Title: Seawater Desalination Water Supply Project of The Master Water Plan
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00003981/00001
 Material Information
Title: Seawater Desalination Water Supply Project of The Master Water Plan
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Seawater Desalination Water Supply Project of The Master Water Plan
General Note: Box 16, Folder 7 ( WCRWSA - 1998 ), Item 10
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00003981
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text
r* i .


SEAWATERDESALINATION WATER SUPPLY
PROJECT OF
THE MASTER WATER PLAN


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY
AUTHOiRITY,-CLEARW.ATER; FLORIDA


The $~iiaer


PROPOSAL EVALUATION
AND RANKING


VOLUME I TEXT

March 1998


-

------100


~


~"'~







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 1
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan



Table of contents



1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 APPOINTMENT OF PB W ATER................................................................................................................................
1.1.1 Background................................................................................................. .......................... .........
1.2 PRE-QUALIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT TEAMS .......................................................................................................2
1.3 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ............................................................................... ............................................. .. 3
1.3.1 Incentive Award..................................................................................... ............................................ 3
1.3.2 Scope of RFP............................................................ .............. ................................................... ............. 4
1.3.3 General Contract Information.................................................... ...................... ..............................4
1.3.4 SWFWM D Funding.................................................................................................... .................................. 5
1.3.5 Selection Criteria.......................................................................... ............................. ..................................5
1.3.6 Submittal Requirements.................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3.7 Additional Information Providedfor Submittal Preparation.... .................................................................. 6
1.3.8 Amendment to the RFP.................................................................................................................................. 6
1.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION...........................................................................................................................................7
1.4.1 Submission ofReport to the Authority's Board.......................................................................................... 7

2. PROPOSALS ........................................................................................................................................ ..................7

2.1 RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS............................................................................................................................................7
2.1.1 EnovaSuper Systems Inc. (Enova/SSI)...................................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Florida Seawater Desalination Company (FSDC) ........................................................................................8
2.1.3 Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership (PEIP).............................................................................................. 8
2.1.4 Florida Water Partners (FWP) ................................................................................................................ ........ 8
2.1.5 Stone and Webster/TIC/Citizens Utilities (S& W)........................................................................................8
2.2 PROPOSAL OPTIONS ..................................................................................................................................................8

3. TECHNICAL SUM M ARY ................................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 PLANT FINANCING, DESIGN AND OPERATION ................................................................... ....................... 10
3.1.1 Site-Related Issues........................................................................................................................................10
3.1.2 Environmental Issues ........................................................................................................................... ......... 14
3.1.3 Utilities......................................................................... ................................. ...................... ............19
3.1.4 Intake Water Quality......................... ............ ....................................................................... ............................20
3.1.5 Feed Water Pre-treatment.............................................................................................................................23
3.1.6 Cleaning............................................ .. ......... ................................................................................ 27
3.1.7 Effluent Discharge.........................................................................................................................................27
3.1.8 Site Development, Engineering And Works........ ............ ................................................................. 32
3.1.9 Seawater Desalination Process.............................................................................................................33
3.1.10 Plant Optimization....................................................................................................................................... 35
3.1.11 Function Requirements........................................................ ........... .............. ..........................................36
3.1.12 M ode of Operation................................................ ......... ...................................................................38


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY 3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 2
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


3.1.13 Plant Design Lifetime, Including Major Components And Systems........................................................40
3.1.14 Product Water Turndown Capability..................................................................................................... 41
3.1.15 Plant Performance ....................................... ............................................................................42
3.1.16 Product Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 42
3.1.17 Plant Operation............................................ ........................ ...........................................45
3.1.18 Aesthetics of the Facility ..............................................................................................................................46
3.1.19 Econom ic Feasibility.......................................................................................... ...... ................................47
3.1.20 Transfer of Disposition of Facility at Conclusion of Contract Period......................................................49
3.2 DELIVERED WATER COST ........................................... .............................................................................. 49
3.2.1 Net Present Value Analysis...........................................................................................................................49
3.2.2 Economies of Plant Size...................................................................... ........................52
3.2.3 Other Factors Affecting Delivered Water Cost...................................................................................53
3.3 TIME CERTAIN WATER PRODUCTION....................................................................................................53
3.3.1 Performance Schedule............................ ..........................................................................................53

4. RANKING OF PROPOSALS ............................................................................................................ ....... 54


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Page 3


Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


TABLES


TABLE 1.1

TABLE 3.1

TABLE 3.2

TABLE 3.3

TABLE 3.4

TABLE 3.5

TABLE 3.6

TABLE 3.7

TABLE 3.8

TABLE 3.9

TABLE 3.10

TABLE 3.11

TABLE 3.12

TABLE 3.13

TABLE 3.14

TABLE 3.15

TABLE 3.16

TABLE 3.17

TABLE 3.18

TABLE 3.19


W after Supply Phasing............................................. ........... ...................................................... 5

Site Suitability Issues .................................. .... .............................. ............... 11

Feed W after Pre-Treatm ent............................................................. ......... .........24

System Cleaning .................................................................................................................................27

Seawater Concentrate Discharge And Mixing Rates For 20 MGD Plants...................................... 29

Site Developm ent...................................................................................... ....................................32

Phase I Desalination Processes ............................................................................. ....................33

Desalination Facility Reliability .........................................................................................................37

M ode Of Operation .............................................................................................................................39

Design Life ........................................................................................................................................40

Tim e Required For Product W ater Turndown And Startup...............................................................41

Plant Perform ance Tests..................................................................................................42

Process W after Quality.................................................................... ............................................43

Finished W after Quality ....................................................................................................... 44

Plant Operations................................................................................................................................46

Aesthetics...........................................................................................................................................47

Plant D isposition...............................................................................................................................49

Net Present Values In 1997 Dollars For 20 MGD Plant (No SWFWMD Funding).......................... 51

1997 Water Price/1000 Gallons As A Function Of Plant Capacity .................................. ...... ..53

Tim e To Deliver W ater.............................................................................................................. 54


3/6/98


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 4
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan




APPENDICES




Open House Comments........................... ....... ............................A


Request for Proposals and Addenda...........................................................B


Extension of Proposals Validity through October 16,1998........................C


Proposal Clarifications Enova / SSI......................................................D


* Proposal Clarifications Florida Seawater Desalination Company.................E


* Proposal Clarifications Florida Water Partners....................................... F


* Proposal Clarifications Progress Energy / Ionics Partnership...................G


* Proposal Clarifications Stone & Webster.................................... ..... H


S A bbreviations..................................................... ............................... ...I


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Executive Summary
Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Plan


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide the evaluation and ranking of the proposals submitted by
five pre-qualified Developers for a 20 to 50 MGD seawater desalination plant. The Authority may
negotiate a water purchase agreement with the Developer of the privatized (build, own, operate)
facility.

RFP Process
On August 19, 1996, the Authority selected r, a iiW&ali' ,
y ., to provide consulting services in the development of a feasible and cost-effective
method or methods to acquire seawater desalination as a new alternative water supply source.

Beginning in November 1996, PB Water contacted a number of firms that have been actively
involved in recent desalination projects to make them aware of the proposed project as well as
advertising nationally and internationally. After being pre-qualified, Developers were required to
include in their proposals a firm base supply capacity of 20 MGD (Option 1) and were encouraged
to respond to an additional 15 MGD in 2007 (Option 2) and an additional 15 MGD in 2015 for a
total of 50 MGD (Option 3).

The Developers were instructed not to include the $50 million contribution that the SWFWMD has
set aside to pay toward the construction of a seawater desalination facility. It has not been decided
how the money will be spent at this time. In a cooperative effort, the SWFWMD has funded half
of the RFP process.

Proposals were received from each of the pre-qualified Developers on the due date of December 3,
1997. Clarification meetings, teleconferences and facsimiles were exchanged with each of the
Developers to explain or clarify certain items in their Proposals. Clarifications were limited to
information which did not change the original proposal.
Developer Teams
The following is a list of submitting Developer Teams:

Enova/Super Systems Inc. (Enova/SSI)
The team is comprised of Enova Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of Enova Corporation, the parent
company of San Diego Gas and Electric Company and SuperSystems, Inc..
Florida Seawater Desalination Company (FSDC)
DuPont Permasep Products, US Water, and Enpower, Inc. intend to form Florida Seawater
Desalination Company, a Florida limited liability company (LLC) to develop the project.
Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership (PEIP)
Progress Energy Corporation (PEC) and lonics, Inc., plan to form a limited partnership.


3/6/98







Executive Summary l
Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Plan

Florida Water Partners (FWP)
Florida Water Partners is a consortium comprised of Parsons Infrastructure and Technology
Group Inc. (Parsons) and I.D.E. Technologies Ltd. (IDE). Tampa Electric Company has offered
to become up to a 50 percent equity partner in the project.
Stone and Webster/TIC/Citizens Utilities (S&W)
Stone & Webster, TIC The Industrial Company, and Citizens Utilities Company, intend to form a
limited liability company (LLC) to develop the project. The team anticipates participation by
subsidiaries of Tampa Electric Company and Poseidon Resources in the LLC.

Ranking of the Proposals
The proposals were evaluated and ranked based on twenty-two criteria. Points were deducted
where critical information was lacking or the information could not be substantiated by the
clarification process. The evaluation included plant financing, design and operation elements, the
water purchase agreement costs and the length of time it would take to build the facility from the
Notice to Proceed.

The proposals were ranked based upon the total points awarded their proposed 20 MGD base
seawater desalination facility plans as follows:

1. Florida Progress/Ionics Partnership (PEIP) (at Higgins Power Station)
2. Stone & Webster (S&W)
3. Florida Seawater Desalination Company (FSDC)
4. Florida Water Partners (FWP)
5. Enova/SSI





Net Present Value Analysis
Because the proposals differed in the level of detail provided, the nature of the price structure, and
specific escalation assumptions, it was necessary to apply uniform methodology and assumptions
to each proposal in order to obtain the -.... 1. Therefore life
cycle costs were evaluated using the Net Present Value (NPV) of the water supply contract, based
on total water sales over the The NPV follows industry practices for the
evaluation of life cycle costs. Because the
-I- 1......lll _-L~~_unl1W for the entire 30 year time
frame (RFP Option 1), the NPV analysis focuses on that Option for purposes of comparing each
submission.
Unit cost data (cost per 1000 gallons) can be misleading in those cases where the Developers have
proposed plants whose output capacity is greater than the water supply requirements of the
Authority prior to 2015. For example, due to substantial economies of scale, the unit costs
reported in the proposals for a 50 MGD plant are lower than for smaller sized plants. However, if
a 50 MGD plant is constructed at the outset when only 20 MGD is required, the total costs to the
Authority would be greater than a phased plant construction (i.e., 20 MGD at the outset, 35 MGD
in 2007, and 50 MGD in 2015), since under the take-or-pay contracts, the capital cost of building


3/6/98








Executive Summary iii
Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Plan

the excess plant capacity would be passed on in the water purchase agreement. Analysis performed
on phasing options indicates that 101--110. r -

The results of the NPV analysis are reported in Table. The analysis utilizes a baseline assumption
of a 3% real discount rate, which corresponds to the first column in the table. Sensitivity analyses
were also performed using discount rates of 2% and 4%.

TABLE 2. NET PRESENT VALUES IN 1997 DOLLARS FOR 20 MGD PLANT (NO
SWFWMD FUNDING)

TOTAL NPV (3% TOTAL NPV (2% TOTAL NPV (4%
OPTION DISCOUNT RATE, DISCOUNT RATE, DISCOUNT RATE,
MILLIONS 1997 $) MILLIONS, 1997 $) MILLIONS, 1997 $ )

PEIP Higgins 20 MGD $332.5 $378.2 $294.6
PEIP Anclote 20 MGD $361.1 $410.6 $319.9
FWP (BOOT) $426.3 $486.1 $376.8
FWP (BOO) $449.2 $512.2 $397.1
S&W (MVC/SWRO) $417.6 $476.2 $369.0
FSDC $409.3 $472.0 $372.1
ENOVA/SSI $639.0 $729.1 $564.4


The Ig ..l,,i,*nt. -asi se is~U, sintfiaant

Ails.iadiggg tNi atoq.acytf of flushing action i the upper portion of Old Tam m Bay to
pgrvent shanty build up,
The difference in total costs of 3 percent discount NPVs for the Florida Water Partners, Stone &
Webster, and Florida Seawater Desalination Company submissions are within 5 percent of the
costs for Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership Anclote site. Given the uncertainty associated with
each proposal at this stage, including contingencies for construction cost and uncertainties in
financing costs, the difference in costs may be regarded as insignificant.
Total Water Supply Contract Costs
The Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership Hiiggins proposal NPV estimate is the Jowest of the five
submissions. (They also provided the most complete set of estimates for various plant
capacity/phasing scenarios.) Stone & Webster, Florida Water Partners, and Florida Seawater
Desalination Company have NPV costs ranging from 15-20 percent higher on a total present worth
basis, using a 20 MGD capacity plant, fixed over thirty years, as the basis for comparison. The
Enova/SSI team appears to be an outlier, with costs more than double the Progress Energy/Ionics
Partnership estimate.
Using a real discount rate of 3% and no public funding, a thirty year Water Supply Contract
(WSC) for a plant of fixed capacity of 20 MGD, the following Table 3 shows the estimated present


3/6/98







Executive Summary iv
Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Plan

worth assuming the Authority purchases the entire output (7.3 billion gallons per year) over the
thirty year period.

TABLE 3 TOTAL PRESENT WORTH FOR A 20 MGD FACILITY
DEVELOPER NPV 3% COST PER 1000 GAL. COST PER 1000
DISCOUNT (AT 3% DISCOUNT) GAL.(NO DISCOUNT)
Enova/SSI $768 million $3.51 $5.45
FSDC $379 million $1.73 $2.63
FWP $415 million $1.90 $2.90
Progress $328 million $1.50 $2.29
Stone & Webster $395 million $1.80 $2.76


Economies of Plant Size
While the NPV analysis is restricted to a constant 20 MGD plant over the entire 30 year period,
another key consideration, given the very real prospect that more than 20 MGD will be required by
the Authority in the foreseeable future, is how efficiently can plant capacity be expanded. The data
in Table 4 below provide evidence that at larger plant sizes, the differences among the various
plants would become smaller, that is, prices appear to converge to a considerable extent as plant
size increases. For example, Florida Water Partners unit price would be almost identical to the
Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership Higgins site price. Florida Seawater Desalination Company's
price, while still somewhat higher, also falls at a relatively rapid rate as plant size increases. Stone
& Webster did not provide sufficient information in their submission to make a similar
comparison.

TABLE 4 1997 WATER PRICE/1000 GALLONS AS A FUNCTION OF PLANT
CAPACITY

% change in % change in % change in
unit price/% unit price/% unit price/%
change in change in daily change in
DEVELOPER 20 35 50 daily plant plant capacity daily plant
MGD MGD MGD capacity (20- (35-50 MGD capacity (20-
35 MGD increase) 50 MGD
increase) increase)
PEIP Higgins A $2.15 $2.06 -0.12 -0.10 -0.07
PEIP Anclote $2.49 $2.35 2 3 -0.11 -- --
FWP (BOOT) $3.03 $2.50 $2.07 -0.35 -0.40 -0.21
FWP (BOO) $3.20 $3.40 $2.30 increase increase -0.19
S&W $2.76 3 3 -
FSDC $2.801 3 $2.30 -0.12


First year (2000) water price, as reported in the FSDC proposal submission.
Estimated
3 Not available


3/6/98







Executive Summary v
Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Plan



With all the variables associated the Authority's future purchases of desalinated water, it is not
possible to select the "best" take-or-pay plant options for anything other than the 20 MGD base
option. A large number of other options were offered by Developers and examined, but they did
not form an effective basis for comparative ranking because of their differing capacities and
growth schedules. As shown in the previous section, some of the larger plants can offer significant
savings if the Authority is willing to commit to take-or-pay contracts larger than 20 MGD.


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 1
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


1. INTRODUCTION



1.1 Appointment of PB Water
The West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (AUTHORITY) requested on June 2, 1996 Statements
of Qualifications and Project Approach for the services of a Consultant to develop a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the procurement of a seawater desalination water supply. On August 19,1996, the
Authority selected PB Water, a Division of Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., to provide the
services. The PB Water project team was supplemented by Dr. Philip Roberts, an expert in ocean
outfalls, and the Blackmon Roberts Group, assisting with the public information and involvement
program. On October 30, 1996 the Notice to Proceed was given for the project.

The primary goal of the project is to assist the Authority in the development of a feasible and cost-
effective method or methods to acquire seawater desalination as a new alternative potable water supply
source. The objectives of the requested consulting services included the preparation of a Request for
Proposals for a desalination water supply of 20-50 MGD capacity, and the subsequent evaluation of the
most advantageous process to procure the desalinated seawater.


1.1.1 Background
In 1993 the Authority began an integrated resource planning process that resulted in the Resource
Development Plan. This plan relied heavily on input and advice from a number of agencies including the
Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) and the Authority's member governments. The SWFWMD is responsible for
protecting the public's water resources in 16 counties of west central Florida. In addition to determining
water supply needs, the plan determined potential new sources of supply and supply alternatives. The
Authority's Board of Directors selected a plan based on five objectives:

Aggressive conservation and reserve/rotational capacity
Diversified supply sources
Limited additional groundwater sources beyond built and exchanged capacity
Increased drought-proof and drought-resistant components
* Least cost consistent with previous objectives


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 2
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Following a series of public workshops and meetings, the original Master Water Plan was approved in
December 1995. The plan proposes new supply elements (Brandon Urban Wellfield, Cone Ranch and
Dispersed Wells, Tampa Bypass Canal Linear Wellfield, and the Industrial/Agricultural Exchange) as
well as pipeline interconnections to improve water transfer capabilities within the system. Seawater
desalination was identified as a developmental alternative to meet the area's growing water needs.

The seawater desalination Request for Proposals (RFP) process was advised prior to the proposal
evaluation stage by a management advisory committee set up by the Authority's General Manager and
comprised of an area regulator, public utilities and Authority personnel. In a co-operative effort, the
SWFWMD (the regional water regulator) funded 50 percent of the RFQ/RFP process.

The Authority supplies wholesale water to its member governments in the Tampa Bay area, which
provide drinking water to more than 1.8 million people in three counties. Authority members include
Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas counties as well as the cities of New Port Richey, St. Petersburg and.
Tampa. The West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority's mission is to provide its member
governments with adequate and reliable supplies of high-quality water to meet present and future needs
in an environmentally and economically sound manner.

The Hillsborough-Pinellas-Pasco tri-county area has experienced rapid growth and economic
development during the past three decades that have resulted in an increasing need for water supplies.
Comparisons of supply and demand show that although the regional water supply system presently
operates with sufficient capacity to meet customer demand, reserve margins are already inadequate and
likely to become more so without the development of new water sources.

1.2 Pre-qualification of Development Teams
Beginning in November 1996, Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) contacted a number of firms that have been
actively involved in recent desalination projects to make them aware of the proposed project. A Request
for Qualification (RFQ) was sent to potentially interested parties requesting the services of a lead
developer, partnership/joint venture, consortium, etc. (hereafter referred to as the Developer), that upon
being pre-qualified would respond to a subsequent RFP for the development of a 20-50 MGD seawater
desalination water supply.

The RFQ outlined basic requirements for development of a seawater desalination plant and the
qualifying criteria and rating system to be used in ranking proposals. Criteria developed for pre-
qualifying potential Developers focused on the potential Developers past experience with similar
projects, record of performance, current capacity to do the work, and ability to finance a project of this
nature and scale.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 3
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


The Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was advertised on February 2, 1997. Six Statements of
Qualifications (SOQ) were received by the deadline of 4:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, on the amended
due date of April 4, 1997. The following Development teams (presented in alphabetical order as
originally constituted) met the minimum requirements for pre-qualification:

1. Enova/SSI Joint Venture (Enova/SSI)
a) Enova Energy (a subsidiary of Enova Corp., which also owns San Diego Gas & Electric)
b) SuperSystems, Inc.
2. Florida Seawater Desalination Company (FSDC)
a) US Water, LLC, owned jointly by United Utilities & United Infrastructure Company
(Bechtel and Peter Kiewit Co. joint venture)
b) DuPont
3. Parsons/IDE Florida Water Partners (FWP)
a) Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group
b) IDE Technologies Ltd. c/o Ambient Technologies, Inc.
4. Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership (PEIP)
a) Progress Energy Corporation
b) lonics, Inc.
5. Stone & Webster et. al. (S & W)
a) Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
b) Kvaerner Construction, Inc.
c) Citizens Utilities Co.
d) TRC Companies

1.3 Request for Proposals
The RFP was submitted to the pre-qualified Developers for proposals to develop an economically viable
20-50 MGD seawater desalination water supply that will provide a safe, secure and reliable source of
water to the AUTHORITY for up to 50 years (Appendix B).

1.3.1 Incentive Award
An incentive award consisting of the reimbursement of 50 percent of verifiable directly related costs up
to a maximum of $150,000 for preparing the Proposal will be paid to the Developer of the top ranked
Proposal as determined by the Authority's Board if the project does not proceed. The project will be
deemed not to be proceeding if notice of award and authorization to begin contract negotiations are not
issued by the Board prior to the anniversary date (one year) of the due date for the Proposals. The
incentive award will be reimbursed by the Developer if contract negotiations are ultimately authorized by
the Authority and accepted by the top ranked Developer and the project is developed. The incentive
award will be provided by matching funds from the Authority and the SWFWMD.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 4
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


1.3.2 Scope of RFP
The overall scope of the RFP includes the financing, developing, permitting, designing, supplying,
procuring, constructing, erecting, completing, testing, commissioning, operating and maintaining of a 20-
50 million gallon (US) per day (MGD) seawater desalination plants) and the delivery of desalinated
water via a pipeline(s) at an agreed quality to the Authority's water distribution system in the Tampa
Bay area. The water is to be delivered at an economically optimum and agreed life cycle cost under a
Water Purchase Contract or similar agreement.

The proposed site(s) for the seawater desalination plants) had to be selected by the Developer. The
Developer had to demonstrate that the selected site(s) is suitable for the intended purpose, and that the
Developer can acquire the site(s) for the intended purpose.

The proposed seawater desalination plants) had to be of a type included in the Developer's SOQ and for
which the Developer has been pre-qualified by the Authority. Innovative technology and/or design of
the plants) or systems was encouraged; however, the Developer had to be able to assure that the design,
system or component had been tested or is being successfully used in a large scale water production
system.

The Proposal could include various options, including incremental increases in production capability.
Options had to be described in detail and include any changes in the process, construction materials, life
cycle of the facility (design life of major systems), operational costs, operational reliability, and the
delivered cost to the Authority of the desalinated water.

The Authority may elect to negotiate for the option most beneficial to the Authority.

1.3.3 General Contract Information
The RFP provided that the nature and term of the proposed contract were to be negotiated with the
Developer. It is anticipated that a long-term contract will be negotiated to finance, design, build and
operate the seawater desalination supply. The Developer will sell water to the Authority at a negotiated
price, quality and quantity for a set period.

WIN W6T The anticipated contract provisions include a 30 year term with an option to renew, the maintenance of
I*M-/pRal%,required performance bond and insurance coverage, licensure and certification, and an option to transfer
operation and/or ownership to the Authority. The contract will include the guaranteed delivery of a base
quantity (take or pay) of acceptable quality water at the receiving point. Additional water above the base
quantity may be produced and sold upon demand at an agreed pricess. The contract will allow
modification in the delivered water price for costs the Developer has no control over, such as the
purchase price for electricity and fuel or for changes in laws, regulations or rules, and provisions to pass
to the Authority a portion of future cost reductions, such as technology advances.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 5
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan



The proposed contract provides that deadlines or time limits for performance by the Developer may be
extended if necessary approvals, required to be given by the Authority, which affect such deadlines or
time limits, are unreasonably withheld or delayed.

1.3.4 WFWMD Funding
The SWFWMD has authorized $50 million, with part of the money already set aside and the balance
available by 2001/2002, to reduce the cost of a seawater desalination supply facility, thereby
substantially reducing the cost of the delivered water. However, these f~mds or other potential funding
sources were not to be considered in preparing the Proposal, including the price for delivered water.
After the receipt of the proposals, the Developers were asked to estimate the impact a $50 million grant
from SWFWMD for capital costs would have on the delivered water costs in their proposals.

1.3.5 Selection Criteria
Criteria for ranking elements of the Proposals were developed and included in the RFP to ensure that the
desalination water supply is environmentally sound and permittable, properly designed and reliable
(constructed of the right materials, has sufficient redundancy, storm resistant, etc.), that the facility can
be and will be maintained for the life cycle (negotiated period) in good operating condition, the quality
and quantity of water is deliverable when required, and the supply is economically viable so that the
Developer will have an adequate return on his investment.

1.3.6 Submittal Requirements
Developers were required to include in their proposals a firm base supply capacity of 20 MGD (Option
1) and were encouraged to respond to the increased capacity shown in Option 2 or 3 (as shown in
TABLE 1.1).


TABLE 1.1 WATER SUPPLY PHASING

OPTION YEAR YEAR YEAR
2001 2007 2015
1 20 MGD no additional no additional
2 20 MGD 15 MGD (total 35 no additional
MGD)
3 20 MGD 15 MGD (total 35 15 MGD (total 50
MGD) MGD)



The required firm base supply capacity (Option 1) must be available on all occasions throughout the
contract period and does not include production capacity set aside to provide required redundancy. The
proposed incremental expansions of supply capacity in the years listed above are based upon current


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 6
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Authority projected water supply needs. Proposed total initial supply capacity that exceeds the firm base
supply capacity of 20 MGD and that the Developer considers will provide a more cost effective water
supply, could be proposed as an alternative optionss.

Significantly detailed description of the equipment and essential technical and performance
characteristics were requested to allow evaluation of the reliability, availability, lifetime maintenance,
and chemical usage/costs, as appropriate for each item or process. As general guidance, the RFP
requested the same level of plans, calculations and other information that the Developer team required to
determine the cost of site development, the desalination plant and ancillary equipment both onsite and
offsite.

The Developers were required to specify suitable materials for critical components and systems subject
to corrosion or damage. They were also requested to list spare equipment and redundancy, including
bypass or rerouting, for maintenance or failure of critical items and systems.


1.3.7 Additional Information Provided for Submittal Preparation
Attachment A to the RFP provided general information as guidance in preparing a response. Each
Developer was responsible for obtaining the level of data and other information needed to submit their
proposal.

* Location of Potential Receiving Points and Flows.
* Water Quality Information
* General Permitting Information.
* West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority Master Water Plan.
* Generalized Technical Specifications for Seawater Reverse Osmosis and Distillation Plants
* Technical Schedules for Seawater Reverse Osmosis and Distillation Plants

1.3.8 Amendment to the RFP
The Authority, at its own initiative and/or in response to clarifications requested by qualified
Developers, modified the RFP on four occasions by issuing Addenda (Appendix B). Besides addressing
Developer clarification issues:

* Addendum No. 1 established three pre-proposal meetings,

* Addendum No. 2 the Authority's Board voted to extend the proposal response time and the due date
for the proposals was subsequently moved to December 1, 1997, the bond rating requirements in
Section 1.5.6 General Agreements by the Developer were revised, and the evaluation criteria point
system was revised to give more weight to delivered water cost criteria,

* Addendum No. 3 extended the period the proposals shall remain valid to 210 days, and


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 7
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


* Addendum No. 4 extended the proposal due date to December 3, 1997 at 4:30 p.m. due to holiday
schedules.

The Authority's Board subsequently requested that the validity of the proposals be extended to October
16, 1998 (Appendix B).

1.4 Proposal Evaluation
Five staff members of the PB Water team reviewed the proposals. Evaluators reviewed those sections of
each proposal relevant to criteria which they have the required training and/or experience to evaluate.
Points were awarded based upon material submitted relevant to each selection criterion.

As indicated in the RFP, the required General Information (Section 3.1) did not receive a point rating but
was evaluated as to whether the Developers had provided the information in a sufficiently complete and
satisfactory manner. The Authority's Evaluation Committee used the weighted criteria in the Technical
Proposal (Section 3.2) to score the responses.

Due to the uniqueness and importance of the project, the requirements in the Request for Proposals were
highly technical and complex. Each of the proposals was found to contain some deficiencies and/or
lacked sufficient supporting or backup material in one or more area. Clarification meetings,
teleconferences and facsimiles were exchanged with each of the Developers to explain or clarify certain
items in their Proposals. Such information exchanges were not intended for the Developer(s) to provide
new information but to explain or clarify the information provided in the Proposal(s). The points
awarded by the evaluation team for proposal criterion were affected in those instances where critical
information or other material was lacking or could not be substantiated by the clarification process. All
the proposals received were responsive and substantially in compliance with the Request for Proposals.

The points awarded for a criterion for which more than one evaluator performed an evaluation were
assigned by discussion and consensus. Clearly identified alternatives and/or options within each
proposal were evaluated and awarded separate points for the appropriate criterion. Substantially
incomplete alternatives or options were not evaluated. Separate total points for the proposal were given
for each evaluated alternative and/or option.

1.4.1 Submission of Report to the Authority's Board

PB Water's evaluation and ranking of the technical proposals prior to interviews are presented in this
report to the Authority's Board for their action, and to the Southwest Florida Water Management
District. The Board may interview Developers as provided in Section 3.4 of the RFP.

2. PROPOSALS

2.1 Receipt of Proposals

Proposals were received from each of the five pre-qualified Developers on the due date of December 3,
1997. A summary of the Developer team for each proposal follows in alphabetical order. Several of the


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 8
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


teams had changes in key team members. All of the replacement team members were qualified for their
assigned role in the projects.

2.1.1 Enova/Super Systems Inc. (Enova/SSI)
The team is comprised of Enova Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of Enova Corporation, the parent company of
San Diego Gas and Electric Company and SuperSystems, Inc. SIDEM Corporation (Societe
International de dessalement) has been added to the team to provide multiple effect distillation (MED)
process design and production of the desalination equipment.

2.1.2 Florida Seawater Desalination Company (FSDC)
DuPont Permasep Products has assumed the lead developer role from US Water. DuPont Permasep
Products, US Water, and Enpower, Inc. intend to form Florida Seawater Desalination Company, a
Florida limited liability company (LLC) to develop the project. Design/build services will be provided
by DuPont and Raytheon Engineers and Constructors, Inc. in place of the Bechtel Infrastructure
Corp./Kiewit Construction Co. Joint Venture. Salzgitter Anlagenbau GmbH will provide process
engineering design services for the desalination process plant.

2.1.3 Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership (PEIP)
Progress Energy Corporation (PEC) and lonics, Inc., plan to form a limited partnership.

2.1.4 Florida Water Partners (FWP)
Florida Water Partners is a consortium comprised of Parsons Infrastructure and Technology Group Inc.
(Parsons) and I.D.E. Technologies Ltd.. Tampa Electric Company has offered to become up to a 50
percent equity partner in the project.

2.1.5 Stone and Webster/TIC/Citizens Utilities (S&W)

Stone & Webster, TIC The Industrial Company, and Citizens Utilities Company, intend to form a
limited liability company (LLC) to develop the project. Kvaerner Constructors, Inc., an original team
member, was replaced by TIC. The team anticipates potential participation by subsidiaries of DTampa
Electric Company and Poseidon Resources in the LLC.

2.2 Proposal options

The submitted proposals contain a number of options. These are summarized below:


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 9
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Enova/Super Systems Inc.

Option 1 Production of 33 million gallons per day (MGD) by 2001 by producing 20 MGD of
distilled water and blending with 16 MGD of brackish water.

Option 1A Production of 20 MGD by 2001 by producing 20 MGD of distilled water.

Option 2 Production of 20 MGD by 2001 by producing 12 MGD of distilled water and blending with
8 MGD of brackish water.

Florida Seawater Desalination Company

Base Case Production of 20 MGD by 2001.

Option A Production of 50 MGD.

Option B Production of 20 MGD financed by municipal debt.

Option C Production of 50 MGD financed by municipal debt with a power generation on site. (This

option is also available without power generation option.)

Florida Water Partners

Phase 1 Production of 20 MGD by 2001(MVC/RO).

Phase 2 Production of further 30 MGD by 2007 to give total of 50 MGD.

Option 1 Build Own Operate (BOO) with SWFWMD grant with sole lease back.

Option 2 -Build Own Operate Transfer (BOOT) with SWFWMD grant with sale to the Authority
after two years operation.

Option 3 BOO without SWFWMD grant.

Option 4 BOOT without SWFWMD grant.

RO Option Production of 20 MGD by 2001 (100 percent RO)


Progress Energv/Ionics Partnership

Option 1 Production of 20 MGD by 2001 at Higgins Power Station.

Option 1A Production of 23 MGD by 2001 at Higgins Power Station.

Option 2 Expansion to 35 MGD by 2007 at Higgins Power Station.

Option 2A Production of 35 MGD by 2001 at Higgins Power Station.

Option 3 Expansion to 50 MGD by 2015 at Higgins Power Station.

Alternative 1 Production of 20 MGD by 2001 at Anclote Power Station.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 10
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Alternative 1A Production of 23 MGD by 2001 at Anclote Power Station.

Alternative 2 Production of 35 MGD by 2001 at Anclote Power Station.

Alternative 3 Development of 15 MGD seawater desalination at Higgins Power Station together with
5 MGD brackish water desalination.

Stone and Webster/TIC/Citizens Utilities

Base Case Production of 20 MGD by 2001 expendable to 35 MGD in 20078 and to 50 MGD in 2015.

Option A Pre-treatment by Ultra filtration.

Option B Brackish water blending.

3. TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Following is a summary of the site, environmental, design and operation project approaches contained in
the technical proposal for each developer. The summary is based on the required base 20 MGD plant
(Option 1). The summary includes information on alternate sites and other options and alternatives for
similar size plants where there are significant differences. Brief comments relative to 35 and 50 MGD
facilities or other capacity options are provided where appropriate. The summary is presented in the
same order as the evaluation criteria in the RFP and with the description of each criterion in italics. A
brief summary of the proposed approaches) for each criterion is included for each proposal. Because of
the different creative approaches used in the proposals not all information submitted in the proposals is
directly comparable. The assessment of each criterion is presented in the form of a summary of
assumptions related to the criterion, followed by an analysis which summarizes PB Water's assessment
of the various proposals. There are occasional omissions or incomplete information in requested
proposal data that are not considered essential in the evaluation of the proposals. In cases where
important data was missing, points were deducted during evaluation and the fact is mentioned in the
appropriate analysis section.


3.1 PLANT FINANCING, DESIGN AND OPERATION

3.1.1 Site-Related Issues
Suitability of the selected site(s) for the seawater desalination plants) including accessibility, existing
utilities, land use, zoning and ownership.

Assumptions

* The plant site should be owned by the developer, or available for long-term lease by the developer.

* The site should be readily accessible for construction equipment and deliveries of supplies.

* The current site land use and development zoning should be suitable for conversion to desalination
plant use.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 11


* Water and sewer utilities and electrical utilities for auxiliary site power should be available to the site.

* The site should be large enough to accommodate future expansion to 50 MGD capacity.

* The site should have access to appropriate intake systems for source water, and to appropriate outfall
systems for permittable discharge of concentrate.

Analysis

The site access, utilities, land use, zoning and ownership are summarized for each of the proposed sites
in Table 3.1.


TABLE 3.1 SITE SUITABILITY ISSUES


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


DEVELOPER SITE SITE EXISTING ZONING OWNERSHIP
ACCESS UTILITIES

Enova ,No specific Vicinity US 41 Unknown Unknown Unknown
site
Hillsborough
Co. 1

FSDC Northern truck, 1 mile Undeveloped Industry Anclote Road
Pinellas Co.4 to US 19 Limited Industrial Park,
M-1 Inc.

FWP Big Bend truck, rail and Present incl. Industrial TECO
Power Sta., barge steam3
Hillsborough
Co.

PEIP Higgins Power truck and Present Heavy Florida Power
Sta. barge. Access Manufacturing Corporation
(in extended road is through & Industrial
cold residential area M-2
shutdown)
Pinellas Co.

PEIP Anclote Power Present Agricultural Florida Power
Sta., Pasco Co. truck and AC2 Corporation

barge

S&W Big Bend truck, rail and Present Industrial TECO
Power Sta., barge
Hillsborough


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 12
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


II Co I I II


'Following selection, Enova/SSI would negotiate for a site in the vicinity of the Big Bend site. Personal
communication by PB Water with Tampa Electric Company (TECO) revealed that they are not interested
in having a non-owned cogeneration facility on their property.
2 The Pasco County Future Land Use Plan Category is IH (Industrial Heavy) for the Anclote Power
Station site.
3 Steam is required for the seawater desalination process.

4 An alternate site is located adjacent to Baileys Bluff Road in Pasco County.

Enova/SSI

* The proposed site is to be located in the vicinity of the Big Bend Power Station. However, no
specific site has been identified, so no assessment of site conditions is possible.
* The sitecannot be located on TECO property because TECO does not wish to provide a site for
another company to build and operate a cogeneration facility (PB Water personal communication,
Don Mestas, TECO, February 19, 1998).

Florida Seawater Desalination Company (FSDC)
* Florida Seawater Desalination Company has signed an option to purchase a site on Anclote Road
from the site owner. As an alternative, they also propose a site on Baileys Bluff Road adjacent to the
Anclote Power Station. Since the site issues on Baileys Bluff Road are not significantly different
from those on the Anclote road site, these are not treated as separate alternatives for ranking
purposes.
* The Anclote Road site is already zoned by Pinellas County for industrial use.

* The Baileys Bluff Sites are along the road and are 2 to 3 miles from US 19.
* The Anclote Road site is approximately 1 mile from US 19 and has paved roads along two sides.

* Electrical, water and sewer utilities are available adjacent to the sites, and the sites are large enough
for a 50 MGD plant.
* Florida Seawater Desalination Company proposes to use source water from up to 15 wells rated at
approximately 3 MGD each. Three production wells and 2 stand-by wells would be located on the
plant site property, and the remaining wells would be located in public right-of-way areas along
Anclote Boulevard and L&R Industrial Boulevard. If necessary, the wells can be located elsewhere
in the area based on the results of site specific well testing. Siting wells and pipelines in public right-
of-way areas is common practice, but it requires right-of-way utilization permits.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 13
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Florida Seawater Desalination Company proposes to use the Anclote Power Station Discharge canal
for discharge and dilution of concentrate. This is not guaranteed by an existing agreement between
Florida Seawater Desalination Company and Florida Power Corporation. However, Florida Power
Corporation has indicated that if the Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership proposal is not selected by
the Authority, "they would be very interested in discussing terms with Du Pont" (letter to D. R.
Barton by M. C. Meidel, November 24, 1997). It should be noted that Florida Power Corporation's
Position may need to be clarified in the event that the Authority decides to enter into simultaneous
negotiations with Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership and Florida Seawater Desalination Company.

Florida Water Partners (FWP)

The proposed site is on the IECO Big Bend Power Station property in southern Hillsborough
County. The proposed site is available for long term lease to Florida Water Partners, is readily
accessible for construction and deliveries, and is already zoned for industrial use. It has electric,
water and sewer utilities available, as well as steam for the proposed distillation plant.

There is sufficient room for a 50-MGD plant, but the 20 MGD (Phase 1) site is south of the power
plant while the 35 MGD (Phase 2/ 3) site is north of the power plant. This is less convenient than
use of a single site for all phases.

The plant will obtain its seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) feedwater from the power plant intake
and its mechanical vapor compression (MVC) feedwater from the power plant condenser discharge
(to benefit from the heat in the condenser discharge water).

The existing power plant intake and outfall structures are available to be utilized.

( Progress Energv/Ionics Partnership (PEIP)

The primary site is on the Higgins Power Station property in Pinellas County which is available for
long term lease to Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership is zoned for industrial use. The access road
passes through a residential area which is less desirable than direct access to a major road.

Electrical, water and sewer utilities are available to the site.

The Higgins Power Station site is large enough for a 50 MGD plant.

The existing power plant intake and outfall structures are available to be utilized at the Higgins site.

The secondary site is on the Anclote Power Station property in Pasco County, and is available for
long term lease to Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership. The site is zoned Agricultural, but it should
not be difficult to obtain the required zoning exemption or waiver. This is because of the existing
use of the property for a power generation plant and the Pasco County future designation of the land
use as Industrial Heavy. The site is readily accessible for construction and deliveries.
Electrical, water and sewer utilities are available to the site.

The Anclote Power Station site is large enough for a 50 MGD plant.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 14
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


The existing Anclote Power Station intake and outfall structures are available to be utilized.

) Stone & Webster (S&W)
The r aplle- site is on the ASMi Big Betd- Power Station property in southern Hillsborough
County. The proposed site is available for long term lease to S&W, is already zoned for industrial
use, and is readily accessible for construction and deliveries.
The site has electric, water and sewer utilities available, and it is large enough for a 50 MGD plant.

The existing power plant intake and outfall structures are available to be utilized.

3.1.2 Environmental Issues
Discharges to air, discharges to water, noise, visual impact, impact on flora and fauna (particularly on
marine life), wetlands, protected species, and other natural resources, existing site contamination, solid
waste disposal and related impacts.
Assumptions
The desalinated water supply should be developed in a manner that is environmentally sustainable.
The most reliable measure of environmentally sustainable development is the level of assurance that
the proposed facilities will readily comply with existing applicable environmental regulations.
Potential environmental impacts of surface water discharges of concentrate are not included in the
points allocated under this section because they are covered separately under Section 3.1.7 of this
report. However, other surface water discharges (e.g. stormwater) are included in this section.

1'.4f water fror power plant intake systems will require modification of the existing
Power plant intake permits or new NPDES permits. Policies of the SWFWMD grant an exemptionn
from the water use permit (WUP) regulations for surface water withdrawals of seawater. This
exemption applies to water in any sea, gulf, bay or ocean having a total dissolved solids
concentration greater than 10,000 mg/L (PB Water personal communication, Christine Jackson,
SWFWMD, March 5, 1998).
Withdrawals of water from aquifers having a total dissolved solids concentration greater than 10,000
mg/L which are continuously open to a sea, gulf, bay or ocean are also exempt from obtaining water
use permits from the SWFWMD. However, the SWFWMD will require assessment of potential
pwirpnmental impacts to the groundwater and surface water system resulting from brackish or
seawater well withdrawals (PB Water personal communications: Ralph Kerr, SWFWMD, February
6, 1998; John Heuer, SWFWMD, February 24, 1998; Christie Jackson, SWFWMD, March 5, 1998).
The environmental effects of surface water withdrawals include entrainment of organisms. These
effects can be minimized by appropriate intake design, or avoided completely by using water from a
power plant discharge.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 16
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Florida Seawater Desalination Company (FSDC)

The proposed seawater wells are a source of hydrogen sulfide. Scrubbers have been proposed to
9 lLa lflde gas by converting it to ammonium or sodium sulfate. This effectively
eliminates concerns about atmospheric emissions.

1.ibigie at.difficulties are anticipated with stormwater issues.

One of the most distinctive aspects of the Florida Seawater Desalination Company proposal is the
plan to use source water from up to i wells* approximately 900 feet deep rated I. approximately 3i
J 4QGD each. The b6e of seawater wells eliminates concerns about the environmental impacts of
organism entrainment in the water intake system. However, the SWFWMD will require the Florida
Seawater Desalination Company to Address potential impacts of the withdrawals on water table
elevations, wetlands, surface water bodies, and other permitted groundwater uses. This assessment
will be required to address the potential effects that fractures and solution voids might play in
facilitating interconnection of different zones of the aquifer (PB Water personal communications:
Ralph Kerr, SWFWMD, February 6, 1998 and John Heuer, SWFWMD, February 24, 1998). This
will require installation of test wells and a considerable level of groundwater system assessment and
modeling beyond that shown in the proposal.

The proposed SWRO process is very quiet. Noise should not be a problem.

The visual impact of the plant should be minimal.

No site-specific flora, fauna and protected species issues are anticipated.

The effluent and product water pipelines are anticipated to require permits for impacts to wetlands.
No significant wetlands permitting problems are anticipated.

No site contamination problems have been identified on the proposed development site(s). However,
the Gtauffer Chemical Superfund site is located approximately half a mile from the proposed plant
site. The SWFWMD will require Florida Seawater Desalination Company to demonstrate that the
proposed groundwater withdrawals will not significantly affect contaminant migration at the Stauffer
Chemical site (PB Water personal communications: Ralph Kerr, SWFWMD, February 6, 1998; and
John Heuer, SWFWMD, February 24, 1998).

No solid waste disposal problems are anticipated.

The proposal allows 35 weeks (8 months) from notice-to-proceed/for permitting. We believe this is
anunrealistically aggressive schedule because of the size of the wellfield (initially 45 MGD) and the
complexity of the groundwater permitting requirements, and that aPeriod of 12-18 months would be
'more realistic.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 15
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


* The adequacy of the estimated time allocated by Developers to obtain environmental permits in their
proposed schedules is included in points assigned under this category. Where schedules for
permitting appear inadequate, that information is carried forward to the assessment of overall
performance schedule under Section 3.3.1. of this report.

Analysis
Enova/SSI

* Enova/SSI's proposed cogeneration power plant will generate atmospheric emissions which will
require environmental permits.

* In the absence of a selected site it is not possible to assess stormwater issues, but these are generally
not a problem on appropriately designed sites.

* The environmental impact of the proposed surface water withdrawals in the Big Bend area should be
minimal based on the acceptability of the much larger withdrawals for the Big Bend Power Station
and current studies by the US Geological Survey (Levesque & Hammett, 1997). The proposal does
not address intake design to avoid entrainment of organisms. Environmental impacts of water intake
conveyance systems cannot be fully assessed in the absence of a selected site.

* In two of their alternatives, Enova/SSI proposed usage of an 8-16 MGD brackish water supply for
blending with distilled water. The location and feasibility of the proposed brackish wellfield have
not been shown in the proposal. The brackish wellfield would require a SWFWMD water use
permit. As part of the water use permit application, the SWFWMD will require Enova/SSI to address
potential impacts of the withdrawals on water table elevations, wetlands, surface water bodies, and
other permitted groundwater uses.

* The proposed cogeneration plant and MED distillation plant are generally noisier than SWRO plants,
but should not pose a significant noise problem.

* The size of cogeneration plant and the height of its exhaust stacks will have a negative visual impact
on surrounding neighborhoods.

* Site-specific flora, fauna and protected species issues cannot be addressed in the absence of a
selected site.

* Wetlands permitting cannot be addressed in the absence of a selected site.

* Site contamination problems cannot be addressed in the absence of a selected site.

* No solid waste disposal problems have been identified.
* The proposal allows 8 months for all preliminary engineering and permitting. We believe this
schedule does not provide enough time to complete the required studies and obtain the required
permits.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 17
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Florida Water Partners (FWP)

* No source of significant atmospheric emissions is anticipated.

* No significant stormwater issues are anticipated.

* The environmental impact of the proposed surface water withdrawals in the Big Bend area should be
minimal based on the acceptability of the much larger permitted withdrawals for the Big Bend Power
Station and current studies by the US Geological Survey (Levesque & Hammett, 1997). Florida
Water Partners proposes to withdraw water for the reverse osmosis section of the plant downstream
of the TECO traveling screens. Under high flow conditions intake velocities may exceed
recommended limits for minimization of entrainment of organisms. Water for the distillation section
of the plant would be drawn from the power plant condenser discharge line, which eliminates
organism entrainment as a concern for this part of the plant.

* Since the sites for Phase 1 and Phase 2/3 are located in the vicinity of a power station with a high
level of ambient noise, the relatively low level of noise generated by the plant should not be a
significant concern.

* Since the sites are located adjacent to a power station, visual impact should not be a significant
concern for the first phase of development. In the second phase, the addition of a 400 ft tower will
have a significant visual impact.

* No significant site-specific flora, fauna and protected species issues have been identified.

* No significant wetlands permitting issues have been identified.

* No site contamination problems have been identified.

* No solid waste disposal problems have been identified.

* The proposal allows 11 V2 months from notice-to-proceed for initial permitting, which appears
reasonable. There is an additional allowance of 2 months for phase 2 permitting.

Progress Energv/Ionics Partnership (PEIP)

* No significant atmospheric emissions are anticipated at either the Higgins or Anclote sites.

* No significant stormwater issues are anticipated at either the Higgins or Anclote sites.

* The environmental impact of the proposed surface water withdrawals at the Higgins Power Station
should be minimal. The power plant is shut down, and the desalination plant will make use of the
power plant intake canal, trash screens, traveling screens and pumps. The intake screens were
designed for the 238 MGD cooling flows of the power plant. Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership
proposes to use equal or lesser flow rates for a combination of reverse osmosis source water and
bypass discharge flows to dilute concentrate discharges by forced mixing in the outfall canal. Since
the intake screens were designed for flows of this magnitude, organism entrainment should not be a
problem.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 18
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


* The environmental impact of the proposed surface water withdrawals at the Anclote Power Station
should be minimal based on the acceptability of the much larger permitted withdrawals for the
Anclote Power Station. The source water for the reverse osmosis plant at the Anclote site will be
drawn from the power station intake pipe downstream of the trash racks and traveling screens. The
SWRO intake system includes a 10 million gallon reservoir so that flow rates from the power station
intake to the SWRO intake can be varied widely, without changing SWRO inflow rates. This should
be varied in response to fluctuating power plant cooling flows. As a result, it should be possible to
avoid increasing peak flows through the power plant screens, so organism entrainment should not be
a problem.

* The proposed SWRO process is very quiet. Noise should not be a problem.

* Since both sites are located adjacent to power stations, the low silhouette of the desalination plant
should not have a significant visual impact

* Snowy egrets and little blue herons have been observed roosting in mangroves at the Higgins site.
Both are listed as Species of Special Concern.

* Two wood storks and a bald eagle were observed flying over the Anclote site. The wood storks are
listed as an "endangered" species, and the bald eagle is listed as a "threatened" species. However,
neither species is thought to use the proposed site for nesting.

* Wetlands are located along the eastern margin of the Higgins site, but these will likely remain
undisturbed by the proposed plant. Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership believes that wetland permits
will probably be required at a number of locations along the pipeline route leading from the Higgins
site.

* Wetlands are located along the western edge of the Anclote site, but these will likely remain
undisturbed by the proposed plant. Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership believes that wetland permits
will probably be required at a number of locations along the pipeline route leading from the Anclote
site.

* No site contamination problems have been identified at either of the proposed sites.

* No solid waste disposal problems are expected from either of the proposed sites.

* The proposal allows 46 weeks (11 months) from notice-to-proceed for permitting. This is probably
too short a period for the Higgins site because of the complexity of the concentrate discharge issues,
but should be adequate for the Anclote site.

Stone & Webster (S&W)

* No significant atmospheric emissions are anticipated at the site.

* No significant stormwater permitting issues are anticipated at the site.

* The environmental impact of the proposed surface water withdrawals in the Big Bend area should be
minimal based on the acceptability of the much larger permitted withdrawals for the Big Bend Power


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 19
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Station and current studies by the US Geological Survey (Levesque & Hammett, 1997). Stone &
Webster proposes to withdraw water for the reverse osmosis plant adjacent to the TECO intake
structure. The SWRO intake will have its own trash racks and fine traveling screens. This allows
Stone & Webster to ensure that even under high flow conditions, intake velocities will not exceed
recommended limits for minimization of entrainment of organisms.

The proposed seawater reverse osmosis is a very quiet process; therefore, noise should not be a
problem.

Since the site is located adjacent to a power station, the low silhouette of the desalination plant
should have a minimal visual impact.

No site-specific flora, fauna and protected species issues have been identified.

No significant wetlands permitting problems have been identified on the plant site or the pipeline
corridor.

No site contamination problems have been identified.

No solid waste disposal problems are expected.

The proposal allows 34 weeks (8 months) for permitting, starting from date of signing a water
purchase agreement. This is an aggressive schedule, but based on the anticipated issues and the level
of existing information, we believe it is achievable.

3.1.3 Utilities
Availability and adequacy of public utilities for development and operation of the plantss. Onsite
generation of electricity or steam including fuel type, delivery and storage, type of power plant and
efficiency, ifrequired and supplied

Assumptions

* Major power utilities must be available for the development and operation of the plant.

* On-site steam should be available from another source or cogeneration should provide the steam
and/or electricity for distillation plants

* Other site utilities are covered under Section 3.1.1 of this report..

Enova/SSI

* .Since the plant is a "stand alone plant", only minor offsite utilities will be needed.

* On site power will be generated using gas turbine in a combined cycle mode.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 20
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Florida Seawater Desalination Company

Florida Power Corporation will supply a single incoming feed on site at 12.47 kV. Loss of this
single feed would cause a plant shut down.

No on site power will be generated for the 20 MGD plant. The Floriida Seawater Desalination
Company proposes an optional on-site electrical generation facility to be developed and operated by
Southern Electric International for the 50 MGD seawater desalination facility (Option C).

No steam is required for a SWRO plant.

Florida Water Partners

TECO will supply power at the Big Bend Power Plant.

No on site power will be generated.

TECO will supply steam for the distillation process.

Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership

Electricity will be provided by Florida Power Corporation on-site and all other public utilities will be
available.

* No on site power will be generated.

* No steam is required for a SWRO plant.

Stone & Webster

* TECO will supply power at the Big Bend Power Plant.

* No on site power will be generated.

* No steam is required for a SWRO plant.

3.1.4 Intake Water Quality

Impact on the environment and adequacy of feed water intake system structure and pump design
including provision for ultimate planned capacity expansion. Impact of intake water quality on
operations and cost.
Assumptions
* The ability of the desalination plants to yield their intended capacities depends on the ability of the
proposed source water to yield the desired source quantity and quality at all times. The desired
source flow rate is generally about twice the desired desalinated water flow rate.
* The source water pre-treatment system and main desalination process designs are based on the
anticipated source water quality. Therefore, the reliability of the conceptual designs and associated
costs presented by the Developers depends on a reliable assessment of the anticipated source water
quality.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 21
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


* The structure and pumps of the source water intake system should be suitable in operating
characteristics and materials for the anticipated source water quantity and quality.
* Points are assigned in this section for the reliability of the Developers' estimated source water safe
yield and quality characteristics, and the suitability of the Developers' intake systems. Points are
assigned in other sections for the suitability of the pre-treatment systems, desalination systems and
costs which result from the selected source water characteristics.
Analysis

The most critical water quality characteristics for design of SWRO systems are: salinity, temperature,
quantity and type of suspended solids, and biological characteristics (e.g. bacterial population and total
organic carbon). The salinity and temperature affect the operational efficiency of the desalination
membranes. The suspended solids must be removed by the pre-treatment system, and the biological
characteristics affect membrane fouling rates and replacement frequency.

Distillation systems are generally much less sensitive to suspended solids and biological characteristics,
and their efficiency is less sensitive to salinity and temperature variations.
Enova/SSI

* The Enova/SSI proposal requires up to 151 MGD of water from surface water sources in the Big
Bend area of Hillsborough Bay, and 8-16 MGD of brackish groundwater from an unidentified
source. The amount of water required from the surface water source should not present any
significant difficulties, but there is no assurance that 8-16 MGD of brackish groundwater is
available.

The Enova/SSI proposal presents assumed seawater quality estimates in the Big Bend area of
Hillsborough Bay which do not match the measured data presented by other Developers. Their
estimate of average salinity appears to be too high, and the range of variability appears to be too low.

The intake system consists of coarse and fine screens and seawater pumps, which meet expected
standards.

Florida Seawater Desalination Company

The Florida Seawater Desalination Company plans to use source water from up to 15 wells rated at
approximately 3 MGD each for the first stage of their plant. Their test well did not penetrate to the
full depth of the expected production zone, so the proposal does not present well yield performance
testing results. The proposal relies on 45-113 MGD of seawater drawn from groundwater sources for
a 20-50 MGD plant. We believe the proposal does not present sufficient information to assure that
this quantity of seawater groundwater withdrawal can be permitted through the SWFWMD.

The Florida Seawater Desalination Company proposal presents water quality characteristics derived
from a grab sample drawn from a test well which has not penetrated the full depth of the expected
production zone, and data drawn from other wells.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 22
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


* The Florida Seawater Desalination Company proposal states that a surface water source could be
used if necessary, and presents a detailed summary of the changes in plant design and operation that
would be required. However, this is not considered as a separate option because the original
proposal contained no information on the resulting costs.

* The Florida Seawater Desalination Company plans to construct the wells using appropriate non-
corrosive materials for the well casings and pumps.

Florida Water Partners

* The Florida Water Partners proposal requires 40-100 MGD of water from surface water sources at
the Big Bend Power Station. The amount of water required from the surface water source is not
expected to present any significant difficulties.

* The Florida Water Partners proposal presents anticipated water source quality data derived from grab
samples and data collected by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County.
The anticipated average and range of key water quality parameters are reasonably well characterized.

* Florida Water Partners proposes to withdraw water for the SWRO section of the plant downstream of
the TECO traveling screens. Under high flow conditions intake velocities may exceed recommended
limits for minimization of entrainment of organisms. The SWRO intake pumps are horizontally
mounted above water level, which creates a potential for loss of intake suction. Otherwise, the
intake system meets expected standards.

Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership

* The Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership proposal requires 40-100 MGD of water from surface water
sources at either the Higgins Power Station or the Anclote Power Station. During drought conditions
there may be some concern about withdrawing this quantity of water from the Higgins Power Station
area. No significant problems are anticipated at the Anclote site with this magnitude of withdrawal.

* Water for the distillation section of the plant will be drawn from the power plant condenser.

* Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership presents water quality sampling results from both the Higgins
and Anclote Power Stations. The anticipated average and range of key water quality parameters are
reasonably well characterized.

* Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership proposes to use the existing power plant intake structures and
pumps at the Higgins Power Station. These were fully reconditioned in 1990, before the plant was
shut down, and Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership believes they are in excellent condition.

* Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership proposes to use the existing power plant intake structures and
pumps at the Anclote Power Station.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 23
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Stone & Webster

* The Stone & Webster proposal requires 33-83 MGD of water from surface water sources at the Big
Bend Power Station. The amount of water required from the surface water source is not expected to
present any significant difficulties.

* The Stone & Webster proposal presents anticipated water source quality data derived from grab
samples and data collected by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County.
The anticipated average and range of key water quality parameters are well characterized.

* The materials and design of the proposed intake system and pumps are well suited to the
requirements of this site.

3.1.5 Feed Water Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment system for feed water including materials and any cathodic protection including removal
of trash and solids, chemical additives and the potential for fouling.

Assumptions

* The source water quality will impact the nature and level of pretreatment required. The pretreatment
process will remove substances that will plug or otherwise decrease the production capability of the
desalination system.

* The pretreatment process will vary depending on the desalination process.

* The pretreatment process will include successive steps of trash racks, screens and filters to remove
smaller and smaller particles. The various methods also require periodic cleaning and or
replacement of the filter media or elements.

* The pretreatment may include adding one or more chemicals including chlorinating, dechlorination,
pH adjustment, and anti-scalant additives. The chemicals will require storage containers and a
method of dispensing.

* The pretreatment system must be made of materials that are durable and corrosion resistant,
including the use of cathodic protection.

Analysis

The pre-treatment processes shown in vary based on the desalination process, site specific water quality,
and Developer past experience with similar systems.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Page 24


Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


TABLE 3.2 FEED WATER PRE-TREATMENT


DEVELOPER FEEDWATER PRE-TREATMENT PROCESSES
Enova / Super bar screens & fine screens w/ backwash
Systems Inc. continuous chlorination hypochloritee)
antifoam & antiscale dosing systems
Florida Seawater feedwater assumed to be anaerobic & substantially free of solids
Desalination sulfuric acid pH adjustment
Company 5 micron cartridge filtration
Florida Water pre-screened feedwater from power plant condenser cooling system
Partners polyphosphonate & polyelectrolyte scale inhibitor dosing system
(MVC feed)
0.25-inch screens
intermittent chlorination hypochloritee)
sodium metabisulfite dechlorination
(SWRO feed) polymer/coagulant injection
2-stage multimedia filtration w/ automatic backwash
sulfuric acid pH adjustment
intermittent antiscalant dosing
5 micron cartridge filtration
trash racks & fine screens
intermittent chlorination w/ sodium bisulfite dechlorination
ferric sulfate or PAC coagulant injection w/ upflow clarifier
Progress Energy / sand & anthracite dual media primary filters
lonics Partnership garnet media secondary filters
filter backwash w/ RO concentrate
backwash clarification prior to discharge
antiscalant dosing (dose to be based on further testing)
5 micron wound fiber filter cartridges
trash racks, coarse & fine screens
continuous shock chlorination w/ sodium bisulfite dechlorination
ferric sulfate coagulant & organic polymer dosing
Stone & Webster 2-stage sand & anthracite dual media filtration w/ automatic backwash
filter backwash clarification prior to discharge
sulfuric acid pH adjustment
5 micron cartridge filtration


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 25
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Enova/SSI
* Coarse and fine screens will be used along with six seawater pumps, one of which is a stand-by
pump.
* The seawater is chlorinated using sodium hypochlorite, and since large amounts will be necessary a
bulk storage tank will be used.
* Either on site production of sodium hypochlorite or use of chlorine gas would be a more appropriate
system.

Florida Seawater Desalination Company
* Well water will be used with the following assumptions: the well water is clean, anaerobic and free
of most harmful impurities.
* The silt density index is assumed to be less than 1.0 and it is assumed that no colloidal silica is
present.
* One test well has been drilled to a depth of 600 feet and the analysis has generally confirmed Floriida
Seawater Desalination Company assumptions. The seawater production wells are expected to be 700
to 900 feet in depth.
* Pretreatment will consist of sulfuric acid dosing to reduce the pH and fine cartridge filtration.
* Screens, clarification and filtration will not be necessary since well water is to be used.
* The proposed level ofpretreatment is adequate since the well water requires minimal pretreatment.

Florida Water Partners
* Surface water will be used from the intake at Big Bend Power Station, utilizing the existing course
and fine screens.
* The water is abstracted using horizontal pumps. These could be subject to loss of suction.
* The MVC feedwater will be obtained form the power plant cooling water discharge and requires no
further treatment.
* The water for the SWRO system will be intermittently chlorinated and dechlorinated using sodium
metabisulfite, a coagulant and polymer will be added prior to primary filtration.
* Secondary filtration will only be used for polishing during the initial 30-60 minutes after
backwashing.
* Florida Water Partners assumes a 24 hour service run for the primary filters. The multimedia filters
are cleaned by backwashing and air scour. Backwash water is reclaimed in a clarifier with the
clarifier sludge being treated on a belt filter. The thickened sludge will be trucked off site for
disposal at an approved site.
* The filtered water is dosed with acid to reduce pH, antiscalant to control scaling and sodium bisulfite
to remove any residual chlorine.
* In our opinion the pre-treatment system for the plant appears to be based on the assumption that the
suspended solids in the intake water is very low. The lack of a full second stage of filtration is a


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 26
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


cause for concern. Intermittent chlorination followed by dechlorination may give rise to increased
cleaning frequency for the RO membranes.

* Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership

* Surface water will be used from the intake at the Higgins Power Plant, utilizing the existing cooling
water pumps and the refurbished coarse and fine screens.
* Treatment will consist of a clarifier followed by Primary, Secondary, and Cartridge filtration.
Coagulant will be added prior to the clarifier. Primary filtration will be dual media, and Secondary
filtration will be triple media.
* Backwashing of the filters uses RO concentrate which should minimize the need for chlorination of
the backwash water to control bacterial infection in the filters.
* The filtered water pH will not require adjustment but will be dosed with an antiscalant chemical.
* Previous experience in operating the power plant has shown that with suitable precautionary
procedures chlorination is not required. Ionics have experience that shows that RO plants not using
chlorination in the pretreatment require less frequent membrane cleaning than those using
chlorination due to less organic debris from decayed micro-organisms. This is also confirmed by
other experience world-wide.
* The multiple levels of pretreatment can easily with wide fluctuations in raw water quality including
suspended solids up to.

Stone & Webster
* Water will be supplied from the Intake of Big Bend Power Station. New coarse and fine screens and
new vertical spindle pumps will be used.
* The chlorination/dechlorination system proposed allows for either continuous or shock chlorination
to control micro-organisms. Two stage filtration will be used. Coagulant and polymer dosing will
be used to improve the performance of the filtration plant.
* Filters are backwashed with water and air scour. With continuous chlorination it should not be
necessary to chlorinate the backwash water. The backwash water is collected and settled before
supernatant water is pumped to the brine discharge.
* After the filtration plant the pH of the feedwater will be adjusted using acid dosing and any residual
chlorine removed by dechlorination with sodium bisulphite. This is followed by cartridge filtration.
* While this form of pre-treatment has been used at many seawater desalination plants, it is limited in
its ability to remove high concentrations of suspended solids.
* The proposed continuous chlorination also gives some cause for concern. The feedwater is
subsequently dechlorinated, but there is evidence from a number of plants in the past that the dead
bacteria provide a ready source of nutrients for new bacterial growth after dechlorination. The
resultant new bacterial growth can give rise to operational problems on RO membranes.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 27


* The proposal makes the Authority responsible for seawater quality outside the design specification.
This is not acceptable. It should be Stone & Webster's responsibility to design the plant to cope with
all possible contingencies.

3.1.6 Cleaning
Proposed frequency and methods to remove organic and other deposits from various parts of the
system. Include adequacy of corrosion control and prevention methods.

The proposed cleaning methods used to preserve long term functioning of the desalination plants shown
in Table 3.3 are based on system design and past experience of the Developers with similar systems.

TABLE 33 SYSTEM CLEANING

DEVELOPER CLEANING PROCESSES FREQUENCY

Enova / Super Systems Inc. standard acid cleaning using hydrochloric twice a year
acid solution followed by neutralization
Florida Seawater Desalination chemical cleaning system once a year
Company
PTB treatment twice a year

Florida Water Partners MVC: sulfamic acid every two
years
chemical cleaning system 4 6 months

air scour & backwash every 24 hours

Progress Energy / Ionics Partnership 2 membrane cleaning systems 2 times a year
backwash and brine as necessary

Stone & Webster common cleaning system for all trains 2 times a year

3.1.7 Effluent Discharge
The potential impact of the discharge of concentrate including volume, concentration and temperature.
Compare effluent characteristics and potential impact for alternative disposal methods, if appropriate.

Assumptions

* The results of a previous feasibility study for seawater concentrate disposal at the Anclote Power
Plant are documented in a report by the SWFWMD (Seawater Desalination An Investigation of
Concentrate Disposal by Means of a Coastal Ocean Outfall, Dye et. al., September 1995). The
results of the report are summarized in a letter from the FDEP to the SWFWMD (letter from Richard
Drew to Mark Farrell, April 12, 1995). The letter states that no significant toxicity effects were
observed at salinities below 45 ppt, and that these results show that seawater concentrate discharges
can meet discharge standards through use of pre-discharge dilution or an acceptable mixing zone.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 28
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


The letter also states that this study can serve as a basis for assessing the feasibility of such
discharges statewide, subject to meeting the FDEP's site-specific requirements.
* The use of the Anclote Power Station discharge canal for dilution of concentrate is acceptable
because the canal has been defined as a non-jurisdictional water body. Similar determinations have
not been performed for the Higgins and Big Bend Power Stations, but it should be feasible to do so.
* Water quality standards for discharges to surface waters are presented in Rule 62-302.530 F.A.C.
This rule establishes numerical criteria for individual parameter concentrations as a function of the
surface water classification. Surface water discharges must be managed such that the individual
parameter concentrations in the receiving water body do not exceed the numerical criteria established
in Rule 62-302.530 F.A.C., except in approved mixing zones. For a discharge of seawater
concentrate returning to a Class II Water or a Class III Predominantly Marine Water from which it
was drawn, the most restrictive criterion is commonly found to be for chloride. For both Class II
Water and Class III Predominantly Marine Water the criterion for chloride is: "Not increased more
than 10% above background. Normal daily and seasonalfluctuations must be maintained."

* The water quality discharge limits established in Rule 62-302.530 F.A.C. do not apply to
Outstanding Florida Waters. Water quality discharge limits applicable to Outstanding Florida
Waters are established in Rule 62-302.700 F.A.C. which states: "No degradation of water quality,
other than that allowed in Rule 62-242(2)......, F.A.C., is to be permitted in Outstanding Florida
Waters". Rule 62-242(2), F.A.C., provides that the FDEP may permit limited discharges in
Outstanding Florida Waters to enhance public use, where the proposed discharge is clearly in the
public interest, or, where management practices and suitable technology approved by the Department
are implemented and there is no alternative to the proposed activity except at an unreasonably higher
cost. This section of the rule appears to grant the FDEP considerable latitude in selection of site-
specific discharge criteria to be applied to discharges in Outstanding Florida Waters. It appears
unlikely that the FDEP would set any standards for discharges to Outstanding Florida Waters that are
less stringent than those for Class II or Class III Waters.

* A recent study by US Geological Service (Levesque and Hammett, 1997) indicates that tidal action is
forcing more than four times the volume of water used for power station cooling into and out of a
study area covering a 2.5 mile radius from the Big Bend Power Plant. With each reversal of the tide,
more than 25 times as much water enters or leaves Hillsborough Bay and more than 200 times as
much water enters or leaves Tampa Bay than is circulated through the Big Bend Power Station. This
information indicates that build up of salinity within the Bay in the vicinity of the Big Bend Power
Station should not be significant.
* A properly designed and located seawater concentrate discharge outfall will minimize the potential
impact on the environment.

* The larger the volume of seawater that the concentrate is mixed, with the greater the dilution of the
concentrate, and the likelihood that it will harm sealife.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 29


* Adequate exchange of seawater in the area of the concentrate discharge is required to prevent salinity
build up in the vicinity of the discharge due to recirculation.
* The chemical makeup, concentration, and temperature of the seawater concentrate are important
factors as to whether the concentrate will be harmful to sealife.

Analysis

The seawater concentrate discharges in Table 3.4 are based on concentrate discharges from the
Developers' proposed 20 MGD desalination plants. The cooling water discharge (mixing flow) rates are
based on information obtained by the Developers from the respective power stations. The assumptions
used for the number of pumps operating under various operating conditions and flow rates of the pumps
create some variation in the reported data.


TABLE 3.4


SEAWATER CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE AND MIXING RATES FOR 20
MGD PLANTS


1 Assumes 79 MGD of cooling water from Enova/SSI
Bend Power Plant outfall flow.


cogeneration plant plus 338 MGD minimum Big


2 The concentrate from the facility is proposed to be released by a diffuser to the cooling water discharge
canal of the Anclote Power Station. Florida Progress has stated that it would be interested in discussing
an agreement with FSWDC to use their cooling water discharge canal for disposal and mixing of the
seawater concentrate if the FSWDC proposal is selected.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


DEVELOPER CONCENTRATE CONCENTRATE MINIMUM SALINITY
DISCHARGE FLOW RATE MIXING INCREASE
LOCATION (MGD) FLOW RATE (CANAL TO
(MGD) JURISDIC-
TIONAL)
Enova / SSI Big Bend Power 40.5 417' 4.5%
Plant outfall
FSDC Anclote Power 21.0 627 3.8%3
Plant outfall2
FWP Big Bend Power 20.0 3605 5.2%
Plant outfall
PEIP Higgins Power 20.0 118 14.5%
Plant outfall4
PEIP Anclote Power 20.0 627 3.1%
Plant outfall
S&W Big Bend Power 13.0 3385 6.0%
Plant outfall


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 30
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


3 Since source quality is not identical to receiving water quality, salinity concentrations in source and
receiving waters must be known to calculate salinity increase. Source salinity estimated as 34 ppt, and
receiving water salinity as 31 ppt. Percentage increase in chlorides should be very similar to percentage
increase in salinity.

4 The concentrate from the facility will be mixed with untreated seawater pumped specifically for the
purpose of diluting the concentrate via the power plant's existing discharge channel. Additional flow for
dilution can be obtained by turning on additional pumps.

5 Assumes only one of four units in operation (occurs less than 1 percent of the time).

Enova/SSI

SThe receiving water at the Big Bend site is classified as a Class III predominantly marine water.
Based on the letter from FDEP cited above (letter from Richard Drew to Mark Farrell, April 12,
1995), it appears that the discharge at the Big Bend Power Station would not have any adverse
impacts on the receiving water, and that the discharge should be readily permittable so long as the
discharge canal can be classified as a non-jurisdictional water, and so long as TECO agrees to allow
Enova/SSI access to the Big Bend discharge canal. If TECO will not allow access to the canal, the
Enova/SSI cogeneration plant cooling flows do not appear to be sufficient to assure that the proposed
discharge would still result in a maximum concentration below the allowable limit of 10%
concentration increase for chloride, which appears likely to be the most restrictive seawater
constituent.

Florida Seawater Desalination Corporation

* The receiving water at the Anclote site is classified as a Class III predominantly marine water.
Based on the letter from FDEP cited above (letter from Richard Drew to Mark Farrell, April 12,
1995), it appears likely that the discharge at the Anclote Power Station would not have any adverse
impacts on the receiving water, and that the discharge should be permittable. Even at 50 MGD plant
capacity, the proposed discharge would still result in a maximum concentration increase of 9.0% in
the discharge canal for salinity and chloride. This is less than the allowable limit of 10%
concentration increase for chloride. However, the constituent ratios in concentrate derived from the
seawater wells are not identical to those from the Anclote river, and the FDEP may require further
investigation of potential receiving water impacts including adequacy of dilution for radionucleides
(PB Water personal communication, Mark Hammett, SWFWMD, quoting Jan Mandrup Poulson,
FDEP, March 3, 1998). Surface water discharges of concentrate from groundwater wells have been
successfully permitted elsewhere in Florida.

Florida Water Partners

* The receiving water at the Big Bend site is classified as a Class III predominantly marine water.
Based on the letter from FDEP cited above (letter from Richard Drew to Mark Farrell, April 12,
1995), it appears that the discharge at the Big Bend Power Station would not have any adverse


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 31
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


impacts on the receiving water, and that the discharge should be readily permittable so long as the
discharge canal can be classified as a non-jurisdictional water. So long as TECO increases the
minimum intake flow rate, even at 50 MGD plant capacity, the proposed discharge would still result
in a maximum concentration below the allowable limit of 10% concentration increase for chloride,
which appears likely to be the most restrictive seawater constituent. TECO is prepared to commit to
increasing the minimum cooling flows if necessary to support the concentrate discharge permitting
3
(PB Water personal communication, Don Mestas, TECO, February 19, 1998).

Progress Energv/Ionics Partnership

* The receiving water at the Higgins site is classified as a Class II Outstanding Florida Water. The
Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership may be required to obtain a new industrial NPDES permit for the
desalination plant because the power plant is not operational. The discharge would have to comply
with the requirements Rule 62-4.242 F.A.C. relating to discharges to Outstanding Florida Waters.
Because of the shallowness of the bay in this area and the limited tidal flushing, Progress
Energy/Ionics Partnership will probably be required to address the potential for recirculation of
discharged diluted concentrate back to the intake of the plant (PB Water personal communications,
Mark Hammett, SWFWMD, March 3, 1998 and Jan Mandrup Poulson, FDEP, February 4, 1998).
Based on these discussions, it appears that the discharge from the 20 MGD plant is probably
permittable, but that it might be necessary to run more pumps to increase the flow available for
concentrate dilution. However, due to the limited flow available for dilution of concentrate in the
outfall canal, and the sensitivity of the receiving water body, the discharge requirements might limit
the capacity of the plant.

* The receiving water at the Anclote site is classified as a Class III predominantly marine water.
Based on the letter from FDEP cited above (letter from Richard Drew to Mark Farrell, April 12,
1995), it appears that the discharge at the Anclote Power Station would not have any adverse impacts
on the receiving water, and that the discharge would be readily permittable. Even at 50 MGD plant
capacity, the proposed discharge would still result in a maximum concentration increase of 7.4% in
the discharge canal for constituents derived solely from seawater at the site. This is less than the
allowable limit of 10% concentration increase for chloride, which appears likely to be the most
restrictive seawater constituent.

Stone & Webster

* The receiving water at the Big Bend site is classified as a Class III predominantly marine water.
Based on the letter from FDEP cited above (letter from Richard Drew to Mark Farrell, April 12,
1995), it appears that the discharge at the Big Bend Power Station would not have any adverse
impacts on the receiving water, and that the discharge would be readily permittable so long as the
discharge canal can be classified as a non-jurisdictional water. So long as TECO increases the
minimum intake flow rate, even at 50 MGD plant capacity, the proposed discharge would still result
in a maximum concentration below the allowable limit of 10% concentration increase for chloride,
which appears likely to be the most restrictive seawater constituent. TECO is prepared to commit to


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 32


increasing the minimum cooling flows if necessary to support the concentrate discharge permitting
(PB Water personal communication, Don Mestas, TECO, February 19, 1998).

3.1.8 Site Development, Engineering And Works
Proposed site development including site clearance, fencing, access roads, drainage, etc. and proposed
foundations, utilities, and other works required for the desalination plantss.

Assumptions

* The site should not have impediments to the required site improvements for construction and
operation of the desalination facility and provide for necessary site clearance, fencing, local site
access roads, drainage, etc..

* The proposed foundations, utilities and other works for the desalination plant and ancillary buildings
and equipment should be appropriate in design and layout on the selected site.

Analysis

The proposed sites for the seawater desalination plants are undeveloped and nearly flat. Enova/SSI did
not identify a specific site; therefore, no assessment of site improvement related issues is possible.
Based upon the submitted drawings, all the Developers proposed conventional types of site development
and engineering works which appear suitable for the sites. The facility design and site layout for the
Enova/SSI proposals could only be evaluated for the generic site. Some of the site development steps
reported by the Developers are summarized in Table 3.5.


TABLE 3.5 SITE DEVELOPMENT


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


DEVELOPER SITE DEVELOPMENT

Enova/SSI Assumes onsite grading and compacting soil with imported as necessary.

FSDC Grubbing of trees and brush, grading, roadwork and fencing as required.
Design and layout is conventional.

FWP Clearing, grubbing, earthworks, fencing, drainage and site access roads.
Design and layout is conventional.

PEIP Both sites provide existing fenced secure areas and power substations. Design
and layout is conventional.

S&W Site already fenced with controlled access road. Design and layout is
conventional.


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 33


3.1.9 Seawater Desalination Process


Proposed incremental increases in plants) production, type of plantss, ancillary equipment and
materials, and relevant equipment assuredfor and sized for maximum incremental water production.

Table 3.6 provides a summary of the basic types of desalination processes proposed by each Developer
for the base case 20 MGD desalination plant. All of the sites have sufficient land area to increase the
plant desalination capacity to 50 MGD.

Assumptions

* The seawater desalination process is described in sufficient detail to determine that all the processes,
including pumps, energy recovery, ancillary equipment, and types of material are appropriate.

* There are a number of processes and combination of processes that have been developed that are
appropriate for use in large scale seawater desalination plants.

Analysis
TABLE 3.6 PHASE I DESALINATION PROCESSES


DEVELOPER DESALINATION TREATMENT PROCESSES
Enova / Super Systems Inc. 20 MGD multiple effect distillation I
-OR-
12 MGD multiple effect distillation + 8 MGD blended
brackish water
Florida Seawater Desalination 20 MGD seawater reverse osmosis
Company
Florida Water Partners 12.2 MGD seawater reverse osmosis + 9.8 MGD
mechanical vapor compression distillation
Progress Energy / Ionics Partnership2 20 MGD seawater reverse osmosis
-OR-
23 MGD seawater reverse osmosis
Stone & Webster 20 MGD seawater reverse osmosis



1 The MED units will be built in conjunction with a 300 mega-watt (MW) natural gas fired combined
cycle cogeneration facility.
2 The same types and sizes of desalination plants are proposed for both the Higgins Power Station and the
Anclote Power Station sites.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 34
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Enova/SSI

* Six MED units at 4.2 MGD (plus one spare), along with blending with brackish water will give a
total of 33 MGD. The use of 4.2 MGD units offers good flexibility for operation at lower outputs
and for extension.

Florida Seawater Desalination Corporation

* The plant will perform reverse osmosis of well water with seven trains of 3.3 MGD as incremental
increases.

* The membranes will be treated with PTA and PTB to control salt passage.

* The advantages of well water usage are that the water quality and temperature should remain very
consistent.

* Nitrogen blanketing will be used to prevent aeration of hydrogen sulfide that will cause formation of
elemental sulfur. The degasers used to remove the hydrogen sulfide from the concentrate.

* The membranes will be supplied by DuPont.

Florida Water Partners

* The plant will perform reverse osmosis of surface water using seven trains of 3.286 MGD each.

* Hydranautics membranes are proposed with a recovery rate of 55 per cent.

* The use of lower salinity water found in Old Tampa Bay reduces energy costs.

* Data provided shows salinity variations between 21,500 to 31,000 mg/l, with a few excursions
beyond that range. The design is based on an average salinity of 26,000 mg/1.

Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership

* The plant will perform reverse osmosis of surface water with trains of 5.0 MGD, which can be
increased or reduced.

* Data provided shows salinity variations between 22,000 and 28,000 mg/l at the Higgins Power
Station site. The salinity at the Anclote generally varies between 24,000 and 34,500 mg/l.

* The availability of lower salinity water at the Higgins site reduces energy costs.

* FilmTex membranes are proposed. Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership proposes to use variable
speed filtered water pumps and constant speed high pressure revere osmosis pumps.

* Data provided shows salinity variations between 22,000 and 28,000 mg/l.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 35
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Stone & Webster

* Reverse osmosis using surface water,. The reverse osmosis process will consist of six trains of 4
MGD capacity each with the sixth train providing spare capacity.

* Proposed a two stage (reject from first stage repressurized) which would enable the system recovery
ratio to be increased to 60 per cent.

* Variable frequency drives will be used on the high pressure reverse osmosis pumps.

3.1.10 Plant Optimization
Properly designed desalination plants) to provide the required supply capacity at the lowest total cost
per unit volume of water produced.

Assumptions

* The proposed desalination plant is optimized to give the lowest cost per unit volume of water
produced.

* The capacity of the various units, systems, and ancillary equipment are properly designed and sized
in relation to the requirements of the plant, including future plant expansion.

* Information is provided on the electrical consumption of motors and other equipment to determine
energy consumption. Similar information is provided for steam consumption per unit of water
produced.

Enova/SSI

* A cogeneration plant is proposed, with steam for the MED plants provided from the power
generation plant and steam back up provided from two 200,000 lb/hr gas fired boilers.

* The use of natural gas in a combined cycle cogeneration plant will give an efficient use of energy for
the cogeneration of electricity and water.

Florida Seawater Desalination Corporation

* Use of well water will minimize the use of chemicals and membrane replacements.

* Significant quantities of chemicals for treatment are required for the removal of hydrogen sulfide
from the product water and the concentrate.

* The main use of electrical power will be for the high pressure RO feed pump. As the osmotic
pressure of the well water is fixed, the discharge pressure of the pumps can be fixed, and the most
efficient pump and motor design used. They have provided all necessary chemical dosing.
Optimization of the use of chemical usage is a matter of gaining site specific operational experience


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 36
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Florida Water Partners

* Variable speed booster pumps and constant speed high pressure reverse osmosis (HPRO) pumps,
which allow the high pressure pumps to run at constant speed, constant pressure and efficiency allow
for minimal electricity use.

* They have provided all necessary chemical dosing. Optimization of the use of chemical usage is a
matter of gaining site specific operational experience.

Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership

* To minimize electrical power usage, variable speed filtered water pumps will supply water to the
suction side of the HPRO pumps. They have provided all necessary chemical dosing. Optimization
of the use of chemical usage is a matter of gaining site specific operational experience.

Stone & Webster

* Minimal electrical usage is obtained by including variable frequency HPRO pumps. Stone &
Webster has provided all necessary chemical dosing. Optimization of the use of chemical usage is a
matter of gaining site specific operational experience.

3.1.11 Function Requirements
Desalination plants) properly designed to reliably function as required. The proposed level of
hardening against natural disasters and redundancy of functions ensures reliable functioning of the
plantss. The specifications of materials for construction with a justification for major equipment
provide reliability and an adequate life cycle.

Assumptions

* The desalination plant will function as required, when needed.

* The plant will be able to withstand hurricanes, or a 100 year flood, and quickly return to full
production.

* Critical parts of the plant will provide redundancy of capacity and function so that the plant can
remain in water production when there is an equipment failure or equipment have to be maintained,
repaired or replaced.

* The materials selected for the various parts, components and systems are suitable for the purpose,
resist corrosion and have a satisfactory production life expectancy.

Analysis

The Developers have used differing methods in Table 3.7 to provide facility reliability so that equipment
failure is minimized and scheduled maintenance, repair, or replacement of equipment can be
accomplished and the plant can still maintain the base load commitment.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


TABLE 3.7 DESALINATION FACILITY RELIABILITY


Page 37


DEVELOPER FUNCTION HARDENING REDUNDANCY MATERIALS
RELIABILITY

Enova/SSI yes (95 %) Not addressed 4.2 MGD (21%) MED Most materials
train spare capacity are suitable'
FSDC yes (95.2%) Southern RO can be pushed to non-corrosive
Building Code provide 3.3 MGD materials
1994 102 mph (15.5%) spare capacity.
wind, 100 year 50-60% extra pump
flood capacity
FWP yes (RO 92%, 130 mph wind 15% spare RO capacity non-corrosive
MVC 95 98%) 100 year flood 5% MVC spare materials
capacity
PEIP yes will comply with spare 3 MGD (15%) duplex ss, ss &
codes/ordinances RO capacity non-corrosive
mat.
S&W STBT US ACOE Test 20% spare RO capacity, duplex ss, 254
(95-98%) #CEGS 07416 50-100% extra pump SMO, HDPE,
capacity fiberglass 2
'Raw seawater pumps with stainless steel (ss) casing and an aluminum bronze impeller could experience
galvanic corrosion resulting in early failure.

2Cathodic protection will aid in corrosion control.

Enova/SSI

* Sufficient stand-by is available.


Florida Seawater Desalination Corporation


* Three 50-60 per cent pumps, including a spare pump, are provided for permeate discharge, product
water discharge, concentrate stripper feed and concentrate discharge. Most other pumps have an
installed spare.

* There are also two spare wells, a spare cartridge filter and a spare HPRO pump.

* Floriida Seawater Desalination Company appears to be providing adequate standby plant capacity to
ensure reliable operation.
* The choice of materials is generally satisfactory.

Florida Water Partners

* No back up is provided for the four booster pumps.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 38
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


* Seven trains each 3.286 MGD gives 23 MGD, and the loss of one train reduces this to 19.71 MGD.

* Florida Water Partners appears to be providing adequate standby plant capacity to ensure reliable
operation with the exception of extra booster pump capacity.

* The choice of materials is generally satisfactory.

Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership

* Includes spare sea water pumps, spare RO modules, spare cleaning system and spare HPRO pump.

* Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership appears to be providing adequate standby plant capacity to
ensure reliable operation.

* The choice of materials is generally satisfactory

Stone & Webster

* Includes spare sea water pump and spare RO train.

* Stone & Webster appears to be providing adequate standby plant capacity to ensure reliable
operation.

* The choice of materials is generally satisfactory.

3.1.12 Mode of Operation
The proposed quantity of delivered water and mode of operation of the desalination plant (that is,
continuously, only during dry periods, at night with off-peak electricity) meets the requirements of the
Authority at the point of entry into the system and is cost effective, including provision for adequate
storage and emergency operation capability.

Assumptions

The mode of operation will enable the plant to reliably produce the required quality and base quantity of
desalinated water.

It is desirable to have the necessary storage capacity to enable the continued delivery of desalinated
water during short periods where production of desalinated water has been affected.

The plant is designed so that it can still produce a limited quantity of water during emergency situation
or that it can be safely shut down and maintained in a standby position, if required.

Analysis

As indicated in Table 3.8, all of the Developers propose a base load type facility to meet the 20 MGD
firm capacity (Option 1) requirement. The storage capacity of desalinated water varies from 1 MGD to
10 MGD. The proposed 1 MGD storage capacity is based on the Developers assumption that they can
meet the required quality and quantity of water on time due to the reliability (including redundancy) of
their desalination facility. A larger storage system will give the Developer more flexibility in production


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 39


and the Authority more flexibility in receiving the water to meet varying water demand requirements.
Emergency operation includes provisions for a backup power supply, emergency power and systems
designed to prevent damage to the facility due to power failures.

TABLE 3.8 MODE OF OPERATION

DEVELOPER MODE OF STORAGE EMERGENCY OPERATION
OPERATION CAPACITY

Enova/SSI base load 8 mil gal total electric power from the grid, backup steam
using 3 tanks from package boilers

FSDC base load 10 mil gal tank permeate flush tank and standby emergency
generator

FWP base load 1 mil gal tank permeate suck back system for membranes
and standby emergency generator

PEIP base load 1 mil gal tank auxiliary power supply, diesel driven flush
pump for RO system

S&W base load 2 tanks/each 5 gravity drawback of permeate to dilute
mil gal concentrate in RO system


Enova/SSI

* Since few imported utilities are necessary to run
operation.

Florida Seawater Desalination Corporation


the plant, it would be suitable for emergency


* Diesel generation is provided for emergency shut down procedures.

* The facility will not operate without imported electricity.

* Floriida Seawater Desalination Company requires payments by the Authority for plant shutdown as
after a shut down it is necessary to treat the membranes with PTB. The costs quoted are:

$2,500 for each shut down per train

$3,500 for each shut down per train for 5-30 days duration.

$2,500 for each shut down per train for 30 days duration and

$15,000 for replacing all the cartridge filter elements after a shut down of over 30 days
duration.

Florida Water Partners


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 40
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


* Emergency diesel generator to provide safe shut down in the event of power failure.

* The facility will not operate without imported electricity.

Progress Energv/Ionics Partnership

* Diesel driven flushing pump and emergency electricity supply for safe plant shut down.

* The facility will not operate without imported electricity.

Stone & Webster

* Diesel generation is provided for emergency shut down procedures.

* The facility will not operate without imported electricity.

3.1.13 Plant Design Lifetime, Including Major Components And Systems
Proposed plant design life indicated (30 year desired) including planned repair, replacement, and
upgrade of critical components and systems.

Assumptions

* The plant will be designed of such materials that through periodic repair, replacement, rebuild and
upgrade, that the plant will be maintained fully functional throughout the designed lifetime.

* The plant will be designed and maintained so that the plant is fully functional at the end of 30 year
and will still have a useful life.

Analysis

As shown in Table 3.9, all of the Developers propose a plant that will still have a useful life at the end of
30 years based upon planned repair and replacement of components or systems. As indicated in the
table, the facilities will be upgraded as further technology advances in design and efficiency are made.

TABLE 3.9 DESIGN LIFE

DEVELOPER PLANT PLANNED DESIGN UPGRADE
DESIGN LIFE REPAIR REPLACEMENT

Enova/SSI 20 years yes major refurbishment at not addressed
20 years

FSDC >30 years yes detailed list yes

FWP 50 year yes major component list phased
economic life development

PEIP >30 years yes major component list yes

S&W >30 years yes detailed list yes


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 41


3.1.14 Product Water Turndown Capability
Time required to stop production and take appropriate actions, including the use of preservative
chemicals, for production units and entire plantss. Time required to start-up plants) to full operation a
production unit and the entire plantss.

Assumptions

* The plant should be designed so that production units and the entire plant can be shut down for short
or extended periods without damage to plant units, including membranes. A relatively short time
(minutes or hours) should be required for normal shutdown of the units or the entire plant.

* Periodic maintenance and other procedures required to be performed on units or the plant during
periods of extended should be documented. The system for flushing or the introduction of chemicals
or preservatives should be planned and the process relatively easy to accomplish and not unduly
complicated or expensive.

* The time to start production for a unit or the entire plant should be relatively short (minutes or hours)
based on the type of shut down or start up.

Analysis

Table 3.10 provides information on times required and other actions needed when units or the plant are
shut down or start up again. The time and other steps required depend on plant design and operation. As
indicated in Table 3.10, shutdown and start-up times were not provided in some instances by Developers;
however, the description of the processes involved indicate that shutdown and start-up times are within
the expected range.

TABLE 3.10 TIME REQUIRED FOR PRODUCT WATER TURNDOWN AND STARTUP

DEVELOPER STOP CHEMICALS START UNITS ENTIRE
PRODUCTION PLANT
Enova/SSI time not given none required not provided time not
provided
FSDC 7 min. per unit preserve after 5 days 15-30 min. for time not
49 min. entire plant short shutdown provided
FWP capacity can be clean and use MVC 1 2 hours MVC 2 3 hours
reduced biocide in RO after RO approx. 1
incrementally 5 days hour
PEIP 30 min. preserve if>3 days 30 min. 2 hours from
entire plant plant standby
S&W short time preserve for long 10-15 min. for 15 30 minutes
term shutdown short shutdown


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 42


3.1.15 Plant Performance
Proposed performance test at a rated capacity for a stated period of continuous operation to measure
guaranteed performance for plants) acceptance.

Assumptions

SThe performance and acceptance test for the facility should be of such duration and under such
operating conditions to assure the Authority that the plant can consistently produce the required
quality and quantity of water during the water purchase agreement period.

Analysis

TABLE 3.11 provides information on the performance period and criteria proposed by each Developer
to demonstrated that the plant will function as intended and reliably produce the required quality and
quantity of desalinated water.


TABLE 3.11 PLANT PERFORMANCE TESTS


DEVELOPER PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
PERIOD

Enova/SSI 30 days plus 10% minus 5% capacity

FSDC two weeks adjustments made by developer team during
tests for performance and acceptance tests

FWP period not indicated tolerance of minus 5% and plus 10%

PEIP 72 hours test at rated capacity. Procedure will be
developed in conjunction with the
AUTHORITY
S&W 10 days continuous 20 MGD firm capacity
3 days continuous 24 MGD


The performance tests proposed by the Developers are general in nature. Negotiations will be required to
reach agreement on all performance test parameters. The 72 hour period proposed by Progress
Energy/Ionics Partnership is too short a period to indicate performance reliability.

3.1.16 Product Water Quality

Proposed quality of the desalinated water, compatibility with existing water sources and post treatment
for blending to meet water quality standards prior to entering the AUTHORITY's distribution system.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 43


Assumptions

* The desalinated water delivered to the Authority's receiving point is required to meet water quality
standards of the Authority, FDEP, the World Health Organization, and US Environmental Protection
Agency.

* The water must be compatible with existing water supplies and the distribution system.

* The taste of the water must be acceptable.

Analysis

Table 3.12 shows the anticipated process water quality based on similar plants or water quality modeling.
The product water requires additional treatment and or blending to meet State and Federal drinking water
standards, be compatible with the Authority's system (non-aggressive) and have an acceptable taste. The
product water quality from the RO plants will vary from the values in the Table due to various
conditions, including changes in the average age of the membranes, pump pressure and natural variation
in the quality of the source water.


TABLE 3.12


PROCESS WATER QUALITY


1 Average water quality based on 3 year old membranes.

Note: TDS MCL = 500 mg/L WCRWSA current TDS = < 300 mg/L


Chloride MCL = 250 mg/L


WCRWSA current Chloride = < 20 mg/L


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


AVERAGE
DESALINATED
WATER QUALITY
TDS Chloride
DEVELOPER PROCESS (mg/L) (mg/L)
Enova / Super Systems Inc. MED 25.0 5.0
Florida Seawater Desalination SWRO 259.0 139.0
Company
Florida Water Partners MVC 20.0 11.0

SWRO 315.0 183.0

MVC/SWRO 182.0 105.6

Progress Energy fIonics Partnership SWRO 243.0 129.0
(Higgins Power Plant)
Progress Energy /Ionics Partnership SWRO 298.0 162.0
(Anclote Power Plant)
Stone & Webster SWRO 321.01 186.01


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 44


* The water quality shown in TABLE 3.12 provides a direct comparison of the TDS and chloride
content of the water leaving the desalination process, prior to any post-treatment or mixing with the
Authority's distribution system.

* TABLE 3.13 shows the results of several different post treatment strategies. The Enova/SSI
proposal uses brackish water blending to stabilize the water, and shows a large rise in both TDS and
chlorides.

TABLE 3.13 FINISHED WATER QUALITY

AVERAGE
FINISHED
WATER
QUALITY
STABILIZATION TDS Chloride
DEVELOPER PROCESS PROCESS (mg/L) (mg/L)
Enova / Super Systems Inc. MED brackish water blending1 495 <250

Florida Seawater Desalination SWRO carbon dioxide + calcium 344 139
Company carbonate
Florida Water Partners MVC carbon dioxide + calcium 263 106
carbonate
SWRO
Progress Energy /Ionics SWRO sodium hydroxide for pH 239 69
Partnership blended one to one with
(Higgins Power Plant) well water at Cosme WTP
Progress Energy /Ionics SWRO sodium hydroxide for pH 270 87
Partnership blended one to one with
(Anclote Power Plant) well water at Keller WTP
Stone & Webster SWRO calcium carbonate 344 186


1 The distilled water can be made non-corrosive with additives, or by blending with brackish water

Note: TDS MCL = 500 mg/L WCRWSA current TDS = < 300 mg/L


Chloride MCL = 250 mg/L


WCRWSA current Chloride = < 20 mg/L


* The Florida Seawater Desalination Company, Florida Water Partners and Stone & Webster proposals
use calcium carbonate treatment to stabilize the water prior to discharging it to the Authority's
distribution system, as required by the RFP. This raises the TDS slightly, and renders the water non-
corrosive.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 45
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


* The Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership proposal relies on blending with the Authority's
groundwater supplies to stabilize the water. They propose to convey the water through corrosion
resistant piping for blending with groundwater supplies at one of the Authority's water treatment
plants. While this is a creative approach which minimizes the increase in TDS of water delivered to
customers, it also places a certain burden on the Authority to manage flow blending at the Cosme or
Keller water treatment plants.
* We believe that any of the proposals showing average TDS leaving the desalination plant at
concentrations below 350 mg/L, and guaranteeing to meet all applicable water standards, should be
regarded as a responsive proposal and should receive scores in the upper end of the category for
product water quality.


3.1.17 Plant Operation

Training, qualifications, man-hours, licensing and management requirementsfor operation, maintenance
and repair of the desalination plants) and ancillary facilities and operations.

Assumptions

* The facility will be adequately staffed by trained personnel employed by the successful Developer
with the required licensing and experience to operate and maintain the facility in good operating
condition.

* The management of the facility will be by experienced managers and lead operators provided by the
Developer that can meet the daily operating challenges, required testing and reporting and problems
as well as handle equipment failure, water quality degradation or other problems.

Analysis

As indicated in Table 3.14, the Developers plan to adequately staff their facility with qualified personnel.
Also indicated in Table 3.14, licensing is not addressed in the proposal in all cases, but the facility
operators will have to meet FDEP licensing requirements.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


TABLE 3.14 PLANT OPERATIONS


Page 46


DEVELOPER TRAINING QUALIFICATIONS MAN-HOURS

Enova/SSI licensing not indicated adequate adequate

FSDC lead operators Class A, adequate adequate
operators Class B or lower

FWP in-house training provided, adequate adequate
licensing not indicated

PEIP Class A and C operators adequate adequate

S&W lead operators Class A, adequate adequate
operators Class C or better

3.1.18 Aesthetics of the Facility
Anticipated visual impact of the plants) and ancillary equipment on the adjacent communities including
efforts to make the site more visually harmonious with its surroundings.

Assumptions

* The visual impact of the facility in relation to its surroundings is important in acceptance of the
facility by people who live, work, or find recreation in the vicinity of the plant.
* Landscape and tree screening, low profiles and attractive building exteriors reduce the visual impact
of the desalination facility.

Analysis

TABLE 3.15shows the potential visual impact of the desalination facility in relation to its surroundings
including efforts by the Developer to reduce the visual impact of the facility, such as using a low profile,
upgraded building exteriors, and screening vegetation. The site for the Enova/SSI plant has not been
selected and esthetics of the facility can only be evaluated based on the generic site drawing.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 47
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


TABLE 3.15 AESTHETICS

DEVELOPER VISUAL IMPACT

Enova/SSI A MED plant has larger footprint than RO, additional large structures and a stack
for the cogeneration plant. Trees are proposed to be planted around the perimeter
of the site.

FSDC Upgraded building exteriors, overall appearance similar to modem city water plant.

FWP Industrial type building in an industrial area but current 20 MGD site close to a
residential area. Trees are proposed along the road to screen site.

PEIP Upgraded building exteriors, overall appearance similar to modem city water plant.

S&W Upgraded building exteriors, overall appearance similar to modem city water plant.

3.1.19 Economic Feasibility
Financial plan, preliminary financing agreements and other steps to reduce financial risks, including
effects on water rates, and the proposed ownership and operation plan.

Assumptions

* The economic feasibility of the proposed cost estimates are demonstrated through sufficient level of
engineering, operational and other support information.

* The pro-forma clearly identify all sources and used of funds over the contract term.

* Indicators of financial performance, including rate of return, pay-back period and other indicators are
clearly presented.

* A sensitivity analysis, focusing on reasonable assumptions of risk, is provided.

Analysis

Enova/SSI

* The Enova/SSI price for delivered water was much higher than any of the others. Because of its
considerably higher price, a detailed review was not conducted beyond the outward measures of
financial performance.

Florida Seawater Desalination Corporation

* Underlying financial assumptions are reasonable, the development team has excellent underlying
financial strength, and the development / financing approach is also reasonable, straightforward, and
provides a reasonable level of risk.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 48
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


* The proposed remedy in event of their default is not favorable to the Authority. The default penalty
is limited to a payment of 10% of annual revenue from water sales ($2-$3 million), a loss of about
15% of their equity investment.

Florida Water Partners

* The pricing structure appears to be quite flexible.

* The BOOT option which would transfer ownership (and long term financing responsibility) to the
Authority places a level of risk and burden on the Authority that does not result in a lower price,
relative to the other submissions..

Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership

* The development team has a good underlying financial strength.

* The development and financing approach is straight forward.

* The team is clear in its proposal that it will put up 20% project equity, divided between the two
partners

* Progress has specified a base year water rate in its Draft WSA, that if it can be "locked into" an
actual agreement soon, would provide some level of comfort about the actual water price over the
term of the agreement.

* The pricing proposal includes specific provisions which would escalate some price elements at only
one half the rate of general inflation. This will result in a reduction in the real cost of water over
time with certainty.

* The provisions in the event of default are not at all specific, being limited, in the words of the draft
WSA, to measures that may be available to the Authority "by law and equity".

Stone & Webster

* The underlying financial strength of the team is very good. The project's development and O&M
costs are reasonable. There appears to be sufficient return on investment, as shown by several
indicators. Reserve funding is good, and financial assumptions are typical and conservative.

* The pricing structure, as set forth in the Draft WSA, was very specific, and is reasonable in terms of
escalation and pass-through provisions. Multi-part pricing, such as a fixed and variable utility
charge, appear reasonable and well related to the LLC's own cost of producing water. Price
escalators were well specified, for those items which are inflated according to an index. Particularly
useful was the fact that base year prices are specified in the proposal, and presumably these prices
are expected from the grounds for a final agreement.

* The default provisions provide a relatively strong measure of protection for the Authority. In
particular, the Authority would buy the facility by defeasing the outstanding long term senior debt,
while the LLC would stand to lose its equity investment in the case of default on its part.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98






Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 49


* One item which may be suggested during negotiations is that the level of equity participation coming
from the development team itself should be higher than the proposed 10%, closer to 20%.

3.1.20 Transfer of Disposition of Facility at Conclusion of Contract Period
Proposed future use of the desalination plants) and site(s) at the end of the contract period.
Advantages of these terms relative to other possible dispositions of the plantss.

Assumptions

* The Authority has not determined the desired disposition of the desalination plant at the end of the
contract period. Therefore, the Authority would prefer flexibility by the Developer in the disposition
of the facility.

Analysis

* Table 3.16 summarizes the proposed dispositions offered by the Developers at the end of the
contract. The table also indicates that the Developers are flexible in the disposition of the facility.


TABLE 3.16 PLANT DISPOSITION


DEVELOPER DISPOSITION AT END OF CONTRACT

Enova/SSI Continued ownership and operation with new contract or transfer to the Authority.

FSDC Continue operation with new contract, transfer ownership (at no cost) or
decommission.

FWP Extend the agreement, transfer the plant at fair market value or with a "up front"
determination, sell water on a directly to retail distributors or to the public, sell the
plant to a third party, or decommission the facility.

PEIP Extend the contract, sell the plant to the Authority, or decommission the plant.

S&W Extend the contract or transfer ownership to the Authority.




3.2 DELIVERED WATER COST

3.2.1 Net Present Value Analysis
Life cycle costs and project pro-formas are addressed in the RFP as Items 19 and 21, as well as
Addendum 4 to the RFP, but the specific method for providing life cycle costs and pro-formas was left to
the Developer. Because the proposals differed in the level of detail provided, the nature of the price
structure proposed, and specific escalation assumptions, it was necessary to apply uniform methodology
and assumptions to each proposal in order to obtain the most comparable measure of life cycle cost.
That method uses the Net Present Value (NPV) of the water supply contract, based on total water sales


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 50
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


over the thirty year contract. NPV values were developed by the evaluation team based on data provided
in the proposals, as well as responses to requests for clarification. The only development scenario that
was required from all developers was a base scenario of 20 MGD for 30 years (RFP Option 1). This was
also the only development scenario for which complete data were provided by all Developers.
Consequently, the NPV analysis focuses on that Option for purposes of comparing each submission.

The NPV follows industry practices for the evaluation of life cycle costs. Unit cost data alone(cost per
1000 gallons) can be misleading, particularly if Developers have proposed plants whose output capacity
is greater than the likely water supply requirements of the Authority for a significant portion of the
plant's operational life. For example, due to substantial economies of scale, the unit costs reported in the
proposals for a 50 MGD plant are lower than for smaller sized plants. However, if a 50 MGD plant is
constructed at the outset, the TOTAL costs to the Authority would be greater than a phased plant
construction (i.e., 20 MGD at the outset, 35 MGD in 2007, and 50 MGD in 2015), since under the take-
or-pay contracts, the capital cost of building the excess plant capacity would have to be amortised. For
example, analysis performed on phasing options indicates that the total NPV cost of a 50 MGD plant,
constructed at the outset of 2001, would be about a third more than a phased construction program
involving 20 MGD capacity at the outset, with expansion to 35 MGD in 2007 and 50 MGD in 2015.

Assumptions

* Base demand equals 7.3 billion gallons per year, under the take-or-pay contract (i.e., 20 MGD x 365
days).
* The capital recovery component of the water price is held constant in real (1997) dollars over the
term of the 30-year period, which corresponds to the period of long term financing. This is
consistent with pro-formas submitted by the various teams, which provide for level debt service.

All other elements of the water supply price are increased for inflation at an assumed rate of 3% per
year, regardless of whether, under the Water Supply Agreement, the costs are escalated at a pre-
determined inflation index, such as the CPI, or are pass-through costs. The reason for this
simplification is that, over a thirty year period, it is not possible to anticipate the actual rate of
inflation for any particular cost element. In order to eliminate the potential for manipulating the
results based on inflation assumptions, it is assumed that all price elements (with the exception of
capital recovery) would increase at the same rate as general inflation.
* The only other exception to the above is where the proposed Water Supply Contract specifically and
categorically provides for a pricing discount, whereby specific components of the water price would
escalate under the contract provisions at less than the inflation index. In those cases, the NPV
analysis "credits" this pricing approach, as the real cost of that particular price component to the
Authority would fall by definition.
* All elements of the water price, except for the capital recovery component, are then converted to a
1997 dollar value using a 3% inflation rate. The net effect of inflating the costs, as described above,
and deflating back to 1997 dollars, is that only those price elements that are specifically discounted


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 51


below inflation in the proposed water price agreement fall in real terms. All other price elements,
including escalated elements, pass through elements, membranes, and power elements, are
effectively held constant in real 1997 dollar terms.
* The 1997 dollar costs (as described above) are discounted back to present value using a real discount
rate of 3%.
* The capital and O&M cost estimates and financing assumptions which underlie the water price
estimates are assumed to be valid, and were reviewed n Section 3.1.19.
Analysis

The results of the NPV analysis are reported in TABLE 3.17. As discussed above, the analysis utilizes a
baseline assumption of a 3% real discount rate, which corresponds to the first column in the TABLE
3.17.. Sensitivity analyses were also performed using discount rates of 2% and 4%.

TABLE 3.17 NET PRESENT VALUES IN 1997 DOLLARS FOR 20 MGD PLANT (NO SWFWMD
FUNDING)

DEVELOPER TOTAL NPV TOTAL NPV TOTAL NPV
AND (3% DISCOUNT RATE, (2% DISCOUNT (4% DISCOUNT
DEVELOPMENT 1997 $ MILLIONS) RATE, RATE, 1997 $
OPTION 1997 $ MILLIONS) MILLIONS)
ENOVA/SSI 7 $639.0 $729.1 $564.4

FSDC 3 $409.3 $472.0 $372.1

FWP (BOOT MVC/SWRO) S $426.3 $486.1 $376.8

FWP (BOO MVC/SWRO) t $449.2 $512.2 $397.1

PEIP Higgins (20 MGD) 1 $332.5 $378.2 $294.6

PEIP Anclote (20 MGD) 2 $361.1 $410.6 $319.9

S&W + $417.6 $476.2 $369.0



The NPV for the Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership Higgins Power Station site is significantly lower
than for other development proposals. The differences in total NPV costs at a 3 percent discount rate for
the Florida Water Partners (BOO), Stone & Webster, and Florida Seawater Desalination Company
submissions are within 5 percent of each other. Given the uncertainty associated with each proposal at
this stage, including contingencies for construction cost, uncertainties in financing costs, and inflation,
that difference in costs may be regarded as insignificant.

The Enova/SSI NPV is much higher than the other proposals submitted and as a result, this submission is
not considered further.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 52
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


For every one percent difference in the real discount rate, the NPV varies roughly by about 10 percent.
The relative rankings of the submissions are also effected to some degree, for example when the real
discount rate increases from 3% to 4%, the Stone & Webster submission improves in relative value.
However, as noted above, the NPV differences among the Florida Water Partners (BOO), Stone &
Webster, and Florida Seawater Desalination Company proposals are not deemed significant in terms of
NPV, and this continues to be true under the alternative 2 percent and 4 percent discounting.

While some graphic information was provided by Florida Water Partners in their proposal showing the
degree to which unit costs could fall if a 100% RO plant were to be constructed at their site, that
information was not deemed sufficiently accurate to use as a basis for estimating the NPV for a 100%
RO facility, and thus this is not included in Table 3.2.7 above. However, Florida Water Partners'
proposal indicates an apparent decrease in the overall price of about 15 cents per thousand gallons. This
would represent a savings relative to the MVC process being proposed, but it would still place the
estimated NPV within the range of the Stone & Webster and Florida Seawater Desalination Company
submissions



3.2.2 Economies of Plant Size
While the NPV analysis is restricted to a constant 20 MGD plant over the entire 30 year period, another
key consideration, given the very real prospect that more than 20 MGD will be required by the Authority
in the foreseeable future, is how efficiently can plant capacity be expanded. As noted in the previous
section, all proposals but one indicated economies of scale. (Stone and Webster provided information
only for a constant 20 MGD facility.) To the extent that economies of scale vary among the proposed
facilities, the ranking of the teams may change (based on NPV) compared with the ranking indicated in
the previous section, which is based on a constant 20 MGD plant size over the entire thirty year period.
A full NPV analysis of the various phasing options was not undertaken, however, due to the differences
in phasing options presented in the various proposals. These differences make it virtually impossible to
directly compare the NPVs of alternative phasing among the different submissions.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


* I


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


Page 53


TABLE 3.18 1997 WATER PRICE/1000 GALLONS AS A FUNCTION OF PLANT CAPACITY


DEVELOPER % change % % change in
AND in unit change in unit price, 20-
DEVELOPMEN price, 20- unit 50 MGD
T OPTION 20 35 50 35 MGD price, 35- increase
MGD MGD MGD increase 50 MGD
increase
PEIP Higgins $2.29111 $2.15 $2.06 -6.1% -4.2% -10.0%
PEIP Anclote $2.49 1.8q $2.35 2 -5.6% -- -
FWP (BOOT) z.0o $3.03ZA4 $2.50 $2.07 -17.5% -17.2% -31.7%
FWP (BOO) $3.20 $3.40 $2.30 increase increase -32.4%
S & W $2.762.15 3 3 .
FSDC $2.80115 3 $2.301 -- -- -17.9%


1 First year (2000) water price, as
submission.


reported in the Floriida Seawater Desalination Company proposal


2 Estimated from data provided in clarification materials, based on information in the proposal.
3 Not available


3.2.3 Other Factors Affecting Delivered Water Cost
In addition to calculation of NPV costs, this analysis also considered factors which bear on the accuracy
or validity of the long term cost estimates. These factors include but may not be limited to, potential
economies of scale; the overall financial strength of the team; development structure; team roles,
relationships and assignment of risk; underlying financial assumptions; developer default provisions;
pricing structure of the draft water supply agreement; and the completeness of the financial data
submitted. This assessment necessarily relies on a degree of professional judgement. It would not be
appropriate to rely solely on reported cost numbers without consideration of all these factors.

3.3 TIME CERTAIN WATER PRODUCTION

3.3.1 Performance Schedule
Overall program lead time from award of contract to commercial production and delivery of water to the
AUTHORITY's receivingpoint.

Assumptions

* The Authority desire that the seawater desalination plant be constructed and in operation before the
end of 2001.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


*" 11 fc


3/6/98







Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 54
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


A shorter time from Notice of Award of the contract to commercial production of desalinated water
is more desirable than a longer time.
The time line for permitting, design, fabrication, delivery, erection and commission of the plant must
be reasonable based on site specific and process considerations.

Analysis

All of the Developers indicate that they can begin delivery of water before the end of 2001 based on the
time lines or milestone charts in their proposals.

TABLE 3.19 TIME TO DELIVER WATER


DEVELOPER TIME TO BEGIN WATER PRODUCTION
Enova / Super Systems Inc. 35 months
Florida Seawater Desalination 24 months
Company
Florida Water Partners 21 months
Progress Energy / Ionics Partnership 30 months

Stone & Webster 30 months


4. RANKING OF PROPOSALS

The ranking of proposals is based on an assessment of the selection criteria listed in Section 2.5 of the
RFP. The response of the different proposals to these criteria and a corresponding analysis is
summarized in Chapter 3 of this report. As discussed in Chapter 3, the comparative ranking of different
proposals was restricted to the base option identified in the RFP of 20 MGD for 30 years. This was the
only option to which all the Developers were required to respond, and it was the only option to which
they all did respond. A breakdown of points assigned to each proposal are presented in Table 4.1. The
overall ranking of the proposals based on the evaluation is as follows:


1. Progress Energy/Ionics Partnership
2. Stone & Webster
3. Florida Seawater Desalination Company
4. Florida Water Partners
5. Enova/SSI

With all the variables associated with the Authority's future purchases of desalinated water, it is not
possible to select the "best" take-or-pay plant options for anything other than the 20 MGD base option..


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98













TABLE 4.1 RANKING OF 20 MGD OPTIONS


DEVELOPER AND PROPOSAL OPTION

Enova/SSI FSDC FWP PEIP PEIP S&W
Max.No. 9.8 MGD Distilled
of 12 MGD Distilled 20 MGD SWRO 12.2 MGD SWRO 20 MGD SWRO 20 MGD SWRO 20 MGD SWRO
Selection Criteria Points + 8 MGD Brackish Anclote PS Big Bend PS Higgins PS Anclote PS Big Bend PS

1 Site related issues 10 0 7 7 9 10 10 V/
2 Environmental issues 10 3 5 8 9 9 9
3 Utilities 5 5 4 3 4 4 5 /
4 Intake water quality 5 4 2 4 4 4 5
5 Feed water pre-treatment 10 10 9 5 10 T 10 9
6 Cleaning 5 5 4 4 5 5 5
7 Effluent discharge 10 2 6 9 7 10 8 /
8 Site development, engineering & works 5 1 4 5 5 5 5
9 Seawater desalination process 30 27 25 25 30 30 30
10 Plant optimization 20 20 20 10 20 20 20
11 Function requirements 20 15 15 10 20 20 20
12 Mode of operation 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
13 Plant design lifetime 20 10 20 20 20 20 20
14 Product water turndown capability 5 2 4 5 5 5 5
15 Plant performance 10 7 9 5 6 6 10 v
16 Product water quality 10 5 9 9 8 8 7
17 Plant operation 5 3 5 4 5 5 5
18 Esthetics of the facility 10 5 8 5 10 10 10
19 Economic feasibility 20 10 17 11 17 17 20 V
20 Transfer or disposition of facility 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
21 life cycle cost of blended product water 240 50 180 148 204 / 74 170
22 Performance schedule 20 8 15 19 15 18 18 V

Total Proposal Score 500 222 398 346 443 420 421


Proposal Rank 5 3 4 1 2





S. A


Proposal Evaluation and Ranking by PB Water Page 55
Seawater Desalination Project of the Master Water Plan


A large number of other options were offered by Developers and examined, but they did not form an
effective basis for comparative ranking because of their differing capacities and growth schedules. As
shown in the previous section, some of the larger plants can offer significant savings if the Authority is
willing to commit to take-or-pay contracts larger than 20 MGD.


WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


3/6/98




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs