FINAL REPORT Evaluation of Seawater Desalination Projects ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EVALUATION OF SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA Appendix A - Responses to Comments on June 26, 2006 Report Written comments were submitted regarding the June 26, 2006 report by Bookman-Edmonston/GEI Consultants, titled “Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation.” The following are responses to those comments. Documents listing the comments follow these responses. Response to Poseidon Resources Comments, Dated June 28, 2006 Comment 1. The following text was added to the report: Poseidon Resources, according to a June 28, 2006 email, stated that they have not selected the filtration media that would be used in a pilot study or in a full-scale plant for the MBRSDP. The DynaSand specification, included in the elevation drawings as submitted to the Monterey County Planning Department, was to show the physical dimensions of the largest available filtration technology. Poseidon Resource stated that DynaSand was used to preserve (1) maximum planning flexibility, and (2) the opportunity to study all available technologies in the pilot study. However, the concern of the potential selection of DynaSand remains. Comment 2. The following text was added as a footnote to the report: In a June 28, 2006 email, a representative of Poseidon Resources stated that it has been working closely with CDHS on permitting large-scale desalination projects in California and has received conditional approval for a project in Huntington Beach. Poseidon Resources believes that it understands what is required to obtain CDHS approval for the MBRSDP. These statements were not verified. Comment 3. The following text was added as a footnote to the report: In a June 28, 2006 email, a representative of Poseidon Resources stated that it has been working closely with CDHS on permitting large-scale desalination projects in California and has received conditional approval for a project in Huntington Beach. Poseidon Resources believes that it understands what is required to obtain CDHS approval for the MBRSDP. These statements were not verified. Comment 4. The following footnote was added to the report. In a June 28, 2006 email, a representative of Poseidon Resources stated that monthly water quality monitoring has been conducted since October 2005. The program has included collecting seawater samples from the Moss Landing Harbor. The samples were tested for Monterey Peninsula Water Management District A-1
EVALUATION OF SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA 300 constituents, which included pesticides and other agricultural runoff constituents, as regulated under the California Ocean Plan and the state and federal Safe Drinking Water Acts. Poseidon Resources concluded from the testing program that pesticides and agricultural runoff will not be a factor. The data provided by Poseidon Resources do not support this conclusion. Comment 5. The following footnote was added to the report. In a June 28, 2006 email, Poseidon Resources stated that product water quality control is critical to the success of the MBRSDP. It intends to follow protocols developed as part of comprehensive studies developed for other California Poseidon Resources desalination plants for the MBRSDP. Comment 6. In a June 28, 2006 email, Poseidon Resources stated that the representation of Tampa Bay Desalination project was not accurate. Poseidon Resources states that Tampa Bay Water exercised its option to purchase the project from Poseidon Resources when construction was 30 percent complete. At the time, according to Poseidon, the project was on schedule, within budget, would have been completed according to design, and would have met performance specifications. Furthermore, it states that testimony of water agency staff and outside experts confirm these conclusions and that these conclusions are part of the public record. Poseidon correctly states that Tampa Bay Water bought out their interests during construction, not after operational failure. Also, Poseidon contends that field design changes caused the failure of the plant. However, any determination that the plant would have operated successfully if Poseidon had retained control through the end of construction is conjecture. It is the understanding of the GEI Consultants/Separation Process/Malcolm- Pirnie team that independent reviews following the failure recommended major pretreatment process changes in order to achieve design performance criteria. Furthermore, Tampa Bay Water staff may have indicated that Poseidon design met specifications at the time of the purchase; however, they did not choose to retrofit the plant to the original Poseidon design following the failure. Doubt remains today whether there is much confidence in the Poseidon design. Response to Poseidon Resources Comments, Dated July 14, 2006 Comment 1. The O&M costs for the Local CWP were included in the CAW report Draft- Conceptual Design Report (2005). The O&M costs for regional CWP were included in the RFB Consulting report, Coastal Water Project – A Water Supply Solution for our Coastal Communities – Volume 1 – Draft – Preliminary Project Description. The O&M costs for local CWP were prepared in 2005 dollars with an annual cost of $8.84M. The O&M costs for the regional CWP were prepared in 2004 dollars with an annual cost $10.484M. The regional CWP O&M costs include avoided annual costs of $1.046M and the cost estimates do not include the costs of operating the Tarpy Flats pumping facilities. Additional data were not available for updating these costs. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District A-2
Page 1 and 2:
FINAL REPORT Evaluation of Seawater
Page 3 and 4:
EVALUATION OF SEAWATER DESALINATION
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58: EVALUATION OF SEAWATER DESALINATION
Page 107: EVALUATION OF SEAWATER DESALINATION
show all

FINAL REPORT Evaluation of Seawater Desalination Projects ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?