Florida Water Resources Journal - February 2021

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: Jamey Wallace (FWEA) Jacobs Treasurer: Rim Bishop (FWPCOA) Seacoast Utility Authority Secretary: Holly Hanson (At Large) ILEX Services Inc., Orlando

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

Membership Questions FSAWWA: Casey Cumiskey – 407-979-4806 or fsawwa.casey@gmail.com FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318 FWPCOA: Darin Bishop – 561-840-0340

Training Questions FSAWWA: Donna Metherall – 407-979-4805 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 – 407-979-4820 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.

News and Features 14 16 21 50 51

2021 FWPCOA Officers and Committee Chairs List City of Destin is 2020 Tank of the Year Winner 2021 Florida Water Resources Conference Canceled Call for Papers Open for AWWA Magazine on PFAS Illegal Winery Found in Sewage Plant in Alabama

Technical Articles 4 A Roadmap to Modeling a Source Water System—Nicole Cohen, Jennifer Stokke Nyfennegger, Charlie He, Charlie Duverge, Henry Barroso, and Tyler Weinand

30 D irect Potable Reuse as a Tool for Revitalizing Brackish Groundwater Desalination Facilities: Water Quality and Operations—Anna Ness and Dave MacNevin 40 Breaking Through Cost Barriers Associated With Developing an Alternative Water Supply by Integrating With an Existing Treatment System—Kathleen N. Gierok, Greg D. Taylor, Benjamin A. Yoakum, and Frances Martinez-Marrero

Education and Training 17 18 19 20 21 33 37 47 49

WWA Women for Water/Broward P3 Eco-Challenge A FSAWWA Roy Likins Scholarship Fund FSAWWA Certification Boot Camp FSAWWA Drop Savers Contest FSAWWA Awards FWPCOA Online Training Institute CEU Challenge TREEO Center Training FWPCOA Training Calendar

Columns 22 F SAWWA Speaking Out—Fred Bloetscher 24 FWEA Chapter Corner—Water Leadership Institute: Creating the Leaders We Need 26 C Factor—Kenneth Enlow 36 FWEA Focus—James J. Wallace 38 Let’s Talk Safety: Avoid Harm From Laboratory Hazards 46 Reader Profile—Charles E. Nichols 48 Test Yourself—Donna Kaluzniak

Departments 45 New Products 52 Classifieds 54 Display Advertiser Index

Volume 72

ON THE COVER: A municipal water tank in Destin is the 2020 winner of the Tank of the Year competition sponsored by Tnemec Company Inc. For more information, see page 16. (photo: Tnemec Company Inc.)

February 2021

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 2021



A Roadmap to Modeling a Source Water System


Nicole Cohen, Jennifer Stokke Nyfennegger, Charlie He, Charlie Duverge, Henry Barroso, and Tyler Weinand

ocated in southwest Florida, Lee County Utilities (LCU) provides potable water services to approximately 89,000 accounts held by close to 300,000 customers residing within a 205-sq-mi region. As shown in Figure 1, this expansive domain is organized into the following four service areas that are served by their respective water treatment plants (WTPs): S North Lee County service area - Served by North Lee County WTP S Olga service area - Served by Olga WTP S Pinewoods service area - Served by Pinewoods WTP S Corkscrew/Green Meadows service area - Served by Corkscrew WTP and Green Meadows WTP The LCU has consistently practiced master-planning efforts and prioritized capital improvement plan (CIP) projects to ensure that its customers have an uninterrupted and reliable water supply at all times. These preparatory efforts are particularly important to LCU’s four service

areas, given the diversity of their land and water use, as well as the distinct characteristics in this region’s topography. For instance, as shown in Figure 1, the north service area is separated from the other areas by the 67-milong Caloosahatchee River. This means that, were this service area’s single WTP to experience an unexpected interruption or failure, the service area would rely on finished water being relayed across the river, which could cause a potential bottleneck in the system. With the intent to proactively plan for such failure scenarios, identify and address other similar vulnerable points in its system, and prepare for any supply deficiencies that may compromise its level of service, LCU decided to comprehensively evaluate the condition and reliability of its potable water system. As a first step, and with engineering assistance from Carollo Engineers Inc. (Carollo), LCU projected its system’s maximum monthly average demands (MMADs) and annual average demands

Figure 1. Lee County Utilities Potable Water Service Areas

4 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Nicole Cohen is a project engineer and Jennifer Stokke Nyfennegger, Ph.D., P.E., is a principal technologist and associate vice president with Carollo Engineers Inc. in Sarasota. Charlie He, P.E., is a chief technologist and vice president with Carollo Engineers Inc. in Phoenix. Charlie Duverge, P.E., is a project manager, Henry Barroso is plant operations manager, and Tyler Weinand, P.G., is a project manager for Lee County Utilities in Fort Myers.

(AADs) from years 2018 through 2040. The demand information was then used to develop a detailed, holistic planning model of LCU’s infrastructure and operations. Finally, the planning model was run against various scenarios to identify limitations at LCU’s system and identify corresponding capital improvement projects and/or response procedures to address such limitations. The development and use of this model exemplify how proactive and preventative planning efforts assist utilities to understand what types of failures are expected within their water systems and when they are most likely to occur, down to the specific trigger years. Such knowledge not only lowers the risks of similar failure events, but also equips utilities with more than just reactive responses to events that might have otherwise been prevented or anticipated. This article presents a step-by-step examination of the progressive measures that LCU and Carollo took to develop a progressive planning model of this potable water system, including a systematic description of how the team created the model, entered inputs, selected and ran specific failure scenarios, and assessed its results to pinpoint systemspecific recommendations. Utilities may use each step to begin creating or optimizing their own water system models and evaluate their resiliency to ensure that customer demands are reliably met—now and into the future. Continued on page 6

Settled Solids Management

WWTP Tank Cleaning Florida’s Original On-Line Tank Cleaning Service Since 1982

Inventors of Sand Dragon Technology

State Funding Available to Pay for Cleaning - Contact us for Details!

WE REMOVE GRIT WHILE YOUR PLANT REMAINS IN SERVICE & FULL OF WATER Eliminate Your Grit: visit SSM.Hydro-int.com or call 407.322.0330 or email SSM@Hydro-int.com

Continued from page 4

Model Development The LCU planning model was initially developed as a component of its source water supply, redundancy, operations, and management plan. Current and future supply capacities were modeled using a simulation, optimization, and decision-support tool, Blue Plan-it® (BPI), developed by Carollo. Built on an ExtendSim® platform, BPI effectively incorporates a utility’s growth projections, capacity analyses, permitted supply quantities, assets and their redundancy, and overall health into a customized model. The LCU currently draws water from two sources: groundwater and surface water. The majority of demand is supplied by groundwater from three regional aquifers, which is pumped by 121 production wells and five aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells. The remainder is supplied by surface water from the Caloosahatchee River (C-43 canal). Five WTPs located in LCU’s four service areas, which are linked by several interconnects, treat this source water. To model finished water distribution, the four service areas were grouped into the following three distribution zones: S North – North Lee County and Olga service areas S South – Corkscrew/Green Meadows service area S Pinewoods – Pinewoods service area

The service areas were grouped into these three zones to more accurately reflect the system. Demand projections for each distribution zone were entered into the model on an annual average and maximum month basis. Given this information, the BPI model centered on the following five major components: S W ater sources: Water table aquifer, Sandstone aquifer, Lower Hawthorn aquifer, and C-43 canal. S W ellfields: North Lee County, Corkscrew, Green Meadows, and Pinewoods wellfields. S W TPs: North Lee County WTP, Olga WTP, Corkscrew WTP, Green Meadows WTP, and Pinewoods WTP. S I nterconnects: • F low between the North and South distribution zones. • F low between the South and Pinewoods distribution zones. S O verall distribution system: • P roduction quantities and demand per distribution zone. • G ap analysis of each distribution zone’s components.

Water Sources Source water withdrawal for potable water production at LCU’s WTP facilities is authorized by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) water use permits (WUPs) 36-00003-W, 36-00152-W, and 36-00122-W. These WUPs dictate the

Table 1. Water Use Permit Allocation Summary

maximum volume of water that LCU may withdraw from each of the three aquifers and the C-43 canal on a maximum month and annual basis. Green Meadows, Corkscrew, and Olga WTPs also have a combined allocation limit. These allocations were all programmed into the model, assuming that the WUP allocations will not change with future permit renewals. Table 1 summarizes the permitted source allocations.

Wellfields Under the WUPs, each of LCU’s wells has a specified capacity set according to the pump flow rate in gal per minute (gpm). Programmed data and user inputs (e.g., production rates and operational status) for each well in the North Lee County, Green Meadows, Corkscrew, and Pinewoods wellfields were determined using flow rates specified in the WUPs, relevant wellfield operating plans, and physical wellfield inspections. The WUPoutlined pump capacities were only modified in the model if they deviated from operating production rates recommended by a wellfield operating plan. As is typical with most utilities, information available for each of LCU’s pumps varied, depending on the data and materials available for each wellfield. That is, some wellfields had more detailed operational information regarding, for instance, how pumping capacities vary depending on monthly and annual limits, while others lacked specific information that may have been learned or acquired through actual operations and experience. The LCU operators filled much of these data gaps. This exemplifies that strong and consistent recordkeeping and management go hand-inhand with effective modeling efforts. Ultimately, the BPI model was programmed with the following inputs: S C apacity of each well. S T otal number of wells. S N umber of duty wells (i.e., the number of operational wells) per water source. S N umber of duty wells per well usage type: • E xisting – Well is installed. • P roposed – Well is permitted, but not installed nor operational. • P rimary – Indicates well is regularly used. • S econdary – Indicates well is irregularly used (e.g., production well that is rotated). • S tandby – Well used for special circumstances (e.g., emergencies). Continued on page 8

6 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

S IM P L E . E F F ICIENT. INTELLIGENT. Generate Revenue with Raptor ® Septage Acceptance Plants

All trademarks are owned by Lakeside Equipment Corporation. © 2021 Lakeside Equipment Corporation.

Grow your septage, FOG, and sludge receiving business with a Raptor Septage Acceptance or Complete Plant. REPRESENTED LOCALLY BY: Trippensee Shaw, Inc. Eustis and Sebring, FL www.TrippenseeShaw.com T. 863.382.2101

NOT YOUR ORDINARY RECEIVING SYSTEM R a p to r S e p ta g e A cce p ta n ce P la n t Removes debris and inorganic solids from municipal and industrial septage, FOG, and sludge. This heavy-duty machine incorporates the Raptor Fine Screen for screening, dewatering and compaction. Accessories include security access and automated accounting systems. R a p to r S e p ta g e C o mp le te P la n t

Florida Panhandle Only T: 205.424.7570 www.eshelmancompany.com

With the addition of aerated grit removal, the Septage Acceptance Plant is offered as the Raptor Septage Complete Plant.

Cleaner Water for a Brighter Future® Speak to one of our experts at 630.837.5640, email us at sales@lakeside-equipment.com, or visit www.lakeside-equipment.com for more product information.

Continued from page 6 The inputs are allowed to be modified at any time by the user. If a well is no longer operational or operates at a higher or lower capacity, these updates can be easily changed; however, this model focused primarily on demand quantities and, as such, the quantities pumped from each of LCU’s wells. For this reason, source water quality was considered a secondary focus and only factored into the model when a specific quality issue was found to affect the water quantity withdrawn, treated, or distributed, or considered as part of a wellfield operating plan. Overall, LCU’s source water results in finished water that consistently meets primary and secondary drinking water regulations.

of 75 production wells. Of these wells, 24 are existing and 40 are proposed. One abandoned well was not included in the model. Well production capacities used in the model were taken from this wellfield’s most recent operating plan, which clarified that eight of the 24 currently active wells have different pumping capacities, depending on monthly and annual limits. As such, these eight wells were modeled to operate at 900 gpm, each on a maximum monthly basis, and at 500 gpm each on an annual average basis.

North Lee County Wellfield The North Lee County wellfield currently has 17 production wells. The LCU is currently constructing 12 additional production wells, for a total of 29 wells. Of the 17 existing wells, three are not operating due to water quality issues caused primarily by high-chloride concentrations and are typically not run in the model. Overall, high-chloride concentrations limit the withdrawal in the North Lee County wellfield. For future scenarios, model inputs were adjusted to include the 12 new wells, where usage breaks down as four new wells to restore the wellfield’s production capacity and provide redundancy for the 11.6 mil gal per day (mgd) North Lee County WTP, and eight additional new wells to provide additional supply for North Lee County WTP’s planned expansion to provide an additional 5-mgd permeate capacity.

Corkscrew Wellfield The Corkscrew wellfield has 55 production wells and five ASR wells. According to the 2018 and 2013 operating plans for this wellfield, it’s recommended that adjacent production wells within two groups of wells not be operated simultaneously. For this reason, the label “half available” is indicated in the model next to the two existing primary wells and 12 existing secondary wells drawing from the surficial aquifer to remind the user that no more than half the wells should be online in any scenario. Thus, the user should not input more than half the number of total wells as duty wells for those two groups. This same label was included for the two Upper Floridan wells, as only one of the two wells withdrawing from that aquifer should operate at a time due to the elevated salinity of this source. Meanwhile, the five ASR wells are operated during periods of high demand from January to May. In the model, ASR wells were inputted to turn on during the maximum month scenario, which, historically, occurs during this time frame.

Green Meadows Wellfield The Green Meadows wellfield has a total

Pinewoods Wellfield The Pinewoods




production wells, all of which were included in the model alongside the option to add up to 12 proposed wells for future scenarios. For the three proposed water table aquifer wells, all three wells are technically considered existing in the WUP, but they are identified as proposed in the model because, although the wells are constructed, they lack the equipment to be operational. The same reasoning was applied to the two Sandstone wells. Additionally, two other wells have historically produced a lower-than-expected yield, and for that reason, are not currently used by the county. In the model, both of these wells are set to “offline.”

Water Treatment Plants As previously explained, LCU’s four service areas were broken up into three distribution zones: (1) the North zone, containing North Lee County WTP and Olga WTP, (2) the South zone, containing Corkscrew WTP and Green Meadows WTP, and (3) the Pinewoods zone, containing Pinewoods WTP. The following capacities and operational assumptions for LCU’s five WTPs were programmed into the model: S North Lee County WTP – This WTP currently has four reverse osmosis (RO) trains with a total existing permeate capacity of 10 mgd, and its current design includes 1.6 mgd of bypass flow, for a total facility capacity of 11.6 mgd. In 2020, the facility began the process to expand with an additional 5-mgd permeate capacity. The model assumed 80 percent recovery through the RO process. S Olga WTP – This WTP’s design treatment capacity is 5 mgd. The model assumed Continued on page 10

Figure 2. Annual Average Daily Demand (a) and Maximum Month Daily Demand (b) Projections

8 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal



The P6 Difference Zero Maintenance 10-Year Wear Warranty Reduce Polymer Consumption Increase Cake Solids Gentle Mixing Optimize System

CONTACT: Stephen Gerber

PHONE: 407 834 9104

EMAIL: sales@gerberpumps.com

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


Continued from page 8 5 percent treatment losses through the plant’s physical-chemical treatment process, which primarily consists of powdered activated carbon (PAC), aeration, coagulation, dual-media filtration, and granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption. S Green Meadows WTP – This facility has three treatment processes: (1) water from the surficial aquifer is treated using ion exchange, (2) water from the Upper Floridan aquifer is treated using RO membranes, and (3) water from the Sandstone aquifer is bypassed and blended into the finished water. The model assumed 5 percent losses for treated water during the ion exchange process and an 85 percent recovery for RO. The WTP has a 14-mgd finished water capacity. S Corkscrew WTP – Currently the largest of the five WTPs in possible finished water production, this facility is rated for a 15-mgd capacity, and all water supplied to it is treated using lime softening. The model assumed 5 percent treatment losses through the process. S Pinewoods WTP – This facility includes nanofiltration (NF) membrane softening and RO. The three NF trains have a permeate capacity of 2.3 mgd, while RO treatment has a permeate capacity of 2.5 mgd, plus up to 0.5 mgd of raw water bypass. The model assumed 75 percent recovery for NF and 80 percent recovery for RO.

Prioritization of source water and treatment could be modified in the BPI model. For instance, in the North distribution zone, production from North Lee County WTP has priority over Olga WTP since the WTP’s groundwater supply is more reliable than the withdrawal requirements of pulling from a surface water (C-43 canal). This means that the model was set up to use all of the supply and treatment capacity from North Lee County WTP and to only use Olga WTP’s supply if additional water is needed to meet demand. This capability allows the user to prioritize production of the plants located in the north and south treatment areas, allowing the user to do a sensitivity analysis of these types of prioritization decisions, if desired.

Interconnects In the event that demands cannot be met by a WTP located in a particular distribution zone, two interconnects within the LCU system join the three distribution zones. Note that LCU’s system has several interconnects throughout its service areas; however, these interconnects were simplified to two interconnects in the model so as to see the overall finished water transfers between the distribution zones. The first interconnect relays treated water between the North and South zones, while the second interconnect allows water to flow between the South and Pinewoods zones. The model allows for any amount of treated water to flow through each interconnect, though the model issues an alert when that volume exceeds 3 mgd.

Overall Distribution System With the source water system’s components created and inputted into the model, current and projected customer demands were evaluated against the finished water capacities that LCU can produce and distribute. A per capita finished water demand factor of 100 gal per capita per day (gpcd) was used with population projections to projected AADs until 2040. Meanwhile, maximum month demands used a peaking factor of 1.3. Figure 2a and 2b shows the annual average and maximum month water demands for each distribution zone, respectively. The demand projections were then evaluated against the capacities of the five WTPs to produce finished water on an annual average and maximum month basis, as shown, respectively, in Figure 3a and 3b. The production rates indicated for each facility were established according to either treatment capacity (i.e., design capacity) or production capacity based on supply allocation (i.e., permitted source water allocation including treatment losses), whichever was more limiting. This approach allowed each facility’s most conservative production rates to be incorporated into the model. For instance, Green Meadows WTP has a design treatment capacity of 16 mgd, but can only operate at a maximum capacity of 14 mgd given the associated wellfield’s capacity. Meanwhile, the Olga WTP’s permitted maximum month and annual allocation limits are 5 mgd and 4.4 mgd, respectively; however, when treatment losses (assumed

Figure 3. Permitted Supply and Demand on an (a) Annual Average and (b) Maximum Month Basis

10 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

to be 5 percent) are included, finished water production rates reduce to 4.8 mgd under maximum month conditions and 4.2 mgd under annual average conditions. Overall, the existing supply and treatment facilities, plus the planned expansions to the North Lee County wellfield and WTP, have enough capacity to meet LCU’s annual average and maximum month demand projections through 2040.

Gap Analysis The model was next used to perform gap analyses comparing the various capacities within a particular distribution zone to its demand. Figure 4 embodies these analyses under current and future maximum month scenarios. Maximum month scenarios were run in the model because, when compared against annual average scenarios, maximum month scenarios are more limiting when considering a water supply facility’s abilities to meet demand. In each graph, the permitted supply allocation (indicated by the “Permit” bar), operational wellfield capacity (indicated by the “Wells” bar), and water treatment capacities (indicated by the “WTP” bar) are shown in relation to the demand. The red lines highlight the lowest and highest values, thus illustrating the “gap.” The results of the gap analysis were used to identify supply and production deficiencies in each distribution zone and recommend appropriate remediating actions. Figure 5 shows an overview of the BPI model’s dashboard. Once the user verifies the inputs in the model, it can be run, and this dashboard provides a high-level overview of the production and demands. Any bottlenecks in the system are shown as yellow triangles. A bottleneck indicates where in the system capacities were reached. Green checks and red Xs are shown to indicate whether demands are met and if interconnect transfers exceed 3 mgd, respectively. North Distribution Zone The gap analysis revealed that, although the existing North Lee County wellfield’s permitted supply is adequate, the wellfield assets operated using the current operating plan do not produce enough water for the North Lee County WTP to operate at its full capacity. When also considering recovery losses through the treatment process, the WTP alone cannot meet the current maximum month demand in the North zone; however, with Olga WTP online, demand can be satisfied with some available

Figure 4. Current (2019) and Future (2040) Maximum Month Gap Analyses

Figure 5. Lee County Utilities Source Water Model Overview Dashboard

redundancy of permitted allocation and supply assets. On an annual average basis, the North Lee County WTP alone can meet current demand in the north zone; however, this requires 100 percent utilization of wellfield assets. Therefore, when a well is offline for maintenance, or as demand increases before the wellfield expansion project is placed into service, the North zone’s demand must be met

through another source (e.g., Olga WTP or transfer of water from the South distribution zone). By 2040, the expanded North Lee County wellfield, plant and permitted allocations, will be sufficient to meet demand, and Olga WTP will serve to provide additional redundancy in the North zone. To achieve this result, the model assumed that the wellfield’s existing Continued on page 12

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


Continued from page 11 wells will be operated in 2040 using current flow rates, and a total of 12 new wells will be constructed, each with a production rate of 725 gpm. These production flow rates are substantially higher than those of existing operations, which are currently 300 to 550 gpm per well. If well production decreases over time or the water quality in the wells degrades, such that the proposed wells also need to be operated at lower flow rates, then the North Lee County wellfield may not have sufficient redundancy in the future. Thus, LCU was recommended to further assess the potential to operate the newer wells at reduced flow rates with its wellfield/hydrogeologic consultant,

and then plan accordingly to maintain the required redundancy. South Distribution Zone The gap analysis showed that water supply and treatment from Green Meadows and Corkscrew WTPs are adequate to not only meet the South distribution zone’s current and future demands, but also supplement demands in other zones. The large gaps between the “Well” and “Demand” bars in Figure 4 indicate good redundancy of assets at the Corkscrew and Green Meadows wellfield. With that being said, two potential improvements were identified for the Green Meadows service area: S A dding another Upper Floridan well – The

Table 2. Individual Failure Events

Green Meadows wellfield currently has eight Upper Floridan wells that feed Green Meadows WTP’s RO system. While the LCU proactively protects its RO systems’ membranes from fouling, the production rates from these wells can vary depending on the results of the silt density index (SDI) testing performed at each well site. To run the WTP’s RO system at its full capacity, all eight Upper Floridan wells must be running, meaning that the RO system cannot currently operate at its full capacity due to the SDI limitation. To fully utilize this system, LCU was recommended to construct additional Upper Floridan wells. S Adding another deep injection well – Neither Green Meadows WTP’s RO, nor its ion exchange systems, can be operated without a deep injection well, and with only one deep injection well, the plant has no redundancy for concentrate disposal. Therefore, LCU was recommended to install another deep injection well at the WTP. Pinewoods Distribution Zone According to the gap analysis, additional water is needed to supplement production from Pinewoods WTP to meet its distribution zone’s current and future maximum month demand. This insufficiency is caused by the WTP’s permitted supply from the water table aquifer and the existing wells that withdraw water from the Sandstone aquifer, both of which limit production from the plant’s NF trains, due to the WUP capacities allowed. Demand in this zone can be met if water is transferred from the WTPs in the south distribution zone, which have more than enough water supply and treatment capacity to supplement Pinewoods WTP. It was decided by LCU to take this approach, and it was recommended to complete hydraulic modeling of its distribution system under existing and future conditions to ensure that sufficient flow can be transferred between the two zones, and that the distribution system is resilient to line breaks or other failure events.

Table 3. Combined Failure Scenarios

Resiliency Evaluation All modeling efforts culminated in a resiliency evaluation of LCU’s potable water system. Once programmed with data detailing LCU’s source and distribution systems, the BPI model was further updated and run to evaluate a total of 32 specific failure scenarios that may disrupt the utility’s ability to meet demands and pinpoint specific improvements to prevent or prepare for scenarios that were found most likely to occur within the planning period. Each scenario was assigned near-term (i.e.,

12 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

2020) and long-term (i.e., 2040) probability scores on a scale of 1, indicating the least likely scenario to occur, to 10, indicating the most likely scenario to occur. These scores were assigned according to LCU staff input, and this hands-on approach capitalized on staff ’s knowledge of the potable water system’s past historical performance, decisions for planning certain CIP projects, and operational familiarity to capture a more-realistic picture of how “failure” would adversely affect the LCU system and the staff members who run it. These probability scores were used to prioritize the failure scenarios. The LCU’s system infrastructure was tested against the 25 individual failure scenarios shown in Table 2 and the seven combined failure scenarios shown in Table 3. Certain failure scenarios were not evaluated if CIP projects already planned by LCU, once implemented, will significantly minimize their likelihood of occurring. The model showed that, of the 32 failures simulated, only nine scenarios may impede uninterrupted water supply to customers, either under the 2020 or 2040 MMAD. To aid LCU in prioritizing solutions to these failures, trigger years were determined for each scenario. Trigger years were calculated as the earliest year in which the failure scenario (at maximum-month demands) would result in the potable water demand exceeding the potable water system’s supply. In particular, the highest-ranking failure scenario, CS3 (Olga WTP and Corkscrew WTP offline) in Table 3, has a notably high probability of occurring in the near term. Multiple factors challenge the reliability of Olga WTP, which compounds the impact of other failures. This scenario considers a case in which both Olga and Corkscrew WTPs go offline under 2020 MMAD conditions; this failure is contingent upon the expansion efforts currently being undertaken at North Lee County WTP. As identified by the North distribution zone’s gap analysis, North Lee County WTP cannot currently meet the demands of this zone without 100 percent utilization of its wellfield assets or a supplement from Olga WTP. If the combined supply of these WTPs is not sufficient, flow can be transferred via an interconnect from the South distribution zone; however, if Corkscrew WTP, the plant producing the largest finished water volume in LCU’s system, goes offline, not enough supply will be available for the transfer. As such, if both Olga WTP and Corkscrew WTP go offline before the North Lee County WTP expansion is complete, then LCU will not be able to reliably supply water to its customers in the North distribution zone.

Table 4. Summary of Failure Scenarios Not Meeting Demand

With that being said, North Lee County WTP’s expansion, which is planned to be complete in 2023, will reduce the risk of this failure scenario occurring since its 15-mgd permeate capacity will be enough to serve all of the North distribution system’s needs. As such, no additional improvements were recommended for this failure scenario. Table 4 lists the nine scenarios, which were prioritized by probability score and then trigger year, along with suggested potential improvements. It was recommended that scenarios with trigger years beyond 2030 (ranked 6 to 9 in Table 4) are evaluated as part of LCU’s next water supply master plan to integrate projects that will increase system reliability. Overall, the existing system can handle the majority of the failure scenarios without CIP project implementation or additional CIP projects, although executing already-planned projects will further increase its resiliency. Among the planned CIP projects, transmission mains are essential to meeting future demands, particularly those between the North and South distribution zones and between the South and Pinewoods distribution zones. The LCU is also prepared with emergency interconnects with neighboring utilities (Cape Coral, Bonita Springs, City of Fort Myers, etc.) to help meet demands during a failure.

Conclusions The holistic planning model for LCU incorporated current (2020) and future (2040) AADs and MMADs, permitted source water allocations, existing and proposed water supply infrastructure, wellfield operations, and WTP capacities to reveal that, assuming normal operation, LCU’s potable water system can meet current and future demands. When programmed with failure scenarios, the model exemplified the robustness of the system’s resiliency, while allowing LCU and Carollo to prioritize, identify trigger years, and develop improvements to prevent the scenarios that were found to interrupt the reliable supply of water to customers. Although LCU has always practiced a culture of proactivity and preparedness, this BPI model went the extra mile to pinpoint limitations and deficiencies, prepare for any failures that may occur in the near and long term, and further justify CIP projects that are already scheduled. As supply and demand continue to shift over the years and more upgrades are made to the system, LCU may continue updating and refining the model accordingly, remaining secure in the knowledge that it will always have a dependable and accurate decision-making tool at hand. S

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


2021 FWPCOA OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS For more information on officers and committee chairs, visit the association website at www.fwpcoa.org.

• S ecretary Marcy King-Daniels (321) 221-7570 03-secretary@fwpcoa.org • T reasurer Russ Carson (321) 749-5914 jrcdillo@aol.com

Region 4

CORPORATE OFFICERS • P resident Kenneth Enlow president@fwpcoa.org • Vice President Patrick Murphy (813) 757-9191 vice-pres@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Rim Bishop (561) 627-2900, ext. 314 sec-treas@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Athena Tipaldos (407) 246-4086 st-elect@fwpcoa.org • Past President Mike Darrow (863) 409-4256 past-pres@fwpcoa.org


• D irector Dakota Millican 01-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Russel Burton 01-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice Chair (currently vacant) • Secretary-Treasurer Albert Bock 01-sec-treas@fwpcoa.org

• S ecreatry-Treasurer-Elect James Tucker 01-sec-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 2

• D irector David Ashley (904) 665-8484 02-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Josh Parker (904) 665-6052 parkje@jea.com • Vice Chair Larry Johnson johnlarry1953@att.net • Secretary-Treasurer Jackie Scheel (904) 665-8473 ScheJB@jea.com • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Randy Ellis (904) 665-7133 02-sec-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 3

• D irector Kevin Shropshire (321) 221-7540 03-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair June Clark (321) 868-1240 03-vicepchair@fwpcoa.org • Vice Chair Wayne Gauler 03-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org

14 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

• D irector Bob Case (727) 892-5076 04-director@fwpcoa.org • C hair William Anderson (727) 562-4270 x7806 04-chair@fwpcoa.org • V ice Chair Jeff Pfannes 04-treasurer@fwcpoa.org • S ecretary Debra Englander (727) 892-5633 04-secretary@fwpcoa.org • T reasurer Vivian Gleaves 04-treasurer@fwcpoa.org

Region 5

• D irector Stephen Utter (772) 978-5220 05-director@fwpcoa.org • C hair George Horner (772) 873-6400 GHorner@cityofpsl.com • V ice Chair Pierre Vignier (772) 462-1150 pvignier@cityofpsl.com • S ecretary-Treasurer John Lang (772) 562-9176 jflang2012@gmail.com

Region 6

• D irector Phil Donovan 06-director@fwpcoa.org • C hair Pat Lyles 06-chair@fwpcoa.org • V ice Chair Vincent Munn 06-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Patti Brock 06-sec-treas@fwpcoa.org • S ecretary-Treasurer-Elect Jessica Hill 06-st-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 7

• D irector Renee Moticker 07-director@fwpcoa.org • C hair Mauricio Linarte 07-chair@fwpcoa.org • V ice Chair James A. Bauer 07-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • S ecretary Terry McVeigh 07-secretary@fwpcoa.org • T reasurer Tim McVeigh (954) 683-1432 07-treasurer@fwpcoa.org • S ecretary-Treasurer-Elect Pavol Pleenik 07-st-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 8

• D irector Nigel Noone (239) 565-5352 08-director@fwpcoa.org • C hair Matt Astorino (239) 677-0042 08-chair@fwpcoa.org • V ice Chair Igor Gutin 08-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Patrick Long 08-sec-treas@fwpcoa.org • S ecretary-Treasurer-Elect Diane DiPascale 08-sec-tres-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 9

• D irector Scott Ruland (407) 656-2332, ext. 228 09-director@fwpcoa.org • C hair Tom Mikell (352) 393-6614 mikelltj@gru.com • V ice Chair (West) Syed Hasan (352) 393-6769 hasansz@gru.com • V ice Chair (East) Brian Terry bterry@deltonfl.gov • S ecretary Jim Parrish jamesparrish@2001@yahoo.com • T reasurer Glenn Whitcomb champ95@cfl.rr.com • S ecretary-Treasurer-Elect Kameron Van Kleeck 0-9sec-treas-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 10

• D irector Charles Nichols Sr. (863) 534-5894 10-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Edward Clark (863) 419-3159 10-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice Chair Todd Potter (863) 701-1149 10-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Katherine Kinloch (863) 632-5994 catloch3@verizon.net • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Nathan Silveira (863) 701-1149 10-st-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 11

• D irector Steve Schwab 11-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Scott Stoll (407) 310-6246 scottstolfwpcoa@aol.com • Chair-Elect Ally Munyon (407) 246-2213 11-chair-elect@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Vonte Tucker (321) 986-9570 11-sec-treas@aol.com • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Nioker White (407) 599-3563 nwhite@ouc.com

Region 12

• D irector Steve Saffels 12-director@fwpcoa.org • Chair Dana Mills 12-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Vice Chair Theresa Hughes 12-vice-chair@fwpcoa.org • Secretary-Treasurer Zoé Chaiser (813) 757-9191 zchaiser@plantcitygov.com • Secretary-Treasurer-Elect Brent Laudicina (941) 792-8811 x 8057 12-sec-treas-elect@fwpcoa.org

Region 13

• D irector (currently vacant) • Chair Tracy Betz (386) 935-2762 13-chair@fwpcoa.org

• V ice Chair (currently vacant) • Teasurer Arnold Gibson (386) 466-3350 13-treasurer@fwpcoa.org • Secretary Bill Ewbank 13-secretary@fwpcoa.org

STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRS • A wards and Citations Renee Moticker awards@fwpcoa.org • Constitution and Rules Ken Enlow const-rules@fwpcoa.org • Customer Relations Peter Selberg cust-rel@fwpcoa.org • Dues and Fees Tom King dues@fwpcoa.org • Education Tom King education@fwpcoa.org • Ethics Scott Ruland 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 Athena Tipaldos st-elect@fwpcoa.org • Program and Short Course Jim Smith programs@fwpcoa.org • Publicity Phil Donovan (561) 966-4188 r6donovan@aol.com • Systems Operators Jeff Elder sys-op@fwpcoa.org • Website Debra Englander webmaster@fwpcoa.org

SPECIAL COMMITTEE CHAIRS • A udit Tom King audit@fwpcoa.org • E xam Consultant Ray Bordner (727) 527-8121 exam@fwpcoa.org • F WRJ/FWRC Tom King (321) 867-9495 Thomas.j.King-1@nasa.gov • L egislative Kevin Shropshire legislative@fwpcoa.org • N ominating Raymond Bordner (727) 527-8121 h2oboy2@juno.com • O perators Helping Operators John Lang (772) 562-9176 oho@fwpcoa.org • S afety Peter M. Tyson (305) 797-8201 safety@fwpcoa.org • S cholarship Renee Moticker (954) 967-4230 awards@fwpcoa.org

EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS • Backflow Glenn Whitcomb backflow@fwpcoa.org • C ontinuing Education Jim Smith CEU@fwpcoa.org • I ndustrial Pretreatment Kevin Shropshire (407) 832-2748 03-director@fwpcoa.org • P lant Operations Jamie Hope (352) 318-3321 hope2protectFLwaters@gmail.com • R eclaimed Water Jody Godsey (904) 813-1159 reclaimed@fwpcoa.org • S tormwater Brad Hayes stormwater@fwpcoa.org

• U tilities Maintenance Robert Case (727) 893-5076 robertcase1952@gmail.com

ADMINISTRATION • Executive Director (currently vacant) exec-dir@fwpcoa.org • T raining Coordinator Shirley Reaves (321) 383-9690 training@fwpcoa.org • Webmaster Debra Englaner webmaster@fwpcoa.org

FWRC/FWRJ BOARD APPOINTMENTS • T rustee Tom King Thomas.j.King-1@nasa.gov • T rustee Rim Bishop (561) 627-2900, ext. 314 rbishop@sua.com • T rustee Scott Anaheim (904) 665-8415 sanaheim@bellsouth.net • M ember Ray Bordner (727) 527-8121 h2oboy2@juno.com • M ember Al Monteleone (352) 259-3924 scooter1030@embarqmail.com • M ember Ken Enlow kenlow51@verizon.net • M ember Mike Darrow (863) 409-4256 president@fwpcoa.org

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


City of Destin is 2020 Tank of the Year Winner A municipal water tank in Destin is the 2020 winner of the Tank of the Year competition sponsored by Tnemec Company Inc., a leading provider of high-performance coatings. The water tank was selected by a panel of water tank enthusiasts based on criteria such as artistic value, significance of the tank to the community, and challenges encountered during the project. The winning tank was painted with Tnemec’s ultraviolet-resistant, longlasting fluoropolymer finish, Series 700 HydroFlon, which will help the design look great for a long time, even in the hot and humid Florida climate. “The tank includes a one-of-a-kind seascape mural that now stands high above Destin in an ultra-realistic homage to all the wildlife that call the Gulf of Mexico home,” explained Scott Keilbey,

director of sales–water tank market at Tnemec. “From the beginning, Destin knew its tank would need to be unique, which is why the city chose longtime water tank mural artist, Eric Henn, to complete the piece.” Other water tanks that were among the top 12 finalists for 2020 are in the following cities: S Bossier City, La. S Hot Springs, Ark. S Muscatine, Iowa S Cumming, Iowa S White Bear Lake, Minn. S Grafton, Ohio S Hutchinson, Kan. S Troy, Va. S Jansen, Neb. S Kansas City, Mo. S Pain Court, Ontario

16 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Nearly 300 water tanks were nominated, and more than 23,000 online votes were cast from across the United States and Canada. Bossier City was the winner of the People’s Choice competition, with 6,281 votes from members of the public. “This is the 15th anniversary of the competition, which recognizes municipalities for their aesthetic, creative, and innovative uses of Tnemec’s coatings on water storage tank projects,” Keilbey added. “This year’s finalists represent several different types of water tanks in various shapes and sizes, all of them impressive for one reason or another.” As the 2020 winner, Destin’s tank will be featured as the month of January in Tnemec’s 2021 water tank calendar. All finalists and nominees will be included in the following months. S

Women for Water Circle of Giving 2020 AWWA’s Water Equation established the Women for Water Circle of Giving in 2020 to raise money to fund STEM youth programming across North America. Each Circle of Giving donor contributed $1,000 and had the ability to nominate and vote on youth programs to fund. In its inaugural year, the Women for Water Circle of Giving awarded $10,750 to support six influential youth programs. Each of these youth programs is STEM focused and ultimately seeks to foster a deep appreciation for science and the environment. The funds received by programs this year will be used to create educational videos, provide technological access for economically challenged families, renovate an elementary STEM laboratory, provide supplies for senior student capstone projects, encourage water conservation, and award scholarships to environmentally conscious schools and students.

For more information about the Women for Water Circle of Giving, please contact Michelle Hektor at mhektor@awwa.org or visit our website at we.awwa.org/womenforwater

Broward P3 Eco-Challenge Broward County Public Schools (BCPS) is the sixth largest school system in the United States and the first fully accredited school system in Florida since 1962. BCPS is committed to educating all students to reach their highest potential and succeed in tomorrow’s world. The BCPS P3 Eco-Challenge recognizes and rewards traditional and charter BCPS schools, teachers, students, non-instructional, and custodial staff for their efforts to learn about and implement environmentally sustainable measures and green initiatives within their schools and communities. BCPS received $1,200 in funding that will be used to provide scholarships to winning students, teachers, and schools. To receive scholarships, schools must demonstrate participation in or implementation of different sustainability metrics within the categories of school grounds enhancement, school sustainability, curriculum integration, community involvement, administrative support, and innovation/special projects. This youth program encourages students to understand their water and land environment as well as design projects that will improve the world around them.

Scholarships valued up to $5,000 will be awarded in both undergraduate and graduate categories by the Florida Section American Water Works Association.


• Must be a student enrolled (not online) in a Florida university and living in Florida Must be a full-time student or part-time student enrolled and completing a • minimum of 6 credits Must be a student within 60 credits of graduation with a bachelor’s degree. • Note: Seniors who are pursuing a graduate degree may apply and use the scholarship for their graduate studies, but must provide proof of acceptance to their graduate degree program

Maintain good standing in academic status with a GPA of 3.0 or higher based • on a 4.0 system be pursuing a career in the water/wastewater field with a plan to remain • inMust Florida to pursue their career Or enrolled in one of the CIP educational codes (for a list visit fsawwa.org/2021Likins) • and have indicated an interest in pursuing a career in the water/wastewater field

Added Value:

All applicants receive 1-year free student American Water Works Association • (AWWA) membership.

Key benefits of Student Membership:

• Jump-Start Your Career • Gain Experience • Stay Informed


$5,000 SCHOLARSHIP Apply by June 30, 2021 For application, please visit:




FEBRUARY 16-18, 2021 Earn

CEUs and PDHs


(up to 12 hours of continuing education) Topics:

• Balancing Water Conservation with Water Quality • Lead and Copper Updates for Systems • Utility Operations • Cybersecurity for Operations • Inclusion and Hidden Bias • Lime Softening • Membrane Treatment


3 DAYS VIRTUAL TRAINING Visit www.fsawwa.org for registration information. Grow

Utilities Invited to Host Local “Drop Savers” Contest The Florida Section of the American Water Works Association will again sponsor the statewide “Drop Savers” Water Conservation Poster Contest during National Drinking Water week, scheduled for May 2-8, 2021. Submission deadline is Friday, March 12, 2021, for local winners to be submitted for judging at the state level, Florida utilities are encouraged to begin preparations for showcasing the creativity of their local children. The contest gives children from kindergarten through high school the opportunity to design a poster about water conservation. Early in the year, local winners are chosen in five different age groups, with winning entries advancing for statewide judging. Utilities publicize the local contests, distribute the contest material to local schools, coordinate the judging, recruit prize sponsors, and arrange local award ceremonies. Although the state winners will be announced in mid-April prior to Drinking Water Week, utilities should start planning their local celebration now. Interested utilities may download the complete package of “Drop Savers 2021” start-up materials from the “Drop Savers” Florida Section web site at www.fsawwa.org/dropsavers. If you have questions or problems downloading the materials, please contact state coordinator Melissa Velez at (754) 229-3089 or by email velezm@bv.com. Looking forward to seeing your utility represented this year!

2020 FSAWWA AWARDS Outstanding and Most Improved Water Treatment Plant Awards Class A, Class B, Class C Deadline: June 30, 2021

Outstanding Water Treatment Plant Operator Award Deadline: June 30, 2021

AWWA Operator’s Meritorious Service Award Deadline: June 30, 2021

For more information please go to our website www.fsawwa.org/WTPawards or contact Paul Kavanagh at (813) 264-3835 or kavanaghp@hillsboroughcounty.org

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021



The Benefits of In-Person Conferences Fred Bloetscher, P.E., Ph.D. Chair, FSAWWA


o start, I want to thank all of our members for the honor of being the 2021 Florida Section chair. I will do my best to uphold the tradition of excellence from my predecessors. It’s unfortunate that we were unable to have our normal transition from Kim Kowalski to me at our luncheon that’s usually held at the section’s Fall Conference. Likewise, it’s unfortunate that we will not be having a Florida Water Resources Conference (FWRC) in 2021, and in 2020, we didn’t have either FWRC or the AWWA Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE20), which was supposed to be in Orlando. So that means it has been over a year since we had a statewide conference for the water industry

in Florida. Darn COVID-19! The hope is that we can get back to live conference events later this year because they are important to our industry and to all of us as social creatures.

to learn how other utilities approach solutions to their challenges. S Talking with other utility and engineering personnel about common problems.

Conferences Mimic Civilization

All of these have great potential for ideas to help utilities. The opportunity to share a beverage and share a meal helps facilitate this further. We can also connect with many friends that we seem to only see at conferences—even if they work only a few miles away.

The reasons should be obvious. As civilization has grown over the centuries, the advancements in our technology, and new means and methods, have occurred in cities where many people can gather in one place, meet, discuss issues, and arrive at solutions based on each other’s experiences, something that cannot be done in rural areas. Conferences are intended to achieve a similar goal: bring people with common interests and facing similar challenges together to discuss their issues and find new ideas to improve service delivery. As a result, there are three basic goals that happen at these conferences: S Talking to vendors who have products that might help a utility or meet certain needs. S Sitting in on technical sessions allows the listeners

2020 Fall Conference Workshop and Session Attendance Session Title Opening General Session Workshop 1A: Laws and Ethics Workshop 1B: SCADA Workshop Workshop 2A: PFAS Workshop Workshop 2B: Asset Assessment Seminar Session 1A: Total Water Solutions Session 1B: Potable Reuse Session 1C: Water Resiliency Session 2A: P oop Never Lies: Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 in Wastewater Session 2B: U sing Technology to Support Piping Resiliency Session 2C: Financing the Utility Session 3A: Water Treatment Session 3B: Membranes Session Session 3C: Wastewater Piping Session 4A: Pipe Design Session 4B: Piping 2 Session 4C: Water Conservation Symposium

22 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Unique Views 108

Total Views 127

57 68 63 46

66 102 103 71

51 69 40

81 104 63



31 28

52 53

46 24 29

65 43 47

21 17 55

37 44 94

2020 Fall Conference The good news is that for our virtual 2020 FSAWWA Fall Conference, held last December, we met at least one of the goals I just mentioned. The number of people attending concurrent technical sessions and workshops are shown in the blue box. The numbers were not too far behind the 2019 numbers for in-person technical sessions. Having them all recorded makes them easier to view later (we are no longer tracking the views). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), COVID-19 testing in wastewater, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) to help improve operations, and potable reuse remain hot topics to carry forward. Many people realize that despite the limitations of distance viewing, a good discussion can yield a solution or idea that can solve an ongoing issue. How others approach the problem may shed light on how your utility can address its challenges. Having watched many of the presentations, and having reviewed all the abstracts and papers, there was a lot of good stuff to share.

Looking to the Future By the summer, we hope to have live events again, if we can roll out the vaccine better than we did in December; however, going forward, there are several challenges we may face. Many of our municipal utility officials were or may still be on travel bans due to COVID-19. Because the economy has not fully rebounded and the state is talking about cutting education and health services due to lower tax receipts, I am concerned that the one-size-fits-all mentality on municipal budgets may impact us in 2021, even though most utilities are not seeing large reductions in revenues. Instead, we need to make the officials in charge of budgets understand that the savings of just one good idea learned at a conference can easily exceed the cost of attendance, as opposed to

travel and training being an easy place to cut. The return on investment (ROI) is extremely high if just one great idea can be put into practice. More important still, we need to convey these solutions to the officials who have control of the budget attributed to attendance at conferences. Conveying this data is a form of marketing— touting the benefits of learning new things that we often miss due to all the other work we must do. But we must market! Another challenge is increasing the number of people attending the conference; in particular, the number of young people attending. Many of the people who go to conferences bring a wealth of knowledge and experience. Connecting young professionals and college students with seasoned veterans can help long-term knowledge transfer. Access to social media that young professionals use may also help us convey to the public what we accomplish. Most water industry efforts are simply taken for granted. We need to do a better job of marketing these benefits, and we need to raise awareness of the essential work we do. Without water and sewage, well—let’s not go there. We would not have civilization without water and sewer services. That is why they are essential

services, and we are essential personnel. Most people do not realize this, which is something that we need to change. For giggles I did a water plant tour with middle schoolers a couple years ago. I asked which they would prefer: three days without their cell phone or three days without water, which could literally kill them. Way too many wanted that cell phone! Next month we hope to have all the awardees

listed here in the magazine. In the meantime, to all those in our industry—operators, engineers, administrators, support staff, contractors, and suppliers—who make this industry vibrant and keep our economic and social system going, thank you for all you do. Stay safe! S

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


FWEA COMMITTEE CORNER Welcome to the FWEA Committee Corner! The Member Relations Committee of the Florida Water Environment Association hosts this article to celebrate the success of recent association committee activities and inform members of upcoming events. To have information included from your committee, send details to Melody Gonzalez at gonzalezm@bv.com.

Melody Gonzalez

Water Leadership Institute: Creating the Leaders We Need

Leadership for Life What do you do when your sector needs a little push? The Water Environment Federation answered this question by creating the leaders that will give that extra push to our industry to keep moving in the right direction—forward. To do this, the Water Leadership Institute (WLI) was created. As it reads on its website, “The Water Leadership

Institute program is aimed at educating, training, and providing opportunities that enable developing and emerging leaders to build strong lasting relationships within the water industry.” The program accepts participants from various backgrounds and diverse levels of experience, allowing for a natural flow of knowledge. The WLI focuses on giving opportunities to develop the management and leadership skills necessary to thrive in the water and wastewater industry, and creating networks within the private and public sectors. The application process has been very competitive since the program started in 2012, and FWEA is encouraging its members to apply and take advantage of this unique opportunity.

Florida Water Leadership Institute Graduates Graduates of WLI from Florida include the following: 1. Lynn Spivey, 2012 2. David Robinson, 2013 3. Brian Shields, 2013 4. Prasad Chittaluru, 2014 5. Kerstin Kenty, 2014 6. Suzanne Mechler, 2014 7. John Palenchar, 2015 8. Madelyn Rubin, 2016 9. Alyson Byrne, 2016 10. Vivian Gleaves, 2016 11. Christina Goodrich, 2017 12. Michael Jankowski, 2017 13. Rhea Dorris, 2018 14. Melody Gonzalez, 2018 15. Elisabetta Natale, 2018 16. Shea Dunifon, 2019 17. Yulyan Arias, 2019 18. Shelby Beauchemin, 2020

Group photo of Water Leadership Institute graduates.

For more information, please visit the WLI website at https://www.wef.org/resources/ water-leadership-institute/. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to Melody Gonzalez at GonzalezM@bv.com. S

Graduates display their certificates.

Class of 2019.

24 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Maintenance & Repair Service Available

Water & Wastewater Process Treatment & Pumping Equipment


3524 Craftsman Blvd. Lakeland, FL 33803


Copyright ©2021 Tencarva Machinery Company. All Rights Reserved.

Ph: (863) 665-7867 Fax: (863) 667-2951 TM.FL.FWRA.MU.12.18.2020

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021



Have You Received Your COVID-19 Vaccine Yet? Kenneth Enlow

President, FWPCOA


reetings. I hope you are all settling into the new year. Brandon Wales, acting director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which is part of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, issued an important advisory memorandum on ensuring essential critical infrastructure workers’ ability to work during the COVID-19 response. Wales stated that, “The ability of these workers to perform their jobs safely is critical to our nation’s ability to maintain resilience of national critical functions. It is for this reason that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in collaboration with other federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector, has issued the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce Guidance for COVID-19 response.” The current version of this guidance, Version 4.0, was released in August 2020. The guidance is intended to help state, local, tribal, and territorial officials and organizations protect their workers and communities and ensure the continued safe and secure operation of critical infrastructure by identifying the

universe of essential workers that may require specialized risk management strategies so that they can work safely. It can also be used to begin planning and preparing for the allocation of scarce resources used to protect essential workers against COVID-19. Wales further states, “We are now entering a new phase of our pandemic response, when vaccines are available but in short supply, and when infection rates are driving the continued application of public health measures in communities. For this reason, we want to repromote the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce Guidance Version 4.0. Although this version of the guidance is unchanged from the August 2020 release, we want to reiterate our belief that it remains an important tool for COVID-19 planning, even in this new environment.” The guidance document defines water and wastewater workers as those needed to operate and maintain drinking water and wastewater and drainage infrastructure, including: S Operational staff at water authorities. S Operational staff at community water systems. S Operational staff at wastewater treatment facilities. S Workers repairing water and wastewater conveyances and performing required sampling or monitoring, including field staff. S Operational staff for water distribution and testing. S Operational staff at wastewater collection facilities.

26 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

S O perational staff and technical support for supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) control systems. S Laboratory staff performing water sampling and analysis. S Suppliers and manufacturers of chemicals, equipment, personal protective equipment, and goods and services for water and wastewater systems. S Workers who maintain digital systems infrastructure supporting water and wastewater operations. Gov. Ron DeSantis will be responsible for setting priorities for who gets the vaccine. He did sign an executive order on Dec. 23, 2020, which does put others before essential workers. Gov. DeSantis’s Executive Order 20-315 is shown in the blue box. Health care personnel and long-term care facility residents and staff are included in phase 1a implementation. Phase 1b implementation was to include essential workers, but under Gov. DeSantis’s Executive Order 20-315 persons over the age of 65 will be vaccinated before essential workers. I encourage each of you to get your vaccine when it comes your turn if you haven’t already gotten it.

What Do You Know About Tier II Reporting? The Rule The Emergency Planning and Community

Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) was created to protect communities from the health and environmental hazards associated with hazardous chemicals. Under Section 312 of the act, regulated industries must file an annual Tier II report with the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), Local Emergency Planning Commission (LEPC), and local fire department for hazardous and/or extremely hazardous substances stored, used, or manufactured on site for more than a 24hour period at any time during the previous calendar year. The deadline for filing a Tier II report for the previous year is March 1. The fees assessed for Tier II facilities by the state of Florida provide funding for new and ongoing emergency planning initiatives. Where to File and Pay Fees Florida now utilizes the e-plan online database at www.erplan.net for all filing and fee collection. Filers now have the option of paying fees with a credit card or electronic funds transfer from their bank account. The following bullets outline the fees: S O ne-time filing fee: Pursuant to Section 252.85(2), Florida Statutes, any “public or private” facility subject to Section 302 shall pay a one-time filing fee of $50 per facility (the form, entitled Section 302 - Emergency Planning Notification, can be used when submitting the filing fee). S Annual registration fee: Pursuant to Section 252.85(1), Florida Statutes, any “private” facility subject to either Section 302 or 312 must pay an annual registration fee due every March 1 (governmental bodies are exempt from the annual registration fee). This fee is based on the number of employees that an employer has in the state of Florida. Owners or operators that have previously filed with the state of Florida should use their existing access identifications (IDs) and passwords to file online. Please contact the Florida Department of Environmental Management (FDEM) staff if you have forgotten your access ID or password. If you require assistance filing online or need special accommodation, please contact SERC staff at (850) 815-4200, or toll-free in Florida at (800) 635-7179). Your LEPC representatives are also available to help with your filing issues. Their contact information can be found at: https:// www.floridadisaster.org/dem/response/ technological-hazards/serc/lepc/. What’s To Be Reported Section 302 - Chemical Notification Your facility must report under Section

Table 1.


CAS/313 Category Codes

Chlorine(gas) 7782-50-5

Section Section CERCLA Section RCRA CAA 302 304 RQ 313 CODE 112(r) (EHS) EHS RQ TQ TPQ 100


Sodium 7681-52-9 hypochlorite Sulfuric acid


Sodium hydroxide





100 1,000


302 if it has present any amount that meets or exceeds the threshold planning quantity (TPQ) of any of the extremely hazardous substances (EHSs). The EHSs can be found in the “Title III List of Lists.” The EHSs are any of the chemicals listed under the column titled “Section 302.” To determine whether the facility has an EHS that meets or exceeds the TPQ, the owner or operator must determine the total amount of that substance present at any one time at the facility, regardless of location, duration, number of containers, or method of storage. The amount of an EHS present in mixtures or solutions in excess of 1 percent must be included in the determination. If the ingredient is a carcinogen, you must list the chemical if it’s present in excess of 0.1 percent, regardless whether the ingredient is listed as active or inert. The TPQ is the amount, in pounds, found

1,000 1,000

under the column titled “Section 302 (EHS) TPQ.” To determine the quantity of an EHS or a non-EHS hazardous chemical component present in a mixture, multiply the concentration of the hazardous chemical component (in weight percent) by the weight of the mixture (in pounds). Section 303 - Facility Representative Designation Any facility subject to Section 302 must send SERC and LEPC the name and telephone number of a contact person (facility representative) at the facility. The name of the facility representative must be kept current. The purpose for reporting under Section 302 is to alert LEPC to which facilities have EHSs and, therefore, must be included in emergency response plans. The role of the facility representative is to provide LEPC with the necessary data to develop emergency response plans. Continued on page 28

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


Continued from page 27 Section 311 – Safety Data Sheet (SDS)/Chemical List Submittal The chemicals covered under Section 311 are: S A ny of the EHSs that meet or exceed the TPQ, or 500 pounds, at any one time, whichever is less. S A ny of the hazardous chemicals that meet or exceed 10,000 pounds at any one time for which the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires an SDS to be maintained. Consolidated List of Chemicals Subject to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act S E PCRA Section 302 Extremely Hazardous Substances S C ERCLA Hazardous Substances S E PCRA Section 313 Toxic Chemicals S C AA 112(r) Regulated Chemicals for Accidental Release Prevention S R CRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Regulation Code An example from the consolidated list of lists can be seen in Table 1. Each reporting

category amount in pounds is listed below the reporting requirement. In the table, chlorine (gas) and sulfuric acid are listed as an extremely hazardous substance. They have a TPQ listed under Section 302 and a reportable quantity under Section 304. Chlorine (gas) is also listed under Section 313 for a toxic chemical and under 112(r) as a regulated chemical for accidental release prevention. Sodium hypochlorite (bleach) and sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) and not listed as an EHS, but both of these chemicals do have a reportable quantity under CERCLA, as well as chlorine (gas) and sulfuric acid. A facility would include chlorine (gas) at or above the TPQ of 100 pounds and sulfuric acid at or above the TPQ of 1,000 pounds. It would also include sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide at or above 10,000 pounds in its Tier II reporting. This is not a comprehensive guide to Tier II reporting, but just a few highlights of the reporting requirements. Please use this link to access the 2020 Florida How to Comply Manual: https://portal. floridadisaster.org/SERC/External/EPCRA/ How%20to%20Comply%20Manual.pdf.

FWPCOA Training Update

We will continue following the latest

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for conducting training and are willing to follow any guidelines required by the facility, including off-hours like nights and weekends. The training office is in need of proctors for online courses in all regions. If you are available to be a proctor please contact the training office at 321-383-9690. In the meantime, and as always, our Online Institute is up and running. You can access our online training by going to the FWPCOA website at www.fwpcoa.org and selecting the “Online Institute” button at the upper right-hand area of the home page to open the login page. You then scroll down to the bottom of this screen and click on “View Catalog” to open the catalog of the many training programs offered. Select your preferred training program and register online to take the course. This is a good way to get those needed continuing education units (CEUs) for your license renewal coming up by April 30, 2021, but time is getting short. For more information, contact the Online Institute program manager at OnlineTraining@ fwpcoa.org or the FWPCOA training office at training@fwpcoa.org. That’s all I have for this C Factor. Everyone take care and, as usual, keep up the good work! S

Gov. Ron DeSantis Executive Order 20-315 NOW, THEREFORE, I, RON DESANTIS, as Governor of Florida, by virtue of the authority vested in me by Article IV, Section I (a) of the Florida Constitution and by the Florida Emergency Management Act, as amended, and all other applicable laws, promulgate the following Executive Order: During this first phase of vaccine administration, all providers administering any COVID-19 vaccine shall only vaccinate the following populations: S L ong-term care facility residents and staff; S P ersons 65 years of age and older; and S H ealth care personnel with direct patient contact. Hospital providers, however, also may vaccinate persons who they deem to be extremely vulnerable to COVID-19.

28 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal









Direct Potable Reuse as a Tool for Revitalizing Brackish Groundwater Desalination Facilities: Water Quality and Operations Anna Ness and Dave MacNevin


lorida is a global leader for brackish groundwater desalination, with more than 70 major (i.e., capacity over 1 mil gal per day [mgd]) municipal brackish groundwater reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment plants (WTPs) online as of 2019. Brackish groundwater desalination has proven its value as a critical alternative water supply, meeting pressing water supply needs; however, many utilities have experienced challenges from wells with declining groundwater quality in the form of increasing salinity, measured as total dissolved solids (TDS). Rising groundwater salinity can be a costly problem for municipal utilities with RO WTPs, resulting in the following negative consequences: S I ncreased feed pump pressures resulting in higher power costs. S D ecreased water production capacity. S I ncreased water purchases from neighboring utilities. S S tranded assets when the TDS exceeds safe limits of equipment, resulting in need of equipment repair or replacement. S A dditional post-treatment chemical costs when bypass blending becomes unfeasible due to high chlorides. S O verdesign costs when RO WTPs are

designed conservatively with high-pressure rated equipment due to uncertainty about future increases in groundwater salinity. S Subsequent changes to blending ratios and corrosion chemistry in distribution systems. Besides brackish groundwater desalination, Florida has also been a leader in potable reuse, with at least 12 utilities conducting pilots or demonstrations since 2000. While many of these projects focused on indirect potable reuse (IPR), utilities are increasingly viewing direct potable reuse (DPR) as a potentially viable alternative water supply. While stable, low-salinity, and permittable brackish groundwater supplies are increasingly challenging to find, many parts of the state have excess reclaimed water that is not being utilized (FDEP, 2015). Reclaimed water is a “drought-proof � water supply, with TDS typically less than 1,000 mg/L. In contrast, the TDS of brackish groundwater wells frequently ranges from about 2,000 to 10,000 mg/L. This article includes a review of municipal brackish desalination in Florida and a discussion of the impacts that declining groundwater quality can have on water production. It discusses a concept of blending highly treated

Figure 1. Changes in groundwater salinity over time for several desalinization facilities, compared with the typical total dissolved solids of reclaimed water.

30 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Anna Ness, P.E., is a project engineer with CDM Smith in Jacksonville. Dave MacNevin, Ph.D., P.E., is water reuse and advanced treatment discipline leader with CDM Smith in Tampa.

reclaimed water directly into the feed of an existing brackish groundwater RO WTP. It also includes an assessment of operating costs and capital improvements required for two approaches to maintain plant production in the face of increasing groundwater salinity. The first approach to maintain plant production is to retrofit the RO WTP to handle the higher salinity and corresponding increases in feed pressure. The alternative approach is to retrofit the facility to process lower-salinity reclaimed water. Increasing groundwater salinity is a common challenge for many facilities, but it has varying consequences depending on the change in salinity and how drastically the changes happen. Figure 1 shows data from different utilities in Florida and how their groundwater salinity has changed over time. The typical TDS of reclaimed water (usually below 1,000 mg/L)

Figure 2. The application of reverse osmosis in Florida for municipal water treatment has increased rapidly.

is also shown on Figure 1. While most brackish groundwater desalination facilities in Florida have performed well, a number of utilities have observed that their desalination facilities have experienced rapid increases in source water salinity. For those utilities, and others contemplating their alternative water supply options, adapting brackish water RO WTPs for DPR could be a cost-effective solution for communities looking to get the most from past investments in alternative water supplies. With the adoption of Florida Senate Bill 712 in 2020, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is mandated to begin the development of regulations allowing DPR in Florida. When this rule is finalized, DPR will be an allowable alternative water supply. Under what conditions might a utility decide to consider DPR as an alternative water supply? Two reasons stand out that suggest DPR at existing brackish groundwater desalination plants may be one of the first approaches for DPR implementation in Florida: water quality and economics. For water quality, with high-rejection RO membranes, brackish RO facilities are already well-equipped to remove contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) from reclaimed water, safeguarding confidence in treatment and protecting public health. With respect to economics, alternative water supplies represent a major financial investment for a municipality. Where particular brackish RO facilities are constricted by increasingly saline groundwater, use of low-salinity reclaimed water as a supply can increase water supply certainty over the long term, while avoiding the risk and expense of new well construction and high-pressure treatment retrofits.

Brackish Water Desalination in Florida The past several decades have led to extraordinary progress and innovation in the RO membrane technology market. As such, membrane-based technology has transitioned from being thought of as an emerging technology to mainstream technology, and the cost of membrane elements has steadily declined. A 2010 paper on brackish RO in Florida (Robert, 2010) showed that membrane costs had steadily declined since 1980. As of 2019, the authors found that this trend has continued, with the real unit price of membrane elements decreasing steadily by nearly 50 percent every seven years, with a current unit price of about $1.00 per sq ft of active membrane area. At a typical flux of 15 gal per

Figure 3. Increasing groundwater salinity can be problematic.

sq ft per day (gfd), the unit cost of membrane elements for treatment is only about $0.07 per gal per day (gpd) of treatment capacity. This is meaningful to many utilities that utilize brackish water membranes for drinking water treatment and may present opportunities for utilities that wish to replace existing membranes to utilize the latest, moreenergy-efficient membrane products. The increase in production of membrane elements, coupled with improvements in technology and manufacturing automation, have all driven the prices of membranes lower; however, the overall cost of membrane treatment systems (i.e., pumps, piping, electrical, etc.) has not necessarily declined. The application of membrane-based treatment in Florida has grown steadily over the past 30 years, as shown in Figure 2. Currently, Florida has 76 membrane-based drinking water facilities with a capacity greater than 1 mgd (FDEP Monthly Operating Report Database). In total, these facilities have an installed drinking water production capacity of nearly 800 mgd.

Challenges in Water Supply and Water Availability While most brackish groundwater supplies in Florida have held steady over time, several facilities in the state have observed increases in groundwater salinity. Typically, increases in groundwater salinity occur due to landward intrusion of seawater, or upconing of water from underlying, more-saline aquifer layers. When groundwater salinity increases, the most significant consequence for RO WTPs is an increase in osmotic pressure of the groundwater that makes it more costly to treat. If feed pressures are maintained, production will decline; if water production is maintained, then feed pressures must be increased. The rate of increase in

groundwater salinity is highly dependent on local hydrogeologic conditions. Rising groundwater salinity can be a costly problem for RO WTPs in several forms, as summarized in Figure 3. Higher salinity can lead to increased feed pump pressures (higher power consumption), additional post-treatment chemical costs (when bypass blending becomes unfeasible), stranded assets when production capacity is decreased to stay within safe pressure limits, and overdesign costs when RO WTPs are designed conservatively with highpressure rated equipment due to uncertainty about future increases in groundwater salinity. When groundwater salinity increases, the practical production capacity of the RO WTP may decrease due to limitations in feed pumping pressure. Retrofitting the RO WTP with new, higher-pressure feed pumps may be required. Furthermore, several other areas of the plant may also be impacted as a result of treating higher-salinity water. For example, installing larger feed pumps may require upgrades to motors, variable frequency drives, and associated electrical equipment. Pump materials, fittings, and associated piping may need to be upgraded to withstand the high corrosivity of increasingly saline groundwater. The pressure rating of the membrane housings (typically fiberglass reinforced) would need to be checked against the higher feed pumping pressure. If new membrane housings are required to withstand the pressure, the membrane support rack may also require structural upgrades. A common practice for RO WTPs is to bypass a portion of the raw or pretreated water around the RO system and blend it with permeate, thus improving finished water stability and minimizing operating costs; however, increasing salinity in brackish groundwater typically corresponds with increased chlorides. This can necessitate additional post-treatment stabilization and Continued on page 32

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


Continued from page 31 limit opportunities for bypass blending. Without post-treatment stabilization through calcium addition and pH adjustment, elevated chlorides can result in more-corrosive water, with potential impacts to lead and copper corrosion compliance and aesthetic effects from water discoloration caused by iron pipe corrosion.

Benefits of Source Water Augmentation With Reclaimed Water Instead of expending time and capital to retrofit an existing RO facility or construct new brackish supply wells with uncertain water quality and production capacity, source water augmentation with reclaimed water can allow a utility to restore underperforming RO skids to beneficial use. As mentioned, reclaimed water is a reliable, “drought-proof ”

Option 1 Blending Reclaimed Water and Groundwater Before RO Train

Option 2 Dedicated RO Train for Reclaimed Water Only

water supply. Many utilities have excess reclaimed water supply that is currently not being utilized for irrigation or other beneficial purposes. For existing RO WTPs dealing with increasing groundwater salinity, blending reclaimed water into the RO feed could provide several benefits. Most notably, a WTP may be able to recover lost production capacity by treating water with a lower salinity and lower required feed pressure. Reclaimed water is a secure and stable water source and less prone to increases in salinity over time. While the TDS of reclaimed water is relatively stable and low, one limitation of reclaimed water is the day-to-day variation in reclaimed flows that, absent storage, require immediate use or disposal. A key consideration to identifying the quantity of available water, and associated capacity of RO treatment that can be supported, is to review historical daily reclaimed water flows to identify a reliable yield from reclaimed water.

Advantages • Maximum operational flexibility • Groundwater can compensate for variable reclaimed water availability • Operators run “one” treatment train • Avoids potential crossconnection issue with CIP system • Smaller UV-AOP process to treat RO permeate from reclaimed water train only • Reduced need to track blending ratios

Disadvantages • Blending ratio management to control TDS and membrane fouling • Larger UV-AOP process to treat entire flow

• • • •

Less operational flexibility Potentially offline on days reclaimed water flows are low Operators run “two” treatment trains, with very different water chemistries Potential cross connection issues with CIP system

Figure 4. Advantages and disadvantages of groundwater blending location.

32 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Annual electricity costs of potable reuse to brackish groundwater desalination are comparable because the lower feed pressure savings of treating reclaimed water by RO would be offset by additional advanced treatment processes, including ultrafiltration (UF) and ultraviolet advanced oxidation process (UV-AOP), that are required for treatment of reclaimed water, as discussed in the next section. Treatment Process Considerations When blending highly treated reclaimed water directly into the feed of an existing brackish RO WTP, several potential operational impacts should be considered. Changes in feed water chemistry may require sulfuric acid addition or a change in antiscalant dose to control membrane scaling. Also, if an existing brackish groundwater source is anaerobic, with high concentrations of dissolved iron or hydrogen sulfide, mixing with an aerobic reclaimed water may lead to iron precipitation or the formation of sulfur turbidity. In such cases, it may be better to treat reclaimed water and groundwater separately. The introduction of nutrient-rich reclaimed water may also present new challenges with membrane fouling. Nitrogen can promote growth of biological foulants, and phosphorus can contribute to calcium phosphate scaling. The RO is extremely effective at removing inorganics, nutrients, and most CECs. The CECs are unregulated compounds and substances, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs), and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). The RO membrane elements with a high salt rejection (greater than 99.5 percent NaCl removal) are best suited to DPR because they have been shown to most effectively remove CECs (Howe et al., 2019). Pretreatment by membrane filtration (whether as microfiltration/ UF or membrane bioreactors) is necessary for suspended solids removal before RO to meet silt density index (SDI) feed water goals. The most common approach that has been pilottested several times in Florida, and implemented elsewhere at full scale is to utilize UF with chloramination to control biological fouling. After RO treatment, UV-AOP is commonly used as an added barrier to CECs and an added disinfection step for pathogens. Several considerations should be evaluated when deciding where to blend the reclaimed water source with the brackish groundwater. The options include: S Option 1 - Blending reclaimed water after UF treatment and before RO trains. Continued on page 34

The Florida Water & Pollution Control Operators Association’s


Licensed Florida Treatment Plant & Water Distribution Operators! Get Continuing Education Credits for License Renewal Online! Featu r the F ing CEU C EPT hallen (0.1 ge


CEU p er co urse)


with an average cost of $15 per 0.1 CEU

manual m anual

FW&PCOA Voluntary Certification Courses

Stormwater C Course ..............$260/$290* * Members/Non-Members Includes the course manual and proctored exam.

Wastewater Collection B Course (New!).............$275

Wastewater Collection C Course.........................$275

Includes the course manual and proctored exam.

Includes the course manual and proctored exam.

Training Courses for the Florida Licensing Examination Water Distribution Level 2 System Operator Course.....................$225 (Fee includes a proctored exam)

Water Distribution Level 3 System Operator Course ....................$225 (Fee includes a proctored exam)

Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Class B Course ....................$300

Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Class C Course ....................$300 Water Treatment Plant Operator Class B Course.....................$300 Water Treatment Plant Operator Class C Course.....................$300

Enroll Today at http://go.flextraining.com/FLC8518/

For more information on enrollment, contact Program Manager Tim McVeigh at OnlineTraining@fwpcoa.org Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


Continued from page 32 S O ption 2 - Having one dedicated UFRO-AOP train for reclaimed water, then blending with treated groundwater. Advantages and disadvantages are associated with each approach, as presented in Figure 4. While UF is only needed for the reclaimed water, RO cannot be bypassed when relied upon as a pathogen removal barrier. Blending reclaimed water after UF treatment and upstream of the RO system (Option 1) provides the most treatment flexibility and simplifies operations because staff must only worry about operating one RO treatment train; however, this approach requires a larger UV-AOP system sized to accommodate the entire plant flow, not just reclaimed water. Also, the total flow of reclaimed water can vary from day to day, with potential shortfalls in flow, limiting the ability to keep the RO skids running. If a utility wishes to maximize capture of available reclaimed water, groundwater pumping can vary day to day, compensating for varying reclaimed water availability. Alternatively, a dedicated UF-RO-UV-AOP treatment train for reclaimed water (Option 2) reduces the need to closely track feed water blend ratios and requires a smaller UV-AOP system; however, plant staff must operate two different RO trains with very different water chemistries at the same time. There may also be concerns with cross-contamination if the same clean-inplace (CIP) system for both the brackish water and reclaimed water trains is used. Economic Considerations Given the widespread adoption of brackish RO and associated concerns with groundwater quality, this approach of augmenting brackish groundwater supplies with reclaimed water could be a timely solution for many utilities. Table 1 presents an example case study for an existing brackish RO WTP experiencing increased salinity in its groundwater.

With the facility operating at only half its design capacity, the utility is faced with two alternatives to recover the full design flow: either retrofit the existing facility to accommodate brackish water with a higher TDS, or retrofit the facility to treat blended reclaimed water. To retrofit an existing plant for higher salinity may require new feed pumps, new electrical equipment, replacing pressure vessels, and installing corrosion-resistant piping, valves, and other improvements. The major benefit of augmenting a brackish water supply with reclaimed water is having a more secure and stable water source that is less prone to variations in source water quality and increases in salinity.

Path Forward Brackish water desalination has proven its value as a critical alternative water supply over the past 30 years; however, many Florida facilities face challenges with increased salinity in brackish groundwater, leading to loss of production capacity or the need for costly retrofits. The authors considered an approach to restore production capacity of brackish water RO facilities facing these challenges. Augmenting groundwater supplies with reclaimed water can provide a stable, low-TDS feed water to support long-term operations of the RO WTP facility. While it’s necessary to demonstrate protection of public health through removal of pathogens and CECs, capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of the potable reuse approach can be competitive with upgrading a brackish facility for higher salinities, while providing the additional benefit of stable source quality for the future. Utilities interested in pursuing this approach typically would conduct a feasibility study or benchtop/pilot evaluation to help

Table 1. Potential Retrofit Requirements for an Example Florida Brackish RO Facility Showing Higher Salinity Retrofit Versus Retrofit for Source Water Augmentation with Reclaimed Water.

• • • • • • • •

Alternative A Retrofit for Higher Salinity 300 psi Limit at 5,000 mg/L TDS Retrofit With Super Alloys New Feed Pumps, Booster Pumps, Energy Recovery Device Motors and Drives Redo Header Pipework Valves, Actuators, Instrumentation Replace Pressure Vessels New Membrane Elements Risk of Further Increases in TDS

• • • • • • •

Alternative B Retrofit for Reclaimed Augmentation Leave Existing RO System Intact Ultrafiltration UV Advanced Oxidation Chemical Storage and Feed Online Integrity Monitoring Yard Piping Equipment Buildings Secure Control of TDS

34 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

characterize site-specific reclaimed water quality and availability, determine potential operational benefits, study blending in the distribution system, characterize membrane fluxes and fouling rates, and develop planninglevel capital and O&M cost estimates. In June 2020, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 712, which deemed reclaimed water as a water source for public water systems. The bill required FDEP to initiate rule revisions for potable reuse based on the recommendations of the Potable Reuse Commission’s Framework Report (Florida Potable Reuse Commission, 2020). The rules must address CECs, and this is an important step forward toward the safe, regulated availability of DPR as a water supply option in Florida. With proper regulations in place, this approach may help Florida continue to provide a reliable and sustainable water supply for years to come.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Greta Zornes; Greg Wetterau, P.E., BCEE; and Carolina Restrepo for their contributions to the preparation of this article.

References • F DEP (2015). Report on Expansion of Beneficial Use of Reclaimed Water, Stormwater and Excess Surface Water (Senate Bill 536). Retrieved from https://floridadep. gov/sites/default/files/SB536%20Final%20 Report.pdf. • FDEP (2019). Information from the Drinking Water Data Base. Retrieved June 2020. • Florida Potable Reuse Commission. (January 2020). “Framework for the Implementation of Potable Reuse in Florida.” Alexandria, Va.; WateReuse Association. Retrieved from http://www.watereuseflorida.com/wpcontent/uploads/Framework-for-PotableReuse-in-Florida-FINAL-January-2020web10495.pdf. • Howe, K. J.; Minakata, D.; Breitner, L. N.; and Zhang, M. (2019). “Predicting Reverse Osmosis Removal of Unique Organics.” Water Research Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/ ro-removal-toxicologically-relevant-uniqueorganics. • Robert, C. “Reverse Osmosis Design and Concentrate Discharge Evolution in Florida the Past Three Decades.” Florida Water Resources Journal, pp. 19-31 (November 2010). Retrieved from https://fwrj.com/ techarticles/1110%20tech%202.pdf. S

Pioneer the Future with OPTIMIZED PUMPS & SYSTEMS FOR MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY • Water transfer and pressure boosting • Drinking water treatment • Remote monitoring and predictive maintenance

Grundfos water transfer and treatment solutions are designed to simplify project scoping and reduce maintenance requirements. Our energy-efficient pumps can be delivered as individual solutions or combined into a single-source modular system, delivering flexibility for your application. Integrate our remote monitoring and predictive maintenance capabilities to ensure seamless operation from day one.

Grundfos Americas Brookshire, TX 77423

For information please contact:

Carl Eric Johnson Inc. (800) 737-2235 www.cejco.net


Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021



FWEA Utility Council: Protecting Florida’s Clean Water Environment James J. Wallace, P.E. President, FWEA


his February issue of the Florida Water Resources Journal spotlights “Water Supply and Alternative Sources” in Florida. These topics present an excellent opportunity to highlight the tremendous value and leadership provided by the FWEA Utility Council, especially considering the current Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) efforts around water reuse and rulemaking. The council, along with its collaborative partners, is working hard to stay in front of this rulemaking to the benefit of Florida’s clean water environment, member utilities, and residents. As you read this column, be sure to reflect and ask yourself if you or your organization currently supports the council. There are many opportunities for support and membership, and it may surprise you that there are opportunities in addition to utility participation. They are: S Regular Utility Member - Publicly owned and operated metropolitan, county, or city wastewater utilities in Florida.

S Associate Utility Member - Privately owned or operated wastewater utilities in Florida. S Subscriber - Any other person or organization, not eligible for regular or associate membership in the council, whose interests are compatible with FWEA. Specific to this month’s FWRJ topic, Florida Senate Bill 536 laid the foundation for the current FDEP reuse and reclaimed water rulemaking. The council continues to participate in the rulemaking, which is comprised of two phases. The first phase will update FDEP’s Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application (62-610 F.A.C.) rule to provide consistency and clarifications, and specifically: S Ensure consistency with other FDEP rules and governing Florida Statutes. S Clarify existing requirements for reuse and land application systems. S Use a new electronic reporting tool for annual reuse reports. The second phase will address potable reuse, of which the “Framework for the Implementation of Potable Reuse in Florida” was developed to provide guidance by WaterReuse Florida. This organization is a partnership of the FSAWWA Water Utility Council, FWEA Utility Council, WaterReuse

36 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Association, and the Water Research Foundation. Again, the FWEA Utility Council will be providing significant leadership in this endeavor in 2021. Aside from the water supply, reuse, and alternative sources topics, the council has many other focus areas and working groups. Other areas of concern for the council in 2021 involve Senate Bill 712 (rulemaking related to domestic wastewater utilities, specifically asset management and biosolids items) and continued efforts by the Florida Legislature to establish surface water discharge prohibitions. In addition to the topics I’ve listed, the council has currently and/or formerly created working groups focused on water quality, sanitary sewer overflows, deep well injection, wastewater treatment facility operator staffing, septage, and legislative topics. The leadership and influence provided by the council is an invaluable part of our Florida water and wastewater industry. If you and your organization are already participating, I would like to provide a big “thank you” for your leadership and support. If you and your organization are not currently participating and supporting the FWEA Utility Council, I would ask that you consider joining this effective and valuable organization. Thank you for your consideration. S

Operators: Take the CEU Challenge! Members of the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators 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. 334203119. Enclose $15 for each set of questions you choose to answer (make checks payable to FWPCOA). You MUST be an FWPCOA member before you can submit your answers!

___________________________________ SUBSCRIBER NAME (please print)

Article 1 ____________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

Article 2 ____________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

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



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


(Credit Card Number)

(Expiration Date)

Direct Potable Reuse as a Tool for Revitalizing Brackish Groundwater Desalination Facilities: Water Quality and Operations

Breaking Through Cost Barriers Associated With Developing an Alternative Water Supply by Integrating With an Existing Treatment System

Anna Ness and Dave MacNevin

Kathleen N. Gierock, Greg Taylor, Benjamin Yoakam, and Frances Martinez-Marrero

(Article 1: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW/WW 02015381) 1. Th e authors note that reclaimed water is a “drought-proof ” water source typically having less than ________ mg/l total dissolved solids. a. 1000 b. 7 50 c. 5 00 d. 250 2. Th e major benefit of augmenting a brackish water supply with reclaimed water is a. enhanced bacteriological quality. b. enhanced water resource security and stability. c. r educed source water nutrient concentration. d. reduced need for pH adjustment. 3. F or reverse osmosis treatment facilities, which of the following is not a listed potential consequence of increasing source water chloride concentration? a. Distribution system water discoloration b. Need for enhanced disinfection c. L imited opportunity for bypass blending d. Need for post treatment stabilization 4. Th e authors determined that the real unit price of membrane elements has declined by nearly ___ percent every seven years. a. 10 b. 2 5 c. 5 0 d. 60 5. W hen treating reclaimed water to potable water standards, additional processes, including ________________, are typically required. a. advanced oxidation b. microfiltration c. precipitation d. enhanced degasification

(Article 2: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW 02015382)

1. Th e initiative described in this article is designed to provide member governments finished potable water beyond 2025 using a. f resh water from the Upper Floridan aquifer. b. brackish water from the lower Floridan aquifer. c. f resh water from the Lower Floridan aquifer. d. b rackish water from the Upper Floridan aquifer. 2. A lternative No. 4 was rejected, in part, because its failure to remove raw water _________ might result in increased finished water turbidity. a. t urbidity b. i ron c. s ilt d. sulfide 3. W hich of the following is not listed as a drawback to Alternative No. 2? a. Th e T.B. Williams Water Treatment Plant well pumps may have to be upgraded. b. The need to increase the size of process components. c. Th e need to increase carbon dioxide feed. d. Th e need to add sodium hypochlorite treatment. 4. C ompared to the construction of a stand-alone water treatment facility and transmission system, Alternative No. 6 reduces the capital cost by about _____ million dollars. a. 3 0 b. 4 4 c. 4 9 d. 53 5. W ater management districts have concluded that exceeding the Upper Floridan aquifer’s sustainable withdrawal limit may result in a. a quifer depletion. b. depriving private well owners of access to fresh irrigation water sources. c. water rationing. d. salt water intrusion.

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


L ET’ S TA LK S A FE TY 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.

Avoid Harm From Laboratory Hazards


ater utility operators and personnel work in laboratory environments on a daily basis to complete process tests, compliance monitoring, and even optimization tasks. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), these professionals are a part of more than 500,000 workers who are employed in laboratories in the United States.

Being in a laboratory can leave workers exposed to many hazards, including chemical, biological, and radioactive materials, as well as physical dangers. When in a laboratory, keep yourself safe by remembering these important steps: ■ Think safety first. ■ Know emergency responses. ■ Know what you’re working with.

■ Use the smallest possible amounts. ■ Follow all safety procedures. ■ If you don’t know . . . ask!

Think Safety First

Engaging in horseplay or pranks can have devastating consequences in a laboratory. Always conduct yourself in a professional manner with constant self-awareness. Avoid cluttering workspaces, walkways, or exits with work materials to prevent safety hazards or a simple mix-up caused by disorganization. Do not store food in laboratory refrigerators. Properly label chemical waste and in-use solutions with specific contents, and keep the label on the container. These practices are a part of good housekeeping.

Know Emergency Responses Always alert others working in the laboratory immediately when a spill occurs or of an emergency situation. Do not clean up spills unless you are trained to do so. It’s important to promptly clean up spills, remembering to always wear personal protective equipment (PPE). The supplies for cleaning up spills and any associated paperwork should be located in the immediate vicinity of the laboratory. Every lab should have eye washing stations that are maintained properly in case of chemical ocular exposure.

Know What You’re Working With Always know the hazards for each material that is being used; if you’re unsure, check the industry’s Safety Data Sheet. When working with aerosols or volatile chemicals, use a fume hood. Fume hood sashes should be

The 2020 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 SAFETY20. The code is good for the 2020 Let’s Talk Safety book, dual disc set, and book + CD set.

38 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

kept closed as much as possible, and do not store chemicals in fume hoods. Remember, it’s better to be safe than sorry—treat every chemical as if it were hazardous.

Use the Smallest Possible Amount Use the smallest amount of chemicals possible, but never return chemicals to the reagent bottles. Never mouth a pipette; always use a bulb. Be aware of the various chemical exposure routes: dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion, ocular exposure, and injection.

Follow All Safety Procedures Wear proper PPE and follow personal safety practices at all times when working in a laboratory. Lab coats, gloves, and safety glasses should be worn as appropriate. Shorts, tank tops, and sandals or other open-toed shoes should not be worn in the laboratory. It’s best to secure any jewelry, loose clothing, or long hair before working to prevent any entanglement from occurring. Always wear proper eye protection when using chemicals.

If You Don’t Know . . . Ask! In all situations, ask for assistance and instruction if you are unsure of any of the following: ■ Emergency procedures ■ Laboratory rules ■ Safety information ■ Chemical locations

■ Proper disposal of chemicals ■ How to complete a task Always follow these rules and you’ll keep the laboratory safe for you and other workers. For more information go to OHSA’s guidance on the topic at https://www. osha.gov/Publications/laboratory/OSHA S 3404laboratory-safety-guidance.

800–826-7699 watertc@watertc.com

watertc.com Serving the Southeast since 1976

Gas Feed Systems Dry Chemical Feed Systems Peristaltic Pumps Fiberglass Enclosures

Metering Pump Skids Tablet Feeders Analyzers Scale Systems

Factory Trained Technicians - Emergency Repair Services - PM Service/Plans Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021



Breaking Through Cost Barriers Associated With Developing an Alternative Water Supply by Integrating With an Existing Treatment System


Kathleen N. Gierok, Greg D. Taylor, Benjamin A. Yoakum, and Frances Martinez-Marrero

n Central Florida, water is typically supplied by groundwater wells that draw water from the Upper Floridan aquifer (UFA). The three management districts responsible for administrating water resources in this region—Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD)— have determined that traditional UFA water sources are reaching sustainable withdrawal limits. Increased use will result in adverse environmental effects, such as lowering levels of surface water bodies and saltwater intrusion into the UFA. In an effort to provide consistent guidance, help identify alternative water resources, and promote long-term planning, the Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) was formed. As described on CFWI’s website: “The CFWI is a collaborative water supply planning effort among the state’s three largest

water management districts (WMDs), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), and water utilities, environmental groups, business organizations, agricultural communities, and other stakeholders.” Through this collaborative effort, the following guiding principles for CFWI were established: 1. Identify sustainable quantities of traditional groundwater sources available for water supplies without causing unacceptable harm to the water resources and associated natural systems. 2. Develop strategies to meet water demands in excess of the UFA’s sustainable withdrawals. 3. Establish consistent rules and regulations for the three WMDs that meet their collective goals and implement the aim of the CFWI. These principles were established to guide long-term water resource planning throughout

Conceptual rendering of the Polk Regional Water Cooperative West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility.

40 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Kathleen N. Gierok, P.E., is senior project manager; Greg D. Taylor, P.E., is senior project manager; Benjamin A. Yoakum, P.E., Ph.D., is project engineer; and Frances Martinez-Marrero, E.I.T., is project engineer at Wright-Pierce in Maitland.

the CFWI planning area, which is shown in Figure 1. The area encompasses over 5,300 sq mi and consists of parts of Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Polk, and Lake counties. Applying these principles, the CFWI developed regional water supply plans (CFWI RWSP) in 2015 and 2020 that provide information on current and projected water usage, as well as the availability of UFA sources within the CFWI planning area. As indicated in the 2020 CFWI RWSP, the UFA allocations currently permitted within

Figure 1. Central Florida Water Initiative Boundary (source: https://cfwiwater.com/what_is_CFWI)

Figure 2. Polk Regional Water Cooperative Member Governments Figure 2. Polk Regional Water Cooperative Member (source: https://prwcwater.org/documents-old/)

Governments (source: https://prwcwater.org/documents-old/)

the CFWI planning area exceed the estimated sustainable withdrawal limit. As a result, draft rules recently developed by FDEP propose to modify anticipated water availability from the UFA, restricting withdrawals to demonstrated 2025 demands. Alternative water supply (AWS) projects will need to be implemented to satisfy demands beyond 2025 for the remainder of existing permit durations, as well as new permit applications, if the draft rules are implemented. In 2016, 16 local utilities within Polk County joined forces to form the Polk Regional Water Cooperative (PRWC) in response to the challenges detailed by CFWI. The PRWC was created by an interlocal agreement to foster innovative regional cooperation among local governments of Polk County. This regional cooperation includes developing, storing, and supplying potable water to reduce the potential for adverse environmental effects of excessive water withdrawals. A map of PRWC’s member governments is presented in Figure 2. The PRWC was founded to encourage the development of fully integrated public water supply systems, and its goal is to ensure reliable, sustainable, drought-resistant, and cost-efficient systems that maximize the use of AWS to the most efficient extent practicable. The PRWC has been using funding obtained through SWFWMD’s cooperative funding initiative to develop the planning and preliminary design of AWS projects. Brackish groundwater from the Lower Floridan aquifer (LFA) was identified as a potential key AWS source for public supply. The capital cost to construct a water treatment

Figure 3. Proximity of the T.B. Williams Water Treatment Plant and the West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility’s Proposed Site (source: West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility Conceptual Design Report, July 2020)

facility to desalinate LFA water, in addition to the capital cost of installing a transmission system to convey finished water to regional member governments, can represent a barrier to AWS project development. One solution to breaking through this cost barrier is to integrate new AWS facilities with the infrastructure and treatment processes of existing potable water systems. An example of this innovative concept is demonstrated in the design of the West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility (WPLFA WPF), which is designed to provide PRWC’s member governments with finished potable water beyond 2025 demands using brackish groundwater from the LFA. More specifically, the WPLFA WPF is proposed to serve PRWC members located in the northwest portion of Polk County. Currently at the conceptual design phase, the WPF is anticipated to have an estimated capacity of 15 mil gal per day (mgd). This capacity can be adjusted as design progresses and as CFWI projections and FDEP regulations develop. Additionally, the design will incorporate phased implementation, allowing for planned expansions as potable water demands increase to mitigate the cost burden to ratepayers.

membranes and associated treatment processes, including cartridge filtration, degasification, and disinfection. The WPLFA WPF site is located immediately to the northeast of one of City of Lakeland’s existing potable water treatment facilities, the T.B. Williams Water Treatment Plant (TBW WTP), a split lime softening facility. As these two water treatment facilities would be less than a half mi from each other, their proximity invites an opportunity to integrate treatment processes at both facilities. Figure 3 illustrates the relative locations of WPLFA WPF and TBW WTP. The blending of water presents potential benefits for both treatment facilities. The TBW WTP may reduce or eliminate the need to soften UFA water as RO permeate from the WPLFA WPF will have low hardness, and the WPLFA WPF may reduce or eliminate the need to remineralize the RO permeate if it’s blended with raw or finished water from the TBW WTP. Because raw water drawn from the UFA has natural alkalinity and hardness, several process integration alternatives were evaluated to assess the benefits of integration between the proposed AWS project and Lakeland’s existing water treatment facility.

West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility Project Description

Process Integration Alternatives

Brackish groundwater will be pumped from the LFA and routed to WPLFA WPF for treatment through reverse osmosis (RO)

Through the WPLFA WPF design effort performed to date, six alternatives were developed and compared to determine the most appropriate integration configuration with the TBW WTP. Alternative No. 1 represents the Continued on page 42

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


Continued from page 41 baseline alternative in which no integration is arranged with Lakeland’s TBW WTP (i.e., the WPLFA WPF is a stand-alone facility). Alternative Nos. 2 through 6 present treatment integration options where raw or treated water from Lakeland’s UFA groundwater wellfield is used to blend with treated water from PRWC’s WPLFA WPF. These were evaluated based on compatibility of the raw or finished water, impacts to the facilities’ well pump hydraulics and/or process treatment, and whether

treatment capacity at either facility could manage the combined supply water capacities. Based on this initial analysis, three of the six alternatives were selected for further evaluation regarding footprint, noncost comparison criteria, and cost. For each alternative, Table 1 includes a brief description, the points of connection between facilities, and the distribution system that would be utilized. Figure 4 illustrates the raw and concentrate piping needed for the WPLFA WPF, regardless of the alternative selected.

Table 1. Process Integration Alternatives Matrix (source: West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility Conceptual Design Report, July 2020) Alternative Number


Is There Process Integration Between the Two Facilities

Is Water Transported from: TBW WTP à WP WPF; or WP WPF à TBW WTP

Transferred Water Point of Origin

Transferred Water Destination Point

Distribution System Utilized


WPLFA WPF is Operated as a Stand-Alone RO Facility


Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Not Applicable



Raw Water from Lakeland’s UFA Wellfield is Conveyed to WPLFA WPF and Blended with RO Permeate Prior to Degasification



TBW Raw Water Piping

WPLFA Piping Post-RO and Pre-Degasifier



Finished Water from TBW WTP is Conveyed to WPLFA WPF and Blended with Degasified RO Permeate



TBW Clearwell

WPLFA Clearwell



RO Permeate from WPLFA WPF is Conveyed to TBW WTP and Blended with Raw Water



WPLFA Post-RO Piping

TBW Piping PostWell Pumps and Pre-Upflow Units



Degasified RO Permeate from WPLFA WPF is Conveyed to TBW WTP and Blended with Raw Water



WPLFA Clearwell

TBW Piping PostWell Pumps and Pre-Upflow Units



Degasified RO Permeate from WPLFA WPF is Conveyed to TBW WTP and Blended with Lime-Softened Water



WPLFA Clearwell

TBW Clearwell


Figure 4. West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility Raw and Concentration Piping (source: ESRI, Wright-Pierce)

42 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Qualitative Evaluation Alternative No. 1: West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility is Operated as a Stand-Alone Reverse Osmosis Facility For the evaluated alternatives, RO pretreatment process consisted of sand separation, antiscalant addition, and cartridge filtration. Cartridge filters are included as a final barrier to protect the RO equipment; they are not meant as a traditional particle removal pretreatment step. High-pressure pumps supply the RO system with feed water, and the permeate progresses to the post-treatment processes. The remaining flow stream contains the rejected constituents and forms the waste concentrate to be disposed. When possible, a pertinent amount of raw water bypass can allow the size of the main treatment process and post-treatment chemicals to be reduced by reintroducing alkalinity and calcium naturally present in the raw water to the RO permeate. After the RO bypass and RO permeate blend, the pH is adjusted using carbonic acid to optimize hydrogen sulfide removal in the degasification system. Effluent from the degasifiers enters the product water clearwell; transfer pumps within the clearwell then convey the degasified product water to onsite ground storage tanks. Chemical post-treatment includes addition of caustic, carbon dioxide, hypochlorite, and corrosion inhibitor. A finished water pumping building will house low-service and high-service pumps for distribution of finished water. Lowservice pumps will convey finished water to the TBW WTP through a newly constructed pipeline; high-service pumps will convey finished water to other PRWC members through a new distribution system constructed, owned, and operated by PRWC. Utilizing two sets of finished water pumps (i.e., low-service and high-service) allows for the most economical distribution of finished water. Alternative No. 2: Raw Water From Lakeland’s Upper Floridan Aquifer Wellfield is Conveyed to the West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility and Blended With Reverse Osmosis Permeate Prior to Degasification Alternative No. 2 offers the opportunity to reduce the amount of remineralization needed in post-treatment, as raw water from the UFA contains natural alkalinity and hardness; however, three notable drawbacks to this process alternative would result: S Th e TBW WTP well pumps may need to be upgraded to maintain a constant flowrate to the top of the WPLFA WPF degasifiers. This hydraulic change could affect operations at the TBW WTP. S A dditional carbon dioxide will need to be

added to reduce the pH of the water before degasification, as the blended water will have natural alkalinity from the UFA raw water. S The addition of UFA raw water to the RO permeate flow would require process operations downstream of blending (i.e., degasifiers, clearwell, ground storage, and low-service pumps) to increase in size to accommodate the additional flow. Alternative No. 3: Finished Water From the T.B. Williams Water Treatment Plant is Conveyed to the West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility and Blended With Degasified Reverse Osmosis Permeate Alternative No. 3 offers the opportunity to reduce the amount of remineralization needed in post-treatment, as finished water from the TBW WTP will have natural alkalinity and hardness. This reduction in remineralization will be less than that of Alternative No. 2, as finished water at the TBW WTP will have been softened prior to being conveyed to the WPLFA WTP; however, as the transferred water is mixed in the WPLFA WPF clearwell after degasification, the size of the degasifiers and the amount of carbon dioxide needed

prior to degasification will be less than that of Alternative No. 2. Alternative No. 4: Reverse Osmosis Permeate From the West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility is Conveyed to the T.B. Williams Water Treatment Plant and Blended With Raw Water Alternative No. 4 offers the opportunity to reduce or eliminate the need for Lakeland to soften UFA water, as the low calcium and magnesium concentrations of RO permeate would lower the overall hardness of the blended water. Utilizing the TBW WTP’s existing clearwell, chemical storage and feed systems, and high-service pumps would result in a significant reduction in capital costs. Utilizing Lakeland’s distribution system would also result in capital cost savings and would provide redundancy, as the system is a network of distribution pipelines, rather than a single pipeline that would be constructed to distribute finished water as utilized in Alternative Nos. 1, 2, and 3. Several items may make this alternative undesirable: S This scenario would add head to the RO feed pumps at the WPLFA WPF, as they would be utilized to transport water to the TBW WTP.

S Th e head on Lakeland’s existing well pumps would be increased, possibly requiring upgrades. This effect, in addition to the change in resultant blended water quality, could affect TBW WTP’s softening process. S PRWC would incur two costs: a cost for Lakeland to perform post-treatment, and a cost to maintain Lakeland’s distribution system. S S ulfide found naturally in LFA water would not be removed at the WPLFA WPF, and as a result, would require removal at the TBW WTP. This sulfide would be removed by oxidation with chlorine gas and would result in the formation of colloidal sulfur. This could impact finished water turbidity at TBW WTP. Alternative No. 5: Degasified Reverse Osmosis Permeate From the West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility is Conveyed to the T.B. Williams Water Treatment Plant and Blended With Raw Water Alternative No. 5 is similar to Alternative No. 4, but differs by degasifying RO permeate prior to transporting the water to the TBW WTP for blending. This added process results Continued on page 44

Water and wastewater solutions

protecting critical water resources. 407.906.1776 wright-pierce.com

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


Continued from page 43 in requiring degasifiers, a clearwell, and transfer pumps, each of which adds a capital cost; however, Alternative No. 5 offers several benefits over Alternative No. 4: S The RO feed pumps for Alternative No. 5 would have a reduced backpressure, as they would be required to pump water only to the degasifiers, rather than pump directly to the TBW WTP. S Sulfide would be removed from the LFA water at the WPLFA WPF, preventing turbidity issues associated with colloidal sulfur. S Alternative No. 5 allows for the option to add ground storage tanks at the WPLFA WPF that will be connected to the transfer pump station. These storage tanks will be used to store treated water if the TBW WTP is unable to receive treated water from the WPLFA WPF for a period of time. This would reduce the downtime of the RO treatment process.

Alternative No. 6: Degasified Reverse Osmosis Permeate From the West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility is Conveyed to the T.B. Williams Water Treatment Plant and Blended With Lime-Softened Water Alternative No. 6 is similar to Alternative No. 5, but differs where degassed permeate from the WPLFA WPF is blended into the TBW WTP process train. In Alternative No. 6, degassed permeate is blended after the UFA raw groundwater is softened. This would allow for added process flexibility for the TBW WTP and would remove the complication of adding head to the TBW WTP well pumps compared to Alternative No. 5. While Alternative No. 6 would add head to the TBW WTP well pumps, it’s a minimal amount that is not shown to impact TBW WTP well pump hydraulics.

impacts to the TBW WTP operations eliminated these alternatives from further consideration. Additionally, Alternative No. 4 would not remove sulfide naturally found in LFA water at the WPLFA WPF and could result in turbidity in the TBW WTP’s finished water. The potential for impacts to the TBW WTP’s finished water quality, in addition to the aforementioned impact on well pump hydraulics, made Alternative 4 undesirable. The benefits gained in Alternative No. 5 are also gained in Alternative No. 6, except Alternative No. 6 allows for added process flexibility and removes the downside of affecting TBW WTP’s finished water quality. This reasoning led to Alternative No. 5 not being selected as a final configuration option.

Elimination of Alternatives Nos. 2, 4, and 5

As with Alternative No. 4, the head on Lakeland’s existing well pumps would be increased, possibly resulting in the need for upgrades. In addition, the change in resultant blended water quality could affect the TBW WTP lime softening process. Similarly, the PRWC would incur two costs: a cost for Lakeland to perform post-treatment, and a cost to maintain Lakeland’s distribution system.

Process integration Alternatives Nos. 2, 4, and 5 were removed from further qualitative and cost comparisons after an initial review of the process impacts. One common drawback for Alternative Nos. 2, 4, and 5 involved the issue that process integration would impact the TBW WTP’s raw water well flow prior to the upflow treatment units, and as a result, could impact the TBW WTP’s operations. The potential for

Alternative No. 6 was selected as the most appropriate integration alternative for the WPLFA WPF based on both qualitative and quantitative criteria. In this alternative, LFA water is desalinated and degasified at the WPLFA WPF before being conveyed to the TBW WTP using the WPLFA WPF’s transfer pumps. The desalinated water is blended at the TBW WTP with UFA water. The blended, finished water is then transferred to PRWC members utilizing TBW WTP’s high-service pumps and City of Lakeland’s distribution system. Notable factors that led to the selection of this alternative include the following: 1. Alternative No. 6 provided the best water quality match to TBW WTP’s existing finished water, compared to the other evaluated integration alternatives. 2. The WPLFA WPF finished water will have a reduced need for remineralization in posttreatment since finished water from the TBW WTP will introduce natural alkalinity and hardness upon blending. 3. Corrosion inhibitor can be added at the TBW WTP, and as a result, corrosion inhibitor storage and injection equipment is not needed at the WPLFA WPF. 4. This alternative did not require upsizing of any of the TBW WTP’s existing facility processes. 5. Alternative No. 6 does not require a finished water pump station, as it will utilize City of Lakeland’s high-service pumps. 6. City of Lakeland’s well-developed distribution system will be utilized to distribute water to other PRWC members. This provides an added level of reliability in transporting the water to PRWC members by having a distribution network of pipes, instead of a single transmission line, and significantly reduces the need for new transmission system piping. 7. This alternative allows the WPLFA WPF to be converted to a stand-alone facility in the

Figure 5. Alternative No. 6 Process Flow Diagram (source: Wright-Pierce FSAWWA 2020 Fall Conference presentation, December 2020) Table 2. Comparison of Probable Capital Costs (2019 dollars) for Alternative Nos. 1, 3, and 6 at Buildout (15 mgd) (source: West Polk Lower Floridan Aquifer Water Production Facility Conceptual Design Report, July 2020) Alternative No. 1 (Stand-alone)

Alternative No. 3 (Blend at WPLFA)

Alternative No. 6 (Blend at TBW)

Water Production Facility(1)




Transmission System




Total Construction Cost (3)




Cost Item


Notes: (1) Includes costs for the facility, raw and concentrate wells and pipelines and land/easements. Also includes cost contingency, sales tax, contractor general conditions, contractor overhead and profit, engineering, and contract administration. (2) Includes transmission pipeline and easement costs. Also includes cost markups for contingency, engineering, and construction administration. (3) The costs presented are provided for comparative analysis. Costs will be refined as the design is further developed.

44 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Selected Design Alternative

future if the needs of the PRWC or City of Lakeland change as the two entities grow. This alternative’s approach leads to a streamlined design and a lower capital cost without negatively affecting operations at the TBW WTP or its wellfield. Figure 5 contains a process flow diagram illustrating the integration between the two water treatment facilities for this alternative. The PRWC is currently developing this integrated treatment option at a preliminary design level. The following section summarizes the methodology for developing conceptual-level cost comparisons used to evaluate Alternative Nos. 1, 3, and 6.

Opinion of Probable Costs Comparison Preliminary site plans for the three treatment alternatives were developed for the buildout capacity of 15 mgd. The goal was to identify major construction components for the cost estimates. For the three alternatives, the following ancillary systems were included in the development of the project costs: pretreatment with sand separators and cartridge

filters, air stripping with degasifiers, a clearwell, transfer pumps, ground storage tanks, and various chemical feed and storage systems for pretreatment or post-treatment. Alternative Nos. 1 and 3 include a highservice pump station. Other typical facility components will include operation and maintenance (O&M) buildings; other pertinent structures; and electrical, instrumentation, and emergency generator equipment. The O&M cost estimates included annual chemical use, power consumption, membrane replacement, equipment and well maintenance, distribution system maintenance, labor costs, and costs associated with post-treatment and distribution through Lakeland’s TBW WTP and its associated distribution system. Table 2 includes a conceptual-level capital cost comparison of Alternative Nos. 1, 3, and 6, demonstrating the capital cost savings that can be realized by using existing infrastructure. The O&M costs were also evaluated, but have a direct correlation with usage and did not change the overall outcome of the cost analysis. The system integration option proposed in Alternative No. 6 reduces capital costs by approximately 19 percent, or about $53 million,

when compared to development of a standalone water treatment facility and transmission system, as proposed in Alternative No. 1. This capital cost deferral can assist with the affordability of AWS projects, particularly for a water supply cooperative that is just beginning to develop its alternative water sources.

Conclusion: Making Alternative Water Supplies More Economically Feasible The innovative WPLFA WPF design and its integration with the TBW WTP is an example of how existing water infrastructure can be partnered with new AWS projects to obtain more-affordable and environmentally conscious water supplies. As FDEP rules continue to be refined, further technical work on groundwater availability is performed, and utility demands continue to increase, it’s likely that many of Florida’s utilities will be following in the steps of PRWC to implement AWS projects in the near future. To make AWS projects a reality in this area of Florida, it will take creative solutions to make them more affordable. S

NEW PRODUCTS The SITRANS FS230 flow system from Siemens Process Instrumentation delivers accuracy and 100 Hz data update speed, while ensuring noise immunity and simplicity of use. It’s not necessary to cut the pipe or shut down operations to install the flowmeter as the sensors are quickly and easily mounted on the outside of the pipe, minimizing maintenance expenses and preventing deposits from forming. It has the ability to react to sudden changes in velocity and speed of sound in applications such as compressor stations. This allows the use of small-volume provers for in situ flow validation by measuring the smallest variations in flow 100 times every second. It offers accuracy of 0.5 to 1 percent of flow rate for all media/pipe sizes and repeatability of 0.25 percent. Its SensorFlash 4 GB micro SD card storage lets certificates, calibration data, sensor parameters, and events be logged every 10 minutes for easy servicing and recordkeeping. (www.usa.siemens.com)


Schneider Electric specializes in a complete line of digital tools for process optimization in water and wastewater operations. One of those offerings, EcoStruxure Hybrid DCS for Water, is an all-in-one automation solution that lets

users engineer, operate, and maintain an entire plant in a single common database. It combines the management of fieldbuses, instrumentation, intelligent connected devices, operator stations, engineering stations, and alarm management in a scalable automation platform. The ability to provide operators with clear process information is crucial to driving production efficiency. The product provides a consistent control and operational interface with a real-time view of processes to deliver operators all the services and data they need to make timely and accurate decisions. Trends seamlessly combine real-time and historical data. When users view a trend page, they can monitor the current activity as it happens and simply scroll back through time to view the trend history. The distributed trending system handles large amounts of asset data without compromising performance or data integrity. The product provides common services, like configuration, deployment, diagnostics, communication, security, connectivity, user collaboration, and data sharing. These services enable the operator to build a single, unified model that logically represents the process, and a plant infrastructure that represents the actual equipment. This makes design and maintenance of the system more efficient, more flexible, and

less risky. The model also gives essential context to collected data, assisting with diagnostics and troubleshooting. It also provides valuable system documentation throughout the system life cycle. (www.schneider-electric.us)


The Drum Screen LIQUID from Huber Technology is a horizontal drum screen system that uses a stainless steel mesh with 300 micrometer openings to separate solids and capture carbon. The stainless steel mesh is resistant to aggressive fluids, water, and acids. The mesh has a long life and can be very economical. To ensure safe and longlasting operation, a 6- to 8-mm bar screen and grit trap should proceed this unit. During a two-year research project at three test sites, it demonstrated throughput capabilities of 475 to 1,110 gpm. Additionally, the unit uses a high-pressure spray bar to clean the mesh, so no chemical cleaning is required to sustain throughput. Throughput is also not affected by fats, oils, and grease in the influent. It averages 71 percent total suspended solids removal with no chemical addition; with chemical addition, the reduction can reach 88 percent. (www.huber-technology.com) Continued on page 46

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


FWRJ READER PROFILE What education and training have you had? I have a high school education with some college course work. I have had an enormous amount of occupational training throughout the years. This has given me the opportunity to be certified in two states in water and wastewater, and in project management and structured query language (SQL) administration. I teach Microsoft Suite, and have a background in information technology (IT) and system information (SI), asset management, and CMMS implementation.

Charles E. Nichols Polk County Utilities Work title and years of service. I was previously the wastewater manager for Polk County Utilities (PCU) and was recently promoted to the asset manager for PCU. I have worked for the county for just over 12 years. I was certified when I was 15 (in Illinois) and have worked in water, wastewater, and reclaimed water for 46 years. Twenty years of my career were at the Water Conserv II (WCII) Reclaimed Water Facility owned by the City of Orlando and Orange County. During my tenure at WCII, I had the opportunity to work for Metcalf & Eddy, Professional Services Group, and Woodard & Curran prior to coming to Polk County. What does your job entail? The asset manager for PCU is a highlevel position responsible for supervising staff and coordinating projects for the implementation and management of the utility’s asset management program (AMP). Major functions include leading a team in the selection and implementation of new computerized maintenance management software (CMMS), managing projects to inventory and assessing the condition of physical assets, integrating data collected with the utility’s geographic information systems (GIS) database and other software programs, ensuring accessibility of collected data, analyzing data to improve operational and cost efficiencies, and making capital improvement recommendations based on data analysis.

What do you like best about your job? I’ve enjoyed the opportunity to work with everyone from all the different divisions in Polk County Utilities during the asset management program implementation and beyond. This is a monumental task for the entire group and it’s a pleasure to be a part of this endeavor for Polk County. What professional organizations do you belong to? I belong to FWPCOA and FWEA. How have the organizations helped your career? The training and the opportunity to network with other professionals in the industry have helped me tremendously. I have also been able to be an active and effective member of the FWPCOA Region 10 board for several years. I am currently the director for Region 10 and attend the scheduled state meetings. What do you like best about the industry? I like the people. I have had the opportunity to work with a multitude of people in my years as a water and wastewater operator. I was fortunate to be able to travel throughout the United States setting up CMMS programs for a couple of the companies where I previously worked, which allowed me to work with people of all types. What do you do when you’re not working? I enjoy spending time with my family. I have a beautiful wife of 43 years, three adult children, and four awesome grandchildren. We all enjoy traveling and camping, and I ride my motorcycle every chance I get. In addition, I enjoy cooking, grilling, and smoking meat. S

46 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

New Products

Continued from page 45

The Sonic-Pro MS-6 chemical feed flowmeter from Blue-White Industries monitors flowrates down to 0.15 gallons per hour and up to 158.5 gallons per hour, offering one of the lowest flowrates available. The flowmeter applies transit time ultrasonic technology to offer a broad flow range. Features of the MS-6 include a 4-20 mA output, frequency output, and high- and-low flow set points that can be utilized for no-flow alarms. In addition, the flowmeter has numerous warning functions to alert of problems in the system, like air bubble or empty pipe situations. No-flow conditions can indicate there is a block in the chemical line or that the chemical tank is empty, and an alarm to these no-flow conditions is critical at water plants. While chemical controllers can also provide this feedback, the reaction time is slower because it takes time for the system to register a large drop in pH, and for the controller to signal an alarm. In contrast, the MS-6 communicates these problems instantaneously with a SCADA control system. This capability helps ensure minimal downtime, as well as loss of production at the plant. Accurately monitoring the amount of chemical being dosed into the system is crucial to ensure effective water treatment. An overdose or underdose of a chemical can adversely affect the quality of the treated water and leads to wasted chemicals, which also has a financial impact. With the high accuracy and functionality of the MS-6 flowmeter, plant operators and SCADA personnel are consistently provided feedback to optimize production. With PVDF and PEEK wetted components, NSF 61 approval, and the necessary features to accurately monitor chemical dosing, the MS-6 is an excellent fit for drinking water applications. With a switch to the Sonic-Pro MS-6, there is no flowmeter failure and the meter readings are consistently accurate based on drawdowns. The company also manufactures a broad range of both diaphragm and peristaltic chemical dosing pumps perfect for precision pairing with the MS-6. (www.blue-white.com)


The Alfa Laval AS-H KPZ belt press is designed to allow high solids loading, while maintaining a high hydraulic throughput. The performance results in ideal sludge cake dryness in a layout that allows for an operator floor-level view of the gravity deck. It’s suitable for all municipal biosolids and residual sludge types and a wide variety of industrial solid/liquid separation applications, such as paper, petrochemical, mineral, food processing, pharmaceutical, and chemical. It incorporates variable energy mixing, flocculation, gravity drainage, and pressure filtration. The design allows for decreased civil construction costs, elevated cake discharge height, and low maintenance requirements. (www.alfalaval.us) Continued on page 53




Career Advancement That Fits Into Your Busy Schedule! Asbestos Abatement

Backflow Prevention

Solid & Hazardous Waste

Water & Wastewater

Full Course Schedule Available at www.treeo.ufl.edu

Course Spotlight Introduction to Lift Station Maintenance February 12, 2021 | Virtual Course | Fee: $295 TREEO FDEP OCP #04211016: 0.8 CEUs DS WW

Wastewater Class B Exam Review February 22-26, 2021 | Hybrid Course | Fee: $655

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


Test Yourself What Do You Know About Water Wells? 7. Per FAC 62-532, for a public water system well what is the setback distance from domestic wastewater residuals land application areas?

Donna Kaluzniak

1. Per Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 62-532, Water Well Permitting and Construction Requirements, a permit is required before beginning any construction, repair, or abandonment of a water well. What must be submitted within 30 days after completion of the the work?

a. Permit cancellation request b. Well activation fee c. Well completion report d. Well data sheet

a. 100 feet c. 500 feet

b. 200 feet d. 1,000 feet

8. Per FAC 62-531, Water Well Contractor Licensing Requirements, how much experience in constructing, repairing, or abandoning wells must a person have to apply for a water well contractor license?

a. One year c. Three years

b. Two years d. Five years

9. Per FAC 62-531, how many continuing education credits (CECs) are required to renew a water well contractor license?

2. Per FAC 62-532, any well casing or liner pipe that is used shall be approved types of nonmetallic pipe, welded or seamless black or galvanized steel, or

10. Per the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) wellhead protection web page, the Wellhead Protection Rule (FAC 62-521) establishes a circular wellhead protection area around all wells that serve community and nontransient, noncommunity public water systems. What is the radius of the protection area?

a. aluminum pipe. b. concrete pipe. c. corrugated metal pipe. d. stainless steel pipe.

3. Per FAC 62-532, for public water system wells at sites subject to flooding, where shall the upper terminus of the well casing be?

a. Twelve inches above the pump house floor. b. Six inches above the 25-year flood and wave action elevation. c. Six inches above the 50-year flood and wave action elevation. d. Twelve inches above the 100-year flood and wave action elevation.

4. Per FAC 62-532, public water system wells not located in a pump house or pit must be surrounded by a concrete apron of what size?

a. Three feet by three feet by six inches deep b. Six feet by six feet by four inches deep c. Eight feet by eight feet by four inches deep d. Eight feet by eight feet by six inches deep

5. Per FAC 62-532, all abandoned wells shall be plugged by filling them from bottom to top with neat cement grout or

a. bentonite. c. concrete.

b. clay. d. foam sealant.

6. Per FAC 62-532, for a public water system well what is the setback distance from a slow-rate land application restricted public access reuse system?

a. 100 feet c. 500 feet

b. 300 feet d. 1,000 feet

48 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

a. Six CECs c. Ten CECs

a. 100 feet c. 500 feet

b. Eight CECs d. Twelve CECs

b. 200 feet d. 1,000 feet Answers on page 54

References used for this quiz: • Florida Administrative Code 62-531 Water Well Contractor Licensing Requirements: https://flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome. asp?Chapter=62-531 • Florida Administrative Code 62-532 Water Well Permitting and Construction Requirements: https://flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome. asp?Chapter=62-532 • Florida Department of Environmental Protection Wellhead Protection web page: https://floridadep.gov/water/source-drinking-water/content/wellheadprotection

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



for the latest updates on classes February

1-5......... Water Distribution Level III.................. Deltona.................. $325 4......... Reclaimed Water C 1-day .................. Deltona.................. $125/155 4......... Reclaimed Water B 1-day.................... Deltona.................. $125/155 8-10......... Backflow Repair*................................. St. Petersburg......... $275/305 15-17......... Backflow Repair................................... Deltona.................. $275/305 26......... Backflow Tester Recerts***................. Deltona.................. $85/115


8-11......... Backflow Tester*.................................. St. Petersburg......... $375/405 15-19......... SPRING STATE SHORT SCHOOL....... Ft. Pierce


5-9......... Wastewater Collection C..................... Deltona.................. $325 12-14......... Backflow Repair*................................. St. Petersburg......... $275/305 12-15......... Backflow Tester................................... Deltona.................. $375/405 29......... Backflow Tester Recerts***................. Deltona.................. $85/115


3-7......... Water Distribution Level II................... Deltona.................. $325 6......... Reclaimed Water C 1-day.................... Deltona.................. $125/155 6......... Reclaimed Water B 1-day.................... Deltona.................. $125/155 10-13 ......... Backflow Tester*.................................. St. Petersburg......... $375/405 28......... Backflow Tester Recerts***................. 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, pleasecontact the FW&PCOA Training Office at (321) 383-9690 or training@fwpcoa.org. * Backflow recertification is also available the last day of Backflow Tester or Backflow Repair Classes with the exception of Deltona ** Evening classes *** any retest given also

You are required to have your own calculator at state short schools and most other courses. Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


Call for Papers Open for AWWA Magazine on PFAS Bridging the gap between theory and practice for safe, sustainable water The American Water Works Association (AWWA) will publish an upcoming topical collection in AWWA Water Science to capture the present state of the science on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) analytical methods and approaches to their treatment and disposal. Manuscripts can be submitted for consideration by April 16.

An Aid for Future Research The topical collection aims to provide a forum to improve understanding of the challenges and solutions related to PFAS analytical methods and treatment and to capture knowledge gaps to chart a course for future research. The topical collection is being organized by guest editors Michelle Crimi and Tom Speth. Crimi has been the principal investigator or coprincipal investigator for several research projects focused on treating emerging contaminants. Speth has researched water treatment for the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency since 1986. He also has served as a trustee for the AWWA Water Quality and Technology Division, as an associate editor of Journal of Environmental Engineering, and as a member of the Journal AWWA editorial advisory board. He is currently serving on AWWA Water Science and the association’s Water Science and Research Division as past chair. “This is an exciting opportunity, and it’s timely to showcase technologies and approaches that will serve our practicing community to better understand and address an array of PFAS challenges,” said Crimi. “The upcoming collection of work will be of great help for those utilities that are dealing with PFAS,” said Speth, “and it will serve as a benchmark for defining future data needs for the industry.”

Topics of Interest In addition to general research topics related to the state of the science of PFAS, submitted topics may include:

S O ccurrence of PFAS in source waters and wastewaters S Novel detection/sensor approaches or devices S Novel analytical approaches S Fate and transport of PFAS S Long-term costs of treatment technologies S Comparative assessment of treatment technologies S Effectiveness of novel treatment technologies S Treatment of residuals streams S Effects and co-removal of other contaminants during PFAS treatment S Regulatory requirements and compliance S Unintended consequences of treatment selections S Socioeconomic aspects of residuals disposal S Communications and outreach Editorial questions, manuscript preparation information. or technical questions can be sent to aws@awwa.org. An interdisciplinary journal, AWWA Water Science publishes original, refereed (peerreviewed) research on the science, engineering, and social aspects of water. S Guest Editors: • Michelle Crimi, Ph.D. - Clarkson University • Thomas F. Speth, Ph.D., P.E. - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Associate Guest Editors: • Zaid K. Chowdhury, Ph.D. - Garver • Eric Dickenson, Ph.D. - Southern Nevada Water Authority • Jennifer Guelfo, Ph.D. - Texas Tech University • Detlef Knappe, Ph.D. - North Carolina State University • Andrea Leeson, Ph.D. - Department of Defense • Jinxia Liu, Ph.D. - McGill University

50 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Illegal Winery Found in Sewage Plant in Alabama Called one of the largest illegal wine production operations seen in the state Authorities at the Rainsville (Ala.) Wastewater Treatment Plant have busted an illegal winery that was operating at the plant, and an employee has been arrested. The town of Rainsville has more than 5,000 people and is about 100 miles northeast of Birmingham. Sheriffs in DeKalb County discovered what they described as a large illegal alcohol operation in the Rainsville municipal building after receiving an anonymous tip about the setup. Authorities stated that the wine production operation appeared to have been in use for quite some time, housed in an often-unused part of the facility. The employee, Allen Maurice Stiefel, of Fyffe, Ala., was charged with unlawful possession of an illegally manufactured alcoholic beverage, which is a misdemeanor, and use of an official position for personal gain, which is a felony. Stiefel, who had no previous work issues until being suspended without pay after his arrest, was one of just four employees at the plant. Photos released by police show glass containers, buckets, a fermenting rack, bottles, labels, and other equipment often used by bootleggers and amateur winemakers in the same building that processes wastewater. The authorities seized around 200 gallons of wine from the plant’s maintenance building. Mr. Stiefel told the authorities that he had been making wine in the plant for about two years and that he gave it away to friends and family. As for the wine itself, it was reported that no wastewater or wastewater treatment equipment were used to make the wine; the two operations were apparently completely separate. It’s legal to make limited amounts of wine at home in Alabama, but it’s illegal to have more than 15 gallons of homemade wine or beer at a time. Police photos show multiple fermenting vessels filled with what appears to be more than 100 gallons of white and red liquid. It’s expected that more arrests will be made in the near future. S

(photos: DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office)

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021


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


Reiss Engineering delivers highly technical water and wastewater planning, design, and construction management services for public agencies throughout Florida. Reiss Engineering is seeking top-notch talent to join our team!

Available Positions Include:

Client Services Manager Water Process Discipline Leader Senior Water/Wastewater Project Manager Wastewater Process Senior Engineer Project Engineer (Multiple Openings) To view position details and submit your resume: www.reisseng.com

CITY OF WINTER GARDEN – POSITIONS AVAILABLE The City of Winter Garden is currently accepting applications for the following positions: EXPERIENCED & TRAINEES/LABORERS - Collection Field Tech – I, II, & III - Distribution Field Tech – I, II, & III - Public Service Worker II – Stormwater - Superintendent – Collections, Wastewater, & Stormwater - Wastewater Plant Operator – Class C 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.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Salary Range: $51,112. - $96,050. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority is hiring 2 WWTP Operators. Minimum Requirements: Must have a Florida Class “C” WWTPO license or higher. Responsibilities include performing skilled/technical work involving the operation and maintenance of a wastewater treatment plant according to local, state and federal regulations and laws. An employee in this classification 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. Salary is commensurate with experience and license classification. Benefit package is extremely competitive! Must complete on-line application at http://www.fkaa.com/employment.htm EEO, VPE, ADA

Coral Springs Improvement District CSID offers: Salary levels at the top of the industry District paid Health Insurance Plant Maintenance Mechanic - Applicants must have 1+ years experience in performing mechanical, electrical, and plumbing maintenance work on water and wastewater plant equipment. Must be able to perform duties including independent inspections, troubleshooting, and repairs to a wide variety of machinery including pumps, motors, generators, electrical systems, and both diesel and gasoline engines. The minimum starting salary for this position is $58,000. Salary to commensurate relative to certification and years of experience in this field. The District has excellent company paid benefits including a 6% noncontributory investment money purchase pension plan and voluntary 457 plan with a match up to 6%. EOE. Applicants must have a valid Florida driver’s license, satisfactory background check and pass a pre-employment drug screening test.

City of Titusville - Multiple Positions Available

Industrial Electrician, Maintenance Mechanic Apprentice, Crew Leader, Treatment Plant Operator. Apply at www.titusville.com

52 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Applications may be obtained at csidfl.org. Submit applications and resumes directly to Jzilmer@csidfl.org or fax to 954-7536328.

Water Treatment Plant Operator

The Water Treatment Plant at Village of Wellington is currently accepting applications for a Water Operator Level A. The position is for midnight shift with differential pay provided. Apply online. Job posting and application are available on our website:https:// wellingtonfl.munisselfservice.com/employmentopportunities/ default.aspx Located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Village of Wellington offers great benefits. For further information, call Human Resources at (561) 753-2585.

Machinist & Utilities Mechanic I (Maintenance Worker), Water Rec & Stormwater http://www.cityofcocoabeach.com/619/EmploymentOpportunities

New Products

Continued from page 46

OdaLog portable gas data loggers, from Thermo Fisher Scientific, are ideal for wastewater odor and hydrogen sulfide control. OdaLog instruments are used extensively in the wastewater industry to record the level of hydrogen sulfide and other gas emissions in pumping stations, manholes, and sewer lines. The loggers are designed to survive the humid and corrosive conditions found in these areas, while recording ppm gas levels. OdaLog provides the latest sensor technology and weatherproof seals to prevent damage. All three OdaLog models now include Bluetooth communications and are supported with the OdaStat software, an easy-to-use application for configuring the devices and downloading stored data. (www.thermofisher.com)


Tension fabric buildings from Legacy Building Solutions provide a high level of flexibility for a variety of building applications. They use a durable, rigid frame in place of hollow-tube, open web, and truss hoop framing. The strength of the structural steel frame provides the ability to easily customize buildings to the exact width, length, and height required. In addition to long and clear spans, the buildings have straight sidewalls that maximize the useable square footage inside the structure. The design allows for the ability to add lean-tos, mezzanines, and sidewall doors. The structures are engineered to provide desired overhangs or

Laboratory Manager $68,809 - $96,822/yr. Utilities Electrician $56,038 - $78,851/yr. Utilities Treatment Plant Operator or Trainee $48,408 - $68,114 or $43,907 - $61,782/yr. Apply Online At: http://pompanobeachfl.gov Open until filled.


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

handle additional loads for items such as sprinklers and conveyors. The solid structural steel I-beams are not vulnerable to unseen corrosion originating inside a tube. There are multiple coating options available for all steel components, including hotdip galvanizing, primer, and powder-coat paint. (www.legacybuildingsolutions.com)


Acuva Technologies has applied ultraviolet (UV) technology to the energy efficiency of LED lighting in its UV-LED water disinfection system. The system uses the proven technology of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation and LED lights to disinfect drinking water that is produced in an energy-efficient and environmentally friendly manner. Around 25 percent of the world’s population does not have access to safe drinking water, primarily because current technological options don’t produce adequate purity or don’t work with the current infrastructure available. The UV disinfection uses strong short-wavelength radiation to inactivate microorganisms by destroying the nucleic acids and disrupting their DNA. The Acuva system purifies water in two steps: a composite filter removes sediment while activated carbon removes impurities, and the UV-LED chamber then sterilizes harmful bacteria and viruses. In addition, the UV-LED technology is more compact, uses less power, starts instantaneously, and offers a longer life span than mercury lamps. These capabilities allow it to be used in a more flexible nature in not only homes and businesses, but also watercraft, recreational vehicles, and

remote vacation homes and cabins with suspect drinking water quality. Acuva’s IntenseBeam technology allows for precise control of optics, hydrodynamics, and kinetics within the UV chamber to deliver an intense beam of ultraviolet light directly into flowing water, creating additional efficiencies. The optic and hydrodynamic design creates a controlled environment matching water velocity and UV irradiance to ensure full disinfection throughout the chamber. These complete low-power, flow-activated systems save on power consumption, while extending LED life. (www.acuvatech.com)


The Spiraflo clarifier from Lakeside Equipment is a peripheral feed clarifier designed for the removal of suspended solids in a primary, secondary, or tertiary clarification system. Wastewater enters the outer perimeter of the clarifier tank and is directed along the narrow raceway formed by the skirt and the outer wall. This flow pattern dissipates the wastewater’s hydraulic energy as it flows around the raceway, eventually spiraling down underneath the skirt and into the main settling area. The flow travels inward from the skirt toward the center of the tank, coinciding with the direction of the sludge, and the clarified water rises into the centrally located effluent weir trough. The combination of the spiraling flow pattern and the skirt eliminates all possibility of shortcircuiting and provides better utilization of the total tank volume for more effective settling. (www.lakeside-equipment.com) S

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021



Test Yourself Answer Key From page 48

January 2016

Editorial Calendar

January.............. Wastewater Treatment February............ Water Supply; Alternative Sources March................. Energy Efficiency; Environmental Stewardship April................... Conservation and Reuse May .................... Operations and Utilities Management June................... Biosolids Management and Bioenergy Production July .................... Stormwater Management; Emerging Technologies 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 ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 55 CEU Challenge ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 37 Data Flow ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 23 AWWA Women for Water/Broward P3 Eco-Challenge ��������������������� 17 FSAWWA Roy Likins Scholarship Fund �������������������������������������������� 18 FSAWWA Certification Boot Camp ���������������������������������������������������� 19 FSAWWA Drop Savers Contest �������������������������������������������������������� 20 FSAWWA Awards �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21 FWPCOA Online Training Institute ���������������������������������������������������� 33 FWPCOA Training Calendar ��������������������������������������������������������������� 49 Gerber Pumps ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 Grundfos ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 35 Heyward ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2 Hudson Pump �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 25 Hydro International ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 J & S Valve ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29 Lakeside Construction & Equipment �������������������������������������������������� 7 UF TREEO Center �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 Water Treatment ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 39 Wright-Pierce ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 43 Xylem ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 56

54 February 2021 • Florida Water Resources Journal

1. C) Well completion report

Per FAC 62-532.410, Water Well Completion Report, “Within 30 days after completion of the construction, repair, or abandonment of any water well, a written report shall be filed with the permitting authority on Form Number 62-532.900(2), State of Florida Well Completion Report, adopted and incorporated herein, and available as described in Rule 62-532.900, F.A.C.

2. D) stainless steel pipe.

Per FAC 62-532.500(1)(a), Water Well Construction Standards, “Well casing, liner pipe, coupling, and well screen shall be new or in like-new condition. Such well casing, liner pipe, coupling, or well screen shall not be used unless free of breaks, corrosion, and dents; is straight and true; and not out of round. Welded or seamless black or galvanized steel pipe or casing, or stainless steel pipe or casing, or approved types of nonmetallic pipe shall be used for well casing or liner pipe.”

3. D) Twelve inches above the 100-year flood and wave action elevation.

Per FAC 62-532.500(4)(b)5, Water Well Construction Standards, “For public water system wells, limited-use commercial public water system wells, and limited-use community public water system wells constructed on or after April 1, 2002, located at sites subject to flooding, the upper terminus of the well casing shall project at least 12 inches above the 100-year flood elevation and 100-year wave-action elevation.”

4. B) Six feet by six feet by four inches deep

Per FAC 62-532.500(4)(c), Water Well Construction Standards, “Well Aprons. For public water system wells, limited-use commercial public water system wells, and limited-use community public water system wells constructed on or after April 1, 2002, not located within a pump house or pump pit, a concrete apron at least six feet by six feet and at least four inches thick shall be centered around the well. The bottom surface of the concrete apron shall be constructed on top of the finished grade, and the top surface of the concrete apron shall be sloped to drain away from the well casing.”

5. A) bentonite.

Per FAC 62-532.500(5), Water Well Construction Standards, “Plugging. All abandoned wells shall be plugged by filling them from bottom to top with neat cement grout or bentonite and capped with a minimum of one foot of neat cement grout. An alternate method providing equivalent protection shall be approved in writing by the department or the permitting authority.”

6. C) 500 feet

Per FAC 62-532, Table 1 Well Setback Distances, Part A Drinking Water Supply Wells Serving Public Systems or Bottled Water Plant Wells, “Rule: Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application 62-610.421(3) – Installation: Slow Rate Land Application Restricted Public Access – Setback in Feet: 500.”

7. C) 500 feet

Per FAC 62-532, Table 1, Well Setback Distances, Part A Drinking Water Supply Wells Serving Public Systems or Bottled Water Plant Wells, “Rule: 62-640.700(4)(b) Domestic Wastewater Residuals – Installation: Domestic Wastewater Residuals Land Application Areas – Setback in Feet: 500.”

8. B) Two years

Per FAC 62-531.300(1), Application Requirements for Water Well Contractors, “The water management districts (districts) shall accept applications for licensing as a water well contractor from any person who is at least 18 years of age; has knowledge of those rules adopted by the department and the district that deal with the regulation of water wells; has at least two years of experience in constructing, repairing, or abandoning wells; and has taken and completed a minimum of 12 approved coursework hours earned in the two-year period directly preceding the last day (July 31st) of the biennial renewal cycle.”

9. D) Twelve CECs

Per FAC 62-531.330(2), Water Well Contractor License Renewal, “Twelve CECs shall be required for renewal of a license. A minimum of six approved coursework hours for CE credit must be specifically related and relevant to water well construction industry drilling technologies, methodologies, and practices and/or applicable state of Florida water well licensing, permitting, and construction statutes and rules. No more than six approved coursework hours for CEC may be specifically related and relevant to water well construction industry health and safety requirements, practices, and procedures and/or business management and accounting practices and procedures.”

10. C) 500 feet

Per FDEP’s wellhead protection web page, “The FDEP wellhead protection program incorporates the Wellhead Protection Rule, Chapter 62-521, F.A.C., and the groundwater protection measures administered by FDEP regulatory programs. The Wellhead Protection Rule establishes a 500-foot radius circular wellhead protection area around all wells which serve community and nontransient, noncommunity public water systems. The rule prohibits certain new installations from locating in wellhead protection areas, and specifies additional performance standards for other new installations and activities.”

Florida Water Resources Journal • February 2021





The Flygt 4320 submersible mixer’s revolutionary design couples a high-efficiency mixer with an integrated variable frequency drive. The 4320 simplifies variable speed mixing and eliminates the need for an external VFD. A variety of ratings and propeller options meet a broad range of thrust requirements. And with motor efficiency comparable to the Super Premium Efficiency IE4 levels and fully adjustable speed, the Flygt 4320 delivers the lowest life cycle mixing energy costs. Superior mixing with adjustability and simplicity, for unsurpassed energy savings. For more information contact your local Xylem product sales professional. Xylem Products 2152 Sprint Boulevard Apopka, FL 32703 407-880-2900