Florida Water Resources Journal - March 2016 by Florida Water Resources Journal

Editor’s Office and Advertiser Information:

Florida Water Resources Journal 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive Clermont, FL 34711 Phone: 352-241-6006 • Fax: 352-241-6007 Email: Editorial, editor@fwrj.com Display and Classified Advertising, ads@fwrj.com

Business Office: P.O. Box 745, Windermere, FL 34786-0745 Web: http://www.fwrj.com General Manager: Editor: Graphic Design Manager: Mailing Coordinator:

Michael Delaney Rick Harmon Patrick Delaney Buena Vista Publishing

Published by BUENA VISTA PUBLISHING for Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc. President: Richard Anderson (FSAWWA) Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Vice President: Greg Chomic (FWEA) Heyward Incorporated Treasurer: Rim Bishop (FWPCOA) Seacoast Utility Authority Secretary: Holly Hanson (At Large) ILEX Services Inc., Orlando

Moving? The Post Office will not forward your magazine. Do not count on getting the Journal unless you notify us directly of address changes by the 15th of the month preceding the month of issue. Please do not telephone address changes. Email changes to changes@fwrj.com, fax to 352-241-6007, or mail to Florida Water Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711

Membership Questions FSAWWA: Casey Cumiskey – 407-957-8447 or fsawwa.casey@gmail.com FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318 FWPCOA: Darin Bishop – 561-840-0340

Training Questions FSAWWA: Donna Metherall – 407-957-8443 or fsawwa.donna@gmail.com FWPCOA: Shirley Reaves – 321-383-9690

For Other Information DEP Operator Certification: Ron McCulley – 850-245-7500 FSAWWA: Peggy Guingona – 407-957-8448 Florida Water Resources Conference: 888-328-8448 FWPCOA Operators Helping Operators: John Lang – 772-559-0722, e-mail – oho@fwpcoa.org FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318

Websites Florida Water Resources Journal: www.fwrj.com FWPCOA: www.fwpcoa.org FSAWWA: www.fsawwa.org FWEA: www.fwea.org and www.fweauc.org Florida Water Resources Conference: www.fwrc.org Throughout this issue trademark names are used. Rather than place a trademark symbol in every occurrence of a trademarked name, we state we are using the names only in an editorial fashion, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. None of the material in this publication necessarily reflects the opinions of the sponsoring organizations. All correspondence received is the property of the Florida Water Resources Journal and is subject to editing. Names are withheld in published letters only for extraordinary reasons. Authors agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Florida Water Resources Journal Inc. (FWRJ), its officers, affiliates, directors, advisors, members, representatives, and agents from any and all losses, expenses, third-party claims, liability, damages and costs (including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees) arising from authors’ infringement of any intellectual property, copyright or trademark, or other right of any person, as applicable under the laws of the State of Florida.

News and Features 16 25 36 52 54

Cocoa’s Water Tank Wins 2015 Tank of the Year FSAWWA Drop Savers Contests Dept. of Interior Creates Natural Resource Investment Center to Increase Water Funding WEF HQ Newsletter—Steve Dye News Beat

Technical Articles 4

Environmental Stewardship Through a Public/Private Partnership in Atlantic Beach— Donna Kaluzniak and John E. Collins Jr.

18 26 42

Wastewater Ephemeralization: Achieving Better Treatment with Less Energy and Chemicals—Albert Bock Replacing Membranes To Save Energy at City Of Vero Beach Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Facility—C. Robert Reiss, Christophe Robert, and Robert J. Bolton Water Transmission and Energy/Storage Optimization Study—Kimberly Machlus

Education and Training 9 17 23 37 39 49

Florida Water Resources Conference CEU Challenge FWPCOA Training Calendar FSAWWA Training FSAWWA Roy Likins Scholarship TREEO Center Training

Columns 24 34 38 40 50 51

C Factor—Thomas King FSAWWA Speaking Out—Kim Kunihiro Spotlight on Safety—Doug Prentiss Sr. Certification Boulevard—Roy Pelletier FWEA Focus—Raynetta Curry Marshall FWRJ Committee Profile—FWPCOA Safety Committee

Reader Profile—Michael F. Bailey

Departments 55 56 59 62

New Products Service Directories Classifieds Display Advertiser Index

Volume 67

ON THE COVER: A lone kayaker on a foggy morning on the Suwannee River at the Suwannee River State Park located 13 miles west of Live Oak. (photo: James Peters)

March 2016

Number 3

Florida Water Resources Journal, USPS 069-770, ISSN 0896-1794, is published monthly by Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc., 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711, on behalf of the Florida Water & Pollution Control Operator’s Association, Inc.; Florida Section, American Water Works Association; and the Florida Water Environment Association. Members of all three associations receive the publication as a service of their association; $6 of membership dues support the Journal. Subscriptions are otherwise available within the U.S. for $24 per year. Periodicals postage paid at Clermont, FL and additional offices.

POSTMASTER: send address changes to Florida Water Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2016

F W R J

Environmental Stewardship Through a Public/Private Partnership in Atlantic Beach Donna Kaluzniak and John E. Collins Jr.

tlantic Beach is a small coastal municipality in northeast Florida near Jacksonville. The privately-owned Selva Marina Country Club (SMCC), which includes a 146-acre golf course, is located close to the Atlantic Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), a 3.5-mil-gal-per-day (mgd) four-stage biological nutrient removal (BNR) plant. While the country club and driving range were within the Atlantic Beach city limits, the golf course property was located in Jacksonville. The source of irrigation water for the golf course was a tidal lagoon that traversed the SMCC property. The high salinity of this water was problematic for SMCC, and over the years it attempted to negotiate with the City to provide reclaimed water for irrigation. The City was also interested in providing reclaimed water. Unfortunately, SMCC and the City were unable to agree on an acceptable pricing structure after several attempts.

Like many golf courses, the economic downturn of 2008 hit SMCC hard, and by 2012, it was looking at ways to optimize the property. At that time, SMCC explored the concept of adding a new single-family housing development on the property and upgrading the course. However, the brackish quality of the lagoon water made it unsuitable for growing high-quality turf. The SMCC’s consumptive use permit (CUP) allowed installation of up to 10 shallow wells for irrigation. There were concerns about the volume of water available and the cost compared to reclaimed water. The City asked J. Collins Engineering Associates LLC (JCEA) to conduct a comparative study to determine the cost-effectiveness of using wells versus the cost of constructing a reclaimed water facility. Research showed that the ten shallow wells would not produce sufficient water and additional wells would not be cost-efficient.

Donna Kaluzniak, CEP, is the former utility director with City of Atlantic Beach and now owns H2O Writing in Jacksonville Beach, and John E. Collins Jr., P.E., is with J. Collins Engineering Associates LLC in Jacksonville.

The result of that study, “Evaluation of Options for Long-Term Irrigation Water Supply for Selva Marina Country Club,” showed that a minimum of 25 wells would be required. A revision to the CUP would also be needed. A number of options for construction of a reclaimed water facility were examined in the report. Some of these options included: S Locating the reuse facility offsite at the golf course versus at the WWTF S Options for chlorine contact tankage, including: Continued on page 6

Figure 2. Flows from Existing Shallow Wells in Area Figure 1. Atlantic Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility and Selva Marina Country Club

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Continued from page 4 o Relocation and use of an existing abandoned tank o Using half of the plant’s existing chlorine contact tank o Constructing a new chlorine contact tank S Options for disinfection, including: o Chlorine gas o Sodium hypochlorite o Ultraviolet light S Reclaimed transmission routes, including use of an existing abandoned force main The preliminary recommendation for the most cost-effective option for providing longterm irrigation water to the golf course was a reclaimed water facility located at the WWTF, using hypochlorite disinfection.

Cultural and Greenspace Preservation Atlantic Beach is a cul-de-sac city. To the east of the City is the Atlantic Ocean, to the west is the Intracoastal Waterway, and to the north is Hanna Park and the Mayport Naval Station, bordered by the St. Johns River estuary. The City is shaded by a beautiful tree canopy of coastal oaks and other hardwoods. There is a strong sense of community and desire for cultural and environmental preservation. The Atlantic Beach City Commission and many citizens considered the 55-year-old country club to be part of the local culture and heritage. Many citizens were concerned that the golf course property would be sold

and developed under Jacksonville’s building requirements, which would mean that a highdensity development of apartments or condominiums could be built on the property. The buildings would also be allowed to exceed Atlantic Beach’s 35-ft height limit. Ideas on ways the City could help to keep from losing the golf course and country club were debated, including an option to purchase and operate the golf course and amenities. That option was ruled out due to fiscal concerns, and SMCC’s lack of desire to sell the golf course. At the same time, SMCC was examining its options. The SMCC, which was renamed the Atlantic Beach Country Club (ABCC) joined with developers Atlantic Beach Partners (ABP) to completely rebuild the golf course, clubhouse, and amenities. The course would be redesigned and upgraded to a championship golf course and 178 high-end single family homes would be built within the course. Having reliable, high-quality irrigation water was imperative for the plan to move forward and ABCC once more approached Atlantic Beach about providing reclaimed water. Atlantic Beach citizens were fully supportive of ABCC’s plans; however, the City commission could not approve funding to build a reclaimed water facility that would benefit a private business. The commission wanted to find opportunities where the City would obtain a benefit in return for spending approximately $1.4 million to construct a reclaimed water facility.

After negotiating with ABCC/ABP, an agreement was reached: Atlantic Beach would design, construct, operate, and maintain a reclaimed water facility and distribution main to the golf course property. The reclaimed water facility would be designed to provide water for the golf course, common areas, and residents. In return, ABCC/ABP would: S Provide all of the reuse distribution and irrigation piping for the golf course and subdivision. S Provide a 2.5-mil-gal (MG) reuse storage pond on the golf course. S Provide a recreation and greenspace conservation agreement. The agreement would essentially prevent any future additional building construction on the property in perpetuity. o Use of the undeveloped property is limited to only low-intensity recreational or conservation uses. o A native tree canopy must be maintained after development of the golf course. o No further subdivision of the land is permitted. S Work with Atlantic Beach to support annexation of the golf course property into the Atlantic Beach city limits. The ABCC/ABP provided for additional environmental protections during their design as well: S North Florida ecology integrated into the golf course design S Water-conserving design for the golf course S Drip irrigation for most common area landscaping S Provision of constructed nesting sites for ospreys S Clubhouse and homes are constructed with smart technology and water- and energy-conserving features

Atlantic Beach Reclaimed Water Facility

Figure 3. Atlantic Beach Country Club Layout

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The reclaimed water facility was designed to provide an annual average daily amount of 0.5 mgd of reuse to the golf course and residential customers. Included in the project were chemical storage and feed facilities; chlorine contact piping, and wet wells; a reuse pumping station with hydropnuematic tank; an electrical building; and instrumentation/supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) integration. In order to save costs, an existing abandoned 6-in. force main was disinfected and used to provide reclaimed water to the golf

course storage pond. A 12-in. reuse main was constructed up to the golf course for the residential development. Figure 4 shows the existing 6-in. force main.

Project Challenges Schedule Limitations Both the City and ABCC/ABP had an incredibly tight schedule. One of the major factors was that ABCC/ABP needed to complete the golf course construction in time for the growing season. In addition, while ABCC had advised that it would need up to 400,000 gal per day (gpd) of reuse water under normal conditions, they needed up to 1 MG per day for the grow-in period. The City approved the engineering contract in May 2013. The project had to be designed, permitted, and bid, and a construction contract awarded by November 2013. The City was required to construct the facilities and deliver reclaimed water by March 2014. In order to accommodate the short timeline and provide the extra reuse needed for grow-in, the project was designed and constructed in two phases. The JCEA and City staff met with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to get the conceptual designs for the two phases approved. The FDEP was very helpful and accommodating in allowing the City to design and construct temporary reuse facilities that could be used for the grow-in period while contractors completed the permanent reuse system. Phase One: Temporary Facilities In this phase, FDEP allowed the City to dedicate half of the existing chlorine contact tank for the temporary reclaimed water system. A spare sulfur dioxide feed line was purged and reused as a chlorine feed system for the high-level disinfection system. A large pump was installed to pump reuse water to the golf course storage pond through the existing abandoned and disinfected force main. Instrumentation, including the chlorine analyzer and turbidimeter, was installed in a temporary control panel inside of a wooden box mounted by the chlorine contact tank. The FDEP required a higher chlorine residual of 1.8 mg/L vs. 1.0 mg/L in order to provide the high-level disinfection in the smaller chlorine contact tank.

Continued on page 8

Figure 4. Location of Existing Force Main

Figure 5. Area Availablefor Reclaimed Water Facility Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

Continued from page 7 Phase Two: Permanent Facilities The permanent facilities included the electrical building (with proper control panels for the instrumentation), chlorine contact facilities, and a hypochlorite storage and pumping facility. The reuse pumping system consisted of three pumps with variable frequency drives and a hydropneumatic tank to maintain pressure in the distribution system. An off-site control valve was installed on the golf course to hold pressure in the residential distribution system at the same time that reuse water flows to the storage pond. This is a modulating valve that varies the amount of flow to the golf course pond or distribution system based on demand. The City completed the engineering, permitting, and bid process and awarded a contract to Sawcross Construction in November 2013, as required; however, start of construction was contingent on ABCC/ABPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final closing on the property sale. While Atlantic Beach was ready to proceed with construction, the City had to wait to issue a notice to proceed (NTP) until the property sale between the country club and the developer was final and all parties were legally ready to proceed. The ABCC/ABP completed its legal requirements in January 2014 instead of November 2013, and the Sawcross was issued an NTP in January.

The City completed construction of phase one and start-up of the reuse system at the same time the golf course completed construction of its reuse pond and began grassing the golf course. The City provided all of the reclaimed water needed to successfully start and complete the grow-in period. Space Limitations Because the reclaimed water facility was being built at the effluent end of the WWTF, only a small amount of land was available. There was essentially no room to install a standard chlorine contact chamber sized to allow high-level disinfection per contact time (CT) calculations. Therefore, a chlorine contact pipe system was designed. A 36-in. diameter lined ductile iron pipe with a serpentine design was used for appropriate chlorine contact and mixing time. Effluent from the WWTF filters is diverted to a wet well where sodium hypochlorite is added. The water then flows through the chlorine contact pipe and enters a second wet well where the chlorine level is measured. The reclaimed water facility, including the location of the chlorine contact pipe installation, is located in a narrow strip of property adjacent to the effluent storage pond. Budget Utility budgets are always tight, and this was especially true due to the nature of having

Figure 6. Final Siting for Reclaimed Water Facility/Chlorine Contact Pipe

March 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

an agreement with ABCC/ABP to ensure the City was not saddled with an undue fiscal burden. City and JCEA staff prepared a cost-share grant application for the project. The project was awarded a grant of $442,000 from the St. Johns River Water Management District. Also, to meet the strict budget, a quick-value engineering review was completed after the bid and negotiated with the contractor. This resulted in $200,000 of savings and $180,000 of deductions recommended and awarded.

Results The WWTF was completed in time to meet all of the required deadlines and under budget. The project costs were $151,528 for engineering and $1,251,032 for construction. Funding from the City was $960,560 and $442,000 from SJRWMD. The phase-one temporary facilities worked well and FDEP made allowances for City staff to take hourly readings of chlorine and turbidity, instead of continuous readings, as long as the pumps were set to automatically shut off with any exceedances. The ABCC was very pleased with the quantity and quality of the reclaimed water, and the championship golf course was grownin and ready for play by the opening date. Phase-one facilities were used until substantial completion of the phase-two improvements. The phase-two facilities were substantially complete in November 2014 and connected to the residential reuse distribution mains provided by the developer. In addition to reclaimed water for residences and common areas, ABCC is using reuse to water the new clay tennis courts. Construction of the new ABCC clubhouse is complete; residents are playing golf and tennis, and beautiful, environmentallyefficient homes are being built. The entire 166-acre site will be protected from future high-intensity development forever, and Atlantic Beach, ABCC, and Jacksonville are all supporting annexation of the property. The project will save up to 183 MG of groundwater each year; in addition, effluent discharged to the St. Johns River will be reduced by the same amount. This will reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged to the river by up to 4,870 pounds each per year. S

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

Cocoa’s Water Tank Wins 2015 Tank of the Year The Tank of the Year is a national water storage tank competition presented by Tnemec Company Inc., and the 2015 award was presented late last year to the City of Cocoa’s iconic 156-ft-tall structure. The tank, which features three 25-ft-high American flags, was recently repainted as part of a resurfacing project started in 2014. The flags were originally painted on the tank in 1976 by a Greek immigrant to celebrate the nation’s Bicentennial. When the recent resurfacing project came up for approval to the city council, it was determined that the flags would remain on the tank. “The City of Cocoa values its history, and the flags are an important part of that history and proudly remain displayed on our tank,” said Henry Parrish, mayor of Cocoa. “We are honored to make history once again by becoming the 2015 Tank of the Year to display to the nation our patriotic pride.” The tank was built in 1957 to supply drinking water to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s space program. The 1.5-mil-gal (MG) tank is used to maintain constant pressure in the distribution system, which supplies more than 22.7 MG of drinking water every day to approximately 80,000 customers in central Brevard County, including the Kennedy Space Center, Port Canaveral, and Patrick Air Force Base. Cocoa’s tank was one of the twelve top-voted tanks in the online voting polls, along with another local tank in Plant City that won in the contemporary category with its 500,000-gal pedestal water tank. More than 20,000 online votes were cast. Voting on the top twelve, a panel of water tank enthusiasts chose the City of Cocoa’s tank based on its artistic value, significance to the community, and the challenges encountered during the project. The water tank was featured on the cover of the January 2016 Tnemac water tank calendar. Established in 1921, Tnemec is one of the largest privately held companies in North America specializing in industrial coatings for steel, concrete, and other substrates for new construction S and maintenance.

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Operators: Take the CEU Challenge! Members of the Florida Water & Pollution Control Association (FWPCOA) may earn continuing education units through the CEU Challenge! Answer the questions published on this page, based on the technical articles in this month’s issue. Circle the letter of each correct answer. There is only one correct answer to each question! Answer 80 percent of the questions on any article correctly to earn 0.1 CEU for your license. Retests are available. This month’s editorial theme is, Energy Efficiency and Environmental Stewardship. Look above each set of questions to see if it is for water operators (DW), distribution system operators (DS), or wastewater operators (WW). Mail the completed page (or a photocopy) to: Florida Environmental Professionals Training, P.O. Box 33119, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420-3119. Enclose $15 for each set of questions you choose to answer (make checks payable to FWPCOA). You MUST be an FWPCOA member before you can submit your answers!

Earn CEUs by answering questions from previous Journal issues! Contact FWPCOA at membership@fwpcoa.org or at 561-840-0340. Articles from past issues can be viewed on the Journal website, www.fwrj.com.

___________________________________ SUBSCRIBER NAME (please print)

Article 1 _________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

Article 2 _________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

If paying by credit card, fax to (561) 625-4858 providing the following information: ___________________________________ (Credit Card Number)

____________________________________ (Expiration Date)

Wastewater Ephemeralization: Achieving Better Treatment with Less Energy and Chemicals

Replacing Membranes to Save Energy: The City of Vero Beach Water Treatment Facility C. Robert Reiss, Christophe Robert, and Rob Bolton

Albert Bock

(Article 1: CEU = 0.1 WW)

(Article 2: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW)

1. In converting to facultative biosolids stabilization, digester aeration was controlled by a. blower timers. b. nutrient ammonia and phosphorus-level feedback. c. dissolved oxygen concentration feedback. d. pH.

1. Performance projections provided by the membrane suppliers assumed no permeate back pressure on the first stage because a. the skids presently have energy recovery equipment. b. performance goals could not otherwise be met. c. proposed feed water pumps could not develop sufficient pressure. d. existing skids lack back pressure capabilities.

2. Previously practiced conventional aerobic biosolids stabilization resulted in a. improved biosolids hydrolysis rates. b. reduced digester biosolids liquid phase phosphorus concentration. c. reduced alkalinity levels. d. higher biosolids pH. 3. Under the real-time pricing model for electricity, plant operations staff reduces energy cost by a. pressing biosolids only every other day. b. using supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) to shut down lift stations during peak pricing periods. c. switching all electric motors from fixed speed to variable frequency operation. d. shutting down selected equipment through the peak pricing periods. 4. The facultative digester process reduces sludge production because a. chemicals are no longer needed for phosphorus precipitation. b. it hydrolizes more solids. c. more biosolids are removed in the biological nutrient removal (BNR) process. d. a greater concentration of biosolids is retained in digester inventory. 5. Process changes described in this article have reduced carbon emissions by a. 3 mil kilowatt-hours (kWh) b. 2,000 tons c. 20,000 cu ft d. 700 kWh/mil gal

2. In the single-element testing phase, recoveries from 15 to 85 percent were selected in order to simulate a. anticipated changes in full-scale skid recoveries that would be required. b. anticipated changes in feed water quality over time. c. the effect of changes in air and water temperature. d. water quality at the front and back ends of a full-scale skid. 3. Which of the following type of hybrid configurations was recommended for all four systems? a. Tighter membrane first stage, looser membrane second stage b. Looser membrane first stage, tighter membrane second stage c. Looser membranes, both stages d. Tighter membrane, both stages 4. Comparing single-membrane test results to membrane permeate water quality projections, a. test water quality was better for all elements tested, at all parameters. b. test water quality was worse for all elements tested, at all parameters. c. one element tested better for all parameters than projected. d. three elements tested better for all parameters than projected. 5. Of the three manufacturers able to provide 8.5-in. diameter elements, most were not a. Underwriters Laboratories (UL)-certified. b. National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) 61certified. c. presently in production. d. made of material suitable for use in potable water production.

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2016

F W R J

Wastewater Ephemeralization: Achieving Better Treatment with Less Energy and Chemicals Albert Bock Albert Bock is wastewater operations supervisor with Bay County Utility Services in Panama City.

S Eliminating aerobic digestion and introducing facultative biosolids stabilization technology S Electrical cost reduction by changing from fixed power usage rate to real-time pricing (RTP) S Alternation of BNR aeration control, changing aeration from dissolved oxygen to ammonia control

Wastewater Ephemeralization Projects Overview Military Point Regional Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility

ince 2009, the 7-mil-gal-per-day (mgd) Military Point Regional Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (MPAWTF), operated by Bay County Utility Services and co-owned by Bay County, City of Callaway, City of Parker, and City of Springfield, has been working to improve its wastewater treatment plant performance and energy efficiency to offset future energy price increases and comply with the newest regulatory Fffluent permit requirements. The facility personnel implemented new and innovative process technologies, in combination with energy conservation programs and process changes, so that the facility could address the upcoming challenges in the industry. This article provides an overview of the newly installed technology and process control strategies that deliver a more consistent and cost-effective wastewater treatment plant operation. The turnkey accomplishments of the technology and operating procedures include improved effluent results, enriched biosolids treatment, chemical savings for phosphorous removal, and significantly reduced aeration rates for the operation of the treatment facility. Their implementation improved the treatment plant performance and effluent quality results considerably, while also reducing energy and chemical

requirements in the treatment process. This concept is known as wastewater ephemeralization. Energy and chemical reduction provides multiple economic and environmental benefits, including reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and results in reduced operating costs, which saves money for the utility. With pumps, motors, and other equipment operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, MPAWTF is one of the largest consumers of energy in Bay County. The high level of energy and operating costs is what led the utility to make the energy and process improvements in the wastewater treatment plant infrastructure and operations, which guarantees the utility customer quality service at a reasonable cost that also meets the environmental requirements. Starting in 2009 Bay County Utility Services developed a portfolio of wastewater ephemeralization projects that identified energy efficiency improvements and new operating technologies, and evaluated alternatives to minimize rising energy and chemical costs for the wastewater treatment plant operation. The MPAWTF wastewater ephemeralization projects included: S Operating one biological nutrient removal (BNR) train instead of two BNR trains

March 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

Operating One Biological Nutrient Removal Train Instead Of Two The MPAWTF was put on-line in 2000. The annual flows from 2003 to 2008 averaged 3.8 mgd and were significantly below the rated capacity limit. Until 2009 the treatment facility was run utilizing the full treatment plant capacity, with two BNR treatment trains on-line. The aeration blowers for the treatment plant process with two BNR trains on-line were operated in a lead-and-lag configuration and controlled by the residual dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration. Typically, in the afternoon, during the daily high flows under this configuration, the lag blower came on-line as a backup for the lead blower and contributed to a significant increase in energy usage and demand. A study conducted in 2009 showed that the operation of MPAWTF would be more costefficient, while also improving the treatment performance, by only operating one BNR basin until the average daily flows exceed 4.2 mgd.

Eliminating Conventional Aerobic Digestion Process: Introducing Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Technology In 2011 Bay County Utility Services implemented a new digester process technology

and discontinued the conventional aerobic digester process. The new digester technology changed the digester operation from continuously run aeration cycles to efficient nutrientcontrolled digester aeration, which promotes facultative biosolids stabilization environments and reduces the digester aeration run times by greater than 80 percent. The digester aeration cycles are strictly controlled by the digester nutrient ammonia and phosphorous levels, which are measured by a nutrient analyzer system. The previous conventional aerobic digester stabilization process involved lengthy aeration times, resulting in high energy costs and slow biosolids hydrolysis rates. The conventional aerobic digestion process also reduced the digester pH and alkalinity levels and triggered the release of large amounts of phosphorous from the aerated digester biosolids. Consequently, digester sidestream phosphorous concentrations, often exceeding 250 mg/L PO4-P, were returned to the mainstream wastewater treatment plant during decanting and biosolids dewatering. The high phosphorous return loads from the aerobic digester units overloaded the biological BNR phosphorus removal process and required the daily application of aluminum sulfate to maintain the effluent phosphorous concentrations below the acceptable regulatory levels. The addition of alum for phosphorous removal also caused a pH lowering and alkalinity scavenging of the BNR mixed liquor due to the properties of the chemical. This required the addition of another chemical (lime) to restabilize the BNR pH levels. The new facultative digester process technology reduces the soluble phosphorous content of the digester biosolids liquid phase by over 90 percent, completely without the use of chemicals. The process provides over 80 percent in aeration power cost reduction, as well as savings in chemical cost for effluent phosphorous removal and sludge dewatering. The improved biosolids hydrolysis rates provide a faster reduction of the organic biosolids content and result in reduced sludge hauling costs. Electrical Cost Reduction by Changing Energy Rate to Real-Time Pricing Rate Structure In 2013 Bay County Utility Services and Gulf Power Company conducted a survey to investigate further energy cost reduction options. Gulf Power introduced Bay County staff to its RTP program, which gives Bay County the option of paying the actual energy cost of electricity at any given time, instead of being charged a consistent energy rate charge under

contract. The energy RTP model charges the customer hour by hour for the electricity usage accordingly. Bay County evaluated the wastewater treatment power consumption profiles throughout the years and identified critical equipment and process sections that are necessary to run at all times for the treatment process. The study showed that the RTP model

would be economically beneficial in the long term and provides the utility additional cost savings. In October 2013 Bay County started to operate all utility facilities under the RTP energy model and its responsibilities include a minimum one-year commitment to operate under the model. With the change of the utilContinued on page 20

Figure 1. Hour-by-Hour Real-Time Pricing Power Usage Charge

Figure 2. MPAWTF Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Process SCADA Trend Chart: Ammonium and Phosphorous Reduction During Digester Aeration Cycle Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

Figure 3. MPAWTF Annual Average Effluent Total Phosphorous Concentrations Before and After Implementation of Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Process

Figure 4. MPAWTF Digester Operation: Annual Chemical Cost for Effluent Phosphorous Control Before and After Implementation of Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Process

Continued from page 19 ity power pricing model to RTP in October 2013, Bay County wastewater staff reduced the need of high power usage throughout the daily critical-peak high-energy pricing tariffs (Figure 1). The MPAWTF supervisor checks the peak high-energy pricing tariffs two days in advance and plans the treatment plant operation accordingly. The utility has identified point sources of treatment processes that can be turned off and put on standby until the critical-peak high-energy pricing tariffs have passed. The point sources include: S Biosolids dewatering process S Digester aeration S Taking basins off-line S Rejecting pond returns Alternation of Biological Nutrient Removal Aeration Control: Changing Aeration From Dissolved Oxygen to Ammonia Control In 2014 Bay County Utility staff continued with its energy conservation efforts and evaluated the BNR aeration process control strategy. The previous BNR aeration process control method was based on maintaining a residual DO of 1.8 mg/l to 2.0 mg/l at all times after the first BNR aeration zone. The study that was conducted showed significant power cost savings and that longterm economic benefits were achieved by converting the wastewater treatment plant aeration control from residual DO to the more efficient ammonia control. Ammonia-controlled BNR operation precisely evaluates the required air demand and treats the incoming nitrogen and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) loads more cost-effectively than conventional DO control. In addition to electrical cost savings, ammonia-controlled BNR operation includes other wastewater treatment plant process advantages, such as better handling of the BNR BOD and alkalinity inventories, which are directly related to the performance of nitrogen and phosphorous removal.

Wastewater Ephemeralization Project Results

Figure 5. MPAWTF Digester Operation: Annual Power Cost Savings Before and After Implementation of Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Process

March 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

Operating One Biological Nutrient Removal Train Instead Of Two Trains By operating only one BNR train instead of two trains at flows below 4.2 mgd, MPAWTF was able to operate the facility with only one aeration blower and a reduced quantity of BNR mixers and internal recycle pumps. This operating practice reduced the monthly energy usage charges by an average of 22,000

kilowatt-hours (kWh). The total annual power usage cost savings averaged approximately $23,000. Eliminating Aerobic Digestion Process: Introducing Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Technology The newly introduced facultative biosolids stabilization process changed the control of the digester aeration from continuous aeration to nutrient-controlled aeration patterns. The process precisely monitors the ammonia and phosphorous levels of the digester biosolids and adjusts the aeration rates accordingly (Figure 2). The process technology provides the utility numerous benefits in operation and maintenance cost savings and achieves improved performance results in biosolids treatment and digester sidestream quality, which directly impacts the wastewater treatment plant BNR total phosphorous inventory and, respectively, the effluent phosphorous concentrations. The new facultative biosolids process reduced the soluble phosphorous content of the digester sidestream return flows by over 90 percent to less than 10mg/L without the use of phosphorus removing chemicals. The high phosphorous removal rate of the digester process consequently maintains the BNR phosphorous inventory concentrations at low levels. Since 2011 MPAWTF was able to discontinue the daily chemical feed for effluent phosphorus removal and maintained effluent permit compliance below 0.3 mg/l (annual average P) as shown in Figure 3. The annual chemical cost savings for effluent phosphorous removal averaged over $45,000 (Figure 4). The facultative digester process technology also reduced the overall digester aeration time by more than 80 percent, resulting in a substantial reduction in the digester process energy costs, with savings of more than 80 percent. The process reduced the annual digester power usage by over 800,219 kWh, which is equivalent to $85,000 in power cost savings (Figure 5). The facultative anoxic digester treatment environment provides much faster biosolids hydrolysis rates than the previous operated aerobic digester process and results in a 30 percent faster reduction of the organic biosolids content. The increased digester biosolids hydrolysis rates provide cost savings in polymer usage and sludge disposal. The combined savings for power costs and chemicals for phosphorous removal alone exceed $130,000 per year, with improved effluent phosphorous water quality results. The long-

term savings that are realized will be significant. Electrical Cost Reduction by Changing Energy Rate to Real-Time Pricing Rate Structure The MPAWTF experienced an average of 9.26 percent power cost reduction since operating under the RTP pricing model and has

been practicing a demand response plan for load sharing that calls for only operating the essential equipment necessary for the wastewater treatment process during the high power usage rates. Since implementation of the RTP energy model, Bay County Utility Services has saved approximately $26,000 a year in electrical costs. Continued on page 22

Figure 6. FY 2013 Under Fixed-Price Contract and FY 2014 Under Real-Time Pricing Contract, Month-to-Month Power Cost Reduction

Figure 7. MPAWTF Power Usage (kWh) per MG Flow Treated Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

Continued from page 21 Additional benefits of the energy plan are: S Gulf Power Energy Company has excess generating capacity that allows the electric company to utilize its most efficient power generating plants. S The new rate plan allows Bay County Utility Services to see the most expensive power periods two days in advance, which provides enough planning to shift some equipment usage during lower-cost periods. The monthly power cost reduction performance under the RTP model is shown in Figure 6. The MPAWTF also implemented electrical load and demand management in October 2013. The facility successfully continued to maintain effluent permit requirements at reduced electrical demand charges. The available backup capacity of the wastewater treatment plant allows Bay County staff to comfortably shift the operation of high horsepower equipment within lower power usage periods. Point sources for electrical demand management include: S Biosolids dewatering process S Digester aeration S Taking basins off-line S Rejecting pond return flows Alternation of Biological Nutrient Removal Aeration Control: Changing Aeration From Dissolved Oxygen to Ammonia Control Since the installation of the new ammonia sensors for BNR aeration control, MPAWTF experienced a significant reduction of power usage costs. The power usage for BNR aeration was reduced from 865 kWh/mil gal (MG) treated to 690 kWh/MG treated and is equiva-

Albert Bock performs a system check on the digester nutrient analyzer system.

lent to approximately $22,000 in annual power cost savings. The BNR is operated with a residual ammonia concentration of 1.0 mg/L after the first aeration zone, which also provides enhanced nitrogen removal results, conservation of BNR alkalinity, and prevents BNR overaeration.

Summary of Results The MPAWTF has been recognized over the years for its outstanding achievements in efficient treatment plant operation and has won the following plant operation awards: S 2012 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Operations Excellence Award S 2012 Runner-Up for Florida Water and Environment Association Earle B. Phelps Award S 2013 Winner of Florida Water and Environment Association Earle B. Phelps Award S 2013 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Operations Excellence Award S 2015 Runner-Up for Florida Water and Environment Association Earle B. Phelps Award The utility staff demonstrates economical and effective methods to achieve improved wastewater effluent and biosolids performance results with substantial energy and chemical cost conservations. Energy and chemical cost savings today are a very important part of the daily plant operating routine. Energy consumption and the hour-to-hour energy prices are continuously monitored by MPAWTF plant personnel. Monthly operating reports document the energy consumption and the performance of the new process projects. With the implemen-

Lloyd Kadlec, shift lead operator, at the SCADA computer checking the biological nutrient removal ammonia reduction performance.

March 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

tation of the energy improvement projects, Bay County Utility Services was able to reverse the increasing power costs for its wastewater treatment plant operation. The historical trend chart in Figure 7 demonstrates the power cost savings that MPAWTF experienced since the implementation of the new process implementations after 2011. The blue trend line illustrates the actual energy usage per MG treaded. The new process implementations reduced the power usage from 2,700 kWh/MG to less than 2,000 kWh/MG. The wastewater treatment plant staff is trained and skilled to identify the energy consumption rates of the wastewater treatment process sections and treat the wastewater to the most effective and reasonable cost to the customer, while at the same time meeting stringent Class III surface water permit requirements. Bay County Utility Services identified further energy conservation measures that include the replacement of the existing plant halogen lighting with light-emitting diode (LED) fixtures and installation of variable frequency drives (VFDs). All future equipment replacements will be evaluated based on their energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness to provide the facility with the most energy-efficient infrastructure. Since the implementation of the new process changes, MPAWTF reduced its power usage by an estimated 1,700,000 kWh per year, which is equivalent to 1,100 tons of reduced carbon emissions. The efforts of Bay County Utility Services to reduce chemicals and power costs for its treatment plant operation not only saved the customers money, it also provides a more consistent high-quality effluent into St. Andrews Bay and plays an important role when it comes to protecting the environment. S

The facilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s digester during the aeration cycle performing ammonium and phosphorus reduction.

FWPCOA TRAINING CALENDAR SCHEDULE YOUR CLASS TODAY! March 14-18..........Spring State Short School ........................Ft. Pierce 28-31..........Backflow Tester*............................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405

April 4-6..........Backflow Repair* ..........................................St. Petersburg ....$275/305 11-15..........Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ........Osteen ..............$350/380 18-21..........*Backflow Tester............................................Bonita Springs ..$375/405 18-21 ........Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ........St. Petersburg ....$350/380 29..........***Backflow Tester recert ............................Osteen ..............$85/115

May 2-5..........Backflow Tester ............................................Osteen ..............$375/405 16-19..........*Backflow Tester............................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405 16-20..........Utility Maintenance Level III ........................Osteen ..............$225/255 27..........***Backflow Tester recert ............................Osteen ..............$85/115

June 6-10..........Wastewater Collection C, B ........................Osteen ..............$225/255 20-22..........Backflow Repair ............................................Osteen ..............$275/305 27-30..........*Backflow Tester............................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405 24..........***Backflow Tester recert ............................Osteen ............$85/115 27- July 1 ......Water Distribution level 1............................Osteen ..............$225/255 27- July 1 ......Wastewater Collection A ............................Osteen ..............$225/255 27- July 1 ......Stormwater A ................................................Osteen ..............$225/255 Course registration forms are available at http://www.fwpcoa.org/forms.asp. For additional information on these courses or other training programs offered by the FWPCOA, please contact the FW&PCOA Training Office at (321) 383-9690 or training@fwpcoa.org. * Backflow recertification is also available the last day of Backflow Tester or Backflow Repair Classes with the exception of Deltona ** Evening classes *** any retest given also

You are required to have your own calculator at state short schools and most other courses. Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

C FACTOR

To Be Held to a Higher Standard water has been through both ends of animals many times.) Where the water supply may be finite, the population continues to grow and that increases the importance of our work and the need for vigilance in our duties.

Thomas King President, FWPCOA

Hope on the Horizon

e are the caretakers of the most important natural resource on the planet. No matter what your politics or religion, the need for water makes us equal. No matter what role you play in the family of utility caretakers, you are held to a higher standard. Those of you who are in charge of a water treatment system have the responsibility to fulfill that role with the upmost integrity. If you manage or are on a crew that takes care of a sewer collection system, you must perform your duties in a manner that protects the water table and aquifer. You should protect against spills, and if they do occur, take measures to contain the wastewater and prevent it from entering the stormwater system or surface waters. If you work in the water reuse discipline, stand guard and maintain quality standards that you can be proud of. Good maintenance is the key to good operation—be vigilant in the work you perform. I am heartbroken when the news is filled with politicians who take the low road for their own political gain. I wonder, as I am sure some of you do: where were the experts? Where were the water system champions who should have advised these politicians? The Flint River water crisis is an example of not looking at the details of the water supply, treatment, and distribution systems. Whether the decision to not use corrosion inhibitors was a budget issue—or just a blunder—is less important to me than why the utility team did not stop it. According to CNN reports, it’s still not clear who made the decision not to use controls to protect the city’s pipes from the corrosive water, or why a granulated activated carbon filter, which would have reduced the need to add chemicals to the water that also ate away at the pipes, wasn’t used as recommended. But citizens are convinced that these decisions were made not out of mere incompetence, but deliberately, with an eye to reducing costs. Chemical tests could have predicted the corrosion in the pipes that is now being blamed

for endangering the health of thousands of vulnerable Flint residents by elevating lead levels in their water supply. Certainly there was an awareness of the lead pipes that were part of the distribution system in the city. The families of many utility personnel had to be among those affected, so there is certainly more to the story than we are being told. I would hope that many of those in the know spoke up. We all know there is a line you do not cross in the criticism of a path your utility is about to follow, but at the very least you should speak the truth. I am still an idealist when it comes to our profession and the commitment I believe we should have to fulfill our roles with integrity. I am not naive enough to say that all the water system operations people I know are willing to risk losing their jobs over demanding that the city officials take the high road; I do, however, believe in you, as people who chose a profession to make a difference while also making a living. At some point during our careers, we (hopefully) begin to understand the importance of our roles in the protection of the environment. We are all part of an industry where how we do what we do is so important. This brief tirade on idealism does not stop with management or politicians. You cannot hold others to a higher standard than the one you live yourself. Saying things like “How could they?” is more credible when you are doing your best. Do not be caught up in the wave of apathy that overtakes workers who are consumed by the thoughts that the utility they work for does not deserve their best effort. It is not the city or utility you work for, but the future of water supply itself. There is no new water; the water we drink today was around when dinosaurs ruled the world. (Yeah, get over it; all of our drinking

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

There is a great hope on the horizon. I have met many utility workers—young and not so young—who want to make a positive difference. I’m impressed by some of our new instructors who teach from a fresh perspective and have a passion to make a positive difference in the utility field. There are scores of new operator trainees taking courses and sitting for the state exams each year. Our profession is attracting young and talented workers who are themselves idealistic enough to challenge the way things are for the way they could be. The courses these professionals take are taught by some of the best people I have known. I am proud to be even a small part of the FWPCOA family. At the very first meeting I attended as a region director, I was hooked. The room was full of experts in all the disciplines of utility operations. Bill Allman, Lee Craft, Art Saey, Ray Bourdner, Al Montelone, and Rim Bishop were some of the key instructors and leaders of the organization at the time. I was inspired by the way they earned the respect of their students and fellow members. I wanted to be part of that club of instructors; they were like a utility “Rat Pack.” Remember that FWPCOA is dedicated to the training and betterment of all personnel working in the utility field. The leadership and core training team spend hours of their free time writing and fine-tuning courses as volunteers. As I moved through the organization in different roles, I was even more impressed by all of its members. I have enjoyed the time I have spent in each of these endeavors and would highly recommend to anyone out there to get involved, because the rewards of being part of something where the product is so much bigger than the sum of its parts has been a wonderful experience. I am by no means done and will continue to support this organization to the best of my ability. From the bottom of my heart, thanks to all the past, current, and future members of S FWPCOA.

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

F W R J

Replacing Membranes To Save Energy at City Of Vero Beach Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment Facility C. Robert Reiss, Christophe Robert, and Robert J. Bolton

he City of Vero Beach (City) currently owns and operates a 3.3-mil-gal-per-day (mgd) reverse osmosis water treatment facility (ROWTF) that was constructed in the early 1990s using 8.5-in. diameter pressure vessels. The facility currently operates a single 2-mgd reverse osmosis (RO) skid containing 8.5-in. membrane elements that were installed in August 2003. The City contracted with Reiss Engineering Inc. to assist with the replacement of the 10-year-old membranes as recent improvements in membrane technology have resulted in more efficient membranes requiring less pressure for the same rejection performance. However, with the industry now standardized on the 8-in. diameter element, locating manufacturers willing to fabricate lower pressure, 8.5-in. diameter membrane elements was uncertain. This article presents the steps taken to evaluate and select a replacement membrane for the ROWTF and the associated benefits to the City of Vero Beach.

Membrane Availability Seven membrane element manufacturers/ suppliers in the United States were contacted to determine whether 8.5-in. diameter membranes were available. Out of the seven manufacturers/ suppliers, only three indicated that they could

supply the membrane elements: Hydranautics, Trisep, and CSM. In addition to being able to provide 8.5-in. membrane elements, it was necessary to have NSF 61 certification from the National Sanitation Foundation (per 62.555-320(3)(b)1.a. Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), any equipment, chemicals, and materials, such as RO membrane elements that are in contact with drinking water, must be NSF 61-certified). Of the three manufacturers that confirmed the ability to provide the needed elements, most of their membrane elements that would be appropriate for this brackish water application were not yet NSF 61-certified; only a few membranes from Hydranautics are NSF 61-certified, while the majority of the membranes from Hydranautics and the other manufacturers are not (See Table 1 for summary). The representative from Hydranautics stated that the NSF certification could be attained, but would take four to six weeks; the representative of CSM stated that the NSF certification may take three months. In addition, the CSM membranes would not be wet tested prior to shipping, which would lead to testing the membranes after they were installed in the full-scale skid. In the event that the replaced membrane elements do not meet membrane performance requirements, CSM would have to replace the noncompliant membranes.

Table 1. Membrane Availability and NSF 61 Certification

C. Robert Reiss, Ph.D., P.E., is president and client services manager, and Christophe Robert, Ph.D., P.E., is project manager with Reiss Engineering Inc. in Winter Springs. Robert J. Bolton, P.E., is water and sewer administration division director with City of Vero Beach.

Membrane Projections From the three membrane manufacturers/suppliers in the U.S. that have capabilities to provide the membrane elements, several membranes were evaluated through a desktop analysis. Membrane projections utilizing manufacturerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s software were completed to predict the water quality and pressure requirements for each selected membrane model and identified configuration. The projections were based on a 2-mgd skid (36x15 array configuration) using the worst raw water quality, which is total dissolved solids (TDS) of approximately 1,500 mg/L. For the membrane projections, the raw water pH was adjusted to 6.0 standardized units (SU) by the addition of sulfuric acid, as currently practiced at the plant. In addition, the projections were made without applying permeate back pressure on the first stage, as there are no capabilities to do so on the existing skid. Only low-pressure RO membranes that reject enough chloride were selected, since the chloride concentration goal in the permeate was established at 60 mg/L or less (year 0). The results are presented in Table 2. Trisep Membrane Projections Out of the five Trisep membrane configurations that were evaluated, the ACM4 configuration and the hybrid ACM2/ACM4 membrane configuration were viable options to meet the water quality goals with relatively low pressure requirements. The advantage of the hybrid system is that the flux is better balanced between both stages compared to the use of ACM4 membrane in both stages; however, the hybrid sys-

March 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

tem requires approximately 20 more pounds per sq in. (psi) of feed pressure. The ACM2 and SB20 membranes were not further evaluated as these membranes would reject too much hardness and alkalinity and exceed the feed pressures of the ACM2/ACM4 membrane configuration. The ACM5 membrane would meet the water quality goals; however, the flux is significantly unbalanced between stages one and two. In order to balance the production between stage one and two, a piping/valve modification would be required to apply a permeate back pressure of approximately 50 psi in the

first stage of the membrane configuration. Another option to balance the fluxes included installing an energy recovery device (ERD) to lower the feed pressure (eliminate the firststage back pressure) and recover the energy of the concentrate to boost the feed pressure to the second stage. The City is not intending to modify the skid and, therefore, the ACM5 membrane was not recommended. As such, only the ACM4 and hybrid ACM2/ACM4 membrane configurations from Trisep were considered for further evaluation.

CSM Membrane Projections Three membrane configurations from CSM were evaluated, and the hybrid BLR/BLF configuration was the most viable option that met the water quality goals and pressure requirements. The projections evaluating the BLR membranes alone had higher pressure requirements compared to the hybrid system and rejected too much calcium hardness and alkalinity; therefore, they were not evaluated further within this study. The BLF membrane met the water quality goals, but without back pressure in the first stage, the flows Continued on page 28

Table 2. Membrane Projections

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

Continued from page 27 are significantly unbalanced between the two membrane stages. Therefore, the BLF membrane was also not considered for further evaluation. Hydranautics Membrane Projections Three membrane configurations from Hydranautics were evaluated, and similar to the CSM membranes, this hybrid configuration was the most viable option compared to the ESPA1 or ESPA2 configurations. Out of the three options, the hybrid ESPA2/ESPA1 system resulted in a better flux balance. Desktop Summary Based on the computer projections of performance, the following membrane configurations were deemed feasible for further evaluation at bench scale (single-element testing): S Trisep ACM4 S Trisep ACM2/ACM4 S CSM BLR/BLF S Hydranautics ESPA2/ESPA1 For each configuration, the projected feed pressure requirement is within the existing highpressure pump capacity (445 ft TDHâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;192 psi), as the maximum projected feed pressure for the se-

lected membrane configurations would be 165 psi after seven years. In addition, the estimated pressure requirements are for the worst expected raw water quality; therefore, it is anticipated that the feed pressure would be lower under normal operation of the ROWTF when using average water quality. The high-pressure pumps are equipped with variable frequency drives (VFDs), and consequently, the City has the capability to adjust the feed pressure, ultimately reducing electrical consumption upon installation of the new membranes.

Blended Water Quality Projections For the four membrane configurations selected, a desktop blending analysis was performed to evaluate the water quality of the finished water after blending the ROWTF permeate with the lime-softened water treatment facility (LSWTF) filtrate. The following criteria were used: S A blend ratio of 2:1 for RO permeate to LSWTF filtrate. This ratio would be used when the ROWTF is expanded (as part of a separate project). Currently, the ratio of RO permeate to LS filtrate is 1:2. S An estimated 80 percent removal of carbonic acid from the permeate stream through the degasification process (degasification is used to

remove the sulfide in the permeate but will also remove carbonic acid). This removal of carbonic acid resulted in an increase of pH of 0.70.9 SU in the permeate. Table 3 presents the projected blended finished water quality, as well as the existing finished water quality and the finished water quality goals. As expected, the TDS and chloride concentrations in the finished water would be lower than the concentrations currently observed, while the blended alkalinity would be similar. The main difference in the projected versus the current water quality would be the calcium concentration, as it is projected to be significantly lower than the current concentration. As previously evaluated, a recommended option to increase the calcium concentration in the finished water includes decreasing the lime dose at the LSWTF in order to increase the calcium concentration in the LSWTF finished water. It is important to note that these calculations were made at a 2:1 ratio for RO/LS, which would correspond to the ratio that will be used once the ROWTF is expanded. Until expansion of the ROWTF, the finished water quality would be similar to the existing finished water quality. Continued on page 30

Table 3. Projected Finished Water Quality (After Caustic Addition)

March 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

Continued from page 28

Single-Element Testing Based on the desktop evaluation, the four selected membrane configurations for singleelement testing were: S Hydranautics hybrid system ESPA2/ESPA1 S Trisep ACM4 S Trisep hybrid system ACM2/ACM4 S CSM hybrid system BLR/BLF The six membranes were tested in a singleelement unit to confirm the relative pressure requirements and the rejection capabilities. For each

test, the pressure was recorded and permeate samples were collected to analyze specific parameters in order to evaluate the membrane performance. Each membrane was tested at multiple different recoveries, and recoveries from 15 to 85 percent were selected in order to simulate the water quality of the front end and the back end of the full-scale plant, respectively. In each set of conditions, recycling of the concentrate was required to maintain minimum flow across the membrane (Figure 1). The operating conditions for the tests described are presented in Table 4. Samples of the permeate stream were collected for laboratory analysis of membrane water quality. For each test, feed pressure, as well as per-

Figure 1. Single-Element Unit Flow Diagram

Table 4. Bench-Scale Study Operation Settings

Table 5. Bench-Scale Study Results

March 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

meate, feed, and concentrate conductivities, were regularly monitored to determine whether the system reached steady state, which is when the permeate conductivity reading is within 5 percent of the previous conductivity reading. Pressure was also monitored and stayed consistent during the whole specific test. Single-Element Testing Results This section presents the results obtained during the single-element testing and assesses the performance of the membranes in terms of pressure requirement and water quality. As described earlier, the feed pressure and conductivities were monitored for each test until steady state was achieved. The final feed pressure and TDS, calculated based on field conductivity measurements, are presented in Table 5. Note that the feed pressure values are not representative of the expected full-scale pressure since the test was performed on a single element. However, because each membrane was tested under the same operating conditions, the relative differences in pressure and water quality are the basis of membrane selection for bidding. Pressure Requirements For each of the three manufacturers considered for this installation (supplying 8.5-in. membrane elements), a hybrid system was the recommended alternative, with a tighter membrane in the first stage and a looser membrane in the second stage. In addition, Trisep provided a fourth alternative, consisting of ACM4 membrane in both stages. For the four first-stage membranes (ACM4, ESPA2, ACM2, and BLR) two recoveries (15 percent and 65 percent) were tested. The pressure requirements for each membrane at each recovery are presented in Figure 2; the Trisep ACM4 requires 14 to 20 less psi than the other three membranes at 65 percent recovery. For the three stage-two membranes (ACM4, ESPA1, and BLF) two recoveries (65 percent and 85 percent) were tested. The pressure requirements for each membrane at each recovery are presented in Figure 3, which shows that the CSM BLF requires approximately 20 percent less psi than the other two membranes at both recoveries tested. The Hydranautics ESPA1 and the Trisep ACM4 had similar pressure requirements. The stage-one membrane pressure requirement will drive the overall pressure requirement of the system for the selected configurations in this analysis. Therefore, based on the stage-one pressure results, a system using only the ACM4 membranes would require the lowest feed pressure, and the Hydranautics membrane configuration would result in the lowest feed pressure among the three hybrid systems. Continued on page 32

Figure 2. Stage-One Membrane Pressure Requirements

Figure 4. Stage-One Membrane TDS

Figure 6. Stage-One Membrane Chloride

Figure 3. Stage-Two Membrane Pressure Requirements

Figure 5. Stage-Two Membrane TDS

Figure 7. Stage-Two Membrane Chloride Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

Continued from page 30 Based solely on pressure requirements from the single-element unit testing, the membrane configurations are ranked as follows: 1. Trisep ACM4 in both stages one and two 2. Hydranautics ESPA2 in stage one and Hydranautics ESPA1 in stage two 3. Trisep ACM2 in stage one and Trisep ACM4 in stage two 4. CSM BLR in stage one and CSM BLF in stage two Water Quality The water quality of the permeate produced from the tested membranes was evaluated and then compared to the projected water quality from the membrane projections. The permeate TDS for each membrane at each recovery is shown in Figures 4 and 5. As seen in both figures, the stage-one ESPA2 and ACM2 membranes and the stage-two ESPA1 and ACM4 membranes show similar performance in terms of TDS. The CSM BLR/BLF membranes have the lowest TDS rejection. The permeate chloride is shown in Figures 6 and 7. The same observations made for performance in terms of TDS rejection are also valid for chloride rejection. The water quality from each single-element test was compiled to predict the water quality of the full-scale system. The water quality was calculated using a weighted average of the water qual-

ity from both stages. The predicted water quality from the testing was then compared to the projected water quality from the membrane projections. The results are presented in Table 6. From Table 6, the predicted water quality from the projections and the observed water quality from the testing are relatively close, with the exception of chloride for both Trisep membrane configurations. Both Trisep configurations revealed that calculated chloride rejections (calculations based on water quality results from tests at different recoveries) were better than predicted from the software. For the Hydranautics system, the observed water quality from the testing was better than expected from the projections. However, for the CSM system, the opposite was observed: the predicted water quality from the membrane projection was better than the calculated water quality observed during testing. The discrepancy between water quality predicted from the membrane projection and from the actual testing could be explained by the fact that the one membrane tested may not be a representative average of the associated membrane model. Past experience with the CSM membranes showed that calculated water quality had been relatively close to the projections. A recent pilot study using CSM membranes (BLR/BLF hybrid configuration) performed in south Florida is an example where the actual water quality observed was very close to the projections.

Table 6. Predicted Water Quality From Membrane Projections and From Testing

Table 7. Energy and Financial Evaluation for the Existing Train

From the water quality results, the CSM BLR membrane has the lowest salt rejection, and as shown in the previous subsection, has the highest pressure requirement. Therefore, the CSM membrane configuration was not recommended for bidding. Single-element testing results are summarized as follows: S All four membrane configurations tested met the water quality goals. S The Trisep ACM4 membrane configuration requires less pressure than the other membrane configurations. S The CSM BLR/BLF membrane configuration produced the worst water quality at the highest pressure among the four membrane configurations tested. S The hybrid membrane configurations from Trisep (ACM2/ACM4) and Hydranautics (ESPA2/ESPA1) resulted in similar results in terms of water quality and pressure requirements. Based on the pilot study analysis, it was recommended that the City pre-approve the following membrane configurations for bidding on the membrane replacement project: S Trisep • ACM4 in both stages • ACM2 in stage one and ACM4 in stage two S Hydranautics • ESPA 2 in stage one and ESPA1 in stage two Energy and Cost Savings A return on investment for the existing train, when using new membrane elements, was also performed prior to actual bidding. The energy savings were estimated to be approximately $76,600 per year (Table 7) in operating the existing train after replacing the existing membranes. Assuming a cost of $540 per membrane, and therefore, a total of $193,000 to replace the membranes in the existing skid, the payback period for the membrane replacement investment would be approximately 2.5 years. The payback period is significantly sooner than the life expectancy of the membrane elements of seven to 10 years.

Summary The City has bid the membrane replacement project, with bids received from both Hydranautics and Trisep. Based on an analysis of the capital costs and operating costs, Trisep ACM4 membranes were selected. The membrane replacement project was completed in August 2015. The detailed assessment of options for replacing the City’s 8.5-in. elements has assured continued life for the existing RO skid, while providing significant cost savings to the City. S

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

FSAWWA SPEAKING OUT

Unintended Consequences to Water Quality When Changing Water Sources Kim Kunihiro Chair, FSAWWA

he expectation of most drinking water customers is pretty simple: safe, clean, colorless, and great-tasting water every time they turn on their faucet. For water professionals, water quality is quite a bit more complicated. We start with finding an abundant, good-quality source water, whether it’s from groundwater or surface water. Then, we design a treatment facility to remove any detectable contaminants, disinfect it, pump it through clean pipelines, and deliver it to customers’ homes—where they often take it for granted until something goes wrong. Recent events in Flint, Mich., concerning its water quality remind us that things don’t always go as planned. Also, regulations and monitoring don’t solve all treatment problems if the data obtained from this monitoring is not properly analyzed, or other factors, such as financing, come in to play. I am not going to pretend to understand the details behind the lead crisis in Flint, Mich., but a little bit of research into the history of water supply in that city points out the decision making that lead to the crisis. Flint was experiencing significant water shortages in the 1950s in a post-war economy as the city tried to supply sufficient water for both its citizens and the industrial activities for the automobile manufacturing that drove its job creation. The city administration members analyzed alternatives to save water in the factories and extended the conservation lessons learned to their homes. They also made the connection that, by conserving at the factories and at home, they could save on treating wastewater, reduce

waste streams to the rivers, including the Flint River, and reduce pollution. Even after these water-saving efforts were made, public works officials hired consultants to study the issue of water supply and wastewater treatment. They found that, in drought years, they were going to be significantly short on their needed water supply, so they investigated the possibility of a pipeline to Lake Huron and also purchasing water from Detroit. Flint’s expenditures to self-supply would be something between $40 and $100 million over the 40-year projections evaluated, but the estimated cost to purchase treated water from Detroit was less than $10 million over a similar timeframe. Self-supply is often the first choice for a water utility, allowing autonomy for the utility and more control over future costs, and perhaps more assurance for the best water quality by having more control over the operator and maintenance staff. After much political back-and-forth, the decision was made to purchase water from Detroit as the primary water source in the mid-1960s. Fast forward to 2014 when, after factory closings and changes in the economy, Flint made a decision to stop purchasing water from Detroit and to start self-supplying treated water from the Flint River. This decision was apparently made by a state emergency manager. It was to be an interim solution until it could negotiate a new purchased water agreement. Shortly after the new supply went into service, customers noticed. They complained of taste and odor issues and there were many total coliform occurrences that lead to boil-water notices. Confidence in the water supply—and the water supplier—were already low, and then physicians determined that lead was being detected in the bloodstreams of children at much higher levels than normal. The treated water supply from the Flint River appeared to be more corrosive than the Detroit source, and as many any of the service lines in Flint are old and con-

FloridaSection 34

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

tain lead, they began to corrode and release lead into the water. After much national publicity, Flint subsequently changed its water source back to Detroit in October 2015, but it’s not known how long it will take to stabilize the corrosion and get lead levels back to a safe level at the tap. Water professionals know that water chemistry and maintaining water quality is much more complex than just H2O. If Flint, like all community systems in the United States, is subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead and Copper Rule, which was established in 1991 and revised in 2007, how does something like this happen? The rule requires sampling at a frequency of every three years. Perhaps sampling at the minimum frequency is not appropriate for a new source if problems cannot be found before they show up in the customers’ taps. No regulation seems to be perfect and to address every issue. Often, as in the case of this rule, changes are made after the data is analyzed to make the regulation more effective. Major improvements to the rule in 2007 attempted to do a better job in helping utilities determine the best approach to corrosion control treatment, and also to expedite the removal of lead service lines and their replacement with lead-free materials. The EPA has issued guidance documents to assist utilities and encourage them to work with primacy agencies prior to source water changes. Because of the issue in Flint, regulatory changes are sure to come to enhance the rule. In a cash-strapped utility, lead service line replacement is not viable without funding assistance. This is a reality for many water providers that need to prioritize funding and be able to take appropriate actions to always provide safe water to consumers. Further consequences of the events in Flint have been the national-level fallout. President Obama declared a state of emergency and EPA

published a memo to all of its regions on more effective corrosion control to respond to a crisis like the one in Flint. The Flint dilemma was the subject of contentious hearings in Congress before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In February, the issue affected passage of a comprehensive energy bill when a senator in Michigan vowed to hold up the bill unless Flint gets the financial aid it has requested to solve its water problems. The funding mechanism is under debate, including the possibility of using state revolving loan funds, or perhaps funds from the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. This act, however, was designed to provide funding for long-term infrastructure replacement projects, not for disaster relief and grants. The Flint situation underscores something that all water professionals should pay attention to. Our first job is to protect the communities we serve; when we consider funding, our customers and our water quality should be the top priority. As water providers, we should not take anything for granted. The financial decision makers should be well informed about water quality, water sources, and the costs for proper treatment and infrastructure replacement before they make changes and prioritize funding. We can educate each other, our boards, policy decision makers, and our customers that water quality takes more than pumping H2O. You can find out so much more about lead in drinking water from AWWA at www.awwa.org. The association has established a lead resource community link on the website to provide insight and guidance on corrosion control and lead management. Guidance is also available to help utilities discuss water quality issues and lead with consumers at DrinkTap.org. You can also keep up with what the best of the best in drinking water treatment are doing in Florida. Participate in the upcoming regional drinking water tastes tests that are happening throughout FSAWWA regions in March: S Region II: Tuesday, March 8, 11:30 a.m.2 p.m., JEA Conservation Center, Jacksonville S Region IV: March 11, 11 a.m.-1:30 p.m., Weeki Wachee Springs State Park S Region XI: March 17, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m., City of Newberry Municipal Building S Region X: March 18, 10 a.m.-12 p.m., Peace River Water Treatment Facility, Arcadia These regional events will culminate in the statewide Best Drinking Water Competition to be held at the Florida Water Resources Conference on Tuesday, April 26, at the Gaylord Palms Resort and Convention Center in Kissimmee.S Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

Dept. of Interior Creates Natural Resource Investment Center to Increase Water Funding U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell has announced that the department will establish a Natural Resource Investment Center to spur partnerships with the private sector to develop creative financing opportunities that support economic development goals, while advancing the department’s resource stewardship mission. At a White House Roundtable on Water Innovation, Jewell stated that the Center will use market-based tools and innovative public–private collaborations to increase investment in water conservation and critical water infrastructure, as well as promote investments that conserve important habitats in a manner that advances efficient permitting and meaningful landscape-level conservation. “Given increased development pressures, climate impacts, and constrained budgets, the Interior is pursuing innovative approaches with private-sector organizations to help accomplish our balanced land management and conservation mission,” Secretary Jewell said. “As a former chief executive officer, I am confident the private sector can play a meaningful role in working with us to advance the goals of smart development alongside thoughtful conservation.” The Center will work closely with the private sector and others to identify innovative ideas and financing options for projects that conserve scarce water resources and protect species habitat. The Center will focus on three objectives: 1. Increase investment in water conservation and build up water supply resilience by facil-

itating water exchanges or transfers in the United States. 2. Increase investment in critical water infrastructure–both major rehabilitation and replacement of existing infrastructure and new infrastructure needs–by developing new financing approaches and helping to execute project ideas. 3. Foster private investment and support wellstructured markets that advance efficient permitting and effective landscape-level conservation for species, habitat, and other natural resources. The Center is part of President Obama’s Build America Investment Initiative, which calls on federal agencies to find new ways to increase investment in ports, roads, water and sewer systems, bridges, broadband networks, and other 21st-century infrastructure projects, and Pay for Success, an initiative that seeks to employ innovative new strategies to help ensure that the essential services of government produce their intended outcomes. The infrastructure improvements are facilitated by building partnerships among federal, state, local, and tribal governments and private-sector investors. The U.S. Departments of Transportation and Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency have also created centers in response to these initiatives. The Center will harness the expertise of the department’s bureaus, including the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bu-

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

reau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and United States Geological Survey, and will tap external privatesector experience to deliver on its objectives. The Center will model its water efficiency and transfer efforts in part on the successful initiatives of the Central Valley Project (CVP) in California. The CVP improves operational flexibility and water supply reliability through expanded use of voluntary water transfers. Individuals or water districts receiving CVP water can transfer all or a portion of their water to other California water users or a water agency, state or federal agency, tribes, or private nonprofit organizations. Through this program, between 300,000 and 400,000 acre-ft of water is transferred in a typical year, allowing high-value agriculture and cities to maintain deliveries through scarcity. To promote increased investment in critical water infrastructure, the Center will also work to develop new financing approaches and engage with nonfederal partners to make investments that build water supply resilience. These could include storage, pipelines, canals, and investments in efficiency that help to stretch and better manage scarce water supplies and sustain river ecosystems. One recent example of this approach is the Warren H. Brock Reservoir in California. To respond more effectively to the changing conditions on the river, Reclamation and stakeholders in Nevada, Arizona, and California collaboratively constructed this storage facility to conserve water and maximize the use of available water supplies. The Bureau of Reclamation conducted environmental compliance, oversaw construction, and integrated the project into its operations in the Lower Colorado River system, and the project was completed in roughly two years. The Center will also identify opportunities for private-sector investments in important habitat conservation needs on public and private lands. One creative example is demonstrated in a partnership among Interior, Barrick Gold of North America, and The Nature Conservancy to enhance habitat in Nevada for the greater sage grouse. The agreement allowed Barrick to accumulate credits for successful habitat improvement projects on its private ranchlands. In return, the company receives assurance from the Interior that the credits can be used to offset impact to habitat from planned future mine expansion on public lands. The Department of the Interior manages approximately 20 percent of the land in the United States, and is the largest wholesale water provider in the country. The Department is establishing the Center under its existing authorities.

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY

Chlorine Update 2016 Doug Prentiss Sr.

ost of you using elemental chlorine in your disinfection process have probably already been notified by your supplier of some of the new safety improvements for ton containers and cylinders. The new emergency response kits are a significant improvement over previous ones, and if your staff is doing emergency response, the cost of the kits are not as much as a couple of air packs. What prompted this written update was not the new kits; it was actually a preview of a brand new training DVD from the Chlorine Institute. As a member of the national Water Environment Federation Safety Committee, I was invited to preview a beta version of the video and make comments. After getting a chance to look at the information, I was very pleased by what was presented. All workers who handle, store, or process elemental chlorine should know the information contained in this training package. Working with chlorine safely is based on a solid understanding of the chemical, and this training shows that. Clear visuals and excellent graphics provide operators and maintenance personnel with the keys to working safely in and around chlorine containers, cylinders, and process equipment. I don’t have a release date of the video and changes may still be made during this beta-test process, but the foundation of the information is

on target and will enable workers to understand potential hazards and prevent unwanted occurrences. Check the Institute’s website at www.chlorineinstitute.org for the latest training information. Also available from the Institute is an updated version of the video, “Handling Sodium Hypochlorite Safely,” which has revised information for workers using sodium hypochlorite. For those of you who are technical trainers, there is an Institute-sponsored CHLOREP® team training, scheduled for April 25-29 at the Mississippi State Fire Academy in Pearl, Miss. Again, check the website for details.

New hood device installed on a ton simulator. The new 28C bar assembly also secures the fuse plug hood with no pressure on fuse plug threads.

New hood device installed on 150-lb cylinder. The bolts attached to the hood allow for an even tightening of the hood and gasket, effectively stopping any leaks around the valve.

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

So many new training materials are becoming available; the new emergency response kits really are better, and vendors are doing more quality control than ever. All of these are good things for those of you using elemental chlorine. Another positive step is the move to dry scrubbers for process systems using elemental chlorine. For many years, sodium hydroxide scrubbers were the normal go-to devices to capture chlorine releases. The problem was the hydroxide itself posed a hazard to workers and really only provided a positive factor in protection of the public. For workers, it’s a hazard and has to be changed, tested, and maintained. Personally, as a safety person, I have seen many more injuries from exposure to hydroxide than to elemental chlorine, so the move to get rid of hydroxide and move to a pellet-based material instead of sodium hydroxide is a win for workers and the public. Ultimately, a system that is not dangerous to maintain is going to function better over of a long period of time. Generally, the public is better protected by systems that can be maintained at a high level of preparedness, and dry scrubbers allow for that without posing serious hazards to the maintenance workers. I used to only see the dry scrubbers at power plants, but the prices have come down, and more importantly, the technology has been accepted by environmental regulators. Dry scrubbers benefit everyone, with fewer hazards to anyone handling the materials. While not new, the last item on my hit parade of important chlorine safety equipment is the cylinder recovery vessel designed for chlorine cylinders. This recovery vessel has been around for

Cylinder recovery vessel

years and can stop any leak anywhere on a cylinder. That’s a pretty bold statement, but it’s a fact. When a leaking 150-lb cylinder is slid into the recovery vessel and the door is properly closed and secured using the proper gasket, the vessel will contain any leak within the recovery vessel. It also has an exterior feed device on the dome of the vessel so the gas can be bled off into an appropriate system and safely handled. The problem with the vessel is the weight to move it around and the location or placement of the unit or units until needed. For fire personnel, just making room on a truck for anything new is a real discussion, so the addition of a coffin to a response truck may not be the slam dunk we might expect. I know of one progressive utility that bought two; it gave one to the fire department and kept one for its water wells that was used on a route truck, along with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and suits. If you’re using 150-lb cylinders and allowing the oldest style welded foot ring cylinders to be delivered to your sites, having a cylinder emergency recovery vessel only makes sense. There is nothing in the new or old Emergency Kit “A” that will stop a leak at the weld of a foot ring. The

emergency recovery vessel is the only thing that will stop a leak at the foot ring or anywhere on the bottom of the cylinder. The bump bottom cylinders are the best, and even the machine welded ring is much better than the welded foot ring. It is only the efforts of the suppliers to inspect and hydrostatically test the cylinders that prevent the leaks from happening more often at the bottom. The hydrostatic testing done once every five years actually tests the cylinders at higher pressures than the ton containers, but a lot can happen during five years, so suppliers inspect cylinders before each shipment—and so should you. The recovery vessel also works on liquid leaks and is a wonderful tool. Like everything else, its gaskets must be renewed, its bolts and hinges kept clean, and it needs to be decontaminated after each use. The Chlorine Institute has many publications and pamphlets, some of which are designed specifically for water and wastewater operators, and I encourage those of you using elemental chlorine to take advantage of the Institute’s many years of good stewardship and experience by providing workers who handle this product with the

latest industry standards and equipment. This May, Destin Water Users Inc. is hosting the only three-day chlorine class I have planned at this point in our state. If you have someone who could benefit from such a class, get in touch with me at dougprentiss@windstream.net or Judd Moose, chair of the FWEA Safety Committee, at jmooso@dwuinc.com; we are always happy to have other trainers or responders participate in this technical training. So yes, I have really hit the brakes and slowed down the pace of my training, but I still maintain my contacts and interest in chlorine training. I am fortunate that I still have the physical skills and abilities to do the things I enjoy. While family is first now, those of you who I have worked so closely over the years and developed friendships with know I will still be there for you. My life now is like the joke of the old bull and the young bull standing on the top of a hill looking down into a meadow below them. I am like the old bull; I take my time now and enjoy each step of my journey, anticipating my arrival. Doug Prentiss Sr. is an FWEA Safety Committee member. (photos: Doug Prentiss Sr.)

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2016

Certification Boulevard

Test Your Knowledge of Wastewater Disposal 5. Which chemical is more commonly used to dechlorinate effluent following disinfection with chlorine? a. Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) b. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCI) c. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) d. Ferric chloride (FeCL3)

Roy Pelletier 1. What typically happens to the chlorine demand of reclaimed water when the nitrite (NO2) concentration is elevated? a. The chlorine demand doubles for each pound of nitrite oxidized. b. The chlorine demand is cut in half for each pound of nitrite oxidized. c. The chlorine demand is unaffected by nitrite concentrations. d. The chlorine demand is multiplied by more than five for each pound of nitrite oxidized. 2. Which chemical is typically not used to adjust effluent pH (between 6.0 to 8.5) before being discharged to a surface water outfall? a. Lime b. Alum c. Sodium hydroxide d. Caustic soda

6. Given the following data, what is the equivalent percent total solids? • 10 ml of sample • Tare weight of filter paper is 1.8873 grams • Final weight of filter paper after drying is 2.2255 grams a. 2.2 percent c. 3.4 percent

7. What is the final effluent total suspended solids (TSS) value if the plant influent TSS is 225 mg/L, and the TSS percent removal is 98.9 percent? a. 7.6 mg/L c. 6.7 mg/L

b. 164 hours d. 3.90 hours

4. What typically happens to the oxidation reduction potential (ORP) value of reclaimed water when the ammonia concentration drops from 4 mg/L to 0.5 mg/L? a. The ORP value increases. b. The ORP value decreases. c. The ORP value is fairly unaffected by the ammonia level. d. Ammonia at any level will cause a typical ORP probe to fail.

b. 2.5 mg/L d. 1.1 mg/L

8. Which formula is used to calculate the circumference of a circular tank?

3. What is the detention time of a reclaimed water storage tank if the tank volume is 2.5 mil gal (MG) and the flow entering the tank is 9.75 mil gal per day (mgd)? a. 6.15 hours c. 1.23 hours

b. 1.3 percent d. 4.3 percent

a. πr2 c. 0.785 d2

b. πd2 d. πd

9. Given the following data, what is the pressure equivalent expressed in bar delivered by this effluent pump? • Pump discharges 1,500 gal per minute (gpm) • Total dynamic head (TDH) of 155 ft a. 4.56 bar c. 14.7 bar

b. 67.11 bar d. 2.88 bar

10. What is the volume of reclaimed water in 38 in. of a storage tank with a diameter of 100 ft? a. 58,718 gal c. 20,588 gal

b. 185,960 gal d. 238,545 gal

Answers on page 62

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

LO OKIN G F OR ANSW E RS?

Check the Archives

Are you new to the water and wastewater field? Want to boost your knowledge about topics you’ll face each day as a water/wastewater professional?

All past editions of Certification Boulevard through 2000 are available on the Florida Water Environment Association’s website at www.fwea.org. Click the “Site Map” button on the home page, then scroll down to the Certification Boulevard Archives, located below the Operations Research Committee.

SE ND US YOUR QU EST I ONS Readers are welcome to submit questions or exercises on water or wastewater treatment plant operations for publication in Certification Boulevard. Send your question (with the answer) or your exercise (with the solution) by email to: roy.pelletier@cityoforlando.net, or by mail to: Roy Pelletier Wastewater Project Consultant City of Orlando Public Works Department Environmental Services Wastewater Division 5100 L.B. McLeod Road Orlando, FL 32811 407-716-2971

F W R J

Water Transmission and Energy/Storage Optimization Study Kimberly Machlus

he Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) authorized Atkins Global to update and calibrate the Innovyze InfoWater hydraulic model of its water transmission system (WTS), which was previously done by Atkins (formerly PBS&J) in 2009. As part of this effort, an extensive amount of WTS background data were collected and compiled, including water meter records and connections to a transmission system consisting of pressure-reducing valve stations (TAP), spatial disaggregation of service area water demands, booster and distribution system pump station historical log charts, booster and distribution system pump station supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), and a pump station energy cost summary. An updated hydraulic model was developed exclusively for the FKAA WTS, including parallel sections of transmission mains from Florida City to Key West, five major booster pump stations (BPS), and all TAPs located along the transmission system. The model was originally created in steady state; the updated model was enhanced by making TAP water demand assumptions to develop an extended period simulation of 24 hours along the WTS. A discussion of how varying diurnal demands were applied to different kinds of TAPs is presented. The local water distribution systems, including storage tanks and small booster pumps, were not modeled as part of the WTS and are simulated by the TAP demands. The updated FKAA WTS model was initially calibrated utiliz-

ing two sets of data: a period from February 2-4, 2011, was considered an average-day supply-anddemand scenario; and during Memorial Weekend in May 2011, a condition reflecting some of the highest water demands recorded over the past several years was considered a maximum-day scenario. Additional calibrations of the scenarios were performed to refine and update a few facilities based on November 2012 SCADA information provided by FKAA. The calibrated hydraulic model was then used to evaluate optimal energy operating procedures and location of additional WTS emergency storage.

Summary of Water Transmission System Model Update and Calibration The hydraulic model has been recalibrated and updated to represent the current water system operation and demand conditions based on recent water meter TAP data, SCADA, and log sheets supplied by FKAA. Water Demands Two consecutive years (2010-2011) of TAP data, supplied per water meter, were used to update the WTS to current demands. The TAP water demands for the model have been updated to reflect the current lower average-day demands, as well as a lower peaking factor on the system. As a comparison, the 2005 annual average TAP demands included in the previous hydraulic

Table 1. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Water Transmission System Annual Average Water Demand

Kimberly Machlus is a project manager with Atkins Global in Orlando.

model totaled 16.69 mil gal per day (mgd). The recent two-year TAP data resulted in an annual average demand of 15.05 mgd, which resulted in an annual average demand decrease of approximately 11 percent. This decrease is likely due to current economic conditions directly affecting population decreases and reduced water consumption per capita. In addition, FKAAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water loss along the WTS was evaluated and applied appropriately to the model to account for the total production at the Florida City Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and WTS pressure losses. The WTS is segmented into five areas that extend from Key West to Florida City (Areas I-V). The TAP data also include demands for the United States Navy and the recent system privatization and modifications made by FKAA. Table 1 summarizes the historical rolling annual average demand quantities for the years 2010 and 2011. During this timeframe, it is estimated that the WTS experienced a total loss of approximately 10 percent, based on the difference between the average supply recorded at WTP and the average TAP demands. The water loss is over approximately 125 mi, resulting in an average water loss of an estimated 12,000 gal per day (gpd) per mi. The WTP distributed an average daily flow (ADF) of 17.1 mgd and a maximum daily flow (MDF) of 20.2 mgd, under recent demand conditions. There is also a reported additional water loss of approximately 10 percent in the local water distribution system downstream of the TAPs, which FKAA continues to work on reducing through review of meter accounting, meter testing, water audit programs, and other maintenance activities. In 2011 and 2012, FKAA identified and repaired a WTS leak reportedly contributing to a major portion of the WTS loss on North Roosevelt. Diurnal Demand Patterns The WTS model consists of two different types of connections that must be modeled appropriately (at input nodes) to simulate the

March 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

varying water demands at the TAPs: 1) tank demands that are TAP connections that only directly fill a distribution system tank, and 2) TAP demands that are direct feeds into the distribution system served by either a tank or no tank. Approximately 45 percent of the demand on the WTS consists of tank demand nodes, which directly supply a local distribution system generally consisting of a tank and a small booster pump station. These TAPs have a more constant demand due to a more controlled filling rate of a distribution tank and do not follow a typical daily demand pattern as the nontank-supplied demands along the WTS. Therefore, the tank TAPs were assigned a unique diurnal pattern, including a nighttime period where the tanks are full. To develop this diurnal pattern for the tank demand during an extended period simulation, SCADA was provided for two distribution areas served by tanks where tank-level data were recorded over 24 hours during assumed average-day demands. It was apparent from the SCADA that, from midnight to 6:00 a.m., the distribution tanks were full and the small pump stations were off. The low nighttime demand was being supplied by the smaller TAPs in the service area. Figure 1 illustrates the tank diurnal demand curve assumed for the WTS model. The nontanksupplied TAPs were reviewed by the service area to understand their contributions in the water distribution system. For the most part, these TAPS are smaller meter connections that either feed isolated areas or supplement the area when the pump stations are off at night or meet a local peak demand. Since some are controlled by pressure, it makes it difficult to accurately simulate unless the local distribution system is fully added to the model. A diurnal pattern for direct demand nodes was estimated based on slightly adjusting the average demand above during the day (to model higher demands) and below average for nighttime, also shown in Figure 1. The FKAA currently does not have remote flow metering of the TAPs and therefore cannot currently provide hourly demand patterns for each of the TAPs. Future installation of automated meter readers (AMRs) at the TAPs would provide valuable hourly flow data off the WTS and help in further managing and optimizing pumping operations. Water System Since the hydraulic model was created in 2009, the Key Largo pump station has been the major addition to the WTS, although the pump station is not currently in use due to a decrease in projected maximum-day system water demands. This pump station includes two 700 horsepower (Hp) pumps, with a pumping ca-

Figure 1. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Water Transmission System Tank and Demand Node Diurnal Flow Patterns

Table 2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Water Transmission System Booster Pump Station Operations

pacity of 16,660 gpm (24 mgd) and 291 total dynamic ft of head. Additionally, the Marathon pump station has been upgraded to feature two new double suction pumps rated at 5,500 gpm (7.9 mgd) and 280 total dynamic ft of head. The new pump curves have been imported into the current model to reflect current-day operation. The FKAA has replaced approximately five mi of the 36-in. pipeline between MM 93 and MM 98 with a similar size pipeline. Previously, this pipeline constrained operations of the WTS by limiting the discharge pressure at the WTP. Several short sections of the parallel 18-in. pipeline have been permanently abandoned. As mentioned previously, two sets of log sheets were supplied by FKAA: one set was logged data from three days in February 2011, which was used as an example of average day booster pump station operation and controls; and the second set of log sheets supplied was from three days in May 2011, which was an example of maximumday booster pump station operations and controls. The log sheets were used to understand the varying suction and discharge pressure for a 24hour period for each booster pump station during each demand scenario. Table 2 summarizes a daily average of the booster pump station opera-

tion, based on system controls as provided on the log sheets. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition The FKAA has implemented a detailed SCADA system for managing pump operations for the entire WTS and continues to expand and make refinements to further reduce energy costs. The SCADA system records numerous pieces of data and information at the booster pump stations, including electrical use, flow rates, efficiencies, pressures, motor speeds, etc. The FKAA has developed the programming to estimate hourly and daily energy costs to assist the WTS operators in decision making. In the future, it will be valuable data for FKAA to implement SCADA at the major TAPs supplying tanks to even better understand WTS operations. A few distribution tanks have been connected to the SCADA system. The SCADA was supplied by FKAA for a seven-day period for each WTS booster pump station to incorporate into the hydraulic model for the purposes of hydraulic and energy calibration. The following discusses the SCADA that was used to assist in calibrating the pump stations in the model. Continued on page 44

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

Continued from page 43

was simulated utilizing the energy module during an extended period of 24 hours for the pump operations calibrated in previous steps. The model predicted an annual average booster pump station energy cost of $1.73 million. The Florida City and Marathon pump stations did not include a full year of data; for these pump stations, the total average data for the missing months was averaged from previous months. The model predicted slightly lower cost, which may be due to the missing monthly energy data for the Florida City and Marathon pump stations. A summary of estimated annual energy costs for the three major booster pump stations under average annual demands is as follows: S Florida City pump station : $1.18 million S Long Key pump station: $280,000 S Marathon pump station: $300,000

Utilities

ergy Services. The new calibrated energy model was therefore used to predict power consumption on the WTS under various pumping and demand scenarios. The FKAA provided electric utility bills for the WTS booster pump stations; the estimated utility and rates are provided in Table 4. The actual utility rate schedules are fairly complex and include variable and fixed charges; for the purposes of this study, average kilowatt-hour (kWh) costs were estimated for each utility based on the historical data. The FKAA operations staff continues to review and work with each utility to better understand pricing structure to ensure that the system is performing at the most optimum system cost. The largest kWh cost is billed by Key Energy Services, which supplies the Ramrod pump station, but it is not usually operated under average demand conditions, similar to the Key Largo pump station. Based on limited billing data for the Key Largo pump station, the average kWh cost is high due to the infrequency of operation. In the months that the pump station is run consistently, an average $0.13/kWh was estimated; the months that the pump station is run in peak events, a cost of $0.33/kWh was estimated. This high kWh charge is assumed to be due to running the booster pump station during electric utility peak-hour demand charges.

There are three utilities that currently provide the WTS electricity to power the booster pump stations: the WTP is served by Florida Power and Light (FP&L) and the areas along the Keys served by Florida Keys Coop and Key En-

Annual Costs Based on the energy cost data provided and reviewed, the annual booster pump station costs are approximately $1.74 million for the WTS. The average-day scenario in the hydraulic model

Current Conditions The FKAA WTS is generally designed to operate and convey maximum daily demand (MDD) flows. Local storage and distribution pumping can be used to meet peak-hour demands for a majority of the connections off the WTS; however, there are direct service connections and TAPs served by the WTS, with no booster pumping or storage that must be supplied with adequate pressure during MDD and peakhour demands. These customers may dictate the minimum operating pressure of the WTS. Based on the log sheets and discussions with FKAA staff, the current operating conditions are as follows: S WTS: Maximum 240 pounds per sq in. (psi) and minimum 70 psi (minimum 45-50 psi in Key West only) S BPS: Maximum discharge 240 psi and minimum suction 50-70 psi S WTS pipeline during MDD: Desired headloss =1 ft to 2.5 ft per 1000 ft; desired velocities = between 2-5 ft per second (fps)

Calibration As previously mentioned, the log sheets noting hourly system pressures, metering facilities, and pump operations were used to assist in calibrating the model for a three-day period in February 2011 and May 2011. The hydraulic model calibration consisted of an evaluation of the pump station operations, storage tank filling rates at tank TAPs, and diurnal demands at other TAPs (junctions). Continuity checks were performed at junctions to ensure that continuity of flow was maintained. Pump station operations were compared to SCADA for seven days in November 2012 supplied by FKAA to verify and calibrate the hydraulic model. As part of this planning effort, an energy analysis was conducted for the major water booster pump stations to estimate annual energy costs and compare them to actual costs. The energy module feature of the hydraulic model was utilized to calibrate the FKAA WTS hydraulic model to power consumption, based on the available power schedules and historical usage data. Table 3 shows a daily average of flows through each of the booster pump stations and average pressures following SCADA calibration.

Table 3. Average Booster Pump Station Flow and Pressure

Table 4. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Electric Utilities

The Key Largo and Ramrod pump stations were assumed off during average demands for cost-estimating purposes. A more detailed monthly analysis could be performed that considers the few times these facilities operate; however, for this planning effort, the primary focus was evaluating the Key Largo pump station and its future operations.

Model Simulations and Optimization Analysis

During the timeframe reviewed, the WTP distributed an average daily flow (ADF) of 17.1 mgd and a maximum daily flow (MDF) of 20.2 mgd, including unaccounted-for water. Table 5 summarizes the typical booster pump station op-

March 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

eration during ADF and MDF conditions. Currently, FKAA does not operate the Key Largo or Ramrod pump stations during ADF or MDF conditions. The new Key Largo pump station was constructed in anticipation of an increased MDF of approximately 24 to 25 mgd, which made it necessary to construct an intermediate pump station between WTP and the Long Key pump station due to predicted lower suction pressures. At the time, the FKAA service area was experiencing steady increases in water demands associated with increased permanent and transient populations. This trend has reversed in the past five years, due in part to a downturn in the economy and successful water conservation programs, and thus, FKAA continues to see reduced water use on the WTS system, including its recent fixes to reduce water loss. As a result, with the reduced water usage on the WTS and resulting increase in WTS pressures, FKAA is now challenged to maintain and operate the Key Largo pump station that is not currently needed to meet average or maximum day demands. This station, with an estimated $7 million capital investment, potentially could become a stranded capital asset, until maximum-day demands rebound or significantly increase. As a comparison, existing maximum-day demands are only about 20-21 mgd, where about 23 mgd would warrant the use of the station. However, population forecasts still indicate that, at some time in the future, it is anticipated that maximum-day demands would increase to require the use of the station in the WTS. One of the challenges for FKAA is to maintain the Key Largo pump station in a standby mode so the facility could be called upon at any time and also ensure future reliable operations when critical maximum-day demands are reached and require the pumping capacity. One option for FKAA is that the WTS system could be re-operated by modifying the high-service pump station with a lower head (at the WTP) and bring the Key Largo pump station on-line today. This opportunity is presented in the next section.

Table 5. Average and Maximum Day Pump Station Operation

Figure 2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Water Transmission System Hydraulic Profile

Table 6. Florida City and Key Largo Pump Station Lower Head Operation

Florida City Water Treatment Plant and Key Largo Pump Station Re-Operation Scenario The re-operation scenario consists of lowering the supply pressure at the WTPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s high-service pump station, which will lower the WTS operating pressure and then use the Key Largo pump station to increase the WTS pressures back to pressures currently experienced on the WTS between the Key Largo and Long Key pump stations. The benefit of re-operation includes maintaining the Key Largo pump station in a normal operaContinued on page 46 Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

Continued from page 45 tional basis and reducing a high-pressure operation between WTP and the Key Largo pump station, thereby potentially reducing risks for pipeline failures and water loss. Furthermore, the opportunity exists to reduce energy costs as well. Two energy scenarios were simulated utilizing the hydraulic model and energy module during an extended period of 24 hours. The first scenario includes the “base case,” reflecting current WTS average-day pumping operations; the second scenario evaluates re-operations and lowering pressures at WTP high-service pump stations and operating the Key Largo pump station.

The re-operation of the Key Largo pump station would involve lowering the discharge pressure approximately 60 psi. This could potentially be accomplished by removing pump stages to the desired head; however, this would result in a lowering of the design flow rate. Under re-operations, the Key Largo pump station would then be used to provide the required suction pressure at the Long Key pump station; the WTS operations would remain the same downstream of the Long Key pump station. Figure 2 illustrates the hydraulic grade line for each of these scenarios. Table 6 presents the operating pressures for each pump station during both scenarios, with

Table 7. Florida City and Key Largo Pump Station Energy Analysis

Figure 3. Florida City and Key Largo Pump Stations Energy Cost Evaluation

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

the Key Largo pump station on and the base case when Key Largo pump station is not in operation. The model predicts an average daily power consumption based on the current time-of-use schedules from the utility companies. Table 7 presents a comparison of operating the Key Largo pump station (Scenario 2) to current base-case operations (Scenario 1). The annual additional cost associated with operating the Key Largo pump station was estimated to be $71,175. Based on an average annual demand scenario and energy cost assumptions, there appears to be some savings of not operating the Key Largo pump station. In addition, this cost comparison assumes that the highservice pump station could be modified and re-operated. The analysis does not consider the annualized cost to fund pump modifications and upgrades at the high-service pump station. The FKAA has budgeted and is proceeding with high-service pump-station upgrades (with similar pumping units) due to the age and reduced efficiencies of several pumping units. Once this project is completed, FKAA may see some savings associated with these improvements. A more detailed financial analysis and life cycle cost analysis would need to be performed between the two options prior to making a final decision. The extent and acceptance of lowering pressures at the high-service pump station would need to be further detailed, including capital cost estimates. Based on a preliminary assessment, it is apparent that the FKAA’s ability to obtain lower electrical rates from FP&L (30 to 40 percent lower) favors continued use of the high-service pump station under the higher head conditions. However, should FKAA have an opportunity to obtain lower rates from Florida Keys Corp., Scenario 2 may become more feasible. A sensitivity analysis was conducted comparing the energy costs of the Florida City and Key Largo pump stations under Scenarios 1 and 2, as shown in Figure 3. The primary goal was to determine the “break even” electrical rate at the Key Largo pump station to make Scenario 2 comparable from an energy cost standpoint. Referring to Figure 3, Scenario 1 is shown in orange and represents the base-case costs, with varying electrical rates from $0.065 to $0.11 (x-axis). The y-axis shows the total energy costs at Florida City (high-service pump station), with the Key Largo pump station off. As long as unit rates remain low from FP&L ($0.60 to $0.70), total pumping costs are around $1 million or less. The purple, blue, and green lines represent unit electrical cost variations from FP&L on Scenario 2 (lower pressure at the high-service pump station), with variable unit costs from Florida Keys Corp. For example, the blue line assumes FP&L provides $0.08 unit cost for a low-head high-service pump service operation.

Following the blue line along the x-axis, the impact of varying unit costs for the Key Largo pump station operations is shown. At $0.11 costs, the total costs would be about $1.15 million (yaxis), much greater than the base case. If the Key Largo pump station could be reduced to about $0.10 in this option, the energy costs would be similar for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. One conclusion from this analysis is the sensitivity of varying electrical rates on both high-service and Key Largo pump stations. Referring to the orange line in Figure 3, once unit costs exceed about $0.09 at a high-service pump station, even at $0.11, the Key Largo pump station becomes favorable to operate under Scenario 2 assumptions. However, given the recent consistent lower electrical rates for high-service pump stations, it is apparent that the annual cost benefit for FKAA is to continue with current operations. A significantly lower rate would be needed at the Key Largo pump station of about $0.08 to make Scenario 2 a viable option. Emergency Storage Analysis The emergency back pump operation consists of the Stock Island back pump station, with its 20-mil-gal (MG) storage facilities (Stock Island and Desal tanks), although a 5-MG tank is currently out of service, and the Marathon Booster pump station, with its 3-MG storage tank. These facilities provide FKAA with the ability to back-pump into the transmission main in the event of an emergency along the transmission route from pipeline rupture or other failure. The FKAA uses the Stock Island back pump station, the Marathon Booster pump station, the storage tank, and the emergency reverse osmosis (RO) treatment plants at Stock Island and Marathon, if necessary, to back-pump water up the Keys toward the WTP, while maintaining pressures until an emergency scenario is resolved. The Stock Island back pump station includes one diesel horizontal split-case pump, rated at 2,450 gpm (3.50 mgd) with 170 ft of total dynamic head. The back pump station has in the past been able to pump all the way to WTP and provides nearly 25 percent on an average-day demand. As part of the emergency storage analysis, the WTS water demands were assumed to be 30 percent of average-day demands, which represents a likely condition under extreme water conservation requirements. Based on a back pump model simulation, the storage tanks can supply approximately 5.58 days of 30 percent averageday demands in current conditions. In order to evaluate WTS storage needs for emergency operations, a preliminary storage evaluation was performed, considering both WTP storage needs and the location of storage by service area. Currently, most of the FKAA-

Table 8. Water Transmission System Emergency Storage Analysis

treated water storage is at the Florida City WTP or at the end of the WTS. Depending on the location and the extent of the emergency, there may be benefits to locating more storage in the middle of the WTS. An assumed storage goal of one average day of storage was assumed for WTP operations and the WTS system, respectively. Table 8 summarizes a possible storage scenario by service area that highlights the benefits of additional storage in the middle portion of the WTS, such as at the Marathon pump station. For this analysis, the distribution tanks were included in the evaluation, since this storage would likely be used in an emergency. Several scenarios were evaluated for backpump operation to assess the benefits of additional storage along the WTS by service area: S The first scenario included an additional 3 MG of storage at the Marathon pump station, with storage totaling 6 MG at this location. The model simulation concluded an approximate water supply during 30 percent ADD of 5.63 days. S The second scenario included an additional 5 MG of storage at Stock Island, with storage totaling 25 MG at this location. The model simulation concluded an approximate water supply of 7.04 days. S A third scenario included 5 MG of new storage assumed at the Key Largo pump station.

The model simulation concluded an approximate water supply of 9.8 days. Referring to Table 8, Areas IV and V have the largest storage deficiency, which would suggest having new storage at either the Marathon or Key Largo pump station sites; however, the existing status of the Key Largo pump station would play into the decision to locate storage at that site. It has also been reported that the existing 3-MG Marathon tank is to be in need of rehabilitation; one option for FKAA would be to replace the existing 3-MG tank with a larger tank on the site. Water Quality A water-age scenario was simulated with the WTS model during average-day demands for an extended-period simulation of 10 days. Initially, all water in the WTS is zero days old, and the simulation must be carried out until water has traveled to the farthest point in the WTS system and the storage tanks have reached equilibrium. Once equilibrium, with respect to water age, has been reached, a daily pattern is established, and carrying the simulation out for additional days will not increase the age of water. Although no regulatory requirements exist for water age, general industry guidelines indicate that it should not exceed five days in the system to maintain good water qualContinued on page 48

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

Continued from page 47 ity. The maximum water age in the WTS was 110 hours, or approximately 4.58 days at the end of the system in Key West. This analysis does not include the age of water in the distribution system. Given the length of the FKAA WTS and travel time, the age of the water is well within the general industry criteria for the WTS. The Key West distribution model may want to be reviewed for age of water or integrated with the WTS to better understand the water age at the end of the Key West water distribution system.

Recommendations Based on the study findings and technical analysis, the following recommendations were made: S The ability of FKAA to obtain lower electrical rates from FP&L favors continued use of the high-service pump station under highhead operations. S The Key Largo pump station should be kept in a standby mode and exercised periodically, as the facility will be needed when maximum-day demand increases toward 23-24 mgd on the WTS system or during an emergency scenario. S The FKAA should continue discussions with Florida Electric Corp. regarding potentially obtaining lower energy rates and the standby mode of the Key Largo pump station. S Should FKAA have an opportunity to obtain lower rates from Florida Keys Corp., Scenario 2 may become more feasible. A preliminary engineering report would need to be conducted to evaluate improvements at the high-service pump station to convert to a lower-head operation and the need to operate the Key Largo to Ocean Reef distribution pumping. S In order to improve emergency storage along the WTS, it is recommended that storage be located at the Marathon site to support Areas IV and V along the WTS. A preliminary feasibility study for 4-6 MG of storage at Marathon is recommended, with consideration to replace the existing 3-MG tank. S The FKAA should continue to expand SCADA and remote metering to the TAPs to better understand demand patterns off the WTS to further optimize water operations. In summary, it has been concluded that the re-operations of the high-service pump station is highly dependent on the utility electrical rates. It is important for FKAA is to maintain the Key Largo pump station in a standby mode over the next several years, as this station will need to be utilized as maximum days approach to provide minimum pressure and minimum suction presS sure of 70 psi.

March 2016 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ March 2016

FWEA FOCUS

WR3 Begins the Year Big With “One Drop of Water, Many Uses” Raynetta Curry Marshall President, FWEA

he FWEA constantly strives to increase the value proposition for our members and volunteers. This includes looking for ways to provide quality professional development opportunities through seminars and workshops, while allowing more of our volunteers to participate in delivering these events. As part of this process, we began discussions last year to combine

The WR3 cochairs, Lynn Spivey and Ricky Ly, address questions from the seminar audience.

A panel discussion on innovative water resources projects included (left to right) Ryan Matthews, FDEP; Russell Schreiber, Wichita Falls; JoAnn Jackson, City of Altamonte Springs; and David Porter, Clearwater.

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

two of our technical committees that had a natural nexus: the Water Reuse Committee and the Integrated Water Resources Committee. These discussions concluded with the new, merged committee of Water Resources, Reuse and Resiliency, or as we like to refer to it: WR3. The WR3 is dedicated to providing technical education and professional development programs in the areas of water reuse, integrated water resources, water supply, water conservation, and resiliency. The committee hit the ground running with its inaugural seminar, “One Drop of Water, Many Uses,” which was held in January in Ponte Vedra Beach. The seminar was a huge success and very well attended. The agenda covered a wide range of topics and views relative to the use of reclaimed water and stormwater as sources of water supply. The keynote speaker was Sen. Wilton Simpson from Florida, who sponsored Senate Bill 536, which required the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to produce a report on the expansion of the use of reclaimed water, stormwater, and excess surface water in the state. There were also speakers from FDEP, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, and three utilities: City of Altamonte Springs; Clearwater; and Wichita Falls, Texas. In his keynote address, Senator Simpson highlighted some of the recommendations from the SB 536 report, “Expansion of Beneficial Uses of Reclaimed Water, Stormwater, and Excess Surface Water,” released in December 2015. The recommendations regarding reuse included: S Continued alternative water supply funding partnerships are critical. S Conduct statewide education/outreach efforts for reclaimed water, particularly indirect and direct potable reuse. S Consider mandatory reuse zones, tiered rates for reclaimed water, and long-term agreements with end users. S Include developing fertilizer offset best management practices for irrigation with reclaimed water and nutrient content of reclaimed water in an annual reuse inventory, and coordination among wastewater, consumptive use, environmental resource permitting, and water supply planning staff. Next steps include comprehensive reclaimed water legislation for the 2017 legislative session.

The FWEA Utility Council has had discussions with members of the legislature who have an interest in reclaimed water issues and will continue to be engaged with the upcoming legislation. Throughout the United States, utilities have responded with water supply plans that best fit the needs of their individual situations. There is no one answer that fits all situations and needs, and this was evidenced in the three utility case studies provided by the seminar presenters. The City of Wichita Falls, faced with emergency drought conditions and an unsustainable surface supply or groundwater supply, turned to direct potable reuse from July 2014 until July 2015. The treated effluent from the City’s wastewater treatment plant was further treated thru its reverse osmosis plant and blended at a 50/50 ratio with raw lake water. The blended water was then treated at the City’s water treatment plant. The City of Clearwater is currently investigating the use of indirect potable reuse by purifying the water from its Northeast Water Reclamation Facility and utilizing this highly treated water to recharge the lower zone of the Floridan aquifer. The City of Altamonte Springs is augmenting its reclaimed water piped to the City of Apopka with stormwater treated to reclaimed water standards. My own utility, JEA, whose reclaimed water usage has increased from 1 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1999 to over 13 mgd in 2015, is committed to further developing our reclaimed water system, including increased reliability and investigating treating reclaimed water to higher standards. One common thread throughout all of the presentations was the importance of public education and outreach. As we continue to move toward integrated water supply solutions, whether they include stormwater, indirect potable reuse, direct potable reuse, or a combination thereof, an educated and confident consumer is the key to achieving successful implementation. At FWEA, our committees and chapters engage leaders in the industry to educate us all on the trends that we are observing in the water industry as a whole. As members, volunteers, or leaders in FWEA, we are committed to educating our membership, assisting in the development of sound public policy and the education of the general public at large. To that end, I urge all of you who are reading this article to volunteer or otherwise engage with FWEA; your involvement makes the entire S water industry better.

FWRJ COMMITTEE PROFILE This column highlights a committee, division, council, or other volunteer group of FSAWWA, FWEA, and FWPCOA.

Safety Committee Affiliation: Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association Current chair: Pete Tyson, recently retired, safety and training manager with Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. Year group was formed: The committee was formed prior to 1979. Scope of work: Although the Safety Committee is mostly known for the annual safety awards it presents, it also performs other duties behind the scenes. The committee responds to safety questions and concerns, critiques new safety training classes or safety segments thereof, and makes recommendations for additional safety classes as needed.

Future work: The committee will soon start gearing up for the 2016 awards. Memos will be sent out to all regional directors requesting them to mention the safety awards at their monthly meetings: remind the members that the deadline is June 1, the facilities do not have to be 100 percent free of accidents, and that the application forms can be downloaded from the FWPCOA website. In May, we will start receiving the applications and the process starts all over again. Group members: • JoLynn Cates Reynolds, compliance and planning manager, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority • Thomas L. Morgan, assistant manager of operations, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority • Brent L. Cranney, operations area manager/MK, Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority • Joseph D. Ivey, contract manager, Florida S Keys Aqueduct Authority

Recent accomplishments: The 2015 safety awards. The committee started receiving the award applications in early May and continued receiving them up to the June 1 deadline. All applications were reviewed and the final decisions were made the first week in July. Letters were then sent out to all applicants on July 7 and the award plaques presented at the August 12 awards luncheon in Fort Pierce. The safety commendation certificates were sent out to all applicants on August 25 who did not receive an award plaque. The committee had to make several hard decisions since many of the applications were very impressive— and several were outstanding! In the end, it was a pleasure to see so many utilities put forth the time and effort for a solid safety program that keeps their employees safe. Current projects: The committee is now in the process of reviewing the safety award application form, process, and requirements to see if any adjustments are needed. Any updates and/or revisions will then be presented to the board for approval.

Pete hard at work at his desk.

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2016

The 2015 Legislative Year in Review Last year brought victories for WEF and water agencies

Steve Dye

he final months of 2015 were busy for the Water Environment Federation (WEF; Alexandria, Va.) government affairs efforts in Congress. Several major funding priorities for WEF and water were accomplished, and several significant policy goals were enacted into law.

Final FY16 Omnibus Appropriations Bill Restores Funding In mid-December, the U.S. Congress reached a final agreement for the fiscal year (FY) 2016 budget for the federal government, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. The bill provides $1.067 trillion in base funding, which includes $73.7 billion for overseas contingency operations, $7.1 billion in disaster aid, $1.5 billion for program integrity, and $700 million in emergency funding. (Read the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 at https://rules.house.gov/bill/114/hr-2029-sa.) Funding for all federal agencies is included in the bill, and it retains or increases the funding amounts for the agencies from FY 2015. The bill holds the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) at the FY 2015-enacted level of $8.139 billion. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is funded at $1.394 billion and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund is funded at $863 million, restoring severe cuts proposed in 2015 in the draft House and Senate committee bills. The bill did not include funding for Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loans and loan guarantees, but it did include language directing EPA to continue to use administrative monies to establish the program. The bill was free of many of the policy riders that had been hotly debated in Congress, including any restrictions on EPA in proceeding with the implementation of the Clean Water Rule and the Clean Power Rule.

In 2016, WEF will be advocating before Congress and the Administration for full funding for the SRF programs, as well as funding for the WIFIA program to provide low-interest loans for infrastructure projects.

Rider That Banned Combined Sewer Overflows and Wet Weather Bypassing Excluded Also, in the FY16 Omnibus bill, a major effort to strip an unfunded mandate was successful. The Senate version of the appropriations bill that funds EPA included a rider that would have forbidden wet weather bypassing and combined sewer overflows (CSO) in the Great Lakes watershed. The compromise language in the final bill will require some additional reporting for CSO events only, but it makes no changes to the Clean Water Act requirements or additional fines. The Senate's FY16 appropriations bill contained a policy rider (Sec. 428 of S. 1645) requiring all CSO in the Great Lakes watershed to be eliminated, including overflows discharged in compliance with a CSO long-term control plan (LTCP) or consent decrees. The rider would have also required water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) to eliminate discharges of blended effluent that otherwise meet standards established in a WRRF's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit during peak wet weather events. A recently completed survey of Great Lakes WRRFs estimated the cost of compliance to the policy rider exceeded $72 billion in the region. A coalition of cities, counties, and associations is aggressively lobbying Congress in opposition to this policy rider because it has the potential to be extremely costly, requiring massive infrastructure expansion, ratepayer increases, and reopening of consent decrees and/or LTCPs. More than 45 letters were sent to Congress from public agencies and organizations opposed to the policy rider, including WEF; the Water Environment Associations of Indiana, Michigan, New England, New York, and Ohio; and WEF members at agencies throughout the Great Lakes region.

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

WIFIA Fix and Better Highway Stormwater Management The highway reauthorization bill, known as the Fixing American Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) that was enacted into law in December, included a fix to the WIFIA program that WEF helped create and a stormwater management provision that WEF helped draft. The fix removed a restriction on the use of tax-exempt financing on WIFIA-financed projects. The WEF and other water associations have been advocating for the provision since the program was enacted in 2014.The program required that WIFIA can finance only up to 49 percent of a total project cost, and the remaining 51 percent could not come from a tax-exempt source, such as tax-exempt municipal bonds or private activity bonds. This was limited by Congress in 2014 to keep the cost of creating WIFIA budgets neutral, with the intent of fixing it later. The restriction on tax-exempt financing was removed by the provision in the FAST Act that WEF and other water associations strongly advocated. Also included in the FAST Act was a stormwater management provision that WEF helped draft that directs metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, and statewide transportation planning agencies to “improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation,” and is among the list of items to be included when agencies are planning surface transportation projects that use federal funding. Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), who was a member of the conference committee negotiating the final bill, included the provision. Language similar to the provision was originally developed by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) with WEF staff assistance and was introduced as the Highway Stormwater Management Act as standalone legislation in 2014 and 2015 (S. 518). On behalf of WEF, Dr. Dan Medina of Atkins Global (Epsom, U.K.) and Jim Gibson of Sanitation District #1 in Fort Wright, Ky., participated in a hearing in May 2014 before the Senate Water and Wildlife Subcommittee chaired by Sen.

Cardin. During the hearing, the WEF members testified on the importance of better stormwater runoff management during the surface transportation planning process. Sen. Cardin introduced his legislation shortly after the hearing. The provision that Rep. Edwards included in the bill is a significant step toward better stormwater management included early in the planning process of surface transportation bills. Currently, planning agencies that use federal dollars for projects are given eight criteria to consider during the planning process, such as increased safety, economic growth, and intermodal connectivity. The Edwards provision amends U.S. Code 23, Section 134(h)(1) and 135(D)(1), and will urge planning agencies to “reduce and mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation.” Planning agencies are not required to include these criteria in projects, but projects that meet more criteria will score higher. In 2016, WEF will be working closely with EPA to help complete the formation of the WIFIA program and establish another federally backed source of low-interest financing. WEF will also be working with the Federal Highway Administration to incorporate the stormwater management provisions into the project planning process so that stormwater management

costs are built into the federally funded highway projects and are not left to local agencies to address after a project is completed.

Save the Date: WaterWeek 2016 The WEF invites everyone to attend the National Water Policy Forum, Fly-In, and Expo on April 11‒13, in Washington, D.C. Save the date and plan on joining your colleagues from around the nation to participate in the two-and-one-halfday meeting, which will feature congressional speakers, policy briefings, visits to Capitol Hill, and roundtable dialogues with key policymakers and experts on important regulatory and policy matters. The Forum, Fly-In, and Expo are hosted by WEF, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), and the WateReuse Association. It will take place during WaterWeek 2016, held April 10‒15. Registration and more details about the event will be coming shortly. The WEF Government Affairs Committee will also hold a full committee meeting on the morning of April 11 for committee members. We hope to see you there! Note: The information provided in this article is designed to be educational. It is not intended

to provide any type of professional advice, including, without limitation, legal, accounting, or engineering. Your use of the information provided here is voluntary and should be based on your own evaluation and analysis of its accuracy, appropriateness for your use, and any potential risks of using the information. The Water Environment Federation (WEF), author and the publisher of this article assumes no liability of any kind with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents and specifically disclaims any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness of use for a particular purpose. Any references included are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute endorsement of any sources. Steve Dye is the legislative director for the Water Environment Federation (WEF). In his government relations role, Steve represents the Federation before Congress, monitors key legislation and federal policies, develops and executes legislative strategies and proposals, and maintains WEF’s excellent reputation before public and private interests in the water sector. He also leads the WEF Water Advocates Program, a grassroots program designed to mobilize and train WEF members to advocate before federal, state, and local officials. S

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2016

FWRJ READER PROFILE sewer and collection/transmission piping, and 81 sewer pumping stations. I'm also responsible for reviewing, permitting, and inspecting all engineering construction in the City. Education/training you’ve taken. I have a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from the University of South Florida and am a licensed professional engineer in the state of Florida. Over 29 years in the field, I've taken numerous training and continuing education courses, including completion of the twoweek Water and Wastewater Leadership Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Michael F. Bailey, P.E. Cooper City Utilities Department Work title and years of service. I have been the utilities director/city engineer for 11 years. Prior to that I worked for the City of Fort Lauderdale Utilities Department for 17 years. I was the assistant utilities director when I left there. What does your job entail? I'm responsible for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the City's water, sewer, and storm drain systems. These systems consist of one 7-mgd nanofiltration water treatment plant, one 4.7-mgd activated sludge wastewater treatment plant, 180 miles of water distribution system with 11,760 active service connections, 153 miles of

What do you like best about the industry? As a mechanical engineer, I like the technical aspects of the water and sewer business and the constant improvements to the technology. What I like best, however, about our industry is the high caliber and dedication of the people in our business, from utility operations to technical consultants to manufacturers, contractors, and vendors. What do you do when you’re not working? Trying to put three kids through college! I also try to squeeze in some saltwater fishing, travel, and tennis.

What do you like best about your job? Cooper City is a small city (by south Florida standards) of about 32,000 people and I enjoy interacting with them while providing highquality utility service (Cooper City's water won the Best Tasting Drinking Water Competition in Florida in 2011). I work with some of the best in our business, and they each play a key role in maintaining the satisfaction of our customers. What organizations do you belong to? The utility is a member of FSAWWA, Southeast Desalting Association (SEDA), Florida Stormwater Association (FSA), and Southeast Florida Utility Council (SEFLUC). How have the organizations helped your career? I've been involved with FSAWWA for 28 years, and the connections I've made via that organization have definitely helped me in my career progression. I honestly don't think I would have achieved my career goals without it.

Cooper City was the winner of the 2013 FSAWWA Region VI Best Tasting Water Award.

News Beat At a ceremony recently held at its facility in Jupiter, the Max Planck Florida Institute for Neuroscience (MPFI) was presented with an award by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to recognize the organization’s achievement of Florida Water Star℠ certification. Florida Water Star℠ is a pointsbased recognition program that encourages water efficiency in appliances, plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems, and landscapes. “The Max Planck Institute is commended for advancing water conservation in South Florida,” said Terrie Bates, SFWMD director of water resources. “Facilities that retrofit infrastructure to save water provide

lasting benefits to the state’s water resources.” To earn the certification under the program’s new criteria for existing buildings, MPFI implemented water-saving features in four categories: landscape and irrigation; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); indoor, such as water-saving faucets, toilets, and shower heads; and process water use, such as the amount used to make a product. “While the Institute is known for its cutting-edge brain research, its commitment to leaving a lasting legacy is reinforced through its state-of-the-art facility,” said Dr. Matthias Haury, MPFI’s chief operating officer. “Our scientists are focused on creating a better and brighter tomorrow, and they are leaving their

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

mark—not only in our laboratorys, but also through the Institute’s conservation and sustainability efforts. We are proud to have received the Florida Water Star℠ certification, and we thank the South Florida Water Management District for its recognition of our efforts to improve Florida’s future.” Florida Water Star℠ was brought to the state by SFWMD in 2010. To earn the recognition, facilities must meet several water-efficiency criteria. Statewide, approximately 20 commercial facilities, 10 communities, and 1,600 homes are now Water Star-certified. The MPFI is home to a 100,000-sq-ft facility on six acres of Florida Atlantic University’s John D. MacArthur Campus, which received LEED-NC Gold certification in 2012. S

New Products For those applications where mixing requirements are the controlling factor, the AquaDDM® Mixer from Aqua Aerobics can reduce power costs, while delivering three to four times the mixing of any aerator of the same size. The mixer is designed to provide maximum mixing efficiency. The ducted impeller of the mixer improves pumping efficiency and the integrated flow vanes and lower input torque eliminate the need for tank baffles. The mixer establishes a powerful downflow mixing pattern that transports surface liquid downward and increases mass transfe. Flow entrainment and regenerative flow create high reactor turnover rates for efficient mixing. Other benefits include: S Low initial cost, and less expensive to install and maintain S Motor options: explosion proof, high-efficiency, and Endura® Series S No couplings, gear boxes, or submerged bearings S Suitable for most basin configurations S Downflow discharge eliminates short-circuiting S Standard mooring arrangements S Directional flow option S 3 to 75 Horsepower For those aeration applications where the

mixing energy requirement is greater than the aeration requirement, the product will provide mixing more efficiently than a combined aeration/mixing device. This may result in considerable energy savings, while providing greater flexibility of operation. The mixer can play a key role with activated sludge systems, anoxic systems, backmixing, biomass conditioning, biomass suspension, denitrification basins, directional mixing, equalization, neutralization, SBR systems, and storm flow basins. (www.aquaaerobics.com)

Aquatic Informatics Inc. has announced that its entire AQUARIUS solution suite is now available as a service hosted in a private cloud. The service allows the company to deliver, operate, maintain, and rapidly deploy new innovations, while providing customers with a reliable, secure, and scalable way to use its technology solutions. There are no capital costs for hardware, software, or information technology labor, reducing upfront expenses. Deployment, updates, and data backups are managed by Aquatic Informatics, while users can gain fast access from a laptop or tablet. The advantages of the cloud are: S Secure and Private Data. Environmental data

are highly valuable. Hosting data on a private cloud keeps these valuable assets secure to the highest enterprise standards. With off-site data backups, customer data can be restored quickly in the event of a natural disaster. No-Hassle Upgrades. The cloud is a fully managed service. Since it is hosted in a private cloud, Aquatic Informatics can schedule updates at the convenience of each customer. Users simply enjoy the latest features. Anywhere Productivity. Remote access over a virtual private network ensures anytime, anywhere productivity, whether users are in the office or on the road. Scalable Enterprise-Grade Platform. The cloud scales easily to meet the needs of growing organizations, as their team and monitoring networks expand. Reliable Software as a Service. With 99.9 percent planned system uptime, the cloud will be available when users need it to access, manage, and analyze their environmental data. Pay as You Go. With monthly, annual, or three-year subscription terms, organizations decide how long they need to use the cloud, so upfront costs are reduced. (www.aquaticinformatics.com) S

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2016

ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

Tank Engineering And Management Consultants, Inc.

Engineering • Inspection Aboveground Storage Tank Specialists Mulberry, Florida • Since 1983

863-354-9010 www.tankteam.com

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY

Motor & Utility Services, LLC CEC Motor & Utility Services, LLC 1751 12th Street East Palmetto, FL. 34221 Phone - 941-845-1030 Fax – 941-845-1049 prademaker@cecmotoru.com • Motor & Pump Services Test Loaded up to 4000HP, 4160-Volts • Premier Distributor for Worldwide Hyundai Motors up to 35,000HP • Specialists in rebuilding motors, pumps, blowers, & drives • UL 508A Panel Shop, engineer/design/build/install/commission • Lift Station Rehabilitation Services, GC License # CGC1520078 • Predictive Maintenance Services, vibration, IR, oil sampling • Authorized Sales & Service for Aurora Vertical Hollow Shaft Motors

CLASSIFIEDS

P o si t i ons Av a i l a b le

Utilities Treatment Plant Operations Supervisor $55,452 - $78,026/yr.

Utilities System Operator II $37,152 - 52,279/yr.

City of Temple Terrace

Technical work in the operation of a water treatment plant and auxiliary facilities on an assigned shift. Performs quality control lab tests and other analyses, monthly regulatory reports, and minor adjustments and repairs to plant equipment. Applicant must have State of Florida D.E.P. Class “A”, “B”, or “C” Drinking Water License at time of application. SALARY RANGES: $16.59 - $24.89 per hour • w/”C” Certificate $18.25 - $27.38 per hour • w/”B” Certificate (+10% above “C”) $20.08 - $30.12 per hour • w/”A” Certificate (+10% above “B”). Excellent benefits package. To apply and/or obtain more details contact City of Temple Terrace, Chief Plant Operator at (813) 506-6593 or Human Resources at (813) 506-6430 or visit www.templeterrace.com. EOE/DFWP.

Water-Reuse Distribution Supervisor $55,452 – 78,026/yr. Apply Online At: http://pompanobeachfl.gov Open until filled.

Orange County, Florida is an employer of choice and is perennially recognized on the Orlando Sentinel’s list of the Top 100 Companies for Working Families. Orange County shines as a place to both live and work, with an abundance of world class golf courses, lakes, miles of trails and year-round sunshine - all with the sparkling backdrop of nightly fireworks from world-famous tourist attractions. Make Orange County Your Home for Life. Orange County Utilities is one of the largest utility providers in Florida and has been recognized nationally and locally for outstanding operations, efficiencies, innovations, education programs and customer focus. As one of the largest departments in Orange County Government, we provide water and wastewater services to a population of over 500,000 citizens and 62 million annual guests; operate the largest publicly owned landfill in the state; and manage in excess of a billion dollars of infrastructure assets. Our focus is on excellent quality, customer service, sustainability, and a commitment to employee development. Join us to find more than a job – find a career. We are currently looking for knowledgeable and motivated individuals to join our team, who take great pride in public service, aspire to create a lasting value within their community, and appreciate being immersed in meaningful work. We are currently recruiting actively for the following positions: Senior Engineer Engineer I, II, III Industrial Electrician I

$69,118.40 - $108,555.20 / year $43,284.80 – $81,556.80 / year $36,732.80 – $48,464.00 / year

Apply online at: http://orangecountyfl.net. Positions are open until filled.

Utilities Positions City of Haines City is accepting applications for Wastewater Operators, Plant Maintenance, Pipeline & Pump/Motor Repair and Lead positions. Visit www.hainescity.com

City of Wildwood Water Treatment Plant Lead Operator: Looking for a licensed operator to join our professional team at one of the fastest growing cities in Florida. Must hold at least a Class “C” license. Valid Driver’s license a must. High school diploma or GED equivalent, plus Two (2) years technical training in biology, environmental science, chemistry, or a closely related field (two year college degree preferred) and Three (3) years of experience in a water utility as a supervisor/lead operator capacity, or any equivalent combo. Pay Range: Class 113 ($16.83 – 26.09/hour) DOE Open Until Filled. Visit our website for more information (www.wildwood-fl.gov)

Water Plant Operator The Coral Springs Improvement District is currently accepting applications for the position of water treatment plant operators. Applicants must have a valid Class C or higher water treatment license and experience in Reverse Osmosis/Nano Filtration treatment processes preferred however not required. Position requirements include knowledge of methods, tools, and materials used in the controlling, servicing, and minor repairs of all related R.O. water treatment facilities machinery and equipment. Must have a valid Florida drivers license, satisfactory background check and pass a pre-employment drug screening test. The minimum starting salary for this position is $42,000. Salaries to commensurate relative to level of license and years of experience in the field. The District has excellent company paid benefits including a 6% noncontributory investment money purchase pension plan, and voluntary 457 plan with match up to 5%. EOE. Applications may be obtained by visiting our website at www.csidfl.org/resources/employment.html and fax resume to 954-753-6328, attention Jan Zilmer, Director of Human Resources.

Class A, B and C operators Veolia currently has openings for certified water operators in Tampa, FL (entry level to lead positions). We are looking for Class A, B and C operators. Veolia offers competitive pay and benefit packages. Apply online via our website at http://tinyurl.com/veolia62679. Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2016

Lead Maintenance Tech Veolia is currently seeking a Lead Maintenance Tech to support operations at the Tampa Bay Surface Water Treatment Plant. This person will be expected to communicate with water treatment operators and other staff in order to ensure smooth operations of the plant and all associated equipment. This person will be responsible for preventive and corrective maintenance. The selected candidate will be fully qualified to perform the most complex maintenance functions and may lead the work of others relating to mechanical, electromechanical, pneumatic and hydraulic equipment. Other responsibilities will include: - Typically spends 75 to 95% of time exposed to outdoor and sometimes inclement weather. - Being on call after hours (nights, holidays, weekends) - Being a team player who works well with others and has a good attitude about working Job Requirements - Minimum 5 years of experience in a municipal water treatment environment or other industrial/plant setting. - Minimum of a high school diploma or GED with preference given to candidates who have a degree in electronics or electrical repair - Must have and maintain a valid driver license and safe driving record - Must live within a 30 minute response time to plant - Ability to read, write, and comprehend instructions in English; perform basic mathematical calculations; read, interpret and record data from meters, gauges, scales, panels, computer consoles and other equipment. - Ability to diagnose problems (regardless of complexity), troubleshoot mechanical, electro-mechanical, hydraulic or pneumatic equipment and take corrective action. - Skills in electrical, mechanical, welding, and lathe/machining - Ability to troubleshoot and repair a broad variety of instrumentation throughout the water treatment plant. Specific experience sought in Depolox, pH monitors, Ozone residual, Rosemount, PLC's and SCADA. - Ability to efficiently maintain, install, repair and calibrate all instruments and equipment which may include progressive cavity pumps, centrifuges, engines, generators, valves, bearings, seals, gates, mixers, gearboxes, conveyors, blowers, dryers, chemical feed, odor control, disinfection equipment, vacuum filters and belt presses, controls, gauges, and metering devices which may include electronic circuitry, PLC's (Programmable Logic Control units) and SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) systems and other sophisticated equipment. Apply Here: http://www.Click2apply.net/gbgw6ty48n

Water Distribution, Sewer Collection, and New Construction Supervisor The Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach is seeking qualified applicants for a Water Distribution, Sewer Collection, and New Construction Supervisor in the Water Resources Department. This is responsible technical supervisory work in the construction and maintenance of water distribution, reclaimed water distribution and sewer collection systems. Visit www.ucnsb.org for a full job description. Education/Experience: Valid Florida Class C, in both Water & Sewer Distribution. Starting Salary: $30.80/hr/$64,064.00 annually. Qualified applicants may apply online at www.ucnsb.org or email resume to jobs@ucnsb.org or mail resume to Human Resources, PO Box 689 New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170. EOE/DFWP

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

City of Deltona - Water Operator Operates water and/or wastewater treatment process and facilities, controlling the variations of flow rates and processing methods. May direct work of other operators and trainees in accordance with FDEP regulations. Position is subject to being on call and working after normal City work hours as well as on weekends and holidays. Operator I: $18.16/hr-$23.11hr, Operator II: $19.65/hr -$25.03/hr, Operator III: $21.24/hr-$27.15/hr High School Diploma or GED required. At least one (1) year of related experience. Valid Florida Driver's License. For Operator I: a minimum State of Florida Class "C" water or "C" wastewater license, Operator II: "B" or "C" License, Operator III: "B" or "A" License. BENEFITS: Full City Benefits to include Florida Retirement System, Paid Employee Health/Dental, accrued vacation, sick leave and more. Submit completed City of Deltona employment application to: City of Deltona, Attn: HRD, 2345 Providence Blvd., Deltona FL 32725. Application available at www.deltonafl.gov

City of Wildwood Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator: Looking for a licensed operator to join our professional team at one of the fastest growing cities in Florida. Must hold at least a Class “C” license. Valid Driver’s license a must. Pay Range: Class 111a ($15.12 - $23.44/hour) DOE Open Until Filled . Applications online www.wildwood-fl.gov or City Hall, 100 N. Main St, Wildwood, FL 34785 Attn: D Gibson Smith. EEO/AA/V/H/MF/DFWP.

City of Sunrise - Director of Field Operations $78,758.99 - $108,570.59 Annually The position involves management, administrative and supervisory work in the construction, repair, maintenance and plan review of a municipal water distribution and sewer collection system. Incumbent is responsible for efficient and effective supervision of water distribution, sewage collection/transmission and streets operations. Emphasis of the work is on assisting in the development of plans for new construction and relocation of underground installations. Plans, assigns and reviews the work of repairers, mechanics, equipment operators and laborers engaged in the repair and maintenance of water distribution, sewage collection lines and services, and roadways and developing solutions to complex operating problems. EDUCATION Graduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor's degree in civil engineering, environmental engineering, business administration or a closely related field EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING • Five (5) years progressively responsible experience in water and wastewater field operations and related facilities is required • Three (3) years supervisory experience required • Registration as Professional Engineer (P.E.) is preferred • Bachelor's degree may be substituted by seven (7) years of fulltime paid experience in water and wastewater field operations and related fields • Valid state of Florida driver’s license with an acceptable driving record Please apply online at www.sunrisefl.gov DFWP, M/F/D/V, EOE For additional information: Director of Field Operations

AWT Plant Tech I – City of Tampa Minimum qualifications are graduation high school or GED with two (2) years of utility or industrial experience. Apply Here: www.jobaps.com/Tampa Career Opportunity

Development Project Manager Toho Water Authority This is your opportunity to work for the largest provider of water, wastewater, and reclaimed water services in Osceola County. A fast-growing organization, Toho Water Authority is expanding to approximately 95,000 customers in Kissimmee, Poinciana and unincorporated areas of Osceola County. You can be assured there will be no shortage of interesting and challenging project work on the horizon! As a Development Project Manager, you will have the opportunity to manage private development water, wastewater, and reuse infrastructure design and construction projects. To be considered for this position it is essential that you have a demonstrated ability to: • coordinate with development owners, engineers, contractors, and staff to ensure TWA requirements are met, • provide outstanding customer service, and • successfully manage and organize development project documentation and records. Toho Water Authority offers a highly competitive compensation package, including tuition reimbursement, on site employee clinic, generous paid leave time, and retirement 401a match. If you are a driven professional, highly organized, and looking for a career opportunity at a growing Water Authority, then visit the TWA webpage today and learn how you can join our team! Visit www.tohowater.com to review the full job description and submit an employment application for consideration.

Career Opportunity

PROCESS ENGINEER Toho Water Authority This is your opportunity to work for the largest provider of water, wastewater, and reclaimed water services in Osceola County. A fast-growing organization, Toho Water Authority is expanding to approximately 95,000 customers in Kissimmee, Poinciana and unincorporated areas of Osceola County. You can be assured there will be no shortage of interesting and challenging project work on the horizon! As a Process Engineer, you will have the opportunity to oversee the design, operation, control, and optimization of the water plant process. To be considered for this position it is essential that you have a demonstrated ability to: • lead an energy management program at the water treatment facilities; • manage project related cost, scheduling and integration; and • identify potential cost savings and take appropriate actions to demonstrate and realize results. Toho Water Authority offers a highly competitive compensation package, including tuition reimbursement, on site employee clinic, generous paid leave time, and retirement 401a match. If you are a driven professional, innovative, and looking for a career opportunity at a growing Water Authority, then visit the TWA webpage today and learn how you can join our team! Visit www.tohowater.com to review the full job description and submit an employment application for consideration.

Water System Specialist Salary Range: $60,000. - $90,000. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority is looking for an outstanding, detail oriented applicant with the following qualifications: BS in Civil or Environmental Engineering; supplemented by 2 yrs. experience in utility engineering design and construction, w/experience in reporting packages, databases (SQL etc.), using statistical packages for analyzing large datasets (EXCEL, SPSS, SAS), or any equivalent combination of education, training, and experience which provides the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities to succeed in this position. Strong analytical skills with the ability to collect, organize, analyze, and disseminate significant amounts of information w/attention to detail and accuracy; adept at queries, report writing and presenting findings. Knowledge of water supply, transmission, and distribution systems a plus. Benefit package is extremely competitive! Must complete on-line application at www.fkaa.com EEO, VPE, ADA

BESH Engineering seeks experienced environmental engineer for all aspects of water and wastewater design, including treatment plants, pump stations, and collection/transmission/distribution systems. Water and wastewater treatment plant design and permitting experience a plus, and experience with hydraulic modeling, specification writing, Autocad drafting, project bidding, construction oversight and project funding preferred. Applicant must possess State of Florida E.I. with minimum 4 years experience. Florida P.E. a plus. Salary commensurate with experience. Come join a great team! Drug Free Workplace and an Equal Opportunity Employer. Please email resume to: info@besandh.com

Utility Infrastructure Superintendent The City of Casselberry is seeking a Utility Infrastructure Superintendent responsible for the administrative, operational and maintenance duties associated with the Water Distribution and Reclamation Systems and Lift Stations. Requirements: A minimum of five (5) years’ experience in water/wastewater industry, lift station maintenance, utilities or related field, including a minimum of two (2) years’ supervisory experience is required. Must possess and maintain a valid Florida driver's license. For additional information regarding responsibilities or qualifications and to apply, please visit our website at www.casselberry.org Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2016

Certification Boulevard Answer Key From page 40

Shift Supervisor, Water Plant, City of Port Orange The City of Port Orange invites applications for the Shift Supervisor position at the water treatment plant. A Class B operators certificate is required. Interested parties may apply at https: www.port-orange.org

Water Plant Operator The Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach is seeking qualified applicants for a WTP Operator within the Water Resources Department. This is highly specialized work in the operations of a Class A Water Treatment Plant. Visit www.ucnsb.org for a full job description. Education/Experience: Valid Florida Class C, B, or A License in Water Treatment. Starting Salary: C - $18.82/hr; B - $20.39/hr; A - $21.99/hr Qualified applicants may apply online at www.ucnsb.org or email resume to jobs@ucnsb.org or mail resume to Human Resources, PO Box 689 New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170. EOE/DFWP

“C” Water Plant Operator The City of Lake Mary is hiring a Class "C" Water Plant Operator. $31,158 - $48,651 with exc. benefits. Please visit www.lakemaryfl.com for the requirements, job description and to apply. EOE, V/P, DFWP

LOOKING FOR A JOB? The FWPCOA Job Placement Committee Can Help! Contact Joan E. Stokes at 407-293-9465 or fax 407-293-9943 for more information.

Classified Advertising Rates - Classified ads are $20 per line for a 60 character line (including spaces and punctuation), $60 minimum. The price includes publication in both the magazine and our Web site. Short positions wanted ads are run one time for no charge and are subject to editing. ads@fwrj.com

Display Advertiser Index Blue Planet..................................63 CEU Challenge ............................17 Crom ..........................................35 Data Flow....................................33 Drop Savers ................................25 Florida Aquastore ........................48 FSAWWA Awards ........................55 FSAWWA Likins ..........................39 FSAWWA Training........................37 FWPCOA Training ........................23 FWRC Announcement ..........................9 Attendee Registration ..............10

FWRC (continued) Technical Program....................11 Networking ..............................12 Sponsorship ............................13 Exhibitor Info............................14 Garney ..........................................5 Hudson Pumps............................29 Medora ......................................15 Polston........................................41 Stacon ..........................................2 Treeo ..........................................49 Vaughan......................................53 Xylem..........................................64

March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

1. D) The chlorine demand is multiplied by more than five for each pound of nitrite oxidized. Nitrites (NO2) will consume about five times their weight in chlorine before a residual is detected. However, nitrate (NO3) values have little to no affect on demand for chlorine in the disinfection process.

2. B) Alum Water that is disinfected with chlorine, and then dechlorinated with sulfur dioxide, may require a chemical to stabilize the pH within the required 6.0 to 8.5 range. A commonly used chemical for this application is sodium hydroxide, or caustic soda. Alum is acidic and would never be used for this application.

3. A) 6.15 hours Detention time, hours = tank volume, MG x 24 hr/day ÷ flow into tank, mgd = 2.5 MG x 24 hr per day ÷ 9.75 mgd = 6.15 hours

4. A) The ORP value increases. The ORP and ammonia are inversely proportional to each other: when the ammonia level drops, the ORP value increases; conversely, when the ammonia level increases, the ORP value decreases.

5. C) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Sulfur dioxide is the only chemical on this list that will effectively dechlorinate chlorinated effluent. Others chemicals used for dechlorination are sodium thiosulfate and sodium bisulfite.

6. C) 3.4 percent TSS, parts per mil (ppm) = weight of suspended solids in grams x (1,000,000 ÷ ml of sample) Weight of TSS = Final wt - paper tare wt = 2.2255 gm – 1.8873 gm = 0.3382 gm TSS, ppm = 0.3382 gm x 1,000,000 ÷ 10 ml sample = 33,820 mg/L (ppm) Total solids (TS), percent = TSS, mg/L ÷ 10,000 mg/L per 1 percent = 33,820 mg/L ÷ 10,000 mg/L per 1 percent = 3.38 percent

7. B) 2.5 mg/L 225 mg/L x 0.989 = 222.525 mg/L 225 mg/L - 222.525 mg/L = effluent TSS of 2.475 mg/L OR 100 percent - 98.9 percent = 1.1 percent 225 mg/L x 0.011 = effluent TSS of 2.475 mg/L

8. D) πd

Circumference is calculated as pi times the diameter, or πd. Basically, you can take the diameter of any circle and wrap it around the circumference (the outer wall of the circle) 3.14 times. If you have a calculator with a pi button, it typically displays 3.14159265359.

9. A) 4.56 bar 1.0 bar = 14.7 pounds per sq in. (psi) 155 ft TDH x 0.433 psi per ft of head = 67.115 psi ÷ 14.7 psi/bar = 4.56 bar OR 155 feet TDH ÷ 2.31 ft of head per psi = 67.099 psi ÷ 14.7 psi/bar = 4.56 bar

10. B) 185,960 gal

Volume per ft = πr2 x 1 foot x 7.48 gals/ft3 3.14 x 50 ft x 50 ft x 1 ft x 7.48 gals/ft3 = 58,718 gal per ft 38 in. ÷ 12 in. per ft = 3.167 ft 58,718 gals per ft x 3.167 ft = 185,959.9 gal in 38 in. in a 100-ft-diameter tank