Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
-
Upload
l-a-paterson -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of 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 -
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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 -
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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 -
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
6/179
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee
Meeting Date: August 25, 2014
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 -
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
9/179
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee
Meeting Date: August 25, 2014
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 -
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
10/179
FinalValueEngineeringStudyReport
MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProject
DesalinationPlant
August
2014
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
13/179
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS FINALREPORT
ValueMetrics
(Continued)
ComparePerformanceBaselineConceptandVEStrategy
RatingRationaleforVEStrategy
CompareValue
ComparisonofValueBaselineConceptandVEStrategy
RiskAnalysis
PerformanceRiskRanking:PostResponse
Cost
Risk
Ranking:
Post
Response
ScheduleRiskRanking:PostResponse
OverallProjectRiskMagnitude
RiskRegisters:PreResponseandPostResponse
IDEAEVALUATION...................................................................................................................... 147
PerformanceAttributes
VEEvaluationProcess
IdeaSummary
IdeaSummaryList
VALUE
ENGINEERING
PROCESS
...................................................................................................
152
PreStudyPreparation
VEStudy
PostStudyProcedures
ValueEngineeringStudyAgenda
ValueEngineering
Study
Meeting
Attendees
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
14/179
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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.
PerformanceAttributes
Maintainability
PlantOperations
FutureFlexibility
EnvironmentalImpacts
Sustainability
Aesthetics
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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.
ComparisonofValueBaselineConceptandVEStrategy
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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.
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
21/179
VALUE
ENGINEERING
ALTERNATIVES
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
23/179
AlternativeNo.&Description InitialCostSavingsLifeCycleCost
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
24/179
AlternativeNo.&Description InitialCostSavingsLifeCycleCost
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
25/179
AlternativeNo.&Description InitialCostSavingsLifeCycleCost
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.
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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.
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
27/179
VEALTERNATIVEBD1
ReviselayoutofROandAdminbuilding:createonebuildingwithoverlook,improvedsight
linesandareducedcourtyard
PerformanceAssessment
PerformanceAttribute RationaleforChangeinPerformance
MaintainabilityReducesresponsetimeintheeventofanemergencyormechanical
failureinsidetheSWROBuilding.
PlantOperationsDeemedamoredesirableconfigurationforconnectivityofcontrol
roomoperatorstothefacility.
FutureFlexibility
No
significant
change.
EnvironmentalImpacts Nosignificantchange.
Sustainability Nosignificantchange.
Aesthetics Buildingmaterialswouldnotchangebutthebuildingshapewould.
Baseline
Concept
Sketch
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
28/179
VEALTERNATIVEBD1
ReviselayoutofROandAdminbuilding:createonebuildingwithoverlook,improvedsight
linesandareducedcourtyard
VEAlternativeConceptSketch
: N ~
o
e / .WI4 /tL-
1\
~
~
------
.
1
\
i
~
J
.._
Wj Dollo Vll: I IWf-
trlffl .DEH
'
\
I
VE ALTERNATIVE BD 1
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
29/179
VEALTERNATIVEBD1
ReviselayoutofROandAdminbuilding:createonebuildingwithoverlook,improvedsight
linesandareducedcourtyard
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
31/179
VEALTERNATIVEBD2
Eliminatefireprotectionofthebuildingswherenotrequiredbycode
PerformanceAttribute RationaleforChangeinPerformance
sprinklers
are
eliminated
in
facilities
that
may
one
day
be
repurposed
forotherusesthatdorequireafiresuppressionsystem.
EnvironmentalImpacts Nosignificantchange.
Sustainability 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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
32/179
VEALTERNATIVEBD3
Increaseoccupancycategoriesofprocessstructures(categoryIVfortheprocesscritical
facilities)
InitialCost
Savings:
($475,000)
DescriptionofBaselineConcept: Table197RiskCategoriesoftheBODRcallsforFacilityRisk
CategoryofIVforthefinishedwaterstoragetanksandrelatedequipment,andFacilityRiskCategory
ofIIIforotherstructure.
DescriptionofAlternativeConcept: TheVEteamrecommendsthatacloserlookshouldbegivento
thefacilitieswherehigherOccupancyCategorymaybeneededforsomestructuresandalowerone
forthe
rest;
for
example,
SWRO
might
be
IV,
and
Admin
Building
might
be
II.
Advantages:
DesignconsistencywithIBC2012andASCE7 2010Code
Mayresultincostsavings
Disadvantages:
Noneapparent
Discussion: TheVEteamsuspectsthatsomeofthestructureswithinthedesalinationplantmay
qualifyforlowerRiskCategorydesignationsthatcouldproducecostsavingsfortheproject.
However,someotherstructuresmayrequirehigherriskdesignations.
Thisconceptcallsforexaminingthefunctionofeachstructurewithinthefacilityandcallforthe
properdesignationbasedonthefunctionitself,theneed,andimportanceofthestructureinrelation
toentire
operation
and
other
elements.
DiscussionofScheduleImpacts: Noneidentified.
DiscussionofRiskImpacts: Noneidentified.
PerformanceAssessment
PerformanceAttribute
Rationale
for
Change
in
Performance
Maintainability Nosignificantchange.
PlantOperations Nosignificantchange.
FutureFlexibility Nosignificantchange.
VE ALTERNATIVE BD3
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
33/179
VEALTERNATIVEBD 3
Increaseoccupancycategoriesofprocessstructures(categoryIVfortheprocesscritical
facilities)
AssumptionsandCalculations: Theprojectdesignisnotdevelopedtothepointwherespecific
structurecosts
can
be
determined.
However,
generally
speaking,
increasing
the
Risk
Category
of
a
facilitytendstoraisethestructurecostsbyapproximately10%. DecreasingtheRiskCategorytends
toreducecostsbyapproximately10%.
InitialCostEstimate
Description Unit Qty Cost/Unit Total Qty Cost/Unit Total
AdminBuilding SF 6,000 250$ 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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
34/179
Shiftsitelayoutstoavoidcollapsiblesoils
InitialCostSavings: $42,000
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
35/179
Shiftsitelayoutstoavoidcollapsiblesoils
DiscussionofScheduleImpacts: Noconstructionscheduleimpactsareanticipated. Littletono
designimpactwouldbeexpectedsincethedesigniscurrentlyat30%.
DiscussionofRiskImpacts: UnknowntotheVEteamatthispoint.
PerformanceAssessment
PerformanceAttribute RationaleforChangeinPerformance
Maintainability Minorreductionofmaintenanceefforts.
PlantOperations
No
Significant
Impact.
FutureFlexibility NoSignificantImpact.
EnvironmentalImpacts NoSignificantImpact.
Sustainability NoSignificantImpact.
Aesthetics NoSignificantImpact.
BaselineConceptSketch
BrineEqualization
Basin
SWRO&
ElectricalBldgs.
VEALTERNATIVEBD4
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
36/179
Shiftsitelayoutstoavoidcollapsiblesoils
VEAlternativeConceptSketch
Proposed
revised
locations
of
plant
facilities
AssumptionsandCalculations:
Otherareasonsitehavebetterfoundationmaterials
Therearenoadverseimpactsfromshiftingtheentirefacilityorportionofitwithinthesite
Thecostofsoiltreatment/strengtheningoflocalizedareasisnotoffsetbylongerpipingor
otherimpacts
InitialCostEstimate
i i i / i l / i l
CONSTRUCTIONELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
AdminBuilding
BrineEqualization
Basin
SWRO&
ElectricalBldgs.
VEALTERNATIVEBD5
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
37/179
Useageogridreinforcedsoilmatinlieuofdynamicsoilcompaction
InitialCostSavings: $34,000
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
38/179
Useageogridreinforcedsoilmatinlieuofdynamicsoilcompaction
DiscussionofScheduleImpacts: Thereshouldbenoadverseimpactonscheduleresultingfrom
implementingthisconcept.Rather,itmighthelpsavescheduleasgeogridscanbeplacedfasterthan
performingthe
soil
compaction.
DiscussionofRiskImpacts: Projectriskisnotanticipatedtobegreatlyaffectedbythisconcept.Ifthe
proposedfoundationsareimplementedfortheproject,therewillbeimprovedsafetytothe
desalinationplantinfrastructureandpersonnelintheeventofanearthquake.
PerformanceAssessment
PerformanceAttribute RationaleforChangeinPerformance
MaintainabilityMaintainabilityisimprovedduetoreducedsettlementandcracking,
aswellaslessleakageinpipingandvalves.
PlantOperations Enhanced.
FutureFlexibility Nosignificantchange.
EnvironmentalImpacts
No
significant
change.
Sustainability Nosignificantchange.
Aesthetics Thisconceptenhancesfacilityaesthetics(linesareallhorizontal).
AssumptionsandCalculations: Averagecostsofdynamicsoilcompactionrangefor$0.60to$.0.90
persquarefoot. Averagecostsofthegeogridisapproximately$0.25persquarefoot.
Thequantityofsiteareathatwillbesubjecttothesoilcompactionwasnotavailable. Assuch,theVE
teamassumedanareaof60,000SFtocoverthemajorityofthecentralareaoftheplantwherethe
buildingsarelocated.
InitialCostEstimate
Description Unit Qty Cost/Unit Total Qty Cost/Unit Total
DynamicDeepSoilCompaction SF 60,000 0.70$ 42,000$ $
GeoGridReinforcedSoilMat SF $ 31,000 0.25$ 7,750$
$ $
SUB TOTAL $42 000 $7 750
CONSTRUCTIONELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
VEALTERNATIVEBD6
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
40/179
Connectthe4160to480transformersdirectlytothe21kVswitchgear
PerformanceAttribute RationaleforChangeinPerformance
Environmental
Impacts
No
significant
change.
Sustainability Improvedthroughreductioninenergyusage.
Aesthetics Nosignificantchange.
AssumptionsandCalculations:
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
Description Unit Qty Cost/Unit Total Qty Cost/Unit Total
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
41/179
Connectthe4160to480transformersdirectlytothe21kVswitchgear
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
42/179
Simplifylandscapingusingxeriscapingprinciplesandeliminateirrigation
InitialCostSavings: $196,0000
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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
43/179
Simplifylandscapingusingxeriscapingprinciplesandeliminateirrigation
PerformanceAssessment
PerformanceAttribute
Rationale
for
Change
in
Performance
Maintainability Reducedmaintenancecosts.
PlantOperations Nosignificantchange.
FutureFlexibility 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
Description Unit Qty Cost/Unit Total Qty Cost/Unit Total
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
CONSTRUCTIONELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
$563,500
$0
$367,500
$564,000 $368,000
VEALTERNATIVEE1
Revise configuration of RO trains to accommodate flat foot foundation
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
44/179
ReviseconfigurationofROtrainstoaccommodateflatfootfoundation
InitialCostSavings: $400,000
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.
PerformanceAssessment
PerformanceAttribute RationaleforChangeinPerformance
MayhavenegativeimpactduetoreducedaccessibilitytokeyRO
VEALTERNATIVEE1
Revise configuration of RO trains to accommodate flat foot foundation
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
45/179
ReviseconfigurationofROtrainstoaccommodateflatfootfoundation
PerformanceAttribute RationaleforChangeinPerformance
EnvironmentalImpacts
Positiveimpactduetolessexcavationandoffsitesoilhauling/
disposal(fewertrucktrips).
Sustainability Nosignificantimpact.
AestheticsSlightdegradation:10to15%largerbuildingfootprintortaller
building.
VEAlternativeConceptSketch
AssumptionsandCalculations: Thebuildingfootprintcanbeenlargedtoaccommodatethe
installationofbothequipmentandpipingononefloor.
InitialCostEstimate
CONSTRUCTION
ELEMENT BASELINE
CONCEPT
ALTERNA TIVE
CONCEPT
VEALTERNATIVEE2
Useradiallysplitcasepumpsinlieuofsegmentalpumps
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
46/179
y p p p g p p
InitialCostSavings: $202,000
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
Useradiallysplitcasepumpsinlieuofsegmentalpumps
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
47/179
g
PerformanceAssessment
PerformanceAttribute
Rationale
for
Change
in
Performance
Maintainability Significantimprovement.
PlantOperations MorecomplexoperationtwoROtrainsfedbythesamepump.
FutureFlexibility Noimpact.
EnvironmentalImpacts Noimpact.
Sustainability Lowerenergyusageresultsinamoresustainableproject.
Aesthetics
Noimpact.
BaselineConceptSketch
VEALTERNATIVEE2
Useradiallysplitcasepumpsinlieuofsegmentalpumps
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
48/179
VEAlternativeConceptSketch
AssumptionsandCalculations:
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
$2,588,000fromenergysavings
VEALTERNATIVEE2
Useradiallysplitcasepumpsinlieuofsegmentalpumps
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
49/179
InitialCostEstimate
LifeCycleCostEstimate
Description Unit Qty Cost/Unit Total Qty Cost/Unit Total
Sevensegmentalringhighpressurepumps 7 286,000$ 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
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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
Installacceptancetestingconnectionsaspermanent
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
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.
PerformanceAssessment
PerformanceAttribute RationaleforChangeinPerformance
Maintainability
Minimumimpactbecausetheinitialconnectionwillallowthe
operatorstoavoidshuttingdownthefacilityduringmanyfuture
scenarios.
Plant OperationsSignificantpositiveimpactonstabilizingoperationsduringabnormal
VEALTERNATIVEE3
Installacceptancetestingconnectionsaspermanent
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
52/179
AssumptionsandCalculations:
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
CONSTRUCTIONELEMENT BASELINE CONCEPT ALTERNATIVECONCEPT
$0
$0
$200,000
$0 $200,000
VEALTERNATIVEE4
Constructthefilteredwaterstoragetanksoutofconcreteandconstructasrectangular
-
7/27/2019 Governance Committee Agenda Packet 08-25-14
53/179
InitialCostSavings: $73,000
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