Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14

7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14

1/179

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

FOR THE

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

California American WaterMonterey County Board of Supervisors

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water AuthorityMonterey Peninsula Water Management District

This meeting has been

noticed according to the

Brown Act rules. This

agenda was posted onAugust 22, 2014.

Governance

Committee Members:

California American

Water

Robert MacLean

Monterey Peninsula

Regional Water Authority

Jason Burnett, Chair

Alt.- Chuck Della Sala

County of Monterey

David Potter

Alt. - Simon Salinas

Monterey Peninsula

Water Management

District

Robert S. Brower, Sr.

Vice Chair

Alt. Jeanne Byrne

Staff Contact:

David J. Stoldt, MPWMD

Arlene Tavani, MPWMD

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

Governance Committee

***************

Monday, August 25, 2014, 1:30 PM

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Conference Room,

5 Harris Court, Building G., Monterey, CA

Call to Order/Roll Call

Pledge of Allegiance

Public CommentsAnyone wishing to address the Committee on matters not listed on the agenda that are within the subject

jurisdiction of the Committee, may do so during Public Comments. The public may comment on any other

items listed on the agenda at the time they are considered by the Committee . Please limit your comment

to 3 (three) minutes.

Action Items Public Comment will be Received

1. Approve Draft Minutes of July 16, 2014 Governance Committee

Meeting

2. Approve Response to California American Water re Request for

Proposal for Test Slant Well Construction

3. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction on the Value

Engineering Final Report for the Cal Am Desalination Facility

Reports to Committee Public Comment will be Received

4. Progress Report from California American Water on Development of Monterey

Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination Plant

Discussion Items Public Comment will be Received

5. Suggest Items to be Placed on Future Agendas
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item1.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item1.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item2.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item2.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item2.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item3.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item3.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item3.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item3.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item2.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item2.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item1.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item1.htm


2/179

After staff reports have been distributed, if additional documents are produced

by the Governance Committee and provided to a majority of the committeemembers regarding any item on the agenda, they will be available at the

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) office during normal

business hours, and posted on the Governance Committee website at

http://www.mpwmd.net/GovernanceCommittee/GovernanceCmte.htm .

Documents distributed at the meeting will be made available in the same

manner.

Upon request, a reasonable effort will be made to provide written agenda

materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or

accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with

disabilities to participate in public meetings. A reasonable effort will also be

made to provide translation services upon request. Please submit a writtenrequest, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief

description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or

auxiliary aid or service by 5:00 PM on Friday, August 22, 2014. Requests should

be sent to the Board Secretary, MPWMD, P.O. Box 85, Monterey, CA, 93942.

You may also fax your request to the Administrative Services Division at 831-644-

9560, or call 831-658-5600.

U:\staff\MPWSPGovernanceCmte\2014\20140825\20140825Agenda.docx

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee

Meeting Date: August 25, 2014
http://www.mpwmd.net/GovernanceCommittee/GovernanceCmte.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.net/GovernanceCommittee/GovernanceCmte.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.net/GovernanceCommittee/GovernanceCmte.htm


3/179

Action: Review and approve the committee minutes.

Exhibits:

1-A Draft Minutes of the July 16, 2014 Governance Committee Meeting

DRAFT MINUTESRegular Meeting

Governance Committeefor the

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply ProjectJuly 16, 2014

Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:35 pm in the conference room of the

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District offices.

Members Present: Jason Burnett, Chair, representing Monterey Peninsula Regional Water

Authority (JPA)

David Potter, representing Monterey County Board of Supervisors

Richard Svindland, Vice President of Engineering, California American Water

(Alternate for Robert MacLean)Members Absent: Robert S. Brower, Sr., Vice Chair, representative for Monterey Peninsula Water

Management District

Robert MacLean, representative for California American Water

Pledge of Allegiance: The assembly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Public Comments: Michael Warburton, representing the Public Trust Alliance, stated that

desalination technology is not the only water supply option for the Monterey

Peninsula, and that there is time to develop another solution. He hopes that

Monterey County can solve the water problem in a reasonable wayAgenda Items

The Chair received public comment on each agenda item.

Action Items

1. Approve Request for Proposal for Test Slant Well Construction Consisting of Three separate

Packages

A. Slant Well Construction

B. Monitoring Wells

C. Civil Construction (pipeline, electrical, instrumentation, vault)

Ian Crooks, Engineering Manager for California American Waters Coastal Division, provided an estimate

of test slant well construction costs; schedules for construction of the desalination project and CEMEX

test well; schedule for EIR completion; and schedule to obtain a Coastal Development Permit and Local

Coastal Plan approval. A copy of Mr. Crooks presentation is available for review on the Governance

C itt b it
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item1ExhA.htmhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item1ExhA.htm


4/179

contractors qualified to drill slant wells is limited so it is advantageous to separate the contracts. A

separate bid document is presented for civil work which consists of connections to the Monterey

Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (PCA) outfall, electrical conduit from the wellhead to theCEMEX site and a portion of wellhead construction all above ground facilities. The RFP for civil work

will not be released immediately as all preliminary work has not been completed. Cal-Am could

combine the documents into one RFP if that was preferred by the Governance Committee. It may be

that if one contractor bids on all three projects, the risk to Cal-Am could be reduced. If the project

design is changed, the contract for civil work may be affected. However, the civil contract will be

awarded in September, so there will be time to modify the RFP if necessary.

Public Comment: Michael Warburton, representing the Public Trust Alliance, stated that the public willpay more for desalinated water than it currently does for water. The California Coastal Commission will

likely determine if the high cost of desalination technology is reasonable. Awarding contracts prior to

receipt of California Coastal Commission approval is a risk to the ratepayers.

Additional comments from Crooks and Svindland. (c) Work cannot proceed until the contractor receives

a notice to proceed from Cal-Am. If the Coastal Commission required modifications to the project, they

would be negotiated with the contractor. Cal-Am must purchase a pump, pump columns, casing, and

screen in advance of contractor selection, due to the amount of time needed to order and manufacturethese items. However, they would not be installed until a notice to proceed is issued. Cal-Am could

authorize $50,000 or $100,000 for planning efforts, but a contractor could not exceed that amount until

a notice-to-proceed is issued.

On a motion by Potter and second of Burnett, the Governance Committee voted to support distribution

of the RFPs as presented by Cal-Am, and recommended incorporation of the following items 1 through

3, that are based on the May 28, 2013 recommendations from the Governance Committee to Cal-Am on

the RFP for Design and Construction of Desalination Infrastructure. The motion was adoptedunanimously on a vote of 2 0 by Potter and Burnett. Brower was absent for the vote. Svindland

expressed agreement with the motion.

Recommendations of the Committee

1. The Governance Committee Supports inclusion of a goal for local hiring. California

American Water (Cal-Am) shall review the County of Monterey ordinance that specifies

local hires and consider inclusion of that or similar language in the monitoring well and

civil construction work RFPs. The bidders local utilization plan should be a factor in the40% technical evaluation criteria. Should non-local contractors be selected, Cal-Am

should provide an explanation for its hiring decision.

2.

Bidders should be advised that the rate of corrosion is high in the local coastal marine

environment. Good quality materials are required so that Cal-Am and the rate payers

will not be responsible to pay for replacement of components that have developed rust


5/179

Reports to Committee

2. Progress Report from California-American Water on Development of Monterey Peninsula Water

Supply Project Desalination PlantCrooks reviewed the desalination plant project schedule with the attendees. He noted that project

design is on schedule, and the Value Engineering Study should be complete by the end of July 2014. In

response to questions from the committee he stated that: (a) the project EIR should be completed by

the end of September 2014. (b) The bore hole technical memo was released, and the results will be

incorporated into the computer groundwater model runs. (c) Slant well test data will not be

incorporated into the EIR. The consultant believes that information gained from groundwater modeling

will be sufficient for incorporation into the EIR. (d) An application for test wells at the Potrero Road site

is complete and should be submitted soon to the County of Monterey.

Comments from the public. (a) David Stoldt, General Manager, Monterey Peninsula Water Management

District, asked for clarification as to the time needed to obtain pumps for the test wells. Svindland

advised that the time period is 20 weeks. (b) George Riley asked what are Phase 2 and Phase 3 in

relation to a two year baseline requirement. Svindland responded that those phases represent

construction periods scheduled when there is no danger to the Snowy Plover. (c) Michael Warburton

disagreed with the assumption that test well data that will not be available until after completion of the

project EIR is irrelevant to the EIR process. Svindland responded that Cal-Am plans to operate test wellsfor two years. The hydro working group believes that a two-year period is not needed. The California

Coastal Commission will specify the actual test well period. Cal-Ams application to the California Public

Utilities Commission suggests that from 8 to 15 production wells will be needed; however, that number

will not be known until final design is completed.

3.Update on Development of Landfill Gas Term Sheet

Crooks reported that Cal-Am met with representatives from the Monterey Regional Waste Management

District (Waste Management) regarding a power purchase agreement. Waste Managements currentagreements for sale of power expire prior to expected operation of the desalination project. It was

agreed that Waste Management will contract for sale of power with another party for a 3 to 4 year

period. At the appropriate time, Cal-Am will contact Waste Management about negotiating a new

agreement to supply power to the desalination project. Cal-Am may purchase power from PG&E for a

short time, until power comes available from Waste Management.

Comments from the public. Michael Warburton stated that the green power to be generated by Waste

Management should be allocated to offset existing uses of power, not for a new desalination project.According to Mr. Warburton, use of the additional power should be an issue for public debate.

4.Discussion Items

Suggest Items to be Placed on Future Agendas

Suggestions were pipeline issues, a recommendation on the Value Engineering Study, and an update on

h ll f l


6/179



Agenda Item: 2. Approve Response to California American Water re Request for

Proposal for Test Slant Well Construction

Summary: Attached asExhibit 2-Ais a draft response to Cal-Am Notification #4, that

informed the Governance Committee of Cal-Ams intent to issue two

requests for proposals for the procurement of: (1) drilling of one testslant well and nine monitoring wells, and (2) civil construction work for

the test slant well. The Governance Committee reviewed the draft RFPs

on July 16, 2014, and recommended distribution of the proposals with

specific modifications.

Action: Review the draft response to Cal-Am, modify if necessary, and direct that

it be signed and delivered.

Exhibits:

2-A Draft Response to Cal-Am Notification #4
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item2ExhA.pdfhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item2ExhA.pdfhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item2ExhA.pdfhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item2ExhA.pdfhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item2ExhA.pdfhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item2ExhA.pdf


7/179

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

FOR THE

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER S UPPLY PROJ ECT

California American Water Monterey County Board of SupervisorsMonterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

August 26, 2014

Richard C. Svindland, P.E.Vice President - EngineeringCalifornia American Water4701 Beloit DriveSacramento, CA 95838

Subject: Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee Response to Cal-AmNotification #4 Draft Requests for Proposals Related to Source Water Infrastructure to be issuedby California American Water

Dear Mr. Svindland:

On July 16, 2014, the Governance Committee completed its review of the two requests for proposalsfor: (1) drilling of one test slant well and nine monitoring wells and (2) civil construction work for

the test slant well, which are collectively valued in excess of $1 million and relate to construction ofthe Source Water Infrastructure. After careful consideration and receipt of public input,Governance Committee members David Potter and Jason Burnett voted unanimously torecommend distribution of the Requests for Proposals with the modifications listed below.

1) The Governance Committee supports inclusion of a goal for local hiring. CaliforniaAmerican Water (Cal-Am) shall review the County of Monterey ordinance that specifieslocal hires and consider inclusion of that or similar language in the source waterinfrastructure RFPs. The bidders local utilization plan should be a factor in the 40%technical evaluation criteria. Should non-local contractors be selected, Cal-Am shouldprovide an explanation for its hiring decision.

2) Bidders should be advised that the rate of corrosion is high in the local coastal marineenvironment. Good quality materials are required so that Cal-Am and the rate payers willnot be responsible to pay for replacement of components that have developed rust after a

EXHIBIT 2-A


8/179

Mr. Richard SvindlandAugust 26, 2014Page 2 of 2

On behalf of the Governance Committee members, I want to thank Cal-Am for cooperating withlocal agencies to ensure that the public was involved in making this important decision.

Respectfully,

Jason K. Burnett, ChairMonterey Peninsula Water Supply ProjectGovernance Committee

U:\staff\MPWSPGovernanceCmte\2014\20140825\item2ExhA.docx


9/179



Agenda Item: 3. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction on the Value

Engineering Final Report for the Cal Am Desalination Facility

Summary: The Final Value Engineering (VE) Study for the Monterey Peninsula Water

Supply Project is attached asExhibit 3-A. The study was presented to the

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA) on August 14,2014. The MPRWA discussed the VE Study and directed staff to contract

with SPI on preparation of an analysis of the assumptions and

recommendations in the VE Study, for review and action by the MPRWA

on September 11, 2014. The SPI analysis and the MPRWA

recommendation on the Final VE Study should be forwarded to the

Governance Committee for action at its September 17, 2014 meeting.

Action: The Governance committee should review the Final VE Study, receive a

report from California American Water, take public comment and then

determine if there are questions or issues raised in the report that should

be analyzed by SPI.

Discussion: The VE Study for 30% design of the desalination facility focuses 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. The additional SPI analysis will be

awarded by MPRWA, which authorized up to $5,000 to fund the report.

Exhibits:

3-A Final Value Engineering Study Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination

Plant August 2014
http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item3ExhA_VEReport2014.pdfhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item3ExhA_VEReport2014.pdfhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item3ExhA_VEReport2014.pdfhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item3ExhA_VEReport2014.pdfhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item3ExhA_VEReport2014.pdfhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item3ExhA_VEReport2014.pdfhttp://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/GovernanceCommittee/StaffNotes/2014/20140825/item3ExhA_VEReport2014.pdf


10/179

FinalValueEngineeringStudyReport

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProject

DesalinationPlant

August

2014


11/179

Date:

August1,

2014

To: JamesM.Cullem,ExecutiveDirector

MontereyPeninsulaRegionalWaterAuthority

735PacificStreet

Monterey,CA93940

Subject:

FinalValue

Engineering

Study

Report

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectDesalination

Plant

DearMr.Cullem:

ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.ispleasedtotransmitthisFinal

Value

Engineering

Study

Report

for

the

referenced

project.

This

report

summarizestheresultsandeventsoftheVEworkshopconductedJuly

711,2014,inMonterey,California.

Weenjoyedworkingwithyouandlookforwardtocontinuingour

effortstoassistMontereyPeninsulaRegionalWaterAuthorityand

CaliforniaAmericanWaterinthisandfutureValueEngineeringefforts.

Ifyou

have

any

questions

or

concerns

regarding

this

report,

please

contactmeat(816)[email protected].

Sincerely,

VALUEMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIES,INC.

MarkWatson,PE,CVS,PMP

VETeamLeader

Copy: (PDF)Addressee

ValueLeadership

CORPORATEOFFICE:

900

Canterbury

Place

Suite

330

Escondido,

CA

92025

T:

760

741

5518

F:

760

741

5617

Sacramento,California

T: 9162249812

GrandJunction,Colorado

T: 9702425531

Merriam,Kansas

T: 8162060067

LasVegas,Nevada

T: 7203084205

Portland,Oregon

T: 5039579642

Bothell,Washington

T: 206679802


12/179

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS FINALREPORT

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

...................................................................................................................

1

ProjectSummary

ProjectPurposeandNeed

VEStudyBasis

VEStudyObjectives

EvaluationofBaselineConcept

PerformanceAttributes

Risk

Analysis

VEStudyResults

ComparisonofPerformance

SummaryofVEStrategy

ComparisonofValueBaselineConceptandVEStrategy

VEAlternativeImplementation

VETeam

VE

ALTERNATIVES

...........................................................................................................................

7

VEStrategies

VEAlternativeSummaryTables

OtherConsiderations

VEAlternativeDocumentation

DesignComments

PROJECT

INFORMATION

.............................................................................................................

104

Background

ProjectDescription

InformationProvidedtotheVETeam

ProjectDrawings

ProjectCostEstimate

PROJECTANALYSIS..................................................................................................................... 109

Summary

of

Analysis

EnvisionEvaluation

LEEDEvaluation

KeyVEFocusPoints

CostModel

FunctionAnalysis


13/179

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS FINALREPORT

ValueMetrics

(Continued)

ComparePerformanceBaselineConceptandVEStrategy

RatingRationaleforVEStrategy

CompareValue


RiskAnalysis

PerformanceRiskRanking:PostResponse

Cost

Risk

Ranking:

Post

Response

ScheduleRiskRanking:PostResponse

OverallProjectRiskMagnitude

RiskRegisters:PreResponseandPostResponse

IDEAEVALUATION...................................................................................................................... 147


VEEvaluationProcess

IdeaSummary

IdeaSummaryList

VALUE

ENGINEERING

PROCESS

...................................................................................................

152

PreStudyPreparation

VEStudy

PostStudyProcedures

ValueEngineeringStudyAgenda

ValueEngineering

Study

Meeting

Attendees


14/179

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY


15/179

EXECUTIVESUMMARY FINALREPORT

AValue

Engineering

(VE)

study,

sponsored

by

the

Monterey

Peninsula

Regional

Water

Authority

and

facilitatedbyValueManagementStrategies,Inc.,wasconductedfortheDesalinationPlantportionof

theMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProject. ThestudywasconductedattheofficesofCalifornia

AmericanWaterinMonterey,CaliforniaJuly7through11,2014. ThisExecutiveSummaryprovidesan

overviewofthesubjectproject,summaryresultsoftheVEteamsanalysis,andthealternatives

developedbytheVEteam.

PROJECT

SUMMARY

LedbyCaliforniaAmericanWaterCompany(CAW),theMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProject

(MPWSP)isacomplex,multicomponentprogramthatisnecessarytoreplacealargepercentageof

thelocaldrinkingwatersupplythatcurrentlyoriginatesfromtheCarmelRiver.StateWater

ResourcesControlBoard(SWRCB)Order9510requiresCAWtoreducediversionsfromtheCarmel

Riverbyapproximately70%nolaterthanDecember31,2016.

In

order

to

meet

the

cutback

requirements

and

provide

adequate

water

to

the

Monterey

Peninsula

communities,CAWplansincludethreeprojectstoaddressthisregionalwatercrisis:

DesalinationofseawaterfromwellsdrawingwaterfromMontereyBay

GroundwaterReplenishment(GWR)withadvancedtreatmentofwastewaterbytheMonterey

RegionalWaterPollutionControlAuthorityPlant

AquiferStorageandRecovery(ASR)

ThisVEstudyfocusedsolelyonthedesalinationplantportionofthewatersupplyproject.

Treatmentatthedesalinationplantwillconsistofoxidationwithsodiumhypochlorite,granular

mediafiltration,dechlorination,pHadjustmentwithsulfuricacid,cartridgefiltration,afirstpassof

seawaterreverseosmosis(SWRO),apartialsecondpassofbrackishwaterreverseosmosis(BWRO),

disinfectionwithultravioletlight,poststabilizationtreatmentwithcarbondioxideandhydratedlime,

pHadjustmentwithsodiumhydroxide,additionofanorthophosphatecorrosioninhibitorandpost

chlorinationwithsodiumhypochlorite.

CDMSmithwasselectedastheconsultantforthedesalinationplantdesignbuildproject.Theirwork

willincludethedesign,constructionandcommissioningoftheproposedseawaterdesalinationplant.

Theplannedfacilitiesincludethetreatmentplant,treatedwaterstorageandpumping,and


16/179

resources.ThepurposeofthedesalinationplantportionoftheMPWSPistotreatthewatersupplied

bytheseawaterintakewellssufficienttomeettheapplicablewaterqualitystandards.

VE

STUDY

BASIS

TheVEstudywasbasedonthe30%DesignSubmittaldocumentspreparedbytheprojectsdesign

buildcontractor,CDMSmith,datedJune,2014.

VE

STUDY

OBJECTIVES

TheVEteamwastaskedwithexploringideastoimproveprojectvalueby:

Reducingprojectcostwithoutsacrificingfunctionality

Identifyingopportunitiestoimprovethedesalinationplantsoperationsandreliability

Identifyingrecommendationsforreducinglongtermoperationalcosts

Improvingtheoverallmaintainabilityofthefacility

EVALUATION

OF

BASELINE

CONCEPT

ThefirstdayoftheVEstudyincludedmeetingswithCDMSmithand

otherprojectstakeholderrepresentatives.DuringtheVEteamsanalysis

ofthebaselineconcept,anumberofanalyticaltoolsandtechniques

wereusedtodevelopathoroughunderstandingofthefunctional

requirementsoftheprojectandhowwellthebaselineconceptwas

performingthefunctions. Amajorcomponentofthisanalysiswasthe

useofValueMetrics,whichseekstoassesstheelementsofcost,

performance,time,

and

risk

as

they

relate

to

project

value.

These

elementsrequiredadeeperlevelofanalysis,theresultsofwhichare

detailedintheProjectAnalysissectionofthisreport. Thekey

performanceattributesidentifiedfortheprojectarelistedinthetable

ontheright,PerformanceAttributes.

BelowisasummaryofthemajorobservationsandconclusionsidentifiedduringtheVEteamsinitial

analysis

of

the

baseline

concept

which

led

the

VE

team

to

identify

the

alternatives

resulting

from

this

studyandpresentedherein.

Buildingsarelocatedontheareaofthesitemostpronetosettlementduringaseismicevent.

Theprojectisassumingdeepdynamicsoilcompactiontoaddresscollapsiblesoils.


Maintainability

PlantOperations

FutureFlexibility

EnvironmentalImpacts

Sustainability

Aesthetics


17/179

TheprojectwillusegranularpressurefiltersforpretreatmentofseawaterpriortotheRO

membranestoremoveironandmanganese.

The

current

design

is

providing

storage

tanks

for

filtered

water

in

order

to

maintain

constantpumpheadthroughtheROprocess.

Theprojectassumesabrinedisposalbasinwillbenecessarywhenwastewatertreatment

plant(WWTP)dischargeoutfallisnotavailable.

Thedesalinationplantmayhaveanissueremovinglargeequipmentformaintenancerelative

toaccessandequipmenttransport.

Thecurrentdesignshowspumpsinchemicalstoragesumps. Itisnotfullyunderstoodwhere

thepumpsdischarge.

Theprojectiscurrentlyplanningforrigorousacceptancetestproceduresandrequirements.

Theinstallationofpreengineeredmetalbuildingswillrequiretreatmenttopreventcorrosion

andwillrequiremaintenanceoverthelifeofthefacility.

Thecurrentprocessdesignisrecapturing45%ofthefirstpasstreatmentwaterand90%of

thesecondpasstreatmentwater(averageof43%totalrecoveryfortheplant).

Additionally,sustainabilityevaluationswereconductedtoassessthebaselineconceptagainstthe

sustainabilityrequirementsofboththeU.S.GreenBuildingCouncil(LEED)andtheInstitutefor

SustainableInfrastructure(Envision).TheresultingsustainabilityassessmentisincludedintheProject

Analysis

section

of

this

report.

RISKANALYSIS

AqualitativeriskanalysiswasperformedinconjunctionwiththeVEstudytoidentifyrisksrelatedto

projectcost,time(schedule),andabilitytoperformitsrequiredfunctions. TheVEteamalso

discussedandidentifiedpossibleriskmitigationstrategiesinanefforttoreducetheoverallrisk

profileoftheproject. RiskRegistersweredevelopedfortheprojectandareprovidedintheProject

Analysissection

of

this

report.

These

Risk

Registers

provide

all

of

the

information

for

each

risk

includingdescriptions,probabilities,impactsandpotentialriskresponsestrategies.

Thefollowingarethekeylessonslearnedidentifiedasaresultoftheriskanalysisexercise:

There is currently no raw water quality data available Water quality may impact the


18/179

Amajorityoftherisksidentifiedarebeingactivelymonitoredandmanagedbytheprojectdesign

teamandprojectmanagementteams. KeyriskmitigationstrategiesidentifiedbytheVEteam

includedmembranepretreatmenttomitigatetheriskassociatedwithunknownsourcewaterquality,

andrevising

the

construction

schedule

to

allow

the

respective

features

time

to

be

revised

when

informationbecomesavailable.

VESTUDYRESULTS

TheVEteamidentified33VEAlternativesand13DesignCommentstosupportoverallprojectvalue.

TheVEAlternativesareorganizedbytheprimarytopicorprojectaspecttowhichtheyrefer:

BuildingDesign

and

Site

Alternatives

WaterTreatmentEquipmentandEquipmentLayoutAlternatives

MaintainabilityAlternatives

RiskMitigationandScheduleAlternatives

TreatmentProcessAlternatives

Ofthesealternatives,16wereselectedandrecommendedbytheVEteamasacumulatively

implementablealternative

strategy

focused

on

enhancing

overall

value

potential

for

the

project.

The

alternativeshavebeensummarizedinthefollowingsectionofthisreport. Thetotalnetpotential

costsavingsoftheVEStrategyisapproximately$9millionininitialcostsavingsand$23millioninlife

cyclecostsavings. Itshouldbenotedthatanumberofthesealternativeswouldincreasetheinitial

projectcosts;however,theyinturnprovidebenefitstoprojectperformanceorinthereductionof

maintenanceandenergyusage.

ToevaluatetheperformanceoftheVEStrategy,theVEteamconsideredthecombinedeffectofall

VEalternatives.

The

total

performance

scores

reflect

the

performance

rating

for

each

attribute

multipliedbyitsoverallpriority(weight)expressedusingaratioscale. Thefollowingchartcompares

thetotalperformancescoresforthebaselineconceptandtheEnhancedValueVEStrategy.

ComparisonofPerformance

EnhancedValueCombination

BaselineConcept


19/179

The

table

below

summarizes

the

savings

associated

with

the

Enhanced

Value

Strategy.

The

performance

scores

were

divided

by

the

total

cost

scores

for

the

strategy

to

derive

a

value

index.

The

valueindexfortheVEStrategywasthencomparedagainstthevalueindexofthebaselineconcept

and

the

difference

is

expressed

as

a

percent

change.

SummaryofVEStrategy

StrategyDescription InitialCostSavingsLCC

Savings

Performance

Change

Value

Change

EnhancedValueCombination $9,161,000 $23,204,000 +13% +29%

TheComparisonofValuechartbelowsummarizesthetotalimpacttoprojectvalueresultingfromthe

VE

Study.

The

blue

bars

represent

total

project

performance

and

the

green

bars

represent

total

cost.

Details

and

additional

analysis

of

the

baseline

concept

and

VE

Strategy

performance

ratings

are

included

in

the

Project

Analysis

section

of

this

report.


VEALTERNATIVEIMPLEMENTATION

VEstudiesareworkingsessionswiththepurposeofidentifyinganddevelopingalternative

approachestoagivenproject,thenpresentingthemtoallprojectstakeholdersforconsideration.

0%

29%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

Baseline EnhancedValue

Changein

Value

Re

lativeScores

Performance Cost/TimeRating ChangeinValue


20/179

Detailedfeasibilityassessment,determinationoftheVEalternativesimplementation,andfinal

designdevelopmentwillbemadefollowingsubmittalofthisFinalVEStudyReport.

VE

TEAM

ParticipantsontheVEteamincludedindependenttechnicalexpertsfromHDREngineering,Inc.and

WaterGloberepresentingArchitecture,PlantOperations/Maintenance,Sustainability(LEEDand

Envision),Civil/StructuralEngineering,Electrical/Instrumentation&Controls,andWaterTreatment

Processes. RepresentativesfromCaliforniaAmericanWateralsoparticipatedtoprovideinsightinto

theirPlantOperationsandMaintenanceproceduresaswellastheirengineeringstandardsand

requirementsfortheproject. ThepublicinterestswererepresentedbyMontereyPeninsulaRegional

WaterAuthority

and

Monterey

Peninsula

Water

Management

District.

A

full

list

of

participants

in

the

VEstudyisincludedfollowingtheValueEngineeringProcesssectionofthisreport.


21/179

VALUE

ENGINEERING

ALTERNATIVES


22/179

VEALTERNATIVES FINALREPORT

Theresults

of

this

study

are

presented

as

individual

alternatives

to

the

baseline

concept.

Each

alternativeconsistsofasummaryofthebaselineconcept,adescriptionofthesuggestedchange,a

listingofitsadvantagesanddisadvantages,acostcomparison,discussionofscheduleandrisk

impacts(ifapplicable),andabriefnarrativecomparingthebaselinedesignwiththealternative.

Sketchesandcalculationsarealsopresentedwhereapplicable.

Roughorderofmagnitudeinitialandlifecyclecostestimateswerepreparedwhereapplicablein

ordertocomparethenetcostdifferencebetweenthebaselineconceptsandtheVEAlternatives. In

severalcases,theestimatesdonotincludethetotalfeaturecost,butonlythosecomponentsthatare

changedbythealternative. ThereadershouldnotethattheeffortsoftheVEteamindevelopingthe

alternativesintheshorttimeperiodoftheVEstudylimitstheirfindingstoconceptuallevelanalyses

androughorderofmagnitudecostestimatesonly. Additionally,withtheprojectbeingdeliveredvia

adesignbuildcontractoralreadyundercontract,thecostsavingsorcostincreasesreportedforthe

VEAlternativesrepresenttheirpotentialcostimpactsonlyandweredevelopedtoprovidedecision

makersasenseofthepotentialsignificanceoftheVEAlternatives.

VESTRATEGIES

VEstudiesresultinthedevelopmentofanumberofalternatives. Whileitispossibleforall

alternativestobeimplemented,typicallytherearecombinationsofsomealternativesthatmay

providethebestsolutionfortheproject. Thisisduetothefactthatsomealternativesmaybe

competingideasordifferentwaystoaddressthesameissue.

Asaresultofthesefactors,theVEteamdevelopedastrategythatrepresentsonepossiblecombinationofalternativesfortheprojecttoassistthedecisionmakersintheirevaluationoftheVE

alternatives. Thisstrategyisbasedonfactorsthatincludeimprovedperformance,likelihoodof

implementation,and/orcostsavingspotential. Thisinformationisaguideandisnotintendedto

rejecttheotheralternativesfromstakeholderconsideration.

VEALTERNATIVESUMMARYTABLES

SummaryofVEAlternatives

AlternativeNo.&Description InitialCostSavingsLifeCycleCost

Savings

TotalCostSavings

Potential


23/179


Savings

TotalCostSavings

Potential

BD3Increaseoccupancycategoriesof

processstructures

(category

IV

for

the

processcriticalfacilities)

($475,000)

$0

($475,000)

BD4Shiftsitelayoutstoavoidcollapsible

soils$42,000 $0 $42,000

BD5Useageogridreinforcedsoilmatinlieu

of

dynamic

soil

compaction

$34,000 $0 $34,000

BD6Connectthe4160to480transformers

directlytothe21kVswitchgear($50,000) $406,000 $356,000

BD7Simplifylandscapingusingxeriscaping

principlesandeliminateirrigation$196,000 $0 $196,000

Treatment

Equipment

and

Equipment

Layout

Alternatives

E1ReviseconfigurationofROtrainsto

accommodateflatfootfoundation$400,000 $0 $400,000

E2Useradiallysplitcasepumpsinlieuof

segmentalpumps$202,000 $4,298,000 $4,500,000

E

3

Install

acceptance

testing

connections

as

permanent ($200,000) $0 ($200,000)

E4Constructthefilteredwaterstoragetanks

outofconcreteandconstructasrectangular$73,000 $0 $73,000

E5Usefiberglassforthegranular

pretreatmentfiltersinlieuofsteel$180,000 $228,000 $408,000

E6RelocateVFDsforROfeedwaterhigh

pressurepumpstofiltereffluenttransfer

pumps

$463,000 $0 $463,000

E7 Use aboveground FRP piping in lieu of


24/179


Savings

TotalCostSavings

Potential

M3Eliminatepumpsinchemicalstorage

sumps

$0

$0

$0

M4SplittheC02tanktoshare120ton

requirementbetweentwotanks$0 $0 $0

RiskMitigationandScheduleAlternatives

RS1Refinethedesigntomeettestwelldata

waterquality

information

$5,227,000 $0 $5,227,000

RS2Reviseconstructionscheduleusing

multiplecrewsperdisciplinetoaccelerate

projectcompletion

($3,701,000) $0 ($3,701,000)

TreatmentProcessAlternatives

TP1Consider

assuming

ahigher

recovery

rateontheROto50%onthefirstpassand

90%onthesecondpass(48%totalrecovery)

$6,658,000 $2,935,000 $9,593,000

TP2Installaplugonthemainpermeateline

afterthesecondorthirdmembraneanduse

allofthesameelements

($53,000) $3,341,000 $3,288,000

TP3Install

asecond

pass

brackish

RO

train

onthesplitstreamtoimprovewaterquality

andreduceenergyuse

($300,000) $5,373,000 $5,073,000

TP4Eliminatesulfuricacidadditionfrom

process$326,000 $0 $326,000

TP5Provideasparechemicalinjection

functiontoDesalPlant ($326,000) $0 ($326,000)

TP6EliminatetheUVtreatmentsystem $750,000 $1,961,000 $2,711,000

TP7Considermoreefficientwaysofmeeting


25/179


Savings

TotalCostSavings

Potential

TP10Considersandremovalprocesspriorto

pretreatment

($225,000)

$4,515,000

$4,290,000

TP11Eliminatethebackwashtreatment

systemanddischargedirectlytobrinebasin$200,000 $0 $200,000

TP12Installsystemtoblendthebrinewith

rawwater($150,000) $0 ($150,000)

TP13For6.4MGDplantoption,eliminatebrinepitandcirculatethepermeateand

brineuntildischargeisallowed

($761,000) $0 ($761,000)

Note: Becausethecostdatadepictedaboverepresentsavings,anumberinparenthesesrepresentsacost

increase.

VEStrategySummary

StrategyDescriptionInitialCost

Savings

LCC

Savings

Performance

Change

Value

Change

EnhancedValueCombination

Alternatives:BD6,E2,E5,E6, M4,

TP1,

TP

2,

TP

3,

TP

4,

TP

5,

TP

6,

TP

7,

TP8,TP9,TP10,TP11

$9,161,000 $23,204,000 +13% +29%

OTHERCONSIDERATIONS

TheVEteamalsoidentifiedanumberofobservationsanddesigncomments/suggestionsfor

considerationprimarilybytheprojectdesigners. Thesuggestionsconsistofeithertechnicalreview

commentson

the

design

documents

themselves

or

ideas

for

which

VE

team

could

not

quantify

the

performanceorcostimpacts. Narrativedocumentationofthesedesigncommentsisincluded

followingtheVEAlternatives.


26/179

VEALTERNATIVEBD1

ReviselayoutofROandAdminbuilding:createonebuildingwithoverlook,improvedsight

linesandareducedcourtyard

InitialCost

Savings:

($250,000)

ChangeinSchedule: +1month

DescriptionofBaselineConcept: TheplanlayoutoftheSWROBuildingandAdminBuildingindicates

twobuildingsseparatedbya50footwideopenGardenspace.

DescriptionofAlternativeConcept: ThealternateconceptattachestheAdminBuildingtotheSWRO

buildinginordertoprovidevisualanddirectphysicalconnectivityfromtheControlRoom,located

insidethe

Admin

Building,

into

the

SWRO

Building.

The

Control

Room

can

either

be

one

or

two

storiesdependingonwhetherornotvisualconnectionisdesiredfromahighervantagepoint.

Advantages:

ProvidesdirectvisualoversightfromtheControlRoomintotheSWROBuildingandits

operations

ProvidesimmediateaccessfromtheControlRoomintotheSWROBuilding

Providesquicker

response

time

by

controls

and

maintenance

staff

Disadvantages:

Requiresarchitecturalandengineeringredesignefforts

Mayimpacttheprojectschedulesinceasecond30%submittalwilllikelyberequiredfor

review,commentandapprovalbeforeadvancingtothenextdesignphase

RedesigncostswillnecessitateanincreasetotheDBdesignteamscontract

Constructioncostswilllikelyincrease,particularlyifa2storyControlsRoomisselected

ThecurrentopenGardenareawouldbebisectedintotwoseparateareas

Discussion: CommentswerevoicedduringtheVEWorkshopregarding(1)thepossibilityofreducing

the50footseparationbetweentheSWROandAdminBuildings,and(2)aconcernthattheoperators

insidetheControlRoomwillhavenodirectvisualoverviewoftheSWROoperationsarea.Also,

expertsontheVETeamreportedthatsimilarfacilitiesoftenincludecontrolroomswithwindowsto

allowdirectvisualoverviewoftheoperationsplants. IfaonestoryAdminBuildingplanisdesired,

thechanges

to

accommodate

the

alternate

plan

will

not

be

extensive.

Plan

changes

will

be

slightly

moreextensiveifa2storyControlRoomisselected.

DiscussionofScheduleImpacts: Redesignefforts(excludingreviewandresponsetimebyCAWand

otherstakeholders)shouldbeachievablewithintherangeof30to45calendardays.


27/179

VEALTERNATIVEBD1



PerformanceAssessment

PerformanceAttribute RationaleforChangeinPerformance

MaintainabilityReducesresponsetimeintheeventofanemergencyormechanical

failureinsidetheSWROBuilding.

PlantOperationsDeemedamoredesirableconfigurationforconnectivityofcontrol

roomoperatorstothefacility.

FutureFlexibility

No

significant

change.

EnvironmentalImpacts Nosignificantchange.

Sustainability Nosignificantchange.

Aesthetics Buildingmaterialswouldnotchangebutthebuildingshapewould.

Baseline

Concept

Sketch


28/179

VEALTERNATIVEBD1



VEAlternativeConceptSketch

: N ~

o

e / .WI4 /tL-

1\

~

~

------

.

1

\

i

~

J

.._

Wj Dollo Vll: I IWf-

trlffl .DEH

'

\

I

VE ALTERNATIVE BD 1


29/179

VEALTERNATIVEBD1



AssumptionsandCalculations: TheassumptionisthattheAdminBuildingfloorplanareawillremain

similarto

the

current

30%

design

in

the

Public

and

Office

areas.

The

portion

connecting

to

the

SWRO

Buildingmustberedesignedtoaccommodatethealternativeconcept.

InitialCostEstimate

Description Unit Qty Cost/Unit Total

Qty Cost/Unit Total

AdminBldg Const sf 10,000 250$ 2,500,000$ 10,000 275$ 2,750,000$

SUBTOTAL

PROJECTMARKUPS

TOTAL (Rounded)

SAVINGS ($250,000)

$2,500,000

$0

$2,750,000

$2,500,000 $2,750,000

$0

CONSTRUCTION

ELEMENT BASELINE

CONCEPT

ALTERN ATIVE

CONCEPT

VE ALTERNATIVE BD 2


30/179

VEALTERNATIVEBD2

Eliminatefireprotectionofthebuildingswherenotrequiredbycode

InitialCostSavings: $359,000

DescriptionofBaselineConcept: The30%designsubmittaldoesnotspecifyareaswithintheplant

receivingfiresprinklercoverage.PerMikeZaferofCDMSmithon7/9/14,theSWROBuilding,the

AdminBuildingandtheFilterBuildingareallfullysprinkleredinthecurrentbaselineconcept.

DescriptionofAlternativeConcept: Thisrecommendationsimplyproposestheprojectteamshould

confirmwhetherfiresprinklercoverageisrequiredin(1)theFilterbuilding,anddeleteifnot,and(2)

iftheROroomwithintheSWRObuildingcanchangetononsprinklered.

Advantages:

Constructioncostssavingsformaterialandlaborcosts

Disadvantages:

Lifesafetyofstaffandfacilityassetprotectionwillbelessbroadwherefiresprinklercoverage

iseliminated

Additionaldesigntimeandcosttoupdatethe30%drawingsandBasisofDesign

Discussion: Manyotherbuildingswithsimilaroccupancydonothavefiresprinklercoverage. TheVE

teamisnotawareofanyspecialconditionsthatwouldrequirecertainbuildingstotriggercode

requirementsthatmandatefiresprinklercoverage. Basedonquickcoderesearch,theVEteam

determined:

ThechemicalstorageroomsintheSWRObuildingareH4Occupancyandmustbesprinklered.

TheRO

area

inside

the

SWRO

building

does

not

need

to

be

sprinklered

ifthe

walls

adjacent

to

theH4Occupancyarechangedto3hourratedwalls.The30%designshowstheseas2hour

walls.

TheFilterBuilding(F2Occupancy)hasanareaof3,900squarefeetwhichisbelowthecode

thresholdrequiringsprinklers.

ThisalternatemustbefurtherexploredandconfirmedbytheCDMSmithdesignteamrelativetothe

applicablecoderequirements.

DiscussionofScheduleImpacts: Negligibleschedulebenefitisanticipated.

DiscussionofRiskImpacts: LifesafetyofstaffandfacilityassetprotectionwithintheFilterBuilding

mustbeevaluatedbyCAW.

VE ALTERNATIVE BD 2


31/179

VEALTERNATIVEBD2

Eliminatefireprotectionofthebuildingswherenotrequiredbycode


sprinklers

are

eliminated

in

facilities

that

may

one

day

be

repurposed

forotherusesthatdorequireafiresuppressionsystem.

EnvironmentalImpacts Nosignificantchange.


Aesthetics Nosignificantchange.

Assumptionsand

Calculations:

Assumption

is

that

CDM

Smith's

30%

design,

particularly

in

relation

to

the

code

analysis,

may

be

adjusted

per

the

discussions

above.

However,

confirmation

by

CDM

Smithsdesignersisrecommended.

InitialCostEstimate

Description Unit Qty Cost/Unit Total

Qty Cost/Unit Total

FireSprinklerCoverageFilterBuilding SF 3,900 15$ 58,500$

FireSprinklerCoverageR.O.area SF 20,000 15.0$ 300,000$

SUBTOTAL

PROJECTMARKUPS

TOTAL (Rounded)

SAVINGS $359,000

$0

CONSTRUCTIONELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT

$358,500

$0

$0

$359,000 $0

VE ALTERNATIVE BD3


32/179

VEALTERNATIVEBD3

Increaseoccupancycategoriesofprocessstructures(categoryIVfortheprocesscritical

facilities)

InitialCost

Savings:

($475,000)

DescriptionofBaselineConcept: Table197RiskCategoriesoftheBODRcallsforFacilityRisk

CategoryofIVforthefinishedwaterstoragetanksandrelatedequipment,andFacilityRiskCategory

ofIIIforotherstructure.

DescriptionofAlternativeConcept: TheVEteamrecommendsthatacloserlookshouldbegivento

thefacilitieswherehigherOccupancyCategorymaybeneededforsomestructuresandalowerone

forthe

rest;

for

example,

SWRO

might

be

IV,

and

Admin

Building

might

be

II.

Advantages:

DesignconsistencywithIBC2012andASCE7 2010Code

Mayresultincostsavings

Disadvantages:

Noneapparent

Discussion: TheVEteamsuspectsthatsomeofthestructureswithinthedesalinationplantmay

qualifyforlowerRiskCategorydesignationsthatcouldproducecostsavingsfortheproject.

However,someotherstructuresmayrequirehigherriskdesignations.

Thisconceptcallsforexaminingthefunctionofeachstructurewithinthefacilityandcallforthe

properdesignationbasedonthefunctionitself,theneed,andimportanceofthestructureinrelation

toentire

operation

and

other

elements.

DiscussionofScheduleImpacts: Noneidentified.

DiscussionofRiskImpacts: Noneidentified.


PerformanceAttribute

Rationale

for

Change

in

Performance

Maintainability Nosignificantchange.

PlantOperations Nosignificantchange.

FutureFlexibility Nosignificantchange.

VE ALTERNATIVE BD3


33/179

VEALTERNATIVEBD 3

Increaseoccupancycategoriesofprocessstructures(categoryIVfortheprocesscritical

facilities)

AssumptionsandCalculations: Theprojectdesignisnotdevelopedtothepointwherespecific

structurecosts

can

be

determined.

However,

generally

speaking,

increasing

the

Risk

Category

of

a

facilitytendstoraisethestructurecostsbyapproximately10%. DecreasingtheRiskCategorytends

toreducecostsbyapproximately10%.

InitialCostEstimate

Description Unit Qty Cost/Unit Total Qty Cost/Unit Total

AdminBuilding SF 6,000 250$ 1,500,000$ 6,000 225$ 1,350,000$

R.O.Building SF 25,000 250$ 6,250,000$ 25,000 275$ 6,875,000$

SUBTOTAL

PROJECTMARKUPS

TOTAL (Rounded)

SAVINGS ($475,000)

$7,750,000

$0

$8,225,000

$7,750,000 $8,225,000

$0

CONSTRUCTION

ELEMENT BASELINE

CONCEPT

ALTERNATIVE

CONCEPT

VEALTERNATIVEBD4


34/179

Shiftsitelayoutstoavoidcollapsiblesoils


DescriptionofBaselineConcept: Thebaselineconceptcallsforconstructingthefacilityinanarea

thatisgenerallycomprisedofloosetoveryloosesand,whichaccordingtotheBODRisconsidered

unsuitable.Theprojectgeotechnicalengineerestimates2to3inchesofseismicallyinduced

settlementduringadesignearthquakeevent,ascomparedtothe0.5to1inchesofseismically

inducedsettlementreportedintheBaselineGeotechnicalReport(URS).

TheBODRprosestoredensifythesoilbelowtheproposedbuildingpadsinordertoprovideuniform

andadequate

bearing

capacity

for

the

foundation

systems.

The

proposed

design

considers

over

excavationandcompaction,inadditiontooneofthefollowingalternativestoaddressthedifferential

settlement:

Structuressupportedbymatfoundations

Geopiersbeneaththestructures

Dynamiccompactionbeneaththestructures

Descriptionof

Alternative

Concept:

It

was

communicated

to

the

VE

team

that

the

site

area

is

roughly43acres.Therefore,thisalternativerecommendsconsideringoneofthetwofollowing

options:

Shifttheentirelocationofthefacilitywithinthesitetoanareawheremoresuitable

foundationmaterialislocated

Shiftlocationoffacilitiesinrelationtoeachotherwithinthesamearea(i.e.,interchangethe

Brine

Equalization

Basin

with

Admin

and

SWOR

Treatment

Buildings)

Advantages:

Eliminatesorreducestheneedformatfoundation,geopiersbeneaththestructures,or

dynamiccompactionbeneaththestructures

Ifbetterfoundationmaterialsdonotexistonsite,theBrineEqualizationBasinismore

forgivingfordifferentialsettlementsthantheAdminandSWORTreatmentBuildings

Reducescost

Schedulesavings

depending

on

the

option

selected

Disadvantages:

Requiresadditionalboringsandsoilinvestigation

Additionalcosttoperformgeotechnicalinvestigation

VEALTERNATIVEBD4


35/179


DiscussionofScheduleImpacts: Noconstructionscheduleimpactsareanticipated. Littletono

designimpactwouldbeexpectedsincethedesigniscurrentlyat30%.

DiscussionofRiskImpacts: UnknowntotheVEteamatthispoint.



Maintainability Minorreductionofmaintenanceefforts.

PlantOperations

No

Significant

Impact.

FutureFlexibility NoSignificantImpact.

EnvironmentalImpacts NoSignificantImpact.

Sustainability NoSignificantImpact.

Aesthetics NoSignificantImpact.

BaselineConceptSketch

BrineEqualization

Basin

SWRO&

ElectricalBldgs.

VEALTERNATIVEBD4


36/179



Proposed

revised

locations

of

plant

facilities

AssumptionsandCalculations:

Otherareasonsitehavebetterfoundationmaterials

Therearenoadverseimpactsfromshiftingtheentirefacilityorportionofitwithinthesite

Thecostofsoiltreatment/strengtheningoflocalizedareasisnotoffsetbylongerpipingor

otherimpacts

InitialCostEstimate

i i i / i l / i l


AdminBuilding

BrineEqualization

Basin

SWRO&

ElectricalBldgs.

VEALTERNATIVEBD5


37/179

Useageogridreinforcedsoilmatinlieuofdynamicsoilcompaction


DescriptionofBaselineConcept: TheBaselinedesignisconsideringover excavationandcompactioncombinedwithoneofathreealternativesbelowtoaddressthe2to3inchesof

estimateddifferentialsettlement:

Structuressupportedbymatfoundations

Geopiersbeneaththestructures

compactionbeneaththestructures

DescriptionofAlternativeConcept: Thisalternativecallsforageosyntheticreinforcedsoilmattobe

placedundertheSWROandAdminbuildingsthathaveconventionalfootings.Thepurposeofthesoil

matwouldbetolimitdifferentialsettlementacrossthebuildingfootprintineventofseismically

inducedsettlementasopposedtootherproposedmeasure.

Advantages:

Reducesdifferentialsettlements

Reducesconstruction

cost

and

maintenance

Reducesconstructionschedule

Disadvantages:

Noneapparent

Discussion: TheBODRstatesthatthe"soilnearsurfacesoilsbeneaththeproposeddevelopment

areaaregenerallycomprisedofloosetoveryloosesandandarethereforeconsidered unsuitablein

theirpresentstateforstructuralsupport.Azoneofredensifiedsoilbelowtheproposedbuildingpadsisrecommendedinordertoprovideuniformandadequatebearingcapacityforthefoundation

systems".

Theestimatedseismicallyinducedsettlementduringthedesignearthquakeeventis2to3inches.As

amitigationforthislargesettlement,the30%designisconsideringoverexcavationandcompaction,

combinedwithoneofthreealternativestoaddressthedifferentialsettlements:structuressupported

bymat

foundations,

geopiers

beneath

the

structures,

or

dynamic

compaction

beneath

the

structures.

Geogridreinforcedsoilmatsarebiaxialpolypropylenegeogridsforbasecoursereinforcementand

subgradestabilization.Theydeliverstrength,longtermperformance,reliabilityandquickinstallation

forbasereinforcementoffoundationsonweaksoils.

VEALTERNATIVEBD5


38/179

Useageogridreinforcedsoilmatinlieuofdynamicsoilcompaction

DiscussionofScheduleImpacts: Thereshouldbenoadverseimpactonscheduleresultingfrom

implementingthisconcept.Rather,itmighthelpsavescheduleasgeogridscanbeplacedfasterthan

performingthe

soil

compaction.

DiscussionofRiskImpacts: Projectriskisnotanticipatedtobegreatlyaffectedbythisconcept.Ifthe

proposedfoundationsareimplementedfortheproject,therewillbeimprovedsafetytothe

desalinationplantinfrastructureandpersonnelintheeventofanearthquake.



MaintainabilityMaintainabilityisimprovedduetoreducedsettlementandcracking,

aswellaslessleakageinpipingandvalves.

PlantOperations Enhanced.



No

significant

change.


Aesthetics Thisconceptenhancesfacilityaesthetics(linesareallhorizontal).

AssumptionsandCalculations: Averagecostsofdynamicsoilcompactionrangefor$0.60to$.0.90

persquarefoot. Averagecostsofthegeogridisapproximately$0.25persquarefoot.

Thequantityofsiteareathatwillbesubjecttothesoilcompactionwasnotavailable. Assuch,theVE

teamassumedanareaof60,000SFtocoverthemajorityofthecentralareaoftheplantwherethe

buildingsarelocated.

InitialCostEstimate


DynamicDeepSoilCompaction SF 60,000 0.70$ 42,000$ $

GeoGridReinforcedSoilMat SF $ 31,000 0.25$ 7,750$

$ $

SUB TOTAL $42 000 $7 750


VEALTERNATIVEBD6


39/179

Connectthe4160to480transformersdirectlytothe21kVswitchgear

InitialCostSavings: ($50,000)

LCC

Savings:

$356,000

DescriptionofBaselineConcept: Theexistingelectricaldistributionsystemhasthe21kvto4160volt

(5000kva)transformerandthe4160voltto480volt(2500kva)transformerconnectedinseries.The

powerforthe2500kvatranformergoesthroughthe5000kvatransformer.Theconfigurationis

typicalfortwotransformers,circuitsMDS2AandMCS2B.Allfourtransformersarepadmounted,oil

filledtransformers.

Descriptionof

Alternative

Concept:

Change

the

2500

transformers

from

"4160

volt

to

480

volt"

to

"21kvto480volt"andconnecttothe21kvswitchgear.Thechangewouldrequirethecablesbe

installedfromthe21kvswitchgearinsteadofthe4160voltswitchgear.Twoadditionalfused

switcheswouldbeaddedtothe21kvswitchgearandtwocircuitbreakerswouldbedeletedfromthe

4160voltswitchgear.

Advantages:

Thepower

would

only

have

to

be

transformed

once

reducing

the

losses

in

the

system

Disadvantages:

Thesystemwouldhavetobeanalyzedtoseeifthechangeaffectedtheratingofthe

downstreamequipment

Discussion: Thelossthroughthetransformerisdependentontwofactors:thesizeofthe

transformer(noloadlosses)andtheloadthroughthetransformer.Theactuallossisdependenton

thetype

and

rating

of

the

transformer

and

will

be

approximated

in

this

case

to

be

1%

of

the

load.

Thenoloadlosseswillnotbeconsideredasthesizeofthetransformersarenotbeingchanged.

Thereconfiguredsystemwilleliminatedtheloadlossthroughthe5000kvatransformerfortheload

thathastobetransformedto480volt.Inthebaselineconceptthe480voltpowerloadis

transformedtwiceresultingina2%loadloss.Withtheproposedconcept,thepowerloadis

transformedonceresultingina1%loadloss.Theloadlosschangeisapproximately26kvafrom

information

submitted

as

part

of

the

30%

design.

DiscussionofScheduleImpacts: Nonenoted.

DiscussionofRiskImpacts: Nonenoted.

VEALTERNATIVEBD6


40/179



Environmental

Impacts

No

significant

change.

Sustainability Improvedthroughreductioninenergyusage.

Aesthetics Nosignificantchange.


Thelossesthroughoutatransformer(neglectingloadlosses,assizeof5000kvatransformer

doesnot

change)

are

generally

approximately

1%.

ThepeakdemandofMDS2Ais1243kvaandMDS2Bis1683kva(fromCDMSmith30%

submittal),foratotal480voltloadof2926kva.

Averageloadisassumedtobe90%ofthepeakload(estimate).Onepercentis26kva,so

assuming0.93powerfactor(CDMSmith30%submittal),theresultis24kw.

Assumeplant

operates

95%

of

the

time:

24kw

x24

hours

x365

days

x.95

(plant

operating

95%ofthetime)resultsin199,728kwhreductioninoneyear.

Energycostis8centsinthewinter(6months)and10centsinthesummer(6months),

resultinginanaverageenergycostof9cents.

Resultingenergysavingsof18,000dollarsperyear.

InitialCostEstimate


4160circuitbreakers ea 2 25,000$ 50,000$

21kvfuseswitches sections ea 2 50,000$ 100,000$

SUBTOTAL

PROJECTMARKUPS

TOTAL (Rounded)

SAVINGS ($50,000)

$0

CONSTRUCTION

ELEMENT BASELINE

CONCEPT

ALTERNAT IVE

CONCEPT

$50,000

$0

$100,000

$50,000 $100,000

VEALTERNATIVEBD6

C h 4160 480 f di l h 21kV i h


41/179


LifeCycleCostEstimate

30 1.942%

A. $50,000 $100,000

Years

Years

B.

$17,975 $0

$17,975 $0

22.576 22.576

$406,000 $0

C. SUBSEQUENTSINGLECOSTS Year Amount PresentValue PresentValue

$0

$0

$0 $0

D. $406,000 $0

$406,000

F. $456,000 $100,000

$356,000TOTALLIFECYCLESAVINGS:

PRESENTVALUEOFSUBSEQUENTSINGLECOSTS(Rounded):

TOTALSUBSEQUENTANNUALANDSINGLECOSTS(B+C)

TOTALSUBSEQUENTCOSTSSAVINGS:

TOTALPRESENT

VALUE

COST

(A+D)

PVFactor

(P/F)

PRESENTVALUEOFSUBSEQUENTANNUALCOSTS(Rounded):

PresentValueFactor(P/A):

TotalSubsequentAnnualCosts:

Service LifeAlternative

Service LifeB aseline

BASELINE ALTERNATIVELife CyclePeri od Yea rs Real DiscountRate

INITIALCOST

INITIALCOSTSAVINGS:

SUBSEQUENTANNUALCOSTS

($50,000)

Energy

1.00000

1.00000

VEALTERNATIVEBD7

Simplify landscaping using xeriscaping principles and eliminate irrigation


42/179

Simplifylandscapingusingxeriscapingprinciplesandeliminateirrigation


Descriptionof

Baseline

Concept:

The

landscape

design

in

the

30%

submittal

includes

indigenous

plantsthatonlyrequireirrigationuntiltheirrootsareestablished asreportedbyJoniJanecki,

LandscapeArchitecton7/7/14.The30%designisnotyetdetailedenoughtoshowhowthisinitial

irrigationperiodconceptwillbeimplemented.

TheBasisofDesignDraftReport(BODR)dated4/14/14indicatesonly"Adripirrigationsystemwillbe

designedandimplemented".

Thedesignalsoincludesvegetablesplantedinraisedbedstocreatean"agriculturaleducation

garden"pertheBODR.Asreportedon7/8/14,thegardenswillbeirrigatedwithrainwater(and

possiblywaterfromthedesalinationfacility)thatwillbecapturedthenstoredwithinanabove

groundcisterntank.Ms.Janeckireportedthatthecistern'scapacitycanprovideupto50%ofthe

waternecessarytoirrigatethegardenvegetablesthroughoutagivenyear.

DescriptionofAlternativeConcept: Exploreanddesignameanstoeliminatetheuseofpotable

waterentirely

for

the

irrigation

of

plants.

Scale

back

plant

materials

and

irrigation

as

much

as

possible.

Advantages:

Reducescostduetolessirrigationpipeandbubblers,andfuturemaintenancecosts

Reducesconstructionassociatedwithinstallation

Disadvantages:

Thesitelandscapeplantsmaybelesslikelytosurvivewithreducedirrigation,particularly

duringextendeddroughtperiods

Costsavingsforlesspipingandbubblersmaybeoffsetbyhighercostsforalargerorsecond

cisterntankandassociatedpumpingsystem

Discussion: Implementationofthealternativeincludesreevaluatingthedesigntoconfirmthatall

(nonvegetableplants)areindigenousand/orcansurvivewithoutpotablewaterandascaledback

irrigationsystem.

DiscussionofScheduleImpacts: Scheduleimpactwillbenegligible.

DiscussionofRiskImpacts: Thereisariskthatsomeplantswillnotsurviveoveranextendedamount

VEALTERNATIVEBD7

Simplify landscaping using xeriscaping principles and eliminate irrigation


43/179

Simplifylandscapingusingxeriscapingprinciplesandeliminateirrigation



Rationale

for

Change

in

Performance

Maintainability Reducedmaintenancecosts.

PlantOperations Nosignificantchange.


EnvironmentalImpacts SameasSustainabilityseebelow.

Sustainability

Thisalternate

supports

the

potential

achievement

of

aLEED

credit

WE1relatedtotheuseoflesspotablewaterwithinthedesign.

AestheticsIncreasesthepossibilityofalessattractivesiteifallplantsdonot

survive.

AssumptionsandCalculations: AssumptionismadethatCAWhasnotyetacceptedtheextentof

plantingprovidedbyCDMSmithinthe30%designsubmittal.A25%cutbackinlandscapematerials

andirrigation

is

the

basis

for

the

cost

analysis

for

this

alternative.

InitialCostEstimate


Landscaping &Irrigation Construction sf 70,000 7$ 490,000$

Landscaping &Irrigation Baselinedesign % 490,000 0.1 49,000$

Landscaping &Irrigation Redesign % 490,000 .05 24,500$

Landscaping &Irrigation Alt.Construction sf $ 70,000 5.25$ 367,500$

$

SUBTOTAL

PROJECTMARKUPS

TOTAL (Rounded)

SAVINGS $196,000

$0


$563,500

$0

$367,500

$564,000 $368,000

VEALTERNATIVEE1

Revise configuration of RO trains to accommodate flat foot foundation


44/179

ReviseconfigurationofROtrainstoaccommodateflatfootfoundation


Descriptionof

Baseline

Concept:

Currently

the

desalination

plant

building

is

designed

to

include

a

twolevelconfigurationofthefoundations. Theupperlevelhousesallequipmentandthelowerlevel

(pipegalleries)housemostoftheinterconnectingpiping.

DescriptionofAlternativeConcept: Thisrecommendationproposestoreconfigurethe

interconnectingpipingandequipmentlayoutsuchthatthebuildingfoundationissimplifiedtoaflat

footfoundation.Anexampleisprovidedintheimageonthefollowingpage.

Advantages:

Simplifiesconstructability

Mayeliminatetheneedforsitesoilcompaction

Reducesfoundationcostsby25to30%

Disadvantages:

Increasesbuilding'stotalfootprint(orheight)by10to15%.

Reducesaccessibility

to

the

plant

equipment

for

maintenance

anumber

of

bridges/overpasseswillneedtobeinstalledtogooverpipingwhichislaiddownonthefloor

Discussion: Flatfootfoundationsarecommonlyusedindesalinationplantswheresoilsareweak

and/orgroundwaterishigh(examples:34MGDGoldCoastSWROPlantAustralia,80MGDPerthII

DesalinationPlant,Australia, alldesalinationplantsinIsrael,15MGDdesalinationplantsinLarnaka

andDhekelia,Cyprus).

InordertosolvechallengesassociatedwithROsystemandequipmentaccessibilityformaintenance

thebuildingfootprintisusuallyincreasedtoprovideadditionalspaceforcirculationofmaintenance

equipmentandstaff.

DiscussionofScheduleImpacts: Potentialpositiveimpact;notquantifiedatthispointintime.

DiscussionofRiskImpacts: Nosignificantrisksassociatedwithimplementation.



MayhavenegativeimpactduetoreducedaccessibilitytokeyRO

VEALTERNATIVEE1

Revise configuration of RO trains to accommodate flat foot foundation


45/179

ReviseconfigurationofROtrainstoaccommodateflatfootfoundation



Positiveimpactduetolessexcavationandoffsitesoilhauling/

disposal(fewertrucktrips).

Sustainability Nosignificantimpact.

AestheticsSlightdegradation:10to15%largerbuildingfootprintortaller

building.


AssumptionsandCalculations: Thebuildingfootprintcanbeenlargedtoaccommodatethe

installationofbothequipmentandpipingononefloor.

InitialCostEstimate

CONSTRUCTION

ELEMENT BASELINE

CONCEPT

ALTERNA TIVE

CONCEPT

VEALTERNATIVEE2

Useradiallysplitcasepumpsinlieuofsegmentalpumps


46/179

y p p p g p p


LCCSavings: $4,500,000

DescriptionofBaselineConcept: Thebaselineconceptincludestheuseofsegmentalringhigh

pressurepumpsdesignedtooperateat82%efficiency.Figuresareprovidedonthefollowingpageto

illustratethetypeofpumps.

DescriptionofAlternativeConcept: Thealternativeconceptproposestoreplacethesegmentalring

pumpswithradiallysplitcasepumps. Further,considertheuseofoneradiallysplitcasepumpto

feedtwo

RO

trains

in

order

to

increase

the

high

pressure

pump

size

and

obtain

pump

efficiency

of

87%(insteadof82%)andtoachievecapitalcostsavings.Thisconceptproposestheuseof4radially

splitcasepumpsinsteadof7segmentalringpumps.

Advantages:

Reducesenergyusageandcapitalcost

Simplifiedpumpmaintenanceradiallysplitcasepumpsaremucheasiertomaintainbecause

theyarewatercooledandhavelesscomplexassembly

Spacesavings

radially

split

case

pumps

occupy

approximately

50%

less

space.

Disadvantages:

Useoffewerpumpscouldreduceplantreliabilitybecauseifonepumpistakenoutofservice,

twoROtrainsratherthanoneROtrainwillbeinoperable

Discussion: Useofradiallysplitcasepumpsinsteadofsegmentalpumpsisacommontrendinthe

latestdesalination

plant

designs.

This

concept

can

be

implemented

even

if

individual

pumps

are

used

foreachtrain. Thisscenariowouldlikelyresultinacapitalcostpenaltyof$250,000.Theenergy

efficiencyofthepumpswillbe85%insteadof87%,whichwillreducetheoveralllifecyclecostsavings

inahalf i.e.from$2.588millionto$1.3million.Takingtheextracostforthepumps,thetotallife

cyclebenefitwillbeapproximately$1million.

Atpresent,splitcasepumpsarethenormforfacilitieswithhighunitenergycosts.Additionalsavings

couldbeachievedifoneenergyrecoverydeviceisusedfortwotrainsusingcommonhighpressure

pumps.Additional

benefits

would

be

lower

capital

costs

from

fewer

ERDs

and

potentially

improved

energyefficiency.

DiscussionofScheduleImpacts:Minorscheduleimpactonlyassociatedwiththeextratimeneeded

for redesign of the RO system.

VEALTERNATIVEE2



47/179

g



Rationale

for

Change

in

Performance

Maintainability Significantimprovement.

PlantOperations MorecomplexoperationtwoROtrainsfedbythesamepump.

FutureFlexibility Noimpact.

EnvironmentalImpacts Noimpact.

Sustainability Lowerenergyusageresultsinamoresustainableproject.

Aesthetics

Noimpact.

BaselineConceptSketch

VEALTERNATIVEE2



48/179



Totalplant

energy

use

11.6

kWh/1,000

gallons

Totalplantpowercosts $4.76million

Totalplantenergysavingsof4%byincreasinghighpressurepumpefficiencyfrom82to87%

Takingunderconsiderationthat70%oftheplantenergy(11.6kwh/1,000gal)isconsumedby

thehighpressurepumps,thetotalenergyusesavingswillbe11.6kWh/1000galx0.7x(1

82/87)=0.47kWh/1000gallons 4%

Capitalcostreductionof $202,000 asaresultofreplacing7segmentalpumpswith4radially

splitcasepumps

$2,588,000fromenergysavings

VEALTERNATIVEE2



49/179

InitialCostEstimate

LifeCycleCostEstimate


Sevensegmentalringhighpressurepumps 7 286,000$ 2,002,000$

Fourradiallysplitcasepumps 4 450,000$ 1,800,000$

SUBTOTAL

PROJECTMARKUPS

TOTAL (Rounded)

SAVINGS $202,000

$2,002,000

$0

$1,800,000

$2,002,000 $1,800,000

$0

CONSTRUCTION

ELEMENT BASELINE

CONCEPT

ALTERNATIVE

CONCEPT

30 1.942%

A. $2,002,000 $1,800,000

Years

Years

B.

$4,760,000 $4,569,600

$4,760,000 $4,569,600

22.576 22.576

$107,462,000 $103,164,000

C. SUBSEQUENTSINGLECOSTS Year Amount PresentValue PresentValue

$0

$0 $0

D. $107,462,000 $103,164,000

$4,298,000

SUBSEQUENTANNUALCOSTS

$202,000

Energy

1.00000

ALTERNATIVELife CyclePeri od Years Real DiscountRate

INITIALCOST

INITIALCOSTSAVINGS:

Service LifeAlternative

Service LifeB aseline

BASELINE

PVFactor

(P/F)

PRESENTVALUEOFSUBSEQUENTANNUALCOSTS(Rounded):

PresentValueFactor(P/A):

Total

Subsequent

Annual

Costs:

PRESENT

VALUE

OF

SUBSEQUENT

SINGLE

COSTS

(Rounded):

TOTALSUBSEQUENTANNUALANDSINGLECOSTS(B+C)

TOTALSUBSEQUENTCOSTSSAVINGS:

VEALTERNATIVEE3

Installacceptancetestingconnectionsaspermanent


50/179

InitialCostSavings: ($200,000)

Descriptionof

Baseline

Concept:

The

baseline

concept

at

30%

stage

does

not

contemplate

any

specialprovisionsorconnectionstorecirculatewaterduringthestartupandcommissioningphase.

Also,itdoesnotcontainanyprovisionstorecirculateflowtotheheadoftheplanttokeeptheplant

runningduringshortperiods,insteadofshuttingtheplantdown.

DescriptionofAlternativeConcept: Installapermanentconnectionbetweenthetreatedwaterline

andtherawwaterlineatthedesalinationplantduringtheinitialconstruction. Thiswillassistin

startup/commissioningas

well

as

allowing

the

plant

to

recycle

flow

under

abnormal

condition

(insteadofhavingtoshutdown).

Advantages:

Onesimpleconnectionwillallowtreatedwatertoberecycledbacktotheheadoftheplant

Theinitialconnectionwillallowtheoperatorstoavoidshuttingdownthefacilityduringmany

scenariosinthefuture

Planningforstartupandcommissioningconnectionsupfrontavoidsmoreexpensivechange

ordersat

the

last

moment

Disadvantages:

Aslightincreaseininitialconstructioncost,butsomeofthiscanbeoffsetbythecontractor

reducinghiscostfortemporarypumpingprovisions

Discussion: Duringthestartupandcommissioningoftheplant,itwillbenecessarytorecycleall

flows

back

to

the

head

of

the

plant

if

the

brine

outfall

is

not

available.

This

will

involve

recycling

flows

fromtheendoftheplant(treatedwater),backwashrecyclingbasins,andbrineequalizationbasins.

Noflowswillbeallowedtogotothedistributionsystem. Bydoingthis,thecontractorcancomplete

hisfunctionaltestingat100%capacity,andgainapprovalfromDPHtoputflowintothedistribution

system.

Thereisabenefittomakingtheserecyclingconnectionspermanent,inthatwhentheplantisin

normaloperationstheplantcancontinuetooperatewithoutbeingshutdown. Properlyshutting

downareverse

osmosis

process

is

avery

complicated

and

time

consuming

activity,

especially

when

oneconsiderstheeffortensuremembranesarenotdamaged,andalsotheprocessinstartingthe

plantbackupandcreatingpotablewater. Havingtheabilitytorecyclewaterthroughtheplant

duringtimesitwouldnormallybeshutdownwouldgreatlyenhancetheplant'soperability.

VEALTERNATIVEE3



51/179

accomplishedbyconnectingthetwopipes. Thiswouldinvolvetheinstallationoftwotees,

twovalves,andashortrunof24inchpipe.

2. BackwashRecyclingBasin:Thedesignalreadyhastheabilitytopumppart(1.1MGD)ofthe

backwashwaterbacktotheheadoftheplant.Anyexcessbackwashwaterwouldoverflowto

thebrineequalizationbasin. Nomodificationsareneeded.

3. BrineEqualizationbasin:Approximately60%ofthetotalplantinfluentendsupasbrineand

willbedischargedtotheMRWPCAoutfall.Undernormalcircumstances,thebrinewillflowby

gravitybuttherewillbetimeswhenasmallvolumewillbepumpedfromthebrine

equalizationbasin

to

the

outfall.

The

brine

equalization

pumps

do

not

have

enough

head

to

recyclebacktotheheadoftheplant.

Bymakingtheconnectionmentionedinitem1above,thequantityofwaterthatcanberecycledto

theheadoftheplantincreasedfrom1.1MGDto10.7MGD. Thisisahugeimprovementintheability

toperformtestrunsofthefacility,andalsokeepthefacilityinstandbymodeinsteadofshuttingit

down.

Analternativeapproach(whichwouldonlybebeneficialduringtheinitialstartupandcommissioning)

wouldbetopassallflowsdowntotheMRWPCAoutfall. Thiscouldbedonebya)allowingalltreated

watertooverflowthetreatedwatertanksandintothebrineequalizationbasin(andensuringthereis

anoverflowatthebrineequalizationbasinthatgoestotheMRWPCAoutfallline),b)allowingall

flowstothebackwashrecyclingbasintooverflowtothebrineequalizationbasin,andc)allowall

brinetogodownthepipetotheMRWPCAoutfall.

Discussionof

Schedule

Impacts:

No

impact.

DiscussionofRiskImpacts: Thiswillreducetheriskofpotentialdamagetothemembranesduring

shutdownandstartup,aswellasexcess"offspecwater"duringabnormalcircumstances.



Maintainability

Minimumimpactbecausetheinitialconnectionwillallowthe

operatorstoavoidshuttingdownthefacilityduringmanyfuture

scenarios.

Plant OperationsSignificantpositiveimpactonstabilizingoperationsduringabnormal

VEALTERNATIVEE3



52/179


Thisconcept

was

verified

by

checking

the

hydraulic

grade

line

of

all

pertinent

aspects

of

the

recycling

Theconnectionbetweenthetreatedwaterandrawwaterlinesshouldbelessthan$150,000

Ifthereiscurrentlynooverflowlineonthebrineequalizationbasin,itshouldbelessthan

$50,000toinstallone

InitialCostEstimate

Description Unit Qty Cost/Unit Total Qt y Cost /Unit Tot al

Interconnectbetweentreatedwaterlineandrawwaterline 1 0 $ 1 $150,000 150,000$

Potential: Overflowlinetobrineequalizationbasin 1 0 $ 1 50,000$ 50,000$

$ $

SUBTOTAL

PROJECTMARKUPS

TOTAL (Rounded)

SAVINGS ($200,000)

$0


$0

$0

$200,000

$0 $200,000

VEALTERNATIVEE4

Constructthefilteredwaterstoragetanksoutofconcreteandconstructasrectangular


53/179


Descriptionof

Baseline

Concept:

The

baseline

concept

includes

two

750,000

gallon

prestressed

concretefinishedwaterstoragetanks(approximatedimensions:70'diameterby27'tall).

DescriptionofAlternativeConcept: Thisalternativeproposesreplacingtwotankswithasingletwo

cellreinforcedconcretestoragetank.

Advantages:

Commonwallconstruction

Disadvantages:

Exposedconcretesurfacehardertofinishthanthebaselineprestresedconcretetank

Shortertankheightduetocrackinglimitsonwallthickness

Differentialsettlementcouldbemorechallengingonthelargercombinedfooting

Discussion: Manytimes,reinforcedconcretetankscanbebuiltlessexpensivelythanprestressed

concretetanks.

The

one

advantage

that

prestressed

tanks

have

over

reinforced

concrete

tanks

is

the

abilitytodesigntallertanks.

Discussionof