__MAIN_TEXT__
feature-image

Page 1


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

Business Office:

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

Michael Delaney Rick Harmon Patrick Delaney Buena Vista Publishing

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

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

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

Training Questions FSAWWA: Donna Metherall – 407-979-4805 or fsawwa.donna@gmail.com FWPCOA: Shirley Reaves – 321-383-9690

For Other Information DEP Operator Certification: Ron McCulley – 850-245-7500 FSAWWA: Peggy Guingona – 407-979-4820 Florida Water Resources Conference: 407-363-7751 FWPCOA Operators Helping Operators: John Lang – 772-559-0722, e-mail – oho@fwpcoa.org FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318

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

News and Features

4 Florida Potable Reuse Commission: Ensuring the Future of Reuse in the State—Randy Brown 8 How to Minimize Emergency Pipe Repairs—Doug Riseden 22  “Once Upon a Flush” Video Contest Winners Announced—Shea Dunifon 24 Improving Water Quality by Partnering With Private Property Owners: Six Steps to a Proactive Stormwater Program— Nathan Walker 50 Water Environment Federation Convening Blue-Ribbon Panel to Evaluate Biological Hazards and Precautions for Wastewater Workers 52 The Key Metrics to Measure Performance Success for Energy, Utilities, and Resources Organizations— Colin Beaney

Columns

10 C Factor—Kenneth Enlow 20 FWEA Committee Corner: WR3 Committee Spotlight: “One Water” Seminar—Nita Maik 26 FWRJ Reader Profile—Mark A. DiNobile 27 FWEA Focus—James J. Wallace 51 Test Yourself—Donna Kaluzniak 54 FSAWWA Speaking Out—Kim Kowalski 56 Let’s Talk Safety: Know What’s Below and Call 811 Before You Dig!

Departments

55 New Products 59 Classifieds 62 Display Advertiser Index

Technical Articles

28 Dealing With Widespread Per-

and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Contamination—Mark D. Miller, David D. Peters, and Evan Ghidella

Education and Training

12 FSAWWA Fall Conference Overview 13 FSAWWA Fall Conference Registration 14 FSAWWA Fall Conference Exhibits 15 FSAWWA Fall Conference Poker Night and Happy Hour 16 FSAWWA Fall Conference Golf Tournament 17 FSAWWA Fall Conference Competitions 18 FSAWWA Water Distribution System Awards 19 FSAWWA Water Conservation Awards for Excellence 37 FWPCOA Training Calendar 41 CEU Challenge 49 TREEO Center Training 58 FWPCOA Online Training Institute

Volume 71

ON THE COVER: City of Stuart Water Treatment Plant Perfluorinated Chemical Treatment System Project. To find out how the city is dealing with widespread per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination, go to page 28. (photo: City of Stuart Public Works Department)

August 2020

Number 8

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 • August 2020

3


Florida Potable Reuse Commission: Ensuring the Future of Reuse in the State Randy Brown In the last 30 years, the number of people who have moved to Florida has continued to increase. In 1990, the state’s population was around 13 million, and today, it has grown to over 20 million. The state anticipates

another large increase in population (more than 7 million) in the next 35 years. As the state’s population has grown over the past several decades, so has the demand for fresh water—for drinking, irrigation, agricultural needs, and industrial use. Currently, two thirds of the state has been designated as a water resource caution area by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). These are areas that have critical water supply problems, or could develop problems in the next 20 years.

56 counties are impacted in part or whole by water conservation caution areas.

4 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Potable reuse is an alternative water supply option that’s emerging in various areas around the United States. It may be able to help Florida meet its future water needs by providing resiliency during natural drought cycles. WateReuse Florida has followed the progress of potable reuse in Arizona and California, which are two of the first areas to use it, very closely. In early 2016, taking into account the current and future water needs of the state, the organization embarked on a process to develop a framework to support and


facilitate potable reuse in Florida as a water source option for the state’s water utilities.

Creation of the Potable Reuse Commission We realized that we were not going to make this effort a success without help. We invited the utility councils of the Florida Section American Water Works Association (FSAWWA) and Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) to join us in this project. Taking a page from the Arizona Blue Ribbon Panel on Water Sustainability, the Florida Potable Reuse Commission (PRC) was established in late 2017 as a diverse group of water resource, industry, agricultural, and health professionals. It included representatives from: S WateReuse Florida S FSAWWA S FWEA S Agriculture: Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association S Florida Department of Health: Bureau

of Epidemiology Food and Waterborne Disease S Environment: Nature Conservancy of Florida S Industry: Associated Industries of Florida S Public Health/Medical State University: University of South Florida, College of Public Health The purpose of PRC is to create a consensus-driven partnership to develop the framework for the implementation of potable reuse in Florida. The creation of this group could not have been accomplished without the guidance and financial assistance of our ex-officio members: Florida’s water management districts and FDEP.

Report Development The process of developing a framework, and then a report, on potable reuse included numerous one-on-one meetings, 18 PRC regular meetings, three periodic PRC workshops, and presentations to

legislative committees. The PRC meetings and workshops were noted in the Florida Administrative Register and the public was encouraged to attend.

Legislative Activities In support of PRC activities, a provision was included in Senate Bill 712 that directs FDEP to initiate rulemaking based on the recommendations of the PRC 2020 report, “Advancing Potable Reuse in Florida: Framework for the Implementation of Potable Reuse in Florida,” by Dec. 31, 2020. Potable reuse projects will be required to address contaminants of emerging concern and must meet or exceed federal and state drinking water quality standards, as well as other applicable water quality standards. In addition, reclaimed water is deemed, in Florida Statutes, a water source for public water supply systems. The inclusion of potable reuse in the omnibus water bill is a great success for PRC as it allows its Continued on page 6

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

5


Continued from page 5 recommendations to be implemented and recognizes the importance of its report. Due to COVID-19, Senate Bill 712 has not been presented to Gov. Ron DeSantis for action, but we expect that it will be signed into law by him upon presentation. Florida utilities are conducting pilot plant testing that will provide the data necessary for future FDEP regulations. Potable reuse will extend and protect water resources for our communities to ensure a sustainable water supply for the future, while protecting the environment that makes our state unique.

Acknowledgments Thank you to Mark Hammond, PRC facilitator, and Laura Jacobs Donaldson, with Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, for contributing to this article. Thank you also to Mark Elsner with the South Florida Water Management District for editing. Randy Brown is utilities director at City of Pompano Beach, past president of WateReuse Florida, and serves on the AWWA Reuse Committee.

Report Timeline The following is a timeline of meetings and the progress on the path toward developing the report and passing legislation. • May 11, 2016 – Draft of Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) white paper presented to WateReuse Florida executive board. • Aug. 25, 2017 – WateReuse Florida executive team presented TAC white paper to the membership in Tavares. • Oct. 4, 2017 – Meeting with Sen. WIlton Simpson concerning his support for the efforts of the group. • November 2017 – Creation of PRC. • Dec. 4, 2017 – FDEP provided a letter of support for PRC. • Jan. 23, 2018 – Sen. Simpson provided letter of support for PRC. •  February 2018 – First PRC Meeting WateReuse Association, on behalf of WateReuse Florida, entered into an agreement with a facilitator for PRC facilitation services. •  March 2018 – South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), and St. John’s River Water Management District (SJRWMD) provided letters of support. Second PRC Meeting - Set goals and  objectives and developed a framework. • April 2018 – First PRC Workshop - General, technical, and management-related topics were discussed and public comments received. Third PRC Meeting - Reviewed first  workshop, set up future meetings, and opened PRC discussion. Utility councils of WateReuse Florida, FSAWWA, and FWEA executed an agreement for PRC funding support. WateReuse Association (on behalf of WateReuse Florida) entered into an agreement with the Water Research

Foundation for work, including managing three workshops and preparing draft framework document for PRC approval. Presented a draft of an outreach and education outline. May 2018 – Fourth PRC Meeting - Reached consensus to create a regulatory team of subject matter experts to meet and draft options and concepts for PRC to consider. June 2018 – Fifth PRC Meeting - Looked at operator qualifications and certification with Florida Water Pollution Control Operators Association (FWPCOA). Discussed log removals and reviewed technical, managerial, and financial considerations. July 2018 – Sixth PRC Meeting - Focused on discussion of blending versus full direct potable reuse (DPR). Reviewed technology requirements from Texas and California, pretreatment programs, monitoring, and adequacy of potable water standards. Preparations done for second workshop. Second PRC Workshop - General, technical, and management-related topics were discussed and public comments received. Discussion of how to handle unsolicited input. Developed a Florida DPR regulatory guidance document. August 2018 – Seventh PRC Meeting  Discussed outreach and communication efforts, including the focus on PRC objectives in the short term. September 2018 – Eighth PRC Meeting Discussion on the chapters of the PRC “One Document” report outline. Topics, such as publisher, format, and review, were covered. October 2018 – Ninth PRC Meeting  Discussed first draft of the framework document and communication efforts to bring on a consultant to assist PRC with outreach. A draft concerning a legislative advocacy concept for PRC consideration was presented.

6 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

• N  ovember 2018 – Tenth PRC Meeting - Indepth discussions of the updated chapters from the draft framework that were distributed. • December 2018 – Eleventh PRC Meeting PRC reached consensus that more work was needed to resolve outstanding issues and to work on those issues in 2019. • January 2019 – Twelfth PRC Meeting - PRC supported a process to address outstanding issues, including emerging contaminants and protecting utility investments. The process involved two regulatory subteams, with the addition of subject matter experts, and focused on two topics: addressing emerging contaminants in potable reuse, and protecting utility investments. • February 2019 – PRC regulatory subteams began series of meetings, as often as weekly. •  February-May 2019 – PRC Meetings (Thirteen to Sixteen) - PRC discussed and provided guidance to the regulatory subteams regarding emerging contaminants and protecting utility investments • June 2019 – Third PRC Workshop - Updated draft framework document was discussed and public comments received • July 2019 – Seventeenth PRC Meeting - PRC discussed and provided guidance to the regulatory subteams regarding emerging contaminants and protecting utility investments. •  August 2019 – PRC regulatory subteams concluded their meetings. • September 2019 – Eighteenth PRC Meeting - PRC approved framework document for final editing. • January 2020 – PRC’s “Framework for the Implementation of Potable Reuse in Florida” is published. The final document includes the edits incorporated following the Sept. 20, 2019, PRC meeting: cover, executive summary, and preface.


All trademarks are owned by Lakeside Equipment Corporation. © 2020 Lakeside Equipment Corporation.

NO LOWER BEARINGS, SPROCKETS, BUSHINGS OR GUIDES. NO PROBLEMS! Capture more debris with no fouling or jamming. Lakeside’s Raptor® FalconRake® Bar Screen features a trouble-free stainless steel chain link design and multiple rake heads to achieve continuous, highly efficient solids removal with low headloss. The energy saving drive system operates at variable speeds to ensure superior cleaning, and is easily accessible above the water surface. And, as with everything Lakeside manufactures, our heavy-duty design and all stainless steel construction is made to last even in the most severe conditions. Protect your downstream equipment with the Raptor FalconRake Bar Screen, Lakeside’s proven, durable and cost-effective screen technology for rapid debris removal in municipal and industrial applications.

REPRESENTED LOCALLY BY:

Trippensee Shaw, Inc. Eustis and Sebring, FL www.TrippenseeShaw.com T. 863.382.2101

Cleaner Water for a Brighter Future®

Florida Panhandle Only T: 205.424.7570 www.eshelmancompany.com

Speak to one of our experts at 630.837.5640, email us at sales@lakeside-equipment.com or visit lakeside-equipment.com for more product information.

Raptor® Screening Products Fine Screen Micro Strainer Rotating Drum Screen Septage Acceptance Plant Septage Complete Plant Complete Plant Multi-Rake Bar Screen FalconRake® Bar Screen Rotary Strainer Screen Wash Press

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

7


How to Minimize Emergency Pipe Repairs Doug Riseden Water main breaks have an uncanny way of always happening at night, on weekends, or on a holiday—or it seems that way anyway. While it would be great to have a crystal ball

to predict when these breaks will happen, the reality is that emergency pipe repairs are a fact of life for water utilities. How can we minimize their occurrence and make them less severe, and also shorten water-off times that lead to

closed businesses, frustrated customers, and other negative consequences? A sound approach is to look backward as we move forward, gathering information and data to help forecast when repairs and replacements are needed, and converting these emergencies into scheduled repairs.

Getting the Information You Need Here are some steps for gathering the information and data you need, recording it, and assessing when repairs or replacements should be done. By following these steps, you are more likely to have fewer emergencies at night, or on weekends and holidays. 1. Keep accurate records of previous repairs and installations 2.  Answer the five Ws (who, what, when, where, why) and how 3.  Keep track of new installations by other utilities 4. Take photos and shoot video 5. Assess and plan 6. Make repairs with the right products

Be sure to keep accurate records of all repairs and installations so you can better predict when and where breaks will happen.

Be sure to keep your inventory stocked with at least two repair products on the shelf for each item to minimize time when handling emergencies.

8 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Keep Accurate Records of Previous Repairs and Installations It’s critical to keep accurate records of previous repairs and installations to understand when and where breaks are most likely to happen. Establish best practices to keep records for every repair and new installation by sitting down with your crews to discuss the need for accurate record keeping. Employees who have been with your utility for a long time can offer all sorts of information and details about the original installations, such as when and where they took place. Recording this insight is invaluable, as you never know how long they’ll be with your utility. You’ll also need to establish a way retain your information. There are many software solutions available that can keep these records and store them for future capital improvement projects (CIPs). Information gathering is critical—in fact, with fewer employees, it’s even more important to ensure information is shared. You don’t want to lose the knowledge the employees have, should they retire or decide to go elsewhere. You may only have a homemade form to record information—it doesn’t matter. Write it down and use it to upgrade your data and utility maps.


Answer the Five Ws (and How) Your records should be able to answer the five Ws (who, what, when, where, why) and how. S W  ho Who made the repair? Who were the crew members involved? S What  What kind of repair was made (e.g., repair or replace, fixing a previous repair)? What kind of product was used (e.g., clamp, coupling)? What material is the pipe made of? S When What date and time was the repair done? Under what weather conditions (e.g., temperature) was the repair made? S Where  Where was the repair made? Give exact locations or triangulate the location based on available information. S Why Why did the break occur (e.g., old pipe that broke due to age, another utility hit the line, product defect, ground movement)? S How How many times has a section of pipe been repaired? How old is the pipe? When in doubt, err on the side of more detail, not less. Keep Track of New Installations by Other Contractors New construction seems to be going on almost everywhere. It could be something your utility is involved with, or a new project where

outside companies are doing the installation. Since these new assets will eventually be managed by the utility, it’s important to know everything about them before the first shovel goes in the ground so that the project meets all local, state, and federal requirements. Inspect the final prints (i.e., the “as-builts”) to make sure they’re accurate. In most cases, they will simply be another set of the original prints, so if there are changes, ensure that you have an engineer make those corrections on the final prints. Take Photos and Shoot Video I am a huge fan of taking photos and videos before, during, and after the project. Most smart phones can take great photos and shoot decent video. Take plenty of pictures and download them to your computer for future reference, particularly the details on a utility line that has become a part of your system. Organize these photos and videos by project, and use them to upgrade maps, order repair parts, and locate lines for when they need to be replaced. Assess and Plan How’s all this information going to help your utility? By taking all of the information that you’ve gathered, you can evaluate when repairs or replacements need to take place. If you note that you’ve been to a certain location several times recently, you should consider replacing that section of pipe. When you begin to gather data and information, you can list and prioritize repairs and plan for replacement projects. You may need to reschedule sections to replace because

By evaluating systems based on gathered information, you can better forecast repairs and replacements with fewer emergencies.

of the frequency of repairs for another section. If it’s a CIP project, it may require floating a bond or putting in a grant application. All of this information can help with project plans and preparations, and obtaining the buy-in of stakeholders and your municipal council. Make Repairs With the Right Products While it’s great to plan repairs and replacements, you need to make sure that you have the right product on hand for any repair. While larger manufacturers can ship most emergency pipe repair products overnight, some products that need to be made to order require time to design and manufacture, so planning is extremely important in these cases. Make sure you have the right product on hand for emergency repairs. We’ve all been in that position at least once in our careers— the emergency arises, and we don’t have the product on hand to fix it. Be sure to order parts well in advance, and I recommend having at least two repair products on the shelf for each size pipe in your system. By building a good relationship with your suppliers, they should be able to help you out when those emergencies arise. Planning ahead for repairs and replacements, and having repair products on hand, will help you change your emergency repairs to scheduled repairs. When you plan and prepare, repairs can be done according to your schedule—and help to minimize emergencies. Doug Riseden is HYMAX technical support manager for Mueller Water Products in Ocala.

Look to be involved in the installation of other utilities, as they will eventually be turned over to you. Ensure that the plans of the project meet all requirements and that the final prints are accurate.

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

9


C FACTOR

COVID-19: Treat It as Another Safety Program Kenneth Enlow

President, FWPCOA

G

reetings, everyone. I hope you all are doing well.

There is no doubt that COVID-19 is affecting all parts of our lives, at work and at home. As we move forward through this year—and maybe even beyond—we are not

10 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

certain what the future holds. That being said, we will continue to provide the services essential to the health and well-being of the public we serve. To ensure that we have a measure of protection during this time, we must be diligent in practicing universal controls to help prevent the spread of this virus. Wearing face masks, washing hands, maintaining social distancing, and frequent disinfection of our work spaces are all part of this. Beyond all of this, we have an obligation to ensure that we are not unnecessarily exposing ourselves to COVID-19 when we are away from our jobs. As an essential service to the public, we must conduct ourselves off the job in a way that will help to prevent the spread of the virus on the job. Things like avoiding large groups and gatherings, wearing face coverings in public, and staying home on our days off—except for necessary visits to the store, doctor’s office, or for other essential needs—will help to keep all of us healthy. Universal controls should not be a concept we are not familiar with. This is just another term to define measures put into place to protect people from hazards. We, as an industry, are very familiar with implementing safety procedures for the many hazards we face every day. We define ways to eliminate or minimize exposures, which we do through engineering controls or work environment changes to eliminate hazards. In cases where we cannot eliminate a hazard, we mitigate it through safety barriers or personal protective equipment (PPE). The universal controls that have been prescribed to help prevent the spread of the coronavirus are essential the same type of safety precautions we would implement in our industry to help protect us from any other hazard. Wearing PPE (like face masks), disinfecting surfaces to eliminate exposure, social distancing, reporting illnesses that are recognized symptoms of COVID-19, and staying home when you are sick are all part of a safety program.


Please keep all of this in mind as we move forward and work through this trying time. Remember that you have a choice to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

FWPCOA Training Update As an association, FWPCOA’s primary purpose is to provide training to our members and the industry as a whole. We have faced many difficulties, resulting from the recent pandemic, getting classroom training going again. We had to cancel the spring and fall short schools due to the Indian River State Collage restricting campus activities. We hope to get our training programs out to our operators once again, but are moving cautiously as we monitor the phased openings to the public. One of the hurdles we have to overcome is finding venues that can and will accommodate our training classes. We feel that phasing in classroom training with smaller groups in a controlled environment is one of the ways to get training back out to our members and the industry. We are looking to utilities to provide training rooms, and are also looking at other venues, like theaters, churches, hotel conference rooms, etc. As an association, we understand the caution that some may have with the possible spread of COVID-19 and share their concerns. We believe the spread of the virus can be minimized through the application of universal controls. To that end, the FWPCOA board of directors voted to implement a COVID-19 guidance document. Further, to ensure the safety of both students and instructors, we are also asking for everyone to submit a daily health check form when attend training or meetings. The health check would be submitted on a daily basis when attending an event. Above all, if someone feels sick, they will be asked to stay home and call the training office to report the illness. We will refund tuition if someone is unable to attend due to an illness. The FWPCOA is committed to our goal of training our members and the industry and will do what we can to safely resume training in the future. In the meantime, and as always, our online Training Institute is up and running. I want to remind everyone again about our wastewater collection “C” online

training course. This course has been newly revamped to include a manual developed by FWPCOA. The cost of the course is $275, which includes the newly developed manual and a membership in FWPCOA for a year. You can access our online training by going to the FWPCOA website at www. fwpcoa.org and selecting the “Online Institute” button at the upper right-hand area of the home page to open the login page. You then scroll down to the bottom of this screen and click on “View Catalog” to open the catalog of the many training programs offered. Select your preferred

training program and register online to take the course. That’s all I have for this C Factor. Everyone take care and, as usual, keep up the good work!

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

11


Benefiting

The Roy Likins Scholarship Fund

The FSAWWA Fall Conference brings together utilities, consultants, manufacturers, regulators, and students. Register and learn from the industry’s best through technical session, workshops, and exhibits. Network with water industry professionals. Over 160 exhibitors will give you first-hand information on the latest developments to help your utility take actions to implement Florida’s future.

Exhibitor Registration: Registration is NOW OPEN www.fsawwa.org/2020exhibits

Attendee Registration: Starts August 3, 2020 fsawwa.org/2020fallregistration

For more information: fsawwa.org/2020fallconference Hotel Accommodations: fsawwa.org/2020hotel Host hotel is Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate.

Technical Sessions

• Potable Reuse • Improving our Piping Systems • Innovations in Water Treatment • Role of Membranes for the Future • Tools for Assessing our Assets • Financing the Future • Water Systems Resilience • Water Conservation Conference Highlights

• BBQ Challenge &

Incoming Chair’s Reception

CHEER for Meter Madness!

Prep for HYDRANT Hysteria!

Let loose at the RODEO!

Join the Tapping FUN!

• Operator Events:

Meter Madness Backhoe Rodeo Hydrant Hysteria Tapping Competition

• Young Professionals Events:

Luncheon Water Bowl Fresh Ideas Poster Session

• Water for People’s Fundraising Events: Duck Race Exhibitor’s Raffle Fundraiser

Events Poker Tournament Monday, November 30, 2020 Starts at 9:00 pm

November 29 to December 3, 2020 Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate

Golf Tournament Thursday, December 3, 2020 8:00 am Shotgun start


REGISTRATION Online Registration is strongly recommended.

fsawwa.org/2020fallregistration

#05100545.

Member

Includes: Monday Workshops, BBQ, Technical Sessions, Exhibits, Meet & Greet

(Does not include Utility Systems Symposium, Laws/Rules, and Business & Awards Luncheon)

Non-Member

On-Site Registration

By Nov. 1

After Nov. 1

By Nov. 1

After NonNov. 1 Member Member

$300

$350

$455

$495

$400

$550

$170 $170 $95 $50

$220 $220 $150 $50

$225 $225 $125 $50

$275 $275 $175 $50

$250 $250 $180 $50

$300 $300 $200 $50

Workshops, Technical Sessions and Exhibits Please select a day:

   

Monday (Includes all Monday events, except Utility Systems Symposium & Laws/Rules) Tuesday Wednesday (Business & Awards Luncheon not included) Exhibit Hall Only

Speaker (One-day only)*

Select Day

Mon

Tue

Wed

$30

$30

$30

$30

$30

$30

Retired AWWA member Spouse

Select Day

Mon Mon

Tue Tue

Wed Wed

$50 $50

$50 $50

$50 $50

$50 $50

$50 $50

$50 $50

Tue

Wed

$35

$35

$35

$35

$35

$35

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$120

$120

$190

$190

$150

$220

$65

$65

$65

$65

$65

$65

*Free with full or one-day registration

(lunch not included)

Operator Competitions

Students - Free (registration required if attending)

Utility Systems Symposium (Includes lunch)

0.8 CEU/8.0 PDH

Monday (8-5)

Engineering Laws/Rules

2.0 PDH

Monday AM

  

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Membership/Young Professionals Luncheon

Tuesday PM

$25

$25

$25

$25

$25

$25

FSAWWA Business & Awards Luncheon

Wednesday PM

$50

$50

$50

$50

$50

$50

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Water Conservation Symposium

BBQ after Meet & Greet

(registration required if attending) Wednesday AM

(registration required if attending) Monday PM

Register online is strongly recommended at: www.fsawwa.org/2020 fallregistration Questions:

Stacey Smith Wall | E-mail: stacey@registerwithease.com | Phone: (863) 325-0077

Note: A 30% service fee will be retained on any cancellation by Nov. 1. No refunds after Nov. 1, 2020. Hotel Accommodations

Host hotel is Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate. The special rate is $164. Visit fsawwa.org/2020hotel


Exhibit Registration Accepting Exhibitor Registrations on or after June 1, 2020 www.fsawwa.org/2020exhibits

Standard Booth @ $800 Includes:

• 8-foot X 10-foot booth space • One (1) six-foot draped table • Backdrop • Side drapery • Two (2) chairs

• Company sign • Wastebasket • Two (2) exhibit staff registrations • Additional exhibit staff $50/each

Exhibit booth spaces can include heavy equipment, workshops, portable equipment and showrooms. Flammable materials are prohibited. No modifications will be made to the backdrops or sidewalls without approval from the Exhibits Chair.

Online Registration is strongly recommended to help adhere to social distancing guidelines. Online Exhibitor registration at: www.fsawwa.org/2020exhibits Or return form with payment to: Stacey Smith Wall, Register With EaseSM 3037 Golfview Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: (863) 325-0077 | Fax: (863) 325-0051 No reservations accepted by phone.

Hotel Accommodations: fsawwa.org/2020hotel Host hotel is Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate.

Exhibit Schedule Monday, November 30 Set-up: 7:00am - 3:00pm Meet and Greet: 4:00 - 6:00pm

Tuesday, December 1

Hall Open: 8:00 - 11:30am | 1:30 - 6:00pm Meet and Greet: 4:00 - 6:00pm

Wednesday, December 2 Hall Open: 8:00am - 12:00pm Tear Down: 1:00 - 6:00pm

Please check our refund policies at fsawwa.org/2020refundpolicy

Sponsorship Levels Premier | $1500

15% discount on 8’x10’ booth

Platinum | $850

15% discount on 8’x10’ booth

Gold | $600

10% discount on 8’x10’ booth

Silver | $400 For additional info on sponsorship levels and benefits, visit:

www.fsawwa.org/2020sponsor

November 29 to December 3, 2020 Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate

Please Note: All promotional activity other than product demonstrations must be approved by FSAWWA prior to the conference.


Benefiting

The Roy Likins Scholarship Fund

Poker Night & Happy Hour

Monday, November 30, 2020 | 9:00 pm to midnight Omni Orlando Resort ChampionsGate

Register Today:

Opportunities to Sponsor Straight | $50

• One of four at a game table sponsors • Logo on a prominently displayed

sponsor board at the registration table

Only Accepting Online Applications This Year!

Registration will open August 3

fsawwa.org/2020poker It is not necessary to participate in the tournament in order to be a sponsor. Please send Terry Gullet at tgullett@neptunetg.com a pdf or jpeg version of your company logo for all sponsorships.

Pre-Paid Buy-ins: Blackjack Buy in | $20.00 (2000 in chips) Poker Buy In | $40.00 (5000 in chips) At the Door Buy-ins: Blackjack Buy in | $30.00 (2000 in chips) Poker Buy In | $50.00 (5000 in chips) Grand Prize: 50” HDTV!

November 29 to December 3, 2020 Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate

Full House | $150

• One of two at a game table sponsors • Logo on a prominently displayed •

sponsor board at the registration table 2 Blackjack or 2 Poker Buy-ins

Royal Flush | $250

• Sole game table sponsor • Logo on a prominently displayed •

sponsor board 4 Poker Buy Ins or 5 Blackjack Buy-ins

15% discount for bundled Eagle Golf and Royal Flush Poker Sponsorships: $765 Any contribution of prizes is greatly appreciated for the worthwhile cause. Pre-purchase Buy-In and Table Sponsorships through Conference Registration. Buy-Ins may be purchased at the door during first hour of play with a credit card, personal check, or cash. Space is limited so pre-purchase to ensure that you have a chance to win. Entry tickets and chips have no cash value. Once they are purchased no refunds will be given. Only paid entries and sponsors will be allowed access to the hall.


Benefiting

The Roy Likins Scholarship Fund

Golf Tournament

Thursday, December 3, 2020 | 8:00 am Shotgun start Omni Orlando Resort ChampionsGate

Opportunities to Sponsor Eagle Sponsor | $650

• Your company’s name prominently Register Today: Only Accepting Online Applications This Year!

Registration will open August 3

fsawwa.org/2020golf It is not necessary to participate in the tournament in order to be a sponsor. Please send Chase Freeman at Cfreeman@spiritgroupinc.com a pdf or jpeg version of your company logo for all sponsorships.

Location:

• • •

displayed on a special sponsor banner on the beverage cart. Your company’s name prominently displayed at one of the tournament course tees or holes. One foursome in the tournament. Recognition at the awards ceremony.

Birdie Sponsor | $550

• Your company’s name prominently

displayed at one of the tournament course tees or holes. One foursome in the tournament. Recognition at the awards ceremony.

International Golf Course 8575 White Shark Blvd Davenport, FL 33896 407-787-4653 | www.championsgategolf.com

• •

Player Gift Bag or Raffle Donations:

Par Sponsor | $200

We are requesting firms or individuals to donate items such as golf balls, tee packs, drink coolers, hats, shirts, towels, umbrellas, clugs, your logo items, etc. These items will be used in each golfer’s gift bag or be raffled off to help with our purpose of raising money for the Roy Likins Scholarship Fund. Your generosity and support are appreciated.

• Recognized with signage. • Recognition at the awards ceremony. Lunch Sponsor | $250

• Recognized with signage. • Recognition at the awards ceremony. 15% discount for bundled Eagle Golf and Royal Flush Poker Sponsorships: $765

November 29 to December 3, 2020 Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate


2020 Competitions

Tuesday & Wednesday | December 1-2, 2020

Join the Competition

fsawwa.org/2020fallconference FSAWWA hosts fun and lively competitions between municipalities to find the most skilled person or team in the Meter Madness, Tapping, and Back Hoe Rodeo contests. Please join us as a spectator or visit our website to download the application to complete.

Let loose at the RODEO!

Back Hoe Rodeo: Tuesday | 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Backhoe operators show off their expertise by executing several challenging lifts and drops of various objects in the fastest time.

Tapping Contests: Tuesday | 11:00 am - 2:30 pm

Join the Tapping FUN!

In a contest of skill and dexterity as well as speed, teams of four compete for the fastest time while they perform a quality drill and tap of pipe under available pressure. Penalties are assessed in seconds for infractions of rules such as leaking connections or safety violations. Only two taps are allowed per team. Ductile Iron Tap: 11:00 am - 12:00 pm Fun Tap: 1:00 - 2:30 pm

Meter Madness: Tuesday | 4:00 - 5:00 pm

CHEER for Meter Madness!

Contestants are challenged to put together a completely disassembled meter against the clock. To make the contest more interesting, three to six miscellaneous parts are included in the bucket of meter components. Once the meter is assembled, it must operate correctly and not leak.

Hydrant Hysteria: Wednesday | 9:00 - 11:00 am

Hydrant Hysteria is a fast paced two person competition as to who can assembly a fire hydrant quickly, totally, and accurately. Two or more teams go head to head while assembling the hydrant. All parts will be assembled in proper manner and reassembled hydrant shall be tested by the judges for ability to operate correctly.

Prep for HYDRANT Hysteria!

Sponsorship Opportunities

November 29 to December 3, 2020 Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate

Please Contact: Mike George tapitflorida@att.net (352) 200-9631


2020 Water Distribution System Awards The FSAWWA Water Distribution System Awards are presented to utilities whose outstanding performance during the preceding year deserves special recognition by the section.

The Award Criteria is based upon the following:

Divisions based on the Number of Water Services Division 1 = 1 - 5,999 Division 2 = 6,000 - 12,999 Division 3 = 13,000 - 19,999 Division 4 = 20,000 - 29,999

Water Quality

Division 5 = 30,000 - 45,999

Operational Records

Division 6 = 46,000 - 69,999

Maintenance

Division 7 = 70,000 - 129,999

Professionalism Safety

Division 8 = 130,000+

Emergency Prepardness Cross Connection Control Program Must be an AWWA member (Organizational or Individual) Actively supports the activities of the FSAWWA Demonstrates high standards and integrity The selection committee is under the Manufacturers/Associates Council.

• • •

2019 Winners: Division 1:

Not Awarded

Division 2:

Destin Water Users

Division 3:

City of Coral Springs

Division 4:

Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. Distribution & Collection

Division 5:

Not Awarded

Division 6:

Charlotte County Utilities

Division 7:

Collier County Water-Sewer District

Division 8:

Hillsborough County Public Utilities Department

Send applications to: Mike George 10482 Dunkirk Road Spring Hill, FL 34608 tapitflorida@att.net

Deadline Monday, October 19, 2020

Download the application form:

www.fsawwa.org/ distributionawards

November 29 to December 3, 2020 Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate


FSAWWA Water Use Efficiency Division

2020 Water Conservation Awards for Excellence

Entries must be submitted by Friday, October 9, 2020 No Entry Fee

Award:

This awards program recognizes innovative and outstanding achievements in water efficiency throughout Florida.

Entry Guidelines:

Each entry must be for a project or program implemented within the last three years which has not already won this award.

Submittal Requirements: Only Accepting Online Applications This Year! One entry form must be completed for each project or program. Points will be taken off if not all the requirements are met. Application must include the following: . • A short abstract (300 words or less, in Microsoft Word) describing the project or program and how it meets the evaluation criteria

Award Presentation Agencies winning the top two awards (Best in Class and Show of Excellence) for each Award Category / Agency Profile will receive one complimentary ticket to the awards luncheon on December 2 at the FSAWWA Fall Conference.

• Three to ten images representative of the project or program, for possible publication or use in the awards presentation. Suggested format is JPEG.

• Any other supporting information. Award Category:

• Public Education (events, brochures, etc) • Supply Management (water loss, leak detection, etc) • Demand Management (retrofits, evaluations, etc) • Research (pilot projects, rate studies, etc) • Comprehensive Program (combination of projects)

Questions Please Contact: Keeli Carlton Water Use Efficiency Division (WUED) Chair kcarlton@mywinterhaven.com

For complete submittal requirements and online application, go to:

fsawwa.org/2020wcawards

November 29 to December 3, 2020 Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate


FWEA COMMITTEE CORNER Welcome to the FWEA Committee Corner! The Member Relations Committee of the Florida Water Environment Association hosts this article to celebrate the success of recent association chapter activities and inform members of upcoming events. To have information included from your chapter send details to Megan Nelson at megan.nelson@ocfl.net.

Megan Nelson

WR3 Committee Spotlight: “One Water” Seminar

T

Nita Maik

he Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) Water Resources, Reuse, and Resiliency (WR3) Committee grew out of the “One Water” concept when the FWEA Water Reuse Committee and Integrated Water Resources Committee merged. The current committee is dedicated to providing technical education and professional development programs for association members through seminars, workshops,

and access to technical experts in the field of water reuse, integrated water resources, water supply, water conservation, and resiliency. The committee meets regularly by teleconference to discuss technical and regulatory issues and events happening in the community.

Committee Membership The members of the committee are: Chair: Nita Naik, Arcadis Vice Chair: Kevin Carter, Broward County

20 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Past Chair/Director at Large: Lynn Spivey, City of Plant City Seminar Subcommittee Chair: Ryan Messer, HDR Secretary: Lillie Thomas, Geosyntec, and Samantha Nehme, Kimley-Horn and Associates Treasurer: Mike Knowles, Arcadis, and Samantha Nehme Communications: Elizabeth Thomas Awards: Shanin Speas-Frost, Florida Department of Environmental Protection


Committee Seminar On Jan. 9, 2020, the committee conducted its annual seminar in Tampa at the fabulous Tampa Bay History Center. The “One Water” seminar aimed to educate the audience on current technical and regulatory issues associated with potable and nonpotable reuse and spread awareness on regional resiliency planning. The seminar opened with highlights on several Florida projects: S Ocala Wetland Park for Stormwater and Reclaimed Water Recharge by Rachel Slocumb and Scott Hersey S JEA’s Purified Water Project updates by Tom Bartol S Hillsborough County’s Potable Reuse Advancements by Luke Mulford These projects represented the recent advancements made across Florida and a glimpse into the near future for potable reuse and integrated stormwater. Next, there was a terrific roundup of speakers for the regional resiliency panel: S CJ Reynolds, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council S Kelli Levy, Pinellas County S Bart Weis, Hillsborough County They provided updates on the Tampa Bay Regional Resiliency Coalition. Kevin Carter, with Broward County, discussed the various feats that the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and the Resilient Utility Coalition have achieved throughout the past few years. This panel truly represented what the WR3 intends to achieve: a focus on all of the three Rs. The committee also invited Melissa Meeker with Gwinnett County in Georgia

to discuss the seminar’s out-of-state project, which highlighted the county’s water tower. The tower is an innovation hub for applied research, technology innovation, workforce training, and community engagement. It takes an integrated approach to these programming areas, with the intent of fostering a culture of innovation among water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities throughout the Southeast. This is truly a “One Water” model for us to collaborate with in the future. And lastly, but by no means least, there was an open discussion with Potable Reuse Commission (PRC) representatives on the power of public outreach, including: S L  ynn Spivey, with City of Plant City, provided updates as the chair of the PRC. S L  aura Donaldson, with Manson Bolves

Donaldson Varn PA, provided regulatory updates. S G  arrett Wallace, with The Nature Conservancy, highlighted how to foster relationships with various stakeholders. The panel was rounded out with input from Melissa Meeker and wonderful insights from Kevin Carter as the moderator. Such information is valuable to utilities, consultants, and the regulatory community as the need for a sustainable freshwater supply is an important water management strategy in Florida. Nita Naik, P.E., ENV SP, is a project engineer with Arcadis in Tampa.

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

21


“Once Upon a Flush” Video Contest Winners Announced Shea Dunifon Could high school students create a video— in thirty seconds or less—that either explains where their wastewater goes after they flush and/or explains what does or does not belong down a toilet for a chance to win up to $1,000? Fifteen students from Pinellas and Sarasota counties answered “yes,” with their video submissions that ranged from songs to animations to comedy skits. The “Once Upon a Flush” High School Video Contest is sponsored by the Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) Public Communications and Outreach Committee (PCOC). The contest aims to motivate Florida high school students to start thinking about where their wastewater goes and what should or shouldn’t go down the toilet. And while that might seem like a simple question, many students don’t know the answer, and many have never broached the subject, because what’s “out of sight is out of mind.” In the age of social media and unlimited free apps, a video contest is ideal for challenging high school students to channel their own creativity and rapidly

share content. The videos produced by the contestants are also a great conversation piece among the students’ families, friends. and teachers. The overall goal of the contest is to raise awareness of our industry, as well as have a little fun while doing so. To participate, individual students or teams submitted entry forms to PCOC and uploaded their videos to YouTube for judging. Judges rated the videos for quality, entertainment value, creativity, accuracy, and ability to follow directions (e.g., was the video 30 seconds in length or less). It’s worth noting that, while some videos depicted common misconceptions about sewers (that they are connected to the ocean, for

example), this insight reaffirms the need for more public awareness of our industry. The PCOC is proud to announce the 2020 video contest winners: S F  irst place: Cory Cannarozzi - Seminole High School, Pinellas County S S econd place: Marianne Rose Canete - Countryside High School, Pinellas County S Th  ird place: Alex Keeran and Will Keiser - Osceola Fundamental High School, Pinellas County The PCOC would also like to recognize the video contest subcommittee for its efforts in making this contest a success. The committee included: S D  ebbie Sponsler, Orange County Utilities S M  elody Gonzalez, Black and Veatch S M  ary Rose Cox, Toho Water S C  huck Olson, F.J. Nugent and Associates The PCOC is recruiting volunteers to help promote the 2021 contest to their local high schools all across Florida. If you are interested in volunteering, please email me at sdunifon@pinellascounty.org. To learn more about the contest, please visit https://fwea. org/video_contest.php. We invite everyone to take a moment out of their busy day and view all fifteen of the 2020 video contest entries. To view them, please visit the FWEA YouTube channel and click on “Playlists.” Shea Dunifon is education coordinator for the Pinellas County’s South Cross Bayou education program and chair of the Public Communications and Outreach Committee.

22 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Ready To Ship

SUBMERSIBLE WASTEWATER PUMPS & CONTROLS Assembled, Tested & Ready For Your Application Grundfos and our partners want to ensure you have what you need to continue facilitating and delivering essential water services. We have a large inventory of in stock SE/SL submersible wastewater pumps, LC controls, SEG grinders and competitor guide rail brackets that are ready for immediate shipping.

SE/SL Pumps High performing, efficient and easy to maintain submersible wastewater pumps

Competitor Guide Rail Brackets Are Available For EASY RETROFITS

SEG Grinders Designed for pumping effluent and untreated sewage in small communities or sparsely populated areas.

LC Controls Offer comprehensive features for control and monitoring of pumps in wastewater applications.

Should you require products or support while we face the COVID-19 crisis, Grundfos and our partners here for you. For product questions, or to request immediate shipping, contact your Authorized Grundfos Distributor.

Grundfos Americas Brookshire, TX 77423

F. J. NUGENT & ASSOCIATES INC. Central Florida: 407-936-1139 Florida Keys: 407-474-0026 South West Florida: 239-224-8422 nugentco.com

www.grundfos.us

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

23


Improving Water Quality by Partnering With Private Property Owners: Six Steps to a Proactive Stormwater Program Nathan Walker The best way to understand the current public-private challenge facing stormwater management is to consider the following example: The state determines that too much pollution is getting into a stream that flows through town. Runoff from buildings and blacktop washes grit into the stream, while the concentrated flows tear up its channel. Upstream, agricultural fields and suburban lawn runoff send excess nutrients into the stream, and trash from commercial districts blows into storm drains. The result is an aquatic habitat that becomes covered with silt and starved of oxygen.

Over the past decade, local municipalities surrounding the stream, as well as private foundations and state government, have invested millions of dollars into fixing this issue by building wetlands, restoring floodplains, stabilizing streambanks, inspecting pollutant sources, and educating the public about what they can do to protect the stream. While impressive in scope, these solutions have not been enough. The stream is still polluted and is not expected to meet water quality goals, even after 30 or more years of restoration efforts. Nobody thinks that the stream will ever become as pristine as it was 400 years ago; however, it serves the triple bottom line to enact lasting improvements: S Profit - Keeping water clean at the source is more cost-effective than treating it downstream.

Figure 1. Six steps to a proactive stormwater program.

24 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

S P  eople - Access to clean water improves the quality of life for everyone in the community. S Planet - Providing clean water is part of our role as stewards of our natural resources. Similar scenarios are repeated in communities throughout the United States. Leaders are investing in stormwater management or restoration of streams, ponds, and lakes, with the expectation of protecting water quality and enhancing quality of life. Many complex challenges are addressing how to best tackle these issues—especially how to integrate climate change and resiliency into the solutions.

What the Next Decade of Managing Stormwater and Surface Water Looks Like, and Who Will Fund These Efforts When discussing stormwater and surface water, communities and conservation groups will continue to pursue local stormwater and flood mitigation goals by applying for federal government funding and foundation grants. The real cost, however, of clean water and flood mitigation falls to local government. Since the local government has the authority to regulate land use, it also has the responsibility


to manage the water flowing from and through the resulting urban redevelopment. In a community, does this responsibility come with a measurable goal defined by the public or a regulator? Perhaps it takes the form of several goals, such as: S M  anaging nutrient runoff to reduce toxic algae blooms by 40 percent. S P  urchasing development rights on 400 acres within a groundwater recharge protection area. S R  educing the discharge of sediment by 4,000 tons. S R  educing the cost of flood damage to private property in a neighborhood by $4 million. If local leaders gave a community $1 million, $10 million, or even $100 million— how would it be invested in stormwater management or flood mitigation projects? And, not just next year, but through, say, 2030? I would do two things in my town: rip out 2,000 unused parking spaces across the watershed and work with golf courses to restore the floodplain of the stream. Easier said than done, right? Even though my solutions would be effective at improving water quality and flooding in my neighborhood, I can’t go to the shopping center and dig up those parking spaces or take out half the fairway on the 14th hole to plant a forested riparian buffer. It may be that the best places to manage stormwater in the future are currently owned by someone else. Stormwater controls often are already in place in locations under government control, like town parks, within the public right of way, or at community facilities. In the coming decade, local leaders must look to form partnerships with private property owners to manage stormwater. How would that program begin?

Six Steps to a Proactive Stormwater Program Let’s walk through six steps (Figure 1) local leaders can take to establish a proactive and strategic stormwater program with impact. Set Stormwater Management Goals Primary drivers for acting on stormwater projects typically include flooding, water quality, and management of aging infrastructure. There are, however, a whole host of secondary drivers that communities should document to build a compelling case for investment in stormwater management. These include the following: S U  rban greening S T  raffic calming S H  eat island reduction

S Resilient public facilities S Reliable transportation networks S Community development In short, what is your municipality’s “elevator speech” that describes both the primary and secondary drivers for investing in stormwater management and flood mitigation? Document Prime Project Locations Municipal staff is aware of the stormwater problem areas. A deliberate approach to surveying key staff would document 90 percent of the flooding, water quality, and infrastructure maintenance needs in the community. Then, a review of the surrounding topography and infrastructure can point decision makers to opportunities for water quality treatment features, detention structures, raised streets, new stormwater pump stations, or floodplain buyout options. Further investigation to prioritize potential sites can include a review of completed neighborhood improvement plans, density of existing underground infrastructure, presence of soil contaminants, and the severity of flooding. These documented problem areas form the basis of an active and adjustable project list for local leaders to review and update as necessary, and adapt priorities regularly. Establish Funding and Policies Dedicated funding is key. Many communities are pivoting from funding stormwater programs using a general fund to a dedicated stormwater user fee. Whereas revenue for the general fund can be redirected from a proposed stormwater project to, for instance, the building a new bandshell at the park, funds from a stormwater fee must be dedicated to stormwater activities. Grants and regional partnerships are certainly a tool in the tool belt, but they can’t

be relied on when striving for long-term stormwater goals; therefore, by establishing a sustained level of funding every year with clear policies and priorities, local leaders can coordinate projects five or 10 years out with partners and private property owners. These coordinated partnerships can lead to moreefficient use of funds, when compared to the traditional approach of municipalities working alone and relying on the annual budget process to make sure that some funds are available for a project in the following year. Engage Property Owners Traditional public education campaigns associated with stormwater management consisted of posters at the public library and articles in the community newsletter. Today, proactive and strategic communities use tools like these to get the word out to property owners: S S tormwater design manual. A custom manual that documents the municipality’s preference for green infrastructure, basin design, green roofs, porous pavers (Figure 2), and other features can direct developer’s designs, streamline the land development process, and yield a design that is most impactful to achieving local stormwater goals. S Land development approval process. A land development plan reviews the process with defined points of communication between the developer and municipal staff, which can be more important than the design standards included in the code book. Proactive communities engage with developers early and often to communicate local goals, discover opportunities for partnerships on infrastructure projects, and uncover available incentives for promoting municipal stormwater initiatives. Continued on page 26

Figure 2. Although these porous pavers at a Ft. Lauderdale office complex have only a small footprint, they are able to infiltrate rainfall before it can wash pollutants to the river. Widespread implementation of this practice on private property during the redevelopment process can achieve measurable water quality results.

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

25


FWRJ READER PROFILE Mark A. DiNobile

City of St. Petersburg Water Resources Department Work title and years of service: I’m the water distribution supervisor for the City of St. Petersburg. I have 30 years of experience as an apprentice, pipelayer, pipefitter, foreman, and supervisor What does your job entail? Ah, the daily life of a supervisor. What does it not entail? I would say that my daily activities at work include providing a sense of purpose and direction to those that I work with and around. Of course, that’s not the technical description of my job; technically, my job requires minimal supervision to uphold the rules and regulations of the city, state, and federal government. I maintain the standards of operation and training for our trade and provide clean and safe drinking water to our customers and residents, all while shuffling a mountain of paperwork, arguing with our employees that “computers are a good thing,” processing payroll, and listening to and resolving customer complaints. I’m a trainer, mediator, translator, enforcer, friend, and sometimes enemy; the guy that you want to show up when you’re in trouble and the last person you want to see when you’re the one causing trouble. I oversee several work crews and plan and organize their work activities. I also deal with all of the good and bad that comes along with any organization. What education and training have you had? I currently hold a level 1 water distribution operator license from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and a backflow tester and backflow repair certification from FWPCOA, as well as a reclaimed site inspector associate in science degree in business from St. Petersburg College. I’m trained as a laborer, heavy equipment operator, pipefitter, computer technician, MS Office semi-pro, financial planner, project manager, and emergency responder.

What do you like best about your job? Year after year, no matter how much experience I gain, there always seems to be an endless supply of challenges that push me to new destinations. I’m constantly learning new things and meeting new people, and that makes it a bit less of a “job.” What professional organizations do you belong to? I belong to FWPCOA and FWEA, and that about covers it. I currently serve as the director of Region 4 for FWPCOA. The City of St. Petersburg maintains eight active apprenticeship programs that are registered with the State of Florida Department of Education. I currently serve as the chair of our Apprenticeship Committee and we have around sixty active apprentices. How have the organizations helped your career? These organizations have provided numerous training opportunities for me. Whether they were formal classroom sessions or the more relaxed informationsharing sessions normally seen at FSAWWA conferences, the presenters and their experiences have broadened my view of what’s actually possible. I have also been invited to be an instructor for several of the FWPCOA short schools over the past five or six years and this has probably enhanced my ability to hear and understand other points of view more than everything else combined. What do you like best about the industry? Our industry is forever in the background of society. There is no glory in what we do, no parades or breakthrough discoveries on the ground level, but the pride that our tradesmen and women exude is inspirational. The work that we do is what our communities are built on and around. What do you do when you’re not working? I enjoy music. I’ve been playing guitar for around 35 years; not so much since the kids were born, but I still enjoy it when I get the chance. I like to draw, cook, do projects around the house, build home computers, and spend time with my wife and children. 

26 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Continued from page 25 S  Outreach to individual landowners. Municipal leaders should reach out to private property owners, particularly those whose properties have been identified as having a high potential for managing stormwater. Early communication about the municipality’s overall goals, as well as ideas for the property, can help to bring local leaders to the table when the property owner is considering options for subdivision, development, or sale of the property. S R ight of first refusal. Using this tool, municipalities can act on their list of priority parcels that have a high potential for managing stormwater goals. By claiming the right of first refusal, a municipality can purchase a property at the same purchase terms proposed in good faith by a third party. Install Priority Projects With available funding, approved policies, and defined guidelines in place, local leaders can sit down with private property owners to negotiate roles and responsibilities to get impactful projects in the ground. Local government can bring the resources to a partnership that has the potential to benefit all involved parties; however, only by doing the hard work of the previous four steps can a community gain access to these critical locations on private property to protect water resources, water quality, public safety, infrastructure, and private property. Monitor and Maintain the Investment Every municipality’s broader asset management program should include stormwater and flood mitigation infrastructure to protect the investment of public and private resources. It should clearly define responsibilities regarding who performs and funds regular inspection, routine maintenance, periodic repairs, and corrective measures.

What’s Next The process defined here helps to build a foundation of local support for the most impactful projects, and bridges the gap between private property owners and local officials so they can work together. This is most effective when the process is written down, regularly reviewed, and adaptable to changing priorities. The result is a process that makes the scarce public dollar go farther to achieve local goals efficiently, and ultimately, provide cleaner water for the local community. Nathan Walker, AICP, is senior water resources planner at Gannett Fleming in Valley Forge, Penn. 


FWEA FOCUS

Continuous Learning James J. Wallace, P.E. President, FWEA

I

t’s hard to believe this FWEA Focus comes to you as we near the end of summer and beginning of school. This time of year always seems to pass by too fast. Hopefully, all who read this column have had the opportunity this summer to rest and recharge your batteries. As I think about the return to schools and universities, in whatever form that will take this year, I think about the next generation in our industry. Specifically, this column will focus on interns, internships, young professionals, and professional development.

Interns and Internships One of the earliest steps in the development of our industry’s next generation involves the exposure and learning opportunities we afford interns each year. To some, we engage in co-op programs that continue throughout the year. For many, including my experiences way back in the early 1990s, it involves summer engagements. These are unquestionably some of the most important experiences that fuel our industry. I remember my internship experiences well, as they confirmed my desire to focus my career in the water industry. Hopefully, the current group of interns are exposed to unique learning experiences that fuel their

desires to continue the pathway to becoming a water industry professional. My encouragement to each individual and industry representative reading this column is to remember that each intern is potentially our next young professional and future industry leader. The work you do today to engage these talented students could lead to future solution providers and problem solvers. Plant those seeds today, and let’s enjoy watching them grow in future years.

Young Professionals It’s hard to overstate the importance of the many young professionals (YPs) in our industry. Hopefully, the excellent development opportunities that we, as an industry, provide through our internships translate into a motivated group of YPs. Beyond the fact that they are the next generation who will carry forward many of our current goals and visions, YPs are also the ones who will ultimately solve those problems most vexing to us today. Beyond their stated importance to each of our organizations, I can attest from personal experience that YPs provide an energy, excitement, and wealth of unique

ideas that propel FWEA forward each and every year. If you are a YP who has considered joining an industry organization, or you know of a good candidate, I encourage you to take that next step of involvement and/or encourage those candidates to get involved.

Professional Development As we’ve focused this conversation on the development of the next generation through our interns and young professionals, it occurred to me that a consistent theme that applies to every one of us is professional development. At each stage in a professional career, including annual and biannual requirements tied to professional licensure, professional development provides an opportunity to grow, learn, and stay sharp. As one of FWEA’s missions is to “provide the professional development of our members,” we will continue to be a resource to our membership to provide continuing education on important and current topics. We have worked hard over the past few months to develop and refine our “virtual” tools to offer programs and content as we continue to socially distance. Be on the lookout for these new opportunities that will be provided throughout the fall of 2020 and in the years beyond. As famously stated by Albert Einstein: “Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only after death.”

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

27


F W R J

Dealing With Widespread Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Contamination Mark D. Miller, David D. Peters, and Evan Ghidella

S

ince May 2016, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a lower drinking water health advisory level of 70 ng/L for combined perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), two per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a quiet city in Florida has been dealing with the challenges of widespread PFAS contamination. Groundwater and soil contamination, primarily due to the use of aqueous filmforming foams (AFFF), which are used for firefighting, has forced the City of Stuart (city) to shut down some of its primary supply wells. Studies were immediately conducted and pilot testing was performed using granular activated carbon (GAC) and ion exchange (IX), resulting in the installation of a treatment system to remove PFAS down to nondetect levels from all groundwater supply wells. Construction of a 4 to 8 mil-gal-per-day (mgd) IX system, partially funded by State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans, was completed in early June 2019 and is undergoing full-scale testing using multiple types of IX resins and GAC mixes. Coupled with constantly changing regulations, the city continues to deal with cleanup of the AFFF and other contributing sources of contamination, including an unlined landfill and several industrial activities with other historical contaminations. Along with developing state regulations for PFAS contamination, which were never established prior to 2018 for PFAS in groundwater or soils, the challenges of changing regulations have forced the city to address a multitude of contamination sources and implement the best currently available technologies to deal with these contaminations.

This article will discuss some of the PFAS history, regulations, and lessons learned from a full-scale pilot project for the potable water supply system, including the following: S PFAS Sources S Health Risks From Exposure S Exposure Entry Routes • Release of AFFF • Industrial • Groundwater - drinking water supply • Treated wastewater - public access reclaimed water • Stormwater runoff • Land application - biosolids • Food packaging S Regulatory Review • Current regulations (Florida and other states) including Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule (UCMR) program • Proposed and potential future regulations • EPA action plan (March 2019 update) review S Treatment and Removal Technology Overview, Including IX, GAC, and Reverse Osmosis (RO) S Pre- and/or Post-Treatment Opportunities S Lessons Learned From Full-Scale Pilot Testing - Multiple IX and GAC Types Used

Background The PFAS are an environmentally persistent group of man-made chemicals that are found in various types of water sources all over the world, including tap water. These chemicals have been used in a wide variety of industrial and consumer products, including the aforementioned AFFF, as well as paper and cardboard coating materials

PFOA

PFOS

Figure 1. Perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid carbon chain.

28 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Mark D. Miller, P.E., is senior vice president, and Evan Ghidella, E.I., is an analyst, with Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. in West Palm Beach. David D. Peters is public works director with City of Stuart.

employed in food packaging, ScotchGardTM, and TeflonTM. Drinking water is one route of exposure that may have led to increased concentrations in the blood serum of humans in most developed countries (USHHS, 2009), but some of these compounds, such as PFOA and PFOS, have also been detected in the blood of animals in remote regions of the world. The PFOA and PFOS are two of the most-studied, and, therefore, regulated, PFAS compounds, and belong to the perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAA) family. The PFAA are stable chemicals made of a carbon backbone surrounded by fluorine atoms and an acid group located at the end of the carbon chain, as shown in Figure 1. There are many sources of PFAS compounds, all man-made formulations of fluorinated compounds developed in the early 1950s, which continue to be manufactured to this day. A brief history of the development of these chemicals, and how they affect humans, is provided in Table 1. Exposure Entry Routes There are a number of pathways through which PFAS contamination of humans can take place, including diet, drinking water, food contact materials, nonfood personal items, and indoor and outdoor air. Although a number of authors have attempted to calculate the contribution of these individual pathways to total contamination, the available data records are not presently adequate to allow sound conclusions to be drawn. There is, however, a general consensus that dietary uptake represents the largest contribution. In recent years, the biological properties of PFAS have been detailed in numerous publications; however, these are generally limited to PFOA and PFOS. These two substances are mostly the only PFAS that have been toxicologically examined in animal studies that would allow conclusions to be drawn about


potential human toxicity. Data on short-chain PFAS that are apparently being substituted for longer-chain molecules in industrial processes are only of a fragmentary nature. Because of their solubility in water and the increasingly wide spectrum and volume of their use, these short-chain PFAS are starting to receive considerable study. This is particularly evident since they appear to be ubiquitously distributed throughout the water pathway and can thereby lead to an increased background contamination of the environment. Additionally, PFAS are being used in mixtures with varying compositions, making toxicological evaluations much more difficult. For this reason, standardized in vitro and in vivo methods should be used and further developed to allow reliable conclusions to be drawn concerning the toxicity of the individual substances, as well as of various PFAS mixtures. Consequently, an adequate toxicological evaluation of the total situation is presently not possible. The PFAS are distinct from other persistent and bioaccumulative organic compounds because of their importance as drinking water contaminants. The PFAS exist predominantly as an anion under environmental conditions, do not bind well to soil, migrate readily from soil to groundwater, and are highly water soluble (Davis et al., 2007). These properties of PFAS differ from those of other persistent and bioaccumulative organic pollutants, such as polychlorinated dioxins and furans, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides, like chlordane and dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT). These other compounds are generally not significant as drinking water contaminants because they have a high affinity for soil and sediments, but low water solubility. The PFOA that is specifically released into the environment can contaminate surface water and groundwater used as sources of drinking water. Sources of PFOA in the environment include discharge to air and water from industrial facilities, where it’s made or used; release of AFFF, particularly at military sites, airports, and firefighter training facilities; disposal in landfills; discharge from wastewater treatment plants treating domestic and/or industrial waste; street runoff; stormwater runoff; land application of biosolids (sludge) from wastewater treatment plants treating industrial waste (Clarke and Smith, 2011; Lindstrom et al., 2011b; Sepulvado et al., 2011); land application of wastewater from industrial sources (Konwick et al., 2008); and use of contaminated industrial waste as a soil amendment (Skutlarek et al., 2006; Hölzer et al., 2008). As is the case for other groundwater contaminants, PFAS can reach drinking water wells via the well-established pathway of

migration of a groundwater plume that has been contaminated either directly from surface spills or by contaminated surface water mixing with groundwater drawn in by pumping wells. Unlike many other environmental contaminants, PFAS can also reach groundwater from air emissions from nearby industrial facilities, followed by deposition from air onto soil, and migration

through the soil to groundwater (Davis et al., 2007). In West Virginia and Ohio, drinking water wells as far as 20 mi away were contaminated with PFOA by releases from an industrial facility, where it was used as a processing aid in fluoropolymer production. Groundwater contamination occurred via soil deposition Continued on page 30

Table 1. Development and Regulation Timeline for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances 1947

3M manufactures PFOA.

1951

Dupont develops Teflon.

1970

U.S. Air Force begins using AFFF to fight fuel fires.

2000

3M begins phase-out of 13 PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS.

2001

Dupont issues consent decree in West Virginia and Ohio.

2006

Global stewardship addresses issue, with voluntary manufacturer reduction in 2006, 95 percent removal by 2010, and elimination by 2016.

2009

Provisional health advisory level (HAL) for PFOA/PFOS set at 0.4/0.2 ug/L.

2009

Superfund soil screening levels set at 60/6 mg/kg.

2012

C8 Science panel links probable cancer to PFOA.

2015

Hoosick Falls, N.Y., issues do not drink order.

2016

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) no longer allows PFOA and PFOS to be added to food packaging.

2016

EPA lifetime HAL advisories of 0.07 ug/L set for PFOA and PFOS.

Table 2. Contaminants of Concern: City of Stuart Wells

Water Quality Parameter PFAS (PFOS)* PFAS (PFOA)** PFAS (PFOS + PFOS) (max) > 1,4-Dioxane** > > > > > > > >

Methyl-tert-butyl-ether

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE) 1,2 Dichloropropane (DCP) 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP)* Trichloroethylene (TCE) Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Vinyl Chloride Chlorobenzene > Benzene

Influent Unit (range)

MCL/HAL

ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L

0.051 - 0.470 0.014-0.052 0.050 - 2.15 0.130 1.800 0.3-42.4 1.2-39.0 1.0-23.8 5.00 0.65 0.13 0.34

0.070 70.0 3.0 1.0 -

ug/L

1.30

1.0

* UCMR 3 List ** UCMR 3 and UCMR 4 List >Treatment currently in place

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

29


Continued from page 29 of PFOA that had been emitted into the air followed by migration to groundwater, and, to some extent, recharge of the groundwater aquifer with contaminated surface water from the Ohio River (Steenland et al., 2009a; Shin et al., 2011). The PFOA was detected in public water supply wells in this vicinity at levels up to > 4000 ng/L (DuPont and URS Diamond Corporate Remediation Group, 2008) and in private wells at up to > 13,000 ng/L (Hoffman et al., 2011). In New Jersey, PFOA was detected at up to 190 ng/L in shallow unconfined wells of a public water supply located near an industrial source (Post et al., 2009a), and at > 40 ng/L, with a maximum above 400 ng/L in 59 of 104 private wells within a radius of slightly more than 2 mi of this facility (DuPont, 2009). Contamination of the distant wells was likely due to air deposition (Post et al., 2012). The PFAS may also enter the body by ingestion of dust and dirt particles and by contact with products that have been treated with substances that contain PFAS or their precursor compounds, which may include carpets, upholstered furniture, or textiles. These routes of entry may be of particular importance regarding the toxicology of perfluorinated compounds in children because contact can occur indirectly by hand-to-mouth transfer or directly to the mouth if an infant sucks on the product. Another route that must be considered is inhalation of PFAS in indoor or outdoor air, as well as the inhalation of waterproofing sprays.

Dermal exposure may also occur by skin contact with PFAS-treated products. Occurrence in Drinking Water The PFOA and other PFAS occur in raw and finished drinking water from both groundwater and surface water sources in other parts of the United States and other nations around the world (reviewed by Mak et al., 2009; Post et al., 2012; Post et al., 2013). The PFAS are found in drinking water impacted by discharges from industrial facilities, release of AFFF, and other known sources of contamination, as well as where the source is unknown (Post et al., 2012). The PFAS have been detected at high frequency in some river basins that are important sources of drinking water. For example, it was detected (> 1 ng/L) in 82.3 percent of samples from 80 locations throughout the Cape Fear River (N.C.) drainage basin (population of 1.7 million), at a median of 12.6 ng/L and a maximum of 287 ng/L (Nakayama et al., 2007). In the Upper Mississippi River drainage basin in the midwestern U.S. (population of 30 million), it was detected (> 1 ng/L) in 73 percent of 88 locations, with a median of 2.07 ng/L and a maximum of 125 ng/L. In the Tennessee River in Alabama, PFOA levels were 395+128 ng/L in samples from the 35 river mi downstream of the site of discharge from a fluorochemical manufacturing facility, with the highest levels (521-598 ng/L) in the 6 river mi furthest downstream (Hansen et al., 2002). In Germany, PFOA and other PFAS in organic material, which were applied to agricultural land, contaminated the Moehne

Figure 2. Contaminant concentrations.

30 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

and Ruhr Rivers, important sources of drinking water. The PFOA was detected at up to 33,900 ng/L in a creek near the site of contamination upstream of these two rivers, and at up to 519 ng/L in drinking water from the Moehne River (Skutlarek et al., 2006). The PFAS are not effectively removed from drinking water by conventional treatment processes, such as coagulation/flocculation, sand filtration, sedimentation, mediumpressure ozonation, aeration, chloramination, and chlorination; the PFAS can, however, be removed from drinking water by GAC or RO (Rumsby et al., 2009; Bartell et al., 2010a; Tagaki et al., 2011; Eschauzier et al., 2012; Appleman et al., 2014; DWQI, 2015b). Unless specific treatment for removal of PFAS is in place, concentrations of PFAS detected in raw drinking water can be considered to be representative of concentrations in finished drinking water. Health Risks From Exposure The PFAS are found in a wide range of consumer products that people use every day, such as cookware, pizza boxes, and stain repellants; therefore, most people have been exposed to them. Certain PFAS can accumulate and stay in the human body for long periods of time. There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans. The most-studied PFAS chemicals are PFOA and PFOS and it’s been shown that they can cause reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects in laboratory animals. Both chemicals have also caused tumors in animals. The PFOA and PFOS are linked to a number of health effects, including: S Liver damage S Kidney damage S Increased  cholesterol levels S Pregnancy-induced  hypertension S Certain types of cancer and increased risk of thyroid disease S Increased risk of decreased fertility S Increased risk of asthma diagnosis S Decreased  response to vaccines The EPA acknowledges that associations of PFOA and numerous health endpoints are observed in these human populations and that associations with some effects have consistently been found in multiple human studies. Some states, however, have established some of their own criteria, and have established lower thresholds that they believe are more protective of public health. New Jersey, for instance, established a Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) Health Effects Subcommittee to pursue development of a maximum contaminant level


(MCL) recommendation for PFOA on Jan. 27, 2009, based on its potential health effects and its occurrence in New Jersey public water supplies. The EPA states that, while these human studies are useful for hazard identification, they cannot be used quantitatively because the PFOA exposures at which the associations were observed are unknown or highly uncertain. Although the subcommittee agreed that the human data have limitations that preclude their use as the primary basis for risk assessment, it does not agree with EPA that the serum PFOA concentrations and PFOA exposures associated with human health effects are highly uncertain or unknown. Several health effects, some with evidence supporting multiple criteria for causality, are associated with PFOA exposures at serum levels well below those that would result from exposure to 70 ng/L in drinking water. The subcommittee therefore concluded that elevations in serum PFOA levels of the magnitude expected from ongoing exposure to 70 ng/L (EPA Health Advisory) in drinking water are not desirable and may not be protective of public health. New Jersey therefore established much lower criteria as listed: 14 ng/L – Health-based MCL recommended by DWQI Health Effects Subcommittee 40 ng/L – N.J. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) drinking water guidance (2007) based on older toxicology data 70 ng/L – EPA lifetime health advisory Regulatory Review The widespread detection of these chemicals and their persistence in the environment led EPA to establish provisional health advisory (PHA) values for PFOA and PFOS of 0.4 and 0.2 ug/L, respectively, and PFOA and PFOS were added to the EPA Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL 3) published in October 2009 (EPA, 2009). Six of the perfluorinated compounds were also added to the EPA UCMR 3. As a result of this testing, and with some of the history and health risks associated with PFAS compounds, EPA greatly reduced the health advisory levels in May 2016 and issued a provisional health advisory of 0.07 ug/L for combined PFOS and PFOA. The UCMR 4 is currently underway, but does not include any of the PFAS family of contaminants. The UCMR 4 was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 20, 2016. The UCMR 4 requires monitoring for 30 chemical contaminants between 2018 and 2020 using analytical methods developed by EPA and consensus organizations. This monitoring provides a basis for future regulatory actions to protect public health. The EPA is considering UCMR 5 to be

Figure 3. Breakthrough curves at different resin depths versus bed volumes.

conducted similarly to previously unregulated contaminant monitoring cycles every five years. In addition to PFAS compounds monitoring, seven specific PFAS analytes were nominated on the CCL 5 for consideration in UCMR 5. Relative to the priority for PFAS compounds to be included, EPA officials indicated that they would be awaiting input to assist the agency in making decisions on priority for monitoring. The EPA noted that the agency did not have health advisories for many PFAS compounds, but that did not preclude the agency from monitoring them under UCMR 5, which would be useful in developing such advisories. The UCMR 5 monitoring would begin in January 2023 and be completed by 2026.

Approach The city’s existing groundwater supply had limitations due to challenges with other historical contaminants, including the presence of PFAS and some of the emerging contaminants of concern. Accordingly, the approach to the city’s water supply concerns revolved around achieving compliance for the existing water source and customers, as well as a sustainable supply for the city’s future. The short-term solution involved analyzing, selecting, and implementing the treatment technologies available to treat and remove the currently present PFAS from the produced Continued on page 32

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

31


Continued from page 31 water prior to distribution. The focus of this evaluation supports the short-term alternatives available to achieve such treatment and enable the city to achieve compliance. The goals for the short-term evaluation included the paramount compliance with UCMR regulations, followed by minimizing the capital and operation expenses for the short-term solutions. The long-term approach involved implementing a consistent and reliable treatment

method to remove emerging contaminants or securing a sustainable water source free of contaminants beyond traditional salinity and organic contaminants. The current water supply is derived from the surficial aquifer, which has limited withdrawal capacity and is highly scrutinized by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) due to its influence on the surrounding water table. In addition, its close proximity to the surface yields it as suspect to contamination from

Figure 4. Granular activated carbon versus ion exchange.

Figure 5. Perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid versus simulated days of operation.

32 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

surface application of chemicals and reclaimed water. Specifically, these contaminants include the PFAS and others, which are listed in Table 2. This evaluation addresses the desktop analysis of multiple treatment alternatives. Longer-term raw water supply focused on alternative water sources that should be evaluated in the future for sustainability, treatment feasibility, regulatory considerations, and financial efficiency for the city. Alternative water sources that were identified can be used as the sole source of supply water, or used in combination with the existing surficial influenced wells or another alternative supply. Once one or multiple sources are identified and committed, treatment pilots should be engaged to demonstrate successful treatment, as well as operational feasibility, to support operational commitments to the city’s utility staff and financial resources. The existing surficial aquifer is a limited source of raw water, and the city does not have any alternative water supply sources other than interconnects with neighboring utilities. Additionally, the existing surficial aquifer has a number of existing contaminants that further limit the withdrawal capacity and, with the recent discovery of PFAS contaminants, further limits the utility’s ability to meet future water system demands and drinking water standards. Table 2 provides a list of current and historical known contaminants that require advanced treatment beyond conventional lime softening and filtration. Prior to 2019, there was no known groundwater contaminant level established for PFAS that would trigger corrective cleanup actions or potential funding at the PFAS levels measured in the wells. Additionally, the use of reclaim water for irrigation and continued recharge of the surficial aquifer has no regulations for these emerging contaminants; however, reclaim water quality standards are currently under review by the regulatory agencies, which may trigger monitoring and/ or potential treatment for these emerging contaminants. Subsequently, the city’s actions should address these contaminants in both the drinking water and potential discharge to the wastewater treatment system to minimize any discharge of these contaminants to the environment. The short-term solution should include either replacing lost capacity from these wells with finished water from existing finish water interconnects, or restoring the functional use of the existing groundwater wells containing elevated PFAS levels with an alternative treatment method. Restoring capacity of the raw Continued on page 34


PRODUCING ROBUST VALVES THAT IMPROVE THE INDUSTRY. CONSTRUCTED WITH SUPERIOR MATERIALS FOR RELIABLE LONGER LASTING SERVICE.

J&S Valve’s quality products have been solving the toughest flow control requirements in the waterworks industry. With a wide range of robust gate valve sizes and configurations. J&S Valve is a leading producer of large robust gate valves for municipal and industrial applications. Sizes 2”- 108” Resilient Seated and Metal Seated Gate Valves. We also produce Ball Valves, Butterfly Valves, Plug Valves, Plunger Valves, Pump Control Valves, Flow Control Valves, Pressure Control Valves, Stainless Steel Wafer Swing Check Valves, and Ductile Iron Wafer Swing Check Valves. To learn more about our products, visit us at JANDSVALVE.COM


Continued from page 32 water supply wells containing PFAS levels above the HAL must include an advanced treatment method not currently used at the existing facility. Pilot testing using the most cost-effective, bestknown track record of reducing PFAS was developed and implemented to identify design criteria, operational experience, and capital and operating costs associated with the selected treatment option. The existing treatment system provides conventional treatment, consisting of aeration

and air stripping of volatile organic compounds, lime softening, filtration, and disinfection. Conventional filtration and lime softening have limited effectiveness removing PFAS found in the raw water. It’s also evident from the water quality test results taken at the point of entry (POE) and individual wells that PFAS are unaffected through the existing treatment plant. Figure 2 depicts PFOA and PFOS levels in all of the wells, as well as at the point of entry, indicating that the existing conventional treatment system is ineffective at removing these

Figure 6. Perfluorinated chemicals and total organic carbon versus simulated days of operation.

constituents. As such, conventional treatment is not an option for continued treatment and reduction of these emerging contaminants; therefore, alternative treatment options were researched and evaluated that would effectively remove these contaminants in a cost-effective manner. Viable treatment methods known at the time to be effective at removing PFAS include: 1. An ion exchange (AIX) 2. GAC 3. Membrane treatment: RO and nanofiltration (NF) 4. Other treatment methods: chemical oxidation/reduction, thermal and electrochemical, biological Based on the research, literature review, and discussions with manufacturers, sorption processes (such GAC and AIX) and membrane treatment provide the most-effective removal of PFAS from water streams. Chemical oxidation, advanced oxidation and reduction processes, and thermal and electrochemical processes are processes that show promise, but many of them are still in the research mode, have limitations, and have no full-scale track record. Each one is site-specific and may be complementary and more effective as combined systems, but may be more suitable in wastewater streams where other interferences exist. These treatment methods were not evaluated further due to their more research-driven techniques and limited fullscale installations that exist for the treatment of groundwater. The primary treatment goal is to remove the PFAS from the raw water, followed by reduction or removal of other known contaminants and upcoming UCMRs that may be of concern. The other volatiles and contaminants listed in Table 2 are the secondary goal of implementing a new treatment process. Total organic carbon (TOC) reduction with a new treatment process is also a benefit that would improve the disinfection byproduct results in the finish water. The benefit of reducing TOC levels has a two-fold effect: addressing the short-term treatment goals, and allowing longterm continued use of the system.

Ion Exchange

Figure 7. Perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid versus bed volumes treated.

34 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The IX is an exchange of ions between two electrolytes, or between an electrolyte solution and a complex solution. Typical ion exchangers are IX resins (functionalized porous or gel polymer), zeolites, montmorillonite, clay, and soil humus. Ion exchangers are either cation exchangers that exchange positively charged ions (cations) or anion exchangers that


exchange negatively charged ions (anions). Typical ion exchangers include softeners that replace or remove calcium (hardness) with sodium. The IX resins from different manufacturers tend to deliver varying results on PFAS removal. Research indicates that fresh resin presents higher removal efficiency than continuous regeneration approaches (Appleman, 2012). The removal efficiency is estimated to be largely based on molecular weight of the carbon chains. The longer chains, such as PFOS, typically have better removal efficiency in cases where IX has been shown to provide some removal of the PFAS. Generally, in the cases where IX has provided some level of removal, the smaller versus larger carbon chains were removed at approximately 46 and 92 percent, respectively (Appleman, 2012). According to the 2016 Water Research Foundation (WRF) Web Report #4322, “Treatment Mitigation Strategies for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances,” Amberlite IRA-400 resin was found to have a higher capacity than GAC for both PFOS and PFOA removal. The contact times for IX, however, are much longer than typical bed volumes used for conventional IX treatment, and conventional regeneration techniques were not sufficient to regenerate the resins. Other studies have indicated waters contaminated with PFAS that contained higher nominal organic matter (NOM) were more effectively removed using IX, possibly due to the interaction between the PFAS and NOM. Given the research that had been conducted, IX has the potential to provide removal of PFAS and should be considered on a case-by-case basis, compared to the contaminants present and the utility’s goals. Some of the advantages of using IX include: S Specific, yet partial removal of contaminants with select media. S Requires low operating pressures. S No hazardous chemicals required for treatment. The disadvantages include: S Significantly  less contaminant removal compared to other alternatives. S Potential to lose resin and requires regular purchase of new resin. S Maintenance-intensive,  with several mechanical transfer processes. S If regenerated, brine disposal includes waste of an elevated chloride-loaded waste stream through a dedicated force main to the deep injection well (DIW), resulting in significantly higher costs. S Higher capital installation costs than GAC.

Figure 8. Granular activated carbon process flow diagram.

Granular Activated Carbon Activated carbon is commonly used to adsorb natural organic compounds, taste and odor compounds, and synthetic organic chemicals in drinking water treatment. Adsorption is both the physical and chemical process of accumulating a substance at the interface between the liquid and solids phases. Activated carbon is an effective adsorbent because it’s a highly porous material and provides a large surface area where contaminants may adsorb. The two main types of activated carbon used in water treatment applications are GAC and powdered activated carbon (PAC). Further,

there are other types of GAC, including coconut, wood, and coal-based. Multiple carbon manufacturers and carbon bases (of their carbon components) have been utilized to effectively remove PFAS in water sources and the testing research has resulted in a variance of active removal rates and bed volumes. The carbon base material, loading rates, raw water contaminants, NOM and TOC, and granule size have all contributed to the length of run time, removal of specific contaminants, and regeneration frequency. Despite the variations in these criteria, the treatment technology overall is effective at removing PFAS of concern to the city. Continued on page 36

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

35


Continued from page 35 In general, waters with TOC and NOM in the raw water significantly reduce the bed volumes to contaminant breakthrough, which results in more-frequent regeneration and more-costly operations. Relating to the city’s groundwater supply, organics are going to be present and are most likely going to reduce the longevity of each carbon load. It’s anticipated that the frequency of full breakthrough would be around 10,000 bed volumes (Appleman, 2012). At the pilot scale, small columns of GAC can be exposed to a steady stream of raw water to simulate the actual operating conditions of the utility. Pilot testing is typically completed

using 4-in. columns filled with a known quantity of GAC. As the water is processed through the GAC, the water quality parameters are analyzed on the treated side of the GAC media. As the specific parameters of concern consume the GAC adsorption sites within the media, they will be identified in the treated water. This is termed as the initial breakthrough and the beginning stages of degrading removal of the specified contaminant. At this point, the carbon will become less efficient at removing the contaminant and the engineering analysis can be used to determine the percentage of breakthrough that can be allowed, while maintaining compliance with

Figure 9. Membrane process flow diagram.

36 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

the regulatory conditions. Once the GAC reaches its limit for obtaining regulatory compliance, it’s considered exhausted and requires regeneration or replacement with virgin media. This process reveals the design parameters for the full-scale design and operation of the GAC treatment process and can be scaled up directly to the full-scale treatment. At full-scale treatment design and operation, the process is administered in the same fashion. The pressurized carbon vessels are much larger and hold from 20,000 to 40,000 lbs of GAC, requiring backwash cycles as the pressure buildup in the vessel typically escalates prior to the exhaustion of the carbon media. The breakthrough of the contaminants is observed similarly to the breakthrough described for the pilot-scale operation. The frequency of regeneration is similar to the process observed in the pilot scale adjusted for the quantity of flow at the full-scale treatment. As noted, the full-scale treatment and operation closely resembles the process experienced in the pilot-scale treatment and operation. Some of the advantages of using GAC include: S Proven technology with numerous installations. S Requires  low operating pressures. S No  chemicals are required for treatment. S Less  maintenance than other treatment alternatives. S High  percentage of removal of specific contaminants. S Can  be designed for full or partial removal of contaminants. S Regenerated  GAC minimizes operational costs. S Capital  expense for installation is low compared to other alternatives. S Allows  hardness and alkalinity through for treated water stability. The disadvantages include: S Spent carbon must be regenerated offsite. S GAC is consumed by hydrogen sulfide (H2S), iron, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and TOC, which can reduce the removal efficiency and significantly shorten the regeneration cycles, resulting in increased operating costs. S Iron can blind over the media, greatly reducing the treatment effectiveness of the GAC. S Operational expenses may be higher than the other alternatives due to the frequent estimation of regeneration cycles. Continued on page 38


FWPCOA TRAINING CALENDAR SCHEDULE YOUR CLASS TODAY! Please go to the FWPCOA website

www.fwpcoa.org

for the latest updates on classes August

10-14...... FALL STATE SHORT SCHOOL............... Cancelled

September

14-18...... Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector...... Orlando.............. $350/380 14-18...... Wastewater Collection C........................... Osteen............... $325 21-23...... Backflow Repair.......................................... Osteen............... $275/305 21-24...... Backflow Tester*......................................... St. Petersburg..... $375/405 25...... Backflow Tester recerts***......................... Osteen............... $85/115

October

5-9...... Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector...... Osteen............... $350/380 19-23...... Backflow Tester.......................................... Osteen............... $375/405 30...... Backflow Tester recerts***......................... Osteen............... $85/115

November

16-18...... Backflow Repair*........................................ St. Petersburg..... $275/305 16-20 ...... Water Distribution Level 3.......................... Osteen............... $225/255 16-20...... Reclaimed Water Distribution Level C...... Osteen............... $225/255 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. *B  ackflow 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 • August 2020

37


Continued from page 36

Membrane Treatment Research suggests that membrane treatment is a viable option for removal of the contaminants listed in the UCMR 3 and the suggested contaminants in the drafted UCMR 4; however, there is no known full-scale membrane treatment system that is currently in operation and that demonstrates consistent reliable rejection of these contaminants. Depending on the level of treatment desired and the contaminants present, NF membranes can be implemented to provide effective removal of the PFAS regulated by UCMR 3 and UCMR 4. As with several other technologies listed within this analysis, the smaller-carbon chain PFAS, such as perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA). are more challenging to remove. The NF membranes were observed to remove

greater than 90 percent of the PFAS in both a flowthrough and recycled treatment approach (Appleman, 2012). Where more-effective treatment removal is needed, brackish water RO membranes have shown to remove greater than 90 percent of all the contaminants listed, and greater than 95 percent of all contaminants listed over the molar mass of 300 g/mol (Appleman, 2012). Even with the molar mass driving most of the rejection abilities, the RO membrane is estimated to remove greater than 95 percent of PFBA found in the raw water, which is the smallest chain of PFAS; therefore, membrane treatment provides the best available technology and highest removal efficiency of all the PFAS down to the smallest molecular weight than the other treatment methods. While research indicates that membrane elements appear to reject the PFBA, PFAS, and PFOA at a high rate, it’s suggested that

Table 3. Raw Water Parameters

City of Stuart - Design Raw Water

Methyl-tert-butyl-ether 1,1-Dichloroethane Chloromethane Tetrachloroethylene (PERC) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene Benzene Vinyl Chloride cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene Chlorobenzene Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) Perfluoro-1-hexanesulfonic acid Perfluoro-1-octanesulfonic acid Hydrogen Sulfide (Total) Sulfate Chloride Nitrate Alkalininty (as CaCO3) TOC Iron Color pH Calcium Hardness (as CaCO3) TDS Existing Contaminants (VOC's) Parameters to Remove

Detected range 1.8 0.23 0.38-0.51 0.65 0.25 1.3 0.8-12.5 0.3-42.4 1.1 0.34 0.051-0.470 0.014-0.052 0.011-0.014 0.0035-0.027 0.011-0.26 0-0.041 0.015-0.47 0.046-0.38 0.1 - 0.8 10 - 25 25 -60 <8 210 - 310 3.7 - 10.4 0.04 - 0.65 15 - 40 7.0 - 7.6 280 - 350 320 - 410

units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

Target HAL/ Design Raw Reduction MCL units Water (ug/L) (ug/L) U ug/L 1.8 U ug/L 0.23 U ug/L 0.51 0 ug/L 0.65 600 ug/L 0.25 0 ug/L 1.3 1 ug/L 1.3 70 ug/L 40 0.1 ug/L 1.1 100 ug/L 0.070 ug/L 0.500 ND (0.0025) 0.070 ug/L 0.100 ND (0.0012) 0.014 0.027 0.26 0.041 0.47 0.38 0.6 250 15 250 50 10 5 -

mg/L mg/L CU

0.3 mg/L 15 CU

mg/L

500 mg/L

38 August 2020 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

280 8.0 0.5 30 7.4

-

300 410

-

the city pilot the membrane elements to confirm the rejection rates, as well as compare the performance of elements from different manufacturers. At the pilot scale, a single-element testing unit can be utilized to show rejection characteristics of selected membranes. The performance can be quickly compared by simulating the projected recovery of multiple elements within the full-scale system. Typical single-element pilot tests focus on the lead and tail elements of the system, as well as a representative middle element within the membrane train. Samples taken from the raw feed stream, permeate, and concentrate can be analyzed to monitor the respective performance from the membrane elements. If further testing is desired to simulate the full membrane trainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance and any fouling potential, a pilotscale membrane test can be initiated using 4-in. elements mocking the projected staging array. Some of the advantages of using membrane treatment include: S High percentage of removal of contaminants. S Continuous operation of consistent treatment quality. S Automated  process controls for operators. S Lowest  operating costs compared to the comparable alternatives. S Can be tested at a small scale to identify the effective removal of contaminants. The disadvantages include: S Concentrate  disposal is required, resulting in increased DIW usage. S Direct force main is required to convey concentrate to DIW for disposal. S New  chemicals are introduced to the plant operation (acid for pH adjustment, antiscalant for membrane process). S Capital  expense is larger than other alternatives. S Operator interaction and instrument technician are required for day-to-day operation.

Other Treatment Options The following methods of treatment are primarily research-driven and show some degree of effectiveness, either as a standalone process or in addition to other forms of treatment, such as GAC and IX, either separately or together. These were not evaluated further, but were not ignored, since this contamination is emerging and still being defined. In July 2019, EPA awarded $6 million in grants to research potential environmental impacts of PFAS substances in waste streams, including electron beam technology, for the destruction


of short-chain and perfluoroalkyl substances in groundwater, wastewater, sewage sludge, and soils. Based on research, advanced oxidation processes (AOP), such as chemical oxidation, electrochemical oxidation, ultraviolet treatment, photolysis, photocatalysis, activated persulfate oxidation, and other oxidative reduction processes, appear to be successful in degrading PFAS, especially PFOA and PFOS. Electrochemical oxidation destroys contaminants through two mechanisms: direct anodic or indirect oxidation. When contaminants are destroyed by direct anodic oxidation, they will adsorb onto the anode surface and are destroyed by an electron transfer reaction. In indirect oxidation, contaminants are destroyed in solution by oxidation through strong oxidants generated by cathodic electrochemical reactions. This process has been used to treat many different contaminants, including phenols, dyes, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Electrochemical oxidation can have a long life span and is versatile, energy-efficient, automated, and cost-effective. It can also be used on different volumes of gases, liquids, and solids, and is relatively easy and inexpensive to construct and operate. There are a wide variety of electrode materials that can be used; however, their cost is a major limitation, as well as the difficulty of building the electrodes compared with other electrode materials. In general, electrochemical oxidation has some limitations. Production of toxic byproducts may also occur when treating PFAS-contaminated wastewater mixed with other harmful substances, including chlorine gas, hydrogen fluoride, bromate, perchlorate, and absorbable organic halides. Future research is needed for these options, since degradation of different PFAS, including polyfluoroalkyl compounds, can occur. Furthermore, only two studies have observed PFAS destruction when using electrochemical oxidation in the presence of AFFF-impacted or PFAS-contaminated synthetic groundwater. More studies need to be conducted with environmental matrices to determine whether electrochemical oxidation is suitable for PFAS remediation. Photolysis, photocatalysis, activated persulfate oxidation, and other ultraviolet (UV)-induced oxidation are also promising treatment methods, but again, require similar research, as electrochemical oxidation has not been fully developed into fullscale implementation. Thermal degradation of PFAS involve breaking the carbon-carbon (C-C) and carbonfluorine (C-F) bonds with high temperatures to produce perfluoroalkyl radicals that will subsequently decompose and form similar

Table 4. Ion Exchange System Design Criteria

Pretreatment:

Bag Filters (10 micron)

PFC Treatment Capacity: Number of Vessels: Vessel Diameter: Vessel Area: Orientation: Loading: Vessel SW Depth: dP across vessel: Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT) resin: Resin Depth: Resin Volume:

Topping/Guard Depth: Topping/Guard Volume: Resin Types: Topping Type:

75% Full Scale (WTP = 6 mgd MDF) 4.0 mgd (2,800 gpm) 4 w/ 1 O/S 12 ft 113 sq ft Lead/Lag (series) 12.4 gpm/sqft 700 - 1,400 gpm/vessel 9 ft (8.0 – 10.0 ft) 1.5 – 2 psi/ft bed 5.25 – 10 psi 2.4 – 3.0 minutes 4 ft – 5 ft

452 cft/vessel 565 cft/vessel (max) 1,808 - 2,260 cft TOTAL 0 - 1 ft 113 cft/vessel 452 cft TOTAL Purolite - PFA694E DOW - Dowex PSR2 Calgon - CalRes 2301, CalRes 2304 Ion Exchange Resin Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)

Desired Treatment Capacity (to nondetect) Design: Maximum projected:

80,000 Bed Volumes 150,000 Bed Volumes

degradation products as photolytic treatment of PFAS. Thermal treatment methods include thermal chemical reactions, incineration, sonochemistry, sub- or supercritical, microwavehydrothermal, and high-voltage electric discharge, all of which are still in research modes. Incineration is one of the most common ways to destroy hazardous compounds and to reduce waste, but can result in harmful emissions. Incineration of PFAS, including PFOS, ammonium perfluorooctanoate (APFO), and PFOA, has been successful at temperatures ranging from 600 to 1,000°C (USEPA, 2003; Krusic and Roe, 2004; Krusic et al., 2005; Yamada et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2014). Sonochemical degradation of PFAS is another treatment process that occurs through the application of ultrasound to an aqueous medium. When ultrasound is applied, cavitation bubbles form during the rarefaction (negative pressure) portion of sound waves. The cavitation

bubbles will implode, creating extreme temperatures and pressures (14,000 pounds per sq in. [psi]) within a cavity. Highly reactive intermediates and radicals, including hydroxyl radicals, hydrogen atoms, and oxygen atoms, form during cavitation bubble collapse. This combination of highly reactive species and high temperatures and pressures has made sonolytic decomposition of PFAS successful, but again, is only at the research level. Microbial degradation of PFAS has only been observed to occur with polyfluoroalkyl substances. Several other studies have used different treatment methods to degrade PFAS, including ozonation under alkaline conditions, permanganate, and ball milling. Ozonation is a commonly used advanced AOP in at least one-third of water treatment plants (WTPs) in the U.S. Ozonation of PFOA and PFOS was viable within 4 h when pretreating with O3 at pH 4–5, followed by pH adjustment to 11, but Continued on page 40

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

39


Continued from page 39 environmental matrices containing humic acid may inhibit ozonation (Lin et al., 2012a). Permanganate is also widely used as an oxidizing agent for iron and manganese, taste and odor control, microorganism control, and degradation of other hazardous pollutants. Permanganate removed about 50 percent PFOS, but with only 5 percent fluoride yield at elevated temperatures and very low pH (65°C and pH 4.2). Although complete PFOS decomposition could not be achieved, degradation efficiency of permanganate improved with increasing temperatures and was not inhibited by the addition of organic acids, including oxalic, tartaric, succinic, citric, and humic acid. In general, most of these advanced treatment options are still considered research and do not have any known full-scale installations with any proven operational track record; therefore, further consideration of these treatment options was deemed not feasible or recommended.

Figure 10. Facility capital and operating costs.

Pilot Testing

Table 5. Long-Term Economic Differential

Capital Cost

20-Year Net Present Annual Operating Cost Value (NPV): Capital and Operating Cost

Ion Exchange

$

1,184,960

$

67,069

$

2,526,335

GAC

$

1,120,560

$

111,143

$

3,343,410

Membranes

$

4,130,616

$

57,488

$

5,280,366

$

394,200

$

7,884,000

Treatment Alternative

Local Utility

$

N/A

Given the relatively minimal testing history and research completed on PFAS and the limited full-scale treatment systems that have been in operation, it was recommended that the city perform a pilot test immediately to identify the best method of treatment for the utility. Specific technologies to be tested include GAC, NF, low-pressure RO, and IX (jar test-level), as these technologies showed the most-effective removal of PFAS in the research that has been conducted. The pilot testing will help to identify the operating costs related to regeneration of the GAC and IX media, as well as the feed pressures effective for membrane treatment. Further, design specifics can be identified to support the preliminary and final design of the full-scale treatment. Continued on page 42

Table 6. Resin and Hybrid Systems

VESSEL 1 Calgon

Polymer Volume Weight Structure (lbs) (ft)3

Gel - 100% CALRES 2304 N-Tri-Butyl Amine

459

-

Filtrasorb 400

106.6

3,200

Total

565.6

3,200

VESSEL 2 Evoqua

CITY OF STUART - IX PFAS TREATMENT SYSTEM Polymer Volume Weight VESSEL 3 Polymer Structure (lbs) Purolite Structure (ft)3

StyreneResin PSR2 divinylbenze Plus ne

Total

564

564

40 August 2020 â&#x20AC;˘ Florida Water Resources Journal

Volume Weight (lbs) (ft)3

VESSEL 4 Resintech

Polymer Volume Weight Structure (lbs) (ft)3

PFA694E

Polystyrene crosslinked with divinylbenzene

425

17,850

SIR-110-HP

Styrenedivinylbenz ene

452

18,532

-

A502P

Macroporous polystyrene crosslinked with divinylbenzene

148

-

AGC-30-AW

Coconut Shell

113

3,107

0

Total

573

17,850

Total

565

21,639

-


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

___________________________________ 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:

___________________________________ (Credit Card Number)

___________________________________ (Expiration Date)

Dealing With Widespread Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Contamination Mark Miller, David D. Peters, and Evan Ghidella (Article 1: CEU = 0.1DS/DW02015369) 1. I n pilot testing ion exchange (IX), it was determined that, compared to granular activated carbon (GAC), the breakthrough of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) was more than ____ times longer using the same design limit. a. 1 0 b. 2 0 c. 3 0 d. 50 2. D  isposal of spent IX resins or GAC with saturated per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is typically through a. i ncineration. b. landfill. c. r epurposing. d. regeneration. 3. B  ased on research, literature review, and discussions with manufacturers, ___________ processes are among those that provide the most-effective removal of PFAS from water streams. a. s orptive b. e lectrochemical c. b  iological treatment d. thermal 4. I n which of the following products are PFAS not typically found? a. F  ood packaging b. L  ubricants c. P  aper and cardboard coating materials d. Firefighting foam 5. _ ______________ is the physical and chemical process of accumulating a substance at the interface between liquid and solid phases. a. O  smosis b. S edimentation c. E  vaporation d. A  dsorption

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.

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

41


Figure 11. Start-up of the system.

Continued from page 40 It was important to dedicate the pilot testing to the worst-case supply to ensure that the desired level of water quality can be obtained, as well as develop a conservative review of the capital and operating costs. In the city’s utility, it was recommended to identify the worst-case source water and commence the pilot testing at that location. Should the well not present access for pilot testing onsite, a split stream of the water supply can be plumbed to the nearest available area for operating the various pilot testing units. Initially, pilot testing IX was not conducted due to the significantly higher capital costs associated with constructing a separate pipeline to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for disposal of spent brine regenerant to the WWTP, and additional costs and handling of salt and brine for the regeneration. Simply disposing of the spent regenerant to the WWTP would create higher-than-desired salinity in the treated wastewater effluent used in the city’s reclaim system. Conversion of its existing DIW to accept industrial waste was also a cost that, at the time, was not considered feasible. Disposal of concentrated solution of PFAS was also an unknown, since there were no regulations in place that might consider concentrated PFAS as hazardous waste; however, piloting IX was reconsidered as a pass-through system if the levels of treatment, or bed volumes, were greater and considered more feasible than GAC. Ion Exchange Pilot Testing The IX treatment was at first believed to be too expensive due to the disposal of the waste brine regenerant. Concentrating the PFAS and elevating the salt content in the waste stream did not make this option feasible, since the waste could not be disposed of via sanitary sewer because most of the treated wastewater was reused for reclaimed water. The waste, therefore,

Figure 13. Bag filter vessel.

would have to be piped separately to the WWTP where it could be pumped and disposed of via the DIW, but it would also have to be modified to receive the waste stream, requiring it be converted to an industrial-rated DIW. Capital and operating costs would therefore be higher for IX versus GAC. Based on the significant additional costs to install a separate pipeline from the WTP to the WWTP for brine waste disposal, and the additional costs and handling of salt and brine feed system, AIX was initially not pursued further; however, continued pilot testing was conducted by Evoqua as a trial to test some of the IX resins that exhibited PFAS adsorption. As pilot testing continued with several types of IX resins (specifically, Dowex PSR2), in addition to being the most-effective of the ones being tested, the removal efficiency and long-term

42 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Figure 12. Sand and foulant on bag filters.

removal presented IX to be the most apparent cost-effective treatment method for removal of PFAS. Figure 3 illustrates the plotted breakthrough curves for PFOS and PFOA at different resin depths versus bed volumes. Compared to GAC, the breakthrough of combined PFOA and PFOS was more than 20 times longer than GAC using the design limit of 38 parts per trillion (ppt). Typically, the breakeven costs of GAC versus IX are in the range of 4:1, with GAC being four times less expensive per cu ft than IX. Figure 4 illustrates the following findings: S Similar to the GAC testing, the feed contained an average TOC concentration of 10 mg/L parts per mil (ppm) and an average apparent color of 25. The resin treatment appeared to be unaffected by these constituents, assuming the iron was not oxidized and suspended material did not foul the resin. S The  bed volumes providing sufficient treatment are greater than 100,000, assuming the PFAS-level breakthrough is less than the 38 ppt design level. S Based  on extensive literature review, laboratory testing capabilities, ongoing research, and stricter water quality requirements in other states, it’s recommended that the city target treatment removal levels less than 10 ng/L and up to 20 ng/L for combined PFOS/PFOA. S With  these lower target removal levels, it’s anticipated IX can remove PFAS up to 80,000 bed volumes. Granular Activated Carbon Pilot Testing The GAC pilot testing offers a great deal of flexibility in performing tests quickly and efficiently. The pilot-testing recommendation includes securing a four-column GAC pilot, where multiple carbon manufacturers and


Table 7. Ion Exchange Resin Testing

City of Stuart Ion Exchange Resin Testing SGS Job Number:

6/7/2019 Sampled

FA64947

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) Hydrogen Sulfide (Total) Sulfate Chloride Nitrate Alkalininty (as CaCO3) TOC Iron Color pH Calcium Hardness (as CaCO3) TDS Bed Volumes (Total) Combined PFOS/PFOA (PPT) * 5 mg/l is mdl U= Undetected

units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CU mg/L mg/L

Vessel 1 INF

Vessel 2

25% 50% 75% EFF

Vessel 3

25% 50% 75% EFF

Vessel 4

25% 50% 75% EFF

25% 50% 75% EFF

0.143

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

0.0141

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

0.004

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

0.006

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

0.051

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

0.008

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

0.10

0.11

0.10

0.10

0.10

17.7

18.8

18.6

16.4

18.1

20.7

21.9

22.4

22.4

22.0

0.025

0.025

0.025

0.025

0.025

265

264

265

265

266

6.2

0.95

3.3

0.80

1.4

0.419

0.449

0.433

0.432

0.216

10

5*

5*

5*

5*

7.4

7.6

7.4

7.5

7.4

246

274

275

263

248

348

339

322

327

336

1,421

1,378

1,205

1,378

U

U

U

U

157.1

5,065

City of Stuart Ion Exchange Resin Testing SGS Job Number:

Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) Hydrogen Sulfide (Total) Sulfate Chloride Nitrate Alkalininty (as CaCO3) TOC Iron Color pH Calcium Hardness (as CaCO3) Ammonia TKN TDS Bed Volumes (Total) * Bed Volumes (PFAS Resin) Combined PFOS/PFOA * 5 mg/l is mdl U= Undetected MDL is 0.0019 ug/l

9/9/2019 Sampled

FA67960

units ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CU mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

Vessel 1

Vessel 2

Vessel 3

Vessel 4

INF 25% 50% 75% EFF

25% 50% 75% EFF

25% 50% 75% EFF

25% 50% 75% EFF

0.101 0.107 0.04 0.01

U

0.05

U

U

U

0.125 0.040 0.05

U

0.13 0.02 0.02

U

0.012 0.011 0.01

U

U

0.01

U

U

U

0.012 0.01 0.010

U

0.01 0.01 0.01

U

0.002

U

U

U

0

U

U

U

0.002

U

0

U

U

U

0

U

U

0

U

U

U

0.007 0.01 0.01

U

0.01

0

0

U

0.029 0.027 0.01

U

U

0.01

U

U

U

0.031 0.01 0.01

U

0.03

0

0.01

U

0.008 0.007

U

U

0

U

U

U

0.008

U

0.01

U

U

U

0.006 0.006

0

0.14

0.10

19.4 24.4

U

0

U

0

U

0.10

0.12

0.10

18.3

18

17.9

17.9

21.9

21.9

21.9

22.0

0.025

0.025

0.025

0.025

0.025

256

257

256

256

256

6.5

5.5

5.6

6.2

5.6

0.43

0.48

0.45

0.47

0.47

20

15

15

15

15

7.3

7.4

7.4

7.3

7.3

278

280

274

286

282

0.37

0.38

0.39

0.36

0.38

0.47

0.44

0.46

0.55

0.48

358

366

358

372

346

17,065

14,564

16,728

16,193

21,028

14,564

22,554

20,241

U

U

U

U

113

118

137

Florida Water Resources Journal â&#x20AC;¢ August 2020

43


carbon bases can be compared, and conducting a rapid small-scale column test (RSSCT). Onsite monitoring and sampling will be required to ensure that all PFAS parameters can be tracked, as the media exhausts its adsorption capabilities. Additional pilot testing was recommended and completed by Calgon Carbon Corporation by taking a water sample from the respective supply well and sending the sample to the manufacturer’s laboratory to complete an accelerated column test (ACT), which can provide a more-rapid insight into the carbon’s removal capabilities than a column test stand. While the RSSCT and ACT aren’t anticipated to be 100 percent scalable to the full-scale treatment, they should give a strong indication as to the water quality expectations, regeneration frequency, and anticipated breakthrough timeframes. The results from the ACT, “Accelerated Column Test Study: Removal of Perfluorinated Compounds From Groundwater Using Filtrasorb 400 12x40 Activated Carbon,” prepared on Dec. 5, 2016, are provided in Figures 5 through 7. Figure 8 illustrates the GAC process flow diagram. The ACT was conducted using Calgon’s F-400 12x40 activated carbon to determine the bed life for reduction of PFAS, as well as TOC and color removal. The column test simulated a 10-ft-diameter vessel containing 20,000 lbs of GAC operating at 500 gal per minute. This system and operation condition simulated a 9.3-minute effective bed contact time (EBCT) based on A.D. packing density, and a 10.8-minute EBCT after backwashing.

At completion, the ACT simulated 500 days of operation. Figure 5 shows the plotted breakthrough curves for PFOS and PFOA versus simulated days of operation. Figure 6 shows the plotted breakthrough curves for TOC and color versus simulated days of operation. The following conclusions can be drawn from the data generated in this ACT: S The feed contained average PFAS concentrations of 86 and 13 ppt for PFOS and PFOA, respectively, for a combined average of 99 ppt. S The column effluent achieved initial breakthrough above the minimum detection limit after 60 simulated days of operation. The combined effluent concentrations for PFOS and PFOA reached higher than 70 ppt after nearly 180 simulated days of operation, equating to a carbon use rate of 0.16 lbs GAC per 1,000 gal treated. S The feed contained an average TOC concentration of 9.6 mg/L ppm and an average apparent color of 23. S The column effluent achieved initial breakthrough above the detection limit for TOC after ~11 simulated days of operation, which equates to a carbon use rate of 2.66 lbs/1,000 gal treated. S The TOC achieved 50 percent breakthrough after ~20 simulated days, which equates to a carbon use rate of 1.45 lbs/1,000 gal treated. The initial breakthrough for color was observed at the same time and reached 50 percent of feed at ~73 simulated days of operation. S Figure 7 indicates that the bed volumes

to provide sufficient treatment are greater than 20,000. Assuming that the influent concentration of the PFOS/PFOA combined is nearly four times the ACT results, the bed volumes are expected to be less than 10,000 to provide sufficient treatment of PFAS to less than the EPA limit of 70 ppt. The ongoing RSSCT column testing being conducted was determined to be inconclusive, since it appeared that the elevated TOC levels greatly impacted the PFAS removal capability of the GAC. Ongoing pilot testing using AIX in series was subsequently conducted and found to be successful. Some of the early testing data suggests several issues should be considered in the design of a proposed GAC system. Some of these issues include: S Iron  and TOC levels will affect PFAS treatment negatively. Competition for the carbon sites exists when elevated levels of iron and TOC exist, reducing the carbon’s absorption ability for PFAS removal. Additionally, any oxidized form of iron that occurs will blind over the top layers of GAC, further reducing its absorption capability; therefore, it’s important to prevent oxidation of iron prior to the GAC beds. S The  existing volatile organic compound (VOC) towers may improve GAC performance, since they appear to reduce overall iron levels in the raw water through the tower packing. Iron levels appear to decrease by more than 50 percent through the towers based on field testing and, since Continued on page 46

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

0

2,000

4,000

APPROXIMATE BED VOLUMES PER VESSEL 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000 25 20 15 10

COLOR (CU)

PFOS/PFAS (PPT)

PFOS/PFAS and Color Removal with IX

5

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

0 18,000

APPROXIMATE BED VOLUMES PER VESSEL INF Combined PFOS/PFAS (PPT)

Approximated INF PFOS/PFAS

PFAS HAL

Influent Color (CU)

Approximated Color

Combined EFF PFOS/PFAS

Vessel 1 Eff Color

Vessel 1 Eff Color (Estimated)

Vessel 2 Eff Color

Vessel 2 Eff Color (Estimated)

Vessel 3 Eff Color

Vessel 3 Eff Color (Estimated)

Vessel 4 Eff Color

Vessel 4 Eff Color (Estimated)

Figure 14. System color reduction.

44 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Figure 15. Perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and color removal with ion exchange.


FIBERGLASS EQUIPMENT SHELTERS FOR THE WATER AND WASTEWATER INDUSTRIES ● Maintenance Free ● Graffiti Resistant ● Easy To Install ● Superior Construction ● Non-Conductive

Authorized Florida Distributor

● UV Resistant ● Low Cost of Ownership ● Energy Efficient ● Performs In Any Environment

Hudson Pump and Equipment A Division of Tencarva Machinery 3524 Craftsman Boulevard Lakeland, Florida 33803 1-863-665-7867

WWW.SHELTERWORKS.COM | (800) 794-8037

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

45


Continued from page 44 some of the TOCs are bound up with iron, may also reduce TOC levels through the towers. Historically, the VOC towers are cleaned regularly due to the buildup of foulants that may be a conglomeration of iron, sulfide (converted to sulfur), and organics; therefore, the proposed GAC piping confirmation should include operating the GAC vessels in series after the VOC towers. Membrane Treatment (Not Piloted) An RO treatment has been identified as a more-effective treatment alternative for removing PFAS, mostly due to the molecular weight cutoff for membrane rejection, compared to the relatively large molecular weight of the PFAS. Across all sizes of carbon chains, the removal has been identified as greater than 90 percent for most contaminants and over 95 percent for the remainder of the PFAS. Pilot testing for RO is very similar to the steps described for NF, with the exception of the membrane used for piloting. Generally, the units available to test NF are also capable of producing the higher pressures needed to operate RO membranes. The NF offers a low-operating-cost membrane treatment alternative due to its low driving pressures and lower rejection, which helps stabilize the permeate stream, with minimal post-treatment restabilization needed. Research indicates high removals (greater than 95 percent rejection) of PFAS, which should be confirmed on the actual water source. To test the NF membrane’s rejection capabilities, analyzing a single-element performance can be completed quickly and efficiently using a single-element test unit fed with raw water. Additional multi-element pilot testing, with concentrate staging, is necessary to identify representative full-scale feed pressures, fouling conditions, recovery optimization, and further water quality confidence. These tests are typically achieved through a 4-in. element pilot configured with concentrate staging and potentially interstage boost pumps, as required to simulate full-scale treatment conditions.

Figure 9 illustrates the membrane system process flow diagram.

tested to confirm little to no impact on the PFAS removal effectiveness.

Evaluation and Design

The system should also be designed to accommodate existing contaminants, such as VOCs, without impacting PFAS removal efficiency, including the raw water parameters in Table 3. The design criteria in Table 4 were developed based on resin manufacturer performance data and pilot-test results. In general, the treatment system should include lead/lag operation, where treatment vessels are operated in series, providing the ultimate barrier to preventing any breakthroughs of PFAS before they are detected. Since there is no online continuous monitoring of PFAS test equipment currently available, this is the preferred method of operation. The three treatment alternatives considered for the utility’s WTP were each projected to remove the emerging contaminants to an acceptable level based on UCMR regulatory compliance. The recommendations have been based on the ability to achieve treatment compliance for the utility, as well as capital and operational expenses. Based on the combination of capital and operating costs, it was recommended that the utility pursue an IX treatment alternative for this facility. Although the GAC treatment alternative provides the lowest initial capital cost for the three alternatives, the operating costs for IX clearly provide a more-rapid return on investment, as compared to GAC, due to frequent carbon changeout with the GAC option. The net return on investment shows that IX is the most cost-effective treatment alternative beyond one to two years of operation. Additionally, IX provides the necessary treatment capabilities to effectively remove the emerging contaminants from the raw water supply, coupled with the flexibility to increase removal through increasing the media regeneration frequency. The annual operating expenses are slightly more than the membrane treatment alternative; however, the capital cost differential doesn’t support the short-term or even long-term (20 years) application of membrane treatment. Figure 10 highlights the operational and capital expenses for operating the facility over the course of 20 years. As shown, GAC provides the second most cost-effective solution for the city’s treatment. Since this option will most likely be a short-term solution to the city’s demand, purchasing water from a nearby utility is the most cost-effective short-term solution (three years +/-), even though the operating costs are much higher than one of the treatment options. The long-term economic differential is

Based on pilot testing of the IX resin, and the fact that the resin should not be regenerated to remove the PFAS, the design of an IX treatment system used to treat PFAS through a one-pass throughput to exhaustion was developed, with some of the following criteria: S The resin should not be backwashed once initially installed, as it alters the chromatographic profile across the resin bed and can result in early breakthrough of PFAS and shorter service life. S Prefiltration is necessary to prevent buildup of suspended solids on the resin and blinding over of the resin (10–50 micron [µm] bag filters recommended). S Lead/lag operation is recommended to maintain effluent PFAS levels below nondetect once there is a breakthrough, resin is regenerated or removed and disposed of, and the lag is put into lead service. S Acrylic-based resins shed TOC better when considering regeneration with brine and removal of NOM; therefore, regeneration should not be implemented for PFAS removal. S Since the PFAS treatment system is only rated for 8 mgd, up to 4 mgd of bypass to the VOC towers (current operation) could be provided, through either a dedicated pump or control bypass valve. S Prechlorination of the IX resin was not recommended by any of the resin manufacturers and can break down the resins; therefore, the location of the IX system within the existing treatment system should be before chlorination, or prior to the VOC towers. S The IX system was designed to allow full treatment of the raw water system, since detectable levels of PFAS exist in the majority of supply wells. S Other volatiles and contaminants not expected to affect the IX resin were listed and

Table 8. Treatment Costs

Treatment Volume

Treatment Level Operating Cost

< 25,000 BV 80,000 BV – >150,000 BV >250,000 BV

Nondetect 10 – 20 ng/L > 30 ng/L

46 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

>$1.44 /kgal $0.25 - $0.45/kgal < $0.18 /kgal


shown numerically, with the net present value, in Table 5.

Implementation and Start-Up of System Funding for this project was not readily available and, therefore, the city had to pursue loans through the Florida SRF program, with partial forgiveness based on project qualifications. As a result, the project included unique stipulations, such as the Federal American Iron and Steel Act, which requires only American-made steel, and the application of Davis-Bacon wages for labor used in construction of the project. The design of the system was dependent on limited pilot-test data using one RCCT with GAC, and IX rapid column testing using one IX resin. Additionally, since the supply wells that contained elevated PFAS (PFOS and PFOA) levels above the EPA HAL were removed from service, it was critical to expedite completion of a treatment system in order to restore plant capacity (Figure 11). The system was to provide immediate reduction and removal of PFAS from the raw water, but also provide a competitive means of comparing alternative resins for future replacement when the resins become exhausted, so that each of the four vessels were loaded with different resins from different manufacturers. In addition, with elevated TOC levels, the manufacturers were given the opportunity to load a “topping” layer of IX resin (or GAC) to reduce the TOC levels prior to the raw water loading up the IX resin designed specifically for PFAS removal. The resulting “hybrid” would then be used to evaluate the overall PFAS removal effectiveness of each system. Table 6 shows the installed IX resins and hybrid systems of each of the system vessels. Typical with all construction projects, the start-up had some challenges that required extended flushing of the raw water mains to remove suspended and oxidized materials. Pretreatment using 10-20 micron bag filters (Figure 12) to remove suspended material were plugged quickly when the system was started up and the bag filters were first loaded, which resulted in frequent shutdowns in order to replace the bag filters (Figure 13). Adjustments to the wellfield operation were conducted to minimize oxidation of iron and sulfide within the raw water once the raw water main was flushed. Once the suspended material issue was resolved and bacteriological clearance was achieved, the system was brought online. Initial water quality sampling was performed and immediate color reduction was observed. Color

reduction, shown in Figure 14, also resulted in an impact on chlorine demand, significantly reducing chlorine dosage after the IX system was placed into service. The initial data collected included other water quality parameters, which are listed in Table 7. The six PFAS constituents tested were per the UCMR 3 list, although only PFOS and PFOA are currently regulated in Florida. Given the potential for additional PFAS parameters that will be added as part of UCMR 5, additional PFAS constituents should be sampled for testing. The results shown illustrate that PFAS removal has continued up to just below 20,000 bed volumes down to nondetect on the effluent of each vessel. Color and TOC reduction were very effective with fresh resin, but slowly increased with the bed volumes. The PFAS concentrations over time increased from nondetect up to background levels throughout the vessel depths. Figure 15 illustrates the trends over time and bed volumes with respect to influent and effluent color, and PFOS/PFOA removal.

Conclusions Continued testing and monitoring of the system will be performed until breakthrough of PFOS/PFOA occurs. Once breakthrough is achieved, unit costs for IX resin and total bed volumes will be used to determine the mosteconomical resin to use for replacement. An approximate estimation of treatment volume expected, and the resulting operating costs, were provided based on the treatment-level goals. A goal of 80,000 bed volumes down to 10-20 ng/L ppt was established to determine expected operating costs for the system. Based on extensive literature review, laboratory testing capabilities, ongoing research, and stricter water quality requirements in other states, the basis of design is to target treatment removals to less than 10 ng/L and up to 20 ng/L combined PFOS/PFOA, which will be used to determine when the IX resin has reached exhaustion and should be replaced. Although these target treatment values are well below the current EPA HAL of 70 ng/L and minimum reporting levels of 40 ng/L and 20 ng/L for PFOS and PFOA, respectively, targeting lower values is prudent for treatment and recommended for long-term sustainability of the wellfield. It’s also important to note that most laboratories can only detect perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in the range of 2.9 to 14 ng/L and are allowed up to a 30 percent error (EPA Method 537M); therefore, until detection levels change, using lower target values would not be practical, limit the number of laboratories capable of measuring PFCs, and greatly increase treatment costs (Table 8). At the time of this

writing (mid-2019), Eurofins-Lancaster Labs has been reporting a quantitation limit of 1.7 ppt and a detection limit of 0.43 ppt on the samples used for groundwater. The TOC and organics have a significant effect on PFAS removal capacity using GAC and IX resins by reducing the capability of the materials to adsorb PFAS contaminants. Waters with lower TOC levels have more capacity to remove these constituents, resulting in lower operating costs and more options for costeffective treatment. Disposal of spent resins or GAC with saturated PFAS concentrations is typically through incineration, which allows the PFAS to break down to their original states. At the time of this writing, landfills with energy-towaste capability, which allows the material to be incinerated at high temperatures, is the disposal method of choice. Should EPA or other state regulatory agencies consider the materials classified as hazardous waste, limited treatment options may result, just based on economics. The use of GAC may be limited if this occurs, since the material cannot maintain its National Science Foundation (NSF) rating when the majority of GACs are regenerated and reused. The PFAS contaminations will continue to present challenges for removal from known point sources to unknown industrial and manmade sources. These chemicals are persistent in the environment, since they have both hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties, and will continue to be detected in all sorts of utility streams, including water, wastewater, reclaim water, and biosolids. With increasing pressure to lower PFAS standards, laboratory equipment technology that can detect levels down to ppt, and pending regulations (UCMR 5) to measure more PFAS constituents down to even lower detection levels, the future for dealing with PFAS in the environment will continue to draw attention.

References • “ The Removal of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances by North American Water Treatment Practices.” Timothy D. Appleman, Colorado School of Mines, master’s degree thesis (2012); Dr. Tissa Illangasekare, professor and department head, department of civil and environmental engineering, Colorado School of Mines. • “Degradation and Removal Methods for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water.” Nancy Merino, Yan Qu, Rula A. Deeb, Elisabeth L. Hawley, Michael R. Hoffmann, and Shaily Mahendra, department of civil and environmental engineering, Continued on page 48

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

47


Continued from page 47 University of California, Los Angeles. Linde+Robinson Laboratories, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif. Geosyntec Consultants, Oakland, Calif. Accepted July 2016, Environmental Engineering Science Volume 33, Number 9, 2016. • “Treatment Mitigation Strategies for Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances.” Eric R. V. Dickenson, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Henderson, Nev. 89015; Christopher Higgins, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colo. 80401. Web Report #4322, Water Research Foundation, 2016. • “Health-Based Maximum Contaminant Level Support Document: Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA).” New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute Health Effects Subcommittee. June 27, 2016. • “The Persistence and Toxicity of Perfluorinated Compounds in Australia.” June 2016. Dr. Mariann Lloyd-Smith; Dr. Rye Senjen, National Toxics Network, NSW 2479 Australia. • “Toxicology of Perfluorinated Compounds.” Environmental Sciences Europe DOI: 10.1186/2190-4715-23-38, 2011. • Fact Sheet: PFOA and PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories, USEPA 800-F-16-003, November 2016. • Water Research Foundation, “Treatment Mitigation Strategies for Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances.” USEPA, Web Report #4322, 2016. • Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry (2009). Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ toxprofiles/tp200.pdf. • Bartell, S.; Calafat, A.; Lyu, C.; Kato, K.; Ryan, P.; Steenland, K. (2010). “Rate of Decline in Serum PFOA Concentrations After Granular Activated Carbon Filtration at Two Public Water Systems in Ohio and West Virginia.” Environmental Health Perspective, 118(2): 222. • C8 (2012). C8 Science Panel. http://www. c8sciencepanel.org. • Carter, K. E.; Farrell, J. (2010). “Removal of Perfluorooctane and Perfluorobutane Sulfonate From Water via Carbon Adsorption and Ion Exchange.” Separation Science and Technology, 45: 762-767. • Corwin, C. J.; Summers, R.S. (2010). “Scaling Trace Organic Contaminant Adsorption Capacity by Granular Activated Carbon.” Environmental Science and Technology, 44: 5403-5408. • D’eon, J.; Crozier, P.; Furdui, V.; Reiner, E.; Libelo, E.; Mabury, S. (2009). “Perfluorinated Phosphonic Acids in Canadian Surface Waters and Wastewater Treatment Plant

• •

Effluent: Discovery of a New Class of Perfluorinated Acids.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 28(10): 2101-2107. Dudley, L.; A. M. B. (2012). “Removal of Perfluorinated Compounds by Powdered Activated Carbon, Superfine Powdered Activated Carbon, and Anion Exchange Resins.” Master of science thesis, North Carolina State University. EPA (2006). Science Advisory Board Review of EPA’s Draft Risk Assessment of Potential Human Health Effects Associated with PFOA and its Salts. http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/sab_06_006. pdf. EPA (2009). Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3|Final. U. S. EPA. Federal Register. 74: 51850. EPA (2011). Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR 3). http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/ sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/methods.cfm. Hansen, K.J.; Johnson H.O.; Eldridge, J.S.; Butenhoff, J.L.; Dick, L.A. (2002). “Quantitative Characterization of Trace Levels of PFOS and PFOA in the Tennessee River.” Environmental Science and Technology, 36: 1681-1685. Mak, Y.L.; Taniyasu, S.; Yeung, L.W.Y.; Lu, G.; Jin, L.; Yang, Y.; Lam, P.K.S.; Kannan, K.; Yamashita, N. (2009). “Perfluorinated Compounds in Tap Water From China and Several Other Countries.” Environmental Science and Technology, 43: 4824–4829. Matsui, Y.; Fukuda, Y.; Inoue, T.; Matsushita, T. (2003). “Effect of Natural Organic Matter on Powdered Activated Carbon Adsorption of Trace Contaminants: Characteristics and Mechanism of Competitive Adsorption.” Water Research 37(18): 4413-4424. Nakayama, S.; Strynar, M.; Helfant, L.;  Egeghy, P.; Ye, X.; Lindstrom, A. (2007). “Perfluorinated Compounds in the Cape Fear Drainage Basin in North Carolina.” Environmental Science and Technology, 41(15): 5271-5276. Nakayama, S.F.; Strynar, M.J.; Reiner,  J.L.; Delinsky, A.D.; Lindstrom, A.B. (2010). “Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.” Environmental Science and Technology, 44: 4103-4109. Post, G.; Louis, J.; Cooper, K.; Boros-Russo, B.; Lippincott, R. (2009). “Occurrence and Potential Significance of Perfluorooctanoic Acid Detected in New Jersey Public Drinking Water Systems.” Environmental Science and Technology, 43(12): 4547-4554. Post, G.; Cohn, P.D.; Cooper, K.R. (2012). “Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), an Emerging Drinking Water Contaminant:

48 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

• •

• •

A Critical Review of Recent Literature.” Environmental Research 116: 93-117 Post, G.B.; Louis, J.B.; Lippincott, R.L.;  Procopio, N.A. (2013). “Occurrence of Perfluorinated Chemicals in Raw Water From New Jersey Public Drinking Water Systems.” Environmental Science and Technology, 47, 13266-75. Rahman, M.F.; Peldszus, S.; Anderson, W.B. (2014). “Behaviour and Fate of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Drinking Water Treatment: A Review.” Water Research, 50, 318-40. Renner, R. (2001). “Growing Concern Over Perfluorinated Chemicals.” Environmental Science and Technology, 35(7):154A-160A. Rumsby, P.C.; McLaughlin, C.L.; Hall, T.  (2009). “Perfluorooctane Sulphonate and Perfluorooctanoic Acid in Drinking and Environmental Waters.” Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 367: 4119-4136. Sepulvado, J.; Blaine, A.C.; Hundal, L.S.;  Higgins, C.P. (2011). “Occurrence and Fate of Perfluorochemicals in Soil Following the Land Application of Municipal Biosolids.” Environmental Science and Technology, 45(19): 8106-8112. Sinclair, E.; Kannan, K. (2006). “Mass Loading and Fate of Perfluoroalkyl Surfactants in Wastewater Treatment Plants.” Environmental Science and Technology, 40(5): 1408-1414. Skutlarek, D.; Exner, M.; Farber, H. (2006). “Perfluorinated Surfactants in Surface and Drinking Waters.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 13(5): 299-307. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (2012). Washington, D.C., American Public Health Association. Steinle-Darling, E.; Reinhard, M. (2008).  “Nanofiltration for Trace Organic Contaminant Removal: Structure, Solution, and Membrane Fouling Effects on the Rejection of Perfluorochemicals.” Environmental Science and Technology, 42(14): 5292-5297. Taylor K.W.; Hoffman K.; Thayer K.A.; Daniels J.L. (2014). “Polyfluoroalkyl Chemicals and Menopause Among Women 20-65 Years of Age,” (NHANES). Environmental Health Perspective, 122:145-32 150. Thompson, J.; Eaglesham, G.; Reungoat, J.; Poussade, Y.; Bartkow, M.; Lawrence, M.; Mueller, J.F. (2011). “Removal of PFOS, PFOA and Other Perfluoroalkyl Acids at Water Reclamation Plants in South East Queensland Australia.” Chemosphere 82 (1), 9-17. USHHS (2009). Draft toxicological profile for perfluoroalkyls from http://www.atsdr.cdc. gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1117&tid=237. 


Classroom courses resumed August 1. We are excited to welcome our students back to TREEO! For a full course schedule, visit www.uftreeo.org

Backflow Prevention Courses Backflow Prevention Assembly Repair and Maintenance Training & Certification

Backflow Prevention Assembly Tester Training & Certification

Aug. 15-16, 2020 | Venice, FL Sept. 2-4, 2020 | Davie, FL

Sept. 12-20, 2020 | Tampa, FL Sept. 14-18, 2020 | Altamonte Springs, FL Sept. 21-25, 2020 | Pensacola, FL Sept. 28- Oct. 1, 2020 | Marathon, FL

Backflow Prevention Recertification Aug. 20-21, 2020 | Gainesville, FL Aug. 20-21, 2020 | Ft. Myers, FL Aug. 22-23, 2020 | Tampa, FL Aug. 24-25, 2020 | Altamonte Springs, FL Aug. 28-29, 2020 | Jacksonville, FL Sept. 17-18, 2020 | Pensacola, FL Sept. 19-20, 2020 | Venice, FL Sept. 23-24, 2020 | Fort Myers, FL Sept. 24-25, 2020 | Davie, FL

Cross-Connection Control Program Manager Series Introduction to Backflow Prevention Sept. 14, 2020 | Gainesville, FL

Cross Connection Control: Survey & Inspection Sept. 15-16, 2020 | Gainesville, FL

Cross Connection Control: Ordinance & Organization Sept. 17-18, 2020 | Gainesville, FL

Water/Wastewater Courses Wastewater Class C Certification Review

Microbiology of Activated Sludge

Sept. 14-18, 2020 | Gainesville, FL

Oct. 6-8 2020 | CEUs: 2.2 | Gainesville, FL

Water Class A Certification Review

Wastewater Class A Certification Review

Sept. 21-25, 2020 | Gainesville, FL

Oct. 12-16, 2020 | Gainesville, FL

Sequencing Batch Reactor Operation, Make it Work for You Sept. 29-30, 2020 | CEUs: 1.4 | Gainesville, FL

Online Courses • Asbestos Refresher: Contractor/Supervisor • Backflow Prevention Assembly Tester Training & Certification • Introduction to Backflow Prevention • Florida Water Conservation Coordinator Introductory Course

• Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations Class C Training Course • Water Distribution Systems Level 2 & 3 • Water Treatment Plant Operations Class C & B Training Course

• NEW! Wastewater Class C Certification Review • Hazardous Waste Regulations for Generators • NEW! Water Class C & B Certification Review • Wastewater Collection Systems • NEW! Wastewater Class B Certification Review Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

49


Water Environment Federation Convening Blue-Ribbon Panel to Evaluate Biological Hazards and Precautions for Wastewater Workers To ensure the protection of wastewater workers during the coronavirus pandemic and beyond, the Water Environment Federation (WEF) is convening a blue-ribbon panel of experts to evaluate information on biological hazards and safety precautions related to the virus. The panel is comprised of a diverse array of experts involved in water operations, science, health, and safety and will provide appropriate input to government agencies in the United States, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as well as the World Health Organization (WHO). “The top priority of WEF is always to ensure the safety and health of the frontline people in the water workforce who protect our communities, not just during the coronavirus pandemic, but every single day,” said Jackie Jarrell, WEF president. “In keeping with the Federation’s tradition of educational and technical excellence, the blue-ribbon panel will make certain that our information on hazards and safety, and the guidance of organizations,

such as WHO, CDC, OSHA, and EPA, are based on the latest evidence and absolute best science.” The coronavirus pandemic has shown the need for timely and reliable information on biological hazards from wastewater and appropriate protective practices for wastewater workers. The WEF Manual of Practice, Safety, Health, and Security in Wastewater Systems, includes a chapter that discusses types of hazards, how to prevent and treat infections, and which workers are at risk. The panel of experts will review the advice provided in the manual (and other WEF publications) and guidance from federal agencies to determine if supplemental advice or recommendations are warranted to protect worker health and safety. The panel is expected to work quickly and present its initial findings within a few weeks. The panel is chaired by Dr. Art Umble, who leads the global wastewater sector for Stantec Consulting and previously managed a publicly owned water and wastewater utility. Dr. Umble also serves on the advisory council of the Water Research Foundation (WRF),

the editorial board for Water Environment Research, and university advisory boards for environmental engineering, and provides peer review for academic journals and collaborative research projects. Panel members represent a variety of academicians, practitioners, and policymakers in disciplines from across the water sector, including public health, safety and security, utility management, collection systems, facility operations, municipal design, industrial, laboratory services, and microbiology. The panel members are: S D  r. Art Umble (chair), Stantec S Dr.  Allegra da Silva (vice chair), Brown and Caldwell S T  im Page-Bottorff (vice chair), SafeStart S D  r. Charles Gerba, University of Arizona S D  r. Kyle Bibby, University of Notre Dame S D  r. Charles Haas, Drexel University S D  r. Leonard Casson, University of Pittsburgh S D  r. Kartik Chandran, Columbia University S D  r. Mark Sobsey, University of North Carolina and World Health Organization S D  r. Mark LeChevallier, Dr. Water Consulting S J ohn Bannen, Inframark S D  r. Earnest Blatchley III, Purdue University S D  avid Gill, DC Water S D  r. Naoko Munakata, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts The overall response by WEF to the coronavirus pandemic has included providing the latest technical and scientific information to the water community, offering educational opportunities through digital programming, and communicating regularly about resources and assistance available to the sector. The organization maintains comprehensive information and resources related to the coronavirus at www.wef.org/coronavirus.

50 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Test Yourself

What Do You Know About Water and Wastewater Operator Certification? Donna Kaluzniak

1.  Per the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Drinking Water, Domestic Wastewater, and Water Distribution System Operator Program Handbook, April 2020 (OCP handbook) the minimum requirement to take a class C water or wastewater treatment plant operator or level 3 distribution operator examination is a high school diploma or equivalent. To document successful completion of a department-approved training course, it can be taken no more than how many years prior to the exam? a. One year b. Two years c. Three years d. Five years 2. Per FDEP’s Operator Certification Program (OCP) website, an often-used FDEP-approved training course from California State University at Sacramento (CSUS) has changed enrollment for the Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants Volume 1 course. While the course is still one volume, it is broken into how many enrollments that must all be completed? a. Two enrollments – A and B b. Three enrollments – A, B, and C c. Four enrollments – A, B, C, and D d. Five enrollments – A, B, C, D, and E 3. Per FDEP’s OCP handbook, FDEP only accepts general equivalent development (GED) for high school equivalence issued by the American Council on Education through the Florida Department of Education and through public schools and adult education centers. Most reputable GED programs are a. expensive and only available online. b. free and locally available. c. programs that allow you to take open-book tests to receive a diploma. d. those that allow you to obtain a GED in just a few days.

4. Per FDEP’s OCP website, all operator certification exams, with the exception of wards of the state, are administered via a. computer-based testing (CBT) through FDEP’s vendor. b. CBT from the applicant’s home through the internet. c. paper and pencil testing at assigned times and locations. d. paper and pencil testing through FDEP’s vendor. 5.  Per FDEP’s OCP website, under the exam application overview section, if an applicant fails an exam it can be retaken. How long must the applicant wait from the date of the failed exam before scheduling the next exam? a. 30 days b. 60 days c. 90 days d. 180 days 6. Per FDEP’s OCP handbook, after passing the exam, the licensure application can be completed if the applicant can document the appropriate hours of operational experienced signed by a. an FDEP licensed operator. b. a licensed professional engineer. c. the human resources manager. d. the utility director. 7. Per Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 62-602, Water or Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators and Distribution System Operators, continuing education units (CEUs) are required for renewal of operator licenses, depending on the type and level of license. Per FDEP’s OCP website, regarding dual-licensed operators, a. CEUs earned can be split between two different licenses. b. CEUs earned can be split only if the two licenses are the same level. c. C  EUs earned can be split except for Distribution licenses. d. CEUs can no longer be split. 8. Per FAC 62-602, Water or Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators and Distribution System Operators, a license that is not renewed shall revert to inactive status. A license with an inactive status may renew within what time period? a. At any time, provided renewal fees are paid. b.  During the two-year period following the deadline for the last renewal cycle. c. W  ithin three years of the deadline for the last renewal cycle.

d. W  ithin five years of the deadline for the last renewal cycle.

9. Per FAC 62-602, Water or Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators and Distribution System Operators, FDEP shall suspend a license for submitting false or misleading information in an application for a license for how long? a. Permanently. b. Up to one year. c. Up to two years. d. Up to five years. 10. Per FAC 62-602, Water or Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators and Distribution System Operators, FDEP shall permanently revoke a license for a. cheating on an examination. b. determination that an operator falsified data. c. failure to submit required reports. d. incompetence in the performance of operator duties. Answers on page 62 References used for this quiz: • FAC 62-602, Water or Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators and Distribution System Operators. • FDEP’s Operator Certification Program (OCP) website: https://floridadep.gov/water/certification restoration/content/water-and-domesticwastewater-operator-certification-program. • FDEP’s Drinking Water, Domestic Wastewater, and Water Distribution System Operator Program Handbook, April 2020 (OCP handbook; available on the OCP website).

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

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

51


The Key Metrics to Measure Performance Success for Energy, Utilities, and Resources Organizations Colin Beaney The energy, utilities, and resources sector (EUR) is one of the few industries where financial control means managing high-value capital assets and equipment, and a large diverse workforce, which both have a huge impact on productivity and profitability. Combine this with a volatile and changing market climate and the need for solid supporting software implementation becomes crucial. My company, IFS, has done recent industry research to pinpoint the key metrics EUR organizations must be able to quantify in order to track success—right down to every asset, worker, and contract. There are a many areas of common ground across the spectrum of EUR organizations when it comes to running their businesses. Most deal with high volumes of mission-critical capital assets and equipment, and most employ a vast workforce that comprises different skill levels, areas of expertise, and even contractor specialization. Crucially, these common areas have a direct impact on productivity and profitability. When looking at business software that supports these key operational areas, the slightest improvement can translate into quantifiable benefits for EUR organizations—

1

extending asset service life, improving workforce efficiency, and boosting the bottom line.

An Industry Bracing for Impact and Crying Out for Visibility

In its new report, “2020 Power and Utilities Industry Outlook,” the consulting firm Deloitte explains: “New technologies, evolving customer preferences, and the changing competitive landscape are leading many water and power companies to explore new business models. Some models may help utilities further enable a clean energy transition, and some may also provide new revenue sources.” Exploring any new business model means being able to accurately measure success and failure. The visibility into these metrics can be provided by enterprise software designed with EUR operations in mind. For this reason, a white paper was recently commissioned1 to find a comprehensive view of the key areas that EUR customers have focused on, and the key metrics they have tracked when deploying enterprise software. Across such a varied industry, this meant working with a number of customers who manage similar pain points, including efficiently managing critical assets, optimizing a large workforce, and comprehensively supporting business operations.

Key Focus Areas of Study From their extensive feedback, it’s possible to map out the key focus areas these customers outlined, as well as the quantifiable results they have achieved when addressing them with their enterprise software implementations. Better Asset and Equipment Management Software It’s been established how EUR organizations must protect revenue and manage costs, while operating and maintaining capital assets. This equipment is expensive to buy, operate, and maintain, and is on the front line of many EUR operations. This could span organizations that operate ports and rely on complex, modern installations with fully automated assets to offload and transport containers and bulk goods, to a company in power generation, or oil and gas, where assets are directly linked to the safe and reliable operation of a plant. In the white paper, the analysts found that a number of EUR organizations have successfully managed to extend the service life of key assets and increase uptime and availability. One customer highlighted better asset, part, and workforce tracking as improving the maintenance of business equipment by stating that, “The software helps us extend the life span of capital assets. I think it’s around 10 to 15 percent longer because of higher maintenance quality and assessments.”

IDC white paper, sponsored by IFS, “The Business Value of IFS Enterprise Application Solutions with Industry-Specific Use Cases.” August 2019.

52 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Other metrics include improved utilization and operational efficiency, in the 80 up to 95 percent bracket. Dynamic Scheduling Means Meeting and Exceeding End-Customer Expectations One of the fundamental revenue generation models for EUR organizations is servicing infield assets or dispatching engineers to customer homes for installations and repairs. This is often the only time many customers will meet their utility or energy provider face to face. Customer satisfaction is king here, so naturally, metrics, such as first-time fix rates, service level agreement (SLA) adherence, minimized travel, and on-time meeting appointments are key. Simply scheduling the manpower and resources needed to guarantee such a high level of customer experience can be a time-intensive and inefficient process, but dynamic scheduling built into a software solution can provide some key workflow improvements. This is where the white paper unearthed some important metrics that some customers were able to hit by dynamic scheduling of their field technicians. Across all the industries IFS serves, customers reported completing 28 percent more work orders and improved delivery speed on orders and products. Not only does

this mean end-customers are benefiting from quicker and better service, organizations increase their speed of task completion, which drives faster and higher revenue. This is an everyday occurrence once dynamic scheduling is incorporated into in field operations. Explains one customer, “We’re seeing big savings in scheduling activities. Before, it would take a couple of days, and now it takes minutes because it’s basically self-service. This happens every day for the field service team.” Go Enterprisewide: Consolidating Data Across Entire Energy, Utilities, and Resources Organizations The EUR organizations can make all the operational changes they like, but they will be in vain if they can’t consolidate all this good work and connect vast information streams into a core enterprise system of record. When an EUR organization is operating across the entire United States, or even the whole North American continent, building one, unified picture of the business is difficult when there are tens of thousands of assets and divisions located in hundreds of geographic locations. On top of this, it’s common for many EUR companies to operate different systems for different processes—often for historical

reasons, such as mergers and acquisitions, or selecting point solutions for point problems as a company has grown. When an enterprisewide solution is specialized for EUR, customers reported that they are able to manage assets, projects, and services alongside human capital management, finance, and supply chains. In fact, when it came to planning business budgetary cycles, customers across multiple industries cited, on average, they had quickened them by over 20 percent.

Zeroing In on Success In a highly volatile and changing market climate, EUR organizations need to look to increase asset efficiency, make the best use of their workforces, and get smarter about their operations. This means focusing on these strategic business areas and making sure their enterprise software implementation can facilitate and measure the impact. That way, they will be able to unlock efficiencies in these areas and manage every asset, worker, and contract across the enterprise. Colin Beaney is vice president for energy, utilities, and resources at IFS in London.

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

53


FSAWWA SPEAKING OUT

2019 FSAWWA Meritorious Operator and Outstanding and Most Improved Water Treatment Plant Awards Awards Kim Kowalski Chair, FSAWWA

2019 Meritorious Operator Award Wayne Schoenfeld, City of St. Petersburg

Most Improved Water Treatment Plant, Class A City of Deerfield Beach West Water Treatment Plant (information provided by John Holdman, water operations supervisor)

E

ach year the Florida Section accepts applications for the following:

S M  eritorious Operator Award S Outstanding Water Treatment Plant Award S Most Improved Water Treatment Plant Award Understandably, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we did not receive applications for all categories. The priority and focus of the water utilities were—and still are—to continue to provide clean and safe tap water during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Awards Presentation and Criteria The awards are usually presented at the yearly Florida Water Resources Conference (FWRC) in the spring. This year, due to the coronavirus, FWRC was canceled; therefore, the awards will be presented at the FSAWWA Fall Conference later this year. All of the application forms for 2019, both hard copies and electronic submissions, were sent out to the four-member panel of judges and reviewers to score each category on a scale of 0 to 10. The scores were then totaled, with the highest overall score being the winner in its respective class. The categories are: Part 1 - General Part 2 - Water Quality Part 3 - Operation Records Part 4 - Maintenance Part 5 - Professional Part 6 - Safety Part 7 - Emergency Preparedness Part 8 - Public Relations Part 9 – Most Improved

to overcome many obstacles. His contributions to the City of St. Petersburg and staff are too numerous to mention. Wayne always finds a way to get things done.”

Wayne Schoenfeld is chief operator at the City of St. Petersburg Cosme Water Treatment Plant. Prior to employment at the city, Wayne worked for the U.S. Navy Submarine Service for six years and two years at Halex Microcircuits in the manufacturing and testing electronic equipment division. He has been a member of AWWA since 2016. The accomplishments which entitle him to receive this award are: S 30 years of service in operations. S Coordinates with maintenance staff for shutdowns to perform corrective and preventative maintenance. S Increased flushing velocity using plant water pressure on slurry line hoses, eliminating the pigging of these lines. S Comes in on other shifts to train operators and fills in when the city is short-staffed. S Conducts plant tours. S Maintains continuous compliance with public health standards. S Contributes his valuable knowledge of valves, piping, water flow, etc., to help when developing projects with consultants and staff. The following citation was provided by Waunda C. Barcus, water treatment and distribution manager, City of St. Petersburg: “Wayne Schoenfeld has worked his way up from plant operator, through the ranks, to chief operator. He is reliable and has demonstrated his ability as an operator many times over. Even when the going gets tough, he continues to have a positive attitude and always looks on the bright side. His experience has enabled us

54 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The City of Deerfield Beach West Water Treatment Plant provides water to nearly 80,000 residents citywide. It uses three different processes for treatment: reverse osmosis (RO), nanofiltration (NF), and lime softening. The lime softening facility was completed in 1984, with a treatment capacity of 7.5 million gallons per day (mgd). In 2004, the plant was expanded to include a 10.5-mgd NF membrane plant. This facility increased the total treatment capacity of the plant from 7.5 to 18 mgd. To support water supply sustainability, an RO treatment facility was completed in 2012 and placed into service, increasing the reported total treatment capacity of the plant to 19 mgd. In 2019, the treatment plant underwent a makeover, which included rehabilitation of the accelerator, a bypass blending line installation, new chemical dosing pumps, new instrumentation, and fluoride analyzers. The elevated storage tanks for both plants were also rehabilitated. The plant has always had great bones, which has enabled the city staff to produce high-quality water for many years. These improvements will now help to move the operation forward with technology and tools that continue to modernize it.


Outstanding Water Treatment Plant, Class A City of Boca Raton (information provided by Kara Mills, program policy coordinator)

constant rate during the day, providing a more efficient and effective operation. There are 675 miles of pipe in the distribution system, and the city serves approximately 130,000 people with 37,000 connections. Outstanding Water Treatment Plant, Class C Hillsborough County Lake Park Water Treatment Plant (information provided by Paul Kavanagh, plant manager)

The Lake Park plant is a Hurricane IVrated facility, with an onsite sodium hypochlorite generator, and its capacity was recently rerated from 15.5 to 31 mgd. The facility is also in the process of starting up a total organic carbon (TOC) pilot project, where performance of TOC removal will be measured independently by both a granular activated carbon and an ion exchange system. The plant is staffed by seven water plant operators, including a plant manager and plant supervisor, as well as a water quality team consisting of a water quality manager and four licensed plant operators who are cross-trained to operate the plant, should the need arise.

Thank You Florida Water Utilities! The City of Boca Raton’s water treatment facilities utilize two types of water treatment processes: lime softening and membrane softening. They are blended to provide a highquality final water product. As raw water from the City’s 52 groundwater wells enters the facilities, approximately two-thirds of the water is treated by a state-of-the-art membrane softening process, while a lime softening process treats the other one-third. The treated water is then blended to provide the finished product. Treating a large percentage of the flow via membrane softening surpasses regulatory requirements by removing more than 90 percent of the organic material, producing clear, colorless water. Because of the blending capability, the city can produce over 70 mgd of water. After treatment, this high-quality water is pumped through the water distribution network or stored to meet peak demands. Utilizing the storage tanks ensures meeting the early morning peak demands and allows the treatment facility to operate at a

The mission of the Hillsborough County Lake Park Water Treatment Plant is to provide safe drinking water efficiently and reliably to its customers in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner. The treatment plant is in the northwest portion of Hillsborough County and has an average daily flow of approximately 11 mgd and serves 206,485 people with 55,270 service connections. The plant is supplied by two different water sources from its regional supplier, Tampa Bay Water. The regional supplies, and a raw groundwater from the Section 21 wellfield, are the two source waters in use. Both source waters are treated with chloramines, fluoride, sodium hydroxide, and polyorthophosphate.

Over the past months, much of the United States has remained sheltered in place, at home, not working; but you, the water utility workers, the unsung heroes, have remained at work and kept the water on! Thank you for all that you are doing for us! As things begin to open back up, please know that FSAWWA is at work to support you, because you are at work! The FSAWWA remains fully committed to providing training and resources to all utilities in Florida when you need us, wherever you need us! Please feel free to reach out to the dedicated FSAWWA staff directly with any questions or any concerns that you might have. On behalf of FSAWWA, I want to thank you for your dedication and hard work during the COVID-19 pandemic! As always, thank you, too, to our volunteers; the section could not do what it does without you. Please continue to stay safe and healthy!

NEW PRODUCTS The high-performance F-461 inline flowmeter from Blue-White Industries Ltd. combines engineering excellence, functionality, and high-quality materials to create a metal-free flowmeter that’s ideal for use in many harsh environments, including ultrapure and deionized water. The F-461 series features meter body construction of tough, chemical-resistant polysulfone, which offers excellent resistance to high temperatures, pressures, and a broad range of harsh chemicals. The float is guided by precisely engineered ridges that are molded into the meter body to help keep contaminants out of the fluid path. A light texture on the back

of the meter body helps to create a softly illuminated background that enhances readability of the permanent, direct reading scale at the front of the meter body. Flow is from 1 to 35 gpm. Materials of construction include PTFE float and optional PVC, polypropylene, or PVDF adapters for corrosive applications. (www.blue-white.com)

R

The Dynasonics TFX-5000 ultrasonic clamp-on meter from Badger Meter accurately measures the volumetric flow of clean liquids and those with small amounts

of suspended solids or aeration, such as surface water or raw sewage. It’s ideal for water and wastewater applications, such as lift stations, booster pump stations, and water mains. The meter provides accuracy up to plus or minus 0.5 percent and flow rates ranging from 0.07 to 33,000 gpm on pipes from 1/2 to 48 in. Designed to clamp onto the outside of pipes, the meter does not contact the internal liquid, allowing for installation without shutting down operations in new and retrofit applications. It’s equipped with an internal clock and built-in 8-GB data-logging capabilities to log water flow down to one second. (www.badgermeter.com)

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

55


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

Know What’s Below and Call 811 Before You Dig!

Y

ou’ve seen the local headlines before:

S F  or the second time in a week, the fire department had to evacuate residents of ... S A  construction crew ruptured a 2-inch gas line, forcing . . . S 2 0,000 customers were out of phone service for 11 hours . . . All of these instances involved someone digging into underground utilities. Unfortunately, across the United States these types of incidents occur thousands of times every year because excavators or utility workers did not call their local locating service, such as Dig Alert or One Call, ahead of time. Sometimes these digs even result in serious injury or death caused by fires, explosions, and electrocutions. Remember also that it’s becoming more commonplace for all utilities to be laid in the same trench, so if you’re looking for your water lines, you may also find gas, electric, and communication lines.

Can You Dig It? Call 811 It’s easy to avoid digging into other utility lines. All it takes is a call to 811 (or use the 811 website) from anywhere in the U.S. and you will automatically be connected to your local underground service operator. The name of the service may change from community to community, but its function is the same: to protect you, your coworkers, and the public. It’s imperative that this call be made before beginning any excavation. It’s important, even for utilities, to use this service because as-built maps and charts are often inaccurate or out of date.

The Five Critical Steps to Safe Digging Take these critical steps before digging and save time and money (and maybe a life): Survey and Mark the Site Survey the proposed excavation areas and mark the dig sites in paint or chalk.

Call or Go Online Before You Dig Call 811, or go to the 811 website, and communicate with your local utility locator service before you begin any digging, including common projects like planting trees and shrubs or installing fencing or other posts. You’ll need to know the address of where you plan to dig, including the county and nearest cross streets; the type of project you’re completing; and the exact area on the property where you’re planning to dig. Whether you call 811 or make your request online, you’ll need the same information. Wait the Required Time You usually have to allow two working days to have the lines located and marked. You need to wait to allow utilities to respond to your request and ensure that all utilities have indeed responded to your request before breaking ground. The specific amount of advance notice that you’re required to provide varies by state. Once all utilities have marked their buried lines, you should dig carefully around any utility marks and consider relocating projects that are close to buried utilities.

The 2019 Let’s Talk Safety is available from AWWA; visit www.awwa.org or call 800.926.7337. Get 40 percent off the list price or 10 percent off the member price by using promo code SAFETY19. The code is good for the 2019 Let’s Talk Safety book, dual disc set, and book + CD set.

56 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal


Respect the Marks Maintain the marks and follow them when digging. Make sure all of the workers are aware of the marks before any digging begins. Dig with Care Hand-excavate within 24 inches of each side of the lines. Make sure to always dig carefully around the marks, not on them. Some utility lines may be buried at a shallow depth, and an

unintended shovel thrust can bring you right back to square one—facing potentially costly and/ or dangerous consequences. Don’t forget that erosion or root structure growth may shift the locations of the utility lines, so remember to call again each time you are planning a digging job. It’s easy to call before you dig. If you hit an underground utility line, you (and others) could be hurt or killed. You

may also be liable to the other utilities for costly damages and lost service. So be safe and make that call!

Resources For more information about specific requirements by state, check out the Common Ground Alliance website at www.call811.com.

Get to Know ADS for I/I Assessment Answers ADS expertise, earned over 45 years, will help you nd and assess your I/I. Our turn-key approach with monitors, software, analytics, analysts, and local ffield teams makes it easy and cost-e ective. Capture, Store, Integrate, Analyze

Acquire Data & Communicate

Machine Learning

View, Prioritize, Report

See. Understand. Act.

Rainfall

Depth Flow

ADS Environmental Services in Tampa, Florida

Contact Patrick Wootton Call: (813) 254-5510 or email: pwootton@idexcorp.com

https://www.adsenv.com/floridasolutions

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

57


The Florida Water & Pollution Control Operators Association’s

ONLINE TRAINING INSTITUTE

Licensed Florida Treatment Plant & Water Distribution Operators! Get Continuing Education Credits for License Renewal Online!

Fast—Convenient—Economical with an average cost of $15 per 0.1 CEU

Featu r the F ing CEU C EPT hallen (0.1 ge CEU p er co urse) !

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

Wastewater Collection C Course

The tuition fee for this newly revised course is $275 for FWPCOA members and non-members and includes the new FW&PCOA course book and certification exam.

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

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

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

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

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

58

For more information on enrollment, contact Program Manager Tim McVeigh OnlineTraining@fwpcoa.org August 2020 •at Florida Water Resources Journal


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

CITY OF WINTER GARDEN – POSITIONS AVAILABLE The City of Winter Garden is currently accepting applications for the following positions: Reiss Engineering delivers highly technical water and wastewater planning, design, and construction management services for public agencies throughout Florida. Reiss Engineering is seeking top-notch talent to join our team!

Available Positions Include:

EXPERIENCED & TRAINEES/LABORERS - Collection Field Tech – I, II, & III - Distribution Field Tech – I, II, & III - Public Service Worker II - Stormwater Please visit our website at www.cwgdn.com for complete job descriptions and to apply. Applications may be submitted online, in person or faxed to 407-877-2795.

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

City of Titusville - Multiple Positions Available

Industrial Electrician, Technical Services Foreman, Maintenance Mechanic, Equipment Operator, Meter Technician. Apply at www.titusville.com

WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATORS

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

MAINTENANCE TECHNICIANS

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

Electro Technician: $47,670.98 $72,459.88/annually Project Manager: $68,084.93 - $108,935.88/annually Public Utilities Asset Manager: $78,194.03 - $125,110.45/ annually Senior Engineer: $68,084.93 - $108,935.88/annually For More Info and to Apply go to: http://agency.governmentjobs.com/hollywoodfl/default.cfm EOE M/F/D/V

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

59


Career Opportunity for Chief Engineer Toho Water Authority Kissimmee, FL

Career Opportunity for Professional Engineer Toho Water Authority Kissimmee, FL

An exciting opportunity for a Chief Engineer is now available! Toho Water Authority is a rapidly growing independent authority and the largest provider of water, wastewater and reclaimed water services in Osceola County with a service population over 100,000. TWA owns and operates 13 water plants and 8 wastewater plants. With a 300+ person workforce, we treat and distribute approximately 37.5 million gallons of potable water and reclaims 27 million gallons of wastewater each day. TWA values customer service, collaboration, teamwork, productivity, and innovation! TWA is leading a multijurisdictional effort to implement the largest inland desalinization facility project in Florida, is among the few recipients of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan in the US, is piloting an indirect potable reuse project, and is currently in the preliminary design phase for a combined surface water facility to augment reclaimed water and produce potable water. TWA recognizes that our employees are our greatest assets and our competitive compensation package, including benefits and work life balance offers employees the satisfaction of being employed among the Top Places to Work in Central Florida.

An exciting opportunity for a Professional Engineer is now available! Toho Water Authority is a rapidly growing independent authority and the largest provider of water, wastewater and reclaimed water services in Osceola County with a service population over 100,000. TWA owns and operates 13 water plants and 8 wastewater plants. With a 300+ person workforce, we treat and distribute approximately 37.5 million gallons of potable water and reclaims 27 million gallons of wastewater each day. TWA values customer service, collaboration, teamwork, productivity, and innovation! TWA is leading a multijurisdictional effort to implement the largest inland desalinization facility project in Florida, is among the few recipients of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan in the US, is piloting an indirect potable reuse project, and is currently in the preliminary design phase for a combined surface water facility to augment reclaimed water and produce potable water. TWA recognizes that our employees are our greatest assets and our competitive compensation package, including benefits and work life balance offers employees the satisfaction of being employed among the Top Places to Work in Central Florida.

TWA is looking for a forward thinking and experienced Chief Engineer who is ready for an exciting role in the largest provider of water, wastewater, and reclaim in Osceola County. This role offers the opportunity to apply your expertise to the dynamic challenge of managing and planning through construction, and overseeing complex alternative water supply and wastewater projects that may incorporate multijurisdictional and regulatory partners. Additional responsibilities of the Chief Engineer may include oversight to the private development function, in house lift station design and construction, and capital plan development and strategic planning. This position serves in a leadership role that supports a highly dedicated and knowledgeable team of engineers, administrative staff, and development management staff. The Chief Engineer position at TWA is considered a senior level position which works largely independently with general guidance from the Director of Engineering Services. The Engineering Division oversees a Capital Improvement Plan budget of approximately $600 million and associated master plans.

TWA is looking for a forward thinking and motivated Professional Engineer who is ready for an exciting role. This position offers an opportunity to apply and build upon your water and wastewater infrastructure project management skills in managing and planning capital project assignments through construction; master plans, engineering studies and hydraulic modeling. Additional responsibilities of the Professional Engineer may include design of collection and distribution system and lift station rehabilitation projects. This position will be mentored by a Chief Engineer and works closely with a highly dedicated and knowledgeable team of engineers, administrative staff, engineering technicians, construction inspectors and development management staff. The Professional Engineer position at TWA may work somewhat independently depending on ability, expertise and experience. The Engineering Division oversees a five year Capital Improvement Plan budget of approximately $600 million.

Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience. Compensation package also includes competitive medical benefits, onsite wellness center, retirement match, generous paid leave, professional development, and more! TO APPLY, applicants who possess a Bachelor’s Degree from an ABET accredited university in Engineering and a State of Florida Professional Engineer License or the ability to obtain within 6 months. Strong organizational skills, communication skills, and ability to manage multiple priorities a must. An emphasis is placed on writing skills and public presentations. To learn more about TWA and to apply, please visit www.tohowater.com. EOE Toho Water Authority is an Equal Opportunity Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, or protected Veteran status. July 14, 2020

60 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience. Compensation package also includes competitive medical benefits, onsite wellness center, retirement match, generous paid leave, professional development, and more! TO APPLY, applicants who possess a Bachelor’s Degree from an ABET accredited university in Engineering and a State of Florida Professional Engineer License or the ability to obtain within one year. Strong organizational skills, communication skills, and ability to manage multiple priorities a must. An emphasis is placed on writing skills and public presentations. To learn more about TWA and to apply, please visit www.tohowater.com. Toho Water Authority is an Equal Opportunity Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, or protected Veteran status. July 14, 2020


Plant Manager – Wastewater/Water

Collier County Public Utilities Department, Naples, FL Salary $73,347 - $94,468 Annually Responsible for management of sub-regional plants, ongoing enterprise asset management of operating facilities and adjustments for plant operations to function within compliance standards for the North East Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants, and Orange Tree and Golden Gate Wastewater Treatment Plants. Position will also assist with the construction of the plants that will come online in 2022 and 2023. As assets are added and/or identified, the Plant Manager will enter those assets into the CityWorks program.

Wastewater Treatment Operator

Funny and talented Wastewater Treatment Operator needed to join our incredibly awesome team at one of the fastest growing areas in Central Florida. Must hold at least a Class “C” license and a valid driver’s license. Starting Pay Range: $35,000 - $37,000yr – 10% more if you have a dual license or a Class A or B.  Applications online www.wildwood-fl.gov or City Hall, 100 N. Main St, Wildwood, FL 34785 Attn: Melissa Tuck.  EEO/AA/V/H/MF/DFWP.

Qualifications: High school diploma or GED. Experience in managing and maintaining an Enterprise Asset Management system. Must possess and maintain a valid Class A Water Treatment Plant Operator License or a Class A Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator License issued by the State of Florida. Dual Water/Wastewater licensure preferred. Must possess and maintain a valid Florida Driver’s License with any applicable endorsements and maintain eligibility requirements and endorsement(s) to drive a County vehicle as provided in County CMAs. Fingerprinting required. Collier County BCC offers a comprehensive benefits package. To apply, please visit: https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/collier

CITY OF CLERMONT - Superintendent Public Services Utilities $62,691.20 - $97,177.60 Annually Minimum requirements: Bachelor’s Degree. Five years of experience in wastewater & stormwater collection/ water distribution systems; two years of which must have been in a supervisory capacity. Valid Florida Driver’s license. Obtain a Class “B” Commercial FL Driver’s License with airbrake endorsement within 1 year from date of employment. Class “B” Certification in Wastewater Operation, and Class “B” Certification or greater in Water Operation preferred. Experience with Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS), Microsoft Windows, Word, and Excel. See website for more details and to apply: www.clermontfl.gov/ residents/employment-opportunities.stml

Utilities, Inc. Water & Wastewater Operators

Utilities Instrumentation Technician $58,841 - $82,794/yr. Utilities Treatment Plant Operator or Trainee $48,408 - $68,114 or $43,907 - $61,782/yr.

Apply Online At: http://pompanobeachfl.gov Open until filled.

City of New Port Richey Multiple Positions Available

Utilities Engineer, Water Production Plant Operator C, Utilities Mechanic and others. Please visit our website for complete job description and to download an application. https://www.cityofnewportrichey.org/city-departments/humanresources/job-opportunities/

Water Treatment Plant Operator

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

Utilities, Inc. of Florida, a Corix Company, is accepting applications for Water and Wastewater Operators. Applicants must possess a minimum Florida Class C Water or Wastewater license. Applicants must have a valid Florida driver’s license with a clean record. To view and apply for positions please visit our web site, www.myuiflorida.com. Under “Contact Us”, click on Employment Opportunities. Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2020

61


SERVING FLORIDA’S WATER AND WASTEWATER INDUSTRY SINCE 1949

Test Yourself Answer Key From page 51

Editorial Calendar

January 2016

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

Display Advertiser Index ADS Enviro����������������������������������������������������������������������������57 Blue Planet����������������������������������������������������������������������������63 CEU Challenge����������������������������������������������������������������������41 Data Flow�������������������������������������������������������������������������������53 FSAWWA Fall Conference�����������������������������������������������12-19 FWPCOA Online��������������������������������������������������������������������58 FWPCOA Training Calendar�������������������������������������������������37 Grundfos��������������������������������������������������������������������������������23 Heyward�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������2 Hudson Pump������������������������������������������������������������������������45 J&S Valve�������������������������������������������������������������������������������33 Lakeside Construction�����������������������������������������������������������7 UF Treeo Center��������������������������������������������������������������������49 Xylem�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������64

62 August 2020 • Florida Water Resources Journal

1. D) Five years

Per FDEP’s OCP handbook, under minimum eligibility requirements, “For water, wastewater and/or water distribution operators examinations . . . C class or 3 level: • Have a high school diploma or equivalent. • Document successful completion of a department-approved training course taken no more than five years prior to the examination date.”

2. B  ) Three enrollments – A, B, and C

 er FDEP’s OCP website, “Beginning Sept. P 20, 2019, CSUS has dramatically changed its enrollment of the Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants Volume I. The new Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants Volume I is now divided into three separate enrollments. Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plant Volume I still consists of only one book; however, completion of all chapter trainings is broken out into three enrollments (Enrollment “A”, Enrollment “B” and Enrollment “C”). A student must complete all three enrollments (A, B and C) in order to meet the FDEP requirements for completion of Volume I. There is no change for the Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants Volume II, and as a reminder, certificates of completion for both volume I and II are required to sit for the wastewater treatment plant operator class C exam.”

3. B) free and locally available.

 er FDEP’s OCP handbook under the P heading, High School Diploma, “Please do not be fooled by claims you read over the internet. The diplomas that most online and correspondence schools provide are not accepted by our program and are not equivalent to that of a high school diploma. Some warning signs for you to look for and to avoid are: • Programs that charge significant amounts of money for a diploma. Most reputable GED programs are FREE and can be found at a vocational and technical school or adult education center in your local area. • Programs that allow you take open-book tests as the requirement to receive a diploma. We only consider examinations that are controlled in a proctored environment to be acceptable. • Programs that make it possible to get a diploma in just a few days. • Programs that do not have a physical location such as street address, city, state or zip. Again, most reputable GED programs are FREE and can be found in your local area.”

4. A  ) computer-based testing (CBT) through FDEP’s vendor.

Per FDEP’s OCP website, “All operator certification program exams are administered via CBT through our testing vendor PSI. This allows for greater flexibility and convenience when scheduling your examination, as well as receiving grade results before leaving the testing facility.”

5. B) 60 days

Per FDEP’s OCP website, under the exam application overview section, 5. Examination Deadlines:

“There are no longer any deadlines established for submitting your application. You may submit it at any time; however, if you are an applicant who is retaking an examination you previously failed, you must wait at least sixty (60) days from the date you last took the examination before you may schedule your next exam.”

6. A) an FDEP licensed operator.

Per FDEP’s OCP handbook, under Employment Verification Current or Past, “Only licensed FDEP water and wastewater operators can sign under the supervisor signature.”

7. D  ) CEUs can no longer be split.

Per FDEP’s OCP website, “Please note that the splitting of CEUs is no longer allowed. An example of this would be a management course worth 4.0 CEUs. These CEUs cannot be split into 2.0 for water and 2.0 for wastewater if you are dually licensed.”

8. B  ) During the two-year period following the deadline for the last renewal cycle.

Per FAC 62-602.720(2), Inactive Status of License; Reactivation Procedures, “A licensee with an inactive status may apply to reactivate the license during the two-year period following the deadline for the last renewal cycle.”

9. C) Up to two years.

Per FAC 62-602.870(1), Suspension and Revocation of Operator License, “The department shall, depending on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in addition to a fine, suspend a license for a period not to exceed two years for any of the following reasons: (a) Submission of false or misleading information in an application for license or for renewal of a license. (b) Cheating on an examination. (c) Incompetence in the performance of duties of an operator that results in a treatment plant or water distribution system, under the direct charge of the operator, being operated in a manner inconsistent with standard operating practice.”

10. B  ) determination that an operator falsified data.

Per FAC 62-602.870(2), Suspension and Revocation of Operator License, “The department shall permanently revoke a license for any one of the following reasons: (a) Fraud in the submission of applications or documentation for license or renewal. (b) Determination by the department that an operator falsified or intentionally misrepresented, or finds persistent inaccuracy or incompleteness of, data or information contained in documents or reports required to be submitted to the department or an approved local regulatory agency, including the operation, laboratory or maintenance reports or logs required to be maintained, signed, or submitted by an operator. (c) A finding by the department that negligence in the performance of duties as an operator has resulted in harm to public health or safety or to the environment. (d) Suspension of a license more than twice.”


NEW

CONCERTOR PUMPING SYSTEM WITH INTEGRATED

INTELLIGENCE

WORLD’S FIRST WASTEWATER PUMPING SYSTEM WITH INTEGRATED INTELLIGENCE This revolutionary system delivers optimal performance while reducing your total cost of ownership. It also offers unparalleled flexibility and simplicity on a whole new level. You might even say it thinks for itself. We invite you to enter a new era in wastewater pumping with Flygt Concertor. One powerful solution. Unlimited possibilities.

For more information contact your local Xylem product sales professional. Xylem Products 2152 Sprint Boulevard Apopka, FL 32703 407-880-2900

www.flygt.com

Profile for Florida Water Resources Journal

Florida Water Resources Journal - August 2020  

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded