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, Display and Classified Advertising,

Business Office: P.O. Box 745, Windermere, FL 34786-0745 Web: 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

2016 FSAWWA Fall Conference Recap 22 27 28

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, fax to 352-241-6007, or mail to Florida Water Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711

4 6


34 47 50 60 63 69

Membership Questions 38

Training Questions


FSAWWA: Donna Metherall – 407-957-8443 or FWPCOA: Shirley Reaves – 321-383-9690


For Other Information

Websites Florida Water Resources Journal: FWPCOA: FSAWWA: FWEA: and Florida Water Resources Conference: 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.

Chair Reception and Barbeque 90th Anniversary Gala


Celebrate 2017 Drinking Water Week! How Hillsborough County Saved With Smart Energy Management—Mark Lehigh and Gil Isaiah How Do I Assess My System’s Energy Efficiency?—Joseph Cantwell and Donald Voigt FSAWWA Operator Awards It’s Coming: April is Water Conservation Month 3 Key Largo Utility Workers Die From Gas Fumes WEF HQ Newsletter—Barry Liner and Noah Mundt FSAWWA Drop Savers Contest News Beat


70 72 74

Process Page: City of Tavares Woodlea Water Reclamation Facility—Nicole Quinby Test Yourself—Ron Trygar FSAWWA Speaking Out—Grace Johns C Factor—Scott Anaheim Committee Profile—FWPCOA Industrial Pretreatment Program Committee Reader Profile—Richard Anderson FWEA Focus—Lisa Prieto FWEA Chapter Corner—Amy Hightower

70 76 79 82

New Products Service Directories Classifieds Display Advertiser Index

46 48 50 58


Technical Articles

FSAWWA: Casey Cumiskey – 407-957-8447 or FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318 FWPCOA: Darin Bishop – 561-840-0340

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

33 35

News and Features

Vice President: Greg Chomic (FWEA) Heyward Incorporated Treasurer: Rim Bishop (FWPCOA) Seacoast Utility Authority

General Information, Contest Winners, Events Conference Sponsors Awards

Sustainable Solutions for the 21st Century: Integration of Water Treatment Systems With Energy From Municipal Waste— P.L. Hauck Waste Not, Watt Not: Considerations for Codigestion and Cogeneration Implementation—Jody Barksdale, George Dick, and Katie Wingrove Under Pressure: Hydrothermal Liquefaction and the Fast Lane to Resource Recovery— Heath Wintz and Matt Atwood

Education and Training 11 21 32 45 59 62 73

Florida Water Resources Conference FWPCOA Training Calendar FSAWWA Roy Likins Scholarship FWPCOA Online Training CEU Challenge 2017 FSAWWA Fall Conference Call for Papers TREEO Center Training

Volume 68

ON THE COVER: The Hillsborough County Solid Waste Energy Recovery Facility powers the adjacent advanced wastewater treatment plant with approximately 2 megawatts of electricity. For more information, see page 38. (photo: Hillsborough County)

March 2017

Number 3

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

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

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Celebrate 2017 Drinking Water Week! For nearly 40 years, the American Water Works Association has celebrated Drinking Water Week with its members. This year, it will be held May 7-13. In 1988, AWWA brought the event to the attention of the United States government and formed a coalition with the League of Women Voters, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That year, Rep. Robert Roe of New Jersey and Sen. Dennis DeConcini of Arizona sponsored a resolution to name the first week of May as Drinking Water Week, and an information kit was distributed to the media and to more than 10,000 utilities. Willard Scott, the NBC “Today” show weatherman at the time, was featured in public service announcements that aired between May 2 and 8. The week-long observance was declared in a joint congressional resolution and signed by then-President Ronald Reagan. The following year AWWA approached several other organizations to participate. Through those efforts, the National Drinking Water Alliance was formed, consisting of 15 nonprofit educational, professional, and public interest organizations. The alliance dedicated itself to public awareness and involvement in public and private drinking water issues and continued its work to organize a major annual educational campaign built around Drinking Water Week. The power of the multiorganization alliance enabled Drinking Water Week to grow into widespread and committed participation throughout the U.S. and Canada. In 1991, the alliance launched a national campaign to inform the public about America's drinking water. The group distributed a kit containing ideas for celebrating the event, conservation facts and tip sheets, news releases, and posters. The theme was "There's a lot more to drinking


water than meets the eye." That same year, actor Robert Redford recorded a public service announcement on behalf of Drinking Water Week. Celebrating Drinking Water Week is an easy way to educate the public, connect with the community, and promote employee morale. Too often, water utilities receive publicity only when something bad happens; Drinking Water Week celebrations give utilities an opportunity for positive communication.

Public Communication Communicating to the public during Drinking Water Week is integral to any successful celebration. Here are some options and ideas: S Advertise in local newspapers S Send bill stuffers S Work with local librarians to set up displays S Use mall kiosks to reach a broad audience S Coordinate distribution of AWWA news releases S Publicize the release of water utility consumer confidence reports S Send public service announcements to local radio and television stations

Community Events It’s important to be a part of the local community. Community events are fun and festive ways to make sure that customers know about their drinking water—where it comes from, how they get it, and what they can do to help ensure their drinking water quality. S Invite your community to an open house S Inaugurate an adopt-a-hydrant program S Plant a tree S Conduct plant tours S Hold a landmark dedication/anniversary celebration

March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

S Bury a time capsule S Partner with local botanic gardens or other groups S Plan a community cleanup

Youth Focus Drinking Water Week is a perfect time to educate children and youth about their water supply in an atmosphere of fun. S Feature a children's coloring contest or essay contest S Hold a poster contest S Have utility employees make presentations at local schools

Internal Communications and Events Don't forget employees! Drinking Water Week can help reaffirm to employees the importance of what it is they do: provide clean, safe drinking water for the public. S Hold an annual employee picnic during Drinking Water Week S Create a utility or company newsletter feature on Drinking Water Week

Plan Ahead Drinking Water Week is celebrated during the first full week of May each year. Future dates are listed here: S 2018 – May 6-12 S 2019 – May 5-11 S 2020 – May 3-9 For questions about Drinking Water Week, contact Amber Wilson in the AWWA Communications Department at S

How Hillsborough County Saved With Smart Energy Management Mark Lehigh and Gil Isaiah For many municipal governments in the United States, drinking water and wastewater plants typically are the largest energy consumers, often accounting for 30 to 40 percent of total energy used. Overall, drinking water and wastewater systems account for approximately 2 percent of energy use in the country, and as much as 40 percent of operating costs for drinking water systems can be for energy. By incorporating energy efficiency practices into their water and wastewater plants, municipalities and utilities can generally save 15 to 30 percent of their operating costs, saving thousands of dollars with payback periods of only a few months to a few years.

Hillsborough County’s Vision

Figure 1. Hillsborough County Service Area

Hillsborough County Water and Sewer delivers 49 mil gal of drinking water to 525,000 customers every day to its service area (Figure 1). Since energy costs account for almost one-third of the county’s operating expenses (Figure 2), its vision was to create an organization that is recognized as an industry leader in core service delivery of water, wastewater, and reclaimed water. To reach its vision, the county felt that it needed to concentrate on training its operators in energy efficiency.

Strategic Plan

Figure 2. 2015 Operating Expenses


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The county developed a strategic energy plan to achieve its goals by setting specific objectives and identifying specific execution strategies in the areas of energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainability programs, and reduced emissions. The goals for energy efficiency and utilization included: S Integrate plant utility metering with an energy management system (EMS) that will give real-time data to operators and staff, which in turn will aid in demand reduction and control cost. S Install additional submetering to improve energy cost allocations for facilities. S Increase utility participation in the U.S. Department of Energy’s ENERGY STAR™ portfolio manager and building labeling program.

S Retrofit light emitting diode (LED) lighting with the use of Tampa Electric Co. (TECO) rebates. S Use TECO energy audits and demand reduction programs to evaluate and integrate findings, including time-of-day (TOD) rates and use of standby generators. S Use the comprehensive asset management system (CAMS) to evaluate and integrate building condition assessments and findings and identify buildings that require and/or can benefit from energy efficiency projects. S Establish energy-efficient purchasing policies for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); lighting; and motors. S Promote purchasing policies of ENERGY STAR-designated equipment for all public utility department facilities. S Provide enhanced metering and control strategies to automate demand responsiveness (automated load shedding) where feasible.

Figure 3. Primary Operator Display - Energy Overview

Existing Energy Monitoring Most water and wastewater facilities at the county have some energy monitoring in their supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems. Some motors have voltage or current monitors, and some plants have energy monitoring on their main feeders. The available energy data in SCADA were seldom used by operators, who felt that energy data was useful only to power engineers who were interested in the quality of the energy and plant managers interested in costs. Plant managers had an opportunity to look at their bills, but they rarely did, and they were usually not able to understand what they saw. One strategy to lower the cost of energy was to replace aging motors and drives with newer and more efficient ones, and this was one of the areas in which the county involved operators.

Figure 4. Primary Operator Display – Automatic Peak-Time Changes

Smart Energy Management Plan The county felt that if its operators understood the cost of energy, they would be able to identify opportunities to save money. Therefore, BCI Analyst Energy Manager, which is software that interprets data to lower costs by showing how, when, and where resources are being used, was installed to give the operators a visual view of energy consumption and cost. A monitor was installed next to the SCADA displays, and the system gave operators information they could process and act on in real time. Continued on page 8

Figure 5. Primary Operator Display – Daily to Monthly Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Continued from page 7 Most operators did not know what the energy demand was. The BCI system that was installed allowed operators to see when onand off-peak times occur, as well as to view and understand energy demand: S Demand is how much energy you are using at any given time, with maximum demand being the highest demand for the entire month. S The maximum demand is used by the electric utility to calculate the monthly demand charge, which typically represent 25 to 35 percent of the total electric bill. The following figures show how operators now monitor energy use with the new system: S Figure 3 shows an energy overview, with on-peak time highlighted in red, date control for historical mode, real-time indicators, and demands lines. S Figure 4 shows the primary operator display with automatic peak-time changes. S Figure 5 shows the energy view, from daily to monthly. S Figure 6 shows how an operator can view data in grid mode, and then export it to Excel or Image. S Figure 7 shows the daily energy cost for the month, with the total broken out by fixed cost, energy/fuel cost, and demand cost.

Case Studies Several case studies help to illustrate the county’s success with its energy efficiency goals. Figure 6. Primary Operator Display – Data View

Figure 7. Energy Cost Display


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Fawn Ridge and Lake Park Water Treatment Facilities The two facilities feed the same potable water distribution system for north Hillsborough County. Both of them have similar mil-gal-perday capacities, and rotate lead and lag operation every day. Lead and lag are components in a control system that improve an undesirable frequency response in a feedback and control system. When a facility was operating as lead, it was creating a higher demand than the lag plant. Since the facilities were rotating lead and lag every day, both facilities were putting themselves in high-demand conditions. Custom Display Showing Both Plants Both plants now monitor each other’s energy and they balance their loads to reduce overall demand (Figure 8). The lag plant can increase output to prevent the lead plant from setting a new peak demand. Lake Park is generating chlorine during off-peak times. As a result, Fawn Ridge had a peak-demand reduction of 22 percent and Lake Park

had a peak-demand reduction of 19 percent (Figure 9). Lithia Water Treatment Facility The facility feeds the potable water distribution system for south Hillsborough County. Lithia is much larger than Fawn Ridge and Lake Park, as it has two power feeders from the electric utility. Both utility feeds are monitored on the same dashboard. Each feeder has its own utility bill, with its own maximum demand charge. One feeder supplies energy to two 4160-volt high-service pumps, and the other feeder supplies energy to three 480-volt high-service pumps. The operators rotated pump operations, and in doing so, would sometimes operate all pumps on one feeder while all of the pumps on the other feeder were off, which created high demands on both feeders (Figure 10). As a result, year-over-year demand was reduced by 24 percent, year-over-year cost was reduced by 20 percent, and there was a six-month savings of $78,000 (Figures 11a and 11b). Valrico Wastewater Treatment Facility Valrico Wastewater Treatment Facility is located in south Hillsborough County. It is a facility with two feeders, since most larger facilities have multiple feeders for capacity and redundancy. It is very common for an engineer to design redundancy into the electrical layout of the facility. If a process needs a blower, the facility will have two blowers for redundancy; if the facility has multiple feeds, it is common to put each blower on a separate feed. Figure 12 shows the history of the energy layout in real time; it follows the energy from Mains 1 and 2 at the facility. The user can pan or zoom on the screen to show details and use a slider to change the time of day. An operator can then see what might have caused a new peak demand and other difference, for instance, if there was backwash during dewatering.

Figure 8. Fawn Ridge and Lake Park Energy Monitoring

Figure 9. Demand Reduction

Communication and Training It’s very important that all staff members understand the goals of the organization conContinued on page 10

Figure 10. Custom Display Showing Both Feeders

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Continued from page 9 cerning energy efficiency, and that they receive the training they need to meet those goals. The utility established an energy management team, which meets monthly, to further establish utility goals and benchmarks. The group tracks monthly and quarterly energy usage, holds quarterly review meetings with managers, writes reports to track all progress, and disseminates the reports to the appropriate employees for action.


Figure 11a. Six months of energy savings

Hillsborough County was able to reduce its energy costs without adding new hardware. With energy data that can be interpreted quickly and easily, operators are able to manage energy consumption to dramatically lower operational costs for the same facility outputs. Mark Lehigh is section manager for Hillsborough County Public Utilities Department in Tampa and Gil Isaiah is vice president at BCI Technologies in Orlando. S

Figure 11b. Six months of cost savings

Figure 12. Valrico Energy Layout


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

How Do I Assess My System’s Energy Efficiency? Joseph Cantwell And Donald Voigt Energy is a resource that is used for, among other things, “doing work.” Thus, its availability parallels the evolution of increased productivity around the world, and therein lies a current conundrum: does energy reduction have to result in decreased productivity? World energy consumption is widely predicted to double by 2030, and this demand for power is destined to continue to increase energy costs—as fast or faster than other expenses. The awareness of energy use, its consumption and reduction, and its associated cost implications, are imperative to a positive financial future for a water facility. When is a water or wastewater facility a strong candidate for energy

reduction? Almost always, as a facility’s energy use is a substantial cost to a facility and its community. As an example, the cost of energy (all types of fuel and resources) for a city with 10,000 people can be approximated at $1 million per year, with the share of costs consumed by the water and wastewater utilities at about 30 to 35 percent of this, or $330,000 per year. It has also been demonstrated that the average reduction in energy cost— by instituting an energy reduction program and tracking energy use—is 10 percent, or a savings of $33,000.00 a year! However, energy awareness at many utilities is most often rare, and few facilities actually know what their energy costs are. The power bills typically go to city hall or to a utility office clerk who has the responsibility to pay the bills, but is not responsible to review and analyze the bills to assess if they are correct—or if they are too much. The person responsible for the energy budget usually never sees the bill and therefore is not aware of how the utility is being charged and how it is using the energy for which it is billed. There’s an interesting comment by the famous American bank robber of the 1930s, Willie Sutton, who, when asked by an FBI agent why he continued to rob banks, replied, “Because that’s where the money is.” Similar reasoning can be used when developing an energy assessment; however, while conducting an energy audit identifies where energy reduction opportunities exist, it must be implemented to reduce energy use and save money.

Energy Audit: The Beginning How do you start an energy audit? Yogi Berra, the famous and outspoken legend of professional baseball, stated it well: “If you don’t know where you are going, you might end up someplace else.” An energy efficiency assessment starts by establishing baseline energy use: how much energy am I using now to convey and process my water and/or wastewater flow? Then, you need to determine what level of energy audit you need to get started: S Level 1: Walkthrough of your facilities. S Level 2: Review of your energy bills, and treatment and conveyance systems, to identify opportunities for energy reduction. S Level 3: Detailed assessment of each unit process, with energy use monitoring.


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Understand Your Energy Bills Begin by having your energy bills sent to you—routinely and consistently—so you can understand, track, trend, graph, and act on them. Also, get your bills from the last three to five years so you can identify the total electric energy used by your facility for those years. Energy bills are like an intriguing puzzle: what do all the pieces represent and how do they fit together? They often show premium costs or surcharges for a variety of uses: S On-peak demand by kilowatt (kW) S Off-peak demand (kW) S On-peak use by kilowatt-hour (kWh) charge S Off-peak use (kWh) charge Look through your bills and become familiar with the terminology and definition of terms. Most energy providers (such as Florida Power & Light) have a representative who will come to your site and review your bills with you and explain the various surcharges that are presented on your bill. Also, become familiar with the makeup or composition of your bill. Review it to identify that, for the majority of facilities, an electric bill will have a 30 to 50 percent demand charge and a 50 to 70 percent use charge. Knowing this, there may be some simple actions that can be taken to lower costs without major capital investments.

Where is the Energy Used? A spreadsheet can be developed that lists the following: List of treatment processes at your facility Number of units (or motors) for each process Horsepower (hp) of the units kW of the units Number of units in operation Hours per year in operation Estimated power consumption (kWh/yr) S Percent of the total


These columns can then be multiplied to develop a kWh/yr projection for each process at your facility. Compare these values against the kWh/yr you had identified for three to five years from the earlier exercise. This comparison should provide insight into the yearly amount of energy used and the amount of energy used by each process per year. This will allow you to determine what processes to investigate further to reduce your energy use.

When is the Energy Used? The next action item will assist you to determine how you use energy on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Request from your account manager a graph that shows your facility’s demand (kW). This will give you the intensity of energy you used, and when it was used.

The requested demand graphs are similar to an influent or effluent flow meter graph at your wastewater treatment facility. There should also be a continuous flow value recorded on a flow chart. This same type of continuous recording of energy use is available so staff can analyze it to learn when energy is being used and how much. Demand use is usually recorded as the average of electricity used in 15-minute increments, with the highest 15-minute average during on-peak time periods shown as an on-peak demand value. Knowing this value is important as you move forward with an energy assessment of your facility and identify ways to reduce your energy use and cost.

Interpret Your Data: Compare Energy Consumption and Plant/Pump Station Performance Begin to refine your review and assessment. Obtain the previous 24 months of electrical use information in graph form from your energy supplier account manager. Use the plotted information on electrical use and demand for each month to determine if there is consistency or variations of use, as well as demand. Then review your flows and organic influent loadings for the same time period and assess how they compare. The purpose of the comparison is to identify how much energy is usually used and to see when and how large the peak values are. If it is identified that the system can operate at a fairly consistent energy use, but it then has significant peak demands, it would be necessary to analyze the use further by reviewing daily and weekly data to identify the times the increases happened (if possible, identify what treatment processes were in operation) and determine why the peaks happened. If specific causes are identified, then it’s necessary to identify what the facility can do to reduce the spike in electric use, either by controlling the flow or organic loading, or modifying operations to manage the energy used by the treatment processes. A summary of the sequence of events for your preliminary assessment of energy consumption should include: 1. Obtaining and interpreting your energy bills and tracking them monthly. 2. Gathering data on your main energy consumption unit processes (pumps, blowers, mixers, etc.). 3. Analyzing and determining the larger consuming processes (compared to other plants). 4. Creating a plan on what might be done to reduce consumption (choose the larger items first). 5. Sharing the plan with management. 6. Looking for funding/supplemental money from various sources. 7. Implementing the plan. 8. Continually revisiting and updating the plan. In analyzing the energy bills, be cognizant of demand charges and associated ratchet charges. These charges are premiums that can create exceptionally expensive bills. These types of charges are placed on larger energy users (such as water and wastewater plants) as a result of power Continued on page 20

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Continued from page 19 providers needing to build larger energy-generating plants in order to have sufficient energy/power reserves. In other words, if you kick on a 100-hp motor just to exercise a pump or blower periodically, it can cost as much as half of your monthly charge. Again, energy-providing companies will help you analyze, review, and track such charges.

Real-World Examples Over the years, those of us involved in energy assessments have been amazed by various field experiences. Some examples include: 1. One aerated lagoon operator had been running every aerator in his lagoon from the day he started at the plant 20 years ago, but the plant oxygen demand could have been met by half or less of the 20- to 25-hp aerators. Cost for this operational procedure was $250,000! 2. In a growing community, a large lift station was installed to accommodate future (20-year) growth. The operators turned on the main standby/storm water pump once a week and ran it for 20 minutes to exercise it; the cost (due to the local power company’s demand charge)

was $12,000 per year. They stopped running it, except for two minutes on off-peak periods, and saved nearly every cent! 3. A water plant had a media filter with an auxiliary makeup backwash pump (the makeup pump was only required if forward water flow could not be met at low-flow periods). The pump was left in the “on” position ever since plant startup 20 years ago. At 40 hp, the cost was nearly $40,000. 4. An activated sludge wastewater facility had standby blowers to handle large future and/or organic loads, and operators were instructed to operate the large blower weekly to exercise it. The plant had a “ratchet” charge in place, so the annual cost for running the blower one time in that year was $11,000. These are just a few of the myriad examples of what may be found in the assessment of your facilities. It’s a fun process; similar to “Clue” or other mystery games. The main reasons for an organization to conduct an energy audit include: S Reduce energy use and improve energy management S Become a community leader S Manage your energy budget and control operating costs S Improve equipment and process operation S Maintain your utility’s productivity In the end, it will be rewarding to you, your customers, and the environment!

Joseph Cantwell, P.E., is a senior energy management professional with Leidos Engineering LLC in Madison, Wis., and Donald Voigt, P.E., is an energy audit engineer with Engineered Equipment Integration LLC in Fort Myers. S


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

FWPCOA TRAINING CALENDAR SCHEDULE YOUR CLASS TODAY! March 13-17..........Spring State Short School ..........Ft. Pierce 27-30..........Backflow Tester*..........................St. Petersburg ........$375/405 27-April 10 ..Wastewater Collection C, B**....Miami-Dade ..........$225/255

April 3-6..........Backflow Tester ..........................Pensacola ..............$375/405 10-14..........Reclaimed Field Site Inspector ..Osteen ..................$350/380 17-21..........Wastewater Collection C............Orlando ................$225/255 28..........Backflow Tester recert*** ..........Osteen ..................$85/115

May 1-3..........Backflow Repair ..........................Osteen ..................$275/305 1-5..........Water Distribution Level 3 ........North Miami Beach..$225/255 15-18..........Backflow Tester*..........................St. Petersburg ........$375/405 15-19..........Water Distribution Level 2 ........Osteen ..................$225/255 15-19..........Reclaimed Water Distribution B..Osteen ..................$225/255 26..........Backflow Tester recert*** ..........Osteen ..................$85/115

June 5-9..........Wastewater Collection C............Osteen ..................$225/255 19-21..........Backflow Repair* ........................St. Petersburg ........$275/305 19-22..........Backflow Tester ..........................Osteen ..................$375/405 30..........Backflow Tester recert*** ..........Osteen ..................$85/115 Course registration forms are available at For additional information on these courses or other training programs offered by the FWPCOA, please contact the FW&PCOA Training Office at (321) 383-9690 or * Backflow recertification is also available the last day of Backflow Tester or Backflow Repair Classes with the exception of Deltona ** Evening classes

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

*** any retest given also Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



Celebrating 90 Years! 2016 FSAWWA Fall Conference: The Value of Water Peggy Guingona The Florida Section of the American Water Works Association (FSAWWA) celebrated its 90th year of commitment and dedication to the world’s most important resource by hosting its 22nd Fall Conference focused on “The Value of Water” from November 27 through December 1 at the Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld. The yearly event, which attracted more than 1513 attendees, included water utility executives and managers, engineers, educators, manufacturers, consultants, operators, and others from the water profession. A total of 191 exhibit booths were sold. There were plenty of opportunities to meet old colleagues and make new friends at the continental breakfasts, lunches, meet-andgreet receptions, golf tournament, the Poker Night and Happy Hour, and the annual BBQ Challenge and reception to welcome the incoming chair, Dr. Grace Johns.

Opening General Session The opening general session on Monday

afternoon is one of the fall conference’s mustattend events. This was the fourth time that an opening session was held at the conference and the keynote speaker was George S. Hawkins, Esq., chief executive officer and general manager of D.C. Water. His topic was, “Hand Over Fist: Challenges and Opportunities in Water.” According to Hawkins, the “Fist” represents the five challenges that beleaguer every water utility in the country, and the “Hand” represents the five opportunities to overcome those challenges. Hawkins has held executive positions in state and municipal government, environmental and community groups, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and a private law practice. He has received many awards for his public service, including the 2014 Public Official of the Year Award from Governing, a nonpartisan news magazine, and business leader and public leader awards from the D.C. Chamber of Commerce and the D.C. Business and Industry Association. Other speakers in the opening session included visiting officer Brenda Lennox, AWWA

president-elect, and Jackie Torbert, the association director.

BBQ Challenge and Incoming Chair’s Reception On Monday evening, the conference held the third BBQ Challenge, which was open to all attendees. It was also an opportunity to introduce and welcome incoming chair Dr. Grace Johns.

Technical Program The excellent technical program is successful every year through the dedicated efforts of Dr. Fred Bloetscher. In 2016, to attract more participation on Monday, the workshops were included in the registration. The workshops offered were: Revised Total Coliform Rule Clarification, Design Build, Utility Financial Lessons Learned, An Overview of UCMR4, and Wetlands. Two specialty workshops were also offered: Engineering Laws, Rules, and Ethics; and Utility Systems Symposium: Keeping it in the Pipe.

Opening general session audience.

(Above) Section staff with Jacqueline Torbert (second from left) and (starting fourth from left) Grace Johns, Kim Kunihiro, and Brenda Lennox.

Opening general session keynote speaker George Hawkins engages the audience.


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

(At left) After his speech, George Hawkins (second from left) meets with Jacqueline Torbert, association director; Brenda Lennox, AWWA president-elect; and Kim Kunihiro, 2016 section chair.

RECAP OF 2016 FSAWWA CONFERENCE Tuesday and Wednesday technical sessions focused on the conference’s theme, “The Value of Water.” The topics included: Getting Ready for Potable Reuse as A Water Supply Option, Water Treatment, A New View on Assessing Water Distribution Systems, Alternative Water Supply: Sustainability, Asset Management, SEDA-AMTA Session: The Value of Water, Water Distribution System Quality, Alternative Water Supplies: Part 2, Asset Management Modeling Challenges, Water Treatment Solutions Using Ion Exchange, and Cybersecurity. On Wednesday, the Water Use Efficiency Division held a water conservation symposium titled, “Water Efficiency: What Your Utility Needs to Know.”


Water Summit

The FSAWWA Executive Committee held its meeting on Sunday morning, followed by the board of governors meeting in the afternoon, with 33 board members present. This is where the real work of the section is planned for the following year. Other meetings were also held by the organization’s councils and committees. There’s a group for almost every water topic. Meetings are also held at other section events throughout the year.

The eighth annual Florida 2040 Water Summit topic was, “Planning, Implementation, and Funding: The Three Pillars to Florida’s Water Future and a Sustainable Water Infrastructure.” The summit agenda also included an AWWA briefing on the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA), the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), and EPA updates by Tommy Continued on page 25


Exhibits The exhibit hall, which had 191 booth spaces, gave attendees another chance to network and learn about the latest and most innovative products and services in the water industry. Company personnel were available each day to help attendees pick the products that will help them solve their problems and meet future challenges.

“Best of the Best” People’s Choice Water Tasting This was the third year this event was held at the conference. Water stations were in the exhibit hall and attendees tasted water samples from the 10 participating regions and voted for the best-tasting water. Votes were tallied and the declared 2016 People’s Choice Water Tasting winner was Pace Water System!

“Best of the Best” People’s Choice Tasting winner: Pace Water Systems. Accepted by Daryl Peek, Pace Water Systems, with Greg Taylor.

Pete and Carmen Robinson – he’s past chair and gala sponsor.

Water For People booth. Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



University of Florida (UF) and University of Central Florida (UCF) teams competing for first place.

Group photo of UCF team, 2016 Water Bowl champions.

Ductile Iron Tap

Poster Contest

Jacksonville Electric Authority's (from left to right) Michael Mace, James Haspel, Walter Kennedy III, Charles Barr, Samuel Howard II, and Scott Boyle.

Fun Tap Jacksonville Electric Authority (photo above)

Backhoe Rodeo Victor Gonzales, Orange County Utilities.

Meter Madness

Poster Contest winner Beverly Medina.


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Winner Brian Rodriguez (left) from FKAA, Phillip Graham, JEA (middle), and Erick Ingram, JEA (right).

RECAP OF 2016 FSAWWA CONFERENCE Continued from page 23 Holmes, AWWA legislative director, and a state legislative update by Gunster and the FSAWWA Utility Council. Note: The Florida 2030 Water Summit was renamed this year to Florida 2040 to keep pace with the shifting planning horizon of the state.

Awards The section’s annual business luncheon and awards ceremony celebrated the current roster of statewide officers and inducted the new officers for 2017. Awards were also given for the best papers and to the outstanding volunteers in the water field. See pages 28-32 for award recipients.

Contests Several contests, with both team and individual competitors, were held. Water Bowl Winner: University of Central Florida The contest is modeled after the classic “College Bowl” television quiz show. Team members were asked questions related to the water industry, encompassing water chemistry, operations, and design of treatment systems. The event was moderated by Nelson Perez-Jacome, FSAWWA Young Professionals Committee vice chair, and Jordan Walker, FSAWWA Young Professionals Committee chair, served as judge.

Poster Contest Winner: University of Central Florida Beverly Medina, from the University of Florida, was the 2016 Fresh Ideas Poster Contest winner. She presented her poster entitled, “Evaluating Options for Regenerant Brine Reuse in Ion Exchange Systems for Dissolved Organic Carbon Renewal.” By winning the competition, Medina receives a trip to ACE17, AWWA’s annual conference and exposition, to be held in June in Philadelphia, to compete with contest winners from across North America.

Continued on page 26



Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


RECAP OF 2016 FSAWWA CONFERENCE Continued from page 25


Operator Events Meter Madness Back as the 2015 Meter Madness champion was Brian Rodriguez of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA). He assembled a water meter in 42.66 seconds, ahead of Phillip Graham and Eric Ingram from JEA. Brian qualifies to go to ACE17 in Philadelphia to compete in the national contest. Meter Madness is a competition where participants receive a bucket of meter parts for a specific water meter to assemble against the clock. To make is more interesting, three to six miscellaneous parts are included in the bucket. After assembly, the meter must work correctly and not leak. Tapping Contests Using skill and dexterity, as well as speed, teams of four compete for the fastest time while they perform a quality drill and tap of pipe under available pressure. Two taps are allowed per team. The Fun Tap is the simpler version of the two contests. The judge and moderator for these events was Mike George. Ductile Iron Tap Winners First Place: Jacksonville Electric Authority Second Place: St. Cloud Soldiers, City of St. Cloud Third Place: City of Clearwater Fun Tap Winners First Place: Jacksonville Electric Authority Second Place: Bonita Springs Utilities Third Place: West Palm Beach Utility Backhoe Rodeo Backhoe operators show their expertise by executing challenging lifts and drops of various objects in the fastest time. First Place: Victor Gonzales, Orange County Utilities Second Place: Ronald Smith, FKAA Third Place: Phil Rizzo, City of Cocoa

PASSING THE GAVEL Dr. Grace Johns, the incoming section chair for 2017, receives the gavel from outgoing chair, Kim Kunihiro.


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

All four operator contests have been held for many years and are open to public and commercial field operators working in the state of Florida. Contact Mike George at (352) 200-9631 for more information. S Peggy Guingona is executive director of Florida Section AWWA.



CONFERENCE SPONSORS The section thanks all of the sponsors for their generous support of the FSAWWA Fall Conference. PLATINUM SPONSORS


Hazen and Sawyer Lisa Krentz and Pete Robinson

Kimley Horn Lance Littrell

Wright Pierce Dennis Davis

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

AECOM Technical Services Inc. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. CDM Smith CS3 Waterworks Data Flow Systems Inc. Gannett Fleming Garney Haskell HD Supply Waterworks Municipal Water Works PC Construction Reiss Engineering Tetra Tech Thames & Associates U.S. Pipe WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff



• • • • • • • • • • • •


Black & Veatch Carter & Verplanck Inc Crom LLC Florida Aquastore Godwin Pumps, a Xylem Brand Isco Industries JJ Madigan LLC Mars Co. McWane Ductile Mueller Co. Thompson Pipe Group - Flowtite US Water Services Corp.

SILVER SPONSORS Trihedral Barry Baker

• American Water Resources • FATHOM • Ferguson Waterworks • ORACLE

CH2M Yvonne Picard

Wager Company of Florida Inc. Kim Kowalski

• Blue Planet Environmental Systems Inc. • Sigma Corp

• Bingham & Taylor • Clow Valve Co. • Public Utility Management and Planning Services Inc. • Smith-Blair Inc • TKW Consulting Engineers Inc.

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017




Recipients of this year’s awards are noted and/or pictured on the following pages.


The Florida Section AWWA honored outstanding individuals and organizations in the state’s water industry on two different dates. At the opening general session, held on November 28, the award recipients were as follows:

This award honors distinguished service by a council or committee chair who has made the most significant contribution to the council.

REGIONS VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR AWARD This award honors individuals who contributed their time and talent to the success of their region. • • • • • • • • •

John Troutt, Region IV Karen M. Miller, Region V Monica A. Pazahanick, P.E., Region VI Alan Bair, Region VII Eric Johnson, Region VIII Heath Hardy, Region IX Heather Manganiello, Region X Kelly Landry, Region XI Ryan Shanaghan, Region XII

Tonya Kay, Region III

Operators and Maintenance Council - Christopher Wetz

Public Affairs Council Melissa Velez

Manufacturers/ Associates Council - Kevin Stine

Technical and Education Council Dan Schmutz

Utility Council Edgar Fernandez

Administrative Council Marjorie Craig

Angela Bryan, Region II


Chris P. Bailey

The Operators Council provides scholarships to students upgrading a drinking water or distribution system operator license or pursuing a degree related to the drinking water industry. Scholarships of $2,000 per eligible student pursuing a college degree relating to the drinking water industry are awarded.

ANNUAL AWARDS LUNCHEON On November 30, FSAWWA honored outstanding individuals and organizations in the state’s water industry at the annual awards luncheon.

AWWA GEORGE WARREN FULLER AWARD George Warren Fuller Awards are presented annually by the American Water Works Association to each section’s respective selected members for their distinguished service to the water supply field in commemoration of the sound engineering skill, the brilliant diplomatic talent, and the constructive leadership that characterized the life of George Warren Fuller. Jason P. Parrillo is the recipient of this distinguished award. Jason has served AWWA and the Florida Section unselfishly for many years, holding many positions, including section chair, section chair-elect, section vice chair, section secretary, section Public Affairs Council chair, and Region III chair. His most recent position was serving at the pleasure of the Executive Committee as Florida 2040 Committee chair and Marketing Committee chair. He will receive the AWWA Fuller Award pin in Philadelphia at ACE17. Jason Parrillo with colleagues and family.


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

RECAP OF 2016 FSAWWA CONFERENCE ALLEN B. ROBERTS JR. AWARD This award is named in honor of Allen B. Roberts Jr., who worked diligently as the section's executive director to improve the status of the Florida Section by providing valuable leadership. Steve M. Soltau, MBA, received this award for his outstanding service as a member. Steve has contributed most to the section by providing valuable support of FSAWWA programs through outstanding leadership, creativity, and service in a water-related field, particularly to the resolution of problems and the implementation of activities within FSAWWA and the association.



This award was given to Dr. Grace Johns by the FSAWWA Executive Committee for dedicating her time and talents to a program or initiative that far and away exceeds her duties and obligations in her service to the FSAWWA board of governors.

This award is named in honor of Robert L. Claudy, who was a past chair of FSAWWA and is a big supporter and still active in the Roy Likins Scholarship program. Kim Kunihiro, Florida Section chair, was the recipient of the Manufacturers/Associates Council (MAC) award for her efforts in promoting water quality in the industry, the community, the section, and the association.

CHARLES HOGUE AWARD John Corey was honored by MAC with this award as its individual member of the year. (no photo)

FSAWWA SERVICE AWARDS The following were honored for their service to the Florida Section.

Andy May Region II Chair, 2012-2016

Todd Lewis Manufacturers/Associates Council Chair, 2012-2015

Steve Soltau Operators and Maintenance Council Chair, 2012-2016

Rob Teegarden Utility Council Chair, 2014-2016

Fred Bloetscher Trustee, 2012-2016

Michael Bailey Trustee, 2015-2016

Bob Dudas Trustee, 2014-2016

Barika Poole Water For People Committee Chair, 2013-2016

Christopher Jarrett Service to FSAWWA, 2012-2016 Brad Macek Region VIII Chair, 2012-2016 Mark Kelly Trustee, 2012-2016 (no photos)

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017





This award honors the MAC member who has contributed the most to the success of the conference.

Shelby Hughes was named the young professional of the year.

David Wheeler

AWWA MEMBERSHIP AWARDS AWWA honors significant membership tenure with the following awards. The recognition received builds with a member’s years with the association.



Recipients are honored for 30 cumulative years of membership and being at least 65 years of age.

Recipients are honored for 50 years of AWWA membership.

• Gary E. Eichler

• William J. Murchie, P.E.

• Jack J. Smith Jr.

SILVER WATER DROP AWARDS Recipients were honored for 25 cumulative years of AWWA membership. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Michael Acosta, P.E. David L. Adair Gary A. Adams Luis Aguiar David J. Archacki Michael F. Bailey, P.E. Edward R. Balchon Roger J. Beuc Thomas A. Biggs, PE Rim Bishop Frederick Bloetscher, Ph.D., P.E. David E. Bracciano Thomas P. Brantley David L. Brown William D. Cain, P.E. Neil V. Callahan Saade Chibani W. George I. Clark Donald R. Cochran Robert Conner J. Philip Cooke Robert S. Cushing, Ph.D., P.E. Michael J. Darrow Tom M. Dawson Jr., P.E. Edward P. de la Parte Peter E. Debogory Gary Deremer Raymond D. Diaz Steven J. Duranceau, Ph.D., P.E. Larry E. Elliott Robert J. Elmquist George A. Foresha Joseph J. Franko David H. Friess Loren P. Furland, P.E. Bernard P. Gandy


• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Edgar L. Garrigan III Walter C. Goblisch, P.E. Bertha M. Goldenberg, P.E. Ana Maria Gonzalez, P.E. Nigel O. Grace John Guzik Timothy M. Haag Hassan Hadjimiry, P.E. James A. Harn Michael W. Harper John F. Hayford James P. Heaney Gary L. Heller John F. Hendrick Michael J. Henry Barry T. Henson William L. Herrmann Robert H. Hinkel Tim Hochuli Benjamin R. James Grace M. Johns, Ph.D. William E. Johnson, Jr. Shajan Joykutty Paul A. Jurczak Scott Kelly, P.E. Jonathan M. Kennedy Curtis A. Kiefer, P.E. Stephen C. Kinney Sr. Stephen K. Kiss Paul D. Koch Richard P. Kornbluh John C. Koroshec Donald M. Kree Kimberly A. Kunihiro Troy E. Layton, P.E. John R. Leemon

March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Mark D. Lehigh Thomas A. Lower Troy L. Lyn T. Madhanagopal, P.E. William M. Marcous Dennis R. Martin Coy M. Mathis Jr. Steven V. Mazuk William F. McCain, P.E. Donald A. McGregor Jr. Stephen M. McGrew, P.E. John P. McKeon David H. Melvin Nancy O. Metzger, P.E. Arthur R. Miller III Richard G. Moore Kevin E. Morris Lawrence F. Moyer Luke A. Mulford, Ph.D., P.E. Candia E. Mulhern Rob T. Nicholas Mark F. Niewodowski James A. Nissen Lee Hunter Odell, P.E. Rashmi A. Patel Lee E. Pearson Robert F. Pelham David D. Peters Steve Portlance John E. Potts David Purnell Al C. Purvis Jerry L. Regans Ajit Lalchandani Todd V. Larson C. Robert Reiss

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Teresa Remudo-Fries, P.E. Fordyce J. Ritz Hector R. Rodriguez, P.E. Larry J. Ruffin David F. Russell Harold E. Schmidt, P.E. Valerie A. Schulte Michael Shields Joseph Simbolick D. Robert Smedley Helena Solo-Gabriele Scott W. Solomon James C. Stiles Samuel S. Stone III Charles L. Sullivan III Deborah D. Swain Edward H. Talton Jr. John S. Trofatter James E. Turner Scott P. Turnquist Kartik Vaith, P.E. Timothy P. Vandeventer Charles J. Voss, P.E. Timothy B. Waddle Sr. Kent K. Wager C. Kenneth Walker III, P.E. Robert E. Wallace III Ricardo Washington William R. Whidden, P.E. James P. Wickert Gary Williams William G. Young Patrick D. Zoeller



The FSAWWA gives this award to various facilities or structures serving as components of water systems that have historical significance and, as such, may be candidates as an American Water Works Association Water Landmark or a Florida Section Water Landmark. The facility or structure should have been in service and operational for 50 or more years to qualify for this important recognition. Manatee County Dam, Wells, pumps, and piping may qualify if Constructed in 1966 Accepted by Olga Wolanin. deemed to be of important significance.


Division 1 - Seminole Tribe of Florida Accepted by (back, left to right) Rudy Garcia, Emran Rahaman, Juan Mata; (front, left to right) Eddie Warren and Keith Thomas.

An award is given to a utility with outstanding performance during the preceding year that deserves special recognition by the section.

Division 2 - City of Zephyrhills Utility Department Accepted by John Bostic III.

Comprehensive Program Show of Excellence City of Clermont Champion Water Savers Accepted by Jorge Leyro.

Public Education Best in Class – Medium Utility Orange County Utilities Water Division Series of Educational Water Conservation Posters Accepted by (from left) Bridgett Tolley, Terri Thill, and Carmen Santiago.

Division 3 - City of Coral Springs Accepted by Najla Zerrouki and Mike Kelly.

Division 4 - Town of Jupiter Accepted by Chris Craft and Jeff McAllister.

BEST PAPER AWARDS • “Developing Asset Management Systems: You Know More Than You Think.” Frederick Bloetscher, Ph.D., P.E., Florida Atlantic University; Nihat Dogan,; and Lloyd Wander and Greg Smith, USSI.

(left to right) Lloyd Wander, Fred Bloetscher, and Greg Smith.

Division 5 - City of Miramar Accepted by (left to right) Michael Moore, Greg Rust, and Jody Kirkman.

Division 6 - Broward County Water and Wastewater Services Accepted by Mark Darmanin and Carlos Morejon.

• “Paving the Road for Future Expansion: Evaluating Disinfection Byproduct Control Strategies for a Growing Utility.” Andrea Cumming Netcher, E.I., Ph.D.; James Christopher, P.E., Tetra Tech Inc.; and Deborah Beatty, P.E., Toho Water Authority. • “When Membranes Fail: Success of Critical Control Points and Monitors in Potable Reuse.” Paul Biscardi, Ph.D.; Troy Walker, MIE (Aust); Buddy Boysen, P.E.; and Ben Stanford, Ph.D., Hazen and Sawyer.

Water For People Exhibitor Fundraiser Recognition of Gold Sponsors • Blue Planet Environmental Systems Inc. • Data Flow Systems

Division 7 - Lee County Utilities Water Distribution Accepted by (left to right) Pam Keyes, Justin Dodd, and Dewayne Tagg

Division 8 - Hillsborough County Public Utilities Department Accepted by (left to right) Suresh Maharaj, Richard Cummings, and Roy Bean.

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



Monica Autrey, Troy University $5,000

Martin Coleman, University of Central Florida $5,000

Alysse Ness, University of Florida $5,000

Kevin Orner, University of South Florida $5,000

Jessica Cormier, University of Central Florida $5,000

Cove Capodice, University of South Florida $2,500

Semberial Strong, University of South Florida $2,500

Benjamin Yoakum, University of Central Florida $2,500


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The scholarships are awarded each year by the section to outstanding graduate or undergraduate college students enrolled in an accredited Florida institution who are pursuing a degree related to the drinking water industry. The scholarship is named for the late Roy Likins, former president of Palm Coast Utility Corporation and a lifelong member of the American Water Works Association, who served as section chair and secretary-treasurer, as well as Region IX chair with the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association.


Scenes from the barbeque.

Incoming Chair’s Reception and BBQ Challenge The Incoming Chair’s Reception, sponsored by Hazen and Sawyer, and the Third Annual Barbeque Challenge, both held on Monday at the conference, were a huge success. The festivities included barbeque, networking, music, and entertainment, and it was a fantastic networking opportunity for conference attendees, exhibitors, and guests to mingle, make new acquaintances, and catch up with old friends. It was also a chance to toast Dr. Grace Johns, incoming chair, who will lead the section in 2017. A special shout-out to Hazen and Sawyer for sponsoring the sides and drinks. There is nothing like an icecold drink to go with good barbeque! One of the highlights of the evening was the barbeque challenge. This year’s contest

featured nine teams competing for the honor of “Grand Champion.” Grill masters from Cardno, GHD, Haskell, HDR Inc., Hillsborough County, Garney Construction, McKim & Creed, Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority, and Stanley Hydraulic Tools competed for top honors in six categories: chicken, pork, ribs, brisket, people’s choice, and overall champion. As the conference attendees socialized and feasted on the barbeque, judging took place to determine the best in each category and overall grand champion!

Richard Anderson, BBQ Challenge chair, announced the results at the end of the evening. HDR Inc. won awards in the following categories: pork ribs, chicken, and brisket; Stanley Tools was tops in pork butt; the people’ choice went to Garney, and the overall grand champion trophy was awarded to HDR Inc. Simultaneous fundraising opportunities for Water For People were hosted by all teams that accepted donations at their tents. Each donor reContinued on page 34

Brenda Lennox, AWWA president-elect. Pies in the face.

Grace with husband Stan.

Grace with Stan and her parents.

Raffle winner Scott Turnquist (left), with Mark Kelly and Richard Anderson Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



HDR, best chicken.

HDR, best ribs.

Garney, people’s choice winner.

Stanley Tools, best pork butt.

Overall champion, HDR.

Continued from page 33 ceived a ticket for the drawing and Garney donated a Yeti cooler to get more people to its tent. Later, HDR challenged active and engaged FSAWWA members who were fun-loving and altruistic (and with humble personalities!) to help participate in the “Pies for Charity” Water For People fundraiser. As can be guessed from the title, the fundraiser required the participants to potentially receive a pie (or some resemblance thereof) in the face. At the HDR tent, “Pies for Charity” donations were placed in four containers named after four FSAWWA active members: Grace Johns, Wendy Nero, Kim Kowalski, and Emilie Moore. Pies in the face were going to await the two volunteers who had the most number of tickets. The “unlucky” winners were Wendy Nero and Emilie Moore, and both courageously accepted their fate. Overall, this year’s event was a tremendous success that featured great food and fun in a fantastic locale. Watch for news for the Fourth Annual Barbeque Challenge at this year’s Fall Conference at Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate. You don’t want to miss it! S


To be presented at the FWRC Awards Luncheon Monday, April 24, 2017 | Palm Beach County Convention Center Outstanding Water Treatment Plant Award Class A, Class B, Class C, and Most Improved Deadline: March 17, 2017

Outstanding Water Treatment Plant Operator Award Deadline: March 17, 2017

AWWA Operator’s Meritorious Service Award Deadline: March 17, 2017 For more information please go to our website or contact Paul Kavanagh at (813) 264-3835 or


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Ready to take part in the gala celebration are (left to right) Kim Kunihiro, Grace Johns, Peggy Guingona, Kim Kowalski, Casey Cumiskey, and Donna Metherall.

On Tuesday night at the conference, the Hard Rock Hotel Universal Studios Velvet Underground and Terrace were filled with FSAWWA members eager to participate in the 90th anniversary gala celebration. Everyone came in a festive mood and some had their dancing shoes on. The festivities started at 7 p.m., with the Velvet Underground set up with highboys and a dancing area. The outside terrace was also set up for seating. Sumptuous food and an open bar were available from 7 to 9 p.m. The gala celebration’s main attraction was Jimmie Vaughan, one of the greatest and most respected guitarists in the world of popular music. During his entire 90-minute set, Vaughan had the attendees dancing, grooving, swaying, and singing along with his great music. A big thank you goes to all of the gala’s sponsors for making the event such a success! S

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017




March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

PROCESS PAGE Greetings from the FWEA Wastewater Process Committee! This column highlights the City of Tavares Woodlea Road Water Reclamation Facility, which received honorable mention for the Earle B. Phelps Award in 2016

City of Tavares Woodlea Water Reclamation Facility Nicole Quinby he City of Tavares Utilities Department is a government-owned enterprise fully funded by customer rates. The city owns and operates the Woodlea Road Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). The facility is permitted at 3 mil gal per day (mgd), annual average daily flow (AADF), and currently treats approximately 1.5 mgd. Raw wastewater is pumped from the collection system, which consists of more than 70 lift stations throughout the city, including the 0.5mgd master pump station, which was converted from the old Caroline facility. Flow enters the WRF through 0.10-in. influent bar screens, followed by grit removal. Flow then has the ability to split between two treatment trains, consisting of anoxic basin, oxidation ditch, and secondary clarification. Three traveling bridge filters and chlorination via two chlorine contact chambers ensure that the facility meets the tertiary treatment requirements for the city’s reclaimed water distribution system. Solids treatment is via aerobic digestion and solids are thickened to 15 percent through a 2-meter belt filter press. In mid-2015, the Tavares staff installed a new screen in order to maximize treatment efficiency. Per the city’s permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the plant wasn’t able to discharge its sidestream flows upstream of the existing Parkson screen. Because of this, unscreened flows from the belt filter press, digester decant, filter backwash, scum lift station, and administration building were discharged directly downstream of the main screen. At the adjacent facility, the city has a lined effluent storage pond, and a 5-mil-gal (MG) reclaimed water storage tank. Treated effluent is discharged to either the existing 1.08-mgd slowrate public access system or to the existing 2-


Oxidation ditch.

mgd permitted capacity rapid infiltration basin (RIB) system. The system consists of three RIBs, with a total wetted area of 9.6 acres. The Woodlea WRF must meet 20 mg/L of five-day biological oxygen demand (BOD5) and 5 mg/L of total suspended solids to meet reuse effluent limitations for residential and golf course irrigation. The facility is routinely well below these permit limits, in part due to the treatment technology incorporated at the facility, but also due to the quality operations staff. The innovative technology incorporated at the facility provides exceptional treatment that is well below permit limits and easily meets the public access reuse standards. Modifications are ongoing at the facility to help maintain existing energy rates and chemical costs.

Laboratory testing of all waste (liquid and solid) generated is conducted onsite to meet state and federal regulations. Activities include weekly, quarterly, and yearly sampling of the treated water, groundwater, and treated waste sludge for compliance. The City of Tavares Wastewater Utilities Laboratory is certified by the Florida Department of Health (DOH) under National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Certification (NELAC). Fields of accreditation include basic environmental and microbiological analysis for nonpotable water and microbiolog-

ical analysis for potable water. The laboratory currently analyzes wastewater samples weekly for FDEP plant compliance, residuals for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and FDEP monitoring well compliance samples quarterly. Samples are also accepted for the purpose of troubleshooting plant and field operations with an average throughput of 4,200 analyses performed annually. Laboratory staff are certified plant operators (CPOs) and oversee chemical balancing of the city’s Splash Park, to assure compliance with DOH regulations. The City of Tavares Woodlea Road WRF won the first-place David W. York Water Reuse award for the 1 to less than 5 mgd category in 2015. The facility also received honorable mention for the Earle B. Phelps Award in 2016. In 2013, the collections crew received the Collection Systems Award for less than 10,000 connections category, and in 2016, Brad Hayes, the utility director, received the FWEA David York award for Reuse Person of the Year. The Tavares team, consisting of treatment, laboratory, and collections, continues to strive to provide a quality product that is safe for the environment as a whole. Nicole Quinby, P.E., is a utilities engineer with Kimley-Horn in Orlando. S At left: The city installed ultraviolet blocker balls in 2015 to save chlorine. It first learned about these in the Florida Water Resources Journal as used by the City of Clermont. They have saved on chlorine usage and assist in evaporation prevention.

At left: The city installed the Vulcan SS-36 Stato Screen in 2015 and fabricated the stainless steel box in order to catch screenings. Installation of the Vulcan screen has improved treatment and plant performance.

Reclaimed water storage tank. Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



Sustainable Solutions for the 21st Century: Integration of Water Treatment Systems With Energy From Municipal Wastes P.L. Hauck ften referred to as the water-energy nexus, water and energy are inextricably linked in the overarching goal of public works to provide clean water. They are also key to the successful development of sustainable economic projects on local, regional, state, and national levels. Globally, 6 to 7 percent of the energy consumed every year is for the production and delivery of water. Ironically, in order to meet the future demand for electrical power in the United States, new power facilities may result in the consumption of vast quantities of water. The competition for water resources has resulted in reduced water allocations, along with delay, and in some cases, cancellation of new power projects across the U.S. Advanced treatments for potable water production required for the processing of lower-quality waters, while meeting higher environmental standards for a growing family of water chemistry parameters and chemicals of concern, require greater demands for energy. Ozone disinfection, which requires a significant input of electrical energy, is one such emerging disinfection technology. Integrated utility systems may grow in potential value as the average cost of electricity in the U.S., which is currently around 10 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), is expected to increase as the drive for clean and renewable energy continues to gain momentum. While there have been successful implementations of solid waste management campuses for optimized treatment of municipal waste, a larger utility network that includes water, wastewater, solid waste, and recycling remains fertile ground for energy efficiency. Finding a site that may be suitable for this marriage of technologies may not be a challenge, as there are a surprising number of “brownfield” sites in urban areas that may be ideally suited for integrated public work projects. Brownfields, along with wastewater treatment facilities, may provide excellent sites to locate an integrated water utility campus in close proximity of urban wastes.



Modern Energy-From-Waste Technology Currently, energy-from-waste (EfW) facilities process approximately 13 percent of the total municipal solid waste (MSW) in the U.S. As a result, there is an immense untapped resource that can be converted to green energy in various forms. While some of this waste is currently being converted into methane in landfills, there are potentially more than 16,000 megawatts of electric power that are not currently being utilized because municipal wastes are not converted into energy. Much of this potential renewable energy can be developed within the areas in close proximity to the source of the waste. Renewable energy production from wastes can provide significant economic development to local economies. In addition to the immediate impact of local employment during construction and the dollars spent within the local community, there is a long-term benefit throughout the operation and maintenance phase of the EfW projects with a 45- to 50-year service life, including high-quality and well-paying jobs, along with the purchase of local goods and services.

Federal and State Legislation Federal Renewable Portfolio Standards There is a long history of MSW being recognized as a renewable fuel, including Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, President Bush’s Executive Order 13423, Federal Power Act, Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act, Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000, Regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) of 2010. The integration of EfW and water treatment processes as part of a municipal utility campus would qualify as renewable green energy, or low-carbon energy for many of the federal incentives, and would be well-suited to attract future incentives in the form of federallysupported grants and/or loan guarantee programs. Successfully integrated municipal utility projects could become role models for numer-

March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

P. L. Hauck, P.E., is senior environmental engineer with CDM Smith in Tampa.

ous urban communities across the U.S. In fact, the development of an integrated municipal utility campus dovetails nicely with the “microgrid” concept, which is currently being promoted as a way to provide resiliency and reliability for essential power and water utilities. State Renewable Portfolio Standards In the absence of federal renewable portfolio standards (RPS), more than half of the states have enacted legislation in one form or another that requires electric power utilities to generate or purchase from other renewable energy generators a certain percentage of electricity produced from renewable fuels. Florida, however, does not currently have a mandate for RPS that provides a legislative and/or financial incentive for development of EfW facilities. Most of the 11 operating EfW facilities in the state currently sell electricity to local electric suppliers under a wide range of power purchase agreements (PPA). The absence of an RPS in Florida actually provides an incentive for municipally owned EfW facilities to use their green renewable electricity internally for the treatment of water resources and other public works.

Electricity From Municipal Wastes The average waste generation of pounds per capita per day (PCD) in the U.S. has stabilized over the past decade at approximately 4.5 PCD. The availability of EfW facilities has increased over the past decade due to advancements in the industry. The current annual availability of 90 to 92 percent is relatively high compared to modern fossil power plant industry standards. For the purpose of the following analysis, the use of 4 PCD is conservative and allows local recycling programs to continue to increase in the future. The average net electrical power generation of EfW facilities has also increased over the past decade to approximately

550 kWh per ton (kWh/ton) of waste processed. The amount of electrical energy that can be produced from an EfW facility serving a given population is shown in Figure 1.

Water Treatment Electrical Demand Energy is expended in each of a water treatment facility’s process steps, including extraction, transport, treatment, disinfection, and distribution. Urban areas are fast becoming the largest centers of population that concentrate the demand for water supply into a dense area. The estimated demand for potable water in a community varies widely, ranging from a low of 75 gal per person per day, to a high of 150 gal. The estimated water demand for a population of up to 3 million people is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Typical energy from waste net electrical output as a function of population.

Potable Water Treatment Electrical Demand Using water resources wisely will be of growing importance in the future, and fortunately there are a number of advanced technologies that may help meet the demands of a growing population for production of high-quality potable water, efficient wastewater treatment, and the distinct possibility for recycling reclaimed water for both indirect and direct potable reuse. Energy input for water treatment plants (WTPs) varies widely with the quality of the supply water and type of treatment process required to meet potable water standards. Groundwater can be energy-intensive, with energy demands significantly impacted by the depth at which water is withdrawn from the aquifer. Energy inputs may range from 250 kWh/mil gal (MG) at a depth of 75 ft to 2,500 kWh/MG at a depth of 2,500 ft. Conventional water treatment processes have many steps that require the input of energy, with pumping (raw water supply, in-plant, and finished water distribution) being the major user of energy. Desalting of marginal waters, including surface water, brackish groundwater, and seawater, can range from 5,000 to 15,000 kWh/MG. Recent demonstration tests using innovative treatments for affordable desalination have set a goal for production of desalinated water at approximately 7,000 kWh/MG. Looking to the future era of indirect reuse of reclaimed water, energy inputs for these types of multibarrier processes with advanced disinfection can range from 10,000 to 15,000 kWh/MG, and wastewater treatment processes typically range from 2,000 to 5,000 kWh/MG. The typical range of energy input for various

Figure 2. Typical water demand as a function of population and use.

Table 1. Energy required for various water treatment technologies.

Continued on page 40 Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Continued from page 39 water treatment processes, including raw water withdrawal and transfer, treatment, disinfection, and distribution, is summarized in Table 1.

Energy From Waste With Potable Water Production

Figure 3. Water treatment capacity if powered by 100 percent of electricity from a large energy-from-waste facility.

Figure 4. Water treatment capacity if powered by 100 percent of electricity from a small energy-from-waste facility.

Matching the electrical output from a modern EfW facility with water treatment processes can vary significantly, depending upon the source water and type of treatment. Assuming a system wide input of 1,500 kWh/MG for the water treatment process, Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between the size of the EfW facility and the potential production of potable water if all the electricity were used for water production. As shown, an EfW facility can literally provide six to eight times more potable water than demanded. Figure 4 is a similar graph to figure 3, developed for a smaller range of EfW facilities scaled for smaller communities in the range of 50,000 to 150,000 people. For communities in need of securing additional water supplies from alternate water sources, such as lower-quality surface water, brackish water, or seawater, the compatibility of EfW and WTP processes improves due to the greater demand for energy. Figure 5 shows the range of water production that can be produced if 100 percent of electricity from the EfW facility is used for a range of higher-energy-demand treatment processes. A process that uses 5,000 kWh/MG may be typical for a membrane treatment process, whereas a process such as seawater reverse osmosis may be in the range of 10,000 to 20,000 kWh/MG. An ever-growing percentage of the U.S. population currently lives in coastal states. Much of this population resides in large- and mediumsized coastal communities, where the demand for additional water supply may require seawater desalination technologies. The use of reverse osmosis (RO), multistage flash (MSF) evaporation, and multiple effect distillation (MED) processes may be ideally suited to use 100 percent of the EfW electricity. In many cases, the size of the EfW plant may be selected to produce the required amount of potable water that is needed for serving an expanding population. Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between EfW facility size and the potential production of potable water from seawater desalination.

Energy From Waste With Wastewater Treatment Figure 5. Water treatment capacity for advanced technologies that demand higher inputs of energy.


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The average per-capita demand for water has declined over the years due to a variety of conser-

vation measures. For estimating purposes in this article, a value of 100 gal per capita per day is used. The generally accepted demand rate for wastewater service is 90 percent of the potable water demand, or in this case, 90 gal per person per day. Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) make perfect companions for EfW facilities. In addition to accepting the process wastewater (including cooling tower blowdown) from the EfW facility, the WWTP may also provide reclaimed water for use as process water, such as ash quench water and process makeup water. In some communities with existing EfW facilities, biosolids from their WWTPs are also processed in the EfW facility. The generally accepted rule of thumb is that WWTP biosolids provide a positive energy balance when dried to greater than 45 percent moisture content. Below this condition, they do not provide energy, but they may still be disposed of at a reasonable cost in the EfW facility. The energy required for WWTPs vary as a function of capacity, type, and level of treatment, disinfection, recycling, and disposal. The WWTPs are often the single largest electricity users in local municipal operations, with the secondary wastewater treatment process as the most energy-intensive. The ultraviolet disinfection process, which is also energy-intensive, is being used at an increasing number of municipal WWTPs due to its many advantages. Figure 7 shows the estimated capacity of WWTPs that could be powered by 100 percent of the electricity from EfW over a wide range of energy inputs for EfW facilities up to 3,000 tons per day (TPD), which is capable of serving a population of approximately 1.4 to 1.5 million. Figure 7 shows promise for major urban areas that currently do not employ EfW or have excess MSW that could be used by an EfW facility to power existing WWTP facilities. In this case, the capacity of WWTPs that could be powered by an EfW can be significant, in the range of 200 mil gal per day (mgd) to more than 1 bil gal per day. A similar graph for the smaller range of EfW facilities that would serve a population in the range of 50,000 to 250,000 is provided in Figure 8. As seen in Figures 7 and 8, WWTPs that are larger than needed by a community’s population can be operated, in most cases, on 100 percent of the electricity from EfW. In this case, a community will need to find additional internal uses for the remaining electricity (including potable water treatment), or sell it to the local grid.

Figure 6. Water treatment capacity for seawater desalination if powered by 100 percent of electricity from an energy-from-waste facility.

Figure 7. Typical wastewater treatment plant capacity if powered by 100 percent of electricity from a large energy-from-waste facility.

Summary of Water Treatment Opportunities Based on the screening analysis, a comparison of the sizes of water treatment processing capacities that can be powered by a commuContinued on page 42

Figure 8. Typical wastewater treatment plant capacity if powered by 100 percent of electricity from a small energy-from-waste facility. Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Continued from page 41 nity’s solid waste is graphically displayed in Figure 9. From a greenfield perspective, conventional WTPs and WWTPs may not be ideally matched to use 100 percent of the electricity from a community’s EfW facility, assuming that the EfW plant has been sized to process 100 percent of the available MSW; however, most existing EfW facilities are not always sized for 100 percent of the local MSW stream due to a variety of reasons. In the case of large urban areas with concentrated population centers, a new EfW facility may be sized to provide 100 percent of its electricity for operation of the existing WTP and/or WWTP facilities. When properly sized for local water resource demands, the project can be designed for optimal performance in providing

cost-effective services to both the solid waste and water resources departments. The integration of both WTP and WWTP facilities will increase the use of electricity from an EfW facility to approximately 38 percent when all facilities are sized to serve the same local population base. Future water management may include: reclaimed water distribution systems for local residential, commercial, and agricultural irrigation; reservoir storage for reclaimed water and excess stormwater during wet seasons; and stormwater treatment systems for removal of excess nutrients and pollutants. In such an arrangement, the demand for energy in the form of electricity or steam will increase significantly and provide an opportunity for a wellmatched size of an EfW facility to provide all of the integrated campus needs.

Figure 9. Range of sizes of water treatment processes that can be powered by a community’s municipal solid waste.

Figure 10. Future integration of energy from waste and water.


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

As noted in Figure 9, with the addition of a water reclamation facility (WRF) that is designed to treat and disinfect reclaimed water and/or lower quality stormwater, the energy demand increases significantly to the point where a good fit can be developed to use 100 percent of the EfW electricity for treatment and distribution of the various water systems. Figure 10 illustrates diagrammatically how such a future water resource system and EfW facility could be integrated into a single utility campus. Seawater and brackish water sources may also be included in the discussion of advanced water treatment, especially for coastal and lowlying inland communities. The removal of salts and other impurities from brackish and seawater requires significantly higher inputs of energy, either in the form of electricity or steam. Proven technology exists to generate renewable electrical energy from municipal solid wastes, along with recovery of biomethane from landfills and anaerobic digesters. Looking to the future, renewable energy systems, such as solar, wind, anaerobic digestion, codigestion, and other emerging waste treatment technologies could help satisfy the need for backup power supply to cover the infrequent periods when the EfW facility is offline for planned and unplanned maintenance outages. The majority of urban communities in the U.S. do not employ EfW and have large MSW streams that are currently being disposed of in landfills. As local and state goals for landfill diversion gain momentum as part of a drive for sustainability, the development of regional EfW facilities may also become viable when combined with regional water supply and distribution projects. In these cases, there is likely sufficient MSW available that could allow an EfW facility to be sized to match the demand of the community’s existing and future water resource needs. The scoping analysis is encouraging for a number of reasons, the most important of which is financial. The shared electrical savings that will result from the internal use of electricity may warrant an evaluation of the various options and a full feasibility study for those options most suitable for each community. These synergistic opportunities often require that the various processes be owned by a single entity (municipality) and also be colocated on a contiguous property if electricity is to be used internally. Currently, there are rules that prevent the sale of electricity by anyone other than regulated electric utilities in the U.S. Alternately, the transfer and sale of steam, hot water, biomethane, and syngas via a pipeline may be both technically and economically feasible for reContinued on page 44


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

´0DQDWHH &RXQW\ 8W LOLWLHV FRQW rapid rate LQXHV WR JU requiring RZ DW D te c h n o logy, equip expertise ment and to run, m onitor and satellite lif maintain 6 t stations 20 and 15 ma throughout s te r lift station the county s . We rel Systems to y on Data t help us F l o w d esign and m FKDQJLQJ H aintain thi QYLURQPHQW s ever    %\ LQVWD new TCU/V O OLQJ 'DWD FD at our )ORZ¡V master lift lowered pr stati t ons we ha ogramming ve time giving change pa us th t e ability rameters to on-site w ladder logi ithout re c. Beyond writing th e software )ORZ¡V WUD available, D LQLQJ KDV ata SURGXFHG Technician WKUHH 7&8 s and one  9 ) ' Master Te qualified s chnicia an ensurin taff to as g sist in ke UXQQLQJ + eping th t e county DYLQJ 'DW D )ORZ¡V support te HQJLQHHULQ am availab J DQG le to a s s LVWKHLFLQJ ist with iss RQWKHFDN ues 24/7 H¾ Ralph Brau n, Lift Statio Senior Industrial Ele ns Section ctrician Manatee C ounty Utilit ies Departm ent

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

ƒ–ƒ Ž‘™›•–‡�•Ǥ �…Ǥ


͸Ͳ͡Ǥ ‘ŠÂ?‘†‡•Ž˜†Ǥ

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

‡Ž„‘—”�‡ǥ ;ʹ͝;͜

‡„•‹–‡ǣ™™™Ǥ†ƒ–ƒĎ?Ž‘™•›•Ǥ…‘Â? Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Continued from page 42 motely located municipal and private facilities. Each of these opportunities should be explored to fully evaluate the vital municipal services that could be synergistically integrated.

Hillsborough County Case Study One such recent example of the internal use of renewable energy is in Hillsborough County (Figure 11). In 2009, approximately 2 megawatts of electricity from the county’s EfW facility was delivered to its adjacent 12-mgd advanced wastewater treatment plant (AWTP). In

this arrangement, the solid waste department generates greater revenues than if it sold renewable energy to the local electric utility, while the water resources department saves by avoiding the purchase of electricity at the full commercial rate. This win-win arrangement has saved local rate payers millions of dollars over the past eight years. In order to avoid “demand charges” imposed by the local utility if the AWTP facility remained connected to the local electric grid, a backup diesel electric power system was provided to ensure uninterrupted electric service at the AWTP. The AWTP has 100 percent backup diesel generation to ensure that the facility will

operate when the EfW facility is temporarily offline for planned or unplanned maintenance. Figure 12 illustrates the potential savings to public works for a variety of EfW facility sizes based upon the percentage of electricity that is used for the treatment of water resources. As shown, the savings can be significant—potentially tens of millions of dollars per year based upon a three-cent differential between the rates at which the EfW would sell power to the local grid versus the rate at which water resources would purchase electricity from the local grid.

Conclusion A synergistic approach to managing several municipal processes on a single water utility campus is compatible with the goals of sustainability, waste reduction, and development of alternate water supplies, while answering the challenge of the water-energy nexus. In addition to this successful Florida project, there are numerous opportunities to integrate energy from waste with water treatment processes for various alternate water sources, including surface water, wastewater, reclaimed water, stormwater, brackish water, and seawater as viable options for the future era of sustainable public works.


Figure 11. Potential benefits for use of renewable electrical energy from energy-from-waste facilities.

The author wishes to acknowledge assistance from the public utilities department and solid waste management division of Hillsborough County in the preparation of this article. S

Figure 12. Hillsborough County energy-from-waste facility powers an adjacent advanced wastewater treatment plant with approximately 2 megawatts of electricity.


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The Florida Water & Pollution Control Operators Association’s

ONLINE TRAINING INSTITUTE 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

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 C Course .....$300 New – Water Treatment Plant Operator Class B Course......$300 Water Treatment Plant Operator Class C Course......$300

FW&PCOA Voluntary Certification Courses Stormwater Management C Course The tuition fee is $260 for FWPCOA members or $290 for non-members and includes the course manuals and certification exam.

Wastewater Collection C Course The tuition fee is $225 for FWPCOA members or $255 for non-members and includes the certification exam.

Utilities Customer Relations Level I Course This course is designed for Customer Service Representatives. The tuition fee is $260 for FWPCOA members or $290 for non-members. The fee includes the course manual, a live 1-day hands-on session, and the certification exam.

Enroll Today at

For more information on enrollment, contact Program Administrator Tim McVeigh Phone: (954) 683-1432 *

Test Yourself

Anaerobic Biosolids Digestion

Ron Trygar

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: or by mail to: Ron Trygar, CET Senior Training Specialist UF TREEO Center Gainesville, Fla. 32608

1. An anaerobic digester operating in the mesophilic range of temperature control is between which degrees Fahrenheit (°F) ? a. 50 to 80°F b. 85 to 100°F c. 120 to 135°F d. All anaerobic digesters are not heated.

7. Sodium bicarbonate is a good substitute for lime when correcting a sour condition, but it is seldom used due to what reason? a. High costs b. Limited availability in the United States c. Shipping dangers d. Flammability issues

2. Struvite crystals and scale found inside the pipes and equipment of anaerobic digesters are formed from a. magnesium, ammonium, and phosphate. b. calcium, manganese, and iron. c. iron oxides. d. hydrogen sulfide, calcium, and methane dioxide.

8. The anaerobic digester has become upset. Symptoms include a high volatile acid-toalkalinity ratio (0.5:1.0), low methane production, increased carbon dioxide production, and a decreasing pH value. What is the best method for recovery? a. Shut off all mixing and reduce the temperature 5°F to preserve bacteria. b. Drain the tank 20 percent and reseed with sludge from a nearby aerobic digester. c. Keep the tank well mixed, maintain temperature, and add sulfuric acid. d. Keep the tank well mixed, maintain temperature, and add lime.

3. The recommended cleaning schedule for anaerobic digesters is between a. one to three years. b. three to four years. c. three to eight years. d. eight to 12 years. 4. The floating cover of the anaerobic digester is tilting, but there is little to no foam around the edges. What is the best method to correct this problem? a. Add alkalinity in the form of sodium carbonate. b. Raise the cover to the corbels to relevel. c. Rapidly pump sludge into the digester to “pop” the cover into place. d. Adjust or move the ballast weights around the cover until they are level. 5. Caution must be used when adding a caustic chemical to a sour digester. The addition of lime can combine with carbon dioxide in the digester to cause what problem? a. Acetic acid buildup b. Internal overpressurization c. Struvite scale formation d. Formation of a dangerous vacuum 6. Overfeeding of an anaerobic digester during start-up can aggravate what condition? a. Carbon dioxide formation b. Excessive foaming c. Hydrogen sulfide degradation d. Carbon monoxide production


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

9. When considering dosing the anaerobic digester with lime, what is a rough guide on the dosage? a. One pound of lime for every gal of liquid sludge to be treated b. One pound of lime for every 1000 gal of sludge to be treated c. Ten pounds of lime for every 100 gal of sludge to be treated d. One hundred pounds of lime for every 1000 pounds of sludge to be treated 10. If the alkalinity test result of the anaerobic digester biosolids is 5,000 mg/L, what should the volatile acid test result be when the digester is running at an optimum volatile acid-to-alkalinity ratio? a. 5 mg/L b. 50 mg/L c. 500 mg/L d. 5,000 mg/L Answers on page 82

It’s Coming: April is Water Conservation Month Proclamation (Name of County/City entity) (Location) WHEREAS, water is a basic and essential need of every living creature; and

2017 marks the 19-year anniversary since April was first established as Water Conservation Month in Florida. During that time, great strides have been made toward understanding the impacts of water efficiency and water conservation programs. To recognize these efforts, the Florida Section AWWA (FSAWWA) and Florida's water management districts are once again asking local governments, water utilities, and other organizations to adopt a resolution or proclamation declaring “April as Water Conservation Month,” and then report this back to FSAWWA. It’s important that you add your Water Conservation Month proclamation to the statewide list. Each year, FSAWWA works with the state governor and cabinet to proclaim "April as Water Conservation Month.” By adopting Water Conservation Month and adding your proclamation to the statewide list, you are letting Florida's elected officials know just how important water efficiency and water conservation practices are to local governments, water utilities, and other organizations in Florida. We want to have utilities throughout the state adopt this proclamation and get your efforts in water conservation recognized! To add your proclamation to the statewide list of entities proclaiming Water Conservation Month this year, please email your proclamation and its adoption date to Jenny Arguello at The due date for the proclamations will be announced in the near future. S

WHEREAS, The state of Florida, water management districts, and (your utility name) are working together to increase awareness about the importance of water conservation; and WHEREAS, (your city or county name) and the state of Florida have designated April, typically a dry month when water demands are most acute, Florida’s Water Conservation Month, to educate citizens about how they can help save Florida’s precious water resources; and WHEREAS, (your utility name) has always encouraged and supported water conservation, through various educational programs and special events; and WHEREAS, every business, industry, school, and citizen can make a difference when it comes to conserving water; and WHEREAS, every business, industry, school, and citizen can help by saving water and thus promote a healthy economy and community; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that by virtue of the authority vested in me as (chair, mayor, etc.) of (your city or county name) (commissioners or council members, etc.) do hereby proclaim the month of April as

Water Conservation Month (Your city or county name), Florida, is calling upon each citizen and business to help protect our precious resource by practicing water saving measures and becoming more aware of the need to save water.

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



Utility Wisdom in Law and Regulation Grace Johns

S Legislative Committee Chair: Christopher Pettit, Palm Beach County S Regulatory Committee Chair: Krystal Azzarella, Polk County


ach day legislators and regulators in Tallahassee and Washington, D.C., make decisions on law, policy, and regulation that have the potential to impact water and wastewater utility operations. Our member utilities are the ultimate experts in the provision of safe, reliable, and affordable water and wastewater services to Florida residents and visitors, and therefore, must provide input to our state and national leaders. Without this critical input, the resulting laws and regulations could hinder or burden our utilities and their customers. This is why FSAWWA has a long history of supporting its Utility Council.


Our Mission, Goals, and Leadership The FSAWWA Utility Council’s mission is to develop action programs to initiate, evaluate, respond, and comment on legislative, regulatory, and other matters directly affecting water utilities in Florida at the state and national level. The council represents utilities providing drinking water to over 9 million Florida residents. Membership covers the entire state, from small water utilities serving a few hundred customers to those serving over a million customers. A key element of FSAWWA's strategic plan is to increase its involvement, credibility, and effectiveness with legislators and regulatory agencies. To meet this objective, the council will continue to: S Expand its advocacy efforts S Develop effective alliances with other organizations S Develop legislative and regulatory policies that clearly define positions on specific legislative and/or regulatory issues The council is led by its chair, Lisa Wilson-Davis, of the City of Boca Raton. She is supported by the following council officers: S Past Chair: Rob Teegarden, OUC S Vice Chair: Patty DiPiero, Lee County S Secretary/Treasurer: Kevin Carter, Broward County


Over the past few decades, I have personally observed the year-round effort of the council members as they followed and provided comments and recommendations on numerous proposed regulations, laws, and policies, and interacted with our legislators and regulators. For example, last year the council provided timely alerts and information to members regarding the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Emergency Public Notification of Pollution Rule and subsequent proposed rule. The council provided comments to FDEP regarding unique issues associated with water treatment facility operations and the management of domestic wastewater collection and treatment facilities. In January of this year, an administrative law judge ruled that FDEP overstepped its authority in proposing new requirements for notifying the public when pollution occurs. The council continues to monitor the status of this proposed rule, including the resulting proposed legislative amendments.

January’s Tallahassee Fly-In The council leads FSAWWA’s Tallahassee Fly-In and participates in the AWWA Washington, D.C., Fly-In each year. This year’s “Tally Fly-In” was held in our state capital on January 24 and 25. With many new senate and house members, this was a great opportunity to introduce ourselves to them and their staff. To this end, the council held a “Legislative Introduction to Water Policy for Legislators and Staff ” seminar on Tuesday afternoon at the Governor’s Club, followed by a reception. Both events were well attended by our legislators and their staff and provided a free exchange of information regarding water legislation and Florida’s water industry. For utilities that desired face-to-face interaction with their state representatives, this was a valuable opportunity. The seminar covered the following topics: S Utility overview of water supply and treatment processes S Summary of Florida’s water regulatory framework and critical needs S Explanation of Florida’s water supply planning process

March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

S Water supply funding needs and their statutory basis S FSAWWA’s participation in reclaimed water issues, with recommendations S Water quality regulations and compliance, with a focus on the Lead and Copper Rule The council speakers gave engaging and informative presentations, and included Lisa Wilson-Davis, Kevin Carter, Christopher Pettit, Brian Wheeler of Toho Water Authority, Jan McLean with the City of Tampa, and Josh Behr of Polk County Utilities. The next day, 20 of our council members met with 19 senate and house representatives and their staff members during individual meetings to discuss issues important to our members and to exchange information and knowledge. After the meetings, Lisa Wilson-Davis stated, “I want to thank the council’s regulatory and legislative advocates, Gunster and Littlejohn Mann & Associates, and all of the council member volunteers, for their hard work and dedication in making this year’s FSAWWA Utility Council Tallahassee Fly-In a huge success! Everything from the venue to the council meeting to the legislative presentation; the food, the social, and the many member visits; and the countless hours of preparation all came together seamlessly. We have received great and positive feedback from many of the participants, as well as our council members. Our presence was definitely felt in the capitol!”

Should You Become an FSAWWA Utility Council Member? The benefits of being a Utility Council member include the ease at which your utility can keep up to date with the dynamic world of evolving water laws, policies, and regulations, and interaction with your state and national representatives to influence their views on the water industry. The FSAWWA chairelect, William Young, utilities director at St. Johns County Utility Dept., says, “As a utility director, we have to stay informed on what’s happening in Tallahassee and Washington. We’re getting more and more regulatory changes that impact our rate payers. Our Utility Council gives us that opportunity to stay informed.”

The council is only as strong as its active members. While the current members do an exemplary job of monitoring and communicating with state leadership, we could be more influential if more utilities throughout the state participated. In particular, during our recent visit, two house members recommended that council members visit the local offices of their state representatives to talk with them about water industry issues, concerns, and recommendations. They believe that this local exchange would go a long way toward increasing the role of Florida’s water utilities in developing sound laws, policies, and regulations.

How to Become an FSAWWA Utility Council Member While membership in the council is separate from that of FSAWWA, it’s available to all FSAWWA utilities and service providers with an interest in the legislative and regulatory issues facing the water industry. All AWWA utility members located in Florida are automatically members of the council. All they have to do is appoint a utility representative to attend the regular council meetings and become engaged in its activities. Utility members may obtain voting privileges on the council for an annual fee, ranging from $250 to $1,000, depending on the utility’s service population. For a utility with employees who have AWWA individual memberships, but the utility is not an AWWA utility member, the annual fee for FSAWWA Utility Council membership, including voting privileges, ranges from $500 to $3,000, depending on service population size. Other AWWA member types, such as employees of a consulting firm, legal firm, manufacturer, or product vendor whose interests are compatible with the bylaws and objectives of FSAWWA and the council, may join the council as a nonvoting associate member for an annual fee of $1,000. These annual fees are nominal, compared to the opportunities provided to interact with our state and national representatives and ensure that utilities have the resources, funding, and support from the state and federal governments to make a better Florida through better water. For more information, contact Lisa Wilson-Davis, council chair; Peggy Guingona, FSAWWA executive director; or any of the council’s officers, using the contact information provided at S

Kevin Carter of Broward County presents Florida’s water regulatory framework and critical needs at the “Legislative Introduction to Water Policy for Legislators and Staff” seminar held in January at the Governor’s Club in Tallahassee.

With many new Florida senate and house members, January’s Tallahassee Fly-In was a great opportunity for council members to introduce themselves. Twenty FSAWWA Utility Council members participated.

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



Succession Planning Isn’t Just a Problem for Utilities Board of Directors Meeting in Destin

Scott Anaheim President, FWPCOA

uccession planning is an area that always seems to need attention, but never really gets properly addressed until it’s too late. I watched this happen when I retired at my utility and saw the scramble that ensued once “the person with all the knowledge” walked out the door. No utility has shut down just because one person left, but there can be a significant drop in productivity and knowledge transfer with the loss of a key individual. As an organization, FWPCOA is starting to deal with this same issue. The challenge here becomes even more difficult since most of the positions are made up of volunteers and many of these folks are already retired or working full-time jobs. It’s hard to find someone willing to step up and take on some responsibility when the only real reward is going to be the self-satisfaction of doing a good job. Yes, we as an organization do appreciate everyone’s effort and dedication for the work they do, but we also know that there comes a time when they want to step aside, so that is why we will be working on succession planning. I want to thank Rim Bishop for expressing his concern on this issue so work can begin on getting the right folks in place. We will be working on a plan of action and hopefully have something in place by our next board of directors meeting in March. We will start working at the state level to have people in place in key positions, but this is something that each of our regions needs to talk about and focus on.



The meeting in Destin was a big success and we made great progress in the effort of revitalizing Region I. The continuing education unit (CEU) courses offered were well attended, with a total of 101 people registering. Here are some other highlights from the meeting that regions need to be aware of: Publicity Committee - Chair Phil Donovan reported that he had distributed information packets this week regarding 2017 Water Professionals Week. He asked the board to begin contacting utilities and public officials immediately and offered his assistance to those who need it. Awards Committee - Chair Renee Moticker announced the eleven 2017 Pat Robinson Scholarship winners. She further noted that the David B. Lee, Pat Flanagan, and Richard P. Vogh awards will be given at the March 2017 short school, and reminded everyone that all award nominations and applications must be signed. The next board of directors meeting will be held on March 12, at 9:30 a.m., at Indian River State College in Ft. Pierce. The state short school will be held the same week and this is a great way to get those CEUs needed for license renewal. For those who can’t make the short school, check out the FWPCOA Online Institute, which presently has 94 active courses. For the 2017 license renewal cycle, we have sold an average of 56 online courses per month. Please continue to advise your members of the availability of the Online Institute in your newsletters and at your membership meetings. With three months left to go, we are into the homestretch for the 2017 license renewal cycle, so encourage operators to finish earning their CEUs. S

March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

3 Key Largo Utility Workers Die From Gas Fumes Three contracted utility workers died Jan. 16, 2017, after being overcome by gas fumes inside a drainage trench located in a Key Largo subdivision. The workers, who were employed by a private company, had gone underground into a 15-ft drainage hole to look into a dip in a newly paved Key Largo road. The gas in the hole was a mixture of hydrogen sulfide and methane. The deceased are Elway Gray, 34, of Fort Lauderdale; Louis O’Keefe, 49, of Little Torch Key; and Robert Wilson, 24, of Summerland Key. According to Monroe Sheriff ’s Department spokesperson Deputy Becky Herrin, a Key Largo Volunteer Fire Department firefighter, who went underground to attempt to rescue the three workers, was also overcome by the fumes and airlifted to Ryder Trauma Center in Miami in serious condition. The firefighter decided to enter the hole without his air pack because the hole was not wide enough to fit both him and his equipment. Another firefighter was able to get in the hole with his air pack and rescue his colleague. Drainage holes typically have vents to avoid gas buildups, and this hole showed no signs of venting. Detectives will be investigating the deaths. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration is also conducting an investigation, Herrin said. The workers, who were not employees of the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District, were employed by D.N. Higgins, a private contractor with a Florida branch office in Naples, according to Paul Christian, general manager of the district. S

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



Waste Not, Watt Not: Considerations for Codigestion and Cogeneration Implementation Jody Barksdale, George Dick, and Katie Wingrove ith rising energy costs and evermore stringent regulatory limits, utilities are looking for options to reduce operating costs and to create additional sources of revenue, while meeting new energy challenges. A traditional method of achieving these goals at wastewater treatment facilities in the United States and across the world is mesophilic anaerobic digestion, where wastewater solids (both raw, primary, and biological treatment, or secondary sludges) are consumed by microorganisms at relatively high temperatures (>95ÂşF). Anaerobic digestion reduces sludge quantities and produces biogas, which can have greater than 60 percent methane content and can be used in lieu of natural gas to create heat and electricity.


Cogeneration, or combined heat and power (CHP), is the thermodynamically efficient use of a fuel source to simultaneously generate electricity and recover useful heat. The electricity and heat produced via cogeneration can be used to offset the cost of electricity and natural gas purchased from local utilities. In the context of a wastewater treatment facility, biogas produced from the anaerobic digestion of primary and secondary solids will provide fuel for an engine to generate onsite electricity and reusable heat, which is often subsequently used to heat the anaerobic digesters. Figure 1 presents an example process flow diagram for cogeneration. While utilizing the biogas produced by anaerobic digestion can offset energy consump-

Figure 1. Example Process Flow Diagram for Cogeneration

Figure 2. Process Flow Diagram for Cogeneration With Codigestion


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Jody Barksdale, P.E., ENV SP, is a senior vice president, and George Dick, EI, is a project engineer, with Gresham Smith and Partners in Tampa. Katie Wingrove, EI, is a project engineer with Gresham Smith and Partners in Atlanta.

tion at a wastewater treatment facility and be a potential source of revenue, there is a limit to the amount of energy that can be produced from municipal wastewater sludges alone. In an effort to increase biogas production, many utilities have started utilizing codigestion, which includes the addition of high-strength waste (HSW) sources to supplement the digestion process. Codigestion, in terms of wastewater treatment, is the process of feeding locally collected HSW to the facility’s anaerobic digesters in order to increase overall biogas production. Codigestion with HSW can result in a neutral, beneficial, or detrimental effect on the digestion process, depending on the characteristics of the HSWs introduced to the system. The addition of HSW increases the volatile solids loading (VSL) into the digester, which in turn can increase the amount of biogas that is produced. An increased volume of biogas provides fuel for operation of larger cogeneration units, thereby increasing electricity production, improving heat-capture opportunities, and pushing the facility closer to net neutral energy usage. In addition to increasing biogas production, codigestion, in some cases, can improve the digestion process, thus yielding higher volatile solids reduction (VSR), improved nutrient balance, and more effective utilization of the digester volume. Benefits to the utility and surrounding community are realized by diversion of waste from the sewer system or landfills, as well as providing revenue from tipping fees. Figure 2 presents the process flow diagram for anaerobic digestion at a facility that practices cogeneration, supplemented by codigestion. In general, sources of HSW exist within the confines of urban areas and are the byproducts of food and beverage industries. Fats, oil, and grease (FOG) are typical food wastes produced by restaurants and other food processing businesses. Certain nonfood-producing industries may also

generate HSW, but these wastes typically aren’t compatible with codigestion due to constituents such as metals or other biological inhibitors. In all cases, sources of HSW should be individually characterized and evaluated for toxicity to the digestion process in order to avoid biological upsets and reduced biogas production. The HSWs should also be evaluated for biomethane formation potential to better understand the prospective benefits of different waste sources.

Figure 3. General High-Strength Waste Source Identification Steps

Implementing a Codigestion Program Codigestion efforts across the U.S. utilize a variety of sources, such as FOG from restaurant grease traps, solid preconsumer and post-consumer food waste, and food processing wastes. Certain types of waste require greater pretreatment and screening for removal of undesirable contents, including, but not limited to, trash, excess water, eating utensils, and seashell grit. Some utilities have partnered with waste haulers and other third-party collectors, waste managers, and preprocessors of HSW to broaden their options for receiving a consistent supply of anaerobic digester feed. Figure 3 is a highlevel summary of the preliminary steps in the process of identifying potential HSW sources.

Sources of High-Strength Waste Each HSW source should meet, at a minimum, the following criteria prior to being considered for implementation in a codigestion system: 1. No known toxic constituents (heavy metals, extreme pH, sanitary chemicals, biocides) 2. High-potential biogas production (high chemical oxygen demand [COD] and/or volatile solids [VS]) 3. Prescreened and homogenous waste (remove trash and grit, avoid large chunks of material) 4. Reliable quantity and consistent supply from HSW producer 5. Proximity of HSW source to the treatment facility and accessibility for HSW collection 6. Beneficial diversion of HSW from sanitary sewer and/or landfills Criteria 1 and 2 are important in determining the respective biogas yield of various waste streams, in addition to whether or not a waste stream will cause upsets to the anaerobic digestion process. Criterion 3 addresses undesirable materials present in certain HSWs, which could lead to excessive maintenance and potential performance issues for tanks and process equipment. Some HSW streams are relatively free of debris and do not require screening (food and beverage processing byproducts), whereas other HSWs

(solid food waste, grease trap waste) typically contain components of concern, such as trash, utensils, broken plates, etc. Several haulers currently operate their own pretreatment facilities with sorting, screening, and/or dewatering capabilities, while others do not. The latter unscreened wastes should not be accepted at the facility unless a screening process is included as part of the HSW receiving station design. A screening facility at the HSW receiving station would increase both capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, but would also allow for acceptance of a wider variety of hauled material. Table 1 presents the Th-COD (g-O2/g), or the theoretical maximum COD per gram of waste component, for major macromolecules and waste types. This value indicates the comparative ranking of methane production potential from various HSWs. Fatty acids (which correspond to FOG waste streams) provide a highly beneficial anaerobic digester feed substrate due to a large methane yield, and have proved a successful HSW source for many codigestion facilities. Fatty acids at excessive concentrations, however, can also inhibit key microbial organisms, while sugary waste (carbohydrates) at excessive concentrations can result in system acidification. For these reasons, a combination of sources is often best for overall process performance. Actual performance will require bench-scale or full-scale testing to determine individual compatibility and co-compatibility of wastes with the facility’s biosolids in a codigestion process. Criteria 4 and 5 focus on the cost-effectiveness, logistical soundness, and long-term potential use of each HSW source. The HSW producers under consideration should include relatively large, well-established industries or haulers located within a reasonable distance to the treatment facility to assist with the economics of hauling wastes. Criterion 6, waste diversion (either hauled HSW diverted from landfills or diversion of

discharged HSW from collection systems), is a priority due to potential ancillary benefits, including: S Reduced collection system odors and corrosion S Reduced need for sewer cleaning S Reduced solid waste footprint in landfills S Reduced energy and chemical consumption for treatment at the treatment facility Various municipalities across the U.S. have also enacted restrictive legislation to reduce landfilling of food or organic waste, in particular. This trend includes efforts within the food and beverage industry to improve operational sustainability, while partnering with municipalities to find cost-effective options for waste disposal and recovery. Another consideration for diversion of HSW from the sewer system is surcharge fees, which are applied to permitted HSW dischargers. These fees generate annual revenue for the municipality, and any reduction in revenue must be included in the cost-benefit evaluation for certain HSW streams. The reduction in surcharge fees must be compared to the benefits of energy recovery, as well as anticipated reductions in the cost of wastewater treatment operations and collection system infrastructure maintenance (including corrosion, sewer blockages from FOG material, etc.). Often, the majority of the diverted HSW will come from physically separated and hauled waste streams, which should not significantly impact industrial sewer surcharge revenue since these materials are usually not discharged and can be hauled directly from the producer’s facility.

Locating High-Strength Waste Sources Once the criteria for acceptable HSW have been established, several methods can be used to identify and locate suitable HSW sources. Continued on page 54

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Continued from page 53 One alternative is investigating different sources utilizing database searches via the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system or the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which are standards used by federal statistical agencies for classifying business establishments. These two systems were created for taxation purposes, but can provide a general idea of the type of businesses in the area that may generate HSWs, such as bakeries, breweries, food manufacturing, and restaurants. The aforementioned industrial surcharge fees charged by many municipalities can provide another tool for locating waste streams high in COD or biological oxygen demand (BOD). Industrial dischargers are often required to have pretreatment permits, and can therefore be quickly identified via the municipality’s permit administrator. Identifying these sources is the first step for potentially diverting waste from the sewer system and eliminating it from the treatment plant’s liquid treatment process. Many industrial dischargers are expressing a willingness to participate in energy recovery projects to potentially reduce their discharge fees, while promoting sustainability. Contacting waste haulers has also proven beneficial in implementing a codigestion program because many of them contract with multiple waste producers, including smaller producers that may not have sufficient volume to be targeted as an individual waste source. Waste haulers can often be identified via the state registry or through municipal FOG programs, which seek to mandate FOG capture prior to sewer discharge. Some waste haulers remove the FOG from grease traps and transport it to processing facilities where it is processed and dewatered; other waste haulers transport byproducts of food and beverage manufacturing, such as off-spec syrup for soft drinks. Many of these haulers pay tipping fees at the respective FOG processing facility, landfill, or other disposal location for their waste and are eager for an alternate, less expensive disposal method. The municipality may re-

ceive these wastes directly or make an agreement with the waste processing facility to accept waste only after it has been screened and/or partially dewatered. This is especially a consideration for unscreened FOG sources, since this material can be high in VS and easily biodegradable, which is highly beneficial for codigestion. During an evaluation of available sources, it is important to remember that there are several competing recipients of high-value HSW, including biofuel manufacturers, fat rendering facilities, and some composting operations.

Pilot System and Laboratory Studies As treatment processes and biosolids differ from facility to facility, so does the interaction of the sludge with different HSWs. For this reason, it is important to perform laboratory studies with different solids-to-HSWs ratios to determine ideal combinations. Once the best waste ratios are determined, tests can be performed to maximize the waste biodegradability and the kinetics of the codigestion process. While laboratory-scale testing generally involves small samples tested under ideal conditions, a larger-scale pilot evaluation should be conducted to verify that the digestion performance will not be compromised when larger quantities of waste are introduced into the digester system. The pilot system can also aid in determining the VSR and projecting biogas production for cogeneration. Performing bench-scale testing and laboratory analyses are critical to understanding the expected performance of the wastes in an anaerobic digester. Utilizing waste characterization and bench-scale testing, experienced engineers and engineering professors who work on biogas projects can provide guidance to assist with financial projections for codigestion/cogeneration projects. The bench-scale evaluation should include a detailed work plan for waste collection and characterization, batch studies for HSW codigestion performance, and digester operation simulations for the plant’s sludges, as well

Table 1. Substrate Versus Biomass Yield and Gas Composition

as waste combinations to simulate synergistic effects. Bench-scale study objectives include: S Identify waste sources for further study for potential use in codigestion. S Collect and characterize wastes: pH, total solids (TS), VS, COD, volatile fatty acids (VFA), N (nitrogen) species, etc. S Perform ultimate digestibility tests to quantify potential methane production and biological inhibition. S Digestibility tests can include several combinations of HSW, with blended primary and secondary sludges, to better understand synergistic effects. Dr. Spyros Pavlostathis, with the school of civil and environmental engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, conducted a recent evaluation for the City of Atlanta that analyzed seven wastes selected from the metropolitan Atlanta area for potential use as substrates for codigestion. Of those seven wastes, three were selected for additional evaluation utilizing a bench-scale study with digester sludge from one of the city’s facilities. The study selected the wastes for further analysis based, in part, on the following: S Total gas production (methane and carbon dioxide) S COD and VSR S COD CH4 / CODinitial (g/g) - methane production (COD equivalent) for each gram of COD substrate S Extent of waste digestion or degradation of waste components, i.e., high degradation suggests minimal inhibition The three wastes selected (two FOG/food hauling wastes and one syrup from soft drink production) are being analyzed individually and as mixtures for codigestion effectiveness and gas production. The bench-scale study is currently in its final steps and will give the city guidance for the final selection of wastes, as well as projected gas production for a potential codigestion/cogeneration project.

Digester Performance Considerations Several design and operational components must be considered prior to implementing a codigestion/cogeneration project. The main objective of the anaerobic digestion process is treating biosolids using an adequate solids retention time (SRT) to reduce pathogens and destroy VS. If there is sufficient process volume available for digestion, any excess volume may be used to accommodate the codigestion of


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

FOG and/or other HSWs; however, operators must be careful not to overload the digestion process with high concentrations of COD and VS from HSW sources. The literature reports criteria for digester organic loadings (VS) ranging between 0.1 and 0.3 lbs-VS/ft3/day. While this recommended loading criteria has been validated, research has shown that loading rates exceeding this have been implemented successfully for codigestion, and additional studies are being completed. It has been shown in some cases that a variety of wastes and feed sources can stabilize the microbial populations within the digesters for relatively large organic loadings. The organic loading rate of the wastes can be evaluated during bench-scale testing to determine the upper limits that a particular digestion process can accommodate from individual wastes or mixtures of wastes. Of course, full-scale testing will verify bench-scale results to help fine-tune process operations and digester performance. Other digestion process considerations include variations of mesophilic/thermophilic and acid-phase digestion, and total gas production provided by these processes. Several physical, thermal, and chemical process technologies are also available that enhance biogas production by pretreating solids prior to digestion, such as lysis, hydrolysis, pulsed electric field, etc. These technologies have been utilized successfully, but their implementation value must compare the additional capital and O&M investment required versus increased biogas/energy production and solids reduction.

Cogeneration Considerations Biogas is predominantly methane (CH4) produced as a byproduct of the anaerobic digestion process. The biogas can be used to produce heat and electricity, or as a renewable supply gas for natural gas offset. Anticipated biogas production is dependent on several factors, including projected solids quantities, projected FOG and HSW quality and quantity, and industry standard calculations for biogas production. Prior to the utilization of the biogas, the quality of the gas must be determined through sampling and analysis to determine the level of gas treatment required for a specific use. Table 2 indicates the generally expected quality of the biogas, including lower heating value and contaminants. While other constituents represent only a small fraction of the biogas makeup, various levels of treatment must be provided, depending on the gas usage and equipment, such as boilers, dryers, and engines. At a minimum, the biogas will need moisture removal and some

Table 2. Typical Biogas Constituents

Figure 4. Example Energy Balance Through a Cogeneration System With Approximate Energy Recovery Percentages

compression prior to utilization in a cogeneration system. If hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or siloxane content is at higher concentrations than the cogeneration system engine manufacturer recommends for its systems, then additional gas cleaning processes will need to be included to protect these assets. Prior to incorporating a cogeneration system, design and operational considerations should include: S Digester gas production and quality of biogas. How much biogas is available and how much additional gas can be produced with codigestion? S Electrical, and industrial and commercial, infrastructure requirements for connected loads to proposed generator equipment. S Present worth of electrical power and heat offsets compared to capital and O&M costs of a proposed codigestion/cogeneration project. S Cogeneration engine-type selection comparing efficiencies (electrical and thermal), equipment costs, O&M, gas treatment requirements, and turndown capabilities. S Economical site layout and configuration to ensure access and proximity to existing plant systems (hot water boilers and heating loops, digesters gas systems, electrical, and other infrastructure). S Emissions and air permitting requirements.

Energy Production Once the quantity of biogas is estimated via bench-scale pilot studies and through the review of previous work and the literature, the amount of electricity and heat that can be recovered and utilized at the facility can be calculated. The engineer should always include realistic downtime of the cogeneration system to accommodate routine maintenance and unscheduled downtime, usually assuming 85 to 90 percent system runtime for a conservative financial evaluation. Cogeneration system sizes, such as internal combustion (IC) engines, are determined based on their electrical output potential and the biogas available for combustion. The IC engines can range from 32 to 36 percent efficiency or greater, depending on the engine design. As the gas is burned, the engine’s exhaust heat can be recovered and used in heating applications, such as digester or building heating. Additional heat can also be recovered via the engine’s cooling jacket water. A general rule of thumb for IC engine sizing includes operating the engine at or near its full capacity to optimize its efficiency. If the engine is sized too large relative to the biogas production, it will need to operate at less than 100 percent power if longer runtimes are desired. Running an engine at a reduced output does not Continued on page 56

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Continued from page 55 take advantage of the engine’s best operating efficiency range, which is usually near full power. In addition, engines that are sized too large, without gas storage, must often be turned on and off periodically, which contributes to maintenance of, and wear on, the engine. However, the kilowatt-hour (kWh) production per runtime period is higher for full-power operation (even for intermittent operation) and requires less periodic routine maintenance compared to continuous operation at a lower output capacity. This is due to the routine maintenance costs and overhauls for engines, which are based on hours of runtime. For example, if an engine is operated constantly at a reduced power, the maintenance cost is higher because the engine will need routine maintenance more often (more hours of runtime) than an engine that runs at full power, but less hours. When sizing a cogeneration facility, it is important to work closely with reputable engine manufacturers to understand engine efficiencies, as well as periodic maintenance contracts, which are usually based on hours of runtime. This information will allow the design engineer to provide optimally sized equipment for a longer life cycle and lower maintenance costs. In addition, expansion of the system should be considered to provide for future wastewater flows and/or addition of HSWs. Expansion should also consider future infrastructure, such as new digesters, electrical loads, and emergency power needs.

The electricity that is generated can be interconnected with the facility’s power grid and used to reduce purchased electricity from the local utility. Some facilities have decided to include continuous operation of the generator system, supplying the facility with a constant source of electricity. Other facilities have decided to store biogas and only operate their generator system during peak pricing hours when electricity rates are highest. Due to the shorter runtime, a larger engine can be utilized during peak hours if gas storage is available, when rates are sometimes double or triple. If enough HSW is accepted at the facility, and with proper operation of the digestion system as well as efficient operation of the overall facility, electrical cost offsets can be between 40 and 60 percent.

Revenue Potential A significant capital investment is needed to construct and operate a codigestion and cogeneration facility. The codigestion facility will require HSW storage tanks (heated for FOG material), screening equipment (depending on HSW suppliers), a secondary containment area, and waste grinders, as well as mixing and transfer/feed pumps. The cogeneration facility includes the engine generator, an enclosure for the generator or building, and gas conditioning/cleaning equipment, as well as the electrical interconnection switchgear and heat recovery systems. Even with the associated cap-

ital and O&M costs, the revenue and offset savings can often have a payback within the lifetime of the project and produce a savings for the municipality. Of course, savings will depend on the local costs for power and natural gas. Nonquantifiable benefits for these systems include resiliency for the facility in the form of power production capability, and sustainability via reduction in greenhouse gases and energy recovery. There are three potential sources of savings and revenue that can be realized through codigestion and cogeneration: S The electrical power produced by the cogeneration system corresponds to direct savings through the offset of electricity purchases from the local utility. The higher the price of electricity in the area, the higher the potential is to payback the initial capital investment and start yielding savings. S The natural gas offset for digester heating via the cogeneration system’s waste heat recovery. The engine’s exhaust heat and cooling water can be used in lieu of, or can supplement, a gas-fired boiler system. Unlike electricity, the actual savings from the offset of natural gas usage is dependent on the facility’s heating requirements, which can fluctuate widely. During warmer months, significantly less natural gas is required to heat the boilers than during winter months. S In addition to energy-related cost savings, the opportunity to collect revenue from HSW tipping fees can also assist in offsetting life cycle system costs, and provide an annual revenue stream for the codigestion and cogeneration facility. Hauled waste tipping fees can be charged by weight or by volume to dispose of waste materials at landfills and comparable disposal sites. Throughout the U.S., codigestion facilities vary in their tipping fee charging practices. Although tipping fees across the country typically range from $0.03 to $0.12 per gal for HSWs, values towards the lower end of the range are most realistic for system start-up or facilities in competitive waste disposal environments. As an example, the City of Fort Worth initially chose not to charge tipping fees at its HSW receiving station in order to attract large quantities of the best available waste.

Biogas Utilization

Figure 5. Biogas Utilization Alternatives and Uses


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

For a facility that generates biogas and is looking at codigestion and/or cogeneration, a biogas utilization study is recommended to understand how much gas can be produced, and also how that biogas will be best utilized. To en-

sure that the biogas is utilized in the most beneficial way, an evaluation should consider the following: S Gas production quantities, both current and projected S Biogas characterization analyses (more than just one sample or “snapshot”) to understand the true extent of gas treatment needed S Biogas quality changes due to the addition of outside waste sources (codigestion) S Various options for gas usage (engines, boilers, building heat, compressed natural gas) S Triple-bottom-line evaluation (don’t forget that there are social and environmental benefits to be considered) S Biogas storage for flexibility of operation S Appropriate process and thermodynamic efficiencies for energy/heat production and recovery, e.g., from biogas to power and heat (especially though heat exchanger equipment)

Success Stories East Bay Municipal Utility District Oakland, Calif. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) main wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in Oakland, Calif., is a 55-mil-gal-perday (mgd) facility that treats wastewater from seven cities. The City of Oakland has established a zero-waste goal to implement 100 percent recycling of municipal solid waste (MSW), of which 11.9 percent is food waste. The EBMUD partnered with local haulers in 2004 to collect pretreated post-consumer food waste to add to the facility’s digesters. A bench-scale pilot study was conducted to evaluate the anaerobic digestibility of the “cleaned” food waste product from EBMUD’s food waste recycling facility. Collected food waste is preprocessed by the hauler using screens, magnets for removal of metals, and a hammer mill to remove contaminants and reduce the size of the nonhomogeneous waste components. This process is similar to typical pretreatment for composting operations and other recycling efforts. The food waste is then delivered and diluted in an underground slurry tank prior to undergoing additional processing at the WWTP’s food waste recycling facility, where staff developed a patented method to isolate the desirable uncontaminated food waste pulp. At full scale, the food waste recycling facility accepts up to 40 tons of food waste per day (two truckloads) and can process flows up to 250 gal per minute (gpm). Bench-scale analysis determined that the processed pulp has a COD between 85,000 and 222,000 mg/L. Volatile solids destruction (VSD) for the pulp is ap-

proximately 80 percent, versus 50 to 60 percent for the wastewater solids. Results indicate that the normalized energy benefit per dry ton of food waste applied is 730–1,300 kWh, compared to 560–940 kWh per dry ton of municipal wastewater solids. In 2010, cogeneration (36,900 megawatthours [MWh] produced) met 90 percent of the facility’s electricity needs and saved approximately $3 million in electricity costs. After adding a new turbine in 2012, EBMUD became a net electricity producer utilizing cogeneration, in addition to solar and hydropower installations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided funding for the benchscale food waste evaluation. Village Creek Water Reclamation Facility City of Fort Worth The Village Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) is a 166-mgd facility in Arlington, Texas. The facility operates 14 mesophilic anaerobic digesters and installed two 5-megawatt generator sets in 2001 to facilitate cogeneration implementation. A duct burner and heat recovery steam generator were also installed; however, the biogas production from the WRF’s digesters (including additional gas piped from the City of Arlington landfill) was initially insufficient to meet the demands of the energy recovery equipment. A mass balance around the digester system was used to determine that codigestion could be implemented in six of the facility’s 1.25-mil-gal (MG) digesters to provide sufficient energy to supply the generators with enough fuel for efficient operation. The HSW producers in the City of Fort Worth requested an alternate method of disposal for their waste streams. Initially, interested industries were looking to dispose of waste batter from a corn dog plant, glycerin from a biodiesel production plant, dissolved air flotation skimmings, expired soda, and many other production wastes. The city decided to select a few, high-volume providers, rather than a wide variety of sources, to ensure simplicity and consistency in the waste stream. The first truckloads received were from Liquid Environmental Solutions (grease trap waste; COD between 100,000– 150,000 mg/L), followed by South Waste (grease processing), DELEK biodiesel residuals, and Coca-Cola bottling recycle streams. The city also chose to divert scum from the WRF’s naturalgas-fired grease incinerator for use as a codigestion substrate. Additional waste sources were recruited through the city’s pretreatment program and more have approached the city on their own due to the program’s well-known benefits.

The WRF only accepts wastes with a sufficiently low viscosity to allow for the use of centrifugal chopper pumps. The facility also only accepts wastes that do not require pH adjustment or chemical additions. As a result of sanitization chemicals that are often present in food processing wastes (notably, quaternary ammonium salts), separate batch tanks were installed as part of the receiving station to allow for isolation and/or dilution of potentially toxic wastes. Received HSW COD concentrations range from 85,000–200,000 mg/L. Peak-month delivery to date is 185 loads and the approximate flow rate percentage of HSW entering digesters 9 through 14 is 3 percent. Between January and September of 2013, biogas production in these six digesters was 98 percent greater than the conventional digesters, contributing to an overall increase in biogas production of 30 percent for the WRF. One issue encountered with system implementation involved spreading weekday deliveries evenly over the seven-day week. Another issue involved the high delivery temperature (130°F) of grease-processing waste, which initially damaged the HSW flow meter lining and caused deflection in the polyvinyl chloride piping. The quality (temperature, toxicity, strength, etc.), as well as the delivery schedules of the wastes, must be considered when vetting the HSW providers.

Conclusion Codigestion and cogeneration projects may not be the best fit for all municipalities; however, energy costs will eventually rise, and with a greater emphasis on sustainability and resiliency, energy recovery projects will continue to become more prevalent. In addition, as technologies for engines and biogas treatment systems continue to advance, related equipment will become more efficient and less maintenance-intensive. For any energy recovery project, a thorough business-case evaluation will need to consider several items as noted, including triple-bottom-line concepts to make sure that the investment is sound from several perspectives: financial, social, and environmental. When evaluating HSWs for potential use in a codigestion process, well-planned and well-executed laboratory work and bench-scale studies are essential for identifying the value of available wastes. If implemented properly, an energy recovery project can be a cost-effective approach to offsetting energy costs or begin the path to energy net neutrality, while allowing all stakeholders to realize the benefits. S

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


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

Industrial Pretreatment Program Committee Affiliation: FWPCOA Current chair: Kevin Shropshire, environmental specialist III, City of Orlando Year group was formed: Some FWPCOA meeting minutes about the group have been found going back to 1995. Scope of work: The following is from the FWPCOA website: “The purpose of the Industrial Pretreatment (IPP) Committee and its programs are to monitor and regulate the introduction of pollutants from nondomestic sources into the treatment systems and to improve opportunities to reclaim municipal and industrial wastewaters and sludges. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requires the implementation of pretreatment standards as set forth in Florida Administrative Code 62-625. Monitoring of industrial users is the primary tool an industrial pretreatment program has to determine compliance of the industrial users' wastewater with applicable regulations.”


Some municipalities are able to perform these roles with their current wastewater staff, but some require designated employees and/or pretreatment coordinators. Up until a few years ago, FWPCOA regularly held 40-hour courses, at three levels, to train individuals in the following aspects of industrial pretreatment: S History and regulations of U.S. EPA’s 40 CFR and FDEP 62-625 S Water/wastewater/process water sampling techniques S Safety S Customer service S Inspections of industrial facilities S Industrial user discharge permit writing and process S Enforcing the program S Management skills in relation to Pretreatment Recent accomplishments: I’ve just “taken up the mantle” of this committee as of January. Outside of sampling courses, the committee has not held regular training courses for several years. Current projects: I’m currently reaching out to FDEP, previous committee chairs, and more experienced board members who have

March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

knowledge of IPP prior to 2004, when I started in the field. I’m gathering lists of current members who are interested in IPP, researching current IPP coordinators around the state, and inviting potential new members to assist with the revival of this training program within FWPCOA. Future work: First, I’d like to fill the committee with IPP practitioners. I will be at the Education Committee meeting in Ft. Pierce on March 11 to report any activities we may have. I would like to then create an introductory-style short course for individuals starting employment in the field, or just interested in learning about the topic. After that, a new set of weeklong courses would need to be developed. This is an important field in the water and wastewater industries. Through inspections, sampling, and regulating wastewater discharges, industrial pretreatment programs protect the municipal separate sanitary sewer system (MS4), its employees, Florida citizens, and the environment. Group members: As of today, it’s just me. If you’re interested in joining the committee, please email me at


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

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

Under Pressure: Hydrothermal Liquefaction and the Fast Lane to Resource Recovery Heath Wintz and Matt Atwood (Article 1: CEU = 0.1 WW)

1. The hydrothermal liquefaction process produces a. crude bio-oil. b. high-nutrient food-grade fertilizer. c. excess electrical power to be returned to the grid. d. industrial grade CO2. 2. Within the photobioreactors, nutrient and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removal a. are dependent upon mechanical mixing. b. rely only on the minimal wave action of open water. c. are minimal due to upstream disinfection. d. require an external heat source. 3. Hydrothermal liquefaction biomass production rates were typically driven by frequency of harvest and a. pH. b. temperature. c. influent carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD). d. influent total suspended solids. 4. Electrical or chemical ______________ of organism cellular walls can increase biogas production and volatile solids destruction. a. preservation b. enhancement c. lysing d. coagulation 5. The potential energy yield of the Daphne facility fats, oil, and grease skid is significantly higher than the waste activated sludge skid due in part to its a. molecular strength. b. molecular weakness. c.. high methane concentration. d. low moisture content.

Waste Not, Watt Not: Considerations for Codigestion and Cogeneration Implementation Jody Barksdale, George Dick, and Katie Wingrove (Article 2: CEU = 0.1 WW)

___________________________________ SUBSCRIBER NAME (please print)

Article 1 _________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

Article 2 _________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

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

___________________________________ (Credit Card Number)

____________________________________ (Expiration Date)

1. The process of feeding locally collected high-strength wastes to an anaerobic digester to increase biogas production is known as a. biosupplementation. b. codigestion. c. cogeneration. d. comingling. 2. Among sources of high-strength wastes, ____________ at excessive concentrations can result in system acidification. a. municipal sludge b. proteins c. fatty acids d. carbohydrates 3. The main objective of the anaerobic digestion process is treating biosolids using an adequate _____________ to reduce pathogens and destroy volatile solids. a. volatile solids concentration b. temperature c. solids retention time d. temperature 4. ____________ anaerobic digestion is the process by which wastewater solids are consumed by microorganisms at temperatures exceeding 95°F. a. Cryogenic b. Mesophilic c. Thermophilic d. Mutagenic 5. Published literature recommends anaerobic digester loading rates of 0.1 to ___ pounds of volatile solids per cu ft per day. a. 0.2 b. 0.3 c. 0.4 d. 0.5 Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Algae: From Resource Depletion to Resource Recovery

Barry Liner and Noah Mundt enerally, when we think of algae in a water quality context, we think of how nutrients in agricultural runoff, municipal wastewater effluent, and urban stormwater provide the conditions for algae blooms in water bodies. These algae blooms lead to eutrophication and dead zones, causing negative water quality and economic effects. The same biological processes that lead to water quality problems from nutrient pollution can be harnessed to treat and recover nitrogen and phosphorus through production of algae biomass for wastewater bioremediation. Algae can be cultivated and harvested to create bio-


mass that can be transformed into biofuels and bioproducts. As the wastewater sector seeks to manage high energy costs, while recovering resources to meet tighter nutrient limits, the algae bioproducts and biofuels industry is searching for productive feedstock. The potential is being recognized, as demonstrated by the 2016 Paul L. Busch Award being given to Jeremy S. Guest, assistant professor in the department of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. This $100,000 award recognizes Guest’s work with algae treatment and resource recovery. In October 2016, the Water Environment Federation (WEF; Alexandria, Va.) and the Algae Biomass Organization (ABO; Preston, Minn.) hosted a forum on algae in wastewater treatment at the Algae Biomass Summit. The forum brought together algae technology developers, leading design and engineering firms, municipalities, regulators, and other stakeholders to review the state of algae-based tertiary wastewater treatment systems. Forum participants also discussed oppor-

Figure 1. Green Algae Typically Found in Wastewater Pond Polycultures (Credit: Lundquist, T., Spierling, R., Parker, L., Pittner, C., Medina, L., Steffen, T., Alvarez, J., Adler, N., and Benemmann, J. (2016). “The RNEW® Process: Recycled Water, Fertilizer, and Power from Wastewater,” presented at Algae Biomass Summit, Oct. 23, 2016, Phoenix, Ariz.)


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

tunities and challenges in deploying such systems in the context of an evolving economic, environmental, and regulatory landscape.

Types of Algae Algae tolerate a wide range of environments with respect to temperature, salinity, and water quality. The communities of algae found in treatment and harvesting operations typically are mixed culture, combining both photosynthetic and heterotrophic types, as occurs in nature. Photosynthetic algae use nutrients from nitrogen and phosphorus in wastewater, capture carbon as carbon dioxide, use energy from sunlight, and produce oxygen as a waste product., Heterotrophic algae use organic chemicals for carbon and energy. Blue-green algae are photosynthetic, but actually are bacteria (cyanobacteria) that contain phyocyanin, which give them their blue-green color. These algae also produce microcystins, which are toxins that cause many of the negative effects of algae blooms in lakes. Other algae are eukaryotes, as opposed to bacteria, and are gen-

Figure 2. Raceway Algae High Rate Pond (Credit: Lundquist, T., Spierling, R., Parker, L., Pittner, C., Medina, L., Steffen, T., Alvarez, J., Adler, N., and Benemmann, J. (2016). “The RNEW® Process: Recycled Water, Fertilizer, and Power from Wastewater,” presented at Algae Biomass Summit, Oct. 23, 2016, Phoenix, Ariz.)

erally green, brown, and red. Common green algae strains are shown in Figure 1.

Algae Treatment The use of algae as wastewater treatment is common, as the biological processes take place in ponds and lagoons naturally. About half of the 16,000 regulated water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) have ponds and lagoons; these features are prevalent, especially at smaller WRRFs (Bastian, 2016). The efforts now are focusing on how to use microalgae for wastewater treatment within conventional WRRFs. Similar to other biological wastewater treatment techniques, algae treatment can utilize suspended- or attached-grown methods. Suspended-growth ponds use paddles that keep microalgae suspended for sunlight, coupled with a shallow depth for light penetration. The layout of these ponds gives rise to the name raceways, as shown in Figure 2. Attached growth techniques utilize a substratum that rotates alternatively through wastewater (to provide nutrients) and atmosphere (to provide sunlight and carbon dioxide). Two common types of attached growth algae treatment technologies are biofilm rotating algae biofilm reactor (RABR) and revolving algal biofilm (RAB). During pilot tests in Chicago, an RAB system has demonstrated the potential for recovering nutrients from wastewater. The RAB system is capable of producing concentrated algae biomass (10 to 25 percent solids), which has value and can be used to produce a variety of products (Kumar, 2016). Several types of wastewater are applicable for algae treatment, including municipal wastewater, to produce water from oil and gas extraction, dairy farms, and swine wastewater. During treatment, nitrates and phosphates are combined with water and carbon dioxide to grow the algae. Microalgae often are represented by the chemical formula C106H263O110N16P1. It’s important to note the phosphorus-to-nitrogen ratio of 1 to 16 when evaluating the design, or when looking to add carbon dioxide to balance the carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus ratio and achieve completed nutrient assimilation, according to Ron Sims, who gave a presentation on microalgae-based approaches to algae-based tertiary wastewater treatment at the forum. Most of the existing laws and regulations that deal with wastewater were designed with conventional treatment systems in mind, but how do algae fit in the regulatory environment? The 40 CFR Part 503 includes definitions for Class A and Class B biosolids and algae from municipal wastewater (as part of the treatment system) are subject to Part 503. Algae solids from municipal treatment could meet Class A or Class A/EQ in a number of

ways. Metals are unlikely to be problematic, and consistent low metals and pathogens may provide the basis for reduced monitoring, said Robert Bastian in his forum presentation, “Algae Biotechnology for Wastewater Treatment: Regulatory Issues.”

energy platform for nutrient recovery with a variety of opportunities for production of valueadded coproducts.

Bioproducts and Bioenergy

• Bastian, R. (2016). “Algae Biotechnology for Wastewater Treatment: Regulatory Issues,” presented at Algae Biomass Summit, Oct. 23, 2016, Phoenix, Ariz. • Benemann, J., Sims, R., Lundquist, T., and Rogalla, F. (2016). “Algae Biotechnology for Wastewater Treatment: An Introduction,” presented at Algae Biomass Summit, Oct. 23, 2016, Phoenix, Ariz. • Kumar, Kuldip (2016). “Utilizing Algae Based Technologies for Nutrient Removal & Recovery: Opportunities and Challenges of Phycoremediation,” presented at Algae Biomass Summit, Oct. 23, 2016, Phoenix, Ariz. • Lundquist, T., Spierling, R., Parker, L., Pittner, C., Medina, L., Steffen, T., Alvarez, J., Adler, N., and Benemmann, J. (2016). “The RNEW® Process: Recycled Water, Fertilizer, and Power from Wastewater,” presented at Algae Biomass Summit, Oct. 23, 2016, Phoenix, Ariz. • Rogalla, F, De Godos, I., Arbib, Z., and Lara, E. (2016). “Wastewater Treatment and Energy Recovery with Cultivation of Microalgae,” presented at Algae Biomass Summit, Oct. 23, 2016, Phoenix, Ariz. • Sims, Ron. (2016). “Microalgae-Based Approaches to Algae-Based Tertiary Wastewater Treatment,” presented at Algae Biomass Summit, Oct. 23, 2016, Phoenix, Ariz.

According to Bastian, a number of bioproducts can be produced from algae biomass. Fertilizers from algae solids generally have about 8 to 10 percent nitrogen content and 1 to 2 percent phosphorus content. The biomass also can be used as feed for aquaculture and agriculture. Products from phycocyanin include pigments and antioxidants, Sims reported. The first technoeconomic analysis for algae biofuels integrated with wastewater treatment was performed in 1960, according to the forum presentation, “Algae Biotechnology for Wastewater Treatment: An Introduction,” by John Benneman. Using anaerobic digestion, the biomass can produce biogas, especially when mixed with food wastes and municipal wastewater biosolids to generate more methane for combined heat and power. Additional processing, such as hydrothermal liquefaction (“pressure cooking”), can convert algae to biocrude oil. Other processes can produce biodiesel, bioplastics, acetone, butanol, and ethanol, Sims said. When evaluating any energy resource recovery opportunity, it is important to calculate the energy return on investment (EROI): does the system provide more usable energy than it consumes? According to recent work in Europe, algae biofuels have an EROI of 1.9, substantially higher than the corn ethanol and biodiesel value of 1.3. In addition, biomethane from algae enables greenhouse gas savings of more than 50 percent, compared to diesel. Furthermore, algae biofuel production per hectare is 10,000 kg CH4/ha/yr, enough to fuel 10 vehicles with double sugar bioethanol and palm oil diesel, reported by Frank Rogalla in his presentation, “Wastewater Treatment and Energy Recovery with Cultivation of Microalgae.”

Conclusions State regulators, municipalities, and other industrialized jurisdictions increasingly are moving toward tertiary wastewater treatment as a means to mitigate the environmental effects of nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy metals, and other components of traditional wastewater treatment systems, but traditional systems can be an expensive and energy-intensive proposition. Algae-based systems, which make up just a small fraction of tertiary systems in use today, offer a potential solution, providing a low input-


The information provided in this article is designed to be educational. It is not intended to provide any type of professional advice including, without limitation, legal, accounting, or engineering. Your use of the information provided here is voluntary and should be based on your own evaluation and analysis of its accuracy, appropriateness for your use, and any potential risks of using the information. The Water Environment Federation (WEF), author and publisher of this article, assumes no liability of any kind with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents and specifically disclaims any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness of use for a particular purpose. Any references included are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute endorsement of any sources.

Barry Liner is director of the Water Science & Engineering Center at WEF. Noah Mundt, senior program manager at Siemens, was a moderator of the forum and is a member of both WEF and ABO ( S

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Utilities s Invited to Host Locall “Drop Savers” Contest The Florida Section of the American Water Works Association will again sponsor th he statewide “Drop Savers” Water Conservation Poster Contest during National Drinking Water week, scheduled for May 7-13, 2017. Submission deadline is March 14, 2017, for local winners w to be submitted for judging at the state level, Florida utilities are encouraged to begin pre eparations for showcasing the creativity of their local children. o design a The contest gives children from kindergarten through high school the opportunity to poster about water conservation. Early in the year, local winners are chosen in five e diffferent f 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 e 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 2017” start-up materials from the “Drop Savers” Florida Section S web site at www . . If you have questions or problems download ding the at (561) 571-3750 or by email materials, please contact state coordinator Melissa Velez e Looking forward to seeing your utility represented this year! r!

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



Under Pressure: Hydrothermal Liquefaction and the Fast Lane to Resource Recovery Heath Wintz and Matt Atwood he intersection of wastewater treatment and energy recovery has long been an encouraging path for operators and utility managers. Developments in resource recovery technology are yielding not only efficient methods for removing nutrients and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), but also transformative processes by which biosolids, agricultural waste, waste activated sludge (WAS), and fats, oil, and grease (FOG) can be converted to biocrude oil. A capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX) evaluation of recent wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF) expansion projects was conducted by MWH, driven by nutrient removal and biosolids reduction needs for comparison with a proprietary hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) process developed by Algae Systems LLC. Capital-cost data were gathered from constructed projects, recently bid projects, and projects at a detailed phase of design. Recent advancements at the Algae Systems pilot facility in Daphne, Ala., have demonstrated the potential to not only compete with thermal hydrolysis and conventional digestion technologies, but yield an energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of five to one. As this type of carbon-negative wastewaterto-biofuel process has been developed, this potentially disruptive alternative to conventional digestion is poised to allow utility managers to capitalize on what has traditionally been a cost center. This article explores the assessment of capital costs associated with secondary process expansion, biosolids treatment, and disposal, and a CAPEX and OPEX comparison of the HTL process with anaerobic digestion and thermal hydrolysis.


What is Waste? What’s the value of wastewater treatment and biosolids treatment? Among wastewater industry professionals, there is a growing recognition that there is no such thing as waste, but only resources out of place. Utility owners and operators understand that this conservative industry is slow to change due to liability associated with ensuring continued permit compliance and risk of losing public confidence; however, perspectives of “treat and dispose” are giving way to pioneering approaches involving the selective extraction and transformation of wastewater constituents. Technology development in the wastewater treatment sector is often focused on achieving improvements in nutrient removal, nutrient recovery, and energy efficiency. New methods for nutrient removal and recovery are essential to achieving increasingly stringent discharge standards. Despite the chemical energy embodied in wastewater, conventional treatment processes remain a major energy sink, with the water and wastewater sector currently consuming 3 to 4 percent of the electricity produced in the United States. In order to help inform the business model of Algae Systems, a growing algae-to-energy company, MWH provided an economic valuation of biological nutrient removal (BNR) processes using CAPEX and OPEX data from recent construction projects.

Innovation in Wastewater Treatment Algae Systems has undertaken an inventive approach to municipal wastewater treatment, in

Heath Wintz, P.E., is an environmental engineer and project technical lead at MHW (now a part of Stantec) in West Palm Beach. Matt Atwood is president and chief executive officer at Algae Systems.

which wastewater is used to cultivate microalgae using offshore, floating photobioreactors (PBRs). The PBR technology, inspired by National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs for use on the space station, started with research conducted in cooperation with the Stanford Research Institute. The company has harnessed a natural process in an unconventional way to create a carbon-negative wastewater treatment process that is energy-positive, yielding drop-in biofuels and clean water.

Process At the facility in Daphne, up to 50,000 gal per day (gpd) of raw influent is microscreened with a 70µm filter, disinfected using peracetic acid at doses of 5-15 mg/L, inoculated with algae, and conveyed to PBRs in Mobile Bay for biological treatment. Simultaneous secondary and tertiary treatment are provided by a continuous batch process within the PBRs. The PBR bags are inoculated with algae and disinfected influent. As a diverse culture of algae and heterotrophs grow, nutrients and carbon dioxide (CO2) are consumed and aeration is provided by photosynthetically produced oxygen. The slurry from the PBRs is dewatered and fed into the HTL process, which is summarized in Figure 1.

Wastewater Treatment

(Source: Algae Systems LLC)

Figure 1. Process Overview: Wastewater to Biofuel


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Nutrient and BOD removal are achieved with no external mechanical mixing or aeration, relying only on minimal wave action of open water. In addition to the heterotrophic culture, the algal polyculture makeup changes in response to dynamic internal and external conditions. Following a peak growth grate period of approximately five days (dependent on environmental factors), the mixotrophic biomass is conveyed back onshore for dewatering via suspended air flotation. Following dewatering, the

process has demonstrated removal of 75 percent of total nitrogen, 93 percent of total phosphorus, and 92 percent BOD from influent wastewater, as summarized in Table 1. Over 50 percent of energy consumed during conventional activated sludge treatment is required for aeration. By utilizing oxygen made available during algal photosynthesis, this process represents a substantial advancement in treatment efficiency. Process effluent could potentially be further treated, disinfected, and marketed as reclaimed water, or discharged if National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) conditions are met; however, current permit requirements with Daphne Utilities necessitate that the effluent be returned to the collection system and further treated at its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Algae derived from the process is dewatered and further processed into bio-oil.

Table 1. Wastewater Treatment Efficiency

(Source: Algae Systems LLC)

Solids Processing Dewatered algae are processed using HTL, a high-temperature (>250°C) and high-pressure (700-1400 pounds per sq in. [psi]) process that yields a crude bio-oil. This process is comparable to the natural process that has taken place over millions of years to convert algae, dinosaurs, and other biomass into crude oil with the pressure of sediment and rocks. Comparatively, the few minutes required for the HTL process take place in a geologic “blink of an eye,” as opposed to petroleum-based crude. The bio-oil produced by HTL can be refined to produce a variety of drop-in fuels, while the biochar fraction of the processing can be used as a soil amendment. A sidestream from this process is diverted for nutrient recovery or recycled into the secondary treatment process to support additional algae growth. Similarly, whole biomass could be anaerobically digested for biogas production. The dewatered biomass was suitable for HTL due to consistent lipid content, low ash content, and consistent elemental composition through varying seasonal environmental conditions. Biomass production rates were predominantly driven by frequency of harvest and temperature. A process schematic, including a photo of the offshore PBRs, is provided in Figure 2. Algae Systems’ cultivation process yields diverse biomass polycultures that evolve seasonally and maintain relatively constant percentages of lipids, carbohydrates, proteins, and ash. The HTL processes the whole algal cells and converts energy from all the energy compartments stored in the cells, including carbohydrates and other compounds, so low or consistent lipid fraction Continued on page 66

(Source: Algae Systems LLC)

Figure 2. Process Schematic

(Source: Algae Systems LLC)

Figure 3. Hydrothermal Liquefaction Process Area - Daphne, Ala.

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Table 2. Hydrothermal Liquefaction Energy Analysis for Various Wastewater Treatment Facility Feed Streams (60 WTPD)

Table 4. Ohio Facility Anaerobic Digestion Capital Expenditures (estimated)

Table 3. MWH-Designed Biological Nutrient Removal Facility Summary

Continued from page 65 is not necessarily detrimental to fuel conversion via HTL. Lipid content of harvested biomass was 13 ± 2.5 percent, which is of low to moderate value when compared to selected monocultures (e.g., 33), yet energy yields and properties of the produced bio-oil were consistent yearround, despite the changing biomass culture.

Hydrothermal Liquefaction Feedstock Analysis Various feedstocks were tested at the demonstration facility in Daphne by operating a small-batch, continuous-bench and continuous-full-scale demonstration plant, shown in Figure 3. Results showing the relative energy produced from three feedstocks available at WWTFs are summarized in Table 2. Results are given at the same 60-wet-tonsper-day (WTPD) scale to highlight differences in energy yield from each feedstock. In addition, acceptable moisture ranges for the different feedstocks and the tested “typical” moisture ranges are included for comparison. The EROEI is shown for each of the feedstock runs; note that EROEI depends heavily on the incoming moisture percentage.

Valuation In 2014, Algae Systems needed to determine the value of the process it was offering to inform its business model. With such a pio-


neering new process, an indirect appraisal was necessary to answer fundamental questions, such as: S What’s the value of the BNR process? S What do utilities pay for biosolids treatment? S Why is there such variability in disposal costs? The company asked MWH to help answer these questions by looking at three issues: 1. Comparable secondary treatment technologies for nutrient removal 2. Direct potable reuse technology 3. Biosolids treatment and disposal alternatives

Capital Cost Data Review A review was done by MWH of capital cost data from recently bid or constructed BNR projects, including the City of Cape Coral Everest WWTF, and the City of Fremont (Ohio) Water Pollution Control Center (WPCC). The Everest WWTF involved the conversion of the facility to a five-stage Bardenpho process, including aeration and clarification facilities. The Fremont WPCC involves the demolition and conversion to an A2/O process with the same average treatment capacity, but increased wet weather (peak) capacity. The WPCC involved solids stabilization improvements, for which anaerobic digestion was evaluated as part of preliminary engineering study. These facilities are summarized in Table 3.

March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Solids Stabilization: Capital Expense Mesophilic anaerobic digestion was evaluated as a comparable solids stabilization technology for the purposes of comparison with the HTL process. The CAPEX and OPEX costs evaluated reflect the specific requirements of the Fremont project. Preliminary engineering cost estimates for aerobic digestion at the Fremont WPCC are based on the facility digesting WAS thickened to 3.2 percent and producing approximately 1.3 dry tons of sludge daily (DTD), and are provided in Table 4. As many operators understand, lysing of organism cellular walls is a key obstacle to digestion. Pretreatment processes using thermal hydrolysis or electroporation, such as CAMBI™ or OPEN CEL™, can be used to lyse cell walls and enhance digestion. With electrical and chemical input, these processes have increased volatile solids destruction and biogas production, while enhancing sludge dewaterability.

Solids Stabilization: Operating Expense Operating costs were obtained by request or estimated from process aeration energy calculations, Water Environment Research Foundation publications, and the Water Pollution Control Federation Manual of Practice 8 (WPCF MOP 8, 1977). Net present worth (NPW) was based upon the following assumptions: average pump effi-

ciency of 68 percent, 365-days-a-year operation, electrical cost of $0.08/kilowatt-hour (kWh), 20year payback period, and a discount rate of 6 percent. Volatile solids destruction of 45 percent was assumed in a two-day solids retention time for this process, along with a solids cake dewaterability of 19 percent, to yield 6.9 wet tons daily (WTD). The OPEX costs for anaerobic digestion for this facility were estimated based on these conditions and are provided in Table 5.

Capital costs for the containerized HTL process were projected based on actual equipment procurement, engineering, and construction costs from the Daphne demonstration facility. Capital costs provided are for a process

feed rate of 23 gal per minute (gpm) for WAS biosolids at 10 percent solids. These costs were escalated to meet capacity requirements of 4,125 DTPD, as shown in Table 6. Continued on page 68

Table 5. Fremont Water Pollution Control Center Anaerobic Operating Expenses (estimated)

Hydrothermal Liquefaction Cost Analysis The experience that Algae Systems had constructing the pilot HTL system at the demonstration facility provided the opportunity to prove the technology and optimize the process. The capacity of this HTL process for this facility was 6 dry tons per day (DTPD), which was far more than required for the biological wastewater treatment process onsite. This excess capacity was constructed to avoid process scale-up issues during future stages of process development.

Hydrothermal Liquefaction Capital Expenses Algae Systems worked with its partners to refine and consolidate the equipment layout developed at the facility shown in Figure 4 to fit within the constraints of a standard 8-ft by 53-ft shipping container. Drawing from experience of processing dewatered algae biomass, capital and operating costs for this HTL skid were prepared. The modular skid was designed with a process capacity of over 4,000 DTPD of WAS. A conceptual rendering of the HTL skid, without thickening or storage equipment, is depicted in Figure 5.

(Source: Algae Systems LLC)

Figure 4. Hydrothermal Liquefaction Equipment

(Source: Algae Systems LLC)

Figure 5. Optimized Hydrothermal Liquefaction Skid Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Continued from page 67

Hydrothermal Liquefaction Operating Expenses: Waste Activated Sludge

Table 6. Hydrothermal Liquefaction Skid Capital Expenditures (estimated)

Table 7. Hydrothermal Liquefaction Waste Activated Sludge Skid Operating Expenses (estimated)

Operating costs for the HTL WAS skid were estimated based on performance data from the Daphne demonstration facility; heat, power, and supplies for processing WAS at 10 percent solids; and labor based on operational requirements consistent with operational and safety needs at the demonstration plant. Staffing needs for the process include one lead operator and one shift maintenance technician around the clock. For the purposes of the HTL OPEX estimate, 90 percent operational time, or, 330 days per year, was assumed. The OPEX for the HTL WAS skid are summarized in Table 7.

Hydrothermal Liquefaction Operating Expenses: Fats, Oil, and Grease

Table 8. Hydrothermal Liquefaction Fats, Oil, and Grease Skid Operating Expenses (estimated)

Operating costs for the HTL FOG skid were similarly estimated based on performance data from the Daphne facility using raw restaurant trap grease; heat, power, and supplies for processing FOG at 25 percent moisture and labor costs, the same as WAS, were also considered. The OPEX for the HTL FOG skid are summarized in Table 8. It is apparent that the OPEX for the WAS and FOG skids are substantially different, based on requirements for power and supplies; however, the potential energy yield of the FOG skid is significantly higher than the WAS skid due to the lower incoming moisture and energy value of the raw feedstock material on a mass basis. As noted, the EROEI of the FOG process is over 60:1 due to the energy value of the feed stream and the lower typical moisture content of tested materials.

Comparison Table 9. Comparison of Anaerobic Digestion Versus Hydrothermal Liquefaction (Waste Activated Sludge and Fats, Oil, And Grease)


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Conventional anaerobic digestion and HTL are vastly different processes. For the purposes of comparing the two, the costs of thickening from the CAPEX and OPEX analyses were removed, as these costs could be applicable for both processes, but were not considered a differentiator. The results were normalized to a CAPEX of approximately $4.2 million in order to illustrate differences in capacity, as well as CAPEX and OPEX costs per dry ton. Annual revenue for the HTL systems are calculated based on $50/barrel value for renewable bio-oil. No revenues were assumed for WAS/FOG tipping fees, the sales of Class A biochar biosolids, or fertilizers from the process. These results are summarized in Table 9.

The energy produced, shown in kWh/day, is based on unoptimized results derived from operations at the demonstration plant. Energy yields can be significantly increased by cofeeding other waste streams, such as FOG. The findings indicate that HTL of WAS can potentially provide nearly six times the solids treatment capacity for the same capital investment over anaerobic digestion. The HTL process allows this to be done with a lower OPEX, positive revenue potential, and positive EROEI. The HTL of FOG provides a significantly higher EROEI and revenue potential.

Findings Because the process requires minimal energy input and maximizes energy output through algae production and conversion, this technology enables energy-positive wastewater treatment, converting municipal wastewater treatment from a net energy consumer to a net energy producer. While the process is favored by subtropical climates, such as in Florida, the HTL process alone

represents an energy-positive modular solution to avoid solids handling process expansions and it can provide significant energy and economic returns, depending on feed stream makeup.

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge MWH, Algae Systems LLC, and Daphne Utilities for their assistance with this article. S

Net Present Value The CAPEX and OPEX costs in Table 9 were projected over a 20-year period at 6 percent interest to demonstrate the net present value (NPV) of costs associated with each $4.2 million capital investment. For HTL-WAS and HTLFOG, additional dashed curves include revenue projections and are illustrated in Figure 10. It should be noted that while the NPV of costs for a $4.2 million capital investment for anaerobic digestion (AD) and HTL-WAS are nearly identical over a 20-year period, the throughput capacity of HTL is six times greater. When taking into account the revenue stream from bio-oil sales, the OPEX for HTL-WAS is significantly offset.

Figure 10. Net Present Value Comparison of Anaerobic Digestion, HTL-WAS, and HTL-FOG With Potential Revenue Offset

News Beat Eric Smith, P.E., has joined the Daytona Beach office of McKim & Creed Inc. as a project engineer specializing in water and wastewater. He has more than five years of experience providing a full range of services to the municipal sector. Well-versed in all project phases, he has led and coordinated multidisciplinary design projects, including hydraulic modeling, pump station design, and collection/distribution system design. In his new position, he will be responsible for providing technical and design services for municipal water and wastewater infrastructure, stormwater management, and system modeling projects. Smith is a graduate of the University of Central Florida with degrees in both civil and environmental engineering. He is a member of the North Carolina Section of the American Water Works Association, North Carolina Member Association of the Water Environment Federation, and Engineers Without Borders.


The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) recently awarded a $1 million grant for a water reuse project in Bay County to improve water quality and implement water conservation. The project was funded through a 2016-17 state legislative appropriation. The FDEP is partnering with local communities, the Florida Legislature, and the state’s water management districts to support this project. The North Bay Wastewater Reuse project includes the design, permitting, and construction of approximately 6 mi of reuse line from the North Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) to Gulf Power's Lansing Smith Power Plant for use in its cooling process. Currently, the power plant is permitted to draw water from North Bay as its source for cooling water, which is discharged back to North Bay upon completing the cooling process. By making reclaimed water available for cooling, less water will need to be drawn from North Bay and no reclaimed water will be discharged into the groundwater. Completion of this project will result in improved water quality in the St. Andrews Bay estuary, reduced nu-

trient loading, conversion of the North Bay WWTF to a zero-discharge operation, and reduced capital improvement costs. "Our water resources are most precious in sustaining quality of life for our residents," said Florida Rep. Brad Drake. "When we have an opportunity to divert usage on our lakes and rivers, and instead utilize water reclamation technology, it's a win for long-term preservation.” State Rep. Jay Trumbull Jr. also noted that, "Cooperative efforts among the state, our local governments, and the private sector always benefit our citizens and, in this case, the wonderful environment of Bay County," Other funding partners include the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast Act (RESTORE) of 2012, and the Northwest Florida Water Management District. For the past 20 years, Florida has been recognized as a national leader in water reuse, with domestic wastewater facilities increasing their reuse capacity by approximately 465 percent since 1986. Currently, approximately 738 mgd of reclaimed water is reused statewide for beneficial purposes. Reclaimed water from public access reuse systems is used to irrigate approxiContinued on page 74

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


New Products

FWRJ READER PROFILE What do you like best about your job? The fact that my job is never boring! There never seems to be a dull moment in overseeing the operation and maintenance of a large surface water treatment facility. Regardless of your best laid plans, something almost always seems to come up that requires your attention. To me, this keeps the job both interesting and challenging. What professional organizations do you belong to? I belong to FSAWWA and FWPCOA.

Richard T. Anderson Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Lakewood Ranch, Florida Work title and years of service. I’ve been system operations manager for Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority since October 2010. What does your job entail? As system operations manager, my responsibilities include the day-to-day operation of the water supply, treatment, and storage systems for the authority. We have a staff of 30 operations and maintenance personnel who operate and maintain approximately 70 miles of transmission mains, pumping stations, and metering sites, in addition to a 6.5bil-gal surface water storage system, a 51-mgd conventional surface water treatment plant, and aquifer storage and recovery wells. Education/training you’ve taken. I have a bachelor’s degree in international studies/government from the University of South Florida (Go Bulls!). I also have a Class A water plant operator license for Florida and a Class 1 water plant operator license for Georgia.


How have the organizations helped your career? My involvement with industry organizations, specifically as an FSAWWA volunteer, has opened many doors for me in my career. Not only has FSAWWA provided valuable industry training and knowledge that I could not have attained through my regular “day” job, the networking and member engagement that FSAWWA offers creates career opportunities, business relationships, and friendships that will last a lifetime. What do you like best about the industry? The people. Regardless of your particular profession—public utility employee, consultant, vendor, manufacturer’s representative, or other position—the people that make up the water community are the most dedicated group I’ve ever met. Everyone shows a passion for their work and a true interest in what they do. That’s what makes this a great business and a great industry. What do you do when you’re not working? In my spare time, my wife and I enjoy boating, fishing, hunting, and riding ATVs on our property in Polk County. This year, we are also in “wedding planning” mode for my daughter, Rachel, who will be getting married in December.

March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The compact thermal flow meter line from Fluid Components International now includes HART, Version 7, and digital bus communication. The ST51A, ST75A and ST75AV thermal mass flowmeters combine surface-mount, lead-free RoHS-compliant electronics with accurate, repeatable, all-welded, equal-mass flow sensors. The added HART digital bus communication and its device driver have been tested and certified by FieldComm Group to meet the latest Version 7 standards. Outputs are dual 4-20 mA that meet NAMUR NE43 and feature a 500 Hz pulse. The electronics are housed in an IP67-rated, dual-cable port transmitter enclosure available in aluminum or stainless steel. The transmitter can be mounted directly to the flow sensor or remotely mounted up to 100 ft away. (


Series MP7000 from Neptune has a mechanically actuated diaphragm metering pump that offers a low-flow version of the Series MP7100 metering pump. It features the ruggedness of a hydraulic diaphragm metering pump, eliminates the need for intermediate fluid or hydraulic oil to actuate the diaphragm, and reduces the potential for gearbox oil to contaminate the process. Its finned gearbox dissipates heat created during operation, oversized check valves improve performance and minimize friction losses, and rugged bronze gears provide quiet running and long service life. Flow is improved by a straight-through flow design of the liquid end and the elimination of the contour plate. The pump offers capacities to 27 gph at operating pressures up to 235 psi, and includes a 10-1 turndown ratio via micrometer-type knob with an easy-to-read scale. It is available with a selfloading micrometer that prevents drift, and an optional automatic speed control with variable frequency or SCR drive. All models include a standard 63 IEC motor adapter. (



The Phantom Series from Anue Water Technologies offers a cost-effective solution for wet well and force main FOG, odor, and corrosion control problems, and for market applications where ozone and oxygen provide the best and environmentally proven answer for effective water treatment. It uses sidestream wastewater to draw in concentrated oxygen and ozone. The aerated/ozonated side stream is delivered back to the wastewater force main, or wet well/lift station through EP or HS well washing systems, uniformly transferring the oxygen and ozone for both FOG and odor/corrosion control. Installation generally takes a half-day, and has adaptive power requirements (


The OVIVO DUET dual aperture screen from Ovivo USA is a comprehensive solution for screenings removal and handling. It offers coarse debris removal, fine fibrous waste removal, washing and compacting of screens, and coarse grit removal. PropaPanel technology in the primary screen eliminates hair pinning, preventing nuisance blinding and thus saving hours of operator time. The straight-through flow design keeps headloss to a minimum. An integral washer compactor washes the organics and dewaters the screenings, reducing volume and odor costs. Due to lower flow velocities in the tank after primary screening, heavier grit settles and can be removed from the side or pumped out of the tank. With a simple rack-and-pinion arrangement and a single motor to drive the dual drum screen, it offers energy savings and reliability for the end user. The screening aperture can be adapted to meet any future change in the influent screening characteristics. (


The FLEXFLO A-100N polymer pump from Blue-White handles high-viscosity polymers. It is equipped with a built-in tube failure detection system that, if sensing tube failure, will automatically shut off and energize a relay or switch, permitting communication with external equipment, such as a backup pump or alarm. This eliminates polymer spills and cleanup and no false triggering is caused by condensation and washdown procedures. It is self-priming, and tube assemblies are stamped with clearly visible part numbers for simple reorder. It offers precise chemical feed to 124 gph, and a max working pressure of 100 psi. (


The Midi Drive FC 280 from Danfoss offers software features like sleep mode with boost, integrated PID, flying start, broken belt, compressor start, and the ability to do positioning. It is ideal for precise and efficient motor control, allowing users to use an efficient permanent magnet or induction motor to meet the application need. With Modbus RTU standard on all products and the dual port EtherNet/IP, PROFINET, PROFIBUS, and CANopen choices designed as part of the control card, it can help reduce the cost of a system, communicate faster, and add more efficiency. It has coated, printed circuit boards, operating ability in a 113°F ambient climate at full load with no derating, a built-in brake chopper, and a DC choke for improved harmonic performance, reduced input currents, and better protection against line fluctuations and voltage spikes. ( S

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



Reinventing Our Logo, but We’re Still the Same Great FWEA Lisa Prieto President, FWEA here are times throughout our lives when we reinvent ourselves. Maybe it’s after a major life event, like graduating college, getting a new job, or moving to a new city; or maybe it’s just because what you feel inside isn’t aligning with what you are doing. Whatever the reason, most people will reinvent themselves multiple times over their lives. Reinventing yourself doesn’t mean losing your identity, drastic changes in your personality, or altering your moral character. The inner fabric is still you, but it’s an upgrade or a rehab of the person you are. So why am I talking about reinventing yourself in the Florida Water Resources Journal? Well, last year we embarked on what seemed an innocent mission to update our FWEA logo, being that it was the association’s 75th anniversary. What we thought would be a painless, fun process turned out to be a bit more arduous than we thought. We put together a subcommittee that worked with a logo creation team for numerous hours to


come up with prototypes and ideas. The old logo was graphically outdated and the quality made it difficult to print on promotional items. In addition, we just thought it was time to reinvent the logo and make sure it represented who and what we felt was the real fabric of FWEA. We have a lot of great enthusiasm and fresh ideas taking us into the 21st century, but our old logo said “1985”! We struggled giving up parts of the logo that we felt were part of our legacy—especially the depiction of the state of Florida. We grappled with colors; at one point, we had a logo that looked pretty psychedelic! In the end, we realized no matter what our logo looked like, our vision and mission are the same: S Vision - A Clean and Sustainable Water Environment for Florida's Future Generations S Mission - The Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA), a leading nonprofit organization, will promote a clean and sustainable water environment by: • Supporting and uniting our members and the public through Public Awareness, • Providing Professional Development of our members, • Promoting Sound Science-Based Public Policy, and

• Maintaining a Strong Organization. However, even though sticking with our vision and mission provided reassurance that “our” organization wasn’t changing (rather, just our logo), it took the help of some creative minds to really get us to see the benefit of a new and fresh logo. Special thanks to Karen Wallace, our association's executive manager, and Robbin Kilgore, my Brown and Caldwell marketing coordinator, to getting us to the finish line. Having said all that, what’s next? Well, the logo will be rolled out officially at the Florida Water Resources Conference in April. We are creating promotional items with the new logo that will be distributed to our leaders at the annual Leadership Development Workshop. Our website is currently being updated with the new logo and associated colors, as is our new booth, which will also be unveiled at the conference. Be on the lookout for social media updates and email blasts with more information on how to order new FWEA-branded merchandise. I’m excited about this new era—a time for our logo to match the energy our volunteers have and the innovation penetrating our industry. I hope you all love it as much as I do! S

Former FWEA logo. New, revised FWEA logo.


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


FWEA CHAPTER CORNER News Beat Welcome to the FWEA Chapter Corner! The Public Relations Committee of the Florida Water Environment Association hosts this article to celebrate the success of recent association chapter activities and inform members of upcoming events. To have information included for your chapter, send the details via email to Lindsay Marten at

2016 South Florida Joint Society Holiday Party Upcoming Events Amy Hightower

he FWEA Southeast Chapter sponsored and attended the Joint Society Holiday Party on Dec. 15, 2016. The holiday party was organized and sponsored by multiple south Florida professional organizations, including American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Broward County; American Society of Highway Engineers (ASHE), Gold Coast; Conference of Minority Transportation Officers (COMTO), Fort Lauderdale Chapter; Florida Engineering Society (FES), Broward County Branch; Gold Coast Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); Women’s Transportation Seminar (WTS), South Florida Chapter; and the FWEA Southeast Chapter. The holiday party was held at Tarpon Bend Food & Tackle in downtown Fort Lauderdale. There was an excellent turnout for the event and tickets were sold out. Everyone enjoyed good food and drinks, while they mingled with colleagues from the multiple professional organizations in south Florida. Many thanks to Tara VanEyk, Southeast Chapter vice chair, for working with the various professional societies to organize the event.



15th Annual Broward Water Matters Day The chapter will be sponsoring a booth at the upcoming 15th Annual Broward Water Matters Day. The event will be held on March 11, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., at Tree Tops Park in Davie. The event is a fun, family-friendly day that teaches the importance of conserving and protecting water for people, plants, and animals. More information can be found at: s/ProgramsWMD.aspx. The chapter hopes for a great attendance at the event from members. In addition, volunteers are needed for the booth to hand out giveaways and help with the kids’ activity. If you are interested in volunteering, please contact Juan Oquendo at Thanks to Juan for coordinating this effort. We hope to see many of our members and their families in attendance on March 11. Quarterly Meeting Our next quarterly meeting will be held in late February or early March, so please keep an eye out for an invitation. If you are interested in getting involved with the Southeast Chapter Steering Committee, please contact me at Amy Hightower, P.E., is a project manager at CDM Smith in Boca Raton and is the FWEA Southeast Chapter chair. S

March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Continued from page 69 mately 362,000 residences, 530 golf courses, 1,000 parks, and 360 schools. Reuse of this reclaimed water is estimated to have saved over 144 bil gal of potable-quality water and added more than 86 bil gal back to available groundwater supplies. For more information about Florida's water reuse program, visit water/reuse/.


DC Water and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) have announced the issuance of the first certifications under the National Green Infrastructure Certification Program (NGICP). The NGICP is designed to verify that the inaugural group of 62 certificants have successfully demonstrated competency in the foundational knowledge, concepts, and terminology required to perform tasks related to green infrastructure (GI) construction, inspection, and maintenance. “We are preparing a workforce for the jobs we know are coming to support green infrastructure projects here in the District of Columbia and across the nation,” said George Hawkins, chief executive officer and general manager of DC Water. “Armed with the training and skills this program provides, this first group of certificants will blaze a trail that many more will follow.” As a part of the pilot phase of the program, the inaugural NGICP exam was administered on Dec. 13, 2016, at seven locations across the United States: Washington, D.C.; Baltimore, Md.; Rockville, Md.; Harrisburg, Pa.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Fairfax, Va.; and Milwaukee, Wis. Both the exam and the first awards of certification are major milestones for the program, which was announced as a collaborative effort between DC Water and WEF in February 2016. Over the past year, DC Water, WEF, and a group of NGICP partnering organizations from around the U.S. have been working to develop the program structure, components, and requirements on an expedited schedule. Designed to meet international best practice standards, the certification—including a requirement for regular recertification—will promote a skilled green workforce, help streamline the process of connecting qualified talent to in-demand jobs, support community-based job creation in U.S. cities, and establish national standards for professionals seeking to work on GI projects. The exam, currently offered through the NGICP partnering organizations, tested applicants on their knowledge of GI fundamentals,

construction methods, and maintenance procedures. Additional pilot NGICP training sessions are expected in the spring and fall of 2017, with exam dates anticipated in June and November. Program administrators are using the results of this operational pretest, which contains 141 questions, to create a 100-question standardized exam form that will be used for the national rollout in 2018. “The overwhelmingly positive response and interest in the NGICP credentialing has confirmed the need for this certification program, and industry support of this valuable segment of the water sector is growing,” said Eileen O’Neill, WEF executive director. “Through the NGICP we have a tremendous opportunity to reach new groups of people and to promote the implementation of GI projects and a skilled green workforce for the betterment of our communities, our economy, and our environment.”


The governing board for the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has approved a $2.5 million contract to restore two historic dams on the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River in Jupiter, Florida's first wild and scenic river. "The Loxahatchee River is part of the experience for so many of us who grew up in Palm Beach County and part of what makes living in south Florida so great," said Melanie Peterson, a governing board member and lifelong Palm Beach County resident. "In addition to being part of the history of this river, these dams play a crucial role in protecting the cypress swamp floodplain that makes the Loxahatchee River so unique." The dams, first built in the 1930s by local families and last renovated in 1986, control and regulate upstream flow stages of the northwest fork of the river and maintain the hydrology of the riverine floodplain ecosystem. Modeling has shown that, without the two dams in place, the upstream water levels would be about 1.5 ft lower, draining the freshwater swamp and allowing saltwater intrusion. The repairs, which came after extensive public input and thorough review, were designed to minimize any impact to the river's natural resources and historical integrity of the dams. Areas of the dam that have decayed or where the water is no longer being held back will be repaired and stabilized, and soil under and around the dams will be stabilized to reduce seepage. Portage areas where canoers and kayakers carry their vessels over the two dams will also be refurbished to improve access. The portages will remain open to the public throughout construction. S Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017



Tank Engineering And Management

Consultants, Inc.

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





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


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

CLASSIFIEDS P osi ti ons Ava i l a b l e

CITY OF WINTER GARDEN – POSITIONS AVAILABLE The City of Winter Garden is currently accepting applications for the following positions:

Utilities Treatment Plant Operations Supervisor $57,116 - $80,367/yr.

Utilities Electrician $51,283 - $72,160/yr.

Utilities Storm Water Foreman $46,515 - $65,451/yr.

- Traffic Sign Technician - Water Plant Operator – Class C - Wastewater Plant Operator Trainee - Solid Waste Worker II - Collection Field Tech I & II - Distribution Field Tech I & II Please visit our website at for complete job descriptions and to apply. Applications may be submitted online, in person or faxed to 407-877-2795.

Utilities Treatment Plant Operator I $44,300 - $62,334/yr.

Utilities System Operator II & III $38,267 - 53,847/yr.; $40,182 - $56,539/yr. Apply Online At: Open until filled.

Orange County, Florida is an employer of choice and is perennially recognized on the Orlando Sentinel’s list of the Top 100 Companies for Working Families. Orange County shines as a place to both live and work, with an abundance of world class golf courses, lakes, miles of trails and year-round sunshine - all with the sparkling backdrop of nightly fireworks from world-famous tourist attractions. Make Orange County Your Home for Life. Orange County Utilities is one of the largest utility providers in Florida and has been recognized nationally and locally for outstanding operations, efficiencies, innovations, education programs and customer focus. As one of the largest departments in Orange County Government, we provide water and wastewater services to over 500,000 citizens and 66 million annual guests; operate the largest publicly owned landfill in the state; and manage in excess of a billion dollars of infrastructure assets. Our focus is on excellent quality, customer service, sustainability, and a commitment to employee development. Join us to find more than a job – find a career. We are currently looking for knowledgeable and motivated individuals to join our team, who take great pride in public service, aspire to create a lasting value within their community, and appreciate being immersed in meaningful work. We are currently recruiting actively for the following positions:

Industrial Electrician I $36,733 – $43,035/ year Apply online at: Positions are open until filled.

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

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

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Utility Plant Operators Various Levels And Utility Plant Operations and Maintenance Manager If there is a right place in all of the Orlando metropolitan area, Altamonte Springs is it. Positioned in the geographic heart of central Florida, Altamonte Springs provides a solid base of services with the convenience of a location that virtually eliminates the daily challenge of commuting to work. Recognized as the Outstanding Public Organization of the Year during the Central Florida Engineers’ Week, the Altamonte Springs Public Works & Utilities Department is seeking utility plant operators and a manager to serve our residents and utility customers in both water and wastewater. Altamonte Springs has been in the forefront of alternative water supply with showcase projects such as APRICOT, A-FIRST and potable reuse. Hiring Range for Utility Plant Operators D.O.Q.: $35,983/yr. - $49,121/yr. Salary Range: $ 35,983/yr. - $66,207/yr. Hiring Range for Plant Operations and Maintenance Manager: $47,982/yr. - $ 55,179/yr. Salary Range: $47,982/yr. - $79,170/yr. For additional information and to apply, please visit

ENGINEER III - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT We seeks a Professional Engineer (PE) to provide design, project management and team leadership for City transportation, stormwater and sanitary sewer utility engineering projects. A Construction Management Engineer III who can maintain high quality standards while moving projects forward within budget and on schedule. Must have the ability to multi task and complete many varying assignments while maintaining appropriate billable hours on work assignments and projects. When you decide that you are ready to propel your career to the next level and want to have an immediate impact on improving the environment in our community, consider becoming part of our team! For more details, please go to: The City of Largo - A Great Place to Work!

Wastewater Operator I Full Time Position - $14.47 - $24.81 Hourly Certification Class "C". H.S. Diploma/GED. Florida Driver's License. For more info and to submit an application, please visit

Laboratory Manager - Water Treatment Hiring Range $22 - $34 Bachelor’s degree with major course work in biology, chemistry, microbiology, or chemical engineering; supplemented by three (3) years laboratory experience and certification in microbiology by the State of Florida. Please apply via City Website: You may also send resumes to

Operator, Water Clay County Utility Authority is hiring a licensed Water Operator. Required: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Class "C" Water Treatment. Valid Florida Driver's License with good driving record.

CITY OF ROCKLEDGE Pretreatment Coordinator MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: High school diploma or GED, supplemented by three or more years’ experience in wastewater treatment plant systems or industrial treatment processes, or an equivalent combination of education, certification, training, and/or experience. May be required to have or obtain additional formal industry certification. Interested parties should complete an application for submittal to the Human Resources Office, along with a resume at City of Rockledge HR (321) 221-7540. Salary Range ($32,240 - $52,000)

InDyne, Inc. – Mechanic, Water & Sewage Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL Requires a High School Diploma or GED. Minimum Florida Level C Water & Level C Wastewater License required plus seven (7) or more years’ experience in industrial/commercial water/wastewater systems. State of FL CDL driver’s license is required. Must possess a current security clearance or be able to obtain and maintain a security clearance. US Citizenship is required for obtaining a security clearance. Must be capable of lifting up to 50 lbs unassisted, climbing/working on ladders >6’, prolonged standing and climbing stairs. Apply on-line at EOE/AA/ADA/VET Employer

Clay County Utility Authority is located at 3176 Old Jennings Road Middleburg, Florida 32068. If you are interested, please apply online at about/employment_opportunities.aspx or you may contact Kimberly Richardson, Human Resource Manager at 904-213-2437


March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Water Plant Lead OperatorCity of Avon Park Utilities Engineer City of Avon Park Utilities Engineer - Salary $50,000. DOQ Visit:

Toho Water Authority Kissimmee, FL

Wastewater Plant Operator C License Marathon, Florida Keys

Toho Water Authority is seeking immediate applications for a Water Plant Lead Operator. All applications must be submitted online at TWA offers competitive benefits and is an EEO. The purpose of this position is to ensure and maintain compliance and operations of all organization plants. This is accomplished by visiting the facilities; checking for normal operations, system pressure, chlorine and fluoride residuals; performing inspections on all pumps; performing maintenance on all equipment; and evaluating all water systems. Other duties include fulfilling monthly, quarterly, and annual work orders; approving all chemical purchases; tracking all purchase on spread sheets; submitting new purchase orders; creating work orders for repairs; managing customer complaints; and assisting the Supervisor of Water Facilities. RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE managing and assigning work orders, assisting in budget preparation, assuring compliance with State requirements, and ensuring proper documentation and reporting. QUALIFICATIONS INCLUDE Class “A” Water Operators License, and Valid FL State Class E Driver’s License. ABOUT TWA Toho Water Authority (TWA) is the largest provider of water, wastewater and reclaimed water services in Osceola County. Toho currently serves approximately 91,000 water, 82,400 wastewater and 12,000 reclaimed water customers in Kissimmee, Poinciana and unincorporated areas of Osceola County. Toho owns and operates 14 water plants and 8 wastewater plants. With a 300+ person workforce, Toho treats and distributes approximately 31 million gallons of potable water and reclaims 20 million gallons of wastewater each day. LEARN MORE AND APPLY ONLINE AT Toho Water Authority is and EEO

Category: Full-Time Description: This position is responsible for wastewater treatment plant operation and process control data collection and reporting, ensuring that the plant operates within the required State of Florida Department of Environmental permit standards.

DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF UTILITY OPERATIONS $140,000 - $180,000. How would you like to live and work in the beautiful Florida Keys? One of the Keys premier employers is searching for the right professional with the perfect balance of Engineering and Operations knowledge and education in water & wastewater utility systems operations experience, award winning team building skills and a great rapport with the public. This position would be responsible for strategic planning, capital improvements, the oversight of design, water quality, construction, and water and wastewater operations functions. We are looking for a well rounded Professional Engineer, who is detail oriented, yet sees and understands the “big picture”. Applicants who fit this description with the following qualifications should apply: Civil or Environmental Engineering degree, Florida Professional Engineering license, advanced coursework in business management or public administration; supplemented by and a minimum of 10 years previous experience and/or training that include progressively more responsible positions in a water utility, governmental or related agency or firm with a minimum of six (6) years of significant management and administrative responsibility. Benefit package is extremely competitive! Must complete on-line application at: jobs/apply/posting.html?client=FKAA&ccId=19000101_000001&type= MP&lang=en_US EEO, VPE, ADA

Miscellaneous: Email application/resume to or fax to 305-289-4143. See website for full description:

Kitson & Partners - Florida DUAL certified Water Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator Babcock Ranch,in Ft. Myers, FL, is seeking DUAL Licensed drinking water and wastewater treatment operators in the State of Florida with at least a B license, A preferred; for full time and part time(28 hours) positions. Ability to work weekends, overtime, regular days off or holidays as assigned or needed. Hiring Range for Plant Operators D.O.Q.: $25 hourly, up to $28 hour. For additional information and to apply, send resumes to

City of Fort Myers Water Plant Shift Lead Operator The City of Fort Myers, located in beautiful Southwest Florida, is seeking licensed a Water Plant Shift Lead Operator for our 6.5 MGD Reverse Osmosis Water Plant. Must possess a valid State of Florida Class "A" Drinking Water License. Excellent benefits package. Please see additional requirements and apply at

P o s itio ns Wante d BILL YOCUM – Holds a Florida A Wastewater & B Water license. Seeking a position in contract operations or part time work in central Florida area of the state. Contact at 5744 SE 12th St, Ocala, Fl. 34480. 352-342-2751 or

LOOKING FOR A JOB? The FWPCOA Job Placement Committee Can Help! Contact Joan E. Stokes at 407-293-9465 or fax 407-293-9943 for more information. CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING RATES – Classified ads are $20 per line for a 60 character line (including spaces and punctuation), $60 minimum. The price includes publication in both the magazine and our Web site. Short positions wanted ads are run one time for no charge and are subject to editing.

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2017


Test Yourself Answer Key From page 46 1.

B) 85 to 100 degrees Anaerobic digestion commonly takes place within three temperature regimes: cryophilic, mesophilic, and thermophilic temperature ranges. Cryophilic means the digester is typically not heated and will operate at the ambient temperature of the surrounding environment. Operating in the thermophilic temperature range may require the use of natural gas to maintain the higher temperature, which increases operating cost.


A) Magnesium, ammonium, and phosphate Struvite scale forming inside anaerobic digester piping can eventually clog pipes, valves, and pumps. There are technologies available today that encourage struvite crystal development for the purpose of harvesting the crystals as fertilizer.

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

3. C) Three to eight years The recommended draining and cleaning frequency of anaerobic digesters is between three to eight years. 4. D) Adjust or move the ballast weights around the cover until it is level. If foam and scum build up around the outer edge of the floating digester cover, it is not the problem causing the tilting; readjust the counter weights to relevel the cover. 5.

D) Formation of a dangerous vacuum Adding a very high pH chemical like lime slurry to an acidic digester can cause a vacuum to form within the tank and potentially cause the collapse of the cover.


B) Excessive foaming During the start-up of an anaerobic digester, foaming occurs as volatile acids are produced and internal mixing creates frothing of the biosolids.


A) High costs As compared to the lower cost and high availability of dry lime, sodium bicarbonate is not commonly used to recover a sour digester.


D) Keep the tank well mixed, maintain temperature, and add lime. Maintain mixing to keep the temperature uniform, maintain the temperature at normal operating value, do not change the temperature more than 1°F per day, and add lime to increase alkalinity.


B) One pound of lime for every 1000 gal of sludge to be treated One pound of lime for every 1000 gal of sludge to be treated is a guideline for recovery of a sour digester. Adjust the amount accordingly to reach optimum volatile acid-to-alkalinity ratio. Add lime slurry to digester slowly and mix well. Do not add dry lime to digester; mix into a liquid slurry first.

Display Advertiser Index Acipio......................................20 Blue Planet ............................83 CEU Challenge ........................59 CROM ......................................71 Data Flow................................43 Florida Aquastore ..................75 FSAWWA CONFERENCE Likins Scholarship ..................32 Awards ..................................34 Call for Papers ......................62 Drop Savers ..........................63 FWPCOA Online Training ........45 FWPCOA Training....................21


FWRC Conference ............................11 Technical Programs ..........12-13 Attendee ................................14 Workshop Presentation ..........15 Hotel Reservation ..................16 Garney Construction ................5 Hudson Pump ........................17 Lakeside ................................51 Stacon ......................................2 Treeo ......................................73 Xylem ......................................84

March 2017 • Florida Water Resources Journal

10. C) 500 mg/L Following the rule of thumb for proper volatile acid-toalkalinity ratio of 0.1 parts of volatile acid for every one part of alkalinity, if the alkalinity is 5,000 mg/L, the volatile acid should be one-tenth, or 500 mg/L.

Florida Water Resources Journal - March 2017  

Energy Efficiency and Environmental Stewardship

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you