FINAL REPORT Evaluation of Seawater Desalination Projects ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EVALUATION OF SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA Response to California American Water Letter, Dated August 30, 2006 Response to Comment 1 – The ASR components have been included in the total cost of the CAW CWP. These costs are reflected in the cost summary tables. Response to Comment 2 – The expected seasonal demands to be met by the MBRSDP were not included in the material provided by Poseidon Resources/PSM; however, the identified annual demand was provided (20,930 ac-ft per year). Poseidon Resources/PSM also stated that MBRSDP would enable the Monterey Peninsula area to comply with SWRCB Order No. 95-10. The identified annual production of 22,400 ac-ft per year for the MBRSDP is reasonable production for a desalination plant with a planned capacity of 20 mgd. Given the information provided by Poseidon Resources, the planned annual yield of the MBRSDP will be 20,930 ac-ft per year and no information has been provided to suggest otherwise. However, the annual yield determination can be modified if additional information is made available. Response to Comment 3a – The comment states that CAW buying water from the MBRSDP would cost $1,800 per acre-foot as opposed to $1,352 per acre-foot. Information regarding the wholesale pricing of the MBRSDP desalinated water was not provided, and, as such, $1,800 per acre-foot cannot be proved or disproved. Response to Comment 3b – The comments states that the annualized cost of the entire CWP is $20M. This calculation could not be verified and we have calculated the annualized cost of the CWP, with ASR, as $23M, with a unit cost of $1,980 per acre-foot. Without ASR, the annualized cost is $20M, with a unit cost of $1,944 per acre-foot. Response to Comment 4 – The final report includes the ASR component of the CWP. Response to Comment 5 – To our knowledge, we were provided the best available, most comprehensive cost estimates of the MBRSDP and SCDP. As acknowledged in the report, the level of detail of the cost estimates was not uniform. Significant effort was expended to obtain the project costs and it was determined that the costs were reasonable for the different projects. Based on this, it was determined that a comparison between the projects is reasonable. As for the MBRSDP cost estimate, it is stated in the text that cost for water transmission and storage is $31M. The extent that Poseidon Resources/PSM has or has not included all of the costs associated with (1) getting their product water to their customers, and (2) building and operating the necessary water storage facilities cannot be determined, but it is assumed that all of the costs are included. Response to Comment 6 – None of the information provided to the B-E team supports the position that MBRSDP could not meet the requirements of SWRCB Order No. 95-10. Response to Comment 7 – Comment noted. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District A-3
EVALUATION OF SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA Response to Comment 8c – Poseidon Resources has stated that the NPDES permit for the intake and outfall at the National Refractories site expired May 2006. It is unclear whether a permit renewal was submitted prior to expiration or whether the intake and outfall will fall under a new NPDES permit. Technically, the permit should not be renewed since Poseidon is not using the facility for the same purpose or standard industrial classification (SIC) code, and the former operation is closed. However, the differences between a renewed/transferred permit and a new permit application for the desalination plant may be more of an administrative issue than a critical issue, since the proponents have stated that they are developing fish screens, a fish return system, and modifying the intake to allow for lowintake velocities. Thus, Poseidon has indicated that it will do what is required for a new intake and permit; however, there is no preliminary design information provided to evaluate the adequacy or potential success of its efforts. Response to Comment 9 – Noted. Current language adequately addresses this issue. Response to Comment 10 – Noted. Response to Comment 11 – The June 2006 report adequately represents all of the proposed MPWMD desalination projects and adequately compares the projects, as based on the supplied information. Each project was evaluated on its own merits and no attempts were made to change the projects so that they had similar production amounts. Also, whether a project fully met the requirements of SWRCB Order No. 95-10 was not a consideration in the evaluation of the individual projects. Response to Comment 12 – The ASR aspect of the CWP has been included in the final report. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District A-4
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:
Page 59 and 60: EVALUATION OF SEAWATER DESALINATION
Page 109: 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?