Page 1


Editor’s Office and Advertiser Information:

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

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

Michael Delaney Rick Harmon Patrick Delaney Buena Vista Publishing

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

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

Membership Questions

2015 Florida Water Resources Conference Review 10 13 14 15

Conference Highlights—Holly Hanson Exhibition Technical Sessions Young Professionals Social

16 20 24

News and Features 4 70

Columns

Chloramination and Monochloramine Monitoring—Randy Turner WEF HQ Newsletter—Brianne Nakamura

Technical Articles 32

40

62

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

Awards FWEA President Competitions

Computational Challenges of Flow Driven by Low-Head Differential in Stormwater Treatment Areas—Liqiong Zhang, Jie Zeng, and Emile Damisse Energy Recovery in Desalination: Returning Alternative Water Supplies to Consideration—Lance R. Littrell and Juan Miguel Pinto Alternatives for Beach Stormwater Outfalls: Preliminary Assessment for City of Naples—Reshma Thummadi, Ronald Cavalieri, Andy Holland, and Gregg Strakaluse

8 30 38 52 54 56 58 72

Spotlight on Safety—Doug Prentiss Sr. Certification Boulevard—Roy Pelletier FWEA Focus—Raynetta Curry Marshall FWRJ Reader Profile—Steve Duranceau FSAWWA Speaking Out—Mark Lehigh Process Page—Laurel Rowse FWEA Chapter Corner—Eric Stanley C Factor—Thomas King

Departments 74 74 77 80 82

New Products Display Ad Index Service Directories Classifieds Display Advertiser Index

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

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

Education and Training 37 48 57 59 60 69 75 76

Florida Gateway College FSAWWA Fall Conference Florida Water Resources Conference FWPCOA Training Calendar CEU Challenge TREEO Center Training FWPCOA State Short School ISA Water/Wastewater and Automatic Controls Symposium

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

ON THE COVER: Members of Team GRU from Gainesville Regional Utilities compete in the Operations Challenge at the 2015 Florida Water Resources Conference. A record seven teams competed this year, with Methane Madness from City of St. Cloud taking first place. (photo: Patty Delaney)

Volume 67

July 2015

Number 7

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 • July 2015

3


Chloramination and Monochloramine Monitoring Randy Turner

Why Disinfection? Prior to disinfection with chlorine, the death rate due to typhoid fever was over 20 per 100,000 people in the United States. Disinfection with chlorine began in 1908 and deaths due to typhoid fever decreased to around zero by 1960, as illustrated in figure 1.

Chemistry of Chlorination Free chlorine is a powerful oxidant and reacts rapidly with organic and inorganic matter. As a result, the strong disinfectant residual it initially provides may not persist as long as necessary within the distribution system. Free chlorine can readily react with organics to form unwanted disinfection byproducts (DPBs) such as trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs). How does chlorine actually carry out disinfection? Depending on the pH, the reaction of hypochlorous acid (HOCl) and water further yields equilibrium between HOCI and hypochlorite ion (OCI-). The further dissociation, along with the two types of “hypos” (mainly hypochlorous acid, which is electrically neutral), can penetrate the cell walls of the organism and displace molecules needed to sur-

vive. The organism can no longer function or replicate and eventually dies. Figure 2 illustrates how HOCI attacks microorganisms. The HOCl is approximately 70 to 90 times stronger as an oxidant then OCl-, which has a predominant higher pH. Efficiency of disinfection with free chlorine decreases significantly with an increase in pH value. Figure 3 illustrates the effect pH has on the efficiency of chlorine. As the pH increases, more OCI- forms, which is not as effective a biocide as HOCI. During hydrolysis, chlorine reacts rapidly with water to form HOCl and hydrochloric acid (HCl). Cl2+ H2O  HOCl + HCl Of the two compounds, HCI is more important in the water treatment process. It contains the active form of chlorine that will be used to disinfect organisms.

Safe Drinking Water Act and Its Amendments The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of drinking water in the United States. Under SDWA, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and

Figure 1. Deaths per 100,000 due to typhoid fever.

4

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

water suppliers that implement those standards. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 requiring many actions to protect drinking water and its sources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and groundwater wells. Amendments to SDWA in 1996 required EPA to develop rules to balance the risks between microbial pathogens and DBPs. The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule and Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, promulgated in December 1998, were the first phase in a rulemaking strategy required by Congress as part of the 1996 amendments. Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule The Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR) builds upon the Stage 1 DBPR to address higher-risk public water systems. This final rule strengthens public health protection by tightening compliance monitoring requirements for two groups of DBPs, trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and HAAs. Stage 2 DBPR requires systems to perform a system evaluation to identify the locations with high DBPs, which become the systems’ compliance sampling points. If the DBP concentration cannot be reduced to within limits at the compliance sampling point, then alternative treatments to reduce DBPs must be employed. Chloramination is one option to reduce DBP formation. Continued on page 6

Figure 2. How hypochlorous acid attaches microorganisms.


Continued from page 4

Chloramination History of Chloramination In the early 1900s, chloramination received attention when it was found that the cost of chlorination might be reduced. The practice of monochloramine treatment was first adopted in 1916 in Ottawa, Ontario, and the first installation in the United States was in Denver in 1917. Both locations used ammonia and hypochlorite and noted improvements in taste. Chloramination is becoming more popular to mitigate unwanted DBPs. Chemistry of Chloramination Chloramines are less aggressive disinfectants that react more slowly than chlorine, but they remain longer in the distribution system.

Given more stringent DBP regulations, chloramination can be an appealing alternative to the use of free chlorine as a means of limiting DBP formation—particularly THMs. Additional benefits are fewer taste and odor concerns as reported by consumers of chloraminated water. Chloramine is a general term that describes three related compounds:  Monochloramine, NH2Cl  Dichloramine, NHCl2  Trichloramine, NCl3 Monochloramine is the preferred chloramine compound for drinking water disinfection. The molecular structure of all three chloramine compounds resembles the structure of ammonia. A chlorine atom will replace one, two, and three hydrogen atoms respectively for the formation of mono-, di-, and trichloramines. Figure 4 illustrates the structure of chloramines.

Figure 3. Efficacy of chlorine versus pH.

NH3 + HOCl  NH2Cl + H2O NH2Cl+ HOCl  NHCl2 + H2O NHCl2 + HOCl  NCl3 + H2O Figure 4. Structure of ammonia molecule.

6

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The formation of di- and trichloramines is minimized by adding a specific weight ratio of chlorine and ammonia to water, while maintaining the optimal pH range. While di- and trichloramines can contribute an objectionable taste and odor to the treated water, monochloramines are effective biocides that contribute the least to taste and odor problems. Figure 5 illustrates what may be observed when employing chlorination only. Figure 6 illustrates the application of chloramination where the objective is to have ≤ 0.05 parts per million (ppm) of free chlorine to ensure that overfeed of ammonia is not occurring. The difference of total chlorine less the free and monochloramine is the DBP concentration. Chloramination Process To form the monochloramine compound, the appropriate weight ratio of chlorine and ammonia must be determined and then properly managed. Free ammonia entering the distribution system must be controlled to reduce the potential for nitrification. Chloramines are weaker oxidizing agents; therefore, a higher disinfectant residual is required for similar results. A chloramine residual of 2.0 mg/L is comparable to a free chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L. All of the free chlorine will be converted to monochloramine when the pH is between 6.5 and 8.5 and the ratio of chlorine to ammonia is equimolar, 5:1 by weight or less. Since this reaction is pH-sensitive, the rate of reaction is important. The reaction rates for 99 percent conversion of free chlorine to monochloramine at 25ºC are shown in Table 1. This is why optimum pH is 6.5 to 8.5. Chlorine atoms occur in pairs and have a combined weight of just over 70 atomic mass units. The weight of ammonia is measured as N (which is why it is often expressed as NH3 -N), and nitrogen has an atomic mass of 14. The difference between the weight of chlorine and ammonia (70 / 14 = 5) establishes the chlorine-to- ammonia weight ratio of 5:1. Dosing chlorine and ammonia based on the weight ratio of 5:1 means that the required chlorine dose will be five times greater than the ammonia dose. For example, a target chloramine dose of 3.0 mg/L will require the addition of 3.0 mg/L of chlorine and 0.60 mg/L of ammonia to keep the 5:1 ratio. The amount of each chemical to add depends on chemical strength and weight of the treated water. Chemical Addition The chemical feed rate equation is used to determine the amount of chlorine and ammonia to add. Table 1


Figure 5. Example of chlorine profile when chlorinating.

Figure 6. Example of chlorine profile when chloraminating.

Chemical Feed Rate (lbs per day) = Dose; mg/L X MGD X 8.34 Chemical Strength (decimal percent) Therefore, if producing 10 mil gal per day (mgd) with a targeted monochloramine concentration of 3.0 mg/L using gaseous chlorine and ammonia would require the following:  Goal: 5:1 weight ratio to produce monochloramines  Target chloramine residual: 3.0 mg/L  Requires dosing: 3.0 mg/L Cl2 and 0.60 mg/L NH3  Daily production: 10 mil gal (MG)  Weight of water: 8.34 lbs./gal  Chlorine: 100 percent strength gas  Ammonia: 100 percent strength gas  Add 250 lbs of chlorine and 62 lbs of ammonia to produce the target results. Measurement of Monochloramine The measurement of free chlorine, monochloramine, total chlorine, and combined chlorine can be accomplished as follows:  Free residual chlorine red color formation with N,N Diethyl-1,4 Phenylenediamine Sulfate (DPD) and buffer • Reaction time of 3–5 seconds • According ISO 7393-2/EPA 334.0 • Other methods are acceptable (i.e., amperometric principle) as long as they are calibrated against above mentioned DPD method)  Total chlorine 1 • Additional potassium iodide (KI) is added to the buffer • Red color formation with DPD • Reaction time of 3-5 seconds  Total chlorine 2 • Red color formation with DPD, buffer, and KI • Reaction time of 120 seconds!

Figure 7. Graph of chloramination process with ammonia dosing failure and chlorine overfeed.

Monochloramine Monitoring The chloramination process can be monitored as follows:  NH3 added to the chlorinated water to form monochloramines.  Excess of ammonia (NH3) will consume all free chlorine resulting in excess ammonia, which can lead to nitrification.  Too little NH3 means too much free chlorine is left, which will react with NH3 to form unwanted dichloramines, trichloramines, and other byproducts.  An ammonia monitor can also be employed to monitor and control ammonia.  A chlorine analyzer can monitor free chlorine, monochloramine, total chlorine, and combined chlorine.

Figure 7 illustrates how monitoring of free, monochloramine, and total chlorine can be used to rapidly identify issues impacting chloramination control.

Summary Chloramination is the most popular method of disinfection, providing improved water quality for the public by reducing disinfection byproduct concentrations and improved taste and odor. Today’s analyzers can accurately and reliably analyze free chlorine and monochloramine, as well as total chlorine, allowing the water utility operator to properly monitor and control the disinfection process, thereby ensuring public health. Randy Turner is technical director with Swan Analytical USA Inc. in Wheeling, Ill. 

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

7


SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY

Happy Fourth of July! Doug Prentiss Sr.

he Fourth of July should be the official water and wastewater holiday. Millions of people will enjoy the day in or around the very water that we in the industry all work to protect. Not many of them will think about the water they drink, swim in, or simply stare at to relax; most will simply assume it is safe and dive right in and drink it up. In the United States, and especially here in Florida, we enjoy a plentiful supply of fresh drinking water, but even here in paradise, the challenges of the future are as varied as the ways we treat water and wastewater. Even after slowing down the pace of my training class schedule, I still get to work with professionals in the water industry who are committed not only to safe drinking water, but also to protecting our environment. It’s not easy to convince taxpayers weary of broken promises to invest even more financial resources into protecting the environment, but that is exactly where many water utilities in Florida are at. Many facilities that are expanding, replacing, or improving dewatering systems at their wastewater facilities are doing so to ensure water safety in the future. These improvements are costly now, and they will be more costly in the future, but the cost of doing nothing is unsafe drinking water—and that cost is unacceptable to support our future. As our population expands, millions of people count on safe drinking water, water that is safe to swim in and even water that is safe enough for the fish we may catch to live in. As you read this article there are sections of the Gulf of Mexico already referred to as the “dead zone,” and other parts of the ocean are full of floating plastics or fresh oil spills. It is the continuous actions by water and wastewater executives, managers, engineers, operators, and maintenance personnel that prevent local municipal water from becoming

T

8

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

unsafe. Each of us in the industry is directly accountable for our actions and the quality of our water. We constantly monitor and test our water and wastewater treatment facilities to ensure water for fire prevention, and most importantly, as a reliable source of safe water for human consumption. Several years ago, a new licensing requirement was put in place for workers who maintain and install water distribution systems to make sure that the safe drinking water produced by our plants reaches homes, schools, and churches in the same pristine condition it was in at the source, even after traveling miles in underground pipes. These changes, and many others, are the historical commitment of Florida to the continuation of safe drinking water. So to all of you on the safe water team, I would simply say “thank you.” Keep up the good fight; think globally but act locally by educating local groups so they truly understand the issues related to safe water. Encourage engineers to communicate the challenges they face to ensure safe water in the future for your community and coordinate or participate in public water safety forums whenever you can. We live in a busy and complicated society where paid professionals may repeat the same flawed science intended only to confuse the public or stall public policy needed to ensure safe drinking water in the future. Each of us must help our local rate payers understand the facts about what is needed for the future of safe drinking water in their own community. We need to harness the “not in my backyard” energy generated when people feel their environment is about to be affected by some change and steer their interest to prevention and improvement to ensure safe drinking water now and into the future. When provided with real facts, people can see what needs to be done whether they like it or not. Armed with the facts, people will make better decisions. If we can get people to understand the facts of water safety we also unlock the facts of the environment and how it all works together. So this Fourth of July, when someone drinks a nice glass of crystal clear cold water and comments about how good it was, tell that person a few facts.

FWEA Safety Committee Update The committee met on May 4 during the Florida Water Resources Conference and welcomed new and returning committee members:  Judd Mooso, Destin Water Users Inc. Co-chair  Scott Holowasko, Gainesville Regional Utilities Co-chair  Jamie Hope, Florida Rural Water Association Returning committee member  Ronald Cavalieri, AECOM New member and FWEA Executive Committee liaison  Mike Gibbs, Toho Water Authority New member  Doug Prentiss, Retired Committee member New Business 1. The committee is considering a full-day workshop at the 2016 FWRC, which will offer continuing education units. 2. Develop a method for FWEA members to ask safety questions: a. Create a FWEA website in-box for safety questions. b. Promote and advertise the in-box to FWEA members. c. Create a link to the Safety Committee page. d. Create a notification method when questions are posted. e. Update the website with a list of safety committee members and their contact information. 3. Conduct quarterly Safety Committee conference calls. Doug Prentiss is the FWEA Safety Committee vice chair. 


2015 FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES CONFERENCE REVIEW

90th Florida Water Resources Conference Highlights Holly Hanson he 2015 Florida Water Resources Conference (FWRC), held May 3-6, was extraordinarily special on many accounts. Attendance was record-setting, attracting over 2780 participants, and so it seems that the 268 exhibitors on hand were pleased with the turnout and level of booth traffic. This is significant in a quasi-recession, when many planned conferences have had to be suddenly canceled due to lack of interest.

T

The conference’s first-time visit to the Caribe Royale Resort on World Center Drive in Orlando set the stage for new insights into issues that Florida faces in the water and wastewater industries. At a more qualitative level, this year’s theme, “The Many Faces of Water,” gave the attendees an opportunity to see themselves in print, and the many facets that are needed to cover the intricacies of the industry.

In the Technical Sessions The technical program, loaded with tremendously valuable content, was coordinated by conference vice president Tim

Madhanagopal, of Orange County Utilities, and his technical committee. Two days of solid technical content that included workshops and technical sessions covered issues like utility management, biosolids, collections, disinfection, distribution, supply, treatment, resource recovery, reclamation and reuse, and everything in between, and also included coverage of hot topics such as facility funding, sustainability/energy, and legislative and regulatory issues. The sessions were full and everyone left transformed, empowered, and equipped with new information. On Tuesday afternoon, the Florida Section AWWA Contractors Council and the Design Build Institute of America (DBIA) presented a panel of owners and practitioners who discussed Florida laws and statutes governing alternate delivery and procurement methods. The session was packed and next year we hope to expand it. We encourage other organizations with water-related interests to utilize the drawing power of the FWRC to heighten the awareness of their organization’s existence and exchange ideas.

In the Exhibit Hall Scott Kelly, the conference corporation president, opened this year’s exhibit floor on Sunday evening with a few words at the president’s reception. Utility managers, water and wastewater professionals, consultants, faculty, administrators, regulatory personnel, and many other attendees enjoyed a delectable spread and the great networking opportunity. One of the most exciting and rewarding FWRCs in recent memory, exhibitors showcased their products and services and networking opportunities were endless. Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association (FWPCOA) President Tom King served as honorary master of ceremonies in the hall. His warm personality and ability to entertain and banter with the audience, while conducting the daily drawings and providing commentary from the center stage, was enjoyed and appreciated.

10

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


The FWRC exhibitors showcased their products and services, while enjoying networking opportunities daily. The South's premier water and wastewater conference was buzzing, and the focus was on promoting new industry trends and technologies. The exhibitors and the attendees exchanged information and discussed case studies, regulatory issues, and subjects pertaining to Florida’s challenge of supplying, conserving, and reusing precious water resources.

Networking and Annual Events As an added bonus, a new program that focused on the industry’s operators was added to the conference. The inaugural Operators Showcase packed the room as operators from around the state discussed best practices, new trends, and reoccurring issues. Hosted by FWPCOA, this was a great venue, with positive feedback from attendees. The Monday Awards Luncheon and the Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) Annual Meeting and Awards Luncheon on Tuesday were both so popular they each had to have an additional 100 seats added to accommodate everyone who wanted to attend. The “Quatro de Mayo” networking party was held Monday night for all FWRC attendees and it was very popular as they listened and

danced to music by the Orlando-based Leonard Brothers Band. The Young Professional and Student Reception held Monday afternoon set a new record in attendance. Nearly 100 participants met in a patio area just outside the conference center, where those new to the industry met and mingled with seasoned professionals and discussed water (and other) issues of the day. The Florida Section of the American Water Works Association (FSAWWA) hosted the annual “Best Tasting Drinking Water Contest” on Tuesday, where 10 municipalities entered their drinking water samples for close examination and various testing before the City of Tallahassee was selected as the winner. Anticipation was high this year as the Operations Challenge competition was held in an adjacent pavilion both Monday and Tuesday, where a record number of teams participated for the recognition of their peers. Coordinated by Chris Fasnacht, with City of St. Cloud, the competing teams were:  City of Fort Lauderdale “Hurricanes”  City of St. Cloud “Methane Madness”  Gainesville Regional Utilities “Team GRU”  City of St. Petersburg “Dirty Birds”  JEA Team 1 “Water Hogs”  JEA Team 2 “Fecal Matters”  Orange County “Treatment Outlaws”

The competition was tough with so many players, and a discernible undercurrent of excitement was present. The winner team, Methane Madness, which also won the competition last year, will compete at the 88th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) to be held September 26-30 at the McCormack Place Convention Center in Chicago. The Top Ops Competition, which was held Tuesday afternoon and coordinated by Christopher Wetz, with City of Tampa, hosted the following teams:  City of Palm Coast “Water Buoys”  Pasco County Utilities “Breaking Bad”  Hillsborough County “ChloraMEAN Machine”  Florida Gateway College “Water2Go”  City of Oldsmar “Insane in the MEMBRANES” The winning team, City of Palm Coast Water Buoys, competed at the American Water Works Association Annual Conference and Exposition, ACE15, which was held June 7-10, in Anaheim. Both the Operations Challenge and Top Ops teams rocked newly designed t-shirts and enjoyed a free lunch. Teams were encouraged to promote their Continued on page 12

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

11


Continued from page 11 team theme and colors throughout the conference. Other yearly events included the Florida Select Society of Sanitary Shovelers (FSSSS) annual members breakfast and the FSAWWA regional chairs and volunteer breakfast. Various association meetings and forums were also held. The FWRC golf outing, coordinated by Bill Heller, with Hydra Service South Inc., and Bill Scott, retired from Orange County Utilities, took place at Grand Cypress Golf Resort on Wednesday. The golfers enjoyed the beautiful, moderate temperature and balmy breezes on the course.

Thanks and Save the Date For all those who attended and participated in the 2015 FWRC, we would like to take this time to thank you for making it such a wonderful and informative event! We would like to give a special thanks to all of our speakers and the FSAWWA, FWPCOA, and FWEA staffs. The event was a great success and we look forward to 2016. A very special thanks to our sponsors, whose donations and involvement enrich the programs and events held at the FWRC. The 2016 Florida Water Resources Conference is scheduled for April 24-27 at the Gaylord Palms Resort and Convention Center in Kissimmee. The FWRC strives to be your prevailing source for technical and educational information. 

12

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Exhibition The Most Up-to-Date Products and Processes The exhibit hall this year included 268 vendors, with company representatives presenting the latest technologies and innovations. The hall was also the site for the evening receptions, prize giveaways, and awards presentations. Pictured are some of the activities in the hall.

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

13


Technical Sessions Learning From Those in the Industry The technical program included sessions on utility management, biosolids, collections, disinfection, distribution, supply, treatment, resource recovery, stormwater, new technology, nutrient removal, and reclamation and reuse; workshops on pathogen removal, sustainable process solutions, chlorine loss in distribution systems, water facilities funding, sustainability/energy, collection systems rehabilitation, geolocation for utility operations, utility asset management, and legislative and regulatory issues; an operators showcase; and a contractors forum. Pictured are some of the sessions and workshops.

14

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


YPs, Students, and Seasoned Professionals Mingle at Social The conference attracts all kinds of attendees who come from all around the state and the region to learn about the water and wastewater industries. There’s much knowledge to be gained in the workshops and technical sessions, and in the exhibit hall, but another advantage of the conference is the chance for attendees to meet with industry peers— both one-on-one and in groups. An outdoor social was held on Monday afternoon, and young professionals, students, and those who have been in the industry for awhile as engineers, consultants, chemists, manufacturers, professors, utility workers, and other water and wastewater personnel, took advantage of the great weather to meet, network, and have some fun.

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

15


2015 Awards Each year the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association, the Florida Water Environment Association, and the Florida Section of the American Water Works Association honor outstanding individuals, utilities, and other organizations for contributions to the state’s water and wastewater industry. The awards were presented at the two lunches held during the conference.

FWEA Awards Earle B. Phelps Awards Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facility First Place FGUA, Golden Gate Wastewater Treatment Facility Accepted by Chris Jones and Nathaniel Mastroeni. Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facility Runner-Up Lee County Utilities, Three Oaks Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by John Hollingsworth and Jerry Johnson.

Advanced Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facility First Place City of Plant City Water Reclamation Facility Accepted by Bobby Wilmer, Zoe´ Chaiser, David Stevens, Isaac Bostic, Steve Saffels, Patrick Murphy, Mark Nunes, Frank Coughenour, Elizabeth Matthew, and Chris Ogonowski.

Advanced Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facility Runner-Up Bay County Utilities, City of Callaway, Springfield and Parker Military Point Regional Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Accepted by Albert Bock and Frank Burgess.

16

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Advanced Secondary Wastewater Treatment Facility Honorable Mention Hillsborough County Utilities, Valrico Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by Adam Hunsberger and Alfonso Higareda.


Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Greater Than 15 MGD Category Honorable Mention Orange County Utilities Accepted by Larry Tunnell, Julian Malone, and John Haak.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Greater Than 15 MGD Category Runner-Up City of Boca Raton Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by Ken Goatley and Lauren Burack.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility 5 to 15 MGD Category Honorable Mention JEA District 2 Water Reclamation Facility Accepted by Glenn Bennett.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Greater Than 15 MGD Category Runner-Up City of Boca Raton Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by Lauren Burack and Todd Kiernan.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility 5 to 15 MGD Category First Place Toho Water Authority, Camelot Water Reclamation Facility Accepted by Cliff Keegan, Samuel Luciano, Edward Scott, Julian Moran, and Rick Vester.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Less Than 5 MGD Category First Place City of Eustis Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by Walt Linton, Rick Houben, Sophia Swoboda, and Jerry Johnston.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Greater Than 15 MGD Category First Place City of St. Petersburg, Southwest Water Reclamation Facility Accepted by Ken Wise.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility 5 to 15 MGD Category Runner-Up JEA Southwest Water Reclamation Facility Accepted by Tim Mechum.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Less Than 5 MGD Category Runner-Up Charlotte County Utilities Rotunda West Water Reclamation Facility Accepted by John McGinnis and Gary Hubbard.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility Less Than 5 MGD Category Honorable Mention City of Lake Wales, Sam P. Robinson Reclaimed Water Treatment Plant Accepted by Ted Long.

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

17


David W. York Water Reuse System of the Year Awards

Greater Than 15 MGD City of Tallahassee Thomas P. Smith Water Reclamation Facility Accepted by Hiram Tirado.

Greater Than 15 MGD JEA Reuse South Grid Accepted by Paul Steinbrecher, Katie Bizub, and Ed Cordova.

Reuse Project of the Year City of Cocoa’s Rockledge Interconnect Project Accepted by Jack Walsh.

Reuse Project of the Year City of Palm Coast’s Concentrate Zero Liquid Discharge Project Accepted by Jim Hogan.

1 to Less Than 5 MGD City of Tavares Woodlea Road Water Reclamation Facility Accepted by Phillip Clark, James Wyker, and Tim Claitor.

Reclaimed Customer of the Year Sample-McDougald House Preservation Society Accepted by Steve Almyda and Bob Clayton.

Collection System of the Year Awards

20,000 to 75,000 Connections Category City of Plant City Accepted by Wayne Everhart, Angel Soto-Diaz, Paul Cockrell, and Frank Coughenour.

18

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Greater Than 75,000 Connections Category City of West Palm Beach Dale Rager, Charles Phoenix, Brandon Ingraham, Derek Johnson, and Sabin Cunningham, and Joshua McDermott.


Municipal Utility Operational Performance Excellence Awards

Greater Than 50,000 Connections City of Boca Raton Utility Services Department Accepted by Ken Goatley, Justin Harrington, Lauren Burback, Todd Kiernan, and Norman Wellings.

Safety Awards

Class A, First Place City of Boca Raton Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by Ken Goatley, Justin Harrington, Lauren Burback, Todd Kiernan, and Norman Wellings.

Class B, First Place Bonita Springs Utilities Inc. East Water Reclamation Facility Accepted by Dennis White, Andy Koebel, and Jake Hepokoski.

Class A, Second Place Northwest Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by Luke Armstrong.

Class B, Third Place Three Oaks Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by John Hollingsworth and Jerry Johnson.

Class A, Third Place River Oaks Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by Victor Anderson and Kevin Grant.

Class C, First Place Seminole Tribe of Florida Hollywood Reservation Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by John Holdman.

George W. Burke Jr. Facility Safety Award City of Vero Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant Accepted by Robert Bolton.

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

19


Public Education Awards

Biosolids Awards

Technology Innovation and Development Harvest Power (Reedy Creek Codigestion Facility} Accepted by Jody Barksdale and Kelly Saikkonen.

Small Operations Village of Wellington Accepted by Bryan Gayoso and David Cipriani.

Large Operations Project City of Tallahassee Accepted by James Watson, Francis Quigley, Scott Deer, and Brian Conrad.

FWEA Welcomes New President

Kart Vaith, left, introduced Raynetta Curry Marshall as the FWEA 2015-2016 president at the organization’s annual meeting and awards luncheon that was held on May 5.

20

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Campaign Category Hillsborough County Utilities Accepted by Kizuwanda Agee.

Organization Category City of Boca Raton Accepted by Lauren Burack.

Outstanding Service Awards

Presented to Shanin Speas-Frost.

Presented to Suzanne Mechler.


USA Blue Book ad


Environmental Stewardship Award for Odor Control Hillsborough County Public Utilities Department Accepted by Thomas J. Black and Richard Cummings.

William D. Hatfield Award Presented to Albert Bock.

Integrated Water Resources Award Presented to Norman Wellings by Ricky Ly.

Arthur Sidney Bedell Award Presented to Kartik Vaith

Thomas T. Jones Award Presented to John McGinnis.

Leroy H. Scott Award Presented to Craven Askew.

Young Professional of the Year Award Presented to Lindsay Marten.

FSAWWA Awards Water Treatment Plants

Outstanding Class A Town of Jupiter Utilities Accepted by Rebecca Wilder.

22

Outstanding Class B Hillsborough County Lake Park Water Treatment Plant Accepted by Kendra Phillips, Jake Kavanagh, and Beth Schinella.

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Outstanding Class C City of Plant City Accepted by Steve Saffels.


David B. Lee Award

FWPCOA Awards

Wastewater Presented to William Kruppa, City of Lakeland.

Wastewater Presented to Patrick Murphy, City of Plant City.

Water Presented to Steve Saffels, City of Plant City.

Pat Flanagan Award Presented to Ric Romanoff, Electro Mechanical South.

Lifetime Achievement Award Presented posthumously to David Clayton. Accepted by Tyler Clayton and Matthew Coffin.

Most Improved Class A Bay County Water Treatment Plant Accepted by Jake Hollingsworth.

Most Improved Class B Town of Davie System III Water Treatment Plant Accepted by Renuka Bajnath and Jeffrey Pinter.

Most Improved Class C Pasco County Southwest Water Treatment Plant Accepted by Jim Kaplan and Brent Ruiz.

Outstanding Operator Award Presented to Patrick Murphy, City of Plant City..

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

23


Competitions – TOP OPS –

Water Buoys Takes First Place Two Years in a Row

Ron Cartwright (right) presents the first-place plaque and trophy to the Water Buoys (from left): Peter Roussell, Fred Greiner, Tom Martens, and Jim Hogan (team coach).

Water Buoys team waits for a question from the judges.

Insane In The MEMBRANES team members Sammy Cruz, Paul Noeske, and John Giordano.

24

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The Water Buoys, from the City of Palm Coast, qualified for the national American Water Works Association (AWWA) Top Ops competition by winning the Florida Top Ops, held during the conference. For the second time in two years, the team took home the first-place award from this “college bowl” type event that tests each group of water treatment and distribution operators on its knowledge of system operations. The contest was emceed by Ron Cartwright and sponsored by Dumont Chemicals. Coming in second place was Water2Go from Florida Gateway College, but the team forfeited going to the national competition. The third-place winner, Pasco County’s Breaking Bad, participated in the national contest. Two other teams also competed at the Florida conference: ChloraMEAN Machine from Hillsborough County Public Utilities and the Insane In The MEMBRANES team from City of Oldsmar. The national Top Ops contest took place at the AWWA Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE15) held in Anaheim in June. Water utilities across the state are encouraged to enter the 24rd annual Top Ops, which will be held May 2016 during the Florida Water Resources Conference in Kissimmee. Teams may represent more than one utility. For more details, and to receive the competition rules, contact Scott Ruland, Top Ops chair, at sruland@deltonafl.gov.

Cartwright (at podium) emcees the contest.

Mike Wojtasinski, Mark Chaffin, and Robert Childress make up the ChloraMEAN Machine team.

The Breaking Bad team included Vinnie Domanico, Karen Lewis, and Brent Ruiz.


– OPERATIONS CHALLENGE –

Methane Madness Earns Second Straight Win The team that came in first in last year’s Operations Challenge took home the big prize again this year. Methane Madness, from City of St. Cloud, won first place with a total score of 39. In second place, with 28, was Team GRU from Gainesville, and with a score of 19, Orange County’s Treatment Outlaws came in third. A record seven teams competed this year. The other teams in the contest were the Ft. Lauderdale Hurricanes, Dirty Birds from St. Petersburg, and two teams representing JEA: Water Hogs and Fecal Matters. The competition is a skills-based contest consisting of five timed events that showcase the knowledge and expertise of wastewater treatment plant operators. The teams display their proficiency in process control, maintenance,

Chris Fasnacht (left) and the winning Methane Madness team: Chris Henderson, Gared Barghausen, Marcus Fullwood, and Wesley McGhee.

safety, collections, and the laboratory. The process control event includes a 25-question multiple choice test and four process control scenarios that must be completed as quickly and accurately as possible to score the most points. The laboratory section is a biochemical oxygen demand test, in a simulated format, to determine the demand a wastewater stream would have on a treatment facility. The maintenance event simulates the maintenance of a lift station, and the safety section simulates the rescue of a coworker in a confined space. The final event addresses collections with a simulated repair and inspection of a broken sewage line.

Fasnacht, who coordinates the competition, announces the winners in the various categories.

With its win, St Cloud’s team qualifies for a spot at the national Operations Challenge at the Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC), which will be held in October in Chicago. The next Operations Challenge at FWRC will be held May 2016 in Kissimmee. The competition is open to teams of wastewater treatment operators from any utility in Florida. For information on entering a team, contact Chris Fasnacht, City of St. Cloud, at cfasnacht@stcloud.org.

Methane Madness shows its stuff.

Team GRU in action.

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

25


– STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION –

FWEA Contest Again Held at Conference Danielle Bertini

2015 Competition Highlights

Since 1996, the Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) Students & Young Professionals Committee (SYPC) has hosted the Student Design Competition (SDC), where university students can showcase their senior capstone design projects. The competition is intended to promote real-world design experience for students interested in pursuing a career in water/wastewater engineering and sciences. The student teams were tasked with submitting a 20-page design report and presenting it in front of a panel of judges at the Florida Water Resources Conference (FWRC). Teams competed in one of two categories: wastewater or environmental. The wastewater category includes traditional wastewater collection and treatment topics, such as hydraulic capacity design, upgrades to existing systems, and solids handling. The environmental category is intended for more contemporary engineering topics, such as sustainability, water reuse, stormwater management, urban runoff, and treatment wetlands.

This year, seven teams from four schools participated in the SDC. There were a wide variety of projects, making this year's competition especially fun to watch. The 2015 wastewater teams were:  Florida Gulf Coast University: "Evaluation and Management of Groundwater Infiltration into Sewer Systems." Team members: Ryan Speir, William Saum, Angel Hernandez, Kevin M. Rieg, Daniel J. Riley, and Derek Briggs.  Florida International University: "South District Wastewater Treatment Plant (SDWWTP) Sludge Treatment Design." Team members: Nicole Delacruz, Milton Reinoso, Alexandra Smith-Prance, Andrew Speroterra, and Aref Shehadeh.  University of South Florida: "City of Oldsmar Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well Rehabilitation." Team members: Etienne Vawters, Ileana Wald, Samantha Flores, David Lee, and Alexander Miller. The 2015 environmental teams were:  Florida Gulf Coast University: "Bioremediation of Phenol Waste Using Activated Sludge in a Hybrid-Batch Reactor." Team

members: Maxwell D.F. Goodacre, Erik J. Mead, and Nathan C. Wunder.  Florida International University: "Southwest Water Treatment Plant Disinfection System Renovation: Detailed Analysis and Design." Team members: Sigal Bertisch, Gustavo Manzanilla, Leonardo Torrellas, Jonathan Neita, and Kiara Pazan.  University of Florida: "Management and Treatment of Recovered Urban Highway Snow." Team members: Matthew Paymer, Robert Harrison Barron III, Brennan Schneider, Holly Henderson, David Lee, Xiaojuan Huang, and Nick D’Apremont.  University of South Florida: "Booker Creek Fecal Coliform Bacterial Pollution Control Plan." Team members: Sarah Templeman, Paul Haas, Jake Hemingway, Anna Quinones, and Thomas Tito. The students did a great job with their reports and presentations. Each team should be proud of what they've accomplished over the past four to eight months. The judges were particularly impressed with the students' level of knowledge and their confidence in responding to their tough questions. Great job, everyone!

Pictured are students, judges, volunteers, and gold-level sponsors.

26

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


University of South Florida won first place in the wastewater category.

Florida Gulf Coast University won first place in the environmental category, and for the fourth year in a row, the University of South Florida won first place in the wastewater category. Both teams go on to represent Florida at the national competition at WEFTEC on September 27 in Chicago. Each first-place team receives a $4000 WEFTEC travel allowance and a $1000 Norm Casey Scholarship. All other teams received a $500 participation bonus.

A Year of Firsts After the SDC winners were announced, the SYPC held the first-ever resumé workshop, where students were able to submit and receive feedback on their resumés. Representatives from several Florida agencies and consulting firms were present during the workshop to offer career advice and to meet potential recruits. This was such a great opportunity for both the students, who are wrapping up their academic careers, and for recruiters, who have access to the brightest engineering students in the state. The committee is hoping to make this an even stronger event next year. Revised student resumés were packaged and sent to all SYPC goldlevel sponsors. The first annual S&YP Poster Competition was also held at FWRC. The poster competition is intended for both university students and young professionals to showcase a research or design project they have worked on and covers similar topics as the SDC. Posters were displayed inside the exhibit hall for maximum exposure. This year's poster winner was Yue Hu, from the University of Florida, and her poster was titled, "Development of a Process Model for Integrated Ion Exchange Treatment and Regeneration." She received a first-place prize of $300.

Florida Gulf Coast University placed first in the environmental category.

Thank You! I would like to recognize the students, faculty advisors, professional mentors, and the SDC planning committee and volunteers (Tim Ware, George Dick, Samantha Hanzel, Kristen Andre, Lauren Davis, Kristiana Dragash, Rebecca Oliva, David Hernandez, Isaac Holowell, Yanni Polematidis, Kyle Kellogg, Jose Cueto, Holly Hanson, and Amber Batson) for all of their hard work and dedication. And a special thank you goes out to all of the judges, who read three to four design reports and spent most of their Monday at FWRC with the students. This year's SDC and poster competition judges were:  Holly Kremers, Wade Trim  Suzanne Mechler, CDM Smith  Oscar Rubio, Oscar L. Rubio & Associates  Eric Leveque, Carollo Engineers  Yanni Polematidis, CDM Smith  Julie Karleskint, Hazen & Sawyer  Samantha Nehme, Stantec  Mike Smith, CDM Smith

 Kyle Kellogg, Atkins  Teri Shoemaker, St. Johns County Utility Department  Brittany Cogger, CDM Smith  John Banks, Atkins  Michael Bailey, City of Cooper City Utilities  Hai Vu, JEA The SYPC also did a great job fundraising this year! Thank you to everyone at the City of Oldsmar, especially Lisa Rhea and Johna Jahn, for doing what was necessary to become the first (in a very long time) SDC utility sponsor. Your diligence and generosity had a huge impact on our ability to send the winning teams to WEFTEC. We hope to see more utility sponsors in the future! This year's gold-level sponsors were:  ARCADIS  City of Oldsmar  Conestoga-Rovers & Associates  FWRC  Public Works Academy  Regional Engineering Services  Stantec Sponsorships were also appreciated from silver-level sponsors (American Water, Carollo Engineers, and NEFCO) and bronze-level sponsors (CDM Smith, McKim & Creed, Moss Kelley, Pure Technologies, and Wade Trim). Planning for the 2016 SDC will begin this fall. If you are interested in joining the SYPC, helping with the 2016 SDC or poster competition, have any comments or feedback, or would like more information, please visit the website at www.fwea.org/student_design_competition.php or contact me at dbertini@carollo.com.

Yue Hu discusses her winning poster with conference attendees.

Danielle Bertini is an environmental engineer with Carollo Engineers in Sarasota. 

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

27


– DRINKING WATER TASTE TEST –

City of Tallahassee Has Best Tasting Water in Florida The City of Tallahassee is the second utilThe City of Tallahassee won the ity to be named Florida’s best-tasting water statewide Best Tasting Drinking Water Contwice, also having won in 2008. Tallahassee’s test on April 5 at the conference. The four water system has 27 wells, drawing water from taste-test judges chose the utility from 12 the Floridan Aquifer. It has a nationally acFlorida Section AWWA regional winners. credited water quality laboratory and all of its For the statewide final, each regional water well operators are state-certified. The 27 winner submitted a gallon of water that was wells are monitored around the clock every collected less than 24 hours before the conday of the year by a state-of-the-art computer test. All of the samples were tasted as room monitoring system. The utility annually contemperature to allow for any tastes or odors ducts 7,000 tests on its water—more than to be more easily detected. In addition to twice the state-required 3,000 tests a year—to taste and odor, the samples were rated on Greg Taylor emcees the contest. ensure the quality of the city's drinking water. color and clarity. The system usually reports levels of minerals, Greg Taylor, project manager with Reiss Engineering, served as emcee for the contest. The judges were: Richard metals, and contaminants 10 to 100 times below the allowable Anderson, system operations manager with Peace River Manasota Re- amounts permitted by state and federal agencies. The utility will now compete in the national drinking water gional Water Supply Authority; Ken Broome, principal project manager with MWH Global; Tom Sorrells, chief meteorologist at WKMG, Chan- taste test that will be held at the AWWA Annual Conference and Exposition in June in Anaheim. nel 6; and Rick Harmon, editor of Florida Water Resources Journal.

The judges discuss their ratings for the entries. At the table, from left to right: Rick Harmon, Ken Broome, Richard Anderson, and Tom Sorrells.

Mark Lehigh (right), FSAWWA chair, presents the award to City of Tallahassee employees Matthew McLeod and David Roberts. Ave Maria Utility received the permanent award for its taste-test win last year. Mark Lehigh (left) presents the award to Paul Cortez, with CH2M, who accepted the award for the utility.

28

July 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The water samples ready for judging.


FSSSS New Members Inducted Into FWEA Society Three nominees for the Florida Select Society of Sanitary Shovelers became members after completing a tongue-twisting induction exercise at the conference awards luncheon on Monday. The chair of the society, Tom Baber, presided over the ceremony where Jeff Poteet, Greg Kolb, and Fred Nugent received their certificates as members of the Class of 2015. The new members also received the coveted Silver Shovel pin. A fourth member, Tom Jones, who is deceased, was also inducted into the organization. The society, which was founded in 1956, annually recognizes wastewater industry professionals for meritorious service above and beyond the call of duty to the Florida Water Environment Association. Tom Baber explains the rules of initiation.

Jeff Poteet, Fred Nugent, and Greg Kolb takes turns reciting the tongue-twister.

Baber (second from right) poses with new inductees Kolb, Poteet, and Nugent.

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

29


Certification Boulevard

Test Your Knowledge of Various Wastewater Treatment Topics an advanced wastewater treatment process? A. Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) removal B. TSS removal C. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal D. Metals removal

Roy Pelletier 1. What is a typical loading equivalent for total suspended solids (TSS) in domestic wastewater? A. About 0.17 lbs/person/day B. About 0.2 lbs/person/day C. About 300 gal/person/day D. About 200 mg/L/person/day 2. What is the detention time in an aeration tank that is 100 ft long, 25 ft wide, 15 ft deep, and the influent flow is 1 mil gal per day (mgd)? A. 8.3 hours B. 1.8 hours C. 6.7 hours D. 3.1 hours 3. Given the following data, what is the surface settling rate of the secondary clarifiers? • Two secondary clarifiers • Each clarifier has a diameter of 120 ft • The plant influent flow is 12 mgd A. 530 gal/day/ft2 B. 3,414 gal/day/ft2 C. 736 gal/day/ft2 D. 159 gal/day/ft2 4. Given the following data, how many gal of waste activated sludge (WAS) should be removed if an eight-day sludge retention time (SRT) is the desired target? • Two aerations tanks • Each aeration tank is 140 ft long, 45 ft wide, and 15 ft deep • The mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration is 3,500 parts per million (ppm) • The WAS concentration is 8,500 ppm A. 1.12 mgd B. 158,250 gal per day (gpd) C. 20,790 gpd D. 72,765 gpd

6. Which would be the best adjustment if high hydrogen sulfide (H2S) levels were leaving a wet scrubber tower located in the preliminary treatment process? A. Decrease the tower pH. B. Add polymer into the tower. C. Increase the tower pH. D. Take the tower out of service. 7. What action should be performed to permanently increase the food-to-mass (F/M) ratio from 0.2 to 0.3? A. Decrease WAS B. Increase RAS C. Decrease RAS D. Increase WAS 8. Which aeration foam may indicate an old sludge condition? A. Black or dark brown in color B. Light brown in color C. White or very light in color D. Light gray in color 9. What does it mean when red worms are observed while performing a microscopic examination of the activated sludge? A. The sludge is very young. B. The SRT is low. C. The sludge is very old. D. The F/M ratio is high. 10. Given the following data for this plant, are the secondary clarifiers being overloaded? • Solids loading rate (SLR) = 16 ppd/ft2 • Surface settling rate (SSR) = 432 gpd/ft2 • Weir overflow rate (WOR) = 9,000 gpd/ft A. Yes B. No C. The effluent quality is very poor. D. There is not enough data to calculate clarifier loading rates.

5. What is the main difference between a conventional activated sludge process and

30

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Answers on page 73

LOOKING FOR ANSWERS? Check the Archives Are you new to the water and wastewater field? Want to boost your knowledge about topics youʼll face each day as a water/wastewater professional? All past editions of Certification Boulevard through 2000 are available on the Florida Water Environment Associationʼs website at www.fwea.org. Click the “Site Map” button on the home page, then scroll down to the Certification Boulevard Archives, located below the Operations Research Committee.

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


F W R J

Computational Challenges of Flow Driven by Low-Head Differential in Stormwater Treatment Areas Liqiong Zhang, Jie Zeng, and Emile Damisse Liqiong Zhang and Jie Zeng are lead engineers, and Emile Damisse is section lead in the Hydrology and Hydraulic Bureau of South Florida Water Management District in West Palm Beach.

he South Florida Water Management District (District) operates over 500 hydraulic structures (pumps, spillways, culverts, and weirs) for water resources management in a 46,439-sq-km (~17,930-sqmi) region. Accurate flow estimation for these hydraulic structures is a key component to environmental flow in stormwater treatment areas (STAs) prior to its release to the Everglades, one of only three wetland areas of global importance. Culverts have been extensively designed and constructed for water divergence, drainage, and water quality control in the STAs. Stormwater Treatment Area 3/4 (STA-3/4) is one of the six STAs constructed to reduce total phosphorus (TP) from the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) and Lake Okeechobee. A regional map (Figure 1) shows that STA-3/4 is located in the boundary of Palm Beach County and Broward County, bordered by Holey Land Wildlife Management Area on the west and the Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA-3A) on the south (SFWMD, 2007). Accurate water budget analysis of STA-3/4 is a key to evaluating the performance of this STA on TP reduction. In this study, the procedures of annual water budget analysis are: 1) Improvement of rating equations of internal structures with the aid of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation 2) Filtering of white noise in water stages 3) Verification of water budget and flow distributions 4) Providing basic information for evaluating performance of STA-3/4

T

Figure 1. Location of the stormwater treatment area-3/4 (SFWMD, 2014).

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of STA-3/4 (SFWMD, 2015).

32

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Since October 2003, the inflow structures have been operating and conveyed the runoff/drainage from the EAA and Lake Okeechobee releases into STA-3/4.


The STA-3/4 has three flow-ways: eastern, central, and western. The eastern flow-way consists of two consecutively linked cells 1A and 1B, the central flow-way consists of two consecutively linked cells 2A and 2B, and the western flow-way consists of two consecutively linked cells 3A and 3B. The following flows were noted:  Inflow to the eastern flow-way is controlled by six gated concrete-box culverts (G-374 A−F)  Outflow from cell 1A and inflow into cell 1B are through six gated concrete-box culverts (G-375 A−F)  Inflow to the central flow-way is controlled by five gated concrete-box culverts (G-377 A−E)  Outflow from cell 2A and inflow into cell 2B are through five gated concrete-box culverts (G-378 A−E)  Inflow to the western flow-way is controlled by six gated concrete-box culverts (G380 A−F)  Outflow from cell 3A and inflow into cell 3B are through six gated concrete-box culverts (G-384 A−F). The District’s flow ratings are validated and calibrated with data comprising field measurements of discharge, and water stages and operational settings are monitored in near real time. The goal of improving flow ratings at hydraulic structures relies highly on field flow measurements collected by acoustic flow meters and supplemented by three-dimensional CFD, especially for complex hydraulic structures and/or extreme hydrologic events. However, the monitoring data show that most of the internal culverts in STA3/4 are frequently subject to low-head differential. A histogram analysis shows that low-head differential (≤±0.05 ft) occurred at 62.23 percent, 56.78 percent, and 73.74 percent of the period of record at G-375A-F, G-378A-E, and G-384A-F, respectively. This high occurrence of low-head differential would explain the abnormally high residuals in the relevant cell-based water budgets, which makes it difficult to evaluate the performance of individual treatment cells. Due to the detection limit of stage sensors and other factors, such as wind surge, uncertainties in the monitored low-head differential are considerable, which would propagate into the rated flows as one of the inputs in the rating equation. An approach integrating CFD and filtering techniques was investigated to improve the rated flows at these local internal culverts in STA-3/4. First, accurate flow rating at local structures under low-head differential was obtained by using the flow data generated by CFD with special treatment. By doing so, the calibrated rating would not be contaminated by the measurement uncertainty in low-head differential. Second, low-pass filter of signal process and LOWESS were utilized, respectively, to remove the white

Figure 3. CFD Simulation for G-384C under low-head differential. Table 1. Rating calibration of culvert G-384C

noise in the water stages due to instrument resolution and wind effects. The time series of water stages filtered with low-pass filter and LOWESS, respectively, were input in flow computation at the internal culverts of STA-3/4. Finally, water budget analysis was conducted for the relevant treatment cells with the new computed flows at the internal culverts. The water budget residuals were decreased substantially after stage filtering compared with those before stage filtering. The proposed methodology for water budget improvement of STA-3/4 can be applied to other hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.

Methology Flow Rating Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Techniques Using the CFD technique with special treatment, flow rating under low-head differential was investigated for culverts G384A-F. The calibrated discharge coefficient for full pipe flow under low-head differential is 0.715 (less than 0.754), which was calibrated under normal ranges of head differential. Therefore, it indicates that the calibrated rating parameters for low-head differential might be considerably difContinud on page 34

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

33


Continued from page 33 ferent from those under normal ranges of head differential. In the CFD simulation shown in Figure 3, the setup boundaries are listed as: all solid boundaries of the computational domain, including channel bottom; gate surface and cul-

vert barrel were simulated as no-slip surface; the inlet and outlet boundaries were specified as the water stages; and the water surface was specified as free-surface boundary with volume of fluid. Before CFD simulation, an analysis was conducted to investigate the conjunction fre-

quencies at which the headwater stage, tailwater stage, and gate opening occurred in the overall period of record. Based on the frequency analysis, eight different combinations of hydrologic condition (headwater stage and tailwater stage) and operation condition (gate openings) were selected and used for CFD simulation to represent the most likely flow conditions at this culvert group. Thus, the CFD-simulated flow data were applied in the rating calibration under low-head differential, yielding more reliable and accurate rating with the least measurement uncertainty in water stages. The full pipe flow equation for culvert (SFWMD, 2009) is stated as:

(1)

Figure 4. Comparison between CFD-simulated and computed discharges at G-384C.

Figure 5. Spectrum of G-375D-H (one-minute interval data) for WY 2008: (i) before filtering (shown in blue), and (ii) after applying Type I Chebyshev low-pass filtering (shown in red).

34

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

where Q is the discharge through each of the culvert barrels, H is the headwater elevation upstream of the culvert entrance (an approximation of the energy head by neglecting the approach velocity), h is the tailwater elevation at the culvert exit, L is the barrel length, n is the Manning roughness coefficient, g is gravitational acceleration, A0 is the full-pipe area, AG is the area under the gate opening, R0 is the fullpipe hydraulic radius, and Cd is the discharge coefficient for full pipe flow. The rating parameters, including Cd and n for full pipe flow, were determined through nonlinear regression techniques applied to CFDsimulated flow data. Here, the discharge coefficient and Manning’s friction coefficient were calibrated as 0.715 and 0.012, respectively, for full pipe flow. The computed discharges with the new rating and CFD-simulated discharges are provided in Table 1 and shown in Figure 4. There is agreement between the CFD-simulated and rated discharges, with 4.64 percent (from 0.39 to 9.89 percent) of averaged absolute relative error. By using the CFD techniques, a reliable flow rating at local structures was obtained, which would not be subject to measurement uncertainties in low-head differential. However, the white noise in water stages needs to be removed before the reliable flow rating is applied to compute flow at local structures. Here, two approaches, including low-pass filtering and LOWESS, were used to filter the noise in the monitored water stages, respectively. Water Stage Filtering With Low-Pass Filter The Chebyshev filter for low-pass filtering was used to filter high-frequency noise from stage data by convolving the spectrum of the time series ob-


tained using the Chebyshec filter, which is given as:

(2)

Here, Type I Chebyshev was used for filtering the water stage, which has the magnitude response

(3) where N is the filter order, ε is a user-supplied parameter that controls the amount of passband ripple, and ΩP is the upper pass band edge. The routine used for the data set takes the spectrum, as shown in Figure 5. The filtered and unfiltered one-minute interval headwater stages at culvert G-375D are shown in Figure 6. Then, with the calibrated rating equation, flows through the internal culverts were calculated with the filtered water stages and monitored operational settings. Water Stage Filtering With LOWESS There are several types of nonparametric regression. The most commonly used is the LOWESS procedure, which was first developed by Cleveland (1979). Here, LOWESS was used to filter the water stages, as shown in Figure 7. Also, flows through the internal culverts were calculated with the water stages filtered with LOWESS and the monitored operational settings. These flows through internal culverts are inflows or outflows for individual cells, which will be applied to the water budget analysis in the following section.

Figure 6. One-minute interval headwater stage hydrograph at G-375D for WY 2008: (i) before filtering (black line), and (ii) after low-pass filtering (red line).

Water Budget Analysis In order to evaluate the performance of each cell and entire STA on TP reduction, water budget analysis was conducted using the calculated flows obtained by the proposed methodology. The objective is to verify whether the proposed mythology integrating CFD and stage filtering can help to reduce the residuals of cell-based water budgets. For simplification, only the inflow and outflow are counted in the water balance equation as follows: (4) where I is the inflow, O is the outflow, ΔS is the storage change, and ΔT is the time period. The precipitation changes in storage and evapotranspiration are negligible based on the past experiences with STA-3/4. The seepage needs further investigation and is beyond the scope of this study. Thus, the residual of the water budget here only reflects the difference be-

Figure 7. One-minute interval headwater stage hydrograph at G-378C for WY 2009: (i) before filtering (blue dot), and (ii) after LOWESS filtering (blue line).

tween the total inflow and the total outflow within a water year. Tables 2 and 3 list the results of the WY2006 water budget. It can be seen from Tables 2 and 3 that the residuals of the cell-based water budgets were significantly reduced through the low-pass filtering or LOWESS filtering.

Results Using the proposed mythology, cell-based water budget analysis was conducted involving three internal culvert groups, including G375A-F, G-378A-E, and G-384A-F for the Continud on page 36

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

35


Table 2. WY2006 water budget for cell 2A and 2B in STA-3/4 with low-pass filtering.

Table 3. WY2006 water budget for cell 2A and 2B in STA-3/4 with LOWESS filtering.

Continued from page 35 whole period of record. Most of the residuals with the proposed methodology were decreased significantly. However, there are still some exceptional cases where the residuals were not significantly lower than those without stage filtering. Therefore, it can be tentatively concluded that the proposed mythology is promising, but still needs more effort and investigation to improve.

36

References • Cleveland, William S. (1979). "Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots". Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74 (368): 829–836. doi:10.2307/2286407. • SFWMD (2007). “STA 3/4 Operation Plan.” South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Fla. • SFWMD (2009). “Atlas of Flow Computations at Hydraulic Structures in the South Florida Water Management District.” South Florida

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Fla. • SFWMD (2014). Retrieved from http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/operations%20and%20maintenance%20resources/portlets/sta%20maps/staregionalmap _fig5.1_2014_final_1.jpg. • SFWMD (2015). Retrieved from http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/operations%20and%20maintenance%20resources/portlets/sta%20maps/sta34_april_7_2 015_with_table.pdf. 


Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

37


FWEA FOCUS

Off to a Strong Start Raynetta Curry Marshall, President, FWEA he FWEA 2015/2016 year is off to a great start! On May 5, we held our annual meeting and awards program at the Florida Water Resources Conference in Orlando, where we introduced our new strategic plan and presented over 30 awards. Those who were in attendance were able to join me in acknowledging and congratulating the well-deserved award recipients that make us proud to be a part of this industry.

T

While all of the awards were impressive, I would like to take this opportunity to give special recognition to those who participated in two of our team events: the Student Design Competition and the Operations Challenge. The Student Design Competition continues to be one of FWEA’s premier events. I had the pleasure of attending this year’s competition and was quite impressed to see the level of preparation, knowledge, and commitment exhibited by all the students who participated. I was also impressed by the “no holds barred” incisive questions and the helpful critique from the judges. This year’s first-place winner in the wastewater category was the University of South Florida team, consisting of Etienne Vawters, Ileana Wald, Samantha Flores, David Lee, and Alexander Miller. The Florida Gulf Coast University team, with members Maxwell Goodacre,

University of South Florida wastewater team.

Erik Mead, and Nathan Wunder, won for the very first time in the environmental category. As I witnessed the teams give their presentations, I was reminded that the competition is a great way to prepare and develop our future leaders. This year’s Operations Challenge was a great success, with seven teams from across the state participating—the largest number of teams that have competed since the inception of the competition. Congratulations to Methane Madness from the City of St. Cloud for a well-deserved first place. Also competing were the City of Boynton Beach, City of St. Petersburg, Gainesville Regional Utilities, Orange County Utilities, and JEA in Jacksonville. It was impressive to witness the teamwork displayed by all the participants and it was evident that a great deal of preparation had taken place. I would be remiss if I didn’t give a special “shout out” to my very own utility, JEA, for not only participating for the very first time, but also for sending two teams! The first-place teams from the Student Design Competition and Operations Challenge will now be heading to the national competitions that will be held at the Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) in Chicago from September 26-30. I would strongly encourage everyone who will be attending WEFTEC to try to go to one or both of the competitions to show your support for our Florida teams. It means a great deal to them, and by doing so, you could be helping to ensure a great finish to a strong start. FWEA Vision - A Clean and Sustainable Water Environment for Florida's Future Generations! 

Operations Challenge team members display their expertise.

38

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Members of the two University of South Florida teams with advisor Dr. Sarina Ergas (far right).

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

39


F W R J

Energy Recovery in Desalination: Returning Alternative Water Supplies to Consideration Lance R. Littrell and Juan Miguel Pinto esalination has been used by many countries around the world and it is often considered the most expensive water supply option available. The idea that desalination is expensive has contributed to a public perception that it is not a viable option for areas other than the Middle East, where energy costs are highly subsidized. When a community is in the middle of a water supply crisis, however, the water industry is posed with the question, “Where are we going to get our water?” The lack of education by the public about desalination makes it a technology that seems untouchable to the communities of Florida and the Unites States. Reports of diminishing aquifer levels are often in the news, while scientific models tend to vary about the severity of the issue. Across the U.S., various water agencies have imposed regulations on existing groundwater supplies and

D

they are forcing local municipalities to find alternative water sources. Typically, alternative water sources include surface water sources such as fresh water and seawater, or brackish water aquifers. The idea that these water sources exist are often overlooked in public discussion and are generally dismissed as too costly. Given climate change and its effect on water supplies around the world, any water utility has to consider the longevity of water supply, as well as treatment options. Fresh surface water may not be available during drought, or in the cases of contamination recently making headlines, or because of restrictions from regulatory agencies. If these concerns could be addressed through a reliable source of supply, would a utility pursue desalination, or be repelled by the public’s pricey perception? This could be the decision that plagues a utility or boosts it into a prominent future.

Figure 1. Reverse Osmosis Process Without Energy Recovery Devices

Figure 2. Hydraulic Turbocharger Device Schematic

40

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Lance R. Littrell, P.E., is senior project manager with Reiss Engineering Inc. in Winter Springs, and Juan Miguel is technical sales manager/engineer with Pinto Energy Recovery Inc. in San Leandro, Calif.

Where is Desalination Today? The science supporting desalination has been advancing at a significant rate over the past decade. With regard to the membrane market, the industry has seen noticeable changes in production, performance, and reliability. One manufacturer is infusing the membrane’s polyamide layer with nanoparticles to promote a negative charge, as well as including hydrophilic particles. In turn, the negative charge on the membrane surface assists in higher rejection rates, while the hydrophilic nature of the nanoparticles promotes higher flux rates through the membrane surface. Other advances include membrane elements being developed to perform with higher rejection rates than previous elements at less driving pressure. Membranes are being manufactured specifically to reject ion-specific contaminants that were poorly rejected in past models. Ultimately, these improvements open up the market for further membrane consideration. In addition to advances in membrane technology, chemical treatment capabilities can enhance membrane performance. With the introduction of the scanning electron microscope analysis of membrane elements, there is now a more accurate understanding of the foulants that plague membrane installations. Accordingly, chemical suppliers have focused on preparing chemicals that promote improved performance of membrane applications in water and wastewater. Antiscalents and dispersants are focused on operation without acid pretreatment for pH control, while inhibiting iron and other contaminants at the higher pH ranges. Traditional hampering of membrane performance included iron, calcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, and silica. Chemical manufacturers are now producing pretreatment chemicals to not only address these problem-specific items, but eliminate acid at the same time.


Lastly, there is popular pressure to use “green” chemicals in the process of producing potable water. Chemical suppliers are now generating cleaning chemicals with reduced or eliminated Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, or EDTA, while performing similar cleaning effectiveness. All together, the chemical advances of recent years have allowed membranes to be operated more efficiently and at reduced cleaning frequency, all while improving recovery rates where problematic foulants limited production in the past. Perhaps the most significant cost-effective measures, and the focus of this article, include the energy recovery of the hydraulic energy potential captured in the desalination process. In general, desalination uses a lot of energy to overcome osmotic pressure from saline solutions. Reaching high pressures with the entire feed flow, a large portion of this pressure (hydraulic energy) has traditionally been lost or burned by throttling the waste stream (concentrate). Effectively, the hydraulic energy created for 20 to 60 percent of the raw feed flow has been lost, which contributes to the excessive energy costs of desalination. Energy recovery has been a large focus of membrane applications and brings a significant opportunity to reduce the energy costs of seawater and brackish water desalination plants. The following sections identify the various energy recovery devices available on the market today, as well as case studies where these applications have been considered and/or implemented.

pumps. Linking these two elements together to work in unison has recovered 10 to 50 percent of the overall pumping energy required for the desalination process in multiple facilities. First, ERDs are machines designed to recover the hydraulic energy of a pressurized water flow, and in this case, it is the concentrate stream. The process to recover the energy will vary, depending on the type of energy transfer technology utilized.The remainder of this section will explain the most widely used ERD technologies in the market today: centrifugal and isobaric devices. Centrifugal Energy Recovery Devices Centrifugal ERDs use the hydraulic energy of the membrane concentrate stream to help drive a high-pressure pump or coupled Pelton Wheel to boost the pressure of a contacted stream. These elements use a turbine to convert the hydraulic energy of the concentrate stream into the mechanical energy of a spinning shaft, which is then transferred to hydraulic energy through the use of a pump impeller or another Pelton Wheel (Figures 2 and 3). These are the two most employed centrifugal ERDs in desali-

nation. The hydraulic turbocharger device utilizes the mechanical energy of the Pelton Wheel shaft to turn a similar Pelton Wheel on the opposite end of the mechanical shaft. The coupling of both the hydraulic turbocharger and the highpressure pump reduces the total displaced head of the pump and ultimately reduces the overall power consumption of the system. The efficiency of the hydraulic turbocharger in transferring the concentrate energy to the feed stream is nearly 81 percent. The Pelton Turbine unit utilized the mechanical energy of the turbine shaft to augment the energy supplied by the high-pressure pump motor in pressurizing the raw water. Through this application of adding power to the motor, the efficiency of the energy transfer, or the percent of the hydraulic energy recovered, is nearly 78 percent. Isobaric Energy Recovery Devices Understanding the transfer efficiency limitations of the centrifugal systems, the next genContinud on page 42

Energy Recovery Devices Currently, energy recovery devices are limited to recouping the concentrate pressure by transferring hydraulic energy to power generation, hydraulic-to-mechanical-to-hydraulic energy transfer, or hydraulic-to-hydraulic energy transfer. The typical brackish and seawater water applications focus on generating a driving pressure to exceed the osmotic pressure of the source water. A simple schematic is shown in Figure 1. This traditional approach leaves the concentrate control valve responsible for bleeding the pressure from the system, and ultimately, the utility’s wallet. To make this process more energy friendly, the transfer of hydraulic energy remaining in the concentrate stream must be converted into a useful means of energy, whether it is electrical energy pushed back into the power grid or hydraulic energy transferred to the raw water stream. The bulk of energy recovery devices has been focused on the latter option since it can be very efficient and has a direct effect on the equipment procured for the membrane facility. As such, the key equipment elements in this process improvement include energy recovery devices (ERD) and high-pressure

Figure 3. Pelton Turbine Schematic

Figure 4. Isobaric ERD Showing High- and Low-Pressure Flows Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

41


Figure 5. Isobaric Device Schematica

Table 1. Energy Recovery Devices: Technology Considerations

Continued from page 41 eration of devices addresses a more direct transfer of energy, which eliminates the majority of the efficiency losses through transfer. These devices are isobaric in function, which means they equalize pressure. Simply, this system works with a ceramic piston or static water piston that separates two flow streams in a constantly oscillating chamber. Using the concentrate to pressurize one side of the chamber, it drives the piston down the chamber, imparting the same pressure on the opposite end of the chamber, the raw water stream. Because this application is a more direct transfer of energy from the concentrate stream to the raw water stream, the isobaric devices generally operate at higher overall hydraulic efficiencies. In a reverse osmosis (RO) system equipped with isobaric ERDs, the highpressure pump (HPP) is only required to pressurize the amount of water that leaves the system as permeate, rather than the whole feed stream. Rotary Isobaric Devices Rotary isobaric devices recover the hydraulic energy from the concentrate stream by utilizing a small rotor. This rotor has ducts that alternately fill with high-pressure brine and lowpressure feed water. As the rotor spins, it exposes these ducts alternately to high- and low-pressure zones, effectively replacing the high-pressure brine with seawater in a 1-to-1 ratio (Figure 4). In this unit, the water exchange is timed such that the chamber is not completely exhausted, effectively creating a static water piston that minimizes mixing of the two streams.

Table 2. Energy Recovery Devices: Typical Applications

42

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Piston-Based Isobaric Devices Piston-based isobaric devices, sometimes called work exchangers, use a pair of large pistons to alternately pump seawater into the membrane feed stream (using the brine reject pressure) and pump the brine reject out of the plant using the seawater feed pressure. The operation and timing of the pistons is controlled by a series of check valves, actuated hydraulic valves, and a dedicated electronic control system. As in the case of the rotary isobaric, a small circulation pump facilitates the process by circulating the water in the high-pressure loop through a slight boost of pressure (Figure 5). The various ERDs are appropriate for different applications. As shown, ERDs focus on similar goals of reducing the HPP energy requirement and ultimately the energy consumption of the desalination process. When considering these ERDs for new and existing desalination plants, each technology must be reviewed to maximize the advantages and minimize the overall energy consumption of the Continud on page 44


Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

43


Continued from page 42 facility. Typical advantages and disadvantages are summarized in Table 1. Accordingly, each device can be utilized for both seawater and brackish water. Table 2 shows the general conditions of employing each technology within the traditional desalination application. As shown in Table 2, each technology can be implemented within brackish and seawater environments. Until recently, energy recovery has traditionally been focused on seawater applications, while less frequent ERDs have been installed on low total dissolved solids (TDS) brackish applications. This is due primarily to

the lower feed pressures in brackish applications, as well as the low flow rate of the concentrate stream. Now that the seawater market has begun to be saturated with ERDs and they are being implemented on the majority of new applications, ERD manufacturers are turning their focus to the brackish water applications, where significant energy savings can be realized both in retrofitted and new facilities. In seawater, ERDs provide simple energy transfer from the wasted stream to the feed stream; however, brackish ERDs bring energy recovery, as well as flux balancing for multistage systems. Flux balancing has numerous advantages:

Figure 6. Low-Pressure Turbocharger Schematic With Flux Balancing

Figure 7. Pressure Exchanger Schematic With Flux Balancing

44

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

 Spreads the rate of fouling deposition over the greatest membrane area  Improves final-system permeate quality when the flux is increased in the last stages  Reduces recovery in the first stage and increases it in the second stage  Can reduce fouling potential in the first stage One of the major RO membrane manufacturers described the advantage of flux balancing as follows: “By applying a balanced flux through the membranes, it can extend the lifetime of the system, which ultimately increases uptime. Fouling, scaling, and replacement rates also decrease. What’s more, it leads to less maintenance, and this will be reflected in operational expense savings.” Flux balance configurations result in a number of advantages for multistage membrane treatment plants. Figures 6 and 7 identify the flow schematics for both a turbocharger and the pressure exchanger devices, respectively. Furthermore, several advantages are listed that detail the benefits of flux balancing among multistage treatment systems:  Two-Stage Membrane Flux Results. In typical two-stage brackish water reverse osmosis (BWRO) systems without an interstage pump, the flux of the first stage is much higher than the flux of the second stage. By using an interstage boost, it is possible to increase the feed pressure of the second stage, therefore, increasing its flux. With this, it is likely to reduce the flux of the first stage, and the interstage boost will allow increasing flux and production rate of the second stage.  Increase Operational Life of the Membranes. If the membranes operate at a lower flux rate, their operational life typically extends due to less repetitive fouling and subsequent cleaning. When retrofitting a current system, it is possible to increase permeate flow from the second stage without affecting the production rate of the first stage.  Increase of Production Flow. When retrofitting a current multistage system, it is possible to increase permeate flow from the second stage without affecting the production rate of the first stage.  Reduction of Operational Expense. Through implementing an interstage boost device, the hydraulic energy remaining in the concentrate stream is harnessed and used to boost the feed pressure to the second stage of membrane elements. As a result, the increased pressure between stages reduces the overall feed pressure of the membrane train, in turn, reducing the operational expense.


Facility Evaluations/Installations ERD Application #1: The first facility evaluation is a 1.2-mil-gal-per-day (mgd) brackish water RO treatment plant located in Hawaii. The facility includes four existing brackish water RO trains with a permeate production rate just over 300,000 gal per day (gpd) or 220 gal per minute (gpm). Each train is a single-stage RO train with independent feed pumps. The brackish raw water source wells vary slightly in TDS and can be contained within the range of 7,500 to 10,000 TDS. Following treatment by RO, a filtered raw water blends with RO permeate to supply irrigation to be used primarily for a golf course. The finished water storage lake has a capacity of 1 mil gal (MG) of storage. Water is then pumped from the lake for irrigation. The system was placed into service in June 2008 operating at 320 pounds per square inch (psi) feed pressure with 65 percent recovery. For this application, the interest in energy recovery revolved around the high power costs from the electrical utility. At $0.42/kWh, any decreases in power consumption result in a significant operational savings for this facility. As such, the focus of the evaluation was geared toward achieving minimum energy consumption. Through a quick evaluation utilizing Energy Recovery Inc. (ERI) software, the Pelton Wheel Turbine and turbocharger were eliminated from consideration based on the energy consumption of the system and lower transfer efficiencies with each device. For this application, the pressure exchanger system was selected to maximize the energy savings of this facility. Given the current single-stage configuration (Figures 8 and 9), a significant amount of energy is being burned across the concentrate control valve. Utilizing the ERI energy projection software, the estimated energy savings is nearly 2,150 kWh daily ($900 per day), which accounts for nearly $330,000 per year in operational expense savings for the utility. With a capital cost for the pressure exchanger units of this size and other modifications at approximately $150,000, the payback for the pressure exchanger installation is less than six months of operation. Furthermore, the estimated CO2 emission reduction is nearly 600 tons per year at this facility. ERD Application #2: The second facility evaluation includes a two-stage brackish water RO plant in South America. The facility is composed of one brackish water RO train with twostage membrane configuration. The train produces a total permeate flow rate of over 2.5 mgd (1,780 gpm / 9,720 m3/day). The project fa-

Figure 8. Brackish PX Installation Schematic

Figure 9. Brackish PX Installation

cility was designed for a feed pressure of 220 psi at 75 percent recovery. Through a quick evaluation utilizing ERI software, the Pelton Wheel Turbine was eliminated because it cannot offer additional flux balancing for the system. For this application, the turbocharger and pressure exchanger device were feasible options for consideration. Following a brief review of the software, the turbocharger was selected due to the multitude of advantages it offered for this project. The solution was chosen due to the minimal footprint needed for installation and ease in operation for the utility. It also offered the least amount of ancillary equipment and a relatively short payback period. With the two-stage configuration (Figures 10 and 11), a focus on flux balancing was paramount for this installation. The existing flux rates are heavily weighted toward the first stage of membrane elements; nearly a 50 percent increase in flux rate was observed in the second stage. The pre-ERD and post-ERD flux rates are shown in Table 3.

Utilizing the ERI energy projection software, the estimated energy savings is nearly 1,500 kWh daily ($180 per day-$0.12/kWh), which accounts for nearly $65,000 per year in operational expense savings for the utility. With a capital cost for the turbocharger unit and other modifications at approximately $80,000, the payback for the turbocharger installation is less than 15 months of operation. Furthermore, the estimated CO2 emission reduction is nearly 284 tons per year at this facility. ERD Application #3: The City of Port St. Lucie has two brackish water treatment facilities that currently treat brackish RO water. The focal point of this evaluation is the Prineville Water Treatment Plant, which consists of 10-mgd total production capacity from five RO trains. Each train produces just under 2 mgd and is combined with a blended stream to make up the total capacity of 10 mgd. For this case study, the viable options included both the centrifugal and isobaric devices. Through a quick evaluation utilizing ERI Continud on page 46

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

45


Continued from page 45 software, the Pelton Wheel Turbine and the pressure exchanger ERDs were eliminated from consideration based on the high-pressure pumps discharging into a common feed manifold and the pumps distance from the RO trains. The turbocharger device was compared using the ERI software to identify the operational savings and any major deficiencies prohibiting the installation. After running the evaluation software, the turbocharger device was selected for further consideration based on the physical configuration of the existing RO trains and high pressure

pumps. The preliminary evaluation for the turbocharger device indicated a return of 354 kWh per day of operation. Capital expenses for this retrofit application include pipe modifications, control system modifications, and the ERD capital expense. Table 4 identifies the capital expenses, as well as the estimated energy savings for this application. Given the extended payback period for the capital expense of the project, the utility did not pursue installing ERDs at this facility. As is the case with most existing facilities, implementing an energy recovery device after commissioning is much more invasive and results in significant

capital expense outside of the ERD equipment. Provided consideration is given in the design phases of the facility, ERDs offer a much less expansive capital-intensive installation. Each facility application described had individual goals and objectives for entertaining ERD evaluations. From power consumption to CO2 reduction to operational cost minimization, the ERD components are viable options for cost-effective operation. Each facility’s mechanical and process configuration must be considered individually as the energy returns/savings vary significantly for each application. From seawater to low TDS brackish water applications, ERDs provide an opportunity to reduce the operational costs for RO treatment facilities.

Conclusions

Figure 10. Two-Stage System Without Energy Recovery Devices

Figure 11. Two-Stage System With Energy Recovery Devices

Table 3. Pre- and Post-Energy Recover Device Flux Rates

46

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

As demonstrated through the evaluations and installations for these treatment facilities, energy recovery devices are producing significant operational expense reductions. In coupling these ERDs and the other technical advances, desalination is becoming a more affordable method of treatment for brackish and seawater alternative water supplies. Utilities facing saltwater intrusion and increasing treatment regulations are starting to reconsider RO as an option to maintain reasonable utility rates for potable water, while evaluating alternative water supply and treatment options. By utilizing ERDs to reduce power consumption, the resulting operational expenses become more palatable for utilities. When considering ERDs, all technologies must be considered to ensure that the appropriate unit can be applied for the respective application. The ERD efficiencies range from 78 to 99 percent, with isobaric being the most efficient and Pelton Wheel Turbines having the lowest efficiencies. Since no one-size-fits-all approach works for ERD consideration, each application must be analyzed specifically to determine the appropriate capital improvements necessary, cost implications, and feasibility to complete the retrofit of existing facilities.  Table 4. Capital and Operational Expense


48

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

49


50

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

51


FWRJ READER PROFILE conduct applied research with municipal water purveyors focused on a variety of potable water quality and treatment issues, while advising graduate research assistants academically as they conduct research under my supervision. I also spend a considerable amount of time preparing manuscripts for publication in peer review journals. As part of my duties I am also required to provide service to the department and the college and university community. Participation in professional society activities is also expected.

Steve Duranceau

University of Central Florida Orlando Work title and years of service. I have been an associate professor for eight years at the University of Central Florida (UCF). Prior to that, I worked with engineering consulting firms for 27 years. What does your job entail? As an associate professor my job duties include teaching, research, and service. I lecture college-level courses in the field of environmental engineering, with specific focus on water quality and treatment, teaching students how to identify, evaluate, and implement solutions to environmental problems where humans, machines, and the environment intersect. I

What education and training do you have? I hold a Doctorate in Environmental Engineering, a Master of Science degree in Industrial Chemistry, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry. I am a registered professional engineer in the state of Florida. What do you like best about your job? Working and traveling with the undergraduate and graduate research students that I am fortunate to be able to work with each day. What organizations do you belong to?  American Water Works Association (past chair of Desalting, Membrane Process, and Inorganic Contaminant Committees) and its Florida Section  American Membrane Technology

      

Association (emeritus director and past president) Southeast Desalting Association (founding member) Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors National Water Research Institute (Research Advisory Board) International Desalination Association American Chemical Society American Institute of Chemists (fellow) Alpha Chi Sigma

How have these organizations helped your career? My early career was most influenced by FSAWWA, the American Chemical Society, and Alpha Chi Sigma. Later in my career, AMTA, SEDA, and FSAWWA dominated my time when participating in professional activities. However, it was FSAWWA that most impacted my longterm career when I received the first Roy W. Likins scholarship. At that time, FSAWWA did not have a formal program like our membership has today; the scholarship provided the means for me to attend the 1989 AWWA Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE) in Los Angeles to present my doctoral research at one of the Research Division’s technical sessions. At that conference I attended my first Florida Section luncheon—an event that remains one of my

Dr. Duranceau's Summer 2015 Drinking Water Research Team (back row, left to right): Ben Yoakum, Erin Reed, David Yonge, Jonathan Ousley, Paul Biscardi, and Dr. Duranceau; (front row, left to right): Cassidy Conover, Maria Robert (lab manager), Maria Arenas, Carlyn Higgins, Samantha Myers, Angela Rodriguez, and Samantha Jeffery.

52

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Above: National Science Foundation fellow Angela Rodriguez and Dr. Duranceau discussing high-performance liquid chromatography methods in UCF's water laboratory. At right: Doctoral candidate Samantha Jeffery in UCF's drinking water laboratory prepping samples.

most favorite activities at ACE each year. It was also FSAWWA that provided me the insight into how the processes industry worked, helped me navigate the professional aspects of the industry, and has remained, together with AMTA and SEDA, the major underlying mechanism for my career expansion and growth through networking over the years.

What do you like best about the industry? The colleagues that I have become friends with over time. This is the best thing that the industry has to offer any professional, in my opinion, especially those who serve our greater water community. It is a major reason I like this industry, especially when one considers the many wonderful (and maybe not so

wonderful) places where we interact when we meet in our profession over the years. What do you do when you’re not working? When I am not working (which is rare), I enjoy golfing, fishing, hunting, and boating. I also enjoy reading science fiction and historical military novels. 

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

53


FSAWWA SPEAKING OUT

Spotlight on FSAWWA Competitions at FWRC Mark Lehigh

to compete at the AWWA Annual Conference and Exposition, ACE15, in Anaheim.

Chair, FSAWWA

Top Ops Competition he Florida Section highlighted two key events at this year’s FWRC: our Top Ops Competition and our Best Tasting Drinking Water Contest. The FSAWWA sponsored the travel for both of these winners

T

54

The Top Ops Competition recognizes and promotes excellence and professionalism in all aspects of water operations by establishing a contest that gives operators the opportunity to showcase their talents against each other in a competitive, fast-paced, question-and-answer tournament.

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The excitement for this contest has really been gaining momentum over the past year and it showed this year with five teams entering to compete against each other for top honors. The tongue-in-cheek “smack talk” and fun-spirited competition ended with Palm Coast Water Buoys taking home the championship. They will be representing Florida as reigning champions at ACE15 at the Top Ops national competition. They are also part of the Top Ops Hall of Fame, winning five of the last nine AWWA competitions!


It was great to see five teams competing, which is two more than last year! And they came prepared to do battle, making each round highly competitive and fun to watch. Thanks to our Top Ops chair, Chris Welz, and dedicated sponsors, Dumont Chemicals and Odyssey, for working behind the scenes to make this a success. For the second year in a row we had a great turnout of spectators with bleacher-style seating for front-row enjoyment. This combination worked out well for both the spectators and teams. We did have some challenges and opportunities to improve the contest. We listened to everyone’s feedback and promised the Top Ops Committee that FSAWWA will be more involved in the conference, and specifically these events, next year. The committee is already updating the rules to reflect the changes made at the AWWA level for consistency and clarity. They will also make some corrections to the current bank of questions based on the results from this year’s event. And, they will ensure that all teams competing fully understand the format of the competition at the FWRC precompetition meeting to avoid any confusion or controversy. Overall this was a well-attended and exciting event and I fully appreciate all the teams who competed, the sponsors for their support, and the volunteers that made it all happen.

and special thanks to emcee Greg Taylor and his booming voice. I took the opportunity to look at the water samples from these "best of the best" utilities and the clarity and color were amazing. A panel of four environmental professionals was challenged with evaluating the unmarked water samples and judging them, on factors such as color, clarity, taste, and odor. The panel members had their work cut out for them, but in the end, they declared that the City of Tallahassee

had the best tasting drinking water for 2015. This is Tallahassee's second win in seven years and they will now take their award-winning water to the “Best of the Best” Tap Water Taste Test competition at ACE15 on June 9th. Congratulations to the City of Tallahassee! Last year’s winner, Ave Maria Utility, was on hand to pass the traveling trophy on to the City of Tallahassee. Ave Maria Utility also received its permanent trophy to proudly display at headquarters. 

Best Tasting Drinking Water Contest Now in its 13th year, the FSAWWA Best Tasting Drinking Water Contest helps draw attention to the importance of safe drinking water, conservation, and water utility services–not to mention, bragging rights across the state for the winner. Each of the 12 FSAWWA regions throughout Florida had a public water system represented and competing for the top honor. The competition was fierce! Contest chair Mike Bailey did a great job of pulling this event together,

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

55


PROCESS PAGE Greetings from the FWEA Wastewater Process Committee! This column highlights wastewater treatment facilities that have won the Earle B. Phelps Award.

Wastewater Process Committee Looking for Innovative Ideas to Share tion to continuing this recognition, the Wastewater Process Committee will be trying something new with the column this year that will promote innovative ideas and novel solutions for wastewater treatment facilities across the state. Is your wastewater treatment facility innovative in approaching a problem or an issue

related to wastewater processes? Have you developed an alternative process approach, implemented a successful solution to a challenging problem, or any other innovative concept? The Wastewater Process Committee and the readers of this magazine would love to hear about it! We are inviting wastewater treatment facility owners and their partners to submit innovative solutions or approaches to wastewater treatment as an article to be featured as part of this column. Articles should be from 200 to 450 words in length and should include photos or other visual aids to communicate the story. Please contact me at laurel.rowse@aecom.com or Kristiana Dragash at kdragash@carollo.com with questions, or to submit an innovative-idea article for review. Please note that articles will be accepted on a case-by-case basis. We look forward to featuring both Earle B. Phelps award-winning facilities and your innovative solutions articles throughout this new fiscal year and appreciate your commitment to our industry and to its future.

Some of the members of the Wastewater Process Committee at the Northeast Florida Wastewater Process Seminar, June 2014, left to right: Yanni Polematidis, Jacob Porter, Kristiana Dragash, Jody Barksdale, Tim Harley, and Greg Chomic.

Laurel Rowse, M.S.C.E., E.I., is an environmental staff engineer at AECOM in Tampa. 

Laurel Rowse he Process Page, during the past fiscal year, has highlighted some of the 2014 Earle B. Phelps award-winning treatment facilities. In addi-

T

56

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


FWEA CHAPTER CORNER 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 Suzanne Mechler at MechlerSE@cdm.com.

Suzanne Mechler

FWEA SE Chapter Annual Golf Tournament Brings Water Pros Together for Good Cause Eric Stanley he FWEA Southeast Chapter held its 17th annual FWEA Southeast Florida Chapter Scholarship Golf Tournament at the Hollywood Beach Golf Resort on May 15. There was an excellent turnout, with 78 golfers from the municipal, construction, supplier, and consulting fields, and all golfers enjoyed the beautiful weather, along with the ubiquitous ducks and iguanas! Taking first place was Team Rivero/Sardinas/Diaz, Mike Knapp nabbed the longestdrive prize, and Rafael Acevedo helicoptered in a beauty to land the closest-to-the-pin prize. Over $9,000 was raised, with proceeds going to support our future water professionals through the FWEA state scholarship fund, and

T

for scholarships at Florida Atlantic University, Florida International University, and University of Miami. Our sponsors are the life blood of this event, and we appreciate them! Gold Sponsors 300 Engineering Group, BND Engineers, CDM Smith, CES Consultants, CH2M, Epoxytec International, HDR, King Engineering and Associates, USSI, Woolpert, RUTT/Electroscan, and Southern Sewer Equipment Sales Silver Sponsors Gresham Smith and Partners, Hanson Pressure Pipe, Hazen and Sawyer, and Avanti International Bronze Sponsors ADS Environmental Services, American Cast Iron Pipe Co., Layne Christensen Co., BLD

Ignacio Lizama makes birdie putt! Wisler Pierre-Louis and Dorian Valdes watch in the background. (photos: Eric Stanley)

58

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Services, PCL Construction, AP/M Permaform, and Conshield Technologies I was a volunteer on the Golf Committee and I would like to thank all of the other volunteers who were involved: Rod Lovett and Manny Moncholi, Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department; Tara VanEyk and David Hernandez, Hazen and Sawyer; Wisler Pierre-Louis, City of North Miami; and Amy Baricevich and Jason Ressler, CDM Smith. Our next quarterly meeting will be held in Deerfield Beach in August, so keep your eyes open for the invitation! As always, if you are interested in getting involved in the Southeast Chapter Steering Committee, please contact me at StanleyEA@CDMSmith.com. Eric Stanley is an environmental engineer with CDM Smith in Boca Raton. 

A “Protector of the Green” iguana.


FWPCOA TRAINING CALENDAR SCHEDULE YOUR CLASS TODAY! July 6-10 13-15 24 27-30

........Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ....Deltona ..........$350/380 ........Backflow Repair* ....................................St. Petersburg $275/305 ........Backflow Tester Recert ***......................Deltona ..........$85/115 ........Backflow Tester ......................................Deltona ..........$375/405

August 10-14 ........FALL STATE SHORT SCHOOL ..............Ft. Piece 31- Sept. 2 ..Backflow Repair ......................................Deltona ..........$275/305

September

14-17 ........Backflow Tester* ......................................St. Petersburg ..$375/405 14-18 ........Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ....Jacksonville ....$350/380 14-18 ........Wastewater Collection C, B....................Deltona ..........$225/255 21-25 ........Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ....Deltona ..........$350/380 25 ........Backflow Tester Recert*** ......................Deltona ..........$85/115 28-Oct. 2 ....Wastewater Collection C, B....................Orlando ..........$225/255

October 5-8 26-29 26-30 26-30

........Backflow Tester ........................................Deltona ..........$375/405 ........Backflow Tester* ......................................St. Petersburg ..$375/405 ........Water Distribution 3, 2 ..........................Deltona ..........$225/255 ........Reclaimed Water Distribution Level C ....Deltona ..........$225/255

November

16-18 ........Backflow Repair ........................................Deltona ..........$275/305 16-18 ........Backflow Repair* ....................................St. Petersburg ..$275/305 20 ........Backflow Tester Recert***......................Deltona ..........$85/115 Course registration forms are available at http://www.fwpcoa.org/forms.asp. For additional information on these courses or other training programs offered by the FWPCOA, please contact the FW&PCOA Training Office at (321) 383-9690 or training@fwpcoa.org.

* Backflow recertification is also available the last day of Backflow Tester or Backflow Repair Classes with the exception of Deltona ** Evening classes *** any retest given also

You are required to have your own calculator at state short schools and most other courses. Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

59


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

___________________________________________ SUBSCRIBER NAME (please print)

Article 1 ________________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

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

Energy Recovery in Desalination: Returning Alternative Water Supplies to Consideration Lance R. Littrell and Juan Miguel Pinto (Article 1: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW) 1. ___________ particles on a membrane’s polyamide surface promote higher flux rates. a. b. c. d.

Negatively charged Positively charged Hydrophilic Hydrostatic

2. The bulk of the energy recovery devices has been focused on a. b. c. d.

returning electrical energy to the power grid. transferring hydraulic energy to the raw water stream. capture of electrical energy for plant lighting and climate control. operating plant evaporators.

3. Which of the following energy recovery devices is the most efficient? a. b. c. d.

Pelton Wheel turbines Isobaric Centrifugal turbocharger Differential flow/pressure

4. The effort to improve the environmental impact of membrane cleaning chemicals has focused on reducing a. b. c. d.

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). sulfuric acid. citric acid. caustic soda.

5. Until recently, energy recovery has been primarily focused on seawater applications because a. b. c. d.

feed water has a lower total dissolved solids concentration. of the higher feed water pressures associated with sea water systems. of the higher flow rate of brackish water concentrate streams. brackish water concentrate is more corrosive than sea water concentrate.

___________________________________________ (Credit Card Number)

Earn CEUs by answering questions from previous Journal issues!

___________________________________________

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

(Expiration Date)

60

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


F W R J

Alternatives for Beach Stormwater Outfalls: Preliminary Assessment for City of Naples Reshma Thummadi, Ronald Cavalieri, Andy Holland, and Gregg Strakaluse here is an ongoing regulatory concern that runoff discharged to beaches via stormwater outfalls likely affects beach erosion, impacts turtle nesting habitat, and degrades water quality. Also, beach stormwater outfalls interfere with lateral beach access and degrade the aesthetics of the beach environment. The beaches in the City of Naples consist of long expanses of fine white sand, offering fantastic sunsets and spectacular views of the Gulf of Mexico, and are a worldwide attraction for seasonal residents and tourists. Preservation and protection of this precious natural resource is critically important to the City, which wants to mitigate impacts of stormwater outfalls on beaches through technically sound and economically feasible methods that also achieve its public safety and flood protection goals.

T

62

The City’s stormwater drainage system consists of a series of 12 drainage basins that collect and convey stormwater to the Gulf of Mexico and other tidal water bodies within the City. The current study area is located in the City’s Stormwater Drainage Basin II, which is one of the main basins serving the City, with a contributing area of approximately 920 acres. There are 10 stormwater outfalls (numbered 1 through 10) within Basin II discharging to the Gulf along Naples Beach. The outfalls are located between the Naples Pier to the south and approximately one-half mile north of the Naples Beach Hotel. Outfall #1 only serves private property and is privately owned and operated; therefore, it is not included in this study. All of the outfall pipes are buried beneath the upland beach profile and be-

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Reshma Thummadi, P.E., is a project engineer and Ronald Cavalieri, P.E., BCEE, is principal engineer and associate vice president with AECOM in Hollywood. Andy Holland, P.E., is engineering manager and Gregg Strakaluse, P.E., is director with the streets and stormwater department at City of Naples.

come exposed near the water line. Figure 1 shows the location of the City’s existing beach outfalls. The following are the five beach stormwater outfall alternatives that are proposed to reduce the impacts of the outfalls on the beach, while


maintaining the same or slightly greater level of service as compared to the existing conditions: 1. Alternative 1: Integration of beach outfalls with planned beach renourishment project 2. Alternative 2: Integration of beach outfalls with aquifer storage recovery (ASR) system 3. Alternative 3: Consolidation of beach outfall pipes 4. Alternative 4: Redirection of beach outfall flows via pump station to alternate locations 5. Alternative 5: Extension of beach outfalls deeper and further into the ocean (subaqueous outfalls) The proposed beach outfall alternatives were analyzed and evaluated using the City’s existing stormwater system hydraulic model in XP–Stormwater Management Model. The objective of this evaluation was to define conceptual-level improvements needed for each alternative under the premise of maintaining or slightly improving the existing level of service in the existing system. The proposed beach outfall alternatives were incorporated into the hydraulic model and several simulations were performed using the five-year, 24-hour storm event for each alternative. The elements of each alternative were sized in an iterative process; the stormwater model was used for each iteration to evaluate the effects of the alternative on the peak stages for the selected storm event. A “pass or fail” criterion was used in this process; the stages under the proposed alternatives could be within 2 in. of the stages in the existing conditions model in order to be deemed acceptable. Alternative 1: Integration of Beach Outfalls With Planned Beach Renourishment Project The City’s beach outfall Alternative 1 involves integration with the Collier County’s planned beach renourishment project that includes modifying the existing coastal structures in the County to determine if the project’s beach performance could be improved. The City’s beach is constructed with a 1:10 slope that quickly (in a few months to a year) equilibrates to a natural slope. The recommended improvements for the City’s outfall pipelines were estimated using the equilibrated templates and future shoreline locations. The baseline for these profiles was estimated using data from LiDAR (light detection and ranging), which is a remote sensing method to examine the surface of the earth and measure seafloor elevations. Analysis of the City’s outfall pipeline profiles indicated that Outfalls #2 and #3 be extended about 25 ft from the construction template shoreline in order to accommodate the County’s planned beach renourishment con-

Figure 1. Existing Beach Outfall Locations

Table 1. Proposed Infrastructure Requirements: Alternative 1

Continud on page 64 Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

63


Table 2. Proposed Infrastructure Requirements: Alternative 2

Figure 2. Outfall #2 Profile (Alternative 3)

Figure 3. Outfall #6 Profile (Alternative 3)

64

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Continued from page 63 struction. Outfalls #4, #9, and #10 are taper-sectioned with small fill densities, and have sufficient length. Outfalls #5 through #8 are in gaps where no nourishment is needed, and the existing outfall length is sufficient. The durability of the existing outfalls has been fair to poor as reported by the City; therefore, reinforcement of all the existing outfalls was recommended to improve durability. Table 1 presents the proposed infrastructure improvements required for implementation of Alternative 1. Alternative 2: Integration of Beach Outfalls With Aquifer Storage and Recovery System The City’s beach outfall Alternative 2 involves integration with the City’s existing reclaimed water ASR system as an alternative to divert stormwater discharges that are currently going to the beach outfalls; however, since the redirection system (in this case, a pump station) will be limited by its capacity and by the available capacity of the ASR system, it will not be possible to redirect large portions of significant rainfall events. It might also not be feasible to redirect runoff produced by small rainfall events, since they will not produce the volume required to reduce salinity concentrations in the receiving water bodies. Additionally, the feasibility of this alternative is subject to the water quality of the stormwater discharges. The stormwater diverted may require pretreatment, including filtration and disinfection, prior to introduction to the ASR system. For the current alternative, a base flow of about 2 mil gal per day (mgd), which is the available permitted capacity at the City’s reclaimed water ASR system from Basin II outfalls, would be captured prior to discharge to the lake system and pumped to the City’s ASR system, while the rest of the flow would be pumped to a consolidated outfall. The potential location for the consolidated pumped ocean outfall was identified based on findings from LiDAR data related to this project and is recommended to be at Outfall #6. This outfall is recommended to be upgraded to a larger-size pipe and the discharge location to be extended further into the Gulf from the current location. The evaluation of this alternative using the City’s hydraulic model recommended a 60in. force main extending about 1,210 ft from Gulf Shore Boulevard for the consolidated outfall at the Outfall #6 location. The recommended invert elevation for the consolidated outfall discharge location is approximately -12.5 ft with respect to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) 1929. A pump station will be required to pump flows from the outfalls to the proposed consolidated outfall and to the ASR system. The system required to pump stormwater to the ASR system


should keep the stormwater separated from the water in the lake to avoid its high salinity concentrations. In order to maintain the existing level of service, three pumps, with a design capacity of 50 cu ft per second (cfs) are required at the proposed pump station. A fourth pump with the same design capacity is recommended to serve as a standby pump. The proposed pump station would receive stormwater from the outfalls via gravity flow and then pump water at the required head for the proposed consolidated beach outfall at Outfall #6. A designated set of pumps at the proposed pump station would pump flow through a new force main that would carry flow to an existing gravity pipe, which conveys flow to the City’s ASR. Table 2 presents the proposed infrastructure improvements required for implementation of Alternative 2. Alternative 3: Consolidation of Beach Outfall Pipes The City’s beach outfall Alternative 3 involves consolidation of existing beach outfalls; the consolidated outfalls will be buried deeper and extend further into the Gulf. The following items need to be considered in the design of such submerged consolidated outfalls:  Outfall diameter  Outfall depth  Outfall length  Navigation markers  Hydrostatic head  Structural stability  Outfall buoyancy  Sea floor movement  Stormwater dilution  Biofouling Flow from the outfalls is recommended to be consolidated into two beach outfalls and different locations could be selected for the consolidated beach outfalls; however, this alternative was based on the assumption that flows are conveyed to the largest outfalls. The LiDAR data related to this project was also considered in the selection of location for consolidated outfalls; Outfall #2 and #6 locations are recommended for consolidated outfalls under this alternative. Outfalls #2 and #6 have twin pipes, while the rest of the outfalls have a single pipe. Concept profiles that were developed using the cross sections from LiDAR data related to this project for Outfalls #2 and #6 are shown in Figures 2 and 3. All gravity flow with a single outfall could also be considered as another option for this alternative; however, a single gravity outfall will not maintain the same level of service as the existing condition, and therefore, a single gravity outfall is not considered a viable option. Continud on page 66 Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

65


Continued from page 65 For Outfall #2, a 54-in. diameter conduit is recommended or, alternatively, two 42-in. conduits could be used. With the single 54-in. conduit, the concept design has the outfall extending approximately 750 ft offshore, with the last 450 ft

only partially buried. The outfall invert at its terminus is at an elevation of -12 ft NGVD, which leaves a minimum clearance of 6.49 ft at mean lower low water (MLLW), not accounting for any rip-rap, support, or collar that would extend above the conduit. If this elevation can be raised

Table 3. Proposed Infrastructure Requirements: Alternative 3

Table 4. Proposed Infrastructure Requirements: Alternative 4

Figure 4. Outfall #6 Profile (Alternative 5)

66

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

1 ft by using two 42-in. conduits, the outfall length could be reduced by about 120 ft. Similarly, for Outfall #6, a 54-in. diameter conduit is recommended or, alternatively, two 42-in. conduits could be used. With the single 54-in. conduit, the concept design has the outfall extending approximately 570 ft offshore, with the last 250 ft only partially buried. The outfall invert at its terminus is at an elevation of -12 ft NGVD, which leaves a minimum clearance of 6.49 ft at MLLW, not accounting for any rip-rap, support, or collar that would extend above the conduit. If this elevation can be raised 1 ft by using two 42-in. conduits, the outfall length could be reduced by about 50 ft. Table 3 presents the proposed infrastructure improvements required for implementation of Alternative 3. Alternative 4: Redirection of Beach Outfall Flows via Pump Station to Alternate Location The City’s beach outfall Alternative 4 involves redirection of flow from beach Outfalls #2 through #8 to Moorings Bay via a pump station. The proposed pump station would receive stormwater from the outfalls via gravity flow. A wet well will be integrated with storage at the pump station location. The pump station is assumed to be sized to maintain the existing level of service during the design storm event (five-year, 24-hour) with no overflow. Flows above the design storm event would result in street flooding. In order to maintain the existing or improved level of service, three pumps, with a design capacity of 50 cfs, are required at the proposed pump station. A fourth pump with the same design capacity is recommended to serve as a standby pump. A new force main is required to carry flow from the proposed pump station to Mooring’s Bay and is recommended to be 60 in. in diameter and approximately 4,600 ft in length. The length of the force main was determined based on a conceptual path that was assumed to be practical to carry flow from the proposed pump station to Mooring’s Bay. It should be noted that the length of the force main might change depending on the route chosen during final design of the force main. Two options could be considered for sizing of the proposed force main discharging into Moorings Bay: a single 60-in. force main or two 42-in. force mains. Table 4 presents the proposed infrastructure improvements required for implementation of Alternative 4. Alternative 5: Consolidation of Beach Outfalls Into Single Outfall Buried Deeper and Further Into Gulf of Mexico (Subaqueous Outfalls) The City’s beach outfall Alternative 5 involves consolidation of existing beach outfalls into one; the consolidated outfall will be buried deeper and extended further into the Gulf. Flow


Table 5. Proposed Infrastructure Requirements: Alternative 5

from the outfalls is recommended to be consolidated to the beach outfall and different locations could be selected for the consolidated beach outfall. The LiDAR data related to this project were considered in the selection of location of the consolidated outfall; the Outfall #6 location was recommended for the consolidated outfall under this alternative and the existing discharge outfalls will be removed. Outfall #6 will be removed and replaced with a larger pipe that is buried deeper and is extended further into the Gulf. The concept profile for Outfall #6 is shown in Figure 4. A pump station is recommended to pump flows from the outfalls to the proposed consolidated outfall at the Outfall #6 location. In order to maintain the existing or improved level of service, three pumps, with a design capacity of 50 cfs, are required at the proposed pump station. A fourth pump with the same design capacity is recommended to serve as a standby pump. The proposed pump station would receive stormwater runoff from outfalls via gravity flow and then pump into the Gulf. Table 5 presents the proposed infrastructure improvements required for implementation of Alternative 5.

Cost Estimates The following Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Cost is based on preliminary price quotes from equipment vendors. The assumptions that were made during conceptual cost estimating are:  Estimates were compiled using available 2012

Table 6. Summary of Costs for Proposed Alternatives

cost data.  Labor estimates were compiled based on consultation with marine contractors.  Installations on land assume multiple crews performing work sections in parallel.  Work is based on a 150-ton barge crane with mudhog pumps for jetting pipe into place.  A spud barge for materials is included as a staging platform.  Work less than 100 ft from shore is assumed

to be performed using sheeting and a land based crane.  Marine work estimates can vary significantly from actual costs if severe weather impacts construction efforts. Table 6 provides the preliminary opinion of probable construction cost for the proposed alternatives. Continud on page 68

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

67


Table 7. Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives

Continued from page 67 The proposed five alternatives were further analyzed to determine the extent to which they achieve identified goals and objectives, namely: 1. Reduce beach erosion

68

2. 3. 4. 5.

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Reduce impacts to turtle nesting habitat Provide lateral beach access Reduce impacts to water quality Improve aesthetics

Table 7 presents such analysis of the proposed beach outfall alternatives. The table also lists potential benefits and burdens associated with each alternative. 


Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

69


The State of the Flush! Better product guidelines, marketing standards for pipe-clogging “flushables” are on the way Brianne Nakamura Flushable wipes: To flush or not to flush? While average consumers might wash their hands of the matter without a thought, for those in the wastewater industry, the nightmares of clogged pumps and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) come to mind. Recently, the topic of “flushable” wipes has become front and center within the industry, as more consumers are turning to a wet wipe rather than the common dispersible toilet paper. While flushable wipes have been on the market for years, the question of their degradability has been garnering more attention in the media and prompted state-level responses, such as the recently proposed bill in Maine requiring that products labeled as flushable live up to their claim.

Advertising versus reality According to the current guidelines (GD3, June 2013) of the Association of Nonwoven Fabrics Industry (INDA), located in Cary, N.C., a flushable is “any product that is marketed as ‘flushable’ [that] can be flushed into the wastewater system without adversely impacting plumbing or wastewater infrastructure and operations.” Under voluntary INDA guidelines, a product must pass seven assessment tests or be clearly labeled with the “Do Not Flush” logo. These tests include a toilet and drain-line clearance test, disintegration “slosh box” test, household pump test, settling column test, aerobic test, anaerobic test, and municipal pump test. According to INDA guidelines, if a product passes all seven tests, it should not, “under normal circumstances,” block toilets, drainage pipes, water conveyance, and treatment systems, or become an aesthetic nuisance in surface waters. But testing and real life can have different outcomes, especially under “normal circumstances.” The U.S. Federal Trade Commission recently announced its tentative agreement with wipe manufacturer Nice-Pak Products Inc., in Orangeburg, N.Y., that might further define some of these issues.

Problems can’t be wiped away For wastewater utilities, these “nondispersibles,” or anything other than human waste and toilet paper flushed down the toilet, are problem-

70

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


atic throughout the treatment process. They cause ragging in pipes and lift stations and get caught in screens, pumps, and settling basins. Nondispersibles wreak havoc in rainy and dry climates alike. They clog collection systems during storms and cause SSOs or, in a drought-ridden area (we’re looking at you, California), the lack of water velocity in collection systems prevents wipes from breaking down. In extreme and highly publicized cases, the accumulation of wipes and other nondispersibles can cause the formation of “fatbergs,” such as those weighing as much as 15 tons in London sewers.

Industry response to the flushables flood Although recent media attention has increased awareness of the consequences of convenient-yet-clog-causing wipes (and other nonflushable materials), wastewater utilities throughout the country have responded with their own public education campaigns, such as “What2Flush” in California and “Don’t Flush Baby Wipes” in Maine. These initiatives, as well as the wastewater industry’s “Three P’s” (Pee, Poop, and “Toilet” Paper) standard, have been informing homeowners and renters about what’s okay to flush and to not use toilets as trash cans. The Water Environment Federation (WEF), in Alexandria, Va., has also been involved in the initiative to improve flushability requirements and educate the public. In 2010, the WEF Collection Systems Committee formed a Flushables Task Force in response to the growing concern about wipes-related problems. The WEF House of Delegates (HOD) followed suit in 2012 to involve member associations with the formation of the HOD Non-Dispersible Work Group. To create a singular message, the WEF Flushable Task Group, formed in 2014 and currently chaired by Scott Trotter, has worked on several initia-

tives, including a 2013 billing stuffer campaign with the tagline, “It’s a Toilet, Not a Trashcan!” The group also advocated for collaborative studies conducted by the Water Environment Research Foundation, also in Alexandria. More recently, the Task Group, as a representative of WEF, is collaborating with four other associations representing the water sector and the nonwoven fabrics industry: INDA, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (Washington, D.C.), the American Public Works Association (Kansas City, Mo.), and the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association (Ottawa, Ontario). The goal is to develop a new, fourth edition of guidelines (GD4) that will influence product design and support the marketing of nonwoven products as flushable. The guidelines are scheduled to be released in July 2016. In addition, the collaborative effort is behind the Product Stewardship Initiative to increase public and consumer awareness about the proper disposal of wipes. The initiative seeks to improve the labelling of both flushable and nonflushable products, as well as increase the industry’s responsibility over the downstream impacts of flushable products. The WEF has been heavily involved in both GD4 and the Product Stewardship Initiative. As the awareness of the problems of flushable wipes continues to increase, both in the media and within the wastewater industry, WEF continues to support the initiatives of the Flushables Task Force. While we can’t stop consumers from flushing things down their toilets, we can stem the tide with better education and incentives for corporate responsibility. Brianne Nakamura is a program manager in the Water Science and Engineering Center at the Water Environment Federation. She is the staff liaison for the Collection System Committee and can be contacted at bnakamura@wef.org. 

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

71


C FACTOR

Testing Methods and Treatment Costs ule are being processed up to two weeks prior to each exam event date. We are also administering an average of 213 paper-and-pencil exams per month, which is more than the average of 185 CBT exams per month during the last year of CBT. Our average time from exam to releasing grades is about two weeks. The program has received an overwhelming amount of offers of assistance from operators, utilities, and industry associations during this transition time. For this, many thanks are given; however, I must weigh exam integrity and security against that of unbridled speed and convenience. While options that have been suggested by the membership, such as giving exams during short schools, are certainly plausible options, exam sites and proctors are just one part of the equation. The logistical aspect of each exam presents a significant amount of work and needs to be taken into consideration and given serious attention. Because of this, there are only so many spokes we can attach to our wheel hub and still remain successful. If we aren’t careful, the process becomes unmanageable and the integrity of our exams and licenses will begin to deteriorate. In closing, I would like to thank everyone for their patience, understanding, and eagerness to help the operator certification program. I hope this helps to clarify things a little.

Thomas King President, FWPCOA

efore I start my monthly flow of rhetoric and historic merriment, I have a short commentary on the state of the exam process that I received from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). I remember when FDEP first implemented the computerized test, and so many of my operators were trying to take the written test before it became computer-based. Now those same technicians are missing the ease and attributes of the system as we await its return. The following it what I received from Ronald McCulley, program administrator at FDEP, in May:

B

The current test administration process of giving our licensure exams in a paperand-pencil environment is only temporary. All efforts to get our exams back to a computer-based testing (CBT) environment are being made. At this time, there is no specific date as to when the return to CBT will take place. Also, there is no anticipated increase in any operator certification program fee in the foreseeable future. Given the level of service that our operators have been accustomed to, going back to the old way of administering exams on only two days per year, like it was before CBT, was not an option. That is why all operator certification staff decided to made it a point to give it our best effort to come as close as we can to what operators experienced during CBT. We understand that when we talk about exam dates, locations, ease of scheduling, and timeliness of scoring, the program is not able to match the speed and convenience that was experienced with CBT, but every effort is being made to come as close as we can to it. For instance, we have exam sites in all parts of the state, we are administering exams on a monthly basis, and requests to sched-

72

When I look at today’s power and chemical bills associated with running wastewater treatment plants, I remember working at my first plant. In 1972 (fresh out of the Army), I went to work for the City of Atlanta training to be a wastewater treatment plant operator. I was assigned a multitude of task in the beginning, including lift station maintenance and repair, cleaning out drying beds, repairing sewer line breaks, and maintaining pumping equipment. After a few weeks of this exciting work I was told it was time to start my real training. Monday rolled around and I came in early ready to learn to run the plant and save the environment. This

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

was not to be, however; I was assigned to rake a 20-yard-long bar screen. It had a conveyor belt that put the oddities I removed in a hopper. I remember thinking on numerous occasions, “How the hell did that get down a toilet?” I did not know at the time it was the custom to put the trainees on the bar screen for three months to see if they would quit. I also learned that the mechanical device for raking the screen was not broken, as I was told. I guess all of the operators I worked with had performed this task but none had shown the interest I did in the strange things you see in a large city sewer system. I guess I was management material from the beginning. We had a 10-MG trickling filter plant with an anaerobic digester. It was actually kind of pretty as sewer plants go; we had trees and hedges and flowers of all kinds around the basin and the clarifiers. If there had been such a magazine, we could have had a spread in “Better Sewer Plants and Gardens.” If you look at the history of wastewater treatment and the costs associated with the treatment we got from the dollars spent, trickling filter systems were a bargain. Of course you had to live with the flies and the smell and the fact that you would have had to construct some sort of advanced treatment after it to meet today’s standards. Another problem inherent to tricking filters was that many of these old units would stop rotating at low flow. As the flow would increase they were supposed to build up the flow from the holes in the arms until they began to turn on their own. Many times this did not occur, and we would have to get in the rock area and push the arms to restart the rotation. Slipping in the rocks and pushing the arm seemed like a normal part of the process. Thinking back, it might not have been as cool as I remember. Of course the plant had drying beds that had to be cleaned daily, and yes, we ate the tomatoes that grew next to them (didn’t everyone?). As the once very rural neighborhood became more populated and the odor and fly complaints grew more intense, the plant underwent an expansion. We converted to aeration basins and got a new digester. I remember the amazement of the management at the first few electric bills. We were now a 15-mil-gal-per-day plant, and using the same power as a small town.


Before I left in 1974 the plant had a centrifuge to replace the drying beds. We were spending thousands of dollars monthly on polymer and chlorine gas and we were trucking our dried sludge to the land field at a pretty high cost. The only automation we had that worked was the lights on a timer. We then had a panel that showed the pumps and blowers that were in operation, but two months after it was installed, it quit working. We installed batteries in the lights with switches to make it look like it was working when the politicians visited.

The problem in Atlanta’s recent history, like in most big cities, is the collection systems and the age of the overall treatment systems. The overflows have resulted in lawsuits and consent decrees. The city implemented “Operation Clean Sewer” to inspect its systems and achieve all consent-order requirements. The cost of wastewater operations has grown with the populations of the cities we serve. Operators may still have some time to ponder the universe and their place in it as they hose down the weirs. In most plants suffering

from minimal staffing, they come in to run operations tests and they are the only operator on the shift, so the only philosophical discussion is with the computer. This is one of the costs associated with automation. The industry has continued to produce new ideas. You can do a search on the computer for treatment processes and find hundreds of new and innovative methods of treating waste. The art will be to balance the cost, the payback, and the necessity of meeting new regulations. 

Certification Boulevard Answer Key From page 30 1. B) About 0.2 lbs/person/day At slightly less than 250 mg/L TSS in domestic wastewater, and about 100 gal per person per day, the typical loading equivalent for TSS is about 0.2 lbs per person per day (1 mgd x 250 mg/L x 8.34 lbs per gal = 2,085 lbs per day TSS ÷ 10,000 people per mgd = 0.201 lbs per person per day TSS). And, when you do the same math for CBOD5 at about 200 mg/L, it calculates to be about 0.17 lbs/person/day; so, 0.2 lbs/person/day is for TSS and 0.17 lbs/person/day is for CBOD5.

2. C) 6.7 hours Detention time, hrs = (tank volume x 24 hrs/day) ÷ Flow, Q Length, ft x width, ft x depth, ft x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 24 hrs/day ÷ flow entering 100 ft x 25 ft x 15 ft x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 24 hrs/day ÷ 1,000,000 gal/day 6.732 hrs

6. C) Increase the tower pH.

8. A) Black or dark brown in color

The H2S breakthrough in a headworks wet scrubber system typically means the tower pH is too low (although, it may also mean that the system is being overloaded). Increasing the scrubber pH typically improves the H2S removal efficiency.

Typically, the older the sludge becomes, the darker the foam and scum becomes. So, old sludge typically has dark brown or black foam on the aeration tank, and possibly, the surface of the secondary clarifier.

9. C) The sludge is very old.

7. D) Increase WAS An increased F/M ratio means that there is more food available for the active microorganisms. In most plants, the operator doesn’t have any control over the amount of food that is available on a daily basis, but does have direct control over the amount of active bugs in the system; altering the rate of WAS has a permanent effect on the amount of bugs (“M”) in the process. With a constant influent concentration of CBOD5, increasing the WAS rate, which decreases the bug population, will allow more food to be available, which raises the F/M ratio. This action will also decrease the process SRT.

The presence of red worms (you usually won’t need a microscope to see them) is typically indicative of very old sludge.

10. B) No With the given loading rates for these clarifiers (solids loading rate of 16 lbs/day/ft2, surface settling rate of 432 gpd/ft2, and a weir overflow rate of less than 10,000 gpd/ft), it is not likely that these clarifiers are overloaded. Depending on the settling characteristics of the mixed liquor, acceptable loading rates for secondary clarifiers are: solids loading rate about 18 to 24 lbs/day/ft2, or higher; surface settling rate about 400 to 600 gpd/ft2, or higher; and weir overflow rate about 5,000 to 15,000 gpd/ft.

3. A) 530 gal/day/ft2 Surface settling rate, gpd/ft2 = flow entering clarifiers, gal/day ÷ surface area, ft2 Clarifier surface area in ft2 = πr2 Total clarifier surface area in ft2 = 60 x 60 x 3.14 = 11,304 ft2 x 2 = 22,608 ft2 12,000,000 gal/day ÷ 22,608 ft2 530 gpd/ft2

4. D) 72,765 gpd Lbs in aeration = 140 ft x 45 ft x 15 ft x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 2 tanks = 1,413,720 gal 1.41372 MG x 3,500 ppm x 8.34 lbs/gal = 41,266 lbs MLSS Lbs/day to WAS = 41,266 lbs MLSS ÷ 8-day SRT = 5,158 lbs/day WAS Gal/day to WAS = 5,158 lbs/day WAS ÷ (8,500 ppm WAS x 8.34 lbs/gal) x 1,000,000 = 72,764.9 gal/day

5. C) Nitrogen and phosphorus removal Conventional activated sludge is typically designed to remove TSS and CBOD5. Advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) is typically required to achieve high removal levels of TSS and CBOD5 and to achieve high removal levels of nitrogen and phosphorus.

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

73


Display Advertiser Index February 2014

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

Blue Planet ....................................................83 CEU Challenge................................................60 Conshield ..................................................53,71 Crom ..............................................................65 Data Flow ......................................................43 Evoqua ............................................................9 Florida Aquastore ..........................................55 Florida Gateway College ................................37 Fluid Control ..................................................73 FSAWWA Conference Overview ....................48 FSAWWA Conference General Session ..............49 FSAWWA Conference Golf/Poker ....................50 FSAWWA Conference Distribution ..................51 FWPCOA Fall Short School ..............................75 FWPCOA Training............................................59 FWRC 2016 ....................................................57 Garney ............................................................5 GML Coatings............................................39,62 Hudson Pumps ..............................................61 ISA ................................................................76 PCL ................................................................47 Polston ..........................................................31 Stacon..............................................................2 Stantec ..........................................................56 Treeo..............................................................69 USA Blue BOok ..............................................21 Wade Trim ......................................................74 Xylem ............................................................84

New Products Arch Chemicals Inc. has produced a new-generation Constant Chlor® Plus calcium hypochlorite briquette feed systems for disinfection. The MC4-400 retains all of the key features of Constant Chlor®, such as optimum solution consistency and a small footprint, but its loading and feed rate capacities are much higher, allowing for effective service for disinfection to larger treatment facilities. The MC4-400 dry calcium hypochlorite feeding system utilizes a patented spray technology to prepare and automatically deliver a consistently accurate dose of 1.8 percent solution of available chlorine. This highly customizable feeding system can supply up to 400 lbs of AvCL/day on a sustained basis without the storage and handling issues associated with liquid bleach or chlorine gas and uses EPAapproved Constant Chlor® Plus calcium hypochlorite briquettes to provide a fresh liquid chlorine solution where and when it is needed. (www.archchemicals.com) 

74

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Florida Water & Pollution Control Operators Association

FWPCOA STATE SHORT SCHOOL August 10 - 14, 2015 Indian River State College - Main Campus – FORT PIERCE –

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

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

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

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

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

Wastewater Collection System Operator C, B & A ......$225/$255

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

Water Distribution System Operator Level 3, 2 & 1 ......$225/$255

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

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

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

Wastewater Sampling for Industrial Pretreatment & Operators................................................................$160/$190

Stormwater Management C & B ...................................$260/$290

Wastewater Troubleshooting ........................................$225/$255

Stormwater Management A .........................................$275/$305

Water Troubleshooting ..................................................$225/$255

For further information on the school, including course registration forms and hotels, download the school announcement at www.fwpcoa.org/fwpcoaFiles/upload/2015FallSchool.pdf

SCHEDULE CHECK-IN: August 9, 2015 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. CLASSES: Monday – Thursday........8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday........8:00 a.m. to noon

FREE AWARDS LUNCHEON + Wednesday, August 12, 11:30 a.m. +

For more information call the

FWPCOA Training Office 321-383-9690 Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

75


76

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

Tank Engineering And Management Consultants, Inc.

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

863-354-9010 www.tankteam.com


ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY


EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY

Motor & Utility Services, LLC

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

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

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

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


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

352-241-6006 ads@fwrj.com

CLASSIFIEDS Positions Available

Utilities Treatment Plant Operations Supervisor $54,099 - $76,123/yr. Assists in the admin & technical work in the mgmt, ops, & maint of the treatment plants. Class “A” Water lic. & a class “C” Wastewater lic. req. with 5 yrs supervisory exp. Apply Online At: http://pompanobeachfl.gov Open until filled.

City of Coconut Creek Utility Service Worker I Streets Stormwater Utilities & Engineering Department Salary: $14.20/hour; $29,536.00 Annually High school diploma or GED; supplemented by a minimum of one (1) year of experience in the installation, maintenance, and repair of stormwater systems or streets and highways; an equivalent combination of education, certification, training, and/or experience may be considered. Must possess a valid Florida Class E driver license. Florida Class B commercial driver license with or without N endorsement is preferred. Must obtain Florida Class B commercial driver license with N endorsement within the first year of employment .Apply online at www.coconutcreek.net

City Of Port Orange Water Treatment Plant Operator The City of Port Orange is accepting applications for Water Treatment Plant Operator. Salary is negotiable. Apply online at www.port-orange.org. Instrument Control Technician The City of Port Orange is accepting applications for Instrument Control Technician. Salary is negotiable. Apply online at www.port-orange.org.

80

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal

CITY OF MARGATE UTILITY OPERATIONS MANAGER Applicant must have graduated from a four-year college or university with a degree in sanitary, civil or environmental engineering or related field, plus a minimum of eight (8) years of progressively responsible experience in the operation of water, wastewater and reuse treatment, collection, transmission and distribution systems; including at least four (4) years in a supervisory or administrative capacity. Must be licensed as a Professional Engineer (PE) and licensed in the State of Florida, or have the ability to obtain such license within 12 months of hire. Possession of State of Florida, water and/or Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator’s certificates is preferred. Must possess a valid Florida Driver License. Competitive starting salary range $73,565 -$87,648. Total salary range for the postion $73,565 - $103,213. Excellent benefits. The City of Margate is a participant in the Florida Retirement System and is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Applications are available in Human Resources, Margate City Hall, 5690 Margate Blvd., Margate, FL, or may be down loaded from the web site at www.margetfl.com. Completed, original applications must be submitted to Human Resources. This position is open until filled.

Employment Opportunity

City Of Dunedin 750 Milwaukee Avenue, Dunedin, FL 34698 727/298-3040 Phone Position:Water Maintenance Mechanic # 51088-1 Persons eligible to apply: All who meet the minimum requirements Department/Division: Public Works / Water Status: Regular Full Time Number of Hours: 40 per week Starting Salary Range: $18.2255- $22.7227 per hour – GR16 Salary Range: $18.2255- $27. 2199 per hour – GR16 Position Open Until Filled EOE m/f/d/v Drug/Smoke Free Workplace To apply go to: http://www.dunedingov.com


Water Treatment Plant Operator C or higher Reiss Engineering, Inc. Are you looking for an opportunity with a company that is poised for growth? Reiss Engineering stands as one of the most prominent Civil and Environmental engineering firms in the State of Florida and the Bahamas. Our main focus is water and wastewater, serving both public and private sector clients with integrity, technical excellence and a commitment to performance. At Reiss Engineering, we are committed to making success happen for our clients, our employees and our firm. Reiss Engineering offers a competitive compensation and benefits package, as well as a stimulating and fast paced work environment. Reiss Engineering is continuously searching for highly talented individuals and welcomes resumes from those with an interest in joining our team. For a list of our current openings, or to submit a resume for a potential opportunity, please visit our website at www.reisseng.com.

Water Plant Operator Mechanic Gainesville Regional Utilities - Water/Wastewater Department is currently seeking to fill a Water Plant Operator/Mechanic to perform skilled work in the operation and maintenance of the Water Treatment Plant equipment and facilities. May underfill as a Water Plant Operator/Mechanic Apprentice. A typical work day may include, but not be limited to performing chlorine container receiving functions; learning and becoming proficient in performing basic plant operations by observation, on-the-job training, consultations, and formal classroom training; performing compliance testing of auxiliary equipment; performing plant security procedures and attending various require training courses and orientations. For further information and/or to apply, visit: http://www.cityofgainesville.jobs AA/EOE/DFWP/VP

Waste Water Plant Operator The Coral Springs Improvement District is currently accepting applications for the position of a waste water treatment plant operator. Applicants must have a valid Class A waste water treatment license, minimum of five years experience in field, have a valid Florida drivers license, satisfactory background check and pass a pre-employment drug screening test. Excellent starting salary / to commensurate relative to years of experience in the field. Full-time regular employees are eligible for paid Medical, Dental, Disability, and Life benefits, paid vacations, holidays, and sick benefits. Full-time regular employees are eligible to participate in our 6% noncontributory investment money purchase pension plan, and matching 457 plan of up to 4%. EOE. Applications may be obtained by visiting our website at www.fladistricts.com and fax resume to 954-753-6328, attention Jan Zilmer, Director of Human Resources.

Summary: Under regular supervision, operates and maintains assigned water or treatment plant(s), ensuring the treatment of water in a cost-effective and safe manner, which meets all Federal, State and local standards and regulations. Performs related work as required. Reports to the Lead Water Treatment Plant Operator and/or the Public Works Operations Manager. Education and /or Experience: High School graduation or possession of an acceptable equivalency diploma. Minimum of two (2) years experience in a water treatment plant. Please apply at www.ourorangecity.com Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/V/D Salary negotiable depending upon qualifications. Special Requirements: Possession of a valid Florida Driver License. Class "C" Water Operators Certificate or higher as issued by the State of Florida.

Project Manager Destin Water Users, Inc. is currently accepting applications for a Project Manager who works under the general supervision of the Operations Manager. The Project Manager assists in evaluating engineering projects, managing construction projects, collecting data, preparing reports and performing general duties assigned by the Operations Manager. Should be proficient in Excel, Word, and Powerpoint. ArcGIS, AutoCAD and Cityworks knowledge preferred. Bachelor’s degree or equivalent from fouryear college and two years experience; high school diploma and six years related experience and/or training; or equivalent combination of education and experience. Engineering/Construction related degree/experience preferred. Must be insurable by the company’s insurance carrier. Must possess a valid Florida driver’s license. Requires satisfactory preemployment drug screen, physical, background check, and driver’s license check. EOE. Open until filled. Application may be completed at http://dwuinc.com/contact-us/career-opportunities/.

Water and/or Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators The City of Edgewater is accepting applications for Water and/or Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators, minimum Class C license required. Individuals who have passed the state exam and need hours will be considered for a trainee position. Valid FL driver license required. Annual Salary Range for licensed operators is $31,096 - $48,755. Applicants will be required to pass a physical and background check. Applications and information may be obtained from the Personnel Dept or www.cityofedgewater.org, and submitted to City Hall, 104 N Riverside Dr, Edgewater, FL 32l32. EOE/DFWP

Florida Water Resources Journal • July 2015

81


MCO Construction & Services, Inc. - Water Utility Project Manager

City of Zephyrhills Water Treatment Operator A, B, C

We are seeking a Project Manager to support our Palm Beach County Program which is charged with delivering the Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department's Capital Improvement Program. Minimum Qualifications: BS degree (or equivalent) in Civil, Environmental, or Chemical Engineering with previous work history focused in water and wastewater treatment. A minimum of 10 years of experience with civil infrastructure projects, consisting of one or more of the following: engineering, planning, design, and/or construction services. A minimum of 3 years of project management experience, managing civil infrastructure project planning, design, or construction phase tasks. Professional Engineer registration in the state of Florida or ability to acquire Florida registration within 6 months of hire date. Project management experience which includes project scoping, budgeting, earned value analyses, and financial reporting. Candidate will be required to learn and use web based interface tools for project earned value management and accounting, as well as, SharePoint software. Email resume to president@mcoconstruction.net

Currently hiring for multiple positions. For information please go to: www.ci.zephyrhills.fl.us

Wastewater Reclamation Facilities Coordinator Clearwater seeking a Licensed "A" Operator to supervise and coordinate activities related to the operation and maintenance of the City's three (3) wastewater reclamation facilities and extensive wastewater reuse storage and booster pumping system. For info and to apply: www.myclearwater.com. 727-562-4870x0. EOE

Wastewater Plant Operator C License Marathon, Florida Keys Category: Full-Time

Environmental Compliance Manager

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.

FLSA Status: Exempt Full Time Position Salary Range: $57,636 - $89,336

Miscellaneous: Email application/resume to HR@ci.marathon.fl.us or fax to 305-289-4143. See website for full description: www.ci.marathon.fl.us

BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The Environmental Compliance Manager is responsible for environmental compliance with local, state and federal regulations related to the treatment, distribution and collection of water, wastewater and reuse. This position manages a staff of environmental technicians and industrial waste inspectors. The position works closely with engineering staff, water and wastewater treatment and distribution and collection system staff. Managerial and administrative responsibilities include staff development and assignments, monitoring staff work productivity and quality, including performance appraisals, leave requests and time card approvals. The position is responsible for drafting capital and operating budget requests for the environmental services section. Closing date is July 17, 2015

Positions Av ailable THOMAS MOORE – Seeking a Trainee position and has passed the water and wastewater exams and needs hours to activate his license. Will be available for employment January 7, 2016. Prefers Charlotte, Sarasota or Pinellas counties. Contact Thomas Moore #C07080, Marion C.I., PO Box 158, Lowell, Fl. 32663-0158 GEFFERY HICKS – Holds a Florida C Wastewater license with two years experience. Prefers Tampa, Hillsboro, Pasco Counties, or north of Pasco. Contact at 15118 Rails Road, Odessa, Fl. 32556. 813-569-9415

Please apply at: http://www.applitrack.com/tohowater/onlineapp/

Looking For a Job? City of St. Petersburg Water Treatment Distribution Manager (IRC31358) $73,817 - $109,647 DOQ – Open Until Filled Supervisory, technical work directing 24/7 potable water plant operations; high school diploma/GED equivalency, including math/science courses; State of FL DL; State of Florida Class "A" Water Operator Certificate (out of state appointee may receive 6 month grace period to achieve cert.) See detailed requirements at www.stpete.org/jobs EEO-AA-Employer-VetDisabled-DFWP-Vets' Pref

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

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

ads@fwrj.com

82

Ju;y 2015 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Florida Water Resources Journal - July 2015  

Stormwater Management and Emerging Technologies

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you