Page 1


Editor’s Office and Advertiser Information:

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

Business Office: P.O. Box 653, Venice, FL 34284-0653 Web: http://www.fwrj.com General Manager: Editor: Graphic Design Manager: Mailing Coordinator:

Michael Delaney Rick Harmon Patrick Delaney Buena Vista Publishing

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

News and Features 18 2018 FWPCOA Officers and Committee Chairs List 34 The History of Wastewater Treatment and the Pioneers Who Advanced the Industry— Megan Ross, Christina Goodrich, and Ivy Drexler

45 News Beat

Technical Articles 4 Fiberglass Pipe Helps Solve the World’s Drinking Water Shortage—Jeffrey LeBlanc and Matthew Sternisha

24 A Reservoir in Your Future: A Real-World Evaluation of a Reservoir for Supplemental Irrigation Water for the City of Cape Coral—W. Kirk Martin, Roger Copp, and Jody Sorrels 52 Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery System: Update on a Groundbreaking System in Florida—Robert G. Maliva, Monica M. Autrey, Logan Law, William S. Manahan, and Thomas M. Missimer

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: 407-363-7751 FWPCOA Operators Helping Operators: John Lang – 772-559-0722, e-mail – oho@fwpcoa.org FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318

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

Education and Training 11 21 31 49 50 51 55 61

Florida Water Resources Conference CEU Challenge FWPCOA Spring Short School FSAWWA Training FSAWWA Drop Savers Contest FSAWWA Awards TREEO Center Training FWPCOA Training

Columns 20 22 32 46 47 48 60 62

FSAWWA Speaking Out—Bill Young Contractors Roundup—Geoffrey Schmidt Test Yourself—Donna Kaluzniak C Factor—Mike Darrow FWEA Focus—Tim Harley Let’s Talk Safety FWRJ Reader Profile—Alberto Montalvo Committee Profile: FWEA Utility Council—Lisa Wilson-Davis

Departments 64 Service Directories 67 Classifieds 70 Display Advertiser Index

Volume 69

ON THE COVER: Tarpon Springs Alternate Water Supply Design-Build Project: Built with communication, collaboration, and cooperation. (photo: Wharton-Smith Inc.)

February 2018

Number 2

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 • February 2018

3


F W R J

Fiberglass Pipe Helps Solve the World’s Drinking Water Shortage Jeffrey LeBlanc and Matthew Sternisha ith the aim of alleviating an endemic water shortage, the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) initiated the Carlsbad Desalination Project, which was slated to begin delivering fresh drinking water to businesses and residents by the end of 2015. The plant was designed to convert more than 100 mil gal a day (mgd) of raw seawater into 54 mgd of desalinated drinkable water. This is the first of 12 such plants due to be constructed in California. Designing and building the pipeline involved a number of unique challenges. The pipe had to be buried at depths up to 18 ft, sometimes 6 ft below groundwater level. This required the pipe to withstand the soil and American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) H-20 traffic loading, as well as resist buckling from the external water pressures. The highly corrosive nature of both the seawater and the chemically treated permeate water, with pH values ranging between 2.5 and 10.5, placed severe demands on pipe, joints, and fittings. As a potable water application, the pipe requirements included compliance with the American Water Works Association (AWWA) C950 and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3517 standards, as well as

W

National Science Foundation (NSF) certification and phthalate-free resins. The project specification called for a minimum 30-year service life. The contractor, Kiewit Shea Desalination (KSD), outlined an aggressive construction schedule, requiring the fast-paced production of pipe and fittings to meet specifications. As the chosen supplier of Flowtite® filament wound fiberglass pipe for the project, the Thompson Pipe Group arranged to have the pipe produced in Louisiana. The installation of the large-diameter fiberglass pipe included many different joint types and installation methods. The pipe manufacturer provided onsite field crews and technical support throughout the phases of the contract as a construction partner. With precut fiberglass lamination kits shipped from the pipe manufacturer, field butt-wraps were performed in place. In other areas on the project, the contractor took advantage of the fiberglass pressure-rated couplings, which eliminated many of the 72-in. field wraps on the project and shaved valuable time from the tight installation schedule. In addition to the traditional direct-bury installation method, 350 lin ft of 72-in. fiberglass pipe were installed using a “jack and bore” application. The pipe manufacturer’s

Figure 1. Carlsbad Desalination Plant Layout

4

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Jeffrey LeBlanc, P.E., is director of engineering at Flowtite in Zachary, La. Matthew Sternisha, P.E., is a project manager with Kiewit Shea Desalination in Carlsbad, Calif.

engineers worked with the contractor to design a system to fit within the casing of the jacking tunnel. Using the pressure-rated couplings, the pipe sections could be joined together within the tunnel, simplifying the installation process and saving even more time. This project was difficult due to the aggressive construction schedule, as well as the field-quality control requirements. This article will review this unique project from the aspect of construction, installation, and inspection.

Background The Claude "Bud" Lewis Carlsbad Desalination Plant is a 54-mgd and 56,000 acreft-per-year seawater desalination plant located adjacent to the Encina Power Station (EPS) in Carlsbad, Calif. Desalination has evolved into a desirable water supply alternative by tapping the largest reservoir in the world: the Pacific Ocean. The technology is at work in many arid areas of the world, including the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and the Caribbean. A 30year water purchase agreement is in place between SDCWA and Poseidon Water for the entire output of the plant. For over 50 years, the operators of the EPS have regularly maintained the lagoon and dredged an opening to the ocean to sustain a source of seawater to cool the power plant's generators. As a result, the 388-acre Agua Hedionda Lagoon is a man-made and shallow coastal embayment teeming with marine life, as well as an array of recreational and educational activities and environmental research. The lagoon supports a thriving marine ecosystem and is home to the HubbsSeaWorld fish hatchery, the Carlsbad Aquafarm, a YMCA camp, and the Lagoon Foundation's Discovery Center. Continued on page 6


Continued from page 4 The seawater-cooled power plant is expected to be decommissioned in the coming years, leaving the lagoon without an entity responsible for its long-term maintenance. Locating the new seawater desalination plant next to the EPS solves this problem. The operators of the desalination plant are assuming responsibility as steward for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the surrounding watershed, providing long-term maintenance and dredging, once the power

Figure 2. Pretreatment Process

plant is decommissioned. This will guarantee for many years to come that the citizens of Carlsbad will be able to enjoy the benefits of this clean lagoon and its surrounding beaches. This lagoon is wholly owned by Cabrillo Power LLC, and since 1952, it has been kept open to the Pacific Ocean by routine maintenance dredging. The original location of the EPS site was determined to be desirable due to its close proximity to the ocean, compatible land use, and the availability of the existing intake and outfall. The choice to place the desalination facility within the EPS was made so as not to conflict with Carlsbad’s redevelopment plan goals related to facilitating the conversion and relocation of the existing power plant and enhancement of commercial and recreational opportunities. The site of the desalination plant is a 6-acre parcel in a portion of the power plant that leaves the majority of the property open for potential recreational or redevelopment activity at some future date. The desalination facility will conform to the 35-ft height limit in the local coastal plan, and the building design has been enhanced to ensure compatibility with future land use in the area. Onsite improvements include an

Figure 3. Reverse Osmosis Process

Figure 4. Post-Treatment Process

6

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

intake pump station and pipeline, concentrate return pipeline, sewer connection, electrical transmission lines, road improvements, and a product water pump station and pipeline. The desalination facility is connected to the discharge channel of the EPS at two locations. The intake pump station is connected to the upstream portion of the discharge channel and delivers 100 mgd of seawater to the desalination facility. Half of the seawater processed by the desalination facility is converted to high-quality drinking water, which is delivered to Carlsbad and the surrounding communities. The remaining water (50 mgd of seawater with an elevated salt content) is returned to the discharge channel where it’s diluted with additional seawater prior to being discharged to the ocean. This ensures that the increased salinity will not impact the marine organisms in the vicinity of the discharge channel.

The Process Pretreatment Pretreatment is the first stage of the desalination process. When seawater arrives at the plant, it goes through a pretreatment process to remove algae, organic materials, and other particles. Seawater is pumped into multimedia filter tanks, which include layers of anthracite and sand atop a bed of gravel. Once filtered, the water moves into the next stage of desalination. Secondary Pretreatment Before seawater enters the reverse osmosis (RO) filters to remove the salt particles, it must go through a second stage of pretreatment called microfiltration to remove smaller and even microscopic impurities. At this point, virtually all impurities other than dissolved salts and minerals have been removed from the water, but it still needs to go through one more step to remove the dissolved salts and minerals to be ready for drinking. Reverse Osmosis Building The RO building is the center of the desalination process and the desalination plant. During this process, dissolved salt and other minerals are separated from the water, making it fit for consumption. The building contains more than 2,000 pressure vessels housing more than 16,000 RO membranes. The RO works by pushing water, under intense pressure, though semipermeable membranes to remove dissolved salts and Continued on page 8


Table 1. Fiberglass Pipe Scope for Underground Sections

Figure 5. Typical Glass Reinforced Polymer Mortar Pipe Wall Section Table 2a. Fiberglass Pipe Section Conditions

Continued from page 6 other impurities. These membranes act like microscopic strainers that allow only water molecules to pass through, leaving behind the salt, minerals, and other impurities, such as bacteria and viruses. In addition to the RO membranes and pressure vessels, this building houses 144 state-of-the-art energy recovery devices. These devices work by capturing the hydraulic energy created by the high-pressure reject stream of seawater produced during the RO processes and transfers it into incoming seawater, without consuming any electrical power themselves. These devices save the plant an estimated 146 mil kilowatt-hours of energy per year, reducing carbon emissions by 42,000 metric tons annually, which is roughly equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from 9,000 passenger vehicles.

Table 2b. Fiberglass Pipe Section Conditions

Post-Treatment After RO filtration, the fresh water is nearly ready for consumption, but before making its way to the customer’s faucet, the water must undergo post-treatment, which includes adding some minerals back into the water and disinfection with chlorine. Product Water Storage Once the desalination process is complete, the water moves to the product water tanks, where it is then pumped 10 mi to the SDCWA’s second aqueduct in San Marcos. Here, the water is blended with the regional supply and transported to the surrounding communities.

Design Considerations The plant and pipeline were taken on as an engineering, procurement, and construction design/build project by KSD, a joint venture of Kiewit Infrastructure West

8

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Co. and J.F. Shea Construction Co. The plant’s main process design (water pretreatment, RO filtration, post-treatment, and instrumentation and control systems) was integrated by subcontractor, IDE Americas. As part of this project, the contractor had to install roughly 2,100 lin ft of underground filament wound fiberglass reinforced polymer (FRP) process to carry raw seawater and permeate product for the desalination plant. With a flow capacity up to 108 mgd of raw seawater and 54 mgd of desalinated permeate product through various processes, the diameters of the FRP pipes ranges from 24 to 72 in. The full scope of the FRP pipe installed for the underground sections is included in Table 1. The fiberglass pipe proposed for these sections for the project was a glass reinforced polymer mortar pipe. Polymer mortar fiberglass pipes include a sand fortifier in the core of the wall construction of the pipe to provide pipe stiffness for buried pipe applications. There are two very distinct layers of structural glass reinforcements that are found in the exterior and interior skin sections of the pipe wall. Figure 5 shows the cross section of the fiberglass wall structure. The FRP pipe was used in various sections throughout the facility. Each section within the facility had different requirements for the pipe material, as shown in Table 2a and 2b. The material used for the seawater intake pipe is exposed raw seawater, which is highly corrosive and has a salinity of approximately 4 percent. The FRP pipe materials utilized for the permeate water with chemical addition are exposed to various pH levels ranging from as low as 4.5 to as high as 11.7. Because of the various conditions within the system, the resin manufacturer provided both polyester and vinyl ester resin to accommodate the pipe section requirements. As part of the physical material requirements for the appropriate FRP pipe design, specific loading conditions had to be considered for the underground pipelines. These pipes needed to be strong enough to handle the soil load from burial depths of up to 32 ft of cover, as well as AASHTO H-20 traffic loading. In addition, the pipe needed to be able to withstand the internal pressures of 118 pounds per sq in. gage (psig) and at the same time be able to handle negative pressure of 7.25 psi vacuum with the addition of 6 ft of groundwater pressure at the top of the pipe. In order to achieve the physical requirements for the underground piping, two different pipe stiffness classes were utilized (pipe stiffness of 36 and 46 psi), as

shown in Table 3. The typical trench conditions for the underground pipe material included a crush stone pipe zone embedment material 6 in. under the pipe and 12 in. over the pipe. Figure 6 provides the typical trench installation conditions. As a design/build project, the FRP pipe specifications were adapted specifically to the project to address these unique conditions. Three primary requirements within the specifications were that the pipe materials have to provide a minimum design and performance life of 30 years, the product

needs to be NSF 61-certified for this potable water application, and the product has to be made with phthalate-free resins. In addition, the AWWA C950 and ASTM D3517 standards for fiberglass pressure pipe for use in water applications were utilized to provide the backbone for the manufacturing quality control. The contractor was able to source a single manufacturer (Thompson Pipe Group – Flowtite), to supply the filament wound FRP pipe materials to cover these sections of Continued on page 10

Table 3. Fiberglass Pipe Installation Conditions

Figure 6. Fiberglass Pipe Trench Conditions Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

9


Image 1. Fiberglass Pipe Installation

Continued from page 9 the project. As a team, the contractor and the pipe manufacturer worked together to optimize construction by adjusting the plans to eliminate any potential challenges that the contractor might face during the installation process. Because this was a design/build project, the construction schedule was extremely compressed, which meant that many of the design challenges were being addressed concurrently with the construction of the project. The team worked well together to efficiently come up with solutions that benefited the project. One of the solutions, to help with reducing the installation time of the 72-in.-diameter pipe, was to utilized FRP couplings in lieu of laminated fiberglass joints. The manufacturer was already capable of producing joint lengths of 40 ft, which had already eliminated many joints through the project, but the utilization of these couplings eliminated 19 additional field laminated fiberglass joints. This collaborative effort reduced the upfront design/submittal phase to allow for production of the pipe to begin more quickly, as well as provide for a more efficient installation process and meet the aggressive construction schedule of the contractor.

Construction

Image 2. Fiberglass Field Laminations

The contractor originally broke ground on the construction of this facility in December 2012, but the installation of the underground pipe section did not begin until December 2013. With the fast-paced construction schedule, it was critical that all FRP components shipped to the project were coordinated between the contractor and the manufacturer, but more importantly, the products needed to be of the highest quality. As part of the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program at the pipe manufacturing facility, a transparent quality program was created that allowed for the contractor QC representatives to visit the pipe manufacturing facility in Louisiana and perform audits with the in-house QC staff. Once the products were delivered to the project site, the pipe manufacturer’s field representatives worked together with the contractor’s field staff to provide in-field solutions during the installation. To help with the speed of the pipe installation, precut glass kits were provided and labeled from the pipe manufacturing facility to the jobsite so that field crews did not have to cut glass in the field, which saved time on the fiberglass fieldlaminated joints. On other solution that saved time and facilitated the ease of installation was utilizing

the FRP couplings to push the pipe sections together within the tunneled portion on the project. This section included 340 lin ft of the 72 filament wound FRP pipe and couplings. In order to achieve this, the team worked together to design a system to fit within the casing of the jacked tunnel to push the joints together.

Conclusion The project was successfully completed on time in December 2015 and has been delivering water to the businesses and residents of San Diego County. The compressed construction schedule and the joint effort between the contractor and the FRP pipe manufacturer were some of the many reasons this project was able to be completed on time. The lessons learned that can be taken away from this project include: S Many construction challenges can be avoided during the design phase of a project. S The ability of the construction group and the manufacturer to adapt and overcome challenges together as a team is important on every project, but on a project with a compressed construction schedule, this collaborative effort is increasingly more critical. S It is valuable to have the right manufacturing partner that can adapt to the construction needs on a project in order to assist with various items, which can more easily be done in the manufacturing facility than at the jobsite.

References 1. “Desalination Plant. ”http://carlsbaddesal.com/ desalination-planthtml. S Figure 7. Fiberglass Flexible Coupling Joint System

10

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal


2018 FWPCOA OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS For more information on officers and committee chairs, visit the association website site at http://www.fwpcoa.org.

• Vice-Chair Robert Case (727) 892-5076 04-vice-chair@fwcpoa.org • Secretary Debra Englander (727) 892-5633 04-secretary@vwpcoa.org • Treasurer Janet DeBiasio (727) 892-5640 04-treasurer@fwcpoa.org

Region 5 • Vice-Chair Larry Johnson johnlarry1953@att.net • Secretary-Treasurer Jackie Scheel (904) 665-8473 ScheJB@jea.com • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Ralph (Andy) Bowen (904) 665-6052 bowera@jea.com

• Director Stephen Utter (772) 978-5220 05-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair George Horner (772) 873-6400 GHorner@cityofpsl.com • Vice-Chair Val Santos (772) 462-1150 santosv@stlucieco.org • Secretary-Treasurer John Lang (772) 562-9176 jflang2012@gmail.com

Region 3

Region 6

• Director Albert Bock 01-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Russel Burton 01-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair (currently vacant) • Secretary-Treasurer Tom Walden (850)980-5161 tjwalden@cs.com

• Director Kevin Shropshire (407) 832-2748 03-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Glen Shiler (712) 664-3629 03-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair June Clark (321) 868-1240 J.Clark@cityofcapecanaveral.org • Secretary Wendell Maxwell (321) 863-6765 wendell.maxwell@brevardcounty.us • Treasurer Russ Carson (321) 749-5914 jrcdillo@aol.com • Secretary-Elect Marcy KingDaniels (321) 220-4480 marcykd84@gmail.com

• Director Dennis Godwin (561) 876-7220 06-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Vince Munn vmunn@pbcwater.com • Vice-Chair Pat Lyles (561) 381-5354 4953lexus@comcast.net • Secretary-Treasurer Patti Brock (561) 493-6261 pbrock@pbcwater.com • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Jessica Hill (561) 386-5839 R6Training@outlook.com

Region 2

Region 4

CORPORATE OFFICERS • President Mike Darrow (863) 409-4256 president@fwpcoa.org • Vice President Kenneth Enlow (813) 226-8708, ext. 239 vice-pres@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Rim Bishop (561) 627-2900, ext. 314 sec-treas@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Patrick Murphy (813) 757-9191 st-elect@fwpcoa.org • Past President Scott Anaheim (904) 665-8415 past-pres@fwpcoa.org

REGIONAL OFFICERS Region 1

• Director David Ashley (904) 665-8484 02-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Josh Parker (904) 665-6052 parkje@jea.com

18

• Director Jeff DeGroot (727) 588-3769, ext.402 04-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Robert Case (727) 892-5076 04-chair@fwcpoa.org

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

• Treasurer Tim McVeigh (954) 683-1432 07-treas@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect (currently vacant)

Region 8 • Director Nigel Noone (239) 565-5352 08-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Scott Edson (239) 259-6009 08-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair Matt Astorino (239) 677-0042 08-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer (currently vacant) • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect (currently vacant)

Region 9 • Director Scott Ruland (386) 878-8976 09-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Jamie Hope (352) 318-3321 hope2protectFLwaters@gmail.com • Vice-Chair (West) Tom Mikell 352-213-0723 • Vice-Chair (East) Brian Terry (386) 574-2181 • Secretary Jim Parrish (386) 574-2181 • Treasurer Bob Serpa (386) 574-2181 • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Randy Cornell 386-574-1620

Region 10 Region 7 • Director Renee Moticker 07-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Nigel Harris (954) 921-3288, ext. 8741 07-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair Pavel Plecenik (800) 639-7739 07-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary Michael Towns (954) 921-3288 07-st-elect@fwpcoa.org

• Director Charles Nichols Sr. (863) 581-0111 10-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Charles Nichols Jr. (863) 291-5763 10-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair Edward Clark (863) 815-6595 10-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org


• Secretary-Treasurer Katherine Kinloch (863) 679-3972 catloch3@verizon.net • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Cindy Sammons 10-st-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 11 • Director Athena Tipaldos (407) 246-4086 11-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Terri Seligman-Smith 407-254-7723 Terri.seligman@ocfl.net • Chair-Elect Kevin Young (407) 246-3089 kevin.young@cityoforlando.net • Secretary-Treasurer Scott Stoll (407) 709-8808 scottstolfwpcoa@aol.com • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Mark Shoup (407) 599-3563 Hillashoup@hotmail.com

Region 12 • Director Gerry Schoonmaker (941) 861-0512 12-director@fwpcoa.or • Chair Steve Saffels 813-763-9425 steve.saffels@gmail.com • Vice-Chair Brent Laudicina (941) 773-5551 12-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Zoé Chaiser 813-757-9191 zchaiser@plantcitygov.com • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect John Wolfe (813) 875-2486 12-sec-treas-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 13 • Director (currently vacant) • Chair Tracey Betz 13-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice-Chair Bill Ewbank 13-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Treasurer Arnold Gibson (386) 466-3350 13-treasurer@fwpcoa.org • Chair Tracey Betz 13-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary Linda Andrews 13-secretary@fwpcoa.org

STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRS • Awards and Citations Renee Moticker (954) 967-4230 awards@fwpcoa.org • Constitution and Rules Kenneth Enlow (813) 226-8708 const-rules@fwpcoa.org • Customer Relations Norma Corso (941) 764-4508 cust-rel@fwpcoa.org • Dues and Fees Tom King (321) 867-3042 dues@fwpcoa.org • Education Art Saey (954) 630-4433 education@fwpcoa.org • Ethics Scott Ruland (386) 878-8976 ethics@fwpcoa.org • Historical Al Monteleone (352) 459-3626 historian@fwpcoa.org • Job Placement Joan Stokes (407) 293-9465 • Membership Rim Bishop (561) 627-2900, ext. 314 membership@fwpcoa.org • Policies and Procedures Kenneth Enlow (813) 226-8708 vice-president@fwpcoa.org • Program and Short Course Jim Smith (386) 878-8976 programs@fwpcoa.org • Publicity Phil Donovan (561) 966-4188 06-director@fwpcoa.org • Systems Operators Ray Bordner (727) 798-3969 sys-op@fwpcoa.org

• Website Walt Smyser (954) 558-5656 webmaster@fwpcoa.org

SPECIAL COMMITTEE CHAIRS • Audit Tom King (321) 867-3042 audit@fwpcoa.org • Exam Consultant Ray Bordner (727) 527-8121 exam@fwpcoa.org • FWRJ/FWRC Tom King (321) 867-9495 Thomas.j.King-1@nasa.gov • Legislative Tim McVeigh (954) 683-1432 legislative@fwpcoa.org • Nominating Raymond Bordner (727) 527-8121 h2oboy2@juno.com • Operators Helping Operators John Lang (772) 562-9176 oho@fwpcoa.org • Safety Peter M. Tyson (305) 797-8201 safety@fwpcoa.org • Scholarship Renee Moticker (954) 967-4230 awards@fwpcoa.org

EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEES CHAIRS • Backflow Glenn Whitcomb (386) 561-2100 backflow@fwpcoa.org • Continuing Education Jim Smith CEU@fwpcoa.org • Industrial Pretreatment Kevin Shropshire (407) 832-2748 03-director@fwpcoa.org

• Plant Operations Jamie Hope (352) 318-3321 hope2protectFLwaters@gmail.com • Reclaimed Water Scott Walden (407) 836-6865/(407) 375-1014 reclaimed@fwpcoa.org • Stormwater Tom King (321) 867-3042 stormwater@fwpcoa.org • Utilities Maintenance David Pachucki (727) 530-9807 ppapadave@aol.com

ADMINISTRATION • Executive Director (currently vacant) exec-dir@fwpcoa.org • Training Coordinator Shirley Reaves (321) 383-9690 training@fwpcoa.org • Webmaster Walt Smyser (954) 558-5656 webmaster@fwpcoa.org

FWRC/FWRJ APPOINTMENTS • Trustee Tom King (321) 867-3042 Thomas.j.King-1@nasa.gov • Trustee Rim Bishop (561) 627-2900, ext. 314 rbishop@sua.com • Trustee Scott Anaheim (904) 665-8415 sanaheim@bellsouth.net • Member Ray Bordner (727) 527-8121 h2oboy2@juno.com • Member Al Monteleone (352) 259-3924 scooter1030@embarqmail.com • Member Glenn Whitcomb (386) 561-2100 backflow@fwpcoa.org • Member Mike Darrow (863)409-4256 president@fwpcoa.org

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

19


FSAWWA SPEAKING OUT

The Regions of FSAWWA: The Backbone of Our Section Bill Young Chair, FSAWWA

t is truly remarkable how far our Florida Section has come over the past 20 years. We now have a very professional staff, led by a truly remarkable executive director, and we have a modern headquarters building that provides our staff with the facilities to succeed and a central location for section volunteers to meet. All of these significant developments are the result of the foresight and dedication of our past leaders, and the executive committees they worked so closely with.

I

But, in my humble opinion, the evolution of our section owes most of its success to the commitment and drive of our regions, and the region leadership. Over the years, we have expanded from five regions to 12 in response to the needs of our membership, and to reduce the significant travel demands of our volunteers, which they endured in those early years. Today, the 12 regions are thriving and are undoubtedly the strength and backbone of our section. I feel very strongly that the regions and the section have worked collectively to bring us to where we are today. But to me, it’s the regions that drive everything we do, and produce the success we enjoy. What is so important about our 12 regions? S They serve the needs of each geographic area by offering timely educational presentations, information from vendors, and overall networking opportunities for our

Region Map Florida Section American Water Works Association 20

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

members. All of the regions conduct monthly, or quarterly, meetings that greatly enhance our ability to learn from and/or pass on valuable information to others in our career field. They also host informative training sessions that benefit many professionals every year. S They provide members the unique ability to “step up” and become leaders. The vast majority of current section leaders began their volunteer journeys at the region level. It’s here that we learn to organize and train our fellow volunteers to meet the needs of our membership, while working to meet section goals as well. From my own experience, I started a 20-year relationship with the Florida Section by participating in the creation of Region II. Since that time, we have developed a very successful mentoring program to encourage growth in our leadership, and our section is very well represented by past region chairs. S Among the fundamental goals of both the section and the regions is fundraising. Due to the success of the regions, our section has been a true national leader in raising funds for several important causes. Every year the regions conduct events that directly benefit Water For People, the Water Equation, and our own Roy Likins Scholarship Fund. We should all be very proud of the efforts of our regions to help others in Florida and around the world. S The regions are represented in our Best Tasting Drinking Water Contest every year at the Florida Water Resources Conference. This fun competition allows each region to share its expertise, while bringing attention to the importance of water. If you are not already involved in a region, please consider doing so. To get more information about the activities of each region, and who to contact to get involved, go to www.fsawwa.org. For all the reasons I mentioned, and for many more, you will not regret volunteering your time to this great organization. It could be playing golf for a fundraising event or attending a technical lunch and learning some new water technology. It all starts in the regions! S


Operators: Take the CEU Challenge! Members of the Florida Water and 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 Water Supply and Alternative Sources. 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, Fla. 33420-3119. Enclose $15 for each set of questions you choose to answer (make checks payable to FWPCOA). You MUST be an FWPCOA member before you can submit your answers!

Earn CEUs by answering questions from previous Journal issues!

Jeffrey LeBlanc and Matthew Sternisha (Article 1: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW)

1. Of the 100 mil gal per day (mgd) of seawater entering the desalination facility, _____ will be converted to high-quality drinking water. a. 25 percent b. 50 percent c. 75 percent d. 90 percent 2. _____________ is the earliest stage of treatment after which only dissolved salts and minerals remain in the water. a. Pretreatment b. Secondary pretreatment c. Tertiary pretreatment d. Reverse osmosis 3. A sand fortifier is included in the core wall of polymer mortar fiberglass pipe to provide a. flexibility. b. cohesion. c. bonding strength. d. stiffness. 4. Which of the following was not among the three primary pipe material specifications for this project? a. Minimum standard dimension ratio (SDR) matching ductile iron pipe b. NSF-61 certification c. Minimum 30-year design and performance life d. Made with phthalate-free resins 5. Which of the following energy conservation/recovery technologies will save this facility an estimated 146 mil kilowatt-hours of energy per year? a. Solar b. Wind c. High-pressure reject stream recovery d. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)certified building processes

SUBSCRIBER NAME (please print)

Article 1 _________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

Article 2 _________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

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

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.

Fiberglass Pipe Helping Solve the World’s Drinking Water Shortage

___________________________________

____________________________________ (Expiration Date)

Destin Water Users Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage Recovery System: Update on a Groundbreaking System in Florida Robert G. Maliva, Monica M. Autrey, Logan Law, William S. Manahan, and Thomas M. Missimer (Article 2: CEU = 0.1 WW)

1. Which of the following 2002 hydrogeological testing results provided strong evidence for effective confinement between the surficial and main producing zones? a. Decreased gamma ray activity b. Increasing specific capacity c. Well cuttings and geophysical logs d. Difference in water level between the two zones 2. Aquifer storage and recovery wells are categorized as Class ____ wells in the United States. a. I b. III c. IV d. V 3. The Destin city code states that water drawn from the sand-and-gravel aquifer may be used for a. drinking water only. b. irrigation only. c. drinking water and irrigation. d. surface water recharge only. 4. Lower arsenic concentrations in withdrawn reclaimed water subsequent to operational cycle 4 is attributed to a. dechlorination prior to reclaimed water injection. b. removal of dissolve oxygen prior to injection. c. a reduced recovery rate. d. over-recovery during cycle 3b. 5. Underground sources of drinking water are defined as nonexempt aquifers containing less than ________ mg/l of total dissolved solids. a. 500 b. 1,000 c. 5,000 d. 10,000

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

21


CONTRACTORS ROUNDUP

Evolution of Bid Forms to Ensure Maximization of Project Values Geoffrey Schmidt

n the final minutes leading up to a bid turn-in, the lead estimator sits at his computer looking like an air traffic controller. He is frantically answering phones, writing down final pricing, reviewing scopes for completeness, emailing, and entering pricing into estimating software. The lead estimator then has to pause the bidding process to call the bid runner, who is on location at the bid turn-in venue. The lead estimator reads off a couple of dollar values and a subcontractor’s name. The bid runner struggles to handle the phone resting on his shoulder on one side, while using the car steering wheel as a clipboard to write down all of the information before hanging up. This process happens again, and then once more. On the last call, the lead estimator has to give the bid runner an additional fifteen minutes to complete the hard copies, receive an electronic copy via email, transfer the electronic copy to a thumb drive, and walk through security to finally turn in the bid. Bid days are chaotic, to say the least. Completing extensive bid forms adds to the chaos and ultimately takes away from the project value. Forms can be omitted amidst the bedlam and calculation errors can be made, resulting in the disqualification of the lower bidder, which inevitably costs the owner additional funds as he or she is forced to use the second bidder. While the final pricing from subcontractors and equipment suppliers piles onto the bidder’s desk at the last minute, he must retain his focus on maximizing the project value to become the lowest bidder. In turn, his maximization efforts are passed onto the owner to result in a lower project cost. While in theory this is beneficial to the owner, the reality is that the uncertainty of forms can cause bidders to create price buffers. These buffers are often built in to cover the possibility of elimination of line items within the schedules of values. The result: an increase in project cost to owners from all bidders. Avoiding increased costs, while simulta-

I

22

neously reducing the chaos of the bid-submission process to further maximize value and reduce projects costs, can be achieved. Here are a few ideas that will simplify the bid process and inevitably pass the savings on to the owners.

Electronic Bidding The internet and emailing have changed the way bidding correspondence has been conducted in the past decade. Let’s face it, millennials are now the predominant members in the job market and the wave of Generation Z is on their heels. It’s only a matter of time before the bidding process is fully electronic. Solicitation services like Onvia-Demandstar and BidSync already provide electronic bidding; however, rather than leveraging these services, the majority of bids are still hand-delivered. Each owner’s bid submission process is unique, which means that once again bidders are forced to create price buffers to compensate for the time needed to correctly complete these owner-specific forms. Conversely, an electronic bidding service can streamline submission efforts, while simultaneously ensuring that responses meet established compliance criteria. Virtual check lists and online bid forms are two examples that will ensure that all executed forms are included and completed correctly. If the traditional hard-copy submission is still preferred, limiting the number of copies turned in and eliminating thumb drive electronic copies will help to further streamline the completion of bid forms. Conversely, fillable pdf bid formats could be leveraged to more efficiently complete all forms. Any additional hard copies or electronic copies could be provided post-bid, as stipulated by the owner.

Schedule of Values For traditional public bidding, utilization of one written-in lump-sum price, in lieu of multiple line items (i.e., schedule of values), eliminates unintelligible handwriting and mathematical errors. When multiple hard copies of 10 or more line items are required, the risk that numerical errors will be made increases, as does the time it takes to fill out the

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

schedule of values. Upon reading this, owners might argue that the schedule of values aids their efforts to dissect bid differences, and while the latter sentiment is true, it would be far more timeeffective for owners to request a detailed schedule of values from the top three bidders, rather than the entire lot. This request could be required within 72 hours of the bid opening to further eliminate possible mathematical errors. Deferring the schedule of values further allows contractors to focus strictly on refining their bid price in the last hectic minutes of closing the bid.

Listing of Subcontractors and Vendors Treatment equipment and subcontractors are usually more than half of the cost of water and wastewater construction projects. These costs are typically determined in the final hour of the bid. Cuts on one piece of equipment can often be in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars; however, during the time it takes to call the bid runner to write in a piece of equipment, a cut can be missed, which means that instead of saving the owner funds, the cost is passed along. Instead of forcing bidders to hand in specific equipment and subcontractor forms with the rest of their bids for water and wastewater construction projects, it would be advisable to instead require these forms in a time frame recommended within the schedule of values. The latter solution will allow the owner to make a proper award, while giving bidders the time needed to avoid missing an equipment cut.

Business Enterprise Programs Disadvantaged, minority, woman-owned, veteran-owned, and small-business programs take many different shapes, depending on the owner’s unique bid submission process. Goals are set, along with lengthy summary utilization forms or letters of intent. If goals are not met, good faith effort (GFE) packages are required to show the bidder’s attempt to utilize the program. While these programs do have their benefits, additional costs are incurred by the bidder to compile the lengthy and complex


forms, or GFEs. The forms sometimes require dollar values and percentages of the work. These figures take time to calculate and need to be transposed by the bid runner, which in the current bid hand-in process opens the door for additional errors. These forms could instead be easily submitted post-bid to avoid errors, and once again, reduce the need for price buffers.

Prequalification Some municipalities utilize qualification submittals within their bid proposal. While these qualification areas should never be overlooked, if the low bidder is disqualified at the time prices are submitted due to qualifications, then the owner might be left in limbo of a protest. Prequalifying contractors ahead of time for a specific project or annual contract based on type of work (i.e., lift station, line work, or plant contracts) simplifies the final award process. The upfront qualification of a bidder might add additional initial costs; however, in the long run, it eliminates a fair amount of paperwork and subsequently reduces the bidding costs for all parties.

The Bottom Line: Technology Paves the Way for a More Time- and Cost-Effective Bid Submission Process Technological improvements have created more efficient ways of conducting business, and thus, result in welcomed lower project costs. Some of the suggested ideas described might seem trivial on the surface, but dig a bit deeper and their financial impact is unparalleled. If, in the last 30 minutes of a bid, the time was spent strictly on improving pricing to the tune of 10 percent or more in savings, then owners wouldn’t hesitate to implement a few of the aforementioned process improvement suggestions. Ultimately, by simplifying the bid submission method, clarity will be gained, specific details will be upheld, and owners will retain their ability to make a proper decision on a qualified contractor. Geoffrey Schmidt is vice president with Florida Design Contractors in West Palm Beach. S

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

23


F W R J

A Reservoir in Your Future: A Real-World Evaluation of a Reservoir for Supplemental Irrigation Water for the City of Cape Coral W. Kirk Martin, Roger Copp, and Jody Sorrels he City of Cape Coral (city) has a highly successful integrated water supply program that effectively utilizes fresh and brackish groundwater, treated wastewater, and large-scale stormwater harvesting to meet its water demands. The city recycles 100 percent of its treated wastewater, supplemented by stormwater withdrawals from canals to meet irrigation demands. While over 1 bil gal of storage have been

T

added to the canal system since the implementation of the city’s integrated water management program in the late 1980s, continued expansion of the utility service area has significantly increased demand on the canal system over time. The canal system has been proven to be a reliable source of irrigation water for many years and continues to meet demands for most months of the year; however, the dry season of 2016 and

Figure 1. Regional location map.

24

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

W. Kirk Martin is a principal scientist and Roger Copp is a senior engineer with Water Science Associates in Fort Myers. Jody Sorrels is a civil engineer with the utilities department at City of Cape Coral.

2017 proved to have a serious impact on canal system levels, which threatened the use of the system for irrigation needs and fire flow protection. The city is embarking on a comprehensive update to its water utility plan that will identify and prepare a capital improvement plan for additional water sources. One potential source is creating an off-line water supply reservoir at the Southwest Aggregates Mine (mine) in southern Charlotte County just east of U.S. 41. The source of water would be wet season flows that are currently stored in the Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area (WMA). Blockages to historic flow-ways west of WMA have caused the backup of water to the extent that the southwest portion of WMA has elevated water levels and extended hydroperiods that are damaging both to wetland and upland habitats. Reconnecting a flow-way from WMA to the mine property would have substantial habitat benefits for the flooded lands on the southwest portion of WMA and potentially provide a viable source of irrigation water to the city. Water Science Associates Inc. was contracted by the city to evaluate the feasibility of using inactive mining pits at the mine, which is a 90 percent mined-out facility, as a surface water source to supply water to the city canals. The pilot test was conducted between April 27 and July 7, 2017, during which approximately 17 mil gal per day (mgd) were pumped from the reservoir into the stormwater ditches along U.S. 41. The discharged water was routed south for approximately 3 mi to reach Gator Slough, a source canal to the city’s canal system. Water-level responses to pumpage, flow rates in the ditches, and daily rainfall were monitored during the pilot test. Figure 1 shows the location of the mine site, water conveyance routing, and the canal system receiving area.


Test Plan Development A work plan was developed to distribute among the stakeholders prior to the commencement of the pilot test. Stakeholders for this project included, among others, the city, the mine owners, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Lee County, Charlotte County, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Charlotte Harbor Flatwoods Initiative, and the consulting team implementing the pilot project. The work plan provided test guidelines, methods, and protocols, including pump locations and capacities; monitoring locations, depths, and sampling frequency; water routing and erosion control; and other elements of the water production and monitoring program. Project team members and roles were identified, and detailed maps and tables were prepared showing the locations, dimensions, and operational parameters for each monitoring well; pumps; and the ditch flow measurement station. Water Delivery Two hydraulic pumps capable of producing a combined flow of 12,000 gal per minute (gpm), or 17.3 mgd, were installed in the main reservoir lake (Figure 2). The pumps discharged into an existing ditch along the southern boundary of the mine property that connected directly to the U.S. 41 ditches (Figure 3). Rock rip-rap was placed at the pump discharge outfall and on the west bank of the ditch at the point of discharge for minimization of erosion associated with the pumped water. A temporary culvert block (air bladder) was installed immediately north of the point of discharge in the ditch to prevent northward flow of water. Monitoring The monitoring program consisted of measurement of water levels, precipitation, and flow rates at several locations on the mine property and in the ditches south of the mine. A total of 13 pressure transducer/dataloggers were deployed to measure and record groundwater levels in wells and surface water levels in the mine pit and in downstream ditches. Seven new monitoring wells and two existing monitoring wells were equipped with water-level recorders at the mine site. Three water-stage recording stations were installed at ditch crossing culverts along U.S. 41 and one additional monitoring station was installed in the mine pit adjacent to the point of withdrawal. All of the water-level recorders were time-synchronized and programmed to simultaneously collect water-level readings hourly. Figure 4 shows the monitoring locations.

Environmental Safeguards A number of environmental protection protocols were established as part of the pilot testing program to ensure that there were no adverse impacts on nearby domestic well users or on the FDOT stormwater management system during the test. These included close monitoring of groundwater levels between the mine lake and an adjacent neighborhood to the north, with protocols for reducing pumping rates if groundwater level fell below a set point. Also, daily weather forecasts were monitored with protocols for pump shutdown if any significant rainfall was predicted. There were strict limitations on flows in the ditches, and daily and weekly reports were provided to FDOT and SWFWMD.

Permitting Water Management District Permits The mine falls under the jurisdiction of SWFWMD, but the water directed from the mine to Gator Slough enters the jurisdiction of SFWMD. The SWFWMD considered this project as a permit-by-rule under provisions specific to hydrogeologic testing purposes and requested a copy of the water delivery plan, as well as assurance that any other required permits had been obtained. No permit was required from SFWMD for water flows into its district. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Permits The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) granted a waiver to allow a surface water discharge after review of the water delivery plan, and requested a notice of

intent to use a multisector generic permit (MSGP) for stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity. That application was filed, and a MSGP was obtained. Florida Department of Transportation Permit The FDOT required an application for a general-use permit and water delivery plan. The plan described actions that would be taken to assure that the discharge did not result in the flooding of U.S. 41 or adjacent properties, including daily monitoring requirements; key individuals responsible for reporting any problems observed along U.S. 41; and actions to resolve any observed problems. An engineer’s estimate of potential damages to U.S. 41 culverts was provided to FDOT, and an escrow account that covered these costs was established by the city.

Data Collection and Analysis Pumping Rates During the period of the test pumping, the combined flow from the two pumps ranged between 6.4 and 21.2 mgd, with a mean value of 15.5 mgd. Figure 5 presents flow rates during the test period, along with recorded rainfall. The graph indicates a cautious start-up with rapidly increasing pumping levels that were able to confirm that the system was operating within designed and permitted parameters. The reduction in the pumping rate on May 24 and 25 was in direct response to the established environmental safeguards for a significant forecasted rainfall amount of more than 3 in. predicted on May 24; however, none of the rainfall events during the pilot test caused any significant Continued on page 26

Figure 2. Pumps at the Southwest Aggregates withdrawal lake.

Figure 3. View of the south ditch of the Southwest Aggregates site at the point of discharge.

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

25


Continued from page 25 increases in area water levels or stormwater flows, so the pumping was re-engaged at the full rate on the morning of May 25. Pumping was terminated on June 8 due to significant rains the prior week and additional heavy rainfall in the forecast.

Figure 4. Map showing monitoring station locations.

Figure 5. Reported pumping rates for the two pumps utilized for the Southwest Aggregates pumping test.

26

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Surface and Groundwater Response Figures 6 and 7 show groundwater and surface water level responses before, during, and after the pilot test. Figure 6 shows lake-level and groundwater-level responses along a southern transect from the mine; Figure 7 shows lake-level and groundwater-level responses along an eastern transect from the mine. Both figures show notable declines in water level in the mine in response to the pilot-test pumping and decreasing groundwater-level impacts with increasing distance from the mine. The data also show more pronounced influence from rainfall events in the wells most distant from the mine lake. While most of the data sets show reasonably anticipated responses from the pilot testing procedures, there were a few anomalies created by working in an active mining site. For example, Figure 7 shows measured water levels for monitoring well MW-N1, which is at the north side of the mine property. There was a sharp decline in water levels of 1.2 ft at MW-N1 on May 19, which was due to mining staff opening a small gap between the north lake and the withdrawal lake. The water level in the withdrawal lake rose approximately 0.5 ft as a result of the inflow from the north lake. The majority of wells installed in the east and south transects from the mine perimeter provided highly valuable data for determination of potential impacts due to pumping from the mine and for determination of aquifer hydraulic coefficients for the groundwater system surrounding the mine. During the course of the pilot test, water levels declined in the lake by approximately 6 ft, declined in the groundwater system by 2 to 3 ft in close proximity to the lake, and showed essentially no declines beyond a distance of about 1,500 ft from the mine. Water levels were monitored after pumping ceased to evaluate recovery. Water levels in the wells furthest away from the withdrawal lake (MW-S3 and MW-E3) increased to levels higher than existed prior to the pumping test due to significant rainfall in late May and early June. Water levels at MW-S2 and MW-E2 (200 to 300 ft away from the mine) returned to prepumping levels within a few days after cessation of pumping, again primarily due to rainfall. Water levels in the wells closest to the mine and the mine itself remained below prepumping levels due to the low water level in the withdrawal lake through the month of June. Groundwater Hydraulics Data collected during the pilot test provide a


unique opportunity to define selected groundwater hydraulics, which may be used during more detailed reservoir design analysis. During the pilot test, approximately 15.5 mgd was pumped out of the withdrawal lake on a daily basis for 41 days. The water withdrawn from the mine includes typical water budget inflow components of groundwater baseflow, rainfall, and surface water inflow. Water losses to the lake include evaporation, surface water runoff, and the water pumping from the mine lake. For the testing period, the primary inflow contributor is groundwater and the primary outflow is the test pumping. The key hydraulic coefficient that determines groundwater flow characteristics is hydraulic conductivity (K), which determines the ease at which water flows through the aquifer matrix. Soil borings onsite have indicated that the aquifer connected to the withdrawal lake is an unconfined aquifer that is approximately 30 ft thick, comprised primarily of fine sand and silt, with some shell and limestone lenses. Numerous equations have been derived to estimate the K of unconfined aquifers using various forms of aquifer performance testing (APT). The most common form of APT typically involves a single pumping well and one or more monitoring wells, which cannot be used in this test. Two different mathematical approaches that are appropriate for evaluation of the hydraulics of the shallow aquifer system around the mining lake were used. These included a method developed by Guo (1997), which allows prediction of groundwater drawdown adjacent to a dewatered lake and the use of parameter estimating tools (PEST) in an analytic groundwater model that accurately simulates the lake and groundwater drawdowns resulting from the lake pumping (Doherty, 2007); each of these approaches are discussed in detail. Guo’s method provides a mathematical approximation of groundwaterlevel changes over time and distance in a semiinfinite water table aquifer in response to a drop of water level in a lake. Guo’s method reduced the nonlinear Boussinesq equation into a relatively simplified ordinary differential equation. A review of data presented in Figures 6 and 7 indicate that the testing period between April 28 (near the beginning of the test) and May 19 was not significantly influenced by rainfall and that a steady decline in water levels due to pumpage was observed during this period. Significant fluctuation in water-level data due to rainfall events were noted subsequent to May 19, hence data collected after May 19 were considered less reliable for estimation of hydraulic coefficients and were not used for the analysis. The water levels observed in Wells MW-E1, MW-E2, MW-S1, MW-S2, and the lake as observed on May 19 were selected for analysis. These

Figure 6. Relative water-level data for the withdrawal lake and wells south of the withdrawal lake.

Figure 7. Relative water-level data for the withdrawal lake and wells east and north of the lake.

Table 1. Summary of Results Using Guo’s Method.

Continued on page 28 Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

27


Figure 8. Drawdown versus distance from the withdrawal lake for selected wells.

Figure 9. Map of Weir 9, 19, and 58 in Gator Slough.

Figure 10. Measured water levels (ft – National Geodetic Vertical Datum [NGVD]) in Basin 4.

28

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Continued from page 27 wells were selected as having significant and consistent drawdown signatures. Based on lithologic analysis of the surrounding groundwater system, a specific yield of 0.1 and a saturated thickness of 30 ft were assumed for the initial calculations. Using an iterative approach, the K that best matched the drawdown patterns in the aquifer was determined using Guo’s equation. Results indicate that the K of the aquifer ranged between 21 and 48 ft/day, with an average value of 35 ft/day. Table 1 shows a summary of the results. A numeric groundwater flow model was developed to simulate the water-level responses to pumpage observed during the period from April 28 and May 19. The model was developed using MODFLOW (Harbaugh et.al, 2000), with Groundwater Vistas as the graphical user interface, and calibrated using PEST (Doherty, 2007). The modeling approach provided for incorporation of all the known test parameters and site features into a conceptual model (pumpage, aquifer thickness, distance to wells, rainfall, surface water bodies, etc.), with the use of PEST to select the hydraulic parameters that yield the best calibration to the observed water levels. The water levels observed in Wells MW-E1 and MW-E2 (east transect) and MW-S1 and MW-S2 (south transect) were used for calibration. These wells were selected because there are no surface water bodies between these wells and the withdrawal lake, so the water-level changes in these wells are the best reflection of aquifer characteristics of the strata that lie between the lake and the wells. It was also noted that the more distant Wells E-3 and S-3 were outside the influence of pumpage. The model simulated a 20-day period from April 29 to May 18 using daily stress periods. The three parameters that were calibrated in the model are: K, specific yield (SY) and evapotranspiration rate (ET). During calibration, K values were allowed to fluctuate between 1 ft/day and 200 ft/day, SY was allowed to fluctuate between 0.05 and 0.2, and ET was allowed to fluctuate between 0.001 and 0.02 ft/day. The model was run numerous times with various permutations and combinations of these parameters. The hydraulic coefficients that best matched or otherwise minimized the difference in simulated drawdown and field measured drawdown were selected by the model. The hydraulic coefficients that yielded the best calibration are K of 32 ft/day, SY of 0.18, and ET of 0.0037 ft/day. The value for K determined through model calibration closely matches the average K value developed from the Guo method. Final calibration statistics for the model calibration approach also demonstrate that the model-predicted drawdown agrees closely with the observed drawdown. The normalized root means squared


(NRMS) for the calibration is about 3.4 percent, which is an indication of very good calibration. Based on the analytic and numeric modeling analyses presented, the K of the shallow unconfined aquifer is estimated to be about 35 ft/day, with a specific yield of 0.18. These values provide a reasonable basis for future reservoir and conveyance design analysis. Note that the methods used for analyses are mathematical approximations of complex physical conditions and have some inherent limitations based on assumed homogeneity. Hydraulic Barrier Concept It’s common for large water storage or dewatering projects to install hydraulic buffers to minimize and contain potential impacts within a relatively small area. The hydraulic buffers are usually recharge trenches or temporary retention cells installed between areas where water is actively being raised or lowered, and potentially sensitive surrounding areas like wetlands and other natural systems. An appropriately designed and constructed hydraulic buffer therefore should minimize or eliminate impacts from the operation of a reservoir to the surrounding area. During this study, water conveyance to U.S. 41 and some backflow into an adjacent con-

veyance ditch south of the withdrawal lake created an opportunity to evaluate the potential effects of a hydraulic barrier along the southern boundary of the mine lake. The water levels observed in the eastern transect of the monitoring wells were compared with the southern transect of the monitoring wells. The hydraulic barrier effect occurred along the southern border of the mine property between monitoring wells MW-S1 and MW-S2. A plot of drawdowns at the end of the primary testing period in early June to the distance of the monitoring well from the mine lake indicate a good relationship between drawdown and distance from the lake for monitoring wells MWS-1, MW-E1, and MW-E2 (Figure 8); however, monitoring well MW-S2 located south of the hydraulic barrier shows distinctly less drawdown, indicating that the hydraulic barrier created by the filled ditch is providing some mitigation of drawdown impacts from the lake pumping. The farm ditch is relatively shallow, penetrating only a few feet into the surficial aquifer at the site, but the test results suggest that a properly designed, constructed, and operated hydraulic barrier at this site could provide an effective separation of waterlevel fluctuations inside the reservoir from the surrounding hydrological and ecological systems.

Open Conveyance Efficiency The flow monitoring at stations SW-1, SW2, and SW-3 provided valuable information regarding the ability to deliver water from the mine to the city by way of the open channel flow along U.S. 41. Flow monitoring on nine separate dates indicated that the percent yield of flow measured at upstream station SW-1 ranged from 45 to over 100 percent due to a number of factors. The primary loss was likely seepage from the ditches to the underlying groundwater system. Flow monitoring on one of the dates indicated that there was no seepage; however, the pumps from the mine were turned off for a portion of the day, therefore a comparison of SW-1 to the combined flow at SW-2 and SW-3 is not valid for that monitoring event. The higher yield experienced was in late May after three weeks of pumping. Over the entire test period, and because the pilot project was conducted during a drought period, seepage losses accounted for about 35 percent of the pumped flows, and the net yield to Gator Slough was 65 percent. Canal Response An analysis was conducted to assess the efContinued on page 30

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

29


Continued from page 29 fect of the test on city canal levels. Water was pumped from the mining pit for a period of 41 days, and water levels increased in Basin 4 in the city canal system. Water levels in Gator Slough are controlled at Weir 19, and the main inflow structure that diverts flows from Gator Slough into the city canals is Structure 58, as shown in Figure 9. Figure 10 presents measured water levels at Weir 16 and 17 (Basin 4) for the same period. Since the beginning of pumping on April 28 to the end of pumping on June 7, water levels increased by about 2 ft at Weir 19 and by 1 ft at Weir 58, and water levels in Basin 4 (Weirs 16 and 17) increased by about 1.5 ft due to the pumping. Additional water-level increases are likely due to rainfall within the city. Overall, the pumping project provided significant additional water to the city during a critical drought period. As discussed, the yield to the city during the first half of May was similar to the yield from the ditches into Gator Slough, suggesting that the water distributed from the mine adequately entered the city’s system.

Discussion Successful construction and operation of a reservoir requires the ability to: 1. Load the reservoir with water during periods of high water supply without adverse impacts to the source of water supply or to the area surrounding the reservoir. 2. Maintain water in the reservoir until needed in the dry season without excessive losses to the groundwater system or to evaporation. 3. Withdraw water from the reservoir during periods of low water supply without adverse impacts to the surrounding groundwater system or local ecology. Reservoirs have not typically been used in southwest Florida due to the integral relationship and hydraulic connection between surface water and groundwater, creating substantial losses of water to groundwater seepage during storage and a strong potential for impacts to environmentally sensitive wetland areas or existing legal water users during pumping. Regional watershed conditions adjacent to the mine and the apparent low K of the surrounding shallow groundwater system suggest that an effective reservoir system could be developed at the mine site. The pilot testing results indicate a relatively low K for the shallow groundwater system surrounding the mine. Low K is typically not desirable in developing a water supply system; however, in the case of developing a reservoir, the low yield character of the shallow aquifer system is a positive element in that it makes the hy-

30

draulic separation of the reservoir from the groundwater system much more viable. This hydraulic separation is critical to maintaining water in the reservoir for an extended period into the dry season and to eliminating the potential for adverse impacts to area wetland systems from the lowering of water levels in the reservoir during water withdrawal periods. A number of observations during the pilot test support the case that the mine may provide for an effective reservoir system. First is the low K value determined from the groundwater drawdown data, which are supported by the limited areal extent of drawdown created by the lake withdrawals. Drawdowns in the lake exceeded 5 ft, while drawdowns in the surrounding groundwater system were essentially absent beyond a distance of 1,500 ft from the mine. Second is the fact that while water levels in the more distant groundwater system recovered relatively rapidly with the onset of the wet season rains, the mine lake water level did not recover for more than four weeks after the start of a strong rainy season, indicating a low rate of groundwater seepage. And finally, the apparent attenuating effect of the hydraulic barrier created by the filled shallow farm ditch just south of the mine property bodes well for the potential effectivity of a properly designed and constructed hydraulic barrier that is able to maintain water in storage and to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to surrounding wetland environments.

Conclusions The pilot test of the mine as a possible reservoir to supplement irrigation-quality water to the city canal system had five principle objectives: 1. Evaluate the capacity of the existing mine lake to yield water during dry season months. 2. Evaluate the aquifer hydraulics of the groundwater system surrounding the mine. 3. Determine the potential impacts to surrounding areas from the lake water withdrawals. 4. Evaluate the potential of the U.S. 41 ditches to convey water from the mine to the city canal system. 5. Deliver irrigation-quality water to the city canal system during a severe drought period. Pilot testing showed that the existing mined lake is capable of producing 20 mgd or more of irrigation-quality water on a sustained basis during a severe drought period. An average pumping rate of more than 15 mgd for over 40 days produced approximately 6 ft of drawdown in the mine lake, but at least twice that much water is estimated to be available from the lake, especially as the mine is expanded to completion over the

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

next few years. Evaluation of the pumping and water-level response data indicates a relatively low K for the shallow aquifer system surrounding the mine. This low K will minimize the areal extent of impacts from operation of a reservoir at the site and facilitate creation of a hydraulic separation of the mine/reservoir from the surrounding aquifer system. The use of the existing stormwater ditches along U.S. 41 provided a convenient and effective conveyance of water from the mine to the city canal system for the pilot test; however, water losses to groundwater seepage along the conveyance path averaged over one-third during the pilot test, indicating the need for a closedpipe delivery system should a permanent reservoir system be implemented. Water levels in the canal system were raised by approximately 1.5 ft over the course of the pilot testing. The increased water levels were of critical importance to the city, both for meeting ongoing irrigation demands and for maintaining fire flow protection reliability during a severe drought period. The pilot test showed the value of having a major water storage system for supplemental supply of irrigation-quality water and the potential viability for development of a reservoir at the mine site.

References • A.D.A. Engineering Inc., 2014. Charlotte Flatwood Hydrologic Restoration – Conceptual Design of Bond Water Storage Facility. Prepared for SFWMD. • Tetra Tech Inc., 2017. Northeast Irrigation Reservoir Basis of Design (SCP 74). Prepared for the City of Cape Coral. • Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, M.G. 2000. MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model -- User guide to modularization concepts and the groundwater flow process. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-92, p 121. • Doherty, J., 2007. PEST surface water modeling utilities. Brisbane, Australia, Watermark Numerical Computing. • Guo, W., 1997. Transient groundwater flow between reservoirs and water table aquifers, J. Hydrology, 195. • Pulido-Velazquez, D. A, Sahuquillo, J. Andreu and M. Pulido-Velazquez. 2013. A General Methodology to Simulate Groundwater Flow of Unconfined Aquifers with Reduced Computational Cost. J. Hydrology. • Xiang, L. and Y. Zhang. 2012. A new analytical method for groundwater recharge and discharge estimation. J. Hydrology. • H. Yeh and Y. Chang. 2013. Recent advances in well hydraulics, Advances in Water Resources. S


Florida Water & Pollution Control Operators Association

FWPCOA STATE SHORT SCHOOL March 12 - 16, 2018 Indian River State College - Main Campus – FORT PIERCE –

COURSES Backflow Prevention Assembly Tester ..........................$375/$405

Stormwater Management C, B & A ..............................$325/$325

Backflow Prevention Assembly Repairer ......................$275/$305

Utility Customer Relations I, II & III................................$260/$290

Backflow Tester Recertification ......................................$85/$115

Utilities Maintenance III &  II ..........................................$225/$255

Basic Electrical and Instrumentation ............................$225/$255

Wastewater Collection System Operator C, B & A .....$325/$325

Facility Management Module I......................................$275/$305

Water Distribution System Operator Level 3, 2 & 1......$325/$325

Reclaimed Water Distribution C, B & A ........................$225/$255 (Abbreviated Course) ................................................$125/$155

Wastewater Process Control ........................................$225/$255 Wastewater Troubleshooting ........................................$225/$255

For further information on the school, including course registration forms and hotels, visit: http://www.fwpcoa.org/SpringStateShortSchool

SCHEDULE CHECK-IN: March 11, 2018 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. CLASSES: Monday – Thursday........8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday........8:00 a.m. to noon

FREE BBQ P Monday, March 12, 4:30 p.m. P

For more information call the

FWPCOA Training Office 321-383-9690 Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

31


Test Yourself

What Do You Know About Sedimentation and Flotation? Donna Kaluzniak

1. Typically, wastewater plants may have two types of sedimentation and flotation units, also called clarifiers. One set of clarifiers immediately follows the influent screening and grit removal system; the other follows biological treatment. These are called a. b. c. d.

aerobic and anaerobic clarifiers. basic and advanced clarifiers. initial and biological clarifiers. primary and secondary clarifiers.

2. Removal of settled sludge from a clarifier should be done at a rate that avoids a. b. c. d.

effluent toxicity. excessive algae formation. over-aeration of the solids. sludge septicity or gasification.

3. What is the major difference between sludge from a primary versus a secondary clarifier? a. Primary sludge is always less dense than secondary sludge. b. Primary sludge is usually more dense than secondary sludge. c. Primary sludge is always more septic than secondary sludge. d. Secondary sludge always settles faster than primary sludge.

5. When the velocity is greater in some areas of the clarifier than others, the highvelocity area may decrease detention time and cause solids to discharge in that area. This is called a. b. c. d.

6. In clarifiers, gas bubbles resulting from the conversion of soluble and suspended organic materials during anaerobic decomposition attach to the settled sludge, causing large clumps of sludge to rise to the surface. This is called a. b. c. d.

32

hydraulic ratio. organic loading rate. sludge volume index. surface loading rate.

floating anaerobic syndrome. organic disintegration. sludge gasification. sludge island formation.

7. A problem that often occurs on clarifier weirs and troughs that requires manual cleaning or the addition of a chlorine solution to the weirs is the growth of a. algae. c. fungus.

b. bacteria. d. mold.

8. Very small, finely divided solids that are difficult to settle out in a clarifier due to their small size and electrical charge are a. b. c. d.

4. One of the calculated guidelines for designing clarifiers to determine if they hydraulically underload or overload is the a. b. c. d.

flow dispersion. short-circuiting. turbidity affectation. venturi effect.

9. Most circular secondary clarifiers have sludge removal systems where the surface of the water in the clarifier is higher than the surface of the sludge in the well. The difference in head pressure forces sludge from the bottom of the clarifier to flow through pipes to the well or hopper. What type of sludge removal system is this? a. b. c. d.

Hydraulic pressure system Hydrostatic system Reverse gravity system Vacuum system

10. A condition where clouds of billowing sludge occur throughout secondary clarifiers when the sludge does not settle properly is called a. b. c. d.

bulking. cloudy clarifier syndrome. pop-ups. sludge gasification.

Answers on page 70

Reference used for this quiz: • Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants – A Field Study Training Program, Volume I, Seventh Edition, California State University, Sacramento.

colloids. organic solids. suspended solids. volatile solids.

Send Us Your Questions Readers are welcome to submit questions or exercises on water or wastewater treatment plant operations for publication in Test Yourself. Send your question (with the answer) or your exercise (with the solution) by email to donna@h2owriting.com.

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal


The History of Wastewater Treatment and the Pioneers Who Advanced the Industry Megan Ross, Christina Goodrich, and Ivy Drexler The history of wastewater treatment is one that spans thousands of years and across many civilizations throughout the world. While the driving factors throughout the ages vary, one thing remains consistent— it is people who drove this industry forward. S People who were scientists, engineers, leaders, teachers, doctors, and inventors. S People who wanted to make a change, make things better, and create a vision. S People who challenged the established thinking, politics, and perceptions of their day. S People who had to risk their reputations, their credibility, and their livelihoods to make a difference. It’s these people, these “pioneers” of the wastewater industry, who broke the mold and contributed to the advanced technology of wastewater treatment that exists today. This article will show how the wastewater industry was transformed through the lens of the pioneers who advanced the industry and will hopefully inspire others to forge a path ahead and become pioneers in their own right.

The Rise and Fall of Wastewater Collection: Ancient Roman Civilization (Time Period: 800 B.C.–A.D. 27) Driving Factors: Conquering, expansion, assimilation Key Pioneer of the Industry: Lucius Tarquinius Priscus Ancient Romans were relatively progressive in terms of water and sanitation and one of the first civilizations to develop sophisticated systems; however, much of the system was still public, i.e., very few private homes had connections to it. In private residences, citizens could use

34

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

chamber pots, which were emptied in the public sewer system or into the street. For example, the Romans built latrines as long platforms with several seats, where continuously flowing water caught the waste deposited in holes in the seats to carry it away into the sewer system. While primitive compared to modern standards, it wasn’t until hundreds of years later that any advancements were seen in the industry beyond the technologies that the Romans had accomplished. With the fall of Rome, the infrastructure was neglected, and the advancement of wastewater technology and theory stalled for centuries. Lucius Tarquinius Priscus Lucius Tarquinius Priscus, known as “Tarquin the Elder” was the fifth king of Rome, reigning from 616 to 579 B.C. According to Livy’s “History of Rome” (Book 1), Tarquin was originally from the region Etruria (currently the region known as Tuscany in western Italy), but relocated to Rome after failing to obtain political office in his hometown. It was there that he, after the death of the subsequent king, Ancus Marcius, convinced the Roman Legislature to appoint him as the successor. It was under Tarquin’s reign that one of the world’s oldest sewer systems was constructed, the Cloaca Maxima, or “great sewer.” Cloaca Maxima was an open-air trench and canal system said to have been built as a result of a great flood that left many of Rome’s lowland areas underwater. The system carried rainwaters through a collection system that ultimately discharged into the Tiber River. Today, over 2600 years later, the sewer still remains and serves as a historic monument for the wastewater industry. Over the next several hundred years the Romans covered over the canal and turned it into a sewer system for the city. Ultimately, the sewer became a combined system of rainwater runoff and wastewater. By A.D. 11, aqueducts supplied water to the city of Rome in order to supply public baths, latrines, fountains, imperial palaces, and private houses with drinking water. Cloaca Maxima collected all of the wastewater from these applications and discharged the waste into the Tiber River.


Sanitation Practices of the Dark Ages and Middle Ages (Time Period: 900 –1800) Following the fall of Rome, much of the advancements and technologies of human civilization were lost, including those of sanitation and wastewater collection. During the Dark Ages, a regression of sanitation practices and principles, coupled with infrequent bathing and washing, leading to rampant and widespread disease. At or around the 14th and 15th centuries, a reemergence of very remedial sanitation practices began. Castles of feudal kings and lords were known to have wastewater stored beneath them, and in the moats as well. Well-to-do people had chamber pots for waste in their homes. In Paris, cesspits and cesspools became the practice for waste disposal (Uy, 2007).

19th Century Public Health Revolution Driving Factors: Industrial revolution, populated cities, public health concerns Key Pioneers of the Industry: Napoleon I, Napoleon III, Baron Haussmann, Eugène Belgrand, Sir Edward Frankland, and Dr. John Snow Napoleon I, Napoleon III, Baron Haussman, and Eugene Belgrand Hugues Aubriot, a French administrator, who was appointed by Charles V (Aubriot was also credited for the construction of the Bastille from 1370 to1383), oversaw the construction of the underground Parisian sewer system in 1370, but it wasn’t until the early 1800s under the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleon I) that the first Parisian vaulted sewer network totaling 19 mi long was built. From 1853 to1870, under the reign of Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte (Napoleon III, Napoleon Bonaparte’s nephew), there was a major Parisian expansion known as the Reconstruction of Paris. Napoleon III sought to put Paris on the world map, and in a public speech in 1852 he declared “Paris is the heart of France. Let us apply our efforts to embellishing this great city. Let us open new streets, make the working class quarters, which lack air and light, more healthy, and let the beneficial sunlight reach everywhere within our walls" (Kirkland, 2013). In order to carry out his bold vision for Paris, he selected Georges Eugene Haussman (known as Baron Haussmann) to oversee this vast public works program (Gandy, 1999). Born in Paris in 1809, Haussmann had a varied educational background in law and music (Gandy, 1999). Although he started his career in public administration in 1831, Haussman held a variety of positions

before ultimately being selected by the newly declared emperor of France, Napoleon III, to carry out the Paris reconstruction program. While Haussman was an effective manager, he was not an engineer or a scientist; therefore, in 1855 he appointed Eugene Belgrand, a French engineer, as the director of water and sewer of Paris. Belgrand embarked on this ambitious project, designing a system of tunnels that could convey a substantially larger volume of wastewater, in addition to being clean and easily accessible. Under his guidance, from 1852 to 1859, the Paris sewer system increased fourfold. Belgrand also shared his insights through written publications that detailed his work and the science behind it. Belgrand’s project remains one of the most extensive urban sewer systems in the world. To honor his contributions to civil engineering in Paris, his name is engraved on the Eiffel Tower and there is a street in Paris (“Rue Belgrand”) named in his honor (Goodman, 1999). Sir Edward Frankland Sir Edward Frankland was born in Lancashire, England, in 1825, as an illegitimate child. He first became interested in chemistry as a student at the James Wallasey School. Frankland wished to become a doctor, but the cost of training was prohibitive, so the only option for him to pursue chemistry was through pharmacy. In 1840, he became an apprentice to a Lancaster pharmacist, a stint where he learned to compound chemicals into medicines. Frankland went on to become a full-time student at the University of Marburg in Germany and was influenced by a teacher there, Robert Bunsen. Frankland went on to make many discoveries, including the fundamental chemistry principle of valency, codiscovering helium, and making a name for himself as one of Britain’s leading chemical experts by testifying against industry emissions (Russell, 1986). Frankland’s attention shifted to wastewater, as multiple cholera epidemics were plaguing England during the 19th century. At that time, little was known about clean water, and experts thought that decaying matter was causing disease. Appointed as London’s water consultant in 1865, Frankland staunchly suspected that disease was introduced to water through sewage contamination. As such, he developed new techniques for determining the amount of organic nitrogen in water samples and was able to use these analyses to conclude the presence of sewage contamination in water samples (Russell, 1996). His philosophy and approach to water quality can be summed up in one of his quotes: “My motto, unlike that in criminal cases, has always been to assume water to be guilty until it is proved innocent.” Continued on page 36 Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

35


Continued from page 35 Throughout the 1870s and 1880s, Frankland’s laboratory conducted over 11,000 analyses of water from clients all over the world (Frankland, 1894; Frankland, 1896). He stressed that water’s appearance should not be an indication that it is safe to drink. Frankland once stated, “The other day, a gentleman brought me two samples of well water for examination. I reported both as exhibiting great previous sewage contamination; he protested that it was impossible as the waters were bright and sparkling. A week later, he informed me that the source for contamination had been discovered. One of the wells was situated close to a large cesspool; the other received drainage from a dog kennel.” In 1868, Frankland developed trickling filter technology utilizing a system of cylinders, each filled with different media, such as sand and soil. He ran sewage at different doses and calculated purification capabilities of each type. In 1897, Frankland was knighted for his accomplishments. Dr. John Snow Dr. John Snow, born in York, England, in 1813, was an apprentice to William Hardcastle, a surgeon in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, at the age of 8. His adopted town was devastated by cholera in 1831, as the disease entered through the seaport of Newcastle (Bell, 2009). The apprenticeship set the path for his medical career. Snow graduated from the University of London with a medical degree in 1844, and shortly thereafter, in 1850, he cofounded the Epidemiological Society of London as a reaction to the cholera outbreak of 1849. In Dr. Snow’s time, the dominant perception of epidemiology, the miasma theory, proclaimed that “bad air” spread disease. He was a skeptic of this theory and set out to prove it using cholera as a case study. At the time, there was an outbreak of cholera in a London neighborhood; Dr. Snow interviewed local residents, created a map of incidents of illness, and used statistics to draw conclusions between them and their potential sources. He eventually pinpointed the source of the outbreak as the Broad Street water pump, which had been contaminated by sewage-laden water withdrawn from the Thames River. Due to his extensive and systematic approach to following the incidents of illness, he persuaded the local government to disable the pump. His approach in determining the source of contamination and the vector for disease is hailed as a founding event for the discipline of epidemiology and a major turning point for public health protection. He documented his work to discount the prevailing miasma theory in an essay, “On the Mode of Communication of Cholera,” in 1849, but the

36

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

idea of fecal-oral transmission of disease was not publicly accepted until years later, when William Farr, a chief opponent of Snow’s, publicly acknowledged the legitimacy of his competing theory as a result of another cholera outbreak in 1866. Lessons learned during the cholera outbreaks in the late 19th century are still applicable today; effective communication and the systematic understanding of water systems is critical to earning and maintaining public trust in those systems. The London-based “John Snow Society” hosts the “Annual Pumphandle Lecture,” where members remove and replace a pump handle to symbolize the continuing challenges for advances in public health. Honorable Mention - Louis Moureas: The Invention of the Septic Tank In 1860, Louis Moureas is credited with the invention of the septic tank, a passive treatment vessel typically used in rural areas when a centralized sewer system is impractical or infeasible. The goal of the septic system is to reduce solids and nutrient loading before discharge. Frederick Law Olmsted Frederick Law Olmsted was born in Connecticut in 1822 and grew up to be one of the key players in sanitary reform. He has been credited as the father of integrated design. Olmsted recognized the correlation between standing water, poor drainage, and mosquito-borne diseases, such as malaria. According to John M. Levy (2003), Olmsted was a pioneer in American planning and one of the first urban designers who looked at the topography of the land, considering contour and slope for drainage issues. He is most famous for his design of Central Park in Manhattan, and has designed many other parks, as well (Levy, 2003). His work contributed to the advancement of public health through proper disposal and management of drainage water.

20th Century Industrial Impact on Receiving Waters Driving Factors: Industrial impact on environment, regulatory establishment, water conservation, continued population growth Key Pioneers of the Industry: William T. Sedgwick, Earle B. Phelps, Alvin Black, David B. Lee, Edward Ardern, W.T. Lockett, and James Barnard William T. Sedgwick Born on Dec. 29, 1855, in West Hartford, Conn., William Sedgwick earned his undergraduate degree in 1877 from Yale University. He continued his studies and taught physiological chemistry at the Yale School Continued on page 38


ZĂůƉŚĆŒÄ‚ƾŜ͞Ć?ƚĂŜĚĹ?ĹśĹ?ͿĚĹ?Ć?Ä?ĆľĆ?Ć?ÄžĆ?Ä?ŽůůĞÄ?Ć&#x;ŽŜĆ?LJĆ?ƚĞžĆšĆŒÄžĹśÄšĆ? Ç Ĺ?ƚŚEĹ?Ä?ĹŹtÄ‚Ĺ?ĹśÄžĆŒÍ•^ĆľĆ‰ÄžĆŒĹ?ŜƚĞŜĚĞŜƚŽĨ>Ĺ?ĹŒ^ƚĂĆ&#x;ŽŜĆ?͘

Â? KE&/^&KZtdZΘ^tZ Â? Z&Í•>>Í•Θd,ZEdKDDhE/d/KE Â? ZDKdΘ/E-W>EdhdKDd/KEKEdZK> Â? >/&d/D^^K&dtZhW'Z^ Â? D/E'ĎŻ-zZ>/',dE/E'tZZEdz Â? /E^d>>d/KEÍ•^Zs/E^hWWKZd

´0DQDWHH &RXQW\ 8W LOLWLHV FRQW rapid rate LQXHV WR JU requiring RZ DW D technology expertise , e q u i p m to run, m ent and onitor and satellite lif maintain 6 t stations 20 and 15 ma throughout ster lift s the county t a t ions . We rel Systems t y on Data o help us d F lo w esign and m FKDQJLQJ H aintain thi QYLURQPHQW s ever   %\ LQVWD new TCU/V OOLQJ 'DWD FD at our )ORZ¡V master lift lowered pr s t a t i o ns we have ogramming time giving change pa us the abil rameters ity to on-site w ladder logi ithout re c. Beyond w riting the softwa )ORZ¡V WUD re available LQLQJ KDV , Data SURGXFHG Technician W K U H H  s and one 7&89)' Master Te qualified s chnicia an ensurin taff to as g sist in ke UXQQLQJ + eping the DYLQJ 'DW c o unty D )ORZ¡V support te HQJLQHHULQ am availab J  DQG le to assis LVWKHLFLQJ t with issu RQWKHFDN es 24/7 H¾ Ralph Brau n, Lift Statio Senior Industrial Ele ns Section ctrician Manatee C ounty Utilit ies Depart ment

Â? Z^d/>>zZhK^dK&^dZd-hW Â? &/yDKEd,>z&&KZ>/&K&ZEd> Â? >/D/EdhEyWdZW/ZK^d^ Â? ZEd>tZZEdzEsZyW/Z^ Â? /E>h^ώϰ͏ϳ͏ϯϲϹ^hWWKZdΘ^Zs/

ƒ–ƒ Ž‘™›•–‡�•Ǥ �…Ǥ

Š‘�‡ǣ;ʹͳǤʹ͡͝Ǥ͡ͲͲ͝

͸Ͳ͡Ǥ ‘ŠÂ?‘†‡•Ž˜†Ǥ

Â?ÂƒÂ‹ÂŽÇŁ Â?ÂˆÂ‘ĚˇÂ†ÂƒÂ–ÂƒĎ?Ž‘™•›•Ǥ…‘Â?

‡Ž„‘—”�‡ǥ ;ʹ͝;͜

‡„•‹–‡ǣ™™™Ǥ†ƒ–ƒĎ?Ž‘™•›•Ǥ…‘Â?


Continued from page 36 of Medicine. He eventually left to pursue studies in physiology at Johns Hopkins University; however, Sedgwick again altered his plan of study, graduating with a Ph.D. in biology in 1881. Sedgwick began his career as a faculty member at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), eventually becoming the head of the department of biology. Sedgwick was a pioneer for multidisciplinary inclusion in university studies, delivering lectures in bacteriology to civil engineering students. The cross-disciplinary training helped develop a generation of civil engineers who championed the importance of public health and embraced their duty as protectors of public and environmental health. In 1902, he compiled his MIT lectures and notes from his field experiences in “The Principles of Sanitary Science and the Public Health.” Sedgwick went down in history as the first scientific American epidemiologist. Like his multidisciplinary approach to teaching, his conveyance of information was also unconventional for the time. Instead of dwelling on rote memorization, Sedgwick focused on ideas and principles. He empowered his students to put their learning in a broader context, challenged them to use systematic methods to solve problems, and fostered an enthusiasm for public service. Sedgwick left more than just his academic legacy, measured by publications, research, and lectures; he inspired a number of his students to further the industry, including Earle B. Phelps, who went on to become one of the most influential pioneers in the wastewater treatment industry. Earle B. Phelps Earle B. Phelps was born on July 10, 1876, in Galesburg, Ill., and attended New Jersey schools for his early education. In 1899 he graduated with a bachelor of science degree in chemistry from MIT, where Sedgwick’s influence left its mark. Phelps held a series of academic and government positions that led to groundbreaking research in a number of important wastewater treatment advances. He worked as an assistant bacteriologist at the Lawrence Experiment Station in Lawrence, Mass., a chemist/microbiologist with the Sanitary Research Laboratory at MIT, a researcher at the U.S. Hygienic Laboratory, an assistant hydrographer at the U.S. Geological Survey, and a scientist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He also taught at MIT, Stanford University, Columbia University, and the University of Florida. Phelps’ main contributions to the advancement of the wastewater industry were in chlorine disinfection and the use of dissolved oxygen as a water quality indicator. Phelps conducted experiments using cal-

38

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

cium hypochlorite to disinfect wastewater prior to discharge and promoted its use among sanitary experts. He also experimented with orthotolidine, a coal tar derivative, which was used as a first indicator of chlorine residual in the water. It was these experiments that led him to believe that it was the chlorine in the water, not oxygen (as was believed by others at the time), that was actually killing microorganisms. The orthotolidine indicator method was used for decades to measure chlorine residuals, until it was replaced by the DPD (N,N Diethyl-1,4 Phenylenediamine Sulfate) method, one of the most widely used titration methods for measuring oxidizers present in water. While working with William M. Black at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the water quality of New York Harbor, the two researchers investigated the use of dissolved oxygen concentration as an indicator of ambient water quality, which was a novel idea at the time. Phelps continued this line of research at the U.S. Hygienic Laboratory while working with H.W. Streeter. The team investigated how the addition of organic wastes to a receiving water body depleted dissolved oxygen concentrations. The work led to the development of the Streeter-Phelps equation, which was the first mechanism for quantifying the effect of biochemical oxygen demand on surface water bodies, leading to the possibility of limiting discharges from point sources. In honor of his legacy as a professor for the University of Florida, the Earle B. Phelps Laboratory was created with the purpose of furthering the commitment of collaboration between the sciences of engineering and ecology regarding wastewater treatment. In addition, the Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA), since 1964, grants the Earle B. Phelps Award annually at the Florida Water Resources Conference with the purpose of recognizing wastewater treatment facilities that have achieved outstanding performance; specifically, those that have maintained the highest removal of major pollution-causing constituents prior to discharging treated effluent to receiving waters. Dr. Alvin P. Black Dr. Alvin P. Black’s major contribution to the wastewater industry occurred while he served as a professor at the University of Florida. He was the primary developer of operator training in the state of Florida. Dr. Black recognized the need to not only educate water professionals to become effective operators, but to offer continuing education for those involved in such a dynamic industry as wastewater treatment. He used the format of a “short school,” which was up to a week-long training session, and made the classes more accessible and adaptable than a for-


mal degree program. The first short course was offered in 1930, and the format was eventually recognized by the State Board of Health. The short school is still offered today through the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association (FWPCOA), a professional organization geared toward the water, wastewater, and stormwater professions, providing licensing, training, and advocacy for Florida’s operators (FWPCOA, 2017). Dr. Black had an extensive academic background, as well as involvement in other professional organizations. He received a bachelor of science degree from Southwestern University, graduate degrees from Iowa State College and Harvard University, and a doctorate from the University of Iowa. He also served as national director and president of the American Water Works Association (AWWA), a member of the National Advisory Dental Research Council of the U. S. Public Health Service and of the Advisory Committee on Coagulant Aids, and a consultant for the office of Saline Water of the Department of the Interior. All these posts led him to contribute widely to the drinking water field (FWPCOA, 2017). David B. Lee David B. Lee contributed to the wastewater industry through his extensive governmental career, which spanned from the 1930s through the 1950s, with stints in the U.S. Army Sanitary Corps; the Bureau of Sanitary Engineering with the Florida State Board of Health; the U.S. Public Health Service; the U.S. Delegation to the World Health Organization; and the National Research Council, Committee on Sanitary Engineering. He was a proponent of centralized treatment systems, encouraging communities to move away from septic tanks (FWPCOA, 2017). The debate over centralized versus decentralized systems continues today (Libralato et al., 2012). As a member of the Florida Pollution Control Association (now FWEA), David B. Lee founded, in 1956, the Florida Select Society of Sanitary Sludge Shovelers, which is a network of wastewater professionals who have made significant contributions to the industry. The Florida chapter that Lee founded continues to recognize professionals for extraordinary service to FWEA and the industry at large (FWPCOA, 2017). Edward Ardern and W.T. Lockett The activated sludge process is the crux of biological nutrient removal in modern wastewater treatment processes. Though new technologies and manipulations of nutrient cycles are being developed for the 21st century, activated sludge processes built the foundation of

wastewater treatment throughout the previous century. While working at the University of Manchester, Dr. Gilbert Fowler visited the Lawrence Experimental Station in Massachusetts. He became familiar with its ongoing experiments with batch aerating wastewater samples. Upon his return to the United Kingdom, he explained the experiments to his colleagues, Edward Ardern and W.T. Lockett, who were engineers at the Davyhulme Wastewater Treatment Plant in Manchester, and encouraged them to repeat the experiments with their facility’s wastewater (Wanner, 2014). From 1913–1914, the two engineers carried out a series of batch experiments on wastewater from various districts of Manchester. The wastewater samples were aerated in glass bottles covered with brown paper to prevent algae growth; however, in contrast to the experiments observed in Lawrence, the researchers left the settled sludge at the bottom of the bottle before refilling the bottle with a new wastewater sample. These were the first experiments to decouple the hydraulic residence time from the sludge retention time, which dramatically shortened the treatment time (Wanner, 2014). The results of their experiments were published in a series of well-cited papers (Ardern and Lockett, 1914a; Ardern and Lockett, 1914b; Ardern and Lockett, 1915). The concept was piloted at the Davyhulme Wastewater Treatment Plant and subsequently tested as a full-scale sequencing batch reactor at the Salford Treatment Plant in 1914. Early installations and experiments led to various technological improvements, such as air delivery systems. The activated sludge processes spread across Europe, and the first experimental plant was built in Milwaukee in 1915. Currently, there are activated sludge installations on every continent in the world (Wanner, 2014). Dr. James L. Barnard Dr. James Barnard has been called the “father of biological nutrient removal” for his role in developing the biological nutrient removal process. He is credited with developing the BARDENPHO Process (BARnard DENitrification and PHOsphorous removal), AO (anoxic/oxic) and A2O (anaerobic/anoxic/oxic), the Modified Balakrishnan/Eckenfelder Process (later MLE process), and the Westbank Process. Through his postgraduate research at the University of Texas and Vanderbilt University, he learned about nitrogen and phosphorous removal processes. His own research led him to a process that used microorganisms—not chemicals—for nutrient removal, a process that he would later pilot at the Johannesburg plant in South Africa (Godwin, Continued on page 40 Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

39


Continued from page 39 2013). He had long sought to find the mechanism of biological phosphorous removal and has since published numerous research findings on the topic (Barnard, 1976; Barnard, 1983; Barnard, 2006). Dr. Barnard has remained active in the water industry for 40 years and been a member of the Water Environment Federation (WEF) since 1972; he is currently the water global practice leader and senior process specialist for Black & Veatch, a global environmental consulting firm. He continues to promote resource recovery from wastewater, particularly nutrient recovery, as well as contributing to the advancement of understanding biological phosphorous removal. His work has been globally influential in the wastewater industry, as thousands of facilities worldwide rely on biological nutrient removal processes to protect the environmental health of their communities (Buckner, ND). Dr. Barnard’s legacy is demonstrated by his research publications that advance knowledge throughout the wastewater community, consulting work on numerous plants around the world, participation in governmental advisory boards, and his education and mentorship of generations of engineers, scientists, and other water professionals through formal educational avenues, as well as his involvement in various professional organizations. Dr. Barnard has received the National Water Resource Institute Clarke Prize in 2007 and the Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize in 2011 (Buckner, ND). Honorable Mention - President Richard Nixon: Establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Richard Nixon, the 37th president of the United States, is recognized for his role in the establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 1970, the president signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was then enacted. The preamble states: “To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality,” Sec. 2 [42 U.S. Code § 4321]. Flora Mae Wellings: Establishment of High-Level Disinfection Criteria for Reuse Flora Mae Wellings is largely recognized for her role in the 1980s as a virologist for the state of Florida, studying the movement of viruses

40

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

through soil. The results of her work were integral to establishing highlevel disinfection criteria. These criteria were foundational for establishing Florida’s reuse rules, paving the way for Florida to become an early leader in water reuse (www.dep.state.fl.us).

21st Century and Beyond: What Does the Future Hold? Driving Factors: Resource and energy recovery, water shortages, population growth, regulations Key Pioneers of the Industry: Kofi Annan, George Tchobanoglous, and Mark van Loosdrecht As the wastewater industry moves through the 21st century, the attitude towards “waste” and the goals of the industry have markedly shifted towards resource recovery and reduction of overall energy and chemical footprints, with an emphasis on new technologies in all areas of the treatment process, from nutrient removal to biosolids handling. In fact, the idea of resource recovery was touted in the late 1990s (Henze, 1997; Iranpour et al., 1999) and continues strong today (McCarty et al., 2011; Guest et al., 2009; Mo and Zhang, 2013). As entities formally known as “wastewater treatment plants,” “pollution control facilities,” or “sewer treatment plants” become water reclamation facilities and resource recovery facilities, the perception of wastewater as a resource becomes more established. As such, the view of “wastes” as “resources” is not a new concept, but the prevalence and acceptance of such a concept is what makes technological advances and the direction of the wastewater industry into the 21st century so exciting. Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary General (1997–2006) Sanitation received a global spotlight via its inclusion in the millennium development goals (MDGs), a series of eight time-bound and quantifiable targets in the areas of hunger and poverty, education, gender equality, child mortality, maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases, environmental sustainability, and developing global partnerships. The goals came out of the Millennium Summit in September of 2000, under the leadership of the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, via the U.N. Millennium Declaration. Prior to the adoption of the MDGs, Annan had delivered a millennium report in April 2000 entitled, “We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century.” With a career dedicated to the U.N. in various capacities, Annan’s work focused on the development and maintenance of international peace and security and Continued on page 42


Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

41


Continued from page 40 advocating for global human rights. Annan received the Nobel Peace Prize, along with the U.N., in 2001, largely for his commitment to human rights. Specifically, the declaration committed to “halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation,” under target 10 of MDG 7, Ensure Environmental Sustainability. Success would be measured by the proportion of the global population with access to improved sanitation in both urban and rural settings, as defined and measured by the United Nations Children’s Fund-World Health Organization (UNICEF-WHO). Originally, the MDGs had a deadline of 2015, but all targets, including Target 7.10, have ongoing issues to address (http://www.unmillenniumproject .org/goals/). In fact, as the International Decade for Action “Water for Life” (2005 – 2015) has closed, current estimates project that the initial target will not be reached until 2026, unless the sanitation sector can increase the pace of coverage (http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/ sanitation.shtml). From the 1990s to 2000, improved access to sanitation was struggling to keep up with population growth (Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment, 2000); however, according to the latest “Millennium Development Goals Report” (2015), “2.1 billion people have gained access to improved sanitation,” and “the proportion of people practicing open defecation has fallen almost by half since 1990.” Despite great strides made since the U.N. millennium declaration, there is still much work to be done, particularly in developing nations, with regard to ensuring that adequate and accessible sanitation coverages not only keep pace with global population growth, but close the current needs gap. Although Annan has moved on from his post as the U.N. secretary general, the organization continues its important work on meeting the MDGs and raising awareness of global health and sanitation issues. George Tchobanoglous, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis George Tchobanoglous has been an influential pioneer in the wastewater industry since starting his career as a faculty member at the University of California, Davis, in 1970. His main areas of focus have been constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment, filtration technologies, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, and decentralized wastewater treatment systems. He has been a prolific writer throughout his career, authoring and/or editing numerous influential publications, including the seminal textbooks, “Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse,” “Wastewater Engineering,” and “Principles of Water Treatment,” among others. He has over 375 publications, which have been cited over 25,000

42

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

times. His work in UV disinfection began in the 1990s and paved the way for the rise of UV disinfection in the wastewater industry. In an effort to move away from chlorine, UV irradiation for disinfection has been used and studied since EPA began funding research for alternative disinfection in the 1970s. Tchobanoglous began researching the application of UV disinfection for wastewater in the early 1990s, particularly with its application for water reuse. He published numerous articles citing the effectiveness of UV treatment (Darby, Snider, Tchobanoglous, 1993; Braunstein, Loge, Tchobanoglous, Darby, 1996), often in conjunction with microfiltration, as well as publications guiding UV disinfection system design (Loge, Darby, Tchobanoglous, 1996; Loge et al., 1996). Tchobanoglous was the chair of the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) Ultraviolet Committee in the early 1990s, where he helped draft the first UV guidelines for water reuse. A publication (Tchobanoglous et al., 1999) called out UV disinfection, coupled with microfiltration, as an “emerging technology.” Subsequently, EPA released a wastewater technology fact sheet for UV disinfection in September of 1999, setting the groundwork for UV technologies to rapidly commercialize in the wastewater industry. The NWRI guidelines were released in a third edition in 2012 and the organization anticipates that the next edition will incorporate further technological advances expected in the coming years. Aside from Tchobanoglous’ professional achievements and contributions to the wastewater industry, from developing technology, changing paradigms, and shaping policy, his greatest legacy is arguably the body of literature he has created throughout his career. His works have included a number of widely used textbooks and solutions manuals which have been used to train thousands of environmental engineers, increasing the breadth and diversity of the wastewater industry. He has inspired and trained hundreds of students in his laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, teaching basic engineering principles through practical application, problem solving, and working with the end-user (often utilities) of the research product. His foundation, the George and Rosemary Tchobanoglous Fellowship, annually funds a master’s student at UC, Berkeley, making a graduate education more accessible. Providing a better educated and trained workforce benefits not only the engineering profession, but the community at large. Mark van Loosdrecht, Professor of Environmental Biotechnology and Wastewater Engineering, Delft University of Technology Activated sludge has been an integral part of biological wastewater treatment since the early 20th century and has been an effective treatment option for protecting environmental health from excessive nutri-


ent loading; however, conventional activated sludge processes have limitations and drawbacks, namely with the amount of energy, chemicals, and spatial footprint required to achieve treatment targets, as well as greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the process. While several microbial manipulations of the nitrogen cycle have been discovered, processed, and designed into a wastewater treatment context (Paredes et al., 2007), the SHARON-Anammox process is arguably the most commercialized alternative biological nitrogen process on the market today. In short, the SHARON (single reactor system for high ammonium removal over nitrite) process is best suited for high-strength waste streams with ammonium concentrations above 500 mg L-1. Using bicarbonate present in the waste stream, ammonium oxidizers convert half the ammonium to nitrite; elevated temperatures (above 25°C) inhibit nitrite oxidizers from further converting the nitrite to nitrate. The resulting waste stream with a 1:1 ratio of ammonium to nitrite is the ideal feed for the Anammox process. The Anammox (anaerobic ammonium oxidation) process is the anaerobic conversion of nitrite to nitrogen gas using ammonium as an electron donor without the use of a carbon source (Jetten et al., 1997). Researchers at the Delft University of Technology began looking for alternative bacteria that could manipulate the nitrogen cycle in other ways, and they discovered a new anaerobic ammonium oxidation pathway while running a denitrifying fluidized bed pilot reactor. The pathway was subsequently patented, and the seminal paper describing the discovery has been cited over 1500 times (Mulder et al., 1995). Mark van Loosdrecht, a professor at Delft at the time of the discovery, assembled a team to design a wastewater treatment process around the new pathway. He proposed the use of SHARON-Anammox as a means to lower the chemical and energy inputs to traditional activated sludge, while utilizing a smaller spatial footprint (Jetten et al., 1997). Later, his team spearheaded the investigation into the biological nature, cultivation, and characterization of the Anammox bacteria (Jetten at el., 1999), building the foundation for its practical application within the wastewater industry. Van Loosdrecht worked to build the first full-scale Anammox reactor in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, based on laboratory-scale experiments, without first conducting a pilot (van der Star et al., 2007). The fast-paced installation of a full-scale system encouraged the adoption of the technology, allowing it to be studied at a scale able to be referenced by other utilities. The full-scale system provided essential insight into the start-up, operation, and maintenance of such a system. Van Loosdrecht has won numerous accolades, including the Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize (2012) and the Spinoza Prize (2014) for his work with Anammox, as well as his role in the development of Nereda, another Dutch granular sludge technology of which van Loosdrecht was an inventor. Currently, according to each technology’s respective websites, there are more than 30 Nereda wastewater treatment plants and 41 Anammox wastewater treatment plants in operation or under construction around the world. His work builds on that of others from the 20th century, such as Barnard, Ardern, and Lockett. The influence of improved biological nutrient removal on the wastewater industry has enabled the realization and development of technologies that will continue to reduce spatial footprints, greenhouse gas emissions, chemical inputs, and energy required for treatment. The example set by van Loosdrecht and others to quickly commercialize promising technologies reminds the industry to work with academia to practically solve problems with innovation, science, and creative design.

Into the 21st Century: Future Water Professional Pioneers Although there have been many key and influential people who have advanced the wastewater industry over the past centuries—more

than can be included in this article—the focus on the future challenges water professionals from all disciplines to continue to push technological limits, change conventional paradigms, and expand access to economical, sustainable, and effective resource recovery from community wastes. Drivers for technological change in the 21st century will include population growth (particularly in urban areas), water scarcity, effects of climate change on sea-level rise and weather patterns, limited footprints available for centralized systems to expand, increasingly stringent regulatory requirements, and reduction of chemical and energy inputs to treatment and recovery processes (van Loosdrecht and Brdjanovic, 2014; Libralato et al., 2012; Daigger, 2008). Fortunately, utilities, engineers, scientists, city planners, politicians, and other water professionals have more innovation, management strategies, and recovery opportunities at their disposal (Zhang et al., 2016; McCarty et al., 2011; Daigger, 2009), as well as more public acceptance of previously “taboo” technological solutions. With leadership from professional organizations, such as the Water Environment & Reuse Foundation, WateReuse, AWWA, National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), and WEF, water professionals are creating their own future within a context of sustainable management and resource recovery. Industry frameworks (NACWA, WERF, WEF, 2013; Envision Guidance Manual, 2015) and government programs, such as the U.S. Department of Energy, Better Buildings Wastewater Infrastructure Accelerator, provide guidance for achieving 21st century goals, such as net-energy production, advanced resource recovery, and sustainable operation. As the industry moves toward integrated water management (i.e., “One Water”), every water professional will have the opportunity to be a key and influential participant in the future of their communities.

References In Text • Barnard, J.L. 2006. “Biological nutrient removal: where we have been, where we are going?” Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, WEFTEC 2006: Session 1 through Session 10. p 1-25. • Barnard, J.L. 1983. “Background to biological phosphorous removal.” Water Science and Technology. 15: p 1-13. • Barnard, J.L. 1976. “A Review of Biological Phosphorous Removal in the Activated Sludge Process.” Water SA. 2(3) 136-144. Continued on page 44 Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

43


Continued from page 43 • Braunstein, J.L, F.J. Loge, G. Tchobanoglous, J.L. Darby. 1996. “Ultraviolet disinfection of filtered activated sludge effluent for reuse applications.” Water Environment Research, 68(2):152-161. • Buckner, S., ND. “Father of BNR continues his pursuit of improved water treatment.” Black & Veatch webpage. Retrieved from https://www.bv.com/Home/news/solutions/water/father-of-bnr-continues-his-pursuit-of-improved-water-treatment on March 2017. • Daigger, G.T. 2008. “New approaches and technologies for wastewater management.” Bridge, 38(3): 38–45. • Daigger, G.T. 2009. “Evolving urban water and residuals management paradigms: water, reclamation and reuse, decentralization, and resource recovery.” Water Environ. Res. 81(9): 809–823. • Darby, J.L, K.E. Snider, G. Tchobanoglous. 1993. “Ultraviolet disinfection for wastewater reclamation and reuse subject to restrictive standards.” Water Environment Research, 65(2):169-180. • Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association. 2017. Retrieved from www.fwpcoa.org. Accessed March 2017. • Frankland, E. 1894. “On the conditions affecting bacterial life in Thames Water.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 57:439-450. • Frankland, E. 1896. “The past, present, and future water supply of London.” Science Progress (1894-1898). 5(27):163-189. • Gandy, M. 1999. The Paris sewers and the rationalization of urban space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 24(1):23-44. • Godwin, A. 2013. “From wastewater treatment to resource recovery.” WaterWorld. Retrieved from http://www.waterworld.com/articles/ print/volume-29/issue-11/departments/viewpoint/from-wastewater-treatment-toresource-recovery.html, March 2017. • Goodman D.C. 1999. The European Cities and Technology Reader: Industrial to Post-Industrial City. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-20079-2. • Guest, J.S, S.J. Skerlos, J.L. Barnard, M.B. Beck, G.T. Daigger, H. Hilger, S.J. Jackson, K. Karvazy, L. Kelly, L. MacPherson, J.R. Mihelcic, A. Pramanik, L. Raskin, MCM van Loosdrecht, D. Yeh, N.G. Love. 2009. “A new planning and design paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery from wastewater.” Environmental Science and Technology. 43:6126-6130. • Henze, M. 1997. “Trends in Advanced Wastewater Treatment.” Water Science and Technology. 35(10):1-4. • Hopkins, JNN. 2007. “The Cloaca Maxima and the monumental manipulation of water in archaic Rome” in The Waters of Rome. Number 4, March 2007. pp 1-15. Publisher not identified. • Iranpour, R, M. Stenstrom, G. Tchobanoglous, D. Miller, J Wright, M. Vossoughi. 1999. “Environmental Engineering: Energy Value of Replacing Waste Disposal with Resource Recovery.” Science. 285(5428):706-711. • Jetten, MSM, S.J. Horn, MCM van Loosdrecht. 1997. “Towards a more sustainable municipal wastewater treatment system.” Water Science and Technology. 35(9):171-180. • Jetten, MSM, M. Strous, K.T. van de Pas-Schoonen, J. Schalk, UGJM van Dongen, A.A. van de Graaf, S. Longemann, G. Muyzer, MCM van Loosdrecht, J.G. Kuenen. 1999. “The anaerobic oxidation of ammonium.” FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 22:421-437. • Kirkland, S. 2013. “Paris Reborn: Napoleon III, Baron Haussman, and the quest to build a modern city.” St. Martin’s Griffin. 336p ISBN 0312626894. • Libralato, G, A.V. Ghirardini, F. Avezzu. 2012. To centralize or decentralize: an overview of the most recent trends in wastewater treatment management. Journal of Environmental Management 94:61-68. • Loge, F..J, J.L. Darby, G. Tchobanoglous. 1996. “UV Disinfection of Wastewater: Probabilistic Approach to Design.” Journal of Environmental Engineering. 122(12). • Loge, F.J., R.W. Emerick, M. Heath, J. Jacangelo, G. Tchobanoglous, J.L. Darby. 1996. “Ultraviolet disinfection of secondary wastewater effluents: prediction of performance and design.” Water Environment Research. 68(5): 900-916.

44

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

• McCarty, P.L., J. Bae, J. Kim. 2011. “Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy producer – can this be achieved?” Environmental Science and Technology. 45:7100-7106. • Mo, W. and Q. Zhang. 2013. “Energy-nutrients-water nexus: integrated resource recovery in municipal wastewater treatment plants.” Journal of Environmental Management. 127:255-267. • Mulder, A., A.A. van de Graaf, L.A. Robertson, J.G. Kuenen. 1995. “Anaerobic ammonium oxidation discovered in a denitrifying fluidized bed reactor.” FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 16:177-184. • Paredes, D., P. Kuschk, TSA Mbwette, F. Stange, R.A. Muller, H. Koser. 2007. “New aspects of microbial nitrogen transformations in the context of wastewater treatment – a review”. Engineering in Life Sciences. 7(1):13-25. • Russell, C.A. (1996), E. Frankland. “Chemistry, controversy, and conspiracy in Victorian England.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 217. ISBN 978-0521496360. • Russell, C.A. (1986). “Lancastrian chemist: the early years of Sir Edward Frankland.” Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press. ISBN 9780335151752. • Uy J.I. 2007. “Dam Nation: dispatches from the water underground.” In “History of Sewers, Cesspools, and Cholera: the development of the modern sewer.” L. Allen (ed.) Soft Skull Press, Brooklyn, NY. p 112-119. • Van der Star WRL, W.R. Abma, D. Blommers, J.W. Mulder, T. Tokutomi, M. Strous, C. Picioreanu, MCM van Loosdrecht. 2007. “Start-up of reactors for anoxic ammonium oxidation: experiences from the first fullscale Anammox reactor in Rotterdam.” Water Research. 41:4149-4163. • van Loosdrecht MCM, D. Brdjanovic. 2014. “Anticipating the next century of wastewater treatment.” Science. 344(61196):1452-1453. • Wanner J. 2014. History of Activated Sludge. Retrieved from http://www.iwa100as.org/history.php on March 2017. • Zhang Q, J. Hu, D.J. Lee. 2016.” Aerobic granular processes: current research trends.” Bioresource Technology. 210:74-80. Additional References • Bertsch McGrayne, S. 2001. Prometheans in the lab. ISBN-13: 9780071407953 • ISBN-10: 0071407952. • Tilden, W.A. (1921). “Famous Chemists: The Men and Their Work.” London and New York: G. Routledge & Sons, Ltd.; E.P. Dutton & Co. ISBN 978-1178623574. Retrieved July 2016. • Lee, Sidney (ed.) Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. 53 (Smith to Stanger), Smith, Elder, & Co., 15 Waterloo Place, London, 1898. • Ball, Laura (2009). "Cholera and the Pump on Broad Street: The Life and Legacy of John Snow." • Gunn, S., William A., Masellis, Michele (23 October 2007). Concepts and Practice of Humanitarian Medicine. Springer. pp 87–. ISBN 978-0-38772264-1. • Shapter, Thomas (1849). The History of the Cholera in Exeter in 1832. London: John Churchill. • Chapelle, Frank (2005) Wellsprings. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 0-8135-3614-6. p 82. • Cadbury, Deborah (2003). Seven Wonders of the Industrial World. London and New York: Fourth Estate. pp. 189–192. • Donaldson, L.J. and Donaldson, R.J. (2005) Essential Public Health. Radcliffe Publishing. ISBN 1-900603-87-X. p 105. • "Annual Pumphandle Lecture Series". johnsnowsociety.org. The John Snow Society. 20 October 2013. Retrieved 24 October 2013. • Thomas, K.B. John Snow. In Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Vol 12. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons; 1973:502–503. • "London Epidemiology Society." UCLA. Retrieved 22 October 2012. • Miasma. Hoffbuhr, J.W. Journal - American Water Works Association; November 2004, Vol. 96 Issue 11, p 6.


• Isaac, Peter, C.G.. Waste treatment. Proceedings of the symposium on the treatment of waste waters, Pergamon Press, 1960. • Marquis, A.N., ed. “Phelps, Earle Bernard.” (1910). Who’s Who in America, v. 6, 1510. • “Professor Phelps Goes to Washington.” (1913). The Technology Review (MIT). 15:8 (November): 563-4. • Parascandola, John. (2004). “Chemistry and Medicine: The NIH Division of Chemistry.” Pharmacy in History. 46:2 62-70. • Chapra, Steven C. (2011). “Rubbish, Stink, and Death: The Historical Evolution, Present State, and Future Direction of Water Quality Management and Modeling.” Environ. Eng. Res. 16:3 (September 2011): 113-9. • McGuire, Michael J. (2013). The Chlorine Revolution: Water Disinfection and the Fight to Save Lives. Denver, Colo.: American Water Works Association. • Phelps, Earle B. (1909). "The Disinfection of Sewage and Sewage Filter Effluents." Water supply paper 229. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. • Phelps, Earle B. (1910). “The Disinfection of Water and Sewage.” In Contributions from the Sanitary Research Laboratory and Sewage Experiment Station. Boston: MIT, 1-17. • Phelps, Earle B. (1910). “Disinfection of Sewage and Sewage Effluents.” Transactions American Society for Municipal Improvements. Reprinted in Contributions from the Sanitary Research Laboratory and Sewage Experiment Station. Boston, Mass.: MIT, 1910, 1-8.

• Streeter, H.W. and Earle B. Phelps. (1925). "A Study of the Pollution and Natural Purification of the Ohio River." Public Health Bulletin No. 146. Washington, D.C.: United States Public Health Service (February 1925). • Phelps, Earle B. (1950). Public Health Engineering: A Textbook of the Principles of Environmental Sanitation. Volumes 1 and 2. New York: Wiley. • Phelps, Earle B. (1953). “They Were Giants in Those Days.” American Journal of Public Health. 43 (June): 15-19. • Marquis, Albert N., ed. (1910). W. T. Sedgwick. “Who’s Who in America.” Vol. 6, Chicago:A.N. Marquis, 1710. • Garraty, John A. and Mark C. Carnes, eds. (1999). William T. Sedgwick: American National Biography. Vol.10, 586–7. New York City, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. • Whipple, George C. (1921). “The Public Health Work of Professor Sedgwick.” American Journal of Public Health. 11:4, 361–7. • University of Texas at Austin – Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, Cockrell School of Engineering website, http://www.caee.utexas.edu/alumni. Copyright 2017. Academy of Distinguished Alumni, James L. Barnard. Inducted November 2007. • Levy, John. (2003). Contemporary Urban Planning, 6th ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Megan Ross, P.E., ENV SP, is interim utilities director; Christina Goodrich is customer services division manager; and Ivy Drexler, Ph.D., is wastewater treatment facility manager with Pinellas County Utilities. S

News Beat Tobon Engineering and Pryzm Consulting LLC have signed an alliance agreement to pursue water, wastewater, and climate change projects in the Pacific and Asia. Based in south Florida, Tobon Engineering is a growing consulting firm experienced in water and wastewater engineering and planning, hydraulic modeling, and climate change, and works internationally. Based in Honolulu, PRYZM Consulting LLC is a broad-based planning and engineering firm, with extensive experience in the Pacific. Collectively, the two firms will pursue projects relating to planning, civil engineering studies, climate change, technical assistance, engineering, project management, commissioning, and operations and maintenance of water and wastewater. “The alliance brings significant expertise to a geographical region that is experiencing rapid deterioration of water supplies caused by climate change,” stated Mauricio Tobon, president of Tobon Engineering.

R

The Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) estimates that central Florida will need an additional 250 mil gal of water per day by 2035 to meet the demands of a growing population. An update on CFWI’s work to meet that demand through increased water

conservation and alternative water sources was recently presented to the governing board of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). Knowing that water conservation and alternative water sources are critical elements, CFWI has identified 150 project options that will help achieve needed water savings. Three of these projects, located in Osceola and Polk counties, were recently approved for funding consideration; a brief project summary was shared with the governing board. Other additional updates on the CFWI’s progress were presented, including: S Confirmed stakeholder approval for methodologies, with development of water use projections underway. S Development of an updated groundwater model to improve the accuracy of analysis is also underway, as well as the building of a database and identification of water monitoring locations. S An overview of work to establish water management district rules and regulations that address water conservation, public water supply, and agricultural demands. S Calculations on water conservation savings and completion of a water conservation implementation strategy outline. S Public workshops were held during 2017 by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to engage the

community and other stakeholder groups in the process of establishing consistent water use permitting rules within CFWI. Multiple agencies presented updates and information at the meeting, including FDEP, South Florida Water Management District, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and SJRWMD.

R

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has provided more than $90 million toward the recent completion of seven water quality improvement projects in Central and South Florida. The funding was awarded through FDEP’s division of water restoration assistance's various funding resources and programs. "We are pleased to partner with water management districts, cities, and local municipalities to fund infrastructure needs," said Drew Bartlett, FDEP deputy secretary for ecosystems restoration. "Projects ranging from septic-to-sewer conversions, aging pipe replacement, shoreline stabilization, and nutrient reduction are vital to helping Florida's springs, rivers, and waterways meet water quality goals." The recently completed projects include: Continued on page 51

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

45


C FACTOR

Willing and Able Mike Darrow President, FWPCOA

he logo of FWPCOA is “Willing Water and Able Sewage” and it was adopted many years ago by our association. It shows water and wastewater figures together with a map of Florida on a shield-style background. I’ve done a little detective work to find out about its origin and it’s unclear what year the logo was designed and by whom. Willing Water was a character developed in the 1940s to promote the water supply industry by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). One of the most popular uses of Willing Water was on the ubiquitous "Water at Your Service" logo from the 1960s and ‘70s. It was used all over the United States by various water utilities, so thanks to AWWA for letting us use Drinking Water Willie! In the 1980s,

T

46

AWWA quietly discontinued his use and decided to let the copyright lapse as well. That means that water utilities are free to use him as they see fit. Able Sewage was developed in-house at FWPCOA, but there’s not much else I could find on it. Some members of the association have informed me that Ready Sewage was a possible name, but at the time Willing and Able were names that projected strength through service, so this was the choice that was made. Some others have told me that the logo was fashioned after Pokey and Gumby, the popular green-clay figure and his dopey horse from the ‘50s and ‘60s. In the television show, Pokey and Gumby worked together to solve different predicaments in various environments. I remember fondly watching them when I was a youth, which is probably why I really like our logo! It shows Willing shaking Able’s hand; it may be a cross connection, but I still enjoy the characters. Still, I’ve heard some ask: Should drinking water really be touching wastewater? Is that a good idea? Well, according to most of our members, is shows teamwork! In some representations of the logo there appears to be a black devise between the two characters that perhaps is a backflow prevention device or neoprene sampling gloves. No one really knows, at least to those I’ve talked to. In any case, one thing is clear to me: it shows cooperation of water and wastewater professionals working together to achieve goals at their utility and in the environment, and teamwork is where it’s at! If you have any further information on our logo, and Willing and Able, please email me at president@fwpcoa.org. Now with that said, I have seen disregard for this cooperation at various utility departments or at training classes where there is some sort of friction between the two areas of the industry. Some of this talk is done in humor, but when it’s real, or is bad gossip, it does not do any good for the utility, employees, or customers. Some vendors have also commented on this poor behavior as well. “How come the water department can’t work with the wastewater department?” is usually the question. Our logo is relevant to the call of cooperation. Organizations could (and do) fall into this mindset, when the departments for water and wastewater do not work directly together in the complex, facility, or during some of the work shifts, but see the importance of each role. Remember, we are doing the same functions, just at different ends of the cycle. We need all employees to do their tasks to accomplish the mission of con-

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

tinued operation and service to our customers, whether it be for water reclamation, potable drinking water, stormwater, utility maintenance, customer service, industrial pretreatment, collection systems, or water distribution conveyances. Do your best to cooperate in the spirit of the logo, the spirit of teamwork! Our logo of Willing and Able encourages this togetherness for the good of our environment and our industry. So, I encourage you to work alongside your brothers and sisters to be professional operators and technicians to accomplish this goal. We’re not two separate entities, but one family working together with a common item that everyone needs: water.

Looking for New Sources of Water As you all know, Florida is facing challenges for the future of source water. Reclaimed water and the search for new source water is a big issue today. Again, our shield logo with Willing and Able is relevant to our coming together to form the water cycle and the “One Water” concept of reuse! Yes, reuse is the current and future source water for sustainability, growth, and expansion options for communities when cheaper water sources are gone. The association is looking at reuse training options, operations, and licensing requirements. Most of us see that dual-certified operators are more likely positioned for this advanced treatment where wastewater is treated to potable water standards and either directly used or injected in an aquifer for use for potable needs. Remember, working together achieves more. We’re not wastewater versus drinking water— we’re all one unit working together for water. So here’s to teamwork! Thanks to the input of our members who Continued on page 47


FWEA FOCUS

Planning for Success Tim Harley, P.E. President, FWEA

he FWEA fiscal year is moving along at a rapid pace, and over the past months I have shared with you some of the early history of our profession. I’ve encouraged each of you to get involved in our organization and to make ripples. I have told you of the heroic actions and dedication of your fellow utility workers. I have defended you and our profession to those looking to place blame. I have asked that you continue to give of yourselves and your time to this organization, and we have discussed that, because time flies, we need to act with urgency. But now is the time that we need to consider the importance of planning. “If you fail to plan then you are planning to fail.” Whether this was said by Benjamin Franklin, Sir Winston Churchill, or any number of others, it’s a familiar saying. Another often repeated quote is accredited to Churchill: “Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.” Nobody that I know plans to fail, and while it’s important to evaluate what went wrong, should we be focused on the great lessons to be learned from failure? Thomas Edison once said, “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” In my opinion, we should not be obsessed with learning from our mistakes, but rather the things we do right.

T

Continued from page 46 helped with this research. We could not do it without you!

A Regulatory Update I want to remind water utilities across our wonderful state that the next set of unregulated contaminants is due to start sampling in 2018 from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments require that once every five years EPA issue a new list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems (PWS). The fourth Unregulated Contaminant Mon-

If we are focused on not failing and the lessons to be learned from failure, are we focused on trying to lay blame for the outcome of not being as good as desired? Are we trying to identify the person, group, or action that is to be held accountable for failure? While not making the same mistake twice is admirable, you are just as likely to make a different mistake. Instead, let’s focus on what did work and what was done right. Through a process such as this, we’re able to make something good better, rather than having a concern with making something bad not as bad. While everyone in business knows that it’s good advice to have a written plan, planning for the sake of planning is a waste of paper if it just sits on a bookshelf to collect dust and is never implemented. A good plan does not have to be long or complicated, but it should be a tool that helps you prioritize. It should help you remain focused on the things that really matter, help you manage your time and re-

sources more efficiently, and it should be shared in order to bring folks together to work toward a common goal. We should plan for success because success loves preparation, and preparation provides a clear picture of where you are going. Planning for success does not mean that mistakes won’t be made, but don’t quit—keep moving and keep striving toward the goal, because success comes from focusing on doing things right.

itoring Rule (UCMR 4) was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 20, 2016. The UCMR 4 requires monitoring for 30 chemical contaminants between 2018 and 2020 using analytical methods developed by EPA and consensus organizations. This monitoring provides a basis for future regulatory actions to protect public health. The PWS will monitor for 10 List 1 cyanotoxins during a four-consecutive-month period from March 2018 through November 2020. The PWS will monitor for 20 List 1 additional contaminants during a 12-month period from January 2018 through December 2020. This information is collected in EPA’s central data exchange and is used for new or possible maximum contaminant levels and regulations.

By now, PWS serving more than 10,000 people are required to report contact information to EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Accession and Review System (SDWARS) website, and PWS serving more than 10,000 people are required to review, and if necessary, revise sampling location information and monitoring schedule in SDWARS. For PWS under 10,000 people, EPA has contacted 800 utilities across the U.S. to coordinate water sampling with them. Hopefully, your organization is on track with these requirements. As a side note, don’t forget to contact contract laboratories for price quotes, so you can get your laboratory budget request funding in accordingly. Happy sampling, and here’s to another successful compliance year for your organization. S

Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisors they succeed. —Proverbs 15:22

By the time that you read this, FWEA will have held its Leadership Development Workshop in Daytona for chapter and committee chairs and FWEA board members. Every year at this time, your local leaders meet to review goals for the association and to begin planning for the coming year that will begin at the 2018 Florida Water Resources Conference, to be held April 15-18 at the Ocean Center in Daytona Beach. They will create business plans that their teams can use to guide and measure the progress and success of their endeavors. During this time we bring together current chairs and incoming chairs, along with seasoned leaders, to provide counsel and input. From this two-day workshop, I can assure you that our focus will not have been planning to prevent failure, but rather planning to succeed! S

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

47


LET’S TALK SAFETY This column addresses safety issues of interest to water and wastewater personnel, and will appear monthly in the magazine. The Journal is also interested in receiving any articles on the subject of safety that it can share with readers in the “Spotlight on Safety” column.

Don’t be Shocked by Charged Pipes! ccording to an American Water Works Association study, more than 350 significant distribution system electric shock incidents occur annually to water utility workers. A much larger number of minor shock incidents occur each year, many of which go unreported. Electric shock is a danger water utility workers face during the installation and repair of water pipes and meters. Water pipes are often used to ground electricity in homes, and if there is a fault in the electric system, the pipe or meter can be energized with electricity. A severe or even fatal shock can occur if enough electricity is present in the pipe or meter. Some utilities insulate the water service at the corporation stop or meter. Electrical insulation of water services has proven to be very effective in reducing the number of shock incidents; however, many uninsulated services remain. So, what steps should utility workers take to avoid being shocked on the job?

A

Understand the Hazard Electricity always wants to return to its source to complete a continuous circuit. A typical circuit has two conductors: one that flows from a service panel to an appliance and one that returns the current to the panel. A neutral wire and ground wire are both connected to electrical ground. The neutral wire completes the electric circuit by conducting current away from the plugged-in electrical device, while the ground wire is a safety device that carries electric current away from a device when the circuit or pluggedin device malfunctions. Grounding wires are connected to all outlets and metal boxes and then down to the earth by attaching them to either a metallic rod or a water pipe. The shock to utility workers occurs when they install or remove a water meter or cut through metallic pipes connected to a faulty system. Because electricity may take multiple paths to ground, the worker may get shocked when

first touching a pipe or service meter. A worker may not get shocked when removing a meter or pipe because it breaks the circuit, but he or she may be shocked when reinstalling that meter or service line because that action completes the ground circuit.

Use Proper Procedures and Safety Equipment Every case will be a little different, but here are some general guidelines to consider when approaching meters or pipes that are part of a home or building’s ground system: S Identify the composition of the service line to be worked on and that of nearby properties. This will help determine the likelihood of a shock hazard because metallic water lines allow an electrical current to travel from a neighboring property. The pipes most likely to act as an electrical conductor are ductile iron, copper, cast iron, steel, and galvanized. S Voltage-rated rubber gloves with leather “glove keepers” worn over them provide the best protection for workers and should be worn when inspecting, installing, or removing a meter, or when cutting and repairing a service line. Class 00 rubber electric-safety gloves are rated for maximum-use voltage of 500 volts AC and protect against most common shock hazards associated with residential electrical systems. Consult with a voltage-rated glove manufacturer to determine the appropriate class of gloves for your utility’s situation. Both pairs of gloves should be inspected prior to use and need to be tested and recertified periodically. S Use voltage-rated gloves to check for a current with a clamp-on ampere meter. The

presence of amperage indicates a potential electrical problem and shock hazard. If there is evidence of an electrical problem, notify the building occupant and/or local power company so that they can determine the source and eliminate the hazard. Be aware that a zero reading does not guarantee safety, as the source of the current may not be constant (i.e., a garage door opener) and safety equipment should still be used. S A voltage-rated jumper or bridging conductor can be used to maintain grounding or bonding capability of a pipe during repairs by connecting around it during the repair. While wearing voltage-rated gloves, use an emery cloth or another method to clean the pipe to bare metal. Connect the jumper— mainline side first—securely to the pipe. Jumpers with alligator clips should not be used. If a current is present, the amp meter should be used to measure that the current is passing through the jumper prior to removing the meter or cutting a service line. When removing the jumper, disconnect the customer side first. Voltage-rated jumpers must be inspected prior to use and need to be tested and recertified periodically. S If a worker is shocked, he or she should seek immediate medical attention. Be aware that an electrical injury can cause arrhythmia (a problem with the rate or rhythm of the heartbeat), which can be fatal hours after contact. Some local codes now prohibit the use of water pipe grounding, but many do not, so the practice and associated hazard are still widespread. Don’t take chances—take charge and follow these safety tips when working with metal pipe and meters! S

The 2017 Let's Talk Safety is available from AWWA; visit www.awwa.org or call 800.926.7337. Get 40 percent off the list price or 10 percent off the member price by using promo code SAFETY17. The code is good for the 2017 Let's Talk Safety book, dual disc set, and book + CD set.

48

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal


News Beat Continued from page 45 Apopka: The Orange Blossom KOA septicto-sewer project, funded in part by a $34,425 Florida Springs grant to the St. Johns River Water Management District, connected the park to Apopka's existing central sewer system, improving water quality in Lake Apopka and the Wekiva springshed. Gasparilla Island: The Gasparilla Island reverse osmosis water treatment plant expansion project, funded in part by a $5 million Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) loan, expanded the capacity of the existing facility from 1.073 to 1.267 mil gal per day. Also included are two new brackish water supply wells and a raw water main to transport water from the new wells to the facility, which supplies potable water to its service area on Gasparilla Island in Lee County. Largo: The Largo Wet Weather project, funded in part by a $73.2 million Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan, upgraded and expanded the city's sewer and reuse systems. These much-needed improvements have helped reduce sewer overflows and ensure that treated wastewater effluent meets water quality standards.

Martin and St. Lucie counties: The Caulkins Water Farm project was funded in part by a total of $1.5 million in the EPA Section 319 nonpoint source pollution grants to the South Florida Water Management District for the original pilot project, which turned former citrus groves into a reservoir. With the pilot project's success, the reservoir was recently expanded, providing much-needed storage for excess stormwater from the C-44 Canal, which is linked to Lake Okeechobee. The completed project provides both water storage and a reduction in nutrient loading into the St. Lucie River and estuary. Sebring: The Spring Lake Improvement District's Stormwater Treatment Area project, funded in part by a total of $4.3 million in a CWSRF loan, an EPA Section 319 nonpoint source pollution grant, and a legislative appropriation, constructed a lake-wetland marsh system and expanded storage capacity for stormwater treatment. The stormwater treatment area provides additional water quality treatment benefits prior to discharge into Arbuckle Creek, a tributary of Lake Istokpoga. This water is then transported to Lake Okeechobee, and ultimately, the Everglades and Florida's sensitive Atlantic estuaries.

Stuart: The distribution system and water meter upgrade project, funded in part by a $5.8 million DWSRF loan, replaced more than 11 mi of distribution piping, converted approximately 2,500 meters, and installed an emergency interconnect with the Martin County water supply system. This will improve reliability of water supply to Stuart residents. Also in Stuart, the East Heart of Haney Creek wetlands restoration project, funded in part by $181,000 in total maximum daily load (TMDL) water quality restoration grants, regraded approximately 6 acres of an exoticcleared area, created berms and weirs, and restored the eastern third of Heart of Haney Creek to native wetlands. Waters from the 395acre Eastern Haney Creek watershed will now be directed through the restored wetlands before discharge to tidal Haney Creek, and ultimately, the St. Lucie estuary. For more information about the State Revolving Fund, nonpoint source water quality restoration grants, Florida Springs grant program, and other funding opportunities, visit the FDEP division of water restoration assistance website at floridadep.gov/wra. S

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

51


F W R J

Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery System: Update on a Groundbreaking System in Florida Robert G. Maliva, Monica M. Autrey, Logan Law, William S. Manahan, and Thomas M. Missimer arrier island and coastal communities often face greater water supply and wastewater management challenges than inland areas because of a combination of population growth, insufficient availability of affordable undeveloped land, and limited local freshwater resources that are vulnerable to contamination from saline-water intrusion. Using treated (reclaimed) wastewater for irrigation is increasingly being implemented as an environmentally sound means of putting wastewater flows to beneficial use and reducing demands on fresh groundwater and surface water resources. Reuse systems, however, have constraints as the demand for irrigation water often has a

B

strong seasonal variability; demand for reclaimed water decreases dramatically during wet periods when irrigation is not needed. Since wastewater is generated year-round, wastewater utilities need alternative disposal methods for low-demand periods. Developing alternative means of additional wastewater disposal is becoming increasingly challenging because property for land application systems may not be available (or is too expensive) and surface water outfalls may not be allowed or would face stiff public opposition. Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a logical means for managing reclaimed water supplies. Excess reclaimed water could be stored underground during periods of excess supply

and recovered during dry or peak irrigation demand periods. The additional reclaimed water supply during high-demand periods provided by ASR systems can be instrumental in encouraging other users to commit to a reuse system. Reliability of supply is critical to potential reuse water customers. Prospective customers for reuse systems want to have the confidence that water will be available to them when it’s needed; shallow aquifers in coastal areas that are not suitable for potable water supply due to poor water quality may be available for use as ASR storage zones. The Destin Water Users Inc. (DWU) ASR system is a groundbreaking reclaimed water project. The City of Destin is located on a barrier island in the Gulf of Mexico, in the panhandle region of western Florida (Figure 1). The DWU faced the need for additional wet weather reclaimed water disposal capacity, with traditional options (e.g., additional land application, offshore disposal, deep well injection) either being too expensive, not permittable, or not technically feasible. The ASR was determined to be the most cost-effective option to provide additional wet weather disposal capacity, while at the same time conserving a valuable resource and increasing the reliability of the DWU reuse system. The ASR system was constructed at the DWU George W. French Wastewater Treatment Facility.

Destin Hydrogeology Figure 1. Site location map and site plan showing the locations of the aquifer storage and recovery wells, storage zone monitoring wells, and shallow monitoring wells.

52

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Three main hydrogeologic units are present in northwestern Florida: the surficial aquifer


system, the intermediate confining unit, and the Floridan aquifer system (Figure 2). The intermediate confining unit is also referred to as the Pensacola confining unit, intermediate aquifer system, and intermediate system. The upper Floridan aquifer is the primary potable water source in northwestern Florida and is the sole potable water source for the Destin area. The surficial aquifer system is used only for irrigation purposes in the vicinity of Destin. The surficial aquifer system in northwestern Florida is defined as the “permeable hydrogeologic unit contiguous with land surface that is comprised principally of unconsolidated clastic deposits” (Southeastern Geological Society Ad Hoc Committee on Florida Hydrostratigraphic Unit Definition, 1986). The system consists of a single aquifer, the sand-and-gravel aquifer, which is made up of predominantly unconsolidated clastic deposits of Late Miocene to Holocene age. Stratigraphically, this aquifer in the Destin area contains undifferentiated PlioPleistocene sands, the Citronelle Formation, and Miocene coarse clastics (Clark and Schmidt, 1982; Pratt et al., 1996). All three units consist predominantly of quartz sand with varying amounts of gravel, silt, and clay. The sand-and-gravel aquifer is divided into three hydraulic zones: the surficial zone, intermediate zone, and main-producing zone (Hayes and Barr, 1983). The surficial zone is composed of fine- to medium-grained quartz sands, and is approximately 40 ft thick at the ASR system site. The surficial zone is underlain by low-permeability clays, sandy clay, and clayey sand that constitute the intermediate zone. The surficial zone is widely used in Destin to supply smalldiameter domestic (household) irrigation wells. The intermediate zone extends downward to the top of the main-producing zone, which is located at approximately 117 ft below land surface (bls) at the ASR system site. The main-producing zone is usually the most permeable part of the sand-and-gravel aquifer and consists mostly of medium- to very coarse-grained sand and gravel. The base of the main-producing zone occurs at about 166 ft bls. Well cuttings and geophysical logs do not indicate the presence of particularly tight confining strata between the surficial zone and main-producing zone at the ASR site. Some zones of increased gamma ray activity are evident on borehole geophysical logs of the intermediate zone, which may be indicative of the presence of clay. Nevertheless, the static water levels measured during initial hydrogeological testing for the ASR system in 2002 revealed an approximately 10-ft difference in head (water level) between the surficial zone and main-producing zone, which is strong evidence for effec-

Figure 2. Hydrostratigraphic column for the aquifer storage and recovery system vicinity.

tive confinement. Heads in the main-producing zone are approximately 3 ft above sea level, whereas heads in the surficial zone are substantially higher and are related to land surface elevation. The data from an aquifer pumping test performed on the main-producing zone indicate a transmissivity of 4,800 to 5,100 ft2/d, a storage coefficient of 3 X 10-4 to 3.8 X 10-4, and a leakance of 8 X 10-5 to 1.3 X 10-4 d-1. The intermediate confining unit is defined as including “all rocks that lie between and collectively retard the exchange of water between the overlying surficial aquifer system and the underlying Floridan aquifer system” (Southeastern Geological Society Ad Hoc Committee on Florida Hydrostratigraphic Unit Definition, 1986). The intermediate confining unit in the Destin area consists of the Intracoastal Formation and Pensacola Clay, which are generally composed of fine-grained clastic deposits with some locally interlayered carbonate rocks or coarser-grained clastic deposits. The base of the

intermediate confining unit occurs at approximately 425 ft bls and is marked by a downward transition from predominantly low-permeability clastic rocks to the underlying more permeable carbonate strata of the Floridan aquifer system (Barr et al., 1985)

Project History and Regulatory Issues The kickoff meeting for the DWU reclaimed water ASR project was held in May 2002. The initial primary goal of the project was to meet a wet weather disposal requirement of 3 mil gal per day (mgd) for three days. Recovery of injected fluids was recognized to be desirable, but not critical, to the project. The benefits of recovery as a supplemental water source were recognized. Two storage-zone monitor wells were installed and a 72-hour aquifer performance test was performed in June 2002, using an Continued on page 54

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

53


Continued from page 53 existing production well as the pumped well, to obtain data on the hydraulic properties of the storage zone. The test data showed a high degree of hydraulic separation between the surficial and main-producing zone of the sand-andgravel aquifer. The ASR systems are categorized as Class V injection wells in the United States and are permitted in Florida by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The ASR systems fall under the purview of the FDEP underground injection control (UIC) program of the aquifer protection program. Reclaimed water ASR systems are additionally regulated by the FDEP domestic wastewater program. The overriding requirement of federal and FDEP’s UIC regulations is that underground injection shall not endanger underground sources of drinking water, which are defined as nonexempt aquifers containing less than 10,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids (TDS). Endangerment is defined as causing a violation of a primary (health-based) drinking water standard. The UIC regulations in Florida also require that injected water meets secondary (aesthetic-based) drinking water standards. Injection may cause violation of UIC regulations if the concentration of the parameter(s) in question in the injected water exceeds a drinking water standard, or if a standard is exceeded as a result of fluidrock interactions (or other chemical processes) after injection. If the natural concentration of a parameter in an aquifer exceeds a drinking water standard, then the natural background concentration becomes the applicable standard for injection. The domestic wastewater reuse rules (Chapter 62-610 of the Florida Administrative Code [FAC]) place another layer of regulations on ASR systems that store reclaimed water. If the native groundwater in the storage zone contains less than 1,000 mg/L of TDS, then an ASR system is required to meet the strict full treatment and disinfection requirements, which would have rendered the ASR project economically unviable. The full treatment and disinfection requirements basically assume that because of the low TDS concentration of an aquifer, indirect potable reuse may occur. The pre-application report for an FDEP Class V injection well construction permit application (November 2002) identified that the requirement to meet the full treatment and disinfection requirements (FAC 62-610.563) was a fatal flaw. The treated wastewater cannot meet FAC 62-610 (reuse rules) total organic halides standards for injection in a G-II aquifer containing less than 1,000 mg/L of total dissolved solids. The full treatment and disinfection re-

54

quirements are complex, onerous, and involve great costs that would render the project economically unfeasible. The stringent requirements include pilot testing of the treatment system (12-month minimum), mutagenicity testing, and that the water be free of pathogens and be of equal or better quality than current drinking water sources (which in Destin are of very high quality). A variance from the full treatment and disinfection requirements was applied for on March 28, 2003. The basis for the proposed waiver request was that the requirements resulting from Rule 62-610.560 (2) FAC, are inappropriate for the proposed project because unique, site-specific conditions preclude the use of the sand-and-gravel aquifer in Destin as a potable source. Specifically, Section 10.05.05 (A) of the Destin city code states that shallow wells that draw water from the sand-and-gravel aquifer shall be used for irrigation purposes only. Despite its low TDS concentration, indirect potable reuse is not a possibility and “institutional controls” are in place to prevent indirect potable reuse. It was proposed that the requirements of full treatment and disinfection, therefore, cannot be justified to protect public health and safety as there is little likelihood of public consumption of groundwater from the sand-andgravel aquifer; furthermore, the proposed recharge of the sand-and-gravel aquifer that would be possible if the waiver were granted would enhance the use of the aquifer for its most beneficial purpose: a source of irrigation water. The FDEP proposed a denial on Sept. 2, 2004, and DWU filed for an administrative hearing. A settlement was reached and FDEP issued a variance on Oct. 20, 2006. An FDEP Class V injection well construction permit application was submitted in December 2007 for the complete seven-well ASR system. The permit was issued on Jan. 29, 2009, with an administrative order to address arsenic leaching, should it occur. Phase I of the system consisted of a single ASR well (ASR-1) and associated monitor wells constructed in March 2009, and operational testing began in June 2009. The remaining six ASR wells and associated monitor wells were constructed from May to October 2011. An operation permit was issued on Jan, 7, 2014. The system is currently operational.

Aquifer Storage and Recovery System Design The DWU reclaimed water ASR system uses the main-producing zone of the sand-andgravel aquifer as a storage zone. The system cur-

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

rently consists of seven ASR wells (ASR-1 through ASR-7), six storage-zone monitor wells (SZMW-1 through SZMW-6), and two shallow monitor wells (SMW-1 and SWM-2; Figure 1). The system has a design capacity of 2.125 mgd. The ASR system was constructed in two phases. Phase I consists of one ASR well (ASR-1), two storage-zone monitoring wells, and one shallow monitoring well, which were constructed in March 2009. After successful completion of initial operational testing, the remaining ASR wells were constructed in late 2011. The ASR wells are constructed with a 16in.-diameter standard dimension ratio (SDR) 17 polyvinyl chloride injection casing set to 106 to 110 ft bls. The wells are completed with 50 ft of 8-in.-diameter (either 0.035-in. slot [ASR-1] or 0.050-in. slot [ASR-2 through ASR-7]) wirewrapped 316 stainless steel screen with 5 ft of tail pipe. The annulus is filled with 8/16-grade sand filter pack. The wells are designed so that the screen and inner casing can be removed to rehabilitate the well, if necessary. Samples of the water from the storage zone (well ASR-1), surficial zone (well SMW-1), and reclaimed water were collected in 2009, prior to the start of operational testing, and analyzed for the primary and secondary drinking water standards. The analytical results are summarized in Table 1. The main-producing zone has a very low salinity and high iron concentrations. The water chemistry of the surficial zone is impacted by reclaimed water from onsite infiltration basins.

Operational Issues Recovery of Injected Reclaimed Water The ASR storage zone contains native groundwater that can be used directly as a supplemental irrigation water source; however, large additional abstractions from the mainproducing zone are likely not feasible due to saline-water intrusion concerns. The hydrologic benefit of the ASR system is that it will allow for sustainable use of the aquifer on a long-term basis by balancing recharge and abstractions. A calibrated solute-transport model was developed for the ASR system using the MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988) and MT3DMS (Zheng and Wang, 1999) codes. The objectives of the modeling were to develop a better understanding of the hydrogeology and mixing processes in the storage zone through the calibration process, and to develop a predictive tool that would assist in the design of ASR system expansion and development of operating protocols. The model was calibrated for the first three operational (cycle) tests (Table 2), Continued on page 56


Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

55


Table 1. Summary of Reclaimed Water and Pre-Injection Groundwater Chemistry

Table 2. Summary of Operational (Cycle) Tests 1 Through 3

56

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Continued from page 54 against both water-level changes during injection and recovery and the percentage of reclaimed water in the recovered water, which was estimated using chloride, sodium, TDS, and fluoride as tracers (Figure 3). In order to obtain a reasonable match to the observed data, a very small grid size (1.25 ft in core area of model), small longitudinal dispersivity (0.3 ft), and highly effective porosity (0.35) were required. The model still slightly underestimates the fraction of reclaimed water in the late-stage recovered water due to numerical dispersion. The monitoring data (reclaimed water was not detected in storage-zone monitoring wells during initial operational testing) and modeling results both indicate that the injected water is staying near the ASR well and there is a low degree of dispersive mixing. The combination of a highly effective porosity and low dispersivity of unconsolidated sand aquifers is particularly favorable for the high recovery of injected water in ASR systems. Arsenic Leaching The leaching of arsenic into stored water has been a widespread problem in ASR systems in Florida and elsewhere. The causes of arsenic leaching in Florida were reviewed by Maliva and Missimer (2010). Field observations and the results of bench-top experiments performed by the Florida Geological Survey (Arthur et al., 2005; Arthur et al., 2007) indicate that arsenic leaching is caused by oxidative dissolution of trace amounts of arsenic-bearing iron sulfide minerals (pyrite) present in the storage-zone rock or sediment. Pyrite is stable in the chemically reducing conditions that naturally occur in confined Florida aquifers and aquifer zones. Undersaturated conditions occur as the result of the introduction of water containing dissolved oxygen and nitrate. Arsenic leaching became a more serious concern for ASR system operators in Florida in 2006 when the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency decreased the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic in drinking water from 50 to 10 micrograms per liter (µg/L); the drinking water MCL is the applicable groundwater quality standard. Systems in which stored water met the 50-µg/L arsenic MCL were in violation of the MCL when it was reduced to 10 µg/L. Although iron sulfide minerals are present in only minute quantities in Florida aquifers (often only detectable with thin section petrography or scanning electron microscopy), a very small amount of arsenic release is sufficient to exceed the 10-µg/L MCL. It was hoped that the ASR system would not experience arsenic leaching because iron


Figure 3. Modeled versus actual recovery of recharged reclaimed water.

sulfides did not appear to be present in the clean quartz sands of the storage zone. Nevertheless, arsenic leaching above the 50-µg/L groundwater standard occurred during the initial operational testing of well ASR-1. Two main strategies have been employed in Florida to address arsenic leaching in ASR systems. Injected water may be pretreated to remove dissolved oxygen and reduce its oxidation reduction potential so that it is at or near chemical equilibrium with respect to iron sulfide minerals present in the aquifer. Pretreatment options for removing dissolved oxygen were reviewed by Maliva and Missimer (2010). Disadvantages of dissolved oxygen removal for management of arsenic leaching include additional capital and operational costs and that the injected water has to be pretreated in perpetuity. An alternative approach, which was adopted for DWU’s ASR system, is to allow arsenic concentrations to be reduced naturally over time (operational cycles), as the small, finite amount of leachable arsenic in the storage zone is progressively exhausted. Arsenic concentrations from the Phase I ASR well (ASR-1) and a Phase II well (ASR-4) are plotted versus time in Figure 4. Arsenic concentrations tend to increase as recovery progresses in each operational cycle. Cycle test 3 included an initial recovery period (3a) in which the injected volume was recovered. The decision was then made to recover additional water to remove arsenic-rich water still present in the aquifer (3b); the overrecovery results in much lower arsenic concentration in subsequent operational cycle 4. The

Figure 4. Arsenic concentrations of recovered water from wells ASR-1 and ASR-4.

later operational data for well ASR-1 and the Phase II wells (e.g., ASR-4) show a progressive reduction in arsenic concentrations over time to values eventually below 10 µg/L. Total Coliforms and Trihalomethanes in Injected Reclaimed Water Injected water is required under FDEP’s UIC rules to meet both the state groundwater total coliform bacteria standard of 4 cfu/100 mL

and the total trihalomethanes (THMs) drinking water MCL of 80 µg/L. Where chlorination is used for disinfection, fine adjustments of the chlorine dose are required so that sufficient chlorine is added to ensure adequate disinfection (i.e., meeting the total coliform standard), while at the same time not adding too much chlorine so that the THM standard is exceeded. Simultaneously meeting both standards is often Continued on page 58

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

57


Continued from page 57 a challenge for systems recharging treated wastewater or surface water because fluctuations in the organic concentration and composition of the water (e.g., seasonal and in response to storm events) may impact the required chlorine dose. Switching to ultraviolet light disinfection is not considered a viable option for DWU’s ASR system (and other similar systems) because of its high costs and the need to maintain a chlorine residual in the injected water to control biological clogging. The DWU wastewater facilities permit requires daily total coliform monitoring, with the requirement that total coliform samples shall have no more than one positive reading per month and that any one sample shall not exceed 4 cfu/100 mL. This requirement forces DWU to stop injecting for a month after a total coliform detection, which is particularly problematic because false positives with respect to total coliform bacteria are common, in general. Total coliform may be indigenous rather than of fecal origin (Mansuy, 1999) and coliform bacteria may be transported by the wind as dust particles (Rosas et al., 1997), so occasional detections due to contamination during sampling would be expected. The FDEP is currently considering changing the bacterial monitoring requirement from total coliform bacteria to E. coli, which is recognized to be a superior indicator of fecal contamination of water (Standridge, 2008). Zone of Discharge After the start of operation of the ASR system, FDEP adopted a zone of discharge (ZOD) policy, which sets the compliance point for primary (health-based) and secondary (aestheticbased) drinking water standards at the boundary of ZOD, which for the ASR system is the wastewater treatment property boundary. Monitoring wells SZMW-5 and SZMW-6 were installed at the property boundary as ZOD compliance wells. The adoption of the ZOD concept is a very important step for the implementation of ASR in Florida, in general, as it formally allows for the natural attenuation of arsenic leaching over time, so long as the arsenic standard (and other groundwater standards) is met at the boundary of ZOD. The ZOD also allows for the natural attenuation of other parameters, such as coliform bacteria and THMs. Clogging The main operational challenge of the ASR project is the management of clogging, which is an endemic problem for injection wells, especially those with screened completions in unconsolidated sand-and-gravel aquifers. Huisman and Olsthoorn (1983) noted over four

58

decades ago that “without any doubt, the most important drawback to the use of injection wells is the danger of clogging, primarily caused by an entrance rate into the aquifer, which is one to two orders of magnitude higher than that with spreading ditches.” Well clogging in screened wells may occur even where the water is of very high quality, such as the predominantly reverse-osmosis-treated wastewater injected in the Orange County Water District (Calif.) Talbert Gap salinity barrier (Burris, 2015). The ASR wells are rehabilitated by periodic backflushing and occasional extensive well rehabilitation, which involves contracting a well driller to pull the submersible pump and to perform physical (jetting and surging) and chemical treatments. The optimal well rehabilitation program for ASR sites is site-specific, in terms of the treatments used and the frequency of their application. The ASR system is in an adaptive management stage in which various rehabilitation options are being evaluated to find the strategy that will most cost-effectively maintain well performance.

Discussion Although DWU’s ASR system was implemented to address the specific needs of the utility, it has had further-reaching implications. The ASR system was an initial step toward recognizing the aquifer zoning concept in Florida and the use of institutional controls to protect public health (Missimer et al., 2014). Based on its salinity alone, the sand-and-gravel aquifer would normally be regulated as an aquifer in which indirect potable reuse was possible and water recharged using wells would have to be treated as if potable consumption of water could occur. Instead, an institutional control (the local ordinance restricting the aquifer to irrigation) was recognized as an alternative best local use of the aquifer. There are numerous other coastal communities in Florida and elsewhere where a shallow aquifer is present that is not now and will not in the future be used as a potable water supply. A similar ordinance or other institution controls may facilitate putting these aquifers to their best use as ASR storage zones for irrigation. A second institutional control applied to the ASR system is ZOD, which allows for natural attenuation of arsenic leaching, provided that groundwater with arsenic concentrations above the applicable groundwater standards remains on property owned by DWU. The ZOD also applies to other primary and secondary drinking water standards (e.g., coliform bacteria, THMs). The ZOD solution was workable

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

for DWU because there is adequate room onsite to contain the arsenic-impacted groundwater; however, other existing and potential ASR system sites may either not have adequate property for an ownership-based ZOD or the ASR systems may have too-large storage capacities or aquifer heterogeneities (flow zones) to retain all injected water onsite. The ASR system has particularly favorable conditions that are not present at all coastal locations. The very low storage-zone salinity allows for essentially 100 percent recovery of the injected water. The storage-zone geology of unconsolidated sand and gravel results in the aquifer having a highly effective porosity and low dispersivities, which favor a low degree of mixing with native groundwater. The recharged water tends to spread out less from the ASR wells. The ASR of reclaimed water may still be feasible in coastal areas where the shallow aquifer is salinity-stratified and/or close to the saline-water interface. If the excess reclaimed water during wet periods would otherwise be discharged to tide, ASR, with even a low to moderate recovery efficiency, may still yield sufficient benefits to justify the investment in the system.

Conclusions The DWU’s ASR system experience illustrates the value of the aquifer zoning concept. Regulatory requirements for ASR systems, and injection wells in general, in the U.S. are based largely on the water quality in the storage or injection zone, rather than the actual existing or potential future uses of the aquifer. The sandand-gravel aquifer in Destin is not suitable for use as a potable supply because of its poor quality and susceptibility to saline-water intrusion from prolonged pumping. Its best use is as a source of water for domestic irrigation and for storage of reclaimed water for irrigation use. Unconsolidated siliciclastic aquifers, such as the sand-and-gravel aquifer, have highly effective porosities and low dispersivities, which are favorable for recovery of reclaimed water in ASR systems; however, the required screened completions give them a greater susceptibility to clogging.

References • Arthur, J. D., Dabous, A. A., and Cowart, J. B. (2005). Water-rock geochemical considerations for aquifer storage and recovery: Florida case studies. In Tsang, C.-F., and Apps, J.A. (eds.) Underground Injection Science and Technology, Developments in Water Science, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 65-77.


• Arthur, J. D., Dabous, A. A., and Fischler, C. (2007) Aquifer storage and recovery in Florida: geochemical assessment of potential storage zones. In Fox, P. (ed.) Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Managed Aquifer Recharge of GroundwaterAcacia Publishing, Phoenix, pp. 185-197. • Barr, D. E., Hayes, L. R., and Kwader, T. (1985) Hydrology of the Southern Parts of Okaloosa and Walton Counties, Northwest Florida, with Special Emphasis on the Upper Limestone of the Floridan aquifer, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 844205. • Burris, D.L. (2015) Groundwater Replenishment System 2014 Annual Report. Report prepared for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. • Clark, M. W., and Schmidt, W. (1982) Shallow stratigraphy of Okaloosa County and Vicinity, Florida, Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigations No. 92. • Hayes, L. R., and Barr, D. E. (1983) Hydrology of the sand-and-gravel aquifer, southern Okaloosa and Walton Counties, Northwest Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Re-

sources Investigations Report 82-4110. • Huisman, L., and Olsthoorn, T.N. (1983) Artificial Groundwater Recharge, Pittman, London. • Maliva, R.G., and Missimer, T.M. (2010) Aquifer Storage and Recovery and Managed Aquifer Recharge Using wells: Planning, Hydrogeology, Design, and Operation, Schlumberger Corporation, Houston. • Mansuy, N. (1999) Water Well Rehabilitation, A Practical Guide to Understanding Well Problems and Solutions, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. • McDonald, M.G.,and Harbaugh, A.W. (1988) A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground Water Flow Model: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigation Report 06-A1. • Missimer, T. M., Ghaffour, N., and Amy, G. (2014) Groundwater management using spatial and temporal aquifer zoning. Journal American Water Works Association 106(6), 87-88. • Pratt, T.R., Richards, C.J., Milla, K.A., Wagner, J.R., Johnson, J.L., and Curry, R.J. (1996) Hydrogeology of the Northwest Florida Water Management District, Northwest Florida

Water Management District Special Report 96-4. Rosas, I., Salinas, E., Yela, A., Calva, E., Eslava, C., and Cravioto, A. (1997) Escherichia coli in settled-dust and air samples collected in residential environments in Mexico City. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 63(10), 4093-4095. Standridge, J. (2008) E coli as public health indicator of drinking water quality. Journal American Water Works Association, 100(2), 65-75. Southeastern Geological Society Ad Hoc Committee on Florida Hydrostratigraphic Unit Definition (1986). Hydrogeology Units of Florida, Florida Geological Survey Special Publication No. 28. Zheng, C., and Wang, P.P. (1999) MT3DMS: A Modular Three-Dimensional Multi-Species Model for Simulation of Advection, Dispersion and Chemical Reactions of Contaminants in Ground Water Systems: Documentation and User’s Guide, Report SERDP-99-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Miss. S

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

59


FWRJ READER PROFILE

Alberto Montalvo

City of Frostproof Wastewater Treatment Plant Work title and years of service. I am the chief wastewater operator and have more than 38 years of service. What does your job entail? I supervise the activities of subordinates in the operation and maintenance of equipment in water and wastewater treatment plants, assign and schedule work tasks, check and review work in progress, and ensure that all appropriate safety standards are followed. I also perform the following: S Operate treatment equipment, such as pumps, control panels, chlorinators, fluoridates, chemical feeders, filters, electric motors, spectrophotometers, turbiditers, and conductivity meters. S Repair, clean, and maintain treatment equipment; replace chlorine cylinders; and regulate the flow of chlorine. S Conduct meter, gauge, and dial readings; prepare and maintain logs of readings; adjust valves and controls to maintain appropriate treatment processes; and add and adjust chemicals to treatment processes as necessary.

60

S Collect samples and perform standard on tests chemical and physical water/wastewater samples, analyze the quality of water/wastewater, prepare appropriate forms, and maintain accurate records and reports of test results. S Inspect plant charts on level gauges and flow meters, as well as prepare and maintain logs of plant operations. S Maintain plant grounds and perform plant maintenance duties, perform housekeeping duties, report needs for equipment repairs, and perform preventative maintenance on such equipment. S Assist in training new plant operators. S Operate and maintain the city’s well system and 17 lift stations. S Clean weirs, tanks, bar screens, and drying beds; clean, paint, and perform minor repairs to the physical properties of the plant. S Attend and participate in seminars and continuing education classes. S Respond to and participate in emergency calls. S Operate city vehicles in the performance of duties. What education and training have you had? I’m a high school graduate. My continuing education includes a Sacramento course (online) to obtain a wastewater license, and training from the University of Florida’s TREEO Center, City of Daytona Beach, and Florida Rural Water Association.

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

What do you like best about your job? Having people’s lives in my hands to help them grow on a daily basis, and them not even realizing that. What professional organizations do you belong to? I’m the Region 10 director of FWPCOA. I also belong to the Florida Rural Water Association and Florida League of Cities. How have the organizations helped your career? I have been a member of FWPCOA for 32 years and every year I go to different colleges for training. I keep and use the knowledge of the continuing education credits that I earned at these colleges, like the University of Central Florida and Indian Peace River College in Fort Pierce. I teach the citizens of Frostproof about the wastewater treatment at their wastewater plant, as well as teach them about bacteria and microorganisms within their water. What do you like best about the industry? It keeps me busy all day long, with no downtime. It makes me happy to be working for the public, especially when I get to talk to children and adults about the wastewater industry. What do you do when you’re not working? I’m the head deacon of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Avon Park, administrator of Little League softball, and an alum of Southwest S Broward Junior Athletic Association.


FWPCOA TRAINING CALENDAR SCHEDULE YOUR CLASS TODAY! February 5-9 ......Wastewater Collection C ..........................Deltona ..............$225/255 12-14 ......Backflow Repair ........................................Deltona ..............$275/305 16 ......Backflow Tester Recert*** ......................Deltona ..............$85/115 19-23 ......Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ....Deltona ..............$350/380

March 12-16 ......Spring State Short School ........................Ft Pierce 26-29 ......Backflow Tester*........................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405

April 2-5 ......Backflow Tester ..........................................Deltona ..............$375/405 9-11 ......Backflow Repair* ......................................St Petersburg ......$275/305 27 ......Backflow Tester Recert*** ......................Deltona ..............$85/115

May 7-9 ......Backflow Repair ........................................Deltona ..............$275/305 14-17 ......Backflow Tester * ......................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405 14-18 ......Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ....Deltona ..............$350/380 21-25 ......Water Distribution Level 2 ......................Deltona ..............$225/255 21-25 ......Reclaimed Water Distribution B..............Deltona ..............$225/255

June 11-14 ...... Backflow Tester ........................................Deltona ..............$375/405 29 ......Backflow Tester Recert*** ......................Deltona ..............$85/115 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 • February 2018

61


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

FWEA Utility Council (FWEAUC) Affiliation: FWEA Current president: Lisa Wilson-Davis, operations and environmental compliance manager, City of Boca Raton

S Promote better understanding of the need for efficient wastewater utility management. S Develop more effective public service by encouraging the establishment of sound policies. S Coordinate the activities to further implement the policies and purposes of the Utility Council.

Year group was formed: 1997 Scope of work: When the Utility Council was started, the primary objective was to create an organization that would allow FWEA members to take an active role in the adoption and implementation of effective wastewater legislation and regulations at the federal, state, and regional levels. The idea was to create a forum in which utility council managers from around the state could discuss the important issues facing the industry and help shape the direction for addressing the issues that best meet the needs of 6 million customers. The mission of FWEAUC is: S Assist its members to achieve sound public health and environmental goals in an efficient and cost-effective manner. S Reduce and eliminate water pollution in Florida. S Support the adoption and implementation of effective wastewater legislation, regulations, and policy at federal, state, regional, and local levels. S Establish collaboration for the purpose of defining and pursuing common objectives. S Support and encourage responsible, efficient, and cost-effective wastewater management. S Inform and educate the industry on the problems and needs of Florida's wastewater utilities. S Advance knowledge in the management and technology of municipal wastewater.

62

Recent accomplishments: S The FWEAUC gave a presentation entitled, “Blue Star Collection System Assessment and Maintenance Program and FDEP Pollution Notification,” at the August 2017 Florida Water Resources Association Conference in Daytona. S On behalf of FWEAUC, Jo Ann Jackson (Reuse Projects: Recent Successes), Rick Hutton (Solutions for Springs and Estuaries), and Lisa Wilson-Davis (Reuse Policy: What’s Ahead and How Do We Get There?) gave presentations and participated on the three different panels as noted at the Associated Industries of Florida (AIF) Florida Water Forum in Orlando on Sept. 22-23, 2017. Paul Steinbrecher, Utility Council vice president, also gave a presentation, and members Marjorie Craig and Jan McLean gave presentations and participated on the panels. S The FWEAUC board met with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) senior staff during the FWEAUC Annual DEP Day meeting on Nov. 2, 2017. S President Lisa Wilson-Davis and Past President Brian Wheeler participated in a house select committee on a hurricane response and preparedness panel discussion on sanitary sewer storm systems relating to hurricane preparedness and response and storm sewer overflows on Nov. 13, 2017. Current projects: S Working with FSAWWA Utility Council (FSAWWAUC), WateReuse, and other stakeholder groups to address direct potable reuse opportunities in Florida. S The FWEAUC, FSAWWAUC, and FWEA Water Resources, Reuse, and Resiliency (WR3) Committee are collaborating on a legislative, regulatory, and reclaimed water update for the upcoming Florida Water Resources Conference in April.

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

S The Onsite Sewage Treatment Disposal Systems (OSTDS) Workgroup is working with Terri Lowery of Jones Edmunds to produce a document for septic-to-sewer conversions titled, “Guidance Document to Assist Communities with Developments and Implementation of OSTDS Remediation Plans.” S Support the Blue Star legislation proposed by Sen. Jeff Brandes (SB 22) and Rep. Katie Edwards (HB 837). S Support the aquifer recharge legislation proposed by Sen. Keith Perry (SB 1308) and Rep. Bobby Payne (HB 1149). Future work: S Continue to work on current projects. S Continue to monitor and amend, as needed, national and statewide rulemaking and legislative efforts that impact the members. S Continue current workgroup efforts and utilize new workgroups as needed. Group members: S President: Lisa Wilson-Davis, City of Boca Raton S Vice President: Paul Steinbrecher, P.E., JEA S Past President: Brian Wheeler, P.E., Toho Water Authority S Secretary-Treasurer: Donald C. Palmer, P.E., Emerald Coast Utilities Authority S Director-at-Large: Jo Ann Jackson, P.E., City of Altamonte Springs S Director-at-Large: Jeff Greenwell, P.E., Hillsborough County Public Utilities S Director-at-Large: Patty DiPiero, Lee County Utilities S Director-at-Large: Sondra W. Lee, P.E., City of Tallahassee S Director-at-Large: Rick Hutton, P.E., Gainesville Regional Utilities S Director-at-Large: Open S Legal Counsel: David Childs, Esq., Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. S Administrator: Katherine Ibarra Current utility and company members: S AECOM S Bay County Utility Services S Black & Veatch S Broward County Water and Wastewater Services


S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

Carollo Engineers City of Altamonte Springs City of Atlantic Beach City of Boca Raton City of Casselberry City of Cape Coral City of Clearwater City of Cocoa Beach City of Fort Lauderdale City of Freeport City of Fort Walton City of Gulf Breeze City of Hollywood City of Largo City of Margate City of Milton City of Ocala City of Orlando City of Palm Coast City of Panama City City of Panama City Beach City of Sarasota City of St. Cloud City of Tallahassee City of Tampa City of Vero Beach City of West Palm Beach Clay County Utility Authority CPH Inc. Destin Water Users Inc. Emerald Coast Utilities Authority Fort Pierce Utilities Authority Gainesville Regional Utilities Greeley and Hansen Hazen and Sawyer HDR Engineering Inc. Hernando County Utilities Hillsborough County Utilities JEA Jones Edmunds & Associates Lee County Utilities Miami-Dade Water & Sewer MWH Global Okaloosa County Utilities Orange County Utilities Orlando Utilities Commission Pace Water System Inc. Parsons Brinckerhoff Pinellas County Utilities Polk County Polston Applied Technologies Reedy Creek Improvement District Utilities Reiss Engineering Santa Rosa County South Walton Utilities Inc. Tetra Tech Inc. Toho Water Authority University of Florida – TREEO Center Wright-Pierce S Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

63


ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

Tank Engineering And Management

Consultants, Inc.

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

863-354-9010

www.tankteam.com


ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY


EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY

Motor & Utility Services, LLC

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

352-241-6006 ads@fwrj.com

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


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

P os i ti on s Ava i l a b l e CITY OF WINTER GARDEN – POSITIONS AVAILABLE The City of Winter Garden is currently accepting applications for the following positions: • • • • •

Wastewater Plant Operator – Trainee Solid Waste Worker I, II & III Collection Field Tech – I, II, & III Distribution Field Tech – I, II, & III Public Service Worker II - Stormwater

Please visit our website at www.cwgdn.com for complete job descriptions and to apply. Applications may be submitted online, in person or faxed to 407-877-2795.

Water Conservation/Recycling Coordinator This position is responsible for the administration of the water conservation and solid waste recycling customer education programs for the City. Salary is DOQ. The City of Winter Garden is an EOE/DFWP that encourages and promotes a diverse workforce. Please apply at http://www.cwgdn.com. Minimum Qualifications: • Bachelor’s of Science in Environmental Science • Three (3) years of experience in water conservation, recycling and/or related environmental management field. • Considerable knowledge of water, irrigation, conservation and recycling methodologies and processes. • Valid Florida driver’s license.

Englewood Water District – Administrator Position Accepting applications for Administrator of water and sewer utility in Englewood Florida. All applicants must possess a degree in Business Administration, Finance or Civil Engineering and 10 years of experience in a utility management capacity. Great benefits - employment application and company location information available on our website englewoodwater.com

City of Groveland - Class C Wastewater Operator The City of Groveland is hiring a Class "C" Wastewater Operator. Salary Range $30,400-$46,717 DOQ. Please visit groveland-fl.gov for application and job description. Send completed application to 156 S Lake Ave. Groveland, Fl 34736 attn: Human Resources. Background check and drug screen required. Open until filled EOE, V/P, DFWP

Construction and Utility Programs Coordinator Ready for an exciting new chapter in your career? Join our team of Utility professionals at the City of Tavares in beautiful Central Florida! This position performs supervisory work overseeing contractors involved in major construction projects for utility system capital improvements. This employee works with contractors, developers and other City of Tavares employees to assure compliance with all pertinent regulations and contractual obligations; and will be involved in developing and implementing City Utility programs. This position reports to the Utility Director. The City of Tavares, America's Seaplane City, is recognized throughout Florida as an innovative, collaborative and service-oriented employer! Located in the center of the Sunshine State on the banks of beautiful Lake Dora, Tavares is home to a current population of 16,317 residents and is the capitol city of Lake County. • Salary range: $44,000 - $66,000 • Excellent health, dental, life, disability and Florida Retirement System benefits • Generous time off and holiday plans • Positive and progressive work environment, with active focus on staff development The qualified candidate will possess: • High school diploma or GED, with Associates or Bachelors degree from an accredited institution in engineering, business or construction preferred • Minimum of 5 years experience in the field of underground utilities construction For more detailed information about this key position and electronic access to our employment application, please visit our Employment page at www.Tavares.org. APPLY TODAY! We welcome your resume or application in person, by e-mail to ApplyToday@Tavares.org, by mail to City of Tavares Human Resources, 201 East Main Street, Tavares, FL 32778, or by fax to 352-7426351. We are an EOE, ADA, E-Verify and Drug-Free Workplace! The City of Tavares - Land and See!

MAINTENANCE TECHNICIANS U.S. Water Services Corporation is now accepting applications for maintenance technicians in the water and wastewater industry. All applicants must have 1+ years experience in performing mechanical, electrical, and/or pluming abilities and a valid DL. Background check and drug screen required. -Apply at http://www.uswatercorp.com/careers or to obtain further information call (866) 753-8292. EOE/m/f/v/d Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

67


Water Production Operations Supervisor The City of Melbourne, Florida is accepting applications for an Operations Supervisor at our water treatment facility. Applicants must meet the following requirements: High School diploma or G.E.D., preferably supplemented by college level course work in mathematics and chemistry. Five years supervisory experience in the operation and maintenance of a Class A water treatment facility. Possession of a Class A Water Treatment Plant Operator license issued by the State of Florida. Must possess a State of Florida driver’s license. Applicants who possess an out of state driver’s license must obtain a Florida license within 10 days of employment. Must have working knowledge of nomenclature of water treatment devices. A knowledge test will be given to all applicants whose applications meet all minimum requirements. Salary commensurate with experience. Salary Range: $39,893.88$67,004.60/yr., plus full benefits package. To apply please visit www.melbourneflorida.org/jobs and fill out an online application. The position is open until filled. The City of Melbourne is a Veteran's Preference /EOE/DFWP.

Electronic Technician The City of Melbourne, Florida is accepting applications for an Electronic Technician at our water treatment facility. Applicants must meet the following requirements: Associate’s degree from an accredited college or university in water technology, electronics technology, computer science, information technology, or related field. A minimum of four (4) years’ experience in the direct operation, maintenance, calibration, installation and repair of electrical, electronic equipment, and SCADA systems associated with a large water treatment facility. Experience must include field service support and repair of PLC’s, HMI, SCADA, programming VFD’s, switchgear and working in an industrial environment. Desk/design work does not count toward experience. Must possess and maintain a State of Florida Journeyman Electrician License. Must possess and maintain a valid State of Florida Driver's license. Applicants who possess an out of state driver’s license must obtain the Florida license within 10 days of employment. Salary commensurate with experience. Salary Range: $40,890.98 $68,680.30/yr., plus full benefits package. To apply please visit www.melbourneflorida.org/jobs and fill out an online application. The position is open until filled. The City of Melbourne is a Veteran's Preference /EOE/DFWP.

WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR I Operates and monitors the Water Treatment Plant, performs laboratory tests, and maintenance on plant equipment. Requires high school diploma and 2 years related experience. Requires FL Driver’s License, and FDEP Class C or higher Water Treatment Certification. APPLY: Online at www.covb.org and review complete job description. City of Vero Beach, FL 772 978-4900 EOE/DFWP

68

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Engineering Inspector II & Senior Engineering Inspector Involves highly technical work in the field of civil engineering construction inspection including responsibility for inspecting a variety of construction projects for conformance with engineering plans and specifications. Projects involve roadways, stormwater facilities, portable water distribution systems, sanitary pump stations, gravity sewer collection systems, reclaimed water distribution systems, portable water treatment and wastewater treatment facilities. Salary is DOQ. The City of Winter Garden is an EOE/DFWP that encourages and promotes a diverse workforce. Please apply at http://www.cwgdn.com. Position Requirements: Possession of the following or the ability to obtain within 6 months of hire: (1) Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Stormwater Certification and an (2) Orange County Underground Utility Competency Card. A valid Florida Driver’s License is required. • Inspector II: High School Diploma or equivalent and 7 years of progressively responsible experience in construction inspection or testing of capital improvement and private development projects. • Senior Inspector: Associate’s Degree in Civil Engineering Technology or Construction Management and 10 years of progressively responsible experience, of which 5 years are in at a supervisory level.

UTILITY SYSTEMS ENGINEER $81,834 - $138,265. How would you like to live and work in the beautiful Florida Keys? One of the Keys premier employers is searching for the right professional with the perfect balance of Engineering and Operations knowledge and education in water & wastewater utility systems operations. This position would perform advanced level professional work involving a variety of engineering and management tasks related to the development, implementation, and operation of water and wastewater programs and procedures, as well as the design and development of FKAA water, wastewater, and reclaimed water improvements. We are looking for a well rounded Professional Engineer, who is detail oriented, yet sees and understands the “big picture”. Applicants who fit this description with the following qualifications should apply: Civil, Chemical or Environmental Engineering degree, Florida Professional Engineering license; supplemented by a minimum of 7 years previous experience and/or training that include progressively more responsible positions in a water utility, governmental or related agency or firm with a minimum of five (5) years of significant supervisory responsibility. Placement within the salary range will be commensurate with qualifications and experience. Benefit package is extremely competitive! Must complete on-line application at: http://www.fkaa.com/employment.htm EEO, VPE, ADA Career Opportunity

Water Plant Operator Mechanics The City of Gainesville is accepting applications for Water Plant Operator Mechanics. Please visit cityofgainesville.jobs to apply. AA/DFWP/EOE/VP


WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATORS U.S. Water Services Corporation is now accepting applications for state certified water and wastewater treatment plant operators. All applicants must hold at least minimum “C” operator’s certificate. Background check and drug screen required. –Apply at http://www.uswatercorp.com/careers or to obtain further information call (866) 753-8292. EOE/m/f/v/d

Operator A, B, and C for Wastewater Treatment Plant Toho Water Authority This is your opportunity to work for the largest provider of water, wastewater, and reclaimed water services in Osceola County. A fast-growing organization, Toho Water Authority is expanding to approximately 95,000 customers in Kissimmee, Poinciana and unincorporated areas of Osceola County. You can be assured there will be no shortage of interesting and challenging projects on the horizon! As an Operator, you will be expected, among other specific job duties, to have the ability to do the following: • Maintain compliance and operations of Wastewater Treatment Plants; • Conduct facility inspections, perform maintenance on equipment, and ensure normal operations; • Evaluate water systems; and • Fulfill recordkeeping, documentation, and reporting requirements. Candidates are required to hold the following certifications: Class “A”, “B or C” Wastewater Operators License, and Valid Class E Florida Driver’s License. Toho Water Authority offers a highly competitive compensation package, including tuition reimbursement, on site employee clinic, generous paid leave time, and retirement 401a match. If you are a driven professional, highly organized, and looking for a career opportunity at a growing Water Authority, then visit the TWA webpage today and learn how you can join our team! Visit www.tohowater.com to review the full job description and submit an employment application for consideration.

R.O. Water Treatment Plant Operator Salary Range: $46,286.58 - $70,874.57. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority’s is looking for a Licensed WTP Operator with Reverse Osmosis experience to operate our R.O. plant in the Middle Keys, a Florida “C” license or higher is required. You will perform skilled/technical work involving the operation and maintenance of an R.O. water treatment plant. Must have the technical knowledge and independent judgment to make treatment process adjustments and perform maintenance to plant equipment, machinery and related control apparatus in accordance with established standards and procedures. Benefit package is extremely competitive! EEO, VPE, ADA Must complete on-line application at: http://www.fkaa.com/employment.htm

Water Plant Operator The Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority is accepting Applications for Water Plant Operator (A, B and C) or Operator Trainee at the Peace River Water Treatment Facility located in Arcadia, Florida. Excellent benefits package. Pay ranges: Trainee- $32K-$49K, C Operator$35K-$54K, “B” Operator-$37K-$57K, “A” Operator- $43K-$66K. Visit www.regionalwater.org for employment application and job description. The Authority is an Equal Opportunity Employer and drug free work place. Preference in initial appointment to certain positions will be extended to eligible veterans and spouses of veterans. To receive veterans’ preference, documentation must be submitted at the time of application.

Water Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineer Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) currently has an opening for a qualified Water/Wastewater Treatment Plant Engineer (Engineer I through IV) in our engineering group to perform professional and technical engineering work involving a variety of engineering projects. The position will perform as a project engineer/project manager to manage water and wastewater treatment facility design and construction projects. The project manager will work closely with consulting engineers, contractors, and regulatory agencies to facilitate the design, permitting, and construction of new facilities. For additional information please visit our website www.cityofgainesville.org.

Reiss Engineering, Inc. Looking for an opportunity to make a difference? Looking for a dynamic team environment where you can manage and lead projects to success? Reiss Engineering is seeking top-notch talent to contribute and make a difference for our people, our clients, and our community! Reiss Engineering delivers highly technical water and wastewater planning, design, and construction management services for public agencies throughout Florida. To see open positions and submit a resume to join our team, visit www.reisseng.com.

P o s itio ns Wanted PAUL T JONES – Passed the “C” Wastewater test, has certification and needs in plant hours license. Sitting for the “C” Water test in March. Prefers the Orange, Volusia, Seminole or Osceola area. Contact at 5632 Lunsford Dr., Orlando, Fl. 32818. 407-915-1529•

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2018

69


Test Yourself Answer Key From page 32

Editorial Calendar January ......Wastewater Treatment February ....Water Supply; Alternative Sources March ........Energy Efficiency; Environmental Stewardship April ............Conservation and Reuse; Florida Water Resources Conference May ............Operations and Utilities Management June............Biosolids Management and Bioenergy Production July ..............Stormwater Management; Emerging Technologies; FWRC Review August ........Disinfection; Water Quality September ..Emerging Issues; Water Resources Management October ......New Facilities, Expansions, and Upgrades November ..Water Treatment December ..Distribution and Collection Technical articles are usually scheduled several months in advance and are due 60 days before the issue month (for example, January 1 for the March issue). The closing date for display ad and directory card reservations, notices, announcements, upcoming events, and everything else including classified ads, is 30 days before the issue month (for example, September 1 for the October issue). For further information on submittal requirements, guidelines for writers, advertising rates and conditions, and ad dimensions, as well as the most recent notices, announcements, and classified advertisements, go to www.fwrj.com or call 352-241-6006.

Display Advertiser Index Blue Planet ................................................71 CEU Challenge ..........................................21 Crom ..........................................................23 Data Flow Systems ..................................37 Florida Aquastore......................................63 FSAWWA Training......................................49 FSAWWA Drop Savers Contest ................50 FSAWWA Awards ......................................51 FWPCOA Short School ..............................31 FWPCOA Training ......................................61 FWRC....................................................11-17 Gerber........................................................59 Hudson Pump ............................................41 Hydro International ....................................5 Lakeside ......................................................7 Professional Piping ..................................33 Stacon ........................................................2 Treeo..........................................................55 Water Science ..........................................29 Xylem ........................................................72

70

1. D) primary and secondary clarifiers. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Chapter 5, Section 5.0: “A typical plant may have clarifiers located at two different points. The one that immediately follows the bar screen, comminutor, or grit channel . . . is called the primary clarifier, merely because it is the first clarifier in the plant. The other, which follows other types of treatment units, is called the secondary clarifier or the final clarifier. The two types of clarifiers operate almost exactly the same way.”

2. D) sludge septicity or gasification. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Chapter 5, Section 5.14: “Most clarifiers that do not produce an acceptable effluent . . . they usually fail due to operator errors, equipment failures, or excessive hydraulic loadings (shock loads). The operator’s job is very simple: Be sure that accumulated settled solids are removed from the bottom of the clarifier before septicity and gasification take place.”

3. B) Primary sludge is usually more dense than secondary sludge. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Chapter 5, Section 5.0: “The main difference between primary and secondary clarifiers is in the density of the sludge handled. Primary sludges are usually denser than secondary sludges. Effluent from a secondary clarifier is normally clearer than primary effluent.”

4. D) surface loading rate. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Chapter 5, Words: “Surface Loading – One of the guidelines for the design of settling tanks and clarifiers in treatment plants. Used by operators to determine if tanks and clarifiers are hydraulically (flow) overloaded or underloaded. Also called overflow rate.”

5. B) short-circuiting. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Chapter 5, Section 5.61: “Short Circuits – As wastewater enters the settling tank it should be evenly dispersed across the entire cross section of the tank and should flow at the same velocity in all areas toward the discharge end. When the velocity is greater in some sections than in others, serious short-circuiting may occur. The highvelocity area may decrease the detention time in that area, and particles may be held in suspension and pass through the discharge . . . because they do not have time to settle out. On the other hand, if velocity is too low, undesirable septic conditions may occur . . . short-circuiting may also be caused by turbulence and stratification of density layers due to temperature or salinity.”

February 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

6. C) sludge gasification. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Chapter 5, Words: “Sludge Gasification – A process in which soluble and suspended organic matter are converted into gas by anaerobic decomposition. The resulting gas bubbles can become attached to the settled sludge and cause large clumps of sludge to rise and float on the water surface.”

7. A) algae. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Chapter 5, Section 5.12: “Algae can be a problem on weirs and in effluent troughs. It is unsafe for operators to get into the trough and the weirs, and troughs can be too far away from walkways to use a brush on a pole to remove algae. Chlorine can be added between the baffle and the weir to control algae . . . using a fire hose or highpressure water jet to remove algae from the weirs and troughs also can be effective.”

8. A) colloids. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Chapter 5, Section5.8: “Colloids are very small, finely divided solids (particulates that do not dissolve) that remain dispersed in a liquid for a long time due to their small size and electrical charge. Colloids are usually less than 200 millimicrons in size, and generally will not settle readily.”

9. B) Hydrostatic system Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Chapter 5, Words and Section 5.621: “Hydrostatic System – In a hydrostatic sludge removal system, the surface of the water in the clarifier is higher than the surface of the water in the sludge well or hopper. This difference in pressure head forces sludge from the bottom of the clarifier to flow through pipes to the sludge well or hopper . . . these circular secondary clarifiers are designed for continuous sludge removal by hydrostatic systems, with the activated sludge being pumped back to the aeration tanks by largecapacity pumps.”

10. A) bulking. Per Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Chapter 5, Words: “Bulking – Clouds of billowing sludge that occur throughout the secondary clarifiers and sludge thickeners when the sludge does not settle properly. In the activated sludge process, bulking is usually caused by filamentous bacteria or bound water.”


Florida Water Resources Journal - February 2018  

Water Supply and Alternative Sources

Florida Water Resources Journal - February 2018  

Water Supply and Alternative Sources