020. 14.88%Sulfate SO42- 2,649. 725. 2,360.4 2,360. 14.85%

Magnesium Mg2+ 1,262. 146. 1,094.6 1,090. 15.28%Calcium Ca2+ 400. 275. 381.25 381. 14.79%Potassium K+ 380. 4. 323.6 324. 14.76%


55/232

The well should be pumped long enough to have come to close to steady state.Monitoring of conductivity may be adequate for this determination.

A sample of seawater should be taken at about the same time as the sample of well water.This should be taken neither from the surface nor from the bottom, but somewhere inbetween. Periods of extreme weather (heavy rains, prolonged drought, high winds etc.)should be avoided for sampling.

Getting a characteristic sample of groundwater is challenging. The sample should

represent the groundwater that is being taken into the well. If more than one monitoringwell is available, it would be informative to use several of them. Again, periods of heavyprecipitation or prolonged drought should be avoided.

Before testing, samples should be filtered. There should be no suspended solids from anyof the sources, but who knows. Samples should be measured for all of the major ions(bicarbonate and above on Table 1). When received, each set of data should be tested foranion/cation balance. I would use data from chloride, sodium, sulfate, magnesium,

calcium and potassium. Bicarbonate is in very mobile equilibrium with carbonate andcarbon dioxide, so its a little squirrely. This would provide six independentmeasurements of the groundwater fraction. If one measurement is an outlier (more thantwo standard deviations from the mean), be ready to discard it.


56/232

Appendix C Boron Concentration Data

The information received from Cal Am includes a number of data points on boronconcentration in the feed water. These data do not indicate a significant seasonalvariation. A curious feature is that one data point listed as


57/232

The boron concentration in the product water tends to be about 1 mg/L, with variation ofabout 0.2 mg/L. This is shown in Figure C-3.

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

01 Ju n 0 8 0 1 J ul 08 3 1 J ul 0 8 3 1 Au g 0 8 30 Se p 0 8 3 1 Oct 08 3 0 Nov 08 3 0 Dec 08 3 0 J an 09 0 1 M ar 09 0 1 A pr 09 0 1 M ay 09 0 1 J un 09 0 1 J ul 0 9

Filtere

dFee

dBo

ron

Concen

tra

tion

(Samp

leS-1

0),mg

/L

Total ICP 200.7 - Boron


1.2

1.4

amp

leS-1

2),mg

/LTotal ICP 200.7 - Boron


Figure C-2. Concentration of Boron in the Filtered Water


58/232

Appendix D Base-Loading of a Desalination Plant

A frequently used method of minimizing, or at least limiting desalination costs is to baseload the plant. At the outset this provokes the question, "Why would one run a plant ifthere is a source of cheaper water?" By cheaper is meant cheaper than one can get from adesalination plant. One must remember that water from any source costs something ifonly the pumping costs.

The following situation is posited: A water supplier has a demand on average of 25

million gallons per day (MGD). If he has a supply of cheap water of 25 MGD, there isno problem. He turns to desalination only if he can't get water any cheaper. Suppose hehas a supply of cheaper water of an average of 15 MGD. He buys a 10 MGD desaltingplant and solves his problem. The difficulty is that we are talking annual averages. Thereal world is trickier.

Suppose the demand curve is like the one in Figure D-1 below. These are totallyfictitious numbers, but they are not too far from what one might encounter in reality.

25

30

35

40

45

,MGD

Water Demand


59/232

The data points are weekly water demand. They were generated so that they average 25MGD over the year, and, for calculational simplicity, so that they never go below 15MGD.

Figure D-2 shows the effect of base-loading the plant. The variation is taken in supply ofcheaper water. This averages out to 15 MGD of cheaper water.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

J

an1

Ja

n15

Ja

n29

Fe

b12

Fe

b26

Mar11

Mar25

A

pr8

Apr22

M

ay6

Ma

y20

J

un3

Ju

n17

Jul1

Jul15

Jul29

Au

g12

Au

g26

S

ep9

Se

p23

O

ct7

Oct21

N

ov4

No

v18

D

ec2

De

c16

De

c30

Day of Year

Wa

terFlow,MGD

Cheaper Water

Desalted Water

Figure D-2. Effect of Base-Loading the Desalination Plant


60/232

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jan1

Jan15

Jan29

Feb12

Feb26

Mar11

Mar25

Apr8

Apr22

May6

May20

Jun3

Jun17

Jul1

Jul15

Jul29

Aug12

Aug26

Sep9

Sep23

Oct7

Oct21

Nov4

Nov18

Dec2

Dec16

Dec30

Day of Year

WaterFlow,MGD

Desalted Water

Cheaper Water

Figure D-3. Effect of Base-Loading the Cheaper Water

As before, 15 MGD is supplied by cheaper water and 10 MGD by desal. However, thepeak demand is 40 MGD. This leaves 25 MGD to be supplied by the desal plant duringthat peak week. On average the desal plant supplies only 10 MGD. To meet the peakrequirement would require a much bigger plant, much of which would not be used muchof the time.


61/232

Appendix E ASR Review

Note: This review was performed in 2008 using the documents listed in Appendix A. Thedesign of the proposed projects has progressed since this review was completed, thus

concerns outlined in this review are not necessarily still relevant to the current designs.

As stated in Section 5.1 of the Draft Coastal Water Project Conceptual Design Report,Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) is pursuing a separateindependent ASR project at the same general location contemplated for the CWP ASR

facilities. Therefore, CAW has been actively coordinating with MPWMD during theearly stages of their ASR project design and permitting, to ensure that the two systemsare compatible. It is also possible that the MPWMD ASR system, if constructed in asuitable and timely fashion, could be used to satisfy all or a portion of the CWP ASRsystem requirements.

Several discrepancies in the facility descriptions are noted as indicated in the followingtable.

Table 5-1. Comparison of well characteristics from identified references. N/A indicatesthat the well characteristic was not addressed in the indicated reference.

Characteristic PEA Section 3.3 Conceptual Design Report

Total welldepth

720 feet 800 feet

Well design Telescoped: 36-32

inch to 480 feet, 24-20 inch to 720 feet

N/A

ScreenDiameter

16-inch 24-inch


62/232

The combined linear footage of the gravel pack and grout seal equals 740 feet, 20feet more than the total depth of the bore hole and 50 feet more than the 690 ft ofdrilled and reamed bore hole line items.

Table 21 of the Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary has a line item for drilling a690 foot pilot hole, and a line item to Ream Pilot Hole 690 ft (32-in.); thisconflicts - both in size of the bore hole and the total depth of the bore hole - withdescriptions in the PEA that indicate a telescoped hole - i.e. 36-32 in. to 480 ft,and then 24-20 in. to 720 ft.

Table 21 of the Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary lists a line item for a 6-inchPVC monitoring well, this line item needs to be broken down, also, no mention is

made in the PEA to a monitoring well at the Golf Course site.

School Site

The PEA indicates that the screen will be 16-inch diameter, Table 22 of theCapital Cost Estimate Basis Summary lists the screen as 24-inch diameter.

The PEA indicates that the wells will have a total depth of 720 feet, Table 22 ofthe Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary lists the casing and screen lengths astotaling 660 feet; this implies that each well will have a 60-foot sump below the

bottom of the screen, or will have 60 feet of backfill or gravel pack below thebottom of the screen.

The combined linear footage of the gravel pack and grout seal equals 740 feet, 20feet more than the total depth of the bore hole; if the bottom 240 ft of the borehole (720 minus 480) is 24-in diameter and a 24-in screen is installed, then thereis no room for a gravel pack to be placed, and the combined 740 ft of gravel packand grout seal is 260 linear feet more than is needed.

Table 22 of the Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary has a line item for drilling a690 foot pilot hole, and a line item to Ream Pilot Hole 690 ft (32-in.); thisconflicts - both in size of the bore hole and the total depth of the bore hole - withdescriptions in the PEA that indicate a telescoped hole - i e 36-32 in to 480 ft


63/232

- filter pack gradation (presume that a filter pack will be used since casing/screendiameter from the PEA is smaller than the borehole although from the CDR thecasing/screen diameter appears to be the same as the PEA borehole).

- how much screen will be used- how much of the aquifer will be screened- how much filter pack, if used, will be placed above the top of screen- what type of sanitary seal will be used

The aquifer properties are only assumed - Page 5-5, Section 5.3.4 ASR Well Field, 2ndparagraph: It is assumed that the Santa Margarita formation has a recharge rate of 2.1

mgd . . If the system design is based upon results from the existing Santa MargaritaTest Injection Well (SMTIW), then those results should be included or made available.

There were no well designs provided, nor were there any computations as to aquiferproperties, filter pack gradations, well yields, pump sizes, aquifer drawdowns, rechargecapacity of the aquifer as a whole, or any other specifics related to the wells or the wellsperformance with which to evaluate the anticipated performance of the ASR System.

Acknowledging that the data collection necessary for even preliminary or appraisal leveldesigns has not been conducted, and that there are no field investigations or testingcompleted on the Coastal Water Project ASR wells (Answer #40 of Response CWP-30),it is understandable why the data requested in Questions 39 through 42 of ResponseCWP-30 is not available at this time.

The as-builts, referenced in Answer #39 of Response CWP-30, have been provided. Ifthe proposed ASR wells were conceptually proposed to be of similar construction and

dimensions, unless actual field conditions at the select ASR well sites dictates otherwise,and the existing wells function within the capacities proposed for the new ASR wells,then conceptually the proposed ASR system could be anticipated to perform as desired.


64/232

Appendix F Pipeline and Corrosion Review

Note: This review was performed in 2008 using the documents listed in Appendix A. The

design of the proposed projects has progressed since this review was completed, thusconcerns outlined in this review are not necessarily still relevant to the current designs.

Pipelines

Typical jack and bore installation appears to include a casing pipe. Installations ofthis type are generally a bad practice. They are difficult to cathodically protectagainst corrosion.

Details of the Moss Landing DWCS Pipeline (RBF dwg 0540-X-M005) of the MoroCojo Slough crossing shows a bore/jack installation. The Table 11 cost (Capital CostEstimate Basis Summary) appears to be the same, whether the installation is under aroadway or under a waterbody. One would expect to need a boring machine whichcan counter the water pressure when working below water. This would be moreexpensive than working under highways.

Details of the Moss Landing DWCS Pipeline (RBF dwg 0540-X-M017) of theTembladero Slough crossing shows spanning existing highway bridge piers (spanapproximately 100 feet). This probably is not practical without intermediate support.Pricing on Table 11 (Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary) appears to have usedinstallation of pipe through constructed bore/jack casing cost.

Details of the TAMC DWCS Pipeline (RBF dwg 0540-X-M032) of the Salinas RiverCrossing shows usage of a pipe bridge attached to existing highway bridge piers.

This appears to have high potential of cost variation depending on the amount ofdesign and discussions with DOT of the acceptability of the plan. The pipe supportbridge is about 800 feet in length with 5 spans between 4 existing piers and two new

b


65/232

desalinated water conveyance (DWC) Moss Landing section, and return flow (Brine).However, no cathodic protection was considered for the pumps, tanks, or wells. Also thepipe types steel cylinder concrete pipe (SCCP), ductile iron pipe (DIP), mortar lined andcoated steel pipe (MLCSP), and reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) were mentioned as pipetypes to be considered for this project but no others were suggested. These include acoated steel pipe, high density polyethylene (HDPE), and stainless steel. The HDPE, ifoperational conditions permit, would offer a pipeline option which would not have acorrosion issue other than any possible fittings. This would also reduce the amount andcost of cathodic protection needed.

A testing program or at minimum a literature search should be done to support the typesof pipes proposed for the project. As is, there are a variety of pipe types being used totransport sa