Florida Water Resources Journal - October 2013 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

NEWS AND FEATURES

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

Michael Delaney

Editor:

Rick Harmon

Graphic Design Manager:

Patrick Delaney

Mailing Coordinator:

Buena Vista Publishing

Published by BUENA VISTA PUBLISHING for Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc.

4 Assessing the Environmental Impact: Are Stormwater Ponds More Effective Than Presumed?—David A. Tomasko, Emily H. Keenan, Shayne Paynter, and Megan Arasteh

12 FWPCOA Awards 49 Florida Water Festival 56 Utilities Rally in Clearwater—Laura Davis

President: Patrick Lehman, P.E. (FSAWWA) Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Vice President: Howard Wegis, P.E. (FWEA) Lee County Utilities 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

TECHNICAL ARTICLES 14 Applicability of National Emissions Standards to Rehabilitate AsbestosCement Pipelines—Bill Thomas and Edward Alan Ambler 28 Rx for Aging Infrastructure: Orange County Utilities Renewal and Replacement Program—Randy Krizmanich and Jim Broome 39 Ozonation of Reverse Osmosis Permeate For Sulfide Control: Clearwater’s New Water Treatment Plant Approach—Timothy English II, Robert Maue, Robert Fahey, Janice C. Bennett, Greg Turman, Glenn Daniel, and C. Robert Reiss

46 New Path to Permitting Aquifer Storage and Recovery Systems in Florida—Mike Coates, Patrick Lehman, Craig Varn, and Douglas Manson

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 23 CEU Challenge 24 FSAWWA Fall Conference 47 Florida Water Resources Conference Call for Papers 55 FWPCOA Training Calendar 38 TREEO Environmental Training

COLUMNS 11 36 38 44 52

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.

Certification Boulevard—Roy Pelletier FWEA Focus—Greg Chomic C Factor—Jeff Poteet Spotlight on Safety—Doug Prentiss Sr. FSAWWA Speaking Out—Jason Parrillo

DEPARTMENTS 51 57 60 62

New Products Service Directories Classifieds Display Advertiser Index

Volume 65

ON THE COVER: A 300-ton crane settles reverse osmosis skids prior to a metal building being erected around them. (photo: Garney Construction)

October 2013

Number 10

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 • October 2013

Assessing the Environmental Impact: Are Stormwater Ponds More Effective Than Presumed? David A. Tomasko, Emily H. Keenan, Shayne Paynter, and Megan Arasteh

The study described here attempts to answer these questions.

Stormwater detention is a serious concern for communities in Florida. On average, the state receives between 50 and 65 in. of rainfall every year, from about 120 storms. The drinking water for more than 90 percent of Floridians comes from groundwater, so pollutant loads from runoff (which commonly include such chemical nutrients as nitrogen and phosphorus) must be managed to prevent them from entering the water supply. A key element in stormwater management is the design and construction of wet detention ponds, which have been found to be an affordable and viable system for pollutant removal. But exactly what quantity of pollutants can wet detention ponds remove? Are wet detention ponds any more effective than is currently believed? Will new nutrient-removal requirements proposed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) be too stringent or too costly for wet detention ponds to comply?

Regulatory Background The FDEP has developed draft rules that, if implemented, would require many current stormwater treatment systems to be modified (FDEP, 2010). To avoid water quality violations, these same rules may require more stringent nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) removal, particularly in areas where downstream waters have been “verified impaired” due to nutrientrelated water quality concerns. Under the modified rule, a minimum level of stormwater treatment would be required to meet the new performance standards. One of the following two options would be required: 1. An 85 percent reduction of the postdevel-

opment average annual loading of nutrients from a site. 2. A reduction in nutrient loads such that the postdevelopment average annual nutrient loading would not exceed the amount expected from the site’s former natural landscape. Currently, wet detention systems for stormwater treatment are designed and permitted under the assumption that the volume of water they receive during storm events can be held on site for enough time to reduce incoming loads of total nitrogen (TN) by approximately 30 percent. But, based on conventional assumptions, the proposed new stormwater rules would make it nearly impossible for wet detention ponds—an affordable and widely used stormwater treatment system in Florida—to comply. In addition, the current regulatory guidelines for “impaired water” require nutrient loading calculations to demonstrate no additional impairment by any proposed construction project, which can require larger, more expensive, ponds. In some cases, the required pollution reduction is greater than a wet pond can provide, which can require the construction of a dry pond or other more costly options. A study was conducted in an attempt to determine if wet detention ponds, as currently designed, are: More effective in pollutant removal than is commonly assumed. Able to comply with the intent of FDEP’s proposed new performance criteria.

Nutrients and Water Quality Impacts Figure 1. Tampa Bay Region of Florida Showing Hillsborough Bay and Tampa Bay.

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

All water bodies in Florida are evaluated by either the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or FDEP to assess their water quality status. An excess of nitrogen and/or phosphorus can result in the overproduction of phytoplankton (algae), which is measured in units of chlorophyll-a (a pigment found in all plants). With the adoption of numeric nutrient concentration criteria (NNC) by both FDEP and EPA, water bodies are now characterized based on chlorophyll-a and nutrient concentrations combined. In estuarine systems, nitroContinued on page 6

Continued from page 4 gen is the typical nutrient of concern, as is the case in the Tampa Bay region (Figure 1). But in freshwater systems, phosphorus is normally the greater concern. Nitrogen, which is generally more difficult to remove by means of stormwater detention ponds, was the focus of the study. A body of water and its stormwater inflows can be characterized by TN concentration. The TN can be subdivided into two broad categories: dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and organic nitrogen (ON). The DIN is made up of three primary forms of nitrogen: ammonium, nitrite, and nitrate. These forms are readily available for assimilation by phytoplankton populations, which have mechanisms that enable the direct uptake and assimilation of these nitrogen forms into compounds such as the nitrogenous bases of DNA, amino acids (the building blocks of proteins), and the photosynthetic pigment chlorophyll-a (Seitzinger et al., 2002; Bronk et al., 2006; Urgun-Demirtas et al., 2008). However, the dominant form of nitrogen in stormwater runoff is ON—not DIN—and ON is not readily or immediately available for use by phytoplankton (Seitzinger et al., 2002; Bronk et al., 2006; Urgun-Demirtas et al., 2008). The ON can be further subdivided into two categories: Particulate organic nitrogen (PON) is comprised of small organisms (alive and dead), fragments of organisms, and organic debris—all of which are greater than 0.45 microns in size. The PON is not readily available for biological assimilation until those particulate forms are first broken down and their nitrogen becomes biologically available. Such processes can take days,

weeks, or even months. Dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) is a mixture of compounds less than 0.45 microns in size, such as amino acids and tannins. Depending on their specific characteristics, DON components may eventually become available for phytoplankton uptake, in which case DON is considered “labile.” On the other hand, when its components do not become available for algal uptake, DON is considered “recalcitrant.” In a tidally flushed system such as Tampa Bay, the degradation processes necessary for DON to become DIN may take longer than the average amount of time a given water mass resides in the bay. In Barnegat Bay, N. J., a scenario was outlined (Seitzinger et al., 2002) whereby the residence times of river waters discharging into the bay were less than the period over which DON would become biologically available. As a result, both the PON fraction and some of the larger DON compounds would not be in the bay long enough for their nitrogenous compounds to become available for algal uptake and assimilation. Thus, DIN is likely to have a greater affect on algal growth in well-flushed water bodies. Stormwater treatment systems—and the regulatory basis for stormwater treatment rules— are therefore best considered in light of the differing abilities of DIN, DON, and PON to stimulate algal growth. In assessing the implications of this information, it was concluded that nitrogen loading models that focus only on TN are likely to overestimate the biological impacts of modeled nutrient loads, as not all forms of nitrogen within the TN category are equally able to stimulate algal growth. It was similarly con-

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

cluded that nutrient-loading models that consider only DIN are likely to underestimate biologically available nutrient loads because they do not consider the role of labile DON. The implications of differences in the biological availability of different nitrogen forms—and how these forms of nitrogen are modified in typical stormwater treatment systems—should therefore be considered when establishing any need to adjust the regulatory criteria related to stormwater treatment ponds. Thus, it is possible that the impacts of discharging treated stormwater into well-mixed water bodies such as Tampa Bay could be less than expected. With this possibility in mind, a study was designed to answer two primary questions: 1. Do wet detention ponds managed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in the Tampa Bay region remove DIN and TN at rates similar to what has been previously documented? 2. If they do, does the elevated rate of DIN removal mean that water leaving these stormwater treatment ponds has less of an impact to receiving water bodies than would be predicted based solely on TN reduction rates?

Nutrient Removal Efficiencies in Stormwater Treatment Systems Smith (2010) summarized the nitrogen makeup of more than 900 Florida stormwater samples. The average sample predominantly contained DON (69 percent of TN by mass), with DIN making up the remaining 31 percent. Those numbers compare favorably with values found (Rushton et al., 1997), where DON made up 72 percent of TN by mass, with the remaining 28 percent in the form of DIN (Table 1). In examining previous assessments, it was found that typical wet detention stormwater ponds reduce TN concentrations by about 32 percent and reduce DIN concentrations by 68 percent (data from Southwest Florida Water Management District, 1997, and Johnson Engineering, 2009a, 2009b, 2006, and 2008). Also, various FDEP-developed total maximum daily load (TMDL) reports indicate that wet detention ponds are expected to reduce stormwater TN loads by about 30 percent (FDEP, 2008). This expected load-reduction efficiency is similar to that found in the pollutant loading assessments developed for the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (Heyl, 1992) and the Charlotte Harbor (Coastal Environmental Inc., 1995) National Estuary Program (Table 2). In addition, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (1996) concluded that although stormwater treatment ponds are highly effective in reducing sediment and toxin loads, “…

wetland retention/detention is not as effective for reducing nitrogen.” While these conclusions are accurate, the form of nitrogen in stormwater ponds is just as important as the total amount of nitrogen, if not more so, which renders such conclusions incomplete. Current evaluations of the effectiveness of stormwater treatment ponds focus only on TN removal. However, DIN and labile DON are the nitrogen forms that are more biologically relevant to phytoplankton production.

Stormwater Treatment Pond Efficiencies: Biologically Relevant Versus Total Loads As an example of the potential difference in presumed efficiencies, consider a hypothetical scenario in which 100 metric tons (MT) of nitrogen enter a stormwater treatment pond. As noted in Table 2, the widely accepted expectation is that about 30 percent of that load would be reduced through in-pond processes such as burial, uptake by littoral vegetation, denitrification, and so forth. Therefore, an estimated 70 MT of nitrogen would be left in the pond (100 - 30 = 70). Of the 70 MT of TN leaving the pond in outflows, studies show that about 10 percent (7 MT) would be expected to be in the form of DIN, with the remaining 63 MT in the form of DON (Rushton et al., 1997). Of the 63 MT of DON, the amount of DON that would ultimately be considered biologically available for phytoplankton uptake would be 30 percent, on average (Wiegner et al., 2006). Therefore, the amount of labile DON would be about 19 MT (0.3 x 63 = 18.9, rounded to 19). The result is that 26 MT of TN would potentially be biologically available for phytoplankton assimilation, or 19 MT of labile DON plus 7 MT of DIN (Figure 2). Considering that 100 MT of total nitrogen entered the pond in this hypothetical example, a typical stormwater treatment pond could convert 100 MT of TN into 26 MT of potentially available nitrogen in its discharge, which yields an nutrient-reduction efficiency of 74 percent, not the widely accepted value of 30 percent that is used in loading models and other guidance documents. Therefore, existing and planned stormwater treatment ponds may be more efficient at reducing nutrients than their presumed efficiencies would suggest, which means that the impact of treated stormwater on algal populations in a well-mixed water body (such as Tampa Bay) could be minimal. This hypothesis is based on the following logic: Water discharging from stormwater treatment ponds has much lower levels of inorganic nu-

Figure 2. Pathway of Potential Nitrogen Removal in a Typical Stormwater Pond.

trients than water entering such ponds. The organic forms of nutrients that characterize the majority of nutrients discharged from these ponds are much more refractory than inorganic forms of nutrients.

A Study of Wet Detention Ponds in Florida’s Tampa Bay Region In 2011, the FDOT District 7 funded a study in Florida’s Tampa Bay region to test the real-world nutrient-removal efficiency of stormwater detention ponds. One of the study objectives was to quantify the biologically relevant nutrient-removal efficiency of typical wet detention ponds; the method used was to measure phytoplankton responses to nutrient additions from both direct and treated stormwater runoff. Three stormwater ponds where selected for the source of incubation waters from both inflows and outflows (ponds referred to herein as D, 3S, and 1). The drainage basin for each pond was comprised solely of transportation infrastructure. Each stormwater pond is located in Tampa and discharges to a portion of Tampa Bay (Figure 1). Samples from Hillsborough Bay (a subsection of nitrogen-limited Tampa Bay) were used to represent receiving water and potential phytoplankton responses to treated and untreated stormwater runoff, and the study itself was comprised of several project phases. Phase I: Determining Methodology Phase I of the study consisted of evaluating methodologies (using data from only Pond D) and refining techniques, one of which was used for the remainder of the study. Pond D

stormwater inflows were collected during a rain event on March 2, 2011. A fixed volume of Hillsborough Bay water (365 mL) was inoculated with various quantities of water (1 to 50 ml) from Pond D inflow and incubated for various periods of time (8 to 24 hours) while suspended in the water column of Hillsborough Bay (Figure 3). Both the initial and final chlorophyll-a concentrations from each inoculation/incubation scenario were evaluated to identify the best methodology to use for the rest of the study. Based upon that initial evaluation, 15 ml of stormwater inflow or outflow to inoculate 365 ml of Hillsborough Bay water were used, with an incubation period of 24 hours (Figure 4). Phase II: Ensuring the Methodology Addresses the Hypothesis In Phase II, the ability of the preferred technique to address the proposed hypothesis was assessed, namely, that stormwater ponds treat water in such a way that biologically relevant nutrient-load reductions exceed presumed efficiencies. Phase II used stormwater inflow and outflow collected on March 29, 2011 (again, using data from only Pond D). Phase III: Testing Stormwater Inflow/Outflow From Three Ponds Phase III determined the DIN, DON, and chlorophyll-a concentrations in stormwater inflow and outflow from three ponds (Ponds D, 3S, and 1) using samples collected on Aug. 29, 2011 (during Florida’s “wet” season) and Oct. 9, 2011 (the beginning of Florida’s “dry” season). Continued on page 8

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

Figure 3. Study Apparatus With Bottles Used to Suspend Stormwater Samples in Water Column (left). Apparatus With Samples Incubating in Hillsborough Bay (right). Continued from page 7 Phase IIIM: Testing Filtered and Unfiltered Stormwater From Two Ponds Finally, a modified version of Phase-III testing—called Phase IIIM—was conducted using filtered and unfiltered stormwater inflow and outflow from only two ponds (1 and D); the samples were collected on Jan. 11, 2012 (in the middle of Florida’s dry season). For Phases III and IIIM, the initial nutrient and chlorophyll-a concentration of sample bot-

tles were quantified and the bottles were then suspended in the water column of Hillsborough Bay for the 24-hour incubation period. After incubation, the final nutrient and chlorophyll-a concentrations of each bottle were measured.

Results and Discussion Nutrient concentrations of the stormwater pond inflow and outflow were measured during Phases II, III, and IIIM (Table 4). These measurements reveal that:

1. Inflows were dominated by DON, not DIN. This suggests that TN loads from road runoff are mostly comprised of nitrogen forms that are not as biologically available for algal assimilation as nutrient loads with higher DIN contents. 2. Pond outflows became even more dominated by DON as DIN was removed from the water column. 3. The FDOT ponds reduced DIN concentrations at rates consistent with existing literature. The DIN concentrations were greatest in the inflow when compared to the outflow of the ponds for all sampling events (Table 4). In pond inflows, DIN comprised from 13 to 46 percent of TN. On average, DIN comprised 29 percent of the TN load. Outflow DIN represented between 1 and 8 percent of the TN load, with an average of 3 percent. Water discharging from the ponds contained a much smaller percentage of TN, in the form of the more biologically available DIN fraction.

Table 3. Chlorophyll-a Results From Phytoplankton Response Evaluation Experiment [“DI Blank” refers to “laboratory blank” samples containing no runoff or bay waters; “HB Blank” refers to “experimental blank” samples from Hillsborough Bay containing no added runoff].

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Phytoplankton Response to Stormwater Input Initial and final chlorophyll-a concentrations were measured during every phase of the stormwater inoculation study. The results suggest that neither inflows nor outflows to and/or from the ponds tested were consistently capable of stimulating phytoplankton growth in bottles filled with ambient water from Hillsborough Bay (Table 5). For the seven events where pond inflows were tested, chlorophyll-a concentrations increased three times. But, for two of those times, the increase was 2 µg/L or less—a value not much greater than the detection limit itself.

For the seven events where pond outflows were tested, chlorophyll-a concentrations also increased three times, but for only one of those times was the increase 2 µg/L or less. A phytoplankton response as a result of bay-water inoculation using pond outflow was observed during the Phase-III sampling event in October 2011, which is what led to the Phase-IIIM portion of the study. Evaluating the Role of Pond Phytoplankton on Incubation Bottles It was thought that the unexpected phytoplankton response observed using stormwater pond outflows in October 2011 could be caused by the presence of saline-tolerant phytoplankton from the ponds that continued to grow in the estuarine waters within the incubation bottles. Commonly, phytoplanktons found in stormwater ponds are from the class Cyanophyceae, specifically in the genera Microcystis and Oscillatoria (Wanielista et al., 2006; Drescher, 2011), which have been reported to survive in both freshwater and marine environments, with some species being able to tolerate salinity ranges as broad as 0 to 30 ppt (Liu, 2006; Dube et al., 2010; Mur et al., 1999; Tonk et al., 2007). An evaluation of nitrogen concentrations from Hillsborough Bay during the August and October 2011 experiments indicates significantly more inorganic nitrogen in the bay in October, when a chlorophyll-a increase was observed in the incubation bottles; DIN values of 0.06 mg/L were measured in August, but the value rose to 0.40 mg/L in October. It was surmised that the phytoplankton response observed in October was likely related to salinetolerant phytoplankton from the stormwater pond assimilating the abundant supply of inorganic nitrogen in Hillsborough Bay. To determine if their assumption could explain the October 2011 results, the authors performed a modified version of their PhaseIII experiment (Phase IIIM). Before incubation, inflow and outflow samples were filtered using a syringe and 0.45 micron filter to remove phytoplankton. The final chlorophyll-a concentrations measured during Phase IIIM showed a lack of phytoplankton response when using filtered pond outflow samples (Table 6). Specifically, outflow from Pond 1, which exhibited elevated initial chlorophyll-a concentrations (75 µg/L) during Phase III, showed a decrease in chlorophyll-a concentration when compared to unfiltered inoculation. This was expected, and is consistent with the hypothesis that phytoplankton from the stormwater ponds had grown in incubation bottles during the October 2011 experiment. These results support the contention that stormwater pond discharges did not cause the growth of phytoplankton within Hillsborough Bay during the October

2011 experiment. Rather, pond algae grew in October as a result of elevated DIN levels in Hillsborough Bay.

Conclusion Taken together, the study results suggest that: The findings complement existing literature, confirming that wet stormwater detention ponds reduce TN concentrations by approximately 30 percent—but they also reduce DIN concentrations by more than 80 percent.

In most cases, stormwater runoff from transportation land use was not able to stimulate algal growth in Hillsborough Bay. Also, in most cases, water discharging from FDOT stormwater ponds was not able to stimulate algal growth in Hillsborough Bay. However, there is evidence that algal populations in these ponds include genera with fairly wide salinity tolerance levels, and it is possible for these algae to survive in the higher-salinity waters of Hillsborough Bay—at least over a 24-hour period. Continued on page 10

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

Continued from page 9 The results indicate that the three FDOT ponds studied may be more efficient at reducing downstream environmental impacts than their presumed TN load-reduction efficiency of 30 percent. It appears that additional modifications to wet stormwater detention pond designs may not be needed—at least for FDOT projects—because the ponds may be better at removing biologically relevant forms of nutrients (average of 86 percent) than is currently assumed. Most importantly for FDOT, wet detention ponds appear to provide sufficient environmental benefits when taking into account the biologically relevant forms of nitrogen in stormwater runoff that are found in wellflushed and nitrogen-limited water bodies. Given the hydraulic grade-line limitations faced by many FDOT projects, the ability to use wet detention ponds offers substantial cost savings over other stormwater detention solutions. Proposed statewide stormwater rules could require detention solutions to remove 85 percent of nitrogen loads. The good news is that wet detention ponds appear to be able to comply with the intent of Florida’s proposed new rules—if the conversion of nitrogen into biologically less available forms is considered. That, in turn, may eliminate the need to build larger, more costly dry retention ponds or dry-wet treatment trains in many (if not most) situations.

Literature Cited • Bronk D., J. See, P. Bradley, and L. Killberg, 2006. DON as a source of bioavailable nitrogen for phytoplankton. Biogeosciences Discuss 3: 1247-1277. • Coastal Environmental Inc., 1995. Estimates of Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Final Report to Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa, Fla. • FDEP, 2008. Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients for the Lower St. Johns River. Final Report. 146 pp. • FDEP, 2008. Stormwater Management: A Guide for Floridians. 72 pp. • FDEP, 2010. Environmental Resource Permit Stormwater Quality Applicant’s Handbook: Design Requirements for Stormwater Treatment Systems in Florida. • Heyl, M. G., 1992. Point and nonpoint source pollutant loading assessment, p. 12.1– 12.9. P. Roat, C. • Ciccolella, H. Smith, and D. Tomasko (eds.), Sarasota Bay Framework for Action. Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program, Sarasota, Fla. • Johnson Engineering, 2006. FDOT District One: Richard Road Wet Detention Pond Water Quality Monitoring Report. Final Report submitted to FDT District One.

• Johnson Engineering, 2009a. FDOT District One: Hendry County Wet/Dry Detention Pond Water Quality Monitoring Report. Final Report submitted to FDT District One. • Johnson Engineering, 2009b. FDOT District One: Flamingo Drive Wet Detention Pond Water Quality Monitoring Report. Final Report submitted to FDT District One. • Johnson Engineering, 2008. FDOT District One: US41 Wet/Dry Detention Pond Water Quality Monitoring Report. Final Report submitted to FDT District One. • Montgomery, R. T., McPherson, B.F., and E. E. Emmons, 1991. Effects of Nitrogen and Phosphorus • Additions on Phytoplankton Productivity and Chlorophyll a in a Subtropical Estuary: Charlotte Harbor, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 91-4077. Tampa, Fla. • Petrone, K., Unknown date. Organic Carbon and Nitrogen Composition and Bioavailability: New Tools to Assess Aquatic Ecosystem Condition, Inform Water Quality Targets, and Guide Restoration Activities. CSIRO. Presentation. • Rushton, B., Miller, C., Hull, C., and J. Cunningham, 1997. Three Design Alternatives for Stormwater Detention. Final Report for Southwest Florida Water Management District. 284 pp. • Seitzinger, S., Sanders, R. And R. Styles, 2002. Bioavailability of DON from natural and anthropogenic sources to estuarine plankton. Limnology and Oceanography 47(2): 353366. • Smith, D.P., 2010. Advanced Processes to Increase Stormwater Nitrogen Reduction. Presentation to Florida Stormwater Association Annual Conference, Sanibel, Fla. • Tampa Bay Estuary Program, 1996. Charting the Course – The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Fla., 263 pp. • Urgun-Demirtas, M., C. Sattayatewa, and K. Pagilla, 2008. Bioavailability of Dissolved Organic Nitrogen in Treated Effluents. Water Environment Research 80 (5): 398-406. • Wiegner, T., S. Seitzinger, P. Gilbert, and D. Bronk, 2006. Bioavailability of Dissolved Organic Nitrogen and Carbon From Nine Rivers in the Eastern United States. Aquatic Microbial Ecology 43:277-287. David A. Tomasko, Ph.D., is a principal technical professional, Emily H. Keenan, is a senior scientist, and Shayne Paynter Ph.D., P.E., P.G., is drainage group manager with Atkins in Tampa. Megan Arasteh, P.E., is the Florida Department of Transportation District 7 drainage engineer in Tampa.

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Certification Boulevard Roy Pelletier 1. Given the following data, what is the solids loading rate on this secondary clarifier? • Plant influent flow is 5.5 mgd • The return activated sludge (RAS) rate is 50 percent of Q • There is one 100-ft diameter secondary clarifier • The aeration mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) is 2,200 mg/L a. 19.3 lbs/day/ft2 c. 28.9 lbs/day/ft2

b. 8.6 lbs/day/ft2 d. 15.5 lbs/day/ft2

2. Which is the highest life form in the activated sludge process: a free swimming ciliate, a stalked ciliate, or a rotifer? a. Free swimming ciliate b. Stalked ciliate c. Rotifer d. They are all the same. 3. What is the best definition of a shock load? a. An unexpected bump. b. A strong influent waste strength. c. A high concentration of total suspended solids (TSS). d. A heavy truck load entering the plant. 4. Which condition may produce the worst denitrification efficiency in an aeration tank? a. Low air supply b. High aeration dissolved oxygen c. Low aeration dissolved oxygen d. Low solids retention time (SRT)

Test Your Knowledge of Various Wastewater Treatment Topics 5. Which activated sludge growth phase is considered to have the lowest food-tomicroorganism (F/M) ratio, the highest SRT, the lowest sludge yield, and the worst oxygen utilization efficiency? a. High rate aeration b. Extended aeration c. Conventional aeration d. Declining growth

b. Methanogens d. Heterotrophic

a. It will burn. b. It will not burn. c. It will change to inorganic material. d. It will convert to dissolved solids. Answers on page 62

7. Which two age parameters are most similar to each other? a. Gould sludge age (GSA) and F/M ratio b. SRT and mean cell residence time (MCRT) c. SRT and GSA d. GSA and MCRT 8. Which group of bacteria is most responsible for removal of phosphorus in the biological nutrient removal (BNR) activated sludge process? a. Sludge volume index (SVI) b. GSA c. Autotrophic d. Phosphorus-accumulating organism (PAO)

LOOKING FOR ANSWERS? Check the Archives

Are you new to the water and wastewater field? Want to boost your knowledge about topics youʼll face each day as a water/wastewater professional? All past editions of Certification Boulevard through the year 2000 are

a. 7.14 lbs b. 8.34 lbs c. 7.48 lbs d. 4.57 lbs 10. What will organic material do in a muffle furnace?

6. Which group of bacteria is responsible for conversion of inorganic ammonia in wastewater? a. Carbon eaters c. Autotrophic

9. How much alkalinity is required to convert 1 lb of ammonia-nitrogen during the nitrification process?

available on the Florida Water Environment Associationʼs 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.

SEND US YOUR QUESTIONS 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

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

FWPCOA AWARDS

Awardees Honored at Fall State Short School The Florida Water & Pollution Control Operators Association recognized several outstanding water/wastewater professionals, utilities, and facilities during its Fall State Short School for operational excellence, service to the Association, and outstanding safety records. The school was held in August at the Indian River State College in Fort Pierce.

Dr. A.P. Black Award—Water Plant Operator Award of Excellence Johnnie C. Jones, Seminole Tribe Public Works

Dr. A.P. Black Award—Wastewater Plant Operator Award of Excellence Albert Bock, Bay County Utility Services

Robert Hellman Award—Industrial Pretreatment Award of Excellence Gary Thrift, Bay County Utility Services

Nathan Pope Award—Stormwater Systems Operator Award of Excellence Duncan Bethel, City of Pompano Beach

Joseph V. Towry Award—Reclaimed Water Service Award of Excellence Leigh Ann McDonald

Outstanding Website Award City of North Port Accepted by Jessica Lawrence.

SHORT SCHOOL ACTIVITIES At left: Instructor leads a discussion with the students.

Below:Attendees in class review their educational materials. Above: Attendees networking at lunch. At right: Tim McVeigh, executive director; Jeff Poteet, president; and Renee Moticker, Awards Committee chair, all with FWPCOA, discuss the awards presentation at the luncheon.

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

SAFETY AWARDS

City of Pompano Beach Utilities Department Accepted by Jerry Criscito.

City of Stuart Water Treatment Facility Accepted by Mike Woodside.

City of Lake Wales Water Department Accepted by Holly Britt.

Island Water Association Reverse Osmosis Treatment Plant Accepted by Gustave Dowd and Bryan Nespoli.

Burnt Store Water Reclamation Facility Accepted by John Thompson.

Woodard & Curran—Water Conserv II Distribution Accepted by Glenn Burden.

Gateway Wastewater Treatment Facility Ft. Myers Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by Ben Wright.

Marco Island Reclaimed Water Facility Accepted by Jake Hepokoski.

City of Oakland Park Stormwater System Accepted by Art Saey.

Gainesville Wastewater Collection System Accepted by Charles Mann.

Gainesville Water Distribution System Accepted by Tim Lowe.

Hillsborough County Distribution Collection Division Accepted by John Appenzeller.

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

F W R J

Applicability of National Emissions Standards to Rehabilitate Asbestos-Cement Pipelines Bill Thomas and Edward Alan Ambler he United States is currently facing significant deficits in drinking water and clean water infrastructure operation, maintenance, and capital costs. A significant amount of the existing infrastructure is asbestos-cement (A-C) pipe, and rehabilitation of the pipe is restricted by regulations that are almost 30 years old and do not account for advancement in new technology. The A-C pipe is considered to be a Category II nonfriable asbestos-containing material, according to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Rehabilitating buried A-C pipelines is subject to NESHAP and according to regulators, if the pipe is crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder, and the length is at least 260 lineal ft, it falls under NESHAP guidelines. However, NESHAP does not address pipe bursting or any other rehabilitation method other than direct removal and does not include clear requirements for rehabilitating buried A-C pipelines in public right-of-ways. There have been great strides made in technological advancement since NESHAP was issued. Killebrew Inc. arranged for industry members to travel to Washington, D.C., in order to meet with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff for the purpose of discussing NESHAP and its applicability to rehabilitating buried A-C pipelines using pipe bursting technology. This article presents: (1) the technological advancements in industry practices and NESHAP requirements for rehabilitating buried A-C pipelines; (2) recent communications with EPA and industry rep-

resentatives; and (3) plans for the development of an EPA administrator-approved alternate, as provided for in NESHAP, that specifically addresses rehabilitating buried A-C pipelines via pipe bursting.

Origins of Asbestos Pipe Asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral fiber, was used extensively in many building materials prior to the adoption of NESHAP. Its properties, such as fire and chemical resistance, flexibility, high strength, and long and thin fibrous shape, made it a desirable component for the manufacturing of many construction materials, including insulation, roofing shingles, floor and ceiling tiles, paper products, brake pads, gaskets, and pipe. Originally, A-C pipe was manufactured using Portland cement, water, silica or silica-containing materials, and asbestos fibers. The A-C pipe was well suited for utility systems and was widely used for drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater pipelines from the 1940s through the 1960s. This time frame corresponded with a significant investment in utility infrastructure in the U.S. Figures 1 and 2 highlight the EPA “Clean Water and Drinking Water Gap Analysis,” which was published in 2002 and illustrates key infrastructure growth periods associated with increased popularity of installing A-C pipe. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA developed the NESHAP regulations. Asbestos, considered a hazardous air pollutant, became federally regulated in 1973 when NESHAP (40 CFR 61,

Figure 1. Age Distribution of Current Inventory of Pipe for 20 Cities Evaluated in EPA Gap Analysis.

Bill Thomas, Ph.D., P.E., is president with Killebrew Inc. Edward Alan Ambler, P.E., LEED, AP, is water resources manager with City of Casselberry.

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Subpart M) was promulgated. The NESHAP addresses milling, manufacturing and fabricating operations, demolition and renovation activities, waste disposal issues, active and inactive waste disposal sites, and asbestos conversion processes. After adoption of NESHAP, asbestos fiber content in pipe was reduced from a maximum of 20 percent down to less than 0.2 percent (Von Aspern, 2009). Manufacturing and installation of A-C pipe in the U.S. ceased shortly thereafter.

Asbestos Pipe in North America In 2002, EPA estimated the total amount of potable water distribution pipe in the U.S. to be 863,000 mi, with an annual rate of new installation at 11,900 mi (EPA, “Costs for Water Distribution System Rehabilitation,” 2002). The EPA estimated the total amount of force main system as 60,000 mi in 2010, (EPA, “State of Technology of Force Main Rehabilitation,” 2010). In 2002, an American Water Works Association survey of 337 large utilities serving nearly 60 million customers found that 15.2 percent of distribution systems were composed of A-C pipe. An informal survey Continued on page 16

Figure 2. Miles of Sanitary Sewer Pipe installed per Decade as Shown in EPA Gap Analysis.

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ October 2013

Continued from page 14 using public information sources on the Internet revealed that much of the A-C pipe was installed in the Western U.S. (Table 1). Substantial portions have been in use for 40 to 60 years, the typical life expectancy of A-C pipe. Many efforts have been made to quantify the amount of A-C pipe installed in the U.S., and the perceived amount varies. While it is difficult to accurately measure how much A-C pipe remains in the ground, and its condition, there is currently an estimated 630,000 mi of A-C pipe in the U.S. and Canada (Von Aspern, 2009). However, it is clear that much of this pipe is reaching the end of its service life and requires immediate maintenance, replacement, and/or rehabilitation. For the current planning period of 2000 to 2019, the EPA gap report indicates severe deficits in operation and maintenance (O&M) and capital investments in both clean water and drinking water infrastructure. The annual O&M deficit for clean water totals up to $229 billion, while the capital deficit is up to $177 billion. The annual O&M deficit for drinking

Table 1. Percentage of installed AC pipe per type of pipe system.

water totals up to $495 billion, while the capital deficit is projected to top $267 billion. The total 20-year deficit of clean water and drinking water O&M and capital costs could be as high as $1.168 trillion (EPA, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Clean Water and Drinking Water Gap Analysis,â&#x20AC;? 2002). Rehabilitation of the estimated A-C pipe in the U.S. and Canada potentially could cost both countries upwards of $332 billion, assuming a moderately conservative price of $100 per lin ft. A signficant amount of the funding gap can be attributed to maintenance and replacement of A-C pipe. Life cycle cost analysis illustrates that maintenance costs rise as the A-C pipe ages, and there is an optimal replacement time, as shown in Figure 3 (Frangopol, 2001). In 2010, EPA published a document on aging water infrastructure research, which reflected a focus to utilize science and innovation to breach the funding gap for clean water and drinking water. Industry members who are knowledgeable of pipe bursting understand that this newer technology could be a very effective tool for replacement of the infrastructure. However, pipe bursting has been severely limited by widely varying interpretations of NESHAP when utilized to replace AC pipe across the U.S. It appears that EPA has delegated administration and enforcement of asbestos regulations to many of the individual states. Program administration often falls to a statewide department that enforces many environmental policies (Brahler, 2011). Interpretation and application of NESHAP by regulators and the industry for replacing or rehabilitating these aging A-C pipelines are varied and have been controversial for more than two decades. Interpretations have ranged from requiring the removal and disposal of A-C pipelines and extensive recordkeeping, to allowing any replacement, abandonment, or rehabilitation technique, and no recordkeeping. The states of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida allow pipe bursting of A-C pipelines. Oregon requires all A-C pipes to be removed if exposed for any reason and requires specially licensed contractors for any work on A-C pipelines. California does not allow pipe bursting or any activity that will break the A-C pipeline.

Figure 3. Life cycle cost graph.

October 2013 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

Pipe Bursting Pipe bursting is an industry-proven technology for trenchless replacement of existing underground conduit systems, such as water, sewer, and gas. The existing pipe is replaced with a new pipe of the same size or larger. This technology has become cost-effective in many applications and varying project settings, and is most cost-effective in urban areas or where the existing pipe is structurally deteriorated or additional capacity is needed (Simicevic, 2001). Pipe bursting is typically performed using one of two methods: pneumatic or static pull. In either case, the existing pipe is fractured and displaced outward, while the new pipe is pulled into place along the existing pipe alignment. Fracturing the existing pipe is accomplished by pulling a conical-shaped head, also called a bursting head, through the existing pipe that has a slightly larger outside diameter than the inside diameter of the existing pipe. The new pipe is attached to the back of the bursting head so that it is simultaneously installed as the bursting head is pulled through the existing pipe (American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006). While pipe bursting is trenchless, it does require some excavation work. Excavations typically include a pipe insertion pit, machine pit, and service connection pits. The pipe insertion pit is constructed to allow the new pipe to transition from above ground to below ground at the same elevation and alignment as the existing pipe to be pipe-burst. The machine pit is constructed for the pipe bursting machine to be placed and/or for retrieval of the bursting head. Service connection pits are constructed to reinstate service laterals to the main after pipe bursting the main is completed. A pneumatic pipe bursting system uses a constant tension winch and a cable to pull on the nose of the bursting head, and an air-operated hammer inside the bursting head. The air-operated hammer provides forward force (much like driving a nail with a hammer) and the constant tension winch keeps the bursting head against the existing pipe and maintains the path of the bursting operation. Air is delivered to the air-operated hammer by way of an air line that is placed inside the new pipe, and also to an air compressor that is above ground near the pipe insertion pit. Figure 4 depicts a typical pneumatic pipe bursting operation (ASCE, 2006). A static pull pipe bursting system uses a rod string to connect to the nose of the bursting head and a hydraulically operated machine (bursting machine) to pull the rod string,

Picture 1. Pipe bursting service connection pit with minimized impact to existing landscaping.

bursting head, and new pipe through the existing pipe alignment. Forward force is provided by the bursting machine. There is no air compressor or air line passing through the new pipe. Figure 5 depicts a typical static pull pipe bursting operation (ASCE, 2006). Pipe bursting is typically accomplished on existing pipe systems that range in size from 2 in. to 36 in. in diameter. Although larger diameter pipe bursting has been completed, it is less common. Lengths that are most common for a pipe burst run are typically 200 to 400 ft; however, longer and shorter lengths can be performed without problems when properly planned. Actual lengths of bursts are determined when planning and estimating a pipe bursting project. Pits are strategically planned to be located at or near manholes in gravity systems and fittings, valves, or service connections for pressure systems. Almost any underground pipe system can be a candidate for pipe bursting, including potable water, reclaimed water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, gas, or telecommunications. Existing pipe materials that are best suited for pipe bursting include vitrified clay, A-C, cast iron, and nonreinforced concrete. Other materials that can be burst, but are less common, include polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ductile iron, or high density polyethylene (HDPE). The more brittle a material is, the easier it can be pipe-burst. Pliable materials like PVC, HDPE, and ductile iron are cut or sliced rather than fractured. Pipes that are not recommended for pipe bursting include any corrugated material, such as corrugated metal and corrugated plastic. Corrugated pipes tend to collapse or telescope down on themselves due to not having the longitudinal strength to withstand the forces acting upon them during the pipe bursting operation (Simicevic, 2001). Jobsite conditions most cost-effective for pipe bursting are urban settings that contain

Figure 4. Typical pneumatic pipe bursting operation.

Figure 5. Typical static pull pipe bursting operation.

roadways, drainage systems, and other existing utilities that would prevent or inhibit conventional open-cut installation of a new pipe system. Pipe bursting requires substantially less excavation than conventional open-cut and does not require a new route for the proposed pipe system. Because pipe bursting minimizes the amount of excavation on a rehabilitation project versus traditional opencut construction, impacts to developed neighborhoods and commercial areas with established landscaping are often minimized (Picture 1). This environmental benefit is often overlooked but is one of the benefits most recognized by the residents and customers. When planning a pipe bursting project, bypassing of flow and service interruption must be considered because the existing pipe system must be taken out of service for the pipe bursting operation. In gravity systems, bypass pumping can be accomplished from manhole to manhole. In pressure systems, valves or other isolation methods (line stops

or squeeze-offs) can be utilized to interrupt the flow long enough to isolate a segment of existing pipe for pipe bursting. With proper planning, the pipe bursting contractor can often reduce out-of-service time of the utility to a six-hour time frame, which can be accommodated during normal working hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. This is particularly convenient for utilities where the majority of their customer base is working during this time period. However, bypass systems can be installed when pipe bursting in done in commercial or industrial areas. A very attractive attribute of pipe bursting is that it requires minimal engineering design work to be done. Record drawings or geographical information system (GIS) database drawings are the best information for designing and planning a pipe bursting project because the existing pipe route is utilized for constructing the new system. If no record drawing or GIS drawing is available, pipe bursting is still a valid rehabilitation method. Continued on page 18

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ October 2013

Continued from page 17 The project will have to be planned through other maps, such as aerials or field drawings. There are various methods of locating the new pipe, which can be the basis of new record drawings or GIS information. This is also a major benefit in urban areas that suffer from overutilized right-of-ways. Because the replacement pipe is inserted into the exact location of the existing utility, no additional right-of-way is necessary and there is no impact to other existing utilities, as could occur through new utility installations. Other benefits of pipe bursting include health, air, economic, utility customer, and social (Rehan, 2007). Health and air benefits are derived from the minimal use of excavations and less equipment requirements in comparison to conventional open-cut (Ariaratnam, 2009). Pipe bursting generates significantly less dust, nitrous oxide emissions, and erosion and sediment runoff. Economic and utility customer benefits are derived from less cost for pipe bursting in comparison to open-cut construction. Social benefits are derived from quicker, less invasive construction than opencut (Matthews, 2010). The use of pipe bursting to replace aging A-C potable water distribution pipe was recently approved by the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program (DWSRF) as a qualified Green Project Reserve program at the City of Casselberry. The program was provided grant funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and has successfully rehabilitated A-C pipe using pipe bursting while meeting all NESHAP criteria. Industry representatives worked very closely with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and EPA representatives to determine how NESHAP applies to pipe bursting of A-C pipe and how to comply with these requirements. Much of the dif-

ficulty with applying NESHAP requirements to pipe bursting was its focus on above ground construction; pipe bursting is a new technology that was not available for consideration at the time NESHAP was written.

NESHAP Defined The NESHAP provides for the distinction of asbestos-containing material (ACM), using terms such as friable, nonfriable, Category I, Category II, and regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM). Friable ACM is defined as any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos as determined using the method specified in Appendix A, Subpart F, 40 CFR Part 763, Section 1, Polarized Light Microscopy, (PLM), that, when dry, can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure (Picture 2). In contrast, nonfriable ACM is any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos as determined using the method specified in Appendix A, Subpart F, 40 CFR Part 763, Section 1, PLM, that, when dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. The EPA defines two categories of nonfriable ACM: Category I and Category II nonfriable ACM. Category I nonfriable ACM is any asbestos-containing packing, gasket, resilient floor covering or asphalt roofing product that contains more than 1 percent asbestos as determined using PLM, according to the method specified in Appendix A, Subpart F, 40 CFR Part 763 (Sec. 61.141). Category II nonfriable ACM is any material, excluding Category I nonfriable ACM, containing more than 1 percent asbestos as determined using PLM, according to the methods specified in Appendix A, Subpart F, 40 CFR Part 763 that, when dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure (Sec. 61.141) as shown in Picture 3.

Picture 2. Friable asbestos insulation.

October 2013 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

The EPA defines RACM to be: (A) friable asbestos material; (B) Category I nonfriable ACM that has become friable; (C) Category I nonfriable ACM that will be or has been subjected to sanding, grinding, cutting or abrading; or (D) Category II nonfriable ACM that has a high probability of becoming or has become crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by the forces expected to act on the material in the course of demolition or renovation operations. According to an EPA 2011 guidance document prepared by Alliance Technologies Inc., if Category II nonfriable ACM has not crumbled, been pulverized, or reduced to powder and will not become so during the course of demolition/renovation operations, it is considered nonfriable and therefore is not subject to NESHAP. However, if during the demolition or renovation activity it becomes crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder, it becomes RACM and is subject to NESHAP. This guidance document was prepared based on discussions with a work group from EPA, which consisted of the following regional asbestos NESHAP coordinators: Ron Shafer, Scott Throwe, and Omayra Salgado of the Stationary Source Compliance Division; Charles Garlow and Elise Hoerath of the Air Enforcement Division; and Sims Roy of the Standards Development Branch (Alliance Technologies, 2011). The A-C pipe is a Category II nonfriable ACM, according to EPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s guidance document, and is potentially subject to NESHAP requirements, depending upon what type of activity is planned for the A-C pipe and how much (length) of A-C pipe will be affected. The NESHAP provides exemptions from its regulations based on the quantity of ACM. For A-C pipe, the quantity threshold is 260 lineal ft, regardless of diameter, in one calendar year. Other exemptions from NESHAP or clarContinued on page 20

Picture 3. Fractured AC pipe resulting from pipe bursting as it will remain in the ground.

Continued from page 18 ifications of its requirements for A-C pipe have been provided by interpretive letters in response to questions posed to EPA (EPA, 1990). Examples of issues clarified or interpreted through such letters include the following: 1. Buried A-C pipe is potentially subject to NESHAP because it is considered a “facility” or “facility component.” 2. Buried A-C pipe removed from the ground intact and disposed in a waste disposal site is exempt from NESHAP. 3. Buried A-C pipe that is capped and abandoned in-place is exempt from NESHAP. 4. Buried A-C pipe that is grout-filled and abandoned in-place is exempt from NESHAP. 5. Crushing buried A-C pipe with mechanical equipment causes the AC pipe to be subject to NESHAP requirements. 6. Pipe bursting buried A-C pipe causes A-C pipe to be subject to NESHAP requirements. 7. Pipe reaming buried A-C pipe causes A-C pipe to be subject to NESHAP requirements. 8. Sliplining buried A-C pipe is exempt from NESHAP requirements. 9. Work on buried A-C pipe that is subject to NESHAP requirements is considered renovation work, not demolition work. These exemptions and clarifications are representative of EPA’s opinion of the applicability of NESHAP to various types of work on buried A-C pipelines.

Minimized Future Exposure Industry representatives maintain that the A-C pipe fragments that remain after a pipe bursting project are not RACM. It is highly unlikely that these A-C fragments would become friable over time. If future excavations uncover the A-C fragments, they are typically caked in moist soil and the fibers are not likely to go airborne. The rehabilitated pipe alignments are typically under streets and/or in public right-of-ways and are not typically disturbed except by authorized personnel working in the vicinity (Phillips, 2009). There has been much debate as to the pipe bursting process turning the existing nonfriable Type I AC pipe into friable Type II RACM. All of the rehabilitation activities, except the portions of pipe that are exposed at pits, occur underground. The segments of fragmented A-C pipe remain within a few inches of the soil material surrounding the new pipe. Future exposure of the general public to the burst A-C pipe for lengths greater

than the 260 lin ft already stated in NESHAP will be solely limited to rehabilitation work along new pipeline. Homeowners that wish to install new landscaping or work above the new pipeline will have minimal exposure to the burst A-C pipe because they are not likely to physically expose over 260 lin ft of the pipe. Homeowners will also not likely be digging as deep as the typical 3 ft of cover over the pipeburst A-C pipe. Other utilities that will perform work in this area will likely expose limited areas associated with only crossing the new pipe and will not expose over 260 lin ft of the pipe. The only agency that will have to deal with potential future exposure over the 260lin-ft threshold will be the one that performed the pipe bursting rehabilitation. This agency should have ample records indicating the location of these A-C fragments. The agency should also clearly understand the mitigation required if this material is removed in the future before starting any A-C pipe bursting project.

Current NESHAP Compliance Procedures While debate continues as to the applicability of NESHAP to pipe bursting buried A-C pipelines, a working procedure has been developed in Florida that regulators and industry members (municipalities, engineers, and contractors) are utilizing. This procedure complies with each element of NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subpart M (61.140-61.157), and is briefly described. File a Notice to EPA or Its Designee, 61.145(b) The NESHAP specifies salient information that must be included on the notice; the FDEP has available form 62-257.900(1) that requires this information. The one-page form has to be signed only by the utility owner. Provide for Emission Control during Renovation and Disposal, 61.145(c)/61.150 There can be no visible emissions from the work (pipe bursting) per 61.150(a). With pipe bursting, this can be easily accomplished because the A-C pipe is wetted within any excavation; cutting is accomplished using nonpower saw tools (chain cutter, handsaw). Segments of A-C pipe that are removed from an excavation are wrapped in plastic, sealed leak-tight, taped, and placed into a dumpster for shipment by an asbestos transporter. A negative exposure assessment (NEA) was performed for the City of Casselberry project and approved by the DWSRF program for

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

ARRA grant funding. American Compliance Technologies determined the observed timeweighted averages for the sampled employees that performed representative work activities for pipe bursting operations along Benedict Way in Casselberry from March 21-23, 2011, were below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 f/cc (ACT, 2011). Numerous contractors and municipalities have conducted NEAs on A-C pipe bursting projects. To date, none of these assessments have shown any asbestos fiber release within a work site. The pipe bursting process minimizes risk of exposure to workers that are rehabilitating the pipe because the majority of the rehabilitation occurs underground. Comply with Inactive/Active Waste Disposal Site Requirements, 61.151/61.154 The NESHAP provides for disposing of RACM on the site of the demolition or renovation work, or the RACM can be disposed of at a waste disposal site. Currently, for pipe bursting projects, regulators interpret NESHAP such that the work site is considered a waste disposal site. Numerous options are provided in NESHAP to prevent asbestos exposure. These options include: no visible emissions from the site; fencing and posting signs around the site; have a natural barrier (cliffs, lakes or other large bodies of water, deep and wide ravines, and mountains) around the site; or cover the RACM with 2 ft of compacted nonasbestoscontaining material. With pipe bursting, the 2 ft of cover is virtually always provided because the pipe bursting is performed on a buried A-C pipeline. Also, no emissions from the work have been detected on pipe bursting projects. Comply with Inactive Waste Disposal Site Deed Notation and Alternative, 61.151(e) The NESHAP requires that a notation to the deed of a facility property be recorded within 60 days of a waste disposal site becoming inactive. A site is deemed inactive when disposal of RACM is completed. Applying this to pipe bursting projects, a site is deemed inactive when the project is completed. The notation is to contain the following information: 1. The land has been used for the disposal of asbestos-containing waste material. 2. The survey plot and record of the location and quantity of asbestos-containing waste disposed of within the disposal site required in Sec. 61.154(f) have been filed with the administrator. 3. The site is subject to 40 CFR part 61, subpart M.

Conflict Between Deed Notation Requirement and Public Right-Of-Way It appears possible that the drafters of NESHAP made the presumption that the facility property will have a single deed associated with the site, that the property would be deeded, and that the property is transferable. In contrast, a public land right-of-way does not have a deed, can transect public and private properties, and the municipality or county is not the fee title owner of the rightof-way and cannot record notices directly on a fee title of right-of-way. Utility providers have installed a significant amount of A-C pipe within the public right-of-way to provide utility services to the public. The deed notation and general compliance requirements have been a significant deterrent to many utility providers that would have been rehabilitating A-C pipe. This is the only requirement of NESHAP that is not explicitly met as it is written. Given the previously described presumptions of the drafters, and realizing that pipelines typically run in public right-of-ways, this issue had to be discussed with EPA regulators to develop a solution. Industry representatives have suggested a potential solution to the deed notation requirement for the locations of A-C pipe that have been pipe-burst.

Administrator-Approved Alternate The meeting with industry representatives (including members of Killebrew Inc.) and EPA staff took place in November 2010 to discuss the applicability of NESHAP to pipe bursting A-C pipelines and to develop a reasonable, practical solution to the deed notation issue. The EPA staff acknowledged potential difficulty in applying NESHAP deed notation requirements to A-C pipe bursting within public right-of-ways. However, when presented with a video of several physical demonstrations of pipe bursting that clearly displayed the minimal environmental impacts of pipe bursting over traditional open-cut replacement methods, EPA staff expressed a positive attitude towards pipe bursting. The meeting concluded with EPA suggesting that the industry develop an “administrator-approved alternate” for all to follow. The alternate is intended to allow the EPA administrator and staff to approve alternate technology or practices without having to modify NESHAP, which is federally codified. Industry members who have been following the pipe bursting of A-C pipe issue are pleased Continued on page 22 Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

Continued from page 21 with the opportunity to pursue an alternate and are working toward this objective. However, at this time, there are not any guidance documents or previous examples of an EPA administrator-approved alternate to reference, and according to EPA, the alternate has not been developed for any technology or practice to date. An A-C pipe bursting task force has been assembled to develop this document. The alternate is intended to provide procedures for working with buried A-C pipelines. The exemptions and clarifications listed early will be included so that one, comprehensive document, specific to buried A-C pipelines, will be available for use nationwide, and that any type of work on buried A-C pipelines will be uniformly practiced and regulated, regardless of the state in which the work may be located. Collaborative efforts among industry members have been ongoing since November 2010 to draft the administrator-approved alternate. Once the first draft is prepared, it will be submitted to EPA’s Washington, D.C., office for review and consideration. In the meantime, to satisfy the deed notation requirement, a notice is being sent to public records that contains all required information for ongoing projects in Florida. The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has set a goal to generate the science and engineering needed to improve and evaluate promising innovative technologies and techniques that will reduce the cost and improve the effectiveness of operation, maintenance, and replacement of aging and failing drinking water and wastewater treatment and conveyance systems. Existing technologies need to be applied in unconventional ways. Emerging technologies and innovative thinking will be at the forefront of creating a powerful, secure, cost-effective, and reliable water infrastructure (EPA, “Addressing the Challenge through Science and Innovation,” 2010). The industry believes application of pipe bursting for A-C pipe is a prime example of an emerging technology that should be approved and utilized to mitigate the accelerating costs of AC pipe replacement.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Supports Pipe Bursting A-C Pipelines The FDEP has provided support of the pipe bursting process and believes it is environmentally and economically superior to removing existing A-C pipe, and that pipe bursting is more economically feasible than the traditional method of removing and landfilling old A-C

pipes. On April 27, 2011, Herschel T. Vinyard Jr., secretary of FDEP, sent a letter to the EPA Region 4 office in Atlanta requesting assistance to finalize EPA’s position and interpretation of pipe bursting A-C pipelines.

Conclusions Over 630,000 mi of buried A-C pipelines remain in use across the U.S. and Canada. All of this underground piping has reached, or is quickly approaching, the end of its useful life. Replacement or rehabilitation is imminent. Pipe bursting is a proven technology that is environmentally, socially, and economically beneficial and is approved by numerous states, including Florida. Utility providers need to be able to utilize a wide array of technologies, including pipe bursting, to be able to recapitalize their assets. Application of pipe bursting for rehabilitation of existing A-C pipe meets the goals set forth by EPA’s ORD to reduce the cost of rehabilitation and replacement of existing infrastructure through new and innovative technology. Unfortunately, application of this new and innovative technology is severely limited through rules and regulations that are almost 30 years old. It is clear that these rules and regulations require updating to properly account for technology that has developed since the promulgation of the rule. Controversy still exists regarding the applicability and interpretation of NESHAP for buried underground A-C pipelines. Efforts to develop the administrator-approved alternate will rectify these matters and develop uniform procedures for use nationwide by industry and regulators. Every effort needs to be made, from industry representatives, utility operators, and EPA regulators, to close the clean water and drinking water infrastructure funding gap.

References • Alliance Technologies Inc. (2011). Asbestos/NESHAP Regulated Asbestos-Containing Materials Guidance. Retrieved February 10, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/asbestos/asbmatl.htm. • Ariaratnam, S.T. & Sihabuddin, S.S. (2009). “Comparison of Emitted Emissions Between Trenchless Pipe Replacement and Open-Cut Utility Construction,” Journal of Green Building, College Publishing, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 126-140 (Emissions Comparison Table 6 displayed on next slide). • ASCE. (2006). ASCE Manual of Practice for Pipe Bursting Projects. American Society of Civil Engineers. • EPA. (1990). 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart M. Retrieved February 10, 2012, from

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/asbreg.html. • EPA. (2002) The Clean Water and Drinking Water Gap Analysis. • EPA. (2002) Costs for Water Supply Distribution System Rehabilitation. • EPA. (2010) State of Technology Report for Force Main Rehabilitation. • EPA. (2010) Addressing the Challenge through Science and Innovation. • Expert’s Report for the Determination and Assessment of Asbestos Fibres in Workplace Air, Dr. Wessling Laboratories GmbH, Report No. 1B9715, Dec. 11, 2001; Report No. 2B7640, April 23, 2002; Report No. 2B8367, Aug. 27, 2002. • Managing the Risks Presented by Pipeburst, Redundant and Live Asbestos Cement Water Distribution Mains: Risk Assessment of Asbestos Fibre Release During Rehabilitation of Asbestos Cement Water Mains, UK Water Industry Research, 2005 (UKWIR Ref: 04/WM/03/17). • Matthews, J.C. and Allouche, E.N. (2010). “A Social Cost Calculator for Utility Construction Projects,” North American Society for Trenchless Technology No-Dig Show, 2010, Paper F-403. • Rehan, R., & Knight, M. (2007). “Do Trenchless Pipeline Construction Methods Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emission?” Center for the Advancement of Trenchless Technology, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo Ontario for the National Association of Trenchless Technology. (Three case studies found emission reductions of 90%, 78% and nearly 100%.). • Simicevic, J., & Sterling, R. L. (2001). Guidelines for Pipe Bursting TTC Technical Report #2001.02. • Kent Von Aspern (2009). “End of the Line: Replace Asbestos-Cement Pipe Without Turning the Jobsite Into a Hazardous-Waste Site.” • Chris Brahler (2011). “Regulations that Arc Killing Jobs and Wasting Funds. Replacement of Aging Asbestos Cement Pipe Infrastructure.” • Vern Phillips (2009) “Environmental Issues regarding Pipe Bursting Buried Asbestos Cement Pipe.” • Asbestos Insulation Photograph – www.asbestosinsulationpictures.com • Eric Jonsson, American Compliance Technologies (2011) “Documentation of Negative Exposure Assessment for Work Practices Involved in Pipe Bursting Operations at Benedict Way, Casselberry, Florida, March 21-23, 2011.” • Dr. M. Frangopol, (2001) “Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Design of Civil Infrastructure Systems.”

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 New Facilities, Expansions, and Upgrades.

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!

___________________________________________ 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:

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.

___________________________________________

(Credit Card Number)

(Expiration Date)

New Path to Permitting Aquifer Storage and Recovery Systems in Florida

Applicability of NESHAP to Rehabilitating Asbestos-Cement Pipelines

Mike J. Coates, Patrick J. Lehman, Craig Varn, and Douglas Manson

(Article 2: CEU = 0.1 DW/DS}

(Article 1: CEU = 0.1 DW/DS)

1. The contaminant of concern in water stored in the Authority’s aquifer storage and recovery system is a. arsenic. b. barium. c. calcium. d. lead. 2. The design storage capacity of the aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system discussed in this article a. is limited by total contaminant loading. b. matches the treatment facility’s annual design capacity. c. equals 21 mil gal per day. d. is 6.3 bil gal. 3. The type of water stored in this ASR system is a. fully-treated drinking water. b. groundwater from a nearby wellfield. c. raw water from the Peace River. d. reclaimed water. 4. In Florida, how many ASR systems have been issued operation permits? a. Four b. Sixteen c. Twenty-eight d. Forty 5. The contaminant discussed in question no. 1 above is released when ________ water is introduced (injected) into the limestone ASR system formation. a. chlorinated b. low pH c. untreated d. oxygenated

Bill Thomas and Edward Alan Ambler 1. According to regulators, the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) do not apply to asbestos-cement pipe, which is a. crumbled. b. pulverized. c. used as sewage force main only. d. less than 260 lineal ft in length. 2. _____________ has provided support of the asbestos-cement pipe bursting process, believing that it is environmentally superior to removing existing pipe. a. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency b. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection c. The National Resources Defense Council d. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration 3. A 2011 EPA guidance document indicates that Category II, non-friable asbestos containing material is not subject to NESHAP unless a. it is crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder during demolition. b. the pipe is greater than 2 in. nominal diameter. c. a snap cutter is used to cut it. d. it is within 15 ft of an occupied building. 4. The pipe bursting method in which the bursting hammer provides forward force is a. hydraulic bursting. b. sonic bursting. c. pneumatic bursting. d. static bursting. 5. Which of the following states does not allow pipe bursting? a. Florida b. California c. New Mexico d. Nevada

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

October 2013 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ October 2013

October 2013 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

Groundwater Resource Evaluation ACCURATE AND COST EFFECTIVE AQUIFER CHARACTERIZATION

Ensure the Sustainability of Your Groundwater Supply Developing a sustainable and cost-effective groundwater supply depends on an accurate understanding of the aquifer’s behavior. With decades of leadership in subsurface analysis and unmatched evaluation technologies, Schlumberger delivers accurate characterization data to help you better understand your resource—for the long term.

search: slb drilling

F W R J

Rx for Aging Infrastructure: Orange County Utilities Renewal and Replacement Program Randy Krizmanich and Jim Broome nce you reach 40 it is important to receive regular physicals to check for potential problems. Most people who have high blood pressure don't even know it; the only way to find out is to have your blood pressure checked regularly. Likewise, high blood sugar and cholesterol levels often do not produce any symptoms until the diseases become advanced. To ensure the health of its infrastructure, a relatively young and healthy Orange County Utilities is taking proactive measures in preparation for an upcoming wave of renewal and replacement (R/R) needs.

Utility Background The Utility owns and maintains approximately 1,221 mi of gravity sewer, 563 mi of force main, over 30,000 manholes, and 715 pump stations. The R/R capital improvement program (CIP) was initiated to prepare Orange County for the inevitable wave of needs as infrastructure assets age and deteriorate. The R/R program is ensuring that systems will be evaluated, pipes will be fixed, pumps will be refurbished or replaced, and effective standards will be put in place to guide future infrastructure assessment, management, and operation. It established an appropriate strategy for the County to make key decisions about which assets to address and when, to apply available funding to system needs in the best and most appropriate manner, and to keep program priorities current and in focus.

The R/R program is expediting projects so that the real work of condition assessment, engineering, and construction of needed improvements occurs in a logical, timely, and cost-effective way. Today, through the basic prescription of system knowledge, effective planning, and teamwork, the Utility has a clear view of its capital R/R program needs to address the aging system assets. More importantly, it has an organization to support the program, standards, and procedures to ensure consistency and efficiency, tools to manage data and ensure data quality, and confidence in knowing the conditions of its infrastructure assets and the R/R needs. At the same time, the County is self-performing work more effectively, allowing it to maintain control over quality, manage expenditures, provide stewardship of the public’s assets, and provide good careers for the next generation of public servants. This article presents how this path to successfully managing infrastructure health was created and how it will produce benefits well into the future.

Strategic Plan The first step in establishing the Orange County Utilities capital R/R program was to examine, diagnose, and write a prescriptive plan. Current funding, organization, processes, and procedures were assessed, and an overall program strategy was developed. The strategic plan, delivered approximately six months into

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Randy Krizmanich is a program director with Brown and Caldwell, and Jim Broome, is chief—infrastructure renewal with Orange County Utilities.

the project, identified preliminary funding needs, potential improvement opportunities, and the framework for follow-up tasks to be addressed in the program. In the absence of comprehensive condition data, one way to examine potential R/R funding needs is to view the age of assets as compared to expected useful life. The program consultant assembled available data to develop age distribution curves for Orange County Utilities’ wastewater infrastructure components. The age profiles indicated that a number of assets had exceeded or are approaching the end of an assumed useful life. Further, the rate of deterioration typically accelerates toward the end of asset life, potentially increasing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs and increasing the likelihood of failure. Condition assessment is the only way to validate infrastructure asset condition and make the best life-cycle decisions for maintenance and R/R purposes. Based on data provided by Orange County Utilities, Operations staff spent significantly more of their time on responsive and corrective work in comparison to preventive maintenance for the gravity system and pump stations. Such data was an indicator of potential R/R backlog in the system. Orange County Utilities’ annual R/R CIP expenditures between the years 2000 and 2008 averaged $11.7 million. Initial projections developed during the strategic plan indicated that annual spending on R/R could be significantly higher. Orange County has grown substantially over the past 30 years. In keeping up with that growth, Orange County Utilities has focused significant effort on extension of service and meeting capacity demand. As a result, the existing processes around new project execution are well developed and considered effective. R/R activities often occurred as part of other capital projects and were not ideally coordi-

nated, validated, and communicated. Since objective criteria for project prioritization were not fully developed or consistently used, project priorities often changed. Scope changes and delays in execution often resulted. The strategic planning effort determined that R/R processes within Orange County Utilities were in varying stages of development and effectiveness. In general, a systematic approach was not always followed for all R/R activities. Program Vision, Expectations, and Strategies To guide the development of the R/R CIP, the program consultant and Orange County Utilities staff developed a vision statement and initial strategic objectives for the initial implementation of the program. In workshops, key questions were framed for four perspectives, also termed a “Balanced Scorecard”: Business Processes, Financial, Learning and Growth, and Customers and Stakeholders: Business Processes: What business processes must we excel at? Financial: How should we allocate funds and control costs? Learning and Growth: How will we continue to enhance knowledge, skills, and abilities for an effective R/R program? Customers and Stakeholders: What benefits do we need to provide? How do we create value? The resulting strategic framework included nine initial strategies for meeting program expectations from these four perspectives. These nine strategies form the foundation and initial focus for establishing an effective R/R program and for evaluating the initial objectives and program activities.

formed by Orange County Utilities, but not on a system-wide basis. More formal procedures for performing the inspection/condition assessment were recommended to promote consistency in a process that involves multiple parties (engineering, operations, construction inspections, and various consultants). The strategic plan led Orange County Utilities to incorporate criticality-based planning, establish a program of assessing the condition of priority areas, develop processes to expedite the timing from problem identification to remedial action, forecast expected expenditures, and update and manage changing priorities as work gets completed. Organization The previous organization within Utilities Engineering supported the capacity growth and service extension projects as a priority, with a focus on projects identified as part of the master plan. To more effectively handle R/R projects identified by Operations and spurred on by development and transportation projects, the Infrastructure Renewal Section was established. Orange County Utilities supplements its existing forces through its R/R program consultant and continuing consultants. As an outcome of the strategic plan, this group oversees the R/R program project delivery (design and construction), as well as the “planning” necessary to develop priorities, manage decisions regarding necessary work, and maintain the ongoing activities of inspection, condition assessment, priority management, and budget development/refinement. The organizational structure provides clearly defined responsibilities, functional clarity, and adequate staffing to support the R/R work performed as part of the program and

R/R work done by others, which was an identified improvement opportunity. Communication /Coordination R/R work occurs as part of many different projects, as well as under the capital budget and operation and maintenance budget. Essential to the success of a program was the development of R/R teams that regularly met and communicated issues, progress, and improvement opportunities. Specific teams were recommended for gravity, force mains, and pump stations. Monthly meetings are the main communication avenue between Engineering and Operations and are where most R/R program-related decisions are made. Proactive R/R Planning Process Orange County Utilities desired to improve R/R by developing a program to identify and execute R/R CIP work in a proactive and structured fashion. The goal of a proactive R/R program is to confirm R/R needs based on actual condition in time to implement a cost-effective solution at an appropriate interval before the asset reaches the end of its useful life. Major changes to the R/R CIP planning processes and R/R CIP workflow strategies included: Perform project validation and scope definition earlier in the planning process. Perform condition assessment at the project identification phase. Standardize program procedures, prioritization criteria, data collection, and management to support decision making. Improve communication of R/R priorities and activities between Engineering and Operations. Continued on page 30

Strategic Plan Recommendations Months of meetings and evaluation identified a number of potential improvement areas that provided the framework for the program. Condition Assessment Condition assessment is a vital part of an R/R program. On a broad, strategic level, knowledge of asset condition allows effort and funds to be allocated to the most appropriate assets and provides confidence that the existing infrastructure is being managed effectively. On a narrower, tactical level, condition assessment is what determines the appropriate scope of work for a particular rehabilitation/replacement project. Condition assessment was being perFlorida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

Continued from page 29 Expedite the timing of rehabilitation/replacement work and plan more effectively. Centralize responsibility for maintenance of the R/R priorities and planning. Create backlog of R/R biddable projects to provide flexibility in CIP budget spending. Improve understanding of priorities and make more effective use of R/R dollars. In addition, the program consultant and Orange County Utilities staff from multiple divisions were integrated as a cohesive unit, while providing flexibility to adjust staff and annual activities to meet the County’s goals and business requirements. The next sections describe the status of programs for each component.

R/R Program Implementation The R/R planning and preliminary engineering activities vary based on asset type because gravity mains, pump stations, and force mains are fundamentally different types of assets with unique deterioration rates, failure causes, and life cycles. During the evaluation of CIP and R/R processes described previously, opportunities to improve R/R activity and work flow efficiency were identified for each type of asset. Using the program consultant to perform some of the R/R responsibilities accelerated work flow efficiencies. A reorganization and shift in staff responsibilities as the program develops will eventually lead to all program activities being transitioned to Orange County Utilities staff entirely. The following sections describe the implementation of the R/R programs for: Gravity System R/R CIP Implementation Pump Station R/R CIP Implementation Force Main R/R CIP Implementation Strategy 1. Gravity System R/R CIP Implementation The gravity program was initiated first because it would take the most effort as it is the most complex. Orange County Utilities already had a robust inspection program, inhouse Closed Circuit Televising (CCTV) crews, staff dedicated to vendor contract management of CCTV work, quality assurance measures, and experienced condition assessment staff. Because of this experience, Orange County Utilities has stringent inspection requirements and quality control procedures. Specifications already existed with strict execution requirements but were lacking in an extremely important element–consistent data submittals. Robust data standards were not defined, inspection data was in file drawers, and

recommendations were included on individual Excel spreadsheets. To support the new program, more direct interaction was needed between Operations staff reviewing the inspections and Engineering. While miles of the system had been inspected and assessed, data was not widely accessible and was inconsistent. Defined roles and responsibilities and monthly team meetings have greatly improved the interaction and coordination. Standards and Data Requirements Initial work focused on establishing the data requirements, beginning with requiring National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP)-compliant databases and naming files in accordance with Orange County Utilities’ newly defined standards. This one simple step ensured that the data from any vendor or in-house crew could be validated, loaded into a master database, and disseminated throughout the organization through Orange County Utilities’ robust geographic information system (GIS). Master CIP specifications for inspections were updated to include the new submittal requirements, followed by rehabilitation and replacement-related specifications reviews and updates. Work continued to develop a standard bid item schedule that could be used on any gravity R/R project and an associated measurement and payment specification. In addition, computer-aided design (CAD) standards were defined and documented, and drawing templates were established for gravity R/R projects. Software Tools With the basics established for the gravity program, a software tool was needed to process, store, and provide access to the data, support the condition assessment process, and help Orange County Utilities manage the R/R program. A search commenced for software solutions that could manage all the inspection data, score pipes based on a set of decision algorithms, provide the mechanism for condition assessment review and tracking of recommendations, and automate creation of contract drawings. A couple of options had potential; however, inevitably each softwarehandled criticality, system inventory, and inspection/R&R planning went well (what to inspect and planning-level cost projections) but didn’t support the detailed process of inspection data management, pipe scoring, condition assessment, and getting R/R work done after a recommendation is made. Without an off-the-shelf software solution available that met all the County’s re-

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

quirements, the project team developed a custom solution with an Access database on the front end that integrated with the existing GIS. Tables were created in Orange County Utilities’ Oracle GIS database to house the PACP inspection data and R/R recommendation information. Scripts were prepared to validate inspection data (from vendors and in-house crews) prior to loading the data into the GIS database. Data validation included checks for valid pipe ID numbers, size, material, lengths, valid defect codes, and data format, to name a few. As much as possible, Orange County Utilities wanted a system that could automate the R/R recommendations based on the inspection data. The program consultant developed decision trees that would derive specific R/R recommendations based on defect data contained in the database. Orange County Utilities’ Engineering and Operations staff were involved in development of the decision logic, basing the outcomes on their experiences and preferences. The decision algorithms were coded and imported into the Access database. Field data is run through the algorithms, and the database generates preliminary recommendations which can then be used to screen pipes for detailed review and final R/R recommendations. No scoring system is perfect, nor can it be relied upon to make final decisions without some human interaction. However, because the majority of Orange County Utilities’ gravity system is small-diameter pipe, the decision approach does lend itself more to “automated” decisions than, say, a system comprising largediameter sewers where a multitude of R/R options may exist. For the small-diameter system, point repairs, lining, and replacement are the main options. After data validation, loading, and preliminary scoring, the database provided a single point of access for the condition assessment reviewer to view preliminary recommendations, inspection data, inspection forms, and inspection videos that were warehoused on a dedicated R/R server. The reviewer inputs specific R/R recommendations and provides comments using the database form. The database then sends the recommendations into the GIS database. In-House Design Orange County Utilities’ collection system, like systems throughout Florida, is almost entirely small-diameter gravity mains discharging to a pump station and pumped into a manifold force main system. Cured-in-place lining of small-diameter sewers is very cost effective, and the specifications of the liner can

be the same for all liners provided the most conservative conditions are used in the liner design. Since the liner is installed through existing manholes, the only information a contractor needs represented on a contract drawing is a map of the area depicting what pipes are to be lined, information on the manhole access (where it is, diameter, depth), number of laterals, and information as to the ground type. With data standards, updated specifications, consistent bid items, drawing templates, and GIS, Orange County Utilities was positioned to prepare the lining contract drawings in-house. By managing inspections, performing condition assessment, and using standard specifications, drawing templates, and bid schedules, Orange County Utilities has greatly reduced the magnitude of consultant R/R design contracts as well as expedited the delivery of the projects.

time consuming, and often led Operations to address the failing component(s) prior to the project design being completed. No priority list of pump stations had been developed that was based on actual conditions. It was obvious that the program needed to shift to conditionbased prioritization of pump stations to determine R/R needs. Pump Station Inspections To determine the R/R needs for pump stations and prioritize the stations, a coordinated, standardized inspection and condition

assessment program was initiated. All 650 duplex and triplex stations were inspected and assessed based on five functional areas: structural, electrical, mechanical, site, and health and safety. During the inspection, individual components within each functional area were rated by a field engineer and pump station operator. The data was entered into a pump station database, and photographs were copied onto the Orange County Utilities R/R server. After the inspections, an Orange County Utilities engineer performed an assessment on Continued on page 32

Results To date, over 250 mi of gravity inspection data has been loaded into the R/R database and 150 mi of pipelines have been assessed. Approximately 30 percent of the priority-vitrified clay pipe has been recommended for lining, and Orange County Utilities is preparing R/R lining packages in-house while utilizing consultants to provide design services for the replacement of gravity mains with defects that cannot be lined and water mains that have inadequate capacity for fire flow, bidding, and construction administration services. The program is expected to address the priority-vitrified clay systems over the next five to seven years. Prior to the R/R program, much of the pipe now recommended for lining would have been recommended for replacement by consultants. This shift means that much of that design work will be done in-house, and Orange County Utilities will realize tens of millions of dollars in construction cost savings. 2. Pump Station R/R CIP Implementation Orange County Utilities uses life-cycle projections of approximately 15 years for large master pump stations and 25 years for duplex and triplex stations. Initial age data reviewed during the strategic plan indicated that 165 pump stations were already at or beyond 25 years, creating an immediate potential backlog. However, many of those stations that were conceivably past their useful life were not the stations giving Operations staff problems. Pump station rehabilitation prior to the program was driven mainly by Operations staff selecting problem pump stations. Engineering would initiate a project to essentially replace the pump station, a process that was Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ October 2013

Continued from page 31 each station. The assessment included a rating for each functional area and specific recommendations for each area. Based on the functional area ratings, an overall pump station priority (1 low – 4 high) was assigned. After completing the assessment, the engineer met with the Operations staff to review the results, get final input related to the condition or operation of the pump stations and the recommendations, and finalize pump station priorities. Thus, defined priorities based on actual conditions are determined jointly between Engineering and Operations. Once established, the priorities define which pump stations are packaged into CIP pump station R/R projects and which would have work orders created to be addressed by Operations repair crews. This approach establishes a clear CIP pump station R/R program and also provides Operations inhouse repair crews with clear direction as to where to focus their time and efforts. In addition to specific recommendations for R/R, the assessment process also identified real estate needs for all the pump stations.

In-House Design Orange County Utilities’ duplex pump stations are essentially very similar and design standards exist for new stations. Under the R/R program, specifications have been updated, bid items standardized, and standard drawing templates created to streamline the design process. Engineering has had an in-house design team for pump station R/R, but with a formal program in place, Engineering is now positioned for increased productivity in addressing stations in need of R/R. It is now the responsibility of the inhouse team to evaluate pump station condition, evaluate elimination and alternatives, evaluate capacity, determine real estate needs and acquire real estate, and perform design inhouse. Design support, bidding, and construction administration continue to be provided by consultants. The pump station program currently has a goal to address 25 priority pump stations each year, to prolong the life of stations in reasonably good condition, and to address the stations that will inevitably deteriorate from a current lower priority to a higher priority in the next inspection cycle.

Real Estate Historically, many of the most problematic pump stations were ones where real estate acquisition was needed for either a site expansion or relocation. In the past, real estate acquisition was a long, involved process and a low priority. Over the years, those pump stations that had real estate needs continued to deteriorate without being addressed. Orange County Utilities has committed a real estate “point person” within Engineering whose responsibility it is to investigate real estate options; initiate the process; coordinate the surveys, appraisals, approvals, and property owner communications; and act as a liaison with Real Estate Management. If the condition assessment of a pump station identifies real estate needs, studies are conducted by Engineering to determine if the station could potentially be removed from service and what other options exist. If options existed, a capacity evaluation of the station where flows were to be routed was performed by Orange County Utilities modeling staff to determine if upgrades were necessary at the other station. If eliminating the station is not an option, the real estate team is engaged to begin searching for available properties that meet the criteria established by Engineering. Having a real estate point person ensures that progress does not stop on real estate acquisition, while allowing the Engineering project managers to stay focused on the other stations ready for R/R.

Pump Station Program Results The results of the pump station inspections and condition assessments are as follows: 180 pump stations need full rehabilitation. 79 pump stations need relocations . 32 pump stations may require property acquisition. 240 pump stations need minor R/R to be performed by Operations repair crews. Real estate needs are defined, and the acquisition of real estate for each pump station will be completed before final design.

The Pump Station R/R program will potentially comprise a large percentage of the annual R/R expenditures, possibly in the tens of millions per year for the foreseeable future. Basing the R/R decisions on actual conditions will focus efforts on the areas of greatest need, while optimizing the life cycle of existing stations. 3. Force Main R/R CIP Implementation Strategy The goals of the force main R/R program are to address force main pipes with known problems, develop analysis support tools to assist in determining the appropriate extent of replacement of problem pipes, and to develop a longer-range plan for proactively identifying and addressing force main replacement needs. Fortunately, the reality of the current situation for Orange County Utilities is that there have not been too many force main failures that have resulted in sanitary sewer overflows. How-

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

ever, that is no indication that the status quo will continue. The challenge is how to move toward a proactive force main program. The following sections describe the current state of the program, which is still in development. Initial Priorities – Known Problems Under the R/R program, the initial priorities were determined to be the pipes that have already had breaks, excluding those caused by third parties. Maintenance records were reviewed and a series of meetings with Operations were held to document all the known problems in the system. These problem pipes were packaged into projects where preliminary engineering would be performed to determine the need for and extent of replacement. Those projects are currently underway or planned. The engineering evaluation will include a desktop analysis to determine potential problem areas based on material, operating conditions, surrounding utilities, and previous breaks. Once identified, an inspection plan will be developed, and the cost of inspection and expected effectiveness of the inspection will be compared to replacement costs. If inspection is cost-effective and can be done with minimal risk, inspection and condition assessment will proceed. If not, a determination of extent of replacement will be made based on the potential problem areas and critical locations. Force Main System Delineation The force main system comprises over 6,200 individual pipe segments totaling nearly 600 mi of pipe. Force mains originate at pump stations and extend to discharge points into the gravity system or tie into larger force main manifold systems. To assist in tracking force main projects, as well as provide an opportunity to evaluate force main “systems” during preliminary engineering, the force main system has been divided into 49 “force main areas.” The force main areas are associated with larger repump stations and the three regional Orange County Utilities water reclamation facilities. Force Main Categorization Force main segments were initially categorized using information within the GIS database. The force main segments in each force main areas were initially grouped into one of three categories: Run-to-Fail Proactive Replacement Desktop Evaluation - Inspection Plan Initial criteria categorized approximately one-third of the system as run-to-fail and twoContinued on page 34

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ October 2013

Continued from page 32 thirds as desktop evaluation/inspection plan. Very few segments fell into proactive replacement as those were based on the policy of replacing asbestos-cement pipe. The list of pipes categorized for desktop evaluation is being further honed based on more refined criticality criteria. Force Main Desktop Evaluation The force main segments slated for a desktop evaluation are being considered for inclusion in a force main inspection plan that will be developed for each force main area. Due to the cost and limits of effectiveness of the current inspection technologies, Orange County Utilities does not have the desire or resources to conduct inspections on the entire system. Inspections will be limited to those force main segments that will provide meaningful data in a cost-effective manner. In addition to determining which force main segments should be inspected, the inspection plan will outline recommended inspection technologies that will be utilized for each type and size of force main to be inspected, if any. In general, each force main inspection plan will include the following items: List of force main segments to be inspected, including size and material Planned method of inspection (technology) Identification of access points, if needed Method of operational control (rerouting, bypassing, or tankers) Estimated inspection costs It is important to note that the inspection plan is not intended to require inspections of force mains but rather identify the force main segments appropriate for inspection and outline the methods to be utilized. By creating such inspection plans, Orange County Utilities will have the capability to implement force main inspection programs of varying magnitudes, ranging from as-needed inspections of particular force main segments to a systemwide force main inspection program. Force Main Area Evaluation Projects The R/R program evaluates force main areas on a systematic level. The scope of work for the area evaluations includes a risk evaluation, identification of potential force main elimination and re-routing options, and a capacity and flow analysis. Planned road projects that could impact force mains will be identified. Desktop evaluations will result in identification of potential problem areas and determine if inspection plans should be developed. If pipes are categorized for potential inspection, a force main inspection plan will be

developed for affected pipes, including cost estimates. The result of the force main area evaluation will be a detailed categorization of all force mains within the force main manifold area, a list of potential capacity/operationalrelated improvement projects, rerouting and force main elimination opportunities, a summary of recommended inspections and inspection plans, and an updated list of proactive replacement force mains to be considered for inclusion in upcoming preliminary design/design projects. As new force main projects are identified through force main area evaluations, those projects will be added to the priority list. Force Main Inspection Projects The force main area evaluations will establish the scope for inspection projects. Force main inspection is very specialized and includes many different technologies. The detailed inspection plans developed during preliminary engineering or force main area evaluation will determine the appropriate technologies and all ancillary work needed to perform the inspections. Based on the results of force main inspections, additional force main projects will be identified and prioritized. Force Main Project Prioritization Force main projects will be prioritized twice: once as they are put on the force main preliminary design priority list and once again as the project transitions to the force main final design/construction project list. As system needs and available resources will change over time, the initial prioritization performed before preliminary design will not necessarily carry through to the final design/construction list priorities. In addition, the method of prioritization is different between the two lists. The initial priorities are known problem force mains; additional projects will be identified through ongoing force main team meeting discussions, force main area evaluations, and an eventual force main inspection program. Priorities for these projects will be assigned based on results and ongoing tracking of O&M work orders related to force mains. The force main preliminary design priority list will be prioritized at the force main area level instead of by individual projects. Historically, force main projects have only included force main segments. However, in order to introduce proactive activities into the force main R/R program, a force main area system evaluation should be included with any new force main preliminary designs. This approach allows the R/R program to address imminent

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

problems, while also including proactive care for the system. Force Main Program Results The initial strategy for force main R/R has been established and is being refined. Initial priority projects are underway to perform detailed evaluation of the known problem force mains so that the extent of replacement can be determined. Orange County Utilities is also putting into place more defined forensic evaluation procedures, in particular, requirements for capturing data related to breaks and pipe conditions any time a pipe is accessed or tapped. Better projections of needed force main expenditures will be made as the preliminary engineering of known problems are completed, area evaluations are performed, and an inspection program is better defined.

Conclusion Orange County Utilities’ prescription for aging infrastructure is a proactive approach that combines strategic planning to identify improvement opportunities, organizational restructuring to accommodate R/R activities more efficiently, and robust implementation that adapts the R/R approach and resources to the specific needs of each type of infrastructure managed by the utility. As a result of the program, it is expected that Orange County Utilities’ design costs will be reduced by as much as 30 percent from preprogram days due to in-house design of lining drawings. More importantly, the program will result in tens of millions of dollars in construction cost savings due to more lining of gravity pipes in lieu of replacement and more appropriate rehabilitation of pump stations based on the actual condition assessments. In addition to the direct cost savings, Orange County Utilities has peace of mind about the conditions of the public’s important infrastructure assets and confidence that well-defined plans are in place to address the R/R needs and sustain the system’s health in the years to come. Additional benefits to Orange County as a result of the R/R program include: Streamlined processes and defined roles and responsibilities. An organization that understands the importance of R/R and is committed to the program. Standards (proposal templates, bid item schedules, master specifications, drawing details, etc.) to streamline design and contract procurement. Robust tools to support planning, data management, condition assessment, and design.

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ October 2013

FWEA FOCUS

FWEA and WEF Gear Up for a Busy Fall Greg Chomic President, FWEA lthough you are reading this in the October issue of the magazine, I am writing this column on Labor Day, September 2. As our nation celebrates a public holiday in honor of working people, it is fitting that I am writing this column today to tell you about the great work that FWEA volunteer members have been doing on behalf of our industry. Since the Florida Water Resources Conference this past spring, and even before, FWEA volunteers have been busy planning activities and events that provide value to our membership and that promote our industry to the public, whom we depend on for support. Now that the summer vacation season is over, WEF and FWEA begin a schedule of conferences, seminars, and events that offer out-

standing opportunities for your professional development and personal enrichment. To assist you in prioritizing your schedule, this column highlights a few of the major events that are coming up in the next couple of months.

WEFTEC This year, the Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) will be held October 5-9 in Chicago at McCormick Place South. The conference is the premier event in the water quality industry in North America. Everyone should try to attend at least one WEFTEC as it is truly an amazing educational and networking event. This year, Florida will be well represented, with two teams competing in the Operations Challenge Competition and two teams competing in the Student Design Competition. Operations Challenge Competition At the WEFTEC Operations Challenge Competition, FWEA will be represented by the City of Gainesville’s “Team GRU,” which includes Coach Don Eplee, Captain Levi Lee, Jeremy Gagnon, Derrick Sapp, and Brent Loper; and by the City of St. Cloud’s “Methane Madness,” which includes Captain Paul Spencer, Jeff Hewitt, Chris Henderson, Marcus Fullwood, and Tom Clark. I want to give a big thank you to both GRU and to the City of St. Cloud Utilities for allowing the members of these teams the time to plan and practice for this competition. I would also like to thank Chris Fasnacht of the City of St. Cloud and Brad Hayes of the City of Tavares for their hard work promoting the event and fundraising in support of our teams. The competition takes place over two days at the rear of the WEFTEC exhibit hall in booth 1685, near the Innovation Pavilion. On Monday, October 7, at 10 a.m., both teams take the process control exam, which is not much of a spectator event. Later that day, however, “Methane Madness” and “Team GRU” will compete, at 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., respectively, in the laboratory event, which is a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) analysis of a wastewater sample, including determination of pH, preparation of blank and seed correction series, and calibration of dissolved oxygen meter using YSI instrumentation. The real action for spectators starts on Tuesday when “Methane Madness” is sched-

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

uled for the safety event at 10:15 a.m., the collection system event at 2:15 p.m., and the Wilo pump maintenance event at 3:15 p.m. “Team GRU” is scheduled for the Wilo maintenance event at 9:15 a.m., the safety event at 11:45 a.m., and the collection system event at 1:45 p.m. Our Ops Challenge teams put in a lot of practice to compete in these events. So, if you will be at WEFTEC this year, please plan to spend time at the challenge to cheer on the best professional operators in the state of Florida! Student Design Competition The Student Design Competition will take place on Sunday, October 6, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., at McCormick Place, South Building, Level 1, in Rooms S105 B and C. For the second year in a row, the University of South Florida (USF) will be representing FWEA in both the wastewater design and environmental design categories. Congratulations to the student design teams, the USF Student Chapter, and to their faculty advisor, Dr. Sarina Ergas! The USF wastewater design team includes Nicole Smith (project manager) Matthew Woodham, Melissa Butcher, George Dick, and Margaret Cone, and will present at 10:30 a.m. The USF environmental design team includes Erin Morrison (project manager), Brett French, Caitlin Hoch, Miki Skinner, and Joshua Becker, and will present at 2 p.m. The awards presentation will be at 3 p.m., where the top four teams in each category will be awarded cash prizes ranging from $750 to $2500. Please plan to attend one or both of these presentations in support of our student teams, and stick around for the awards ceremony. This is a great opportunity to see Florida’s brightest environmental engineering students compete under a national spotlight. Perhaps you can be the first to offer one of these high-achieving students an interview with your company or utility. I hope to see you there.

Florida Water Festival The Florida Water Festival is fast becoming our premier public education event of the year. The 3rd annual festival will be held on October 26th at Cranes Roost Park at Uptown Altamonte in Altamonte Springs from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. It is a day-long celebration of our

most precious yet underappreciated resource—water. Although it is geared towards the education of our youth, it is also a great educational experience for adults. Activities include a “Walk for Water,” water animal face painting, water quality sampling/testing/system demonstrations, student poster and design competitions, music, and prizes. Many of central Florida’s utilities, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the St. John’s Water Management District, and private environmental companies have exhibited at the festival in the past and we expect their involvement again this year. If you are a member of the Central Florida Chapter, please support this event by volunteering to help, being a corporate sponsor, or by attending with your family and friends. You can learn more by going to www.fwea.org and clicking on the “Conferences and Events” tab, or by contacting festival chair, Stacy Smich, at stacy.smich@ch2m.com.

Wastewater Process Seminar The FWEA Wastewater Process Committee will be hosting its first regional seminar, entitled “Wastewater Process from Stem to Stern: Righting the Process Ship,” on November 5 at the Polk County Utilities office in Winter Haven. This will be the first of three regional seminars that the committee will be hosting between November 2013 and September 2014. The seminar surveys the latest wastewater process design concepts and technologies, from preliminary treatment to effluent disinfection. It features local and national experts, including Ron Trygar of the University of Florida TREEO Center; Jose Jimenez, Ph.D., P.E., of Brown & Caldwell; Joshua Boltz, Ph.D., P.E., of CH2M Hill; Marie Pellegrin, Ph.D., P.E., of HDR; and Dave Hagen, P.E., of Greeley and Hansen. Attendees will be awarded CEUs and PDHs. Please visit www.fwea.org and click on the “Conferences and Events” tab for the complete agenda, and registration and sponsorship information. As you can see FWEA volunteers have been working hard for you and for our industry. Please accept this invitation to support their efforts by sponsoring and attending one or more of these events. At FWEA, we are engaged, and we can’t succeed without you!

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

C FACTOR Jeff Poteet President, FWPCOA

Board Meeting Events The August board of director’s (BOD) meeting was held at the Indian River State College in Ft. Pierce, which is the same location where our fall state short school was held. I would like to thank Vitoria Stalls and the college for their hospitality and their continued support of our association. I would also like to the thank Brad Hayes (representing FWEA) and Jason Parrillo (representing FSAWWA) for taking the time out of their busy schedules to attend our board meeting. There are a couple of notable items from the August meeting that I would like to share with you. The FWPCOA nominating committee has nominated the current slate of officers to continue in their rolls in 2014. Nominations are encouraged from the floor and will be taken at the November meeting prior to the election. Those wishing to present a floor nomination should review the relevant bylaw sections carefully, as they need to be meticulously followed. The state bylaws can be found online at www.fwpcoa.org. The FWPCOA industry certification program policies and procedures were presented to the BOD for approval. Work Force Florida

Board Takes Action; Membership Celebrated (WFF) has determined that it will not sponsor, administer, or fund this program. The decision by WFF to not fund the program was attributable in part to job title confusion in its needs survey. The BOD unanimously approved the industry certification policy and procedure that provides a guideline for the FWPCOA to follow when granting industry certification to high school students. Please feel free to contact Tim McVeigh at execdir@fwpcoa.org for more information if you would like to get involved with this program in your area.

The Benefits of Membership The FWPCOA membership drive continues to move forward. Approximately 4,000 Florida operators have received complimentary copies of the Florida Water Resources Journal as a membership benefit. The magazine has a wealth of information and it keeps its subscriber's abreast of current events with Florida’s water and wastewater professions. Membership in the association also gives you discounts on all FWPCOA training opportunities. Another driver to becoming a member is networking opportunities. Net-

working will help you learn how others have solved issues you may be facing, give you the chance to visit other utilities, and make new friends in the profession. If you work in this industry, it simply makes sense to be a member of the Florida Water & Pollution Control Operators Association!

Acknowledging Members and the Industry The FWPCOA annual awards banquet was held at the short school on August 13 and there were a plethora of awards given out. Rene Moticker, the FWPCOA awards chair, presented several awards for outstanding performance to some extremely worthy recipients (their pictures are in this month’s magazine). Pete Tyson, our Safety Committee chair, recognized several utilities for outstanding safety programs. I was able to recognize several people that have 30-50 years of service to the association. It did not come as a surprise to me that those longtime members are extremely active in the organization. Thank you, Rene and Pete, for your continued efforts, and congratulations to all! I would also like to thank past president Phil Donovan for helping us celebrate Water & Wastewater Professionals Week at the banquet. The FWPCOA initiated this recognition in 2007 as a means to acknowledge all water utility industry employees for their dedication and hard work to provide safe drinking water to Florida's citizens, and for their efforts to protect our state's environment and natural resources. Each year the association celebrates the event during a week in August and invites county and municipal leaders to issue a proclamation recognizing the event to show their appreciation to the industry. Phil has always advocated for those in our industry and was the right man for the job. Please keep in mind that this is your association. If you’re not involved in the organization, we would love for you to become engaged. Your involvement will directly benefit the industry and will help you in your professional endeavors. The next BOD meeting will be held in Daytona Beach on November 16. I hope to see you there!

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

F W R J

Ozonation of Reverse Osmosis Permeate For Sulfide Control: Clearwater’s New Water Treatment Plant Approach Timothy English II, Robert Maue, Robert Fahey, Janice C. Bennett, Greg Turman, Glenn Daniel, and C. Robert Reiss

Figure 1. Rendering of the WTP #2 Site After Expansion he City of Clearwater (City) is currently expanding its Water Treatment Plant #2 (WTP #2) treatment capabilities through the addition of a reverse osmosis (RO) system. The upgraded plant will produce 6.25 mil gal per day (mgd) of finished water by blending 1 mgd of filtered fresh groundwater with 5.25 mgd of RO treated brackish water. The RO WTP #2 site is located on U.S. Highway 19 in a well-developed area of central Clearwater. It is a long and narrow site, bordered to the north and east by residential complexes and to the south by light commercial buildings. Figure 1 shows a rendering of the WTP #2 site after the expansion efforts. The brackish raw water that will supply the RO system will be provided by 12 new wells. Overall, these wells will produce 6.56 mgd and have varying water quality. The water from the wells is expected to have an average total sulfide concentration of 1.4 mg/L; however, when the eight highest sulfide concentration wells (the expected number of wells required to provide the necessary amount of water) are averaged, the total sulfide concentration is 2.5 mg/L. Table 1 summarizes the average, minimum, and maximum concentrations for key constituents in the RO permeate water from pilot testing. A portion of the total sulfides in the new wellfield will be present as hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a naturally occurring gas found in Florida groundwater. The H2S has a pungent odor at very low concentrations and can oxidize to form turbidity and color that further affects the aesthetics of drinking water; it can also corrode and damage copper pipes (Chastain, 2008; Duranceau, 2010). The City has water quality goals Continued on page 40

Table 1. Anticipated RO Permeate Water Quality

Timothy English II, E.I., is project engineer and C. Robert Reiss, P.E., is president with Reiss Engineering Inc. Robert Maue, P.E., is senior professional engineer, Robert Fahey, P.E., is utilities engineering manager, Janice C. Bennett, P.E., is public utilities assistant director, Greg Turman is public utilities coordinator –water production, and Glenn Daniel is water, reclaim, and wastewater collections manager with City of Clearwater.

Table 2. FDEP Potential Sulfide Treatment Options

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

Figure 2. Typical Packed Tower Aerator

Figure 3. Hydrogen Sulfide Speciation versus pH

Continued from page 39 that limit the concentration of total sulfides in its potable water system to 0.1 mg/L, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Rule 62-555.315(5)(a) sets removal requirements for wells used for public water supply. When the total sulfide of a water supply exceeds 0.3 mg/L, the FDEP requires treatment and provides a listing of potential treatment options, as shown in Table 2. Many of the potential water treatment options presented by the FDEP rule use aeration techniques to remove sulfides; however, these are recommendations and other appropriate sulfide removal processes are acceptable for satisfaction of the rule.

While the expansion of WTP #2 will include the use of RO, which is very effective at removing dissolved solids such as chlorides, it is ineffective for removal of gases, such as H2S, as they pass readily through RO membranes. This means that even after RO treatment, the total sulfide concentration in the RO permeate is expected to fall between 0.6 mg/L and 2.5 mg/L; thus, the FDEP requires sulfide posttreatment and states that the potential for impacts on the distribution system without treatment is significant. With this in mind, two sulfide treatment options were analyzed for their feasibility, capital cost, and operating cost: packed tower aeration with pH adjustment versus ozonation via

Table 3. Packed Tower Aerator/Scrubber System Capital Cost Estimate for RO WTP #2

October 2013 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

sidestream injection. The latter option would be the first large-scale municipal system in Florida to treat H2S in RO permeate using ozone.

Packed Tower Aerators A common method to remove sulfides from RO permeate is to use packed tower aerators. This technology transfers H2S from the dissolved liquid phase to the gas phase through a mass transfer process (Crittenden, 2005; Chastain, 2008). A typical packed tower aerator, shown in Figure 2, consists of a column filled with plastic packing material used to increase the air-to-water interface. Blowers force air from the bottom of the tower, while water enters from the top. For this alternative, the design would require two packed towers, each capable of treating 5.25 mgd, and two chemical scrubbers to treat the resulting off-gas of the degasifiers. A redundant system was chosen to ensure that the RO system would not need to be taken offline in the situation when a packed tower or a scrubber is taken out of service for repair, maintenance, or cleaning. During normal operation, the towers would be rotated in and out of service on a regular basis. Sulfide is normally found in three different forms: H2S, hydrogen sulfide ion (HS-), and sulfide ion (S2-). Depending on the pH, and with only H2S removed through mass transfer to air, it is important for the water entering aerator systems to be slightly acidic (Crittenden, 2005; Chastain, 2008; Duranceau, 2010). As shown in Figure 3, in order to achieve the desired 95+ percent removal of total sulfide with an average permeate pH of 6.3, acid treatment is required to lower the pH

and increase the total sulfide partition of H2S prior to aeration. The resulting off-gas from a packed tower is laden with H2S, and to prevent odor issues, a chemical wet scrubber was chosen. Approximately 20,000 to 40,000 gal per day (gpd) of potable water would be mixed with sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite, and recirculated through the scrubber several times to transfer the sulfide from the gas phase back into a liquid phase; it also oxidizes the H2S to sulfur or sulfate. The resulting blowdown water is treated with sodium bisulfite to removed excess free chlorine and sulfuric acid to lower the pH before being disposed to the sanitary sewer. A wet scrubber was selected to treat the aerator off-gas over other options, such as a biological scrubber, to ensure reliable operation and minimize odor complaints from the nearby residents. The construction cost for an aeration/scrubber system for WTP #2 was estimated to be approximately $1.53 million and is presented in Table 3. The operational costs were expected to be approximately $300,000 per year, and are shown in Table 4. The operation and maintenance (O&M) costs have been calculated for the average annual daily flow expected to be produced when the expansion is complete (~4.2 mgd of permeate). The primary advantages for an aeration system are that it is a proven technology with many applications throughout the state, and it has a lower capital cost than an ozone system. However, disadvantages include: frequent cleanings of the aerators and scrubbers, which is necessary to prevent excessive biogrowth and to remove precipitated sulfur; disposal of blowdown water; the visual aesthetics of the system, as the 28-ft. tall aerator towers and 26-ft. tall scrubbers would very noticeable to the neighboring residents and are often associated with undesirable industrial facilities; and the need to store and feed additional chemicals. The proximity of the odor control system to the residences and offices also makes routine maintenance of the system more critical to avoid odor issues.

gas and replacing it with benign levels of sulfate (Duranceau, 2010). Ozone for municipal water treatment is typically produced by passing oxygen through a high-voltage dielectric. Liquid oxygen (LOX) is often used as an oxygen source and typical water utility ozone generators can produce 10 percent or greater ozone concentrations. In order to oxidize the average 1.4 mg/L of sulfide expected to be found in the 5.25 mgd of permeate flow and

maintain an ozone residual of 0.2 mg/L, the design requires 214 lbs of ozone per day (ppd) with a ozone-to-sulfide ratio of 3.1:1. Two 220 ppd generators were selected to provide redundancy and would be housed in a separate structure to shelter the units from weather. Depending on the efficiency of the particular generators, one lb of ozone requires between eight and 12 lbs of LOX; therefore, Continued on page 42

Table 4. Packed Tower Aerator/Scrubber System Operation Cost Estimate for RO WTP #2

Ozone Ozone is another technology that has been proven to be effective at removing H2S from Florida groundwater supplies. Toho Water Authority, in central Florida, has used ozone for years, and the utilities of Orange County and Seminole County have recently installed, or are in the process of installing, ozone generators for the treatment of sulfide (Vanlandingham, 2012). Ozone is a powerful oxidant, and when it comes in contact with H2S or HS- the resulting products are oxygen gas and sulfate ion (SO42-), thus effectively removing the objectionable H2S Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ October 2013

Continued from page 41 under normal conditions, one 9,000-gal (85,600-lb) LOX tank would provide more than 30 days of storage. Redundant vaporizers would be operationally rotated to allow for ad-

equate defrosting. The building and other areas near the ozone equipment will be monitored by ambient ozone monitors, and an alarm will sound if ambient ozone concentrations approach the regulated limits set by the

Figure 4. Ozone Treatment Process Flow Diagram

Table 5. Ozonation System Capital Cost Estimate for RO WTP #2

Table 6. Ozonation System Operation Cost Estimate for RO WTP #2

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. After the ozone is produced, it will be introduced to the permeate water by venturi injection into two 525-gpm sidestreams of the process water. The ozone-laden sidestream passes through a degas separator that removes undissolved ozone and oxygen, after which the sidestream flow is reintroduced to the main water stream through a flash reactor. The ozone and water mixture is transferred to a dissipation chamber, where any remaining sulfides are oxidized and the ozone is off-gassed. The ozone collected by the dissipation chamber and degas separator is processed by a redundant set of catalytic ozone destruct units. Figure 4 diagrams the ozone generation and sidestream injection process flow. An important aspect to consider when determining the feasibility of an ozone system for potable water treatment is the potential formation of regulated byproducts, such as bromate, aldehyde, and ketones; waters that are low in organic matter and bromide produce far less of these regulated compounds. Since RO removes almost all organic matter, the formation potential of aldehyde and ketones is very low. Depending on the membrane used, some bromide may pass through into the permeate. Pilot testing of representative RO membranes found that the permeate bromide concentration can be expected to be approximately 0.1 mg/L, which is not expected to result in significant bromate formation during ozonation (Crittenden, 2005). The construction cost for an ozonation system for RO WTP #2 was estimated to be approximately $2.52 million and is presented in Table 5. The operational costs were expected to be approximately $128,000 per year and are shown in Table 6. The O&M costs have been calculated for the average annual daily flow expected to be produced when the expansion is complete (~4.2 mgd of permeate). Advantages of the ozonation system include the absence of an additional waste stream, ozonation used to obtain the 4-log credit for virus inactivation as long as a residual is maintained, and lower O&M costs than a packed tower aeration system. Disadvantages for ozonation include higher capital cost than aeration, additional safety requirements, and a more complex treatment system.

Conclusion The City of Clearwaterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new WTP #2 will require a sulfide treatment system to meet City and FDEP water quality criteria. Aeration and ozone were both evaluated as potential options. Table 7 summarizes these options with their associated advantages, disadvantages, and costs.

October 2013 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

Based on the estimated capital and O&M cost differences, the additional capital spent on ozone will be recovered (relative to aeration) in approximately five to seven years (a 3 percent annual increase in O&M costs and a 3 percent interest rate for capital investment were assumed). Taking this into account with other concerns, such as visual aesthetics and potential odor concerns, ozone was selected for sulfide removal for the City of Clearwater’s reverse osmosis expansion of WTP #2. The project is currently expected to be completed in 2015.

Copper Pipe Corrosion and Black Water; and Disinfection and Bacteriological Surveys and Evaluations.” 2003. • Vanlandingham, B., Kunihiro, K., et al. “Balanc-

ing Ozone, Sulfide, Oxygen, and Cost: The New Southern Regional Water Supply Facility in Orange County.” Florida Water Resources Journal, November 2012.

Table 7. Ozonation and Aeration Advantages and Disadvantages for Sulfide Removal

References • Chastain, J.R. “Hydrogen Sulfide in Water Systems: What’s That Smell?” Consultant Update. 2008. • Crittenden, J.C., Trussell, R.R., et al. Water Treatment – Principles and Design (2nd Edition). 2005. • Duranceau, S.J., Trupiano, V.M., et al. “Innovative Hydrogen Sulfide Treatment Methods: Moving Beyond Packed Tower Aeration.” Florida Water Resources Journal, July 2010. • Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). “62-555.315 Public Water System Wells – Security; Number; Capacity; Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water; Control of

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY

Chlorine First Responder Training Clarification Doug Prentiss Sr. s the FWEA Safety Committee chair I get involved in some interesting projects and this month I wanted to share one, since it may be interesting to many of you. In June of this year, the fire chief of a local city contacted the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) with questions about the training levels or standards for water plant technicians. He was trying to find out what level of training or certification operators are required to have when handling compressed chlorine gas that is used to purify the water system. In the current plan, the city water department had the repair kits to handle emergencies, but needed additional training to be able to use the emergency equipment safely. As I move around the state, I have seen this exact story repeat itself many times. Almost every new plant using gas chlorine gets an emergency response kit and some air packs,

but rarely any training. Since most new plants today use bleach rather than gas, the problem is getting smaller, but it still exists, especially where 150-lb. cylinders are being used at remote locations. So, if your staff is using 150lb. cylinders at water wells, read the rest of the suggestions to the fire chief. He was looking for the right training to allow him to protect his citizens, but while trying to come up with a cooperative response plan for chlorine emergencies, the fire department determined it could not currently mitigate chlorine leaks because the employees were not trained at the hazmat-technician level. So, surrounded by utility workers needing training, and his staff also not allowed to respond because of a lack of training, our fire chief used incident command techniques and mutual aid to resolve his immediate problem. In fact, the mutual aid he received was from the Tallahassee Fire Department Hazardous Materials Team using a 150-lb. cylinder coffin provided by the City of Tallahassee Utilities Division. Since Tallahassee does use this disin-

fection at its water wells, its also trains and equips its workers to respond to emergencies. This training also includes mutual aid between the treatment plant workers and the fire department. In this application, the plant obtained two cylinder coffins and placed one near the storage sites and one with the hazardous materials unit of the fire department. It was this fire department using the utility coffin that responded to the smaller city that is still struggling to get its hazardous materials act together. There are many utilities, like Tallahassee, Destin, Orange County, Clermont, and GRU, that do elemental chlorine correctly and actually promote training in their own areas for other agencies. So, what our fire chief wants to know is, “What do the managers at all of these utilities already know?” The final question in his letter to FDEP from the fire chief was, “Is there a difference in the level of hazmat training between fire department and civilians? If you could point me in the right direction for guidance on this I would appreciate it.“ Fortunately for everyone, his email went to Jennifer Paris, the emergency response manager for FDEP in Tallahassee, and she reached out to a few friends for answers. One of those who had already provided the fire chief with answers about operator training was Ron McCulley, who is the certification and restoration program administrator. Ron provided the following expectations for chlorine gas training for operators and maintenance staff at plants: Education for Introduction Level a. Identify types of hazards common to gas chlorine b. Recognize unsafe conditions and prescribe corrective measures c. Identify and safely handle cylinders or containers used at the facility d. Recognize hazards conditions e. Recognize fire hazards related to gas chlorine

Tarpons Springs Emergency Operations Center provided the training facility, Tarpons Springs Utility hosted the event, the local emergency planning committee paid for the instruction, and several local utilities and the fire department received training at no cost.

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Education for Licensed Operators a. Operation and control of a treatment plant disinfection process b. Troubleshooting treatment disinfection

processes c. Health and safety (associated with wastewater/drinking water/water distribution systems) d. Employment and community right-toknow notification procedures e. Toxic and hazardous materials handling procedures f. Supervision and management of disinfection chemicals g. Basic chemistry and biology h. Government rules and procedures i. Security (applicable to water/wastewater treatment or water distribution systems) j. Emergency response Jennifer also contacted me with questions from the fire chief and I wanted to respond to the ones concerning the level of training required to be a first responder for chlorine, since this is the key he needs to resolve his problem. This question is widely misunderstood and I hope that by working with FDEP that more operators and fire services personnel will gain a better understanding of what really is a pretty straight forward set of requirements. To start with, the training is driven by the materials in use. Since this article is about gas chorine, the information concerning hazards associated with the use of this chemical comes from the material safety data sheet. The permissible exposure level for eight hours is .5 parts per mil (ppm), the short-term exposure is 1.0 ppm for fifteen minutes, and the immediately dangerous level to life and health level is 10 ppm. The Chlorine Institute manual for elemental chlorine lists one or two breaths of chlorine gas at 1000 ppm as potentially lethal. If you use this chemical, you are obligated to train your workers to understand these hazards and document that training. The chemical is the same whether it is in a 150-lb. cylinder or a 1-ton container, so understanding the chemical safety issues is the same. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) developed the risk management plan and the process safety requirements, they laid out a basic framework for emergency response. In essence, it said if you use hazardous chemicals that workers may be exposed to, you must train them at one of three levels. The first is the “awareness level,” where the workers know enough to recognize the chemical, know its dangers, and know how to begin the notification of an emergency response. Awareness-level training for gas chlorine is well document by Chlorine Institute manuals and training guides. The Chlorine Institute actually has a very good video and pamphlet just for water and

At the Tarpons Springs Fire Department equipment bay, students learn how to apply emergency devices using Class B personal protective equipment and self-contained breathing apparatus.

wastewater operators that cover all of this. The next level of training is the “operations level,” which requires a much higher level of training that will allow defensive responses to the release of hazardous chemicals. Operators could, for instance, shut off a leaking valve, if they could do so safely. For gas chlorine emergency response, eight hours of training is required each year to maintain a first responder at the operations-level status. The “technician-level” chlorine first response is much more detailed, but still only requires 24 hours of training every 24 months. This may also expand if Class A suits are included, but once the initial training is complete, 24 hours keeps chlorine first responders at the technician level fully-trained and ready to respond to and mitigate elemental chlorine leaks. The part of this I hope you are all getting is that a chlorine first responder at the technician level can only work on chlorine leaks, but only has to have 24 hours of training every other year. The Chlorine Institute, EPA, and OSHA worked on this specific issue to enable all of us to use a highly effective disinfection chemical without going overboard on training. The exciting part of this for fire fighters is they can do the same thing. I have been doing this training for over 20 years, spending three days at fire departments

and local emergency planning committee sites providing standard fire fighters with 24 hours of training so they can perform as chlorine first responders at the technician level applying “A” kits and emergency response coffins to mitigate elemental chlorine leaks. Perhaps the most exciting part of this type of training for fire fighters and utility workers is that it can be free, paid for by the very tax dollars contributed by industries that use the chemicals. Each area local emergency planning committee (LEPC) sponsors this type of training. Tarpons Springs hosted a class like this by arranging with its local LEPC to fund the instructor and the local fire department to provide the training building, and then both sent workers to the class and all received continuing education units. More importantly, however, they also received the designation of a chlorine first responder at the technician level. If you need any more information on this issue, please do not hesitate to drop me a line at dougprentiss@windstream.net. (photos: Doug Prentiss Jr.)

Doug Prentiss is president of DPI, providing a wide range of safety services throughout Florida. He also serves as chair of the Florida Water Environment Association Safety Committee.

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

F W R J

New Path to Permitting Aquifer Storage and Recovery Systems in Florida Mike Coates, Patrick Lehman, Craig Varn, and Douglas Manson Figure 1. Authority Service Area

Mike Coates, P.G., is the deputy director and Patrick Lehman, P.E., is the executive director at Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority in Lakewood Ranch. Craig Varn is an attorney with the Manson Bolves law firm in Tallahassee. Douglas Manson is an attorney and president of the Manson Bolves law firm in Tampa.

or years, regulatory issues surrounding mobilization of arsenic in groundwater have stymied development of new aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems in Florida. Introduction of oxygenated water during the ASR recharge cycle can dissolve small amounts of arsenic and mobilize it in groundwater within the storage zone around the production wells causing exceedance of the drinking water standard for arsenic in groundwater. Monitoring data show that arsenic mobilization tends to be limited to short distances from the ASR production well, making it a

Figure 2. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wellfield 2 Production Well Configuration

October 2013 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

manageable situation where the ASR entity has ownership or control of surrounding land. These data provide support for the track pursued by the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority) for the permitting of its ASR system, and a potential remedy to the regulatory barrier to future ASR development in Florida. In August 2012, the Authority submitted an application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for a UIC Class V, Group 7 injection well operation permit to combine its two ASR wellfields under one permit at the Peace River Facility (Facility) site. The application was accompanied by a petition for water quality criteria exemption (WQCE) pursuant to Rule 62-550.500, F.A.C. The WQCE petition requested that arsenic concentrations be allowed to exceed the drinking water standard (10 ug/L) within the ASR storage zone on property owned or controlled by the Authority, as long as the arsenic standard is met at the property boundary. Issuance of the WQCE required demonstration of public interest, protection of public health, safety, and welfare, and a number of other requirements, including noninterference with use of the groundwater resources and adequate monitoring and protection of water resources.

Aquifer Storage and Recovery Defined In this article, ASR involves the use of wells to inject water into a storage zone in the upper Floridan aquifer, and recovery of the stored supply when needed. Successful development of alternative water supplies using surface water in Florida depends on the availability of large volume storage such as ASR, which can be filled quickly when surface water resources are in abundance, allowing use of the stored water to meet water supply needs during the state’s extended dry season when surface water resources are scarce. In Florida, ASR systems are permitted under Chapter 62-528, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), where they are designated as either Group 3 (reclaimed water) or Group 7 (potable or non-potable) injection wells. A review of FDEP records in 2011 indicated that of 88 ASR system permits issued in Florida, 38 percent store surface water, 34 percent store groundwater, and 28 percent store reclaimed water. Surprisingly, only four of the ASR systems in the state have been issued operation permits to allow the system to be used as needed to meet demand. Forty systems operate under a construction permit or a “letter of authorization to use,” which typically requires a de-

fined storage and recovery of water each year (i.e., cycle testing). Permits for 28 of the systems are expired and another 16 were under review by FDEP. The very low percentage of operation permits, high percentage of ASR systems that continue, sometimes for decades, under construction permits, and the large number of inactive systems (expired permits), is the product of an uncertain regulatory climate surrounding ASR; specifically, the issue is mobilization of arsenic in groundwater. Arsenic, a naturally occurring element in the subsurface often associated with the mineral pyrite, is found in small quantities in the matrix of the limestone aquifers most often used in Florida for ASR. Introduction of oxygenated water during the ASR recharge cycle can dissolve and mobilize the arsenic, thereby degrading groundwater quality. Arsenic mobilization gained a great deal of significance as an issue for ASR systems in January 2006 when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) changed the primary drinking water standard for arsenic from 50 ug/L (parts per bil) to 10 ug/L. Many ASR systems met the 50 ug/L arsenic standard after a small number of recharge and recovery cycles; however, the 10 ug/L standard essentially curContinued on page 48

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

Continued from page 47 tailed ASR development in Florida. Monitoring data at the Authority’s ASR system shows that mobilized arsenic tends to migrate only short distances within the storage zone from the ASR production (injection/recovery) wells and usually attenuates further and further with each cycle period. As such, where the ASR entity has ownership or control of surrounding land, or some other form of institutional controls on use of the aquifer within the zone of influence, the arsenic issue becomes a manageable condition. The ability to control the extent of dissolved arsenic migration and the use of groundwater resources by others within the area where arsenic standards may be exceeded provided the basis for a new track to permitting an ASR system by the Authority in southwest Florida. This has the potential to expand ASR development in Florida, improving opportunities for alternative water supply development and supporting the environment in the process.

Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority The Authority is an interlocal governmental agency created in 1982 to supply drinking water to Charlotte, DeSoto, Manatee, and Sarasota counties, and the City of North Port in southwest Florida (Figure 1). The Authority's water production and storage facilities in DeSoto County include a 120-milgal-per-day (mgd) water intake on the Peace River, a 48-mgd conventional surface water treatment plant, 6.5 bil gal in off-stream raw water storage, and 6.3 bil gal in finished water ASR storage capacity. The facilities currently serve an average demand of 25 mgd.

Peace River Aquifer Storage and Recovery System The Authority owns and operates two ASR wellfields at the Facility. ASR Wellfield 1 includes nine production wells installed incrementally between 1984 and 1995. Eight of the wells utilize the Suwannee Limestone in the upper Floridan aquifer at depths of 600 to 900 ft below land surface as the storage zone, while one of the wells utilizes the Tampa Member of the Arcadia Formation at a depth of about 400 to 500 ft below land surface. Wellfield 2 includes 12 production wells completed in 2002, all of which utilize the Suwannee Limestone as the storage zone. Figure 2 (CH2M Hill, 2012) shows ASR production well characteristics and geologic sequence for the area. Figure 3 shows the ASR wellfield locations relative to the Peace River water treatment and reservoir storage facilities.

Figure 3. Peace River Facilities and Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wellfield Locations In addition to the production wells, the Authority’s ASR system also includes 24 monitoring wells (16 Suwannee zone, four Tampa zone, and four shallow Arcadia and Peace River formation). Native water quality in the Suwannee storage zone generally meets drinking water standards, with the exception of total dissolved solids and sulfate, which average about 900 mg/L and 300 mg/L, respectively. Both ASR wellfields store fully-treated drinking water. The ASR system is generally recharged during the summer wet season when raw water reservoir storage is high, excess water is available from the Peace River, and water demand from Authority customers is relatively low. To address increased arsenic concentrations, water recovered from the ASR system is discharged and mixed into the raw water reservoir system and thereafter is fully retreated, removing arsenic before delivery to customers. The ASR Wellfield 1 has operated since 1985 under a “letter of authorization to use” before it was issued a UIC Class V, Group 7 operation permit in 2008, along with an administrative order to address any exceedance of arsenic. While recovered water from wells in Wellfield 1 is generally below the 10 ug/L arsenic standard, after more than 20 years of operation, infrequent exceedance of the standard continues. Wellfield 1 is operated as-needed to aid in meeting regional water demand. The ASR Wellfield 2 has operated under a UIC Class V, Group 7 construction permit since 1999, with a recent renewal in 2011. The construction permit requires cycle testing, which involves specified recharge quantities, storage timeframe, and recovery quantities on each cycle, whether those quantities are needed to meet demand or not. The wellfield is currently on cycle 13, and while arsenic concentrations in recovered water are declining, the wellfield average remains between 15 and 20 ug/L.

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Arsenic Mobilization at Peace River Aquifer Storage and Recovery Facilities Data collected from production and monitoring wells at the Authority’s ASR facilities indicates that while arsenic concentrations periodically exceed drinking water standards in individual ASR production wells, dissolved arsenic concentrations attenuate within short distances from the production wells. This suggests that arsenic is reprecipitated in the aquifer. Maximum arsenic concentrations recorded in 2012 from ASR Wellfield 2 production and monitor wells are shown in Figure 4 (CH2M Hill, 2012). The short migration distances for arsenic make this a condition that can be managed within Authority-controlled property. Migration is expected to be influenced by the volume of water in storage and, potentially, the ASR recharge rate. Storage in Wellfield 2 during 2012 peaked at about 1.5 bil gal.

New Permitting Strategy The 2013 expiration date for the Wellfield 1 operating permit, continuation of costly cycle testing at Wellfield 2 under the existing construction permit, and the general plight of ASR in Florida, led the Authority to consider a different permitting track for these facilities. Discussions with the FDEP staff indicated that the agency was interested in developing a mechanism to improve opportunities for ASR in the state, while ensuring resource protection. In 2010 the FDEP issued a white paper proposing use of a zone-of-discharge concept to address the regulatory issues associated with arsenic migration (FDEP, 2010). That concept provided the basis for a new ASR permitting strategy. Continued on page 50

FWEA Announces 3rd Annual Florida Water Festival The Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) will present the third annual Florida Water Festival on October 26 at Cranes Roost Park at Uptown Altamonte in Altamonte Springs from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Designed to educate the public about the importance of protecting the state’s water resources, this event offers fun and educational events for those in the water industry and their families and friends. Last year’s festival had over 300 visitors and there is no cost to attend! See what it’s like to carry water for a long distance, as many in the developing world still must do every day, by participating in the one-mile Walk for Water. Participants will also learn facts about water around the world as they walk. Enjoy music, interactive demonstrations on water quality sampling and testing, and learn

how water reclamation systems work. Children will enjoy the poster contest, water animal face painting, and a water filtration test. There will be exhibits from area companies and agencies, and prize drawings throughout the day. For more information, contact Stacey Smith at Stacey.Smich@ch2m.com or (407) 650-2189. You can also visit www.fwea.org/water_festival.php and “Like” the Facebook page at www.facebook.com/FloridaWaterFestival.

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

Continued from page 48 Rule 62-528.630(3), F.A.C., states that “[n]o underground injection control authorization by permit or rule shall be allowed where a Class V well causes or allows movement of fluid containing any contaminant into underground sources of drinking water, and the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation under Chapter 403, F.S., and Chapter 62-550, F.A.C., or which may adversely affect the health of persons.” There are, however, exceptions provided in Rule 62-520.500, F.A.C., which allow an exemption from water quality criteria, may include primary drinking water standards, and may be applied to ASR facilities that meet specific criteria outlined in the rule. On Aug. 20, 2012, the Authority petitioned the state for a WQCE pursuant to Rule 62520.500, F.A.C. The exemption requested that the arsenic standard for the Authority’s ASR system be applied at the boundary of property it owned or controlled. In conjunction with the WQCE petition, an application was submitted to FDEP to combine Wellfields 1 and 2 under a single UIC Class V, Group 7 ASR operation permit.

Water Quality Criteria Exemption Requirements The WQCE rule requires submittal of a $6,000 fee per parameter with the petition. The petition is required to include alternative compliance levels for the parameters from which an exemption is being sought. The exemption will be granted if the petition affirmatively demonstrates that: a) Granting of the exemption is clearly in the public interest.

b) Compliance with such criteria is unnecessary for the protection of present and future potable water supplies. c) Granting the exemption will not interfere with existing uses or the designated use of the waters or of contiguous water. d) The economic, environmental, and social costs of compliance outweigh the economic, environmental and social benefits of compliance. e) An adequate monitoring program approved by FDEP has been established to ascertain the location and approximate dimensions of the discharge plume, to detect any leakage of contaminants to other aquifers or surface waters, and to detect any adverse effect of underground geologic formations or waters. f) The requested exemption will not present a danger to public health, safety, or welfare. If a WQCE is granted, either in whole or in part, the UIC Class V, Group 7 permit would be conditioned or modified to include the exemption. The exemption is effective for the duration of the permit and a petition for renewal of the exemption is required to follow the same procedures as would a petition for a new exemption. On Feb. 12, 2013, FFDEP granted the Authority petition for Class G-II groundwater quality criteria exemption. The exemption provides relief only for arsenic in groundwater within the property owned or controlled by the Authority and identifies specific criteria and justification considered in the affirmative demonstration required for items “a” through “f ” listed previously. The WQCE was tied to the issuance of the Class V, Group 7 ASR well system operating

permit for Wellfields 1 and 2, which was issued by FDEP on April 24, 2013. The combination of the WQCE and operation permit includes a rigorous groundwater monitoring and reporting program, and the use of sentinel wells in the storage zone and in shallower aquifers near the property boundaries. Actions required, including possible cessation of recharge activities, are described should arsenic concentrations in groundwater exceed the drinking water standard in the sentinel wells.

Conclusions For years, regulatory issues surrounding mobilization of arsenic in groundwater have hindered development of new ASR systems in Florida. Introduction of oxygenated water during the ASR recharge cycle can dissolve small amounts of arsenic and mobilize it in groundwater within the ASR storage zone around the production wells. Often the dissolved arsenic concentrations exceed the 10 ug/L drinking water standard creating regulatory issues and uncertainty about the longterm viability of these systems. However, many years of monitoring data from the Authority’s ASR facilities show that arsenic mobilization tends to be limited to short distances from the ASR production well, making this a manageable situation where the ASR entity has ownership or control of surrounding land. That formed the basis for a new track to obtaining a UIC Class V, Group 7 operation permit for the ASR facilities at the Peace River site. The Authority operation permit application was submitted in conjunction with a petition for a WQCE pursuant to Rule 62-520.500, F.A.C. The WQCE requested that the arsenic standard (10 ug/L) for the ASR system be applied at the boundary of property owned or controlled by the Authority, essentially providing a compliance zone of discharge. The successful completion of this permitting process, including issuance of a WQCE for arsenic and a Class V, Group 7 operation permit for the Authority’s two ASR wellfields facilitates improved operational efficiency and lower costs for ASR at the Facility, and may provide a new path to a more certain permitting future at existing and proposed ASR facilities in the state.

References

Figure 4. 2012 Maximum Arsenic Concentrations in Aquifer and Storage Recovery Wellfield 2

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

• CH2M Hill, 2012. Peace River Facility ASR System 2011 Annual Report. • FDEP, 2010. Nonendangerment Proposal – Permitting Aquifer Storage and Recovery Facilities with Increased Arsenic Levels (Submitted to EPA May 3, 2010).

New Products Innovyze introduces IWLive, a comprehensive solution for real-time water distribution hydraulic and water quality modeling, monitoring, forecasting, and SCADA integration. Fully optimized for the control room, IWLive equips operators with advanced analytics and decision-support tools that are both reactive and predictive, enabling them to improve system performance and reliability, enhance service, save money, safeguard critical infrastructures, and protect public health. More information can be found at www.innovyze.com.

The FPI Mag from McCrometer is a high-performance hot tap flow meter for industrial or municipal water applications. The unique streamlined water flow sensor features multiple electrodes across the entire full diameter. Electrode pairs are positioned so that each measures a cross-sectional area. Multi-electrode sensing provides accurate measurement without long upstream and downstream pipe runs, providing a smaller footprint for greater accuracy. Go to www.mccrometer.com to learn more.

The Solar Sync ET sensor from Hunter Industries is an advanced weather sensor that calculates evapotranspiration and daily adjusts the sensor controls based on local weather conditions. Solar Sync measures sunlight and temperature and uses evapotranspiration to determine the correct seasonal adjustment percentage value to send to the controller. The controller then uses its programmed run time and adjusts to Solar Sync’s seasonal adjustment value to modify the actual irrigation run time for that day. The Solar Sync evapotranspiration sensor integrates Hunter’s Rain-Clik and Freeze-Clik sensors, providing quick response in shutting down an irrigation system during rain or freezing conditions. The Solar Sync is compatible with most Hunter controllers and can be used by residences, businesses, and municipalities. Visit www.hunterindustries.com for more details.

The Amacan P submersible motor pump from KSB Inc., originally designed for

stormwater and wastewater applications, has a current capacity of up to 110,000 gal/min and a power range up to 550 hp. The pump can be installed horizontally or vertically. Built for stormy conditions, the system includes a sealed shaft and motor and doublesealed cables. This design protects the cables at entry to the pump motor and prevents movement inside the tube, stabilizing the cables and helping to prevent damage. The diffuser casing and motor housing are made of cast iron, and the shaft, casing wear ring, screws, bolts, and nuts are stainless steel. An aluminum-bronze/duplex stainless steel propeller completes the pump. More about the product is available at www.ksb.com.

The XD 3.0 grinder from JWC Environmental is 13 ft tall, weighs 9300 lbs, and produces 7 tons of cutting force at peak loads. The grinder combines rotating screen drums and a Muffin Monster® grinder to shred solids while processing up to 59 mgd. This combination is ideal for pump stations since the grinder shreds rags, plastics, wood, and trash so particulates flow easily through pumps and pipelines. This new design features larger cutters, shafts, and housings, which enables the grinder to process heavy debris and first-flush storm loading. To find out more, visit www.jwce.com.

Blue-White Industries has a redesigned Chem-Pro® C2 diaphragm metering pump with a broad range of capabilities, including a larger pump cover, which enables engineers to increase the size of the control pad and make it more intuitive. The pump also has a snap-on cover for the control pad. Other features include a remote start/stop, 4—20-mA output, upgradable firmware, a larger singlepiece junction box (40 percent larger than previous models, and terminal-block connectors. Log onto www.bluwhite.com for more information.

gases, optimal efficiency is achieved and the lowest levels of NOX, CO and CO2 are produced. The in situ design places a zirconium oxide sensing element at the end of a probe, which inserts directly into a flue-gas stream. Probe lengths are available from 18 in. to 12 ft, and a slip-mounting option provides the ability to mount a long probe at any insertion depth. The product is fully field-repairable. All active components can be replaced, including the diffuser/filter, sensing cell, heater and thermocouple, and all electronics cards. A dual-channel operator interface unit provides an easy-to-use method of setup, calibration, and failure diagnostics. Go to www.emersonprocess.com for further details.

Anue Water Technologies Inc. presents the FORSe 5™ series of high-efficiency odorand corrosion-control systems for wastewater collection systems. The series uses sustainable means to eliminate the source and production of odor and corrosion. The systems integrate on-site oxygen and ozone generation using a proprietary “hydrodynamic” infusion process and microprocessor controls in a quiet and compact package. The systems treat force mains, lift stations, or a combination of the two. The different models range in capacity to accommodate various flows and loads. They are designed for ease of use and require limited maintenance. For more information, visit www.anuewater.com.

The PATROL Series PAX 5 generation of 105-dB(A) industrial flashing sounders from Pfannenberg Group are designed to warn of hazardous situations or production problems in water and wastewater treatment facilities, factories, commercial offices, sports arenas, hotels, and other buildings, as well as aboard ships. Applications include evacuation signals for fires, toxic gas leaks, and chemical spills. The company website, www.pfannenbergusa.com, has more details.

The Emerson 6888 combustion fuel analyzer measures the oxygen remaining in flue gases from such combustion processes as boilers, incinerators, kilns, process heaters, and industrial heating furnaces. By maintaining the ideal level of oxygen in the flue Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

FSAWWA SPEAKING OUT

Our Regions At Work: A Year in Pictures Region III volunteers spent the day looking for trash at the St. Johns River annual cleanup.

Jason Parrillo, P.E. Chair, FSAWWA

s much as the board of governors and executive committee contribute to the Florida Section, the active volunteers by far contribute more. This is no more evident than in our twelve regions. Without our regional chairs and the active volunteer base within each region, the Florida Section would not be able to accomplish what it does evey year. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so instead of me writing about the regional contributions, I want to show you their contributions. This article is devoted to showcasing the wonderful work our volunteers and members do locally, within their regions throughout the year, for the Florida Section and for our industry. Please make sure to visit the website at www.fsawwa.org to see what other activities your region is hosting for the remainder of year. Don’t forget to mark your calendars for the Annual Fall Conference to be held December 1-5 at the Omni Hotel Resort at ChampionsGate. Please take the opportunity to visit the conference website and register early before the conference rates go up on November 2. This is the one event you don’t want to miss!

Region IV and FSAWWA WUED Demystifying the Codes Workshop held on June 28 at the SWFWMD Tampa office. There were 28 people in attendance at the workshop.

Region II's Tenth Annual Day of Fishing held in June held in Mayport..

Region VIII participated in the City of Stuart's “Saturday in the Park” Water Fest on April 6 in Memorial Park.

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Region II held its Annual Best Taste Drinking Water Contest on April 11 at the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTM NERR) in Ponte Verde Beach. The St. Johns County Utility Department water from the CR214 Water Treatment plant was selected as the winner.

Region XI hosted the Ed Singley Golf Classic on Saturday, May 18, in Gainesville.

Judging at Region IX's Best Tasting Drinking Water Contest held at Destin Water Users Facility.

Region VI third annual Model Water Tower Competition held in Boca Raton. Melissa Velez checking in the students.

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ October 2013

October 2013 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

FWPCOA TRAINING CALENDAR SCHEDULE YOUR CLASS TODAY!

OCTOBER 11 ......Backflow Tester Recert*** ....................Deltona ..............$85/115 21-24 ......Backflow Tester ....................................Pensacola ..........$375/405

NOVEMBER 5 ......Backflow Recert ....................................Lady Lake ..........$85/115 4-7 ......Backflow Tester ....................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405 4-8 ......Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ..Orlando ............$350/380 8 ......Backflow Tester Recert*** ....................Deltona ..............$85/115

DECEMBER 2-5 ......Backflow Tester ....................................Deltona ..............$375/405 13 ......Backflow Tester Recert*** ....................Deltona ..............$85/115 16-18 ......Backflow Repair ....................................St. Petersburg ....$275/305

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

You are required to have your own calculator at state short schools and most other courses.

*** any retest given also Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;˘ October 2013

October 2013 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

Tank Engineering And Management Consultants, Inc.

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

863-354-9010 www.tankteam.com

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

Fort Lauderdale 954.351.9256

Jacksonville 904.733.9119

Miami 305.443.6401

Orlando 407.423.0030

Gainseville 352.335.7991

Key West 305.294.1645

Navarro 850.939.8300

Tampa 813.874.0777 813.386.1990

West Palm Beach 561.904.7400

Naples 239.596.1715

Showcase Your Company in the Engineering or Equipment & Services Directory Contact Mike Delaney at 352-241-6006 ads@fwrj.com

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY

October 2013 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY

Motor & Utility Services, LLC

Instrumentation,Controls Specialists Instrumentation Calibration Troubleshooting and Repair Services On-Site Water Meter Calibrations Preventive Maintenance Contracts Emergency and On Call Services Installation and System Start-up Lift Station Controls Service and Repair

Central Florida Controls,Inc. Florida Certified in water meter testing and repair P.O. Box 6121 • Ocala, FL 34432 Phone: 352-347-6075 • Fax: 352-347-0933

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

w w w. c e nt r a l f l or i d a c ont rol s . c om

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY Showcase Your Company in the Engineering or Equipment & Services Directory Contact Mike Delaney at

352-241-6006 ads@fwrj.com

CLASSIFIEDS Positions Av ailable

We are currently accepting employment applications for the following positions: Water & Wastewater Licensed Operator’s – positions are available in the following counties: Pasco, Polk, Highlands, Lee Instrumentation Technician – Pasco

Utilities Storm Water Supervisor $51,494-$72,457/yr. Plans/directs the maintenance, construction, repair and tracking of stormwater infrastructure. AS in Management, Environmental studies, or related req. Min. five years’ exp. in stormwater operations or systems. FWPCOA “A” Cert. req. Apply: HR Dept., 100 W. Atlantic Blvd., Pompano Beach, FL 33060. Open until filled. E/O/E. Visit www.mypompanobeach.org for details.

SCADA Network Technician

Maintenance Technicians – positions are available in the following locations: Jacksonville, Lake, Marion, Ocala and Palatka Employment is available for F/T, P/T and Subcontract opportunities Please visit our website at www.uswatercorp.com (Employment application is available in our website) 4939 Cross Bayou Blvd. New Port Richey, FL 34652 Toll Free: 1-866-753-8292 Fax: (727) 848-7701 E-Mail: hr@uswatercorp.com

Utilities Department - Town of Jupiter, FL: Experience administering a SCADA Network required. Knowledge of the water treatment process preferred. For more information, see http://www.jupiter.fl.us/Jobs.aspx

City of St. Petersburg – Water Resources Engineer IRC26821 $56,426 - $86,968 DOQ – Deadline 06-21-2013;Technical, supervisory engineering work in design, operation, maintenance of water/wastewater facilities; requirements: four-year degree in Environmental Engineering or related, valid State of Florida Driver’s License, State of Florida Registered Professional Engineer - See detailed requirements, apply online at www.stpete.org/jobs or mail resume to Employment Office, PO Box 2842, St Petersburg FL 33731 EOE/DFWP/Vets.' Pref.

Purchase Private Utilities and Operating Routes Florida Corporation is interested in expanding it’s market in Florida. We would like you and your company to join us. We will buy or partner for your utility or operations business. Call Carl Smith at 727835-9522. E-mail: csmith@uswatercorp.com

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Water and Wastewater Utility Operations, Maintenance, Engineering, Management

City of Margate CHIEF UTILITY MECHANIC Applicant must possess a High School diploma or GED; supplemented by completion of trade school, supplemented by five (5) years work experience in the maintenance and repair of mechanical equipment, structures and installation and repair of water/wastewater utility systems, three (3) years of which shall be in a supervisory capacity, or an equivalent combination of training and experience. Must have valid CDL class "B" Florida Driver's License upon application. Annual salary range - $43,709 - $61,324, DOQ. Applications are available in Human Resources, Margate City Hall, 5790 Margate Blvd., Margate, FL 33063 or may be down loaded from the web site at www.margatefl.com. This position is open until filled. The City of Margate is a participant in the Florida Retirement System and is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Water Plant Superintendent The City of Miramar Utility Department is seeking qualified candidates for a Water Plant Superintendent. This position is responsible for supervising day to day operations of a potable water treatment plant in the City of Miramar. It requires Florida State Class “A” Operators license and 10 years progressive supervisory experience in water system operations. Starting salary is $48,426 annually. For more information and to apply for this position, please go to the City of Miramar’s employment website at http://www.miramarjobs.us.

CITY OF WINTER GARDEN – POSITIONS AVAILABLE The City of Winter Garden is currently accepting applications for the following positions: - Wastewater Plant Operator Class C - Water Plant Operator Class C - Wastewater Treatment Manager - Collection Field Tech - I - Collection Field Tech II - Utilities Operator II - Customer Service Technician I Please visit our website at www.cwgdn.com for complete job descriptions and employment application. Applications may be submitted online, emailed to jobs@cwgdn.com or faxed to 407-8772795.

WASTEWATER PLANT SUPERVISOR The City of Lakeland is seeking a Wastewater Plant Supervisor. The Salary is $42,993.60 - $66,684.80/yr. This is skilled and technical work in the operation and maintenance of the City’s wastewater treatment plants. Requires a high school diploma from an accredited school or a G.E.D. and three (3) years of wastewater plant operations experience. Must possess and maintain a state of Florida Class “B” wastewater plant operator certification. Continuous – Position may close at anytime without notice. Applicants must complete an online application at: http://www.lakelandgov.net/employmentservices/Employment Services/JobOpportunities.aspx. EOE/DFWP

CHIEF WATER PLANT OPERATOR Bonita Springs Utilities located in Bonita Springs, FL is seeking qualified candidates for a CHIEF WATER PLANT OPERATOR for both RO and Lime plant facilities. This position is responsible for supervising the day to day operations of (2) potable water treatment plants along with overseeing the maintenance. This position requires a Florida Class A License and at least 5 years of supervisory experience. Must be knowledgeable about treatment processes. The annual salary range is 51,065 to $76,595. For more information and to apply for this position, please go to www.bsu.us.

WATER PLANT OPERATOR 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 Certification at time of application. Salary Ranges – “A”-$17.33 – 26.01; “B”$15.76-23.65; “C”-$14.33-21.50. Excellent benefits package. To apply and/or obtain more details contact City of Temple Terrace, Florida, Human Resources at (813) 506-6430 or visit www.templeterrace.com. EOE/DFWP

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING RATES -

Classified ads are $18 per line for a 60 character line (including spaces and punctuation), $54 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

Florida Water Resources Journal • October 2013

City of St. Petersburg – Water Maintenance Manager IRC27324 $64,987 - $97,435 DOQ – Open Until Filled; Supervisory, technical work in construction, installation, maintenance and repair of potable and reclaimed water systems; requirements: high school diploma/GED equivalency; State of Florida Drivers License; State of Florida Class "A", "B" or "C" license in Water Distribution and FW & PCOA certificates in Cross Connection Control and/or Reclaimed Water - See detailed requirements, apply online at www.stpete.org/jobs or mail resume to Employment Office, PO Box 2842, St Petersburg FL 33731 EOE/DFWP/Vets.' Pref.

Display Advertiser Index Aqua Aerobics ............................19 Auto-Meg....................................41 CEU Challange ............................23 Crane Pumps ..............................54 CROM ........................................21 Data Flow ..................................33 FSAWWA Conference ............24-26 FSAWWA Sections ......................53 FWPCOA Training ........................55 FWRC Call for Papers ..................47 Hudson Pump ............................35

Gerber ........................................10 Integrity Systems ........................15 Pat’s Pump..................................31 Rangeline....................................63 Regional Engineerinig..................43 Reiss ............................................5 Schlumberger ............................27 Stacon ..........................................2 Treeo ..........................................38 US Water ....................................37 Xylem ........................................64

Positions Wanted JACK BECK – Has completed the Florida C Wastewater course and is seeking a trainee position to aquire plant hours to obtain his license. Prefers the southwest Florida area but is willing to relocate. Contact at 121 Sinclair Street, SW. Port Charlotte, Fl. 33952. 941-276-6650 B’ANTERIO “Anthony” JOHNSON – Passed the C Water course with 1,900 hours credit. Seeking a trainee position to complete required plant hours. Also completed and tested for C Wastewater course, results pending. Willing to relocate. Contact at 1419 E. Green St. Perry, Fl. 32347. 850-838-7376 “B” WASTEWATER OPERATOR – Five plus years experience seeking a position in West Palm or Broward County but will consider other areas. Contact at 321-266-3065 COREY McCOY – Holds a Florida Double C license with 10 years experience and has passed the B Wastewater test. Experienced in Maintenance, Heavy Equipment and is OSHA Certified. Prefers Lake, Orange or Polk Counties but is willing to relocate. Contact at PO Box 501, Groveland, Fl. 34736. 352-346-1017

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.

Certification Boulevard Answer Key From page 11 1. A) 19.3 lbs/day/ft 2 Formula Solids loading rate, lbs/day/ft2 = Total lbs/day entering the secondary clarifier ÷ clarifier surface area, ft2 Total lbs/day entering the secondary clarifier = Total flow entering the clarifier, mgd x MLSS, mg/L x 8.34 lbs/gal = (5.5 mgd x 1.5) x 2,200 mg/L x 8.34 lbs/gal = 8.25 mgd x 2,200 mg/L x 8.34 lbs/gal = 151,371 lbs/day Clarifier surface area = πr2 3.14 x (50 ft x 50 ft) = 7,850 ft2 151,371 lbs/day ÷ 7,850 ft2 = 19.28 lbs/day/ft2

2. C) Rotifer Beginning with the lowest life form, the microorganism indicators are amoebas, small flagellates, large flagellates, free swimming ciliates, stalk ciliates, rotifers, nematodes (worms), and water bears. So, of the three indicators listed in the question, the rotifer is the highest life form in the activated sludge process.

demand for oxygen from carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), or nitrogen placed on the activated sludge process in a short period of time.

4. B) High aeration dissolved oxygen. Because denitrification is an anoxic reaction, high dissolved oxygen levels in the aeration tank will typically reduce denitrification efficiency.

5. B) Extended aeration In regard to the growth curve of microorganisms, the far right side of the curve has low food availability, slow bug growth, low yield of new cells, high solids inventory, and poor oxygen utilization transfer efficiency. This translates to low F/M ratio, high SRT, low sludge yield, and increased lbs of oxygen required per lb of CBOD5 destroyed. This extended aeration growth rate is also called “endogenous respiration.”

6. C) Autotrophic There are two main groups of autotrophic bacteria that are responsible for the conversion of inorganic ammonia to nitrate. The first group, nitrosomonas, known as ammonia-oxidizing bacteria, convert ammonia to nitrite. The second group, nitrobacter, known as nitrite-oxidizing bacteria, convert nitrite to nitrate. The process of nitrification does not necessarily remove nitrogen from the wastewater; it only converts it to a more stable form.

3. B) A strong influent waste strength. The term “loading” refers to the demand for oxygen placed on the activated sludge process from the flow being treated. A shock load is a high

lbs per day of solids LEAVING the process. Typically, SRT is based on total solids, and MCRT is based on volatile solids. The GSA, however, is the lbs of solids in the activated sludge process divided by the lbs per day of solids ENTERING the aeration system.

7. B) SRT and MCRT The SRT and MCRT have similar concepts: lbs of solids in the activated sludge system divided by the

October 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

8. D) Phosphorus accumulating organism (PAO) A PAO, or phosphorus accumulating organism, is responsible for the uptake and removal of phosphorus from the wastewater in a biological nutrient removal (BNR) activated sludge process.

9. A) 7.14 lbs Nitrification consumes alkalinity at the rate of about 7.1 to 7.2 lbs of alkalinity for each lb of ammonia oxidized. Because this action causes the mixed liquor pH to drop, biological denitrification is desirable, which replenishes the alkalinity at a rate of about 3.6 lbs of alkalinity for each lb of nitrate that is consumed as a source of oxygen. The action of denitrification helps to stabilize the MLSS pH in a range acceptable to the nitrifying bacteria.

10. A) It will burn. Organic material, and other volatile matter, will typically burn in a muffle furnace at temperatures of about 550ºC. However, just because something burns in a muffle furnace does not necessarily mean that it is biological in nature. For example, a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe shaved into a sample will burn in a muffle furnace; the PVC, however, is neither biology, nor food for the biology.