Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
$22.4
Post-Treatment
$1.48
$15.0
$0.88
$19.4
$1.48
$13.2
$0.88
$19.9
$1.66
$14.0
$1.07
Energy
$2.69 $2.36
$5.38 $3.26 $3.44
$0.52
$1.59 $1.45
$2.69 $2.36
$0.76
$10.2 $7.68
$1.09 $0.65
Chemicals
Expendables
Other Proponent Expenses
O&MLabor
Equipment Replacement
2
TOTAL $10.6 $7.49
ANNUAL COST OF WATER (in Millions 2012 Dollars)
$7.06
Capital Recovery3
$29.7 $23.7 $18.9 $14.7
$2,100 $2,670
$1,470 - $3,150 $1,870 - $4,005
$4,310
53,017 - 66,465
$3,300
02,3t0- $4,950
Production Cost of Water ($/AF)
RANGE ($/AF)
$11.0 $9.37
$20.9 $16.3
$2,320 $2,965
51,625 - $3,4. -
$2.43
$0.57
$2.36
$0.92
$6.93
$2.69
$1.16
$9.85
roject roponent
Distribution Facilities $6.14 $5.08 $3.35 $3.26 I $0.35 $0.26
Site Structures $11.5 $10.8 $3.65 $2.52 $10.0 $7.00
Offsite Trenched Pipelines $24.9 $24.9 $23.0 $22.7 $25.1 $25.1
Indirect Costs, $57.5 $50.3 $52.9 $42.7 $67.9 $62.3 ,
Contingency Allowance (30%) $47.2 $39.8 $34.5 $28.0 $43.6 $37.0 '
Mitigation Allowance (1%) $1.60 $1.30 $1.20 $0.90 $1.50 $1.20
TOTAL $206 $174 $151 22 $190 $161
ANNUAL O&MCOSTS (in Millions 2012 Dollars)
I includes implementation costs at 25%; ROW easement/land costs, mobilization/demobilization at 2%; electrical and l&C
systems at 187t; engineering and startup at 157t; and additional project proponent prescribed costs. Ah percentages a -pphed
to plant facilities costs.
2 Calculated as 1.5% of plant facilities costs.
Capital recovery factor for DWD and PML based on an interest rate of 4.0% and term of 30 years; based on an interest rate of
8.49% and 30 years for Cal-Am; see additional discussion in Section 5.
40verail accuracy of costs is estimated at AACE Class 5 with an accuracy of -30% to +50%; range values indicate potential
spread.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 7., tem Page 5, Packet Page 39
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report
Date: October 09, 2014
Item No: 8.
FROM: Executive Director Cullem
SUBJECT: Receive and discuss report on the Sept 30 Board of Supervisors
consideration of fair-share funding for the Water Authority budget, and
provide staff direction.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Water Authority ad hoc committee discuss justification for
past and future "fair-share" funding support for the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water
Authority (MPRWA).
DISCUSSION:
As reported in previous meetings, the Water Authority has requested "fair-share "
contributions from Monterey County in the order of approximately 34% of the Authority
budget. At Exhibit A is a letter dated Sept 12, 2014 from the Executive Director which
updates what has been requested from the County and estimates future budgetary
requirements.
Although the County has now paid $83,300 for FY 12-13, and budgeted $153,000 for
FY 14-15, it has not approved requests for additional FY 12-13 funds or for FY 13-14
funds.
The following e-mail was sent to the Authority in July:
"Additional Funding: At the Boards Budget Hearings in June, at the recommendation of
Supervisor Potter, the Board requested a presentation from the Authority on the
Authoritys activities, strategic plan, and budgetary requests prior to authorizing any
additional payments or funding. As you know, Ive calendared that for the afternoon of
September 9
th
, and have reserved 1 hour for this item. As part of the presentation we
will seek direction from the Board regarding how they want to handle funding and
participation. Depending on what the Board directs us to do we may need to return to
the Board at a future date to seek additional funding beyond what they budgeted in
June."
The Executive Director made a report to the Board of Supervisors on Sept 30th in
response to this request.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 8., tem Page 1, Packet Page 41
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report
Date: October 09, 2014
Item No: 8.
Following the presentation, Board members made a number of statements and asked
rhetorical questions, and for the most part, did not allowa response from the Executive
Director.
Supervisor Calcagno expressed dismay that the Monterey Peninsula communities were
selfish by limiting the desal facility to 10,000 AFY, failing to consider the larger Salinas,
Marina, North County and regional water needs. He stated that GWR would be far more
expensive that desal and was require Salinas River basin water to satisfy Peninsula
water demands. Finally he sympathized with Marina and MCWD in the denial of the Cal
Am test slant well permits arguing that the Cal Am project would be taking water that
Marina needs for future development.
Supervisor Potter stated that the Governance Committee operated on a much lower
budget than the Water Authority and was more directly involved with desal project
execution than was the Water Authority. He expressed concern that the Authority had
no sunset date and he cautioned about the County joining a JPA that would replicate
the mission of other existing agencies such as the MPWMD. He further stated that that
Water Authority support and involvement with GWR was mission creep and added to
the expense of the Authority. Potter also had a problem with the Authority directors
adopting budgets prior to getting advance budget guidance from their City Councils and
he expressed dissatisfaction with the increased budget requirements since its inception
of the Water Authority in 2012.
Supervisor Salinas agreed that Authority involvement with GWR consisted of mission
creep.
Supervisor Parker voiced concern about the extent and costs of contracts awarded by
the Authority and expressed a desire to see the Water Authority sunset soon.
In the end, the Supervisors voted unanimously to accept the staff report and the
information provided by the Executive Director but gave no indication whether they
would support joining the Water Authority or paying future or past due fair-share
contributions.
EXHIBIT:
A- Copy of Executive Director Letter to the County Administrator's Office date Sept 12,
2014.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 8., tem Page 2, Packet Page 42
580 PACIFIC ST, ROOM 6 MONTEREY CALIFORNIA 93940 www.mprwa.org
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
September 12, 2014
Nicholas E. Chiulos
Assistant County Administrative Officer
County of Monterey Administrative Office
168 W. Alisal Street, 3rd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
Directors:
J ason Burnett, President
Bill Kampe, Vice President
David Pendergrass, Secretary
J erry Edelen, Treasurer
Chuck Della Sala, Director
Ralph Rubio, Director
Executive Director:
J im Cullem, P.E.
Re: Updated MPRWA Projected Budgets through FY 2017-2018
Dear Nick;
As requested, I am providing updated budget projections through FY 2017-2018 for the
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) in support of the J anuary 6,
2014 letter (attached) to the Board of Supervisors requesting a 34% fair-share
contribution towards funding the Water Authoritys expenses. This update replaces my
letter dated February 18, 2014.
Projections for FY 2015-2016 and beyond are tentative since approximately 40-50% of
our budgets have been consumed by our Legal Counsel and contracted Special
Counsel (Counsel of Record). Legal expenses have proven difficult to predict as the
Authority is actively participating as an "Intervener" in the CPUC process for Cal Am
application A.12-04-019 for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP.)
Counsel has had to respond to periodic requests and requirements from the CPUC
Administrative Law J udge , as well as providing guidance to the Authority in support of
Cal Am's efforts to obtain permits and approvals for the MPWSP from a variety of public
agencies.
All expenditures, including legal expenses, for FY 2011-2012 (partial year) and FY
2012-2013 have been paid and were addressed in the recently completed audit of the
Water Authority. Accordingly, the request for an increase in the FY 2012-2013 County
fair-share from $83,300 to $162,000, as requested in the J anuary 6th letter, is well
established.
The FY 2013-2014 budget was approved at $423,680 and although the year-end
finances have not yet been audited, expenditures should fall well within budgeted
amounts. Accordingly, at 34%, the County fair-share for FY 2013-2014 would be
$144,051.20.
The adopted budget for FY 2014-2015 is $458,680 and the County fair-share would be
$155,951.20.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 8., tem Page 3, Packet Page 43
September 12, 2014
2
We now expect legal expenses to remain at about $200,000 per year, and by increased
staff efforts to reduce other expenses, we hope to keep the total budget at or below
$450,000 per fiscal year for the next 4 years. At 34%, the County fair-share would be
approximately $153,000 per year during that time period.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for discussion or additional information at 831-241-
8503 (cell) or cullem@monterey.org.
Sincerely,
J ames M. Cullem P.E.
Executive Director
MPRWA
C: MPRWA Letter to the Board of Directors dated J anuary 6, 2014
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 8., tem Page 4, Packet Page 44
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report
Date: October 09, 2014
Item No: 9.
FROM: Executive Director Cullem
SUBJECT: Receive SPI Analysis of the Value Engineering Alternatives and TAC
recommendations, discuss, and provide Water Authority
recommendations to the Governance Committee.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Water Authority review the Separation Processes, Inc. (SPI)
analysis of Monterey of the Final Value Engineering ( VE) Study of the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) and make recommendations to the
Governance Committee.
DISCUSSION:
The Final Value Engineering (VE) Study for 30% design of the desal facility was
completed by Value Management Strategies (VMS) and briefed to a joint meeting of
the Governance Committee and the MPRWA at a special meeting on July 10 and to the
TAC on Aug 4. The VE study focused on value improvements, in particular potential
cost savings. Requirements mandated by the settlement agreements, as well as
directions from the Governance Committee on environmental and aesthetic issues,
should still be incorporated into the design.
At its meeting of Aug 14, 2014, the Water Authority voted to request SPI to perform an
analysis of the VE Study in advance of the Authority forwarding its recommendations to
the Governance Committee. The SPI Analysis is at Exhibit A, and the full text of the VE
report is available on the Water Authority web site http://www.mprwa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/MPWSP-Final-VE-Report.pdf and on the Cal Am MPWSP
project web site www.watersupplyproject.org .
Following review and comment by the MPRWA, the SPI analysis will be forwarded to
the Governance Committee for action in accordance with the Governance Agreement.
EXHIBITS:
A- Separation Processes, Inc. (SPI) Analysis of the MPRWA VE Study
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 1, Packet Page 45
SPI Comments on VE Study
1
1Introduction
AValueEngineering(VE)study,sponsoredbytheMontereyPeninsulaRegionalWater
AuthorityandfacilitatedbyValueManagementStrategies,Inc.(VMS),wasconductedforthe
DesalinationPlantportionoftheMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProject.Thestudywas
conductedattheofficesofCaliforniaAmericanWaterinMonterey,CaliforniaJuly7through11,
2014.
ThisreportpreparedbySeparationProcesses,Inc.(SPI)reviewsthereportpreparedbyVMS.
CostsarepresentedforanychangesrecommendedbySPI.
Theitemsareidentifiedbytheformat(numberingsystem)usedinthereport.Costestimates
aregivenforeachchangemadetotheVEstudy.
SomeoftheresultscontainedinthestudyareacceptabletoSPIandarenotdiscussedherein.
2PurposeofthisReport
Theintentofthisreportistoreviewtheresultsobtainedbythe VE teamandcommentupon
themwhereappropriateandproposechangeswereneeded.
3ReportAssumptions
Certain assumptions had to be made in order to present the costs given herein. These are
as follows:
YearofConstruction,2014
Servicelife,30years
Interest,8%
Electricitycost,$0.10/kWh
Chemicalcostsatpresentdayrates
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 2, Packet Page 46
SPI Comments on VE Study
2
4 VE Alternative Number and Description: BD1: Revise layout of RO and Admin
building: create one building with overlook, improved sight lines and a reduced courtyard
4.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: The plan layout of the SWRO Building and
Admin Building indicates two buildings separated by a 50footwide open Garden space.
4.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: The alternate concept attaches the Admin
Building to the SWRO building in order to provide visual and direct physical connectivity
from the Control Room, located inside the Admin Building, into the SWRO Building. The
Control Room can either be one or two stories depending on whether or not visual
connection is desired from a higher vantage point.
4.3 SPI Comment: This revision has merit, but will impact the schedule by more than the
one month as mentioned in the VE study and add to the project costs. The added costs will
not only include the construction costs but also the revisions required to the architectural
drawings followed by revisions to the 30% design. In particular revisions will have to be
made not only to the building design/arrangement but also to the piping and layout
drawings.
This alternative proposal has been given a cost of $250,000.00, but does not include the
cost for redesign. The cost for redesign is estimated to be approximately $100,000.00.
Thus, the total cost extra for this item amounts to $350,000.00. There is no savings in the
life cycle cost.
4.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: The redesign effort will require an additional approximately 3
months.
4.5 SPI Risk Impacts: This change will increase the project costs due to the additional
architectural and engineering time required to complete the revisions.
4.6 SPI Conclusion: The cost estimate given for this change is estimated to be $250,000.00,
which cost only includes the administration portion of the building. SPIs review of the cost
estimate given in the VE study does not appear to include the additional architectural and
engineering fees associated with this change. It is therefore considered to be low. When
these are added this cost extra becomes approximately $350,000.00.
Thus, it is SPIs conclusion that this alternative not be chosen.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 3, Packet Page 47
SPI Comments on VE Study
3
5 VE Alternative Number and Description: BD2: Eliminatefireprotectionofthebuildings
wherenotrequiredbycode
5.1VEDescriptionofBaselineConcept:The30%designsubmittaldoesnotspecifyareaswithin
theplantreceivingfiresprinklercoverage.PerMikeZaferofCDMSmithon7/9/14,theSWRO
Building,theAdminBuildingandtheFilterBuildingareallfullysprinkledinthecurrentbaseline
concept.
8.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this change and recommends acceptance.
8.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: SPI sees no schedule impacts due to this change.
8.5 SPI Risk Impacts: SPI sees no risk impact due to this change.
8.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend acceptance.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 8, Packet Page 52
SPI Comments on VE Study
8
9 VE Alternative Number and Description: BD6: Connectthe4160to480transformers
directlytothe21kVswitchgear
TheBasisofDesignDraftReport(BODR)dated4/14/14indicatesonly"Adripirrigationsystem
willbedesignedandimplemented".Thedesignalsoincludesvegetablesplantedinraisedbeds
tocreatean"agriculturaleducationgarden"pertheBODR.Asreportedon7/8/14,thegardens
willbeirrigatedwithrainwater(andpossiblywaterfromthedesalinationfacility)thatwillbe
capturedthenstoredwithinanabovegroundcisterntank.Ms.Janeckireportedthatthe
cistern'scapacitycanprovideupto50%ofthewaternecessarytoirrigatethegarden
vegetablesthroughoutagivenyear.
10.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this change and can recommend its acceptance.
10.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: SPI sees no schedule impacts due to this change.
10.5 SPI Risk Impacts: SPI sees no risk impact due to this change.
10.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend its acceptance.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 10, Packet Page 54
SPI Comments on VE Study
10
11 VE Alternative Number and Description: E1: ReviseconfigurationofROtrainsto
accommodateflatfootfoundation
11.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Currentlythedesalinationplantbuildingis
designedtoincludeatwolevelconfigurationofthefoundations.Theupperlevelhousesall
equipmentandthelowerlevel(pipegalleries)housemostoftheinterconnectingpiping.
11.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisrecommendationproposestoreconfigure
theInterconnectingpipingandequipmentlayoutsuchthatthebuildingfoundationissimplified
toaflatfootfoundation.
11.3 SPI Comment: By making the change recommended in the VE study will result in a
much larger building (footprint area). This increase in area will result in a redesign of the
building, equipment and piping arrangements.
The equipment arrangement given in the 30% design is not unusual and has been
accomplished on a number of different projects.
The cost savings for this alternative are given as $400,000.00. However, SPIs estimate
shows that the cost of the flat foot arrangement is actually higher. This results from the
apparent use of the same unit cost for building construction. In the case of using the two
story RO arrangement with the equipment located in a floor below the RO process
equipment has a unit cost greater than the flatfloor arrangement as shown in SPIs cost
figures. Thus, the result is a slightly higher cost.
11.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: This alternative will impact the schedule.
11.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risks are found.
11.6 SPI Cost Estimate: The VE study gives a cost estimate savings of $400,000.00. The
cost is calculated on the basis that the unit cost per square foot for the 2level arrangement
is $250.00 per square foot ( as given in VE # BD3) for the RO building base case. The base
case RO building has the RO trains on one floor and the equipment mounted below. Thus,
for this arrangement the VE team used a unit cost of $250.00 per square foot. For the flat
foot arrangement proposed in this item then, the unit cost per square foot has to be lower.
SPI used a unit cost of $200.00 per square foot. The area of the building will increase by at
least 50% to a total of about 41,400 square feet.
The figures generated from the calculation result in an initial cost extra of $780,000.00 and
an additional lifecycle cost increase and an increase in life cycle costs of $69,264.00.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 11, Packet Page 55
SPI Comments on VE Study
11
11.6.1 Capital Cost
The capital cost for this alternative is given in the following table.
E1CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total
Foundation 1 2,100,000.00 2,100,000.00 1 1,500,000.00
ROBuilding sf 27,600.00 250 6,900,000.00 41,400.00 200 8,280,000
SUBTOTAL
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 9,000,000.00 9,780,000
SAVINGS 780,000.00
11.6.2 Life Cycle Cost
The life cycle cost for this alternative is given in the following table.
E1LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total
Foundation 1 186,480.00 186,480.00 1 133,200.00
ROBuilding sf 27,600.00 250 612,720.00 41,400.00 200 735,264
SUBTOTAL
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 799,200.00 868,464
SAVINGS 69,264.00
11.78 SPI Conclusion: SPI does not recommend acceptance of this alternative.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 12, Packet Page 56
SPI Comments on VE Study
12
12 VE Alternative Number and Description: E2: Useradiallysplitcasepumpsinlieuof
segmentalpumps
12.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptincludestheuseof
segmentalringhighpressurepumpsdesignedtooperateat82%efficiency.Figuresare
providedonthefollowingpagetoillustratethetypeofpumps.
13.3 SPI Comment: SPI finds no fault in this recommendation and would agree with this
alternative.
13.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: SPI sees no impact on the schedule, since this line can be
installed during site construction.
13.5 SPI Risk Impacts: SPI sees no impact due to risk factors with this recommendation.
13.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend its acceptance.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 15, Packet Page 59
SPI Comments on VE Study
15
14 VE Alternative Number and Description: E4:Constructthefilteredwaterstorage
tanksoutofconcreteandconstructasrectangular
14.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptincludestwo750,000gallon
prestressedconcretefinishedwaterstoragetanks(approximatedimensions:70'diameterby
27'tall).
14.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativeproposesreplacingtwotanks
withasingletwocellreinforcedconcretestoragetank.
14.3 SPI Comment: Concrete tanks are often used for the purpose intended for this case.
The savings, (i.e., $73,000.00) however, do no warrant making this change. This results
because; the new configuration does not improve operation or maintenance.
In any event SPI recommends that these tanks be deleted (refer to our comments in item
M1, below).
16.3 SPI Comment: At this point in time this alternative makes technical sense and would
be recommended by SPI. In the event the filters can be removed, the VFDs can be moved to
the well supply pumps.
16.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No schedule impacts are noted.
16.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No project risks result from this change.
16.6 SPI Cost Estimate:
15.6.1 Capital Cost
In the event the filters can be eliminated, the following cost savings result:
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 20, Packet Page 64
SPI Comments on VE Study
20
E6CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total
VFDatHPPumps 7 85,000.00 595,000.00 0.00
VFDatWells
0.00 7 22,000.00 154,000.00
0.00 0 0.00
0.00 0 0.00
SUBTOTAL 595,000.00 154,000.00
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 595,000 308,000.00
SAVINGS 287,000.00
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 21, Packet Page 65
SPI Comments on VE Study
21
16.6.2 Life Cycle Cost
The life cycle cost for this alternative is given in the following table.
E6LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY AnnualCost Total QTY
Annual
Cost Total
VFDatHPPumps 7 52,836.00 369,852.00 0.00 0.00
VFDatWellPumps
0.00 7.00 13,675.20 95,726.40
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
SUBTOTAL 369,852.00 95,726.40
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 369,852.00 95,726.40
PW 4,164,533.52 PW 1,077,879.26
SAVINGS 3,873,430.99
16.7 SPI Conclusion: As presently designed, SPI can recommend the inclusion of this
alternative.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 22, Packet Page 66
SPI Comments on VE Study
22
17 VE Alternative Number and Description: E7: UseabovegroundFRPpipinginlieuof
belowgradeHDPE
17.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: PermeateandRaw/SalineWaterpipesare
specifiedasbelowgradehighdensitypolyethylene(HDPE)andfiberreinforcedplastic(FRP)
abovegradepipesinthebaselineconcept.
17.3 SPI Comment: Above grade FRP piping is often used for reverse osmosis systems and
can be employed for this project. This piping however, suffers from degradation from the
effects of sunlight. Therefore, they must be painted or protected in a similar manner.
17.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No project schedule impacts are considered for this
alternative.
17.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No project risks result from this change.
16.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend its acceptance
for the project.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 23, Packet Page 67
SPI Comments on VE Study
23
18 VE Alternative Number and Description: M1: Increasesizeofthefilteredwater
storagetanks
18.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptincludestwo
300,000galloncovered,glasslinedtanks,withatotalvolumeofapproximately600,000
gallons.Assuminga5footminimumoperatinglevel,theeffectivevolumeisapproximately
440,000gallons.
M1LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total]
FilterStorageTanks
Amortization
2 31,435.20 62,870.40 0 0.00
SUBTOTAL 62,870.40
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 62,870 0
SAVINGS 62,870.40
19.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with the VE teams approach for this alternative.
19.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: This change will affect the design schedule slightly, but not in
a manner that will create schedule delays.
19.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No project risks are envisioned.
19.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI agrees with this alternative and can recommend its acceptance.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 26, Packet Page 70
SPI Comments on VE Study
26
20 VE Alternative Number and Description: M3:Eliminatepumpsinchemicalstorage
sumps
20.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Theexistingdesignshowssumppumpsin
chemicalstoragesumps.Thepumpswouldoperateonamanualenableswitchandshutoffby
floatswitchactivation.Atpresent,pumpsareconnectedtothesanitarysewer.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 28, Packet Page 72
SPI Comments on VE Study
28
22 VE Alternative Number and Description: RS1: Refinethedesigntomeettestwelldata
waterqualityinformation
22.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Theprojecthasbeendesignedaroundmany
assumptionsrelativetothequalityandquantityofrawwaterthatwillbedeliveredtotheplant
fromtheintakewells.Keyassumptionsincludeequipmentsizing,chemicaltreatment
processes,andstoragequantities.Thereportedintentistonotsignificantlyrevisethedesign
whentheinformationfromthetestwellisavailable.Theassumptionisthatthedesignwillbe
robustenoughtoaccountforanywaterqualityorquantityissues.Currently,thedesignteam
hasbeencontractuallylimitedrelativetotheirengineeringdesignfees.Thefullamountof
engineeringdesignfeeswillnotbeauthorizeduntiltheprojectreceivescertainregulatory
approvalsinordertoproceed.
22.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Performadesignanalysisofthetreatment
processes,Equipmentsizing,andstoragecapacitiesoncewaterqualityandquantity
informationisavailablefromtheseawaterintaketestwell.Iftheinformationindicatesthatthe
plantisoverdesignedforcertainaspects,entertainrevisionstothedesignsufficientto"right
size"andoptimizethedesignperthetestinformation.
22.3 SPI Comment: The design of any SWRO process always begins with an analysis of the
water to be treated. There is no reason that the water from the proposed well will not
deliver normal sea water at the expected quality. Thus, the design of the process at this
time has minimal risk, since the performance of the plant can be projected from membrane
manufacturers computer programs. The well will supply sea water that is considered to be
in the normal range of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentration of 34,500 mg/L. Further
the well supply will deliver a water quality of significantly low Silt Density Index (SDI). This
value can be expected to be 1.0 or less. A value of this SDI level is not unusual for a water
supply from a well.
The only refinement in design would be accomplished after the feed water quality from the
wells has been determined. This refinement is expected to be the removal of the
pretreatment filters.
22.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No schedule impacts are expected.
22.5 SPI Risk Impacts: This approach has minimal risk.
22.6 SPI Conclusion: The VE cost study gives a potential savings of $5,227,000.00. This
appears reasonable and in fact could be lowed further as discussed above.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 29, Packet Page 73
SPI Comments on VE Study
29
23 VE Alternative Number and Description: RS2: Reviseconstructionscheduleusing
multiplecrewsperdisciplinetoaccelerateprojectcompletion
Thedesignincludesasplitpermeateconfigurationwhereaportionofthepermeatewater
producedfromthefront3elementsisremovedfromthefrontofthevesselsratherthan
allowedtomixwiththepermeatewaterfromtheremainderoftheelementswithinthevessel.
Twodifferenttypesofelementsareusedinordertomaximizethebenefitofcollectinghigh
qualitywaterfromthefrontendofthevessels.Ifthesameelementsareused,thepermeate
watercollectedfromthefrontofthevesselswillnotbeofashighofqualitybecausepermeate
fromthebackandfrontmembranesinthevesselwillmixandbackelementsalwaysproduce
worsequalitypermeatethanfrontelements.SWC5LDisahighersaltrejection,lower
productivityelementthanSWC6LD.
25.3 SPI Comment: SPI supports this idea. Use of this system will result in improved
water quality without sacrificing technical aspects or costs.
This design has been accomplished in many SWRO installations and will result in obtaining
a better permeate water quality because the permeate water is taken from the lead
elements which produce the lowest TDS. SPI finds that no problems will result if this
alternative is chosen.
This alternative will also result in the reduction of electrical consumption in the HP pump
of the next stage. This reduction carries a present worth of $142,000.00.
There appears no benefit of increasing the number of elements from 7 to 8. Doing this,
would reduce the water quality coming from the lead elements (i.e., higher TDS) and
increase the TDS of the permeate water from the lower membranes. This would increase
the electrical usage due to the higher operating pressure. Therefore, eliminating any
advantage offered by using 8elements per pressure vessel.
25.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No schedule impacts are expected.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 33, Packet Page 77
SPI Comments on VE Study
33
25.5 SPI Risk Impacts: There is no risk for using 7membranes but an increased risk of
higher cost of water for using 8elements per pressure vessel.
25.6 SPI Conclusion: This alternative cannot be evaluated until the final feed water quality
is known.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 34, Packet Page 78
SPI Comments on VE Study
34
26 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP3: InstallasecondpassbrackishROtrain
onthesplitstreamtoimprovewaterqualityandreduceenergyuse
26.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: InstallasecondpassbrackishROtrainonthesplit
streamtoimprovewaterqualityandreduceenergyuse.
26.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thealternativeconceptproposestoinstalla
brackishwaterROtreatmentsystemforthepermeatecollectedfromthefrontoftheSWRO
vesselsinordertousetheenergyinthisstreamtoproducebetterqualityfrontpermeatewater
andreducethesizeofthesecondpass.Becausethepermeatecarriesenergyadequateto
retreatitthroughasecondpass,noadditionalpumpingwillbeneeded.Therecoveryofthe
frontendpermeatewillbe95%andthewaterqualitywillbeof20mg/LTDSorless,as
comparedtotheTDSofthefrontendpermeatewhichwillbe80to120mg/L.
26.3 SPI Comment: This concept will result in increasing energy usage, because pressure
is, of course necessary in order to produce water in this new stage. During operation the
membranes will foul, increasing the pressure requirement of the first pass HP pump for
water production. As this occurs, two operating scenarios can be taken, the first would be
to maintain the pressure of the first pass in a constant condition and in the second case,
and the pressure can be increased. Both of these operating scenarios are not
recommended, because in the case of maintaining constant pressure, the production from
the first pass will decrease. In the second case to maintain production, the increase in
pressure leads to an increase in electrical usage.
In addition, there is no need to improve the water quality from the process.
For these reasons, SPI does not support the use of this alternative.
26.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: The implementation of this additional pass will result in
changes in design of the process, also affecting the layout and arrangement drawings. It is
estimated that this change would require an additional month for redesign, specification,
ordering of equipment and site construction time. A t5ime extension of one month can be
expected.
26.5 SPI Risk Impacts: This is a new proposal. That it is not normally used in a
conventional SWRO process. Thus, it is not fully proven.
26.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends that this alternative not be included in the final
design.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 35, Packet Page 79
SPI Comments on VE Study
35
27 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP4: Eliminatesulfuricacidadditionfrom
process
27.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Sulfuricacidisincludedinthebaselineconceptas
atoolforcontrollingtheformationofcalciumcarbonateonthemembranes.
27.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thealternativeconceptproposestoeliminate
sulfuricacidequipmentbasedonthefactthattheproductionwaterisanticipatedtobenearly
100%seawater,wheremagnesiumcarbonateisthedriver.
27.3 SPI Comment: If the acid is used for pretreatment, it produces carbon dioxide as it
mixes with the sea water supply. This carbon dioxide can be recovered in a decarbonator
and used for the post treatment step. This eliminates the need for purchasing carbon
dioxide and can reduce operating costs.
The collection of carbon dioxide for use in the post treatment step is not a new idea. It is
carried out in many plants in the Middle East area.
27.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No design revisions are required.
27.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risks result from this revision.
27.6 SPI Cost Estimate:
27.6.1 Capital Cost
The capital costs are given in the following table:
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 36, Packet Page 80
SPI Comments on VE Study
36
TP4CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST/UNIT Total QTY COST/UNIT Total
Decarbonator 1 0.00 0.00 1 475,000.00
CarbonDioxide
SUBTOTAL
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 0 475,000
SAVINGS 475,000.00
27.6.2 Life Cycle Costs
The life cycle costs are given in the following table:
TP4LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY AnnualCost Total QTY
Annual
Cost Total
DecarbonatorBlower Kw 7.5 0.00 1 6,200.00 6,200.00
Decarb,Amortization 1 42,180.00 42,180.00
CarbonDioxideUsage mg/L 15 96,000.00 302,500.00 0.00 0.00
AcidUsage mg/L 49.5 475,000.00 475,000.00 49.5 475,000.00 475,000.00
SUBTOTAL 777,500.00 523,380.00
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 777,500.00 523,380.00 523,380.00
PW 8,754,650.00 PW 5,893,259
SAVINGS 2,861,391.2
27.7 SPI Conclusion: The cost savings resulting from this change shows the significant
benefit offered. SPI recommends that the sulfuric acid treatment in the present design be
used and the resulting formation of carbon dioxide be collected for use in post treatment.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 37, Packet Page 81
SPI Comments on VE Study
37
28 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP5:Provideasparechemicalinjection
functiontoDesalPlant
28.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptprojectdoesnotinclude
additionalspaceorequipmenttoaccommodatechemicalinjectionbeyondthecurrently
assumedwatertreatment
28.3 SPI Comment: Additional chemical treatment facilities can always be provided at the
future time when additional capacity is added. The provision of this facility should be based
on the future expansion requirements, which are not known at this time.
28.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: This item will increase the design and construction periods of
the facility.
28.5 SPI Risk Impacts: The risk incurred is based on the additional time and costs for this
alternative.
28.6 SPI Conclusion: The costs given in the VE study assumed a specific additional plant
capacity. However, at this time the additional capacity is not known, so the building
provided may in fact be too large or not large enough. Since the addition of this building
will incur redesign, additional architectural services and increased construction time, it is
considered not practical at this time.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 38, Packet Page 82
SPI Comments on VE Study
38
29 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP6: EliminatetheUVtreatmentsystem
29.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Inthebaselineconcept,theUVsystemis
installeddownstreamoftheROmembranesandupstreamofthepoststabilizationsystem.The
purposeofthesystemistoprovideaminimum4loginactivationofGiardiaand
Cryptosporidium.Thesystemconsistsof3trainsofreactorsina2+1configuration.Thetrain
consistsofaflowmeter(forflowdocumentation),reactor,andaflowvalve.Eachtrainwill
haveaUPStoprovide10minutesofridethroughtimeuponpowerfailure.
29.3 SPI Comment: SPI agrees with this alternative. Different systems could be employed
and to determine which system to recommend would require further study.
29.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: Including this alternative will result in a reduction in
construction time.
29.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risks are identified.
28.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends acceptance of this alternative provided disinfection
credits can be achieved elsewhere in the process.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 39, Packet Page 83
SPI Comments on VE Study
39
30 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP7: Considermoreefficientwaysof
meetingCTrequirements(flocculationchamber,membranepretreatment,etc.)
30.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Existinggranularmediapretreatmentfiltersdo
nothaveflocculation/mixingchamberandcoagulantaddition,whichdoesnotallowthemtobe
givenPathogenremovalcreditsbytheCaliforniaDepartmentofPublicHealth(CDPH).
30.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: Thisalternativewouldinstalla
flocculation/mixingchamberupstreamoftheexistingfilterstoreceive2logpathogenremoval
creditfromtheCDPH.Installingamixingchamberwillimprovetheoxidationofironand
manganese(iftheyarefoundinthewater)andresultinimprovedremovalofthesecompounds
aswell.Installmembranepretreatmentfiltersinsteadofgranularmediapretreatmentfiltersto
receive4logremovalcreditfromtheCDPH,andeliminatetheneedforcartridgefiltersandthe
UVdisinfectionsystem.
30.3 SPI Comment: Normal sea water does not contain manganese or iron. Thus, there is
no need to remove these constituents. The installation of membrane filtration as a
pretreatment step will increase the project costs and the cost of operation significantly.
Adding flocculation would require the addition of ferric chloride. The addition of this
chemical (iron) will not be allowed to be discharged to the sea without treatment
(removal). This treatment step is quite costly from both the capital and operating cost
stand point.
In addition, the solids removed in this treatment step would have to be trucked to a land fill
or similar facility.
30.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: The VE study states that the project schedule would be
increased by one month for the commissioning of these membranes. It neglects to mention
that this change would also require a revision to the design and construction periods of the
facility.
This alternative will have a significant impact on the project costs and schedule and
therefore is not recommended as a viable alternative.
30.5 SPI Risk Impacts: Increased capital and operating costs (see below).
30.6 SPI Cost Estimate:
30.6.1 Capital Costs
The capital costs are given in the following table:
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 40, Packet Page 84
SPI Comments on VE Study
40
TP7CapitalCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY COST Total QTY COST Total
MediaFilters 10 60,000.00 600,000.00 600,000.00 10 600,000.00 600,000.00
Flocculation 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 5,000.00 50,000.00
DischargeTreatment 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00
FerricChlorideCapital 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 53,000.00 53,000.00
SUBTOTAL
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 3,658,000.00 3,703,000.00
TOTAL 600,000 4,303,000
SAVINGS 3,703,000.00
30.6.2 Life Cycle Costs
The life cycle costs are given in the following table:
TP7LifeCycleCost
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASLINECONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY AnnualCost Total QTY
Annual
Cost Total
MediaFilters 10 53,280.00 53,280.00 53,928.00 53,928.00
Flocculation 10 4,440.00 4,440.00
DischargeTreatment 1 266,400.00 266,400.00
FerricChlorideCapital 10 4,706.40 4,706.40
FerricChlorideUse 10 62,500.00 62,500.00
SUBTOTAL 53,280.00 391,974.40 391,974.40
PROJECTMARKUPS 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 53,280.00 391,974.40 391,974.40
PW 599,932.80 PW 4,413,632
SAVINGS 3,813,698.9
30.7 SPI Conclusion: SPI does not recommend inclusion of this alternative for the final
design.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 41, Packet Page 85
SPI Comments on VE Study
41
31 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP8: Eliminatebafflesinthetreatedwater
storagetanks;obtainCTpointselsewhere
31.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: ThebaselineconceptincludestwoHypalonbaffle
curtainspertreatedwaterstoragetanktoachievea0.5bafflingfactorandprovide1log
inactivationofgiardia.
31.3 SPI Comment: The elimination of these baffles would appear to be unwarranted at
this time.
31.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: Elimination of the baffles could result in an increased risk of
not obtaining the required final water quality.
31.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No increased risk was found
31.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends that this alternative not be accepted.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 42, Packet Page 86
SPI Comments on VE Study
42
32 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP9: Optimizeconfigurationfromintake
wellstoROmembranesystem
32.1 VE Description of Baseline Concept: Thebaselineconceptincludesthefollowingsteps
forpumpingwaterfromthebaytotheinletoftheROhighpressurepumps:
1.Slantwellswithsubmersiblepumpsandmotorspumpwaterthroughthepressure
filtersanddischargetothefilteredwatertanks.
2.FilteredWaterPumpspumpwaterthroughthecartridgefiltersandtothesuction
sideofROhighpressurepumps.
32.2 VE Description of Alternative Concept: SeveralitemsarepresentedinthisVE
alternativethatmayresultinasavingsinconstructioncostoroperationalcosts.Thismaybe
evenmorenecessaryifthepretreatmentprocessischangedinordertoobtainmoreCT
disinfectioncredit(SeeVEAlternativeTP7).Thealternativeconceptswouldinclude(asa
minimum):
1.Changingtheconfigurationofthefilteredwatertanks.Forexample,usingconcrete
withcommonwallconstructionbymakingitrectangular
2.Usingverticalturbinepumpsasthefilteredwaterpumps.Thismayresultinmore
efficientpumpsandmorecosteffectiveconstruction
3.Ifitisfeasibletohavelessthan600,000gallonsoffilteredwatertankstorage,this
wouldallowtheprojecttoreducetanksizeandassociatedcosts
4.IfflocculationisusedtoincreasetheCTdisinfectioncredits,thentheentirepumping
layoutwillhavetobereevaluated
32.3 SPI Comment:
Optimization of the configuration would be recommended for any process design.
However, until the final feed water quality is known, it is only conjecture at this
time. Thus, the optimization of the system would be completed after the well has
been developed and the feed quality is known.
32.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: Any schedule impacts cannot be determined at this time.
32.5 SPI Risk Impacts: Any risks are associated with the results of the final feed water
quality.
32.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends that this alternative not be pursued at this point.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 43, Packet Page 87
SPI Comments on VE Study
43
33 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP10: Considersandremovalprocessprior
topretreatment
35.3 SPI Comment: The blending of the brine with raw water allows the plant to continue
producing water when there is insufficient waste water to blend the brine with for
disposal. This would prevent the shutdown of the plant or the storage of membranes in
sterilized solution. Thus, it is recommended by SPI as a viable alternative.
35.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: There should be no schedule impacts due to this item.
35.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No increased risks are perceived.
35.6 SPI Conclusion: SPI recommends acceptance of this alternative.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 47, Packet Page 91
SPI Comments on VE Study
47
36 VE Alternative Number and Description: TP13:For6.4MGDplantoption,eliminate
brinepitandcirculatethepermeateandbrineuntildischargeisallowed
36.3 SPI Comment: This alternative does not address the 9.6 mgd case. In either event, the
plant may have to be secured in the event the disposal of brine cannot be carried out. In
that case it is recommended that the plant be put into intermittent operation (i.e.,
operation every 2days for a period of 4hours).
36.4 SPI Schedule Impacts: No schedule impacts result
35.5 SPI Risk Impacts: No risk impacts result.
36.6 SPI Conclusion: The costs given for this alternative do not appear to justify its use.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 9., tem Page 48, Packet Page 92
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report
Date: October 09, 2014
Item No: 10.
FROM: Executive Director Cullem
SUBJECT: Receive report and discuss updated MPWSP Critical Path (CPM) Permits
& Approvals Schedule (detailed version) to include the CEMEX Access
Issue, especially and as it pertains to the November Coastal Commission
meeting to consider the Test Slant Well, and provide staff direction.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Authority receive an update from Cal Am on the SUMMARY
schedule to appeal the Marina City Council rejection of the Test Slant well, to secure
access to the CEMEX site, to obtain a CDP from the Coastal Commission in November
2014, and provide staff direction as appropriate.
DISCUSSION:
The Marina City Council considered the Test Slant Well MND and City CDP at its
meeting of Sept 4, 2014. The Council voted 3-2 rejecting the approvals based on an
interpretation of CEQA law that a full EIR is required if experts, "based on factual
evidence", disagree. Cal Am appealed the decision to the Coastal Commission.
However, CEMEX has recently denied Cal Am access to the test well site, endangering
the plan to have the Coastal Commission consider the appeal at its November 2014
meeting as well as to issue a Coastal Commission CDP for the test well.
Unfortunately, the approval of access was not identified on the Permits and Approvals
Critical Path schedule prepared by Cal Am.
Cal Am has been requested to discuss the SUMMARY version of the Permits and
Approvals schedule, including the CEMEX access issue and other similar issues that
need to be on the critical path.
Following discussion, the Water Authority is requested to determine what if any
communication should be provided the Coastal Commission in advance of the
November Coastal Commission meeting.
EXHIBIT:
A- CPM (SUMMARY version) Permits and Approval Schedule
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 10., tem Page 1, Packet Page 93
MPWSP Anticipated Schedule
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
DEIR
Jan 2015
FEIR
July 2015
Construction & Commissioning
S O N D
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
60%
09-2014
90%
03-2016
Final
06-2016
Start-up Window
Partial or Full
Construction & Commissioning
Start Construction
07-2016
Design, Easements, Permitting & Contracts
CCC
Approval
Feb-Mar. 2016
Nov. 12-14
Coastal Comm.
Hearing
Note: The schedule is based on the information and assumptions available at time of update and is accurate to +/-6 months.
Sept. 3
Marina
Council
Decision
SWRCB Current
CDO Deadline
Dec. 31, 2016
!
Pipelines / Tanks / BPS
Desal Plant
Test Well
EIR
Construction
Slant Wells
Phase 1
2019
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A
CPUC
Approval
Q3 2015
Slant Wells
Phase 3
Slant Wells
Phase 2
Production Wells
Mid 2018 Q1 2019
Test Well Operation
Start Construction
04-2016
(if needed)
Design & Permitting
MPWSP Anticipated Schedule
Snowy Plover Nesting Season
Limited Construction Activity
Snowy Plover Nesting Season
Limited Construction Activity
Snowy Plover Nesting Season
Limited Construction Activity
Updated October 2, 2014
M
P
R
W
A
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,
1
0
/
9
/
2
0
1
4
,
t
e
m
N
o
.
1
0
.
,
t
e
m
P
a
g
e
2
,
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
4
MRWPCA Test Well Outfall Agreement & Approval
Contracts
Awarded
JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
CEMEX Test Well Schedule
Updated October 2, 2014
Finalize
Report
6/18-
6/27
7/10
Marina
Planning
Commission
CCC
Prepare & Distribute
Staff Report
Nov. 12-14
CCC Mtg
for Appeal &
Original
Application
Test Well RFP
Preparation
RFP
released
RFP received, evaluated, negotiated
CEQA
NEPA
Finalize Report
6/18-6/20
Public Review
6/23-7/26
Prepare
Draft
FONSI
7/26-8/10
Construction
MBNMS
Review of
FONSI 8/10-
8/30
Final
FONSI
9/1
9/15
FONSI
Approval
9/15
10/1
Agreements & Land
Construction
(mid Nov to March 1)
CEMEX Easement / Access Rights
9/3
Submittal
approvals and
pre-con activity
Order Long Lead Items (pump, stainless steel screens, pump column)
CCC
Appeal
Filed
9/24
Council
Special
Mtg
Post
Appr.
Compl.
Items
2014
2014
Cemex Slant Test Well Anticipated Schedule
Note: The schedule is based on the information and assumptions available at time of update.
Court Proceedings
10/8: CalAm briefs & proposed order
10/15: CEMEX file opposition
10/22: CalAm file replies
10/31: Hearing & Decision
M
P
R
W
A
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,
1
0
/
9
/
2
0
1
4
,
t
e
m
N
o
.
1
0
.
,
t
e
m
P
a
g
e
3
,
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
5
CEMEX Test Well Schedule
Note: The schedule is based on the information and assumptions available at time of update is accurate to +/-3 months.
Submit
Project to
Lead
Agency
Finalize
IS/MND
CEQA CA STATE PARKS LEAD AGENCY
NEPA
Draft EA
Prepare, Revise, Review
30-day
Public
Public
Review
Prepare
Draft
FONSI
MBNMS
Review of
FONSI
Final
FONSI
FONSI
Approval
30-day
Public
Review
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT
2014 2015
Potrero Slant Test Well Anticipated Schedule
Draft IS/MND
Prepare, Responsible Agency Comments
Revise, Review
Submit
Project to
Lead
Agency
Lead Agency
IS/MND
Approval
Review
Final
IS/MND
Coastal Commission
10-day
Appeal
CCC
Prepare &
Distribute
Staff Report
CCC Mtg
Sept. 9-11
Construction
(mid-Oct to March 1)
2015 2015
Updated October 2, 2014
M
P
R
W
A
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,
1
0
/
9
/
2
0
1
4
,
t
e
m
N
o
.
1
0
.
,
t
e
m
P
a
g
e
4
,
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
9
6
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Agenda Report
Date: October 09, 2014
Item No: 11.
FROM: Executive Director Cullem
SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide guidance, including the nature and
timing of a Water Authority letter to the SWRCB, on current efforts to seek
an extension of the CDO date based on circumstances beyond
Community control.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Water Authority discuss the tone and timing of letters to the
State Water Resources Board (SWRCB), as well as other appropriate actions to support
an extension of the Cease and Desist Order (CDO 2009-60) deadline.
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting of August 14, 20914, the Water Authority Board voted to draft a letter to
the SWRCB notifying the State Board of delays in the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP) beyond the control of Cal Am or the Community. These
notifications would support a CDO time extension. The Water Authority also directed
that a letter be drafted to the CPUC requesting that it also write the SWRCB concerning
these delays, including those resulting from the preparation of the EIR.
Since representatives of the Water Authority are scheduled to attend a SWRCB staff
meeting in Sacramento on November 7th to discuss the CDO, the Executive Director
suggests these letters be prepared after that meeting takes place and after we have
better defined our strategy for getting an extension.
MPRWA Meeting, 10/9/2014 , tem No. 11., tem Page 1, Packet Page 97